Bush’s Iraq war and the hesistant Democratic opposition


USA: Bush and the Iraq war, cartoon

This cartoon from the USA is on Bush’s Iraq war and the Democratic party. There is only hesistant Democratic opposition to Bush’s war; including Senator Hillary Clinton.

See also here.

A criticism of Democratic Senator Obama on the Iraq war: here.

Corruption in the Iraq war: here.

Massacre in Najaf, Iraq: here.

Iraqi blogger Raed on the big peace demonstration in Washington: here.

4 thoughts on “Bush’s Iraq war and the hesistant Democratic opposition

  1. Impeachment by the People
    Posted by: “Jack” miscStonecutter@earthlink.net bongo_fury2004
    Thu Feb 1, 2007 12:28 pm (PST)

    Impeachment by the People

    by Howard Zinn
    The Progressive
    http://www.progressive.org
    Wednesday, January 31, 2007

    Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos. But all we hear in the nation´s capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about “unity” and “bipartisanship,” in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.

    These are the Democrats who were brought to power in November by an electorate fed up with the war, furious at the Bush Administration, and counting on the new majority in Congress to represent the voters. But if sanity is to be restored in our national policies, it can only come about by a great popular upheaval, pushing both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will.

    The Declaration of Independence, revered as a document but ignored as a guide to action, needs to be read from pulpits and podiums, on street corners and community radio stations throughout the nation. Its words, forgotten for over two centuries, need to become a call to action for the first time since it was read aloud to crowds in the early excited days of the American Revolution: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government.”

    The “ends” referred to in the Declaration are the equal right of all to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” True, no government in the history of the nation has been faithful to those ends. Favors for the rich, neglect of the poor, massive violence in the interest of continental and world expansion-that is the persistent record of our government.

    Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

    The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about “realism” (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being “the art of the possible” (while setting limits on what is possible).

    I know I´m not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable). There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it´s been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual “indictment” has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.

    There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of “people´s impeachment hearings” all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.

    These hearings would be the contemporary equivalents of the unofficial gatherings that marked the resistance to the British Crown in the years leading up to the American Revolution. The story of the American Revolution is usually built around Lexington and Concord, around the battles and the Founding Fathers. What is forgotten is that the American colonists, unable to count on redress of their grievances from the official bodies of government, took matters into their own hands, even before the first battles of the Revolutionary War.

    In 1772, town meetings in Massachusetts began setting up Committees of Correspondence, and the following year, such a committee was set up in Virginia. The first Continental Congress, beginning to meet in 1774, was a recognition that an extralegal body was necessary to represent the interests of the people. In 1774 and 1775, all through the colonies, parallel institutions were set up outside the official governmental bodies.

    Throughout the nation´s history, the failure of government to deliver justice has led to the establishment of grassroots organizations, often ad hoc, dissolving after their purpose was fulfilled. For instance, after passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, knowing that the national government could not be counted on to repeal the act, black and white anti-slavery groups organized to nullify the law by acts of civil disobedience. They held meetings, made plans, and set about rescuing escaped slaves who were in danger of being returned to their masters.

    In the desperate economic conditions of 1933 and 1934, before the Roosevelt Administration was doing anything to help people in distress, local groups were formed all over the country to demand government action. Unemployed Councils came into being, tenants´ groups fought evictions, and hundreds of thousands of people in the country formed self-help organizations to exchange goods and services and enable people to survive.

    More recently, we recall the peace groups of the 1980s, which sprang up in hundreds of communities all over the country, and provoked city councils and state legislatures to pass resolutions in favor of a freeze on nuclear weapons. And local organizations have succeeded in getting more than 400 city councils to take a stand against the Patriot Act.

    Impeachment hearings all over the country could excite and energize the peace movement. They would make headlines, and could push reluctant members of Congress in both parties to do what the Constitution provides for and what the present circumstances demand: the impeachment and removal from office of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Simply raising the issue in hundreds of communities and Congressional districts would have a healthy effect, and would be a sign that democracy, despite all attempts to destroy it in this era of war, is still alive.

    Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress .” For information on how to get involved in the impeachment effort, go to http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

    © 2007 The Progressive

    Like

  2. Half of Democratic Senators Regret Iraq Vote
    Posted by: “Corey” cpmondello@yahoo.com cpmondello
    Tue Feb 6, 2007 6:19 pm (PST)

    Half of Democratic Senators Regret Iraq Vote

    February 6, 2007

    Half of the current Democratic senators who backed President Bush’s call to war in 2002 say they now regret authorizing the invasion of Iraq, according to a Politico survey.

    But while nine of 18 Democrats who backed Bush now wish they had not, Republicans had fewer misgivings — only three voiced regret. The lack of a similar GOP groundswell highlights the dilemma that some senators from the president’s party face as they seek re-election amid sagging voter support for the war — and, specifically, the president’s
    plan to send 21,000 additional troops to Iraq.

    From Maine to New Hampshire to Minnesota, potential Democratic challengers in the 2008 elections are already gearing up campaigns that will try to capitalize on the past and present congressional debates on Iraq.

    “It is hard to see how Iraq does not remain a central issue,” said Steve Marchand, the Democratic mayor of Portsmouth, N.H., and a potential challenger to Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., next year.

    As senators began a historic debate Monday on Bush’s troop surge, a majority said they were wary of its success, with 58 telling The Politico that they opposed the plan. Yet, a core group of Republicans remained undecided on whether to express that discontent with a “yes” vote on a resolution critical of the president’s plan.

    Full story;
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2639.html

    Like

  3. Re: *Barack Obama’s announcement*
    Posted by: “Steven Erickson” wake911up@yahoo.com wake911up
    Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:21 am (PST)
    I hear so much on radio, TV, and even on the “leftie” lists about Hillary and Obama. Obama I am neutral, Hillary I another consider corporate elitist who admittedly will keep the slaves better fed than the publicans. It seems the talking itionts on TV have decreed that these are the only two candates worth mentioning. Mentioning means little more than a discussion of their race, looks, shooling, gender, blah blah blah

    (Speaking of right wing talk show criminals, is their a poll anywhere ranking which is the biggest ahole on the rightie channels? Tough call! Hannity,Oreilly,Glen Beck,Tucker,Weiner(savage boy),Limblow??)

    >From a populist perspective given that Feingold is not running, we should be talking about Dennis Kucinich. He is a man of integrity, honor and principle. Is the mainstream publican press just setting the dems up for the fall or in the case of Hillary giving us the next best thing to a real publican?

    I have one serious problem with Kucinich being elected. Should he stay true to his principles then he would likely meet the fate of the Kennedys: John, Robert, and John Jr.
    Sad.
    -steve

    —– Original Message —-
    From: hapi22
    Subject: [Leftwing] *Barack Obama’s announcement*

    Here is the full text of Barack Obama’s announcement, today, that he is a candidate for the presidency.

    http://www.barackob ama.com/2007/02/10/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_ 11.php

    Like

  4. Pingback: Political change is often unexpected | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.