> In fact, the outcome of the US
> occupation, has little to do with what the Democrats or Republicans do
> or do
> not say, or what their intentions are. As in Vietnam and any
> occupation, it
> will be decided by the level and durability of Iraqi resistance.
Basically that's what I've been trying to point out for some time now.
But it occurs to me that there is a further dimension to this matter of the "strong, wrong" Kerry position. The Republican attack on "weak" Democrats over period since Vietnam has had the effect, intentional or not (and I'll bet that the Republican strategists have been crafty enough to intend it), that the only way a Democrat could oppose a war would be by simultaneously supporting it, since not supporting a war in progress has been framed in the public discourse as "weak," and, as Clinton pointed out, "weak" presidents make people feel unprotected and fearful, which no one wants to feel.
In other words, the Republicans have painted Democratic presidential candidates into a corner in which they are forced to appear self-contradictory and ridiculous. Hence the over-the-top militaristic bluster at the convention.
This presents a real problem to the peace movement, it seems to me. If the movement is to be consistently and insistently for peace and against war, it will have to fight against both major parties, which pretty much leaves it in a powerless position. All it can do is feebly call out, "Give peace a chance," when almost no one is listening.
Where are all those millions of Fahrenheit 9/11 viewers? Were their minds really changed, or did they just have an enjoyable night out at the movies, laughing at the Bush-Wolfowitz-Cheney buffoons?
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community. The aftermath of nonviolence is redemption. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation. The aftermath of violence is emptiness and bitterness. -- Martin Luther King