Tell your local newspaper: Draft Amy Goodman!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, Ehren Watada will be speaking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Bombings?

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

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

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


Shootings?

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

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


Corpses?

CNN reports that 32 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.

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

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


iraq
ehren watada
the washington postkaren deyoungwalter pincus
radionation with laura flanderslaura flandersben hamamotodean patondiane kay
dahr jamailflashpointskpfa
nora barrows friedman
ali al-fadhily
the new york times
counterspin
amy goodmandemocracy now

Howard Zinn, Isaiah, Joshua Frank

The above is "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'Peace Resister'" from Sunday. I thought it was hilarious. Isaiah pulled me aside Friday morning, in DC, to show it to me. (It was just ink then.) C.I. had already repeated (again), "That's your space, do what you want. You don't need my permission." But Isaiah wanted to be sure that was correct. I said, "Of course it is." But Isaiah wanted me to talk to C.I., which I did, and the attitude was (firmly) that whatever Isaiah wants to draw, he should. After I told Isaiah that, he went ahead and went to work on the coloring of it.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is the "Peace Resister." I thought it was hysterical and appropriate. I was thinking today about the various movements in this country and the various people who have represented them. Then I started wondering how The Nation would cover them if they were happening today?

I don't think they would. I've seen no indication that they would. I think they're comfortable with a dead man or woman (they prefer a man) but they can't deal with what's going on today. I think we saw that when Coretta Scott King died. I'm sure in ten years or so, they'll have something to say about that. But in real time, they offered a little paragraph. That was so shameful, the ignoring of Coretta Scott King.

But it was so in keeping with The Nation today. Of course they'd ignore a woman who dedicated her life to social justice and peace. They really aren't about peace which is why their so-called "peace columnist" can never write about peace. He can try to scare you into voting. But when a nation's at war and you're the peace columnist, you should be covering the peace movement, you should be covering war resisters. Instead, he's given us no nukes and he's given us scare tactics. That someone wants to be the "peace columnist" and they can't even write about the peace movement demonstrates all that's wrong with the useless magazine.

Look at how they cover Bully Boy's illegal spying. David Corn covered it like reporting because he's not a columnist, he's a reporter. I had no problem with his approach. But the magazine seemed intent (in editorials and columns) in not letting today's readers know just how much abuse was exposed post Watergate. On that, and too many other issues, The Nation seems to exist solely to clamp down on outrage. They underinform their readers. Their columnists are frequently both misguided and unfocused. It's a really sad magazine.

Without Naomi Klein to raise the level of writing, 2006 was an awful year for The Nation. (I believe Klein wrote one piece in 2006.) It was scattershot and useless. (As noted before, I consider Alexander Cockburn to be part of his magazine, CounterPunch. I've also noted that Corn's not one of my favorites but I can read him and I can enjoy the writing and the actual work that went into it.)

I think trees die in vain to print The Nation. I think when outrage builds over Abeer (during Steven Green's trial) and The Nation decides to weigh in (they've not offered one word in print this entire time), it'll demonstrate how they don't lead, they just copy the mainstream.

Rebecca and C.I. have hit hard on the issue of the lack of women being featured in the magazine as writers. I agree with them 100%. As feminists, we don't appreciate that the magazine is run by a woman but women have disappeared from the magazine. You can search "The Nation Stats" plus "The Third Estate Sunday Review" on Google and pull up the results for each edition so far and you'll see the byline rate is nearly 4 males for every 1 female.

That's embarrassing. This is the best way can do? After all the battles feminists have fought, battles that benefitted women who have shown no interest in assisting other women, that's what we can expect from The Nation, edited and published by a woman, 1 woman for every 4 males?

I can tell you that we didn't accept that when I was in school. We didn't shrug out shoulders and act as though there was nothing to be done. We called people out. So I am happy to stand with Rebecca and C.I. today and call out The Nation on their discrimatory practices with regards to women.

There seems to be some belief that we can only call out the right and that we have to accept whatever scraps we're tossed by the left. I don't buy into that. I really don't see The Nation as all that left to begin with -- I think their opposition to the Iraq war has been grossly inflated and that we're really talking about Naomi Klein when we talk about opposition to the Iraq war.

I'm sure the Cindy Brady of the faux left will bathe his nearest and dearest with spit over that remark; however, it's true. The editorials were weak, the columns were weak. There is no bravery. There's a lot of bad musing. Broken promises on every page, to be sure. But they aren't left and they never will be.

In 2006, they could and did dedicate an entire issue to the media, food and the environment. They could do their series of issues on Hurricane Katrina. But they didn't have even one issue devoted to Iraq. They aren't that left and they really aren't committed to much of anything as a magazine. Katrina vanden Heuvel, in fact, attempted to downgrade the war's importance in the November vote in a column she did shortly after.

It's also true that after her family's lawsuit (which was tacky), no one needs to hear her talk about economic justice or the poor. When your greed came through like that when the rubber was meeting the road, no one needs to hear your dopey thoughts on minimum wage.

As I've said before, I didn't care for the tot and I don't care for the adult.

She was spoiled and pampered as a child (prone to tantrums) and I think she play acts at her role today. Possibly featuring women in equal numbers might expose her as the fraud even she probably fears she is. But by being the token, she's able to stand out.

Rebecca's mother-in-law shared her thoughts on the woman with Mike and Mike's probably not going to share those again because the general feeling is that C.I. was hurt by it. Not bothered, but hurt. C.I. likes her and thinks she's a nice person (sees qualities I never did). But my point in raising that is, despite that, C.I.'s not going to give out free passes to the magazine.

No one should. Katrina vanden Heuvel is in a postion where she could make a difference for women and she's not doing that. That is unacceptable in any wave of feminism. Feminism didn't come about so that one woman could be elevated above the rest of us. Role models are important but so is representation and The Nation fails there.

If you think The Common Ills community, the sites, the newsletters, the members, you realize that women aren't a sidebar. Women don't sit on the edges hoping that just maybe one day this week they'll get heard. Women are very much a part of the community and that's one of the keys, one of the strongest points, about the community.

Today, in "Other Items," C.I. addressed the issue of Sarah Olson. She is loathed by the community. Sunny read that and we discussed it at lunch. Sunny grasped it, the point isn't that Sarah Olson gets a pass, the point is that she needs to be held accountable for her own words and deeds. The males who seem to see her as some sort of Sleeping Beauty whose rescue they'll come to need to be held accountable for their nonsense. What we saw with the lies of war was that Judith Miller was held accountable for her 'reporting' and that alone would have been fair. When she became the scapegoat for all the other 'reporters' that wasn't fair. Hold her accountable for what she did. But don't make the mistake of thinking she was alone (at her own paper or in the rest of media). War was sold to the American people, lies were presented as facts and doing that required more than one reporter and more than Fox "News."

Sarah Olson didn't lie anyone into war. The anger towards her is over the fact that she became a media topic (as well as some of her own statements). Hold accountable the people who made her the media topic while ignoring Ehren. (Hold her accountable for her own statements.)

I would say that she can even be held accountable for allowing herself to be turned into a missing blonde. I was talking to a guy I used to date today. He saw "Other Items" and wanted to weigh in. I was surprised, because he is a news producer, by his comparison. He brought up Mary Richards. That was the lead character on The Mary Tyler Moore Show. He noted that there was enough sense, in the immediate post-Watergate era, not to turn Mary into a tragedy figure. She didn't want to go to jail, but she was willing to and she did. He pointed to various 'strategies' (press) that the Olson crowd presented and utilized and offered that they robbed Olson of all her strength. I would agree with that.

But this nonsense that is still going on, that's not really her doing. She's issued one statement and sat down with Amy Goodman. She seems to grasp that she is not the story. Whether or not she grasps that Ehren is the reason she no longer has to worry about being asked to testify, I have no idea. But the males so quick to to paint her as a damsel in distress don't appear to grasp why she's off the hook. It had nothing to do with a petition. It had to do with Ehren.

Yet, once again, we see him written out of his own story. Be angry about that, be mad about it, but be mad at the people who are doing it.

"What America Really Needs to Hear" (Joshua Frank, CounterPunch):
Shortly after President Bush's State of the Union address last week Jim Webb, the freshman Senator from Virginia, delivered the Democrats' televised response to Bush's annual speech. Many antiwar progressives were pleased to hear a Democrat confront the Bush rhetoric head-on. Media critic Jeff Cohen went even further and argued that Webb's riposte was not only aimed at the Bush administration, but also at Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
"Whether intended or not," wrote Cohen, "Webb was offering a way for Democrats to win elections -- a script for any presidential candidate who wants to distinguish him or herself in the primaries, and then defeat the Republicans in Nov. 2008."
Cohen and I must have been watching different programs. Sen. Webb's position on the Iraq war was little more than a sugarcoated pill packed full of the usual irony. Webb painted the situation in Iraq as a result of Bush's poor planning and not the more obvious illegalities and lies that drove our country into battle. As Webb put it, "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed."
Never once did we hear Webb utter the bitter truth about the Iraq crisis. Certainly the invasion and subsequent occupation were not "mismanaged" as Webb and many others have put it, rather the civil war now engulfing Iraq is a result of a criminal performance carried out by President Bush that was enabled and encouraged by the leaders of the Democratic Party dating back to President Clinton.

I enjoy Frank's writing and I agree that Webb's done nothing that should have the left applauding. The left ignores their own heroes (Ehren is the perfect example) but goes crazy over the mushy center. That's another thing that needs to stop.

"Impeachment by the People" (Howard Zinn, The Progressive):
Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos. But all we hear in the nation's capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about "unity" and "bipartisanship," in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.
These are the Democrats who were brought to power in November by an electorate fed up with the war, furious at the Bush Administration, and counting on the new majority in Congress to represent the voters. But if sanity is to be restored in our national policies, it can only come about by a great popular upheaval, pushing both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will.
The Declaration of Independence, revered as a document but ignored as a guide to action, needs to be read from pulpits and podiums, on street corners and community radio stations throughout the nation. Its words, forgotten for over two centuries, need to become a call to action for the first time since it was read aloud to crowds in the early excited days of the American Revolution: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government."
The "ends" referred to in the Declaration are the equal right of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." True, no government in the history of the nation has been faithful to those ends. Favors for the rich, neglect of the poor, massive violence in the interest of continental and world expansion--that is the persistent record of our government.
Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

As I believe everyone who visits this site knows, Howard Zinn is one of my own personal heroes.
He never loses sight of the people or robs them of their power in his writing. He doesn't play cheerleader for any party. He is independent in the best sense of the word and he is one of the strongest voices that the left has.

His article is also quoted in the snapshot so I'll wind down with that.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 31, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the White House tries to spin two plates at once (lowering expectations and pushing spin), impeachment discussions refuse to be dismissed by the 'all knowing', and the court-martial of Ehren Watada is five days away.

Starting with Ehren Watada who is the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq to serve in the illegal and immoral war. He faces a court-martial this coming Monday (February 5th) and, if convicted on all charges, could serve a maximum of four years in prison. Some are weighing in.

US Rep Mike Honda (in the San Francisco Chronicle) notes that Watada's awakening to the lies of war is reflected in the similar awakenings a large number of citizens have had as time (more so than the press) has exposed Bully Boy's lies of war:

In facing charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, it is my belief that Ehren Watada has laid bare a fact that is becoming increasingly plain: Mr. Bush has handled this war in a manner unbecoming a United States president. At best, our president misled the nation on the rationale for going into Iraq. He has embroiled this great country in a cycle of brutality there that has grievously tarnished America's international reputation, has further destabilized an already precarious Middle East and has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Watada has risked being deemed guilty of breaking one law in furtherance of a higher, moral one, rather than participate in a fight that, in his and my view, needlessly sends our compatriots to their deaths. In Watada's own words: "To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers and service members can choose to stop fighting it" (http://www.thankyoult.org/, click on YouTube video).

Noting the reduction of two counts which has allowed the maximum time Watada could spend, if convicted, in prison, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer observes:

We would prefer further reductions and no prison time for a conscientious refusal to serve in what Watada believes, right or wrong, is an illegal war in Iraq.
Military leaders have shown commendable flexibility in dealing with a variety of conscience- and belief-motivated requests to be excused from service. For instance, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, last week granted conscientious-objector status to Pvt. Ronnie Tallman to allow the 21-year-old to pursue a newfound calling as a Navajo medicine man. Under Navajo spiritual law, Tallman could not serve in a special group of certified spiritual healers if he participated in any killing.
Actions like Conway's have given the military greater rather than lesser stature in the difficult circumstances of the Iraq war. Similar flexibility on policy at a higher level might save many Americans from the dangers of Iraq combat. Unless Congress insists, however, the Bush administration will stay the course.

Reporting on the rally in San Francisco, Judith Scherr (Berkeley Daily Planet) notes Carolyn Ho, mother of Ehren Watada, spoke: "He went in believing he was really trying to do his duty to his country in trying to preserve our freedoms. He said to me at one point, 9/11 happened and I will never be the same again . . . But then my son, after doing the research and finding the facts realized that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we entered a preemptive war on a lie. That has to stop." Carolyn Ho is on a speaking tour and the dates will be at the bottom of the snapshot.

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

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


In Iraq today . . .

Bombings?

Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports "a car bomb exploded in a downtown street where a crowd was waiting to catch a minibus" resulting in at least five deaths; Zavis quotes Naim Zamel who witnessed the bombing and ended up hospitalized due to injuries: "The sound and the pressure were hard. Shrapnel was flying all over the place. I saw three cars on fire, people injured and shops destroyed." Bushra Juhi (AP) notes another Baghdad bombing in "a predominatly Shiite area in eastern Baghdad earlier Wednesday, killing two people and wounding 10" and quoting Abu Talal on the alleged car bomber: "A seeminly normal person parked this car and told us that he would not be long. When that person disappeared for more than 20 minutes, we tried to call the police but the car exploded as we were trying to do so." Reuters notes a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed four and left 20 wounded; a car bomb in Tal Afar that wounded 10; a roadisde bomb in Kirkuk that killed one and wounded two, and a roadside bomb in Baiji that resulted in six police officers being wounded.

Shootings?

Reuters reports that a teenager was shot dead in Falluja.

Corpses?

AFP reports that the corpses of "three law professors and a student kidnapper Sunday from near the university in Baghdad, a government statement said." AP reports that six corpses were discovered in Falluja. Reuters reports that a corpse was discovered in Mosul and two were discovered in Baiji.

In addition, Claudia Parsons (Reuters) reports that the US military announced an additional four deaths of US troops while Wlliam Fallon ("tapped to take over command of U.S. forces in the Middle East") stated progress on the illegal war will "be a long time coming." Lowered expectations -- hallmark of the Bully Boy White House.

From lowered expectations to Operation Happy Talk, James Glanz and Mark Mazzetti (New York Times) did their part to be out US government spin that was also quite racist: Iraqis weren't 'smart' enough to have planned the Saturday attack in Karbala that led to 1 US soldier being killed on the spot while 4 others were killed after they'd been kidnapped. The weapons, Glanz and Mazzetti write as the US military whispers in their ears, just weren't available in Iraq! (Apparently Times reporters have never visited the blackmarket? Possibly they can't get a military escort to it?) "The uniforms!!!" cry the boys of the pre-Times. They tick off this and that when the reality is that you truly have to believe that Iraqis are stupid to believe they couldn't accomplish what was done and you have to work for the Times to believe you can sell a war of choice (this time Iran) with whispers and unsourced statements. But damned if the pre-Boys of the pre-Times don't get so excited they keep checking one another to see who's sprouting pubes first? Keep looking boys.

Along with promoting a war with Iran, the US spin allows the puppet government to hide. Puppet in chief Nouri al-Maliki, CNN reports, is screaming in agreement that, yes, the violence is Iran's fault. As opposed to the inability of a puppet to do anything other than move when his strings are pulled? CNN tells you that the "theory is only a preliminary view, and there is no conclusion." The New York Times prefers the much weaker "may" -- Iran "May" have done this and left the other half of the sentence ("may not") for readers to fill in.

Now if puppet Nouri believed it for a moment, it's doubtful Iran would still be invited to the regional peace conference in March -- but they are as the AFP notes.

In other news of things-aren't-quite-what-the-US-government-says, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports that "suspicions in Iraq" are emerging that the Najaf 'cult' story "in wich 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre."

CBS and AP are reporting that the toothless, symbolic, time consuming, non-binding measure proposed by US senators Joe Biden, Carl Levin and Chuck Hagel will most likely be overtaken by an even weaker version of do nothing, this one proposed by Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News notes that, on the other hand, "You don't usually hear cheers like that in Senate hearing rooms" -- Attkisson was speaking of the reaction yesterday to US Senator Russ Feingold's hearing into Congressional powers with regards to war where Feingold declared, "Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to."

Yesterday, Feingold used his power as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" where he concluded his opening remarks with this:

The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.

At the end of yesterday's hearing, Feingold noted, "It is clear that this administration took the country into war on a fraudulent basis with the president insisting we had no other option
but to pre-emptively attack Iraq. Now four years into the war we are still in Iraq, and the president insists that we have no other options but to stay -- with no end in sight and we have to say. As long as this president goes unchecked by Congress our troops will remain needlessly at risk and our national security will be compromised. Today we have heard convinciny testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to.
[Applause, chants of "DO IT!" DO IT!] The president has no plan for ending our mission in Iraq, worse still, his Iraq centered policies have undercut our national security worldwide."
Feingold's plan for addressing the Iraq war is summarized in this fact sheet.


In other political news, CODEPINK continues to demand Congress represent the people. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported that the DC office of US Senator Hillary Clinton was occupied, that activists carried banner ("We want a woman for peace, not just a woman.") and six were arrested. Yesterday's actions were part of a series of actions by CODEPINK following Saturday's protest and march in DC. In a press release issued before Tuesday's actions, Jodie Evans explained, "We met with Hillary Clinton right before the war, begging her to oppose the invasion but she refused. She gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq and now pretends she was against the war. Worse yet, she still refuses to take a clear position to defund the war and bring the troops home." Medea Benjamin explained, "We're tired of the lies, the obfuscations, the spin. If Hillary wants to become president, she better start being a leader. If she's in to win, she better stop the spin." And Gale Murphy observed, "This country is hungry for leaders who will get us out of Iraq. We'll be giving Hillary a chance to cut her web of war and join the majority of people in this country who want to bring the troops home."

Meanwhile Gold Star Families for Peace's Carlos Arredondo is in Times Square. Reuters reports that he's gone to NYC with "a pick-up truck carrying an empty flag-draped coffin and a picture of his son's open casket and funeral." Carlos Arredondo's son Alex died in Iraq on August 25, 2004. Last Saturday, he was among the speakers in DC. Arrendondo recognized the other families who had lost loved ones and noted, "This is the cost of war!"

Do costs ever get paid? Sanford Levinson -- sometime law professor & full time psychic -- said "No" and argued in The Nation that impeachment shouldn't happen because of some gut feeling he had (I believe that was gas). In the real world, Robert Scheer (Truthdig) notes the various developments emerging in the trial of Scooter Libby and notes that Cathie Martin's testmony revealed her own and the vice-president's office role in lying to the people and to Congress when they crafted a statement/cover for George Tenet -- Scheer: "Certainly this deliberate corruption of the integrity of the CIA, the nation's premier source of national security information, rises to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which the Constitution holds out as the standard for impeachment. And can there be any more egregious example of betraying the oath of office of president to uphold the Constitution than his deceiving Congress from the very well of the House on the reasons for going to war? The Constitution clearly delegates to Congress, and not to the president, the exclusive power to declare war, and deceiving our representatives in making the case for war is a far more important crime than the perjury charge against Libby."

On the same topic, historian Howard Zinn, in the (The Progressive), observes:

The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about "realism" (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being "the art of the possible" (while setting limits on what is possible).
I know I'm not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable). There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it's been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual "indictment" has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.
There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of "people's impeachment hearings" all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.


Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour before the court-martial next Monday. Some of her dates this week include:

Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL

7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana

Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615

12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110

7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com

Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition



ehren watadamike honda
howard zinn
amy goodmandemocracy now
elizabeth de la vega
robert scheercodepinkmedea benjamin
the new york timesjames glanzpatrick cockburn
russ feingold

Jane Fonda, Russ Feingold

Do you ever do something and just wonder, "How could I have been so stupid?" That's me tonight. I stopped on the way home to get all the ingredients to make a pasta salad. I spent about 30 minutes slicing and working on the spices. Then I add a balsimic & vinegar dressing. I just bought the bottle this evening so I guess I shouldn't be sitting here thinking I'm stupid.
But as I'm pouring it, I see something and think, "What is that?" I have no idea what it is. Some sort of fungus. So now the whole pasta salad is ruined.

The time wasted is annoying. But I am starving and I really don't have anything else in the house. I have some bran cereal. I'm sure there's something in the pantry I can create something with but . . . It's just one of those times when you look back and think, "Why did I even bother?"

Why did I even bother to go to all that trouble. I could've stopped and gotten a salad on the way home instead of deciding to make something. But it is interesting because, the whole time I was blaming myself and if it happened to someone else, I would say, "Uh, they shouldn't have had a dressing stocked if it had fungus." (I'm assuming it was fungus vinegar and oil don't usually have puffy white things floating in them.) But it's interesting how we blame ourselves first.

Unless of course we work or live in the White House currently -- then we blame everyone but ourselves.

'"Silence Is No Longer An Option': Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins Speak Out" (Democracy Now!):
JANE FONDA: I'm really here because I want to thank you all. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for being here today. So many of you, so many of today's speakers, including my fellow actors up here, were here at the beginning, before we went into Iraq, because you knew and they knew what was in store. Thank you so much for the courage to stand up against this mean-spirited, vengeful administration. Your actions are proof that the most precious part of this country, its soul, is alive and well. So thank you. Your ongoing commitment to ending this war allows people in other parts of the world to remain hopeful that America has the stuff to become again a country that they can love and respect. Thank you. I especially want to thank and acknowledge the servicemen and women and the military families and Gold Star mothers that are here.
A lot of press people have been asking me today, "What's the difference between now and during the Vietnam war?" And I’ll tell you one huge crucial difference: it took six years for Vietnam veterans, active-duty servicemen, Gold Star mothers and military families to come out against the war. It has happened now within three years of the war. Their presence here is critical, and we should acknowledge their courage.
I haven't spoken at an antiwar rally in 34 years, because I've been afraid that because of the lies that have been and continue to be spread about me and that war, that they would be used to hurt this new antiwar movement, but silence is no longer an option. My daughter, who is here with me today -- come here -- she was a little girl when she would come with me to the anti-Vietnam War protests. She's here today with her two little children, my grandchildren. I'm very proud that they're here, but I'm so sad that we still have to do this; that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War; that we've made the same mistakes, blindness to the realities on the ground, hubris and arrogance in dealing with a people and culture far older than we are; and that we understand so little, carelessness and thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed, allowing billions of dollars to be stolen, squandered at the hands of private contractors, just as this administration has done in our own gulf in the post-Katrina era.
So, thank you. Thank you for being here, and we'll continue to be here for as long as necessary.
God Bless.

That was one of my favorite speeches at the rally. Imagine what our Congress would be able to do if it was made up of the people who attended the rally? I doubt seriously that we'd have a Congress who worried and fretted while accomplishing very little.

Wally and Cedric want to be sure that someone who's not just sitting around waiting for others to do gets attention. So I told them I would highlight this as well.

"Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" (Russ Feingold):
January 30, 2007
Listen to Senator Feingold's Opening Statement
Good morning, and welcome to this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." We are honored to have with us this morning a distinguished panel of legal scholars to share their views on this very important and timely issue.
I thank Chairman Leahy for allowing me to chair this hearing. Let me start by making a few opening remarks, then I will recognize Senator Specter for an opening statement, and then we will turn to our witnesses.
It is often said in this era of ubiquitous public opinion polls that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006, we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop.
The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act.
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power "[to] declare War," "[t]o raise and support Armies," "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy," and "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." In addition, under Article I, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.
Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded."
The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation.
There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that's not their responsibility."
Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It's not going to stop us."
In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the President. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying "your policy is mistaken." And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way.
This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way -- they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:
"None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose."
More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.
Our witnesses today are well aware of this history, and I look forward to hearing their analysis of it as they discuss Congress's power in this area. They are legal scholars, not military or foreign policy experts. We are here to find out from them not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.

I have no problem highlighting that. I wish Russ Feingold were running for president. I can't understand why we can get hacks like Joe Biden (who must be running for the sound of his own voice) repeatedly and someone who could really make a difference isn't running. On the plus side, Dennis Kucinich is running but I do wonder if the media will trash him again like they did last go round. They ridiculed him and mocked him. Asked him why he didn't just drop out?

Maybe people will complain when it happens this time? I need to fix something to eat so I'll copy and paste the snapshot and apologize that I've written so little tonight.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
January 30, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy's spin on Najaf comes loose, Ehren Watada's court-martial is still scheduled for Feb. 5th but there is a new development,
and US Senator Russ Feingold maintains he is not running for president in 2008 but delivers something sharper, more focused and harder hitting than any of the declared candidates has yet to offer: "In the United Sates of America, the people are sovereign, not the Presidents. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misquided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying 'your policy is mistaken.' And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities."


Last week, Ehren Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq appeared on NPR's Fresh Air with his attorney Eric Seitz where they were interviewed by NO HELP TO ANYONE Terry Gross. Gross cited the laughable Seattle Times editorial and Watada's response was:


When we join the military we don't swear an oath to a person or, especially officers, in our oath we do not swear an oath of loyalty to any one person or any group of people or even an institution. We swear an oath to protect the Constitution and also the American people as a whole and we have to follow the rule of law as it says in the Constitution and when we have . . . When I joined the military in March 2003, I believed the administration when they said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there were ties with Sadam to al Qaeda and 9-11. We all know those lies were false now and there have been many reports coming out of retired CIA analysts and officers saying that the intelligence was not bad it was intentionally falsified to fit the policy. When we have as I said a group of people in our government who mislead the public who mislead the other branch of government in order to justify their war that is a violation of the Constitution. And, um, I just have to say that regardless of what they convict me on, if they convict me or sentence me, I am doing what I swore an oath to do when I joined the military 3 years ago and as I said I did not realize the extent of the deception that was waged upon us that I do now.


That was the first segment of the January 25 show. The second is where she got into real trouble and there's a reason for that: Terry Gross can find a man anywhere. Her next book might need to be entitled Manhunt. It's women she can't find. And she's far from alone on that -- as of the February 5, 2007 issue of The Nation, for the magazine to offer women in equal number (equal, not more) there February 12, 2007 issue would have needed to print 37 pieces written or co-written by women and none by men. The Nation ratio by gender is basically 1 female for every 4 males. Gross specializes in her nerdy dominitrix pose on air -- full of tension and archness -- and it's a laughable bit but she's made it profitable. What she has not done (appalling when you consider that NPR broke down barriers for women -- including Gross) is do her part to offer women an equal platform. Appalling considering the history of NPR, more appalling considering the information she was seeking in the second segment of the show when she interviewed Eugene Fidell asking him questions about issues that he frequently hems and haws on. If you're asking about the Law of Land Warfare, Gross, you can go to a woman. Retired colonel Ann Wright taught that.

NPR audiences were cheated out of a full discussion about Ehren Watada because Queen Bee Gross can have countless males on her show each week (several guests each day) but somehow more than two or three women send Gross into a panic. It's harmful to all women and, in the case of Ehren Watada, it prevented Gross from being able to find the answers to her questions.

Had Ann Wright been invited into the second segment (instead of one male 'expert') she could have stated, "As part of our overal military training there is a history of service personnel being told that you do not have to follow an illegal order. It comes from the commissions that we take that we are to uphold the lawful orders of our superios. Implicit in that is that if there is an illegal order you are under no obligation to follow it." Wright served in the military, served in the US State Department and the quote is from what she testified to in the August Article 32 hearing.

Ehren Watada faces a court-martial on February 5th (and got the Diane Sawyer "Aren't you ashamed!" treatment from Gross last week). Though it never would have been the court-martial of Sarah Olson (despite where independent media put their emphasis in what passed for 'coverage'), she and Gregg Kakesako will not appear in court. All the hand wringing was for nothing. All the, "Phil, you've got to write about this! We need you!" phone calls were a waste of time. Already today Amy Goodman's interviewed Olson and no one ever needs to do so again. Goodman made the mistake of asking a very basic question -- Now that she's not going to be asked to testify, will she be covering the court-martial? It was too much for Olson -- she sputtered, she stammered, she had no answer. The parody "Run, Olson! Run!"
never looked so true.

Ehren Watada was always the defendant in his court-martial -- even if that basic point couldn't be grasped by indy pundits. The charges reduce the maxiumum number of years Watada could serve if he is punished in the court-martial -- from six years, it has now dropped to a maximum of four years in prison. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, told AP, of the kangaro court awaiting his client: "This is not a justice proceeding but a disciplinary proceeding. Really, the only thing the Army is interested in here is what kind of punishment to mete, not whether Lieutenant Watada is guilty or innocent of the charges."


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

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

On the topic of going to Canada, Patrick Malone (Canada's The London Free Press) reports
on Matt Lowell who was attempting to receive refugee status in Canada and has heard back from the Immigration and Refugee Board: "Eight pages long, it can be summed up in one word: No." The article also notes a meeting this Thursday at 7:00 pm at the Tolpuddle housing co-op, common room, 380 Adelaide St. at King Street in London (Ottawa, not England) where you can meet with Iraq war resisters and those "offering support to military resisters."

In Iraq, the big (press) issue is still what happened in Najaf.

Bombings?


Sam Knight (Times of London) reports an "explosion, in the town of Mandali, 60km north east of Baghdad and near the border with Iran, claimed the lives of 23 worshippers at a Shi mosque, doctors said. A further 60 people were injured when a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives in the midst of a crowd of around 150 people entering the Ali al-Akbar mosque". Michael Howard (Guardian of London) reports a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed "at least 17 people and injuring 72." Kim Gamel (AP) notes "a bomb in a garage can exploded as scores of Shiites - most them Kurds -- were performing rituals in Khanaqin, a majority Kurdish city also near the Iranian border. At least 13 people were killed and 39 were wounded, police Maj. Idriss Mohammed said." Reuters notes a car bomb in Mosul that killed two police officers (wounded two more) and a secon mortar attack in Baghdad left nine people wounded.



Shootings?

Al Jazeera reports that "four Ashura pilgrmins" were shot ded with an addition six injured in Baghdad today.



Also today the US military announced: "One Marine assigned to Multi-National Forces-West died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province" and they announced: "LSA Anaconda, Iraq– A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed in an accident when a M-1114 HMMWV rolled over northwest of An Nasiriah Jan 29."

Meanwhile Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) further discredits Bully Boy's false assertion that the February 22nd bombing in Samarra of a Shi'ite mosque began the sectarian violence -- Fadel notes that the claim is already disputed by "U.S. diplomats, Iraqi politicians, U.S. intelligence analysts and journalists [who] had reported throughout 2005 that attacks on Sunnis by Shiite militias were rising and that the militias had infiltraded the security forces"; however, Fadel reports that Ibrahim al Jaafari (former prime minister of Iraq0 states "he told U.S. officials nearly two years ago that Shiite Muslim militas were infiltrating the country's secuirty services".

In latest lies the Bully Boy told the world, CBS and AP report that Bully Boy continues to cite the recent events in Najaf as proof of yet another turned corner: "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something." Marc Santora (New York Times) reported today that, contrary to the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed . . . and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed".

In other news, does US Senator Arlen Specter watch Democracy Now!? If so he may have seen the speech US Rep Maxine Waters delivered at the rally in DC Saturday -- where she made the point that Bully Boy was not the decider. AP reports that Arlen Specter said something similar, in milder terms, today: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsiblity." Then, Specter saw his shadow and won't be spotted again until spring.

Staying on the topic of the US Congress, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes US Rep Maxine Waters recent appearance on CNN where she outlined the plans by the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to visit "early Democratic primary states" in order to make some Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate a spine. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if this were a reference to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, "they both have to prove themselves," was Waters' response.

Also addressing the issue of spine and justice, Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The logic of Withdrawal) observes (at CounterPunch): "The other night, on 60 Minutes, President Bush said 'Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction.' Yet millions of us who protested this war before it started were right, and were ignored. We did not have access to any special intelligence. We simply used our intelligence. And today we have the intelligence to know that each day we continue the occupation of Iraq, the situation gets worse. Every time we have been told 'we are turning the corner,' the situation gets worse. And we have the intelligence to know that you cannot oppose the war, as some Democrats have proclaimed, and yet fund this war. To those who say we cannot withdraw 'precipitously,' there is nothing precipitous about pulling out after four years of occuyping another country against its will. And to those who say we are abandoing the troops, the best way to support the troops is to bring them home."

Today, US Senator Russ Feingold held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Excercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" to explore the issue of what powers Congress has in ending Bully Boy's illegal war. From Feingold's opening statement:
"It is often said . . . that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006 we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop. The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act." Noting the words written into the US Constitution (Congress has the power to declare war, the power of the purse, etc.), Feingold then stated, "The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way. If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation. . . . There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: 'Frankly, that's not their responsibility.' [. . .] It’s our job to fix the mess, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities. Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way."


On last weekends protests, rallies and marches, Danny Schechter writes at BuzzFlash to remind everyone that the numbers reported do matter as do media coverage: "Do the anti-war organizaers see this as a problem? Don't they think they should try to do something about it as a problem and protest this ritualistic treatement? Shouldn't they make the media coverage a issue? Are they only listening to themselves? I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and feisty host Bree Walker, a former TV anchor, agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of 'alienating' the press." To be clear, Danny's writing of the mainstream press. I would expand that to include independent media as well (and no community member would disagree with that assertion).

Also addressing the issue of big media at BuzzFlash, Cindy Sheehan writes: "In the United States today, we have a media controlled b corporations that are, for the most part, controlled by other entities that profit off of war. NBC is owned by General Electric, a major war profiteer (which used to be a crime punishable by hanging). The corporate media has a lot at stake by keeping the wag-the-dog occupation of Iraq aloat on BushCo's failed ship of state.


Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour. Some of her dates this week include:

Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com

Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition


Finally, the lies that led to war include the false claim of 'yellowcake' in Bully Boy's 2003 State of the Union address. When it imploded on him, they attempted to attack and silence Joseph Wilson by destroying his wife Valerie Plame -- a CIA agent until those at the White House decided to blow her cover. Rory O'Connor is blogging about Scooter Libby's trial and Judith Miller was supposed to appear today.




iraqehren watada
anthony arnove
cindy sheehanbuzzflash
danny schechter
glen ford
the new york timesmarc santora