Support the...
Veterans for Peace has a great idea: they're calling for the impeachment of George Bush. These are veterans who are fed up with a commander-in-chief who, along with his cohorts in the administration and throughout congress, has used them as pawns toward their own diabolical ends.
By the way, they are not the only group of veterans who oppose this war. There are also these:
Operation Truth
Military Families Speak Out
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Veterans Against the Iraq War
Veterans for Common Sense
Dipomats and Military Commanders for Change
Bring Them Home Now
Now, that's what I call supporting the troops.
By the way, they are not the only group of veterans who oppose this war. There are also these:
Operation Truth
Military Families Speak Out
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Veterans Against the Iraq War
Veterans for Common Sense
Dipomats and Military Commanders for Change
Bring Them Home Now
Now, that's what I call supporting the troops.
posted by SheaNC at 4:35 AM
17 Comments:
I just have to ask myself the question:
Where were these guys when Clinton bombed six sovereign countries: Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. When none of these were determined to be a threat to the United States or our Allies?
As a matter of fact, the peaceniks were fairly silent there for about 8 years...
Where was the protest during Clinton's bombing of an aspirin factory? Where was the protest against the "dumb bombs" he indiscriminately dropped killing 12,000 people? Where were all the protest groups during those 80 days of unprecendented American imperialism? Where was the criticism when the Clinton administration had to apologize 13 times for for what he called "collateral damage," including the bombing of a refugee convoy, a bus on a bridge, a marketplace, a hospital, a playground, a passenger train, and a sleeping refugee village?
Is it about war? Is war wrong under one administration and not another? I need to see consistency and it is strangely absent.
-Jack
For me, it's about war. I'm opposed to it in general. I am one of those who believes in national defense but opposes national (and international) offense. And, if asked to assist another country in war, it should only be in their defense, and only after exhausting the other options. The "peacenik" stance for me. And, it is true that inappriopriate aggression should be condemned no matter which side engages in it.
Somehow I knew that would be the case about you, Shea! (And I agree 100%). The problem is that many on the left are not consistent like you--they only become righteously indignant when the other ideology is running the show. Would be interested in hearing though from some of your other readers!
-Jack
It's hard for a lot of people to go against the "team," I guess, and I know it's something that happens a lot on both sides. I hate to hear about bad things that the left has done, and I know that feeling of wanting to defend their actions even when they're indefensible. One thing that comes to mind about Clinton is that one of the convicts he pardoned right before leaving was J. Fyfe Symington, former Governor of Arizona, a sleazy land developer who was the moral equivalent of one of those silent-movie villian cliches like Snidely Whiplash. I'll always wonder about that one - what could possibly have been the payoff?
Well SheaNC and Jack, I thinks its time I let you guys know how somebody even lefter thinks. Clinton was a slime bag. There is no doubt about it. He did things that rank right up there with bushie boy in the world of sick corporate politics. The whole u.s govt is being run as a largely criminal racketeering organization. There are no transparent auditing procedures in place and operational. Black ops budgets are protected from any oversight, and politicians, at least the ones with any clout, are obviously in the pocket of big biz. So as a dissident, fuck being a liberal they're too wishy-washy, I say throw 'em all out!
p.s. at least clinton apologized about something, and admited he had made mistakes, shows he has muchas mas more cajones than dweebush.
Gee Mike! You ARE a conspiracy theorist! (but likely correct). You see, the Bill of Rights was written with the assumption that our government would one day become tyrannical. This was expected, otherwise it wouldn't have been written. Every single one of these ammendments are important--I hear conservatives defend the 2nd, but flub on the 4th, I hear liberals defend the 6, 7 and 8th, but flub on the 2nd.
Bottom line is that these were put in place assuming that tyranny would evolve and government would overstep its bounds. Our FF's had experienced this first hand. There's no question as to whether the government will overstep its authority, is only a question of when and how.
Problem is, that we have let the court systems (mis)interpret these rights, allowed our legislatures to create in excess of 100,000 laws per year, and the good 'ol Constitution is being shredded to the politician's liking.
When the power is taken away from the people, expect to see the middle class shrink and society to fragment the same way it always has--the ruling class and the peasants.
And you thought YOU were radical! HA!
Regards,
-Jack
Well Jack, I think there are only a few degrees of separation between us in many areas. I however, believe that the government has already overstepped its authority, the "...when and how." is already behind us. Representative govt is dead, the constitution is ignored and the bill of rights is nothing more than a toothless old granny singing lullabyes to americans that still have their head in the sand. "When the power is taken away from the people...?" What power is it exactly, that you think we still have? Power? HA!
I agree...and sympathize, Mike.
Next stop...global fascism!
Shea, I understand too what you're saying. I guess its up to people like you and me to keep them honest! :)
-Jack
You know, I've always agreed, deep down, about how American government is messed up (to put it quite mildly). For a long time I just threw up my hands and figured it was hopeless, as the vllains had the most effective and persuasive PR machine. Then, when the Bush administration came along, I was shocked out of complacency (or denial, or something). I, too, have embraced some pretty wild conspiracy theories since 2000, and I think they're likely true, which is like saying I woke up in a nightmare.
The dilemma for me now is, what to do. Try to improve the situation? Or just live with it like the peasantry did 1,000 years ago?
Dismantling the system and rebuilding it requires a popular support, but I don't think we have it. People generally love their "stuff," and as long as they get lots of it, they seem content with the status quo. Their leaders will give them what they want. Besides, humans being what they are, the end results might be just another corrupt ruling class exploiting another underclass.
Or, we could try to reform the syste from the inside, which seems to be an equally insurmountable task. It's as if corruption is permanently institutionalized. But, I maintain a spark of hope for this option because, in theory at least, it is possible to elect honest representation. It looks good on paper, anyway...
Lesser of two evils, here I come again.
SheaNC, as you know I've been pretty disgusted with the system since reagan was elected. I even voted for ford when he ran against carter. But after the vietnam war, watergate, reagan's relentless war against the poor and finally iran-contra, I had enough. My politics radicalized to the point that I felt that the only true govt was, By the People, in the purest sense of the word. In other words, anarchy, the free association of individuals and groups for the common good.
That said, I've also been of the belief that working within the system to effect change is valid. I don't believe that things are bad enough (yet) to have a "revolution". And as an observer of several revolutions I see them ending up rather messily.
I really think that we, the majority need to identify our common goals, and our common enemy. And with that in mind I would propose a dialogue about the plan that Karl Schwarz has proposed here,
http://www.karlschwarz.com/plan2005.html
I know that he sounds a bit strident (nuts) but he has some valid points and a plan that could lead to a solution to the current problems.
Oh well, it's out there for discussion.
I guess my attitudes about reform are really not practical anyway, as it involves moving closer to real democracy - the power elite will never give up their power that easily.
My attitude about "democracy" is quite similar to anarchy; since I would prefer direct input to representative govt (and the seemingly inevitable corruption). Of course, the risk is always there of Jefferson's "tyranny of the majority," but better that than being governed by those who produce the highest campaign contributions. Another risk run is that of theocracy - I am unable to determine whether a majority of Americans want their own Taliban.
But, I totally dig where the author of that article is coming from. I like what he has to say, although I admit I have a more cynical view of human nature, so I am pessimistic of the possibility of really changing things for the better... I know that is a bad attitude to have, and I should be more proactive.
One thing that I see as an obstacle is the incredible hatred that exists between large groups of the left and right. And, sorry rightists out there, but I have seen far more of that hatred coming from the right, what with 20-odd years of Rush Limbaugh, and his ilk, spewing his bile across the airwaves. But anyway, to convince them to work together on an issue will be quite a feat. My initial thought would be to concentrate on individual issues, and how they effect our "real-life" lives, rather than people taking the side of their "team." I say that because I know so many die-hard Bush-lovin' republicans who are acually liberals on a lot of topics.
I used to maintain that most (like, most) people are actually centrist. But since the "uniter-not-divider" came in and cause more division than ever, it's going to be a tough row to hoe.
But hell, what have I got to lose?
[thought processes still being worked out...]
Shea, I think the problem is the unrealistic perspective that people on both sides of the aisle have. What you say about the "right" can be said about the "left" too. Just recently Horowitz was giving a speech and he was pied, Anne Coulter has had objects thrown at her, and Arnold Swazenegger was egged. This is immature, but indicative behavior--such animosity and disrespect for differing opinion and fellow men. I don't think that either the right or the left holds the franchise on such thoughtless ideological and fundamentalist behavior.
Thats the reason that the centrist majority, which we may be, need to begin working on the grass roots level to elect officials right or left who truly have the people's welfare in mind. The problem is, we have people voting for Democrats because they are a Democrat, and Republicans doing the same. I do not vote a straight ticket--even when the choice is "lesser of two evils". I vote my conscience, and this year it wasn't Bush or Kerry.
Now, let me throw out something to you and Mike both, and I am NOT being condescending, but REALLY want you to think about it. You both have labeled Bush "right wing" and "conservative". To date in view of his overall policy tell me what is "conservative" about him? I'm not talking about Democratic Underground/Michael Moore ideological idiocy, I mean cold hard factual and verifiable evidence of true conservatism. If you get enthusiastic about it, break it into two catagories: fiscal and social.
Let me know your thoughts.
-Jack
Actually, Jack, it's interesting you bring that up, because I was debating that in another blog recently, where the fellow said I was biased against conservatives (me?!). My reply was that I am biased against Neocons, hypocrites, and corruption, but I pointed out that I never go after conservatives or conservatism. In fact, the only time I mention the "C" word is when I point out that Bush and the Neocons are not conservative: they're a gang of bloodthirsty tyrannical plutocrats (in my humble opinion) who will stop at nothing to achieve their diabolical ends. I think they manipulate conservatism as a tool to use people. They have no conservative values and will discard it after they have sucked it dry, like parasites.
So, I agree - Bush isn't conservative. Actually, I think I have a pretty good understanding of fundamental conservative values: fiscal restraint, preservation of traditional moral values, less government interference, etc. Bush? Cheney? Nnoooo...
As for the bad behavior on both sides of the isle, that stuff makes it worse for the rest of us. Those "bad apples" give their opponents the ammunition they need to say that the other side is comprised of nothing but wild-eyed fanatics. It's like third grade all over again... the bad kids ruin it for the rest of us! Of course, we know I've been guilty of verbal assault in the past, but at least I can recognize that and try to improve my behavior (sometimes), instead wasting good food by throwing it on Ann Coulter!
One conservative who started getting cool in his old age, I think, was Barry Goldwater. I dimly remember some statments by him late in life that were great, but that was pre-internet and I was not paying as much attention as I could have :)
In regards to Jack's question, we are so proud of our freedoms in this country and it is something so dear to us, that politicians do indeed play on that and use it to manipulate us - left and right. George Bush is no conservative by any means, but that label has obviously played to his advantage. His touting of those values kept him in favor with most. I cannot comprehend how any rational conservative would want this administration in power. But, since they play on our fears so effectively and most people dont think for themselves and they take our government's words as Gospel, I guess it makes sense in a nonsense kind of way. For example, what a lie the Middle East situation is. Our government does not care about Democracy there, we care about the geopolitical position and the economic potential. They cannot say that though, so what works? FREEDOM AND LIBERTY FOR THE OPPRESSED!
What killed me most though was our election in November. Bush has run quite possibly the most divisive and hypocritical administration and he is still in office (even though this is obviously not his agenda, he is just a puppet himself) but the Democrats ran the worst campaign I have ever seen. They let the Swift Boaters run rampant. The administration was obviously in their pocket, and it would not surprise me if they were in John Kerry's as well (that might be a little wild, but hear me out). The fact John Kerry did not take a stand and that our chickenhawk administration did not denounce that group disgusted me. What also disgusted me was that the party I had faith in ran a horrible candidate. There is an amazing website www.vote-smart.org that has all bios of every congressional member, and their voting records. When I heard Fox News and other conservatives bashing Kerry's record, I wanted to look into it. So I found vote-smart.org and I wish I just passively went about my day as most in our country do, because I felt betrayed, as a citizen of Massachusetts, by the number of NV (no-votes) I would see next to Kerry's name on voting roll calls over the past 3 years. On election day, I stood in my booth and stared at my ballot for 10 minutes before I checked "shoeless" John Kerry. To me, the man was no better than George Bush (not to say he is worse, that is hard to do). Walking back to my car, I felt like I had sullied my very existence; I have been given the right to participate in the election process, and did not truly express myself. I did not want either of those clowns, but felt obligated to vote for one of them because one of them would win. I might as well have stayed home and not even voted that day. But these are some of the lessons a 24 year old learns.
I realize that these people do not truly belong to any party or ideology. They belong to their wallets. It sounds so stupid, but it is true. I cannot help but think left and right is used just to keep us in check; it has certainly worked. I look at some governments around the world, and there were governments that were puppets of the U.S. as well as the Soviet Union back in the day. What people do not realize though, is that our own government is a puppet; a puppet of corporate/special interests, and it has been for years. While people with good intentions do get elected, they are still human and can be manipulated. That, I guess is my issue with our society: We do have a great system with democracy and capitalism, we have a system that does give people the opportunity to thrive. The problem is that our system is so easy to take advantage of and people become so corrupted, influenced and controlled by $$$. It has snowballed to the point where the corrupt have been running the show and seem unstoppable. I always thought to myself, what the hell is the point? There are things in life far more important than people screwing people over, or countries screwing countries over, to expand influence and bring in more money. I have never been in their shoes, but I guess when it's so easy to line your pocket by casting a vote on behalf of some group that no one will read about in the news, it has got to be like a drug that you become addicted to. This has become our moral demise, and thus proves that there is nothing conservative or liberal about our leaders, despite seeing "-D," or "-R" whenever they are on Meet the Press. Money and power have lead them all astray. George Bush and co. can pull the morality card, but how can you possibly not believe that that crew has already written a one way ticket to hell?
Ultimately, this is why I think forums such as these are so important now. And not just Leftists getting together and bashing the Right and vice-versa, but people engaging in discussion, rationally approaching issues. I enjoy that I can come here and see each side of the argument and participate in that. To me, it is the Jack Mercers that are the ideal Conservative and the Mochis and the Sheas that are the ideal Liberal. While we disagree and agree, we always come together and make valid points and have great discussion without the name calling and the slandering. We do not need to spin or manipulate to get our points across. That is America. So why can't the people who have the power to make policy do the same thing? What prevents them from sitting down, having a talk, and working things out like we do here? While we disagree sometimes, we always seem to be able to achieve this common ground in that we ultimately respect each other's values; it is a rational and open approach. But we have nothing at stake here, no contracts, no money, no campaigns, we are just here for "the good of the game." The answer to my quasi-rhetorical questions, then, is money and power, as ridiculous as it sounds. I guess, "how does this affect my election bid, me me me, and how can we manipulate this to make it seem like I am for the people?" takes precedent over, "is this best for my constituents?" Sad but true. One only needs to see the story of Adam and Eve as the most telling story of humanity: we are easily manipulated and inherently selfish (or imperfect, forgive my pessimism). One lesson I have learned for myself is how damaging apathy is, especially in voting: I will never again cast a vote just so I can go along with the "home team." That is one thing I truly regret having done. Every part of me wanted to vote for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. I read and reviewed his platform and I was fascinated. I chose not to vote for him because he was obviously not going to win. Do I root AGAINST the Red Sox if they suck one year and have no chance of winning? Hell no. So why should I not feel the same way when it comes to something a hell of a lot more important than baseball?
Shea! You wouldn't believe it, but I was discussing this today with a friend. I told him that neo-cons WEREN'T conservative. I had to explain to him that the ENTIRE Bill of Rights should be upheld equally, and that the current "conservatives" pick and chose which ones they wanted to support (just like many liberals). The entire Bill of Rights were about INDIVIDUAL rights, the protection of individual freedoms from a government the founding fathers realized would turn tyrannical (all eventually do). Take the 4th amendment for example. Just today Charles Gibson pretty much dismissed it by saying "If you don't do anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about" That phrase alone is the advocation of FASCISM--there is NO room for government in our homes and in our privacy. Charles would be an example of a neo-con, because he would think the Patriot Act was justified even if it infringed upon our rights as American citizens. Of course I take issue with the left who want to make all of the rights in the bill individual until they get to one like the 2nd amendment. Then all of the sudden it becomes some "group militia" or "national guard" idea.
So you see, Shea, what we have are neos on both sides picking parts of the Constitution they like to preserve and actively seeking to do away with the others--the WHOLE time not realizing that our politicians are ALL too eager to confer upon themselves the power of the ruling class, lead for the "social good" and do away with individual rights entirely.
If I were a true liberal or a true conservative, I would battle just as heartily for the right to keep and bear arms as I would to keep judicial powers restricted.
The BAD thing is that we have allowed the power mongers to become the spokespeople for us, not realizing that they could care less about you and me, the common man, but rather are staunchly interested in their own power and influence.
Shea, you were wondering what to do about it? I don't think we can stop the avalanche. We can only prepare ourselves and our children to cope with its effects. We can arm ourselves with truth--pure and simple, devoid of the deceits presented to us through the mass PR machine.
This is all we have, this is all we can do. Like I told Glenn, its nice to be optimistic, but its far better to be realistically prepared.
(unedited, unspellchecked)
Mike will be back to comment about yours...
BTW, tremendous discussion string we got going here. Whats funny is that I am often labeled conservative, you guys probably liberal, but in the long-run we are just ordinary people looking for common sense in a world gone awry...
You guys have a great weekend!
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home