Larrick: End one war, don’t start another
BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star
After biking across a wide swath of Nebraska, Steve Larrick is convinced people are ready to end the war in Iraq.
“I was impressed by what I heard in the coffee shops,” he says.
Now, Larrick hopes to convince Nebraskans he’s the 2008 Senate candidate who is committed to do it.
Related Link(s):
But first he needs to get their attention, and that’s an uphill task for an underfunded Green Party candidate matched against Republican Mike Johanns and Democratic nominee Scott Kleeb.
“We don’t have the money and resources to get the message out,” Larrick says as he sips a cup of coffee on the dock at The Mill in downtown Lincoln.
The challenge for a candidate who gets little — and sometimes no — media coverage is daunting.
“Until we get media attention, it’s hard to get the resources.”
Larrick argues he’s the only candidate committed to end both the war and what he calls the occupation of Iraq, the only one clearly opposed to a military attack on Iran, the only one who is ready to redirect national resources to develop renewable energy.
With oil and corporate power calling the shots and American taxpayers paying the bill, Larrick says, “we are socializing the costs of the war and privatizing the profits.”
While war costs balloon and the national debt soars, big oil companies are raking in record profits, Larrick says. And, he says, they’re already lining up for contracts to exploit Iraq’s oil resources.
Meanwhile, Larrick says, the Bush administration moves toward a possible military attack on Iran despite the fact that a recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program.
“We need to sit down with Iran and talk candidly about our differences,” Larrick says.
“The U.S threat of war is wreaking havoc for the American consumer and making oil companies richer than ever.
“Four-dollar gas is just the tip of the iceberg if we attack Iran. “We can reduce the price of gas by reducing the threat of war.”
Larrick biked from the tiny Nebraska hamlet of Henry (pop. 162) on the Wyoming border to Scottsbluff, then rode the Cowboy Trail from Valentine to Norfolk for four days.
Later, he biked from his home in Lincoln to Omaha.
The road time encouraged him, he says, leading him to believe Nebraskans want to move beyond Iraq.
“We need a strong defense, but we need to redirect our resources away from war.”
What’s needed, he says, is investment in a renewable energy infrastructure, education, health care and an economy that sustains good-paying jobs.
“The Green Party believes it is time to really get serious about investing in our people,” he says.
“We need to build a new economy for the 21st century.”
In the process, Larrick says, the United States finally can get serious about global warming.
“It’s a huge problem,” he says, “and to deny it is a criminal approach to the future. We are enabling short-term profiteering at the expense of the future of our planet.”
Reach Don Walton at 473-7248 or at dwalton@journalstar.com.

Facebook
del.icio.us
Fark It
Reddit




Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
Open your history books Larrick wrote on July 6, 2008 6:11 am:
Go Green wrote on July 6, 2008 8:07 am:
Sean wrote on July 6, 2008 9:27 am:
Jack C wrote on July 6, 2008 12:14 pm:
Tim wrote on July 6, 2008 5:58 pm:
History Book wrote on July 6, 2008 7:56 pm:
Get real wrote on July 6, 2008 9:21 pm:
Sure let's sit down with Iran and discuss our differences. Iran will say we want to wipe Israel off the map. The United States will say we don't think you should do that. How is that for differences?
Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Who have we been primarily fighting in Iraq? Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists,who by the way, we are now soundly defeating. Sure, it turned out Saddam didn't have the weapons everyone (including Clinton, Gore, Kerry, British intelligence, 60 minutes, the CIA, etc.) thought he had. But Saddam did finance terrorism around the globe. He routinely gave money to the family of suicide bombers. We know that he financed several terrorism plots and assassinations.
The jihadist have declared war on us. I can't believe there are people who still have there head in the sand and think that the United States is the problem.
Oh and I hate break the bad news to all the anti-Bush liberals out there, but the Surge has worked and WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ. "
Reality wrote on July 7, 2008 11:38 am:
Matt wrote on July 7, 2008 11:50 am:
Or, better yet, let's read about imperialism, and what generally happens when one government imposes its will upon others whom are not represented by that government.
Lastly, you are missing the point, Get Real. The reason why LJS SHOULD give Larrick MORE time and print space is because this is democracy in action. Media outlets should give equal attention to all candidates, not just to the highest bidder. "
Reality Check wrote on July 7, 2008 12:33 pm:
New to Lincoln wrote on July 7, 2008 1:27 pm:
Chuck wrote on July 7, 2008 7:30 pm:
Definition of winning wrote on July 7, 2008 10:33 pm:
I would say soundly defeating an ememy that kills our troops and routinely kills innocent civilians, a victory.
I would say removing a dictator who routinely ruthlessly killed his own people by the thousands, a victory. Taking into account the Iraq-Iran War and then the Persian Gulf War, Saddam killed millions. If coalition forces didn't keep him in check in the 1990's he would have likely killed millions more.
I would call hopefully leaving Iraq someday as a peaceful democracy, a victory. "
Hey Chuck wrote on July 8, 2008 8:20 am:
Chuck wrote on July 8, 2008 9:07 am:
Yes, Saddam was a bad man, I'm not trying to argue that he was, and you pointed out that he killed thousands of his own citizens. But does it matter much to the families of the hundreds of thousands that died as a result of OUR actions who's actions killed their loved ones - Saddams or ours? Their loved ones are still dead. Their lives are still shattered. It is my guess that they are not very thankful we did what we did.
And since you brought up the Iran/Iraq war and how many people were killed, it's interesting that you left out the part where we supported Saddam during that time, you know, during that time where he was killing 'millions of people', as you said. Of course, we also aided Iran during that time period, too, in order to play both sides off each other, trying, I guess, to get them to kill as many of the other as possible, to keep both countries weak. The US govt didn't seem to have much of a problem with all the killing back then.
Morals and values have very little to do with our actions there. Geopolitical greed does. To imply that the international actions of our govt are motivated by the spreading of democracy and other such fluff is naive, to say the least. It would be nice if that was the case, but look at history. "