The Beginning of the End? By Katrina vanden Heuvel The Nation June 19, 2005
"We see this as the beginning of the end," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic representative from Maine who is executive director of the antiwar group Win Without War. "It's the very beginning of a new wave of activism on this war. There's a real sense that something is beginning to move." --Los Angeles Times, Friday June 17, 2005 Earlier that day, a friend and longtime antiwar activist left me a voice mail message. Just ten days earlier he told me that he was more depressed about our politics than at anytime in the last 40 years. "Hello, this is..." he said. "I was in Washington yesterday at the rally and at the Conyers hearings. And since I laid a heavy statement on you last week, I just wanted to make a correction. It's finally over. My despair is over. Something has happened these last ten days that has revived the antiwar issue. It has to do with public opinion polls and casualties and Republicans like Walter Jones and more Democrats standing up. I won't say how optimistic I am. But something is coming together--you can feel it." You can feel it. *Every day brings news of public opinion turning against the occupation-- and the President's conduct of the war. Last week, a Washington Post- ABC News poll showed that for the first time since the war began, more than half of the public believes the US invasion has not made the US more secure; and nearly 40 percent described the situation there now as analagous to the Vietnam War. A new Gallup survey finds that almost 60 percent of Americans say the US should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, the largest number in that category ever. And for the first time, most Americans say they would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. Gallup also found that 56 percent now feel the war was "not worth it," and 73 percent consider the number of casualties unacceptable. * Every day brings news of more Democrats coming forward, standing up and introducing "exit strategy" resolutions. (Though, as of yet, leadership isn't coming from the leadership.) Lynn Woolsey forced a Congressional vote on bipartisan legislation that would have asked Bush to submit a plan to Congress explaining the outlines of an exit strategy from Iraq. Senator Russell Feingold has introduced a nonbinding resolution calling on the Bush Administration to set specific goals for leaving Iraq. In the House, the International Relations Committee last week voted overwhelmingly, 32 to 9, to call on the White House to develop and submit a plan to Congress for establishing a stable government and military in Iraq that would "permit a decreased US presence" in the country. Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D/CA)--along with 41 Congressional progressives, including Woolsey, John Lewis, Charles Rangel, Jim McGovern, Rush Holt, Marcy Kaptur and Jan Schakowsky--has just formed the "Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus." Its sole purpose, Waters says, "is to be the main agitators in the movement to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan." And Rep John Conyers' impassioned efforts to bring attention to the Downing Street Memo--on Thursday he held hearings on Capitol Hill and then delivered to the White House letters that contained the names of more than 560,000 Americans demanding answers to questions raised by the British memo-- has reenergized and refocused opposition to the war. While the Administration and its allies in Congress are trying to make it seem as if these new initiatives merely reflect Democrats' reading of the polls, I say--bring it on. Let's welcome more Democrats-- and sane Republicans--giving legislative expression and voice to the majority of Americans who want to see our Iraq policy changed. (In fact, according to the recent Gallup poll, Congress appears to be lagging behind the public on the issue: Some 72 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 41 percent of Republicans say they favor a partial or complete withdrawal.) *Every day brings news of another Republican signing on to the bipartisan resolution introduced last Thursday by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)--the man who brought us "Freedom Fries"--and Neil Abercrombie (D- Hawaii). That resolution calls for the Bush Administration to announce a plan for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq by the end of the year and to initiate the plan as soon as possible. Maverick Congressman Ron Paul (R/Texas) is already a sponsor, Jim Leach (R/ Iowa) signed on Friday and Howard Coble (R/North Carolina) is considering adding his signature. (With 2006 midterms fast approaching, more Republicans will be hearing from constituents who are growing uneasy about the war. And more GOP members up for reelection may start sounding like Jones, who said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous last weekend that he votes his conscience first, his constituents second, and his party third. ) But much hard and grinding organizing work remains ahead. On Monday afternoon, Abercrombie and others are going to sit down with Congressman Jones and other House members to discuss options to advance the resolution and build activism against the war. They'll be supported by a national coalition, that includes Win Without War, MoveOn.org, The National Council of Churches, True Majority, Sojourners, Working Assets and the National Organization of Women, which is planning a grassroots outreach campaign encouraging Members of Congress to sign onto the newly introduced bipartisan resolution. These organizations are going to be concentrating on those members of Congress who should be particularly susceptible to constituent demand about the war. (As Tom Andrews of the invaluable Win Without War group says, "Take it from one who has been there, in Congress loyalty to one's party leaders and president stops at the 'waters edge' of the voters at home.") "A prairie fire of activism has started," Andrews argues. "Our job now is to fan these flames and get a conflagration of opposition spreading across the country. We are working with our member groups as well as others on a range of action options to build momentum over the next several months. These will include a major action in Washington in September with what I hope will include a complementary Internet based component. Between those marching in DC and those joining through the Internet around the country I am certain that we could have a million Americans demonstrating against the Bush war in September." The combination of dropping poll numbers, the grinding images of chaos and violence in Iraq, the daily news of young Americans dying in what seems a senseless war and the increasingly active and visible opposition of constituents is bad news for the president and his Congressional allies. This really can be the beginning of the end of a disastrous war and a bankrupt national security strategy. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=3614 *** Not Your Father's Anti-War Movement by Arianna Huffington June 16, 2005 What Korea was to Truman, and Vietnam was to LBJ, Iraq will be to George W. Bush, Arthur Schlesinger told me last week. In all three cases, the public grew weary of a drawn-out war with no end in sight. History shows that there is nothing sacrosanct about wartime presidents. There is no guaranteed immunity for them. Rally round the president when the nation is at war is the American tradition -- but only for a time. The Korean War forced Truman to pull out of the 1952 race. Vietnam forced Johnson to pull out in 1968. Bush was able to keep Iraq at bay long enough to get re-elected, but the debacle threatens to derail his second term. Just look at the latest polls. According to Washington Post /ABC News, for the first time, a majority of Americans feel that the war has not made the United States safer. Fifty-eight percent disapprove of Bush's handling of it. Fifty-eight percent say the war was not worth fighting. And 73 percent consider the number of casualties unacceptable. But poll numbers are not the only figures the White House should be worrying about. Dick Cheney's "last throes" delusion is being rebutted by the figures coming out of Iraq every day. May was the fifth-deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops. And in just the first two weeks of June, 41 Americans have been killed and 75 wounded. This is clearly not a war that is waning or winnable. Yet the Bush administration continues to refuse even to consider the idea of developing an exit strategy. And don't tell me it's when Iraqi troops are ready to take over the fight; at the rate they're going, Ahmed Chalabi's great-grandchildren will be leading the first all-Iraqi push against the insurgents. Like LBJ with Vietnam, Bush appears to be losing touch both with reality and with the sentiments of a growing majority of Americans. But, unlike Johnson, he seems strangely unaffected by the disconnect -- perhaps because he's so convinced that God put him there. That he saved him from drinking and drugs so he could spread democracy in Iraq. But a combination of hubris and incompetence -- always a dangerous cocktail -- could well be his undoing. Unlike Truman and Johnson, he doesn't have any more elections to lose -- but his party does. If only the Democrats would find their voice on the subject as 2006 approaches. With memos pouring out of Britian showing there was no planning for what to do after Baghdad fell and that intelligence and facts were being fixed, and with the number of dead American soldiers now more than 1,700, what is the Democratic leadership waiting for before they finally stand up to the White House? Where are Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean on a moral issue of this magnitude, on which the majority of Americans oppose the administration? This is definitely not your father's anti-war movement. Unlike Vietnam, opposition to the war in Iraq is not being driven by the make love, not war crowd. A growing number of voices are being raised -- and asking whether the ongoing disaster in Iraq is draining precious resources from the war on terror (remember that?) and efforts to secure the homeland. So this is not war vs. peace; it's war vs. security. While Democrats are crisscrossing the country, holding conclaves in search of what the party should stand for, Russ Feingold introduced a resolution in the Senate on Tuesday calling on the president to create a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Thank God at least one prominent Dem has the good sense to know what the party should stand forand, just as importantly, the cojones to act on that knowledge. As for the House, the leadership against the war in Iraq is now in the hands of Mr. Freedom Fries himself, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. After being a staunch supporter of the war. "There is no question," he said in November 2002, "that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the security of not only our nation, but of every nation across the globe." Jones now believes we went to war with no justification. He even voted for the Woolsey Amendment, which calls on President Bush to develop an exit strategy as soon as possible. So he voted yes. while 79 Democrats -- including Nancy Pelosi -- voted no. On last week's Meet the Press, Sen. Joe Biden said that a military draft is going to become a subject if in fact there is a 40 percent shortfall in recruitment. It's just a reality. But the best thing for the health of our Army would be to institute a draft for an opposition party. Right now, it seems, there aren't enough willing to serve voluntarily. [Arianna Huffington is a syndicated columnist and author of Fanatics and Fools: The Game Plan for Winning Back America (Miramax, 2004). This column distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
