The Greanville Journal

Pres. Chavez at a recent public rally in support of his policies.

VENEZUELA, RCTV, AND MEDIA FREEDOM: JUST THE FACTS, PLEASE

BY JAMES JORDAN

There are a number of ways to curtail press freedom. You can charge a journalist with murder and put him on death row-Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance. You can grant special favors, privileges, and access to corporate media giants while raiding and shutting down low-power, independent radio stations, which the FCC does with some regularity. You could arrest independent journalists at anti-war demonstrations-again, a regular occurrence. For instance, I recall my friend and Indy journalist, Jeff Imig, who has been repeatedly threatened with arrest, while recording anti-war demonstrations in Tucson, Arizona, for violating the statute against filming federal buildings. Jeff finally got arrested-for jaywalking! Corporate press, on the other hand, seems to have free reign to jaywalk and film federal buildings at these same events-behavior I and countless others have witnessed!

And then there is the Mother of All Media Manipulations: the blackout engineered by the Bush administration which blocks media from showing the arrival of body bags and coffins of newly dead soldiers “coming home” from Iraq. Those are some pretty good ways of curtailing freedom of speech. And they’re each and everyone home grown right here in the good ol’ United States of America.

SO WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH VENEZUELA, ANYWAY???

So, pardon me if I’m just a little astounded by all this noise in the media, the Bush administration, the Senate and the House, about how Venezuela is “attacking” free speech and independent media by not renewing the broadcasting license of RCTV. Perhaps even more disturbing is that this ridiculous assertion is being repeated even among some persons on the Left.

Just last week the Senate passed a condemnation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’ refusal to renew the license. Senate Resolution 211 was sponsored by Richard Lugar, (R-IN) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), with vocal, and disappointing, support from presidential contenders Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barak Obama (D-IL). Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) has introduced similar legislation into the House. Puerto Rico’s delegate to the House, Republican Luis Fortuno has outspokenly supported this legislation, which is surprising, considering his complete lack of action or outcry when the FBI was harassing Puerto Rican journalists in 2006. Anyway, who says bipartisanship is dead?

Joining in these condemnations are a whole host of so-called “press freedom” advocates, lead by the National Endowment for Democracy funded Reporters Without Borders. One would think that the iron hand has fallen and the crackdown has begun in Venezuela.

THE FACTS, PLEASE?

Corporate media seems to regularly forget that along with freedom of press is the responsibility of presenting facts to back up their news reporting. Well, dear reader, you are in for a rare treat-a discussion of some actual facts.

The general situation is this:

In April of 2002, there was a two-day, illegal coup carried out
against Venezuela’s electoral government, which involved the kidnapping and jailing of President Hugo Chavez. There were four major media outlets, along with others, who actively aided and abetted this coup (more later). In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.

Another important fact is that the heads of the media-monopoly in Venezuela, including Marcel Granier -owner of RCTV, also participated in the economic sabotage that occurred between 2002-2003. Yet, no one went to prison for endangering the country’s social and economic stability.

What is truly amazing is that it has taken five years for the Chavez administration to take action in any way against media that helped carry out this coup. Certainly, if the same thing happened in the United States, it wouldn’t be tolerated. Just ask Aaron Burr or Timothy McVeigh what happens when folks plot against the existing, elected government. The fact is.you don’t get away with it, you get punished, and pretty severely. Getting their broadcasting licenses renewed would be the least of their problems.

When RCTV’s broadcasting license came up for review, Pres. Chavez decided, after exhaustive research and study, not to renew the license. Chavez is legally responsible for renewing such licenses under laws which were enacted before he became president. The reasons given for not renewing the license cite RCTV’s participation in the coup, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV’s problems pre-date the Chavez administration, having been censured and closed repeatedly in previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions.

Another interesting fact is that our corporate media and distinguished Members of Congress have neglected to mention that on April of 2007 the government of Peru did not renew the broadcasting licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations for breaking their Radio and Television laws. It is obvious that Venezuela continues to be a target.

What, then, are the facts behind the charges made by the Chavez administration?

On the morning of April 11th, 2002, the first day of the coup, the anti-Bolivarian opposition had started a march from the headquarters of the state-owned oil company. Across town, supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution were gathered outside the presidential palace. Breaking with its previously announced plan, the opposition changed directions and headed to the presidentia palace, greatly increasing the chances of a violent confrontation between the two opposing sides.

During the midst of this confusion, shots rang out from the rooftops, where snipers were firing on both crowds, resulting in the deaths of 18 persons, with 150 wounded. Reports on the opposition’s four largest TV stations indicated the violence was the result of pro-Bolivarian gunmen, and this became the immediate catalyst “justifying” the coup.

However, the testimony of eyewitnesses and videos taken from other angles show that a much different scenario was actually taking place. The following transcript is excerpted from the video documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which was produced for television in Ireland. It sheds important light on the sequence of events. Note particularly the quotation included from RCTV News Correspondent, Andre Cesara.

NARRATOR: The opposition march was fast approaching and some in the vanguard seemed ready for a fight. With thousands of Chavez supporters still surrounding the palace a confrontation seemed imminent. Then at about 2:00 p.m., we saw the opposition march arrive. The army tried to act as a buffer between the two groups.
[shouting]

NARRATOR: We moved back into the heart of the Chavez crowds when all of a sudden the firing started.[sirens]
NARRATOR: We couldn’t tell where the shots were coming from, but people were being hit in the head.[gunshots]
NARRATOR: Soon it became clear that we were being shot at by snipers. One in four Venezuelans carry hand guns and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from.
WITNESS (in Spanish): One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace that captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they are shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see them, they themselves are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.
ANDRE CESARA, RCTV (in Spanish): Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on the unarmed peaceful protesters below.
NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn’t broadcast was this camera angle which clearly shows the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez.

There is no doubt, and no dispute, that RCTV and the three other largest corporate television stations (Globovision, Venevision, and Televen) aided and abetted the ensuing coup throughout the three day period it was being carried out. They knowingly broadcast false and manipulated information, including the lies that Bolivarian supporters instigated violence against demonstrators, and that Pres. Chavez, as a result, had willingly resigned and left the country. Pres. Chavez had not resigned. He had been kidnapped and was being held prisoner by traitors within the Venezuelan military.

During all this, RCTV hosted coup plotters, including co-leader Carlos Ortega of the corrupt and US government supported labor union, the CTV, and had broadcast Ortega’s appeal rallying demonstrators to march on the presidential palace.

RCTV and its partners undertook a complete blackout on reporting any news relating to the more than a million citizens who had taken to the street and surrounded the presidential palace in defense of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Rather than broadcasting this news, RCTV treated its viewers to reruns of Tom and Jerry cartoons and the movie Pretty Woman.

Vice-Admiral Ramirez Perez spoke for all his fellow coup plotters when told a Venevision reporter, “We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you.” His congratulations were premature, however, as multitudes of people in the street, with the aid of truly independent, community based media and patriots within the Venezuelan military were able to defeat this coup without firing a shot, returning Pres. Chavez to his rightful office on April 13, 2002.

ON THE JOB AT RCTV-EYEWITNESS, ANDRES IZARRA SPEAKS

If any doubts remain as to RCTV’s complicity in this coup, the voice of one of its own producers should lay them all to rest. Andres Izarra had worked as the assignment editor in charge of Latin America for CNN before being hired by RCTV as news production manager for Venezuela’s highest ranked newscast, El Observador. Izarra says, quite clearly, “We were told no pro-Chavez material was to be screened”. Later, RCTV officials would maintain that they could not film pro-Bolivarian demonstrations for security reasons. Even if that were true, Izarra notes, footage of these demonstrations was available from sources such as CNN. RCTV also continued broadcasting reports that President Chavez had willfully resigned and left the country, even though Izarra notes that they were receiving news to the contrary, and that Mexico, Argentina, and France had all issued statements condemning the coup and refusing to recognize the new government. Conversely, the United States welcomed this illegal government.

Izarra says the last straw came for him when, “We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chavistas.[but] the information blackout stood. That’s when it was enough
for me, and I decided to leave”. Asked what he thought the response should be to this level of disinformation, Izarra replied, “I think their licenses should be revoked”. Having had enough of
corporate media’s complicity in blocking news reportage, Izarra now serves as head of Telesur, the joint news channel broadcast by the nations of Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Cuba.

As Patrick McElwee, of Just Foreign Policy, points out: “It is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chavez government waited
until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.” Despite their participation in the coup, the Chavez administration entered into repeated negotiations with RCTV and its partners,
Venevision, Globovision, and Television to make sure that such crass manipulation of the news would not occur again, and about other infractions. RCTV refused to reach any agreements.

Despite the nonrenewal of its broadcasting license, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be available to RCTV; moreover they will continue to broadcast through their two radio stations in
Venezuela. The new broadcasting license is being given to a public station, TVes-Venezuela Social Television, which will run shows produced mainly by independent parties. The station will be
controlled not by the government, but by a foundation of community members, with one chair reserved for a government representative. TVes also hopes to reach into some of the most remote areas of the nation, not covered before by RCTV.

THE COUP GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA FREEDOM-AN ALTERNATIVE?

There is, indeed, an example that shows a real alternative to how Pres. Chavez and the Bolivarian movement deals with freedom of the media and freedom of speech. The two-day coup government of
Pedro Carmona revealed that alternative.

But, first, let’s quickly review the general state of media freedom in Venezuela under the presidency of Hugo Chavez. Shortly after Chavez became president, media law was reformed so that
it became legal for anyone who could broadcast to do so. In the United States, many fans of underground and independent radio speak fondly of “pirate” radio-low powered, but illegal stations
broadcast from small, “renegade” transmitters. There are no “pirate” radio stations in Venezuela, because such stations are legal. Rather, there is a significant Community Media movement-community based and non-profit media production centers run locally by community volunteers.

Corporate and opposition media also have great freedom in Venezuela. In fact, the radio and television airwaves, and the print media as well, continue to be dominated by corporations which
support the opposition. There is no shortage of negative opinions and portrayals of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution-in fact, these remain the standard among the for-profit news and entertainment industry. This concept is strange to those of us in the United States, where official party lines and major news sources are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

But while corporate and community media both retain enormous freedoms in Venezuela, the April 11-13th, 2002 coup, and the two day coup government, provide a much different example. Once
interloper Pedro Carmona had declared himself President of Venezuela, among the very first actions taken by the coup government involved the suppression of Venezuela’s non-corporate media. Police troops answering to Carmona raided and shut down Channel 8, the government TV station. They ordered the Catholic Church’s Radio Fe y Alegria to play only music and not report national events, lest they also be shut down. Carmona’s raiders also hit a number of Community Media centers, closing down, among others, TV Caricua, Catia TV, and Radio Perola. Fortunately,
reporters from Catia TV and Radio Perola were able to escape and recapture their transmitters. Because of this, they were able to provide mobile broadcasts to the people of Venezuela of the
news that RCTV and its partners were blacking out.

Another action taken by the Carmona government was to release the persons who had been arrested in connection with the sniper attacks that instigated the coup. Instead, coup forces arrested independent journalist Nicolas Rivera and accused him of participating in these attacks. The only weapon Rivera had had with him during these demonstrations was a tape recorder-obviously considered a threat by coup plotters. Rivera was freed after the two-day coup was defeated and democratic government was reestablished. However, the scars of his detention remained, with his face disfigured by the torture he had endured while incarcerated. Rivera’s wife said that the forces that raided their home planted a sack of bullets on Rivera, beat both of them, and threatened to kill their children. Yet despite these attacks and threats to this journalist and his family, not one, single international organization in “defense” of press freedoms spoke out on behalf of Rivera. Perhaps it was in this case that Reporters Without Borders found its border.

Also silent about these attacks on freedom of speech and press were both houses of the US Congress, both parties, the Bush administration..no, there was no resolution of any kind
condemning the attacks by the coup government on these freedoms. Could that be because coup leaders were funded by Congress, via USAID and the so-called National Endowment for Democracy, and
were aided, abetted, and advised by the Bush Administration, the State Department, and the US military? Just maybe these factors were an influence.

Again: the Facts.

While Representatives and Senators weep bipartisan crocodile tears about supposed threats to media rights in Venezuela; while US and Venezuelan corporate press crow about the “unfair” targeting of
RCTV; while even some segments of the US Left express “concern” about press freedoms in Venezuela; an examination of the facts leads one to this clear conclusion: these folks are full of a
substance that emanates from the hind end of a male bovine.

Fact: not renewing the broadcasting license of coup plotters, lawbreakers, and liars like RCTV is the kind of thing it takes to defend Venezuela and make it the haven of free speech, free media,
and participatory democracy that it is today.

Want to learn more about the movement to change US policy toward Venezuela? Visit www.vensolidarity.org and be sure to join the Emergency Response Network to receive regular
action alerts!

Tags: The Contemptible Media, Imperial Policy by Greanville
No Comments »

Dateline: May 8, 2007

An Interview with Ben Dangl | By JOSHUA FRANK

Ben Dangl is the author of The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia (AK Press 2007) and the editor of Upside Down World, an online magazine that covers Latin American politics, and Toward Freedom, a progressive perspective on world events. Recently Dangl, who won a 2007 Project Censored Award for his coverage of US military operations in Paraguay, spoke with Joshua Frank about the emerging social movements in South America and how they are threatening Washington’s power in the region.

Joshua Frank: Ben, before we talk about the situation in Bolivia, I think it is important to discuss the history leading up to the current state of affairs in the country. Could you explain to us how and why Bolivia has been fighting the neoliberal agenda, and when this resistance began to gain strength?

Ben Dangl: Resistance to neoliberalism isn’t anything new for Bolivia. Most Bolivians live under the poverty line, earning less than $2 dollars a day. Over the course of history, from Spanish colonization to today, this poor majority has risen up against such exploitation. In 1936, Bolivia was one of the first countries in the world to kick out a foreign corporation and expropriate its assets. That corporation was New Jersey-based Standard Oil. They were kicked out of Bolivia for corruption, illegally exporting the country’s gas to Argentina and playing a heavy hand in initiating a war against Paraguay. In 1952, a revolution took place in Bolivia which put much of the mining industry under state control, redistributed land and expanded the right to vote to most citizens.

More recently, movements have developed against corporate privatization of water and gas. In 2000, citizens of Cochabamba, Bolivia united in protest against the Bechtel Corporation, which worked with the Bolivian government to increase water fees, privatize the city’s water system, communally built wells and irrigation systems. In 2003 a large movement emerged against a plan to export Bolivian gas to the US for a low price. Many protestors demanded that the gas be put under state control, and used in Bolivia for national development, instead of enriching foreign corporations. Bolivia’s landless movement has fought against the concentration of unused land in the hands of a few. In the same way unemployed workers in Argentina occupied bankrupt factories in the 2001-2002 economic crisis, these Bolivian farmers occupy unused land and work it with their families.

JF: Do you think that the growing trend in Bolivia against neoliberalism led to the victory of Evo Morales for president?

Pres. Evo Morales (l) is the first Latin American leader of direct indigenous origin.

BD: This is definitely the case. Neoliberal policies have wrecked Bolivia’s economy. The election of Evo Morales is in many ways a response to this economic failure. People see in Evo Morales an alternative to neoliberal business as usual. There are two specific conflicts which paved the way to his election.

One was the drug war in Bolivia, which has been a kind of military arm of neoliberalism. The coca leaf is a popular crop in Bolivia. Many farmers grow the leaf to survive. There is a vast, legal market for this leaf. It has been used for centuries by Andean people, and is an important part of indigenous cultures. It is used for medicine, is chewed or used in tea. Even the US embassy recommends using coca leaves as a cure for altitude sickness. Coca is also an ingredient in cocaine, and thus a target in the US funded drug war. Many poor coca growers have been repressed or killed in this war on coca, meanwhile the amount of cocaine available in the US and Europe remains the same or increases. Coca farmers organized unions to defend their right to grow coca, and resist military and police violence. Evo Morales came into politics through these coca unions. He was a coca farmer himself, and helped create the Movement Toward Socialism political party, which is an extension of these coca unions. The coca leaf came to be a key symbol in this party’s campaigns. The leaf represents anti-imperialism, indigenous coca, mining history (miners chew the leaf) and campesino struggles. The leaf united these diverse sectors. To a certain extent, this explains some of the popularity of Evo Morales, who has been able to unite different groups through this common symbol, this common struggle.

The 2003 Gas War also helped paved the way to the election of Evo Morales. In this protest movement, in which citizens rejected a plan to privatize and export Bolivian gas to the US, the president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was ousted from office. This created a space for the 2005 elections, as did the departure of president Carlos Mesa amidst similar protests. When Morales ran in 2005 he was in many ways riding the momentum of the 2003 and 2005 protest movement for gas nationalization. In his campaign he promised to put the country’s gas reserves under state control a clear alternative to neoliberalism. This promise significantly contributed to his electoral victory.

JF: How has the U.S. government responded to this new emerging pattern in Bolivia? And how is the country’s fight against the neoliberal agenda reflective of a larger struggle in the region? I’m thinking of President Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. In what ways has this movement impacted or influenced Morales and Bolivia’s politics?

BD: The US government has always been concerned with coca production in Bolivia, and that remains a controversial issue with Evo Morales, a former coca-grower, in office. Most of Bolivia’s gas goes to Brazil, Argentina and Chile, so partial gas nationalization in Bolivia doesn’t impact US markets as much as the state-run oil industry in Venezuela. Washington doesn’t like to see Bolivia as a leftist example to other governments in the region, and it is doesn’t like to see the very strong relationship between Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. What’s going on Bolivia politically and economically is happening with the help of funds, expertise and solidarity with Venezuela, and that worries Washington.

It’s important to point out that the political and social changes in Bolivia are very homegrown and grassroots, and not happening because of Venezuela’s example or lead. Bolivian land re-distribution, gas nationalization, the re-writing of the country’s constitution, redirecting government spending into more social programs and public services, these are all policies that have been demanded from below in Bolivia for decades. They are taking place now in part because of the victories forged in street mobilizations in recent years, and because of the administration of Evo Morales. However, Venezuelan advisors and money are helping with these projects.

Whereas US officials used to be all over Bolivia advising Bolivian politicians, now Venezuelans have filled their place. Venezuela is also lending money to Bolivia, replacing the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in certain ways. This new lending and advising lacks a neoliberal agenda and is directed at more of a socialistic method of political and economic changes. For example, the IMF or US embassy would give money and advice, but with neoliberal or imperialistic strings attached such as privatization of public water systems or increased militarization of coca growing areas. That isn’t happening with Venezuelan advice. This is all part of a growing integration and solidarity between left-leaning leaders in South America that isn’t based on bowing down to US government or US corporate interests. This is a historic shift that is powered by the failure of neoliberalism in South America, Venezuelan oil wealth and a need among the majority of Latin Americans for a viable economic and social alternative.

JF: What other nations in the region do you think are shifting against the US in terms of our economic and military policies in the region? Do you think this is more of a grassroots or a state led movement?

BD: Each country’s dynamics are different. I’ll speak of a few examples and projects. Trade and economic alliances outside the sphere of the US such as the Banco del Sur are limiting the possibility of a US dominated economic bloc in the region. Bolivia recently became a part of a People’s Trade Agreement (PTA), a progressive alternative to standard free trade agreements. It is based on collaborations between countries, increased public ownership of the economy, and sustainable trade relationships, rather than exploitative practices standard in other agreements-such as NAFTA and the FTAA. In April, 2006, Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia signed a PTA in a move toward creating a “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas,” a sustainable trade project to eliminate poverty throughout the region. In the PTA, Venezuela eliminated tariffs and opened its state buyers to Bolivian producers, policies which are not usually applied to Bolivia’s smaller economy. Through the PTA, both Venezuela and Cuba will send doctors and technicians to Bolivia, as well as provide health care and college scholarships for Bolivians. The PTA gives states more power over economic decisions and regulates the economy to help the poorest sectors of society instead of corporations.

As far as military and political shifts away from the US, some of the biggest advances in Argentina and Chile with their new leaders are in the area of human rights and investigations and justice regarding disappearances and torture under dictatorships. Ecuador’s new president Rafael Correa has also led the charge to rewrite the constitution, following in the recent footsteps of Venezuela and Bolivia. Other important shifts are happening in the area of military alliances. Venezuela has stopped sending its military to the School of the Americas (SOA) in the US. In Bolivia, however, the number of military officials sent to the SOA has risen under the Morales presidency. This could possibly be a strategy on the part of the Morales administration to keep the military on his side, rather than with the right wing civic groups and political parties based in Santa Cruz. In Ecuador, Rafael Correa has pushed the US military out of its base in Manta, Ecuador. In December, 2006 the Paraguayan Senate voted against the immunity previously granted to US troops operating in the country.

Where the political and social power is concentrated varies widely in each country. In Argentina, for example, the middle class plays a very key role in the way politics are done in the country. One of the reasons why the 2001-2002 economic crisis was so tumultuous for Argentina was because the middle class was directly impacted and hit the streets in solidarity with other economic classes. Now the middle class is content for the most part with administration of Nestor Kirchner, so he (or his wife) may very well win the next elections.

In Venezuela, many of the political and social changes that have happened since Chavez came into office in 1998 are based on more of a “top-down” organization of power. What’s happening in Venezuela is very much centralized around Chavez as a key and charismatic figure. In some cases the diversity of social programs and social spending are being applied to the country from above, from this centralized political environment. This is not the case in Bolivia, where the political power is still very much outside the realm of the state, of the government of Evo Morales. The grassroots power of social movements in Bolivia is perhaps stronger than anywhere else in the region. Much of the success under the Morales administration depends on the social movements to either radicalize his policies, or to create change outside the political sphere or reforms.

JF: So what do you think the future holds for Bolivia and how can they be successful at implementing these changes?

BD: Much depends on the success of Bolivia’s constitutional assembly. If the infighting and gridlock continues in the assembly, there is risk that conflicts over these divisive issues - such as land distribution, gas nationalization, coca, autonomy - could spill out into bloody conflicts in the streets rather than be solved at the negotiating table.

The Morales administration is up against a lot of challenges, both institutionally and economically. It’s no small task to reverse 500 years of looting and injustice. In order to navigate through the rough waters ahead, Morales and his government need to stay true to the radical course set for them by social movements in recent grassroots victories.

Bolivian social movements - unions, neighborhood councils, students, coca farmers, miners and landless movements - need to hold the administration’s feet to the flames, while remaining independent and avoiding political cooptation.

Joshua Frank is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush. He can be reached through his website, BrickBurner.org.

Tags: Obstinate History, Imperial Policy by Greanville
No Comments »

I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble…”

Cindy Sheehan | “Good Riddance Attention Whore” •
Cindy Sheehan | Letter to Democratic Congress •

Sheehan Quits as Face of US Anti-War Fight
By Dan Glaister
The Guardian UK | Dateline: Tuesday 29 May 2007

Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq three years ago, said yesterday she was stepping down from her role as the figurehead of the US campaign against the war.

“This is my resignation letter as the ‘face’ of the American anti-war movement,” she wrote in a sometimes bitter diary entry on the website Daily Kos. “I am going to take whatever I have left, and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children, and try to regain some of what I have lost.”

Ms Sheehan, 49, rose to prominence when she voiced her discontent with President George Bush’s policies when he met her and other grieving members of military families.

Announcing her decision on Memorial Day, the anniversary on which the US remembers its war dead, she said that her announcement had been prompted by the recent hostility she had faced from Democrats.

“I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican party,” she wrote. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic party to the same standards that I held the Republican party, support for my cause started to erode, and the ‘left’ started labelling me with the same slurs that the right used.”

On Saturday, in an open letter to Democratic members of Congress, she announced that she was leaving the party because she felt its leaders had failed to change the country’s course in Iraq.

She said that the most devastating conclusion she had reached after three years of protest, which included a trip to Cuba and the setting up of a protest camp outside Mr Bush’s Texas ranch, was that her son had died for nothing.

“I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful,” she wrote. “Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months.”

“Good Riddance Attention Whore”
By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Dateline in our fraternal site truthout: Tuesday 29 May 2007

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such “liberal blogs” as the Democratic Underground. Being called an “attention whore” and being told “good riddance” are some of the milder rebukes.

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day morning. These are not spur-of-the-moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of “right or left”, but “right and wrong.”

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be [put aside] when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an “attention whore” then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a “grateful” country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too … which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. This is not my “Checkers” moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or any more people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America … you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

*******************************
Letter to Democratic Congress
By Cindy Sheehan
Tuesday 29 May 2007

May 26, 2007
Dublin, Ireland

Dear Democratic Congress,

Hello, my name is Cindy Sheehan and my son Casey Sheehan was killed on April 04, 2004 in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq. He was killed when the Republicans still were in control of Congress. Naively, I set off on my tireless campaign calling on Congress to rescind George’s authority to wage his war of terror while asking him “for what noble cause” did Casey and thousands of other have to die. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, I have lost my optimistic naiveté and have become cynically pessimistic as I see you all caving into, as one Daily Kos poster called: “Mr. 28%”

There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands.

Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new weak as a newborn baby funding authorization bill: “Now, I think the president’s policy will begin to unravel.” Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political “courage” to hold them accountable? If Iraq hasn’t unraveled in Ms. Pelosi’s mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.

Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let’s face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House. Didn’t you see how “well” that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence-sitting and pandering? The American electorate are getting disgusted with weaklings who blow where the wind takes them while frittering away our precious lifeblood and borrowing money from our new owners, the Chinese.

I knew having a Democratic Congress would make no difference in grassroots action. That’s why we went to DC when you all were sworn in to tell you that we wanted the troops back from Iraq and BushCo held accountable while you pushed for ethics reform which is quite a hoot … don’t’ you think? We all know that it is affordable for you all to play this game of political mayhem because you have no children in harm’s way…let me tell you what it is like:

You watch your reluctant soldier march off to a war that neither you nor he agrees with. Once your soldier leaves the country all you can do is worry. You lie awake at night staring at the moon wondering if today will be the day that you get that dreaded knock on your door. You can’t concentrate, you can’t eat, and your entire life becomes consumed with apprehension while you are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Then, when your worst fears are realized, you begin a life of constant pain, regret, and longing. Everyday is hard, but then you come up on “special” days … like upcoming Memorial Day. Memorial Day holds double pain for me because, not only are we supposed to honor our fallen troops, but Casey was born on Memorial Day in 1979. It used to be a day of celebration for us and now it is a day of despair. Our needlessly killed soldiers of this war and the past conflict in Vietnam have all left an unnecessary trail of sorrow and deep holes of absence that will never be filled.

So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice. How can you even go to sleep at night or look at yourselves in a mirror? How do you put behind you the screaming mothers on both sides of the conflict? How does the agony you have created escape you? It will never escape me … I can’t run far enough or hide well enough to get away from it.

By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and MoveOn.org will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.

Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so “other presidents” can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into.

It used to be George Bush’s war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.

The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this “two” party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.

We do not condone our government’s violent meddling in sovereign countries and we condemn the continued murderous occupation of Iraq.

We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.

Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Founder and President of
Gold Star Families for Peace.

Founder and Director of The Camp Casey Peace Institute

Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Except for endorsing the views and information contained herein, Cyrano’s Journal Online has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is CJO endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Tags: The Left & Pseudo Left, Obstinate History, Mediocrats, Imperial Policy by Greanville
3 Comments »

BY PAUL A. DONOVAN

With the 2008 election approaching fast, I find myself with the same unsettled feeling I had in the last presidential race to the bottom. Perhaps it is because I feel that the age-old maxim, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” is as true for today as it was in 2004. Fact is, if we do not wake up quick, and start pressing the current Democratic Party front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, to be more leftist, or in other words to be more like Presidential candidate Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), then we can hope for little substantive change in the next administration.

Recent polls reflect that President Bush’s approval ratings have fallen to a staggering low of 28%. As a result, many feel confident that it may very well be an easy stroll into the Oval Office for most Democratic hopefuls, who seem to be operating under the illusion that Bush himself is running for a third term. If this assumption were false, how do we explain how little the front-runners have done to win our affection? Leaving all the spin-talk aside, what is their true vision for a new America? (I guess that in itself is a useless question, especially when attaching it to a professional pol.) And why are they so confident that they can defeat Time Magazine’s 2001 man of the year Rudy Giuliani with such ease? As a native New Yorker I know first hand how slippery Giuliani is, and he should not be underestimated—ever.

So far, the Democratic Party front-runners are behaving like a bunch of out of touch, over-privileged elites. The front-runners need to learn that the public—especially the Democratic base— won’t tolerate any more of the G.O.P-lite formula, which, to the party establishment’s shame, has come to typify recent elections. Contrary to their old stratagem of playing it safe, of cynical “triangulation,” a new formula must be adopted, one which presents the candidates as people of real conviction (assuming, of course, that there is someone in the front ranks who possesses this admirable quality). Without that there is no way to invigorate an otherwise alienated public, an electorate that feels more disenfranchised and apathetic than ever in regards to the search for a principled winner.

Flip-flops and examples to follow

The recent vote of “NO” against the Iraq spending bill by Senators Clinton and Obama came as a surprise to many of us, in light of their former support of the spending bill this past March. This change of heart by the front-runners clearly demonstrates that the candidates are responding to the negative publicity they have been receiving by commentators on the Internet, and the liberal wing of the Democratic party, who are vehemently opposed to letting the front-runners think we will accept “Anybody But Bush” as an alternative recipe for success. It failed Kerry and it will fail them if they don’t start taking a principled stance. It is very likely the Republicans will seize on the change in position as another reason to portray the Democrats as indecisive. The current frontrunners must have been aware this tap dancing technique would land them in hot water, but after calculating the risk, I suppose they felt it was worth it to respond to the public. See what playing the center gets you?

In light of all of their apparent shortcomings and evasions, it might be useful to ask them if they have comprehensive solutions in place to solve our myriad of problems, solutions that do not contain huge loopholes and compromises. Why is it that, so far, only Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich have bills on the floor attacking the roots of the health care crisis, and a plan for immediate withdrawal from Iraq? What’s more, Kucinich keeps making the correct voting decisions and has yet to waver on anything. In a town, in a political environment, where everything revolves around self-preservation and advancement, and the scrupulous avoidance of risk, some would say with ample justification that he has often gone beyond the call of duty. It it that maybe Kucinich needs to receive 25-26 million dollars in contributions for media campaigns before he will be taken seriously? I guess “money talks” after all—literally.

Meanwhile, Congressman Kucinich, who, unsurprisingly, receives little to no media attention, and for some odd reason which defies all reason, is every “realistic” voter’s worst nightmare, has a concrete plan to end the war in Iraq starting right away, as outlined under bill H.R. 1234, as well as the Universal Health care bill known as H.R. 676 which is brilliantly designed as “Medicare for all.” What are the frontrunner’s plans to handle the health care crisis, and a clear exit strategy for the troops in Iraq? So far I have seen them do nothing but pay lip service to the issue that effects 46 million Americans, and many more under insured, not to mention the 600,000 plus dead Iraqi’s and Americans, who are suffering for a war Hillary Clinton voted for. I suppose the largest demonstrations in the history of humankind didn’t signal to Senator Clinton that maybe voting for this debacle was a bad idea, and then afterwards continuing to attack Bush, while slipping a blank check under the table so he may carry out his exploits. Furthermore Senator Obama and  Clinton have recently voted to reauthorize a slightly watered down version of Bush’s Patriot act, while  Dennis  Kucinich, yes folks, you guessed it, voted it down, with a swift raise of the hand.

It takes no more than five minutes to examine Denis Kucinich’s policies, and to realize that they are every progressive’s dream come true. Kucinich provides the left with a new route, which would steer America clear of impending disasters. If this enormous cruise ship does go down, the waters will be much more brisk, and painful than when the actual Titanic sank - we can be sure of that. If I sound hyperbolic, than I must stress that you reevaluate the current predicament.  Dennis Kucinich may not win the great American billion-dollar beauty pageant/popularity contest we call “presidential election” in this confounded nation, but he still may win a few hearts by actually telling the truth, a novel concept he thought to introduce into American politics.

Not content with a record that many of these media favorites would envy for sheer honesty, Dennis Kucinich has also filed impeachment papers against Dick Cheyney, a man emblematic of the revolting corruption and criminality that characterizes this system, and, as mentioned earlier, has bills ready to go on such urgent matters as “Medicare for All.” In addition to that, he has endorsed a policy that involves a multilateral coalition effort to rebuild Iraq. As we know, the United States plutocrats and energy corporations don’t want multilateral help because there is too much potential profit under the ground in the Middle East…if they only could get pesky Iran out of the picture, and grab their oil while they are at it, too. This is thieves’ calculus, and the whole world knows it, even if the American media and people do not.

Putting the ear to the ground

To Senator Obama’s credit he did vote “NO” on CAFTA, which he should be credited for. However, and not to Obama’s credit, the newly elected Senator has already started to apply camouflage warpaint, to appear ready to handle any “threat of terror from Iran.” Recently Senator Obama started beating the drums and ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran when he stated,  “All options are on the table” with Iran, while repeating the poisoned media mantra, that they are “developing nuclear capabilities.” This bold statement by Obama excludes the fact that it is the right of Iran to develop nuclear energy, and if they are developing weapons they should be supervised by the international community, not another agency of the by now most hated nation in the region, who as we all know, is interested in oil, and “stabilizing” the region strictly in its own terms.

At the same moment Gary Kasparov is being harassed by Russian police, the Democrats here at home, are in a scurry to the center of the political chessboard to appear to the public as “tough on terror” once again, just like their corporate counterparts in the G.O.P. Have they all forgotten, or did they never know or care, that it is our government’s meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, such as the history of propping up oppressive regimes such as the Shah and his SAVAK in Iran, hot and cold wars in Iraq, selling both sides chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war (which, as Jesse Jackson notes “we have the receipts for”), or our governments politico-economic love affair with the decadent Saudi Royal family? These are just a fraction of the crimes and irritations that are enraging “terrorists” and Arab nationalists alike, and which have created another Frankenstein generation of more ferocious terrorists, and demagogues than we have to deal with now…yep, as we all know, thanks to our wonderful foreign policy, whose motto should be “not a country left behind.”

Any rational thinking human with the intelligence of a stick of Juicy Fruit can easily arrive at the logical conclusion that the facts just stated would signal to our government that maybe it is time for a clear change in policy, but instead the Newspeak wisdom being touted by our politicians and their counterparts in the billionaire-controlled media, is that this raging desert fire is mostly a result of warring sects with different religious interpretations of Islam.

What level of narcissism do these politicians need to display before they have officially lost our complete confidence? Do we need to quickly go down memory lane…just to 2003 when all this extraordinary adventure officially began? First the authorization and implementation of an ingenious plan to start an immoral preemptive war with a bullying anteroom called “Shock and Awe”…the whole criminal exercise according to these crooks intended to spread democracy in a nation we never gave one damn for as evidenced by the destruction we have rained on it for almost 3 decades…and which we continue to this day. Naturally, considering the greed that courses through some of the corridors that determine US foreign policy, it doesn”t matter one whit that almost the entire population of Iraq (except maybe for the Kurds) wants us out; that we are perceived as occupation troops and not as “liberators;” that some of our soldiers are returning home so psychologically distraught that they are killing themselves in increasing numbers; and that even some upper echelons of the US military are now also thinking that Iraq is far too costly an investment to maintain without damaging the force for years to come.

Splitting hairs if it’s politically convenient

Most people feel the Iraqis and the American soldiers are both victims of this war, yet Obama doesn’t evidence the same sympathy, and instead is happy to follow the line of least resistance and scapegoat the Iraqis as the primary problem preventing peace in Iraq.

“To reach such a solution, we must communicate clearly and effectively to the factions in Iraq that the days of asking, urging, and waiting for them to take control of their own country are coming to an end. No more coddling, no more equivocation. Our best hope for success is to use the tools we have – military, financial, diplomatic – to pressure the Iraqi leadership to finally come to a political agreement between the warring factions that can create some sense of stability in the country and bring this conflict under control.” 

In the most matter-of-fact fashion Glen Ford, editor of the Black Agenda Report, responded to this statement by quipping acidly that, “The U.S. has ‘coddled’ 600,000 Iraqis to death.” Of course, in May 2007 Senator Obama sings a different tune, and, along with Sen. Clinton, states with unconvincing resolve that “enough is enough”, and that “we cannot give a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”
By now, at least some of us recognize that Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a careerist establishment politician, a characterization requiring little explanation, but Barak Obama still has the audacity to present himself as a “champion of the people,” claiming to be a man sensitive to the plight of the struggling American worker and the “Middle Class.” Yet a statement in his new book declares without any sense of shame or contradiction that, “Serious concern over the nation’s harsh disparities is consigned to leftist ‘cranks’ and other assorted ‘unreasonable zealots.’” Does this sound like a man in touch with what this country needs to get done?

Senator Obama’s statements lead us to presume that he feels that those who speak out against socio economic injustice, and 46 million still living without healthcare, are simply whiney babies who don’t appreciate all they have. Obama, basking in the establishment’s embrace, acts as if the working people of this country owed these corporate criminals something; even if it is they, after all, who are collecting the most welfare. It is too unfair to suggest that, fully in his establishment persona Barack Obama sounds like a right-wing Harvard crank, totally out of touch with his roots as a community organizer in Chicago, and who in his climb to power “inadvertently” erased his memory of what it is like for everyday people? Barack, take a tour of the real Washington DC area, for example, leave the fancy confines of the Beltway, and reacquaint yourself with the reasons why us “cranks” feel distressed about domestic inequities.

A party worth voting for

I urge those who haven’t recovered yet from the post traumatic stress disorder of blaming Nader for Gore’s defeat in 2000 to get over it quick, ant not be afraid to get tough on the frontrunners. I am well aware that many think voting for Dennis Kucinich is impractical or an impossible victory, and which may have a similar precipitous effect, as the 2000 election. If you won’t cast a vote for a candidate you feel has no chance, please at least consider demanding that the Democratic Party frontrunners themselves abandon the “G.O.P. Lite” centrist formula which lost Kerry and Gore their elections, and make sure they start sounding (and feeling, if that were possible) more like Kucinich. If the mainstream Democrats happen to win and don’t follow through on their promises, they should be reminded that we, the people, within our constitutional rights, will demand they get out of office immediately, or they will have to answer to a politically conscious, and completely disaffected public.
I often find myself having flashbacks to 2004 as I watched Ralph Nader walk into a conference room with John Kerry to give last minute advice on how to drive the nail into the coffin of baby Bush’s campaign. As we watched the doors behind them close shut, I thought to myself maybe Nader could appeal to the once anti-war activist, turned Ketchup guru John Kerry. When the doors reopened my fears had once again been realized, but it was not in the least bit surprising. As Nader walked out of the room trying to mask the disenchantment on his face, and the defeat in his eyes, I knew at that moment that Kerry had said that Nader’s advice was “too risky or too left for his liking.”

Nader knew that if John Kerry didn’t become more than just an “Anybody But Bush” that he would not be able to conquer the fear mongering, and “tough on terror” platform of the Republicans. As was anticipated, Nader proved to be once again correct. Even though Kerry ostensibly won most of the debates, he did not win the hearts and minds of the people nearly enough, which could have inspired them to go and vote in even greater numbers, armed with a hope for the future, instead of simply being motivated by the near paralyzing fear of another four years of George Bush. The sins of the 2004 election have not been so easily washed away by the ebb and flow of time, there is more blood on our shores now, and the stains of the Kerry defeat have by no means disappeared from the American psyche. Hopefully the 2008 election can draw in more voters than a vote for American Idol.

I was quite confident that Bush would win again a year before the election took place, quite certain in my prediction because I had seen the obvious: that the “GOP Lite” formula is a bankrupt centrist ideology with no principles, and which inspires far too few to go out and vote the decadent neocon murderers out of power once and for all…

I urge readers to mobilize and vote against the “Anybody But Bush” formula for victory. History has been overly gracious and patient with us, and has kindly granted us a bit more room to maneuver, and maybe a small chance to redeem ourselves, even in the wake of eight years of George W. Bush. But history doesn’t stand still, or return to the exact same point in time over and over again, even though things at first glance seem similar. Thus, while, if lucky, we might just survive this regime’s second term, four years of another Reaganite might very well be the curtain call for what is left of our fading republic. not to mention much of the world.

If we are, as some adduce, actors on the stage of history, I suggest we all note that we are approaching the final scene if we don’t adjust our failed formulas.  If we don’t follow the path of social justice, as Kucinich has challenged us to do, we won’t be able to whittle away at the apathy and cynicism which infect the hearts and minds of people all over this vast nation. “Anybody But Bush” is not strong enough of a vision to steer us out of harm’s way.

Maybe now that Senator Obama has tasted his own blood again by voting “No” to Bush’s 120 billionaire check, he himself will be ready to draw up a bill to give us real Universal Healthcare, and have a clear exit strategy for Iraq just as Kucinich has already done. We see through you Senators Obama and Clinton, and we will not be fooled this time around. Either get tough or get out of the way and give Edwards and Kucinich a shot. I would feel much more confident having a Kucinich-Edwards ticket than a Obama-Clinton ticket, even if their belated conversions, which may prove illusory, align them, at last, with the majority of their party’s grassroots.

—Paul A. Donovan is Cyrano’s Journal’s Assistant Editor

—FINIS—

Tags: The Left & Pseudo Left, Imperial Policy by Greanville
No Comments »