[Peace-discuss] Durbin interview [2]

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Democrats were given control of Congress in the last election 
because of Americans' opposition to the war.  But the Democrats have 
spent six months working to neutralize that opposition -- voting more 
money for the war, putting impeachment off the table, and supporting 
plans for attacks against Iran.  They've been making the 
administration's killing possible by refusing to cut the funds (as 
Durbin did again the other day), because of their dedication to the 
underlying long-term US policy of military control of the Middle East, 
and meanwhile hypocritically presenting themselves to the US populace as 
opposed to the war by favoring "redeployment," "timelines," and 
"benchmarks."

Durbin is a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a central figure 
in that deception. There was a revealing incident when Durbin actually 
condemned aspects of the US torture policy at Guantanamo -- and then 
withdrew the condemnation *in tears* when he was charged with not 
supporting the troops (sc. the war)!  This is not a "relatively good 
guy," but an enabler of the administration's war.  The only difference 
is that he thinks that his party can profit from the public's opposition 
to the war by blaming the Republicans for it -- while the Democrats 
support essentially the same polices, notably continued murder.  --CGE


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> What is the point of publicly dissing Durbin???? He's one of the 
> (relatively) good guys holding elected office (yes, even tho' he 
> wouldn't spill the beans after he learned the "facts" justifying the 
> invasion were BS). We should certainly hold his little clay feet to the 
> fire, but let's be realistic here. Look what he's/we're up against. Russ 
> Feingold wanted to censure the Bush admin for deliberate deception 
> leading to the US invasion of Iraq, and not one senator would support 
> him. Not one senator condemned Israel for attacking Lebanon last 
> year. Let's go after the really bad guys when we create our flyers, not 
> the ones who are lots better than most who we'd like to be perfect, even 
> tho' it wouldn't make a bit of difference if they were, given the 
> present climate. AWARE will have a greater impact on folks reading the 
> flyers if they can see the point to our criticism.
>  
> Grrr,
> Jenifer 
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     Mort--
> 
>     This is excellent. How about turning it into a flyer for the Main Event
>     in two weeks? Perhaps you could conclude with the (slightly more
>     hopeful) recommendation from the "cogent, clear headed article by
>     Anthony Arnove":
> 
>     "WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO END THE OCCUPATION?
> 
>     "I THINK it will take much more pressure at home and also within the
>     rank and file of the U.S. military in Iraq.
> 
>     "We have to take advantage of the cracks that are opening within the
>     establishment to campaign vocally and publicly against the war,
>     involving greater numbers of the people and communities affected by the
>     war at home--which has gone hand in hand with the war against the Iraqi
>     people.
> 
>     "We need to put pressure on both the Democrats and Republicans, and not
>     simply collapse into a lobbying wing for the Democratic Party.
> 
>     "There will be immense pressure on the antiwar movement to give up its
>     independence and get behind whatever candidate the Democrats put
>     forward
>     in 2008, no matter what their limitations. People will tell us this is
>     how we can be relevant.
> 
>     "I think the antiwar movement would be irrelevant, though, if we did
>     this. We’ll be much more effective if we articulate our own principles
>     and demands--including immediate withdrawal--and fight for them.
> 
>     "And we also need to defend and support those soldiers who in greater
>     numbers are speaking out, refusing service, declaring conscientious
>     objection and, at great personal risk, organizing against the war..."
> 
>     --CGE
> 
>     Morton K.Brussel wrote:
>      > 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