'End the War in 2009'

Tom must know these wars of aggression are totally illegal under US and International Law. That those issuing and following UNLAWFUL ORDERS are committing a crime, and very often conspirators in Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against Peace, and War Crimes - Nuremberg Principles.

These wars were instigated initially in the mega-production psychological warfare operation (psyop)on 9/11.

All those not making definitive statements on 9/11 being a False Flag operation by treacherous individuals ensconced strategically in the media, academia, public office, armed forces and throughout the catacombs of neo-cons and their Israeli co-conspirators with their good Christian frieds of Israel.

It is unlawful to be silent of 9/11, a crime to not remind people in the military that they are under oath to reject unlawful orders. Likewise, the antiwar movement was to weak on 9/11, DU, and Unlawful Orders. Sentiment is silence in the face of transparent high treason on 9/11 and everything since a war crime.

The solution will not come from election in November; it never did! 43 rotten presidents in a roll. 110 congresses and look! The courts, justice is what they fear, and are there to pervert and prevent.

All those supporting a return to the compulsory military draft are aiding and abetting the war machine, regardless of the confusion and rhetoric.

How about an anti-Zionist block at the DNC this year? Using Liberman is the prime example and the neo-cons on a bi-partisan basis, including all those with dual US-Israeli citizenship. It is a matter of national security for sure, and prime co-sponsor of 9/11.

Shakker - IT IS NOT A WAR. It was an invasion, it is an occupation and an attempt at securing oil for the oil industry.

Highly recommend: "It's the Crude, Dude" - War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet, by Linda McQuaig. It's a history of America and oil. She names names, corporations and the lies, treachery and the inhumanity of this industry.

abbeybwood,

Thanks for the info on Ralph Nader. I don't watch the Sunday shows or any of the Corporate Media Propaganda stations ( CMP ), but if I'm home, I'll try and catch Ralph. He's better on Amy Goodman's DEMOCRACY NOW! program where he actually has a chance to speak.

Turkey sent 10,000 troops into northern Iraq to kill our "friends" the Kurds.
I'm with you on Tom. ???

Whenever the war is ended the right wing nut line will be that if we stayed longer, spent more, and or killed a few more the exit disaster would not have happened. It will be bullshit, but there is an element that believes this about Vietnam.

Ralph Nader will be on "Meet the Press" Sunday morning.

I will tune in just to see what other options I may have.

After reading the article on Commondreams about the U.S and Israel conspiring with Turkey to sell them nuclear secrets with the knowledge of the Clinton and Bush administration I don't know how Tom Hayden can continue his support of such a corrupt party as the Democratic one.

Seriously Tom. Why don't you just TRY to write an article defending your stand?

Lots of good and interesting comments. Thanks Comarc for explaining the deceptive stuff on voting in Congress.

Is there really discussion of Lieberman running as Obama's VP candidate? If so, then Obama has really been won over by the money and power of AIPAC...what happened to the handsome gentleman sitting down to dinner with the Palestinian scholar Edward Said?? If Obama is a true progressive he will pick Edwards as his running mate.

What war? It was an illegal attack - an invasion - shock and awe bomb attack on innocent people. Now its an occupation. It is not a war.

Words are important.

Ron Paul is still in the race with more money than McCain or Huckabee. Huckabee is not dropping because he knows, if McCain has a heart attack or gets ill, Ron Paul would be the shoe-in, and Obomba Iran doesn't stand a chance against Obomba because Ron Paul has a excellent voting record, especially when it come to PEACE.

Just read Chalmer's Johnson's latest essay on the American Empire. Looking at military expenditures of countries around the world, we spend more in the United States than the rest of the world combined! And of course, we don't have universal health care like Western Europe. Our military budget is unsatiable. We might be the new 'Sparta'. This country thrives on violence. We'll have to learn about peace the hard way.

Something's wrong with Hayden's thinking these past two years. I talked to him in person about a year and a half ago about a quick withdrawal from our illegal occupation of Iraq.

Maybe the DLC or the Israeli Lobby got to him.

Hank Fur, good point - the recent trend toward close political races is yet another capitalist racket to isolate progressives - no surprise since the great majority prefers progressivism but is still afraid to reach for it. But maybe not for long.

COMarc: Just watch the Dems in Congress who consistently makes sure as a group that the war funding passes uncut and with no strings attached. That's the Dem policy.

Right. And why are the Demoks so loyal to their Repuk war partners? Because both heads of the capitalist dragon are feeling the heat - they screwed up - they over-extended themselves - none of them have any idea how to keep their beloved economy rolling except to make work for the domestic slaves through empire expansion. They know that peak oil presents a great opportunity for the people to break free from the establishment in the industrial sense, back to craftsman guilds and cottage industries, locally produced energy, political/economic independence from the hegemonic establishment. This is the capitalists' great fear, their system of hyper-exploitation is under grave threat. Nothing matters to them more than maintaining their dumbed down slave population. They're trying to expand it worldwide. They are in a hell of a mess - the whole thing threatens to come crashing down.

The American experience, first with Vietnam and now with Iraq, provides a strong reservoir of support for Obama's skeptical position from 2002 until the present time.

But McCain's personal experience as a tough Navy pilot and prisoner of war makes him much more formidable than Hillary Clinton as a "national security" advocate against Obama.

Tom Hayden is an instrument of the DLC with the mission to confuse, dumb down, extinguish and intimidate, but in a much softer but still effective way than the neocons. The Vietnam/Iraq war experiences do not appropriately provide a "strong reservoir of support" for SKEPTICISM, but rather for FIERY RAGE. But that is exactly what Tom Hayden is put here to squelch. Squelch our convictions, Tom, make us docile, extract our consent - that is your purpose.

Hey Tom, so MacCain's pathetic participation in the aggression against Vietnam makes him "much more formidable"??? How does a display of broken rotten ethics make one formidable? It makes him pathetic. Easily knocked down. Easily scraped out of the way. And yet you try to paint the pathetic as formidable! His thousand year occupation of Iraq - formidable? Pathetic! Suicide is pathetic! Call a spade a spade, Tom. Quit your job for the DLC!! No wonder the left can't unify! IT'S SABOTAGED!!

abuelito Said on February 21st, 2008 7:22 pm: "Can't wait that long Tom. Just go ask the women and children of Iraq. Gotta stop it now."

That's exactly right! We've spent 7 years trying to affect change with no success... I think it's because most Americans aren't "directly effected" in their everyday lives that there's no sense of urgency. It's unfortunate.

Can't wait that long Tom. Just go ask the women and children of Iraq. Gotta stop it now.

I am wrong. They also pulled off 9-11. That was a success. Still, I think they will blow it.

We have Bush working for us. He always screws up. They will screw this ujp too. Sure they have a plan, but it will fall apart like everything else they planned. You call them evil, but I don't believe in evil. They are misguided AND incompetent. That makes them fools. Fools screw up over and over again. I agree they managed to steal the elction, but only because it was close and they had the democrats as collaborators. That is the only thing they got right. The rest has been a flop and will be a flop until they leave. Another thing they got right: stealing from the poor to give to the rich. But then, they have experience in that. They will screw up the Obama attack because they are incompetent.

COMarc got the "A" game on display, but he's right. Go on those right wing nut chat rooms like I do and rattle their war/hate fests. They reply with the usual stuff by call me a gay, illegal immigrant commie abortionist terrorist what "hates America" Overlooking the fact that my great grandfather was "born here." Yes, we're the far left, but let's bask in our smugness for once, we're also right as in correct. But we need to pull just that much harder to get this great country of ours some direction back to the "middle", though the middle does lean more to the right than we like.
---Ahh time home on the PC!!!!

My favorite "sound bites" are to go back to the patriots who helped to found this country.

For instance (speaking about America)

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

-John Quincy Adams, President of the United States, speaking in 1821

http://www.fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp

Its the contrast between the BS phony patriotism of today and the real patriotism of the people who did indeed put 'their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor' on the line to found this country.

And I like telling right-wingers and warmongers that they are anti-American. And telling them that if they don't like the America that our founders created, well they can damn well leave it and go live somewhere else. :)

The first three reinforced posters (Tsatr9prodxns, Mordechai and Thought Shaman) right on the mark. (Or Marx as are GOP right nuts like to call us)...DEMS must wage war with the GOP (their favorite term), remind the GOP again and again of their laziness, cronyism, incompetent policies (NCLB, Clean Air Act, graft, corruption, etc etc). Their Compassionate Conservatism (Katrina? Abu Gharib (sic) Waterboarding Git Mo ways, that's not America and finally a large of American no longer drink the bile kool aid and most want the Iraq War/Occupation to end. Shock and Awe the GOP with their own "record" of death and debt, Fear, is all they got, and most of us are no longer afraid. Tom Delay, Bob Vitter, etc etc.

www.runcynthiarun.org
www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com

I like it when people agree with me. But I'd say you have to even look deeper than the voting record. They play games with that deliberately to fool people. Like the recent BS voting record 'ranking' that listed Obama as the most 'liberal' Senator and Hillary not far behind.

A few examples. One is, when the leadership has enough votes to pass a bill they want passed, they'll 'turn lose' other Senators or Representatives. So for instance, on the last vote for the supplemental funding for the Iraq war, Sen Reid was working hard to make sure it passed. Once he had enough votes to ensure passage, he let both Obama and Hillary cast symbolic 'No' votes. Both had been regularly voting to fund the war, so it war pretty obvious that the 'no' vote was pure politics in an election year. In this sort of vote, Reid lines up the votes of Dems who aren't running in this year to get the votes to ensure passage, then the ones where the vote is more politically significant can pretend they oppose it.

Watch the big picture of what happens. Don't pay quite as much attention to the details of the votes. Just watch the Dems in Congress who consistently makes sure as a group that the war funding passes uncut and with no strings attached. That's the Dem policy. If you see someone who is clearly and consistently standing up in opposition of the leadership of their own party, then you can start to assume they really oppose something. But any particular vote can be meaningless, symbolic BS.

Or, another example. On the confirmation of Bush's right-wing Supreme Court justices. The real chance to stop them was with a filibuster. Everyone counts votes all the time in the Senate, and everyone knew that on the final confirmation vote that Reid had plenty of traitor Dems lined up to support putting the right-wingers on the court. So the real vote that counted was the Cloture vote that ended the filibuster. Once the filibuster was ended, passage was just a formality.

My own Republican with a (D) after his name Senator (Salazar D-Co) voted with the Republicans to end the filibuster. Then he cast a symbolic "no" vote against the actual confirmation. So in his ACTIONS, he made sure the right-wingers got on the court. But if he's challenged about this two years from now, I'm sure he'll pull out the meaningless and symbolic "No" vote on the confirmation.

Voting record rankings can be misleading because of this. In the above case, if they just look at the final meaningless confirmation vote, they can trick people into believing that their traitor-Dems aren't such bad traitors.

Or on the recent one that ranked Obama and Hillary both as being so liberal, they both got credit for a meaningless, symbolic vote to end the Iraq war. This was Harry Reid's BS bill. The one that was on its own and that he knew would be vetoed, thus the vote on it would be nothing but a meaningless symbolic act. Given a chance to do something meaningless and symbolic that would do nothing to change the actual course of events, of course Obama, Hillary and the rest of the tricky Dems jumped at the chance.

But, the rankings said nothing about votes on filibusters to end the war funding. How many Dems have you really seen pushing and supporting a filibuster to block war funding? Not many, because that might actually stop the war. So the Dems won't touch that one with somebody else's ten foot pole.

So, I love the concept that says to watch their ACTIONS, and not to listen to their words. But be careful with voting records. They lie and trick and deceive with those also.

Tom Hayden, you're not having memory problems, are you?

You don't take into account the long list of promises Democrats have made over the years. Once in office ... poof! Promise? What promise? Voters will be dismayed, bamboozled again. This, even I can promise.

Out of Iraq by 2009! You must be kidding. What would you be saying if you had a son or daughter over there for another year, most likely longer? What would you say to an Iraqi mother whose child was blown to bits by your Democrat's vote to continue funding the ILLEGAL OCCUPATION? - until, of course, the elections made it impossible to do so. Democratic voters WANTED OUT YEARS AGO. They were AGAINST THE INVASION in the first place!

Do you not know these things, that talk is cheap and one must look at the voting records for clues about a candidate's intentions?

So .... what about this "lessor evil" strategy works for you? For the people of this country who are struggling to get by while Barack Obama votes to further fund the war and support the Patriot Act.. And what about the poor hapless ones who are in the way of the US empire, that malicious entity managed and controlled by corporations through the complicity of the US Congress - the Republicrats.

This article seems rather naive but I know that can't be the case - you've been around too long. I'd bet a dollar to your dime that you have yourself a few friends, comfortable in the Democratic Party, the phony "peoples' party" and now you are like them. It happens. It's human nature. It's also human nature to cry "BS! Tom Hayden." What other explanation can there be for these articles of yours continuing to support Democrats. THEY NEED A WAKE UP CALL, NOT VOTES!

The Republicans are in the toilet. But just you wait, the two-parties, once again, are manipulating things so that the election will turn out to be a close one, thereby frightening progressives ... again ... into voting for the lessor evil. Get back into the two-party fold seems to be your solution. This is all you can come up with?

Cynthia McKinney is seeking the Green Party nomination. Now there's a promise keeper!

Joe Toxic;

You bet. My Congressman, Sam Farr has a good record and voted against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as voting against the illegal, un-American and un-Constitutional Patriot Act both times. I was disapointed when he voted for Harman's HR1959. Otherwise, Sam supported Kucinich's HR 333, the Cheney Impeachment Bill as well as endorsing Wexler's impeachment petition.

My conclusion, Joe, is for people in uniform refusing to be "deployed" to Iraq and Afghanistan and like Nancy R. says, "just say no." to commit crimes against humanity in acts of violent actions against a sovereign nation that did nothing to us. And for the voting public in your area to vote out that criminal and hopefully ( a giant word, nowadays) elect a progressive, honest, liberal for that seat.

Peace and Harmony All Over The World

WHAT WAR???? ITS AN OCCUPATION, AND ILLEGAL

Since many voters form their opinions from emotionally charged sound bites, we need to create phrases just as simple and evocative as these:

"Cut and run"
"snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"
"surrender date"

Any suggestions?

In my letters to the editor, I try to refer to the BushCheney's "reckless ambition", "sinful pride" and "treacherous deceit".

These are anti-values that bible-oriented Americans are familiar with.

I'm still looking for a good short simile that represents the "courage to do the right thing" or the "courage to admit when you're wrong", as a rebuttal to the "courage to continue the fight".

However the Iraq debacle concludes, we in the peace movement are going to be blamed for the next thirty years for "losing" Iraq. We need to start defanging that argument NOW.

President Obama can't do it... he has to play the part of the "Great Conciliator". It will be up to the grassroots to keep fighting right-wing propaganda.

COMarc

Astute observations and analysis.

Lobo Gris

COMarc @ 3:45 pm:

Great post, good visualisations / ad script.

T/you!

COMarc said: "As soon as Obama has the nomination locked up, he's going to turn hard to the right for the general election"

That's a valid observation. What I wonder about is where the average american is on the polical compass... I seriously doubt that the real average is far right. Check it out here: http://politicalcompass.org/index

When I took it, I ended up with this result:
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

How about you?

If polls are correct in their findings that 70% of Americans want us to withdraw from Iraq, then countering the neocons will entail articulating the sound arguments for doing so, regardless of what Petraeus reports. Perhaps a majority of Americans would back Obama in calling out Petraeus as an administration mouthpiece, or explaining that insurgents are standing down only because they're being paid to.

The neocons are devoid of ethical integrity. They will go to any lengths to win. But they are on the side of doom. Obama needs to elucidate the neocon dream of world domination in stark terms for the electorate, so they realize the nature of the neocon con.

Finally, Obama needs to give the voters the benefit of the doubt, and take it to the Repunks. None of their scare tactics should be allowed to go anywhere. Then if McCain wins, at least we'll know what good polls are.

"McCain's remarks last night were focused entirely on Obama's lack of experience in foreign affairs"

Someone needs to tell John McCain that there's more to foreign affairs than threatening to nuke various countries and start more wars.

"The danger for Obama lies in being challenged by McCain, the neoconservatives and the right-wing conservatives to prove his credentials as a militarist"

Why is it necessary that the US president be a 'militarist'? Wouldn't a man of peace be a better choice for the country and the world? The LAST thing this world needs is another warmonger running the show.

"Finally, they will question Obama's experience in pushing for diplomacy towards Iran"

What? Talking to Iran is a bad thing? Seems like the priorities are all screwed up. What's wrong with talking to your enemies? (even though, Iran isn't really an enemy by necessity, rather by choice). Isn't it better to dialog with your enemies in order to come to a mutually acceptable solution? Oh yeah, there's no money in talking... but big money in bombs. I wonder just exactly how much those 500 and 2000 lb bombs actually cost. Not cheap I suspect. Therefore, dropping them by the 1000's on a country is good for the economy, at least for the few who hold shares in the M.I.C.

We need a "new strategy for victory" in the world as a way to counter the Republican attack that any end to the failed occupation in Iraq would be a form of surrender. We need Obama to be confident in showing how "a new strategy for victory" will improve our image around the world, marginalize the use of violence for political means (terrorism), while giving hope to billions of people around the world who want to support a new American example of peace, justice, democracy, freedom, and friendship.

It's an irony really, the war thing!

Sure it makes lots of money, but the spending on armaments is not going to stop the effects of global warming which is a direct result of the excessive greed of the capitalist system!

Imagine if you can America, with army bases all over the world and a zillion nuclear missiles pointed every which way, being battered into nothingness by endless cyclones, droughts, tornadoes, floods, etc.

They prepared for the wrong enemy. There was a Trojan horse within, one they built themselves!

www.dangerouscreation.com

Attacking the Republicans is easy. Its just that the Dems don't want to do it. They don't want to do it because the people who fund the Dem party these days basically want the Republican policies. So the Dems don't ever really attack the Republicans. They save their hatred and real attacks for the Greens and the left in general.

Picture this. This is an ad they could have run in the last election or in this one.

Pictures of flag draped coffins. Pictures of those who've died in this war. Names of those who died in this war scrolling on the screen. And in a part of the screen, film clips of George W. Bush. Film clips of him in that silly air-suit under the Mission Accomplished sign talking about how the war is over. Film clips of him claiming Saddam had WMDs. Use that file from the WH corrspondents dinner where he was making fun of not finding WMDs by looking under his chair. Combine those films with the physical reminders of the costs of the war.

End with a black screen that just says "Had enough?"

The Dems aren't lacking the material to attack the Republicans. They lack the will. They lack the will because the bottom line is they support this war and they have supported this war all along.

If you want something different, don't vote Democrat.

One of the Dems constant tricks is to be promising to end the war at some point way off in the future.

Its a variation on the guy from the old Popeye cartoons. "I'll gladly pay you next Tuesday for a couple of hamburgers today."

The Dems constantly promise to end the war at some vague point in the future. This gives them lots of time to come up with lots of excuses why it really isn't 'practical' or 'realistic' to end the way, and to spin yet another scheme for how they still plan to end the war at some date still even further in the future.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that a Dem President plus majorities in both houses will end the war. They've had all the power they need to end the war ever since the 2006 elections (when they were telling us that electing a Dem majority in both houses would change our course).

All it takes is 41 Senators to get together and say the war is over. The Dems have had that all the way back to the day they all lined up to authorize the war, they've had that on every vote to fund the war.

The Dems don't need more people elected to end the war. All they have to have is the will to end the war. They don't have it. They don't want the war to end. That's the only way to read what ACTIONS the Dems have been taking.

Pelosi and Reid promised right after the 2006 election that war funding will not be cut. And if you look at their ACTIONS, what they done is fulfill that promise and make sure that war funding always passed their bodies uncut and without strings. That's the ACTION the Dems have been taking.

Judge the Dems by their ACTIONS. Ignore their words. They'll lie out of both sides of their mouth and say anything to get elected. So pay no attention to their words. Judge them by their ACTIONS. And there's not an action in this decade that says the Dems are in anyway serious about not fighting this war.

So why in the world would anybody be so obtuse as to think that a Dem President plus Dem majorities in Congress would end the war?

Realize this, what you are seeing right now, this very moment, is absolutely as far to the left as any Dem candidate will go. Its the middle of a primary battle, which is the one time every four years that the Dems even pretend to listen to their base.

As soon as Obama has the nomination locked up, he's going to turn hard to the right for the general election. Its the predictable course of every Dem canddidate for the last 20 or more years. They talk kinda-sorta liberal to their base to get the nomination, then they steer hard to the right for the general election.

So, whatever you are hearing like this from the candidates today is likely to be soon forgotten. The Dems will act like none of this was ever said. When asked during the general election, they'll have a much more rightwing answer and they'll dance and duck and weave and pretend that this is what they really meant all along.

And then after the election, you'll hear they are now studying their options. Any promises to the base way back in the primary season will be totally forgotten. There instead will be an announcement of a transition team task force that is studying the options on what they can actually do.

If you contributed 6 figure donations to the Dem party and the Obama for Pres campaign, you might get a word in edgewise to the discussion. The rest of us will go back to being 'idiot liberals' who aren't even allowed in on the discussions.

Its all BS. Don't believe a word of it.

Mr/Ms Words are important -- Be wary and aware of how your own words are creating the game plan that say that you're against.

It is empowering to overlay the usual last minute 'ball pulling', with the image of a transformed Lucy and Charlie collaborating together and by so doing, creating a win/win situation where the points do go onto the big board.

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King

dunno. i like to think that the american people -- a majority of them anyway -- see getting out of Iraq as the most important moral obligation which history has laid before us. i like to think that for this majority it really is that simple. hopefully these same people will come to see that an even deeper obligation -- both to ourselves and to the world community -- is to end u.s. occupation of the ME.

This is BS. bush already ended the Iraq war and announced "Mission Accomplished". Now Obama says he'll "End the War". Yeah RIIIGGGGHHHT!
Ask him if he will WITHDRAW ALL THE TROOPS. You know, the troops that should have been withdrawn 6 years ago after we found out there wasn't any WMD.
You cannot end something that has already been ended. There isn't even a 'war'. It's a conflict. HOW MANY MORE SOLDIERS HAVE TO DIE?

Words are important, but words without action don't mean a thing.

I still think that even with Obama getting elected, the democratic party is pulling a Charlie Brown on us, and will be snatching the football away at the last second.

Apoligies for duplicate posting at 12:15/16.

Peaceman I agree, end war now 2008, but DEMs and GOP are in their own war for reelections. But if DEMS have the presidency and majority of House/Senate in 90, they better end this occupation - no excuses, yeah right. or they will hear from me more than my REP Devin Nunes in CA 21st House of Rep, who is the classic example of GOP above Country, he's the usual kool aid, New Century, AEI stepford politician.

There is no war between the US and Iraq.

In relation to Iraq, Tom Hayden mentions the so-called "war" over eight times, including the misleading title. He mentions "occupation" exactly once. It is important not to make the mistake of playing into the Bush worldview by perpetuating the idea of war.

There is no war in Iraq. The war ended in 2003. Bush declared combat operations over. The US military defeated the Iraqi military.

So saying "endless trillion-dollar war in Iraq" while it sounds like a statement representing a reality worth opposing, it is false. Writing the title to this article "End the War in 2009" sounds so sensible.

But, there is no war in Iraq.

Saying so is a mistake. And worse, it plays into the conservative, corporate, Bush worldview. How? It supports the win/lose idea. It supports false patriotism. It equates withdrawal with surrender and defeat. It supports the entire narrative of the Bush administration.

So So please Tom, consider the advantages, accuracy and truthfulness, of saying "endless trillion-dollar occupation of Iraq" or "end the occupation in 2009." Occupation is immoral, inherently. No one wants to be occupied. Occupation IS what we are doing to Iraq. The Iraqi resistance is not a war. It is targeted at people who convey the success or support the success of the occupation, and its puppet government. It is aimed at driving out the occupiers, the foreign fighters—the US government, mercenary soldiers and their vast armaments.

And remember the words of cognitive linguist George Lakoff:

". . . if what is happening in Iraq is a 'war 'it has to be a just war, despite how and why we got into it. It has to be a war against evil, or we wouldn't be in it. And we have to fight to the finish, however difficult it may be. . . . the 'war' frame is a trap. . . . We need to reframe what is going on in Iraq and tell the truth: This is an occupation, not a war. "

Lakoff book Thinking Points, page 32

How about ending the war now, in 2008!

Let's face it, the mainstream Republicans and Democrats in office want this war/occupation of Iraq to continue, it's suits big business but not our best interests. But what's also reassuring is that many mainstream GOP and DEM voters, at least in my area of the state, want the Iraqi fiasco to end and want our men, women, sons and daughters home now. If the next president in office is really serious about ending this war, immediately announce during the State of the Union plans to begin withdrawing from Iraq all our troops, this with some type of resulution from the UN to immediatley follow. This would be the first step to rebuild our standing in the world. Also we should extend olive branches with our neighbors in Central and South America instead of weilding clubs and threats. McCain, Obama or Clinton, must realize that establishing sound relations with Venezuela, Mexico and yes Cuba is a start to rebuilding the US credibility, not only domesitcally, but also in the Americas (north/central/south). If we work with latin countries and change our policies and attitudes by first starting with ending the "war on drugs" and combine and share our technological and health/science expertise with our neighbors north and south of U.S. (don't forget Canada), instead of bellicose confrontation, then you will see major changes for the good. We won't need to invade and occupy nations in the Mideast for oil, we can get a fair price from Latin Countries. Hell anything is better that the blood and treasure currently being squandered by the Republican President and Democratic House/Senate members. DEMs got control of congress to END THE WAR in 2007, not 2009, but better late than never, unless of course you're currently serving in Iraq or "live" in Iraq.

Let's face it, the mainstream Republicans and Democrats in office want this war/occupation of Iraq to continue, it's suits big business but not our best interests. But what's also reassuring is that many mainstream GOP and DEM voters, at least in my area of the state, want the Iraqi fiasco to end and want our men, women, sons and daughters home now. If the next president in office is really serious about ending this war, immediately announce during the State of the Union plans to begin withdrawing from Iraq all our troops, this with some type of resulution from the UN to immediatley follow. This would be the first step to rebuild our standing in the world. Also we should extend olive branches with our neighbors in Central and South America instead of weilding clubs and threats. McCain, Obama or Clinton, must realize that establishing sound relations with Venezuela, Mexico and yes Cuba is a start to rebuilding the US credibility, not only domesitcally, but also in the Americas (north/central/south). If we work with latin countries and change our policies and attitudes by first starting with ending the "war on drugs" and combine and share our technological and health/science expertise with our neighbors north and south of U.S. (don't forget Canada), instead of bellicose confrontation, then you will see major changes for the good. We won't need to invade and occupy nations in the Mideast for oil, we can get a fair price from Latin Countries. Hell anything is better that the blood and treasure currently being squandered by the Republican President and Democratic House/Senate members. DEMs got control of congress to END THE WAR in 2007, not 2009, but better late than never, unless of course you're currently serving in Iraq or "live" in Iraq.

Whoever gets the Democratic nominination has to stick it to the Republicans over Iraq with swiftboat certainty . . . has to tirelessly get in their faces and call them failures, fearmongers and incompetents who are killing Americans for nothing (don't mention the Iraqis) and bankrupting the nation. The Great Unwashed have to be given a choice: either vote for the continuing destruction of this nation (and for a generation they've been doing an outstanding job voting in people who are perpetuating that destruction) or vote to get out. Do Clinton or Obama have enough hard bark on them to do that?

There are more threats in the world than just terrorists: Global Climate change and its resultant social problems will make any war look like a barroom brawl, growing economies in China and India and the EU form big economic alternatives to the US, and Russia's reembarkation towards a totalitarian style of government, to name a few.

Obama needs to hammer that the above are serious threats and world-wide terrorism is one among many. Couch this in terms of the "new urgent problems" of the current world situation. McCain will look silly and one-dimensional as someone still stuck in the past and unable to move like a broken record. Paint McCain as a man of integrity with tunnel vision unable to see, much less tackle the problems of the new century. That will do it.

oh...

and soft-on-treason

"...or face being painted as another Democrat too weak to be Commander-in-Chief."

once the dems learn that they don't actually have to justify making reasoned decisions rather than the dick-swinging republican style of kill 'em all, ask questions later, then they will find they no longer need entertain stupid bumper-sticker slogans used to get the weak-minded against them.

dear obama,
why not try the republican ploy?

republicans are, after all,
soft-on-corruption
soft-on-facts
soft-on-thinking
soft-on-child molesting republicans