On the Democratic side, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois say they are the true advocates of change. But they are short on specifics.
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is more definitive on one issue at least, saying he would bring U.S. combat troops home from Iraq within 10 months.
He also is on the attack against poverty, corporate greed, war profiteering and free trade pacts that cost U.S. jobs.
Clinton emphasizes her “experience” in the White House as first lady, saying this makes her the best candidate to bring about change.
But in 2002 as war clouds gathered, Clinton aligned herself with the administration on a critical vote giving Bush the green light in Iraq.
And four months ago she voted for the resolution that could have paved the way for an attack on Iran.
That's from Helen Thomas' "Democrats Need to Take a Stand" (Common Dreams). You know who needs to take a stand? Helen Thomas.
Helen's got just half a column because she won't take the stand she thinks Democrats need to take. As she continues on past my excerpt, it's Hillary, Hillary, blah, blah, blah. Barack Obama didn't vote at all -- one way or another -- on the Iran resolution. So take a stand, Helen, and call that out. Or quit wasting all of our time. The column's not bravery. It's not even journalism.
It's half-assed.
I expect more from Helen Thomas. I expect truth. She pulls no punches on Hillary (good for her) but she won't lay a glove on Barack Obama. That column's beneath her.
Now I'm sure it's scary to be the one small voice telling the truth. Look at Andrew Stephen's "And the next US president is..." (The New Statesman):
Perhaps significantly, post-caucus analysis of his victory in Iowa on Thursday night showed his support came overwhelmingly from the youngest generation of voters - while Hillary's main bloc of votes came from the over-sixties.
That makes sense: Obama is a spectacular orator who can carry away the politically innocent en masse into moist-eyed enthusiasm, but he will now come under a merciless spotlight.
He is woefully inexperienced in foreign affairs - more so, believe it or not, than George W Bush was when he entered the White House (he, as Texan governor, had at least held negotiations with the Mexican government) - and has failed to convene one single meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's European Affairs sub-committee, which he is supposed to have chaired for the past year.
But he has the funds and fame and perceived glamour to sustain his momentum, and Hillary’s support may now dramatically subside - although Iowa was never going to be one of her stronger states, and both Clintons possess a steely resolve rare in politics.
And on the night of Obama's Iowa victory she was still 21.2 points ahead in polls across the nation. She remained seven points ahead for next Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, too, 20 ahead in Nevada, 0.6 in South Carolina and a whopping 24.8 ahead in Florida for its 29 January primary.
Not a harsh article but read the comments and laugh your ass off at the Bambi-Pambies. They can't handle truth because they've been sheltered from it. Somewhere, Katrina vanden Heuvel's searching for her vibrator.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, Janurary 4, 2007. Chaos and violence continue and the little state of Iowa leads to a lot of gas baggery.
World Report notes that January 26th is a day for national demonstrations in Canada in support of war resisters, "The date commemorates the day four years ago when Jeremy Hinzman first applied for refugee status in Canada. The Nelson event, which is planned for the United Church, will be held inside because of the harsh January weather. Ryan Johnson suggests 'some light refreshments and a time to write hand written letters with someone delivering them to the post office afterwards. . . It would be a huge statement to have a box full of letters going to parliament. In Tonronto they are mraching to the Canada Post to drop them in the box'."
What's it about? In Canada where some war resisters went to seek asylum, the Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Yesterday, three US service members were announced dead by the US military. How did that play out in the media? To note two outlets, Democracy Now! and the New York Times, not very well. DN! covered the four people who died in Turkey in headlines and didn't note the three US service members killed in Iraq. The New York Times noted both on A9 of this morning's paper. Sabrina Tavernise covered "Bomb Explosion Kills 5 in Kurdish Area in Turkey" -- yes, it got it's own story -- and in a 14 paragraph story by Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Khalid al-Ansary, it was noted in paragraph four: "In another development on Thursday, two American soldiers were shot dead and a third soldier was wounded in Diyala Province, the American military said. On Wednesday a soldier was killed by an improvised bomb south of Baghdad, the first death of an American soldier this year." It's not important to US outlets. It doesn't matter. They know nothing about the five killed in Turkey but that's more important to them. It says a great deal.
Meanwhile Donna St. George (Washington Post) reports on Hannah Gunterman McKinney, a woman serving in Iraq who was killed when the man she had sex (apparently consensual but it's sketchy) with ran her over and how her parents, Barbie and Matt Hearvin, were offered a variety of explanations for the September 4, 2006 death, "Her case would become one in a litany of noncombat deaths in Iraq, which number more than 700, from crashes, suicides, illnesses and accidents that sometimes reveal messy truths about life in the war zone. The cases can be especially brutal for parents who lose a child and struggle to understand why. In McKinney's case, many of the details are in a 1,460-page file and court-martial transcript obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act."
Another woman is the subject of Sanhita SinhaRoy's Q & A (In These Times) where she interviews Iraqi Haifa Zangana who favors the US withdrawing from Iraq immediately ("gradual withdrawal is actually a gradual building of bases in Iraq") and notes of the illegal war:
But here we are with troops, with military occupation, with economic occupation and the cultural occupation. They try to erase our memory, our history, our archaeological sites and kill our civilians.
In four and a half years, we have lost 1 million Iraqis. And that's terminated, physically. We're not talking about the consequences of conventional weapons, the depleted uranium, the phosphorous, the cluster bombs.
As for detentions, the International Red Cross has recorded up to 60,000. And those are security detainees.
Zangana is the author of City of Widows: An Iraqi Woman's Account of War and Resistance, (Seven Stories Press). Today KUNA reports that the UK base in southern Iraq (Basra Airport) was attacked with a missile yesterday.
In other news of violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings (no known casualties) and a tanker bombing in Maysan that claimed the lives of 2 police officers with "others" wounded. Reuters notes an attack by a US helicopter which fired a rocket outside Baghdad and killed 1 person with two more wounded.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a US attack/raid "with air cover" in Najaf that wounded four (on Thursday). Reuters notes an Iraqi was shot dead in Jurf al-Sakhar.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Let's do US presidential politics. Shortly before noon yesterday, the Chris Dodd campaign e-mailed supporters asserting, "We've led in Washignton, D.C. on ending the war in Iraq and restoring the Constitution, but tonight all eyes are focused on Iowa . . . You'll hear from me later tonight. And when we earn that ticket to New Hampshire, I hope you are ready to provide the fuel we need to hit the ground running." Iowa was the first shot (as always) for the country to weigh in (at over 90% Anglo-White, Iowa is veeery representative -- that was sarcasm) and the country weighed in yesterday, Iowans, people posing as Iowans, they made their voices heard the in the corrupt scam that gets trotted out every four years as an example of "democracy." Like Dodd, Joe Biden's campaign declared, "Simply put, the Biden for President campaign will shock the world on Januray 3rd." As The Detroit Free Press reported today, both Biden and Dodd have dropped out of the race. Pay attention to Dodd's departure (it matters in a moment). Before we go further, let's quote Iowa's Secretary of State, "Although not an election, the Iowa Caucuses are the method by which citizens select presidential delegates to the county conventions. The political parties run the caucuses according to party rules. The Iowa Caucuses are not governed by the Secretary of State's Office." Translation, don't blame this on them. In December former editor of The Des Moines Register Gilbert Cranberg, former executive secretary of the state's Freedome of Information Council Herb Strentz and former director of research for The Des Moines Register Glenn Roberts contributed a column to the New York Times entitled "Iowa's Undemocratic Caucuses" noted that, unlike the GOP, the Democratic Party operated in secrecy, "The one-person, one-vote results from each caucus are snail-mailed to party headquarters and placed in a database, never disclosed to the press or made available for inspection." Wayne Ford could (and did) lie on Democracy Now! today that the Iowa represented "the purest form of democracy" but there's no reason everyone else had to go along with it. "We've been doing it since the 60s," he insisted. Exactly why Iowa goes first -- because it is non-reflective and undemocratic and the '60s' is when the system changed. By holding onto Iowa as the "kick off," the party machine tries to control. Make no mistek that's what happens every four years and -- as Wally and Cedric have repeatedly noted, even with the Olympics, they rotate it every four years. With those realities in mind, add, as Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted January 28, 2004, John Kerry, in 2004, was "only the third Democrat in three decades to win both Iowa and New Hampshire in contested races." That's a reality not noted in the press today -- the same press that (big or small) announces it's over for either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton but applaud John McCain who tied for third with a TV actor.
Here are the totals the Iowa Democratic Party says are final:
Senator Barack Obama: 37.58%
Senator John Edwards: 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 29.47%
Governor Bill Richardson: 2.11%
Senator Joe Bide: .93%
Uncommitted: 0.14%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1781 of 1781
Along with multiple rounds of selection, Iowa's caucus allows those present in the location to know how others are voting. It's not a fair ballot, it's not a secret ballot and if the Democratic Party couldn't control it, Iowa would have long ago been ditched (as it should be) as the "kick off" each presidential election.
Robert Parry (Consortium News) offers: "Sen. Barack Obama thrashing Sen. Clinton". Ruth Conniff (The Progressive) is gleeful as well (it's nice to see Conniff offer something, anything, indicating life), "Since she lost in Iowa, it's hard to see what is left." As Conniff offers up razor blades and sleeping pills and our online latter day Dylan throws in the towel (no link, we don't link to trash), one wonders how Hillary is a "loser" and Barack a "sure thing" off one race?
It takes an informed woman and, in this case, it's Deliah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) who explains delegates and super delegates and points out the obvious: Michigan has 156 delegates. Matters because? Hillary's on Michigan's ballot. Who's else is? Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Chris Dodd was but he's ended his campaign. Biden, Edwards, Obama and Richardson all sucked up to the DNC and refused to get on the ballot. So the reality is Hillary is close to Bambi and, apparently, has the lock on the 156 delegates in Michigan. (The DNC says they'll refuse to allow Michigan delegates. They may or may not be able to pull off that threat.)
Over at The Nation -- where few ever grasp anything -- Ari Melber demonstrates (by omission) why it matters that readers be informed and not trust The Nation. The mag that called Hillary out on a vote she missed . . . due to Bill having heart surgery, offers Ari's wet dreams of "Why Obama's Win Is Bigger Than You Think" which takes Hillary to task for spending $7 million of her campaign money. How much did Obama spend? Melber's not interested in saying. $9 million. Doesn't fit with the spin Ari wants to blow out his butt so it doesn't make his blog post. He's not really a reporter (real ones don't work for that rag), so let's turn to a real reporter.
Amy Goodman: I think one big difference, Ellen Chesler [cross talk] I think one big difference and I think this has certainly been brought out is that Barack Obama said he was opposed to the illegal war from the beginning and of course Senator Clinton voted for it.
See the problem? Obama tells Monica Davey (New York Times, July 26, 2004) he doesn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate. Two years later, he's telling David Remnick (The New Yorker) he doesn't know how he would have voted. Why is Amy Goodman not noting that or the fact that, until the summer of 2007, he voted for every authorization? Why is she noting in the segment that Hillary Clinton's campaign offices have been occupied by peace activists but not noting that Barack's have as well? Shouldn't Wayne Ford have been asked about that?
Hillary's a War Hawk. That's who she is and needs to be pointed out. So is Barack Obama. And these attempts to shield the public from reality may be part of what a political party does (or tries to) but it's not reality and has no place in journalism. Ari thinks it's cute to call Hillary out for her millions spent in Iowa while ignoring how much money Obama spent (like he thought it was cute to call her out for missing a vote when Bill was having surgery). Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) have repeatedly pointed out that Hillary and Barack are siamese twins. So it's not impossible to report the truth. And it's not impossible to give readers, viewers, listeners the information and trust them to make their own decisions.
Ellen Chesler, speaking for Clinton's campaign, needs to get her act together. Stating that Obama wasn't in the Senate isn't telling the full story. Obviously, Goodman isn't going to bring up the illegal war with Barack's supporter Wayne Ford. Rebecca, back when Obama was lying on stage and hitting Edwards with Edwards' 2002 vote, made the point that Obama needed to be challenged on that nonsense. Obviously the press isn't going to do that (maybe Big Media, but not Little), so any supporter needs to drive the reality home. [Note, the transcript at DN! is currently wrong. Amy Goodman, not Ellen Chesler, says, "Well, let me put the question to Danny Glover. Do you think John Edwards has the same position as Obama, as Clinton, on the war?"]
This isn't minor. The war was a question for Chesler and for Danny Glover (speaking for John Edwards' campaign). For Obama? Wayne Ford wasn't asked one word. If you're not seeing the problem, you're lying to yourself. A bit like the lie being spread that "Obama's a closet socialist, hop on board, he's big time left, he just can't say so." He's not and he's not left. Do we want a War Hawk in the White House, as the US moves to the wars to Africa, who can lie to the camera and say, "Oh, my father was from Kenya, this is a just war, don't even ask me that!"
I haven't decided who I will vote for in 2008. We'll note one excerpt from a guest in that roundtable, Danny Glover speaking of John Edwards:
Well, I certainly, when we look at what has happened over the last few years -- and certainly the present administration is indicative of what has happened over the last few years in terms of just corporate greed -- certainly I don't believe that. I think that when people begin to address the issues of globalization, they look at corporate greed. When they begin to identify what is happening in the community, they look at greed, whether it's corporate greed, whether it's the greed that gentrifies the community or the greed that gentrifies a whole nation of people. I think that it's important that we look at the real issue, the real issues around poverty in this country. And [inaudible] poverty, those numbers are thirty-seven million, are indicative of the level of poverty and what people face. We look at the issue around the middle class. We look at the issue around the disparity in wages and the increasing gap between wealth in this country. And those are real issues here, you know? I mean, at some point in time, we're going to have to address that. And I don't think--I think that John Edwards says he spent less than anyone else. He's been--and I believe if it's a two-person race, then that "two-person" is between Obama and Edwards.
If the illegal war matters (I obviously think that it does) then it matters that all the candidates be held to the same standard. Amy Goodman asks Hillary's supporter and John Edwards' supporter about the illegal war. Wayne Ford's not asked a word about. Meanwhile, Reuters lies about Obama's Iraq 'plan' claiming that "all troops out within 16 months" is the 'plan.' It's not. He would leave 'trainers' and other classifications and the "one or two brigades a month" is not firm and he's stated he might increase the number or halt the deployment based on what was happening.
If there's a winner on the Dem side in Iowa, it's Edwards. But we all do grasp that only 16% of the people in Iowa caucused, right? The 'process' is nothing like the rest of the country, it's a tiny state with only 7 electoral college votes. Now tiny New Hampshire (4 electoral college votes) with a 95.8% White population will weigh in. February 5th will better determine who the candidate for the two major parties will be. So why the narratives from the press and why is Little Media unable to hold Obama to the same standards they use to crucify Hillary?
16% of 'Iowans' turned out for their non-secret ballot caucus and it's being used to shape narratives. Left out of the narratives are the backdoor deals Obama made with other candidates. Like the idiot Wayne Ford, they pretend they're talking about something but they're just blowing gas. Ford declared today, "I want to talk about the reasons why Obam womn" but he had nothing to talk about. He didn't have anything to talk about in 2004 when he appeared on the program as a John Edwards supporter: "But I have always said that until we have a president who is going to say that one of the top problems in this country is race, and I'm willing to risk and deal with this problem to bring all Americans together." Blah-blah-blah. And that 'reason' was why he backed Edwards in 2004. He's a gas bag. Iowa means nothing and meant nothing. It's not representative. If there was a need for all the post-coverage it would be to examine where the candidates stood on the issue. In outlet after outlet, Iraq was not addressed because Obama was given yet another pass. Meanwhile, Allan Nairn (at CounterPunch) argues that the 2008 general election was decided long ago.
Two other candidates appear tonight on PBS' Bill Moyers Journal:Thousands of media outlets descended on Iowa, erecting a powerful wall of TV cameras and reporters between the voters and candidates. This week on Bill Moyers Journal in two interviews, Bill Moyers talks with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, candidates with an inside view of the process who know well the power of the press to set expectations and transform the agenda. Also on the program, leading expert on media and elections Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, examines the campaigns and coverage in Iowa and looks at the media's power to benefit some candidates and disadvantage others.
Added artist and journalist David Bacon has a photo exhibit at the Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110): "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." The exhibit is from January 11th through February 23rd (Enero 11 - Febrero 23, 2008). "An exhibition documenting communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California through photographs and the narrative experiences of community residents and leaders" y
"Una exposicion que documenta a traves de fotografias y testmonios de lideres y residentes las comundades indigenas de campesinos mexicanos." Inauguracion de exposicion (Opening Reception) Enero 11 7:30 p.m. (January 11th). Y mesa redonda de fotografos (photographers' panel) Sabado, Enero 26, 2:00 p.m. (photographers' panel, Saturday, January 26).
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
sanhita sinharoy
amy goodmandemocracy now
david bacon
bill moyersbill moyers journalpbs
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.the washington postdonna st. george
robert parry
ruth conniff
Friday, January 04, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
What now?
As of the first of this year, Dennis has urged Iowa caucusers to do exactly what he spent the last year telling us not to do -- skip over a candidate with more progressive politics in order to support a candidate with less progressive politics.
The best argument for voting for Dennis Kucinich in caucuses and primaries has been what he aptly describes as his "singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade." But his support for Obama over Edwards indicates that he's willing to allow some opaque and illogical priorities to trump maximizing the momentum of our common progressive agendas.
Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there's too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There's no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich's say-so. And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.
That's from Norman Solomon's "Edwards Reconsidered" (CounterPunch). I agree and disagree. I disagree that we can't go after the person we have faith in and must instead be 'realistic'. Otherwise, I agree with his statements and his conclusion.
And the main reason I agree with both is because I'm happy to vote for who I most believe in. If I'm the only one who votes for them, fine. I voted in 2000 and 2004 and my candidate didn't make it into the White House either year.
But when Kucinich makes a deal with a War Hawk, I don't believe.
It's real hard to believe in a candidate when the candidate doesn't believe in himself. I need to find a real candidate now, a fighter. Someone who doesn't stab himself and his supporters in the back. ("His" unless I go Green.) Here's what worries me about the Green Party, I don't want to vote for a candidate that's only running in some states. If the candidate isn't going to try to compete in every race, I'm not interested.
With Dems? Well Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd have been in talks with Obama's campaign about a similar deal. So there's no reason to look towards them.
Obama is a War Hawk and he's got Sarah Sewer and Sammy Power backing him up -- into more illegal wars. He's a fraud, a fake and a phony.
Hillary Clinton? Unless she has an 'awakening' on the campaign trail, not a chance.
So that leaves me, unless I go Green, with John Edwards only. "Super-Duper Tuesday" is in February. Kucinich and the other losers may hang on until then (anyone who made a backdoor deal in Iowa -- including Bambi -- should drop out of the race) but that will be the end of it for many.
Since Kucinich is such a fraud that he'll make a deal with a War Hawk, he's really wasted my time and wasted everyone's time by being in the race this long. It is now a vanity campaign and nothing else.
As I said yesterday, I got no phone call or mailing asking me, "Who would you support if not Kucinich?" So he made his own damn decision. He can say, "It's just Iowa." But as Solomon points out, the election matters in all 50 states.
If he's doing back-door deals to sell out those of us against the illegal war in one state . . . Where does it end? Does he intend to stab supporters in the back in every primary?
I loathe Obama and could vote Hillary over Bambi.
Bambi's all patter with no plans.
If I wanted to support Bambi, I'd have done it on my own. I wouldn't need to waste my energy on Kucinich as a proxy.
He can really shove it now. I'm sick of him.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" which contains a must read on students:
Thursday, January 3, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announced more deaths, Dennis Kucinich -- so out he's . . . in? . . . out?, and more.
Starting with war resistance, Ehren Watada is noted in Edwin Tanji's (Honolulu Advertiser) reflections on 2007: "Critics of the war engaged in frequent rallies as well as the appearance in April by Bob Watada, father of Lt. Ehren Watada, who is facing court-martial for refusing deployment to Iraq." In June 2006, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He based his decision on fact that the Iraq War is illegal. The Christian Sciene Monitor's Dean Paton (at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) explained in October, "When he returned to Fort Lewis, he began researching Iraq. The expose at Abu Ghraib prison fueld his doubts about the war. He read the report of the Iraq Survey Group, a team formed after the 2003 invasion to see if weapons of mass destruction existed. It found they didn't. He studied the United Nations Charter, the Nurember Principles, and the Uniform Code of military Justice. . . . Watada realized that from the moment he swore to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic,' and to 'bear true faith and allegiance to the same,' his solemn oath required him to refuse orders to fight an illegal war." Monica Guzman (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) notes that Paton's column was of "the P-I's 10 most-discussed" and it "touched off debate about the fate of Lt. Ehren Watada, the first Army officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal."
Meanwhile, in Canada where some war resisters went to seek asylum, the Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
In other March news, Ashley Casale who took part in the March for Peace is trying to raise awareness on an event that will not schedule actions during Winter Soldier but will have actions before and after, Our Spring Break. March 7th through the 19th, they will be in DC -- with IVAW from the 13th through the 16th. At Common Dreams, she explains this action that young people have planned and are leading on, "This March marks 5 years since the U.S. invaded Iraq for reasons we were too young to understand at the time; as we grew older we learned it was for oil, wealth, and power and not for peace, freedom, and democracy as we were told and most naively believed. Now many young people in America are speaking out daily and pledging to travel to D.C. for our spring break to tell Congress, Bush and Cheney that our spring break will end their war. It may not be as warm as Daytona Beach, but Bush wants us to go there, drink, party and forget about his war. We're not going to go where he wants us to go. We're going to go to him instead."
Common Dreams allow comments and they are revealing: "Hello young Americans!" types Smug & Self-Righteous, "Welcome to the anti-war effort. We've missed you for the past six years and value your long awaited-support." Then you've got BUTT UGLY associated with Lousiville Peace Action Community who says they "HAVE BEEN working SINCE BEFORE this illegal Iraq War" and "WE DELIGHT IN YOUR AWAKENING AND COMMITTING TO THE CHALLENGES BEFORE US."
Let's repeat reality because Smug & Self-Righteous and BUTT UGLY have missed it: Students were active before the illegal war started, have been active since and if you didn't see them (a) that's your own blindness and/or (b) you're suffering some major media damage. BUTT UGLY comes from an organization which, for the record, hasn't ended the illegal war but doesn't mind featuring a video entitled "Students, A Challenge for You!" which is nothing but more youth-hatred masked as "motivation" as Chunky Monkey ,who looks like he hasn't showered since he caught Ween in 1993, let's young people know he's 'f--king' disappointed with them for their inaction (THEY WERE NEVER INACTIVE) including during "the lead up to the war." Define young people, Chunky.
In 2003, how old did they have to be qualify for "young"? 10-years-old? Get serious. No one needs a lazy ass 38-year-old fat, f--k screaming at students about things he knows nothing about.
Students have been active. BUTT UGLY, Chunky Monkey and Smug & Self-Righteous might try learning something before flapping their fat mouths. I'm really sick of this. February 2003, I started visiting campuses to speak about the illegal war. I've been doing that for five years next month. The next time one of these assholes wants to talk about what students have or haven't done, how about they first take their own lazy asses to a high school or college campus? And, for fun, how about not one they can reach while on their 'brisk' walk?
Students have been active from the start. There was huge passion in Feb. 2003 and students were lied to by 'leaders' who said, "This will end the war, this will stop it." March 2003, after the illegal war started, go onto a campus to talk about Iraq then and you had to tell with students who felt outraged by the White House and LIED TO by the leaders. They've spent the last years being active and it's only your smug ingorance that allows you to be unaware of that fact. But they've waited for leaders to share tools and what they've received instead is 'leaders' visiting their campuses telling them "No, don't boo at that event. It will look bad for the movement." and other similar crap. What they've received is a peace movement that closed ranks against them and has not brought them into leadership.
Smug & Self-Righteous, Butt Ugly and Chunky Monkey, the only difference you're seeing and will be seeing is students aren't waiting for leadership to come to them. They've become their own leaders. And if you want to finger point at anyone, aim that middle one at yourselves for not doing a damn thing in the last five years to help the youth get active. The '60s' had the Civil Right Movement as a model. This generation? What have they had? And if you're 38-years-old, you're really in no place to hop on your Huffy bike about what students are doing today -- you're too young to have done anything to end apartheid, and you're too old to have been a "student" during the anti-globization movement.
Your ignorance is no excuse. The fact that you don't know Carla Gomez or Robert Zabala or any of the young people who have been standing up is no excuse. The fact that media has ignored them is no excuse. You decided to weigh in and promote yourselves as 'agents of change' when the reality is that you did and do nothing to further the movement. IVAW, check the faces, is a young organization. Counter-recruiting movements across the country don't just aim to reach the young, they have young people in the ranks and in leadership.
Like a Nation essay winner (truly, they gave a prize for this crap), you come along to tsk-tsk about things you know nothing about. Your gall is appalling. And it goes to the peace movement leadership as well. At the most basic, what the comments (and video) are saying is, "I was here first!" About as valid as Christopher Columbus making that claim. Instead of being happy for Ashley Casale and offering encouragement, these asses want to say, "Well, I've been here from the start. Where were you? Welcome."
I'm not really sure that in January 2008 any of us who were there "from the start" have earned the right to any bragging since the illegal war drags on all this time later. wishiwasinagreenstate posted a response to some of the nonsense which opens with, "Welcome? You've missed us? Thanks for the welcome, but we've been here all along. I was much more active in antiwar groups and activies before I graduated from college in 2005. In fact, the rest of society hasn't really caught up with campus organizing." As Elaine noted last night (and, yes, she was referring to the comments to this article), "I wonder if people realize when they toot their own horns, when they come off so smug to people who are attempting to plan something, they don't look informed, they just look like smug asses. The thing I saw was a young woman writing about an action . . . and the response was all these older types being smug and self-righteous. What they should have done was shut their big mouths."
Our Spring Break's schedule is here. And note, from their home page, "Message to older people: We love you too! Join us." That those much older than Ashley couldn't offer the same kindness in return says a great deal about the sickness in the ranks of the movement, where it's more important to offer, "I did this . . . I did that . . . Welcome, but I was . . ."
Ending the illegal war is going to take the work of many and 'oldsters' need to grasp people coming in are not 'claims jumpers'.
Vaishanavi Chandrashekhar (Christian Science Monitor) observes of yesterday and Tuesday's violence, "Two suicide attacks in Iraq, including the deadliest to hit Baghdad since August, killed at least 56 people and wounded at least 42 on Tuesday and Wednesday."
In some of the reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a rocket attack in Baghdad that claimed 1 life (two other people were wounded), a Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives and left five wounded, a Baghdad bombing that wounded "4 street cleaners," a Zghaniyah bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another wounded and 6 Iraqi soldiers dead from a home rigged to explode in Dyala.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a shotting incident in Salahuddin that left one person wounded, Iraqi police state 1 civilian was shot dead by the US military in Dyala, that 2 Iraqi civilians were shot dead by the US military in Ghalbiyah, an armed clash in Mosul claimed the life of 1 Iraqi police officer with two more wounded and a home invasion "in the middle of last night" in which 4 family members were "killed and another two injured."
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 2 in Dyala (they had been kidnapped yesterday).
Today the US military announced, "A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier was killed when the Soldier's dismounted patrol encountered an improvised explosive device south of Baghdad Jan 2." And they announced: "Two Multi-National Division - North Soldiers were killed in a small-arms fire attack while conducting operations in Diyala province Jan. 3. Additionally, one more MND-N Soldier was injured in the attack and evacuated to a Coalition Forces' hospital." The three deaths brought the total number to 3907 US service members killed in the illegal war since it started (by the deaths the DoD tracks).
Already noted that 2007 was the deadliest for US service members (never noted is just how deadly it is for Iraqis), Reporters Without Borders notes it was also a deadly year for reporters with 86 killed around the world and "more than half those killed in 2007 died in Iraq. . . . All 47 journalists killed in Iraq were, except for a Russian reporter, Iraqis who mostly worked for the local media and were deliberately targeted. The motive was often hard to pinpoint but was always linked to their work or the media outlet that employed them. Armed groups targeted journalists sympathising with their religious rivals and those working for organs connected with foreign media or funded by foreigners. The government displayed alarming inertia and has not yet found a way to stop the violence, except for allowing journalists to carry arms to defend themselves." And of course, some are targeted by the US military. Free Bilal. Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) notes the contrast between Bilal Hussein -- Pulitzer Prize winning AP photographer -- being held by US forces in Iraq as a prisoner while those who sold the illegal war (Karl Rove, William Kristol) find themselves with new jobs at Newsweek and the New York Times: "Hussein's case is finally being heard, but in a hastily called kangaroo court. The Pentagon doesn't want its fingerprints on the obvious injustice, so an Iraqi judge presides over the Huessein show trial. Hussein's attorney does not have the right to speak with him in private, or to participate in the proceedings in any way. Witnesses against him are seen on video, denying him the opportunity to question them or their statements. The Iraqi judge announced at the beginning of his hearing that Hussein will be convicted, making the outcome of the case a foregone conclusion."
Moving to the topic of elections, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is running for the US House seat from the 8th Congressional District in California. At Common Dreams, Sheehan addresses the topics of torture, real voting rights and real elections and notes, "We need to get back to the days where news was news and 'equal time' is guaranteed for all viewpoints, not just the singular viewpoints of war and supporting a dangerous imperial presidency. If in the highly likely event that your Congress rep is failing at his/her job, run for office (requirements) against him/her or support the candidacy of someone who is running that conforms to your beatitudes, not the beatitudes of the greedy and bloodthirsty oligarchy." On the Democrats and Republicans running for their parties' 2008 presidential nomination, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) hosted a discussion with Allan Nairn and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos (American Conservative) which offered some reality but also either found Nairn questioning Bambi's backbone or serving up a prolonged moment of potty training for Bambi, "Come on, Barack, you can make poopie, little fellow, yes, you can." Nairn declares of Obama, "He actually doesn't need to finance his campaign, to go to the hedge funds, to go to Wall Street. But he does anyway." Okay, (but, note, the Times story on Bambi's 'small donors') but fine so far.
Then Nairn leaves fact as he continues, "And he does, I think, because if he doesn't, they won't trust him. They might think that he's on the wrong team, and they might start attacking him." A few more adjectives and Nairn might be aping Peggy Noons writing about her Bully Boy this century. But he wasn't done yet, "He is someone who, in terms of the money he needs for his campaign, he could afford to come out for single-payer healtcare, for example, but he doesn't. He doesn't need the money from the health insurance industry, that's wasting several percentage points of the American GDP in a way that no other industrial rich country in the world does, yet he chooses not to do that, because he doesn't want to be attacked by those corporations."
Here's the only fact to be found in that last section: Barack Obama has not supported single-payer healthcare. Everything else is fantasy. Which most heart & soul reading generally is. If there was a basis for Nairn's beliefs, he should have cited it. Instead it seemed like tea leaf reading to determine why Bambi takes money. Why does anyone accept money?
Here's reality via John Nichols (The Nation), in Iowa John Edwards has spent $3 million of his campaign funds, Hillary Clinton has spent $7.2 million and Obama has spent $9 million. Why does Bambi take the money? Probably because he wants to spend it.
Nairn may not have pulled Obama toilet-training duty today, he may have been attempting to provide an example of something bothersome : 'So scared of attacks, Bambi takes money he doesn't want, doesn't need, doesn't believe in, out of fear he might offend someone if he didn't take it.' Regardless of what road you drive down, there's really no backing for either offered so we're left with: Obama most likely takes money because he wants to spend it. To prove anything else, you'd have to offer up something more than soul peering. (An allusion to past experiences, a record, anything.)
Reality comes via the latest issue of The Progressive (January 2008) -- and maybe it's past damn time all outlets explored this topic -- which offers Kevin Alexander Gray and Marshall Derks "Obama's Haymaker" (page 14) which addresses Obama's courting of homophobes in South Carolina and bringing them up on stage, "having four of the most abrasively anti-gay gospel singers represent his campaign". The Progressive becomes the first print magazine to examine the topic. What broadcast independent media will probe it or should we just see it as "2008: Gays to the back of the bus." The authors conclude that "the most important question for us to resolve is what will candidates do or say to win office. Are they consistent in their messae and actions? Do they pander from group to group? Do they pit one group of people against another group? At this point, the answers for Obama appear to be no, yes, and yes." Meanwhile, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) observes, "Barack Obama's corporate-made and -financed presidential campaign is the product of three distinct factors, all mitigating agaisnt Black self-determination and political cohesion: 1) corporate decisions made a decade ago, to provide media and financial support to pliant Black Democrats that can be trusted to carry Wall Street's water; 2) a widespread desire among whites to prove through the safe and simple act of voting that they are not personally racist, and/or to dismiss Black claims of pervasive racism in society, once and for all; 3) a huge reservoir of Jim Crow era, atavistic Black thinking that refuses to evaluate Black candidates' actual political stances, but instead revels in the prospect of Black faces in high places. A President Obama would, of course, be the zenith of such narrow, non-substantive, objectively self-defeating visions."
Staying with US politics, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, that "consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader has 'expressed his strong support for John Edwards. Nader has 'expressed his strong support' for John Edwards. Nader says he supports Edwards' promise to challenge corporate interests. On Wednesday, Edwards said he would withdraw virtually all U.S. troops from Iraq within ten months of being elected."
Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) observes that the corporate press is openly hostile to Edwards and offers that "we're now in the midst of a classic conflict between corporate media sensibilities and grassroots left-leaning populism" and then goes on to note Dennis Kucinich's endorsement of Barack Obama with Solomon weighing in, "It's hard to think of a single major issue -- including 'the war,' 'health care' and 'trade' -- for which Obama has a more progression position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidely more progressive position than Obama. But the most disturbing part of Dennis' statement was this: 'Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.' This doesn't seem like a reasoned argument for Obama. It seems like an excercise in smoke-blowing'." Or in killing your own campaign. (That's me. Solomon concludes: "And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.") Last night, Rebecca, Elaine (and she speaks for Trina in her post) and Kat came to conclusions similar to Solomon in that they're not going to support a candidate who doesn't fight. To be clear, Iowa does not 'vote,' they caucus. That is an all night thing and Kat, rightly, compares it to a jury reaching a verdict. Kucinich is saying if there's no chance he'll win, vote for Bambi. No chance he'll win? Hasn't Kucinich's entire campaign been an uphill battle? When you're that cowardly (some say petty), then your campaign is over. Not because the media ignored you (which -- big and small -- they did), not because you failed to use your own power (which you did) but because you shot yourself in the foot and seem to think you can issue an Iowa-only statement that's embargoed from the rest of the country. Also yesterday, Tom Hayden (Common Dreams) concluded, "One day before the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards has become the first major presidential candidate to favor withdrawing all American troops, including advisers, from Iraq . . . The positions taken by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while favoring de-escalation, would leave tens of thousands of American advisers, special forces and substantial back-up troops in Iraq for five years, at least until 2013." Nader's endorsement may or may not mean he's not running for president in 2008. He will, however, be participating January 13th in the Green Party presidnetial debate in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) along with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay and Jard Bell. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
iraq
ehren watada
dean paton
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
glen ford
amy goodmandemocracy now
tom hayden
bilal hussein
margaret kimberley
kats korner
like maria said paz
trinas kitchensex and politics and screeds and attitude
The best argument for voting for Dennis Kucinich in caucuses and primaries has been what he aptly describes as his "singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade." But his support for Obama over Edwards indicates that he's willing to allow some opaque and illogical priorities to trump maximizing the momentum of our common progressive agendas.
Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there's too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There's no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich's say-so. And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.
That's from Norman Solomon's "Edwards Reconsidered" (CounterPunch). I agree and disagree. I disagree that we can't go after the person we have faith in and must instead be 'realistic'. Otherwise, I agree with his statements and his conclusion.
And the main reason I agree with both is because I'm happy to vote for who I most believe in. If I'm the only one who votes for them, fine. I voted in 2000 and 2004 and my candidate didn't make it into the White House either year.
But when Kucinich makes a deal with a War Hawk, I don't believe.
It's real hard to believe in a candidate when the candidate doesn't believe in himself. I need to find a real candidate now, a fighter. Someone who doesn't stab himself and his supporters in the back. ("His" unless I go Green.) Here's what worries me about the Green Party, I don't want to vote for a candidate that's only running in some states. If the candidate isn't going to try to compete in every race, I'm not interested.
With Dems? Well Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd have been in talks with Obama's campaign about a similar deal. So there's no reason to look towards them.
Obama is a War Hawk and he's got Sarah Sewer and Sammy Power backing him up -- into more illegal wars. He's a fraud, a fake and a phony.
Hillary Clinton? Unless she has an 'awakening' on the campaign trail, not a chance.
So that leaves me, unless I go Green, with John Edwards only. "Super-Duper Tuesday" is in February. Kucinich and the other losers may hang on until then (anyone who made a backdoor deal in Iowa -- including Bambi -- should drop out of the race) but that will be the end of it for many.
Since Kucinich is such a fraud that he'll make a deal with a War Hawk, he's really wasted my time and wasted everyone's time by being in the race this long. It is now a vanity campaign and nothing else.
As I said yesterday, I got no phone call or mailing asking me, "Who would you support if not Kucinich?" So he made his own damn decision. He can say, "It's just Iowa." But as Solomon points out, the election matters in all 50 states.
If he's doing back-door deals to sell out those of us against the illegal war in one state . . . Where does it end? Does he intend to stab supporters in the back in every primary?
I loathe Obama and could vote Hillary over Bambi.
Bambi's all patter with no plans.
If I wanted to support Bambi, I'd have done it on my own. I wouldn't need to waste my energy on Kucinich as a proxy.
He can really shove it now. I'm sick of him.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" which contains a must read on students:
Thursday, January 3, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announced more deaths, Dennis Kucinich -- so out he's . . . in? . . . out?, and more.
Starting with war resistance, Ehren Watada is noted in Edwin Tanji's (Honolulu Advertiser) reflections on 2007: "Critics of the war engaged in frequent rallies as well as the appearance in April by Bob Watada, father of Lt. Ehren Watada, who is facing court-martial for refusing deployment to Iraq." In June 2006, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He based his decision on fact that the Iraq War is illegal. The Christian Sciene Monitor's Dean Paton (at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) explained in October, "When he returned to Fort Lewis, he began researching Iraq. The expose at Abu Ghraib prison fueld his doubts about the war. He read the report of the Iraq Survey Group, a team formed after the 2003 invasion to see if weapons of mass destruction existed. It found they didn't. He studied the United Nations Charter, the Nurember Principles, and the Uniform Code of military Justice. . . . Watada realized that from the moment he swore to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic,' and to 'bear true faith and allegiance to the same,' his solemn oath required him to refuse orders to fight an illegal war." Monica Guzman (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) notes that Paton's column was of "the P-I's 10 most-discussed" and it "touched off debate about the fate of Lt. Ehren Watada, the first Army officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal."
Meanwhile, in Canada where some war resisters went to seek asylum, the Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
In other March news, Ashley Casale who took part in the March for Peace is trying to raise awareness on an event that will not schedule actions during Winter Soldier but will have actions before and after, Our Spring Break. March 7th through the 19th, they will be in DC -- with IVAW from the 13th through the 16th. At Common Dreams, she explains this action that young people have planned and are leading on, "This March marks 5 years since the U.S. invaded Iraq for reasons we were too young to understand at the time; as we grew older we learned it was for oil, wealth, and power and not for peace, freedom, and democracy as we were told and most naively believed. Now many young people in America are speaking out daily and pledging to travel to D.C. for our spring break to tell Congress, Bush and Cheney that our spring break will end their war. It may not be as warm as Daytona Beach, but Bush wants us to go there, drink, party and forget about his war. We're not going to go where he wants us to go. We're going to go to him instead."
Common Dreams allow comments and they are revealing: "Hello young Americans!" types Smug & Self-Righteous, "Welcome to the anti-war effort. We've missed you for the past six years and value your long awaited-support." Then you've got BUTT UGLY associated with Lousiville Peace Action Community who says they "HAVE BEEN working SINCE BEFORE this illegal Iraq War" and "WE DELIGHT IN YOUR AWAKENING AND COMMITTING TO THE CHALLENGES BEFORE US."
Let's repeat reality because Smug & Self-Righteous and BUTT UGLY have missed it: Students were active before the illegal war started, have been active since and if you didn't see them (a) that's your own blindness and/or (b) you're suffering some major media damage. BUTT UGLY comes from an organization which, for the record, hasn't ended the illegal war but doesn't mind featuring a video entitled "Students, A Challenge for You!" which is nothing but more youth-hatred masked as "motivation" as Chunky Monkey ,who looks like he hasn't showered since he caught Ween in 1993, let's young people know he's 'f--king' disappointed with them for their inaction (THEY WERE NEVER INACTIVE) including during "the lead up to the war." Define young people, Chunky.
In 2003, how old did they have to be qualify for "young"? 10-years-old? Get serious. No one needs a lazy ass 38-year-old fat, f--k screaming at students about things he knows nothing about.
Students have been active. BUTT UGLY, Chunky Monkey and Smug & Self-Righteous might try learning something before flapping their fat mouths. I'm really sick of this. February 2003, I started visiting campuses to speak about the illegal war. I've been doing that for five years next month. The next time one of these assholes wants to talk about what students have or haven't done, how about they first take their own lazy asses to a high school or college campus? And, for fun, how about not one they can reach while on their 'brisk' walk?
Students have been active from the start. There was huge passion in Feb. 2003 and students were lied to by 'leaders' who said, "This will end the war, this will stop it." March 2003, after the illegal war started, go onto a campus to talk about Iraq then and you had to tell with students who felt outraged by the White House and LIED TO by the leaders. They've spent the last years being active and it's only your smug ingorance that allows you to be unaware of that fact. But they've waited for leaders to share tools and what they've received instead is 'leaders' visiting their campuses telling them "No, don't boo at that event. It will look bad for the movement." and other similar crap. What they've received is a peace movement that closed ranks against them and has not brought them into leadership.
Smug & Self-Righteous, Butt Ugly and Chunky Monkey, the only difference you're seeing and will be seeing is students aren't waiting for leadership to come to them. They've become their own leaders. And if you want to finger point at anyone, aim that middle one at yourselves for not doing a damn thing in the last five years to help the youth get active. The '60s' had the Civil Right Movement as a model. This generation? What have they had? And if you're 38-years-old, you're really in no place to hop on your Huffy bike about what students are doing today -- you're too young to have done anything to end apartheid, and you're too old to have been a "student" during the anti-globization movement.
Your ignorance is no excuse. The fact that you don't know Carla Gomez or Robert Zabala or any of the young people who have been standing up is no excuse. The fact that media has ignored them is no excuse. You decided to weigh in and promote yourselves as 'agents of change' when the reality is that you did and do nothing to further the movement. IVAW, check the faces, is a young organization. Counter-recruiting movements across the country don't just aim to reach the young, they have young people in the ranks and in leadership.
Like a Nation essay winner (truly, they gave a prize for this crap), you come along to tsk-tsk about things you know nothing about. Your gall is appalling. And it goes to the peace movement leadership as well. At the most basic, what the comments (and video) are saying is, "I was here first!" About as valid as Christopher Columbus making that claim. Instead of being happy for Ashley Casale and offering encouragement, these asses want to say, "Well, I've been here from the start. Where were you? Welcome."
I'm not really sure that in January 2008 any of us who were there "from the start" have earned the right to any bragging since the illegal war drags on all this time later. wishiwasinagreenstate posted a response to some of the nonsense which opens with, "Welcome? You've missed us? Thanks for the welcome, but we've been here all along. I was much more active in antiwar groups and activies before I graduated from college in 2005. In fact, the rest of society hasn't really caught up with campus organizing." As Elaine noted last night (and, yes, she was referring to the comments to this article), "I wonder if people realize when they toot their own horns, when they come off so smug to people who are attempting to plan something, they don't look informed, they just look like smug asses. The thing I saw was a young woman writing about an action . . . and the response was all these older types being smug and self-righteous. What they should have done was shut their big mouths."
Our Spring Break's schedule is here. And note, from their home page, "Message to older people: We love you too! Join us." That those much older than Ashley couldn't offer the same kindness in return says a great deal about the sickness in the ranks of the movement, where it's more important to offer, "I did this . . . I did that . . . Welcome, but I was . . ."
Ending the illegal war is going to take the work of many and 'oldsters' need to grasp people coming in are not 'claims jumpers'.
Vaishanavi Chandrashekhar (Christian Science Monitor) observes of yesterday and Tuesday's violence, "Two suicide attacks in Iraq, including the deadliest to hit Baghdad since August, killed at least 56 people and wounded at least 42 on Tuesday and Wednesday."
In some of the reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a rocket attack in Baghdad that claimed 1 life (two other people were wounded), a Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives and left five wounded, a Baghdad bombing that wounded "4 street cleaners," a Zghaniyah bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another wounded and 6 Iraqi soldiers dead from a home rigged to explode in Dyala.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a shotting incident in Salahuddin that left one person wounded, Iraqi police state 1 civilian was shot dead by the US military in Dyala, that 2 Iraqi civilians were shot dead by the US military in Ghalbiyah, an armed clash in Mosul claimed the life of 1 Iraqi police officer with two more wounded and a home invasion "in the middle of last night" in which 4 family members were "killed and another two injured."
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 2 in Dyala (they had been kidnapped yesterday).
Today the US military announced, "A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier was killed when the Soldier's dismounted patrol encountered an improvised explosive device south of Baghdad Jan 2." And they announced: "Two Multi-National Division - North Soldiers were killed in a small-arms fire attack while conducting operations in Diyala province Jan. 3. Additionally, one more MND-N Soldier was injured in the attack and evacuated to a Coalition Forces' hospital." The three deaths brought the total number to 3907 US service members killed in the illegal war since it started (by the deaths the DoD tracks).
Already noted that 2007 was the deadliest for US service members (never noted is just how deadly it is for Iraqis), Reporters Without Borders notes it was also a deadly year for reporters with 86 killed around the world and "more than half those killed in 2007 died in Iraq. . . . All 47 journalists killed in Iraq were, except for a Russian reporter, Iraqis who mostly worked for the local media and were deliberately targeted. The motive was often hard to pinpoint but was always linked to their work or the media outlet that employed them. Armed groups targeted journalists sympathising with their religious rivals and those working for organs connected with foreign media or funded by foreigners. The government displayed alarming inertia and has not yet found a way to stop the violence, except for allowing journalists to carry arms to defend themselves." And of course, some are targeted by the US military. Free Bilal. Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) notes the contrast between Bilal Hussein -- Pulitzer Prize winning AP photographer -- being held by US forces in Iraq as a prisoner while those who sold the illegal war (Karl Rove, William Kristol) find themselves with new jobs at Newsweek and the New York Times: "Hussein's case is finally being heard, but in a hastily called kangaroo court. The Pentagon doesn't want its fingerprints on the obvious injustice, so an Iraqi judge presides over the Huessein show trial. Hussein's attorney does not have the right to speak with him in private, or to participate in the proceedings in any way. Witnesses against him are seen on video, denying him the opportunity to question them or their statements. The Iraqi judge announced at the beginning of his hearing that Hussein will be convicted, making the outcome of the case a foregone conclusion."
Moving to the topic of elections, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is running for the US House seat from the 8th Congressional District in California. At Common Dreams, Sheehan addresses the topics of torture, real voting rights and real elections and notes, "We need to get back to the days where news was news and 'equal time' is guaranteed for all viewpoints, not just the singular viewpoints of war and supporting a dangerous imperial presidency. If in the highly likely event that your Congress rep is failing at his/her job, run for office (requirements) against him/her or support the candidacy of someone who is running that conforms to your beatitudes, not the beatitudes of the greedy and bloodthirsty oligarchy." On the Democrats and Republicans running for their parties' 2008 presidential nomination, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) hosted a discussion with Allan Nairn and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos (American Conservative) which offered some reality but also either found Nairn questioning Bambi's backbone or serving up a prolonged moment of potty training for Bambi, "Come on, Barack, you can make poopie, little fellow, yes, you can." Nairn declares of Obama, "He actually doesn't need to finance his campaign, to go to the hedge funds, to go to Wall Street. But he does anyway." Okay, (but, note, the Times story on Bambi's 'small donors') but fine so far.
Then Nairn leaves fact as he continues, "And he does, I think, because if he doesn't, they won't trust him. They might think that he's on the wrong team, and they might start attacking him." A few more adjectives and Nairn might be aping Peggy Noons writing about her Bully Boy this century. But he wasn't done yet, "He is someone who, in terms of the money he needs for his campaign, he could afford to come out for single-payer healtcare, for example, but he doesn't. He doesn't need the money from the health insurance industry, that's wasting several percentage points of the American GDP in a way that no other industrial rich country in the world does, yet he chooses not to do that, because he doesn't want to be attacked by those corporations."
Here's the only fact to be found in that last section: Barack Obama has not supported single-payer healthcare. Everything else is fantasy. Which most heart & soul reading generally is. If there was a basis for Nairn's beliefs, he should have cited it. Instead it seemed like tea leaf reading to determine why Bambi takes money. Why does anyone accept money?
Here's reality via John Nichols (The Nation), in Iowa John Edwards has spent $3 million of his campaign funds, Hillary Clinton has spent $7.2 million and Obama has spent $9 million. Why does Bambi take the money? Probably because he wants to spend it.
Nairn may not have pulled Obama toilet-training duty today, he may have been attempting to provide an example of something bothersome : 'So scared of attacks, Bambi takes money he doesn't want, doesn't need, doesn't believe in, out of fear he might offend someone if he didn't take it.' Regardless of what road you drive down, there's really no backing for either offered so we're left with: Obama most likely takes money because he wants to spend it. To prove anything else, you'd have to offer up something more than soul peering. (An allusion to past experiences, a record, anything.)
Reality comes via the latest issue of The Progressive (January 2008) -- and maybe it's past damn time all outlets explored this topic -- which offers Kevin Alexander Gray and Marshall Derks "Obama's Haymaker" (page 14) which addresses Obama's courting of homophobes in South Carolina and bringing them up on stage, "having four of the most abrasively anti-gay gospel singers represent his campaign". The Progressive becomes the first print magazine to examine the topic. What broadcast independent media will probe it or should we just see it as "2008: Gays to the back of the bus." The authors conclude that "the most important question for us to resolve is what will candidates do or say to win office. Are they consistent in their messae and actions? Do they pander from group to group? Do they pit one group of people against another group? At this point, the answers for Obama appear to be no, yes, and yes." Meanwhile, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) observes, "Barack Obama's corporate-made and -financed presidential campaign is the product of three distinct factors, all mitigating agaisnt Black self-determination and political cohesion: 1) corporate decisions made a decade ago, to provide media and financial support to pliant Black Democrats that can be trusted to carry Wall Street's water; 2) a widespread desire among whites to prove through the safe and simple act of voting that they are not personally racist, and/or to dismiss Black claims of pervasive racism in society, once and for all; 3) a huge reservoir of Jim Crow era, atavistic Black thinking that refuses to evaluate Black candidates' actual political stances, but instead revels in the prospect of Black faces in high places. A President Obama would, of course, be the zenith of such narrow, non-substantive, objectively self-defeating visions."
Staying with US politics, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, that "consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader has 'expressed his strong support for John Edwards. Nader has 'expressed his strong support' for John Edwards. Nader says he supports Edwards' promise to challenge corporate interests. On Wednesday, Edwards said he would withdraw virtually all U.S. troops from Iraq within ten months of being elected."
Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) observes that the corporate press is openly hostile to Edwards and offers that "we're now in the midst of a classic conflict between corporate media sensibilities and grassroots left-leaning populism" and then goes on to note Dennis Kucinich's endorsement of Barack Obama with Solomon weighing in, "It's hard to think of a single major issue -- including 'the war,' 'health care' and 'trade' -- for which Obama has a more progression position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidely more progressive position than Obama. But the most disturbing part of Dennis' statement was this: 'Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.' This doesn't seem like a reasoned argument for Obama. It seems like an excercise in smoke-blowing'." Or in killing your own campaign. (That's me. Solomon concludes: "And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.") Last night, Rebecca, Elaine (and she speaks for Trina in her post) and Kat came to conclusions similar to Solomon in that they're not going to support a candidate who doesn't fight. To be clear, Iowa does not 'vote,' they caucus. That is an all night thing and Kat, rightly, compares it to a jury reaching a verdict. Kucinich is saying if there's no chance he'll win, vote for Bambi. No chance he'll win? Hasn't Kucinich's entire campaign been an uphill battle? When you're that cowardly (some say petty), then your campaign is over. Not because the media ignored you (which -- big and small -- they did), not because you failed to use your own power (which you did) but because you shot yourself in the foot and seem to think you can issue an Iowa-only statement that's embargoed from the rest of the country. Also yesterday, Tom Hayden (Common Dreams) concluded, "One day before the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards has become the first major presidential candidate to favor withdrawing all American troops, including advisers, from Iraq . . . The positions taken by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while favoring de-escalation, would leave tens of thousands of American advisers, special forces and substantial back-up troops in Iraq for five years, at least until 2013." Nader's endorsement may or may not mean he's not running for president in 2008. He will, however, be participating January 13th in the Green Party presidnetial debate in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) along with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay and Jard Bell. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
iraq
ehren watada
dean paton
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
glen ford
amy goodmandemocracy now
tom hayden
bilal hussein
margaret kimberley
kats korner
like maria said paz
trinas kitchensex and politics and screeds and attitude
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
One less . . . candidate to vote for
I had a frantic message from Elaine and worried something was seriously wrong. It wasn't. I mean, it is seriously wrong, but it's nothing to do with her. She's fine. Read her "Bye-bye Dennis." I agree 100%. I'm not fighting for someone who's going to throw the first state that registers their support for the presidential candidates.
That's just insane. He's telling people if -- remember Iowa has a caucus, they don't fill out ballots, it's bluster and filibuster, fight through the deadlock like on a jury -- he doesn't make the first go round (or rounds), throw your support behind Obama.
WTF?
Who the hell are you to tell me to vote for another candidate? I live in California but that message goes out to the US and it's: I may not be able to win and it's important to have a winner so get behind Obama.
Dennis Kucinich better grasp that people in Georgia and Florida and Texas that might have stood up for him are going to hear that message and rethink their vote. If he's going to cave in Iowa, he's going to cave everywhere. If the argument is "I can't win!" well, whiney punk, you can't win anywhere with that attitude. Elaine was frantic because she had to get her post up and she hadn't been able to reach me.
I wrote a piece here, when NOW Pac endorsed Hillary, where I and other women in the community endorsed Dennis. Elaine initially said "No, thank you" and then called back about five minutes later and said to put her name on it. I appreciated that then and I appreciate it now. It's too bad Dennis doesn't have the strength of his supporters. Or his former supporters.
I loathe Barack Obama. He is a fake, a fraud, a War Hawk who tosses out the most simplistic crap in the world. If that's who Dennis supports, sorry, I don't support Dennis.
Seriously, I withdraw my endorsement of Dennis Kucinich because I do not endorse cowards. I do not endorse people who throw their own races.
I appreciate that Elaine cared about my feelings, but even if I disagreed with her, I wouldn't have been mad. As it happens, I agree with her 100% and, to be clear, I am no longer supporting Dennis. I'll look at the other candidates and see who speaks for me. I thought it was Dennis but he thinks his supporters like Obama.
I should add that he refused to endorse Cindy Sheehan. He couldn't tick off Nancy Pelosi. Well, he's ticked off me and I'm not sure which of us holds a grudge longer, me or Nancy.
Martha and Shirley offered a great piece on books in "2007 in books (Martha & Shirley)" and, of course, C.I. did another year-in-review. Hold for that. But my "Kat's Korner: The year in music" went up yesterday for anyone interested.
I normally wouldn't list myself second, I'd show good manners and go last but Ruth (Ruth's Report) asked me to talk about C.I.'s "2007: The Year of Living Useless (Year in Review)" so I'll do that and then that's it for me tonight.
C.I. helped me so much with the editing, thank you! We all went to the protest and had the day planned for The Common Ills which was, Martha and Shirley would go up early. I would go up around noon and C.I. would do an Iraq entry at four p.m. The reason that was being pushed to four was so that if anything broke during the day, it could be noted. But C.I. didn't want normal entries competing with Martha and Shirley's piece (or mine). First problem was Martha and Shirley had a problem with tags. No problem. It meant that they went up a little later in the morning, but no problem. We all knew we had a target hour but it was just a target.
I missed mine by 30 minutes, I think. And I'm at C.I.'s and freaking out and wasn't asking for help but C.I. did. The first thing that helped was C.I. said just write what I felt. Which I did and then C.I. showed me where the break fell and how I could insert the ten picks between those two points which was a huge help because I was just hitting this huge mental block on the piece for a number of reasons.
Having finished my piece, I asked, "Can I read yours?" C.I. said, "I haven't had time to write it yet." I felt so bad. There I was taking about an hour of help -- including C.I. giving me pep talks. I asked C.I. if anything was written and C.I. said to come back to the bedroom (we were in a home office) and so I follow, C.I. grabs a large envelope and dumps it on the bed. Those were all the comments that stood out while we were on the road. Sometimes it was a comment from a group we spoke to and sometimes it was an e-mail from a member that C.I. read or that someone read and gave a summary of. From all of those scraps of paper, the year-in-review would be built. C.I. handed me a steno pad where about six paragraphs had been written.
Jim walks in and asks, "What's going on?" Then Jim gasps and says, "You're going to pull togther something on the fly? Do you know how many people are expecting this to be great?"
It's that sort of comment that Ava and C.I. used to get from time to time from Jim and Dona would have to tell him he was putting too much pressure on them. (Though, "We need you to be the best you've ever been this week. We need you to hit harder than ever. . . ." type comments are probably even worse.)
C.I. did the Iraq entry. And then?
Jim was freaking out because C.I. said, "I'm going to watch a movie. Anyone want to watch a movie?" C.I. pulls down Nothing Sacred and a few of us watched with. At the end, Jim was asking, "Are you going to write it now?" C.I. goes, "Sh a second" and grabs a pen and paper and starts dashing down some notes. Then C.I.'s on the phone to about six or seven people asking them if they know the musical Hazel Flagg and do they have the soundtrack album and, if not, can they sing the score?
If you read the year-in-review, you see how all of that works into it. (I'll give out a clue for anyone who read the piece and wasn't in the know -- Katrina's grandfather wrote the music to Hazel Flagg -- which is a musical based on the film Nothing Sacred.) At that point, a friend of C.I.'s came by (actor in films) with some friends and C.I. said, "I've got to work on this, sorry." As often happens, people were curious about it and there ended up being a huge crowd in C.I.'s bedroom. I would read it sentence by sentence as soon as C.I. put a period to it. I told Ruth it was a performance piece. At the end, after it posted, C.I. printed it up for Jim who wanted to read it out loud all the way through. It really is powerful and that's how it was created.
I can't believe it turned out good let alone amazing (it is amazing). I know part of it, Ava told me this, is that C.I. is so sick of writing and deadlines and part of it was, "I'm not writing it until I have to." But all C.I. really had was the scraps of the paper. I'm pretty sure when C.I. decided to watch Nothing Sacred there was an awareness before the film started (on some level) that it was going to go into the year-in-review. But it was just really amazing to watch C.I. crank that out at the last minute (it was written in about 32 minutes -- links and tags took a little longer).
I probably screwed it up in the retelling but that's pretty much how I explained it to Ruth today. (I may write about my year-in-review tomorrow but I'm not in the mood due to Dennis Kucinich.) Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, John Edwards speaks to Gordo (who goes after Elizabeth Edwards), the femicide in Iraq continues, and the well to do partied in Baghdad.
Starting with war resistance. Little Artie Weinreb (of the right-wing Canada Free Press) blows a gasket over war resisters in a post entitled, "Canada readies to give U.S. deserters refuge." The foam from Artie's mouth makes it hard to understand him or maybe it's Artie who doesn't understand? That would explain why he can argue that Jeremy Hinzman served in Afhganistan, so he can't be a CO! Actually he can be . . . even if he served in Afghanistan. But, for the record, Hinzman served in a non-combat role and that was due to his beliefs about war. It's not strange that Artie doesn't know US policies -- he is Canadian -- but he appears to feel it's just him and the US' Peggy Noons standing up for the red, white and blue. Maple left, Artie, remember the maple leaf.The fact that Artie's launching a pre-emptive strike on a potential vote in Canada's Parliament (he says this month but most say the earliest a vote could come would be February) can be seen as good thing in that it demonstrates Artie thinks there's a good chance it will pass. But that's only if people make their voices heard. The Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Recapping since Monday's snapshot. Tuesday was January 1st and Solomon Moore and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) covered the glitterati of Baghdad, where, at the capital's two biggest hotels, "scores of perfumed and bare-headed Iraqi women" turned out for New Year's Eve. Robin Leach in the Green Zone. Baghdad Country Club, in fact, bills itself thusly: "In the world of chaos which is Baghdad there is an oasis of calm. If James Bond were to walk of the pages of a book; if Hemingway was again reporting on the world's troubles, they could probably both be found relaxing over a drink at the Baghdad Country Club. So if you happen to be in central Baghdad and know a person . . . " But remember: "No weapons are allowed in the club. The management is happy to secure any firearms, grenades, flash bangs or knives in the club armory." Maybe you're in the mood for Salmon with White Wine Caper Sauce? Or Chicken Crepe Riviera? Their wine list, sadly, is effected by "political and meterological climate" so the oldest vintage they offer on the list is a 1982 Chateau Lafitte Rothschild, 1er Grand Cru Classe. But if you're in the mood for port, they go back to 1955 with that. And just because the US is occupying the country doesn't mean that they can't offer Cuban cigars (Cohiba, Montecristo, Partagas and more). (The country club is inside the Green Zone, for any who didn't already get that.) Brian Bennett (Time magazine) reported on it last April and noted it opened in October of 2006. It was left to an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy to explain the 'joys' weren't all that and what it's like to take away a balloon from a child for fear that it may contain poisonous gas.
On Tuesday, the US military announced: "A U.S. Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related injury in the vicinity of Qayyarah Airfield West Dec. 31. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." Among the Tuesday violence, Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported a Baghdad bombing at "a funeral" that claimed 30 lives and left thrity-eight wounded. And, in political news, Reuter's Andy Sullivan explained the 20008 GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney declared "the Bush administration mismanged the Iraq war, distancing himself from his party's unpopular president two days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential contest." Sadly, among the GOP, that does count as 'brave.' Future distancing may include GOP candidates noting that education is actually good for people and that a person's health improves when they have a roof over their head. Bit by bit, they may make it up to the 20th century before the 21st ends.
Back to Tuesday's Baghdad bombing at the funeral, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Qais Mizher (New York Times) call it "the most brazen and deadly attack in the capital in months. The force of the blast scattered severed arms and legs about the site of the attack, a house where scores of friends and relatives had gathered to pay tribute to a man killed three days earlier by a car bomb in Tayaran Square in central Baghdad." Joshua Partlow and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) report on Adil Ahmed (chemistry professor) responding to the fire as "mourner were screaming with grief and rage, and many others were scattered on the ground, dead or dying. The chemistry professore recalled bending down to one man who had saliva running down his ching. He pumped his chest and breathed into his mouth, again and again, in a vain attempt to save him. He ran to other, less seriously injured men, and helped drag or carry them to cars waiting to rush them to the hospital. He noticed that some of the dead were still sitting upright in the burning tent on their plastic chairs. After an hour of this, his clothes were messy with blood." BBC notes the dead at 30 and the wounded at thirty-two. Reuters notes today the death toll is now 34 from the funeral bombing.
And the violence continued today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad explosion that injured five people and a woman exploded herself (via a bomb filled vest) in Baquba resulting in dead and wounded. Reuters notes the death toll from the Baquba bombing has climbed to 10 and that "The attack came a day after a bomber detonated his explosive vest in a tent crowded with mourners at a Baghdad funeral." Peter Graff (Reuters) reports it is "the latest in a string of suicide bombings that has seen a major strike nearly every day of the past week despite an overall decline in violence. The woman blew herself up with an explosive vest at a checkpoint of neighborhood patrol volunteers in Baquba, capital of the restive Diyala province. Twenty-eight people were wounded including some women, police said." BBC notes, "Most of the casualties are said to be members of a local volunteer force opposed to al-Qaeda. Another 15 people were wounded in the explosion." The "Awakening" councils which, Reuters reminds, are "paid by U.S. forces . . . and are now springing up throughout Sunni Arab areas with U.S. funding and support." And the US military has issued a statement declaring that "the suicide bomber was in fact a male".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 civilians wounded by unknown assailants firing in Basra. Reuters notes a home invasion outside Kut in which two brothers were shot dead.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters also notes, "U.S. forces said they had accidentally killed a woman when they fired a missile from a helicopter at a group planting a bomb on Tuesday evening in the northern city of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad. The missile missed its target and struck a nearby building, the U.S. military said."
Meanwhile, IRIN reports 133 "women were killed last year in Basra . . . either by religious vigilantes or as a result of so-called 'honor' killings" according to the Basra Security Committee which said 79 were assassinated for "violating Islamic teachings," while 47 were assassinated via "'honor' killings". Assassinated? Yes, I'm using that term. This is the feminicide that's been ongoing in Iraq. There women were assassinated as part of a war against women. For more on the topic, you can see Bay Fang's "The Talibanization of Iraq" (Ms. magazine, spring 2007 issue) and MADRE.
"And I said, 'Look, maybe something good will come from this Vietnam tragedy. It's such an obvious blunder, we'll never go down that road again. So maybe it will save us from repeating this on an even more costly scale.' And of course, now I don't know what to tell my daughters," so explains George McGovern to Laura S. Washington (In These Times). It's a point that escapes many including War Pornographer Michael Gordon who shows up in this morning's New York Times with a write up of an interview with John Edwards. The article's 'value' includes: (a) noting that Sunday in Iowa, Edwards hadn't planned to speak about Iraq but people attending the events brought it up and (b) revealing just how much Gordo hates women. On the front page of the paper, he takes a paragraph to paint Elizabeth Edwards as 'intruding' at the end of the interview to note he didn't ask John Edwards about one point and, because she's such a brazen hussy in his mind, he uses another paragraph on A12 to return to the same point. The Times has posted the transcript (with Gordo edited for 'clarity' and 'brevity') online and, anyone reading it will quickly see, Elizabeth Edwards spoke twice (one sentence the first time to raise the point Gordo had ignored -- Iraqi forces could be trained outside of Iraq under John Edwards' plan; two sentences to remind Gordo, who was gaping at her as John Edwards discussed this part of his plan, that her husband was one the speaking). The transcript is always a must with Gordo who is a very 'creative' type of reporter. John Edwards tells Gordo, "My own judgment is, let's assume for a minute that come January 2009 we still have a significant troop presence in Iraq, which I think is likely. If that is the case then I think another nine to ten months of American troop involvement and expenditure of taxpayer money with an intense effort to resolve the political conflict and intense diplomacy, then at that point America has done what it can do." What Edwards proposes in the interview is troops start coming home and trainers are not keep in Iraq because he feels it fuels dependency on those being trained and keeping them there requires keeping more US forces there. That's why Elizabeth Edwards was correct to note that Gordo had gone through the entire (long) interview without asking about that point. Gordo misses that point and misses most of the points. He has no concept of the remarks or experience George McGovern speaks of when he's relating the horror of Vietnam to the horror of today. He does attempt to play concerned about Iraqis -- he uses them to hide behind his desire for the illegal war to continue. The obvious response to Gordo's "What if?" is that no one knows and Edwards does get into that noting he's not going to respond to a hypothetical. As John Edwards explains his plan to Gordo, the bulk of troops would begin moving out of Iraq within nine months of Edwards being sworn in. Gordo doesn't ask many questions at all (read the transcript, he's more interested in attempting to badger and browbeat) so the issue of the US Embassy in Iraq is not touched on. (However, all US embassies around the world have military support stationed with them.)
On the issue of citizens bringing up Iraq to Edwards on Sunday, The MoJo Blog notes this Des Moines Register poll of "likely Democratic caucus participants" on issues (scroll down almost mid-way and it's on the left) which finds "War in Iraq" the number one issue (28%) with health care the next largest issue (22%). For all the media-created drama since last week, "terrorism" was cited by only two-percent. December 23rd, Ava and I reviewed PBS' Washington Weak's year-end wrap up and noted of one gas bag: "Gloria Borger is just a dope period. After we got over the shock of her face (and a new hairstyle and color), we were left with the same old Gloria, pushing water cooler spin off as fact. We watched in wonder as she lied and proclaimed (prefaced with the weasel words 'I think') 'the big issue on both sides is immigration.' 'We think' she's got too many miles on her to think anyone sees her as young and fresh despite all the work done." and "immigration." For the record, the poll lists "immigration" as a concern to only 2% of likely Democratic cacus participants.
Edwards, in the interview with Gordo (transcript) notes that there is no progress in the political situation in Iraq. As an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers observes at Inside Iraq, why should there be:
We have 275 members who suppose to represent the Iraqi people in their demands and suffering. On the contrary, they have the highest salaries in Iraq or in the world with the incredible privilege they have from houses and mansions, cars, body guards, real states, free tickets to go abroad and above all their space of freedom to go wherever they want to go without taking any kind of permission or telling the government that they go to this place or that one. They are really careless of the Iraqi people's demands and needs. If we came back to 2006 and 2007 to find out what achievements did the parliament do , we would find nothing. I tried to call some prominent members to have a bit of information of their achievements during the last 20 months of their work in the parliament within Al-Maliki government. I got none of them …really none of them. They suppose to represent Iraqis, but they are not even trouble themselves to answer the phones as they are either switched off or out of the coverage area. Yes, they are because most of them are not in Iraq spending their time with their families who settle in London, Amman, Dubai, Cairo and Doha or they want to enjoy their time away of their families in Beirut, Paris , Damascus or Rome
The correspondent goes on to note Ayad Allawi resides in London, Adnan Al-Duleimi wasn't reachable and is apparently in Jordan. Ibrahim Al-Jafrai is in London and Rose Shawis is traveling "abroad". All four men (Rose is a man) are apparently out of the country. Summering?
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
the new york timesmichael gordonmichael r. gordonrichard a. oppel jr.
stephen farrellsolomon moorethe washington postjoshua partlow
bay fang
ms.
ms. magazine
That's just insane. He's telling people if -- remember Iowa has a caucus, they don't fill out ballots, it's bluster and filibuster, fight through the deadlock like on a jury -- he doesn't make the first go round (or rounds), throw your support behind Obama.
WTF?
Who the hell are you to tell me to vote for another candidate? I live in California but that message goes out to the US and it's: I may not be able to win and it's important to have a winner so get behind Obama.
Dennis Kucinich better grasp that people in Georgia and Florida and Texas that might have stood up for him are going to hear that message and rethink their vote. If he's going to cave in Iowa, he's going to cave everywhere. If the argument is "I can't win!" well, whiney punk, you can't win anywhere with that attitude. Elaine was frantic because she had to get her post up and she hadn't been able to reach me.
I wrote a piece here, when NOW Pac endorsed Hillary, where I and other women in the community endorsed Dennis. Elaine initially said "No, thank you" and then called back about five minutes later and said to put her name on it. I appreciated that then and I appreciate it now. It's too bad Dennis doesn't have the strength of his supporters. Or his former supporters.
I loathe Barack Obama. He is a fake, a fraud, a War Hawk who tosses out the most simplistic crap in the world. If that's who Dennis supports, sorry, I don't support Dennis.
Seriously, I withdraw my endorsement of Dennis Kucinich because I do not endorse cowards. I do not endorse people who throw their own races.
I appreciate that Elaine cared about my feelings, but even if I disagreed with her, I wouldn't have been mad. As it happens, I agree with her 100% and, to be clear, I am no longer supporting Dennis. I'll look at the other candidates and see who speaks for me. I thought it was Dennis but he thinks his supporters like Obama.
I should add that he refused to endorse Cindy Sheehan. He couldn't tick off Nancy Pelosi. Well, he's ticked off me and I'm not sure which of us holds a grudge longer, me or Nancy.
Martha and Shirley offered a great piece on books in "2007 in books (Martha & Shirley)" and, of course, C.I. did another year-in-review. Hold for that. But my "Kat's Korner: The year in music" went up yesterday for anyone interested.
I normally wouldn't list myself second, I'd show good manners and go last but Ruth (Ruth's Report) asked me to talk about C.I.'s "2007: The Year of Living Useless (Year in Review)" so I'll do that and then that's it for me tonight.
C.I. helped me so much with the editing, thank you! We all went to the protest and had the day planned for The Common Ills which was, Martha and Shirley would go up early. I would go up around noon and C.I. would do an Iraq entry at four p.m. The reason that was being pushed to four was so that if anything broke during the day, it could be noted. But C.I. didn't want normal entries competing with Martha and Shirley's piece (or mine). First problem was Martha and Shirley had a problem with tags. No problem. It meant that they went up a little later in the morning, but no problem. We all knew we had a target hour but it was just a target.
I missed mine by 30 minutes, I think. And I'm at C.I.'s and freaking out and wasn't asking for help but C.I. did. The first thing that helped was C.I. said just write what I felt. Which I did and then C.I. showed me where the break fell and how I could insert the ten picks between those two points which was a huge help because I was just hitting this huge mental block on the piece for a number of reasons.
Having finished my piece, I asked, "Can I read yours?" C.I. said, "I haven't had time to write it yet." I felt so bad. There I was taking about an hour of help -- including C.I. giving me pep talks. I asked C.I. if anything was written and C.I. said to come back to the bedroom (we were in a home office) and so I follow, C.I. grabs a large envelope and dumps it on the bed. Those were all the comments that stood out while we were on the road. Sometimes it was a comment from a group we spoke to and sometimes it was an e-mail from a member that C.I. read or that someone read and gave a summary of. From all of those scraps of paper, the year-in-review would be built. C.I. handed me a steno pad where about six paragraphs had been written.
Jim walks in and asks, "What's going on?" Then Jim gasps and says, "You're going to pull togther something on the fly? Do you know how many people are expecting this to be great?"
It's that sort of comment that Ava and C.I. used to get from time to time from Jim and Dona would have to tell him he was putting too much pressure on them. (Though, "We need you to be the best you've ever been this week. We need you to hit harder than ever. . . ." type comments are probably even worse.)
C.I. did the Iraq entry. And then?
Jim was freaking out because C.I. said, "I'm going to watch a movie. Anyone want to watch a movie?" C.I. pulls down Nothing Sacred and a few of us watched with. At the end, Jim was asking, "Are you going to write it now?" C.I. goes, "Sh a second" and grabs a pen and paper and starts dashing down some notes. Then C.I.'s on the phone to about six or seven people asking them if they know the musical Hazel Flagg and do they have the soundtrack album and, if not, can they sing the score?
If you read the year-in-review, you see how all of that works into it. (I'll give out a clue for anyone who read the piece and wasn't in the know -- Katrina's grandfather wrote the music to Hazel Flagg -- which is a musical based on the film Nothing Sacred.) At that point, a friend of C.I.'s came by (actor in films) with some friends and C.I. said, "I've got to work on this, sorry." As often happens, people were curious about it and there ended up being a huge crowd in C.I.'s bedroom. I would read it sentence by sentence as soon as C.I. put a period to it. I told Ruth it was a performance piece. At the end, after it posted, C.I. printed it up for Jim who wanted to read it out loud all the way through. It really is powerful and that's how it was created.
I can't believe it turned out good let alone amazing (it is amazing). I know part of it, Ava told me this, is that C.I. is so sick of writing and deadlines and part of it was, "I'm not writing it until I have to." But all C.I. really had was the scraps of the paper. I'm pretty sure when C.I. decided to watch Nothing Sacred there was an awareness before the film started (on some level) that it was going to go into the year-in-review. But it was just really amazing to watch C.I. crank that out at the last minute (it was written in about 32 minutes -- links and tags took a little longer).
I probably screwed it up in the retelling but that's pretty much how I explained it to Ruth today. (I may write about my year-in-review tomorrow but I'm not in the mood due to Dennis Kucinich.) Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, John Edwards speaks to Gordo (who goes after Elizabeth Edwards), the femicide in Iraq continues, and the well to do partied in Baghdad.
Starting with war resistance. Little Artie Weinreb (of the right-wing Canada Free Press) blows a gasket over war resisters in a post entitled, "Canada readies to give U.S. deserters refuge." The foam from Artie's mouth makes it hard to understand him or maybe it's Artie who doesn't understand? That would explain why he can argue that Jeremy Hinzman served in Afhganistan, so he can't be a CO! Actually he can be . . . even if he served in Afghanistan. But, for the record, Hinzman served in a non-combat role and that was due to his beliefs about war. It's not strange that Artie doesn't know US policies -- he is Canadian -- but he appears to feel it's just him and the US' Peggy Noons standing up for the red, white and blue. Maple left, Artie, remember the maple leaf.The fact that Artie's launching a pre-emptive strike on a potential vote in Canada's Parliament (he says this month but most say the earliest a vote could come would be February) can be seen as good thing in that it demonstrates Artie thinks there's a good chance it will pass. But that's only if people make their voices heard. The Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Recapping since Monday's snapshot. Tuesday was January 1st and Solomon Moore and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) covered the glitterati of Baghdad, where, at the capital's two biggest hotels, "scores of perfumed and bare-headed Iraqi women" turned out for New Year's Eve. Robin Leach in the Green Zone. Baghdad Country Club, in fact, bills itself thusly: "In the world of chaos which is Baghdad there is an oasis of calm. If James Bond were to walk of the pages of a book; if Hemingway was again reporting on the world's troubles, they could probably both be found relaxing over a drink at the Baghdad Country Club. So if you happen to be in central Baghdad and know a person . . . " But remember: "No weapons are allowed in the club. The management is happy to secure any firearms, grenades, flash bangs or knives in the club armory." Maybe you're in the mood for Salmon with White Wine Caper Sauce? Or Chicken Crepe Riviera? Their wine list, sadly, is effected by "political and meterological climate" so the oldest vintage they offer on the list is a 1982 Chateau Lafitte Rothschild, 1er Grand Cru Classe. But if you're in the mood for port, they go back to 1955 with that. And just because the US is occupying the country doesn't mean that they can't offer Cuban cigars (Cohiba, Montecristo, Partagas and more). (The country club is inside the Green Zone, for any who didn't already get that.) Brian Bennett (Time magazine) reported on it last April and noted it opened in October of 2006. It was left to an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy to explain the 'joys' weren't all that and what it's like to take away a balloon from a child for fear that it may contain poisonous gas.
On Tuesday, the US military announced: "A U.S. Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related injury in the vicinity of Qayyarah Airfield West Dec. 31. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." Among the Tuesday violence, Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported a Baghdad bombing at "a funeral" that claimed 30 lives and left thrity-eight wounded. And, in political news, Reuter's Andy Sullivan explained the 20008 GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney declared "the Bush administration mismanged the Iraq war, distancing himself from his party's unpopular president two days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential contest." Sadly, among the GOP, that does count as 'brave.' Future distancing may include GOP candidates noting that education is actually good for people and that a person's health improves when they have a roof over their head. Bit by bit, they may make it up to the 20th century before the 21st ends.
Back to Tuesday's Baghdad bombing at the funeral, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Qais Mizher (New York Times) call it "the most brazen and deadly attack in the capital in months. The force of the blast scattered severed arms and legs about the site of the attack, a house where scores of friends and relatives had gathered to pay tribute to a man killed three days earlier by a car bomb in Tayaran Square in central Baghdad." Joshua Partlow and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) report on Adil Ahmed (chemistry professor) responding to the fire as "mourner were screaming with grief and rage, and many others were scattered on the ground, dead or dying. The chemistry professore recalled bending down to one man who had saliva running down his ching. He pumped his chest and breathed into his mouth, again and again, in a vain attempt to save him. He ran to other, less seriously injured men, and helped drag or carry them to cars waiting to rush them to the hospital. He noticed that some of the dead were still sitting upright in the burning tent on their plastic chairs. After an hour of this, his clothes were messy with blood." BBC notes the dead at 30 and the wounded at thirty-two. Reuters notes today the death toll is now 34 from the funeral bombing.
And the violence continued today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad explosion that injured five people and a woman exploded herself (via a bomb filled vest) in Baquba resulting in dead and wounded. Reuters notes the death toll from the Baquba bombing has climbed to 10 and that "The attack came a day after a bomber detonated his explosive vest in a tent crowded with mourners at a Baghdad funeral." Peter Graff (Reuters) reports it is "the latest in a string of suicide bombings that has seen a major strike nearly every day of the past week despite an overall decline in violence. The woman blew herself up with an explosive vest at a checkpoint of neighborhood patrol volunteers in Baquba, capital of the restive Diyala province. Twenty-eight people were wounded including some women, police said." BBC notes, "Most of the casualties are said to be members of a local volunteer force opposed to al-Qaeda. Another 15 people were wounded in the explosion." The "Awakening" councils which, Reuters reminds, are "paid by U.S. forces . . . and are now springing up throughout Sunni Arab areas with U.S. funding and support." And the US military has issued a statement declaring that "the suicide bomber was in fact a male".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 civilians wounded by unknown assailants firing in Basra. Reuters notes a home invasion outside Kut in which two brothers were shot dead.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters also notes, "U.S. forces said they had accidentally killed a woman when they fired a missile from a helicopter at a group planting a bomb on Tuesday evening in the northern city of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad. The missile missed its target and struck a nearby building, the U.S. military said."
Meanwhile, IRIN reports 133 "women were killed last year in Basra . . . either by religious vigilantes or as a result of so-called 'honor' killings" according to the Basra Security Committee which said 79 were assassinated for "violating Islamic teachings," while 47 were assassinated via "'honor' killings". Assassinated? Yes, I'm using that term. This is the feminicide that's been ongoing in Iraq. There women were assassinated as part of a war against women. For more on the topic, you can see Bay Fang's "The Talibanization of Iraq" (Ms. magazine, spring 2007 issue) and MADRE.
"And I said, 'Look, maybe something good will come from this Vietnam tragedy. It's such an obvious blunder, we'll never go down that road again. So maybe it will save us from repeating this on an even more costly scale.' And of course, now I don't know what to tell my daughters," so explains George McGovern to Laura S. Washington (In These Times). It's a point that escapes many including War Pornographer Michael Gordon who shows up in this morning's New York Times with a write up of an interview with John Edwards. The article's 'value' includes: (a) noting that Sunday in Iowa, Edwards hadn't planned to speak about Iraq but people attending the events brought it up and (b) revealing just how much Gordo hates women. On the front page of the paper, he takes a paragraph to paint Elizabeth Edwards as 'intruding' at the end of the interview to note he didn't ask John Edwards about one point and, because she's such a brazen hussy in his mind, he uses another paragraph on A12 to return to the same point. The Times has posted the transcript (with Gordo edited for 'clarity' and 'brevity') online and, anyone reading it will quickly see, Elizabeth Edwards spoke twice (one sentence the first time to raise the point Gordo had ignored -- Iraqi forces could be trained outside of Iraq under John Edwards' plan; two sentences to remind Gordo, who was gaping at her as John Edwards discussed this part of his plan, that her husband was one the speaking). The transcript is always a must with Gordo who is a very 'creative' type of reporter. John Edwards tells Gordo, "My own judgment is, let's assume for a minute that come January 2009 we still have a significant troop presence in Iraq, which I think is likely. If that is the case then I think another nine to ten months of American troop involvement and expenditure of taxpayer money with an intense effort to resolve the political conflict and intense diplomacy, then at that point America has done what it can do." What Edwards proposes in the interview is troops start coming home and trainers are not keep in Iraq because he feels it fuels dependency on those being trained and keeping them there requires keeping more US forces there. That's why Elizabeth Edwards was correct to note that Gordo had gone through the entire (long) interview without asking about that point. Gordo misses that point and misses most of the points. He has no concept of the remarks or experience George McGovern speaks of when he's relating the horror of Vietnam to the horror of today. He does attempt to play concerned about Iraqis -- he uses them to hide behind his desire for the illegal war to continue. The obvious response to Gordo's "What if?" is that no one knows and Edwards does get into that noting he's not going to respond to a hypothetical. As John Edwards explains his plan to Gordo, the bulk of troops would begin moving out of Iraq within nine months of Edwards being sworn in. Gordo doesn't ask many questions at all (read the transcript, he's more interested in attempting to badger and browbeat) so the issue of the US Embassy in Iraq is not touched on. (However, all US embassies around the world have military support stationed with them.)
On the issue of citizens bringing up Iraq to Edwards on Sunday, The MoJo Blog notes this Des Moines Register poll of "likely Democratic caucus participants" on issues (scroll down almost mid-way and it's on the left) which finds "War in Iraq" the number one issue (28%) with health care the next largest issue (22%). For all the media-created drama since last week, "terrorism" was cited by only two-percent. December 23rd, Ava and I reviewed PBS' Washington Weak's year-end wrap up and noted of one gas bag: "Gloria Borger is just a dope period. After we got over the shock of her face (and a new hairstyle and color), we were left with the same old Gloria, pushing water cooler spin off as fact. We watched in wonder as she lied and proclaimed (prefaced with the weasel words 'I think') 'the big issue on both sides is immigration.' 'We think' she's got too many miles on her to think anyone sees her as young and fresh despite all the work done." and "immigration." For the record, the poll lists "immigration" as a concern to only 2% of likely Democratic cacus participants.
Edwards, in the interview with Gordo (transcript) notes that there is no progress in the political situation in Iraq. As an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers observes at Inside Iraq, why should there be:
We have 275 members who suppose to represent the Iraqi people in their demands and suffering. On the contrary, they have the highest salaries in Iraq or in the world with the incredible privilege they have from houses and mansions, cars, body guards, real states, free tickets to go abroad and above all their space of freedom to go wherever they want to go without taking any kind of permission or telling the government that they go to this place or that one. They are really careless of the Iraqi people's demands and needs. If we came back to 2006 and 2007 to find out what achievements did the parliament do , we would find nothing. I tried to call some prominent members to have a bit of information of their achievements during the last 20 months of their work in the parliament within Al-Maliki government. I got none of them …really none of them. They suppose to represent Iraqis, but they are not even trouble themselves to answer the phones as they are either switched off or out of the coverage area. Yes, they are because most of them are not in Iraq spending their time with their families who settle in London, Amman, Dubai, Cairo and Doha or they want to enjoy their time away of their families in Beirut, Paris , Damascus or Rome
The correspondent goes on to note Ayad Allawi resides in London, Adnan Al-Duleimi wasn't reachable and is apparently in Jordan. Ibrahim Al-Jafrai is in London and Rose Shawis is traveling "abroad". All four men (Rose is a man) are apparently out of the country. Summering?
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
the new york timesmichael gordonmichael r. gordonrichard a. oppel jr.
stephen farrellsolomon moorethe washington postjoshua partlow
bay fang
ms.
ms. magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)