Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- Desmond Tutu Blasts US Drones: American or Not, All Victims Are Human
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- Around the World, A 'Billion Rise' to Fight Violence Against Women and Girls
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
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 AllSheehan tried to win but the voters of San Francisco f***ing blew it and gave Pelosi another term. I hope she runs again but I guess that's a long shot.
Your comment made me laugh! Cindy says it like it is too!
Pelosi is a traitor to her constituents in SF, but it seems like they really don't care. The thinking seems to be that one needs experience in power, greed and lying to be a big government politician.
We really do need the likes of Kucinich, Franken, McKinney, and Sheehan in there to shake up a corrupt political elite!
Have to agree about Pelosi, but I'd choose Ron Paul.... the major difference between the people you cite and those on the opposite end of the spectrum is that Dennis Kuchinich, a very fine and honest man I will add, believes that the people belong to the government and therefore it has dominion over them, while Ron Paul believes that the government belongs to the people, and THEY have dominion over it. Franken and McKinney are likewise advocates of the government having ownership over the people... don't know enough about Cindy Sheehan to comment on her overall views. Just my opinion.
I worked to get Cindy Sheehan on the ballot and contributed to her campaign. I was amazed and depressed by Pelosi's one-sided victory. In addition to mindless party-line voting there are issues of class and media access. A high % of SF voters are professionals -- people who are fundamentally not radical but instead supportive of ruling class priorities. Cindy Sheehan's working class. She's intellegent and informed and, unlike Pelosi, is motivated by a desire to do good, not a lust for power. She would have made a great congressperson. But I expect that many voters didn't think she was a serious candidate. Others had literally not heard of her thanks to a virtual blackout by the Chronicle and other media. Of course, Pelosi refused to debate.
What's amazing to me is the apathy of SF voters. Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" on the same day that the majority of SF voters voted to direct her to pursue it!!! And SF voters voted in 2004 that the US should withdraw from Iraq whereas Pelosi has consistently voted for war spending. Pelosi opposes single payer health care, which SF voters passed in 1994 and I bet still support. And she voted with the Republicans for NAFTA.
War, health care, economy -- these aren't marginal issues. These are key. Pelosi's votes and views are in line with the City's wealthy elite -- the denizens of Pacific Heights and Saint Francis Woods. SF's millionaires and billionaires have reason to be well-pleased with multi-millionaire Pelosi. But why anyone else votes for her is beyond me.
Oregoncharles
"She voted with Republicans for NAFTA"
Don't forget: It was Democrat Bill Clinton who twisted arms to get NAFTA passed. It was his legacy. That and killing heath care reform.
Ahhh, yes it WAS slick Willy who "signed" the NAFTA, but it was George Herbert Walker Bush who did the initial ground work to creat the NAFTA as part of his "New World Order". I, along with many others 'switched sides' during that election in order to STOP GHW Bush from signing the NAFTA agreement. Should have listened to Ralph Nader, he did try to warn us all way back then.
Oregoncharles
Not only did Clinton "sign it," he shoved it down our throats, made deals, twisted arms.
Wasn't it he and Newt who worked together to armtwist members of their parties into signing this? My father once told me that there were actually some Republicans who actually opposed it but were bribed and pressured into voting for it back when the party was a bit more diverse before they cloned one another. He hated NAFTA by the way and once Clinton won with it, he and my mother went back to being Republican and stayed there until last year. I'm not sure if I could ever convince them to go Independent by the way.
Nancy Pelosi shames her high office almost every time she opens her mouth. She defines "lightweight" The only thing larger than her intellectual and moral defecit is her arrogance.
You can be sure if she favors it, whatever it is is not in your or the countries best interest.
Thanks to the party loyalist voters in San Francisco who disrespected Cindy Sheehan and voted overwhelmingly to reelect Pelosi, this is the kind of shitty leadership we get ! I don't like sounding violent but after reading this article, I feel angrier at Pelosi than Bush that I feel like giving that witch a couple of black eyes !
Oregoncharles
I heard Rosanne Barr say recently that if she ever stood face to face with Nancy Pelosi she would "slap her in the face!"
Rosanne Barr is awesome and so cool to watch. I could imagine her body wrestling Pelosi so badly and I would just laugh until I wet myself. :)
It is hilariously ironic that the Democrats took both houses cleverly using a anti war call, but now offering an entirely new rhetoric against actually pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq with more obfuscations. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
What we need to look at is WHY Pelosi, along with the majority of our lawmakers, are supporting wars.
Why: If they oppose the war, their political careers are over
How: Mainstream media will destroy their public image
But why?: Because media fatcats invest heavily on war stock, and they support zionist expansion and control of key USA and world organizations.
Solution: Take back our media, redistribute broadcasting signals, establish the fairness doctrine, and insist on giving third party candidates equal time on OUR AIR WAVES.
Where to start:
1)Start a national coalition to
2)Block traffic at key corners of the biggest cities in the country...a handful of people per corner. When those get arrested, a few more come out.
3)The country will screetch to a halt without violence. Repeat this exercise until the government holds hearings on media redistribution.
4)Once we get our airwaves back, plaster them with images of our heroes in action at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other "black sites".
5)Present alternative candidates to the revulsed American people.
6) Win most major elections
7) Let there be peace!
And the fairies & unicorns will all hold hands together and sing the Internationale...!
It does seem the the two parties traded places, and nothing has changed.
Sitting in the mud throwing it at each other, makes me think I'm watching the soap "As the World Turns". A nightmare of mundane story lines repeated over and over to draw on your deepest emotions.
In the end they are all just actors!
Not actors - puppets
I'm less and less a fan of Pelosi as each day passes. BUT, is it possible the reason Obama/Pelosi/et al wants to stay in Afganistan has nothing to do with Afghanistan itself?
Several weeks ago Maddow had a retired general on who was very frank. He said our being in Afganistan has nothing to do with supporting the population, finding Bin Laden, etc. He said it has everything to do with Pakistans nukes, and the conflict, potentially nuclear, between Pakistan and India.
Thoughts?
I personally believe that to be correct. No hard fact to support it though.
Our remaining in Afghanistan has more to do with that country's location near massive energy resources than it does the weapons profiles of its neighbors.
Google "Afghanistan natural gas pipeline" and you'll get an idea of what I mean.
q
Good point. And maybe the two are related. If there's a massive conflict between Pakistan and India (and see headlines just today about their meeting at the Yekaterinburg sidelines) that would certainly have an effect on natural gas resources.
You could be right. Very hard to tell the way both administrations pitch it. A good case could be made for oil and gas as well as Nukes.
My opinion of the overall hasn't changed. We don't need any more 50 year old Americans in the reserve (or any age) getting killed there. Its not our country, they need to decide what to do, not us.
is there any oil in Pakistan? Would a pipeline be a possiblity?
Give me a break! No on War. FIGHT WAR!
Caspian what?
That makes sense actually, India is the US corporation cheap labour/lax regulation/low tax utopia. India is the US government's interest in the region, and they are becoming as bad as Israel in buying US politicians - Clinton(D, Bangalore)
Pakistan, possibly. Proximity to China and Russia more likely. Russia still wants to run a pipe line through Afghanistan to the Sea. They'd rather control the land area, but I'd venture a guess that they'd pay for a lease. Even with the Taliban, I think the Pakistani nukes are safe.... We'll know if they decide to assemble one.
I find the ironic juxtaposition of the author's last name to be quite delightful in an article about war funding. Yes, spelled differently but still . . .
RON PAUL was Right! Still IS Right - Where Have You Been?!
Obama is a Pawn - Pelosi is a pawn for Obama.
Not only do they want to continue these WARS of Imperialism - for the Power, the OIL & the Heroin in Afghanistan
But they Also want to give $5 BILLION of OUR Money to the IMF (International Monetary Fund)
This has got to STOP!!! Impeach Obama
Ron Paul for President in 2012 - Lets End these ILLEGAL Wars.
Lets bring back dignity and Prosperity to America.
And lets lead by Example, Not by BRUTE FORCE!
Say NO to More Funding for WAR!!!
Healthcare, NOT warfare!. Ask Pelosi if she will commit to 106 billion to subsidise health insurance payments for the unemployed. Watch her choke.
All my life (I'm 62) I've been hearing about how we are in this country or that country to protect raw materials, our industry, our exports, our imports, oil, etc. Tell me folks, why is it that when "we" are making war and congress needs money, then all sorts of strategic reasons appear as to why "we" need this? What has an Exxon or Chevron done to share its' profits with you lately (or EVER)? It's bullshit, folks.
Which is why the US is fascist. We keep hearing from conservatives to remove financial regulation, and let capitalism "do its stuff". However, "capitalism" in the US means trade with the support of the US military, and conservatives are the first to complain that we need to "protect" (at gunpoint) US interests abroad. This is fascism.
To Pelosi: If you want the war funded, take out the extraneous and heinous IMF amendment. Then perhaps the issue of supplemental funding of the war(s) can be specifically addressed. What we have here is like going to the pet store to buy a fish, and coming back with a piranha, and a rattlesnake.
FIGHT WAR
War On War!
W. O. W.
In a just world, Pelosi would already be facing jail time like the rest of the pols. Unfortunately, we have a world where stupid voters will gleefully reelect such backstabbers while giving Cindy Sheehan no chance just because she doesn't raise enough money or some other silly fear such as "she's too liberal". As others have also pointed out, those of you in San Francisco who voted to reelect Pelosi have yourselves to blame. Cindy Sheehan was your ticket to representation but you blew it yet again. If Matt Gonzolas were to run against Pelosi next year as a Green independent, I think I know who would win that race and it'll likely be another pathetic 70-30 just like last year.
My country SUCKS!
Really? What country is that?
I love my country. It's the government that irks me!
Is Pelosi likely to do a "Lieberman"?
Jeevee
Lie-berman. Very often, names represent destiny.
This is tragic and ILLEGAL.
Deepa
At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 5 the Russian president Medvedev called for China, Russia and India to “build an increasingly multipolar world order.”
What this means is: "We have reached our limit in subsidizing the United States’ military encirclement of the globe."
The artificially maintained unipolar system,” Mr. Medvedev spelled out, is based on “one big center of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks.” At the root of the global financial crisis, he concluded, is the fact that the United States makes too little and spends too much, particularly on its vast military around the world.
The US is seen as a lawless nation, financially as well as militarily. Otherwise how else to characterize a nation that proclaims a set of laws for others – on war, debt repayment and treatment of prisoners – but flouts them itself? The US is now the world’s largest debtor, yet has avoided the pain of "structural adjustments" imposed on other debtor nations.
US has been a BURDEN and THREAT to sovereign countries in the world. US politicians like Pelosi are used to "consuming" freely the labor of other countries. To promote and protect THIS SYSTEM they continue to fund wars, instead of funding schools, health care... which are basic to human life.
Rather than funding to enhance life, US overwhelmingly funds to destroy life.
Mind you, US politicians cannot do this without majority public support.
The Usual suspects are at it again and led by Pelosi neocon in neocon .
But its Rham Emanuel who has all the past experience of punishing Democrats who were non supporters of the Iraq "War".
Iran poses much more of a danger to Israel than to the US.
Perhaps if Israel had abided by UN Resolution 242 many years ago, the entire Middle East might be much, much more peaceful than it is today and we might not need to be worried about Islamic-inspired extremism, regardless of the source.
Little Israel has ALWAYS had the Military superiority in the Middle East to quickly defeat the combined Muslim countries and today has the 4th Strongest Military in the World.
Israel's policies harm the US and the World in general and must be heavily criticized.
They are not because Zionists/neocons get people to equate criticism of Israel as being the same as being upset with Jews.
i.e., anti-Semitism. Very different things.
Lets make the whole region Nuclear Free.
"while the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no."
So shouldn't the headline be?
"Obama and Pelosi Puts Pressure on Dems to OK War Funding"
Pelosi, Lieberman, and McCain. are not for,- we the people, or any political party, but for their own future agenda. All three should be given the boot. Not sure of which way Obama is going, but right now, he seems to be following Bush, to have control of the Middle East, put pressure on other countries to push the oil pipe line, from Alaska,--[ the reason they picked Palin]--via Russia, on though, the Middle East to Africa, with the US in charge. The reason for the wars, because the countries don't want the US to control them.
Pelosi the Tuna Queen was an enabler to Bush and Cheney about the illegal wars all along. Now she is an enabler to Obama. Find a rope for her also. Impeach the Bitch. Everyone know what she is.
Read it and weep:
House passes $106 billion war funding bill
By JIM ABRAMS – 23 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — War-funding legislation survived a fierce partisan battle in the House on Tuesday, a major step in providing commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan the money they would need for military operations in the coming months. [...]
Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama administration had to overcome an unusual alliance. Anti-war Democrats opposed continued war spending and Republicans condemned $5 billion in the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries. [...]
The vote was 226-202, with only five Republicans voting for the bill and 32 Democrats opposing it.
_____________________________________
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1DBB8JA46mzegcVniqdGeQYASwQD98S2BO00
· Yr Obd't Servant
That pretty well shows that there are only 32 Democrats in Congress that are worth a shit, and without seeing how they voted, I can pretty much be assured that Kucinich is one of them.
It was fierce I tell ya', the partisans were doing battle, there was a major and a commander and a major commander with a need for money. Oh how they pushed, and pushed, but alas,were ultimately overcome with spending and condemned to pay for a line of credit to help(gulp)the poor.
Dang, hands full of cow pies again.
Hmmm, Dems continue to fund the pointless wars started by Bush. Will Dem Party stalwarts suffer cognitive dissonance over this?
What does it mean to fund Obama's plan when it's more of the same illegal war business? If anyone is troubled by this waste of money and lives, please remember this moment. Don't continue to vote for a party that fucks you over.
-TIA
Woolsey's becoming my hero.
Why can't the Dem's throw Pelozi AND Single Payer health care onto the table, and name Woolsey the new Speaker of the House?