[Peace-discuss] Democrats subvert anti-war movement

[Morton K. Brussel]

Another response to Taibbi.

Taibbi Gets It Halfway Right

By David Swanson, http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30906

In "Chicken Doves" Matt Taibbi correctly denounces the phony, monied,  
Democratic-front antiwar movement without acknowledging the real one.  
United for Peace and Justice, and other organizations serious about  
peace, struggle against a corrupt Congress, a pseudo peace movement  
with lots more money than we have, and reporters like Taibbi who  
pretend that a major movement that is actually working for peace with  
projects like this one upcoming in March: http://resistinmarch.org  
does not exist.

Taibbi correctly condemns the Democrats' past year of not really  
trying to end the occupation of Iraq. But he fails to acknowledge  
that they still have almost another whole year left in which they  
could quite easily act if they wanted to. Millions of us will  
continue pushing them to cut off the funding, with no help from  
Taibbi and other journalists who buy into the pretense that it is  
already 2009.

Taibbi does not spell it out, but here is why the Democrats' claim of  
powerlessness is false:

It is a lie that Congress must pass a bill to end the occupation of  
Iraq. The occupation can be ended with an announcement by  
Congressional leaders that there will be no more funding. Any  
proposal to fund it can be blocked by 41 senators. Bush has plenty of  
money for withdrawal and could be given more for that exclusive  
purpose. When your television tells you the Democrats need 60 or 67  
senators to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could if  
they wanted announce today that the House and Senate will no longer  
bring to a vote any bills to fund anything other than withdrawal.  
They have many colleagues already on board with that position, not to  
mention two thirds of the country. It would take 218 signatures on a  
discharge petition to force a bill to the floor of the House without  
Pelosi's approval. It is unlikely enough Democrats would oppose their  
party to fund Bush's war in that way. In the Senate, Reid alone could  
refuse to bring a bill to the floor, or another senator could put a  
secret hold on a bill. And, while not all bills can be filibustered  
(appropriations bills can be, budget reconciliation bills cannot),  
you can hardly claim you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster  
without admitting that with only 41 you could launch your own  
filibuster and that with 51 you could defeat any bill. Once you  
understand the goal as blocking bills rather than passing them, the  
number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.

Here's a transcript of Reid admitting he could block the funding but  
won't.

http://www.democrats.com/harry-reid-admits-he-could-block-iraq-funds- 
but-he-wont


On Feb 10, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

> Does all this apply to such major anti-war/peace organizations as  
> UFPJ?
>
> All this discussion is a little too pat, IMHO.
>
> Yes, condemn the party leadership and hanger-ons, but accept that  
> many who call themselves Democrats are disgusted by the complacency  
> and hypocrisy of their party leadership, as the article by Taibbi  
> mentions.
>
> I continue to believe that there are important differences in the  
> attitudes towards issues of imperialism, war and peace, militarism  
> and world justice between the constituencies of the two major  
> parties. Both, but especially the Democratic party contain a broad  
> distribution in attitudes and beliefs. Those who describe these  
> constituencies as monolithic simply refuse to understand…,  
> partially out of frustration, I suppose.
>
> All this is not to say that we are in not in desperate straits wrt  
> government and "democracy" in this nation. The crisis stems from  
> the power structure in place.
>
> --mkb
>
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2008, at 1:10 AM, 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.
>>>
>>> 	###
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080212/f240b089/attachment-0001.html