GREENS CHALLENGE MOVEON.ORG: LISTEN TO YOUR

[nosmokes]

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org

For Immediate Release:
Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
[e-mail]
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805,
[e-mail]


LISTEN TO YOUR
MEMBERS, OPPOSE THE WAR!

While its members protest the Iraq occupation
along with Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org itself
favors continued occupation, say Greens.


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders are
challenging MoveOn.org to support an immediate
pullout of troops from Iraq.

"MoveOn has done an admirable job of rallying
people nationwide behind Cindy Sheehan's protest
vigil in Crawford, Texas," said Rebecca Rotzler,
co-chair of the Green Party of the United States
and Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, New York. "But
MoveOn itself has undermined such efforts by
refusing to endorse an immediate end to the
occupation of Iraq."

Journalist Norman Solomon has noted that MoveOn
declined to support a resolution from Rep. Lynn
Woolsey stating that "the president should
develop and implement a plan to begin the
immediate withdrawal of United States Armed
Forces from Iraq" and Rep. Barbara Lee's
(D-Calif.) bill to block the establishment of
permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq ("The Iraq
War and MoveOn", Common Dreams, August 18,
<http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0818-33.htm>).

Several Green Party members, including Ms.
Rotzler (who also serves as co-chair of the Green
Party's Peace Action Committee), Andrea Garland
of New Orleans, and Mato Ska of Phoenix have
traveled to Crawford to join Cindy Sheehan's
vigil at 'Camp Casey' near Mr. Bush's ranch,
while thousands of other Greens participated in
support vigils across the U.S. on August 17.

The Peace Action Committee issued a statement in
support of the Camp Casey vigil
<http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_08_10.shtml>,
which Ms. Rotzler presented to Ms. Sheehan.

"We challenge MoveOn to listen to its own
membership, and take a stand against the invasion
and continued occupation of Iraq," said Ms.
Garland.

Greens have rejected the claim of Democrats like
Senators Hillary Clinton (NY) and Joe Biden
(Del.) that the problem with the Iraq War is the
Bush Administration's military miscalculations.

"The invasion and occupation are crimes, based on
deception about the motivations for the invasion,
a radical ideology that embraces 'preventive war'
-- condemned by international law after World War
II -- and an oil grab," said Leenie Halbert,
Louisiana Green and member of the party's
International Committee. "This abuse of power
was inevitable after most Democrats in October
2002 voted with Republicans to surrender
Congress's constitutionally mandated power to
declare war to the White House."


MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org
1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax [phone]

Green Party Peace Action Committee
http://www.gp.org/committees/peace/

Gold Star Families For Peace
http://www.GSFP.org


~ END ~

[AussieDave]

1. This is rich - from the party that helped create it all

bunch of unprincipled goons......

[depakid]

2. I'm assuming you mean the Dems who voted for the war.... eom

[expatriot]

3. No Democrats voted for this war.

The vote you are talking about was a vote to authorize force if Saddam didn't let the UN weapon inspectors in.

[Emillereid]

5. Saddam let the inspectors in -- I didn't hear the dems who had voted

for the resolution doing anything to stop Bush from going to war or bitching about any technicalities on March 19, 2003! You can split hairs -- but voting for the resolution was a vote for war -- and if the dems didn't know it, then shame on them. I knew it -- and I'm just a lowly pleb.

[Robeson]

15. "but voting for the resolution was a vote for war ".....

...no doubt. And we knew it. Anyone who thinks Bush wasn't going to take that and run, is naive beyond belief. Thats why Kerry lost so much credibility when he said he trusted the President at his word on that. Because WHO in their right mind would trust this President on anything? Especially when he was beating the war drums on a 24/7 basis. I'm just surprised when I hear Dems who actually buy into that obfuscation. Many, if not most, Dems grimaced when Kerry - and others - massaged his message on that issue. It was disingenuous.

[expatriot]

20. John Kerry's October 9, 2002 speech

You say that a vote for the resolution was a vote for Bush's war?

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In this part of his speech he talks about an original version of the Authorization of Force that was refused by Democrats.

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what "relevant" U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee: That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech on Monday night, President Bush confirmed what Secretary Powell told the committee. In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said: "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

[longship]

32. That's a great speech.

Like all Kerry's speeches in the well of the Senate.

He was one of the very few CongressCritters who spoke out on Cindy Sheehan's behalf. The only other Senator was Ted Kennedy. The two of them deserve kudos for that. In the House, it was members of the Black Caucus who supported Cindy. I don't know of any others. I suppose we have Republicans Sen. Hagel and Rep. Walter Jones, too.

I only hope that when Congress reconvenes that they will use the appropriate pressure to swing others to take a position to get us out of Iraq at the earliest possibility.

Support for the war is falling apart. They will all have to be with us eventually. At least we will know who our true leaders are. I think we may be in for some surprises very, very soon.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. THANK YOU

I thought for a minute I was on a republican discussion board.

I am so tired of hearing that nonsense.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

8. Seems I've heard plenty of democrats including Hillary say:

They wouldn't get out of Iraq and the only problem with the war is the way the Bush admin. has handled it. Saddam is out of Iraq...there were no WMD...so your argument holds very little water.

[expatriot]

12. Um.... no. Many Democrats do not think the best strategy is an immediate

pull-out. This does not mean that they did support or would support Bush's invasion. Supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq and believing that now that we are there, the best strategy is not immediate withdrawal is two different things completely.

I am not saying I don't support an immediate withdrawal. I see both sides of the argument.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

23. If there were no WMD then why should we stay?

Wasn't that the whole point(stated..not factual)for going to war? If you supported the war because Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in(which he did..another lie)then your original reason for going to war was incorrect and you should pull out. Besides, this war is making terrorism worse not better....so please don't hand me that line that the terrorist will take over if we pull out. If they(politicians) really wanted to stop terrorism they would close all bases in the middle east, end the war, and support the palestinians on more issues instead of always siding with Israel. I think you taking too much of the DNC propaganda to heart.

[Carolab]

31. DLC propaganda, not DNC.

Dean recently said we should leave.

[expatriot]

35. Everyone opposed the invasion... we differ on how to handle the effects.

First of all, you stated "If you supported the war because Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in(which he did..another lie)then your original reason for going to war was incorrect and you should pull out."

Who, of the people we are talking about, supported this war because Saddam "didn't let inspectors in?" Of course he let the inspectors in.

I was adamantly opposed to this war like I have never been opposed to anything else. I am of the opinion that we should probably pull out now because we will are just postponing the inevitable.

But I can not stand by and you lumping everyone who begrudgingly supports continued occupation because they believe it is in the best interests of the region and therefore the world as supporting the start of the war and the invasion. There are many good arguments (like I said I don't agree with many of them) to remain in Iraq and NONE of them (of the good ones) has anything to do with WMD.

Do you really think that because the war was justified by ridding Iraq of WMD that the only justification for staying is to find WMD? You can't honestly believe that.

I don't have time to go into all the legimate debates over whether it is best for the long term to stay over there for 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 more years or to pull out now and like I said I lean hard towards an immediate pull out but you CANNOT equate supporting the occupation with supporting the invasion.

I am sorry, I don't know what the DNC "propaganda" is on this point.

[longship]

34. No, but they did vote for the act

that enabled CuckooBananas to take the action. Furthermore, if they did not intend that action in their vote they had plenty of time to line up against the action. Instead, they went ahead and approved the billions of dollars in support of it. I saw nobody standing up against it but a very precious few. Hell, Kerry even said he still would have supported it in spite of what he knew after the fact. Well, that lost him the election.

The blood is on their hands, all of them.

[AussieDave]

4. The war which would never have started if Nader

hadn't helped W steal the Presidency in 2000.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

9. Blaming Nader for * getting elected is like

blaming Clinton for 9/11...it makes absolutely no sense...try not to be so reactionary.

[Lilith Velkor]

17. Nader: Clenis of the Dems

A lot of people kneejerk about this, and probably will for the rest of their lives. I think they believe it so strongly because it's safer than admitting the 2000 election was stolen in broad daylight.

[expatriot]

21. Um... Gore "loses" fFlorida by less than 1,000 votes.

70,000 Floridans voted for Nader.

Are you telling me that at least 2% of people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted for Gore if Nader would have asked them to?

I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 and it didn't take long into the Bush administration to figure out I had made a grave mistake that I would never repeat again. 3


Nader cut the tail of our half of the political bellcurve off and it was that small percent that we needed to keep Bush from office.

[CrazyForKucinich]

25. Gore lost because he was too much like Bush

Didn't you watch the debates?

Al Gore and his running mate were far too conservative. I believe there's 70,000 people in Florida who would not vote for someone who supports the death penalty...which Al Gore does.

Al lost it himself. He was a sorry candidate and has himself and his immoral beliefs to blame.

[expatriot]

42. I voted for Nader in 2000.... but then I realized something....

...in American politics, in the generals you fight like mad for the center. We have a winner take all system. Unlike with parliamentary systems where you can vote your ideals and then the tickets form coalitions after the voting, with our elections you have to form your coalitions BEFORE the election.

The two party system is a natural product of our election system.

Those of one half of the political spectrum must form alliances in order to defeat the alliance formed on the other half of the political specturm.


It is like bellcurve. Each "alliance" starts out with the political activists at the extremes of both ends but victory is had by fighting for the central buldge in the middle. When an idealist tail of the bellcurve leaves the alliance out of idealist differencs, the alliance will not move one standard deviation to the left to pick up a few percent of those it lost because then it would lost the middle.


Primaries are where the passion for ideals and principles is hashed out, in the generals we sumo wrestle with the Republicans for the great American center and we don't need no Greenie Nader yipoing and bighting our heels.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

26. Umm...Gore won florida but the votes weren't counted.

The supreme court installed Bush.

[expatriot]

38. Umm.... that's why I put "lost" in quotation marks.

If Gore would have gotten 20,000 of those 70,000 Nader votes it would have never have reached the Supreme Court.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

47. umm...you're one of those people that just refuse to admit they're wrong..

If you're agreeing with me the votes weren't counted then how is that Nader's fault????????????????????? Just be an adult..and say that you were wrong...I'll have a lot more respect for you. I doubt you'll respond to this since you are obviously WRONG and will pretend you never saw this post. If I'm wrong I want to know about it and will admit to it...I think that is the adult thing to do.

[nosmokes]

7. number of greens who supported this war -O

which, no matter how ya slice the pie, is fewer than the number of democrats that voted to support this war.

[expatriot]

24. Number of greens in Congress - 0

I don't think Greens have any lessonsfor us to live by in practical electoral politics.

[nolabels]

46. Number of poor and disenfranchised in congress

Like if the be all end all into the zenith of the only way to effect change is being in congress, what is your excuse for all them slugs in that place called congress now?

Really as far as I concerned the whole federal government now creates way more problems than they ever solve. Your proclaiming them also only exacerbates the situation. Wouldn't it be better if we all demanded answers about their foolishness rather than more non-working solutions from them?

[longship]

11. sorry, Ol man.

The Greens are not unprincipled goons. In my thinking their statement was coherent, succinct, and highly principled.

The fact that they run candidates against the Dems and Repugs also seems to me to be taking a principled position against that of the other two big parties. Now I am, up to this moment, a lifelong Democrat. But if the Dems don't get their shit together and start kicking some Repug ass, I may leave the party. No where is the Dem position more wrong as in their support for continuing the war in Iraq.

I stand by everything the Greens have said in their statement.

[Webster Green]

16. I agree....Nader's platforms always make more sense than anyone else

And, I think I can predict I will be voting for a Green candidate to run against Diane Fienstein.

[expatriot]

27. Of course they make more sense to us - we're progressives - but

platforms don't mean shit unless you got some political power to launch them from. If we *the Democratic Party) demanded a purely progressive platform and candidates from the Democratic candidate, we would ne conceding tremendous amounts of the "middle" to the Republicans. Furthermore, our messaging and ability to reach people would be severely limited. Corporations and other unjust and well-monied interests would be threatened by us and so we'd have to endure an openly hostile media and on-air demonization.

[fujiyama]

13. It's hard to take them seriously

DLC Dems piss me off greatly, but the green party is still a joke. Until they can win a statewide office (hell even a congressional district) anywhere in the US, it's tough to take them seriously.

[nosmokes]

40. and why do you think that is?

because people, like a lot of folks here at DU would rather keep voting the status quo. keep the ruling duopoly in power, when the truth is the difference between the two parties is neglible. they are both beholden to corporate interests before the people's welfare. take a look at the democratic party platform. see if you can find anything about the environment. yeah, it's a big tent - it hasta to be to be fit all the fatass ceos. it's time to shake things up big time, including some radical campaign finance reform, and you're not gonna get any or at the most very few, dems behind that. our election system is broken, and we can't expect the people that got in power because it's broken to fix it.

[Neshanic]

10. Well I want them to have monkeys fly out of their asses.

So now they are looking to hitch their little red wagon to something that they had no part of; that being one woman making people see the truth. You have to hand it to them, they have a brass set and savy gang of little Naderthals that know when to stir things up.

They can go pound sand down a rat hole.

[longship]

14. Don't look now.

But at least the Greens are supporting the position, something I don't see happening with the Congressional Democrats (save a very, very few of them).

Accept their support, just like you would for anybody else who chooses to stand against the war on principle.

A political movement is available for anybody to hitch their wagon. It's not a fraternity. We don't exclude outsiders. As long as they accept the position, they are by definition, no longer outsiders.

[oasis]

18. The pesky jackals appear after the lions bring down the prey.

Animal Planet.

[nosmokes]

28. har! the *pesky jackals* have been backing cindy

since the beginning. there have been a number of official green party statements of support for cindy sheehan, a helluva lot more than from the democratic party. and more to the point there have been greens on the ground in crawford since day 1. don't try and paint the greens as the johnny come latelys on this matter because the truth ain't on your side.

[oasis]

30. So the Greens challenge MoveOn with Cindy's blessing?

edit for sp.

[nosmokes]

33. i have no idea where ms sheehan stands on this issue

or even if she even gives a shit. the greens are simply pointing out that MoveOn.org taking a stand contrary to what their members want them to take. much like if the democratic party still represented me i wouldn't have quit it after 33 years to join the greens.

[oasis]

39. Did MoveOn.org members call a special meeting to vote on the issue?

If so, what were the results?

[Beacho]

19. number of greens who supported this war -O

number of greens in federal office-0

Easy to criticise when you're on the sidelines

better get your literature table set up before the Larouchites steal your spot (again).

[CrazyForKucinich]

22. The Anti-Green responses in this thread are disgusting

Especially when the people make solid arguements regarding the Democrats in 2002 signing over their constitutional authority to declare war to a fucking idiot no less(Bush).

And moveon.org should come out against the continued occupation of Iraq if they are supporting Cindy Sheehan. Trying to have it both ways undermines everything they say from now on.

I'd like to thank the Green Party for raising this issue.

Oh yes and a choice between a Pro Death Penalty candidate and a Pro Death Penalty candidate in the 2000 election is sickening.

I thank Ralph Nader for being the moral candidate that year.

[wli]

29. Every second of the occupation is a brand new war crime

Pulling out IMMEDIATELY is the only acceptable course of action. The UN peacekeeping forces (funded by reparations) can enter afterward.

[drfresh]

36. Immediately?

The drfresh Iraq Withdrawl Plan: I say let them draft their constitution, set a concrete date to vote on it... say October 15th, then get the fark out. No delays, the last boots should leave by the end of Ramadan. So can you give em just a few more weeks? :eyes:

[wli]

37. Well, let's ask the Iraqis

My bet is they'll say "Get out now!"

[drfresh]

41. This isn't a democracy soldier!

Couldn't resist. By the way, I missed your part about UN peacekeepers. I'd support getting the fark out now and having them secure the constitutional referendum..

[wli]

44. don't forget reparations

This is going to be even more expensive than our own military. The money for peacekeepers and punitive reparations will go on for a long time.

[nosmokes]

43. i'll back some of that play.

when we get the hell outta iraq the resistance dies. there will almost certainly be some fighting between the factions, but they're pretty damned tired of it too. my guess is eiter they settle around a table or there's a quick civil war and then they settle it around around a table. either way, the suicide bombs and all that shit stops when we leave.

[wli]

45. close but I'm not quite so optimistic

UN peacekeepers without US participation (but funded by US reparations) will get less resistance but still some. They will likewise have to have a clear exit strategy and a set of benchmarks to pass for disengagement.