The haircut that won't die
The John Edwards haircut won’t go away. The Republicans resurrected it most recently in their second debate, when former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckaby said, in a quote that the national wire service story called “the most memorable sound bite of the night,” “we’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” Republicans have been focusing on symbolic character attacks since Nixon branded George McGovern, who’d flown 35 B-24 bomber missions in World War II, “the candidate of acid, amnesty and abortion.” They’ve been branding their opponents as limousine liberals of questionable masculinity since Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro Agnew, called anti-war critics “an effete corps of impudent snobs.” If the attacks aren’t adequately answered, too often they work.
For five years we've called it blood for oil
And we've been right. The first of the five "benchmarks" in the war funding bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10 requires Iraq to pass an oil law.
The law has long been drafted, and it opens up two-thirds of Iraq's oil to ownership by foreign corporations (widely expected to be dominated by U.S. corporations). Congress Members who voted against the bill, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Lynn Woolsey are speaking out against this as theft of Iraq's oil:
If that sounds familiar, it's because the peace movement has been saying it for five years. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.
Oil workers in Iraq are threatening to strike over this proposed law. And the Iraqi government is listening.
We have a chance to listen too, because from June 4 to June 29, Iraqi labor leaders will be touring the United States to talk about this issue.
The labor movement in the United States is supporting our brothers and sisters in Iraq. Here's an explanation of how the draft oil law privatizes the oil: PDF. This summary was prepared by U.S. Labor Against the War.
The law has long been drafted, and it opens up two-thirds of Iraq's oil to ownership by foreign corporations (widely expected to be dominated by U.S. corporations). Congress Members who voted against the bill, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Lynn Woolsey are speaking out against this as theft of Iraq's oil:
If that sounds familiar, it's because the peace movement has been saying it for five years. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.
Oil workers in Iraq are threatening to strike over this proposed law. And the Iraqi government is listening.
We have a chance to listen too, because from June 4 to June 29, Iraqi labor leaders will be touring the United States to talk about this issue.
The labor movement in the United States is supporting our brothers and sisters in Iraq. Here's an explanation of how the draft oil law privatizes the oil: PDF. This summary was prepared by U.S. Labor Against the War.
Can BLUE GRIT win in 2008?
The Democrats think they can smell victory in 2008. A failed war, a polarized economy and a bumbling, unelected White House autocrat---what could bode better for a change of power?
But there's a deeper question, importantly asked by radio talk host Laura Flanders in her book BLUE GRIT ( http://www.lauraflanders.com/ ). Are the Democrats---and the left---savvy, concerned and hip enough to recapture young and working Americans? Can they generate the excitement and commitment to win back national power in a way that can also bring meaningful change?
Or will they remain stuck in what Flanders calls "the penthouse party way of doing things?"
From her popular perch at Air America, Flanders has been demanding that the Democratic Party return to its roots. Her BLUE GRIT cuts to the class core of a party that's been smug, bloated and out of touch. "Democrats and national advocacy groups share a habit of thinking that centralizing money and then shipping out last-minute organizers works. It doesn't."
But there's a deeper question, importantly asked by radio talk host Laura Flanders in her book BLUE GRIT ( http://www.lauraflanders.com/ ). Are the Democrats---and the left---savvy, concerned and hip enough to recapture young and working Americans? Can they generate the excitement and commitment to win back national power in a way that can also bring meaningful change?
Or will they remain stuck in what Flanders calls "the penthouse party way of doing things?"
From her popular perch at Air America, Flanders has been demanding that the Democratic Party return to its roots. Her BLUE GRIT cuts to the class core of a party that's been smug, bloated and out of touch. "Democrats and national advocacy groups share a habit of thinking that centralizing money and then shipping out last-minute organizers works. It doesn't."
Exclusive: Rep. Maxine Waters speaks out for impeachment
Congresswoman and House Judiciary Committee Member Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) has spoken up in support of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Waters said she advocates impeaching Cheney first, which is the same approach taken by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) in his bill, H. Res. 333. Waters has not yet cosponsored that bill.
Audio of Rep. Waters' statement:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/watersimpeach.mp3
Rush Transcript:
"I was a member of Congress and I experienced the attempt by the opposite side of the aisle to impeach President Clinton. President Clinton's impeachment was attempted because of the affair supposedly with Monica Lewinsky. And if in fact they could bring together articles of impeachment against the President of the United States because of infidelity, certainly we must understand that that pales in comparison to what this President has done.
Audio of Rep. Waters' statement:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/watersimpeach.mp3
Rush Transcript:
"I was a member of Congress and I experienced the attempt by the opposite side of the aisle to impeach President Clinton. President Clinton's impeachment was attempted because of the affair supposedly with Monica Lewinsky. And if in fact they could bring together articles of impeachment against the President of the United States because of infidelity, certainly we must understand that that pales in comparison to what this President has done.
Rescuing the Democrats
The war maker’s conceit and cruelest lie is that he’s protecting the women and children. Now moms around the world have had enough of it and are stepping forward to save their children, and while they’re at it the human race itself, from this lie — even if it means being led away in handcuffs.
If George Bush’s devastating war ends sooner rather than later, it will be because those with the most serious stake in its cessation — the mothers with children caught in its maw, the dazed sane citizens around the world — get angry or desperate enough to disrupt the functioning of the military-industrial-media complex. Without such an effort, the war will grind along like a perpetual-motion machine.
If George Bush’s devastating war ends sooner rather than later, it will be because those with the most serious stake in its cessation — the mothers with children caught in its maw, the dazed sane citizens around the world — get angry or desperate enough to disrupt the functioning of the military-industrial-media complex. Without such an effort, the war will grind along like a perpetual-motion machine.
The hard bigotry of the New York Times
A New York Times editorial on May 7th is titled "The Soft Bigotry of Iraq," and begins:
"Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most Congressional Republicans are prepared to back up President Bush's veto of the Iraq spending bill."
Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial or corrupt corporate interests, the New York Times pretends to be writing only about Republicans, while building into its editorial the assumption that the Democrats, too, must retreat in the face of a veto. The Democrats, as we all need to be constantly reminded, are in the majority, yet the Times' editorial arrives at this as its penultimate sentence:
"The final version of the spending bill should include explicit benchmarks and timetables for the Iraqis, even if Mr. Bush won't let Congress back them up with a clear timetable for America's withdrawal."
"Mr. Bush" won't LET Congress pass a bill demanded by the vast majority of Americans? Why, because he might veto it again? If he vetoes enough of these war spending bills, Americans will get what they wanted anyway: he'll have to end the war.
"Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most Congressional Republicans are prepared to back up President Bush's veto of the Iraq spending bill."
Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial or corrupt corporate interests, the New York Times pretends to be writing only about Republicans, while building into its editorial the assumption that the Democrats, too, must retreat in the face of a veto. The Democrats, as we all need to be constantly reminded, are in the majority, yet the Times' editorial arrives at this as its penultimate sentence:
"The final version of the spending bill should include explicit benchmarks and timetables for the Iraqis, even if Mr. Bush won't let Congress back them up with a clear timetable for America's withdrawal."
"Mr. Bush" won't LET Congress pass a bill demanded by the vast majority of Americans? Why, because he might veto it again? If he vetoes enough of these war spending bills, Americans will get what they wanted anyway: he'll have to end the war.
On the media horizon: "We invest, you decide"
Predictably, some critics have decried the current efforts by Rupert
Murdoch’s News Corp. to buy the Dow Jones company, which publishes The
Wall Street Journal. But let’s imagine the dynamics that might emerge if
Murdoch gains control of that newspaper.
Like viewers of his Fox News Channel, readers of The Wall Street Journal under Murdoch could look forward to jaw-dropping claims along the lines of “We invest, you decide.”
The Wall Street Journal would need to make some changes in order to be in sync with Murdoch-brand journalism. The Journal’s recent design make-over could provide a tidy framework for spreading the content of the editorial page to the rest of the newsprint pages.
But executives at News Corp. would swiftly face a dilemma. Investors and money managers -- prime demographic targets of The Wall Street Journal -- are apt to be intolerant of financial news reporting that’s unduly screened through an ideological mesh.
Like viewers of his Fox News Channel, readers of The Wall Street Journal under Murdoch could look forward to jaw-dropping claims along the lines of “We invest, you decide.”
The Wall Street Journal would need to make some changes in order to be in sync with Murdoch-brand journalism. The Journal’s recent design make-over could provide a tidy framework for spreading the content of the editorial page to the rest of the newsprint pages.
But executives at News Corp. would swiftly face a dilemma. Investors and money managers -- prime demographic targets of The Wall Street Journal -- are apt to be intolerant of financial news reporting that’s unduly screened through an ideological mesh.
Anti-U.S. uproar sweeps Italy
The U.S. government has proposed to make Vicenza, Italy, the largest US military site in Europe, but the people of Vicenza, and all of Italy, have sworn it will never happen.
As with the story of the Downing Street Minutes two years ago this week, a major news story and huge controversy in Europe right now is unknown to Americans, despite the fact that it is all about the policies of the American government. In February of this year, 200,000 people descended on the Northeastern Italian town of Vicenza (population 100,000) to march in protest. Largely as a result, the Prime Minister of Italy was (temporarily) driven out of power. Meanwhile, just outside Vicenza, large tents now hold newly minted citizen activists keeping a 24-hour-per-day vigil and training hundreds of senior citizens, children, and families every day in how to nonviolently stop bulldozers. The bulldozers they are waiting for are American. ?
As with the story of the Downing Street Minutes two years ago this week, a major news story and huge controversy in Europe right now is unknown to Americans, despite the fact that it is all about the policies of the American government. In February of this year, 200,000 people descended on the Northeastern Italian town of Vicenza (population 100,000) to march in protest. Largely as a result, the Prime Minister of Italy was (temporarily) driven out of power. Meanwhile, just outside Vicenza, large tents now hold newly minted citizen activists keeping a 24-hour-per-day vigil and training hundreds of senior citizens, children, and families every day in how to nonviolently stop bulldozers. The bulldozers they are waiting for are American. ?
The Crusaders
Sixteen words may be all that stand right now between the apparatus of government and the Founding Fathers’ worst nightmare. And those words are starting to give.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
When George Bush, in the wake of 9/11, puffed himself into Richard the Lionheart and declared he would lead the country in a "crusade" against terrorism — you know, crusade, as in slaughter of Muslim infidels -- turns out . . . oh, how awkward (if you’re on White House spin duty) . . . he may have been speaking literally.
What’s certain, in any case, is that a lot of people in high and low places within the Bush administration -- and in particular, the military -- heard him literally, and regard the war on terror as a religious war:
"The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we’re going to destroy him," a lieutenant colonel, according to a BBC reporter, said to his troops on the eve of the destruction of that undefended city in post-election 2004.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
When George Bush, in the wake of 9/11, puffed himself into Richard the Lionheart and declared he would lead the country in a "crusade" against terrorism — you know, crusade, as in slaughter of Muslim infidels -- turns out . . . oh, how awkward (if you’re on White House spin duty) . . . he may have been speaking literally.
What’s certain, in any case, is that a lot of people in high and low places within the Bush administration -- and in particular, the military -- heard him literally, and regard the war on terror as a religious war:
"The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we’re going to destroy him," a lieutenant colonel, according to a BBC reporter, said to his troops on the eve of the destruction of that undefended city in post-election 2004.
Pelosi, Conyers, the people, and impeachment
Speech delivered in Portland, Maine, at rally organized by http://www.maineimpeach.org onApril 28th national day of impeachment events organized by http://www.a28.org
I want to thank Maine Impeach dot org for putting this event together. This is a wonderful crowd! The paper on grounds for impeachment drafted by Maine Lawyers for Democracy is incredibly well done: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/me
I spoke earlier today at a rally in Boston, Massachusetts, where one of the other speakers was Dan DeWalt, whose leadership and determination after many months led to the Vermont State Senate passing a resolution demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. We spoke at Faneuil Hall, where men like Wendell Phillips led a movement to abolish slavery, something the wise and knowing of that day said could not be done. Those abolitionists made their movement a fight for freedom of the press. And make no mistake: our struggle is the same.
I want to thank Maine Impeach dot org for putting this event together. This is a wonderful crowd! The paper on grounds for impeachment drafted by Maine Lawyers for Democracy is incredibly well done: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/me
I spoke earlier today at a rally in Boston, Massachusetts, where one of the other speakers was Dan DeWalt, whose leadership and determination after many months led to the Vermont State Senate passing a resolution demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. We spoke at Faneuil Hall, where men like Wendell Phillips led a movement to abolish slavery, something the wise and knowing of that day said could not be done. Those abolitionists made their movement a fight for freedom of the press. And make no mistake: our struggle is the same.