[Peace-discuss] What needs to be said…

[C. G. Estabrook]

Sage, maybe, but perhaps not entirely free of illusion.  We've seen for example 
how effective "grassroots pressure" has been with the Democrats who were given 
control of Congress in 2006.  "Democrats won the 2006 election largely thanks to 
public disgust with the Iraq war," as Paul Krugman writes today in the NYT, and 
they proved pretty impervious to "grassroots pressure" as they went on to 
support the war.

In fact, the leading astro-turf group, AAEI, with its millions from party 
funders and its mission to co-opt the anti-war movement for the benefit of the 
Democrats, has just re-emerged under a new name.  Prwatch.org writes as follows:

Campaign to Defend America, a group spun off by Americans Against Escalation in 
Iraq, is behind McCain: McSame as Bush, a TV ad attacking presidential candidate 
John McCain. Campaign to Defend America "is among anti-war and left-of-center 
groups that have pledged a multimillion-dollar effort to target McCain and 
congressional Republicans on the consequences of the Iraq war on the U.S. 
economy. ... [T]he Campaign to Defend America has received at least $1.4 million 
from The Fund for America, a nonprofit group set up last year by John Podesta, a 
former chief of staff for President Clinton; Anna Burger, the 
secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union; and Rob McKay, 
a California philanthropist (and chair of the Democracy Alliance). The Campaign 
to Defend America is headed by Tom Matzzie, the former Washington director of 
the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. Among Fund for America donors are 
multimillionaire financier George Soros." The Center for Investigative Reporting 
has created a chart illustrating the liberal money and connections behind the 
Campaign to Defend America.

--CGE

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> /
> /…when a war based on lies is opposed because too many Americans are 
> dying, the implication is that it can be made right by reducing the 
> American death toll./
> /
> /
> /When a war that flagrantly violated international law is opposed 
> because it was badly managed, the implication is that better management 
> could make for an acceptable war./
> /
> /
> /When the number of occupying troops is condemned as insufficient for 
> the occupying task at hand, the White House and Pentagon may figure out 
> how to make shrewder use of U.S. air power -- in combination with 
> private mercenaries and Iraqis who are desperate enough for jobs that 
> they're willing to point guns at the occupiers' enemies./
> 
> /
> /
> /
> /…The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions 
> in the first place. There's little reason to believe that Obama is 
> inclined to break away from the routine militarism of U.S. foreign 
> policy. But it's plausible that grassroots pressure could pull him in a 
> better direction on a range of issues. He seems to be appreciably less 
> stuck in cement than the other candidates who still have a chance to 
> become president on January 20, 2009./
> /
> /
> This is from *Norman Solomon's* sage reflections, at 
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/78638/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss