On Sept. 24th, there is going to be an anti-war demostration in Washington. Anyone interested in going?



http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VTI_homepage





Cat

Too far ahead to plan, but it sounds great.  Hope it gets enough play to give bushie/cheney/rove
a run for their money(of which they have plenty) :)

Definitely sounds like something I'd be interested in.

I'm usually not one to demonstrate, but my outrage at this war is becoming off the charts.  >:(

I, too, need to wait and see, but as I'm not too far away from DC it wouldn't take a lot of advance planning.

I wish I could! Too far!  :\'(

Tanya

If I can manage it, I'll be there!

impeachbush


I guess the democrats aren't bright enough to figure out who controls the house of representatives.  Clinton got impeached, Bush won't.  Get over it.

I guess the democrats aren't bright enough to figure out who controls the house of representatives.  Clinton got impeached, Bush won't.  Get over it.


I, for one, am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican.  I actually tried both and found them dissatisfying. 

What exactly is your basis for supporting this war? 

What exactly is your basis for supporting this war? 


Who said I did?

Nah, I don't think al qaeda responds much to protests.

And Bush dosen't respond to Al Quada.  That's why he went into Iraq.

I guess the democrats aren't bright enough to figure out who controls the house of representatives.  Clinton got impeached, Bush won't.  Get over it.

The Republican majority Cheney presides over is made up of ruthless thugs and sniveling syncophants.  The Downing Street Memo is just the beginning.  This Administration will prove to be the most crooked in the history of the republic, but it won't matter.  If Bush's iniquities go uncensured, the republic is over. 
When you can impeach one president for lying about a BJ, and the next president gets away with sending 1700 soldiers to die for ExxonMobil, we are being ruled by sheer force and not Constitution nor legal code.

I guess the democrats aren't bright enough to figure out who controls the house of representatives.  Clinton got impeached, Bush won't.  Get over it.




Get over having our civil liberties taken away? Get over having the Constitution being shredded to pieces? Get over our freedoms being taken away? Get over having thousand of American men and women (not to mention Iraqi men, women AND children) died for a lie?

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing


At least a March on Washington is SOMETHING. If there are enough people there, maybe, just maybe, those people who sit on Capital Hill will realize that the American people are fed up with how this country is being run into the ground. And one thing you forgot, is that there are mid-term elections coming up in about a year and a half and I see a few seats being turned over-like one in particular from Texas. There will also be a seat up for grabs in VT, too since Bernie will be running for the Senate. So, it is VERY POSSIBLE that Bush could be impeach and when and if that happens, it would be a great day for this country. It will be a day when our Union is perserved!





Cat

Get over having our civil liberties taken away? Get over having the Constitution being shredded to pieces? Get over our freedoms being taken away? Get over having thousand of American men and women (not to mention Iraqi men, women AND children) died for a lie?

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing


At least a March on Washington is SOMETHING. If there are enough people there, maybe, just maybe, those people who sit on Capital Hill will realize that the American people are fed up with how this country is being run into the ground. And one thing you forgot, is that there are mid-term elections coming up in about a year and a half and I see a few seats being turned over-like one in particular from Texas. There will also be a seat up for grabs in VT, too since Bernie will be running for the Senate. So, it is VERY POSSIBLE that Bush could be impeach and when and if that happens, it would be a great day for this country. It will be a day when our Union is perserved!





Cat

The coup the corporate fatcats have wanted since the New Deal succeeded with the junta that was the first Bush Administration.  It was strengthened by the 2002 and 2004 elections.  I don't see them giving us the Republic back within legal means.  The Republican junta won't let the impeachment of Bush go forward no matter how strong the case is.  Even the Republicans with conscience will be strong armed by the Right. 

I fear Sanders will be assassinated if he's elected.  Maybe he won't go by bullet, but an unfortunate accident, like Paul Wellestone.

I suspect we will be there.  Been a long time since I marched on Washington.  Time to get out the picket signs and raise a bit of he11.


I wish I could! Too far! :\'(

Tanya


Organize one in LA, actually, I bet its already being done.


I guess the democrats aren't bright enough to figure out who controls the house of representatives. Clinton got impeached, Bush won't. Get over it.


The Democrats have nothing to do with this.  This is a grass roots movement, and it is gaining strength.  You boy is in trouble.

I suspect we will be there.  Been a long time since I marched on Washington.  Time to get out the picket signs and raise a bit of he11.





You know we have a place to stay with my dad, even though he will have a comment or two to make about it.  ::)




Cat

Who said I did?


With a name like GWBush2004...ok, you're saying you don't support it then?

With a name like GWBush2004...ok, you're saying you don't support it then?


I don't even know anymore.  I support the war on terror and I think if we win in Iraq it will deal a blow to the muslim terrorists over in the middle east.  But at the same time, is something like 1,700 American soldiers worth it?  What do I care about the Iraqis?  I don't want to see our soldiers die.

Only the most delusional  Red State Republican would say this country is in better shape now than when President Clinton handed it over to Bush to run into the ground.

Bush's Amerika 2001-2005

The past is bleak.
The present is dismal.
There is no future.

I don't even know anymore.  I support the war on terror and I think if we win in Iraq it will deal a blow to the muslim terrorists over in the middle east.  But at the same time, is something like 1,700 American soldiers worth it?  What do I care about the Iraqis?  I don't want to see our soldiers die.


I don't feel it's worth it -- at all. 

Iraq is not and never was the problem.  Al Qaeda perpetrated the acts of September 11.  We should have focused on finding Bin Laden and other Al Qaedas rather than going into Iraq.  Bush couldn't continue to search for Bin Laden because that would mean challenging his buddies in Saudi Arabia. 

Saddam was an evil dictator -- no doubt about it.  But for a Western country to go in there and think a Western-style democracy can be built in its place is completely unrealistic.  I'm no expert on world politics, but it didn't take much thought to predict that once Saddam fell, many others exactly like him would rise up and fight for his place.  It's a losing battle. 

This sounds harsh -- but countries like Iraq, Israel, Palestine, and anywhere else where violence is regarded as a mainstream, acceptable way of dealing with conflict should just be left alone.  If the people destroy each other, they destroy each other.  There are educated people from these countries sitting in ivory towers all over America and Europe -- they are the ones who should be bringing this knowledge home.  It's not our job!  I am outraged everytime I hear about the US spending money to "rebuild" Iraq.  What about Brooklyn?  What about Gary, Indiana?  I don't have a problem with our supporting African countries where peaceful tribes are overtaken by militant groups.  I do have a problem with any sort of involvement in countries where the majority of citizens aren't outraged at the rampant violence.

We should work to eradicate Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda only, keeping in mind that it's not necessarily quantity of troops that'll lead to victory in this case, but quality.  These terrorists have very warped minds, and our military needs to use its good minds to find these people and kill them, one-two-three, painlessly if possible. 

And hello -- we need to control who comes in and out of here.  Heck, I'd advocate a moratorium on anyone coming into the US for a year -- even for business or tourism.  We need to investigate who is here -- and if they have ANY ties to terrorism, ship 'em out.

Long rant, I know, and slightly disjointed.  It just bugs me that so many Americans are sucked into thinking this war is a good thing.

AnnieBanannie wrote:
What about Gary, Indiana?
There's no oil in Gary.  Besides it's in the United States, so there are laws to obey.  Both facts make Gary an extremely bad investment prospect form a Halliburton perspective!
Your point relates to what I have been saying.  The corporate bosses have used America and thrown it away like an old dishrag.  It's disgusting how Indiana went for Bush by such a margin.  Bush and the Republicans do everything in the power to help the capitalist few get richer at the expense of the rest of us.  They have zero interest in reinvigorating the American interior.  From the rotting rust built to the draining Great Plains, we need a Marshall Plan for America.  The first step is putting a stop to corporate looting and negligence.  The only people who would fight for the American working class--such as Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Brown, and Bernie Sanders--are called "radicals" and "whackos" by the dirtbags of the corporate media.
So the Republicans continue to p*ss and moan about Kofi Annan like the proverbial Nero fiddling while Rom burns!

I don't feel it's worth it -- at all. 

Iraq is not and never was the problem.  Al Qaeda perpetrated the acts of September 11.  We should have focused on finding Bin Laden and other Al Qaedas rather than going into Iraq.  Bush couldn't continue to search for Bin Laden because that would mean challenging his buddies in Saudi Arabia. 

Saddam was an evil dictator -- no doubt about it.  But for a Western country to go in there and think a Western-style democracy can be built in its place is completely unrealistic.  I'm no expert on world politics, but it didn't take much thought to predict that once Saddam fell, many others exactly like him would rise up and fight for his place.  It's a losing battle. 

This sounds harsh -- but countries like Iraq, Israel, Palestine, and anywhere else where violence is regarded as a mainstream, acceptable way of dealing with conflict should just be left alone.  If the people destroy each other, they destroy each other.  There are educated people from these countries sitting in ivory towers all over America and Europe -- they are the ones who should be bringing this knowledge home.  It's not our job!  I am outraged everytime I hear about the US spending money to "rebuild" Iraq.  What about Brooklyn?  What about Gary, Indiana?  I don't have a problem with our supporting African countries where peaceful tribes are overtaken by militant groups.  I do have a problem with any sort of involvement in countries where the majority of citizens aren't outraged at the rampant violence.

We should work to eradicate Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda only, keeping in mind that it's not necessarily quantity of troops that'll lead to victory in this case, but quality.  These terrorists have very warped minds, and our military needs to use its good minds to find these people and kill them, one-two-three, painlessly if possible. 

And hello -- we need to control who comes in and out of here.  Heck, I'd advocate a moratorium on anyone coming into the US for a year -- even for business or tourism.  We need to investigate who is here -- and if they have ANY ties to terrorism, ship 'em out.

Long rant, I know, and slightly disjointed.  It just bugs me that so many Americans are sucked into thinking this war is a good thing.


I agree with alot of things that you said.  You are one of the few people here who sounds "fair and balanced".  You have made valid points for both sides.  Although it is much more complicated than the statement I am going to make as to my reason behind supporting Bush, I think you will probably understand the main point of it.

9/11.  So many lives lost.  So many people complaining that our government SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.  SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING.  DID KNOW IT WAS COMING.  DIDN'T REACT. 

Which leads to this question:  What if we HAD done something?  Suppose Bush ordered a pre-emptive strike based on intelligence and disrupted Al-Qaeda to the point that 9/11 was stopped?  All those lives would have been saved.  Since nobody would have known for certain that 9/11 was about to happen, what kind of reaction would Bush have gotten?  WE HAD NO RIGHT?  IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL?  WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PROOF?  THIS IS AN ILLEGAL WAR?

In many areas of our lives, we make choices.  Even the tiniest choice like what street to take to a certain destination.  We never know what would have happened if we made a different choice.  But what I do know, is that there haven't been any terrorist attacks on American soil since Bush took action.  Of course, I hate to hear about the deaths of our military overseas...and I wish the insurgents would understand that if they would stop killing IRAQIS as well as AMERICANS, we would be able to bring our troops home.  I feel that the ball is in their court.  If they want us to leave, all they have to do is allow the Iraqi government to regain control.

I agree with alot of things that you said.  You are one of the few people here who sounds "fair and balanced".  You have made valid points for both sides.  Although it is much more complicated than the statement I am going to make as to my reason behind supporting Bush, I think you will probably understand the main point of it.

9/11.  So many lives lost.  So many people complaining that our government SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.  SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING.   DID KNOW IT WAS COMING.  DIDN'T REACT. 

Which leads to this question:  What if we HAD done something?  Suppose Bush ordered a pre-emptive strike based on intelligence and disrupted Al-Qaeda to the point that 9/11 was stopped?  All those lives would have been saved.  Since nobody would have known for certain that 9/11 was about to happen, what kind of reaction would Bush have gotten?  WE HAD NO RIGHT?   IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL?  WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PROOF?   THIS IS AN ILLEGAL WAR?

In many areas of our lives, we make choices.  Even the tiniest choice like what street to take to a certain destination.  We never know what would have happened if we made a different choice.  But what I do know, is that there haven't been any terrorist attacks on American soil since Bush took action.  Of course, I hate to hear about the deaths of our military overseas...and I wish the insurgents would understand that if they would stop killing IRAQIS as well as AMERICANS, we would be able to bring our troops home.  I feel that the ball is in their court.  If they want us to leave, all they have to do is allow the Iraqi government to regain control.

The trouble generally starts when the United States government sticks its fingers in somebody else's pie.  We stirred up a hornet's nest by keeping our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War.  Osama Bin Laden took his share of his family's oil money to fund Al Qaeda and make trouble for Americans abroad in the 1990s.  In 2001, he brought his evil terror to America itself.   Scared the living crap out of us, and rightly so.  I still allow for a slight possibility 9/11 was pulled off by the Bush administration, but the evidence I have seen for this conspiracy has been debunked. 
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

I think it was Al Qaeda, but I'm not closed to evidence the U.S. has its hands dirty with foreknowledge and collusion, if such evidence comes to light.

There are arguments over whether Clinton could have "gotten" Osama in the 1990s, and if Osama had been arrested, maybe 9/11 wouldn't happened. 
Debunked:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008

There are other arguments as to whether the Bushies could have stopped 9/11 if they hadn't ignored prior warnings.

http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911

If Odyssey's hypothetical came to pass, and Bush sucessfully sent forces in to wipe out Al Qaeda and arrest Osama in the spring of 2001, I don't doubt Bush detractors would have pointed the fiinger and accused him of prosecuting and illegal military action.  If investigators had uncovered Al Qaeda's plans to attack the WTC and the Pentagon, such a military action would be vindicated in the eyes of most Americans.  There would still be some who would accuse the government of falsifying the evidence, or whatever.  The trouble with working in hypotheticals about what might have happened is you're talking about what DIDN'T happen.

The Bushies never caught Osama Bin Laden.  The Bushies attacked Iraq and became indignant at those who said they were doing it for oil.  No one has yet come up with credible evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.  All evidence points to Iraq having NO weapons of mass destruction after 1991.  Scott Ritter, head of the U.S. weapons inspections program, went around the country saying so prior to the invasion.  He was written of as a crank and a traitor.  Now the "Downing Street Memo" is affirming what Ritter tried to tell us.  The Right is trying dismiss the DSM too (surprise, surprise!)

When we talk about America right or wrong today, I am more interested in the future.  Whether America is attacked again depends on how America treats other nations, how America uses its power, how the motives of corporate America are perceived abroad.  We have a problem when we have a run away class of super rich that keeps getting richer and more powerful, zooming way ahead of the rest of the citizenry.  When a tiny cabal of business barons gets to determine national policy for the benefit of their own financial interests, the rest of the world catches on, and they hate us for it. 

Do not come to the simplistic conclusion that if America is wrong, the terrorists are right.  That's a red herring.  Of course the terrorists are wrong, but that doesn't automatically make the American government right.  To me, the real issue less about right and wrong, and more about action and reaction. 

Must we rely on foreign oil in the long run?  Can we rely on petroleum to forever meet our energy needs?  The answer to both is No.  If strip mining the Alaskan wilderness would give us infinite oil, I might be for it.  The trouble is we don't have infinite atmosphere. 

China and India want what America has.  They can't have it.  The world ecology can't possibly afford it.  It looks like America's affluence is not sustainable either.  However, America continues to act as if it is.  America continues to suck up an outrageous volume of the planet's resources in proportion to its percentage of the world's population.

The right-wing says the other guys are "just jealous."  They also say that guys like me are "just jealous" when we criticize America's own super-rich.  This is a stupid and cowardly analysis.  If anything will invite terror and bloodshed, it is such crass arrogance.

Citizens of conscience must bear this in mind when we call for the impeachment of Bush, when we march on Washington at the end of the summer.  Those of us who object to the American power structure that makes the privileged few filthy rich and sinks the rest of us into lower and lower living standards must remember the powerful don't give up power without things getting ugly.  Terribly ugly!  It may make the Civil Rights struggles of 20th century look like a Sunday school picnic, but the power has got to be seen for what it is---a death sentence for humanity--and defeated.

The trouble generally starts when the United States government sticks its fingers in somebody else's pie. 


Very true.  Many nations of this world remind me of the typical teenager.  "Support me.  Feed us.  Give us medical care.  Send us money.  But, dam-mit, stay out of our business!"

This causes a dilemma that I think both Republicans and Democrats can relate to.  If the US were to completely back away from world affairs, both financially and politically, I would support it.  The problem though, is what do we do when nations like North Korea and Iran begin to develop nuclear weapons that could destroy the US?  Should we attack them?  No.  Should we pay them to stop making them?  Definitely NOT.  I think the majority of world leaders realize that nuclear weapons are not toys.  North Koreans and Iranians, unlike Al Qaeda-types actually value their lives, and realize that if they actually USED a nuclear weapon against the US, they would be DEAD in in matter of minutes.  I would rather see the US work toward some technology to deflect any attacks against our nation.  I would rather see the money put into homeland security instead of paying off countries to do what we want them to do.

Thought that I would bump this thread up to remind everyone about this weekend. Unfortunately, we are not going because of several personal reasons that I won't get into. But, if anyone else is planning to go, please let us know how it goes.





Cat

Very true. Many nations of this world remind me of the typical teenager. "Support me. Feed us. Give us medical care. Send us money. But, dam-mit, stay out of our business!"



Not teenagers, this sounds like a lot of American grownups.

I know people who want to go, but all buses anywhere between here and Albany, Worcester, Hartford, and Brattleboro are totally booked.  That ought to tell you something!
:)