Features

On Saturday at the 2008 Michigan Policy Summit, Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin, delivered the opening address. According to various reports of Levin's speech, he talked about tax cuts and the Iraq War. Levin--who has often positioned himself as antiwar when the reality is more complex--said that the Iraq War has resulted in $600 billion being spent on the war rather than on social programs. Levin said that the "$10 to $12 billion a month [being spent on the Iraq War] is only going to end when one of our two Democrats gets elected." He further told the crowd "The only practical way to end that war is to vote for a Democrat."

However, Levin's comments are problematic as the two Democratic Party candidates for president--Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama--are not talking seriously about ending the war. Last fall, Mediamouse.org reviewed the Iraq policies offered by the Democratic Party candidates and their voting records. At the time, Clinton and Obama, along with former Senator John Edwards, had recently stated that they would not commit to ending the Iraq War by the end of their first term (2012). Since that comment and our review, Clinton and Obama have refined their positions on Iraq, but neither of them has pledged to end the Iraq War. Instead, they offer policies and proposals that will maintain the United States occupation of Iraq via a reduced US force for an indefinite amount of time.

Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War

Hillary Clinton initially supported the Iraq War by voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002. She has since come out against the war, claiming that she was mislead due to faulty intelligence. Regardless of one thinks of position at the time (plenty of people questioned the rationale for war, she certainly could have), she has now made the Iraq War an issue in the 2008 campaign. On her website, Clinton offers a plan for to "End the War in Iraq" (reviewed below). However, her website contains no information about her voting record on Iraq. Last fall, Mediamouse.org provided an overview of Clinton's voting record on Iraq. Since that time, there have been few votes on Iraq, however, Clinton did chose not to vote on a measure calling for the redeployment of US troops from Iraq in 90 days.

Clinton's Iraq plan, calls for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq to begin within 60 days of her taking office. She says that one of her first actions will be convening the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council to develop a plan to withdraw combat forces at the rate of one to two brigades per month. Clinton will keep "small, elite strike forces to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq," although she never says how many troops would be in these forces. Moreover, at the end of her plan it includes language broadening the mission of her smaller force by stating "She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region." In a speech on March 18, 2008, Clinton also said that she wants to remove private security contractors from Iraq, but offered no specifics. Clinton has not said how many troops would remain in Iraq under her plan, nor has she announced a date on which all troops--combat or not--would be withdrawn.

The second component of Clinton's plan involves "securing stability in Iraq as we bring out troops home." Under Clinton's plan, this means "focusing American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government." Clinton criticizes the Iraqi government for "failing to provide" basic services to its citizens and failing to address corruption in the Iraqi political establishment. To address the political problems in Iraq, Clinton would support the appointment of a high level United Nations official to broker a peace agreement between the different factions in Iraq.

Finally, Clinton says that she would launch a new diplomatic initiative "composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq" to come up with a strategy for stabilizing Iraq. Clinton's plan has the goal of obtaining "non-inference" agreements from countries in the region, establishing a mediation process, and obtaining funds for reconstruction. She also says that she will seek financial contributions to address the refugee problem in Iraq.

Barack Obama and the Iraq War

Barack Obama--who is speaking in Grand Rapids on Wednesday--has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate in the 2008 election. He has repeatedly cited a 2002 speech at an antiwar rally in Chicago as proof of his antiwar credentials. At the time, Obama said:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Many people also tend to forget that in the same speech in which he said he was opposed to the Iraq War, he accused Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and went to great lengths to make it clear that he is not "someone who is opposed to war in all circumstances."

On his website, Obama identifies the Iraq War as a major issue. He has a summary of his position and a link to his plan to "immediately begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq (reviewed below)."

His website presents no information about his voting record on Iraq. While it does recount various statements he has made about the war, none of the statements are tied to his voting record making it difficult to verify the veracity of his opposition. Last fall, Mediamouse.org provided an overview of Obama's voting record on Iraq. Since that time, there have been few votes on Iraq, however, Obama did chose not to vote on a measure calling for the redeployment of US troops from Iraq in 90 days.

Obama's website summarizes his plan for Iraq by stating:

"Obama would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of potential war crimes."

At the core of Obama's plan is his pledge for a "substantial, immediate redeployment of American troops." According to his plan, the withdrawal would include only "combat troops"--a classification that is never defined--and would happen gradually throughout 2009 (one to two brigades per month). Obama is clear that "American troops may remain in Iraq or the region" and that the troops would act to "protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq," although he says he will not construct permanent bases. Obama's plan says nothing about withdrawing contractors such as Blackwater from Iraq and he has refused to rule out their continued use in Iraq. Obama has also declined to say specifically how many troops would remain in Iraq under his plan, nor has he announced a timetable for the withdrawal of all troops--combat or not--from Iraq.

Obama describes withdrawal as a means "to finally apply real pressure on the Iraqi government" to make political sacrifices. Obama's opposition to "the Surge" is also made in terms of the Iraqi government's "failure" to act on the gains of "the Surge" by enacting specific benchmarks such as a national oil law.

Obama does describe some of the humanitarian consequences of the war, saying, "The humanitarian crisis that President Bush says would accompany American troop withdrawals is occurring right now." He cites the 2 million internally and 2 million externally displaced Iraqis, as well as the deaths of 1,000 Iraqi civilians per month. However, while he calls for increased aid and accountability for those committing war crimes, he says nothing about the United States taking responsibility for the situation in Iraq.

Conclusions and Opportunities

While the positions of the Democratic Party presidential candidates are disappointing for those who have campaigned against the Iraq War since the start, the particulars of the election offer opportunities for the antiwar movement (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032608N.shtml). With the extended campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination, candidates may be pressured and held accountable in a way that was not possible in 2004. Clinton and Obama need all of the votes they can get and strategically undertaken actions might be able to change their positions on Iraq, particularly as they look for ways to assert differences between them. Moreover, there are indications that such pressure might work, with Senator Hillary Clinton pledging to support a ban on security contractors in Iraq shortly after the issue was raised in public. Similarly, with all the talk about "change" and "hope" there may be room to pressure candidates more than there was in the stifling atmosphere of "Anybody but Bush" in 2004

Of course, any such efforts aimed at pressuring the two candidates should be undertaken with a meaningful consideration of history of US foreign policy and the likelihood that when and if the antiwar movement announces its "support" for a specific candidate, the movement will likely be betrayed. As such, it is important that the antiwar movement remain independent of individual candidates and instead focus on specific issues and the work of building a grassroots movement capable of pressuring the two candidates.

Over the past month, Mediamouse.org has been hard at work updating and revising the Progressive Directory of Western Michigan and are excited to be re-launching it.

It is a project that we inherited from the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID) back in 2007 when GRIID moved to Mediamouse.org. In the years since the Directory was initially created in 2003, it had become quite out of date, with many of the groups that are listed becoming inactive or contact information changing.

However, we are pleased to announce that the Directory has been completely updated and revised. We now list over 100 groups in the West Michigan area that are working broadly on progressive/left social change efforts. It is obviously quite difficult to determine what is "progressive" or "left", but we believe that the groups listed are doing generally solid work that will be of interest to people looking to get involved in social change work.

We also have written a new mission statement that is more consistent with what we are doing here at Mediamouse.org: "The Progressive Directory of Western Michigan connects people with groups that are working towards a more egalitarian world/community with the goal of encouraging folks to get involved." We are hoping that the Directory will be one vehicle through which people will get involved in local activism.

Moreover, we have changed the way the Directory is maintained. Rather than being an "opt-in" Directory in which groups are required to join a listserv and participate in networking that previously (although not for several years) included monthly meetings, we now just list mission statements and general contact information in order to keep the information more current.

Please check out the directory and add any groups that we may have missed.

The Grand Rapids branch of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) held a press conference on May Day outside of the East Grand Rapids Starbucks store. The press conference is part of an ongoing campaign to get Starbucks to recognize the union's legal right to organize workers at Starbucks via .

A video of the press conference:

In addition to their ongoing organizing work, the Grand Rapids IWW announced their support for a fellow worker who was fired at a Starbucks in SEville, Spain. The Spanish trade union--the CNT--has in turn circulated information about the Grand Rapids Starbucks organizing effort as a show of solidarity.

On Saturday morning, Grand Rapids Congressman Vern Ehlers hosted his annual "town hall meeting" at the Gerald R. Ford Museum. For the most part, the format was the same as it has been in recent years (see Mediamouse.org coverage from 2005, 2006, and 2007), with Ehlers delivering prepared remarks and then fielding questions from audience members that he selects. The meeting--held once per year--was once again limited to only an hour and generally avoided being an open-ended forum in which he has to respond to the concerns of his constituents.

However, there were some small changes in the format this year, which may be due to antiwar protests in recent years. Congressman Ehlers announced at the beginning of the meeting that he would be giving awards to two World War II veterans during the meeting, whenever they arrived. Ten minutes into the meeting, the WWII veterans and their families arrived and the Congressman put his comments on hold to address them and take pictures with the veterans. If this was not a deliberate attempt to avoid having to address comments about the US occupation of Iraq, it had the same affect, since only one person who was called upon even mentioned Iraq and the Congressman refused to address that issue. The Iraq War was also briefly raised when someone held up a sign outside reading "End the War" so that those inside the museum could read it. A security guard quickly intervened and forced the person to leave after a few seconds.

In his opening comments, he made some sarcastic remarks about how the only thing in the news these days was the Democratic race for the presidency. "Consequently," Ehlers said, "we get very little reporting on what we do in Congress." This could have been the only honest comment he made the entire meeting. Ehlers then went on to address in very broad terms the economy and gas prices. He said that increased gas prices were not connected to record oil company profits, but simply the realities of supply and demand.

The only other issue he addressed in his prepared remarks was what the Congressman called the "crazy mortgage situation." Ehlers did acknowledge there was a problem when banks are selling people's mortgages to other companies without notifying homeowners, but he offered no concrete resolution, saying only that Congress was working on legislation to keep people facing foreclosure from losing their homes. After these brief introductory comments, he opened the meeting to questions.

There was a much smaller audience than in previous years, especially after the families of the World War II veterans left the room. A total of 13 people were called upon that addressed a variety of issues, some of which were personal and not relevant to the audience. There were several questions related to alternative energy and oil dependency. The Congressman's advice for becoming less oil dependent as a nation was to make sure we inflated our automobile tires, drive slower, and insulate our homes better. He also said that if we "reduce the demand the price will go down."

Ehlers was also asked about where he stood on the issue of domestic energy production and drilling for more oil in the US. He responded by saying that we really need to think long term:

"There is more oil in the country, but it is more difficult to get to. If we drill in ANWR, then what do we do next? If the Iraqis, Saudis and Iranians cut us off what will we do? ANWR is only equivalent to about 4 years of oil use in the US. We need to develop long-term solution."

The only concrete long-term solution Ehlers offered the audience was solar shingles.

There were also a couple of question from the audience on immigration. Both of the men who asked the question seemed upset with Ehlers for his refusal to sign on to HR 4088. This proposed legislation is designed to increase US border security and see undocumented immigrants purely as criminals that should be locked up. Ehlers responded by saying that:

"we are enforcing the law and the border to the south is better protected. We also no longer just deport illegal immigrants by dropping them off just inside the Mexican border. Now we put them on planes and fly them back to their country of origin. More and more of the new illegal immigrants are from Central and South America."

The Congressman offered no evidence and did not cite any sources to support his claims. He did say that the issue is complicated and doesn't think we should just arrest or deport everyone, especially if they have children that were born in the US.

Another issue that was raised was the idea of voting by mail. The questioner cited HR 281 and asked if Ehlers would sign on to it. Ehlers responded by saying that he opposes the way this bill was written and has concerns about possible voter fraud with voting by mail, therefore he would not support this bill.

The last major question that was raised was from an older gentleman who had concerns about moral pollution. He said he couldn't believe the kind of stuff that was on TV, the Internet, and in video games and he wanted to know what Ehlers thought about moral pollution. The Congressman said that he totally agreed with the man and said that there isn't much we can do about it since we have "freedom of speech in this country." Ehlers did mention that the FCC does regulate the airwaves, but said the problem is not what government does, but what people do. Ehlers thought that our country is in a state of moral decline since "we have become too dependent on government to solve our problems."