Op-Ed
Peace activist and gold star mother Cindy Sheehan and spokesman for a war-based oligarchy George Will both published columns this weekend arguing that non-Americans are human beings. Sheehan's column was written in response to an Associated Press article that provided evidence that Americans disagree with this claim. Will's column, meanwhile, adds to this evidence by demonstrating a failure to understand the very point he's arguing for.
I had a conversation this weekend with someone who believes that Bush and Cheney lied us into an aggressive war and will never end it, but who opposes impeachment because it's antagonistic, "violent," and "will leave blood on the floor." I submit this as further evidence that Americans do not believe non-Americans are human beings. If congressional hearings and potential hurt feelings are too violent, what would the ongoing slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be… if they were humans?
I had a conversation this weekend with someone who believes that Bush and Cheney lied us into an aggressive war and will never end it, but who opposes impeachment because it's antagonistic, "violent," and "will leave blood on the floor." I submit this as further evidence that Americans do not believe non-Americans are human beings. If congressional hearings and potential hurt feelings are too violent, what would the ongoing slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be… if they were humans?
A growing network of organizations and individuals has launched a new campaign to pursue the immediate impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney through widespread public protest, creative dissent, media activism, education, and coordinated lobbying. Members of the Impeach07 campaign believe that Bush and Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, including - among many others - misleading the nation into an aggressive war, spying in open violation of the law, and sanctioning the use of torture. The campaign is demanding that Congress Members hold Cheney and Bush accountable through the Constitutional remedy of impeachment.
Impeach07 exists to organize people throughout the U.S. to demand that Congress impeach. Newsweek reported in October that a majority of Americans favor impeachment, and in January that 58% said they wished the Bush administration were over. Impeach07 will draw on this energy to mobilize people from all walks of life. As Howard Zinn, noted historian, has said, "Only a great popular upheaval can push both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will."
Impeach07 exists to organize people throughout the U.S. to demand that Congress impeach. Newsweek reported in October that a majority of Americans favor impeachment, and in January that 58% said they wished the Bush administration were over. Impeach07 will draw on this energy to mobilize people from all walks of life. As Howard Zinn, noted historian, has said, "Only a great popular upheaval can push both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will."
It's an honor to be speaking with these panelists and it's great to be back in New York. But I want to ask you one thing about New York, because there's something I heard Senator Hillary Clinton say and I want to know if it's true. Is it true that if you live in New York you have to support this war? Can you live in New York and work for peace?
That's what I thought.
I got up at 2 a.m. this morning in Charlottesville, Va., my town and the town of Thomas Jefferson, the man whose greatest fear for our republic was of elected despotism. Jefferson and Madison and Mason and the others who drafted the most influential Constitution the world has seen, created a system of elections, but devoted much more attention and many more words to creating a system for maintaining our democracy in between elections. They gave this essential power to the House of Representatives, as the branch most subject to popular control, and they called this power impeachment.
That's what I thought.
I got up at 2 a.m. this morning in Charlottesville, Va., my town and the town of Thomas Jefferson, the man whose greatest fear for our republic was of elected despotism. Jefferson and Madison and Mason and the others who drafted the most influential Constitution the world has seen, created a system of elections, but devoted much more attention and many more words to creating a system for maintaining our democracy in between elections. They gave this essential power to the House of Representatives, as the branch most subject to popular control, and they called this power impeachment.
"I thought about what death is, what a loss is. A sharp pain that lessens with time, but can never quite heal over. A scar." - Maya Lin, speaking of her initial vision of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall
The most frequently visited and heart-tearing monument in Washington D.C. is nearing its 25th birthday, its place at the core of American life growing stronger with each passing year. This fact belies the early critics, who called it communist- (or Jane Fonda)-inspired, a black gash of shame, a public urinal, and howled in outrage that it was designed by . . . well, an Asian-American woman (but of course the term many people used was left over from the war, and much uglier).
More importantly, however, the Wall, which was meant to heal a national wound, not glorify a military adventure, signaled - as the critics instinctively understood - a new public attitude toward war, or perhaps more accurately, a public manifestation, at long last, of an ancient yearning for peace.
The most frequently visited and heart-tearing monument in Washington D.C. is nearing its 25th birthday, its place at the core of American life growing stronger with each passing year. This fact belies the early critics, who called it communist- (or Jane Fonda)-inspired, a black gash of shame, a public urinal, and howled in outrage that it was designed by . . . well, an Asian-American woman (but of course the term many people used was left over from the war, and much uglier).
More importantly, however, the Wall, which was meant to heal a national wound, not glorify a military adventure, signaled - as the critics instinctively understood - a new public attitude toward war, or perhaps more accurately, a public manifestation, at long last, of an ancient yearning for peace.
For a documentary on the 100-year history - and horror - of aerial bombardment, Barry Stevens' "The Bomber's Dream" has a remarkably deft touch. The emotion driving the film isn't outrage so much as jumpiness, of the sort that bedeviled Stevens' mother, a survivor of the Nazis' rocket blitz on London during World War II, who was thereafter spooked by loud noises.
She was permanently unsettled, Stevens says, by "a memory just below the skin, of things going very wrong very quickly." Multiply that by all of us and you have modern society, which lives on this edge and calls it peace . . . or the closest we can get to it.
"The Bomber's Dream" tears back the assumptions and paradoxes and, yes, the good intentions of high-tech war and leaves us mourning not so much its millions of victims - or even the 40,000 dead of the Hamburg firestorm of 1943, survivors of which Stevens interviews ("outside, the wind sucked babies out of their mothers' arms") - as a single 15-year-old girl. Her sad and pointless death is a stand-in for all the others.
She was permanently unsettled, Stevens says, by "a memory just below the skin, of things going very wrong very quickly." Multiply that by all of us and you have modern society, which lives on this edge and calls it peace . . . or the closest we can get to it.
"The Bomber's Dream" tears back the assumptions and paradoxes and, yes, the good intentions of high-tech war and leaves us mourning not so much its millions of victims - or even the 40,000 dead of the Hamburg firestorm of 1943, survivors of which Stevens interviews ("outside, the wind sucked babies out of their mothers' arms") - as a single 15-year-old girl. Her sad and pointless death is a stand-in for all the others.
Congressman John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has used the following rhetoric repeatedly in recent weeks:
"George Bush has the habit of firing military leaders who tells him the Iraq war is failing. But let me tell you something. He can't fire you. He can't fire us. But we can fire him! We can fire him!"
You can watch Conyers say those words to a crowd of 500,000 on January 27th in this video: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18494
He said the same thing at an event a few days later, and went further, suggesting that he will favor impeachment if Bush attacks Iran. Here's the audio: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18457
"George Bush has the habit of firing military leaders who tells him the Iraq war is failing. But let me tell you something. He can't fire you. He can't fire us. But we can fire him! We can fire him!"
You can watch Conyers say those words to a crowd of 500,000 on January 27th in this video: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18494
He said the same thing at an event a few days later, and went further, suggesting that he will favor impeachment if Bush attacks Iran. Here's the audio: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18457
In a video interview with Tom Andrews posted at http://www.movecongress.org Congressman Jack Murtha makes clear that the limitations on additional war money that he intends to include in the forthcoming "emergency" supplemental bill are aimed only at undoing the recent escalation (a.k.a. "surge"), not at ending the war.
Murtha begins by claiming that this week's nonbinding vote opposing the escalation reinforces the message of the Nov. 7, 2006, election. That would be quite a feat, given that Bush did not propose his escalation until after the election, an election that everyone understood as expressing opposition to Bush, Cheney, and their war. Americans wanted then what they still want: to end the war.
Murtha explains that the next step after this week's nonbinding vote will be a House vote on a Supplemental bill adding more money to the war. Murtha plans to include in that bill restrictions on how troops can be used in Iraq:
1. They can't be kept there over a year.
2. They can't be sent without proper training and equipment.
Murtha begins by claiming that this week's nonbinding vote opposing the escalation reinforces the message of the Nov. 7, 2006, election. That would be quite a feat, given that Bush did not propose his escalation until after the election, an election that everyone understood as expressing opposition to Bush, Cheney, and their war. Americans wanted then what they still want: to end the war.
Murtha explains that the next step after this week's nonbinding vote will be a House vote on a Supplemental bill adding more money to the war. Murtha plans to include in that bill restrictions on how troops can be used in Iraq:
1. They can't be kept there over a year.
2. They can't be sent without proper training and equipment.
An Iraq vet named Charlie Anderson told me that he likes to get his photo taken with senators and House members, and then have his friend fiddle with the camera, so that Charlie gets to talk while the elected official has to stand there and smile. And this is what Charlie says: "Congressman, I work every day to try to end this war. You only talk about it. I'd like it if we switched roles: you do something, and I'll talk about what you're doing."
Thus far, any senators and House members taking Charlie up on his offer are not part of the leadership of either major party. Congressional leaders have elevated talking above action to the extent that many on Capitol Hill are now apparently incapable of distinguishing one from the other.
Thus far, any senators and House members taking Charlie up on his offer are not part of the leadership of either major party. Congressional leaders have elevated talking above action to the extent that many on Capitol Hill are now apparently incapable of distinguishing one from the other.
With the Bush administration taking increasingly provocative actions toward Iran, like the deployment of aircraft carriers to the Gulf, the arrest of Iranian representatives in Iraq, and the sharp escalation in bellicose rhetoric it seems clear that they’re at least considering a military strike. Here’s an idea that might help deter it.
Suppose groups like MoveOn, TrueMajority, and Democracy For America circulated a petition where those who signed it would ask our Senators, Representatives, and any of the other Democratic Presidential Candidates to pledge to oppose any attack on Iran and to also promise to initiate impeachment hearings if Bush attacked Iran without getting explicit Congressional authorization.
Suppose groups like MoveOn, TrueMajority, and Democracy For America circulated a petition where those who signed it would ask our Senators, Representatives, and any of the other Democratic Presidential Candidates to pledge to oppose any attack on Iran and to also promise to initiate impeachment hearings if Bush attacked Iran without getting explicit Congressional authorization.
How does sex differ from torture? The one is good and the other bad, might be your immediate reply. But were I to describe an act of torture, this would be taken as a serious article. Were I to describe an act of sex, then political publications wouldn't publish it, spam filters wouldn't allow you to receive it, and if you did receive it, you might turn away. In fact, we have set up numerous mechanisms, external and internal, to protect you from sex that just don't exist for torture and should possibly be considered. Such as:
1.-The Federal Communications Commission. Numerous things sex-related are banned from the airwaves for our protection, while discussions of torture and an expanding range of depiction of torture is acceptable. Police shows and exciting crime dramas depict torture and techniques bordering on torture as noble and good, while either avoiding sex or treating it so grotesquely as to unintentionally turn you off it.
1.-The Federal Communications Commission. Numerous things sex-related are banned from the airwaves for our protection, while discussions of torture and an expanding range of depiction of torture is acceptable. Police shows and exciting crime dramas depict torture and techniques bordering on torture as noble and good, while either avoiding sex or treating it so grotesquely as to unintentionally turn you off it.