I'm sorry, Senator Reid, Congressmen Obey and Murtha, and Big Tent Democrat, but September will be just like May, unless . . . you change this:

"I cannot vote ... to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way."

-- Carl Levin

No, Rep. Obey, if you don't change the Carl Levins the following is b.s.:

There's more...

8 Ways Dems in Congress Played Victim Over Supplemental Funding
view edit
Submitted by truthpowers on Sat, 2007-05-26 20:40. Discussion
Democrats in Congress Cultivate Our Perception of Their Victimhood

Kim Hughes
http://groups.google.com/group/WeThePeop leLeadNow

Like what I believe to be the majority of Americans, I am once again disappointed and angered by two things: 1 - Congress' agreement to continue funding the illegal Iraq occupation, and 2 - the Democrats' apparently deliberate cultivation of a perception that they are helpless victims.

My feelings come up after witnessing the bizarre vote trick they played this week, giving Bush his blank check while some Congresspeople appeared to vote against it, so they could gain points with their huge anti-Iraq war constituency.

One definition of a victim is " a person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of." (American Heritage Dictionary)

In common usage, a victim is also someone who doesn't use the power they have to take actions on their own or others' behalf.

Here are the actions I believe were possible for Congressional Dems to take regarding the Iraq Supplemental (but chose not to):

1 - Speaker Pelosi has the power to disallow this Iraq Supplemental bill to the floor of the House for debate or voting. We know this because of all the Democratic bills that never made the floor when Republicans were in the majority. Pelosi chose not to use this power, without explanation, choosing instead to appear helpless against the situation, saying in her House speech "It's not enough" and voting against the bill she herself brought to the floor.

2 - Louise Slaughter (D-NY), as head of the House Rules committee, had the power to shut out David Obey's tricky "amendments to the rule" from being brought to the floor, and chose instead to allow it, paving the way for some Reps to appear to vote against war funding while actually being assured of its passage.

3 - Any and all Senators who were truly against funding the Iraq occupation could have filibustered the Senate Supplemental vote, as a group or separately.

4 - Democrats in both the House and Senate could have joined Rep. Kucinich in pointing out the fact that one of the "benchmarks" (the Hydrocarbon Law) is actually a threat that Iraqis will cease receiving US $ unless they hand over two-thirds of their oil profits to the five big oil companies, all profits going to US and Britain.

5 - The writers of the Supplemental "benchmarks" could have written them with true accountability. As currently stated, the "benchmarks" do not represent any progress toward holding this President accountable, as they all give Bush the choice to say whether or not they've been met. Another "fox guarding the henhouse" issue.

6 - All along, Democrats could have confronted the lie that not to fund the Emergency Supplemental Iraq War Funding Request is to "abandon the troops." In March the Congressional Research Service printed a report saying that the Request was not in fact an Emergency, and that the Pentagon could have, with Congressional approval, transferred funds for use in Iraq. According to the report, "the Army could finance its O&M expenses through the end of May by tapping $52.6 billion in O&M funding already provided by Congress. Furthermore, with Congressional approval, the Pentagon could temporarily transfer money out of other accounts, giving the Army `almost two additional months' to conduct its regular operations and the war."

7 - In either Supplemental version, Pelosi could have refused to strip the "Bush must get Congressional approval before attacking Iran" language from the bills.

8 - As a whole, the Democratic leadership could have decided to put actually binding timelines for troop withdrawal into either of the Supplemental versions.

```````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````` Instead, Democrats are acting. Witness Obey's "I hate this bill!" and Pelosi's "This is not enough; but the debate is not over", and Slaughter's "What is more, the Republicans in this Congress willfully and deliberately ignored public opinion and supported that veto. They made it impossible for us to overturn it."

I hear the false note of the victim's whine in each of those voices.

The Democrats are going to have to get used to the fact that the peace and impeachment activists in this country see through their pathetic cries of "We're helpless! We're victims! Don't blame us for supporting this war, even though we're in the majority!"

Hello! Pelosi, Reid, Obey, Slaughter, Clinton, Obama, Schumer, and the rest of you hidden Dem hawks, hear this:

We don't buy that you are victims. That game is now over. If you want votes from us, you're going to have to actually promote peace and accountability, not pretend you tried and were prevented from it by the big bad Republicans.

As mentioned before, the dictionary defines a victim as "a person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of."

We peace constituents are no longer in that category. We are not fooled.

Time to get real, Dems, or be prepared to get out of office.

There's more...

Let's assume the whole Iraq funding fight for Congress was just "political foreplay," as a "Democratic leadership source" told CNN on Tuesday (emphasis added throughout):

A senior Democratic senator said late last week the last-minute attempts by Democrats to get a withdrawal timeline was "political foreplay."

A Democratic leadership source told CNN some two months ago that Democratic leaders knew they would have to send the president a war funding bill without a timeline, and that would likely mean a bill with significant Democratic defections and GOP support.

The maneuvering over the past several weeks has been a Democratic attempt to show their anti-war base that party leaders were trying until the 11th hour to stand up to the president, the source said.

Okay, that's bad enough, but my question for blogland is, "Was Dailykos in on the political foreplay?" Because it's pretty damn disturbing that Dailykos was virtually mum on the cave in from May 15 to 21 while it was being put together.

There's more...

As usual, the 'progressive' blogosphere is jumping the "We give up!" gun and w-h-i-n-i-n-g like crazy. People, the key Iraq funding bill is still in play! The blogo-whine is about the news that's been widely expected since May 15 (where the h#@%ll were you 'progressives' this past week?), and something I've been shouting about in my echo chamber since then(all emphasis added):

There's more...

Are the Congressional Democrats as we speak caving on Iraq (see the AP's Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline)? I'm not so sure, and I sure don't think we should prematurely shrug our shoulders. And, actually, apparently the leadership-constructed compromise hasn't even been seen yet by the rank-and-file in the more antiwar House.

But McJoan at dkos (Blank Check on its Way) certainly seems to have given up hope:

There's more...