Is Emanuel's Overreach Going To Help Us Kill The Bush/Obama War Against Afghanistan?

Last June when Obama's first war supplemental-- you know, one of the things he promised to abolish if we voted for him-- was sailing through Congress with the help of Republicans, Rahm Emanuel thought of the brilliant strategy of attaching an unpopular IMF bailout, which drove virtually the whole Republican caucus to vote against a war they love. Progressives nearly beat back the supplemental. They needed 39 Democrats to vote no; 32 did. Now Obama has a similar situation brewing. He wants to deceive the American people-- the same way Bush did-- into thinking the war is free by sneaking it into a $33 billion supplemental. And he has another unpopular policy he thinks he can shove down Republicans' throats. This time funding to close Guantanamo and move the prisoners to the U.S. David Swanson from After Downing Street laid out the whole strategy and counter-strategy last not with a post called Blocking War Funding Just Got Easier.

Last June we were handed an opportunity to block the funding of our illegal, murderous, counterproductive, catastrophic, and hated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The president insisted on an off-the-books "emergency supplemental" bill, and the Senate added an IMF bailout to the bill, leading all the Republicans in the House to commit what for years they'd called treason: they all voted No on war money.

So, we only needed 39 Democrats to vote No, and we could have stopped the thing, at least temporarily.  We had a week-long knock-down drag-out fight, with the White House telling freshmen Democrats they would be "dead to us" if they didn't vote Yes.  And we still persuaded 32 Democrats to vote No.

Then we continued building opposition to the wars, and awareness of the need to choose between wars and jobs.  But we had to hope that we would again be handed a "supplemental" vote and that again some crazy scheme would be found to get all the Republicans to vote No.  If these wishes could be granted, then we would only have to find 40 Democrats to stand with the majority of Americans, soldiers, Iraqis, and Afghans.  Otherwise, we'd need 218 congress members.

Our wishes have come true.  President Obama has insisted on another "supplemental" this spring for $33 billion.  And funding to close Guantanamo and move "the Terrorists" to "the Homeland" has been added into the bill. 

Of course, the Democrats think this will force the Republicans to vote for closing Gitmo.  Democratic loyalists and president worshippers are celebrating this genius stroke, oblivious to the fact that the funding of wars will destroy our nation along with those the wars are waged against, nevermind exactly where we imprison people.  In reality, this maneuver will force the Republicans to vote against the war funding.  And that will give us a chance.

We only need 40 No votes from Democrats in the House if the Republicans are voting No, and we can get them, Here's the whip list.

Take a look and see where your own congressmember stands and then think about what you and your family and friends and colleagues who oppose this war can do to either reinforce the good members-- the Alan Graysons, the Eric Massas, the Donna Edwards, the Carol Shea-Porters, etc-- or how to help the supplemental supporters to change their minds. Blue America has a No Means No! page to show our appreciation to the 32 members who voted "no" last time and to show other members that we appreciate it when congressmen stand up for principles-- even if it means going against Obama and Emanuel.

We don't have challengers on the No Means No! page because it's only about people who have already voted "no" to escalating the war in Afghanistan. But the Blue America challengers are all sure no votes in the future. Late last night I reached out to two of them, Marcy Winograd (D-CA) and Doug Tudor (D-FL) on opposite coasts to see what they felt about the new supplemental looming. Doug had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Navy and he's not thrilled when he sees incendiary words attached to what America's fighting men and women are under orders to do in the name of protecting the country. I can tell it makes him uncomfortable. But it doesn't change his analysis that the war is the wrong way to go about the job of insuring our national security. He's a supporter of shutting down Guantanamo but he would still vote "no" on the supplemental even if that was the carrot the Administration was offering.

The GITMO piece should stand on its own as should the funding request. Combining the two is a thinly veiled political trick, which should never be used when discussing issues of national security. I believe future monies appropriated for military operations in Afghanistan should be carefully restricted to those activities which will hasten our redeployment out of the country. The Congress needs to send a direct message that they control the abilities of the Administration to make war, and Americans want this war to end. Additionally, and I want to be very clear on this: there will never come a time when any member of any Administration or member of the House leadership will tell me how to vote on issues of national security. Never!”

That kind of independent attitude is why Blue America is looking at candidates like Doug Tudor. If it appeals to you, both he and Marcy Winograd have ActBlue slots on the Sending Democrats A Message Page Blue America is hosting. The small contributions from people like readers of this blog are what allows these candidates to challenge the machine. I hope you'll think about donating. Marcy has a similar point of view-- and she's running against one of the most bloodthirsty and vicious war hawks in the Democratic caucus, Blue Dog Jane Harman, who, when supporting every move Bush made that made America less safe, called herself "the best Republican in the Democratic Party." Marcy could well wind up being the best Democrat in the Democratic Party. He congressional campaign theme is "Jobs, not war" and last night she emphasized that this supplemental is not something she would support.

It is time for all congress members of conscience to vote to protect our troops by bringing them home from Afghanistan, a sovereign nation that poses no military threat to the United States. Though my opponent says she opposes the escalation, she votes to send more troops, which, in essence, imposes a death penalty on our youth. In Congress, I will work with the Progressive Caucus to end this unnecessary war by voting against billion-dollar supplementals that create new enemies and undermine our security. We, the People, deserve representation in Congress. Where are our representatives?

Where are they indeed! Either we're going to choose them-- and choose them carefully to represent what we want out of our government-- of the corporate establishment will be happy to do it for us... to represent what they want out of our government. The Constitution's framers carefully decided to give us the right to elect an entirely new Congress every two years. If you want more wars and more government by and for special interests, you'll want to elect Blue Dogs and Republicans (Harman and Tudor's opponent, Lori Edwards, are both reactionary Blue Dogs beholden to the worst of the special interests); if you want to break the cycle and think "Hope and Change" is more than a campaign slogan, you'll want to consider striking a blow against the status quo and helping elect men and women like Doug Tudor and Marcy Winograd.