21 Dem Senators Follow Santorum Into War With Iran

Kossacks are rightly paying a lot of attention to what must surely qualify as the most critical issue of the moment: the march to war with Iran.  You're read how the Secretary of State is trying to bribe governments to use their airspace for an attack.  You've been pointed to Steve Clemons' warnings of imminent war.  And you've digested Juan Cole's passionate plea to rise up against this impending war.

What are the Democrats doing to stop this madness?

Many are rushing to join the insanity.  Last week, the House voted 297-21 (Correction: 397-21) in favor of the Iran Freedom Support Act that Dennis Kucinich describes as a "stepping stone to war."  But wait, you say, our heroes in the Senate, working with a few sane Republicans, won't allow us to fall into the same, step-by-step march to war took place in 2002-03.

Well, you'd be wrong.  Rick Santorum has introduced a similar version of the Orwellian named Iran Freedom Support Act in the Senate and its chances of passage look pretty good.

It has 58 (fifty-eight) (FIFTY-EIGHT) cosponsors.  Judging from the numbers, there must be a few Democrats on that list.  Here they are:

Akaka (HI)
Baucus (MT)
Bayh (IN)
Boxer (CA)
Cantwell (WA)
Conrad (ND)
Corzine (NJ) (Correction: name on the bill, man in the guv's mansion in NJ)
Dayton (MN)
Dorgan (ND)
Durbin (IL)
Feinstein (CA)
Johnson (SC)
Kohl (WI)
Landrieu (LA)
Levin (MI)
Lieberman (CT)
Lincoln (AR)
Mikulski (MD)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Stabenow (MI)

Congressman Ron Paul likened the House version of the IFSA to the Iraq Liberation Act that was used by the Bush administration as one of the justifications for the Iraq war (it appears as a "whereas" in the war resolution).  The neocons have used it repeatedly since to chastise Democrats who begin to voice opposition to that war.

If you find Juan Cole's passion justified as the signs become clearer and clearer that the Bush administration intends to go to war against Iran, then shouldn't you be asking these Democrats how they can cosponsor a bill that the Bush administration will surely use as one of its excuses for spraying gasoline on a fire they themselves first lit?  Democrats in Congress should be occupied with passing a joint resolution demanding the Bush administration pursue genuine diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement with Iran and forswearing the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances rather than supporting yet another piece of legislation that the Bush administration will use as cover for its war-mongering.

UPDATE:

For a deja vu experience, check out the section of the bill aimed at "promoting democracy," i.e. regime change.

SECOND UPDATE

Some commenters have asserted the bill in question is old and dead. Commenter drsmith131 has pointed to this press release about the current status of Santorum's bill:

Washington DC, April 28, 2006 -

The Senate continued debate on the $106.5 billion war and hurricane relief supplemental spending measure this week, as members attempted furiously to introduce and vote on dozens of amendments that were germane to neither the War on Terror nor hurricane recovery expenditures. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act (S. 333) as an amendment (#3640) to the supplemental, in order to circumvent the difficulties the bill is facing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Both Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) and the White House have reservations about the bill.

But the passing of the House version of the Act yesterday has given the senate bill renewed momentum. In the amendment to the supplemental, Santorum also called for an additional $25 million to the $75 million already included in the bill for Iran democracy promotion activities.

$12.5 million of the additional money would have to be given to political dissidents inside Iran, the amendment stipulates.

Furthermore, in contrast to the House version, the amendment calls for the appointment of “a special assistant to the President on matters relating to Iran.” Critics argue that this measure could take the Iran dossier away from the State Department and hand it to hard line officials close to the Vice President’s office.

The effort to attach S.333’s language to the supplemental is likely driven by the belief that Santorum has enough floor votes to guarantee the proposal’s passage using the supplemental as a vehicle for bypassing committee consideration.

•  Is there still time?

  by goinsouth on Wed May 03, 2006 at 05:33:27 AM PDT

  •  Time to actually read the bill?

    Yeah, and I suggest you do so, now that you've made the recommended list.

    by zenbowl on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:02:08 AM PDT

    •  Something's Missing from the Bill's Findings

      Title III, Sec 301 of the bill (already linked above, but you can find it here) ostensibly deals with the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to establish grounds for our calling for greater democracy in Iran.

      But of course the bill entirely omits the fact that the US destroyed Iranian democracy in 1953 by fomenting the coup against Mossadegh that reinstalled the Shah.

      U.S. lawmakers may be too ignorant to know this history -- or perhaps they simply think that the U.S. public neither knows nor cares -- but on the off chance that they actually give a rat's ass about the people of Iran, they really need to understand that Iranians don't forget 1953, and any U.S. actions toward Iran that do not take the measure of what we did then will be seen for the empty posturing and sabre-rattling that such moves tend to be.

      I am appalled, but not a bit surprised, that practically half the Democratic caucus is happy to begin travelling down the road to war in Iran.  Like so much else that Democrats have said and done over the last six fourteen years, this vote strongly suggests that, at least on war and peace issues, putting the Democrats in control of Congress will make little if any difference.

      by GreenSooner on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:28:34 AM PDT

      •  Enough with your Green agenda

        thanks for the history tip, but your conclusion appears motivated to depress the Democrats.

        Yes, the Democrats have been caught in no man's land since 9/11 and half of them made terribly misguided choice on IWR. But, IMO, that was the doing of a few culprits like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Please see.

        It our job to cleanse the party of people like Lieberman, and demand that the rest of the Dems uphold the progressive principles. Yes, it can work. Especially if challenge those we don't like in the primaries.

        Voting green will only give us Bushes and Cheneys as far as the eye can see.

        
        We need this man in the US Senate!
        
        

        1. Contribute to Lamont

        2. Sign the petition

        3. Volunteer.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:37:48 AM PDT

        •  Yo

          Spare us the Lamont spiel - -
          I like him, too.
          But, we'll already be at war by then.
          This issue is now and the Dems look pathetic.

          by johnnygunn on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:54:55 AM PDT

          •  The bill is over a year old

            First of all, Ned Lamont needs our help urgently. Hence I will be promoting him left, right and center in the coming days. Get used to it.

            I haven't read the bill myself yet, but I want the Dems to work out a sane front on this taking stock of things as they stand today (and possibly withdraw theig co-sponsorship on this bill).

            Please read my diary: My Fair Democrats, Time to wake up and lead on Iran on what I think the Dems should do and say. Let me add rescinding 2001 AUMF to what they should also do, IMO.

            Next, Feinstein said the following, which I linked above, but will now produce in its entirety.

            Confronting Iran

            April 15, 2006

            TEHRAN THIS WEEK claimed that it had enriched uranium, a first step toward nuclear weapons capability. The question now is whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or will it set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran?

            No one concerned about U.S. national security wants Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. It would be a destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world. That's exactly why we need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution.

            Instead, the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned.

            The doctrine of preemption, first articulated by President Bush at West Point in June 2002, was spelled out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy: "The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves."

            Just a few weeks ago, the doctrine was reiterated in the latest National Security Strategy. According to this document, the U.S. may use force before it is attacked because the nation cannot afford to "stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Yet it is the doctrine itself that is dangerous.

            First, it demands that our intelligence be right — every time. This is difficult, if not impossible, in the shadowy world of terrorism and WMD. As we've seen in Iraq, intelligence not only can be wrong, it can be manipulated. Our nation's credibility and stature have taken a huge hit as a result, and the U.S. is in no position to garner support in the international community for military confrontation based on preemption.

            Second, the doctrine of preemption may lead to a less stable world in general — especially if our adversaries believe they are safe from preemptive action only if they possess nuclear weapons. Iran has no doubt noted the difference in our dealings with North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which the administration believed was still developing them. So the administration may have encouraged the very proliferation it is seeking to prevent.

            Third, an overreliance on preemption can lead to the downplaying of diplomacy. By the administration's own account, Iran is years away from possessing nuclear weapons; there is time to engage in forceful diplomatic action.

            The dangers inherent in preemptive action are only multiplied by reports that the administration may be considering first use of tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons in Iran: Specifically, nuclear "bunker busters" to try to take out deeply buried targets.

            There are some in this administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons more "usable." They see nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional weapons. This is pure folly.

            As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East.

            This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.

            There is no question that in the post-9/11 era, a full range of policy options for dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my view, nuclear options cannot be considered as an extension of conventional options.

            So what steps should the United States be taking?

            The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.

            We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.

            At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

            The United States should learn the lesson of Iraq. It should not make the same mistake twice. There is broad agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community. Now is the time for tough diplomacy, joined by our allies, not a premature military confrontation that could include nuclear devastation.

            I haven't been a big Feinstein fan (in fact I twice called for a primary challenge to her), but this position by her makes sense to me.

            I recommend the readers to call their Members of Congress and:

            1. urge them to be pro-active in stating a sane and well-grounded position, perhaps along the lines of Feinstein's statement. You may want to see mention that Bush has zero credibility to wage another unforced war.

            2. Look to rescinding the 2001 Authorization to us Military force (AUMF) that Bush may try to use to circumvent the Congress. (Please see point (9) in this diary.

            3. please ask them to issue clearcut position statements

            4. if the member is a Democrat, please ask him/her to make visible media appearance to present the Democratic arppoch to this (otherwise the poll will show support for an attack, as I argued in the diary linked above).

            I am glad that the diarist brought the bill to our attention, but my prescription on the course of action is to push the Democrats (and even willing Republicans) towards doing the right thing.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:26:53 AM PDT

            •  I agree

              With replacing Lieberman -
              But I still don't think this diary is the best place to say it.
              I am sure that this Senate Bill will come up for a vote long before Lamont has a chance to get elected.

              by johnnygunn on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:33:46 AM PDT

              •  Actually,

                the Lamont item came in the flow of what I was saying, in that, there are excellent Democratic choices such as Lamont out there, which are more viable alternatives than going third party route at this point.

                What is the point in not helping Lamont when he needs it, and then pine and whine later.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:38:52 AM PDT

                •  I think that we can do both...

                  although I have serious doubts about the ultimate efficacy of either exercise after reading some posts here the last 2 days.  Yesterday, I saw that Reid is doing a full court press for JoeMentum even though Joe has yet to formally disavow an indy run.  Today, I see that a large # of Dems in both Houses (including a depressing # who have to know better) are beating the drums on Iran.

                  I didn't understand yesterday why Reid couldn't stay publicly neutral, or at least why he couldn't require JoeMentum to formally pledge to support the nominee as a quid pro quo.  Today, I don't understand why some of our party's best MOC's are supporting a measure that will assist the WH in any future efforts to gin up public support for an attack on Iran.

                  I really expected better on both counts.

                  by RFK Lives on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:29:02 AM PDT

            •  Feinstein sounds too wishy-washy there

              What's with all the "may"s?  Just say "will" when it's obvious what's going to happen!

              by RanDomino on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:30:44 AM PDT

              •  yes and no

                she has quite clearly ruled out using a nuclear threat as a bargaining tool: "First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable".

                next, she is strongly discouraging a preemptive attack, although not ruling it out. similarly, she is encouraging a multilateral approach to dealing with the situation.

                we need to remember that the iranian president is a provocateur in this story, and that they're proceeding with enriching uranium as we speak.

                One shouldn't treat that as a non-exitent threat. Some strong diplomacy is badly needed, but unfortunately, Bush is an even worse provocateur (and dumb as a door knob for all serious purposes), and has no diplomatic bone in his body (as some 2006 candidate recently said; Laesch i think).

                by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 01:21:06 PM PDT

        •  a few culprits?

          This is the same thing we saw in 2002.  And people said the same thing then about Iraq.  Funny I don;t see a "few culprits" in this list of CO-SPONSERS.
          Why looky theres Boxer.

          by Fernando Poo on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:27:32 AM PDT

          •  Please

            read my comment above and from another diary.

            22 Dem Senators and 100+ Dem Reps voted against the IWR in 2002. We need to make sure, using constructive and pro-active persuasion and arguments, to make that 44+1  Sens. and 201 Reps. this time around.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:35:14 AM PDT

          •  all in all,

            my point is that rants are fun and have their place, but solutions and pro-active actions tends to be more useful.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:50:26 AM PDT

            •  sorry for

              posting a third comment in response to yours, but this one is important. Yes, sometimes, a few bad apples do spoil the bushel. Lieberman's personal role in making the Iraq war happen can not be underestimated.

              by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:55:02 AM PDT

          •  would you do everybody a favor ...?

            Read the bill. All of it. Then come back and help us understand just what part of it causes you to feel threatened ...

            It's not parallel to the IWR ...

            No, I'm not ecstatic about the bill either, and am curious about the basis for some of the findings (esp. in light of the Plame/Brewster-Jennings exposure).

            by wystler on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:42:14 AM PDT

            •  Are you saying

              that you're thinking this might put some things in place to compensate for the losses from the outing of Plame and loss of Brewster-Jennings?  

              If this is a possibility, I'm a lot more willing to consider the benefits of this legislation.  I wish our representatives would communicate the benefits to us a bit better though.  All I heard from them is that Iran is a threat, regime change ... and other statements that tipped my deja vu meter.  (In the transcripts from the House debate, you can find them if you're interested.)

              Right now, I'm in agreement with Kucinich on this though.  He debated passionately against it last week, citing very similar concerns that are being stated in this comment thread.  But I'm all for hearing some more insight on this that might help me understand why Reps. and Senators who I normally trust are signing on for this.

              by joanneleon on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:43:55 AM PDT

              •  not really

                my (hidden) reference to VPlame and Brewster Jennings had to do with findings regarding Iran's nuclear program in the bill ... wouldn't much mind seeing the list of folks who'd testified before committee and some transcripts of testimony that led to the findings ...

                i'd definitely like to see the senate dems stand up and castigate the administration's reduction of the state department from foreign policy leadership to a role much more in line with that of an internal political spokesmodel (given Ms. Rice's biggest job - visiting the sunday gabfests) ... not that i'd expect it'd change anything at 1600 Pennsylvania, but it's way past time to call Rice and Powell mere pitchpersons who've had no impact in executing their purported portfolio ...

                by wystler on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:07:07 PM PDT

        •  Right! The (D) brand is more important

          than any war, looming catastrophe, or invitation to terrorism.

          And whatever you do, make sure Lieberman is the only Democrat held accountable in November.  We wouldn't want a hugely popular grass roots opposition to these incumbents - endorsed by Independents, former Republicans, and former Democrats - until after the election.

          The Dems' support for Chertoff and Brownie, the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, the Iraq war, the Iran war, etc. is totally different from the Republicans'.  

          Dems just support these things because they're afraid of looking weak, not because they really mean it.  Re-elect them!

          by Levity on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:34:34 PM PDT

          •  you make good points

            but the key is to field primary challenges to hold Dems accountable. once the primary deadlines are over, further bickering are protestation within the progressive camp only helps Karl Rove.

            if there were more primary challenges with viable and more progressive challengers than a current Dem (as is the case with lamont), i'd likely support them.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 01:01:04 PM PDT

            •  The Dems don't like primary challenges...

              Reid made that pretty clear yesterday.  Emmanuel made a similar point w/ Duckworth and Cegelis.  They want our $ and our support, but they want to retain decision-making authority.

              by RFK Lives on Wed May 03, 2006 at 01:50:09 PM PDT

              •  yes, in this round

                we couldn't field an organized front to field primary challenges and ward off the establishment guys from messing with the primaries. Lamont is our best chance of shaking things up within the party this time around.

                I think that the netroots played a key role in filling many uncontested races this time around.

                Next time, we'd need to be better organized. Hard, given the decentralized and atomic nature of the blogosphere, but perhaps not impossible.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 02:10:00 PM PDT

            •  So now opposing war in Iran is 'bickering'?

              Feinstein does a terrible job of representing me.  She's the one helping Karl Rove, weakening the party, stabbing progressives in the back while making us all dramatically less safe.

              The sooner she and everyone else knows that people like me have no intention of voting for her with this record, the sooner California's progressive majority will have a real candidate.  The branding is not the priority.

              by Levity on Wed May 03, 2006 at 02:56:26 PM PDT

              •  well said

                Very Naderist, indeed. Bravo!

                No. Opposing a war is not bickering, but then turning around and telling people to vote green party is.

                I vehemently oppose any and all unforced wars. Period. I wrote a diary to try and alert Democratic leadership into action.

                I am not a fan of Feinstein as I said above. But, I support her position statement.

                It's not the question of branding. It's the question of having the majority to affect the agenda.

                When the Dems have some majority (strictly speaking they need to control two of the three branches of house/senate/whitehouse, but even a house majority will be a good start), I will be rather aggressive in calling on them to stand by "progressive core priciples".

                Until then, I am sticking with Howard Dean, Al Gore, and other progressive minds in the democratic party, and propose primary challenges as the one and only way to make the party more progressive.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 03:09:36 PM PDT

                •  picture 40 Jim Jeffords and ask yourself

                  whether we'd be worse off.  Not only would our reps be voting their consciences instead of mostly agreeing to be "scared to look weak and scared", but every charge of partisanship and obstructionism would ring hollow.

                  Your model that every independent is a spoiler/Nader may be misleading you.  

                  Greens in the diet would be much healthier.

                  by Levity on Wed May 03, 2006 at 03:51:12 PM PDT

                  •  First off

                    Jeffords doesn't appear to be as progressive as you may be thinking. He only ranks ahead of Ben Nelson in progressive punch rankings (i know that they aren't the last word on "progressiveness", but they are a decent measure, IMO):

                    40  74.98 Carper, Thomas R. D DE  
                    41  74.68 Lincoln, Blanche L. D AR
                    42  74.50 Landrieu, Mary L. D LA
                    43  72.75 Baucus, Max D MT
                    44  57.90 Jeffords, James M. I VT
                    45  49.27 Nelson, E. Benjamin D NE
                    46  43.06 Chafee, Lincoln R RI

                    I am actually for inclusiveness, but i'd rather that Greens challenge the Democrats in the primaries, instead of trying to hijack them in the general election. In the current electoral system, we have no choice but to support the Democrats. Nader in 2000 has left a lasting hemmorrhage on everything that a progressive person wants to see happen (and yes, Nader cost Gore the election, although there were a few other big factors that contributed to what happened).

                    Yes, IRV is a possibility, but i'd support in only if the effort is done across the nation, and not just where Dems control the states. IRV itself has some legitimate problems, which I am researching into.

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 04:14:27 PM PDT

                    •  What's IRV?

                      Thanks for the Jeffords data.

                      I disagree that progressives' opportunities end in the primaries.  Did you know Strom Thurmond won his US Senate seat entirely with write-in votes?  And that was long before the web or even direct mail.  Progressives and cojones aren't mutually exclusive unless we say so.

                      I don't know what IRV is, but when polls say Congress's approval is in the low 20's - way lower than Bush's - I picture a 2007 Congress run by 500 unknowns who haven't already proven themselves incompetent and indifferent to their oaths.  Dare to speak the truth on this and a former Republican might even vote for you.

                      And yes, of course we'd replace far more Republicans than Democrats - no partisan playing field required.

                      by Levity on Wed May 03, 2006 at 04:56:47 PM PDT

                      •  IRV

                        is instant runoff voting.

                        Interesting points you make. I would love to see the playing field get larger, but the system has to in place to ensure that while we encourage diversity of points of veiw, we don't end up helping the Republicans take hold and run the show.

                        Since colonial times of the past to current neocon excursions into neo-colononialism, the one powerful tool at the disposal of fascist regimes has been "divide and conquer". My message is that we progressives not fall prey to that gambit. These are the origins of why I profess the notion of fighting it out in the primaries between ourselves, but uniting to defeat the Republicans in the general election.

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu May 04, 2006 at 07:01:59 AM PDT

                        •  Our threats and enemies aren't all Republican.

                          Yes, IRV would be great.
                          I appreciate your comments too.  And your long Feinstein quote.  DiFi said lots of smart things before concluding 'only we should be able to defend against pre-emptive attacks, not them'.  Her ever-frustrating self.  She means well, but she's protecting us about as well as she protected George Moscone.

                          Often the choice isn't progressives vs. Republicans as you make out.  In San Francisco, with 13% Republicans, if we oppose all the weak things Nancy Pelosi does - and try to get someone to lead and end the funding of the Iraq war and enable impeachment - we strengthen Democrats and progressives.

                          If we all made write-in votes for someone more courageous, we'd never Nader her, but she might wake up.

                          by Levity on Thu May 04, 2006 at 08:20:53 AM PDT

      •  At the behest of Britain.

        The only reason the CIA was involved there is because Britain just about begged us too after the nationalization of their fields.  Their pleas were ignored for years because Eisenhower wasn't interested in the plan.

        by RyoCokey on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:43:04 AM PDT

      •  Iran IS a democracy

        we just don't like who they elect.

        Now, it's not a totally open democracy, by any means. But it IS a democracy. They have elections, fair ones, and they have them regularly.

        We don't like the CANDIDATES, and WE don't like who they elect, but that doesn't mean it's not democracy.

        by mmacdDE on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:06:37 AM PDT

        •  They don't have fair elections.

          The extreme far right mullahs have final say over who can and can't appear on a ballot.

          For instance, they forbid women from running for office.

          by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:13:27 AM PDT

          •  Would you go to war...

            ...to improve the quality of their democracy?

            by goinsouth on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:14:47 AM PDT

            •  Nice strawman.

              I oppose the application of military force against Iran.

              But I also support the efforts of Iranian reformers to throw the mullahs out of power.

              by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:18:16 AM PDT

              •  I don't really think that's a strawman

                After all, the diary is exactly about this question ...  Iran Freedom Support Act (at the end of a gun).

                by yet another liberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:44:36 AM PDT

                •  The bill doesn't authorize, recommend, or even

                  discuss the use of force.

                  It is simply false to say that a vote for this bill is an endorsement of military action.

                  There are a lot of people here today who are putting a pro-war spin on this.  Not smart.

                  by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:00:23 AM PDT

                  •  What is the money for?

                    That's what I'm not clear on.  If there's no authorization for military involvement, why does this legislation have money attached to it?

                    by joanneleon on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:54:38 AM PDT

                    •  Non-violent political activism.

                      Something with which people are free to disagree (I have mixed feelings on whether we ought to be funding that kind of thing) but it's not a step to war anymore than marijuana is a gateway drug to heroin.

                      by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:58:54 AM PDT

                      •  Chalabi

                        How was Chalabi funded? One troubling aspect of this bill is:

                        Not later than 15 days before designating a democratic opposition organization as eligible to receive assistance under subsection (b), the President shall notify the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives of the proposed designation. The notification may be in classified form.

                        by drsmith131 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:06:30 AM PDT

                        •  I suspect that nothing about what

                          the Bush admin did with Chalabi was legal.  

                          As I said, there are problems with this kind of legislation.

                          But, it's not a stepping stone to war, regardless of what the Chicken Littles and White House are saying.

                          by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:09:28 AM PDT

                    •  death squads...

                      Wouldn't be surprised if the money were for death squads, just like Nicaragua. I could also bet Negroponte would be involved in this as well. I find it astounding that some here are playing devil's advocate just because some "Progressive" Democrats sponsored this. Santorum is no fool. He knows the wording of the IWR calling for military force... so this one is worded more subtly ( especially considering China's hold over our economy that they can use for leverage,) but that doesn't mean it is TRUTH. In my view this is just the way to get their foot in the door, and I'm tired of Democrats not being able to see this. I don't trust ANYTHING coming from Bush minions (and that's not reactionary, that's based on facts on the ground,) and Democrats in Congress would do well to oppose anything put forth by them. When are Democrats going to start LEADING on these issues instead of following? Where is their bill?

                      by Patriot for Al Gore on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:14:54 AM PDT

                      •  the bill ...

                        ... does not authorize money for military (militia, freedom-fighter, etc.) opposition to the government of Iran ...

                        not that I trust BushCo, but we really need to pay more attention to detail ...

                        no, i'm not happy with an approach that ramps up the rhetoric, which (imo) tends to have a negative impact on negotiated solutions and statesmanship in general ... i'd like to see an proposed amendment or three that suggests the sense of the Congress that chastizes the State Department for a lack of engagement ... (even tho such amendments would be doomed in committee)

                        by wystler on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:49:18 AM PDT

                        •  BILLIONS Wasted In Iraq

                          Was this authorized in any bill?

                          http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                          Where did that money go? Why are you defending these thugs? They WILL get what they want...And people who constantly look through blinders will continue to allow them to get it! Do you think they would actually SPELL THAT OUT in the bill? What more do these lying murdering bastards have to do to wake people the hell up? THEY LIE. And wouldn't forces that are "pro Democracy" (which really means pro Bush corporate crony) in Iraq EXACTLY be forces that oppose the government of Iran? Just who do you think they would employ to do the job? Quakers?

                          And FYI, they are already in Iran, as was reported already by a former General. I'll find that link and post it. Good Lord, this is about our future, and a war with Iran will most certainly fully open the Pandora's Box that was left ajar with Iraq. The people running this country are driven by ideology and nothing else, and nothing can be trusted in their hands. I simply cannot fathom some who treat this like a walk in the park after all we have seen since they stole the election in 2000! THEY LIE.
                          Now I know why they are still in power. How could we trust Democrats to impeach Bush when they can't even stand up this!?

                          by Patriot for Al Gore on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:11:07 AM PDT

                          •  Sorry, should have read, ' in Iran'

                            by Patriot for Al Gore on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:12:26 AM PDT

                            •  Sorry, it was a retired colonel./link

                              http://www.rawstory.com/...

                              by Patriot for Al Gore on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:18:38 AM PDT

                        •  It doesn't HAVE to authorize force...

                          As we know, these people make their own reality. Just as a use-of-force resolution against Al Qaeda brought us warrentless wiretapping (in was implicit, silly!), this bill could (as could anything with these people) be used to justify starting a war with Iran.

                          by methodishca on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:50:08 AM PDT

                  •  Oh, honestly

                    I'm not trying to get up your nose here. But you're either in favor of the US Congress wasting valuable time and energy to pass a meaningless, sounds-groovy-distraction, piece of political theater or you're in favor of some sort of interference in the domestic political affairs of Iran (which, incidentally, you would also have to support if Iran decided to do the same in the US).

                    Still sound good?

                    Either way you slice this it's a jerky move that is all too easily exploited by warmongering fools. This kind of fumbling assholery is a death sentence for any organic democratic movement in Iran. And, more importantly, it's most likely going to end up getting a lot of American troops and Iranians killed.

                    That's not smart.

                    by Kimberley on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:36:58 AM PDT

                    •  I'm not going to condemn Levin, Boxer et al

                      over a piece of showboat legislation.

                      If we go to war with Iran, it certainly won't be because of this bill.

                      by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:51:43 AM PDT

                      •  You can't even

                        bring yourself to condemn them for working on "showboat legislation" while America's present and future economic, social and security prospects become increasingly grim?

                        Then there's nothing you would condemn them for and, in that case, you should refrain from disdaining those that still have some expectations from our public servants.

                        by Kimberley on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:05:31 AM PDT

                        •  Oh get over yourself.

                          Really, that post is about as pompous and ignorantly self-righteous as any I've seen here in a while.

                          No, I'm not going to condemn Carl Levin because he allowed his name to be attached to a bill that I'm not a big fan of.  

                          No I'm not going to condemn Barbara Boxer because she co-sponsored a bill that is mere puffery.

                          It is simply foolish and juvenile to go around condemning progressives for voting for a piece of legislation that calls for non-violent sponsorship of democracy.

                          by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:12:45 PM PDT

                •  read the damned bill!!!

                  Iran Freedom Support Act (at the end of a gun).

                  attribution for your parenthetical please ... let's keep it within the structure of the proposed legislation, shall we?

                  by wystler on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:44:21 AM PDT

          •  And here

            our Mullahs of Pat Robertson and Dobson decide the same, lets invade the USA!

            by georgeNOTw on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:26:57 AM PDT

            •  I don't think you understand.

              In Iran, if the Mullahs disapprove of a person, that person isn't allowed to appear on any ballot for any office representing any party.

              by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:28:59 AM PDT

              •  So back when

                only white land-owners could vote, were we a democracy?

                by Opakapaka on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:36:58 AM PDT

                •  In my opinion, no. eom

                  by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:58:16 AM PDT

                  •  Your opinion contradicts

                    Tocqueville and most other historians I'm sure. And you have no problem with the fact that Israeli settlers in the Occupied territories can vote while the Palestinians in the same territories cannot?

                    by Opakapaka on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:15:46 AM PDT

                    •  I define democracy differently than they do.

                      There is no absolute and infallible definition of democracy.

                      As far as I/P is concerned, the fact that Israelis vote for the Israeli government and Palestinians vote for the Palestinian government doesn't bother me.

                      And that's about the only thing about that whole mess that doesn't bother me.

                      by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:49:53 AM PDT

                      •  aoeu

                        I just hope we don't come up with a definition of democracy that leads us to conclude that we and Israel are true democracies, while Iran is not. Obviously it isn't that simple. Obviously Iran is a flawed democracy--as we have been, and as Israel even now is (IMO). I think the settler issue is the root cause of so much trouble--to promote such a flawed government at the expense of its equally flawed neighbors is wrong.

                        by Opakapaka on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:13:11 AM PDT

                        •  Re: Israel/Palestine--

                          The US should either really solve that situation by leaning hard on both sides, or wash their hands of the whole situation by cutting off $$ aid to Israel.

                          by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:35:31 AM PDT

                      •  Maybe not but their is a common sense view

                        which goes along the lines of:
                        Everyone over a certain age is entitled to one vote which shall be of equal value to everyone elses vote.

                        You are playing semantic games and I think that you ought to declare your bias.

                        by stevej on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:20:47 AM PDT

                        •  So, Saddam's Iraq was a democracy under

                          your common sense view of democracy.

                          Sorry, the only bias is yours--towards ignorance.

                          by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:14:05 PM PDT

              •  but our threats of waging war against Iran

                Are only strengthening the mullahs.  That was the always the case ever since Bush's Axis of Evil bullshit.

                The neocons have been, and are continuing to empower the mullahs.  It is pointless to critique the mullahs when our own government is making the problem worse.  Intentionally, I highly suspect.

                by yet another liberal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:38:56 AM PDT

                •  I agree 100%, except that we should critique

                  both the Neocons and the Mullahs.

                  by Geekesque on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:58:48 AM PDT

                •  Yes, it strengthens the Mullahs

                  at minimum by solidifying Iranian nationalism and increasing hatred of the US and Israel.  Recall the sense of unity with all of our flags flying after 9/11, and how many of our political differences were diminished.  I can't see how our sabre rattling is going to bolster the progressive opposition in Iran against their leadership.  In fact, it is much more likely to have completely the opposite effect.  

                  And yes, I find very few people who have any knowledge of our prior interference in Iran and the roots of the 1979 revolution.  Unfortunately, our leadership seems to have the same absence of understanding that they have so resoundingly demonstrated in Iraq.  

                  by rlteiken on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:50:17 AM PDT

          •  False!

            For instance, they forbid women from running for office.

              This is false.  Women have been barred from the Presidential ballot -- but women can run for the Majles (Parliament) and there are women sitting in the Majles right now.

              When the Republicans are agitating for war with Iran, we don't need to give them ammunition by circulating false claims about the country.

            by WIds on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:42:39 AM PDT

            •  Argh, you beat me to it!

              This is indeed correct.  Women can and do run for parliament in Iran, although they may not be candidates for President.  There's about 90 women or so currently in the Majlis, and women have been able to run for and hold parliamentary seats since 1963.

              by shaggygoat on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:37:42 AM PDT

              •  I wish that were true

                There's about 90 women or so currently in the Majlis

                Would that were true.  In fact, there's only about a dozen out of 290 deputies who are women.  Your link goes to an article about Iraqi (not Iranian) elections.

                12 out of 290 is 4%, the equivalent of 4 Senators or 18 Representatives in our Congress.  The U.S. House didn't have 18 women as Representatives until 1962. The U.S. Senate didn't have 4 women as Senators until 1993.

                by WIds on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:48:51 PM PDT

                •  shoot

                  linked the wrong bloody page.  I had several pages up and was reading them sort of at the same time and mixed them up.  You are indeed correct.  My fault.

                  by shaggygoat on Thu May 04, 2006 at 08:53:04 AM PDT

        •  Democracy

          is not only having elections.  Having elections is the majority rule part.  But what differenciates democracies from tyrannies of majorities are full freedom and equal rights for minorities, women, and everyone, as well as Democratic institutions (that means no "Supreme Leader") with checks and balances that can sustain a system of lawmaking and justice.  Iran, by any stretch of the imagination, does not have that.

          We ought not be fooling ourselves into thinking that Iran is a free society or that all its leaders want is peace and love.  I don't think there is much of a dispute that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Now do we go to war to do that?  I don't think that will work.  We have to do the hard work of negotiations, use our financial power, and the United Nations to show Iran that their behavior is not acceptable.  This situation has to be resolved through diplomacy, not war.

          by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:24:53 AM PDT

          •  To the average citizen

            Iran is a free country just as much as the US is.  A Brit buddy of mine married an Iranian girl and was in Tehran last year and said the place and the people were great.

            They have mullahs calling the shots, we have corporations playing the same role.  If you think their election apparatus is flawed, take a look at ours, not exactly accessible to the average person due to financial discrimination.

            Democratic institutions (that means no "Supreme Leader") with checks and balances that can sustain a system of lawmaking and justice.

            and your saying we have these things, you're kidding, right?  They are a theocracy, we are a corporate oligarchy, neither is a democracy.

            by surferal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:49:23 AM PDT

            •  If you really

              think Iran is just as free as the US, try living there for a couple of years.  And not in Tehran.  Someplace more rural, where most of Iranian society lives.  Your Brit friend went there to visit, and visitors hardly are good judges of a broad society in a country.

              Granted that the US is falling behind in the democratic process and there are attacks on our democracy from corporatists, the religious wrong, you name it.  But we do have a system of checks and balances; it may be tarred, but it's not abolished.  And yes we do have a system of laws and justice.  Our system allows Stephen Colbert to stand 4 feet from the President of the United States and make him into a laughing stock in front of the whole nation.  You try that on the Iranian president, in front of the cameras that beams it into every Iranian living room, and you come out of Iran alive.  Then we can talk.  We have a system where people in neighborhoods can throw out Wal-Marts (watch the movie) using their power as citizens, even if the government wants it there.  We have the right to openly criticize our government (just like you are doing here), and we do it often and rightly within our borders.  Iranians can't.

              Of course our freedoms are in peril, and that's why we are rightly concerned and that's why we are speaking out.  We should not be under any false impression that our freedoms are under attack and are being shrunk.  We have to fight back against that.  But it is ridiculous to say that us and Iran are the same in this regard.

              by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:05:38 AM PDT

              •  People in Glass Houses

                ...shouldn't throw stones...

                We should get the fuck out of the middle east and worry about making things right here at home.

                People such as yourself are drinking the Kool-Aid and buying it the "Iran the menace" meme and putting out another strawman to distract from the real issues.  Are you enlisting so you can be over there to bring "freedom" to Iran?

                more rural, where most of Iranian society lives

                I wonder what the poor kid in Texas who got beat to death for being gay would think about the freedoms in rural America.  We do the same insane shit here that you worry about them doing over there.

                by surferal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:20:47 AM PDT

                •  People

                  shouldn't talk out of their asses.  I never said we have to go to war in Iran.  I am against that.  But promoting democracy through deplomatic channels and by encouraging people in their native countries to take power to self govern is the right thing to do.

                  And don't come talking to me about gay kids being beaten up.  I know it all too well.  I am gay.  What happens every day in our schools is a tremendous injustice.  It's wrong.  And we are encouraging young people to stand up, we are demanding that schools take steps to end the violence against gay kids.  But you know what the difference is?  The difference is that even in Texas, the guy who beat the gay kid to death, if caught will face life in prison or a death penalty, and in Iraq, if they find out you are gay, IT IS THE LAW to hang you.

                  Yes we have injustices.  Yes we have a long way to go.  But equating us with Iran is more than ridiculous.  And as I said before, it is a false choice.  It is not true that we have to choose between applying the principles of democracy and justice at home and advocating those principles abroad.  We can do both, and we MUST do both.  Democracy doesn't march at the barrel of a gun, but it marches with encouragements and examples.  Our job is to become an examplary democracy again, and to encourage other peoples to demand their freedoms.

                  The other tendency I can't stand is that somehow we progressives can't speak out against one injustice abroad if it is also occurring at home.  That is bullshit.  In fact, if you are against injustice and for freedom, you cannot pick and choose which country you apply those principles to.  We cannot back away from speaking out loudly against the crackdown of the democratic process in Russia simply because the PATRIOT Act is law in this country.

                  Again, if you truly believe that we are no more free here than they are in Iran, I laid out the tests to carry out.

                  by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:39:36 AM PDT

                  •  asdf

                    "I never said we have to go to war in Iran.  I am against that.  But promoting democracy through deplomatic channels and by encouraging people in their native countries to take power to self govern is the right thing to do."

                    Yes, but that's not what we do in Bush's America.  In Bush's America we topple regimes by force, and cozy up to precisely the least democratic ones.

                    Your philosophy is just fine--in a country in which "promoting democracy through diplomatic channels" is actually considered an option by the ruling elite.  But that ain't this country.  Not now.  Maybe in the future.  Something to work for.  And this resolution does not work toward that future; it enables the current ruling elite.

                    by corvo on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:04:14 PM PDT

                    •  Sorry, but

                      are you saying that since Bush is president, and he does wrong things every time, we are not allowed to do anything right just because Bush is anti-democratic?

                      Again, please wake up and realize that this resolution has nothing to do with Bush's intentions to go to war in Iran.  He could give two shits about whether Congress passes this or not.  He has already shown his willingness to break laws passed by Congress.  It's not as though if we did not pass a resolution encouraging Iranian democratic forces in and out, Bush and Rumsfeld are going to have to have a serious discussion on whether to go to war in Iran.

                      by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:10:58 PM PDT

                      •  actually,

                        it has everything to do with Bush's intention of going to war with Iran.  Of course he can do so without any kind of congressional approval.  But he and his kind score extra points by making them vote in favor of a resolution he can spin as support for "regime change" in Iran.  Then all he has to do is persuade people to believe that "regime change" requires force after all.  Sadly, predictably, this will require little persuasion.

                        by corvo on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:18:29 PM PDT

                        •  Well, I suppose you are right

                          But I am in favor of doing the right thing anyway, even if it can be "spun."

                          by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:24:03 PM PDT

                          •  Excellent recipe

                            for losing elections, and standing helplessly by while the next war is planned and executed.

                            by corvo on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:33:22 PM PDT

                            •  Blah

                              here are the facts:

                              1. This resolution has enough support to pass and it will.

                              2. We are going to have an election in November.

                              We'll see then if this turns out to be a recipe for losing elections.  I'm uninclined to discuss electoral political manuevers, I'm not qualified enough to do that.  Maybe you are.

                              by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:48:46 PM PDT

                              •  And here's another dandy little fact:

                                We're going to have a war in Iran which everyone will "know" the Democrats largely supported.

                                My qualifications for discussion electoral political maneuvers?  Limited, but apparently no worse than yours.

                                by corvo on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:52:00 PM PDT

                                •  oh, and I forgot:

                                  Most folks will still vote to elect their incumbents, according to the most recent Gallup Poll.

                                  by corvo on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:52:46 PM PDT

                  •  Three Words

                    Lead By Example

                    by surferal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:45:55 PM PDT

                  •  hmmmm....

                    But equating us with Iran is more than ridiculous.

                    Get out of the country much?  

                    You might find that the world frowns on us and Iraq equally.  I think they frown on us more because the world expects more from us based on our past when we led by example.  

                    It takes little critical thinking to find the differences, but consider the similiarities.  They have public stonings, we have lethal injection, they say it's against the law to be gay, we have pending legislation that puts us on a similiar course (no gay marriages, what next?  And don't some states have anti-sodomy laws).  Goverment with religious deference (Harriet Meyer's denomination, anyone?)

                    A true patriot doesn't chant "America Uber Alles"

                    by surferal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:52:41 PM PDT

                    •  Pardon my laugh

                      Get out of the country much?

                      I have been in this country for 8 years.  Before that I grew up out of this country.  In a country called India, the world's largest democracy and geographically closer to Iran.  I have known from childhood what kind of crap goes on in Iran and other theocracies

                      How many times do I have to say that America isn't perfect and we have moved in the wrong direction in the past few years for you to get that that's what I really believe?  What I am saying is while we advocate to set the course right at home, we cannot stay away from advocating the same abroad.

                      by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 01:49:32 PM PDT

                      •  OK...I think I understand now

                        let me rephrase:

                        This current administration running our foreign policy has neither the right nor the ability to make any suggestions as to how other countries should run

                        Ok, is that better? while I'm sure Iran could be a better place, our ham handed methods are not going to make that happen.

                        I wonder why I don't hear you asking for us to get involved in Pakistan, too?  They have a horrid human rights record on par with Iran, successful nuclear ambitions, etc...

                        by surferal on Wed May 03, 2006 at 02:17:26 PM PDT

                        •  Pakistan

                          You don't hear me asking us to get involved in Pakistan here because we weren't discusiing Pakistan, we were discussing Iran.  Other than that, yes, I am in complete agreement with you that Pakistan has a horrible human rights record, no stable institutions (they have gained and lost electoral system 3 times in 60 years since independance), and a military dictator president.  Am I for a similar resolution against Pakistan? YOU BETCHA!

                          by deaniac83 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 02:37:53 PM PDT

          •  "dispute that Iran cannot be allowed..."

            to have nuclear weapons?

            True enough, but IMHO, that's mainly because most people are thinking inside a box built by the neocons and finished by the MSM that trumpeted the "danger" of Saddam Hussein and his imaginary WMDs. At worst, Iran is several years away from the ability to build nuclear weapons and would have to do some very obvious things (like buy several thousand gas centrifuges, or scale up their laser chem-based enrichment capabilities) to speed that time up. So regardless of whether you think that Iran is any more dangerous with nukes than Bush is, WHAT IS THE RUSH?

            Let's extend this question. What would Iran do with nukes if they got them? Attack Israel? Israel has its own nukes and probably can turn Iran into a place that will glow in the dark for the next generation without US help. Give WMDs to terrorists? Another quick road to national suicide, and probably the only way to persuade the Western world that we're better off without Iraq than otherwise. Would you argue this?

            I'm making the assumption that the people who run Iraq prefer to stay alive, regardless of public rhetoric, and I know of nothing they've done which would contradict this.

            So what's left? What happens when Bush finds himself in a situation where the other side has nukes? He negotiates because even he isn't insane enough to try to start a nuclear war. Ask the North Koreans.

            While I am not pleased that Bush has changed the world situation to the point where any responsible head of state of a country with major oil reserves regardless of political alignmnents either has nuclear weapons or should be trying to get some, this is supposed to be a reality-based forum.

            I would not argue that Iran has full democracy in any Western understanding of the world, but this is their problem.

            Remember what happened last time Bush decided to impose democracy by force of arms on a nation?

            Dianne Feinstein aside, we as Democrats are supposed to be capable of learning from experience.

            by alizard on Wed May 03, 2006 at 05:34:32 PM PDT

    •  Indeed...

      I just read it. I don't see a "war" part. It even talks about removing existing sanctions if their WMD system is dismantled (No way in hell that would happen). It's a do-nothing bill other than that it approves sending National Endownment for Democracy cash to dissident groups (which, gasp gasp, I don't disagree with).

      Iran gets a bad rap especially compared to other countries out there. However, it ain't a picnic over there, and unlike Iraq there actually is a noticeable movement away from the current system of government - students like this government as much as they liked the Shah in the 1970s. Tacit support of actual (as in, no more Chalabis) dissident groups isn't the worst thing in the world.

      by falsified on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:52:14 AM PDT

    •  Democrats who voted for the House version

      The list of "traitorous" House Democrats who voted for HR 282 "To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran".

      Abercrombie
      Ackerman
      Allen
      Andrews
      Baca
      Baird
      Barrow
      Bean
      Becerra
      Berkley
      Berman
      Berry
      Bishop (GA)
      Bishop (NY)
      Boren
      Boswell
      Boucher
      Brady (PA)
      Brown (OH)
      Brown, Corrine
      Butterfield
      Capps
      Capuano
      Cardin
      Cardoza
      Carnahan
      Carson
      Case
      Chandler
      Clay
      Cleaver
      Clyburn
      Conyers
      Cooper
      Costa
      Costello
      Cramer
      Crowley
      Cuellar
      Cummings
      Davis (AL)
      Davis (CA)
      Davis (FL)
      Davis (IL)
      Davis (TN)
      DeGette
      Delahunt
      DeLauro
      Dicks
      Dingell
      Doggett
      Doyle
      Edwards
      Emanuel
      Engel
      Eshoo
      Etheridge
      Farr
      Fattah
      Filner
      Ford
      Frank (MA)
      Gonzalez
      Gordon
      Green, Al
      Green, Gene
      Grijalva
      Gutierrez
      Harman
      Herseth
      Higgins
      Hinchey
      Hinojosa
      Holden
      Holt
      Honda
      Hooley
      Hoyer
      Inslee
      Israel

      Jackson (IL)

      Jackson-Lee (TX)
      Jefferson
      Johnson, E. B.
      Jones (OH)
      Kanjorski
      Kaptur

      Kennedy (RI)

      Kildee
      Kilpatrick (MI)
      Kind
      Langevin
      Lantos
      Larsen (WA)
      Larson (CT)
      Lee
      Levin
      Lewis (GA)
      Lipinski

      Lofgren, Zoe

      Lowey
      Lynch
      Maloney
      Markey
      Marshall
      Matheson
      Matsui
      McCarthy
      McCollum (MN)
      McIntyre
      McNulty
      Meehan
      Meek (FL)
      Meeks (NY)
      Melancon
      Michaud
      Miller (NC)
      Miller, George
      Mollohan
      Moore (KS)
      Moran (VA)
      Murtha
      Nadler
      Napolitano
      Neal (MA)
      Ortiz
      Owens
      Pallone
      Pascrell
      Pastor
      Payne
      Pelosi
      Peterson (MN)
      Pomeroy
      Price (NC)
      Rangel
      Reyes
      Ross
      Rothman
      Roybal-Allard
      Ruppersberger
      Rush
      Ryan (OH)
      Sabo
      Salazar
      Sánchez, Linda T.
      Sanchez, Loretta
      Schakowsky
      Schiff
      Schwartz (PA)
      Scott (GA)
      Scott (VA)
      Serrano
      Sherman
      Skelton
      Slaughter
      Smith (WA)
      Solis
      Spratt
      Strickland
      Stupak
      Tanner
      Tauscher
      Thompson (CA)
      Thompson (MS)
      Tierney
      Towns
      Udall (CO)
      Udall (NM)
      Van Hollen
      Velázquez
      Visclosky
      Wasserman Schultz
      Waters
      Watson
      Watt
      Waxman
      Weiner
      Wexler
      Woolsey
      Wu
      Wynn

      Oh noes! The DLC even got to Barbara "Only no vote on Afghanistan invasion" Lee!

      But I suppose it's easier to post an ill-informed diatribe (or lie) instead of reading the fraking bill.

      I know I know. The Bush administration will do what they want, right? In that case, you might as well bash Democrats for supporting this other "