Anti-war leaders stymied, frustrated

[BT]

 Anti-war leaders stymied, frustrated
By: Mike Allen
September 9, 2007 11:12 PM EST

A well-known anti-war leader has gone public with the transcript of a private conference call that shows peace activists are exasperated with the Democratic congressional leadership and at a loss for a long-term strategy.

The Aug. 29 call highlights divisions in the Democratic Party that Republicans are gearing up to try to exploit as Congress debates its response to the report on Iraq this week by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

On Monday, the pair begins two days of testimony on Capitol Hill.

Republicans say the call reflects the degree to which war opponents have failed to gain the advantage that many in both parties thought would build over the summer.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, posted the transcript Friday on the website of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, of which he is a co-chair.

The transcript shows that opponents of the war in Iraq plan to try to convince freshman Democrats from conservative districts that they might not get reelected unless the party produces something serious in the way of resistance to the war. But the call shows the war opponents are having little success because of fears about the impact on next year?s elections if the party is seen as defeatist.

The call, which Lerner titled ?Strategizing With Leaders of the Anti-War Movement,? included two sympathetic members of Congress and representatives of groups ranging from Code Pink to the Progressive Democrats of America.

Lerner -- who is based in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leader of what he calls ?the religious left? -- told Politico in a phone interview on Sunday that he concluded from the call that the anti-war movement does not have a long-term strategy, even though the war ?is going to continue through the end of President Bush?s administration? and perhaps into the term of the next president.

"A central point that the spiritual progressives are trying to make to the secular progressives is this: People in the U.S. are opposed to the war, but they feel that they need to have a picture of what the world would look like if the U.S. were to withdraw from the world by leaving Iraq," Lerner said.

Lerner said he posted the transcript in an effort to convince war opponents that they need ?some fundamentally new thinking.?

?Right now, we could write the story of this Congress as ?Profiles in Cowardice,?? Lerner said. ?There?s a great deal of frustration with the Democrats in the Congress ? a sense almost of betrayal. The Democrats don?t have ? and even the people in the anti-war movement don?t have ? a coherent alternative world view from which to base a strategy. That?s why they end up debating everything on the same terms that the Republicans do.?

Lerner, 64, said he is on the Orthodox side of the Jewish Renewal Movement; he gained a measure of fame early in the Clinton administration when then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton quoted his phrase ?politics of meaning? in speeches. Lerner said the transcript was prepared by his staff and that he is certain it is accurate.

Republicans are circulating the link to the transcript and think it makes their case that opponents of the war in Iraq are losing ground. ?This call shows the tables may have turned,? said one Republican official.

?It shows the tightrope Democrats have to walk with an angry group of liberal organizers who are sensing defeat.?

The transcript quotes Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), who is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as saying: ?The people that need to hear are the moderate Democrats who are holding up the whole thing. They?re the ones who have to know that their people care, that they [want to] bring our troops home. They swear they don?t. They swear that they?ll lose their elections if they do the right thing.?

When one peace organizer talks about ?peeling away Republican support for the war,? Woolsey interjects: ?Maybe you folks should go after the Democrats.?

Chris Shields, Woolsey's press secretary, said in reply: ?As a leader of the anti-war movement, the congresswoman is committed to working with outside groups, her colleagues in the House and her party's leadership to bring our troops home to their families in a safe and orderly manner."

During the call, Woolsey advises the activists: ?Help people change the conversation from ?abandoning the troops? to funding orderly redeployment. I?m telling you, that?s going to take six months to a year. ? Progressives know that whether we spend money on this or not is going to make the difference. That?s all the House can really do, the budget part of it.?

The activists express discontent with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). At one point, Woolsey, who represents Marin and Sonoma counties, is quoted as saying: ?I believe that Nancy is with us, and she?s counting on you guys ... and me to push from the left in the Congress.?

Lerner, in the interview with Politico, was not sympathetic. ?We?re not that concerned about what?s going on in her heart,? he said. ?We?re trying to end the war, and in that, she does not seem to be very much with us, [she] is not willing to take any serious political risk.?

Jennifer Crider, a Pelosi aide who is communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in response: ?We understand their frustration. Democrats are frustrated more Republicans won't listen to their constituents and join our fight to end the war.?

The other lawmaker on the call, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), defends Pelosi. ?The speaker doesn?t have the votes,? he said. ?If you see what has happened in the Democratic Caucus, I don?t think you?d be quite as critical of the speaker. She really is trying. ? We cobbled together a majority by winning in a lot of seats that tend to be conservative: in the South, in the rural Midwest, and so on. These members are very much afraid that if they get too far out front, they?re going to lose their seat, and they?re being advised to not take risks so we can sustain this majority.?

?You know, it?s a calculated decision, and it?s a difficult one,? Moran added. ?I think I know where Nancy is in her heart, and I think she is where we are. But she?s in a leadership position now. She needs to represent more than her immediate constituency; she?s got to represent the Democratic Party, and there?s a whole lot of Democrats that are far more reluctant to challenge this president and to make waves.?

Moran talks about finding cracks in Republican support. ?Just as we have Democrats in conservative Republican seats, they?ve got more Republicans in what have become Democratic seats,? he said.

?We?ve got to target them. They?re going to have to choose between their loyalty to their constituency versus their president. Their president is on his way out, and when you talk to them privately, they share a lot more misgivings than they express publicly, and I think we need to tap into those misgivings."

Lerner said he plans to hold a similar call ?after the congressional thing plays out ? probably in the middle of October.? He said he is debating whom to invite and is not sure it makes sense to include the members of Congress.

?They?re trying to explain to us why they can?t stop the stop the war,? Lerner said. ?I have tremendous respect for these people, and I don?t mean to be sounding too negative about them. But I don?t know if it would be that profitable to have a conversation with people who have this need to protect Nancy.?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EC7978FC-3048-5C12-001F517103108BE2

[Michael Tee]

<<Woolsey advises the activists:"Help people change the conversation from "abandoning the troops" to funding orderly redeployment.>>

If a mother throws her child out into the street for months or years at a time and leaves him to fend for himself in battles with murderous street children, I'd say she's abandoned him.

How is it "abandoning" the troops by calling them all home, and "supporting" them by leaving them out there to fight to the death with a bunch of strangers?

EITHER the Democrats are beholden to the same interests which benefit from the war and support Bush or they believe that pathetic bullshit that they will lose the conservative voters who put them in office in the first place.  Well, there is such a thing as "leadership."  If they are afraid their "conservative" supporters will not approve of them pulling the plug, then it's THEIR JOB to get out there and CONVINCE their conservative constituents that it's time to pull the plug.  And if they CAN'T convince their constituents that their way is the right way, then they don't have the confidence of those constituents and should not be representing them in the first place.  That is how a democracy is supposed to work, isn't it?

[BT]

The dilemma seems to be th edesire to maintain power vs the desire to do what they think is right.

Seems like the desire to maintain power is winning.

[Brassmask]

The dilemma seems to be th edesire to maintain power vs the desire to do what they think is right.

Seems like the desire to maintain power is winning.

This is the fight I've been having for the past few years.

Strategy vs Substance.

Having the power to do something is not the same as doing something.

We're long past the point of caring if America "wins" or "loses" in Iraq.  There are only a few mental retards in America left who still believe this is some kind of war between good and evil.  Most understand there was no valid reason for invading Iraq other than to line the pockets of contracting cronies of Bush and to perhaps seize the oil.  So, he was halfway successful there but nearly all Americans agree that it has not been worth the 4000 Americans nor the half a million Iraqis who have died securing those billions for Bush's buddies and failing at securing the oil.

Most understand that America is a symbol of nothing but greed and power run amok to the rest of the world.

If we don't want the rest of the world to get together and start kicking the shit out of us, we had best get out of Iraq, dignity or no.

What the Dems fail to understand is that doing what is right is better than wanting to do what is right.  Yes, the right and pro-war oligcrats will mock them and call them cowards and say they lost the Iraq "war" but when the video rolls on the evening news of the soldiers running across the tarmac to catch their weeping wives and children, people like Kristol and Brock  will slink back into their shadowy cesspools where they belong.

But I surmise that the Dems will never grow a spine.  For the most part, they believe that their Anybody But Bush and Anybody But a Republican campaigning won them their seats in 2006.  They're wrong.  They think that their Coke winning over Pepsi this time around.  They're wrong.  They think that everyone who voted for them was a Yellow Dog Dem who keep coming back to them no matter what they do.  They're wrong.

[Mr_Perceptive]

The dilemma seems to be th edesire to maintain power vs the desire to do what they think is right.

Seems like the desire to maintain power is winning.

Wise statement.

Too bad that too many of our public servants care more about staying in office than doing what is right for the nation.

[Mr_Perceptive]

"But I surmise that the Dems will never grow a spine.  For the most part, they believe that their Anybody But Bush and Anybody But a Republican campaigning won them their seats in 2006.  They're wrong.  They think that their Coke winning over Pepsi this time around.  They're wrong.  They think that everyone who voted for them was a Yellow Dog Dem who keep coming back to them no matter what they do.  They're wrong."

The results in 2008 may vindicate one side or the other, but the real reason for the electoral decision will still be always mired in confusing muck. It is simply too difficult to determine, by election results, why a side won and so on, exit polls notwithstanding.

[BT]

Lerner -- who is based in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leader of what he calls the religious left -- told Politico in a phone interview on Sunday that he concluded from the call that the anti-war movement does not have a long-term strategy, even though the war?is going to continue through the end of President Bush's administration? and perhaps into the term of the next president.

Sometimes it is not good enough to be against something, you have to be for something as a viable alternative.

Domer/Gipper  has alluded to this problem many times. Unfortunately he alienates the very audience he is addressing by devolving into Bush Bashing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that Juniorbush or any of his supporters have a long term strategy, either.

They were lacking a strategy when they started the war, ignoring their best minds, ie, generals like Shinseki who at least knew something about Iraq.

The war is about war profiteering: defense dept weaponry is quite profitable, as are all those independent contractors and mercenary armies. These serve to transfer money from the Chinese lenders directly to the pockets of the contractors and weapons builders. They thjen send the bill on to the taxpayers, who were previously identified as people who could not afford to rebuild New Orleans, save Social Security, or pay for the medicine of small uninsured helpless children.

The longer it lasts, the more they make, and of course, they will reward their political hirelings well.

[Richpo64]

>>The war is about war profiteering: defense dept weaponry is quite profitable, as are all those independent contractors and mercenary armies. These serve to transfer money from the Chinese lenders directly to the pockets of the contractors and weapons builders. They thjen send the bill on to the taxpayers, who were previously identified as people who could not afford to rebuild New Orleans, save Social Security, or pay for the medicine of small uninsured helpless children.<<

Yeah, that must be it.

 

[sirs]

>>The war is about war profiteering: defense dept weaponry is quite profitable, as are all those independent contractors and mercenary armies. These serve to transfer money from the Chinese lenders directly to the pockets of the contractors and weapons builders. They thjen send the bill on to the taxpayers, who were previously identified as people who could not afford to rebuild New Orleans, save Social Security, or pay for the medicine of small uninsured helpless children.<<

Yeah, that must be it.

 

BDS....stage IV.  I don't think there's any chance of a cure, once it gets to stage III

[Richpo64]

>>BDS....stage IV.  I don't think there's any chance of a cure, once it gets to stage III<<

It doesn't get much crazier than that.

[Michael Tee]

<<The dilemma seems to be th e
desire to maintain power vs the desire to do what they think is right.

<<Seems like the desire to maintain power is winning.>>


Thats the crux of it.  But the deeper problem is that with that desire crowding out the development of clear alternative strategies to put to the voters,  you seem to be evolving into a one-party state.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Do the parties in your country present clear alternatives? Do the positions change or are they consistent over time?

[Plane]

The dilemma seems to be th edesire to maintain power vs the desire to do what they think is right.

Seems like the desire to maintain power is winning.

http://saratrice.com/erfshirts/large_img/Ithink_design_placement.jpg




William Jennings Brian would rather be right than president , so he would up being neither I guess.
But he never gave up on his own integrety.

[Mr_Perceptive]

I fail to see the issue here. Pelosi and Co, the Party I typically vote for, made promises regarding the war. Those promises have not been kept due to a variety of reasons, some self-made by them and some not. Regardless, the results speak for themselves, namely they did not live up to those promises. So, isn't it then morethan appropriate to wail on them for doing so and penalizing them in some way for not living up to their words? I simply so not understand why more Democrats are not more upset with the Democratic Party leadership in this regard?