SHOULD PROGRESSIVES SUPPORT PELOSI'S IRAQ WAR SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING BILL?

Pelosi and other pragmatic Democrats looking for a solution to the impasse over the Iraq war, want to pass a supplemental funding bill-- $123 billion or so-- to continue fighting it... but with a few stipulations that might perhaps cause Bush to scale back on his ambitious plans to sink us deeper and deeper into a war with no possible end. So the Democrats are split. Many are trusting Pelosi (who is pretty trustworthy on Iraq, as her voting record shows) and Hoyer (who is totally untrustworthy on Iraq, as his Bush-supporting record shows). Others, die-hard, hard-core Bush supporters like Jim Marshall (D-GA) and Dan Boren (D-OK), say the bill hampers Bush's ability to fight the war and they are opposing it. Many of the Democrats who have voting records that clearly indicate they are the most committed to ending the war-- men and women like Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), John Lewis (D-GA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)-- are opposing the bill because it doesn't do much of anything definitive except fund the Bush Regime's psychotic blood lust.

Today's Hill has a decent explanation of the dynamics here-- as well as a list of who stands where, including the undecideds.

It's interesting to see slimy and deceptive warmongers like Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer working with proven peace advocates-- like MoveOn.org-- to get what both sides feel is the most that can be achieved-- a suitable compromise that Bush has already promised to veto. Their efforts leave me somewhat nonplused, though not without respect for their motives. David Sirota is someone I trust implicitly. His advice to the Progressive Caucus was, basically, fight for all you can get but, in the end, vote for the bill.

"As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be," wrote Saul Alinsky, one of the 20th Century’s most successful progressive leaders. "That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."

These words are as important this week as they were 35 years ago when they were first published in the book Rules for Radicals. With the House expected to vote this week on binding legislation to end the war in 2008, a group of Congress' most distinguished progressive heroes is undecided about whether to vote yes or no. The indecision is entirely understandable. Democratic leaders have attached their binding legislation to a bill providing ongoing military funding, and many progressives understandably do not want to vote for a single dollar more for anything that could be construed as fueling the war.

The question, then, is simple: Should these progressives vote yes and accept the congressional world as it is right now-– a world filled with a unified Republican caucus that will do anything to continue the war indefinitely and a group of egotistical, pro-war Blue Dog Democrats who will do anything to lavish attention on themselves as supposedly "tough?" Or, should they view the congressional world as they wish it would be and vote no, sending the bill down to defeat?

Sirota acknowledges that it's a tough choice. He says he trusts the progressive credentials of the bill's chief architect, David Obey. Sirota's interpretation of the bill is that-- along with the billions it grants Bush to continue his aggressive and catastrophic policies-- it will provide for a beginning of redeployment by the end of March, 2008 and completes it by September of that same year. "It’s clear that publicly packaging the bill as a moderate compromise is a tactic designed to either coerce or give cover to Blue Dog Democrats to vote for the bill."

In the end Sirota is certain that progressives-- the real ones, not the fakers-- should hold out for concessions and then vote yes. "Play hardball," he advises "then proudly hold your head up and vote 'yes.'"

To date, progressives in Congress have done an outstanding job. Their holding out has forced the Democratic leadership to resist Blue Dog pressure to eliminate language from the supplemental that ends the war by September 2008. That is a major victory.

Now, in the final hours before the vote (set tentatively for this week), they must aim for a concession that the leadership can grant but that does not endanger the binding language that is the prize within reach (a bird in hand…). And there is plenty that can be demanded. How about a letter from Speaker Pelosi committing the House to a separate vote on a specific date on a bill cutting off funding entirely? Or, what about a commitment from Jack Murtha that the regular Defense Appropriations Bill, which comes up soon, includes language mandating an end to the war? The options are limitless.


But when the supplemental bill comes up, the progressive vote must be a "yes" one. Remember, I say this understanding that there are differences of opinion among progressive lawmakers on this one. I also say it as a committed antiwar progressive, as someone who agrees that this is not the ideal situation, and as a person who has been slandered with "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" straw men. But this is no straw man. No war in American history has ever ended with just one vote. It takes multiple votes, a gamed-out legislative strategy and, perhaps most importantly, a willingness to, in the words of Saul Alinsky, "start from where the world is, as it is." Only if we do that, will we ever have that "world as we would like it to be."

Public debate starts this afternoon and Congress' first Iraq War vet, Patrick Murphy, kicked it off with a short speech in favor of the bill.


UPDATE: ON THE OTHER HAND...

I keep getting e-mails from MoveOn urging me to contact my congresswoman, Diane Watson, with the goal of trying to influence her to vote for the supplemental Iraq financing bill. I can understand why an anti-war congressperson would vote for it and I respect that position. Personally, I don't hold it and if I was in Congress I'd vote against it. The Progressive Caucus folded up its tent today-- as Sirota suggested they should-- and, although several members will still vote no, the Caucus as a whole will give Pelosi the margin she needs for victory. Here's the press release:

PROGRESSIVES DECISIVE IN SUPPLEMENTAL DEBATE

(Washington, DC) - 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.

Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Diane Watson (D-CA) have led Congressional opposition to the war in Iraq since before it started and have consistently voted against funding for the war as a matter of conscience. Still, they decided that they could not stand in the way of the passage of a bill that would establish a clear timeline for ending the war, especially if the failure of that bill would mean the passage of a supplemental without any restrictions.

After a painstaking series of meetings with members of the Progressive Caucus and Out of Iraq Caucus and other members of Congress, the group agreed that, while they could not vote for the bill themselves, they would not block its passage.

"As someone who opposed this war from the beginning, I have voted against every single penny for this war as a matter of conscience, but now I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it," said Lee. "I have struggled with this decision, 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."

"Although the debate on this supplemental appropriation has been heart wrenching, I have always been clear on my position. While we respect the decision of our colleagues who will support this legislation, those of us who believe that this is a vote of conscience will remain steadfast in our opposition," said Waters.

"The American public knows a simple truth: you can't be against this war, and vote for $100 billion dollars to continue it. Let me make myself very clear-- I will not stop, I will not rest, and I will not back down in my fight until every last American soldier is home safely to their families," said Woolsey.