[Peace-discuss] (no subject)

[Susan Davis]

Carl,

Actually I DO mean that about DeLay.  It's like Buchanan.  He's against the 
war, but he's a fascist -- should I make a strategic alliance with him on 
the theory the ends justifiy the means?  No way.  To theoretically or 
practically line up with the likes of DeLay on an antiwar issue -- or any 
other issue I believed in -- would be a huge damaging mistake for the 
anti-war movement.   It's not the same as a working alliance with someone 
you have a few side disagreements with.

My point: these guys want to dismantle the federal gov't and the separation 
of powers -- they want a corporatist militarist authoritarian state --- and 
they don't care what it costs us or the world.  if they can use Terri 
Schiavo or tax cuts or the flag or immigrant rights or you or me or 
whatever to do it --they will.

SD

At 01:01 PM 4/1/2005, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Susan Davis wrote:
>
> > ...Tom Delay is an opportunist and not to be trusted.  If he declared
> > himself against the war tomorrow, for humanitarian and international
> > justice reasons, I still wouldn't give him a quarter for his parking
> > meter...
>
>I'm not sure what you see as the political significance of this
>observation, Susan.  There are those whose antipathy to DeLay is so great
>that they've implied that they'd be against anything that he is for, and I
>know you don't mean that regarding the war.  But I'd suggest that the only
>way to end the war is getting opportunists in government like DeLay to
>declare themselves against it, because of public pressure.  That's how the
>Vietnam War ended -- not by replacing the DeLays of those days with
>non-opportunists who could be trusted.  That didn't happen. --CGE