G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Building a Movement to End the Occupation of Iraq
By David Swanson
Created Mar 23 2008 - 10:02am
Remarks at American University Teach-In on March 22, 2008
Robert Dreyfuss's presentation that I now have to follow was tremendous and
I learned a lot, but I disagree with his pessimism. I am fond of the saying
"Let's save our pessimism for better times." It's a choice to be a
pessimist, and it is a wrong one, always.
So, here we are again, a crowd dominated by old white people on a college
campus in a black city. But on March 12th and 19th in this city I watched
hundreds of college students and African Americans put their bodies in the
way of arrest and abuse for peace. If I had to choose, I'd rather have
people in the streets than in a teach-in.
Still, I think this all-too-typical turnout suggests how segregation and
civic weakness in this country allows mass murder to occur in other
countries. We have long term work to do assuming we live long enough to do
it.
Today was billed as a dialogue on the war, and I want to speak first and if
there's time have a dialogue or a multilogue, but not about a war. A war is
a contest between two armies, and can be won or lost, can end in victory or
defeat, and is understood as intended to have an end some day. What we have
in Iraq is an occupation of a people by a single foreign military force. It
can never be won or lost and is not intended to ever end. The movement we
need to build cannot, I think, most easily succeed by using language that
defines our success as defeat. Instead our success should be understood as
getting tough on crime, as the American people reining in the abuse of power
of the least popular president and vice president we have ever known.
I know you may want to tell me that certain allegedly mainstream Americans
cannot possibly think of their president as a war criminal and would be more
likely to support a responsible and slow redeployment of part of the
occupying army to elsewhere in the empire if we don't use the word crime -
except, perhaps, in blaming the Iraqis for how they've handled our genocidal
charity mission to their country. But I think you would be underestimating a
sufficient number of Americans to make that the wrong approach, that you
should recycle your television as soon as possible, that it is their posture
toward Bush more than toward Muslims that makes the Democrats look like
wimps and makes Congress so unpopular, and that only a reversal of our
imperialism can leave us a sustainable world, so there's no time like the
present to start working on it. We don't need to win over every last
American; we just need a significant minority of the majority that is
already with us TO ACT.
CNN says that in a poll of 1,019 adults between March 14 and 16, 52 percent
said that the United States' action in Iraq is not morally justified. That's
not a bad response for a question that's rarely been polled or discussed in
the media.
We're also, according to today's agenda, supposed to base our movement for
withdrawal on an analysis of failed policies, but I'm not going to do that
because I don't see any failed policies. The Cheney-Bush gang intended to
install a permanent occupation of Iraq, enrich oil barons and arms makers
and disaster capitalists, win or steal elections, eliminate civil rights at
home, transfer wealth upward, and transfer power from Capitol Hill to the
White House. We've just heard how ignorant they are, but they are ignorant
of things they do not care about. They may have had dreams of quickly
pacifying Iraq and moving on to the next victim in Iran, rather than
empowering Iran as they have done, and we in the peace movement and the
counter recruitment movement and the independent media can share credit with
the Iraqi people for having slowed things down. But I don't see any
fundamental failure. The forces against which we need to build a movement
are succeeding. And that is unequivocally BAD news. Their goals are murder
and theft. The last thing we should be doing is wishing them success or
lamenting their "failed policies."
We succeeded over five years ago in denying our U.S. warmongers U.N.
authorization of the invasion, although they now try to claim that the
occupation is legal. We have succeeded in slowing recruitment, although
they've responded by stop-lossing those they've already recruited. We
succeeded in 2006 in turning congressional elections into a referendum on
the occupation of Iraq and won the Democrats probably 50 new seats to use in
bringing it to an end. But election fraud left them with only 30 new seats,
and their leadership immediately decreed that they would keep the occupation
going in order to run against it again in 2008. We even elected some
anti-war activists, like Carol Shea Porter, to Congress who immediately
signed onto the plan to keep the occupation going for two years.
We have succeeded in making the American public extremely aware of the
dishonesty used in promoting the invasion of Iraq, and that awareness has
helped forestall an attack on Iran. But we have been less successful in
communicating the dishonesty involved in promoting the ongoing occupation
and in communicating the murderous costs of the occupation. The primary
reason for this is probably activists' subservience to a political party and
that party's misguided fear of the absolutely nonsensical accusation of not
"supporting the troops". We're also up against the corporate media's
complete lack of interest in Iraqis' deaths.
And we have failed dramatically in communicating the fact that the Democrats
in Congress have the power to cease funding the occupation right now, as
well as the fact that the next 10 months exist, that contrary to popular
belief we will not have a new president tomorrow, but rather must survive 10
more months under the reign of the Decider and the Dark Lord.
It's very hard to build an activist movement without hope of quick success,
but it's impossible to build an activist movement without the belief that
success is at least possible and the willingness to endure the ridicule of
those wise souls who claim to support us while telling us that failure is
guaranteed. We have to be willing to endure that, and we have to find ways
to provide solidarity and fun and other compensations for the lack of hope.
Look around at all of the people in this room. Now imagine a few thousand of
these rooms, all with the same number of people. Now imagine all of those
people dying. That is the result that will come from Congress handing Bush
another $100 billion in the coming weeks. Over the next 10 months, Iraqis
will die because of the occupation, and people around the world will die for
lack of the resources we are pouring into the corporations profiting from
the occupation. And many who do not die will consider the dead the lucky
ones. When anyone tells you that they want to end the occupation but can't
do it until 2009 because they're too smart and know better, question their
wisdom. And especially do so if they work for the corporate media. Write
letters. Call talk shows. When you read that the Democrats are helpless as
babies because they don't have 67 senators, do not let that lie spread
unchallenged. Let every producer and editor know that we know that it takes
41 senators to block a funding bill, or a simple majority of House members,
or simply the leadership of the so-called leadership. Pelosi has
successfully badgered progressive Democrats to vote for funding in the past
and badgered rightwing Democrats to oppose telecom immunity. She could cut
off the money right now and spare all of those lives. She and Harry Reid
prefer to portray themselves as critics of an occupation for which they are
responsible.
A number of very well funded peace organizations that have tended to put
Democratic partisanship ahead of peace have finally just launched a new
effort to urge Congress to stop funding the occupation. You can find it at
Stand Up Congress dot org. I find this highly encouraging. However, these
organizations, some of which are dumping tens of millions of dollars into
partisan election ads in the corporate media, are not investing a dime in
this new campaign. The campaign involves no on-the-ground organizing, no
events, no advertising, just a website to collect our Email addresses.
(Unless the answers that Tom Andrews gave to me and Ray McGovern in this
room earlier today were honest and some money is put behind this.) But that
doesn't mean we shouldn't overwhelm it with success. It costs us nothing to
sign on and to urge real action and serious funding. We have to lobby our
potential allies among the grassroots and astroturf organizations as well as
lobbying Congress directly.
If we are going to change the public discourse and apply the necessary
pressure to force an end to the funding, it will take a fair amount of
energy and focus from a great many people. We cannot waste time on other
things. That starts by making the area around you an election-free zone. We
have an election DAY, and on that day you can vote for the least bad
candidate. We don't need an election eternity. So, when people start talking
to you about whether it's sexist to consider a female candidate's male
supporters' statements racist always or only if those supporters are Latino,
tell them to get you a candidate who will filibuster the occupation funding
and a nonpartisan public hand counting of your paper ballots, but tell them
that in the meantime you have important work to do.
Elections may be the heart and soul of a republic, and we may have a handful
of examples where election challenges, like Donna Edwards' challenge of Al
Wynn, have reformed incumbent congress members. And Cynthis Papermaster's
challenge led Pete Stark to sign onto impeachment, and now she's running
against Zoe Lofgren, hoping for the same result. But elections in this
country now serve primarily to dissuade activist organizations and
individuals from lobbying elected officials. If we hadn't had any elections
since 2003, we might have mobilized the public pressure to shut down this
city and compel our government to end the occupation of Iraq. If no member
of Congress belonged to any political party, we might have long since
persuaded enough of them to listen to their constituents. One thing you can
do is send checks to the campaigns of elected officials and challengers who
get it right, and send photocopies of those checks to other key congress
members, noting why they won't be receiving the same.
A serious movement to stop funding the occupation would include a filibuster
strategy for the Senate and would think ahead to the next step following a
refusal to fund by either the Senate or House. Almost certainly Bush would
misappropriate funds to continue the occupation with a new level of
illegality added. Congress would then have to impeach or whimper away with
its tail between its legs. Taking the peace and impeachment movements in the
opposite order might make more sense, however. Impeachment hearings might
embolden congress members to end the funding, and Congress would be free to
impeach for its top choice from the long list of Cheney's and Bush's
impeachable offenses. There are nine Judiciary Committee members and dozens
of other congress members urging John Conyers to hold hearings. Every one of
you should phone John Conyers every morning to ask the same.
It only makes sense, of course, that an occupation we want to end involves
actions we consider impeachable offenses. So we should be pushing for an end
to the funding and a commencement of impeachment hearings. It is far from
too late for either project. Impeachments and impeachment movements that
accomplish worthy goals without reaching impeachment tend to happen late and
to not take much time. The movements to impeach Truman and Hoover happened
significantly later in their terms than where we are now with Bush and
Cheney. Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton on February 21, 1868. On March
2nd, ten days later, the House voted to impeach him for that action. No
lengthy process is necessary.
Internet organizing, which is the only real organizing I do, is most
effective if it inspires real world groups on the ground to take collective
action and facilitates that action. Useful actions can be taken at any time,
but can also gain strength through national coordination. One possibility
that has been tossed around is to turn May First into a national strike day
for peace, impeachment, and human rights. What if some funded organizations
invested in that instead of in ads to fund the corporate media and make sure
the last four people in the country know that John McCain likes wars?
As an individual, we can all take actions every day, including outreach to
potential activists. Memorize (202) 224-3121 and phone your congress member
and senators every day. Contact the corporate media and support honest
independent media in some way every day. Work with local peace and justice
groups in your area to plan fun and creative events to bring more people
into the movement. Advertise your views on your clothing, start
conversations, hand out flyers. Recruit people into local and national
groups. Send them to impeachcheney.org or unitedforpeace.org or any of a
thousand websites where they can get connected to a movement.
Plan local events and activities that apply pressure to your congress member
and senators. Do what it takes to disrupt and attract attention, but have a
good-cop on your team as well. Talk to your elected officials, but be aware
that most of their excuses are simply excuses. Refuting them will just be an
annoyance. What you need to communicate is the electoral advantage of doing
what you ask.
If the Democratic leadership believed, as I do, that there was more
electoral risk in not ending the funding than in ending it, the funding
would stop. If they believed failure to impeach to be a greater risk for
them at the polls than impeaching, impeachment hearings would be happening.
There is no reason we cannot change their thinking quickly in both regards.
The Republicans won after impeaching Johnson and trying to impeach Truman.
The Democrats won after trying to impeach Nixon, but lost after failing to
pursue Reagan. The Republicans, against the public will, impeached Clinton
for a private non-offense and still took both houses of Congress and the
White House. For an impeachment movement to succeed in restoring justice and
succeed electorally, it need never reach impeachment. Impeachment hearings
now on torture, detentions, spying, rewriting laws, lying to the public and
Congress, etc., would compel John McCain to defend each offense even while
campaigning against it. Impeachment would be a gold mine for a political
party capable of thinking offense rather than only defense.
If enough of us choose to act in very easy ways, we can change the US
approach to the world over the next 10 months. But what if we don't? Then
would we be better off to have worked on the elections? I don't think so. I
think the best way to help Obama and other Democrats get elected is to push
them toward stronger clearer positions for peace and justice. Were Obama to
lead the way with a filibuster of the funding of the occupation, he would
look stronger and more decisive, and his supporters would be energized. And
the best way to put ourselves in a position to accomplish our goals in 2009,
no matter who ends up in the White House and Congress, is to try to
accomplish our goals in 2008. If we educate the American public now on the
fact that Congress can end the funding of the occupation of Iraq, we will be
in a better position to make that happen in 2009 should we not succeed this
year. And succeeding this year is entirely possible. New scandals we don't
know about will emerge to assist us. New wars not yet launched will enrage
those not yet taking action. And awareness will begin to penetrate the
Democratic Party that the failure to act is a liability. Important victories
never look likely until they happen, but they do happen. Let's keep our
republic. Thank you.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By David Swanson
Created Mar 23 2008 - 10:02am
Remarks at American University Teach-In on March 22, 2008
Robert Dreyfuss's presentation that I now have to follow was tremendous and
I learned a lot, but I disagree with his pessimism. I am fond of the saying
"Let's save our pessimism for better times." It's a choice to be a
pessimist, and it is a wrong one, always.
So, here we are again, a crowd dominated by old white people on a college
campus in a black city. But on March 12th and 19th in this city I watched
hundreds of college students and African Americans put their bodies in the
way of arrest and abuse for peace. If I had to choose, I'd rather have
people in the streets than in a teach-in.
Still, I think this all-too-typical turnout suggests how segregation and
civic weakness in this country allows mass murder to occur in other
countries. We have long term work to do assuming we live long enough to do
it.
Today was billed as a dialogue on the war, and I want to speak first and if
there's time have a dialogue or a multilogue, but not about a war. A war is
a contest between two armies, and can be won or lost, can end in victory or
defeat, and is understood as intended to have an end some day. What we have
in Iraq is an occupation of a people by a single foreign military force. It
can never be won or lost and is not intended to ever end. The movement we
need to build cannot, I think, most easily succeed by using language that
defines our success as defeat. Instead our success should be understood as
getting tough on crime, as the American people reining in the abuse of power
of the least popular president and vice president we have ever known.
I know you may want to tell me that certain allegedly mainstream Americans
cannot possibly think of their president as a war criminal and would be more
likely to support a responsible and slow redeployment of part of the
occupying army to elsewhere in the empire if we don't use the word crime -
except, perhaps, in blaming the Iraqis for how they've handled our genocidal
charity mission to their country. But I think you would be underestimating a
sufficient number of Americans to make that the wrong approach, that you
should recycle your television as soon as possible, that it is their posture
toward Bush more than toward Muslims that makes the Democrats look like
wimps and makes Congress so unpopular, and that only a reversal of our
imperialism can leave us a sustainable world, so there's no time like the
present to start working on it. We don't need to win over every last
American; we just need a significant minority of the majority that is
already with us TO ACT.
CNN says that in a poll of 1,019 adults between March 14 and 16, 52 percent
said that the United States' action in Iraq is not morally justified. That's
not a bad response for a question that's rarely been polled or discussed in
the media.
We're also, according to today's agenda, supposed to base our movement for
withdrawal on an analysis of failed policies, but I'm not going to do that
because I don't see any failed policies. The Cheney-Bush gang intended to
install a permanent occupation of Iraq, enrich oil barons and arms makers
and disaster capitalists, win or steal elections, eliminate civil rights at
home, transfer wealth upward, and transfer power from Capitol Hill to the
White House. We've just heard how ignorant they are, but they are ignorant
of things they do not care about. They may have had dreams of quickly
pacifying Iraq and moving on to the next victim in Iran, rather than
empowering Iran as they have done, and we in the peace movement and the
counter recruitment movement and the independent media can share credit with
the Iraqi people for having slowed things down. But I don't see any
fundamental failure. The forces against which we need to build a movement
are succeeding. And that is unequivocally BAD news. Their goals are murder
and theft. The last thing we should be doing is wishing them success or
lamenting their "failed policies."
We succeeded over five years ago in denying our U.S. warmongers U.N.
authorization of the invasion, although they now try to claim that the
occupation is legal. We have succeeded in slowing recruitment, although
they've responded by stop-lossing those they've already recruited. We
succeeded in 2006 in turning congressional elections into a referendum on
the occupation of Iraq and won the Democrats probably 50 new seats to use in
bringing it to an end. But election fraud left them with only 30 new seats,
and their leadership immediately decreed that they would keep the occupation
going in order to run against it again in 2008. We even elected some
anti-war activists, like Carol Shea Porter, to Congress who immediately
signed onto the plan to keep the occupation going for two years.
We have succeeded in making the American public extremely aware of the
dishonesty used in promoting the invasion of Iraq, and that awareness has
helped forestall an attack on Iran. But we have been less successful in
communicating the dishonesty involved in promoting the ongoing occupation
and in communicating the murderous costs of the occupation. The primary
reason for this is probably activists' subservience to a political party and
that party's misguided fear of the absolutely nonsensical accusation of not
"supporting the troops". We're also up against the corporate media's
complete lack of interest in Iraqis' deaths.
And we have failed dramatically in communicating the fact that the Democrats
in Congress have the power to cease funding the occupation right now, as
well as the fact that the next 10 months exist, that contrary to popular
belief we will not have a new president tomorrow, but rather must survive 10
more months under the reign of the Decider and the Dark Lord.
It's very hard to build an activist movement without hope of quick success,
but it's impossible to build an activist movement without the belief that
success is at least possible and the willingness to endure the ridicule of
those wise souls who claim to support us while telling us that failure is
guaranteed. We have to be willing to endure that, and we have to find ways
to provide solidarity and fun and other compensations for the lack of hope.
Look around at all of the people in this room. Now imagine a few thousand of
these rooms, all with the same number of people. Now imagine all of those
people dying. That is the result that will come from Congress handing Bush
another $100 billion in the coming weeks. Over the next 10 months, Iraqis
will die because of the occupation, and people around the world will die for
lack of the resources we are pouring into the corporations profiting from
the occupation. And many who do not die will consider the dead the lucky
ones. When anyone tells you that they want to end the occupation but can't
do it until 2009 because they're too smart and know better, question their
wisdom. And especially do so if they work for the corporate media. Write
letters. Call talk shows. When you read that the Democrats are helpless as
babies because they don't have 67 senators, do not let that lie spread
unchallenged. Let every producer and editor know that we know that it takes
41 senators to block a funding bill, or a simple majority of House members,
or simply the leadership of the so-called leadership. Pelosi has
successfully badgered progressive Democrats to vote for funding in the past
and badgered rightwing Democrats to oppose telecom immunity. She could cut
off the money right now and spare all of those lives. She and Harry Reid
prefer to portray themselves as critics of an occupation for which they are
responsible.
A number of very well funded peace organizations that have tended to put
Democratic partisanship ahead of peace have finally just launched a new
effort to urge Congress to stop funding the occupation. You can find it at
Stand Up Congress dot org. I find this highly encouraging. However, these
organizations, some of which are dumping tens of millions of dollars into
partisan election ads in the corporate media, are not investing a dime in
this new campaign. The campaign involves no on-the-ground organizing, no
events, no advertising, just a website to collect our Email addresses.
(Unless the answers that Tom Andrews gave to me and Ray McGovern in this
room earlier today were honest and some money is put behind this.) But that
doesn't mean we shouldn't overwhelm it with success. It costs us nothing to
sign on and to urge real action and serious funding. We have to lobby our
potential allies among the grassroots and astroturf organizations as well as
lobbying Congress directly.
If we are going to change the public discourse and apply the necessary
pressure to force an end to the funding, it will take a fair amount of
energy and focus from a great many people. We cannot waste time on other
things. That starts by making the area around you an election-free zone. We
have an election DAY, and on that day you can vote for the least bad
candidate. We don't need an election eternity. So, when people start talking
to you about whether it's sexist to consider a female candidate's male
supporters' statements racist always or only if those supporters are Latino,
tell them to get you a candidate who will filibuster the occupation funding
and a nonpartisan public hand counting of your paper ballots, but tell them
that in the meantime you have important work to do.
Elections may be the heart and soul of a republic, and we may have a handful
of examples where election challenges, like Donna Edwards' challenge of Al
Wynn, have reformed incumbent congress members. And Cynthis Papermaster's
challenge led Pete Stark to sign onto impeachment, and now she's running
against Zoe Lofgren, hoping for the same result. But elections in this
country now serve primarily to dissuade activist organizations and
individuals from lobbying elected officials. If we hadn't had any elections
since 2003, we might have mobilized the public pressure to shut down this
city and compel our government to end the occupation of Iraq. If no member
of Congress belonged to any political party, we might have long since
persuaded enough of them to listen to their constituents. One thing you can
do is send checks to the campaigns of elected officials and challengers who
get it right, and send photocopies of those checks to other key congress
members, noting why they won't be receiving the same.
A serious movement to stop funding the occupation would include a filibuster
strategy for the Senate and would think ahead to the next step following a
refusal to fund by either the Senate or House. Almost certainly Bush would
misappropriate funds to continue the occupation with a new level of
illegality added. Congress would then have to impeach or whimper away with
its tail between its legs. Taking the peace and impeachment movements in the
opposite order might make more sense, however. Impeachment hearings might
embolden congress members to end the funding, and Congress would be free to
impeach for its top choice from the long list of Cheney's and Bush's
impeachable offenses. There are nine Judiciary Committee members and dozens
of other congress members urging John Conyers to hold hearings. Every one of
you should phone John Conyers every morning to ask the same.
It only makes sense, of course, that an occupation we want to end involves
actions we consider impeachable offenses. So we should be pushing for an end
to the funding and a commencement of impeachment hearings. It is far from
too late for either project. Impeachments and impeachment movements that
accomplish worthy goals without reaching impeachment tend to happen late and
to not take much time. The movements to impeach Truman and Hoover happened
significantly later in their terms than where we are now with Bush and
Cheney. Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton on February 21, 1868. On March
2nd, ten days later, the House voted to impeach him for that action. No
lengthy process is necessary.
Internet organizing, which is the only real organizing I do, is most
effective if it inspires real world groups on the ground to take collective
action and facilitates that action. Useful actions can be taken at any time,
but can also gain strength through national coordination. One possibility
that has been tossed around is to turn May First into a national strike day
for peace, impeachment, and human rights. What if some funded organizations
invested in that instead of in ads to fund the corporate media and make sure
the last four people in the country know that John McCain likes wars?
As an individual, we can all take actions every day, including outreach to
potential activists. Memorize (202) 224-3121 and phone your congress member
and senators every day. Contact the corporate media and support honest
independent media in some way every day. Work with local peace and justice
groups in your area to plan fun and creative events to bring more people
into the movement. Advertise your views on your clothing, start
conversations, hand out flyers. Recruit people into local and national
groups. Send them to impeachcheney.org or unitedforpeace.org or any of a
thousand websites where they can get connected to a movement.
Plan local events and activities that apply pressure to your congress member
and senators. Do what it takes to disrupt and attract attention, but have a
good-cop on your team as well. Talk to your elected officials, but be aware
that most of their excuses are simply excuses. Refuting them will just be an
annoyance. What you need to communicate is the electoral advantage of doing
what you ask.
If the Democratic leadership believed, as I do, that there was more
electoral risk in not ending the funding than in ending it, the funding
would stop. If they believed failure to impeach to be a greater risk for
them at the polls than impeaching, impeachment hearings would be happening.
There is no reason we cannot change their thinking quickly in both regards.
The Republicans won after impeaching Johnson and trying to impeach Truman.
The Democrats won after trying to impeach Nixon, but lost after failing to
pursue Reagan. The Republicans, against the public will, impeached Clinton
for a private non-offense and still took both houses of Congress and the
White House. For an impeachment movement to succeed in restoring justice and
succeed electorally, it need never reach impeachment. Impeachment hearings
now on torture, detentions, spying, rewriting laws, lying to the public and
Congress, etc., would compel John McCain to defend each offense even while
campaigning against it. Impeachment would be a gold mine for a political
party capable of thinking offense rather than only defense.
If enough of us choose to act in very easy ways, we can change the US
approach to the world over the next 10 months. But what if we don't? Then
would we be better off to have worked on the elections? I don't think so. I
think the best way to help Obama and other Democrats get elected is to push
them toward stronger clearer positions for peace and justice. Were Obama to
lead the way with a filibuster of the funding of the occupation, he would
look stronger and more decisive, and his supporters would be energized. And
the best way to put ourselves in a position to accomplish our goals in 2009,
no matter who ends up in the White House and Congress, is to try to
accomplish our goals in 2008. If we educate the American public now on the
fact that Congress can end the funding of the occupation of Iraq, we will be
in a better position to make that happen in 2009 should we not succeed this
year. And succeeding this year is entirely possible. New scandals we don't
know about will emerge to assist us. New wars not yet launched will enrage
those not yet taking action. And awareness will begin to penetrate the
Democratic Party that the failure to act is a liability. Important victories
never look likely until they happen, but they do happen. Let's keep our
republic. Thank you.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson