"Ad hominem will not liberate those who have been beaten into submission. We will not build a peaceful and just world upon it or with it."

I guess you missed the part about don't fault mine and I won't fault yours ...

And you're WRONG. What do you call it when Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz from Code Pink got in Condi's face and screamed, "You got blood on your hands" ... or when President Hugo Chavez called Bush The Devil at the United Nations ... or when Michael Moore made gun nuts look like shit in the Oscar-winning Bowling for Columbine ...

I don't know about yo' ass, but I call it damn liberating!

"When those of us supposedly on the left beat each other down mentally with verbal and emotional abuse every time we disagree on anything"

Really? And insisting I forgo ad hominem ain't an example of that?

As I said earlier, I draw the line at being a Kucinich Democrat -- those who are (and those to the left of Kucinich obviously), I'm cool with. And to be left-wing means to defend the best interests of the poor/oppressed whether you yourself are poor/oppressed or not (Marlon Brando paying the Black Panthers' bail, for instance). Sometimes that means hurtin' a motherfucker's feelings (NEWSFLASH: "speaking the truth plainly and raising needed alarms" caN'T be done without hurting SOMEONE'S feelings), sometimes that means picking up the gun like Che or John Brown.

Let's not forget Dr. King himself *ALIENATED* a bunch of folks by coming out against Vietnam -- funding for the Civil Rights Movement dried up after he did, how "effective" is that? Activists: It ain't about whatever payoff we can see in OUR brief lifetimes!

Those to the right of Kucinich (who defend the rich/powerful, be they rich/powerful themselves or masochistic wannabes) -- well, unlike the Stalinists, I don't censor, torture or murder my enemies, but I sure as fuck ain't gonna care if I hurt their feelings cussin' them out (OR if some white liberal is RELATED to them) ...

I tell ya one thing: The answer is NOT to skip through the tall grass pointing out butterflies and singing Kumbiya like the goddamn Eloi from HG Wells' The Time Machine ..!

Ad hominem, bitches!

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. Who needs martial law when those of us supposedly on the left beat each other down mentally with verbal and emotional abuse every time we disagree on anything? Such behavior is the evidence cynicism grows from. It is us behaving according to the neoconservative/abusive parent's definition of "human nature." It is us being oppressors to each other. It is us proving the enemy right.

Ad hominem will not liberate those who have been beaten into submission. We will not build a peaceful and just world upon it or with it. There is a difference between speaking the truth plainly and raising needed alarms on the one hand and smothering anyone who use phrases we don't like or doesn't support the exact candidate or party we do with distain and contempt (what I was originally despairing). That won't give anyone (except the abusers) pride in themselves, much less in being human.

If you wish to engage in name-dropping, I suggest you read some Lloyd deMause. Until then, I see no reason to continue this discussion and will let you have the last word I suspect you'd insist on.

"if you're so peace-loving, why all the ad hominem? Some people consider that a form of violence"

... only the spoiled and fragle, my friend, only the spoiled and fragile ... Besides, would you rather I hit the streets with a M1 and start blowing Republicans away? Because if Che was alive and watched FOX News for five minutes, he'd be wondering why we ain't done that already ...

Ever hear of the Maoist Internationalist Movement? I'm not a member, but this paragraph of theirs is the code I live and die by (don't fault mine and I won't fault yours):

"Why don't you tone it down? Use less rhetoric. The middle-classes otherwise known as the petty-bourgeoisie constantly ask MIM to 'tone it down.' The classes in-between the imperialists and the property-less known as proletarians are inclined to believe that there is a neutral educational tone appropriate for all communications. In reality, a neutral tone is not appropriate when your friend is about to fall off a cliff. You better yell in excitement: 'Look out!' According to the petty-bourgeoisie and the imperialists, there is no reason within the status quo to be yelling or using a harsh tone. In contrast, we see an emergency situation in reality, a reality so bad it needs to be overthrown."

... look up the wikipedia entry for the Feb. 15th, 2003 protests if ya want some good vibrations ...

... the protests and other public opposition have been held up as a key factor in the decisions of the governments of many countries, such as Canada, to not send troops to Iraq ...

... Mike Marqusee ... claimed that it was too soon to judge the long-term significance of the demonstrations noting that "People who took part in the non-cooperation campaigns in India in the 20s and 30s had to wait a long time for independence." and that "There were eight years of protest and more than 2 million dead before the Vietnam war came to an end". Secondly, he claimed that while the effect of marching may be uncertain, the effect of not marching would surely be to make it more likely that the occupation would continue ...

... the February 15 global day of anti-war protests had many effects that were not directly intended. According to United Kingdom left-wing anti-war activist Salma Yaqoob, one of these was that they were a powerful antidote to the idea that the war was a "clash of civilizations", or a religious war, an idea she claimed was propagated both by Western leaders and reactionary forces in the Arab world ...

First, things have already changed for the better (integration, a woman's right to vote, union recognition, leaving Vietnam, going this long without a nuclear holocaust, and many other things) -- which is exactly why THEY are "nonresponsive" and why THEY want to Jedi Mind Trick folks into "thinking" the tools "no longer work" and whatnot. Don't you get it? If THEY let on that protests, letters, sit ins, etc. DO IN FACT WORK, then from THEIR point of view, the jig is up. My God, don't you people know what a "poker face" is?

Whenever someone claims protest is no longer effective, they either a) have no alternative to offer, or b) put forth the notion that the only alternative is to be a part of this evil system -- to "work it from the inside," and so forth. Like my kid brother for instance: He thinks that overrated pretty boy and closet imperialist Obama is The Chosen One, Kucinich was an unrealistic dreamer who wasted his time and Nader should've been strung up for "spoiling" 2000. It's a very dangerous thing when doing the right thing is demonized ...

I wouldn't go back in time on a bet (Marty McFly is white for a reason)!
Professor Noam Chomsky said it best (Confronting the Empire/February 1st, 2003): "It's not like the 1960s, when the population would tolerate a murderous and destructive war for years without visible protest. That's no longer true. The activist movements of the past 40 years have had a significant civilizing effect."
THESE are the good ol' days ...

Feeling ineffective? Guess what? That's exactly how the right-wing wants you to feel! Aside from OiL, that's exactly why Emperor Cheney ignored/dismissed the ten million in 800 cities circa Feb. 2003 -- because if he didn't, he might as well have turned himself in to the proper authorities for war crimes against Humanity right then and there! What, you want him to be a masochist? Of course he's going to fight back, his way! Expect resistance!

Jesus, who needs martial law? Why bother with something as overt and heavyhanded as troops in the streets when cynicism is confused with intellect?

All humans having something in common is the definition of "human nature." Nobody you've quoted has disproved it's existence, merely criticized attempts to define it as only selfishness and violence. Which is fine--I agree with those you've quoted, but not with your insistance that they're saying humans have no essential nature. They are not. Most modern anthropologists and psychologists say normal human nature is loving and creative. If you assume the term is negative, then you accept the negative definition.

It seems to me hypocritical to criticize "barely human" as being insufficiently prideful, while assuming "human nature" is a negative term.

I do agree with you that the caring should be rewarded, and that instigators of violence should be condemned. But if you're so peace-loving, why all the ad hominem? Some people consider that a form of violence. And so much of it doesn't exhibit much respect for other humans, or at least ones that think differently than you. It certainly seems hateful.

In reading the above posts, still, it is not getting through.

THE TOOLS OF DEMOCRACY (protests, letters, sit ins, etc) ONLY WORK WITH A RESPONSE FROM "THE OTHER SIDE." WHEN THIS RESPONSE IS NOT FORTHCOMING, THE TOOLS OF DEMOCRACY DO NOT WORK. YOU CAN USE THEM UNTIL YOU ARE BLUE IN THE FACE BUT IF YOU HAVE NONRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, CITY COUNCIL, WHATEVER, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

THIS MEANS YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO EVOKE CHANGE BECAUSE THE TOOLS WE ARE ALL USED TO USING NO LONGER WORK.

Professor Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States) rightfully pointed out to me there is no organ in the physiology, no bone in the skeleton, no gland in the brain called "Human nature." It's not science. It's a euphemism, no different than "Murphy's Law" and the phrase is used in much the same, cynical way ...

Saying that all Humans have something in common is not in and of itself scientific proof of the existence of "Human nature." Take the necessity to eat, for instance. Some Humans will be so desperate for food they'll kill for it, but there are just as many Humans who'd rather starve to death than do so. If anything, the phrase "Human nature" is a dangerous stereotype -- assuming that all Humans will do this, that or the other under certain circumstances. As the late, great Steve Hampton put it, "Human behavior is almost infinitely variegated. People are mainly products of their environment."

I once interviewed Danny Miller from Voices in the Wilderness. We laughed about the hate mail he's received, which demanded that Miller "go back to Iraq" even though he's from Brooklyn. And to those who claim Voices in the Wilderness is wasting their time because any effort to allieviate suffering ultimately fails due to "Human nature," Miller simply says that's "a cop out."

Miller was right in 2004 and he's right now.

If so much as ONE motherfucker uses "Human nature" as a chickenshit-ass excuse not to march, protest, etc. then that's one too many (Cindy Sheehan quitting was bad enough). And what's with the pseudonym "barely human" anyway? Aren't you proud of what you are? In the black community, we learned the hard way the consequences of not having pride in one's self.

If our planet was ever enslaved by a hostile, extraterrestrial race, I guarantee you the disparaging and imaginary term "Human nature" would immediately replace the words "nigger" and "bitch." Since psychological warfare is a part of slavery, the aliens would constantly broadcast propaganda about how Humanity's inherently flawed nature would inevitably foul up any rebellion or escape attempt.

Eisler doesn't disprove the existence of human nature, merely the neoconservative misconception of human nature. Recent studies show that children who have not been abused are naturally altruistic. If we have the capacity for both violence and caring, that then is human nature, not one or the other. Finally, I'd like to point out that you yourself talk of never surrendering and going down swinging, which suggests to me there is a time for humans to exercize their capacity for violence--in self defence.

"If 10 million weren't able to prevent the war, why would less than 100,000 be able to stop it?"

"It seems to me you're accepting the right-wing's definition of the phrase 'Human nature' in order to argue that because it's consequences are objectionable, there is therefore no correct definition of the phrase."

Double noggin knocker time: The only person accepting the right-wing definition of Human Nature is someone who assumes the peace movment is somehow losing because the war was increasing after the massive protests in 2003. What was that line from Fidel Castro? "History will absolve me!" Well, history has ALREADY absolved those who marched! Surge or no surge, Bush has been proven wrong and then some!

What do you expect the Bush administration to do? OF COURSE they were going to ignore the protests! If they didn't, they'd have empowered the peace movement, and that's the last thing their kind wants to do!

What kind of world would it have been if, in 2003, Bush got on the TV and said, "Those ten million people are right and I'm wrong." We'd be on our way to a utopia by now. Instead, like any outlaw on the lam, Bush said, "Fuck y'all! I'm going in anyway!"

Now, at which point, you can do one of two things:

One, give up. Figure that "Human nature" dictates there'll always be war and the peace movement won't ever have "any appreciable effect" ...

Two, NEVER give up; NEVER surrender. I don't give a three-legged rat's ass if it goes from 100,000 to ONE. If I've got to die trying to singlehandedly stop this abomination, then thy wilt be done! The rest of y'all motherfuckers can sit around cafes sipping lattes wallowing in despair like a pig in slop in the summer time if ya want ta, but I'm goin' down swingin' ..!

Riane Eisler's bestseller, The Chalice and the Blade (now in 22 languages) is hailed as the most important anthropology book since Darwin's Origin of Species. In her MungBeing Magazine interview, Eisler counteracts this "Human nature" bullshit:

MB: Something unique about your philosophy is that you don't seem to believe that males, or Humans in general, are inherently violent.

RE: When people say "inherently violent" they don't mean that, what they mean is that this is a behavior, a genetic predisposition that characterizes Humans, and particularly males, since time immemorial. Of course that is absolute nonsense. We are inherently violent, we are inherently caring, but what does that mean? That we have the genetic capacity for both of these behaviors.

... since the Human race has the capacity for both, it's "absolute nonsense" to reward the violent and condemn the caring. I for one have spent the past twenty years rewarding the caring and condemning the violent and I'll spend the rest of my life continuing to do so.

Saab: >I'd say ten million in 800 cities around the world (February, 2003) is quite enough.<

10 million who'd shrunk to less than 100,000 by January 2007, which is the last anti-war march I went to (have there been any since then?). If 10 million weren't able to prevent the war, why would less than 100,000 be able to stop it? And in that time the number of troops in Iraq has actually increased . . .
You can march because you feel it's necessary to do SOMETHING, but it doesn't appear to have had any appreciable effect on the war. You can call me a fool or a slumming surbanite (that one cracked me up), but I stand by my original argument.

It seems to me you're accepting the right-wing's definition of the phrase "human nature" in order to argue that because it's consequences are objectionable, there is therefore no correct definition of the phrase, not even Chomsky's. At the very least that argument commits the logical fallacies of argumentum ad logicam, argumentum ad consequentiam, and hasty generalization.

Professors Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are friends, but I've talked to Zinn on many occasions; I've interviewed Zinn for my column in Vegas and he's endorsed my first novel, A.D., so I'm inclined to believe what HE says, which is that there's NO such thing as "Human nature." It always has and continues to be a right-wing scam -- specifically designed to discourage the masses from obligating the rich/powerful to care and share. For where's the incentive to sacrifice a mansion (a la Scrooge or Schindler) in order to house the homeless if us lowly Humans ain't worth the effort and are only going to fuck up a free lunch yet again ..? Why do you think the Religious Right pushes the Adam and Eve story so much?

How many times and ways have we heard it from FOX News viewers? "Poverty will never be eliminated because of 'Human nature'." "Imperialism will always be with us because of 'Human nature'." And so on and so on. It's the biggest cop out going ...

How would you white folks like it if every black man starting saying, "'Human nature' is keeping me from finding a job" -- yeah, that's what I thought ...

Certain CULTURES -- created by elites of Humans corrupted by power -- are at fault here. Cultures that tell the poor their only solution is "positive thinking" or pulling bootstraps ... cultures that lie to the public so it'll invade countries (for their OiL, when we the people could just as soon go solar or grow industrial hemp) etc. etc. ... these are cultural, NOT inescapably biological problems.

Are ALL white folks to blame for the atrocities of a FEW Ku Klux Klansmen? Of course NOT! Likewise, just 'cause a tiny minority of corrupt Humans are waging war or ignoring the impoverished (just as Bill O'Reilly denys the existence of homeless vets) doesN'T indict the entire Human race!

You make the following claim in an article on your site

"After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home"

Your phrasing suggests that a coalition of anti-war groups made the legislation that was defeated.

Me thinks you need to correct your grammatical mistakes.

The Democratic party, and specifically the Democratic Congress failed, not the anti-war groups.

Who is the Allbritton Group to make such an obvious grammatical error. Are you attempting to protect the Democratic Congress, and place the blame on anti-war groups? What is your motive for such an obfuscation?

Stop toying with the truth. The American people don't like that.

"Not even the most extreme postmodernist can seriously argue that there is no such thing as human nature. They may argue that the exact properties of human nature are difficult to substantiate -- this is certainly correct. However, it is impossible to coherently argue that an intrinsic, universal human nature does not exist. This amounts to the belief that the next human zygote conceived might just as well develop into a worm or a crab as a human being. Postmodernists might limit their assertion to denying any effect of human nature on our mental make-up -- our values, our knowledge, our wants, etc. This also makes no sense. The postmodernist will argue that a child growing up in New York will develop a certain way of thinking, and if that child had grown up amongst Amazon tribespeople she would have developed a completely different way of thinking. This is true. But we must then ask how a child could develop these different consciousnesses. In whatever environment it finds itself, the child will mentally construct a rich and complex culture on the basis of the extremely scattered and limited phenomena it is exposed to. That consideration tells us (in advance of any detailed knowledge) that there must be an extraordinary directive and organisational component to the mind that is internal. We can begin to see human nature in terms of certain capacities to develop certain mental traits. I think we can go further than this and begin to discover universal aspects of these mental traits which are determined by human nature. I think we can find this in the area of morality. For example, not long ago I talked to people in Amazon tribes and I took it for granted that they have the same conception of vice and virtue as I do. It is only through sharing these values that we were able to interact -- talking about real problems such as being forced out of the jungle by the state authorities. I believe I was correct to assume this: we had no problem communicating although we were as remote as is possible culturally."

-- Noam Chomsky

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199808--.htm

You can disagree all you want, but anyone who's ever been in need of money knows better. Yes, it'd be nice to have POWERful allies, BUT UNTIL THEN, raise some funds! What are you going to do? Tell someone they can't be bailed out of jail until/unless someone in power pardons them? Not to mention how airtime and column space in papers for impeachment/Buy Nothing Day ads cost money ... I agree that money isn't THE ONLY answer (and you're right about the BIG unions), but until utopia comes, money's part of the answer. Ask the poor (or the homeless vets Bill O'Reilly just denied the existence of).

"Only when we see Joe Sixpacks marching alongside intellectuals, activists and old hippies will it be the real McCoy."

I'm beyond sick and tired of the deification of Joe Sixpack. "We're all in this boat together. Every Human life is worth the same" -- you got that right, now your job is to tell Joe Sixpack that, because believe it or not, the Sixpacks are part of the problem: Who do you think Dukakis was trying to appeal to when he climbed into that tank in 1988 wearing an army helmet two-sizes-too-big, looking like Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Newman ..?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3100

The right, the corporate media and elite policy makers persist in painting "mainstream America" as white and middle class. Even many white liberals cling to the notion that building a mass movement against war necessitates the use of techniques and rhetoric that "don't scare away" middle class whites. This way of thinking is anachronistic. The nation's demographics have changed sharply over the last 40 years, even more dramatically over the last decade, with the result that people of color are fast becoming a majority in the U.S. More importantly, since people of color -- war's principal targets -- have the greatest interest in holding back the war tide and, thus, activists of color have the most politically developed perspectives on the subject, they are a key source of ideas on how to strengthen work and improve outreach.

... be very careful when it comes to the desperation insofar as "bringing more people onboard." I'd say ten million in 800 cities around the world (February, 2003) is quite enough. Sure, the more the merrier, but still ...

Well, the pro-Israel groups clearly play both sides of the aisle when you look at this PAC's lobbying efforts on opensecrets, etc. They're fierce defenders/advocates of Israel, and slip the message into whatever venue necessary (whether neocon/corporate, right-leaning corporate Democrat, or progressive venues).

I don't have an anti-semitic bone in my body, but I don't see any reason why I should be concerned about one ethno-religious group's national defense, security, human rights condition, etc. over any other's. We're all in this boat together. Every human life is worth the same, IMHO.

MoveOn's credibility problem (perhaps like Progressive magazine) is that it has some sacred cows external to the progressive movement at-large.

alank wrote: MoveOn for too long was backing Pelosi's "go it slow" approach.

MoveOn has never represented the progressive agenda. Eli Pariser has ensured that MoveOn has marched in lockstep with Israel. E.g., there has never been any response from MoveOn to the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, nor any other criticism of Israel.

MoveOn cannot be trusted. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing. A wooden horse to divide and conquer the anti-war movement.

Saab Lofton,

I disagree on the fundraising points. It's clear that money (like the American Dream) is laid out there as a power barrier. It is a game with rules inseparable from power. Power comes first, money follows. I don't think it generally works the other way. The peace movement can be united only by shared values, shared volunteer time, and shared vision. Money is a scam, a virus for any genuinely progressive movement. Look at what it did to big unions. For starters, it attracts the wrong sort of leadership.

You may be right about the marches, but they must be self-evident examples of public discord -- they are not ways of bringing more people onboard. Only when we see Joe Sixpacks marching alongside intellectuals, activists and old hippies will it be the real McCoy.

thedeed wrote:

During the Clinton Presidency, no war. Bush Presidency, war the entire time...

Really?

As a Serbian (thousands killed) a Somalian (more thousands), and especially, an Iraqi, (as many as a million killed0, if the Clinton presidency was a time of "no war". And ther are the countless victims of his neoliberal goobal-cpitalist projects...

Please, learn something more about the world around you.

"The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures."

I don't give a damn about the Democrats in all of this. This is why we need another party!!!!!

"There was a consensus that last year was not productive,"

You wanna know why? Because there is no direct action. All that people do is walk down the street with sings. If everyone at those Washington marches, or the resent marches in various cities around the country, just sat down around the capital, or center of the city and didn't move till something was done that would start to make an impact. Walking down the street holding signs is not going to change much. It makes you feel better and that's it.

Great, now we on the "left" are wishing violence and death on each other.

I guess the neocons and neoliberals are right. Might makes right, and humans cannot live in peace.

bbr-001 (six posts up) "Gets it". Gets reality.
Most posters here (a few excepted) do not "get it".

This coalition of anti-war groups should have spent time discussing how better to force Democratic Congressional leaders to stand and fight, cutting funds even if Bush vetoes. Giving in to Bush and his Republican allies is cowardly.

thedeed January 17th, 2008 9:20 pm ..... War comes in MANY FACES...Clinton probably killed as many Iraqi, if not more, with the embargo. Don't let the Dems fool you..they thrive on war as much as the Repubs.

Thrashing around and around getting nowhere. PROFIT is the linch-pin, the one central point where we have the nonviolent control of what this murder machine is, does, produces. (Nothing happens if people don't cooperate, work, obey.) If you can't imagine a different (and better) reason for being alive than having more and getting advantages over other people, you will always be in the palm of the master's hand. Why do you think this is "reality" when for the majority of human time it was not? When it took unspeakable violence to create what we are today? Do you get out of bed to get ahead of your neighbors or to live a life of your own excellence? Capitalism will NEVER "get there" because it isn't designed to, any more than JudeoCrassinanity can ever satisfy the human soul. Learn something about the past! Smash your thoughts wide open! Or slave, stagnate and die before you ever know what it is to be ALIVE

I was getting used to the fact that Democrats had given up the fight (if they were even fighting to begin with), but now anti-war groups aren't even anti-war anymore?
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com

MoveOn for too long was backing Pelosi's "go it slow" approach.

Right! So slow, in fact, that we went into reverse before we realized it. They have no business being in this business of giving their own political advice.

They should stick to what they do well: compiling and facilitating political communication and opinion at a time when there is no major media reflecting or presenting a progressive visions of the world, and our "elections" are more fraud than a record reflecting public wants or opinions.

I am confused by Cindy Sheehan's slagging off of Moveon.org - she wasn't slagging them off when many of us had our reservations about them and many other mega funded 'peace organisations' (as oppose to grass roots networking ones) When Moveon called for a countrywide vigil in her support (17th August 2005) and even helped fund an ad for her in the Waco Tribune, she certainly did not distance herself, as far as google can come up with, unless I have asked it the wrong questions.

Best, j.

A republican victory by even another negative margin will be considered by the neocons as a mandate to continue the war in Iraq, neocolonialism, intimidate Iran, mess with Latin America, arm the middle east to the teeth, accomodate an Israeli lobby that is much more extreme than Israel itself, push for more surveillance of citizens, more tax cuts for the very rich, globalization of big business, more fossil fuel use in the face of global warming, loss of local and state's rights in education... That's the short list!

These guys have to be sent packing from Washington. There is no dealing with them. Edwards and Obama have the cleanest slates regarding MIC involvement. At least they will listen to what people like Cindy Sheehan and James Hansen (global warming) are saying.

I've just read on Huffpo that the Portico report is wrong.

Anti War Groups ( "Democrats" ) Retreat, capitulate, curtail, withdraw, recant, repudiate, fall back, retire, submit, renounce, relinquish, yield, quit, fail, expire, abandan, resign, abdicate, accommodate, acquiesce, appease, come to terms, concede, cop out, crumble, deliver, demise, drop, dump, forgo, fork over, forswear, forsake, get rid of, give away, give in give over, go down, grant, hand-over, hand in, lay down, part with, quitclaim, release, renunciate, settle, sign over, split the difference, strike a bargain, succumb, throw up, transfer, vacate, waive, white flag, yield, get screwed, hosed, shagged.......

Or more succintly, just bend over.

This is a case of people who have rocketed to notoriety by having harnessed new media with good thoughts and fundraising success, but have little or nothing in the way of political knowledge, much less analytical ability.

They can help put people together but should not be in the position of sitting around on K Street or anywhere else determining where the "movement" should be going.

This replicates exactly what is WRONG with our decaying democracy. It is just more folks with MONEY who think THEY get to decide what happens.

They are just moving us down a more friendly version of the same paradigm. Sooooo lost….

Antiwar Movement: Forget those folks. They bet the farm on the Dems, and can't even figure out when to give it up. Instead, they suck you in deeper. To those who say progressives should "take over" the Democratic Party, just one more reminder: It's already been taken over, and those who did it, strongarm you to bring you down to their level. They know whom they serve. Putting energy there is investing in disaster.

It's Back to the drawing boards. Time to look at the Greens I believe.

Jim Glover January 18th, 2008 1:37 am

Is that all you have to offer?

Got a point, but we collectively put our hopes in the Democrats and get nothing. The war goes on. I understand a rant achieves nothing but it is a vent and reflects how we feel.

I agree that the outrage needs to be turned into something positive. That is what inspired MLK to greatness. I believe that instead of raging against the machine I should be putting my energies into an alternative third party. I just don't think the Democrats are going anywhere. Thanks for causing me to reflect on my rage.

Yes, our Peace movement is maturing and growing and it is storing up new energy we will need when things get much worse.

I am more interested in what you all think, then the above article.

The article is just one opinion, and we have gone way beyond that as we usually do here on Common Dreams.

These groups are relatively conservative and certainly do not represent all anti-war groups.
While the article is of interest as to what some groups are doing, it misdirects the reader by lumping all anti-war groups together and making it sound like we've all given up on cutting funding for the war. In that sense, it is either 1) propaganda or 2) very poorly written by someone who does not understand the length and breadth of the anti-war movement and that not all wear the same stripes. A group of 20 people does not make decisions for the anti-war movement. They speak only for the groups in their coalition.

Sue Ann Martinson

I am sick and tired of hearing how there is no anti-war movement left. Hogwash. I live in a very small conservative community and we have had a weekly vigil for Peace since August 2005. Our numbers are growing. This same sort of thing is going on all over this nation. It does not rate mention in the newspapers, nevertheless we are out there. The members of IVAW will be holding hearings in DC in March and gatherings are planned all across the country following them in recognition of the US entering its SIXTH year in its war/occupation of Iraq. This article focussed on a bunch of groups obviously closely tied to the Democrats, a party which I like to consider Republican-Lite. The real anti-war/proPEACE groups have not stopped working.
As for the elections this Fall, electing any of the so-called Democratic candidates for President will change nothing. Electing a bunch more DLC types to Congress will change nothing. We need more people like Cindy Sheehan. By Fall the economy will have tanked so badly we are going to be really hurting....Doesn't anyone see the relationship to wasting all that money, not to mention all that fuel, on war to the disgusting shape our economy is in?!

iammyself:
Once again we are on the same page, but unable to communicate, using the same language.

realpolitik: The politics of reality versus the politics of ideology.

The Democrats are a party based on an ideology, once very attractive to progressives, but has become corrupted.

There are those progressives who believe that the Democratic party is still the solution, others who believe that it can be reformed, others who believe that it must be abandoned.

I am not interested in ideology, but instead in realpoltik, the politics of making this a better world. The Democrats offer an empty ideology, one based on rhetoric, devoid of action. Platitudes and promises.

That people are dying and our nation is crashing and burning, is something I saw coming several years ago, it's almost scary how the timing is so accurate. If I thought it was hopeless I wouldn't be here posting. My only point is that that the Democrats offer no hope.

When the American people, realize that they are one people, then there will be hope for the nation. And when the American people realize, that all the people of this planet are equal, then there will be hope for the planet. That is realpolitik. When global interest, becomes self-interest, the change will come. It's coming.

Now back to dinner,

Ramsay

At the rate this is going we're left with the default strategy: Fewer enlistments prompting, eventually, a draft, prompting, people to get up off their asses to protest. It will take a while.

"iammyself:
Wrong. We need more "realpolitik"."

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Ramsay. Do tell what your version of realpolitik is. Or are we just playing at semantics while our bed burns? Wheee...isn't this fun my little friends?

People are dying and our nation is crashing and burning. What corners should we nibble at?

Right now, as we all sit on our butts, the government is seizing people's property on our border. There were no public hearings, I do not believe these people will be compensated (so much for private property rights...guess it only matters with the Endangered Species Act and no one has ever had their land taken from this by the way---another load of right wing horse___t) and no serious environmental review. This fence will devastate the area on many levels with little guarentee it will do anything to stop immigration. My point is NOT to start a discussion on immigration which is and was totally manufactured by the right wing for this upcoming election, but to point out how far it has gone. It has gone so far beyond the petty politics of the election, we seem to have no idea. We are now in a time of nearly and totally NONRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT. We should be appalled and enraged that 70% of the American people oppose Bush/Cheney but fact is going COMPLETELY IGNORED BY OUR CONGRESS AND THE MEDIA. We have collusion between the two most powerful entities in the nation: the government and the media. The mutual decision to ignore the incredible law breaking of the Bush Administration. We are living in a time of nonresponsive government. Let this sink in. There is an essential bargain with a democracy: the people speak and there is a response to the people. There is NO response now and if there is a response, it is the system simply protecting ITSELF or the people in it protecting themselves. CYA baby. CYA and nothing else.

The greatest affront to the American people and our Constitution is the Democrats decision to wait this out. 911. A war based on lies. Thousands of people dead. The most serious deficit in the history of the country. The greed (mortgage crisis), corruption and incompetence in nearly every branch of gov't, environmental destruction of incredible magnitudes like blowing off the tops of MOUNTAINS (MOUNTAINS) and dumping it in riverbeds...environmental laws being changed with a stroke of a lobbyist pen and we can LIST SO MUCH MORE...and the Democrats decide to wait them out. Let them self-destruct. What kind of "plan" is this? And what if the Republicans win in the fall? They might because so many people are disgusted with the Democrats right now they MAY VOTE REPUBLICAN. SO WHAT DID YOU WAIT OUT HOWARD DEAN?

It is truly the most disgusting time in our history.

No one with courage. No one with fortitude. The great decay.

We are living in a time of nonresponsive government but it is the most unresponsive on THE DEMOCRAT SIDE.

Let this sink in and it will put the petty crap that is 90% of our blogs, radio and televion into some perspective.

Things are tanking and they are tanking fast. Thank a Democrat for this. You just wait when they lose in November and don't be surprised when they do. I hope to God I am wrong on this one.

iammyself:
Wrong. We need more "realpolitik".

Realpolitik:
You're being screwed by the Democrats.

Realpolitik:
The corporations own the politics not the people.

Realpolitik:
Unless, and until, you take back your "democracy", you will continue to be robbed. And your children will be used to murder, and be murdered, in foreign countries.

Realpolitik:
Your economic ways are destroying the planet, and with it, your children's future.

I could go on. But you get the drift. The problem is that the American people don't practice "realpolitik" instead opting for wishful thinking and self denial.

Cheers,
Ramsay

"Secession?"

Civil war?

Maybe it's time.

"Who cares if Nader, or Kucinich, or Paul takes votes from the DemoRepo corporate slugs. Either don't vote out of protest or vote your alternative person of choice."

Yup!

"But being a Democrat, you decide instead to lash out at everyone else when he comes in last."

COMarc, you ignorant fool! I haven't been a Democrat since 2000. I couldn't give a weasel's shit whether Kucinich wins or not. What I care about is that the system changes. As long as people play the "realpolitik" game, the system will grind on and it will grind you and me and our children. People who don't see this or who don't care should do the rest of us a favor and get the hell out of the way. Go away, shut your mouths, or just die. But for gods' sake, allow change to happen!

Secession?

The greatness of the peace movement needs to be measured by its successes AND the strength of it's enemies. Considering the enemies' wealth, power, and ruthlessness, the peace movement is doing ok. The dead ass public doesn't deserve the efforts of the peace movement.

Daily new disasters occur and old ones come to light. At a point, a triggering event will occur leading to WW3, dictatorship, or economic collapse. The choices made at that point will be limited. The peace movement that looks weak now may gain a lot of support as we approach the cliff.

During the Clinton Presidency, no war. Bush Presidency, war the entire time. Who is the warmonger? I'd rather have the no war party. Its so simple. Can't you see? One party, no war. The other party, all war.

"Taking to the street achieves nothing; Bush dismissed anti-war marches as 'focus groups' before the war started and has paid no attention to the movement ever since, ensuring that the media would do likewise (Speaking as a journalist, there's only so many times you can cover events that have no concrete effect on the larger political process without becoming repetitive)."

Lord Trigo? You're WRONG. That's exactly the attitude the powerful WANT people to have! Who needs martial law when all you've gotta do is spread cynicism and make it seem cool and clever ..?

And I am a journalist and who gives a damn how "repetitive" covering marches are? When I wrote for the Las Vegas CityLife (before I was censored), that's all I did was cover them, and you know what? That's a good thing! Does anyone complain about how repetitive it is for journalists to be embedded with the troops?

Go back and review Nixon's memoirs -- he claimed to have been watching football while people marched in the 60s, but guess what? He was concerned! And if you give up just because dumb-ass Dubya dismissed you as a focus group, then you weren't much of an activist to begin with, were you? There's no time or space for spoiled suburbanites slumming and then running when the going gets rough ...

Let me put it this way: If an outlaw on the run is never caught, does that mean we give up the search? All too many gave up after 2003 because Bush invaded Iraq anyway, but so what? What do you expect from a criminal but an escape attempt? And in this case, he was running from the rest of the world (still is) ...

This is NOT a Charles Atlas ad in the back of a comic book! Quit judging activists by how many victories over bullies they score. Judge them by whether they give up or stick with it (sorry Cindy).

Two things: One, America has YET to invade Iran -- thank the peace movement for that. Two, the peace movement was key in preventing a nuclear holocaust throughout the decades-long Cold War, so start appreciating the victories you DO have before you start clamoring for more!

It boggles my mind that people carry on discussions as if we actually have a two party system, we don't. But "they" like us to continue to think that way. Thinking in terms of the lesser of two evils is no longer viable, the system is one giant evil consisting of most members of congress, the entire executive branch, most of the judiciary, and of course the MSM, all owned and operated by Demon Inc.

Who cares if Nader, or Kucinich, or Paul takes votes from the DemoRepo corporate slugs. Either don't vote out of protest or vote your alternative person of choice.

Seeds of revolution look small and insignificant at first but if they don't get planted then nothing changes and the noxious weeds just get more abundant.

COMarc,

If not Kucinich, then whom? Why hasn't this person made him/herself known? I don't mean just anyone, I mean the person who can galvanize maybe 75+ million Americans ASAP, and run as an independent along with like 99+ others in various Congressional/Senatorial races.

The problem may have little to do with the lack of leaders. . I've seen this before, in smaller contexts. It may be what many thinkers of past civilizations have also noted. Hindus, for instance, called it the age of Kali Yuga. One of the characteristics is that the people no longer seek the "wisdom of the sages."

So indeed it may not be strictly a leadership problem. It is a deeply-rooted cultural problem. And it isn't sheepish following that is for want -- it is good judgement and assertive curiousity among other things.

:)

"Bush also said last week that U.S. troops "could easily" be in Iraq for a decade or more."

And after the taxpayers are burdened with $$Trillions more with the U.S. determined to stay there forever, Bush and all his oil buddies will be multi-billionaires instead of just multi-millionaires.

Does anyone really believe that the U.S. will completely pull out of Iraq? Dream on.... We have troops all over the world, including Bosnia. The members of the U.S. Government, Republicans and Democtrats alike, are perpetutating the construction of the "elitist" empire before our eyes.

If you don't think so, read this link and see if it doesn't make sense to you; never-ending war and occupation is only part of the scheme.

Here's the link: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0116.html

"I, too, liked Dennis Kucinich. But sometime or other, you have to realize his movement has stopped moving."

And defeatist attitudes like yours helped stop his movement, fucker!

Your "realpolitik" attitude is responsible for always getting the status quo. YOU, are responsible, you miserable quisling!

Will someone please hit Daniel David upside the head with a 2 x 4? He's useless and seems only to want to clog up the works with his moronic subserviance to the Corporate Party.

To Daniel David,
As the saying goes: Old paradigms don't change - old paradigms die with old men. Please, do your part so that this world can move on.

I'm getting really sick of the Kucinich-nicks. The guy is a political incompetent. And he's proven he's not a leader who can build a movement. He's been trying for six years, and he's gotten nowhere. At what point do you realize he's not the answer?

Then of course, the Kucinich-nicks are Democrats, so you get the truly obnoxious Democrat attitude coming through like in the post two above mine. They spend six years backing a political moron, then they lash out at everyone else. Because to true-believer idiot types like this, its obviously everyone else's fault that when a political incompetent takes on a Don Quixote-like task and then fails, its everyone else's fault he failed.

And this from someone who generally likes Kucinich's stands on the issues and who caucused for him in 2004. But by 2007 it was plain and obvious that a) he'd failed to build a movement or force in the Democratic Party that could do what he said he wanted to do, and b) that the Democratic Party was a rigged game and that trying to work from within that party was a waste of time and effort, and that c) when push comes to shove, Kucinich was willing to sell out all the values he said he stood for and place his loyalty to the Democratic Party above all of that.

Even when you listen to Kucinich, sometimes he's honest and reveals that he never really expects to win or to really change things by doing this. He'll say he's just doing it so issues are raised in debates.

Sorry, but we are facing a crisis, we are facing a powerful enemy that will be hard to beat, and we don't have the time or the resources to spend on a fool who doesn't plan to succeed and who just wants to raise issues. If all we keep doing is just raising issues, we've lost.

Now, my comment above that he's a political incompentent and a political moron is based on the idea that he actually wants to accomplish something. If that's not true, then maybe he's not the idiot he comes across as. But if that's not true there's no reason at all to waste our time on his meaningless stunts.

If he really wants to win and change things, then when you look at his decisions he's a fool. Examples? How about endorsing Kerry in 2004? How about taking his limited debate time and talking about UFO's? How about standing up before the nation a month ago and telling his supporters he can't win and that they should support Obama of all friggin people? Heck, he spent half of this year yammering on about that stupid Dept of Peace idea he won't shut up about.

If he's serious, where's the movement he's built in the Democratic Party in six years of effort? Where are the hundreds of progressives, anti-war challengers to sitting pro-corporate Democrats in races across the country this year?

The problem isn't with the rest of us. Its that you've decided to back a lame horse in a rigged race. But being a Democrat, you decide instead to lash out at everyone else when he comes in last.

Getting back to the article. I initially had the same reaction as Cindy, when I started reading this, my jaw dropped. Then I continued to read, I started to smirk, and then by the end of the article I was laughing.

What a joke. A theatre of the absurd. A giant scam. My poor people. Never have so many, been robbed by so few, without ever noticing. It's as though someone entered your house, in the middle of the night, cleaned it all out, except for the bed you were sleeping in, and upon waking in the morning, you took a look around and said "What a beautiful morning in America!"

Yeah go ahead, vote Democrat, but first you may want to fix yourself a cup of coffee. "Uh,where's the coffee?"

Thank you to all the progressives on this site,who tirelessly beat back, the brain-washed arguments of the Democrats. It's no fun fighting stupid people. Yeah stupid, because the definition of stupid is, banging your head against the same wall and expecting a different result.

Paul: Moonraven is a self-hating Gringa, who is very angry with her people and her country, but she has a big heart filled with love. She is embarrased, pretends to herself to be latin, but deep inside loves America. Even Gringos. Excuse her.

Yo soy Gringo!

Ramsay

While we snivel and whine on the internet, victims of our illegal actions are dying.

I guess we do not have to take any drastic action while it is only 'others', 'them'. 'Iraqis', Afghans, Palestinians'..... that are dying as I write this.

I'm sure glad we bring them all 'Democracy' - they just want to live their lives in peace.

I'll bet that if our fellow citizens were dying, we'd do something! You Betcha!

Maybe if more of verbalizers realized those 'others' ARE fellow citizens - of the world, we'd do more......But I am not holding my breath.

mastershake: So whats their "plan" to deal with excessive for profit Health Insurance Corperations? Why none other than to force taxpayers into buying and paying the outragious Health Insurance Corperate premiums, with profits and overheads, and with the same awful coverage. And if you don't pay the Health Insurance companies, the Government fines you.

mastershake, thanks for informing us about the MA healthcare "fix". The Demoks' national plan is going to be modeled after MA's unless the people find a way to whack it.

Daniel David: The most important thing anti-war people can do in 2008 is fill the Congress and White House with Democrats.

Will Daniel David rethink his blind faith in the Demoks after they jam through a FORCED private health insurance at today's cost that is DOUBLE what healthcare costs in other industrialized countries? If we let them jam through this FORCED health insurance, the costs will then go from double to triple the costs in other countries. AND when we do a proper comparison with Cuba's system we're going to find something like a factor TEN difference in value of healthcare services.

At the start of last year we saw a healthcare reform debate rise up out of nothing. At that point we knew that we're paying twice what we should. But over the course of the year we saw the key issue, the unaffordability of the healthcare, BURIED, and replaced with proposals for MANDATORY private health insurance. America, you're truly SICKO. Please see a shrink.

I see many people here have noticed that local organizations are very effective UNTIL they try to "unite" and change things at a continent or global level.

Then they run into problems, mostly with the "national" organizations.

When folks examine this truth a little closer, then take what they see to a logical conclusion, we just might be ready to BEGIN the process of Needed Change.

Then, after the greatest project that any People has ever undertaken is completed -well after our deaths- there can be "peace".

----------------------------

I used to think that expecting Nation-States and Standing National Armies to accept "peace" was foolishly Idealistic, then I thought it was painfully Naive.

Now I just think its sadly Pathetic.

Blood does not come from Stones.

And Nation-States do not make "peace" or "justice".

Nation-States make Truces and Law.

---------------------------------------

On the other hand it is fascinating to see how long people stick at this sort of thing, while never admiting their true motivation is simply to make themselves feel less guilty.

I mean, just how many silent, black-clad, candle-bearing, Weekly Peace Vigils DOES it take to stop the War? 10? 20? 50? 100? 500? 13,247?

I guess we'll find out when the war and occupation ends, won't we?

"Shit! Turns out it was Three Hundred and TWELVE! And we stopped at Three Ten! Boy is there egg on our faces!"

I just wish I cared enough to spend so much of my life making sure total strangers knew how much I cared, then I'd be against the war, right?

Then my tax payments wouldn't make me culpable for it, right?

Then my work wouldn't contribute to the system that started it, right?

Then my consumer dollars wouldn't feed the machine that runs it, right?

Then my lack of USEFUL action wouldn't make me just as complicit as those who don't act, right?

right?

-matti.

A) the U.S. military is closer to complete exhaustion (without a fresh-meat draft) every day. B) The longer we stay in Iraqistan the more dead bodies of our brothers and sisters will be coming home, the higher oil prices will go. C) Arab nations finding new confidence around Iran (thanks to the imbecile Bush) will be less and less likely to accept any more of this global colony sucking out their wealth. The West sank the feet of its modern empire into their countries; the colonial age is gone, nobody is gonna take it anymore; and it's too fucking bad for The West this time. Unfortunately, D) empires don't stop sucking blood until they are losing too much of their own. So unless "the war" creates a second American Civil War at home, or some kind of major governmental change comes about (Hello Dennis), it's going to be every bit as bad as it needs to be. We are beyond the point where anything less than a machine-stopping movement for peace and change is going to work or (given media fascists) even be noticed. I'd like to suggest a world-wide planned walk-out on the very idea of profit itself. "The revolution" will be when you work 15-20 hours a week to pull your weight in the world (that's what the average hunter/gatherer works), and on that basis you have the right to take what you need at the store. The revolution means going home to nap or read or play or go to school or whatever you want (cultivate yourself); so nobody has to march, kill, fight, or any of that. Sure people will go crazy with "having" for the first 2 weeks, and then wonder why they were so busy piling up shit to show the Joneses. Do this every May 1st for a few years to stagger the world economy through worker power, and watch it grow. No criminal can stay in business without help from the police. No colony can survive without help from corrupted locals. And no machine can oppress us if we STOP GIVING IT THE ONLY THING WE REALLY HAVE---our biological time on this blue bubble...OK, jump on my head!

Nader2000 January 17th, 2008 4:33 pm: "The Cold War period until the early 1970s was marked by a 'bipartisan consensus' foreign policy which generally supported confrontation of the Soviet Union with overt nuclear military power and covert warfare to fight and rollback communism around the world."

I'm not sure how to parse that... but if you believe any of that sentence, you've been suckered by Manufactured Consent and your history is twisted, too.

Elect as many Repuks in the US government as humanly possible. Get the godzilla monster to run its rampage with the utmost bravado. It will over-extend itself, overheat, crash into the ground, and destroy itself. Stop trying to preserve the monster by backing off on its throttle. We want WIDE OPEN THROTTLE.

Its, 5;58 pm. What have you done to openly attack the credibility of the Corporate Media today? And I dont mean on a left of center website.

Everyone HERE gets that MOVEON is a fake.

Perhaps the problem is that we are not posting truth enough on MSM websites like the sites of the major US daily newspapers. We thus enure moated consciousness, and that our point of view is never heard. Such is the price of surrendering the "Main Stream" The internet alone is not a true alternative.

Why does everyone assume that Democrats are going to end the war and bring the troops home? All I see from them is more bills to keep funding the war and bills to take more of our rights away. Have the Democrats accomplished ANYTHING the year they have been controlling congress?

Sounds like the DC lobbyists have been very busy, wonder how much they paid out?

Our government is sooooo corrupt. We are a Facist state, we just haven't heard the other shoe drop yet. __ We will, we will.

If you really want to see any changes, you better support John Edwards, he's our only hope who has a chance of being our next president.

Nader2000 (4:33) -- As a historian & Dem Party apologist, you're quite a comedian. // Are you seriously trying to claim that just because Church was a "Democrat," that this in any way affects the long history of bipartisan collaboration in all these sordid interventions?

The only reason there was a Church Commission (& a Pike Commission) was because of Watergate & the unpopularity of the Vietnam War (which the Democrats never opposed, and in fact were more deeply responsible for than the Republicans). It was what the CIA calls a "limited hangout" -- you start admitting bad stuff you did, when it's already so obvious to everyone that it can't be credibly denied anymore.

I'll quickly run through your attempts to make excuses for the Evilcrats' criminal complicity in US interventions --

On Nicaragua & El Salvador, you claim "In the final analysis, Democratic opposition to war in Central America severely limited what Reagan was able to do, so that the Sandinistas were finally overturned only by a vote of the Nicaraguan people..."
- Actually, Reagan was not limited at all. He fully succeeded in his objective, which was destroying the Sandinista government, its social reforms, & most of Nicaragua along with it. The only reason the Sandinistas were voted out in 1990 is because the US made it clear to the Nicaraguans that they would pay a terrible price, if they didn't vote for the US-backed stooge candidate. Throughout the entire contra war, the Democrats never portrayed the war as a "crime." Rather, their "opposition " was just like their milquetoast "opposition" today in Iraq -- pretending to be against something, while actually helping to ensure that it goes forward.

You mentioned the Iran Contra hearings. Here, the Democrats arranged backroom deals to let Reagan off the hook. He should have been impeached & jailed for what he did. This, too, is just like the Democrats of today -- except today they don't even have the guts to hold serious hearings.

On Chile - no, you're wrong again. The CIA coup in Chile was officially said to be "covert," but wasn't really secret at all. Everyone knew about it. I personally knew about it within a very few months of its occurrence. I saw the Swedish Ambassador to Chile speaking publicly at my university, and he told the whole audience about what the CIA role was. So if I knew about it, we can be reasonably sure the Democrats in Washington knew about it too -- and they never made an issue of it.

On Vietnam - No, I didn't "forget" about Nixon & Eisenhower. I simply wasn't trying to write an exhaustive history. // You claim LBJ "stepped down from the presidency in shame over what he had done in Vietnam." Spoken like a typically dishonest Dem Party apologist!! Actually, LBJ stepped down right after the New Hampshire primary -- only because he almost lost to McCarthy, despite being a sitting president. It was the humiliation of being rejected by the voters that bothered him -- NOT "what he had done in Vietnam."

Nader2000, it's interesting that you mention the Ollie North terror network without mentioning John Kerry's starring role in preventing the public discussion of North's drugs-for-guns innovation.

Cindy Sheehan is not the only antiwar activist that gets angry with reading commentaries like this on a site like commonDreams. Who is the author anyway? Go to politico.com, his blog site, and this is what you will find...

TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company

I challenge the US to move it's Congress to the Green Zone for a year. Let's see the successful surge backed with motivated organizers.

Dress code is strictly no flack-jackets

Nader2000 (3:49 pm) claims that "Both Clinton and Obama have made it clear that they intend to withdraw nearly all US troops from Iraq, effectively ending the occupation."

This is laughable BS. Clinton & Obama are exactly in the mold of Nancy Pelosi, and every other Evilcrat (except Kucinich & Gravel, & maybe a few others in the House). The Evilcrat game on the war is to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. When you're pandering to the public, you pretend to be "against" the war. But when you're voting in Congress, or talking to donors, or to the CFR, you're always FOR the war. You vote for all the funding, again and again -- and you never ever describe the war like a real opponent would describe it (ie, as a "crime against humanity"). Instead, you use mealy-mouth formulations such as, "The war was a great tragedy" or "I believe the president has managed the war incompetently."

When Hillary or Obama promise to do some kind of withdrawal, you have to read the fine print. There's always some catch, such as leaving troops for "counterterrorism" and "training" and so forth. Both of these Evilcrats are entirely in favor of the US making Iraq into a US protectorate, whose resources can be plundered by US corporations. If they weren't in favor of such things, they wouldn't be getting all those huge corporate donations.

Even Edwards, the least hawkish of the 3, is not any great shakes on the war. He's better than Obama or Hillary, but not by much.

RichM, your history is quite twisted.

> without exception, the real pattern is that the two parties collaborate on all US "interventions"

The Cold War period until the early 1970s was marked by a "bipartisan consensus" foreign policy which generally supported confrontation of the Soviet Union with overt nuclear military power and covert warfare to fight and rollback communism around the world. As we know, many antidemocratic regimes were supported, democratic regimes subverted, and crimes against humanity committed by the CIA and US client states. How do we know this? In large part thanks to the work of the Church Comittee chaired by Democratic Senator Frank Church in the 1970s, and the official Human Rights policies initiated under President Jimmy Carter.

> In the 1980's, Reagan waged unjust unofficial wars in Nicaragua & El Salvador. The Democrats supported Reagan in this.

FALSE. Carter had cut off aid to the notorious Central American military dictatorships and did not intervene to prevent the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua. Unfortunately, he then backtracked and okayed intervention in El Salvador, sending $5M in military aid. Reagan increased this by a factor of 10 and also launched the contra war in Nicaragua. He would have gone further had it not been for fierce opposition from the Democrats in Congress, which passed a law (Boland amendment) cutting off US aid to "Reagan's Dogs" (the Contras). When Col. Oliver North covertly circumvented the law, Congress launched an inquiry that came close to repeating the Watergate hearings but did not receive the same level of support from the mass media, which was generally pro-Reagan. In the final analysis, Democratic opposition to war in Central America severely limited what Reagan was able to do, so that the Sandinistas were finally overturned only by a vote of the Nicaraguan people (who have recently reinstated them) and a compromise truce had to be reached in El Salvador.

> In 1973, the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected govt in Chile. The Democrats had no objection & never made an issue of it.

The Chile intervention was a covert operation and the Democrats in Congress could not do anything to stop it. After the fact, however, the Church Committe publicly exposed what had been done, which was in itself quite unprecedented.

> Vietnam was largely the direct work of the Democrats, from Truman to LBJ.

You forgot about Eisenhower and Nixon. It was really Eisenhower who committed the US to take over from the French and who prevented the election that was supposed to unite Vietnam after 1954. It was Nixon who escalated the bombing and the scale of the war to genocidal proportions. It was LBJ who stepped down from the presidency in shame over what he had done in Vietnam. And it was the Democratic Party that nominated the strongly antiwar George McGovern and suffered a landslide defeat to Nixon in 1972. It was the Democratic Congress that brought down Nixon with the Watergate Hearings, cut off funding for the war and prevented Ford from starting it up again when South Vietnam collapsed in 1975.

> Under LBJ, the CIA assisted in mass killings in Indonesia, bringing Suharto to power.

The Indonesian meddling was a very small deception effort, a black propaganda campaign it had been running for some time which unexpectedly bore fruit, triggering a coup in 1965. The US had little to do with the scale of mass killings by the Indonesian military after the coup. Democrats in Congress had no clue what was going on and I doubt even LBJ was paying much attention.

> And the CIA assisted in a rightwing military coup in Greece, also under LBJ.

The CIA roles in Indonesia and Greece show how relatively minor US actions can have terrible consequences for people in affected countries, but they do not make the point that the Democratic Party is irredeemably a war party or demonstrate another way to change US policy in a more peaceful direction other than by working through the Democratic Party.

This fundamentally misunderstands our situation. It is not the role of the grassroots to elect anyone. It is not the purpose of the streets to elect anyone. It is our job to continue to advocate for what we know is right-- the immediate end to this illegal occupation, and a quick end to this war of aggression and an total redirection of the misspent $$$billions to pressing domestic needs. Let the pols take care of themselves. If it weren't for robust vocal demands from the street, no one but Kucinich would be paying the least attention to the war on the campaign trail. "if the people lead, the leaders will follow." We need to continue to lead. Not surrender. Never surrender.

and on a realistic level, elect more faux Democrats like Harry Reid? gag me with a backhoe! I've got more important things to waste my time on.

a reluctant Democratic precinct chairperson
Jim Senter

The republicans have since 1980 (the first bush presidency) been the party to rob the treasury. Their moronic base is never opposed to spending as long it the spending is only for war profiteering and over corruption in general. We now have a 9.2 trillion dollar deficit we had a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit when bush I mean Reagan become president (bushes first shot at running the government).
If there is any spending for the needy, or the infrastructural or the common good, then the wingnuts raise their ugly heads huffing, puffing, evoking violent rants that sound like the communist I mean the terrorist are at our door steps.

Nader2000 January 17th, 2008 3:49 pm

Keep dreaming. I'll be here in 2012 and 2017 again to say I told you so.

How many of these organisations have been infiltrated and neutered by corporate empire operatives?

I think we have to act as individuals without reference to formal organizations that can be compromised. We could spread the word distributing old-fashioned "pamphlets" that we could print on our collective millions of printers.
Anyone with a good idea for a message could publish it here on CD and any of us who might think they could make good use of it could print and distribute it. (100 words, simple language and large print.)

For instance ...

George Bush started an illegal war based on lies. It has killed 4000 American soldiers, wounded 30,000 more and killed and maimed countless innocent Iraqis. He has spent almost a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) dollars on this war, but won't give kids healthcare. He has gutted the laws that are supposed to protect us from pollution, given your tax dollars to corporations to send jobs overseas and brought in cheap labor to take away our jobs in this country. Radio and television networks have been hiding the really bad things that have been going on for the past seven years and before.

Cindy,

I firmly believe in a root kindness in all people, but there times and conditions at which other things eclipse it. The organization may not come in the formal sense, but it'll come in its own time. I hold it to be inevitable, but I hope it comes more or less peacefully.

Moonraven,

(Please don't use that racist/divisive term.) There was a time when "gringos" lived as free native peoples, close to the land, worshipped their own gods and spirits, saw animals as brothers and sisters. It is not their race that changed. They were conquered by the psychotic among them, and this thrust has defined "civilization" (whether East or West) since about the Bronze Age.

To dial back to an era of the Commons, we may need a phased approach. Perhaps private property (whether a condo or townhome in the city, home in the suburbs or hobby farm in the country -- whatever suits your fancy). Owned outright, no mortgages necessary. Do whatever you want on it, except pollute or infringe on your neighbor's rights. The rest is Commons land, also available to settlement (for free).

This is also the delineation that many traditionals societies made, between hut and hearth. Huts hearths are generally private, central hearths are not.

> "Hillary and Obama finally made it clear on Tues. that they will keep a permanent military occupation in Iraq - 100,000+ troops."
[mastershake January 17th, 2008 12:53 pm]

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

Both Clinton and Obama have made it clear that they intend to withdraw nearly all US troops from Iraq, effectively ending the occupation.

However, the underlying assumption of both candidates, and John Edwards as well, is that the Iraqi government will not immediately collapse or at least will not be succeeded by a situation which forces all US government personnel out of Iraq a la Saigon 1975.

Therefore Clinton and Obama talk about the need to keep some soldiers in Iraq to protect the embassy, and probably to train and advise the Iraqi army; Obama also talks about the need for forces in Iraq or nearby which could be called on to fight "al Qaeda" in Iraq, which would by definition be combat troops.

It's hard to say exactly how many US troops would remain in Iraq after the main force withdrawal took place within the first year or 18 months of a Clinton or Obama administration, according to their plans. But certainly not 100,000+. I would guess something more in the neighborhood of 10,000 or less, and as little as a few hundred.

The peace movement, like the generals, needs to stop refighting the last battle and get ready for the next one.

I think the groups mentioned in this article have drawn the correct conclusion. Defunding the war and forcing a withdrawal is not possible at this time. It's more important to win the upcoming elections, get a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress, and get ready for the real battles to come.

The real battle will be to force Obama, Edwards or Clinton to honor the pledge to withdraw nearly all forces from Iraq in a timely manner, IN SPITE OF WHATEVER HAPPENS IN IRAQ AND IN SPITE OF ANY NEW TERRORISM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

The real battle will be to keep the next president from halting or reversing the withdrawal as soon as chaos erupts and the Iraqi government and army crumbles.

Alternatively, it is possible that the situation in Iraq will dramatically deteriorate, or that there will be a general uprising demanding immediate US withdrawal, sometime this year. In that case, the real battle will be to stop Bush from escalating and force him to begin the withdrawal.

Short of the last contingency, however, there seems to be no possibility that Congress will cut off funding for the war during this election year when it remains possible for Bush to claim that "the surge" has worked and that the situation in Iraq is stable or improving.

the democrats won't end the occupation of the ME, because they believe that economic stability at home depends on it.

I Think Both Cindy and Daniel have valid points.

They are both reality... We got 10 months to decide who all to vote for.

Lets keep our minds open and watch the changes in the Global Revolution,
and keep doing what we are doing. Please remember too that things change slowly like our American Indians understand... move like a snail, but keep movin'.... As Woody said "Take it easy but take it!"

The ship of state can take a long time to turn around. Only we can change in how we help it change sooner.

"Americans taxpayers are paying $300,000 for killing an Iraqi Civilian"
http://www.chycho.com/?q=Americans_taxpayers

LBJ also invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Daniel David (12:47 pm) writes, "You need about 60/40 Dems vs. Republicans. Then you get de-escalation of wars, better domestic policy and future courts you can live with."

- Daniel, don't you care whether what you say has the slightest bit of historical validity? Why don't you read a book of real history -- like William Blum's "Killing Hope," for example?

There are zero cases in US history of Democrats acting to oppose or halt unjust wars. On the contrary, without exception, the real pattern is that the two parties collaborate on all US "interventions" abroad. It's simply never been the case that one party acts as a check on the other. This is because both support the use of US power to force other countries to submit to our will -- imposing policies on other countries (or outright installing puppet governments) that are profitable for US multinational corporations.

In the 1980's, Reagan waged unjust unofficial wars in Nicaragua & El Salvador. The Democrats supported Reagan in this. In 1973, the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected govt in Chile. The Democrats had no objection & never made an issue of it. Vietnam was largely the direct work of the Democrats, from Truman to LBJ. Under LBJ, the CIA assisted in mass killings in Indonesia, bringing Suharto to power. And the CIA assisted in a rightwing military coup in Greece, also under LBJ.

This list of these international crimes is very, very long. Do you really know nothing about these things? The idea that Democrats have ever acted to "de-escalate" US wars is as much a pile of BS as the story about George Washington & the cherry tree.

I'm sure the Bush administration will go down in history as the greatest republican administration of all-time. This phony war on terror and the freedoms that were stripped because of it will secure republican rule for decades to come. When modern republicans' started stripping freedom on the so called, "War on Drugs" in the 1980's during the first presidency of a Bush they could only go so far. Because even though they called it a war since their party were bringing most of the drugs into the country.

Now they have a real war a republican war. A war where they get to kill, torture and destroy millions of lives while making trillions of dollars. After all, the only profits from the war on drugs was imprisoning and disenfranchising American voters. Granted they laid the foundation for the tortures they now apply to foreign prisoner and started suspending constitutional rights but it just did not have the pizzazz they were looking for. They needed something to rob trillions from current and future Americans.

So they got a third generation war profiteer elected to the Whitehouse. They knew if anyone could bring them this glorious war they so crave this amoral elitist warmongering terrorist could. This is why bush is so popular with the WMD's (formerly MSM now; war mongering dirtbags). Who profits more from glorious war stories than the media, OK the bush no-bid contractors, and the outsourcing of the military and his mercenary armies, and the military leaders, but the media reaps huge profits(as do there parent co's).

It is easy to see why bush will go down in history as the greatest republican president of all-time. God can anyone imagine what the world would be like if another republican president tops his murdering, corrupt, vile reign of terror….

Cindy,

It isn't a question of divide and conquer, really.

It's a question of PRIVATE PROPERTY: ownership of issues and movements.

Nobody wants to get on a bandwagon and cooperate--they want to OWN the bandwagon and be STARS,

And they will be flushed into the abyss of history before they will unite.

Gringos are taught from the cradle that competition is The Way.

It's about the only lesson they have learned, unfortunately.

The middle east oil is necessary for the corporate military empire, and if that necessitates tyranny at home,the corporate government has already put that into action through its bully boy Bu$h.

Right on Cindy!

This is Grim.

It never seems to occur to anyone that the more Democrats there are in government, the less Republicans there are for them to be "in collusion with." It's not that people who decide to be Dems are smarter or deserving of our admiration as incorruptible (they aren't)---It's that you control the national agenda from a different tone and mindset.

I really don't mind being called "idiot" and more here, because I'm right about this. You had wall-to-wall Republicans on 9/11 and look what we got started for us to later mop up. You want it de-escalated? You're going to need the other side (Dems) in a no-veto, no-filibuster majority. And you'll have nothing but status quo until you get it that way.

I, too, liked Dennis Kucinich. But sometime or other, you have to realize his movement has stopped moving.

It's the age old tactic of "divide and conquer"
The "ruling class" in our country are doing it in Iraq and they
are doing it here in the USA.

There is no national anti-war movement, but there is a lot of
activity in communities.

I tried to unite the national movement: Invited every national group to a coalition to have united, strategic and effective actions around the inconceivable 5th anniversary of the invasion and to have a peace summit starting this weekend.

There was a lot of interest in some of the national groups like ANSWER, World Can't Wait, After Downing Street, CODEPINK, Progressive Dems of America, etc and tons of support and interest and support from grass roots groups all over the country who want a united national movement, but other groups were major stumbling blocks and I had to go to bed for 2 days with a migraine before we finally just decided to concentrate on my campaign.

I think concetrated actions at local congressional offices, demos, vigils, letter writing and petition signing campaigns must continue. The power of one is profound, I just wish we had the power of millions.

With profound love and respect for everyone who continues to strive for peace, accountability and justice in their own ways and own time.

Cindy