Will Progressives Cave on Iraq Again?

By David Swanson

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, but only if they mean it.

Here is the CPC's new press release:

PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS MEMBERS ADOPT TOUGHER POLICY STANCE ON IRAQ

Washington, D.C. – The Co-Chairs of the Progressive Caucus – U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) – today announced that Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Members have approved an even stronger policy position with regard to U.S. policy in Iraq than when they were the first bloc within this Congress last February to call for all U.S. troops and military contractors to come home. (See attached formal position statement and view on-line at http://cpc.lee.house.gov/.)

“By more than a two-to-one margin, the American people want to bring our troops and military contractors home and we members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are listening and more determined than ever to accomplish this goal. In adopting this policy statement, Progressive Caucus Members are making clear that 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,” Rep. Woolsey underscored.

"As progressives, we are keeping faith with our constituents and a clear majority of the American people who want to end President Bush's failed policy in Iraq and bring our troops home," said Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA). "Republicans are going to have to decide if they will continue to stand with the President, supporting an open-ended commitment to his failed policy, or with the majority of Americans, who want to bring our brave men and women home."

Here is the full statement:

U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-California) and Barbara Lee (D-California), Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), issued the following strongly-worded position on Iraq today on behalf of CPC Members:

CPC POSITION ON U.S. POLICY IN IRAQ

Over the last four years, the insurgency in Iraq has strengthened and sectarian violence has increased. Furthermore, the current situation on the ground in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has determined accordingly that a predominantly military approach is no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq.

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.

We are committed to bringing all of the U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq home in a six-month time frame as part of a fully-funded redeployment plan.

More specifically, we oppose sending additional U.S. troops and military contractors to Iraq and favor binding votes to block President Bush’s escalation of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

We believe all appropriations for U.S. involvement in Iraq must be for the protection of our troops and military contractors until and during their withdrawal within six months of the date of enactment of this limitation and for diplomatic initiatives, economic reconstruction, and reconciliation. The President has left the Congress few alternatives other than to use the power of the purse spelled out in Article I of the U.S. Constitution to curtail U.S. military operations in Iraq.

Finally, we are opposed to establishing any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, support rescinding the President’s Iraq war authority, and support greater diplomatic and political engagement in the region, while ensuring that the Iraqi people have control over their own petroleum resources.