How to Stop the War? Punish Pro-War Politicians

[BeFree]

http://www.counterpunch.org/farley02252005.html

By: John Farley

The Vietnam war was finally ended when the House of Representatives voted to cut off money for the war. The antiwar movement ought to take the lessons to heart. Will the present House do that? Not a chance. There are simply too many hawks, both Republican and Democrats. We need to start organizing now to punish pro-war politicians at the ballot box in 2006. The war will still be around in 2006, never fear. Until we stop it.

That means forming an antiwar coalition in each Congressional district. The goal is to make the war a public issue, to make a big public stink about the war. Prowar politicians want the war to go away as an issue. They hope that nobody bothers them about their pro-war vote. They simply want to be left alone. They count on public apathy or resignation: in most Congressional offices, if they get 10 letters on a topic in one week, they think the sky has fallen.

This means getting votes against the war from city councils, county board of supervisors, labor unions, and community organizations. Before the war started in 2003, the peace movement was very successful in getting these advisory votes. The votes themselves have little or no legal force, but in the process of campaigning for the vote, it allows us to make our arguments. And it raises the war as an issue, which the hawks would rather forget about.

It means focusing on our existing Congressional representatives: Petitioning them, letter-writing campaigns, raising the issue during Congressional visits to their home districts, and going to their offices on Capitol Hill. It also means large public demonstrations, both national demonstrations and local demonstrations. There are plenty of non-electoral work to do before the 2004 elections.

It's time. Discuss.

[BillZBubb]

1. It's pretty tough to get rid of pro war politicians

especially when the sheeple are pro-war. Iraq is a great success, hadn't you heard?

[BeFree]

3. Not quite true

Over 50% think the war is wrong. That's up from 20% two years ago.

And the war ain't gonna get any better in the next two years. But you are right, beating the crap out of the pro-war people is gonna be hard. So what? What else can we do? Besides, we are Ameri-CANs!

How else will we end the war? If Kerry hadn't been screwed by the vote counters, the war would now be on it's last legs, and all we got left is cutting the money flow into the war-making machinery. Ya got any other ideas? Let's hear 'em.

[welshTerrier2]

2. some DU'ers don't like to have their favorite Dems called "pro war"

and i can respect that ...

but you are right that we must loudly and clearly let those Democrats who vote "more money for war" know that they are supporting bush's agenda and bush cannot be trusted ... his goals for Iraq are not peace, democracy and stability ... the unstable Middle East has led to record profits in the oil industry ...

do you think they, or he, will be willing to help stabilize Iraq and then just walk away??? apparently, some Democrats do ...

a vote to continue funding for bush's war implies that they trust bush will use the funds to "do the right thing" ... bush has lied every step of the way ... why do they trust him now??? there certainly are no guarantees the money will be spent they way they see fit ... billions of dollars are already missing and reconstruction funds are not being spent to rebuild Iraq ... a vote for more funds is a vote for bush ...

how can they be so naive ?????????

[BeFree]

4. Naive, or players?

If they be players, they need to be playing our game, not the bushco game. We can run the pro-war people out of town, or at least get them to consider their war votes much more carefully, with a concerted anti-war effort working in each and every district.

The next year will have great bearing on what transpires in 2006. It is our time of greatest influence. Let us use it wisely.

[welshTerrier2]

5. well, it's always a disturbing question, isn't it ...

Kerry, Dean, Hillary, Clark, Edwards and a cast of thousands ... I'll settle for naivete ... i just can't get my head around any of these people intentionally carrying water for such an obvious nightmare ...

i worry that they are "believing the stories of the great Iraqi democracy" ... and i worry that they are trusting bush now as they trusted him when they passed the IWR ...

[BeFree]

6. In the larger sense....

I can't see them being naive. Personally, who knows?

I think they looked at the whole situation and saw that America was a huge lynch-mob at the time, and they decided to play it safe, politically safe, and also, personally safe. Remember the Anthrax?

Anyway, what the idea is, is that we go down to a congressional district level: we organize with little money but many volunteers and use the single point issue, (in my terms; the anti-lynch-mob) anti-war power that only the people can use.

Why, the anti-war sentiment is about the only sentiment most all of DU agrees on, eh? Therein resides a great power. How do we best use that power?

[welshTerrier2]

7. man, i wish i agreed with that

Why, the anti-war sentiment is about the only sentiment most all of DU agrees on, eh?

i hate to say this, i really do, but i've argued about Kerry's statement that he plans to vote FOR the additional $81.4 billion to continue the "war" in Iraq ... I've talked to Clark supporters who make all sorts of great arguments with many of the things Clark has said but they don't agree with near-term withdrawal ... Dean seems to believe "we're stuck there" ... and Hillary's well on her way to securing the republican nomination ...

and those who support these fine Democrats refuse to criticize their positions on Iraq ... i never thought i'd hear almost every single "candidate supporter" making bush's case for war ... and on DU yet ...

frankly, i'm totally disgusted with the Democratic Party largely because of this issue ... i'm afraid that your view that most DU'ers are "anti-war" in the sense of supporting a cut-off of funding and a call for near-term (e.g. no more than 3 to 6 months) withdrawal just isn't the case ... i hope i'm wrong about this but i don't think i am ...

perhaps it's time for a poll on the issue ...

[BeFree]

10. 3-6 months and we're out.....

at this point, ain't gonna happen. But if we begin to cut the funding the time will come when the war is over.

DU: maybe we do need a poll? I believe most will say they are anti-war, but have differences on what the exit strategy is. There are many good reason for those differences.

More and more people are coming to the corrct conclusion that the war is an error and seeking leadership to get us out. Sadly, we do lack that leadership. So, we must take the reigns in our own hands and work to replace the bastards who always vote yes, dem or puke.

[catzies]

11. How about if they're making money from it? Senator Feinstein

and her hubby Richard Blum made money from the war so far.

That, to me, is "carrying water" too.

[one_true_leroy]

12. Which is the REAL problem...

As long as wars are profitable, why not? By their very nature, wars are the best money-making venture for those involved, ESPECIALLY when the outcome is a fairly foregone conclusion. The pols never wanted a 'cakewalk...' there would be no money from a fully independent Iraq. Instead, we have our collective money being siphoned and concentrated to the elite, many of whom are the ones voting for the war. In many ways, I think war is the purest expression of capitalism- greed and unimaginable profits taken to Darwinian extremes. I often think capitalism as we know it and have 'practiced' would be in its death throes if not for a half-century of steady, solid, non-stop wars.

[bvar22]

8. I'm with you.

"The majority of Americans, even according to polls conducted by corporations with an interest in war, think that attacking Iraq was a mistake and that continuing to occupy it is a mistake. But the will of a majority of Americans means very little without a substantial minority of Americans willing to struggle and suffer for a goal."


43 U.S. Representatives Vote Against $81 Billion To Continue War in Iraq

"March 15, 2005 -- U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), Jim McDermott (D-WA), John Conyers (D-MI), and Danny Davis (D-IL) announced that they will vote against President Bush’s request for $81 Billion to continue war in Iraq."

Stop sending money to politicians who support the bush* War on the Iraqi People!

You can find the Anti-War Democrats here:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[welshTerrier2]

9. the vote on the $81 billion just among Democrats was:

No More Money for War: 39
support bush's war agenda: 162

and that's just the Democrats ... i could be wrong (i'll go look for the article i posted about this) but i thought Conyers voted for the $81 billion ... it seemed inconceivable but that's what the article said ... give me a few minutes to find it ...

on edit: Ok ... here's the link to the House vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll077.xml

one of the real killers for me was Delahunt ... in the early days of the war, he hosted weekly meetings against the war on the House floor covered live on C-Span ... unbelievable ...