Why the Progressive Caucus Should Vote No on the War Money - Democrats.com Blog - David Swanson

Submitted by davidswanson on March 22, 2007 - 10:18am.

* OutOfIraq

By David Swanson

The Supplemental spending bill proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi funds the war. It gives Cheney and Bush roughly another $100 billion. And you can be quite sure they will spend it as they choose, which may include attacking Iran. In fact, a measure in the bill requiring Bush to get Congress's approval before attacking Iran (an attack that would violate the US Constitution and the UN charter) has been removed.

The bill also requires Iraq to turn much of its oil profits over to foreign corporations. This illegally rewards the Bush and Cheney gang for their illegal war.

Beyond that, the bill does a number of things to nudge Bush in the direction of limiting the war, but most of them are for show.

This bill pretends to ban torture. Torture was always illegal. The framers of our Constitution sought to leave such practices behind in England. The US is a party to international treaties banning all torture. Nonetheless, the last Congress, the Republican Congress, banned torture, and Bush used a signing statement to announce his intention to ignore the ban. Now Pelosi wants credit for pretending to ban torture again. You cannot ban torture under a dictator who has publicly announced that he will ignore your bans. You can only end torture by ending the pretense that there is not a dictator living in the Vice President's house.

The bill also intends to pretend to limit how many days a soldier or Marine can be kept in Iraq. The Republican Congress did this in 2003, and Bush threw it out with a signing statement.

Some previous presidents had used signing statements, but never to announce their intention to disobey the law. And in many cases, including the two I've just mentioned, we know that Bush has in fact disobeyed those laws.

And don't imagine thatNancy Pelosi is unaware of this. She's a step ahead of you. She's included in the bill a right for the president to waive the restrictions. So, this time, no signing statement will be needed. Instead we'll get a waiver. I'm sure that'll make the soldier on his or her third tour of Iraq feel better when they're told that they're going to stay a little longer this time. In polls last year our troops in Iraq said they wanted to all come home last year.

What else does the Pelosi bill do? Well, it requires Bush to report periodically that progress is being made, and then at sometime next year, depending on what Bush claims, it requires at least some troops to move to Afghanistan. Congressman Obey says that's where the war should be. The bill says nothing about bringing anyone home, and nothing about leaving no permanent bases in Iraq. In fact, it includes so many loopholes - for protecting bases, protecting other troops, training Iraqis - that most US troops will be able to stay in Iraq forever.

That doesn't sound like much of an anti-war bill. It gets worse. The two most disturbing things about the bill to my mind are the way it treats the president and the way it throws in unrelated benefits in order to bribe various congress members to support it. The bill asks Bush to report on progress in Iraq. A reporter asked Pelosi if there was any mechanism for determining whether Bush tells the truth. Pelosi replied that she was sure he would.

There's that pretense again, that everything-is-normal it-can't-happen-here pretense.

The bill also includes many measures that could easily be addressed in other bills, many of them worthwhile and long overdue, including aid to veterans, Katrina victims, farmers. The dishonesty involved in packaging a war bill this way was made clear when Congressman Obey yelled at military mother Tina Richards that she needed to support this bill or she would be opposing health care for veterans. In the last Congress, Obey declined to support a bill to provide health care to veterans.

Barbara Lee's amendment takes a different approach, one that does not involve micromanaging the war or funding it. The amendment would restrict spending to withdrawing troops. We have a list of which members are saying they will vote No on the supplemental unless it has Lee's amendment:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/19669

These are our heroes. These are the only members of Congress who are genuinely acting in support of our troops.

If Pelosi's bill passes and survives in a recognizable form following a conference committee, Bush has promised to veto it. But there's a decent chance he'll "signing statement" it instead. He wants the money, and he knows Pelosi won't fight for the toothless restrictions in the bill if he deletes them with a signing statement. To do so, she would have to call him a criminal.

Instead, she's already saying that if her bill does not pass, she'll have to support one the Republicans like, one with no limitations at all. But it is not true that she'll have to do that. She can support a bill like Lynn Woolsey's or Dennis Kucinich's or Jerrold Nadler's or Jim McGovern's and pressure conservative Democrats to join the rest of her caucus.

She will be compelled to do so by public opinion if the Progressive Caucus stands strong.

Voting for her war bill would only encourage her to come back with a worse one once it fails. And if Lee's amendment gets a vote and progressives vote for it, that will not be seen as any excuse for then turning around and voting to fund the war.

The groups that have not recognized any excuses for voting for this war bill include United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, US Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com, Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, and disgruntled former members of MoveOn.

The public is already seeing through the charade. The Pelosi bill will be remembered as the pro-war vote, the vote in which the Democrats bought and became owners of the war, unless the Progressive Caucus stops it. Those who stop it will be our heroes and will have earned the power to lead the way toward a better bill. We are going to remember who votes No, who votes Yes, who votes Present, and who does not vote. This one is going to be carved in stone for posterity. This is the vote you get elected in order to make.

Lynne Woosley also.

He makes a dishonest argument when he claims Pelosi is going to turn around and support some republican bill.

Here's Lee on her support:

"I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11003

:mad:

It’s the final hour on Capitol Hill. The House Democratic leadership has stubbornly refused to even allow a vote on the Lee Amendment for a responsible, fully-funded, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq by the end of 2007.

Instead, the Democratic leadership is today trying to push through its Iraq appropriations bill that calls for funding the ongoing occupation of Iraq, with weak benchmarks, through Sept. 1, 2008 – with loopholes for some troops to stay in Iraq beyond that on training and anti-terrorism missions.

Today, please call 202-224-3121 (the Congressional switchboard) or email your member of Congress to vote “No” on the Iraq supplemental bill that keeps funding the occupation, especially if your representative is in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. If you have connections to CPC members, contact them. (Full CPC list and contact info here.)

A six-hour debate on the bill began yesterday (Friday).

The Democratic leadership bill lags behind the public. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans want U.S. troops out within a year, at the latest. The Iraq bill was aimed at placating conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats, while antiwar progressives in Congress were not even allowed a vote on their amendment that reflects majority sentiment in our country. (To appease hawks, Democratic leaders actually deleted a provision from the bill requiring Bush to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran.)

Contact Congress members to remind them: It is antiwar sentiment that brought the Democrats to power in Congress. PDA is proud to be standing with Reps. Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Raul Grijalva, Diane Watson, Dennis Kucinich and others who are saying “No” to more occupation.

“No” to a diversion of billions of dollars from domestic needs.

“No” to the idea that US military force is the solution in Iraq.

Our friends at AfterDowningStreet.org are keeping track of whether progressives in Congress are falling behind the leadership or standing against more money for warfare.

For years, brave Congress members like Lee, Woolsey, Waters, Grijalva, Watson and Kucinich have stood strong against the Iraq war. They did so when the war was popular. They did so against the wishes of Democratic leaders. Their efforts helped turn the pubic against the war, and helped win last November’s election.

Today, we are standing with them: No More Money for Occupation!


Progressive Democrats of America is a grassroots PAC that works both inside the Democratic Party and outside in movements for peace and justice. Our goal: Extend the victory of Nov. 2006 into a permanent, progressive majority. PDA’s advisory board includes six members of Congress and activist leaders such as Tom Hayden, Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Rev. Lennox Yearwood. More info: http://pdamerica.org/.

This is a bill to give Bush over $100 billion to continue the war, with no real strings attached. It gives him a free hand to attack Iran. There are scores of loopholes in it which would allow troops to remain in Iraq past Sept 2008; all Bush needs to do is claim the troops are there not for "combat" but rather for other purposes (such as fighting Al Qaeda, or training Iraqi troops, or guarding US installations, & or other task descriptions which are just wordgames to avoid calling it "combat").

The only thing in it that is a "step" towards ending the war is vague toothless language aiming at a pullout of combat troops by Aug 31, 2008.

It's not a "step towards ending the war." It's just a way that allows the Democrats to continue posturing as critics of the war until the 2008 elections, even while their actual votes support & fund the war.

K&R

from Congress to attack Iran.

*SIGH*

the end date is an end date. There are provisions in the bill to allow Congress to come back and make a determination whether the Maliki regime is doing what they need to to take over their own security. If Congress determines that the regime isn't complying this bill would allow them to come back and end it right then and there.

You may not have intended it exactly this way, but your notion about whether or not to support a "war vote" gets to the essential point. A civilized human being does not support a war vote.

Tell your Representative whatever your conscience dictates. Here is just one suggestion: "It is past time to place the needs of humanity above the avarice of Halliburton. Rescind the blank check now."

Did you mean "puppet government" when you said Maliki regime? I tend to be precise with my terminology and avoid being propagandized. You do know how continued occupation decreases security right? You are also aware that this is an illegal invasion and War Crime the US has zero right to be in Iraq (or anywhere else)?

Congress if his benchmarks have been met or not, not the Iraqi government.

How it looks from the outside
by kos
Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:00:50 PM PDT
With all the hand-wringing over the details of the Iraq supplemental, one of the arguments many are making is that the bill "doesn't go far enough" and that it'll make the Democrats look "weak" for caving the to Blue Dogs and "watering it down".

I'm actually quite proud of the progressive caucus -- it's time House progressives start flexing their muscles a little. And the concessions they've won are important ones. Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

At the end of the day, this is a message battle. It's a chance for Democrats to show that they are interested in ending the war and getting our troops safely home, while the other side wants to escalate the war and get our troops killed.

To that end, look at the headlines the Supplemental is generating:

US Democrats press deadline for Iraq pullout
Iraq pullout measures moves with war bill
US House opens debate on US withdrawal from Iraq
House Democrats seek votes for Iraq exit timetable
Dems labor for sure majority on pullout
Iraq pullout measure moves ahead
After 3 decades, Congress again tries to end a war
Dems seek votes to order pullout from Iraq



You get the point. Few care about the details. The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq.

That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.

So the particular of the bills matter little. Whatever we pass, no matter how weak or strong, will be vetoed and we won't have the votes for an override. The war will go on until we get some sane people in charge of the joint.

So we use this as part of the message war.

If we can't end the war right now (and we can't, thanks to King George), then we lay the foundation that will ultimately accomplish that goal.

It's progression and outcomes are not definite or finite.

is that a lot of purists on this board defended their votes for Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough. If all the energy that went into supporting Nader had gone into supporting Gore, Congress wouldn't be voting on this bill today because Gore would be president and we wouldn't be in Iraq!

We wouldn't be arguing over this bill if there were no war. And, in my opinion, there would be no war if purists had been practical and supported Gore instead of Nader in 2000. By the way, I hope most people now realize that Gore was always more pure than Nader.

winner.


That aside, why does this excuse what the Democratic leadership is doing now?

Democratic Leadership is doing in different terms from you in some cases. I think the Democratic Leadership is generally doing a good job; not a perfect one, but a lot better than I expected. They don't need to excuse their decision to take a practical route that might actually be successful to me; I'd rather see results, I don't need meaningless and pointless gestures.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Bryant

I think your proposals are counter-productive. That's why I disagree.

Bryant

:hi:

Really, what utter crap.

but you and your codepink buddies are doing your damn best to hang the war around Pelosi's neck.

Fuck that dishonest crap.

or more kindly, your interpretation.

Ever heard the phrase "the art of the possible"? Try thinking about it for a moment.

In any case, Nancy Pelosi voted against the IWR. She has spoken out repeatedly against the war, and she is supporting a bill that brings the troops home in under a year and a half. It may be imperfect but it sure isn't taking ownership of the war.

It's an obvious political ploy to please all. It's supposedly aimed at "ending the war" but does nothing to do so but is pleasing to the more gullible on the left. It continues to fund the war, and "Support the Troops" which is pleasing to the right and the "moderates".

It appears, to the supporters, to be a "win/win". If Bush vetoes it, they can say they "tried". If it passes, and he doesn't veto it, and the war drags on, they can say they "tried".

The "message" it sends is that they have faith in the gullibility of the American people to believe that funding a war is stopping it.

Orwell with a large dose of P.T. Barnum

I loathe the concept of political expediency which is just cover for skirting around the truth. I'm interested in the truth.

The US military and the establishment that runs this country is involved in the most flagrant war crimes seen in the world in decades. That is what needs to be discussed not some cynical and watered down bill that doesn't even address what we're really dealing with here and only serves to use the situation for some perceived political advantage. From an ethical standpoint this is completely disgusting.

right things...but saying one thing and doing another is so upsetting to me.

may know how to handle the system better than you do?

who were behind the Lee amendment. Has it occurred to you that she may have chosen poorly by not supporting the Lee amendment? Has it occurred to you that not all Democrats agree on everything all the time?

after the 2000 election.

My point is that some people who come to DU are really good at helping the Bush administration, either intentionally or unintentionally.

:wow: Please tell me I misunderstood you!

helping the Bush administration.

However, if this bill fails, Pelosi will have failed. Since Pelosi is the leader of the Democrats, the Democrats will have failed. The Republicans will have won, or have you not noticed that almost all Republicans are voting NO?

This defeat will not only make it impossible to have a stronger bill in the future, but it will make it harder for the Democrats to curb Bush on any other issue.

Gee, thanks.

couldn't be lamer and his allies are fleeing him. If the Democrats can't curb him under these conditions, it bodes ill for the next two years.

There is no greater truth than that.

But enough sensible Democrats will have stuck together to force him to veto. The Democrats come out looking strong and Bush looks weak.

Length of Deployment. Requires the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and
avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210
days for the Marines. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to
Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit’s extended deployment is in the
interests of national security.