Thursday, September 27, 2007

No Common Ground with Torturers

This is a speech that I gave on 12/10/06 in Santa Barbara. I'm posting it here now to make it easier for people to access, because many more people still need to see and hear the material, and because even though it's many months old, the content is still extremely relevant and timely. The one thing that I'd revise is near the end where I state that the main problem we need to resolve is that most Americans don't know the monstrous things being done in our names. While this is still true today, the principle problem, as I've written here and elsewhere, is the unanimity of the opposition to impeachment and accountaility by virtually the entire political leadership and corporate media.

The Declare It Now: Wear Orange campaign and the 333 Plan are a vehicle for the American people in our millions to dramatically change the political atmosphere. I also think that the idea of a general strike - floated in the current Harper's Magazine - is a great idea!

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

The Next Quagmire, by Chris Hedges

[A powerful speech. I only disagree with him in his prescription for how we must respond to the truly extraordinary threat posed by the Bush Regime. Hedges doesn't go far enough. The people in charge are truly mad. They do not think themselves beholden to reality. They think that they can simply create the reality they want and they do not think that they need to investigate and examine empirical reality. They operate based on the arrogance of unfettered power and, some of them at least, apocalyptic visions.

The people in leading positions in the Democratic Party and in the media who could, and should, stand up and condemn this are instead colluding in the most craven fashion one might imagine. The NY Times, through its public editor, on 9/23 declared that it in effect was surrendering to the radical right in the manufactured furor over the MoveOn ad.

The institutional forces in a position to stop these madmen have thus raised the white flag of surrender and declared that they will ride merrily along on this train of deceit, destruction and death. Only horrors will follow.

We cannot stand by and let them do this. We must do all in our power to arouse ourselves and the people to rise up against this and transform the political atmosphere and pierce the poisonous cloud that has been choking us for so long. The hour grows exceedingly late.]

By Chris Hedges

September 25, 2007, Judson Memorial Church, New York City

War with Iran -- a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East -- appears increasingly likely before the coming Presidential election. I do not know when, or finally if, an attack on Iran will take place. But I do know that all the pieces in the chessboard are in place, that the rhetoric and propaganda is now geared toward preparing the United States for a massive strike on Iran, that many intelligence and State Department officials privately believe such an attack will take place and that our allies, from the French to the Germans to the Israelis, talk as if war is inevitable.

Let us hope sanity prevails. But sanity is a rare commodity in a White House which has perverted Leon Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution into a concept of permanent war, with, of course, the same nefarious aims – to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to silence domestic critics who challenge leaders in a time defined as a national crisis. It works. Most of the citizens of the United States, nakedly being stripped of their most basic civil liberties, are powerless, compliant and afraid. And if you doubt me take a look at the Democratic Party. The Democratic candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, have not called for the resumption of our system of checks and balances. They seek not to restore balance, but to seize power, all the while solidifying in their own name the iron grip of the corporate state.
George Bush, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of his reign as “the Axis of Evil.” They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran. He has turned his Middle East planning to neo-conservative ideologues, such as Elliott Abrams, a convicted felon who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. Abrams knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the Bush administration’s civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions.

We already see the sadly familiar propaganda campaign for war. Army Gen. David Petraeus told the National Press Club a few days ago that “you can’t win in Iraq … just in Iraq.” A victory in Iraq necessitates “greater involvement with respect to some of the neighboring countries, some of the source countries for foreign fighters. … And it certainly involves Iran.”

Or take one of Senator Joe Lieberman’s fatuous question to Petraeus during the general’s senate testimony. “Is it time to give you authority, in pursuit of your mission in Iraq, to pursue those Iranian Quds Force operations in Iranian territory, in order to protect America’s troops in Iraq?”

Lieberman has declared that “the Iranian government by its actions has declared war on us”

Bush has accused Iran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust” and added that the United States and its allies would face Iran “before it is too late.”

I wake up and half expect to see Judy Miller again emblazoned on the front page of The New York Times, although the advocates of war are spinning and manipulating the press astutely enough without her.

Even the man who played Cassandra in the war with Iraq, who warned us of our folly and the delusions of those who advocated invasion and occupation, has reappeared, looking somewhat like the ghost in Hamlet, on stage.

Mohammed El Baradei, the Nobel prize-winning Egyptian head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says that while there is evidence that Iran has hidden some of its nuclear activities from the Agency, there is no firm evidence that it is in fact developing nuclear weapons or diverting materials from its civilian nuclear program. He calls for negotiations built around Iran’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He hopes to press for intrusive inspections and to reach a new deal with Tehran to answer a series of specific questions over the autumn.

But we are ruled by a government that makes its own reality. Americans, entranced by the info-entertainment that passes for news on cable networks, are unlikely to read the latest IAEA report. And the Bush administration has blithely tossed the report in into the bonfire they are building for war. The State Department in a September 7 press briefing cited the report as further evidence of Iranian non-compliance and announced that “if Iran wants to take steps backward to limit its cooperation with the IAEA or with other parts of the international community, again, that is only taking them further away from a resolution of this issue and I think will only lead to further negative consequences for the government and unfortunately, for the Iranian people as well.”

And let’s not romanticize the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the repressive groups of clerics who rule Iran. I was arrested and tossed in a jail cell on two different occasions in Iran as a correspondent there for The New York Times. I was deported once in handcuffs. I was followed, my phone was tapped and my Iranian translator harassed and bullied until she left the country. I got a small taste of the murderous and repressive apparatus that keeps figures like Ahmadinejad in power. And, because I also spent considerable time in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, I came to know the self-defeating blustering these tyrants use to justify their own internal repression and assure their population that they are ready and eager for war. This is why Ahmadinejad earlier this month made the preposterous claim that the nuclear program is now operating at 3,000 centrifuges—the necessary level to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel within a year. It is why Saddam Hussein, although he had no weapons of mass destruction, was unable to publicly concede his own nakedness and vulnerability.

The hypocrisy of this newest moral crusade is not lost on those in the Middle East. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has violated a codicil of that treaty written by European foreign ministers, but this codicil was never ratified by the Iranian parliament. I suspect Iran does, by the way, intend to acquire nuclear weapons. I do not want to minimize the danger should it acquire them in the estimated five to ten years. But contrast Iran with Pakistan, India and Israel. These three countries refused to sign the treaty. They developed nuclear weapons programs in secret. Israel now has an estimated 400 to 600 nuclear weapons. The word “Dimona,” the name of the city where the nuclear facilities are located in Israel, is shorthand in the Muslim world for the deadly Israeli threat to the Muslim world’s existence.

What lessons did the Iranians learn from our Israeli, Pakistani and Indian allies? What lessons have been learned by other countries in the region? These nations saw that the United States did not concern itself with international law and treaties when its allies secretly built nuclear weapons. These treaties only count for Washington’s enemies.

The excuses for war make no sense to those versed in the reality of Iraq and the Middle East. The idea that Teheran is directing attacks on American troops in Iraq belies the fact that very few troops are killed by Shiites. The idea that Teheran is seeking to destabilize a Shiite-led government that has extremely close ties to Iran is absurd. The notion that Iran would commit suicide by actually using a nuclear weapon hands to the Iranian government an irrationality it does not possess. But these charges are not about truth or reality. They are about driving us towards war. And the naked hypocrisy of the United States mocks all the indignant rhetoric of Joe Lieberman, George Bush and Gen. Petraeus.

Is it any wonder that Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have all expressed a desire for nuclear capacity? Can we not grasp that Iran, knowing that with the touch of a button Israel could obliterate the country, would seek nuclear weapons especially in an age when permanent war entails making “preemptive” and unprovoked strikes? And can we not see that the answer is not more nuclear bombs but a nuclear free Middle East, including a nuclear free Israel? I do not delude myself that in the current political climate this is possible, I raise it only because it is finally the only way to protect Israel and the region from catastrophic war.

All efforts, short of war, must be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But if we fail we must be prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. It is only a matter of time before more states, including failed states, acquire these weapons and attacking Iran, while it may retard the Iranian program, will spur dozens of other nations into the nuclear arms race.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said recently. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

A war with Iran will be different from the war in Iraq. It will usher in the apocalyptic nightmares spun out in the dark, fantastic visions of the Christian right. And there are those around the president who see this vision as preordained by God; indeed, the president himself may hold such a vision. The heavy military build-up in the region over the last few weeks is another show of force or a preparation for an attack. The American strike force carrier group in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea region, led by the USS Enterprise, has been joined by the USS Nimitz and the USS Truman Strike Groups. There are now three American naval, air and marine forces within striking distance of Iran.

We are actively engaged in an effort to destabilize the Iranian regime by recruiting tribal groups and ethnic minorities inside Iran to rebel. We have selected 1,000 sites inside Iran to wipe out nuclear production and cripple the 850,000-man Iranian army. The Bushehr nuclear power plant, along with targets in Saghand and Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy-water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, and the uranium conversion facility and nuclear technology center in Isfahan, will all probably be struck by the United States and perhaps even Israeli warplanes. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran molybdenum, iodine and xenon radioisotope production facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, and the Kalaye Electric Co. in the Tehran suburbs will also most likely come under attack. Most of these facilities are in heavily populated areas. The loss of civilian life will be astronomical and the rage it will engender will lock us in a death embrace with Iran.

The disaster last year in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli air campaign not only failed to break Hezbollah but united most Lebanese behind the militant group, is a good example of what would happen if we carried out air strikes on Iran. The massive Israeli bombing of Lebanon failed to pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 70 million people whose land mass is four times the size of France? As retired General Wesley K. Clark and others have pointed out, once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters, cruise missiles and iron fragmentation bombs on Iran this is the choice that must be faced—either sending American forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war or walking away in humiliation.

But more ominously, an attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The loss of Iranian oil, coupled with Silkworm missile attacks by Iran on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send oil soaring to close to $ 200 a barrel. The price of oil would certainly double the moment war began. The effect on the domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly triggering a huge, global depression. The Middle East has two-thirds of the world's proven petroleum reserves and nearly half its natural gas. A disruption in the supply will be felt immediately.

The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey will turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We will see a combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and the widespread sabotage of oil production in the Gulf. Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for American troops as Shiites and Sunnis, for the first time, unite against their foreign occupiers. Iran, in retaliation, will fire its missiles, including the new Qadr-1, with a range of 1,100 miles, on American installations, including the Green Zone. Expect substantial casualties, especially with Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies calling in precise coordinates.. Iranian Shabab-3 and Shabab-4 missiles, as well as the Qadr-1, will be launched at Israel. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, will become trecherous. Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines and coastal artillery, along with speed boats packed with explosives, will target U.S. shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers. Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, interpreting the war as an attack on all Shiites, will fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, will begin retaliatory raids on Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with a huge Shiite minority, will reach greater levels of instability. The unrest could result in the overthrow of the weakened American ally President Pervez Musharraf and usher into power Islamic radicals. Pakistan, rather than Iran, could become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which nearly all Democrats do not oppose, has the potential to ignite a regional inferno.

The country, however, that will pay the biggest price will be Israel. And the sad irony is that those planning this war think of themselves as allies of the Jewish state. A conflagration of this magnitude could see Israel drawn back in Lebanon and sucked into a regional war, one that would over time spell the final chapter in the Zionist experiment in the Middle East. The Israelis call their nuclear program “the Samson option.” The Biblical Samson ripped down the pillars of the temple and killed everyone around him, along with himself. It may be a sad and apt metaphor.

The most effective diplomats, like the most effective intelligence officers and foreign correspondents, possess empathy. They have the intellectual, cultural and linguistic literacy to get inside the heads of those they must analyze or cover. They know the vast array of historical, religious, economic and cultural antecedents that go into making up decisions and reactions. And because of this—endowed with the ability to communicate and more able to find ways of resolving conflicts through diplomacy—they are less prone to blunders.

But we live in an age where dialogue is dismissed and empathy is suspect. We prefer the illusion that we can dictate events through force. It hasn’t worked well in Iraq. It hasn’t worked well in Afghanistan. And it won’t work in Iran. But those who once tried to reach out and understand, who developed expertise to explain the world to us and ourselves to the world, no longer have a voice in the new imperial project. We are instead governed and informed by moral and intellectual trolls.

To make rational decisions in international relations we must perceive how others see us. We must grasp how they think about us and be sensitive to their fears and insecurities. But this is becoming hard to accomplish. Our embassies are packed with analysts whose main attribute is long service in the armed forces and who frequently report to intelligence agencies rather than the State Department. Our area specialists in the State Department are ignored by the ideologues driving foreign policy. Their complex view of the world is an inconvenience. And foreign correspondents are an endangered species, along with foreign coverage.

We speak to the rest of the globe in the language of violence. The proposed multibillion-dollar arms supply package for the Persian Gulf countries is the newest form of weapons-systems-as-message. U.S. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns was rather blunt about the deal. He told the International Herald Tribune that the arms package “says to the Iranians and Syrians that the United States is the major power in the Middle East and will continue to be and is not going away.”

The arrogant call for U.S. hegemony over the rest of the globe is making enemies of a lot of people who might be predisposed to support us, even in the Middle East. And it is terrifying those, such as the Iraqis, Iranians and Syrians, whom we have demonized. Empathy and knowledge, the qualities that make real communication possible, have been discarded. We use tough talk and big weapons deals to communicate. We spread fear, distrust and violence. And we expect missile systems to protect us.

George Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Convention and human rights law in the treatment of detainees. Most egregiously, he launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. He seeks to do the same in Iran.

This president is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the “crime of aggression.” And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for these crimes, if we do not actively defy this government and support impeachment, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences. For a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation – largely put in place by the United States -- and thrust us into a Hobbsian nightmare…

A rule-based world matters. The creation of these international bodies and rules, as well as the use of our influence over the last half century to see they were followed, have allowed us to stand as a nation that respects and defends the rule of law. If we demolish the fragile and delicate international order, if we permit George Bush to create a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation and the law are worthless, if we allow these international legal systems to unravel, we will see our moral and political authority plummet. We will erode the possibility of cooperation between nation states, including our closest allies and see visited upon us the evils we visit on others.

We have rendered the nation deaf and dumb. We no longer have the capacity for empathy. We prefer to amuse ourselves with trivia and gossip that pass for news rather than understand. We are blinded by our military prowess. We believe that huge explosions and death are an effective form of communication. And the rest of the world is learning to speak our language. If you are sure you will be raptured into heaven, your clothes left behind with the nonbelievers, then this news should cheer you up. If you are rational, however, these may be some of the last few weeks or months in which to enjoy what is left of our beleaguered, dying republic and way of life.

The scenario that faces us requires those of us as citizens to act. The Democratic Party, which does not have the stomach to halt the war in Iraq, has made clear it will cheer on our self-immolation in Iran. A country that exists in a state of permanent war cannot exist as a democracy. Our long row of candles is being snuffed out. We will soon be in darkness. I ask you to join me, if we should go to war with Iran, in refusing to pay your income tax. Put the money in an escrow account. Dispute this. Go to court. Maybe a few courageous judges will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the post-war Nuremberg laws defined as a criminal “war of aggression.” Maybe. Maybe not. I no longer know. But I do know this. I have friends in Teheran, in Gaza, in Beirut and Baghdad, in Jerusalem and Cairo, and even if our efforts of resistance fail we should at least muster enough integrity and courage so that when the slaughter is over we will have earned the right to ask for their forgiveness.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

"This country is too quiet / I want to hear you scream: The world can’t wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime”

See this early story on the demonstration against Bush at the UN today: here

Saturday, September 22, 2007

The NY Metro Paper and the Anti-Bush, Anti-War Ads

HELP get these ads published in local weeklies. You can DONATE to help pay for them.

Contact METRO NY Publisher to demand that they not cave in to the White House, and print the ads:

See Robert Greenwald’s film FOX ATTACKS: Iran
and for more on the Bush regime
and plans to protest Bush at the United Nations 9/25

Dear World Can't Wait Supporter,

“A belligerent President Bush comes to the United Nations to impress upon the world that the U.S. is in the Middle East to stay, that the war on terror will be endless, and to threaten a murderous war on Iran.”

This message is being censored. We’re calling on you to stand up to suppression of political dissent.

On Thursday Metro newspaper in NYC refused to run an ad headlined “Who is the Real Nuclear Threat” from the World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush regime in its September 21 issue. The reason given by the publisher was that the content was “too inflammatory” for the prominent back page. On Friday, a second ad “One Million Dead in Iraq” was first rejected for placement on the September 25 back page explicitly because of its content. Then they offered placement on an inside page at a price almost four times higher than what was originally agreed upon.

This move by Metro is undoubtedly related to the “watch what you say” atmosphere created by the White House. Also on Thursday, George Bush said to the White House press, “I thought the [MoveOn] ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like -- or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal.”

Hours after Bush’s remarks , the Senate passed a resolution condemning the ad in The New York Times by MoveOn titled “General Betray-Us” (the ad predicted Petraeus would give the White House version in reporting on the troop surge in Iraq). Republican senators are threatening an investigation of The New York Times policy of offering discounts for stand-by advocacy ads.

This Senate condemned MoveOn for a paid ad which dissents from the ongoing war, but won’t censure George Bush, a proven liar, for repeatedly using falsified intelligence to justify the war on Iraq. Now there is another wave of White House propaganda geared to justifying a war on Iran. The major media repeated their lies about Iraq for years. And now they’re doing it all over again on Iran.

We do not know if the Metro publisher opposes in principle the content of these ads, or is reacting with cowardice to defending the principle of freedom of expression. We don’t know, but it doesn’t matter, ultimately, because the effect is the same. One of the few avenues to get the truth into the major media – buying advocacy ads—will be in effect closed down if publishers are afraid to sell space. The White House will be the strong-arm arbiter of what is acceptable in terms of political criticism.

What will the consequences be if publishers and political opinion makers back down on something so fundamental to protecting dissent in society…not to mention stopping the monstrous crimes that are being done by this government in our name? Where is society going if people do what they’re told and allow this?

Dan Rather raised the alarm this week about the danger to news reporting when he announced a lawsuit against CBS for firing him over his story about Bush’s phony military reserve career. He said, “You can't have freedom of the press if you're going to have large, big corporations and big government intruding and intimidating in newsrooms. The chilling effect on investigative reporting is going to be something we don't want to see."

World Can’t Wait has bought many ads in The New York Times, USA Today, and in local weeklies, including NY Metro, aimed at reaching the people who want stop what the Bush regime is doing. This ad focuses on making such opposition visible by organizing millions of people to declare it by wearing orange. We are fighting for space in the public sphere, and all our efforts indicate that there’s the basis to win this battle for ad space, including raising the necessary money. Another indication is the fact that MoveOn raised half a million dollars in one day from people who told them “don’t back down!”

Here is a message for you to send the publisher of The Metro :

We know you are feeling the chill of the threat to publishers because of the MoveOn ad.

1) If your reason for refusing to run the World Can’t Wait ad is just monetary, then shame on you.

2) If you have political objections to the content, we would like to know them.

3) If you are worried about the chill Bush is trying to send through the advertising world, and you want to stand up to it, there are thousands of us ready to support you.

Call the Metro Publisher Daniel Magnus 212-952-1500 to ask that they publish on Tuesday 9/25.

You can reach World Can’t Wait at 866 973 4463.

And, donate generously to get these ads published in more newspaper. Write me if you have ideas and can help.

Debra Sweet, Director, The World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime
World Can't Wait

305 W. Broadway #185
New York, NY 10013

Friday, September 21, 2007

Newest Declare It Now Video from ACG.

Spread the word!

Think what a difference it will make if millions see this video. Think what a difference it will make when millions are displaying orange and declaring that they refuse to go along with torture and tyranny.

Think .. about what you kind of world you want to live in.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

What the Democratic Party Leadership is Good For

If you think we have freedom of speech in this country and if you think that you can rely on the Democratic Party leadership to stand up for our rights, you need to see these videos.

Note what Kerry does and doesn't do while the University of Florida cops grab and then taser Andrew Meyer who was merely asking Kerry a question from the open mike about why Kerry didn't contest the 2004 stolen election - he won after all! - and why he's not moving to impeach Bush. While the police have the student on his back and are about to taser him, Kerry says that if we all calm down things will take care of themselves. The cops then proceed to take care of things by tasering the student for exercising his right to speak.

While the gendarmes are manhandling Andrew, Kerry allows all of this to go on in full view of himself and the audience. He could have told the police to lay off - he was, after all, the elected president and a U.S. Senator. But he lets all of this happen - just like he and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership have stood by and allowed the torture and mass murder to go on in Iraq, the massive, illegal spying on all Americans, the martial law enabling acts and the hundreds of signing statements negating Congressional laws and Constitutional guarantees. Are these the sort of people to rescue us from the atrocities being committed under Bush and Cheney?

In a microcosm, this outrageous incident reveals how far things have come and where things are headed. What was done to one Andrew - and Rev. Yearwood as discussed below - are what is in store for all of us: you may not ask questions, you may not exercise your right to speak, you may not dissent, you must listen and be silent and go along, or we will brutalize you and torture you. The passivity of Kerry in the face of this, the obvious choice he has made to stand beside and be protected by the armed might of the state, speaks volumes.

This next video picks up later than the first, but provides a much clearer view of what the police do to Andrew after he asks Kerry about impeachment and about Skull and Bones.

Go to YouTube to view this shocking footage at

And when Rev. Lennox Yearwood, who was wearing a button that said "I Love the Iraqi People" and had been waiting in line for two hours to get into the Senate Hearing room where Gen. Betray Us was testi-lying, this is what the Capitol Police did to show who gets to speak and who doesn't even get to bear witness.

Go to YouTube to see this.

Monday, September 17, 2007

D.C. 9/15/07: The Rising vs. The Outmoded

Book Event in LA for ITP Sat. 9/22

[This is an event that WCW is organizing.]

Join us at the next World Can't Wait meeting where Profs. Dennis Loo (co-editor) & Barbara Bowley (contributor) will discuss their important book:

Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush & Cheney

at the Peace Center, 8124 W. 3rd Street
at Crescent Heights, west of Fairfax, L.A.
(Parking in back carport area through alley)

In preparation for the discussion, if you haven't yet read the book, it is suggested that you read the Preface, that begins:

"The Bush/Cheney administration and the radical right wing forces that it represents constitute an extraordinary threat to the world. As events unfold this becomes painfully ever more evident: the appalling debacle of Katrina, the disastrous and immoral occupation of Iraq with no end in sight, murder of prisoners by American personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo and covert rendition of prisoners to nations known for torture, Bush’s admission that he secretly and illegally authorized spying on Americans and his brazen declaration upon being caught that he will continue to do so, and on and on. Their corruption, incompetence, criminal activity, and disregard for human rights and the law seem endless. The White House has become increasingly embattled due to these events, but it will take unprecedented popular action to end this regime. Governments do not fall of their own weight; they must be driven out... "

We'll also be talking about the Declare It Now: Wear Orange to Drive Out the Bush Regime campaign as a concrete expression of the call put forth in ITP for a mass mobilization of the people.

Book Panel - John Dean, Susan Estrich and Dennis Loo - 9/30 3:30 - 4:30 pm

I will be discussing my book Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney, joining John Dean and Susan Estrich to discuss politics in 2008 this Sunday, September 30 at the West Hollywood Book Fair. The panel meets from 3:30 - 4:30 pm. Here is the link to info on the Book Fair:

Our panel:

John Dean, Susan Estrich, Dennis Loo
Moderator: Councilmember John Heilman
Signing @ Book Events & Authors Unlimited Booth
Pavilion: People, Places & Politics

World Can't Wait's Action at SF State on the 9/11 Anniversary

by Giovanni Jackson

World Can’t Wait youth/student organizer

On the 6th anniversary of 9/11, College Republicans and College Democrats got together to stage a “memorial” at Malcolm X Plaza at San Francisco State University. World Can’t Wait ( activists, youth organizers with Revolution Newspaper (, and others came together to take them on, to argue that there are other victims of 9/11 than just the Americans that died that day. We dressed in the orange jumpsuits and black hoods of the torture victims of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and kneeled down on top of an American flag while they sang the national anthem and pledged allegiance to the flag.

This created a tremendous controversy and a large crowd gathered around to watch. Hundreds were drawn in by the commotion and many entered into the debate. The Golden Gate Xpress, SF State’s campus newspaper, featured it on the front page with the headline, “A different stand on Sept. 11.” The article however called what we did a “disruption” of a “nonpartisan memorial service.” Bill O’Reilly had representatives from the SFSU College Republicans and College Democrats on his show, standing in unity to denounce the “left wing demonstrators.”

What has become increasingly clear to this “left wing demonstrator” in the aftermath of our action, is that what we did was right, and a model for a new generation of rebels who’ve had enough and don’t want to play by the rules. Below is a response from World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime! to the Xpress article.

World Can’t Wait response to “9/11 Rally Turns Ugly”:

In the days after September 11th 2001, regular New Yorkers took over Union Square to send a bold message to the Bush Administration: “Our grief is not a cry for war!” Instead of listening to the people asking “Why do they hate us?” the Bush Regime unleashed a vicious juggernaut of war on the world and repression at home. On the 6th anniversary of September 11th – with two countries already devastated, and Iran in their sights – World Can’t Wait felt it was necessary to send a bold message to the College Republi-Crats: we will not allow you to use the victims of 9/11 to instill fear, blind patriotism, and unthinking obedience to Bush’s warmongering.

We wanted people to remember all of the victims of 9/11: from the post-9/11 round-ups and deportations of thousands of innocent Muslim and Middle Eastern people, to the people of Falluja, which was wrapped in barbed wire, its water and electricity cut, and then reduced to rubble. What about the victims of the Haditha massacre, or Abu-Ghraib, or the Afghan wedding parties which have been bombed, or the destruction of Southern Lebanon paid for and directed by the Bush administration, or the bombing of Somalia? How about the 1 million Iraqis who have been killed as a result of this war, or the 4 million that have become refugees? What about all of us, whose constitutional rights have been ground up by the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, “Homeland Security,” wholesale and unlimited domestic spying, and the rest of the fascist police state infrastructure? In short, 9/11 is not a “nonpartisan” day, as your article suggests – and these are not “nonpartisan” times. Just because the Republican president and the (Democratic majority) Congress are united in continuing this war, and just because College Democrats and Republicans share the same stage to cry crocodile tears and pledge allegiance, does not make it “nonpartisan.”

What happened this past Tuesday at Malcolm X Plaza was not “ugly.” It was actually a much needed break from the flag-waving rituals repeated on every TV station across the country. Many students and faculty came up to us to express their appreciation for making the question of 9/11 (and what it’s being used for) two-sided. In fact, the older African American man yelling at us and calling us “communists” in your photos actually came up to us afterward, apologized, and went on stage to resign from the Campus Republicans saying he’s sick of them using the “N” word in their meetings. Others told us they were disgusted by the display of jingoism 6 years into this endless war and said that college should be a place where people question the official narrative and stand up for what they feel is right. That is sorely missing these days. 40 years after the Third World Liberation Strike the College Republicans can claim to be oppressed by left-wing campus tyranny, but it is people like them that have state power. The College Republicans are having anti-immigrant bake sales at the same time as ICE raids are ripping apart immigrant families. This is not just a question of campus politics and a few loudmouth assholes. They have their eyes set on the last remaining bastions of critical thinking – schools like SF State, UC Berkeley, and UC Santa Cruz – with the aim of transforming all of society. If they can create an atmosphere at SF State where it’s OK to be openly racist and reactionary, and progressive faculty are intimidated by ridiculous claims of “left wing academic dictatorship,” and radical dissenting ideas are ruled beyond the pale and off the table… then they have won, not only at SF State, but in their efforts to remake the social fabric of this country – the so-called “culture wars.” In short, if we ignore them they will not go away.

David Horowitz – responsible for the firing of Professor Ward Churchill at University of Colorado Boulder, famous for arguing that black people should be thankful for slavery, and a close mentor of the SFSU College Republicans – is calling for a nationwide right wing campus assault October 22-26 called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.” They plan to harass Muslim Student Associations and Women’s Studies departments, and feature speakers like former U.S. senator – and Christian Fascist – Rick Santorum, famous for opposing evolution and sleeping with his wife’s miscarried fetus. What is needed at SF State, and campuses across the country, is a political counter-offensive. If you are tired of sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the magical pendulum to swing back toward sanity, watching your rights be stripped away and your world burn… and you’re wondering where is the outrage, where are the protesters… then hook up with the World Can’t Wait club at SF State and let’s start the resistance!

For more info about The World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime! check out or email us at

"[W]e have to take a stand now. Somebody has to take a stand now."

The Case of the Jena Six: Black High School Students Charged with Attempted Murder for Schoolyard Fight After Nooses Are Hung from Tree - Democracy Now, rush transcript.

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

Six black students at Jena High School in Central Louisiana were arrested last December after a school fight in which a white student was beaten and suffered a concussion and multiple bruises. The six black students were charged with attempted murder and conspiracy. They face up to 100 years in prison without parole. The fight took place amid mounting racial tension after a black student sat under a tree in the schoolyard where only white students sat. The next day three nooses were hanging from the tree. [includes rush transcript]

Jena is a small town nestled deep in the heart of Central Louisiana. Until recently, you may well have never heard of it. But this rural town of less than 4,000 people has become a focal point in the debate around issues of race and justice in this country.

Last December, six black students at Jena High School were arrested after a school fight in which a white student was beaten and suffered a concussion and multiple bruises. The six black students were charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy. They face up to 100 years in prison without parole. The Jena Six, as they have come to be known, range in age from 15 to 17 years old.

Just over a week ago, an all-white jury took less than two days to convict 17 year-old Mychal Bell, the first of the Jena Six to go on trial. He was convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy charges and now faces up to 22 years in prison.

Black residents say that race has always been an issue in Jena, which is 85 percent white, and that the charges against the Jena Six are no exception.

The origins of the story can be traced back to early September when a black high school student requested permission to sit under a tree in the schoolyard where usually only white students sat. The next day three nooses were found hanging from the tree.

Democracy Now! correspondent Jacquie Soohen has more on the story from Jena.

Report on the Jena Six by Jacquie Soohen, from an upcoming feature documentary by Big Noise Films.
Jena 6 Defense Committee
PO BOX 2798
Jena, LA 71342

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Jena is a small town nestled deep in the heart of Central Louisiana. Until recently, you may well never have heard of it. But this rural town of less than 4,000 has become a focal point in the debate around issues of race and justice in this country.

Last December, six black students at Jena High School were arrested after a school fight in which a white student was beaten and suffered a concussion and multiple bruises. The six black students were charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy. They face up to 100 years in prison without parole.

The Jena 6, as they have come to be known, range in age from fifteen to seventeen. Just over a week ago, an all-white jury took less than two days to convict seventeen-year-old Mychal Bell, the first of the Jena 6 to go on trial. He was convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy charges and now faces up to twenty-two years in prison. Black residents say race has always been an issue in Jena, which is 85% white and that the charges against the Jena 6 are no exception.

The origins of the story can be traced back to early September, when a black high school student requested permission to sit under a tree in the schoolyard, where usually only white students sat. The next day, three nooses were found hanging from the tree.

Democracy Now! correspondent Jacquie Soohen has more on the story from Jena.

JESSE BEARD: Black girls over there, black boys right here. Some black people standing right -- a couple. All the band geeks right there. White folks under the tree. And then you might -- it’s like…

JACQUIE SOOHEN: Jesse Beard, a freshman in high school and one of Jena 6, took us to where the nooses were hung.

JESSE BEARD: One day, I just wanted to -- maybe the first, second day, we started riding the bus, me and Robert. And we came through, and I seen something hanging there. I told Robert. He looked at it. He’s like, “Them nooses right there.” He was getting mad. Everybody was getting -- I started getting mad. By the time everybody came, they was trying to cut them down.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: Robert Bailey, seventeen years old and a safety receiver for the school football team, is another of the Jena 6 facing life behind bars. He described his reaction to the nooses.

ROBERT BAILEY: It was in the early morning. I seen them hanging. I’m thinking the KKK, you know, were hanging nooses. They want to hang somebody. Real nooses, the ones you see on TV are the kind of nooses they were, the ones they play in the movies and they were hanging all the people, you know, and the thing dropped, those were the kind of nooses they were. I know it was somebody white that hung the nooses in the tree. You know, I don’t know another way to put it, but, you know, I was disappointed, because, you know, we do little pranks -- you know, toilet paper, that’s a prank, you know what I’m saying? Paper all over the square, all the pranks they used to do, that’s pranks. Nooses hanging there -- nooses ain't no prank.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: The school’s superintendent dismissed the nooses as a prank, and after three days’ suspension, the three white students who hung the nooses were allowed back to school. Caseptla Bailey, Robert's mother, said the school did not inform the parents of the incident.

CASEPTLA BAILEY: The school didn’t tell me. I didn’t know that it happened, so therefore I didn’t call to find out what happened on that particular day.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: To Caseptla Bailey, the meaning of the nooses was clear.

CASEPTLA BAILEY: It meant hatred, to the other race. It meant that “We’re going to kill you, you're going to die.” You know, it sent a message: “This is not the place for you to sit. This is not your damn tree. Do not sit here. You know, you ought to remain in your place, know your place and stay in your place. You’re out of your boundaries.” And the first thing now that the sheriff department or that the chief of police want to say that -- as well as the superintendent -- one had nothing to do with the other. Now, come on now!

JACQUIE SOOHEN: Most people we spoke to in Jena’s white community, however, see no connection between the students’ charges and race. Barbara Murphy, the town librarian, claims there isn’t a race problem in Jena.

BARBARA MURPHY: We don’t have a race problem. It’s not black against white. It’s crime. The nooses? I don’t even know why they were there, what they were supposed to mean. There’s pranks all the time, of one type or another, going on. And it just didn’t seem to be racist to me.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: A few days after the nooses were hung, the entire black student body staged an impromptu demonstration, crowding underneath the tree during lunch hour. Justin Purvis, the student who first asked to sit underneath the tree, described how the protest came about.

JUSTIN PURVIS: It was like, the first beginning, in the courtyard, they said, “Y’all want to go stand under the tree?” We said, “Yeah.” They said, “If you go, I’ll go. If you go, I’ll go.” One person went, the next person went, everybody else just went.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: The school responded to the protest by calling police and the district attorney. At an assembly the same day, the District Attorney Reed Walters, accompanied by armed policeman, addressed the students. Substitute teacher Michelle Rogers, one of the few black teachers at the school, was there. She recalls the DA's words to the assembled high schoolers.

MICHELLE ROGERS: The kids didn't say anything. They were listening. The kids were quiet. And so, District Attorney Reed Walters, you know, proceeded to tell those kids that “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.” And the kids were just -- it was like in awe that the district -- you know, Reed Walters would tell these kids that. He held a pen in his hand and told those kids that, “See this pen in my hand? I can end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”

JACQUIE SOOHEN: A series of incidents followed throughout the fall. In October, a black student was beaten for entering a private all-white party. Later that month, a white student pulled a gun on a group of black students at a gas station, claiming self-defense. The black students wrestled the gun away and reported the incident to police. They were charged with assault and robbery of the gun. No charges were ever filed against the white students in either incident. Then, in late November, someone tried to burn down the high school, creating even more tension.

Four days later, a white student was allegedly attacked in a school fight. The victim was taken to hospital and released shortly with a concussion. He attended a school function that evening. Six black students were charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, on charges that leave them facing between twenty and one hundred years in jail. The defendants, ranging in age from fifteen to seventeen, had their bonds set at between $70,000 and $138,000. The attack was written up in the local paper as fact, and DA Reed Walters published a statement in which he said, "When you are convicted, I will seek the maximum penalty allowed by law."

MINISTER: We have come today to stand against what we consider to be a great evil.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: Since their arrest, the defendants’ families have been speaking out and fighting for the release of their sons. Two of the six, including Mychal Bell, who was recently convicted, were unable to make bond and have spent close to seven months in jail to date.







JACQUIE SOOHEN: Caseptla Bailey began writing letters to state and national agencies, including the Department of Justice, immediately after the charges were filed.

CASEPTLA BAILEY: The first thing was devastation. You know, I was down when it first happened. You know, I was very devastated. I was hurt, upset, angry, mad, frustrated. You know, I had so many emotions, crying a lot of nights, you know, trying to figure out where can I go from here. You know, a lot of times when you're backed into a corner or you’re backed into a wall, naturally you're going to come out fighting. You know, you're not going to -- you’re either going to fall and die, or you're going to come out fighting.

You know, I’m just sending out these letters to anyone that would have a listening ear and to anyone that, you know, I thought that might help the situation. That's how I fight back, you know, by putting the pen to the paper.

They want to take these kids -- my son, as well as all these other children -- lock them up, throw away the key. You know, that's a tradition for black males. So they want to keep that tradition going, because they want to keep institutionalized slavery alive and well.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: At a friendly pickup game of football, Caseptla’s son Robert shows off the skills that made him a star player of the high school football team. Robert was in jail for over two months before his mother was able to raise the money for her son's bond using three pieces of property from different family members. Seventeen-year-old Robert Bailey has no criminal record.

ROBERT BAILEY: I ain’t got no criminal record, nothing. I ain’t got no probation, community service or nothing, nothing like that. The DA, he ain’t after finding the truth. That’s what a DA’s for, to after find the truth, you know, of the case. He’s just, you know, trying to put me up in a jail cell, for life. Fifty years, twenty-five to a hundred years, you can just say “forever.” Twenty years is forever, to me.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: Robert wasn’t the only one with a promising future. All of the Jena 6 were athletes, and five of the six were on the high school football team. Marcus Jones, the father of seventeen-year-old Mychal Bell, has a stack of scholarship offers for his son.

MARCUS JONES: LSU, Southern Miss, Ol’ Miss, University of New York…

JACQUIE SOOHEN: Mychal is a star running back and a strong student who is being actively scouted by a number of colleges.

MARCUS JONES: We're not blaming the victim for the charges or none of that. The DA is a racist DA. You know, I’m not calling him out for being a racist. I’m calling him out as being a racist due to his track record. The reason we is taking a stand for our kids for what he’s not doing is right, ’cause, you know, we’re tired of it, you know, ’cause if we, you know, we sat down and lay back and let him railroad our kids, too, he’s going to continue to do that to black people in this town. You know, so we have to take a stand now. Somebody has to take a stand now. If not, he’s going to continue to fill the prisons up with black people more and more.

JACQUIE SOOHEN: Mr. Bell believes that his son is learning a valuable lesson from this experience.

MARCUS JONES: One of the best lessons that my son could learn that’s one of the best lessons: to know what it is to be black now. You know, if this don’t teach him what it is to be black now, I don’t know what will. But he’s seventeen now. You know, he’s got a lot of life left ahead of him. And the day he set foot out of jail, I’m going to tell him, I’m going to tell him again, “You know what it is to be black now. Here it is.”

JACQUIE SOOHEN: For Democracy Now!, this is Jacquie Soohen, reporting from Jena, Louisiana.

AMY GOODMAN: That piece is from an upcoming feature documentary by Big Noise Films. Mychal Bell faces up to twenty-two years in prison when he’s sentenced July 31st. The five other students await trial on charges of attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy. They face up to 100 years in jail. When we come back from break, we’ll be joined by parents of three of the Jena 6, as well as the journalist who broke the story nationally.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

No War, No Warming, Rise Up!

By Ted Glick

For months a movement has been developing that consciously and intentionally links the related issues of the war in Iraq/oil wars and the heating up of the earth that is disrupting the world’s climate. On Monday morning, October 22, in Washington, D.C. on Capitol Hill and elsewhere around the country, that movement will become visible as large numbers of people engage in nonviolent direct action to disrupt business as usual. We will be calling for an end to this criminal war and strong action to slow, stop and reverse global warming (

These issues are connected, of course, by oil. Everyone who’s got their head screwed on straight knows that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil. The U.S. government is occupying Iraq both for its oil and to try to turn it into a U.S.-friendly military base from which it can better control the entire region.

Why? It’s not just because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Wolfowitz and the neo-cons are motivated by we’re-the-rulers-of-the-world ideology. There is actually a perverse logic to what they’re doing, particularly given their personal connections to the oil industry.

The U.S. and the world are in a deepening energy crisis. Easily accessible oil and natural gas are getting hard to find even as the demand for and competition over energy throughout the world accelerates. There is agreement among those who study this issue that we are either right at or very soon will be at “peak oil,” a point where as much oil that is in the ground will have been found and used as there is oil still remaining. And the big problem is that those remaining reserves are getting harder and more expensive to bring out of the ground.

There is a common sense solution to this dilemma. Instead of war in Iraq escalating into war with Iran and who knows where else, the U.S. could lead the world by using its technological know-how and resources to advance a worldwide clean energy revolution.

We could rapidly undercut the appeal of Al-Qaeda by withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and promoting, instead, huge solar energy farms in this sun-drenched region of the world. We could help the formerly colonized countries of the Global South who are currently developing their economies by using greenhouse gas emitting coal or dangerous nuclear power. We could help them shift to renewable energy technology to obtain energy via solar panels, wind turbines, the tides or the earth (geo-thermal).

What kind of world do we face if we don’t stand up, if we don’t rise up to demand a serious course correction?

A report was put out this spring by the CNA Corporation, a national security think tank, written by six retired admirals and five retired generals, including the former Army chief of staff and George W. Bush’s former chief Middle East peace negotiator. In it, in the words of an Associated Press story, they “called upon the U.S. government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.”

“The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger, instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. ‘The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism,’ the 35-page report predicted.

"’Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations,’ former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. . .

“In a veiled reference to Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the report said the U.S. government ‘must become a more constructive partner’ with other nations to fight global warming and cope with its consequences.”

The options before us are crystal clear. Down one road, the one we’re now on, lies a cascading series of oil and water wars, climate disasters and ecological devastation. Down the other lies a turn toward peaceful resolution of conflicts, energy conservation, efficiency and a clean energy revolution, and social and economic justice.

Another world is possible, but for it come about another U.S. is necessary, in the words of the recent U.S. Social Forum. It’s a world worth fighting for, a world worth sacrificing for. Our children and their children are counting on us to do the right thing, and to do it now. The clock is ticking, and we need to act as if the future of human society depends upon what we do, because it really does.

Ted Glick is a primary organizer of the October 22nd nonviolent civil disobedience action on Capitol Hill ( and is currently on an open-ended Climate Emergency Fast ( He can be reached at

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

"The dynamic had changed from my being a passive observer to an active participant. Should I stay or should I go?"

[The following's an account by someone who came upon a WCW protest on the anniversary of Katrina at FEMA's offices in Oakland. Her comment, as I quote above, reminds me of the Clash song: "Should I stay or should I go? If I stay there will be trouble. If I go there will be double." Words that ring true for us now more than ever.]

An accidental storming

September 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pm (censure, Federal Government, Thomas Roche, Impeachment, Globalization, Politics, Republicans, Work)

I crossed paths with a World Can’t Wait rally while walking home in Downtown Oakland on Friday, August 31st. The group consisted of maybe 20 to 40 orange clad activists ranging from their teens to late 60’s, standing and speaking in the courtyard between BART entrances and the 1111 Broadway Ave Office building. I had never heard of the group, but they were speaking about the failure of the Federal Government to respond to the levee breaks in New Orleans and the need for the public to hold the government accountable. Two men held aloft a cardboard coffin with “New Orleans” scrawled across the side, the sight of which is what originally compelled me to stop. The levee failure — let’s move away from calling it “Katrina” — what happened in New Orleans was a federal disaster, not a natural one – is an issue close to my heart, and one often forgotten by the public even on the 2 year anniversary.

While an older woman read a firsthand testimonial about an experience after the levee break in New Orleans, which moved her and me to angry tears, I watched as two security guards came out from inside 1111 Broadway. They spoke with two young guys who I assume were the organizers. Even though I was not close enough to hear what was being said, it was obvious that the guards were telling the group it had to move away from the building. A handsome, well dressed white woman (more on that later) from the 1111 Broadway building management came out and was verbally aggressive to the organizer as soon as it was apparent the group was not going to move on. I will repeat that at this point, while I had been watching carefully, I could not hear the conversation, but the body language of the building manager changed and suddenly she was loud enough to be heard yelling “This is private property! I am calling the police!” Now it was getting interesting, suddenly by standing in place I was participating in Civil Disobedience. The dynamic had changed from my being a passive observer to an active participant. Should I stay or should I go? The organizer got on his loud speaker and shouted “The building management has said we don’t have the First Amendment and can’t be here!”

Now, if this was private property I was not sure of the legal footing the activists have citing the first amendment. Private businesses are not obliged to comply with the Constitution (a commonly misunderstood point of law). I was about to move on when the organizer continued “So we are going to march! Shall we deliver the coffin to FEMA? Let’s go to the 12th floor!”

Whoa!?! FEMA? FEMA is here? Suddenly it made sense to me why this group was gathered here in front of 1111 Broadway; suddenly our constitutional right to assemble here seemed more valid than it had seconds before. If this small group was going to enter the building and deliver the coffin to FEMA, I was going to go with them.

There was a great scramble as the activists mounted the stairs and the security guards ran to the doors. Tug-of-wars ensued as American citizens cited their right to access the office of a federal agency and security tried to maintain “order”. Young men and older women began crying out that they had the right to enter the building. After a few moments entry was granted, but as the group (about 30 of us) approached the elevators, again we were halted as security prevented Can’t Wait’s impassioned members from closing the doors and going to the 12th floor.

At this point it was loud; people were shouting and the organizers were on their loudspeakers leading chats that echoed off the marble walls and 50 foot ceilings. The building’s workers, mostly white-collar employees, were exiting the elevators into the midst of this chaos, their faces registering confusion and alarm at the scene. The noise was overwhelming and sent one security guard (whom we will call T.) over the edge. She was trying to grab the megaphones from the protesters and yelling, obviously overstimulated by this sudden chaos in what I assume is most likely a pretty benign gig. T. was shouting that we needed to take this group out of here and over to the Federal Building on Clay Street. She claimed this was not the place for protest, that the Federal Building was the appropriate destination for our vitriol.

It was at this moment, when it was apparent that the elevator was not going to move, that the body of the group made a break for the lobby where they set up camp and were chanting. I remained behind, having started a confrontation with T. that gradually changed into one of mutual understanding. For the life of me I wish I could recall every word of our interaction, but emotions were high and memory is so difficult in those kinds of situations. What I do remember is T. stressing that this was not the place for protest. I explained that if the management and security had simply allowed the gathering to play out in the courtyard this situation would not have been created. It was triggered by refusal to let a small group speak in public. T. agreed, claiming that she had not had a problem with our protest outside, but that the “white management” had been very upset and wanted us gone. T. is black and stressed that she agreed with the cause, but that it was not right to disrupt her workplace and that we should take this protest to “the white people on Clay”. I explained the role of civil disobedience in disrupting the everyday to raise awareness; that often times protest is not about telling the government that we are unhappy, but in creating a disruption to daily life that makes regular people think about what is happening and why. T. said she too was angry with the world, and that she often thought about quitting her job and becoming active, protesting. What went unspoken between us was the fact that as much as we might want too, bills still need to be paid and jobs still need to be held. Life doesn’t allow regular people to take the actions they know in their heart might be needed to create justice in the world.

At this point I was spent. I was emotionally drained and simply walked out of 1111 Broadway. As I walked away I could see the group through the full length plate glass windows, still chanting, security buzzing around them. I knew I should go back in, but I didn’t. I don’t know why I didn’t. Maybe I had invested all the energy I had that day to spare from my day to day existence. Maybe, because while I had stormed the lobby with a group, ultimately they were strangers to me and while I had “climbed the barricades” with them, while I had shouted in their defense and challenged the status quo, their method of combat is not mine. Ultimately I think I left because I wasn’t as brave as they were. The other night, apropos to nothing, Thomas and I discussed the act of civil disobedience. I admitted that while I often find myself on the frontlines, I have never been one of the heroes who cross that line. It takes bravery to take that step. I once watched an 83 year old woman sit down in protest of the war and force uncomfortable police officers to physically carry her away before a crowd of thousands of anti-war protestors. She was brave. The men and women who stayed behind on Friday were braver than I am, because they stayed to suffer the consequences of their disobedience, facing possible jail time and fines (or worse in some other nations), for a moment of righteousness that will go unmarked by the public, unheeded by the government, and unremembered by history. Now that’s brave.

In a follow-up I was curious about the right of citizens to protest on private property that is in turn leased by the federal government. I called an expert on the matter, who, in the interest of full disclosure, I must admit is my mom, former Representative Lynn Rivers. I asked if there was a precedent for this sort of situation known as the right of entry. She looked in a few books and couldn’t find a citation in the short amount of time we spoke, but did present a logical argument that seems perfectly valid: Over 500 Senators and Congress people lease private office spaces in their districts all over the country. Using the 1111 Broadway Building manager argument, citizens would never have the right to protest before these offices or practice sit-ins. Historically this is not the case and citizens have had the right to protest in these places, which would establish a precedent for situations such as FEMA and 1111 Broadway Ave building.

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Police state tactics

Police Break Up Anti-War Meeting in Washington

WASHINGTON - Mounted police charged in to break up an outdoor press conference and demonstration against the Iraq war in Washington on Thursday, arresting three people, organizers and an AFP reporter said.”The police suppressed the press conference. In
the middle of the speeches, they grabbed the podium” erected in a park in front of the White House for the small gathering, Brian Becker, national organizer of the ANSWER anti-war coalition, told AFP.

“Then, mounted police charged the media present to disperse them,” Becker said.

The charge caused a peaceful crowd of some 20 journalists and four or five protestors to scatter in terror, an AFP correspondent at the event in Lafayette Square said. No one appeared to have been hurt.

Three people — Tina Richards, the mother of a marine who did two tours of duty in Iraq; Adam Kokesh, a leader of the Iraq Veterans Against the War group; and lawyer
Ian Thompson, who is an organizer for ANSWER in Los Angeles — were arrested, Becker said.

The ANSWER coalition is trying to rally support for an anti-war demonstration in Washington that is due to take place on September 15.

Last month, the movement was threatened with a fine of at least 10,000 dollars unless it removed posters in the city announcing the September 15 march.

Washington city authorities have said the posters had to come down because they were stuck on with adhesive that did not meet city regulations.

“At our demonstration today we were showing the media that the paste we use conforms to the rules,” Becker said.

“One of our activists was making a speech when the police barged in and grabbed the podium. At that point, Tina Richards started to put up a poster, so they arrested her and two others.”

“This strategy of suppression has not worked. We expect many tens of thousands of people” in Washington for the September 15 anti-war demonstration, he said.

The march has been timed to coincide with the release of a report by the US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and will be part of a week of protests led by veterans of the Iraq war.

A petition calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, allegedly carrying one million signatures and endorsed by former US attorney general Ramsey Clark, will also be submitted to officials during the week’s activities, ANSWER has told AFP.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

David Addington - Cheney's Capo

[Note: David Addington's nickname in the White House's inner circle is "Octopus" because of his reach into virtually every aspect of the regime's activities. He's quoted below by Jack Goldsmith as saying "We're going to push and push and push [to assert unfettered executive powers] until some larger force makes us stop."

What is that larger force? It has certainly not been nor will it be the Democratic Party.

Here and there a judge who is not entirely craven will attempt to stop them, but the neocons have the Supreme Court majority in their pocket.

Is the larger force the electorate? Americans voted the GOP out in 2006 (and in 2000 and 2004 for that matter if the elections hadn't been hijacked), but we all have seen how much good that's done in holding these world-class criminals accountable.

That larger force - and Addington is right about this, it will take a larger force to stop them because they won't stop anymore than a vampire can become a vegetarian - has to be the American people in our millions taking mass, independent political action "in the streets."

That's what Declare It Now: Wear Orange is all about and a critical part of creating that larger, irresistible force. I'm reminded when thinking of the Bush White House of that line from the movie Terminator when the hero who comes from the future to save the mother of the future leader of the human resistance against the machines talks about the Terminator: You can't reason with him. You can't bargain with him...and he absolutely. will. not. stop.]

New Book Details Cheney Lawyer's Efforts to Expand Executive Power

By Dan Eggen and Peter Baker

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 5, 2007; A01

Vice President Cheney's top lawyer pushed relentlessly to expand the powers of the executive branch and repeatedly derailed efforts to obtain congressional approval for aggressive anti-terrorism policies for fear that even a Republican majority might say no, according to a new book written by a former senior Justice Department official.

David S. Addington, who is now Cheney's chief of staff, viewed both U.S. lawmakers and overseas allies with "hostility" and repeatedly opposed efforts by other administration lawyers to soften counterterrorism policies or seek outside support, according to Jack L. Goldsmith, who frequently clashed with Addington while serving as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004.

"We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop," Addington said at one point, according to Goldsmith.

Addington, who declined comment yesterday through Cheney's office, is a central player in Goldsmith's new book, "The Terror Presidency." It provides an unusual glimpse of fierce internal dissent over the legal opinions behind some of the Bush administration's most controversial tactics in detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects.

"As I absorbed the opinions, I concluded that some were deeply flawed: sloppily reasoned, overbroad, and incautious in asserting extraordinary constitutional authorities on behalf of the President," Goldsmith writes, referring to Justice Department memoranda issued in the two years following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "I was astonished, and immensely worried, to discover that some of our most important counterterrorism policies rested on severely damaged legal foundations."

The internal tensions peaked in March 2004 during the now-famous visit by then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, whom Gonzales unsuccessfully pressed to approve a warrantless surveillance program that Goldsmith and other Justice lawyers had deemed illegal.

Goldsmith, who was in the room, recounted in an interview yesterday that as Gonzales and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. turned and left, "Mrs. Ashcroft sticks out her tongue" to express her "strong disapproval."

Goldsmith also said in his book that -- like many other Justice Department hires -- he was quizzed about his political loyalties during his initial job interview. One of Gonzales's deputies, David Leitch, opened the conversation by asking him about an $800 campaign contribution Goldsmith had given to a law school dean who was a Democrat. "Why have you never given money to a Republican?" Leitch asked, according to the book. "Are you a Republican?"

Now a professor at Harvard Law School, Goldsmith, 44, described himself in the book as "a conservative and a Republican" who became troubled by what he saw as imprudent overreaching by the White House with support from badly-reasoned OLC memos, including at least two written or drafted by friend and fellow conservative John C. Yoo. The book was described in an article posted online yesterday by the New York Times. The Washington Post also obtained a copy.

Goldsmith portrayed the senior officials with whom he regularly met as unremittingly fearful of another terrorist attack and determined "to act aggressively and preemptively." At the same time, he wrote, they feared that they could one day be prosecuted for engaging in tactics that pushed legal boundaries. The solution was for lawyers "to find some way to make what [Bush] did legal," Goldsmith wrote.

Goldsmith for a time was in a unique position to do so, because OLC opinions carry unusual authority inside the government and are typically regarded as written in stone. Only a handful of OLC decisions have been altered by officials in successive administrations. But during Goldsmith's brief tenure, however, he wound up overturning numerous OLC decisions reached earlier in the Bush administration -- an unprecedented act.

Goldsmith's actions clearly surprised the White House. He was picked for the job, he wrote, because he had strongly supported trying detainees before military-run commissions instead of civilian courts, had opposed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court, and had spoken out against the rising influence of international legal norms on U.S. actions.

Goldsmith said in the book that he did not question the motives or integrity of Addington or others, and he portrayed them as sincerely concerned about the nation's security. But he depicted Addington, who served as "Cheney's eyes, ears, and voice" on counterterrorism matters and with whom he was present at roughly 100 meetings on the topic, as having little patience for views contrary to his own.

"After 9/11, they and other top officials in the administration dealt with FISA the way they dealt with other laws they didn't like: they blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations," Goldsmith wrote, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs spying by U.S. agencies within the United States.

Goldsmith described Addington as "the chief legal architect of the Terrorist Surveillance Program," which bypassed the secret court that administers FISA and allowed the National Security Agency to spy on communications between the United States and overseas without warrants. In a February 2004 meeting, Addington said sarcastically: "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court."

Addington is widely known as a prominent and influential advocate for presidential prerogatives and is also as viewed as one of the administration's fiercest political infighters. Bradford Berenson, a former White House lawyer, told the New Yorker magazine last year: "David is like the Marines. No better friend -- no worse enemy."

Addington reacted angrily to many of Goldsmith's legal opinions, telling him in reference to one concerning detainees in Iraq: "The president has already decided that terrorists do not receive Geneva Convention protections. You cannot question his decision," according to the book.

"He and, I presumed, his boss viewed power as the absence of constraint," Goldsmith wrote. "They believed cooperation and compromise signaled weakness and emboldened the enemies of America and the executive branch."

Gonzales, by contrast, is depicted in the book as a passive figure at the White House who mostly would "sit quietly in his wing chair, occasionally asking questions but mostly listening as the querulous Addington did battle with whomever was seeking to 'go soft.' "

After Goldsmith decided to resign in 2004, however, he recalled sitting down with Gonzales for what he described as a cordial conversation. Gonzales raised the issue of the memos on interrogation policy that Goldsmith overturned. "I guess those opinions really were as bad as you said," Gonzales told him, according to Goldsmith. Gonzales, now the attorney general, announced his resignation last week.

Goldsmith learned to be a tough interagency player during his tumultuous nine-month stint at the OLC. When he decided to suspend a classified March 2003 legal opinion justifying harsh interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel, he "didn't inform the White House about my decision" because "I knew that running the matter by Gonzales and especially Addington would make it much harder to fix the opinions."

And when he later decided to suspend an August 2002 legal opinion by Yoo that sharply limited the kind of interrogations that could be considered torture, Goldsmith handed in his resignation at the same time because he believed the timing "would make it hard for the White House to reverse my decision without making it seem like I had resigned in protest."

In all, Goldsmith writes, he drafted three resignation letters while on the job.

Goldsmith accused Bush in his book of being "almost entirely inattentive" to factors that would have brought him greater success, including the need for consultation, deliberation, "the appearance of deference," and publicly expressed support for constitutional and international values.

Bush got less in the end from Congress when he finally asked for legislative sanction than he would have gotten from more compliant lawmakers immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to Goldsmith. "It was said hundreds of times in the White House that the President and the Vice President wanted to leave the presidency stronger than they found it. In fact, they seemed to have achieved the opposite," he wrote.

Staff writer Barton Gellman and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Cheney Orders Faux News et al to Prep Public for War on Iran

Cheney Orders Media To Sell Attack On Iran

Fox News, Wall Street Journal instructed to launch PR blitz for upcoming military strike

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Dick Cheney has ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell a war with Iran from today, according to Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University.

The New Yorker magazine reports that Rubin had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that "instructions" had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.

"It will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects, writes Rubin, "It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”
Rubin subsequently confirmed with a second source that the propaganda coup had been launched and the individual, another top Neo-Con at a major think tank, had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”

An organized mass media campaign to propagandize for a military strike on Iran mirrors exactly what happened in late 2002 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq and would be seen as par for the course in anticipation of an attack that presidential candidate Ron Paul amongst other expert observers fear will take place within 12 months.

President Bush met directly with talk radio idealogues [sic] at the White House last year to push the Neo-Con agenda. Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz and Michael Medved (pictured below) amongst others all attended and received their talking points straight from the President's mouth.

Considering the history of the sordid "fake news" scandal, where millions of dollars were used to create pre-packaged government press releases disguised as news, along with the Armstrong Williams farce, it should surprise no one that such "instructions" are now being handed out to prepare the public for another military invasion.

The issuance of orders for Neo-Con mass media arms to push for an assault on Iran also puts the U.S. on red alert for a terror attack, whether real or manufactured, which Dick Cheney has already promised will immediately be blamed on Iran no matter who the real culprits are.

On August 1st, 2005 the American Conservative reported that Cheney had tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan involved a massive air strike on Iran which included the use of nuclear weapons.

The publication reported that, "The response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," meaning that any such attack will immediately be blamed on Iran and any evidence to the contrary will be buried.

The London Times reported on Sunday that the Pentagon had finalized plans for a 3 day blitz designed to annihilate 1,200 targets in Iran and destroy the country's military capability.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

Rhetoric regarding a potential military attack on Iran has heated again over the past week, with President Bush having warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the country was allowed to acquire nuclear capability.

In a speech last Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad subsequently stated that a U.S. attack on Iran was "impossible" due to U.S. troops being tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, he claimed to have proof that the U.S. were not planning to attack, bizarrely citing his mathematical skills as an engineer and faith in God.

A January poll by Ipsos found that 40% of Americans thought it likely that Iran would be attacked by the end of the year. The U.S. has stationed three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, the Nimitz, a nuclear-powered carrier, John C. Stennis Strike Group, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a relief carrier.

The U.S. government is openly funding and supporting the activities of Jundullah, a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11, to carry out bombings in Iran and destabilize Ahmadinejad's power base.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard military was recently declared to be a terrorist organization by the White House, another ominous sign that an attack is being readied.

Saturday, September 1, 2007

Declare It Now: the 333 Plan

I call it 333: You get 3 people to Declare It Now (DIN) and wear orange and/or decorate with orange everyday (orange ribbon, armband, bandana, t-shirt, etc.), and each of those 3 people get 3 people. You call back your 3 people in 3 days to check in with them: thus, 3 3 3.

Orange means we're furious and we won't take it anymore! Orange means we're not going to allow them to take us and the world down their road of torture, tyranny and war crimes! Orange means that we're not "Good Germans."

This 333 plan puts the campaign into the hands of people immediately and if the people who do this just recruit their 3 people, assuming a starting group of 72 people, assuming no erosion in this chain, assuming no one recruits more than 3 ever, assuming no one takes up wearing orange on their own without being recruited by a personal network (through, e.g., seeing others doing it or hearing about it through PSAs and ads), then in 9 "generations" of this process, which should take about a week for each generation, we'll have 1.4 million people wearing orange. In 10 "generations" we'll have 4.25 million.

Obviously, all but one of these assumptions is conservative (erosion in the chain will probably happen in places); we could grow faster than this conservative projection predicts. We plan, for example, to take out ads in major newspapers, radio, TV and we have prominent people lined up who have been taping PSAs for the DIN campaign. We just need the money to do these ads. People who are thrilled by this campaign can and should recruit more than their 3. And so on.

Please join this campaign and participate in the plan. Be part of the historic change that we must together effect. We don't need to mobilize all of the millions who oppose this rotten regime in D.C., social change doesn't wait for or need absolutely everyone who feels a certain way to act. But we do need literally millions to declare themselves against what the Bush regime is doing and what it represents. If we mobilize millions - and there's no reason to think that we can't, the 333 plan is very, very doable and very concrete - then those millions will be seen by at least tens of millions of others, and we will have done something remarkable and unprecedented. We will have created the atmosphere in which a popular movement can flourish in and we will have triggered a massive cultural shift.

We will have done something that doesn't depend upon media news coverage of our actions because our actions will be visible to tens of millions of people in their everyday lives. We will have done something that doesn't depend on getting our political "representatives" to listen to us tell them something that they already know: that a large majority of people in this country want Bush and Cheney gone and want them to take their reactionary policies with them!

We are the people we've been waiting for. What are you waiting for? Write me and tell me that you're part of this campaign. Keep track of the 3 people (or more) that you recruit. Have them keep track of their 3 or more. Repeat till satisfied. : )

Get together with the 3 or 12 people under you in the chain. Plan activities together - hold a house party and raise money for the DIN campaign (see posting just before this one); gather to watch a video or do a reading group; go out in a group wearing orange to spread the campaign - you can get flyers from world can't wait, go out together wearing orange and see a film or play or just walk down the street and create a sensation, handing out orange ribbons. You can buy ribbons and safety pins at craft shops or fabric stores. Hardware stores sell orange tape in big rolls for $3. They tear by hand. Let's get it started!

Crucial Fundraiser - Please Read and Follow Up!

World Can't Wait proudly presents:

The First Nationwide Virtual Fundraiser to
Drive Out The Bush Regime

You select the date and time!
You select the theme!
You select the orange attire!

Be sure to invite your friends!

We face an urgent mission - to organize people living in the United States to take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course of the Bush administration. Right now the world needs a political situation where the Bush administration's program is repudiated, where Bush and Cheney are driven from office and where the whole direction they have been taking U.S. society is reversed. It's on all of us who see this trajectory to mobilize millions to express their outrage, to speak the truth, to act with urgency and to form an organized political resistance.

World Can't Wait has launched Declare It Now-Wear Orange as a means for people to make their opposition to this regime visible. The urgent color of orange -- the color assigned to those detained and tortured with no due process -- must become the color of a gathering sentiment to repudiate the program of and drive the Bush regime from office. A groundswell of orange can break people out of this conundrum where millions are just furious but still numbed and rendered inactive by the complicity of the loyal opposition Party and by the anaesthetizing effects of the presidential elections.

Without funding we cannot succeed. There is nothing but money stopping us from fostering an orange uprising by putting ads on MTV or The Daily Show, from producing tens of thousands of orange bandannas or sending youth organizers to campuses as schools open.

Now is your opportunity to declare your desire to see campuses shut down until Bush and Cheney are removed from office, to see the streets flooded with orange, the color of resistance, and to see people – from prominent voices of conscience to professionals to stay-at-home moms – say ENOUGH to the Bush program and get out there and work to stop it. Now is your opportunity to make this desire a reality by making a financial commitment to be part of changing the course of history.

Give today because 2008 is too late. Give today because over a billion dollars will be spent by presidential candidates who aren’t even addressing the questions of how to change a situation where most people in the world think the US is the biggest threat to the future. Give today because the people are NOT powerless in the face of this horror. There is something we CAN do. We cannot wait. We cannot be paralyzed – we can resist and we can make this resistance uncompromising – and we can drive out the Bush regime.

Please support World Can't Wait now – no amount is too small or too large.

Click here to donate now.

Or phone 866.973.4463

Or mail your generous donation today. Learn about tax-deductible donations.

Contact Samantha Goldman our Development Director to discuss sponsorship level and stock donations.

Don’t want to wait? Check out our Declare It Now campaign.

World Can't Wait


305 W. Broadway #185
New York, NY 10013

Local chapters

Donate now

To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit and use the form in the top right of the page.