Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
At this moment, when the mainstream media has largely abandoned coverage of the Iraq War and the majority antiwar opinion, the presidential campaign is underwhelming in offering any vision of peace, and the antiwar movement clearly needs to redouble its efforts, an exciting mobilization is reenergizing the peace movement--the Million Doors for Peace campaign.
On Saturday, September 20, 25,000 volunteers across the country will contact one million people in their neighborhoods and ask them to sign a petition urging the next Congress to bring US troops home from Iraq within one year. (The timetable is based on a new report from the Center of American Progress--coauthored by Dr. Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration – that suggests "an orderly and safe withdrawal is best achieved over an 8 to 10 month period.") This campaign is different from previous antiwar efforts because volunteers will be talking to their own communities instead of gathering in one place--such as the National Mall--for a traditional protest.
Spearheaded by USAction and TrueMajority, the Million Doors campaign has evolved into the broadest antiwar coalition to date. Karen Dolan, Director of Cities for Peace--one of the original cosponsoring organizations--said, "I've been at the center of the new peace movement since 2002 and I haven't seen anything like this before. Its exciting to me [because] Cities for Peace is involved with so many of these groups and I have often witnessed something like the divide between the more radical activists and more centrist groups - and I mean the terms 'radical' and 'centrist' in the most affectionate way, as two strategic sides of the same progressive coin! The unification of all of us bodes well for new energy and more creative, and hopefully effective, antiwar work nationally."
Other organizations participating in the campaign include: Catholics United, CodePink, MoveOn, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, Progressive Accountability, Progressive Democrats of America, United for Peace and Justice, Voters for Peace, United Methodist Church-General Board of Church and Society, Organic Consumers Union, Democracy for America and Win Without War. Combined, the coalition boasts a membership in the millions and hundreds of state and local affiliates.
"We're shooting for at least 25,000 people to sign up and participate," said Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice. "This is a cooperative effort of all of the major antiwar groups in the country, and that's one reason we're so optimistic. It represents another level of the cooperation and collaboration within the antiwar movement."
Volunteers will be sent a list of 40 neighbors to contact and receive training materials, literature, and a petition from participating organizations and through the Million Doors website. The neighbors who volunteers will contact are all either newly registered or lapsed voters - a key strategy to broadening the movement.
"By targeting newly registered voters, and lapsed voters, we think that combination will allow us to talk to people who have not necessarily been engaged in the antiwar movement before," Cagan said. "They may agree with us, but they haven't yet taken a stand or taken any action.... We do believe that the vast majority of this country opposes the war. But it's also true that the organized antiwar movement has not yet been able to successfully tap into that constituency. September 20 will both energize people who are already part of the antiwar movement, and also reach beyond those folks to the next layer of antiwar activists."
All of the organizers feel that September 20 is critical to shining a light back on Iraq. Tom Swan, USAction's Iraq 2008 campaign coordinator and former campaign manager for Ned Lamont, said: "A lot of the Washington punditry is trying to ignore the fact that we're still at war, spending $12 billion a month, resources that could be put to use here at home. And while it's a slower pace, the number of our troops in Iraq who die continues to grow on a weekly basis.... There has been an entire vacuum on the war, and particularly the cost of the war, and the drain that it is on our economy.... We're going to go out and talk with [neighbors] about the war, its cost, and why we expect our leaders to end it now. By having these tens of thousands of people going out door to door on one day we're going to help put this issue back within the public debate.... About [how this] war was a bad idea, continuing it is a bad idea, and we need to end it now."
Beyond September 20, this mobilization has the potential to greatly strengthen the antiwar movement moving forward--and that's critical even if there is a Democratic president and Congress.
"No matter who wins in November, we... will need to continue to put the pressure on to bring the Troops Home from Iraq, and to stop new wars from starting or escalating," said CODEPINK co-founder Jodie Evans.
"We know full well that whoever is elected come November 4th the work of the antiwar movement is far from over," Cagan said. "And what our efforts on September 20 will do is help us expand the organized base of the antiwar movement... We will be able to then go back to people and get them involved in next steps, with local groups, or become part of a national effort."
"September 20 is very creative and it does several things," Dolan said. "[It] involves new voters; demonstrates a peace mandate for a new president and new congress; has the by-product of identifying antiwar voters; creates a new and dynamic list for the entire peace movement to engage after the action on September 20th and invite to join us in ending the war and in future grassroots activist campaigns."
Even if Barack Obama should win, Swan pointed out, "We think that when it comes to the war Obama is only going to be as good as progressives push him to be." (Swan mentioned my recent recounting of how FDR told progressives who sought his support on legislation, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it." And they did. History repeats itself now - only through a strong, organized antiwar movement will any president be able to move aggressively to end the war and prevent future wars as well.)
You can sign up and get your friends to do the same up until the day before the mobilization. Do it now - start knocking on doors and help put an end to this insane, disastrous war.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Thanks for highlighting an outstanding campaign, Katrina.
Progressives and the anti-war right (see Andrew Bacevich's superb post at The Nation) need to get the chant going:
"YES WE CAN........GET OUT of Iraq and Afghanistan"
And while we're at it, it would be supreme if The Nation could come up with a creative solution to eliminate much of the obnoxiously inane and brain dead postings that all too frequently appear on their blog spaces.
Call it Raid for right-wing dipshits.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:00pm
These groups are very nice, but what is their REAL political impact?
Were they able to stop the invasion of Iraq?...no.
We had HUGE rallies in 2002,2003,2004...and nothing was accomplished.
The Right rightly laughs at "anti-war activists" because their political muscle is shown to be non-existant.
Actually the line should read..
"IF Barack Obama should win, Swan pointed out, "We think that when it comes to the war Obama is only going to be as beholden to progressives if they get him a victory."
If McCain wins, he'll ignore them...and without showing any electoral power behind them, the Dems may as well.
But...it's nice.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 1:04pm
"Were they able to stop the invasion of Iraq?...no.
We had HUGE rallies in 2002,2003,2004...and nothing was accomplished......."
~Maskot
Oh yee of little faith.
Open thine eyes......and then get thine ass out the door on Sept. 20.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:09pm
.....and don't let it hit thou on thine ass........
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:11pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:11pm
B_KOOL, you know the saying (usually in business)...
"Money talks and bulls**t walks!"?
Same thing in politics-
"VOTES talk and bulls**t walks!"
If all those "massive numbers" of anti-war activists get Obama elected....like the interminable claims of "the youth vote"....and I'll be a believer.
But if McCain wins, either those groups are outnumbered...or ineffective...or both.
The public disapproves of the occupation of Iraq in numbers that put Vietnam to shame...if the "peace movement" can't take advantage of that, they aren't worth the time.
If they do show their CLAIMED political muscle....I'll be a believer.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 1:15pm
"......If they do show their CLAIMED political muscle....I'll be a believer."
~Maskot
Look, Maskot, the fact is that much of the best of what America is, is the result of the actions of so-called liberals (and thoughtful "conservatives").
More pointedly today, we need to get beyond these labels and get as many of our asses as is reasonably possible, out of our chairs and into the street.
For an inspirational read here's this from Bob Herbert at the NY Times the other day:
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?
Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don't you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.
Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they've taken from the right that they've tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.
So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports it in cases that don't even involve a homicide.
Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn't content to insist that he personally knows that "liberals don't have a clue." He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal.
"We need change, all right," he said. "Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:27pm
Why liberals don't stand up to this garbage, I don't know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals -- from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers -- the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.
There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.
Civil rights? Women's rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.
The liberals who didn't have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.
"In the procedural motions that preceded final passage," wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, "FDR," "House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against."
Liberals who didn't have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as "the advance wave of socialism," while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:27pm
When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: "No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine."
Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, "predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when men were free.' "
Scary.
Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today's young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.
Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).
Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children's clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.
It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:27pm
Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.
Liberals need to get over it.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:28pm
Katrina vanden Heuvel is all excited about the potential of anti-war groups having an impact on achieving policy she wants.
Since it takes two sides to make war, do any of these anti-war groups plan to petition the terrorists and try to convince them of the benefits of peace?
Will these anti-war groups go to the Palestinians or any other Arabs and petition them to give up their obsessive hatred of Israel and the desire it should not exist?
Will the peace groups try and convince potential homicide bombers not to kill Jews? Or that life here on Earth is better than with the 72 virgins they think they receive?
Will the peace groups travel to Communist China, North Korea, or visit Fidel in Cuba?
Peace groups have never done any of this before. They did not petition the Nazis, or the Soviets, or Saddam.
So the real objective is that we should go for peace, but this one sided petition for peace really means we will unilaterally surrender to our enemies who either want to dominate us and impose their ways upon us, or kill us altogether.
Remember, the New Hampshire license plates say "Live Free or Die" - something these peace groups do not understand.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:41pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:27pm
B_KOOL, you'll note I DID NOT disparage their PURPOSE....
I merely note that all this claim of "massive numbers"..."a new large coalition"...etc. has YET to be proven or more importantly proven POLITICALLY powerful.
You can get 500,000 people in the Mall in D.C....but if Dubya wins re-election, then ...so what?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 1:46pm
sjchermak-You guys should try to get some faith in God rather than put your faith in guns because you haven't even come close to addressing any of the problems that you listed by attacking saddam.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/10/2008 @ 1:46pm
"Since it takes two sides to make war, do any of these anti-war groups plan to petition the terrorists and try to convince them of the benefits of peace?"
~"SJ Sheer Madness"
Wake up and smell the concrete, fool.
You don't "fight terrorism" by spreading death and destruction via an insanely expensive (and profoundly counterproductive) occupations of other sovereign nations.
You fight terrorism through sharply intelligent POLICE WORK and cooperation with other sovereign nations.
Period.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:41pm
I'm curious SJ....what is YOUR view on how to achieve peace with...
1. the Palestinians?
2. the Communist Chinese? (are they at war with us...or anybody?)
3. the North Koreans?
4. the Cubans (again, who are they at war with?)
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 1:49pm
"......but if Dubya wins re-election......"
~Maskot
I'll see your point.....
and raise you two armageddons.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:56pm
b_kool_66
You say "You fight terrorism through sharply intelligent POLICE WORK and cooperation with other sovereign nations. Period. "
Bad timing with that comment, b_kool_66.
What you say was the approach that was taken during the Clinton administration.
Tomorrow is the 7th anniversary of the result.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:57pm
~Posted by SJ Cheer Madness
My lips move but you can't hear what I'm saying......
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 2:00pm
sjchermak-9/11 would have happened even if Clinton had attacked saddam and 9/11 could only have been prevented by better law enforcement.The military could not have stopped it since they would have had to attack America to do so since they were all in America.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/10/2008 @ 2:00pm
"What you say was the approach that was taken during the Clinton administration.
Tomorrow is the 7th anniversary of the result.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person"
No, tomorrow is the 7th anniversary of the result of Bush's indifference to the terrorist issue.
"Will these anti-war groups go to the Palestinians or any other Arabs and petition them to give up their obsessive hatred of Israel and the desire it should not exist?"
First, the group is opposing our war in Iraq. There's no indication that this particular exercise is taking a position of the war in Afghanisan, for example.
"we will unilaterally surrender to our enemies who either want to dominate us and impose their ways upon us, or kill us altogether."
Actually, Hussein was in no position to do that while the Iraqi factions now are more likely interested in each other than in coming after you.
Meaning that you can come out from under your bed now.
Posted by brunowe at 09/10/2008 @ 2:02pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 1:56pm
I merely note the reality....something that escapes much of the Left and Right.
Claim all the power you want for your group or groups (as Ms vanden Heuvel is)....but the proof is at the polling place the Wednesday after the Tuesday after the first Monday in November every 2-4 years.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 2:04pm
Maskdelta,
I do realize that as a lib your worldview PROBABLY is that the U.S. is to blame whenever there is a war, even if we are at war with people such as Saddam, who ran humans through shredding machines.
(I only say PROBABLY because I have not read every last post you have made and the minute one says something they think applies to another on a site such as this Murphy's law will kick in and the person is not what they seem from the comments)
As far as the Palestinians are concern, I would make sure they understand that their cherished dream of no Israel will never be realized, and that they will never have statehood as long as they pursue that dream.
I would make sure they understand that if they attack Israel, they will be killed.
I would also destroy terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Unfortunately, the last time Israel was fighting Hezbollah, the world pressured Israel to agree to a truce.
Next time Hezbollah attacks, I think Israel should destroy them. Same with Hamas.
Maybe then the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world would get the point. The best way to achieve peace is through victory.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 2:05pm
sjchermak-Did you know that they knew that one could smuggle the weapons used by the 9/11 hijackers on board a plane,but were afraid to delay passengers,and lose money, in order to search for them?It was greed and profit that allowed 9/11 to happen.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/10/2008 @ 2:06pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:57pm
Actually my question on your Standard Right-Wing Revisisionist History is...
Why was George W. Bush so utterly helpless to the "failings" of the Clinton Administration on terrorism....for almost nine months of his Presidency???
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 2:06pm
sjchermak-And how would you make sure that they know that and why do you think that religious fanatics would care?
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/10/2008 @ 2:07pm
Glad to see this thread begin with the refreshing aroma of no Happy the clown and his traveling band of lunatics.
With that.......
I'm off to enjoy my day.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/10/2008 @ 2:11pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 2:05pm
Hamas is part of the legitimate government of the Palestinian authority....'member we (i.e. the Bush Administration...as did McCain) acknowledged that.
SO, if a group connected to Hamas kills Israel....we kill all of Hamas?
BTW, given they don't have membership cards...and might be sneaky enough to not carry them if they did...
how do you kill them all?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 2:30pm
BTW, skip the "Bush wasn't AT ALL to blame for failures that led to 9/11" question....I think I know what I'll get.
How you "kill all of Hamas and Hezbollah"...is more interesting.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 2:32pm
THE REAL JOHN MCCAIN
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's Foreign Ministry has condemned remarks by Republican presidential candidate John McCain that exporting cigarettes could be a way of killing Iranians.
The state-owned English language IRAN daily has quoted ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini denouncing the remarks as "inappropriate" and describing McCain's attitude as "regretful."
Last week, McCain was asked about an Associated Press report that the U.S. exported $158 million worth of cigarettes to Iran during the Bush administration in spite of restrictions on U.S. imports.
"Maybe that's a way of killing them," McCain said. He then said that he was joking.
"BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN."
WHY THIS IS NOT A STORY IS BEYOND ME!!! McCain is sooo Presidential.
Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/10/2008 @ 2:35pm
Hello i'm nobody
You said " sjchermak-And how would you make sure that they know that and why do you think that religious fanatics would care? "
So, you admit they are "religious fanatics"?
I thought that was an Islamophobia violation. To call terrorists as such. To say that Islamofacistists are terrorists and to say anything negative about them at all.
You are gulity of Islamophobia!!! Penalty!! Go to the Penalty Box!!
You need more training on how Islam is a religion of peace and they mean us no harm and if they are angry we made them angry, and how we must apologize and vote for Barack Obama and do what Ms. Vanden Heuvel wants and work for world peace.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 3:26pm
Miscellaneous comments
To i'm nobody
Again about your comment: "sjchermak-And how would you make sure that they know that and why do you think that religious fanatics would care?"
Actually, if they are destroyed and killed if necessary then it wouldn't matter would it? Kind of overcome by events if you will, the terrorists would be defeated.
And Maskdelta wondered "How you "kill all of Hamas and Hezbollah"...is more interesting."
What is difficult to understand about that? You would kill them with guns and bombs.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 3:30pm
sjchermak-I ignored Bush when he said that Islam is the religion of peace and it isn't islamophobia to post about religious fanatics since such people exist in all religions.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/10/2008 @ 3:31pm
"You need more training on how Islam is a religion of peace and they mean us no harm"----Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 3:26pm
Note this EXACT wording, as I ask SJ this next question...and he denies he "meant that"...
SJ....since you said "Islam" not "Islamofascist" there above...
are you saying that all Muslims are potential terrorists given their religion is NOT a religion of peace?
(Again, he'll backpedal quickly)
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 3:32pm
sjchermak-You just showed amazing ignorance when it comes to the subject of fighting against any terrorists,religious or otherwise..
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/10/2008 @ 3:34pm
"The best way to achieve peace is through victory."
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person
So can "Sister Sarah" share her view on how "God's plan" will bring victory in Iraq? Victory at being a police force? Our soldiers can kick anyone's ass, but are we kicking the right asses? Afghanistan?!?!
She isn't saying Bush is God is she? Because Bush sent the troops in without a plan...God did NOT!
IRAQ WAS WHAT BIN LADEN WANTED! MCCAIN GIVES AID TO THE ENEMY!
Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/10/2008 @ 3:36pm
Maskdelta,
You have to admit, Muslims who supposedly do not buy in to terror activities don't do a whole lot to stop what is going on in their midst, do they?
It seems they tolerate it and many maybe agree with it but wouldn't admit it if asked publicly about it.
Not all, because Anwar Sadat said (After the Iranians took our embassy in Teheran over in 1978) that "this is not Islam".
Of course, Mr. Sadat paid with his life for his opinions and actions.
And as far as all Muslims being potential terrorists, I know that according to the rules you on the left set down, you are not supposed to "profile" people if you are a security person or a border control officer, etc.
Profiling like that, looking at suspicion at someone who appears Muslim and may be acting strange in other ways, brings the Islamophobia violation and penalty flag down on you.
Matt Rothschild over on The Progressive magazine loves to invoke this and have articles on the wrongs custom officers did in Detroit, for example, when they kept profiling and looking with suspicion at a guy who went frequently between Detroit and Windsor.
Not supposed to do that! Let everybody come and go as they please, you will be charged with Islamophobia if you do not.
Rules set down by libs. This creates no problem for libs, because if by following the rules we let a terrorist loose because you can't profile, and then if we are attacked as a result - then I guess George W. Bush is automatically blamed. (by libs, who are the authority).
Except as I can now see, after next January libs will blame Sarah Palin instead of George W. Bush.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 3:42pm
Peace groups? On their timetable we would spend another $192 billion on the war, and who knows how many would die in that time.
Posted by Bill Samuel at 09/10/2008 @ 3:43pm
I want to admit I was wrong. Let's review-
"SJ....since you said "Islam" not "Islamofascist" there above...
are you saying that all Muslims are potential terrorists given their religion is NOT a religion of peace?
(Again, he'll backpedal quickly)"
-------Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 3:32pm
"You have to admit, Muslims who supposedly do not buy in to terror activities don't do a whole lot to stop what is going on in their midst, do they?
It seems they tolerate it and many maybe agree with it but wouldn't admit it if asked publicly about it."-----Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 3:42pm
He actually ADMITTED (albeit it subtlely) that he DOES believe most Muslims are potential terrorists or sympathetic to them.
Not a full out Islamophobic admission, but he's sane enough not to go full-bore, because he knows what he REALLY believes....would EASILY make him sound like a bigot, instead of needing a bit of "filtering".
So, I will say I was wrong...you couched it in "Surely you'd agree" idiocy, but you were pretty clear in your view that "We can't trust them durn Muslims!"
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 3:48pm
Hello CanWeQuestionPalin?,
You keep saying "IRAQ WAS WHAT BIN LADEN WANTED!"
Could be, after Saddam was taken out, the terror groups gravitated to Iraq to create havoc there.
And, as you are aware, they are now being killed and defeated.
So maybe it is what they wanted, but the outcome is not what they figured would happen.
It's not working out very well for them, is it?
So it is working out for us instead. Terrorists being killed and defeated. This is good. We would not have had terrorists being killed and defeated if Algore had been president or if John F. Kerry (who had served in Vietnam) were president.
I get a kick out of your screen name. You wonder if we can question Sarah Palin.
Of course you can question her. This is the United States of America, a free country, and as such the Vice-President can be questioned.
After next January you can question Vice President Sarah Palin as much as you like.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 3:49pm
BTW...back to this
"and then if we are attacked as a result - then I guess George W. Bush is automatically blamed. (by libs, who are the authority).
Except as I can now see, after next January libs will blame Sarah Palin instead of George W. Bush."----Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 3:42pm
No, by YOUR rule, if Obama wins, and we get attacked ANYTIME before September 11, 2009....we get to blame Bush.
It's your rule.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 4:01pm
Maskdelta,
First, if Obama were to win (won't happen, but for sake of argument), we probably wouldn't get attacked right away, maybe not during an Obama presidency at all.
Obama would likely, as recent libs have done, weaken the military, just like Jimmy Carter did and Slick Willie did.
We would treat terror again as a criminal matter and we would do whatever France wanted us to do.
Then, at the first Republican presidency after Obama, we would get attacked, and libs would blame that Republican president.
That is how you on the left do things.
As far as blaming George W. Bush, and your comment about "getting" to blame Mr. Bush, I have resigned myself to the likelihood that if anything bad happens between now and the end of recorded time, libs will probably find a way to blame George W. Bush.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 4:27pm
See, SJ, all you r little straw men and "If the libs are in charge, we'll let terrorists blow up New York, so we won't make them mad at us" crapola...
just proves my point from before on how "deep" you really think.
I suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out that the terrorists and their network who bombed the WTC in 1993...were actually ARRESTED by Clinton...
while "Only libs blame Bush" Bush has let Osama bin Laden walk around and make home movies for the last 7 years, despite being "tough on terr'rur...unlike them libs!"?
As for "That is how you on the left do things."....
YOU somehow think Bush is a master of defending us against terror....EXCEPT that he was somehow helpless from January 20-September 11, 2001 due to Clinton.
THAT is how YOU guys on the Right do things....you accept NO responsibility and if anybody raises it you bloviate about "You guys just want to blame Bush for EVERYTHING!"...
well, no....but how about you either figure out if he's helpless to fight terror or much better than libs (but "oddly" something prevented him from being much better for 9 months)???
You're a partisan hack....believe it or not, I'm not. I actually voted FOR Bush in 2000...
and have apologized for it every since.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 4:36pm
"And, as you are aware, they are now being killed and defeated.
So maybe it is what they wanted, but the outcome is not what they figured would happen."
Except that 1) the terrorists that we killed we terrorists who had been recruited based on outrage in the Islamic world over our invasion of Iraq and 2) most of the people we killed were Iraqis who we wouldn't have had to fight if we hadn't invaded to begin with.
The rest of your comments sound like the rantings of a petulant child.
For the record, the overstrain of our military caused by the invasion/occupation of Iraq has done more damage to our military than anything that Clinton did.
Posted by brunowe at 09/10/2008 @ 4:39pm
For the record, the overstrain of our military caused by the invasion/occupation of Iraq has done more damage to our military than anything that Clinton did.------Posted by brunowe at 09/10/2008 @ 4:39pm
No, they blame THAT too on Clinton.
Their (like SJ) refrain of "The libs want to blame EVERYTHING on Bush!"....
is matched by THEIR refrain of "Everything is Clinton's fault" (right upto the Dems winning Congress in '06....then they added "Pelosi").
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 4:55pm
Miscellaneous comments
Maskdelta has promoted again that "I suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out that the terrorists and their network who bombed the WTC in 1993...were actually ARRESTED by Clinton... "
That is the problem. The terrorists that did the crime were arrested. What should have happened is that the terror groups associated with those that carried out that action, as well as others such as the USS Cole attack, should have been sought out and defeated. Stopped so their ideological soulmates could not attack again.
And as far as the Bush presidency between January of 2001 and 9/11/2001, you forgot the "wall" put in place by Jamie Goerlick of the Clinton administration, that impeded the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies.
And Maskdelta, you said you voted for Bush in 2000 and have been apologizing for it ever since...... I voted for Slick Willie in 1992 and feel the same way. Except I have something to apologize for, you don't.
And now Brunowe chimes in with "The rest of your comments sound like the rantings of a petulant child. "
Off of the immediate subject, I know, but that does not describe my comments, it is a description of whenever Hillary Clinton speaks. (or more and more her husband, as well)
Thanks, Slick Willie!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 4:58pm
sjchermak-Clinton did do raids here and there, just like Bush,and there is nothing that Clinton or Bush could have done to stop 9/11 because they aren't going to give up because of such raids.They haven't given up and Bush has attacked two countries and they are just getting stronger in Pakistan because they're going there.That's what they do.Move around.They're everywhere and keep moving around..It was in the hands of law enforcement to stop 9/11 and the airlines to keep their passengers safe because,as I already told you,they knew that you could smuggle those weapons on that way.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/10/2008 @ 5:18pm
It's a shame I can't effectively ignore sjchermak, since so many of you choose to respond to his peculiar combination of red herrings, misinformation, innovative Biblical interpretations and inability to actually articlate his position.
I can read someone like LVL because there is logic, and he at least will acknowledge that facts are important. But sjchermak?
Why do you bother responding to someone who thinks that one opinion is just as valid as another? And it doesn't matter if it is intelligent design vs. evolution, spherical earth vs. flat earth, germ theory vs. evil spirits, etc. It all reduces to opinion.
I'm not saying that sjchermak believes any of these - impossible for me to say since he is so unclear on what he believes. What I am saying is that, for him, everything reduces to opinion despite the facts.
There is no point talking to such people. So why do it?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/10/2008 @ 5:57pm
"That is the problem. The terrorists that did the crime were arrested. What should have happened is that the terror groups associated with those that carried out that action, as well as others such as the USS Cole attack, should have been sought out and defeated. Stopped so their ideological soulmates could not attack again."
First, the network behind the 1993 attack was arrested. That was the group centered around Sheik Rahman. Second, had Clinton actually invaded Afghanistan in response to the USS Cole, you righties would've been the first to accuse him of exploiting it to divert attention from your obsession with a blow-job in the White House.
"And as far as the Bush presidency between January of 2001 and 9/11/2001, you forgot the "wall" put in place by Jamie Goerlick of the Clinton administration, that impeded the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies."
So how did that wall make Bush and Rice ignore the Presidential briefing that state that terrorists were planning to attack in the US? How did that wall make Rice and Bush sideline the likes of Richard Clarke?
Incidentally, your assertion that Gorelick's "wall" was responsible was repudiated by all the members of the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, the FBI didn't even try to get a FISA warrant in response to info obtained re Zacarias Moussaoui et al. Also, this was purely DoJ policy and wouldn't had anything to do with the CIA, the military or any other non-DoJ personnel. Finally, even Ashcroft admitted that the "wall" was less relevant than an FBI risk-averse culture that developed in response to it.
Ashcroft's smear of Gorelick was nothing more than an attempt to cover his own ass given his neglect of counter-terrorism issues.
Posted by brunowe at 09/10/2008 @ 6:04pm
Curious, anyone here done canvassing before? What did you like about it? Do you think it was effective? How would you deal with people with strange beliefs on this issue - Iraq War will bring on the rapture, we're in a clash of civilizations, etc.?
I don't think the value is in the petition. I think the value is taking the anti-war message to the streets. But, I've never done it before, so would like to hear from someone who has...thoughts?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/10/2008 @ 6:05pm
Posted by brunowe at 09/10/2008 @ 6:04pm
SJCHER is a hypocrite. He says "you libs want to blame Bush for EVERYTHING"...
but then EXCUSES Bush for EVERYTHING around 9/11.
But again, look at the logic..."Bush is a MASTER of protecting us from terrorists...."
but "He was helpless against Gorelick's 'wall' and blind to fixing it until it was too late" (which is essentially what SJ is saying)
Now, praising Bush for everything POST-9/11 and rationalizing his failings on and before 9/11 is a mark of somebody more concerned with POLITICS, than the Truth.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 8:01pm
Broadest anti-war coalition to date? Perhaps, but not the most effective.
Tha anti-war movement of the '60-s during the War in Viet Nam was much more effective in bring the war to an end. Of course we weren't the only reason, but through our actions we educated many about the 'system' and why the war wac happening. We also gave birth to many involved in the current movement. It's too bad we didn't have a tool like the internet. The current movement doewsn't compare to the 60's
Posted by RichB at 09/10/2008 @ 8:31pm
Posted by RichB at 09/10/2008 @ 8:31pm
The current movement doewsn't compare to the 60's
And what does, really?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/10/2008 @ 10:24pm
Thank you Katrina for your blog keeping us informed latest chances for peace in middleast and all who seek peace. May the Iraqis people please join us in this effort secure peace in Iraq first before Afganistan is stable and secure in peace.
I always enjoy watching my friend on Larry King where you perform your best delivery your passionate self. However, i believe you could join David gergen panel offering your knowledgeable insights on CNN-Anderson Cooper 360; Sunday CNN-Late Edition Wolf Blitzer; Morning CNN News with John Roberts. Katrina you have above knowledge and depth than most television consultants; plus, your passion is needed. thank you james
Posted by engineerpower at 09/10/2008 @ 10:59pm
Remember, the New Hampshire license plates say "Live Free or Die" - something these peace groups do not understand.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:41pm
you ARE necio.
203 years of many fist destiny have left you bankrupt.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 01:38am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 4:58pm
Of course, SJ, misses the point...
Clinton CAUGHT the people who perpetrated the WTC bombing in 1993...
Bush has yet to find bin Laden, yet according to the Illogical Right, "Bush is tougher on terrorists than Clinton was"
Huh?!?!???!??!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 10:16am
SJ is lost in a world of fear and clichés......
SRJ is right.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 10:35am
I am so excited to be working on this campaign with Peace Action - it really is exciting to cross the divide between protests in Washington and dinner table conversation. Hopefully, once voters are engaged on this issue they'll want to do more. Peace Action is simultaneously running an online campaign called "No Soldier Left Behind" - a letter to the President Elect to be delivered in January. We're going to keep the next President accountable to us from DAY ONE!
Find out more: http://www.peace-action.org/iraq/campaigns/no_soldier.htm
Posted by BarbPA at 09/11/2008 @ 11:03am
"At this moment, when the mainstream media has largely abandoned coverage of the Iraq War"
Absolutely!!
And....the "moment" coincides with another "moment"...
That would be the "moment" Obama began talking about "just" wars...
ie. KVH, it's best to let the media guide this campaign as they wish, if you want the O to win...
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/11/2008 @ 7:22pm
THE Anti-War Movement FAILED to Stop the Iraq War From starting and has repeatedly FAILED to Motivate THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS to DE-FUND the WAR And NOW is going out into the streets to support the Incumbent House Democrats Who have ignored the Anti-War Movement since We in the Anti-War Movement Got Them Elected in 2006. Has UFPJ and the other groups become the poodles of the House Democrats?
Does the Anti-War Movement really believe its own propaganda about caring for the war dead and about preventing new wars
Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice wants us to go into the streets for more peace efforts but we could have peace with more certainty if Leslie and the UFPJ would TAKE THEIR over 1,400 ACTIVIST GROUPs INTO THE STREETS EVERY WEEK FROM NOW UNTIL THE ELECTION For IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
The war is the symptom of the disease, the crimes against our Constitution ARE THE DISEASE.... Treat The Disease, not the Symptoms.
JohnHKennedy, Denver CO 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention, and organizer of IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http:ImpeachCO.com
.. .
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 09/12/2008 @ 11:02am
Remember, the New Hampshire license plates say "Live Free or Die" - something these peace groups do not understand.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:41pm
How exactly, is fighting in Iraq keeping us free? Nobody seems to have an answer to this question. There's a very good reason why. IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US. IRAQ NEVER THREATENED TO ATTACK US.
Do you guys still believe that bullshit Cheney was trying to push that Saddam was linked to 9/11? The only country that can be linked to 9/11 is Saudi Friggin Arabia and W and the Brits are selling them weapons systems. Go figure.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2008 @ 5:12pm
So KATRINA, you wish to return to a "sane" foreign, eh? What kind would that be? The lowball kind that led that jellaba headed son-of-a-bitch to think he could burn up and crush 3000 innocent people and walk away suffering no consequeces? Where whiners like Richard Clarke laud the mighty destructive power of tent bashing Tomahawks and fools like Jesse Jackson seek out the enemy to "establish dialogue".
Bush's blunders have centered on overreaction on the legal front and loss of focus on the military one: The policy of crushing the life out of terrorism whenever it is found, however, is still valid and works much better than its predecessor.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/15/2008 @ 12:20pm