[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[Neil Parthun]

All -

Laurie makes an excellent point here about AWARE membership.

Bob -- I felt that Mort (and certain others) has, in the buildup to  
the election, attempted to purge dissident views or critical views  
about Barack Obama's pledges to increase the wars in Afghanistan,  
continuing our presence in Iraq, et al. with a now indefensible  
position -- that criticizing or questioning Obama was helping McCain  
to win an election.  Now that Obama has won the election, it should  
be possible to have these discussions about what Obama has stated  
about his policies and my (and others') trepidation about such policy  
statements.  Yet, almost any criticism of Obama in the buildup to the  
election and even now has been met with allegations that those  
questioning Obama must want McCain to win and would be happy with a  
McCain presidency.  I find this odd for an organization that created  
and allowed me to hold signs at protests that stated "Obama: Only If  
You End the Wars."  These sorts of communication crossed wires have  
confounded me.  If it is okay for me to have a sign made by the  
organization that openly questions Obama's bellicose rhetoric, then  
why is it suddenly wrong and met with such vigorous disapproval when  
the same sentiment is discussed via email?  Wouldn't it be a  
consensus opinion if the organization made such a sign for public  
display?  Perhaps this all is testament to the lack of communication  
about message discipline and goals for the organization as was stated.

As a former member of AWARE stated years ago when he left the  
organization -- back when the IMC was at the old building -- AWARE  
could be named the Anti-Bush Effort.  I've felt that much of the  
criticism of AWARE as an organization and its membership have focused  
on the actions of the Bush administration and their underlings, as if  
they were the only ones responsible for the imperialist promotion.

It is accurate to see that the Democrats continued the war funding,  
continued voting for continuation of the wars all because they did  
not want to be seen as "soft on terror".  In the past, it was  
Democrats that brought us the "end of welfare as we know it", an  
expanded set of legislation to streamline the death penalty, pro- 
corporate legislation and a series of bombing campaigns that easily  
meet the definition of terrorism (see: Iraq, etc.).

As the great historian Howard Zinn described (and I'm paraphrasing),  
it does not matter so much who is sitting in the Oval Office as to  
who is sitting in, protesting...Presidents and legislators only go as  
far as the public pressure will push them.  So, let's hold Obama to  
his words -- his hawkish words and his rhetoric of "change" by  
pushing him towards our goals of ending war and ending the racist  
practices prevalent in the US.  While he may not be able to complete  
these tasks, we should be realistic -- Demand the impossible. (h/t to  
the Situationist International)

Smile and keep fighting,

      Neil

  We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency to  
that which is simply because it is.
[angela v. davis, 1944-]

Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could.  
Some blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as  
you can. Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it serenely and with  
too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.
[ralph waldo emerson, 1803-1882]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081107/6d0f8958/attachment-0001.html