"Democrats" In White House and Capitol Hill: Sneaking Torture Cover-Up, $100 Billion to a Failed IMF, More $ for Iraq and Afghanistan
Anti-constitutional and terribly wrong legislation like this, aided and abetted by Obama and Rahm Emanuel should be anathema to anyone claiming to be a member of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic leadership aka hypocritcal machinations in question concern the spending supplemental including funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, that contain no demand for an exit strategy from Afghanistan but $100 billion for the failed and flawed IMF (to give to European banks) that should be reformed not rewarded, and the sneaky inclusion, by voice vote in the Senate (thanks to Harry Reid), of an amendment sponsored by Lieberman and Graham, with Obama's support, that Glenn Greenwald explains "has no purpose other than to expressly allow the President to conceal evidence of war crimes (torture) and to block the Supreme Court from ruling (as two federal courts have already held) that the Freedom of Information Act compels disclosure of those photographs."
Two commentaries on the deceitful Democratic leadership in Congress and at the White House offer more information.
From Howie Klein at Down With Tyranny:
"On May 14 many of the best Democrats in the House voted against President Obama's supplemental budget for $97 billion to continue fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. A couple weeks later I met Donna Edwards-- one of the progressives who voted against it-- when she returned from a trip to Afghanistan to get a first-hand look. She mentioned in passing that she had been getting a great deal of pressure to change her vote...
"They don't have the votes. They pulled it from the schedule this morning while they go back and try to bribe and threaten enough Democrats into switching...
"Now they are focusing with laser-like attention on stalwart opponents of the build up in Afghanistan like Eric Massa (D-NY), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Jared Polis (D-CO), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Donna, of course... and the rest of the progressives who opposed the bill-- Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Maxine Waters (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), John Conyers (D-MI), etc.
"Here's a[n excerpt from a] letter from Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy that just went out this morning:
" ' The war supplemental expected to come before the House this week will have no exit strategy from Afghanistan, but it will have $100 billion for the International Monetary Fund to bail-out European banks-- money the IMF will use as leverage to impose economic austerity policies. Because of the inclusion of the IMF money, there is a real possibility the House could defeat the combined war/IMF supplemental, which would be a significant step towards ending the wars, as well as an important move towards reform of the IMF.'
"I called my congresswoman, Diane Watson, who voted against the supplemental, originally to see what she was thinking now. Her office said she's studying the Senate version and she'll decide over the weekend. I also called Eric Massa, since he served in the military for 24 years and has a better grasp on national security issues than almost anyone else in Congress. Eric doesn't need any time to make up his mind. He's thought a lot about this and he won't change his vote. 'I held George W. Bush accountable and I will not vote for any more Iraq war funding until we have a strategy in place and under way to bring our troops home. This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, it’s about our troops and I will not bend in this position.' "
And from Glenn Greenwald at Salon:
"When I wrote about this several days ago, the Senate had passed the Graham-Lieberman secrecy law as an amendment to the spending supplemental bill (which includes funding for Iraq and Afghanistan) without even bothering to take a formal roll call vote (on a voice vote). Although the House version of the supplemental bill did not contain this amendment, it was widely expected that it would simply be inserted in the House-Senate conference and then easily passed along with the final bill.
"But passage of Graham-Lieberman now appears much less certain because of what appears to be the refusal of some key liberal House Democrats -- including Barney Frank -- to support it. The votes of liberal House Democrats actually matter (for once) because most House Republicans are refusing to support the overall supplemental bill due to their objections to a provision for $5 billion in funding to increase the IMF's lending capacity. To pass the supplemental spending bill, House leaders need the votes of numerous House Democrats who are currently refusing to vote for anything that contains the photo suppression amendment. If Congressional Democrats succeed in blocking enactment of this amendment, that would be a critical assertion for the first time of Congressional checks on Obama's desired powers and would, independently, prevent a truly odious new secrecy power from being enacted.
"It would seem that Nancy Pelosi has a special obligation to ensure that the House bill does not include the Graham-Lieberman amendment. Despite her vocal support for a "Truth Commission" to investigate Bush crimes, she has been continuously accused of enabling the Bush administration's torture regime by helping to keep it a secret and doing nothing to impede it. If she ends up voting for the supplemental spending bill (as she will) which includes a provision allowing the indefinite suppression of photographic evidence of torture, that would certainly bolster those accusations. Having been briefed early on to some still-disputed extent on the Bush torture regime, does Pelosi now want to vote to vest the Pentagon with the unreviewable power to suppress evidence of torture even where FOIA compels its disclosure?
Comments