Monday, March 13, 2006

"We cannot expect government to ... eliminate war because it generates large ... revenue"

Quite a weekend. Sunday Russ Feingold stated on ABC's This Week that he was going to call for a censure of Bully Boy. And the reaction? Harry Reid is, as usual, not sure what to do. No doubt the DNC is emergency polling on this as we speak to figure out what to do. Joe Lieberman's already stabbed Feingold in the back. But what week doesn't start out with Lieberman stabbing some Democrat in the back? So where are we? In the same place we were when John Murtha spoke out against the war and everyone acted like the check had just been left on the table. It's disgusting. Regardless of the outcome of the 2006 elections, Harry Reid needs to make this his last year as the Dem leader in the Senate. He's done a hideous job.

"Latino War Resisters Begin 241-Mile March For Peace" (Democracy Now!):
And Iraqi war resisters Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Aidan Delgado as well as Fernando Suarez del Solar, whose son was killed in Iraq, have begun a 241-mile march for peace from Tijuana, Mexico to San Francisco. The march is inspired by Gandhi's 1930 Salt March protesting British imperialism. Historian Howard Zinn said, "This is one of the most significant actions taken yet to dramatize the movement against the war -- especially because it calls attention to the Latino population, the loss of Latino life in the war, and the unrecognized Latino opposition to the war."

Two weeks ago, C.S. Soong interviewed Aidan Delgado on KPFA's Against the Grain. Ruth and I both wrote about. Ruth noted that the issue of Latinos speaking out was noted. Delgado's opinion was that one reason Latino vetrans were so willing to speak out against the war was that because the background is one where there may be more awareness of US imperialism.

If it's that factor or another (or a series of factors), the actions of Delgado, Pablo Paredes and Camilo Mejia deserve noting.

"Elite UK Soldier Refuses to Fight w/ U.S. in Iraq" (Democracy Now!):
In Britain, an elite SAS soldier is refusing to return to fight in Iraq in what he describes as a morally wrong war of aggression. The soldier, Ben Griffin, is believed to be the first SAS soldier to refuse to go into combat and to leave the army on moral grounds. Griffin said he refused to fight alongside U.S. troops because they viewed Iraqis as "untermenschen" -- the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human. He also accused U.S. troops of committing "dozens of illegal acts" in Iraq.

Also worth noting is Ben Griffin. You'd think this would be a front page story in newspapers; however, our media had other things to discuss. If you read C.I. this morning, you know that the New York Times went with "Dash to Baghdad Left Top U.S. Generals Divided." Well the generals had their say before the invasion and they've had it during the invasion. Why would the press not still focus on them at this point? C.I. called the article "military porn" and I'll second that. Three years after the invasion and I'm not seeing a great deal of change in the way the media covers Iraq.

C.I. wrote about an e-mail that came in on the entry where someone was defending the article. Apparently someone found it 'new' and 'brave.' Which means he or she must have just landed on the planet. There's nothing new about the story nor anything brave in once again giving generals the mircorphone. There are entire stories, entire aspects, never covered by our brave corporate press. Ben Griffin isn't big news. Watering the dead fern is.

Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's take on today's news. He may be in better spirits than I am.

Reality Check (Kevin Benderman, March 8th letter, Kevin Benderman Defense Committee.):
We cannot expect government to do what is necessary to eliminate war because it generates large amounts of revenue for government. Governments and businesses are able to make record profits from war while the average citizen fighting in any given war cannot get proper treatment for their wounds or the mental and emotional anguish suffered as a result of their participation in war. How is this honorable? I do not see how or why we continue to buy this bill of goods from governments and businesses that portray war as an honorable endeavor. I have heard those who argue for war being considered socially conservative. I have heard those who feel that war is stupid and a waste of lives, natural resources and human spirit, being referred to as radical extremists. If I understand this correctly, if you want to put a stop to war, save the lives of young people, stop spending billions of dollars on death and destruction, pursue research and development on cures for disease or development of efficient energy production and use, then you are an out of control liberal/radical who must be stopped at all cost. On the other hand, if you want to spread your version of democracy through the use of force that kills our brightest young people, waste billions on death and destruction, cost us greatly in terms of international relations, leave thousands of veterans sitting in wheelchairs, physically disabled or suffering mental anguish without proper treatment available to them, then you are a great American who deserves applause, awards and our undying gratitude.