::::::::
On CommonDreams.org there is an article posted off of Politico.com. It is sad news and I will post an excerpt from it. These are the first few paragraphs:
After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.
The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.
The anti-war groups have just committed an act that really brings into question whether or not the people of America have power at all. It really asks if we can pull together and exact the leverage necessary to get anything done for the people of America at anytime in this nation's future.
The anti-war groups who are choosing to believe Democrats will be their savior are making a huge mistake. This mistake will divide the movement to end the Iraq war into at least two factions if not more: one, those who have given up on asking for a cut in funding and two, those who will not give up on asking for a cut in funding because that was how Vietnam ended. For those who have thought this war was wrong from the beginning, this calls into question their character in standing against the war. It also shows how some are ignorant of the fact that this may lose more supporters than gain more supporters as many have been disillusioned by the past year that the Democrats have had in office where they've done nothing to stop the war (in fact, a Democratic-controlled Congress got the people more troops sent to Iraq so if that's how it's going to be, I'm voting Republican in November).
By giving in to the powers that be and being institutionalized---letting the elected decide what we the people demand, the anti-war groups are saying effectively that somebody who will be nominated on the Democratic side will not be pro-Iraq war or pro-war. They are saying that a Democratic president will withdraw quickly and not let the war profiteers and politicians profiting off this keep this war going. They are saying they will fight to end our crusade in the Middle East because it was wrong to begin with. And they are mistaken.
Neither Barack, Hillary, nor John will put our foreign policy on a path that it needs to be put on. They will not end this phony war of terror or sorry, "war on terror." They may speak out against the war but they will not end it any faster than this Democratic congress has. And how fast have they ended this war? How fast?
Alas, there is one man remaining who has stood up against the war since it was authorized and put together the October 2002 analysis hoping to rally House members to stop a war from starting. He supported the action in Afghanistan yet knew Iraq was a wrong move. He understood how damaging the war would be and is not of the crowd of people who say of this war, "If only I knew then what I know now."
But if I say his name and single him out, I will be seen as endorsing him and saying he is the end all be all to our problem in Iraq. If I suggest that people should shift their vote from Barack, John, or Hillary just plainly because if they want to be certain this war will end before the next presidential election in 2012, people will become offended that I question their support of Barack, John, or Hillary and claim they really will end the war. If I do something and claim one person remains who really will be in the best interest for America, I threaten not-for-profit statuses of key organizations of activist groups in America and so do you if you try and get your organization to support one man and ain't that a load of ... Anyways, will they end the war?
Will they? What in their record shows they will? The only one who has a little bit of good to show in his record is Barack because of one speech he gave. After that, what has he done?
Even so, let's say Barack is good. All the John and Hillary supporters should abandon ship and vote for Barack or this other guy I am talking about.
This other guy should remain unnamed. Why? Because the anti-war groups do not deserve his help in getting what they fight for. The anti-war groups and the peace groups do not deserve his help in repairing this nation's militarization of its own and its killing of innocent peoples abroad. They have not done their homework and been true to their cause.
They are working complicitly with activist organizations like MoveOn that are really now institutionalized establishment organizations that pacify activism and make it less anarchic or revolutionary. They make sure people speak out on their terms because the people are not allowed to speak out for what they want in America anymore. They are not allowed to challenge the status quo which is why you have supporters of Democrats saying we can't have sweeping reform or change in America---it must be INCREMENTAL.
Ask yourself why you people speaking against the war cannot get support from your same group to call for impeachment. Impeachment and ending hte war go hand in hand.
Being part of these "anti-war groups" is a waste of time and you might as well sit at home blogging on forums like I do. At least in a forum, you have a shot at reaching somebody with a real message for changing the status quo that's not set by the status quo.
Yet, as much as I would love to see you anti-war groups whither away I love this country too much to let the life of America sink to a shallow level. So if interested in keeping your call for change from being further deadened, that guy who could save your cause if elected...the name's KOO-SIN-ICH.
