>
> I'm talking about the end in the near future, and
> the end in the near
> future is to Bring the Troops Home and End the
> Occupation.
That's an important end.
>
> At 3:14 PM -0700 7/17/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >My point was (I believe) that we can be really
> really happy that the
> >media/public tide is turning against the Bushies,
> even if it is not
> >expressing intself in anti-imperialist,
> internationalist, or
> >socialist terms.
>
> The question is not whether we should be happy or
> unhappy. We aren't
> spectators.
I don't see how you get a mere spectator implication out of that.
The question is what we, as organizers
> and activists,
> should be doing now, now that we have an opportunity
> -- the cultural
> tide is turning against Bush & Co. -- but also _a
> danger_ -- the
> likelihood that they are going to send _more_ troops
> for _longer_
> terms for a campaign of _counter-insurgency and
> "pacification"_ in
> order to defend the occupation.
Great danger, great opportunity. An I Ching verse, I believe. The answer is, more of the same, no? What I'm doing is mainly civil libertarian stuff around the USA PAtriot Act. Getting that rolled back is an important goal too.
>
> At 3:14 PM -0700 7/17/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >moderately unacceptable Democrat (not Lieberman)
> who can actually
> >win (Kerry? Gephart?) would be worth supporting
>
> No commitment to immediate withdrawal, no vote.
>
We all have our requirements. I see you are also willing to compromise more than one might have thought. Kucinich might commit to withdrawal. What does he say? Of course he can't win either.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com