The Episcopal bishop of the California diocese was arrested with many others in an antiwar sit-in at the SF Federal Building on December 7.

===
The people have spoken out through the 2006 mid-term election. By voting out pro-war candidates and changing control over Congress, we have repudiated war policies and issued a mandate for new policies that promote peace and international cooperation.

More and more of us understand that the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq was based on lies, that it was unjustified and illegal, and that it has sullied our reputation around the world and made us less safe at home. For months now, polls have shown that a majority of Americans (including active duty troops in Iraq) want the US troops to come home. Several polls have shown that the vast majority of Iraqis also want all foreign occupation forces to leave their country.

In order to restore the bonds of trust between the people–who want a swift end to the Iraq war–and our elected representatives–who have not represented the will of the majority with regards to Iraq–the peace-loving people of the United States issue the following call:

We insist that the newly elected Congress, in its earliest days in office, pass legislation requiring the prompt removal of all US troops from Iraq and discontinue funding for military purposes in Iraq except the safe withdrawal of all U.S. forces.

Additionally, Congress should:

- Make real its existing stated commitment to no permanent US military bases in Iraq.
- Support an Iraqi-led reconciliation process to shape a peaceful post-occupation transition.
- Investigate and punish companies engaged in illegal war profiteering.
- Commit significant funds to the reconstruction of Iraq, under the control and direction of Iraqis.
- Provide funding for full benefits, adequate healthcare, and other support for returning servicemen and women.
- Make every effort possible to ensure the peaceful resolution of conflicts with Iran and North Korea.
===

Getting a good turnout to a national demonstration does, in fact, take at least two months. You dismiss the logistical realities, but I encourage you to talk to people with experience in pulling these off.

The only exceptions are when the participants’ lives are directly at stake and there is excellent media and institutional support (e.g., the immigration demos, and even then I believe the first big one was planned at least two months ahead).

The original date, the fourth anniversary of the invasion, was chosen when it appeared unlikely that Democrats would retake both houses of Congress. Under that situation, it appeared hopeless to most people to get the administration to change course. Given that, there was a reason to pick a time when the media focus would be on Iraq and the weather more favorable than the dead of winter, and there were extra months to mobilize and fundraise.

Once the election results were in, it was clear that the case could now be made that there was some hope for actual change, if massive numbers of Americans exerted pressure on the new Congress. So the demo was moved up two months.

I wasn’t part of the decision-making, but I can guess why it wasn’t timed to coincide with the first or second weekend after the seating of the new Congress. 1) The holidays really do cut into the ability to mobilize. 2) The Dems have announced an agenda for the first 100 hours (i.e., the first two weeks) that doesn’t include withdrawal from Iraq. 3) The weekend before the UfPJ date will probably be the annual anti-abortion march (Roe v. Wade anniversary: 1/22).

Democrats aren’t going to end the occupation without pressure from their constituents. I hope those who want to see the quickest possible exit from Iraq will encourage a variety of methods to make this pressure visible and felt by their representatives.

Bush has announced he’ll make an Iraq speech on Monday, December 18, presumably his response to the Baker-Hamilton report. Marc’s post and our whole experience with GWB make clear that no significant changes will result. We who want troops out should be ready to produce visible, audible, palpable immediate response with letters to the editor, demos, and calls/visits/letters to members of Congress demanding that.

Voices for Creative Nonviolence [formerly Voices in the Wilderness] is organizing

the Occupation Project, a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding.

Big demos aren’t about celebrities; this one in particular should be the first since the UfPJ concert last September to have members of Congress as speakers (something Marc used as his argument for why UfPJ needed to quit working with ANSWER).

Big demos are about getting a large enough group of people together to give the views of the majority of the American people the weight they should have. In this case, to demand that Congress respond to those views and not the Baker-Hamilton elite “centrism”. To put spine into Democrats, a familiar task of people who work for justice and peace.

I’m certainly not advocating that nobody do anything between now and January 27.

What should the national organizations that have been active in antiwar work call for and do?

There was just a call-in to Congress this past Monday. Tame, to be sure.

Should we be being called to sit in at the local Congressional offices? (which many of the incoming Dems don’t have fully set up yet).

Hold candlelight vigils? It’s seasonal.

It’s very possible probable that the 3000th U.S. servicemember will die in the next three weeks. In the fall of 2005, when the troop fatalities were approaching 2000, national networks encouraged events to mark the unhappy milestone, as well as Iraqi deaths.

I’m just looking for constructive suggestions. You’re going to hold the whole population responsible (”We shall now see what the American people are made of, or not.”) yet it seems it’s not fair to ask what you would like to see happening.

I find myself in complete agreement with Balter and Bradley. I cannot believe that either party wants this to continue. Yesterday Sen Smith of Oregon threw in the towel. Note that he is running in 2008. I think everyone is on notice that we better be out by then or its their ass.

And the longer the realization that this is a dead end eludes people like John McCain and Hillary Clinton, the less likely it is that either will set up shop in the Oval Office.

To which I say “Thank God”. As Samuel Johnson said nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of a hanging. And the political class has to know that will happen if they don’t get us out.

Maybe Low Dobbs has it right when he suggests thyat everyone reregister as an “Independent” to show their disgust with the dithering of the two parties.

No I shouldn’t. This is the typical response of anyone on the left when they are criticized and a typical way of dodging discussion. We need a united antiwar movement, not hundreds of different ones, and as someone who is part of the antiwar movement as Nell defines it above–a definition I agree with–then I have the perfect right to an opinion about what the strategy should be, in fact I am morally obliged to have an opinion about it. My opinion is that there is not enough sense of urgency, and again part of my evidence is Nell’s own statement on a previous thread that the January action was moved up from March when it was originally scheduled. If a majority of Americans now oppose the war, which is clearly true, what makes Nell and other antiwar organizers think that they need so much time to get it together other than that they have to get all the celebrity talking heads to look at their date books?

What will you be doing to promote it? Besides dismissing as ‘too little, too late’ national demonstration designed to demand an end to the occupation, as 60-72% of the American public want?

“The antiwar movement” is all of us who want the war to end. If you think what existing organizations are doing is not enough, or not the right thing, then you should be organizing some actions more in line with your own views.

(60% within next six months, 72% by end of 2008, AP/Ipsos)

http://www.slate.com/id/2155105/

Indeed, this whole “liberal media” meme should bite the dust already. A recent study (reported on in the International Herald Tribune; haven’t found it on the web yet) showed that partisan skewing of terms (e.g., “private” vs. “personal” social security accounts) had nothing to do with who owned a newspaper, and everything to do with the political leanings of those in the paper’s regional market. In other words, a paper is as liberal or as conservative as readers want it to be–it’s purely market-driven. The LA Times might be considered part of the “liberal media”, but that’s because LA is pretty liberal; it has relatively low subscribership in not very liberal parts of the same region, such as Orange County.

On one point, I find the report a bit weasely: its insistence that all 79 recommendations be carried out in a coordinated fashion. Since it’s highly unlikely that all 79 could be carried out, much less in a coordinated fashion, the ISG panel can always say, in the event of a total fiasco, that their recommendations weren’t taken to heart.

As for the “blood for oil” argument, well ….

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/May/21-701479.html
—-
POWELL: …We need stable regimes in this part of the world who will be partners and friends of ours, because the fact of the matter is we do rely on imported oil to fuel our economy and to fuel our nation.

And, in Iraq, we had an unstable regime, a dictatorial regime that was ready to be pushed aside. President Bush was bold enough to push it aside because of their dallying in weapons of mass destruction and human rights abuses and terrorism. And now what we ought to do is put in place a stable, democratic nation that will provide oil to the world market.

That’s not sending our troops overseas for oil. That’s sending our troops overseas to put in place a democratic nation rested on a foundation of openness and human rights that will be a friend and partner of the United States.
—-

Oh, and, uh … one that will have oil, too. Not like that WMD-dallyin’, human-rights-denyin’ North Korea, to which we end up *shipping* oil on occasion. But, hey, let’s not split hairs.

Apparantly the administration has decided not to count Iraqi deaths unless they can identify the perpetrator (not the individual but the sect). So if we can’t identify who threw the grenade, it’s best to assume that it was the result of a personal animosity, not the current civil war. And how serious an undercount can this result in?

“The ISG report said that U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence on one day in July. ‘Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light more than 1,100 acts of violence,’ it said. ”

Oh good.

The ISG report is the political equivalent, perhaps, of a report on Iraq by the foreign policy committee of the “Gang of 14″ or whatever the Senators who negotiated around the judicial nominee filibuster a couple of years ago. Traditional Republicans and conservative Democrats. I think whoever is left of that Gang will be the core support for the ISG approach. That might be enough to attract significant further support.

In the House, there has been no real equivalent, though it is possible that the border-Southern Dems who were elected recently will provide impetus to such a group.

I would guess that, all else being equal, a resolution supporting withdrawal of combat troops by the end of 2007 would probably be supported by a majority in each chamber, but, perhaps would not if the Baker-Hamilton option were on the table.

But if there is going to be an effort at achieving a consensus, it will be done in the Senate. And let’s face it, if there is going to be a true reversal of policy while Bush is commander-in-chief, it will only be the result of a consensus resolution either being passed by each chamber, or the imminent probability such a resolution would be passed.

Btw, hasn’t Bush been looking pretty beaten and lost this past week? I guess it is pretty hard to see your decisions being criticized harshly–in terms you believed would only be applied by the cutters-and-runners–by Jim Baker, the guy who basically got you elected, and even Ed Meese. You get the sense he is stalling, expecting a sort of deus ex machina to come in and show him the way. After all, God has informed him that he is right and his critics are wrong.

November 13, Feingold talked about the war in Iraq in Wisconsin.Feingold said that with the new Democratic majority in Congress, American troops should be brought home by mid-2007.

“We’re going to have to bite the bullet. We just have to have a timetable and be flexible,” he told residents attending a listening session today.

Feingold, who opposes the Iraq war, has been critical of the Bush administration policies, such as the Patriot Act and Military Commission Act.

As the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, he said he would work to undo parts of the military commissions law, reasoning that the bill eliminates habeas corpus, the right of prisoners to seek release through the courts.

Historically, commissions like this, usually geriatric gathering-places, are designed (a) as political cover for unpopular decisions, like base closings and adjusting Social Security; or (b) as a means of burying issues that pose political problems for someone (9/11, Kennedy Assassination).

This one’s a little bit of each. And its recommendations–a camel (a horse designed by a committee).