Friday, February 02, 2007

Tell your local newspaper: Draft Amy Goodman!

I'm posting the snapshot in full; however, I want to emphasize two paragraphs of it at the top.

"Demand Amy Goodman" ("Iraq snapshot", The Common Ills):
Lastly, on CounterSpin today, John Nichols discussed Molly Ivins passing and worried that Ivins, whose columns were the most heavily circulated progressive ones in newspapers around the world, death would mean the space would go blank (of course, it could also go to a right-winger or centrist) so he suggested that if your local paper carried Ivins' columns, you contact them and ask that they continue to carry a progressive column. To go one further, Molly Ivins was one of the few women to make the top twenty most widely circulated columnists. So if you want to continue to see columns that address reality and you'd like to see a woman continue to be represented on the op-ed pages, you can ask your local paper to carry Amy Goodman (of Democracy Now!). Goodman's doing a weekly column now. I personally doubt that top 10 lists make for worthy or even "good" reading. Molly Ivins stood for something in each column (and humor was a part of it though Nichols wanted to downgrade it -- don't stand by him at a party). It's not just that any progressive voice is needed (or liberal voice), it's one that will use the space well. Goodman's demonstrated that she intends to tackle real topics. Goodman's columns can be found many places and Common Dreams is one. That said, if you're recommending that it be picked up to a newspaper, you need to note a paper that provides the column. "Resistance to war cannot be jailed" is Goodman's most recent column and the link takes you to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If you're pitching Goodman to your local paper, you should also note that she wrote (with her brother David) two bestselling hardcover books (Exception to the Rulers and Static) (say "New York Times bestsellers") and that she is an award winning journalist (George Polk Award, Aflred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, Robert F. Kennedy Prize for International Reporting and is the 2006 RECIPIENT OF THE PUFFIN/NATION PRIZE FOR CREATIVE CITIZENSHIP). You should also note that she hosts (with Juan Gonzalez) Democracy Now! which is broadcast on over 500 radio and TV stations around the world as well as online and as a podcast. Also stress that Ivins wrote a weekly column and Goodman does as well. (Important because, from time to time, a columnist may choose to do a series of columns -- think Bob Herbert -- and newspapers with a weekly slot now open aren't going to want to fill it with a twice weekly column when they only have one day open each week.)
Amy Goodman is my personal choice. Members may have their own choice. If your choice is someone else, e-mail and we'll figure out the best way to present to present your choice to your local paper. But it is not enough to say, as John Nichols did, demand a progressive voice. (He may have been trying to leave it up to listeners or may not have wanted to pick one person over another.) You need to provide a concrete example otherwise you may find that the same editorial boards that boast Thomas Friedman is a liberal (I'm referring to his column in syndication -- the Times is stuck with him) have a very different idea than you do of what "progressive" or "liberal" is. This isn't something you wait on. The op-eds are 'valuable real estate' and they have a fast turn over. Once a spot is occupied, it is very difficult to get a paper to drop a columnist. (Complaints are sometimes seen as 'proof' of how many people read the columnist.) (Sometimes it is proof -- sometimes it's just a sign of how bored and tired readers are with the same-old, same-old.)

Mike and I are at Rebecca's and we were all crowded around her computer proper (as opposed to a laptop) reading the snapshot. Jess had called me to tell me it would be late going up because they'd been so busy speaking today, had, in fact, added one just as they were getting ready to leave that ended up lasting two and a half hours and had traveling misadventures. So we're reading it and loving it. We're saying, "Yes!" throughout the commentary on . We're moving along, we're in the moment, it's shaping up to be a great snapshot (even though Jess said C.I. was sure it would "suck" due to it being done so quickly) and then we came to the final paragraphs (which I've noted above). Rebecca said, "C.I. just raised the bar again." That is so true.

Are we going to complain, after the fact, when a man gets that space? A faux liberal if we're lucky, but a man? Or are we going to be proactive and say, "We want Amy Goodman to have Molly Ivins' space?"

C.I. was very careful to note "my personal choice." Let me do the hard sell. Who else is there? There's Margaret Kimberly who writes for The Black Agenda Report. That's online and some newspapers (especially local ones that are small) may hold their noses. (The same reason C.I. said to stress that Goodman's column runs in papers.) She's an award winning journalist, she's got a reach via the program, she's 'netty' with the podcasts which may interest some papers who are thinking, "How are we going to attract the consumers who follow things online?" Answer: Give them an online name who is now writing a print column.

It's a really incredible suggestion (one that I support completely) and it goes to the issues of representation. Look, Katrina vanden Heuvel couldn't hack it as a columnist anywhere that she didn't own part of the publication. She's a bad writer with no real style (or grace) and she topic hops all over the place. She doesn't make for a columnist that people can identify with or eagerly follow. (She's also prone to those top ten lists.)

Of all the progressive/liberal voices out there, Amy Goodman is the easiest sell (male or female). She's coming off two best sellers in a row. She's known to many from the program. She's got her own voice already (that may be due to the books but she's not stumbling around the way Katrina is -- "Am I nag today letting everyone know that I'm miffed at Arianna even though I say I'm not?" to "I just remembered I am a mother! So let me write about that today!" to "Dems: 10 Easy Steps to Firm Thighs and Firm Backbones" to "I visited ___ in ___ and what I've seen there . . ."). There is no consistency. The voice veers from all knowing, to nag, to carping, to inspirational, back and forth, over and over. Katrina vanden Heuvel would turn readers off. (Which may be her job at The Nation.) Amy Goodman's writing very clearly in a print voice that's already proved popular in broadcasting.

She's the one who could do it. She is the easiest one to sell. It is also important that women be represented. That's because the op-ed pages are predominately male (if you haven't noticed). Women have a right to expect to see themselves reflected in their paper. Young girls have a right to a role model. Just seeing her name or her name and picture on the op-ed pages signals that women can write columns. So I am all for this idea.

As you know, The Nation does a lousy job representing women. This slot, Molly Ivins' slot in papers, could easily go male and we'll be complaining a few years down the line that women aren't represented on the op-ed pages but it will be worse than before because the most syndicated woman won't be with us anymore. So this is a way to be pro-active. I also think this is a way to make a feminist stand that says, "We will not be sidelined." I loved the entire snapshot but when I got to that point (which was a last minute addition!), it blew me away. I didn't see it coming (because it wasn't planned) and it makes perfect sense.

Now let's deal with Liza Featherston's insulting "Surge for Peace" which you can read at Common Dreams (I will link to that, I won't link to her lousy article) or at The Nation (which I'm not providing a link to). When last we left I Married An Economist, she was slamming the peace movement for not having all the excitement she enjoys in a campaign rally. (If I can echo the snapshot, "Don't stand next to her at a party.") Now Liza pens another of The Nation's "You are powerless outside the voting booth" pieces. (She is the type that Howard Zinn's had to dedicate his life to correcting.) Her first stop is a former Congress member, so right away, you also grasp this another one of The Nation features where the writers make themselves useless as they pretend to be the kid in The Sixth Sense whispering, "I see Congress members."

She quickly moves on to her first falsehood -- that peace activists "are optimistic" for the first time! Actually, I Married An Economist, we've been optimistic since the first Camp Casey -- maybe she was in line all summer at a Wal-Mart?

She then tries to steer the movement (for a poor selling author, she sure does have a nasty case of hubris) to her idea of "the political process." Who "truly" has "the power to stop the war"? Lying Liza tells you it's Congress.

Well, as the Doobie Brothers once sang, "What a fool believes . . ."

How old is Liza? (I'm sure C.I. will call later to answer that question.) I remember Vietnam, does she? Congress didn't end it, the people did. Congress won't end this war, the people will.
Howard Zinn could explain that to her but she'd probably be too busy attempting to find a way to wring one mor Wal-Mart article out since she's devoted so much time to that topic already.

She's all into the e-activism. (Which does make me question her age -- or at least her judgment.)

Best lie from a magazine that doesn't think people have power (they brag about that privately) is this one: "The battle for public opinion on the Iraq War is over--not so much because of the antiwar movement's work but because the situation in Iraq has proved so disastrous."

Oh, Liza, do you know no shame? Featherstone or Featherbrained?

Since she doesn't care for the peace movement, she needs to attempt to rob it of its accomplishments. (That's also the goal of the magazine.) (Remember, it's run by the "Peace Resister.") Sounding just a tad less strident than Cokie Roberts (can't you just hear the strains of "None that mattered" echoing through her empty head?), Liza/Cokie wants you to grasp how little you matter. Lobby Congress! If you don't, you have no power! She has no grasp on reality. Or possibly she sells her grasp out to work for that rag?

The peace movement created the space for the discussion and you might expect that fact to be ignored in the New York Times. That's it's also ignored by The Nation goes to the fact that The Nation isn't that left or that independent. (Suggestion, future publishers and editors should not sit on think tanks or attend think tanks dos. Nor should they hail from a questionable background on their father's side.)

Liza gets comical here: "Many mainstream journalists, pundits and politicians now speak against the war as eloquently and convincingly as peace activists do." Who are the many, Liza? Can you list them?

She probably can't because they don't exist. As C.I. (and only C.I.) has noted repeatedly, there has been no Times poll printed (printed) on the proposed escalation. That's because peaceful thoughts don't get expressed (eloquently or otherwise) in the mainstream. As C.I., Alexander Cockburn and Norman Solomon have pointed out, the Times is still trying to sell the war. Now a poll would give the people a chance to speak in some form. CNN, CBS, AP, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Wall St. Journal and many other outlets have conducted polls (CBS has done so repeatedly) on the escalation and printed the results. Where is the Times poll?

Do you really think the paper that always front pages their polls hasn't run one? Or do you think it's more a case of their poll echoing all the others: the people do not support the escalation.

Possibly, Liza thinks Chris Matthews is speaking out? He spoke out (badly, as he speaks on every other topic, check out Bob Somerby who's had a field day with Matthews all week -- he's really been on a strong streak the last two weeks -- Somersby, not Matthews) before and he speaks out now. Where's that tidal wave Liza sees? In Thomas Friedman? (She may actually see it in him.)

No, there is no tidal wave. There are no voices speaking elequently in the mainstream. Liza promotes that crap because she's trying to rob people of their power. The magazine does a wonderful job of that if little else.

Lobbyists! Liza tells you that lobbyists ("full-time") are answers. Hmm, I guess this week the rag was pro-lobbyist. It's always difficult to keep up with them. One moment they're trashing John Murtha, the next they're praising him. One minute they're editorializing that they will not support any candidate for election who can't speak out against the war, the next they're doing fluff jobs on the likes of Harold Ford Jr.

Liza gets off another lie here: "But much of the antiwar movement now agrees that there is no contradiction, or conflict, between chanting in the streets and lobbying in the halls of Congress."
She's got to sell that Congress. (Maybe she's a lobbyist.) But for the record, this isn't "now agrees." Peace activists have been contacting Congress for some time. In fact, months and months ago, at The Third Estate Sunday Review, we were reporting on the efforts to demonstrate outside the local offices of your reps. (Maybe that wasn't "halls of Congress" enough for Liza?)

I can barely stomach her nonsense so let's skip ahead. Here she writes: "It's worth thinking, too, about the broader mission of an antiwar movement. Author and blogger Rahul Mahajan, of UFPJ's steering committee (speaking for himself, not the organization), worries that unlike in the Vietnam era, today's peace movement has had little success in getting Americans to rethink the role of the United States in the world. He's right. The talking point among some Democrats is that while the United States has been so generous, those damned Iraqis have screwed up the war." Okay, first off "Americans" is not "Congress." "Americans" include all the people of the country. So she needs not rush from a comment by an activist to Democratic members who are running for president (she goes straight to John Edwards -- the rag must be against him this week). As for connections, they are being made. Laura Flanders (who I like) is off on some trip about Somolia not being represented at the rally in DC last week -- the rally she wasn't at. I was. Was Liza at it?

Rebecca takes the issue of the occupied territories very seriously. She always has. Early on the illegal Iraq war, C.I. told Rebecca and me that this was going to have consequences for that occupation because people were going to make connections. They are making them. They've been making them and the issue is getting attention. That's the way it works and anyone with any understanding of movements already knows that because they feed off one another. (Feminists call the connections "clicking" -- I have no idea what economists call it -- maybe "profit margin"?)

Then Liza draws her shawl tightly and tries to act upper crust (hilarity ensues) with this concluding statement: "Stopping the war in Iraq is important, but to truly make the world a safer place, we need to change the conversation." Obviously, her rag (and her own writing) has never noted the importance of stopping the war other than in token measures and as for "the conversation," it's gone on without The Nation. The Nation didn't offer roundtables on peace. The Nation didn't offer anything but jaw boning over really bad candidates. You know what, if everyone at The Nation would agree tomorrow (excepting Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Naomi Klein and one or two others) would agree to leave the magazine and run for Congress, I'd fund every one of their campaigns to the maximum dollar amount. (They'd have to agree that after they lost their campaigns, they couldn't return to the magazine. They'd lose because outsiders desperate to be in so they can kiss ass don't make for strong candidates.) The rag didn't lead on civil rights in the 60s and the reasons for that go to the same Congressional worship they practice now. (In fact, they were hostile to Martin Luther King, Jr. at times.)

They're a joke and Liza Featherbrained is a joke. They want to hop on the peace movement this week. When they grasp that they can't steer it, then they'll go back to slamming it. (Even the "Peace Resister" gives a nod to CODEPINK in her latest badly written Editor's Cut.) But substitute "civil rights movement" for "peace movement" in Liza's nonsense and you'll quickly grasp how out of touch she and her magazine are. Someone needs to 'escalate' her political understanding and historical grasp.

Let me note that The Sixth Sense joke is C.I.'s. I'm not sure if it's gone up at The Common Ills but C.I.'s been making it for weeks. (You need to do it in the Julia Roberts "Everyone I've told about the brief is dead" whisper from The Pelican Brief to really get the joke.) Swiping again from C.I., in the real world . . .

I'm about to provide an excerpt from a wonderful article. It's so wonderful that I lay in bed for thirty minutes last night thinking, "Get up and put it in a post." (But Thursdays are long and the veterans session is usually a blend of things that takes you through the wringer and back. Since Dona noted the pro bono sessions, I've been getting e-mails telling me how "wonderful" I am. I'm not. Everyone can give something back. This is what I'm trained in. Figure out what you can do, unless you're a Featherstone, and find a way to help.) This is a long essay and it was a joy to read.

"How PR Firms and Major Media Help Military Recruiters" (Diane Farsetta, CounterPunch):
Increasing "the ranks of our military" is "one of the first steps we can take together" to "position America to meet every challenge that confronts us," said President Bush in last week's State of the Union address. "Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years."
The 92,000 figure was put forward by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 12 that more troops are needed to boost "combat capability" and "strengthen our military for the long war against terrorism." The Pentagon plans to meet that goal by reenlisting former Marines and increasing the Army's recruitment and retention rates.
Under the plan, the Army would only "slightly increase its recruitment goals -- by 2,000 to 3,000" a year, according to UPI. But in 2005, "the Army failed to meet its annual recruiting goal by the widest margin in two decades," reported the New York Times. To meet its 2006 goal, the Army hired more recruiters, raised the maximum allowable age for recruits, doubled the percentage of recruits who scored low on aptitude tests, issued waivers for some recruits' prior convictions, and significantly increased cash bonuses.
If it was that difficult for the Army to meet past recruiting goals, how will it meet future, larger ones? Some clues are offered in the Army's self-nomination for a prestigious public relations award.
The Army submitted its "Birth of an Army, Birth of Freedom: The U.S. Army 225th Birthday Campaign" for consideration in the Public Relations Society of America's 2001 Silver Anvil Awards. (The Army won an award, but then so did the U.S. Northern Command in 2006, for "outstanding achievement in strategic public relations planning and implementation in response to Hurricane Katrina.")
The nomination documents provide a rare, detailed look at Army recruiting, including how the largest branch of the U.S. armed forces works with public relations firms and major media to meet recruiting goals. Moreover, they illustrate how a small campaign, by Pentagon standards -- the Army spent $370,000 and used its "in-house marketing team" -- can reach tens of millions of people, thanks in large part to uncritical support from broadcast outlets.

That's an excerpt. Use the link to read the entire thing.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, February 2, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, a US helicopter is shot down in Iraq, Ehren Watada's court-martial is scheduled to take place in three days, 'civil war' to describe Iraq becomes a less loaded term and the myth of Najaf continues to be dispelled.


Starting with Ehren Watada who became the first comissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq in June and now faces a court-martial in Fort Lewis, Washington on Monday.
Daisuke Wakabayashi (Reuters) says the case "could determine the limits of free-speech rights for officers." Dean Paton (Christian Science Monitor) takes a look at the life that led up to the brave stand: "When it came time for Watada to enlist, he was diagnosed with asthma and declared physically unfit. He paid $800 to have an outside test done and was accepted into the Army's college-option program. He completed basic training in June 2003, and went to Officer Candidate School in South Carolina. He emerged 14 weeks later as a 2nd lieutenant." Ben Hamamoto (The Nichi Bei Times) reports on some of the activities Carolyn Ho has been taking part in to raise awareness of her son including suggesting people write letters to Congress, sign petitions (one is at Ehren Watada's site) and "post signs demanding that the military drop the charges and allow Watada to resign" because, Ho stated, "The way this resolves itself will speak to the soldiers and tell them whether or not they are being supported and it will speak to the politicians as to how we feel about the war (and soldiers' rights)."

Diane Kay (The Maine Campus) traces his life from college to speaking out: "Watada was a finance major, and graduated magna cum laude. The war in Iraq had just begun, and Watada, like many Americans, believed that Iraq posed a real threat to the United States, had WMDs and was connected to Sept. 11. He entered the U.S. Army officer candidate program following graduation to pursue a career in the military. Watada served in Korea in 2003 and 2004, earned the rank of lieutenant, and received excellent reviews of his work by his superior officers. In 2005, Lt. Watada and his unit returned to the United States, and were stationed in Ft. Lewis, Wash. Lt. Watada knew that his unit would eventually be deployed to Iraq, and he began to study as much as he could to prepare himself and his unit for deployment." This is where Ehren Watada starts to learn about the Bully Boy's lies of war. He had been assigned to Iraq. It was his duty (and superiors encouraged him in it) to study up so that he would be more effective and also able to answer questions from those serving under him (big one: "Why are we even here?"). It took the American people (many, not all) time to wake up to the lies of war and that didn't happen overnight. (Nor did it happen via the media as Liza Featherstone laughably suggests in The Nation. But then how would she know about the Downing Street Memos -- which The New York Review of Books, not The Nation, published. Jessica Lee, of the Indypendent, covers what Featherstone can't or won't -- click here.) What happened in the United States was activists and some journalists and publications pursued the topic (again, really not The Nation -- they had food issues and environmental issues and so much more to cover -- which is why they've never once written of the gang rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer). People carved out a space for it and certainly Cindy Sheehan took it up a notch.


All that was needed for the lies to be exposed and the public to turn against the war. Ehren Watada was not in the United States. He was stationed in Korea. And it's really important to remember that. Many who've served in Iraq have seen the lies fall away before their eyes (which reality will do) but in terms of how the war was sold, don't think that troops serving overseas are getting the same media that those in the United States do. In the lead up to his announcing his decision to his mother on January 1, 2006, he was cramming in three-plus years worth of information, reporting, critiques, etc. Which is why Hatsue Katsura of El Cerrito notes to The Contra Costa Times: "It was a gradual awareness and realization of facts about the war that were publicly disclosed over time. It became obvious our administration lacked reliable intelligence and was lying to justify an illegal and immoral war.I respect and support Watada for his decision. By refusing to obey orders, he knew he'd probably face a jail sentence. But he responded to a higher calling to serve his fellow man as an American and a world citizen."

Or, as Ehren Watada asked Daisuke Wakabayashi, "When you have leaders that are unaccountable, who have already deceived people over something as serious as war and are willing to do it again, you have to ask yourself, 'where do you stand?'" Or, as he explained to Judith Scherr (Berkeley Daily Planet), "I'm willing to go to prison for what I believe in. . . .
I've taken an oath to defend the constitution, I must be willing to sacrifice."

That sacrifice shouldn't involve sacrificing the truth of his story so possibly some might need to correct Tom Zeller Jr. (New York Times) who writes: "But Lieutenant Watada is no ordinary deserter, and he did not claim to be a conscientious objector." Ehren Watada is "no oridinary deserter" -- in fact, he's no deserter of any kind. Not since Zeller Jr. dismissed concerns over the Ohio vote immediately after the 2004 election has he seemed so out of touch with what he is supposed to be covering. Watada isn't a deserter. He refused to deploy. That is not desertion. He is not charged with desertion. Since he refused deployment, he has reported to the base for work every day. Zeller's fact-free approach to reporting made him a laughing stock in 2004 (all the more so with the recent Ohio convictions on voter fraud in the 2004 election) and he's obviously more concerned with maintaining that status. So let's speak slowly for Zeller Jr.: Desertion follows AWOL. AWOL is what most are charged with if they are gone for less than thirty days. Watada is not charged with desertion because he never went AWOL. He has been at Fort Lewis for every scheduled hour since he went public. He is not a deserter and the fact-free approach of Zeller's is not reporting. If the Junior Zeller is still confused, someone can refer him to the reporting of Andrew Buncombe (Independent of London): "When Lt Watada refused to go to Iraq last summer the army charged him with missing movement -- for failing to deploy -- as well as several counts of conduct unbecoming an officer."

Amnesty International has issued a press release entitled "USA: War objector's freedom of conscience must be respected" which notes: "'If found guilty, Amnesty International would consider Ehren Watada to be a prisoner of conscience and call for his immediate and unconditional release', said Susan Lee, Amnesty International's Americas Programme Director. 28-year-old Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada faces a possible four year prison sentence on charges of 'missing movement' -- due to his refusal to deploy to Iraq in June 2006 -- and of 'conduct unbecoming an officer' --- because of his public comments regarding his objections to the war in Iraq. Ehren Watada has stated that his refusal is based on his belief that the Iraq war is illegal and immoral. In a pre-court martial hearing held on 16 January, a military judge ruled that he could not base his defence on the legality of the war in Iraq." As Amnesty International steps up to the plate and The Nation plays useless, is it any wonder that so many are starting to believe organizations are more worthy of their dollars than those in independent media who make themselves useless?

As noted, Watada will not be allowed to present a defense. Lt. Col. 'Judge" Head will preside. A military jury will render the verdict on the charges. The hearing itself is expected to go rather quickly since the 'judge' has disallowed Watada's right to present a defense. (The August Article 32 hearing went quickly, since witnesses like Ann Wright, Denis Halliday and Frances Boyle will not be allowed to testify for Watada this time, it's expected to be over in a couple of hours.)

Suzanne Goldenberg (Guardian of London) interviewed Watada who told her, "It was so shocking to me. I guess I had heard about WMD and that we made a terrible, terrible mistake. Mistakes can happen but to think that it was deliberate and that a careful deception was done on the American people -- you just had to question who you are as a serviceman, as an American."

Saturday, Ehren Watada will be speaking:

Your last opportunity to hear from Lt. Watada in person prior to his military court martial!! Saturday, February 3, 7 PM University Temple United Methodist Church 1415 NE 43rd Street, Seattle WA(next to the University Bookstore). $10 suggested donation for the event. No one will be turned away.

In addition, his mother, Carolyn Ho, will be speaking Saturday in Little Tokyo (in Los Angeles) at an event Saturday organized by the Asian Emrican Veterans Organization (event starts with a meet up march at the intersection of San Pedro and Second at 4:00 pm)..
More information on all events can be found by clicking here.

Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March 6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.

Again, the court-martial beings Monday. Courage to Resist lists actions taking place at Fort Lewis and elsewhere. They note that the court-martial is open to the public (you need to get a visitors pass), will be held (at Fort Lewis base) in Building 2027 and that the proceedings are scheduled to begin at 9:00 am.

And Iraq Veterans Against the War are staging actions throughout the weekend:

Friday, February 2nd through Monday, February 5th, the day of Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial, IVAW's Olympia Chapter and IVAW Deployed will be holding a series of events/fundraisers in order to raise awareness on the importance and details of Ehren's action, and subsequently, his court-martial.
We will show up on the day of Ehren'' trial with a presence and message that cannot be ignored nor denied. Our message is simple: George W. Bush and those who choose to partake in war crimes are the people that should be on trial. Lt. Ehren Watada's argument is legitimate and should be adopted by all who might be given unlawful orders.

Yesterday on KFPA's Flashpoints, co-host Nora Barrows Friedman interviewed Dahr Jamail about the Najaf massacre. "What we do know for sure according to Iraqi doctors," Darh explained, that "253 killed and another 210 wounded." Jamail described the people in the region as wanting to self-govern and that "members of the tribes were starting to stand up because they want to be self-governing". The violence started with a tribal leader and his wife being gunned down which is a far cry from "the bogus story about a Shia messianic cult" plotting and conspiring to kill clerics.


Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily have covered many details of the Najaf story (see "Official Lies Over Najaf Battle Exposed") and Stan Goff (Huffington Post) notes their work and compares the lies of Najaf (from the US government and from the mainstream media) to the 'glory' days of Centcom past: "They were dead at the hands of the US and its sketchy Iraqi armed forces 'allies,' and one of the perennial CENTCOM lies of the day is that every Iraqi who dies during any US operation is an 'insurgent' or a 'gunman.' In fact, most of them were religious pilgrims who were gunned down without any provocation . . . more then 200 of them. This was no 'battle.' It was a massacre. The dead were religious pilgrims, not a 'cult.' All of us should figure it out, especially news people, that urban guerillas do not concentrate in groups of 200-plus, and that any time we learn that more than 200 people have been killed, it is a pretty good bet that they were mostly civilians.

Dahr also spoke of what happened in Baquba which had been a "very mixed town" for Shias and Sunnis prior to the illegal war but "just weeks after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003" the US military "brought together all of the religous leaders into a tent" in Baquba and had Shia and Sunnis go to opposite sides which is the sort of division that the US created and cemented and which some politicians (such as US Senator Joe Biden) favor: splitting Iraq into three regions (Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites). What Dahr spoke of echoes what MADRE's Yanar Mohammed witnessed and discussed with Laura Flanders on the December 9th broadcast of RadioNation with Laura Flanders -- after the invasion, all Iraqis faced one question when dealing with the occupation government (Americans): "Are you Shia or Sunni?"

That helped solidify divisions and conflicts. Today, Karen deYoung and Walter Pincuse (Washington Post) broke the news of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq which found the biggest obstacle in Iraq today to be the sectarian conflict. David Morgan (Reuters) reports: "Escalating violence between Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites met the definition for a civil war, but the politically charged term did not describe all the chaos in Iraq, the report said. . . . An unclassified version of the NIE's key judgments said the term civil war 'accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence and population displacements'."

In Iraq today, CNN reports: "A U.S. Apache helicopter went down Friday in Iraq, killing two American soldiers, the military said. It was the fourth helicopter to crash in two weeks.
The U.S. military recovered the soldiers' remains and secured the site northwest of Baghdad near Taji. The number of U.S. military fatalities in the Iraq war stands at 3,090, including seven civilian contractors of the Defense Department." For those who've forgotten, New Year's Eve brought the news that the count of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war had reached 3,000. For those who've missed it, helicopters have been coming down in Iraq for some time. "Crash landings" and "emergency landings" and no press follow up to determine what happened. In January, that finally began to change. The helicopter that went down today was shot down. This morning, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reported, "An American helicopter crashed north of Baghdad Friday morning, and an Iraqi police spokesman said it had been downed by a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile." AP confirms it was shot down: "A U.S. Army helicopter crashed Friday in a hail of gunfire north of Baghdad, police and witnesses said -- the fourth lost in Iraq in the last two weeks. The U.S. command said two crew members were killed, and the top U.S. general conceded that insurgent ground fire has become more effective." Note that it was brought down with gunfire. As has happened before but the flacks for the military have dismissed crashes resulting from gunfire and have maintained that the 'hardware' needed to down helicopters just wasn't to be found in Iraq. Such claims fly in the face of reality, of memories of Vietnam and of your average action adventure film that features helicopters. It's taken some time for the mainstream press to address the realities that, yes, helicopters can be shot down with gunfire.

Bombings?

Sahar Al Shawi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two bombings in Baghdad that left three people wounded, three people wounded in Kadhimiya "as a result of a Katiosha missile aimed at the area today", and three people wounded in Khalis from a mortar attack.

Kim Gamel (AP) notes a roadside bombing in Mosul that killed one police officer.

And Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports that the death toll for the two bombings in Hilla yesterday has now reached "at least 73 killed and 152 injured".


Shootings?

Sahar Al Shawi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that yesterday's shooting of the Dean of the College of Physical Education (Walhan Hameed Al-Timimi) and his son was carried out "in full view of the teachers on campus" at Dyala University and that some are pointing the "finger at the President of the univeristy, Dr. Alla' Al-Atbi, saying that he is involved with armed groups and facilitates their tasks by setting up targets and doing nothing in way of calling for assistance if any attacks took place".

Kim Gamel (AP) reports that "Sunni chairman of the Fallujah City Council, Abbas Ali Hussein" was shot dead.


Corpses?

CNN reports that 32 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.

Lastly, on CounterSpin today, John Nichols discussed Molly Ivins passing and worried that Ivins, whose columns were the most heavily circulated progressive ones in newspapers around the world, death would mean the space would go blank (of course, it could also go to a right-winger or centrist) so he suggested that if your local paper carried Ivins' columns, you contact them and ask that they continue to carry a progressive column. To go one further, Molly Ivins was one of the few women to make the top twenty most widely circulated columnists. So if you want to continue to see columns that address reality and you'd like to see a woman continue to be represented on the op-ed pages, you can ask your local paper to carry Amy Goodman (of Democracy Now!). Goodman's doing a weekly column now. I personally doubt that top 10 lists make for worthy or even "good" reading. Molly Ivins stood for something in each column (and humor was a part of it though Nichols wanted to downgrade it -- don't stand by him at a party). It's not just that any progressive voice is needed (or liberal voice), it's one that will use the space well. Goodman's demonstrated that she intends to tackle real topics. Goodman's columns can be found many places and Common Dreams is one. That said, if you're recommending that it be picked up to a newspaper, you need to note a paper that provides the column. "Resistance to war cannot be jailed" is Goodman's most recent column and the link takes you to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If you're pitching Goodman to your local paper, you should also note that she wrote (with her brother David) two bestselling hardcover books (Exception to the Rulers and Static) (say "New York Times bestsellers") and that she is an award winning journalist (George Polk Award, Aflred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, Robert F. Kennedy Prize for International Reporting and is the 2006 RECIPIENT OF THE PUFFIN/NATION PRIZE FOR CREATIVE CITIZENSHIP). You should also note that she hosts (with Juan Gonzalez) Democracy Now! which is broadcast on over 500 radio and TV stations around the world as well as online and as a podcast. Also stress that Ivins wrote a weekly column and Goodman does as well. (Important because, from time to time, a columnist may choose to do a series of columns -- think Bob Herbert -- and newspapers with a weekly slot now open aren't going to want to fill it with a twice weekly column when they only have one day open each week.)

Amy Goodman is my personal choice. Members may have their own choice. If your choice is someone else, e-mail and we'll figure out the best way to present to present your choice to your local paper. But it is not enough to say, as John Nichols did, demand a progressive voice. (He may have been trying to leave it up to listeners or may not have wanted to pick one person over another.) You need to provide a concrete example otherwise you may find that the same editorial boards that boast Thomas Friedman is a liberal (I'm referring to his column in syndication -- the Times is stuck with him) have a very different idea than you do of what "progressive" or "liberal" is. This isn't something you wait on. The op-eds are 'valuable real estate' and they have a fast turn over. Once a spot is occupied, it is very difficult to get a paper to drop a columnist. (Complaints are sometimes seen as 'proof' of how many people read the columnist.) (Sometimes it is proof -- sometimes it's just a sign of how bored and tired readers are with the same-old, same-old.)











amy goodmandemocracy now
Posted by at