You are herecontent / Congress Throws Over $100 Billion More at War

Congress Throws Over $100 Billion More at War

These Eight Heroes Voted Against the Bill for the Right Reasons:
Kucinich; Lee; Lewis (GA); McNulty; Michaud; Waters; Watson; Woolsey.

Thank Dennis Kucinich, John Lewis, Barbara Lee, Mike McNulty, Mike Michaud, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, and Lynn Woolsey.

This Democrat voted "present": Stark.

These two Democrats did not vote: Kanjorski (out sick), Watt (said he was delayed but wanted to vote Yes).

These six Democrats voted against the bill because they wanted it to be even worse:
Barrow; Boren; Davis, Lincoln; Marshall; Matheson; Taylor.
Full voting results.

FLOOR SCHEDULE FOR FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2007: Two hours of debate began at approx. 9:45 a.m. wih Rep. Obey defending funding in a war bill for spinach, etc., and then denouncing the Washington Post for criticizing it and (rightly) for promoting the war in the first place. At 9:55 Rep. Weldon defended the glorious liberation of Iraqis and denounced the spinach and peanut funding. Then Rep. Van Hollen promoted the bill as an anti-war bill. Then Rep. Hastert opposed the bill, claiming the supplemental should only be used for emergency funds (as if the fifth year of a war is an emergency); By adding in peanuts and spinach the Dems have allowed the Republicans to oppose the bill without even talking about the war. At 10:14 Kucinich spoke for 60 seconds and said that it was a false logic to claim we need to vote for war in order to have peace, that this vote will allow the war to go on and Bush to attack Iran. The crowd cheered and was reprimanded. Obey claimed he'd tried to allow Kucinich the opportunity to speak last night; Kucinich said he had not. Some of the Democrats supporting this fund-the-war bill are not just arguing for it as an anti-war bill but are speaking strongly against the war. Murtha continues to yell and speak passionately to the point of tears about the restrictions he's including in the bill -- restrictions the bill allows the President to waive, and restrictions the President has previously tossed out with a signing statement.

12:25 p.m. 15-minute vote has begun. Members of audience are shouting, and the chair has asked to have them removed.
12:42 p.m. Thus far 11 Dems have voted No, and 2 Repubs have voted Yes. The 11 Dems may include progressives and right-wingers.
12:44 p.m. Final vote: 218 to 212, 1 member voting "Present". The bill passes.
Two Republicans joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. 14 Democrats voted against the bill. One Democrat voted "Present." Two Democrats and one Republican did not vote.


Some members of the House Progressive Caucus have previously stated they would vote against the Iraq supplemental unless it includes Lee's amendment (which it will not; no amendments are being permitted). But the House leadership is now pressuring them to back down. We need to find out quickly: where do Progressive Caucus members stand?

Working together with other anti-war groups, we are creating a whip list on this issue. Please take a moment to now to call one of the representatives in the "UNKNOWN" category below, and ask them:

Are you committed to voting NO on the current supplemental spending bill for Iraq if it doesn't include Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded withdrawal?

You can find the phone number of each progressive member here (scroll down). Or just call the Congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected.

The aides answering the phone may know the answer; if not, ask to speak to their press secretary or legislative assistant for foreign policy.

Then, leave whatever answer they give you in comments below. We'll be continually checking and updating this list.

Thank you!

(You may also want to read "The Out Of Iraq Caucus Must Support Barbara Lee's 'Fully Funded Withdrawal' from Iraq" by Bob Fertik, and listen to a podcast with Rep. Lee.)

Are you committed to voting NO on the current "supplemental" spending bill for Iraq if it doesn't include Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded withdrawal?

Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (leaning No, Politico, told Ann Wright 3/22 she will vote No)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (no, solidly confirmed)
Rep. Barbara Lee (no, solidly confirmed)
Rep. Maxine Waters (no, solidly confirmed)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (no, solidly confirmed)
Rep. John Lewis (via comments, may vote "Present," Politico, given Backbone Award for commitment to vote No)
Rep. Diane Watson (The Hill, Politico says she supports Lee amendment, but that doesn't tell us how she will vote on supplemental; more comments indicate she's a definite No)
Rep. Pete Stark (The Hill, Politico, telling people he's undecided, told media he'll vote No, told Jodie Evans 3/22 he'll vote No)
Rep. Donald Payne (The Hill, via comments)
Rep. William "Lacy" Clay (via comments)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (via Sheila Jackson Lee, confirmed as very likely No by another source 3/22)
Rep. Keith Ellison (leaning: The Hill, leaning No Politico, telling people he's undecided)
Rep. Charles Rangel (via comments)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (The Hill, leaning No Politico)
Rep. Steve Cohen (The Hill, leaning No Politico)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (undecided but leaning No, Politico, also told Tina Richards she's leaning No, also backed Lee Amendment)

Rep. Dan Boren (leaning No, The Hill, says will vote no unless there's a timeline but some are claiming pelosi's bill counts as having a timeline, may actually be opposed to even a toothless timeline)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Politico, refuses to tell people how he will vote)
Rep. Ron Paul

Bobby Scott (undecided, Politico, telling people he's undecided)
Danny Davis (undecided but leaning yes, Politico; previously voting No, The Hill)
John Yarmuth
Bill Delahunt (undecided, via comments)
Elijah Cummings
Xavier Becerra
Robert Brady
Corrine Brown
Michael Capuano
Julia Carson
Emanuel Cleaver
Rosa DeLauro
Chaka Fattah
Bob Filner
Barney Frank
Luis Gutierrez
John Hall
Maurice Hinchey
Michael Honda
Hank Johnson
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Marcy Kaptur
Carolyn Kilpatrick
David Loebsack
Gwen Moore
Ed Pastor
Bobby Rush
Linda Sanchez
Hilda Solis
Bennie Thompson
John Tierney
Tom Udall
Nydia Velazquez
Mel Watt

VOTING YES (the coalition of the threatened and bribed)
Jim McDermott (voting yes, AP)
Rep. Edolphus Towns (The Hill, says he supports Lee's amendment but that doesn't tell us how he'll vote on supplemental, voting yes, Politico)
Rep. Al Wynn (wavering after promising to vote against given serious 2006 peace candidate challenge by Donna Edwards, voting yes, Politico)
James McGovern (spoke on floor 3/22, will vote Yes)
Peter Welch (Voting Yes, via comments, said on floor on 3/22 voting Yes)
Henry Waxman (Voting Yes to keep his chairmanship)
Louise Slaughter (Yes, via comments, spoke in favor on 3/22)
Hastings (Yes, spoke in favor on 3/22)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (The Hill)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (The Hill)
Rep. Melissa Bean (The Hill)
Rep. Nancy Boyda (The Hill)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (The Hill)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (The Hill, sold out for pork: Politico spoke in favor on 3/22)
Rep. Chet Edwards (The Hill)
Rep. Sam Farr (via comments)
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (The Hill)
Rep. Phil Hare (The Hill)
Rep. Tim Mahoney (leaning: The Hill)
Rep. Mazie Hirono (leaning: The Hill)
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (The Nation and via comments)
Rep. Steve Kagen (The Hill)
Rep. Tom Lantos (The Hill)
Rep. John Larson (The Hill)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (The Hill)
Rep. Jerry McNearney (from comments, confirmed Yes; note: this guy got elected on peace platform)
Rep. George Miller
Rep. Chris Murphy (The Hill)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (The Hill, and via comments: Yes)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (The Nation)
Rep. John Olver (via comments)
Rep. Frank Pallone (via comments)
Rep. John Salazar (The Hill)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (via comments and media)
Rep. Jose Serrano (The Nation)
Rep. Joe Sestak (via media)
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (The Hill spoke in favor on 3/22)
Rep. Tim Walz (The Hill)
Rep. Charlie Wilson (The Hill)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (leaning Yes, via comments)
Rep. John Conyers (via comments)
Rep. Bruce Braley (via comments)
Rep. Jim Moran (via comments)
Rep. Ed Markey
Matsui (spoke in favor on 3/22)
Cardoza (spoke in favor on 3/22)
Castor (spoke in favor on 3/22)
Pascrell (spoke in favor on 3/22)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

All calls approx 4:15 pm PST (03/14)

Honda: Staff is in a meeting. Left msg
Miller: No Ans. Left Msg
Slaughter: Will know more next week. Call back.
Waxman: No Ans. Left Msg
Stark: No Ans. Left Msg

All calls approx 4:15 pm PST (03/14)

Honda: Staff is in a meeting. Left msg
Miller: No Ans. Left Msg
Slaughter: Will know more next week. Call back.
Waxman: No Ans. Left Msg
Stark: No Ans. Left Msg

These Moderate Progressives/Progressive-tag-alongs should never lead a nation - now it's up to US to push, pull and prod them to the real US Constitution and the Progressive way. What would James Madison DO? Give them a back-bone ectomy, i do believe.

Co-State Coordinator PDA Montana

Gutierrez: Seemed like they were dodging--left a message.
Hall: Left message, was told they will call back.
Hare: Msg left with staff
Hirono: Vague/was told Hirono is "leaning" that way.
Hinchey: Msg left with staff
Honda: Msg left with staff
J. Jackson Jr: Msg left with staff
Jackson-Lee: Her staff didn't know about the Lee Amendment at all.
Jones: I will call after noon (EDT)
Johnson: Msg left with staff
Kaptur: Msg left with staff
Kilpatrick: Msg left with staff

I called and spoke to Jan Shakowsky's office. "The person who is handling that, their mailbox is full" "I am not sure, that is still in the process" When pressed as to whether or not she would vote NO with or with out the Lee Amendment, the staff could not give me my rep.'s position period.

Evanston, IL
11:55 a.m. - 3/15/07

[Noted -- thank you!]

I contacted Rep. Shakowsky's office on 3/15/07 at 11:55 a.m. The staff could not committ to any position. "The person who is handling that, their mailbox is full". "That issue is still developing". No committment to vote NO with or without amendment.

The aide could not tell me at this time. Sorry.

But at 9:10AM CDST, someone in Jan's DC office assured me that Jan WOULD support Lee's amendment refusing Iran spending and VOTE AGAINST the Supplemental if Lee's amendment is defeated...
We'll see.

I spoke by phone this afternoon with Tom from the Oregon Democrat's staff. He told me he believed Lee had decided not to offer her amendment and that DeFazio was leaning toward voting for the supplemental. I assured him he had broad political support for a stance that went out on a limb to insist that troops be brought home immediately; that the public can see through any pretense that extending this disaster can improve it. He thanked me, but made no commitment.

Tom Udall will be speaking at a rally in Santa Fe on Saturday. Perhaps someone should ask him the question in public.

Richard N.

Tom Lantos: undecided
John Lewis: undecided
David Loebsack: lft msg on voice mail
Carolyn Maloney: lft msg on voice mail
Ed Markey: left msg on voice mail
Jim McDermott: undecided
James McGovern: undecided
George Miller: will be voting yes on supplemental funding
Gwen Moore: undecided
Jerrold Nadler: left msg on voice mail
Eleanor Holmes-Norton: N/A Was told she can't vote on this (???)
John Olver: will be voting yes on supplemental funding

Just left a meeting with Rep Schakowsky where she has declared that she will be voting Yes on the Supplemental as passed so you can take her off the Unknown this at this point
questions- call ne at 847 491-9748 or email

Here's the update on Jan's position-today-:
she has decided that she must vote Yes on the supplemental-
she will stand with the "leadership" -Pelosi et al
her rationale is that to vote No would mean she would be voting with the Republicans against it
she also feels that a NO vote overall on this bill (which is the first one to actually set a time table for withdrawal )would be "spun" by the media to look like the Dems voted against a time table to get our troops out;
she acknowledged that this bill will never pass thru the senate as is- nor will it go anywhere with the "president"
none the less she feels she must take a stand in support of the first bill that calls for a time table

Many good arguments in counter of all of the above points were made by some of the 20 or so people in attendance. Many of us pointed out- that as you look at this bill with all the opportunities written into it for the "president" to "waive this" and "certify that"-(assuming a leap of trust of the "president"_) that there will never be a time table ultimately anyway once this bill is hacked up- and all that will be left if anything are some of the "porkbarrel additions" and the now $124 Billion for this administration to continue this war....someone suggested that Jan withhold her vote rather that vote yes or no - so she could stand on principal.....
Many of us came away with a headache- and lots of frustration--------as Jan- to this point has stood with us fairly consistently on the war issue- and this feels very disheartening--------but the resolve to continue our message of END THE FUNDING remains strong. It is the only message! ANd the need to be visable in the streets is more important than ever .

For your own information and so you can make your own conclusions; refer to the two sites below; one is the actual bill that was passed by the House and the other is an analysis by Military Families Speak Out ( next to Iraqis these are the folks who have the most to lose by the continuation of this war)
If- after reading all of these things you want to take action relative to Jan's decision then email Robin at Codepink asap and she will fill you in.....

Fellow Downings,
Evidently, Schakowsky's Dem duties have taken precedence, at least in her mind, over accountability to her district (9th of IL) which favors getting out soon and to her own convictions, as she voted against the enabling resolution in 2002 and was a founding member of the House caucus v. the war. I think it would be a strong message if constituents, & maybe others, would (respectfully but not apologetically) suggest she quit her leadership post if it's keeping her from better serving her country, her district, & her conscience.
Btw, she is responsive in-district but traditionally doesn't respond to out of district contacts--although as Asst. Majority Whip, maybe she ought to...

Chicago - (773) 506-7100 M-F 8:30-5:30 CST

Evanston - (847) 328-3409 M-F 8:30-5:30 CST

Park Ridge - (847) 298-2128 M-Th 8:30-5:30 CST Fri. 8:30-5:00 CST

Washington - (202) 225-2111 M-F 9-6 EST

[Noted -- thank you!]

Rangel will not vote for the Supplemental, unless it includes the Lee Amendment.

The so-called, "War on Terror" IS Terrorism!

[Yarmuth was not listed here because he's not in the progressive caucus -- please do try to get an answer from him, though, and post it here.]

Where is Kentucky's newest Representative, John Yarmuth, in your listing?
He was elected in perhaps the most surprising result of any in the country to defeat a three term Republican with 4x the campaign funds as he. He knows WHY HE WAS SENT TO CONGRESS.
Please find out his position, remind him we are watching and let us know your findings!
Louisville, KY

Seriously, call him!!! Post the result, Yes, No, or Maybe. Thanks.

[Chandler also is not in the progressive caucus, but if there's a real chance he'll vote against the supplemental bill, please keep calling and try to get an answer.]

Representative Chandler is not reprented in your poll either!
Where the heck are these guys?
Is this your oversight or their ability to dissappear in D.C?

Seriously, call him!!! Post the result, Yes, No, or Maybe. Thanks.

[noted -- thank you]

According to The Hill, he is "leaning no." That's quite a distance from "Yes, but confirm." I called to confirm and thank him, and spoke with his foreign policy LA (Evan DeVries-sp?) who laughed when I said I had read that he is "leaning no." He said Davis is still weighing, and Evan noted that the NO group is quite small, so that seems to be a factor as well.

Please keep calling!

closing statement:

" Tonight I must make it plain and clear that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a Member of Congress, as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and I cannot in good conscience vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war . "

Entire speech:
Congressional Record article 3 of 12 Printer Friendly Display - 3,956 bytes.[Help]
IRAQ IN CIVIL WAR -- (House of Representatives - March 19, 2007)

[Page: H2641] GPO's PDF


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concern that on this very day 4 years ago, our Nation inaugurated a conflict, an unnecessary war , a war of choice, not a necessity.

[Page: H2642] GPO's PDF

The most comprehensive intelligence we have, the National Intelligence Estimate and the latest Pentagon report, tells us that Iraq had descended into a state of civil war . Over 3,000 Americans have died, and hundreds of thousands, some even say up to 1 million citizens of Iraq, have lost their lives in this unnecessary conflict.

And while we are telling our veterans of this war , the elderly, the poor, and the sick that there is no room in the budget for them, the American people have spent over $400 billion on a failed policy. We cannot do more of the same. Mr. Speaker, violence begets violence. It does not lead to peace.

President John F. Kennedy once said, ``Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.'' My greatest fear is that the young people of Iraq and of the Middle East will never forget this war . My greatest fear is they will grow up hating our children and our children's children for what we have done. Mr. Speaker, the Bible is right. Even a great nation can reap what it sows.

Nothing troubles me more than to see the young faces of these soldiers who have been led to their death.

[Time: 19:45]

Some are only 18, 19, 21, 22, 23. It is painful; it is so painful to watch. Sometimes I feel like crying and crying out loud at what we are doing as a Nation and what this administration is doing in our name. Our children do not deserve to die as pawns in a civil war .

They do not deserve to pay with their lives for the mistakes of this administration. They never had a chance.

When I was their age, when I was 23 years old, I was leading the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, soon to speak in Washington on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but then we were involved in a nonviolent revolution to transform the soul of America, to create a beloved community.

Forty years ago, I was there in New York City in Riverside Church when Martin Luther King, Jr., gave one of the most powerful speeches he ever made against the war in Vietnam. If he could speak today, he would say this Nation needs a revolution of values that exposes the truth that war does not work. If he could speak today, he would say that war is obsolete as a tool of our foreign policy.

He would say there is nothing keeping us from changing our national priority so that the pursuit of peace can take precedence over the pursuit of war .

He would say we must remove the causes of chaos, injustice, poverty and insecurity that are breeding grounds for terrorism. This is the way towards peace.

As a Nation, can we hear the words of Gandhi, so simple, so true, that it is either nonviolence or nonexistence? Can we hear the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., saying that we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or perish as fools?

Tonight I must make it plain and clear that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a Member of Congress, as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and I cannot in good conscience vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war .

Brady's office says he's still undecided, going to listen to the debates today and tomorrow.

Fattah's office says he voted "yes" for supplemental spending bill in committee and will probably vote yes again. They don't think Lee's amendment will be attached.

I registered my disappointment to both aides. I'm in Brady's district, a block from Fattah's, and every few years they switch me back and forth. Both these guys are running for mayor in Philadelphia in a crowded field of five Democrats (May 15th primary). Taking a courageous stand here would give them bragging rights in this anti-war city, but it seems unlikely at this point.

Staff says he is waiting to see full text. If the bill does not satisfy his commitment to end the war then he will not vote for it.

1. Rep. Dan Boren (leaning: The Hill)
RESPONSE from Press Sec.: Didn't seem to be
aware of Barbara Lee's ammendment and said
that all he knew was that Boren would vote
no if there was not timeline for withdrawal.
I told him I hope that Congressman Boren does
vote no if Lee's Ammendment isn't included.

2. Rep. Keith Ellison (leaning: The Hill,
leaning No Politico) RESPONSE: Considering.
They asked how I felt and again, I told them
that I supported Lee's ammendment and hoped
that Ellison would also.

3. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (The Hill, leaning
No Politico) RESPONSE: PS not available out to
meeting till 1pm Est.

4. Rep. Pete Stark (The Hill, Politico)
RESPONSE: The Congressman won't know till he
votes and again, I told them I hope he
supports Lee's ammendment and voted NO
unless it is included.

5, Rep. Edolphus Towns (The Hill) RESPONSE:

6. Rep. Diane Watson (The Hill, Politico)
drafting a similar stand alone bill along
with Woolsey!

7. Rep. Jim Marshall (Politico) RESPONSE:
Most guarded response ever...he said their
policy is not to give a voice confirmation,
wanted my name and address so he could give
it in writing, then said check the
congressman's website and I would
find the answer. I checked, I can't find
the Congressman's stance, maybe you can.

Mel Watt's office states he is undecided as of noon today. Spoke at some length with staffer about fellow Congessional Black caucus member Lee's bill.

Also spoke with a Gold Star Mother who is very close with Rep. Jerry McNearney. She will lobby him.


Congressman Lacy Clay (1st Dist., MO) called one of our local leaders here (Bill Ramsey) yesterday to confirm that the MoveOn position in favor of the Obey-Pelosi supplemental was not the position of the St. Louis Instead of War Coalition and St. Louis Occupation Project. He was assured that the peace movement stood firmly in opposition to the Obey-Pelosi plan. According to Mr. Ramsey, Congressman Clay stated that he would "stand on principle and vote against the supplemental plan."

[Noted -- thanks Sue!]

Just heard from New Jersey that Rep. Pallone will vote yes on the supplemental.

Sue (United for Peace & Justice)

At 12:30 p.m. spoke with his aide, James, who said McD still hadn't made up his mind. I have been occupying McD's office for the past few months with the Occupation Project, so James knows my views. I pointed out the Washington Post article citing the courage of Woolsey, Waters and Lewis, et al., who are risking their careers to vote against funding the occupation. I told James that is what I expected of someone like McDermott and was very disappointed he was not showing leadership they way the above folks were, even if he ends up voting against the supplemental. James will pass my message along.

I called Udall, my congressman, Shea-Porter, and Patrick Murphy. I actually spoke to Murphy. He said because he saw 19 of his buddies die in Iraq, he is for whatever gets the troops out. He sees Pelosi's bill as a first step. I told him I don't, and that Congress can write a better bill.

That sounds pretty weird to me. I called once, then a friend did, and the female staffer said the SAME thing.

Had a detailed talk with the aide who was sincere and forthcoming. Obviously he's against the war but thinks it will be worse (more money, no deadline)if he votes against it. He's normally such a great warrior for the good...

Clarke's staffer, with whom several of us Brooklyn activists have been friendly (we met her when she arranged a meeting for us with Clarke) rushed us off the phone and sent us the Politico article which describes Clarke's indecision.

Am I being paranoid or are the reps being "told" to not say anything? If so, who is doing the telling and what are they holding over their heads? Any ideas folks?

I count 7 Committed NO, 8 Need Confirm NO, 30 YES, and 48 Undecided, which totals only 93.

Why not create a standard whiplist page, with an updatable table of current Reps, as well as one for Senators, with their names, party affiliations, and states in the left columns, and their votes and positions on various bills in columns to the right. That would become more and more useful.

"Never doubt that a small group of rich, influential people can change the rest of world for the benefit of their selfish interests. Indeed, that's the recurring story of world history." - Maggie Mead-Mistress

Please hurry and Impeach Cheney now before the blood clot wins.
Thank You.

His aide said that he was reviewing each line item, but that he did not want to vote against things like healthcare for veterans.

Tell Him we see through that sort of BS and that he knows packaging health care around a bill designed to kill and injure thousands is sick and transparently dishonest.

[noted thanks]

Was told by Markey's office he will vote for the supplement. Will consider ammendments if they're are any, but he will vote for more funding.

[noted -- thank you!]

Info from a VotersForPeace member indicates that James McGovern was still undecided on the vote late last night. Sam Farr is voting yes in support of the supplemental.

Cong. Moran of VA is voting for the bill for "strategic" reasons. Cong. Moran would prefer a stronger version a la Murtha's earlier versions. He will not vote to stop the Iraq war. He fears the Democrats will be tagged as not supporting our troops and weak on national defense. I asked for him to put his conscience first.
Michael Beer

[noted thanks]

I called Jim Moran's office and was told that he was going to vote for the supplemental. I told his aid that he should not do that and if he did that he would be buying the war. The aid tried to tell me that this bill was the best they could do and that the next bill would not be as good. I said that if he voted for funding the war he was voting for the war. (Do they think we are stupid?)

He said Moran had to vote for the supplemental in order to avoid the big bad Republican bill. I said, OK vote for the bill and the next day introduce articles of impeachment. He hung up.

If Moran votes for the supplemental, he will never get my vote again and I will do all that I can do to make sure that he is not re-elected. No representative who claims to be against the war should vote for the war.

I spoke just now with Tricia Coates, Representative Welch's State contact in his office in Burlington. She told me at 4:30 PM (EDT) that Welch is voting YES on the supplemental.

" "People like me are struggling with it," said US Representative
Michael Capuano of Somerville, an Iraq war opponent. "We want a date
certain, but this is a date later than we would like." Still, Capuano
said he is leaning "yes" on the rationalization that "something is
better than nothing." "

Lawmakers choose their battles
By Joan Vennochi | March 20, 2007

ALBERTO R. GONZALES will be out as US attorney general long before the
United States is out of Iraq.

posted by Mike in Cambridge

Progressives Pledge Votes on Iraq

By: Josephine Hearn
March 22, 2007 07:18 PM EST

Four prominent liberal Democrats said Thursday they have given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the support she needs to pass the $124 billion wartime spending bill, even though they remain steadfastly opposed to any additional funding for the war.

California Democrats Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and Diane E. Watson said they did not want to stand in the way of the bill and have urged other liberal lawmakers to vote for it.

"This is a helpful development because every vote counts," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami. Still, he would not say whether the new progressive support would ensure passage of the emergency funding bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders had been struggling to muster the 218 votes they needed to pass the measure, which also sets new readiness requirements for U.S. forces, benchmarks for the Iraqi government and a timetable for the withdraw of U.S. combat troops by Aug. 31, 2008.

Much of their opposition came from progressives, led by the four California Democrats, who felt the bill did not mandate a quick end to the war.

With nearly all House Republicans planning to oppose the measure, Democratic leaders have been having a tough time rounding up enough support for approval before Friday's planned vote on the House floor. Debate on the bill started Thursday.

Pelosi approached the progressives and asked them to help her change lawmakers' minds, two Democratic aides said. And they have finalized a deal to deliver the needed support.

"After two grueling weeks of meetings, progressive members of Congress brought forth an agreement that provided the momentum to pass a supplemental spending bill that, for the first time, establishes a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," the four California congresswomen said in a statement.

One well-placed Democratic aide said Pelosi had approached the progressives asking them to supply four votes, but that they ultimately pledged to deliver about ten. It was unclear whether the progressives received any concessions in return.

"We have released people who were beginning…to be pulled in a different direction," Waters said. "We don't want them to be put in a position where they look like they are undermining Nancy's speakership."

"I have struggled with this decision,'' Lee said, "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.''

Several other members have also dropped their opposition to the bill in recent days.

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) said he now planned to vote for it. "I'm not excited about it, but under the circumstances, it was the best we could do," he said.

And Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.) said he, too, now supports it.

"Having spoken with Speaker Pelosi, I believe that this is the best bill the House can successfully pass that will end the war and bring our troops home from Iraq," he said. "This is not the bill that many of us want, it's the best bill we are likely to get, and I am going to support it."

You're kidding, right?

You didn't really expect this to go any differently?

Yeah, I guess you did.

"Progressives" "Pathetics", same thing:

---The Bikemessenger

I knew, laughingly), we were in deep fecal matter the MOMENT Bushlosi said impeachment was off the table.

Joan Sanders,

At 11:15 Wash. time, I spoke with Rep. Jackson's office. Asked if the Congressman was committed to voting No on the Iraq Accountability Act if it did not include the Lee amendment. Reply:
"The congressman is still listening to the debate. The vote will be called in about 30 minutes."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Speaking Events


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.