EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pelosi Puts Pressure on Dems to OK War Funding
WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House will try to muscle through a $106 billion war funding bill today, hoping to quell a rebellion among liberal Democrats against further support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fight has two Bay Area Democrats from across the Golden Gate locked in a seesaw struggle to corral votes: Pelosi, of San Francisco, against Petaluma's Lynn Woolsey, co-chairwoman of the House Progressive Caucus and a fierce opponent of the war.
"I see no reason to be keeping our troops in Iraq that much longer and to start into Afghanistan when there's no end in sight," Woolsey said Monday. "If we were voting on funds to bring our troops home from Iraq, I'd vote for it in a minute. ... I just hope we're not repeating the mistake we made in Iraq."
Pelosi has been struggling for weeks to get to the 218 votes out of 256 House Democrats needed to pass the war bill, while the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no.
Brendan Daly, a Pelosi spokesman, acknowledged that she is pressuring her members to vote for the bill and that it is set to go forward today "assuming we have the votes."
Sweetening the pot
Democratic leaders added sweeteners to lure votes for the war bill, including $7.7 billion to prepare for flu pandemics and $1 billon for a "cash for clunkers" program to provide as much as $4,500 in rebates to consumers who trade in old cars for vehicles with higher fuel efficiency.
Northern California Democrats on the fence are Reps. Sam Farr, D-Monterey; Mike Thompson, D-Napa; Mike Honda, D-San Jose; Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton; and Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento.
"We're certainly not going to let Republicans kill Obama's plan," Farr said, referring to expected opposition among House GOP members. "They just want to embarrass the president."
Rep. Jackie Speier, a San Mateo Democrat, said Monday that she would vote against the funding. Speier promised to oppose the wars during her campaign last year to replace the late Rep. Tom Lantos.
Speier said she has "serious problems with the current wars" and does not believe "escalating the conflicts make America or the world safer."
The wars remain very unpopular among most Democrats, many of whom battled the Bush administration for years trying to withdraw funding for Iraq.
There is also widespread dismay over Obama's "surge" of troops into Afghanistan without a clear exit strategy. Modeled on the Bush administration's Iraq surge, which quelled violence there, the Afghanistan effort will double the number of U.S. troops in the country, to 68,000 by the end of the year.
Today's vote is expected to be close. Democratic leaders need as many as 18 of the 51 Democrats who opposed the war funding in May to reverse themselves. The legislation has twice been pulled from consideration for lack of votes.
Democrats must carry the load themselves, with Republicans who supported similar bills during the Bush administration expected to vote against the bill on grounds that it includes $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund. Obama committed to increase IMF aid at this year's G-20 summit to address the global financial crisis.
Rep. George Miller, a Martinez Democrat and top Pelosi ally who has opposed war funding, reluctantly switched sides Monday.
"I understand the deep frustrations regarding this bill; I've voiced them myself and have consistently voted against the war," Miller said. "I don't support the war in Iraq, and I want to bring it to a close. I registered my concern, but now it is time to give President Obama what he believes he needs to make progress. This bill is part of the price of cleaning up the mess of the failed policies from the previous administration."
Let's make a deal
The Obama administration departed from Bush administration policy by including 2010 war funding in its budget but argued that it needed this last "emergency" war bill as a transition this year.
The White House was forced to promise moderate Democrats that it would prevent the release of more photographs illustrating the past abuse of prisoners held by the U.S. military, now the subject of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. An amendment banning the prisoners' release was dropped from the bill at the insistence of House liberals, but to get a deal, the administration promised to classify the photographs if necessary.
Obama suffered a setback on the $80 million he sought to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Democrats omitted it from the bill.
Pelosi is telling recalcitrant members "that we need to do this, this is President Obama's plan for both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's got a plan to end the war in Iraq," Daly said. "He's got a plan to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need to support the president in that, and this is the right way to go."
Where Northern California Democrats stand
How House members polled Monday broke down on the $106 billion bill:
On the fence: Sam Farr, Monterey; Mike Thompson, Napa; Mike Honda, San Jose; Jerry McNerney, Pleasanton; Doris Matsui, Sacramento
Likely/definite yes: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco; George Miller, Martinez
Likely/definite no: Lynn Woolsey, Petaluma; Barbara Lee, Oakland; Pete Stark, Fremont; Jackie Speier, San Mateo
Not returning calls: Anna Eshoo, Palo Alto; Zoe Lofgren, San Jose
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

112 Comments so far
Show AllLet's stop being world cop. Let's stop bailing out mis-managed companies. Let's work to get the US back in order and help the innocent individuals who got shafted by the war and recession.
Dubya, Rove, Cheney and Pelosi are kindred spirits!
Warmongers all.
Please don't leave out Harry Reid.
and Obama
Oregoncharles
Why omit Obomba from your list?
"Pelosi has been struggling for weeks to get to the 218 votes out of 256 House Democrats needed to pass the war bill, while the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no."
What support?
Doesn't "Pelosi" mean "hairy" in Italian?
q
There are several possible meanings besides "hairy" that I can come up with!
What the hell does hairyness have to do with the question at hand? Focus on the issues.
Nancy Pelosi - leading the way for AIPAC since '06.
odoco
Right behind Jane Harman and Joe Lieberman
I don't want to hear a peep from any voters in San Francisco who had a chance to send a real peace candidate to Washington, but didn't vote for Cindy Sheehan. Shame on you. Did you really think Nancy Pelosi was going to bring the troops home, and end the war? Get real...Pelosi is a pimp for war, AIPAC, and corporations. Now, sit back and watch the "Change you can believe in" party bleed America white.
Wasn't the slogan "Continuity You Can Count On"?
Oregoncharles
Let them have their "peep!" What good does it do to rail on and on about progressive voters' reluctance to bail from the Democrats, when even the rational voice of Noam Chomsky was advocating the "lesser of two evil" voting strategy? There was a lot of "peer pressure." Chomsky voted for McKinney because he votes in Massachusetts, a very safe state. Had he lived in a swing state, he told me he would have "very reluctantly" voted for Obama.
Although I haven't voted for a Dem in years, I was hopeful the Democrat would win - just so the Democrats, like the Republicans, would at long last stand before us, stark naked in the light.
Can you see them now?
and Clinton
Feinstein?
NO ON WAR FUNDING
[ Pelosi is telling recalcitrant members "that we need to do this, this is President Obama's plan for both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's got a plan to end the war in Iraq," Daly said. ]
Yet another "secret plan" to end a war? How's that working for you?
I hope it's not the same as Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war. That plan was to bomb for five more years and then run away.
Didn't Savior Obama make a promise of transparency? How come he got a secret plan now?
A secret plan to end the war on an emotion. (GW did not declare war on 'terrorist', but on "terror" itself). BTW, anybody got an update on our war on poverty, our war on drugs, our war on homelessness, etc.?
Maybe we need a war on war.
Oregoncharles
Maybe we should hit the streets .... again.
I'd vote for that.
The Democratic Congress is a complete failure!
EKATON says: "Maybe we need a war on war."
War On War! W. O. W.
Wow, I like that! Sign me up!
Jeevee
Excellent idea. How do we put it into action?
How do we fight the War on WAR?
Mmmm...
We'll have to use a weapon more powerful than all other weapons, more powerful than the MIC itself.
Mmmm...
What do we have more powerful than the MIC? Love?
How do we put that much love into action? Perhaps Gandhi left us with a clue. He said "Hatred cannot be overcome by hatred, but by love." Sounds simple enough. But how can we make it work? How can we channel our love into a force that will destroy the very institution of war itself?
I'm going to go off and meditate on this some more. Perhaps the answer will come. In the mean time, perhaps a reader will come along and enlighten us.
Hello?... Anyone?...
It worked for Luke Skywalker . . .
A guy I used to work for a long time ago took the time to contest his income tax every year, saying that he did not approve of the military (this was post-Vietnam, pre-Iraq wars) and didn't want to pay for it.
Not sure how feasible that is, both in terms of not getting thrown in jail and having the time to do it. He was self-employed.
But if one of the planks of Obama's platform was ending the war, and now as he "winds down" in Iraq, we've built a fortress to leave behind and stuffed it with mercenaries, that's obviously not what he promised, what the people who voted for him said we wanted. Is there no legal way for citizens to withhold tax money for the war effort?
Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan,and military bases around.. the world cost us BIG money and dishonor. We can no longer afford to be an empire, financially and morally. Let"s instead promote universal healh care, get the unemployrd back to work, prevent home foreclosure and regulate the banks to avoid their reckless ponzi activity.
Matsui;you vote for this and my vote is never again for you.Do the dems sound like repugs now that they We have have the majority.We must support OUR prez,disgusting.Tony
Oregoncharles
Call Doris Matsui! Now! Before it's too late. Is it already too late?
Things have really changed in D.C. Now we have the Democrats pressuring their members to vote for continuing another illegal invasion of a sovereign nation with the addition of a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS. Doesn't this sound like something the Republicans would be backing and the Democrats opposing? My, how times have changed. The two headed monster lets the talking heads change their scripts. Now the Repubs say no more war and the Dems say NUKE 'EM and while we're at it toss a few more billions to the banksters. Isn't it strange?
Are you all really surprised? Obama never spoke of peace, just a shuffling of pawns. Have you forgotten his voting for the Patriot Act, FISA, and the Military Commissions Act? Oh, and the bailout. People on the left are as misguided as the right. The so-called two party system is a ruse. It's like pro wrestling; some wear white hats, some black, and they take turns wearing the belt.
I agree with you Buck. Your point about it being like pro wrestling is good. I never thought of that as a comparsion before, but you know you are right. It is all fake. It is all staged and is not real. So it doesn't matter if we elect Democrats or Republicans.
I think our best hope for America is if people who hold some power were to actually switch to a third party and win seats. Bernie Sanders is third party and I really like him. If we could get someone who is Democrat to swtich to the Green party for example and win a seat in the Senate than it just might encourage and inspire others to not cave in to the pressure, but to stand and fight for what is best for this nation. I know I sound like pollyanna, but I still believe that their are people who hold political hopes that truly love this country and are unhappy with what our government has become with all the lies. They lie to get elected and then once elected they forget what they promised and continue these bad policies that they once spoke out about under the Bush Administration. Smoke and mirrors and very little truth left in government these days.
Bernie Sanders is one of the best. He hasn't succumbed to the nonsense that socialism is a dirty word. Imagine that! I'll never vote for a republicrat again, chosing Green or Socialist from here on out. Where is a Eugene Debbs when we need him?
And where is John L. Lewis when we need him?
To you and Buck I'd say they were turning over in their graves to see their Unions in bed with the Government and big business.
Thanks. I never heard of Lewis before. After a quick study, appreciated his effort, but getting higher wages isn't enough. The drain of people at the top, people who produce nothing, have to be taken off the books. Oil comes from the ground just as rain from above. Labor comes from the sweat of a brow. The people must control their enterprise in a community based effort with a global vision. Arms industries must go.
I actually couldn't remember his name and had to google "miners union founder" or something like that. Anyway I totally agree with your post.
Oregoncharles
One way to show them your disgust is to become a member of the Green Party. Greens have ballot lines in most states, they are set up to go! All we need is a massive numbers of fed up voters to join the movement. We want to run Greens against these traitors and money grubbers. We can do it with your help.
Too many malign the Greens for not being the well oiled machine that can win elections, but how does that happen without the money - so much of it having gone to Obama - and very little support from the voters. It takes We the People to make it happen, dedicated, savvy, progressive minded people to push ahead. After Nader's run in 2000, the propaganda machine ran over him like a Caterpillar tractor in the West Bank.
Can we keep our eyes on the prize or will we allow the propaganda machine to manipulate us ... again? It's up to you. If you and everyone else sits around and waits until the Greens are large enough and powerful enough to have influence, it won't happen. think about it.
I couldn't vote in the 2006 IL gubernatorial election, but I followed it. The problem with the green party, other than the dems sabotaging it, was that the candidate, Rich Whitney couldn't address pertinent state issues effectively - he sorta repeated the national party's platform, which was perceived as side steeping the issue or not possessing the intelligence/wisdom/pragmatism necessary to address them.
I got the same vibe from Cynthia McKinney, a deer-in-the-headlights idealist running among wolves. The green party needs candidates who are incredibly intelligent, battle-hardened-tough as nails, and very pragmatic, before anyone will consider giving them money and/or votes.
Once the yes vote is in the bag, the remaining dems will be allowed to vote no. See ... We tried!!
...and then the third party chorus chimes in "if only you'd voted third party like me! then we could both stand an the sidelines throwing rocks."
Look, your vote doesn't matter, who you pick doesn't matter. Jesus himself would be corrupted by that cesspool on the hill.
The only way to bring this monster down is to take it's money away.
that beast won't die quietly and it won't be an easy fight.
A fight that Mr. Obama just set back a few decades. But you are right, the third party sideline is just that. If we really want change, we're going to have to take the existing bull by the horns.
A third party IS change. Keep grabbing for the horns and you'll end up with a hand full of cow pies.
In Germany, to name one, they use a system that gets closer to balanced representation with multiple parties.
I guess I'd respectfully disagree, to a small extent. I will agree, we don't need a "third" party, but rather several more parties (IMHO). In most of the European countries, where parliamentary procedures are followed, no one or two parties can ever 'snooker' the public for long, because others are there to call attention to it in the press. Here in America, we praise the two party system where corporations control the elections, the elected and the "free" press. Money IS the problem. But as of now, the 'masters' only have to pay off a few of the influential members to keep the rest in line, (supposition), but with a multi-party system there would be too many to pay off. We were created to be a "republic" not a democracy. As of now today I believe we are neither. At best we are a plutocracy, heading towards fascism. People like Pelosi can thrive in this type environment.
Yes, multiple parties to represent the diverse population in a social democracy.
I call the current system a corporatocracy; a cold heartless quest for money void reason.
What a maroon.
He makes fun of those voting 3rd party because they "stand an (sic) the sidelines throwing rocks"
and then says, "Look, your vote doesn't matter."
Mr KiNG can't put two sentences together without contradicting himself. What a mush-head.
Vote third party.
Pelosi is another fukking warhawk. Get her out of there! Where's Cindy Sheehan?
Would somebody please put LSD in their water! Thanks!