[Peace-discuss] JFP 7/9: Peace Activists Protest DNC Attack on Steele Over Afghanistan

[C. G. Estabrook]

...enough leading anti-war Democrats voted for the actual funding bill that they
could have defeated it had they voted "No". Among leading anti-war Democrats,
which ones voted for the war funding?

First, Barbara Lee voted for the war funds. She represents Berkeley, California,
and part of Oakland. Being from this heavily anti-war district, many anti-war
activists assume she votes against all war funding bills. She has been a
heroine-of-sorts of the anti-war movement for years.

Next, we have the Out of Afghanistan Caucus, started in May 2010 by John
Conyers. In the morning on the day of the vote, the caucus held a press
conference to urge a NO vote on the war funding. Five of the eight Democrats
conducting this press conference actually voted for the war funding that
evening, after participating in the press conference about voting "No"! Conyers,
Bob Filner (CA), and Alan Grayson (FL) voted "No"; voting "Yes" were Sheila
Jackson Lee (TX), Maxine Waters (CA), Mike Honda (CA), Judy Chu (CA), and
Barbara Lee.

Next, we can look at the Democratic sponsors of the various anti-war amendments
to the bill.

We would expect these Democrats to not only sponsor their anti-war amendments,
but to also vote against the final war funding bill itself. But all three of the
Democrat anti-war amendment co-sponsors mentioned above voted for the final war
funding bill: David Obey (WI), Jim McGovern (MA), and Barbara Lee (CA).

Finally, we should mention Pete Stark, another San Francisco Bay Area Democrat.
While he tends to keep a low profile, he often actually casts more progressive
votes than Barbara Lee.

(For example, he was one of the few "No" votes in the House vote on heavier
sanctions against Iran, which passed by 408-8 on June 24. Barbara Lee voted for
those sanctions.) Even Pete Stark voted FOR the Afghan war funding last week.

If just three of these leading anti-war Democrats had switched their vote to
"No" on the Afghan war funding bill, it would have failed. This would have given
the anti-war movement a huge boost, even if war-funder-in-chief Nancy Pelosi had
organized another vote and courted Republican support to guarantee its passage.
Such a scenario would have exposed the Democratic leadership as co-equal pillars
of the war (which they are), along with the GOP and the Democrat in the White
House. Instead, when they had a golden opportunity to defeat the war funding
bill, our leading "anti-war" Democrats betrayed us.

Full article at <http://www.counterpunch.org/vickrey07092010.html>.

On 7/9/10 7:33 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:17:30PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> That's ludicrous. Of course support of the war is the position of the
>> Democrats.
>
> Well, it shouldn't be.  And it's *not* the apparent position (based on their
> votes for the McGovern amendment) of a majority of individual Dems in
> Congress, and more individual Dems in the US population, who after all voted
> for peace in the last two elections. This is a great way to make that point.
>
> We really have to hand it to Steele for tossing rope to the establishment
> Democrats which they reflexively snatched and tied into a noose.
>
>> On 7/9/10 6:23 PM, Just Foreign Policy wrote:
>>> ... This afternoon, leaders of several peace groups wrote to the DNC,
>>> protesting the attack on Steele, and urging the DNC not to engage in
>>> such attacks in the future, nor to present support of the war as the
>>> position of Democrats: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/643
>>> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rjuxcOEOk%2FDpqXM1nJ3Cnk%2Fh70vcu%2Ff3>