Friday, March 30, 2007
Hillary Clinton's Plan for "Peace with Honor
John Judis has a good follow up to Michael Crowly's piece at the The New Republic on Hillary Clinton's real foreign policy. Judis makes the good point that Hillary has a very good reason she has not apologized for voting for the Iraq war: She still supports it.
Clinton did vote for August 2008 withdrawal date in the Senate, but according to Judis her conception of the level of involvement we will still have in Iraq after that date is much more extensive that what most of her fellow Democrats probably think.
If Clinton cinches the Democratic nomination, she would in all likelihood run a Nixonian like "Peace with Honor" campaign, portraying the Republicans as a party in crisis who have failed to pacify Iraq. I can see the commercials now. The 1968 comparisons would be even more apt if McCain-who looks as happy about watching his political career crumble defending someone else's foreign policy disaster as Humphrey did-gets the GOP nomination.
Unlike some, I think she would win pretty handily, even against a Giuliani or Tho
mpson. The American public sees Iraq as the GOP's war, just like Americans in 1968 saw Vietnam as the Democrats war. In 1968 the public did not trust the same party that got us into the conflict to get us out and I think it will be the same in 2008. But if we get stuck with four years of what Judis admits is a "Bush-lite" foreign policy, the terrible damage inflicted by the Bush administration in the realm of foreign policy will only be compounded and would likely have a disastrous effect on the Democratic Party.
"In spite of her support this month for a Senate resolution mandating withdrawal, Clinton is still a hawk on Iraq--and, in my opinion, is still flying blind. "
Clinton did vote for August 2008 withdrawal date in the Senate, but according to Judis her conception of the level of involvement we will still have in Iraq after that date is much more extensive that what most of her fellow Democrats probably think.
"Clinton's idea of a residual occupying force goes well beyond that of the recent Senate resolution. The resolution provides for a "limited number" of troops after the pullout date, which would be devoted to training and to "targeted counterterrorism operations." By contrast, Clinton's force would have larger geopolitical responsibilities, including the restraint of Iranian power. Clinton says she doesn't know how many U.S. troops her plan would require, or how many military bases would be required to house them. But Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy, who conducted the interview, noted that former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, who has developed a strikingly similar plan, estimates that 75,000 American troops would be needed to carry his plan out. That's about half of the current force stationed in Iraq."Clinton would pull troops out the areas where the sectarian conflict is hottest, which is most of the major cities but on the whole the US would continue to occupy Iraq and play a major military role in the region for the indefinite future.
If Clinton cinches the Democratic nomination, she would in all likelihood run a Nixonian like "Peace with Honor" campaign, portraying the Republicans as a party in crisis who have failed to pacify Iraq. I can see the commercials now. The 1968 comparisons would be even more apt if McCain-who looks as happy about watching his political career crumble defending someone else's foreign policy disaster as Humphrey did-gets the GOP nomination.
Unlike some, I think she would win pretty handily, even against a Giuliani or Tho
mpson. The American public sees Iraq as the GOP's war, just like Americans in 1968 saw Vietnam as the Democrats war. In 1968 the public did not trust the same party that got us into the conflict to get us out and I think it will be the same in 2008. But if we get stuck with four years of what Judis admits is a "Bush-lite" foreign policy, the terrible damage inflicted by the Bush administration in the realm of foreign policy will only be compounded and would likely have a disastrous effect on the Democratic Party. Unlike Nixon-who secretly knew we could not achieve a victory in Vietnam-Crowly makes a convincing case that Hillary really does believe in a milder version of neo-conservatism that still believes in the value of the regular and offensive use of military force to enforce US will around the world. Crowly quotes here before the Council of Foreign Relations as saying
"There is a refrain ... that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."
I don't know if blindness and arrogance is any better for the country than cynicism however.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, Iraq
Employee Free Choice Act Goes to the Senate
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)-which was passed by the House of Representatives on March 1st is mving on to the Senate. So far the bill, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) has 46 co-sponsors. If you are doing the math that leaves 4 Democrats who oppose the EFCA. Considering the role labor played in winning the Democrats the the Senate, you'd wonder what Democrat would have the gumption to buck the unions. Well here they are.
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-6551Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/email.htmlhttp://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-6551Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/email.htmlhttp://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
Ok, not that surprised.
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR)355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-4843Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR)217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-2353Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/email_webform.htm
Kind of makes sense considering their state's main industry is the vanguard of union-busting. This last one really gets me though.
Salazar, Ken - (D - CO)UNITED STATES SENATE WASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-5852 Web Form: http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Considering the Democratic convention will be held in Denver you would think the Democratic leadership might want to bend some arms on this. Nearly every fraction of the Democratic party from the traditional liberals and netroot types to the DLC and Joe Lieberman back the EFCA and its inexcusable to let Salazar essentially thumb his nose at the rest of the party and labor. If you can only call one Senator make it Ken.
And you might want to give the DNC call and suggest that the Democrats pull out of Denver if Salazar votes against the right to organize.
Check out the AFL-CIO blog on how to get involved.
Labels: AFL-CIO, Employee Free Choice Act
Hard Hats Shout Down Iraq War Apologists
Hard-Hats Then (1970)
Only four days after the shootings at Kent State in the Spring of 197o, a group of nearly two thousand construction workers-many working on the World Trade Center- descended on Wall Street and violently assaulted the some 1,000 anti-war protesters gathered there. The workers then went on to storm city hall and ran the US flag-which was being flown at half mast in remembrance of the deaths at Kent State-back to full mast. Less than a month latter nearly 100,000 construction workers marched through the streets of Manhattan in support of President Nixon. Nixon was so impressed by the so called "hard-hat riots" that he picked the president of the powerful New York City Building and Construction Trades Council Peter Brennan as his Secretary of Labor.
But that was then. Its unlikely you will be seeing any construction workers today marching through the streets for Bush. According to yesterday's Boston Globe:
But that was then. Its unlikely you will be seeing any construction workers today marching through the streets for Bush. According to yesterday's Boston Globe:
"Democratic presidential candidates pledged their support for labor rights before a builders union yesterday, but the war in Iraq cast a shadow over the session, with union members shouting down a Republican lawmaker who backed the war and cheering Democrats who promised to get the United States out of Iraq.
"This war is a mess. We should bring the troops home now!" shouted Representative Dennis Kucinich , Democrat of Ohio, bringing the blue-collar crowd to its feet in raucous applause. Kucinich, a second-tier candidate who draws minimal support in public-opinion polls, rarely gets such an enthusiastic response at multi candidate forums.
In contrast to the stony silence that greeted Sen. John McCain when he tried defending Bush's troop surge before the AFL-CIO, the contemporary hard-hats were more direct in expressing theirdisapproval of the Iraq war
"By contrast, House minority leader John Boehner of Ohio, one of two Republicans who addressed the conference, was booed loudly when he spoke in favor of the war. "If we don't fight them [in Iraq], we will be fighting them here in America," Boehner said, before the audience shouted him down."
Hard Hats Now (2007)
Labels: Building Trades, Campaign 2008, Iraq
Thursday, March 29, 2007
US and Iraqi Forces Raid Iraqi Union Office
US and Iraqi government forces have once again raided the office of Iraq's largest trade union federation. Truly stuck between a rock and a hard place, Iraq's union movement is struggling for democracy and social justice while dealing with harassment from hostile US occupation force and the anti-labor Iraqi government and violence from various sectarian militias. Many of their leader have died at the hands of the latter. Please show your support and solidarity below.
--
From LabourStart
--
From LabourStart
IRAQI UNION OFFICES RAIDED
Six days ago, US and Iraqi forces raided the head offices of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW), the country's national trade union center. They arrested one of the union's security staff (later released unharmed), destroyed furniture, and confiscated a computer and fax machine. And then they did it again two days later, causing further damage to the union headquarters.
The union is condemning the attacks as unprovoked. It is calling on the occupation forces to issue a written apology, to return all the seized property, and to pay compensation for damages caused.
They are asking unions around the world to send messages of protest by clicking here:
To protest click here.
They are asking unions around the world to send messages of protest by clicking here:
To protest click here.
Labels: Iraq, Trade-unions
DC For Edwards
For all you in the District.
"Hi Neighbors:
Just wanted to let you know that a bunch of John Edwards for President supporters here in DC got together to form DC For John Edwards. I also wanted to invite you to the first DC for John Edwards network kick off fundraiser to support John Edwards for President on Thursday,April 12th from 5PM to 7PM at the Big Hunt located at 1345 Connecticut Avenue, NW (Dupont Circle Metro). A $20 donation will includecomplementary appetizers and John Edwards for President campaign goodies. If you would like to join us please RSVP at mailto:atDCforJohnEdwards
Thanks,
Allyson
Co-Founder, DC for John Edwards
"Hi Neighbors:
Just wanted to let you know that a bunch of John Edwards for President supporters here in DC got together to form DC For John Edwards. I also wanted to invite you to the first DC for John Edwards network kick off fundraiser to support John Edwards for President on Thursday,April 12th from 5PM to 7PM at the Big Hunt located at 1345 Connecticut Avenue, NW (Dupont Circle Metro). A $20 donation will includecomplementary appetizers and John Edwards for President campaign goodies. If you would like to join us please RSVP at mailto:atDCforJohnEdwards
Thanks,
Allyson
Co-Founder, DC for John Edwards
Labels: Campaign 2008, John Edwards
2006: Great Year for Fair Trade
Chris Slevin and Todd Tucker at the Democratic Strategist show that 2006 was not only a good year for the Democrats but was a great year for advocates of fair-trade.
As Slevin and Tucker shows, 2006 will be the year when the tides shifted back to a pro-fair trade position inside the Democratic Party. And according to them, fair-trade isn't just the right response to globalization; its good politics.
"In the midterm elections, a net sum of 7 Senate and 30 House seats flipped from the anti-fair trade to the fair trade column. Moreover, as our research shows, most of those Democratic candidates that made a strong fair trade message a campaign priority won, while most of those that did not--including many high-profile candidates supported by the national party--lost. (A "fair trade" position supports strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards in the core text of trade agreements, is against harmful investment and protectionist pharmaceutical patent rules, and is open to replacing fast track with a more democratic alternative.)"Back in the early 1990's, criticism of unfettered economic globalization was viewed by most pols as the reserve of right-wing populists like Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot and declining blue-collar unions while "New Democrats" like Clinton were its great advocates. Remember when the Clinton campaign subcontracted out Al Gore to take on Perot on the merits of NAFTA? Things have changed.
As Slevin and Tucker shows, 2006 will be the year when the tides shifted back to a pro-fair trade position inside the Democratic Party. And according to them, fair-trade isn't just the right response to globalization; its good politics.
"Between the 2004 and 2006 elections, in their voting record and messaging, Democrats reconnected with middle-class economics for the first time since the Clinton administration wheeled and dealed NAFTA through Congress in 1993, a move that blurred the line of economic policy differentiation between the parties. The 2005 vote on CAFTA, a Bush priority expanding NAFTA to Central America, was framed as a referendum on NAFTA's decade of lived damage both in the United States and in Mexico. The Republican Party became owner of NAFTA's legacy when just 15 House Democrats supported CAFTA, compared to the 102 Democrats who voted for NAFTA. The Senate CAFTA vote was uniquely tight with 45 senators voting against it. And all congressional Democrats said to be exploring 2008 presidential bids voted against CAFTA--including several who had supported NAFTA over a decade earlier. And in July 2006, most Democrats also voted against a NAFTA-style pact with Oman."
Labels: campaign 2006, fair trade
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Hillary's New Road to Financial Freedom: Endorse Me and Be Debt Free!
Debt is a problem that crushing the dreams and hopes of too many Americans. Last week, Sen. Hillary Clinton unveiled a new plan to help Americans get on the road in financial freedom. And she started in America's heartland.
Tom Vilsack is a former Governor of Iowa. At one point he was running for President but he dropped out because it cost way too much money. Money he didn't have. So much money that he was $400,000 in the hole when he decided to drop out in February. This was only after four months of campaigning. The newly unemployed Vilsack, harrased by collection agencies at all hours of the day and finding that repo men had taken his car, did not know where to turn.
Luckily, Sen. Clinton who also happens to be running for President and is sitting on more money than Scrooge McDuck decided to chip in and help old Tom out. What a pal.
In unrelated news, the newly debt free Vilsack endorsed the generous junior Senator from New York on Monday and encouraged his fellow Iowans who seems to have a big say who gets to be President to get behind her too. Vilsack is now living debt-free and faces every new day with the hope that financial freedom brings. Right after he puts on his "Hillary '08" button.
Tom Vilsack is a former Governor of Iowa. At one point he was running for President but he dropped out because it cost way too much money. Money he didn't have. So much money that he was $400,000 in the hole when he decided to drop out in February. This was only after four months of campaigning. The newly unemployed Vilsack, harrased by collection agencies at all hours of the day and finding that repo men had taken his car, did not know where to turn.
Luckily, Sen. Clinton who also happens to be running for President and is sitting on more money than Scrooge McDuck decided to chip in and help old Tom out. What a pal.
In unrelated news, the newly debt free Vilsack endorsed the generous junior Senator from New York on Monday and encouraged his fellow Iowans who seems to have a big say who gets to be President to get behind her too. Vilsack is now living debt-free and faces every new day with the hope that financial freedom brings. Right after he puts on his "Hillary '08" button.
Labels: Campaign 2008, Hillary Clinton
Congress's Secret Iraqi Oil Privitization Benchmark
Among the many benchmarks that Congress stuck on the Iraq war spending measure last week was a little known provision that many liberals missed. As Ryan Grimm reports in today’s Politico.
“The current bill going through Congress would ratchet up pressure on the Iraqi Parliament to enact “a broadly accepted hydrocarbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis.”Sounds good but to many Iraqis and analysts of the Iraqi oil industry the wording is exactly similar to an Iraqi bill that would open up Iraq's enormous oil wealth to foreign investors. Language about sharing oil wealth is all well and good but as Antonaa Juhasz from Oil Change International recently put it:
"the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies."
That’s right. The House of Representatives is now on record as pressuring the Iraqi government to essentially privatize its petro-resources. Stuck in there among less objectionable goals for the Iraqi government, the oil benchmark may use somewhat vague language and many Democrats chose to ignore it, but for the Bush administration it's one benchmark that has been at their top of the list since the war started.
The administration has been putting pressure on the Iraqi government since the invasion to privatize pretty much everything in the state heavy Iraqi economy. As Naomi Klein reported back in 2004, many in the administration had fantasies of turning Iraq into a kind of “Year Zero” for neo-liberal economics, eliminating nearly every possible state barrier to foreign investment. Of course that was when they still had hopes that newly stable and pro-US Iraq would become a free-market model before the growing insurgency and sectarian strife essentially halted the process of creating a Milton Friedman styled utopia
While it’s unlikely that any foreign energy company would drop any money in Iraq at this point, the pressure for privatization from the administration continues. According to Grimm:
In February the Maliki government introduced new legislation in the Iraqi parliament that would in practice privatize the country’s oil resources and he is hoping to get it turned into law soon.
Oil in Iraq-like elsewhere in the Middle East-is an explosive political issue. Some Iraqi’s can still remember the days during British colonial occupation when the oil field when were owned by British and American corporations. The nationalization of Iraq’s oil fields was one of the first acts of a newly independent Iraq and the oil profits that formerly went to London or Houston helped fuel (pun intended) one of the highest living standards in the Arab world.
Most vocal in their opposition to the privatization of Iraq’s oil are the forces on the ground most committed to a democratic, secular and pluralistic Iraq; the Iraqi trade-unions. Sparing no words they condemned the bill for:
The administration has been putting pressure on the Iraqi government since the invasion to privatize pretty much everything in the state heavy Iraqi economy. As Naomi Klein reported back in 2004, many in the administration had fantasies of turning Iraq into a kind of “Year Zero” for neo-liberal economics, eliminating nearly every possible state barrier to foreign investment. Of course that was when they still had hopes that newly stable and pro-US Iraq would become a free-market model before the growing insurgency and sectarian strife essentially halted the process of creating a Milton Friedman styled utopia
While it’s unlikely that any foreign energy company would drop any money in Iraq at this point, the pressure for privatization from the administration continues. According to Grimm:
”The Associated Press reported earlier this month that (Prime Minister Nouri-Al Maliki fears the U.S. would withdraw support for him if he doesn’t succeed in passing the current version of the bill.”
In February the Maliki government introduced new legislation in the Iraqi parliament that would in practice privatize the country’s oil resources and he is hoping to get it turned into law soon.
Oil in Iraq-like elsewhere in the Middle East-is an explosive political issue. Some Iraqi’s can still remember the days during British colonial occupation when the oil field when were owned by British and American corporations. The nationalization of Iraq’s oil fields was one of the first acts of a newly independent Iraq and the oil profits that formerly went to London or Houston helped fuel (pun intended) one of the highest living standards in the Arab world.
Most vocal in their opposition to the privatization of Iraq’s oil are the forces on the ground most committed to a democratic, secular and pluralistic Iraq; the Iraqi trade-unions. Sparing no words they condemned the bill for:
“handing of authority and control over the oil to foreign companies that aim to make big profits at the expense of the people and to rob Iraq’s national wealth.”Luckily, Sen. Joe Biden (D-De) was able to get language in the Senate’s version of the bill that goes on record as opposing any US control over Iraq’s oil resources but it unlikely that the Administration-which has so far refused to listen to Congress on anything else-will let up the pressure on the Iraqi government. Maliki needs to know though that there are voices in US Congress who are opposed to privatization and that he spend more time heeding the voices of the Iraqi people; in particular the labor movement who want to use Iraq’s natural resources in order to rebuild their nation, not line the pockets of multi-national corporations.
Labels: Iraq
GOP Senators who Just Voted Themselves Out of Office
The following Senators up for re-election in 2008 just voted themselves out of office yesterday by voting to strip the Senate Iraq supplemental of withdrawal deadlines. Which amazingly failed btw.
Norm Coleman (MN)-Deadman walking. The Dems could field a Chimp and knock Coleman out. Or a former late-night comedy writer.
Susan Collins (ME)-Used to be popular, but her "I'm a Progressive Rockefeller Republican" routine just ran out of gas.
John Sununu (NH)-The Democrats in 2006 took over the New Hampshire legislature for the first time in the Granite State since the regular use of the horse and buggy. Not looking good for John.
John Warner (VA)-This could be tough but if former Governor Mark Warner (D) takes John Warner on in 2008 as has been hinted, Jim Webb could be become the new senior Senator from the Old Dominion.
Pete Domenici (NM)-First the Gonzalez scandal, now this. The Southwest keeps looking better and better for progressives.
The Next Junior Senator from Minnesota
Norm Coleman (MN)-Deadman walking. The Dems could field a Chimp and knock Coleman out. Or a former late-night comedy writer.
Susan Collins (ME)-Used to be popular, but her "I'm a Progressive Rockefeller Republican" routine just ran out of gas.
John Sununu (NH)-The Democrats in 2006 took over the New Hampshire legislature for the first time in the Granite State since the regular use of the horse and buggy. Not looking good for John.
John Warner (VA)-This could be tough but if former Governor Mark Warner (D) takes John Warner on in 2008 as has been hinted, Jim Webb could be become the new senior Senator from the Old Dominion.
Pete Domenici (NM)-First the Gonzalez scandal, now this. The Southwest keeps looking better and better for progressives.
The Next Junior Senator from Minnesota
Labels: anti-war, Campaign 2008, Republican Party, Senate
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Marty Peretz: Arab Hating Racist
Marty Peretz, at one point in ancient history a semi-progressive person with some humanity struck it big when he married into the Singer Sewing Machine family fortune. Using his newly found dough he bought the one point liberal New Republic, which he has largely used to engage in his main political passion: gutter-style anti-Arab racism that one might find coming out of the mouth of a drunk French National Front supporter. Check out his latest blog entry on the TNR website:
"Is there no limit to the barbarity of which Iraqi Arabs are capable? None? An AP dispatch in this morning's International Herald Tribune reports that a car gained entrance to a shopping area over the weekend when its driver pointed out that he had his two children in the back. He did indeed have two youngsters in the back and he left them there when he and a comrade jumped out. The vehicle then exploded. Among the dead were three bystanders and the kids. Seven people were wounded. This, of course, is a result of Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians."
If one was to start a blog entry about a civilian death caused by the Israeli Defense Force with the line "is their no limit to horrors committed by the Jews" one would probably think they had accidentally pulled up some bad translation of a speech by a deranged preacher to a Wahabbi Madrassa.
Of course none of this is new. Peretz has been using the pages of one the longest running magazines in the US to expose the dangers of the "eternal Arab" for decades. Here are a few choice rants from the TNR:
[N]onviolence is foreign to the political culture of Arabs generally and of the Palestinians particularly. It is a failure of the collective imagination for which no one is to blame."
Diarist, The New Republic, March 10, 1986
"Is there no limit to the barbarity of which Iraqi Arabs are capable? None? An AP dispatch in this morning's International Herald Tribune reports that a car gained entrance to a shopping area over the weekend when its driver pointed out that he had his two children in the back. He did indeed have two youngsters in the back and he left them there when he and a comrade jumped out. The vehicle then exploded. Among the dead were three bystanders and the kids. Seven people were wounded. This, of course, is a result of Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians."
If one was to start a blog entry about a civilian death caused by the Israeli Defense Force with the line "is their no limit to horrors committed by the Jews" one would probably think they had accidentally pulled up some bad translation of a speech by a deranged preacher to a Wahabbi Madrassa.
Of course none of this is new. Peretz has been using the pages of one the longest running magazines in the US to expose the dangers of the "eternal Arab" for decades. Here are a few choice rants from the TNR:
[N]onviolence is foreign to the political culture of Arabs generally and of the Palestinians particularly. It is a failure of the collective imagination for which no one is to blame."
Diarist, The New Republic, March 10, 1986
"Some 2 percent of the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza are Christians. Not so long ago they were roughly 15 percent of the Arab population. The rest are Muslims, all Sunnis. What explains the decline? Birth rates, of course. Christians are better educated than Muslims (all over the Middle East), and they know that if you want to raise a productive, truly loving, and educated family, you'd be wise to raise fewer children and give them all more attention. " The Spine, The New Republic, September 21, 2006
"(Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora seems to have changed his mind about Hezbollah. Or is he simply speaking with the forked tongue that defines the political culture from which he has emerged?" The Plank, The New Republic, July 20, 2006
"(Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora seems to have changed his mind about Hezbollah. Or is he simply speaking with the forked tongue that defines the political culture from which he has emerged?" The Plank, The New Republic, July 20, 2006
"But surely there are tests that could have been taken of Hussein about what makes for evil. A certain level of testosterone combined with certain genes." The Spine, The New Republic, January 7, 2007. (You know even European anti-semitism avoided biological backings for their bigotry. That was a innovation by the Nazis).
Don't think that if you are a patriotic tax-paying Arab-American if you are any better in Peretz's eyes.
"One cannot discuss at any respectable dinner table what many respectable people are thinking themselves. This is the matter of where do Arab Americans really stand on terror. It's a question that Kenneth Chadwell, assistant U.S. attorney for the Detroit area, asked about the Lebanese Shia who make up about 30,000 of the 100,000 people in Dearborn, Michigan: 'Are they loyal to the United States or to this group Hezbollah?' The answer is not simple. Still, the question is not simple at all. … They have not really left the "old country" behind, and some of them are making themselves at home by committing criminal acts." The Plank, The New Republic, July 31, 2006"
I've had enough. You replace the word Arab with Jew, Chinese, Basque etc in any Marty Peretz article and we would all be screaming and picketing.And I'm fed up with the stony silence or lame attempts by New Republic staffers purportedly committed to a pluralistic and liberal-at least in the old-school use of the world-worldview to explain Peretz's ethnic fanaticism away. This isn't just Peretz running his mouth at a party. He is using the pages-both the tree and electronic kind- of a major circulation magazine to spew his racial rants.
Labels: Marty Peretz, The New Republic
Keep DC Voting Rights Alive
Got the following note from my "Shadow" Representative for the District of Columbia, Mike Panetta.
Dear xxxxxx,
In case you haven't heard by now, last week a few Republican Congressmen temporarily blocked the progress of the DC Voting Rights Act on the House floor using a rarely implemented parliamentary procedure. Representatives Lamar Smith (R-TX), Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX) attempted to amend the DC Voting Rights Act by adding a section that would eliminate DC's gun control laws. It was a pathetic attempt to not only deny over a half million people voting representation in Congress, but to also re-write our local laws to their liking.
This is only a minor setback. The bill will return to the House floor!
Can you please take a minute and make two phone calls to help with this effort? I need you to call both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Both have been champions on this issue and we need to thank them for their leadership in this fight. They also need to hear from people that this bill needs to brought back to the House floor this week before the upcoming recess.
Can you please take a minute and make two phone calls to help with this effort? I need you to call both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Both have been champions on this issue and we need to thank them for their leadership in this fight. They also need to hear from people that this bill needs to brought back to the House floor this week before the upcoming recess.
Their phone numbers are below:
Speaker Pelosi: (202) 225-0100
Majority Leader Hoyer: (202) 225-3130
Majority Leader Hoyer: (202) 225-3130
Please make the following points on your phone call:
* You are calling in regards to the DC Voting Rights Act
* You are very appreciative of their leadership on this issue* You are urging the House leadership to bring the bill back to a floor vote this week.
Please take a few minutes and make the call today. These offices need to hear from people like you to get this bill back to the House floor. After you make your calls, please forward this email to others who would be supportive of this effort.
Thanks for all that you do,
Mike Panetta
Mike Panetta
U.S. "Shadow" Representative (D-DC)
p.s. Don't forget to tell your friends and co-workers about http://www.freeandequaldc.com/
p.s. Don't forget to tell your friends and co-workers about http://www.freeandequaldc.com/
Labels: District of Columbia, Voting Rights
Democratic Resistance in Egypt
There are real grassroots movements struggling for democratic change in the Middle East, and Egypt is one of the hot spots. Middle East Reports has an excellent article on Egyptian textile workers and their joint struggle against both the Mubarak autocracy and the forces of economic globalization. The article concludes:
"some workers, and it is not yet clear how many, have begun to connect their thin wallets with broader political and economic circumstances -- the entrenchment of autocracy, widespread government incompetence and corruption, the regime’s subservience to the United States and its inability to offer meaningful support for the Palestinian people or meaningful opposition to the war in Iraq, high unemployment and the painfully obvious gap between rich and poor. Many Egyptians have begun to speak openly about the need for real change. Public-sector workers are well-positioned to play a role if they can organize themselves on a national basis."
Movements like this are unlikely to get much support from the current administration, but labor struggle sparked by the increasing integration of the Middle East into "free trade zones" and the collapse of the old import-substitution and state-centric economic strategies of the old Middle East elites might just be the best hope for democratic revolution in the region.
The Washington Post also has a two-part series on the democratic movement in Egypt; here and here.
"some workers, and it is not yet clear how many, have begun to connect their thin wallets with broader political and economic circumstances -- the entrenchment of autocracy, widespread government incompetence and corruption, the regime’s subservience to the United States and its inability to offer meaningful support for the Palestinian people or meaningful opposition to the war in Iraq, high unemployment and the painfully obvious gap between rich and poor. Many Egyptians have begun to speak openly about the need for real change. Public-sector workers are well-positioned to play a role if they can organize themselves on a national basis."
Movements like this are unlikely to get much support from the current administration, but labor struggle sparked by the increasing integration of the Middle East into "free trade zones" and the collapse of the old import-substitution and state-centric economic strategies of the old Middle East elites might just be the best hope for democratic revolution in the region.
The Washington Post also has a two-part series on the democratic movement in Egypt; here and here.
Labels: Middle East, Trade-unions
Monday, March 26, 2007
Chuck Hagel Hints at Impeachment
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) has been hinting in the press that impeachment of President Bush might be the way to go if he refuses to heed the power of Congress. According to Esquire:“The president says, ‘I don’t care.’ He’s not accountable anymore,” Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. “He’s not accountable anymore, which isn’t totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don’t know. It depends how this goes.”
The dissident Republican and possible Presidential candidate made a similar threat this Sunday on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous program,
"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed if a president really believes that, then there are what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run".
I appreciate the sentiment, but there is no way he could be still seriously considering running for President as a Republican. Tough talk about impeaching Bush impresses me and my friends, but none of us are registered Republicans. The winning GOP nominee in 08 will need to put some distance between him and Bush, but calling for the impeachment of your party's sitting President probably isn't the best way to win over the grassroots of the GOP.
Labels: Chuck Hagel
The Democrats Debate Healthcare
Alternet and Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future have good write ups about the recent "health-care" debate in Vegas between most of the declared Democratic candidates.
Notable notes:
-Obama was woefully unprepared and was hurt by his vagueness.
-Clinton seemed to impress the crowd by recounting her battle stories around health care during her husband's first term and her promise of introducing legislation that would outlaw discrimination by insurance companies against patients with pre-existing conditions. Nice point about with the use genetic mapping, soon insurance companies could decline coverage based on possible future complications.
-Edwards had the most facts and details on hand as he is the only candidate to actually have a health care plan
-Kucinich made a good point about the problems the power of the insurance industry could cause, cherry picking out the young, healthy and wealthy while leaving the underclass on a national medical plan. Only Kucinich tried to deal with this throny issue.
Notable notes:
-Obama was woefully unprepared and was hurt by his vagueness.
-Clinton seemed to impress the crowd by recounting her battle stories around health care during her husband's first term and her promise of introducing legislation that would outlaw discrimination by insurance companies against patients with pre-existing conditions. Nice point about with the use genetic mapping, soon insurance companies could decline coverage based on possible future complications.
-Edwards had the most facts and details on hand as he is the only candidate to actually have a health care plan
-Kucinich made a good point about the problems the power of the insurance industry could cause, cherry picking out the young, healthy and wealthy while leaving the underclass on a national medical plan. Only Kucinich tried to deal with this throny issue.
Labels: Election 2008
Friday, March 23, 2007
Clinton Defends the Indefenisible.
Bill Clinton's magic starts to fade when he is stuck defending the indefensible according to Ari Melber at the Huffington Post:
"In a conference call with major donors yesterday, former President Bill Clinton challenged the netroots for backing Barack Obama as an anti-war candidate, according to The Hill newspaper. While avoiding any direct criticism of Obama's statements, President Clinton said it was "ludicrous" to treat "Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites." Then he tried to fact-check the netroots:
"This dichotomy that's been set up to allow [Obama] to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."The Hill reports that President Clinton continued, "It's just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war," and he argued that Hillary's defense of her war vote is similar to Chuck Hagel, who remains popular in the antiwar community"
"This dichotomy that's been set up to allow [Obama] to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."The Hill reports that President Clinton continued, "It's just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war," and he argued that Hillary's defense of her war vote is similar to Chuck Hagel, who remains popular in the antiwar community"
It might have something to do with the fact that Hillary has made it point of pride to show that she has not learned anything in last five years.
Labels: Hillary Clinton
Congress Take a First Step
So the House finally voted to set a deadline to end the occupation of Iraq by the summer of 2008.
Of course not everybody is happy about it and I don't blame them. It is very far from perfect. It continues to fund the occupation for the next two years which was enough for some anti-war Congressmen and most anti-war groups to oppose the bill all together.
Code Pink for example was upset that MoveOn.org lent its support to Pelosi's bill instead of backing an amendment by Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that called for withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2007. In today's Salon a Code Pink leader is quoted as saying:
“They could have put out an alert to 3.2 million people across the country and said, ‘If you do anything tomorrow, get up and call your representatives and tell them to support the Lee Amendment,’” insists CodePink’s Gail Murphy. “They’ve got millions of dollars. If they put their money toward stopping this war, we’d have a lot more leadership in the Democratic Congress toward stopping this war.” But MoveOn didn’t stump for the Lee plan, and it died in committee."
Doubt it. MoveOn.org helped win over the hard-core anti-war Congressmen for Pelosi's plan. The problem was winning over the "Blue Dogs" for any kind of anti-war motion and they would probably be unimpressed by a MoveOn.org email alert.
I understand the frustration, but Pelosi barely got through today's bill. Anything coming from the Out of Iraq caucus would have shattered Democratic unity and died on the floor if not in Committee. Now with today's bill Bush will be forced to veto a deadline for withdrawal and force a public debate about bringing our military involvement in Iraq to an end sooner than latter, not to mention showing the Republicans that the Democrats can show the same kind of unity that made the Republicans so powerful when they were the majority. I'm not saying the anti-war movement should base its activity on Congressional maneuvering, but it should avoid reacting too harshly to Congressional Democrats who backed this bill. The movement is faced with the challenge of deciding between a resolution closer to our ideal which would certainly fail versus a compromised resolution that could win and puts Congress a little closer to ending the occupation. It's a step.
Of course not everybody is happy about it and I don't blame them. It is very far from perfect. It continues to fund the occupation for the next two years which was enough for some anti-war Congressmen and most anti-war groups to oppose the bill all together.
Code Pink for example was upset that MoveOn.org lent its support to Pelosi's bill instead of backing an amendment by Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that called for withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2007. In today's Salon a Code Pink leader is quoted as saying:
“They could have put out an alert to 3.2 million people across the country and said, ‘If you do anything tomorrow, get up and call your representatives and tell them to support the Lee Amendment,’” insists CodePink’s Gail Murphy. “They’ve got millions of dollars. If they put their money toward stopping this war, we’d have a lot more leadership in the Democratic Congress toward stopping this war.” But MoveOn didn’t stump for the Lee plan, and it died in committee."
Doubt it. MoveOn.org helped win over the hard-core anti-war Congressmen for Pelosi's plan. The problem was winning over the "Blue Dogs" for any kind of anti-war motion and they would probably be unimpressed by a MoveOn.org email alert.
I understand the frustration, but Pelosi barely got through today's bill. Anything coming from the Out of Iraq caucus would have shattered Democratic unity and died on the floor if not in Committee. Now with today's bill Bush will be forced to veto a deadline for withdrawal and force a public debate about bringing our military involvement in Iraq to an end sooner than latter, not to mention showing the Republicans that the Democrats can show the same kind of unity that made the Republicans so powerful when they were the majority. I'm not saying the anti-war movement should base its activity on Congressional maneuvering, but it should avoid reacting too harshly to Congressional Democrats who backed this bill. The movement is faced with the challenge of deciding between a resolution closer to our ideal which would certainly fail versus a compromised resolution that could win and puts Congress a little closer to ending the occupation. It's a step.
Labels: anti-war movement
Online Petition: No to Sharia Law in Kurdistan
Just got this note from Solidarite Irak a France based group that supports progressive struggle in Iraq. Needless to say progressives in the US need to step up support for our counterparts in the Middle East. Here's a start.
International Campaign To remove Article No 7
from the Kurdistan regional constitution
Sign the international petition online here:
For launching this international campaign for freedom and women's rights in Iraqi Kurdistan, Houzan Mahmoud, international representative of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, received a threat of death from Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist organisation based in Kurdistan. Don't let freedom and women's rights to be threatened in Iraq and anywhere else in the world. Please sign this petition, diffuse it widely in your networks and translate to into your own language
s.
To: Kurdistan regional Governement
Article 7 of the proposed constitution for Kurdistan is an open threat to the rights and freedoms of the people. An appointed committee to prepare a draft constitution for Kurdistan Region has suggested the following formulation in article No 7: “This Constitution stresses the identification of the majority of Kurdish people as Muslims, thus the fundamental tenets of Islamic Sharia law will be considered as one of the major sources for legislation making”. This campaign declares that such an article prepares the ground for forced Islamisation of law in Kurdistan in the future. This poses a grave threat. We consider it a major attack on the basic rights and liberties of the people of this region. In particular, it will have worrying consequences for the rights of women and for the space for secular and progressive opinion in Kurdistan to find a voice. We want to make the world aware of this threat and mobilise to counter it. There is no question that making Islamic Sharia Law a base for law making in Kurdistan will inevitably produce attacks on freedom of thought and expression and restrictions on civil rights. Gender apartheid will be practiced. We have seen the consequences of Sharia law in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. We need only to look to the south of Iraq where the Islamic Shitte parties are in power and are forcing through Islamisation with an inevitable rise of bloody sectarianism, attacks on modernity and civilisation itself as consequences. This is unacceptable to the all progressive and secular opinion the world over. Therefore article No 7 should not be allowed in the proposed constitution as a permanent article. Instead, we must demand for the separation of religion from the state and education system. Religion is a private matter for the individual. It is a basic requirement of freedom of thought and expression that every individual must be able to practice any religion of their choice. By the same token, people must be free to have no religion. No one should be tortured, discriminated against or abused because of having or not having a particular religion. This international campaign calls upon all people worldwide and in Kurdistan - freedom loving women, men, secularists and progressives - to stand up to a proposal which inserts Islamic Sharia into the constitution of Kurdistan. We call them to support and join this campaign. We call upon all democratic, social, cultural organisations and women’s organisations to prioritise this campaign, and sign this petition to register their support: The initiators of this campaign:
from the Kurdistan regional constitution
Sign the international petition online here:
For launching this international campaign for freedom and women's rights in Iraqi Kurdistan, Houzan Mahmoud, international representative of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, received a threat of death from Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist organisation based in Kurdistan. Don't let freedom and women's rights to be threatened in Iraq and anywhere else in the world. Please sign this petition, diffuse it widely in your networks and translate to into your own language
s.To: Kurdistan regional Governement
Article 7 of the proposed constitution for Kurdistan is an open threat to the rights and freedoms of the people. An appointed committee to prepare a draft constitution for Kurdistan Region has suggested the following formulation in article No 7: “This Constitution stresses the identification of the majority of Kurdish people as Muslims, thus the fundamental tenets of Islamic Sharia law will be considered as one of the major sources for legislation making”. This campaign declares that such an article prepares the ground for forced Islamisation of law in Kurdistan in the future. This poses a grave threat. We consider it a major attack on the basic rights and liberties of the people of this region. In particular, it will have worrying consequences for the rights of women and for the space for secular and progressive opinion in Kurdistan to find a voice. We want to make the world aware of this threat and mobilise to counter it. There is no question that making Islamic Sharia Law a base for law making in Kurdistan will inevitably produce attacks on freedom of thought and expression and restrictions on civil rights. Gender apartheid will be practiced. We have seen the consequences of Sharia law in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. We need only to look to the south of Iraq where the Islamic Shitte parties are in power and are forcing through Islamisation with an inevitable rise of bloody sectarianism, attacks on modernity and civilisation itself as consequences. This is unacceptable to the all progressive and secular opinion the world over. Therefore article No 7 should not be allowed in the proposed constitution as a permanent article. Instead, we must demand for the separation of religion from the state and education system. Religion is a private matter for the individual. It is a basic requirement of freedom of thought and expression that every individual must be able to practice any religion of their choice. By the same token, people must be free to have no religion. No one should be tortured, discriminated against or abused because of having or not having a particular religion. This international campaign calls upon all people worldwide and in Kurdistan - freedom loving women, men, secularists and progressives - to stand up to a proposal which inserts Islamic Sharia into the constitution of Kurdistan. We call them to support and join this campaign. We call upon all democratic, social, cultural organisations and women’s organisations to prioritise this campaign, and sign this petition to register their support: The initiators of this campaign:
• Houzan Mahmoud: representative abroad of Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq & campaign coordinator
• Marywan Halabjaee: Writer and researcher
• Sozan Shahab: Member of Kurdistan Parliament
• Marywan Halabjaee: Writer and researcher
• Sozan Shahab: Member of Kurdistan Parliament
• Nadir Abdul Hameed: political personality living in Denmark
• Goran Abdulla: coordinator of Dengekan.com website
• Sakar Ahmad: activist and writer of a book titled “victims of honour crimes”.
• Goran Abdulla: coordinator of Dengekan.com website
• Sakar Ahmad: activist and writer of a book titled “victims of honour crimes”.
Please diffuse this petition widely in your networks and translate to into your own languages
Labels: Kurdistan, Middle East
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Problem with AIPAC
I found a good piece at Salon about the recent conference of America's most powerful foreign policy lobbying organization; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Two striking things. First the strong contingent of right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who are not only allowed to participate but seem to play a major role in the event."Of the many prominent speakers at the conference, (pastor John)Hagee got one of the most
enthusiastic receptions. The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!" Hagee proclaimed, taking the microphone at the opening dinner reception on Sunday. The electrified
crowd -- most of it Jewish -- roared in support, pounding on the tables. Hagee went on to declare the United Nations a "political brothel" and asserted that Israel must never
give up land. He agreed with Israeli writer Dore Gold that granting part of
Jerusalem to the Palestinians would be "tantamount to turning it over to the
Taliban." And, after rebuking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he led the
crowd in a chant of "Israel lives!" urging them to "shout it from the
mountaintops!"
Then there is the Christian fundamentalist couple from Tennessee who were gushing about their son joining the Israeli military.
The other notable thing is the still strong support for Bush and Cheney(who spoke the conference). The Iraq war may be unpopular among almost every sector of American life, including Jews, but among the rank and file of AIPAC it still generated intense enthusiasm.
"During the opening night's events, large video screens behind the speaker's
podium showed a chronological slide show of U.S. presidents and their Israeli
prime minister contemporaries, and when the display eventually reached George W.
Bush, the room erupted into applause -- far more applause than the crowd had
given for Reagan, Kennedy or even Truman(whose support was vital to the
establishment of Israel-Gang of One note). And when Cheney first appeared on the
stage on Monday morning, the crowd immediately rose to its feet and filled the
room with loud applause, which continued intermittently through his predictably
hawkish speech.
It seemed a remarkable contrast to the currently dismal public opinion polls regarding Bush and Cheney. As one delegate standing nearby commented during the vice president's speech, "This has got to be the last crowd that still greets him this way.""
This group was so gung-ho that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually booed for criticizing the Iraq war. This is probably the only place in America outside the editorial offices of the Weekly Standard that you receive such a reception in 2007 for saying something bad about the war.
Of course most major Presidential candidates showed up and tried their best to sweet talk the crowd. Sen. Barack Obama gets some credit for at least mentioning the suffering of the Palestinian people, but that's not enough. AIPAC represents a destructive and disorientating foreign policy that has failed us and failed the cause of peace in the Middle East. Our next President will need to start to get some better advice than that provided by the extremists at AIPAC if we still desire to play any kind of role in the Middle East beside that of a resented and hated superpower.
The Council for the National Interest is one group trying to play the role as a sort of "anti-AIPAC' and trying to restore some kind of balance to our approach to the region and the Israeli/Palestine conflict. Started by former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL), CNI is still struggling compared to massive resources of AIPAC but the clear failures of US foreign policy in Middle east and war in the Iraq may finally force politicians to start reevaluating our whole approach to the region.
Labels: AIPAC
StandupCongress.Org
Can't make it to DC every couple months to protest. The Win Without War coalition has started a useful website to assist grassroots lobbying to get Congress to end US occupation in Iraq without ever having to leave your town.
They have summaries of all the debates and bills on the floor regarding the war, and a useful toolkit of on-line materials to make you better informed on the issues. Highly recommended.
"StandUpCongress.Org is a "one-stop-shop" for Americans seeking information and tools to move Congress to take a stand to end the war in Iraq and prevent an escalation of war into Iran. The website is organized by the Win Without War coalition and allied groups, and our mission is to help you sort through the political labyrinth on Capitol Hill and give you the information you need to make a difference and move Congress to re-deploy US troops from Iraq. We are non-partisan and non-electoral. We rely on our members and friends - Members of Congress, activist groups, and a wide range of other sources of information - to provide insight and information that will be useful to you. We will provide you with updated information and links to these sources whenever possible. We are committed to translating the mandate delivered by the American people on November 7 - change course in Iraq and hold the Bush administration accountable - into action."
They have summaries of all the debates and bills on the floor regarding the war, and a useful toolkit of on-line materials to make you better informed on the issues. Highly recommended.
Labels: anti-war movement, StandupCongress.org, Win Without War
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Yeah, Tom DeLay Still Here
Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been making the rounds lately promoting his new book and was on Meet the Press this Sunday representing the "pro-war" side in a debate with former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-ME), the director of the anti-war coalition "Win Without War". You know your side has trouble when the best representative you can get is a disgraced former Congressman that no G.O.P candidate would be photographed in the same football stadium with. DeLay studied the G.O.P index cards hard for this showdown; "Fight them over there so we don't fight them here", "911 and Iraq", "We can't surrender", "Cut and run", "Frontline on the war on terror". He was particularly outraged by the Democrat's demand for an exit strategy and deadline for withdrawal, questioning their patriotism. Interestingly enough DeLay used to have some good sense in how to deal with a situation when American troops are in harms way.
Of course that was when we had a Democrat as a commander-in-chief and Serbia luckily avoided being labeled the front line of an endless battle with no clear ending by D.C based think tanks.
"The President now needs to show leadership, consistently and with great
clarity, from devising an exit strategy to developing favorable rules of
engagement, from defining the criteria of success to detailing the timetables of
operations. We have learned the hard way in this country that muddled military
missions lacking clear leadership hurt our national credibility while putting
our troops in harm's way."
Of course that was when we had a Democrat as a commander-in-chief and Serbia luckily avoided being labeled the front line of an endless battle with no clear ending by D.C based think tanks.
Labels: anti-war, Iraq, Tom Delay
Monday, March 19, 2007
Anti-war protest and Bush's Bikers
This Saturday demonstration against the Iraq war much smaller than expected and much smaller than the January 27 rally. It was hard to get a sense of the actual number but I would venture under 30,000; probably less. A lot of it had to do with the weather. The northeast was pounded by surprise flurries the evening before, causing dozens of buses to cancel. Most DC demos rely on northeast turnout, so the cancellation had a definite effect. In addition Saturday was brutally cold. Another factor was the split between the two main coalitions, United for Peace and Justice and International ANSWER with the latter organizers of Saturday's demonstration preferring "purer", more radical politics.If ANSWER was looking for a more radically rhetorically event, than they certainly got it. The majority of demonstrators were college students, many belonging to one or another radical faction. Anti-capitalist slogans and revolutionary banners were plentiful. Most of the speakers belonged to one another ANSWER aligned group and they peppered their speeches with anti-imperialist slogans and talk of various non-Iraq war causes like the Cuban Five or the Palestinian right of return.I don't want to make it seem that the whole event was dominated by the radical left. There were many good mainstream speakers, including Salt Lake City Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson and many veterans, trade unionists and religious activists were in the crowd. And the anti Iraq war movement continues to be much more than just rallies in DC.But all in all, the event had the tone of a revolutionary left gathering as opposed to an anti-war demonstration.For ANSWER and the various radical groups in attendance that was their intention. According to the New York Times: “It is about radicalizing people,” Mr. Becker (Brian Becker, leader of International ANSWER) said in an interview. “You hook into a movement that exists — in this case the antiwar movement — and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”Also notable about the rally was the large number of counter-demonstrators. Various conservative bloggers and the right-wing protest group and organizer of the counter demonstration Move America Forward had put out the rumor on the internet that protestors were planning to deface the Vietnam Veterans memorial. Needless to say there is no evidence that any anti-war protestor advocated this, nor has the memorial ever been
defaced in any anti-war demonstration. I will write more about these groups latter but suffice to say the “Gathering of Eagles” is a front for Bush conservatives who were trying to mobilize Vietnam era veterans under the guise of “defending the memorials” and “supporting our troops” to back George Bush's surge. For example the founder of Move America Forward is one Howard Kaloogian, former member of the California State Assembly who launched the recall Grey Davis movement. Their chairperson is one Melanie Morgan, right radio talk show host who’s according to the Move America Forward website:"When President Clinton engaged in a series of criminal acts and then tried to
use his Administration to cover it up, Morgan rose up and led thousands to the
streets to demand Clinton’s impeachment.”
I don't remember thousands taking the streets in outrage over Clinton's marital infidelities but maybe I was listening to too much NPR at the time.While not outnumbering the anti-war protesters by any means as claimed by Fox, they were a sizable contingent and created some problems for the anti-war protesters by blocking them from getting to the rally site and yelling 
obscenities at them.Of course Fox News and conservative bloggers were all over them, claiming as “Gathering of Eagles” booster Michelle Malkin does that they are the "silent majority no more."Malkin and Kaloogian no doubt hope they can play at being Nixon by bringing in a new generation of blue collars to back the President's war policies, but the fact is the “silent majority” of Americans are still on the side of the protesters. Over 60% of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq with the 59% saying we need to pull out our troops out as soon as possible. And we can not forget that the Democratic landslide in November was largely the result of voter frustration and opposition to continuing the war.
Part of Nixon’s genius was that he managed to tap into middle America that both opposed the Vietnam war and anti-war protests (nearly 77% by 1968) dominated by student radicals by promising “peace with honor” which turned out to be a way of escalating the war while reducing the number of ground troops. The anti-war movement does not have that problem. Most Americans oppose the occupation and Bush has been so broke in terms of political capital that it would be impossible for him to swing the public behind him again.
obscenities at them.Of course Fox News and conservative bloggers were all over them, claiming as “Gathering of Eagles” booster Michelle Malkin does that they are the "silent majority no more."Malkin and Kaloogian no doubt hope they can play at being Nixon by bringing in a new generation of blue collars to back the President's war policies, but the fact is the “silent majority” of Americans are still on the side of the protesters. Over 60% of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq with the 59% saying we need to pull out our troops out as soon as possible. And we can not forget that the Democratic landslide in November was largely the result of voter frustration and opposition to continuing the war.Part of Nixon’s genius was that he managed to tap into middle America that both opposed the Vietnam war and anti-war protests (nearly 77% by 1968) dominated by student radicals by promising “peace with honor” which turned out to be a way of escalating the war while reducing the number of ground troops. The anti-war movement does not have that problem. Most Americans oppose the occupation and Bush has been so broke in terms of political capital that it would be impossible for him to swing the public behind him again.
"Gathering of Eagles" Engage in a Friendly Discussion with Anti-War Protestors
Still the appearance of Bush’s biker brigades indicates that the anti-war movement can not afford to outdistance the American public through ultra-radicalism or small scale direct action. In some sectors of the movement,-not only among the sectarian groups-there is increasing talk of using the politics of guilt as a device to mobilize people and needing to up the ante and turn protest into resistance. Even Cindy Sheehan, whose powerful appeal to many Americans who were unsure about the war was based on her ability to represent those mothers who have lost children in Iraq has let her self “become radicalized” spending more time during her speech talking about the problems of imperialism than the actual war itself. As one anti-war student organization put it:
"We refuse to be subtle in our outcry against this war, we refuse to do nothing and be silent while people are killed in our name for profit for the rich and we refuse to be sent overseas in a war for oil."
Besides being incorrect about the facts on the ground (most Iraqis are dying in the same of one of two branches of Islam at this point), such language is moralizing and self-isolating. The pressure to end this war is felt by many. America can only move forward and develop new standing in the world until the occupation is over. And the majority is with
us on this but we can’t afford to leave them behind in a quest to radicalize a small section of activists. We don't need more radical resisters; we need more letter writers, email forwarders, meeting hosters and precinct captains.
Besides being incorrect about the facts on the ground (most Iraqis are dying in the same of one of two branches of Islam at this point), such language is moralizing and self-isolating. The pressure to end this war is felt by many. America can only move forward and develop new standing in the world until the occupation is over. And the majority is with
us on this but we can’t afford to leave them behind in a quest to radicalize a small section of activists. We don't need more radical resisters; we need more letter writers, email forwarders, meeting hosters and precinct captains. The problem is not that if we radicalize the anti-war movement it will create a backlash, turning middle Americans on to the war and Bush. The whole war is too much of a disaster and Bush is just not credible enough for that to happen. The problem is that if the anti-war movement artificially cuts off all bridges of communication through ultra radical language and actions, Americans will just end up tuning it out. The anti-war movement must play a role but it needs to meet people where they are, not where its organizers may be.
Labels: anti-war movement, Gathering of Eagles, International ANSWER, Move America Forward
Friday, March 16, 2007
You'd think the War Was Obey's Fault
Going off my post from a couple days ago on Rep. Obey I just got this over the wire:
"The Democrats attempted to silence debate in the Rayburn Building-- half an hour ago 19 youth from FIST (Fight Imperialism Stand Together) stormed Rayburn to let them know that the people will not be silenced...Today--minutes ago-- a diverse group of 19 youth, mostly women, entered the Rayburn Building, to demand "Money for Jobs and Education, not for War and Occupation" and "Cut the Funding, End the War; Troops Out Now!"Their demands were loud enough to be heard from across the street and prevented the Congressional offices and hearings from conducting their daily business of imperialism, greed, and oppression.The Capitol cops were clearly unprepared for the militant youth and could only attempt to chase them through the building as they marched through every hallway on all three floors.Members of Congress may attempt to hide their crimes behind "non-binding resolutions" and phony timetables, but the antiwar movement is not fooled by political posturing. Resistance will only increase until Congress does what the people have demanded--cut off the funds and bring the troops home."
So "FIST" will keep getting arrested for barging into Congressional hearings until Congress-which would have to include the Republicans too-gets
sick of paying the Capitol police over time and brings all the troops home. As Rep. Obey so nicely put it: "Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it." All this is going to do is making harder to get into Congressional hearings. Its one thing for SDS to protest in front of the 1968 Democratic Party national convention; they had after all shut out all opposition to the Vietnam war and it was legitimate to see it as their war. Its another thing to decide that Congress-which has finally began to check Bush's war powers-is now the main enemy which will be targeted by direct action stunts.This is classic substitution of moral witness for real politics not to mention politically disorienting.
sick of paying the Capitol police over time and brings all the troops home. As Rep. Obey so nicely put it: "Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it." All this is going to do is making harder to get into Congressional hearings. Its one thing for SDS to protest in front of the 1968 Democratic Party national convention; they had after all shut out all opposition to the Vietnam war and it was legitimate to see it as their war. Its another thing to decide that Congress-which has finally began to check Bush's war powers-is now the main enemy which will be targeted by direct action stunts.This is classic substitution of moral witness for real politics not to mention politically disorienting. Of course in the case of "FIST", they aren't as naive as they seem. They are the youth group for a Kim Il Sung loving, Tiananmen Square massacre supporting Marxist-Leninist sect who is merely trying to impress college students by being the first to up the ante in the ultra-militancy game. It isn't going to help the movement and it isn't going to give us power. Its true that power conceded nothing without a demand; its also true that if those power show some interest in your demands you don't kick them in the teeth.
Not that the Iraq supplemental they voted on doesn't have major flaws. One could say it stinks. I doubt FIST is going to do a lot to change it though.
I'll let you all know about tomorrow. I'm glad to read in the Post that legitimate anti-war groups(in this case Christian ones) will be protesting in DC tonight.
Labels: anti-war movement, FIST, Rep. Obey, Workers World Party
Netroots Generation Gap: Edwards v. Obama
MyDD has an interesting post comparing the results of presidential on-line polls between MyDD readers and Daily Kos.
"While both blogs placed Edwards and Obama first and second, on Dailykos, John Edwards won a comfortable victory over Obama, 38%--26%, while on MyDD Obama won a narrow victory over Edwards, 36%--33%."
According to MyDD, the gap could be explained by the age difference between MyDD readers-who tend be under 30-and the slightly older Daily Kos crowd. There is no doubt that Obama will get a strong youth contingent though Edwards has also been targeting the colleges.
"While both blogs placed Edwards and Obama first and second, on Dailykos, John Edwards won a comfortable victory over Obama, 38%--26%, while on MyDD Obama won a narrow victory over Edwards, 36%--33%."
According to MyDD, the gap could be explained by the age difference between MyDD readers-who tend be under 30-and the slightly older Daily Kos crowd. There is no doubt that Obama will get a strong youth contingent though Edwards has also been targeting the colleges.
Labels: Daily Kos, John Edwards, MyDD
Thursday, March 15, 2007
California Love
It's been hinted at for a while, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger officially moved up California's primary date from June to February 5. For the first time since before this blogger was even born, primary voters in our biggest state will have a real say in the outcome of the Democratic and Republican party primaries. Being that California is bigger than many European nations, candidates will likely skip the coffee shops and pancake breakfasts common to our smaller and whiter states and go straight to media saturation.
I've mentioned before why the primary calendar compression is a bad thing for grassroots politics. Today George Will made a good point that in addition to coming closer to creating a national one-day primary, this will end up only making Iowa and New Hampshire, in addition to Nevada and South Carolina, more important than they already are.
"Every campaign is shaped by two scarcities -- the candidate's time and money. No candidate will have enough of either to campaign intensely, in person or even on television, in perhaps 24 states across the continent in the 22 days from Iowa (Jan. 14) to Feb. 5. As political analyst Charlie Cook says, this will raise the stakes -- the free media attention and the momentum it imparts -- that will accrue to the winner or winners of the first four states (South Carolina Democrats and Republicans vote on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2, respectively). Indeed, if one person wins three or all four of those, the Feb. 5 primaries might be mere ratifying echoes rather than deciding events."
The whole thing had me depressed about the potential of John Edwards to make it this year, but then I noticed how the even higher stakes now in place could help Edwards push past Obama and Clinton very quickly. Edwards polls the strongest in Iowa. He has been in the lead there in many polls for a while now, but most importantly he is the only candidate to have competed there before and done well. He knows what it takes to succeed in Iowa, as opposed to say Howard Dean who polled well but had little on the ground operation in the 2004 caucus. Plus as seen by the self-destruction by both Dean and Richard Gephardt on the Iowa plains, the phenomenon of two front runners beating on each other turns Iowa voters off.
A Edwards victory will throw off both Clinton and Obama and bring a lot of media coverage(not to mention money) Edwards way. Then there is Nevada. So far Edwards has not polled well there, but it is very possible that the strong Hotel and Restaurant Employees union will back Edwards giving him ground troops in Clark county. Endorsements of a candidate that members are not enthusiastic about or feel don't have a chance in hell never make a victory in itself, but an endorsement and real mobilization around his candidacy coming off a victory in Iowa could be just what Edwards needs to get a real momentum going. I think Clinton will win New Hampshire, but an Edwards victory in Iowa and Nevada will guarantee him at least 2nd place.
South Carolina is up in the air, but I think an Edwards victory in 2 of previous primary match ups will put South Carolina into his column. If Edwards can pull that off, the race will be narrowed down to two candidates for the 2nd round of primaries. Obama will likely bow out, but Clinton will stay in. She still would have an enormous amount of cash and soldiers at her disposal and the likelihood of strong showing by her in California and New York would be enough of an incentive to keep fighting. But at this point a lot of Democratic money, not to mention grassroots support would start coming Edwards way as he would be the now only viable alternative to Clinton. Then get ready for a lot of TV commericals.
Beware of what you ask for. California wanted to get attention from the candiates; you'll be sure to get so much you all will be sick to death of it.
I've mentioned before why the primary calendar compression is a bad thing for grassroots politics. Today George Will made a good point that in addition to coming closer to creating a national one-day primary, this will end up only making Iowa and New Hampshire, in addition to Nevada and South Carolina, more important than they already are.
"Every campaign is shaped by two scarcities -- the candidate's time and money. No candidate will have enough of either to campaign intensely, in person or even on television, in perhaps 24 states across the continent in the 22 days from Iowa (Jan. 14) to Feb. 5. As political analyst Charlie Cook says, this will raise the stakes -- the free media attention and the momentum it imparts -- that will accrue to the winner or winners of the first four states (South Carolina Democrats and Republicans vote on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2, respectively). Indeed, if one person wins three or all four of those, the Feb. 5 primaries might be mere ratifying echoes rather than deciding events."
The whole thing had me depressed about the potential of John Edwards to make it this year, but then I noticed how the even higher stakes now in place could help Edwards push past Obama and Clinton very quickly. Edwards polls the strongest in Iowa. He has been in the lead there in many polls for a while now, but most importantly he is the only candidate to have competed there before and done well. He knows what it takes to succeed in Iowa, as opposed to say Howard Dean who polled well but had little on the ground operation in the 2004 caucus. Plus as seen by the self-destruction by both Dean and Richard Gephardt on the Iowa plains, the phenomenon of two front runners beating on each other turns Iowa voters off.
A Edwards victory will throw off both Clinton and Obama and bring a lot of media coverage(not to mention money) Edwards way. Then there is Nevada. So far Edwards has not polled well there, but it is very possible that the strong Hotel and Restaurant Employees union will back Edwards giving him ground troops in Clark county. Endorsements of a candidate that members are not enthusiastic about or feel don't have a chance in hell never make a victory in itself, but an endorsement and real mobilization around his candidacy coming off a victory in Iowa could be just what Edwards needs to get a real momentum going. I think Clinton will win New Hampshire, but an Edwards victory in Iowa and Nevada will guarantee him at least 2nd place.
South Carolina is up in the air, but I think an Edwards victory in 2 of previous primary match ups will put South Carolina into his column. If Edwards can pull that off, the race will be narrowed down to two candidates for the 2nd round of primaries. Obama will likely bow out, but Clinton will stay in. She still would have an enormous amount of cash and soldiers at her disposal and the likelihood of strong showing by her in California and New York would be enough of an incentive to keep fighting. But at this point a lot of Democratic money, not to mention grassroots support would start coming Edwards way as he would be the now only viable alternative to Clinton. Then get ready for a lot of TV commericals.
Beware of what you ask for. California wanted to get attention from the candiates; you'll be sure to get so much you all will be sick to death of it.
Labels: California, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Primary
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Yuck...
I knew as soon as I said something nice about Speaker Pelosi I would find something that would make me sick.
"Yesterday, at a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Ms. Pelosi endorsed toughening American sanctions on Iran by stripping the executive branch of the power to waive the sanctions."
I don't think Pelosi plans to support a war with Iran, her bloodcurdling rhetoric to AIPAC aside. She is just pandering to one of the most powerful and best financed lobbies in the US. Having AIPAC be the official decider on what should be our position towards the Middle East would be like having William Kristol and John Bolton decide what the news media and political elite in France should think about the United States.
AIPAC is hard core far right Likud. They would love for us to go to war with Iran. If Pelosi decided to repeat to comments of what a left-wing Labor Party member(or god-forbid Peace Now) of the Knesset said about settlers for example, they would drop a storm on her that would make Jimmy Carter shake. Its time to stop pandering to AIPAC. They are not the exclusive representative for the Israeli people, they are neo-cons and deserve to driven from the halls of Washington along with the Weekly Standard and the Project for the New American Century. Our elected officials need to stop letting them dictate our policy toward the region. Palestine is the number one reason the Arab world is upset with the US. Whoever the next President is will need to actively engage the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and play neutral mediator like President Eisenhower and Carter did; not sub-contract out out our foreign policy to the Israeli far right.
Labels: AIPAC, Israel, Palestine, Pelosi
In defense of David Obey
Harold Meyerson at the Washington Post has a nice defense of the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) against his anti-war critics.
Despite the taunts from both the G.O.P and the extreme elements of the anti-war left, the Democratic led Congress under Speaker Nancy Pelosi-who has remained consistently anti-war-is developing a realistic plan to end of the US occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately for some, a plan isn’t good enough. Perhaps reflecting the civic ignorance of many of countrymen, some on the anti-war left think all we need a big-bang vote and boom; out come the troops.
As Meyerson puts it:
“Last week, as he was working to build support for amendments that would impose a 2008 deadline on U.S. combat activities in Iraq, Obey was accosted by Tina Richards, an antiwar activist and mother of a Marine. With YouTube immortalizing the encounter, Richards asked Obey why he was supporting the supplemental war appropriations bill to which the amendments would be attached and why Congress couldn't just defund the war and bring the troops home now…Obey has since apologized for blowing up, but that hasn't deterred some antiwar bloggers from condemning him as some loony warmonger.”
Despite the taunts from both the G.O.P and the extreme elements of the anti-war left, the Democratic led Congress under Speaker Nancy Pelosi-who has remained consistently anti-war-is developing a realistic plan to end of the US occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately for some, a plan isn’t good enough. Perhaps reflecting the civic ignorance of many of countrymen, some on the anti-war left think all we need a big-bang vote and boom; out come the troops.
As Meyerson puts it:
"What Pelosi and Obey understand that their critics on the left seem to
ignore is that it will take numerous congressional votes and multiple
confrontations with Bush to build the support required to end U.S. involvement.
Thanks to the Constitution's division of powers, Congress and the White House
seem bound for months of fighting over the conditions attached to any approval
of funds for continuing our operations in Iraq. Over time, as the war drags on,
either enough Republicans will join their Democratic colleagues to put an end to
U.S. intervention, or they will stick with Bush, thereby ensuring there will be
a sufficient number of Democrats in the next Congress to end the war."
I’m not saying that the anti-war movement should pack up and let Congress do its job. Politicians react to organized pressure and the organized anti-war movement needs to make sure that our representatives are reminded that November 2006 was largely a referendum on the Iraq war and that the American people want our involvement in Iraq to end. Parts of the responsible anti-war movement are already doing this.
The irresponsible anti-war left-those folks who think Congressional Democrats are now our main enemy and should be confronted head on-on the other hand seems to be aping Stalin’s bad advice to the German Communists in the early 1930’s; their main enemy was not the Nazi’s, but the reformist Social-Democrats. As one spokesperson for this trend and frequent O’Reilly Factor guest put it:
“The triumph of the new Democratic Congress on their first day and their
promises of a "new direction" offered all the refreshment of Lysol dressing up
the stench of rotting homes of New Orleans' Ninth Ward, of human waste and blood
in the secret C.I.A. torture dungeons, and of the mangled bodies that are being
chewed by dogs in the streets of of Baghdad…Throughout their painstakingly
choreographed first day in Congress, the horrors that the Democrats are working
with the Bush Regime to push out of the public eye and the deep and widespread
disgust of millions with these horrors kept bubbling up.”
Right. If we really think that we have made no progress in influencing those in power we might as well give it up, because if the only tactic we have available to us is direct action stunts and mini-protests to topple the President, progressives will remain impotent. Ending the war in Iraq will means at this point an active coalition with Congressional Democrats, particularly with consistent anti-war Democrats like Jack Murtha, Jim Webb and yes, Nancy Pelosi. Like any coalition it will be fraught with compromise and frustration and at times will move slower than we would like. But in America, political coalitions are the only means to power as shown by the successes and failures of nearly every progressive movement in our history.
Speaking of the anti-war movement, this Saturday there will be a march on the Pentagon. Sadly the whole affair is organized by the leading exponent of the irresponsible anti-war left, International ANSWER. I’m still planning to go and will report back, in general it's a waste of time for progressive activists to work with these outfits that are almost wholly dominated by ultra-left dinosaurs with reactionary and bizarre politics. I would say we have under three years left of occupation to go and by 2008 the neo-conservative school of foreign policy will be almost wholly shunned. At this point these groups will have moved on to another issues to organize a “mass movement” around. We should be working on a building a long-term progressive coalition with the forces that can actually make change in society-labor, the African American and Latino community, young activists and progressive elected officials-not just scream at those in power.
Labels: anti-war movement, David Obey, Harold Meyerson, Internation ANSWER
