Kerry: helping to hide the criminality of the war from public awareness

[RichM]

The magnitude of the crime our country has committed in Iraq is such that the entire leadership of the Bush administration deserves to be dragged before a tribunal -- and a great many leading media figures, along with them. Real justice cannot even begin until a statement comparable to Zola's "J'accuse!" is levelled straight at the issue of American WAR CRIMES. This is not some penny-ante matter where one should be carping about "poor planning for the post-war period," or failure to share the loot nicely with France & Germany. When great crimes have been committed, failure of the political opposition to call these outrages by their true & proper names is itself a crime.

The Democrats are 100% complicit with Bush & the US media in sustaining the propaganda fog that prevents the public from seeing the Iraq war for what it really is. Kerry is not only failing to describe Iraq as the monstrous war crime that it is -- he is actively urging that voters "not revisit" the reasons for going to war in the first place!! He is explicitly saying that "reasonable people may differ" on whether they favored the invasion, but now we must strive to "succeed" in Iraq! While the true goals of the war were always to gain control of oil, build permanent US military bases in the M.E., & install a puppet government in Iraq, the Democrats are verbally engaging only at the level of two-bit questions like "How can we best stabilize Iraq?" -- omitting even the faintest consideration of what it means to go to war on utterly false pretenses.

To discuss Iraq in innocuous, even noble-sounding terms like "How can we now restore peace to the region" (AFTER invading, crushing the resistance, & installing the desired obedient puppet regime, of course) -- this is an attempt to prevent the US public from ever fully grasping what a profoundly criminal thing our government has done (& is continuing to do). And the Democratic Party, by confining its criticisms to relatively limited aspects of the Iraq "operation," is a full partner in thus endeavoring to keep the country sucking its thumb in its usual cocoon of fantastic ignorance.

We see before us the spectacle of the Bushists, the US media, & the Democratic Party -- all functioning as partners in the rape of Iraq, all cooperating to prevent the public from ever comprehending the issue in the terms in which it so desperately needs to be understood. In effect, all 3 components of this system are working hand-in-glove to ensure that what is really the ultimate in international gangsterism remains cloaked in phrases like: "our efforts to bring democracy to Iraq." One may hear it said that the "intelligence was flawed," or that the planning for the post-war period was "poor." But the basic justifiability of the entire operation is never seriously called into question by any part of our political system.

What does Kerry represent? - Our political system - ie, both parties, and the media - has reached the point of such paralysis & dysfunctionality, that no part of it is able to openly acknowledge the monstrous crimes produced by the system as a whole. The Democrats may not be playing the same starring role as the Republicans, in driving the country to the abyss. But they are playing an absolutely crucial supportive role, in maintaining the propaganda fog. The Republicans would never be able to get away with portraying naked aggression as "a defense of freedom," without the spineless servility of both the Democrats and the media.

Kerry may conceivably win the election. But if it happens, it won't be any triumph of righteousness. It will merely represent a decision by the ruling elite to hand off power to the Number 2 party, to let things cool down for a while. They know perfectly well that Kerry won't dare challenge anything of fundamental interest to them. Indeed, that is precisely how he is selling himself: He will run their war more efficiently than Bush has, & will throw enough bones to the Europeans, so that anti-US hatred has a chance to abate. The ruling class is aware that there may be (temporary) advantages in this.

On the other hand, Kerry may conceivably lose, too. If this happens, it will represent a decision by the ruling elite that they are willing to take the risks of plunging full-speed ahead with the ongoing makeover of America. For the Democratic rank & file, this will mean that they made a shameful compromise, and still lost everything. They have bet the ranch on a candidate who is a complete sellout to US militarism, hoping to appease the Right & thereby forestall an imminent descent into overt fascism. Under these circumstances, a loss would hardly be an example of "fighting the good fight," yet going down to heroic defeat. Rather, it would be an example of getting to one's knees, cringing and begging for mercy, throwing away almost every last principle -- and still going down to ignominious defeat.

If Kerry loses, Democratic voters will be able to tell their children: "Well, we sold out as much as we possibly could, hoping to save a smidgen of democracy for you. We caved in to 90% of the rightwing agenda, including 'preemptive strikes.' We even sent our own team of imperialist hawks out there. But it wasn't enough!"

[OneBlueSky]

1. well, I agree with you . . .

though I imagine you're going to get roundly bashed from other quarters . . . seems that the notion of political courage is a thing of the past in this country . . . but you're absolutely right . . . the invasion of Iraq was illegal by any standard, and what we've done to that country and its people is abominable . . . I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone in the "mainstream" to say that, however . . .

[leesa]

2. And yet he plans to extend the criminal war for four more years?

[grasswire]

3. well said and thoughtful, thanks

I have to hold my nose to vote for Kerry, but I will if nothing more than to send a message to the ruling elite that Bush is over the top; too dangerous.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

19. What party are you referring to?

I am a member of the democratic party and I believe we need and want anti-war hippies.

Just like religion the party is made up of the members and leaders. I may not believe in everything that the leadership profess, but that does not change my believe in the values of the party. We need to reclaim our party and the first step in doing that is to elect K and dethrone *.

If we can give the dems back their power in the executive and legislative branches (state & local), then maybe they can practice and encourage the values of the party.

Right now, they have been rendered impotent making them susceptible to the voices of the masses that they hear. They hear the voices of the neo-cons because they are the loudest, they have been attacked by the assaults and the barbs of the neo-cons because they are the most constant.

It is time we make ourselves heard and that we let our party leadership know that will go after them, just as the neo-cons do, if they do not protect and promote our values, the true values of our nation.

[Forkboy]

21. quit trolling

[Eric J in MN]

5. If you're saying we have a choice between the status quo and...

fascism, I'll pick the status quo.


And I do consider that a big difference.

Update: by status quo, I mean what America will be like 4 years from now if Kerry wins. By fascism, I mean what America will be like after Bush appoints a Supreme Court which agrees with him that he can label any one of us an "enemy combatant" and imprison us without trial.

[G_j]

6. you strike at the heart of it

two words: WAR CRIMES

There is no way around it.

------------
just a little flash from the past:

Statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945
on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
<snip>

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which
their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."
<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Great post. Send a copy to Kerry.

He needs it to remind him of what he once stood for.

[emulatorloo]

7. I thought Repugs and Dems were all the same, and then Reagan

got his second term.

Much of what you say here is unsupported and unsupportable, and only serves to move people to a kind of foggy inertia that lets GWB extend his reign of terror.

[FreedomReload]

8. You Are Wrong About The Voters

We can tell our children we voted for Kerry and tried our best to move the party leftward. What the hell is your brillant alternative to this plan? Vote third party? Don't vote at all? Run away from the country? Won't do a damn thing. A revolution has only a small chance of working, with terrible consequences regardless. But go ahead, chastise us for selling out.

[Old and In the Way]

14. There is no alternative.

But this is a concept that is difficult for the purists to understand. Much easier to maintain ideological purity and paint Democrats the same as Republicans.

Disingenuous, but perhaps that makes it easier for some to sleep easier at night. Nader supporters in 2000 know, deep down inside, they facilitated GWB's election. Must suck to know that voting for Ralph helped empower Bush and the PNAC plan to invade Iraq.

[StandUpGuy]

43. You Nader argument is disingenous...

Nader supporters I'm sure sleep well knowing that the Democratic and republican leadership prescribed, and media enabled apathy cause millions not to bother to vote.

Screw all the corporate elitists that have hijacked democracy.

Please stop regurgitating there mindless and divisive drivel.

This is the best post on this subject I have read anywhere.

All Left leaning Dem's should Dare Kerry to Ignore them.

Maybe In a panic at the last minute the will try and awaken the sleeping masses to swing the vote.

edit
The choice right now seem play along with Kerry or get Forced by Bush.

There is time to change that

An any but bush victory is a miserable faliure.

[scarletwoman]

9. Thank you, RichM -- right on as usual.

If one has at all studied the rise of the National Security State, it's impossible to be surprised or disappointed in the stances and actions of establishment Democrats.

The Owner Class looks out for its own, whether there's a "D" or "R" after their names, and the Owner Class does NOT want its frontmen to make undue waves by questioning the fundamental assumptions of U.S. global hegemony.

sw

[RoyGBiv]

31. Owner Class

Define this term, please, using specific examples that indicate the members. Can we pick them out in a crowd, or are they hidden?

Are all members of the Owner Class ideologically similar? If so, in what way are they similar? If not, why not?

Assuming the Owner Class uses both the Democratic and Republican parties to further its agenda, is it advisable ever to cast a vote for anyone who maintains party affiliation with either? Explain your answer, please.

Next, please indicate how this Owner Class maintains control.

Assuming it would be a good idea to wrest control from this Owner Class, by what mechanisms are those not part of the Owner Class supposed to do so?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I've seen several accusations dropped in this thread, and I've seen none of them defended. Since the original poster has not seen fit to defend his diatribe, I am wondering if those who agree so wholeheartedly with his words might want to do so.

[scarletwoman]

36. I'll do my best to answer -- or at least respond to -- your questions.

Forgive the time lag, I was offline for awhile in order to attend to other things.

I use the term "Owner Class" to refer to the moneyed powers that appear to be the true shapers of both domestic politics and geopolitics. I'm not sure if it's a term of my own making, or if I saw it once upon a time and unconsciously absorbed it. It is roughly analogous to the more familiar term of "ruling class", and possibly to the Marxist "bourgeoisie" (although not being a student of Marx, I cannot make that particular case with any certainty).

The reason I have chosen "Owner Class" is because in my own perception of global corporatism I see a clear resonance with feudalism -- the concept that accepts that some special few hold a "right" to own great swaths of territory and resources and totally control the use of and access to those lands and resources.

The serfs and peasants, in order to merely survive, must work these lands, give up a share of the fruits of their labors, and/or pay rents to the "Lord" or "Owner", as well as submit to military conscription should the Lord decide to acquire more lands and resources through armed agression toward another "Owner".

It is the ultimate in privatization and property rights.

In terms of global corporatism, take the example of Bolivia where control of the water supply was privatized in 1999 and it was made illegal for villagers to even place buckets on their rooftops in order to collect rainwater. That strikes me as a VERY feudal situation. (This was reversed in 2000, after extensive riots and loss of life -- but the World Bank, IMF and various trade treaties are still promoting privatization of water supplies by multi-national corporations.)

The World Bank, WTO, IMF, NAFTA, GAT, CAFTA, etc, are ALL institutions and policies designed for the benefit/profit of the Owner Class.

The "military-indsustrial complex" is another face of the Owner Class. Read "War is Just a Racket" by General Smedley Butler: http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm -- probably one of the best expositions of what I'm talking about that I've ever seen.

As to the relationship of the Democratic and Republican parties to the Owner Class, that seems self-evident to me when one takes a look at the sorts of policies enacted under BOTH parties. The Republicans are, of course, more OVERTLY the servants of the Owner Class, but over the last 30 years, the Democrats have consistantly moved away from their "New Deal" platform of old and into the arms of the corporatists. See Thomas Frank, "Red-State America Against Itself": http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-08.htm

The Vietnam War, for example, was most certainly a bipartisan effort. Who benefitted most? GE? Bell Helicopter? Standard Oil? See Robert Jensen's "Even now we lie to ourselves about Vietnam": http://www.commondreams.org/views/112500-102.htm

<snip> The central goal of U.S. policy-makers in Vietnam had nothing to do with freedom for the Vietnamese people, but instead was to make sure that an independent socialist course of development did not succeed. U.S. leaders invoked Cold War rhetoric about the threat of the communist monolith but really feared that a "virus" of independent development might infect the rest of Asia, perhaps even becoming a model for all the Third World.

And why did the U.S. want "to make sure that an independent socialist course of development did not succeed"? Because the OWNER CLASS wanted to ensure that IT would have access to Third World resources.

How does the Owner Class "maintain control"? Well, did you happen to watch Bill Moyers NOW last night? The segment on the oil industry was a perfect illustration -- highlights here: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/oil.html

Consider also the Supreme Court ruling that made money=free speech. Who has the most money? (I'm sure you know the answer...)

As to what to do to change this situation? Well, imho, the FIRST step is to become aware of what the situation actually is, which is why people like me post stuff like this. That's the education phase.

As to the action phase -- goodness knows there are LOTS of progressive grass roots groups working for change. People of conscience are on battlefronts all over the world -- whether it's environmental groups, union organizers, anti-corporate and anti-corporate globalization organizations, Third world villagers organizing local worker-owned industries, civil rights lawyers, writers and activists pulling back the curtain to reveal who is pulling the levers -- there's an ENORMOUS amount of work to be done. And if you can't do something, you can at least maybe give some financial support.

What I have personally been doing is this: Since spring of 2002 I have been an officer in my county Democratic party unit. I've been a congressional district and state convention delegate, and I am a delegate to our state party central committee as well as a member of its Platform Commission. I am also a member of a group that is working to form an official state party Progressive Caucus.

I've committed myself to the long slog of working for change from within, and in the meantime, working to raise the level of awareness in anyone I can reach by spelling out as best I can what's wrong with the system as it is.

I'll be voting for Kerry in November, and working my butt off to get other people to do likewise. I'm just not doing it under any illusion that it fixes what's deeply wrong with our country, I'm doing it because I consider it my PRIMARY duty to get the bush* crime syndicate out of power.

I hope this answers your questions.

sw

[Bundbuster]

54. Wonderful post, Scarletwoman

Your summation speaks to my lifetome observations of the goals, tactics, evolution, and makeup of what I refer to as the "Octopus" - global corporate/military/poltical/resource/financial/energy/media control concentrated & maintained at any cost by those elite few. By any name it is equally oppressive, perpetually dependent for its "success" on widespread poverty (read "cheap labor"), ignorance, and blind consumerism.

Your exemplary commitment and activist involvement in the wilderness of non-productive hand-wringing and angst is MOST encouraging! When, in the '60's, I started fighting the battles of Civil Rights, Vietnam, Environmentalism, corporate fascism, and Watergate, I and many others so naively assumed that those same battles would not need to be re-fought again in our lifetimes. Sadly, eternal vigilance IS a requirement for people of conscience in every generation. I salute your understanding and grassroots efforts at education and action, for that is where it all begins and ends - one mind, one vote at a time.

[scarletwoman]

56. Thank you! I am also a veteran of the 60's.

I know for myself, that with the ending of the Vietnam war, and the resignation of Nixon, I sort of thought we were "safe".

I thought that the momentum of the societal evolution that had been initiated back then would be sufficient to carry us all forward on a sure trajectory of ever-increasing enlightment and refinement of social justice and environmental consciousness. That having seeded the collective mind with the joy of liberation and expanded consciousness :hippie: the way forward was clear and progressive.

By the early 70's I involved myself with nurturing the new paradigm at the community level through the food co-op and workers' collective movements -- brown rice and non-hierarchical workplaces for all! I remained committed to a counter-cultural lifestyle, even through the years of raising my children. I lived (and still do, for the most part) on the bare fringes of the "system", confident that whatever reactionary tides were coursing through the outer world, I would be able to quietly live out my own life in relative peace and harmony.

I faithfully voted in every election from 1972 on -- always a straight Democratic ticket -- but did not concern myself overmuch with mainstream national politics. That all changed in 2000...

And now, like the military veterans who thought that their 8 years of active duty served meant they were done for good, but who are now being called up to enter the Iraq meatgrinder; people of conscience from our generation have found ourselves called once more to battle.

As you say, many of us never expected this. Personally, I could never have imagined that things would degenerate this badly from those heady days of 60's activism. Call it naivite, yes, but I think it is also due to the heady spirit of optimism with which we faced down the opposing forces of those times. We had great trust and faith that not only could things get better, they WOULD get better.

That light would triumph over darkness, that good would triumph over evil, that humankind was surely destined to progress beyond violence and intolerance... (*sigh*)

So, we gird our loins and search out the truth that we may arm ourselves, and go once more into the breach...

sw

[RoyGBiv]

57. Answering My Questions

It does.

I should add that what I was truly seeking with my reply to you was a dialog. The original post, which you praised, was not, in my view, a dialog. Aside from the fact it was at various points logically inconsistent, it was also a blanket condemnation of Kerry specifically and Democrats generally in which its author offered little in the way of defense of his ideas. As such, I see little to praise in it.

Your comments, the effort for which I greatly appreciate, is quite different. Progressives need to understand that on the whole we seek a similar set of goals, and we face a common enemy in our quest for those goals. Many of us disagree on tactics, and this is all too often mistaken for a disagreement on substance. By noting what you yourself are doing, you show this much more clearly than what I see as the empty rhetoric of the accusers and naysayers, i.e. those that have much to criticize but that tend to fall silent when asked about how to change things.

I don't agree entirely with your summary of what you mean by "owner class." I agree with its fundamental basis, which you support well in your discussion of the true underlying motives behind Vietnam, and I suppose that is enough for our purposes here. Suffice to say my disagreement lies in the term's association with Marxist philosophy, which is what I thought was the direct inspiration for the term; I see I was mostly wrong. In the United States, I do not believe we have exactly the kind of "owner class" that Marx was identifying. (FWIW, I admire much about Marx, but I believe his philosophy needs to be reevaluated and updated for its lessons to apply to the modern world. It is a bit dated, IOW.)

Again, thank you for the very thoughtful reply.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. But..but..We're the Good Guys..er, "not as bad guys".

Or, maybe, we're the "softer, gentler" guys.

[QC]

12. OK, Rich, what would you have us do?

For years I've been reading these jeremiads of yours, all these long, indignant condemnations of those who are not sufficiently pure for your tastes--which seems to include the Democratic Party, everyone who holds public office, and about 99% of DUers--and I have yet to see even a suggestion as to what practical, short-term action you would have us take.

Since the Glorious Worker's Revolution is probably not going to arrive before November, what would have us do, given the choices we now have? It's very easy to complain that the parties and process are corrupt--a bright ten-year-old knows that--but what can we do about it, here in the real world where we all live?

[2Design]

15. interesting.....what are we to do....

I feel like Rich, They are all corrupt. It is hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys when I hear they all want the war. Which I adamantly opposed to start with.

I supported Dean because he was against the war and was willing to say so.

Living in the real world is difficult. Given two bad choices. Yes Kerry is the better choice of the two consider the further consequences of BUSH...but man.....we are so far behind other countries in taking care of our people....

It makes me again, start to think about how do I go to a country where there is social efforts, health care for all, no fear of losing your house if you become ill.

Yes there are also worse countried, but we are in a fast race to the bottom and becoming a third world country.

I also, don't know what our action plan can be.
Right now it is to get Kerry in office, but then what. If it is all corrupt and more children will be sent to war and killed and this will help grow more terriorists because the imperialism of capitalism is ruining lives for the majority.... I don't know...

I continually meet people who do not vote and do not plan on voting because it does not matter in thier minds. It is hard to say it does when the last election they just threw the votes away that matter.

The guy elected did not get to take the position. And the media and everyone else continues to go along with this farce.

The hand over is a farce but our media now report the news as if we are not still occupying the country who is fighting for its rights and to get us out of there.

I too want to know what REAL action we can take.

[QC]

39. Gee, I guess Rich isn't going to give us corrupt, earthbound souls

the benefit of his superior knowledge as to what we can do about our awful situation. Too bad. It would have been nice to find out what we're supposed to do with this latest bit of wisdom he so kindly gave us.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

61. Well, he must be doing something useful in the "real world"

hasn't been posting here much anyway.

[RoyGBiv]

13. "What does Kerry represent?"

You ask the question, but never answer it. Rather, you imply or state, using predictable rhetoric, that there's really no difference between Kerry and Bush (Dems and Repubs), that some amorphous "elite" truly runs the show leaving we peons with no input and thus no options, and further that the real problem is the US political system, which, by design, requires answering to divergent interests in order to acquire the widespread support necessary to run government institutions.

So, I'm assuming the question, and thus the answer to it, is really beside the point.

If, then, both Kerry and Bush, both Dems and Repubs, are the problem, if the political system under which this nation operates is the real source of our troubles, if these ill-defined elites really run things and allow the people no recourse, what is the solution? I ask the question seriously, although I'll admit there's a rhetorical element.

That element is a function of my growing distaste for negative rhetoric that seeks to criticize harshly a convenient target but does not offer any positive alternatives leading to practical solutions; indeed an identifiable goal is often absent from these missives. Sometimes suggestions are offered to vote for "real" candidates with "real" values, but, given the premise of this common complaint, that only plays into the problem and intensifies it. If the political system controlled outright by a select few is the enemy, then working within that system's boundaries will achieve no substantive results. Further, determining "real" candidates with "real" values (i.e. those that aren't, by your apparent definition, sell-outs) is nothing but a subjective exercise. Different people have different values, once again leading us back to the political system that seeks to incorporate these different values into a single, functional body politic.

I'll agree with you to the point of saying that our national problems are, in part, a function of the way we engage in politics. Both major parties are incredibly corrupt at many levels. On the surface, it can often seem as though there's not a great deal of difference between the parties in practice, despite their outward faces. Having said that, I can only offer that this isn't much of an observation. As long as we have had political parties, these things have been true. So, what's the alternative?

[bvar22]

16. Well said, RichM!

May I copy and repost elsewhere?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

deleted dupe

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. You are all over the place in this

The magnitude of the crime our country has committed in Iraq is such that the entire leadership of the Bush administration deserves to be dragged before a tribunal -- and a great many leading media figures, along with them. Real justice cannot even begin until a statement comparable to Zola's "J'accuse!" is levelled straight at the issue of American WAR CRIMES. This is not some penny-ante matter where one should be carping about "poor planning for the post-war period," or failure to share the loot nicely with France & Germany. When great crimes have been committed, failure of the political opposition to call these outrages by their true & proper names is itself a crime.

I agree fundamentally with this paragraph but it is far more than SOME members of the media. Do you recall any station prior to the war fiercely advocating against the war or fiercely pursuing the falsehoods stated by the Bush admin to take us to war?

The reason I ask is that prior to the closed door security meeting I DO recall Diane Feinstein fighting against the grain and attempting to relay the falsehoods stated by the Bush admin on much of the evidence that had been presented PRIOR to that meeting...she had actually met with Bahradi (sp?) of the IAEA and been against us going...until the closed door security meeting.

Insofar as failure to call these outrages by their true and proper name...let us all ponder the treatment Al Gore got a month ago when communicating his perspective...he was made out to be a crazy man by the media. Do you recommend Kerry take this tac even if it means certain death of the only campaign viable enough to beat Bush?

The Democrats are 100% complicit with Bush & the US media in sustaining the propaganda fog that prevents the public from seeing the Iraq war for what it really is. Kerry is not only failing to describe Iraq as the monstrous war crime that it is -- he is actively urging that voters "not revisit" the reasons for going to war in the first place!! He is explicitly saying that "reasonable people may differ" on whether they favored the invasion, but now we must strive to "succeed" in Iraq! While the true goals of the war were always to gain control of oil, build permanent US military bases in the M.E., & install a puppet government in Iraq, the Democrats are verbally engaging only at the level of two-bit questions like "How can we best stabilize Iraq?" -- omitting even the faintest consideration of what it means to go to war on utterly false pretenses.

Again speaking in generalizations. YOu supported Kucinich...is he not a Democrat?

Please demonstrate where he is ACTIVELY telling people NOT to consider the reasons for war...you took us all into the briar patch with that statement which largely relies on your interpretation.

I don't see a problem with him not proposing that we CUT AND RUN...reasonable people don't make a mess and leave it for someone else.

BTW...since water is a big issue in the middle east and the Tigres and Euphrates run right through Iraq and they were poisoned by our government in the years following Gulf War one with no means to get the chemicals in place to clean those rivers (Saddam was barred from obtaining them...you AGAIN are oversimplifying the reasons that the corporatists wanted this war.



To discuss Iraq in innocuous, even noble-sounding terms like "How can we now restore peace to the region" (AFTER invading, crushing the resistance, & installing the desired obedient puppet regime, of course) -- this is an attempt to prevent the US public from ever fully grasping what a profoundly criminal thing our government has done (& is continuing to do). And the Democratic Party, by confining its criticisms to relatively limited aspects of the Iraq "operation," is a full partner in thus endeavoring to keep the country sucking its thumb in its usual cocoon of fantastic ignorance.

It's usual cocoon of fantastic ignorance? Please, the only cocoon of fantastic ignorance is coming from you...Kucinich gave it his best shot and STILL did not get his message out to even a SIZABLE enough portion of the population. Can't you at least live with the win thatyour candidate sewed the seeds FOR an effective progressive movement without incessantly using this site to foster MORE animosity toward the ONLY candidate CAPABLE of beating Bush?


We see before us the spectacle of the Bushists, the US media, & the Democratic Party -- all functioning as partners in the rape of Iraq, all cooperating to prevent the public from ever comprehending the issue in the terms in which it so desperately needs to be understood. In effect, all 3 components of this system are working hand-in-glove to ensure that what is really the ultimate in international gangsterism remains cloaked in phrases like: "our efforts to bring democracy to Iraq." One may hear it said that the "intelligence was flawed," or that the planning for the post-war period was "poor." But the basic justifiability of the entire operation is never seriously called into question by any part of our political system.

Complete hyperbole on your part. Not even worth addressing...you made this shit up.



What does Kerry represent? - Our political system - ie, both parties, and the media - has reached the point of such paralysis & dysfunctionality, that no part of it is able to openly acknowledge the monstrous crimes produced by the system as a whole. The Democrats may not be playing the same starring role as the Republicans, in driving the country to the abyss. But they are playing an absolutely crucial supportive role, in maintaining the propaganda fog. The Republicans would never be able to get away with portraying naked aggression as "a defense of freedom," without the spineless servility of both the Democrats and the media.

Kerry repeatedly has said the new government in Iraq CANNOT be seen as an installed puppet government. He has REPEATEDLY said we need to get partners in Iraq that are MORE trusted than our occupation...I know you will recontextualize those statements as well so that they can fit neatly into your malcontent and generalized bellyaching...I await your mastery at generating your own propaganda in the matter.


Kerry may conceivably win the election. But if it happens, it won't be any triumph of righteousness. It will merely represent a decision by the ruling elite to hand off power to the Number 2 party, to let things cool down for a while. They know perfectly well that Kerry won't dare challenge anything of fundamental interest to them. Indeed, that is precisely how he is selling himself: He will run their war more efficiently than Bush has, & will throw enough bones to the Europeans, so that anti-US hatred has a chance to abate. The ruling class is aware that there may be (temporary) advantages in this.

A picture is often worth a thousand words :tinfoilhat:


On the other hand, Kerry may conceivably lose, too. If this happens, it will represent a decision by the ruling elite that they are willing to take the risks of plunging full-speed ahead with the ongoing makeover of America. For the Democratic rank & file, this will mean that they made a shameful compromise, and still lost everything. They have bet the ranch on a candidate who is a complete sellout to US militarism, hoping to appease the Right & thereby forestall an imminent descent into overt fascism. Under these circumstances, a loss would hardly be an example of "fighting the good fight," yet going down to heroic defeat. Rather, it would be an example of getting to one's knees, cringing and begging for mercy, throwing away almost every last principle -- and still going down to ignominious defeat.

Given how close this election is seeming, IF KERRY LOSES it will be in large part to those with YOUR MESSAGE who are as idealistic as the far right and as religious in your inability to engage in an OUNCE of pragmatism.

I'd really like to say I've missed your presence in these last couple months...really I would.

[merh]

20. Thank you for your reply to the original post. IMHO you are correct.

I could not have written a better response. thanks

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Come on Rich...I know you are proud of your latest diatribe

You are most likely bragging about your antagonism on some private forum somewhere where everyone high fives one another for their ability to sneak one under the radar here at DU.

Care to defend it?

[KoKo]

40. I'm glad to see Rich M back because he does point out....WHY????

Why isn't Kerry railing about the "false intelligence" being duped, how this has changed America that we were lied to.

I remember NSMA when you used to support getting the truth out. What happened that you would attack a fellow DU'er for speaking the truth?
:shrug:

[Beam Me Up]

64. I appreciate BOTH posts.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that I am going to vote for John Kerry in November -- assuming they don't cancel the elections. I *do* have some doubts as to whether the votes will be accurately recorded, tallied and reported--but that is another matter.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that we must do everything in our power to get George W. Bush and his neocon controllers out of the White House.

Where my DOUBTS come in are along precisely the lines that the original poster indicates. What has led our country to this predicament if not REPEATED, however politically expedient, COMPROMISES by the Democratic party? I know I am not alone when I say there are many many voters like myself out here who feel disenfranchised by BOTH political parties. For me, it is especially the Democratic party precisely because I expect MORE BACK BONE from it.

Insulting me by calling me a "dilettante" or disdaining my "superior moral attitude" really does not win me to your cause.

WHAT I NEED is an honest discussion of the positions. I'm glad to have someone expressing, as the original poster does, points of view I share regarding the structures of power that ACTUALLY effect affairs of state in this country. I am also glad to have an opportunity to see the "pragmatic" position as a reminder of what is needed NOW, in THIS situation.

My only point here is that I strongly believe that the Democratic party has often and repeatedly sold its soul to the devil, making "real politic" compromises that, in the final analysis, have CREATED the very conditions that made the usurpation of the White House by a bunch of fascist thugs not only possible but inevitable. This is where "compromise" has gotten us.

Where the hell is going to take us next??

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Interesting read, Rich. :^)

[Malva Zebrina]

22. Eloquent post with succinct points

you have a talent and thanks for the honing in and the focus.

I do agree.

It is bitter tasting.

We, meaning we here on DU, have been jerked around and around--built up,with hope and faith one day, and then brought down the next. Over and over, and this is just another let down

So, I have concluded, that we are chasing rainbows and it is time to get real with ourselves and take a stand. We are continuing to be jerked around by Kerry. It may as well be Lieberman--both the same.



Bush will never be brought to justice, ever for his crimes, even if Kerry is elected. Kerry will fail to see how Bush did anything wrong.

I expect Kerry to appoint him Secreatary of State <sarcasm>

[the_outsider]

23. Thanks for a well-written post, but small incremental gains are important

Even if we assume everything you said is right (and I agree with most of it), in your own words, Kerry campaign caves in to 90% of the right-wing agenda. I cannot ignore the value of 10%, can you? It could literally mean 10,000 human (10% of 100,000 which is probably a conservative estimate of a Bush second term) lives in some parts of the world. No matter how you feel about about voting for Kerry, those 10,000 people will surely be grateful to you and other American citizens for giving them a chance to live and not helping to get Bush ("I am a war president. I formulate foreign policies with war in my mind") re-elected.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Thankyou...and that much pragmatism is necessary

I appreciate those that recognize it.

[Pastiche423]

25. How do you know this about kerry?

How do you know he would save lives? It is certainly not by his words of late.

Wishes don't count. Reality does.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Really...did he tell terrorists to bring it on?

Has he indicated he is out to get us in another war? I don't think so.

I resent those that will come here only to slam Kerry...you were a Dean supporter. Do you no longer support Dean? He supports Kerry. Do you really think Kerry will be AS BAD AS Bush? Is half a loaf not sufficient? Shall we sacrifice the whole loaf? Are you and others so seduced by the need for instant gratification that you CANNOT see that this can only be turned around a step at a time? Do you HAVE a viable alternative to Kerry? The key word in that sentence was VIABLE.

Frankly I find nothing intellectual about Rich's bellyaching. Only a MORON would do anything to suppress votes on the left against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.

[Pastiche423]

38. Resent all you like

It won't change how some of us feel. Furthermore, it does nothing to promote the "unity" some are screaming for.

While I do not agree w/Rich on every issue, I do agree w/him the majority of the time. This time I agree w/him wholeheartedly.

[scarletwoman]

49. I don't see Rich's post as an attempt to "suppress votes on the left".

He's basically pointing out some salient facts about how our political system works in reality. It's important imformation -- that, if it were truly known and understood by the voters in this country, might actually lead to real change. Knowledge is power. If we don't know who's really running the show, we have NO chance of changing it.

I don't agree with his excoriating Dem voters for "compromising" by choosing Kerry, since I believe it was done out of ignorance (as in "not-knowing") rather than "appeasement". The bulk of the rank-and-file have no IDEA of the true shape of the power structure behind the curtain. Under the burden of limited information, Kerry IS the seeming logical choice to be the Dem ticket.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else in the post about the nature of the Democratic Party itself -- which I take to mean the elected leadership, not the hapless uninformed voters.

As I wrote in my post #36, I fully intend to vote for Kerry, because to me that is the ONLY sane course of action at this point -- I consider it my duty to do everything possible to evict the bush* cabal from the White House. At the same time, I ALSO consider it my duty to raise peoples' awareness of what's really going on and who really controls the agenda.

Kerry is an enabler of a seriously corrupted political system, and I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out. We need to recognize this if we are ever going to get to the root of what's wrong with our country. However, he is the only tool we have at hand for fighting off the much more egregiously corrupt bush* cabal.

I see electing Kerry as merely the first skirmish of a long struggle.

sw

[the_outsider]

28. Just pointed out a contradiction in the original post

I did not say Kerry will save lives. I just wanted to point out that even caving to 90% of right-wing agenda (as stated in the original post) is a significant improvement over a 100% right-wing agenda and definitely worth voting for. It also contradicts the position stated in the original post that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush.

Personally, on the anti-war front, I think we can surely hope for some improvements in a Kerry administration. As I see it, there are three driving forces behind Bush administration's decision to launch wars -

a) Strategic and tactical reasons to maintain and extend the US global domination. Oil being pivotal to that domination, controlling middle east is crucial.
b) Immediate profits from the business of war. Transfer of wealth from US taxpayers and middle-eastern people to a selected few American companies - energy/oil/defense companies and also the companies that get a lot of middle eastern investments which should ideally be spent in the development of those countries.
c) The adrenaline high/power rush they seem to get from wars.

I think b) and c) are atypically important for the current administration and we will definitely see an improvement there in a democratic or a different republican administration for that matter.

a) is of course the primary force. It's a bipartisan cause and has driven all post WW2 US administrations. Changing that will require deeper analysis of the global political and economic situation and making sure that the analysis that resulted in that doctrine is still a valid one. Also we need to do cost-benefit analysis to factor in the hugely increasing costs (money and human lives) to maintain the hegemony and whether it's worth it. We also need research into alternate energy sources etc. I would like to believe that a democratic administration will make these more likely to happen, but I am not sure on that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Again a very well thought out post and Kerry has repeatedly

driven home the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which IS INDEED code talk for avoiding oil wars.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

30. I just wanna know: will Kerry TORTURE US, too. That's a start. n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

32. When I pull the lever for John Kerry in Nov.

I may very well be granting him permission to send my
only child, a draft-age son, overseas to die for GWB's
oil war. I will certainly be granting him permission to
let other people's sons and daughters die for GWB's oil
war. I will be, for the first time in my life, willingly
swelling the ranks of the Lila Lipscombs of this world,
parents who are consumed with unimaginable grief, a grief
that will only end when they are lying in their own graves.

If you've been a voter in more than one or two elections in
America, you've most probably voted for the lesser of two evils
at some point in your life. So what? Life ain't perfect and
very few expect it to be.

I don't want perfection. I don't even hope for something close
to it in case you're wondering what my "solution" to this problem
might be.

The candidates I supported didn't make the cut so I guess
I'll just be relegated to the category of whining purists
with an axe to grind.

While I am not denying there will be benefits to a Kerry
presidency, and I don't begrudge those who are somewhere
between comfortable and ecstatic with the benefits dems are
slated to reap, I would ask that they be comfortable, or at
least non-critical of the dilemma I and so many others are
forced to confront.

If I want to look on the bright side, maybe I should console
myself with the prospect that Kerry might actually attend my
only child's funeral while that couldn't possibly happen under
a Bush administration.

Flame away.

[Walt Starr]

33. That's the way the system works

so come 2008, I have resigned myself to be prepared to vote for the Republican because I see little in the way of change cming from Kerry.

[Malva Zebrina]

34. actually, I am seriously considereing to vote for the socialist

for the sheer pleasure of knowing that I am in control of my vote and not being forced to vote for someone I do not like.

I will vote for Kerry, even though I am not fully invested in him. Because I want Bush, the lessor of the two , out--

I consider that really sad.

As a result I am not putting Kerry signs on my lawn or on my car or contributing to the Kerryh campaign.

I cannot find it in my soul to be such a hypocrite.

I will vote for him--and that is all I can muster that goes against my instincts and knowledge and expectations of what I want from a Democratic president.

The goal is to get Bush out--

[Mandate My Ass]

35. Thank you

It's not enough for some people that you are voting
for someone with (D) after their name even though they
don't represent you or your beliefs. If you don't "embrace"
that choice you might as well vote (R). :eyes:

[Walt Starr]

47. I've donated to Kerry

I have a Kerry bumper sticker on my car right now and will put a Kerry/Edwards sticker on it once it arrives.

I'll even put a Kerry sign in my yard and may volunteer for Kerry's local campaign office once the gardening season starts winding down and we get closer to the actual election.

Every last bit of that support goes away on November 3rd and I turn 180 degrees because Bush is gone. If Kerry loses come November 2nd, I'll be 100% undecided until I know whom is running on each side and will make my pick after that.

I don't like Kerry. I don't believe in Kerry. In fact, I pretty much despise him because of his support for an illegal war.

The only thing is, I hate Bush more than I despise Kerry.

Pretty sick when my only choices are between one corporate whore whom I despise and another corporate whore whom I hate.

[Kanary]

41. *Very* well said, Monica, and very touching.....

If we actually allow ourselves to *feel* this conundrum, it will cause us many tears.

I, personally, will probably voting for my *own* death, if I vote for Kerry, as he will, just like Clinton, likely continue the cuts to the safety net that will do in me and thousands of others like me.

Kanary

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. I can completely understand that and appreciate and respect that

There is a very big difference between voting for Kerry and not being happy about it, versus RichM actively using this board to campaign against him.

I look forward to people holding Kerry's feet to the fire, practicing civil disobedience and doing what THEY need to do for their comfort level and their survival...not being happy about Kerry is FAR different than PLANTING and PERPETUATING discontent as Rich ONLY makes a guest appearance on DU to do.

I mean NO offense to people I have long appreciated...NOR do I accept any from them...I HATE that we are all in a position to fight since GEORGE BUSH was going to war regardless.

We're there now...there's NO easy way out of it.

Again...I do not equate discontent with creating and perpetuating anti-Kerry propaganda...I'm sorry.

[G_j]

50. it seems

we can only look forward and begin planning on using the existing networks which came together around resisting Bush and his War(s)

Since I believe the people who want an end to empire and militarism have lost as a golden opportunity, an opportunity that could have changed the tide was squandered. A world in crisis is waiting for America to promote a better way. A way that promotes non-violence.
MLK was one of the greatest America has had to offer and he was cut down.
That is where we stand.


I will still be happy to vote for Kerry because I want to send a clear message to Cowboy, Perle, Rumsfeld, The Iran Contra Reagan players, Ashcroft, Rush and all the rest.

Plan and commit war crimes? Send our sons and daughters to die for lies?
Lie, cheat, torture, kill
dismantle and undermine hundreds of environmental protections?
Rob the treasury?
hurt children?

No More, OUT!

that is the message

many of us are ready to hold Kerry to the same standards.

the peace movement is organized now
why lose a step?

[Sugarbleus]

52. Stunning Post...thanks for being brave enough to say it!

I am voting for Kerry like most are because we have to remove bush..but I am not "hopeful" about him. I'm not Jumping up and down with excitment over his pending win. I do have my fingers crossed, if that means anything.

I was excited at first, but euphoria has dwindled as I watch and read his speeches and proposed policies. I, like you, have a young one who could very well find himself caught up in the "on going" wars started largely by Bush.

I'll give Kerry a chance but I'm not putting all my eggs into one basket at this point. I'm seriously looking to change parties for the next election...I have to look around. If Kerry does well, I'll be relieved, if not....................?

I understand much clearer now why people just give up on voting. We need more choices and fresh ideas.

I'm 55 now. I've voted all my life. I'm burned out.

[JohnLocke]

37. You're back! Welcome, RichM.

I see many more flame wars in the future! ;)

[KoKo]

42. Sitting there like a big spider were you?..waiting... ? (n/t)

[Disturbed]

45. Alternative?

I agree with the well written topic.

For years we are stuck with the lesser of two choices. The two party system is not satisfying to millions of people. It may be one of the reason many people don't vote. I believe that Amerika is an Oligarchy, some term it Plutocracy. I believe that it could also be termed Corpocracy. The Right Wing is not subtle in it's support of the Corporations. The Dems are weak and their move to the right has not empowered them. The only reason for more support of the Dems this election cycle is due to the Neocon and Fundie takeover of the Republican Party. We don't just need reform of the system, we need a complete overhaul. The Dems won't provide that.

This time the choice is between an ultra Right Wing with no fiscal restraint, Police State agenda and Right Wing Christian Zealot so- called morality or a Dem agenda that is middle of the road and mildly socialy oriented. The Dems know that progressives or leftists will go along so they are catering to the moderates.

So, the overhaul and a true representative Republic will be on hold for another few years, if ever.

[JohnLocke]

46. I was indeed.

[Rebellious Republican]

48. Your Opinion, Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!

Two things I know for sure, Bush has been President and has a history as a president. Therefore it is easy to deduce what he will continue to do as a president. Kerry has never been president and has no history as a president, and therefore nothing to base how bad or how good he will be as a president. So for my money, I will give Kerry benefit of the doubt. That he can not do any worse than W has, who knows, he may even be one of the best damn presidents this country has ever seen. So whats your agenda here, disrupt, divide, what purpose does this post serve other than to start a flame war. Is it to swell your ego with the knowledge that you have the power to infuriate people! To get attention on a mass scale, does your life need drama, is it that dull, do you feel so incompetent and insignificant in life, that you feel the need for attention weather it be negative or positive reinforcement? Maybe you are just weak in real life and feel empowered through an anonymous forum where it is safe. Now how does that feel being flamed by someone who does not know you and has made ASSUMPTIONS about your motives and character. I have no facts to back up my statements it is just my opinion.You are probably going to start pounding away on those keys fast and hard to rebut this post. Before you get your panties in a bunch, think about it. That is what you have just done, to Kerry, and many people on this board, I am a member of the the (Democratic)party that you accuse of driving this country into the abyss, and I am not alone here, you have just insulted quite a few people that are of good character and have good moral values. Many of us are trying to make the party better through constructive debate, unlike some who choose only to tear it down with worthless assertions. Your posts may be better suited to FR, I am sure that many freeper trolls here are lauding you as a hero about now. I know what you are going to say, it is your god given right to post your opinion on this board and if I don't like your opinion I can just hit the ignore button. Well I can say the same thing, its my right to,if you do not like my opinion, you know what to do.

[Eric J in MN]

51. Rebellious Republican - friendly advice -easier to read posts w/ paragraph

...breaks.

[maggrwaggr]

53. I have to agree with you 100% and it saddens me greatly

that I have to vote for the non-Bush rather than a candidate who actually represents me.

I feel utterly unrepresented.

I feel America itself is utterly unrepresented in this election.

It's wrong.

[Q]

55. What if Dems compromise and throw away their principles...

...in order to 'win' and then lose anyway? We witnessed that recently in the 90s and again in 2002.

- But there are some issues that the party just can't sell out or compromise on and not suffer the consequences. Unjust war, torture and war crimes are NOT issues a political party can 'compromise' about and come out of it unscathed.

- For better or worse...Democrats have joined with Republicans in putting all these important issues on the 'back burner' until after the election. One can't miss the irony here...when a 'democratic' nation agrees to put discussion and prosecution of serious crimes on hold while they elect one of the complicit parties to lead.

[CWebster]

58. Thank you, RichM

For telling it like it is with astute clarity.

As time goes on and the Bush scam unwinds, it becomes more and more apparent that there is growing discontent with the Democratic party's complicity or lack of resolve. The irony is the Democratic team as alternative choice to Bush are Senators who, through abdication of duty, backed the crime.

Doesn't it feel like we are trapped?

[RichM]

59. A few posters asked what I suggest...

Let's simply observe, for starters, that both parties are offering pro-war tickets. Such a "choice" excludes anti-war voters entirely, & will also preclude fundamental discussion of the war itself, during the campaign. Such a situation testifies to the advanced stage of rot in the political system. You can't vote against the war - and you can't even have a real discussion about it.

When the system is this rotten, it's necessary to start thinking seriously in terms of overhauling the system itself (cf. Jefferson's famous quote about the "tree of liberty" needing to be periodically refreshed with the "blood of tyrants"). It's NOT time for continuing to be chained to a corrupt system, maintaining the pretense that all is well.

There are different ways this can be done, but in some serious fashion, it MUST be done. It must be broadly recognized that the 2-party system itself is a kind of tyranny. It has become a tool for maintaining elite control of the entire political system under the superficial guise of "free elections."

Preparing the groundwork for overhaul of the system requires bringing a new set of ideas to a lot of people. I'm not going to go into the details of this here, except to say that the general thrust must involve a great downsizing of the military-industrial complex, & devoting the freed resources to meet a variety of far more legitimate social needs. (The Kucinich program, for example, was a start along these lines. The primaries showed, however, that the Dem Party is incapable of even considering a program like that advanced by DK.)

In terms of the coming election, here are simplified sketches of 3 possible attitudes an opponent of Bushism might take:

(1) Support Kerry, and pretend he's a great candidate.
(2) Vote for Kerry, but openly admit that he's a disgrace, & that you feel furious at being forced to vote for such a loathesome hypocritical militarist
(3) Vote for neither major candidate. This might mean you vote for a socialist, or write-in Kucinich, or support some other minor candidate who expresses ideas you believe in. (It may make a difference to you if you live in a battleground state.)

The point I want to make here is that choice #1 may look similar to #2, but it's not. If you back Kerry with enthusiasm, you are doing NOTHING to further the kind of thinking that will be needed to overhaul the political system. I understand the case for casting a purely anti-Bush vote in a battleground state (though I wouldn't do it myself). But I believe that working to develop & propagate a leftist analysis of society - even if limited just to one's own circle of friends & family - is far more important. I also believe that to vote for a disgrace like Kerry in a non-battleground state accomplishes exactly nothing; & that to imagine that the Democrats are a viable mechanism for meaningful social change is pathetic and delusional.

Those who have read high-quality leftist analysis of history & politics recognize that the Democrats are not really the "good guys." Rather, most of them are simply a faction of the bad guys, whose main appeal to voters has consisted chiefly of posturing as good guys. By design, they always position themselves as "slightly left" of (ie, slightly better than) Republicans on most domestic issues. But deep down, & on virtually all of foreign policy, they are most accurately viewed as partners of the Republicans, not opponents.

The enemy is not really Bush, nor the GOP. The enemy is a completely rotten political system, in all its major institutions. The rottenness springs in turn from the driving imperatives of capitalism itself, which will always lead to extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth & power. This will always lead to a small powerful class having total control of the media & educational system - hence, as Marx says, the ruling ideas of society will be the ideas of the ruling class. It can't be otherwise.

I grew up in an Roosevelt-admiring Democratic family. I know how Democrats love to think of themselves as morally superior to the velociraptors of the GOP. Unfortunately, this view turns out not to hold up, under serious examination. The nomination of a 100% pro-war ticket, and the utter silence of the Democrats (apart from a few honorable exceptions like DK, & members of the CBC, etc) on the real nature of the GOP crimes over the last few years -- this is evidence of the irredeemable rot of the Dem Party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Well said and quite right.

I've opted for #3. I had grudgingly decided to hold my nose, yet again, and vote for Kerry because Bush is much "the greater of two evils" but Kerry, in his more recent statements regarding Iraq and the Apartheid Wall in Israel has crossed the line of sheer immorality to the extent that holding my nose is no longer an option.

He could still convince me otherwise by, at least, renouncing his IWR vote, even under the dubious guise of "Duh, I was duped". But, I'm not expecting such a show of even that much minimal courage.

I totally agree that the whole structure needs to be changed. But, I doubt that that will occur. The structure will collapse of it's own weight. The sad truth is that there will be many more wars, "conflicts", "pre-emptions", to try to hold it together along the way to it's collapse.

[rumguy]

60. The war was wrong it was stupid, but what crimes were committed?

What specific crimes is the Bush Admin. guilty of?

[whosinpower]

62. How about this then???????

The president was permitted to launch the Iraq war without further advance notice to Congress under Public Law 107-243, with two very important conditions:

1. The administration must demonstrate that all diplomatic means had been exhausted and that continuing a diplomatic course would endanger the security of the United States.

2. Invading Iraq must be part of the effort to find and prosecute those responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

These two central conditions were never met.

snip from - http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/19/editorial_virgil.html