Reply #3: Clarification on PDA's Opposition to the Iraq War [View All]

[Kevin Spidel]

We are getting a lot of questions about the "We broke it, now we have to fix it" policy.

This is the organizational response to such inquiries:

PDA has come out clearly in opposition to the Iraq war. We are calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq and the reallocation of the military budget to pressing domestic concerns. In response, Progressive Democrats of America has organized a campaign centered around Bush's $80 billion supplemental appropriation for war and occupation. Our members are contacting their congressional members and demanding opposition to the appropriation. While we have no illusions we'll win this vote, it's important to bring the voices of the 44 million Americans opposed to the war to our elected officials. To quote Dr. King, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Our Iraq campaign is part of a long struggle to return the Democratic Party to its progressive roots. As part of our long-term strategy, we will be actively supporting progressive candidates in 2006 and a peace candidate for President in 2008."

Beginning with our opposition to an $80 billion supplemental appropriation for an unwarranted war, PDA today is beginning a long hard slog to end public funding for the war and, if necessary, seek congressional and presidential candidates in 2006 and 2008.

We are confident that public pressure can awaken Congress to an opposition role as public pressure succeeded in doing during the Indochina war, the Central American wars, the undermining of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, the achievement of the War Powers Act and the inclusion of human rights standards in our national security and foreign policies. At the beginning of the Vietnam War, only two Senators had the courage to say no; ten years later, both houses of Congress terminated all military funding after a determined effort to pressure the Congress.

We salute Congressman John Conyers, Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich for ther principled opposition to further funding, and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and 24 co-sponsors for their demanding our military withdrawal. We appreciate the efforts of Senator Kennedy, Congressman Meehan and others to make funding contingent on a timetable for ending the war and occupation.

In a January poll, 69 percent of Shiites and 82 percent of Sunnis in Iraq favored our “near term military withdrawal” (NY Times 2-21-05); recent polls here show 55 percent saying the war is “unwarranted”. Who will speak for these silent majorities? Who will cry out that it is a mistake to compound a mistake by sending our young soldiers to die for that mistake?

This war costs one billion dollars per week that could be spent on pressing priorities like health care or humanitarian assistance. It claims the lives of nearly 2,000 Americans when we include those excluded from the Pentagon’s body count; it sheds the blood of uncounted Iraqis; it squanders our moral stature by the torture of inmates and collateral damage inflicted on so many children; it uses our tax dollars on corrupt corporate contracts that impose privatization on Iraq’s economy.

We are organizing a new campaign in every Congressional District we can to call for the end of funding for war and occupation, and for the transfer of reconstruction assistance to Iraqis themselves.

First, we will demand Congressional opposition to the open-ended $80 billion supplemental appropriation for war and occupation. We demand that the Congressional Republican leadership permit public hearings, debate and amendments such as linking the funds to a strict timetable for military withdrawal.

Second, we demand that Congress assert its role of oversight and watchdog for the public interest. As an example, we strongly support Sen. Rockefeller’s call for an investigation of torture and other misconduct towards the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. There should be no taxes for torture. As another example, we call for continued Congressional oversight and investigations of contracts awarded Halliburton, Bechtel and other corporations, and for full hearings into the limits that have been imposed on the Iraqi government’s sovereignty by former administrator Paul Bremer III, the International Monetary Fund and other policies.

Third, we will be supporting local and state initiatives that promote aggressive citizen action against the war-making process, such as the efforts in Vermont to assess the impact of National Guard forces transferred to Iraq, and the policies pursued in Portland to prevent local police from arresting and transferring deserters to the US Mounted Police. We are organizing local Democratic clubs to take anti-war stands and demand that their state parties and elected officials do the same.

As the Iraq quagmire continues, we believe that public dissatisfaction will create the conditions for peace candidates in the next round of Congressional and presidential elections. This process will require the peace movement making links with seniors, labor, women, people of color and all those who want a new progressive coalition to stand up for American values against the corporate hawks who now dominate and strangle the political process.

For Democratic officials, remaining silent about the war and occupation or acting as a liberal version of the Republican Party is unacceptable. It is time to speak for the vast majority of Americans who seek a progressive alternative.