Posted on 02/13/2003 9:14:21 AM PST by johnny7
11 social movements need an "outside" strategy and an "inside" strategy. The growing number of people participating in rallies and marches in opposition to President George W. Bush's plans to invade Iraq is heartening.Polls show that since last October, when--under the pressure of the November elections--Congress voted to give Bush the broad authority he asked for to use military force against Iraq, and to act alone if necessary, Americans have become more ambivalent, hesitant and skeptical about going to war with Iraq.
In growing numbers, Americans now oppose giving a free hand to a President with an itchy trigger finger. Without an "inside" strategy that gives people more conventional ways to voice their dissent, however, the peace movement will appear smaller and more marginal than it really is.
The street protests, along with petitions, newspaper and TV ads, and bumper stickers, have forced Bush to proceed more slowly than he and his advisers had planned. But ultimately, only Congress can effectively stop the Bush Administration from waging war--directly, by tying Bush's hands, or indirectly, by reflecting the public's mounting aversion to war with Iraq. Antiwar forces have begun to acknowledge this reality by focusing attention on Congress's role and mobilizing support for resolutions to limit Bush's options.
"We have to put up as many obstacles as we can," explained Erik Leaver, a foreign policy expert at the Institute for Policy Studies. "We need to pressure members of Congress to come out against the war. Legislation gives the grassroots something to grasp onto."
The strategy seems to be having an effect. On January 24, as Bush was putting the finishing touches on his State of the Union speech, 129 Democratic members of the House of Representatives--more than a quarter of all members--sent him a letter asking him "to use the opportunity provided in the upcoming State of the Union Address to offer assurances both to the American people and the international community that the United States remains committed to the diplomatic approach and comprehensive inspections process agreed to in the UN Security Council."
The letter, written by Representatives Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Ron Kind of Wisconsin, called on Bush to "sufficiently weigh future decisions regarding Iraq on the assessment" given by the UN weapons inspectors, "including additional inspection time and resources as appropriate." Kind was among the twenty-six signers who had voted for the war resolution last October. These original signers changed their minds as a result of grassroots organizing and public opinion in their districts--an indication that the antiwar movement outside the Beltway is being felt inside it, even though only a few major newspapers published stories about the letter.
Since then, some members of Congress have taken the next step to reassert Congress's authority in the war-making process. Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Representatives Pete DeFazio of Oregon and Ron Paul of Texas, have filed resolutions to limit Bush's room for maneuver. The Kennedy/Byrd resolution requires Bush to go back to Congress for approval before using military force in Iraq. The DeFazio/Paul bill--which was filed within hours of Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 4 speech to the UN and immediately drew thirty co-sponsors--repeals last October's use-of-force vote.
Yeah, right. And military considerations had nothing to do with it?
Well, given the nature of that resolution from last October, this sure seems like an unnecessary waste of time:
Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Representatives Pete DeFazio of Oregon and Ron Paul of Texas, have filed resolutions to limit Bush's room for maneuver. The Kennedy/Byrd resolution requires Bush to go back to Congress for approval before using military force in Iraq.
On the other hand, this bill would seem like a logical step (if the Dems were the Majority party):
The DeFazio/Paul bill--which was filed within hours of Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 4 speech to the UN and immediately drew thirty co-sponsors--repeals last October's use-of-force vote.
And anyway, why did that resolution pass in October? The Republicans voted for it because they believed it. The Democrats? Well, they voted for it because they are unprincipaled hacks who would do anything to hang on to their power in the face of an upcoming election.
There is a vast country out here besides Hollywood and academia. A few thousands whinning, simpering juveniles throwing tantrums do not represent the attitude and desires of the rest of us.
We are going to knock down some of those obstacles. . .
The road to war is always paved by the Pacifists with the bodies of the peaceful. Pacifists have always had an agenda and it is neither peace or the avoidance of war. It is their own self interest that they keep the peaceful in a state of confusion until the Pacifists can decide which side will win and accommodate them in the post war conditions.
Pacifists, by nature, demonstrate during the peace prior to armed conflict to make themselves identifiable. They hide during the danger only to emerge at the end of hostilities to march with the winner.
They claim the moral high ground of "consceince" before the shooting starts and crawl out of the sewers when it stops to feed on the dead and lick the victors boots.
Oh - it was published in The Nation? I rest my case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.