I have no idea why a website has twice ripped off C.I. I'm fully aware that Heather left a comment steering people to a thing C.I. wrote. Thirty minutes later, her comment disappears. Forty-five minutes later, one of the blog writers shows up with 'breaking news'.
So since she posted a comment today and it 'disappeared,' I guess we can see one of the blog writers pop up with another thing they just discovered. And, if you think about it, it goes all the way back to theft (of C.I.'s writing) I wrote about after the last debate. I'll come back to that topic.
But first, my part in the covering of Iraq Veterans Against the War testifying before a Congressional committee on Thursday will be noting James Gilligan's testimony. He spoke about attempting to take his own life in 2007 and the "deep regret and remorse" he feels "for what we've done in Iraq." Here is one section of his testimony:
The amount of destruction was tremendous and we watched once while in a traffic jam as a pair of Appaches laid rockets and gunfire into the heart of the city a few kilometers in the distance. Without a doubt, I have been in and around buildings destroyed with Depleted Uranium rounds as well as vehicles, armored personnel carries, tanks and corpses. During the invasion, we were also exposed to severe sandstorms which meant we were breathing in the sand for days, sand that more than likely contained Depleted Uranium. I went for 47 days without a shower in the initial invasion and I could buy a Playstation 2 game in a post-exchange before I could even shower because our contractors were already making bases and had a routine supply line while we were sleeping out in the open. Almost daily I found Iraqis who spoke English whose questions were who we were and how long we were to be there? Today is a conscientious objector day, May 15th, the day that honors those who choose not to fire their weapons. They do go to comabat sometimes by force of their command. We were just a week away from the flight to Kuwait when I saw my 1st Sgt. chew someone out about his CO status. I heard the 1st Sgt say, "What if those f-blank ragheads came into your home and raped your daughter and tortured and murdered your wife?" I was shocked to hear the bravery in the young lance corporal's voice as he told the 1st Sgt., "No, I don't know what I would do. Why? Would we do that to theim?" His remarks were overlooked and he deployed regardless and remained in rear position but was still exposed to indirect and routine patrols.
He explained he never fired his weapons and did not believe in the "free fire" orders, which he felt were unethical and immoral.
That is from C.I.'s short-hand notes. I am responsible for any errors. We could have all covered this but I know their was reluctance on C.I.'s part to ask us if we wanted to after Winter Soldier. We covered Winter Soldier, all of us, with C.I. carrying the bulk of the load as always. Then a little whiner showed up -- first e-mailing me and then e-mailing all of us. She didn't like that we didn't care for a panel Saturday morning.
It wasn't enough that all hearings were covered (the bulk by C.I.) or that we wrote a feature article at Third on the health care panel and no outlet at that time (or in the weeks after) made that their focus. The fact that we didn't care for one panel was just too much for her. How dare we like all the panels except one! How dare we offer our opinion of a panel we disliked! How dare we!
I will assume that reaction -- which went on over and over with the woman eventually e-mailing all of us, attempting presumably to pit one of us against the other -- is why C.I. didn't give the rollout to this hearing. (I'll also assume it was in part because C.I. wanted to see who, outside the community, would cover it on their own with no prompting?) After that one woman would not stop e-mailing everyone with a site, we went public about the nonsense and, at that point, we heard from IVAW members who said to blow her off.
But I've got a million things I can write about my site. I've never once sat down and said, "I don't have a thing to write about!" So to use my time here and at Third to write about it, to know everyone was using their time to write about it, and to have that one woman show up repeatedly (I think she griped in five or six e-mails to me and I was the first to hear her rants but everyone got the e-mails), I think it did sour us on it. C.I. being C.I. was able to set aside any personal feelings on the matter and continue to cover the hearings the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday after Winter Soldier had ended and in many snapshot since. That's C.I. who can and will focus on the work. The rest of us are probably less professional but certainly have little interest in writing about something that's going to result in not only complaints and whines but (and this was the big offense) an organized effort to pit us against one another which is what the woman regularly attempted seeking out some of us with e-mails about how she knew they were feminists so surely they must object to . . . Must object? The article at Third that had her so unhinged was written by all of us. On top of that, it was only written after phone calls. See, Betty didn't care for the hearing. She didn't care for the woman pushing Barack Obama at what was supposed to be a non-partisan forum. The woman pushed Barack all day Saturday. On that first forum in the morning and later on the last panel on Saturday.
Keep kidding yourself, dumb ass, Barack's about the illegal war continuing and providing cover for the US to start wars in Africa. You had to wonder how other members of IVAW felt about that woman's nonsense especially since not every member of IVAW is a Democrat, some are Republicans and some are libertarians and some are other things. But Betty was pissed off at that woman from the moment she heard the Saturday morning hearing. But it would have just been a remark in that week's roundtable (as it was) and that would have been it had it not been for IVAW members calling to complain about that panel.
If one thing pissed off C.I. about the woman e-mailing's nonsense -- I'm sure many things about it pissed off C.I. but I know C.I. was pissed about this since it got a very loud reaction when C.I. found out -- it was her insistance that she had a right to talk to those members who were offended by the panel. She had to be in contact with them.
C.I.'s initial reaction was to quote a line from Dangerous Liasons and I'll mess up that line so I'll just note that. But when that woman amplified her demands, C.I. let loose on just what a nut-job that woman was and how dare she think she have a right to demand anything of us or that we would betray people C.I. considered friends by giving up their names to her. As someone (probably Rebecca) wrote when C.I. hit the roof on that, the ones complaining knew the woman, if they wanted to speak to her, they would on their own. In fairness (C.I.'s motto), C.I. even called some of them and asked, "Do you want to speak to her?" And the reaction was "Hell no!"
C.I.'s attitude, from growing up in a press family and having had press coverage throughout adulthood, is that you never read your own press. You'll never be pleased with it. You'll know that, even when quoted correctly word for word, there's an inflection that's not noted or a pause or this or that that alters the meaning. You will never be pleased even if you write something yourself. It has to do with how we see ourselves and how others see us. The best thing you can do is ignore your own press and live your life.
But the woman e-mailing couldn't grasp that and operated under the belief that if she pitted us against one another or screamed loud enough in an e-mail, we would suddenly declare, "We know we shared our opinion in an article we all wrote but, guess what, we were all wrong in our opinion that the panel was a jerk off panel which was supposed to deal with sexism and sexual abuse but instead offered a woman talking about going into a night club and seeing a recruiter there who she never spoke to or approached but how damaging that was for her to see what she repeatedly described as 'a big, strong man' in a night club." Or hearing tired tales about how people in other countries -- Stupid people, apparently -- drive funny. Or how there must be homophobia in the military but the gay guy never saw any. If that group whatever of Eagles had wanted to put on a panel, it would have been that one. It was a bad panel. And we were kind about it in real time. Ava and C.I. even used one of the two strong testimonies (there were two or three) in their TV commentary that week -- the most read feature at Third every week.
Don't tell me or any of us, "Your opinion is wrong!" You may like our opinion, but it's our opinion. Get a grip. You sort of picture the woman e-mailing running from newstand to newstand grabbing up papers to burn them. That's how pathetic she was.
So C.I. didn't want to ask us this time to cover it. What happened was Kat scanned C.I.'s notes and sent them to all of us with a note that we could grab what we wanted. (I say sent to all of us but Ma, Kat, Elaine, Ava and C.I. are all in Puerto Rico. I'm sure Ma's will use the original notes as will Kat and Elaine if they write about the hearing.)
Back to that first topic I put on hold. Between now and then, a blogger at the site wrote Ruth asking all these questions. Ruth was flattered. She wrote back. She now will not write anyone back. She feels she was completely used. (I agree.) I don't know what they were hoping to discover. I know C.I. was smart enough to say "former CIA? I'm not replying." See the blogger wrote mainly about what Ruth was doing at her site (covering Diane Rehm's bias) and the blogger supposedly wanted Ruth's permission to use some of Ruth's stuff (which Ruth gave), but the blogger also wanted permission from Isaiah and C.I. for their stuff. (Amazing consider that site recycles C.I. non-stop and has never worried about permission before.) C.I. told Ruth and Isaiah about the e-mail. Ruth replied. Isaiah said he didn't feel good about that e-mail and C.I. made the comment that "I'm not replying". (I also think it's true that although C.I. doesn't call out people when they steal, C.I. does remember. I noticed that when Jess told me about this kiss-ass e-mail C.I. had from one little thief and how C.I. deleted it, without reading it, after Jess put it in the folder C.I. reads.) Now if any of us get ripped off, C.I. will call that out. But C.I. really doesn't care about calling out all the thiefs stealing from The Common Ills. C.I. just ignores them.
The site was in competition with a blog that had ceased publishing and a rock music group for number one (it was coming in number third) until C.I. started including it in the snapshot. It's gone now. No more snapshots. No more links. And there's a website that got dropped from the snapshot this week as well. Jess told me it was because he and Jim wrote that piece about how the website wanted to trade links. C.I. didn't know that. C.I. just knew the site was begging for a link. So C.I. included it in every snapshot. But when Jess and Jim wrote their column about the link trade that never happened for Polly's Brew, members got outraged and C.I. dropped the site. It's another one that moved up in google search after being included non-stop.
So I'll just remind you again if you're thinking about starting a blog, don't trust any of those liars. It will be a lot easier for you. You won't be thinking, "That asshole ripped me off!" Or, "That jerk asked for a link and never linked back." Or, "I have promoted the hell out of that and never gotten crap in return." I don't know that C.I. thinks those things but I know the rest of us do. It just seems like someone's always going begging to C.I. There was a request for a movie on cable this week. C.I. ignored it and Jess thought C.I. hadn't seen the e-mail. C.I.'s comment was, "We've done more than enough to promote that film."
My own fantasy is that on the last day of The Common Ills, C.I. does an entry that lists all the ungrateful asses who never did a thing for the site but always begged and begged some more. But never said, "Thank you." Not even a thank you.
I try to use the code C.I. does when linking. If I find an article from another site (outside the community, in the community, we're always swapping as well as overlapping unintentionally), I'll pull a C.I. and say, "As ___ notes, ___ is an important article. This is from that article."
It's equally true that C.I.'s really sick of online period. That's understandable. The Common Ills started in November 2004, after the election. Every day since then, C.I. has posted entries. Over and over. And not nonsense like "cat blogging." If it weren't for having friends who would take down dictation, C.I. would have stopped it a long time ago. (That's the truth. I know how time consuming it is and C.I.'s plates are already full.)
Today's snapshot includes C.I. promoting a documentary (on DVD Tuesday) and I knew that would go in. I also knew that it would be a brief snapshot. (It ended up being longer.) That's due to the fact that C.I. had to catch a plane to Puerto Rico. But I think (my opinion only) that when you're giving out links to strangers (and there have been snapshots where as many as ten beggars got links) and you're seeing yourself ripped off that you finally think, "Screw you all."
It's one thing for friends at paper and networks to ask for links, C.I. knows them. But for these strangers that show up begging and never do a thing for the community, I think it's really gotten old. I know C.I. would end the site right now were it not for the fact that the community would be hurt. There's too much time put in and C.I.'s already been on the road non-stop since Feb. 2003 speaking out against the illegal war. I really think, if the site goes dark in November, C.I. will be packing bags and going on a lengthy vacation. A long overdue one.
I'm not calling for an end in November, I'm just preparing you if it happens. It very likely will. I was part of that summer 2005 writing edition when C.I. was just worn out (and that was nearly three years ago). You had a dumb ass woman whose 'man' had attacked Kat online and she (a) joins in on the attack and (b) also wants to beg and plead with C.I. privately. Then you had the New York Times journalist whining that the initial was left out of his name. (It was left out of the byline in the paper.) He didn't reference the entry. So everyone was having to look and find it. We finally do (and this has happened three times with that paper's whining writers) and C.I. pulls up the paper and the paper left out the initial.
This kind of crap gets old. And C.I. said then, I can't do this anymore. I'm tired. The only way I can keep going is if I have an exit date. (That's also when C.I. said, to the second shock of the community, that if the The Common Ills goes dark in November 2008, the illegal war would still be going. No one believed that. We all thought, "No way!" The Iraq War will be over!) So that's when C.I. picked November 2008. And you need to remember that none of us do as much as C.I. During the week, Monday through Friday, C.I. does a minimum of 16 entries. There's at least one on Saturday (two more than often), two or three on Saturday. So that can be as many as 21 entries there. Then C.I. and Ava have to write at least one TV piece for Third. Then you've go their Latin TV pieces for Maria, Francisco and Miguel's newsletter, their radio pieces for Hilda's Mix, C.I.'s columns for both newsletters plus for the gina & krista round-robin and Polly's Brew. And during all of that, C.I.'s on the road speaking out against the illegal war.
So it really does get old. There has not been one day off since The Common Ills started. C.I. has never missed a day. I take off weekends, all of us do. I take off some holidays. I know there are times when C.I.'s trying to do an entry and "virtual memory low" comes up and C.I. just wants to throw the laptop. (C.I. has multiple windows open to read e-mails in different accounts and to search for different news and to write an entry. It's also nothing for one window to have 20 open tabs.) Rebooting and getting back to the starting point takes 15 minutes and the debate going on is always, "Do I take the 15 minutes or can I work with it going slow?" It's just a headache.
So I'm just saying, that with C.I. going to Puerto Rico on the weekends right now, if you asked, the response would be: "November can't get here quick enough." Meaning, "I'm done."
Here's "HUBdate: Hillary in Oregon:"
Today In Oregon: Hillary hosts a "Solutions for the American Economy" event in Junction City, and participates a town hall hosted by KGW Newschannel 8 in Portland.
Hailing Passage of the Farm Bill: Yesterday, the Senate passed the Farm Bill by an overwhelming vote of 81 to 15. Hillary Clinton responded by saying: "By passing this bill, we have achieved an important step forward for farmers and consumers…Americans will have a real choice this fall - between a candidate who supports rural America and family farms and John McCain, who has threatened to veto this critical legislative priority." Read more and more.
Momentum in the Bluegrass State: As a sign of growing momentum in the state, the Clinton campaign announced its Kentucky Steering Committee, which is comprised of more than 100 former and current federal, state, and local elected officials that have endorsed Hillary. Read more.
Standing Up For Montana Families: Kalispell, MT Mayor Pam Kennedy endorsed Hillary yesterday. At a rally with former President Bill Clinton, she explained why Hillary is her choice: "Hillary Clinton has been standing up for women and families throughout her long career in public service. She is the candidate who best understands the issues facing Montana families." Read more.
Health Care For All: At a campaign stop at Dennis Jones' Farms in Bend, SD, Hillary pledged that she would fight for quality, affordable universal health care for all South Dakotans and all Americans: "I believe we need a plan that's not going to leave anybody out." Read More.
If You Read One Thing Today: "NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliates in key swing and primary states are openly distancing themselves from the decision…to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president." Read more.
On Tap in KY: Hillary will campaign in the Bluegrass State this Saturday, May 17.
And here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, May 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, an important DVD is released next week, what's up with Chalabi now, and more.
Starting with war resistance as Iraq Veterans Against the War noted yesterday (text, video)
Good afternoon. My name is Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, and I served in the Army as a Photojournalist until being honorable discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Phillipines. As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand. In February, I received a letter from the Army ordering my return to active duty, for the purpose of mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength, clarity and resolve to declare to the military and the world that this Soldier will not be deploying to Iraq. This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes. Furthermore, deployment in support of illegal war violates all of my core values as a human being, but in keeping with those values, I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the Army if they so wish to pursue them. I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq.
IVAW includes a link to an online donations form that people can select "legal fund" from and notes that email@example.com is the address to express support to Matthis Chiroux. (That's thankyoumathhis at ivaw.org ).
As for those war resisters who are in Canada need support as well as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (firstname.lastname@example.org -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
As noted yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, and featured veterans offering testimony Thursday -- Iraq Veterans Against the War. The hearing was broadcast on CSPAN and KPFA (click here for KPFA's archived broadcast) and at Aaron Glantz' website The War Comes Home. Earlier (in March) Iraq Veterans Against the War held their Winter Soldier Investigation and it was broadcast at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz anchoring Pacifica's live coverage. (It was also broadcast at the IVAW site.) Allison and Glantz also hosted a live report on KPFA about the lawsuit against the VA on April 22nd. We'll focus on the second half of the first panel (which should get us through the second hour) and it was during this portion, after the veterans had offered their testimonies, that co-chair Maxine Waters first spoke and we'll pick up with this section.
US House Rep Maxine Waters: I have often wondered as I have read accounts of killings in Iraq of civilians, where they are described to us in the newspaper as 'some attack' or 'some killings' that have been executed because 'suspected terrorists' or 'suspected this' or suspected 'that'. And when I see women and children and civilians be killed, I often wonder who are those people? No one will ever be able to know what the true story is and they have nobody to stand up for them to say that they are innocent, that they are guilty of on crime. They just get killed and they die and that's it. And I wonder often times about those families and those children that we see getting killed in ways that you described here this morning. Mr. Goldsmith I want you to know I am so moved by your testimony that you had the courage to come here today and share with us what you have shared and say "This is how I thought a long time ago but that's not who I am today." That is very powerful, that is very moving. And I had to be contained up here by my leader . . . I just wanted to stand up and applaud and she said "Just be cool because we want to honor everybody in a special way."
US House Rep Waters was directing her last statements to Kristofer Goldsmith who testified last on the panel. Goldsmith presentation included visual slides. Juxtaposed were photos of him in uniform after completing basic training and him as a young child dressed up in a military uniform. He discussed specifically what his motivation was prior to deployment: to kill Iraqis, to kill Muslims. He spoke of the transformation he'd gone through -- which was what Waters was noting. He spoke of Sadr City (which will pick up at a later time) and, with time running out, noted US Senator and presumed GOP presidential nominee John McCain's opposition to the GI Bill US Senator Jim Webb is proposing. He said it wouldn't apply to him because he was he dishonorably discharged for attempting suicide so he wouldn't receive the benefit (due to the classification of the discharge) but it was sorely needed. Goldsmith would also note how telling his story was theraputic and how there are those who aren't able to tell their own stories: "It is very hard for us to find the courage to come up here and I would like to thank you again for hearing us."
US House Rep Maxin Waters: I don't like to make committments that I'm not sure I can follow or carry out but you're going to get your GI Bill, you're going to go to college.
Kristofer Goldsmith: Thank you.
US House Rep Maxine Waters: I want to tell you here and today that I'm on it, I'm focused. I don't know what I have to do but I'm going to get it. You're going to get it. I'm going to make that committment to you today. And whoever's standing in our collective way because, I know, that my collegues here share in my feelings about this. They [those opposed such as McCain] better get out of the way because we're going to get it. You have to have it. You must have it. And I'm so glad that you did not take you life, that it did not work. And I want you to know that no matter the disappointment, no matter the lies, no matter the experiences, there's some people here [in Congress] who believe in you, some people who are going to continue to fight to bring our soldiers home and some people here will stand up and fight for you no matter what the obstacles are. And I just wish you all would just defy this leader [Lynn Woolsey] and give him and everybody a big round of applause.
Rep Waters was referring to Rep Woolsey's explanation that this was a hearing and they would need to hold their applause. Also speaking was US House Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee who expressed her gratitude towards Kelly Dougherty for using her "anguish" to motivate greater change. Dougherty, who introduced the witnesses of the first panel, is an Iraq War veteran and the executive director of IVAW, the organization she co-founded. Jackson-Lee cited the testimonies and the need to end the illegal war.
US House Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee: And I feel a sense of urgency. I will leave the mike for a moment to go to the [House] floor to take some of the points you've made to offer them in my opposition to the war and what will be my vote to against any more funding for the war in Iraq. We made a personal committment that we will never vote for another cent. Sometimes we're blindsided. Sometimes they sneak it in or sneak it around. We try to be Sherlock Holmes and to find it and make sure we do not cast our vote. What I think I heard from Mr. Goldsmith was that there was this stop-loss policy of Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and I think that what I've heard from my constituents that a general discharge -- in fact I think we heard that yesterday, about a general discharge -- now blocks everyone from their education benefits. So let me join with Congresswoman Waters to say this has to be fixed. Morphed. Refined. Distinguished. So that individuals who have for causes, for reasons, for tragedies, found themselves under this particular discharge do not have to suffer anymore. Let me also very quickly say that you are creating a movement. It pains me to hear that you are representing those who are shouting in the darkness. So maybe as we have had and I know that you have gathered but those hundreds of thousands need to hear our voice. Let us welcome them to Washington. Let's bring 100,000 of your members to Washington and let's call the roll on members of Congress to come and tell them why this war continues. I think frankly that should be the challenge today.
Along with explaining what needs to happen to pressure Congress into action (those weren't pie-in-the-sky words, she was offering serious advice), Rep Jackson Lee noted that the Act of Congress by which the illegal war was 'justified' has expired and referenced her own bill. The title of that bill is Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for National and Political Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2007. It notes that the Military Force Against iraq Resolution has expired and calls for the "Withdrawal of Armed Forces and Contractor Security Forces From Iraq -- Not later than October 1, 2007 or 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever shall occur first". It was referred to two House committees (Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Affairs) in February of last year. It remains in committee. The bill itself and Rep Jackson Lee's remarks at the hearing Thursday argues that US service members have done all that was asked of them and that it is time to withdrawal ("You have done everything we asked you to, Saddam Hussein is not there . . .").
As the first panel wound down, Rep Lynn Woolsey asked the witnesses to share how they dealt with their own grief. Jason Lemieux explained that after he returned from Iraq he sought PTSD counseling in Florida which was ended, not by his choice, when the counselor transferred/rotated. Today his focus is on attempting "to right to write as much as I can the wrongs I have done". Scott Ewing spoke of his work with IVAW and his academic work of providing him with a sense of direction and purpose. Kristofer Goldsmith explained his own history which included self-medicating with alcohol early on. He noted that seeking help at the VA requires waiting and waiting and waiting some more due to the long, long backup at the VA. In February, things improved for him when he was contacted by IVAW and began sharing his story with others. Geoffrey Millard noted that he puts on his black (IVAW) t-shirt every day: "I get to wake up every morning, put on that black t-shirt and work to bring the troops home, take care of them when they get home and make sure that Iraqis receive reperations. That is what keeps me going, gets my head off the pillow, every morning".
Rep Woolsey thanked them but noted that in terms of obligations and debt, "Moral debt belongs up here [Congress]. We thank you, you did the job you were hired to do . . . and you did it the best you could. The moral debt belongs to us."
Had the hearings received any significant media attention, that was the moment that should have been played. Woolsey was against the Iraq War before it started and has repeatedly called for an end and taken action to end it. But there was a member of Congress stating very clearly that the government held the moral debt. (Think of the Richard Clarke moment at the 9-11 hearings.) It was needed and it's to her credit (and her strength) that she made the statement.
Turning to Iraq, Nancy A. Youssef, Leila Fadel and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report that CIA asset Ahmad Chalabi is apparently again on the outs with the US and they quote a "senior military official" saying: "That's it. He's out." Thug, would be dictator and journalist-go-to-guy Chalabi has been repeatedly counted out and always surfaced again. This time he is supposedly on the outs with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and supposedly to close to Iran (the latter charges have repeatedly dogged Chalabi in the last few years) but he denies he's any closer to the Iranian government than is al-Maliki.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 1 life and left five wounded and a Falluja car bombing that claimed the life of "1 baby, six months old" and left seven people (including a two-month-old baby) wounded.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Sadr City hospital personnel have seen 2 deaths and eleven people wounded as a result of the ongoing fighting in the US-led assault on Sadr City and, outside Falluja, 1 police officer shot and in critical condition.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 in Sirwan Lake.
On a different topic. Every year many, many movies are released. Most will never speak to anyone. A few will have a quality (a performance, a director's gaze, etc.) that will make it worthy of at least one viewing. Some should be firmly embraced because they are that important, that well done and that necessary. Molly Bingham and Steve Connors' amazing documentary Meeting Resistance, available on DVD Tuesday (May 20th) is one that deserves to be embraced and has been in limited theartical showings. These are excerpts from the press release:
"Meeting Resistance," is about the people and make-up of the Iraqi resistance. Since it was released in theaters last fall, we have shown the film in more than 80 U.S. cities, as well as to several key military audiences. We've made more than 200 appearances with the film to talk about our understanding of the conflict in Iraq and take questions from the audience. When the lights come up, we are greeted with the kind of silence associated with people trying to reconcile what they thought they knew with what they now understand. We've come to realize that our film is delivering a paradigm shift about the Iraq conflict--one audience at a time. There are two wars in Iraq. "Meeting Resistance" explores the first war, the popularly supported resistance to occupation, which contains the majority of the organized violence that is happening in Iraq. Using primary source material, critical analysis and cross-referencing, we crafted a film that tells the story of that conflict. The second war is the civil war--an internal political struggle being waged over competing visions of Iraq's future, of which the country's sectarian violence is a symptom, not a cause. "Meeting Resistance" is a journalistic documentary, not an advocacy or polemic film. Although we did not set out to challenge the narrative of the Iraq conflict--the one that has been constructed in Washington--our reporting eventually led us to do so. U.S. military's briefings in the Green Zone during 2003 and 2004 told journalists that the violence against American troops came from "dead-enders" and "Ba'athi die-hards," from common criminals, religious extremists, foreign fighters, and al-Qaeda--characterized as "fringe elements". While some might fit some of these descriptions, the vast majority of those involved are citizens from the core of Iraqi society. In time, we came to see the U.S. military's misnaming of the "enemy" as an intentional act--as a key part of their objective to control the "information battle space." They aspire to control the perception of the enemy's identity, and through the news media persuade the American public that these "fringe elements" of Iraqi society are the only ones who oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq. A military push (or surge) to isolate and eliminate them would accomplish a perceived "victory." The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq delivered to the White House in October 2003 was leaked in February 2006 by Robert Hutchings, the 2003-2005 chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Speaking in interviews, Hutchings revealed that the report said that it is composed of nationalists fighting for their country with deep roots in the society and that the U.S. military, if it remains in Iraq, will be fighting a counterinsurgency war for years to come, a conclusion that echoed what we had found in our on-the-ground reporting for "Meeting Resistance." If the predominant narrative about the Iraq conflict was truly based in reality, it would involve pointing out that the majority of Iraqis want a withdrawal of all foreign forces, and that the Department of Defense's quarterly reports to Congress, on average, show that from April 2004 to December 2007, 74 % of significant attacks initiated by Iraqis targeted U.S.-led coalition forces. Americans would also find out that half of registered marriages in Baghdad in 2002 were mixed marriages between Sunni and Shia, Kurd and Arab, Christian and Muslim, and many of the tribes and clans and families are, in fact, mixed between Sunni and Shia. Also, nearly all of the Arab Iraqis polled oppose dividing the country along ethnic and sectarian lines, and the vast majority demands that Iraq have a strong central government, not the decentralized powerlessness imposed by the American-influenced constitution. It is not that these points have never been reported, but the booming voice of "disinformation"--from which the Pentagon wants the American public to view the conflict--drowns much of this information out. Ultimately, our film has helped reveal the success of the Pentagon's strategy to obscure the real nature of the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, too many in the news media have been willing to allow that to happen. Throughout the world's history, there have been occupations--and resistance to those occupations. Why then do Americans have such a difficult time grasping that our troops are unwelcome by the vast majority of the Iraqi population? And why has reporting by our mainstream news media generally failed to recognize and draw our attention to this central, core aspect of the violence? Steve Connors and Molly Bingham are directors of "Meeting Resistance." Their film is distributed by First Run Features and available on DVD May 20th.
Changing topics again. Independent journalist, photo-journalist and artist David Bacon examines and explores the issues of immigrant rights frequently. At the Americas Program,
Bacon notes the massive rallies, marches and demonstrations for immigration rights in 2006 and 2007: "Yet today the federal government is taking actions that make holding a job a criminal act. Some states and local communities, seeing a green light from the Department of Homeland Security, are passing measures that go even further. These actions need a reality check." That should have been noted last Friday but time ran out. There's another piece I'd like to note but can't find. We'll grab it Friday and remember at Bacon's site, you have text and photos.
Turning to the US presidential race, Hillary Clinton is asking for your help: "Tell the Democratic National Committee to count the votes of Florida and Michigan." As Texas Darlin (TaylorMarsh.com) notes, Hillary's not losing and the calls of "Get out!" are coming about for just that fact. Jeralyn (TalkLeft) reports on a conference call with Hillary: "The number one message: It's the math not the map. In addition to the popular vote, the electoral map shows her with a cushion and Obama with a deficit. She has won 311 electoral votes to Obama's 217. While a few of her's like Texas and Oklahoma will be a challenge in November, many of his states will be: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, to name a few."
mikey likes it
iraq veterans against the war
linjamin mulljenny yuen
aimeee allisondavid solnit
meeting resistancemolly binghamsteve connorsdavid bacon
leila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
warren p. strobelnancy a. youssef