Today the House voted more money for occupying Iraq, and the Senate voted to attack Iran.I. Will Progressives Cave on Iraq Again?
All but 14 members of the House today voted billions more for occupying Iraq. The vote was on a Continuing Resolution that will extend fiscal year 2007 spending at the same levels for 7 weeks into fiscal year 2008. The bill also condemned MoveOn.org for accusing General Petraeus of betraying us. The No votes were: Blumenauer, Clay, Ellison, Filner, Frank (MA), Hinchey, Kucinich, Lee, McDermott, Paul, Payne, Waters, Watson, Woolsey.
Also today, the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a press release and a statement that differs from the letter that so many citizens are working so hard to help the Progressive Caucus add congress members' signatures to (it's now at 83). The letter, addressed to Bush, says this:
"We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office..."
Apparently this letter carries no force, and most of the congress members who signed it were lying. But taking it at face value, the letter has (had?) certain weaknesses but also has a major strength: The deadline of January 2009 will mean a lot of dead bodies first; "protection" of troops means nothing if not ongoing fighting and killing; while some congress members say "redeploy" means withdrawal, for many it actually means redeploy; we have more mercenaries and other contractors in Iraq than troops and this does not mention them; and there's no clear statement here that the only way this will work will be for Congress to ultimately not send Bush any Iraq funding bills at all. Nonetheless, this is aimed in the right direction, and it takes a decisive stand NOT to vote for any funding of the occupation that does not get all troops out of Iraq by January 2009 or sooner.
The new statement says this:
"We will oppose any bills or amendments brought to the House floor henceforth that pertain specifically to bringing our troops and military contractors home, but do not include in their text a clear timeline and date certain for the redeployment of U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq."
This new version adds contractors but deletes "all." No longer must it be all troops, but it must include (some) contractors. No longer is the deadline January 2009; it could be any deadline as long as there is one. It still says "redeploy" although it also says "bringing...home". But the major change is this one: the new statement SAYS NOTHING ABOUT OPPOSING BILLS TO FUND THE OCCUPATION. As long as such bills do not "pertain specifically to bringing our troops and military contractors home" (and what are the chances of that?) members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who have not signed the letter above are free, under this new policy position, to vote money for genocide.
Let's be clear with the 83 Congress Members who have signed
the letter: a new position does not release you from existing
commitments. If you have signed this letter,
you cannot vote for a bill that funds the occupation without ending it,
whether or not that bill pertains specifically to anything at all or
doesn't. Most of the signers have already gone back on their word and
need to hear from us right away.
The CPC staff tells me that
the CPC is still fully behind the letter and making it the top priority
to add more names, and views the new statement as completely in
agreement with it. The new statement indicates, they say, that the CPC
will oppose bills like the Tanner-Abercrombie-English bill, for
example, unless it includes a definite timeline for "redeployment". I
hope that's right. Remember, it was as recently as May 7, 2007, that
the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus SOLD IRAQI FAMILIES AND US TROOPS DOWN THE RIVER. The pressure on them from Speaker Nancy Pelosi looks to be just as intense this time as in May.
Pelosi was on CNN yesterday claiming that she has no power to end the
occupation and blaming her lack of 60 votes in the Senate (or 67 to
override a veto). CNN played along with her claim that she needs 60
Senate votes. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could if
they wanted announce today that the House and Senate will no longer
bring to a vote any bills to fund anything other than withdrawal. They
have 83 colleagues already on board with that position, not to mention
two thirds of the country. It would take 218 signatures on a discharge
petition to force a bill to the floor of the House without Pelosi's
approval. It is unlikely enough Democrats would oppose their party to
fund Bush's war in that way. In the Senate, Reid alone could refuse to
bring a bill to the floor, or another senator could put a secret hold
on a bill. And, while not all bills can be filibustered (appropriations
bills can be, budget reconciliation bills cannot), you can hardly claim
you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster without admitting that with
only 41 you could launch your own filibuster and that with 51 you could
defeat any bill. Once you understand the goal as blocking bills rather
than passing them, the number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.
Please sign the Peace Pledge and urge your Congress Member and both of your Senators to do so.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
