should the anti-war movement rely on the Democrats?

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush

that being the case, i guess things are pretty easy right now for George. when a president promises to use veto power to clearly defy the will of voters, what else can you call it but dictatorship?

As MoveOn.org says:

"Congress has passed a deadline to end the war. The Supplemental bill is a real step forward, but it's not enough - we need to keep the pressure on to end the war quickly and safely. The media has focused on divisions among Democrats, but the biggest division is between the president, who'll veto any deadline, and the voters, who want one."

I agree with most of that sentiment - but Bush's defiance clearly shows that simply voting for Democrats (many of whom have very questionable anti-war credentials) hoping they're going to push him out of Iraq won't work. What's this about a timetable? The US needs to get out of Iraq yesterday, not a year from now. The growing anti-war mood in the US shows that the support (generated through relentless administration/corporate media propaganda) for the war is no longer there.

it's time to make his job a LOT harder - how can this be done without relying on a strategy of relying on the Democrats to do it in a system that prevents them from doing so?

well, how about a general strike from Americans opposed to the war?

it's time to say STOP THE WAR with the overwhelming economic power that the majority who oppose this war hold but don't realize. the strike as political tool is used successfully elsewhere, why not in America? if immigrant workers (a minority) can successfully join together and show their collective power by not showing up for work on May Day, why can't those opposed to war (an overwhelming majority) do the same thing? is that some impossible pipe dream?

i really don't think so. if there's one thing the Bush administration is really good at it's unintentionally waking up large groups of people out of their collective slumber. it's pretty hard to sleep when the house is on fire, the neighbours go missing, and the phone lines are being tapped - it's pretty hard to sleep when the house is a little emptier because you lost a loved one overseas and don't even have a good reason why - and it's pretty hard to sleep when the house gets severely flooded and despite your prayers nobody comes to help for days.

many, many, people are questioning THIS war, and a smaller number are questioning for the first time American involvement in war in general - but picking and choosing which interventions are good and which ones aren't like it's some sort of shopping list is very dangerous for Americans, and very dangerous for the rest of the world as well. Don't like war in Iraq? Maybe you'll like war in Iran. *ahem* i don't think so.

how can we turn those in group A (who support the war but think it's being waged poorly) into members of group B (who support some interventions but oppose Iraq) and then turn those people into active members of group C? (that is, people who see American interventionism and "global policing' for the imperialist sham that it really is)

if we can't collectively answer that question (and i believe we can but it's going to take lots and lots of hard work) Bush's job, and more importantly the ugly job of the system he represents, is going to be far too easy indeed...