[Peace-discuss] Durbin interview

[Morton K.Brussel]

Some impressions on the telephone interaction with Senator Durbin:

Durbin is a typical liberal Democrat. He has liberal social  
inclinations, but he is not one to be out front on crucial issues. He  
is a team player on the liberal (leftish?) wing of the Democratic  
party. His statements yesterday essentially amounted to an apology  
for the main Democratic positions in the Senate relative to the Iraq  
war and the Bush administration. He blithely cast off suggestions  
that impeachment actions were warranted, that the Senate could  
withhold funds for the execution of the war and military  
expenditures.  He in effect rejected the two actions which could  
really end the Iraq war and our march towards militarism and empire.  
He advocated an incremental policy to slow Bush's agenda, a policy  
which I feel will just continue the bleeding of the war, in  Iraq and  
elsewhere. He said that the votes were lacking to do anything more,  
but that he hoped that that will change (as the next election  
approaches) and more Republican senators come to see the light.

Durbin basically subscribes to the "war" on terror, wants American  
troops in Iraq to "stabilize" the situation there--without being so  
aggressive. He is a staunch defender of Israel's interests in the  
middle east and all that is thereby entailed, and dismisses a  
possible attack (invasion was the wrong word to use) on Iran, stating  
that the Senate would not allow it. What this shows is either an  
astonishing naivete or a lack of will to oppose such actions. He  
grossly underplays the ability of the administration to sidestep the  
(ambiguous) actions of the Senate.

What is needed, and what Durbin and others like him need to be told  
is that we're fed up with self serving statements criticizing the  
administration, that we need a militant opposition with leaders who  
will raise hell about what's been happening----a murderous invasion/ 
occupation by a rogue American administration. The situation demands  
it. The situation demands impeachment, demands actions to stop  
military appropriations, and demands that our representatives use  
their bully pulpit to condemn this government's behavior. Things  
could be better with stronger and principled leadership in the  
Senate, but Durbin or Leahy or Levin or Reid will not  provide that.  
Norman Soloman writes:

A big media lie is that members of Congress are doing all they can  
when they try and fail to pass measures that would impose a schedule  
for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Constitution gives  
Congress the power to pay for war — and to stop a war by refusing to  
appropriate money for it. Every vote to pay for more war is soaked  
with blood.

There is little will in Congress to really stop the occupation of  
Iraq, and that goes for Durbin. Congress and the powers that be see  
it in our national interest to control the middle east, and beyond.

So, what can we expect?

The cards are stacked. There may be cosmetic changes to our policy in  
Iraq, and some corrections to the most egregious domestic acts of the  
administration such as with habeas corpus and the Patriot Act, but  
I'm afraid that we shall be saddled with some form of the current  
policy into the indefinite future, or at least until some other world  
powers arise to oppose what we've been doing. Otherwise, it will take  
a revolution to change the present trend, and that is not likely  
unless some catastrophe intervenes to wake up the populace, fed up as  
it is. The organization of the anti-war movement is not sufficient to  
move this populace to real effective action so as to threaten the  
status quo. We need millions in the streets, and not just in NYC. The  
deeper problem is in the structure of our government and its  
electoral processes, the pernicious influence of corporations and  
their monied lobbyists, which perpetuates a congress beholden to  
their interests.  Aside from lonely voices such as Kucinich,  
essentially ostracised among the Democrats, the people have not had  
real choices to vote for on critical issues.

Look at the cogent, clear headed article by Anthony Arnove:
  http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13327




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070719/bda786b0/attachment.html