March Against the War Worldwide, March 17, 2007

[cenacle]

MARCH ON WASHINGTON D.C. & WORLDWIDE PROTEST
SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 2007
4th Anniversary of the U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Iraq

http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?ab ... le&id=8033

I'd like to say I feel more hopeful in recent days regarding the US Congress, but what I see are cowards, fucking blunt open cowards, unable to risk too much for what's right, and people in Iraq are dying, and more are dying, and I can't say cleanly how this makes me feel, it pisses me the fuck off...fucking cowards in the Democratic leadership, and droning mutes in the Republican...none of them add up to anything at all...

I'm not alone, millions are sickened by this War...I hope my impatience will not prove to much, but I simply don't see action...fuck you all in Washington DC for letting this criminal war go on, and letting the criminals in the White House go on and on, unpunished for their countless brutal actions...

there's going to be a worldwide protest against the War in mid-March, and I must say I have not been out in the streets since four years ago when we tried to stop it from beginning...but I am feeling like it's time for the streets again, and again, and again...DO WHAT'S RIGHT GET US OUT OF THIS WAR THIS CRIME AGAINST ALL THE WORLD...fuck, man, FUCK!

[cenacle]

Democrats back away from Iraq plan
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer

Published February 26, 2007 at Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_ ... RYzMrMWM0F

Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.

"Iraq is going to be there â€" it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.

The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops."

Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure â€" as Murtha has proposed â€" Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.

The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.

While the public is fed up with Iraq, there is little consensus over what to do.

Internal divisions, Republican opposition and a president who â€" while weakened â€" still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing for a way to change the war's course.

The Democrats' symbolic measure disapproving of Bush's troop buildup passed the House only to stall in the Senate. The House plan to place strict restrictions on war funding appears to lack enough support within Democratic ranks to succeed, and looks likely to be scaled back, considering Pelosi's latest comments. The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack enough votes to be approved, and action on it now is likely to be put off â€" at least for the week.

The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.

"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq â€" now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."

Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush's war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.

"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."

But Democrats also are worried about being at odds with public opinion as House and Senate leaders push divergent measures.

House Democrats, who enjoy a 32-seat majority, will try this week to determine if there is enough support among themselves to pass the Murtha plan. Senate Democrats will discuss whether to postpone action on the war reauthorization, as Reid suggested.

Bush told governors Monday that he looked forward to a "healthy debate" on Iraq, but warned Congress against limiting funding for the war or commanders' flexibility in waging it.

"I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don't agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it's important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job," Bush said.

Democrats' troubles finding a strategy on the war reflect a wider lack of consensus among the public about what course to take in Iraq. AP-Ipsos polls show that while a clear majority are pessimistic about the war and oppose a buildup, most people do not support cutting funding for the troops.

Zbigniew Brzesinski, Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, said Democrats "run the risk of losing momentum."

They would be better off pushing some simple policy statements that could garner Republican support â€" such as opposition to establishing permanent bases in Iraq or to further expansion of the war â€" than trying to find a way to tie Bush's hands, he said.

"One has to be very careful not to get involved in micromanaging a military engagement," Brzesinski added.

Bush still enjoys substantial advantage when it comes to trumpeting his message on the war, even though his image and clout suffered major blows in last fall's elections.

Democrats, by contrast, have a cacophony of voices â€" including several presidential candidates â€" weighing in on what to do next in Iraq.

"The party's not unified. Until you control the executive branch, you really don't have a party â€" you have all these independent actors," Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Defense Department official, said of the Democrats' plight.

[cenacle]

That Yahoo story really broke me up, I cannot believe that there is ANY issue the US Congress should be working on now ahead of the War. Bush is playing it out perfectly, letting the Dems fight among themselves, privately threatening the Republicans not to break ranks, ignoring the public even as he claims to respect opinion and debate. This situation has got to come to a head. Polls show Bush is despised and his war has no supporters left. What is the stall? I just don't know. But I do know that I am angry enough to go back into the streets, it's like the whole thing broke in me when I saw that story. They united to win an election but not for the REASON they won. It's all too much. I've been trying to keep my distance from this but there's no choice, Bush will bomb Iran if the protests are not daily and in the millions. He's waiting, just ready to hit the trigger, no matter what the military leaders say about being stretched to breaking. The ugly bubble has to burst. I can't see any other way. Peace doesn't come from wishing it so, not with lunatics forever taking the crown in hand. I'm so furious tonight with all of this, so sad.

[laughingwillow]

Its bidness as usual. Some things never change. The republicans impeach a dem president for a blow job and the dems allow Bush to trample across the world unfettered under false pretext with the promise of not holding him responsible.

The dems and repubs are two sides of the same coin. Always have been and always will. The rest is sham illusion. Always has been, always will be.

lw

[cenacle]

I don't believe that LW, because I have witnessed the difference between Democratic and Republican leadership of the country. The problem I see is one of cowardice in the current leadership. Reid and Pelosi simply aren't doing everything balls-out to stop the war, it's not that they don't want to. They are being careerists, protecting their backsides, maybe believing that they can strengthen their hand for future anti-war legislation by getting other kinds of legislation done, such as the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

The sea change last fall was the will of the people, not the Congress. Did the Dems really think they would win the Congress? I don't think so. They played it out, but I don't believe they thought it would happen. It did. And what's more, it's going to happen again in '08. As the MoveOn guy says in that Yahoo piece, we're watching.

The Democrats need new, ballsier leadership. Brave, believers in rights and liberty and democracy. The problem is that the progressive voices like Feingold, Kennedy, Kucinich, Obama, Feingold, are not the leaders of the party. The party is still led by old-schoolers who put party above the people.

When the Democrats, or Republicans, or whomever, have been visionary, in ending slavery, in installing the New Deal, and the Great Society, it was because individuals rose up from the mass and would not be stopped. Representative democracy must, in the end, be led by representatives of the will of the democracy. It is not happening now.

But the good news is that we're not going to shut up about the War or millions without healthcare, or the corporate empire ambitions of Bush playing out.

I've heard it said that Bush hates democracy, he once said it would be easier if this was a dictatorship, if he "was the dictator." I think others in Congress disdain democracy too. Good when it funds their campaigns, bad when it holds them accountable in office. But we're not going to shut up, and those leaders who really listen will rise up sooner or later. If the Reids and Pelosis don't get with it, and they may, they will be swept away.

This is the long haul work, or til 2012, or til the nukes go off, or Jesus returns, or the Martians arrive. But it's our world. I don't speak as an American, I speak as a live creature on this mortal planet, my loyalty not to this country but to each and all. If the US was swept off the planet for some kinder idea benefitting all, I'd join right in. But for now, the US is the big bomb-heavy bully, and as one who lives here too, I have to care about what is going on in DC.

To get back to your point LW, though I would maintain the Dems are different from Republicans, I think it is because of individuals who join one party or the other, not the parties as a whole. R=Nixon, Reagan, Bush. D=Roosevelt, Clinton, Carter, Gore. To my mind, saying there is no difference is to dismiss the whole outright, and frankly, the Man affects and sometimes controls our lives outright, too much to wave them all away so simply. It's a countercultural mindset I reject.

That said, from now on I don't look at D or R. I look at: are you going to end this fucking War and get our world back on the right track for all, or are you in the way of that goal?

[laughingwillow]

...... I would maintain the Dems are different from Republicans, I think it is because of individuals who join one party or the other, not the parties as a whole. R=Nixon, Reagan, Bush. D=Roosevelt, Clinton, Carter, Gore. To my mind, saying there is no difference is to dismiss the whole outright, and frankly, the Man affects and sometimes controls our lives outright, too much to wave them all away so simply. It's a countercultural mindset I reject.

Saying there is no difference doesn't dismiss the whole. It simply exposes the illusion that a choice exists and hints at the idea that this two party system is a sham.

While an individual may be good and just, participation in this two party system as a candidate means that sacrifices in personal ideology must likely be made to stay in good graces with the party leaders and those controlling the purse strings. People may vote, but money decides how far and wide a message is spread.

Follow the money and realize actions speak louder than words.......

lw

[cenacle]

that's my point about party leaders...who leads makes a difference, and as I pointed out, the two parties have been led, in Congress, and in the White House, by very different people...I think a multi-party system would be better, or a no-party system...and public financing of campaigns would go a long way toward leveling the playing field and helping to keep politicians more honest...there are ways to make things better, even the amount of lobbying reform done a few weeks ago helps...

but the War was brought on by a few individuals led by, or leading, Bush to the idea that controlling the world's oil was a way for the US to best determine its own economic superiority...the US faces China as an economic adversary, chief among several, and oil is where the battle is being fought...call it the new Cold War...

there are those who see the sham of Iraq voting this week to gut its own economic future because of the new Oil Law being enacted, those who see the petrochemical nightmare going on right now as destroying the world in many ways...it's a matter of their getting influence, and this is partly a matter of us pushing them to positions of real power...the more the will of the people is enacted, the more politicians follow, out of cowardice, but also the more leaders who represent these positions rise in the ranks...

power will always exist, and be wielded, it could be artillery, or money, or a nation-state's ability to be fruitful and multiply...until, if ever, we are one tribe, tribal warfare will exist...tribes seek strong leaders, and many kinds come to the fore...how they lead, toward what ends, determines our materialistic fates, which in part determines our deeper fates...

life can be better, we can choose to change, on every level...I don't buy the nothing good comes from nothing line of some, nor the New Age is dawning line from others...life improves, or devolves, for the most part, a damned single step at a time...ya hear me, Willow? you know this :twisted:

[JRL]

Well, I for one would rather have Gore or anyone piloting our Titanic rather than the current skipper.

[laughingwillow]

I hear you, cen. I'm just not very optimistic due to the direction we've been heading with our current two party system. To be honest, I think we're due for an overhaul. Under the current system, the gubmit is really in the hands of big bidness. Corporate coffers are shaping policy. One man/one vote is a sham.

jrl: Anyone would be better than Bush at this time, but the U$ people voted the guy into office - twice.

The other two branches of gubmit seem to be watching a different movie than we are as I see little to no GENUINE outrage coming from the nations leaders concerning our president and his cabals comportment.

lw

[cenacle]

Write to Congress now!
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/iraqplan

Here is my message:

It has to end or it will never end. Bush and his criminal cabal will keep it going and invade more countries when they get a chance. Congress, you were elected last fall to end this war, not fuck around. You've got millions watching you do nothing while that lunatic continues to parade around, just waiting to do more harm to this world. Every single one of you is going to be remembered when the next election comes along, whether you helped end this war or stood in the way to protect your own personal interests. We'll sweep you out too. The only thing I care about now is not D or R, but working to end the war, or getting in the way. Do the right thing and stop the murders. And impeach them, the two-headed monster ruining this country and world. You had my hopes when the election went well, but now I don't believe in any of you. I would like to believe again, but I will not until you do the people's will. When the protests begin on the anniversary of the war, will you be joining in or will you try to ignore them? Yours is not a regular job, yours is a trust, and you are breaking that trust now, and now, and now. Do the right thing. End this war now and impreach Bush/Cheney.

[senorsalvia]

For those that honestly hope for that better day, it must come as no surprise that there just is not a better day to be had...  The fucking machine is broken.  The whole governance of AmeriKKKa has been subverted by special interest groups and Congressional lapdogs catering to deep pocket lobbyists...  I wish to Jeebuzz I could say I saw a ray of sunshine somewhere, but alas, such is not the case....  With the two-party system as it now stands.  There is no representation, no democracy in action...  Truly its sort of a sad commentary, but I have noticed that over the last several years, I have become so disenchanted with those that run this charade that makes a mockery of freedom, that I have come to live quite the 'outlaw' life...  By that,  I mean that I just no longer care about what used to be 'law', what used to be considered 'proper' the 'right way to do things'   I mean fuck, yes, I care about the ecology/world hunger/racism/stuff like that.... but I couls honestly give a shit if I pay taxes, or all those little common law thing we good lil AmeriKKKans are supposed to do.....   Yeah, I'll be on those streets protesting, and yes, I do think it is a neccessary stopgap action to undrmine a shameless congress...  And yeah,  I'm sure I'll even feel a sense of righteous anger and moral superiority as I stand protesting;  but that said,,,,,  I've got a really deep down feeling that the only way real change, real representative movement in this govenment will occur is by way of fucking violent revolution!!! Yep,  I think it might be abnother 10/20 years coming, but truly peeps, can you actually say you want to hand your kids and grandkids this sordid excuse of a governed society....  Just really imagine what it would be like if someone were to walk into the halls of congress, and shoot dead a few fucks, while decrying the health care issue/ the war/taxes etc.......  HHHHHmmmm now------- sal

[cenacle]

Iraq war's anniversary sparks protests
By Aaron Clark, Associated Press Writer

Published Monday, March 19, 2007 by Yahoo! Newshttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319 ... QGUvjMWM0F

The fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq brought thousands of anti-war marchers into the streets for largely peaceful protests over the weekend, though a large rally in Portland ended in with scuffles and police using pepper spray.

"This is a war to establish U.S. hegemony," said Susan Hay, a high school teacher, who marched Sunday in Portland with her two children and husband. "This is a war to be able to consume everyone else's resources."

The clashes with police started after the march, when a small group broke off in scuffles and a standoff that lasted into the evening. At least half a dozen protesters were detained and police used pepper spray at one point.

Some said the police overreacted. "They showed a huge amount of force," said Jake Fagan, 21, who said he had lost two friends in Iraq. "But we are just trying to march."

Organizers said there might have been as many as 15,000 people at the staging point for the march. Police did not give a crowd estimate.

In San Francisco, about 3,000 people closed Market Street, a major downtown thoroughfare in an anti-war demonstration Sunday. In New York, more than 1,000 protesters converged in a park near the United Nations headquarters. Protesters also gathered during the weekend in Washington, Los Angeles, San Diego and Hartford, Conn.

"Our Constitution guarantees the right to peacefully express one's views," White House spokesman Blair Jones said of the protests. "The men and women in our military are fighting to bring the people of Iraq the same rights and freedoms."

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the decision to go to war in Iraq but acknowledged an initial failure to send enough troops to handle the civil unrest after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" what the administration could have done better, Rice replied, "I don't know. When we look back over time we will know the answer to that question."

"I do believe that the kind of counterinsurgency strategy in which Gen. (David) Petraeus is now pursuing, in which we have enough forces to clear an area and hold it, so that building and governance can emerge, is the best strategy," she said.

In New York, police lined sidewalks for the blocks-long procession as protesters carrying signs reading "Impeach Bush," and "Not one more dollar, not one more death." marched toward the offices of Sens. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Actor Tim Robbins, speaking at a rally organized by the New York chapter of United for Peace and Justice, told the crowd that getting Congress to cut off funds for the war "would be a good way" to get the troops home.

"The American people want this war to end," said Robbins, a frequent anti-war protest participant. "That's the message they sent last November in the election. When are we going to start listening to them?"

No counter-demonstrators were obvious in New York, as they had been at an anti-war rally in Washington on Saturday that drew thousands to the Pentagon and Lincoln Memorial.

In San Francisco, the protest there had stretched for blocks through the financial district. A police spokesman said the department no longer estimates crowd sizes, but at least 3,000 protesters appeared to be in the march's closing rally.

Chants of "Money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation!" echoed among the skyscrapers as marchers beat drums, danced and carried banners pushing an array of progressive causes.

"I think the war effort at this point is futile," said Gary Fong, 65, a former Army intelligence officer. "We want to do our part to express to Bush and the government that change needs to be made."

A smattering of counter-protesters waving American flags also gathered in what they described as a show of support for U.S. troops.

"It's important to make sure that the sacrifices that we've already made are worth it," said Leigh Wolf, 20, a San Francisco State University student. "This is a war we can still win."

___

Associated Press writers Marcus Franklin in New York and Marcus Wohlsen in San Francisco contributed to this report.

[cenacle]

I am going to be in downtown Seattle this afternoon at a huge parade and rally that will end at the Federal Building. I marched on this war before it began back in 2003 in Portland, Oregon, and it's long since time I got back in the streets. For those of you who can, find a vigil or protest near you by looking here:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/inde ... tion_id=79

For those of you can't make one, aren't near one, or are not ready to hit the streets, I will be shouting and marching on your behalf :twisted:

Peace,
Raymond

[cenacle]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... st19m.html

That's the local media's coverage of the demonstration. I can tell you it was great to be jamming the streets of downtown Seattle, shouting
NO MORE WAR
IMPEACH BUSH NOW

The cops were numerous but seemed civil. Also, the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to oppose the War.

Bits n pieces, kids, that's all I can say. We'll win this war by gaining numbers on our side, and taking the King's money away to wage it...

[TooStonedToType]

Things weren't so peaceful here.  A group wearing green shirts with peace signs on them joined the "public" St. Patricks day parade and were forceable removed by the cops.  Said the were unlawfully gathering.  Apperantly the people without peace signs were gathering legally.