Friday, May 25, 2007

Feminist Wire Daily, etc.

If you missed it, Bully Boy signed the do-nothing legislation passed by the do-nothing Congress which shows you how little it does since he didn't veto it.

Whether or not he signed a signing statement at the same time, we'll have to wait to find out.

I'm posting this in full from Feminist Wire Daily:

A gender gap held in the House's vote yesterday to approve a bill authorizing supplemental funding for the war in Iraq without benchmarks for withdrawal. Of the total 142 votes opposing the measure, 37 were made by women. Women accounted for about 26 percent of the "no" vote, even though women comprise only 16 percent of the members of the House of Representatives. In all, 52.8 percent of the women representatives in the House voted against the measure, compared to only 28.8 percent of the men representatives.The so-called compromise bill authorizes almost $100 billion to continue military operations in Iraq through September 2007. Unlike a previous bill that passed Congress and was vetoed by President Bush, this bill does not include benchmarks for US withdrawal from Iraq. The bill also includes a minimum wage hike for Americans that extends to the Northern Mariana Islands. In the Senate, no gender gap is identifiable in the 80-14 vote to approve the measure. Only two women senators -- Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Clinton (D-NY) -- voted against the bill.

C.I. called me right before boarding the flight home and asked if I could include it. I was happy to. There were so many problems with the snapshot today (I didn't hear all) that it didn't make it, a thing by Dalia Hashad didn't make it in. It was a nightmare apparently (mainly to being lost, e-mailed versions that were dictated not hitting the site and C.I. not having copies of what was sent -- in which case C.I. could have just copied and pasted it). But the other reason I am glad to include it is that I agree 100% with C.I.'s "And the war drags on . . ." that went up last night.

War is a feminist issue, peace is a feminist issue and little girls who would rather tackle anything but war and peace, while their countries engages in illegal wars, should probably call themselves "Mental Midgets" and not feminism. As Rebecca has pointed out many times, the term is not that elastic. You're either a feminist or you're not. And a bunch of hot air fluff and tidbits of gossip could be found in Redbook, House & Garden, Ladies' Home Journal and assorted other rags women once had to turn to if they wanted to feel at all catered to. In the days before a lively feminist press, they could go to 'women's magazines.' I think many of the little girls today have confused their right to talk about sex with a law that they must talk about it. If you've got nothing to say about an illegal war, you ain't a feminist. You're play acting, you're pretending, you're boring us all, but you're not a feminist. Quit degrading the term.

(The friend C.I. refers to in that entry, a personal hero of mine, told me she thought it was 'cute' the way Our Ladies of the Mudflap appear to be under pressure now from their own readers -- so much so that they now are attempting to swipe Ava and C.I.'s statement -- noted regularly in their TV commentaries -- about giving "a" feminist view and not "the" feminist view. As she pointed out, they've done nothing for the last four years but tell everyone they were the last word. She thinks, and I agree, feminists, real feminists, have about had enough of their shit. I hope so because I sure have had enough of them disgracing themselves on a regular basis while claiming to be feminists and making us all look miniscule -- as if the only things on our minds were clothes and sex. That's not feminism and I seriously think an intervention should have been done a long time ago.)

I'll leave parentheticals to note that considering Michelle Obama's portfolio and corportate-servitude, you have to be a real idiot to gush "Michelle for President!" and you have to be such an idiot that you're not even slightly aware that you come off like an idiot.

An illegal war is going on in Iraq, people are dying, Iraqi women are losing every right they had under this 'liberation.' No one needs to hear about your book (that's not selling) or your bar hopping or how you've rightly been called out for being Whiter than White.

And you really shouldn't rip off people (in this case Ava and C.I.) without crediting them. That also isn't feminism.

On what did make it into the snapshot, C.I. includes a great section from Evelyn Pringle but I wanted to emphasize another section (and encourage you to read her article in full). This is from Pringle's "Congress Gives War Profiteers Another $100 Billion" (CounterPunch):


As citizens, we have no control over our own government. Never in my 57 years on this earth have I been so ashamed to be an American knowing that every day that the war continues we are knowingly allowing our soldiers and innocent Iraqis to be killed or injured with absolutely no justification, other than because politicians believe it will be beneficial to their careers to allow Bush's failed war policies to continue.
While political commentators discuss voter odds, myself and probably most Americans are sitting at home unable to watch the news without breaking down crying as the latest pictures flash on the screen showing the happy faces of the young soldiers who are now dead, knowing full well that the next night there will be more pictures of dead soldiers because the politicians have made it clear that the citizens paying their salaries have no right to demand that their elected officials put an end to the killing in Iraq.
It would be interesting to take a poll to see how often each politician even looks at the smiling faces of the dead soldiers and the second question in the poll should be, for those who claim that they do look at these faces every day and still vote to give Bush more funding, how many had to use drugs or alcohol to get to sleep during the 7 days following the vote.


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, May 25, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, 63% of Americans favor withdrawal from Iraq in the latest poll (even if the New York Times buries that fact), in Shreveport a self-check out is arrested (the fourth for the year), the US military announces more deaths of US service members with May already being the second highest month for American troops deaths, and more.Yesterday, both houses of the US Congress demonstrated how quickly they can act . . . when anything stands in the way of their own vacation. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "Congress has approved nearly $100 billion dollars in war spending through September without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq." Goodman notes the final House vote was 280 for and 142 against and the final Senate vote was 80 in favor and 14 against. In addition, Democracy Now! provided clips of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- who demonstrated that sneering at science and academics isn't solely a GOP thing as she used the ridiculously low figure of "over 100,000 Iraqis" dead when the study conducted by the British medical journal The Lancet placed the figure, last year, at over 655,000 -- and House Minority Leader John Boehner -- who demonstrated he could stay "on message" ("terrorists!") even while sobbing like a guest on the daytime TV circuit speaking of their 'personal' battle with an addiction -- Boehner apparently being addicted to illegal war, mass killing, and fantasy. Evelyn Pringle (CounterPunch) observes, "Congress has demonstrated its unconditional love for the Bush administration by handing the war profiteers another $100 billion worth of good reasons to keep the war in Iraq rolling along at full-throttle. [. . . ] And the statements in speeches made by members of Congress while debating the bills don't mean anything because 95% of Americans never hear those speeches. Honest politicians should be out screaming to any reporter who will listen to educate Americans about where the hundreds of billions of tax dollars have ended up. This war is 100 times worse than Viet Nam. At least with Viet Nam, the war profits were not being funneled over the backs of our dead soldiers in plain sight directly into the bank accounts of current and former members of the administrations in power at the time. Nor were they being funneled to the family bank accounts of the Presidents who were in office during the Viet Nam war." The BBC notes that, following the grandstanding of Congress and the Bully Boy, "Hours later, the US military reported the deaths of five soldiers in Iraq." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid laughably announced of the bill that fully funds the illegal war and makes the Democrats equal partners in Bully Boy's illegal war, "The days of blank cheques and green lights for his failed policy are over." By which Reid appears to mean that the US Congress has instead handed Bully Boy a debit card and asked kindly that he please not visit the ATMs too often.The Democrats full bodied, naked embrace of the illegal war comes at a time when the American people turn ever more against the illegal war. The public began turning against the war in 2005 and, since then, the opinion has only hardened. A CBS poll this week found that 76% of Americans polled felt "the war is going badly" -- an increase of ten percent -- and 61% maintain that the US "should have stayed out" of Iraq. A CBS poll? Well the New York Times has finally agreed to allow their names back on the joint polling and somehow managed to avoid all the media critics who must have been sleeping while CBS issued one poll after another on Iraq the last few months while the paper of little record appeared to suddenly be poll shy. Though they weren't called out on that, they should have been. The poll is, indeed, a joint-poll by CBS and the New York Times -- as were the recent polls billed just as CBS polls because the paper really didn't want to cover the American public's ever growing opposition to the illegal war. But they've put their names back on the poll. And gladly run it . . . under the headline "Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start" . . . on page A16 of today's paper. To no one's surprise at the paper, Janet Elder avoids it like a plague so it's left for Dalia Sussman to write it up. The paper hasn't been in the news business for over a century, it's in the management business and Sussman's happy to do her part. Which is how her ridiculous write up can avoid the issue of withdrawal which the poll found [PDF format warning for the link] 63% of Americans favor (32% wanted no timetable for withdrawal -- Bully Boy's approval rating was 30%). 63% of Americans favorite withdrawal from Iraq? Sounds like a front page headline. (Sussman doesn't even note it in her laughable write up until paragraph nine where it's noted for two sentences and then never built upon or mentioned again.)Not only isn't it a headline, the Times (again) buries the poll deep inside the paper. When they refused to run with the joint-polling over the previous months, questions should have been asked but possibly people don't actually read the Times anymore, they just visit links? Though this poll doesn't make the front page, another does, on immigration. (The Times is working overtime to sell the Congressional efforts to strip immigrants of their rights -- including immigrants that are American citizens because they were born in the United States.) 63% of Americans say a timetable needs to be set for Iraq withdrawal and the Times publishes that on the same day that the Congress votes to continue funding the illegal war and drops any mention of withdrawal. The poll's not news? 76% saying the illegal war is "going badly" and 61% say the US never should have invaded Iraq and Congress elects to do nothing but it's not news?Well why not? 3 American soldiers went missing two Saturdays ago -- in an attack that killed 4 others and 1 Iraqi translator, and the paper didn't front page that until seven days after it happened. One of the 3 has now been declared dead and the paper's not interested in front paging that either. (The search continues for the 2 still missing.) However, Michael Gordon's unsourced speculation that Moqtada al-Sadr was in Iran is front page news -- despite the fact that it has no named "American official" source to it, despite the fact that it doesn't include the news that al-Sadr spoke in Kufa today (calling for US troops to leave Iraq). Our Rona Barrett of the Grey Lady leaps to the front page with a story proclaiming al-Sadr has been in Iran despite the fact that, as the BBC noted today, "This was never confirmed."Exactly whom is Gordo working for because, for a reporter, he appears to miss a great deal? Last week, one of the world's oldest think tanks, Chatham House, issued another report. As expected, the same mainstream media that ignored the previous report (taking Tony Blair to task for getting in bed with the United States and becoming nothing but a lackey to the Bully Boy) foamed over the mouth on this one (including Gordo's own paper -- maybe he can't read?)
The PDF format report "
Accepting Realities in Iraq" included a heading entitled "Muqtada al-Sadr cannot be ignored" -- a position Gordo appears to share. However, Chatham House argued that due to his base, popularity and influence, al-Sadr cannot be ignored and strong efforts should be made to bring him into the political process. (Yesterday's news that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki was replacing the six ministers from al-Sadr's camp who had resigned would indicate that al-Maliki also hasn't read the report.) This at a time when Gareth Porter (IPS) reports that al-Sadr (a Shi'ite cleric) appears to have strong support from the Sunni resistance with the binding factor being their joint demand for US forces out of Iraq. Porter is offering an analysis and building on (and crediting) work done by Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) at the start of this week. Also at the start of the week, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) broke the news that in 2004, the US military attempted to assassinate al-Sadr in Najaf which, surprisingly?, never made it into the New York Times.But then, so much of the violence doesn't -- the real 'hidden violence' despite the Times' laughable claims last Saturday.Bombings?While the US military attempts to divide Baghdad by 'walls' (over the objections of the puppet of the occupation), some Iraqis attempt to divide the capital by bombing bridges. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes the latest bombing -- "the bridge linking Al Adil and Al Khadraa neighborhoods in west Baghad" -- as well Baghdad mortar attacks that killed 4 people (15 wounded), and a Baghdad explosion that killed 1 person, a car bombing in Muqdadiyah that killed 4 police officers (6 civilians wounded).


Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that three farmers were shot dead in "the orchards of Um Al Romman village". Reuters notes that a tribal sheik was shot dead in Falluja.



Corpses?


Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 20 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes two corpses were discovered in Latifiya.
Reuters also notes the following announced deaths of US service members in Iraq (all announced today): 2 US soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad (Thursday), 1 US soldier killed in Nineveh Province by a roadside bomb (Thursday), 1 US soldier killed by a Baghdad roadside bomb (Tuesday), 1 US soldier killed by in Salahaddin Province by a roadside bomb (Thursday), and 1 US Soldier killed by gunfire (Thursday) in Diyala Province. The six deaths add to a mounting count for the month which ICCC calculates to currently be 93 for the month thus far. Only April has had more US military fatalities with 104 and, of course, May still has six days left in it. ICCC's count for the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war stands at 3444.
Among the victims of violence are women though they remain the true hidden victims.
Kasia Anderson (TruthDig) interviews Yanar Mohammed (Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq) and asks early on the obvious (though usually unasked) question, "How did the onset of the Iraq war change things for Iraqi women, specifically?" Mohammed replies, "Well, although people on this part of the world think that Iraqi women are liberated, actually, we have lost all of the achievements or all the status that we used to have. It is no longer safe to leave your house and get groceries. We're not speaking here about a young woman trying to reach the university, because that is beginning to get too difficult. We're not speaking here about women who are trying to go back and forth to work and even those of my friends who do that already because they have to--many of the police at work are being killed for sectarian reasons. So, you have to witness all sorts of atrocities just going back and forth to work, and if there is this new [policy] of Sunni and Shiite, checking all the IDs of people, you leave the house and you do not guarantee that you come back safe. [. . .] Well, the myth of democracy has killed already half a million Iraqis, and if it were giving us real democracy, where people are represented according to their political affiliations or their economic understanding or their social justice affiliations, that would have been understood. But the way Iraqis are represented is according to their religion and their ethnicities. It is as if the U.S. administration is trying to tell the whole world that Iraqis are not entitled to political understanding or political activity. The political formula that was forwarded to us is a total insult for a part of the world where the politics are very much thriving and all kinds of politics--with the dawn of the war, thousands of political parties have registered. And they all wanted to be competing, or let's say running into democracy, but who was empowered, who was supported? It's mostly the religious and mostly the ethnic groups, and the women's groups? The U.S. administration wasn't really interested to speak to, let's say, free women's groups. They preferred to bring decorative factors to the parliament, where they look like women, but they all voted for a constitution that is against women. And the constitution at this moment has imposed Shariah law upon us, when in the times before the war we had more of a secular constitution that respected women’s rights. So, it's one more thing lost for this war."
Yanar Mohammed mentioned university students.
On Tuesday, the Ibn Al Haitham college faced a mortar attack in Baghdad that left at least 4 students dead and at least 25 wounded while, same day, an attack, in Baghdad, on a mini-bus claimed the lives of 9 students (including two female students). On Wednesday, Baghdad's National Theater was attacked with mortarts leaving at least one person wounded. The theater is where college students and recent college graduates have mounted a new play, The Intensive Care Unit, which castmember Rita Casber described to Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) as "Our play is a miniature of our reality. It conveys the reality the people in Iraq are subjected to." Londono noted that Casber is the sole woman in the cast and late to the cast -- she joined only after death threats (over the 'crime' of wearing a tank top on stage) forced the original actress to leave the production.On the subject of schools, Alive in Baghdad intervews students at the girls' school in Baghdad, Safina Middle School. The link is not currently working, we'll quote the students next week. Last month, Alive in Baghdad interviewed Hameeda al-Bassam who works a private library in Baghdad and spoke of the difficulties she encounters traveling, in her wheelchair, through checkpoints and scenes of violence to arrive at work. She spoke of inside the library as one of the few places where the chaos and violence has yet to emerge and noted, with regret, that due to the violence she has had to curtail her work week. Please note that the videos have audio and an English translation at the bottom which can serve as closed captioning.Also on the subject of women in Iraq, the AP reported yesterday that Clenard M. Simmons was given a 30 year sentence after pleading guilty (April 5th) "to four counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for five attacks from February 2004 to May 2005" which took place at Fort Hood as well as while he was stationed in Iraq and the victims were five female US service members. The AP noted that "Simmons attacked the soldiers in their barracks, groping and threatening them."Though frequently ignored and swept under the rug, women serving in Iraq are under very real attack from those serving with them. For more on this, see Jane Hoppen's "Women in the Military: Who's Got Your Back?," Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff's "The Rape of the 'Hadji Girl'," andAllison Tobey's "Serving in the Rape Zone" (Off Our Backs); Traci Hukill's "A Peculiar Version of Friendly Fire: Female Troops Face Double Danger" (The Progressive); and "Women and the military" (The Third Estate Sunday Review). And always look to what happened to Suzanne Swift. Swift went to Iraq wanting to serve her country (US) and quickly discovered that those above her expected her to serve them. Repeated attempts to stop the abuse and harassment resulted in no action (unless a course in how Swift could learn not to 'invite' harassment is considered 'action' -- anyone thinking it is should have their head examined). Swift self-checked out. As Sara Rich, Swift's mother, has noted, Swift wasn't against the illegal war. Swift wasn't saying, "I will not go back because I'm against the war." She checked out because when the military refuses to discipline their own, you have to take the situation into your own hands. To not do so would be 'inviting' harassment. There's not a (rational) woman alive who should be able to question Swift's decision to self-check out. She was abused, she was harassed, she was the victim of command rape, and the military did nothing. She went through channels and rather than disciplining the ones breaking the code of conduct (and exhibiting criminal behaviors) the military's 'answer' was to 'teach' Swift how not to 'invite' criminal acts upon her person. (Which is similar to the US military's refusal to punish those enlisted males who regularly attack women serving when the women go to take a shower. Instead of coming down hard and sending a strong message that the crime of rape is not tolerated in the US military, the military elects to caution women to 'buddy up' and never visit the latrines alone.) So Swift self-checked out, the smartest thing she could have done and no (rational) woman would say otherwise.Swift is now against the war and the treatment she experienced (laughably known as military 'justice') went a long way towards opening her eyes. In a climate that regularly rails against the military banning YouTube and blog postings, you might think the gag order imposed upon Swift would raise some righteous indignation but websites have largely been silent. Swift's mother, Sara Rich, is not gagged and Melissa Sanders (Socialst Alternative) interviews her -- Rich explains that her daughter's been extended in the military through January 2009 and, in response to a question about the "sexualized violence against female soldiers," rightly notes,"We're teaching guys about 18 to kill, and that killing's ok, before they are even allowed to legally drink. If you do that, I mean, who's going to tell them that raping isn't ok?"Along with Sanders' article, more information can be found at Suzanne Swift's website. (Which her mother runs and the military has no control over Sara Rich.)

Turning to the issue of war resisters,
The Shreveport Times reports that Jackie Leroy Moore was arrested in Shreveport today for self-checking out and that he is the fourth self-check out to be arrested in Shreveport this year. Though the military continues to undercount the number of enlisted choosing to self-check out (undercounts for the press, they know the privately held number), this is part of the growing resistance within the military to the illegal war. "It now appears that if this war in Iraq is to end, it will be our soldiers who will have to bring it about," observes Albert Petraca (JuneauEmpire). "Nowadays, our soldiers also know this war is lost. Thankfully, soldiers have begun to take matters into their own hands. From U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's refusing deployment to Iraq, to the appeal for redress now circulating among active-duty personnel, to Iraq Veterans Against the War's recent decision to support resisters, we are seeing the initial stirrings of what will likely grow into a movement of soldiers in revolt. The Defense Department recently admitted that at least 3,196 troops deserted in 2006, with an 8 percent increase already in the first quarter of 2007. Plummeting enlistment standards are unlikely to fill this void. The life-altering decisions made by these brave men and women are, in many ways, even more difficult than those made by former resisters. Today's volunteer soldier, unlike Vietnam-era draftees, is too often callously scolded by the mostly comfortable for having freely signed a recruitment contract and, therefore, must suffer the consequences. This judgmental attitude reveals a profound disrespect for service men and women who answered their country's call based on a belief that their government spoke truthfully about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to 9/11. We now know that the pretense used to play on their genuine feelings of duty was little more than a pack of lies."
Watada is part of growing movement of resistance within the US military that also includes Joshua Key, Terri Johnson, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson,
Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.



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


Heads up, the latest
Bill Moyers Journal begins airing in some markets tonight (PBS -- each station can determine when they air an episode) and features Maxine Hong-Kingston. (Transcripts and video will go up at Bill Moyers Journal.)



Finally, independent journalist John Pilger is on a speaking tour with his new book Freedom Next Time and his documentary Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror (which looks at DC, Afghanistan and Iraq). June 7th, he will discuss his book with Amy Goodman at The New School, Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street, beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:15). Admission is $5 per person and students (with ID) can attend for free. Pilger will sign copies of his book afterwards and Amy Goodman will sign copies of her latest book (written with her brother David Goodman) Static. "For ticket information, contact (212) 229-5488 or
boxoffice@newschool.edu. For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, click here or e-mail pilgerny@gmail.com."
June 11th, Pilger will be in Los Angeles at the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center (244 S. San Pedro St.) and will discuss his book and show his documentary beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:00 pm). The price of admission to the even is five dollars. "Directions, maps, and parking info at:
http://www.jaccc.org/directions.htmPresented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, and The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call or visit the JACCC. Box office: 213-680-3700 (Box Office Hours: Monday - Saturday: Noon - 5 pm)For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilger.la@gmail.com."


June 13th finds him in San Francisco showing his film and discussing his book at
Yerba Beuna Center for Arts (beginning at 7:00 pm, doors open at 6:00 pm) and the price of admission is $15 general and $5 for students. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, and KPFA, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call 415-978-2787 or order online at http://www.ybca.org/. In person tickets at YBCA Box office located inside the Galleries and Forum Building, 701 Mission Street at Third. (Hours: Tue, Wed, Fri, Sat & Sun: noon - 5 pm; Thu: noon - 8 pm.) For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilgersf@gmail.com."


From San Francisco, he moves on to Chicago for the 2007 Socialism conference. At 11:30 am Saturday June 16th, he and
Anthony Arnove will participate in a conversation, audience dialogue and book signing (Arnove is the author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) and that evening (still June 16th) at 7:30 Pilger will be at Chicago Crowne Plaza O'Hare (5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018) as part of a panel of international activists. To attend the conference, the fee is $85. For Saturday and Sunday only, the price is $70. To attend only one session, the cost is ten dollars. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. Co-sponsors: Obrera Socialista, Socialist Worker, International Socialist Review, and Haymarket Books. For ticket information, call 773-583-8665 or e-mail info@socialismconference.org For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org. For more information, email info@socialismconference.org."


The Socialism 2007 conference will take place in Chicago from June 14-17. Along with Pilger and Arnove, others participating will include Dahr Jamail, Laura Flanders, Kelly Dougherty, Joshua Frank, Amy Goodman, Sharon Smith, Dave Zirin, Camilo Mejia, Jeremy Scahill, Jeffrey St. Clair and many others.
















































Thursday, May 24, 2007

Dennis Kucinich, Mavis Staples

JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of -- even within Iraq, this law seems to be going nowhere, obviously because the contending forces there. What do you think in terms of an actual act that would permit the possibility of continuing a legalized framework for the trading of oil from Iraq that should occur?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, first of all, this is a question that is for the people of Iraq to decide when they’re not under occupation. You have to keep in mind that this process that the Bush administration has been pushing began even before the invasion of Iraq. They were meeting with oil companies, looking at how they could create a beachhead, essentially, in the Middle East, and they have been looking at the prize of Iraq oil for many years now.
And so, you have to remember that even though it looks like this legislation isn't going anywhere, there is enormous pressure being put on the Iraqi government, and you can bet that before too long they'll put the kind of pressure on them that the Iraqi government will break, will relent, and go ahead and pass this law that will permit about 80% of its oil to be controlled by multinational oil companies. Now, keep in mind that Iraq has as many as 300 billion barrels of oil. At a market price that looks like it’s going toward $70-a-barrel, you can be talking about $21 trillion worth of oil, 80% of which will be under the control of multinational oil companies, if it's up to the Bush administration.
This is a crime, literally. And so, I'm challenging it. I'm letting the Congress know about it, and I’m going to keep an eye on this, because I think it's the basis for a war crime charge.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, your hometown paper. It says, "It's all about Iraq’s oil -- rich, abundant, and coveted by multinational companies waiting to line their deep pockets. Or so said [Rep.] Dennis Kucinich Wednesday in an unusual hourlong address on the House floor. He laid out his contention that the White House and Democratic-led Congress are helping oil companies grab a stake in Iraq's vast oil fields while claiming to be interested merely in winding down the Iraq war. The claim has brought Kucinich derision within his own Democratic Party. Leaders reject the suggestion that they would help 'privatize' Iraqi oil. And Republicans dismiss him altogether, with Republican Party spokesman Dan Ronayne saying, 'It sounds like congressman Kucinich is trying to get noticed with a nutty conspiracy theory.'" Your response, Congressman Kucinich?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, if you look at the facts, the facts speak for themselves. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Vice President Cheney was meeting with oil company executives. They were planning this takeover of Iraqi oil. You know, everyone knows that it has one of the largest oil supplies in the world. This war has been about oil from the beginning. And I've been one of the few people who's been willing to challenge it and say that. And I think the American people need to know that our government has been instrumental in trying to push the privatization of Iraq oil for the profit of multinational oil companies. Our soldiers shouldn't be there in Iraq. We need to bring our troops home. And when someone looks at the long test of truth over the last five years, I'm the one who's been telling the truth. This administration has not told the truth. And some of my colleagues in Congress have kept their head in the sand, while there's been enormous catastrophe in Iraq, loss of life there, loss of lives of our troops, up to over $500 billion wasted already in American taxpayers' funds. I mean, someone has to stand for the truth here. Someone has to stand for the Constitution. And that's what I'm doing.


That's from "Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Democratic Leadership Failing U.S. Citizenry on War" (Democracy Now!) today and if you're someone outraged by the Democratic caving that is going on, I hope you'll remember that. I hope you'll remember it a month or two from now when you think "Maybe Hillary's not so bad?" or "Obama's 'elequent' -- he must be because dumb ass Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote it in the latest issue of The Nation!" Dennis Kucinich is electable and if you doubt it, read KvH's dumb ass co-written article and note how little space she gives to Kucinich while slobbering over Obama like a high strung school girl.

Keesha e-mailed asking if I knew anything about Mavis Staples' new CD? No, other than something I saw in Rolling Stone. After I get the next two CD reviews done, I'll listen to it and see if I can find a review in it. But I can share this for now, Liz Wheatley's "Mavis Staples -- We’ll Never Turn Back" (The Socialist Worker):

"If he can preach it, we can sing it." Those were the words of Pops Staples, the father of Mavis, after he heard Martin Luther King speaking in Alabama in 1963.
The Staples Singers sang the soul of the civil rights movement. They recorded the song March Up Freedom's Highway to coincide with the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, as well as others such as Why Am I Treated So Bad?, Long Walk To DC and When Will We Be Paid For The Work We’ve Done.
They sang when Martin Luther King gave his last, famous "I've been to the mountain top" speech to striking workers in Memphis the night before he was assassinated.
Now Mavis Staples has released a new album, We'll Never Turn Back, that is firmly rooted in the spirit and message of the 1960s civil rights movement.
The album cover shows a photograph of school students from Birmingham, Alabama, facing down the fire hoses as they protested. They were arrested until their numbers filled the jails.
Backing vocals on the album include some of the original SNCC Freedom Singers. A number of the tracks, such as Eyes On The Prize and We Shall Not Be Moved, are cover versions of traditional songs with new arrangements.
In The Mississippi River is one of the new songs on the album that effectively recreates the feelings of fear and tension experienced by civil rights campaigners as they travelled through the South.
My Own Eyes, written by Mavis Staples, is a personal view of her experiences, including the time her family were jailed "by Southern racist cops" as they toured. She makes a powerful statement about the situation for black people 50 years on from the struggles and how Hurricane Katrina exposed that things still needed to change.
Mavis writes in her introduction to the album that her family felt that they had to stand up and be heard in the 1960s. This is still true today, she adds, "We've got to keep pushing to make the world a better place." A very timely sentiment and album.
We'll Never Turn Back
Mavis Staples
CD out now on Anti Records
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by »
making a donation.
top of page

Mavis Staples may be most famous for "Respect Yourself," "Let's Do It Again" and "I'll Take You There" to name but three of the biggest hits The Staple Singers had. I've been off in work mode, Iraq mode and trying to figure out the CD reviews I'm writing so thank you to Keesha for suggesting this one. I read something in (or maybe at) Rolling Stone and it just sailed right past me. As I soon as I get the next two CD reviews written (should be this weekend and then next), I'll give it a listen. I'm a big Mavis fan (even the Graffiti Bridge work) so it shouldn't be a problem. (A problem would mean hating the CD. I really don't go out of my way to slam in my reviews -- other than in the case of the Disney Kids. If it's hugely disappointing, I'll just find something else to review unless it's being hyped like crazy.) (Let me add that there are things I do not review just because I can't find a way in so if you're thinking, "That's why Kat didn't review . . ." E-mail if you're thinking I hated something you liked. Honestly, the only one I can think of right now that I took a pass on was Maria McKee whom I love but the last studio album just didn't do it for me.)

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, May 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the 3 US soldiers missing for nearly 2 weeks drops down to 2 missing, the US military announces the deaths of more service members, the military attempts to punish soldiers who speak out, and the craven and cowardly Democrats get another round of headlines.


One day shy of two weeks since 3 US soldiers went missing in Iraq,
Garrett Therolf and Louis Sahagun (Los Angeles Times) report that the U.S. military confirmed the corpse discovered in the Euphrates yesterday was one of the 3 missing soliders, Joseph J. Anzack Jr. Jeremiah Marquez (AP) notes that Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez remain missing and, "According to a U.S. military official, a second body was found in the area near where Anzack's body was discovered. The official, who requested anonymity because the information has not yet been released, said there was no indication yet whether the body was another of the missing soldiers." Therolf and Sahagun reported "that there were two other bodies in the river, also clad in U.S. military uniforms" according to an unnamed Iraqi officer.

Fall out continues for the Democratic leadership in the US Congress' decision to cave and give Bully Boy everything he asked for in the war supplemental.
Laura Flanders (Common Dreams) tells of spending time yesterday with the mother whose son is in the National Guard and told her, "I was counting on the Democrats to stop this war". [Reminder, RadioNation with Laura Flanders moves to a Sunday broadcast this Sunday, 1:00 pm EST.] Corporate Crime Reporter (CounterPunch) announces, "Behold the spineless Democratic Party. On Iraq, no deadlines. On trade, no enforceable worker protections. In the face of withering pressure from the oil industry, the Democrats in the House, led by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), have reportedly castrated their own legislation." BuzzFlash editorializes, "Since the 2006 elections, the Dem honchos have been speaking loudly and carrying a little stick. They claim that they don't have the votes to override a veto. But they do have the votes to keep passing a bill that Bush will veto, effectively bringing the war in Iraq to a close because funding will run out. They can end the war in Iraq, but are scared of being labeled with 'losing the war.' And this is a scarlet letter that they fear cannot be worn in a superpower nation that sees itself as the entitled righteous victor in any war that it starts, no matter how faulty the premise or counterproductive to our real national security that war may be. So the death continues, of young men and women -- many who are patroitic enough to believe that the lies told to them by the Bush Administration are true." United for Peace & Justice notes that "instead of standing up for what's right, the Democratic leadership has caved in to Bush. They are giving him a check for $100 billion to continue and futher EXPAND the war. That surge they all claimed they don't like? The money for it is in this bill." John Nichols (via Common Dreams) argues that "the willingness of Pelosi and Reid to advance a measure that does not include a withdrawal timeline allows Bush to conduct the war as he chooses for much if not all of the remainder of his presidency. This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war will haunt Pelosi, Reid and their party -- not to mention the United States and the battered shell that is Iraq." Recalling the Democratic leadership remarks leading up to Bully Boy's veto, Robert Parry (Consortium News) reminds, "The Democrats didn't help themselves when they started their 'negotiations' with the White House by announcing that they would eventually give Bush a bill that was acceptable to him. That's a bit like going into a car dealership, declaring that you intend to pay the full sticker price and then trying to bargain. Knowing that the Democrats planned to fold . . . Bush could confidently veto the first war spending bill". Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) addresses the nonsense noting, "There is not even a timetable for withdrawal, just 18 benchmarks that the President himself can waive. What an abdication! What a capitulation! Even as U.S. soldiers are increasingly bogged down in Baghdad, even as the death tool of our troops zoomed past the 3,400 mark, the Democratic compromisers in Congress could not find enough spinal fluid to stand tall against Bush and the inevitable you-don't-support-the-troops ads that they fear so much." Dave Lindorff (CounterPunch) declares, "The Iraq War is now fully a Democratic War. The hand-off is complete, just as the handoff of the Democratic Vietnam War was handed off to Richard Nixon and the Republicans in 1968. . . . Voters remember: It's not what candidates say; it's what they actually do, or don't do." Jeff Cohen (Common Dreams) observed, "The shared pretense of the White House and Democratic leaders is that funding the Iraq occupation is somehow a program on behalf of the troops. Like a subsidy for family farmers. . . . As Military Families Speak Out says: 'Funding the war is not supporting our troops. The way to support our troops is to bring them home now and take care of them when they get here'."

US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender
Dennis Kucinich explained to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) this morning, "We shouldn't be offering any legislation at all. We should just simply tell the president we're not going to fund the war. And this idea about funding the war to 'help the troops' is absurd. Want to help the troops? Bring them home." US House Rep Lynn Woolsey states, "The American public voted Democrats into power for one simple reason -- the trusted us to act boldly to hold this President accountable and to bring our troops home. So far we are failing the very trust that they have placed in us. But more importantly, every day that we allow this occupation to continue we are failing our brave young men and women who are serving honorably and professionally in Iraq. And we are failing their families here at home, who, while struggling to keep their lives and families together, are forced to worry whether their loved ones will come home alive, and if so in what condition." Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) make it clear, "There are only a couple [of] ways Congress can end this bloody, unwinnable occupation in Iraq. These do NOT include the approach of the Democratic leaders. That's been a failure -- as they now stand ready to give Bush $95 billion more war funding through an Iraq Supplemental bill that no longer has any timelines for troop withdrawal."

The deadlines and 'benchmarks' were never enforceable. They were never binding. The Bully Boy could waive them, he could reclassify ever US service member in Iraq "military police" and thereby keep them in Iraq without missing the 'deadlines' of the Pelosi-Reid measure that was sent up to the White House and vetoed. If you think real hard, you'll remember a Party Hack that told Dems in Congress (in the House) opposed to the weak Pelosi-Reid measure that they had to "
accept the congressional world as it is right now".
But those trying to call reality out on the nonsense bill were told (a) they were wrong and (b) the Dems would stick by this measure no matter what (one Party Hack swore the answer to a veto lay in the "conference report" that "we" would take care of). A few did call the nonsense out, Laura Flanders,
Howard Zinn, Black Agenda Report, Alexander Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild, Robert Knight (of Flashpoints Radio -- and include Dennis Bernstein, host of the same show, as well) . . . But it's a really small list. The rest either went along with the lie, stuck their head in the sand or, in the case of The Nation, attempted to write an editorial -- a p.o.v. piece -- from various perspectives to avoid calling the nonsense out.

But everyone was supposed to hold their tongues because this was the best, this was the only way that everyone could be on board and something could be done, hold your nose and accept it. Too many did. And now too many learn that when you act like a cheerleader instead of demanding real action, the Democratic compromise (and it's always a Democratic compromise) will be even weaker. Instead of cooing, "You can do it, Democrats, you can do it," the people would have been better served rejecting the weak measures. That might have forced the Dems to do more with their first proposal and, when it was compromise time, we might have seen them put forward the bill they went with last time. The Democrats will always compromise -- partly because they like to see themselves as "adults" (or, in the age of Oprah, "healers") and partly because they still can't quite believe that triangulation isn't a winning strategy.

Bill Van Auken (WSWS) reports, "Behind the media reports of a showdown between Democrats and Republicans over the Iraq war, what in reality appears to be emerging in Washington is a bipartisan consensus on a strategy that would continue the US occupation of the oil-rich country for many years to come." But not everyone's displeased. AP reports Bully Boy's practically panting over the gift the Democrats have handed him, saying that it "reflects a consensus" -- to which the reporters should have shot back, "Spell it."

Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) notes that there is a very long struggle ahead to end the illegal war and cautions: "When considering what to demand now, it's helpful to put the current moment in historical perspective. The same basic arguments for keeping U.S. forces in Iraq have long been presented by reigning politicians and key media outlets as self-evident wisdom. A cover story in Time magazine laid down the prevailing line: 'Foreing policy luminaries from both parties say a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would cripple American credibility, doom reform in the Arab world and turn Iraq into a playground for terrorists and the armies of neighboring states like Iran and Syria.' That was in April -- 2004."

Speaking with Kris Welch on
KPFA's Living Room today, Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK) stated, "We haven't bought the Democrats line from day one that they were trying to stop the war and we've been trying to hold them accountable" and reminded of US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, "The first policy that she put out on the first 100 hours didn't even include the word 'Iraq' in it." (Also appearing to discuss Congress' capitulation on Iraq were Tina Richards and David Swanson.)


War resisters continue trying to end the illegal war. On Monday, Carol Brouillet interviewed Camilo Mejia for Questioning War-Organizing Resistance on
WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com. They addressed his newly published book, Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia (The New Press), the abuse he saw in Iraq and his own court-martial. Camilo Mejia: "The judge basically agreed with the prosection that it is not there job to second guess the commander in chief. And they did not want to hear about the war crimes or the violations of Geneva on the ground in Iraq. So they basically brought down the entire case to the question of whether I got back on the plane or not but they didn't look at the reasoning behind it. They did not examine the claims of war crimes or anything. And this is something that's happening more and more, Carol. Like for instance in the case of Lt. Watada that's precisely what happened. You know the prosecution wanted to prosecute Lt. Watada for saying that he did not want to participate in an illegal war but they did not want to put the war on trial so that's why they declared a mistrail because they could not go to court and look at all these issues without looking at the legality of the war. They could not examine his statements without actually verifying the veracity or without somehow one way or another putting the war on trial."

Ehren Watada was the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the Iraq war. An attempted court-martial in February ended -- over defense objection -- in a mistrial. Last Friday, the defense learned that an appeals court, Army Court of Appeals, granted a stay.

Watada and Mejia are part of growing movement of resistance within the US military that also includes Joshua Key, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson,
Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at
Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. And of course, there's
Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Yesterday, we noted the case of Adam Kokesh who was honorably discharged in 2006 but whose actions to end the illegal war now has the military threatening him with a change in discharge status. (More information can be found at kokesh.blogspot.com.) Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Doughtery has a letter posted at Veterans for Peace:

I am writing to let you know about an urgent issue that is affecting several of our IVAW members. Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are both very active members and former Marines. Because of their outspoken opposition to the war, the Marine Corps is threatening to revoke their honorable discharges and change them to other than honorable. We cannot allow this suppression of free speech to occur! Adam and Liam need our help to pay for legal defense and travel to their hearings. Adam just found out his hearing is in Kansas City on June 4th, less than two weeks away! Attached below is a letter from Adam, describing his situation and asking for your help. Besides financial contributions, we also need people who are in the Kansas City area to gather support for Adam before his June 4th hearing. Please contact me at
Kelly@ivaw.org if you are in the area and would like to find out how you can help. I will keep you updated on both Adam and Liam's cases as they unfold.
Thank you so much for your time and support, it really means everything to our veterans who dare to speak the truth.
In Peace,
Kelly Dougherty
Former Sergeant Army National Guard
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War


The US Congress wasn't the only political body in the news today.
BBC reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has announced six new nominations for "cabinet ministers to replace supporters of the radical Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, who resigned last month." Those paying attention this time last year may remember that al-Malilki missed the Constitutionally mandated deadline to put together a cabinet -- which should have kicked the puppt out of 'leadership' right then. Whether his latest six will be approved or not will be determined in a parliamentary vote Sunday. Meanwhile, the violence continued.

Bombings?

Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack killed 1 person and left three more wounded, 6 Iraqis were wounded by an IED while driving in their car in Ad Dawr, while a bombing in Al-Sharkhat killed a "man and woman" and left an additional woman wounded. AFP reports a bombing at a Falluja funeral that killed at least 25: "Fallujah residents told AFP by telephone that the bomb there targeted mourners paying their respects to Ali Ahmed Zuwail, the nephew of tribal leader Abdel Razeq al-Issawi, who was shot dead on Wednesday." Garrett Theolf (Los Angeles Times) spells the nephew's name Alawi Ahmed Zuwaid and notes he was shot "in front of his house" and was "suspected of cooperating with American forces in reconstruction projects, family and friends said." Reuters reports the Falluja death toll climbed to 27 and that there are at least 30 wounded, a Baghdad car bombing killed 1 Iraqi solilder and left two more njured, a Baghdad bomber ("wearing an explosive vest") killed himslef and one passenger on a mini-bus (5 wounded). a Baghdad bombing that killed 2 people and left 15 more wounded and a roadside bombing in Sulaiman Bek that claimed the lives of 6 police officers and wounded six more.

Shootings?

Reuters reports an attack on a mini-bus in Baghdad in which 11 passengers were shot dead and an attack in Khan Bani Saad where 6 people were shot dead. Jenan Hussein (McClatachy Newspapers) reports an attack in Kirkuk left 6 Iraqis shot dead, and, in Baghdad, one Iraqi civilian was shot dead by US forces and another was wounded.

Corpses?

Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 22 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters reports 3 corpses discovered in Baquba.

Today the
US military announced: "Two Soldiers assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed May 23 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." AFP's count for the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war is 3,436. ICCC's count is currently 3434.

Finally, independent journalist John Pilger is on a speaking tour with his new book Freedom Next Time and his documentary Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror (which looks at DC, Afghanistan and Iraq). June 7th, he will discuss his book with Amy Goodman at The New School, Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street, beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:15). Admission is $5 per person and students (with ID) can attend for free. Pilger will sign copies of his book afterwards and Amy Goodman will sign copies of her latest book (written with her brother David Goodman) Static. "For ticket information, contact (212) 229-5488 or
boxoffice@newschool.edu. For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, click here or e-mail pilgerny@gmail.com."

June 11th, Pilger will be in Los Angeles at the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center (244 S. San Pedro St.) and will discuss his book and show his documentary beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:00 pm). The price of admission to the even is five dollars. "Directions, maps, and parking info at:
http://www.jaccc.org/directions.htmPresented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, and The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call or visit the JACCC. Box office: 213-680-3700 (Box Office Hours: Monday - Saturday: Noon - 5 pm)For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilger.la@gmail.com."

June 13th finds him in San Francisco showing his film and discussing his book at
Yerba Beuna Center for Arts (beginning at 7:00 pm, doors open at 6:00 pm) and the price of admission is $15 general and $5 for students. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, and KPFA, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call 415-978-2787 or order online at http://www.ybca.org/. In person tickets at YBCA Box office located inside the Galleries and Forum Building, 701 Mission Street at Third. (Hours: Tue, Wed, Fri, Sat & Sun: noon - 5 pm; Thu: noon - 8 pm.) For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilgersf@gmail.com."

From San Francisco, he moves on to Chicago for the 2007 Socialism conference. At 11:30 am Saturday June 16th, he and
Anthony Arnove will participate in a conversation, audience dialogue and book signing (Arnove is the author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) and that evening (still June 16th) at 7:30 Pilger will be at Chicago Crowne Plaza O'Hare (5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018) as part of a panel of international activists. To attend the conference, the fee is $85. For Saturday and Sunday only, the price is $70. To attend only one session, the cost is ten dollars. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. Co-sponsors: Obrera Socialista, Socialist Worker, International Socialist Review, and Haymarket Books. For ticket information, call 773-583-8665 or e-mail info@socialismconference.org For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org. For more information, email info@socialismconference.org."

The Socialism 2007 conference will take place in Chicago from June 14-17. Along with Pilger and Arnove, others participating will include Dahr Jamail, Laura Flanders, Kelly Dougherty, Joshua Frank, Amy Goodman, Sharon Smith, Dave Zirin, Camilo Mejia, Jeremy Scahill, Jeffrey St. Clair and many others.













Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Jeremy Scahill

AMY GOODMAN: Blackwater has remained relatively quiet in the face of its critics. But last week, the company’s founder, Erik Prince, wrote an article to the Grand Rapids Press in response to a series of articles in the paper on Blackwater. The paper had referred to Jeremy Scahill's book as putting Prince in the national media spotlight. I want to read some of what Erik Prince wrote.
He wrote, "Your story referred to Blackwater as 'arguably the world’s most powerful private army.' The Constitution does not permit the establishment of a private army, and Blackwater's team of highly motivated and capable security professionals serve at the request of the United States government. Furthermore, Blackwater professionals do not engage in offensive missions. You would be correct in calling them a team of bodyguards, but very wrong in using a description of them as a 'private army.'" Jeremy Scahill, your response.
JEREMY SCAHILL: You tell me what nation in the world has operatives deployed in nine other countries around the world, can boast of a force of 20,000 men to call on at a moment's notice, has a fleet of aircrafts. I mean, the nation of Costa Rica doesn't even have a military. So in the case of Blackwater, we're talking about a heavier force than some nation-states of the world.
But on the other issue about Erik Prince saying that they only engage defensive operations, I mean, give me a break. What is more offensive than invading and occupying of a country? Blackwater is at the vanguard of the US occupation of Iraq. They're protecting the people that the Bush administration has sent in to implement the White House agenda in Iraq. I mean, that is an inherently offensive operation.
AMY GOODMAN: In another part of the article or the letter that Erik Prince writes, he says, "Clearly the mercenary label is intended to polarize the discussion and craft the most negative image possible of Blackwater. The highest authority on rhetoric, The Oxford English Dictionary, however, defines 'mercenary' as 'a professional soldier serving a foreign power.'" Erik Prince goes on to say, "Blackwater does not now, nor has it ever, provided security services for or on behalf of any country other than the United States of America."
Jeremy, the title of your book is Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Even I'm actually glad that Mr. Prince put forward that definition of "mercenary." I mean, there's all sorts of definitions that one can apply to the term “mercenary,” but he says it’s a professional soldier serving a foreign power. Now, according to Prince's Op-Ed, it would seem as though Blackwater is just this team of patriotic Americans serving their country. But the fact of the matter is that Blackwater has recruited, hired and deployed mercenaries from countries like Colombia, Chile, Bulgaria, Poland, Fiji -- the list goes on and on.
In the case of Chile, this is a country whose home government is against the war in Iraq, refused to join that coalition of the willing. So the Bush administration was able to turn to Blackwater and the coalition of the billing, to go in and hire up Chilean mercenaries who are professional soldiers serving a foreign power in the employ of Blackwater USA, which is a mercenary company. Blackwater's founder gives the very definition of what Blackwater does. They hire up professional soldiers and enlist them to fight on behalf of a foreign power. So according to his own definition, Blackwater engages in mercenary activities.
As to the other part of it, where Erik Prince is saying that they haven't provided security services for any other country, he may be very narrowly talking about, we haven’t guarded a foreign official or something, but let’s be clear here. Blackwater has gone into Azerbaijan, a nation whose security forces have an atrocious human rights record. They’ve set up a ninety-man Azerbaijani unit with a training program modeled after the US Navy Seals. They set up a command and control center in Baku, which juts out into the Caspian Sea, in Azerbaijan. Blackwater has trained Jordanian attack helicopter forces. So, you know, I’m not sure how Mr. Prince is defining “security” here, but I would say setting up a ninety-man Azerbaijani unit in a country with a very questionable human rights record, that’s providing security services to another country.


That's from "Jeremy Scahill Responds to Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, Visits Blackwater Sites and Prince’s Hometown" on today's Democracy Now! and I want to go back and note Amy Goodman's opening one more time to be sure we absorb it:

He wrote, "Your story referred to Blackwater as 'arguably the world’s most powerful private army.' The Constitution does not permit the establishment of a private army, and Blackwater's team of highly motivated and capable security professionals serve at the request of the United States government. Furthermore, Blackwater professionals do not engage in offensive missions. You would be correct in calling them a team of bodyguards, but very wrong in using a description of them as a 'private army.'"

Is that not a private army? Yes, Prince knows that a private army is banned by the Constitution but what has he just described: "Blackwater . . . serve at the request of the United States government." That is a private army. And they need to be banned from American shores. Yes, their contracts need to be cancelled, no question, but they need to be banned. They are the equivalent of a terrorist training group if you ask me. True, their only belief is in cash, but they will attack anyone if the money is right and we don't need them being housed in our borders. Let me correct that, if federal authorities wish to put Prince behind bars, I'm all for his being housed in America while he serves out a lengthy sentence. Otherwise, he needs to decide whether he wants his company or his country because he shouldn't be allowed to run it out of the United States.

Now let's play fact check on Amy Goodman who needs one for a headline and I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that the mistake was an honest one.

Iran Urged to Release Jailed American ScholarFamily, friends and colleagues of a prominent American scholar imprisoned in Iran are appealing for her release. Haleh Esfandiari was jailed on May 8 after more than four months under virtual house arrest. She is the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Esfandiari is a dual U.S. and Iranian citizen. She went to Iran last year to take care of her 93-year-old mother. This is former Congressmember and Wilson Center director Lee Hamilton.
Lee Hamilton: "The Wilson Center's plea to the Iranian government is simple. Let Haleh go. Let her return to her husband, her family, and her work."


Did you catch the two mistakes? There are others but I'll focus on the two obvious.

1) She went to Iran last year to take care of her 93-year-old mother.

Did that happen? Yes, it did. But not quite the way that sounds. That sounds like Stupid or Spy Haleh is being held over a visit that began last year. That she's been in Iran this entire time. She left Iran in December (with a big incident) and then applied for a passport this year to return. Stating she went there last year makes it sound as though she's been there taking care of her allegedly ill mother. Allegedly because if you read the news today, you caught that her mother has dropped things off at the jail for her daughter so apparently she crawled out of her sick bed to do that?

2) Lee Hamilton: "The Wilson Center's plea to the Iranian government is simple. Let Haleh go. Let her return to her husband, her family, and her work."

Her husband lives in the US. Hamiliton is suggesting that Stupid or Spy would bring her big nose back to the US and stay out of other people's business. This builds on the illusion that she was arrested this month and held after having spent most of this year in Iran caring for her allegedly ill mother.

She was in Iran last year. ** Correction to my correction. C.I. informed today (5-25) that she has been in Iran since December. She did not leave and return. So I've corrected that. As noted yesterday, Lee Hamilton and Condi Rice and many others (others in the administration) serve with her at Woodrow and if her mother was truly ill, the woman could have gotten her into this country with no problem. Allegedly ill mother.

A nosy busybody wants to cause an international incident. She should be on her own. If she's stupid, well let it be a lesson. If she's a spy, you can be sure the US is working on a cover story and seeking her release.

I have no sympathy for idiots (or spies) that cause international incidents. I don't know that I'd even say, "Come back to the US." I think I might have to stress, "If you stick your stupid nose in any other country's business and get arrested, your on your own, you damn busy body."

You can read Cedric's "Busy bodies starting the next illegal war" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! SELLING THE NEXT WAR VIA BUSY BODIES!" for more on the topic. And please read Rebecca's "the gonzales cesspool continues to stink," "we don't stand up for cowards" and "the alberto news" which are wonderful all on their own; however, even more so when you grasp she's dealing with a newborn baby, recovering from giving birth and a host of other issues.


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, May 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, on the 12th day that 3 US soldiers have been missing it appears 1 of the 3 may have been discovered, Democrats scramble in Congress, the US military announces the deaths of more service members, and a German professor feels the need to tell the American people how stupid they are when it appears the professor is the one with comprehension issues.

Today is day twelve since 3 US soldiers went missing following an attack that killed 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator. The US military has issued many statements that said very little (but what is there to say when it appears the attack took place as a result of where command stationed the soldiers and the time duration the soldiers were left in place). Though the search for the 3 continues today, one may have been discovered.
Steven R. Hurst (AP) reports that Iraqi police believe they have found one of the missing soldiers, that he is a corpse they found in the Euphrates River today. Paul Tait (Reuters) reports: "The half-naked body had bullet wounds and bore signs of torture. Captain Muthanna al-Maamouri, a police spokesman in the provincial capital Hilla, said there were wounds to the torso and shaved head of the body, which was wearing U.S. Army-issue pants and boots and had a tattoo on the left arm. 'This is one of the missing soldiers,' he said." The US military has yet to confirm that. Howard Schneider and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) note that the body is now being examined by the US military.

Meanwhile, in the United States, Congressional Democrats attempt to deal with the fact that leadership has caved.
US News and World Reports observes that "their concession to the White House has angered anti-war activists and lawmakers, who are now expected to oppose the legislation." This is the legislation that, despite some denials from leadership, leadership crafted. It removes the non-binding, toothless calls for withdrawal and even the appearance of substance while giving Bully Boy everything he asked for and stacking up pork such as relief for those suffering from Hurricane Katrina, a slight spike in the minimum wage and funding children's health care. Nancy Pelosi is the US Speaker of the House so it's a bit hard to swallow many of her statements. Carl Hulse (New York Times) quotes her stating of the new legislation, "I would never vote for such a thing." Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) quotes Pelosi declaring, "I'm not likely to vote for something that doesn't have a timetable." Two questions here. First, how does a party push through legislation without the Speaker's approval? Second, why did she allow Steny Hoyer (House majority leader -- whom she outranks) to take to the airwaves yesterday declaring the sell out to be "an agreement"? US Senator Russ Feingold issued a statement yesterday and we'll note this from it, "I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq." As did Dennis Kucinich, US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate, "If this is true, and I hope it is not, it tells American workers that the only way they will get an increase in wages is to continue to support funding the war which is taking the lives of their sons and daughters. First blood for oil. Now a minimum wage for maximum blood. Aren't the American people giving enough blood for this war without having to give more to have a wage increase? What's happened to our country? We are losing our moral compass. We're losing our sense of justice. We're losing touch with the difference between right and wrong. We do not have to fund this war. We must leave Iraq now. Support our troops and bring them home. HR 1234 is a plan to end the war and stabilize Iraq and give Iraqis control of their oil. We must take a new path. We must take a path of truth and justice." Kucinich will hold a press conference tomorrow (Thursday) on this topic at the Cannon Terrace and be joined by Antonia Juhasz and Denice Lombar (US Labor Against the War). Today, he spoke on the House floor about the privatization of Iraqi oil (from AfterDowningStreet.org): "This war is about oil. We must not be party to the Administration's blatant attempt to set the stage for multinational oil companies to take over Iraq's oil resources. The Administration set several benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including passage of the 'Hydrocarbon Law' by the Iraqi Parliament. And many inside the beltway are contemplating linking funding for the war in Iraq to the completion of these benchmarks, including passage of the 'Hydrocarbon Law' by the Iraqi Parliament. The Administration has once again misled Congress by mislabeling the draft law as an oil revenues distribution law, just as the Administration misled Congress about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is a stain on American history. Let us not further besmirch our nation by participating in the outrageous exploitation of a nation which is in shambles due to U.S. intervention."

US House Rep Lynn Woolsey predicts much less support for this bill and believes leadership will have to count on cross-over votes from Republicans for it to pass.
She tells Mike Soraghan (The Hill), "The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point. It's going to take Republican votes to pass it."

As Democrats cave, those who stand up find themselves punished. From "
Legal Defense Fund for Adam Kokesh:"

Dear Friend of
Iraq Veterans Against the War,
My name is Adam Kokesh and I need your help. Because of my involvement in IVAW, I have been singled out and called for a military hearing to be made an example of for those of us who have spoken out against the war. I have been an active member of IVAW for a mere four months, but have already garnered enough attention to be perceived as a threat by those using our military to maintain political support for the occupation of Iraq.
I was honorably discharged after serving over six years, and two tours in Iraq, last November. I am part of the Inactive Ready Reserve until June 18, 2007, less than a month away. After my discharge, I moved to Washington, DC to get a Masters in Political Management at GWU, and joined IVAW. I have since appeared on behalf of IVAW speaking at concerts, universities, and high schools. I have written about my views on the occupation and my military experience for the IVAW website and on my
blog.
Most notably, I participated in Operation First Casualty on March 19th. This was a mock combat patrol through Washington, DC in order to bring home the truth of the occupation of Iraq, because the first casualty of war is the truth. I appeared in my uniform, without my name, without rank, and without the patch that says US MARINES. I received an email of warning about possible violations of the UCMJ for appearing in uniform at a political event. Instead of ignoring it like everyone I know who has received similar emails, I wrote a strongly worded reply admonishing the Major who was "investigating" me for wasting time on such trivial matters. The text of that email is posted
here.
I soon received a package from the Marine Corps informing me of a separation hearing to re-separate me with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. A scan of the complete package can be seen here. I have sought private counsel for this hearing, as is my right. I intend to bring as many witnesses as possible to testify to both the character of my service and the nature of my involvement with IVAW. The Marine Corps only made it known to us today that the hearing will be held on June 4, in a mere 13 days. They have also decided to activate me for the hearing and hold it in Kansas City, home of the Marine Corps Mobilization Command.
This case is important because the intimidation of servicemen and women who speak out will suppress the truth about the Iraq occupation. With the help of IVAW, I intend to fight this to the end and stand up for the rights of all members of our armed forces. Please support this effort by mailing a check made out to IVAW with "Adam Kokesh Legal Defense Fund" in the memo to PO Box 8296, Philadelphia, PA 19101 or by going
here, clicking on "Donate Now" and including "Adam Kokesh Legal Defense Fund" in the Special Project Support window. Please feel free to email me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Adam Kokesh
adam@ivaw.org kokesh.blogspot.com


Unlike Congress, Iraq Veterans Against the War are working to end the illegal war. And they continue to show support for resisters within the military such as Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


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

On a day when
at least 104 Iraqis were killed or found dead, ending the illegal war is more important then Congressional leadership appears to grasp.

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack near the Al Bishara hospital the took 3 lives and left fourteen wounded, a mortar attack on Baghdad's National Theater wounded one person, a Baghdad explosion killed 1 Iraq solider and left 3 more wounded, a bombing in Mandali that killed 8 people and left twenty-four wounded and a mortar attack in Kanan that left three wounded. Reuters raises the death toll of the Mandali bombing from 8 to 20 and notes a Samarra bombing that claimed the lives of 5 police officers, a Mosul mortar attack that wounded eight people, a Jbela car bombing that killed 3 and left fifteen wounded, a Khan Bani Saad mortar attack in which 3 children lost their lives.


Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a clash between unidentified assailants and Iraq and US forces in Baghdad's Sinak market led to the deaths of 5 innocent civilians with seventeen more wounded, while Col. Talal Kareem was shot dead elsewhere in Baghdad, 2 Iraqi soldiers were wounded from gunfire in south Baghdad, Salim Hassan Abbas was shot dead "near the ministry of the Labor and Social Affairs," and a police officer shot dead in Al Muqdadiyah. Reuters notes a Kurdistan Democratic Party member and a police officer both shot dead in Mosul (the officer's wife was wounded).

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 30 corpses were discoved in Baghdad and 1 in Al Khalis. Reuters notes the corpse of an iman discovered in Sunni Arab Buhriz, 3 corpses discovered in Baiji, and five corpses discovered in Ramadi.

Today the
US military announced: "Two Marines assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed May 22 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." And they announced: "Two Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed in Baghdad Province, Tuesday when an explosion occurred near their vehicle." And they announced: "An MND-B Soldier was killed when his patrol was attacked with small arms fire in a western section of the Iraqi capital May 22." And they announced: "Three Multinational Division Center Soldiers were killed and two were wounded in action when their patrol was struck by multiple improvised explosive devices May 21. An interpreter was also wounded in the attack."


And why does the war drag on? Because of 'helpful' voices like Nivien Saleh who,
writing at CounterPunch, lectures in a way that may make Arizona institutions proud but should make those opposed to the war shiver. "Let me elaborate on these two points," the professor offers even though no one asked, "starting with the idea, at home in numerous Internet blogs, that Iraqis are to blame for their fate." Unlike the professor, I don't have all the time in the world to surf blogs. I'm focused on trying to end the war. But I don't need to surf to know where that 'logic' came from -- the White House, Congress, the laughable but much applauded by the press Hamilton-Baker Study (aka The Iraq Circle Jerk). Blogers make for easy strawmen and strawwomen, they are not the ones who advanced this argument. But it's quite a bit easier to tear into (unnamed) bloggers than it is to go after the true architects of the Blame Iraqis push. Saleh then goes on to share, "Well the number of those whose lives have been lost is far greater than 3,200." Yes, it is. And the total count for US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is 3431. That is greater than 3,200. But Saleh, who apparent doesn't feel too concerned about getting the number of US service members who have died correct, wants to lecture about the number of Iraqis who have died and the number she elects to go with is the laughable "more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians" when the reality is that The Lancet Study last year revealed that it was over 655,000. While that is "more than 100,000," the professor's lecture is marred by the fact that she has little grasp on reality or the facts. The US military and administration originally announced that they would not keep figures on the Iraqi dead. That's the biggest reason that Americans have no idea how many have died. Now, as Nancy Youseff revealed the last week that Knight-Ridder was still Knight-Ridder, the US military does in fact keep a tally. That tally, like their salaries, are paid for with US tax dollars and there should have been a huge outcry that the government reveal those numbers. Instead, nothing. So many Americans have no idea how many have died. Many outlets back away from The Lancet's figures (in fact, the professor refuses to use them as well) and what you're left with is one mainstream outlet says X number have died, another says Y, another says it's impossible to estimate and the American public, as a whole, is left confused which, indeed, was the intent of the administration when they made the decision not to keep a public record of the number of Iraqis who have died. The professor misses that point as well but possibly we should all be grateful she didn't pin that on (unnamed) bloggers as well? The professor writes as someone late to the party, who brought no gift and is keen on ignoring most guests while she attempts to discern the power circle and cozy up to that. A student turning in such a paper could (and should) expect to have it returned heavily marked up for the various elements that her sweeping generalizations overlook. We'll get back to that in a moment. But, for now, let's make the very important point that when you go to any country and start making claims about the people of that country, you are in danger of stereotyping. The American people are not as dumb or as uncaring as the professor needs for them to be in order for her points to be accurate. As she tears apart the American people, while avoiding calling out the organs of power (White House, Congress, the press, think tanks, et al) who sold the war, you grasp that the strongest indictment of American in her paper may be the fact that Northern Arizona University considers her work to sufficiently academic. That, and that alone, is the only (indirect) indictment made in her explosions of words which, for the record, demonstrate that even those opposed to the war can traffic in Nazi symbolism in an attempt to make a point as evidenced by her opening paragraph.

The professor spews, "Washington's pundits, politicians, and bureaucrats, point fingers at each other, deflecting responsibility for the invasion from themselves towards their counterparts. As they do so, the various mistakes that were committed prior to the war are coming to light. The government and its neoconservative allies were war hungry. The CIA did poor research. Journalists that supplied the Washington, DC, 'beltway bubble' with news swallowed information that came from the White House without checking alternative sources. Members of Congress forgot the lessons of the Gulf of Tonkin and yielded decisions over war and peace to the president. Citizens failed to demand of their leaders and their media that they provide good analysis." Why should the media provide good analysis when the professor can't?

Originally airing two Fridays ago, an episode of
Bill Moyers Journal dealt with this when historian Marilyn Young (co-editor of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam) debunked the lies of the administration and explained how the lies still got traction, all this time later. From Ava and my "TV: The 'boys' are back in town" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):

A clip is shown of The Charlie Rose Show where Condi Rice lies through her teeth and sidesteps every question while Rose allows one lie after another to go unchallenged. Moyers thought it was great journalism, Young didn't and pointed out that Condi continues to get away with lying in public "because she remains a person of authority; because she is absolutely amazingly implacable in her re-statement, statement and re-statement of half-truths and outright lies. And that kind of certainty in one's own authority and the correctness of one's own position can look very persuasive, especially on TV, especially when you're not pressed." (Our emphasis.)Moyers attempted to rush to his protege's rescue insisting, "Charlie did keep coming back to her, trying to get her to talk about this" but Young cut him off with, "What he came back to over and over again was an exit strategy. And she said, as they've all been saying, there is no plan B. We're going to succeed with plan A."


Who was right?

Young.

She brilliantly demolished every one of Condi's lies. The 'we were all wrong' myth sailed over Rose's head as Condi lied that "it wasn't just America's intelligence services, of course, that thought that he had weapons of mass destruction; this was a worldwide intelligence problem, because the UN thought he had weapons of mass destruction." Rose just sat there. Young noted (to Moyers), "The Germans looked into it and said, you know what? Your information is wrong, it's useless. So there were other intelligence services involved, but they disagreed with ours, which she didn't say. Then she said the U.N. thought there were WMD's. But that's for people with really bad short term memory loss. Because Hans Blix, who was in the U.N. as inspector, was quite persuaded that in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction."

Condi told Rose, "The United States is in Iraq because the Iraqi Government asked us to be there and they asked us (inaudible) a UN Security Council mandate." Rose didn't challenge it. Young offered reality (to Moyers), "The most extraordinary one, though, the really one that just takes my breath away, is where she says we're in Iraq because the Iraqi government invited us there. And we're there under a U.N. mandate. Saddam Hussein certainly didn't invite us in. And the UN mandate that she refers to, it's a resolution, it's not a mandate-- it says, after all, we're all agreed that everyone should help in the reconstruction of Iraq. That's all. It's not a mandate for occupation, at all."

That goes to the reality of how the war was sold and how it still is sold and there's no need to rush to blame (unnamed) bloggers or the American people -- which the professor does while letting those in power off with a pass. Strangely, while arguing that the US places too much importance upon Americans, the professor starts off her essay noting a lamp shade made from Jewish skin but instead of exploring the Holocaust, she's off wondering about the German government, her grandparents, etc. Possibly, one who wants to lecture Americans on the importance of acknowledging the victims of war (something that many Americans do although they might not make the professor's TV screen), the professor shows no interest in the victims of the Holocaust. The above was addressed at the request of
Mike and his poli sci professor (thanks to both). And those wondering why this community does not rush to shore up the temporarily brave should refer to Rebecca's "we don't stand up for cowards."


iraq
antonia juhasz