|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Protest Activity |
|
Senator Obama becomes AWARE |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jan Kruse
Email: jandurl (nospam) insightbb.com (unverified!) |
18 Aug 2005
|
The Terminal building hosted an Obama townhall meeting today August 18.
Inside the crowds were waiting. Outside, AWARE was on the street with Senator Obama! |
| | |
As the welcoming crowds awaited the arrival of Senator Obama to speak, outside on the street AWARE had a first hand session with the senator.
AWARE pressed the point that on some issues our senator has let us down. Many were asking him to speak more forcefully against the war and to bring the US military home now!
He has not come around to speaking for our demand to bring the troops home now!
But today AWARE was able to get our point of view to Senator Obama and to the public.
Security at the terminal building tried to halt the passing of our flyers. They wanted our protest signs out of the parking lot........However, when the senator invited AWARE inside we were then able to take our message to the public and media inside.
Senator Obama is not yet speaking to bring the military home! But at least he is now AWARE that people in the state of Illinois are saying: Bring the troops HOME! End the WAR NOW! |
Related stories on this site:
Cindy Sheehan, Mother of Slain Soldier, Demands Meeting with...
Cindy Sheehan's Message Repudiates George Bush -- and Howard Dean
The Iraq War and MoveOn
Congress Has Earned Its Share of the Blame for War Mistakes
Has the "Tipping Point" on Iraq Been Reached?
BTL: Cindy Sheehan's Vigil at President's Texas Ranch Sparks Powerful...
Hypocrites and Liars
Aaron Glantz Gives First hand Accounts of Iraq this Thursday at Pages at 7 PM
Congress Must Probe Whether President Lied Us into War
More Statesmanship, Less Salesmanship, Please . . .
| 
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
FLYER FOR OBAMA |
by C. G. ESTABROOK
cge (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Aug 2005
|
BRING ALL U.S. TROOPS HOME FROM IRAQ -- AND U.S. MERCENARIES AND CORPORATIONS AS WELL.
PAY REPARATIONS FOR THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THAT WE'VE BROUGHT TO IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN.
TELL SENATOR OBAMA TO WORK TO END THE WAR
AND PUNISH THOSE WHO LIED US INTO IT.
The junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, has done nothing to end the occupation of Iraq or to punish those who started this illegal war with a campaign of deception. On the contrary, he has cooperated in the critical support that the Democratic party has given to the war and to U.S. government policy in the Greater Middle East -- a policy that has killed tens of thousands of people during this administration and may yet have even more catastrophic results. Leading Democrats are now to the *right* of the Bush administration in calling for an expansion of the U.S. military.
Obama, featured as the keynote speaker at the Democratic convention in 2004, was celebrated as a progressive figure when he was elected to the Senate, against token Republican opposition. (He also had an unfunded independent opponent who supported both withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care, positions that Obama rejected.) But his performance belies that description:
--The day before his convention speech, Obama told reporters, “There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.” In the speech Obama criticized Bush for invading Iraq “without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world” -- which remains the general Democratic party position.
--Obama voted twice (once in committee and once on the Senate floor) to confirm Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser during the invasion of Iraq, as Secretary of State.
--Like all but six of the Senate Democrats, Obama quite rightly voted against the confirmation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the promoter of the torture policy and the Patriot Act, but he said he did so “At a time when we are fighting for freedom in places like Iraq and Afghanistan ... the seeds of democracy began to take root in Iraq ... we are engaged in a deadly global struggle with those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms...” In short, he echoed the administration's account of the war.
--When Illinois' senior senator, Richard Durbin, timorously raised the question of the administration's torture policy on the floor of the Senate, Obama failed to support him. Instead, he rather timidly observed, after Durbin's tearful apology for doing such a thing, “...he should have said what he said somewhat differently.”
--Just two months ago Obama said, “It is a challenge now to try to fix the mess that has been made by this administration. There aren't any easy answers. It would be irresponsible to just spout off without having thought through what all the alternatives -- and implications of those alternatives -- might be ... I believe the president must take a realistic look at our current strategy and reshape it into *an aggressive and workable plan that will ensure success in Iraq*” [emphasis added].
--Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, writes, “With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush's war against Iraq and convinced that Bush's invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the U.S. Strategic Command come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons ... The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush's impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon...” [17 August 2005]
Shockingly, during his senatorial campaign, Obama supported in principle the Bush administration's policy on Iran. On 25 September 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote, “U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs ... the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.”
We must demand that Senator Obama work to end the war and punish those who lied us into it. You can contact him in Washington at 202.224.2854, by fax at 202.228.4260 or through his website, <http://obama.senate.gov/>.
A.W.A.R.E. <www.anti-war.net>,
the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana,
conducts open meetings every Sunday 5-6:30 PM
at the Independent Media Center in Urbana.
Join us.
CGE 2005-08-18 |
|
Re: Senator Obama becomes AWARE |
by C. G. ESTABROOK
cge (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Aug 2005
|
|
Obama's performance in Champaign today was pretty sad. He essentially supports the the continuation of the war (as the Democrats in general do): establish a Vichy government, draw down the number of US troops, maintain "good relations" with that government (and apparently the US bases). That's almost identical with the Bush administration's plan, and it ignores the fact that a majority of the Iraqis want us to leave now, understandably enough. Obama managed to avoid mentioning torture, Iran, and the Downing Street minutes, among other topics. |
|
Re: Senator Obama becomes AWARE |
by anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2005
|
keep in mind, the military industrial complex runs the show, any anti-war, anti-pork spending candidate will have a hard time getting elected....
it's time for change, the american people are ready, but the MIC will not let that happen, they make the rules and you have to play their game |
|
Re: Senator Obama becomes AWARE |
by Max "X"
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2005
|
|
It's time we have a heart to heart with our government about the lies that have been told to us in " Our name". The people are awake now! They want answers, They want justice and they are moving! Children are moving, not only moving! But shouting Revolt! Revolt! Revolt! Peacefully |
|
The Way It Is, Barack |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2005
|
Cindy Sheehan said it best:
"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."
From : http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/92882/index.php |
|
Re: Senator Obama becomes AWARE |
by Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2005
|
This was a very educational event. Our senator has obviously been at great pains to agree with the growing anti-war sentiment in the country, even identify with it, while backing away from the one thing that we ask for: troops out now.
He has met with anti-war protesters at a few stops now, including his recent birthday bash, and he seems willing to spend quite a bit of time talking with us. In public and in private. He says the invasion was 'stupid', he uses the word 'torture', and then he says it's actually elements in the Democratic Party holding him back -- which I don't doubt at all -- but he opposes immediate withdrawal. And yes, even one of the country's most famous peaceniks Tom Hayden, agrees.
Maybe electing these guys is tantamount to easing them out of the peace movement.
But I also had a very enlightening conversation with one of Obama's aides, who stayed after the senator had to go in and give his speech.
I told the aide we have to get out of Iraq now, which he said was "impossible." Of course it isn't impossible - we just pack up and go. But then he asked me if I would like to be "one of the last 100 guys [sic]" in Iraq.
Of course I would not - but neither would I like to be one of the dozen or more who may get blown up tomorrow (or the next day, or the next, ...), or one of the thousands who have already been killed there, or the thousands more who are likely to die there, nor would I like to be a poor truck driver from Mississippi getting my head sawn off on the Internet... but what I asked Obama's aide was, "Then how can we ever leave? Someone would always be last."
And here is the crux of the whole dispute between the out-nows and the wait-and-sees. The aide assured me that we could leave once we have "stabilized" the country. Yeah, the way we've "stabilized" it so far? Man, if this is stabilizing, what the hell would instability look like?
But here comes another good one. I argued that the longer we stay, the more fire we draw. We can't set up a "democratic" government, because everything we touch in Iraq will have the taint of collaboration with foreign occupation. (Even the Iraqis who were glad to see us topple Saddam overwhelmingly reject the occupation.) That's why they're blowing up Iraqi cops -- because WE trained them... So the aide says, somebody's got to train the police. I say, let the Iraqis train them, they have facilities, they're a civilized country.
"No they're not," he says.
I asked him again, just to be clear. "They are not a civilized country," he said.
So this is the whole problem, the basic common ground with the Bush Administration: they are not civilized, that is, barbarians, and our job -- our CRUSADE -- is to civilize them. Kipling called it "the white man's burden". I don't what we call it now. The American burden, I guess.
Would I rather have Obama in the Senate than that nutcase they flew in to test the Illinois waters for the GOP pollsters? Sure. And I have no doubt he'll do a lot of good things there. But he won't stop this idiotic war. He won't even speak up for calling it off. Why?
"We have to win elections," he said. Which elections? He won his hands down. He must be referring to a higher calling...
But what's the point of winning elections? I kept asking, as the aide walked away. If you choose your positions in order to win elections, instead of the other way around -- running for office in order to push for what's right and sane and important as life and death -- then what is the point? |
|
Re: Senator Obama becomes AWARE |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2005
|
You gotta give a sliver of credit to Obama for even meeting with and talking with anti-war protestors, even if it proved futile. It's sad he hasn't the courage of his convictions, and thinks whoever holds the campaign purse strings is the real boss. There needs to be free media for all political candidates so we can end this rent-a-politician theatre game we now have in D.C.
The interesting history needing lots of light is the war-prep days when the State Department was getting sound advice from a group of Iraqi exiles in Syria. They told us over and over, "Yes, please, come and get rid of Saadam. But whatever you do, DON'T STAY. The Iraqis will turn on you within months. We do not accept occupiers." The graves of all those soldiers and civilians will have to silently bear witness to the truth of that.
Had we left after finding Saadam, we would have had what? about a 200 casualties and thousands upon thousands of Iraq citizens would still be alive? |
|
Re: Senator Obama becomes AWARE |
by Go Gett'm
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2005
|
|
Do you people really believe that Iraqis would be better off if we left, or do you just not care? |
|
Leaderless on the Left |
by Gary Younge
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2005
|
The mood in America is shifting against the Iraq war, but it has found inadequate expression in Congress
The myth of Rosa Parks is well known. The tired seamstress who boarded a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in December 1955 and refused to give up her seat to a white man has become one of the most enduring legends of the civil rights era. Her subsequent arrest started the bus boycott that launched the civil rights movement. It transformed the apartheid of America's southern states from a local idiosyncrasy to an international scandal and turned a previously unknown 26-year-old preacher, Martin Luther King, into a household name.
"She was a victim of both the forces of history and the forces of destiny," said King. "She had been tracked down by the zeitgeist - the spirit of the times." The reality was somewhat different. Parks was no victim. The zeitgeist did not track her down; she embodied it. She had a long history of anti-racist activism and had often been thrown off buses for resisting segregation. Far from being a meek lady in need of a foot massage she was a keen supporter of Malcolm X, who never fully embraced King's strategy of non-violence.
"To call Rosa Parks a poor, tired seamstress and not talk about her role as a community leader and civil rights activist as well, is to turn an organised struggle for freedom into a personal act of frustration," writes Herbert Kohl in his book She Would Not Be Moved.
The story of collective struggles is all too often filtered through the experience of an individual. In a bid to render the account more palatable and popular, the personal takes precedence over the political. As a result the story may reach a wider audience; but by the time they receive it, the agendas and the issues involved have often become distorted - to the detriment of both the individual and the movement.
The story of Cindy Sheehan, the 48-year-old woman whose son Casey was killed in Iraq in April 2004, is one such example. Until late last week, Sheehan was camping outside President George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, demanding to see the president. "I want to ask him, why did my son die?" she told the Guardian. "What was this noble cause you talk about? And if the cause is so noble, when are you going to send your daughters over there and let somebody else's son come home?"
Sheehan, who has met the president once before and was not impressed, had planned to stay at what became known as Camp Casey for the whole of August but had to leave on Thursday because her mother became sick.
With the help of PR consultants she was packaged as a grieving Everymother who wanted answers. Capturing the public imagination, over the past two weeks she has been a regular feature on US cable and network news, the letters pages and newspaper editorials. In turn, she has re-energised the anti-war movement. On Wednesday, thousands of people across the country attended 1,627 vigils in solidarity with her cause.
Her popularity has made her a prime target for the right. One commentator on Rupert Murdoch's Fox channel branded her a "crackpot"; Christopher Hitchens derided her for "spouting piffle" and lambasted her protest as "dreary, sentimental nonsense". Talk-radio king Rush Limbaugh said her story "is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real". The backlash continued this weekend with the launch of a "You Don't Speak for Me Cindy" tour heading for Crawford with the support of rightwing talk radio hosts, to set up a pro-war camp.
The focus on Sheehan's personal loss is indeed problematic. Bereavement, in and of itself, confers neither knowledge nor insight - only a particular sensibility that might lead to both and a compelling personal narrative through which to articulate them. To define her as a mournful mother, while ignoring that she is a politically conscious, media-savvy campaigner, which she has been for quite some time, does neither her nor her cause any favours.
Indeed, those who focus on Sheehan's woes, whether they support or attack her, miss the point entirely. Had she come to Crawford at Easter, she would most likely have gone unnoticed. The reason she has struck a chord is not because of the sorrow that is personal to her but because of the frustration she shares with the rest of the country over Iraq. That is also why the right have attacked her so ferociously and so personally.
But unlike the Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in his swift boat, Sheehan will not be blown off course quite so easily. The public mood in America is shifting consistently and decisively against the war and Bush's handling of it. Gallup has commissioned eight polls asking whether it was worth going to war since the beginning of the year: every time at least half have said no. For the first time, most people believe the invasion of Iraq has made the US more vulnerable to further attacks. The number of those who want all the troops withdrawn remains a minority at 33% - but that is double what it was two years ago, and still growing.
The reason Sheehan has become such a lightning rod is because that mood has found only inadequate and inconsistent expression in Congress. It has been left to her to articulate an escalating political demand that is in desperate need of political representation. This marks not only a profound dislocation between the political class and political culture but a short circuit in the democratic process. The mainstream has effectively been marginalised.
This is not particular to the US. In Britain, the view that there was a link between Iraq and the London bombings was shared by two-thirds of the population, but the handful of politicians who dared to mention it were shouted down in parliament and vilified in the press. In Germany, all the main parties support the labour market reforms that will cut welfare entitlements and reduce social protection, even though most of the population do not. But what many "centre-left" politicians regard as electoral expediency is actually becoming an electoral liability. Evidence exists that support for more radical stances is there if only they had the backbone to campaign for it.
In Germany, a new leftwing party combining ex-communists and disaffected Social Democrats is attracting 12% in polls and could yet rob the right of an outright victory next month. This month, in a congressional byelection in southern Ohio, Paul Hackett, a marine reservist who recently served in Iraq, stood for the Democrats on an anti-war platform. In a constituency where the Republicans won with 72% of the vote nine months ago, Hackett branded Bush a "chicken hawk". He won 48%, turning a safe seat into a marginal.
Sadly, such examples are all too rare. Sheehan has revealed both the strength and the weakness of the left. We have a political agenda that can command considerable mainstream support; yet we do not have a political leadership willing or able to articulate those agendas. We wield political influence; we lack legislative power.
© 2005 Guardian Newspapers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ |
|
Leaders and Progress |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2005
|
Gary Younge raises some important issues. I don't know if he's responsible for the headline -- there's a certain irony in it being posted on Indymedia, where the aspiration is often toward a leaderless effort.
But social and political realities being what they often are, in fact it is important to have leaders. Obama has been both a great hope -- and a great disappointment.
To a certain extent, political 'leaders' in the United states, by virtue of our conservatively restrictive winner-take-all electoral system, are most often these days followers of public opinion. It is important to turn up the pressure on the junior senator from Illinois in order to reinforce the courage his grassroots support should have already given him -- except for the dogs of war in the dominant media, who would do their best to create a scandal if he actually did what he promised us he'd do.
But Younge's point is well taken. The U.S. left has never seen its power and support in popular opinion adequately reflected at the polls. It is not my intention to be unfair to the Senator, only to create enough public pressure for him to do the right thing.
The left, even the Indymedia left, needs to not miss important opportunties to take advantage of legislative power, when it can do so without compromising its principles, but while still being flexible.
That is how we've managed to build a progressive powerbase in Urbana and, more broadly, in Champaign County. The right never saw it coming, once the people are mobilized at even a basic level by such organizations as CCHCC, the IMC, and Socialist Forum.
Absolute political purity has to give way to reality at times, but the question for Obama is, why don't you face reality? Most of the public has, particularly in Illinois.
Eventually, the 'leaders' WILL lead, but only if we little folks schedule a parade first.
;>)
That is what I like about the IMC. They seem to constantly produce people who vitalize various projects by their ability to utiltize the media effectively. Here we see the production of not a leader or two, but a proliferation of people willing to organize, work, and create a better world. |
|
