Players, Not Cheerleaders
"So?"
So said Dick Cheney when asked last week about public opinion being overwhelming against the war in Iraq. "You can't be blown off course by polls."
His attitude about the the fact that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4,000 displayed similar levels of sympathy. They "voluntarily put on the uniform," the Vice-President told ABC news.
This brick wall of indifference helps explain the paradox in which we in the anti-war camp find ourselves five years into the occupation of Iraq: anti-war sentiment is as strong as ever, but our movement seems to be dwindling.
Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent anniversary rallies and vigils.
When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third anniversaries. And yet five years on, U.S. leaders are still shrugging: "So?"
There is no question that the Bush administration has proven impervious to public pressure. That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.
Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: We'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices--from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation--have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.
This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.
And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions--thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.
Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of "unity," it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point. And our pressure is badly needed.
For the first time in 14 years, weapons manufacturers are donating more to Democrats than to Republicans. The Dems have received 52 percent of the defense industry's political donations in this election cycle--up from a low of 32 per cent in 1996. That money is about shaping foreign policy, and so far, it appears to be well spent.
While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it. Both say they intend to maintain the massive Green Zone, including the monstrous U.S. embassy, and to retain U.S. control of the Baghdad Airport.
They will have a "strike force" to engage in counterterrorism, as well as trainers for the Iraqi military. Beyond these U.S. forces, the army of Green Zone diplomats will require heavily armed security details, which are currently provided by Blackwater and other private security companies. At present there are as many private contractors supporting the occupation as there are soldiers so these plans could mean tens of thousands of U. S. personnel entrenched for the future.
In sharp contrast to this downsized occupation is the unequivocal message coming from hundreds of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Veterans Against the War, who held the historic "Winter Soldier" hearings in Silver Spring, Md. earlier this month, are not supporting any candidate or party. Instead they are calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. soldiers and contractors. Coming from peace activists, the "out now" position has been dismissed as naive. It is distinctly harder to ignore coming from hundreds who have served--and continue to serve--on the frontlines.
The candidates know that much of the passion fueling their campaigns flows from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous war. It is this desire for change that has filled stadiums and campaign coffers.
Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp: When The Nation revealed that neither candidate was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, Clinton abruptly changed course. She became the most important U. S. political leader to endorse the ban, scoring a point on Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start.
This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of issue-based battle has the power to energize voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.
Let's remember: unlike the outgoing Bush administration, these candidates need the support of the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq. If opinion transforms into action, they won't be able to afford to say, "So?"
Courtesy of the New York Times Syndicate
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's count the losses seeing what we have so far: 1,389,000 Iraqi Dead, 166.100 assorted Paki, Iranian, Syrian, Yemen, Afghanistan, Palestinians, Saudi, Lebanese, Turkish, Kurdish, Islamic fighters dead! 4710 American & Allied Soldiers dead(within 70days from now) 5300 Backwater/Asst Contractors dead,
What's next? We pull out quickly and what happens? Peace??? Not on your life, but in a way; IN your life! We pull out; Iran/Shiites forces swarm into Iraq for final takeover! Saudi's, Syrians, Pakistanis Lebanese, Palestinians fight for their share of the oil. Israel is attacked.
1.First atomic weapon is detonated as response to raging wars in the Iraq-Iran-Lebanon area. Oil supplies STOP! PRICE OF OIL $354.00 a barrel within 12 days & going higher!
2.United States economy COMPLETELY COLLAPSES within 60 days or less! No food in grocery stores! No jobs for you or your neighbors! Banks collapse. What are you going to demand of your government when this happens? You will be like everyone else and demand we GO BACK AND GET THE FREAKING OIL! That's what you'll do!
3.And here's a surprise! So will the Russians, Europeans, and Chinese! Then how many dead? I ASKED YOU HOW MANY DEAD THEN???
But, you say in rebuttal, how do you know all this will happen? Do a little research and see these scenarios come into play. Or, rent the movie “Three Days of the Condor” starring Robert Redford and fast forward to the last 12 minutes of the movie!
i can't get past your first sentence, much less the other numbers. lesser weapons, such as b52's, will work, just as they did in laos.
The real error in this scenario is the fact that no American supported Gov't in Iraq can succeed. Sadr is only biding his time-There will be a Shia takeover eventually-may as well be prepared. And the longer The USA keeps supporting a puppet regime-the worse the eventual outcome. By upsetting the balance of power in the area by removing Saddam the USA has empowered Iraq and the Shite. I suppose we'll hang on as long as possible however-but eventually the Iraq's will turn us out of their country. It is a total fantasy to imagine the Shia and Sunni will share power in Iraq. The fragile coalition is falling apart already.
Better yet, do some research over the last 3-4 years on what has been
done to prepare for WW III. A real world war, not an occupation. A war
that involves pre-emptive nuclear strikes with weapons that have been
developed over those years, in new high tech stealth bombers.
1. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847416688&
pagename=JPost%2FJPArtirl 12/24/07
2. http://www.nytimes/2007/12/12washington/12prexy.html?ref=todaysnewspaper&
pagewant...
3. http://www.washintonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/
pf.ht6041401907_pf.ht...
This election season has been an excruciatingly painful experience for me. I have been a staunch democrat all my life. I love progress and hate war. I was so excited at the beginning of the primaries that a democrat was sure to win the White House. Now, I can't imagine a democrat in the White House. What has happened with the help of the media is the division of our party so that the people supporting one candidate will not vote for the opponent. This election should have been policy-driven but it was hate-driven instead. I watched and listened as reporters, analysts, bloggers, talk show hosts, and commentators decided who they wanted to win the nomination and went about destroying the other. So many of you who have posted have continued to employ this tactic when all that we needed was to listen to the issues and make a decision, with the likelihood that the best candidate would win and we would all vote for the person in November.
Klein and Scahill have offered the democrats a new perspective and another chance to come together. But when I read these posts, I realize that you all want what you want whether it is good for us or not. It seems to be about "the win." Are you so afraid to consider a new strategy because your guy might not win? In the end, we all lost.
I can't vote for Clinton or McCain since they voted for the Iraq War resolution.
I may consider Obama, but I want to hear more on what he will do - not some 'phased withdrawal' BS.
I have no problem voting third party like the Green or Libertarian, if Obama wins the DP nomination and he isn't firm on US withdrawal.
The national Libertarian Party (LP) organization has taken their strongest position in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. At their national committee meeting yesterday in Las Vegas, the following resolution passed overwhelmingly.
WHEREAS the government of the United States should return to its historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign quarrels, and military adventures and;
WHEREAS the armed forces of the United States have invaded Iraq, a foreign nation that neither directly attacked nor imminently threatened to attack the United States and;
WHEREAS the injustice and imprudence of this invasion cannot be undone by the continued presence of the armed forces of the United States in Iraq and;
WHEREAS the stability and security of Iraq lie outside the jurisdiction of the government of the United States;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party National Committee calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States without undue delay.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/18/libertarian-party-resolution-on-iraq/
Now why won't the DP do that at least, esp since they have not impeached the criminals Bush and Cheney?
I like these guys and the analysis they bring to things. It strikes the urgency buttons that are pushed by Blackwater, Bush/Cheney, skull and bones conspiracies. I hope these are not inevitable outcomes of the current state of shock we are all in. I would like candidates to address peace more clearly, speak about a need diversity that includes homosexuals and lesbians, propose strategies to improving health care and economic disparities and to address all the ills and discomforts we face. We have a leadership problem. We need to get a good leader elected. At the same time, we need the mass movement and organization to express our collective outrage against the possibility that the democratic process may already have been subverted. Most of all we need to be a unified voice in this and not throw ourselves to the wolves in disunity.
Naomi, Aren't you Canadian? You're a brilliant woman but US elections are for US citizens.
Eire,
Your view reveals a limited understanding of the issues our nation creates for the rest of the world. There are few countries that are not affected by who we put in office and what their policies create on a global scale.
And I guess we should just stand by while genocide goes on in Darfur, or slavery in India and China, too, hmmm?
While I agree with the argument put forth in this article, I’m sorry to say that I have little faith in Americans to do anything substantive.
The candidates who are left were put there by the same people you’re asking to take a stand now. The vast majority of voters dismissed those who stood against this war from the beginning, and who had the guts to tell the truth on so many issues. I give you Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul; agree or disagree with their positions; they were not part of the corruption.
Corrupt systems are threatened most by the truth, and the truth only comes from those who are not beholden to the system. Masquerading as a democracy, it defies us to dismantle it. Now we have McCain trying to distance himself from Bush while advocating the same policies, Clinton self-righteously calling Iraq “Bush’s War” to attempt to cover her own culpability, and Obama talking about “change” while threatening Iran and Pakistan.
Expect more ranting, raving and finger-pointing from the electorate: “it’s those fascist war-mongering Republicans who made the world hate us,” or, “it’s those socialist bleeding-heart Democrats taxing and spending us into oblivion!”
We have only ourselves to blame. These are the same false choices we fail to recognize year after year, and we just don’t seem to have the courage to face the truth and actually do something about it.
McCain, Hillary and Obama are not our only choices--although the mainstream media would want you to believe it so.
Ralph Nader shuns PACs and other special interest money. Why? Because the three mainstream candidates are living proof of what big money and an election system that shuts out Third Party participation. "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Just hit wikipedia on French Elections. They have a Two-Round System where multiple candidates representing various parties run for office. Then the top two vote-getters square off in the final round, ensuring that the victor has no less than 50%+1 of the vote. For example, the 2002 election had 16 candidates representing their respective parties. It featured Jacques Chirac vs. Jean-Marie LePen in the final round. The 2007 French elections had 12 candidates representing their respective parties, with Royal vs. Sarkozy in the final round.
This is an example from France about CHOICE!!!! In this age of the Internet, how hard is it to "Google" for Independent Candidates?? For Libertarian?? For Green?? For Socialist?? For Populist?? For Constitutional Law?? For Reform??
And for those who cry "Spoiler!!": Do you realize our democracy is already "Spoiled"? Do you realize that from the "Spoilers" come voices so badly needed now?? How hard could it possibly be to enact a Two Round System, so that nobody "spoils"?? And remove the fascist petition requirements from all state election laws. This should force the Republicrats to do their job.
This is exactly why everyday people keep voting against their own interests. It has all the pettiness of the arguments in Life of Brian between the Judean Popular Front and the Popular Front of Judea; certainly the writers, like all activists, pundits, strategists, and academics, have never spent a day working a real job, in an office, or a factory , or a store, or anywhere other than where there are other people exactly like them saying less and less with more and more words. The oversimplified emotional appeals, baseless in fact, of savant idiots like Reagan, Bush, and perhaps McCain succeed because progressives can't (won't!) focus on simple things, make clear and definite statements, work from the gut, and understand the average person's perspective. On this site, the Nation's, DailyKos... the lack of perspective, focus, or the ability to get things DONE by focusing on clearly articulating a few things well in everyday language, leaving the details for farther down the road, alienate anyone who isn't obsessed by this crap. People have houses to run, problems, kids; less is more when it comes to crusading and navel-gazing and dogma. There is no reason that a progressive agenda can't be kept simple-stupid in its presentation, focus on a couple-three big important issues, and fix them. Except, of course, that people enjoy the semantic gouging and verbose wonkery so much. It would be funny were it not so tragic, because look at what we have gotten instead.
Splitter!!!
I think you oversimplify things somewhat, but I agree with your statement "There is no reason that a progressive agenda can't be kept simple-stupid in its presentation, focus on a couple-three big important issues, and fix them." However, the Democratic Party is big and includes many different kinds of people. I think there is room for both the academics and the 'go for the throat' pragmatic people. There is much to be said for not always 'leaving the details for farther down the road'. That is precisely what the Republicans did in regards to Iraq, and look at what that did to America, Iraq, and the world. Our government needs a whole range of people to make policy work, from those immersed in the minutia of specific policies and their implementation to those who can lead out front, swaying the masses to their cause.
"While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it.
Hillary is wedded to the GW Bush Iraq War. She has hardly denounced it lately with campaign statements saying that the U.S. attack brought Iraqis freedom. Of the two candidates Hillary seems less likely to change the imperialistic ambitions of the current WH. I believe if millions of Democrats denounce the Hillary war positions, Barrack will stiffen his opposition to Hillary, McCain and the war.
Please look at who Sen Obama has working for him as foreign policy advisors and explain to me why you think Obama will stiffen his opposition to war.
Zbigniew Brzezinski- foreign policy advisor to Sen Obama. ZB wrote book advocating US control of Iran-by use of pre-emptive force if necessary:
ZB 's actions helped arm Bin Laden & provide trained soldiers for his war on the US. (Infowars see below) inc. 9/11.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097chessboard#a1097chessboard
"Context of "October 1997: Brzezinski Highlights the Importance of Central Asia to Achieving World Domination" Cooperative Research History Commons
http://www.infowars.com/?p=370 "Meet Obama"s Foreign Policy Brain: Zbigniew Brzezinski" By Aidan Monaghan 911 Blogger 2/20/08
Dr Susan Rice's poor judgement , many strongly argue, led to 9/11. She convinced US govt not to accept Sudan offer to turn over Bin Laden to US in 1997 despite convincing arguments to the contrary provided to her by other US and foreign officials friendly to the US. .
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201
The osama Files, January 2002, David Rose
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0144,gould,29537,1.html
"Thanks But No Thanks-How the U.S. Missed a Chance to Get Bin Laden"
by Jennifer Gould, The Village Voice, 10/30/01
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=omar_al-bashir
http://www.espac.org/terrorism_pages/osama_files.asp
Like yourself I had concerns, too, but I found out Brzezinski is not a main or top tier foreign-policy advisor.
athy, well put. My comment intended to say that Obama seems less likely than Hillary or McCain to continue PNAC foreign policy.
By the way is this comment of yours a quote,
Dr Susan Rice's poor judgement , many strongly argue, led to 9/11.
The 'many strongly argue' is a Fox construction with no substance, intended to deceive.
Hillary has always said that she would leave it up to the Commanders in the Field help make her decision... Obama says he will pull the troops out in 6 months... McCain will keep on going the way Bush has been going...
I think that they should let the United Nation & Nato be the ones that have to take care of this problem... Why is it always according to the Republicans that this Country is the only one that can handle the problem??? There is a lot more that we could use the money in this Country than waste it where we are not wanted...
I don't think 9?11 would have happen if Bush Jr would not stoled the last two Elections... Now the Republicans are doing the same with this Election with Florida & Michigan...
I wholeheartedly agree with your last point, but most Americans are afraid to say it for fear of being blindly anti-Bush. I think we all should be!!
"I don't think 9?11 would have happen if Bush Jr would not stoled the last two Elections... Now the Republicans are doing the same with this Election with Florida & Michigan..."
What in the world are you talking about? You do know that 9/11 was less than 8 months after President Bush was inaugurated for the FIRST time, right. And that all the evidence points to this having been a two-three year plan, right?
Exactly how, then, could it have been Bush's fault???
Semper fi
Yep yep, somebody was busy trying to diddle the intern - wrong head was listening. That's why I can't believe anyone still considers him a heavyweight in the party. This mess starts during Carter, and the inability to keep in our own yard. Everyone since Carter has been trying to prove they're tougher. Cheney/Rumsfeld found the perfect puppet - and SHOCK AND AWE! Clinton played the "peacemaker" and the rest of the world, used to the warhawks of intervening years said "yeah right", did their own thing. Our answer to Kosovo, slide a smart missile or two their way. Rwanda, act like you don't know. Give up Somalia, cause you lost a few(bad intel). But when the place involves a vital source of energy - it's called strategic value. Got Bush hurrying to try and enact laws to keep Iraq/America asshole to bellybutton, forever. Building huge PERMANENT BASES, as a "jump off point", to get the REAL target IRAN. See how it leads back to Carter? Same-same bro.
The war in Iraq needs serious efforts to make the war an issue that candidates cannot avoid as this article has stated. But the deeper threats to America, and one I don't see any candidate addressing, have to do with the moves that the Bush administration has taken to destroy the Constitution and the balance of powers among the judiciary, legislative and executive branches by instilling a Unitary Presidency. Iraq is very important but it's the fundamental structure of government that has been altered and is turning the country into a fascist state!
If Pres Bush calls a state of emergency between now and Jan'09- he can install himself in as dictator and new president will not be able to assume power.
Watch these You Tube videos about NSPD-51 if you want to discuss about being really worried.
Especially pay attention to the C-Span interview conducted by Brian Lamb...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3dAnSMzUlo
cspan interview
Bush / Cheney to Attempt Possible Coup
Congressman Denied Access to Martial Law Plan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-ByoqZqDGaA
Bush officials have denied Congressman Peter DeFazio from his duty to review classified White House documents that describe how the Administration plans to conduct the US government if martial law is declared.
http://www.nota.org/NSPD-51/NSPD-51.htm
plus
Watch this You Tube Video
Ralph Nader talking about possible reasons why Congress has halted impeachment attempts against
Pres. Bush & Cheney . Note: Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul also paying attention to this matter.
..Warning- this is very disturbing. Keep an open mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46F36s4RVf4&feature=related
Here are some of the Executive Orders
10990- allows for control of all modes of transportation
10995- Seizure and control of communications
10997- Government control of electric, gas
10998- Seizure of personal modes of transport
10999- Seizure of all food sources and farms
11000- Civilians in work brigades under supervision
11001-Seizure of health, education & welfare
11002- National registration of all persons
It goes on up to EO 11921. These can be looked up at the
White House website too.
This has been one of my main concerns all along. A Government institution does not give themselves these kind of powers if they don't intend to use them or planning on leaving.
Bush was dancing a couple of weeks ago on the White House steps, does this mean there plan is almost finished.
What will Americans do if this happens?
How will we react?
Are we going to be in a Shock & Awe moment?
We are 'waging violence' in Iraq against an unidentified adversary - unless the media's "insurgent" shorthand is defined as any Iraqi with a weapon who opposes being dominated by us, and is therefore automatically an "enemy combatant" or an "Islamic extremist" deserving of torture and/or death simply because they yearn to be free, in their own nation, of our violent, self-serving dictates. I absolutely repudiate such amoral, savage "American values" if that definition represents - as it seems to - the unspoken meaning behind the use of the label "insurgent" in our media's coverage of Iraq. Such "values" are the antithesis of the just, humane principles affirming liberty and self-determination upon which this nation was founded.
Members of Congress have a duty to expose the detailed FACTS about Iraq, ESPECIALLY where those facts contradict rhetorical assertions by the Pentagon or the media or a colleague. Facts explaining, most importantly, that we have deliberately TAKEN SIDES IN AND ARE EXACERBATING a fight in Iraq between nationalists (of all sects) determined to keep Iraq a whole nation controlling its own oil and sovereignty, and those Iranian-backed separatist Shiite factions the U.S. backs who are helping us disintegrate Iraq into regions ruled by those who will let the lion's share of future oil profits flow to foreign companies.
Any Member of Congress who is misstating this reality is helping PROMOTE PROPAGANDA - and all three presidential candidates are still doing this, in one form or another.
http://alternet.org/waroniraq/80469/?page=entire
"As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders." I DISAGREE. You are not really up to date on the facts. Barack Obama has said that not only will he get us out of IRAQ, he will also strive to get rid of the MIND SET that got us into Iraq in the first place. Obama IS the anti-war candidate. Case closed.
I think you, like so many others, are simply hearing what you want to hear. Klein and Scahill are right that the time to pressure the candidates is BEFORE THEY HAVE YOUR VOTE. But your assertion that Obama has said he will get us out of Iraq is a product of selective hearing, not of the totality of what he has ACTUALLY said.
They are both "triangulating". Kucinich did not, Edwards did not -- they spoke clearly to the specific problems we face, and about what they would do. Neither could gain support. Hell, even Biden and Dodd were more specific about their stands on these issues, and they could not gain any traction, either. What does that tell us?
The general public is in rapture with these two candidates for reasons that have absolutely NOTHING to do with real issues we face. The current leaders of the Dem Party have made it perfectly clear that they view public opinion just the way Bush/Cheney do -- with disdain; they could not care less.
All this rhetoric about "ending the war" is pure b.s. If they were interested in doing that, it would have been done -- impeachment would have accomplished it; denying funds would have done it. We will be in Iraq for a very long time, and we should all just accept that fact and quit beating our heads against a wall that will not break.
Universal Healthcare? Yeah, right, as long as the insurance companies have their share of the profits.
Neither of these candidates will do anything they should. Even if they actually wanted to, they won't be able to unless we make huge gains in congress. But we don't just need more Dems in congress, we need the right KIND of Dems, and that will also mean eliminating the wrong kind. Can it be done? It is doubtful.
Needless to say that rixhex56 is totally right. We Americans have been had and there ain't a damned thing we can do about it unless a few of us take over the government and start from scratch.
I don't believe that will happen because we've become too soft as a nation and thus we've become a fascist nation whether we like ti or not!
R.I.P. America!
Barack phenomena a fascinating lesson about the educational and intellectual health of our citizens. We know very little about this person and yet many of us want to see his "good" so badly we"re allowing hopes and dreams to overshadow common sense.
Concerns? He was a junior senator who authored no bills and accomplished little other than having the most far-left voting record in the Senate. He"s surrounded himself with many people of questionable ethics. His lack of judgement has led him to be a chain smoker of cigarettes (now trying to quit), with an admitted history of drug use. He worships and supports a separatist black church which is clearly racist in dogma (the church instrumental getting him elected Senator). He allowed his children to continue hearing anti-American hate speech in "God"s house" and be around throngs of people who agree with that devastating message.He was able to purchase his new Chicago mansion only after a known crook and campaign supporter jumped in and saved the day by buying the adjacent lot which was part of the sale (and then tried to cover it up). His wife slipped and admitted that in her entire life she has never been proud of her country.
Little known about Barack Obama, how can we speculate as to his qualifications. Attaching our hopes and dreams to a suave accomplished orator with anemic qualifications, apparent hateful disdain for America and potentially poor judgement, reveal about the intellect of America.
xzano - is that you Hillary or is it Bill? You crack me up.
You are extremely uninformed. He authored and got passed the toughest ethics legislation since the Watergate era. He also cosponsored the following:
Cosponsor w/ Feingold of S. 2180 - Open Government Reform Act -signed into law w/ amendments
Cosponsor of Ethics Commission Act - S. 2259 - to create an outside group to investigate ethical infractions by congresspeople - endorsed by Common Cause
cosponsor of S. 2261 - Earmark transparency act to show public what earmarks there are, who put them in and who voted for them
Medicare Informed Choice Act - (S. 1841)
Drafted and introduce National Medic Act (S. 1784) which promoted patient safety initiatives including early disclosure and compensation for injuries to patients
introduced S. 969 attacking Viral Influenza across nations act
Lead Free Toys Act ordering CPSC to ban toys containing lead (S. 2048)
Home Lead Free Tax Credit Act (S. 2053) to give a tax credit to homeowners who remove lead from their homes
Mercury Market Minimization Act (S. 3627) and Missing Mercury in Manufacturing, Monitoring and Mitigation Act (S. 3631) to monitor and reduce mercury in food and manufacturing processes
S. 2566 to secure weapons in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan
Raise Byrne amendment to increase funding to fight meth labs
reauthorization of COPS program to reput cops in commumities
DRu's law (S. 792) for database on child sex offenders
Violence Against Women's Act (S. 1197) to increase fudnign for fighting abuse of women
Spent Nuclear Fuel Tracking and Accountability Act (S. 1194)
I was going to compose my own response but you have quite eliquently addressed my feelings and those of the Anti-war movement that finally understand the reality of the situation. A news piece today about the current campaign costs reaching 1 Billion Dollars, it's an auction for all the marbles and you and I were not invited to participate. Most of us finally comprehend the concept of the American Dream, unfortunately, now we all have to be asleep to experience it !
It is the time to condemn Bush and his family with anathema, with excommunication.
Since faith is the important part of the American society, the Church leaders cannot shy away now, particularly after they were so vocal in supporting and bringing to power the White House criminals in the so recent past.
This is the time the Christian leaders in the USA finally show whether they are interested in war or in peace; whether the state money should go to weapon producers or to be directed to educate the young and support those in need.
Why does the Christians think that Their Leaders are the only ones that knows whats right for this or any Country??? I think that most of the problems of the World is because they are trying to control every one... Why should Their beliefs be pushed on others that believe different???
I'm going on to Amazon in a minute to get Shock Doctrine!
My youngest, my 'baby' son is a 19-yr old U.S. Marine option ROTC officer candidate at BU.
Big and warrior-like in uniform, but all 8 Marine option 'brothers' (trained killers)are the most gentle, patriotic, brave, sweet, selfless young idealists you could find. They wouldn't hurt a fly!
But they would give their lives for us, and for each other. I'm anti-war, a pacifist. While I don't understand their calling, I so respect their courage and deep sense of honor.
When that heartless monster disrespected the lives of those 4,000 young people. Knowing that they served and died in HIS senseless war, and he couldn't find the grace to honor them - - impeachment is called for. They were sacrificed. Their slaughter has to end now. Bring them home.
Anyone live in NYC? The Times ran two double page spreads
Shock Doctrine should be required reading for all citizens. Get it, read it, and spead the word. A great supplemental source for the book is anything by Noam Chomsky regarding American foreign policy.
Impeachment was warranted long, long ago, and the Dems are guilty of dereliction of duty to perform that investigation. I will not support them at this point. Nader? A write-in? Anything but the status-quo.
Yes, 'Shock Doctrine' should be required reading, and yes, it works well with Chomsky ('Profit Over People,' for instance). I actually read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' after 'The Shock Doctrine,' which, despite not illustrating why it's so bad to be an economic hitman (with numbers, statistics - such as poverty increases), made for a good follow-up.
I was in the Military for 6 years... I agree with you that it isn't up to Our Military to correct the wrongs all over the World... Thats why we have the United Nation & Nato... It is sad that we have a President that thinks more about the War than how the American People feel about the war... There is a lot of things we could do with the money... Like taking care of those that already Served our Country and repair all the damage thats be done through out this Country because of the war...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
