[Peace-discuss] carpe diem, what the Democrats need

[Ricky Baldwin]

OK, here's a headline (below) with little relation to
the article.  But what it reminds me is the widespread
impression (media and elsewhere) that Democrats might
interfere with the "war effort" - expressed even by
the activist/organizer who called me this weekend from
'Declaration of Peace' (she was talking about Obama!)

I think we know that SOME Democrats, like Kucinich,
would do more IF they had control of the party, but
they don't.  And the quotes in the article below make
clear - unless you're distracting by the editorial
comments inserted by its author - that the Democratic
leadership will not do anything like what the headline
suggests they are "hinting".  ("Hinting" here
apparently means "plainly stating the opposite".)

Nevertheless I think the impression can be useful if
we (as a movement) seize on it.  Our postcards are
part of that.  The demonstration in DC Jan 27, too (we
should plan a local one for folks who can't go to DC
and try to attract the coy local press).  But we will
need a lot more.

So I propose that we (1) plan a local demo for Jan 27
and seriously consider civil disobedience for that
event; (2) follow up up on the postcard campaign with
the Congressional visits/protests that we discussed
earlier, Mort and others; that we (3) write some
letters to the editor and WILL commentaries: in
particular, calling on folks to write the
Congressional reps to say "new direction" is too
vague, we want the troops out and we want YOU to
sponsor/cosponsor legislation cutting off funds for
everything related to Iraq except withdrawal; and (4)
that when we get the first response to our postcards
that we start phase 2 of the postcard campaign,
meaning that we get people who have received responses
to write back with a postcard on the order of "thank
you for your response" on whatever date but what we
will accept nothing short of troops out now, cut off
funds, etc. (folks who didn't write one before can of
course write one now).

The head of the Massachusetts peace coalition said it
best: the window of opportunity is closing rapidly.

Ricky


Pelosi hints at denying Bush Iraq funds

AP, this a.m.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered
Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check
to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding
if he seeks additional troops.

"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his
budget request, we want to see a distinction between
what is there to support the troops who are there
now," she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

"The American people and the Congress support those
troops. We will not abandon them. But if the president
wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to
justify it and this is new for him because up until
now the Republican Congress has given him a blank
check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions,"
said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Her comments on CBS' "Face the Nation" came as Bush
worked to finish his new war plan that could send as
many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and
provide more money for jobs and reconstruction
programs.

Bush is expected to announce his plan as early as
Wednesday.

When asked about the possibility of cutting off funds,
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to say
whether Democrats might do so, saying only that the
current strategy clearly is "not working."

"I don't want to anticipate that," said Hoyer, D-Md.,
on "Fox News Sunday."

Some military officials, familiar with the
discussions, say Bush at first could send 8,000 to
10,000 new troops to Baghdad, and possibly Anbar
Province, and leave himself the option of adding more
later if security does not improve.

"Based on the advice of current and former military
leaders, we believe this tactic would be a serious
mistake," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
said Saturday in the Democratic radio address.

Pelosi and Reid told Bush in a letter last week that
Democrats oppose additional U.S. forces in Iraq and
want him to begin withdrawing in four months to six
months American troops already there.

Pointing to the November elections that ousted
Republicans from control of the House and Senate,
Pelosi said on CBS the public is "watching to see what
difference this election can make. The president ought
to heed their message. ... We should not be obliged to
an open-ended war."

She said Democrats are not interesting in cutting off
money for troops already in Iraq — "We won't do that"
— and that her party favors increased the overall size
of the Army by 30,000 and Marines by 20,000 "to make
sure we are able to protect the American people."

"That's different though, than adding troops to Iraq,"
Pelosi said.

The speaker stopped short of stating categorically
that Democrats would block money for additional troops
in Iraq. But she did say, "The burden is on the
president to justify any additional resources. ... The
president's going to have to engage with Congress in
the justification for any additional troops."

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, said it would be a "tragic
mistake" if Bush chooses to increase troops. But
Biden, D-Del., said cutting off funds was not an
option.

"As a practical matter there is no way to say this is
going to be stopped," Biden said regarding a troop
increase, unless enough congressional Republicans join
Democrats in convincing Bush the strategy is wrong.

Biden added that it probably would be an
unconstitutional violation of separation of powers if
Democrats were to block Bush's efforts as commander in
chief after Congress had voted to authorize going to
war.

"It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're
going to micromanage," Biden said.

Although most of the discussion about Bush's
anticipated plan has focused on troop strength, his
strategy also is expected to address political and
economic issues.

Military analysts say Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli,
who recently finished his tour as the No. 2 general in
Iraq, has recommended a short-term jobs program.

Bush is said to favor short-term jobs programs, making
micro-loans to small business and increasing the
amount of money that military commanders can spend
quickly on local projects to improve the daily lives
of Iraqis.

Bush is expected to continue his briefings with
lawmakers this week, culminating in a meeting with
bipartisan leadership on Wednesday, according to
lawmakers and aides.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has
approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and
other terrorism-fighting efforts. The White House is
working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds
— a record $100 billion, at least. It will be
submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

"This war cost a trillion dollars if it ended now,"
Pelosi said. "But more important than that, the lives
lost, the casualties sustained, the lost reputation in
the world, and the damage to our military readiness.
For these and other reasons we have to say to the
president, in your speech ... we want to see a plan in
a new direction because the direction you've been
taking us in has not been successful.

"So when the bill comes ... it will receive the
harshest scrutiny. What do we really need to protect
our troops? What is there for an escalation? What is
the justification for that?"

___

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to
this report.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com