Unwelcoming Party for Karl Rove in PA

[Gokuma]

Please spread the word and forward to your contacts and lists (sorry for cross-postings)
for further info, visit http://www.lancastervoice.org

WHAT: Vigil for Peace, Unwelcoming Party for Karl Rove

WHEN: Thursday, May 4th, 6:00-7:30PM
(Note: LCPJ monthly meeting has been postponed to Thursday, May 11)

WHERE: Along Route 30, on sidewalk, in front of The Host Resort
2300 Lincoln Highway East (Route 30) Lancaster, PA
carpooling encouraged, parking discretion encouraged (lots of nearby lots - Don't park at Host Resort)


INFO:
Next Thursday, May 4, 2006 Karl Rove will come to the Host Resort in Lancaster County to speak at a fundraiser for US Senator Rick Santorum. The Lancaster Coalition for Peace & Justice is calling on all Lancaster County residents to join a vigil for peace and an unwelcoming party for Mr. Rove.

Bill Adams, father of SFC Brent A. Adams, who was killed while serving in Iraq, will be with us mourning all those killed in the Iraq War, and seeking to hold Mr. Rove and this Administration accountable. During this war soldiers’ coffins have been hidden from public view, and the President has refused to attend a single soldier’s funeral.

Karl Rove was instrumental in constructing the falsehoods that sold the Iraq War over three years ago. Before the war began, Rove chaired meetings of the White House Iraq Group, which was “charged with developing a strategy for publicizing the White House's assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States,” according to CNN. Rove’s “strategic communications” task force, in particular, contributed to writing and coordinating speeches by Bush administration officials drumming up Iraq’s purported nuclear threat. This threat, we now know, was nonexistent.

Mr. Rove is also the subject of an ongoing investigation concerning the possibly felonious disclosure of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in retaliation for Plame's husband Joseph Wilson’s criticisms of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.

Having made a bogus case for a war in which thousands of Americans and untold Iraqis have perished, Mr. Rove is bringing his divisive politics to Lancaster. Let’s make clear that many, many of us in Lancaster stand for peace and justice, and against the politics of war and greed.

The Lancaster Coalition for Peace & Justice has for three years been an expanding network of individuals and autonomous groups seeking nonviolent, creative means to prevent war, support social justice, and effect positive change.

# # #

[Scuba Steve]

He's also a really unattractive man.

[Ralphis]

No thx

[leileilol]

who cares

[Bucket]

Heh, that's actually really close to where I live.

[Scuba Steve]

gargoylol said:

who cares

People who care.

[dher5500]

First of all i wish to express my sorrow and sypothy for all the families that lost loved ones. They made the ultimate sacrifice in DEFENSE of the United States. For this i and the rest of the nation says "Thank You!"

I must warn you that i'm a war supporter and i voted for bush both times. I beieve that winning this war and the war in Afganastan will make the world a safer place to live in.

This being said though I'm begining to have doubts on the compentency of our military and Government leaders to fight this war. They cant tell me with a straight face that they didn't expect this suicide boming shit to occur.

And please for the love of god someone do something about securing our borders.... PLEASE!!!! Not that i have anything against the Mexicans or anyone else for that matter. Its just that even if 1 out of every million people who make it through is a terrorist we can be inline for another devestating terrorist attack on American soil sooner than anyone thinks.

[Dr. Zin]

Do you realize that by destroying the central government of Iraq we have essentially created a terrorist's playground there?

[Quast]

Dr. Zin said:

Do you realize that by destroying the central government of Iraq we have essentially created a terrorist's playground there?

[Piezo]

dher5500 said:

They made the ultimate sacrifice in DEFENSE of the United States. For this i and the rest of the nation says "Thank You!"

I must warn you that i'm a war supporter and i voted for bush both times. I beieve that winning this war and the war in Afganastan will make the world a safer place to live in.

Best sarcasm ever!

[dher5500]

Dr. Zin said:

Do you realize that by destroying the central government of Iraq we have essentially created a terrorist's playground there?

Perhaps your right. I'm not disagreeing with you that the United States Military or Government didn't screw up or is screwing up the way the war is being faught. I believe that Sadam should've been removed from office, but we shouldn't have rushed into it. If we had done our homework first maybe conditions would've been better over there now.

This being said your still not going to change my mind on the fact i beieve we belong there and this war is justified. Its just being run by idiots who don't know what they are doing.

[Nautilus]

dher5500 said:

I believe that Sadam should've been removed from office

Why? Just because he commited acts of genocide and exercised despotic reign? That's his business, not ours.

[Scuba Steve]

dher5500 said:

Its just that even if 1 out of every million people who make it through is a terrorist we can be inline for another devestating terrorist attack on American soil sooner than anyone thinks.

Psst... the 9/11 hijackers all had forged documents to be inside the country and came across our protected border.

[Dr. Zin]

dher5500 said:

I believe that Sadam should've been removed from office.

Why Hussein and not any of dozens of other nation leaders who are engaged in atrocities?

Why didn't we go to Sudan, when Government sponsered militias were performing ethnically cleansing?

What about the Chinese manufacturing cosmetics for sale in Europe from the skin of executed prisoners?

Why haven't we acted about the brutality carried out by the Saudi theocracy on its citizens?

Because Iraq has oil, and Hussein was no friend of Bush (unlike the Saudis). Al-Quada DESPISED Hussein and his government. There was never any link between them.

No traces of a WMD program have been found in Iraq, but the next door neighbor, Iran, is bragging about how they are creating weapons grade uranium right now.

Yeah, it was a brilliant idea to invade a country composed of three different ethnic groups that hate each other. Hussein may have been brutal, but his iron fist rule was the only thing keeping the country from descending into anarchy. Now because we have removed him and left a paltry government there that holds no power beyond the doors of its congress, Iraq is teetering on civil war.

And Iran is racing towards production of nuclear weapons.

Yeah, Iraq was the biggest threat to global peace.

[Lizardcommando]

Dr. Zin said:

SNIP

Sooo.... simply put, the U.S. fucked up the entire world? Or is it more complex then that?

[Dr. Zin]

No, but the US invasion of Iraq was foolish, and the consequences of it are far reaching.

Those other examples I cited were to refute the argument that Saddam abused his people, so we needed to overthrow him. Yes, he abused his citizens in horrible way, but so do many other countries, and we don't lift a finger to stop them.

And now that we have gotten ourselves tangled in Iraq, we cannot deal with a real threat to world peace, namely the radical government of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[KennyJC]

The fact is... America's "war on terror" is foolhardy and if their aim is for peace, then they should have realized this was impossible.

Fair enough every country should defend against terrorism, but to foolishly outright attack it, does nothing for the security of America, nothing for the security of the Middle East and nothing for the security of the world.

All they have achieved is the creation of more terrorists and yet more anti-western hatred by Muslims.

Sorry US citizens, but this is what happens when you vote a religious extremist into your white house. It's your own fault.

The thing is, I can see Muslims point. They don't like the west invading their countries... Just like I wouldn't want any of their idiot leaders invading mine. Leave them be, and work towards democratic unity.

[Dr. Zin]

Hey, more than half of the country didn't vote for "Dubya".

[DooMAD]

Nautilus said:

Why? Just because he commited acts of genocide and exercised despotic reign? That's his business, not ours.

Except for the part where it's entirely our business. Britain and the US have been paranoid over the supposed threat from "unstable" nations in the middle east for decades, so we appointed Saddam our unofficial deputy and funded his regime. Then we conveniently looked the other way when he began slaughtering his own people. It was a regime of our creation, which means we are at least partly responsible for every single innocent person who was beaten, tortured and murdered under Saddam's rule. We owe a moral obligation to the people who have suffered as a result of our petty national interests. We need to restore the freedoms that we took away as a result of short sighted meddling.

Dr. Zin said:

And now that we have gotten ourselves tangled in Iraq, we cannot deal with a real threat to world peace, namely the radical government of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Pfft... That's precisely the paranoia I'm referring too.

[Use]

dher5500 said:

This being said your still not going to change my mind on the fact i beieve we belong there and this war is justified. Its just being run by idiots who don't know what they are doing.

So war is okay with you even if it's being led by people who have no vested interest outside their own agendas? Okay.

[Dr. Zin]

DooMAD said:

Pfft... That's precisely the paranoia I'm referring too.

OK, so a country that is producing nuclear materials and threatening neighboring countries is perfectly OK? Even when said country has asserted that when the have built the technology they want to sell it to other countries? Even when they are know human rights abusers like Sudan!

Yeah, theres nothing to worry about there! Nothing at all!

Western intrests shouldn't have fucked with the Middle East in the first place, but once you have opened the box you have to deal with it. You think if western forces completely withdrew from any area between the Mediterranean Sea and India there would be no repercussions? Lets be realistic here.

[DooMAD]

Dr. Zin said:

OK, so a country that is producing nuclear materials and threatening neighboring countries is perfectly OK? Even when said country has asserted that when the have built the technology they want to sell it to other countries?

Yeah, theres nothing to worry about there! Nothing at all!

The only country they would be interested in nuking would be Isreal, but they know full well that both the US and Isreal would airstrike/nuke/generally bomb the crap out of/etc them before they had the chance. This is why no one will be nuking anyone. It tends to result in death.

Dr. Zin said:

Western intrests shouldn't have fucked with the Middle East in the first place, but once you have opened the box you have to deal with it.

Isn't that what I said?

[Dr. Zin]

Ah, so we'd have another Cold War?

Iran has clearly expressed intents to spread nuclear weapons technology to other nation. If that doesn't make a chill run down your spine you are a fool.

These are fucking nuclear weapons. Do you know how much damage they do? Do you know how close the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. got to annihilating each other?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/falsealarms.html

The more countries that have access to said weapons, the greater chance that cooler heads will NOT prevail.

It would be best if every nation destroy its nuclear arsenals, but I cannot see that ever happening. I think any reasonable person can see why you don't want every Banana Republic or Theocracy having access to such power.

EDIT: But you also added that westerners should completely disengage from the Mid-East. Ignoring Pandora's box doesn't close it.

[baronofhell]

Not saying you are wrong Doomad, but can you please explain to me how the U.S. put Saddam in to power.

[Dr. Zin]

We funded his government and provided them with weapons (including WMDs!).

[myk]

DooMAD said:
Except for the part where it's entirely our business. Britain and the US have been paranoid over the supposed threat from "unstable" nations in the middle east for decades, so we appointed Saddam our unofficial deputy and funded his regime. Then we convieniently looked the other way when he began slaughtering his own people. That means we are responsible for every single innocent person who was beaten, tortured and murdered under that regime. We owe a moral obligation to the people who have suffered as a result of our petty national interests.

Britain and the US have been in there for decades not because they give a shit how stable the area is, but because there's bucketloads of oil in there, and because it's a strategic area for commerce as it has always been. And they want their oil companies (pretty much a hegemony and the reason why they were basically the only two countries really wanting to wage a war there) on top there.

As for Saddam, he didn't start killing people after some time or anything, he's been doing it all along since the 80s, and all deep and nondiplomatic interventions from western nations rely on making deals with ruthless soldiers and adventurers (anything from wealthy politicians to terrorists) who depend on instability and external leverage to gain power, and who must crush opponents to prevail.

Additionally, what makes you think that part of the people Saddam was killing off were not backed by the US or its allied (middle-eastern) countries as operatives and paramilitaries?

If you owed people there anything it should have been paid by economic reparations and civilized diplomacy; not destroying their economy further and preparing them for endless strife and war by beating them over the head repeatedly. If you damage someone's home you pay for the damages, not hurl more rocks at it and then pillage it.

In the end all the US (and Britain) did was grow tired of Saddam mostly because he did not serve their interests anymore, because Saddam had become involded in running his country according to its own requirements (however harsh they may have been due to the circumstances) and thus they went forth and attacked him in order to replace him with another upstart that would be willing to cooperate with their economical and military agenda in the middle-east.

[DooMAD]

baronofhell said:

Not saying you are wrong Doomad, but can you please explain to me how the U.S. put Saddam in to power.

Dr. Zin said:

We funded his government and provided them with weapons (including WMDs!).

Yes, we didn't exactly put him in power, but we did give him everything he needed to keep it and strengthen his grip further.

[baronofhell]

Oh ok, kinda like the Taliban. Mmkay, thankx.

[Dr. Zin]

It might be good to add that the US basically created Al-Quada by training and funding Osama Bin Laden's Mujehadeen during the Soviet invaision of Afghanistan.

[fodders]

Iran is NOT producing "weapons grade material" they ARE enriching it for use in their power stations, they signed the non proliferation treaty and as signatories they are legally entitled under the agreement to enrich it for use in reactors, it is nowhere near the level of enrichment needed for weapons. At least they signed it, now tell me why are Israel, India and Pakistan (non signatories) being left alone? Pakistan has sold nuclear technology all over the world, yet nothing is done. India is a non signatory and yet Bush signed a deal, was it in Feb?, promising technology to India without obliging them to sign it. I contend that the US Gov. is breaking the IAEA laws and should be reported to the UN. Bet THAT doesn't happen.