Nathan Newman wrote:
>Wait, I don't understand.
>I thought the Bush war was imperialism.
>And new Dem leader Nancy Pelosi is opposing the war.
>But she isn't opposing imperialism?
>This imperialism stuff sure is complicated.
-Hey, I thought you'd like the rest of the post, and you just pick on this!
Hey its just fragging allies in the grand tradition of LBO :) And the point is that if the Iraq war is not core to imperialism-- ie. imperialists can oppose it -- then it stands to reason that some anti-imperialists might even support it.
-Pelosi isn't about to suggest the U.S. cut its military budget by -75%, withdraw from foreign bases, dissolve NATO, and turn the IMF -into a truly multilateral democratic institution, is she?
The Progressive Caucus has called at points for cutting the military budget by 50% (a little wimpy right now I think on that point), but Pelosi is one of the strongest fighters on issues of peace.
Here's what the Council for a Liveable World, the major peace group that does voting ratings on peace issues, says:
"A leader on AIDS and Human Rights in China, Pelosi is most energetic in her support for arms control and her opposition to Star Wars...Rep. Pelosi helped lead the opposition to the 1999 Missile Defense Act...Congresswoman Pelosi co-sponsored a resolution on nuclear de-alerting, which encouraged the formation of a U.S.-Russian joint early warning system to guard against false alarms and to remove nuclear weapons from high-alert status...This year Pelosi co-sponsored the Landmine Elimination and Victim Assistance Act, which calls on the Administration to sign the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines."
On the IMF and World Bank
1998 releases by Pelosi- "In early May, I joined my colleagues, Democratic Leader Gephardt and Democratic Whip Bonior, and Reps. Frank, Torres, and Waters, in writing to Secretary Rubin to express concern about reports that the Administration was working to amend the IMF Charter to make the liberalization of capital movements one of the IMF's purposes. We have been working, with other interested Members of Congress, to improve the functions of the IMF and to make the institution more responsive to the needs of the countries and the people who are falling behind in the global economy. Amending the IMF Charter to promote the liberalization of capital movements, while not amending the Charter to promote environmental sustainability and workers rights is a step in the wrong direction for the IMF. "
>From an alert from Robert Naiman from 2000 in LBO archives
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0010/0526.html
"Many of you are -- hopefully -- aware that one of the most controversial
World Bank/International Monetary Fund "structural adjustment" policies
imposed in poor countries is the policy of promoting "user fees" for
primary health care and education...Rep. Pelosi has strongly supported the
abolition of user fees, but she needs strong backing from House Democrats to
win."
I would also suggest people check this speech by Pelosi on Plan Columbia and the US drug war http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/032922.htm
-- Nathan Newman