Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe War Election
Maybe it sounded good when politicians, pundits and online fundraisers talked about American deaths as though they were the deaths that mattered most.Maybe it sounded good to taunt the Bush administration as a bunch of screw-ups who didn't know how to run a proper occupation.
And maybe it sounded good to condemn Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush for ignoring predictions that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to effectively occupy Iraq after an invasion.
But when a war based on lies is opposed because too many Americans are dying, the implication is that it can be made right by reducing the American death toll.
When a war that flagrantly violated international law is opposed because it was badly managed, the implication is that better management could make for an acceptable war.
When the number of occupying troops is condemned as insufficient for the occupying task at hand, the White House and Pentagon may figure out how to make shrewder use of U.S. air power -- in combination with private mercenaries and Iraqis who are desperate enough for jobs that they're willing to point guns at the occupiers' enemies.
And there's also the grisly and unanswerable reality that Iraqis who've been inclined to violently resist the occupation can no longer resist it after the U.S. military has killed them.
If the ultimate argument against the war is that it isn't being won, the advocates for more war will have extra incentive to show that it can be won after all.
If a steady argument against the war maintains that it was and is wrong -- that it is fundamentally immoral -- that's a tougher sell to the savants of Capitol Hill and an array of corporate-paid journalists.
But by taking the political path of least resistance -- by condemning the Iraq war as unwinnable instead of inherently wrong -- more restrained foes of the war helped to prolong the occupation that has inflicted and catalyzed so much carnage. The antiwar movement is now paying a price for political shortcuts often taken in the past several years.
During a long war, condemned by some as a quagmire, that kind of dynamic has played out before. "It is time to stand back and look at where we are going," independent journalist I. F. Stone wrote in mid-February 1968, after several years of the full-throttle war on Vietnam. "And to take a good look at ourselves. A first observation is that we can easily overestimate our national conscience. A major part of the protest against the war springs simply from the fact that we are losing it. If it were not for the heavy cost, politicians like the Kennedys [Robert and Edward] and organizations like the ADA [the liberal Americans for Democratic Action] would still be as complacent about the war as they were a few years ago."
With all the recent media spin about progress in Iraq, many commentators say that the war has faded as a top-level "issue" in the presidential race. Claims of success by the U.S. military have undercut precisely the antiwar arguments that were supposed to be the most effective in political terms -- harping on the American death toll and the inability of the occupying troops to make demonstrable progress at subduing Iraqi resistance and bending the country's parliament to Washington's will.
These days, Hillary Clinton speaks of withdrawing U.S. troops, but she's in no position to challenge basic rationales for war that have been in place for more than five years. At least Barack Obama can cite his opposition to the war since before it began. He talks about changing the mentality that led to the invasion in the first place. And he insists that the president should hold direct talks with foreign adversaries.
The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place. There's little reason to believe that Obama is inclined to break away from the routine militarism of U.S. foreign policy. But it's plausible that grassroots pressure could pull him in a better direction on a range of issues. He seems to be appreciably less stuck in cement than the other candidates who still have a chance to become president on January 20, 2009.
The documentary film "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," based on Norman Solomon's book of the same name, launches its New York City theatrical premiere with an engagement at the Quad Cinema starting March 14.
72 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://www.slide.com/r/hD6DvyAOxD9ClUhvUpVcUMABW9QzpGnQ
Too bad human beings can't do the same!
Some say the electoral college is not a problem??????? Nooooooo, not at all! But this one party system is very much a problem and the corporations that run it!
Genocide is always immoral.
The electoral college is not the problem. The election was stolen, that has nothing to do with the electoral college. the electoral college is meaningless. If the college had functioned as it was intended to, it would have chosen Gore, realizing that the vote was stolen, but the electoral college has no independance anymore, it is just an appendix.
BELOW AN OPEN LETER TO BARAK OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR.
In support of all those who shout here in vain against the Clinton scourge, against the Clinton camp who simply wants more of the same "failed policies of the past", in support who those who want change at any price because it can't be worse than these past eight years, nothing can, I submit a letter requested by the Obama's campaign director. It is an open letter to the super delegates. We all know that the entrenched congress is opposed to Obama and the will of America. We know the bought and paid media is nothing more than an establishment, corrupt, rubber stamp for government policies and afraid of their own shadows. They reflect this gutless country so afraid they might lose their next new car they would defeat any change agent more of the same stupidity regardless of the cost. They are afraid of change, which is necessary for global survival. I am opposed to the infrastructure of the Green party since the level of anarchy dictates against any real positive direction. Or for that matter a run by Nader, not enough charisma to attract sufficient voters, not that his message lacks importance. Hillary followed directly in the footsteps of Karl rove and George Bush and the republicrat from Connecticut, Lieberman her good friend.
Change is the only hope for this country and the world!
Dear Mr. David Plouffe,
Thank you for your request, although by e-mail. I am a visual artist, Filmmaker and global communicator. I have recently returned from Africa and work on both sides of the Atlantic in Europe. I know from my work that people for the first time in a long time are hoping for a change in America. Europeans believe that Barak Obama offers the possibility that America will once again join the global community. His stated environmental objectives create enthusiasm in those in other parts of the world.
There are some who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the Democratic Party. This raises the specter of large-scale defections toward the Republican agenda by the youth vote, should the Democratic Party not align itself with the peoples democratic and non-militant direction. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people-who hope for change and believe that change is necessary could possibly tilt the election toward the Republicans should the youth opt out. They would refuse to turn out for the Clinton camp.
Many fear that Obama may lose the election as a result of the strange electoral system and candidate approval mechanisms, felt to be undemocratic. This reflects the basic problem of what many think is a so-called Democracy in America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction of the country.
The Electoral College can make a change as we saw in the 2004 election which allowed Bush to take office; this renders the popular vote, void. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America's Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled election process and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party. Contrary to that hack journalist, Blitzer and his 'Dream Team".
Obama forced to that position should form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This would be true democracy in action but we all know this is a fantasy. People everywhere both in this country and abroad want change in the USA. Should that occur Obama needs a ready made party and given his environmental agenda the Green Party and others might supply the reasoning. However they are in such disarray and is probably an unlikely thought. His rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the "failed policies of the past" if we are to save this world for future generations. However, his statement should show a willingness to take the lead in the conviction that he espouses.
Obama has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, "right now", not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of "business as usual" which would be the Clinton way, before he could claim the office of president. Clinton knows that she can not win against McCain without Obama. To defeat Clinton and the return to the failed Bush methodology, she amply displayed to win Ohio with the politic of fear. Obama requires that he turn to a radical shift in campaign policy it necessary to win.
He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take the steps necessary if the standard-bearer position is denied to him to effect party and changes in American direction. He should take this radical shift and direction, if necessary! By doing so he would serve notice to the Democratic Party that democracy is not lost in America should the first place be denied. The party is being prepared for Clinton to take the crown with the discussion now on the table for Michigan and Florida to vote once again. We all lose and the possibility of change and it goes down with her selection.
If Obama takes half the country with him to a third party we all have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress represented by the Super delegates. The only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win by forcing Barak Obama to take second place. But does Barak Obam have that amount of courage to suggest this option, I doubt it, though I support the man. This would be the last hand to play and he should be discussing this in the back rooms of the party as Hillary is discussing, the two other states she covets for her crown.
This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing the second place the congress and CNN want him to accept. It would force the super delegates to reflect the will of the people. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the position of many "super delegates" would be to overturn the national-will, regardless of Barak Obama taking the popular vote or the majority of delegates. "The failed policies of the past" has put the youth of the USA and the World in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life.
In the final analysis the USA did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage necessary by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will by choosing Barak Obama to lead. The media and the democratic establishment suggests the "dream team" scenario by supporting the status quo and have the temerity to think it can choose the way the people's choice will be suborned and thus nullifying the very democracy they espouse. The height of cynical belief. This congress has not dealt with Bush and Cheney for lying to the American people and Wolf Blitzer on CNN is the scourge of presumption and simply a clone of the establishment.
These policies, if continued will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth and could, by default, elect John McCain and with him a continuation of war for another hundred years. This is a moot point since thirty years remain before environmental disaster takes hold because that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics, environmental direction and economics.
This is an open response from a European blogger. Included below:
Aggie67 February 16th, 2008 2:20 am 
I hope you Americans realize that we, in the rest of the world, are following these primary elections of yours with the greatest of interest. Whatever you do affects us so much. The election of George W Bush seemed to have been such a corruption of the democracy you hold dear, please don't let it happen again by your incessant bickering amongst yourselves. The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life. What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists. Definitely not one, man one vote and the winner of the popular vote don't seem to win the election. Weird definition of democracy. 

In my lifetime there has never been a corporate presidency like this one. Iraq ii, the for-profit war, was the brainchild of a group of radicals hiding under conservative clothing. Both Hillary and Obama rally against the corporate interests while accepting corporate monetary largesse, but at least they do not also run those corporations. This is a big difference. Republicans are married to the conscience-less dollar machine. Money is their religion. Their sacrifice of human life is no different than the human sacrifices of the Aztecs. The fact of blood adds to the power of their endeavors. In order to retain some humanity (they unadmittedly know that such human sacrifice is barbaric and of a different age) they press for more blood. They press on for "victory" which is the symbolic shining light coming down from the heavens proving their righteousness. It is imperative that Democrats do not walk in the footsteps of the Republican blood cult, although this is difficult when they want "change" in a world where cult members number around 50 percent. Jesus blood. Iraqi blood. It doesn't matter. When "might makes right" blood is the proof of that righteousness. Let's just get the Republicans out of there.
Kristina40: Nice idea, but it'll never happen.
The left should be thrilled that the Democratic nomination's dragging on for another 3 months, since what's bad for Democrats, it has got to be good for the left. A young and appealing 3rd Party candidate should emerge, this is the perfect opportunity.
Obama is against 'dumb' wars. Sure, what he meant was that as president he'll start intelligent ones. Don't be fooled by pretty sounding, empty rhetoric. Not only will he start wars, but also sign more anti-labor and pro-corporation laws, like every good Democratic president.
And if Hillary or McCain become president, then everyone knows it'll be Bush business as usual.
I've decided that IF Clinton gets the nomination I'll campaign for McCain to insure the Dems go down in flames in November. My reasoning is this. A crushing defeat for her and the DLC followed by four more years of Bush policy should have the people sufficiently in a lather to rebuild the Dem party from the floor up and kick to the curb the pro corporate lackey's that now comprise it.
If it's really a war election, then McCain will wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton. Americans love their wars, and will gladly vote for someone who claims he can win this one . . . and the next one . . . and the next one.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The Republican propaganda machine has WANTED Hillary to be the Democratic candidate all along and have very carefully manipulated the Press coverage to get her there.
They were shocked to their socks when the educated public started giving Obama their votes, and had to hurriedly re-tool their manipulation machines.
They know that all they have to do is resurrect some of those false accusations we paid Ken Starr $55 million to create and the great unwashed in the rural areas will all vote Republican... again, even if it bankrupts them.
It is pretty clear we all have the same goals.
Impeachment would be great but wouldn't that take a lot more radical Dems to do it?... if Cindy wins, that would be one more strong voice for Peace and possibly impeachment in the remaining Month before Bush is gone.
Obama is not the perfect leader... those of you who want one can vote your protest choice and because of the lesser of two evils, you will.
Repubs like Rush are voting for Hillary in the primaries, since McCain has a better chance against her.
The reality about supporting more 3rd parties is that will diffuse the progressive voice which would be fine in a European system but our system is winner take all so the War Machine likes our peace vote to be uncounted in the diffusion of many 3rd parties.
If the progressives infiltrated the Dems, that would scare the war Machine but they know that the search for perfection in a rigged system gives them all the control they need over us all.
I would like to see Obama get radical, but that is a wish.
America is always facinated with War and violence more than any other Nation and War wins over Peace almost every time.
I can't think of anything that will change that for now.
Please don't give up, things might change for the better.
The coming depression will be painful but it won't change our system but it may give that change a chance.
We will all make different choices and wonder why nothing gets done.
All we can do is keep doin what we are doin.
Pete Seeger just wrote back to me and said: "This world will be saved by millions of Small things."
Love....
Man, as depressed as I was both times after Gw became pres. I think I will sink into an even deeper despair if Hillary gets elected. We were so close. Why are dems such wankers?
"These people don't know where Iraq is, don't know a thing about government, and have no understanding of world events"
That's exactly my point -- education, education, education: topic one - impeachment.
"These people" are our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers and children, neighbors and co-workers - and, as Gandhi recognized as we should to acheive our dreams, they are human beings whose hearts (yes, as enclosed in the steel cages of fear that they are) are able to be opened through compassion and minds open to reason; with yes, the haredest of the hard heads like Bush/Cheney need to be confronted and an intervention carried out directly.
Even if impeachment isn't carried through to conviction in the Senate, the process of impeachment will organize and invigorate the electorate, as well as, educate more of the general public as to the shadow behavior of the US that has gone on since it's inception.
We can bring the Nation's darkness into the light and shed some light into the darkness - with the advancement in technology and human talents, for the first time in human history!
To assume Clinton is lying when she says we brought freedom to Iraq is giving her the benefit of the doubt. How do we know she doesn't believe this? Most Americans do, why not her? Because she is brighter? How bright is she? How bright are politicians in general? Not very. They are elected by people who recognize their stupidity as their own.
I don't want them in peaches, I want them in prison.
puck -
You can't impeach someone who is not held accountable. bush never was, isn't, and never will be held accountable for anything. History books will reflect him as a "Man of Action" and a great president. They'll put up a monument to him in Washington, DC. Half of the votors in this country voted for him TWICE. These people don't know where Iraq is, don't know a thing about government, and have no understanding of world events. Since the Iraq conflict is due to their support of the war, they should have to pay for it. A "war bill" should be sent to EVERY US CITIZEN THAT VOTED FOR BUSH in 2004. That's $8,057.72 each to cover the nearly 500 trillion of war debt. Maybe that would wake those idiots up. If they can't pay it then judgements need to be levied against them until they can pay.
Impeachment though won't happen. It's unfortunate that bush won't be held accountable for his crimes, but that's a fact we have to face.
No Alternative Energy chant! The "war" mentality is full speed ahead with new nuclear weapons and nuclear plants. Confront the war mentality directly today: CALL TO IMPEACH! Help organize the human fabric needed to discover and implement the future energy system(s): ORGANIZE THE CALL TO IMPEACH!
No, no education chant either: there is not a more advantageous education at this time then for the American electorate to know how and to have practice in contacting their elected representatives. The best organizing principle to carry out that education?: THE CALL TO IMPEACH!
NS points out absolutely the failure to effectively and functionally confront the prevailing war mentality.
As mentioned Cindy Sheehan's and Rev. Yearwood's (et al) action that ended up in Conyer's DC office was, unfortunately (until now?) the high point of the "impeachment" movement. What other tactic out there would be better than impeachment for changing the war mentality and directly confronting the profiteering of military privatization; never mind the justice issues?
However, the predominate tactic used, as NS points out, was(is) to gruelingly count to 4,000, plus chant "Support The Troops, End The War" - there has not been a concerted effort to impeach or educate the general population on the difference between a war and a privatizing occupation.
We slaughter 83 of our own by gun every day(night) in this country: that's an "Iraq war" American dead count every 2 months, and we almost double that with the carnage on the highways. So I agree with one of the main points of NS that counting to 4,000 and then 5,000, etc. is not a wise tactic
Plus the use of the benign "Support The Troops, End The War" slogan is another loser in need a waste can. What the Faith groups should be saying this week in DC, and what should be followed up by the Veterans coming in the next week and then by United For Peace And Justice is:
Protect The Troops: Impeach!
Protect America: Impeach!
Impeach Bush/Cheney!
No comments on Billary or Obama, let them comment on impeachment. No Single Payer Health Care, the greatest health benefit to humanity will be the change from "war mentality". No Free Mumia, there are more political prisoners being corralled everyday.
At the moment there is only one call and action that directly confronts the prevailing war mentality and it's current catastrophe, there is only one call and action that can educate and organize the American humanity on an organic basis, and that call is the call to impeach.
One Mind: Impeach!
One Heart: Impeach!
One Voice: Impeach!
Gaza is Baghdad is the American Inner City: confront the "war" mentality -- IMPEACH!
If you oppose the war, you can't support Hillary, or Obama for that matter. Yes, he made a courageous call to vote against the war, but his rhetoric since has not followed through. I would have to say out of the three contenders, he is the one I dislike the least. But that is not good enough.
We need to admit the war was a mistake, cut out the corporate greed, rebuild what we destroyed in Iraq, and that is maybe a start. But it won't happen. Not because of wishful thinking, but because of those in power who are working to protect the status quo.
Not One More.
Once Obama announced that he would ask for even more money for the military-I thought that would derail his campaign.Egads!-the US spends more than the rest of the world combined on weaponry and a Democrat candidate for Prez wants even more!
US elites are so used to the obscene profits from military contracts that it will take many years for a turnaround in attitudes.This could start in the schools if they took the courageous stance of barring military recruiters.
Anotherlong term tactic could be for the peace movement in conjunction with the majority of moderates in Hollywood to sponsor programs promoting the Peace movement to encourage young people to devote their energies to the movement.Maybe enough committed young people could change the thinking of their parents and grandparents.
So, again, the question arises, where is this autonomous grassroot organizing that will hold Obama accountable? The internet? We'll see. I can see it has been used quite effectively to mobilizing people for his campaign.
But, I really wonder if believing is Obama is abt believing he can fix everything or organizing a movement to back him up while in office?
The anti-war movement is a wreck and offers no obvious vehicle for grassroot pressure?
Meanwhile the MSM is reporting dogs being hurled over cliffs, now that's news from Iraq! Not the thousands of US personnel killed, the countless thousands of Iraqi's killed and maimed, etc. Support the troops _ gee, I don't see those on many SUV's these days. Congress should investigate Nascar, already done with the NFL videotapes and Baseball "drug use/Steroids", now that's major league stuff for our elected officials to look at....steroids off the table, not with GWB in the White House and Pelosi in the House of Reps. Hillary/Obama still slugging it out across the landscape, congrats to all voters, even Ron Paul still pulling in sub 10% votes. Corporate War Princess still got a lotta fight and Barack still holding on...McCain catching his breath for the big fight in Nov. Keep voting keep yacking, keep registering; keep the peace.
Yes... the main point is that this was a war for profit, sold to the American people (and Congress) with lies and manufactured intelligence... supported and advertised by the news media's version of schlocky used car salesmen such as Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Robertson.
It also has shown that the time for conventional war is long over. The future calls for small "Mission Impossible" teams that can surgically remove specific enemies and specific targets.
We once had a president that had been one of history's great generals and he said:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." - Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953
For what this war will cost in the long run, we could have BOUGHT the entire country of Iraq and no one would have died.
Excellent point Mr. Norman Solomon, you are on the mark as usual. However, not all the antiwar movement argued against the war because it was not winnable. I remember arguing it was wrong because it was war waged to plunder the resources of another sovereign nation and because it was immoral and illegal. I don't recall Clinton or Obama saying the war is immoral and illegal.
About the Democrats yes, Obama's critique of Bush's handling of the Iraq war is made because the war is in a quagmire. He argues he could have prosecuted the war more ruthlessly and effectively by concentrating on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. He wants 100,000 more troops and an even bigger defense budget.
He plans to continue protecting the worlds largest embassy. He will keep God knows how many thousands of troops in Iraq fighting and dying for Big Profits of USA Inc. He has signaled his willingness to use preemptive force against anyone who challenges American hegemony in the Middle East.
A vote for Obama or Clinton is actually a vote to continue the war under a kinder and gentler face. A face of a woman or an African American in the mold of Condi Rice, Colin Powell or Thomas Clarence. Women willing to be war hawks, Oreos willing to do the bidding of the masters in return for a place at the table and a ride on Airforce One.
Time to start taking principled stands and start building third parties. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the same. The sold out Democrats aren't worth a bucket of slimy spit on a cold day.
While I like Norman Solomon's work, this essay needed a second think before hitting the "send" button.
It's clear that Obama is a war supporter and will be a war sustainer when elected. I think Norman admits that in his article. His one point is that we can move Obama, unlike the others.
Personally, in my lifetime, the only politician moved to change was Richard Nixon when he faced impeachment as the Watergate scandal was revealed. Nixon is reputed to have said about the anti-Vietnam war demonstrators, "Let them protest all they want, so long as they pay taxes."
Ultimately, it was a bipartisan Congress and strong advocacy by the Democratic Party (which didn't rollover and play dead), along with Deep Throat (the No. 2 man at the FBI), a diligent press that did investigative journalism, and an outraged public that "changed" Nixon's mind.
We have only the outraged public now - so overworked, tired and ignored over the years. The left has been out on the streets, written letters - all for naught. Exhibit A: John Conyers, who is still looking for our advocacy, apparently. How loudly do we have to say it?
Quite frankly, we see this every election year. We're told that after the election, the left has to get out there and lobby for its positions. It does, but there is no change anyway. The worst happened under President Bill Clinton, who uttered "real change" words as a candidate, and then passed some of the most regressive legislation we've ever seen as President(except for GW Bush legislation). Lots of Dems, to this day, still don't understand that. Are Obama's hopeful words legit? Check the record - it doesn't square.
Hey, the glass isn't even half full for this election. It's empty when it comes to the Dem frontrunners. Don't waste your vote on them. Voting for them means the wars aren't important to you. Somebody's family died in Iraq, and you are going to vote for the legislator who voted to fund that?
Cruz control: I think you may have misunderstood. Norman Solomon agrees with you.
we should oppose war based on lies or truth. we should oppose all wars.
..when a war based on lies is opposed because too many Americans are dying,...
fuck, norman! wake up and smell the burning flesh.
too many Americans are dying????????
how about a million+ Iraqies???
Did anybody hear that? CHANGING THE MENTALITY THAT MADE THE WAR POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Obama said that. Now, seriously, who else has said that, and isn't that the ENTIRE point? You have to give him credit. He also said Americans are no better than anybody else! I had trouble believing it. What politician says that? Gotta give him credit. You have to. Ok, true, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel said things like that. But they are dead now! Ok Nader and McKinney. Geez, so many choices. And we're going to end up with McCain! Because, the mentality hasn't changed yet.
Its the top of the 25th inning and half the stadium has walked. The game doesn't go anywhere. There is talk of calling it. But then, there's the crack of the bat as the ball finds the gap. There is a man on first with no outs. Suddenly, the possibility opens up that we can score a run, and if the other guys don't answer in the bottom, we have this game, finally, and we can go home victorious. Let's do this thing!
Americans, present company excluded, are against the war because it didn't go well. That's all.
How can anyone take Norman Soloman seriously?
Though he has some interesting ideas it seems he is kept as a shill to oppose true progresives.I will never forgive or forget that during the 04 election he spent most of his energies in attacking and discrediting Nader rather than holding the contemptible and clueless Kerry to anything aproaching the support of the anti- war movement which he pretends to support,he was part of the team that helped Kerry throw the election.
the contemptible Kerry to
Norman Solomon---another truly decent human being---don't trash him please!
war=peace
In 1967, a book came out, called A report from Iran Mountain. It was a study to find substitutes for war (peace) that can be used to replace real war (those who call Iraq a War know not what is War). The authors were anonymous although it was thought to be a quasi-governmental study. Some suggest it was satire.
Some of the suggestions
- create a new threat to Mankind, e.g. pollution
- new ways of limiting births, e.g. via adding drugs to food or water supply
- create fictitious alternate enemies
- create an omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force.
Perhaps we are already living in peace, the wars are just war substitutes. Not doing much for the economy. My bet is the experiment might end soon and we might have a real war coming soon, perhaps with Russia and or China, although this could be fictitous Cold war as well.
http://www.projectcamelot.net/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf
The report also included an alternative social welfare spending as and economic replacement for MIC spending
HEALTH. Drastic expansion of medical research, education, and training
facilities; hospital and clinic construction; the general objective of complete government-guaranteed health care for all, at a level consistent with current developments in medical technology.
EDUCATION. The equivalent of the foregoing in teacher training; schools and
libraries; the drastic upgrading of standards, with the general objective of
making available for all an attainable educational goal equivalent to what is now considered a professional degree.
HOUSING. Clean, comfortable, safe, and spacious living space for all, at the
level now enjoyed by about 15 percent of the population in this country (less in most others).
TRANSPORTATION. The establishment of a system of mass public
transportation making it possible for all to travel to and from areas of work and recreation quickly, comfortably, and conveniently, and to travel privately for pleasure rather than necessity.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. The development and protection of water
supplies, forests, parks, and other natural resources; the elimination of chemical and bacterial contaminants from air, water, and soil.
POVERTY. The genuine elimination of poverty, defined by a standard
consistent with current economic productivity, by means of a guaranteed annual income or whatever system of distribution will best assure its achievement.
That was considered not workable.
Thanks Norman- i think somebody needs to say this out loud, and i'm glad you did
CDMarc is absolutely correct!
On July 23rd when we were in Conyers' office with two petitions...one to impeach Bush with over 900,000 signatures and one to impeach Cheney with over 100,000 sigs and when we had 400 people lining the halls chanting for impeachment, and when his office phone was ringing off the hook for impeachment he said that he couldn't impeach just because the "American people wanted him to." So I said, "Then what you're saying is that the American people have no recourse." And he said: "Yes you do, vote out the enablers." Well there are almost 435 enablers in the House and almost 100 in the Senate.
And I think all wars are "dumb." To use war, which kills civilians at at least a 90percent rate over combatants and which destroys economies and infrastructure at an alarming rate as a foreign policy tool in the 21st century, is at its best insane.
I don't think Obama would be any more capable of waging a "smart war" than George Bush or any of their predecessors. It's just not possible.
Love
Cindy
www.cindyforcongress.org
>March 4th, 2008 1:39 pm
>"No current President is any longer capable of >transforming the militarism that is now deeply embedded in >our economic and social structures."
Exactly. Military-chic vehicles, housing(gated, McMansion, etc.), gladiator-arena sports, and so on. Militarism is embedded in our consciousness; it is how we perceive our environment. No President or leader of any kind was ever capable of transforming our culture. "Change" will come when WE, as a society, take the responsibility for maturing past this culture of fear that engenders militarism by changing our perceptions.
What we find out in these situations is that Kantian (principle-based) ethics and utilitarian ethics actually yield the exact same result. The Iraq War was wrong from its inception as it violated international law as an aggressive war of choice. It then, (unsurprisingly), didn't go well, as a practical matter, after it was supposed to be "won"--"Mission Accomplished".
The same nonsense exists with the issue of torture, with all kinds of simplistic people currently opining that utilitarianism (the ends justify the means or "ticking time bombs" necessitate torture to save lives) is at odds with the (Kantian) principle that torture is plain wrong. It's simply not true that the wedge between Kant and utilitarianism exists. Torture is wrong AND it doesn't work AND it's extremely counterproductive.
This is kind of a gross comparison, but I once heard the Iraq Invasion-War compared to raping and impregnating a woman but then hoping that it would all turn out OK and a happy family would result.
It is really very problematic that Americans love their country so much. Can't you just be indifferent to the place where you happened to be put on earth? You have to take care of your environment, that's right, you have to honour your squat of nature, but you don't have to be proud of it. Because when you are not, you wouldn't so easily be tempted to regard it as special and you wouldn't come to believe you and your country mates are here for a special purpose and then you wouldn't start to think there exists such a thing as a just war. I know this isn't easy. In the weeks and months prior to the Iraq war I found it sometimes difficult to keep reminding myself that George Bush was a liar and even if he wasn't still no cause for war is just enough. As long as you are not under attack by another nation the only reaction to the concept of war is to resist it. As human as it is to have a good fight once in a while, on the scale of a nation, with all the powers it possesses, you have to refrain yourself. And once you came to the conclusion you have to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan today, you should seriously think about how to repay your debts. I mean your moral debts to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is high time for some serious peace negotiating and as much as you might loath the guy, mister Ahmadinejad will be a key participant in such talks. When BushCo decided to bomb Iraq, they basically gave the country to Iran. This was one of the reasons why so many people around Europe protested against the coming war. Because Iran at the moment doesn't deserve much credit either. Shortly before the first attacks there suddenly was an old man on CNN, interviewed at some market in Eastern Turkey, that is Kurd area. He said: let the Iraqi people deal with their dictator. They will get over him. All people get what they deserve. That was probably the wisest, if the most unchallenging, comment about Saddam I have heard so far.
Norman is wonderful and astute as always. I have been impatiently waiting for him to blog and look upon it as a generous and kind gift. Thank you. I wish I could communicate why war is wrong. I feel it, I know it. I am desolate next to the salacious acceptance of grim violence, greed, rampant breeding and the rush to destroy every square inch of untamed land and sea. I too was concerned with the palatal implications of voting for Obama, but trust Dennis. And to all you playa haters out there who dissed Solomon for thinking Obama could be reasoned with? I have one word for you suckers: OPRAH
On Obama Norm writes: "He seems to be appreciably less stuck in cement.."
Maybe, for us, that's a bad thing. Considering Obama made a good anti-war speech before becoming a senator, why did he become "less stuck in cement" about his anti-occupation sentiments. He voted to fund the illegal, brutal, malicious occupation several times - before deciding to become a candidate, of course. He's certainly not calling for all troops out and an end to military bases, etc. And he fully supports Israel's right to ..... well, you know. You think it will get better once he's in office, once he's expected to make his pay backs
The anti-occupation movement needs to continue to put pressure on. BUT HOW, Norman? More begging? More tearful pleading from mothers of dead soldiers? How do you put on pressure? Remember your appeal to voters to drop Nader and vote for pro-war Kerry? this is not a good long term strategy.
Remember what Lawrence O'Donnell said in the docu., AN UNREASONABLE MAN:
YOU HAVE TO THREATEN NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM - OTHERWISE, YOU'LL GET NOTHING.
I am absolutely puzzled by those who have so soon jumped on the Obama bandwagon - No threat, no demand, nothing. Same thing happened with the Nov. elections. If it weren't so tragic it would be hilarious.
Much of the American economy is engaged in the production of armaments so why should its interest in and pursuit of endless war be a surprise to anyone?
"The routine militarism of U.S. foreign policy," is exactly right. While America exists, we will have endless war regardless of who the President is.
Oh, Happy Days!
www.dangerouscreation.com
"WE need to insist they bring HR3797 to the floor of the House."
A good example of what I'm saying. Exactly how are you going to 'insist'? Call them, send them an email? The key point is that they aren't listening and they don't care.
The way to 'insist' is to strongly organize everyone who's against the war in their district in a strong independent\Green\Libertarian\whatever campaign against them in the Nov election. We've already missed the window to challenge most Dems in primaries. Now we are only talking about the Nov election.
Put the fear of losing into these politicians, and then you can start to 'insist'. But to 'insist', you have to have demonstrated political power in a way that matters to these politicians. And if they are sure they can get relected while still ignoring you, they will. Because the money and power that otherwise will get the re-elected is there telling them not to oppose the war.
If the only thing you do is to call or email or protest, then the politician will look at it like this. The money and power that gets them re-elected wants the war to continue. The people 'insisting' have shown no political power and can really (on past experience) be counted on to vote Dem over a Republican on the lessor-of-two-evils idea. So the politicians will of course ignore you no matter how much you 'insist' because ignoring you is sure to get them re-elected while do what you ask puts that re-election in doubt.
So, the only way to get their attention and to make them listen when you 'insist' is to make it very, very crystal clear that continuing this war puts their re-election very much in doubt due to the formation of a strong independent anti-war candidate as the third player in the general election.
There's only one way to get a 'message' to a politician. Cause them to lose an election. Its the only thing they'll listen to.
"But it's plausible that grassroots pressure could pull him in a better direction on a range of issues."
Bull!
After the election, the grassroots will have zero leverage to apply any pressure. If we've learned anything over the year of this Dem congress, that's the one lesson we've should have learned. Once the Dems were elected to Congress in 2006, exactly how much pressure have the 'grassroot's been able to apply?
Look at two key issues. a) The war in Iraq. and b) Impeachment.
The Dems grassroots are strongly opposed to the war in Iraq and strongly in favor of impeachment. How much pressure have they been able to apply to change policy? Zero, none, nada, zip, nothing.
After the election, they laugh at us. We don't even get to go into their offices and talk to them. We have to chase them through the hallways of Congress, and if we actually get a word in edgewise the Dems in power complain and rant against us calling us 'idiot liberals' (Rep Obey). Or if we try to protest near their homes or offices to try to even vaguely to deliver the message they don't want to hear, the Dems in power whine and complain how they can't have us arrested for loitering (Rep. Pelosi).
Get this fact straight. The only time we can apply any pressure is when they want something from us. They need our votes to win. If we all abandon the Dems, they all lose because our 10% to 15% of the vote is needed by them to win. That's when we have leverage. That's when we can apply pressure.
I'm constantly seeing this line of bull these days that we should help Obama get elected because then we can 'pressure' him once he's in office. But once he's in office, we won't even be able to get in the door to talk to him. All we'd see of Obama is the Marine One helicopter lifting him out of town so he doesn't even get to see our big anti-war protest on the Mall in Washington.
Apply Pressure Now! Its your only chance for the next eight years.
Picture an Emergency Room.
A man is wheeled in on a gurney, bleeding profusely. He is in a great deal of pain and moaning.
A small table is next to the gurney. Several trauma doctors are sitting around the table talking about how to best deal with the man's issues. None of them are helping him. As the man fights for his life, they begin to talk about a "new doctor" being hired that will actually help some of the patients. While the man screams in agony, bleeding out on the gurney, the doctors keep on talking.
A joke? No. The doctors are the US Congress and the man on the cart is the conflict in Iraq.
The anit-war movement in my town did call the war wrong, not just badly managed. It was certain "liberals" and their pundits -- like writers for the NY Times -- who were spinning out the "convince-me-and-I'll-support-your-war" meme. But in the anti-war movement groups I attended, even if the US had been winning, the war was still completely wrong.
But you have put your finger on one problem the liberals have now, which is the attempt to fix the problems and . . . and what? Stay in Iraq, apparently.
Locust: there is no "war" against "those who attacked us on 9/11". The reason is pretty clear, if you can get your head from under the rock that is the 9/11 Commission whitewash. Al Qaeda no more pulled off 9/11 than you or I did. No competent pilots among the alleged hijackers, not one of their bodies found, not one of them listed on the passenger manifests of any of the flights involved. 7 of those named found to be alive and living in the Middle East, having never set foot in the US. If you can get past all of that foolishness, then you get to try to make the square peg fit in the round hole as far as the destruction of the Twin Towers despite all physical evidence to the contrary against the official story. There's much more, but you get the idea. There is no one to go after. They are after oil and natural gas and power. That's it, it's that simple, and that naked. That's why these candidates dare not seriously question the status quo. Those who did, like Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, have all suffered the ridicule of the MSM, whose corporate owners have assured that there is no real independent journalistic investigation of the 9/11 crime. If there had been, these people would all be in jail already.
The empire has no clothes
The empire has no clothes no attire
It's only destination is to acquire
hyping freedom called 'war on terror'
a genocide washed awe and shocker
like a boxcar bound for Auschwitz/ AbuGraib
the pursuit of power knows no bounds
The world is ours... our extermination camp
The empire has an invisible hand and brain
like a runaway plunder powered corporate train
destination Aufwiedersehen.
The empire has an invisible hand and brain
like wordless prophets pimping gain
a new world order built on pain
star spangled in a barren dying plain
Frank 1569's example of reframing is excellent, right on. Now, how to get this message to the Democrats on Capitol Hill. In any event, I don't think they'd use it. I haven't heard anything from the great majority of Democrats in Congess that indicates they really oppose this war, I mean illegal ocupation. It's really not that easy to think in the right frame all the time.
"He seems to be appreciably less stuck in cement than the other candidates who still have a chance to become president on January 20, 2009.".......
Wow...I am so enthused to cast my vote (extreme sarcasm!). Lesser evil is just that...EVIL. I am not casting a vote for EVIL. If I cannot vote my conscience then I won't vote at all. I have to look at myself in the mirror every day and besides...if "Be the change you see in the world" has any REAL meaning then I have to listen to my conscience and act accordingly.
Hey folks...let's get on the "hope" bandwagon, stop making excuses for why we cannot get more involved than "see you on Wed. at the PEACE CORNER" or "I vote...isn't that enough?" and get involved in direct actions and local grassroots activities. I am.
peace,
M
Come on, already - of all progressive, NS knows better than most that THERE IS NO WAR and there never was a WAR.
Are we ever gonna reframe this thing, or are we all just gonna keep talking about how important it is that we reframe?
Here, allow me to help:
There were thousands of lies followed by an illegal, aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to America. That was followed by an illegal - and ongoing - occupation.
People hear war, they feel fear and bow to the Lunatic in Chief. People hear ILLEGAL INVASION and they get pissed off; they hear ILLEGAL OCCUPATION and they are repulsed.
Really, it's enough already. America is not at WAR with any country on Earth, neither officially or even technically. Anyone who continues to call it a WAR is part of the problem, not the solution.
Bomb, bomb, bomb with a) Billary and b) McCain. "a" is cynical; "b" is stupid. Mr. M is a war lover and was tortured in another idiotic imperialistic war operation; Billary just wants to be on the winning side of any issue. Obviously, both are marvellously experienced.
Sounds like a St. Obama supporter. If you think he will do anything substantially different, you have not been watching/reading/or listening to the news. He is the darling of the corporate media and they depend on the military industrial complex for their existence. Peace does not sell! Wake up and smell the skunks!
Talk about have a failed illusion.
I must confess he is right better to have no illusions.
He sure demolished the illusions Ive harbored about his incisive intellect and humanity.
I can't believe he is falling for the 'lose at any cost' Democratic campaign.
Thank you, Mr. Solomon. You have cut to the quick of the issue.
As an addendum: Republics which become empires rarely recover from it...and
rarely last very long, however "constitutional" they may be.
...Yes, Yes, Yes And that's why in addition to taking the time for discussions/ventings like this, we need to keep pushing and prodding our members of Congress. WE need to insist they bring HR3797 to the floor of the House. This legislation would mandate that the administration would have to engage in talks with the regional players around Iraq, including Iran. It should be in place before the new President is in office and we should be pushing the diplomacy path daily whenever opportunity arises. For more info see FCNL.org Talking to each other is wasting our voices..speak out.
The war against Iraq ended in 2003. The USA gained its objectives, which were to:
get Iraq to obey UN Security Council resolutions, and
get Iraq to stop being a 'continuing threat' to the USA.
This is from the legislation used as rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
It is not a war, any longer, unless you consider it a mulligan and we are refighting the war to get a better score this time.
It is an occupation. Calling it a war lets the war-mongers set the rules for dialogue.
The only Constitutional war we are involved in is the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. How's that going? Have we killed them all, yet?
More important than that is the unConstitutional global war on terrorizing everybody.
The mindset of 'US at war' needs to change and this article helps not at all.
No current President is any longer capable of transforming the militarism that is now deeply embedded in our economic and social structures. Militarism is our government's mode for worldly problem solving as para-militarism is now our government's mode for dealing with domestic dissenters. And now, growing as militarism's younger sibling is the prison complex which is now applied as our governmnent's panacea for dealing with those who differ. Business uses uses the war paradigm to conduct its strategic processes for desired results of market conquest -- and actively employs the the military in its foreign exploits. We have become the military industrial complex as it is the great touchstone of our government's identity. For one person to stand against the militarism is to stand against what our government has sadly become -- and this act invites certain removal from office. If militarism falls, it will be because of its own weight -- or because a huge groundswell of humanity rises to oppose it.
Surely it is signifficant that at the time when there was maximum outrage against Rpublican policies, the Democrats message has become more amorphous and vague than ever before. This is the strategy.
80% majorities can never have a voice it the question that defines them is only asked on left-liberal elctions.
While there path from Drudge report to """"MSM"""" is well worn, the path from Common Dreams to '''''MSM'''''' is like
a snowy cornfield with no tracks.
WE HAVE TO MAKE THOSE TRACKS, or the only important twain shall never meet. That is why we need to post thes articles INTO MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPER SITES of the big city newspapers. Five minutes of clicking a pasting will produce far more change than twenty more minutes of reaidn another article.
perhaps mr. solomon meant to say "...the war has faded as a top-level issue BECAUSE OF the presidential race".
"...the anti-war movement is now paying a price..." sure. you bet. while the people of iraq are getting off scott-free. this occupation is nothing more than a win-win deal for the mic, big oil, and weapons manufacturers. good deal, blame it on the anti-war movement.
mr. solomon, although you started off with a bang, about half-way thru you fell flat on your face. would you consider yourself a part of the "...array of corporate-paid journalists" you refer to?
re: McDee (1:08)
I think you've got it exactly right. I also think that Norman Solomon, who himself is on the margins of the permissible, understands the same thing. That's why I'm a little surprised that he assigned the "permitted" critique to the anti-war movement.
seriousprofessor...perhaps the figures you mention just inherently know that anything beyond a "technocratic critique" would fall outside the permitted parameters of acceptable discourse.
We do have freedom of speech in this country. However, the speech of some, e.g. Rupert Murdoch, is "freer" than others, e.g. us. Also, tolerance for free speech seems to diminish as it actually becomes effective.
One is much more likely to be "taken seriously" and receive coverage by the MSM if one says that the war is badly managed, costs too much, has taken too many U.S. lives, etc than if one says it is a moral outrage and should cause us to re-examine our relations with the world.
It is lamentable that Norman Solomon. who has written quite incisively and wisely regarding the nature of American imperialism, believes that if enough pressure is brought upon Barack Obama, that he will somehow change his outlook concerning American foreign policy. It is surprising that Mr. Solomon does not acknowledge that Obama has on every occasion voted to fund this most unnecessary and idiotic occupation in Iraq. Obama advocates not an immediate withdrawal of troops from that slaughterhouse in Iraq but rather a phased redeployment, as well as keeping troops in Iraq after his withdrawal begins [how many troops will stay in Iraq is not revealed by Obama]. A phased withdrawal is not the best way to support the troops. Mr. Solomon must be aware that Obama wishes to keep the nuclear option open vis a vis Iran, which is not the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people.
Surely Mr. Solomon must be aware that Obama has received many thousands of dollars from Wall Street, which will make it extremely difficult for him to say no to the corporate interests that plague Washington. The irony is that Mr. Solomon talks about illusions in his final paragraph, without seeming to realize that Obama is just as dependent upon the establishment and the military-industrial complex as Obama's rivals, Clinton and McCain. Say no to corporate interests and more belligerent rhetoric by voting for Nader in 2008.
This is the mistake that John the Coward Kerry made in the 2004 election; ignoring the anti-war vote and making the arguement that the war has been "mismanaged". Hillary Clinton and Obama and McCain all are now arguing the same thing despite the fact that 90% of the Democratic voters and 70% of Republican voters want the US out of Iraq by the end of this year. Once again, the anti-war citizens who believe that this war was never legitimate in the first place are left with no place to go, as the blood debt and financial burdens continue to pile up.
I agree that most Americans think it is OK to occupy other countries to rearragnge their societies according to our interests - as long as it is not too costly for us with and with no regard for how the people of Iraq are doing.
Absolutely shameful the way this war has been supported and ignored by mainstream America.
Obama in his 2002 speech said he was against "dumb" wars. Perhaps, that is his ultimate criteria. Is it dumb or is it smart? I don't recall if he addressed the morality of it at all. But thanks to Norman Solomon for reminding us that not anti-war positions are equal. I think Sen. Chuck Hegel is of that stripe that disapproves because of the lack of success. I don't know if he gives a damn about Iraqi suffering. On the other hand, Cindy Sheehan cares about humanity in general. I don't know, but when Obama talked about talking to our "enemies", he sounded almost radical by the standards of politicians who get corporate media time. I'm hoping he is less stuck in cement on the necessity of the U.S. being stuck in the quagmire of Iraq.
This primary election is about the war and the pro-war candidate will do very well in states that are very much in favor of the war such as Texas and Ohio where she has rallied all the reactionary forces in her party and even the right wing republicans behind her. This is a sad commentary on the democratic party almost half of which is ready to vote for a hawkish true believer in Bush's war. Last night she was proclaiming that we have given Iraq the "precious gift of freedom." This is obscene and in keeping with her disgusting campaign. We can only hope that there are enough progressive democrats to put Madame Cluster Bomb in the garbage can of history where she belongs.
Bomb, bomb, bomb with a) Billary and b) McCain. "a" is cynical; "b" is stupid. Mr. M is a war lover and was tortured in another idiotic imperialistic war operation; Billary just wants to be on the winning side of any issue. Obviously, both are marvellously experienced.
I can't agree with Norman Solomon's assumptions here:
"But by taking the political path of least resistance — by condemning the Iraq war as unwinnable instead of inherently wrong — more restrained foes of the war helped to prolong the occupation that has inflicted and catalyzed so much carnage. The antiwar movement is now paying a price for political shortcuts often taken in the past several years."
The criticism that he describes does not belong to the anti-war movement. It has tended to belong to figures who are (or were) frightened of principled critique and so found it safest to issue technocratic critique instead.
When such figures have held public office, they are the ones responsible for prolonging this criminal invasion with the stance that Solomon cites.
Those public office holders continue to prolong it with their timidity even after the 2006 elections.
If Solomon will just pause and remember 2004, he will recall that anti-war protestors were relegated to a "free speech" cage down the street from major party political conventions. In the case of Medea Benjamin, she was dragged off of the floor of the Democratic convention.
Perhaps he means such anti-war sentiment as is permissible in mainstream coverage, but that does not faithfully reflect the anti-war movement.
It's about envisioning the possibilities:
http://healinganation.wordpress.com/
Fargo, so true. However, Hillary is on the same page when it comes to being consciousless. She has the sociopathic ability to just turn it off. Example, voting against the ban on cluster bombs. Most sucessful politicians do. Even Obama, but not to the same extent.