[Peace-discuss] Democrats subvert anti-war movement

[John W.]

"Even Americans can't be fooled forever," Taibbi concludes.  Au contraire, 
they very obviously CAN.



At 01:10 AM 2/10/2008, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:

> From my perspective, the surprising and unfortunate thing about this
>perspective is that it assumes that the Democrats, generally speaking, ever
>really were in principle against the war or any wars for that matter, that
>they betrayed anyone much less caved in or surrendered to Bush, Chaney, the
>hawks, or the Republicans.  If anyone betrayed the peace movement it was the
>peace movement that betrayed itself by virtue of their overly optimistic
>beliefs about the liberalism, the progressive nature, and the morals of the
>Democratic Party and most Democratic politicians.  They made the so-called
>liberals and Democrats the wearers of the white hats in opposition to the
>Bushites, conservatives, and Republicans who they identified as wearing the
>black hats in the cowboy melodrama known as American politics.
>
>In reality, it is all about power politics masked behind symbols, myths, and
>ideological platitudes, where winning and acquiring office with its power
>and authority is everything.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> > bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 11:26 PM
> > To: Peace-discuss
> > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democrats subvert anti-war movement
> >
> > ["Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken
> > over the
> > anti-war movement, packing the nation's leading group with party
> > consultants
> > more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war ... The story
> > of how
> > the Democrats finally [sic] betrayed the voters who handed them both
> > houses of
> > Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what's to come if they
> > win the
> > White House." This is pretty old news, but still unusual even in the
> > semi-MSM,
> > like this.  --CGE]
> >
> > URL:
> > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves
> >
> >       Rollingstone.com
> >       The Chicken Doves
> >       Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on
> > Iraq
> >       and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends
> >       MATT TAIBBI
> >
> > Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring
> > Democrats
> > everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry
> > Reid and
> > Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses
> > since
> > Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress
> > have
> > publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept
> > into power
> > with a firm mandate to end it.
> >
> > Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S.
> > political
> > history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on
> > topics
> > other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his
> > busy
> > schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our
> > time is
> > really squeezed."
> >
> > There was much public shedding of tears among the Democratic
> > leadership, as
> > Reid, Pelosi and other congressional heavyweights expressed deep
> > sadness that
> > their valiant charge up the hill of change had been thwarted by
> > circumstances
> > beyond their control - that, as much as they would love to continue
> > trying to
> > end the catastrophic Iraq deal, they would now have to wait until, oh,
> > 2009 to
> > try again. "We'll have a new president," said Pelosi. "And I do think
> > at that
> > time we'll take a fresh look at it."
> >
> > Pelosi seemed especially broken up about having to surrender on Iraq,
> > sounding
> > like an NFL coach in a postgame presser, trying with a straight face to
> > explain
> > why he punted on first-and-goal. "We just didn't have any plays we
> > liked down
> > there," said the coach of the 0-15 Dems. "Sometimes you just have to
> > play the
> > field-position game...."
> >
> > In reality, though, Pelosi and the Democrats were actually engaged in
> > some
> > serious point-shaving. Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have
> > systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation's
> > leading
> > group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than
> > ending
> > the war. "Our focus is on the Republicans," one Democratic apparatchik
> > in charge
> > of the anti-war coalition declared. "How can we juice up attacks on
> > them?"
> >
> > The story of how the Democrats finally betrayed the voters who handed
> > them both
> > houses of Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what's to come
> > if they
> > win the White House. And if we don't pay attention to this sorry tale
> > now, while
> > there's still time to change our minds about whom to nominate, we might
> > be stuck
> > with this same bunch of spineless creeps for four more years. With no
> > one but
> > ourselves to blame.
> >
> > The controversy over the Democratic "strategy" to end the war basically
> > comes
> > down to whom you believe. According to the Reid-Pelosi version of
> > history, the
> > Democrats tried hard to force President Bush's hand by repeatedly
> > attempting to
> > tie funding for the war to a scheduled withdrawal. Last spring they
> > tried to get
> > him to eat a timeline and failed to get the votes to override a
> > presidential
> > veto. Then they retreated and gave Bush his money, with the aim of
> > trying again
> > after the summer to convince a sufficient number of Republicans to
> > cross the
> > aisle in support of a timeline.
> >
> > But in September, Gen. David Petraeus reported that Bush's "surge" in
> > Iraq was
> > working, giving Republicans who might otherwise have flipped sufficient
> > cover to
> > continue supporting the war. The Democrats had no choice, the legend
> > goes, but
> > to wait until 2009, in the hopes that things would be different under a
> > Democratic president.
> >
> > Democrats insist that the reason they can't cut off the money for the
> > war,
> > despite their majority in both houses, is purely political. "George
> > Bush would
> > be on TV every five minutes saying that the Democrats betrayed the
> > troops," says
> > Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Then he glumly adds another reason.
> > "Also, it
> > just wasn't going to happen."
> >
> > Why it "just wasn't going to happen" is the controversy. In and around
> > the halls
> > of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end
> > the war
> > meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides
> > would
> > think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party's
> > lame
> > anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to
> > score
> > political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops
> > home.
> >
> > "Yeah, the amount of expletives that flew in our office alone was
> > unbelievable,"
> > says an aide to one staunchly anti-war House member. "It was all about
> > the
> > public show. Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough
> > stand against
> > Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote,
> > it was
> > like Swiss cheese. Full of holes."
> >
> > In the House, some seventy Democrats joined the Out of Iraq caucus and
> > repeatedly butted heads with Reid and Pelosi, arguing passionately for
> > tougher
> > measures to end the war. The fight left some caucus members bitter
> > about the
> > party's failure. Rep. Barbara Lee of California was one of the first to
> > submit
> > an amendment to cut off funding unless it was tied to an immediate
> > withdrawal.
> > "I couldn't even get it through the Rules Committee in the spring," Lee
> > says.
> >
> > Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a fellow caucus member, says Democrats should have
> > refused
> > from the beginning to approve any funding that wasn't tied to a
> > withdrawal. "If
> > we'd been bold the minute we got control of the House - and that's why
> > we got
> > the majority, because the people of this country wanted us out of Iraq
> > - if we'd
> > been bold, even if we lost the votes, we would have gained our voice."
> >
> > An honest attempt to end the war, say Democrats like Woolsey and Lee,
> > would have
> > involved forcing Bush to execute his veto and allowing the Republicans
> > to
> > filibuster all they wanted. Force a showdown, in other words, and use
> > any means
> > necessary to get the bloodshed ended.
> >
> > "Can you imagine Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert taking no for an answer
> > the way
> > Reid and Pelosi did on Iraq?" asks the House aide in the expletive-
> > filled
> > office. "They'd find a way to get the votes. They'd get it done
> > somehow."
> >
> > But any suggestion that the Democrats had an obligation to fight this
> > good fight
> > infuriates the bund of hedging careerists in charge of the party. In
> > fact,
> > nothing sums up the current Democratic leadership better than its
> > vitriolic
> > criticisms of those recalcitrant party members who insist on
> > interpreting their
> > 2006 mandate as a command to actually end the war. Rep. David Obey,
> > chair of the
> > House Appropriations Committee and a key Pelosi-Reid ally, lambasted
> > anti-war
> > Democrats who "didn't want to get specks on those white robes of
> > theirs." Obey
> > even berated a soldier's mother who begged him to cut off funds for the
> > war,
> > accusing her and her friends of "smoking something illegal."
> >
> > Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats
> > devoted their
> > energy to making sure that "anti-war activism" became synonymous with
> > "electing
> > Democrats." Capitalizing on America's desire to end the war, they
> > hijacked the
> > anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal
> > party
> > hacks. Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for
> > the
> > Democrats - one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily
> > to
> > targeting Republicans.
> >
> > This supposedly grass-roots "anti-war coalition" met regularly on K
> > Street, the
> > very capital of top-down Beltway politics. At the forefront of the
> > groups are
> > Thomas Matzzie and Brad Woodhouse of Americans Against the Escalation
> > in Iraq,
> > the leader of the anti-war lobby. Along with other K Street crusaders,
> > the two
> > have received iconic treatment from The Washington Post and The New
> > York Times,
> > both of which depicted the anti-war warriors as young idealist-
> > progressives in
> > shirtsleeves, riding a mirthful spirit into political combat - changing
> > the
> > world is fun!
> >
> > But what exactly are these young idealists campaigning for? At its most
> > recent
> > meeting, the group eerily echoed the Reid-Pelosi "squeezed for time"
> > mantra:
> > Retreat from any attempt to end the war and focus on electing
> > Democrats. "There
> > was a lot of agreement that we can draw distinctions between anti-war
> > Democrats
> > and pro-war Republicans," a spokeswoman for Americans Against the
> > Escalation in
> > Iraq announced.
> >
> > What the Post and the Times failed to note is that much of the anti-war
> > group's
> > leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes - whose
> > partners, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, served as staffers for the
> > Democratic
> > Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). In addition, these anti-war
> > leaders
> > continue to consult for many of the same U.S. senators whom they need
> > to
> > pressure in order to end the war. This is the kind of conflict of
> > interest that
> > would normally be an embarrassment in the activist community.
> >
> > Worst of all is the case of Woodhouse, who came to Hildebrand Tewes
> > after years
> > of working as the chief mouthpiece for the DSCC, where he campaigned
> > actively to
> > re-elect Democratic senators who supported the Iraq War in the first
> > place.
> > Anyone bothering to look - and clearly the Post and the Times did not
> > before
> > penning their ardent bios of Woodhouse - would have found the youthful
> > idealist
> > bragging to newspapers before the Iraq invasion about the pro-war
> > credentials of
> > North Carolina candidate Erskine Bowles. "No one has been stronger in
> > this race
> > in supporting President Bush in the War on Terror and his efforts to
> > effect a
> > regime change in Iraq," boasted the future "anti-war" activist
> > Woodhouse.
> >
> > With guys like this in charge of the anti-war movement, much of what
> > has passed
> > for peace activism in the past year was little more than a thinly
> > veiled scheme
> > to use popular discontent over the war to unseat vulnerable Republicans
> > up for
> > re-election in 2008. David Sirota, a former congressional staffer whose
> > new
> > book, The Uprising, excoriates the Democrats for their failure to end
> > the war,
> > expresses disgust at the strategy of targeting only Republicans. "The
> > whole idea
> > is based on this insane fiction that there is no such thing as a pro-
> > war
> > Democrat," he says. "Their strategy allows Democrats to take credit for
> > being
> > against the war without doing anything to stop it. It's crazy."
> >
> > Justin Raimondo, the uncompromising editorial director of Antiwar.com,
> > regrets
> > contributing twenty dollars to Americans Against the Escalation in
> > Iraq. "Not
> > only did they use it to target Republicans," he says, "they went after
> > the ones
> > who were on the fence about Iraq." The most notorious case involved
> > Lincoln
> > Chafee, a moderate from Rhode Island who lost his Senate seat in 2006.
> > Since
> > then, Chafee has taken shots at Democrats like Reid, Hillary Clinton
> > and Chuck
> > Schumer, all of whom campaigned against him despite having voted for
> > the war
> > themselves.
> >
> > "Look, I understand partisan politics," says Chafee, who now concedes
> > that
> > voters were correct to punish him for his war vote. "I just find it
> > amusing that
> > those who helped get us into this mess now say we need to change the
> > Senate -
> > because we're in a mess."
> >
> > The really tragic thing about the Democratic surrender on Iraq is that
> > it's now
> > all but guaranteed that the war will be off the table during the
> > presidential
> > campaign. Once again - it happened in 2002, 2004 and 2006 - the
> > Democrats have
> > essentially decided to rely on the voters to give them credit for being
> > anti-war, despite the fact that, for all the noise they've made to the
> > contrary,
> > in the end they've done nothing but vote for war and cough up every
> > dime they've
> > been asked to give, every step of the way.
> >
> > Even beyond the war, the Democrats have repeatedly gone limp-dick every
> > time the
> > Bush administration so much as raises its voice. Most recently, twelve
> > Democrats
> > crossed the aisle to grant immunity to phone companies who participated
> > in
> > Bush's notorious wiretapping program. Before that, Democrats caved in
> > and
> > confirmed Mike Mukasey as attorney general after he kept his middle
> > finger
> > extended and refused to condemn waterboarding as torture. Democrats
> > fattened by
> > Wall Street also got cold feet about upsetting the country's
> > gazillionaires,
> > refusing to close a tax loophole that rewarded hedge-fund managers with
> > a tax
> > rate less than half that paid by ordinary citizens.
> >
> > But the war is where they showed their real mettle. Before the 2006
> > elections,
> > Democrats told us we could expect more specifics on their war plans
> > after
> > Election Day. Nearly two years have passed since then, and now they are
> > once
> > again telling us to wait until after an election to see real action to
> > stop the
> > war. In the meantime, of course, we're to remember that they're the
> > good guys,
> > the Republicans are the real enemy, and, well, go Hillary! Semper fi!
> > Yay, team!
> >
> > How much of this bullshit are we going to take? How long are we
> > supposed to give
> > the Reids and Pelosis and Hillarys of the world credit for wanting,
> > deep down in
> > their moldy hearts, to do the right thing?
> >
> > Look, fuck your hearts, OK? Just get it done. Because if you don't,
> > sooner or
> > later this con is going to run dry. It may not be in '08, but it'll be
> > soon.
> > Even Americans can't be fooled forever.
> >
> >       ###