On November 2nd, the day of the student walkout called "The World Can't Wait," about 22 antiwar activists met at Seattle's Federal building to lobby our senators,
Maria Cantwell and
Patty Murray. Several of us had done it before, and intend to do it repeatedly.
We showed our ID as we entered the Federal building and passed through metal detectors. I tried to shoot a photo of the group in the lobby, but security guards stopped me. Two police escorts accompanied us up to the 32nd floor, just in case some of us decided to make a scene and needed to be quickly dragged away, I guess.
Continued below....
Cantwell wasn't there, but we were greeted pleasantly by members of her staff. They had filled a small conference room with chairs for us. We were given about 1¼ hour to make our presentation. One aide, "Frank," listened intently and took copious notes.
Each of us introduced ourselves. Many were members of West Seattle Neighbors for Peace & Justice (part of SNOW coalition) who demonstrate regularly. Several, like me, were also Democratic Precinct Officers; I host a DFA meetup, as well. Several Raging Grannies were among us (antiwar seniors who sing). Also present were a Korean War Vet and retired administrator of FEMA (before it was called FEMA), a Vietnam-era Conscientious Objector, and several longtime peace activists. The median age was 50ish.
Most of us had written letters. We each summarized verbally with informal presentations of 1-5 minutes. Each speaker made a point or two that hadn't been expressed previously, so very little repetition. I wish I had an audio tape, because the heartfelt eloquence of the speakers made me proud.
The main points:
Many military experts say the U.S. and Brits have already lost. They control only the Green Zone and military bases.
The occupying forces have not won the hearts and minds of the citizenry; a large majority of Iraqis distrust coalition forces and want them out.
The violent insurgency is fueled by continuing U.S. military presence, and resentment due to abuse of detainees and citizens in general.
The civil war that we are told will occur, if we withdraw, is already in progress.
The Iraq debacle has caused loss of respect and increased hostility for the USA in the Middle East and worldwide, something we rarely see covered in the U.S. media.
As in East Timor, the occupying army must leave before peace is possible. He produced petitions calling for pullout of troops.
We owe, but must not control, reparations. That needs to be accomplished by Iraqis.
The unspoken rationale for the war is an attempt to control the world oil supply; not only wrong, but futile, considering world oil supplies are expected to run out in 15-50 years. We should be focusing on alternative energy sources.
Polls show a sizeable majority of Americans are now against the war.
Labor unions mostly closed ranks and supported the war effort in 2003. But in July 2005 the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and AFSCME, representing about 13 million workers, endorsed a Resolution calling for speedy withdrawal--their first ever statement of national foreign policy. At the union meeting our speaker attended, there was not one dissenting vote.
The Democratic Party organizations of Washington State, King County (most populous county) and the 34th District (West Seattle) have endorsed resolutions calling for speedy withdrawal. A member delivered these resolutions, which had been mailed previously with no response.
My own points were these:
Every day brings to light more stories of Republican corruption; illegal detention, abuse and torture of prisoners; lies, cover-ups, and intelligence manipulation; war profiteering; and independent journalists and humanitarian workers trying to document the truth and ending up dead. It's no longer possible to claim we are doing Iraqis a favor, or doing right by our own servicemen and women.
The Democrats MUST come out on the right side of these outrages. A small window of opportunity exists to loudly announce opposition to the Bush agenda--a few months from now will be too late.
Democrats shouldn't repeat the official line about "spreading democracy". No one I talk to who has been to Iraq is buying that story.
Rep. Jim McDermott has counseled: Don't expect leadership from elected officials on Iraq. We, the people, must be out front, pressing our representatives to do the right thing, and I (Dina) will continue to do so.
More statements by our delegation:
The University of Washington sponsored a doctor from Basra who told us of the pathetic state of Iraqi hospitals and the humanitarian crisis. A high rate of birth defects and childhood cancers are probably due to contaminants from the first Gulf War. UW tried to get hospital supplies to her, but cannot because of the deteriorating situation in that area.
Why should we tolerate the suffering of civilians, especially children, as collateral damage? In the 90s, U.S.-sponsored sanctions against Iraq had already caused suffering and deaths of tens of thousands of children; which was "worth it," according to diplomat Madeleine Albright.
We need a body count. The American public has a right and an obligation to know how many Iraqi citizens have been killed since our invasion.
After living in Lebanon two years, doesn't know "how Arabs can stand it". Every death is like a stab. She is ashamed of our country.
It's no disgrace for a Senator to admit that a pro-IWR vote was a mistake, based on deceptive and incomplete information from the Bush administration.
Someone appreciated some of Cantwell's votes, especially against Judge Roberts and for environmental protections.
Homeless vets are being ignored, this could become a big problem. Added: "I thank you for the good treatment we've received. I expected to get frisked, deliver my letter, and then Good-bye." "The frisking we can still arrange, if you were looking forward to that."
There was mention of the events of the day before, when Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid forced a closed session to draw attention to the long-delayed investigation of manipulated intelligence. We all agreed this is a positive sign that we anticipate may be the beginning of a more aggressive Dem opposition.
Points made by spokesman Frank:
"Senator Cantwell has opposed permanent bases in Iraq." None of us had heard that. Someone said, "Senator Cantwell never mentions Iraq in her newsletters, as if the issue doesn't exist." Answer: "I guess we need to do a better job of communicating about that."
"The Senator has visited Iraq." They weren't sure when. I asked, "Did she leave the Green Zone?" That was never answered, but I would bet she didn't. Being escorted through the Green Zone surrounded by armed guards and speaking to generals and embedded reporters is a photo-op, not a fact-finding trip, as far as I'm concerned.
"Maria was one of 40 Senators who signed a letter of October 5th by Reid asking President Bush for answers and accountability". The letter pointed out that Bush's own military officials had apprised the senators of a grim situation quite different than the one Bush was describing the week before. The response was a form letter. (Does this man even have a clue what's really going on) This is to her credit.
But how do we explain the most troubling statements (which I'm paraphrasing)?
1. "Maria did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. For her it was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein."
WTF?! If this is true, Cantwell doesn't even have the excuse that she believed the hype trumpeted about Iraq's WMD threatening our country in 2003. She knew, or suspected, that was bullshit. Yet she enabled Bush anyway, because she thinks that optional regime change is a good idea, when we were already at war in Afghanistan at that time??!!
An unnecessary armed conflict in Iraq was going to result, even with a foolishly optimistic scenario, in people on both sides getting killed or burned, amputated, blinded, left bereaved, homeless, etc. But I imagine Maria figured that part would be "worth it." And that Bush & company were trustworthy and competent enough to pull it off. And that this particular dictator needed to be overthrown more than dozens of other similar tyrants around the globe, some of whom we support.
I find this world view unacceptable.
2. "I know you want Maria to say her IWR vote was a mistake and the war is wrong. Don't hold your breath. It's not likely to hapen anytime soon.
Some of Maria's closest friends and longtime supporters have made it clear they're disappointed in her silence on Iraq. This was a difficult and personal vote for her, and she takes the criticisms personally.
She doesn't like to talk about the war; you can hear it in her clipped tone. If I were an armchair therapist, I'd say she is working out some sort of personal issues."
At this point I said, "Thank you for that interesting insight. But--Senator Cantwell is representing several million people. She's a public servant. It can't be all about her--her feelings, her ego, her issues."
"Oh, of course," he said.
Then our time was up and we left. Bill promised to relay all of our remarks and letters to the Senator.
One of the peace activists left a picture of a wounded Iraqi child, so she'll know what it looks like. He was getting angry. I'm afraid a picture won't penetrate her defenses. She'd have to look at hundreds of such children in real life to make a dent.
The more I thought about it, the more upset I became. A good-sized chunk of the world has become hellish, the Middle East is destabilized, people hate Americans all over the world, our country's integrity is in tatters because of decisions made by a group of self-important U.S. politicians.
Real people are living in fear, burying their loved ones, losing their homes, scraping body parts off the streets, doing without basic needs, lying in beds of pain, languishing in foreign prisons, struggling to speak although brain damaged and traumatized.
And the world has to wait for Maria Cantwell to work through her personal issues? Is Maria suppressing her guilt feelings, is she in denial, is she sleeping poorly, is that why she's cranky and defensive?
I find this unacceptable. Our nation is in crisis; we need statesmen/women, we need leaders of integrity! What about political courage, what about just doing the right thing? Is that too much to expect?
************
I have another thought:
In the middle 90s, I watched a fascinating PBS documentary series called "Making Sense of the 60s". I recall that a retired official from the Johnson administration said something like: "Nobody wants to look in the mirror and think, 'Such-and-such number of men died because I was a damn fool.' They'd rather think, 'They died for a noble cause that we must continue.'"
That's why horror pictures of suffering children might have the opposite effect on pro-war types than we might expect. The first reaction might be: "Saddam killed more. He was worse. So these people are better off. They'll thank us someday." Or "We didn't do this, it's the fault of the insurgents."
I've read about "the casualty paradox". When the casualties start piling up, the usual defense mechanism is to insist it was "worth it". Then more casualties pile up, and more. Eventually, after a sickening number of years and casualties, a tipping point is reached; the public and even the warhawks themselves can no longer rationalize its value.
LBJ had ambitions to accomplish great things in the areas of civil rights and the "War on Poverty". But he is defined by his foreign policy tragedy, the Vietnam War. Interviewed years after retiring, he was bitter about it. "It started as 'Mr. Kennedy's War'. Then it became 'Mr. Johnson's War'..." Still not taking responsibility.
VERY bad news is now oozing out daily, despite efforts to contain, cover, deny or distract from it. Every politician who hitched their wagon to the Iraq invasion as part of their tough "war on terror" persona may soon find that wagon hanging on their neck like a dead skunk, stinking to high high heaven.
If I were to speak as an armchair psychologist, I'd say Maria has some 'splainin' to do--to herself. And she'll put off the Day of Reckoning as long as possible.