Speaker Pelosi's plan to ram $163B in Iraq occupation funding through the House Thursday hit a speed bump, and the vote will be next Wednesday at the earliest. 

Sadly, the objections came not from antiwar Democrats outraged by Pelosi's sellout, but instead from prowar BushDogs who are outraged at the idea of giving Iraq veterans who survive a decent education!

Vote on war funding delayed
Moderate Demos, GOP protest $195 billion measure
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Protests from moderate Democrats and a revolt by opposition Republicans prompted House Democratic leaders Wednesday night to delay a planned vote on a $195 billion measure to pay for the war in Iraq and provide education help to veterans as well as relief for the jobless.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promised to deal with the concerns of some of her more conservative members, who were upset that the war funding bill is carrying new benefit programs — especially a boost in GI education benefits — without paying for them with offsetting cuts to other programs...

Pelosi told reporters that the huge war funding bill would be changed to bring so-called Blue Dog Democrats on board. "Their concerns are very legitimate," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday. "They must be addressed."

So what will Pelosi do next to guarantee the passage of her occupation sellout? Will she screw returning veterans by eliminating the funds for GI education? Or will she screw other needy Americans by cutting other domestic programs to pay for it?

The profound cynicism of Pelosi's sellout is now plain as day:

Pelosi's plan is to advance the war funding bill in an unusual process where it is broken into three separate pieces for votes in the House and Senate: war funding, anti-war policy provisions and domestic funding.

The idea is to allow anti-war Democrats to vote against the war funding — which Republicans will provide the votes to pass — while still ensuring the money goes out to support troops overseas. Democrats get to vote for restrictions on the war, but the provisions would never make it through the Senate to face a veto.

As we have insisted repeatedly since Democrats took over Congress, bills that pretends to "restrict" or "end" the occupation are meaningless because Bush will either "signingstatement" or ignore them. The only vote that matters is cutting off the funds.

Tragically, many self-proclaimed "antiwar" leaders both inside and outside Congress are falling for the "timeline" charade. For example, TrueMajority is urging its members to make this call:

"I am calling to urge the Representative to bring the War in Iraq to an end. On the three amendments being considered in the House, I urge the Representative to vote NO on an amendment providing funding without a timeline, YES on the amendment with a timeline, troop readiness standards and oversight and YES on the final amendment including a new GI bill. It is time to bring our troops home."

Council for a Livable World has a similar message:

Please write your Representative and urge them to stop funding Bush's war, set a timetable to bring our troops home, and give our veterans the assistance they deserve.

By asking Representatives for three things, TrueMajority and CLW are just making it easy for Congress to screw us by giving us 2 out of 3: a meaningless timeline (that will be stripped by the Senate) and a new GI bill (that will now come at the expense of some other important domestic program, thanks to the BushDogs).

If TrueMajority and CLW really wants to end the war, they need to ignore the camouflage amendments and focus exclusively on the funds. That's what we're doing, along with UnitedForPeace and the American Friends Service Committee.

Meanwhile, where are the rest of the "antiwar" groups at this crucial moment?

• Moveon: playing silly Bush-McCain games
• WinWithoutWar: putting a meaningless plank in a meaningless Democratic platform to vaguely "end the war" without insisting on a cutoff of funds
• Americans Against Escalation in Iraq: silent since 2/25
• Peace Action: sending long letters to John Murtha

At this crucial moment, silence is betrayal. If you belong to one of these groups, tell them to ask all their members to call Congress today with a simple message: No More Funds For Iraq.

Update 1: While Pelosi is selling out liberal Democrats in the House, Reid is selling out liberal Democrats in the Senate by sabotaging Robert Byrd's attempt to add more domestic spending to the bill.

Byrd’s effort may prove to be nothing more than an exercise in regular appropriations procedure, because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has made it clear that he intends to bring the House bill to the floor.

Byrd then would need 60 votes to substitute his committee’s mark for the House bill, which seems unlikely.

This bill should be called MOAS: the Mother Of All Sellouts.