Brennan says: Stop funding the war

First Congressional District candidate Michael Brennan, a Portland Democrat, wants Congress to stop funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is urging Congress to vote down a request for $178 billion in supplemental war funding.

The bill may be taken up in the House as soon as today, according to Brennan’s campaign. Brennan calls for an immediate withdrawal of troops, and discontinuation of funding.

Brennan is one of six Democrats competing on June 10 for the right to represent the party in the November election. The others are Adam Cote of Portland, Mark Lawrence of South Berwick, Chellie Pingree of North Haven, Ethan Strimling of Portland and Steve Meister of Winthrop.

Here’s the full text of Brennan’s letter:

Dear Senators Snowe and Collins and Representative Allen,

I am writing you as a constituent to request that you oppose the supplemental funding request of $178 billion for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will soon be before you in Congress. I also would encourage you to speak out against such funding immediately. I oppose said funding even if the final request turns out to be less than the $178 billion that is now being reported, and I urge you to oppose any funding request that is not directly tied to the safe removal of all of our combat troops.

At this time, I believe that as members of Congress representing Maine people, you must do everything that you possibly can to bring an end to the war now, including using the power of the purse to stop it. One reason that I am especially concerned is that the most recent supplemental proposal will provide funding for the war six months into 2009. Maine and America need to move in a new direction, and that begins with new leadership and an immediate end to the war, not a continuation of the current administration’s disastrous policies.

As you know, we have spent more than $500 billion on the War in Iraq, and more than $1.4 billion of Maine taxpayer dollars - and with little to show for it except for continuing violence, much of it resistance to the American military presence. There are different ideas on how that money could be better spent - supporting education, health care, mass transit and renewable energy development, to name a few- but there is no question that it should not have been spent in the way that it was.

Similarly, there is no question that we should not be spending an additional $178 billion. The best way you can stop this from occurring voting against any Iraq spending not allocated either to the removal of troops or to simultaneous rebuilding and diplomatic efforts.

Press reports suggest that a vote on this funding could come as soon as (today) in the House, and that the vote on funding will be taken separately than a vote on removal of troops by the end of 2009. The end of 2009 is not soon enough to remove our troops - and indeed, they need to begin coming home now.