The Front Lines of a New War in Crawford
|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog | Campus Progress Summer Blogathon |
Evening everyone, I’m sorry it took me so long to get a blog up. There were torrential rains overnight and into this morning all over Central Texas, especially around Crawford. We literally thought a boat was going to be needed to go to the front lines of a new war, but come hell or high water we were going to go down to stand with Cindy Sheehan. We ventured out about 11AM, a 3 hour delay from our original planned departure time this morning. It’s about a 2 hour drive from Dallas/Fort Worth, not far at all. As you can imagine, Wi-Fi isn’t exactly something you find in the country, but I was hoping that I would pick up a wireless signal from some aides computer in the “Western White House” enough to blog, but no such luck. Because of the rain, I didn’t take my laptop anyway.
When we arrived in Crawford all interested parties check in at the Crawford Peace House. It is a cool little home, decorated in peace flags, signs, and more. A Dallas artist purchased the old home shortly after the 43rd president moved into town. Right now it is full of flowers being sent from other families of fallen soldiers, widows, veterans, and proud Americans all over the world who can’t physically be with Cindy. The house is buzzing with activity, phones ringing, packages of donated water, food, and materials stacked everywhere. It is basically the staging area for the Meet With Cindy effort, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace and the countless other allied organizations that are meeting before heading out to where Cindy is waiting to meet with Crawford’s most famous resident. The town itself has 705 residents, very prairie like, stuck in the middle of rolling hills, and surrounded by corn fields, cotton farms, creeks, oak trees, farm houses, hay bails, and cattle. The actual drive out to Cindy’s tent starts on Prairie Chapel Road, and winds through central Texas farm land for a good 3 miles.
You know you’ve reached Cindy when you begin passing lines of cars leading to a small fork in the road, with a triangle shaped break off the main path to the presidents home. About 75-80 cars altogether by the time we left. Signs, tents, camera crews, and people line the ditches of this triangular patch off of the main road. She is about 10 miles from his door step, but her voice is louder then any 61% of the Americans who are dissatisfied with the Iraq War; a voice that is keeping the president up later these nights. This is the new front lines in the war to break the culture of lies that have surrounded the run up to, and the execution of, a neoconservative democracy installation project. Remember the flowers in the house? They are being delivered to Cindy out in the road too. Two vans pulled up and delivered baskets of them while we were there. One of the mothers’s who joined our ride today delivered two yellow Texas roses, from one grieving mother to another.
It was then my opportunity to meet Cindy. She is hard to get to through the countless calls of support she is receiving, the demands for interviews, and the many well wishers and admirers like me who helped deliver supplies to the camped out demonstrators. I introduced myself as a Campus Progress blogger (wore my shirt and promoted the site too) and concerned Texan who proudly stands side by side with her as she questions for what “noble and selfless cause” that her son, and his comrades in Iraq have died for. Her grief is genuine and her demands are real. She isn’t doing this for show, publicity, or anything else. She wants answers; she wants to understand why her son died on the seeming basis of lies. When you want the truth you look someone in the eye. I did, and her grief is real, and so are her demands.
At that point I was overwhelmed and gave her a very close hug and we both wept a bit. I could really feel her pain at that moment. This is very personal to her, she is astounded the president of the United States would allow a grieving mother of a fallen patriot sleep in a ditch not far from his door step then answer a simple question. I told her how proud I was of her for standing up and demanding answers that ALL Americans want to hear. It really was a visit for me to the front lines of a new war right here in my own state. Cindy is doing something that so many Americans have been wanting to do and that is to question the commander in chief in a time of war. You just don’t know how much I admire her strength.
There would appear to no longer be a threat that Cindy Sheehan will be arrested, as she repeated this numerous times to all of us. That being said, she still isn’t taking anything for granted. The crowd was growing as we were there standing in the rain, people from all over the country. A can of worms have been open, and I don’t see Bush’s people allowing this to go on much farther. There are literally hundreds more on the way, we were lucky to arrive before the real flood came. As I type, fellow grieving military families wishing to have the same answers from the president as the rest of America are flying in to stand with Cindy. Many more from across Texas, including many of my friends and fellow activists are on their way down too and literally going to camp with her. I will be receiving reports from them until I hopefully return to Crawford on Sunday with more supplies. I have many pictures but not sure how to get them on my blog for you to see (help?). No matter where you are, take heart that this is no vacation for the president anymore. He has grieving military families, as well as fellow veterans sleeping in tents on the road to his Prairie Chapel Ranch who are demanding the answers that all of us sorely wish to hear.
When we arrived in Crawford all interested parties check in at the Crawford Peace House. It is a cool little home, decorated in peace flags, signs, and more. A Dallas artist purchased the old home shortly after the 43rd president moved into town. Right now it is full of flowers being sent from other families of fallen soldiers, widows, veterans, and proud Americans all over the world who can’t physically be with Cindy. The house is buzzing with activity, phones ringing, packages of donated water, food, and materials stacked everywhere. It is basically the staging area for the Meet With Cindy effort, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace and the countless other allied organizations that are meeting before heading out to where Cindy is waiting to meet with Crawford’s most famous resident. The town itself has 705 residents, very prairie like, stuck in the middle of rolling hills, and surrounded by corn fields, cotton farms, creeks, oak trees, farm houses, hay bails, and cattle. The actual drive out to Cindy’s tent starts on Prairie Chapel Road, and winds through central Texas farm land for a good 3 miles.
You know you’ve reached Cindy when you begin passing lines of cars leading to a small fork in the road, with a triangle shaped break off the main path to the presidents home. About 75-80 cars altogether by the time we left. Signs, tents, camera crews, and people line the ditches of this triangular patch off of the main road. She is about 10 miles from his door step, but her voice is louder then any 61% of the Americans who are dissatisfied with the Iraq War; a voice that is keeping the president up later these nights. This is the new front lines in the war to break the culture of lies that have surrounded the run up to, and the execution of, a neoconservative democracy installation project. Remember the flowers in the house? They are being delivered to Cindy out in the road too. Two vans pulled up and delivered baskets of them while we were there. One of the mothers’s who joined our ride today delivered two yellow Texas roses, from one grieving mother to another.
It was then my opportunity to meet Cindy. She is hard to get to through the countless calls of support she is receiving, the demands for interviews, and the many well wishers and admirers like me who helped deliver supplies to the camped out demonstrators. I introduced myself as a Campus Progress blogger (wore my shirt and promoted the site too) and concerned Texan who proudly stands side by side with her as she questions for what “noble and selfless cause” that her son, and his comrades in Iraq have died for. Her grief is genuine and her demands are real. She isn’t doing this for show, publicity, or anything else. She wants answers; she wants to understand why her son died on the seeming basis of lies. When you want the truth you look someone in the eye. I did, and her grief is real, and so are her demands.
At that point I was overwhelmed and gave her a very close hug and we both wept a bit. I could really feel her pain at that moment. This is very personal to her, she is astounded the president of the United States would allow a grieving mother of a fallen patriot sleep in a ditch not far from his door step then answer a simple question. I told her how proud I was of her for standing up and demanding answers that ALL Americans want to hear. It really was a visit for me to the front lines of a new war right here in my own state. Cindy is doing something that so many Americans have been wanting to do and that is to question the commander in chief in a time of war. You just don’t know how much I admire her strength.
There would appear to no longer be a threat that Cindy Sheehan will be arrested, as she repeated this numerous times to all of us. That being said, she still isn’t taking anything for granted. The crowd was growing as we were there standing in the rain, people from all over the country. A can of worms have been open, and I don’t see Bush’s people allowing this to go on much farther. There are literally hundreds more on the way, we were lucky to arrive before the real flood came. As I type, fellow grieving military families wishing to have the same answers from the president as the rest of America are flying in to stand with Cindy. Many more from across Texas, including many of my friends and fellow activists are on their way down too and literally going to camp with her. I will be receiving reports from them until I hopefully return to Crawford on Sunday with more supplies. I have many pictures but not sure how to get them on my blog for you to see (help?). No matter where you are, take heart that this is no vacation for the president anymore. He has grieving military families, as well as fellow veterans sleeping in tents on the road to his Prairie Chapel Ranch who are demanding the answers that all of us sorely wish to hear.
!
The answer is a mere two words in length, borrowed from P.J. O'Rourke:
"Peace kills."
Thanks to all who are there in Crawford in person, and in spirit with Cindy, who is standing up for all "mankind".
God Bless Everyone...no exceptions
One day possibly George W. Bush, his friends, and supporters will wake up with a conscience that includes the reality that WAR is immoral.
Insightful coming from a WWII War hero.
Todd
The question is, how do we ultimately bring peace about? You do it through isolationism -- I do it through gradually remaking the globe in the image of liberal democracy, and recognize that nothing else is true 'peace'.
We haven't had peace for the past few decades in Iraq -- when Hussein wasn't at war with someone or another, or being deposed, he was continuously at war with his own people.
"Gradually remaking the globe in a liberal democracy" is nothing short of imperialism.
This is the crux of where you are so very, very wrong.
Imperialism is an exploitative, parasitic arrangement. Our project, however, is for the benefit of all the world.
The 'cultural relativism' argument, the bigoted line of thinking that 'some people' simply don't deserve or aren't ready for democracy and basic human freedom, is not an effective defense of murderous dictatorships.
The free world and the un-free world are pitted against each other; as elaborated in the book "Breaking the Real Axis of Evil", written by the Vice Chairman of freedom house, nations with low freedom ratings continuously work to butress each others' authoritarian control systems -- countries like Pakistan and Libya supporting the One China policy, for instance, or trading in arms and material support.
We are not, as you would have it, some idle 'more civilized' sightseers who can jaunt around the world when we choose and let tyrants do as they will, with the line of 'If they seize it themselves, then great, if not, oh well'. This is perhaps the most vital battle in our history, against a vast network -- a battle that we will lose if we sit around twiddling our thumbs and fail to act.
Democracy can come down the barrel of a gun. In fact, it's one of the few ways it ever has.
This is tripe. Even by realist standards this is tripe. Putting aside the fact that we're working alongside Pakistan (are they buttressing our authoritarian control system?), this is tripe. And I think you missed Palmer's point.
I just have to point out that when Todd is talking about "remaking the world in a liberal democracy," he's talking from the perspective of someone who sees this being done excusively through unprovoked war against a nation that poses no threat to our own. And Mark Palmer approaches it from the perspective of someone who saw firsthand how citizen-led uprisings can rid nations of the yoke of tyrannical rule without military involvement from the West. His book is about how to nurture democratic seeds withing authoritarian states, not how to impose American military strength on other states to reshape them to our needs.
What we have here is somoene who is too firm a believer in Democratic Peace Theory. Sure, liberal democracies don't fight wars against each other (except for that big one in the 30s and 40s where almost everyone had elected their leadership), but that doesn't mean they don't fight wars along the way: your concept of a "true peace" is going to involve a hell of a lot of bloodshed, something which you seem to overlook in favor of the utopian vision of a nonviolent Democratic world. I think if you're going to throw the theories out there these guys will help you understand the stakes beyond the sentimentalist screeds:
-Mansfield and Snyder's "Democratization and the Dangers of War." A must-read. Guess which nations start more wars, autocracy or democracy? Which nations have the most frictions with their neighbors? Now, abstract that a little and ask yourself: why would we or anybody else want more volatility in the Middle East?
-Stephen Krasner, Compromising Westphalia. Of all the Administration appointees from the Stanford School, this guy is my favorite. You don't seem to like the notion of imperialism, so Krasner approaches international involvement from a different perspective: every nation is in some way involved in the affairs of other nations, and mostly these involvements are considered Kosher by the world community. Even after the taboo of screwing up another country's government is removed, the question still remains as to whether or not what is done will help or hurt in the long run.
-John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Mearsheimer practically invented neorealism as it exists today. This is a gripping text (if you can believe such a thing exists in PoliSci) about the consequences of great powers like the US becoming involved in the affairs of other states, when viewed from a realist perspective.
-Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "An Unnecessary War." A better piece about the questions raised by invading Iraq has not been written. And it serves as a great Period piece, since it was written on the eve of war, yet for some reason seems to focus heavily on the Administration's desire to stop Saddam from using WMDs. I mean, surely the Bushies weren't talking up a military threat when considering the war--this has always been about freedom, right?!! And President Bush says the war is a "very noble cause," so there.
Beyond that, try to understand that what you're repeating are arguments that were mostly created to justify 'humanitarian' wars that were fought with little or no human cost to the 'humanitarian' state while causing widespread destruction and death to the 'assisted' state. When people focus on the ostensible goals of war, as you're doing, they tend to ignore the realities of war--broken stuff and dead people--because it makes the war seem less noble.
After the Rwandan genocide, foreign aid workers rushed to the surrounding countries to set up refugee camps for the Rwandans fleeing their home country. Victims, right? Well, most of the victims were dead, and a huge percentage of those fleeing to refugee camps were the ones who had committed the genocide. So why did the aid workers stay? Did they like the idea of helping butchers (some of whom continued their grizzly work from the camps themselves)? Or was it that they had set out with a noble goal, to make a real difference, and were unwilling to accept that their actions, while well-intentioned, were actually making things worse?
We can't let pretty rhetoric disguise facts: the occupation of Iraq is not bringing peace or stability to that country, and our soldiers continue to die needlessly. Remember Einstein: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
'Iraq' is Arabic for 'Vietnam'.
We're actively exerting our influence to turn them to our side. Hopefully it'll stick.
""someone who sees this being done excusively through unprovoked war against a nation that poses no threat to our own. ""
Saddam's behavior against his own people was a form of provocation. He was a threat to the millions of innocent people of his own nation.
"" His book is about how to nurture democratic seeds withing authoritarian states, not how to impose American military strength on other states to reshape them to our needs.""
In case you haven't noticed, both are necessary. Citizen-led uprisings work when they happen, but in some cases they're not forthcoming. For instance, in Iraq we missed a major opportunity in the 90's when we incited the Kurds to rebel, and then decided not to stand with them and allowed them to be slaughtered.
After an opening act like that, who's going to come around for a repeat performance?
The Iraq occupation was (and still is, hopefully) winnable -- the issue isn't that in principle it was wrong, the issue is how we learn from our mistakes such that any future occupation will be a success.
Your line of reasoning seems to imply that because the Iraq occupation was not a civilian-led uprising, there was therefore no way it could have succeeded. That's patently absurd thinking that virtually every thinker on both sides of the debate has acknowledged.
This is precisely the problem that your way of thinking brings us: In the aftermath of the Iraq war, whether we succeed or fail, out of necessity we must get far more advanced at how we run occupations. Dedicated corps of military police and far more civil engineers. Paying enough to the army to attract more recruits, and perhaps starting up a foreign legion. Specialists in border security.
That's the challenge we need to rise to. But sadly, if Iraq does not succeed, the opposite will happen -- we'll withdraw, turtleshell style, from the daunting tasks ahead. As a nation, we can do better; we can formulate new plans to succeed at these tasks, rather than avoid them.
This is why it's so poisonous to falsely imply that the Iraq war was unwinnable due to its fundamental underpinnings, as opposed to the reality that it's been botched in the execution by Administration incompetence -- it removes public support from taking the steps as necessary to become as good at being occupiers as we are at winning head-to-head military conflicts.
"" your concept of a "true peace" is going to involve a hell of a lot of bloodshed, something which you seem to overlook in favor of the utopian vision of a nonviolent Democratic world. ""
This is what you don't get, and where the idea that this is somehow dependent on Democratic Peace theory goes far awry; the current world involves a hell of a lot of bloodshed, too. So does any future world in which rapidly growing threats such as China turn more of the world's less-free countries into de-facto sattelites.
As for your citations of the basic International Relations theory articles, as well as an anecdote about Rwanda culled probably from We Wish To Inform You...
...Good articles all (And a good book, with regards to Rwanda). I've read them. But they in no way prove what you think they prove.
Okay, first off, what the hell do you mean by that? Our side of the war? the govenrment already is.... Our side as in Democracy? Funny, as we're supporting the leader of the coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government in the first place. And what influence are we exerting exactly? Clarify please.
So we had to destroy the village in order to save it? And was this the rationale for war that was given to the public in exchange for their sons and daughters? Is Saddam the only one that was a threat? Are we invading N. Korea? Saudi Arabia? Myanmar? Sudan? And since we had air supremacy and weapons inspectors on the ground (not to mention 300,000 US forces in surrounding countries) before the invasion, where was there a threat to the people that we couldn't handle if we wanted to? Didn't we already know where Zarqawi's camp was before the war--why didn't we take care of that 'threat to the millions of innocent people?' (Not to mention, open warfare and guerilla warfare constitute pretty damn big threats to innocent people, and it seems like you've neglected that in your rationalization).
I'm sorry--ANY FUTURE OCCUPATION?!! Do you not yet grasp what an enormous cost this war carries? Occupations are expensive, in human and monetary terms, and you're talking about MORE? Knowing that no allies will come with us for another go-round, you still think this is a workable doctrine? You're a madman, buddy.
Christ, I have nothing to add to that: it's the death of diplomacy you've called for.
Interesting, as you, in trying to argue that this isn't tied to DPT, just ignored a huge fact that is prominent in DPT: the bloodshed mostly comes from democracies. Really. I wish I was kidding. You're talking about China, but I'd argue we should be much more worried about India starting a war in Asia than China. You might not have caught yet that you're arguing for the bare-bones version DPT, but you really are, and the theory just doesn't support your take that we can sustain a policy of forced democratization.
And, again, your solution to end bloodshed is pretty damn bloody itself--so where's the overall benefit? It's not altruism if the folks you're 'helping' end up worse off in the end (i.e. death by intervention).
What do you think the Rwanda example proves, if not that the road to hell is paved with altruistic intentions? (And I culled the account from an interview with Dele Olojede)
If you consider 'the war' to be the War on Terror, then yes, we're doing a decent job of keeping them on our side. Eventually, I'd certainly like to see Pakistan return to democracy, but that makes more sense here as a last step, not a first one. Right now, Pervez is presiding over a country that he does not have full control over; there was a significant risk of a fundamentalist uprising to overthrow him in response to the Iraq war (And we did less than the bare minimum to prepare for that contingency... we sent them a few riot control shotguns, and said 'good luck'. Luckily, the threat didn't pan out), which would give Islamic fundamentalists access to nuclear weapons. Having a strongman is never an ideal solution, but if it keeps the Islamic extremists at bay for now, that's our number one priority.
Most recently, he's shut off all foreign access to Pakistan's madrassas, a good starting step towards clamping down on global jihad.
Our number one priority is coming as close as possible to eradicating the extremist sects of Islam, such as the Wahhabists. Once that's handled, then we'll talk about democratic reform... but it's hard to have democratic reform in a country like Pakistan if the populace would just elect anti-Western fundamentalists.
Sometimes, this means curtailing freedom, too -- The peace is kept in Lebanon by the fact that public agitation for religious supremacy by any faction is banned, and oftentimes grounds for expulsion.
We (or at least, I) have an ultimate goal in sight: The eradication of extremist branches of Islam that resort to terror and violence, and bringing the global Muslim community to the same consensus that the West has reached over the past hundred years or so -- religion must be subordinated in the public sphere to secular government and secular progress.
Once you have this consensus among the population, then it's time for the move forward into democracy.
I think that this consensus is already present in Iran, and at least to some extent in Iraq; I don't think it's there in Pakistan yet. But Pakistan's current path is concurrent with our long-term goals for them.
We can't invade them all at once, can we? Not enough troops for that. (In hindsight, you could probably make a strong argument for a delayed humanitarian intervention in Iraq, first dedicating all our troops to pacifying the various Afghanistani warlords.)
The threat is smaller scale; the crushing of dissent, the murder of political dissidents or anyone who got in the Baathist's way. We're not talking about responding to a large-scale military mobilization, as with the first Gulf War.
Rank incompetence in the Bush administration, that's why! :)
Remember, I'm defending the principle behind the war; that doesn't mean I find the Bush Administration's execution of it to be optimal or even adequate in any given case.
They're temporary threats -- once they've been overcome, a domestic peace can reign. The threat to innocent lives from living under a dictator is more permanent (Though all dictators are not created equal; Saddam's a lot worse than Pervez, for instance. Uzbekistan is similarly bad.)
Diplomacy is not a be-all, end-all; it's a tool that has its uses and its faults. It is not necessarily, in any given case, a "first best" solution.
This is the part where you're missing it. It's not just about 'who starts a war'. Unless we reach some sort of utopian world-government state, the goal is not necessarily 'less war', at least in the short term. it's about for what ends war is fought.
Of course the costs are very high, though they're less so if we do it right; the amount of money lost to sheer inefficiency at every level in Iraq (from inept military planning to poor contract management) is absolutely staggering.
If anything were worth a tax increase for, occupation would be it.
I am, as you understand, arguing for a significant expansion of the military-industrial complex, albeit in a different direction.
It is what I'd consider a 'least worst' solution. As for the people who die in what I'd term the liberation: Yes, for those who die, they might have been better off living under Saddam's boot. But for their children and grandchildren, the future is much brighter. I look at it as a sacrifice the current generation makes for the betterment of future ones.
It proves, to me, that the UN is not an effective means of preventing genocide, that Clinton seriously got the issue wrong (In IR parlance, I'd say there was some serious buck-passing going on), and that the Belgians were ultimately culpable. They hand-crafted Rwandan society (and created the hard-and-fast Hutu and Tutsi distinctions on ID cards, for what had previously been a much more fluid arrangement) in a way that was perhaps to the benefit of a select few, but certainly not to the benefit of all. Such arrangements always break down in the end, usually with violent consequnces. The lesson, to me, is that in building a society from the ground up extreme care must be given not only to establish structures of government that benefit the people, but also to inculcate values among the populace that lead to lasting stability and progress. Otherwise, the execution of a flawed attempt can end up leaving a country far worse-off than it previously was (i.e. Rwanda befor the Belgian conquest).
On a side note, I'm interested in reading that interview if you've got it.
In short, we aren't creating anywhere near the kind of state covered by Democratic Peace Theory. At best we'll be making an illiberal democracy, and nothing in DPT says that illiberal democracies don't fight liberal democracies.
You accepted a premise--we're fighting for democracy--without realizing how utopian it was. It's time to wake up: if stopping al Qaeda, prevent weapons proliferation, reshaping the Middle East or creating a stable democracy was our goal, WE ARE FAILING. Maybe that's why Bush has never said what the definition of a successful mission in Iraq is.
I hope you brought lot's of supplies to share with the other patriotic activists waiting to see if the chimp will put down his golf clubs and chainsaw for long enough to address the death and realities of the war that is still going on while he is taking another long vacation?
You know those rustic, farm land, old barn, hay bail shots that CNN, MSNBC, and all the other networks do their reports from while in Crawford?
That isn't Bush's property, it is the property of an old house next door to the Middle School where the press conferences take place. They have tents set up for the networks to get that "perfect shot," while leading you to believe that they are reporting from Bush's rustic ranch. It's not even his damn property! I've got pictures of it too to prove it. In fact, if the cameras pan just a little to the right the football stadium is right there, and a little farther to the right you would get a Mountain Dew machine.
But, they want you to believe he is some cowboy living out on the old prairie somewhere. He's not even a real Texan, he was born in CT. LOL! You can have him back. :)
Todd
Perhaps there is someone that is local that would accept the delivery of supplies for all of you? Maybe the Lonestar Iconoclast would accept the honor? Then you guys could just head somewhere local to get resuplied as needed?
Just a thought... Since I don't know if someone local has already volunteered this kind of help? If people had an addy to send stuff to we could order treats and supplies on the Internet and have them overnighted as needed. It would make logistics a snap for all of you if all it took was one person to drive somewhere (Or walk if it was close enough?) nearbye to go and get those re-supplies.
E-mail can be sent to
crawfordpeacehouse@yahoo.com
We are located
In the center of Crawford, Texas on Hwy 185 and the railroad tracks
9142 5th Street Crawford,
Tx. 76638-3037
The Vigil is on Prairie Chapel road near the entrance to Bush’s ranch
The Peace House phone is 254-486-0099
John’s cell is 469 879 2227
Hadi”s cell is 214 392 2939
In the News
Support the troops' moms - Aug 9, 2005 Alternet.org
President Bush Ditches Mother Of Slain Soldier - The Lonestar Iconoclast(daily updates)
Every Mother's Son - Aug 8, 2005 PeaceJournalism.com
Related Organizations
Code Pink
Military Families Speak Out
The Gold Star Mothers of America
______________________________ _______
When I came in from Cindy's site to the Peace House yesterday a crew was in the process of setting up a 20 x 40' mess tent on the grounds, along with swamp coolers and generators. It seems somebody in New Zealand picked up on Cindy's story, found a vendor in Waco, contacted them and paid on line with directions to get out to Crawford and get it set up ASAP. Its a long-term rental too! Awesome!
There are at least four caravans leaving from Ft. Worth to Crawford tomorrow, others from Dallas and elsewhere around the state. Yesterday Randi Rhodes on Air America committed to personally help pay for transport from Waco to Crawford, site shuttles etc. to help get as many progressives as possible to the site.
We're encouraging as many as we can to find their way to Crawford. The rec center is being set up for a big event tomorrow evening and the whole world is invited. Ya'll come down and help us make enough noise Bush can no longer pretend everything is A-Ok!
Seeya there! Link
Link
Awesome find on the op-ed, Asheesh, I've heard her speak several times and she is a consistently well-spoken/written woman with extremely principled and well-grounded political beliefs.
There are countless quotes on war, and as a student of just-war theory, there always have been and always will be two sides to every coin. One thing remains true, however, no matter the time, nor situation: You cannot fight for peace. If you could, Jesus would have been the most famous general.
Keep up the fine work,
Todd
And sure you can fight for peace, but it makes about as much sense as throwing an orgy to raise abstinence awareness.
Seems like it worked out pretty well.
Ignore the Jet Li movie based on the unification, though -- it's One China propaganda intentionally made to be a parallel to the current situation with Taiwan.
All sorts of countries which we today think of as "unified", such as Germany or Italy, were once also collections of tiny, squabbling principalities. Unification generally involved wars and bloodshed, but they were ultimately in the best interests of the citizens of that nation over the course of history.