Catch Me If You Can: The "Antiwar" Democrats

Tweet You may have heard John Conyers on Democracy Now this morning equivocating (which Amy Goodman allowed him to do) about whether or not he would cut funding for the war--oh, yes, he said he would, but I guess you can take that with a grain of salt considering his promise to impeach GW--which he now says it is impossible to do and still get Dems elected next time. Amy didn't ask him about the contradiction between his defunding declaration and the announcement on Wednesday by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha that they would not be using defunding as a tool to end the war.

The yardstick by which Dems are judging all maneuvers is will it get us elected? Promising to end the war worked this time. It got Dems elected. Now they are using the "slow bleed" strategy to end the war--telling Bush that all the troops must be trained and armored and rested, but then you can send them, thinking that this way the Dems cannot be charged with not "supporting the troops." A no risk strategy (just like their nonbinding disapproval resolution)--UNLESS you live in Iraq or are sent there to "police" the occupation.

Having attended a Jim McDermott townhall last fall at which he allowed no questions from the gathered townspeople of Seattle, but did take the time to endlessly repeat that working to get Dems elected was the most important thing people could do to stop the war. He promised impeachment IF they could get elected. Well, they are elected--but impeachment is "off the table." Has McDermott publicly criticized a leadership that has undercut antiwar members of the party? Not that I have heard.

The article below is about "antiwar" Barack Obama's relationship to Israel. The last paragraph mentions his "antiwar" posture and how he will have to be careful or this "position" could be questioned: if he comes down to hard on Iran's nuclear program and rattles sabers, the antiwar crowd might get suspicious. However, he does need the $$ from Jewish voters so backing Israel's anti-Iran stance is mandatory. Oh, the trials of a presidential candidate. Once again the mortal risks will be taken by the people of Iran. Obama's only risk is a stumble in his meteoric rise to power. Link to whole Obama article in Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml

"But this is just the short version of the policy Obama
will be officially presenting soon. This week I was told
that while the venue has yet to be selected, the Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs conference in Washington at the
end of February is one possibility. There's also a chance
that he will make his comments on Israel at a Washington
rally calling for the release of the abducted Israeli
soldiers or while speaking to a group of Chicago Jews. One
thing is quite clear: It will happen in the next two to
three weeks.

"I asked about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) convention in March and was told that he will
speak there too, but wants to have another speech sooner.
Obama doesn't want to wait such a long time - not when he
is running a campaign in which he will need the support of
many people who care deeply about Israel. (Oh, let's just
say it: Jewish voters are major donors to the Democratic
Party and its nominees.) He also wants to make sure that
people will hear him, and him alone. After all, Obama will
not be the only candidate speaking and getting attention
at the AIPAC conference.

"On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Dan Shapiro, a senior
adviser to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida), was saying
goodbye to the job he has held for six years. He is as
knowledgeable as anyone on Israel and the Middle East, and
apart from the "real" job he got himself now, he has
joined Obama's campaign as an adviser on issues related to
Mideast policy.

"I spoke to Shapiro about Obama and his views earlier this
week, and I asked him to highlight for me the differences
between Obama and the current Bush policy regarding
Israel. The first difference, he said, will be a greater
emphasis on the need for constant engagement by the U.S.
Obama will tell you that Bush wasted some long years
without investing in diplomacy. You can either agree with
him on that or not, but this has become the Democratic
party line. All candidates condemn Bush for the hands-off
approach.

"A second possible difference will involve the question of
whether to talk to Syria. Obama believes that America
should talk to the Assad regime, so it's hard envisioning
him objecting to an Israeli-Syrian dialogue. And then
there's the question of Iran - the most important of them
all.

"A Washingtonian familiar with the Obama campaign reminded
me that Obama is the anti-war candidate, and thus will
have some maneuvering to do on Iran. He will probably warn
of a possible deterioration in relations that could lead
to an unintentional war, but by the same token he can also
be expected to agree that Iran should not be allowed to
acquire nuclear weapons and that no U.S. president should
take any of the options off the table.

Article from the Electronic Intifada Newsletter of
Ali Abunimah