You are herecontent / The peace movement's new enemy

The peace movement's new enemy

Antiwar activists target Pelosi and other congressional Dems
By Camille T. Taiara
San Francisco Bay Guardian

When Cindy Sheehan arrived in San Francisco Sept. 9, she was looking for an answer to the same simple question she's been posing for months: Why did her son - a US soldier killed in Iraq - have to die?

Yet this time she directed her inquiry not at President George W. Bush and the people who led us to war but at the members of Congress who let them. Sheehan's new focus coincides with a strategic shift by United for Peace and Justice, one of the antiwar movement's leading coalitions, as it prepares for mass protests planned Sept. 24-26 in San Francisco and other cities across the country.

Now the movement is holding congressional Democrats accountable for granting the Bush administration the authorization and the means to pursue an illegal and immoral war. And Rep. Nancy Pelosi tops their hit list.

"Pelosi's begging to be a target ... not only because she's the minority leader [in the House of Representatives], but because she's not representative of her constituency, locally or nationally," Bob Wing of War Times, who also sits on UFPJ's steering committee, told the Bay Guardian.

What's dangerous about Pelosi, these activists say, is that she can sound antiwar while consistently shoring up the Bush administration. For example, Pelosi described the Iraq war as a "grotesque mistake" in a June 15 interview with the Chronicle, and initially even voted against granting Bush a carte blanche for a preemptive strike.

But she failed to sign on to an early proposal, in February 2003, that would have required the UN Security Council's authorization before the Bush administration could begin dropping bombs on Baghdad. She's since refused to support even nonbinding resolutions asking Bush to set a deadline for withdrawal.

In May she voted against Rep. Lynn Woolsey's budget amendment calling for withdrawal from Iraq. This despite San Franciscans' vote last November, by close to a two-thirds margin, in support of bringing the troops home immediately.

More recently Pelosi also opposed Rep. Barbara Lee's resolution calling for an investigation of the Downing Street memos, which detailed how Bush officials planned to manipulate intelligence reports about Iraq. The proposal lost 22-21 in committee - on a party line vote that three Democrats failed to show up for. Pelosi also refused to lend her support to previous efforts to investigate the faulty "intelligence" the Pentagon used to justify the war.

Yet Pelosi has agreed to continue funding Bush's escapade in Iraq time and again. The price tag so far: nearly $300 billion (with another $130 billion approved for Iraq and Afghanistan beginning Oct. 1), almost 2,000 US soldiers killed, and an Iraqi death toll that Les Roberts, a veteran investigator from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, estimated at 100,000 in a study published last fall in the Lancet medical journal.

Susan Morrison, a member of Code Pink and UFPJ Bay Area, has been researching Pelosi's voting record stretching back to Oct. 2002 and hasn't found a single instance in which Pelosi voted against appropriations requested by the Bush administration to fund the Iraq war.

Neither Pelosi nor her representatives returned our call for comment.
"She should be taking a stand," Morrison said. "She says she's against [the war], but her votes and her lack of leadership and her lack of cosponsoring resolutions combined paint a different picture.

"We have an administration that's operating beyond the rule of law and is trying to set legal precedent for the future, for our nation, and who knows what ramifications that will have around the world," she continued. "In Vietnam the bombing didn't stop until Congress stopped funding the war. And, in fact, that's the only way Congress can change policy."

Veteran activists say now is a particularly important moment to pressure Congress. Polls show 60 percent of Americans currently disapprove of the Iraq war. Bush's approval rating also dipped below 40 percent for the first time earlier this month.

"But despite it all, [Bush] is still not challenged in the circles of power," Wing continued.
Being a leader in Congress "didn't stop Tom Daschle from getting defeated," Matt Gonzalez - a Green who some activists have been trying to convince to run against Pelosi - said in a phone interview with the Bay Guardian, referring to the senate minority leader who lost his seat in last year's elections. "But for the conditions to be right, you have to have more open dialogue and criticism.... Pelosi can do all the wrong things, but next month she can go give some great antiwar speech, and maybe she's forgiven. That's the problem. There's got to be a sustained look that says, this is phony; we're not going to fall for it anymore."

And that's precisely what a growing number within the antiwar movement are aiming to do over the coming months - beginning with this weekend's activities.

"Street demonstrations continue to be extremely important," said Wing, who also pointed to antirecruitment campaigns as playing a critical role in the antiwar effort. He'd also like to see Iraqi voices granted a more prominent role.

"We've always felt there are a variety of tactics that are required," he said. But "eventually the war has to be stopped at the legislative level."

'Defund the War! Defend Our Communities!' UFPJ rally and nonviolent direct action Mon., Sept. 26, noon, in front of Rep. Pelosi's office, the Federal Bldg., 45 Golden Gate, SF. Call (415) 565-0201 ext. 24 for more information.

A direct action planning meeting takes place Sun., Sept. 25, 7 p.m., the American Friends Service Committee's meeting house, 65 Ninth St., SF. (415)282-6580.

See Alerts, page 14, for details on the main antiwar demonstration planned for Sat., Sept. 24, and another, in Oakland, Fri., Sept. 25.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Let's face it , she is a Mom , and you can NOT pull one over on most MOMS (except Babs, but she probably had Nannies wipe Bush's butt).

Pelosi is in political bed with someone or some entity> who though? and most importantly, WHY?

Bush promised Pelosi some appointment in the future, I belive it had to do with Homeland Security. Frankly, I think Pelosi is a "plant", which may be one of Karl Rove's ingenious ideas to infiltrate the Democrats. PELOSI NEEDS TO GO......READ MY LIPS SAN FRANCISCO. GET HER OUT!!

... and they have.

Do a recall and remove this backstabber. Are you listening San Francisco? What is the problem here? What is taking so long? You are just as guilty as she is as long as you let "this rot steep"
Do what you need to do and get her OUT!!

Nancy Pelosi is just one of many Democrats who have got to go. We can no longer pretend it doesn't matter that our leaders schemed and lied to justify war in Iraq. Members of Congress who go along with Bush's deceptions are either spineless wimps or co-conspirators. Greens, Independents and Progressive Democrats unite!

The real reason behind Pelosi's (and many other democrats as well as republicans) support for continued occupation of Iraq and expansion of the war to Iran is made crystal clear by one of her speeches which can be found at:

More than ever, I am convinced that nothing short of a second revolution will save the United States of America from tyranny under a system of governance that is no less oppressive and dangerous to individual liberty than was that of King George III of England prior to the U.S. declaration of independence.

The enemy of the people today is not one king, nor one president, and certainly not one of the political duopoly parties alone. It is the system itself whereby the power that rightly belongs to all Americans, individually and collectively, has been completely overwhelmed by the power of enormous wealth in a very few, mainly corporate, hands. Sometimes referred to as if it were a founding principle, this perversion of "The American Way" is anything but that.

Freedom means freedom of the individual and democracy means "government of the people, by the people, for the people". In that true sense, neither has anything to do with corporate interests and power. Freedom has nothing to do with "marketeering" practices and democracy has nothing to do with economic theories, neither "free market" frauds nor otherwise. Beware Orwellian twisters of the language who do all in their power to create other meanings for purposes of justifying both local imposition and forced exports of their own elite versions of "freedom and democracy" more akin to fascism than to anything contemplated by the country's founders.

Despite clear evidence that the founders were biased in some measure toward the "landed gentry", it is equally clear that they did not intend an outcome where money and greed alone would determine the country's directions in all matters, both domestic and foreign. Yet that is precisely the status quo under a system of governance where the alleged "representatives of the people" are bought and paid for just like any other commodity under a capitalist enterprise economy and where some offices of the administration (both elected and unelected) are, to all intents and purposes, wholly owned corporate subsidiaries.

To a very significant degree, all other national ills and threats to true "freedom and democracy" are mere corollaries of that single fact.

Whether one examines America's military-industrial complex with its scandalous operations, "pork barrel" politics and "revolving doors", the concentration of U.S. media ownership, or the unfettered unconstitutional power placed in the hands of an imperial presidency, none could exist without the complicity of a legislature that is purchased by and totally subservient to the interests of a moneyed "elite". And one need only consider the current vice-presidential and secretary of state incumbents to guage only two of many direct impacts of corporate interests like Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil on the administrative side.

Much of the moneyed power that governs the nation's domestic and foreign agendas today is expressed via "America Incorporated". (I use this title simply as a convenient rubric for the consensus amongst major corporate interests that are headquartered within the U.S.A., but by no means confined to its territory as shown on conventional maps.) This too is a gross distortion of the intent of the country's founders. Many of the principal actors in the American revolution, among them George Washington, wanted to throw off imperial rule precisely because they felt their own freedom was being disrupted by corporate interests such as the British East India Tea Company.

After the revolution, and for a hundred years, the American people bore a deep distrust of the corporation, and corporations were regulated severely. Corporate charters were created by individual states, and those states had the power to revoke that charter if the corporation was deemed to be acting against the public good or had deviated from its charter. During that time, corporations were not allowed to own other corporations, nor were they allowed to participate in the political process.

The corporate power Americans now accept and take for granted actually came about as the result of court decisions that were highly controversial in their own day. Most notable was the 1818 Supreme Court case "Dartmouth College v. Woodward," in which Daniel Webster, advocating for Dartmouth, argued passionately for the power of corporations in regards to property rights.

In domestic affairs, this has resulted in numerous legislative and other measures to limit dissent amongst ordinary citizens and thus to consolidate "elite" power. The so-called PATRIOT Act may be the most notable in recent times, but many others, including changes to bankruptcy laws, also contribute to an atmosphere of helpless "wage slavery" and public subservience to governmental authority rather than vice versa.

Where U.S. foreign adventures are concerned, the results are well documented by those most directly involved, such as U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler. In his published work, Butler points out that war is a racket. "It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. ... It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Dwight David Eisenhower's warning to the American people about the corruption of power has not merely been fulfilled but is now surpassed by a wide margin. Its predominant influences today extend across a vast array of congressional, military, industrial and non-governmental organizations and activities, not excluding elements of organized religions where Mammon has been the obvious victor over the gods of professed faiths.

In this confluence of church-state-military-industrial-media power deliberately orchestrated by the "elite" class, ordinary citizens of the United States of America face almost insurmountable odds against any return to the ideals envisaged by the country's founders and reflected in Lincoln's immortal words at Gettysburg. The consolidated barriers are now huge and they increase exponentially almost on a daily basis.

Whether Americans retain sufficient revolutionary spirit to overcome tyranny a second time seems doubtful as the "civilized" superficial debates about preferences within the existing political facade of the Tweedledum-Tweedledee duopoly go on endlessly ad nauseum. It is abundantly clear, however, that nothing less than another popular rebellion against the system itself will have even a modest chance of success.

In the circumstances, I'm not optimistic, but nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong.

"Beware Orwellian twisters of the language who do all in their power to create other meanings and who then use those inappropriate "synonyms"..."

But it is you who "twist" language to establish inappropriate synonyms.

First you succeed in attaching an entire system of fuzzy ambiguous negative connotations to a useful, neutral term; capitalism.

Having now subverted the capacity of your opponents to express their ideas, to which you have no rebuttal, you now proceed to attempt to silence us completely through the use of the "inappropriate synonym": "..."representatives of the people" are bought and paid for just like any other commodity under the "free market" (a.k.a. capitalist) economy."

To begin with, in the free market system, "representatives of the people", by which I assume you mean elected politicians, cannot be "bought" in the sense that you mean it, simply because they have nothing to sell.

A free market means just that, a system of private enterprises that answer to the consumers of the product or service they offer.They either succeed in satifying their clientele, or they go out of business,in a free market system THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

Your "representatives of the people" cannot save them from the displeasure of the people, because the ESSENSE of the free market system is the separation of government and economics.

You need to obfuscate the facts, so you can conveniently conflate your twisted, self-servingly and willfully inaccurate version of the "free market" with the status quo; a FASCIST OLIGARCHY.

I must concede you one point, a free market and the fascist oligrachy with which you attempt to confuse it, do share ONE characteristic in common:they do require an ongoing process of accumulation of fungible material assests toward the ends of financing privately owned, profit generating enterprises.But to hang your entire system of "anti-capitalist" nonsense on this one fact is the same quality of logic as pointing out that a dog has four legs and therefore is necessarily a cat.

This, of course you have facilitated for yourself by trashing the term "capitalism"; your purpose being to prevent the expression of the concept it represents, basic newspeak strategy.As alluded to in the preceeding paragraph,capitalism is merely the accumulation of transferable material assets toward the purpose of financing an enterprise who's purpose is to generate profits(the excess funds remaining after obligations are met, in case you have any other obfuscatory plans).

Now that we've reestablished capitalism as a useable objective term,rather than the empty, meaningless shiboleth to which you had reduced it for you ulterior purpose, one thing becomes eminently clear;any system that proports to lift man above mere subsistence, must employ some element of capitalism, even one such as yours, which must rely on obscuring it's true nature and the basics of economics in order for it's adherents to promote it successfully.

Let us return to the matter of common characteristics.We will now compare the aforementioned FACSIST OLIGARCHY with the system I take you by implication,to advocate.As I am working here on an assumption, I'll be brief.Let's just look at this:


"Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life."

"Fascism was, in many respects, an adverse reaction to...the perceived failure of laissez-faire economics"

"Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of...production"

Big difference.In either case, the individual loses his most fundamental freedom, his right to enjoy the benefits of his own labors, rather than everyone's production being accumulated and redistributed by bureaucrats.Thus reducing the individual to hapless beggar to fill his own needs and a hopeless slave, that the needs of others be filled.
"Freedom, by the way, means freedom of the people". No you sanctimonious fool,freedom is the normal, natural state of affairs, as EXPERIENCED BY THE INDIVIDUAL.It is founded, along with it's essential, inextricable reciprocal,RESPONSIBILITY, on the individual's most fundamental intrinsic quality as relates directly to issues of social structure: AUTONOMY. It is man's fundamental nature that mandates a minimally restrictive social enviornment, that the individual be free to use the one tool nature provided for the species' success: his INDIVIDUAL intellect.He cannot even begin to do this in a social enviornment that systematically deprives him of the fruits of his labors by force and threat of violence.

You're very fond of allusions to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.Well try this on for size:"...that all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and PROPERTY..." I can't imagine a statement more inimical to the philosophy I take you top espouse.

---The Bikemessenger

P.S.You've posted this elsewhere and this was my response, I've since reconsidered my reference to you as a "santimonous fool"; that was uncalled for and out of line and for that ,I apologize.

If you actually believe that politicans have nothing to sell and cannot be bought, either you are hoplessly naive or you just haven't been paying attention.

And if you also think that capitalist enterprise has any form of public good as its goal, you're equally mistaken. The aim of the capitalist corporation is singular and straightforward: maximize profit. Buying political influence is just one method for facilitating that end.

Your concept that capitalist enterprises "answer to the consumers of the product or service they offer", would be a very surprising notion and an enormously unwelcome suggestion for the people to whom shareholder capitalism actually answers.

"Burn, baby, burn!! That's a beautiful thing," -- Enron energy trader celebrating the massive fire that shut down a major transmission line into California.

"Yeah. We never give money back. Look at Halliburton and the military right now. Cheney and Halliburton just say, 'Pay up, Pentagon. Or we'll cut you off and let the troops die.' And blam! Generals crumble at the feet of Halliburton, so as not to jeopardize their chances of working for Halliburton when they retire." -- Enron executive caught on tape.

If that's being answerable to consumers, you must have your own strange Orwellian definition of the process.

I won't bother to comment on all your other ill-conceived attempts to refute except to point out that you have drawn inferences having no basis wahtever in anything that I said. Even allowing for your misquotes, some of your leaps of logic are truly stunning. To suggest, for example, that deploring corporate manipulation of the political process is somehow connected with denying anyone the "right to enjoy the benefits of his own labors" is quite unfathomable.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't dream of denying you the comfort of your own illusions about the wonders of a society governed solely by pure unfettered greed. Carry on.

"If you actually believe that politicans have nothing to sell and cannot be bought, either you are hoplessly naive or you just haven't been paying attention."

Try paying attention to what the person to whom you're reponding says, rather than to yourself.

I do not state that politicians have nothing to sell, rather that politicians SHOULD have nothing to sell.

That both your socialist system and the fascist oligrachy in power now are for all intents and purposes, the same.

Further, I will continue to challenge your attempts at Orwellian obfuscation.

The free market is a fundamentally and mutually exclusive concept to the fascist oligrachy we experience.

On the other hand,said fascist oligrachy is not meaningfully distinct from what you advocate.

You will not succeed in your efforts to subvert the acuity of language,as to render that distinction inexpressable.

---The Bikemessenger

"Try paying attention to what the person to whom you're reponding says."

That's excellent advice. You should try it yourself sometime. Vehement blind faith in your own theories about market forces as the answer to every issue isn't a compelling argument. And it's certainly not a subsitute for observation and rational thought.

"Vehement blind faith",that's an ironic description to make of an intransient, life-long ATHEIST who expects himself to consciously and explicitly grasp the basis of all he believes.

If you are a religious person, perhaps you can give me some insight as to what it's like to entertain a believe based on faith, "blind" or otherwise.

On the other hand, given your beliefs as to economics, you should be able to advise my in any case.

Having established for myself as comprehensive,consistent and complete a metaphysical system as I'm able, I then used this as a guide to formulating an epistemological protocol:

Then, as a guide to practical application, I used this:

A Skeptical Manifesto
By Michael Shermer

A few pertinent excerpts:

"It is easy, even fun to challenge others beliefs, when we are smug in the certainty of our own. But when ours are challenged, it takes great patience and ego strength to listen with an unjaundiced ear."

"Rational is given by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) as: Having the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason (p. 2420). And reason as A statement of some fact employed as an argument to justify or condemn some act, prove or disprove some assertion, idea, or belief"

"For the purpose of outlining a methodology for the rational skeptic to apply...on the simplest of levels, something that might be called the scientific method:"

1. Observation: Gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancing technologies.
2. Induction: Drawing general conclusions from the data. Forming hypothesis.
3. Deduction: Making specific predictions from the general conclusions.
4. Verification: Checking the predictions against further observations.

For example, how do we know the Earth is round?:

1. The shadow on the moon is round.
2. The mast of a ship is the last thing seen as it sails off the horizon.
3. The horizon is curved.
4. Photographs from space..."

These form the criteria upon which I answer for myself the most basic epistemological question; what common atributes apply to all falsehoods and what common attributes apply to facts,and the valid truths there from constructed?

On the other hand:

" helps us avoid dogmatism: the basing of conclusions on authority rather than science. For example, how do we know the Earth is round?:

1. Our parents told us.
2. Our teachers told us.
3. Our minister told us.
4. Our textbook told us.

Dogmatic conclusions are not necessarily invalid, but they do pose another question: how did the authorities come by their conclusions? Did they use science or some other means?"

Can you explain the epistemological process that leads you to belief in socalist economics?

Additionally, I've come to accept as the fundamental source of causation,the nature of the existants directly involved in any particular observed dynamic,i.e., by understanding the nature of an entity, it is possible to project a range of possible actions on it's part.

One area where I find it interesting to apply this principle is social structure.Any specimen of any given organism, examined in isolation, will yield important clues as to the parameters within which a commensurate social structure can be projected.

Moreover, observation of species in the wild yields patterns of behavior consistent with the nature of the organism observed.

In all fairness, man, of course, is unique in his capacity to consciously contemplate these issues.

Thus,it seems unavoidable that man devise his own social structures.
This begs the question, I submit: although man can devise his own social structures(note that while in this endeavour, he MAY, but need not act alone), does he have license to step outside the bounds of his own nature?

It seems to me that from an intellectual perspective, it is probably necessary.However,at the level of refinement that proposes specific implementation, a return to the parameters set for man by his fundamental nature would seem obligatory if an efficacious system is to be proposed.

I expect you would appreciate how perplexing it is for me to note the advocacy of facsist imperialism, particularly when one of the facsists in Washington advocates direct copying from another species of a vastly different nature form homo sapiens!!!

In all fairness, however, the structure you, at least implicitly propose bears a disturbing resemblance to:;jses...

This might not be so puzzling save that these theories had been given ample opportunities over the course of human history, in particular throughout the developed world in the twentieth century to play themselves out to their inexorable,logical end.

Yet,in spite of the objectively verfiable evidence, I observe people doggedly (or should I say dogmatically)continuing to wholeheartedly advocate these theories, as though there were no evidence of the results they produce.Adding to the perplexity for me is the fact that many of said advocates are clearly more intellectually able than I; as noted early on in this discussion:


I was a bit nonplussed by this for years, until Michael Shirmer came to my rescue:

Skeptic: Smart People Believe Weird Things; September 2002; by Michael Shermer;
(Copyright © 1993-2005 Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved)

"In April 1999, when I was on a lecture tour for my book Why People Believe Weird Things, the psychologist Robert Sternberg attended my presentation at Yale University. His response to the lecture was both enlightening and troubling. It is certainly entertaining to hear about other people's weird beliefs, Sternberg reflected, because we are confident that we would never be so foolish. But why do smart people fall for such things?" Sternberg's challenge led to a second edition of my book, with a new chapter expounding on my answer to his question: Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.
Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed.MOST OF US, MOST OF THE TIME,COME TO OUR BELIEFS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS HAVING LITTLE TO DO WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND LOGICAL REASONING."

It would seem from your remarks(and I have observed this phenomena on many occasions), that the curious twist that the belief that unfounded beliefs were arrived at through "observation and rational thought"may also fall within the bounds of the process.

It would be an interesting matter to address from the perspective of memetics,but that's whole other issue.

---Thank You,
The Bikemessenger

Neutral capitalism? What a crock. Tell that to the people in Iraq, or New Orleans, or any place that has dealings with the IMF.

There's certainly nothing neutral about any of your own twisted terminology and illogical pleadings. Your argument is a long string of invalid inferences and non-sequiturs. Almost none of it is responsive to what was actually said, which wasn't really about capitalism at all other than its undue influences on governmental processes in the US.

You are the one who is doing all the impassioned advocacy for a position based on childishly naive and competely false assumptions about how modern capitalism and other things actually work in the real world.

Hi--Good points about the pitiful Democrats who must be challenged on their support for the war. BUT PLEASE REMEMBER--this is Bush's War and we need to focus on all GOP Senators & Reps. Sen. Richard Lugar, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee is one example. Call his office, McCain's office, McConnell's office, Frist's office, a demand a response to Cindy Sheehan's question, "What is the Noble Cause?" The GOP is on the defensive now, and we need to take advantage.

Call today and call often: 1-877-762-8762 See you in DC on Saturday.

That may be how some amongst the U.S. political leadership would like to represent the war under questionning by its domestic opponents, but it's not how the rest of the world sees it.

It was your president himself who said: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". Why should anyone else make any distinction between Bush and a country that returned him to office even after his terrorist agenda against an innocent nation was abundantly clear.

By that standard, you are all equally guilty -- not just George W Bush -- and you all remain remain fully responsible for all of the murder, torture, piracy, theft, rape and the sodomizing of children so long as this illegal and immoral war continues in the name of the United States of America.

As for "supporting the troops", anyone who enlists now, knowing full well in advance that he or she will thereby be accomodating and facilitating such a crime against peace and humanity, deserves not support but condemnation by any right-thinking member of humanity.

The new movement is well aware of the fact that George W. Bush was never elected by the people. Twice. This office was stolen, rigged and politically plundered. Get your facts straight. The enlistees have been lied to, cajoled and given false promises of glory. That is what this movement is expose the Facist Pigs who have taken over our country. Read the Downing Street Minutes and the New World Order literature. That should give you a clue.

The point, which you seem to miss entirely, is that you are condemned by the same standards that your own country set for others. Its "with us or against us" pronouncements and unilateral actions contrary to international law made no allowance whatever for any such nice distinctions as you now ask others to make about your own particular responsibility. In fact, it's "shock and awe" invasion and occupation resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties, including many children who really were completely innocent, except for the terrible "sin" of being born Iraqi.

What make you deserving of any more merciful consideration, let alone absolution?

If you are a US citizen, unlike the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, you live in what purports to be a democracy. Even if what you say about the US electoral process is true, the other party would have done the same thing, only better according to their presidential candidate. Besides, whatever your government and its military does is done in the name of the United States of America to at least the same extent as what Saddam Hussein did or didn't do in the name of Iraq and its people. And don't forget that, in your case, it was done with "opposition" consent that persists even to this day.

If you think the world will hold the American people blameless just because some of you now claim to be part of some "new movement" (a totally ineffectual one so far as I can see) you're badly mistaken.

As for claims of ignorance, that is no excuse in the eyes of the law, nor in the eyes of the world, especially when much of it is willful ignorance. No matter how hard you squirm, you can't absolve yourself without renouncing your citizenship in a truly evil empire -- and you'd have to do so retroactively.

The American voters didn't have a chance

... the fact remains that, whether you supported the Republican international terrorist for president or his chief Democrat "opponent", you supported a pro-war position against people who did you no harm at all.

As your country never allowed any such distinguishing "exemptions" for any of the thousands of innocent "no chance" civilians that its military has killed, maimed and tortured, it deserves none for itself.

And we have no desire to continue with this un-elected Fascist Bush PNAC regime.

The only one we should have captured is Osama, and Bush let him go.
Even the 9/11 families feel this way.

Unfortunately, America fell to the fateful powers that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us of in 1961>>> the NON-elected Military Industrial Complex & the scientific/technological elitists:

We don't give a shit about those guys, we'd kill anyone for a tank of gas. We want to be told we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. We didn't do anything to incure an attack by Islamic crazies, they just hate us. The news media (all of them) tell us so, the politicians (all of them) tell us so. We deserve our tax cuts and Government welfare (both individual and corporate). The deficit is someone else's fault. We have a God given right to transport our fat ass around in a 4 ton SUV, our emmisions didn't cause global warming and that has nothing to do with the hurricanes. Everything is someone else's fault. We're Americans, God is on our side, ask anyone.

You down the "New Movement" of anti-war. We recognize the atrocities being imposed upon the Iraqi people. You fail to recognize that this is a 'NEW MOVEMENT'. I didn't see the Iraqi people overthrow that vile subhuman Saddam. I bet you're sitting here in America, downing the ones who are trying to make change. You are free, cozy, making a living, and probably have relatives enjoying the fruits of our dead sons and daughters. I have no respect for someone with disdain for others who are sincerely trying to make a change. Go back to that shithole where you came from and see if you can make some postive changes. Good luck lacky.

In any case, the location of my sitting or standing is irrelevant except inasmuch as I am a citizen of the world outside the United States of Amnesia with its imperial ambitions and double standards.

As for your so-called "new movement", the first necessity in changing anything at all is getting beyond self-delusional hypocracy to the real roots of the problem. If you believe in God (any god) Alcoholics Anonymous sets out the process reasonably well in its twelve steps. In your own case, items 4 and 5 are of particular importance.

Thank you, everything you say is correct.But I think it serves to clarify the distinction between blame and responsiblity. All Americans who vote and pay federal income taxes myself included, are RESPONSIBLE.

Although I have never voted for a republican or a democrat in my life and spoke out against the war in Iraq long before the invasion, I may legitimately claim to be BLAMELESS;But frankly,I see that as a moot point;I and all of us are still RESPONSIBLE.

---The Bikemessenger

voted, now that we KNOW the truth about proposed oil pipeline in Afghanistan and NO wmd's in Iraq, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to our Troops, the allied Troops, Afghans and Iraquis to put a stop to this war so they can REALLY be free of PNAC imperialism.

Great post, Arvy. I agree that we need another revolution in this country. since the neocons have congress and the courts in their pockets, it seems to be the only way to turn this contry around and back to government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are no longer licving in a democracy, but in a fascist dictatorship wherein nobody in the bush adminstration is accountable for anything they do. The constitution expressly states that "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government." Since the corrupt replublcans control both houses of congress, impeachment is not a viable possibility, so revolution is the only way we can reclaim democracy in this country. On another note, has anyone considered Cindy Sheehan for a presidential candidate in 2008? She has more courage than the entire congress combined. If California can elect two bad actors for governor and one of them can go on to be a horrible president, then why can't a mother dedicated to anti-war become president? Is it money; and if so, I say everyone opposed to the present administration (roughly 60% of the population) could contribute just $10.00 to a Cindy Sheehan campaign fund. Say there are 200 million adults in the US, that makes 120 million opposed to the bush administration, times $10.00 = $1,200,000,000 campaign fund! WOW what a possibility! If someone organizes a campaign for her while the iron is hot, I will definitely contribute. And while I'm at it, everyone going to Washington this weekend should bring a tea bag with them and write on the label "the revolution is comming" and leave them on the ground as a further symbol to the gutless sheep in congress that the American citizens will no longer tolerate their inaction and/or complicity in the atrocities committed by bush and his fellow fascist war criminals. This administration and all who comply with it must be replaced either through the vote,legislation or revolution.

It's just one POV, of course, and I certainly don't expect universal agreement. But I hope that it may help a little bit to provoke some debate beyond simple conventional "cures" for a disease that runs much deeper than a few individual politicians. In a sense, they are also victims of a corrupt system, albeit very willing victims in many cases.

And your enemies even closer....... 8-(

Damn nancy pelosi for betraying the community!!!!!!!

That's when it really stings. Not when some self-assed GOP congressman turns traitor and brandies about their cronyism, but when your own friends....those people you thought stood up for you, sell themselves out for CASH.

That's it for me. Recall every candidate in office who supports this bullshit extravaganza CAMPAIGN OF STUPIDITY!!!!!!!

No more Nancy Pelosi's or Dianne Feinsteins!!!!! Get rid of them ALL!!!!!!!

Doug E.

After John Kerry's fake presidential campaign and rapid capitulation in the face of such obvious vote fraud! Its amazing that all rank and file Democrats aren't permanently pissed off at the treacherous actions of the Dem leadership. The leadership is fake and they will do all in their power to continue to bamboozle the rank and file. You'll always find yourselves losing races you should have won and they'll always find a way to let the GOP have its way with the government! Putting Dean atop the party is just their latest ploy to mollify the rank and file without really changing anything. Support the Dems, and reap perpetual defeat and GOP tyranny.

Does anyone know who the three democrats were that didn't support
Barbars Lee's Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo? Besides the wimp
Pelosi? She is the worst minority leader we have ever had in Congress
and she should be replaced. All talk and no action! I am afraid we
have quite a few of these types in Congress. Let's clean house and start with a new slate.

This is it folks....we don't have any choice but to REVOLT. There is no middle ground with "Satan's Agents". That is how they deal with the public, negative. REVOLT NOW!!!

Someone get a list now of EVERY single democrat who voted to oppose, or did not support the resolution of inquiry.

We had over 82 democrats who voted FOR it....

What was going on with the other 100!??!??


Doug E.

Yeh, it is time to get rid of Nancy. We must all work on getting honest politicians (it seems like an oxymoron) in place. They are representing us.

The toads in Congress are all very corrupt, besides a scant few democrats and republicans.

They are all so in bed together with the oil industry you couldn't seperate this mess.

Its the whole picture. Its the reason for the letters I've written on and exposing the fascsits


With due respect, your reasons for voting against the Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memos sir, are pure "bullshat".

I'm amazed that you had the prescription to vote favorably to putting Clinton trial for lying about a blowjob, but have seemingly no interest in putting anyone on trial for lying more than 2 countries into a disaster of a war.

Such a visible disrespect for the constitution is determined as none other than.....Deriliction of Duty.

You should know Congressman, that this is no longer a political issue and is an issue of whether you are for the constitution or AGAINST it.

The proof is spelled out right in plain view, Congressman and we are NEVER going to forget how you voted.

You may not choose to see it, but the whole COUNTRY KNOWS WE WERE LIED TO and the war was a pathetic, bull-headed smear campaign.

And you are no longer upholding the constitution by refusing to hold accountable the executive branch....Tell me now, are these people in the witness list frivilous un-named sources?

Is it the fact that Britain and federal authorities do not dispute the memo's contents, nor its evidence that we were lied to?

Or is it the fact you are more loyal to your cronies, and big business, than to our governing law of the land.

Well I beseech you Congressman. You must represent your constituents first and america at large first, with all other matters second.

You and those congressional democrats who voted against the resolution of inquiry, WILL BE held accountable. You may not know it yet, but we are going to fire every last one of you.

That is unless you ADMIT your guilt, for being a traitor to the foundation of this country, and fully support a resolution of inquiry on the downing street meetings.

Which took place on 10 Downing Street, between several high placed officials, traitors, and oil barons no less.


And it further matters before god what you have done, and what you have chosen. Remember that when you turn on your huge screen TV.

YOU MAY THINK THE BATTLE IS OVER, BUT NOW IT HAS JUST STARTED. You can not ignore the constitution.

Every sniveling lie, every "mocking" gesture at thousands who lay dying in our country and in Iraq will be taken for what it is....A deriliction of duty. And every sniveling retort and propaganda you propose, sir, makes our founding fathers spin in their graves about how much you have sold america out.

The age of accountability is coming. But its coming for the neocons and those who spit on our bill of rights, not for anyone else.

And keep in mind I support bringing freedom. And I only support that when the cause is just, not based on proven disinformation or lies.

Yours in both ways heaven or hell,
Danny Moine"


I thought I heard awhile back that Mr. Pelosi has connections to the black box voting industry. Is that true? Does anyone know? It would explain a lot, but I want some credible information.

I loved reading these postings. I think we can agree there is a big crisis in America that needs fixed. Does anyone have any ideas? I've been to Wash several times to protest and that changes nothing. They are so used to protesters; they'll forget you were even there come Monday morning. One thing we can do is quit watching Fox News and CNN for example and let their ratings tank. I listen to internet radio: and they tell the truth. Any other suggestions?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.