While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George W. Bush’s war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.
That's from Robert Parry's "Iran Clock Is Ticking" and here's some more:
Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region -- and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.
One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.
Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran war plan has expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had been that Israeli warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S. forces in reserve in case of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy anticipates a major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the source said.
Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the plan to expand the war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said that attacking Iran could touch off a regional -- and possibly global -- conflagration.
"It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military source said, citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly into the United States.
Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking Iran, he offered similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the months before invading Iraq in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear that he had set a course for war nine months to a year before the Iraq invasion.
In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to "invade" Iran and that he's still committed to settle differences with Iran over its nuclear program diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt.
Rebecca and I were talking on the phone and she realized she hadn't highlighted Robert Parry in sometime. So we're both highlighting him tonight and Kat's going to look for something else to highlight from Consortium News. And, while I'm highlighting, read Betty's "The Wino Friedman" if you haven't already and Ma's "Tomato and Zucchini Casserole Bake" -- both went up Saturday.
One thing I am trying to highlight more is CounterPunch and this is from Mickey Z.'s "Nader Still in the Crosshairs:
I was at the gym, walking by a television tuned to one of the many insipid morning chat shows...but that's not what stopped me dead in my tracks. What got my attention was the guest: Ralph Nader. I watched the host begin the interview with yet another rehash/accusation/question about the 2000 election. You know the drill by now: Nader spoiled it for Gore, ruined his own legacy, blah, blah, blah. It's been repeated so often that most Americans accept it all as fact.
After having read New York magazine the night before, that first question was all I could stomach. You see, David Edelstein, the magazine's film critic, just reviewed An Unreasonable Man, a new documentary about Nader. The self-important Edelstein spoke of receiving an invitation to see the film and meet Nader afterwards. "I wrote (that) I couldn't make it," said Edelstein, "but to leave my seat vacant in the name of the Iraqi and American dead."
Left unsaid, of course, is his belief that Nader cost Al Gore the election and that Gore would never have invaded Iraq. While neither point can ever be fully proven true or false, I do have a question for Edelstein: If Al Gore cares so much about the Iraqi dead, why didn't he speak out against the murderous sanctions when he was vice president? A half-million dead Iraqi children and Gore did not say one fuckin' word in public to condemn it.
I'm also wondering if, during the Clinton-Gore years, Edelstein peppered his film reviews with similar self-righteous political statements. How about when Clinton bombed Iraq in response to an alleged plot to assassinate Bush the Elder and ended up killing Leila Attar, that country's best-known female artist?
What did the millionaire morning chat show hosts and the haughty New York magazine film critic say about that? Better question: Were they even aware it happened?
I'm really tired of that nonsense. No one 'costs' you an election but yourself. If Nader got votes, he got votes because he spoke to voters. Al Gore wasn't entitled to every vote that didn't go for the Bully Boy.
You want to win, try campaigning. Votes aren't sewn up and no Democrat better ever believe they are. Mine's not. I'm lucky because I have people like Ted Kennedy representing me. If I had someone like one of the weak Bens in the Senate, they wouldn't get my vote. And anyone who thinks I'll vote for whatever candidate the Dems put up in 2008 better think again too.
My vote's not going to be taken for granted. Politicians may but I won't take it for granted.
Yeah, I wish Al Gore had been put into the White House but how many excuses are we going to cut him? Ralph Nader stole his votes! He won the popular vote! The recounts didn't happen and there was voter fraud and discrimination. He didn't stand up and fight that. If you're angry that he's not in the White House be angry that he didn't fight. Be angry that he made that idiot Joe Lieberman his candidate. Be angry that every time Gore talked populism, Lieberman was undercutting him.
Of course Bully Boy stole the election. And he knew he could get away with it because Gore couldn't even keep his second (LIEberman) in line.
Al Gore won the election and lost the White House. That's got nothing to do with Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader won votes and that does have to do with Nader -- he spoke strongly enough that people wanted to vote for him. No one prevented Gore from doing the same except Gore.
I wish Gore had made it to the White House but the problems with that campaign go to his not speaking out strongly, press attacks on him (that he tried to play good guy on), picking a sorry person for the second spot on the ticket, failing to keep Lieberman in line (Gore was top of the ticket, Lieberman should have been following his lead, not undermining Gore), and then still wanting to be good guy when, after the election, the presidency is being stolen from.
That's why I'm not one of those "Al Gore should run!" types. If he thinks he should run, he should. That's what a democracy is about. But I wouldn't draft him to run. He lost and he lost because he wouldn't fight. He seems to grasp that but I would need to see strong evidence that he was a fighter now before I'd vote for him. (I didn't vote in 2000. Before someone screams, "You are the problem!" -- I wasn't old enough to vote.)
People need to quit hiding behind Ralph Nader. It's not fair to him and, as long as they hide behind him as the excuse, we risk another campaign with a candidate who won't fight. I don't think John Kerry fought. I think he gave away Ohio and refused to call out voter fraud. I'm glad he dropped out. If you're not going to fight, don't get in a race. If your concern is being the good guy and that means you let attacks go unanswered, no one needs you.
In fairness to Al Gore and John Kerry, they were surrounded by losers. Kerry actually had a good staff before he had the nomination sealed up. Then all the usual losers came in and advised him on how to lose.
Until we can own the mistakes made, we're not going to learn a thing from it. We'll learn to point the finger at someone else when our candidate tanks and that's just lying to ourselves and encouraging other weak candidates to run.
Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz for Elaine's thoughts. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 31, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the White House tries to spin two plates at once (lowering expectations and pushing spin), impeachment discussions refuse to be dismissed by the 'all knowing', and the court-martial of Ehren Watada is five days away.
Starting with Ehren Watada who is the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq to serve in the illegal and immoral war. He faces a court-martial this coming Monday (February 5th) and, if convicted on all charges, could serve a maximum of four years in prison. Some are weighing in.
US Rep Mike Honda (in the San Francisco Chronicle) notes that Watada's awakening to the lies of war is reflected in the similar awakenings a large number of citizens have had as time (more so than the press) has exposed Bully Boy's lies of war:
In facing charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, it is my belief that Ehren Watada has laid bare a fact that is becoming increasingly plain: Mr. Bush has handled this war in a manner unbecoming a United States president. At best, our president misled the nation on the rationale for going into Iraq. He has embroiled this great country in a cycle of brutality there that has grievously tarnished America's international reputation, has further destabilized an already precarious Middle East and has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Watada has risked being deemed guilty of breaking one law in furtherance of a higher, moral one, rather than participate in a fight that, in his and my view, needlessly sends our compatriots to their deaths. In Watada's own words: "To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers and service members can choose to stop fighting it" (http://www.thankyoult.org/, click on YouTube video).
Noting the reduction of two counts which has allowed the maximum time Watada could spend, if convicted, in prison, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer observes:
We would prefer further reductions and no prison time for a conscientious refusal to serve in what Watada believes, right or wrong, is an illegal war in Iraq.
Military leaders have shown commendable flexibility in dealing with a variety of conscience- and belief-motivated requests to be excused from service. For instance, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, last week granted conscientious-objector status to Pvt. Ronnie Tallman to allow the 21-year-old to pursue a newfound calling as a Navajo medicine man. Under Navajo spiritual law, Tallman could not serve in a special group of certified spiritual healers if he participated in any killing.
Actions like Conway's have given the military greater rather than lesser stature in the difficult circumstances of the Iraq war. Similar flexibility on policy at a higher level might save many Americans from the dangers of Iraq combat. Unless Congress insists, however, the Bush administration will stay the course.
Reporting on the rally in San Francisco, Judith Scherr (Berkeley Daily Planet) notes Carolyn Ho, mother of Ehren Watada, spoke: "He went in believing he was really trying to do his duty to his country in trying to preserve our freedoms. He said to me at one point, 9/11 happened and I will never be the same again . . . But then my son, after doing the research and finding the facts realized that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we entered a preemptive war on a lie. That has to stop." Carolyn Ho is on a speaking tour and the dates will be at the bottom of the snapshot.
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports "a car bomb exploded in a downtown street where a crowd was waiting to catch a minibus" resulting in at least five deaths; Zavis quotes Naim Zamel who witnessed the bombing and ended up hospitalized due to injuries: "The sound and the pressure were hard. Shrapnel was flying all over the place. I saw three cars on fire, people injured and shops destroyed." Bushra Juhi (AP) notes another Baghdad bombing in "a predominatly Shiite area in eastern Baghdad earlier Wednesday, killing two people and wounding 10" and quoting Abu Talal on the alleged car bomber: "A seeminly normal person parked this car and told us that he would not be long. When that person disappeared for more than 20 minutes, we tried to call the police but the car exploded as we were trying to do so." Reuters notes a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed four and left 20 wounded; a car bomb in Tal Afar that wounded 10; a roadisde bomb in Kirkuk that killed one and wounded two, and a roadside bomb in Baiji that resulted in six police officers being wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters reports that a teenager was shot dead in Falluja.
Corpses?
AFP reports that the corpses of "three law professors and a student kidnapper Sunday from near the university in Baghdad, a government statement said." AP reports that six corpses were discovered in Falluja. Reuters reports that a corpse was discovered in Mosul and two were discovered in Baiji.
In addition, Claudia Parsons (Reuters) reports that the US military announced an additional four deaths of US troops while Wlliam Fallon ("tapped to take over command of U.S. forces in the Middle East") stated progress on the illegal war will "be a long time coming." Lowered expectations -- hallmark of the Bully Boy White House.
From lowered expectations to Operation Happy Talk, James Glanz and Mark Mazzetti (New York Times) did their part to be out US government spin that was also quite racist: Iraqis weren't 'smart' enough to have planned the Saturday attack in Karbala that led to 1 US soldier being killed on the spot while 4 others were killed after they'd been kidnapped. The weapons, Glanz and Mazzetti write as the US military whispers in their ears, just weren't available in Iraq! (Apparently Times reporters have never visited the blackmarket? Possibly they can't get a military escort to it?) "The uniforms!!!" cry the boys of the pre-Times. They tick off this and that when the reality is that you truly have to believe that Iraqis are stupid to believe they couldn't accomplish what was done and you have to work for the Times to believe you can sell a war of choice (this time Iran) with whispers and unsourced statements. But damned if the pre-Boys of the pre-Times don't get so excited they keep checking one another to see who's sprouting pubes first? Keep looking boys.
Along with promoting a war with Iran, the US spin allows the puppet government to hide. Puppet in chief Nouri al-Maliki, CNN reports, is screaming in agreement that, yes, the violence is Iran's fault. As opposed to the inability of a puppet to do anything other than move when his strings are pulled? CNN tells you that the "theory is only a preliminary view, and there is no conclusion." The New York Times prefers the much weaker "may" -- Iran "May" have done this and left the other half of the sentence ("may not") for readers to fill in.
Now if puppet Nouri believed it for a moment, it's doubtful Iran would still be invited to the regional peace conference in March -- but they are as the AFP notes.
In other news of things-aren't-quite-what-the-US-government-says, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports that "suspicions in Iraq" are emerging that the Najaf 'cult' story "in wich 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre."
CBS and AP are reporting that the toothless, symbolic, time consuming, non-binding measure proposed by US senators Joe Biden, Carl Levin and Chuck Hagel will most likely be overtaken by an even weaker version of do nothing, this one proposed by Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News notes that, on the other hand, "You don't usually hear cheers like that in Senate hearing rooms" -- Attkisson was speaking of the reaction yesterday to US Senator Russ Feingold's hearing into Congressional powers with regards to war where Feingold declared, "Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to."
Yesterday, Feingold used his power as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" where he concluded his opening remarks with this:
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.
At the end of yesterday's hearing, Feingold noted, "It is clear that this administration took the country into war on a fraudulent basis with the president insisting we had no other option
but to pre-emptively attack Iraq. Now four years into the war we are still in Iraq, and the president insists that we have no other options but to stay -- with no end in sight and we have to say. As long as this president goes unchecked by Congress our troops will remain needlessly at risk and our national security will be compromised. Today we have heard convinciny testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to.
[Applause, chants of "DO IT!" DO IT!] The president has no plan for ending our mission in Iraq, worse still, his Iraq centered policies have undercut our national security worldwide."
Feingold's plan for addressing the Iraq war is summarized in this fact sheet.
In other political news, CODEPINK continues to demand Congress represent the people. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported that the DC office of US Senator Hillary Clinton was occupied, that activists carried banner ("We want a woman for peace, not just a woman.") and six were arrested. Yesterday's actions were part of a series of actions by CODEPINK following Saturday's protest and march in DC. In a press release issued before Tuesday's actions, Jodie Evans explained, "We met with Hillary Clinton right before the war, begging her to oppose the invasion but she refused. She gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq and now pretends she was against the war. Worse yet, she still refuses to take a clear position to defund the war and bring the troops home." Medea Benjamin explained, "We're tired of the lies, the obfuscations, the spin. If Hillary wants to become president, she better start being a leader. If she's in to win, she better stop the spin." And Gale Murphy observed, "This country is hungry for leaders who will get us out of Iraq. We'll be giving Hillary a chance to cut her web of war and join the majority of people in this country who want to bring the troops home."
Meanwhile Gold Star Families for Peace's Carlos Arredondo is in Times Square. Reuters reports that he's gone to NYC with "a pick-up truck carrying an empty flag-draped coffin and a picture of his son's open casket and funeral." Carlos Arredondo's son Alex died in Iraq on August 25, 2004. Last Saturday, he was among the speakers in DC. Arrendondo recognized the other families who had lost loved ones and noted, "This is the cost of war!"
Do costs ever get paid? Sanford Levinson -- sometime law professor & full time psychic -- said "No" and argued in The Nation that impeachment shouldn't happen because of some gut feeling he had (I believe that was gas). In the real world, Robert Scheer (Truthdig) notes the various developments emerging in the trial of Scooter Libby and notes that Cathie Martin's testmony revealed her own and the vice-president's office role in lying to the people and to Congress when they crafted a statement/cover for George Tenet -- Scheer: "Certainly this deliberate corruption of the integrity of the CIA, the nation's premier source of national security information, rises to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which the Constitution holds out as the standard for impeachment. And can there be any more egregious example of betraying the oath of office of president to uphold the Constitution than his deceiving Congress from the very well of the House on the reasons for going to war? The Constitution clearly delegates to Congress, and not to the president, the exclusive power to declare war, and deceiving our representatives in making the case for war is a far more important crime than the perjury charge against Libby."
On the same topic, historian Howard Zinn, in the (The Progressive), observes:
The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about "realism" (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being "the art of the possible" (while setting limits on what is possible).
I know I'm not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable). There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it's been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual "indictment" has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.
There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of "people's impeachment hearings" all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.
Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour before the court-martial next Monday. Some of her dates this week include:
Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
robert parry
mickey z
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ehren watadamike honda
howard zinn
amy goodmandemocracy now
elizabeth de la vega
robert scheercodepinkmedea benjamin
the new york timesjames glanzpatrick cockburn
russ feingold
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Aaron Glantz, Russ Feingold, Law & Disorder
Tuesday! :D Man, I didn't think I was going to make it last night. As soon as I blogged, I powered down and crawled into bed.
DC was a blast but there was so much to do. Fun stuff and serious stuff. And I was wiped out when it was over. Ava and C.I. went straight from DC to speaking on campuses. I think Jess was going with them but I don't remember and forgot to ask when I was on the phone with C.I. earlier.
Law and Disorder was what I was calling C.I. about. One of the guests was irritating me and I also didn't understand what he was talking about. I called C.I. and go, "His name is Stanley something?" And C.I. goes, "Stanley Aronowitz" and gives me the Cliff's Notes version of Aronowitz and adds, "I really don't know him but I have met him and he's a nice person. Is he getting a word in because he does get nervous when he's trying to make a point and gets stepped on?" I think that was what it was.
I rewound the tape and went back to listening (it's this week's episode) and he really didn't get that many words in. I could understand him after the Cliff's Notes version and he really seemed like a nice guy but he did a little different when he was being interrupted. I thought he was kind of rude and bossy when I was listening before I called C.I. to find out who the guy was. When I listened again, he really did get cut off.
That's not normal but Dalia Hashad wasn't on and they had a guest from another segment sit in and I think they wanted to be sure he knew he could weigh in. So it just seemed to me like Stanley (and I'm just calling him that, I had to get C.I. to spell the last name over the phone) got the short end of the stick. I'm going to assume it was good natured kidding but if Stanley didn't take it that way, I would understand it.
He had several really good points but the one I enjoyed the most and agreed with the strongest was about a newspaper. He was talking about how in previous movements there was something to turn to. And he used historical examples. But today, what do we have?
And that's right but I am so glad I called C.I. because I was going to give up on the episode and I would've missed this point. Stanley goes we have The Nation "and vanden Heuvel" and that crowd just want to shore up the Democratic Party. They don't want to push for change and stuff. Is that not what we've been seeing over and over?
So Stanley is a genius in my book and I've popped out the tabs on this recording so I can keep the tape. I'm going to try to listen to it again after I read his book. I'm sure I'll understand what he's talking about better when I do.
I didn't get the newspaper stuff, really, until C.I. gave me the Cliff's Notes on what Stanley's usually interested in. Stanley was using an example of the Communist Party and how they used their newspaper. And it is true that if you don't know what's going on, everyone's kind of off in the dark. That was one of his points.
I felt bad for him, to be honest. I'm not talking about the first guest. Because after I listened again, I could see that question C.I. asked about was he nervous? The other guy wrote a book too and he got to discuss it and just go on and on. Stanley had Heidi and both Michaels to talk to and also the other guy piping in and, if he and the other guy are friends, that's fine. But if they aren't friends, that guy was kind of rude and that last comment about something like "Well, I'll read your book Stanley" was kind of smarmy.
So Stanley thinks we need to have a newspaper and I agree with that but it broke up, the conversation, into a lot of questions and other things. Heidi's question was on the point, she was asking about . . . resources are small, whether with organizations or attention, and she was wondering about funding?
He said he didn't really see funders like fundraising and more like everyone gave $10, $20, $100 or whatever. And then he got cut off. I'm not griping at the Michaels because Wally and I are like that sometimes and it's a lot of fun. But I'm beginning to wonder if others think it is?
I was listening the first time before I stopped the tape and I was thinking, "Stanley's an asshole." Then when I call C.I. and start talking about how Stanley is an asshole, C.I.'s like, no, but if he's nervous . . . And it was weird because I went back to the tape and started over with when he came in and I could see how he might be nervous. He starts off confident and ready to talk about his book. And then it becomes the guest and the Michaels laughing. And I could hear Stanley's voice rise and picture his back straightening and he really did seem nervous. If it was me, I think I'd be like, "What's going on here?" Although, honestly, I probably would've just joked back because I'm always up for silly.
But I know some people aren't and it just seemed to me like Stanley could have seen that as, "Are they making fun of me? Why did they invite me on?" He really did have some strong points to make and I hope they have him back on.
I liked the roundtable idea until I talked to C.I. It was funny and the stuff kept me interested but I really did not like Stanley. Then when I listened again, I had a different take on it and felt like all the good natured stuff (which is how I saw the first time) could go a different way if you were Stanley and taken off balance by what was going on. This is Stanley's book, Left Turn: Forging a New Political Future.
And I want to be clear that I'm always up for funnin'. I love to laugh and all. But it did feel like there was fun going on and then there was Stanley. One of the Michaels (I think it was Michael Smith) cut him off on the newspaper to ask a question and then when Stanley's going to respond says he was talking to the other author. It seemed like it was a lot of fun for the Michaels and the other guy but I didn't think so for Stanley.
I'm not ragging on the Michaels. Listening really made me wonder if I do that? I don't mean to but I will get silly and the more guys in the mix, the sillier I'll get. But I also noticed that it was Heidi ("pulling a C.I." -- that's what Elaine calls it when something's happened and it needs to be smooothed over) saying that the work Stanley was talking about was work that they'd be trying for at the National Lawyer's Guild.
It's weird to hear something that you're like 99% sure you've done over and over and get that while you and others found it funny, the person you were talking with didn't. That's fine if that's what you're going for but I'm talking about when you're not intending to do that.
It just kind of blew my mind to go back to the tape and suddenly see something else might be going on there because I really did think Stanley was a pain in the ass and then when I went back and listened all the way through, I had a completely different reaction.
And I was listening and thinking about the roundtables we do and wondering if I'd hurt someone's feelings during it while I was just playing around? I hope not but I'll ask when we're all working together this weekend. I don't think the Michaels or even the other guy were trying to be mean but I could see how someone could be thrown by that sort of thing.
The newspaper idea would be about bridging the gaps, between younger and older, and between various issues. To show the connections between issues and to get all of us, who should be in agreement, on the same page.
I really wish we did have a newspaper like that. I know a magazine seems like it would be good but I really do wish we had a newspaper. Something national that could take on the likes of the New York Times. You could look at it online or in print (Stanely made that point) and, I mean, if it's not in print you can pretty much forget about my grandfather looking at it. He'll look at the community sites because he knows all of us and stuff. But he's not surfing the net. So if you were really trying to bring everyone together to let them know what all was going on, you would have to include print. It's also true that print, if you carry it around, people will ask you about it.
Okay, I just went online to the libarary and his book is checked out but I've requested The Death and Rebirth of American Radicalism and I'll start with that one. And he has a website.
This is from Aaron Glantz' "What I Told Congress:"
Congresswoman Waters, and fellow members, a year ago I published a book called How America Lost Iraq. The book, based on my experiences as an unembedded journalist, documented how the US military went from being seen as liberators to the situation we have now -- where the vast majority of ordinary Iraqis support attacks on American soldiers in an effort to get them to leave their country.
There are four main reasons for this:
** NUMBER ONE: All the things that were broken during the initial invasion are still broken. There is no security, no ability to send children to school without fear of kidnapping. There is almost no clean water, and almost no electricity. Imagine trying to sleep without a fan during when its 120 degrees in the Summer in Baghdad. Imagine four years without reliable refrigeration. You would get grouchy.
**NUMBER TWO: The Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but not the one you saw on TV. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq is that so many people imprisoned in Abu Ghraib prison. When the scandal broke two years ago, there were more than 10,000 "security detainees" in Iraq. These are people who were not charged with any crime and had no access to a lawyer or to visits from their family. In 2004, the International Committee for the Red Cross, which has access to the prisons, estimated up to 90 percent of inmates were arrested by mistake. Even now, the US military holds an estimated 13,000 people without trial in Iraq. This is not a good way to make friends.
**NUMBER THREE: The attack on the movement of Muqtada al-Sadr. Many here may not like his anti-American rhetoric and fundamentalist ideology, but he is a man with a lot of street credibility in Iraq – his followers provide food and security to the poor. His father and uncle were both killed by Saddam Hussien. When the US military attacks a major social movement with millions of members, it inflicts many civilian casualties --- causing many people who had never picked up arms before to start to fight against our soldiers. It also causes Iraqis of all political stripes to believe the United States has no commitment to democracy -- that we only want to control their country.
**NUMBER FOUR The attack on Fallujah. The first siege in the Spring of 2004, which came after four military contractors were killed and their burning corpses hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River in the center of town. The US military didn't just take revenge on the killers, but against all the people of Fallujah. So many people were killed in the US bombardment of Fallujah that the municipal stadium had to be turned into a graveyard for the dead. And I’ve been to that stadium and I've seen the mourners and the headstones and I can tell you that many of the people buried there are innocent women, children, and the elderly.
Imagine if so many Americans were killed in Washington that RFK Stadium had to be turned into a graveyard. People here would get angry. Some would get violent.
Four things, the lack of basic services, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the attack on Muqtada al-Sadr and the attack on Fallujah.
By the middle of 2004, almost every Iraq I talked to wanted the United States military to leave their country.
Since then, the situation on the ground in Iraq has steadily gotten worse -- with Iraqis killing each other in larger numbers every year the occupation drags on.
So, if you think about it, the same non-justice policy that holds prisoners at Guantamo also held them at Abu Ghraib (and continues to hold them throughout Iraq). This is what Katha Pollitt can't get (maybe because she's too busy doing book reviews and lists?) about Iraq -- there is no "save" there -- not from the US. Now maybe if she'd focused on reality instead of worrying what CODEPINK was doing to Hillary (who deserves it and more), Pollitt could have offered something of use and value. Instead, she was just lame with her laughable "Be Honest" point. People are honest, people who pay attention. But people who pay attention know "Abeer" -- they hear the name and they know what you're talking about. People who don't, even if they're supposed to be the biggest feminist in the nation and at The Nation, doesn't think the gang rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl by US soldiers who stalked her is worth writing about. As C.I. has pointed out, maybe the thing to do is to worry less about CODEPINK and more about the fact that women aren't getting published in the magazine you write for. (C.I. brings up the low representation of women in the snapshot.)
Wally and Cedric are trying to be sure that everyone knows about what Russ Feingold did today so they're asking all of us to post it if we post today. They only had to ask. And I like Russ Feingold, I wish that he would run for president. So this is his "Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War:"
January 30, 2007
Listen to Senator Feingold's Opening Statement
Good morning, and welcome to this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." We are honored to have with us this morning a distinguished panel of legal scholars to share their views on this very important and timely issue.
I thank Chairman Leahy for allowing me to chair this hearing. Let me start by making a few opening remarks, then I will recognize Senator Specter for an opening statement, and then we will turn to our witnesses.
It is often said in this era of ubiquitous public opinion polls that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006, we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop.
The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act.
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power "[to] declare War," "[t]o raise and support Armies," "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy," and "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." In addition, under Article I, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.
Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded."
The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation.
There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that's not their responsibility."
Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It's not going to stop us."
In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the President. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying "your policy is mistaken." And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way.
This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way -- they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:
"None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose."
More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.
Our witnesses today are well aware of this history, and I look forward to hearing their analysis of it as they discuss Congress's power in this area. They are legal scholars, not military or foreign policy experts. We are here to find out from them not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
January 30, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy's spin on Najaf comes loose, Ehren Watada's court-martial is still scheduled for Feb. 5th but there is a new development,
and US Senator Russ Feingold maintains he is not running for president in 2008 but delivers something sharper, more focused and harder hitting than any of the declared candidates has yet to offer: "In the United Sates of America, the people are sovereign, not the Presidents. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misquided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying 'your policy is mistaken.' And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities."
Last week, Ehren Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq appeared on NPR's Fresh Air with his attorney Eric Seitz where they were interviewed by NO HELP TO ANYONE Terry Gross. Gross cited the laughable Seattle Times editorial and Watada's response was:
When we join the military we don't swear an oath to a person or, especially officers, in our oath we do not swear an oath of loyalty to any one person or any group of people or even an institution. We swear an oath to protect the Constitution and also the American people as a whole and we have to follow the rule of law as it says in the Constitution and when we have . . . When I joined the military in March 2003, I believed the administration when they said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there were ties with Sadam to al Qaeda and 9-11. We all know those lies were false now and there have been many reports coming out of retired CIA analysts and officers saying that the intelligence was not bad it was intentionally falsified to fit the policy. When we have as I said a group of people in our government who mislead the public who mislead the other branch of government in order to justify their war that is a violation of the Constitution. And, um, I just have to say that regardless of what they convict me on, if they convict me or sentence me, I am doing what I swore an oath to do when I joined the military 3 years ago and as I said I did not realize the extent of the deception that was waged upon us that I do now.
That was the first segment of the January 25 show. The second is where she got into real trouble and there's a reason for that: Terry Gross can find a man anywhere. Her next book might need to be entitled Manhunt. It's women she can't find. And she's far from alone on that -- as of the February 5, 2007 issue of The Nation, for the magazine to offer women in equal number (equal, not more) there February 12, 2007 issue would have needed to print 37 pieces written or co-written by women and none by men. The Nation ratio by gender is basically 1 female for every 4 males. Gross specializes in her nerdy dominitrix pose on air -- full of tension and archness -- and it's a laughable bit but she's made it profitable. What she has not done (appalling when you consider that NPR broke down barriers for women -- including Gross) is do her part to offer women an equal platform. Appalling considering the history of NPR, more appalling considering the information she was seeking in the second segment of the show when she interviewed Eugene Fidell asking him questions about issues that he frequently hems and haws on. If you're asking about the Law of Land Warfare, Gross, you can go to a woman. Retired colonel Ann Wright taught that.
NPR audiences were cheated out of a full discussion about Ehren Watada because Queen Bee Gross can have countless males on her show each week (several guests each day) but somehow more than two or three women send Gross into a panic. It's harmful to all women and, in the case of Ehren Watada, it prevented Gross from being able to find the answers to her questions.
Had Ann Wright been invited into the second segment (instead of one male 'expert') she could have stated, "As part of our overal military training there is a history of service personnel being told that you do not have to follow an illegal order. It comes from the commissions that we take that we are to uphold the lawful orders of our superios. Implicit in that is that if there is an illegal order you are under no obligation to follow it." Wright served in the military, served in the US State Department and the quote is from what she testified to in the August Article 32 hearing.
Ehren Watada faces a court-martial on February 5th (and got the Diane Sawyer "Aren't you ashamed!" treatment from Gross last week). Though it never would have been the court-martial of Sarah Olson (despite where independent media put their emphasis in what passed for 'coverage'), she and Gregg Kakesako will not appear in court. All the hand wringing was for nothing. All the, "Phil, you've got to write about this! We need you!" phone calls were a waste of time. Already today Amy Goodman's interviewed Olson and no one ever needs to do so again. Goodman made the mistake of asking a very basic question -- Now that she's not going to be asked to testify, will she be covering the court-martial? It was too much for Olson -- she sputtered, she stammered, she had no answer. The parody "Run, Olson! Run!"
never looked so true.
Ehren Watada was always the defendant in his court-martial -- even if that basic point couldn't be grasped by indy pundits. The charges reduce the maxiumum number of years Watada could serve if he is punished in the court-martial -- from six years, it has now dropped to a maximum of four years in prison. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, told AP, of the kangaro court awaiting his client: "This is not a justice proceeding but a disciplinary proceeding. Really, the only thing the Army is interested in here is what kind of punishment to mete, not whether Lieutenant Watada is guilty or innocent of the charges."
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
On the topic of going to Canada, Patrick Malone (Canada's The London Free Press) reports
on Matt Lowell who was attempting to receive refugee status in Canada and has heard back from the Immigration and Refugee Board: "Eight pages long, it can be summed up in one word: No." The article also notes a meeting this Thursday at 7:00 pm at the Tolpuddle housing co-op, common room, 380 Adelaide St. at King Street in London (Ottawa, not England) where you can meet with Iraq war resisters and those "offering support to military resisters."
In Iraq, the big (press) issue is still what happened in Najaf.
Bombings?
Sam Knight (Times of London) reports an "explosion, in the town of Mandali, 60km north east of Baghdad and near the border with Iran, claimed the lives of 23 worshippers at a Shi mosque, doctors said. A further 60 people were injured when a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives in the midst of a crowd of around 150 people entering the Ali al-Akbar mosque". Michael Howard (Guardian of London) reports a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed "at least 17 people and injuring 72." Kim Gamel (AP) notes "a bomb in a garage can exploded as scores of Shiites - most them Kurds -- were performing rituals in Khanaqin, a majority Kurdish city also near the Iranian border. At least 13 people were killed and 39 were wounded, police Maj. Idriss Mohammed said." Reuters notes a car bomb in Mosul that killed two police officers (wounded two more) and a secon mortar attack in Baghdad left nine people wounded.
Shootings?
Al Jazeera reports that "four Ashura pilgrmins" were shot ded with an addition six injured in Baghdad today.
Also today the US military announced: "One Marine assigned to Multi-National Forces-West died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province" and they announced: "LSA Anaconda, Iraq– A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed in an accident when a M-1114 HMMWV rolled over northwest of An Nasiriah Jan 29."
Meanwhile Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) further discredits Bully Boy's false assertion that the February 22nd bombing in Samarra of a Shi'ite mosque began the sectarian violence -- Fadel notes that the claim is already disputed by "U.S. diplomats, Iraqi politicians, U.S. intelligence analysts and journalists [who] had reported throughout 2005 that attacks on Sunnis by Shiite militias were rising and that the militias had infiltraded the security forces"; however, Fadel reports that Ibrahim al Jaafari (former prime minister of Iraq0 states "he told U.S. officials nearly two years ago that Shiite Muslim militas were infiltrating the country's secuirty services".
In latest lies the Bully Boy told the world, CBS and AP report that Bully Boy continues to cite the recent events in Najaf as proof of yet another turned corner: "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something." Marc Santora (New York Times) reported today that, contrary to the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed . . . and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed".
In other news, does US Senator Arlen Specter watch Democracy Now!? If so he may have seen the speech US Rep Maxine Waters delivered at the rally in DC Saturday -- where she made the point that Bully Boy was not the decider. AP reports that Arlen Specter said something similar, in milder terms, today: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsiblity." Then, Specter saw his shadow and won't be spotted again until spring.
Staying on the topic of the US Congress, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes US Rep Maxine Waters recent appearance on CNN where she outlined the plans by the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to visit "early Democratic primary states" in order to make some Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate a spine. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if this were a reference to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, "they both have to prove themselves," was Waters' response.
Also addressing the issue of spine and justice, Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The logic of Withdrawal) observes (at CounterPunch): "The other night, on 60 Minutes, President Bush said 'Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction.' Yet millions of us who protested this war before it started were right, and were ignored. We did not have access to any special intelligence. We simply used our intelligence. And today we have the intelligence to know that each day we continue the occupation of Iraq, the situation gets worse. Every time we have been told 'we are turning the corner,' the situation gets worse. And we have the intelligence to know that you cannot oppose the war, as some Democrats have proclaimed, and yet fund this war. To those who say we cannot withdraw 'precipitously,' there is nothing precipitous about pulling out after four years of occuyping another country against its will. And to those who say we are abandoing the troops, the best way to support the troops is to bring them home."
Today, US Senator Russ Feingold held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Excercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" to explore the issue of what powers Congress has in ending Bully Boy's illegal war. From Feingold's opening statement:
"It is often said . . . that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006 we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop. The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act." Noting the words written into the US Constitution (Congress has the power to declare war, the power of the purse, etc.), Feingold then stated, "The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way. If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation. . . . There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: 'Frankly, that's not their responsibility.' [. . .] It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities. Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way."
On last weekends protests, rallies and marches, Danny Schechter writes at BuzzFlash to remind everyone that the numbers reported do matter as do media coverage: "Do the anti-war organizaers see this as a problem? Don't they think they should try to do something about it as a problem and protest this ritualistic treatement? Shouldn't they make the media coverage a issue? Are they only listening to themselves? I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and feisty host Bree Walker, a former TV anchor, agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of 'alienating' the press." To be clear, Danny's writing of the mainstream press. I would expand that to include independent media as well (and no community member would disagree with that assertion).
Also addressing the issue of big media at BuzzFlash, Cindy Sheehan writes: "In the United States today, we have a media controlled b corporations that are, for the most part, controlled by other entities that profit off of war. NBC is owned by General Electric, a major war profiteer (which used to be a crime punishable by hanging). The corporate media has a lot at stake by keeping the wag-the-dog occupation of Iraq aloat on BushCo's failed ship of state.
Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour. Some of her dates this week include:
Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
Finally, the lies that led to war include the false claim of 'yellowcake' in Bully Boy's 2003 State of the Union address. When it imploded on him, they attempted to attack and silence Joseph Wilson by destroying his wife Valerie Plame -- a CIA agent until those at the White House decided to blow her cover. Rory O'Connor is blogging about Scooter Libby's trial and Judith Miller was supposed to appear today.
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes it
the common ills
law and disorder
like maria said paz
russ feingold
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
iraqehren watada
anthony arnove
cindy sheehanbuzzflash
danny schechter
glen ford
the new york timesmarc santora
DC was a blast but there was so much to do. Fun stuff and serious stuff. And I was wiped out when it was over. Ava and C.I. went straight from DC to speaking on campuses. I think Jess was going with them but I don't remember and forgot to ask when I was on the phone with C.I. earlier.
Law and Disorder was what I was calling C.I. about. One of the guests was irritating me and I also didn't understand what he was talking about. I called C.I. and go, "His name is Stanley something?" And C.I. goes, "Stanley Aronowitz" and gives me the Cliff's Notes version of Aronowitz and adds, "I really don't know him but I have met him and he's a nice person. Is he getting a word in because he does get nervous when he's trying to make a point and gets stepped on?" I think that was what it was.
I rewound the tape and went back to listening (it's this week's episode) and he really didn't get that many words in. I could understand him after the Cliff's Notes version and he really seemed like a nice guy but he did a little different when he was being interrupted. I thought he was kind of rude and bossy when I was listening before I called C.I. to find out who the guy was. When I listened again, he really did get cut off.
That's not normal but Dalia Hashad wasn't on and they had a guest from another segment sit in and I think they wanted to be sure he knew he could weigh in. So it just seemed to me like Stanley (and I'm just calling him that, I had to get C.I. to spell the last name over the phone) got the short end of the stick. I'm going to assume it was good natured kidding but if Stanley didn't take it that way, I would understand it.
He had several really good points but the one I enjoyed the most and agreed with the strongest was about a newspaper. He was talking about how in previous movements there was something to turn to. And he used historical examples. But today, what do we have?
And that's right but I am so glad I called C.I. because I was going to give up on the episode and I would've missed this point. Stanley goes we have The Nation "and vanden Heuvel" and that crowd just want to shore up the Democratic Party. They don't want to push for change and stuff. Is that not what we've been seeing over and over?
So Stanley is a genius in my book and I've popped out the tabs on this recording so I can keep the tape. I'm going to try to listen to it again after I read his book. I'm sure I'll understand what he's talking about better when I do.
I didn't get the newspaper stuff, really, until C.I. gave me the Cliff's Notes on what Stanley's usually interested in. Stanley was using an example of the Communist Party and how they used their newspaper. And it is true that if you don't know what's going on, everyone's kind of off in the dark. That was one of his points.
I felt bad for him, to be honest. I'm not talking about the first guest. Because after I listened again, I could see that question C.I. asked about was he nervous? The other guy wrote a book too and he got to discuss it and just go on and on. Stanley had Heidi and both Michaels to talk to and also the other guy piping in and, if he and the other guy are friends, that's fine. But if they aren't friends, that guy was kind of rude and that last comment about something like "Well, I'll read your book Stanley" was kind of smarmy.
So Stanley thinks we need to have a newspaper and I agree with that but it broke up, the conversation, into a lot of questions and other things. Heidi's question was on the point, she was asking about . . . resources are small, whether with organizations or attention, and she was wondering about funding?
He said he didn't really see funders like fundraising and more like everyone gave $10, $20, $100 or whatever. And then he got cut off. I'm not griping at the Michaels because Wally and I are like that sometimes and it's a lot of fun. But I'm beginning to wonder if others think it is?
I was listening the first time before I stopped the tape and I was thinking, "Stanley's an asshole." Then when I call C.I. and start talking about how Stanley is an asshole, C.I.'s like, no, but if he's nervous . . . And it was weird because I went back to the tape and started over with when he came in and I could see how he might be nervous. He starts off confident and ready to talk about his book. And then it becomes the guest and the Michaels laughing. And I could hear Stanley's voice rise and picture his back straightening and he really did seem nervous. If it was me, I think I'd be like, "What's going on here?" Although, honestly, I probably would've just joked back because I'm always up for silly.
But I know some people aren't and it just seemed to me like Stanley could have seen that as, "Are they making fun of me? Why did they invite me on?" He really did have some strong points to make and I hope they have him back on.
I liked the roundtable idea until I talked to C.I. It was funny and the stuff kept me interested but I really did not like Stanley. Then when I listened again, I had a different take on it and felt like all the good natured stuff (which is how I saw the first time) could go a different way if you were Stanley and taken off balance by what was going on. This is Stanley's book, Left Turn: Forging a New Political Future.
And I want to be clear that I'm always up for funnin'. I love to laugh and all. But it did feel like there was fun going on and then there was Stanley. One of the Michaels (I think it was Michael Smith) cut him off on the newspaper to ask a question and then when Stanley's going to respond says he was talking to the other author. It seemed like it was a lot of fun for the Michaels and the other guy but I didn't think so for Stanley.
I'm not ragging on the Michaels. Listening really made me wonder if I do that? I don't mean to but I will get silly and the more guys in the mix, the sillier I'll get. But I also noticed that it was Heidi ("pulling a C.I." -- that's what Elaine calls it when something's happened and it needs to be smooothed over) saying that the work Stanley was talking about was work that they'd be trying for at the National Lawyer's Guild.
It's weird to hear something that you're like 99% sure you've done over and over and get that while you and others found it funny, the person you were talking with didn't. That's fine if that's what you're going for but I'm talking about when you're not intending to do that.
It just kind of blew my mind to go back to the tape and suddenly see something else might be going on there because I really did think Stanley was a pain in the ass and then when I went back and listened all the way through, I had a completely different reaction.
And I was listening and thinking about the roundtables we do and wondering if I'd hurt someone's feelings during it while I was just playing around? I hope not but I'll ask when we're all working together this weekend. I don't think the Michaels or even the other guy were trying to be mean but I could see how someone could be thrown by that sort of thing.
The newspaper idea would be about bridging the gaps, between younger and older, and between various issues. To show the connections between issues and to get all of us, who should be in agreement, on the same page.
I really wish we did have a newspaper like that. I know a magazine seems like it would be good but I really do wish we had a newspaper. Something national that could take on the likes of the New York Times. You could look at it online or in print (Stanely made that point) and, I mean, if it's not in print you can pretty much forget about my grandfather looking at it. He'll look at the community sites because he knows all of us and stuff. But he's not surfing the net. So if you were really trying to bring everyone together to let them know what all was going on, you would have to include print. It's also true that print, if you carry it around, people will ask you about it.
Okay, I just went online to the libarary and his book is checked out but I've requested The Death and Rebirth of American Radicalism and I'll start with that one. And he has a website.
This is from Aaron Glantz' "What I Told Congress:"
Congresswoman Waters, and fellow members, a year ago I published a book called How America Lost Iraq. The book, based on my experiences as an unembedded journalist, documented how the US military went from being seen as liberators to the situation we have now -- where the vast majority of ordinary Iraqis support attacks on American soldiers in an effort to get them to leave their country.
There are four main reasons for this:
** NUMBER ONE: All the things that were broken during the initial invasion are still broken. There is no security, no ability to send children to school without fear of kidnapping. There is almost no clean water, and almost no electricity. Imagine trying to sleep without a fan during when its 120 degrees in the Summer in Baghdad. Imagine four years without reliable refrigeration. You would get grouchy.
**NUMBER TWO: The Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but not the one you saw on TV. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq is that so many people imprisoned in Abu Ghraib prison. When the scandal broke two years ago, there were more than 10,000 "security detainees" in Iraq. These are people who were not charged with any crime and had no access to a lawyer or to visits from their family. In 2004, the International Committee for the Red Cross, which has access to the prisons, estimated up to 90 percent of inmates were arrested by mistake. Even now, the US military holds an estimated 13,000 people without trial in Iraq. This is not a good way to make friends.
**NUMBER THREE: The attack on the movement of Muqtada al-Sadr. Many here may not like his anti-American rhetoric and fundamentalist ideology, but he is a man with a lot of street credibility in Iraq – his followers provide food and security to the poor. His father and uncle were both killed by Saddam Hussien. When the US military attacks a major social movement with millions of members, it inflicts many civilian casualties --- causing many people who had never picked up arms before to start to fight against our soldiers. It also causes Iraqis of all political stripes to believe the United States has no commitment to democracy -- that we only want to control their country.
**NUMBER FOUR The attack on Fallujah. The first siege in the Spring of 2004, which came after four military contractors were killed and their burning corpses hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River in the center of town. The US military didn't just take revenge on the killers, but against all the people of Fallujah. So many people were killed in the US bombardment of Fallujah that the municipal stadium had to be turned into a graveyard for the dead. And I’ve been to that stadium and I've seen the mourners and the headstones and I can tell you that many of the people buried there are innocent women, children, and the elderly.
Imagine if so many Americans were killed in Washington that RFK Stadium had to be turned into a graveyard. People here would get angry. Some would get violent.
Four things, the lack of basic services, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the attack on Muqtada al-Sadr and the attack on Fallujah.
By the middle of 2004, almost every Iraq I talked to wanted the United States military to leave their country.
Since then, the situation on the ground in Iraq has steadily gotten worse -- with Iraqis killing each other in larger numbers every year the occupation drags on.
So, if you think about it, the same non-justice policy that holds prisoners at Guantamo also held them at Abu Ghraib (and continues to hold them throughout Iraq). This is what Katha Pollitt can't get (maybe because she's too busy doing book reviews and lists?) about Iraq -- there is no "save" there -- not from the US. Now maybe if she'd focused on reality instead of worrying what CODEPINK was doing to Hillary (who deserves it and more), Pollitt could have offered something of use and value. Instead, she was just lame with her laughable "Be Honest" point. People are honest, people who pay attention. But people who pay attention know "Abeer" -- they hear the name and they know what you're talking about. People who don't, even if they're supposed to be the biggest feminist in the nation and at The Nation, doesn't think the gang rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl by US soldiers who stalked her is worth writing about. As C.I. has pointed out, maybe the thing to do is to worry less about CODEPINK and more about the fact that women aren't getting published in the magazine you write for. (C.I. brings up the low representation of women in the snapshot.)
Wally and Cedric are trying to be sure that everyone knows about what Russ Feingold did today so they're asking all of us to post it if we post today. They only had to ask. And I like Russ Feingold, I wish that he would run for president. So this is his "Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War:"
January 30, 2007
Listen to Senator Feingold's Opening Statement
Good morning, and welcome to this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." We are honored to have with us this morning a distinguished panel of legal scholars to share their views on this very important and timely issue.
I thank Chairman Leahy for allowing me to chair this hearing. Let me start by making a few opening remarks, then I will recognize Senator Specter for an opening statement, and then we will turn to our witnesses.
It is often said in this era of ubiquitous public opinion polls that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006, we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop.
The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act.
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power "[to] declare War," "[t]o raise and support Armies," "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy," and "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." In addition, under Article I, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.
Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded."
The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation.
There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that's not their responsibility."
Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It's not going to stop us."
In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the President. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying "your policy is mistaken." And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way.
This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way -- they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:
"None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose."
More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.
Our witnesses today are well aware of this history, and I look forward to hearing their analysis of it as they discuss Congress's power in this area. They are legal scholars, not military or foreign policy experts. We are here to find out from them not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
January 30, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy's spin on Najaf comes loose, Ehren Watada's court-martial is still scheduled for Feb. 5th but there is a new development,
and US Senator Russ Feingold maintains he is not running for president in 2008 but delivers something sharper, more focused and harder hitting than any of the declared candidates has yet to offer: "In the United Sates of America, the people are sovereign, not the Presidents. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misquided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying 'your policy is mistaken.' And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities."
Last week, Ehren Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq appeared on NPR's Fresh Air with his attorney Eric Seitz where they were interviewed by NO HELP TO ANYONE Terry Gross. Gross cited the laughable Seattle Times editorial and Watada's response was:
When we join the military we don't swear an oath to a person or, especially officers, in our oath we do not swear an oath of loyalty to any one person or any group of people or even an institution. We swear an oath to protect the Constitution and also the American people as a whole and we have to follow the rule of law as it says in the Constitution and when we have . . . When I joined the military in March 2003, I believed the administration when they said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there were ties with Sadam to al Qaeda and 9-11. We all know those lies were false now and there have been many reports coming out of retired CIA analysts and officers saying that the intelligence was not bad it was intentionally falsified to fit the policy. When we have as I said a group of people in our government who mislead the public who mislead the other branch of government in order to justify their war that is a violation of the Constitution. And, um, I just have to say that regardless of what they convict me on, if they convict me or sentence me, I am doing what I swore an oath to do when I joined the military 3 years ago and as I said I did not realize the extent of the deception that was waged upon us that I do now.
That was the first segment of the January 25 show. The second is where she got into real trouble and there's a reason for that: Terry Gross can find a man anywhere. Her next book might need to be entitled Manhunt. It's women she can't find. And she's far from alone on that -- as of the February 5, 2007 issue of The Nation, for the magazine to offer women in equal number (equal, not more) there February 12, 2007 issue would have needed to print 37 pieces written or co-written by women and none by men. The Nation ratio by gender is basically 1 female for every 4 males. Gross specializes in her nerdy dominitrix pose on air -- full of tension and archness -- and it's a laughable bit but she's made it profitable. What she has not done (appalling when you consider that NPR broke down barriers for women -- including Gross) is do her part to offer women an equal platform. Appalling considering the history of NPR, more appalling considering the information she was seeking in the second segment of the show when she interviewed Eugene Fidell asking him questions about issues that he frequently hems and haws on. If you're asking about the Law of Land Warfare, Gross, you can go to a woman. Retired colonel Ann Wright taught that.
NPR audiences were cheated out of a full discussion about Ehren Watada because Queen Bee Gross can have countless males on her show each week (several guests each day) but somehow more than two or three women send Gross into a panic. It's harmful to all women and, in the case of Ehren Watada, it prevented Gross from being able to find the answers to her questions.
Had Ann Wright been invited into the second segment (instead of one male 'expert') she could have stated, "As part of our overal military training there is a history of service personnel being told that you do not have to follow an illegal order. It comes from the commissions that we take that we are to uphold the lawful orders of our superios. Implicit in that is that if there is an illegal order you are under no obligation to follow it." Wright served in the military, served in the US State Department and the quote is from what she testified to in the August Article 32 hearing.
Ehren Watada faces a court-martial on February 5th (and got the Diane Sawyer "Aren't you ashamed!" treatment from Gross last week). Though it never would have been the court-martial of Sarah Olson (despite where independent media put their emphasis in what passed for 'coverage'), she and Gregg Kakesako will not appear in court. All the hand wringing was for nothing. All the, "Phil, you've got to write about this! We need you!" phone calls were a waste of time. Already today Amy Goodman's interviewed Olson and no one ever needs to do so again. Goodman made the mistake of asking a very basic question -- Now that she's not going to be asked to testify, will she be covering the court-martial? It was too much for Olson -- she sputtered, she stammered, she had no answer. The parody "Run, Olson! Run!"
never looked so true.
Ehren Watada was always the defendant in his court-martial -- even if that basic point couldn't be grasped by indy pundits. The charges reduce the maxiumum number of years Watada could serve if he is punished in the court-martial -- from six years, it has now dropped to a maximum of four years in prison. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, told AP, of the kangaro court awaiting his client: "This is not a justice proceeding but a disciplinary proceeding. Really, the only thing the Army is interested in here is what kind of punishment to mete, not whether Lieutenant Watada is guilty or innocent of the charges."
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
On the topic of going to Canada, Patrick Malone (Canada's The London Free Press) reports
on Matt Lowell who was attempting to receive refugee status in Canada and has heard back from the Immigration and Refugee Board: "Eight pages long, it can be summed up in one word: No." The article also notes a meeting this Thursday at 7:00 pm at the Tolpuddle housing co-op, common room, 380 Adelaide St. at King Street in London (Ottawa, not England) where you can meet with Iraq war resisters and those "offering support to military resisters."
In Iraq, the big (press) issue is still what happened in Najaf.
Bombings?
Sam Knight (Times of London) reports an "explosion, in the town of Mandali, 60km north east of Baghdad and near the border with Iran, claimed the lives of 23 worshippers at a Shi mosque, doctors said. A further 60 people were injured when a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives in the midst of a crowd of around 150 people entering the Ali al-Akbar mosque". Michael Howard (Guardian of London) reports a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed "at least 17 people and injuring 72." Kim Gamel (AP) notes "a bomb in a garage can exploded as scores of Shiites - most them Kurds -- were performing rituals in Khanaqin, a majority Kurdish city also near the Iranian border. At least 13 people were killed and 39 were wounded, police Maj. Idriss Mohammed said." Reuters notes a car bomb in Mosul that killed two police officers (wounded two more) and a secon mortar attack in Baghdad left nine people wounded.
Shootings?
Al Jazeera reports that "four Ashura pilgrmins" were shot ded with an addition six injured in Baghdad today.
Also today the US military announced: "One Marine assigned to Multi-National Forces-West died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province" and they announced: "LSA Anaconda, Iraq– A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed in an accident when a M-1114 HMMWV rolled over northwest of An Nasiriah Jan 29."
Meanwhile Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) further discredits Bully Boy's false assertion that the February 22nd bombing in Samarra of a Shi'ite mosque began the sectarian violence -- Fadel notes that the claim is already disputed by "U.S. diplomats, Iraqi politicians, U.S. intelligence analysts and journalists [who] had reported throughout 2005 that attacks on Sunnis by Shiite militias were rising and that the militias had infiltraded the security forces"; however, Fadel reports that Ibrahim al Jaafari (former prime minister of Iraq0 states "he told U.S. officials nearly two years ago that Shiite Muslim militas were infiltrating the country's secuirty services".
In latest lies the Bully Boy told the world, CBS and AP report that Bully Boy continues to cite the recent events in Najaf as proof of yet another turned corner: "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something." Marc Santora (New York Times) reported today that, contrary to the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed . . . and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed".
In other news, does US Senator Arlen Specter watch Democracy Now!? If so he may have seen the speech US Rep Maxine Waters delivered at the rally in DC Saturday -- where she made the point that Bully Boy was not the decider. AP reports that Arlen Specter said something similar, in milder terms, today: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsiblity." Then, Specter saw his shadow and won't be spotted again until spring.
Staying on the topic of the US Congress, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes US Rep Maxine Waters recent appearance on CNN where she outlined the plans by the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to visit "early Democratic primary states" in order to make some Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate a spine. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if this were a reference to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, "they both have to prove themselves," was Waters' response.
Also addressing the issue of spine and justice, Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The logic of Withdrawal) observes (at CounterPunch): "The other night, on 60 Minutes, President Bush said 'Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction.' Yet millions of us who protested this war before it started were right, and were ignored. We did not have access to any special intelligence. We simply used our intelligence. And today we have the intelligence to know that each day we continue the occupation of Iraq, the situation gets worse. Every time we have been told 'we are turning the corner,' the situation gets worse. And we have the intelligence to know that you cannot oppose the war, as some Democrats have proclaimed, and yet fund this war. To those who say we cannot withdraw 'precipitously,' there is nothing precipitous about pulling out after four years of occuyping another country against its will. And to those who say we are abandoing the troops, the best way to support the troops is to bring them home."
Today, US Senator Russ Feingold held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Excercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" to explore the issue of what powers Congress has in ending Bully Boy's illegal war. From Feingold's opening statement:
"It is often said . . . that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006 we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop. The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act." Noting the words written into the US Constitution (Congress has the power to declare war, the power of the purse, etc.), Feingold then stated, "The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way. If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation. . . . There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: 'Frankly, that's not their responsibility.' [. . .] It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities. Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way."
On last weekends protests, rallies and marches, Danny Schechter writes at BuzzFlash to remind everyone that the numbers reported do matter as do media coverage: "Do the anti-war organizaers see this as a problem? Don't they think they should try to do something about it as a problem and protest this ritualistic treatement? Shouldn't they make the media coverage a issue? Are they only listening to themselves? I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and feisty host Bree Walker, a former TV anchor, agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of 'alienating' the press." To be clear, Danny's writing of the mainstream press. I would expand that to include independent media as well (and no community member would disagree with that assertion).
Also addressing the issue of big media at BuzzFlash, Cindy Sheehan writes: "In the United States today, we have a media controlled b corporations that are, for the most part, controlled by other entities that profit off of war. NBC is owned by General Electric, a major war profiteer (which used to be a crime punishable by hanging). The corporate media has a lot at stake by keeping the wag-the-dog occupation of Iraq aloat on BushCo's failed ship of state.
Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour. Some of her dates this week include:
Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
Finally, the lies that led to war include the false claim of 'yellowcake' in Bully Boy's 2003 State of the Union address. When it imploded on him, they attempted to attack and silence Joseph Wilson by destroying his wife Valerie Plame -- a CIA agent until those at the White House decided to blow her cover. Rory O'Connor is blogging about Scooter Libby's trial and Judith Miller was supposed to appear today.
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes it
the common ills
law and disorder
like maria said paz
russ feingold
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
iraqehren watada
anthony arnove
cindy sheehanbuzzflash
danny schechter
glen ford
the new york timesmarc santora
Monday, January 29, 2007
Dave Lindorff, more
Tired and just trying to figure out what to write. :-
Let me start with The Third Estate Sunday Review's new stuff:
A Note to Our Readers -- Jim breaks down the edition. I was long, long, long into snooze time by then.
Editorial: Whose War Is It Anyway? -- Great illustration, check that out. (They did that last week. I didn't work on it.) Strong editorial.
TV: No Class in The Class -- I have seen this show and I couldn't figure out what I didn't like about it. Ava and C.I. make it clear.
Show Me What Democracy Looks Like (1-27-07) -- our report from September 27th's DC protest. It was incredible. Best protest I've been too yet. Hope you were there. If not, be sure to read the report.
Run, Olson! Run! -- Aren't we all sick of Sarah Olson by now? Yep. Tired of her. Tired of her me-me-me. Tired of all her friends being rounded up to say "POOR SARAH!" Hey, you're a journalist or supposed to be one -- suck it, suck it up and act like one. What a whiny ass cry baby. "Me-me-me might have to testify. I-I-I want people to rescue me." Shut your belly aching you dumb ass. Grow a spine. And quit acting like Ehren's court-martial is all about you. God, what vanity. What insanity. What a bunch of useless pricks. Reporters really do suck. It's all about them. Testify, don't testify, but shut the hell up already. Jesus, she's going to drive these 2 minutes of non-fame into the ground and then some. She's is so pathetic, so spineless and such a dumb ass. Oh, I helped with this illustration.
Dear Darrell -- This is my second favorite thing we did this weekend. Darrell Anderson is a war resister and if he's wondering who gets attention in place of war resisters, the answer is: Sarah Olson. Dumb, dopey, whiney, snot nosed, sniveling Sarah Olson.
Now The Nation wants to reach the country? Now? -- The Nation has a new book coming out. Read it and laugh at one of the worst magazines in the world.
"Occupation" or "war" -- which word do you use?
A message from Sanford Levinson (humor) -- Love this one! It's so funny. Read it.
Sanford Levinson is another dumb ass. So you know The Nation can find a place for his huge, dumb ass. He's saying impeachment can't happen. What a dumb ass. We'll get back to this.
The Nation Stats -- The dumbest magazine in the world is also dumb because, despite being headed by a woman, won't publish women, it's now like 1 woman every time they run 4 men. Wow. Katrina vaden Heuvel sure is a woman who supports other women, isn't she.
Highlights -- Kat, Cedric, Betty, Rebecca, Wally, Elaine and me wrote this. We did a pretty cool job.
Back to dumb ass Sanford Levinson. He says no to impeachment. I think fat ass is worried who's going to pay for all his snacks if he shows a spine. He's a big old pooh-paher dumping his big old pooh on people who have actually done work on the issue. Like Dave Lindorff. And here's my highlight, Dave Lindorff's "The Missing Word at the Anti-War Demo:"
There is really only one way to stop the madness: impeachment.
Investigations into administration wrongdoing won't do it.
Demonstrations won't do it.
Even cutting funding for the war--while it would be a more powerful statement of opposition from Congress--would not end the conflict or bring the troops home. Bush would simply move money around in the giant Pentagon budget and call it something else.
Critics of impeachment, especially among the Democratic leadership, say it is too soon. They say the first step should be investigations.
This is a misunderstanding, or a deliberate distortion, of what the impeachment process is.
The impeachment process itself begins with investigations. To argue that first a case for impeachment has to be proved before a bill of impeachment should be submitted in the House is akin to saying that a case of murder must be proved before an indictment can be brought.
In fact, the proper procedure, laid out by the Founding Fathers, is for a member of Congress to submit a bill of impeachment claiming that the president has violated his oath of office, or has engaged in actions that threaten the Constitution or the rule of law. That bill goes to the House Judiciary Committee which must decide whether the bill makes a serious enough charge to warrant going to the full House to request the establishment of an Impeachment Committee, armed with subpoena power, to investigate. (Alternatively, of course, a state's legislature can submit a joint resolution calling for impeachment, which may happen soon.)
Should a majority of the House vote to impanel the Judiciary Committeee as an Impeachment Committee, that is when the investigation would begin in ernest-a process we saw in action twice in recent memory, first in the case of Richard Nixon, and second with Bill Clinton.
In Bush's case, there is ample evidence already in the public record to justify multiple bills of impeachment.
That's it, I'm really tired. Elaine is too but I bet she's got something worse saying, so check it out. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and it's got it all:
Monday, January 29th. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, massive demonstrations took place in the United States over the weekend, another US helicopter is shot down, and Carolyn Ho hits the road again to raise awareness of her son, Ehren Watada.
Starting with news of Ehren Watada, Iraq war resister, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq who now faces a February 5th court-martial in Fort Lewis, Washington. Speaking with Tina Chau (KGMB), Watada explained why he took his stand against the Iraq war: "I believed the justifications. I believed they were true and factual and as we know now, they were grossly negligent and wrong. . . . Just being part of that [war] would be adding more fuel to the fire instead of putting it out." Saturday, columnist Joe Copeland (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) covered Watada and the reasons why he took his stand against the illegal and immoral war: "His views changed as he read up on Iraq in preparation, as he put it, to be a better leader of troops under his command. Instead, the growing knowledge led him to become the only commissioned officer known to refuse Iraq duty, acknowleding from the start that he might have to carry the imprisonment that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other practitioners of civil disobedience felt was their responsibility to accept in calling attention to wrongful government policy. In Watada's case, the prison time could be as much as six years."
Carolyn Jones (San Francisco Chronicle) reports that Sunday Ehren Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, spoke in Chinatown to at least 200 people urging them to to support her son: "You celebrate the American dream. You live it. And that is what my son is fighting for now." Megan notes that Carolyn Ho was interviewed Saturday by Kris Welch on KPFA's Saturday Morning Talkies. and that Carolyn Ho noted she is starting another speaking tour to raise awareness of her son that will run right up to the February 5th court-martial. In addition actions are being planned around the country for February 5th -- click here for a list of demonstrations. Carolyn Ho's announced speaking dates:
Chicago, IL,
Tuesday January 30,
5:30pm
Tentative Operation Push Chicago event
7:30pm
Japanese American Citizens League5415 N. Clark, Chicago
Wednesday January 313:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & ReligionUniversity of ChicagoChicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski)McGuire HallProfessor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 110:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School716 East 7th AvenueGary, IndianaCarolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University2200 169th St.Hammond, IndianaProfessor Kathy Tobin(219) 989-3192tobin@calumet.purdue.eduClassroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso UniversityU.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy RdRoom 234Neils Science CenterValparaiso, IndianaLibby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group)(309) 834-2199Libby.AHearn@valpo.eduLorri CornettNorthwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War(219) 916-0449la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue UniversityWesley Foundation435 West State St.West Lafayette, IndianaSheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
On CBS' Sunday Morning, Rita Braver examined the issue of war resisters who go to Canada ("Estimates say there are between 200 and 250 of them") and interviewed Justin Colby and Dean Walcott as well as Vietnam war resister. Colby explained how he signed up after 9--11 only to see his support for the war vanish after a serving a tour in Iraq: "When I realized these people we were killing -- 'cause we killed a lot, I saw a lot of dead people -- when I realized the people we were killing had nothing to do with 9/11, that's when I was, like, 'Okay, this is not for me! This, ya know, I was wrong." Dean Walcott spoke of how he felt there was nothing else he could do but self-check out after serving two tours of duty in Iraq and now focusing on "talking about it, raising the issue, getting it out there for people to debate about it." After his first tour and before his second, Walcott was stationed at a hospital in Germany: "A lot of guys who skin was melted off. A lot of guys who you couldn't recognize literally from their face to their feet. Missing arms, missing legs, couldn't breate on their own, couldn't feed themselves. These kids, literally kids -- 17, 18, 19, 20. And this look in their eyes that -- Oh, I'm never gonna forget it. The look in their eyes when they finally came to understand that they're never gonna walk again. They're never gonna hold their wife and their children again. And having them ask me, 'Why?' Ya know -- a 'big-picture why.' And I couldn't tell them."
Calling for an end to the illegal war, at least 500,000 people demonstrated in DC on Saturday. Speakers included Iraq vets (such as Iraq Veterans Against the War's Garrett Repperhagen), activists (Feminist Majority Foundation's Eleanor Smeal, Kim Gandy. president of NOW, Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, Jesse Jackson, Noura Erakat, Gold Star Families for Peace's Carlos Arredondo and others), and artists such as Jane Fonda, Eve Ensler, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn. The link goes to today's Democracy Now! which covers the protest -- all but Ensler are included in the segment which can be read (transcript), listened to or watched. The demonstration also included a message from US Senator Russ Feingold -- the closest anyone in the US Senate got to the rally. US House members Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers spoke and US Rep and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich spoke noting that "We are the peacemakers." And it included Bob Watada (click here for Democracy Now!'s report feature Bob Watada, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Lynn Woolsey and Jonathan Hutto). Bob Watada is Ehren Watada's father and while he and his wife Rosa Sakanishi spoke in DC, Ehren spoke in Seattle and his mother Carolyn Ho spoke in the Bay Area.
The most cited speech by participants we spoke to at the demonstration was Bob Watada. As he declared, "We are a civilized nation, we need to bring an end to a war for blood oil" the crowd erupted in chants of "Say it! Say it!" He spoke of the importance of speaking out (and quoted Abraham Lincoln: "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men..") and he spoke of his son: "The military commanders want to punish him -- and punish him for saying the emperor has no clothes . . . The truth is a danger to the Bush empire."
Ehren's step-mother Rosa told the massive crowd: "And you know, you and I know, that we have to live for peace and justice and that is what Ehren's doing . . . Bring the troops back home now!"
The Honolulu Advertiser reported that Rosa collapsed at the DC demonstrations (and was caught by Ann Wright) due to what doctors at George Washington University Hospital have diagnosed as "a mild stroke."
The second most cited speech by participants we spoke with was Jane Fonda's -- "I haven't spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years because of lies about me that were used to hurt the anti-war movement. But silence is no longer an option. . . . Thank you so much for the courage to stand up to this mean-spirited and vengeful administration." Fonda was joined by her daughter Vanessa Vadim and Vanessa's two children. During Vietnam, as Fonda noted in her speech, Vanessa was often accompanying her on the road (and got used to sleeping in dresser drawers converted into makeshift cribs). She noted her pride that her family was participating but her sadness that once again the citizens of the US have to protest an illegal war and lobby their elected representatives to take action to end it.
Protest took place elsewhere in the United States and Adam Schreck, Ashraf Khalil and David Streitfeld (Los Angels Times) put the number demonstrating at 3,000. Vietnam vet Ron Kovic and Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan were among those making their voices heard. Kovic stated, "I'm seeing soldiers and veterans like myself who trusted and believed at first and who are realizing they've been lied to." Cindy Sheehan observed, "There's definitely a groundswell growing. I just wish it was growing faster. If half the people of Los Angeles who disagree with this war were here, then we would have miles of people." Laurie Phillips (Tri-Valley Herald) reports that the police estimate "3,000 to 4,000 people" participated in the Bay Area demonstration and that Carolyn Ho spoke to the crowd: "What is going on here, in Washington, D.C., and in this country cannot stop. There is a momentum that is growing" and that her son, Ehren Watada, enlisted because of a desire to do what was right only to learn that the Iraq war is based "on a lie." Aaron Glantz (IPS) corrects the low balled police estimate and notes that the crowd numbered 5,000
In Seattle, Ehren Watada spoke as part of a discussion on the war. Lori Hurlebaus (Indybay IMC) reports that, in addition to the rally, the march took on a military recruiting center led by Iraq vets Darrell Anderson and Chanan Suarez-Diaz (both of Iraq Veterans Against the War) "were attempting to present the recruiters with a book of photos of all U.S. service members who have died in Iraq, but the center was closed as the demonstrators arrived and the recruiters would not accept the book" and that participants chanted "Occupation is a crime, Ehren Watada should do no time!" and "You gotta resist, don't enlist!"
And actions continued today in DC. AP reports that nine people arrested while gathered "around a courtyard pool inside the Rayburn House office building, throwing yellow roses onto the ice as they recited the names of Iraq War victims" and their crime, according to the police was unlawful assembly. Unlawful assemble in the Congress? The First Amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assmeble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Learn it, memorize it, it will put you one up on the Capitol police.
AP also notes that at least 100 people took to the Hart Senate office building "waving children's shoes to represent Iraqi children killed in the war" and quotes CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin stating, "We feel the American people don't know how many Iraqis have been killed because of the American invasion."
And in the Winter 2007 edition of Ms. magazine (now on sale), Patricia McFadden reports on the recent "Feminism and War" conference at Syracuse University noting participants (Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia Enloe, Patrice N. Delvante, Zillah Eisenstein and others): "The three-day conference gave feminist voice to the most urgent political matters of the day. We debated, for example, the ways in which war and religion oppress and exclude women, and how issues of identity are easily conflated into belief systems. At the 'Rally Against Iraqi War and Occupation,' justice activist Angela Davis spoke in a local park about the necessity of resisting the seduction of right-wing propaganda associated with 'homeland security' and 'terrorism.' She discussed ways in which feminism could better engage with notions of security and community."
And in Iraq?
Bombings?
CBS and AP report two car bombings in Kirkuk which resulted in 11 dead and 34 wounded, while, in Baghdad, a car bomb claimed at least 4 lives and left another 6 wounded and a construction worker was killed and two more wounded by the explosion from "[a] bomb hidden under a concrete barrier". Reuters notes five people killed in a rocket attack on a Shi'ite mosque in Tuz Khurmato and eleven people killed (28 injured) in Zaafaraniya.
Damien Cave (New York Times) reports that "at least five girls" died in Baghdad on Sunday in a mortar attack on a girl's school. Cave quotes a teacher on one of the girls who died, "She hugged and kissed me, then went outside and the bomb hit. After a few minutes, she was dead." The BBC quotes a 15-year-old, "I couldn't see much but what I saw was my friend Maha, who was lying beside me on the ground. The shrapnel hit her in th eyes and there was blood all over her face. . . . She was dead."
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "this noon a sniper in karada area shot a policeman who was guarding HAY AL WIHDA bank" and "According to a security and medical source from baqouba city today, a group of terrorists attacked a residential complex for AL BAYAT tribes in KARA TABA village which led to the killing of 8 civilians." Al Awsy also notes: "According to the police chief of diyala province general GHANEM AL QURAISHI, 1,500 police staff and officers have been dismissed, and 950 volunteers were accepted."
Corpses?
CNN reports that 22 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
In Najaf, a fight began on Sunday (or Saturday depending on the report) and may or may not be over. There is reality, there are reports and then there's what the US military is saying. Their chief talking point, the US military's, is that the fighting of resistance forces was carried out by the Iraqi military and US troops only came in afterwards -- rah, rah, the Iraqi military is leading -- that sort of thing. CBS' Lara Logan lets the hot air out of that ballon by noting that "the heavy American involvement shows how reliant the Iraqis still are on U.S. Military backup." The US military claims do not hold water but some outlets are reporting that US troops didn't even move in to assist until early Monday. The reality is, and this is from Centcom, a US helicopter left the sky in Najaf and two US soldiers were killed. Left the sky? It crashed. It was brought down. But we're not ever supposed to note that. Now for those outlets reporting that US troops didn't join in the battle until Monday or that US troops weren't there until late Sunday, please note that the Sunday crash is identified by Centcom as "earlier today." You can all loosen your belts, relax a little, it's okay to tell the truth, Centcom's waived you through on it. The Iraqi military had US support from the beginning and when the Iraqi military wasn't effective, the US military had to come in. It's the same story, day after day.
Richard Mauer and Qassim Zein (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the helicopter was shot down"by what appeared to be a ground-fired rocket" -- and they're quoting unnamed generals from the US military. Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported Sunday that US military had announced the death of seven troops on Saturday. Today, Daragahi noted that in addition to the two deaths from the helicopter, the US military also reported three more deaths of US troops. AFP reports: "Sunday was one of the deadliest days in recent months, with at least 115 people killed or found dead across the country from a wave of bombings and shootings.
On the speculation (reported as fact) that the Najaf battle was over a "cult" and the numbers being fed to the press, The BBC notes: "BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says there is no independent confirmation of the scale of casualties and there is still uncertainty about the group." Stephen Farrell and Hassan al-Jarrah (Times of London) also note that events are unconfirmed and in dispute.
Drew Brown (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on the Pentagon's latest effort to persuade people to become cannon fodder as part of $1.2 billion a year they waste on recruitment --they're going after "parents and other role models to encourage youth." Maybe they'll start offering parents' signing bonuses next, "Sign up Bobby or Bonnie and we'll give you fifty dollars!" In addition, Brown reports, the Pentagon is also considering granting citizenship to non-citizens residing in other countries if they will sign up to fight.
Meanwhile, CNN reports that Major General Richard Zilmer admitted today that Al-Anbar Province is not dominated by foreigners fighting for the resistance. He did, however, link them with al Qaeda -- score: one lie cleared up, another continues to be advanced. As Dahr Jamail (among others) has repeteadly reported (for longer than we can count), the resistance in Al-Anbar Province is homegrown. It was created by the US. It was fueled by the US. Ramadi doesn't want to be the new Falluja (and after the slaughter and desctruction there, who can blame them?). Zilmer tells CNN that the US military is working with tribal leaders in the region -- some tribal leaders. Left unstated are two obvious facts: 1) that 'plan' proved to be a real solution in Afghanistan, didn't it?, (2) the US military has put tribal leaders on the payroll. As this becomes more and more apparent to Iraqis in Al-Anbar Province, any sway the mini-leaders had (they don't even have any major tribal leaders on their side) is lost. It also needs to be noted that those put on the payroll have gotten a little flashy with the bling-bling further alienating Iraqis in the region.
The general is all a ga-ga-goo-goo over Bully Boy's planned escalation and is ready to spin (who allows themselves to be spun since they don't point out the obvious) with how much the addition troops (4,000) that would be sent to Al Anbar Province will do. Left unstated is that the number still leaves foreign fighters (US, British) in a strong minority. Left unstated is that, as Blair's cabinet faces the deadline of the timeline they've tossed to appeas British citizens, the number will only be replacement numbers for the soon to leave British.
Finally, Levi Pulkkinen (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports on the January 11th death of Dale Noyd who served in the Air Force, achieved the rank of captain and then said "NO" to deploying to Vietnam and was court-martialed in 1967 -- Pulkkinen notes Ehren Watada spoke of Dale Noyd Thursday at the Blaine Memorial United Methodist Church in Seattle:
"Nothing has changed (since Vietnam) except the names and the faces. We are here today because we did not learn our lesson." Also today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported on journalist, columnist and author Molly Ivins whose cancer has re-emerged and was recently hospitalized. Editor & Publisher noted that in her second to last column (In the Jan. 11th column) she "wrote that she would dedicate every single one of her syndicated columns from now on to the issue of stopping the war in Iraq, until it ended." She may still -- she's beat cancer before.
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes itthe common illslike maria said paz
ehren watadadarrell andersonlevi pulkkinen
amy goodman
democracy now
the new york timesdamien caveborzou daragahi
kris welchkpfa
united for peace and justice
carolyn joneslaurie phillipsaaron glantzmarissa melton tina chau
Let me start with The Third Estate Sunday Review's new stuff:
A Note to Our Readers -- Jim breaks down the edition. I was long, long, long into snooze time by then.
Editorial: Whose War Is It Anyway? -- Great illustration, check that out. (They did that last week. I didn't work on it.) Strong editorial.
TV: No Class in The Class -- I have seen this show and I couldn't figure out what I didn't like about it. Ava and C.I. make it clear.
Show Me What Democracy Looks Like (1-27-07) -- our report from September 27th's DC protest. It was incredible. Best protest I've been too yet. Hope you were there. If not, be sure to read the report.
Run, Olson! Run! -- Aren't we all sick of Sarah Olson by now? Yep. Tired of her. Tired of her me-me-me. Tired of all her friends being rounded up to say "POOR SARAH!" Hey, you're a journalist or supposed to be one -- suck it, suck it up and act like one. What a whiny ass cry baby. "Me-me-me might have to testify. I-I-I want people to rescue me." Shut your belly aching you dumb ass. Grow a spine. And quit acting like Ehren's court-martial is all about you. God, what vanity. What insanity. What a bunch of useless pricks. Reporters really do suck. It's all about them. Testify, don't testify, but shut the hell up already. Jesus, she's going to drive these 2 minutes of non-fame into the ground and then some. She's is so pathetic, so spineless and such a dumb ass. Oh, I helped with this illustration.
Dear Darrell -- This is my second favorite thing we did this weekend. Darrell Anderson is a war resister and if he's wondering who gets attention in place of war resisters, the answer is: Sarah Olson. Dumb, dopey, whiney, snot nosed, sniveling Sarah Olson.
Now The Nation wants to reach the country? Now? -- The Nation has a new book coming out. Read it and laugh at one of the worst magazines in the world.
"Occupation" or "war" -- which word do you use?
A message from Sanford Levinson (humor) -- Love this one! It's so funny. Read it.
Sanford Levinson is another dumb ass. So you know The Nation can find a place for his huge, dumb ass. He's saying impeachment can't happen. What a dumb ass. We'll get back to this.
The Nation Stats -- The dumbest magazine in the world is also dumb because, despite being headed by a woman, won't publish women, it's now like 1 woman every time they run 4 men. Wow. Katrina vaden Heuvel sure is a woman who supports other women, isn't she.
Highlights -- Kat, Cedric, Betty, Rebecca, Wally, Elaine and me wrote this. We did a pretty cool job.
Back to dumb ass Sanford Levinson. He says no to impeachment. I think fat ass is worried who's going to pay for all his snacks if he shows a spine. He's a big old pooh-paher dumping his big old pooh on people who have actually done work on the issue. Like Dave Lindorff. And here's my highlight, Dave Lindorff's "The Missing Word at the Anti-War Demo:"
There is really only one way to stop the madness: impeachment.
Investigations into administration wrongdoing won't do it.
Demonstrations won't do it.
Even cutting funding for the war--while it would be a more powerful statement of opposition from Congress--would not end the conflict or bring the troops home. Bush would simply move money around in the giant Pentagon budget and call it something else.
Critics of impeachment, especially among the Democratic leadership, say it is too soon. They say the first step should be investigations.
This is a misunderstanding, or a deliberate distortion, of what the impeachment process is.
The impeachment process itself begins with investigations. To argue that first a case for impeachment has to be proved before a bill of impeachment should be submitted in the House is akin to saying that a case of murder must be proved before an indictment can be brought.
In fact, the proper procedure, laid out by the Founding Fathers, is for a member of Congress to submit a bill of impeachment claiming that the president has violated his oath of office, or has engaged in actions that threaten the Constitution or the rule of law. That bill goes to the House Judiciary Committee which must decide whether the bill makes a serious enough charge to warrant going to the full House to request the establishment of an Impeachment Committee, armed with subpoena power, to investigate. (Alternatively, of course, a state's legislature can submit a joint resolution calling for impeachment, which may happen soon.)
Should a majority of the House vote to impanel the Judiciary Committeee as an Impeachment Committee, that is when the investigation would begin in ernest-a process we saw in action twice in recent memory, first in the case of Richard Nixon, and second with Bill Clinton.
In Bush's case, there is ample evidence already in the public record to justify multiple bills of impeachment.
That's it, I'm really tired. Elaine is too but I bet she's got something worse saying, so check it out. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and it's got it all:
Monday, January 29th. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, massive demonstrations took place in the United States over the weekend, another US helicopter is shot down, and Carolyn Ho hits the road again to raise awareness of her son, Ehren Watada.
Starting with news of Ehren Watada, Iraq war resister, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq who now faces a February 5th court-martial in Fort Lewis, Washington. Speaking with Tina Chau (KGMB), Watada explained why he took his stand against the Iraq war: "I believed the justifications. I believed they were true and factual and as we know now, they were grossly negligent and wrong. . . . Just being part of that [war] would be adding more fuel to the fire instead of putting it out." Saturday, columnist Joe Copeland (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) covered Watada and the reasons why he took his stand against the illegal and immoral war: "His views changed as he read up on Iraq in preparation, as he put it, to be a better leader of troops under his command. Instead, the growing knowledge led him to become the only commissioned officer known to refuse Iraq duty, acknowleding from the start that he might have to carry the imprisonment that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other practitioners of civil disobedience felt was their responsibility to accept in calling attention to wrongful government policy. In Watada's case, the prison time could be as much as six years."
Carolyn Jones (San Francisco Chronicle) reports that Sunday Ehren Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, spoke in Chinatown to at least 200 people urging them to to support her son: "You celebrate the American dream. You live it. And that is what my son is fighting for now." Megan notes that Carolyn Ho was interviewed Saturday by Kris Welch on KPFA's Saturday Morning Talkies. and that Carolyn Ho noted she is starting another speaking tour to raise awareness of her son that will run right up to the February 5th court-martial. In addition actions are being planned around the country for February 5th -- click here for a list of demonstrations. Carolyn Ho's announced speaking dates:
Chicago, IL,
Tuesday January 30,
5:30pm
Tentative Operation Push Chicago event
7:30pm
Japanese American Citizens League5415 N. Clark, Chicago
Wednesday January 313:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & ReligionUniversity of ChicagoChicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski)McGuire HallProfessor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 110:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School716 East 7th AvenueGary, IndianaCarolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University2200 169th St.Hammond, IndianaProfessor Kathy Tobin(219) 989-3192tobin@calumet.purdue.eduClassroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso UniversityU.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy RdRoom 234Neils Science CenterValparaiso, IndianaLibby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group)(309) 834-2199Libby.AHearn@valpo.eduLorri CornettNorthwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War(219) 916-0449la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue UniversityWesley Foundation435 West State St.West Lafayette, IndianaSheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
On CBS' Sunday Morning, Rita Braver examined the issue of war resisters who go to Canada ("Estimates say there are between 200 and 250 of them") and interviewed Justin Colby and Dean Walcott as well as Vietnam war resister. Colby explained how he signed up after 9--11 only to see his support for the war vanish after a serving a tour in Iraq: "When I realized these people we were killing -- 'cause we killed a lot, I saw a lot of dead people -- when I realized the people we were killing had nothing to do with 9/11, that's when I was, like, 'Okay, this is not for me! This, ya know, I was wrong." Dean Walcott spoke of how he felt there was nothing else he could do but self-check out after serving two tours of duty in Iraq and now focusing on "talking about it, raising the issue, getting it out there for people to debate about it." After his first tour and before his second, Walcott was stationed at a hospital in Germany: "A lot of guys who skin was melted off. A lot of guys who you couldn't recognize literally from their face to their feet. Missing arms, missing legs, couldn't breate on their own, couldn't feed themselves. These kids, literally kids -- 17, 18, 19, 20. And this look in their eyes that -- Oh, I'm never gonna forget it. The look in their eyes when they finally came to understand that they're never gonna walk again. They're never gonna hold their wife and their children again. And having them ask me, 'Why?' Ya know -- a 'big-picture why.' And I couldn't tell them."
Calling for an end to the illegal war, at least 500,000 people demonstrated in DC on Saturday. Speakers included Iraq vets (such as Iraq Veterans Against the War's Garrett Repperhagen), activists (Feminist Majority Foundation's Eleanor Smeal, Kim Gandy. president of NOW, Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, Jesse Jackson, Noura Erakat, Gold Star Families for Peace's Carlos Arredondo and others), and artists such as Jane Fonda, Eve Ensler, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn. The link goes to today's Democracy Now! which covers the protest -- all but Ensler are included in the segment which can be read (transcript), listened to or watched. The demonstration also included a message from US Senator Russ Feingold -- the closest anyone in the US Senate got to the rally. US House members Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers spoke and US Rep and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich spoke noting that "We are the peacemakers." And it included Bob Watada (click here for Democracy Now!'s report feature Bob Watada, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Lynn Woolsey and Jonathan Hutto). Bob Watada is Ehren Watada's father and while he and his wife Rosa Sakanishi spoke in DC, Ehren spoke in Seattle and his mother Carolyn Ho spoke in the Bay Area.
The most cited speech by participants we spoke to at the demonstration was Bob Watada. As he declared, "We are a civilized nation, we need to bring an end to a war for blood oil" the crowd erupted in chants of "Say it! Say it!" He spoke of the importance of speaking out (and quoted Abraham Lincoln: "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men..") and he spoke of his son: "The military commanders want to punish him -- and punish him for saying the emperor has no clothes . . . The truth is a danger to the Bush empire."
Ehren's step-mother Rosa told the massive crowd: "And you know, you and I know, that we have to live for peace and justice and that is what Ehren's doing . . . Bring the troops back home now!"
The Honolulu Advertiser reported that Rosa collapsed at the DC demonstrations (and was caught by Ann Wright) due to what doctors at George Washington University Hospital have diagnosed as "a mild stroke."
The second most cited speech by participants we spoke with was Jane Fonda's -- "I haven't spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years because of lies about me that were used to hurt the anti-war movement. But silence is no longer an option. . . . Thank you so much for the courage to stand up to this mean-spirited and vengeful administration." Fonda was joined by her daughter Vanessa Vadim and Vanessa's two children. During Vietnam, as Fonda noted in her speech, Vanessa was often accompanying her on the road (and got used to sleeping in dresser drawers converted into makeshift cribs). She noted her pride that her family was participating but her sadness that once again the citizens of the US have to protest an illegal war and lobby their elected representatives to take action to end it.
Protest took place elsewhere in the United States and Adam Schreck, Ashraf Khalil and David Streitfeld (Los Angels Times) put the number demonstrating at 3,000. Vietnam vet Ron Kovic and Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan were among those making their voices heard. Kovic stated, "I'm seeing soldiers and veterans like myself who trusted and believed at first and who are realizing they've been lied to." Cindy Sheehan observed, "There's definitely a groundswell growing. I just wish it was growing faster. If half the people of Los Angeles who disagree with this war were here, then we would have miles of people." Laurie Phillips (Tri-Valley Herald) reports that the police estimate "3,000 to 4,000 people" participated in the Bay Area demonstration and that Carolyn Ho spoke to the crowd: "What is going on here, in Washington, D.C., and in this country cannot stop. There is a momentum that is growing" and that her son, Ehren Watada, enlisted because of a desire to do what was right only to learn that the Iraq war is based "on a lie." Aaron Glantz (IPS) corrects the low balled police estimate and notes that the crowd numbered 5,000
In Seattle, Ehren Watada spoke as part of a discussion on the war. Lori Hurlebaus (Indybay IMC) reports that, in addition to the rally, the march took on a military recruiting center led by Iraq vets Darrell Anderson and Chanan Suarez-Diaz (both of Iraq Veterans Against the War) "were attempting to present the recruiters with a book of photos of all U.S. service members who have died in Iraq, but the center was closed as the demonstrators arrived and the recruiters would not accept the book" and that participants chanted "Occupation is a crime, Ehren Watada should do no time!" and "You gotta resist, don't enlist!"
And actions continued today in DC. AP reports that nine people arrested while gathered "around a courtyard pool inside the Rayburn House office building, throwing yellow roses onto the ice as they recited the names of Iraq War victims" and their crime, according to the police was unlawful assembly. Unlawful assemble in the Congress? The First Amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assmeble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Learn it, memorize it, it will put you one up on the Capitol police.
AP also notes that at least 100 people took to the Hart Senate office building "waving children's shoes to represent Iraqi children killed in the war" and quotes CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin stating, "We feel the American people don't know how many Iraqis have been killed because of the American invasion."
And in the Winter 2007 edition of Ms. magazine (now on sale), Patricia McFadden reports on the recent "Feminism and War" conference at Syracuse University noting participants (Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia Enloe, Patrice N. Delvante, Zillah Eisenstein and others): "The three-day conference gave feminist voice to the most urgent political matters of the day. We debated, for example, the ways in which war and religion oppress and exclude women, and how issues of identity are easily conflated into belief systems. At the 'Rally Against Iraqi War and Occupation,' justice activist Angela Davis spoke in a local park about the necessity of resisting the seduction of right-wing propaganda associated with 'homeland security' and 'terrorism.' She discussed ways in which feminism could better engage with notions of security and community."
And in Iraq?
Bombings?
CBS and AP report two car bombings in Kirkuk which resulted in 11 dead and 34 wounded, while, in Baghdad, a car bomb claimed at least 4 lives and left another 6 wounded and a construction worker was killed and two more wounded by the explosion from "[a] bomb hidden under a concrete barrier". Reuters notes five people killed in a rocket attack on a Shi'ite mosque in Tuz Khurmato and eleven people killed (28 injured) in Zaafaraniya.
Damien Cave (New York Times) reports that "at least five girls" died in Baghdad on Sunday in a mortar attack on a girl's school. Cave quotes a teacher on one of the girls who died, "She hugged and kissed me, then went outside and the bomb hit. After a few minutes, she was dead." The BBC quotes a 15-year-old, "I couldn't see much but what I saw was my friend Maha, who was lying beside me on the ground. The shrapnel hit her in th eyes and there was blood all over her face. . . . She was dead."
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "this noon a sniper in karada area shot a policeman who was guarding HAY AL WIHDA bank" and "According to a security and medical source from baqouba city today, a group of terrorists attacked a residential complex for AL BAYAT tribes in KARA TABA village which led to the killing of 8 civilians." Al Awsy also notes: "According to the police chief of diyala province general GHANEM AL QURAISHI, 1,500 police staff and officers have been dismissed, and 950 volunteers were accepted."
Corpses?
CNN reports that 22 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
In Najaf, a fight began on Sunday (or Saturday depending on the report) and may or may not be over. There is reality, there are reports and then there's what the US military is saying. Their chief talking point, the US military's, is that the fighting of resistance forces was carried out by the Iraqi military and US troops only came in afterwards -- rah, rah, the Iraqi military is leading -- that sort of thing. CBS' Lara Logan lets the hot air out of that ballon by noting that "the heavy American involvement shows how reliant the Iraqis still are on U.S. Military backup." The US military claims do not hold water but some outlets are reporting that US troops didn't even move in to assist until early Monday. The reality is, and this is from Centcom, a US helicopter left the sky in Najaf and two US soldiers were killed. Left the sky? It crashed. It was brought down. But we're not ever supposed to note that. Now for those outlets reporting that US troops didn't join in the battle until Monday or that US troops weren't there until late Sunday, please note that the Sunday crash is identified by Centcom as "earlier today." You can all loosen your belts, relax a little, it's okay to tell the truth, Centcom's waived you through on it. The Iraqi military had US support from the beginning and when the Iraqi military wasn't effective, the US military had to come in. It's the same story, day after day.
Richard Mauer and Qassim Zein (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the helicopter was shot down"by what appeared to be a ground-fired rocket" -- and they're quoting unnamed generals from the US military. Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported Sunday that US military had announced the death of seven troops on Saturday. Today, Daragahi noted that in addition to the two deaths from the helicopter, the US military also reported three more deaths of US troops. AFP reports: "Sunday was one of the deadliest days in recent months, with at least 115 people killed or found dead across the country from a wave of bombings and shootings.
On the speculation (reported as fact) that the Najaf battle was over a "cult" and the numbers being fed to the press, The BBC notes: "BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says there is no independent confirmation of the scale of casualties and there is still uncertainty about the group." Stephen Farrell and Hassan al-Jarrah (Times of London) also note that events are unconfirmed and in dispute.
Drew Brown (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on the Pentagon's latest effort to persuade people to become cannon fodder as part of $1.2 billion a year they waste on recruitment --they're going after "parents and other role models to encourage youth." Maybe they'll start offering parents' signing bonuses next, "Sign up Bobby or Bonnie and we'll give you fifty dollars!" In addition, Brown reports, the Pentagon is also considering granting citizenship to non-citizens residing in other countries if they will sign up to fight.
Meanwhile, CNN reports that Major General Richard Zilmer admitted today that Al-Anbar Province is not dominated by foreigners fighting for the resistance. He did, however, link them with al Qaeda -- score: one lie cleared up, another continues to be advanced. As Dahr Jamail (among others) has repeteadly reported (for longer than we can count), the resistance in Al-Anbar Province is homegrown. It was created by the US. It was fueled by the US. Ramadi doesn't want to be the new Falluja (and after the slaughter and desctruction there, who can blame them?). Zilmer tells CNN that the US military is working with tribal leaders in the region -- some tribal leaders. Left unstated are two obvious facts: 1) that 'plan' proved to be a real solution in Afghanistan, didn't it?, (2) the US military has put tribal leaders on the payroll. As this becomes more and more apparent to Iraqis in Al-Anbar Province, any sway the mini-leaders had (they don't even have any major tribal leaders on their side) is lost. It also needs to be noted that those put on the payroll have gotten a little flashy with the bling-bling further alienating Iraqis in the region.
The general is all a ga-ga-goo-goo over Bully Boy's planned escalation and is ready to spin (who allows themselves to be spun since they don't point out the obvious) with how much the addition troops (4,000) that would be sent to Al Anbar Province will do. Left unstated is that the number still leaves foreign fighters (US, British) in a strong minority. Left unstated is that, as Blair's cabinet faces the deadline of the timeline they've tossed to appeas British citizens, the number will only be replacement numbers for the soon to leave British.
Finally, Levi Pulkkinen (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports on the January 11th death of Dale Noyd who served in the Air Force, achieved the rank of captain and then said "NO" to deploying to Vietnam and was court-martialed in 1967 -- Pulkkinen notes Ehren Watada spoke of Dale Noyd Thursday at the Blaine Memorial United Methodist Church in Seattle:
"Nothing has changed (since Vietnam) except the names and the faces. We are here today because we did not learn our lesson." Also today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported on journalist, columnist and author Molly Ivins whose cancer has re-emerged and was recently hospitalized. Editor & Publisher noted that in her second to last column (In the Jan. 11th column) she "wrote that she would dedicate every single one of her syndicated columns from now on to the issue of stopping the war in Iraq, until it ended." She may still -- she's beat cancer before.
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes itthe common illslike maria said paz
ehren watadadarrell andersonlevi pulkkinen
amy goodman
democracy now
the new york timesdamien caveborzou daragahi
kris welchkpfa
united for peace and justice
carolyn joneslaurie phillipsaaron glantzmarissa melton tina chau
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)