Cindy Sheehan, Patrick Cockburn, Naomi Klein

There are about four hundred and one things to note and I'll be lucky to note three. I'll try to pick up what I can't tonight, tomorrow. That's partly because we're going to try to do a book discussion for next Sunday on Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. We were going to do it the Sunday after the book was released but C.I.'s friend at the publishing company that put out Klein's book called Saturday asking if we were discussing it for the next day? No, we hadn't planned to break "street date." C.I. was told anything that builds interest, go ahead and break street date. I finished the book quickly, it was probably two sittings and, if I'd had the time, I could have read it straight through. I'm looking in the 300s to find something that stood out. I believe it was the section on the Asian Tigers and how they are responsible for the huge debt crisis in Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. But I can't find the section that stood out by skimming through what I read. I should have marked my copy as I was reading along. Anyway, I am attempting to go in prepared for this book discussion.

That actually answers one of the questions in the e-mails. By the way, Sunny's not responding to anyone but community members unless she's written you before (or I have). That's pretty much community policy now. We're sick of leaks and sick of trusting people. It's not very fair, to ask or beg and then, when you get a reply, stab, for instance, Jess in the back by passing his e-mail onto The Nation. There was nothing embarrassing in the e-mail for Jess (or anyone) but just the idea that you'd come off like a friend and stab in the back, especially when you're a "biggie," and the fact that you have repeatedly refused to apologize (mainly because you didn't think anyone would ever know -- stupid idiot didn't realize how tight C.I. is with The Nation and that it would get back to C.I.) means we're pretty much shutting it down on everyone. That's just the way it is.

"Mailbag" is the focus of the e-mails. Some wonder why (and C.I.) didn't speak that much. As a general rule, I'm not going to dominate any conversation. I will contribute my part and if, for instance, we're talking about C.I., Rebecca and I hanging out, I'll toss that out. But I'm more interested in what someone else has to say than what I have to say. C.I.'s similar. But it's also true that C.I.'s aware that there's a 'scale' within the community. In terms of sites, C.I. really is the founder. Off-sites, you can toss in some longterm members (Keesha, Jim, Dona, Susan, etc.). But when we do something where it's a discussion or round-table, C.I.'s only grab something if no one else can or if something needs to be said that didn't get said.

C.I. spoke once in "Mailbag" and, no, it wasn't due to being mad or due to being busy. C.I. was a part of the entire thing (and did strike one other period of speaking -- C.I. pulled that).

Thank you to Sunny for compiling a list for me of the questions. I'm working from that and now I'm up to my portion of that discussion. I grabbed that because it was something that either C.I. or I, and only us, could have spoken to. C.I. had just spoken prior and, had we been face to face, would've nodded to me. (I was at Mike's and Mike, Rebecca and I participated over the phone).

If you don't think the child of a war resister from the Vietnam era should be outed, then take comfort in the fact that neither I or C.I. have yet. We, however, may do so. We're tired of the silence on the subject. We're especially bothered by the children who have grown up to be war cheerleaders. We worked on that issue during Vietnam. We could do a lot of outing. We may decide to, we may not. That will be our decision.

These are mainly visitor questions, by the way. Members got a reply from Sunny.

"You don't have Naomi Klein's book! It hasn't come out!" That's what one man said. Okay, you're right and I'm crazy because I'm seeing the book right next to my computer.

If Argest had read a book or two, he might have thought twice about the need to erase everything and start over. He could have learned, for instance, that before the sanctions strangled the country, Iraq had the best education system in the region, with the highest literacy rates in the Arab world -- in 1985, 89 percent of Iraqis were literate.

Ding, turn several pages.

One of the main speakers was Marek Belka, Poland's former right-wing finance minister who worked under Bremer in Iraq for several months. According to an official State Department report on the gathering, [. . .]

Want something from the front of the book?

Some of the most vicious attacks were reserved for the "pink" economicst whom the Chicago Boys could not defeat before the coups. At the University of Chile, rival to the Chicago's Boys' home base, the Catholic University, hundreds of professors were fired for "inobservance of moral duties" [. . . ]

She dedicates the book to Avi Lewis, her husband, and notes that this is the second time. Something from the end notes? I'm really not sure how I'm supposed to prove to this man that I have a copy of the book? It's a major publisher and C.I. has friends at most. Has friends everywhere. That's due to connections in college, movement connections during Vietnam, family connections, connections from C.I.'s own work, go down the list. C.I.'s a people collector. The man is really pissed that Kat's got Joni Mitchell's new CD. Sunny told me (I didn't read his e-mail) that Mitchell's CD was the bulk of his e-mail. Kat wanted the CD, she asked C.I. to get her a copy. It's not that difficult. In terms of music and movies, C.I. gets boxes of those every month. In terms of books, friends at publishing companies will ask C.I. a question or fax over pages (or send an advanced copy, I can't think what that's called -- it's the soft cover version of hard cover book and they get published before the book comes out in hard cover) and ask for comments. C.I. has a ton of friends and is always willing to help out. As a result, if something's wanted on C.I.'s end, it can be asked for and given. But usually C.I. doesn't even have to ask.

I don't know if that answers the man's question or proves the point that I do have the book. But that's really all the time I have to spend on that nonsense.

"Uncorrected proof." That's what advance copies are called. I'm a big fan of Anais Nin's and that's one of the books (one of the few) I picked up at C.I.'s years ago, before it came out. Nearer The Moon. I pulled that off the shelf. It's soft cover for the upcoming hard cover edition. The sticker on it notes:

ISBN: 0-15-100089-1
Price: $28.)0
Pub Date: November 11, 199 [there are only three numbers, then the sticker ends]
Contact: ___
___

I've left the name (which is probably public, but I don't know the book publishing industry) out and the phone number (212) area code. Now Rebeeca will go hog wild, she'll say that herself, digging around through the books at C.I.'s. As long as it's published in some form (a copy before street date, the same kind that will be sold, or an "Uncorrected Proof"), Rebecca's welcome to them. I am as well but most of the time, I'm (a) not willing to take a ton of books on the flight back home and (b) usually have a long reading list already. With Anais Nin's, I'm a huge Anais fan. The way Kat is a huge Joni Mitchell fan. C.I. has offered to get CDs for Kat before and she's always said no. Joni was the first time and C.I. hadn't offered because Kat always says no. Kat declared she couldn't wait (especially after the huge disappointment of Judy Collins) so C.I. got it for her. When Monster-in-Law came out on DVD, C.I. posted the cover the day before. Go google it.

Moving on. In fact, I'm really done on trying to answer the questions from 20 e-mails (from people I've never heard from before).

Betty's latest chapter is "Searching for Nicky K, Encountering a Sea Witch" and it went up on Saturday. Trina's latest post is "Barbeque Sauce in the Kitchen." I'll grab Isaiah's comic tomorrow. Kat's "Kat's Korner: Judy Collins makes like Eydie Gorme" went up Sunday morning and is amazing. She's writing about it tonight (at her site). I'll link to that tomorrow and may add some thoughts to it. "Ruth's Report" went up Saturday night. She was so afraid she was going to offend C.I. with it. (She told me that when she called me for a comment for her report.) She wasn't going to offend C.I. That's her space. She wrote an excellent post and C.I.'s now linked to it three times (including in today's snapshot), so Ruth never needed to worry.

I've mentioned or alluded to most if not all the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, and Wally of The Daily Jot." Mike is the one I'm seeing, not -- as one person wondered -- Jess. I do love Jess' guitar playing and singing and once wrote (over a year ago) about a CD of his music that he made for me. I raved over it. It's amazing. But I'm involved with Mike. Ava is involved Jess. Other than mentioning that CD, I can't think of anything I've ever posted here that could cause any confusion on that issue; however, it is true that in roundtables, Jess and I often echo one another's points. The person who was confused on this issue wrote, "Now I get why you hate Ava." So I assume he thought Ava and I fought over Jess and one of us won? (Apparently me if he thinks Jess and I are a couple.) A) Jess has loved Ava from the moment he saw her (not hard to do, she's not only incredibly attractive, her personality radiates across a room). B) They were a couple long before Mike and I. (I believe Dona and Jim became a couple before Ava and Jess.) C) I do not hate Ava. She's amazing. We do not do long phone conversations but usually talk several times a week in two to five minute conversations. I don't hate anyone that works on those editions. If I did, I wouldn't work on them myself because they take hours and hours. Ava's wonderful.

Now that's really it for the e-mails tonight.



"Two Big Skeletons in Petraeus's Closet" (Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch):
General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, has always shown exceptional skill in impressing American politicians and journalists with his military abilities. Today he will be listened to with immense respect in Congress as he reports on how far the "surge" – the increase in the number of US troops in Iraq by 30,000 – has positively affected the war in Iraq.
It is a measure of Petraeus's political skills that he was promoted to his present position despite being responsible in part for two of the greatest debacles of the Iraq war. In 2003/4 it was Petraeus who was in charge of securing Mosul, the third largest Iraqi city, from the insurgents, and his strategy of conciliating the Sunni and former Baath party members was lauded by the US media. But nine months after he left, the insurgents captured Mosul; the police appointed by Petraeus fled or changed sides, and $41m worth of weapons were lost.
In the same year Petraeus was given the crucial job of overseeing the training and expansion of Iraq's new army, and again he produced glowing reports of progress. But three years later the army he was charged with turning into an effective fighting force is notoriously incapable and corrupt. In addition, Petraeus failed to observe that almost the entire Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was being embezzled, and Iraqi soldiers were forced to rely on obsolete and inadequate weaponry.
It is the discrepancy between General Petraeus's performance as a general in Iraq (he had seen no combat before 2003) and his rapid elevation to overall US commander that has led his critics to portray him as a courtier-soldier whose victories are won in TV interviews or in Washington.


David Petraeus did his song and dance today. It was useless. There was no honesty and there's no point in even noting his lies. The truth should be known by now, regarding Iraq, and judging by the polling (four polls are noted in the snapshot today), the people already know the truth.

"Pigs of War" (Cindy Sheehan, Common Dreams):
How do I know that Congress is playing politics with human hearts? All one has to do is observe the lack of action on the part of the red and blue pigs to come to this sad but inevitable conclusion. Apparently, MAJORITY Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) has spent more time over his summer recess trying to convince red pigs to go against George's war plan than he spent trying to coalesce his blue caucus into something that would not resemble the red pigs so closely that the blur becomes purple. He and Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) have already decided that they do not have enough votes to end the occupation just as they decided that impeachment was "off the table" even before they were elected! So they will happily hand over to George more of your tax money and China's money to continue the killing fields in Iraq. Why are they so miserly with democracy, but generous with our treasury and with our dear human treasure?I got two very overt answers to this question one day in Congress this past spring when I was on the Hill. In one of my meetings with Congressman Conyers, he told me that it was more important to put a Democrat back in the White House in ‘08 than it was to "end the war." After I recovered from my shock, I knew it was confirmed that partisan politics is exactly what is killing our children and the innocent civilians in Iraq. My next stop was in a Congresswoman's office who has always been 100% correct about the war. She is a lovely woman with a lovely heart and does not in anyway qualify (and there are a few dozen others who do not) as a blue pig. She had tears in her eyes when she told me: "Cindy, when I go to Speaker's meetings and we talk about the war, all the talk is about politics and not one of them mentions the heartbreak that will occur if we don't pull our troops out, now." People are dying for two diverse but equally deadly political agendas. The red pigs want to keep the war going because they feed out of the trough of carnage and the blue pigs want to keep it going for votes! Either way is reprehensible.
There is a lot of chatter about the "Petraeus" (written and produced by the White House ) report. Will the general recommend drawing down troops—even if he does, three-five thousand doesn’t even bring the number down to pre-surge levels—and the report says, in direct contradiction to the GAO report on the surge, that sectarian violence in Iraq is down 75%, without saying that the red pigs have re-defined the term "sectarian violence." All I know is that the report will paint a rosier picture than what really exists on the ground in Iraq and like Ron Paul said the other day in the Fox News "Leader of the Red Pigs Wannabe" debate: "How can anyone believe anything they say?"
The blue pigs won't believe the report, but they will expediently go along with the red pig request to further fund the disaster because they believe that it will mean political victory in '08.

I read that and called C.I. I was going to say, "You must link!" C.I., Ava and Kat were in DC today for that Petraeus nonsense. C.I. answered, "I've got about one minutes, sorry." I said, "Cindy Sheehan!" C.I. said, "I'm not sure she was arrested, Dona needed a smoke, we weren't in there. That's what Navy Times is reporting." C.I. had already done the snapshot and e-mailed it to the site (today it took thirty minutes to hit the site -- sometimes it hits automatically, instantly). (Clarification, C.I. had already dictated the snapshot to a friend who then e-mailed it to the site.) That'll make the snapshot tomorrow, trust me. It's amazing (as is Cindy Sheehan).
You need to read the entire thing in full. It says everything and then some. I wish I lived in the Bay Area of California just so I could vote for her.

The snapshot. I had already left the office and booted up my computer here (home) when I walked in the door. I fixed a salad, sat down in front of the computer and pulled up The Common Ills. Woah. Take my breath away, why don't you. C.I.'s not playing. None of us should be. Congress keeps whining they don't have the votes. Whose votes put them into office? The people. The same American people who have turned against the illegal war. They don't have the votes to stop the illegal war when the people want the illegal war stopped? Explain to me again how the United States is supposed to be a democracy?

I am especially thrilled thatthat C.I. called out the nonsense that appeared a few months back in Foreign Policy in Focus where Howard Zinn noting that the people have the power in a democracy and David Sirota lying ended up being "they both have a point". That was nonsense and you don't expect that from IPS. That kind of nonsense, where a Party Hack is elevated to the level of Howard Zinn, is exactly what's damaging the peace movement today.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, September 10, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, CODEPINK again shows more bravery than Congress, and more.

Starting with war resistance, Laura K (We Move To Canada) offers some basic needed steps to support the war resisters who have gone to Canada:

Here are some practical ways you can help.Buy the video. "Let Them Stay" was produced by the War Resisters Support Campaign. It's an excellent introduction to the issue, and can help educate you and others about what US war resisters are facing in Canada. The Support Campaign is an all-volunteer organization. 100% of your $20 will go towards legal and material aid for war resisters.Contact the federal government. Write your MP. Write Stephen Harper. Write the Immigration Minister. Tell them this is the Canada you want to live in. Tell them: let them stay.Sign the petition. If you haven't done so already, join 14,000 of your countrypeople in asking the government to let them stay.Spread the word. How many Canadians don't even know there are US war resisters seeking refuge in Canada? Among those who know, how many mistakenly believe the former soldiers can just live legally in Canada? Talk to your friends, your co-workers, your running buddies, the folks at your dog park. You can help raise awareness, and help create support for those three words.October 27, 2007 is an International Day of Action Against War. Join your neighbours to protest the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There will be simultaneous protests in Canada and the US. Resisters will be there. Let them stay.

These steps and others are needed because, though unreported (big suprise), the number of US war resisters in Canada continues to grow.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko,Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.

As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today "the Bush administration's top two officials in Iraq are set to give Congress their long-awaited progress report on the Iraq war. The expected outcome is more of the same." In August, a CNN poll found 53% of Americans "suspect that the military assessment will try to make it sound better than it actually is" (Wally's "THIS JUST IN! US SAYS: 'PETREAUS WILL BETRAY US!'" and Cedric's "Petreaus wet & wild moment haunts him" noted the reaction as well) with the Polling Director, Keating Holland, for CNN saying that he didn't "think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents." That was in August. Today, Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted a Washington Post - ABC News poll just released that found . . . 53% say "they believe Petraeus will try to sugar-coat the situation on the ground." The poll was reported by the Post on Sunday and also found 64% disapprove of the Bully Boy's "handling his job," 62% declaring that the Iraq War was "not worth fighting," 60% say the US "is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq," 58% say the escalation "hasn't made much difference," 54% do not believe "the security situation" in Iraq will improve "over the next few months," 58% want to see the number of US service members in Iraq decrease," 55% support setting "a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring" and 62% say the US should withdraw "right away". Let's repeat that: 62 percent of those polled said the US forces should begin leaving Iraq "right away." When you add in the portion for "By the end of the year" (27%) the percentage leaps to 89%. 89 percent of Americans support US troops beginning to leave Iraq by the end of 2007. Not 2008, not 2009. CBS and the New York Times poll released Sunday (by CBS) found 45% of those survey saw "no impact" from the escalation. That poll (with a 3% plus/minus margin) found a six percent increase in the number supporting the escalation since August. On ABC's This Week Sunday, it was the never ending Dinasour Tour as Cokie Roberts, George Will and Sam Donaldson (on tamborines) joined George Stephanopoulos for the roundtable and Cokie Roberts pimped (from apparently the CBS poll) the tiny increase as big news until Stephanopoulos corrected her by pointing out just how small the increase in this one poll was. Stephanopolous also noted the 62% figure in the CBS - New York Times' poll who stated the US "made a mistake getting involved in Iraq." That figure matches up with the 62% in the Washington Post - ABC poll who stated that "the war with Iraq" was not "worth fighting." (If Stephanopolous was referring to the Post poll, he should have noted the six percent increase in the escalation making things "better" -- also a margin of +3 or -3 -- that "no difference" also had an increase. Guests or moderator stating "a poll by ___" would also clarify which poll was being cited.)

In both polls, 62% of Americans declare the illegal war a mistake. The Washington Post - ABC News poll, again, has 89% of Americans wanting the US forces to beginning withdrawing "right now" or by the end of 2007. We could go to Congress, but let's go to the peace movement instead because it's not pretty. This weekend, Common Dreams posted Tom Hayden's strategy for . . . "Ending the War in 2009." 2009. 2009? It's 2007 and people are yet again being encouraged to wait for two more years. Tom Hayden is hitting the snooze button when America needs to be waking up. Rabbi Micheal Lerner, on Friday, posted a transcript of various members of the peace movement participating in a dialogue with some members of Congress. In a news article (link goes to Common Dreams, we don't link to the original site), Lerner states that "even the people in the anti-war movement don't have - a coherent alternative world view from which to base a strategy." My "world view" sees him beating the hell of his "inner child." If that does something for him, more power to him. However, there is no "world view" needed to end the illegal war (if a "world view" is indeed missing currently). Nor is there a need to wait for 2009 to end the illegal war. And you have to wonder why US House Rep Lynn Woolsey even bothered to participate in the dialogue that Lerner later posted if no one's going to listen to her?

In the dialogue Tim Carpenter, of Progressive Democrats of America, discusses how his group and UFPJ have "been working hard" and "doing email blasts during the recess and Congressional visits. We've generated a little over 9,000 of those emails blast into the [Speaker's?] office . . ." No offense to Carpenter but did he, Lerner or anyone else participating follow what Woolsey replied?

Lynn Woolsey: That's all very useful, Tim, and it's very meaningful. Because people aren't in the streets, because they're electronically communicating, it's easier for the Congress or the media to pretend that it isn't happening, but it isn't visible. Now people start asking: "Why aren't people on the streets?" And I say that they are on the streets, they're on their blog, and they're communicating. We get 3000 emails sometimes in a day, and other members are too, and you cannot pretend the public's not interested in this.

Woolsey is a nice person so it would be a smart thing to strip away the kind words and zoom in on: "Because people aren't in the streets, because they're electronically communicating, it's easier for the Congress or the media to pretend that it isn't happening". I know several people participating in that dialogue and am not trying to beat any of them over the head, but what Woolsey is saying should be loud and clear to everyone.

Leslie Cagan (UPFJ) notes that the strategy that's been pushed (by WalkOn.org) has been target Repubes and notes that she feels (I agree with her) that "a lot of their strategy is geared towards the Presidential elections and the Congressional elections next year." What does Woolsey respond? "Well, maybe you folks should go after the Democrats." Woolsey is a nice person, she's also very smart. Now maybe in a conversation, those statements can drift over heads. When they appear in the transcript, there should be no confusion.

Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK -- whom I have tremendous respect for) is focused, in her first two sentences, on the fact that US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't meet with activists. Pelosi won't. Benjamin's correct. Benjamin (far smarter than I) should be able to grasp Pelosi is NOT GOING to. If she's forced, she might. Pelosi talks it up when she comes home but what does she ever do when she's in DC? What has she ever done? (Disclosure: I have donated to Pelosi's campaigns -- all of them -- in the past. I have already stated I am behind Cindy Sheehan in this race.) Pelosi plays a cute little show when she comes home. She's all grins and spins. Her final townhall (apparently -- though it hadn't been billed as the "Farewell Townhall" to those of us attending) had her getting a taste of reality at the same time members of district eight got a taste of reality. Pelosi insisted that she would oppose the construction of any permanent bases in Iraq. When confronted with the fact that permanent bases were already being constructed, Pelosi tried to finesse the term "permanent" and actually said, "Nothing last forever." In that moment, Pelosi, who's been treated with kid gloves for the most part, demonstrated just how great the gulf between her and the citizens who put her into office is. Pelosi grasped the startled reaction and she's not done another townhall. I don't remember if Medea was at that townhall but I know she's heard of it. Peace activists need to grasp Pelosi wrote them off then. It's been a slow estrangement ever since. So the point here is, forget Nancy Pelosi. She doesn't represent the district. She's made that very clear on every issue. Target others. (In DC work. I'm not saying call off any vigils outside Pelosi's office. She needs to be made uncomfortable. But realize that's all that's going to help. She's got her eyes on the 2008 elections and she doesn't give a damn about ending the illegal war.) After noting Pelosi's refusal to meet with the activists (Pelosi should be written off and so should Joe Lieberman -- nothing is achieved by meeting with either), Benjamin asks the money question: "Can't she [Pelosi] decide that we're not going to keep funding this war?" Lerner (rightly) points out, "Pelosi could simply not bring up any funding bill for the military. She could not bring it up, and then say: 'We're only going to bring it up if you agree to end the war'." -- to which Woolsey adds, "That we're only going to be spending our money to bring the troops home. And that's what we're [the Progressive Caucus] going to be pushing for, I promise."

As I'm reading Woolsey's remarks three things are needed (out of many) right now. (1) Physical mobilization (not e-activism). (2) Democrats needing to be targeted. (3) Support for the Progressive Caucus made clear.

Starting with the third point. In March Party Hacks were so busy spit shining the shoes of Pelosi and Steny Hoyer that they flat out lied. They used terms like "conspiracy theorist" to those stating US House Rep Barbara Lee had an amendment on Iraq that Pelosi refused to allow Lee to offer (this is when the Dems bought into the illegal war). That was not a "conspiracy theory" -- that was reality. Woolsey appeared, before the Friday vote, on Democracy Now! and explained that troops home now would not be in the vote, wouldn't even be an amendment but "there will be no amendments". Woolsey, who supports Troops Home Now, was explaining what was going on. To clarify, Juan Gonzalez followed up on the amendment issue and Woolsey agreed that their needed to be amendments but House leadership wasn't allowing them, "I think if our amendment, the Barbara Lee amendment, is made an order, which it wasn't last night and it's not going to, there's a lot of people that would like to vote 'Yes, what I really want is to bring the troops home, but, yes, I will vote with the supplemental, but I want my constituents to know that I really want to bring them home sooner than that'."

Point two. Democrats, by not being targeted, have been allowed to fall into the beltway lazy conventional spin. They've been allowed to relax in official DC and think all is fine and dandy for them (it isn't) and they can just coast. Cagan worded it a lot nicer than I would. If you're 'activism' is "Vote Democrats!" then you aren't part of the peace movement. The peace movement is not an electoral party. Reaching out is one thing. Blurring the line is another. A member of a group participating in the dialogue, trying to apparently speak for the organization, e-mailed this site repeatedly to defend someone attacking war resisters and IVAW, to defend someone who not only attacks those who are part of the peace movement but also someone who thinks targeting Republicans qualifies for peace work. The organizations need to send clear messages to their members. And when Democrats are called out for cowardice by brave voices, such as Howard Zinn, we really don't need to read in Foreign Policy in Focus that 'both' Zinn and Sad Sirota (playing Party Hack and providing non-stop cover) have 'a point'. If Foreign Policy in Focus can't get their own act together enough to grasp that Zinn speaking to truth to power is not on the same level as Sirota providing cover for Democrats, the peace movement will be hopeless and the illegal war will drag on. Too many lines are being blurred. When people think it's okay to attack war resisters, the peace movement is defeating itself by allowing that to go unchallenged. When people want to equate the historian Zinn with Sad Sirota (who was the one shouting "conspiracy theorist" -- after Woolesy had appeared on Democracy Now! so he's either uninformed or a liar) then it's not at all surprising that this illegal war continues to drag on.

Point three. As long as the lines are blurred e-activism will continue to take hold. It's "nice," it doesn't challenge. WalkOn.org is a Democratic Party organ that attempts to present itself as "anti-war" (and the press assists them with that). We do not need more silent gatherings. We need more people like Tina Richards, Cindy Sheehan, the members of IVAW, etc, willing to speak out and use their voices. Those preaching e-activism or silence in public are not part of the peace movement and that needs to be made clear. As long as it's not, some people will elect to choose e-activism as opposed to real activism because e-activism is so much easier. When the peace movement cannot make the difference between the two clear, it really can't expect people to turn out in large numbers for actual actions. There are some people who may not be able to participate due to physical challenges/disabilities, agoraphobia or living a remote region. That is grasped. But for those with mobility and proximity, it needs to be made clear that physical action and e-activism are not equivalent. It's like telling someone that both candy and brocolli will provide you with calcium -- most would then choose candy. The reality is candy doesn't provide you with calcium and e-activism (for those with mobility and proximity) is not activism. But as long as those lines continue to be blurred, when faced with going out into the streets or sitting at home, most will choose to sit at home.

Failure to make that clear, failure to make any of the three clear, means the peace movement will spin the wheels until 2009 at which point another voice will instruct us as to "Ending the war in 2011." The illegal war has gone on long enough. It never should have started. The peace movement has had some real success but failure to make it clear what is and what isn't activism, what is and what isn't the peace movement (electoral campaigns rarely ever make for peace campaigns), and what is and isn't reality -- such as standing up to the spin from Party Hacks -- will mean the peace movement's early success will either fall away or that many represented in the dialogue will find themselves out of the peace movement. When organizations do not serve the movement, they fall away. It happened in the 'sixites' and it's already beginning to happen today with new organizations coming to life.

We're going to turn to violence and if there's time to cover the spin going on right now, we will. If not, well, David Petraues hair color (that's not natural -- I have no idea how it looks on TV, but up close, that color does not look natural and it wouldn't be on a man half Petraeus' age) was as phony as his statements.

Today CNN reports: "The U.S. military data obtained by CNN indicates that 165 Iraqis were murdered in Baghdad last month, a slight increase from the previous two months. However, the number represents a significant decrease since the Baghdad security plan began earlier this year. It is not clear how the U.S. military obtained the number, but CNN statistics -- compiled from numbers released by the Iraqi Interior Ministry -- suggest 428 Iraqis were murdered in Baghdad in August, their bodies dumped in the streets. In July, 612 Iraqis were murdered, according to the Interior Ministry." This follows Renee Schoof (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting on Labor Day, "Statistics that McClatchy Newspapers collected in Baghdad don't show any drop in violence. Civilian deaths in the capital were about the same in July as in December, before the American troop increase began. U.S. officials in Baghdad declined to provide data to back up their claims of lower violence." Last week, Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported on the skepticism by "many experts within and outside the government" over the US "military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months" and explained why including that intelligence analysts note classifying "sectarian" or "criminal" based on whether the bullet went in the front of the head or back is "cherry picking". This story was kind-of, sort-of denied by Petreaus today. He didn't really deny it, just stated he wasn't aware of it. He's grabbing the Ronald Reagan covers. In addition, the GAO also stated that violence hasn't dropped. Renee Schoof and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last week that the GAO crunching of the figures "found that daily attacks against civilians in Iraq have remained 'about the same' since February, when the United States began sending nearly 30,000 additional troops" into Iraq (the escalation). CNN joins the above in reporting that there has been no descrease in the violence, despite the claims of the US administration and military.

Yesterday, both McClatchy Newspapers and the New York Times examined the realities in Iraq today. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes Bully Boy's declaring (January 2007) that the escalation would mean the puppet government in Iraq would have "breathing room" and be able to work on the political issues but "[w]ith less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened." What has happened? Fadel reports on the increasing segregation in Baghdad where "Sunni Muslims in the capital now live in ghettos encircled by concrete blast walls to stop militia attacks and car bombs" while Shia militias engage in their slaughter of all (including slaughtering Shi'ites), that the militias have "heavily infiltrated" Iraq's national forces, no decrease in civilian deaths and that Al Anbar Province is the only exception to the continued decay. We'll get back to Al Anbar Province if there's time. Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported (on the front page and for two full pages inside -- A12 and A13) on the "Unmet Goals" noting that there is still not "a unified and trusted national government," and that the escalation coincides with the departure of over 35,000 from their residences in the capital. On Al Anbar Province, Cave and Farrell note that those currently working with the US in the alleged "model province" (where one US marine died September 7th and the US military announced the death yesterday, FYI) "made it abundantly clear that their cooperation did not come fre" -- nor is this a long-term arrangement. Cave and Farrell quote El Paso's Timothy Johnston who notes a a bombing attack targeting US service members in June didn't appear to phase the new 'friends' leading him to declare, "I don't trust them. They will smile in your face and stab you in the back. They were just too close to that E.F.P. not to have known." Back to Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) on Al Anbar Province -- "that success has little to do with the 4,000 U.S. troops who were sent to Anbar as part of the surge of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. Instead, it began more than four months earlier, with the formation last September of the Anbar Salvation Council to fight the escalating terror of Sunni extremists. Officials agree that the anti-Islamist coalition in Anbar has yet to ally itself with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and a recent National Intelligence Estimate warned that it might even threaten it."
Today, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) examines Al Anbar Province noting that nothing is clear regarding whether alliances formed or permanent or not and quotes Maj. Jeff Pool admitting that (if there are gain) the much lauded "Anbar model" isn't exportable due to "too many unique variables."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 2 lives (five more were wounded), a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives (thirteen more wounded), a Kirkuk roadside bombing that claimed 1 life (four more wounded) and a Mosul truck bombing that claimed 10 lives and left at least sixty more wounded. On the Mosul truck bombing, Reuters puts the injured at 78 (sticks with 10 for the figure dead) and says it was actually outside Mosul in Tal Marag village and they note an Iskandariya mortar attack that injured 13 Iraqi soldiers,

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Basra attack where "the manager superviser of finace" was shot dead and then his corpse was set on fire. Reuters notes three police officers "killed in clashes with militants in easter Mosul,"

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 10 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpses discovered in Mahmudiya.


The US military announced today: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier died from injuries sustained from rocket fire while on patrol in Kirkuk province, Sunday. One Soldier was also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." And they announced: "One Soldier died and two Soldiers were injured this morning east of Baghdad when the vehicle they were travling in overturned and caught fire." " And they announced: "Seven Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldiers were killed and 11 others wounded in a vehicle accident in a western portion of the Iraqi capital Sept. 10." The last two announcements use that popular phrase, as Ruth pointed out Saturday, "under investigation." The announced deaths for the month of US service members in Iraq now stands at 29 with the total number announced dead in the illegal war since it started currently at 3771.

Today, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Besides commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus has become the administration's top pitchman for the strategy in Iraq." This as the AP reports on their poll (Associated Press-Ipsos) which finds 57% saying the Iraq War was a "mistake," 59% declaring "they believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure" and finds an even smaller 'boost' in support for the war due to the escalation (smaller than the two polls noted earlier) with only a 4% increase in those who believe the escalation "has helped stabilize Iraq" (up to 36%). 57% saying, in that poll, the illegal war is a mistake, 62% in the other polls cited. The American people want the illegal war to end. They can make nice with Petraeus and Crocker all day in Congress, it doesn't change the fact that the public wants the illegal war over. Nor does it change the data contained in the Washington Post-ABC News poll. Who does the American public trust to handle the issue of Iraq? Democrats by 42%. But don't break out the party hats just yet. Not only did 31% say Republicans, there's a "trend." In May of 2006, Dems scored high on this category with 50% of respondents citing them. It then dipped as low as 43% until it went higher, 51% in October of 2006 (just in time for those elections). Since then? It's fallen to 42%. Republicans have also fallen. But Dems were swept into control of both houses of the US Congress with the promise of ending the illegal war. Who is keeping the illegal war going at this point? Not the American people who say end it. Not Iraqs who declare the escalation a failure (by 70% in the BBC, ABC News and NHK poll just out which also finds "nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified."). It's Congress and White House that are refusing to end the illegal war.

Petraeus declared today, "Blah, blah, LIE, blah, blah, SPIN, blah, blah, AVOID . . ." That more than notes the nonsense.

Turning to what does matter. As noted Friday, Tina Richards (Grassroots America), Adam Kokesh (Iraq Veterans Against the War) and Ian Thompson were arrested on Thursday for the 'crime' of posting fliers. As noted yesterday, "Editorial: You should be very angry" (The Third Estate Sunday Review), Richards and Kokesh held a press conference yesterday. Nathan Grossman (The GW Hatchet) interviewed Kokesh who declared, "Welcome to the police state" and notes, "We were ready to get arrested, but I really wasn't expecting that level of brutality." Actions continue today with Suevon Lee (New York Times) reporting members of CODEPINK have been ejected from a public hearing after showing up three hours before the hearing began to be sure they would be able to get at least one of the twenty general public seats and hear Petraeus speak. AFP reports nine members of CODEPINK were ejected and "One woman screamed 'No, No, No, No,' as she was dragged out." Reuters states it was "No! No! No! I have a right to be heard!" William H. McMichael (Navy Times) notes that cries of "Tell the truth, general!" were the apparent 'crime' and also states Cindy Sheehan was among four women arrested. National Journal's Hotline reports that two women with CODEPINK were chanting, "The American people don't believe you anymore!"

iraq
adam kokeshiraq veterans against the war
democracy nowamy goodman
the los angeles timestina susmanthe new york timesstephen farrelldamien cavemcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssefleila fadel
warren strobelrenee schoof
karen deyoung
the washington post

Dems get ready to cave again

"Panel Recommends U.S. Reduce Its Troop Presence in Iraq" (Democracy Now!):
A panel of retired police and military officers are recommending the United States begin reducing its troop presence in Iraq because the massive military occupation is conveying an image that the U.S. plans to permanently stay in Iraq. The panel's head, Gen James Jones, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "The force footprint should be adjusted." But Jones also warned against an immediate pullout of troops.
Gen. Jones: "I think that the precipitous departure which results in a failed state in Iraq will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, Jihadists, however you want to call it, in the world, who believe they would have toppled the major power on earth and that all else is possible, and I think that not only it will make us less safe, it will make our friends and allies less safe, and the struggle will continue. It will simply be done in other areas."The panel also recommended the Iraqi police force be dissolved because it has been infiltrated by Shiite militias.
Former Washington DC Police Chief Charles Ramsey: "I have never in 38 years of policing experienced a situation where there is so much negativity around any particular police force. It was unbelievable, the amount of comments we got. Whether we were speaking to Iraqi Army, with Iraqi police service -- it didn't seem to matter -- with community members, there was almost a universal feeling that the national police were highly sectarian, were corrupt, had been accused of having death squads and the like."

After almost five years, I don't believe if US forces all managed to leave tomorrow it would qualify as an "immediate pullout." After five years, I would think that the issue of should the US withdraw would have long given way to how quickly can the US withdraw. But then, I don't serve in Congress which is why I still have a soul.

"Democrats Give Up Efforts to Set Troop Withdrawal Deadline" (Democracy Now!):
On Capitol Hill, the Democratic leadership appears set to give up its efforts on setting a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Senate is expected to vote on a bill later this month that would call for withdrawal to begin this year but it would include no language on when the troop withdrawal had to be completed.

Should they be called "leaders"? The Democrats in charge don't provide any leadership and they don't accomplish anything. They allow the Bully Boy's illegal war to drag on. They make big promises. In fact, they're like a a loser that dumps the Supremes.

He makes promises he doesn't keep
Sometimes I don't see him all week.


That's from "Come See About Me," one of Diana Ross & the Supremes' 12 number one hits. (Used very effectively in the 80s on an episode of Moonlighting.)

In the sixties, that's how it was. The women tended to have a pity party about some fellow. It would take Carly Simon to offer up "You're So Vain" in the seventies. Alanis would offer "You Ought To Know" in the 90s (which Kelly Clarkson would rip off this decade, rip off really badly). I think Democrats are expecting the landscape to be filled with Supremes but times have changed.

We're not going to play doormats to the party. We're not going to applaud nonsense and not going to sigh and wait.

But they think they can walk all over us, they can betray us and we'll be just as spineless as they are. It's bad enough that think so lowly of themselves, but they don't need to project it out on the American people.

"How is Bush getting away with it?" (The Socialist Worker):
GEORGE BUSH'S free-falling popularity rating plummeted past the 30 percent mark this summer. The U.S. war on Iraq--the central political issue of the Bush years--is opposed by 75 percent of the population. Only one in five people think the U.S. is headed "in the right direction."
By rights, the Bush administration should be on life support and fading fast--its only hope for a political “victory” being to hang on through January 2009 without impeachment, or having many of its principals thrown in federal prison.
Instead, according to the headline of a New York Times story at the end of August, the "White House Is Gaining Confidence It Can Win Fight in Congress Over Iraq Policy."
Nearly a year after they won control of Congress from Republicans in the November elections, the Democrats not only haven’t stopped the war in Iraq--they haven't done a single thing to stop Bush from escalating it.

That's pretty straight forward, isn't it? (It gets better, by the way, in terms of calling out the nonsense from a certain 'independent' media outlet.) Why is that they can tell the truth and they can call out the 'rulers' but so much of our "independent" media can't?

Imagine how much better the country would be if everyone could speak to truth to power? Or, barring that, if those who refused to do so quit presenting themselves as "independent" media and instead noted they were partisan media?

Mike and I are both noting the same things tonight and sharing our thoughts. I type faster so I'll throw in something extra.


"Watergate, anti Vietnam war protests and US imperial failure" (Socialist Worker):
US defeat in Vietnam led to a government campaign against political opponents with disastrous consequences, writes Simon Basketter
A US President losing a war abroad and facing an anti-war movement at home, while talking up troop withdrawal, extends his imperial adventure -- leading ultimately to his downfall. That is what happened to Republican president Richard Nixon.
One night in 1972, six men were arrested burgling the Democratic Party campaign headquarters in the Watergate apartment complex in Washington DC.
The six men were employed by the Republican Party to find dirt on the Democrats. Watergate was part of a vast operation by Nixon designed not just to attack the Democrats but also to hold back the anti-war movement. The fallout from these arrests would eventually force Nixon to resign.
According to Robert Haldeman, the former chief of staff to Nixon, "Without the Vietnam war there would have been no Watergate."
By the end of the 1960s the Vietnam war had escalated to the point where there were half a million US troops in Vietnam.
The Tet Offensive in 1968 saw Vietnamese national liberation forces launch a coordinated military assault involving 70,000 troops on dozens of cities. In response the US unleashed a frightening wave of destruction. But Tet marked the beginning of the end of the US military intervention.
The heroic resistance of the Vietnamese people became linked with the burgeoning anti-war movement in the US itself, which importantly had penetrated the army. Key sections of the US ruling class began to realise that the political costs of keeping the war going were becoming unsustainable.
Such was the pressure that the right wing Republican Richard Nixon was elected president, in part because he implied that he had a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. "The greatest honour history can bestow is the title of peacemaker," he said in his inaugural speech as president in 1969.
To placate anti-war sentiment at home and among the military, Nixon announced the withdrawal of 25,000 troops in June 1969.
Despite this, marches and demonstrations involving more than two million people took place across the US.
In November, more than a million people marched against the war in Washington and San Francisco. The 1969 demonstrations probably stopped a concerted invasion of NorthVietnam by US troops.
Destruction
The Nixon administration set itself the goal of bringing the American war in Vietnam to an end without it being seen as a defeat for US imperialism. To do this Nixon raised the destruction the US inflicted on Vietnam to new heights and spread the war into neighbouring countries.
Nixon described his strategy to Haldeman as follows: "I call it the madman theory. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached a point where I might do anything to stop the war."
The problem with this strategy is that you have to prove that you are mad.
The co-architect of the administration’s policies was Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger.
Kissinger wrote in 1969 that the Tet Offensive marked the "watershed of the American effort. Henceforth, no matter how effective our actions, the prevalent [US] strategy could no longer achieve its objectives within a period or with force levels politically acceptable to the American people."
However Kissinger remarked, "I refuse to believe that a little fourth-rate power like North Vietnam does not have a breaking point." He gave the following instructions to his staff: "Come up with a plan for a savage, decisive blow against North Vietnam."
One part of the strategy was called "Vietnamisation" -- US ground forces would be slowly withdrawn and the ground war would be turned over to the South Vietnamese, backed by massive US air power and support.
The second part would be to spread the war and intensify the bombing.
The eastern fringe of Cambodia, along the South Vietnamese border, had become a refuge for Vietnamese soldiers, as the US bombing of the Vietnamese countryside made life increasingly unbearable. North Vietnamese soldiers were also forced deeper into Cambodia and southern Laos.
Secret bombing
The secret bombing of Cambodia ran from March 1969 until August 1973. Nixon set up an elaborate system of deception to hide the bombing from the public.
During the first 14 months of the campaign, the US conducted more than 3,630 B-52 raids, dropping over 110,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia.
When the bombing ended, the US had dropped a total of 257,465 tons of explosives on Cambodia. The country began a descent into hell that would culminate with the tragedy and horror of the Khmer Rouge regime.
The first media report of the bombing was a small article in the New York Times that very few noticed. But it sparked Nixon to take the first steps down the road to self-destruction. He set in motion what became a secret intelligence unit, answerable only to him, to plug "leaks" in the government.
Known as the "plumbers", they were to carry out a crime spree against the president's political enemies.
While the dirty war was starting in the US, in Vietnam the CIA implemented a new "pacification" programme called Operation Phoenix, the goal of which was to destroy the "infrastructure" of the Vietnamese opposition. Phoenix agents assassinated at least 20,000 people.
Between 1969 and 1972, as Nixon made war in the name of peace, an estimated 400,000 Vietnamese soldiers died in combat. There are no reliable statistics on civilian dead and wounded, though one estimate is 165,000 civilian casualties in South Vietnam alone for each year of Nixon’s presidency.
In March 1970 the US organised a coup in Cambodia. On 30 April 1970, Nixon appeared on television and announced that US forces were invading Cambodia, though he referred to the invasion as an "incursion" to "guarantee the continued success of our withdrawal and Vietnamisation programmes," by wiping out enemy "sanctuaries".
The US exploded in rage.
On 4 May 1970, National Guardsmen fired on and killed four students at Kent State University in Ohio and wounded nine others. The country was stunned, and student strikes and protests spread to more than 1,300 colleges and universities. Ten days later two black students were killed and 12 wounded by police at Jackson State College in Mississippi.
There were significant demonstrations in half the colleges in the US involving over four million college students and untold numbers of high and junior high school students.
There was also the first ever union organised anti-war march of 25,000 workers in New York. On one protest in Washington a Vietnam veteran threw his Purple Heart medal toward the White House and said, "I hope I get another one fighting these f*ckers."
A special commission appointed by Nixon to assess unrest on the campuses following the invasion of Cambodia argued that the country was "so polarised" that the division over the war was "as deep as any since the Civil War".
It declared that "nothing is more important than an end to the war" in Vietnam. The effects of the protests echoed through the following years.
A nervous Nixon appeared at a press conference in May and announced that the US would be out of a Cambodia by 30 June 1970.
The US was now losing a war before the eyes of the world. Nixon's next initiative was to invade another country, Laos.
Quagmire
Mainstream commentators began to use the term "quagmire" in reference to the war, describing it as a mistake and a disaster. Whole sections of the US ruling class began to jump ship.
In June 1971, the New York Times started publishing a secret government history of the war in Vietnam.
This intensified the paranoia of the White House, which stepped up the activities of the "plumbers" and launched an intense spying and dirty tricks operation against the anti-war movement.
The White House under Nixon was well suited to persecuting political enemies. "If you can't lie," Nixon once said, "you'll never get anywhere."
Egil Krogh, a White House officer, summed up the Nixon mindset: "Anyone who opposes us, we’ll destroy. As a matter of fact, anyone who doesn't support us, we’ll destroy."
The extent of the opposition to the war meant that the Watergate scandal became a constant crisis for Nixon. The cover-up of the break-in and the continuing exposé of more and more dirty tricks meant that one by Nixon’s allies fell away.
On 23 January 1973 the treaty ending the US war in Vietnam was signed in Paris. The last US combat troops were withdrawn in March that year.
The crisis over Vietnam meant there was a crisis of legitimacy for the ruling class. The mass protests against war deepened that crisis and created a context which meant that, facing impeachment for his cover-up of Watergate, Nixon resigned in August 1974.
The argument against the war in Vietnam had begun ten years before among small circles of left wing and peace activists. Over the years the movement gained huge support across the US, fragmenting the ruling class between a minority who wanted to avoid defeat and a majority who just wanted out.
Watergate was a product of this fragmentation -- and of Nixon’s isolation.
On 30 April 1975, $50 notes began to fly through the sky in Saigon. The US embassy was burning $5 million and countless secret documents before they fell into Vietnamese hands. A mad scramble took place as US helicopters picked up the last few officials from the roof of the US embassy.
It had taken too long but the Vietnamese people and the mobilisations of the anti-war movement had forced the US into a humiliating defeat – and brought down a president along the way.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.


That's from the UK's Socialist Worker. The earlier excerpt was from the US Socialist Worker.
These days, when I think about the Vietnam era, what I find myself concluding is that it never ended in the US. You had squishy 'libs' who just wanted to put it behind for 'the good' of the country. You had a hugely uninformed middle and you had the right-wing determined to roll back every advance from that period and to rewrite what actually happened in Vietnam. They have continued their battle for decades and too many have stayed silent while this has happened.

That's part of the reason that the US ended up in the current illegal war. When Bill and Hillary Clinton decided to 'rehabiliate' Richard Nixon, that was disgusting. A Republican president couldn't have done that. It would have been called out. But "Democrat" Bill Clinton and his wife Hilalry could and did. Nixon never apologized for anything. He never apologized for violating the rights of US citizens. He never apologized for the lies of war. He never apologized for wiping his ass with the Constitution.

But the Clintons were fine with inviting him into the White House (which the people own, not whomever is the current occupant) and making nice with him. They were eager to take him from national disgrace to loveable, wacky uncle. That says a great deal about both of them.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, September 7, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces multiple deaths, the British announce a death, Riverbend makes it to Syria, Adam Kokesh gets arrested with Tina Richards for the 'crime' of posting fliers, Ali al-Fadhily reports on a battle that the press has missed thus far, and more.


Starting with war resisters. Daryl Shandro (Political Affairs) reports on how the influx of war resisters into Canada has created the need for new chapters to be created (they were -- Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton and London) and shares how war resister Steve Yoczik spoke informatively and amusingly about his own experience to a group in Sudbury: "Steve waged a concerted bid to be kicked out of the army. Over a period of months, he deliberately failed between 50 and 100 physical tests. When it became obvious that the officers would not file three consecutive failing reports so as to have his status reviewed, Steve started to fail to appear for the tests and was flippant, if not outright insubordinate, if these absences brought any reporach. Steve figures he was gone for a while before anyone realized that he was AWOL. He found out about the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada through a friend -- a model soldier and US patriot who disagreed so strongly with the war in Iraq that he fled to Canada rather than participate in it." Shandro notes Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey's appeals to Canada's Supreme Court and that the "continues to lobby for the political solution: these War Resisters must be given sanctuary under a separate immigration category, much like the US war resisters of the Vietnam era received under the Trudeau government. In Sudbuy we are now fielding a serious inquiry every week from War Resisters. These are people 'checking into' Toronot and then moving to their host city within hours or days. They are calling from Germany (military hosipital) and bases all over the continental U.S., and they are coming. In Toronto the serious inquiries are about three a week; arrivals, both anticipated and unanticipated, are becoming more and more frequent."

Ehren Watada is also resisting the Iraq War. In June 2006, he became the first known officer to publicly refuse to deploy the war (he cited the illegal nature of the war). In February of this year, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) presided over the court-martial of Watada. Watada had elected to go with a jury of his peers. Judge Toilet saw Watada's case was being made for him by the prosecution witness and attempted to flush justice by delcaring a mistrial -- over defense objection and over the initial objection of the prosecution -- Toilet had to coax the prosecution into seeing that what he was offering was a 'do over.' However, the Constitution does not allow for 'do overs' and, as National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn has noted, double-jeopardy had already attached. Currently, Watada is due to stand for another court-martial next month. The appeals process are ongoing. Judge Toilet has said there is no double-jeopary and that he can be impartial and should be allowed to sit on a second court-martial. Howls of laughter echo through the land at both assertions. Last month, we noted the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)'s statement regarding Watada. On Wednesday, Caroline Aoyagi-Strom (New American Media) noted the JACL's statement and the struggle it took to get that weak statement and notes Mas Hashimoto declaring, "Today we are at a crossroads. What kind of organization are we going to be? We need to take a stand, a firm and dedicated stand." while Alan Nishi declares, "We should take a more solid stance than we have in the past." The stand taken thus far is to note that Watada has civil rights and that he is "protected from double jeopardy" and, as Aoyagi-Strom notes, JALC is now supposed "to help educate other groups on the controversial issue."



There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko,Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. The G.I. Rights Hotline link has been included in the snapshots forever now, but please note that this is a new website. The new website is still being upgarded (but working) and with the new website comes a new phone number (877) 4474487 which is "GI RGHTS" the name but missing the second "I". To make sure everyone's aware that there is a new number and a new (toll free) number, we'll included this notice in the snapshot all week. Again, The G.I. Rights Hotline is a new and improved (and new and improving) website that will begin replacing the old site.

Last month, NOW with David Brancaccio covered war resisters Agustin Aguayo and James Burmeister. Tonight (in most PBS markets, the program airs tonight) NOW with David Brancaccio examines the issue of sexual abuse in the military:


Roughly one in seven of America's active duty military soldiers is a woman, but a NOW investigation found that sexual assault and rape is widespread. One study of National Guard and Reserve forces found that almost one in four women had been assaulted or raped. Last year alone, almost 3,000 soldiers reported sexual assault and rape by other soldiers. On Friday, September 7 (check your local listings), in one of the only national television broadcasts of the issue, NOW features women who speak out for the first time about what happened. One woman recounts her ordeal of rape by her superior officer. Many more don't report the incidents for fear of how it will affect their careers. The shocking phenomenon has a label: military sexual trauma, or MST. NOW meets women courageously battling to overcome their MST, bringing light to an issue that's putting the army in shame. A NOW exclusive investigation. The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer the latest statistics on MST and insight into the challenges of reporting sexual abuse in the military

Online, NOW with David Branccacio has a fact sheet regarding the percentages. Some that should immediately stand out include "60% of women have experienced military sexual trauma" and "23% of women have experienced military sexual assault." (27% of males have also "experienced military sexual trauma".) Also online, they interview (text) Kate Summers (Miles Foundation) about the issue and offer advice from Rev. Dorthy Mackey: "I encourage any survivor of sexual abuse in the military to immediately contact family or friends who love them. Tell them the complete sotry of the facts, have them record or get e-mails of the facts from the survivor. These friends and family who are not traumatized must be willing to act as guides/support and spokesperson for the survivor. Within the military system, the already traumatized survivor is lost. Once the covert or overt hostility begins, the survivor is multiply re-victimized." Rev. Mackey founded Survivors Take Action Against Abuse by Military Personnel, served nine years in the Air Force and, as she discussed with Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) in July of 2004, was raped three times, "twice by military doctors during appointments. Rev. Mackey explained to Goodman, "So there's a lot more to this, and yet no one wants to invite those of us who know. And one of the moves on right now is to have the Pentagon itself establish a victim's advocacy office. I would hate to tell you, but from the Congressional Congress' own lips, the Women's Congressional Congress' own lips, they said, as we have been telling them, that rapists keep getting promoted into the senior ranks. Up into the Pentagon. And when you have the Pentagon itself, who has refused any recommendations in the last 16 years with 19 task forces of sexual misconduct, it's not being addressed. What's going to happen is the same that many of us who've lived through it have seen, and they will typically shut down these victims even more so. I mean, a nice term they really should do for this victim's advocacy office they're considering, call it the Pentagon's Lobotomy Shop, because that's what it will be for these victims."

More recently, Traci Hukill (The Progressive, January 2007) examined the issue and offered many important details such as: "Last year, the Pentagon received reports of 2,374 rapes or attempted rapes from all of its bases worldwide, about 40 percent more than the year before. But that's probably just a fraction of the real number. One reason the crime still goes unreported may lurk in the annual [Pentago] report: Last year, just seventy-nine servicemembers were court-martialed for sexual assault. Why bother reporting if nothing will happen to the perpetrator?"

The most famous example of sexual abuse and command rape during this illegal war is Suzanne Swift. Swift attempted to work through military channels. Nothing was done. Finally, 'help' was offering her a class on how women could work not to 'invite' rape and abuse. Swift self-checked out when she returned from Iraq. She was taken from her mother's home in handcuffs. The military wanted the entire matter to go away. Even their white wash investigation verified some of the details of assault. Instead of doing the honorable thing and immediately discharge Swift (with full benefits and an honorable discharge), the US military elected to punish her. Sarah Rich, her mother, continues to fight for her daughter and other victims of sexual assault. The US Congress continues to pretend that nothing happened to Swift and that, if it did, it's not like they have oversight of the military.

Not content to be useless, a number are gearing up for DC actions this month. Paul Schwartzman (Washington Post) reports that in Lafayette Square Thursday, the police staged a big rollout to disrupt a press conference and 'deal' with the very important 'crime' of sign posting. One police officer attempted to 'disarm' Tina Richards who held menacing glue (wheat paste). Schwartman reports, "A few feet away, Kristine Klein, 13, Richards's daughter, started crying. She said that another officer had grabbed her arm and pushed her. As Richards tried to call to her daughter from the cruiser, another officer closed the window." What a proud moment for DC police. They also nabbed Adam Kokesh and Ian Thompson. Don't you feel safer? The three were charged with "defacing public property." Descrating the Constitution is a-okay in DC which is why Bully Boy's still sitting pretty and not facing impeachment. But try to post a flier, and it's SWAT time. The Times of India quotes A.N.S.W.E.R.'s Brian Becker declaring, "The police suppressed the press conference. In the middle of the speeches, they grabbed the podium. Then, mounted police charged the media present to disperse them." The Times of India notes, "The charge caused a peaceful crowd of some 20 journalists and four or five protestors to scatter in terror, an AFP correspondent at the event in Layfayette Square said." The press conference was intended to get the word out on the actions in DC beginning September 15th with a march and a die-in. A.N.S.W.E.R. has a press release with photos and note the police officer pulling Kokesh's left arm behind his back to save the capital from . . . a posted flier. A video is posted on YouTube. You'll hear chatter about "a national security threat" as DC police swarm in. You'll see a police officer jerk Tina Richards by her arm repeatedly, call for "backup" over his radio before grabbing the bucket of paste. Backup takes a while to arrive (with sirens). Then a real idiot on horseback comes galloping up screeching, "Back up, folks, back up, back up, back up, back up" over and over like the idiot he is. The entire point was to disrupt the statements that Tina Richards was making to the press at the time.

Richards and Kokesh do not represent a minority view in the US. Nor are they in the minority around the world. A new BBC poll of 22 countries has found 39% say troops home right now and another "28% backed a gradual pull-out" while only 23% declared US troops should "stay until Iraq was safe".

And yet . . . yesterday came the news from the US Pentagon that the number of US forces in Iraq had reached 168,000 and were expected to rise to 172,000 shortly. Before Democrats won control of both houses in the US Congress in the November 2006 elections and before the US Congress was sworn in (January 2007) the number of US troops in Iraq was approximately 144,000. Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) report that US General and White House spokesperson David Petraeus is reportedly showing "a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 US troops from Iraq early next year" and that Fancy Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and her right hand, Steny Hoyer, are yet again throwing in the towel with Hoyer stating, "Clearly we don't have the numbers to override the president's vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated, nor do we expect to for a long time." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) also notes the cowardice in Congress: "On Capitol Hill, the Democratic leadership appears set to give up its efforts on setting a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Senate is expected to vote on a bill later this month that would call for withdrawal to begin this year but it would include no language on when the troop withdrawal had to be completed." Susan Cornwell (Reuters) reports US Senator Dick Durbin gave a speech today where he declared: "This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq. I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy." While it's great that Durbin realizes Congress did give Bully Boy a "blank check," he'll need more than straight talk to combat his own party's rush to cave again.

Outside the spineless DC bubble, Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) quotes Cathy Fish, mother of John Fish III, explaining, "Three weeks ago I was hugging a happy loving wonderful son. And now as you can see . . . I've got pictures." John Fish committed sucide after returning from Iraq.


It's Friday which means news of violence trickles out slowly. So we'll start out with Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) reporting that Samarra has been the site of fighting between the US and Iraqis beginning August 26th when, an Iraqi explains, "there was fierce fighting between armed men and American forces in the Armooshiya district, and I saw Americans evacuate many of their soldiers by stretchers. As usual, Americans took revenge by bombing the district." Iman, an Iraqi woman, tells Fadhily that a US bombing "killed a woman with her seven children" and that the violence has been confirmed in a statement from the Muslim Scholars Association
while the associations Sheikh Taha tells al-Fadhily, "They think their crimes would stop Iraqis from demanding their rights for liberty and prosperity, but the results are always different from what the American leaders hope. They are only pushing more Iraqis to be armed against them, and you can see that the facts on the ground are the opposite of what they tell their people. Their soldiers are getting killed every day and they (U.S. military) are losing in Iraq."
In the small reported violence that will lead to many filing reports of "Yesterday in . . ." tomorrow . . .

Bombings?Robert H. Reid (AP) reports in 'peaceful' Al Anbar Province, the 'model' Bully Boy touts, "two suspension bridges" were blown up and brought to five the number of bridges in Al Anbar Province blown up this year..

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Dwood Salman ("member of the municipality council") was shot dead outside of his home in Suleiman Beck.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "Three Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed in Nineveh province Thursday when an explosion occurred near their vehicle." And they announced: "Four Marines assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed Sept. 6 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." ICCC lists the total number for US service members who have died in the illegal war at 3760 and, for the month thus far, at 18. And four of the seven deaths were in Al Anbar Province, the 'model' province.

Today the UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with deep sadness that the MOD must confirm the death of a British soldier from the Parachute Regiment in Iraq on Wednesday 5, September 2007. The soldier sustained fatal injuries in the early hours of Wednesday while conducting routine operations". The death bringsthe number of United Kingdom troops killed in Iraq to 169.


In other news, the Online Predator has turned his attention away from underage girls and is now attacking Katie Couric online. One might wonder why he hates all women were it not for the howls of laughter at his latest blunder -- which should make everyone wonder about his previous 'facts' on Iran. Let's quote Pig Predator: "CBS is owned by General Electric. GE is working hard to get favorable trading status with any number of foreign trading partners. The U.S. trade representative is working hard on GE's behalf." GE owns NBC. Facts are tough, eh, Online Predator? [FYI, The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild -- who has not engaged in Bash the Bitch -- has posted the efforts CBS' Early Show took, while on location, to avoid allowing people against the illegal war to be on camera in the background.] So CBS Evening News went to Iraq and did any of the critics watch? Apparently not. Probably Piggy Pedophile tried to. He probably pulled the lever down on his GE toaster and got confused when no picture came on.

Yesterday, Katie Couric (CBS Evening News) interviewed Syrian president Bashar Assad who responded to the charges that the Syrian government was funding, training or whatever else the US military brass wants to offer as the current justification for the failure of the illegal war (it failed because it was illegal), "What do they do, those terrorists in Iraq? They kill civilians, they create chaos. What interest have Syria in having chaos in Iraq? Chaos is contagious. If we help the chaos in Iraq, this means we we work against our interest. So we do our best to control our borders, first of all for Syrians; second, for the Iraqis; third, for the region." This morning Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported that "Israeli Air Force jets purportedly entered Syrian airspace" and Syria fired back. So you might think some of the 'critics' would take a moment to check out yesterday's interview with the president of Syria. However, you would be wrong.

Couric interviewed Assad and Iraq was the topic. Assad explained that Syria pays "the price for the chaos in Iraq today," criticized the US administration for attempting to respond to political situations with military non-answers, and observed, "It's getting worse every day, nothing is better. Sometimes it gets better, but it's like a flash in the pan; it just disappears, it's transient. We're talking about the result, the chaos is worse, the killing is worse than before. . . ." Assad also declared his belief that US troops should leave Iraq pointing out that "after four years . . . every day is getting worse than before. So I cannot say that American forces will bring stability to Iraq."

It's cute the way another round of Bash the Bitch allows alleged 'media critics' to ignore the fact that one of the biggest complaints about network news is the decrease in international coverage but a whole crowd ignored an interview on Iraq with the president of one of Iraq's neighboring countries. Same way they didn't appear to notice the slack off in coverage from Iraq by Los Angeles Times and New York Times correspondents this week (most noticeable today).

Syria is where Riverbend is now. The Iraqi blogger of Baghdad Burning recounts how she and her family waited and waited for the safest time to make their journey and she writes:

The tears had stopped about an hour after we'd left Baghdad. Just seeing the dirty streets, the ruins of buildings and houses, the smoke-filled horizon all helped me realize how fortunate I was to have a chance for something safer.
By the time we were out of Baghdad, my heart was no longer aching as it had been while we were still leaving it. The cars around us on the border were making me nervous. I hated being in the middle of so many possibly explosive vehicles. A part of me wanted to study the faces of the people around me, mostly families, and the other part of me, the one that's been trained to stay out of trouble the last four years, told me to keep my eyes to myself- it was almost over.
It was finally our turn. I sat stiffly in the car and waited as money passed hands; our passports were looked over and finally stamped. We were ushered along and the driver smiled with satisfaction, "It's been an easy trip, Alhamdulillah," he said cheerfully.
As we crossed the border and saw the last of the Iraqi flags, the tears began again. The car was silent except for the prattling of the driver who was telling us stories of escapades he had while crossing the border. I sneaked a look at my mother sitting beside me and her tears were flowing as well. There was simply nothing to say as we left Iraq. I wanted to sob, but I didn't want to seem like a baby. I didn't want the driver to think I was ungrateful for the chance to leave what had become a hellish place over the last four and a half years.


Riverbend and her family join over 4 million Iraqi refugees (internal and external) whom the illegal war has 'liberated'. Relief Web released a new study today on the refugee crisis
noting that their numbers increase "[a]s the security situation continues to deteriorate inside Iraq, human displacement escalates to levels unparalleled in the region" and that it threatens the entire region. The report notes: "The exodus of Iraq's professionals has led to severe brain drain, hitting the health, education, and government sectors particularly hard. This will have serious implications for Iraq's ability to rebuild the country when the violence decreases. Internal displacement is resulting in ethnic and sectarian homogenization of the country, and displaced communities are increasingly vulnerable to violence, kidnappings, and control by militias. Displacement is both a consequence and a cause of sectarian polarization in the country. Jordan and Syria now face internal security threats related to the immense economic burden of hosting the Iraqi populations, new sectarian demographics, tension among host and refugee populations as well as across sectarian divides, the potential of increased regime opposition, and the possibility that refugees will be recruited into armed militias if humanitarian assistance isn't sufficient to meet their needs."



Unrelated note, Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights, co-host of Law and Disorder) has a website entitled Just Left. Community member Jonah noted that we plug things in the snapshot from time to time and asked if that could be worked in.

iraqehren watada
now with david branccaciopbs
democracy nowamy goodman
adam kokeshiraq veterans against the war
riverbend
the washington post