[Peace-discuss] Durbin interview

[C. G. Estabrook]

I like the notion of "holding his little clay feet to the fire"!

When there were real universities, the university-educated knew as a 
matter of course "corruptio optimi pessima" -- roughly, the worst 
corruption was of the potentially best thing.

The Republican do what they say they're going to do -- invade and kill 
-- and lie about their reasons.  The Democrats don't do what they say 
they're going to do -- stop the war -- and lie about their reasons for 
it.  The result is that they support the killing, but, in contrast to 
the Republicans, they're hypocritical about it.  --CGE


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> 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 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow> 
> (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.