And as far as out-of-the-box ideas go:
The political spectrum is not a straight line with two ends--it's a broken circle with the ends closer to each other than to the middle. The % of voters who would vote for a Kucinich/Paul/Nader ticket is, I think, well over 50%. No war, empire or trick economic system, but people over profit, with sustainability and ecology.
Sweet!

War is the preferred method of the power elite to both concentrate wealth and power, cut civil liberties, maintain the status quo, etc. This war is being used by global corporations to bring the world's last super power to a level of irrelevancy as a check on corprorate hegemony. The US is being helped off center stage to make way for a more uniformly consumerist globe. Sooooo, the more appropriate area to apply resistance is not on the politicians, who are followers/puppets, but on corporations. And why not pick the biggest, nastiest one to boycott world-wide---Exxon/Mobile. It's simple, legal and effective. It would get their attention. And be fun to boot.
Cheers.

blueapples26, any connection to Rennes le Chateau and Abby Sauniere?

Jeevee---the majority of Americans ARE for peace! The peace movement must now catch up with the people.

PEACE, PEACE, PEACE...
" WHY ARE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS NOT FOR PEACE? LUXURY HAS PRECEDED THE DOWNFALL OF EVERY OTHER ARROGANT NATION SINCE HUMANS BEGAN EXPLOITING THIS PLANET, FOR THEIR OWN EVIL GAINS.
BUT AS OUR DOCTOR EARNESTLY SAID, "I can't understand why EVERYONE isn't for PEACE..."

Again, exactly why the peace movement is isolated, even though peace sentiment is higher than anytime in modern history. "Register Green," and what? "Obama and Hilliary are Warmongers," and McCain is what?

Many progressives have the same type of ideoplogical blindness that kept the Bushies from seeing reality. These progressives, much like the Bushies, dislike the real world so they make one up to match their ideological prejudice, rather than doing the difficult work of analizing the real world and developing real solutions than can help real people win real gains.

"Register Green," and, in reality, you merely remove yourself from the electoral process. While the entire labor movement and all major movements of the people, minorities, women, environmentalists, etc. are working at mobilizing their bases, reaching out and developing wide coalitions to expand that base, all with the goal of defeat Bus/McCain and the ultra-right corporate forces with them, and winning real gains. The Greens, regardless of what you'd LIKE for them to be, are generally, in fact, a divisivetiny, little sect that has isolated themselves from the mainstream labor-led people's movement. Furthermore, in the winner-take-all system we have to work in the our nation, they can ONLY play the role of spoiler, helping give the election to Bush.

As far as the Obama/Hilliary are "warmongers," you clearly are not looking at the reality of the campaigns now taking place. While I also have many misgivings about Hilliary, both Democratic candidates have been rushing to present better and better plans to exit Iraq. This shows, far from those who keep stating on here that 'all is lost and we should just throw in the towel,' that we can, in fact, influence the process. Obama's position has shifted dramaically in a positive direction. If the peace movement would break out of its self imposed isolation and have a real electoral policy, we could do so much more.

I must ask a question based in reality; would those two writters rather have McCain, who has stated that he could see US troops in Iraq "for another 100 years?" That, in reality, is our choice.

I say, the peace movement should join with the labor moevement and the other people's movements and help defeat the GOP. Put yourselves in position to help us win after November.

"I'm completely flummoxed by the anti-war voters who can support Barack Obama - he's a warmongerer! He is an advocate of our using the military in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, and has no clear plan for exiting Iraq - why support him?? It's time to start thinking outside of the box!!"

The REAL warmonger here is Clinton, she voted for the war and approved every dollar being spent in Iraq. She's owned by AIPAC. When are Americans going to learn how to vote in their own best interests?

When politicians are no longer bought/owned by corporate interests....then and only then will they be responsive to the voters.

This cannot and will not happen without Campaign finance reform, instant runoff elections, regulation of corporate industry...again ...and... most vital: a return of the Fairness Doctrine and demonopolization of our media. If the media is not voicing ALL the truth loudly and clearly the voters will never know it, never hear it. If the media is spouting corporate viewpoints constantly the American Public will vote the way they are told.

Best tactic?

Register Green.

That is a "End this Occupation Now" label that shows up on voter registration lists.

They READ those things. Next to $$$, it's their favorite resource.

Better believe they'll see it. They'll GET it. Espectially when people do it in the thousands.

See Switch2Green.org.

The peace movement needs to tell the whole truth, and it is not. We are in Iraq because of oil, war profiteering AND Israel. They are forgetting the last one to maybe not offend liberal jews who though in the forefront of the peace movement, become reactionary Zionists whenever Israel is criticized.

Another lost inconvenient truth that must be talked about in the media is that this war is a result of resource depletion due to the overpopulation that is also causing pollution and global warming. The overpopulation that underlies our problems is being totally ignored. Many republicans agree. But you will never see or hear it discussed in the media. Killing people for population control is simply cruel and stupid when birth control could achieve it humanely.

One more intrinsic cause of war that is totally ignored is resource distribution. A fraction of 1% owns over 60% of the world and controls the rest. This oligarchy profits from war and chaos. It's time these things are brought to light.

The thesis that we should force the candidates to compete for the anti-war vote in order to remain as an influence in the "debate" is a sound one. However, the remaining choices have already severely limited the possibilities of desirable foreign policy changes no matter who takes office next year. I don't think American troops will be withdrawn from any theatre of operations as a matter of principle. Disastrous events, either military or economic in character, may force the Commander-in-Chief to redeploy them in whatever configuration tactical experts advocate. My intuition tells me Obama may be the most committed to working in conjunction with other governments to minimize warfare.

Klein/Scahill, as well as Tom Hayden, are putting forward a strong, positive message that needs to be heeded. Hayden certainly has the time in the trenches, the experience in the fights, to speak from real life experience. What these three strong voices are saying is that it is long past time that what passes for a peace movement in the US should have some form of electoral strategy.

I've been very active in the people's movement for four decades now, starting with the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements, and working as a steel union activist and leader for decades. We NEVER had anything near, even appoaching, the huge majority opposing the Vietnam War that now oppose this misadventure in Iraq. While the vets movement got media attention and was very positive during Vietnam, the oppostition to the war, even the level of organization, is much, much greater now among soldiers, vets and military families. During Vietnam, the labor stayed on the sidelines. Now, the entire labor movement opposes the war. However, in no way has the old peace movement even made real efforts to recognize and relate to the new, positive realities.

Further, at this time Americans are more politically active than they have been in their lifetimes, the vast majhority pushing for changes, including an end to the war and monies/resources and people brought home to help people here. However, again the old peace movement takes a self-rightous stand "above the fray," never allowing themselves to be dirtied by touching the real politics of our nation.

Certainly it is true that those polititcs are a stacked deck in favor of two corporate parties. But those two parties, while corporate, are NOT the same, they most assuredly CAN be influenced. We, as progressives, clearly are to the left of where the main candidates are, but we have one candidate (McCain) who's postion is support for the war, even stating he could see the US in Iraq "for 100 years." The two fighting for the Democratic nomination have clearly moved, becoming more and more anti-war, strengthening their positions against the war. However, the peace movement, without any electoral strategy, only whines on the sidelines about how their important issue is sidelined. To make it otherwise, we need to develop a real approach to influence the electoral arena.

No, "voting Green" or "voting Nader" is not a real electoral strategy in today's political atmosphere. It's just another form of ignoring the politics that the American people are part of.

The labor movement is in the process of training thousands of activists, organizing wide coalititons to fight for their issues (which include ending the war), in preparation for the elections. African American, women and Latino organizations are doing similiar things, all looking to influence the electoral outcome. However, the old peace movement, which could (and should), represent upwards of 70-80% of our people, is ignoring the elections. To say this is wrong-headed, short-sighted and stupid is to say that the Iraq War is a minor faux pax.

What peace activists need to underestand is that elections in the winneer-take-all type system we now have is not about trying to find your dream candidate, who stands for everything you do, and voting for him/her, it is (because it MUST be, until we are able to introduce some form of propotional representation) about attempting to develop wide coalitions that can move the nation in your direction. Those who wrote (above) that it is worthless to attempt to push the candidates, that Hilliary or Obama are not influeneced by people's pressure, are as close-minded and ideologically blind to reality as the Bush regime is. Both candidates are moving in a positive direction, clearly responding to the pressures of the election. Both have developped much better programs in relation to the war.

It is, I believe, worthwhile to look at our nation's history. FDR, viewed by many, myself included, as one of our greatest presidents. That is because he responded to the organized proeesure of the people and introduced social security, the right of workers to organize unions, public eduacation, integrated the armed forces, jobs programs (WPA/CCC), unemployment comp and defeated fascism. However, when he ran for that office he did not run as a "New Deal Democrat." He ran a fairly conservative campaign. Some, such as the old Socialist Party, stood aside stating that he was "just another capitalist." Others, including the CPUSA and the much wider left, embraced and pushed him. The result was that the entire nation moved sharply to the left, helping poor and working people. The old SP was pushing into obscurity.

The analogy for the existing peace movement today is close to that of the abolishtionist movement in the 1800's. That movement only became a really powerful force when it broke out of its self-imposed isolation from the mainstream and developed a strong electoral position and took part in militant political actions. Prior to that, that movement, similiar to today's peace movement, was a movement of "moral swaysion," attempting only to take the high moral position and hope others followed. The abolishtionist movement had to become mainstream to change our nation. The peace movement will have to do the same, or fail!

Klein and Scahill do not suggest supporting one of the main candidates -- just the opposite. They suggest using the hyper-visible setting of presidential campaigning to demand an end to the war. What if the candidates could never get a word in at a town hall or rally without being forced to substantively address the war? This CAN be done. With creativity. With handfuls of people willing to show up with some audacity. Not necessarily even spectacle, just ernest persistence. Get the candidates into a prolonged scat over time to see who can outdo the other with specific antiwar proposals. Let THEM charge each other with this or that proposal not having any teeth legislatively. Let THEM up the ante on each other as sitting senators to actually act on their words and accuse each other publicly about empty words. This kind of dynamic actually is possible. If they start pulling old ladies out of events by their hair, well, then you've made another point.

Switch tactics? Yes, but why not go where the people are most likely to re-engage...around the economic issues that are screaming at us. The bail outs and the scathing rhetoric from the fed, the banks, wall street, talk TV, Bush, all directed at the victims so as to blind us and cower us as they fleece our pockets. The tried and true bait and switch that Government is so duplicitous along with corporate America.

Start talking truth to power here. . . link it to how the war, the tax breaks, deficit spending etc. and you can tap into a perfect storm of public outrage. I think this would create a growing solidarity movement between many factions that will challenge the elite far better then just an anti-war protest. Until there is a draft in this country, War, as a stand alone issue, will fail to capture the full attention of the people. Link the economic woes with war, and we can (will) make a difference. . . or start a revolution.

When everyone's truly fed up there'll be a nationwide strike.
Apparently we're not yet ready too throw our bodies into the gears of the status quo's machine.
Until then, activism will remain verbal and ineffective.

When someone tries to take away 5 minutes of break time from workers in France or Italy, they immediately call a strike. Here we expect mama and papa politician to take care of us. Like adolescents, we criticize and fuss, but do not pay our own way. That is why we have few unions, no viable third parties, a declining life for most of us. We are passive and simplistic. That is why we are in this position. Democracy depends on active citizens who can see openings and take advantage.

Naomi and Jeremy are asking us to grow up politically. I totally agree that the only sensible course is to pressure the politicians to do what we want them to do. That is true of local as well as presidential candidates. True, the politicians are much too influenced by money, but they still have to get elected and there is a limit (I hope) to how much the reactionaries can manipulate when there are wide margins.

One example: Get your PTA to petition local candidates and presidential candidates to end the war so after school programs will not be cut. Let them know the PTA members vote and have influence in the community.

There are thousands of issues that require the war in Iraq and military spending be stopped. One is the health of the earth, which should concern everyone.

Don't mourn, Organize.

More on Uzi Arad.

I'm sure the significance of petroleum was not lost on Uzi Arad who concentrated on the subject of global petroleum reserves in graduate school. That is, of course, the same Uzi Arad, former head of Mossad, who is the Founding Director of the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) of the Ronald S. Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy, named after the same Ronald S. Lauder who was Chairman of the New York State Research Council on Privatization responsible for the July 24, 2001, World Trade Center Privatization Agreement.

Hint: FRONTLINE isn't going to tell you this!

Why did that comment vanish?

The problem here is that despite the wishes of the public, MoveOn.org and others who oppose the war, is that none of them CAN pressure the candidates into addressing common concerns. This is because a corporate media carefully crafts the questions, responses and attention given to these issues to ensure a pliant public when it comes to extending the illegal occupation. For example why is it that no candidate is ever posed such basic questions such as ...

"If you support democracy, then why doesn't the American government support the vast majority of Iraqis who demand an immediate and total withdrawal of all American troops?"

Or... "With U.S. defence spending greater that the rest of the world combined, would you increase or decrease spending under your watch?"

If the MSM were at all serious about having a serious debate about the War, then Ralph Nader would be invited to participate in each and every debate. Instead the public is subjected to stale rhetoric as the MSM congratulates itself on "stimulating" such "impressive" and "controversial" dog and pony shows. The absence of relevant and tough questions ranging from the war to health care is symbolic of just how far the MSM is willing to go to reinforce the corporate status quo.
We must aim to replace a corrupt and totally out of touch government, that currently acquiesces only to their corporate sponsors, with a more effective grass roots movement. This movement will never get the MSM to play along. Instead we must expose the general public to alternative sources of information. We must convince them not to accept Faux News and other corporate media outlets as 'fair and balanced' networks. We must enlighten the public to the vast and sophisticated propaganda machine that they're exposed to everyday. Place ads in local papers directing them to read alternative websites, radio programs and publications. Arrange venues in your own locality to host open debates about the issues and perhaps even invite well-known and articulate progressives to speak at such events. Keep it simple too. Respect that people will differ on issues such as abortion or gun control and therefore avoid or postpone such peripheral concerns so that we can concentrate on ending the war ASAP.

To expect that the Mainstream Media will suddenly allow pertinent questions to be asked of the candidates is both naïve and unrealistic. Therefore a more direct and localized approach is essential if we ever hope to achieve real change in America.

Why should protest only manifest itself as street demonstration?

I dare say many street protests, collectivizing conferences, and any other form of public rally are frequently more aimlessly festive and self-congratulatory than demonstratively effective.

A new thought of protest, a design that fits today's currency, the rhythm of media technics, public habit and inclination (which changes, very quickly), needs consideration by these protesters.

Klein or whoever penned the article should quit expecting everyone to nostalgically take it to the street; for many, including me, there could not be such motivating reminiscence unless it be for and of a dream. (well---maybe that would be more potent a passion.) Nonetheless, one shouldn't for a second except others to conform to a homogeneous, unequivocal activism. Isn't that what always ends up being so very problematic, even before an oil-spill of a man (Cheny) crudely recalls to us how a petrol bomb reacts to the atrocity that it all too bluntly is.

Why do you think that your vote will be counted?

America is not a democracy.

braithwa842...u can find more about brzezinski if u go to voltaire.net and go thru their "focus" section. there's a profile on him....another "strategic" "thinker" to whom life is cheap

So when does The Guardian publish humor/satire pieces?

This is really from The Onion, right?

The feeling of powerlessness will not be ended by electing a democrat or republican, both are equally guilty. There may not be an answer to ending this war. It may just have to play itself out. The arrogance of "so" pretty much says it all. The new paradigm of American living is being built from the ground up. It is still fluid and cannot yet be clearly defined. Experimental lifeways are being tested in thousands of ways. As the successful pilot models begin to come into focus and can be more widely applied, only then will the people successfully advance their beliefs. The old system will have to go and will fall under the weight of it's irrelevance in people's lives. It's going to take some time and the road for some will be rough. Societal transformations takes time even in a fast paced world. Do not look to the old methods, they no longer work.

@herbert r chersonsky March 26th, 2008 11:41 am

What you have posted is absolutely fascinating. A real eye opener.

But in places in one paragraph, I am not sure who you were talking about.
Who believed that the Soviets were having too much success with their
economic efforts in Afghanistan?

The Americans were truly successful in ruining that success.

Also, I am left wanting to know if what you said is really true.
If it really is true, then it strongly supports the view that
American interference is responsible for most of the woes in
the middle east.

Where can I find out more?

Klein and Scahill write: "Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent rallies and vigils."

It's true. Only a small fraction turn out, and it doesn't seem to matter when you tell your neighbors and colleagues about upcoming protests. You even pass out flyers, but attendance at antiwar rallies doesn't grow.

I think it's clear: The antiwar movement and the left progressives are only really about 10 percent of the voting population (let me pull that estimate out of thin air).

The Clinton and Obama campaign cabinets are packed with warmongers. McCain himself is an actual neocon - scary thought. Clearly, no candidate feels it worthwhile to appeal to the antiwar movement - except in the alternative parties (Green, Peace and Freedom, and even Libertarian).

This essay was great, but the campaigners have already chosen, and budged very little. They are counting on hardcore Democrats to once again select a pro-war candidate (after all, the Democratic Party came up with pro-war John Kerry the last time).

It's clear that citizen pressure isn't working. You must refuse to vote for the current leading pro-war candidates. Make your vote count by not figuring it into the tallies of Clinton or Obama. Who cares if it's winner take all. Less support for pro-war candidates is less support for their agendas.

If Dems lose again like Kerry did, maybe then will the Democratic Party not diss candidates like Dennis Kucinich. Losing will mean long-term suffering for us, but then I see no hope with Obama or Clinton being in power. People are just fooling themselves if they think that the Dem candidates have some secret plans to end the wars. That's not what they are saying.

Sorry, Jeremy. I mean Naomi and Jeremy's piece is weak. ...and "Naomi and Jeremy say..."

I only saw Naomi's name because I only have eyes for her... :-(

I like Naomi Klein's work a lot, but this seems weak to me. When she says candidates are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp, she may be correct, but presidential political campaigns are closed systems, games, kind of a florid designs on the political landscape bearing little relation to the business as usual work of the empire.

Naomi correctly points out that a large percentage of voters are opposed to the war, but polls show that, nevertheless, they trust McCain over the other candidates to carry out the "war on terror" and keep the nation "secure", even though...need I continue?

We need massive boycotts, shutdowns and so on, but we won't get them. A small ray of hope, in my opinion, is the work of the IVAW and similar organizations if they continue to rachet up the force and variety of their actions. The character of antiwar work in the early '70's changed character and was made more stark, focused, and useful when the vets got into it seriously.

we got into this situatio0n by being under the thumb of a president and vice president (president in charge of vice) who declared that they would not be influenced by polls. and indeed, they have led us over the cliff and declared that victory was straight ahead (at the bottom of the cliff).

let us not confuse democrats with bush and cheney. you can influence a democrat. now let's elect one of them president and use our influence to get out of iraq.

No. Pressuring Obama will be a waste of time, because he will say whatever seems politic to say to get the most votes. What he will do will be dictated by the military once he's in office. The only force the grass roots can bring to bear to stop the war is of the tidal sort. There are ways to make the elites hurt. And to effect a change of policy requires that we apply sustained pressure, and demonstrate that we can and will return to apply pressure whenever they fail to comply with our demands. And the only sort of pressure they understand -- being the sort of characters they are -- is boycott pressure. Economic pressure. If sixty percent of the people unite in boycott of some significant commodity (say gasoline), that should work if anything will. But it will entail sacrifice to do so. If the people are unwilling to sacrifice in an effective way, then the elites will have demonstrated that there is no bite to the bark. The occupation will continue. They will start other wars.

It's sad to say that we can "force" them into positions -- we cannot. We can force them to pretend to take positions, and then reverse those as soon as necessary from their corporate handlers. So the belief is not actually based in anything meaningful -- when Hillary takes a position against Blackwater, she is likely giving them a position behind her back, someplace else, making promises, deals, etc.

You can't take a person like that and shape them. Same with Obama who voted to keep the PATRIOT ACT going, but highlights only his tinkering as some kind of big sign.

The conversation here will not amount to change.

Real change will, ultimately, require real sacrifice. Almost all historic change does require it. And that likely won't happen until it is forced on us (since Americans are basically drones) -- from the economic meltdown, the evvironmental meltdown, etc. and all the while the rich will be finding ways to prey on us until the last second.

So what the conversation should be about are ideals, not stale breadcrumbs.

Who would our ideal candidate be? What is the ultimate voting system imaginable? What is the best political and governmental system in the world, and why?

Then, let's get there.

Not as ants pushing on the elephants of Obama and Hillary, who will move a 1/2 inch and then move back as soon as we step away, but as farmers planting seeds, preparing so there is something to move us when everything falls apart . . . positive to inspire us, until it is necessary.

Ps ... repeat the above strategy in every House and Senate race also. Unify behind one candidate. If we elected a President but left the crooks in control of Congress, the best we'd accomplish might be to slow things down. And we'd probably see the true colors of the Dems and Rethugs as they united to override our anti-war President's vetoes.

So, if we are serious we need to run unity campaigns for President, every Senate race and every House race.

One thing I haven't understood is why the anti-war forces tried to win both party nominations this year?

If you aren't serious about winning, and ending the war since we have to win to do that, then it made some sort of sense. As long as all you care about is nonsense like 'getting our message out' or 'making our voices heard', then having campaigns in both parties might make some sort of sense.

But, if people were serious about ending the war, then the thing for the primaries would have been to run one opposition candidate in one party. Anyone against the war would switch to that party and we'd make a serious attempt to win that party's nomination.

The only way having Paul in the Republican party and Kucinich and Gravel in the Democratic party makes sense is if this was just a preliminary to a big, unified fall campaign. Then it would make sense to do work developing a base in both parties during their primaries, then unifying that behind an opposition candidate in the fall.

Unfortunately, I don't see where we'll be that smart. I see many electoral strategies that seemed to be designed to fail. Having McKinney, Nader, a Libertarian and others all running on antiwar platforms in the fall elections seems guaranteed to fail. And failure means the war continues. And probably the war in Iran and the one we are starting in Pakistan and the one that's still going on in Afghanistan and maybe one between Colombia and its neighbors too. Losing is very costly.

PS ... I know the first thing the Democratic sycophants will say is ...'why not unify behind the Democrats in order to win?' The reason why not is that the Democrats will not fix the problem. They are a part of the problem.

Ask yourself this, what serious bills to clean up election financing and go to something like the Clean Election laws have you seen pass in this Democratic Congress? What such bills have you seen that have been heavily pushed by Dem leaders like Reid, Pelosi and Dean?

The answer is none. That's the difference. A Democrat win means just that they gain control of the corrupt system. They get rich from it and use it for their own ends. If a Democratic win would fix the system, then I'd consider voting Democrat. But the Democrats consistently refuse to even make anything more than a symbolic attempt to fix the system. Back in 1993 when the Dems had control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they still didn't try to fix the system.

So, we must unite. And the key criteria is that whomever we unite behind must commit to fixing the system. And to me, ending the war is also as important because that would at least mean that until we get our own house in order we stop the death, mayhem and destruction.

But, we must unite. That's the key.

undercover .....

the problem is that Ron Paul won't get the Republican nomination any more than Kucinich could have gotten the Dem nod. In one way you are correct, he is the only anti-war candidate left in the race, but only if you restrict your gaze to the two corporate parties. You are wrong though when you look beyond that and realize that there will be anti-war candidates on the November ballot.

What I am very glad to see is someone noticing that there's a sizeable anti-war force on the Republican side. That's been there and growing. But its generally ignored by the left.

What's needed of course in a winner-take-all election system is for all anti-war forces to unite behind one candidate. To split our votes amongst several anti-war candidates is self-defeating. We will have a hard enough task to win this election without shooting ourselves in the foot by splitting our vote.

What this means of course is that many people are going to have to lose their narrow blinders. That means people on the left might have to accept a candidate more from the right, or that people on the right might have to accept a candidate more on the left. Its the only way we can possibly win.

This would have to be a deal. We all unite behind one candidate, but that candidate acknowledges that they only have a limited mandate. I'd say its this ....1) end the wad. and 2) clean up our corporate bought government and return us to a government of, by and for the people with free and fair elections.

In that case, if you don't like Ron Paul's health care plan, it doesn't matter. He pledges not to go that way in his first term. Instead he ends the war and cleans up our elections and our government. Then, when we truly are back to having free and fair elections that aren't dominated by money, we can have a debate over stuff like how to fix the health care system.

But, step 1 is that we have to unify to win elections. And we have to win elections to fix the problem.

Life is too short to keep voting for Democrats. Congress has failed to impeach and to stop funding the imperialist war. The Green Party gives me something to vote FOR, not a fearful "alternative" AGAINST the greater evil.

If most people in the United States controlled their government the common man and woman would not be drowning with so many problems which should allow common solution. In my opinion this is due to control by privileged persons who make your laws and their rich profit or love special powers gained from their selfish way of thinking.
I am ethnic and with geographic parts both Icelandic and American-Irish and now live in Reykjavik one half year and formerly one half year at Maryland Baltimore area at Sparks Maryland, as an engineer with legal dual citizen status in Iceland and the United States.
Mostly in culture and language from my childhood I am Icelandic.
Maybe your Common Dreams arguments will be surpised that Icelanders by wide feeling and history love the United States as a friend and as a commons sense of life society. But now we do not know what anymore is happening or who is controlling . For myself I can not understand what now happens in my dual citizen nation. In Reykjavik I am asked usually to explain if the United States has finally drowned and with no answer from me because I do not understand with enough truth or knowledge..

My fear would be to say the people of the United States have gone into sleeping for regards of their government. The United States government is no longer the good American Icelanders have known in the past.
Has this happened for truth I can not say because I do not understand on my own.

bottle (above)---- it isn't possible for me to agree with you more!!

Anti-war campaigners, what crap! America is built upon war. It would go bankrupt if there wasn't war to feed its industries.

The claims of those vying for Presidential Office are a tissue of lies. How many of them are saying they'll close down the armament industries? Zero!

Your penchant for war is leading us ever closer to WW3, the war that will end our world. You even put military units on merchant ships now (see my blog) further increasing the chance of an incident, one that will have horrific implications for the world.

Pollie-speak means nothing. They'll say and do anything to get elected. If you don't get your house in order soon, you'll pay dearly and so will the rest of the world!

The nuclear-dawn is coming!

www.dangerouscreation.com

No One has a crystal ball and all assertions are made on what has and is happening. The Republicans believe the people will string along no matter how unwillingly; the Democrats think that if they assume an anti-war look without saying anything until they gain power they will be able to ignore and BS the people like the current mob has.

But that is when public spending on the war will have caught up with you and the longer the Iraq occupation lasts the angrier the world will get. If the USA are basing their expectations of a long occupation on Germany and Japan, the peoples of both these nations after the war felt a deep cultural shame and understood the occupation - they accepted it. The Middle-east will not. Sabotage, terrorism and guerilla attacks will increase and they will all target the source of their woes - the oil, gas and pipelines. Support any other candidate, even Mike Gravel.

Recently registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Guess what, he is the only candidate on either side who has called for an immediate withdrawal of the troops.

I have found while participating in the electoral process on the Republican side of things, that it is time we look beyond party lines for leadership. It has been an illuminating experience to realize that a very large "minority" of the Republican party is absolutely anti-war...perhaps a change in tactics should include a revolution within the Republican party. I think that is happening.

On another note, the ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) is planning to shut down ports on the west coast on May 1st in protest of the war. See their website for more info. Let's rally around the unions and show our support for their courage.

GWoT is far from over and there's more than one way to accomplish more, than only using military might; it's not the sole powerful method.

"Day of Infamy: The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran

by John McGlynn

Global Research, March 24, 2008
japanfocus.org "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8429

Quoting the bio. for him at the end of the GR copy:

"John McGlynn is an independent Tokyo-based economic and financial analyst. His three reports on the US use of financial sanctions against North Korea in the Banco Delta case are available at 1, 2, 3. ..."

I believe his bio. at JF says that he works with both JF and FPIF; the same FPIF that regularly has articles posted here at CD. This above article is the first time I've come across a piece by him, and it's impressively excellent; bad news, very, but excellent is his explanation.

The GR copy doesn't have links, while the original copy does; and it has the same title, minus 'Day of Infamy:', while also being dated March 22nd.

STRONG, very exhaustive explanation is presented, and frightening is the fast pace at which this may actually come. One reason is because military power won't be needed, not immediately anyway, and if it's not used, then it'll be, relatively speaking, extremely inexpensive to the US; while majorly destructive for Iran.

The US already has plenty of strength building up, and too much already established, for this war on Iran. And war it is; and, as usual, extremely and fully criminal, including based on law established by humans, besides being fully criminal in only moral or ethical terms.

Now I'll add a comment on the person who posted early on in this page a rant with respect to people not paying attention to 9-11, some such related rant anyway. I'm fully for the need to re-open the 9-11 investigations, and in a manner independent of US govt politicians, etc.; it must not be run by the US govt, though I'll definitely let the top people of the 9-11 Truth Movement explain the details of how this inquiry needs to be done, for they're far more expertised on this than I am.

However, to rant about people not paying attention to 9-11 being an 'inside job' in a page like this one strikes me as odd, not quite fitting, for 9-11 was NOT the commencement, which was actually much further back; minimally in the 1990s, but while some strong analysts have well argued that the commencement really stretches back as far as WWII, others arguing not that far back, but at least 1980s.

9-11 wasn't the commencement; it's was just a step in a long process.

And Elaine Brown's article on Winter Soldiers event testimonies posted here a day or two ago provides an overview that's fitting with what I'm saying.

It IS ALL ABOUT US imperialism and warring for it.

Progressives are writing in third party progressive candidates in the elections, unless the Demoks earn our vote by carrying out the orders we issued to impeach the top two criminals and totally vacate Iraq by election day. Will the Demoks obey their orders and thereby earn the progressive vote?

What a horrible bunch of responses to a good article-- glib, sophomoric, cynical, dismissive.

To try and consider three of the more serious assertions: Potsdam thinks we need to leave Iraq in an honorable fashion. No we don't. We need to leave with our tail between our legs the way Russia left Afghanistan. The embassy, converted to ________ (you fill in the blank) can be a monument to monumental stupidity for the next thirty years (until it falls down from its own natural weight and architecture and shoddy workmanship).
Just up and leaving is the most intelligent thing we can do since we're such a big part of the overall problem. Or are are we too addicted to the power of telling little Iraqis what to do, to go cold turkey? Leave "honor" to the Grangerfords in Huckleberry Finn. Mark Twain could tell you the worth of all the talk about "honor." We're not qualified to be in Iraq. Period.

Li Po wants to fix what we broke. But getting out is the only possible way to fix it, and even that might not work, but at least we'd be out. Every day we're there is another day for our soldiers and contractors to shoot the wrong people. To quote Winter Soldier Hart Viges, who joined the Army right after 9/11: "We never went on a raid where we got the right house much less the right person-- not once." Bush in his self-delusion is a fictive character written by William Golding: He is Jack in Lord of the Flies.
Iraq is the island scene of total disaster from which we need adults to extract us AT ONCE.

zephyr, don't be so hung up on "occupation" vs. "war." It's both.

Conclusion. (C'mon, let's be positive.)
Bring Winter Soldier to both candidates' attention, in its entirety, and force their response. Give Hillary the chance to be more intelligent than Barack and vice-versa, with the person who opts to remove every American ASAP clearly the one who merits the nomination. This assertion of mine isn't even provocative. It's the thing that all Americans know somewhere in their core even if they haven't admitted it to themselves yet. I'll bet if Hillary
or Barack woke up and said, "Bring everybody out!" the other one would do the same, and that would be okay-- better than okay.

Bill from Saginaw March 26th, 2008 4:27 pm:

"I think the key to Klein & Scahill's strategy is…"

Some very good questions, Bill from Saginaw.

One question I have is: Has the US put itself into an economic trap by becoming addicted to massive amounts of borrowed money? I mean, right now the congress won't say no to any budget request, twenty zillion dollars for x-wing starships? No problemo. We'll even put in pork barrel money for freezers for the Eskimos. But if the war, occupation, terror were to end, how do you justify the spending?

The crumbling infrastructure, bad healthcare, poor education will still be there but how can you justify the massive debt charges if there is no boogeyman? If the debt spending stops, what then? Will enough people accept that federal services have to be scaled back to pay for a war that ended say, years ago?

I for one plan to do all that I can to see that both Cheney
and Bush are arrested at the Republican Natl Convention in
St. Paul. I'm going to start by proposing a resolution at
the up-coming DFL Senate Caucus, which I'm a delegate to.
The resolution will read:
Be is resolved that that an arrest warrent be issued for:
One George W. Bush, AKA: The Decider
Richard K. Cheney, AKA: The CEO
The above named defendants be aprehended as soon as possible
and detained without bail due to high risk of flight.
Upon arrest the above defendants will be charged with violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Excuse me for a second while I pick my jaw up from the floor. It's been there this whole time while reading this article.

I really like Jeremy and Naomi, but this article is absurd. To think that supporting a presidential candidate to end this war is beyond naive. Clinton and Obama's rhetoric is designed for the elections, not to be taken seriously once elected.

This war is about resources and global hegemonic positioning. They will not simply leave because the public is against the war. The only way the US will leave is if they are defeated in Iraq.

The only thing a serious opponent to the war should be discussing is direct action to challenge the people that are profiting from it. Using strategic non-violent direct action on a daily basis will increase the social costs of the war, but wasting your energies on the Democrats is like attending an ANSWER protest: pointless. Real power in this society does NOT lie in the presidents hands, unless like Bush, he or she is a representative of that power base.

(ANSWER by the way is a front group for the sectarian left sect called the Workers World Party, considered by many to be doing the work of cops)

Sometimes, I think writers like Naomi and Jeremy should be more careful about aligning themselves with liberals at the Nation or MoveOn. Their ooze can easily infect your critical thinking capacities, and I trust that both of you are much smarter than that.

I think the key to Klein & Scahill's strategy is to push the notion that we will end the war by ending the occupation. Words do matter, as Barack has said.

Why do we want to have the largest US embassy in the world located in Baghdad in the first place? What conclusions about America's real motivations do you expect the locals to draw given the past history of the US embassy compound in Tehran throughout the rule of the Shah?

Why do we want to build a dozen "enduring", self-contained military bases on Iraqi soil, particularly given the renown hi tech geographical mobility of the Pentagon's air power and special forces? What do we expect these bases to become, other than an enduring visible insult to the people of Iraq, and magnets for future mortar and rocket attacks by a whole smorgasboard of angry Iraqi militia factions?

Why is there talk about leaving US noncombat military forces in Iraq, ostensibly to help "train" Maliki's troops how best to fight an urban guerilla insurgency that relies primarily upon low tech, assymetrical warfare tactics? Five years into the occupation quagmire, Uncle Sam still cannot make heads or tails of the byzantine, interlocking layers of Iraqi religious, regional, partisan, and tribal loyalties. Who are we to lecture or train them on how to halt suicide bombers?

Who's kidding who about leaving scaled down ground forces there for the limited mission of shooting at Al Quaeda fighters only? This has been the ephemeral, mission impossible infantry rules of engagement that our existing 160,000 troop presence has supposedly been working under for the last half decade. Tell me again how the grunt on patrol or manning a checkpoint who encounters hostile fire can determine if its origin is Al Quaeda or Iraqi nationalist, is it live or Memorex?

Why are US military authorities still sweeping up and holding thousands of Iraqi detainees? Given Abu Ghraib, what reaction should we expect except suspicion and hostility? Shouldn't the Iraqi regime be running its own prison system by now?

End the war by ending the occupation.

End the occupation by picking apart each of its component parts and challenging why anybody should believe leaving even a scaled down presence there will be in the US national interest, or change for the better any of the internal political dynamics there.

Barack might actually listen.

Bill from Saginaw

Electoral politics!

Vote in November: IMPEACH TODAY!

Write to Obama and Clinton to Censure Bush/Cheney.

aside: was John McCain the pilot who triggered a live missle into the elevator on the USS Intrepid? I think he burnt his own carrier to the waterline.Was John McCain financed by the Bonnano crime family in his campaigns? hmmm...why are the Google and Yahoo links being misrouted

hate to say it, but as an aging hippie, i pretty much have to agree with daniel david. our failure as a boomer generation was one of not opening up the political process to make it more democratic. we are stuck with a political duopoly, a too powerful executive branch and a too powerful judiciary. we didn't institute processes that would make a legislative assembly powerful and still responsive enough to the people.
so, here we are in 2008, with the system as it is. mcCain is out of the question. hillary is an unprincipled power-hungry pol who only knows how to play the system. obama gets our "support" by default. we can only do what we can and hope for the best.

What ever happened to the idea of the blue states from the last election seceding and joining Canada to form the United States of Canada with Alberta joining the red states to form a Nation called Hague land or something like that?

It still may work and Hague land could take PM Harper with them.

Think of the benefits for the blue states.... lots of water... public health care.... a legacy of mostly not meddling in colonialism etc..

Again if voting made a difference it would've been made illegal.The dems/repubs play musical chairs but the group(s) behind the curtain never change. We have been this way since time immemorial. 16,800 wars in 5000 years. When will we find our courage and stop this?

We went into Iraq illegally, but now that we are there we have to fix what we broke. Obama and Clinton are "against" the war only because they think the "American public" is against it. The "public", to the extent that such a monolithic thing exists, doesn't know what it wants. "It" would vote for a ham sandwich if it thought it looked good on television. This whole damn thing is broken beyond repair. Voting this year seems like such a waste of time.

Daniel David - What is your point? If you are stupid enough to write the post above, the rest of us have no obligation to give you any credence whatsoever.
I would speculate that you are just another shill for a completely corrupt Democratic Party. I don't need anyone pissing on me and telling me that it's raining...

It's a bit too late to force either Hillary or Obama to change, this would have to have been done before Kucinich and Richardson were dropped from the race. Now they have nothing to lose from their psuedo-ati-war stances, which are still a bit better than McCain's madness.

From the article:

".....At present there are as many private contractors supporting the occupation as there are soldiers, so these plans could mean tens of thousands of US personnel entrenched for the future....."

Yes. Well.

This has BEEN the plan, it IS the plan and it will BE the plan, period.

"Anti-war" sentiments are not effective in opposition to the ideology-driven ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF A SOVEREIGN NATION.

This is NOT NOT NOT a "war."

It is an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION the goal of which is to ensure the indefinite PRESENCE of an increasingly privatized (corporatized) U.S. military in the region.

If we desire an enduring alternative to this metatasizing nightmare we will need to BUILD IT OURSELVES. I do mean take that "antiwar" energy and start BUILDING.

Now.

Why one earth would anyone believe that writing a letter to their congresscritter would make a difference? Is the idea that the only reason they support continuing and funding the war is because no one's written them a letter? That's very bizarre.

Make a six figure donation to them, then they'll listen to you a bit. But even then they won't change course if it effects more six figure contributions from say the oil and arms industries (that have been pouring into Dem party coffers since 2006).

There's one way to get a politician's attention. Defeat them. Or at least pose a serious threat to do so.

This is why we have to stop voting for and supporting the Democrats. In many races, if the 10% of the vote that is seriously anti-war were to abandon the Democrats, then the Democrats would lose. If you want to get their attention, that's the way to do it. Writing them a letter is completely @#%$@#% useless. Isn't it completely clear by now that they just don't give a damn what we think?

Sen. Obama has it correct. We need to leave Iraq in an honorable fashion.

When is the question. We can't just go into a country, shoot it up, and say whoops!!--my bad.

At the very least, we have an obligation to enable the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure.

Our current situation seems a lot like the Phillipines. Pres. McKinley's foray bogged us down into a 30+ year commitment.

There is a lesson to be learned. But just up and leaving is no solution to a mess we created by going in there in the first place.

Writing, emailing, calling, protesting, attending vigils will not make a difference to the (corporate puppets) we call our elected representatives. Direct Action to throw off this governmental corporatocracy is the only way. This was done 250 years ago and it needs to be done now. We sit here typing our comments away while life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being ever so squeezed from our breaths. It is our moral duty as conscious beings to take back what has been taken from us. To do nothing is to relinquish your inalienable rights of being.

Question, is this suddenly a better war when its Obama's war? Is it somehow an evil war when its Bush's war or McCain's war? The Democrats will have you think that for some strange reason that there's a difference.

Remember, Obama has pledged that he will still have troops dying in Iraq in 2012 at the end of his term as President.

Daniel David is obviously anti-american. He supports the line of King George III that says that we all must kowtow to those who've appointed themselves as our leaders. He denies and objects to the fact that this is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Over 70% of the American people want this war to end. This constant Dem party hack BS that says its a losing issue is just a smoke screen. Not only do poll numbers constantly show Bush's unfavorable rating down because of the war, but the failure of the Democratic Congress to act with the mandate they had in the 2006 elections has dropped the popularity of the Dems in Congress down below Bush's.

Face it, the big money that funds the Democratic Party wants the war to continue. The American people don't. The Democrats respond to the big money and do what those people want. To the 70% of the American people who want this war to end, the answer from the Democrats is EXACTLY the same as the one Dick Cheney gives.

Lets get real here. What votes are left to be counted? Almost all states have already had their primaries or caucuses. So exactly how much pressure could the antiwar movement apply?

In certain states, they could raise and push the issue.
Beyond that, this thing looks much more in the hands of the party hacks that are the 'superdelegates'. And the one thing that the antiwar movement should be very, very clear on by this point in time is that the party hacks in the Democratic Party SUPPORT this war.

I think the much better pressure point is in the fall elections. That's where the antiwar movement could go to the Democrats and flat out say .... we are your margin of victory. You must have our votes to win. You don't get them without a clear promise to change our policy. We could even force the Dems in Congress to act BEFORE the election by delivering a message in a clear and united voice that we are not supporting the Democrats in Nov if they don't act before the election.

Artist: Natalie merchant
Song: Golden Boy
Album: Motherland

Top of the fold
Toast of the town
Everyone stops when you come around
They hold their breath for you

Heroes are born
Idols are made
We're all fools for this factory fame
And you've got the brand new face

You've got the brand new face
Golden boy

Beauty untamed
Stupid and wild
Poster boy, you're society's child
Cut your teeth
Cut your mouth
Cut it out

Meteor rise from obscurity
All it took was a killing spree
And the whole world was lying at your feet
Golden boy

I know my place
Stick to my lines
Stay in your shadow
Don't block your light

So you can shine divine
Golden boy

Peace lovers everywhere had better think twice before they demand Obama kowtow to them as though THEY think THEY are commander in chief and can sway the policy. Before you have a fit, consider that I too love peace and would prefer us not stupid enough to elect McCain. But brand Obama a reed in the wind of the peaceniks' breeze, even a little bit, and McCain is what you'll get. Obama is suitable enough to lead us---please don't try to lead him before he is elected and try to make him into a wussy following aging hippies. IT WILL NOT WORK FOR PEACE. (No matter who says it will.)

Karen P - noble sentiment. Sounds like you've boiled meaningful participation down to being a count (and a count of email at that). And with it being so so easy to email, I can't imagine Pols count them for very much.

What Dems and Liberals haven't seemed to learn, that Repubs have, is that we need to be blunt and to the point. That's one reason Pelosi and Reid drive me crazy...they're all nuance and fine points of discussion. Discussion and debate are important and have their place, but NOT when you're trying to fight a mindless bully.

I think we should "manditorily" put the uniform on cheney and bush and their cohorts and ship them to the front lines. We'd be out of Iraq tomorrow.

I agree we need to change tactics. The main one to change is the tactic of blogging and talking to people who agree with us. I participate in vigils and demonstrations for my own sanity...not because I believe they are viable pressure points for change. IF YOU HAVE READ THIS ARTICLE AND POSTED YOUR VIEWS …IT IS EASY TO THINK YOU ARE AN ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST, TO FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING….NOT.

You really should try actually doing something that "they" do pay attention to....WRITE A LETTER OR EMAIL THAT YOU SEND TO YOUR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE, SENATOR, CLINTON & OBAMA VOICING YOUR VIEWS AND THEN YOU CAN FEEL AS IF YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING. DO THIS WEEKLY AND DAILY IF POSSIBLE. THE POLS DON'T READ THE POLLS THAT TELL THEM YOU AND A MAJORITY OF US WANT OUT OF THIS WAR…THEY READ THE NOTES FROM THEIR STAFF RECORDING THE NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS FROM CONSTITUENTS OPPOSING THE WAR. THEY DON'T LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AT VIGILS, THEY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS RECORDING THEIR CONSITUENTS CONCERNS.

TIME FOR REALITY BASED ACTIVISM. YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT BUT WELCOME TO THE WORLD AS IT IS...PARTICIPATE AND PERHAPS WE CAN CHANGE IT...TALK TO EACH OTHER AND WE CAN FORGET IT.
DO IT NOW.

The presidential race is just one facet of this fight. If every Dem in congress who voted for the war faced a primary challenger from the peace camp it would scare the bejesus out of Congress. Then, there might be some leverage if a few dozen got elected SPECIFICALLY to stop the occupation.

Klein and Scahill fail to offer any strategy for us at all with their vote Democratic Party nonsense. The Democrats are 1/2 of the reason we are always at war, and their people always cozy up to activists only in order to get us to demobilize ourselves into being voters and mobilizing voters for their candidates.

That's really what Klein and Scahill are doing with their preaching here., hitting 'pressure points', as they call them, but pressure points inside The Movement. They want us all to dissipate our energies on behalf of being against the war, into being merely partisans for the Democratic Party nominee. Sick.

It is absolutely fine to pressure the Democratic candidates to develop more of an anti-war stance. If the prolonged primary process is an opportunity to further this pressure, then GREAT.

HOWEVER...

If the candidates do NOT develop more of an anti-war stance and will only prolong the occupation then I certainly hope that we can count on powerful voices such as Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill to voice their support for either Ralph Nader or the eventual nominee for the Green Party (Cynthia McKinney).

You also have to be careful that the leading Democratic candidates do not slide further to the right after a nominee is decided upon. Kerry slid to the right in 2004 to combat Bush and to not seem too "un-patriotic". This is a very real danger in 2008 as well.

It is necessary to try and push Obama and Hillary to adopt the views of the majority but it is also necessary to stand up against them and support a true anti-war voice if they do not rise to the challenge.

Chersonsky is correct. I met ObL in the company of Saud royals in the US, Spring 1979. They were planning the $12bn jihad to destabilize a secular Afghanistan.

I hope so, DRWU.

Hooked on oil! That's our problem....

The Vietnamese were the ones who got the US out of Vietnam--not the anti-war movement.

The Iraqis will get us out of Iraq as well-- The house of cards the Bush team set up in Iraq is crumbling . The US "divide and conquer" strategy--Kurds vs. Sunnis vs Shias and all their sub sets -- is leading to one inescapable conclusion: they all want us out because what we offer is worse than anything they could come up with.

"That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders."

Naomi and Jeremy you're kidding, Right? All three candidates will leave bases and troops in Iraq. All three feed from the same corporate fascist trough. The following paragraphs from the Declaration of Independence are all we need to take back what has been taken from us.

Declaration of Independence

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

I think we need to wake up and face up to the fact that politicians dont give a rat's ass about public opinion. That is, until an issue is brought to light, and politicians demagogically become ethical until the light blows over and the issue is in the dark again.

Unless stories like the testimonies from irak veterans against the war reach more than a couple of activists, well never shame politicians into changing course. Do a google news search on IVAW (irak veterans against war), there is not ONE story beside an early 2006 BBC news article in mainstream news. Its not on the public radar. People dont know about it. As long as people are uninformed, the carnage can go on. I think we need to find ways to reach the public, which may or may not entail shaming democratic candidates with hard facts.

Their power will erode when light is shone on their darkness and show just how horrible the consequences of their actions really are.

Im not sure which way to go about to reach a critical mass number of citizens and get them interested in getting to more truth, until the whole thing balloons into a Tiananmen square-style showdown, but we need to.

None of the "likely three" will pull out of Iraq any time soon. The Iraq occupation is too critical to keeping the US GDP numbers high, now that consumer borrowing is so limited. None of the "three" want to be blamed for exacerbating the current financial crisis by shutting down the revenue stream the Iraq occupation provides to the US military industrial media complex.

REALITY:

McClone WILL invade Iran, If W doesn't beat him to it.

Clinton WILL PROBABLY invade Iran to prove she isn't a sissy.

Obama MIGHT invade Iran.

As sick as it sounds, I will put my vote on MIGHT, over WILL and WILL PROBABLY when it comes to invading Iran.

When "Anti-war" ignored Ron Paul, they prooved themselves to not be antiwar but anti-Bush. Obama is nothing but 4 years of blaming Bush. NO THANKS! Ron Paul is right on!

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Strange how the deaths of around a million inconsequential Afghanis and the destruction of their economic infrastructure is nothing to regret. Zbig is in Obama's team, BTW.

This topic is treated well in: http://wkjo.com/

BLOODY MURDER!

"Obama is far from an ideal choice. But the reality based crowd (remember?) look at all the alternatives. Hillary would probably bomb someone because she has something to prove, much like W. did."

Hillary is completely owned by the Rockefeller mob. They have so much dirt on her that they could have her arrested in the morning and on the gallows the same evening. If you don't understand what I mean, try googeling for Mena Arkansas. Also see the entry on Spiked News. They also own Dubya. Dubya did not invade Iraq to prove a point. He invaded Iraq for the same reason he say in Booker Elementary School while the US was under attack. He was ordered to do so.

herbert r cheronsky:

Thanks for reminding us about the Carter Admin history in Afghan. Can you give some of the basic sources so that we can cite them to others?

This is a big reason why I won't vote for the democratic nominee in the general election. The democrats are actually more of a war party than the republicans. Which was our anti-war democratic president? There never was one.
Clinton and Obama are not anti-war. Also, they want to appeal to cross-over and independent voters. The republicans are still going to try to scare voters as November approaches. That, unfortunately, seems to trump any anti-war sentiments in the public.
Neither Clinton or Obama are reliably against the war.
I will vote for either Nader or the Green Party candidate for this and multiple other reasons. The problem comes when we think we need to support a democrat because they have the best chance of winning, based on how others vote. Vote you own convictions.

Obama is far from an ideal choice. But the reality based crowd (remember?) look at all the alternatives. Hillary would probably bomb someone because she has something to prove, much like W. did. She has belittled Obama's calls for diplomacy as "naive." Reality, folks. Anyone running for president will be advised by current and past warmongers. But some are also being advised by and listening to peace mongers. If we want someone who might listen to the latter, Hillary Clinton has not shown any inclination in that direction.

Slightly different take by Chris Hedges:

"The anti-war movement bears much of the blame. It sold us out to the Democratic Party. The decision by anti-war activists to accept a moratorium on demonstrations in 2004 in order to support John Kerry ended our chance to build a widespread, grass-roots movement against the war. Kerry, in return for this support, ridiculed and humiliated those of us who opposed the war. He called for more troops in Iraq. He mouthed thought-terminating patriotic slogans to out-Bush Bush. He promised victory in Iraq. He assured voters that he, unlike George W. Bush, would never have pulled out of Fallujah. Anti-war voters stood passively behind him as they were humiliated and abused. And the anti-war movement has never recovered. The groundswell of popular revulsion that led hundreds of thousands to take to the streets before 2006 collapsed. The five-year anniversary of the war was marked with tepid protests that were sparsely attended. Why not? If the anti-war movement gutlessly backs pro-war candidates, what credibility does it have? If it fails to support those candidates on the margins of the political spectrum who stand with it against the war, what is the movement worth? Why not be cynical and go home? "
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080323_a_conscientious_objection/

I have attended two events for Barack Obama. One telephone conference with Zbigniew Brzezinski and the other a dinner conversation with Tony Lake.

Both individuals decided to join Obama´s Campaign because of his "Integrity". "B" was National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter and was the decision maker in the initial phases of the American Intervention in Afghanistan in 1979.
He believed that the Soviets were having success with their economic efforts in Afghanistan. He feared that if they were successful, they would move down to Iran and help them. The Soviets had no military in Afghanistan until 6 months after the American efforts, yes terrorist efforts, began. In 1981, the plans were expanded and the recruitment of 100,000 Islamic Militants from 43 Islamic countries began with 12 billion dollars from the Saudis and United States and, of course, millions from the Bin Laden Treasury.

"Brzezinski" believes that we must maintain a presence in Iraq.

Tony Lake was one of the few men to stand up to Henry Kissinger by resigning when he found out about the Cambodian bombing. He could have been a CIA Director for Bill Clinton except he didn´t stop the Chinese deals and the Republicans did not like that.

He too claimed in the Spanish Newspaper "ABC" that we needed to maintain a presence in Iraq until there was "Peace" which is similar to "Victory".....

The Advisors look the same, the Think Tanks look the same.

I don't believe for a minute that Americans want an end to the war. As always, they want a Messiah who will spout all the empty patriotic rhetoric--"hope," "change," "america is great," etc., etc. As always, they want someone who will rearrange the deck chairs. John McCain is gonna win the election so that the Titanic can sink "with honor."

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." ~ Henry David Thoreau

I really don't understand why people who seem to be well informed about social and political issues fail to appreciate the fact - or perhaps even to comprehend - that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! If you want to end this madness answer the question: Who killed John O'Neill?

Note: I have extensively researched the assertions in the film Who Killed John O'Neill?, and I have not discovered a single significant inaccuracy. Where was Heinz in 9/11/01?

I'm completely flummoxed by the anti-war voters who can support Barack Obama - he's a warmongerer! He is an advocate of our using the military in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, and has no clear plan for exiting Iraq - why support him?? It's time to start thinking outside of the box!!

Be real - Clinton doesn't think for one second that a real activist would ever support her. Not for one second.