Muslims For Nader/Camejo

A blog on the Nader/Camejo 2004 Presidential campaigen - exposing the racket of the two corporate parties - with a special focus on issues of concerns for Muslims. This blog is UNOFFICIAL and is NOT endorsed by the official Nader for 2004 presidential campaigen. Blog update daily and several times a day - come back often! Contact: muslimfornader@yahoo.com

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Ihsan

Thought I might share this poem my 12 year old daughter wrote recently........peace


The meaning of War
By: Suhayla


When will this war end
Has it really even begun
Would there of been a finish
If there never was a start

Can you really tell me the explanation of this war
Was it because of saddam, bin laden, or neither nor
Could it just of been
Just because
Did Bush want to have it, just to have some fun

Was this the point of the war
To send troops over there
To torture people who had nothing to do with it and that weren’t treated fair
And the troops tortured them without a single care
But when you hear that one of them dies you kinda think it’s fair

It’s not their fault if one of our people die
What, you want us to fight them
And them not even touch a fly

If you really had common sense, then I think you should know
In a war, when it starts, you can’t just expect to go
And your opponents fighting against you
Not to put up an equal fight

What if you’d done nothing
And some people come bomb your home
Now you’re sitting outside, huddled all alone

Listening to people screaming, crying, and fighting
Listening to gun shots in the air
Now another one is firing

What would you do if it were your country and your national home
Now you must just sit there, watching it get destroyed

Do you still think that they really are the ones,
Who came over and killed everybody else
They didn’t wreck our whole country
And ruin the lives of all the little ones
I think we should be the very greatful ones

So they got saddam and ruined the whole country
So what are they still doing taking over families

I don’t know about you, but it makes me really sick
Seeing a soldier sleeping in a bed
Where a poor kid once did

Now the soldiers don’t seem as bad off to me,
As the kid that once lived
In the tiny little house that used to be called his

But now where has he gone
The soldiers have taken his house
Has he died or has he vanished,
And if he has, will the soldiers now also claim his house

Now that you have heard this
Is this really the meaning of war?



Ihsan

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Rebuilding the anti-war movement!

MEREDETH KOLODNER writes: (excerpts)

W
ith Iraq under martial law and a full-scale assault on Fallujah under way, the anti-war movement is struggling to re-mobilize in response to this looming catastrophe. On a parallel track, the left continues to dissect and debate the meaning and reasons for Kerry's loss, but there are multiple lessons for the anti-war movement lurking within the election debacle. Two camps of explanation have emerged from the debris: one says that Kerry's loss shows just how conservative the church-going American heartland is, while the other argues that, even though they advocated a vote for him, Kerry's pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-NAFTA, pro-Patriot Act record alienated the "base" of the Democratic Party. The result, the second camp says, is that this Democratic Leadership Council controlled campaign resulted in mediocre turnout among young voters and people of color, as opposed to the enthusiastic rush to the polls of bigoted evangelical Christians.

The anti-war movement should not repeat this mistake. Rather than contorting ourselves for some imagined "Middle America," the anti-war movement needs to raise its demands with more force, vigor and confidence. Mobilizing our base is the first step in this process--even if you believe the lowest polls, over a third of US adults think the troops should come home now, and 70 million people is nothing to walk away from. From that base, we can make the case for immediate withdrawal, and win wider layers of people to that position. At the end of the day, we must convince people that it is the occupation itself which is making the country unsafe, unjust, and undemocratic. If we do not win this basic argument, the phased withdrawal will become an ever-receding goal in the future. What is to say the "security" situation will be different in 3 months? Won't the argument then be that the US needs to stay a little longer until things are stabilized? The lesson of the Kerry campaign is that if we don't fight for a position, we will never win it. And worse, by not fighting, we allow the political spectrum to slip further and further to the right (witness the disastrous passage of state gay marriage bans)

Read complete article here

Monday, November 08, 2004

Kerry's straight jacket

Ahmed Amr writes: (excerpts)

John Kerry lost the White House because he played by the rules - The DLC rules. The Democratic Leadership Council appointed JFK as their standard bearer because they trusted him to contain the campaign within the red lines drawn by Joseph Lieberman and Haim Saban. As a starting point, Kerry willingly sold his soul to the DLC devils and set out to derail Howard Dean's insurgency. Beyond that, he was free to win or lose against Bush - so long as he accepted some basic DLC guidance on domestic and foreign policy.

In ignoring the anti-war movement, Kerry made a fatal choice. Because one of the unique characteristics of this generation of peace activists is that many of them are older, middle class and conservatives. This was the kind of peace movement where Pat Buchanan and George Soros were marching in solidarity with Alexander Cockburn and Michael Moore. Ex-CIA agents and ex-generals and state department veterans saw common cause with left coast peaceniks.

Kerry was fully aware that his sponsors at the DLC were heavily influenced by neo-con ideology. In fact, the DLC is an integral part of the war party. Whether out of conviction or opportunism, JFK willingly allowed them to have their way. He postured as Bush Heavy on the war and got licked fair and square on tangential domestic issues. The DLC convinced Kerry that he was 'Anybody' and that the election was just a referendum on Bush. Now that the results are in, it is clear that this election started out as a referendum against the war. When Kerry came out in favor of Bush's foreign policy - it became a beauty contest about who had 'leadership skills' and 'moral values'. Given Kerry's capitulation to the DLC, maybe the voters made a rational choice.

Read complete article here


Saturday, November 06, 2004

Don't Say We Didn't Warn You

Alexander Cockburn writes: (excerpts)

November 2, 2004, marks a terrible defeat for the liberal elites, whether represented by Paul Krugman in the New York Times, by Michael Moore in his baseball cap, by the New York Review, by that vast complex of delusion and self-aggrandizement known as the Democratic Party. Its establishment is truly in crisis now, from the labor leaders who squandered millions in vehement efforts to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot to the public interest groups have gave Kerry the green light to waffle on all the crucial issues, to the "strategists" who got their cut on the campaign ads and got it all wrong. I hadn't the heart to warn the weeping young thing that they'll be back in 2008, as wrong as ever and that mass movements have to build up momentum over years, not in the span of one election campaign and zeppelins of electronic hype.

A couple of days after the election I called Ralph Nader to see how he was doing. He was feisty.

"You will know within a week whether there'll be a turn around in the Democratic Party. There'd have to be a complete turnover of personnel; a clean out of the stables."

So you see, Mr Moore, you led a huge campaign, replete with disgusting vilification of Ralph Nader, which encouraged people to throw away their vote, on Kerry. What did the Kerry vote gain them? Nothing.

The same goes for the Labor movement, whose organizers spent untold hours and money challenging Nader's ballot efforts. Better that they had devoted more time to a far more troubling expression of disloyalty to the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket. For every three union members who voted for Kerry, there were two more who voted for Bush. That's the problem, not Ralph Nader, who defied every variant of hysterical abuse in the necessary effort of describing what the problem was, and is. That if course is the job that also lies ahead for us.

Read complete article here