[Peace-discuss] Dems into the tank again?! Who would have imagined it...?

[C. G. Estabrook]

UPDATE (J. Scahill): I just spoke to Trevor Kincaid, Jan Schakowsky’s 
communications director and he told me that Schakowsky will not release a 
statement on her position on the supplemental “until after the vote.” I asked 
him if she was concerned about going back on her 2007 pledge never to vote for 
war funding that did not call for troop withdrawal. He said, “She is currently 
reviewing the pros and cons of the bill.” He would provide no further comment.

	Published on Monday, June 15, 2009 by RebelReports
	Will 39 Democrats Stand Up to Stop the War Funding?
	by Jeremy Scahill

The White House and the Democratic Congressional Leadership are playing a very 
dirty game in their effort to ram through supplemental funding for the 
escalating US war in Afghanistan and continued occupation of Iraq. In the 
crosshairs of the big guns at the White House and on Capitol Hill are anti-war 
freshmen legislators and the movement to hold those responsible for torture 
accountable.

In funding the wars, the White House has been able to rely on strong GOP support 
to marginalize the anti-war Democrats who have pledged to vote against continued 
funding (as 51 Democrats did in May when the supplemental was first voted on). 
But the White House is running into trouble now because of Republican opposition 
to some of the provisions added to the bill (and one removed), meaning the 
pro-war Democrats actually need a fair number of anti-war Democrats to switch 
sides. In short, the current battle will clearly reveal exactly how many 
Democrats actually oppose these wars. And, according to reports, the White House 
and Democratic Leadership have the gloves off in the fight:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the antiwar Democrats, said the 
White House is threatening to withdraw support from freshmen who oppose the 
bill, saying "you'll never hear from us again."
She said the House leadership also is targeting the freshmen.

"It's really hard for the freshmen," she said. "Nancy's pretty powerful."

On June 11, the relevant committees in the House and Senate approved the $105.9 
billion spending package. According to an analysis by the Center for Arms 
Control and Non-Proliferation:

The bill includes $79.9 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily to fund 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly $4.4 billion more than the 
amount sought by the Administration. This funding is in addition to the $65.9 
billion "bridge fund" in war funding for FY'09 that Congress approved last June. 
To date Congress has approved over $814 billion for military operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, not including the $80 billion recommended by the Conference 
Committee, In addition, the Obama Administration is seeking $130 billion in for 
fiscal year 2010. Both the House and Senate could take up the conference 
agreement as early as this week.
In addition to funding combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill 
provides $10.4 billion for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID), and $7.7 billion for Pandemic Flu Response.

The current battle over war funding has brought with it a couple of high-stakes 
actions, which have threatened passage of the bill. Many Democrats were up in 
arms about an amendment sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham 
that would have blocked the release of photos depicting US abuse of prisoners 
(which the White House "actively" supported. Facing warnings that the provision 
could derail the funding package, the White House stepped in, deploying Rahm 
Emanuel to the Hill to convince legislators to drop the amendment, while at the 
same time pledging that Obama would use his authority to continue to fight the 
release of more photos:

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel ‘rushed' to Capitol Hill and prevailed 
upon Senate Democrats to remove the torture photo measure in exchange for an 
explicit White House promise that it would use all means at its disposal to 
block the photos' release. Obama also issued a letter to Congress assuring it he 
would support separate legislation to suppress the photos, if necessary, and 
imploring it to speed passage of the war-spending bill. The rider would 
"unnecessarily complicate the essential objective of supporting the troops," 
Obama wrote.
In other words, Obama took a position that amounted to providing political cover 
to Democrats to support the war funding, while pledging to implement, through 
other means, the very policy they supposedly found objectionable.

Secondly, the White House and Congressional leadership added a provision to the 
bill that extends up to $100 billion in credits to the International Monetary 
Fund. While this sent many Republicans to the microphones to denounce the 
funding, the Democratic leadership portrayed the IMF funding as a progressive 
policy:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is trying to paint the IMF provision as a 
"very important national security initiative." The IMF, she said, "can be a 
force for alleviating the fury of despair among people, poor people throughout 
the world."
It is a pathetic symbol of just how bankrupt the Congressional Democratic 
leadership is when it comes to US foreign policy that Nancy Pelosi and Harry 
Reid are trying to use funding for the IMF to convince other Democrats to 
support war funding. The IMF has been a destabilizing force in many countries 
across the globe through its austerity measures and structural adjustment 
schemes. Remember, it was the policies of the IMF and its cohorts at the World 
Bank and World Trade Organizations that sparked global uprisings in the 1990s.

To support the IMF funding scam, the Center for American Progress, which has 
passionately supported Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan, released a 
position paper today called, "Bailing Out the Bailer-Outer: Five Reasons 
Congress Should Agree to Fund the IMF."

Thankfully, some anti-war Democrats seem to understand the atrocious role the 
IMF has played and have tried to impose rules on the funding that would attempt 
to confront the IMF's austerity measures by requiring that "the funds allocated 
by Congress for global stimulus are used for stimulatory, and not 
contractionary, purposes."

By adding the IMF provision to this bill, the White House is making a bold 
statement about the intimate relationship of the hidden hand of US neoliberal 
economic policy to the iron fist of US militarism.

At the end of the day, the real issue here is: How many Democrats will actually 
stand up on principle to the funding of the wars, regardless of the bells and 
whistles the White House and Democratic Leadership attach or the threats they 
need to endure from their own party?

In order to block passage, 39 Democrats need to vote against it in the House. As 
of this writing, 34 reportedly are committed to voting against it. Jane Hamsher 
at Firedoglake has been doing great coverage of this issue, much of which can be 
found here. So too has David Swanson at AfterDowningStreet. This does seem to be 
one issue where phone calls and letters matter-tremendously. See where your 
representative stands here. As of this writing, these are the legislators who 
are reportedly leaning toward a "No" vote, but have not yet committed. They are 
the people most likely to be convinced by hearing from constituents:

Steve Cohen
Keith Ellison
Chakah Fattah
Mike Honda
Doris Matsui
Ed Markey
Jim McDermott
Gwen Moore
Jared Polis
Jan Schakowsky
Jackie Speier
Mike Thompson
John Tierney
Mel Watt
Anthony Weiner

Also, Jane Hamsher reports that it now appears Keith Ellison is voting no.

© 2009 Jeremy Scahill
Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The 
Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin 
Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.