PDHblog
This is a place for members of Progressive Democrats of Hawai‘i to express their thoughts
and exasperations about political happenings. The opinions and views are not necessarily
those of PDH's steering committee or membership as a whole.

I remember President Bush’s rush to war in Iraq: While proclaiming that war was the “last resort,” the President was clearly impatient. UN sanctions were actually working well. According to the Wikipedia,

The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq’s WMD capability. . . .While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have also been found, most weapons inspectors do not now believe that the WMD program proceeded after 2002,^[1] though various theories continue to be put forward. . . . In late 2002 Saddam Hussein, in a letter to Hans Blix, invited UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Subsequently the Security Council issued Resolution 1441 authorizing new inspections in Iraq. The carefully-worded U.N. resolution put the burden on Iraq, not U.N. inspectors, to prove that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction. . . .In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. . . .On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix’s last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.^[50]

But this was not good enough for Bush and Cheney, who clearly chose to believe the old intelligence reports, and other “worst case” assessments, and to disbelieve the UN reports. Or maybe they just lied. It was clear to me at the time that, shortly after the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan, and despite assurances that war was a “last resort,” Bush wanted to invade Iraq. His body language was clearer than his words. (more…)

In an unexpected development this morning, our two senators split on the bellicose Kyl-Lieberman resolution against Iran, which reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the eve of the Viet-Nam war. What was unexpected (to me) is that Akaka voted for it, and Inouye against. At least this is better than Lieberman’s previous anti-Iran resolution, which passed 97-0. But it still must leave Vice President Cheney smiling.
The resolution itself does not call for military action. However, by declaring part of Iran’s national defense forces as a terrorist organization, it provides an easy rationale for Cheney’s desire for more war. (more…)

Frosty’s lament today is hardly an isolated concern. There’s more here:

Primary Challenges Haunt Democrats, by BooMan (Thu Sep 20th, 2007 at 11:07:06 AM EST). This blog includes a quote from Rep. Neil Abercrombie about the disconnect between what the anti-war group wants, and what the Democratic representatives feel able to deliver. This is also revealed in a recent national poll by Andy Kohut that aired on PBS September 19, 2007.

ANDREW KOHUT: Yes, I mean, I think, with respect to the Democrats, that’s the case, because what we saw also is the percentage of Democrats saying that their leaders are not doing enough to push Bush on Iraq. In July, that percentage was 54 percent, and in September, it was 61 percent.

It is also reflected in my op-ed piece today in the Star Bulletin, “Follow the Constitution: Initiate impeachment.” I am totally frustrated by Speaker Pelosi’s declaration that impeachment is off the table. (more…)

these days i find myself generally pissed off at the democratic party, both on the national scene and here in hawaii.  now, i’ll admit that i’ve never been a huge fan of the party to begin with, as i feel it offers (nationally anyway) only moderate differences in policy to the republicans.  anyone who doesn’t think the dnc is just as much in bed with big business as the republicans is, in my opinion, simply fooling themselves.  but i digress…. (more…)

Brien Hallet, Associate Professor at the Institute for Peace at the University of Hawai‘i, has developed a plan that he thinks may help us extricate ourselves from Iraq. It may not be as flashy as simply saying “Troops Home Now!” but I think it has merit. Take a look and let me know what you think.

Brien will also be attending our July 5th meeting to discuss his ideas.

(more…)

there is a blog post by senator russ feingold on the huffington post about today’s presidential veto of the iraq spending bill sent to him last week by the democratic congress.  he said he’d veto it before it showed up on his desk, but democrats sent it anyway, using the bill as a signal that congress was no longer bush’s lap dog.

now that bush has done exactly what he said he would, it seems some democrats have already lost their nerve, their will to do battle with the president on this issue.  well, since we couldn’t get it passed with the time line there can’t possibly be a way to force the president to end this war.  oh well, let’s just give him what he wants….

WHAT?

the president is completely unwilling to compromise on anything having to do with iraq, yes, but that doesn’t mean we just throw in the towel.  we keep fighting for what we think, what we know is right.  in a rare instance, democrats in congress actually have tremendous support from the public with regard to ending the war in iraq.  at the same time, the ground seems to be continually eroding from underneath this administration, so WE should be the one to back down?

to use presidential logic, let me put it another way.  for six years, this president has experienced no resistance to his policies.  he’s never heard the word no, but now the democrats are trying to teach him (granted, i’m not sure the man is intelligent enough to tie his shoes, but it’s still worth a try).  now, after their first real stand off, some democrats are ready to give him what he wants?  if we back down now, there’s no reason to think he’ll compromise with congress on anything else.

if you don’t stand up to a bully, he’ll never learn.  however thin the democratic majority is in congress, it is still enough to force this president to work with congress, to listen to the will of the people (some of whom actually voted for him).  there can be no backing down on this issue and i have to applaud senator feingold for coming out and saying it.

A number of organizations, led by the Hawaii chapters of NION and WCW, joined together and raised their Voices on March 17th to End the War NOW, forestall an Attack on Iran!, Impeach Bush for War Crimes!, and Stop the Militarization of Hawai`i.

Because the Bush Regime has committed war crimes, and is about to commit more, we have the responsibility to stop them.

We must show that the outrages committed by the Bush regime, from Iraq to Hawai`i, are not being done in our name!

The goal was to be part of building a movement powerful enough to end the war, and impeach Bush and Cheney for War Crimes.

The March 17th protest in Honolulu began at 3 pm with an Anti-war rally at Ala Moana Park, in Picnic Area No. 1 near the corner of Atkinson and Ala Moana (across from Macy’s).There were poets, speakers and info tables. Many people got there early to meet friends, listen to the speakers, and get the sign they wanted to carry. The speakers included representatives of the cooperating organizations.

The march on Ala Moana Blvd (with a trolley for those unable to march) began at 4 pm, at the corner of Ala Moana and Atkinson. They marched ewa on Ala Moana (mauka) to Kamakee, then went up Kamakee to Auahi and back to Ala Moana Park on the makai side of Ala Moana Blvd.

When the march returned, at about 5:30, the marchers were greeted back into the park by an awesome group of drummers, and then a line-up of poets and musicians. I was there with the PDH banner, and some flyers, bumper stickers, and petitions. Thanks again to Carolyn Hadfield and NION for allowing us to use one of the tables.

Bob

Wednesday, March 14, 11:30-1:15

Teach-In: “Impeach Bush for War Crimes”UH-Manoa Art Department Auditorium
Sponsored by World Can’t Wait and NION-Hawai`i
The teach-in will begin with a 27-minute DVD segment of testimony presented at the Bush Crimes Commission in NYC. Witnesses presenting testimony in the video include: Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector; Amy Bartholomew, professor of law, Carleton University; Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power Empire; Dahr Jamail, independent journalist; Jeremy Scahill, writer for The Nation and former correspondent for Democracy Now!; Camilo Mejia, Iraq vet and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War; David Swanson, organizer of Camp Democracy; Dr. Thomas Fasy, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and expert on depleted uranium. This is a powerful DVD that everyone should own. You can purchase a complete set of the DVDs at: Bush Commission http://www.bushcommission.org/?q=node/68> for only $20. Or you can pick burned copies at the teach-in for $5.

The teach-in will feature a talk by Ann Wright (former State Dept diplomat and retired Army Reserve Colonel who resigned in opposition to the war in Iraq). Ann was a judge at the Bush Crimes Tribunal, as well as at other war crimes tribunals. She has met with hundreds of veterans of the Iraq War. Since the war in Iraq began she has been speaking at colleges, anti-war rallies, and churches, and is involved in building a grassroots movement to impeach. Check out her article “Blood Diamonds and Blood Oil” dated March 6, 2007 at: Ann Wright http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030607R.shtml> . “We’re really privileged to have Ann speak at this teach-in at UH-Manoa! Don’t miss it!

There will be adequate time for questions/answers/discussions. We know that impeachment is controversial and many question whether Bush and Cheney have really committed crimes warranting impeachment. Or - for those who are convinced they have - they question whether it is possible. This teach-in will address both.

If you were at this event, please add a comment describing your impressions. Did you find it helpful? If there were to be a follow-up teach-in, what should be covered? The goal of the national impeachment process is to develop enough support in each congressional district that our representatives will feel empowered and impelled to demand impeachment!

Mahalo nui,

Bob Schacht

As advertised, the team from FireDogLake is liveblogging from the Scooter Libby trial!

And the comments are pouring in, some quite good. The blog on Patrick Fitzgerald’s opening statement has already been called the “best blog ever,” and already there is speculation about forthcoming indictments of others– and there’s only been one lower-level witness so far. Some commenters are saying already that Libby has thrown Karl Rove under the bus.
The liveblogging is an interesting phenomenon: it will be interesting to see how it pushes the mainstream media (MSM). Reporters on site usually check notes with each other before writing their dispatches, thereby establishing a kind of Conventional Wisdom about who said what about whom. But sometimes the FDL blogger steps aside from the attempted constant liveblogging stream, that reads something like a transcript, but not as carefully edited, in order to comment on the significance of a remark just made by one of the principals.

Its already been an interesting day, but I’m not going to have the time to distill thousands of words for you. So, you can wait until the MSM commentators take over, or you can go over to FDL to see whassup.

Update: Before Fitzgerald’s opening, one of the bloggers speculated on the kinds of questions he would ask if he had bigger fish in his sights, or whether he intended to confine his prosecution to Libby. Some commenters are already speculating that Fitz is “going big.”

Bob Schacht

i’ve been talking to one of my very best friends about the war in iraq and what the correct course of action should be. for some time i’ve believed that we should leave. immediately. we shouldn’t be there in the first place and the result of our illegal coup has been increased violence in the region, a complete loss stability, an upsurge of sectarian violence, a financial boon for US corporations, the needless deaths of thousands of US military and civilian personnel, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians. of course we shouldn’t be there. we shouldn’t have gone in the first place and this president (and vice-president) must absolutely be held accountable for these deaths and the blatant violation of US and international law.

having said all this, the question has crept into my brain; is an immediate withdrawal of our troops the best course of action? would the region stabilize upon our departure, or would things continue to spiral out of control? while few would argue that saddam was a horrible dictator, with all that’s happening now, is iraq really better off? iraqis are potentially in more danger now, than they were four or five years ago and the country’s infrastructure is in ruins. it appears the only people to have benefited from this war are the US corporations that supply the military with its weapons and those who won no-bid contracts of the reconstruction (which is months, if not years behind schedule).

so, what is the upside to leaving? what’s the positive? what’s the moral argument? i mean, shouldn’t we stay and make every effort to clean up this horrible mess we’ve made? instead of sending the 21,500 more troops as a temporary stop gap measure (which military experts don’t even think will make a difference), why not sent the roughly 150,000 it has been suggested it will really take to put an end to the violence? why not cancel the contracts with those companies that have not done the necessary work and instead have corporations from around the world BID on new contracts?

should we really leave? should we really quit before the job we set out to do is finished? do we not have some responsibility, some moral obligation to finish what we started and do right by the iraqi people?

my position hasn’t changed and i still think we should leave; we are there illegally and i honestly can’t trust this administration to do anything right. at the same time, i have some doubt and feel there may be some moral justification in staying to clean up this horrible mistake of ours.