[Peace-discuss] Durbin interview

[Jenifer Cartwright]

What is the point of publicly dissing Durbin???? He's one of the (relatively) good guys holding elected office (yes, even tho' he wouldn't spill the beans after he learned the "facts" justifying the invasion were BS). We should certainly hold his little clay feet to the fire, but let's be realistic here. Look what he's/we're up against. Russ Feingold wanted to censure the Bush admin for deliberate deception leading to the US invasion of Iraq, and not one senator would support him. Not one senator condemned Israel for attacking Lebanon last year. Let's go after the really bad guys when we create our flyers, not the ones who are lots better than most who we'd like to be perfect, even tho' it wouldn't make a bit of difference if they were, given the present climate. AWARE will have a greater impact on folks reading the flyers if they can see the point to our criticism.
   
  Grrr,
  Jenifer 

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  Mort--

This is excellent. How about turning it into a flyer for the Main Event 
in two weeks? Perhaps you could conclude with the (slightly more 
hopeful) recommendation from the "cogent, clear headed article by 
Anthony Arnove":

"WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO END THE OCCUPATION?

"I THINK it will take much more pressure at home and also within the 
rank and file of the U.S. military in Iraq.

"We have to take advantage of the cracks that are opening within the 
establishment to campaign vocally and publicly against the war, 
involving greater numbers of the people and communities affected by the 
war at home--which has gone hand in hand with the war against the Iraqi 
people.

"We need to put pressure on both the Democrats and Republicans, and not 
simply collapse into a lobbying wing for the Democratic Party.

"There will be immense pressure on the antiwar movement to give up its 
independence and get behind whatever candidate the Democrats put forward 
in 2008, no matter what their limitations. People will tell us this is 
how we can be relevant.

"I think the antiwar movement would be irrelevant, though, if we did 
this. We’ll be much more effective if we articulate our own principles 
and demands--including immediate withdrawal--and fight for them.

"And we also need to defend and support those soldiers who in greater 
numbers are speaking out, refusing service, declaring conscientious 
objection and, at great personal risk, organizing against the war..."

--CGE

Morton K.Brussel wrote:
> Some impressions on the telephone interaction with Senator Durbin:
> 
> Durbin is a typical liberal Democrat. He has liberal social 
> inclinations, but he is not one to be out front on crucial issues. He is 
> a team player on the liberal (leftish?) wing of the Democratic party. 
> His statements yesterday essentially amounted to an apology for the main 
> Democratic positions in the Senate relative to the Iraq war and the Bush 
> administration. He blithely cast off suggestions that impeachment 
> actions were warranted, that the Senate could withhold funds for the 
> execution of the war and military expenditures. He in effect rejected 
> the two actions which could really end the Iraq war and our march 
> towards militarism and empire. He advocated an incremental policy to 
> slow Bush's agenda, a policy which I feel will just continue the 
> bleeding of the war, in Iraq and elsewhere. He said that the votes were 
> lacking to do anything more, but that he hoped that that will change (as 
> the next election approaches) and more Republican senators come to see 
> the light.
> 
> Durbin basically subscribes to the "war" on terror, wants American 
> troops in Iraq to "stabilize" the situation there--without being so 
> aggressive. He is a staunch defender of Israel's interests in the middle 
> east and all that is thereby entailed, and dismisses a possible attack 
> (invasion was the wrong word to use) on Iran, stating that the Senate 
> would not allow it. What this shows is either an astonishing naivete or 
> a lack of will to oppose such actions. He grossly underplays the ability 
> of the administration to sidestep the (ambiguous) actions of the Senate.
> 
> What is needed, and what Durbin and others like him need to be told is 
> that we're fed up with self serving statements criticizing the 
> administration, that we need a militant opposition with leaders who will 
> raise hell about what's been happening----a murderous 
> invasion/occupation by a rogue American administration. The situation 
> demands it. The situation demands impeachment, demands actions to stop 
> military appropriations, and demands that our representatives use their 
> bully pulpit to condemn this government's behavior. Things could be 
> better with stronger and principled leadership in the Senate, but Durbin 
> or Leahy or Levin or Reid will not provide that. Norman Soloman writes:
> 
> A big media lie is that members of Congress are doing all they can when 
> they try and fail to pass measures that would impose a schedule for 
> withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Constitution gives Congress the 
> power to pay for war — and to stop a war by refusing to appropriate 
> money for it. Every vote to pay for more war is soaked with blood.
> 
> There is little will in Congress to really stop the occupation of Iraq, 
> and that goes for Durbin. Congress and the powers that be see it in our 
> national interest to control the middle east, and beyond. 
> 
> So, what can we expect?
> 
> The cards are stacked. There may be cosmetic changes to our policy in 
> Iraq, and some corrections to the most egregious domestic acts of the 
> administration such as with habeas corpus and the Patriot Act, but I'm 
> afraid that we shall be saddled with some form of the current policy 
> into the indefinite future, or at least until some other world powers 
> arise to oppose what we've been doing. Otherwise, it will take a 
> revolution to change the present trend, and that is not likely unless 
> some catastrophe intervenes to wake up the populace, fed up as it is. 
> The organization of the anti-war movement is not sufficient to move this 
> populace to real effective action so as to threaten the status quo. We 
> need millions in the streets, and not just in NYC. The deeper problem is 
> in the structure of our government and its electoral processes, the 
> pernicious influence of corporations and their monied lobbyists, which 
> perpetuates a congress beholden to their interests. Aside from lonely 
> voices such as Kucinich, essentially ostracised among the Democrats, the 
> people have not had real choices to vote for on critical issues. 
> 
> Look at the cogent, clear headed article by Anthony Arnove:
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13327 
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070719/31d720f5/attachment.html