Michael Rectenwald responds to a CLG visitor who argues that we need to adapt a "Non-Inflammatory Approach" to respond to the Bush regime
Michael Rectenwald's reply --February 17, 2003:
I agree with your political positions, but we differ slightly in terms of tactics. The Democratic party has gotten to where it is today by being a bunch of pansies. Because so few have the guts and the political fortitude to tell it like it is, we get mealy-mouthed Daschle Republican-lite messages, no opposition to the outrageous, international-law-and-treaty-breaking, economy-busting, rich-benefitting, world-dominating, warmongering Bush regime, and instead, votes that basically give the monster carte blanche to run roughshod over the domestic will and international will of the world.
Those who criticize us are (and not speaking of you here) are those that have no success to prove their case by. So far, this weak-kneed liberalism has gotten us in deep trouble. We need strong, attacking, fiercely motivated and ferociously democracy-seeking voices in American politics, before the fascists have it all, and it's too late.
The days of soft-boiled 70s-style liberalism are gone!!!
Letter CLG received --February 17, 2003:
This morning I found your site and saw two petitions there that I considered signing. I hesitated to sign either of them because neither represented what I most want.
The first petition was for Al Gore to run again in 2004. Awhile back, I would have gratefully signed that, but now I want more.
The second petition was to send Bill Clinton to the Middle East to broker peace, but it was signed by 'Americans against War for Profit'. The current administration has never said they seek war for profit. They say they seek war to remove from power people who would harm others and even their own, which is conceivable and honorable, but I think most of us are terrified of the direction this is all heading. (Although I, too, draw many outrageous conclusions concerning our current administration, you yourselves realize name calling is not a good way to approach them because they'll just try to disprove the accusation, perhaps successfully, and it's not a good way to represent our administration to the world.)
At this point, I feel the only way to restore our prior position in the world is to completely change our administration NOW, to tell the world that while our current administration's stated motives are honorable, we do not feel their approach is fostering the worldwide economic prosperity and peace we and all nations of the world desire and, therefore, we wish to implement in organized fashion a midstream change in administration to the side that won the other half of the popular vote in 2000 when the country was so evenly split we had trouble determining who'd won the election (even though, in fact, the other side won a few more votes than the current administration).
I want Gore (or someone with his backing if he won't do it himself) to take over now. I'd like it to be Gore who sends Clinton to the Middle East because I feel the world needs to believe we are making a completely fresh start, post-Bush. Is this conceivable? Could we all sign a petition like that without any inflammatory speech in it, or is a midstream change of administration such a completely absurd wish there's no point to a petition like that?
I'm enormously grateful for Byrd's senate speech last Wednesday.
2K | HOME | THE
EVIDENCE MOUNTS | NEWS FROM THE FRONT!
| CALENDAR | PRESS