portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Bush Plans War - Congress goes along - maybe EG is right

Bush's Iraq Plan Gains Momentum
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

"Mr. President, we delivered for your father. We will deliver for you," said Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.: "We disagree on many domestic issues. But this is the most important thing that we do. This should not be about politics. We have to do what is right for the security of our nation and the safety of all Americans."

An identical version was introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group that included Warner and Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.

Rep. Tom Lantos of California, the panel's senior Democrat, said delaying a confrontation with Iraq would only "increase the danger and increase the price" and leave the United States "humiliated before history."

Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., said: "I continue to have grave concerns about the administration's complete failure to explain what an unsupported war on Iraq will do to our efforts to establish a stable global order."

"In this place, everybody's pretty practical at the end of the day," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del.

Biden dropped plans to try to have his committee consider an alternative he drafted with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., that would have put more emphasis on a U.N. role and made disarmament the only reason for confronting Iraq.

Many Democrats looked forward to getting the matter behind them ? in hopes they could refocus public attention on economic issues before the midterm elections five weeks away.
(In otherwords the democrats don't give a shit about an unjust war on Iraq and are only concerned about getting elected)

"I think many people are on the path to give the president pretty much what he wants," said Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., a strong critic of what he calls "this rush to war" and one of three congressmen who visited Baghdad this week.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who did not join Bush in the Rose Garden but attended an earlier breakfast session, said the new Iraq resolution was "an improvement over the president's original proposal."

Three women, shouting "no war with Iraq," briefly disrupted the House committee's session. Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill, ordered them removed from the room.

Every name supporting or meekly giving into Bush's war in the article is a man. The only clear and definitive voice against the war are the three women who were quickly thrown out by a man.

Maybe Emma Goldwoman is right.

you've got it wrong, Coyote 02.Oct.2002 23:36


You said, "Maybe Emma Goldwoman is right."

You're wrong.

There's no "maybe" about it! She *is* right!

She hit the nail on the head and you pointed it out most elegantly with your use of BOLD tags.

muchas gracias!

The Collected Works of Emma Goldwoman 02.Oct.2002 23:43

phantom HTMLer

It's about time PDX IMC put up a special page for Emma Goldwoman's essays for easy reference. Here they are:

Emma Goldwoman was right? 03.Oct.2002 07:24


The idea that women would change the world for the better if only they would seize their power and take control and get rid of the men may be true. There is in women, something like that power.

On the other hand, the same thing could be said of Democrats of either sex. Democrats sort of have the "power of the people" at their core, and Republicans have "the power of the purse." Presumably, the Democrats are closer to what "the people" want, and if only they would seize their inherent power and take control and get rid of the venal Republicans, they could change the world for the better.

But they don't. And I am coming to suspect that they can't.

The power to understand, to negotiate, to nurture, to protect-- all very feminine, and one might say, Democratic virtues-- is powerless to actually lead. It is a reactionary force-- limited to modifying the masculine force that charges forward, heedless of long term consequences, in pursuit of some short term goal.

It's pretty biologically imperative, when you think about it. Male energy has only to distribute and deposit sperm. Female energy has to raise the babies.

One thing most people seem to get wrong--

There is only a partial correspondence between biological sex and the gender of the energy. A world ruled by Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meier or Queen Elizabeth I or Catherine of Russia-- etc., etc.-- would not be noticeably different from the one we inhabit now. In fact, it *is* the one we inhabit.

So, for better or worse, we have one planet, two sexes, two genders (not always the same thing) and a terribly difficult balance between destructive and creative and nurturing energy. And to make it more difficult, we have consciousness-- which we all share, and which we delude ourselves we use to communicate with each other.

We all have to try harder to make it work.

We aren't going to get rid of men or women selectively. We do probably have the power to wipe out the whole human race, and with it much of the plant and animal world that supports us. That should be our main concern for the near future

Never heard Goldwoman saying that 03.Oct.2002 10:26

Crunchy Celery

She never said women should take over, but she did call for men to voluntarily make room for women.Never hear Bush saying his opponents should voluntarily step aside, without there being an "or else I will kill you" added. Asking men to voluntarily recognize their own violence and dominating tendencies, is not a dominating request. It is an egalitarian request.

And yes, that article above is certainly a testament to both male violence, and obedience as all the male underlings meekly go along with a dictators war.

rrrrrrr 03.Oct.2002 21:09


and how many males are also speaking out against the war?

Let's just see if we can destroy our own movement with ridiculous divisive generalizations just so we can feel good about ourselves.

What about Condoleeza Rice? What about Madelein(sp?)Albright? What about Margaret Thatcher?

-a male against war

yes... 03.Oct.2002 21:28


and so was anais nin.