I’m lost. Against, right?

Now I’m baffled.

I thought Barney Frank had declared it wasn’t clear whether the bill would include BOTH the IMF provision AND the Lieberman amendment, and that he would only back it if it contained only the IMF provision.

Are you now saying it’s known that both are included, so we should oppose it? Or are you saying that we should oppose it even if only the IMF provision is included?

The important thing is that they strike down the Graham-Lieberman amendment, so just focus your efforts on that, and use the direct terminology.

I’m lost, too. Are we whipping v. Rahm’s whipping? Are we stepping on McCain/Lieberman’s poop donut?

Or are you calling on us to support the bill anyway? It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that would get tons of support.

Color me confused

Funding for Afghanistan war: bad idea
Funding for IMF: bad idea
Hiding the torture pictures: bad idea

There is nothing in this bill to vote for.

It looks like the Afghanistan war funding will pass no matter what.

The IMF funding will pass. Its $5 billion sop for liberals probably will pass.

Very unclear what will happen with the Lieberman FOIA amendment.

Okay I simplified it.

Just call people & tell them to vote against the bill. Hugh’s right — it’s bad all around.

The people on the list WANT to vote the right way, they need your support to stand up to leadership & Rahm.

Just to add to my previous post, I had thought that a likely outcome if the bill was not going to be supported with only the IMF provision (because of opposition from Republicans, and because too few Dems would support it) would be that it would be altered to a bill with only the Lieberman provision (because then Republicans would support it.)

If this is so, does it make sense for us to agitate against the bill with IMF? Are we willing to accept the likely defacto outcome of one with the Lieberman provision?

I can see the argument that doing so “heightens the contrasts”, but that’s always a tricky one.

Unless 39 people stand up, there is no leverage and the whole thing passes.

Funding to further the killing in Afghanistan is bad in and of itself, no need to wonder about the amendments.

Nice on ya Jane

I’m on it.

One key piece of calling is to help those congressmembers who have been opposed to yet another supplemental and voted against it – they need to hear from us that we are backing them and proud of what they are doing. Otherwise all they hear is Rahm’s pressure.

As Hugh said, all three pieces are bad – let them know we want them to keep fighting.

Just e-mailed my rep, Jackie Speier, and asked her to vote against. She voted against the supplement so I think she is inclined to vote against this. Hope so.

I don’t think this is very plausible. By all means press for it, but if we have to make sure something absolutely hits the chopping block we need to make sure the Graham-Lieberman amendment.

We’d be better off fighting a whole new Afghani war than vesting that kind of secrecy authority in the Executive. Making it anti-war doesn’t really send the message of being pro-civil-liberties on the issue embedded in this legislation.

Well if the entire thing means the supplemental with both the IMF provision AND the Lieberman provision, then it’s an easy call to oppose it.

If it’s just with the IMF provision, and the very likely consequence of pressuring progressive Dems to oppose it is that it is altered to one in which only the Lieberman provision is included to get Republican votes instead, then applying that pressure can be counterproductive if the overriding concern is to stop the Lieberman provision. (After all, we know the money for the war is going to be passed one way or another anyway).

But, for all that, I think you’re probably right that we should just look at the bill as it stands on its own merits, and support it or not based on that — and voting for funding the war is obviously objectional enough. Any further legislative consequences are really on the bloody hands of those who bring forth that legislation.

Not to mention the political cover available to democrats to say, “Why would we defund the war in Afghanistan? Obama campaigned on doubling down there, so that must be what the American people want us to allow him to do.”

Jane has a new post up and ready for our perusal: “Sorry, Cato: It’s Not Just Republicans That Refuse to Cut Defense Spending”

I just spoke with staffers at Danny Davis’s office and Jan Shakowsky’s (I’m a Davis constituent). When you call, you can ask to speak to the foreign policy staffer – this is a good idea since they will often tell you more and really discuss the positions with you.

Cong. Davis’s office is unsure how they will vote, Cong. Shakowsky’s office said she is absolutely opposed to the Graham/Lieberman, wants the IMF changed (see Water’s letter) and is as of now voting No on Supplemental but until they see the conference report and final language, they won’t know final votes.

Get on the phones folks – it’s so important to have them hear from us!

Rahm, Graham & Lieberman aligned to steal more of your money to give to the IMF and support the “war mongering for Israel” territory and resource acquisition strategy (a.k.a. Eretz), all in the same bill!

Can we tie a bow around it and call it Racketeering?

I’m getting funky responses… What bill? Which bill? What amendment? It’s helpful to be very specific.

As per Glenn and knowledgeable commenter EJ:

H.R. 2346
Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009

Maybe we can’t stop the whole bill from passing. I honestly don’t know. The responses I’m getting are largely non-committal (Even from Donna Edwards’ staffers! WTF?) But, maybe we can get the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 rider out of there.

Jane, it’d be really helpful if the bill number and amendment name could be included on the phone widgets page. (hint, hint)

To anyone calling members of Congress and who only to object to the Graham-Lieberman amendment:

The supplemental appropriations bill (HR 2346) contains 2 FOIA amendments. One of them is the “Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009.”

The other is the “Open FOIA Act of 2009, which was introduced by Leahy and Cornyn. That amendment is pro-transparency. See: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200903/031709c.html and http://www.aclu.org/natsec/foi…..90318.html

Don’t let the two FOIA amendments be confused.

Oops! Thanks, bystander!

The Lieberman amendment cobbled on to this makes it a bill of attainder in light of ongoing litigation. That’s prohibited by the Constitution.

Not that the undeclared wars this would fund are constitutional.

OK, thank you much! :] I am the Napoleon’s idiot of the Lake and happy to serve! I see Ms. Speier is on the list…

I also live in Speier’s district. here is what I read on her website:

AFGHANISTAN

The Al Qaeda terrorists who unleashed the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor were based in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The previous administration took its eye off the ball when they redeployed American troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. I believe that tragic mistake eroded the U.S. military’s key mission to – find and capture Osama Bin Laden and other senior members of Al Qaeda – and compromised the security of America and the entire world. We are now faced with a dramatically worsened situation in Afghanistan, and the ramping up of a war that is not winnable and is likely to drag on for years, requiring an ever increasing commitment of U.S. personnel and resources.

PENTAGON SPENDING

For years we have watched as Department of Defense spending has skyrocketed. Currently, it accounts for more than 60 percent of discretionary spending. Much of this growth is due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but exorbitant spending on programs of questionable value has further bloated military spending.

One example is the V-22 Osprey, an aircraft no closer to being battle-ready after nearly three decades of development. This, despite that it has cost more than $20 billion and has taken the lives of 30 crewmembers. Missile defense is another money pit that has yielded little benefit and has angered numerous foreign governments.

With a mounting fiscal crisis, we need to rein in defense spending and vastly expand diplomatic efforts to repair our badly damaged image abroad.

She’s a newbie, but I think she wants to hold the line v. vote for funding the status quo.

If Cindy Sheehan was in Congress, do you think you would have to beg and plead and wheedle and fax her staffers, beseeching her to do the right thing?

No, of course not. But ‘Accountability Now’ for example cannot bring itself to support someone who would be a vote you could count on in close roll calls like this one.

too bad.

good luck getting 39 (D)’s to do the right thing when the chips are down. you’re gonna need it.

Unfortunately, my loser Reps are all for it. And they’re DEMOCRATS!!! But they’re both newbies and probably scared to death of Rahm “the Enforcer” Emmanuael.

OK, clearly I’m a total noob. Just had an interesting conversation with someone at Woolsey’s office (started at the bottom of the list). In a nutshell, if you aren’t powerful or offering donations they won’t even listen to non-constituents. Is this a game you are only supposed to play if you live in these districts? You pretty much get one sentence out and they demand your address.

I had to leave messages for mine. One is a progressive , the other, not so sure anymore.
I just mentioned the Leibermannnnn amendment and the billions to IMF while we struggle without healthcare? WTF?