[Peace-discuss] Fake Anti-war groups retreat...

[C. G. ESTABROOK]

[What is called "the anti-war movement" here is that coalition of 
Democratic party front groups that have had as their goal the taming of 
  opposition to the war for the uses of the Democratic party.  This 
tactic  -- dubbed "co-option" during the Vietnam war -- became necessary 
when the Democrats were given control of Congress by an electorate 
opposed to the war. But the party supports the over-all Mideast policy, 
of which the Iraq war is a part.  It was therefore reduced to pretending 
that it opposed the war (timelines, etc.) while continuing to vote funds 
for it.  This "coalition of anti-war groups," with a large amount of 
money from Democratic funders, was supposed to neutralize opposition to 
the war by criticizing how the Republicans [sic] were doing it but not 
the fact that it was being done at all.  It is one of the more 
disgusting features of contemporary US politics.  --CGE]


	Anti-war groups retreat on funding fight
	By: Ryan Grim
	January 17, 2008 12:30 PM EST

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with 
more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war 
groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding 
for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. 
troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower 
their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from 
entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could 
keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with 
Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring 
the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the 
early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum 
for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, 
executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting 
attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations 
were dashed.”

The meeting, held at an office on K Street, was attended by around 20 
representatives of influential anti-war groups, including MoveOn.org and 
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which spent $12 million last year 
opposing the war.

Isaacs said he thought the meeting would be a difficult one, with an 
adamant faction pressing for continued focus on timelines and funding. 
It wasn’t to be.

“We got our heads together and decided to go a different way,” Isaacs 
said. “The consensus was not to keep beating our heads against the wall 
trying to block every funding bill — not because we don’t agree with it, 
but because we don’t have the votes.”

Moira Mack, a spokeswoman for AAEI, was also at the meeting. “There was 
a lot of agreement that this is really the way that we can best get our 
message across about endless war versus end-the-war and draw clear 
distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans. They 
really don’t want to end the war. This is the perfect legislative 
opportunity.”

An additional factor: The failure of last year’s end-of-the-session 
efforts to oppose the war convinced some in the movement that the 
numbers just weren’t there. “At the end of the year, Congress went out 
with a whole bunch more votes on Iraq with the same result. Some of the 
[news] stories were saying that members of Congress were getting tired 
of it,” Isaacs said.

The new strategy doesn’t mean that the groups won’t be active during 
budget battles. “The budget debates provide an enormously rich 
opportunity to engage the public,” said former Maine Rep. Tom Andrews of 
the group Win Without War. “We’re spending $8 [billion] to $10 billion a 
month.”

During Tuesday night’s presidential debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 
(D-N.Y.) referenced the kind of legislation that the anti-war crowd will 
be backing when she asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he would 
co-sponsor a bill to prevent the president from entering into any 
long-term agreements with the Iraqi government without consulting Congress.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama will “support all common-sense 
efforts to ensure that President Bush does not tie the hands of future 
presidents through agreements with the Iraqi government.”

In December, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) sent a strongly worded letter to Bush 
asking for information about what types of agreements the president 
planned to enter into and urging that he consult with Congress first. It 
was signed by Clinton and Democratic Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), 
Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Carl Levin (Mich.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).

“The feeling is that Clinton’s too hot to handle for legislation right 
now, so we’re hoping somebody like Casey will carry it,” Isaacs said, 
expressing concern that Clinton’s presidential run could give the bill 
too much partisan edge to get through the Senate.

In the House on Tuesday, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill 
that would make clear that no federal money could be spent to implement 
an agreement Bush reaches with Iraq unless it’s in the form of a 
congressionally approved treaty.

Members of the anti-war coalition say they are working to gather 
co-sponsors for the bill but that they will also attempt to insert 
similar language in the upcoming supplemental spending bill. Late last 
year, Bush requested nearly $200 billion for the war effort; Democrats 
gave $70 billion and will be revisiting further funding soon.

For Mack, the logic of the argument seems straightforward. “Maliki is 
talking about getting congressional approval on the Iraq side,” Mack 
said, referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “It’s absurd 
that Bush wouldn’t go to the U.S. Congress.”

The anti-war movement also thinks it has a winning argument when it 
comes to the length of time Americans are willing to see U.S. forces in 
Iraq. Roughly half of Americans recently surveyed by CBS News want most 
U.S. troops out within a year, and more than half think it was a mistake 
to invade in the first place. Every Democratic candidate for president 
has promised to withdraw almost all troops from Iraq within the first 
year of his or her presidency.

Earlier this week, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadir said U.S. troops 
might need to remain in Iraq until 2018, which could cost the United 
States $1 trillion or more between now and then, according to 
Congressional Budget Office projections. Bush said recently that it is 
“fine with me” if U.S. troop levels remain the same in Iraq, if Army 
Gen. David Petraeus recommends such a deployment.

Bush also said last week that U.S. troops “could easily” be in Iraq for 
a decade or more.

AAEI will have a budget roughly as large as it had last year, Mack said, 
and the new focus should be seen as an addition to its strategy, rather 
than as a retreat from a previous position. “Clearly, folks continue to 
oppose any more money for the war, and that was discussed as well. Our 
groups are still going to actively oppose any more funding,” she said.


TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton 
Communications Company