my note:
Elizabeth de la Vega, a former Federal prosecutor, writes a column now and then for Tom Engelhardt's regular commentary. Engelhardt, one of my favorite political analysts, gives her this holiday spot.
I feel, like him, that her message is hopeful, and entirely appropriate as we celebrate this holiday season.
I bid you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year . . .
--Zlatko
( paste of de la Vega's column below)
Shoot the Moon and Forget About the Bell Curve
Elizabeth de la Vega and Tom Engelhardt
Tom Dispatch
Consider this latest piece by former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, who writes regularly for TomDispatch on the Plame case and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, as my way of signing off with good cheer until the New Year. In our embattled American world, De la Vega suggests just the kind of optimism that seems both possible, and possibly fruitful, to adopt. This is about as close as I can imagine to an attitude, if not a politics, that I might stand behind. It's a way to think about 2006 with hope (of a sort) and even perhaps grace. I offer my best wishes to everyone who has read TomDispatch this year, and especially to all those of you who have taken a few heartfelt moments to write in, even when critical, in a kindly and encouraging spirit. Thank you and have a good holiday. TomDispatch will return – count on it – January 2nd or 3rd. Tom
Shoot the Moon and Forget About the Bell Curve
by Elizabeth de la Vega
I have to admit that some of the responses to my recent article "The White House Criminal Conspiracy" (published in the Nation and posted at TomDispatch.com), in which I argued that the Bush administration should be brought to account in Congress or a court of law for defrauding the American people into war, kept me up at night. No, not the ones that questioned my sanity or sobriety. The letters that have given pause are from people who wholeheartedly agree that the Bush administration lied about the war. Yet there's "zero chance," these writers contend, that a completely Republican-controlled government will ever do anything about it, so it's pointless to pursue the matter. While lying awake beside my sleeping husband with my dog staring up at me in the dark, I've wondered, is that true? Is it futile, or foolish, to act when there is little apparent chance of success?
It was five years ago this month that George W. Bush received his best Christmas gift ever – the presidency – from the United States Supreme Court. And around this time every year, I've thought about the night of Dec. 13, 2000, when he made his formal acceptance speech. I remember it well: Bush speaking from the Texas House of Representatives about a bipartisan foreign policy and his plan to reunite the country. It's not that I was particularly interested in the president or even the election at that point. I wasn't. I had taken a leave of absence from my job as a federal prosecutor in San Jose and flown 3,000 miles across the country to be with my sister. So I watched the speech while sitting on a portable cot, looking at a hospital TV suspended from the ceiling – and my sister was lying in a bed next to me amidst a tangle of tubes. She was dying.
Kathy was 38, a small-town doctor with a 3-year-old son, when she was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer. Her prognosis was grim. Statistically, the majority of patients with her diagnosis live for only about six months. But some patients, those represented by a tiny fraction at the far edge of the bell curve, outlived the odds, and Kathy was determined to join that group. So what did she do? Everything. She had a mastectomy, radiation, and chemotherapy; she vomited, lost her hair, and her eyebrows. She took drugs that threw her into menopause, steroids that made her face swell up like a balloon, and herbs that tasted like dirt. She went to acupuncture, mind-body seminars, and Reiki treatments. She endured a cell replacement procedure that kept her isolated for 30 days. In other words, she shot the moon.
By the day of Bush's speech, Kathy's organs were failing. Her liver was, by then, so damaged that her doctors were astounded she could even talk coherently. Not only could she talk, but she had a lot to say about Bush's speech (mainly expressing her irritation that it preempted The West Wing.) She died three days later, six years after her initial diagnosis.
Throughout her ordeal, one of my sister's persistent concerns was what other people would think. Would her medical colleagues consider her irrational, if not crazy, to pursue treatments that were so uncomfortable and painful, not to say unproven or improbable in terms of success? And what would her patients think? Kathy would call me regularly and ask just these questions.
In the end, though, she answered them herself. As long as there was uncertainty, the slightest possibility that she could land at the odds-defying edge of that bell curve and have a longer life, it made sense to her to do anything she could bear to do, regardless of what others thought.
I don't know Lynn Woolsey, the Democratic congresswoman from Petaluma, Calif., but I think she would agree with my sister.
Representative Woolsey opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset. She first called for a U.S. withdrawal from that country in April 2004. Since then, she has stepped onto the floor of the House of Representatives 128 times to talk about the deceit that led us to war, the lies and incompetence that keep us there, and her plan for an exit. Certainly the odds have been steeply against her; she has often been speaking to an empty chamber. In January 2005, when she proposed legislation calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, she was joined by only 14 House Democrats. But by the spring of 2005, what had seemed like a thoroughly futile exercise began to look somewhat different. By June, she had garnered support from 127 other representatives in the House, including five Republicans, for a proposed amendment to the annual defense spending bill that required Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal. And now, of course, the momentum for withdrawal continues to build.
Woolsey has been able to bring people around not merely because of her courage and commitment. Equally compelling has been the evidence she cites. In April 2004, she talked about 700 American soldiers dead; by March 2005, 1,500 American troops had died and 11,000 were injured; and on October 22, 2005, she said:
"Earlier this month, I traveled to Iraq, where I received extensive briefings from military commanders and toured our state-of-the-art facilities. But nothing was more informative than sitting down to meals with enlisted soldiers from California. Many of these soldiers are on their second or third tour of duty. I talked to fathers who have babies back home they have never seen. There were mothers who deployed mere months after giving birth. …
"With the casualty count of U.S. military personnel in Iraq nearing 2,000 and $1 billion in tax monies spent in Iraq every week, the American people are justifiably demanding – and our troops deserve – a plan, a strategy, something more than an open-ended military commitment.
"If victory is the goal, what, exactly, defines victory?"
In short, Representative Woolsey has, against all odds and the measured opinions of her doubting or dismissive colleagues, persistently focused on reality – just the facts; and it is reality that most powerfully counteracts the mass anesthetic that the Bush administration has used to keep people from questioning the war. While masquerading as hardheaded realists, the president and war hawks from both parties have been, at best, determined illusionists. They have shrouded the war in abstractions – victory, freedom, the spread of democracy – all of which are, ultimately (to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway in his World War I novel A Farewell to Arms), obscene, especially when juxtaposed against the concrete names of soldiers killed, Iraqis bombed, towns destroyed, and children maimed.
That is why the Bush administration has tried so mightily to keep us from thinking about the funerals of the American dead and the amputees at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Administration officials went out of their way to hide the evidence of the return home of dead soldiers by prohibiting photographs of the coffins as they arrived back in the United States; while the president, vice president, and others carefully avoided attending any of the more than 2,000 funerals. But it's been those funerals and the amputees at Walter Reed that have convinced die-hard war supporters Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and John Murtha (D.-Pa.) to denounce the war. Murtha's plainspoken critique of the war was so threatening to the administration that it resorted initially to accusing him of joining forces with Michael Moore, rather than responding to his actual arguments.
The truth is that the closer you get to the reality of the war against Iraq and the lies that brought us there – and these are quite literally matters of life and death – the easier it is to know what to do: Shoot the moon and forget about the bell curve.
As Congresswoman Woolsey has known all along, the most potent antidote to the obscenity of abstraction is fact. Focus on the facts. Make sure you get them right and don't overstate your case. Talk about the lies that sent us to Iraq. Talk about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis slaughtered, the soldiers killed and wounded, the families they've left behind. Don't play the administration's word games about torture: talk about waterboarding, humiliation, and beatings. Write letters, demonstrate, make calls, send e-mails, wear T-shirts, campaign for candidates who oppose the war, join groups, organize groups, talk to anyone who will listen and even people who won't. Advocate impeachment, push the Senate to analyze the administration's use of prewar intelligence, call for a special prosecutor – and tell Congress it's time to bring the troops home. Don't worry about the odds.
What good does any of this do? The answer is we don't know – which is exactly why we have to do it.
(bio)
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for TomDispatch. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.
Copyright 2005 Elizabeth de la Vega
BRAVE WOMEN, THE IRAQ WAR, AND THE NEW YEAR
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
Yes, Bushco lied us into a war that was never sufficiently justified. Yes, Bush has committed impeachable offenses, IMO. But the Admin. has controlled the information for the most part, though that seems to be slowly changing.
Polls suggest that most Americans now realize they've 'been had' by Bushco with this war. Fine. Then what? Damage is already done. We must 'see the job through', and this is yet something else that policymakers can twist and spin. That's the problem with this sort of steamroller militaristic campaign, fueled by manufactured fear, inflamed by nationalism and high-minded abstractions. Rationality and sensibility are in short supply to begin with, when they are needed most. The hawks and speechwriters know this.
But there is a die-hard core of war supporters who will never be swayed by any revealed preponderance of Bushco deception and malfeasance because they still hold onto the war's 'higher purpose'.... freedom, democracy, etc. These people will hold onto their perception of 'higher purpose' like a pit bull, and they are likely to justify all manner of means to attain those ends. And the hardest of the hard-core still cling to the notion that the war was unavoidably necessary for our security.
So the Duelfler Report and 9/11 Commission Report dismiss Iraq's purported w.m.d. and terrorist ties? No problem. Just trot out Saddam's handful of purported terrorist links from twenty years ago (when even Reagan's State Department did not count Iraq as a terror-sponsor state), or accuse Saddam of harboring '93 WTC bomb suspect Yousef (Yousef was imprisoned by S.H., not "harbored"). Why let facts and evidence deter you from a higher mission?...
To the hardest of self-styled Patriots, resistance to the war amounts to fascist sympathy. They will never back down because they have their 'clincher', namely the removal of a brutal dictator. That's why it's impossible to ever 'win' this debate. You have to act from your own conscience, try to stick to the facts (as noted in the article), and hope that the fighting will end soon.
Reciting facts alone will not settle it. Mention 30,000 Iraqi dead and Saddam's mass graves are given as a counterpoint. Mention the appalling conditions in wide areas, post-invasion, and 'the terrorists' are blamed for it. There is no way to settle it. I've heard people say that we will 'learn something' from this war, but I doubt it. The next time our 'security is threatened' suddenly and our 'interests' are at stake, it could happen again. And again. Frustrating to think about.
Polls suggest that most Americans now realize they've 'been had' by Bushco with this war. Fine. Then what? Damage is already done. We must 'see the job through', and this is yet something else that policymakers can twist and spin. That's the problem with this sort of steamroller militaristic campaign, fueled by manufactured fear, inflamed by nationalism and high-minded abstractions. Rationality and sensibility are in short supply to begin with, when they are needed most. The hawks and speechwriters know this.
But there is a die-hard core of war supporters who will never be swayed by any revealed preponderance of Bushco deception and malfeasance because they still hold onto the war's 'higher purpose'.... freedom, democracy, etc. These people will hold onto their perception of 'higher purpose' like a pit bull, and they are likely to justify all manner of means to attain those ends. And the hardest of the hard-core still cling to the notion that the war was unavoidably necessary for our security.
So the Duelfler Report and 9/11 Commission Report dismiss Iraq's purported w.m.d. and terrorist ties? No problem. Just trot out Saddam's handful of purported terrorist links from twenty years ago (when even Reagan's State Department did not count Iraq as a terror-sponsor state), or accuse Saddam of harboring '93 WTC bomb suspect Yousef (Yousef was imprisoned by S.H., not "harbored"). Why let facts and evidence deter you from a higher mission?...
To the hardest of self-styled Patriots, resistance to the war amounts to fascist sympathy. They will never back down because they have their 'clincher', namely the removal of a brutal dictator. That's why it's impossible to ever 'win' this debate. You have to act from your own conscience, try to stick to the facts (as noted in the article), and hope that the fighting will end soon.
Reciting facts alone will not settle it. Mention 30,000 Iraqi dead and Saddam's mass graves are given as a counterpoint. Mention the appalling conditions in wide areas, post-invasion, and 'the terrorists' are blamed for it. There is no way to settle it. I've heard people say that we will 'learn something' from this war, but I doubt it. The next time our 'security is threatened' suddenly and our 'interests' are at stake, it could happen again. And again. Frustrating to think about.
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
As in the case of the War in Vietnam, even relatively informed people ( and it's not easy to be informed about this Iraq War) tend not to look at facts but simply express long-held feelings.
Oddly enough, under the pressure ( so perceived) of what Bush calls his "necessities", complacent folks who never speak up anyway except to reiterate those feelings aren't at all worried about losing the First Amendment.
Again, we are asking people to use imagination, consider what MIGHT happen ( Orwell's imaginative spark for writing "1984"-- my reason for quoting it on these boards . . .), not the comfy situation they find themselves in at the moment.
Merely to consider what it might be like for homeless people living through Christmas and the holidays is too much for the complacent.
Ask them to think about people not from their own social classes far away in Iraq risking being blown to bits for one small group of white men's maniacal vision of changing the world while securing "our" future supply of fossil fuel?
That's too much of an imaginative leap for those living in my neighborhood who "Joined Arnold" because the television told them to.
Most people, I hate to admit from a lifetime of teaching, don't want to learn things, though they'll announce that they do. And they don't want to undergo the momentary unpleasantness of having to admit their comfortable view of the world might be wrong.
I can't tell you how many times my smug white, affluent students answered the question:
"What shall we do about the poor?"
with:
"Tell them to work harder."
Merry Christmas in spite of it,
--Z
Oddly enough, under the pressure ( so perceived) of what Bush calls his "necessities", complacent folks who never speak up anyway except to reiterate those feelings aren't at all worried about losing the First Amendment.
Again, we are asking people to use imagination, consider what MIGHT happen ( Orwell's imaginative spark for writing "1984"-- my reason for quoting it on these boards . . .), not the comfy situation they find themselves in at the moment.
Merely to consider what it might be like for homeless people living through Christmas and the holidays is too much for the complacent.
Ask them to think about people not from their own social classes far away in Iraq risking being blown to bits for one small group of white men's maniacal vision of changing the world while securing "our" future supply of fossil fuel?
That's too much of an imaginative leap for those living in my neighborhood who "Joined Arnold" because the television told them to.
Most people, I hate to admit from a lifetime of teaching, don't want to learn things, though they'll announce that they do. And they don't want to undergo the momentary unpleasantness of having to admit their comfortable view of the world might be wrong.
I can't tell you how many times my smug white, affluent students answered the question:
"What shall we do about the poor?"
with:
"Tell them to work harder."
Merry Christmas in spite of it,
--Z
IMHO the only voices that will make a difference to Dubya would be from Congress. Murtha spoke his mind using reason and logic and he has made a difference, albeit moving slower that most of 'us' would like, but that is the nature of our political system... slow to change, slow to accept, but militarily rather quick in delivery - one year and a half to hit Afghanistan/Iraq... 18 months was fast for politics.
True, the vocal eventually are heard by Congress and their own voters challenge their reelection, but in the meantime the whole ball of evidence against Bush & Co slowly unravels. And during this period we have those that want to re-ravel and those that want to continue unraveling... the two sides apparently always at work in 'their convictions' as to what is right and what is wrong with the whole system.
I have friends who remain silent whenever I rant against Bush and it shuts me up... knowing they somehow support this Admin. It is a shock to me. I cannot comprehend their attitude. The two sides in this political battle are unlike any in my own memory. I don't see the two sides ever agreeing with each other - too macho. If one side is not allowed its chance to fulfill their dream, the opposing side will certainly not be allowed to fulfill their dream of what direction the country should go... the battle lines are drawn and the philosophies duel... whosoever shall survive will jauntily announce "We have won!" from the ruins of what once was.
A dismal picture..? Until one can stand and convince this country of anything better, that is how I see our future as a Nation united in it's belief of Freedom for all... not just one party or another to prove itself to be the hallmark of what Freedom should be.
As long as we as a people continue to define ourselves as Liberals or Conservatives, as Democrats or Republicans, as Evangelicals or Judeo/Christians, as super-wealthy or middle class, or any other dualistic terms that bring on discomfort to others that are not, the battle will not be for the democratization of foreign countries, but for the stability of our own country... a country founded upon principles that the Founding Fathers of this Nation wrote down 230 years ago:
The Declaration of Independence -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
If our elected officials cannot reach any agreement and no resolution amongst themselves, when their convictions threaten the stability of the country, then it is the responsibility of the people to oust the officials and re-install those that can be trusted to do what is best for the people.
The U.S. Constitution -
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The ideal of a 'perfect union' should not be the divine right of an elected President nor the Congress, for they have been chosen by the voters from all walks of life and should reflect all peoples beliefs. Another thing that should not be ignored is the 'General Welfare' of our citizens which are being eroded by this Administration for their personal benefits, thus threatening the 'blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'
George W. Bush is not working for this country but for a one-sided agenda that espouses a philosophy that is dependent upon one belief - Neo-Conservatism, which is not to the benefit of the majority of our citizens, but only for the Robber Barons which have completely infiltrated our government and continues to weild their influence thru bribery known as 'lobbyists' that want further control over the Nation for their own selfish agenda.
Through their programs they have whittled the monies available to provide full educations to our citizens for the Nation's welfare. They are inturn allowing a continuation of erosion of knowledge that should make the people more vigilant against the decay of Bill of Rights, the promise of Life, Liberty and our Pursuit of Happiness afforded all people.
Politics as usual can no longer suffice. To have a President at the beck and call of his supporters leaves out too many others. Bush has continually supported his Party at the expense of those that did not vote for him. Is this Democracy? Should not any President support all the people and not simply those that voted him into office? Bush and his comment of "you're either with us or against us" has included those that have not voted or supported his views. This is the root cause of our current division and one that should no longer be tolerated in order for the government to function for all the people only because, to put it simply, this country is for all of us and not just 'the chosen.'
[enough]
True, the vocal eventually are heard by Congress and their own voters challenge their reelection, but in the meantime the whole ball of evidence against Bush & Co slowly unravels. And during this period we have those that want to re-ravel and those that want to continue unraveling... the two sides apparently always at work in 'their convictions' as to what is right and what is wrong with the whole system.
I have friends who remain silent whenever I rant against Bush and it shuts me up... knowing they somehow support this Admin. It is a shock to me. I cannot comprehend their attitude. The two sides in this political battle are unlike any in my own memory. I don't see the two sides ever agreeing with each other - too macho. If one side is not allowed its chance to fulfill their dream, the opposing side will certainly not be allowed to fulfill their dream of what direction the country should go... the battle lines are drawn and the philosophies duel... whosoever shall survive will jauntily announce "We have won!" from the ruins of what once was.
A dismal picture..? Until one can stand and convince this country of anything better, that is how I see our future as a Nation united in it's belief of Freedom for all... not just one party or another to prove itself to be the hallmark of what Freedom should be.
As long as we as a people continue to define ourselves as Liberals or Conservatives, as Democrats or Republicans, as Evangelicals or Judeo/Christians, as super-wealthy or middle class, or any other dualistic terms that bring on discomfort to others that are not, the battle will not be for the democratization of foreign countries, but for the stability of our own country... a country founded upon principles that the Founding Fathers of this Nation wrote down 230 years ago:
The Declaration of Independence -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
If our elected officials cannot reach any agreement and no resolution amongst themselves, when their convictions threaten the stability of the country, then it is the responsibility of the people to oust the officials and re-install those that can be trusted to do what is best for the people.
The U.S. Constitution -
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The ideal of a 'perfect union' should not be the divine right of an elected President nor the Congress, for they have been chosen by the voters from all walks of life and should reflect all peoples beliefs. Another thing that should not be ignored is the 'General Welfare' of our citizens which are being eroded by this Administration for their personal benefits, thus threatening the 'blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'
George W. Bush is not working for this country but for a one-sided agenda that espouses a philosophy that is dependent upon one belief - Neo-Conservatism, which is not to the benefit of the majority of our citizens, but only for the Robber Barons which have completely infiltrated our government and continues to weild their influence thru bribery known as 'lobbyists' that want further control over the Nation for their own selfish agenda.
Through their programs they have whittled the monies available to provide full educations to our citizens for the Nation's welfare. They are inturn allowing a continuation of erosion of knowledge that should make the people more vigilant against the decay of Bill of Rights, the promise of Life, Liberty and our Pursuit of Happiness afforded all people.
Politics as usual can no longer suffice. To have a President at the beck and call of his supporters leaves out too many others. Bush has continually supported his Party at the expense of those that did not vote for him. Is this Democracy? Should not any President support all the people and not simply those that voted him into office? Bush and his comment of "you're either with us or against us" has included those that have not voted or supported his views. This is the root cause of our current division and one that should no longer be tolerated in order for the government to function for all the people only because, to put it simply, this country is for all of us and not just 'the chosen.'
[enough]
-
Glorious Amok
- Posts: 551
- Joined: August 16th, 2004, 7:25 am
- Location: in the best of both worlds
- Contact:
yes... the science, the applied science.
Funny how the Christians, at least the Armored Evangelist sect, usually seem to have more weaponry and firepower than the pagans (or 'heathen'), often not hesitant to use it....
Seems to mirror that 'remold-the-world-in-your-image-of-found-Truth' tendency.....
Funny how the Christians, at least the Armored Evangelist sect, usually seem to have more weaponry and firepower than the pagans (or 'heathen'), often not hesitant to use it....
Seems to mirror that 'remold-the-world-in-your-image-of-found-Truth' tendency.....
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
The truth is that the closer you get to the reality of the war against Iraq and the lies that brought us there – and these are quite literally matters of life and death – the easier it is to know what to do: Shoot the moon and forget about the bell curve.
As Congresswoman Woolsey has known all along, the most potent antidote to the obscenity of abstraction is fact. Focus on the facts. Make sure you get them right and don't overstate your case. Talk about the lies that sent us to Iraq. Talk about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis slaughtered, the soldiers killed and wounded, the families they've left behind. Don't play the administration's word games about torture: talk about waterboarding, humiliation, and beatings. Write letters, demonstrate, make calls, send e-mails, wear T-shirts, campaign for candidates who oppose the war, join groups, organize groups, talk to anyone who will listen and even people who won't. Advocate impeachment, push the Senate to analyze the administration's use of prewar intelligence, call for a special prosecutor – and tell Congress it's time to bring the troops home. Don't worry about the odds. -- Elizabeth de la Vega
I agree ~ 100%
another good one Z ~ thank you
ps ... for those proclaiming they want bush/chaney for security ... give um this quote:
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
As Congresswoman Woolsey has known all along, the most potent antidote to the obscenity of abstraction is fact. Focus on the facts. Make sure you get them right and don't overstate your case. Talk about the lies that sent us to Iraq. Talk about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis slaughtered, the soldiers killed and wounded, the families they've left behind. Don't play the administration's word games about torture: talk about waterboarding, humiliation, and beatings. Write letters, demonstrate, make calls, send e-mails, wear T-shirts, campaign for candidates who oppose the war, join groups, organize groups, talk to anyone who will listen and even people who won't. Advocate impeachment, push the Senate to analyze the administration's use of prewar intelligence, call for a special prosecutor – and tell Congress it's time to bring the troops home. Don't worry about the odds. -- Elizabeth de la Vega
I agree ~ 100%
another good one Z ~ thank you
ps ... for those proclaiming they want bush/chaney for security ... give um this quote:
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests