October 16, 2003
REMARKS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON THE ADMINISTRATION’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A REALISTIC, SPECIFIC PLAN TO BRING STABILITY TO IRAQ
CONTACT: Jim Manley (202) 224-2633
Nearly six months have elapsed since President Bush flew out to the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Today, we all know all too well that the war is not over; the war goes on; the mission is not accomplished. An unnecessary war, based on unreliable and inaccurate intelligence, has not brought an end to danger. Instead, it has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and taken more and more American lives each week.
We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one. The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed. All the Administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as "double-talk." The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not.
Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.
And now, despite the increasingly restless Iraqi population, despite the continuing talk of sabotage, despite the foreign terrorists crossing thousands of miles of border to attack U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq, the Administration still refuses to face the truth or tell the truth. Instead, the White House responds by covering up its failures and trying to sell its rosy version of events by repeating it with maximum frequency and volume, and minimum regard for realities on the ground.
No P.R. campaign by the increasingly desperate White House can redress the painful loss of a young American soldier almost every day. Instead of greater stability and order, the forces arrayed against us are steadily increasing the intensity and sophistication of their assaults on our troops. Bombs that were once set off by trip wires are now being set off by remote control. The threat of shoulder fired missiles makes it unsafe for civilian planes to land at Baghdad Airport.
No foreign policy in our free society can succeed for long unless it is supported by our people. Our men and women in uniform fought bravely and brilliantly, but the President's war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless. The American people know all this. Our allies know it. Our soldiers know it.
We should never have gone to war in Iraq when we did, in the way we did, for the false reasons we were given. But now that we are there, two imperatives are absolutely clear: America cannot withdraw now, leaving Iraq to chaos or civil war, becoming a danger to us far greater than it did before. The misguided policy of the past is no excuse for a misguided policy for the future. We need a realistic and specific plan to bring stability to Iraq, to bring genuine self-government to Iraq, to bring our soldiers home with dignity and honor.
Until the Administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world, instead of protecting them. The greatest mistake we can make in Congress as the people's elected representatives is to support and finance a go-it-alone, do-it-because-I-say-so policy that leaves young Americans increasingly at risk in Iraq.
So when the roll is called on this $87 billion legislation, which provides no effective conditions for genuine international participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote no. A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a vote to send the Administration back to the drawing board. It is a vote for a new policy – a policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers are making, a policy that restores America as a respected member of the family of nations, a policy that will make it easier, not far more difficult, to win the war against terrorism.
The amount of money is huge.
It is 87 times what the federal government spends annually on after-school programs.
It is 7 times what President Bush proposed to spend on education for low-income schools in 2004.
It is 9 times what the federal government spends on special education each year.
It is 8 times what the government spends to help middle and low-income students go to college.
It is 15 times what the government spends on cancer research.
It is 27 times what the government spends on substance abuse and mental health treatment.
It is 58 times what the government spends on community health centers.
If our Iraq policy is to be successful, it must take into account what history teaches us about the use of military power to solve politically-inspired violence. A new policy must provide the security that is essential for any nation-building effort. A new policy must genuinely internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq and end our occupation. And a successful new policy must give ownership to Iraqis for their political future.
Surely, in this day and age, at the beginning of the 21st century, we do not have to re-learn the lesson that every colonial power in history has learned. We do not want to be – we cannot afford to be – either in terms of character or in terms of cost – an occupier of other lands. We must not become the next failed empire in the world.
The Administration seeks to write a new history that defies the lessons of history. The most basic of those lessons is that we cannot rely primarily on military means as a solution to politically-inspired violence. In those circumstances, the tide of history rises squarely against military occupation.
The British learned that lesson in Northern Ireland. The French learned it in Algeria. The Russians learned it in Afghanistan and are re-learning it every day in Chechnya. America learned it in Vietnam, and we must not re-learn it in Iraq…. Even with the best forces in the history of the world, our military cannot succeed if the mission is not achievable, if they are viewed as occupiers, and if we do not have a clearly defined and realistic strategy.
In recent weeks, in Massachusetts, at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and at Walter Reed Hospital, I have met with American troops who fought in Iraq. I am profoundly moved by the price they pay to serve our country, and profoundly impressed by their professionalism and commitment. They are willing to endure great hardship and great danger in Iraq to complete their mission. But they want to know when their mission will be complete, and when they will be able to come home.
They are resourceful and strong. But more and more they are frustrated -- especially by the faceless nature of the threat. Individuals intent on killing Americans are firing from behind the cover of crowds, to provoke our soldiers into firing back on civilians. Many of our troops say they were never trained to be police officers or to fight a guerilla war. They want to help the Iraqi people. But the increasing casualties make them feel unsafe. They want to respond militarily to attacks. But they often don't know who the attacker is.
They tell me that at first, their convoys were welcomed. But after time, children began to throw rocks at them, and then came the bullets. They tell me that far too many in Iraq believe we are there to take their oil, and that we will stay forever.
They have no clear sense about their post-war mission. Some see it as winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Some believe it is security. Some feel it is to obtain intelligence about opposition forces and weapons caches. Others think it is to prevent sabotage of the oil pipelines and other vital infrastructure. Still others say it is to build sidewalks and soccer fields and schools and hospitals, and other local facilities. Not one of the soldiers told me their mission was to achieve Iraq's transition to democracy.….
…..If history is any guide, America will not be able to impose our vision of democracy on the Iraqi people on our current terms and our timetable. Our overarching interest is the development of a government that has legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens, so that the longer process of building durable democratic institutions can proceed effectively in the years to come. This process will not be finished swiftly, or easily, and it will not take place according to our will....
For the entire document please visit:
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/03/10/2003A16738.html
In 1999- 2000, myself and Jerome Paradis made a 30-minute silent film called "Hero". It was filmed on location in Eugene, the actors were my friends and I had a zero budget. Jerome was the Hero. This film dealt with a character who was an unkown to society on all levels. His character did not represent any kind of glamour or idolatry. His life was simple and unnoticed. What he did represent was an example of the disparage of beauty this society makes in its film stars, ergo this idolatry as a staple in the social minds of modern Americans. In simpler terms, when we watch films, the movie stars are the most beautiful people in the world, and much social merit is discussed to be valued about similarities.
So then, why is he the hero?
Good question. The character (he has no name.. maybe he is the Man With No Name?...) is a symbol of certain people who are everywhere and nowhere in every city, in every state everywhere. He used to be a normal kid, but then something happened to him and now he doesn't have a home or a family. Why not? Who cares? This kind of thing is totally normal. The film tails him in a typical ?or? untypical day.
MWNN has a penchant for correcting wrongdoers from his own unique point of view. I feel that he sees the world in a sort of comic book/storyboarded view. He just wanders and finds people to reprimand with his written notes from a notebook. This is his only contact with the outside social realm. Mostly people don't understand what he's trying to do, and often don't see him at all. He's lost in his own world, and doesn't care if people see him or not, since that's the crux of his existence anyhow.
He comes across love, and is also beaten up by a local mongrel. When he crawls home to his dilapidated room inside an old apartment building, he dreams of his childhood. He dreams of his drunken father burning his comic books. When he was a child, he dreamt that he was a superhero; now he gets to be one in real life.
Essentially the gimmick here is simple- to force an audience to witness the typical life of a nobody; an anybody; a somebody. Because, he IS someone- we just don't see it. He is just like all those people out there, wandering and wishing they were home somewhere, sleeping and dreaming. People aren't used to seeing this type of thing without some kind of ploy to aid the homeles and poor. We didn't do that- we wanted to make a film that captured the essence of who one of these folks could be. They're as ambiguous as they are special. And any one of us could turn into a MWNN at any time. . .
This image is meant to evoke feelings of chaos, panic, and yearning in a post-911 America.
-Progenitor
This image is meant to evoke feelings of loss and of love, all in a world of uncertain futures.
-Progenitor
This is an actual item that I found back when I lived in NJ. I've had it for several years & never tried using it. Since learning about the fast food industry and the amount of consumption at these "restaurants", i've gained a new interest in this card. Researching it only pulls up this site which inside you find the major McDonalds located in NJ. This card doesn't appear to do anything, just proof of your dietary pride.
“I am embarrassed. We are all embarrassed. We Americans have guided our destinies so clumsily, with all the world watching, that we now must protect ourselves against our own government and our own industries.
“Not to do so would be suicide. We have discovered a brand-new method for committing suicide-family style, Reverend Jim Jones style, and by the millions. What is this method? To say nothing and do nothing about what some of our businessmen and military men are doing with the most unstable substances and the most persistent poisons to be found anywhere in the universe.
“The people who play with such chemicals are so dumb!
“They are also vicious. How vicious it is of them to tell us as little as possible about the hideousness of nuclear weapons and power plants!
“And, among the dumb and vicious people, who jeopardizes all life on earth with hearts so light? I suggest to you that it is those who will lie for the nuclear industries, or who will teach their executives how to lie convincingly - for a fee. I speak of certain lawyers and communicators, and all public relations experts. The so-called profession of public relations, an American invention, stands entirely disgraced today.
“The lies we have been fed about nuclear energy have be as cunningly handcrafted as the masterpieces of Benvenuto Cellini. They have been a damned sight better built, I must say, than the atomic energy plants themselves.
“I say to you that makers of such lies are filthy little monkeys. I hate them. The may think they are cute. They are not cute. They stink. If we let them, they will kill everything on this lovely blue-green planet with their rebuttals to what we say here today - with their vicious, stupid lies.”
Kurt Vonnegut
Anti-nuke rally Washington DC
May 6, 1979
Free Health Care being offered in Iraq.
Millions of Americans ask "Where's ours?"
