http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar10052007.html
The Democrats and Iran:
Can They Sink Any Lower?
By LEE SUSTAR
Counterpunch: Oct 5, 2007
Voting to declare one of Iran's security forces a "terrorist
organization." Authorizing yet more funding for Bush's war on Iraq.
Declaring that U.S. troops might occupy Iraq until at least January
2013.
Sounds like the posturing of one of the whatshisnames running for the
Republican presidential nomination. But these are the policies and
political positions of the Democratic Congress and its leading
presidential contenders.
At a debate on September 25, the top three Democratic presidential
candidates--Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards--all refused
to declare that they'd have pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end
of their first term, if elected.
"I think it would be irresponsible" to promise a pullout by January
2013, Obama said. "I cannot make that commitment," said Edwards. For
her part, Clinton, typically, dodged a direct answer: "It is very
difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."
Earlier that day, a majority of Senate Democrats supported a measure
sponsored by Sens. John Kyl and Joe Lieberman declaring Iran's
Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization--and calling on the U.S.
government to "combat, contain and roll back the violent activities" of
Iran.
Thanks to the Democrats, the referendum--which at least some observers
likened to an authorization for war--won by an overwhelming 76-22
margin. Clinton voted yes; Obama, in what is becoming a habit, skipped
the roll call.
To top it off, tacked onto the measure at the last minute was a
resolution expressing support for the partition of U.S.-occupied Iraq
into ethnic and sectarian cantons--a ratification of the process of
ethnic cleansing that has driven millions of Iraqis from their homes
and claimed the lives of untold numbers.
Not quite one year after they took control of Congress, thanks to a
huge antiwar vote in the 2006 congressional elections, the Democrats
have not only failed utterly to stop the war on Iraq--they've caved in
one confrontation after another with the White House. Party leaders who
once claimed they would force the Bush White House to "change course"
have come to resemble their loser of a presidential candidate in 2004,
John Kerry.
When criticized by opponents of the war, the Democrats respond in
almost a single voice that they don't have the votes to override a Bush
veto--or even win a procedural voice to end debate in the Senate and
come to an up-and-down vote on controversial legislation.
That's blatantly dishonest--as insider journalists Jim VandeHei and
John Harris pointed out in the online Beltway gossip publication The
Politico.
"There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least
challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not
have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush," VandeHei
and Harris wrote.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over
Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and
through planned vacations. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
could let filibusters run from now till Christmas rather than yield to
pro-war Republicans...[A]ntiwar lawmakers can hardly say they have done
everything possible to challenge the war and bring attention to their
cause."
The Democratic contenders to replace Bush in 2009 aren't doing anything
more. With the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, the
candidates all propose not to end the occupation of Iraq, but to
downsize and repackage it to make it more militarily and politically
sustainable for the long term.
As Financial Times commentator Gideon Rachman--in an article titled
"Many contenders but just one voice"--wrote: "On a whole range of
issues that remain very controversial even among close American allies
in Europe and Asia, there is a broad American consensus [spanning]
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on the Democratic side
to Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson among
the Republicans.
"All of the main candidates want to build up the American military
rather than shrink it (Senator Clinton wants to add 80,000 troops to
the Army). They all agree that the U.S. has the right to take
pre-emptive military action in the 'war on terror.'...They are all
strong supporters of Israel. And they are all talking tough on Iran.
"Even on Iraq--despite the bitter rhetoric--the mainstream Democratic
and Republican positions are closer than either side would care to
acknowledge. President George W. Bush announced last week that troops
will start withdrawing later this year. The 'surge' is over. But none
of the main Democratic candidates endorses the antiwar left's call for
an immediate and complete pullout. So the debate comes down to an
argument about the scale and pace of troop withdrawals."
The leaders of the Democrats are more and more openly converging with
an imperialist consensus for U.S. policy in Iraq and beyond that the
bipartisan Washington establishment can live with.
The Democrats' base, on the other hand, is as bitterly opposed to the
war as ever. The frustration and disillusion with the party that
claimed to be against the war has been expressed in small protests by
figures like Cindy Sheehan, who have called the Democrats out. But the
more general response has been demoralization.
* * *
THAT KIND of attitude among the party's most dedicated supporters could
even put the party's 2008 prospects at risk--an election that has
looked like a slam dunk for the Democrats, no matter who is nominated
for president.
"So nothing can go wrong for the Democrats?" wrote New York Times
columnist Frank Rich. "Of course it can." Rich points out that the
Washington insiders who have already anointed Hillary Clinton as the
next president "are the same political pros who predicted that scandal
would force an early end to the Clinton presidency and that 'Mission
Accomplished' augured victory in Iraq and long-lasting Republican rule."
In both 2000 and 2004, the Democrats had every opportunity to give
voters a reason to be for their presidential candidate--and they failed
miserably. The electoral strategy of positioning its candidates just
barely to the left of the Republicans convinced at least some voters of
what didn't seem possible--that George Bush was not only worth having a
beer with, but he was more honest than John Kerry.
Now, after a brief period earlier this year in which the Democrats
appeared willing to challenge the Bush White House, the old strategies
of retreat, concession and surrender have returned.
This isn't merely because the Democrats are following a bad electoral
strategy. The Democratic Party is the second party of American
capitalism and is fundamentally committed to the interests and
priorities of the U.S. ruling establishment.
When it comes to foreign policy, while there may be disagreements about
tactics, the Republicans and Democrats agree on the aim of protecting
U.S. power around the globe--as is increasingly clear from the debate
in Washington these days.
But the anger among ordinary people that made itself felt in the 2006
elections--over the war specifically, and falling standards of livings
for worker more generally--hasn't gone away.
Pressure from its base--as well as another disaster in Iraq and
Afghanistan--may yet prod the Democrats back to the left. In any case,
the hatred of Bush and the Republicans runs so deep that even the
Democrats' prowar policies may not overly harm their election chances,
even if the voters are well to the left of the candidates on Iraq and
other issues.
What's certain right now, however, is that opponents of the war can't
wait on a Democratic president taking office in 2009 to try to revive
antiwar organizing. Those opposed to the war will have to rely on their
own activism to force a change in U.S. policy--and the time to begin is
now.
[Lee Sustar writes for the Socialist Worker. He can be reached at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Celebrate the Art of Resistance
pARTy AuCTION
Saturday, October 13, 2007
6:30pm
Union Station, 800 North Alameda
Downtown L.A.
The Center for the Study of Political Graphics (CSPG) invites you to
celebrate 18 years of using art to inspire social change at the historic
Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles.
There will be a fantastic dinner, entertainment, great company, a dynamic
poster presentation, and a unique auction of vintage posters and original
artworks.
Please join us as we honor these outstanding individuals:
- Barbara Hadsell, civil rights attorney, and Douglas Hadsell, history
professor, will receive the Culture of Liberation Award.
- Barbara Kruger, feminist artist, will receive the Art of Resistance Award.
- Rudy Acuña, activist historian, will receive Historian of the Lions Award.
CSPG is an educational and research archive that collects, preserves,
documents, and circulates domestic and international political posters
relating to historical and contemporary movements for social change. With
more than 60,000 domestic and international graphics, CSPG has the largest
collection of post-World War II political graphics in the country. Through
traveling and online exhibitions, presentations, and publications, CSPG is
reclaiming the power of art to inspire people to action. Visit our website
www.politicalgraphics.org to find digital exhibitions, descriptions of
traveling exhibitions, online shopping, and more.
If you need more information, contact Mary Sutton or Katy Robinson at
323.653.4662.
We look forward to seeing you on October 13!
Order your Sponsorship Package or Tickets and Ads ONLINE!
Volunteers Needed!
Upcoming Annual pARTy AuCTION - October 13, 2007
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need volunteers in the weeks before and on the day of the event.
Before the event we need help running errands, acquiring, organizing and
mounting auction items, coordinating volunteers, and calling CSPG supporters
to support the event. On the day of the event, we need people to set-up
tables and decor, set-up the silent auction, deliver items to Union Station,
clean-up, and work various stations at the event: the bar, guest tables,
welcoming, auction, registration, and sales.
If you have a specific talent that might be helpful, let us know. Our
events are a lot of fun, even for the volunteers!
If you would like to help, please respond to this email or call Katy,
Megan or Mary at 323-653-4662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
