Is Our Peace Activists Learning?
By David Swanson
Over the past two months of repeated Congressional votes to fund the occupation of Iraq, culminating in President Bush's signing the bill on Friday, what – if anything – have we learned? Have we learned anything about individuals or political parties or activist organizations to trust or despise, or have we learned better what to demand of them regardless of such emotions? Have we learned anything about policies to support, battles to lose, pyrrhic victories, or how to talk about ending the occupation?
A clear and growing majority of Americans wants to end the occupation. Yet many people are opposed to defunding it. So, not enough of us have learned that you cannot end this occupation without defunding it. And far too few of us fully understand that ultimately we'll need impeachment before the occupation actually ends.
Because we don't grasp the need for impeachment, we focus on asking Congress to oppose the war but ignore Congress' failure to investigate the lies that launched the war (and we call it a "war," giving credence to the notion that it is something that can be won or lost). http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/22933 Because we haven't faced up to a choice between continuing the occupation and defunding it, we allow Congress Members to make anti-occupation gestures and then fund the occupation, not in order to prolong the occupation and fund its profiteers, but "for the troops."
As long as we allow the pretense to continue that wars are fought on behalf of the young men and women sent to fight them, we will never see a serious effort on the part of the Democratic leadership in Congress to end the occupation of Iraq. One thing many people have gradually come to realize is that we have not seen such an effort yet, only pretenses of it. Certainly, some who now disapprove of what the Congress just passed still think they were right to support what it was doing two months ago, and it's less important to return to that debate than to get our act together from here on out. But we are more likely to make wise decisions in the future if we learn the right lessons from our mistakes. So, a quick review may be in order.
Two months ago, peace activists were pushing hard for the House to allow a vote on an amendment by Barbara Lee to end the war. Numerous activist groups sided with Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership and opposed the Lee amendment in favor of a supplemental spending bill to end the war. The push back from principled peace activists against the supplemental was muted by concerns that if the Lee amendment passed, then the supplemental would be a good thing.
On March 22nd, the Democrats decided not to allow a vote on the Lee Amendment. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/20355 So the debate became clearly one for funding the occupation or not funding the occupation, but there was only one day to lobby before the vote, and numerous groups were pushing the idea that the bill was the best we could get and actually took serious steps to end the occupation of Iraq.
This flew in the face of the simple fact that no bill at all would have been better than this one, not to mention that the bill promoted the theft of Iraq's oil, failed to use the power of the purse to end the war, and allowed Bush to "waive" other measures he might not like. The Democratic leaders themselves didn't pretend this was a bill to end the war, so much as a bill to move the war to Afghanistan. But the media lapped up the astroturf-roots talk about peace and standing strong against to Bush. Here's a video of Rep. Lynn Woolsey opposing the bill in a debate with Bob Borosage who promotes it as the best antiwar bill possible: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/20356
But even Woolsey, and Congresswomen Waters and Lee, played along with the game. They planned to vote No, but promised Pelosi they would not ask any other members to follow them. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/20370 Only Congressman Dennis Kucinich pledged to vote No and urged his colleagues to join him. Peace activists demanded that standard from other members http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/20376 and an unfortunate split developed between those taking such a strong position for peace and those activist groups following Pelosi's lead – a split that may be healing as the Democrats' position has worsened ever so slightly over the past two months.
But this history lesson could begin much earlier. Pelosi's plan for her first 100 hours as speaker didn't even mention Iraq. She pledged that defunding the occupation and impeaching the warmakers were both "off the table." Democratic Party-led activist groups take her "off the table" pledge seriously on impeachment, but pretend the one on the funding of the "war" never happened. This is an advantage because it means more people lobby her to end the war. But it's a disadvantage if we're insufficiently skeptical about what she's doing.
Pelosi used every dirty trick imaginable to badger Congress Members into voting for this spending bill, including threatening to take away chairmanships and to back primary challengers and deny election support. On March 23rd, the House passed the supplemental. http://afterdowningstreet.org/heroes The corporate media and the groups following Pelosi called this a vote against a war, not a vote to continue funding an occupation. This made the position of peace activists almost incomprehensible, because we opposed the Republicans who voted no in opposition to the little bells and whistles and nonbinding deadlines, we opposed the two Republicans who voted yes to fund the occupation, we opposed the bulk of the Democrats who voted yes to fund the occupation, and we praised the eight Democrats and two Republicans who voted No for the right reasons. The media was completely incapable of telling this story, but Congress Members and the leaders of activist groups heard it quite clearly from constituents.
By March 27th, the Democratic leadership had announced its willingness to compromise with Bush and weaken further the weak bill that had just been voted on. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/20532 But activists' eyes were moving to the Senate … and devising a new way to get distracted. We focused on urging Senators to pass Jim Webb's amendment to discourage an attack on Iran http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/20502 We failed to focus strongly on opposition to the money that could fund an attack on Iran, money that is now in Bush's pocket. On March 29th, the Senate passed the supplemental and did not even vote on an Iran amendment. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/20655 Again, the media called this a vote against the "war."
On April 25th and 26th the House and Senate passed a compromise version supplemental, which had been watered down further from what both the House and Senate had originally passed. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/21833 And on May 1st Bush vetoed the bill.
Now, here's where things get really weird. Even though the bill funded the occupation, required stealing the oil, permitted an attack on Iran, and contained nothing useful with any teeth in it, the story line had been spread so effectively that this was a good bill, that even the peace groups that had opposed its passage supported protesting its veto. And of course the veto was objectionable. Bush opposed the tiny impositions in the bill on his dictatorial power. But once you've protested the vetoing of a bill to fund an occupation of someone else's country, you pretty well have got yourself stuck promoting a new bill to do the same. And you can either back a bill with the same or greater likelihood of being vetoed, or you can back one less likely to meet that fate. And there can be no question which route the Democratic leadership will take. So, the question becomes whether you are yet ready to break with them, even if – as it turns out – they break with themselves and oppose their own bill after they support it.
But there was an important act left in this drama before we reached that deus ex machina. On May 7th the progressive Democrats in the House cut a deal with the leadership. They would be permitted to vote on a good bill to end the occupation (which the leadership would not whip for and which would fail), and in exchange they would turn around an hour later and vote to fund the occupation with an even weaker bill than last time. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/22239
The new supplemental did not contain even a hint of a deadline to end the war, and for most of the month of May almost no one noticed or remarked on this state of affairs. Media coverage by May 8th had completely dropped any mention of the absence of a deadline in the bill. The focus was all on "benchmarks" and how many months of the occupation would be funded at a time. It was as if the presence of even a nonbinding deadline in the vetoed bill had been completely eradicated from history and memory, even though that deadline had been Bush's primary professed reason for vetoing the bill. The story now was of the Democrats getting tough and standing up to Bush with "benchmarks" even though this meant sending him exactly what he wanted, a bill with no deadline, and even though he supported all of the "benchmarks." http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/22284
So, what did peace groups and other activist groups do? They promoted Yes votes on Jim McGovern's bill to end the occupation, and almost completely ignored the vote coming an hour later on funding additional months of "war". So, on May 10th, a huge number of Democrats (169) voted for McGovern, and then all but 10 of them turned around and voted to fund the war. And then we thanked them. They had played us like a fiddle. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/22334
The Senate was far less slick. It didn't hold its votes an hour apart, but separated them by two weeks. On May 16th, the Senate voted down an amendment by Russ Feingold to end the occupation. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/22540 The vote for the money was still to come, and who had voted right on Feingold would be forgotten by then.
Meanwhile, something quite unusual and dramatic happened. By May 23rd, Congress Members Pelosi and David Obey had turned against their own bill. They were going to make sure it came up for a vote and passed, but they were going to vote against it. http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/22817 Once this happened, Pelosi-following activist groups, too, turned against the bill. And the absence of a deadline in the bill reemerged in the media with a vengeance. Now everyone suddenly noticed that the bill no longer had any sort of, even nonbinding, deadline in it. This was a bill for endless war. The "benchmarks" were forgotten. The short-term funding talk was forgotten. And people were even beginning to see through the game.
While Pelosi was "opposing" the bill, she was also beginning to take heat from all sides for having brought the bill up for a vote and assured its passage. She voted No, but she did not whip, cajole, threaten, or bribe her colleagues to join her against the occupation as she had done to get them to join her for it. During the debate on the floor prior to the vote, Pelosi, Obey, and others made clear that they wanted the bill to pass and considered it necessary "for the troops." Obey remarked on the floor:
"I hate this agreement. I'm going to vote against the major portion of this agreement even though I negotiated it."
Then he went on to defend his record of "funding the troops" and blamed Bush's veto for preventing money from getting to the troops. There was no chance Obey would let this bill be voted down.
No one mentioned that not a single troop gets a single dollar because the occupation continues, or that the Congressional Research Service said in April that the occupation was already funded through July, or that polls of troops in Iraq last year found that a strong majority wanted to end the occupation last year, or that most of the money goes to occupation-profiteers.
Republicans attacked Obey for voting against his own bill. Nobody criticized him for introducing it in the first place. But activists and the media were waking up to the game. http://afterdowningstreet.org/whip And Bush's statement after signing the bill containing his own "benchmarks" the next day was along the lines of "I was born and raised in this here briar patch." http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/22944
From the left to the center, everyone got this one right as soon as it was too late. Pelosi had joined the Republicans to put a Republican bill on the floor, had allowed right-wing Democrats to assure its passage, and then had pretended to rejoin the Democrats in voting against it. Reactions ranged from planning for the next vote, to a demand for protests and phone calls, to a plan to recruit primary challengers against the most pro-war Democrats http://www.democrats.com/primary-2008 , to a demand that all peace-loving souls reject the entire Democratic Party and either back the Green Party or (if you don't care about poor people or think that right now keeping people alive has got to take precedence) support the Ron Paul Republicans.
There's only one Democrat in Congress with a completely clean record through this process: Dennis Kucinich. He argued against invading Iraq prior to the 2003 vote that authorized it. He published his case against it and helped persuade many of his colleagues to vote No. Kucinich challenged the legality of the war in court in an effort to prevent it. He proposed a detailed plan to end the occupation of Iraq over three years ago. His current plan is found in his bill HR 1234.
Kucinich is the only Democrat who has voted against every new funding bill for the occupation and always urged his colleagues to vote against the occupation as well. He was one of only seven who voted against the Rule to bring the latest Supplemental to a vote.
Kucinich is the only member who has repeatedly raised the topic of oil theft in the Democratic Caucus' meetings. And after Obey screamed as him for it and defamed him in the media, Kucinich obtained 60 minutes on the floor of the House to speak to the topic. (A result that seems sadly unlikely to convince Obey to stop screaming at people.)
Now, in March when Pelosi was threatening to not support or to challenge incumbent Democrats in the next election if they wouldn't back her occupation spending bill, nobody called her a traitor or drummed her out of the Democratic Party. But on Friday I had to take a leave from my part-time consulting to Kucinich's presidential campaign, because the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which has hated Kucinich for decades, began complaining that in my other job I was promoting challengers to pro-occupation Democrats. I told the reporter, Sabrina Eaton, and she refused to print, that I believed contested primaries were healthy for any party, and that participation in them was a pro-Democratic Party position at a moment when a lot of people were fed up and quitting the party in protest.
But Eaton operates under the common delusion that participation and challenges in primaries must be stifled so as not to nominate candidates too far from the middle to win general elections. That is to say, this is her rule for Democrats, not necessarily Republicans. And she compounds this with the false position, which is almost a matter of definition, that peace cannot be a centrist position.
But I favor peace candidates in primaries in every party, including Democratic, Republican, Green, and any other. And I favor a strong Green challenge to the Democrats for the same reason I favor strong primary challengers to Democrats, to influence the Congress now. To the amazement and frustration of some Green partisans I have not learned from the past two months or the past few decades that the entire Democratic Party is an evil plot that must be purely opposed. While Kucinich may be the best Democrat, others are relatively great, good, and mediocre. I'm not trying to identify roll models. I'm trying to end a war and reestablish the rule of law.
And to the amazement of many Democratic real politikers I do not accept that promoting Greens is a dangerous temptation that will only give us more Republicans. I've seen virtually nothing over the past five months of Democratic rule that was superior to what we had under the Republicans. A few embarrassing hearings, but no enforcement of subpoenas, no impeachment. A partial correction to the minimum wage, but no end to the steady march of corporate trade deals. A hell of a lot of rhetoric, but no end to the occupation of Iraq, in fact no end in sight, and no resistance to attacking Iran. Ron Paul has done more for peace than Pelosi. And if we don't make clear to pro-occupation, pro-Cheney-immunity Democrats that we will vote Green or Republican or stay home, then we should never bother leaving our homes.
I do hope that some people have learned not to be loyal to the leadership of any party when it requires setting aside their own views or those of the people they represent. I was never loyal to Pelosi and Reid, but I have learned more in recent weeks about the depths they will sink to. Politics for politicians is all about friendships and loyalties. For activists it is not, and if Kucinich supports a pro-war candidate for president I will not support him in that. But I will urge everyone now to do the one thing most likely to influence Congress toward peace: fund Kucinich's presidential campaign.
The optimistic view of this story is, I think, as follows. We have finally had a vote for money in which a Yes vote was understood to be a Yes vote, and a No vote was understood to be a No vote, and 140 Congress Members and 14 Senators voted No, rejecting the absurd Orwellian dictum on "funding the troops." More and more activists and other Americans understand that story. More and more people are willing to demand of Congress what we know is possible rather than what they tell us is possible. And we know that Congress can, if it chooses, bring up a bill right after Memorial Day break to ban any future spending on the occupation of Iraq beyond September, require the withdrawal of all troops, mercenaries, and contractors by that date, turn Iraq's territory, oil, bases, and our world's largest "embassy" over to the Iraqi people, and make it a felony for Bush to violate these terms.
We have a duty to learn not to compromise until we need to, to ask up front for what we really want, to treat every member of Congress as if they work for us rather than the reverse, to stop calling an occupation a war, and to insist that the only harm done to US troops is done by those who fail to bring them home.
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
- Spotlight this page
www.VelvetRevolution.us
REPEAT- NANCY PELOSI'S JUNKET
Robert E. Fisher, MSW
JUNKET TO GREENLAND
Submitted by bigfish2003 on Sat, 2007-05-26 16:06.
Robert E. Fisher, MSW
Nancy Pelosi and other Members of Congress are off on a junket to Greenland, and Europe over the Memorial Day Weekend. Could this be to avoid going home, where they would be met at their homes by Code Pink, and the followers of Cindy Sheehan???
rbrtfis@aol.com
» edit
"Avoid Going Home"
What percentage of Dems and Repubs will offer themselves to the public at "town meetings" during this nine-day Memorial Day weekend?
Wouldn't these stats be great to know for the purpose of letters to the editor?
Does anyone here know who attempts to monitor this type of responsible behavior by MOCs?
Who needs them!?
Revoke their citizenship, and leave them overseas.
They don't like American freedoms and values, anyway.
Thank you for this!
David Swanson's heartfelt statement above is both a palliative and a call to arms.
I will be donating to Ron Paul's campaign as well as Dennis Kucinich's. For now, there are no other choices. (Gravel fails on the "impeach" test.)
thanks david for the analysis of this whole funding sellout
David,
Thank you for putting together this analysis of the "funding to continue the Iraq occupation" sellout by the Dems. You obviously put some work into the above analysis for which I'm sure many of us readers will be grateful and appreciate. I hope that you are able to take a break and have a little time with your family over the remainder of the weekend.
Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel suggested a couple-few weeks ago something similar to your idea of having Congress pass legislation to ban any future spending on the occupation of Iraq. Like you, I think that perhaps that's what we should be pushing for now, and begin pushing for right away. Perhaps it can be a bi-partisan piece of legislation introduced by Kucinich, others from the Out of Iraq Caucus, and Ron Paul, along with maybe Walter Jones of NC ? Couldn't similar legislation be introduced in the Senate ? Perhaps one or more of the Republicans concerned about their jobs for 2008, such as Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, and Chuck Hagel would join up with Feingold or whomever on the Dem side and introduce such legislation ?
The legislation should be specific to the cutoff of funding and not have other distractions tied to it. If someone wants to raise the minimum wage, then introduce a separate piece of legislation for that ... right ? As for the legislation being bi-partisan, I would hope that it would put bringing the troops home and stopping the U.S. led and fed bloodbath in Iraq before party politics and electoral politics.
We also need to remind people that Cheney and his PNAC crew's lying to start the war on Iraq (of course, include Bush the Liar in Chief with them) is an impeachable offense of the highest order and that our 535 "employees" in Congress have a Constitutional duty to carry out impeachment proceedings once the offenses have been brought to their attention and we the people (their employers) have called for them to act on it.
I have torn up my voter registration card and will not be re-registering as a Democrat. I will most likely be supporting Republican Dr. Ron Paul, but I also want to support Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Both of them say what they mean and mean what they say, as evidenced by their votes, legislations they've introduced, etc. and both will work quickly to end the madness in Iraq and restore our civil liberties here at home. Perhaps at some point we can have some kind of forum with both of them on the panel ? I have a feeling we all would be greatly encouraged by the numbers of people from both the Republican and the Democratic parties who would leave their respective party leaderships and mainstreams behind to come together on our common concerns and values being talked about and fought for by both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Perhaps we could somehow even get Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and former Geneal Motors CEO Lee Iacocca to join the panel in discussing "leadership", "accountablility", "patriotism", etc.
I look forward to your comments and those from others regarding the above. Thanks again, David, for all of your hard work and committment.
Sincerely,
Phil Restino
Daytona Beach, FL
ph: (386) 255-7441
email: RestinoP@aol.com
Will Republicans Win in 2008?
Agreed that both major parties are in many respects two sides of the same coin, particularly in foreign policy. And also agreed that there are many small parties and candidates with slim support that more closely reflect the best interests of most Americans on an objective basis.
Foreign policy aside, on balance, Democratic politicians do seem more everyman-friendly than the usual suspects on the Republican side.
However, I can't forget the uncomfortable truth that we Americans have a peculiar record of voting against our own best interests that extends back for generations. We seem to be, collectively, strangely immune to obvious facts and extremely susceptible to specious argumentation and transparent deceptions. For me, that argues against the chances for any non-mainstream candidate or party to prevail regardless of its logic and quality.
Republican political operatives, such as Karl Rove, seem to have mastered this dynamic.
Whether or not Republican expertise will allow them to reverse their current dim prospects in time for the 2008 elections may be an open question but, it's still an open question.
Among their usual machinations, one logical Republican tactic would be to promote ostensibly liberal splinter groups surreptitiously in order to fragment Democratic electoral efforts.
To answer my own question, a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential election is not a remote possibility, particularly in the presence of spoiler candidates. The victory of a third-party candidate is such a slim possibility that I can't see any utility in wasting efforts on it, unless one wishes to split the Democratic vote.
It's still a ways to the '08 elections,...
...if they even happen, but if they do, I'm going to hang onto that part of Honest Abe's thought about not being able to 'fool all the people, all the time'.
If Dennis is not in the picture for the Democrats in '08, I'm going Green right up and down the ticket. If enough other people want to keep holding their noses and keep doing what they've been doing, then we're going to get what we've been getting, but I'm betting on a change. I think enough people have had enough.
R Ap
I also think enough folks have HAD ENOUGH
R Ap, so many more folks than we hear about have frickin' HAD IT. My 88 year old father, formerly a lifelong Repub, living in frickin' Normal, Illinois, JUST VOTED IN THE POLL TO IMPEACH CHENEY!
The times, they ARE a'changin'!!
Blessed be.
yes i'm for
making it a felony to stay in iraq - not that it isn't an international crime, a treaty violation, and an assault on the constitution already - as well as defunding the thing -- but these are all just stalling maneuvers leading up to impeachment and then peace
Kucinich and Paul
Though their governing philosophies may be classically different, they both end up on the same page as the only two that can be depended on for restoration of American integrity, liberty, and peace, starting of course with accountability.
What we are facing, however, may be something requiring far more than elections. We are already at the point where politics is not listening to the People, effectively "non-responsive", and has become a corrupted center-piece in the greed-grab-all hierarchy which is currently freezing out alternative ideas and momentum.
Progressives need to choose two or three central, universally accepted points that will result in REAL CHANGE. Though I can't pretend to know for sure which points would ultimately be agreed to, or the wording, the following is what I would start with:
1. "OPEN GOVERNMENT" is the belief that our Constitutional Government is owned by the People, and that Federal, State and Local Governmental enterprise must become Transparent and that All employees, plans, assets and deeds ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE and must always remain "PUBLIC".
Nearly 100% of anti-progressive, anti-science, abuses of power, false-flags/Black-ops, insider-corrupted dealings, international/multinational domestic interferences are conducted under the "black and other withheld/obscured budgets", "immunities", "national-securities", "executive privileges", "pending investigations", and all subscribe to the ludicrous notion that the People cannot handle the truth. This is patently false, and is the same argument that "Royal Monarchies" made trying to deter the Founders from forming the US Constitution in the first place. Every real danger to Free People, including but not limited to, National Security, Criminal Investigations, International Relations, etc., would dramatically improve in the "Light of Day", as did "freedom" under Constitutional Government.
2. VOTE HOLIDAY is the notion that We the People celebrate our triumph of the People's will over the tyranny of the past in all its corruptible forms/mechanisms. This is a National Day of solidarity which esteems the serious nature of "Representative Government" by allocating the time to have a day, to think, to talk, to research who will be voted for, in elections whose ballots are transparently counted by hand at least twice. There will be no paid soliciting of the People's votes on this day, this day will be word to word, person to person, voting and celebrating the Right.
3. LIBERTY is the concept "that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". What any person does with/to his/her own self, that does not infringe on other persons' Liberty cannot be forbidden by any law or governing body. A renewed understanding of respect of the Mutual Liberties we Guarantee in this nation, will dispose of approximately two-thirds of the incarcerated masses, perhaps better than two-thirds of laws on the books, and place Judges, Juries, and Police actions into their rightful place of "Keepers of the Peace".
Suggestions welcome...
ixoxi
OR Laserlike,
To have INSISTED upon IMPEACHMENT AND FILIBUSTERING the Supplemental.
The CONSTITUTION PARTY
David,
With respect I must take issue with much of what you write above, starting firstly with its title, suggesting (at least to me) that you think peace activists - even if you self-identify as one - are stupid. We have heard more than sufficient "blame the victim" of late; I want now to disabuse you of some of these same type of media lies which you appear now to be buying into.
Hopefully I will at the same time answer the (many) questions you asked.
And all the while I will give you, Dennis and Ron my advice. You ready? Here we go:
1) With respect you are in denial and skirting the issue when you urge folks "…not to be loyal to the leadership (italics added) of any party when it requires setting aside their own views …".
David, the fact is, politics is politics - for everybody - and if your party leadership betrays you then your party has betrayed you, pure and simple.
One can't oppose Reid and Pelosi's deceitful support of something as important as Armed Aggression and Theft (call it what you will) and yet continue to endorse the Democratic Party - any more than you could have "opposed" Hitler while remaining a Loyal Nazi.
The parrallel is not nearly as far-fetched as you think, either.
People are not "quitting the (Democratic) party in protest"; they're quitting because we were betrayed by the Democratic Party - Big Time!
Similarly, the Media was not "completely incapable" of exposing the Democrats' charade, but completely unwilling to do so. There's a big difference; the difference between ignorance, which can be cured, and duplicity, which must be prosecuted.
You (and others) are now mentioning George Orwell's 1984. Remember, in that story, the false "resistance leader" - O'Brien? Winston and Julia ran to him - he actively solicited their obedience - and then he betrayed and turned them over to the authorities; turned out O'Brien was working with the fascists all along!
Remember now? Sound familiar? Welcome to the Democratic Party of Amerika, 2007!
If Kucinich and Paul are for real, they will leave these thoroughly corrupt parties and run on a third - Green or whatever (it really doesn't matter) - paltform; ideally they would join together to do it.
Call it the "Constitution Party".
Because this isn't about partisan politics.
2) Which brings us to your apparent (and new) wavering on what this is really about. After Downing Street. Remember now? What was it that made all this killing any different after Downing Street; different than if Iraq had posessed WMDs? The LAW, that's what!
International Law and - vastly more importantly - the Constitution of the United States of America! Reasserting the Constitution - enforcing the law - is our only tool and our only hope for peace, democracy, justice - the whole enchilada!
Sorry, but - as desperately as Peace is needed (yesterday) - this must be first and foremost about upholding the Constitution - otherwise there will be no peace. Ever.
On the other hand, as you yourself have so cogently argued, David, impeachment - directly and deliberately authorized by the Constitution itself (!) - is a powerful means to attain these ends: Peace, Justice and to restore Democracy.
3) "Means" vs "ends" - the importance of this distinction cannot be overstated. You seem dangerously close, David, to swallowing the societal - and especially media-hyped - lie that only the ends are important; that this is "real Politik". But there are other terms for such tendencies; putting the ends before the means: we call it "opportunist", "exploitive", "unprincipled", "amoral" - and corrupt.
Such as the Democratic Party's deceit and betrayal of an entire nation - and continued support for the oppression of another (like I say, call it whatever you want) - just in order to achieve the goal of getting elected in 2008!
Just as your "activist groups (siding) with Pelosi and the Democratic leadership", "Democratic Party-led activist groups" and "Pelosi-following activist groups" betrayed their own membership, and principles.
The irony being, of course, that it was just this opportunistic abandonment of principle which left them vulnerable to ones even less scrupulous; who forced these "pragmatists" to hang themselves - to actually vote for continued funding for aggression - using their own legislative rope!
Because they forgot that the point was not to prevail against Bush but to de-fund his war. Which they could have done simply by letting his veto stand as-was. (BTW, precisely as I advised we should, a month ago!)
No, the ends can never - EVER - justifiy the means; that is exactly what got us into all this bullshit in the first place. It is solely and exactly the means on which we must remain focused - and committed. And those means - that method - is to defend the Constitution; our means is impeachment.
We don't need to "learn" this - we already knew it; what we need is never to forget it!
And I don't care a hoot in hell about making the "right", completely impotent, gestures or establishing a "good record" - any more than there is any use to all this "non-binding legislative" bullshit - all the while the world is going to hell about our heads!
I'll vote for and support Kucinich when he goes Green - or to any other third party - hopefully with Paul by his side. Or when either one of them gets impeachment proceedings actually moving in Congress. And not before - nor for any Democrat or Republican - absent that.
And I urge any American who really wants this world to see Peace and Democracy restored to join me in doing the same.
Think about that - as you contemplate all the American blood (not to mention that of all the others') which has been spilled over the years - on Memorial Day.
Cheers,
-Matty
(In Florida, where we've already been fooled once.)
We need a new, balanced, sane, responsive party
Matty: a lot of good thoughts there. Thanks for sharing them. I'll kick in Dos Centavos, myself.
What I'd most like to see is an abandonment of the current two-party stranglehold on America. Consider this: what if there were some way to get those who are too frustrated to vote, in the past, to show up in record numbers? Everyone seems to assume that certain voters are just lost to the process, forever, because they won't bother voting. But why? Why are they not voting? Because the choices we're given all SUCK! What they did in the past does not have to remain true, now. If we give them a new hope -- for sanity, empathy and strength mixed with openness and accountability -- they may just push both of the current "All Bad, All The Time" sh*t aside. (I'm reminded of the beginning of the movie "Enemy at the Gates" -- where the choices given Russian troops, who had no weapons to fight with, was to run up and face the well-armed German army; or to turn and run away from them ... into the machine guns of Russian leaders.)
What if Dennis Kucinich resigned from the Democratic party; Ron Paul resigned from the Republican party; and other politicians joined them, to form something like a "New Balance" party -- something with, perhaps, a theme of "Constitution, Conscience and Accountability"?
Personally, I have a fair number of good friends who are totally my political opposite. We recognize each other's right to hold opinions and attitudes that differ from each other. And I'm curious to hear the views of those who think "off the menu," as well. The bottomline for folks like us is a reasonable degree of empathy and intelligence; but mostly, it's a refusal to live in a self-imposed fantasy world. We reject a lot of the obvious bullsh*t that is clearly not true. In rejecting the herd instinct, and thinking for ourselves, we're alike.
I urge voters of all parties, who disagree with their leadership, to abandon that party. Become a "decline to state" Independent, if such an option is available in your state: something akin to "no party".
There are many Republicans fed up with the current GOP.
There are many Democrats fed up with the current Shadow GOP party.
There are many who are fed up with Business As Usual, All The Time.
There are many who simply don't vote, who would vote frequently, if "None of the Above" was on every ballot with people running for office. Because our voting choices suck, many people do not vote. (If I was ever president, my first act would be to hold the whole voting process all over again ... but with None of the Above on all ballots. And if NotA won, then let anarchy reign. Can't be worse than today!?)
Kucinich and Paul ought to quit their parties; band together; and form a new party. They're unwanted where they are, as it is. Abandon any party that doesn't believe as you believe; and wait, if necessary, to be able to join one that matches you well.
As for accepting the only choices we are given, and picking the Least Worst candidates -- or those who claim they are the least worst; but who will turn out, upon being sworn in, to be Business As Usual -- why should we accept this? Bush and the Thugs in power keep saying we have been attacked from without, because those outside our borders hate our freedoms. What freedoms?! ... if we can't actually CHOOSE?!
Remember: "Insanity can be defined as doing the same things, over and over, while expecting a different result."
It's time for a new party.
Don't wait for it to happen; force it to happen! Resign from the Status Quo.
We must learn that persistant resistance pays off
Thank you David for writing this! You very accurately layout what's wrong with the Dems, and although I am a a proud Green I think there's still some room to push them in the correct direction with some increased people power. I invite those who can -- come to Washington and join us in the Swarm on Congress (www.grassrootsamerica4us.org).
Also, I believe the Occupation Project has shown that nonviolent civil resistance works! If anything, we'll probably need more of it. But here's some interesting numbers from the Occupation Project (www.vcnv.org):
Out of the 39 members of Congress (Reps and Sens) targeted by the Occupation Project which resulted in arrests, 15 voted no this year on the supplemental funding. That was compared to only 1 who voted no in 2006. So, for this year only 22 voted yes of these 39, while 37 voted yes in 2006. I think this is a clear indication that the Occupation Project (active people power) had some pull with the Dems on the Hill.
Democrats or Republicans
I think the wrong lesson to learn from the passage of the recent 'emergency' war funding bill is that Democrats didn't try. The wrong reaction is to attack the Dems and ignore the Republicans and RNC so that they can set up the 2008 races. They will use opposition research to paint Dem candidates in the worst possible light, they don't need more help from us because they obviously already have the media. I'm afraid I'm seeing the beginning of the end of the Dem majority if people don't get their heads on straight. The concept of 'divide and conquer' is alive and well in the GOP and they're using it right now. The more we focus on the Dems and the decision we dislike the more room it gives the Republicans to change the topic and reframe it (Luntz again) so that they have the upper hand. Get out there and focus on the Republicans!
I understand there is heartfelt disappointment by the 'anti-war' crowd, which happens to include me and over 70% of Americans now. This is not a left/right issue anymore but the media still portrays it that way because for one it follows their script and they like the concept of a fight, especially if the Dems continue to fight among themselves. There will be a lot of moderate Republicans joining the Dems if they see a united front. The White House, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (which unfortunately includes Lieberman), and their counterparts in the Republican House are licking their lips and rubbing their hands together watching the Dems hand them 2008.
What better way to keep the pressure off Republican candidates than to keep dividing the Democrats! Then the RNC/GOP can spend all their time and money putting the focus on the Dems because they won't have to defend themselves or their positions against any real and powerful opposition. If you really want to change things, stop eating your own!
All the time and energy being expended on Dems attacking Dems would be better spent going after the 21 Republican Senators (and over 200 House Republicans that are listed below) who are up for re-election in 2008. With a wider margin, face it one is not enough, in the Senate the Democratic Congress becomes much more powerful and can override anything the Republicans, with Lieberman's help, can throw up. You can't win if your cutting your own party to ribbons (internal Swiftboating). The Senators/States in play are:
Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee
Thad Cochran (R) of Mississippi (possibly retiring 2008)
Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado (possibly retiring 2008)
Larry Craig (R) of Idaho (possibly retiring 2008)
Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska
John Warner (R) of Virginia
Saxby Chambliss (R) of Georgia (vote caging/electronic vote machines)
Norm Coleman (R) of Minnesota
Susan Collins (R) of Maine
John Cornyn (R) of Texas
Elizabeth Dole (R) of North Carolina
Pete Domenici (R) of New Mexico
Michael Enzi (R) of Wyoming
Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina
Jim Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma
Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky (minority leader wife runs Labor Dept)
Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas (lied about Intelligence investigations)
Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama
Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon
Ted Stevens (R) of Alaska
John Sununu (R) of New Hampshire (vote caging)
The only way this horrible war (in which I have three relatives fighting) can be stopped is to go on the attack against the GOP/RNC so that sufficient majorities are available in Congress to push legislation through that will make difference.
The following list includes all Republican incumbent House members up for re-election in 2008. Let's put pressure on THEM starting today and NOT ending until we see the door hit them in the butt on the way out.
ALABAMA
01 Jo Bonner ......Mobile
02 Terry Everett ......Rehobeth
03 Mike Rogers ......Anniston
04 Robert B. Aderholt ......Haleyville
06 Spencer Bachus ......Vestavia Hills
ALASKA
At Large Don Young ......Fort Yukon
ARIZONA
01 Rick Renzi ......Flagstaff
02 Trent Franks ......Glendale
03 John B. Shadegg ......Phoenix
06 Jeff Flake ......Mesa
ARKANSAS
03 John Boozman ......Rogers
CALIFORNIA
02 Wally Herger ......Marysville
03 Daniel E. Lungren ......Gold River
04 John T. Doolittle ......Roseville
19 George Radanovich ......Mariposa
1 Devin Nunes ......Tulare
22 Kevin McCarthy ......Bakersfield
24 Elton Gallegly ......Simi Valley
25 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon ......Santa Clarita
26 David Dreier ......San Dimas
40 Edward R. Royce ......Fullerton
41 Jerry Lewis ......Redlands
42 Gary G. Miller ......Diamond Bar
44 Ken Calvert ......Corona
45 Mary Bono ......Palm Springs
46 Dana Rohrabacher ......Huntington Beach
48 John Campbell ......Irvine
49 Darrell E. Issa ......Vista
50 Brian P. Bilbray ......Carlsbad
52 Duncan Hunter ......Alpine
COLORADO
04 Marilyn N. Musgrave ......Fort Morgan
05 Doug Lamborn ......Colorado Springs
06 Thomas G. Tancredo ......Littleton
CONNECTICUT
04 Christopher Shays ......Bridgeport
DELAWARE
At Large Michael N. Castle ......Wilmington
FLORIDA (VERIFIABLE VOTING WILL TAKE CARE OF THESE. REPUBLICANS CAN'T WIN WITHOUT CHEATING INCLUDING CAGING MILITARY VOTES)
01 Jeff Miller ......Chumuckla
04 Ander Crenshaw ......Jacksonville
05 Ginny Brown-Waite ......Brooksville
06 Cliff Stearns ......Ocala
07 John L. Mica ......Winter Park
08 Ric Keller ......Orlando
09 Gus M. Bilirakis ......Palm Harbor
10 C. W. Bill Young ......Indian Shores
12 Adam H. Putnam ......Bartow
13 Vern Buchanan ......Sarasota
14 Connie Mack ......Fort Myers
15 Dave Weldon ......Indialantic
18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ......Miami
21 Lincoln Diaz-Balart ......Miami
24 Tom Feeney ......Oviedo
25 Mario Diaz-Balart ......Miami
GEORGIA
01 Jack Kingston ......Savannah
03 Lynn A. Westmoreland ......Grantville
06 Tom Price ......Roswell
07 John Linder ......Duluth
09 Nathan Deal ......Gainesville
11 Phil Gingrey ......Marietta
IDAHO
01 Bill Sali ......Kuna
02 Michael K. Simpson ......Idaho Falls
ILLINOIS
06 Peter J. Roskam ......Wheaton
10 Mark Steven Kirk ......Highland Park
11 Jerry Weller ......Morris
ILLINOIS
10 Mark Steven Kirk ......Highland Park
11 Jerry Weller ......Morris
13 Judy Biggert ......Hinsdale
14 J. Dennis Hastert ......Yorkville
15 Timothy V. Johnson ......Urbana
16 Donald A. Manzullo ......Egan
18 Ray LaHood ......Peoria
19 John Shimkus ......Collinsville
INDIANA
03 Mark E. Souder ......Fort Wayne
04 Steve Buyer ......Monticello
05 Dan Burton ......Indianapolis
06 Mike Pence ......Columbus
IOWA
04 Tom Latham ......Alexander
05 Steve King ......Kiron
KANSAS
01 Jerry Moran ......Hays
04 Todd Tiahrt ......Goddard
KENTUCKY
01 Ed Whitfield ......Hopkinsville
02 Ron Lewis ......Cecilia
04 Geoff Davis ......Hebron
05 Harold Rogers ......Somerset
LOUISIANA
01 Bobby Jindal ......Kenner
04 Jim McCrery ......Shreveport
05 Rodney Alexander ......Quitman
06 Richard H. Baker ......Baton Rouge
07 Charles W. Boustany Jr. ......Lafayette
MARYLAND
01 Wayne T. Gilchrest ......Kennedyville
06 Roscoe G. Bartlett ......Frederick
MICHIGAN
02 Peter Hoekstra ......Holland
03 Vernon J. Ehlers ......Grand Rapids
04 Dave Camp ......Midland
06 Fred Upton ......St. Joseph
07 Tim Walberg ......Tipton
08 Mike Rogers ......Brighton
09 Joe Knollenberg ......Bloomfield Hills
10 Candice S. Miller ......Harrison Township
11 Thaddeus G. McCotter ......Livonia
MINNESOTA
02 John Kline ......Lakeville
03 Jim Ramstad ......Minnetonka
06 Michele Bachmann ......Stillwater
MISSISSIPPI
01 Roger F. Wicker ......Tupelo
03 Charles W. ``Chip'' Pickering ......Hebron
MISSOURI
02 W. Todd Akin ......St. Louis
06 Sam Graves ......Tarkio
07 Roy Blunt ......Springfield
08 Jo Ann Emerson ......Cape Girardeau
09 Kenny C. Hulshof ......Columbia
MONTANA
At Large Dennis R. Rehberg ......Billings
NEBRASKA
01 Jeff Fortenberry ......Lincoln
02 Lee Terry ......Omaha
03 Adrian Smith ......Gering
NEVADA
02 Dean Heller ......Carson City
03 Jon C. Porter ......Henderson
NEW JERSEY
02 Frank A. LoBiondo ......Ventnor
03 Jim Saxton ......Mount Holly
04 Christopher H. Smith ......Hamilton
05 Scott Garrett ......Wantage
07 Mike Ferguson ......Warren Township
11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen ......Morristown
NEW MEXICO
01 Heather Wilson ......Albuquerque
02 Stevan Pearce ......Hobbs
NEW YORK
03 Peter T. King ......Seaford
13 Vito Fossella ......Staten Island
23 John M. McHugh ......Pierrepont Manor
25 James T. Walsh ......Syracuse
26 Thomas M. Reynolds ......Clarence
29 John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl Jr. ......Hammondsport
NORTH CAROLINA
05 Virginia Foxx ......Grandfather Community
06 Howard Coble ......Greensboro
08 Robin Hayes ......Concord
09 Sue Wilkins Myrick ......Charlotte
10 Patrick T. McHenry ......Cherryville
OHIO
01 Steve Chabot ......Cincinnati
02 Jean Schmidt ......Miami Township
03 Michael R. Turner ......Dayton
04 Jim Jordan ......Urbana
05 Paul E. Gillmor ......Tiffin
07 David L. Hobson ......Springfield
08 John A. Boehner ......West Chester
12 Patrick J. Tiberi ......Galena
14 Steven C. LaTourette ......Concord Township
15 Deborah Pryce ......Columbus
16 Ralph Regula ......Navarre
OKLAHOMA
01 John Sullivan ......Tulsa
03 Frank D. Lucas ......Cheyenne
04 Tom Cole ......Moore
05 Mary Fallin ......Oklahoma City
OREGON
02 Greg Walden ......Hood River
PENNSYLVANIA
03 Phil English ......Erie
05 John E. Peterson ......Pleasantville
06 Jim Gerlach ......Chester Springs
09 Bill Shuster ......Hollidaysburg
15 Charles W. Dent ......Allentown
16 Joseph R. Pitts ......Kennett Square
18 Tim Murphy ......Pittsburgh
19 Todd Russell Platts ......York
PUERTO RICO
Commissioner Luis G. Fortuño ......Guaynabo
SOUTH CAROLINA
01 Henry E. Brown Jr. ......Hanahan
02 Joe Wilson ......Springdale
03 J. Gresham Barrett ......Westminster
04 Bob Inglis ......Travelers Rest
TENNESSEE
01 David Davis ......Johnson City
02 John J. Duncan Jr. ......Knoxville
03 Zach Wamp ......Chattanooga
07 Marsha Blackburn ......Brentwood
TEXAS
01 Louie Gohmert ......Tyler
02 Ted Poe ......Humble
03 Sam Johnson ......Plano
04 Ralph M. Hall ......Rockwall
05 Jeb Hensarling ......Dallas
06 Joe Barton ......Ennis
07 John Abney Culberson ......Houston
08 Kevin Brady ......The Woodlands
10 Michael T. McCaul ......Austin
11 K. Michael Conaway ......Midland
12 Kay Granger ......Fort Worth
13 Mac Thornberry ......Clarendon
14 Ron Paul ......Surfside
19 Randy Neugebauer ......Lubbock
21 Lamar Smith ......San Antonio
24 Kenny Marchant ......Coppell
26 Michael C. Burgess ......Lewisville
31 John R. Carter ......Round Rock
32 Pete Sessions ......Dallas
UTAH
01 Rob Bishop ......Brigham City
03 Chris Cannon ......Mapleton
VIRGINIA
01 Jo Ann Davis ......Gloucester
02 Thelma D. Drake ......Norfolk
04 J. Randy Forbes ......Chesapeake
05 Virgil H. Goode Jr. ......Rocky Mount
06 Bob Goodlatte ......Roanoke
07 Eric Cantor ......Richmond
10 Frank R. Wolf ......Vienna
11 Tom Davis ......Vienna
WASHINGTON
04 Doc Hastings ......Pasco
05 Cathy McMorris Rodgers ......Deer Lake
08 David G. Reichert ......Auburn
WEST VIRGINIA
02 Shelley Moore Capito ......Charleston
WISCONSIN
01 Paul Ryan ......Janesville
05 F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. ......Menomonee Falls
06 Thomas E. Petri ......Fond du Lac
WYOMING
At Large Barbara Cubin ......Casper
The Iraq Occupation is a Congressional Constitutional Crisis
The President has betrayed the troops because he is NOT following the military strategy set by Congress.
Write to your Congresspersons and Senators and ask them to frame their Constitutional role as the Framers did. We suggest that you raise the following issues:
The Constitution provides Congress with the power to define the military agenda, including troop re-deployment and the establishment of timetables.
The role of the president is to carry out the agenda defined by Congress.
Congress must continuously assert its Constitutional power and responsibility.
Congress must not give in to the betrayal myth. The president was offered funding with timetables but he turned it down — he is the betrayer.
Congress must frame the matter as an issue of Constitutional authority
Congress must place the safety of the troops directly in the hands of the commander-in-chief, whose job is to carry out the agenda given by Congress, which includes protecting the safety of our troops.
Don't just write to your Congressperson. Write to the editors of your local newspapers. Flood the email boxes of the television and radio news shows, as well as national magazines. Send this call for action to your email lists. And write to progressive activist organizations like MoveOn, Democracy for America, and so on, to ask their memberships to support this action.
And don't do it just once. Repetition is the key to success. Keep it up until the next funding vote in September.
Promote Progressive Values -
Empathy, Responsibility & Strength
Trust, Honesty, & Open Communication
Freedom, Opportunity & Prosperity
Community, Service & Cooperation
Protection, Fulfillment & Fairness
Ending Occupation: Is we learning?
Nice comment Union North. I have to agree. I am beginning to think that the Blue Dogs and DLC Dems must secretly back what Bush is doing in Iraq. Who knows how much money flows to their coffers from those who are profiting now, and those who will be profiting in the future? If they are not backing Bush, then as Union North points out, they are running around to the marching orders (or frames if you like) like roosters in a hen house gobbling up all the feed the farmer Bush is throwing at them.
David Swanson does a beautiful job of laying out how the Dems have laid down. I guess the Dems won't stand up until Bush stands down, and why should he when he knows how to put fear in their heart with calls of them being unpatriotic.
Forget the Constitution, and forget moral rectitude. They have an election to win every two years and the less feathers they ruffle in the hen house, the more they think they can stay in the hen house.
Well, progressives have another thing coming for them. We should run peace and anti-occupation candidates in all the districts of those who voted for the continuation of this fiasco that is Iraq, and work their damnedest to see they get put out on the chopping block.
All on the left must band together in this, no matter what your persuasion, no matter what your party affiliation. Let's put in the people who might actually do what we put them in for.