Archives - Dave Sagarin Comments on the Resolution on Iraq at the Fifth District Convention
May 2005
Letters to the Editor: Dave Sagarin Comments on the Resolution on Iraq at the Fifth District Convention
Search for:

Home

George,

In the release from the new officers of the Fifth District, there is a line--

Al Weed introduced a resolution regarding the United States involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, which was approved.

--which deserves a little amplification. First, here's the text of the resolution:

The Resolution on IRAQ:

WHEREAS: The Bush Administration, using false intelligence estimates, misled the country into an illegal, unnecessary and unwise invasion and occupation of Iraq, against a country that had neither attacked nor posed an immediate threat to the United States, thus jeopardizing our national security; and

WHEREAS: As a result of that action, more than 1,500 American troops have been killed and more than 10,000 other brave Americans have been maimed or injured, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, including many innocent civilians, have also lost their lives, been injured, and seen their property and country's infrastructure destroyed; and

WHEREAS: The invasion and occupation have created a severe burden on our economy, stretched the capacity of our armed forces including Reserve and National Guard troops who are serving unexpectedly long and difficult tours in Iraq, and continues to cause deep concern at home and abroad about the policies and intentions of the United States to the point where the United States is widely regarded with suspicion, hostility and distrust, and elections in Iraq confirmed that Iraqis wish the United States to withdraw

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Democratic Party calls for termination of the occupation at the earliest possible time with the withdrawal of American troops, coupled with the creation of an international body that can assist the Iraqi people in freely and peacefully determining their own future, and that we participate in multi-lateral reconstruction.

The resolution was presented by Al Weed, head of Public Policy Virginia and the recent candidate for Congress in the Fifth. After reading the resolution, Weed centered his argument for adoption on the necessity of Democrats having to define themselves anew and distinctly: "We have to stand for something!" (Applause). In a later email, he writes:

We Democrats need to make a connection to the war, the cynical way that Republicans are using the war to solidify their power, and how working folks are being affected.
 
With the increasing economic divisions in this country -- exacerbated by Bush tax policies -- are working people not to have a voice at all? We are only a party of elites and middle class because we have lost our proper focus. If we can stand firm against this ruinous war perhaps we can find other economic issues that will help us craft a message that puts social justice back into the equation. It won't be easy when so many Congressional Democrats, for example, voted for the Bankruptcy bill, and when financing campaigns means kissing the butts of so many of the economic plutocracy.

After Al's presentation, several folks rose to discuss specific points within it--especially, it seems, the word "illegal"--with an eye to amending the language. Meredith Richards, chairing the conveniton, in consultation with Parliamentarian Lloyd Snook, explained that in order to amend a resolution, the rules must be suspended.

Suspension of the rules to permit amending the resolution was moved and seconded.

Al Weed urged not amending it--his point was, the same resolution was just passed by the California Democratic Party (and a similar one was passed by the New Mexico Democratic Party) and the resolution is being put forward in several Virginia district conventions, and they should all have the same text or risk attenuation of the message. The motion died in a count of hands. No amendments. Call the question.

Discussion followed, with a loose five minutes permitted to each side, pro- and anti-adoption. All of the people involved in the subsequent discussion kept their remarks quite brief.

The pro's stressed the evil nature of the war in Iraq, the creature of of an evil administration.

The anti's stressed two points. Several delegates, Vietnam War veterans, voiced concern that the resolution failed to sufficiently honor the troops.

And several from, as far as I could tell, the southern part of the District, expressed concerns about going on the record with what they saw as an issue beyond the scope of running candidates for local office--the constitutional officers and supervisors.

As one said, "Don't saddle us with another thing for the Republicans to ride on."

The point is key, in my opinion, and many of us were frustrated by the time limitation. I would have liked to hear people out on this point. In any event, the resolution passed by the votes of a majority of those still present.

Positions are well-developed on the issues that local Democrats in this region focus on--unemployment, education, healthcare, women's issues, economic development and the environment.

Concern for social justice and community seems to provide a solid basis for developing these positions.

And it is not working. There are few Democrats elected, throughout the District. Our recent candidates for Congress have not got 3 votes in 8. Democrats running statewide are trimming and edging like landscapers.

Is a resolution about the war in Iraq quixotic or fundamental?

Dave Sagarin (May 17, 2005)

PS. The resolution failed to pass in two other district conventions on Saturday.

Comments? Questions? Write me at george@loper.org.