Open Letter to Harry Reid and Senate Dems: Stop Showboating


Dear Harry,

I am glad to see that you have finally used the powers of the Senate to try to stop the war, but frankly I agree with the Republicans: this week's Senate sleepover was more theater than substance.

First off, the Reed-Levin bill will not stop the war; it calls for a limited pullout that would leave the rest of our troops even more vulnerable. If we are going to fight to end the war, let's fight for a bill like I proposed which would immediately begin a complete troop withdrawal and make it a felony for George Bush to continue the war. Clinton, Biden, Obama and Dodd say they want to end the war, but so far none have submitted a bill that would really do it.

Second, your decision to accept the result of a single cloture vote lets the Republicans off the hook. One overnight debate didn't give the American public enough time to digest what was going on. They didn't even have time to contact their Senators and tell them to break with George Bush or face their wrath in 2008.

If you really want to shape war policy, you must call up a cloture vote every day at noon until you get cloture. Of course you wouldn't have the votes at first, but that's why you need to force the Senate to remain in session seven days a week to vote every day on cloture throughout the summer. The same tactic would apply for both the House and Senate to override a veto.

In the meantime the press will report on the daily votes alongside the mounting death toll. The American people will then have time to see which Senators and Congressmen still refuse to take responsibility for ending the carnage. If you keep up the pressure every single day, I guarantee your opponents will wither on the vine , and you will get an up-down vote within 20 days and override a veto in 40 days. You have already flipped 4 of the 23 Republicans up for reelection next year. The rest will flip when their constituents weigh in and threaten their political survival.

By not calling for repeated cloture and override votes throughout the summer, you let the heat off the Senate Republicans and you undermined your own cause by scheduling symbolic votes on water bills and then staging an all-nighter when you didn't have the votes to win. It makes it all look like a publicity stunt––exactly what your critics claim.

Harry, it's time to get serious about forcing a constitutional confrontation with Bush even if it means canceling the Congress' summer recess. Can you do anything less after a number of Senators have publicly ridiculed the Iraqi parliament for not canceling their summer recess? Why should vacations matter when American and Iraqi blood is being needlessly spilled? We Democrats need real leadership right now––not political showboating. Your colleagues in the Congress are not going to like the tough leadership I am suggesting. But believe me if you're successful, and you will be successful, your leadership will make Senate history.

Clearly you are not getting proper counsel and support from your fellow Senators and my presidential candidate colleagues. They all talk a good game about ending the war, but they haven't shown any legislative leadership on the matter. As a former Senator with experience stopping an earlier futile war, I will be happy to meet with you and my candidate colleagues to explain how the Senate can begin the process of ending this war once and for all.

Feel free to call me.




I support Mike 100%

Hey mike this is John (the guy that asked you the Vietnam question at the CNN youtube debate) and I just want you to know that I support you 100% even though it wasn't made too apparent from my question on CNN!


Came off different

Your question came off as if you were attacking Gravel because he foolish for thinking that about the Vietnam  vets.

That was the beauty of it!

Mike responded in kind without flinching! That is, he showed that he could handle himself with a tough question!

Came off different

Your question came off as if you were attacking Gravel because he foolish for thinking that about the Vietnam  vets.

I met Mike at TAKE BACK AMERICA CONFERENCE / Iraq war History

Bush In Denial / the history behind War in Iraq
 Dear Editor,
I am going to give you the facts on why we went to war and who is behind it and who is fighting us and why and who can be trusted to stop it..

1st you get who is attacking us.
2nd you get proof to who is attacking us.
3rd you get the reason why we have them attacking us.
4th you will see who started this whole chain that lead them to want to attack us.
This war was planned many many years ago. Why do you think the saudi's are so many of the insurgents! Read this and understand the bilderberg world domination factor.

Here you can see how most are saudis attacking us in iraq:
However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence =
"50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers" Found 11 hours ago
The "same people who attacked us on 9/11"? It may be the very latest talking point from the Administration , but it's actually true--altho it's not Al Qaeda in Iraq, but Saudis. Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia .
make sure you read the whole article from someone living there and who knows the truth and the feelings of the people of saudi arabia

Full spectrum dominance.(America's Oil Wars)( Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order)(Book Review)
From: Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) | Date: 6/22/2005 | Author: Bevan, Brock L.
Stephen C. Pelletiere. America's Oil Wars.
William Engdahl. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, [1992] 2004). 312 pp.
IRAQ, ON THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY (March 2005) of the United States led invasion and subsequent occupation, endures perpetual violence and a lack of normalization of life. Though the United States argued that Iraq had possessed so-called "weapons of mass-destruction" and had colluded with "terrorists" in the run-up to the invasion (that was neither declared a war by the United States Congress nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council), both allegations have proven to be false. (1) Pretenses for the invasion have shifted in the wake of the original casus belli deteriorating: the real reason for the invasion -ex posto facto- was to bring enlightenment in the form of "democracy" to the Iraqi people (and the Arab world) through preemptive war. (2)
Stephen C. Pelletiere, former senior political analyst at the CIA on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and professor of National Security Affairs at the United States Army War College from 1998 to 2000, argues that the ultimate occupation of Iraq from 2003 up to the present was a result of Saddam Hussein's attempt in the late 1980s and early 1990s to solidify the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). For Pelletiere "... the individual who was able to marshal the resources of so great (and powerful) an institution, and keep its members in line, would have been someone with whom to reckon." (3)
The peculiar instability that was prevalent in the Persian Gulf region prior to 1988-1989 allowed the United States to execute its version of a global racket. It involved allowing instability to flourish in order to create a reason for the autocrats in the Persian Gulf to exchange their "petro-dollars" for United States-made armaments. That these armaments were often of no use to the states buying them made no difference. Pelletiere contends that the "historic juncture" that occurred in the late 1980s "imperiled America's position in the Gulf." The concurrence of events that was the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Iraqi defeat of Iran in their near decade-long war, and the consolidation of OPEC with high-absorber states in control of policy posed a challenge to the hegemony of the United States in the region and (as a result of the geopolitical significance of petroleum) in the world.
Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, challenged the hegemony that the United States exercised in the region by invading Kuwait in 1990. The problem for the United States was manifold, starting with the threat that a strong Iraq would pose to the Washington's allies in the region; continuing onto the elevated position of power Baghdad would sustain with Kuwait integrated into the state; and ending with the additional prestige Iraq would have over petroleum resources on a global level. Iraq, once cornered by the shenanigans of the George H. W. Bush administration, attempted to accommodate Washington's dictates while saving face, but to no avail. (4) Iraq's mistake turned out to be the perfect opportunity to enact a modified version of plans developed under former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger in the 1970s to seize oilfields in the Persian Gulf from weak sheikdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. (5)
As a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the United States justified a military ground presence in Saudi Arabia. According to the story pushed by Washington, iraq posed a threat to the integrity of the Saudi Arabian kingdom, or at least the continued dynastic power of the al-Saud family. Thus, the al-Saud family gained "protection" from the United States but paid for it in terms of the cost of the war against Iraq in 1990-1991 as well as in terms of lost legitimacy. As Pelletiere says "... the decision to stay on [after the conclusion of the conflict in 1991] infuriated some elements of Saudi society, and instances of sabotage against the Americans began to proliferate." (6)
Whereas Pelletiere roots his analysis on the specificity of Iraq and its particular history in terms of leadership under Saddam Hussein, William Engdahl emphasizes the global dimension to the conflict. Engdahl is trained as an economist and writes for various financial publications on issues of energy, politics, and economics. In his A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New Worm Order, the reader is exposed to the long history of petroleum and how the change from coal as the major fuel altered the world. (7) Engdahl states "War in Iraq was about the very basis of America's 'national security,' of future American power. America's role as the sole hegemon was the unspoken reason for the war ..." (8) In making that statement Engdahl highlights the international monetary system that has been in place since the end of Second World War.
Unlike other countries that are constricted by issues such as balance of payments and debt, the United States developed a system whereby it issues a fiat currency that the rest of the world must use. At the end of the Second World War, America's unique position made sense in that it held the majority of global gold reserves and had an economy not shattered by war like in the United Kingdom, France, or Germany. Moreover, the United States dollar, at the time, was still exchangeable for gold. All this would change on 15 August 1971 when the United States "... announced formal suspension of dollar convertibility into gold, effectively putting the world fully onto a dollar standard with no gold backing, thereby ripping apart the central provision of the 1944 Bretton Woods system." (9)
Engdahl notes that "The American Century, stripped of the rhetoric of freedom, peace, and democracy, was based on clear US hegemony among nations." (10) He continues:

It rested on two pillars. The one pillar was the
uncontested role of US military power, a dominance which
no combination of powers had been able to challenge since the
end of the Second World War in 1945. The Soviet Union
ultimately collapsed amid ruin in the effort to challenge that
hegemony ... The second pillar of American power was the
uncontested role of the dollar as world reserve currency. (11)
After gold no longer backed the dollar as a result of Nixon's action in 1971, another marker was to take its place: black gold. Thereafter, the denomination of petroleum sales in the international market place was to be exclusively in the dollar. The fact that the United States had a never-ending supply of greenbacks whereas every other country had to obtain dollars in order to purchase the petroleum required for economic growth put Washington in an extremely powerful position. (12) Engdahl refers to this series of events as the replacement of the gold standard with the "petrodollar standard."
Both Pelletiere and Engdahl see different cliques operating behind the scenes of nominal political channels in order to ensure their particular goals. Engdahl cites New York and London financial circles as well as the Seven Sisters (the major international petroleum companies) as designing American policy. Pelletiere often mentions the "complex," meaning the military-industrial complex that former President Dwight Eisenhower so famously warned about while allowing it to grow. The difference in the two lies in the breadth of analysis. Engdahl paints a larger, more in-depth, picture of United States action globally.
Pelletiere uses smaller brush-strokes and localizes the conflict to the Persian Gulf. They both agree on the nature of the United States occupation of Iraq as being imperialist. Again, the notion of American occupation of the Persian Gulf in order to exercise direct control over petroleum resources and indirect influence over the region was aired in 1970s. Engdahl notes that "In 1975, [James] Akins related, plans to find a pretext to send U.S. troops to occupy vital Mideastern oilfields had been encouraged by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger." (13)
The George W. Bush administration exploited the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in 2001 in order to further United States interests that predated the end of the Cold War. As Engdahl states, "[t]error was to replace communism as the new global image of 'the enemy.' (14) The new terrorists could be anywhere and everywhere. Above all, as the was defined in Washington, they were mostly to be found in the Islamic regions which also happened to control most of the world's oil reserves." (15) Pelletiere focuses on the fact that the United States needed to relocate from its Saudi bases and:

Rather than seeking to resolve this situation peacefully, the
[George W.] Bush administration (egged on by the neo-cons)
tried to force the issue by exploiting the horrific attacks on
[the] Twin Towers and the Pentagon. (16)
Pelletiere continues by stating that any United States base(s) in Iraq that persist will be under "continual seige." But, he thinks that this state of continual siege will be a benefit to the military-industrial complex as it will allow for justification for "continued subsidization at higher and higher levels" and "will practically ensure underfunding of social programs in the United States."
Engdahl suggests a greater plot. Stating that the era of "cheap oil" was coming to an end, Engdahl argues that:

... the looming depletion of a major share of world oil and gas,
due to take effect around the end of the first decade of the
century, sometime around 2010 or 2015, perhaps even sooner,
would explain the drive to unilateral military action in Iraq by
the Bush administration, despite the enormous risks. (17)
By controlling Iraq, the United States would have a firm grip on the heart of the remaining "cheap oil" sources. Iraq--having been kept in a state of siege for the last 25 years--was ripe for development into the next Saudi Arabia. In a sense, Washington's support for the Iraq-Iran war, its active participation in the First Gulf War, and its active participation in the siege of Iraq from 1991 to 2003 were all indicative of the will to keep Iraq as primarily an exporter of petroleum and not a user of it. (18) With Iraq as a base of future operations, America projected its military might and showed its ability to control the financial resources of the world by using its fiat currency to sustain astronomical debts incurred from its massive spending on armaments. Engdahl states the United States "now commanded a near monopoly of future energy resources. The Pentagon had a term for it [control of the world reserve currency, military hegemony, and direct control of resources]--'full spectrum dominance.' It meant that the United States should control military, economic and political developments, everywhere."(19)
Pelletiere and Engdahl, challengers of the White House espoused reasons for war in Iraq, offer their readers insights into the operation of American imperial designs. Pelletiere concentrates his analysis on Iraq and its history. Engdahl provides a global approach to the vagaries of United States intervention in the Persian Gulf. They both agree that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was engineered and without any legitimate casus belli. Engdahl's detailed exposition on how the control of Iraqi oil--and derivative influence over the Persian Gulf region--produces United States power over economic competitors that are energy-dependent (e.g., China, Japan, Germany, and France) and reinforces the role of the dollar present a solid explanation of Washington's action. (20)
(1.) David Kay, transcript of Newshour with Jim Lehrer, 29 January 2004, . Kay states that his team launched to find Iraq's supposed "weapons of mass destruction" by the Bush administration found "program activities" related to missile development and atomic weaponization yet "the large stockpile of actual weapons, chemical and biological weapons simply have not yet been found." Regarding a "terrorist" connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, no link has ever been proven. Pelletiere suggests that the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 were a result of the presence of United States troops in Saudi Arabia. He notes that "[t]o this day, Americans do not know what went on with those attacks [on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon], and there is every reason to believe that this is the case with their leaders as well." P. 135.
(2.) The term "preemptive" has seen much usage in order to describe the United States invasion of Iraq. However, Iraq posed little threat to its neighbors let alone the United States as it had neither the weapons to inflict damage on the United States nor the capacity to deliver the weapons. Thus, preemptive should be read as unilateral and without provocation from Baghdad.
(3.) Stephen C. Pelletiere, America's Oil Wars'. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), p. ix. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was created during a conference in Baghdad that took place from 10-14 September 1960. The original members of the cartel included Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
(4.) Ibid., p. 105. "Once the United States had determined to oppose the invasion [of Kuwait], it seems to have resolved on making war, with the result that all of the Iraqis' maneuvers to initiate negotiations went unheeded."
(5.) Glenn Frankel, "U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields in '73: British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast," The Washington Post, 1 January 2004, page A01.
(6.) Pelletiere, p. 150. The unrest caused by the United States basing troops in Saudi Arabia was a two-way street. It disturbed the sensibilities of Saudis keen on protecting Mecca and Medina from infidels and this anger was channeled against the monarchy as well as against Americans.
(7.) William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2004).
(8.) Ibid., p. ix.
(9.) Ibid., p. 128. The United States was forced to decouple the dollar from the gold standard due to the low value set on the price of gold, $35 per fine ounce. For more on the Bretton Woods system, see Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism : The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. Worm Dominance (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2003).
(10.) Ibid., p. x.
(11.) Ibid.
(12.) Ibid., p. 154. Engdahl calls OPEC's decision in 1975 to accept only dollars for petroleum "curious" since the agreement remained in force "despite enormous losses to OPEC as the dollar gyrated up and down through the next decade and more."
(13.) Ibid., p. 218-219. James Akins was a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
(14). Ironically, the United States funded jihadi groups in the successful effort to keep the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
(15.) Ibid., p. 252.
(16.) Pelletiere, p. 150.
(17.) Engdahl, p. 262.
(18.) Ibid., pp. 268-269. Engdahl argues that the oil shock in 1973 was rigged at Saltsjobaden, Sweden during at meeting of the Bilderberg group. The jump in oil prices had the result of creating a huge pool of so-called 'petrodollars' that could not be invested in the countries that accrued them. Thus, they were invested in Europe and the United States instead of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Besides strengthening the dollar in the wake of the decoupling from the gold standard, the price shock had the effect of placing developing countries in a perpetual debt cycle since their raw materials did not rise in price as the cost of dollar-denominated petroleum did. See pp. 130-141.
(19.) Ibid., p. 269.
(20.) At the end of 2000, Iraq began to price its petroleum in Euros. See Charles Recknagel, "Iraq: Baghdad Moves to the Euro," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1 November 2000, < Link. Although not devastating to Washington at the time, was a highly symbolic move on Iraq's part. Switching to dominated petroleum sales in Euros was an attack on the United States dollar as world reserve currency and as the United States as hegemon.
Brock L. Bevan holds a master's degree in Middle Eastern studies from the American University of Beirut. Formerly, he was grants administrator at the Washington, DC-based Jerusalem Fund.

You can see how the group BILDERBERG has run all the american elections ever since.
MY BLOG: = "Its long but true"
"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.
I know It is a little long but it gives you the full insight to why we went to war and how Barack has this knowledge and will use it to broker that peace with a group of people who have been used and abused by many around the world.

 President Bush touted progress in the newly released Iraq report that states military success in eight areas. However, a few steps forward were accompanied by many more backward. Iraq still has not made headway in critical political improvements that will enable stability and peace. In addition, a new counterterrorism report says that al Qaeda has rebuilt its strength to a pre-9/11 level.
Al Qaeda is aggressively expanding its terrorist network with a focus on Europe. U.S. intelligence systems still suffer from significant gaps to inform us of potential attacks. As Americans, we have been forced to engage in a war that should not have been authorized. Additionally, we have neglected critical efforts to suppress terrorist cells and to prevent a repeat of 9/11. The basis for the Bush administration's current Iraq policy is his steadfast belief that we cannot abandon the Iraqi people and that success in Iraq will make America safer. In choosing this course, the government abandons the American people, leaving them no choice but to face alone vast terrorist threats from around the world.
Thank you for your time.


I know my last blog is listed at Barack Obama but i am trying to educate everyone.


personally Mike should not attack Barack but HILLARY CLINTON who is the BILDERBERG CANDIDATE AS WELL AS JOHN EDWARDS

History Lessons

I appreciate this site as I keep on learning new things from Mike as well as his supporters. What price ignorance it is often said. I think the lessons learned from history must be worth taking note of surely. Keep on talking folks with the informative dialogue..."as I learn to live and live to learn." Best Regards, Brad G Burch

None of That Changes the fact That There is No Ready Crude in Ir

There is no ready crude oil in Iraq  !

Probably everything would have gone very well if there was ready crude oil in Iraq,

but there  ****isn't any**** !

This was known to any thinking person as early as 1990 ,  when it was discovered

that Iraq was drilling under  Kuwait for crude oil.

If Iraq had crude oil , then why were they drilling under Kuwait for crude oil ?

So :  what was the bit of disinformation which lead the sheep to think there was

crude oil in Iraq ?

Answer:  primarily the BBC production:  Riley   Ace of Spies .

Do you remember watching   the BBC 's   "  Riley   Ace of Spies ?  "

I think  Mike Gravel watched every episode :   **twice**

R  o  W   t  h  E   G  r  a  V   e  L   !

  tannhauser PACOM  ,  tanaiste

Thank you

The post was long, but intriguing. I'm not much of a conspiracy buff--I tend to think that people's imaginations get too heavily involved and blur the facts--but this is almost all factual information.

I prefer to think that our politics aren't truly run behind the scenes, but only those in power truly know, and they won't be talking about it in the near future, if ever.

Yes it is long but as you saw it is all true

Thank you for your hard work in reading it all. Please feel free to share the whole thing everywhere. people need to know.  



Bush was tested in Texas

But nobody cared...He executed prisoners in record numbers and even mocked their plea for mercy on national TV. How's that for empathy? How can voters be persuaded to look at a candidate's past performances as predictive of their future actions? Gravel would be in hands down.


I am sick and tired of the media censoring gravel. they gave Gravel 4 minutes and kept cutting him off whenever he tried to answer a question. Hillary received 12 minutes. Barack Obama recieved 15 minutes. Hillary, Edwards and Obama were placed in the center. Gravel was placed in the corner as always like a potted plant. the only question gravel got was one that was designed to attack his character. if this isn't the rigging of an election, then I don't know what is.

I think we are all sick of

I think we are all sick of the "politician" and need some truly passionate and dedicated people to turn this country around.  We need to persue and get the word out that Hillary, Obama, Edwards are NOT the choice of the people.  We don't want them shoved down our throats any longer by main stream media, corporations, and whomever else is in control of OUR country.  ENOUGH is ENOUGH.  TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!!

this and the Debate

I have to tell you, I was for Clinton 08' and never heard of you until YouTube debate. I find that your passion is your strength. How many other canidates actually sat, and thought of a way to end the war. They have plans but with no descriptions. To say that they can't is to say they really don't want to.They look for excuses to not using there powers as Senators. The whole we can't overcome a veto is a lie and a way to cover there weakness.  Keep rocking the boat!!!! I will do everything I can to make sure I tell everyone I know to vote and check out your website, also have you ever heard this?

            "That what I don't know, I don't think I know"

   Maybe the Republican and other Democratic canidates should follow it, instead of thinking they know about somthing there out of there league with.....Politics.

RE: YouTube Debate

CollegeDad, have you heard of this?
I didn't know that I didn't know, till i came to know that I didn't know.
Welcome to the only real campaign of 2008: Gravel for President.

Truth tellers

The boat gets rocked with open and honest discussion which entails a lot of humility to admit one's opinion may be wrong and often built upon false and inaccurate information. I rely a lot on other people's research to be honest or at least an attempt to be when put out in the public domain. Vested interests and love of money will often times blurr the truth and information there is no doubt. For me I'd add in my sometimes (often) confused state "The more I know the more I don't know." Best Regards, Brad

CollegeDad, it would help if you explained....

It would help if you explained what made you drop support for Hillary Clinton. It seems that many people still support her, despite the conversion in views that you have undergone.

If you could explain what made you drop Clinton and start supporting Mike Gravel, it may help persuade other Clinton supporters to see Mike Gravel's value.





I've never trusted one person in this Government after I got out of the Marine Corps, until I heard you take it to every one of the candidates at that first debate. This country is not run the way our Founding Fathers envisioned it, well it was until 1913 when the Federal Reserve kicked in oh and the National Security Act of 1947 which also started the CIA. You Sir are the only chance this country has to REAL FREEDOM, not this fake freedom being drawn out by the media. This country is powerful sir and I fully understand the risks of exploiting something on Live T.V. but you would wake up a lot of people in this country if you bring up 9-11. Ask congress for another investigation not run by Henry Kissenger and his friends. Theres more proof than there ever was on 9-11 that this was an inside job. Please Mike exploit Building number 7, it's the smoking gun! Building 7 has only been shown coming down on the news twice and never again, seems a little strange to me.


 Robert W. Bujak

Former PFC in the United States Marine Corps and full supporter of Mike Gravel and the United States Constitution which is not just a "Goddamn Piece of Paper" according to President Bush. I have told many people about you in San Francisco, slowly some people are coming around but it's gonna take something drastic to get the American Public talking about 9-11 again because it's all but been forgotten in there minds.

Media Burrial?

If Gravel even QUESTIONED the 9/11 story, two things would happen.

1. Most americans wouldn't even look at the evidence themselves.

2. The media would attempt to completely destroy him.


You can't even talk about 9/11 without, people are too ignorant to look for themselves.


Gravel is HARDCORE.

Keep on trying Mr. Gravel.

It's a terrible shame your instructions are not being followed. Not only have you told everyone how to end this war (crime, debacle), you set an example with your deeds. You have shown you are man of integrity by backing your words with deeds something that is far too rare amongst most officials in this country.

I was reading about your predecessor in the Senate, Ernest Gruening, one of only two senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It makes me extremely proud of you to honor your predecessor with the wisdom and courage to oppose unneccesary wars and take a solid stand for peace.

Senator Kohl Wants the War to End, But keeps Voting to Fund It!

The Campus Antiwar Network which is a student democratic grassroots network of college campuses with antiwar activists is a group that I'm a part of. Of course probably none of you heard of their occupation of Senator Herb Kohl's office in April...mainstream media doesn't cover that.

On Wednesday July 19th, 3 members of CAN went to meet the Senator in person since he refused to meet with his constituents of Madison, Wisconsin. They were there to simply ask the Senator one question......HOW MANY MORE SOLDIERS NEED TO DIE BEFORE YOU STOP FUNDING THE WAR? Here's a video of that confrontation:

Its the video on the main page.

Gravel for president!

Appreciate your efforts

Appreciate your efforts to confront Herb Kohl, but the video was a very thin baloney sandwhich, a very thin slice of meat between two fat slices of wonder bread.

Please keep up the good work, but get an editor to make your future videos more effective.


I understand there wasn't much there. The video is being used to get the news out to other members of CAN, not necessarily news media outlets....if you wanna see videos of the occupation from April, you can go to youtube and search for campus antiwar network and there are about 6 videos of that event.


There's much more of this to come, different constituents confronting their senators. We've just begun.

No "Campus Antiwar Network" channel?

There doesn't seem to be a "Campus Antiwar Network" channel?

I found a "collection" of videos (32) when I searched for Campus Antiwar Network but I couldn't find a subscribe button. I'm not all that conversant with how youtube works so maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd like to subscribe to a Campus Antiwar Network.

That's where the action was during the Vietnam war and that's where the action is missing today... or so it seems.

Creating a channel whereon not only yourselves in Wisconsin(?) but people on all the campuses all over the country can post videos of their antiwar undertakings certainly sounds like a very worthwhile undertaking.

Two of the videos that lifted my spirits a little were March on the Pentagon - Crossing the Potomac and Asian American Voices in the SF Antiwar March

My free advice would be to cut the speeches and show the people marching in the streets and confronting "authority" whenever possible. Action. That's the message that's required. The speeches abound on the internet now, what we need is images of the people united who can never be defeated.

Thanks for what you've done so far, and please keep up the good work!

CANWisconsin Channel on YouTube

...but there's only one video!

A little bit self referential

This sure makes being antiwar look like a fun time. But it's a start. I say this constructively, not derisively. You can have a very powerful impact if you can document actual confrontations with authority over the ongoing war crimes in the Middle East. That is what will spur others to join your action. If the desire to document confrontation with "authority" acts as a goad to actually confront authority... that's ok.

And if you had a Campus Antiwar Network open to other institutions as well as your own the stimulus of other groups' approaches and activities could not be other than edifying.

Free advice from the peanut gallery. Please keep up the good work!

Here's a video

It's odd that you only found one video. I agree there should be one channel listing on these videos. I'm part of the RIT Antiwar which is the Rochester Institute of Technology branch of CAN, and we're very small. This fall we're going to start a massive effort to get students to join on our campus. If you want to know more on CAN or to join or to even start your own chapter you can email me,

I think I see where the confusion comes, Campus Antiwar Network isn't a channel on Youtube Campus Antiwar Network is a network of high school and college campuses (a student movement) united against war. Organization of our videos and website are undergoing a make over, so things should be better and more accessible in the fall. I hope that clears it up.

Well if you didn't find videos here's links to 3 videos:

Everyone thanks for the words. We need more people to stand up and say they've had enough.

Why Gravel needs to be President

 This letter shows the kind of bold leadership we need in Washington now more then ever. Mike Gravel you are a genius and you need to be our next President!!!

Senate Sponsers..

I'm new to the campaign, has there been any mention of which Senators Sen. Gravel has contacted to sponsor his legislation? Off the top of my head I could imagine my Senator Boxer, or Senators Feingold, Sanders, Mulkulski, Kennedy, perhaps Reed? Thoughts?

Contact your senators and demand

Contact Reid, Pelosi, your senators and congress person and demand that they sponsor the draft Act. I'm sure that Mike has tried to contact sitting senators and been rebuffed.

Mike Gravel is speaking too plainly for any of the made men or women of the political class to touch him. They will immediately be nailed by their employers as targets for elimination once they do.

Nobody's position is weaker than the honest cop in crooked brotherhood.

Look at Serpico.

We have to keep after them though. One of them will eventually crack and once the genie gets out of the bottle they'll never be able to get it back in again.


Oh, I didn't know Mr. Gravel was behind the Draft Act. That would be a major (and belated) flip flop for a presidential candidate. I know the army is kind of stretched, but geez...  ;-)

Speaking of irony... from the White House website, from Nixon's biography:
His accomplishments while in office included revenue sharing, the end of the draft, new anticrime laws, and a broad environmental program.

Someone's rewriting History.

the draft Act = the draft of the USAFWFIA

the draft Act = the draft of the US Armed Forces Withdrawal From Iraq Act

Sorry for the confusion.

The immorality of inaction

One would think that these Senators who are currently running for President might take the initiative and actually do something to bring this war (and with it, the maladministration that feeds upon it) to an end.

Given the lack of performance to date one would naturally assume the current Congress somehow just needs instructions on what to do. Actually they don't, but it does appear as such which makes the situation all the more pathetic. The public is not necessarily ahead of the congress as to what needs to be done. But we are way ahead of these representatives in terms of morality. I should think the shaky little Harry Reed and the bellicose Pelosi would have some concern that the tide of reality is rising and about to swamp the boat.

I think that Mike Gravel, by writing this article, is doing what he can to bring this into the consciousness of Americans, not just the Congress. For the Congress, this is just one more letter to ignore. But they cannot soon ignore millions.

Take it to the stage. Continue to hammer these people on what they have NOT done.

In the end there will be one or maybe two candidates among the Democrats who will be seen as credible. The remainder will either be forced to act now to save their candidacy or live with the illogic and immorality of their inaction, plus the awfulness of their voting and enabling record.

All this, of course, if the thinking public is actually thinking.  As to America's collective capability in this regard, Mike Gravel is an optimist.  I'll hold out for some evidence to give my own sense of optimism a boost.


The Wisdom of Gravel on Iraq & Palestine

Mike is of course correct in demanding vigorous action from our Senators. They of course continue to be Imperial, corporate shills, with a propaganda campaign full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Nonetheless, I was elated at Reid's rhetoric as he approached this marathon session. I thought that I could clearly hear echoes of Mike Gravel emanating from that bland, inarticulate, opportunist Mormon. When I heard him speak, for the first time, of getting tough and driving repeated votes, I was certain that this was the influence of Gravel's campaign upon the national discourse. Upon reflection and the unfolding of events, maybe I was overly optimistic. Still, I think that regardless of details, Mike is changing the entire national conversation.

As a vaguely related point, Mike has a proposal for the Israel/Palestine issue. He has proposed bringing the moderate factions of each side to the table, "building a cocoon" around them, and then negotiating towards the '67 borders ("with some tweaking"). While I deplore the current state of affairs in Gaza, international policy with regards to Fatah might be partially following Senator Gravel's proposal. It seems that the idea now is to negotiate with Fatah (the Palestinian "moderates"). If only Israel would offer similar moderates to the negotiating table. While the release of 256 Palestinians (including women and children) seems to indicate that Tel Aviv is interested in dialogue, we need clear demonstration of commitment to a moderate course. I do not suggest that Mike has changed Imperial policy in Palestine. I merely suggest that this specific policy shift demonstrates the mastery and prescience of Mike Gravel in matters of international relations.


Anonymous: Mr. Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking person in America!

Adlai: Yes madam, but we need a majority.

Excellent letter!

Excellent letter!

I copied and pasted it into an email of my own to Senate Majority Leader Reid, and suggest that you all might do the same.

There's no question that Mike is getting traction among the Demoblicans in the Senate, at least. Senator Durbin's allusion to voting "again and again" and this stunt of Reid's itself are tributes to Mike Gravel.

See Will the Democrats Please Shut Up? for a good analysis of the Demoblican effort so far in the Senate.

Email you Senators

Thank you for the link to email Harry Reid. I would also suggest emailing the senators in your home state. I emailed Reid and also sent the following email to Maria Cantwell (WA) and Patty Murray (WA):

In response to Mike Gravel's recent letter to Harry Reid, please use Mr. Gravel's wisdom to your advantage and end this war in IRAQ. Put pressure on your colleagues to listen to what Mr. Gravel is saying and to stop the grandstanding.

It is time to get tough. This war needs to end.


Don’t tell me there are not enough votes either, go get those votes.

You can use the following link to find your senator:

RE: Open Letter

What a comic mimicry was the Ried and Levin all night con chat contrasted with what Sen. Gravel speaks of. All those old boys needed a little pick-up (considering how tired they looked) and a change and then, of course, the public is left with nothing as usual.
The sudden appearance of Sen. Gravel back in the scene must be very disturbing.
Reid and Levin convinced me of their basic dishonest show that by staging an absolute fraud it will also send a subtle message to the public that Sen. Gravel's talk of filibuster perhaps may not be what he (Sen. Gravel) talks of. Filibustering doesn't seem that effective at all! All entirely for your benefit and nothing at all for the public that elected you.
R and L, in case you haven't noticed, there are many more than you two think, who are on to the truth. You have been bought off by the Industry!
Perhaps, you two should consider giving Sen. Gravel that call !
It is good to see the wheels coming off the bus.. er.. gravy train !