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.

It's about envisioning the possibilities:

http://healinganation.wordpress.com/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

"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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

>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.

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

Thanks Norman- i think somebody needs to say this out loud, and i'm glad you did

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.

Norman Solomon---another truly decent human being---don't trash him please!

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

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.

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.

..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???

we should oppose war based on lies or truth. we should oppose all wars.

Cruz control: I think you may have misunderstood. Norman Solomon agrees with you.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?