America needs it, and I appreciate very much <strong><a href="http://www.correntewire.com/shooting_handcuffed_children">David Swanson</a></strong>'s righteous moral anger against our obscene war on Afghanistan:

<blockquote>The occupied government of Afghanistan and the United Nations have both concluded that U.S.-led troops recently dragged eight sleeping children out of their beds, handcuffed some of them, and shot them all dead.</blockquote>

(Swanson provides all the mainstream media news sources to back up the above.)

<blockquote>No one so much as blinks at the CIA's avowal of vengeance for the recent suicide attack, never mind the illegality, because the entire illegal war on Afghanistan/Pakistan was launched and is still maintained as a pretended act of revenge for the crimes of 9-11. Of course, we're not bombing the flight schools or the German and Spanish hotels. Of course , we admit that there are fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Of course we openly seek massive permanent bases and an oil pipeline. . . . Of course, revenge would not be a legal justification for war even if we could persuade ourselves it was a sane one. But the war is publicly understood as revenge, the resistance by its victims is understood as revenge, the escalation is understood as revenge for the resistance, and an eye for an eye slowly makes the whole world blind.</blockquote>

This is what an antiwar movement should sound like. Moral outrage, but not just at the bosses or Congress or Obama, at <i>everyone</i> carrying out the war (emphasis added):

<blockquote>I know many soldiers and mercenaries had few other options, given our failure to invest in any other industries. I know they've been lied to. I know they're scared and tired. But they wouldn't be there if we brought them home. And I support a full investment in their physical and mental and economic recovery. <strong>What I don't support is anyone participating in these wars</strong>, and that includes every single American who is not putting every spare moment into demanding that Congress stop forking over the money.</blockquote>

There's more...

Eva Golinger: Did people in your class [at Evergreen University] know you were in the military? What did they say to you?

Josh Simpson: Yes, but people knew I was opposed to the war.

Benji Lewis: The "support the troops" campaign has altered everyone's perception.

Simpson: I'm actually opposed to that campaign. People should have been more confrontational with the troops.

Golinger: Like in Vietnam.

Lewis: The "support the troops" campaign was engineered to allow for indirect acceptance of the war.

Simpson: People are scared to criticize the troops, it's considered the most blasphemous thing in the world. At the same time, if you are never criticized then you will never know that what you are doing is wrong.

Lewis: You can't criticize the troops. It's a poverty draft, these kids just do it because they have no other way out of poverty.

Simpson: But you have to criticize them, because they will say they are just following orders, but that's bullshit, the Nazis were just following orders too. The military is fascist, it's basically blind, unquestioning obedience. Then they try to tell you that the blind obedience is some form of courage and bravery. It's much easier to go with the current than against it. While I was at Evergreen [University] I was learning something different than what I was told in the military. I got to the point where morally I couldn't just be opposed to the war, I also couldn't even participate in the military or train other soldiers to go kill people in a racist war.

The above (emphasis added) is an excerpt from Venezuelan-American lawyer and journalist Eva Golinger's September interview (which I've just unearthed) of two Iraq war veterans (see PROFILES below for short bios of all three), which provides further insight into how U.S. troops conduct themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of us who pay for these wars must confront this knowledge, especially those Americans and others who support or do not sufficiently oppose President Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan wars. . . .

There's more...

Oh. my. gawwwd. The left has spoken, the fight is truly on.

"To be pathetically feeble, I mean to be clear . . ." (none / 0)

To be clear: I'll support Obama down the road against Sarah Palin, Lou Dobbs or any of the pitchfork carriers for the pre-Obama era. But no bumper sticker until the withdrawal strategy is fully carried out.

But for now, the fight is on.

So, Tom Hayden's anger contained strictly within whether or not his car will sport an Obama bumper sticker, despite everything there's no question he'll be voting Dem next Presidential election. If that is how circumscribed progressive anger will be at this anti-progressive President (gosh golly I thought Tom might actually consider voting for, or at least supporting in the damn 2012 primaries, a candidate for President that was actually, you know, progressive), surely Obama is LMFAO NOT-shaking-in-his-boots.

Hey Tom, get back to us when yah grow a pair.

Tom, Tom, there was a time when you helped make an antiwar movement. Preemptive loyalty oaths are NOT part of one. Y' know, though Chicago 1968 was Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin's time, you were there too. Remember? But yeah, what a long, strange, downward slide it's been since then. Anyway, here's what real, angry, creative, attention-getting antiwar protest looks like:

The Yippies present their presidential candidate, Pigasus the Pig.

There's more...

It's clear that Obama will soon escalate the Afghanistan war for a second time (our 'antiwar' movement is all over it; first ever national demo against Obamascalation scheduled for March, 2010!), and last night on Charlie Rose Hillary Clinton helpfully explained Obama's imperial policy and the role 'we the people' play in it. Our duty, in this democracy, is to believe in whatever they tell us this time is the mission, and all of us in this democracy must support the troops no matter what they're doing to the restless natives. Though Hillary and Barack are more polished and big 'D' Democratic than Cheney and Bush, otherwise their approach differs how from Bush era martial philosophy?

Hillary also offered a preview of Obama's next big speech, his re-rationale for the occupation and assorted war criminality we're doing to Afghanistan. Yeah, so get with it already party loyalists, looks like the War on Terrah phrase is again safe for Democrats; Hillary and Barack have to revive it when the nation-building pretense is now so publicly and obviously a joke/tragedy. Also, note that the 'War on Terror' is not just good for killing al Qaeda but can be applied with lethal effect to all groups or nations we say are inspired by their extremism. Yes, that'll make war anywhere/anytime easy, we now distinguish ally from enemy by saying 'enemy' is extremist (so be careful never to apply that term to ally Saudi Arabia). Emphasis added.

There's more...

The reality is that this debate has nothing to do with ending the war in Afghanistan. On BOTH sides . . . the argument is over HOW to advance U.S. strategic interests. Any discussion of the U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan altogether is being ruled out of order. -- Larry Everest

Why are the major 'antiwar' groups fanning a debate between no change in the number of troops in Afghanistan, which only 8% of Americans support, and increasing troops, which just 39% support? Why not, instead, represent, very loudly, the 49% of America that wants to withdraw or cut the number of troops in that pointless, bloody, eight-year-long farce? We still need what the 'war is peace' groups decided not to give us, a national march on the White House demanding OUT NOW. Below is the latest CNN poll, and then some wise voices explaining why we must leave and exactly how to do so:

There's more...