Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
Popular content
Today's Top News
Anti-War Groups Retreat
After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.
The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.
"There was a consensus that last year was not productive," John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. "Our expectations were dashed."
The meeting, held at an office on K Street, was attended by around 20 representatives of influential anti-war groups, including MoveOn.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which spent $12 million last year opposing the war.
Isaacs said he thought the meeting would be a difficult one, with an adamant faction pressing for continued focus on timelines and funding. It wasn't to be.
"We got our heads together and decided to go a different way," Isaacs said. "The consensus was not to keep beating our heads against the wall trying to block every funding bill - not because we don't agree with it, but because we don't have the votes."
Moira Mack, a spokeswoman for AAEI, was also at the meeting. "There was a lot of agreement that this is really the way that we can best get our message across about endless war versus end-the-war and draw clear distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans. They really don't want to end the war. This is the perfect legislative opportunity."
An additional factor: The failure of last year's end-of-the-session efforts to oppose the war convinced some in the movement that the numbers just weren't there. "At the end of the year, Congress went out with a whole bunch more votes on Iraq with the same result. Some of the [news] stories were saying that members of Congress were getting tired of it," Isaacs said.
The new strategy doesn't mean that the groups won't be active during budget battles. "The budget debates provide an enormously rich opportunity to engage the public," said former Maine Rep. Tom Andrews of the group Win Without War. "We're spending $8 [billion] to $10 billion a month."
During Tuesday night's presidential debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) referenced the kind of legislation that the anti-war crowd will be backing when she asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he would co-sponsor a bill to prevent the president from entering into any long-term agreements with the Iraqi government without consulting Congress.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama will "support all common-sense efforts to ensure that President Bush does not tie the hands of future presidents through agreements with the Iraqi government."
In December, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) sent a strongly worded letter to Bush asking for information about what types of agreements the president planned to enter into and urging that he consult with Congress first. It was signed by Clinton and Democratic Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Carl Levin (Mich.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).
"The feeling is that Clinton's too hot to handle for legislation right now, so we're hoping somebody like Casey will carry it," Isaacs said, expressing concern that Clinton's presidential run could give the bill too much partisan edge to get through the Senate.
In the House on Tuesday, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill that would make clear that no federal money could be spent to implement an agreement Bush reaches with Iraq unless it's in the form of a congressionally approved treaty.
Members of the anti-war coalition say they are working to gather co-sponsors for the bill but that they will also attempt to insert similar language in the upcoming supplemental spending bill. Late last year, Bush requested nearly $200 billion for the war effort; Democrats gave $70 billion and will be revisiting further funding soon.
For Mack, the logic of the argument seems straightforward. "Maliki is talking about getting congressional approval on the Iraq side," Mack said, referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "It's absurd that Bush wouldn't go to the U.S. Congress."
The anti-war movement also thinks it has a winning argument when it comes to the length of time Americans are willing to see U.S. forces in Iraq. Roughly half of Americans recently surveyed by CBS News want most U.S. troops out within a year, and more than half think it was a mistake to invade in the first place. Every Democratic candidate for president has promised to withdraw almost all troops from Iraq within the first year of his or her presidency.
Earlier this week, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadir said U.S. troops might need to remain in Iraq until 2018, which could cost the United States $1 trillion or more between now and then, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. Bush said recently that it is "fine with me" if U.S. troop levels remain the same in Iraq, if Army Gen. David Petraeus recommends such a deployment.
Bush also said last week that U.S. troops "could easily" be in Iraq for a decade or more.
AAEI will have a budget roughly as large as it had last year, Mack said, and the new focus should be seen as an addition to its strategy, rather than as a retreat from a previous position. "Clearly, folks continue to oppose any more money for the war, and that was discussed as well. Our groups are still going to actively oppose any more funding," she said.
© THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
119 Comments so far
Show AllYou make the following claim in an article on your site
"After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home"
Your phrasing suggests that a coalition of anti-war groups made the legislation that was defeated.
Me thinks you need to correct your grammatical mistakes.
The Democratic party, and specifically the Democratic Congress failed, not the anti-war groups.
Who is the Allbritton Group to make such an obvious grammatical error. Are you attempting to protect the Democratic Congress, and place the blame on anti-war groups? What is your motive for such an obfuscation?
Stop toying with the truth. The American people don't like that.
Professors Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are friends, but I've talked to Zinn on many occasions; I've interviewed Zinn for my column in Vegas and he's endorsed my first novel, A.D., so I'm inclined to believe what HE says, which is that there's NO such thing as "Human nature." It always has and continues to be a right-wing scam -- specifically designed to discourage the masses from obligating the rich/powerful to care and share. For where's the incentive to sacrifice a mansion (a la Scrooge or Schindler) in order to house the homeless if us lowly Humans ain't worth the effort and are only going to fuck up a free lunch yet again ..? Why do you think the Religious Right pushes the Adam and Eve story so much?
How many times and ways have we heard it from FOX News viewers? "Poverty will never be eliminated because of 'Human nature'." "Imperialism will always be with us because of 'Human nature'." And so on and so on. It's the biggest cop out going ...
How would you white folks like it if every black man starting saying, "'Human nature' is keeping me from finding a job" -- yeah, that's what I thought ...
Certain CULTURES -- created by elites of Humans corrupted by power -- are at fault here. Cultures that tell the poor their only solution is "positive thinking" or pulling bootstraps ... cultures that lie to the public so it'll invade countries (for their OiL, when we the people could just as soon go solar or grow industrial hemp) etc. etc. ... these are cultural, NOT inescapably biological problems.
Are ALL white folks to blame for the atrocities of a FEW Ku Klux Klansmen? Of course NOT! Likewise, just 'cause a tiny minority of corrupt Humans are waging war or ignoring the impoverished (just as Bill O'Reilly denys the existence of homeless vets) doesN'T indict the entire Human race!
It seems to me you're accepting the right-wing's definition of the phrase "human nature" in order to argue that because it's consequences are objectionable, there is therefore no correct definition of the phrase, not even Chomsky's. At the very least that argument commits the logical fallacies of argumentum ad logicam, argumentum ad consequentiam, and hasty generalization.
Saab: >I'd say ten million in 800 cities around the world (February, 2003) is quite enough.<
10 million who'd shrunk to less than 100,000 by January 2007, which is the last anti-war march I went to (have there been any since then?). If 10 million weren't able to prevent the war, why would less than 100,000 be able to stop it? And in that time the number of troops in Iraq has actually increased . . .
You can march because you feel it's necessary to do SOMETHING, but it doesn't appear to have had any appreciable effect on the war. You can call me a fool or a slumming surbanite (that one cracked me up), but I stand by my original argument.
"If 10 million weren't able to prevent the war, why would less than 100,000 be able to stop it?"
"It seems to me you're accepting the right-wing's definition of the phrase 'Human nature' in order to argue that because it's consequences are objectionable, there is therefore no correct definition of the phrase."
Double noggin knocker time: The only person accepting the right-wing definition of Human Nature is someone who assumes the peace movment is somehow losing because the war was increasing after the massive protests in 2003. What was that line from Fidel Castro? "History will absolve me!" Well, history has ALREADY absolved those who marched! Surge or no surge, Bush has been proven wrong and then some!
What do you expect the Bush administration to do? OF COURSE they were going to ignore the protests! If they didn't, they'd have empowered the peace movement, and that's the last thing their kind wants to do!
What kind of world would it have been if, in 2003, Bush got on the TV and said, "Those ten million people are right and I'm wrong." We'd be on our way to a utopia by now. Instead, like any outlaw on the lam, Bush said, "Fuck y'all! I'm going in anyway!"
Now, at which point, you can do one of two things:
One, give up. Figure that "Human nature" dictates there'll always be war and the peace movement won't ever have "any appreciable effect" ...
Two, NEVER give up; NEVER surrender. I don't give a three-legged rat's ass if it goes from 100,000 to ONE. If I've got to die trying to singlehandedly stop this abomination, then thy wilt be done! The rest of y'all motherfuckers can sit around cafes sipping lattes wallowing in despair like a pig in slop in the summer time if ya want ta, but I'm goin' down swingin' ..!
Riane Eisler's bestseller, The Chalice and the Blade (now in 22 languages) is hailed as the most important anthropology book since Darwin's Origin of Species. In her MungBeing Magazine interview, Eisler counteracts this "Human nature" bullshit:
MB: Something unique about your philosophy is that you don't seem to believe that males, or Humans in general, are inherently violent.
RE: When people say "inherently violent" they don't mean that, what they mean is that this is a behavior, a genetic predisposition that characterizes Humans, and particularly males, since time immemorial. Of course that is absolute nonsense. We are inherently violent, we are inherently caring, but what does that mean? That we have the genetic capacity for both of these behaviors.
... since the Human race has the capacity for both, it's "absolute nonsense" to reward the violent and condemn the caring. I for one have spent the past twenty years rewarding the caring and condemning the violent and I'll spend the rest of my life continuing to do so.
Eisler doesn't disprove the existence of human nature, merely the neoconservative misconception of human nature. Recent studies show that children who have not been abused are naturally altruistic. If we have the capacity for both violence and caring, that then is human nature, not one or the other. Finally, I'd like to point out that you yourself talk of never surrendering and going down swinging, which suggests to me there is a time for humans to exercize their capacity for violence--in self defence.
Professor Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States) rightfully pointed out to me there is no organ in the physiology, no bone in the skeleton, no gland in the brain called "Human nature." It's not science. It's a euphemism, no different than "Murphy's Law" and the phrase is used in much the same, cynical way ...
Saying that all Humans have something in common is not in and of itself scientific proof of the existence of "Human nature." Take the necessity to eat, for instance. Some Humans will be so desperate for food they'll kill for it, but there are just as many Humans who'd rather starve to death than do so. If anything, the phrase "Human nature" is a dangerous stereotype -- assuming that all Humans will do this, that or the other under certain circumstances. As the late, great Steve Hampton put it, "Human behavior is almost infinitely variegated. People are mainly products of their environment."
I once interviewed Danny Miller from Voices in the Wilderness. We laughed about the hate mail he's received, which demanded that Miller "go back to Iraq" even though he's from Brooklyn. And to those who claim Voices in the Wilderness is wasting their time because any effort to allieviate suffering ultimately fails due to "Human nature," Miller simply says that's "a cop out."
Miller was right in 2004 and he's right now.
If so much as ONE motherfucker uses "Human nature" as a chickenshit-ass excuse not to march, protest, etc. then that's one too many (Cindy Sheehan quitting was bad enough). And what's with the pseudonym "barely human" anyway? Aren't you proud of what you are? In the black community, we learned the hard way the consequences of not having pride in one's self.
If our planet was ever enslaved by a hostile, extraterrestrial race, I guarantee you the disparaging and imaginary term "Human nature" would immediately replace the words "nigger" and "bitch." Since psychological warfare is a part of slavery, the aliens would constantly broadcast propaganda about how Humanity's inherently flawed nature would inevitably foul up any rebellion or escape attempt.
In reading the above posts, still, it is not getting through.
THE TOOLS OF DEMOCRACY (protests, letters, sit ins, etc) ONLY WORK WITH A RESPONSE FROM "THE OTHER SIDE." WHEN THIS RESPONSE IS NOT FORTHCOMING, THE TOOLS OF DEMOCRACY DO NOT WORK. YOU CAN USE THEM UNTIL YOU ARE BLUE IN THE FACE BUT IF YOU HAVE NONRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, CITY COUNCIL, WHATEVER, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
THIS MEANS YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO EVOKE CHANGE BECAUSE THE TOOLS WE ARE ALL USED TO USING NO LONGER WORK.
All humans having something in common is the definition of "human nature." Nobody you've quoted has disproved it's existence, merely criticized attempts to define it as only selfishness and violence. Which is fine--I agree with those you've quoted, but not with your insistance that they're saying humans have no essential nature. They are not. Most modern anthropologists and psychologists say normal human nature is loving and creative. If you assume the term is negative, then you accept the negative definition.
It seems to me hypocritical to criticize "barely human" as being insufficiently prideful, while assuming "human nature" is a negative term.
I do agree with you that the caring should be rewarded, and that instigators of violence should be condemned. But if you're so peace-loving, why all the ad hominem? Some people consider that a form of violence. And so much of it doesn't exhibit much respect for other humans, or at least ones that think differently than you. It certainly seems hateful.
First, things have already changed for the better (integration, a woman's right to vote, union recognition, leaving Vietnam, going this long without a nuclear holocaust, and many other things) -- which is exactly why THEY are "nonresponsive" and why THEY want to Jedi Mind Trick folks into "thinking" the tools "no longer work" and whatnot. Don't you get it? If THEY let on that protests, letters, sit ins, etc. DO IN FACT WORK, then from THEIR point of view, the jig is up. My God, don't you people know what a "poker face" is?
Whenever someone claims protest is no longer effective, they either a) have no alternative to offer, or b) put forth the notion that the only alternative is to be a part of this evil system -- to "work it from the inside," and so forth. Like my kid brother for instance: He thinks that overrated pretty boy and closet imperialist Obama is The Chosen One, Kucinich was an unrealistic dreamer who wasted his time and Nader should've been strung up for "spoiling" 2000. It's a very dangerous thing when doing the right thing is demonized ...
I wouldn't go back in time on a bet (Marty McFly is white for a reason)!
Professor Noam Chomsky said it best (Confronting the Empire/February 1st, 2003): "It's not like the 1960s, when the population would tolerate a murderous and destructive war for years without visible protest. That's no longer true. The activist movements of the past 40 years have had a significant civilizing effect."
THESE are the good ol' days ...
Feeling ineffective? Guess what? That's exactly how the right-wing wants you to feel! Aside from OiL, that's exactly why Emperor Cheney ignored/dismissed the ten million in 800 cities circa Feb. 2003 -- because if he didn't, he might as well have turned himself in to the proper authorities for war crimes against Humanity right then and there! What, you want him to be a masochist? Of course he's going to fight back, his way! Expect resistance!
Jesus, who needs martial law? Why bother with something as overt and heavyhanded as troops in the streets when cynicism is confused with intellect?
"if you're so peace-loving, why all the ad hominem? Some people consider that a form of violence"
... only the spoiled and fragle, my friend, only the spoiled and fragile ... Besides, would you rather I hit the streets with a M1 and start blowing Republicans away? Because if Che was alive and watched FOX News for five minutes, he'd be wondering why we ain't done that already ...
Ever hear of the Maoist Internationalist Movement? I'm not a member, but this paragraph of theirs is the code I live and die by (don't fault mine and I won't fault yours):
"Why don't you tone it down? Use less rhetoric. The middle-classes otherwise known as the petty-bourgeoisie constantly ask MIM to 'tone it down.' The classes in-between the imperialists and the property-less known as proletarians are inclined to believe that there is a neutral educational tone appropriate for all communications. In reality, a neutral tone is not appropriate when your friend is about to fall off a cliff. You better yell in excitement: 'Look out!' According to the petty-bourgeoisie and the imperialists, there is no reason within the status quo to be yelling or using a harsh tone. In contrast, we see an emergency situation in reality, a reality so bad it needs to be overthrown."
... look up the wikipedia entry for the Feb. 15th, 2003 protests if ya want some good vibrations ...
... the protests and other public opposition have been held up as a key factor in the decisions of the governments of many countries, such as Canada, to not send troops to Iraq ...
... Mike Marqusee ... claimed that it was too soon to judge the long-term significance of the demonstrations noting that "People who took part in the non-cooperation campaigns in India in the 20s and 30s had to wait a long time for independence." and that "There were eight years of protest and more than 2 million dead before the Vietnam war came to an end". Secondly, he claimed that while the effect of marching may be uncertain, the effect of not marching would surely be to make it more likely that the occupation would continue ...
... the February 15 global day of anti-war protests had many effects that were not directly intended. According to United Kingdom left-wing anti-war activist Salma Yaqoob, one of these was that they were a powerful antidote to the idea that the war was a "clash of civilizations", or a religious war, an idea she claimed was propagated both by Western leaders and reactionary forces in the Arab world ...
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. Who needs martial law when those of us supposedly on the left beat each other down mentally with verbal and emotional abuse every time we disagree on anything? Such behavior is the evidence cynicism grows from. It is us behaving according to the neoconservative/abusive parent's definition of "human nature." It is us being oppressors to each other. It is us proving the enemy right.
Ad hominem will not liberate those who have been beaten into submission. We will not build a peaceful and just world upon it or with it. There is a difference between speaking the truth plainly and raising needed alarms on the one hand and smothering anyone who use phrases we don't like or doesn't support the exact candidate or party we do with distain and contempt (what I was originally despairing). That won't give anyone (except the abusers) pride in themselves, much less in being human.
If you wish to engage in name-dropping, I suggest you read some Lloyd deMause. Until then, I see no reason to continue this discussion and will let you have the last word I suspect you'd insist on.
"Ad hominem will not liberate those who have been beaten into submission. We will not build a peaceful and just world upon it or with it."
I guess you missed the part about don't fault mine and I won't fault yours ...
And you're WRONG. What do you call it when Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz from Code Pink got in Condi's face and screamed, "You got blood on your hands" ... or when President Hugo Chavez called Bush The Devil at the United Nations ... or when Michael Moore made gun nuts look like shit in the Oscar-winning Bowling for Columbine ...
I don't know about yo' ass, but I call it damn liberating!
"When those of us supposedly on the left beat each other down mentally with verbal and emotional abuse every time we disagree on anything"
Really? And insisting I forgo ad hominem ain't an example of that?
As I said earlier, I draw the line at being a Kucinich Democrat -- those who are (and those to the left of Kucinich obviously), I'm cool with. And to be left-wing means to defend the best interests of the poor/oppressed whether you yourself are poor/oppressed or not (Marlon Brando paying the Black Panthers' bail, for instance). Sometimes that means hurtin' a motherfucker's feelings (NEWSFLASH: "speaking the truth plainly and raising needed alarms" caN'T be done without hurting SOMEONE'S feelings), sometimes that means picking up the gun like Che or John Brown.
Let's not forget Dr. King himself *ALIENATED* a bunch of folks by coming out against Vietnam -- funding for the Civil Rights Movement dried up after he did, how "effective" is that? Activists: It ain't about whatever payoff we can see in OUR brief lifetimes!
Those to the right of Kucinich (who defend the rich/powerful, be they rich/powerful themselves or masochistic wannabes) -- well, unlike the Stalinists, I don't censor, torture or murder my enemies, but I sure as fuck ain't gonna care if I hurt their feelings cussin' them out (OR if some white liberal is RELATED to them) ...
I tell ya one thing: The answer is NOT to skip through the tall grass pointing out butterflies and singing Kumbiya like the goddamn Eloi from HG Wells' The Time Machine ..!
Ad hominem, bitches!