I had a hunch that Amy Goodman wasn’t indulging in progressive Democrat-bashing and misinterpreting Howard Dean last week when the Democracy Now! host claimed that “[t]he chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean has come out in support of President Bush”s current Iraq policy.” Goodman quoted Dean as saying that “a US pullout could endanger the United States.” Dean said:
I wrote to a friend, “I wonder if this might be a concerted, strategic effort by Amy and other progressives to put the heat on Dean to shift Democratic posture on the war.”
Now come Tom Hayden’s letter to Dean in The Nation and keynote address to a progressive conference:
Update [2005-4-29 11:19:5 by susanhbu]: More below, including another group’s challenge to Dean:
“Silent collaboration with the Bush Administration”:
Dear Chairman Dean,
Thank you kindly for your call and your expressed willingness to discuss the Democratic Party’s position on the Iraq War. There is growing frustration at the grass roots towards the party leadership’s silent collaboration with the Bush Administration’s policies. Personally, I cannot remember a time in thirty years when I have been more despairing over the party’s moral default. …
The party’s alliance with the progressive left, so carefully repaired after the catastrophic split of 2000, is again beginning to unravel over Iraq. Thousands of anti-war activists and millions of antiwar voters gave their time, their loyalty and their dollars to the 2004 presidential campaign despite profound misgivings about our candidate’s position on the Iraq War. Of the millions spent by “527” committees on voter awareness, none was spent on criticizing the Bush policies in Iraq.
The Democratic candidate, and other party leaders, even endorsed the US invasion of Falluja, giving President Bush a green-light to destroy that city with immunity from domestic criticism. As a result, a majority of Falluja’s residents were displaced violently, guaranteeing a Sunni abstention from the subsequent Iraqi elections.
Then in January, a brave minority of Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, advocated a timetable for withdrawal. Their concerns were quickly deflated by the party leadership.
Next came the Iraqi elections, …
There is evidence that the Bush Administration, along with its clients in Baghdad, is ignoring or suppressing forces within the Iraqi coalition calling for peace talks with the resistance. The Democrats are silent towards this meddling.
On April 12, Donald Rumsfeld declared “we don’t really have an exit strategy. We have a victory strategy.” (New York Times, April 13, 2005). There was no Democratic response.
[…………..]
We all supported and celebrated your election as Party chairman, hoping that winds of change would blow away what former president Bill Clinton once called “brain-dead thinking.”
But it seems to me that your recent comments about Iraq require further reflection and reconsideration if we are to keep the loyalty of progressives and promote a meaningful alternative that resonates with mainstream American voters.
Let me tell you where I stand personally. I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance …
To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation’s moral reputation.
[…………..]
But there is much the Democratic Party can do:
First, stop marginalizing those Democrats who are calling for immediate withdrawal or a one-year timetable. …
Second, call for peace talks between Iraqi political parties and the Iraqi resistance. …
Third, as an incentive to those Iraqi peace initiatives, the US needs to offer to end the occupation and withdraw our troops by a near-term date. …
Fourth, to further promote peace initiatives, the US needs to specify that a multi-billion dollar peace dividend will be earmarked for Iraqi-led reconstruction, not for the Halliburtons and Bechtel …
Fifth, Democrats could unite behind Senator Rockefellers’s persistent calls for public hearings on responsibility for the torture scandals. …
Listen to his keynote address at the Progressive Democratcs of America site.
Note what Goodman further reported on April 22:
Emphases mine.
Well? What do you think?
I like this Hayden statement: “‘No taxes for torture’ is a demand most Democrats should be able to support.” And how.
Update [2005-4-29 11:19:5 by susanhbu]: Sent to me by Howie Martin:
We support efforts to repair the damage the war has inflicted on Iraq, but believe that the occupation is causing further damage, encouraging violence, hardening divisions, and failing to train or prepare Iraqis for self-governance.
We believe the United States can best help Iraq by supporting reparation efforts financially rather than continuing to spend greater sums of money on an occupation that is aggravating the situation and making all of us less safe.
We have admired your past willingness to speak against the war. For the sake of the people of Iraq and of the world, and for the future viability of the Democratic Party, we now ask you to call on the U.S. Congress and the Bush Administration to:
1) Publicly commit to leaving all of Iraq’s resources in the possession of the Iraqi people, as required by the Geneva and Hague Conventions;
2) Convene a meeting of Iraq’s leadership, Iraq’s neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace United States Armed Forces in Iraq with Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard forces to ensure Iraq’s security;
3) Withdraw all U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq after the requirements of #2 are met;
4) Contribute financially to the international peacekeeping mission and reconstruction.
The California Democratic Party recently passed a resolution calling for an end to the occupation. The New Mexico Democratic Party passed a resolution this past weekend calling for an end to the occupation. House Concurrent Resolution 35, sponsored by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, calls for an end to the occupation.”
-from the post on the ILCA website. [ICLA stands for International Labor Communications Association.]
Nor was Kerry, of course, although they both thought the Iraq invasion was a mess and a mistake. I think the only actual anti-war candidates were Kucinich and Sharpton, and I could be wrong about Sharpton.
Anyway, though… I like Hayden’s letter, and his suggestions for getting out of the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into in Iraq. I seriously doubt anyone will pay attention though… especially now that the push is on, within the Democratic Party, to make the anti-war left, or progressives or people who argue against the war on the basis of morality and so on, out to be the “fringe”.
While some Democratic Senators and Congresspersons will have brief moments of brilliant moral clarity and courage and will stand up for this or that, for the most part we tend to go along with electing people ‘who can win’, and not people who are willing to step into the fire and rock boats.
Okay, mixed metaphor, but it works as long as no one sets fire to the boat.
We’re stuck with over three and a half years of BushCo. We’re stuck with a GOP Congress for the next year and a half (and then some). We’re stuck with a popular culture media engine (think beyond the news) that, outside of precious few oases, just tend to ignore Iraq. Thus, the question becomes whether it’s bold leadership to sally forth from the highest perch that the Democrats now hold, or whether it’s a quixotic that will lead our side further into the exile that they’ve foundered in for the last five years.
So much more desirable to carry a big club than a scalpel. We need to constantly remind ourselves that we need to become the culture, rather than to decry it.
That is so exactly what we need to do. and that is such a great way of putting it. I’m going to steal that, if you don’t mind. Thanks.
It may be a bit of a long road and we’ll need persistence, but I don’t think it will be nearly as difficult as it may now seem, to become the culture.
You’re more than welcome to it.
The point is that, no matter if the leadership is only a little right, or if it’s dead on, we’ve got to be aware (damn, almost typed “mindful” … I hate that word) of just who it is that needs convincing, and just how hard it is to convince them. (DFA had the most hats in Iowa, but they didn’t win the most minds.)
which are political, tactical and strategic.
No. 4 – Economics
If you want to see the price of oil double overnight! then pull out now; if you want to de-stablize the World’s — Europe would be hit 1st and hardest — Oil Supply, then pull out now; if you want a, again, World Recession or even Depression, then pull out now.
We’re in the Gas Station of the World — pulling out will obviously de-stablize Iraq, but also Saudi Arabia – which could topple the House of Saud, e.g., and, of course, Iran. The ripple effects would be enormous and profound.
I don’t agree with either of them because both their arguments are totally U.S.-centric. Further, neither references U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004, .pdf), which sets forth, among other things, a timetable for establishing an Iraqi government, and drafting a new constitution:
12. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq;
Hayden’s 4th point that we need to “specify that a multi-billion dollar peace dividend will be earmarked for Iraqi-led reconstruction, not for the Halliburtons and Bechtel …” in the face of the U.N. resolution is disengenous as best.
Under the agreement once the Transitional government is seated, they gain immediate control over their economy, including 18.5 billion dollars earmarked for reconstruction/aid. As I’ve argued before, they may well decide to re-open all rebuilding contracts.
In the face of the resolution, I’m having a hard time with all of Hayden’s points. There is a timeline. Use it. The UN has offered to broker any and all negotiations between the parties. Ask them for help. The ACLU, among others, is pursuing legal action against DoD, et. al., for the torture of prisoners. Join the suit.
Lobby for SA 398 to the Budget Bill: TITLE VII–SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SENATE ON WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING.
SEC. 7003. PURPOSE AND DUTIES.
(c) INVESTIGATION OF WASTEFUL AND FRAUDULENT PRACTICES.–The investigation by the Special Committee of allegations of wasteful and fraudulent practices under subsection (b)(6) shall include investigation of allegations regarding any contract or spending entered into, supervised by, or otherwise involving the Coalition Provisional Authority, regardless of whether or not such contract or spending involved appropriated funds of the United States.
Why aren’t they talking about tools we have available? What part of the resolution do these two not understand? Why don’t either of them focus on the Iraqis themselves? We have our agenda in writing, graciously provided the the “fools on the hill”, and the idiot-who-would-be-king. Rather than bicker over “factions” they should concentrate on the gift we’ve been given in U.N. Resolution 1546, and the “torture memo” promoted by our new AG.
A little homework and they might find they’re closer than they think.
on this very subject:
Good Germans Don’t Cut and Run
would not allow Blair to speak about anything but Iraq.
Bush last night, what did he say about Iraq? Some Iraqis are good, they love freedom, some Iraqis are bad, they hate freedom.
Here’s more on Iraq:
From Christian Science Monitor
Toughest commute in Iraq? The six miles to the airport.
and
From Tom’s Dispatch
The Draft:
Between Iraq and a Hard Place
The Bush administration is likely to find itself increasingly trapped between Iraq and a hard place, wound in an ever-tightening knot of failing policy and falling support, at the heart of which lies a decision about reconstituting a draft. How this will resolve itself will be one of the complex dramas of our time.
Michael Schwartz, Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York
Does that last quote refer to the U.S.’s use of militias in Iraq?
No, it is the conclusion to the article on the Draft.
With 140,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, the US Military is unable to secure the road to the Baghdad airport for one thing.
more from the article:
excellent post. again and again. do you ever sleep? :{)
He’s right, both morally and politically: the tendency toward schadenfreude among many on the left (that is, sitting on the sidelines hoping for Iraq to become a disaster) should be resisted as strongly as possible.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
(emphasis added)
Surely you can’t be serious?
Sure I’m serious. Iraqis had successful elections, are moving toward self rule, and are increasingly hostile to those engaging in the insurgency.
But let me ask you: do you like Bill Maher? Clearly you’re not going to like what I’m about to post. But please don’t dismiss him as “just a comedian”. I think, like Al Franken, he is a funny guy who has a mind like a steel trap, and we all know it. Here’s what Maher said a little over a month ago on CNN:
And this echoes what I’ve been saying, that unfortunately Americans (GOP and Dem alike) are too selfish to go to war to liberate an oppressed people. They have to have something in it for themselves. So Bush did just as Maher said: “Okay, we want this war–now how do we sell it?” And they came up with WMD.
Just in case anyone thinks Bill Maher has now become a right winger (meaning they must not watch his show), here’s an unrelated tidbit from the same interview:
Amen to that, and to everything else he said. Bill Maher used to be a guy where I was like “boy, he is so dead right about so many things; too bad he’s wrong on Iraq.” Now he’s right on Iraq (from my POV) and I’m very glad to see it.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Never have. What you see when you look at Iraq (and the reasonings used to get there, and end goals) is just way too different from what I see, I guess.
Perception is everything, and all that.
Mark my words: when Maher’s obit is written this is going to come back to haunt him — just as poor Hirohito never lived down his “not necessarily to our advantage” remark, only worse!
If things are so “OK,” why is every Iraqi with the wherewithal to get a visa leaving the country? It’s possible, just possible, that we’ll all live to see Iraqis once again have electricity, drinkable water and reasonably safe streets. But will women, Christians, secularists, etc. ever have the kind of freedoms they had even under Hussein? Very much doubt it.
One really has to wonder what Maher is up to, buying into Bushian propaganda so shamelessly.
Bill Maher’s never been long on logic. He strives, instead, in a most tortured way, to find an iconoclastic angle to differentiate himself from all others. Personally, I suspect it’s a contagion from one too many heavy drinking sessions with Anne Coulter …