PEEK  
comments_image Comments

Savvy Iraq War Protests Don't Just target "The Decider" in DC

Tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands will march in Washington and elsewhere to protest Bush, the occupation of Iraq, and Congress's reluctance to prevent escalation.
 
 
Share
 

Having already decided to be the decider, Bush has now decided to be "the decision maker" which, apparently means ignoring the public, all his generals, the top UK general, world opinion, common sense, good will, the words of Jesus (and every other prophet conceivable), what I learned in kindergarten, and a number of other valuable life lessons, to escalate the war in Iraq.

Tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands will march in DC against this tragic decision.

They won't simply be marching to change Bush's mind, however (they are the reality-based coalition after all), but also to convince those in congress who believe a loud "no" is sufficient when the power rests in their hands to actually mean "NO!"

That is, to cut off funding. For some harsh words from Sens. Feingold and Hagel, watch these videos.

The NY Times articulates what's new about this protest:

So the groups that are organizing the demonstrations against the president’s strategy are also carrying out a sophisticated, well-financed lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Their behind-the-scenes efforts are intensifying, relying on tactics deployed in a cutthroat political race

.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of labor unions, MoveOn.org and other groups that have traditionally rallied against wars, has raised $1.5 million since it was formed two weeks ago. The group is singling out Republicans and Democrats who have spoken out against the war, but who have so far declined to pledge support for a resolution denouncing Mr. Bush’s plan to increase the number of troops.

The protest will be followed by in-your-face campaigning aimed at lawmakers who won't put their money where their mouth is (or, more accurately, "take" the money?) and vote to end funding for this war, or to tie funding to specific time-tabled redeployment plans.

A perfect example of the mealy-mouthed rhetoric this effort is designed to confront comes from Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman who, referring to toothless resolutions against the war, claimed that they "[offer] an opportunity for a lot of us to express a concern about an aspect of the policy without taking a shot at the president."

Feingold's rejoinder to this camp:

"It’s a walk in the park right now to oppose the idea of this war. It’s also very easy to oppose the escalation... They are once again being too timid and too cautious."

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.

 
See more stories tagged with: