Unless the dems get off their buts and start showing some spines and fight for ending this war. I see alot of dems not voting and just sitting on their hands in 08 because of this. Probally more than enough to allow the repugs to squeak by. And the fault on that will be on the moderate and blue dog dems.

The Democrats are the biggest obstacle to progress. As long as we pin our hopes to them we will lose. We *must* organize independently of them and their electoral ambitions. Only when we learn to rely on ourselves and our own power will we become strong enough to force the US government to bend to our will--irregardless of which pro-war corporate party is in power.

This is very interesting look into the inside. I myself argued with Senator Kohl's legislative director when I lobbied on Iraq (I'm Georgian but was signed up to talk to him).

We need to understand what the Democrats are saying in internal circles more. I got the same crap Lerner got from the Democrats internally. I think it's time for mass civil disobedience and intense lobbying on "moderate" Democrats and Republicans. That's all it is.

Maybe what we should be doing is forming a party and fielding an alternative candidate for President while pushing for electoral accountability.

By the way HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL:

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070907191110516

woolsey is incorrect in saying the budget is congress's only tool. congress infamously passsed the authorization to use military force, patriot acts 1 and 2, and the military commissions act. if repeal bills were posted, pressure would then be on repuglicans to explain their support of these measures.

i don't expect this will happen, but it's comforting to think about.

They just arrested protestors who spoke out against Gen. Petraeus. Welcome to your police state. The chairman of the committee promised they would be prosecuted 'under the law'.

Petraeus also made not so veiled threats to 'enemies' who use the internet.

Still believe in free speech?

I agree that the Democrats have screwed the people big time and that most of them can't be trusted. The sellout bastards need to be fired. Kucinich and Al Gore are two exceptions who could help make some major improvements in many areas.

It's a huge shame that the US establishment IS the #1 obstacle to peace & democracy - but that's fixing to change!

If 69% of Americans want this war to end, PLEASE TELL ME WHAT RISK THE DEMOCRATS ARE TAKING?

Oh God, we are caught between Greed and Cowardice, we must break free. If at first we don't secede, try, try again!

blessthebeasts: I hope Pelosi gets her ass whipped by Cindy Sheehan

We can only hope Ms. Sheehan uses a proper horsewhip. Or an antique British Navy cat-o-nine tails. Pelosi deserves nothing less than to bear the mark of her betrayal and shame for the rest of her life as physical scars.

Pinning your hopes on anyone within your one-party system is a mugs game. You've seen the way John Conyers has caved. It's time for civil disobedience.

"They're the ones who have to know that their people care, that they [want to] bring our troops home. They swear they don't. They swear that they'll lose their elections if they do the right thing."

This is it in a nutshell--re-election over dead bodies and driving what's left of our economy to the cellar. I thought it WAS ABOUT doing the right thing?! Why do we bother....

I agree with Jaded Prole. If I thought I could be effective in reaching those I voted to elect, I might think otherwise, but it has become increasingly obvious that neither of the current parties in power is listening to the voters, and no sign that this will change anytime in the future. If this is so, then the only alternative is to form a new party even though such efforts have not succeeded in the past. There just does not appear to be any other option. Those currently in power lack both heart and reason, and most of those seeking to gain that power have not demonstrated that they do either.

People need to start taking action though. I have attended multiple protests in D.C. against the war. The first one I attended before the war started there must have been 100,000 people. There were enough people that if everyone just sat down in the street and said they weren't going to get up till our representatives said they would not go to war, it would have been a historic day. Either it would have made a huge statement that 100,000 people were willing to peacefully go without food, bathroom, water, till the right choice was made, or police would have tried to arrest 100,000 people which also would have made a huge impact on national and international opinion of the war. Both results would have been historic and everyone in this country would know about it and remember it. Untill the leaders of these protests take some substantial peaceful action other than walking around the capital and going home…. Not much will happen with our representatives or the public at large.

P.S. much of the anti-war movement is Democrat and they are too attachted to the established party to really push for change in fear of hurting the Dems.

It is horrifying that these people are more concerned about their political futures than doing what is right and ending this travesty--which is what they were elected to do. Obviously, a Democratic president isn't going to make a difference either, unless it's Kucinich who, of course is "unelectable" because he WOULD do the right thing. I hope Pelosi gets her ass whipped by Cindy Sheehan.

"... they need to have a picture of what the world would look like if the U.S. were to withdraw from the world by leaving Iraq ... even the people in the anti-war movement don't have - a coherent alternative world view from which to base a strategy. That's why they end up debating everything on the same terms that the Republicans do."

How did Professor Noam Chomsky put it so well? "Social action MUST be animated by a vision of a future society" ..?

http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2004/01/14/scorched_earth/fear_no_evil/fearnoevil.txt

http://archive.coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1881

It appears that our Democratic representatives don't need us for anything except votes and do not intend to represent our concerns but their own interests.

We really don't need them. I'd rather Republicans were in office, for at least they don't lie about their goals, even if they do lie about their moral wrongdoings.

Wanna' really get the Democrats in line? Vote Republican!

The GOP won big when they did the "Contract" deal. They wound up screwing the populance, but they managed to end 40 years of Democrat domination in Congress. The Democrat contract is out there and it does not simply rely on withdrawal from Iraq. If we just recognize why Americans have become the most hated people on earth we have the solution to a plan beyond withdrawal.
First of all let's recognize the real reason why we went in to Iraq—OIL. No other reason. Democracy for Iraq was an obscene joke. We would call it a democracy if they gave us total control over their oil. We wanted Saddam out because he would no longer take orders from Washington (Big Oil).
The Democrats should promise to America that we will no longer use our military to achieve the goals of international businesses. Our troops would be deployed only in defense of our shores or in the protection of people whom the United Nations has chosen to protect.
The Democrats should promise to the world that we will no longer be the world's biggest arms supplier. We will promise to immediately cease shipments and sales of arms to any nation that is at odds with a UN resolution or which has been condemned by the World Court.
As a nation we must recognize that if we are to be truly a nation of laws, we must admit an international law by which all nations must abide. By recognizing international law as binding on all, we would undo years of ugliness, years in which the US has been seen by the third world as the ogre who takes what he wants and bullies the little people just because he can.
Leadership that says to the world that we are pulling back because we are strong and we will use our strength to help the weak will be that much stronger. No one accused the US of weakness because we helped Germany and Japan get on their feet.
We must look beyond ending the hostilities. Peace will not simply happen. Perhaps the Iraqi government(s) would be more disposed to do business with us after we are gone if we, in the end, treat them fairly and try to heal the wounds we have caused. Perhaps some healing can begin here at home if we have a government committed to openness, fairness and service to the people. With such leadership all the other issues will fall in place.

Lovemusicfood...100,000 in DC Friday...sitting down...peacefully...not moving until CONGRESS LISTENS TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE...I'll see you there...SPREAD THE WORD...WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW! NOW! NOW! Will they arrest all of us? Where will they put us? WE CAN DO THIS!! AND IT WILL GROW AS MORE AMERICANS SEE THAT IT CAN BE DONE!!....T H E Y W I L L
J O I N US!!

Remember how they all (dems & repubs)spew they're crap every election cycle, and they all end up doing nothing they puke out! Clinton is spewing it now with how she'll get us to independant enery, health care for all, I've been hearing this stuff since the seventies and it ain't happened yet. Vote down the incumbent! Term limits,no retirement system for politicians

anney said:

"Wanna' really get the Democrats in line? Vote Republican!"

Like voting for Tweedledumb is going to make any difference.

In case somebody isin`t aware yet, I was watching C-SPAN today with our democratic rep Ike Skeleton running the committee for the Iraq report, when some CODE PINK folks raised their voices in protest and he threw them out. I guess they forgot to turn their mikes off because Skelton says to Duncan Hunter they piss me off the assholes, what nice folks we got representing us, com-on folks everybody call the ASSHOLE representive Skelton

Forgive me, but ... the Dumbs say they're scared to do anything, for risk of losing their majority. And they need that majority in order to do WHAT?

We've had 9 months of Dumb majorities in both houses of Congress, and the only product of any value they've got to show is a compromise rise in the minimum wage. Other than that, it's more troops, fewer rights, and Cheney still in office.

Hell, just before the recess they passed a renewal of the FISA law which, even after the Patriot 1 & 2 fiascos (not to mention Michael Moore in an ice cream truck), they STILL didn't bother to read before passing!!

Maybe Michael Lerner and his crew can plant the seeds of a credible third party. Lord knows (religious left reference, there!) the two we've got aren't doing us any good!

Impeachment is the only logical solution for those who want to end the war.

Time for a new strategy, one that does not include trying to convince loyalbushies from either party to do anything other than what their corporate paymasters tell them to, which includes not representing the peoples' will.

Fact: it's all about money. Not patriotism, or dead troops, or freedom, or democracy. Money. Our money - into their obscenely overfilled pockets. Hence, the new strategy: no more of our money. The "anti-war" (which should be labeled the anti-illegal-occupation) majority must be encouraged to shut off the blood supply - buy only needs, drive the least amount possible, buy Citgo, cancel you NYT/WP/LAT subscriptions and your cable and satellite. Stop paying taxes. Consider every penny spent as a vote.

"They" will do anything to grab our dollars - even if it means doing the right thing under duress. Rewarding "them" constantly for doing the wrong thing means more wrong things, no matter how many people scream stop.

If the "moderate" Democrats are afraid of losing elections, then maybe each one of them ought to face a primary challenge from a peace candidate. Nothing will drive them the right direction than the thought that they won't be renominated.

Petraeus is now in D.C. peddling "Plan For Victory", version 86. Representative Lantos said he's not buying it. Bush and Petraeus don't want you to buy it. They're shoving it down our collective maw and you can swallow it or choke to death on it. It's all the same to them.

One thing we can do is to take a lesson from the Vietnam War independent war crimes tribunal in the 60's. If Congress, our representatives, refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney then we the people should set up a tribunal to present the evidence for impeachment and have a vote, either a direct one by internet or a vote of representatives we would send to the tribunal. You say that wouldn't be constitutional? Well, these are times that call for extraordinary tactics. How important is it to you that Bush and Cheney not be allowed to finish their terms in the normal way? Do you want to see them leave office as though they had committed no impeachable crimes or do you want to see them held accountable? It is unconscionable that Congress refuses to impeach, but we know that Congress is a flawed and money-corrupted institution. Its time to go around Congress which really only represents special interests not ordinary Americans.

If we focus on communicating to these politicians that we are sick of this debacle now not a year or two or five years form now but NOW... and will hold the incumbants to account in 08 then politicians might finally start do something.

Right now they figure they will win elections by going along with the old guard in Congress who enabled Bush. If we start now about making them fear a upwell of american feeling that we want new people and incumbancy may be a negative for greater and greater numbers of voters as the elections approach, then politicians will act when they see it as self interest.

We don't have anyway to make them pay except by not reelecting them. They are still too confident that they will get reelected just as things stand. If we all start clamoring for a kick the incumbant out movement, they will start seeking to please the voters and move on this war because we made them do it.

The Democrats are simply the "getaway driver" / "lookout man" for the great Repulican heist of Iraq's natural resources. Plain & Simple.

How about approaching individuals who oppose the war, such as Maurice Hinchey and Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Party and Ron Paul on the Republican party. They have had the courage to oppose Bush on day one.

The problem is that these 'leaders' of the anti-war movement made a large and fundamental mistake in 2004 and 2006. The mistake they made was in letting the antiwar movement become attached to the Democratic party. Instead of mounting their a concerted effort in support of their own cause, they instead supported the Democratic Party and its candidates. In doing so they ended up supporting candidates who did not share their aims of ending the war. And thus by doing so they destroyed, hopefully temporarily, and political power the anti-war movement might have.

Of course, their mistake was in believing the bs from the Democrats where the Democrats pretend to be in opposition to the Bush administration and the Republicans. In reality, the leaders of the Democratic Party were playing the leaders of the anti-war movement for fools. On one hand, they were getting the leaders of the anti-war movement to supply a lot of volunteers and energy and votes into Democratic campaigns. At the same time, the leaders of the Democratic party were obtaining bigger contributions from groups like the defense industry and the oil industry and obviously promising that having the Democrats can power in Congress would not cause any change in direction of US policy.

As always with the Democrats, what the big contributors want is what really happened. The leaders of the anti-war movement, and the citizens who support the goals of this movement and who voluteered to go door-to-door for the Democrats were the people who were played for complete fools.

So, now these 'leaders' are saying they are "stymied" and "frustrated"? Well Duh! When you pledge the support of an anti-war movement to a pro-war party and pro-war candidates, what did they expect to have happen?

One of the best things we can do as a movement is to disown these so-called leaders. How did they become leaders in the first place? I don't remember an election. But if these fools want to have anyone follow them or listen to them at all, certainly the one thing they must do quickly and decisively is to sever all ties between the anti-war movement and the Democratic party.

The antiwar movement needs to only support candidates that support the end of funding for this war. A defunding plan can include money for getting the troops home of course. But defunding any monies beyond that is the only action that can be taken that will end this war. And the antiwar movement can not and must not support any campaign or party that doesn't fully back this measure.

Its always nice when they leave a mic on or just lose control and they tell us what they really think of us ....

Rep Obey (chair of the House Apropriations committee).... calls us "idiot liberals".

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ... calls us "nuts".

Rep Skelton (chair of the House Armed Services Committee) ... calls us "assholes".

Don't bother telling them what you think. They don't care. If you enjoy pissing them off, which isn't a bad thing, you can try telling them as hearing what the people they are supposed to be representing think does seem to piss them off to a ridiculous extreme. But the one thing that is abundantly clear is that they don't care what we think.

What we need to do is to make sure Pelosi, Obey, Skelton and many, many others are removed from the Congress in 2008. Go Cindy Sheehan. She can take Pelosi out. Now who's running against these other two jerks?

These people have made it clear that they don't support our issues and that just our presence and our voice disgusts them. So why would we support them in the next election? And face it, the above list is the Speaker of the House and two of the most powerful committee chairs. So isn't it obvious that the entire leadership of the Democrats in the House feels the same about us? So why on earth should we support any Democrats? All we'd be doing is putting these same jerks back in power when its plain they will do the opposite of what we want.

BugsBBunny III September 10th, 2007 3:27 pm
"If we focus on communicating to these politicians"

These politicians don't give a rat's ass who we vote for, what we think, say or do.
They've got their eye on the prize, U.S. corporate/fascist hegemony, and they won't see anything else.

I wonder if the progressive Democrats can ever retake the party? Seems unlikely looking at their national leadership.

And this is also why so many people are hoping former-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney really does take the plunge and run for president. Like this:

Cynthia McKinney for President 2008

Talk will not work! The halls of congress have been infiltrated with people who could careless about the American Constitution. America is rotting from within. Our enemies are not on the battle field, they are right hear and we elected them. What we need is a good old fashion revolution! Just let me know when and where. I'll be there.

"they need to have a picture of what the world would look like if the U.S. were to withdraw from the world by leaving Iraq …"

What an US-centric perspective!

When driving gangsters from a bad neighborhood, the only "picture" that is needed is a neighborhood without gangsters, right?

So, in defeating US international arrogance and imperialism, the only picture that is needed is one of a world in which the US minds it's own business and stops brutalizing and murdering others. What other "picture" do they need???

Why do politicians let the MSM opinionmakers have the cheapest and most exclusive monopoly access to our public airwaves?

The Network of Spiritual Progressives is issuing this response to the Politico.com story:

In its focus on partisan politics, The Politico has missed the two really significant stories around the call: 1) that the call points toward a whole new way of thinking about how to end the war, and 2) that the anti-war movement is strategizing across conventional dividing lines by including Congresspeople, coalitions, grassroots organizations, and the religious left in the same conversation. Represented on the strategy conference call were Congresspeople, the grassroots political organization Progressive Democrats of America, several organizations from the religious left, United for Peace and Justice (the largest antiwar coalition in the country), and several grassroots peace and antiwar organizations.

We heard in this conference call that Congresspeople want to do the right thing about Iraq but simply don't have the votes to do so. In order to get those votes, this country needs a deeper change in how we think about national security. Congresspeople, activists, and all compassionate Americans must work together to change the deep assumption that the way to make America safe is to dominate and control the rest of the world. A major emphasis of the antiwar movement in the coming months must be an alternative framework for security, one in which the United States acts in solidarity with other nations and turns our attention from the unbridled pursuit of narrowly conceived national self-interest to acting on our concern for the well-being of all people in the world. The Network of Spiritual Progressives is calling for a Strategy of Generosity in Homeland Security to counter our current Strategy of Domination.

In Iraq, that means recognizing with humility that an American presence in the region is fueling violence and suffering for the Iraqi people as well as our soldiers, declaring that therefore we are withdrawing to alleviate that suffering and the suffering of our own soldiers, then helping to fund and constitute an international force to oversee a plebiscite about the future of the country, funding rebuilding and reparations, and issuing an apology to the Iraqi people.

We have deep respect and gratitude for the huge number of people active with us in the anti-war and peace movements in this country even as we recognize that the approach we've been using is insufficient to the task. The Network of Spiritual Progressives is committed to doing more education of the American people around the need for a new role for the United States in the world, one in which we act out of generosity rather than domination. Our foreign policy should reflect the compassionate nature of the American people. We need to articulate this new framework in Congress, in debates around the 2008 elections, in the media, in our grassroots actions, in conversations with friends and family, and in every other sphere of public life.

Our focus as an organization and as a movement is not on helping any one political party win elections but on bringing about a radically healed and transformed world that operates according to love, caring, kindness, generosity and ecological sensitivity, and that views every human being, no matter where he or she lives, as an embodiment of the sacred. On that project, we must think long-term. Paradoxically, candidates who focus on this long-term goal and talk about it openly are likely to win elections even in the short term because they address an unspoken longing in the American people for a more compassionate and just society.

Nichola Torbett
Director of National Programs
Network of Spiritual Progressives
info@spiritualprogressives.org

The real problem is this. The American (2) party political system has become so hopelessly corrupt that it no longer represents the people. American politics has morphed into a career path rather than a civic duty. American politicians
are engaged in increasingly permanent and expensive election campaigns. Those campaigns are funded by corporate interests and the State of Israel which are who the American politician now answers to. Real democracy died 50 years ago in America, but it wasn't until the Bush regime seized power that we had a wake and got a good look at the corpse. Wars are always about profit, they exist for no other reason, this one is no different. Those who are prosecuting this war will continue it as long as it remains profitable. When the cost or risk out weighs the gain it will stop. All those foolish enough to believe the lies and participate or unfortunate enough to have no choice are considered expendable by the prosecutors. The only way to regain any sembalence of real representative government is
to overthrow the (2) party system and adopt a parlimentary
system. When there are literally dozens of parties whose members are directly elected and then themselves elect a
leader can you have real representation. Because in this system with every election a coalition government must
usually be formed. No one party or group ever has complete control. If you don't like one parties leaning then reduce
their number of seats and marginalize the behaviour you don't like. Until this fundamental change is made the wars and the lack of real representation will continue.

Fred..

ESPECIALLY WANTED TO REPEAT THIS PART OF THE PHONE CALL . . . .

QUOTE:
Benjamin: Well, we're trying Lynn. We can't even get Nancy Pelosi to meet with her own peace constituents. I would like to know: doesn't she have the power to put a bill on the floor and not put it on? Can't she decide that we're not going to keep funding this war?

Well, it has to be a funding bill, and the supplemental is our next chance. It's going to be soon.

Lerner: Pelosi could simply not bring up any funding bill for the military. She could not bring it up, and then say: "We're only going to bring it up if you agree to end the war."

Woolsey: That we're only going to be spending our money to bring the troops home. And that's what we're going to be pushing for, I promise.

Lerner: Instead of bringing it to the floor where she knows she'll lose the vote, she'll refuse to bring it to the floor.

Woolsey: Well, she could do that, but it's going to cost money to bring the troops home. The Democrats are more afraid of being labeled as abandoning, and if we fund the safe, orderly redeployment, then indeed folks will start phrasing it that way, including our own leadership, and then we can abandon the mindset that we're not abandoning our own troops. The Republicans will say it, but Democrats have to quit saying it.

Benjamin: Lynn, if there's no change of heart from the leadership of the Democratic Party now, is the most likely scenario that Bush will get his now 200 Billion dollars for the war with no timeline?

Woolsey: Well, it could be, yeah.

Benjamin: Is that the most likely scenario now?

Woolsey: Well, we had fifty-some members sign a letter saying no more money except to bring the troops home.

Carpenter: We're at 70 now, Lynn.

Woolsey: Ok, 70 now, thank you.

Benjamin: But if Pelosi doesn't take that one seriously, things will play out the way it did with the last 95 billion.

Woolsey: It could. Of course, that's my greatest fear.

Lerner: The only thing she could do is to not bring that bill to the floor. She knows that on the floor, she would lose the vote.

Woolsey: Yeah, she might not. She could put the same amount of energy into the Blue Dogs as she puts into the progressives to be key members. UNQUOTE

And I do want to add that as hurtful and harmful as the release of this message is . . . . I think it is also hugely helpful and instructional.

We have this defense of Pelosi by Woolsey . . . but look at what her "greatest fear" is . . . that Pelosi will actually bring Bush's new $200 billion funding to the floor and let it pass. Because, Pelosi knows that if it comes to the floor it will pass.

There's a lot of crap going on here with Pelosi/Conyers and Reed playing games with Democratic anti-war liberals.
Again -- there are more of us than them.
But, it is money running the party; we have to recognize that and find ways to have numbers undermine that financial power.

Will this wake up Democrats -- ?????

What would Iraq "look like" if the US military left?

Well, what does it look like now? Think about it.

There are insurgent conflicts between tribes, religions, and the US-backed government and these groups. A few foreign nationals have joined in the conflicts. These "conflicts" are not occurring country-wide but fluidly exist in regions where there is little to no US presence. When US troops "calm" a region, it's quiet as long as they're there. When they move on, the violent conflicts start again. It's kind of like trying to calm roiling waters.

If US troops left, why wouldn't all of Iraq look like the regions where there's no US presence anyway? Will the conflicts continue? Yes!

But it's up to the Iraqis to deal with those conflicts. One of the reasons it isn't a serious effort is because the US is hated in Iraq and those Iraqi forces under the command of the US are also hated as their representatives. They're operating with US interests at the heart of the command.

I, for one, really believe the violence will decrease if US military and contractor forces leave, though I don't think peace will reign without a Saddam-like strongman -- or strongmen, if the country is breaking into three pieces.

As for what the surrounding countries might do about Iraq, that's anybody's guess. Iran might gain a strong hold on portions of Iraq, but I think that would happen anyway, no matter when the US leaves. The middle east will NEVER love America but will certainly appreciate support from its strong neighbors.

This is why Bush won't leave, and it's predicated on the energy situation in the world. It's really past time for the US to develop new energy technologies, and there are some interesting ones being publicized lately. Look up "jatropha fuel" or see this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/africa/09biofuel.html?_r=1&oref=login

"...a plant called jatropha is being hailed by scientists and policy makers as a potentially ideal source of biofuel, a plant that can grow in marginal soil or beside food crops, that does not require a lot of fertilizer and yields many times as much biofuel per acre planted as corn and many other potential biofuels."

Anyway, the problem really seems to be Congress and its refusal to bring the concerns of Americans who voted for them to the table.

Time for them to go...

I am 63 and have always been a Democrat. But,this current crop of "elected" officials makes me sick. They have no backbone. They are no better than the Bush henchmen. Maybe we who are opposed to the immoral, unethical and criminal behavior of the US government need to bring it to its knees. Maybe en mass we should refuse to pay taxes. Maybe we need to take to the streets of Washington and block access the Senate and House offices. America has murdered nearly 750,000 Iraq citizens. It tortures. It holds people without recourse to a legal system. It spies on Americans. It spends nearly $700 billion a year on military and yet we have no health care for all, no efficient mass transportation, 20% of American children live in poverty, the air and water are filthy. Are we a nation of sheep? Are we now led by a totally corrupt federal government consisting of people in both parties that are more interested in themselves and the benefits they receive than in how to serve Americans? I am ashamed to be an American. I have never seen politics so shameful.

If Congressional dems continue to refuse to take immediate steps to hold Bush, Cheney, and others in the administration accountable. they can forget winning the 2008 election. Many will not vote because they refuse to accept the lesser of two evils; many others will not vote because they feel Dems have abandoned them as well as having, by their inaction, trashed the U. S. Constitution. So what's it to be Congressional Democrats: A Democracy or a Dictatorship?

"In case somebody isin`t aware yet, I was watching C-SPAN today with our democratic rep Ike Skeleton running the committee for the Iraq report, when some CODE PINK folks raised their voices in protest and he threw them out. I guess they forgot to turn their mikes off because Skelton says to Duncan Hunter they piss me off the assholes, what nice folks we got representing us, com-on folks everybody call the ASSHOLE representive Skelton"

I heard it, didn't see it.

But David Obey gave the same treatment to a woman who'd lost her son -- I think it was last Spring, maybe even before the election.

"People in the U.S. are opposed to the war, but they feel that they need to have a picture of what the world would look like if the U.S. were to withdraw from the world by leaving Iraq," Lerner said."

In other words, they buy the propaganda that the occupation of Iraq is "key" to something other than delivering oil into the hands of Exxon & BP & company -- to 'defending Israel' or a 'global war on you-know-what'.

RISK PEACE

". . . We cobbled together a majority by winning in a lot of seats that tend to be conservative: in the South, in the rural Midwest, and so on. These members are very much afraid that if they get too far out front, they're going to lose their seat, and they're being advised to not take risks so we can sustain this majority."

". . . she's got to represent the Democratic Party, and there's a whole lot of Democrats that are far more reluctant to challenge this president and to make waves."

TOTALLY NOT TRUE

The spiritual leaders, like Lerner, the progressives like Kucinich and the historical scholars like Chomsky need to put together a blueprint for peace and present it to each and every candidate for office, local, state and federal, for endorsement. If they endorse it, they get our vote, if they don't we will know who is against us and will therefore campaign against the fool. Peace must come first, and the rest of the issues will follow. The blue print must be the actual way we can withdraw our troops immediately and what we call the other nations to do to maintain world peace and justice. We must illuminate the way to peace. The administration has met in secret, they have produced in the darkness, the plans for war and world domination. It was born of fear and greed. What the good people of this country must do is work in the light. The "Call," is an excellent start, no matter how the naysayers will strive to miscontrue it. It's power is in the open heartedness with which it was conceived and acted on and it's truth. Stand by it and continue -- this is the way.

Is there some problem with "so-called anti-war "leaders" " calling for demonstrations and forgetting hillary and obama and the rest of the pseudo-republicans?

Too many of our fellow readers here think that a "majority" - whether in Congress or the polls - constitutes political power.

It doesn't. It never has.

Our whole goverment of checks and balances is designed to protect privilege and resist change... not to prevent change, but to slow it down so Wall Street can stay one step ahead of the rest of us.

The Republicans are in the minority in Congress, but they have big money and big media on their side. What do the Democrats have? A slim majority in Congress plus a lot of whiners and backseat drivers at CommonDreams.

The defenders of power are crafty and ruthless. They are not "good sports" who will cave in because they're unpopular in the polls. The 2006 election victories did not "take the castle"... it only surrounded the bastions of power and dug in for a long siege.

Politics is a chess game, not an arm-wrestling match.

Too few of us in the anti-war crowd have the stomach for a long fight... too many have already given up and retreated to safe, easy positions like, "Pelosi betrayed us", "both parties are the same", "only a third party can change things".

The Dems in Congress cannot stop the war without us, and we cannot stop it without them.

So quit bellyaching and lend them a hand. Take up the fight for popular opinion in your home district. Put up signs, gather signatures, call a radio station, write to the newspaper... make a difference in ways that your congressrep will notice.

Want to do something really constructive? come up with a word for the pro-war Republicans that's as sharp and memorable as "Defeatocrat".

In arena of public opinion, ridicule is more powerful that reason.

The risk the Dems are taking is defying their pro-Israeli funders and losing their seat in Congress. Pro-Israeli groups, which include Jews and non-Jews alike, give 60 percent of the funding to the Dems. These groups have as of late and often been aligned with far right wing policies of the Likud.

So if you wonder why the Dems are spineless, it's because they've got it on lease from AIPAC, JINSA, the Christian Zionists, etc.

I encourage people to read the Mearshimer-Walt paper
and the book, The Israel Lobby, which just came out.

I think it is only by facing this issue of the lobby, and its control over the Congress and over US foreign policy in the Middle East, that we can start to get anywhere in the struggle to end this seemingly permanent and horrifying waste of the planet's and human resources.