What's the Difference?
The past week in DC found me in many offices of our elected officials: Senators, Congresspersons, pro-war, "anti-war," Democrat, Republican. With a few notable exceptions, all our employees toed party lines.
Thanks to those who met with me, because, except for Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D-Ca), I was not their constituent. And I believe the Republicans who met with me, whether they knew it or not, were breaking with their leader on this, since he was too cowardly to meet with me.
The War Hawks I met with made my skin crawl. They so obviously are supporting a war that is not in our nation's ibest nterest, nor is it making us more secure. I heard from Sens. Dole (R-NC) and McCain (R-AZ), and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) about 9/11 and "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over there." That made me sick. George Bush and his lying band of imperialist greed mongers exploited 9/11 and our national terror of other terrorist attacks to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our country. Now, in the aftermath of those lies, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are dead and almost 2000 of our brave young men and women. What makes the Iraqi babies and families less precious than ours? The crime that these people committed was being born at the wrong place at the wrong time. George took his war OF terror to their doorsteps. I even asked Sen. Dole when she thought the occupation would be able to end and she was incredulous that I would even think of Iraq as an occupation, she sees it as a liberation. I really wanted to know how many of them do we have to kill before she considered that they were liberated.
The War Hawks (or war-niks, as I like to call them) also use the rationale that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. I asked Sen. Dole three times where Saddam got those weapons, and she wouldn't answer me. Because the smiling, kind, patronizing War-Hawkette knew where Saddam got the weapons. He got them from the USA. Saddam was a bad guy, but he was our bad guy (see the famous picture of the grinning Rummy shaking Hussein's hand) until he decided to sell his oil to Russia and France for Euros...then "oh my gosh, Saddam kills his own people!!"
We didn't care about Saddam killing his own people after the first Gulf War when George the First encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam. We didn't care about the Iraqi children dying during the Clinton years from the bombings and the sanctions. All of a sudden in March 2003 those things became so important that it was urgent that our troops invade Iraq. Besides, the memo to Congress where George asked for the authority to invade Iraq specifically mentions WMD's and terrorism, it says nothing about Saddam being a "bad guy" or spreading "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. The reasons for our continued occupation change as fast as the old ones are proven lies.
It was horrible to talk to these three warmongering Republicans, I almost felt like I had to take a shower after each visit, but they did not affect my resolve. Congresswoman Musgrave was openly hostile when we were ushered (by her very nice staff) into her office. Ms. Musgrave actually has a son in the service but she got very defensive when I asked which branch of the service her son, who is stationed in Italy, was in. I was asking mother to mother, but she basically said it wasn't any of my business. I told her she must be very worried about her son and he would be in my prayers.
I know that it is hard to have a child in military service whether in Iraq or Italy. She also "supports the president" 100%. Do these politicians not realize that the people are withdrawing their support for this war and for this president at an unprecedented clip? To support George at this point is to support a sinking stone. To support George at anytime, is and was, a mistake of tragic and immense proportions.
The War-Hawk Dems I met with were equally, if not more, disheartening. Although my meeting with Sen. Clinton (D-NY) went well, I don't believe she will do anything to alleviate the suffering of the Americans in Iraq or the Iraqi people. I don't believe that sending more troops is the solution, it will only aggravate an already untenable situation. We met in NYC with Sen. Charles Schumer's aide, who told us that the Senator thinks the occupation of Iraq is a "good thing for America" but he wouldn't elaborate on why. The aide was asked if the Senator had a vested interest in keeping this war going, because the Senator is certainly not stupid enough to believe that this misbegotten, misadventure in the Middle East is good for anyone. I don't think the people of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi would agree with the Senatorthat this illegal occupation is a "good thing."
The "Anti-War" Dems perplex me the most, however. Except for the good guys, like the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus and a few Senators, the Dem party line is that we must allow Iraq a window of two months time and after the referendum on the constitution this month and the parliamentary elections in December, it will be time to attack the failed policies of George and his cabal of liars.
In my meeting with Howard Dean, he told me that the Iraq issue was "hard" and the new Dem "Contract with America" is going to have 10 points and the first one is going to be "Universal Health Care." I told Mr. Dean that if the Dems didn't come out strongly against the war and against George's disastrous policies, we were going to become irrelevant as a party (which is already happening) and the "hard" issue should be the one that is worked on the hardest! I'll admit that the issue doesn't seem so hard to me: George and his sycophantic band of criminals lied to the world; too many people are dead for the lies; too many people are in harm's way for the lies; it is time to bring our troops home. I am just hoping against hope that the war is on the Dems' contract somewhere. George is always pulling out the old saw that what he does in sending our children to die and kill is "hard work." I hate to see that same adjective used to describe bringing them home. The war issue is not complicated: wrong to invade and wrong to stay. Bring our troops home. Simple.
I think if one is not speaking out right now against the killing in Iraq, one is supporting it. I believe that the members of Congress who have always been, or are now, opposed to this war, need our 100 percent support, admiration, and encouragement. Everyone else needs to be prodded in the right direction. I implored every member I spoke to this past week (and during our bus trip) to lead our country out of the desert. I believe that if they did, America would follow them through fire to bring our troops home.
Finally, I was harrassed at the Capitol Building by a thug security guard who screamed at me to get out of the building until my next appointment. I complained to another security guard about the disrespectful treatment that I had received from the other guard and he said that most of the employees were "Republicans" and they didn't appreciate what I was doing. I have news for them: this is not about politics, to me, this is about flesh and blood. This is not about right and left, this is about right and wrong. 19 troops were needlessly killed in Iraq this past week. 19 families were destroyed senselessly and avoidably. Hundreds of innocent Iraqis were killed for just being home that day, just being out shopping, or just going about their daily lives. An average of almost three of our young men and women are killed everyday in George's abomination. While the War Hawk Repbublicans are wrongfully supporting a wrongheaded war and the "anti-war" Dems are hemming and hawing about the politics of this administration's misguided and evil policies, how many more families will get the news that their lives have been destroyed in the tragic meantime?
What are they waiting for?
October 3, 2005 You Can't Fight 'Ists' and 'Isms'An interview with Cindy Sheehan by Joshua Frank
Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan, KIA 04/04/04. She is co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Sheehan was recently interviewed by Joshua Frank, author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, published by Common Courage Press.
Joshua Frank: Cindy, why did you decide to hook up with the "antiwar" movement? Do you think that it would have been more powerful to continue building a family-in-mourning movement of mothers, fathers, wives, and husbands of the maimed and the slain in Iraq?
Cindy Sheehan: I think those go together, actually. I founded an organization called Gold Star Families for Peace; people can visit us at www.gsfp.org. We are an antiwar group allied with Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, and Iraq Veteran Against the War. We are antiwar and for the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. Any group that supports our position is welcome to join with us.
JF: Many war supporters have furiously denied any link between our foreign policy and the risk soldiers are at in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tony Blair has denied any link between foreign policy and the summer bombings over in London. What do you see?
CS: I think that U.S. foreign policy is totally responsible for 9/11, as well as the recent bombings in London. Our policies of killing innocent Iraqis; Afghans; supporting the occupation of Palestine; our permanent bases in Saudi Arabia; our presence in Lebanon; our support of the shah; supporting Saddam and giving him the WMDs used on his own people. I think this sort of behavior drives hatred toward the U.S. This is just all my opinion, of course. I am not a politician or a military strategist. I am just a citizen voicing my opinions.
JF: What fuels the war in Iraq today is central to our geopolitical interests: oil. How do you think this affects our chances as a movement to end the current war, compared to what it took to end the Vietnam War?
CS: I think even more than oil, it has to do with the industrial military complex that Eisenhower warned us about. They have to keep us afraid of something or someone. During the 1950s and '60s it was the Communists. We lost that focus in the 1970s – so the evil Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Perle, along with the rest of the neocons, kept that alive. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, we needed a new enemy; so now it is terrorists… they are the "ist" du jour. It really is impossible to fight "ists" and "isms." You just can't do it. All we get in the end is prolonged, evil, and unnecessary war and death.
JF: The 2006 mid-term elections are right around the corner, and there are a few pro-war Democrats up for reelection. The most popular among them [are] Hillary Clinton in New York and Nancy Pelosi out in California. There is a bit of speculation rumbling in activist circles that you may be planning to take on one or the other in the Democratic primaries coming up. Is this true?
CS: I think Nancy Pelosi is changing her tune, but not nearly fast enough. I have met with her a couple of times lately. I am not thinking of running against Hillary, or Nancy, or Dianne Feinstein, for that matter. If it were anyone, though, it would be Feinstein because I am a Californian and I believe she is a despicable warmonger. People have been begging me to run, but I think I can do more good on the outside of Washington than the inside.
JF: If the Democrats continue to take the stance they have on the Iraq war, mainly supporting the invasion and subsequent occupation – will you support a Democrat in 2008 for president? Or will you stick to your cause and support a candidate along the lines of Ralph Nader or an antiwar Libertarian or Green Party candidate?
CS: No, I will not support a pro-war Democrat. I will support any antiwar candidate, even if [laughter] it is a Republican. There are some, Josh, really, it could happen! I regret supporting John Kerry in 2004. The movement gained nothing from his candidacy. However, I do think Kerry may be changing his tune on the war. The next few weeks will be telling.
JF: Kerry certainly was a warmonger along the campaign trail. What do you think is going to change in Kerry's Iraq position, if anything? You've met with both Senators Clinton and Kerry recently; do you think either would ever endorse bringing the troops home immediately?
CS: As I said, I think Kerry may be changing, but I don't think Clinton ever will. This is just my own speculation, though.
JF: What are the most important pressure points you see coming up in the next few months for the antiwar movement?
CS: The Iraq referendum and elections are at the forefront. We really want the referendum to be successful, but we are not hopeful that it will be. We still need to expose the failures of the Bush administration along with those of Congress and the media. We'll need to keep pushing for the full withdrawal of troops now. That is paramount.
JF: How do you think antiwar activists can translate their protest and passion against the war into more than marching in circles at a weekend rally?
CS: A lot of people sacrificed a lot to be in Washington on the 24th of September. If peace activists really want to make changes, they have to start putting intense pressure on their elected officials. Of course, everything should be nonviolent, because we are trying to create a peaceful world and violence can't produce peace – no matter what George W. Bush and his buddies say.
JF: What ultimate outcome to your work – for the war in Iraq, and beyond that in America's role in the world – do you think would be a fitting monument to your son Casey?
CS: We need to bring our troops home ASAP. We can't allow any war for imperialism or greed to be fought in our names. This is what we need to keep fighting for. Not just for Casey, but for all, on both sides, who have perished in this illegal, immoral war.
********************************************************
Sheehan Leads Phoenix Peace March, Rally
Jon Kamman and Lindsey Collom
The Arizona Republic
Tuesday 04 October 2005
Anti-war activist says she, supporters, plan fall tour, return to Bush ranch.
The nation's most visible anti-war activist may be heading back to President Bush's ranch for a second stakeout at Thanksgiving, she said Monday in Phoenix.
Cindy Sheehan, who staged a 28-day vigil at Crawford, Texas, in an effort to meet with Bush during his August vacation, said she and supporters are considering an anti-war bus tour this fall that would end at the ranch, where the president normally spends Thanksgiving.
A week after being arrested in Washington, DC, with nearly 400 other protesters who refused to move from the sidewalk in front of the White House, Sheehan was in Phoenix to lead an evening march to Eastlake Park followed by a rally and prayer service at the Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Memorial.
More than 200 people showed up to march.
Her visit was at the invitation of the National Action Network, a political and human rights organization founded by the Rev. Al Sharpton and headed in Arizona by the Rev. Jarrett Maupin.
Maupin's son, Jarrett Maupin II, told the crowd that Sheehan was "for us what Dr. King was for his movement."
"If we start from right here," he said, "we can take back the White House."
Sheehan and Maupin II. clasped hands as they led the way toward the park and echoed chants of "people died; Bush lied" and "make levees, not war."
"If we want peace, we have to be peace," Sheehan said, addressing the crowd. "We the people of Phoenix, of America, will make this government accountable. Our voices will be heard."
Duane Goff, 50, of Phoenix, said the growing anti-war movement reminded him of Vietnam protests.
"There was a feeling of revolt in the '60s," Goff said. "And there's agathering of people right now who don't want to be part of this administration and what it represents."
Earlier in the day, Sheehan told the editorial board of The Arizona Republic that Americans who continue to support the war in Iraq fit into three basic categories.
"They're ill-informed," Sheehan listed first. "Next, and I think this defines a lot of people, they don't want to admit they were fooled. They don't want to believe they made a mistake in supporting the war.
"And the third is that they have a vested interest, either politically or monetarily, to keep this war going."
Sheehan said she believes Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., fits the third definition. That prompted her to call him a "warmonger" after meeting with him last week.
"I think he has a vested interest. I think he wants to run for president. He thinks that if he wants to be president, he has to be a big supporter of this mistake in Iraq," she said.
Sheehan, a Californian whose soldier son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004, said she had been active in the anti-war movement for more than a year before capturing worldwide attention with her "Camp Casey" vigil.
Along with winning supporters, she has provoked vitriolic reactions as Americans disagree over the war.
"If they think that by calling me names or lying about me or twisting my words that they're going stop me, that's not the case," Sheehan said.
In comparison with losing her son, the invective "is just petty. It doesn't even bother me," she said.
As for her own name-calling, such as labeling Bush a liar, murderer and more, she stood by her remarks.
"I usually open up my mouth and my heart talks," she said.
"Some of the language I use is a lot of times what people really want to say, but they don't say it."
Sheehan clarified an oft-quoted remark that has brought intense criticism.
When she said, "This country isn't worth dying for," she was referring to Iraq, she said.
"I believe America is worth dying for," she said. "I believe that anybody would lay down their life to defend our country; but (the war in) Iraq is not about defending America. In fact, it is making us far less secure."
No comments:
Post a Comment