It's starting: Democrats will be blamed for Iraq.

It isn't just Mr. Bush who is in a tight corner now. Ms. Sheehan's protest was the catalyst for a new national argument about the war that managed to expose both the intellectual bankruptcy of its remaining supporters on the right and the utter bankruptcy of the Democrats who had rubber-stamped this misadventure in the first place.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

In the first speech of this offensive, he even felt compelled to take the uncharacteristic step of citing the number of American dead in public (though the number was already out of date by at least five casualties by day's end). For the second, the White House recruited its own mom, Tammy Pruett, for the president to showcase as an antidote to Ms. Sheehan. But in a reversion to the president's hide-the-fallen habit, the chosen mother was not one who had lost a child in Iraq.

IN the new pitch there are no mushroom clouds. Instead we get McCarthyesque rhetoric accusing critics of being soft on the war on terrorism, which the Iraq adventure has itself undermined. Before anyone dare say Vietnam, the president, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld drag in the historian David McCullough and liken 2005 in Iraq to 1776 in America - and, by implication, the original George W. to ours. Before you know it, Ahmad Chalabi will be rehabilitated as Ben Franklin.

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com

It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

The fact that in his statement Kerry suggests Bush has not put enough pressure on Chávez, completely ignores the ample evidence of the millions of dollars the Bush administration has given the Venezuelan opposition through the National Endowment for Democracy. Such substantial financing has been used numerous times in attempts to oust Chávez from office through extra-constitutional means.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Senator Kerry: You Want My Vote? Support My Positions!
by Ann Samuelson

As with many prior Democratic presidential candidates, I fully expect to see Kerry move to the right as we get closer to the election. We can see this kind of movement in a speech Kerry made on March 19th when he condemned Hugh Chavez, the democratically elected President of Venezuela. Candidate Kerry characterized Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests" and suggested he was undermining Venezuela's democracy as well as supporting Columbian rebels. Kerry singled out Chavez's friendship with Fidel Castro for special condemnation and accused him of impeding a recall referendum. Prior to this, news reports suggested Chavez was trying to court a friendship with Kerry.

So what are Chavez's real crimes? He's undertaken a land reform in Venezuela, giving idle lands to poor peasants; many of these lands were previously under the jurisdiction of large plantation owners. Also, he's taken on big oil interests by passing laws that doubled the royalty taxes paid by oil operators and he's asserted control over the state owned state oil company, which was previously controlled by foreign oil interests. It's telling that one of the few places you can find the full text of Kerry's speech is on Petroleum World website (http://www.petroleumworld.com/Edit4Mar24.htm).

I would doubt the majority of Americans know who Hugh Chavez is or care about America's relationship with him. If this speech is not earning Kerry points with the voters, why is he making it? It's a wink and a nod at the wealthy and the corporations who have business interests in Venezuela. Through this speech he's implying that while he might take left stances in public, he's really siding with big corporate interests just like Bush. So it's up to you, Senator Kerry. What's it to be? Do you want my vote or do you want to continue courting corporations and the wealthy? Either way the Democratic Party ought to stop blaming Nader for their own failures.

Ann Samuelson (ann_samuelson@yahoo.com) is Chair of the Green Party of Pima County, in Tucson, Arizona. Currently she is an undecided voter.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-13.htm

March 24, 2004

An Open Letter to John Kerry
You Are Wrong on Venezuela, Senator
By EVA GOLINGER

As a registered Democrat who supports major changes to current US governance, I must express my utmost disappointment and disillusionment with your March 19, 2004 Statement on Venezuela. I am a US citizen of Venezuelan origin. I have voted on the democratic bill since I was first legally permitted to vote many years ago. Along with many other residents and citizens in this country, I believe the current US administration has acted in ways contrary to my beliefs and perceptions of democracy and progress, and has betrayed notions of what the United States of America should truly represent and pursue in the world community.

Up until Friday's statement, I had hope that you, as a presidential candidate, could offer the American people a true alternative and change from the brutal, insensitive and interventionist government we have had during the past four years. As a Venezuelan-American, I must tell you that your statement on Venezuela is not only highly misplaced, but also demonstrates how truly uninformed you are about the situation in Venezuela. It also leads me to believe that you have been influenced by interested parties insisting you take a stand on this issue in their favor.

You declare that international pressure should bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed, which clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the referendum process in Venezuela. As per the Venezuelan Constitution, certain procedures must first be completed before a recall referendum can be held on President Chavez' mandate, and those clamoring for the referendum have yet to fulfill the necessary requirements that would permit such a vote to take place. It may be easy for you to make a statement on an issue you do not fully understand or care about, merely to acquire approval from a targeted voting pool, yet I would warn you to not make such whimsical declarations without first examining the entire situation.

You, as others in the current administration and congress, may feel as though President Chavez is somehow interfering in the referendum process. But, Mr. Kerry, I suggest you seek out other news and information sources than those currently serving you, because a more accurate report of the events in Venezuela would demonstrate to you that President Chavez has taken no steps whatsoever to impede a recall referendum. Venezuela's Electoral Council and Supreme Court are currently determining whether hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent signatures are subject to further review and certification. Determining whether substantial numbers of signatures on a very important petition is an issue, which I hope, you would consider worthy of scrutiny and absolute certainty. Or would you permit such a situation to occur in your own election and just let potentially fraudulent votes against you be counted without any further verification or review?

http://counterpunch.org/golinger03242004.html

source: http://countrystudies.us/iran/17.htm

In June 1953, the Eisenhower administration approved a British proposal for a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Mossadeq. Kermit Roosevelt of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) traveled secretly to Iran to coordinate plans with the shah and the Iranian military, which was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi.

In accord with the plan, on August 13 the shah appointed Zahedi prime minister to replace Mossadeq. Mossadeq refused to step down and arrested the shah's emissary. This triggered the second stage of Operation Ajax, which called for a military coup. The plan initially seemed to have failed, the shah fled the country, and Zahedi went into hiding. After four days of rioting, however, the tide turned. On August 19, pro-shah army units and street crowds defeated Mossadeq's forces.

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected

by Mark and Louise Zwick

John Paul II has sought to distance the Catholic Church from George Bush's idea of the manifest Christian destiny of the United States, and especially to avoid the appearance of a clash of Christian civilization against Islam. Zenit reported that in his Easter Sunday message this year John Paul II "implored for the world's deliverance from the peril of the tragic clash between cultures and religions." The Pope also sent his message to terrorists: "Let there be an end to the chain of hatred and terrorism which threatens the orderly development of the human family." As he had done in his invitation to religious leaders from many faiths to Assisi at the beginning of 2002, he reached out again to leaders of other religions: "May faith and love of God make the followers of every religion courageous builders of under-standing and forgiveness, patient weavers of a fruitful inter-religious dialogue, capable of inaugurating a new era of justice and peace."

Catholic World News quoted the Latin-rite Bishop of Baghdad, Bishop Jean-Benjamin Sleimaan as saying in the Italian daily La Repubblica that the Pope's high-profile opposition to a war on Iraq has helped to avoid a sort of Manichaeism that would set up an opposition between the West and the East, in which Christianity is linked to the West and Islam to the East.

While the Iraqi War II turned out to be "short," violations of "just war" principles abounded. Bombing included such targets as an open market and a hotel where the world's journalists were staying. While most television and newspaper reports in the United States minimized coverage of deaths and injuries to the Iraqi people, reports of many civilian casualties did come out. CBS news reported on April 7 stories of civilians pouring into hospitals in Baghdad, threatening to over-whelm medical staff, and the damage inflicted by bombs which targeted homes: "The old, the young, men and women alike, no one has been spared. One hospital reported receiving 175 wounded by midday. A crater is all that remains of four families and their homes-obliterated by a massive bomb that dropped from the sky without warning in the middle afternoon." The Canadian press carried a Red Cross report of "incredible" levels of civilian casualties from Nasiriyah, of a truckload of dismembered women and children arriving at the hospital in Hilla from that village, their deaths the result of "bombs, projectiles."

As talk escalated about a U. S. attack on Iraq, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, began stating unequivocally that "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." His comments had been published as early as September 2002 and were repeated several times as war seemed imminent.

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

How are we (literally, PROGRESSIVES) going to stop it?

Had the rest of the Democratic Party voted with anti-war Democrats
against the Iraq War, there would have been enough votes to prevent
the war. The Spratt amendment would have passed, the final vote in
the House would have ended in a tie, Senator Robert Byrd could have
filibustered the resolution, the Levin and Durbin amendments would
have passed, and the final vote in the Senate would have been 52-48
against the war resolution.

See the breakdown of major Congressional votes about the Iraq War
below. You realize that the Republican Party functions as a
political party, with impressive party discipline, but the Democratic
Party doesn't.

<<snip>>

29 Democrats joined with 48 Republicans to produce the majority of
77. Had all Democrats voted against the resolution, the resolution
would have failed, 52-48.

In short, Congress couldn't have mustered the support for the Iraq
War without pro-war Democrats. Anti-war politicians in the
Democratic Party should leave the party and establish a new one with
Jeffords (I-VT), Chafee (R-RI), Greens, etc.