Madame Defarge 🧶🪡

There's a behind-the-scenes debate going on among civil socity/NGO/antiwar groups in DC over how hard to push to end Trump's war immediately. One letter currently circulating -- backed by Win Without War, MoveOn, NIAC, Indivisible, and J Street -- had included a line that set off alarm bells with groups that want to take a hard line against the war. It read: “We, the XX undersigned civil society organizations, urge you to respond to this mandate by voting down any defense authorization or defense appropriations bills that would continue funding this disastrous war or increase Pentagon funding beyond the already outrageous $1 trillion that the White House pushed through Congress last year...If Trump continues the war into the new year, we further urge returning members to prioritize and pass legislation expressly defunding this war early in the new Congress.” The problem there is the "if Trump continues the war." Opponents of that language argued there was no reason to give Trump November and December to wage war, and it should be forced to an end now. Also, the government won't be funded by a defense appropriation bill, but by a CR that has to pass on or before Dec. 11. Sen. Chris @VanHollenForMD and @RoKhanna have said the fight should be had in the CR. After I reached out for comment, I was told that that particular line is being stripped out of the letter. Several of the signatories said they support pushing hard now to end the war, not waiting until January. NIAC spokesman Ryan Costello said NIAC interprets "defense appropriations bills" to include the CR. "We want immediate action to end this war. Anything less is unacceptable," Costello said. Matt Duss, executive director of CIPA, one of the signatories, emphasized his support for the more aggressive approach proposed by Van Hollen. “Congress needs to use every tool it has right now to stop this war,” he said. “We want everyone to be going all the way.”