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):
After weeks of refusing to back down to President Bush on setting a timetable on Iraq, House Democratic leaders face having to explain to their party’s rank and file why they’ve now relented.
Party officials said Monday the next war spending bill most likely will fund military operations and not demand a timeline to bring troops home
But in fact, despite this article being written from the (evil ‘bipartisan’) leadership’s perspective, obviously the final bill is still in play, the fight (especially in and with the House) is far from over (seems like it’s just begun), and so, in order to forego the pleasures of whining over another defeat for peace, the time to act is now:
Facing a self-imposed weekend deadline, Congressional Democrats said Monday that they remained uncertain how they would shape a war spending measure that has been the center of a political and policy battle with President Bush.
After an evening meeting of top House Democrats, the party canceled a session at which they were to present the elements of a new war spending proposal to the rank and file in anticipation of a vote this week.
“There is no deal,” said Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and is one of the lead negotiators over the war money.
AP gives us more on the party leaders’ difficulties with democracy in the House, which should be ‘get out now’ activists’ cue to call/e-mail your Representative:
But Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately — or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months.
The details of the Democrats’ new bill remained in flux late Monday, as Rep. David Obey was tasked with negotiating with the Senate and White House. Obey, D-Wis., is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Looks like were in the middle of the action on Iraq funding this week, so what is the progressive blogosphere reaction? Well, note how blogosphere biggie Big Tent Democrat prefers to whine about Obey rather than accept and urge action based on the above ‘in flux’ news. Timing anyone? I.e., couldn’t we wait for such an anti-Obey post till after the shooting is over? Not that this phenomenon is confined to BTD; dkos humorist Bob Johnson, instead of urging leadership to at least support for short-leash funding (the relatively safe position which still gets the frequent votes on funding the antiwar movement needs), decides now is the time for sour and non-specific whining about how insufficiently antiwar our Presidential frontrunners are. Instead, how ’bout asking them to come out in favor of “short-leash,” or even better urge them to declare “I ain’t gonna fund this war no more”?
In the real world right now, we need as many of you as possible to contact your Representative in the House and urge him or her to vote against funding the war (Medea has a little something wrong, the Senate is hopeless so you don’t need to contact your Senator; you need to contact your Representative). The only way we stop the war before 2009 is to stop funding it, the sooner the better. And, briefly on strategy, it is not good, but it is better for Democrats in 2008 if this continue the quagmire bill passes as a ‘Republicans + Blue Dogs’ bill.
By the way, as far as I’m concerned let’s forget Feingold-Reid and keep this simple and courageous: to be antiwar our representatives must vote “no” on Iraq war funding bills. We’ve already got 171 in the more antiwar House — and we only need 50% of the House! — to stop Bush’s killing.
