DCDL

Iraq is likely to remain a defining issue of the presidential race, given the waste of lives, resources and national security brought by Bush’s war. While all the Democratic candidates believe Bush’s current strategy is mistaken and that we must at least begin to bring our troops home, there are some significant differences between them. There is a serious debate about who has the best plan going forward, but for right now let’s look at the candidates on the issue of the invasion itself.

It’s worth recalling some history from the 2004 presidential campaign. Bush and his operatives worked hard to develop the myth that Kerry had supported Bush’s decision to invade — and Kerry’s lack of clarity on the topic of Iraq didn’t help.

It’s a fair bet that we will see some of this again (depending on the candidate, of course), and we should be ready.

When it comes to Iraq, candidates should not be judged on a single vote or a single timely statement. The continuum of views includes at least the following options:
1. Supported the invasion all along
2. Supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq (AUMF) and then invasion “after diplomacy failed”
3. Supported the AUMF but opposed invasion
4. Opposed both the AUMF and the invasion

So who falls into which category? Well, first of all, none of our candidates fall under #1 — I don’t think. A number of Dems who were willing to support the AUMF but never bought into the idea of invasion fall under #3, such as Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. Straightforward opponents of Bush’s entire foreign policy toward Saddam Hussein fall under #4.

And #2 — this is for those who supported the AUMF but almost certainly opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002, but then somehow changed their minds in January, February or March 2003. I still remember Bush’s response to reporters who asked about ongoing weapons inspections in those final months, the lack of evidence of WMDs, whether that would influence his decision: “I’m sick of playing games!,” he barked back angrily. But anyway…. The candidates who fall under #2 today include proponents of a slower troop drawdown alongside proponents of a full, rapid withdrawal. All these candidates fall into a single category: They are the Anti-War-Pro-War-Anti-War Dems.

Reference:
The AUMF was passed on October 10-11, 2002.
The invasion began on March 19-20, 2003.

So, that’s it. Here are the candidates, in their own words and votes (contradictory statements over time in bold):

JOE BIDEN:
10/10/02: Supported AUMF (passed 77-23)
10/10/02: Opposed Durbin Amendment requiring finding of “an imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction'’ (failed 30-70)
10/10/02: Opposed Levin Amendment requiring explicit UN Security Council or Congressional authorization for military force against Iraq (failed 24-75)

10/10/02:

I will vote for [the AUMF] because we should be compelling Iraq to make good on its obligations to the United Nations. Because while Iraq’s illegal weapons of mass destruction program do not—do not—pose an imminent threat to our national security, in my view, they will, if left unfettered. And because a strong vote in Congress, as I said, increases the prospect for a tough, new U.N. resolution on weapons of mass destruction, it is likely to get weapons inspectors in, which, in turn, decreases the prospects of war, in my view. (Floor statement)

1/28/03:

So what should we do? … The option I would choose in this circumstance, even if we do not get world support, is to act. … [I]f Saddam does not give up those weapons of mass destruction and the Security Council does not call for the use of force, I think we have little option but to act with a larger group of willing nations, if possible, and alone if we must. (Floor statement)

Biden later explained:
10/1/03:

Those of us who understand the value of international institutions and rules must also understand that when rules and institutions are flouted, they must be defended, and by force if necessary. That was, in my view, the underlying rationale to go to war in Iraq…. (Floor statement)

9/26/07:

My colleagues will remember that, at the time, we voted to give the President a strong hand to play at the U.N. to get the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: let the inspectors back in and disarm or be disarmed. We thought that would make war less likely. But in the 5 months between our vote and the invasion of Iraq, the ideologues took over. The President went to war unnecessarily, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work, without a real coalition, without enough troops, without the right equipment, and without a plan to secure the peace. (Floor statement)

HILLARY CLINTON:
10/10/02: Supported AUMF (passed 77-23)
10/10/02: Opposed Durbin Amendment requiring finding of “an imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction'’ (failed 30-70)
10/10/02: Opposed Levin Amendment requiring explicit UN Security Council or Congressional authorization for military force against Iraq (failed 24-75)

10/10/02:

In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members…. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. … So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. (Floor statement)

3/6/03:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. (Address to Code Pink delegation. Full YouTube video available here.)

CHRIS DODD:
10/10/02: Supported AUMF (passed 77-23)
10/10/02: Supported Durbin Amendment requiring finding of “an imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction'’ (failed 30-70)
10/10/02: Opposed Levin Amendment requiring explicit UN Security Council or Congressional authorization for military force against Iraq (failed 24-75)

1/28/03:

If the President is going to order American men and women into battle he has to make a compelling case as to why all the other options have been exhausted and why the threat is so compelling that the US must act without the support of our key allies. (Floor statement)

2/5/03:

I have never doubted for one moment that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons and has sought to acquire nuclear weapons. For me the issue has always been how best to address that threat. I don’t really believe that the Secretary [(Colin Powell)] addressed that question during his remarks. Seemingly, the Bush Administration has decided that the only way to do so is to invade Iraq, regardless of the potential consequences of such a decision. (Floor statement)

3/7/03:

This morning U.N. Weapons Inspections chief, Mr. [Hans] Blix… reported that the inspections are making progress, that today inspectors are getting a lot more done than they did in the 1990s. We should listen to Mr. Blix and give his remarks serious consideration as we decide the next steps. (Floor statement)

JOHN EDWARDS:
10/10/02: Cosponsored AUMF (passed 77-23)
10/10/02: Opposed Durbin Amendment requiring finding of “an imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction'’ (failed 30-70)
10/10/02: Opposed Levin Amendment requiring explicit UN Security Council or Congressional authorization for military force against Iraq (failed 24-75)

10/10/02:

I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action. Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. … After 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. (Floor statement)

2003 (pre-invasion):

This man has to be disarmed. If he doesn’t do something to start disarming, then yes, we have to disarm him, and we should be willing to do so militarily. (Chris Matthews College Hardball Tour, Central University, North Carolina. Video footage available here)

MIKE GRAVEL:
No definitive public statements from 2002-2003, but little doubt that he vehemently opposed the invasion.

DENNIS KUCINICH:
Opposed AUMF (passed House 296-133) (61% of House Democrats opposed the AUMF)

Little doubt about where Kucinich stood.

BARACK OBAMA:
10/2/02:

I don’t oppose war in all circumstances. When I look over this crowd today, I know there is no shortage of patriots or patriotism. What I do oppose is a dumb war. (Address to Chicago anti-war rally. Video footage available here — it really is, keep watching)

BILL RICHARDSON:
2/18/03:

[O]nly one more deadline, only one more chance for Saddam Hussein is going to be allowable. So I think the administration is wise in pursuing this course that says OK, total disarmament in two weeks and that’s it. (Interview, CNN. Transcript available here)

Richardson later explained:
7/28/03:

We can also win by sending another strong message, and that is that we are, as Democrats, capable in maintaining and defending our country. We have to be able to use force when diplomacy fails and when our national security is threatened. (Keynote address to 2003 Democratic Leadership Council conference — available here)

From the introduction by the DLC’s Will Marshall that day:

I should say that Governor Richardson embodies a Democratic tradition of muscular internationalism. … He backed a war to oust the Saddam regime. (Ibid)

9/26/07:
Email from the Richardson campaign:

Just like before their reckless invasion of Iraq, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been rattling sabers about Iran’s nuclear program….

DC for Democracy will be holding its vote on endorsement this Wednesday, October 3. Having sent its own questionnaire to each of the 8 Democratic candidates, DC for Democracy members took the time to develop their own Candidate Endorsement Guide based on the candidates’ responses to our questionnaire and on whatever other information was available elsewhere. If you’re a DC4D member, we hope to see you Wednesday.

Yesterday the AP cited figures from the Defense Intelligence Agency re: the levels of insurgent attacks in 2007.

Here are the charts (**Note: The DIA bargraphs don’t include specific numbers, so these numbers are approximations**):

From the AP:

Slightly more than 3,300 attacks were recorded in January and 3,143 were reported in July, the DIA said.

From the AP:

There were 946 attacks against Iraqi security forces in January and 850 in July.

From the AP:

According to the DIA chart, there were 897 attacks against Iraqi civilians in January and 808 in July.

The defense intelligence chart makes the point, with figures from Petraeus’ command in Baghdad, the Multinational Force-Iraq. Congressional auditors [(i.e., the GAO)] used the same numbers to conclude that Iraqis are as unsafe now as they were six months ago; the Bush administration and military officials also using those figures say that finding is flawed.

Reality-based conclusion:

Insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians, their security forces and U.S. troops remain high, according to the document obtained by The Associated Press.

The talk today in the Post is all about the new GAO report on the troop surge: “Report Finds Little Progress on Iraq Goals.” The predictable debate over the report has already begun, with the White House dismissing it as an attempt by Democrats to undercut the White House’s claims of progress (the GAO is a legislative branch agency). Another pointless round of accusations and counteraccusations of bias.

So instead let’s look at the National Intelligence Estimate that came out a few days ago. Democrats have already complained that this report was softened in order to make things sound better, but it’s still interesting to look at the NIE’s judgments (warning: pdf):

There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces, tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI) capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some areas. However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively. (emphasis in original)

We assess…that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

These statements are almost self-contradictory, and seem to split the difference on the issue of progress/no progress. On the one hand they believe we’ll continue to see improvements in security. On the other hand, they are not willing to predict that 12 months of “modest” improvements in security would bring violence to a level significantly below what it is now. What are we to make of this? It sounds suspiciously like a cop-out.

These are some of their reasons for cautious sorta-kinda neither optimism nor pessimism:

Intra-Shia conflict involving factions competing for power and resources probably will intensify as Iraqis assume control of provincial security. In Basrah, violence has escalated with the drawdown of Coalition forces there. Local militias show few signs of reducing their competition for control of valuable oil resources and territory.

The Sunni Arab community remains politically fragmented, and we see no prospective leaders that might engage in meaningful dialogue and deliver on national agreements.

Kurdish leaders remain focused on protecting the autonomy of the Kurdish region and reluctant to compromise on key issues.

The IC assesses that the emergence of “bottom-up” security initiatives, principally among Sunni Arabs and focused on combating AQI, represent the best prospect for improved security over the next six to 12 months, but we judge these initiatives will only translate into widespread political accommodation and enduring stability if the Iraqi Government accepts and supports them. (emphasis in original)

In other words, political progress directly impacts on improved security and visa-versa, obviously.

[W]e judge that the ISF have not improved enough to conduct major operations independent of the Coalition on a sustained basis in multiple locations and that the ISF remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support. (emphasis in original)

…

Militia and insurgent influences continue to undermine the reliability of some ISF units, and political interference in security operations continues to undermine Coalition and ISF efforts.

The Maliki government is implementing plans to expand the Iraqi Army and to increase its overall personnel strength to address critical gaps, but we judge that significant security gains from those programs will take at least six to 12 months, and probably longer, to materialize. (emphasis added)

The IC assesses that the Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition (the Unified Iraqi Alliance, UIA), Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. Divisions between Maliki and the Sadrists have increased, and Shia factions have explored alternative coalitions aimed at constraining Maliki.(emphasis in original)

The most favorable reading of this NIE is that we may have just reached a turning point where violence is just beginning to come down in Iraq (the decrease in overall attacks over the last 2 months). But we are also repeatedly reminded that we should expect to see violence and increasing Iraqi government instability for at least the next year — essentially, the forseeable future — before things start to get better. Hmm.

Sorry. No deal. If the level of violence (i.e. both overall attacks AND overall deaths) is just as high, say, 6 months from now as it is today, then the natural conclusion is NOT that we should reserve judgment and see if there’s progress a year after that, but that the surge — you guessed it — is not succeeding.

There are those on the other side of the aisle who show some ability to look at things somewhat more objectively, though. Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a former senior intelligence analyst for the Secretary of Defense and a former aide to John McCain, is no proponent of troop withdrawal. But he visited Iraq this month and came back unconvinced that any of the examples of progress he did see (Anbar Province, Anbar Province, Anbar Province) have anything to do with the troop surge. Cordesman’s conclusion:

I did not see any dramatic change in our position in Iraq during this trip. … I did not see success for the strategy that President Bush announced in January.

Cordesman’s report for CSIS is worth a read as well. Not that I agree with all his conclusions, but his analysis of the evidence is way more nuanced than anything I’m seeing in the MSM. See here for an executive summary (with link to full pdf report).

No duh, of course. But what I’ve noticed is that Bush’s comments are increasingly ignored by Democrats. Sometimes that’s understandable, given all the stalled debates that everyone’s simply tired of hearing by now.

But at times Bush says things that are so achingly wrong and/or destructive that it seems a mistake not to respond. After all, he is still the head of state for a good long time to come. He does matter.

Two examples from today:

Speaking on the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, the president made sure not to miss an opportunity to engage in some nasty partisan cheerleading. How statesmanlike…:

When I became governor of Texas in 1995, I recruited [Al Gonzales] from one of Texas’ prestigious law firms to be my general counsel. He went on to become Texas’ 100th secretary of state and to serve on our state’s supreme court.

In the long course of our work together this trusted adviser became a close friend.

These various positions have required sacrifice from Al, his wife Becky, their sons Jared, Graham and Gabriel. And I thank them for their service to the country.

After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision.
It’s sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeding [sic] from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.

Yeah, right. So why did any number of Republicans in Congress join Democrats in calling for his resignation, Mr. President? Oh, that’s right. Not taking any questions.

Just a couple of hours later, Bush was in New Mexico stumping for Sen. Pete Domenici. Bush again, speaking about Iraq:

It’s in our interests that we help the Iraqi people succeed. Success in Iraq will be a major blow to the extremists and radicals who would like to attack America again. And that’s why the United States will continue to support Iraq’s leaders and all the Iraqi people in their efforts to overcome the forces of terror that seek to overthrow a nascent democracy.

Yes, it is in our interest to help Iraq succeed. Stated another way, we have a moral obligation to help a people who are suffering horribly to find peace and to rebuild. So let’s talk about what it would really take to get those peace talks underway, Mr. President. How about a presidential envoy for Iraq? How about agreeing to put an end to our offensives in return for a cease fire among the sects? How about negotiating a timetable for withdrawal? “No, no, no,” says Bush. That’s not what we’re here to talk about!

And then the inevitable segue to terrorism. Ok, Mr. President, let’s imagine the most optimistic of all scenarios: the violence in Iraq vanishes, leaving a virtually utopian, democratic Iraq. In such a case the Iraqis would certainly be better off, but how would that be a major blow to terrorists? Al Qaeda would undoubtedly still see it as their solemn duty to punish America for unjustly invading Iraq. The logic of revenge as justice is very powerful, and unfortunately, Al Qaeda would probably find a good deal of sympathy for such sentiments. Beyond the issue of the Iraq war, Bush continues to ignore many of the biggest Mideast issues, like US ties to Saudi Arabia or the US alliance with Israel, which are certainly still the foremost Al Qaeda grievances. Al Qaeda is accustomed to standing in opposition to most Middle East governments, denouncing regimes who’ve made nice with America and Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, or who have allowed America to set up military bases in their territories, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Oman. Al Qaeda would certainly denounce Iraq as another American imperial creation.

Al Qaeda’s not trying to win an election, Mr. President. They’re just looking for enough malcontents to keep the fire going. And they might well begin to find them in Iraq, even in a future Iraq that is fabulously successful. The anger among Iraqis because of this war could take generations to subside. Groups like Al Qaeda will not fade away until standards of living rise significantly throughout the Middle East, and until there is finally a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. These facts are beyond obvious, except to our president, who has devoted most of his presidency to devising new fringe interpretations of history and politics.

Democratic Congressional leaders and presidential candidates should remain focused by and large on the president. His bully pulpit vastly overshadows any of his executive branch cronies or any of the Republican Congressional leaders. Responding in kind to Bush’s nearly daily exhortations, not merely with criticism, but ideas, is the best way for Democratic leaders to explain clearly how they would do better.

Two Brookings scholars, Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon, seem to have revived the battle over success/the lack thereof in Iraq. O’Hanlon and Pollack, both supporters of the Iraq invasion, took it to a whole new level last week following their return from a trip to Iraq in which they argued in a NY Times op-ed, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq.” By now various observers have pointed out that the O’Hanlon-Pollack commentary seemed to be all but entirely based on anecdotal observations and conversations with decidedly optimistic figures in Iraq. But let’s focus on Michael O’Hanlon. Michael O’Hanlon is the author/editor of the Iraq Index, a nearly real-time statistical roundup of the violent goings-on in Iraq and an indispensable resource to those who are trying to judge the progress of Bush’s war. What might be the most appalling part of this is that O’Hanlon seemed to be rendering judgment without even considering his own Iraq Index.

So how about we take a look at the Iraq Index ourselves?

(more…)

Just heard a clip from these Bush remarks on the radio, delivered with his usual peevish impatience:

And finally, I’m going to spend some time talking about the war on terror and our need to succeed in Iraq. And I’m going to remind the people in the audience today that troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C., and that we’ve got a plan to lead to victory. And I fully understand that this is a difficult war, and it’s hard on the American people. But I will once again explain the consequences of failure to the American people, and I’ll explain the consequences of success, as well.

Yes, Mr. President, that’s exactly what we need. If you just explain it to us idiots for the thousandth time, maybe it’ll get through our thick heads and we’ll understand the true brilliance and absolute necessity of the Explainer’s mystery plan for victory. Maybe we’ll even be enlightened as to what “victory” means in these circumstances.

Apparently there’s nothing wrong with this war that a good dose of repeated explanation can’t fix.

You’ve probably heard about John McCain’s latest unconvincing press conference from Iraq. But I think I have to give it to Lindsay Graham this time. He outfailed McCain by far, I think (video here):

Predictably, the jist of most of Graham’s remarks was that despite the terrible violence, yes, yes, he sees major improvement in the Iraqi military forces — they are more “empowered” now.

Every person I had lunch with today… said that the Iraqi military capability was better.

By this point the Iraqi forces are probably more capable fighters than they were a few years ago, sure, I’ll buy that. Whether they’re putting those skills to good use is another matter.

But Graham realized he also had to claim the security situation had somehow improved. Time for some theatrics:

So it goes back to who we’re gonna allow to define this war, the fanatics who wanna just blindly kill people or the folks who will go back to that market 4 weeks later and will bring their kids and shop and try to do business and say thank you to us. This is a great struggle and we’ve made tremendous mistakes and we’re finally getting it right. And is it too little too late?, I don’t know but I don’t think so. So yes, in my opinion things are better today than they’ve ever been since I came here 3 or 4 years ago.

So:

• Let’s remember the good times (open markets, happy families, kids)
• It’s a tough struggle
• We sure have been screwing up
• But now we’ve figured it out
• Probably
• Huh?!?!

PHANTO THE PHANTOM REPORTER WHO NEVER EXISTED: Senator, were things WORSE 3 or 4 years ago when there wasn’t even half as much violence as today?
GRAHAM: Well, now WAIT. 3 or 4 years ago we didn’t have any Iraqi Security Forces to speak of. We had no elections, no Iraqi government.
PHANTO: But now huge numbers of Iraqis are dying who weren’t dying then. How is that progress?
GRAHAM [wide Lindsey Graham smile]: Phanto, you’re ignoring the issue of infrastructure. We’ve built so much more infrastructure now, schools, markets — we’ve got a new Iraqi oil law- PHANTO: But, Senator, my question-
GRAHAM [wider Lindsey Graham smile, finger in the air]: THINGS — ARE — BETTER. I am a SENATOR. That’s what I’ve seen. [pause] OK, thank you…

While there seems to be less news from Iraq than ever recently, we are hearing occasional stories cautiously suggesting that the violence is down a little. An AP story Wednesday reported that bombing deaths in Baghdad are down 30% over the last month.

But according to The Brookings Institute’s Iraq Index, violence overall is way up:

“Iraqis Killed in Multiple Fatality Bombings”:

July: 490 (record high)
November: 580 (record high)
December: 574
January: 442
February 704 (record high)

“Iraqis Wounded in Multiple Fatality Bombings”:

July: 1161 (record high)
November: 1010
December: 1254 (record high)
January: 1081
February: 1684 (record high)

And about that troop surge:

September: 144,000 US troops (+18,000 foreign troops)
October: 144,000 (17,200)
November: 140,000 (+18,000)
December: 140,000 (+15,200)
January: 132,000 (+14,650)
February: 135,000 (+14,010)
March: 141,000 (+14,035)

In other words, there are less troops now than there were in December prior to the “troop surge”.

I assume this is largely because of troop rotations. We’ll have to see where the troop levels are in a couple of months. But so far, the “Year of the Troop Surge” was 2005. US forces were at 150,000 or more for 6 months out of 2005 (all-time high was 160,000 in November and December 2005). If I were John McCain, I’d be asking the White House if we’re ever going to get to those levels again. What followed our efforts in 2005, of course, was a dramatic increase in violence in 2006. (Troop levels ranged from about 130,00-144,000 in 2006.)

Bottom line, the violence in Iraq continues unabated.

Via TPM, I see that we’ve found someone on the other side of the world willing to do Dick Cheney’s job, or at least the part of it that involves smearing Democrats as friends of terrorists. Australian prime minister John Howard is attacking Barack Obama and the Democratic Party:

The man who wants to be the first black US president has pledged to withdraw US troops from Iraq by March 2008, a timetable Mr Howard believes is dangerous.

“I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory,” Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

“If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”

Looking into it, however, I see that because of the weakness of the US dollar, the Australian prime minister’s salary is actually a bit higher than the US vice president’s (around $240,000 versus $200,000). Plus we still seem to be paying Cheney. So whoever’s handling this outsourcing doesn’t seem to be doing it very well. No doubt Halliburton is involved.

Quite a few DCDLers will be going to tomorrow’s march. Some of us will be gathering with the Progressive Democrats of America and other folks, as described in this message from Democrats.com:

Excitement is Building for Saturday’s March on Washington to End the War Now!

The weather will be perfect, and a huge turnout is expected due to Bush’s adamant refusal to back down from his plan to escalate his disastrous Iraq War. Details here:
United for Peace and Justice

Speakers include: Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover, Jane Fonda, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, and Lynn Woolsey, Bob Watada, and many more.

Unlike past marches, the Corporate Media is already covering this event, including the Washington Post. Better yet, we’ve created our own powerful progressive media on the Internet since 2003 — this Revolution will be Blogged and YouTubed!

RALLY: Democrats.Com, PDA, Afterdowningstreet.org activists and friends are asked to gather with their PDA state banner, Saturday morning on the National Mall between Jefferson Ave. NW and 4th St. NW. (Facing the National Air and Space Museum) We will begin gathering at 9:30 AM. Download the map. (If you need help finding us on Saturday, call Sherry 480-529-2131 or Laura 435-640-2252)

Come to the workshops and trainings (including on how to lobby for investigations with the ultimate goal of impeachment) on January 28th and come with us to meet with your Congress Member and Senators on January 29th. It’s not too late to register:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/modinput4.php?modin=121

Here’s what we’re lobbying for (and what you can ask your Senators and Congress Member for):
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16562

For comprehensive list of all sorts of related events in Washington and elsewhere in the coming days, see:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/event

DCDL and friends are mainly gathering at that location about 11, coordinated by Kesh Ladduwahetty (keshinil@yahoo.com or 202-531-0615). I’ll be catching up with them a little later.