Protest Nancy Pelosi peace award today 5:00PM

San Francisco Bay Area residents are resolute in their opposition to the
U.S. war against Iraq. We tried to stop the war before it started, and now
that the U.S. has attacked, we want the war ended immediately to avoid
future death and destruction. Unfortunately, our own Congresswoman, Nancy
Pelosi, who is also the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives,
has decided that she no longer needs to represent our voices in the
positions she takes on the war. Although she voted against the Iraq war
resolution in October, since the war started the Congresswoman voted in
favor of a March 20 resolution that expresses the "unequivocal support and
appreciation of the Nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his
firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations
in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism." She also voted
to approve Bush¹s request for $80 billion in funding for the war.

If Congresswoman Pelosi wants to be honored as a leader for peace, she
needs to represent her constituents and speak out against the war! Please
join us in protest as we give an award to the true peace leaders‹the
people of San Francisco!

Sponsored by CodePink: Women for Peace, Global Exchange, International
ANSWER, Jewish Voice for Peace, and others. For more information, call
415-575-5555.
++++++  
    
Published on Tuesday, April 2, 2003 by the San Francisco Bay Guardian

Pelosi Doesn't Represent Us

by Tom Gallagher

 
IT WOULD SURELY come as a surprise to much of the rest of the country,
which sees San Francisco as the national epicenter of protest against the
invasion of Iraq, to learn that both of the city's representatives in
Congress voted in favor of a March 20 resolution expressing "unequivocal
support and appreciation of the Nation to the President as
Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the
conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War
on Terrorism."

Those of us who live here know that Rep. Tom Lantos has supported this war
all along. But when the previously antiwar Rep. Nancy Pelosi announces
that "I don't have any intention of second-guessing the strategy of the
commander in chief and those who are waging this war," she could find
herself pretty lonely in District Eight, which encompasses the most
antiwar parts of this most antiwar of American cities.

What justifies this stance, seemingly so at odds with so much of her
district? No less than the greater good of the nation, according to one
line of thinking: as house minority leader, her constituency and
responsibility now extend beyond the people who actually elect her, to
encompass all of the other Democratic members of Congress. In this view,
Pelosi has acted deftly in leading the majority of them into apparent
support for the now ongoing war effort, thereby protecting them from
appearing unpatriotic.

And certainly the statements of support for U.S. troops and their families
that constituted the second and third points of the resolution made
perfect sense ­ both politically and morally. But when the majority of
the congressional bloc that voted 126-81 against the authorization of the
use of force in Iraq last October feel compelled to turn around and praise
the leadership of the president whose initiative they have rejected, are
we witnessing canny leadership at the highest ranks ­ or its absence?

Pelosi's counterpart in the U.K., our major partner in this arrogant and
ill-considered crusade, faced a much thornier problem than she. As Labor
Party leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook felt he had no choice but
to resign when he could not support the charge to war led by a prime
minister of his own party. But while congressional Democrats were not
unanimous in opposing the war, as the Republicans nearly were in its
support (215-6), Pelosi did lead a party with a clear antiwar majority.
And yet, after the votes were counted March 20, it was the tail of the
pro-war Democratic minority wagging the dog of that antiwar majority.

Was there really no other choice? Certainly the 11 Democrats who voted no,
including Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), Pete Stark (D-Hayward), and Mike Honda
(D-San Jose), didn't think so. Nor did the 22 who voted "present,"
including presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland).

Presumably, Pelosi and most of her party voted for this embarrassing
resolution thinking they had to be with a winner. But had all of the
Democrats who previously felt compelled to vote against the president on
this life-and-death matter remained consistent, refused to support the
Republican resolution, and instead produced a statement of their own, they
could surely have made their viewpoint heard: A war that is bad in concept
is worse in actuality, and the appropriate way to support troops placed in
harm's way in a foolish war is to get them out ­ as quickly as
possible.

In the end, it seems likely that the well-known American disaffection with
electoral politics will only worsen in the face of two parties virtually
united in support of policies so widely rejected throughout most of the
rest of the world. But speculation about the impact of her national
leadership aside, it would seem that, at the least, the majority of the
people who actually send Nancy Pelosi to Washington, D.C., are entitled to
have her represent their views on war and peace there.

Tom Gallagher, a registered Democrat, is a former Massachusetts state
legislator who lives in San Francisco.

###
+++++++++++++++++++++
Jewish Voice for Peace letter to Pelosi:
April 7, 2003


The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 14th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102



Dear Representative Pelosi,

We are writing as concerned constituents who oppose the war on Iraq. We
acknowledge your statements and actions opposing the war and urge you to
exercise strong leadership in averting further disaster in the Middle
East. We believe that this war will lead to greater destabilization in the
region and make us less safe here at home. Our soldiers have been placed
in harm¹s way for a reckless, expensive and counter productive military
campaign.

As you know, the majority of the people in your district oppose the war on
Iraq. They have expressed their opposition through phone calls to your
office, letters to the editor, and even by engaging in civil disobedience.
Nationally, 52% of Democrats oppose the war (according to a March 25th
Zogby International poll). And around the world, millions of people oppose
what they perceive as an illegal war of aggression.

We urge you to listen to your constituents and to listen to the
peacemakers, including Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and Nelson
Mandela. All of us are speaking out for peace and against war in the
Middle East. We believe that peace will not come through violence and
bombing, but through just and principled policies and actions.

We urge you to support peace in the Middle East in three key ways:

1. The Bush Administration¹s doctrine of preemption and its rush to war
have caused deep rifts with many of our allies and the United Nations.
Because the U.S. cannot bring peace to the Middle East by acting on its
own, we need to reengage with the United Nations and follow a multilateral
peace and reconstruction strategy in Iraq. We believe that preemptive war
poses a grave threat to international law and our national security. We
ask you to support House Resolution 141, which affirms that the United
States possesses the right to defend itself against imminent or actual
attack, but disavows the doctrine of preemption.

2. We ask you to support those who work for peace between Israelis and
Palestinians. One such woman, Rachel Corrie, was a young American peace
activist who was killed last month by an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer
while attempting to protect a Palestinian home from demolition through an
act of nonviolent civil disobedience in the Gaza Strip. We ask you to
support House Concurrent Resolution 111, which expresses sympathy to the
Corrie family for their loss and calls for a U.S. investigation into her
death to ensure that this never happens again.

3. We ask that you conduct congressional hearings and a town hall meeting
in San Francisco to explore key issues related to the war on Iraq,
including: the dangers of the use of depleted uranium on U.S. soldiers and
Iraqi civilians; the actual costs of the war and the impact of these
expenditures on the domestic economy; ways for the U.S. to mend relations
with its allies and engage multilaterally to promote peace and
reconstruction in Iraq; and erosion of civil liberties under the guise of
national security. A town hall meeting would serve to educate the public
and allow your constituents to participate in an essential democratic
process in the climate of an unpopular war.

As you stated in October 2002 when you voted against the Congressional
resolution authorizing military force, going to war against Iraq would
hurt U.S. efforts to stop terrorism, lead to loss of life, and cost our
economy. Unfortunately, your predictions have proven all too prescient:
reports indicate increased recruiting by terrorist organizations, many
American and Iraqi lives have been tragically ended, and our economy is
teetering on the edge of another recession.

In our view, as the opposition party, Democrats need to articulate a clear
vision of a just and principled foreign policy; a policy that seeks peace
in the Middle East and throughout the world through diplomacy and
multilateralism, instead of by military domination. Furthermore, we
believe that articulating this clear difference would further your goal of
regaining a Democratic majority in the House.

We urge you to listen to the people and the peacemakers here in your home
district, as well as those around the world.

Sincerely yours,


- Pope John Paul II has spoken against the war and the Vatican has said -
The Dalai Lama has said [something about supporting Tibet¹s struggle, but
disavows violence]
- Nelson Mandela has said [spoke against the war]

We ask you to support our troops by bringing them home from this bloody
conflict.

We should not risk another soldier¹s life for a war based on questionable
motives and which imposes such grave costs.