Trina's most recent post is "Bean Salad in the Kitchen." She posts on Saturdays and she's for
Dennis Kucinich. I haven't made up my mind yet on who I'll vote for in primaries but I Kucinich is a candidate I wouldn't have any qualms about voting for. I should disclose to anyone visiting for the first time that Trina's Mike's mother and, of course, I'm seeing Mike. But on a day when I am so opposed to NOW's endorsement (Kat's going to have a lot to say on this matter tonight), it seems like a good time to note Kucinich. In addition, Mike and I are both noting impeachment tonight.
"'This Isn't American Idol, We're Choosing the President of the United States' -- Kucinich on Corporate Media Campaign Coverage" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of the President, what do you think should happen to President Bush? Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, said that impeachment is off the table. What are your thoughts?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I don't think that it's wise for the House and the Congress, for co-equal branches of government, to essentially give the President carte blanche in his decision making by saying no matter what you do, impeachment is off the table. I think that impeachment has to be on the table, and I also think that it's time to have a national conversation in cities, in towns all over America about the appropriate conduct for a President and a Vice President, about whether it's right for a President and Vice President to lie to the American people and take us into war. About the erosion of civil rights in America and how that's come about as a result of this administration's conduct of the war.
I think that it's time to have that kind of a discussion, and I've urged that from my website at kucinich.us, and I'm asking to hear from people about what they think, and I think that we need to make sure that this President understands that he can't do whatever he wants, that he is bound by the constitution, that he is bound by national and international law.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, you've mentioned the word treason. What do you mean?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I don't think I mentioned the word treason.
AMY GOODMAN: Have you talked about President Bush and treason?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No, I've never -- I never mentioned the word treason. I do think that accountability is a key word here. And I think the President and the Vice President must be held accountable. That's why I think it's a mistake for anyone to say impeachment is off the table. At the same time, we have to take a responsibility as members of Congress to uphold the constitution of the United States. That's our obligation as a co-equal branch of government.
So I’m waiting to hear from the American people. I would ask people who are listening or watching to go to my website at: www.kucinich.us. I'd like to hear from you. What do you think? Should the House move forward with a resolution of impeachment and what do you think the dimensions of it should be? I want to hear from the American people on this.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Center for Constitutional Rights going to Germany to file a complaint against former Congress member -- or rather, former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld? It's not only against him, it's against Alberto Gonzales, it's against General Sanchez and Miller for torture, over the issue of torture.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I think that all members of this administration, including the President, the Vice President, and all the other officials you mentioned, should be held accountable under international law, and that that accountability does not expire with the expiration of the term of this President. America at some point is going to have to restore its moral equilibrium, which has been lost, because this administration took us into a war based on lies. They all have to be held accountable. They must be held accountable, not only under national, but international law.
You can click on Dennis Kucinich's name to go his 2008 campaign site. You know what? I am endorsing him. For the Democratic primary, I am endorsing Dennis Kucinich. I need to call Kat.
Why am I endorsing him? Partly because of what Kat intends to write (both what is written and the point behind it). Also because he is the only one running on the Democratic side that is trying to end the war. No loopholes, no allowing Bully Boy to certify 'benchmarks.' He's wants the troops out of Iraq, he wants to prevent the theft of Iraq's oil, he wants to put an end to military bases in Iraq and he wants to stop the impending war on Iran.
In 2003, when he ran before, I was leery for one reason only and that was the issue of pro-choice. He's now maintained that position and I believe he will be pro-choice.
As Trina will tell you (and she's blogged on this repeatedly), he is the only Democratic candidate who is seriously addressing the health care crisis in this country. He addressed that very strongly today:
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, it differs in every way. Everyone in this campaign is for universal healthcare. But what Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and others are talking about is having the insurance companies still in charge of healthcare, of having the government subsidize the insurance companies or forcing people to buy insurance or have the government subsidize the purchase of insurance.
Look, the President of the United States shouldn't be an insurance salesman. The President should stand for a position where everyone is covered, that's what my bill does. The Conyers-Kucinich Bill, HR 676, Medicare for all, it ends for-profit medicine, it is a single-payer system which recognizes we're spending $2.2 trillion a year on healthcare, but 31% of that, or $660 billion, goes for the activities of the for-profit system.
Take that money, put it into healthcare, and you have enough money to cover every medical need, including dental care, vision care, mental health, prescription drug, and long-term care. Healthcare is a right, it's not a privilege. Senator Clinton's plan helps the insurance companies, it keeps the for-profit system going, and my plan ends the for-profit system and uses the savings to provide healthcare for everyone.
So I am endorsing. I honestly hadn't intended to; however, I'm offended by the Hillary Clinton endorsement NOW has made and mainly that they've done so while they've stripped their website of the white dove and the slogan "PEACE IS A FEMINIST ISSUE." I am someone who pays dues to NOW and donates to them. When C.I. mentioned it this weekend, that the endorsement was coming, I was rolling my eyes but it wasn't until the snapshot (see below) that I found out the slogan was now MIA. I support peace (and Kucinich supports a peace department). Had NOW not done that, I'd be blogging about something else tonight. But they have done it and, since I do support peace and ending this illegal war, I can't be silent. Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate who is serious. I am endorsing him for the Democratic primary and proud to be. I need to call Kat so that's going to be it for me tonight. C.I.'s got the important things covered in the snapshot.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, March 28, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, The John McCain Showboat Express continues chug-chugging into Crazy Town, the National Organization for Women endorses Hillary Clinton as the dove on their website vanishes and the US Senate pretends to take action.
Starting with war resistance. US war resister Mark Wilkerson speaking about the military's record keeping, "When I was AWOL I called this Army deserter's hot line about once every two weeks to see if my name would ever show up on the list. I deserted in January 2005 and I started calling this list in February. What I found was that I would call and give them my Social Security number and they would come back and say, 'No you are not on the list yet. You are present for duty'." Mark Wilkerson quoted by Cox News Service in their story on how: "The Army, which has been stressed by repeated deployments in Iraq, is no longer classifying some soldiers as deserters even though they have run away, according to those who counsel deserters and deserters themselves. It is unclear how widespread the practice is but counselors say they believe the Army has failed to classify hundreds of soldiers as deserters even though they have been gone for more than six months." The article also quotes Brian C. Hilferty (Army spokesperson, lt. colonel) stating that "the military no longer tries to hunt down deserters. Instead, it assumes that deserters will eventually run afoul of police who check the NCIC computer." Of course, that's not true either AEB by the military's attempts to bring in the California police while war resister Kyle Snyder was speaking there at the end of last year, by the military's ordering the Canadian police to arrest Kyle Snyder in Canada and by the still unexplained issue of three US military members posing as Canadian police officers and attempting to locate US war resister Joshua Key. Speaking with US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted that "the men and women who have gone AWOL, there have been thousands of them, some are bing count-martialed, like Lieutenant Ehren Watada, will be court-martialed again -- it was a mistrial in his first trial -- first officer to say 'no' to war, to deployment to Iraq. What do you think should happen to these men? Agustin Aguayo, an Army medic who applied for CO status, didn't get it, and is now in prison in Germany. Do you support their saying 'no'? Do you support their refusing to go to Iraq or redeploy to Iraq?" Dennis Kucinich's response: "I support the troops who serve and also those who don't feel it's right to serve. I think we have to ask our troops to be able to reserve the right of their conscience, and if they feel it's the right thing, we should support that, too. I think we're in a point in the history of this country where many people have looked at the war and realized that it's wrong. Some of those people are soldiers. Soldiers are put in an impossible situation, not only those who are committed to serving in Iraq, but also those who know that the war is wrong and who question the war. I think we have to love our troops, whatever situation they find themselves in. And the way to support them is to bring them home. . . . . You know, I don't think that anyone who's taken a principle and conscientious position should be subject to a court-martial. They should be permitted to leave the service if they so desire, but not be forced through that kind of a process. I think, you know, there has to be an underlying truth here, and the underlying truth is the war was wrong, period. The war is based on lies. We should support our troops by bringing them home, and we should support those who have challenged the war by giving them a chance to leave honorably."
Wilkerson, Watada, Aguayo, Snyder and Key are Clousing and Wilkerson are a part of movement of resistance within the military that also includes Darrell Anderson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Ricky Clousing, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-nine US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. As the Cox News Service report indicates, the number of those self-checking out is far greater than the US military admits to.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.
In the US, the Senate passed (50 to 48) an ammendment yesterday on Iraq. As Andrew Ward (Financial Times of London) observes that "both houses of Congress must first reconcile their differing bills in conference" and Republican senators dropped their "attempts to remove the nonbinding timeline from a $121.6 bn war-funding bill". Non-binding once again being the key point. Robert Knight (Flashpoints) yesterday observed that the "Senate bill . . . is even weaker than the House bill since it only expresses the uneforceable goal, but not requirement, that most troops leave Iraq by March 31, 2008. As with the House's war preservation bill, the Senate version would enable an unknown number of US troops to remain in Iraq beyond April 2008 for counter-insurgency training and security operations. . . . The final legislation will almost certainly be met with a veto from President Bush." [Note:
Flashpoints can be heard over the airwaves and online at KPFA and KFCF. Archived broadcasts can be found at Flashpoints and in the KPFA archives. Yesterday's snapshot included links to Flashpoints that were wrong. My apologies for my mistake. Thanks to Kyle for pointing that out.] Larry Everest (CounterPunch) reminds, "In November, millions voted for the Democrats to protest Bush and the war, and in hopes they would end it. Today, many -- including people who worked energetically to elect Democrats and who've been lobbying them to cut off war funding -- feel bitter, betrayed, and outraged. They should be outraged. The lesson is not that the Democrats 'sold out' or are 'spinless.' The lesson is that the Democrats are a ruling class party (and this is deeply institutionalized, regardless of the desires or intentions of its supporters or even some elected Democrats), acting to advance the interests of a capitalist-imperialist system they're part of and represent."
The attempts to trick the people could backfire on the Democrats who see this non-binding, toothless nonsense as a sure vote-getter for 2008. As Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) argued, this can be a sold as 'victory' for the GOP come 2008: "bully boy should sign it into law. i'm not in the mind to help bully boy but, seriously, he should do it. and if the dems don't offer anything stronger between now and august 2008, when they start finger pointing, he should say, 'look, i lived up to your bill.' it won't be hard to do. he's the 1 who gets to judge if the benchmarks have been met. he can override things by declaring 'national security'. the dems, if they offer nothing else, have set their own trap."
In one of the more interesting developments, as Mike (Mikey Likes It!) notes, as more and more people catch on to the realities of the Democrats' measures, one of the biggest cheerleaders of the House action, someone who lectured and hectored people about how they weren't as realistic or as smart as he was, is now attempting to play populist of the people: "How stupid does Stupid Ass [David] Sirota think we all are? Does he think we've all forgotten his attacks on everyone who had the strength to point out that the Pelosi measure did nothing? Does he htink we've forgotten his pompous lectures? Today he wants to play 'one of you'." And some by it. Though Mike didn't link to "Democracy Haters" (nor will we) some are happy to link the nonsense as the political hack now attempts to recast himself yet again.
So-called independent media made a big deal, rightly, about the mainstream media repeating Bully Boy's claims as facts. That criticism looks far less strong when so many supposedly "independent" outlets rush to provide the Democrats spin while presenting themselves as factual outlets. Meanwhile big media has failed repeatedly on the discussion in another regard. Like US Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, they all rush to affirm Bully Boy's right to chart the illegal war. A president's commander-in-chief role applies to the battle field -- a recognized and defined one -- and the people of the United States are the check on that. Congress, representing them, can set dealines and should set them considering the 2006 election results. Parroting Hillary, many media outlets rush to state that timelines could interfere with Bully Boy's ability to wage war. The people have decided. In the 2006 elections, in the polls consistently. The one interfering is the Bully Boy who wants to continue his illegal war. (And Congress is certainly aiding him in that.) Bully Boy is not King of America. There is no king in the United States.
Staying on the subject of politics for a moment, Hillary Clinton has been endorsed in her 2008 presidential bid by NOW -- the National Organization For Women. As to whether or not the endorsement required that they remove "Peace is a feminist issue" -- a slogan displayed on their site for years -- is a question someone should ask NOW. Where the dove and slogan used to be, visitors are now told "Love Your Body" and apparently that somehow factored into the decision process by which War Hawk Hillary Clinton won an endorsement from what was an organization strongly dedicated to ending the war. Again, NOW has removed the dove and slogan "Peace is a feminist issue" from their website and they have endorsed War Hawk Hillary Clinton for 2008.
Today on Democracy Now!, Dennis Kucinich addressed the realities of what was being promised and reality:
Dennis Kucinich: Well, we were given false choices. We were told that we either buy into president Bush's plan, which is keep the war going indefinitely, or accept the Democratic version of the war in Iraq, which would keep the war going for another year or two. I say those choices weren't sufficient. The Democrats could have refused to send a bill forward. We didn't have to fund this war. We're not under any obligation to keep the war going. And yet our leaders took another path. Furthermore, Amy, you may be interested to know that the 2008 budget, which is before Congress today and will be voted on tomorrow, contains another $145 billion for the war, and on top of that, they're putting another $50 billion for the war in fiscal year 2009. So this talk about ending the war by March or by September belies the fact that the budget has money in it to keep the war going into 2009. And I think that's wrong. I think the American people will reject that type of thinking. And I'm standing strong to say "Get out now." I put forth a plan embodied in HR 1234 to accomplish just that.
Amy Goodman: But what do you say to those make the argument that, if president Bush has on his desk a bill that gives money, gives a fortune in continuing the war, and he has to veto it because he doesn't like the timetable, that this puts him in a very difficult position?
Kucinich: Our decisions have to be way above politics. We have the lives of our troops at stake here. There's no military victory in Iraq. We're there illegally. The occupation is fueling the insurgency. Democrats can still, after president Bush vetoes the bill -- which he will -- Democrats can still take the right position, which is refuse to fund the war, use money in the pipeline to bring the troops home.
Kucinich addressed how Bully Boy's not ending the war and how the current legislation isn't addressing it. He noted he "crafted my plan with the help of the people at the UN, and I will tell you that they say that it would take about two months, three months to mobilize a sufficient force that would replace US troops leaving. So I say two, to three months, we could have troops home and have an international force that would help stabilize Iraq. But the international community will not become involved as long as the United States intends to occupy Iraq and keep bases open. So we need to take a new direction. My plan would be as follows: to put in place the provisions of HR 1234, which ends the occupation, closes the bases, sets in motion a plan to bring the troops home, bring in international peace keepers, and stop the privatization of Iraqi oil. One of the things in the bill that passed the House was a demand that the Iraq government pass a hydrocarbon act which sets the stage for broad privatization of trillions of dollars of Iraqi oil interests. Now think about it. If Democrats had told the American people last October that, 'If you vote Democrat in November, we'll not only give you enough money to keep the war going through the end of President Bush's term, but we'll also privatize the oil of Iraq and then help the US oil companies' -- with the prize that I think the war was all about from the very beginning -- I don't think the people would have voted Democrat. So Democrats have to keep faith with the American people."
Interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner (KPFA's Guns and Butter) today, professor Francis Boyle discussed how a 2003 exploration of impeachment by the Democrats was cut short when John Podesta announced that there would be no introduction of bills of impeachment because it would harm Democrats chances in the 2004 election. Speaking of the measures being applauded by much in the media, big and small, Boyle declared, "It's all baloney. All they had to do was just do nothing and Bush would have run out of money. . . . The DNC fully supports the war, that was made clear to Ramsey [Clark] and me on 13 March 2003 and nothing's changed." John Podesta, former Clintonista, is with the Democratic talking point mill (that attempts to pass itself as a think tank) Center for American Progress -- with an emphasis on "Center" and not "Progress."
Meanwhile The John McCain Showboat Express chugged back into DC in time for US Senator and presidential wanna-be to issue a statement (much more important than his vote). David Esp (AP) quotes McCain's laughable claim that "we are starting to turn things around" which may strike some as McCain trying out a new campaign slogan: "Vote Insane, Vote John McCain."
In Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes truck bombings involving chlorine Falluja, outside a government building, wounding "15 Iraqi and U.S. security forces," a car bomb in Mahaweel killed five and left 25 wounded, a car bombing in Baghdad killed 2 and left 10 injured, a rocket attack in the fortress that is the Green Zone killed one "U.S. government contractor" and a car bombing near Ramadi "killed one civilian and wounded seven others".
Shootings?
Following yesterday's bombings in Tal Afar, more violence took place. AFP reports that 75 are dead from the Tuesday's bombings and that at least 45 people were "massacred" today and the town is now under "a strict curfew". Kim Gamel (AP) reports that the violence was launched by "Shiite militants and police" in response to the Tuesday bombings, that 40 people are believed to be kidnapped and that 18 police officers have been arrested "accused in the shooting rampage after they were identified by Sunni families."
Corpses?
Reuters reports five corpses were discovered in Suwayra.
Finally, AP reports that Gale Polluck ("Maj. Gen.") who is the acting surgeon gneral for the Army told the US House Armed Service Committee, "When the original plans were made, we did not take into consideration we could be in a long war" and therefore at question is if "the military lacks money to hire enough nurses and mental health specialists to treat thousands of troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan." If the sudden concern strikes you as familiar, it's because Elaine's long made this point (most recently yesterday), Monica Benderman covered it this week in "On Ending War" (CounterPunch).
iraq
mark wilkerson
robert knightflashpoints
like maria said pazmikey likes it
democracy now
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kpfabonnie faulknerguns and butter
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Joshua Frank, Monica Benderman
I really didn't think I'd need to still be noting that the Pelosi measure is a joke (the Senate measure even more so); however, I made the mistake of listening to Democracy Now! today. It's quoted in the snapshot (excerpted in full at the end). So the issue for me is why has independent media been so reluctant to proble the Pelosi measure and instead rushing to repeat the angle the mainstream media pimps? I thought we were supposed to have some of living, breathing independent media? Can anyone find it? Is it trapped in a coal mine, gasping for air?
Joshua Frank details how it was foolish for anyone to expect the Democrats to do a thing on Iraq. I enjoyed that part of the column but I wanted to note this section even more.
"The Democrats Strike Again" (Joshua Frank, CounterPunch):
Fortunately these are the sorts of betrayals that fuel activists like Cindy Sheehan and CODEPINK in to putting their energy in opposing the Democratic leadership. Nancy Kricorian, who manages CODEPINK's ListenHillary.org, a site dedicated to challenging Sen. Clinton's stance on the Iraq war, recently told me why she believes it is imperative that we take on the Democratic stalwarts like Hillary Clinton.
"Hillary is the current Democratic frontrunner for the Presidential nomination and because she is one of the most powerful people in the Party so we feel it is important to hold her accountable for her voting record on and her public statements about Iraq," Kricorian said. "We hope that by pressuring her to change her stance ... we will have an impact on the [Democrats]. We are tired of convoluted rhetoric and empty words -- we want Hillary and the Democrats to stop buying Bush's war."
Cindy Sheehan reiterated a similar line when I recently spoke with her. "We need to take Hillary and (Nancy) Pelosi on to reflect true progressive anti-war values, not AIPAC or neocon values," she said. "It is important to keep the pressure on her and the others, because number one, she needs to be exposed, and two, she needs to know that we are not fooled by her."
As Election Spectacle 2008 takes center stage over the next year, let's not buy the Democratic bull that they are going to do anything substantial to end the war in Iraq, even if Barack, Hillary, and rest of the gang promise as much. We gave them an antiwar mandate and they still want to give Bush the sole authority in deciding when the time is right to bring the troops home and billions more to continue the war.
The Democrats aren't a party of opposition, but a party of capitulation.
Exactly true. The heat needs to be kept up on the Dems and the ones who enable them with lies and cover. I'm not accusing Amy Goodman of lying or covering for them. I think she honestly doesn't know what the bill says. I think that's sad and hope that, tomorrow, Dennis Kucinich can enlighten her (and the show's audience which has yet to hear the truth).
Someone asked why I wasn't noting United for Peace and Justice? Note, I didn't just link to it. C.I. heard or read a report by Aaron Glantz that UPJ should be objecting to. "Glimmer of light"? Until they do, don't expect me to promote them. Yes, on their website they're calling out the nonsense in Congress. But if they feel Glantz' article or on air report accurately portrays them, then I'm not doing anything to advance them. (I am a big supporter of UPJ. But don't do one thing on the website and go along with a report where it appears that you and others see a ray of sunshine in the cowardice that is the Pelosi measure.)
I'm not in the mood for it. People better wise up that the peace movement's not going to take one betrayal after another. That includes a group I support who came out strong with a quote that a reporter has 'fit' into his report to demonstrate how happy peace groups are with the Pelosi resolution. The group needs to call that article out. The title, the opening paragraph set up the group (regardless of the strong remarks a spokesperson makes against the measure) as supporting the Pelosi measure. They need to call that article out.
We're not in the mood for it. Those of us who have rallied and marched and demonstrated for over four years are not in the mood for it.
We need to see real strength and real leadership. The mainstream media is happy to join the Dem leadership in Congress and pimp this as a measure that (a) will bring the troops home (which is what Amy Goodman said it would do when she spoke of it today -- it doesn't) so (b) don't worry about it. It's basically a How I Stopped Marching And Learned To Love Eternal War. That's what the coverage is doing. You have people, and I've had friends call about it, who think the Dems really have done something, believe the hype that has been passed off as truth.
They think it's a "victory" and the marches need to go onto other things. Then I have to be the wet blanket that breaks reality down for them.
So as long as even independent media is going to continue to pimp this nonsense, I guess we'll have to keep noting that the bill has no teeth. The benchmarks will be decided by the Bully Boy, not Congress. There's not one binding thing in there, he's given a way to weasel out every time.
"On Ending War" (Monica Benderman, CounterPunch):
It is time to bring the war to an end and to begin the process of bringing our soldiers home. But the community of Hinesville knows there is much about this country that is not ready for the return of 200,000 combat weary members of the military. The soldiers of the 3rd Infantry have been to war three times in the past five years. Many of the members of the 3rd Infantry were in Afghanistan before being sent to the invasion of Iraq rather than redeployed home. The community of Hinesville was here for the soldiers when their families were told they would be stop-lossed in Iraq for months past their scheduled return dates. They were here when the soldiers were told they would be returning to Iraq just one very short year after they had arrived home.
At Warrior Walk on Ft. Stewart there are currently 320 trees standing in memorial to the members of the 3rd Infantry who gave their lives in Iraq. As we walk around the grounds of Winn Army Hospital we pass soldiers with artificial limbs, a permanent limp, and in wheelchairs all trying to recover from the war that seems to go on forever. The community of Hinesville knows, cares and does what it can to support them and their families. Veterans have not forgotten and they understand how much is needed when the war comes home.
Do we understand what we will face when the war is over?
In the year between the first two deployments of the 3rd Infantry there were 191 confirmed cases of child abuse on Ft. Stewart alone. Soldiers returned but we were not ready.
In the next year the soldiers were home following their second deployment to Iraq, there were 138 cases of spousal abuse confirmed on Ft. Stewart. America continued to call for the soldiers to come home, but we were not ready.
Monica Benderman is the wife of war resister Kevin Benderman who was wrongly imprisoned by the US military. C.I. and I were just speaking of her writing Friday. So when I saw this, I really wanted to highlight it and planned to pair it up with many other things; however, then came the nonsens about the Pelosi measure pulling "the troops" out of Iraq. So we're stuck on that until reality sinks in. Hopefully, that reality will sink in before August 2008 rolls around. If not, the Congressional excuse will be that it's so close to the elections that Congress can't do anything. The Dems have gone to the well with that one on everything from the war, to torture, to illegal spying, to impeachment, to you name it.
Briefly, re: Moncia Benderman's article, she's exactly right. Currently, the system's not equipped to handle the ones returning. That's been true since the illegal war started. I get too much credit for the pro-bono work I do. That all started because of C.I. C.I. had been going around the country and speaking for some time and, at some point, in 2003, I got a call asking if I could see someone in my area. C.I. offered to pay for it which was silly because I don't work for money (as noted, trust fund baby here). I said give the vet my name and money wouldn't be an issue. There are others across the country doing that because C.I. has called repeatedly over the years asking, "Do you know anyone practicing in ___?" That is why I am so enraged, to this day, by the lie FactCheck.org signed off on, claiming that John Kerry was wrong about the underfunding for those returning. I knew it with my own eyes and ears. I knew from others in my field. The only one who didn't know it was the supposedly well researched FactCheck.org.
Now I'm maxed out presently. If C.I. found another one tomorrow, I would take him or her, I'd fit it in somehow. But otherwise, I'm maxed out in terms of time. That's true of most of the people I know who are donating their time. So I strongly agree with Monica. I want the war over, don't misunderstand me on that, but with the returnees thus far, the government's done nothing for them. In fact, they actively work to deny full disability. That's what the government does. Someone comes back with a missing limb or PTSD or some other trauma and they or their family has to fight like hell and they're still not getting certified for 100% coverage.
The administration has fought this illegal war on the cheap from the start. So she is right to sound the alarms because people are not getting the help they need currently and when the illegal war is finally and thankfully over, if something's not done very quickly, they're going to basically be dumped upon a system that's not functioning now and won't be able to offer them any form of treatment when they get back.
I do individual sessions and, on Thursdays, the group therapy. Many of the ones who get to a point where they're able to process better end up basically going out and helping others (the Thursday is a set schedule -- even when I was in Texas, I had the office open Thursday night so they could come in and I did phone in to check). Now that's great, what they're doing. But they should be doing that (what we used to call "rap sessions") as part of the reconnection process they would normally do, not in place of therapy that the government will not provide for them in most cases.
Right now, the system is overwhelmed and the government is very lucky that individuals are helping each other. But it's the government's job to help these people. The government made a promise to them. Now granted, it's the same administration that's lied us into an illegal war. But, setting that aside, they owe it to the ones returning to live up to their obligation. They aren't doing that. Refusing to fully certify isn't doing that. Letting people go without treatment isn't certifying. I won't share the horror stories I've heard (for four years now) due to respect for privacy (and the nature of how I learned of them) but I really think if you don't know these horror stories, even one, after four years of this illegal war, you haven't been paying attention.
Monica Benderman is very right to be worried and we're all lucky that she's wrote about this. I really think her article is one of the most important things you could read this week and I really regret that I had to take time away from discussing it to (again) address the realities of the toothless, non-binding Pelosi measure (one more time, the Senate's is even worse).
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, March 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq and since it involves a mass bombing the media wakes up a little, waking up does not include -- for most -- getting the Pelosi measure right, 2 nuns are killed in Iraq due to their gender and their religion but see who in the mainstream tackles it, and what's Michael Gordon selling this time -- war! war! war!
Starting with this from Iraq Veterans Against the War:
Last week, as the U.S. death toll in Iraq climbed over 3,242, Congress voted to continue the war by approving the $124 billion supplemental bill. This week, the Senate is expected to similarly approve funding for this war that continues to violently destroy U.S. and Iraqi lives every day. The Democratic leadership claims that, to end the war, they must continue funding it. Iraq Veterans Against the War knows that, despite the Democrats guarantees of time tables and restrictions, the supplemental will not end the occupation of Iraq or prevent further escalation of the war. It is time for our brothers and sisters in the military to come home and for the Iraqi people to be allowed their right to self-determination.
"To end the war, they must continue to fund it". Emphasized for those who will hear that and remember the 'logic' of "to save the village, we had to destroy the village." (That's the popular version of the quote. Following the slaughter of Ben Tre, the actual quote was: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.") So that's where it stands now, as Iraq Veterans Against the War points out, the solution of the US Congress is that "to end the war, they must continue to fund it."
Yesterday, on Flashpoints, Robert Knight devoted his entire Knight Report to the realities of the Pelosi measure: "Pelosi bragged that the measure was 'a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq.' But in reality, the bill fulfills neither claim. The measure grants President Bush the unimpeded prerogative of maintaining his current escalation in Iraq through October 2007 at which time he is merely requested to self-certify success in his self-defined benchmarks. Those benchmarks include provisions for the Iraqi occupation regime to reign in death squads and to enact the US designed and multi-national friendly oil law that is presently before Iraq's absentee occupation parliament. Regardless of Bush's automatic auto-certification, no actual troop withdrawals would be required before August 2008 during the height of the national party conventions at which time the Democrats would then blame the Republicans with a war whose continuation they would have guaranteed until the eve of November 2008 presidential election. But even when the August deadline matures, Bush would still be allowed to maintain more than half of the 150,00 troops in Iraq due to a term of art in the legislation that requests the redeployment but not the homecoming of some 70,000 so-called combat troops. This would leave an equal or greater number of US troops in Iraq under the vague but permanent classifications of counter-insurgency, security and training for what New York Senator Hillary Clinton calls 'remaining vital national security interests in the heart of the oil region'." To hear The Knight Report in full check Flashpoints and in the KPFA archives. (Those unable to listen can click here for a 'rush' and 'rushed' transcript.)
Also decrying the Pelosi measure is Joshua Frank (CounterPunch): "Having been one of the unfortunate geeks who actually read the bill, I can tell you only one thing -- it's a complete farce. In order for troops to come home the Bushies would have to confim whether or not 'progress' has been made in Iraq, not Congress. So with more money in hand and sole authority on deciding whether or not the war is going as planned, the White House, even if Bush signed the bill, would never have to end the thing. The proposal wasn't a compromise as many have claimed, but a dagger in the heart of all those of us who want to bring this war to a screeching halt."
Turning to news of war resistance, Ricky Clousing spoke March 17, 2007 at a rally in Fayetteville, "Hello, my name is Sgt. Ricky Clousing. I was stationed here in Fort Bragg
in the 82 Airborn division. I served with the 82nd in December of 2004 in Iraq as an interroagtor and after witnessing the abuse of power and the injustices that happened on a daily basis I decided I no longer could be a part of not only the 82nd airborn but also the organization of the military. So after deciding to go AWOL and serving a few months in jail, I'm here to say thank you guys because I received amazing support through my process and my journey. I'm not going to share my whole story because a lot of you might be familiar with it but I really want to just let you guys know how much it meant to me the support and letters and the organization for events like this and what not that you guys really blazed a trail for people like me for refusing to fight anymore and my brothers here that decided not to do it. So I just want to say that a lot of the times since I've gone and spoken at a different place that people, a lot of times, put things on a pedestal and different situations or people or places. And I think that it's important to express that we are all part of this bigger puzzle and this bigger of collective idea of peace and how to attain that Just be careful of putting people in those positions because it takes the responsibility that we all have to do our part -- and part of that is being here today and marching and walking and spreading the word on an individual level. So just remember that war isn't good for children and other living things. Thank you guys very, very much."
On August 11, 2006, Ricky Clousing went public with his story of how he checked himself out of the military following his service in Iraq -- making an announcement in Seattle at the
Veterans for Peace conference. October 12, 2006, Clousing was court-martialed. The sentence was three months, bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank. Clousing referred in the speech to the letters and support he received. Currently, US war resister Mark Wilkerson is is serving a sentence for self-checking out. From Courage to Resist: "Write to Mark while he is in the brig c/o his wife Sarah: Mark and Sarah Wilkerson, PO Box 25037, Colorado Springs CO 80936. Please consider a donation to Mark Wilkerson's legal defense fund.." On August 31st, Wilkerson spoke at Camp Casey III -- a press conference -- announcing his intent to turn himself in after having self-checked out a year and a half ago. That evening he was interviewed by Dennis Bernstein for KPFA's Flashpoints, where they discussed Wilkerson's service in Iraq and how his views changed from those he'd held at 17-years-old. He attempted to receive c.o. status but his was denied. He attempted to prepare for the rebuttal process but was informed he'd be redeploying to Iraq and any rebuttal would have to wait until his second deployment ended. When Bernstein asked him if he had any regrets about his decision to self-check out, Wilkerson responded, "I completely stand by my decision. For me, this was a time in my life when I decided I had to make a stand regardless of whether [it meant] prison or death". On February 22nd of this year, his court-martial began at Fort Hood in Texas. Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months in military prison and will receive a bad conduct discharge.
Clousing and Wilkerson are a part of movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Joshua Key, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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.
The editorial page editor of the San Jose Mercury News, Stephen E. Wright, wrote of the changes in his own life since his son shipped off to the illegal war this month, "But now we talk about the war, via my son, almost daily: How's he doing? Have you heard from him? Is he in Iraq yet? In a far more presonal way, we discuss the impact on families and friends, the political meaneuvering and the lack of progress in bringing stability to the country. What we don't talk about are the daily news stories about soldiers killed in action. Having a son on his way to Iraq hasn't changed my view of the war. We should not have invaded the country. If this were a righteous war, it would be more bearable to see him go. But now there's a knot in the pit of my stomach every time I think about where he's headed, what he might have to do and what might be done to him."
Taking a look at what happens to some who return, Tom Roeder and Cary Leider (Colorado Springs Gazette) report on the increase in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder among returning service members, "Nearly 600 Fort Carson soldiers were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder last year, up from 102 cases in 2003 when soldiers started returning from their first tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the fourth straight year with a significant increase in the number of soldiers being diagnosed with PTSD. With symptoms that range from hyperawareness, to angry outbursts, PTSD is an anxiety reaction to traumatic events, which Iraq brings by the truckload. It plauges up to 10 percent of soldiers returning from war. Now the military is discovering a new problem. Substantial numbers of troops are showing lingering signs of traumatic brain injuries suffered in Iraq, mainly concussions caused by roadside bombs."
Turning to Iraq, let's dispense with the nonsense right away. CNN speaks with Admiral William J. Fallon who's new to Iraq and new to the world of reality. Fallon puts forward the laughable belief that though Baghdad is chaos, outside things are just peachy keen and notes southern Iraq as a reference point. He may fool many US audiences that haven't received much reality about southern Iraq. For those who do not know better: YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. He also cites a region in the Kurdish north. Remember that when the elections for the boraders of that area get closer. Selcan Hacaoglu (AP) reports that Tariq al-Hashimi (Iraq's Sunni vice president) has "warned against a possible Turkish incursion into Iraq to fight separatist Kurdish guerrillas and promised to prevent cross-border attacks by the rebels." Though the domestic, US media prefers to ignore it, there's a battle raging over who will have claim to that area and the actual, physical make up of the area.
Bombings?
A bombing took place in Tal Afar resulting in mass casulties. Al Jazeera reports "bodies and wounded were brought to hospital after the two vehicle-borne bombings." Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that one vehicle was a a truck carrying flour and that the death toll was at least 55 with 130 injured. AFP reports a mortar attack in the Abu Chir section of Baghdad that killed "[t]wo children, a man and a woman" with 14 others left wounded. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing that killed a police officer and left two more wounded and a car bombing in Ramadi that claimed 17 lives and left 32 wounded. And Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) also reports a rocket attack: "This morning gunmen attacked the car of Sheikh Harith al Thari the son of the tribal leader Sheikh Thahir al Thari not far from his house. The attackers wanted to kidnap him, he and his companion resisted and killed some of the attackers. The attackers used an RPG rocket and destroyed the car. Later in the day the 1920 Revolution Brigades announced he was one of their field leaders. Sources from the area said he was a media man for the Brigades and his death comes after refusing to pledge loyalty to the Iraq Islamic State, Al Qaeda linked group."
Shootings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that US and Iraqi forces conducted a raid in Najaf and "shot at a driving by car and killed the driver and injured a pregnant woman, they were heading to the hospital" while, in Baghdad, Abbas Salah was shot dead.
AFP notes two people shot dead and seven more wounded in the Shorja section of Baghdad while two police officers and two civilians were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters notes three people shot dead in Ishaqi, a police lieutenant shot dead in Baghdad,
Stabbings?
Okay, the New York Times continues to want to push the myths of the huge return to Baghdad. To do that, they have to ignore the minorities that have been run out of the city (including Catholics and Jews). CBS and AP report that, in Kirkuk, two Chaldean Catholic nuns were stabbed to death ("no sign of a robbery" -- of course not, it was a crime against women and religious persecution) at the home of Margaret Naoum (the younger sister, 79-years-old). The older sister (85-years-old) was named Fawzeiyah Naoum. They stabbed older sister Fawzeiyah to death with three stabs, and they stabbed younger sister Margaret seven times.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 15 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today, 3 in Mosul, and 6 in Diwaniya.
Today the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West died March 24 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
In the US, US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has taken a strong stand against the illegal war. Recently, his wife Elizabeth Kucinich has begun posting to his presidential campaign website and noted this of the Pelosi measure that passed: "Dennis and I are in mourning. We mourn the deaths of those who have passed and those whose lives are now on the line, both in the military and civilian Iraqis. We mourn the destruction, the ecocide. We mourn with families in Iraq and the US who will see more death and devastation. We mourn the callous and calculated political spin cloaking the Congress's hawkish support of war with the rhetoric of peace."
Dennis Kucinich will appear on Wednesday's Democracy Now! -- and, hopefully, before then it can be explained to the program that the Pelosi measure does not, as was stated on today's show, "also establish a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by next year." Assuming that Bully Boy will go along with the toothless measure, only "combat troops" would be withdrawn (Robert Knight: "recalls the tactic by which earlier administrations once referred to US soldiers in Vietnam as advisers rather than troops.") This is too important to get it wrong and basic journalism provides no excuses. As Tom Engelhardts (TomDispatch) observed on the "troops" myth and "combat troops" reality, "The two categories are now so conveniently blurred that it would be pardonable if few Americans grasped the difference any more than did Charles Gibson, anchor of ABC's World News Tonight. On last Friday's news, he claimed the House had voted to get 'all US forces' out when his own White House correspondent used the correct phrase, 'combat forces'." How the House leadership wants to pimp the bill is not reality so Tell The Truth. That's what we'll call this item should it need to be be repeated in the snapshot: Tell The Truth & Know The Truth because, in fairness, some people may not know what the bill does say.
Then there are those who haven't earned the same benefit of the doubt. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) may not know what Paul Bremer does which would explain why she was all over the US orders to the puppet government to do away with the de-Baathifcation laws -- the same laws that didn't exist until the US administration's Paul Bremer decided to create it and enforce it. Tell The Truth, Rubin!
Finally, the Ultimate War Pornographer Michael Gordon took Scott Shane with him on an unsourced wet dream of further war, of expanding it to Iran.
iraq
ricky clousing
mark wilkerson
robert knightflashpointsdennis bernstein
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
michael r. gordon
Joshua Frank details how it was foolish for anyone to expect the Democrats to do a thing on Iraq. I enjoyed that part of the column but I wanted to note this section even more.
"The Democrats Strike Again" (Joshua Frank, CounterPunch):
Fortunately these are the sorts of betrayals that fuel activists like Cindy Sheehan and CODEPINK in to putting their energy in opposing the Democratic leadership. Nancy Kricorian, who manages CODEPINK's ListenHillary.org, a site dedicated to challenging Sen. Clinton's stance on the Iraq war, recently told me why she believes it is imperative that we take on the Democratic stalwarts like Hillary Clinton.
"Hillary is the current Democratic frontrunner for the Presidential nomination and because she is one of the most powerful people in the Party so we feel it is important to hold her accountable for her voting record on and her public statements about Iraq," Kricorian said. "We hope that by pressuring her to change her stance ... we will have an impact on the [Democrats]. We are tired of convoluted rhetoric and empty words -- we want Hillary and the Democrats to stop buying Bush's war."
Cindy Sheehan reiterated a similar line when I recently spoke with her. "We need to take Hillary and (Nancy) Pelosi on to reflect true progressive anti-war values, not AIPAC or neocon values," she said. "It is important to keep the pressure on her and the others, because number one, she needs to be exposed, and two, she needs to know that we are not fooled by her."
As Election Spectacle 2008 takes center stage over the next year, let's not buy the Democratic bull that they are going to do anything substantial to end the war in Iraq, even if Barack, Hillary, and rest of the gang promise as much. We gave them an antiwar mandate and they still want to give Bush the sole authority in deciding when the time is right to bring the troops home and billions more to continue the war.
The Democrats aren't a party of opposition, but a party of capitulation.
Exactly true. The heat needs to be kept up on the Dems and the ones who enable them with lies and cover. I'm not accusing Amy Goodman of lying or covering for them. I think she honestly doesn't know what the bill says. I think that's sad and hope that, tomorrow, Dennis Kucinich can enlighten her (and the show's audience which has yet to hear the truth).
Someone asked why I wasn't noting United for Peace and Justice? Note, I didn't just link to it. C.I. heard or read a report by Aaron Glantz that UPJ should be objecting to. "Glimmer of light"? Until they do, don't expect me to promote them. Yes, on their website they're calling out the nonsense in Congress. But if they feel Glantz' article or on air report accurately portrays them, then I'm not doing anything to advance them. (I am a big supporter of UPJ. But don't do one thing on the website and go along with a report where it appears that you and others see a ray of sunshine in the cowardice that is the Pelosi measure.)
I'm not in the mood for it. People better wise up that the peace movement's not going to take one betrayal after another. That includes a group I support who came out strong with a quote that a reporter has 'fit' into his report to demonstrate how happy peace groups are with the Pelosi resolution. The group needs to call that article out. The title, the opening paragraph set up the group (regardless of the strong remarks a spokesperson makes against the measure) as supporting the Pelosi measure. They need to call that article out.
We're not in the mood for it. Those of us who have rallied and marched and demonstrated for over four years are not in the mood for it.
We need to see real strength and real leadership. The mainstream media is happy to join the Dem leadership in Congress and pimp this as a measure that (a) will bring the troops home (which is what Amy Goodman said it would do when she spoke of it today -- it doesn't) so (b) don't worry about it. It's basically a How I Stopped Marching And Learned To Love Eternal War. That's what the coverage is doing. You have people, and I've had friends call about it, who think the Dems really have done something, believe the hype that has been passed off as truth.
They think it's a "victory" and the marches need to go onto other things. Then I have to be the wet blanket that breaks reality down for them.
So as long as even independent media is going to continue to pimp this nonsense, I guess we'll have to keep noting that the bill has no teeth. The benchmarks will be decided by the Bully Boy, not Congress. There's not one binding thing in there, he's given a way to weasel out every time.
"On Ending War" (Monica Benderman, CounterPunch):
It is time to bring the war to an end and to begin the process of bringing our soldiers home. But the community of Hinesville knows there is much about this country that is not ready for the return of 200,000 combat weary members of the military. The soldiers of the 3rd Infantry have been to war three times in the past five years. Many of the members of the 3rd Infantry were in Afghanistan before being sent to the invasion of Iraq rather than redeployed home. The community of Hinesville was here for the soldiers when their families were told they would be stop-lossed in Iraq for months past their scheduled return dates. They were here when the soldiers were told they would be returning to Iraq just one very short year after they had arrived home.
At Warrior Walk on Ft. Stewart there are currently 320 trees standing in memorial to the members of the 3rd Infantry who gave their lives in Iraq. As we walk around the grounds of Winn Army Hospital we pass soldiers with artificial limbs, a permanent limp, and in wheelchairs all trying to recover from the war that seems to go on forever. The community of Hinesville knows, cares and does what it can to support them and their families. Veterans have not forgotten and they understand how much is needed when the war comes home.
Do we understand what we will face when the war is over?
In the year between the first two deployments of the 3rd Infantry there were 191 confirmed cases of child abuse on Ft. Stewart alone. Soldiers returned but we were not ready.
In the next year the soldiers were home following their second deployment to Iraq, there were 138 cases of spousal abuse confirmed on Ft. Stewart. America continued to call for the soldiers to come home, but we were not ready.
Monica Benderman is the wife of war resister Kevin Benderman who was wrongly imprisoned by the US military. C.I. and I were just speaking of her writing Friday. So when I saw this, I really wanted to highlight it and planned to pair it up with many other things; however, then came the nonsens about the Pelosi measure pulling "the troops" out of Iraq. So we're stuck on that until reality sinks in. Hopefully, that reality will sink in before August 2008 rolls around. If not, the Congressional excuse will be that it's so close to the elections that Congress can't do anything. The Dems have gone to the well with that one on everything from the war, to torture, to illegal spying, to impeachment, to you name it.
Briefly, re: Moncia Benderman's article, she's exactly right. Currently, the system's not equipped to handle the ones returning. That's been true since the illegal war started. I get too much credit for the pro-bono work I do. That all started because of C.I. C.I. had been going around the country and speaking for some time and, at some point, in 2003, I got a call asking if I could see someone in my area. C.I. offered to pay for it which was silly because I don't work for money (as noted, trust fund baby here). I said give the vet my name and money wouldn't be an issue. There are others across the country doing that because C.I. has called repeatedly over the years asking, "Do you know anyone practicing in ___?" That is why I am so enraged, to this day, by the lie FactCheck.org signed off on, claiming that John Kerry was wrong about the underfunding for those returning. I knew it with my own eyes and ears. I knew from others in my field. The only one who didn't know it was the supposedly well researched FactCheck.org.
Now I'm maxed out presently. If C.I. found another one tomorrow, I would take him or her, I'd fit it in somehow. But otherwise, I'm maxed out in terms of time. That's true of most of the people I know who are donating their time. So I strongly agree with Monica. I want the war over, don't misunderstand me on that, but with the returnees thus far, the government's done nothing for them. In fact, they actively work to deny full disability. That's what the government does. Someone comes back with a missing limb or PTSD or some other trauma and they or their family has to fight like hell and they're still not getting certified for 100% coverage.
The administration has fought this illegal war on the cheap from the start. So she is right to sound the alarms because people are not getting the help they need currently and when the illegal war is finally and thankfully over, if something's not done very quickly, they're going to basically be dumped upon a system that's not functioning now and won't be able to offer them any form of treatment when they get back.
I do individual sessions and, on Thursdays, the group therapy. Many of the ones who get to a point where they're able to process better end up basically going out and helping others (the Thursday is a set schedule -- even when I was in Texas, I had the office open Thursday night so they could come in and I did phone in to check). Now that's great, what they're doing. But they should be doing that (what we used to call "rap sessions") as part of the reconnection process they would normally do, not in place of therapy that the government will not provide for them in most cases.
Right now, the system is overwhelmed and the government is very lucky that individuals are helping each other. But it's the government's job to help these people. The government made a promise to them. Now granted, it's the same administration that's lied us into an illegal war. But, setting that aside, they owe it to the ones returning to live up to their obligation. They aren't doing that. Refusing to fully certify isn't doing that. Letting people go without treatment isn't certifying. I won't share the horror stories I've heard (for four years now) due to respect for privacy (and the nature of how I learned of them) but I really think if you don't know these horror stories, even one, after four years of this illegal war, you haven't been paying attention.
Monica Benderman is very right to be worried and we're all lucky that she's wrote about this. I really think her article is one of the most important things you could read this week and I really regret that I had to take time away from discussing it to (again) address the realities of the toothless, non-binding Pelosi measure (one more time, the Senate's is even worse).
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, March 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq and since it involves a mass bombing the media wakes up a little, waking up does not include -- for most -- getting the Pelosi measure right, 2 nuns are killed in Iraq due to their gender and their religion but see who in the mainstream tackles it, and what's Michael Gordon selling this time -- war! war! war!
Starting with this from Iraq Veterans Against the War:
Last week, as the U.S. death toll in Iraq climbed over 3,242, Congress voted to continue the war by approving the $124 billion supplemental bill. This week, the Senate is expected to similarly approve funding for this war that continues to violently destroy U.S. and Iraqi lives every day. The Democratic leadership claims that, to end the war, they must continue funding it. Iraq Veterans Against the War knows that, despite the Democrats guarantees of time tables and restrictions, the supplemental will not end the occupation of Iraq or prevent further escalation of the war. It is time for our brothers and sisters in the military to come home and for the Iraqi people to be allowed their right to self-determination.
"To end the war, they must continue to fund it". Emphasized for those who will hear that and remember the 'logic' of "to save the village, we had to destroy the village." (That's the popular version of the quote. Following the slaughter of Ben Tre, the actual quote was: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.") So that's where it stands now, as Iraq Veterans Against the War points out, the solution of the US Congress is that "to end the war, they must continue to fund it."
Yesterday, on Flashpoints, Robert Knight devoted his entire Knight Report to the realities of the Pelosi measure: "Pelosi bragged that the measure was 'a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq.' But in reality, the bill fulfills neither claim. The measure grants President Bush the unimpeded prerogative of maintaining his current escalation in Iraq through October 2007 at which time he is merely requested to self-certify success in his self-defined benchmarks. Those benchmarks include provisions for the Iraqi occupation regime to reign in death squads and to enact the US designed and multi-national friendly oil law that is presently before Iraq's absentee occupation parliament. Regardless of Bush's automatic auto-certification, no actual troop withdrawals would be required before August 2008 during the height of the national party conventions at which time the Democrats would then blame the Republicans with a war whose continuation they would have guaranteed until the eve of November 2008 presidential election. But even when the August deadline matures, Bush would still be allowed to maintain more than half of the 150,00 troops in Iraq due to a term of art in the legislation that requests the redeployment but not the homecoming of some 70,000 so-called combat troops. This would leave an equal or greater number of US troops in Iraq under the vague but permanent classifications of counter-insurgency, security and training for what New York Senator Hillary Clinton calls 'remaining vital national security interests in the heart of the oil region'." To hear The Knight Report in full check Flashpoints and in the KPFA archives. (Those unable to listen can click here for a 'rush' and 'rushed' transcript.)
Also decrying the Pelosi measure is Joshua Frank (CounterPunch): "Having been one of the unfortunate geeks who actually read the bill, I can tell you only one thing -- it's a complete farce. In order for troops to come home the Bushies would have to confim whether or not 'progress' has been made in Iraq, not Congress. So with more money in hand and sole authority on deciding whether or not the war is going as planned, the White House, even if Bush signed the bill, would never have to end the thing. The proposal wasn't a compromise as many have claimed, but a dagger in the heart of all those of us who want to bring this war to a screeching halt."
Turning to news of war resistance, Ricky Clousing spoke March 17, 2007 at a rally in Fayetteville, "Hello, my name is Sgt. Ricky Clousing. I was stationed here in Fort Bragg
in the 82 Airborn division. I served with the 82nd in December of 2004 in Iraq as an interroagtor and after witnessing the abuse of power and the injustices that happened on a daily basis I decided I no longer could be a part of not only the 82nd airborn but also the organization of the military. So after deciding to go AWOL and serving a few months in jail, I'm here to say thank you guys because I received amazing support through my process and my journey. I'm not going to share my whole story because a lot of you might be familiar with it but I really want to just let you guys know how much it meant to me the support and letters and the organization for events like this and what not that you guys really blazed a trail for people like me for refusing to fight anymore and my brothers here that decided not to do it. So I just want to say that a lot of the times since I've gone and spoken at a different place that people, a lot of times, put things on a pedestal and different situations or people or places. And I think that it's important to express that we are all part of this bigger puzzle and this bigger of collective idea of peace and how to attain that Just be careful of putting people in those positions because it takes the responsibility that we all have to do our part -- and part of that is being here today and marching and walking and spreading the word on an individual level. So just remember that war isn't good for children and other living things. Thank you guys very, very much."
On August 11, 2006, Ricky Clousing went public with his story of how he checked himself out of the military following his service in Iraq -- making an announcement in Seattle at the
Veterans for Peace conference. October 12, 2006, Clousing was court-martialed. The sentence was three months, bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank. Clousing referred in the speech to the letters and support he received. Currently, US war resister Mark Wilkerson is is serving a sentence for self-checking out. From Courage to Resist: "Write to Mark while he is in the brig c/o his wife Sarah: Mark and Sarah Wilkerson, PO Box 25037, Colorado Springs CO 80936. Please consider a donation to Mark Wilkerson's legal defense fund.." On August 31st, Wilkerson spoke at Camp Casey III -- a press conference -- announcing his intent to turn himself in after having self-checked out a year and a half ago. That evening he was interviewed by Dennis Bernstein for KPFA's Flashpoints, where they discussed Wilkerson's service in Iraq and how his views changed from those he'd held at 17-years-old. He attempted to receive c.o. status but his was denied. He attempted to prepare for the rebuttal process but was informed he'd be redeploying to Iraq and any rebuttal would have to wait until his second deployment ended. When Bernstein asked him if he had any regrets about his decision to self-check out, Wilkerson responded, "I completely stand by my decision. For me, this was a time in my life when I decided I had to make a stand regardless of whether [it meant] prison or death". On February 22nd of this year, his court-martial began at Fort Hood in Texas. Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months in military prison and will receive a bad conduct discharge.
Clousing and Wilkerson are a part of movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Joshua Key, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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.
The editorial page editor of the San Jose Mercury News, Stephen E. Wright, wrote of the changes in his own life since his son shipped off to the illegal war this month, "But now we talk about the war, via my son, almost daily: How's he doing? Have you heard from him? Is he in Iraq yet? In a far more presonal way, we discuss the impact on families and friends, the political meaneuvering and the lack of progress in bringing stability to the country. What we don't talk about are the daily news stories about soldiers killed in action. Having a son on his way to Iraq hasn't changed my view of the war. We should not have invaded the country. If this were a righteous war, it would be more bearable to see him go. But now there's a knot in the pit of my stomach every time I think about where he's headed, what he might have to do and what might be done to him."
Taking a look at what happens to some who return, Tom Roeder and Cary Leider (Colorado Springs Gazette) report on the increase in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder among returning service members, "Nearly 600 Fort Carson soldiers were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder last year, up from 102 cases in 2003 when soldiers started returning from their first tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the fourth straight year with a significant increase in the number of soldiers being diagnosed with PTSD. With symptoms that range from hyperawareness, to angry outbursts, PTSD is an anxiety reaction to traumatic events, which Iraq brings by the truckload. It plauges up to 10 percent of soldiers returning from war. Now the military is discovering a new problem. Substantial numbers of troops are showing lingering signs of traumatic brain injuries suffered in Iraq, mainly concussions caused by roadside bombs."
Turning to Iraq, let's dispense with the nonsense right away. CNN speaks with Admiral William J. Fallon who's new to Iraq and new to the world of reality. Fallon puts forward the laughable belief that though Baghdad is chaos, outside things are just peachy keen and notes southern Iraq as a reference point. He may fool many US audiences that haven't received much reality about southern Iraq. For those who do not know better: YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. He also cites a region in the Kurdish north. Remember that when the elections for the boraders of that area get closer. Selcan Hacaoglu (AP) reports that Tariq al-Hashimi (Iraq's Sunni vice president) has "warned against a possible Turkish incursion into Iraq to fight separatist Kurdish guerrillas and promised to prevent cross-border attacks by the rebels." Though the domestic, US media prefers to ignore it, there's a battle raging over who will have claim to that area and the actual, physical make up of the area.
Bombings?
A bombing took place in Tal Afar resulting in mass casulties. Al Jazeera reports "bodies and wounded were brought to hospital after the two vehicle-borne bombings." Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that one vehicle was a a truck carrying flour and that the death toll was at least 55 with 130 injured. AFP reports a mortar attack in the Abu Chir section of Baghdad that killed "[t]wo children, a man and a woman" with 14 others left wounded. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing that killed a police officer and left two more wounded and a car bombing in Ramadi that claimed 17 lives and left 32 wounded. And Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) also reports a rocket attack: "This morning gunmen attacked the car of Sheikh Harith al Thari the son of the tribal leader Sheikh Thahir al Thari not far from his house. The attackers wanted to kidnap him, he and his companion resisted and killed some of the attackers. The attackers used an RPG rocket and destroyed the car. Later in the day the 1920 Revolution Brigades announced he was one of their field leaders. Sources from the area said he was a media man for the Brigades and his death comes after refusing to pledge loyalty to the Iraq Islamic State, Al Qaeda linked group."
Shootings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that US and Iraqi forces conducted a raid in Najaf and "shot at a driving by car and killed the driver and injured a pregnant woman, they were heading to the hospital" while, in Baghdad, Abbas Salah was shot dead.
AFP notes two people shot dead and seven more wounded in the Shorja section of Baghdad while two police officers and two civilians were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters notes three people shot dead in Ishaqi, a police lieutenant shot dead in Baghdad,
Stabbings?
Okay, the New York Times continues to want to push the myths of the huge return to Baghdad. To do that, they have to ignore the minorities that have been run out of the city (including Catholics and Jews). CBS and AP report that, in Kirkuk, two Chaldean Catholic nuns were stabbed to death ("no sign of a robbery" -- of course not, it was a crime against women and religious persecution) at the home of Margaret Naoum (the younger sister, 79-years-old). The older sister (85-years-old) was named Fawzeiyah Naoum. They stabbed older sister Fawzeiyah to death with three stabs, and they stabbed younger sister Margaret seven times.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 15 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today, 3 in Mosul, and 6 in Diwaniya.
Today the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West died March 24 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
In the US, US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has taken a strong stand against the illegal war. Recently, his wife Elizabeth Kucinich has begun posting to his presidential campaign website and noted this of the Pelosi measure that passed: "Dennis and I are in mourning. We mourn the deaths of those who have passed and those whose lives are now on the line, both in the military and civilian Iraqis. We mourn the destruction, the ecocide. We mourn with families in Iraq and the US who will see more death and devastation. We mourn the callous and calculated political spin cloaking the Congress's hawkish support of war with the rhetoric of peace."
Dennis Kucinich will appear on Wednesday's Democracy Now! -- and, hopefully, before then it can be explained to the program that the Pelosi measure does not, as was stated on today's show, "also establish a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by next year." Assuming that Bully Boy will go along with the toothless measure, only "combat troops" would be withdrawn (Robert Knight: "recalls the tactic by which earlier administrations once referred to US soldiers in Vietnam as advisers rather than troops.") This is too important to get it wrong and basic journalism provides no excuses. As Tom Engelhardts (TomDispatch) observed on the "troops" myth and "combat troops" reality, "The two categories are now so conveniently blurred that it would be pardonable if few Americans grasped the difference any more than did Charles Gibson, anchor of ABC's World News Tonight. On last Friday's news, he claimed the House had voted to get 'all US forces' out when his own White House correspondent used the correct phrase, 'combat forces'." How the House leadership wants to pimp the bill is not reality so Tell The Truth. That's what we'll call this item should it need to be be repeated in the snapshot: Tell The Truth & Know The Truth because, in fairness, some people may not know what the bill does say.
Then there are those who haven't earned the same benefit of the doubt. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) may not know what Paul Bremer does which would explain why she was all over the US orders to the puppet government to do away with the de-Baathifcation laws -- the same laws that didn't exist until the US administration's Paul Bremer decided to create it and enforce it. Tell The Truth, Rubin!
Finally, the Ultimate War Pornographer Michael Gordon took Scott Shane with him on an unsourced wet dream of further war, of expanding it to Iran.
iraq
ricky clousing
mark wilkerson
robert knightflashpointsdennis bernstein
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
michael r. gordon
Monday, March 26, 2007
Cindy Sheehan, Howard Zinn
To the left is 'Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Pelosi Buys the War".' I always love Isaiah's comics but this one especially sounded a note of truth. By the way, thank you to everyone who wrote a kind note about the post here Friday. Now I'm going to get started with this post and Kayla e-mailed the first highlight to C.I. for yesterday's "And the war drags on . . ." but she had a section she thought I might be interested in. I was. (Thank you to Kayla and C.I.)
"THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS HAS BETRAYED AMERICAN VOTERS, PROGRESSIVE SUPPORTERS, AND THE TROOPS IN IRAQ" (Cindy Sheehan, AfterDowningStreet.org):
AMERICANS WANT TROOP WITHDRAWAL: The Democratic leadership has disregarded national polls showing that 60% of all Americans and 80% of Democratic voters oppose the increase troop levels in Iraq. Grassroots progressive organizations overwhelmingly oppose the occupation of Iraq and the recent escalation. One group closely allied to the Democratic leadership, MoveOn, has used antiwar sentiment to triple both its membership and fundraising, but has been AWOL from antiwar activity; its members are prohibited from demonstrations, and only vigils for the war dead are posted as events on their website. A month ago I wrote that MoveOn began efforts to support "slow bleed" while antiwar forces actively opposed it. Recently MoveOn fabricated a biased push-poll in which "85%" of respondents supported "slow bleed"; however, the 96% of the MoveOn members who favor withdrawal, and who were not offered a vote on that option, refused to participate in a sham. Congressional sources report that the spurious MoveOn poll, together with intensive bullying and bribing, was used to erode the principled opposition of congressional progressives.
A reliable poll conducted by True Majority, another group with progressive membership, found that only 24% favored the "slow bleed" policy while 76% favored immediate or near-term withdrawal. A Zogby poll sponsored by CODEPINK found that 90% of progressives/liberals favored near-term withdrawal. 96% of progressives question the push-poll used by MoveOn that gave such contrary results. Antiwar groups that fought for withdrawal (United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, US Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com, Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, Veterans for Peace, the Green Party) are irate at the MoveOn duplicity.
MoveOn is now raising funds from antiwar supporters to attack Senate opposition to the supplemental., but the activist community is now aware that MoveOn is not the cathartic needed to address Democratic Party constipation. There is at least one Democratic senator, Russ Feingold, who could oppose the funding farce. MoveOn is an autocratic organization run by a small group of elitist wannabe power-brokers; it cannot be reformed, but you can let their politburo know your feelings eli@moveon.org, Namrita.Chaudhary@gmail.com , tom@moveon.org, and you can unsubscribe! You also can refuse to lend them your name (their petitions are mainly for fund-raising), your efforts, and your money, and instead join with one of the many active progressive and antiwar organizations (check out United for Peace and Justice- UFPJ for a detailed listing of local and national groups, which incidentally does not include MoveOn). None of the MoveOn leadership has served their country in the armed forces; like Dick Cheney and 95% of Congress they had more important things to do, which did not and do not include supporting the troops that are in harms way.
The "slow bleed" strategy favored by the Democratic leadership and MoveOn is an immoral political calculation that will cause more heartache and disaster in Iraq. That leadership should understand that being perceived as “weak on principle” is much worse politically than being "weak on defense". Democratic politicians need to vote their conscience on the supplemental. On November 7th we voted for an antiwar, anti-Bush policy; make that vote count for peace.
A reliable poll conducted by True Majority, another group with progressive membership, found that only 24% favored the "slow bleed" policy while 76% favored immediate or near-term withdrawal. A Zogby poll sponsored by CODEPINK found that 90% of progressives/liberals favored near-term withdrawal. 96% of progressives question the push-poll used by MoveOn that gave such contrary results. Antiwar groups that fought for withdrawal (United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, US Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com, Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, Veterans for Peace, the Green Party) are irate at the MoveOn duplicity.
MoveOn is now raising funds from antiwar supporters to attack Senate opposition to the supplemental., but the activist community is now aware that MoveOn is not the cathartic needed to address Democratic Party constipation. There is at least one Democratic senator, Russ Feingold, who could oppose the funding farce. MoveOn is an autocratic organization run by a small group of elitist wannabe power-brokers; it cannot be reformed, but you can let their politburo know your feelings eli@moveon.org, Namrita.Chaudhary@gmail.com , tom@moveon.org, and you can unsubscribe! You also can refuse to lend them your name (their petitions are mainly for fund-raising), your efforts, and your money, and instead join with one of the many active progressive and antiwar organizations (check out United for Peace and Justice- UFPJ for a detailed listing of local and national groups, which incidentally does not include MoveOn). None of the MoveOn leadership has served their country in the armed forces; like Dick Cheney and 95% of Congress they had more important things to do, which did not and do not include supporting the troops that are in harms way.
The "slow bleed" strategy favored by the Democratic leadership and MoveOn is an immoral political calculation that will cause more heartache and disaster in Iraq. That leadership should understand that being perceived as “weak on principle” is much worse politically than being "weak on defense". Democratic politicians need to vote their conscience on the supplemental. On November 7th we voted for an antiwar, anti-Bush policy; make that vote count for peace.
Cindy Sheehan did call it out in February. That points she made then go to what happened with the poll and it's real cute how Wee Boy Eli and "Sad Sirota" want to forgot it. By the way, Brenda, I saw your e-mail. Sunny printed it up. When I got home this evening, I called C.I. to ask, "Who is this jerk?" C.I. informed me we have a photo of the jerk, from 2004. It was a Democratic function. C.I. directed me to the picture (we had many photos of the event) and said, "That's him." I said, "Is he a professional caddy?" C.I., "No, that's just what he thinks passes for grown up dress at an event." So Brenda, he's an ass. That was obvious from his post. It was only more obvious from the comment he left on his post that you copied and pasted where he goes to town on Dennis Kucinich like a screeching banshee. I can also tell you, he's a really bad dresser with no real taste. Which C.I. pointed out when I asked, "Did we speak to him?" "I think," C.I. said, "Rebecca mistakenly gave him our drink order. Either that or she thought he was homeless and slipped him a few twenties."
I share that because Brenda's furious and I was as well when I read that nonsense. C.I. had me laughing so hard and, hopefully, Brenda's laughing too as she reads this. (Brenda, I intend to e-mail you my transcription of C.I.'s commentary on the jerk's juvenile hair style. Also, if you're interested, I'll scan the one photo that he's pictured in the background of -- far, far, far in the background. Face pressed against the glass, desperate to be a player but just invited to cover, not invited as one of the guests.)
That really wasn't off topic if you've seen what Brenda did. There's a nice little group of New Cokies (they go over about as well as New Cokes) who exist to tell the people, apparently silly minded fools, what must be done and to order everyone to march in single step with the cowards leading the Democratic Party. I don't think the Cokies have been this upset since the Congress was talking about cracking down on their fundraising efforts. For the record, that should be cracked down on. If you support a candidate, donate directly. Don't let some little Pajama Blogger with his (and it's almost always a man) face pressed to the glass get credit for your donations.
MoveOn's a joke. I can remember when they pushed censure, C.I. called me and asked me about it and I didn't know the group. Friends in the White House (Clinton) were furious and were taking it seriously. They saw it as a stab in the back, which is what it was -- the people were against impeachment and there was no reason for a 'left' group to come along and fan the fire with, "Don't impeach, just censure." Whether you care for Bill Clinton, then or now, if you were among the majority who felt the impeachment nonsense was (a) a witch hunt and (b) defocusing from things that mattered, you should look back at what MoveOn is so proud of because it's nothing to be proud of. They were helping the right then by throwing in the towel and ignoring the wishes of the people. Sound familiar? That's why C.I. included that in last week's snapshot, the history of the group.
I'm glad Cindy Sheehan did write about it. On Friday, I wasn't saying, "Damn you, Cindy, write about it!" She does more than enough and there's no reason she should have addressed it (you'll note that most of your 'independent' journalists didn't address it). But her opinion does carry weight and this was a moment that I feel was very illustrative of the groups (and people) that harm the peace movement.
"Sad Sirota" is only one of them. But please read that piece on David Sirota if you didn't already on Sunday. Someone who praises tricking voters (while not admitting that he was working on that 2004 campaign) is someone who will trick anyone. He'll trick you, he'll trick me. He has honesty inside him. The ends justify the means for him. I'm sorry when someone brags about how voters were tricked (even when not admitting that he was part of the campaign), they've just said to me that they have no respect for anyone but themselves and their candidates (and respect for themselves may be in question as well). It's like someone bragging to you about cheating. Would you ever trust that guy? Would you ever get involved with him? Maybe if you thought you were so special, so amazing, that you could change him. But most with common sense would realize that someone who brags about cheating on a partner is someone who would cheat on them as well. That's how it is with the voters, if he brags about tricking Republicans and independents, he'd trick everyone else as well (left, center, center-left).
"Are We Politicians or Citizens?" (Howard Zinn, The Progressive):
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration's "surge" of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, "like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war."
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.
I didn't expect Howard Zinn to weigh in. In fact, on Friday, I had the idea (that's what I mentioned I was saving for Third on Sunday) of comparing the Pelosi measure to the suffragette movement. C.I. and I were talking about that and I suggested we should compare it to the the mass protests women took part in, the arrests, the hunger strikes, all of that and then for Congress to say, "Oh, we're not giving you the vote now but maybe in almost two years, you can have it. We'll give the president the right to decide nearly two years from now if you deserve the vote." Would the suffragettes have gone along with that? I seriously doubt it.
Saturday morning, C.I. called me and read Zinn to me. I had to laugh. I wasn't mad. He says it better than I could have and he's the one I learned to think like that from. So it's no surprise that he would have a similar idea and be able to execute it far better than I could. I really enjoyed his piece and have never been so tempted to post something in full; however, I'll follow fair use guidelines and just offer the above.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, March 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, KPFK Lila Garrett (Connect the Dots) and, on WBAI's Law and Disorder, guest Anthony Arnove note that the Pelosi measure that pass Friday is full of holes (on KPFA the myth that all US troops will be brought home continues to be broadcast -- again, Charlie Gibon's not the only one who needs someone to do on air corrections for his 'news' delivered), Zalmay gets a good-bye farewell from the Iraqi resistance, and, for news on Iran, stick with Patrick Cockburn.
On KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett today, Garrett spoke with US House Reps Barbara Lee and Dennis Kuckinich -- both of whom voted against the Pelosi measure and Dennis Kucinich is also running to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008.
Garrett: What is good in this bill?
Lee: Just having the House of Representatives establishing a timeline is good. Whether you agree or disagree with the timeline, whether it's enforceable is another question.. . .
Garrett: Barbara Lee, we want to know what's enforceable? Is the banning of permanent bases enforceable? Is the banning of torture enforceable?
Lee: It's enforceable if the Bush administration wants to follow the law. But, remember now, he's going to veto this bill and, remember, the only enforceability that you can require on a supplemental bill is taking him to court -- Congress can take the Bush administration to court. But how many times have you seen the Congress take the administration to court?
Lee went on to note the things in the bill such as its attempt to address avian flu and other non-bird related and, certainly, non-Iraq related issues.
Garrett: You have a lot of good things here but my question is how much of it is enforceable and what you're telling us is that really, basically, none of it is enforceable because he has the option should he decide that the circumstances warrant it not to follow this bill, isn't that true?
Lee: Yeah, that's the waiver positon but also remember he's going to veto it . . .
For those who missed it, the answer to Lila Garrett's question, which she asked more than once, is that the Pelosi measure cannot be enforced -- or as Garrett noted near the end of the interview, "The bill forces him to do nothing." (Contractors and a number of other issues -- including Iran were discussed. Jeremy Scahill also was on the program to discuss his book on the mercenary company BlackWater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army which is a BuzzFlash premium -- those unable to listen to Garrett's interview can also check out BuzzFlash for their interview with Scahill.) Garrett then spoke with Kucinich in an interview taped right after Friday's vote.
Kucinich: I voted against it and I voted against it because it will continue to fund the war through the end of the president's term. That President Bush is talking about vetoing it is no small comfort. The Democrats essentially bought the war and now President Bush is saying even that isn't enough.
Garrett: The bill has contained with in it, some people will argue, and some of the Democrats argued, some very positive things. The president wanted 93 billion dollars to continue the war and he got it, but there were 25 billion dollars worth of things, some of which were very worthwhile, 1.7 billion for the health care for the veterans, there was money for child and spousal abuse, there was money for contractor control, there was money that banned permanent bases, banned torture, that provided troop readyness. What's your response to the so-called positives in this bill?
Kucinich: Are you kidding? The war's going to keep going through the end of President Bush's term. No amount of attempt to sweeten this is going to make it anything but a mess. We need to get out of Iraq, the Democrats have the power to do it. Why they chose not to excercise it today is beyond me but I will tell you this that the American people are going to have a rising demand for peace, they're fed up with this war, they're fed up with the Democratic party not standing up for the people, And frankly the idea that somehow we can end the war somehow we can end this war if we just give it a little more time? Baloney. You end the war by ending a war you don't end the war by letting it go for another year or two. And it's the same kind of thinking that got us into Iraq -- says, "Well, you know, we don't have any other alternative to go and attack Iraq and now we're saying we don't have any other alternative but to keep the war going for a year or two until we figure out what to do with it. We got to stop this war and I voted against it.
Kucinich and Garrett then discussed the reality of Iraq today ("bombed their country to smitheerens") and the nonsense behind the attitude that demandes "benchmarks" from an occupied, puppet government. Kucinich then spoke of "making the administration accountable for their actions." Kucinich propsed a national discussion on impeachment. To be clear for those who didn't hear or won't be able to listen, he's proposing a discussion of the topic -- he's not (or not yet) proposing introducing a bill in the House. On why he's now bringing up this issue, Kucinich stated, "I didn't talk about it as long as there was a chance that we could stop this war but with Congress determined to give the president the money he wants to keep the war going, it appears that the war is going to just keep going no matter what and so I think, at this point, we need to get back to how we got into war. We got into war because President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied to the American people. You know what? There's got to be consquences for that. And I think it's time for us to have a discussion so I'd like to hear from your listeners, I'd like to hear from others as to whether or not this is the time to start talking about impeachement and the time to start drawing up resolutions of impeachment.
Garrett brought up a conversation she had with US Senator Ted Kennedy about impeachment where he asked her if she would like President Dick Cheney and Kucinich responded, "When you talk about resolutions you need to use the plural 'resolutions'." To repeat, Kucinich is proposing a dialogue on this issue and, from that, other steps would or would not be taken.
On WBAI's Law and Disorder today, Michael Ratner noted that Anthony Arnove's latest book was IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal and asked him about the Congressional measure and what's been proposed by US Senators and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
Anthony Arnove: In terms of the proposal that's now in Congress about withdrawal it has about 8 million loopsholes. First of all it refers to combat troops even those combat troops that it talks about setting a timetable for removing from Iraq -- that timetables is based on conditions so in other words at any point along the line they can say "well the conditions require us to continue as an occupying force". Then, of course, it's not calling for a complete withdrawal of troops. It's not talking about the mercenaries that the US is sponsoring in Iraq.
Ratner: Which are probably almost the equivalent of the US soldiers, right? It's over 100,000.
Arnove: Well there are more than 100,000 private contractors. We don't know if all of those are involved as actual mercenaries but certainly the second largest contigent of military force in Iraq is private contractors, not England -- which is what you hear about in the media. But also the plans say nothing about removing US military bases. They don't address the fact that today the US is building the largest embassy it has in the world in Baghdad.
Ratner: It's 300,000 square feet, right?
Arnove: It's just this enormous compound. And it's very clear that they're going to stay that they want to establish military bases, that they want to establish a client regime in Iraq, they want to continue a presence in Iraq and they want to be able to not only control events in Iraq and, of course, control the oil in Iraq. but They want to be able to use Iraq as a staging ground to protect their power in the region particularly vis a vi Iran but also Syria and other countries.
Ranter and Arnove then discussed Antonia Juhasz' op-ed that ran in the New York Times regarding the oil privatization and how the issue was about the control -- who will get it, who won't, a weapon against other countries whose oil needs are growing such as China. Michael Ratner is one of the co-hosts of Law and Disorder (Daliah Hashad, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian are also co-hosts) and that's the segment I heard but the firend who phoned (and held up the phone so I could hear) also wanted me to note that today's program features, in music between segments, a very strong acoustic performance of "People Have The Power" by Patti Smith.
I believe everything we dream
Can come to pass through our union
We can turn the world around
We can turn the earth's revolution
We have the power
People have the power . . .
"People Have The Power," written by Patti Smith, originally on her Dream of Life
Which also acts as segue to Howard Zinn who wrote (in The Progressive): "As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration's 'surge' of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them. That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal saying that progressives in Congress, 'like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.' Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this iwth an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall meekly behind them."
Also weighing in is Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan (via AfterDowningStreet.org) -- against the weak measure and against MoveOn while noting, "In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House. The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008. The prolongation of the occupation is now opposed by two-thirds of all Americans; we want our troops safely home by this Christmas, not politically chicanery. As a consequence Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll. The Democrats failue to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections."
Military Families Speak Out's Stacy Bannerman offers her takes at AfterDowningStreet.org,
"Busy week here on the Hill, and I'm sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty -- the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at Military Families Speak Out) Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform "patrolling and occupying" the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available at http://digitalgrace.livejournal.com/ ). After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi's office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war."
Another source for the conversation that media -- big and small -- largely seems determined to avoid is CounterPunch where World Can't Wait's Sunsara Taylor (CounterPunch) observes, "Anyway you slice it, yesterday's vote is no 'victory' for the people of this country, of Iraq, or of the world, all of whom overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war and are aching for it to be stopped. Instead it means that after four years of war crimes, massacres, rapes, torture and what can only be called a colonial occupation that has cost more than half a million deaths and led to the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world, the Iraqi people must now brace themselves for more!" John V. Walsh (CounterPunch) speaks for many when he writes, "And so it was basically a bill to make the Democrats look good without terminating the war." In his interview with Lila Garrett, Dennis Kucinich speaks of how Congress is using the same excuses and offering the same rationalizations for voting in favor of the Pelosi measure that they did in supporting the bill which Bully Boy used to go to war on Iraq. Equally true is that the same 'logic' defending the current support was heard over and over (from the same party flacks and hacks) following the 2002 vote.
Turning to news of war resistance, Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq in June of 2006 and, in February 2007, the first to be court-martialed. That court-martial ended when Judge Toilet (Lt. Col. Head) ruled it a mistrial. In making that ruling (over the objection of the defense, legal experts have argued, double jeopardy was immediately attached which would mean Watada cannot be court-martialed again for the same charges. ThankYouLt.Watada has prepared a "Mistrial Synopsis" to walk people through the events and singles out the stipulation (the agreement that Watada wouldn't dispute reported accounts which meant there was no need to call journalists as witnesses) which was signed a week prior (an agreement between the prosecution and the defense) and those reviewing and signing off were "the Prosecution, the Staff Judge Advocate (the legal advisor to Lt. Gen Dubik), Lt. Gen Dubik, the Defense, Judge Head and Lt. Watada. All parties should have known what they were signing. In addition: "Judge Head had already questioned Lt. Watada throughoutly about his understand of the Stipulation of Facts, when the court martial opened and before the Panel was sworn in." This was the agreement that, on day three of the court-martial, Judge Toilet was suddenly 'concerned' about and ended up throwing the case out over. Currently, despite double jeopardy, the US military has scheduled the pretrial for May 20th through 21st with the court-martial to begin July 16th.
Ehren Watada is a part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Joshua Key, Agustin Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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.
Meanwhile, Ian Herbert (Independent of London) reports today that: "Thousands of British soldiers have gone absent without leave since 2003 because the Army is unwilling to accept the gravity of mental problems caused by their tours in Iraq. The Ministry of Defence estimates there have been 10,000 Awol incidents since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 1,100 servicemen are currently 'on the run' from the Army." This follows Paul von Zeilbauer's (New York Times) report last Friday on revealing that the US army was undercounting their figures and that the "new figures also show a faster acceleration in the rate of desertions over the previous two fiscal years than the Army had disclosed. In 2006, for instance, desertions rose by 27 percent, not 17 percent, as the Army previously said, and Army spokesman said."
Meanwhile Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale continues to receive praise. In the book, Key explains what he saw while serving in Iraq, how it transformed him, and how that led to him to self-check out and move to Canada with his wife (Brandi Key) and his children. John Freeman (Louisville Courier-Journal) reviews the book and concludes "as a chronicle of the experiences that led one soldier to this irrevocable step, Key's is a grim and necessary book."
In Iraq today?
In No-It-isn't-An-Acid-Flashback news, Reuters reports that "hours after outgoing U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters that he was cautiously optomistic about the future in Iraq" "[a] rocket lnaded in Baghdad's heavily fortified international Green Zone . . . rocking the U.S. embassy". If it seems strangely familiar, last Thursday United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon had just declared "improvement in the situation on the ground" when he was suddenly very close to the ground as he crouched, "flinched" and "ducked" in the face of a mortar attack.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left 1 person dead and wounded three ("from the same family"), a downtown Baghdad car bombing that killed 2 people and left 4 wounded, a Baghdad rocket attack that wounded 4 ("from one family"), a south west Baghdad bombing that injured two people, and a west Baghdad bombing that killed 1 person; a Tikrit bombing that killed a police officer (3 wounded), a bombing in Baquba that injured a family (five members) and "The spokesman of Basra police said that 4 mortar shells fell on the British consulate downtown Basra city without referring to any casualties." Reuters reports two people died in Iskandariya from a mortar attack. CNN notes it was "at least two" (five were wounded) and also "Insurgents detonated exposives . . . beneath a crude oil pipeline near Baiji in northern Iraq, a police official said. The attack ignited a massive oil fire that burned for several hours. No one was injured, police said."
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police commando was shot dead and two more were wounded in Baghdad, a person was shot dead in north Baquba,
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses were discovered in the capital today, 2 corpses in Tirkit,
In terms of Iran, Patrick Cockburn (CounterPunch) reports the events on Friday: "The Iranians pick up 15 British servicemen searching ships in the Shatt al Arab. The cold war between Iran and the US, with Britain trotting along behind, is getting colder. The confrontation with Iran is very much Bush's doing and once again Blair has given him a blank check with no sign that he gets any influence over Washington's policies in return."; and on Saturday: "The 15 British servicemen have been taken to Tehran. It was foolish to have them searching vessels in disputed waters off the Shatt al-Arab as friction with Iran increased this year." The 15 are apparently being questioned by mainstream reports. Considering some of the details to 'emerge' this weekend, we'll be very careful about who we cited on this story. We'll miss out on beyond belief stories of eye witnessing, unnamed fishermen who suddenly emerge (such as this past weekend) but we can all do without that nonsense.
Finally, today Edward Wong (New York Times) verifies Tom Hayden's reporting from November about the government's secret talks with Iraqi resistance.
iraq
ehren watada
joshua key
law and disorder
anthony arnove
wbai
connect the dots with lila garrett
kpfk
howard zinn
cindy sheehan
antonia juhasz
the new york timespaul von zielbauer
edward wongtom hayden
Monday, March 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, KPFK Lila Garrett (Connect the Dots) and, on WBAI's Law and Disorder, guest Anthony Arnove note that the Pelosi measure that pass Friday is full of holes (on KPFA the myth that all US troops will be brought home continues to be broadcast -- again, Charlie Gibon's not the only one who needs someone to do on air corrections for his 'news' delivered), Zalmay gets a good-bye farewell from the Iraqi resistance, and, for news on Iran, stick with Patrick Cockburn.
On KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett today, Garrett spoke with US House Reps Barbara Lee and Dennis Kuckinich -- both of whom voted against the Pelosi measure and Dennis Kucinich is also running to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008.
Garrett: What is good in this bill?
Lee: Just having the House of Representatives establishing a timeline is good. Whether you agree or disagree with the timeline, whether it's enforceable is another question.. . .
Garrett: Barbara Lee, we want to know what's enforceable? Is the banning of permanent bases enforceable? Is the banning of torture enforceable?
Lee: It's enforceable if the Bush administration wants to follow the law. But, remember now, he's going to veto this bill and, remember, the only enforceability that you can require on a supplemental bill is taking him to court -- Congress can take the Bush administration to court. But how many times have you seen the Congress take the administration to court?
Lee went on to note the things in the bill such as its attempt to address avian flu and other non-bird related and, certainly, non-Iraq related issues.
Garrett: You have a lot of good things here but my question is how much of it is enforceable and what you're telling us is that really, basically, none of it is enforceable because he has the option should he decide that the circumstances warrant it not to follow this bill, isn't that true?
Lee: Yeah, that's the waiver positon but also remember he's going to veto it . . .
For those who missed it, the answer to Lila Garrett's question, which she asked more than once, is that the Pelosi measure cannot be enforced -- or as Garrett noted near the end of the interview, "The bill forces him to do nothing." (Contractors and a number of other issues -- including Iran were discussed. Jeremy Scahill also was on the program to discuss his book on the mercenary company BlackWater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army which is a BuzzFlash premium -- those unable to listen to Garrett's interview can also check out BuzzFlash for their interview with Scahill.) Garrett then spoke with Kucinich in an interview taped right after Friday's vote.
Kucinich: I voted against it and I voted against it because it will continue to fund the war through the end of the president's term. That President Bush is talking about vetoing it is no small comfort. The Democrats essentially bought the war and now President Bush is saying even that isn't enough.
Garrett: The bill has contained with in it, some people will argue, and some of the Democrats argued, some very positive things. The president wanted 93 billion dollars to continue the war and he got it, but there were 25 billion dollars worth of things, some of which were very worthwhile, 1.7 billion for the health care for the veterans, there was money for child and spousal abuse, there was money for contractor control, there was money that banned permanent bases, banned torture, that provided troop readyness. What's your response to the so-called positives in this bill?
Kucinich: Are you kidding? The war's going to keep going through the end of President Bush's term. No amount of attempt to sweeten this is going to make it anything but a mess. We need to get out of Iraq, the Democrats have the power to do it. Why they chose not to excercise it today is beyond me but I will tell you this that the American people are going to have a rising demand for peace, they're fed up with this war, they're fed up with the Democratic party not standing up for the people, And frankly the idea that somehow we can end the war somehow we can end this war if we just give it a little more time? Baloney. You end the war by ending a war you don't end the war by letting it go for another year or two. And it's the same kind of thinking that got us into Iraq -- says, "Well, you know, we don't have any other alternative to go and attack Iraq and now we're saying we don't have any other alternative but to keep the war going for a year or two until we figure out what to do with it. We got to stop this war and I voted against it.
Kucinich and Garrett then discussed the reality of Iraq today ("bombed their country to smitheerens") and the nonsense behind the attitude that demandes "benchmarks" from an occupied, puppet government. Kucinich then spoke of "making the administration accountable for their actions." Kucinich propsed a national discussion on impeachment. To be clear for those who didn't hear or won't be able to listen, he's proposing a discussion of the topic -- he's not (or not yet) proposing introducing a bill in the House. On why he's now bringing up this issue, Kucinich stated, "I didn't talk about it as long as there was a chance that we could stop this war but with Congress determined to give the president the money he wants to keep the war going, it appears that the war is going to just keep going no matter what and so I think, at this point, we need to get back to how we got into war. We got into war because President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied to the American people. You know what? There's got to be consquences for that. And I think it's time for us to have a discussion so I'd like to hear from your listeners, I'd like to hear from others as to whether or not this is the time to start talking about impeachement and the time to start drawing up resolutions of impeachment.
Garrett brought up a conversation she had with US Senator Ted Kennedy about impeachment where he asked her if she would like President Dick Cheney and Kucinich responded, "When you talk about resolutions you need to use the plural 'resolutions'." To repeat, Kucinich is proposing a dialogue on this issue and, from that, other steps would or would not be taken.
On WBAI's Law and Disorder today, Michael Ratner noted that Anthony Arnove's latest book was IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal and asked him about the Congressional measure and what's been proposed by US Senators and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
Anthony Arnove: In terms of the proposal that's now in Congress about withdrawal it has about 8 million loopsholes. First of all it refers to combat troops even those combat troops that it talks about setting a timetable for removing from Iraq -- that timetables is based on conditions so in other words at any point along the line they can say "well the conditions require us to continue as an occupying force". Then, of course, it's not calling for a complete withdrawal of troops. It's not talking about the mercenaries that the US is sponsoring in Iraq.
Ratner: Which are probably almost the equivalent of the US soldiers, right? It's over 100,000.
Arnove: Well there are more than 100,000 private contractors. We don't know if all of those are involved as actual mercenaries but certainly the second largest contigent of military force in Iraq is private contractors, not England -- which is what you hear about in the media. But also the plans say nothing about removing US military bases. They don't address the fact that today the US is building the largest embassy it has in the world in Baghdad.
Ratner: It's 300,000 square feet, right?
Arnove: It's just this enormous compound. And it's very clear that they're going to stay that they want to establish military bases, that they want to establish a client regime in Iraq, they want to continue a presence in Iraq and they want to be able to not only control events in Iraq and, of course, control the oil in Iraq. but They want to be able to use Iraq as a staging ground to protect their power in the region particularly vis a vi Iran but also Syria and other countries.
Ranter and Arnove then discussed Antonia Juhasz' op-ed that ran in the New York Times regarding the oil privatization and how the issue was about the control -- who will get it, who won't, a weapon against other countries whose oil needs are growing such as China. Michael Ratner is one of the co-hosts of Law and Disorder (Daliah Hashad, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian are also co-hosts) and that's the segment I heard but the firend who phoned (and held up the phone so I could hear) also wanted me to note that today's program features, in music between segments, a very strong acoustic performance of "People Have The Power" by Patti Smith.
I believe everything we dream
Can come to pass through our union
We can turn the world around
We can turn the earth's revolution
We have the power
People have the power . . .
"People Have The Power," written by Patti Smith, originally on her Dream of Life
Which also acts as segue to Howard Zinn who wrote (in The Progressive): "As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration's 'surge' of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them. That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal saying that progressives in Congress, 'like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.' Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this iwth an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall meekly behind them."
Also weighing in is Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan (via AfterDowningStreet.org) -- against the weak measure and against MoveOn while noting, "In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House. The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008. The prolongation of the occupation is now opposed by two-thirds of all Americans; we want our troops safely home by this Christmas, not politically chicanery. As a consequence Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll. The Democrats failue to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections."
Military Families Speak Out's Stacy Bannerman offers her takes at AfterDowningStreet.org,
"Busy week here on the Hill, and I'm sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty -- the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at Military Families Speak Out) Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform "patrolling and occupying" the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available at http://digitalgrace.livejournal.com/ ). After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi's office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war."
Another source for the conversation that media -- big and small -- largely seems determined to avoid is CounterPunch where World Can't Wait's Sunsara Taylor (CounterPunch) observes, "Anyway you slice it, yesterday's vote is no 'victory' for the people of this country, of Iraq, or of the world, all of whom overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war and are aching for it to be stopped. Instead it means that after four years of war crimes, massacres, rapes, torture and what can only be called a colonial occupation that has cost more than half a million deaths and led to the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world, the Iraqi people must now brace themselves for more!" John V. Walsh (CounterPunch) speaks for many when he writes, "And so it was basically a bill to make the Democrats look good without terminating the war." In his interview with Lila Garrett, Dennis Kucinich speaks of how Congress is using the same excuses and offering the same rationalizations for voting in favor of the Pelosi measure that they did in supporting the bill which Bully Boy used to go to war on Iraq. Equally true is that the same 'logic' defending the current support was heard over and over (from the same party flacks and hacks) following the 2002 vote.
Turning to news of war resistance, Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq in June of 2006 and, in February 2007, the first to be court-martialed. That court-martial ended when Judge Toilet (Lt. Col. Head) ruled it a mistrial. In making that ruling (over the objection of the defense, legal experts have argued, double jeopardy was immediately attached which would mean Watada cannot be court-martialed again for the same charges. ThankYouLt.Watada has prepared a "Mistrial Synopsis" to walk people through the events and singles out the stipulation (the agreement that Watada wouldn't dispute reported accounts which meant there was no need to call journalists as witnesses) which was signed a week prior (an agreement between the prosecution and the defense) and those reviewing and signing off were "the Prosecution, the Staff Judge Advocate (the legal advisor to Lt. Gen Dubik), Lt. Gen Dubik, the Defense, Judge Head and Lt. Watada. All parties should have known what they were signing. In addition: "Judge Head had already questioned Lt. Watada throughoutly about his understand of the Stipulation of Facts, when the court martial opened and before the Panel was sworn in." This was the agreement that, on day three of the court-martial, Judge Toilet was suddenly 'concerned' about and ended up throwing the case out over. Currently, despite double jeopardy, the US military has scheduled the pretrial for May 20th through 21st with the court-martial to begin July 16th.
Ehren Watada is a part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Joshua Key, Agustin Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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.
Meanwhile, Ian Herbert (Independent of London) reports today that: "Thousands of British soldiers have gone absent without leave since 2003 because the Army is unwilling to accept the gravity of mental problems caused by their tours in Iraq. The Ministry of Defence estimates there have been 10,000 Awol incidents since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 1,100 servicemen are currently 'on the run' from the Army." This follows Paul von Zeilbauer's (New York Times) report last Friday on revealing that the US army was undercounting their figures and that the "new figures also show a faster acceleration in the rate of desertions over the previous two fiscal years than the Army had disclosed. In 2006, for instance, desertions rose by 27 percent, not 17 percent, as the Army previously said, and Army spokesman said."
Meanwhile Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale continues to receive praise. In the book, Key explains what he saw while serving in Iraq, how it transformed him, and how that led to him to self-check out and move to Canada with his wife (Brandi Key) and his children. John Freeman (Louisville Courier-Journal) reviews the book and concludes "as a chronicle of the experiences that led one soldier to this irrevocable step, Key's is a grim and necessary book."
In Iraq today?
In No-It-isn't-An-Acid-Flashback news, Reuters reports that "hours after outgoing U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters that he was cautiously optomistic about the future in Iraq" "[a] rocket lnaded in Baghdad's heavily fortified international Green Zone . . . rocking the U.S. embassy". If it seems strangely familiar, last Thursday United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon had just declared "improvement in the situation on the ground" when he was suddenly very close to the ground as he crouched, "flinched" and "ducked" in the face of a mortar attack.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left 1 person dead and wounded three ("from the same family"), a downtown Baghdad car bombing that killed 2 people and left 4 wounded, a Baghdad rocket attack that wounded 4 ("from one family"), a south west Baghdad bombing that injured two people, and a west Baghdad bombing that killed 1 person; a Tikrit bombing that killed a police officer (3 wounded), a bombing in Baquba that injured a family (five members) and "The spokesman of Basra police said that 4 mortar shells fell on the British consulate downtown Basra city without referring to any casualties." Reuters reports two people died in Iskandariya from a mortar attack. CNN notes it was "at least two" (five were wounded) and also "Insurgents detonated exposives . . . beneath a crude oil pipeline near Baiji in northern Iraq, a police official said. The attack ignited a massive oil fire that burned for several hours. No one was injured, police said."
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police commando was shot dead and two more were wounded in Baghdad, a person was shot dead in north Baquba,
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses were discovered in the capital today, 2 corpses in Tirkit,
In terms of Iran, Patrick Cockburn (CounterPunch) reports the events on Friday: "The Iranians pick up 15 British servicemen searching ships in the Shatt al Arab. The cold war between Iran and the US, with Britain trotting along behind, is getting colder. The confrontation with Iran is very much Bush's doing and once again Blair has given him a blank check with no sign that he gets any influence over Washington's policies in return."; and on Saturday: "The 15 British servicemen have been taken to Tehran. It was foolish to have them searching vessels in disputed waters off the Shatt al-Arab as friction with Iran increased this year." The 15 are apparently being questioned by mainstream reports. Considering some of the details to 'emerge' this weekend, we'll be very careful about who we cited on this story. We'll miss out on beyond belief stories of eye witnessing, unnamed fishermen who suddenly emerge (such as this past weekend) but we can all do without that nonsense.
Finally, today Edward Wong (New York Times) verifies Tom Hayden's reporting from November about the government's secret talks with Iraqi resistance.
iraq
ehren watada
joshua key
law and disorder
anthony arnove
wbai
connect the dots with lila garrett
kpfk
howard zinn
cindy sheehan
antonia juhasz
the new york timespaul von zielbauer
edward wongtom hayden
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)