>I have to take issue with the presupposition here, which is that our inability
>("our" meaning all the anti-war forces in the U.S., including Newman and
>Chuck0, and also in the rest of the world) to prevent the launching of the war
>on Iraq can be traced to a "fatal flaw" in our message.
>
>
Sorry, Lou, but this strawman still speaks. I would never say that our
inability to stop the current war can be blamed on our messaging! My
point yesterday was that we could do better. Frankly, I never thought
that the anti-war and peace movements could stop this war, because I
knew early on that Bush was determined to have his war, hell or high
water. Remember that George W. has a big chip on his shoulder put there
by his father's decision to end Gulf War I early and, more importantly,
George W. is a diehard Christian fundamentalist who thinks he is on a
mission from god.
The best messaging is not going to be enough to stop a crusade.
>What we were able to do before the start of the war, we DID do. We convinced
>the vast majority of the people of the world that the war was wrong. We
>prevented the U.S. from 'legitimizing' the war in the UN. We put serious
>political obstacles in their way. We undermined their evidence. We created a
>situation where going to war involved more costs and risks than they would
>have expected. However, they chose to bear those costs and risks and go to
>war anyway and they had the power to do it. I say that this is because, when
>all is said and done, we are living under the dictatorship of the
>bourgeoisie. Someone else might formulate it differently. But it's not just
>because we picked the wrong slogans and the wrong ad agency.
>
>
>
I agree. But then, my point was never that we could have stopped the war
with the right messaging. There is room for improvement.
Chuck0