Friday, the Iraq study group was great as always. It's good to see how that has grown (and again, thank you to Goldie and Marlene for their house parties which inspired us -- Tony, Nina and myself -- to start our own).
I had an e-mail saying maybe I wasn't being fair to John Nichols. You know what, C.I. likes John Nichols and if I'd expected that from anyone, it would have been C.I. (But honestly, C.I.'s never complained about anything I've had here.) I was saying I wouldn't put him on the list of people calling for impeachment. But this guy was saying I should check him out. I know he talked firm on impeachment to Ruth Conniff but I know how weak-ass The Nation is. So I went to his online blog at The Nation and I'm seeing a lot of ink on the right wing and what they're doing and two mushy centrists groups and only group worth counting (CCR). I go down his blog and there's THE LIE.
Obama, C.I. went over this, did not say he might meet eventually if he was president. He said in the first year. Add John Nichols to the list who either can't read or hear or can't tell the truth. That list includes Katrina vanden Heuvel (who is both stupid and unable to tell the truth) and Ari Berman.
I don't like LIARS. I don't like LIARS who LIE to get you to vote for someone.
I'm not voting for Hillary in the primary. I'm not a Hillary fan. But I'm not going to act like Obama (who I hate as much as I do Hillary) is a Wiz Kid.
They treat him like he's Opie from The Andy Griffith Show or something. He's a corporate whore and he was DEAD WRONG on that question in the debate. We've got a feature planned on this at Third so I won't go into it too much but I will note if I want to have friendly relations with you, and forever whatever reasons we do not have that now, I will pull out feelers. I will not declare, "I will be friends in my first year in office!"
Obama/Opie made a BIG mistake. Now John Nichols could disagree with me on that and we'd just disagree. But when you're NOT TELLING THE TRUTH about what happened, we have a problem. Only David Corn has told the truth about what happened.
I'm sorry that The Nation HATES HILLARY CLINTON SO MUCH that they think it's okay to LIE about what happened. (Though they'll probably kiss her ass if she gets the nomination -- up to the election. Remember Katha Pollitt says the Supreme Court is all up to the president! It matters! Democrats gave us Sandra Day O'Connor! Oh, they didn't. Well, that's Katha Pollitt for you.) They could tell the truth and still tongue Obama's crack till the cows come home. I'd roll my eyes but I wouldn't call them LIARS. But David Corn -- forget his opinion of what went down for a second -- is the only one who has told the truth about the debate. John Nichols does like Koo Koo Katrina (whose so stupid she may not be able to help getting it wrong but her track record makes it appear she WILLINGLY LIED) and Ari Berman. (I'm neutral on Berman.)
I have no idea why The Nation decided last year to start pushing Obama/Opie.
Obama's a disgusting piece of trash. Elaine and C.I. told me about that meeting in 2004 (when his campaign wanted cash) and how that went. They were so excited and were wondering if they should write checks for the maximum amount. He was "against the war" and that really mattered. Then they meet him and he's all about how the war is wrong but the US got into it and now it can't withdraw. There were a few other things in that meeting as well. But Elaine and C.I. didn't give a cent. Not only that, they left feeling dirty. This was before the Obama Girl video. But maybe that 'joke' isn't really such a joke?
Then, when Obama needed to get rid of Jack Ryan (the Republican running against him), there's an echo of the past Obama's campaign as suddenly SEALED COURT RECORDS on a divorce become PUBLIC FODDER. There was no reason to embarrass Jack Ryan's ex-wife. Maybe you think there's reason to embarrass Jack Ryan in that way. I'm not sure about that and could go either way if this was something not involving a woman who had ended her marriage because she was humiliated by what her then husband wanted her to do sexually.
Jack Ryan's obviously no prince. But Obama is just as trashy. In fact, he's more trashy. What Jack Ryan put his ex-wife through was bad enough and destroyed their marriage. But it was over and the COURT RECORDS WERE SEALED. The fact that Obama wanted to get votes by using a woman's past, private humiliation was worse than what Jack Ryan did.
I think everyone knows who Jack Ryan's ex-wife is. She seems like a nice person and C.I. is really nervous on this topic because of not wanting to embarrass the woman further than she already has been. So I won't name the woman. But she didn't need the whole world to know what happened. The world knew she and her husband divorced. That's all they needed to know. The private details weren't anyone's business.
And Obama's campaign did that before. They smeared his opponent in the 2004 Democratic Primary for the senate nod as someone who beats his wife.
Now somehow all of this translates into Obama/Opie is a DREAM BOAT. He's not. He's a sleazy piece of trash.
But if Koo Koo Katrina thinks what he did was okay, I have enough private stories about her life that I can share. I've heard them from Elaine and Rebecca's mother-in-law.
Does she want her own sex life paraded?
Maybe she does. She is Koo Koo Katrina. But I don't go into the gutter that way.
Koo Koo Katrina appears to have a keen interest in Obama. I'm sure she's giving him the full extent she can and no one's talking about how "cheap" she is the way they were when she was being stingy on Bernie Sanders' campaigns. And they did do that. They laughed at her and her silly Russian fantasies. (They still laugh at that.) So I've got a lot of Koo Koo Katrina stories I can tell.
Maybe I should jump in the gutter like Obama and Koo Koo Katrina?
I don't like Hillary and I don't like Obama and I don't like them for the same reason -- they pretend to be left and they're both war hawks and corporatists. (Saying the US can't withdraw from an illegal war makes Obama a War Hawk.)
When I hear Dave Zirin going on about Obama the Dream Boy, it saddens me. But I can put it off on other things. I also am not aware of his ever LYING to rescue Obama.
So I'm going to have to let stand what I said about John Nichols. If that upsets more than the one person who wrotes, I'm sorry. If it helps C.I. thinks John Nichols is a really nice guy. He did talk strong (or stronger) about impeachment to Ruth Conniff. And I guess he can do that when he's away from the Koo Koo Katrina crowd.
But he LIES when he joins them in altering what happened. This isn't a case of "OH, he's wrong because I HATE his opinion." This is about the basic facts and he gets them wrong and Ari Berman got them wrong and Koo Koo Katrina got them wrong.
She really is nuts, by the way. I saw that when I went to The Nation and read her latest. I understood why friends of C.I. were willing to trade coverage (Iraq stories) for C.I. calling out the fact that Koo Koo Katrina is not trained in journalism. Friday's post really reveals that. She really is nuts. And she's cheap. I think that was the biggest surprise, hearing from Rebecca's mother-in-law and Elaine all these stories of just what a money grubber she is. I guess you have to be to go so far in avoiding paying taxes that you'll take your case to the Supreme Court (and LOSE!) but she really is a cheap skate. It's not like she made the money and values it. She's just inherited it and she's incredibly cheap with her contributions to political campaigns and other things.
This is the opening of Dave Lindorff's "Declaring the US a Battlefield:"
The looming collapse of the US military in Iraq, of which a number of generals and former generals, including former Chief of Staff Colin Powell, have warned, is happening none too soon, as it my be the best hope for preventing military rule here at home.
From the looks of things, the Bush/Cheney regime has been working assiduously to pave the way for a declaration of military rule, such that at this point it really lacks only the pretext to trigger a suspension of Constitutional government. They have done this with the active support of Democrats in Congress, though most of the heavy lifting was done by the last, Republican-led Congress.
The first step, or course, was the first Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in September 2001, which the president has subsequently used to claim-improperly, but so what? -that the whole world, including the US, is a battlefield in a so-called "War" on Terror, and that he has extra-Constitutional unitary executive powers to ignore laws passed by Congress. As constitutional scholar and former Reagan-era associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein observes, that one claim, that the US is itself a battlefield, is enough to allow this or some future president to declare martial law, "since you can always declare martial law on a battlefield. All he'd need would be a pretext, like another terrorist attack inside the U.S."
It's funny that Dave Lindorrf can write about this. And Matthew Rothschild can write about this stuff at The Progressive and CounterPunch and others can cover it but Koo Koo Katrina's off chirping at her own reflection. (If she had wings, you can be sure she would fly into the glass.) Last week's Koo Koo Katrina joke was such a big hit in Polly's Brew, that I'm sharing another one in my column this week. This is from an leftist writer and we were all laughing when he told it last week. So look for that on Sunday.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, July 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Cindy Sheehan debates a moron, Operation Happy Talk continues.
Starting with war resisters. From September 2nd through September 26th, Agustin Aguayo was absent without leave. Aguayo self-checked out when facing a second deployment to Iraq and while his case was moving through the civilian courts. Aguayo was denied CO status by a military that doesn't know their own regulations. John A. Rogowsky Jr. is another, among many others, who have been wrongly denied CO status. From "Selective Service System: Fast Facts:" "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be." Despite that basic reality, Aguayo, Rogowsky and others have been told that they're not religious enough, that their religion is not recognized, when religion really is NOT required for CO status. In Aguayo's case, the military refused to recognize that time in Iraq deepened Aguayo's faith (already present when he enlisted).
Speaking with Don Bustany on KPFK's Middle East in Focus Wednesday, Aguayo shared his story.and noted that when he arrived in Iraq in February of 2004, the medics were gathered for a speech that was in conflict in with the printed training material. They were told that they were medics and they were combat troops and that, "'You medics,' speaking to us, 'has to make it clear, has to make it clear in the minds of your infantry man that they must finish their job because if they don't then there will be more work for you'." As Aguayo looked around he saw acceptance and an eagerness to get back to the routine but "I could not accept that I was being told those things."
He also spoke of the eagerness to blame Iraqis for any problems as opposed to questioning the illegal war or the Bully Boy who sent them there. Aguayo began to realize, "I was a particiant, a supporter, of all the missions that took place." Today Aguayo is sharing his story publicly. Mialka Bonadonna (LAist) reports he will be speaking tonight (Friday) in Los Angeles, 7:00 pm at 3303 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd floor.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
From reality to Operation Happy Talk. The push-back is on and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno has enlisted. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) writes of the press briefing Odierno gave yesterday where he issued the talking points that US military deaths were falling. Parker rightly notes that seven deaths were announced after the press briefing and the one of the deaths announced on Thursday dated back to Sunday. The US military was delaying announcing deaths. Reality is that in terms of what has been annouced, the deaths were 67 on Thursday and that July is not yet over but July 2007 is already the deadliest July for US service members since the start of the illegal war. July 2006: 43 US service members were killed in Iraq. In July 2005 and July 2004, 54 US service members were killed in Iraq. In July 2003, 48 US service members were killed in Iraq.
Last week, Odierno enlisted in the push-back in a vareity of ways at a press briefing with reporters at the US Pentagon via video-link. In terms of downgrading expectations for the September report to the US Congress by the military, he declared that the report that was needed would come in November and clarified, "What I was saying is -- again, my remarks were, in 45 days I will have a better idea if the trends are continuing, and that's September. Obviously, we have an assessment we will conduct in September that will provide -- that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will provide. I was not looking at extending that time frame when they have to report back. What I imagine we'll have to do is do assessments that follow that initial assessment in September, and that's -- I'm assuming we'll continue to do assessments while we're here." Yesterday, Odierno stressed "trends" as well but forgot to include 7 deaths he should have known about in his remarks.
In addition, at the same press briefing, he attempted to yet again sell the non-proven link between resistance fighters in Iraq and the Iranian government. When pressed by reporters for evidence, Odierno's confident remarks of such a link were replaced with his statements that, "We don't see any evidence -- significant evidence". And a third way he enlisted was in calling into question the right of an open debate in a free society when he took to suggesting that discussions in the media and in the US Congress about US forces withdrawing from Iraq, was 'emboldening' al Qaeda. Again, when pressed, Odierno had to back off from his original remarks and admit he had "no specific intelligence" on any such emboldening.
Operation Happy Talk is not confined to the US military brass and the US administration. Andrew Grice (Independent of London) reports that the UK Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup (I did not make that name up) has declared, "We are very close to being able to hand over Basra in my judgement. Just when we will reach that point is at the moment uncertain but I am fairly confident it'll be in the second half of the year." Basra is one base, the Basra Palace (and it's also the last of four provinces the British military currently controls -- the other three were already turned over) Grice interprets Jock Stirrup's remarks to mean control of Basra could be handed off before the year's end; however, it could come much sooner. After all, British troops, the Soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars, proved they could hustle when they pulled out of the Maysan province with less than 24 hours notice after their base their repeatedly was attacked back in August. As Haidar Hani (AP) reported then that following the British hitting the road in 'stripped down mode': "Looters ravaged a former British base Friday . . . taking everything from doors and window frames to corrugated roofing and metal pipes". Iraqi authorites noted then that the British had only given them 24 hours notice that the departure was coming. As with that base, the Basra Palace has been under rocket and mortar attacks repeatedly. In addition, IRIN reports that approximately "150 doctors in Basra, Iraq's second largest city about 600km south of Baghdad, began a three-day strike on 23 July, demanding the government protect them and their families." This was to call attention to the lack of security and this comes as over "618 medical employees" have been killed since the start of the illegal war.
Turning to realities that US administration prefers we don't know. Noam N. Levey and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) report that the White House "has stopped reporting to Congress a key quality-of-life indicator in Baghdad: how long the power stays on." This is an agreed upon 'benchmark' by the US administration and Congress -- and one even Iraqis could agree to even though they were consulted when it was time to draw on benchmarks. When you can't meet the benchmark, this administration stops reporting it.
This approach is an affront to democracy and one of many the current administration has repeatedly shown not only to people in the US but to people around the world. Today, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) hosted a debate on the issue of impeachment. All sides were represented, with Cindy Sheehan representing the pro-impeachment and Dan Gerstein representing the lunatic fringe. Gerstein is a Democratic Party Hack and not even a good one. His full credentials were not listed on the program and that's probably due to the fact that if he'd had to sit through even a partial litany of his many losses, he would have walked off on air.
Gerstein doesn't want impeachment. He doesn't think anything that's been done rises to the level of impeachment. He thinks the way to 'fix' is to vote Democrats into power in 2008 (he might want to check out his consulting p.r. faxes because I'm seeing something about him being in favor of Democrats "all things being equal"). To impeach the Bully Boy and/or Cheney would be a distraction that would harm the Democrats chances to regain the White House in 2008.
Gerstein's been more wrong than right when gazing into his crystal ball and that may say it all but for those who've forgotten his nasty snit-fits when his boy Joe Lieberman lost the primary to Ned Lamont, try google-ing.
The reality, as Cindy Sheehan pointed out, is that impeachment hasn't been a problem in terms of the White House. Gerstein is wrong, Sheehan is right. Gerstein tried to use the 1998 Congressional election (not a White House election) as an example. After the 2002 Congressional election demonstrated that no patterns were holding, no tea leafs could be read, Gerstein might try sticking to reality and leaving his fantasy land where he knows the outcome. (If he truly did, he might be a player and not a Lieberman lackey.)
From the broadcast:
CINDY SHEEHAN: Well, also in Article II, yeah, Clause 4, it says for treason and bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe that -- and there's, you know, legal proof out there that when he commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, he committed treason, because Scooter Libby was convicted of obstructing justice in the cover-up of the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame. And I believe that the American people will be behind this. The Democrats aren't trying to end the war. They just gave George Bush $120 billion more to wage it. And he has said the troops aren't coming home while he's president. So I think we need to look at it as human-based and not political. John Conyers told me in a meeting previously to the one we had on Monday that winning the presidency in '08 was more important to him than ending the war in Iraq. When are our leaders going to -- I guarantee there's 150,000 mothers in this country, who it's more important to them to end the war in Iraq and get their children home safely than who's president in '08. And I think, historically, when this impeachment has been tried, like I said before, the party who tried it, even though it hasn't been successful, has -- it has galvanized the base of that party to say, "Wow, our leaders are courageous. Our leaders have integrity. Our leaders are leading us from a moral base, not from political expediency."
It was hilarious to see the Sterile Gerstein LIE and we'll use the word even though he will take offense but that is reality. A liar, for instance, is someone who attacks Cindy Sheehan as an attention hog (or whatever the term he used) only a short time ago but pretends to have the upmost respect for her during the debate today. The Peace Mom cleaned his clock.
In today's violence, CNN reports that 17 Iraqis -- count includes 2 women -- were killed by the US military and the Iraqi military today in Karbala with hospital officials reporting at least twenty-five wounded ("including women and children") had been brought to the hospital. To no one's surprise the US military is claiming "Not true!" The US military asserts, in the same press release -- keep that in mind, that "No Iraqi civilians were present in the area while the strike was performed" -- the strike involved "aeiral fires" -- and that this was "a raid in a neighborhood in Karbala." One of those, no doubt, ghost town neighborhoods in Karbala? By their own admission, the raid took place in a neighborhood. The raid took place during the sleeping hours. The raid involved air strikes as well as shooting on the ground. And there is the matter of the bodies of the dead and the wounded.
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a man was killed in a Baghdad bombing when the car he was driving was stopped by assailants who put "explosives into his car" and then attempted to use the man and his car in an attack on a police check point (two police officers were wounded), a Baghdad mortar attack that left four wounded, two people wounded when "U.S. troops bombed Al Husseiniya district" in Baghdad, an Al Muqdadiyah roadside bombing claimed 1 life with five others wounded, a Kirkuk rocket attack that claimed 2 lives, and a Karbala roadside bombing targeting Brig. Gen. Raed Shakir Hamed that left 3 of his bodyguards killed while he survived. Reuters notes a Mahmudiya mortar attack that claimed the life of 1 woman and left a child and an adult wounded, that a Samarra roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 7 police officers so . . .
Shootings?
Reuters notes the Samarra police decided to open fire and 3 innocent civilians were killed (open fire after the bombing). Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Saidiyah and Adeeb Abdul Salam were shot dead in a Baghdad home invasion, a person shot dead in Buhruz and attorney Hussam Al Nahi was shot dead in Basra. Reuters notes an Iraqi soldier shot dead in Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 7 corpses discovered in Baghdad, two corpses delivered to Al Muqdadiyah hospital, 1 corpse discovered in Baquba. KUNA reports the corpses of five women were discovered in Mosul today and that the women had been kidnapped yesterday while returning from work.
Today, the US military announced: "One Task Force Lightning Soldier died as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion near his vehicle while conducting operations in Diyala province, Thursday." The death brings ICCC's current total to 3646 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 67 killed for the month thus far.
the common ills
mikey likes it
dave lindorff
iraq
agustin aguayo
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
democracy now
amy goodman
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The bravery of war resisters
Thursday night. Almost the weekend, but not quite. Leigh Ann wrote about my finger nail that got torn because she just did that. Mine didn't get torn (I bit a thing between the skin and nail and it ended up going deformed) so I'm not sure this will help. But what I was told to do was leave it alone, let it grow out and to clip the part of the tear that popped up. It's now grown up (and is no longer deformed). If that doesn't help, either e-mail me again and I'll pass it on to Rebecca (who has really long nails) or e-mail her and she'll give you more advice, Leigh Ann. (That's really all I know to do.)
Now let's get serious. Jeremy Hinzman is a war resister. He's a brave person. Note this:
Jeremy Hinzman was a U.S. soldier in the elite infantry division, the 82nd Airborne. He served in Afghanistan in a non-combat position after having applied for conscientious objector status.
After being refused CO status and returning to America, he learned that they would be deployed to Iraq. Hinzman did not believe the stated reasons for the Iraq war. In January 2004 he drove to Canada to seek asylum. He is currently living in Toronto with his wife Nga Nguyen and son Liam. His refugee claim was turned down in March 2005 by the Immigration and Refugee Board. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Jeremy is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Then there's Brandon Hughey:
Brandon Hughey arrived in Canada in March 2004.Hughey, a San Angelo, Texas native left his Army unit before it shipped out to Iraq. It was, he says, his obligation to leave. "I feel that if a soldier is given an order that he knows to not only be illegal, but immoral as well, then it his responsibility to refuse that order," he wrote in response to e-mailed questions from the San Angelo Standard-Times. "It is also my belief that if a soldier is refusing an order he knows to be wrong, it is not right for him to face persecution for it." Brandon had his hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board in June 2005. His claim was rejected and he, along with Jeremy Hinzman, is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
They are brave. Ryan Johnson, Patrick Hart, Joshua Key, Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ehren Watada, and a lot of more people who have resisted this war are brave.
Cowards? No, they aren't. And anyone calling them a coward should probably look into the mirror. They should also not try to hide behind their bullsh*t that they are a vet. I've gotten six e-mails since June from veterans opposed to the illegal war and if that centrist vet thinks he's got support, he's wrong. I've heard from people who left the military when the illegal war started to oppose it. That's not cowardly. People gave up their careers in the military the same way Ann Wright resigned her state department job -- they took stands. They are not cowards.
A centrist pig wants to trash them and others and then get his wittle feelings bent out of shape because everyone's not going to rush to applaud him.
If he thinks he's so popular, he's fooling himself about many things. All veterans aren't "on the same page" with him when he attacks war resisters. Nor does everyone like the way he and others try to bully others with their nonsense of "I'm better". I didn't even realize that was a problem until one e-mail came in back during June. I just assumed, wrongly, that everyone against the illegal war was supporting war resisters. I assumed all vets did. But it turns out that centrists are once again trying to create a scale whereby their statements matter more than others. Like when the centrists pushed their "We know, we were there" crap to argue throughout 2004, 2005 and 2006 for a 'smarter' illegal war instead of for ending the illegal war.
That group disbanded because it got such a bad name. But a new one's sprung up and the same bullies are back and trying to seize control.
In 2004, they repeatedly grabbed the microphone and press space and made it appear that all in the military (or who had just left) were wanting 'smarter' and continued illegal war.
Now they come out shooting for war resisters and a peace organization wants to give them support? I don't think so and I won't suppport that organization if turns out the one member wasn't speaking for herself but was speaking for the organization.
My parents supported war resisters during Vietnam (so did my grandparents) and you damn well better believe I was raised to support them.
It's funny that a centrist wants to repeatedly threaten C.I. but doesn't want to threaten me. I guess big tough babies like to threaten women but a guy over six feet tall makes 'em shut their pie hole?
But let me be clear to the centrists, you don't own our community, you don't direct our community and you WILL NOT get away with trashing war resisters.
To act on your moral convictions takes a lot of bravery. To grasp that an illegal war is wrong (at the start no less) takes a lot of bravery. So if you think you can trash war resisters with your little name calling, let me inform you that "fat" is the least thing I will trash you with. I will note your pasty skin and other personal details since that's what really gets your goat.
Of course, you could call off your war on war resisters at any time. But that's apparently the only way bullies like you can feel like men, by pointing to others and saying, "I'm a man! They're not manly!" (War resisters include women, by the way. But I'm talking about the mentality and comments that these centrists are making in public and privately in their crappy e-mails to C.I.) You went over to another country and you attacked a people. That's reality. Maybe you realize there's no book to be written on the courage in that so you feel the need to attack war resisters in some last bid to shore up your faltering masculinity?
It's real easy to slam war resisters. When they take their stands, they usually get slammed. That only makes their brave stands all the more brave. They refuse to back down and go along just because everyone else has. They are real heroes.
This is from Tom Joad:
Statements of solidarity with military resisters. Encouraging refusal to carry out unlawful, immoral orders:
Brothers and Sisters in the Military: "Refuse to Fight! Refuse to Kill!"
Iraq Pledge of Resistance: We pledge to support military resisters
U.S. War Heroes of the Iraq War, a comprehensive list of military resisters. See here
Check out latest events, actions here.
I'm not in the mood for weak ass support of war resisters or for attacks on them. If you're not supporting war resisters, you're not "on the same page" with me or anyone else in this community. War resisters have suffered for their stands but they didn't weaken or cave. They are not "cowards" and they aren't going to be made into targets by a bunch of centrists vets who've suddenly realized they are against the war (after 70% of Americans turned against it) and think they can trash war resisters.
Look it, if a bank robber announces he's realized it was wrong to rob banks, I'll applaud him. Good that he grasped reality. But I won't think, "Oh you are so much braver than all the other people who have never robbed banks!"
I'm also opposed to the scale the centrists (and apparently one peace organization) are trying to create where those who went and turned are more important than those who gave up their careers as the illegal war was about to begin. One vet wrote about that and shared how hurtful it was that this brave action was insulted by some of the returning. This vet wanted to be in the military. Instead, the vet resigned because the war was illegal. That took bravery (and I hope I got that across in my e-mail reply). That person is a hero in my book and doesn't need people down grading a very brave, very real stand to push some macho pig head coming back and sneering "You don't know about sacrifice."
I tried to go point by point in my reply and I either screwed it up or I got the point across and there was nothing left to say because I haven't heard from that vet again. But that stand was real bravery.
The peace movement has spent too long hiding behind what they think is acceptable and that's probably why so much of the peace movement is now USELESS. Since the June e-mails, I've really been paying attention to see who they prop up (hide behind) and who they support. They've done nothing for Eli Israel (if you have, you're the emerging peace movement, not the useless already in place and distracting the public). They've done nothing for ALL the war resisters who have been coming forward.
The peace movement, as we noted in our editorial Sunday, does not exist to put Democrats into office. It exists to end the illegal war. That's why people give it their time and money. Those who think they can pull a bait & switch like they did in 2004 are going to learn that they're no longer listened to or supported. Because, no, we are not all "on the same page."
I noted Tina Richards yesterday and she and Cindy Sheehan are examples (there are others) of the new peace movement. They aren't going to be silenced or crowded off the stage by faux leaders who really just want to cheer Democrats while the Democrats figure out how to remove a small number of service members from Iraq and continue the illegal war.
We are all and have been watching the close relationship between some peace groups and DC and we won't endorse it. We won't applaud faux peace leaders become collaborators in the illegal war. And we won't support attacks on war resisters.
In several e-mails I was asked why I didn't support turning over the peace movement to vets and this is the reason. The centrists crowd to the front and try to subvert reality. They provide cover for Dems. They sneer at and degrade the very real sacrifices of others. Most of all, I don't believe you hide behind the military in a democracy. The war is illegal. Those who want to share experiences they've had and observed should do so. But the peace movement doesn't need a line of vets speaking to make the point that the war is illegal. It's exactly that sort of cowardice that has allowed the illegal war to drag on.
Those who are against the illegal war should be in the lead -- military, diplomats, average citizens, etc. -- but those who are still nursing their wounds that the US has lost the illegal war need to find another outlet.
The war in Iraq is illegal and wrong. And if you believe that, if you see it, you do not trash those who had the courage to refuse to serve in it or who served in it and refused to continuing serving it. When you trash them, you're not part of the peace movement. You're not even logical because you're calling them 'cowards' while you say the war is illegal. Scared is people who know the war is illegal and serve anyway.
Brave is Agustin Aguayo refusing to load his weapon while serving in Iraq. Brave is Ehren Watada refusing to deploy because the war is illegal and by deploying he would not only make himself responsible for war crimes, he would make those serving under him responsible. Ehren could have gotten a cushy Baghdad post. He could have just gone along. He spoke out and that took courage. Joshua Key could have returned from his pass and continued taking part in the destruction of Iraq, he refused to. That took courage.
When I hear the centrists I always remember that until the public turned against the illegal war (and stayed turned against) they were pushing "We have to stay!" I also wonder how badly they wished they had a gun in their hands to point at everyone that won't fall in line behind them? That's what they sound like.
I'm not in the anti-war movement. I'm in the peace movement.
Lastly, the names listed by the thug who's been threatening C.I. will not be noted here. These are the ones that the thug's been trashing C.I. to. Since I wasn't there to hear the conversations, those listed will not be noted here because I seriously doubt that if any of them had said, "You need to calm down" the thug would have included them on his list.
I'm for ending the illegal war, I'm not for glorifying some military machine. Right now, I think everyone should be reading the joint-post by Cedric and Wally ("The quiz" and "THIS JUST IN! TAKE THE QUIZ!") and then taking a serious look at various peace organizations to determine whether or not they're about peace or about hob nobbing and rubbing shoulders. We were sold out in 2004 and we better be damn sure that we'll call it in 2008. The illegal war needs to end.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:
Thursday, July 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, jock boys in the press treat a soccer match (not even a title win) as bigger news than 50 dead, the White House is all a titter over Bully Boy's upcoming meeting with Gordon Brown, the US military announces multiple deaths in Iraq (announces seven deaths, not the five many press outlets are reporting), the refugee crisis continues, and more.
Starting with war resisters. The San Francisco Chapter of Veterans for Peace (Chapter 69) and Asian Pacific Islanders Resist have penned an op-ed (San Francisco Bay Guardian) noting that responsibilities don't fly out the window during an illegal war. In this section, they address the kanagroo courts that those who speak out face in the alleged name of military 'justice': "Many soldiers of conscience who dared to speak openly about the immorality and illegality of the war have been court-martialed and imprisoned. Their cases, dating back to 2004, raise serious doubts about the capacity of our soldiers to receive justice in our military courts. Five months prior to the Abu Ghraib scandal, a soft-spoken Army soldier named Camilo MejÃa was visibly upset by the atrocities he observed during his tour of duty in Iraq. Repulsed by the slaughter of civilians and the needless deaths of American GIs -- all reported in his riveting combat memoir, Road from Ar Ramadi (New Press, 2007) -- MejÃa gathered his courage and made formal complaints to his superiors. Commanders refused to listen and questioned his patriotism. Eventually MejÃa was sentenced to a year in prison for speaking out, for telling the truth. His trial, like subsequent trials of war resisters, was a travesty of justice. The judge, Col. Gary Smith, ruled that evidence of the illegality of the war was inadmissible in court, that international law is irrelevant, and that a soldier's only duty is to follow orders, regardless of their legality. In essence, MejÃa spent months in prison for upholding the rule of law in wartime. Had commanders listened to MejÃa, had judges respected due process and the rule of law, the Abu Ghraib scandal that humiliated our troops might never have occurred."
Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia is Mejia's story of becmoing the first Iraq veteran to publicly become a war resisters (Stephen Funk is the first known war resisters in this illegal war and his resistance began when he refused to take part in an illegal war). Along with detailing the court-martial, Mejia also explains how, as that was about to get underweigh, the US military suddenly needed him to refile his CO application. Why? Well he'd outlined abuses and the military had ignored them so refiling it would make it appear that he was just then, as the court-martial approached, for the first time, noting the abuses he'd witnessed. Another point in the Mejia case that is often overlooked is that the US military was in violation of their own rules. Non-US citizen Mejia's eight-year contract was coming to an end. From Iraq, he and superiors made a call during which Mejia learned that his mother had contacted their senator (US Senator Bill Nelson) who had already made an issue of this -- as a noncitizen, Mejia could not be extended. That was the rule and Mejia was informed of that on the phone, when he repeated that and handed the phone to his superior, the superior "lost" the call. The same military that refused to grant Mejia CO status was also in violation of their own rules and this was all before Mejia self-checked out. That's why mainstream (or alternative) media dubbing Mejia a "deserter" without ever exploring those facts is more than a little simplistic.
Mejia's book came out in May and is one of two books published by war resisters this year.
Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale is the other one and, in it, Key outlines his own experiences in Iraq and how he came to the decision to self-check out. Joshua and Brandi Key and their children went underground and then moved to Canada. The Deserter's Tale has repeatedly won positive reviews since its release including an unwritten 'rave' from the US military which so enjoyed it, they sent two members to Canada to pose as Canadian police officers and badger Winnie Ng as to Key's whereabouts. Though far less fanatical, Phil Shannon (Autralia's Green Left Weekly) recently reviewed the book and found it to be
"told with unadorned but compelling simplicity, follows the life-altering path of a US citizen who turned from super-patriot to war-resister."
Currently, war resister Agustin Aguayo is on a speaking tour telling his story and The Acorn reports that Aguayo will speak this Thursday from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at Grant Brimhall, Thousand Oaks Library, 1401 E. James Rd., that the event is "free and open to the public" and more information is available by calling (805) 375-9939. War resister Pablo Paredes will also be at the event.
This comes as Terry Lee Goodrich (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports on yesterday's meeting of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) General Assembly during which they passed a resolution "opposing the war in Iraq as contrary to Jesus' teachings" and
supporting war resisters who refuse to serve in the illegal war based upon church teachings.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Meanwhile, the White House has to deal with not one but two reports in September. On September 15th, General David Petraeus will present his report detailing the 'progress' resulting from Bully Boy's escalation of US troops in Iraq (approximately 160,000 are now on the ground). Robin Wright (Washington Post) reveals the General Accounting Office will also be presenting a report on September 1st: "The GAO's international affairs team has had far more experience in Iraq than the study group led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) or any of the other independent panels that have weighed in on Iraq. Indeed, the study group consulted the GAO team in preparing its report. Over the past four years, the GAO has issued 91 reports on Iraq, on topics including the mismanagement of Iraq's oil industry and problems in its new army.The GAO team is back in Iraq this week doing research to make its own assessment of the 18 benchmarks covered by the administration's reports." The 'benchmarks' were pushed by the White House and Congress mandated them. These are the same 'benchmarks' that the White House and the US military now attempts to play down as part of the push-back on the September deadline.
They aren't pushing back against the US Congress which still has no real desire to end the illegal war, instead they are pushing back against public opinion domestically which repeatedly finds approximately 70% of Americans are opposed to Bully Boy's illegal war of choice with 61% now wanting any futher funding of the illegal war to come with a timeline for withdrawal.
As Norman Solomon observes (at Common Dreams), "Despite all the talk about how members of Congress have been turning against the war, few are clearly advocating a genuine end to U.S. military intervention in Iraq" and that the media joins in prolonging the illegal war, "Media outlets will keep telling us that the U.S. government is developing serious plans to 'leave' Iraq. But we would be foolish to believe those tall tales. The antiwar movement has an enormous amount of grassroots work to do -- changing the political terrain of the United States from the bottom up -- before the calculus of political opportunism in Washington determines that it would be more expedient to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq than to keep it going under one guise or another." Solomon details the efforts by PBS' NewsHour and Time magazine to mitigate public outrage, " The game involves dangling illusionary references to 'withdrawal' in front of the public" while no real withdrawal is being proposed and Solomon cites IPS' Phylis Bennis on yesterday's House amendment regarding permanent bases in Iraq, "The bill states an important principle opposing the 'establishment' of new bases in Iraq and 'not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.' But it is limited in several ways. It prohibits only those bases which are acknowledged to be for the purpose of permanently stationing U.S. troops in Iraq; therefore any base constructed for temporarily stationing troops, or rotating troops, or anything less than an officially permanent deployment, would still be accepted. Further, the bill says nothing about the need to decommission the existing U.S. bases already built in Iraq; it only prohibits 'establishing' military installations, implying only new ones would be prohibited."
Meanwhile the press corps are in a frenzy over a gaggle where White House flack Tony Snow confirmed that, grab the tissues, Bully Boy will host new UK prime minister Gordon Brown at Camp David. A two day meeting -- Sunday and Monday! And "they'll have a dinner" after Brown arrives Sunday. They'll take meeting "the following day." Of course, it's really not news since it's been in the British papers for days but let's all pretend and pretend that Tony Snow wasn't short on specifics, "This will be their first meeting" . . . well "at least here in the States" . . . "since Mr. Brown has become Prime Minister." Snow was probably closer to reality when he noted that the two would cover "sort of the predictable topics".
In other "feel good" news, Richard A. Oppel Jr and Qais Mizher (New York Times) gush excitedly over a soccer game (one that is apparently so important, the paper front pages an AFP photo by Ali Yussef of boys and men running around in a frenzy) including two paragraphs on the fact that at least 50 Iraqis DIED while offering 17 paragraphs about the games and 'reactions' which the reporters didn't actually observe. But why should at least 50 dead interfere with selling 'good news' and letting alleged reporters grab their moment to play "Boys will be boys"?
Left out of their mouth breathing coverage are any women and why bother there? Why bother intruding on a jock moment with some actual reality? As IRIN has noted, women activists in Iraq are under attack and receiving no support from the US and WFO's Haifaa Nour explains, "I know my life is under threat and I might be killed at any time especially for refusing to wear a veil or other traditional clothes, but if I do so, I will just be abetting the extremists." But the jock boys are too busy tearing off their shirts, beating their sunken chests and pounding away on the keyboards to note any of that reality. The jock boys also miss out on what some see as a telling bit of information. Angeel Hussein (Telegraph of London) observes, "American attempts to co-opt Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad have suffered a set back after Sunni and Shia Muslim militants in a key district of the city forged an alliance against United States forces. . . . the al-Girtani tribe reached across Iraq's sectarian divide, in what is believed to be the first partnership of its kind. 'We fought the Shia because of pressure from al-Qa'eda,' said Turki al-Girtani, the tribe leader. 'Now after they were beaten we have to refocus on the real enemy, which is the US army'." Rah, rah, boys of the New York Times, rah, rah!
The BBC reports on the conference in Jordan to explore the Iraqi refugee crisis (4 million refugees when internally and externally displaced are counted) and notes the UN estimates 50,000 Iraqi refugees are being created each month. The CBC notes that Jordan has an estimated 750,000 Iraqi refugees and that they are asking for help. Voices in the Wilderness Kathy Kelly (CounterPunch) observes, "The U.S. could direct the amount of money spent on just six hours of the war in Iraq and fully meet the UNHCR request to assist millions of people who have barely survived this U.S. 'war of choice'." In other news of money spent or not spent, James Glanz (New York Times) continues to report on the contract waste in Iraq, noting today, "One of the largest American contractors working in Iraq, Bechtel National, met its original objectives on fewer than half of the projects it received as part of a $1.8 billion reconstruction contract, while most of the rest were canceled, reduced in scope or never completed as designed, federal investigators have found in a report released yesterday." [Glanz' article appears on A6 within the paper and has no 'cheery' photo illustrating the paper's front page.]
Despite the rah-rah over a sports match, violence continued in Iraq today including in the land of the 'crackdown' Baghdad. CBS and AP report on a Baghdad car bombing that claimed the lives of at least 21 (at least sixty wounded) and left smoke billowing "into the sky after the thunderous explosion" while "nine cars burned" as well as a three story building. Paul Tait (Reuters) reports the death toll has climbed to at least 25 with at least 115 wounded and that the death toll is expected to climb while describing the scene, "Bodies lay strewn around the street after the blast, which smashed three buildings into piles of masonry and concrete. It was at least the fourth to hit the predominantly Shi'ite district of Karrada this week."
In other violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 4 lives in the south, one in the west that claimed 6 lives (including an Iraqi soldier), a Hilla bombing that claimed 7 lives (five of which were police officer), Reuters notes mortar attacks in Mosul that claimed 1 life and left seven wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 police officers were killed in Tikrit "while chasing gunmen" and the Karrada shooting death of Abdul Satar Abdul Jabar who had been "a general manager in the ministry of housing and rebuilding." Reuters notes three police officers shot dead in Yarubiya.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 20 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes two corpses discovered in Latifiya ("blindfolded, handcuffed and riddled with bullets").
Today the US military announced: "One MNC-I Soldier was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated during clearing operations in Baghdad July 24." That death took place two days ago and was announced today. And they announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West died July 22 in a non-combat related incident in Al Anbar Province." That death took place four days ago and was announced today. And they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed during a small arms fire engagement in a southern section of the Iraqi capital July 25." That death took place one day ago. And they announced: "Three Marines and one Sailor assigned to Multi National Force-West died July 24 while conducting combat operations in Diyala Province." Those deaths took place two days ago and were announced today. Before someone wants to harp on "time differences" all announcements are coming out of Baghdad. Also note that this is seven deaths and not, as so many in the press are reporting, five deaths. It's easy to be confused with the MNF's new pattern of delaying death announcements -- but the press isn't commenting on that either. The totals currently at ICCC are 3645 US service members killed in the illegal war since it started with 66 for the month thus far.
Meanwhile Svea Herbst-Bayliss (Reuters) reports that the parents of Jeffrey Lucey have filed a federal lawsuit against the US government over the suicide of their son "in his parents' Massachusetts basement less than a year after returning home from fighting during the invasion of Iraq in 2003" with the father, Kevin Lucey, maintaining, "The government is guilty of not taking care of the troops after they come home."
Today, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) interviewed Iraqi Nesreen (last name withheld) and Brooklyn teacher Bruce Wallace about their project to dispell "the other" and bridge the physical distance between Iraqi and US students. From the broadcast:
AMY GOODMAN: Nesreen, let's begin with you. Talk about the situation in Baghdad, what it's like for you to teach, for your kids to go to school.
NESREEN: Well, everything is difficult in Baghdad. Me, as a teacher, when I go to school, it is hard to get to my school, simply because the American troops are there in the streets, and they sometimes close all the streets or sometimes they are stuck or stop in the streets to -- you know, it's a kind of delay there will be for going to school, and looking for landmines or trying to attack some people, some Iraqi people, looking for insurgents.
And on my way to school, I saw many, many bad things, such as dead bodies or sometimes the random shooting all of a sudden started. And when I go to a school, sometimes I find students and sometimes very few students and sometimes no students.
JUAN GONZALEZ: In terms of the -- the images that we see here, obviously, in the United States, when they are presented, are of constant bombings that occur on an almost daily basis. On a day-to-day level for your students, what is life like? Does that violence -- is it there constantly or is it once in a while?
NESREEN: Constantly. Yeah, because, you know, the situation is very, very difficult right there in the school. Some of my students stopped coming to school, because their parents were threatened or family is threatened, some of them afraid to come to school because of the bad situation in the streets or afraid of kidnapping, things like that.
[. . .]
AMY GOODMAN: How about your kids in the Brooklyn school? We asked Nesreen about her girls. What about the effect of this email exchange with your kids? How old are they?
BRUCE WALLACE: They're high school students in Brooklyn, so they are between twelve and eighteen years old. For them, it was partly an awakening of knowledge, and for myself also. I have a few college degrees. I went up to the Master's level. I knew nothing about Iraq. I had to look for it on the map. I knew nothing about the culture, nothing about the people. For me, it was an awakening, and for my students also. I remember one email that said, "Oh, you hear Jay-Z in Baghdad?" We just had no idea of who these people were, and little by little learned to understand them as people very much like ourselves. And that was a very powerful thing for the students.
No front page photo on the New York Times of that.
Finally, in political news, CBS and AP report, "Iraq's Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi's office said the moderate Sunni leader had met with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Wednesday to discuss his political bloc's objections to the leadership of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The meeting occurred on the same day al-Hashemi's Iraqi Accordance Front suspended membership in the government, a bid that appeared timed to deepen disenchantment in Washington with the Shiite prime minister's faltering leadership." Things get worse for the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki but, by all means, let's all focus on a soccer game.
war resisters
jeremy hinzman
brandon hughey
the common ills
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
iraqagustin aguayo
joshua key
mcclatchy newspapersthe new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.
james glanzthe washington postrobin wrightdemocracy nowamy goodman
Now let's get serious. Jeremy Hinzman is a war resister. He's a brave person. Note this:
Jeremy Hinzman was a U.S. soldier in the elite infantry division, the 82nd Airborne. He served in Afghanistan in a non-combat position after having applied for conscientious objector status.
After being refused CO status and returning to America, he learned that they would be deployed to Iraq. Hinzman did not believe the stated reasons for the Iraq war. In January 2004 he drove to Canada to seek asylum. He is currently living in Toronto with his wife Nga Nguyen and son Liam. His refugee claim was turned down in March 2005 by the Immigration and Refugee Board. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Jeremy is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Then there's Brandon Hughey:
Brandon Hughey arrived in Canada in March 2004.Hughey, a San Angelo, Texas native left his Army unit before it shipped out to Iraq. It was, he says, his obligation to leave. "I feel that if a soldier is given an order that he knows to not only be illegal, but immoral as well, then it his responsibility to refuse that order," he wrote in response to e-mailed questions from the San Angelo Standard-Times. "It is also my belief that if a soldier is refusing an order he knows to be wrong, it is not right for him to face persecution for it." Brandon had his hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board in June 2005. His claim was rejected and he, along with Jeremy Hinzman, is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
They are brave. Ryan Johnson, Patrick Hart, Joshua Key, Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ehren Watada, and a lot of more people who have resisted this war are brave.
Cowards? No, they aren't. And anyone calling them a coward should probably look into the mirror. They should also not try to hide behind their bullsh*t that they are a vet. I've gotten six e-mails since June from veterans opposed to the illegal war and if that centrist vet thinks he's got support, he's wrong. I've heard from people who left the military when the illegal war started to oppose it. That's not cowardly. People gave up their careers in the military the same way Ann Wright resigned her state department job -- they took stands. They are not cowards.
A centrist pig wants to trash them and others and then get his wittle feelings bent out of shape because everyone's not going to rush to applaud him.
If he thinks he's so popular, he's fooling himself about many things. All veterans aren't "on the same page" with him when he attacks war resisters. Nor does everyone like the way he and others try to bully others with their nonsense of "I'm better". I didn't even realize that was a problem until one e-mail came in back during June. I just assumed, wrongly, that everyone against the illegal war was supporting war resisters. I assumed all vets did. But it turns out that centrists are once again trying to create a scale whereby their statements matter more than others. Like when the centrists pushed their "We know, we were there" crap to argue throughout 2004, 2005 and 2006 for a 'smarter' illegal war instead of for ending the illegal war.
That group disbanded because it got such a bad name. But a new one's sprung up and the same bullies are back and trying to seize control.
In 2004, they repeatedly grabbed the microphone and press space and made it appear that all in the military (or who had just left) were wanting 'smarter' and continued illegal war.
Now they come out shooting for war resisters and a peace organization wants to give them support? I don't think so and I won't suppport that organization if turns out the one member wasn't speaking for herself but was speaking for the organization.
My parents supported war resisters during Vietnam (so did my grandparents) and you damn well better believe I was raised to support them.
It's funny that a centrist wants to repeatedly threaten C.I. but doesn't want to threaten me. I guess big tough babies like to threaten women but a guy over six feet tall makes 'em shut their pie hole?
But let me be clear to the centrists, you don't own our community, you don't direct our community and you WILL NOT get away with trashing war resisters.
To act on your moral convictions takes a lot of bravery. To grasp that an illegal war is wrong (at the start no less) takes a lot of bravery. So if you think you can trash war resisters with your little name calling, let me inform you that "fat" is the least thing I will trash you with. I will note your pasty skin and other personal details since that's what really gets your goat.
Of course, you could call off your war on war resisters at any time. But that's apparently the only way bullies like you can feel like men, by pointing to others and saying, "I'm a man! They're not manly!" (War resisters include women, by the way. But I'm talking about the mentality and comments that these centrists are making in public and privately in their crappy e-mails to C.I.) You went over to another country and you attacked a people. That's reality. Maybe you realize there's no book to be written on the courage in that so you feel the need to attack war resisters in some last bid to shore up your faltering masculinity?
It's real easy to slam war resisters. When they take their stands, they usually get slammed. That only makes their brave stands all the more brave. They refuse to back down and go along just because everyone else has. They are real heroes.
This is from Tom Joad:
Statements of solidarity with military resisters. Encouraging refusal to carry out unlawful, immoral orders:
Brothers and Sisters in the Military: "Refuse to Fight! Refuse to Kill!"
Iraq Pledge of Resistance: We pledge to support military resisters
U.S. War Heroes of the Iraq War, a comprehensive list of military resisters. See here
Check out latest events, actions here.
I'm not in the mood for weak ass support of war resisters or for attacks on them. If you're not supporting war resisters, you're not "on the same page" with me or anyone else in this community. War resisters have suffered for their stands but they didn't weaken or cave. They are not "cowards" and they aren't going to be made into targets by a bunch of centrists vets who've suddenly realized they are against the war (after 70% of Americans turned against it) and think they can trash war resisters.
Look it, if a bank robber announces he's realized it was wrong to rob banks, I'll applaud him. Good that he grasped reality. But I won't think, "Oh you are so much braver than all the other people who have never robbed banks!"
I'm also opposed to the scale the centrists (and apparently one peace organization) are trying to create where those who went and turned are more important than those who gave up their careers as the illegal war was about to begin. One vet wrote about that and shared how hurtful it was that this brave action was insulted by some of the returning. This vet wanted to be in the military. Instead, the vet resigned because the war was illegal. That took bravery (and I hope I got that across in my e-mail reply). That person is a hero in my book and doesn't need people down grading a very brave, very real stand to push some macho pig head coming back and sneering "You don't know about sacrifice."
I tried to go point by point in my reply and I either screwed it up or I got the point across and there was nothing left to say because I haven't heard from that vet again. But that stand was real bravery.
The peace movement has spent too long hiding behind what they think is acceptable and that's probably why so much of the peace movement is now USELESS. Since the June e-mails, I've really been paying attention to see who they prop up (hide behind) and who they support. They've done nothing for Eli Israel (if you have, you're the emerging peace movement, not the useless already in place and distracting the public). They've done nothing for ALL the war resisters who have been coming forward.
The peace movement, as we noted in our editorial Sunday, does not exist to put Democrats into office. It exists to end the illegal war. That's why people give it their time and money. Those who think they can pull a bait & switch like they did in 2004 are going to learn that they're no longer listened to or supported. Because, no, we are not all "on the same page."
I noted Tina Richards yesterday and she and Cindy Sheehan are examples (there are others) of the new peace movement. They aren't going to be silenced or crowded off the stage by faux leaders who really just want to cheer Democrats while the Democrats figure out how to remove a small number of service members from Iraq and continue the illegal war.
We are all and have been watching the close relationship between some peace groups and DC and we won't endorse it. We won't applaud faux peace leaders become collaborators in the illegal war. And we won't support attacks on war resisters.
In several e-mails I was asked why I didn't support turning over the peace movement to vets and this is the reason. The centrists crowd to the front and try to subvert reality. They provide cover for Dems. They sneer at and degrade the very real sacrifices of others. Most of all, I don't believe you hide behind the military in a democracy. The war is illegal. Those who want to share experiences they've had and observed should do so. But the peace movement doesn't need a line of vets speaking to make the point that the war is illegal. It's exactly that sort of cowardice that has allowed the illegal war to drag on.
Those who are against the illegal war should be in the lead -- military, diplomats, average citizens, etc. -- but those who are still nursing their wounds that the US has lost the illegal war need to find another outlet.
The war in Iraq is illegal and wrong. And if you believe that, if you see it, you do not trash those who had the courage to refuse to serve in it or who served in it and refused to continuing serving it. When you trash them, you're not part of the peace movement. You're not even logical because you're calling them 'cowards' while you say the war is illegal. Scared is people who know the war is illegal and serve anyway.
Brave is Agustin Aguayo refusing to load his weapon while serving in Iraq. Brave is Ehren Watada refusing to deploy because the war is illegal and by deploying he would not only make himself responsible for war crimes, he would make those serving under him responsible. Ehren could have gotten a cushy Baghdad post. He could have just gone along. He spoke out and that took courage. Joshua Key could have returned from his pass and continued taking part in the destruction of Iraq, he refused to. That took courage.
When I hear the centrists I always remember that until the public turned against the illegal war (and stayed turned against) they were pushing "We have to stay!" I also wonder how badly they wished they had a gun in their hands to point at everyone that won't fall in line behind them? That's what they sound like.
I'm not in the anti-war movement. I'm in the peace movement.
Lastly, the names listed by the thug who's been threatening C.I. will not be noted here. These are the ones that the thug's been trashing C.I. to. Since I wasn't there to hear the conversations, those listed will not be noted here because I seriously doubt that if any of them had said, "You need to calm down" the thug would have included them on his list.
I'm for ending the illegal war, I'm not for glorifying some military machine. Right now, I think everyone should be reading the joint-post by Cedric and Wally ("The quiz" and "THIS JUST IN! TAKE THE QUIZ!") and then taking a serious look at various peace organizations to determine whether or not they're about peace or about hob nobbing and rubbing shoulders. We were sold out in 2004 and we better be damn sure that we'll call it in 2008. The illegal war needs to end.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:
Thursday, July 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, jock boys in the press treat a soccer match (not even a title win) as bigger news than 50 dead, the White House is all a titter over Bully Boy's upcoming meeting with Gordon Brown, the US military announces multiple deaths in Iraq (announces seven deaths, not the five many press outlets are reporting), the refugee crisis continues, and more.
Starting with war resisters. The San Francisco Chapter of Veterans for Peace (Chapter 69) and Asian Pacific Islanders Resist have penned an op-ed (San Francisco Bay Guardian) noting that responsibilities don't fly out the window during an illegal war. In this section, they address the kanagroo courts that those who speak out face in the alleged name of military 'justice': "Many soldiers of conscience who dared to speak openly about the immorality and illegality of the war have been court-martialed and imprisoned. Their cases, dating back to 2004, raise serious doubts about the capacity of our soldiers to receive justice in our military courts. Five months prior to the Abu Ghraib scandal, a soft-spoken Army soldier named Camilo MejÃa was visibly upset by the atrocities he observed during his tour of duty in Iraq. Repulsed by the slaughter of civilians and the needless deaths of American GIs -- all reported in his riveting combat memoir, Road from Ar Ramadi (New Press, 2007) -- MejÃa gathered his courage and made formal complaints to his superiors. Commanders refused to listen and questioned his patriotism. Eventually MejÃa was sentenced to a year in prison for speaking out, for telling the truth. His trial, like subsequent trials of war resisters, was a travesty of justice. The judge, Col. Gary Smith, ruled that evidence of the illegality of the war was inadmissible in court, that international law is irrelevant, and that a soldier's only duty is to follow orders, regardless of their legality. In essence, MejÃa spent months in prison for upholding the rule of law in wartime. Had commanders listened to MejÃa, had judges respected due process and the rule of law, the Abu Ghraib scandal that humiliated our troops might never have occurred."
Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia is Mejia's story of becmoing the first Iraq veteran to publicly become a war resisters (Stephen Funk is the first known war resisters in this illegal war and his resistance began when he refused to take part in an illegal war). Along with detailing the court-martial, Mejia also explains how, as that was about to get underweigh, the US military suddenly needed him to refile his CO application. Why? Well he'd outlined abuses and the military had ignored them so refiling it would make it appear that he was just then, as the court-martial approached, for the first time, noting the abuses he'd witnessed. Another point in the Mejia case that is often overlooked is that the US military was in violation of their own rules. Non-US citizen Mejia's eight-year contract was coming to an end. From Iraq, he and superiors made a call during which Mejia learned that his mother had contacted their senator (US Senator Bill Nelson) who had already made an issue of this -- as a noncitizen, Mejia could not be extended. That was the rule and Mejia was informed of that on the phone, when he repeated that and handed the phone to his superior, the superior "lost" the call. The same military that refused to grant Mejia CO status was also in violation of their own rules and this was all before Mejia self-checked out. That's why mainstream (or alternative) media dubbing Mejia a "deserter" without ever exploring those facts is more than a little simplistic.
Mejia's book came out in May and is one of two books published by war resisters this year.
Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale is the other one and, in it, Key outlines his own experiences in Iraq and how he came to the decision to self-check out. Joshua and Brandi Key and their children went underground and then moved to Canada. The Deserter's Tale has repeatedly won positive reviews since its release including an unwritten 'rave' from the US military which so enjoyed it, they sent two members to Canada to pose as Canadian police officers and badger Winnie Ng as to Key's whereabouts. Though far less fanatical, Phil Shannon (Autralia's Green Left Weekly) recently reviewed the book and found it to be
"told with unadorned but compelling simplicity, follows the life-altering path of a US citizen who turned from super-patriot to war-resister."
Currently, war resister Agustin Aguayo is on a speaking tour telling his story and The Acorn reports that Aguayo will speak this Thursday from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at Grant Brimhall, Thousand Oaks Library, 1401 E. James Rd., that the event is "free and open to the public" and more information is available by calling (805) 375-9939. War resister Pablo Paredes will also be at the event.
This comes as Terry Lee Goodrich (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports on yesterday's meeting of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) General Assembly during which they passed a resolution "opposing the war in Iraq as contrary to Jesus' teachings" and
supporting war resisters who refuse to serve in the illegal war based upon church teachings.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Meanwhile, the White House has to deal with not one but two reports in September. On September 15th, General David Petraeus will present his report detailing the 'progress' resulting from Bully Boy's escalation of US troops in Iraq (approximately 160,000 are now on the ground). Robin Wright (Washington Post) reveals the General Accounting Office will also be presenting a report on September 1st: "The GAO's international affairs team has had far more experience in Iraq than the study group led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) or any of the other independent panels that have weighed in on Iraq. Indeed, the study group consulted the GAO team in preparing its report. Over the past four years, the GAO has issued 91 reports on Iraq, on topics including the mismanagement of Iraq's oil industry and problems in its new army.The GAO team is back in Iraq this week doing research to make its own assessment of the 18 benchmarks covered by the administration's reports." The 'benchmarks' were pushed by the White House and Congress mandated them. These are the same 'benchmarks' that the White House and the US military now attempts to play down as part of the push-back on the September deadline.
They aren't pushing back against the US Congress which still has no real desire to end the illegal war, instead they are pushing back against public opinion domestically which repeatedly finds approximately 70% of Americans are opposed to Bully Boy's illegal war of choice with 61% now wanting any futher funding of the illegal war to come with a timeline for withdrawal.
As Norman Solomon observes (at Common Dreams), "Despite all the talk about how members of Congress have been turning against the war, few are clearly advocating a genuine end to U.S. military intervention in Iraq" and that the media joins in prolonging the illegal war, "Media outlets will keep telling us that the U.S. government is developing serious plans to 'leave' Iraq. But we would be foolish to believe those tall tales. The antiwar movement has an enormous amount of grassroots work to do -- changing the political terrain of the United States from the bottom up -- before the calculus of political opportunism in Washington determines that it would be more expedient to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq than to keep it going under one guise or another." Solomon details the efforts by PBS' NewsHour and Time magazine to mitigate public outrage, " The game involves dangling illusionary references to 'withdrawal' in front of the public" while no real withdrawal is being proposed and Solomon cites IPS' Phylis Bennis on yesterday's House amendment regarding permanent bases in Iraq, "The bill states an important principle opposing the 'establishment' of new bases in Iraq and 'not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.' But it is limited in several ways. It prohibits only those bases which are acknowledged to be for the purpose of permanently stationing U.S. troops in Iraq; therefore any base constructed for temporarily stationing troops, or rotating troops, or anything less than an officially permanent deployment, would still be accepted. Further, the bill says nothing about the need to decommission the existing U.S. bases already built in Iraq; it only prohibits 'establishing' military installations, implying only new ones would be prohibited."
Meanwhile the press corps are in a frenzy over a gaggle where White House flack Tony Snow confirmed that, grab the tissues, Bully Boy will host new UK prime minister Gordon Brown at Camp David. A two day meeting -- Sunday and Monday! And "they'll have a dinner" after Brown arrives Sunday. They'll take meeting "the following day." Of course, it's really not news since it's been in the British papers for days but let's all pretend and pretend that Tony Snow wasn't short on specifics, "This will be their first meeting" . . . well "at least here in the States" . . . "since Mr. Brown has become Prime Minister." Snow was probably closer to reality when he noted that the two would cover "sort of the predictable topics".
In other "feel good" news, Richard A. Oppel Jr and Qais Mizher (New York Times) gush excitedly over a soccer game (one that is apparently so important, the paper front pages an AFP photo by Ali Yussef of boys and men running around in a frenzy) including two paragraphs on the fact that at least 50 Iraqis DIED while offering 17 paragraphs about the games and 'reactions' which the reporters didn't actually observe. But why should at least 50 dead interfere with selling 'good news' and letting alleged reporters grab their moment to play "Boys will be boys"?
Left out of their mouth breathing coverage are any women and why bother there? Why bother intruding on a jock moment with some actual reality? As IRIN has noted, women activists in Iraq are under attack and receiving no support from the US and WFO's Haifaa Nour explains, "I know my life is under threat and I might be killed at any time especially for refusing to wear a veil or other traditional clothes, but if I do so, I will just be abetting the extremists." But the jock boys are too busy tearing off their shirts, beating their sunken chests and pounding away on the keyboards to note any of that reality. The jock boys also miss out on what some see as a telling bit of information. Angeel Hussein (Telegraph of London) observes, "American attempts to co-opt Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad have suffered a set back after Sunni and Shia Muslim militants in a key district of the city forged an alliance against United States forces. . . . the al-Girtani tribe reached across Iraq's sectarian divide, in what is believed to be the first partnership of its kind. 'We fought the Shia because of pressure from al-Qa'eda,' said Turki al-Girtani, the tribe leader. 'Now after they were beaten we have to refocus on the real enemy, which is the US army'." Rah, rah, boys of the New York Times, rah, rah!
The BBC reports on the conference in Jordan to explore the Iraqi refugee crisis (4 million refugees when internally and externally displaced are counted) and notes the UN estimates 50,000 Iraqi refugees are being created each month. The CBC notes that Jordan has an estimated 750,000 Iraqi refugees and that they are asking for help. Voices in the Wilderness Kathy Kelly (CounterPunch) observes, "The U.S. could direct the amount of money spent on just six hours of the war in Iraq and fully meet the UNHCR request to assist millions of people who have barely survived this U.S. 'war of choice'." In other news of money spent or not spent, James Glanz (New York Times) continues to report on the contract waste in Iraq, noting today, "One of the largest American contractors working in Iraq, Bechtel National, met its original objectives on fewer than half of the projects it received as part of a $1.8 billion reconstruction contract, while most of the rest were canceled, reduced in scope or never completed as designed, federal investigators have found in a report released yesterday." [Glanz' article appears on A6 within the paper and has no 'cheery' photo illustrating the paper's front page.]
Despite the rah-rah over a sports match, violence continued in Iraq today including in the land of the 'crackdown' Baghdad. CBS and AP report on a Baghdad car bombing that claimed the lives of at least 21 (at least sixty wounded) and left smoke billowing "into the sky after the thunderous explosion" while "nine cars burned" as well as a three story building. Paul Tait (Reuters) reports the death toll has climbed to at least 25 with at least 115 wounded and that the death toll is expected to climb while describing the scene, "Bodies lay strewn around the street after the blast, which smashed three buildings into piles of masonry and concrete. It was at least the fourth to hit the predominantly Shi'ite district of Karrada this week."
In other violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 4 lives in the south, one in the west that claimed 6 lives (including an Iraqi soldier), a Hilla bombing that claimed 7 lives (five of which were police officer), Reuters notes mortar attacks in Mosul that claimed 1 life and left seven wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 police officers were killed in Tikrit "while chasing gunmen" and the Karrada shooting death of Abdul Satar Abdul Jabar who had been "a general manager in the ministry of housing and rebuilding." Reuters notes three police officers shot dead in Yarubiya.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 20 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes two corpses discovered in Latifiya ("blindfolded, handcuffed and riddled with bullets").
Today the US military announced: "One MNC-I Soldier was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated during clearing operations in Baghdad July 24." That death took place two days ago and was announced today. And they announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West died July 22 in a non-combat related incident in Al Anbar Province." That death took place four days ago and was announced today. And they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed during a small arms fire engagement in a southern section of the Iraqi capital July 25." That death took place one day ago. And they announced: "Three Marines and one Sailor assigned to Multi National Force-West died July 24 while conducting combat operations in Diyala Province." Those deaths took place two days ago and were announced today. Before someone wants to harp on "time differences" all announcements are coming out of Baghdad. Also note that this is seven deaths and not, as so many in the press are reporting, five deaths. It's easy to be confused with the MNF's new pattern of delaying death announcements -- but the press isn't commenting on that either. The totals currently at ICCC are 3645 US service members killed in the illegal war since it started with 66 for the month thus far.
Meanwhile Svea Herbst-Bayliss (Reuters) reports that the parents of Jeffrey Lucey have filed a federal lawsuit against the US government over the suicide of their son "in his parents' Massachusetts basement less than a year after returning home from fighting during the invasion of Iraq in 2003" with the father, Kevin Lucey, maintaining, "The government is guilty of not taking care of the troops after they come home."
Today, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) interviewed Iraqi Nesreen (last name withheld) and Brooklyn teacher Bruce Wallace about their project to dispell "the other" and bridge the physical distance between Iraqi and US students. From the broadcast:
AMY GOODMAN: Nesreen, let's begin with you. Talk about the situation in Baghdad, what it's like for you to teach, for your kids to go to school.
NESREEN: Well, everything is difficult in Baghdad. Me, as a teacher, when I go to school, it is hard to get to my school, simply because the American troops are there in the streets, and they sometimes close all the streets or sometimes they are stuck or stop in the streets to -- you know, it's a kind of delay there will be for going to school, and looking for landmines or trying to attack some people, some Iraqi people, looking for insurgents.
And on my way to school, I saw many, many bad things, such as dead bodies or sometimes the random shooting all of a sudden started. And when I go to a school, sometimes I find students and sometimes very few students and sometimes no students.
JUAN GONZALEZ: In terms of the -- the images that we see here, obviously, in the United States, when they are presented, are of constant bombings that occur on an almost daily basis. On a day-to-day level for your students, what is life like? Does that violence -- is it there constantly or is it once in a while?
NESREEN: Constantly. Yeah, because, you know, the situation is very, very difficult right there in the school. Some of my students stopped coming to school, because their parents were threatened or family is threatened, some of them afraid to come to school because of the bad situation in the streets or afraid of kidnapping, things like that.
[. . .]
AMY GOODMAN: How about your kids in the Brooklyn school? We asked Nesreen about her girls. What about the effect of this email exchange with your kids? How old are they?
BRUCE WALLACE: They're high school students in Brooklyn, so they are between twelve and eighteen years old. For them, it was partly an awakening of knowledge, and for myself also. I have a few college degrees. I went up to the Master's level. I knew nothing about Iraq. I had to look for it on the map. I knew nothing about the culture, nothing about the people. For me, it was an awakening, and for my students also. I remember one email that said, "Oh, you hear Jay-Z in Baghdad?" We just had no idea of who these people were, and little by little learned to understand them as people very much like ourselves. And that was a very powerful thing for the students.
No front page photo on the New York Times of that.
Finally, in political news, CBS and AP report, "Iraq's Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi's office said the moderate Sunni leader had met with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Wednesday to discuss his political bloc's objections to the leadership of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The meeting occurred on the same day al-Hashemi's Iraqi Accordance Front suspended membership in the government, a bid that appeared timed to deepen disenchantment in Washington with the Shiite prime minister's faltering leadership." Things get worse for the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki but, by all means, let's all focus on a soccer game.
war resistersjeremy hinzmanbrandon hugheythe common ills
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
iraqagustin aguayo
joshua key
mcclatchy newspapersthe new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.
james glanzthe washington postrobin wrightdemocracy nowamy goodman
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
WalkOn, WalkOn.org
I attended the MoveOn.org rally on Tuesday night where Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid discussed how they were going to "end the war" and "bring our troops home" with the Levin-Reed Amendment. When I asked if they meant all the troops, I was quickly told to, "shut up" and muscled aside by security. A fellow Marine Mom was treated in much the same manner and we couldn't get over how much like the Republicans the "Anti-Escalation" folks were acting. (Video link below.)
I thought maybe I missed something in the Amendment and should reread it to ensure I did not miss anything. Yet an in-depth analysis of the Amendment is not needed in order to find the contradictions. A quick glance paired with recent statements made by Senator Reid prove that it holds no ambitions of easing the minds of military families and moms who want to know, "how do you choose which of our sons and daughters to abandon in Iraq?"
That's from Tina Richards' "Leader Reid confesses Levin-Reed Amendment leaves troops in Iraq indefinitely." Don't you love the alleged anti-war group WalkOn? Their members tell Tina Richards to shut up. Tina Richards is the mother of Cloy Richards. She's a fighter and the last thing she probably needs is a defense from me but I'll offer it anyway.
While the Dems played at war in March, Tina Richards was there to call out David Obey. Her thanks for that was to be called an "idiot liberal" by Obey. Her thanks for that was to be slimed by Party Hack David Sirota.
Her thanks for trying to end the illegal war is not a lot of support from the faux anti-war groups.
Apparently still smarting over the fact that Cindy Sheehan won't play stupid and dance to their "ELECT DEMS IN 2008 NO MATTER THAT THEY WON'T DO ANYTHING!" they faux anti-war weren't going to embrace Tina Richards.
Doesn't matter. The real end the illegal war movement knows she's out there and knows she's fighting. She's not giving up or playing nice because, like with Cindy Sheehan, this isn't an abstract for her, this is a very real illegal war. Cloy Richards has injuries from that war. Others have injuries, others are dead. She gets that.
She's not playing, she's not pretending and she's not an unconditional cheering section.
WalkOn and all the others who think they are now DC lobbyists and not activists are full of sh*t. And they're not leaders anymore. They have made themselves useless.
They have 'embedded' with the Democratic Party. As someone raised a Democrat and who has voted Democratic, I find it hilarious that so many alleged socialist, Greens, etc. are so willing to act as Democratic cheerleaders.
Tina Richards could be a Republican for all I know. I really don't care. I know that she's the real deal when it comes to ending the illegal war, the same way that people like Cindy Sheehan are the real deal.
If you're not the real deal, if you're just a Democratic Party cheerleader, I have no use for you.
That was one of the points of Sunday's editorial. The fauxs need to grasp if they try to sell out the peace movement in 2008 the way they did in 2004, they are foes and they will be called out.
They have sold their souls and, even sadder, it doesn't appear to have been to end the illegal war. It appears to have been done so that they can pump up their own visibility.
They're going to find that their self-created posters have a stamp on it "Not Wanted, Do Not Serve."
Tina Richards is the real deal. WalkOn is just about elections. It's time the real left stopped being silent and started telling truths because if they're silent right now, they're enabling the 'switcheroo' that will take place in 2008 as surely as it did in 2004. I am not going to be co-opted. I will probably vote for the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean I'll shower the candidate with kisses or act like they're the hottest thing since sliced cheese (as my grandfather always says).
You know who else tells it like it is? C.I. And the result of telling like it is a man writing a threatening insulting e-mail to C.I. weeks ago and repeatedly writing ever since now wanting to play like he's the injured party. That's not reality. Reality is he is a dirty, disgusting little thug who may vote Democratic but is nothing but a Bully Boy. We may all be delinking from an organization. Anyone that doesn't support war resisters does not have our support and the little Bully Boy has taken to trying to get others to write C.I. on his behalf. Not only does he start out threatening a woman, but in the end he has to go running to friends. He can join the New York Times in kissing my Irish-American ass. Here's C.I. telling it like it is as always in today's
"Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, July 25, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Ann Wright explains what John Conyers can't grasp (or pretends not to grasp), Katrina vanden Heuvel thinks being editor & publisher means playing favorites, Baraba Lee proves there are some leaders in Congress, Tina Richards proves there are truth tellers, BBC tells about back in the day when the Bush family tried to overthrow FDR, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Today on KPFK's Uprising, Sonali Kohatkar interviewed Agustin Aguayo and Helga Aguayo. Aguayo self-checked out the US military at the start of September on the eve of his second deployment to Iraq (and while his CO requests were being ignored to such a point that they were now fighting in the civilian courts) and turned himself before the end of the month. Earlier this year, in Germany, Aguayo was court-martialed. He is now speaking out about his experiences.
Agustin explained to Kohatkar that the time since being released from military prison and returning to the United States have been an adjustment becuase "for so long I was part of a system where everything was laid out." Helga spoke of what it was like for her when the persecution of her husband was taking place, "It's been very difficult. . . . It's been very stressful. My health has detirated a little but I'm getting stronger." Helga and Agusin are the parents of twin daughters (12-year-olds). Agustin declared that he speaks now to get the word out and "something of great importance to me is reaching out to the youth". Agustin noted the recruitment efforts targeting young people today and hopes that by speaking he can count that "and share with them the other side of the story, the side advertisements and recruiters won't ever tell them."
In addition to the false promises recruiters to make to all children (generally the children of low income families), Kohatkar noted that there is also the promise of citizenship offered to those who will fight in the US military although they are not citizens. Kohatkar noted that 32,000 immigrants had been naturalized as a result of serving in the US miltiary.
Reflecting on his awakening (it was a religious awakening and Agustin has spoken of it in those terms), Agustin stated, "I came to see myself as what I truly am. A person that is peaceful. . . . The missions I was participating in were not naturally peaceful ones so I regret some of them."
Helga spoke to the issues of what can be done from the outside. She termed the period during which the military was persecuting her husband "sheer terror for us" and spoke of living in fear that the military would physically harm if she spoke out or retaliate against him. What she discovered was, "The louder I spoke, the more support I got. The louder I spoke, the more media attention it got him. So I had to get over my fear."
Where things stand now is that Agustin is "still part of the military" and "basically I have a legal right to appeal my court-martial". Kohtkar asked what was the worst that could happen right now? Noting the current "political environment," Agustin pointed out that "recently Marines and soldiers with the inactive-ready reserves have been prosecuted for speaking out." That would include Adam Kokesh (Cloy Richards and Liam Madden have also been among those harassed). Agustin also noted how many were leaving the military often "in a quiet way without making any statements, including to their family." Helga credited IVAW and others with "The moral support, the guidance" they offered and noted, "I do believe that we can stop this war. You know the politicians have failed us and now it's up to us. . . . Maybe I'm being too optimistic but I think that eventually we can stop this war."
Aguayo is telling his story publicly and The Acorn reports that Aguayo will speak this Thursday from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at Grant Brimhall, Thousand Oaks Library, 1401 E. James Rd., that the event is "free and open to the public" and more information is available by calling (805) 375-9939. War resister Pablo Paredes will also be at the event.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Now let's turn to periodical news and the biggest laugh (cited by friends at two networks and three daily papers), the Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel. Itwas embarrassing enough that (once again) she was pushing a group on her blog (Editor's Cut) whose board both she and her father serve on (without DISLCOSING THAT while lavishing praise on the centrist group). But she's not a journalist. She's not a trained jouranlist and she continues to run The Nation as if it is the Palm Beach Social Pictoral and not an alleged independent weekly.
Today she demonstrates that not only may the posts editor and publisher beyond her grasp but so may be basic comprehension. In the Democratic 'debate' this week, US Senator Barack Obama was asked a question and offered a response. It demonstrated his lack of experience but Katrina vanden Heuvel drums up the case against Hillary Clinton and pushes the DLC Barack Obama by altering reality. "In Monday's debate," she writes, "and with the benefit of having time to think through her response, Hillary Clinton posed as the foreign policy sophisticate to Barack Obama the bold leader who did not hesitate to say that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela." No that is not what happened.
Transcript of the 'debate' (New York Times) shows Obama was asked if he would "meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" The first year. Would he meet in the first year. Obama responded, "I would." Blah blah blah followed.
David Corn gets it right. And it is a mistake. (Tim Russert slipped in "insurgent Obama" on NBC's Today this morning.) There is nothing wrong with diplomatic meetings, they should be encouraged. But Katrina vanden Heuvel fudges reality to make it appear that's the issue when it isn't. Obama agreed to meetings his first year in office. You don't do that. You don't show your hand in that way and you certainly don't announce first year meetings when you're not even in office. This has nothing to do with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or any other leader, it has nothing to do with other countries. It has everything to do with the way diplomacy is conducted. You can indicate you're willing to consider it, you don't say, "Yes, I will have those meetings." In terms of the way diplomacy is conducted and in terms of the way Obama's mistake will continue to play out, David Corn is correct.
Corn writes for The Nation. Katrina vanden Heuvel holds the magazine's posts of editor and publisher. Disagreeing with a writer for the magazine -- someone serving under -- publicly might or might not be 'bad form' but the fact that she then holds up another writer at the magazine is causing huge laughs: "My colleague Ari Berman posted his smart and sharp counter to David's argument . . ." As the editor and the publisher, vanden Heuvel should give the appearance of detatchment with regards to those working beneath her. Instead, she picks a favorite. Again, she's not trained in journalism. But she sure did provide a lot of laughter today.
Berman also shades reality by changing the issue at stake (the first year vanishes from Berman's critique as it did from Katrina vanden Heuvel's). Now let's get to the real reality here. (Friends pushed for this to be noted but that alone wouldn't have gotten it included in the snapshot.) The tongue baths of Obama from The Nation are appalling. As Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford have explained, Barack Obama was DLC in 2004. He only ran from it when it threatened to become harmful. Katrina vanden Heuvel and Ari Berman are gushing over Obama. They are far, far from reality. Barack Obama repeatedly stated in 2004 that the US could not withdraw from Iraq. He repeatedly (publicly and privately) went on record being opposed to a withdrawal. Why is it that an alleged left magazine has elected not to explore that and instead play cheerleader for him? (While giving non-stop hisses to Hillary Clinton.)
The Nation's not trying to end the illegal war. A strong but ultimately meaningless editorial every two years is not trying to end the illegal war. An article that boasts of "dozens" of photos of abuse to Iraqis being turned over to the magazine that fails to feature any of those photographs isn't trying to end the illegal war or even to be a distant relation of journalism. But the magazine wants to pretend (and really needs) it cares about the illegal war. If it cares about the illegal war, it's past time for the magazine to get honest about Barack Obama. It's beyond time for them to quit repeating the mainstream narrative of how Barack was right about the illegal war before it started unlike Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd without noting that repeatedly in 2004, Barack Obama argued that the US must not withdraw, must 'win' the illegal war, etc. The one who wants credit for being right that the illegal war was wrong also needs to take his blame for saying that an illegal war should continue to drag on. Pretending otherwise isn't helping anyone.
Pretending that Congressional leaders are attempting to end the illegal war isn't helping anyone either. Tina Richards (via Democracy Rising) notes the obvious that's treated as if it must be kept unspoken -- the Levin-Reed Amendment will not "bring our troops home" or "end the war": "I had an opportunity to ask [Senate Majority] Leader [Harry] Reid about how many troops will be abandoned in Iraq. He bluntly stated, 'we haven't spoken to the military yet, at this stage we don't know.' We don't know? They have pushed and prodded for this Amendment and they don't know? If Members of Congress do not have any idea how large of a future force this amendment calls for, then how can we as military families possibly support it? Senator Reid has admitted that this proposed 'pull-out plan' does nothing yet leave the decision up to the military leadership, who take their direction from President Bush. It must be made clear to the public that the Levin-Reed Amendment does not call for a specific withdrawal from Iraq nor does it seek to revamp the American mission in the region."
Funding the war is Killing The Troops. The message of Tina Richards' Grassroots America and Iraq Veterans Against the War. It's basic, it's easy to communicate. Want to bring the troops home safely? Stop funding the illegal war. Want to stop the US military air war on Iraq? Stop funding the illegal war.
Want to stop the illegal war? Stop farming yourself as the Pep Squad for Democratic Leadership in Congress which refuses to end the illegal war but prefers 'symbolic' action and shell games.
Appearing on KPFK 's Radio Active yesterday, Cindy Sheehan explained to host Michael Slate why she was running for the Congressional seat currently held by Nancy Pelosi (who also holds the title of House Majority Leader). Sheehan explained that, in light of US House Rep John Conyers' public promises (that the MSM has ignored) in recent days, she was hopeful going into the meeting on Monday with Conyers. The meeting didn't go well. Sheehan explained that Conyers said they didn't have the votes "he doesn't want to look foolish . . . Fox News would have a field day with that." Conyers proposed that the answer was in voting for Democrats in 2008. Sheehan explained that this is an example of how "the two-party system that really gets nothing done. Congress has made themselves invalid and irrelevant . . . I think it's about time that they do their job." And if they won't, then it is up to the voters, Sheehan explained, noting that the most recent legislation has shown "more earmarks for defense spending than the Republicans did."
Today on KPFK Uprising featured a Global Voices for Justice interview with John Conyers that was taped over the weekend. Conyers described the situtation as "really bad. We've never been in this situation before, with someone like that in the White House." But, Conyers wanted the public to understand, "You don't have to be in office to get impeached. You can get impeached for something you did in office."
Conyers is off his rocker or insane. The US Congress has never impeached a non-sitting president. In a two-party system, such a move would provide both parties pause. It is insane to think (or suggest, as Conyers did) that the impeachment of the Bully Boy can take place after 2008, after he leaves office. Right now, with him occupying the White House, it is like moving mountains to get the Congressional leaders just to acknowledge the option of impeachment exists. We're supposed to believe that will change after Bully Boy leaves office?
Conyers also declared that Congress has "a job . . . We're supposed to be creating legislation for the country." If he really believes that lie, then in 2009, won't Congress still have "a job to do"? Won't they still need to create legislation?
But Conyers wanted to lie and declare that impeachment "means there's no more legislation. . . . That's it."
On Radio Active yesterday, retired diplomat and retired Col. Ann Wright addressed Conyer's nonsense noting that there were plenty of people in DC who could be added to Congressional staffs: "You can do more than 2 or 3 things at once that there are plenty of young men and young women in this town that could be hired onto committees to do a multiple number of things. And should not we the people of the United States have a little bit of accountabiliy for this administration when we know what's being going on? And when we elected a Congress, changed the Congress around so that the Democrats are in charge specifically to get some accountability -- and now those same Democrats are backing off from it."
Jimmy Breslin addressed the topic of impeachment this week (Newsday via Common Dreams):
The other day, Bush said he couldn't understand why in the world would some people say that millions of Americans have no health insurance. "Why, all they have to do is go to the emergency room," he said.
Said this with the smirk, the insolent smug, contemptuous way he speaks to citizens.
People, particularly these politicians, these frightened beggars in suits, seem petrified about impeachment. It could wreck the country.
Ridiculous. I've been around this business twice and we're all still here and no politician was even injured. Richard Nixon lied during a war and helped get some 58,500 Americans killed and many escaped by hanging onto helicopter skids. Nixon left peacefully. Mike Mansfield of Montana, the Democratic Senate majority leader, said on television that the Senate impeachment trial of Nixon would be televised and there would be no immunity. That meant Nixon would have to face the country under oath and if he lied he would go to prison. He knew he was finished as he heard this. Mansfield said no more. He got up and left. Barbara Walters, on the "Today" show, said, "He doesn't say very much, does he?"
The second time the subject was Bill Clinton for illegal holding in the hallway.
This time, we have dead bodies involved. Consider what is accomplished by the simple power of the word impeachment. If you read these broken-down news writers or terrified politicians claiming that an impeachment would leave the nation in pieces, don't give a moment to them.
It opens with the appointing of an investigator to report to the House on evidence that calls for impeachment. He could bring witnesses forward. That would be all you'd need. Here in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon came John Dean. His history shows how far down the honesty and honor of this country has gone. Dean was the White House counsel. Richard Nixon, at his worst, never told him not to appear or to remain silent in front of the Congress. Dean went on and did his best to fill prisons. After that came Alexander Butterfield, a nobody. All he had to say was that the White House had a taping system that caught all the conversations in the White House. Any of them not on tape were erased by a participant.
The same is desperately needed now. Curious, following the words, an investigator -- the mind here sees George Mitchell and Warren Rudman, and you name me better -- can slap a hand on the slitherers and sneaks who have kept us in war for five years and who use failing generals to beg for more time and more lives of our young. A final word in September? Two years more, the generals and Bush people say.
Say impeachment and you'll get your troops home.
Meanwhile, David Swanson's AfterDowningStreet goes historical and steers to people to a BBC special entitled "The Whitehouse Coup" which "uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American. The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression. Mike Thomas investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy."
In the US currently, US House Rep Barbara Lee put forward proposed legislation in the House today "to prevent permanent military bases in Iraq and bar U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources." H.R. 2929 passed on a 399 to 24 vote. It would need to pass the Senate as well before it can be law. Said Lee, "We must soundly reject the vision of an open ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists."
In Iraq, CBS and AP report more political trouble for puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki with the "largest Sunni Arab bloc" in Parliament has put its membership on hold and should they resign "al-Maliki's Cabinet would limp along with about a third of its seats vacant and without its billing as a 'national unity' government."
National unity? Today in Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 53 dead from bombings in Baghdad alone -- 20 from a car bombing at a check point, 30 from a car bombing targeting people celebrating a soccer victory, 3 from a car bomb in northern Baghdad .
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 farmers were shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters reports seven people making a pilgrimage to Baghdad were wounded in Kerbala.
Kidnappings?
>Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Mustafa Qaid Mizhir Al Asi was kidnapped in Kirkuk, while 4 were kidnapped in Sadiyah -- the heads of the 4 were later found -- no signs of the rest of the bodies.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 18 corpses were discovered in the capital. Reuters reports 5 corpses discovered in Iskandairya.
Today, the US military announced: "A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier died of a non-battle related cause July 24."
In DC today, a nonsense committe made up of 9 members (including Donna Shalala and Bob Dole) announced recommendations. This was to address veterans' care. As the Washington Post's Dana Priest expected, speaking on NPR's Morning Edition today, there were no specifics on Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the recommendations were instead about systematic changes. The Final Report can be read [PDF format warning] here. and [PDF format warning] here for the findings. Your thoughts mayrun along the lines of "What planet have they been living on?" Proving they are 'hip' and 'with it' they want to create a "My eBenefits" page and it would allow medical information to be shared. Were they in comas when the Veterans Dept. repeatedly lost computers and put the privacy of veterans medical information at risk? The panel takes issue (rightly) with the VA for it's refusal to address the PTSD issues of returning service members; however, it then proposes that the VA get increased responsibility in determining the disability pay system. Does no one see the conflict? On the one hand, the VA hasn't been recognizing the very serious PTSD issues but on the other they would now be in charge of dispensing the benefit monies. As AP noted earlier this week, the VA is being sued by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan "on behalf of hundreds of veterans, it charges that the VA has failed warriors on several fronts -- from providing prompt disability benefits, to adding staff to reduce wait times for medical care to boosting services for post-traumatic stress disorder."
Finally, Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) reports on upcoming actions to follow the Bully Boy and share his Maine vacation with him: "a broad coalition of antiwar groups are holding a protest and covergence over the August 24-26 weekend. Like the encampment spearheaded by Cindy Sheehan outside of Crawford, Texas last summer, this protest aims to bring the antiwar message to the man who claims the war as his won." Among those present for the August 25th events will be Agustin Aguayo, David Rovics, the Indigo Girls and Dennis Kucinich.
tina richards
the common ills
mikey likes it
iraq
agustin aguayo
jimmy breslin
mcclatchy newspapers
I thought maybe I missed something in the Amendment and should reread it to ensure I did not miss anything. Yet an in-depth analysis of the Amendment is not needed in order to find the contradictions. A quick glance paired with recent statements made by Senator Reid prove that it holds no ambitions of easing the minds of military families and moms who want to know, "how do you choose which of our sons and daughters to abandon in Iraq?"
That's from Tina Richards' "Leader Reid confesses Levin-Reed Amendment leaves troops in Iraq indefinitely." Don't you love the alleged anti-war group WalkOn? Their members tell Tina Richards to shut up. Tina Richards is the mother of Cloy Richards. She's a fighter and the last thing she probably needs is a defense from me but I'll offer it anyway.
While the Dems played at war in March, Tina Richards was there to call out David Obey. Her thanks for that was to be called an "idiot liberal" by Obey. Her thanks for that was to be slimed by Party Hack David Sirota.
Her thanks for trying to end the illegal war is not a lot of support from the faux anti-war groups.
Apparently still smarting over the fact that Cindy Sheehan won't play stupid and dance to their "ELECT DEMS IN 2008 NO MATTER THAT THEY WON'T DO ANYTHING!" they faux anti-war weren't going to embrace Tina Richards.
Doesn't matter. The real end the illegal war movement knows she's out there and knows she's fighting. She's not giving up or playing nice because, like with Cindy Sheehan, this isn't an abstract for her, this is a very real illegal war. Cloy Richards has injuries from that war. Others have injuries, others are dead. She gets that.
She's not playing, she's not pretending and she's not an unconditional cheering section.
WalkOn and all the others who think they are now DC lobbyists and not activists are full of sh*t. And they're not leaders anymore. They have made themselves useless.
They have 'embedded' with the Democratic Party. As someone raised a Democrat and who has voted Democratic, I find it hilarious that so many alleged socialist, Greens, etc. are so willing to act as Democratic cheerleaders.
Tina Richards could be a Republican for all I know. I really don't care. I know that she's the real deal when it comes to ending the illegal war, the same way that people like Cindy Sheehan are the real deal.
If you're not the real deal, if you're just a Democratic Party cheerleader, I have no use for you.
That was one of the points of Sunday's editorial. The fauxs need to grasp if they try to sell out the peace movement in 2008 the way they did in 2004, they are foes and they will be called out.
They have sold their souls and, even sadder, it doesn't appear to have been to end the illegal war. It appears to have been done so that they can pump up their own visibility.
They're going to find that their self-created posters have a stamp on it "Not Wanted, Do Not Serve."
Tina Richards is the real deal. WalkOn is just about elections. It's time the real left stopped being silent and started telling truths because if they're silent right now, they're enabling the 'switcheroo' that will take place in 2008 as surely as it did in 2004. I am not going to be co-opted. I will probably vote for the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean I'll shower the candidate with kisses or act like they're the hottest thing since sliced cheese (as my grandfather always says).
You know who else tells it like it is? C.I. And the result of telling like it is a man writing a threatening insulting e-mail to C.I. weeks ago and repeatedly writing ever since now wanting to play like he's the injured party. That's not reality. Reality is he is a dirty, disgusting little thug who may vote Democratic but is nothing but a Bully Boy. We may all be delinking from an organization. Anyone that doesn't support war resisters does not have our support and the little Bully Boy has taken to trying to get others to write C.I. on his behalf. Not only does he start out threatening a woman, but in the end he has to go running to friends. He can join the New York Times in kissing my Irish-American ass. Here's C.I. telling it like it is as always in today's
"Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, July 25, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Ann Wright explains what John Conyers can't grasp (or pretends not to grasp), Katrina vanden Heuvel thinks being editor & publisher means playing favorites, Baraba Lee proves there are some leaders in Congress, Tina Richards proves there are truth tellers, BBC tells about back in the day when the Bush family tried to overthrow FDR, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Today on KPFK's Uprising, Sonali Kohatkar interviewed Agustin Aguayo and Helga Aguayo. Aguayo self-checked out the US military at the start of September on the eve of his second deployment to Iraq (and while his CO requests were being ignored to such a point that they were now fighting in the civilian courts) and turned himself before the end of the month. Earlier this year, in Germany, Aguayo was court-martialed. He is now speaking out about his experiences.
Agustin explained to Kohatkar that the time since being released from military prison and returning to the United States have been an adjustment becuase "for so long I was part of a system where everything was laid out." Helga spoke of what it was like for her when the persecution of her husband was taking place, "It's been very difficult. . . . It's been very stressful. My health has detirated a little but I'm getting stronger." Helga and Agusin are the parents of twin daughters (12-year-olds). Agustin declared that he speaks now to get the word out and "something of great importance to me is reaching out to the youth". Agustin noted the recruitment efforts targeting young people today and hopes that by speaking he can count that "and share with them the other side of the story, the side advertisements and recruiters won't ever tell them."
In addition to the false promises recruiters to make to all children (generally the children of low income families), Kohatkar noted that there is also the promise of citizenship offered to those who will fight in the US military although they are not citizens. Kohatkar noted that 32,000 immigrants had been naturalized as a result of serving in the US miltiary.
Reflecting on his awakening (it was a religious awakening and Agustin has spoken of it in those terms), Agustin stated, "I came to see myself as what I truly am. A person that is peaceful. . . . The missions I was participating in were not naturally peaceful ones so I regret some of them."
Helga spoke to the issues of what can be done from the outside. She termed the period during which the military was persecuting her husband "sheer terror for us" and spoke of living in fear that the military would physically harm if she spoke out or retaliate against him. What she discovered was, "The louder I spoke, the more support I got. The louder I spoke, the more media attention it got him. So I had to get over my fear."
Where things stand now is that Agustin is "still part of the military" and "basically I have a legal right to appeal my court-martial". Kohtkar asked what was the worst that could happen right now? Noting the current "political environment," Agustin pointed out that "recently Marines and soldiers with the inactive-ready reserves have been prosecuted for speaking out." That would include Adam Kokesh (Cloy Richards and Liam Madden have also been among those harassed). Agustin also noted how many were leaving the military often "in a quiet way without making any statements, including to their family." Helga credited IVAW and others with "The moral support, the guidance" they offered and noted, "I do believe that we can stop this war. You know the politicians have failed us and now it's up to us. . . . Maybe I'm being too optimistic but I think that eventually we can stop this war."
Aguayo is telling his story publicly and The Acorn reports that Aguayo will speak this Thursday from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at Grant Brimhall, Thousand Oaks Library, 1401 E. James Rd., that the event is "free and open to the public" and more information is available by calling (805) 375-9939. War resister Pablo Paredes will also be at the event.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Now let's turn to periodical news and the biggest laugh (cited by friends at two networks and three daily papers), the Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel. Itwas embarrassing enough that (once again) she was pushing a group on her blog (Editor's Cut) whose board both she and her father serve on (without DISLCOSING THAT while lavishing praise on the centrist group). But she's not a journalist. She's not a trained jouranlist and she continues to run The Nation as if it is the Palm Beach Social Pictoral and not an alleged independent weekly.
Today she demonstrates that not only may the posts editor and publisher beyond her grasp but so may be basic comprehension. In the Democratic 'debate' this week, US Senator Barack Obama was asked a question and offered a response. It demonstrated his lack of experience but Katrina vanden Heuvel drums up the case against Hillary Clinton and pushes the DLC Barack Obama by altering reality. "In Monday's debate," she writes, "and with the benefit of having time to think through her response, Hillary Clinton posed as the foreign policy sophisticate to Barack Obama the bold leader who did not hesitate to say that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela." No that is not what happened.
Transcript of the 'debate' (New York Times) shows Obama was asked if he would "meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" The first year. Would he meet in the first year. Obama responded, "I would." Blah blah blah followed.
David Corn gets it right. And it is a mistake. (Tim Russert slipped in "insurgent Obama" on NBC's Today this morning.) There is nothing wrong with diplomatic meetings, they should be encouraged. But Katrina vanden Heuvel fudges reality to make it appear that's the issue when it isn't. Obama agreed to meetings his first year in office. You don't do that. You don't show your hand in that way and you certainly don't announce first year meetings when you're not even in office. This has nothing to do with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or any other leader, it has nothing to do with other countries. It has everything to do with the way diplomacy is conducted. You can indicate you're willing to consider it, you don't say, "Yes, I will have those meetings." In terms of the way diplomacy is conducted and in terms of the way Obama's mistake will continue to play out, David Corn is correct.
Corn writes for The Nation. Katrina vanden Heuvel holds the magazine's posts of editor and publisher. Disagreeing with a writer for the magazine -- someone serving under -- publicly might or might not be 'bad form' but the fact that she then holds up another writer at the magazine is causing huge laughs: "My colleague Ari Berman posted his smart and sharp counter to David's argument . . ." As the editor and the publisher, vanden Heuvel should give the appearance of detatchment with regards to those working beneath her. Instead, she picks a favorite. Again, she's not trained in journalism. But she sure did provide a lot of laughter today.
Berman also shades reality by changing the issue at stake (the first year vanishes from Berman's critique as it did from Katrina vanden Heuvel's). Now let's get to the real reality here. (Friends pushed for this to be noted but that alone wouldn't have gotten it included in the snapshot.) The tongue baths of Obama from The Nation are appalling. As Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford have explained, Barack Obama was DLC in 2004. He only ran from it when it threatened to become harmful. Katrina vanden Heuvel and Ari Berman are gushing over Obama. They are far, far from reality. Barack Obama repeatedly stated in 2004 that the US could not withdraw from Iraq. He repeatedly (publicly and privately) went on record being opposed to a withdrawal. Why is it that an alleged left magazine has elected not to explore that and instead play cheerleader for him? (While giving non-stop hisses to Hillary Clinton.)
The Nation's not trying to end the illegal war. A strong but ultimately meaningless editorial every two years is not trying to end the illegal war. An article that boasts of "dozens" of photos of abuse to Iraqis being turned over to the magazine that fails to feature any of those photographs isn't trying to end the illegal war or even to be a distant relation of journalism. But the magazine wants to pretend (and really needs) it cares about the illegal war. If it cares about the illegal war, it's past time for the magazine to get honest about Barack Obama. It's beyond time for them to quit repeating the mainstream narrative of how Barack was right about the illegal war before it started unlike Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd without noting that repeatedly in 2004, Barack Obama argued that the US must not withdraw, must 'win' the illegal war, etc. The one who wants credit for being right that the illegal war was wrong also needs to take his blame for saying that an illegal war should continue to drag on. Pretending otherwise isn't helping anyone.
Pretending that Congressional leaders are attempting to end the illegal war isn't helping anyone either. Tina Richards (via Democracy Rising) notes the obvious that's treated as if it must be kept unspoken -- the Levin-Reed Amendment will not "bring our troops home" or "end the war": "I had an opportunity to ask [Senate Majority] Leader [Harry] Reid about how many troops will be abandoned in Iraq. He bluntly stated, 'we haven't spoken to the military yet, at this stage we don't know.' We don't know? They have pushed and prodded for this Amendment and they don't know? If Members of Congress do not have any idea how large of a future force this amendment calls for, then how can we as military families possibly support it? Senator Reid has admitted that this proposed 'pull-out plan' does nothing yet leave the decision up to the military leadership, who take their direction from President Bush. It must be made clear to the public that the Levin-Reed Amendment does not call for a specific withdrawal from Iraq nor does it seek to revamp the American mission in the region."
Funding the war is Killing The Troops. The message of Tina Richards' Grassroots America and Iraq Veterans Against the War. It's basic, it's easy to communicate. Want to bring the troops home safely? Stop funding the illegal war. Want to stop the US military air war on Iraq? Stop funding the illegal war.
Want to stop the illegal war? Stop farming yourself as the Pep Squad for Democratic Leadership in Congress which refuses to end the illegal war but prefers 'symbolic' action and shell games.
Appearing on KPFK 's Radio Active yesterday, Cindy Sheehan explained to host Michael Slate why she was running for the Congressional seat currently held by Nancy Pelosi (who also holds the title of House Majority Leader). Sheehan explained that, in light of US House Rep John Conyers' public promises (that the MSM has ignored) in recent days, she was hopeful going into the meeting on Monday with Conyers. The meeting didn't go well. Sheehan explained that Conyers said they didn't have the votes "he doesn't want to look foolish . . . Fox News would have a field day with that." Conyers proposed that the answer was in voting for Democrats in 2008. Sheehan explained that this is an example of how "the two-party system that really gets nothing done. Congress has made themselves invalid and irrelevant . . . I think it's about time that they do their job." And if they won't, then it is up to the voters, Sheehan explained, noting that the most recent legislation has shown "more earmarks for defense spending than the Republicans did."
Today on KPFK Uprising featured a Global Voices for Justice interview with John Conyers that was taped over the weekend. Conyers described the situtation as "really bad. We've never been in this situation before, with someone like that in the White House." But, Conyers wanted the public to understand, "You don't have to be in office to get impeached. You can get impeached for something you did in office."
Conyers is off his rocker or insane. The US Congress has never impeached a non-sitting president. In a two-party system, such a move would provide both parties pause. It is insane to think (or suggest, as Conyers did) that the impeachment of the Bully Boy can take place after 2008, after he leaves office. Right now, with him occupying the White House, it is like moving mountains to get the Congressional leaders just to acknowledge the option of impeachment exists. We're supposed to believe that will change after Bully Boy leaves office?
Conyers also declared that Congress has "a job . . . We're supposed to be creating legislation for the country." If he really believes that lie, then in 2009, won't Congress still have "a job to do"? Won't they still need to create legislation?
But Conyers wanted to lie and declare that impeachment "means there's no more legislation. . . . That's it."
On Radio Active yesterday, retired diplomat and retired Col. Ann Wright addressed Conyer's nonsense noting that there were plenty of people in DC who could be added to Congressional staffs: "You can do more than 2 or 3 things at once that there are plenty of young men and young women in this town that could be hired onto committees to do a multiple number of things. And should not we the people of the United States have a little bit of accountabiliy for this administration when we know what's being going on? And when we elected a Congress, changed the Congress around so that the Democrats are in charge specifically to get some accountability -- and now those same Democrats are backing off from it."
Jimmy Breslin addressed the topic of impeachment this week (Newsday via Common Dreams):
The other day, Bush said he couldn't understand why in the world would some people say that millions of Americans have no health insurance. "Why, all they have to do is go to the emergency room," he said.
Said this with the smirk, the insolent smug, contemptuous way he speaks to citizens.
People, particularly these politicians, these frightened beggars in suits, seem petrified about impeachment. It could wreck the country.
Ridiculous. I've been around this business twice and we're all still here and no politician was even injured. Richard Nixon lied during a war and helped get some 58,500 Americans killed and many escaped by hanging onto helicopter skids. Nixon left peacefully. Mike Mansfield of Montana, the Democratic Senate majority leader, said on television that the Senate impeachment trial of Nixon would be televised and there would be no immunity. That meant Nixon would have to face the country under oath and if he lied he would go to prison. He knew he was finished as he heard this. Mansfield said no more. He got up and left. Barbara Walters, on the "Today" show, said, "He doesn't say very much, does he?"
The second time the subject was Bill Clinton for illegal holding in the hallway.
This time, we have dead bodies involved. Consider what is accomplished by the simple power of the word impeachment. If you read these broken-down news writers or terrified politicians claiming that an impeachment would leave the nation in pieces, don't give a moment to them.
It opens with the appointing of an investigator to report to the House on evidence that calls for impeachment. He could bring witnesses forward. That would be all you'd need. Here in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon came John Dean. His history shows how far down the honesty and honor of this country has gone. Dean was the White House counsel. Richard Nixon, at his worst, never told him not to appear or to remain silent in front of the Congress. Dean went on and did his best to fill prisons. After that came Alexander Butterfield, a nobody. All he had to say was that the White House had a taping system that caught all the conversations in the White House. Any of them not on tape were erased by a participant.
The same is desperately needed now. Curious, following the words, an investigator -- the mind here sees George Mitchell and Warren Rudman, and you name me better -- can slap a hand on the slitherers and sneaks who have kept us in war for five years and who use failing generals to beg for more time and more lives of our young. A final word in September? Two years more, the generals and Bush people say.
Say impeachment and you'll get your troops home.
Meanwhile, David Swanson's AfterDowningStreet goes historical and steers to people to a BBC special entitled "The Whitehouse Coup" which "uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American. The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression. Mike Thomas investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy."
In the US currently, US House Rep Barbara Lee put forward proposed legislation in the House today "to prevent permanent military bases in Iraq and bar U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources." H.R. 2929 passed on a 399 to 24 vote. It would need to pass the Senate as well before it can be law. Said Lee, "We must soundly reject the vision of an open ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists."
In Iraq, CBS and AP report more political trouble for puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki with the "largest Sunni Arab bloc" in Parliament has put its membership on hold and should they resign "al-Maliki's Cabinet would limp along with about a third of its seats vacant and without its billing as a 'national unity' government."
National unity? Today in Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 53 dead from bombings in Baghdad alone -- 20 from a car bombing at a check point, 30 from a car bombing targeting people celebrating a soccer victory, 3 from a car bomb in northern Baghdad .
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 farmers were shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters reports seven people making a pilgrimage to Baghdad were wounded in Kerbala.
Kidnappings?
>Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Mustafa Qaid Mizhir Al Asi was kidnapped in Kirkuk, while 4 were kidnapped in Sadiyah -- the heads of the 4 were later found -- no signs of the rest of the bodies.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 18 corpses were discovered in the capital. Reuters reports 5 corpses discovered in Iskandairya.
Today, the US military announced: "A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier died of a non-battle related cause July 24."
In DC today, a nonsense committe made up of 9 members (including Donna Shalala and Bob Dole) announced recommendations. This was to address veterans' care. As the Washington Post's Dana Priest expected, speaking on NPR's Morning Edition today, there were no specifics on Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the recommendations were instead about systematic changes. The Final Report can be read [PDF format warning] here. and [PDF format warning] here for the findings. Your thoughts mayrun along the lines of "What planet have they been living on?" Proving they are 'hip' and 'with it' they want to create a "My eBenefits" page and it would allow medical information to be shared. Were they in comas when the Veterans Dept. repeatedly lost computers and put the privacy of veterans medical information at risk? The panel takes issue (rightly) with the VA for it's refusal to address the PTSD issues of returning service members; however, it then proposes that the VA get increased responsibility in determining the disability pay system. Does no one see the conflict? On the one hand, the VA hasn't been recognizing the very serious PTSD issues but on the other they would now be in charge of dispensing the benefit monies. As AP noted earlier this week, the VA is being sued by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan "on behalf of hundreds of veterans, it charges that the VA has failed warriors on several fronts -- from providing prompt disability benefits, to adding staff to reduce wait times for medical care to boosting services for post-traumatic stress disorder."
Finally, Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) reports on upcoming actions to follow the Bully Boy and share his Maine vacation with him: "a broad coalition of antiwar groups are holding a protest and covergence over the August 24-26 weekend. Like the encampment spearheaded by Cindy Sheehan outside of Crawford, Texas last summer, this protest aims to bring the antiwar message to the man who claims the war as his won." Among those present for the August 25th events will be Agustin Aguayo, David Rovics, the Indigo Girls and Dennis Kucinich.
tina richardsthe common ills
mikey likes it
iraq
agustin aguayo
jimmy breslin
mcclatchy newspapers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)