Democrats Vs. the Peace movement?

[Terran1212]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0708-28.htm

An interesting part:

"Mobilizing for the Alternative

Having already authorized the invasion of Iraq back in October 2002, Congress can only stop the war at this point through its constitutionally mandated power of the purse. There is precedent for such congressional action. Following President Richard Nixon's decision to launch an invasion of Cambodia at the end of April 1970, Senators John Cooper of Kentucky and Frank Church of Idaho introduced a resolution that banned funding of ground troops in Cambodia. Over strong objections of the Nixon administration, the resolution passed and troops were withdrawn.

The Cooper-Church amendment succeeded in 1970 because of massive protests throughout the country against the invasion of Cambodia. Such protests included large-scale civil disobedience and other forms of nonviolent action, which, among other things, shut down over 200 college campuses nationwide. It will probably take a similar outpouring of protests before Congress reflects the will of the American public and forces the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq.

Fortunately, plans are in the works for just such a national mobilization. A broad coalition of peace groups calling itself the Declaration of Peace has planned, should Congress not implement a withdrawal plan, a massive nonviolent action campaign for September 21-28. The anti-war movement hopes that shutting down congressional offices and governmental and commercial centers throughout the country will undermine the current bipartisan support for Bush's war. Endorsers include Clergy and Laity Concerned, Code Pink, United for Justice and Peace, the Network of Spiritual Progressives, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, War Resisters League, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

Americans who oppose the war are already the majority. Whether we can actually stop the war will depend not so much on the composition of Congress but on how many Americans will be willing this September to put their bodies on the line in the cause of peace. "

[leftchick]

1. Now isn't this part interesting....

<snip>

Dealing with the Dems

Because the Senate unanimously votes to fund the war in Iraq, Peace Action PAC, the political action committee of the country's largest peace organization, will for the first time not endorse any senators for re-election this year. Some anti-war activists have gone further, not just withholding support but actively calling for the defeat of every pro-war senator regardless of party affiliation, even if it means supporting Green Party nominees or other anti-war challengers. Such strategists believe that Democrats will not likely change their pro-war positions as long as they can assume the support of their anti-war constituents.

Constituent pressure does indeed make a difference. Two of the half dozen most outspoken anti-war senators—Tom Harkin of Iowa and Kerry—voted in favor of the original resolution in October 2002 authorizing the invasion. Grassroots anti-war efforts in their home states forced these formerly pro-war Democrats to reverse their stance.

However, apologists for the Democratic Party reply that efforts to defeat pro-war Democrats could result in electing enough Republicans to prevent the Democrats from re-taking the U.S. Senate. However, it should be recalled that the last time the Democrats controlled the Senate (2001-2002), they voted to authorize the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not only might a Democrat-controlled Senate fail to end the war in Iraq, it may well authorize President Bush to launch yet another tragic war. Already, leading Democratic senators and presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have attacked the Bush administration for being too eager to pursue diplomatic means in the Iran crisis. They have been more willing to entertain the exercise of military force to end the current impasse over that country's nuclear program. On other national security issues, these hard-line Democrats have defended the already-existing nuclear weapons arsenals of U.S. allies Pakistan, Israel, and India. And last month, an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House voted in support of a resolution criticizing President Bush for not sufficiently punishing Palestinians who suffer under Israeli military occupation. In short, a Democratic majority in Congress will not necessarily mean a more enlightened foreign policy.

:applaud:

[Terran1212]

2. Yes, but the "vote for every Democrat" wing of DU will be in here soon

Just wait...

[nosmokes]

5. well hey, the war is only killing a few hundred iraqis a month now and

the death toll for GIs is way down, and there's still lots of money to be made there ya know. think the GOPosse are the only ones getting rich from halliburtom and the other war profiteers?

[leftchick]

6. no way! Think of DiFi and her war profiteer hubby

and it is actually 1500 dead Iraqis for the month of June alone. :(

[leveymg]

3. Oh great. Just before the election.

The GOP already plans a significant draw down of troops in Iraq. The war is lost, particularly on the homefront, and they know it.

So, what's the point of civil disobedience? This is like calling for massive civil disobedience against the Vietnam War in 1974. It might have made sense in March 2003 or September 2005, but why now?

I don't see this either bringing the war to a quicker end, or helping to change the composition of Congress. In fact, I see it helping the GOP by fueling a Rovian propaganda offensive against "lawless Left-wing traitors", and similar BS.

No, this doesn't make sense to me. You're going to have to convince me about this one.

[Terran1212]

4. A gradual troop drawdown is no where near justice

The actions are to create iraqi sovereignty and full US withdrawal, something both parties are afraid of.

[leveymg]

7. Iraqi sovereignty was never the point. A divided Iraq was. That's

already happened.

Mission accomplished.

[Juffo Wup]

9. I wouldn't say that

Rather, the installation of a pro-U.S. dictatorship in Iraq that lets us use bases to strike at Iran.

[Laotra]

11. And I got a bridge to sell

Neither party is seriously planning withdrawal, even of "significant" amount of troops. That's just election time talk.

How many times Nixon promised peace? Nothing has changed, except impunity.

[bemildred]

8. It is the war party against the rest of us.

We failed to properly destroy the sons-of-bitches 30 years ago, and we need to finish the job this time.

[chill_wind]

10. Good segment on FSTV today: "Witness a Peace Movement".

Documentary of 3 years of anti-war resistance in the US.
Was on this AM and will re-air again at 5pm ET. If you are in no mood today to gnash your teeth and feel your blood boiling anew at the RW stupidity and war-mongering for coorporate-profit cancer in this country, best don't watch.