Pay Raise of $4,400 = $30 per Troop Death

The 2.5 % pay raise of $4,400 that Congress is accepting catches my ire because of two things. Last year, Dems said they would not accept a pay-raise until the minimum wage was increased--it was-- on the back of continuing the Iraq War (recall that the minimum wage hike was melded into the supplemental war bill).

So, instead of the Dems saying we will not accept a raise until we withdraw the troops from Iraq, they and their Republican counterparts are accepting the "automatic" pay hike. With about 160 troop deaths since the approval of the supplemetal, is it okay for Congress to get an extra $30 per death?

I don't think any legislator should feel good about accepting a raise since they have not done what many of us sent them there to do--to end this war.

Loebsack Votes Against War Supplemental--Supplemental Passes

Rep. Dave Loebsack was one of 140 Democrats (and one of three Iowa Representatives) and 2 Republicans that voted against the Iraq War Supplemental funding bill. To the 86 Dems (including John Murtha) that supported the supplemental, you should be ashamed.

In the Senate sadly both Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley voted for the supplemental bill. See T.M. Lindsey's Iowa Independent story for his comments on Harkin compared with my personal hero, Paul Wellstone.

Dave and Bruce Braley --my hat is off to you gentlemen.

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 2206 RECORDED VOTE 24-May-2007 6:45 PM
QUESTION: Concur in Senate Amendment with House Amendment No. 2
BILL TITLE: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	86	140		6
Republican	194	2		5
Independent
TOTALS	280	142		11

Patrick Leahy Says He Won't Vote for It

From an e-mail I received from Patrick Leahy's office

"Later today, the Senate is expected to vote on the 2007 Emergency Supplemental -- the Iraq War funding bill -- and I wanted to take a moment to explain to you why I will be voting against this flawed bill.

There is much that I support in this bill -- including assistance for Afghanistan and funding we added to help the National Guard address equipment shortages -- but it contains a serious flaw that I simply cannot vote for: It does not begin the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

The original supplemental bill that passed the Senate and was sent to President Bush's desk last month paralleled the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, recommendations that would have fundamentally changed the course of our military mission in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the President vetoed the original supplemental bill and has refused any meaningful compromise that would give us a clear path toward ending of our military involvement in Iraq.

This brings us to the current version of the supplemental bill. In short, the Iraq War funding provisions in this bill represent little more than a continuation of the failed status quo -- a continuation that I find unacceptable. The current bill will not begin to redeploy our troops from Iraq, it does not put adequate pressure on the Iraqis to stand up both politically and militarily, and it does not put a stop to President Bush's escalation plan.

While the legislation sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government to follow toward reconciling the country's various political factions, these benchmarks can be waived by the President at his discretion. These benchmarks are a move in the right direction but they are far from adequate.

As long as the Iraqi government believes American troops will always be there, they'll have little reason to make the tough choices that need to be made. And this supplemental bill does little to change this dynamic.

Our engagement in Iraq has been a foreign policy failure of epic proportions. Not only have thousands of Americans lost their lives, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have as well. Our standing in the world has been diminished, and our weakened influence in the region has compromised our ability to fight terrorism throughout the world.

Clearly, it is time to bring our troops home, and I am disappointed that President Bush vetoed the first bill that would have done just that. Since this new supplemental does not begin the withdrawal of our troops -- while providing tens of billions more dollars in taxpayer money for the President's failed policy -- I cannot in good conscience vote for it."

Full Court Press

From Yahoo news

Worried Congress' support for Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences.

The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential on the war debate. On Thursday, hours before the House voted to limit funds for the war, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators, including Sens. Harry Reid , D-Nev., John Warner, R-Va., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"He understands that American patience is waning," said Sen. Norm Coleman, after eating lunch with Saleh, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie and Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

Baghdad's ability to sell members like Coleman, R-Minn., and Chambliss, R-Ga., on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Coleman in recent months has become deeply skeptical of the president's decision to send additional troops to Iraq and says patience on the war in general is limited.

Chambliss and Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who met separately with Saleh, will be up for re-election next year — facing voters who have grown tired of a war in its fifth year and that has killed more than 3,380 troops. While Republicans have been reluctant to intervene, many say President Bush has until September to tell if the troop buildup in Iraq is working before they demand another approach.

With the clock ticking, Saleh — a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English — said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the "imperative of success" in Iraq.

"Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict" against terrorism, he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

His trip came on the heels of a visit by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with three other senior advisers, according to the Iraqi embassy. The New York Times first reported al-Rubaie's visit on Tuesday.

The timing of these meetings is no mistake. This month, Congress is expected to send Bush legislation that funds the war in Iraq but requires the Baghdad government meet certain political and security reforms. In question is what consequences the Iraqis should face if they fail. Democrats want U.S. troops to leave, Republicans say they don't want to force redeployments, but some say they would be open to withholding more than $5 billion in foreign aid.

The House voted 221-205 Thursday for a stronger measure that would fund the war only through July, giving Congress the option of cutting off money after that. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, although it indicates the war's unpopularity among members and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

The most recent irritant among U.S. lawmakers was a report that Iraqi officials would break for two months this summer.

"Our armed forces are up to 150,000 troops; we're over $600 billion appropriated for this, lost 3,300 lives, 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. ... And the Iraqi answer? We're taking a summer off. Goin' fishing," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Saleh said he expects the vacation to be shortened by at least a month, although nothing had been decided. He added that Iraqis value being independent and do "not take kindly of (U.S. officials) telling us when to recess."

Democrats seemed to consider these meetings with Iraqi officials as beneficial — if only to convey their frustration to Iraqi officials in person.

Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said the senator told Saleh that "U.S. patience, blood and treasure were not unlimited and that the Congress would be taking a more decisive role in the coming weeks and months."

"Salih understood the point, and said he would deliver the message to the Iraqi cabinet," Manley added.

Clinton, a Democratic presidential contender for 2008, "finds it useful to hear their descriptions of the current situation in Iraq and to use those opportunities to convey her feelings on the need to make greater political progress in Iraq," said spokesman Philippe Reines.

Coleman, who says he has known Saleh personally for years and considers him to be among the most capable leaders in Iraq, said Saleh knows time is running out and is conveying that message to his colleagues in Baghdad.

"That message has been delivered," he said. "The question is whether it's being acted upon."

Blue Dogs Breaking Ranks?

From AmericaBlog (Thanks Rapid Response)

BREAKING: Conservative Dems expected to vote with GOP to give Bush unfettered blank check on Iraq tomorrow by
("John Aravosis (DC)");
5/09/2007 10:04:00 PM

It's time to replace some conservative Democrats in Washington, DC. I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything. I.e., they will vote to continue this war along the same disastrous course because they're too afraid to challenge George Bush and his failed leadership.

Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves.Yes, while the Republican leaders of the House and Senate are publicly claiming that they won't give Bush a blank check, they're maneuvering behind the scenes to do just that. And while Republican members of Congress are supposedly laying down the law for Bush in private meetings, on the House floor they're going to give Bush everything he wants and needs to continue the war indefinitely.

If that happens, then we need to hang this war, and hang every lost life and every wasted dollar, around the neck of every Republican and conservative Democrat who betrays our troops and our country tomorrow.

Please call your member of Congress and raise unholy hell. Tell them that they'd better vote against giving Bush a blank check when the Iraq supplemental comes up for a vote tomorrow. You can call now and leave a message on their machines. You can find your rep via the House Web site, use the zip code box in the upper left hand corner to find your rep.