Anti-War
It's astonishing that members of Congress are either unaware George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied the nation to war with Iraq, or they are aware of the fact and don't care. A Congress grounded in reality would have unequivocally acknowledged the administration's lies long ago and taken appropriate action - almost certainly impeachment.
If we say the pre-war lies don't matter and the country should sweep them under the rug and only focus on the best way out of Iraq, what we're really saying is that the truth itself doesn't matter. If we say we should look away from the fact that thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for a lie, we're saying the lost lives don't matter, the war-injured and maimed don't matter, America's honor and integrity don't matter.
If we say the pre-war lies don't matter and the country should sweep them under the rug and only focus on the best way out of Iraq, what we're really saying is that the truth itself doesn't matter. If we say we should look away from the fact that thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for a lie, we're saying the lost lives don't matter, the war-injured and maimed don't matter, America's honor and integrity don't matter.
Brooklyn, NY - Post offices, federal buildings, and IRS offices will be
the site of leafleting and vigils during the last days to file 2006
taxes on April 16 and 17. Demonstrators will declare "YES" to funding
for human needs and "NO" to continued funding for war. Anger among
taxpayers is rising as Congress approves billions more dollars for the
wars and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as polls show 70% of
Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq.
In more than a dozen towns and cities across Maine taxpayers will be handed flyers declaring, "Schools or tanks? Health Care or Bombs? Which Will You Pay For?" In Fort Collins, Colorado, postal patrons will be greeted with "Take Back the Pie" signs and handed a piece of pie and a pie chart flyer showing how half of income taxes pay for past, present, and future wars. The "YES!" demonstration at the Federal Building in Philadelphia will demand a shift from war funding to other programs including universal health care; housing; ending hunger; programs for youth, immigrants, and seniors; stopping global warming and restoring the environment.
In more than a dozen towns and cities across Maine taxpayers will be handed flyers declaring, "Schools or tanks? Health Care or Bombs? Which Will You Pay For?" In Fort Collins, Colorado, postal patrons will be greeted with "Take Back the Pie" signs and handed a piece of pie and a pie chart flyer showing how half of income taxes pay for past, present, and future wars. The "YES!" demonstration at the Federal Building in Philadelphia will demand a shift from war funding to other programs including universal health care; housing; ending hunger; programs for youth, immigrants, and seniors; stopping global warming and restoring the environment.
Has the end of America's war on Iraq been brought closer by the recent vote in the House of Representatives? On March 23, the full House voted 218 to 212 to set a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. troops, with Sept. 1, 2008, as the putative date after which war funding might be restricted to withdrawal purposes only. It's not exactly a stringent deadline. It only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation and spending new funds to do so.
On Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's website we find her portrait of what U.S. troops will be doing in Iraq following this withdrawal or "redeployment," should it occur late next year on the bill's schedule: "U.S. troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces." But does this not bear an eerie resemblance to Bush's presurge war plan? Will the troops being redeployed out of Iraq even come home? No, says Pelosi, as does Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. These troops will go to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda.
On Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's website we find her portrait of what U.S. troops will be doing in Iraq following this withdrawal or "redeployment," should it occur late next year on the bill's schedule: "U.S. troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces." But does this not bear an eerie resemblance to Bush's presurge war plan? Will the troops being redeployed out of Iraq even come home? No, says Pelosi, as does Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. These troops will go to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda.
Perhaps the most unremarked-upon aspect of the much-noted fourth anniversary of the Iraq debacle is the deeply confused way Americans talk about it.
Most egregious is the constant refrain from all sides that whatever they want is first and foremost about 'supporting the troops' - whether keeping them there forever, or bringing them home immediately.
While concern for American forces serving in Iraq is certainly well-intentioned, the rhetorical focus on 'the troops' is not just irrelevant, but dangerously misleading.
The most significant reason 'the troops' are not the central issue in Iraq is that they're all volunteers.
This is radically different from Vietnam, where almost all the soldiers, and certainly the grunts, were there because of a socio-economically unjust draft that allowed Bush and Cheney, for example, to avoid serving in a war they 'supported.'
As a result, the demand at that time to 'bring the troops home' had substance in both foreign and domestic realms, since the vast majority had not signed up for the armed forces, let alone guerrilla war in a tropical jungle.
Most egregious is the constant refrain from all sides that whatever they want is first and foremost about 'supporting the troops' - whether keeping them there forever, or bringing them home immediately.
While concern for American forces serving in Iraq is certainly well-intentioned, the rhetorical focus on 'the troops' is not just irrelevant, but dangerously misleading.
The most significant reason 'the troops' are not the central issue in Iraq is that they're all volunteers.
This is radically different from Vietnam, where almost all the soldiers, and certainly the grunts, were there because of a socio-economically unjust draft that allowed Bush and Cheney, for example, to avoid serving in a war they 'supported.'
As a result, the demand at that time to 'bring the troops home' had substance in both foreign and domestic realms, since the vast majority had not signed up for the armed forces, let alone guerrilla war in a tropical jungle.
Pick almost any date on the calendar, and it'll turn out that the United States either started a war, ended a war, perpetrated a massacre or sent its U.N. ambassador into the Security Council to issue an ultimatum. It's like driving across the American West. "Historic marker, 1 mile," the sign says. A minute later, you pull over and find yourself standing on dead Indians. "On this spot, in 1879, Major T and a troop of U.S. cavalry beat off … "
Last Sunday, I was in a used paperback store in a mall in Olympia, Wash., flicking through Tina Turner's side of the story on life with Ike. It was 3 in the afternoon, March 18, one day short of the anniversary of U.S. planes embarking on an aerial hunt of Pancho Villa in 1916; of the day the U.S. Senate rejected (for the second time) the Treaty of Versailles in 1920; of the end of the active phase of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2002; of the 10 p.m. broadcast March 19, 2003, by President G.W. Bush announcing that aerial operations against Iraq had commenced.
Last Sunday, I was in a used paperback store in a mall in Olympia, Wash., flicking through Tina Turner's side of the story on life with Ike. It was 3 in the afternoon, March 18, one day short of the anniversary of U.S. planes embarking on an aerial hunt of Pancho Villa in 1916; of the day the U.S. Senate rejected (for the second time) the Treaty of Versailles in 1920; of the end of the active phase of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2002; of the 10 p.m. broadcast March 19, 2003, by President G.W. Bush announcing that aerial operations against Iraq had commenced.
At noon, Monday, March 12, 2007, nearly 100 students from area universities marched to the armed forces recruiting station on 157 Chambers Street. Twenty-three members of Students for a Democratic Society entered and occupied the recruiting station shutting down recruitment activity for nearly two hours. Outside dozens more protesters supported those being arrested with chants including, "Troops out now," "No justice, no peace. U.S. out of the Middle East," and "Stop the war. Yes we can. SDS is back again." Member of Pace University SDS, Uruj Sheikh said, "The fourth anniversary of the occupation of Iraq is in one week. Billions of dollars are being spent and hundreds of thousands have been murdered.
The old cliche, 'if you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging,' is pertinent when it comes to the war in Iraq. George Bush and his corporate sponsors who fashioned this war keep digging. Of course they are digging for oil so are unlikely to stop.
By now almost every citizen recognizes that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States even if it had had weapons of mass destruction. We toppled a brutal dictator, but of all the brutal dictators in the world why did we choose this one? We are certainly not rushing into Africa to depose their brutal dictators, stop the genocide, and thrust democracies upon their nations at the point of a gun. Although the war has created terrorists, they were not present in substantial numbers in Iraq at its onset. And now, George Bush threatens to widen the war to include Iran and Syria.
If we did not make this 'pre-emptive' strike against Iraq primarily over weapons of mass destruction, or to unseat Saddam, or to fight terrorists, or to create a democracy, why are we shedding American blood there?
It is about oil, 'black gold.'
By now almost every citizen recognizes that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States even if it had had weapons of mass destruction. We toppled a brutal dictator, but of all the brutal dictators in the world why did we choose this one? We are certainly not rushing into Africa to depose their brutal dictators, stop the genocide, and thrust democracies upon their nations at the point of a gun. Although the war has created terrorists, they were not present in substantial numbers in Iraq at its onset. And now, George Bush threatens to widen the war to include Iran and Syria.
If we did not make this 'pre-emptive' strike against Iraq primarily over weapons of mass destruction, or to unseat Saddam, or to fight terrorists, or to create a democracy, why are we shedding American blood there?
It is about oil, 'black gold.'
The following news brief ran on the Associated Press yesterday:
Strickland Doesn't Want Overflow Iraqi Refugees
"Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has a message for President Bush: any plan to relocate to the US thousands of refugees uprooted by the Iraq war shouldn't include Ohio.
The administration plans to allow about 7,000 Iraqi refugees to settle in the United States over the next year, a huge expansion at a time of mounting international pressure to help millions who have fled their homes in the nearly four-year-old war.
Strickland -- a Democrat who opposed the war as a US House member -- says Ohioans can't be expected to have open arms for Iraqis displaced by the war. More than 100 Ohioans have been killed since the war began. The governor says he has sympathy for the refugees' plight, but he won't ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden."
It is really all quite mad, isn't it?
Strickland Doesn't Want Overflow Iraqi Refugees
"Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has a message for President Bush: any plan to relocate to the US thousands of refugees uprooted by the Iraq war shouldn't include Ohio.
The administration plans to allow about 7,000 Iraqi refugees to settle in the United States over the next year, a huge expansion at a time of mounting international pressure to help millions who have fled their homes in the nearly four-year-old war.
Strickland -- a Democrat who opposed the war as a US House member -- says Ohioans can't be expected to have open arms for Iraqis displaced by the war. More than 100 Ohioans have been killed since the war began. The governor says he has sympathy for the refugees' plight, but he won't ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden."
It is really all quite mad, isn't it?
On Saturday, I was thrilled to join hundreds of thousands of protesters in Washington, D.C., including my good friends at Progressive Democrats of America and Code Pink, in protesting the Iraq War and demanding a cut-off in funds to the immoral war in Iraq. As one who has been part of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements in the 60’s, I can say that the energy and enthusiasm I saw today is entirely comparable.
At the Rally
"George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing," [Conyers] said, looking out at the masses. "He can't fire you." Referring to Congress, the Michigan Democrat added: "He can't fire us."
- Associated Press
One of the points I made in my speech was that "George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing." The White House wasted no time in responding, with spokesman Trey Bohn claiming that that Conyers "needs to learn the difference between fact and fable, between a soundbite and a slur, [Conyers'] assertion that the president fires generals with whom he disagrees is flat wrong."
At the Rally
"George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing," [Conyers] said, looking out at the masses. "He can't fire you." Referring to Congress, the Michigan Democrat added: "He can't fire us."
- Associated Press
One of the points I made in my speech was that "George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing." The White House wasted no time in responding, with spokesman Trey Bohn claiming that that Conyers "needs to learn the difference between fact and fable, between a soundbite and a slur, [Conyers'] assertion that the president fires generals with whom he disagrees is flat wrong."