The interests of war, which siphon off 40 percent of every dollar we pay in taxes, have no choice but to declare peace — or at least truth — anti-American, because the blood myth of national exceptionalism, and the perpetual insecurity it creates, is all they’ve got.

It’s also all they need.

Did anyone, for instance, expect the Petraeus-Crocker testimony before Congress this week to affect or even address what we’re actually doing in Iraq? The best we get is some mild criticism from the opposition party, stern words about our “missteps” in the waltz to victory, ineffective calls for a timetable for troop withdrawal that, sincere or wholly insincere, will not in fact lead to a timetable for troop withdrawal because nothing is on the line in this testimony; and, in any case, no congressperson dares trample on “the seeds of nascent democracy” our boys and girls have been planting over there for the last five years. And lo, “There has been growth,” the general declared. And those baby democracies are so cute!

Here is the perfect Mother's Day gift for your mother, your mother in law, your grandmothers, and in fact for the men in their lives as well - who ought to be shamed into action. Joan Wile has published a book called "Grandmothers Against the War: Getting Off Our Fannies and Standing Up for Peace." As far as I know, this is her first book. It is very much an account of ordinary people doing extraordinary things. If more people did the same, we would put an end to war.

Of course, the people in this book are extraordinary, but everyone is, and the actions that Wile recounts this group of grandmothers having taken are actions she describes as fun and exciting. If more people understood that and acted on it, we would put an end to war.

These grandmothers in New York City hold a weekly vigil against the occupation of Iraq. And they mean it. They are protesting the current proposal by the Democrats to "oppose" the occupation by throwing another $178 billion at it. Quick! Quick! Can somebody "oppose" me like that?

Seventy-six years ago, to many ears on the left, Franklin D. Roosevelt sounded way too much like a centrist. True, he was eloquent, and he'd generated enthusiasm in a Democratic base eager to evict Republicans from the White House. But his campaign was moderate -- with policy proposals that didn't indicate he would try to take the country in bold new directions if he won the presidency.

Yet FDR's triumph in 1932 opened the door for progressives. After several years of hitting the Hoover administration's immovable walls, the organizing capacities of labor and other downtrodden constituencies could have major impacts on policy decisions in Washington.

Today, segments of the corporate media have teamed up with the Clinton campaign to attack Barack Obama. Many of the rhetorical weapons used against him in recent weeks -- from invocations of religious faith and guns to flag-pin lapels -- may as well have been ripped from a Karl Rove playbook. The key subtexts have included racial stereotyping and hostility to a populist upsurge.

Do we have a major stake in this fight? Does it really matter whether
A new collection of essays edited by Mark Crispin Miller called "Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008," tells the story better than any single source I've seen yet.

The Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida in 2000 that would have made Al Gore president. This is not speculation. The recount was later done.

Numerous elections were stolen in 2002, in Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and elsewhere, including Senate, Governor, and House races in Georgia that were practically openly swiped by Diebold's elections unit president flying in at the last minute and altering the election machines. The theft of Don Siegelman's 2002 election as governor of Alabama was almost as transparent. One county reported a set of results from electronic machines that made Siegelman governor, then recalculated and reported a different set of results. The new results were statistically impossible, and the pair of reports strongly suggested exactly how the machines were rigged, first mistakenly and later as intended.

I would like to thank the students at Cal State University,  Northridge for inviting me to speak on campus today.  I have just returned from an exciting trip to Mexico City and I'd like to share some of my observations with you this afternoon.

First of all, it is important to note and ask the question why is it that the corporate press are not even touching the events playing out right now in the capital city of our neighbor to the south and their importance to us?  Had I not actually been there myself, I would be hard pressed to convince any audience that events of this magnitude were actually taking place anywhere in the world, let alone in a country as important and close to us as Mexico.

So what ever happened to George W. Bush, the worst chief executive this nation has ever endured?

This is an election year. Aren't we supposed to be evaluating the legacy of the previous administration?

In this case, we have a man whose approval ratings are subterranean. Who's sunk us into an endless war based on impeachable lies. Who's dragged our national honor into the toxic mud. Who's brought us to the brink of depression. Who's dropped the dollar into the toilet. Who wants more subsidies for terror-target nuke reactors and more tax breaks for CO2-spewing oil barons.

Who screams "Terror! Terror! Terror!" at every possible moment, but lets Osama bin Laden run free.

What would Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest of the corporate bloviators be screaming today if a Democrat had hosted the 9/11 attacks and then let their perpetrator roam the world without capture for more than six years?

The only thing the American people can say with pride about George W. Bush is that we never elected him president of the United States.

If politics is the art of saying nothing, then Barack Obama is sure blowing it, isn’t he?

His latest “gaffe,” to proclaim at a private fundraiser in San Francisco (of all places) that small-town Americans are bitter and cling to guns and God in lieu of financial security — these words purveyed to the American public by way of a scratchy, Osama-quality recording — triggered such heartfelt hypocrisy from his opponents.

“It is hard to imagine,” said John McCain, “someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

I almost agree with this. Obama is definitely out of touch with something. However, it isn’t “average Americans” — who, it turns out, really are bitter in large numbers — so much as what I would call “the tacit covenant of presidential politics.”

Dear Hillary,

Reasons abound why you should do all you can to defeat John McCain—but for you, it should be personal. Maybe you've forgotten in the heat of the Democratic contest. But remember McCain's cruel joke about your daughter, when Chelsea was 18 and vulnerable. This alone should give you every reason to stand against McCain—and nothing to boost his chances.

McCain made the joke at a 1998 Republican Senate fundraiser. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" he asked. "Because her father is Janet Reno." Chelsea was a lovely young woman then, and is even lovelier now. But when you're 18, an attack like that can be deeply wounding. It's outrageous for McCain to slime an innocent young woman who'd done nothing to offend him—just to throw red meat to a Republican crowd.

It would be bad enough had McCain's joke targeted only Janet Reno and you, feeding the misogynist myth that any assertive woman must be gay. But as adults, both you and Reno could recognize the nasty joke as reflecting solely on the man who made it. Sliming teenage Chelsea like that, however, crossed a fundamental line—a line that I’m sure matters for you and Bill as parents.

Pages

Subscribe to Freepress.org RSS