The Boston Globe article (below) reports that yesterday, Democrat-led House of Representatives voted to continue the war in Iraq for another 17 months. In the last 17 months, 1265 US and British soldiers were killed in Iraq - about 4 a day. At least 23,113 Iraqis were killed in the last 15 months - probably many more.

At the Encampment to Stop the War in Washington DC last week organized by Troops Out Now Coalition, we were first in line to attend the Democrats' first hearing for funding the war. Our "representatives" refused to allow us to attend the public hearing. So we confronted the Democrats outside the hearing room door in the hallway of the Rayburn Building. They arrested 9 of us for doing no more than speaking out against the war, exercising our first amendment right in a public building. 

The corporate media report included below states:

"The House of Representatives for the first time passed a binding resolution for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, voting by a 218-to-212 margin to force President Bush to end US involvement in the war by the end of August 2008."

All sectors of society and the corporate media agree that the people voted the Democrats into power last November for the express purpose of ending the war in Iraq. The Democrats and Republicans then colluded to continue the war with their absurd claims that they could not end the war now because of their responsibility to "protect the troops" and to protect Iraqis from themselves by averting a civil war. The Democrats - in control of the House and Senate even claimed that their hands are tied and they are powerless to stop the war. All 3 of these claims are an affront and insult to those who put them in office last November. Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha presented their decision to continue the war. Pelosi shamelessly stated, "Proudly, this new Congress voted to bring an end to the war in Iraq".  John Murtha put this face on the death-vote: "We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country." Then the Boston Globe gave them cover, offending every anti-war protester since the first invasion calling Murtha, that crusty old killer in Vietnam - "a key anti war leader".

It should now be crystal clear to all those who have trusted the Democrats over the decades to be the "people's party" - the U.S. political party who gives voice to the poor, the downtrodden, the worker and the ordinary person - that the Democrats are one and the same with the Republicans. They always have been, but the U.S. government's rampant global aggression during the last 4 1/2 years - and has ripped the masks off the Democrats and shown them for what they have always been - imperialist, capitalist pigs who value the individual beneath the worth of profit and power. The blood of the the 1265 soldiers killed in the last 17 months and of the Iraqis killed in the last 15 months rests squarely on the backs of the Democrats who funded the slaughter - just as much as the Republicans. The burden of the blood of those who will be killed in the next 17 months will be borne by the same Democrats who are intent on keeping this war going whatever their perverted reasons. 

Finally, this corporate media report attempts to distance the war-mongering Democrats from the man who is now hated by so many people in the U.S. and throughout the world: George W. Bush 

"An outraged Bush declared that the Democratic-led body had "abdicated its responsibility" by passing a bill he said would hearten insurgents even though there is "no chance" the House could override his veto.

Nobody should be fooled by this rhetoric. It's a beast with two heads and the two political parties work in tandem to reach their combined, corporate objectives. Both are controlled by the corporations and if not controlled - heavily influenced by AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies. Just as with domestic policy, in the case of the Iraq war, the Republicans are the "Bad Cop" and the Democrats the "Good". But there can be no possible good - no matter how they mind-fuck it - about the death of another baby, child, mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousin or friend in Iraq. Whatever their twisted goals, they cannot be worth the life of one more soldier - most do not want to be there - they know they've been lied to, are killing for corporate interests and only want to come home.

As the politicians grind on in their meat factory that was once called Iraq, we will grind on and confront them at their front door, on the street, in their Washington death rooms, wherever we can find them - and give them no quarter. Last week we raised the bar. We have begun our move from protest to Resistance.

- Les Blough, Editor

© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com

Bush vows to veto binding call for pullout

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff  |  March 24, 2007

An outraged Bush declared that the Democratic-led body had "abdicated its responsibility" by passing a bill he said would hearten insurgents even though there is "no chance" the House could override his veto.

"To score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground," Bush said. He castigated Democrats for inserting the troop withdrawal measure into a spending bill that includes many items troops in Iraq need.

But House Democrats declared that they were taking a necessary step to end a war that has gone on far longer, and been far more expensive, than Bush initially predicted.

"I stand here with great pride on this historic day in the Congress of the United States," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after the vote. "Proudly, this new Congress voted to bring an end to the war in Iraq."

Representative John P. Murtha , the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam War veteran who has become a key anti war leader, said in an emotional floor speech: "We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country."

It was the second time this week that Democrats and Bush have faced each other in a bitter standoff, demonstrating the president's difficulty in adjusting to a Democratic-controlled Congress at a time when his approval rate is hovering at 30 percent. House and Senate committees voted earlier in the week to authorize the issuing of subpoenas for presidential adviser Karl Rove and others in the investigation into the firing of US attorneys, prompting Bush to declare that Democrats wanted a "show trial."

Yesterday Bush used similar language to condemn the troop-withdrawal measure, saying Democrats were engaged "in an act of political theater." He said Democrats "voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."

Democrats alleged, however, that Bush had too often taken the advice of officials such as former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who resigned amid bipartisan criticism, and ignored the advice of some generals who wanted many more troops on the ground much earlier in the war.

The Senate next week is slated to debate a weaker version of the bill that would set a non binding goal of withdrawing troops by March 2008. If the bill passes in the closely-divided Senate, it would have to be reconciled with the tougher House version. Then, any final legislation would be subject to Bush's veto.

The House bill sets a series of deadlines that could bring troops home as soon as a year from now. If Bush does not certify that the Iraqi government has met benchmarks such as scheduling provincial elections, then troops not involved in training Iraqi forces or fighting Al Qaeda terrorists would have to be withdrawn by April 2008. If the benchmarks are met, withdrawal would be required to begin by March 1, 2008, and be completed six months later.

Yesterday's House vote to pass the $124 billion spending bill that includes the troop withdrawal measure was mostly along party lines. Two Republicans -- moderate Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and North Carolina's Walter Jones , a onetime supporter of the war who publicly turned against it two years ago -- joined 216 Democrats in favoring the legislation, while 14 Democrats and 198 Republicans opposed the bill. Three members of Congress were absent and one voted present.

Among the Democrats who opposed the measure was one of the House's most outspoken war critics, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, a presidential candidate who objected to providing funds for prolonging the war through next year.

"If you want peace, stop funding this war," Kucinich said.

That prompted House minority whip Roy Blunt , Republican of Missouri, to say afterward: "The speaker's far-left constituency may be disenchanted by this bill's passage, but I assure you our men and women in the field are even more disappointed in this Congress for undermining their mission by our message and for delaying in practice the funding they need to be safe, secure, and successful."

Previously, Democratic leaders have worked on nonbinding measures to end the war, concerned about a backlash for setting a deadline that could be used by insurgents to wait out US involvement. But as weeks went by without any concessions by Bush, many Democrats opted for a stronger measure.

All 10 members of the Massachusetts delegation in the House voted for the measure.

The narrow margin of approval in the House left little doubt that Bush could make good on his threat of a veto. It would take a two-thirds vote to override a veto. Passage of the weaker Senate bill could be difficult. Democrats hold only a 51-to-49 margin in the Senate, with 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid applauded the House action but, in recognition of the greater obstacles in the Senate, has pushed the weaker measure in his chamber. Under his bill, the phased withdrawal of troops would begin within 120 days of passage with a "goal" of having most troops leave by the end of March 2008. Reid's bill would enable an unspecified number of troops to remain beyond that date in order to train Iraqi troops and conduct counterterrorism operations.

Reid said the House and Senate bills would "offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American people asked for in November -- redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources to more effectively fight the war on terror."

The House bill, while mostly focused on military spending, included about $20 billion in domestic programs, some of them designed to win support for the measure. Bush and other Republicans said Democrats loaded the House measure with pork-barrel spending that had nothing to do with the war. For example, the bill included $25 million for spinach farmers hurt by last year's E. coli outbreak .

"They tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror," Bush said, standing before veterans at the White House. "This bill has too much pork, too many conditions, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal."