Facebook Badge

24 March 2007

Kucinich, Zinn on Democrats' Support for the War

Kucinich, below, is right on the money, as per usual.

Howard Zinn Replies to MoveOn’s support for the supplemental

By Howard Zinn

03/23/07 "ICH" -- "I'm disappointed in MoveOn. We are not politicians, we are citizens. Let the politicians advocate half-way measures if they choose, but only after they have felt the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what is winnable in a shameful timorous Congress. Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed things up, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite -- provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence -- they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home. If Congress thinks it must compromise, let it. But we should not encourage that. We should speak our minds fully, boldly and say what is right, whatever they decide to do..

"I would add this: To me it is tantamount to the abolitionists accepting a two-year timeline for ending slavery, while giving more money to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

"There is an understandable predisposition for reasonable people to compromise, but there are compromises which are real, and others which are surrenders. See the new movie THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY. The Irish rebels were offered a compromise, which gave them the Irish Free State, something palpable, a ledge to stand on from which to fight for more, which they have done. There is nothing palpable in this "compromise," only a promise whose fulfillment is in the hands of George Bush, and meanwhile funds the ongoing slaughter in Iraq."

First posted at www.democracyrising.us


3 comments:

  1. "Betrayed!" By Cindy Sheehan, with many excellent links, worth following.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Meanwhile, even most "progressive" Democrats caved on the funding bill. For once, Bush is correct, if for the wrong reasons: this is political theater. I've yet to hear one decent reason to pass this bill. It's not even clear that a cutoff of funds would end the war (see: Iran-Contra; various "black" budgets), but the Demz have basically declared that they will provide enough money to fund the war through Bush's term. But, pretty please, meet our benchmarks, and pull out by 8/08. This will be vetoed, of course, but that's not the point. Given the certainty of a veto, the Demz decided not to take a stand on principle. This was a "free pass" -- the flag was already thrown (football metaphor, if you have no idea what I'm talking about). This is supposed to somehow "isolate" the war's supporters? For the public's benefit? Huh? Like the public doesn't know what's up, and, even in the saturation of our state-owned media, are fucking sick of this war? Bullshit.

    I quit MoveOn. Disgusting push-poll e-mail. I did that before all the hoopla -- it was obvious from reading the e-mail.

    Funding cutoff and an constitutional showdown, including impeachment, is the only way. Even giving public, recorded testimony under oath -- totally normal behavior in a republic -- is compared to Stalinist "show trials" (by Bush himself). Who do the Democrats think they're dealing with? IMHO, the antiwar movement has taken the opposite trajectory compared to Vietnam: huge start, steady dwindling since, this time 'round.

    The only honorable possibility is that the Dems know that to really challenge Bush would mean a "state of emergency" (possibly connected to Iran, which is obviously being probed, eg, by British ships in disputed waters) and the final tug of the silk hat, already hanging by a hairy ear, off this pig of a regime we have: ie, full-fledged martial law. Same conclusion I came to about Kerry's otherwise bewilderingly quick concession in 2004. These guys aren't leaving; nor will they in 2008. Sure, Bush and Cheney will step down, but if and only if a proper candidate, from either party, steps in to take care of business. Literally.

    Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete