Anti-War rally in Washington D.C. 1-27-07
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/washington/26left.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1169806046-qkbu7uJmlnZeOJO9fFRGWA&oref=slogin
Groups Head to Capital to Step Up Anti-War Drive
By Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse
The New York Times
Friday 26 January 2007
Washington - Tens of thousands of demonstrators are set to arrive in the capital this weekend for a major Anti-War march, staging the first of several protests intended to persuade the new Democratic-controlled Congress to do more than simply speak against President Bush's Iraq policy.
But do not look for senators to be standing among the protesters on the Mall on Saturday. Despite a consensus building around a Senate resolution to oppose sending more troops to Iraq, even the most liberal Democratic senators do not appear eager to align themselves with a traditional Anti-War 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.
Next week, the group intends to fly Iraq veterans to the home states of Republican senators who serve on the Foreign Relations Committee and voted Wednesday against the resolution condemning the administration plan, including Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. Television advertisements are scheduled to be shown in some of the same states in an effort to apply pressure before the Senate vote on the resolution in early February.
"The face of Anti-War is not what it was in the '70s," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who is the chairman of a group called VoteVets.
If members of Congress are slowly finding their voice opposing the administration's Iraq plan, aides to lawmakers say, it is in no small part because of the face-to-face lobbying campaign that is a central piece of the strategy employed by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. The group plans to spend up to $9 million, said its spokesman, Brad Woodhouse, which they expect to raise through Internet solicitations and individual donations.
Mr. Soltz and nearly a dozen other veterans have been walking the halls of Congress, and they have had no problems getting appointments. One day last week, they held back-to-back meetings with Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, Democrats who are running for president in 2008.
"This battle to oppose the escalation is as important as the original battle in Iraq," said Jonathan Powers, who spent 14 months serving in Iraq as a captain with the First Armored Division. He laced up his beige combat boots and put on a blue suit as he went to Congress on a recent day of lobbying.
Senate leaders said Thursday that it appeared unlikely that any vote on an Iraq resolution would occur until the week of Feb. 5. Efforts to meld differing resolutions opposing the troop buildup faltered Thursday when Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, chose not to negotiate with those behind a competing plan approved by the Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat who is the chairman of the panel, and his allies had offered to try to merge the resolutions, saying the differences could be overcome, clearing the way for a consensus measure.
But Mr. Warner has been reluctant to consider the idea of merging the two, a move that could bring a strong bipartisan vote against the president. In a written response to Mr. Biden, Senators Warner and Nelson said they would rather work out any disagreements on the floor "as a consequence of the will of the Senate."
In an interview on Thursday evening, Mr. Biden expressed disappointment that Mr. Warner did not agree to negotiate, but he added that a full-fledged debate on the Senate floor would be "healthy."
Mr. Coleman said he saw the Warner approach as less partisan than the plan offered by Mr. Biden and allies who included Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska.
"The Warner resolution, I think, offers an opportunity for a lot of us to express a concern about an aspect of the policy without taking a shot at the president," Mr. Coleman said.
The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, acknowledged the administration had been talking with Mr. Warner about his initiative. "We're trying to take his temperature on what he intends," Mr. Snow said.
Supporters of the president's policy were developing resolutions of their own. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he would propose giving the Iraqis a series of benchmarks to demonstrate progress. A draft proposal from Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, declares that "the United States military leadership in Iraq should be given a reasonable chance to execute the new plan for Iraq."
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, began trying to frame what could be a muddled procedural fight in the Senate by emphasizing that in the end, there is likely to be a bipartisan majority of senators going on record in opposition to Mr. Bush's approach in Iraq.
"For the first time in an intractable war," Mr. Reid said, "a bipartisan group of senators is going to tell the president that 'what you are doing is wrong."
But it remained an open question whether critics of the war would wait patiently for Democrats and Republicans to reach agreement.
"The country has told us they don't like what's happening, and they want us to do something about it," said Representative Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat who is one of four members of Congress (none of them senators) scheduled to attend the rally on Saturday. "Congress has yet to keep up with the public."
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq receives its organizational and financial muscle, at least in part, from the Service Employees International Union, the largest labor organization in the country, which wields significant influence in Democratic politics. For the first time, the union is speaking out against the plan to increase troops in Iraq.
"There was an election that showed clear consequences," said Andrew L. Stern, the president of the union. "It's incumbent on Democrats to express their disagreement with the president."
While Democrats have shown little reticence speaking against the president's plan, there is little agreement on the next step. Next week, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, is convening a hearing to discuss the ways in which Congress can begin blocking the financing for the war, an idea that remains deeply controversial inside the party.
"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," Mr. Feingold said. "They are once again being too timid and too cautious."
Groups Head to Capital to Step Up Anti-War Drive
By Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse
The New York Times
Friday 26 January 2007
Washington - Tens of thousands of demonstrators are set to arrive in the capital this weekend for a major Anti-War march, staging the first of several protests intended to persuade the new Democratic-controlled Congress to do more than simply speak against President Bush's Iraq policy.
But do not look for senators to be standing among the protesters on the Mall on Saturday. Despite a consensus building around a Senate resolution to oppose sending more troops to Iraq, even the most liberal Democratic senators do not appear eager to align themselves with a traditional Anti-War 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.
Next week, the group intends to fly Iraq veterans to the home states of Republican senators who serve on the Foreign Relations Committee and voted Wednesday against the resolution condemning the administration plan, including Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. Television advertisements are scheduled to be shown in some of the same states in an effort to apply pressure before the Senate vote on the resolution in early February.
"The face of Anti-War is not what it was in the '70s," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who is the chairman of a group called VoteVets.
If members of Congress are slowly finding their voice opposing the administration's Iraq plan, aides to lawmakers say, it is in no small part because of the face-to-face lobbying campaign that is a central piece of the strategy employed by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. The group plans to spend up to $9 million, said its spokesman, Brad Woodhouse, which they expect to raise through Internet solicitations and individual donations.
Mr. Soltz and nearly a dozen other veterans have been walking the halls of Congress, and they have had no problems getting appointments. One day last week, they held back-to-back meetings with Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, Democrats who are running for president in 2008.
"This battle to oppose the escalation is as important as the original battle in Iraq," said Jonathan Powers, who spent 14 months serving in Iraq as a captain with the First Armored Division. He laced up his beige combat boots and put on a blue suit as he went to Congress on a recent day of lobbying.
Senate leaders said Thursday that it appeared unlikely that any vote on an Iraq resolution would occur until the week of Feb. 5. Efforts to meld differing resolutions opposing the troop buildup faltered Thursday when Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, chose not to negotiate with those behind a competing plan approved by the Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat who is the chairman of the panel, and his allies had offered to try to merge the resolutions, saying the differences could be overcome, clearing the way for a consensus measure.
But Mr. Warner has been reluctant to consider the idea of merging the two, a move that could bring a strong bipartisan vote against the president. In a written response to Mr. Biden, Senators Warner and Nelson said they would rather work out any disagreements on the floor "as a consequence of the will of the Senate."
In an interview on Thursday evening, Mr. Biden expressed disappointment that Mr. Warner did not agree to negotiate, but he added that a full-fledged debate on the Senate floor would be "healthy."
Mr. Coleman said he saw the Warner approach as less partisan than the plan offered by Mr. Biden and allies who included Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska.
"The Warner resolution, I think, offers an opportunity for a lot of us to express a concern about an aspect of the policy without taking a shot at the president," Mr. Coleman said.
The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, acknowledged the administration had been talking with Mr. Warner about his initiative. "We're trying to take his temperature on what he intends," Mr. Snow said.
Supporters of the president's policy were developing resolutions of their own. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he would propose giving the Iraqis a series of benchmarks to demonstrate progress. A draft proposal from Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, declares that "the United States military leadership in Iraq should be given a reasonable chance to execute the new plan for Iraq."
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, began trying to frame what could be a muddled procedural fight in the Senate by emphasizing that in the end, there is likely to be a bipartisan majority of senators going on record in opposition to Mr. Bush's approach in Iraq.
"For the first time in an intractable war," Mr. Reid said, "a bipartisan group of senators is going to tell the president that 'what you are doing is wrong."
But it remained an open question whether critics of the war would wait patiently for Democrats and Republicans to reach agreement.
"The country has told us they don't like what's happening, and they want us to do something about it," said Representative Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat who is one of four members of Congress (none of them senators) scheduled to attend the rally on Saturday. "Congress has yet to keep up with the public."
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq receives its organizational and financial muscle, at least in part, from the Service Employees International Union, the largest labor organization in the country, which wields significant influence in Democratic politics. For the first time, the union is speaking out against the plan to increase troops in Iraq.
"There was an election that showed clear consequences," said Andrew L. Stern, the president of the union. "It's incumbent on Democrats to express their disagreement with the president."
While Democrats have shown little reticence speaking against the president's plan, there is little agreement on the next step. Next week, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, is convening a hearing to discuss the ways in which Congress can begin blocking the financing for the war, an idea that remains deeply controversial inside the party.
"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," Mr. Feingold said. "They are once again being too timid and too cautious."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Anti-War Groups Plan Surge on Washington
By Aaron Glantz
Inter Press Service
Wednesday 24 January 2007
San Francisco - Peace activists from around the United States will converge on Washington Saturday for what organisers hope will be the largest demonstration to date against the Iraq war.
"We expect a turnout in the six figures," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman who now runs the group Win Without War, which is organising the march along with True Majority, Working Assets, the RainbowPUSH Coalition, the National Organisation for Women and the national umbrella group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).
UFPJ's Leslie Cagan told IPS that the level of energy in the Anti-War movement has spiked since the November election, when voters ended Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.
"The voters of this country figured out that they could use the November elections as a vehicle to voice their opposition to the war," Cagan said. "What happened there was that the voters gave Congress a mandate to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home."
That success at the polls gave Anti-War citizens more optimism that a large demonstration might make an impact, she said.
In mid-November, United for Peace and Justice called a demonstration for the nation's capital for Jan. 27, with other large mobilisations planned for Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco.
In addition, smaller actions are planned for more than 50 cities. In Bismark, North Dakota, the group Surge for Peace will be delivering petitions to members of the local congressional delegation. In Austin, Texas, the Stop the War coalition is hosting a march and rally featuring student activists, Green Party activists, and members of the group Veterans for Peace.
A full listing of all marches nationwide is on the group's website unitedforpeace.org.
"People started saying to us right after the election 'well, what is Congress going to do?'" Cagan said. "And we quickly realised the real question is 'what are we going to do to push this Congress to do what they said they were going to do to get elected'. So we figured we got to get people into Washington as soon as possible after the new session of Congress began."
Organisers said five or six Democratic lawmakers are expected to speak at the rally in Washington, and that Representative Barbara Lee will speak at the Los Angeles gathering.
"A lot more would be speaking but we simply don't have the time on stage," said former congressman Andrews. "If we had all day and there was unlimited time for members of Congress to speak we'd have many members of Congress."
Peace activists will have to fight hard if they want to end the war. In recent weeks, President George W. Bush has proposed escalating the war by sending 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers to Iraq. At least 3,000 troops are already on their way.
In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, Bush told a joint session of Congress he "chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success."
"Many in this chambre understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching," he added.
While lawmakers from both political parties have put forward proposals condemning Bush's plan to escalate the war, none are binding.
In addition, the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have already said they don't support efforts to cut funding for the war.
In the official Democratic response to Bush's state of the union address, freshman Senator Jim Webb of Virginia focused more on strategy and tactics than the merits of the war itself.
"We need a new direction," said Webb, whose son is currently deployed as a soldier in Iraq. "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought, nor does the majority of our military."
In his speech, Sen. Webb favoured "regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."
But he also opposed a "withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos."
United for Peace and Justice's Leslie Cagan told IPS that the mixed message from the Democrats makes a large turnout at Saturday's demonstration particularly important.
"That's why it's critical to keep the pressure on," she said. "We are encouraging every single person who agrees with us who can possibly make the trip to Washington this coming weekend to be with us," adding that the Anti-War movement is staging a lobby day on Capital Hill for Monday Jan. 29.
"Now we know it's a big country and everyone can't make the trip," she added. "That's why we've organised demonstrations for over 50 cities across the country including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle."
could you give an explanation as to why an anti-war rally is stupid?
i guess the right to assemble and free speech is stupid to you, but it isnt to many that have fought, and continue to fight, for those rights which we enjoy.
your blind faith in all things Bush is quite pathetic, and old. and your willingness to hand over the thrown to the president is even more pathetic and short sighted.
do yourself a favor, turn off rush limbaugh, turn off sean hannity, turn off foxnews, and start thinking for yourself. the political party you support blindly, GOP, has sold out your country to the highest bidder a long time ago.
not to mention they are sending 20,000 more young americans into the pits of hell against the advice of nearly everyone in the world, while you rah-rah and cheer like it is a high school basketball game.
Thanx for the lecture. But heres why its stupid.
1) You protested before and that didnt stop it...you protesting now isnt either.
2. Ill turn off Hannity and Fox when you turn off Zmag and AL Franken
3. I show no blind faith is GWB. Another thread said that a pro-LIFE march on washington was stupid, so im returning the favor.
1) But if a certain amount of the citizenry is upset about how the country is run why can't they continue to protest until change happens?
2) I don't listen to any of those so I'm cool
3) A pro-life march is not stupid. Whomever said that was acting a little shortsided
protests are good for boosting the economy for local merchants and giving the police some overtime.
for example; in the states that have legalized marajuana; 70% or more of the voters voted to legalize. there's been countless protests in favour of legalization yet federally; it's still illegal.
pro-life marches are common but abortion is here to stay.
what the people think means nothing. take this from a retired politician. the reasoning behind this is that the people don't know all the facts; which; is true.
so march your bloody feet off. but know it means nothing.
Cool. Then I'll just sit at home and let the assholes that I didn't vote for ruin our country. I love apathy.
it's far from apathy. it's truth. once bush was elected; the entire nation could have marched on washington; but it wouldn't change a thing. he'd still be president for another 4 years.
but time will tell. if the war ends next week because of this protest; i'll publically eat me words.
I hope they have massive voter registration campaigns at this march. That's were your attention should be focused. Making a bunch of paper mache (sp) caricutures of Bush and co as the devil and singing protest songs is great and all, but it doesn't really equate to votes and that's what matters.
Very true. I'm sure there will be a voter registration push.
news flash....... the world knows.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
After reading some posts and threads on here I'm doubtful.
yes; last time the voter registration did increase. the new registrants were those who registered to support bush to "combat the traitors" in this country.
2004 Boston I
2006 Boston I
2008 Bonnaroo, Hartford, Mansfield I
2010 Hartford
2013 Worcester I, Worcester II, Hartford
2016 Bonnaroo, Fenway I, Fenway II
2018 Fenway I, Fenway II
2021 Sea.Hear.Now
2022 Camden
2024 MSG I, Fenway I, Fenway II
I wish I could make it to this rally, but unfortunately will be traveling for work :(
i sure hope your not a former politician considering your ignorance of history.
all of the social advances in the USA have come from civil disobedience and public outcry. and this is whithout exception, including slavery, civil rights, womens rights, abortion rights, workers rights, childrens rights, and the end of the vietnam war just to name a few.
ps... and for that matter the only thing that will stop this insane administration and its thirst for war is the people of this country. nothing more, nothing less.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Anyone actually go? How many people were there? How many people do you think they registered to vote?
naděje umírá poslední
yeah, i saw something on the news about it, too. can't remember which network it was, though. all they showed was a group of older women singing a jingle they made up.
~Michael Bolton
It was a huge deal.
I was there.
There was a fuckload of people there.
2004 Boston I
2006 Boston I
2008 Bonnaroo, Hartford, Mansfield I
2010 Hartford
2013 Worcester I, Worcester II, Hartford
2016 Bonnaroo, Fenway I, Fenway II
2018 Fenway I, Fenway II
2021 Sea.Hear.Now
2022 Camden
2024 MSG I, Fenway I, Fenway II
change does'nt just happen by getting together and walking down a street, it happens when you are ready to draw blood. now I know it seems strange to be "anti war" yet ready to fight. But sometimes violence is a must.
America only understands blood. Maybe it's time for people to get violent. we want change, we need to be ready to make that change.
500.000 people? what, that not enough to storm the white house?
Now fighting is not the only way of course, but we need to be able to sacrfice just a bit more. Gandhi who never hurt a fly even understood this. during one of his major protests many many people on his side were killed. But that's the reality of the world. of the struggle.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Your mother must be proud.