FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Democrats and the Peace Movement

Rep. Chris Van Hollen is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It is his job to preserve and expand the Democrats majority in Congress in 2008. Rep. Van Hollen is also my congressman. So, this week when he held a town hall meeting I was paying close attention to his message on the Iraq War.

From his talk it is quite clear what they Democrats want. They want the peace movement to work for the Democratic Party rather than the Democratic Party representing the peace movement.

At the meeting there were signs held in the audience urging “use the power of the purse to end the war” and “support vets not war” and people in the audience held “defund the war” signs. A mother of a vet, Tina Richards, whose son is getting ready to return for his third tour of duty in Iraq, read a poem by her son that explained why he works for peace and described his despair, his thoughts of suicide and the horrors he saw in Iraq. (See this powerful poem below with link to her website.) When she urged a cut-off of funds the audience of several hundred cheered wildly.

But, Rep. Van Hollen, who is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did not commit to not voting to fund the war. Instead he pointed to the recent non-binding resolution passed by the House opposing the “surge” as a first step. He highlighted how the Republicans blocked even a vote on that in the Senate. He reminded people that he opposed the war and voted against the use of force resolution. (But, he didn’t mention how he has voted for all of the $420 billion in funding for the war.) He concluded to end the war we need to build a political movement because we could not stop the war with the current Democratic majorities in Congress.

The Democrats seem to think the Iraq War is the “goose that lays the golden votes.” They hope it is the golden goose that will expand their majorities and bring them the presidency. Keeping the war going, while showing their opposition through non-binding votes, criticizing Bush and conducting high profile hearings that point to the corruption of the administration as well as the mistakes of the commander-in-chief will get them more votes than ending the war. The Democrats can point to the Republicans as the problem and highlight Bush’s reckless leadership as commander-in-chief and say “elect us.”

The Democrats say they must support the supplemental because they need to “support the troops.” But we all know the purpose of the supplemental is not to support the troops but to continue the war, and to send more troops into an unwinnable quagmire that is not supported by the American or Iraqi people. We need a real discussion of what can be done to support the troops and stabilize Iraq but can only get to that discussion if the Democrats use the power they were given by the American voters in 2006.

The truth is the Democrats have the power to end the war now. They have a majority in the House that could, if it wanted, refuse to fund the stay the course, with a slight escalation, budget the president has requested. If the House refused to fund the war that would be the end of it as President Bush cannot veto a non-appropriation.

And, if the House showed the courage and leadership then the Senate Democrats could follow with a filibuster of the appropriation in the Senate–it only takes 41 of their 51 members to agree–and both Houses would have rejected continuing to go deeper into the Iraq war quagmire.

Only one House is required to stop the war but the Democrats have enough power in either wing of the Congress to vote against continuing the war. If the Democrats fail to stop the war it is no longer Bush’s war it is “the Democrats Iraq War.” They will have bought a lost war from President Bush and should be held responsible by the voters for the result.

Once the Democrats say “no” to the supplemental they can start a real discussion of what it would take to support the troops and bring stability to Iraq–without a military occupation which is according to DoD reports the root cause of the violence.

If the Democrats showed the leadership voters want the debate would be about how to get out of Iraq in way that is rapid and responsible, in a way that reduces the risk of violence and bloodshed in Iraq and brings U.S. troops home safely. Then, the Democrats would be representing the views of American voters and fulfilling the mandate of the 2006 election. And through the appropriations process, led by Subcommittee Chairman Jack Murtha, the Democrats could develop a responsible exit strategy that would rapidly get U.S. troops out of Iraq and put in place strategies that would be likely to reduce the violence in Iraq and bring stability to the region, i.e. the rebuilding of Iraq by Iraqis, a regional stabilization force to work with a new Iraqi government and a surge in diplomatic efforts in the region.

The question for the anti-war movement–which includes a majority of the American public, a super majority in the Democratic Party and has shown its political muscle in 2006–is do they work for the Democratic Party? Or, do they work for peace? It is likely going to be impossible to do both unless the Democratic Party leadership rapidly changes course.

Kevin Martin, the director of Peace Action put forward the clear demands of the peace movement in a memorandum earlier this week: “our message and demands are simple and clear — end the occupation, stop voting to spend our tax dollars on the war, and support our troops by bringing them home to the warm embrace of their families as soon as possible.”

The anti-war movement should demand that the Democratic Party work for us! They would not be the majority party if it were not for the peace voter. The Democratic Party needs to know that the peace voter realizes that the Democrats have the power to end the war. If they fail to do so anti-war voters will not give their votes to politicians who fail to end the war. (See and sign the VotersForPeace Pledge.

The only way for voters opposed to the war to get the Democratic Party to work for us is to let them know that the price of our vote is for them to end this war.

KEVIN ZEESE is Director of Democracy Rising and co-founder of VotersForPeace.US.

 

 

More articles by:

Kevin Zeese is an organizer at Popular Resistance.

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail