[Peace-discuss] Hedges: only a candidate who calls for an
immediate end to the war...
Neil Parthun
lennybrucefan at gmail.com
Fri Aug 1 12:31:52 CDT 2008
The House Judiciary Committee only gave a suggestion that Karl Rove
be found in contempt of Congress. The decision is only a
recommendation. Nancy Pelosi would have to put it up for a final
vote and she said that she was going to wait until September to
decide if she wanted to do that. If you think they're actually going
to move for that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I've been looking to
sell. Remember, these are the same people who have impeachment lite
hearings going on because they don't want to actually try an
impeachment of Bush for his crimes.
You're right about fighting for our causes outside of the electoral
system. It is however, wrong to put all of one's proverbial eggs in
the basket and hope that a candidate with a D in front of his/her
name will affect changes/be willing to affect changes. Given a
candidate's (Obama's) statements that are antithetical to anti-war,
anti-imperialist views, I should not be told that I must vote for
that person simply because there is another pro-war, pro-
interventionalist, pro-imperialist on the horizon. While it is good
to have hope that government officials can be held accountable, we
lose the effectiveness of accountability when we play the "lesser
evil" card. Voting loses its power of accountability and actually
standing for something when it becomes "X or NOT X".
Remember the gifts that the "liberal" Clinton administration gave us
-- GATT, NAFTA, end of welfare as we knew it, hundreds of thousands
of dead Iraqis, imperial campaigns throughout the world (Bosnia,
Yugoslavia, etc.)
There is only this moment,
Neil
We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency to
that which is simply because it is.
[angela v. davis, 1944-]
The point is, the only real tools we have are our eyes and our heads.
Its not the act of seeing with our own eyes alone; its correctly
comprehending what we see.
[warren ellis, 1968-]
On Aug 1, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 10:38:16AM -0500, Neil Parthun wrote:
> Policy wise, there was little stated difference between Gore and Bush.
> Both are beholden to major corporate interests that write the
> policies of
> the United States. After 9/11, Gore would have invaded Afghanistan
> and it
> is a joke to think otherwise.
>
> There is indeed a time for reality. As Tom said, it is idealistic to
> believe that the Democratic Party who has had two years to stop the
> wholesale slaughter in Iraq (with just the Congressional majority --
> they've had opportunities since 2003 when they voted for the
> imperial war
> policy) will do so when they get a D in the White House. Hell,
> Pelosi said
> impeachment was off the table for the arch-war criminals that
> currently
> inhabit Washington. Why?! If they are truly an opposition party that
> truly was opposed to the imperial war policy, then why not punish the
> President who started the war? They won't even bring contempt charges
> against Karl Rove for not honoring a subpoena. And I'm supposed to
> believe
> that these people will all of a sudden take a principled stand and
> end the
> war immediately?
Wait -- didn't we just hear that the House Judiciary Committee this week
voted to do exactly that? (Though I haven't heard that news get the
attention
it deserves.) Now (says The Hill via google news) Nancy Pelosi
mentions a
legal ruling that yes, Harriet Miers can't simply refuse to appear,
to say that
this strengthens their hand for proceeding with contempt citations
including against Rove.
I'm not going to claim that the Dems would do this out of a pure
thirst for justice.
But if they feel strong enough to do it at all, I'm encouraged.
> Obama has clearly stated his policies of continued war. Obama has
> stated
> that military operations against Iran are still on the table.
> Obama has
> clearly stated his opposition to many policies that I find important
> (single payer health care, et al.) The idea of the lesser of two
> evils
> keeps us beholden to a party that doesn't have to actually stand up
> for
> what the people left of center believe in. They can just shake the
> supposed boogeyman of the the "Insert Republican Candidate X" and
> say that
> it could be worse. No, I find a candidate who says that he is a
> friend of
> the working class and then co-opts outrage about the war, etc. to
> better
> his electoral chances is disingenuous, wrong and worse. The
> "lesser of two
> evils" approach in Bush vs Clinton in the 1990's got us war,
> occupation,
> mass death in Yugoslavia, welfare policies that punished the poor
> significantly, sitting on the sidelines as a genocide of hundreds of
> thousands of Rwandans took place and more -- and this was from a
> Democratic
> President.
>
> I base my vote off of what the candidates say. His slogan says it all
> "Hope...". I'd rather have firm commitments from a candidate
> before I give
> my vote rather than (to quote the classic song) "wishing and hoping
> and
> praying" that Obama will do the things that I find to be right --
> such as
> ending the illegal, imperial occupations, establishing a single payer
> health care system, expanding social assistance programs, etc.
I think the answer has to lie in accepting that it won't work to
put our faith in just *finding* candidates that want what we want,
getting them elected, and cheering them on. (I can vote for Cynthia
McKinney, and given that we're in IL I may well do that, but she will
not become president in 2009.)
We have to fight for issues that we care about *outside* the election
system,
and expect candidates to follow us when the people are roused enough.
> There is only this moment,
>
> Neil
>
> We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency
> to that
> which is simply because it is.
> [angela v. davis, 1944-]
>
> The point is, the only real tools we have are our eyes and our
> heads. Its
> not the act of seeing with our own eyes alone; its correctly
> comprehending
> what we see.
> [warren ellis, 1968-]
>
> On Aug 1, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>
> Yeah, Nader said no difference betw Gore and Bush, and look what
> that got
> us. Okay, you and I (and Hedges) are still alive and well, but the
> millions
> of Iraqis dead or displaced, the thousands of Americans dead or
> disabled,
> those who have lost their homes, jobs, health care and other
> benefits beg
> to differ.
>
> Are there more similarities than we'd like between Obama and
> McCain, esp
> wrt exiting Iraq? Yes. Are there also huge differences on other key
> issues,
> esp domestic ones? Yes.
>
> There is a time for idealism and a time for reality. That time is
> now. On
> behalf of those sharing the planet w/ you, choose reality... and
> continue
> to work for the ideal -- you'll have a better chance of getting
> closer to
> that w/ Obama.
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On Fri, 8/1/08, Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Hedges: only a candidate who calls for an
> immediate end to the war...
> To: kmedina at illinois.edu
> Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 2:23 AM
>
> As the late, great Eugene V. Debs stated: "I'd rather vote for
> something I
> want and not get it than vote for something I don't and get it."
>
> McCain is open about his imperialism in the Middle East. People
> have, and
> rightly so, criticized McCain's imperialist linguistics/policies.
> However,
> it is a misconception and disingenuous to state that the wars in
> Iraq and
> Afghanistan are "Republican wars" or "Bush's wars".
>
> Let's not forget that Congressional Republicans and Democrats
> authorized
> the use of force, authorized the Nuremburg Tribunal violating
> invasion of a
> country that did not attack us and has continued to fund an illegal,
> immoral and imperialist occupation. The Democrats seized
> Congressional
> power in 2006 with the masses' dissatisfaction with the Iraq war.
> What
> have they done since they've seized power? A whole lot of nothing
> major to
> end the war that they were given the power to stop.
>
> The idea that Nader is evil is absolutely laughable and an unfair
> characterization. All left of center votes are not already
> prescribed to
> the Democratic party. As I watch a party continue to fund an illegal,
> imperialist war...As I watch a party sell out the 4th Amendment while
> accepting AT&T funding/gifts for the DNC...As I watch a party given
> the
> power to end the war yet do nothing...As I watch a party who watches
> flagrant high crimes and misdemeanors taking place on such an epic
> and open
> scale that it boggles the imagination and does nothing. As I watch
> all of
> this, it is quite clear why people vote for 3rd party candidates.
> They are
> tired of their interests being sold out after being co-opted (see the
> anti-war mandate of '06, for example).
>
> If anybody wants to place the blame on so-called spoilers, blame it
> the
> Democratic party and Obama. These candidates need to earn the
> votes of
> people. Obama's candidacy should have a warning signal: This
> candidate
> makes wide right turns. Obama is for a continued military presence
> in the
> Middle East despite the Rand Corporation stating that a military
> operation
> is not the optimum way to combat terrorism. Obama is for the
> "White Man's
> Burden" style of imperialism -- the idea that we can't dare leave
> Afghanistan or Iraq because the Afghanis and the Iraqis sure as
> Hell don't
> know how or can't form their own government and security
> themselves. I
> sure as Hell can't vote for that.
>
> Obama has also stated that he would attack and bomb Pakistan if
> they didn't
> do as we said. He's supported the apartheid regime in Israel.
> He's for
> aggressive wars as well and seems to be for the "Bush Doctrine" of
> aggressive wars but in alternative forums (Afghanistan/Pakistan/
> Palestine,
> not Iraq).
>
> But we're supposed to hold our nose and vote Obama? The idea of
> lesser
> evilism has led to numerous problems and made the Democratic party the
> opportunist that capitalizes on outrage for their own electoral
> gain rather
> than fixing the problems that so many are concerned about. It is the
> graveyard of social movements.
>
> I agree with Hedges: I can't vote for a candidate that doesn't
> call for an
> immediate end to this blatant imperialism.
>
> There is only this moment,
>
> Neil
>
> We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency
> to that
> which is simply because it is.
> [angela v. davis, 1944-]
>
> The point is, the only real tools we have are our eyes and our
> heads. Its
> not the act of seeing with our own eyes alone; its correctly
> comprehending
> what we see.
> [warren ellis, 1968-]
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080801/3978eb07/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list