My father’s cousin Jack’s wife Abbie grew up a Quaker, and while she currently belongs to a Presbyterian church, she maintains her Quaker peace witness. She tells me via email that an organization called Democracy Rising is planning a nation-wide effort to contact Congressional representatives via telephone tomorrow, Thursday, September 6, to call for an end to the war in Iraq.
If you’d like to participate in the peace witness, the phone number at the Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121. If you’re not sure who represents you in Congress, you can find out here.
If you’re wondering exactly what to say when some low-level aide in your elected representative’s office answers your call, you could say: “As a voter, I want you to act now to end the war and occupation of Iraq. The Congress has the Constitutional right and a moral responsibility to use the power of the purse to withdraw all U.S. soldiers and contractors from Iraq on a responsibile and binding schedule.”
Democracy Rising offers the following background:
In September, Congress will focus on the war in Iraq. They will vote on the President’s request for continued funding of the war. At this writing, the request stands at $142 billion, but President Bush will probably ask for an additional $50 billion, for a total of more than $190 billion dollars!
Congress is not required to give President Bush any of this money, or even to bring the request to a vote. Congress can also put restrictions, firm withdrawal timelines and other conditions on any funding in order to force an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
To read even more, visit the Democracy Rising Web site.
This sort of campaign might create some minimal signs of progress in ‘red’ states, but does hounding Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy with endless, repetitive emails and phone calls do any practical good? After all, members of the Mass delegation are already keenly aware of the unpopularity of this war among their constituents. Besides that, most of them were against it before it even started.
I think part of the ineffectiveness of the anti-war movement is a result of the rather simplistic and unfocused way they go about things. “Cut off funding” or “Impeach!” are easily said, but no so easily accomplished in DC. Sure, they’re correct that congress “can” add restrictions or timelines to an Iraq spending bill or any spending bill. In fact, congress could also pass a law making it a felony to keep troops in Iraq. But congress clearly lacks a veto-proof majority to support any such legislation, so what would be the the point?
At this juncture, congress’s most productive option is continuing to build on a bipartisan consensus (one which is admittedly still in its infancy, but growing) and alienating the administration and its apologists by doing things like rubbing republican noses in the recent reports from the GAO and Gen. Jones’ commission, until enough of them are shamed into admitting that the White House strategy is not only completely unsustainable, but is entirely bonkers.
I, for one, am hoping that the contrast between the reality of the mess in Iraq, as reported by those independent sources, and what Puppet Petraeus will say in his White House manipulated report will prove to be a significant step toward cracking Bush’s GOP support in congress and bringing an end to this fiasco.
Dwight — You write: “I think part of the ineffectiveness of the anti-war movement is a result of the rather simplistic and unfocused way they go about things.” Another way of saying the same thing is to say that today’s peacemakers are relying on decades-old theories, rhetoric, and organizing strategies — yet the world has changed significantly. I found William Schulz’s talk at General Assembly this year pretty compelling as what might be an updated version of peacemaking — check it out at http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2007/presentations/31313.shtml