over on Common Dreams there is an article regarding the recent vote, pointing out succinctly that the Democratic party is NOT "a", much less "the" peace movement ... and, for that matter, MoveOn -- which is an adjunct of the Democratic party is either ....

Both Party and MoveOn exist to get democrats elected.... anything that reduces generalized unhappiness with how things are is likely seen as undermining the support they received in November... while Bush is certainly "to blame" ... 18 months of blaming Bush, particularly with a Democratic majority (though paper thin), is likely become at least ANNOYING ...

So, my advice is to stop expecting the Democrats to lead the "peace movement" ... just hope they pay attention in old-fashioned, "if the people will lead, the politicians will follow" fashion.

Democratic Spin Won’t End the War in Iraq

by John Stauber

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/25/1440/

"Iraq for the Iraqis" is quite a different message than "Bring our Troops Home Now" (but leave all those other folks) ...

Perhaps each of us needs to figure out what we mean by "end the war" and start speaking CLEARLY to THAT end. Personally, I mean "Iraq for the Iraqis"

I have been really appalled by the acceptance of the "collateral damage" that has been done, is being done and is yet to be done to our personnel and their families in the next 3+ months ... next year or two ... they're hostage.

true, few of them probably expected very much from the Democrats, but still ... lives are at stake... children are learning to talk, entering kindergarten, graduating high school ...

and that those who are OUTRAGED by the vote and want a better "peace movement" should not rail against the Democrats or expect MoveOn to "pick up the slack" ...

and from what I've read in letters here in the last week, yes, I think the dissapointment "my" party and "my" MoveOn is probably due to the "unrealistic" expectation cited in the Common Dreams article ... yes, the prize they have their eye on is the 2008 election ....

Yes, it's been a PR disaster ... but, as NPR assured me this morning, we'll get over it... and as the Dems have been telling me for decades, what's the alternative?

Yes, they are more afraid of those voters who would be outraged at them for not passing the funding bill than they are of us peacemongerers.

So, the answer is WORK FOR PEACE .... Figure out what it means to YOU ... Do not expect the Democratic Party or MoveOn to do this for you ... I do believe we urgently need to open up the discussion and press the candidates on what "end the war" means to them.

(IMHO, there are numerous powerful forces that will likely keep us in Iraq until well past the 2008, regardless of best efforts ... "packing up and decamping" barely appears on the list of options.)

and our exploitation/infiltration of the various iraqi expatriot "camps" this "occupation" has been going on even longer than previously mentioned ...

that returning soldiers were often being accosted by hateful "peaceniks" who spit on them and called them baby killers. This was the era of "love it or leave it" and a lot of flag waving. Support for the war in vietnam was very STRONG for a long time ... The right wing insisted that the peace movement undermined "our troops" ... that we failed to appreciate the sacrifice these young men were making ... and that the peace movement was destroying their morale ...

Now, it's true that a lot of soldiers later reported being surprised on their return by how many people opposed the war, did not glorify either combat or soldiers and weren't particularly impressed with their service.... the civilian world having moved onto counterculture, drugs, sex, rock and roll ... so, returning soldiers often felt alienated and were, I suspect somewhat shunned ... many said they never mentioned their time in Vietnam because no one wanted to know anything beyond "did you kill anybody?"

There was some soul-searching by many people, myself included ... I was involved with draft resistance and draft education (I was 14-16 years old) and no one I knew got drafted ... some went concientious objector, some went to college, one went to prison, one went out of the country, some went underground in country. It took a while before I could see soldier/veterans as often just young kids just doing what was expected of them. Some people actually enlisted ahead of being drafted in hope of getting a better assignment. It took a few years for me to feel the sort of compassion I "should" have felt earlier. There was a big socioeconomic divide and at that time even the IDEA of NOT GOING when you got your draft papers was considered almost treasonous, definitely cowardly by many many of our (drafted or volunteered) WWII vet fathers.

So, I'd say there evolved a conscious recognition that the individual soldier was there for many reasons beyond his or her control and that we could support the individual, while still hating the war ... sort of a love the sinner, hate the sin kinda thing.

At least that's how I remember it ... I think a lot of people who hated Vietnam similarly evolved in their feelings ... particularly as the devastation that was visited on so many Vietnam vets became apparent (and Gulf War vets, and...) Interestingly, the All-Volunteer military did not change this ... nor did Abu Ghraib and similar incidents, as far as I am aware. (The popular song "Universal Soldier" was a song urging people to refuse to serve, assuming a draft... )

Several people have tried to find actual incidents of "being spit on at the airport" and/or being called "baby killers", and it appears that these incidents were very rare, most reports apocryphal ... undocumented ... yet in the mouths of right wing pundits, they were every day atrocities directed at our fine fighting forces. It was galling to imagine people from "our" side behaving so atrociously ... sometimes I think we're still apologizing ...