|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
Current rating: 0 |
by Danielle Chynoweth, Urbana City Council
(No verified email address) |
20 Mar 2004
|
Last year, Urbana became one of 120 cities for peace when we passed an resolution against war. Despite the fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat, had no nuclear weapons or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and had no link to Al Qaeda of the attacks of September 11th, we went to war.
Bush's decision killed 10,000 Iraqi civilians and risked the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. Soliders. Some 575 have been killed.
What follows is a text of the speech I will be giving in front of the County Courthouse at 4 PM today. The event starts at 3 PM at the Urbana Middle School. |
Speech for the Anniversary of the Second U.S. War Against Iraq
In front of the Champaign County Courthouse, March 20, 2004
by Danielle Chynoweth
June Jordan is a poet and essayist who died recently and too young. The same corporate control of our democracy which has led the country into war is slowly killing us at home. June Jordan died June 2002 at the age of 65 after battling breast cancer for decades.
Read "The Bombing of Baghdad" by June Jordan
Last year, Urbana became one of 120 cities for peace when we passed an resolution against war. Members of the public packed city hall - most to show support - some to show concern - for the resolution. We effectively held a local version of the national debate congress abdicated when it handed over war powers to the President, further consolidating unprecedented power in the hands of the executive. These debates were of a very high caliber. I want to thank AWARE for making that resolution happen.
When I joined the cities for peace delegation to Washington and New York, I personally delivered our resolution against war to Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald, and Representative Tim Johnson. Fitzgerald responded by insisting Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" he could use at any moment. Johnson told me he had complete confidence in the President's access to intelligence. This is the same time the President was threatening "mushroom clouds" if we did not strike.
Despite the fact that Bush knew then and it has been verified now that:
- Iraq was not an imminent threat.
- Iraq had no nuclear weapons or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction
- Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda of the attacks of September 11th
Let me repeat.
- Iraq was not an imminent threat.
- Iraq had no nuclear weapons or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction
- Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda of the attacks of September 11th
Despite this, the U.S. went to war, killing 10,000 Iraqi civilians and risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. Soldiers - some 575 have been killed.
There have been some amazing successes of the last year. One was the number of people who turned out both nationally and globally to oppose war. These were the largest pre-war rallies in history. The other has been the swift uncovering of deception, corruption in post-war contracts, and complete censorship and bias of major news corporations. Historically, this kind of uncovering has taken decades and been revealed to the mainstream long after a regime is out of power.
But you will say - the Bush regime ignored the hundreds of millions who gathered in global protest and went to war, so what can we do with this information? Kick this regime out of power in November. The Bush regime is not our audience, the voters are. And it's not just the Presidential race that matters.
Senator Peter Fitzgerald is retiring after he leaked that he and the President were discussing the need to openly assassinate world leaders. If we work hard, anti-war candidate Barack Obama will fill the space left by Fitzgerald's fall from grace.
I wrote Representative Tim Johnson after it was uncovered that there were no weapons of mass destructive asking how he could have supported raining death on an innocent people with a leader that posed little threat to our country and calling for the censure of the President. Johnson's office always writes me back. This time he did not write back. Anti-war candidate David Gill is running against Johnson. Let's work for Gill to turn up the heat on Johnson.
Our audience is not the Bush regime, it is the American people. As long as we have even a smattering of democracy, Bush isn't the locus of power. The locus of power is the dynamic between leader and follower. As my late friend Herbert Brun, a survivor of Hilter's regime, used to say "Believers make liars." Without the believers, the liars have no power. So believers make liars, but who makes the believers?
CBS/Viacom, ABC/Disney, CNN/Time/Warner, Clear Channel, News Corp/Fox News
To quote commentator Ira Chernus: "Truth dies, just as people die, every day in Iraq. Sometimes the people are killed by Americans paid with our tax dollars. But we rarely hear about it, thanks to other Americans, the ones who kill truth: the journalists." And I would add the corporations.
Last year, after we passed the resolution, amongst a slew of hate mail, I received a letter which said" "You endanger the lives of this city, by fostering distrust in the leaders of our nation at this vulnerable time." Fostering distrust in Bush is exactly what we need to do right now.
I don't know what the statistics are now, but last Fall, if you were a Fox news consumer, you most likely still believed Iraq was linked with Al Quaeda, 9-11, or weapons of mass destruction. Even 25% or PBS viewers had these misconceptions.
We must spread to the news of these lies to our neighbors, coworkers, and community. Where else are they going to hear it?
We must link Bush's request for over $160 billion for the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq to our state budget crisis. The millions in arts, music, teachers, librarians we just cut from our school district.
We need to give names and faces to those who have died:
Rowand Mohammed Suleiman 8 months - Lower body blown off after crawling over cluster bomblet last April
Mawra, Mohammed, Zainab Kassim ages 5-9 killed with their car was hit by tank fire last March.
Entire Abdul Rasul family killed in the aerial bombardment of their house
Sahar Sarhan (wife of Mohammed Ali Sarhan) and their unborn son killed by a rocket strike to the ambulance carrying them to the Yarmouk Hospital in Baghdad.
- http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm
By the way, army captains are handing out "sympathy payments" to the relatives of Iraqi civilians killed or injured by the U.S. military. No admission of U.S. guilt, but you get $1,000 for an injury and $2,500 for a death. Now you know what Iraqi life is worth, in official U.S. eyes.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-04.htm
We must work with the Americans and their families who are being used as gun fodder and being made into a new generation of veterans.
Body bags are now "transfer tubes." The Bush administration has banned the media from the homecoming of of dead soldiers since 2000. Bush has not attended a single memorial or funeral for soldiers killed in action during his presidency. At least 7 soldiers have committed suicide after returning home, but we don't hear about it.
The army is offering re-enlistment bonuses of $10,000, but many are turning it down. In a New York Times op-ed by a graduate of West Point now in Mosul, Army officers now feel that "every order they receive is delivered with next November's election in mind, so there is little doubt at and near the top about who is really being used for what over here."
This is all fertile soil for organizing. We must organize with those whose lives are on the line.
I want to conclude by sharing stories of some of the activities from around the world yesterday and today.
Reuters is reporting that upwards of a million people marched in Rome today, while 10,000 marched on the U.S. embassy in Athens, and about 1,000 protested outside a U.S. air base at Ramstein, Germany. The march in Romw included a cadre of Italian policemen marching against the war.
New York: Recent crowd estimates have a mile and a half completely full of protesters, from 23rd to 34th St. Yesterday, activists unfurled a "No Blood For Oil" banner across 1st Avenue during the rush hour.
In San Francisco yesterday, hundreds locked down outside Bechtel corps headquarter effectively shutting down their offices. Bechtel is one of the corporations most profiting from the war with a 3 billion dollar contract to reconstruct Iraq. The rally was lead by teachers and healthcare workers.
A Pew survey found that “large majorities in every country, except for the U.S., hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63816-2004Mar16.html
Yesterday, 20 Arab Journalists walked out of Powell's speech in Baghdad in protest of the shooting deaths of 2 Iraqi reporters by U.S. troops.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114622,00.html
Iraq: Thousands rallied in the street of Baghdad today to protest the U.S.-led occupation, expressing outrage over poor security and unemployment.
Arkansas: The 17 people against the war in the conservative town of Jonesboro Arkansas are banding together to protest today.
http://arkansas.indymedia.org/feature/display/3048/index.php |
Related stories on this site:
Urbana Rallies Against Iraq War (photos)
Recap of the Global (and Local) Day of Action against the War and Occupation of Iraq
| 
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license. |
Comments
|
Re: One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
by Anna Epelbaum
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
21 Mar 2004
|
|
Truthful, and brave. Two thumbs up! |
|
Re: One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
by JK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
21 Mar 2004
|
Ms. Chynoweth's comments impress me very much. As a newcomer to this area, I am happy to see local politicians courageous enough to take strong stances against such brutal, speciously manufactured foreign policies that the Bush administration has adopted. I for one am proud to live in a city whose politicians and citizens have opposed this war.
We love and sympathize with the American soldiers who have been sent to Iraq. This love and sympathy is in no way at odds with our opposition to this war, this slaughter and abuse perpetrated in Iraq to conquer a nation and oust a brutal dictator whom we had supported for two decades. It is also not "un-American" to believe that what this administration is doing is wrong, morally and politically.
Thanks to Ms. Chynoweth for continuing to illustrate these and other salient points. |
|
And the State Mineral of Illinois is fluorite |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
22 Mar 2004
|
|
This could not be more meaningless, and yet, it still means so much to you. It would almost be touching if it weren't so completely stupid. Maybe next you should pass a resolution condemning bad weather. It's been kinda cold lately. |
|
Re: One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
by James Mortland
mortland1976 (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: -3
22 Mar 2004
|
There are many reasons that the Urbana City Council members were elected.
Let me state a few reasons why the Urbana City Council members were NOT elected.
UCC was NOT elected to be MY voice in the Federal Government.
UCC was NOT elected to be MY voice in the State Government.
Regardless of any particular voter’s reasons for supporting or not supporting the war in Iraq, or ANY war for that matter, the place for such support or dissent is with the officials that serve at the level of government concerned.
UCC can’t figure out how to keep the sidewalks maintained properly. Yet without any input from any intelligence community, federal or otherwise, the UCC passed a resolution that, in essence, provided a voice for the entire city against the war. Even if I were out on North Prospect protesting, I would STILL be against the UCC sticking their noses into a level of government for which they were not elected to govern.
Let’s go in the other direction: how many people would be happy with the Bush administration sticking his nose into the affairs of Urbana? Should the federal government be involved with the day-to-day operations of individual cities? Of course not!
Individuals with an opinion that concerns the federal level of government need to contact federal level senators, representatives and members of the executive branch.
Likewise, individuals with an opinion that concerns local happenings should contact the people with local jurisdiction, like the UCC.
The UCC is NOT a federal lobbying body for the City of Urbana, and it’s members, whether or not they agree with my opinions, have no business speaking for me, or anyone else at the federal level. |
|
Input from Intel? Surely You're Joking... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
22 Mar 2004
|
How ironic that Mortland should think that "without any input from any intelligence community" that somehow the Urbana City Council made a bad decision. I should think that if the issue of intel input before this war is what bothers him, then he really needs to ask about why the intel community's interaction in the justification for this sordid war built on lies went so badly wrong. Those with the greatest intel input seem to have made all the bad decisions.
In this case, Urbana got it right and those whose feet Mortland kisses got it completely wrong. There were no WMDs ready on 45 minute notice to be used in Iraq. There was and is and will likely never be any smoking gun found of the likes that was used to justify this war.
And don't even get me started about all the other evil things that Saddam's state was if you still are trying to fish for something else to justify this war. There are plenty of such regimes we are friendly with (including Saddam in the past) and as long as they toe the US line, being evil is not a problem and certainly not a reason for immediate military action. Get out of line like Saddam did, then there'll be trouble. It certainly isn't about how evil he was, rather that his brand of evil no longer fit US objectives.
There is an additional piece of irony at work here. Mortland seems to think that because the City Council did not get 100% of the vote (well, everyone except Joe Whelan of course) when they were elected, they have no business speaking out on this issue of major concern to the majority of their constituents. On the other hand, Mortland thinks that no one should consider the ramifications of the 30% opposition to the "Chief" expressed in the campus referendum last week. See his comments here:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/16317/index.php
So, in Mortland's view, electoral minorities are sometimes to be taken into account and sometimes ignored, but only when it suits _his_ argument. Very convenient and self-serving to have principles like that, don't ya think? |
|
Re: One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
by James Mortland
mortland1976 (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2004
|
The difference between the Urbana City Council and the Chief referendum is that the referendum WAS intended to be the expression BY the student body concerning an issue that directly affected the student body. The UCC was elected to legislatively run the City of Urbana, not deliberate federal issues.
Was the intelligence community wrong? More than likely. But the federal intelligence community reports to the federal government, not the Urbana City Council. That the UCC “got it right,” as you say, is merely chance, not an educated decision based on all of the knowledge available to Congress at that time, flawed though it was.
It wouldn't be proper for the UCC to ENDORSE the war on Iraq, either, because that is not their place as elected officials for the city.
If individual members of the UCC wish to express a weighted opinion of federal concern to the federal government, then they should feel free to draw up a petition to that effect and have it signed by those who share that opinion, and then present it at the federal level. If Ms. Chynoweth wants to put her name on such a petition, that's fine, but there is no reason that she needs to attach her title and position in the UCC as if her opinion represents the opinions of all city residents. However, such a petition should NOT have the UCC’s name or letterhead on it, and it should NOT be pushed on the City Council’s website.
A city council member(s) should not claim to represent his or her constituents at the federal level. (In our area, that is Representative Tim Johnson’s job, and HE is elected to represent the opinions of Urbana and surrounding areas at the federal level.)
If Ms. Chynoweth also happened to be some kind of board member of the IMC, and that IMC board wanted to draw up a resolution against the war, she should definitely be authorized to act in that capacity, but not as a representative of the City of Urbana or as a City Councilwoman. |
|
Now I See... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
22 Mar 2004
|
James Mortland wrote:
"That the UCC “got it right,” as you say, is merely chance, not an educated decision based on all of the knowledge available to Congress at that time, flawed though it was."
So, I guess you mean you don't mind wrong or even completely stupid decisions as long as they are made in a way that you approve of. Are you studying to be a lawyer, per chance?
BTW, I think if anybody has objections about the Urbana resolution against the war, they can express them by contacting those involved or via the next election. While you think that somehow stirring the pot with assertions that it was somehow unethical for the City Council to act as they did, most of us probably feel it was unethical for them to fail to express the view that this war was being foisted on us under morally questionable claims. We'll see who is right about how the majority feel at the next election.
BTW, Tim Johnson was contacted be numerous people in the community. He strung them along with his usual smarmy promises to look at both sides and then made a stupid decision, too. Should we vote to keep him in office because he did a stupid thing in the right way (according to you)? Or should we vote him out because he does stupid things? I think that is a much fairer way to judge his character and effectiveness as a legislator.
As for your trying to split hairs over your hypocritical difference in views between the Urbana vote and the meaning of the referendum on the "Chief" -- it was after all a referendum and non-binding. Don't I recall the Urbana resolution was also non-binding?
Hopefully those who care about the University beyond the narrow purpose of supplying sports teams for entertainment purposes will act by ignoring the referendum on the "Chief" for the publcity stunt that it was. If there had been votes taken on abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, or the end on bans against inter-racial marriage, it is safe to say that they all would have lost. Thankfully wiser and more just heads prevailed.
I also have noticed that you have gone nowhere near my opinion (http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/16315/index.php) that the "Chief" referendum has shown, by virtue of demonstrating the divisive nature of the "Chief", that he no longer serves the purpose of a mascot, or even "honored symbol" if you will. On top of your statement elsewhere that the "Chief" is simply a "imitation" (your exact word -- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/16317/index.php), why even bother? Because it's more important to you to have an imitation symbol who doesn't represent anything expect the views of a limited portion of the student body, i.e. you'd rather disrepect the heritage of others by desperately clinging to a fake.
Isn't the notion that people will enventaully discover the "Chief" is nothing but a fake what you are really afraid of in regards to the "Chief"?
Of course in the case of the "Chief" it doesn't look like you'll be able to take such a decision, if they choose toe retire him in whatever fashion, out on the trustees since Republicans took away the right of the public to vote on them by giving the governor the power to appoint them instead. But, as we've found with those other decisions I mentioned, people often have no problems with supporting wise leadership that goes against a weakly held majority view if the moral underpinings are there. Once again, isn't that something "Chief" supporters are really afraid of -- that we'll find nobody will miss him in the long run and that we'll be better off without the fake "Chief"?
Meanwhile, if you want to recall the decision to oppose the war, take out a petition to get on the ballot in Urbana. There's an election coming up about a year away. Good luck, but I think it'll probably turn out to be another one of those bad decisions you speak so fondly of, but you'll probably feel OK about it because you went about it in the right way. At least thousands of innocent people and American servicemembers won't get killed because of your bad decision made the right way. |
|
Re: One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
by Theo Tsoukalas
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2004
|
Two thumbs up for Ms. Danielle Chynoweth!
This war while fought in Iraq and while it is one of the most unjustified, most unwanted, and most single minded war fought in the last few years by the US, has generated substantial damage in the domestic well being of the US, and has isolated the US's standing in the international community.
While the damage done to the people in the US has not been fully calculated yet, let us as a proxy suggest that all the money and lives spent to fight this disgraceful war (nearly $200 billion or so) could be used domestically for health care, for mental health care, for oral care, for education, for public transportation, for building the ever so aging physical infrastructure--deteriorating drinking water plants across the US (see the news media accounts for the lead poisoning mess in DC, for example), for labor training and development, for the special needs of residents with physical and chronic illness related disadvantages, for the health and safety of women (why should the women of the Champaign-Urbana community fear and even experience being victimized while running, and going about doing things they wish to do in their daily routines(it's not the people we are at war with that threaten the lives and safety of our sisters and brothers! One could go on and on. But let me say lastly, to those who worry about investments and economic security, etc, that much has to be gain by diverting the federal governemnt's budget priorities away from war and towards the needs of our social develepment here in our own back yard (this is OUR land, not just the land of the benefactors of Pres. Bush's political aspirations.)
So, what is one to do then?
ORGANIZE!!!!!
All long journeys begin with the first step, and the journey for peace and justice, and human dignity, has just began, and will go on.
Urbana City Council Member Ms. Danielle Chynoweth is right on target!!
Theo Tsoukalas |
|
Re: One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
by James Mortland
mortland1976 (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Mar 2004
|
ML, get a grip. Pulling quotes out of my opinions from their proper context, adding YOUR assuptions of what goes on in my mind and then drawing correlations that don’t exist is the world’s easiest way to argue. This is mostly because you’re arguing against something that I haven’t said.
As for running for council office, I would if I could.
Don’t take what follows out of context. My opinions represent ONLY my opinions. My opinions do not represent the military as a whole or any portion thereof.
I’d like to run for city council, if nothing else than to give the current council members a reason to solidify their positions and stick to what they were elected to do. However, as a soldier, that would clearly be a conflict of interest.
I’m currently a member of the National Guard, but I’m also an Active Army vet – nine years total so far. I have friends who are have been and are currently serving in Iraq. I have friends who have served in Afghanistan. Personally, I volunteered twice (and left in the middle of my senior year of college at UIUC) after 9/11 for whatever jobs the military might need me – I ended up on 1) Airport Security and 2) on Force Protection in Europe. It’s not the front lines, but I can’t make the decision about where I go. On active, I was deployed for Peacekeeping in Bosnia in 1997 as a Cav Scout with a Mech INF BN, performing security patrols, checkpoint ops, dismounted liaisons with local nationals, and riot control.
Currently, I’m non-deployable, but only because I volunteered to go through Officer Candidate School – OCS – to be a platoon leader. I look forward to leading troops in an ethical manner in whatever capacity that the state or federal government needs my unit.
So, when and where we as a nation go to war is truly a personal issue, not only for me, but also for my wife, son, extended family and friends. As MacArthur said, no one prays for peace like the soldier.
Since the military is a subordinate organization to the government, I cannot ethically be a part of the government in any official capacity, whether or not it is legal for me to do so at the local level.
What’s your excuse? |
|
Reply |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
22 Mar 2004
|
Hmm...
Nobody is questioning your dedication to duty, JM, and I can see why you aren't in a position to run for office presently. I guess you missed my point, which was essentially that the Urbana City Council got there because they represent the majority view in this community -- including our democratic right to comment on the conduct of government at all levels of our society. As someone who has pledged to put your life on the line for this society, I can't see why you are so uncomfortable with getting the widest input from the public into matters that could come down to life or death for you.
The problem is you are defending a bad decision because you find it politically acceptable to you, not because it was either the right thing to do based on the facts as we know them to be or because it enjoyed universal public support. That is the reality of a democratic society. By pledging to defend it, you did not place an obligation on the rest of us to march in lockstep with you.
And I can't help but see a certain hypocrisy in your defense of the "Chief" referendum, while having such a problem with the results of the last Urbana city election. I tend to dislike the zero-sum game so often presented to us by the winner-take-all system of US elections. Maybe you'd support proportional representation, as I do, as a way to make sure everybody's voice is heard. But I think there little dispute that the way you'd hope that the Urbana City Council would act (or not act, as in this case) is simply not the way the majority of us here feel it should act. You've had your chance to express your displeasure and you can still vote in the next election to change it.
In the meantime, the rest of us will just continue to disagree with you and support our City Council, whose judgment about international politics seems to be more accurate than your commander-in-chief's, with or without intel input. |
|
Bush's infatuation with Iraq cost us our National Security |
by TJ
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
22 Mar 2004
|
Had we put 100,000 troops into the original war, the only one sanctioned by the world at large and the vast majority of Americans, we would have done much more to catch the leaders of Al Qaidia, learned of their network of operatives and alliances, and brought stability to the country outside of a small region around the capital, Kabul.
But Bush didn't do this. He didn't make Al Qaida priority #1 our or national security. Instead he decided to play General and start a diversionary war in Iraq that will do nothing to weaken Al Qaidia -- in fact it has only done the opposite.
To put it another way, don't whack the hornet's nest unless you're prepared to deal with the hornets. Bush whacked the hornet's nest and then for some damn fool reason decided to start chasing the gopher instead.
Is it any wonder he's getting stung all over? Idiot! |
|
Re: One Year After our Anti-War Resolution: What We Can Do Now |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 16
16 Apr 2004
|
Well Ms. Chynoweth, you could do your job as an elected official and try to grow Urbana. That would be a switch. Or you could simply declare Urbana a business free zone as you have successfully done with the complete elimination of Nuclear Weapons in the area.
Your Good Friend,
Jack |
|
