As the war mongers in Washington see their web of terror in Iraq begin to unravel, they feel compelled to launch new attacks - on one another. The vicious tone of this battle can be seen in an 11/19/05 NYT article,Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout. In this article, Eric Schmitt wrote about the the current internal war in the U.S. House of Representatives over the Congressman John Murtha's demand for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Schmitt's article reveals the desperate attempt by politicians to abrogate their responsibility for their own impending defeat. The spectacle in Congress also happens to be "good theatre", supporting an illusion the corporate media has fed to U.S. citizens for a long time - the illusion that real debate takes place in the two-party system with respect to U.S. domestic and foreign policy. In this case it's about the U.S. war on the people of Iraq.

The New York Times article reads:

"The battle boiled over when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican who is the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she had just received from a Marine colonel back home.

" 'He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course,' Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

"Democrats booed in protest and shouted Ms. Schmidt down in her attack on Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran and one of the House's most respected members on military matters. They caused the House to come to an abrupt standstill, and moments later, Representative Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, charged across the chamber's center aisle to the Republican side screaming that Ms. Schmidt's attack had been unwarranted.

" 'You guys are pathetic!' yelled Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. 'Pathetic.' "

Typically, we see this kind of internecine bloodletting among the U.S. Democrats and Republicans, during their election campaigns. In those times it is ultimately about who benefits from the spoils from U.S. imperialism and wars. In those pre-election battles they fight for who will control of the wealth robbed from their victim nations and the workers and oppressed of this country. But this time their cannibalism has an added dimension.

This time the dogfight in congress is an attempt by the Democrats to suddenly disavow their involvement and complicity in the U.S. war on the people of Iraq and to blame the war on their political foes - the Republicans who obviously lied about WMD, fabricated linkages between Iraq and the 9/11/01 attacks and led the invasion in Iraq. The fight also serves to maintain an illusion that Washington was divided on whether to carry out the war and genocide which continues to be executed in Iraq.

These "debates" have always served to engage the U.S. population in periodic elections - elections which are controlled by government/ corporate structures and a corrupt, corporate media. From 1970 to 2005 the percent of eligible voters in the United States who actually voted ranged from 36.4% to 55.3%. The number of people who actually vote is of critical importance to the two party system because it reflects the confidence people have in the government itself. If noone turned out to vote, the U.S. government could no longer hide behind the cover of "democracy". Without such cover, Washington could no longer claim to be a "democracy" and could not make the ridiculous assertion that it makes war to spread democracy.

The illusion has apparently been supported by the Murtha strategy - at least with some U.S. citizens. On the website of the Democratic Party we find these words:

"Over 100,000 Letters for a Hero

"In less than 72 hours, over 100,000 Americans responded to Republican attacks on decorated veteran and Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha, sending notes of support and encouragement as he sought a new way on the Republicans' failed Iraq policy."

But with a turnout of eligible voters ranging from only 36 to 55 percent, the illusion of democracy has always been vulnerable. Those who do not vote are blamed by the government for "voter apathy". When that passive rebellion turns to active revolt, the bubble will burst and the realization of fundamental change in the fabric of U.S. governance and society will begin. We remind the skeptics that the catalysts for change can arrive in the forms of the capitalists overstepping themselves as they did at Mai Lai and Kent State in 1968 ... as they have done at Abu Ghraib and with their other atrocities and spectacular defeat in Iraq. Or catalyst for change can arrive in something as unpredictable as Hurricane Katrina, exposing their corruption and failure to provide for their own.

Controlling the Debate

These tactics are also used to limit the debate to the "conservatives" (so called) and the "liberals" (so called). The tactic also keeps the people of the not-so-united-states divided, fighting the same meaningless battles being acted out in congress right now. For example, Axis of Logic receives daily ridiculous e-mails attacking us for being "liberals", laced with adjectives unfit to print here. We reject the labels "liberal" and "Democrat" as much as we reject the labels, "conservative" and "Republican".

In tandem, the two political parties in Washington control the boundaries and parameters of allowable discussion. The strategy results in containing the possibility of change to reform of the existing systems, never exposing the two political parties to the threat of a peoples' revolution. Real debate will never take place in Washington until the capitalist/imperialist model itself is on the table. They will never voluntarily allow that debate to take place. Nobody gives up power willingly. If power is to be lost, it must be taken. The real debate about distribution of wealth can only be forced by an uprising of the people.

In the case of the U.S/Anglo war on the people of Iraq - We will never allow - the world never allow - the Democrats to forget that they supported the ongoing genocides in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, - from their beginnings in 1948, 1991 and 2002 respectively.

Anti-war movement and the Democrats

We will not allow the politicians in the Democratic party to now claim membership among those of us who have fought and continued to fight against these imperialist wars. Suddenly, the "War Hawk of the Democrats", John Murtha, calls for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. Antiwar activists who praise John Murtha for his recent speech would do well to fix their gaze on the blood dripping from Murtha's hands as they applaud. They are buying into Washington's game of "reform" and entering into another cycle of stasis vs. change within fixed boundaries.

Layers of Duplicity and Deceit

Evidence of the duplicity of the Democrats can easily be seen in their refusal to join John Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. While we certainly agree with Murtha's demand for immediate troop withdrawal, we eschew the transparent strategy behind his demands. A careful reading of his words show that this former killer in Vietnam only calls for troop withdrawal because: (1) He knows the U.S. has already lost the war in Iraq; (2) He knows his demands will not be enjoined by his cohorts in the Democratic party to force immediate withdrawal from the occupation; (3) He knows his demands will support the illusion that there is fundamental disagreement on the immorality and military folly of the war and occupation.

Evidence for the old imperialist strategy - Define/Control the Boundaries of the Debate

Why now? So why has John Murtha, a confessed killer in Vietnam, suddenly called for immediate and total troop withdrawal from a war he vigorously supported.

On May 7, 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported:

"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained.

We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out."

So let's be clear. Note that Murtha's disagreement with the Bush regime has nothing to do with the morality of the war - only on their failure to win it. John Murtha is and always has been an advocate of the U.S. war on the people of Iraq. His reasons for an immediate pullout of U.S. military from Iraq is motivated by the factors stated above. Let's read an excerpt from his speech:
John Murtha stated:

"Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground ... I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism ... I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." ... Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists ... A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis."

Now it's about damage control as the warmongers watch the unfolding of another spectacular defeat of the U.S. military. Their strategy is an old one: Defining and control the boundaries of the debate - thereby marginalizing any alternative position.

Stage 1: Murtha makes a "radical demand" for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. Troops from Iraq. It is reasonable to assume that he was hand-picked for the job, given his status as the pro war hawk in the Democratic party and his history of strong support for the war in Iraq. Anyone else in the party would have been dismissed as a "soft headed liberal".

Stage 2: The "other Democrats" find Murtha's demand to be "understandable" but also "unreasonable" and they "will not go that far". Senator John Kerry is one of those who has refused to sign on to Murtha's demand. The fabrication portrays Murtha's position as being "extremist" and the more reasonable position to be one of delaying withdrawal ... "to save the Iraqis from themselves". The corporate media prattles additional rationalization for the occupation - The occupation has to be continued "to defend the fledgling democracy"; to protect Iraq from civil war; to defeat terrorism; to build an Iraqi firewall against terrorism, etc., etc.

Stage 3: After framing the debate and voting to prolong the occupation, we see John Kerry and others diverting attention from troop withdrawal by engaging another "debate" altogether. Now, they argue, that the issue is about the Republicans attack on the integrity of John Murtha ... John Murtha, the "decorated U.S. Marine in Vietnam" - with ribbons and medals to symbolize every Vietnamese man, woman and child for whose deaths he was responsible, directly or indirectly. The former marine who has never seen an imperialist war or "foreign intervention" that he did not like ... until now.

The Sociopaths

Throughout our lives we have watched the corporate media parade serial killers in U.S. court rooms and through the hallways leading to their execution chambers. In this display of the government's ultimate power, they always remind us that the murderer must die, and especially so if they have shown no remorse for their atrocities. When have we seen John Murtha nor John Kerry demonstrate any remorse for the misery and suffering they personally caused in Vietnam? Why should we expect them to behave differently with respect to the war they supported in Iraq? Those responsible for the mass murder of over a million Iraqis since 1991 have shown no remorse. The lack of remorse and repentance are said to be characteristics of sociopaths and psychopaths. There are those who believe mass killing is justified by slapping the label "war" on it. But changing the label does not change the reality. Harsh words? Tell the dead and suffering in Iraq the words are too harsh.

These unrepentant killers include Kerry and Murtha - the "two Johns" - presently acting out their fight with George Walker Bush and his Vice President, Dick Cheney. They include H.W. Bush who seated Saddam Hussein in power and in 1991 began this war that is 14 years old and counting. We will always remind our readers that these remorseless killers include William Jefferson Clinton who enforced the sanctions, no fly zones and weekly missile attacks causing deaths of over a million Iraqis including 3/4 million children - which some say included a baby's death every 6 seconds from starvation and disease. We also remember the "anti-war activists" who marched at our side on Pennsylvania Avenue in 1991, carrying signs that read, "Sanctions not Bombs".

In Service to Global Corporate Empire

It is important to understand that both political parties are in full service to the global corporate empire - even as they try to cut each other's political throats in Washington. Therefore even this battle - and the reports in the corporate media like the ones referenced above are not what they seem to be. Even this gnashing of teeth between the Democrat and Republican dogs of war serves the global corporate empire very, very well.

One might ask how it is possible that this fight could possibly serve the empire. The answer is simple: Just as this fight maintains a very convincing illusion that real differences exist within the two-party system ... the illusion that voters in the U.S. can really make a difference come election day ... it maintains the illusion that the people have a significant role in government. Murtha himself admitted that the people are way ahead of the congress in their assessment of the war. Was he saying that we are ahead of the congress in knowledge or only in terms of morality?

Geopolitical Fronts in the War Against the Global Corporate Empire

Military Front: There are a number of fronts in the campaign against the U.S.-led Global Corporate Empire. The most obvious are the three military fronts. The gallant resistance armies of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine have weakened and drained the enemy's strength. These men and women give their lives and those of their children every day to defeat the scourge of imperialism.

Antiwar Front: Another front is the international anti-war movement which has also weakened the enemy. A year ago we could march a hundred thousand strong against the war and would find no mention of it in the morning news. Today, front page stories cover our opposition to the war because we can no longer be ignored.

Ideological Front: Finally, we see the ideological front of the war against the imperialists in the Bolivarian Revolution. When speaking to the people in Venezuela last month I pointed out that the Bolivarian revolution can no longer be defined as "Venezuelan". Today the revolution is "por todo el mundo" - worldwide. Its international ambassador, President Hugo Chavez Frias, has carried the Bolivarian message to the United Nations, to India, Iran, Italy, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Africa and most recently to the Summit of the Americas at Mar del Plata, Argentina. In every country he visits, the masses turn out to receive Chavez and his message of hope. It is now a worldwide revolution spreading throughout Latin America and the world.

The Bolivarian Revolution has been pushed by its internal dynamics, fed and directed by those it serves in reciprocity. It has largely been initiated by the indigenous uprisings but it is being picked up and carried along by everyone on the social spectrum as it spreads throughout the world. It has recently brought down U.S. backed, puppet presidents in Ecuador (Gutierrez)and Bolivia (Mesa)and has buried NAFTA, the imperialist's machine for profit and exploitation in Latin America. It has established self-governance among the people of Venezuela through participatory democracy and given them effective social programs. These are not half-baked giveaway programs like those thrown at the poor in the U.S. They are clear, working alternatives to the capitalist models which have wasted the lives of so many people in so many countries for so many decades. It's the ideological front in the war against the capitalist empire.

"Now is the time to not allow our hands to be idle or our souls to rest until we save humanity."

- President Hugo Chavez Frias

Personal Responsibility: Finding themselves in the midst of impending failure, the men in Washington are unable to look honestly at what they have done in Iraq. They are compounding their failure in two ways. First, their analysis of the problem is flawed. John Murtha has not analyzed the problem as morally wrong. In his analysis, the failure was one of poor planning and execution. Second, their reaction to impending defeat is to blame their failure on others in an effort to save their political skins.

But we are no longer allowing ourselves to be tricked or distracted by congressional theater. We must do everything we can to bust the illusions created by the corporate media. We are taking control of the debate. We have found the enemy and he is not us - as we've always been told by Pogo - a creation of the corporate media.

Each of us is called upon to give our time, energy, skills and money to the world revolution that is already underway. The beast would have us believe that he is invincible. But he is currently losing the war militarily, economically and in his struggle to control information. He is incapable of We will fight him until the empire has drawn its last breath and can kill no more ... until the dawn of that new day imagined by Simon Bolivar and many others who woke from their dream and went to work.