|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Regime |
|
Greens Call For Impeachment Of Bush, Withdrawal Of Troops By The Winter Holidays |
Current rating: 0 |
by Green Party
(No verified email address) |
22 Jul 2003
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On the final day of the 2003 national meeting of the Green Party of the United States, delegates from state Green Parties represented in the national party's Coordinating Committee approved two major proposals: (1) The Green Party endorsed a call to Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings and resolved to take political leadership in the growing movement for impeachment. (2) Greens endorsed a "Home by the Holidays" campaign calling for the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, and the Philippines, with this year's winter holidays as a deadline for their return. |
Greens Call for Impeachment of Bush, Withdrawal of Troops by the Winter Holidays.
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
For Immediate Release: Monday, July 21, 2003
Contacts:
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, nallen (at) acadia.net
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty (at) greens.org
At the Green Party's national meeting, state delegates endorse resolutions calling for impeachment and an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On the final day of the 2003 national meeting of the Green Party of the United States, delegates from state Green Parties represented in the national party's Coordinating Committee approved two major proposals:
(1) The Green Party endorsed a call to Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings and resolved to take political leadership in the growing movement for impeachment.
The resolution cites President George W. Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's "pattern of making false statements to Congress, the American people, and the world to win support for actions by the American government and military forces" in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Charter of the United Nations, and other international laws; "[s]quandering the resources of the American people to serve the interests of transnational corporations"; and war crimes, including the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs in the preemptive invasion of Iraq.
According to the resolution, "Evidence has emerged that the intelligence agencies of the United States had repeatedly informed the President that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction nor means to threaten the United States, and that alleged evidence produced by the administration was fraudulent." The resolution also authorizes the Green Party's Peace Action Committee (GPax) to coordinate party activities with other organizations that have called for impeachment.
"The problem isn't 16 erroneous words in the President's January 28 State of the Union address, but dozens of false statements on dozens of issues," said Elizabeth Shanklin, chair of the Bronx County Green Party and a New York delegate at the national meeting.
(2) Greens endorsed a "Home by the Holidays" campaign calling for the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, and the Philippines, with this year's winter holidays as a deadline for total return of military personnel. The resolution demands the removal of U.S. troops from harm's way, citing the rising number of combat deaths (over 340) and injuries and numerous non-combat fatalities and the damage to health and the environment from the deployment of chemical, nuclear, and ecological weapons.
According to the resolution, the White House's policy of invading other countries "is hostile to the democratic traditions of the American Revolution, and must be actively resisted by all patriotic Americans."
The texts of both resolutions will be posted at the Green Party's web site http://www.gp.org shortly.
The meeting took place from Friday, July 18 through Sunday, July 20 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. During the meeting, the Green Party of Alabama was admitted to the national party, bringing the number of accredited state parties to 43.
MORE INFORMATION
The Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org
National office: 1314 18th St., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-296-7755,866-41-GREEN
Articles of Impeachment, by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/articles_rc.htm
"A Threat to Democracy: Bush's Deceptions About Iraq"
Rep. John Conyers, speech in the House of Representatives, June 10, 2003
http://www.opednews.com/Conyers_a_threat_to_democracy.htm
"Reason to Deceive: WMD Lies Could Be the New Watergate"
By Cynthia Cotts, The Village Voice, June 18-24, 2003
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0325/cotts.php
"Will Congress Impeach George Bush over WMDs?"
By Mark Dunlea, The Albany Times Union, July 9, 2003
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0709-04.htm
Conference information
http://www.gp.org/conference2003.html
http://gp.org/press/pr_07_21_03.html |
See also:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
|
Related stories on this site:
Greening The Golden Triangle
|
Comments
|
Green Party Taking The Plunge For 2004 |
by Norman Solomon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jul 2003
|
For the 2004 presidential race, the Green dye is cast.
"The Green Party emerged from a national meeting ... increasingly certain that it will run a presidential candidate in next year's election, all but settling a debate within the group over how it should approach the 2004 contest," the Washington Post reported on July 21. The Green Party promptly put out a news release declaring that Greens "affirmed the party's intention to run candidates for president and vice president of the United States in 2004."
That release quoted a national party co-chair. "This meeting produced a clear mandate for a strong Green Party presidential ticket in 2004," he said, adding that "we chose the path of growth and establishing ourselves as the true opposition party." But other voices, less public, are more equivocal.
Days later, national party co-chair Anita Rios told me that she's "ambivalent" about the prospect of a Green presidential race next year. Another co-chair, Jo Chamberlain, mentioned "mixed feelings about it." Theoretically, delegates to the national convention next June could pull the party out of the '04 presidential race. But the chances of that happening are very slim. The momentum is clear.
Few present-day Green Party leaders seem willing to urge that Greens forego the blandishments of a presidential campaign. The increased attention -- including media coverage -- for the party is too compelling to pass up.
In recent years, the Greens have overcome one of the first big hurdles of a fledgling political party: News outlets no longer ignore them. In 2000, the Green presidential ticket, headed by Ralph Nader, had a significant impact on the campaign. Although excluded from the debates and many news forums, candidate Nader did gain some appreciable media exposure nationwide.
Green leaders are apt to offer rationales along the lines that "political parties run candidates" and Greens must continue to gain momentum at the ballot box. But by failing to make strategic decisions about which electoral battles to fight -- and which not to -- the Greens are set to damage the party's long-term prospects.
The Green Party is now hampered by rigidity that prevents it from acknowledging a grim reality: The presidency of George W. Bush has turned out to be so terrible in so many ways that even a typically craven corporate Democrat would be a significant improvement in some important respects.
Fueled by idealistic fervor for its social-change program (which I basically share), the Green Party has become an odd sort of counterpoint to the liberals who have allowed pro-corporate centrists to dominate the Democratic Party for a dozen years now. Those liberal Democrats routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral strategy. The Greens are now largely doing the reverse -- proceeding toward the 2004 presidential race without any semblance of a viable electoral strategy, all in the name of principled idealism.
Local Green Party activism has bettered many communities. While able to win some municipal or county races in enclaves around the country -- and sometimes implementing valuable reforms -- the Greens stumble when they field candidates for statewide offices or Congress.
When putting up candidates in those higher-level campaigns, the Greens usually accomplish little other than on occasion making it easier for the Republican candidate to win. That's because the U.S. electoral system, unfortunately, unlike in Europe, is a non-parliamentary winner-take-all setup. To their credit, Green activists are working for reforms like "instant runoff voting" that would make the system more democratic and representative.
In discussions about races for the highest offices, sobering reality checks can be distasteful to many Greens, who correctly point out that a democratic process requires a wide range of voices and choices during election campaigns. But that truth does not change another one: A smart movement selects its battles and cares about its impacts.
A small party that is unwilling to pick and choose its battles -- and unable to consider the effects of its campaigns on the country as a whole -- will find itself glued to the periphery of American politics.
In contrast, more effective progressives seeking fundamental change are inclined to keep exploring -- and learning from -- the differences between principle and self-marginalization. They bypass insular rhetoric and tactics that drive gratuitous wedges between potential allies -- especially when a united front is needed to topple an extreme far-right regime in Washington.
Norman Solomon is co-author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You." |
|
