Friday, March 30, 2007

THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY DOES A CHEER AND THEN SPLITS!

 
BULLY BOY STUMBLED AROUND WALTER REED MEDICAL ARMY CENTER TODAY LOOKING LIKE HE WAS DRUNK WITH THE FOOLISH GRIN PLASTERED ON HIS FACE.
 
AT 1 POINT, HE ISSUED A NON-APOLOGY.  SOME IN THE PRESS LAPPED IT UP.
 
IF BULLY BOY WANTS TO APOLOGIZE, AND THE PRESS WANTS TO DO THEIR JOB, THEY CAN BOTH START BY POINTING OUT THAT THE GOVERNMENT (UNDER THE LORDS OF PRIVATIZATION, BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE) DECIDED TO SEE WHETHER PRIVATE CONTRACTORS COULD DO THE JOB BETTER THAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  THE EVALUATION FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD DO A BETTER JOB BUT THE ARMY AUDIT AGENCY, IN 2006, IGNORED THAT FINDING AND AWARDED I.A.P. A $120 MILLION CONTRACT.  I.A.P., FOR THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE COMPANY, COULDN'T EVEN FULFILL THEIR CONTRACT TO GET ICE TO THE VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA.  AND, UNDER BULLY BOY'S WATCH, THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN A $120 MILLION CONTRACT.  THAT'S JUST STEP 1 OF THE APOLOGY BULLY BOY NEEDS TO MAKE.
 
BUT IT WAS ALL PHOTO OPS AS HE POSED AND PREENED, LOOKING EVERY BIT THE CHEERLEADER HE WAS IN PREP SCHOOL. 
 
PRESIDENT OF VETERANS FOR AMERICA BOBBY MULLER WAS LEFT TO DO THE WORK THE PRESS COULDN'T OR WOULDN'T: NOTING THAT BULLY BOY DIDN'T VISIT THE WAR "WHERE SOLDIERS ARE SUFFERING FROM ACUTE MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS, AND OUTPATIENT HOLDING FACILITIES WHERE SOLDIERS SEE LONG WAITS TO GET PROCESSED OUT OF THE ARMY."
 
 
 
Starting with war resisters.  In Canada, a US war resister appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board today.  Matthew Chung (Toronto Star) reports that Corey Glass and his attorney, Jeffrey House, will attempt to argue that the Iraq war is illegal.  Chung notes: "Glass joined the National Guard in Indiana four years ago to, so he says, fill sand bags and help guard U.S. soil.  Instead he was sent to Iraq, a war he said he doesn't believe in.  He fled during a two-week leave."  So he says, Chung?  He's maintained that repeatedly including when he spoke at Tilley Hall Auditorium in October of last year "filling sand bags to stop a flood on American soil".  After self-checking out, Glass was underground for seven months before going to Canada and, during that time, the Army (which supposedly just waits for traffic violations to catch self-check outs) was visiting his parents, calling phone numbers trying to track him down.  As October started last year, Corey Glass, Justin Colby, Ryan Johnson and other war resisters in Canada were considering returning to US as a result of the way Darrell Anderson's discharge was resolved.  However, once the military attempted to screw over Kyle Snyder, that changed.  Glass told Brett Barrouqere (AP) at the start of November, "After what they did to him, I don't see anybody going back."  In September of last year, Glass stated, "I knew the war was wrong before I went, but I was going to fulfil my end of the bargain, right or wrong and eventually my conscience just caught up with me. . . I felt horrible for being a part of it.  If I could apologise to those people [Iraqis], every single on, I would."  The supposed independent body of the Immigration and Review Board has refused to grant asylum thus far to every Iraq war resister who has come before it. 
 
Staying on war resistance, Joshua Key, who is in Canada with his wife Brandi Key and their children,  wrote, with Lawrence Hill, his story in the new book The Deserter's Tale which has been receiving favorable reviews across the political spectrum.  Karen Alego Krizman (Rocky Mountain News) is the latest to review the book and observes, "Key admits he believed the recruiter who promised he wouldn't have to go overseas or into combat if he joined the Army - mere months after 9/11. Couple this naivete with the steady dose of racism Key says the Army fed recruits and it's no wonder that abuses such as Abu Ghraib occur."  Paul Gessel (Ottawa Citizen) notes the Ottawa International Writers Festival from April 15-22 will include Lawrence hill, David Suzuki, Tom Harpur, Roy MacGregor and Barbara Gowdy and reports: "Hill is riding high this year with two books, one a novel about the slave trade called The Book of Negroes and the other a non-fiction story called The Deserter's Tale, about an American soldier who went AWOL while home on leave from fighting in Iraq.  That soldier, Joshua Key, is trying to obtain refugee status in Canada and will be joining Hill at the festival April 16."
 
On Monday, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees  took a look at Kyle Snyder and other war resisters who were making a life in Nelson British Columbia.  Cooper noted, "We all know the stories about Vietnam War-era deserters who fled to Canada.  But less well-known are the members of today's armed forces who are refusing to serve in Iraq.  Many have fled to the same town in Canada where they're being welcomed with open arms."  Thelma Gutierrez was the reporter for the segment.
 
Kyle Snyder: I joined when I was 19. . . I sat back, I put my weapon down beside me, and then, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, real quick, very, very loud, I could just remember the look on the man's face.  . . .  I was a .50 cal. machine gunner and I was an escort for very high-ranking officials.  What drew the line for me was one mission in particular where I had witnessed an innocent civilian shot in front of me. . . . I was first angry at that.  And then I became angry at the fact that there were no repercussions.  This -- there was nothing done to prevent this from happening again. . . . I made my decision off of the things that I personally witnessed in Iraq.  I didn't just wake up one morning and say, 'I'm going to leave my country, I'm going to leave my friends behind, I'm going to leave everything that I know and everything that I love and built my entire life on,' nobody does that. . . .  I can walk around shops here and, you know, I see "war resisters welcome here" signs.  I see community getting involved and getting together.  High schoolers come up and say, what can I do to support the anti-war movement?
 
Meanwhile, Canada's Chronicle Herald reports, "Police have initiated an investigation into" Snyder's arrest "which will be conducted by the Abbotsford police".  Snyder was pulled from the home he shares with Ryan and  Jen Johnson, the day before his wedding, arrested in his boxers and carried to a jail where he was held (still in his boxers) for several hours as a result of some sort of 'special' and 'unofficial' deal between the police and the US military.
 
Glass, Key, Snyder and Johnson are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
 
 
In the United States, the press continues to believe that claims of a withdrawal garner more interest than headlines of "Some Troops May Come Home . . . Someday."  The realities were addressed on yesterday's Flashpoints:
 
 
Meanwhile in Washington the Senate a sort time ago passed a long discussed resolution that ties military funding to non-specific suggestions that President Bush accept the goal but not the requirement of removing less than half of the 150,000 US occupation troops from Iraq by the unenforceable deadline of March 2008.  Nevertheless, President Bush has promised a veto.  Today's 51 to 47 vote was mostly along party lines and now the Senate and House must resolve their respective legislation neither of which require a full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq till well after the installation of the next American president.  And that's some of the news this Thursday, March 29th, 2007.  From exile, I'm Robert Knight.
 
 
Robert Knight has been one of the consistent voices throughout. (Also on yesterday's Flashpoints, Dennis Bernstein interviewed the Washington Post's Peter Eisner.  Rebecca will be covering that late tonight.)  This week's CounterSpin (which began airing today) featured a discussion on the issue of what the US House and Senate bills actually state as opposed to the way the press has portrayed them.  Co-host Janine Jackson spoke with The Institute for Policy Studies Erik Leaver.  Leaver noted that
the bills' "terms of reference only are for combat troops and if you look at the current number of troops deployed in Iraq only half of them would be considered as are combat troops."  Jackson, noting reality versus coverage, asked, "Well then are some of the press characterizations or glosses of this as a withdrawal bill, it sounds as though that's not quite on the money?"  To which Leaver responded, "That's exactly correct."
 
 
Janine Jackson: Well looking at that broader context and we don't have much time left, the majority of the population want an end to the occupation and the war and media acknowledge that, it's their polls that show that, but it doesn't seem somehow guide the questions that they ask or the sources that speak to and I wonder in this case were there not other pieces of legislation that maybe came closer to what the public was calling for?  Was there no way for journalists to kind of put this in the context of: "Is this going to end the war sooner?"
 
Eric Leavler:  I think that is the missing element in the story.  Again, if the news media reported on: "This brings half the troops home" I think you would see a lot more public discontent about the bill and they would  perhaps I think there would be a lot more dissatisfied with Democrats than they are. 
 
Michael Shank (Foreign Policy in Focus) interviews US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich explains why he refused to vote 'yes' on the House bill, "It's very simple: the bill kept the war going.  I want to see this war end.  I have created, with the help of people who worked on security and peacekeeping missions for years, a plan to end the war.  It's embodied in H.R. 1234.  It would end the U.S. occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, establisha parallel process creating a peacekeeping and security force, reach out to the nations of the region and the international community for help -- something we won't get as long as we continue to occupy Iraq.  That plan is much more expansive and in the course of this interview I'd be happy to over it with you but in short, I oppose the resolution because it kept funding the war.  And I say we need to the war now.  Not a year from now, not two years from now, not five or ten years from now, but now."
 

TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
Posted by at

Thursday, March 29, 2007

THIS JUST IN! FOR AN EXTRA $5 THEY'LL SWALLOW TOO!

 
JOHNS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WERE OUT OF LUCK LAST NIGHT SINCE THE USUAL CALL GIRLS AND CALL BOYS THEY CAN COUNT ON FOR 'ENTERTAINMENT' WERE NOT TO BE FOUND UNDER THEIR USUAL STREET LAMPS BUT YUCKING IT UP WITH THE BULLY BOY AT AN ANNUAL EVENT IN THEIR DISHONOR.
 
WHILE KARL ROVE PROVED THAT VANILA ICE WASN'T THE WORST WHITE RAPPER AND THAT FAT BOYS CAN'T DANCE, BULLY BOY YUCKED IT UP WITH LINES THAT SHOULD HAVE CAUSED A WORKING PRESS TO LAUGH LESS AND SHOW SOME INDIGNATION ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT.
 
 
LIKE GOOD HOOKERS ALL, THE WORKING PRESS LAUGHED SO HARD THEY ALMOST PISSED IN THEIR FISHNETS.
 
THEY SAVED THAT -- AN ACT THAT THEY GENERALLY CHARGE $15 FOR -- UNTIL BULLY BOY DECLARED, "WE REALLY BLEW THE WAY WE LET THOSE ATTORNEYS GO.  YOU KNOW YOU BOTCHED IT WHEN PEOPLE PITY LAWYERS."
 
AS THEY LET THEIR BLADDERS FLOW AND LAUGHED LIKE HYENIAS, THEY WERE LAUGHING AT THE BULLY BOY'S CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE PEOPLE AND THE CONGRESS. 
 
HA-HA.  MAYBE THEY WERE JUST HAPPY TO BE IN OFF THE STREETS FOR ONE NIGHT?
 
 
 
 
Starting with news of war resistance, US war resisters Kyle Snyder was arrested at the end of February in Canada, by the Canadian police on the orders of the US military.  More recently, 3 non-Canadian police officers posed as Canadian police officers while they searched for US war resister Joshua Key.  The search was conducted at the same time the US military admits they were looking for him.  Both Snyder and Key are in Canada attempting to receive refugee status.  CBC News reports that The New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) is asking questions and spoke with Alex Atamaneko who "said Snyder should not have been arrested because being absent without leave from a foreign military is not an extraditable offence and Snyder has no criminal record" and that "Our concern is that there could be other Kyle Snyders in Canada.  We know that there are a couple of hundred other war resisters here.  Are there those that are being apprehended now?"
 
Snyder and Key are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
 
 
In "THINKERS? WHO NEEDS STINKING THINKERS?" news, The Nation continues to embrace Party Hacks (and males -- 1 female byline to every 4 males is the current ratio for the print magazine in 2007) as opposed to real thinkers so it's not that surprising that a Party Hack -- consider him another one of Katrina vanden Heuvel's coffee fetchers -- weighs in to reveal not only how shallow he is but how shallow The Nation has become.  After a few 'cutes' on Dennis Kucinich, Ari Melber (at the ha-ha blog Campaign Matters) offers, "It's hard to imagine how the failure of a more 'pure' bill advancing immediate withdrawal would do more to end the war than the succss of Pelosi's bill."  It's hard to imagine who thought a Party Hack was fit to write for an opinion journal?  But for chuckles, click here for (cached version) of when Party Hacks Attack Each Other. Something truly amazing -- David Sirota (of all people) calling Melber a "Self-Promoting Sellouts."  For the record, both Party Hacks now regularly foul The Nation magazine.  For the record, Ari forgets to disclose MoveOn ties.
 
Hard to imagine, Ari?  Just for the intellectually stunted.  The Institute for Policy Studies is an actual think tank -- not a Democratic party talking points mill.  The IPS' Phyllis Bennis (via Democracy Rising) explains how the bill's not ending anything: "The Congressional resolution passed last week gives Bush another $100 billion to continue the U.S. occupation of Iraq.  That much is now guaranteed.  The timeslines and restrictions included in the bill -- clearly responding to the strong public support for ending the war -- were weakened almost to the disappearing point to allow the razor-thin vote. . . .  Congress is not the peace movement.  So the peace movement must stay unified on our principles and our demands, in the face of congressional waffling and 'realistic' pragmatism, unfortunately promoted by one influential part of our movement.  Whatever they do, we must stay consistent on demanding an end to the U.S. occupation: de-funding (not re-funding) the war, and bringing home (not redeploying) all (not just some) of the troops (including the mercenaries).  The longstanding AFSC slogan has it right: 'Not  one more death, not one more dollar.'  That means STOP funding the war.  STOP allowing Bush to send more U.S. troops to kill more Iraqis and be killed in the process.  Just stop."
 
Some of the Party Hacks are, feeling nostalgic, hoping they can drum this into a Bill Clinton drama: "The right's after him, we all must come to the aid!"  It's not playing that way because the measures do nothing and the Party Hacks spent most of last week proclaiming how stupid the peace movement was and even though, as Mike pointed out, one Party Hack quickly tried to shine on his faux populism, people are not buying it.  Yes, Bully Boy is against the bill.  So?
 
The Democratic Party ignored the people.  This is, as Robert Knight ( Flashpoints) reported Monday, the DLC's bill.  The left's job isn't to prop up the right-wing, not even the right-wing of the Democratic Party.  Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) made it very clear before any measure passed, "Pelosi and Reid have a job to do. The antiwar movement has a job to do. The jobs are not the same. This should be obvious -- but, judging from public and private debates now fiercely underway among progressive activists and organizations, there's a lot of confusion in the air. No amount of savvy Capitol-speak can change the fact that 'benchmarks' are euphemisms for more war. And when activists pretend otherwise, they play into the hands of those who want the war to go on . . . and on . . . and on." 
 
If Ari's still confused (or pretending to be), Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) makes it very clear: "What House Democrats actually did was pass a special budget bill giving George Bush every dollar he requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a few billion extra, and little more for vets health care, with a few tens of hundreds of millions worth of legislative prok on the side to secure the votes of reluctant Democrats on each flank.  The 'withdrawal measures' in the Democrat-approved war budget are unenforceable suggestions, a patchwork of loopholds held togethr by the empty pretense that President Bush and Pentagon will not lie to us."  Dixon notes that the Congressional Black Caucus "shattered" and "once again proved the near uselessness of the CBC as presently constituted."
 
CODEPINK's Gael Murphy spoke with Deepa Fernandes and Mitch Jeserich (WBAI's Wake Up Call Radio) Wednesday, who stated of the continued demonstrations to protest the continuation of the illegal war, "It's about having that opposition to this continuing war as visible as possible and as loud as possible."  Jeserich noted the more visible activity and Murphy agreed they had "stepped up our activity since the supplemental discussions and we will stay there through the Defense authorization debate. Fernandez wondered what the main goals were and Murphy replied, "Cut the funding for the war.  We want the war to end this year.  We want Congress to take its responsiblity and to, you know they've been repudiating the surge, they've been repudiating the conduct of the war so it's time for them to do something about it.  And we want them to cut the funding.  We want them to use whatever funding they have for a full, complete, rapid, safe, orderly withdrawal."   A clip was played by Robert Byrd "a new direction and it points the way out" and Free Speech Radio News' Leigh Ann Caldwell: "Well it's a suggested timeline for withdrawal next year, of March 2008.  That timeline is a goal. But what is binding is that the president is supposed to, or has to according to this, it's a statute that says that he has to start withdrawing troops within 120 days of the passage of this bill.  And so that part is binding and the real question is: Is the president actually going to listen to it?  He doesn't follow many of the other,  laws and regulations that are passed.  The fear that he'll sign a signing statement or that he just will ignore it.  The fear of many progressives is that it will end up in the courts." 
 
Caldwell then made the comment that "I know it doesn't go as far as many Democrats would like in cutting the funding."  Where is the funding cut?  No where.   Murphy stated CODEPINK's goal,  "Our call is absolutely, let's cut the funding now use whatever funding we have for the complete withdrawal.  So our focus is very much on what's going to happen when the supplemental leaves the conference -- cause what's going to happen after the House passes it's version they'll be a conference committee where the two resolutions will be reconciled and then what comes out will likely be a supplemental bill with a timeline and the benchmarks.  We're hoping that Bush does veto it because I think it is in our favor.  And when he does, we are expecting and will put pressure on  members of Congress not to go back to him with a weaker bill but, in fact, a stronger bill and that's where we're going to be putting our pressure to make sure that there is a stronger bill and that it's about getting the troops home by the end of the year."
 
As Robert Knight ( Flashpoints) noted yesterday, "Democrat and Republican senators continued quibbling over a 125 billion dollar appropriations bill that would guarantee a continued military presence in Iraq wll into the year 2008 if not beyond.  The Senate measure, which awaits a final vote and resolution with a similar non-specifically binding House bill is expected to be voted on later this week even though it faces a presidential veto.  Meanwhile Democratic leadership is already announcing that it's willing to negotiate with president Bush to water down the provisions during markup in order to avoid a veto." 
 
 
Progressive Democrats of America grasped the nature of the bills last week and issued their statement ("Disappointed in Democratic Leadership") -- PDA director Tim Carpenter, "It is antiwar sentiment that put Democrats into majority control of Congress.  The recent USA Today - Gallup poll showed 58 percent of Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year, or earlier.  We are profoundly disappointed that the Lee Amendment -- which reflects majority sentiment in the country -- was not allowed to be debated and voted upon by the full House.  In a free vote, we believe roughly 90 members of Congress would have supported the Lee Amendment and the desires of most Americans to get out of Iraq.  Having prevented that vote, the leadership's weak supplemental that prolongs funding of an unwinnable occupation is now more susceptible to wrong-headed attacks from Republicans and certain media circles as somehow risky or extreme."  This week, PDA has noted, "The bad news is that the House bill funds Bush's troop surge and won't bring our troops home until a Sept. 1 2008 'deadline' -- with provisions allowing troops to stay in Iraq beyond that on vaguely-defined 'training' or 'anti-terrorism' missions.  (That's why a group of progressive Congress members -- including Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, John Lewis and Dennis Kucinich -- felt the need to stand firm and vote no.)  More bad news is the disunity stirred up among antiwar progressives in Congress by the House leadership's arm-twisting and the intervention of MoveOn.org in support of the leadership's arm-twising."
 
Meanwhile, RadioNation with Laura Flanders'  Laura Flanders (The Nation via Common Dreams) observes, "Nonbinding this and that, deadline lah-di-dah, Bush/Cheney are going to ignore the mandate of the midterm elections and every pressure from Congress on Iraq, because Bush/Cheney know their opponents' bark has no bite.  And that's because those opponents have yet to renounced the Bush/Cheney vision of US supremacy in the world.  In fact, mostly, they share it."
 
Which gets to the heart of the matter.  Anne Flaherty (AP) reports that the Senate's bill has passed "a mostly party line 51-47 vote". Flaherty also quotes White House Flack Dana Perino stating, "I think the founders of our nation had great foresight in realizing that it would be better to have one commander in chief managing a war" blah, blah, blah.  Perino should realize the people of the nation have said no to the war and the issue of 'managing' is not a valid one -- the issue is ending the war.
 
[. . .]
 
Finally, returning to US political news. Yesterday the NOW PAC endorsed US Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.  Later yesterday, "NOW members endorse Dennis Kucinich."  NOW members Kat, Rebecca, Dona, Ava, Betty, Gina, Krista, Keesha, Kayla, Elaine, Martha and Shirley as well as former NOW member Trina used their voices to note that NOW PAC, which did not poll membership, does not speak for them and to decry the removal of the white dove and slogan "PEACE IS A FEMINIST ISSUE" from the NOW website in time to endorse War Hawk Hillary Clinton.
Along with  "NOW members endorse Dennis Kucinich" (Kat's Korner). Elaine's "I endorse Dennis Kucinich for the 2008 primary" and Rebecca's "this now member is endorsing kucinich" also address the issue and why they are endorsing Dennis Kucinich for the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. All who signed encourage other NOW members to announce their own endorsement.  NOW PAC is a political arm of NOW but it is NOW and NOW members should, as they have so powerfully throught the years, use their own voices to speak for themselves.
 
This week, Kucinch amplified his call for a national discussion regarding impeachment.
 
 

Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
Posted by at

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

ROLL OVER ALBERTO! SAMPSON ROLLS OVER ON YOU!

 
 
IN PREPARED REMARKS TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TOMORROW, KYLE SAMPSON SAYS 8 FEDERAL PROSECUTORS WERE FIRED FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL CHAMPION IN THE BILLIE JEAN KING LOOKALIKE CONTEST WAS NOT IN D.C.
 
WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT IN HOUSTON, TEXAS WHERE HE WAS PROMOTING PROJECT SAFE CHILDHOOD, GONZALES ATTEMPTED TO PLAY DOWN THE DISCLOSURE MAINTAINING THAT "IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL" AND OFFERING AN EXAMPLE, "FOR INSTANCE PRJECT SAFE CHILDHOOD DOESN'T EVEN LOOK FOR A MISSING CHILD UNTIL WE HAVE FIRST DETERMINED THAT THE PARENTS HAVE DONATED TO THE G.O.P."
 
 
Starting with war resistance.  US war resister Mark Wilkerson speaking about the military's record keeping,  "When I was AWOL I called this Army deserter's hot line about once every two weeks to see if my name would ever show up on the list.  I deserted in January 2005 and I started calling this list in February.  What I found was that I would call and give them my Social Security number and they would come back and say, 'No you are not on the list yet.  You are present for duty'."  Mark Wilkerson quoted by Cox News Service in their story on how: "The Army, which has been stressed by repeated deployments in Iraq, is no longer classifying some soldiers as deserters even though they have run away, according to those who counsel deserters and deserters themselves.  It is unclear how widespread the practice is but counselors say they believe the Army has failed to classify hundreds of soldiers as deserters even though they have been gone for more than six months."  The article also quotes Brian C. Hilferty (Army spokesperson, lt. colonel) stating that "the military no longer tries to hunt down deserters.  Instead, it assumes that deserters will eventually run afoul of police who check the NCIC computer."  Of course, that's not true either AEB by the military's attempts to bring in the California police while war resister Kyle Snyder was speaking there at the end of last year, by the military's ordering the Canadian police to arrest Kyle Snyder in Canada and by the still unexplained issue of three US military members posing as Canadian police officers and attempting to locate US war resister Joshua Key.  Speaking with US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted that "the men and women who have gone AWOL, there have been thousands of them, some are bing count-martialed, like Lieutenant Ehren Watada, will be court-martialed again -- it was a mistrial in his first trial -- first officer to say 'no' to war, to deployment to Iraq.  What do you think should happen to these men?  Agustin Aguayo, an Army medic who applied for CO status, didn't get it, and is now in prison in Germany.  Do you support their saying 'no'? Do you support their refusing to go to Iraq or redeploy to Iraq?"  Dennis Kucinich's response: "I support the troops who serve and also those who don't feel it's right to serve.  I think we have to ask our troops to be able to reserve the right of their conscience, and if they feel it's the right thing, we should support that, too.  I think we're in a point in the history of this country where many people have looked at the war and realized that it's wrong.  Some of those people are soldiers.  Soldiers are put in an impossible situation, not only those who are committed to serving in Iraq, but also those who know that the war is wrong and who question the war.  I think we have to love our troops, whatever situation they find themselves in.  And the way to support them is to bring them home. . . . . You know, I don't think that anyone who's taken a principle and conscientious position should be subject to a court-martial.  They should be permitted to leave the service if they so desire, but not be forced through that kind of a process.  I think, you know, there has to be an underlying truth here, and the underlying truth is the war was wrong, period.  The war is based on lies.  We should support our troops by bringing them home, and we should support those who have challenged the war by giving them a chance to leave honorably."
 
 
Wilkerson, Watada, Aguayo, Snyder and Key are Clousing and Wilkerson are a part of movement of resistance within the military that also includes Darrell Anderson,  Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Ricky Clousing, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-nine US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.  As the Cox News Service report indicates, the number of those self-checking out is far greater than the US military admits to.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
 
In the US, the Senate passed (50 to 48) an ammendment yesterday on Iraq.  As Andrew Ward (Financial Times of London) observes that "both houses of Congress must first reconcile their differing bills in conference" and Republican senators dropped their "attempts to remove the nonbinding timeline from a $121.6 bn war-funding bill".  Non-binding once again being the key point.  Robert Knight (Flashpoints) yesterday observed that the "Senate bill . . . is even weaker than the House bill since it only expresses the uneforceable goal, but not requirement, that most troops leave Iraq by March 31, 2008.  As with the House's war preservation bill, the Senate version would enable an unknown number of US troops to remain in Iraq beyond April 2008 for counter-insurgency training and security operations. . . .  The final legislation will almost certainly be met with a veto from President Bush." [Note:
 Flashpoints can be heard over the airwaves and online at KPFA  and KFCF.   Archived broadcasts can be found at Flashpoints and in the KPFA archives. Yesterday's snapshot included links to Flashpoints that were wrong.  My apologies for my mistake.  Thanks to Kyle for pointing that out.]  Larry Everest (CounterPunch) reminds, "In November, millions voted for the Democrats to protest Bush and the war, and in hopes they would end it.  Today, many -- including people who worked energetically to elect Democrats and who've been lobbying them to cut off war funding -- feel bitter, betrayed, and outraged.  They should be outraged.  The lesson is not that the Democrats 'sold out' or are 'spinless.'  The lesson is that the Democrats are a ruling class party (and this is deeply institutionalized, regardless of the desires or intentions of its supporters or even some elected Democrats), acting to advance the interests of a capitalist-imperialist system they're part of and represent."
 
The attempts to trick the people could backfire on the Democrats who see this non-binding, toothless nonsense as a sure vote-getter for 2008.  As Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) argued, this can be a sold as 'victory' for the GOP come 2008: "bully boy should sign it into law.  i'm not in the mind to help bully boy but, seriously, he should do it.  and if the dems don't offer anything stronger between now and august 2008, when they start finger pointing, he should say, 'look, i lived up to your bill.'  it won't be hard to do.  he's the 1 who gets to judge if the benchmarks have been met.  he can override things by declaring 'national security'. the dems, if they offer nothing else, have set their own trap."
In one of the more interesting developments, as Mike (Mikey Likes It!) notes, as more and more people catch on to the realities of the Democrats' measures, one of the biggest cheerleaders of the House action, someone who lectured and hectored people about how they weren't as realistic or as smart as he was, is now attempting to play populist of the people: "How stupid does Stupid Ass [David] Sirota think we all are?  Does he think we've all forgotten his attacks on everyone who had the strength to point out that the Pelosi measure did nothing?  Does he htink we've forgotten his pompous lectures?  Today he wants to play 'one of you'."  And some by it.  Though Mike didn't link to "Democracy Haters" (nor will we) some are happy to link the nonsense as the political hack now attempts to recast himself yet again.
 
So-called independent media made a big deal, rightly, about the mainstream media repeating Bully Boy's claims as facts.  That criticism looks far less strong when so many supposedly "independent" outlets rush to provide the Democrats spin while presenting themselves as factual outlets.  Meanwhile big media has failed repeatedly on the discussion in another regard.  Like US Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, they all rush to affirm Bully Boy's right to chart the illegal war.  A president's commander-in-chief role applies to the battle field -- a recognized and defined one -- and the people of the United States are the check on that.  Congress, representing them, can set dealines and should set them considering the 2006 election results.  Parroting Hillary, many media outlets rush to state that timelines could interfere with Bully Boy's ability to wage war.  The people have decided.  In the 2006 elections, in the polls consistently.  The one interfering is the Bully Boy who wants to continue his illegal war.  (And Congress is certainly aiding him in that.)  Bully Boy is not King of America.  There is no king in the United States.  
 
Staying on the subject of politics for a moment, Hillary Clinton has been endorsed in her 2008 presidential bid by NOW -- the National Organization For Women.  As to whether or not the endorsement required that they remove "Peace is a feminist issue" -- a slogan displayed on their site for years -- is a question someone should ask NOW.  Where the dove and slogan used to be, visitors are now told "Love Your Body" and apparently that somehow factored into the decision process by which War Hawk Hillary Clinton won an endorsement from what was an organization strongly dedicated to ending the war.  Again, NOW has removed the dove and slogan "Peace is a feminist issue" from their website and they have endorsed War Hawk Hillary Clinton for 2008.
 
Today on Democracy Now!, Dennis Kucinich addressed the realities of what was being promised and reality:
 
 
Dennis Kucinich: Well, we were given false choices. We were told that we either buy into president Bush's plan, which is keep the war going indefinitely, or accept the Democratic version of the war in Iraq, which would keep the war going for another year or two. I say those choices weren't sufficient.  The Democrats could have refused to send a bill forward. We didn't have to fund this war. We're not under any obligation to keep the war going. And yet our leaders took another path. Furthermore, Amy, you may be interested to know that the 2008 budget, which is before Congress today and will be voted on tomorrow, contains another $145 billion for the war, and on top of that, they're putting another $50 billion for the war in fiscal year 2009.  So this talk about ending the war by March or by September belies the fact that the budget has money in it to keep the war going into 2009. And I think that's wrong. I think the American people will reject that type of thinking.  And I'm standing strong to say "Get out now."  I put forth a plan embodied in HR 1234 to accomplish just that.
 

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Posted by at

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

THIS JUST IN! G.O.P. SENATORS CONSERVE ENERGY!

 
THE DEMOCRATIC NON-BINDING SENATE RESOLUTION HAS PASSED DUE TO CONVSERVATION EFFORTS BY THE REPUBLICANS.
 
THOUGH THE JOHN MCCAIN SHOWBOAT EXPRESS CAME HUFFING AND PUFFING BACK TO D.C., MOST REPUBLICAN SENATORS CHOSE NOT TO BREAK SWEAT OVER THE MEASURE WHICH WON ON A 50-48 VOTE.
 
SAID SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, "BULLY BOY WILL VETO IT, SO WHY SHOULD I BREAK A SWEAT.  IN FACT, THIS FEELS REALLY NICE."
 
SENATOR HATCH WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT AFTER 6 YEARS OF WORKING OVERTIME TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY, IT WAS NICE TO TAKE A BREAK, SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING.
 
"I FEEL JUST LIKE A DEMOCRAT," HE SIGHED.
 
 
 
 
 
Last week, as the U.S. death toll in Iraq climbed over 3,242, Congress voted to continue the war by approving the $124 billion supplemental bill. This week, the Senate is expected to similarly approve funding for this war that continues to violently destroy U.S. and Iraqi lives every day. The Democratic leadership claims that, to end the war, they must continue funding it. Iraq Veterans Against the War knows that, despite the Democrats guarantees of time tables and restrictions, the supplemental will not end the occupation of Iraq or prevent further escalation of the war. It is time for our brothers and sisters in the military to come home and for the Iraqi people to be allowed their right to self-determination.
 
"To end the war, they must continue to fund it".  Emphasized for those who will hear that and remember the 'logic' of "to save the village, we had to destroy the village."  (That's the popular version of the quote.  Following the slaughter of Ben Tre, the actual quote was: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.")  So that's where it stands now, as Iraq Veterans Against the War points out, the solution of the US Congress is that "to end the war, they must continue to fund it."
 
Yesterday, on Flashpoints, Robert Knight devoted his entire Knight Report to the realities of the Pelosi measure: "Pelosi bragged that the measure was 'a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq.'  But in reality, the bill fulfills neither claim.  The measure grants President Bush the unimpeded prerogative of maintaining his current escalation in Iraq through October 2007 at which time he is merely requested to self-certify success in his self-defined benchmarks.  Those benchmarks include provisions for the Iraqi occupation regime to reign in death squads and to enact the US designed and multi-national friendly oil law that is presently before Iraq's absentee occupation parliament.  Regardless of Bush's automatic auto-certification, no actual troop withdrawals would be required before August 2008 during the height of the national party conventions at which time the Democrats would then blame the Republicans with a war whose continuation they would have guaranteed until the eve of November 2008 presidential election.  But even when the August deadline matures, Bush would still be allowed to maintain more than half of the 150,00 troops in Iraq due to a term of art in the legislation that requests the redeployment but not the homecoming of some 70,000 so-called combat troops.  This would leave an equal or greater number of US troops in Iraq under the vague but permanent classifications of counter-insurgency, security and training for what New York Senator Hillary Clinton calls 'remaining vital national security interests in the heart of the oil region'."  To hear The Knight Report in full check Flashpoints and in the KPFA archives.  (Those unable to listen can click here for a 'rush' and 'rushed' transcript.)
 
Also decrying the Pelosi measure is Joshua Frank (CounterPunch): "Having been one of the unfortunate geeks who actually read the bill, I can tell you only one thing -- it's a complete farce.  In order for troops to come home the Bushies would have to confim whether or not 'progress' has been made in Iraq, not Congress.  So with more money in hand and sole authority on deciding whether or not the war is going as planned, the White House, even if Bush signed the bill, would never have to end the thing.  The proposal wasn't a compromise as many have claimed, but a dagger in the heart of all those of us who want to bring this war to a screeching halt."
 
Turning to news of war resistance, Ricky Clousing spoke March 17, 2007 at a rally in Fayetteville, "Hello, my name is Sgt. Ricky Clousing.  I was stationed here in Fort Bragg
in the 82 Airborn division. I served with the 82nd in December of 2004 in Iraq as an interroagtor and after witnessing the abuse of power and the injustices that happened on a daily basis I decided I no longer could be a part of not only the 82nd airborn but also the organization of the military.  So after deciding to go AWOL and serving a few months in jail, I'm here to say thank you guys because I received amazing support through my process and my journey.  I'm not going to share my whole story because a lot of you might be familiar with it but I really want to just let you guys know how much it meant to me the support and letters and the organization for events like this and what not that you guys really blazed a trail for people like me for refusing to fight anymore and my brothers here that decided not to do it.  So I just want to say that a lot of the times since I've gone and spoken at a different place that people, a lot of times, put things on a pedestal and different situations or people or places.  And I think that it's important to express that we are all part of this bigger puzzle and this bigger of collective idea of peace and how to attain that Just be careful of putting people in those positions because it takes the responsibility that we all have to do our part -- and part of that is being here today and marching and walking and spreading the word on an individual level.  So just remember that war isn't good for children and other living things.  Thank you guys very, very much."
 
On August 11, 2006, Ricky Clousing went public with his story of how he checked himself out of the military following his service in Iraq -- making an announcement in Seattle at the
 Veterans for Peace conference.  October 12, 2006, Clousing was court-martialed.  The sentence was three months, bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank.  Clousing referred in the speech to the letters and support he received.  Currently, US war resister  Mark Wilkerson is is serving a sentence for self-checking out. From Courage to Resist: "Write to Mark while he is in the brig c/o his wife Sarah: Mark and Sarah Wilkerson, PO Box 25037, Colorado Springs CO 80936.  Please consider a donation to Mark Wilkerson's legal defense fund.."  On August 31st, Wilkerson spoke at Camp Casey III --  a press conference -- announcing his intent to turn himself in after having self-checked out a year and a half ago.  That evening he was interviewed by Dennis Bernstein for KPFA's  Flashpoints, where they discussed  Wilkerson's service in Iraq and how his views changed from those he'd held at 17-years-old.  He attempted to receive c.o. status but his was denied.  He attempted to prepare for the rebuttal process but was informed he'd be redeploying to Iraq and any rebuttal would have to wait until his second deployment ended.  When Bernstein asked him if he had any regrets about his decision to self-check out, Wilkerson responded, "I completely stand by my decision.  For me, this was a time in my life when I decided I had to make a stand regardless of whether [it meant] prison or death".  On February 22nd of this year, his court-martial began at Fort Hood in Texas. Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months in military prison and will receive a bad conduct discharge. 
 
 
Clousing and Wilkerson are a part of movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Joshua Key, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
 
 
The editorial page editor of the San Jose Mercury News, Stephen E. Wright, wrote of the changes in his own life since his son shipped off to the illegal war this month, "But now we talk about the war, via my son, almost daily: How's he doing?  Have you heard from him?  Is he in Iraq yet?  In a far more presonal way, we discuss the impact on families and friends, the political meaneuvering and the lack of progress in bringing stability to the country.  What we don't talk about are the daily news stories about soldiers killed in action.  Having a son on his way to Iraq hasn't changed my view of the war.  We should not have invaded the country.  If this were a righteous war, it would be more bearable to see him go.  But now there's a knot in the pit of my stomach every time I think about where he's headed, what he might have to do and what might be done to him."
 
 

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
Posted by at

Monday, March 26, 2007

THIS JUST IN! 'SINCERITY' AND 'INTEGRITY'

 
 
PROMINENT WAR HAWK AND ASPIRING PRESIDENT-TO-BE HILLARY CLINTON TODAY
USED HER CONCILATORY SIDE TO REACH OUT TO PEOPLE SHOCKING MANY WHO HAD NOT SEEN THE SIDE SINCE SOMEWHERE AROUND 1998. 
 
IN WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A PERSONAL TRIUMPH THAT REMINDED MANY WHY THEY ONCE LIKED HILLARY CLINTON, SHE INSTEAD USED THAT SIDE TO SELL LOWERED EXPECTATIONS.
 
 
IMMEDIATELY RADARS BEGAN GOING OFF.
 
 
LIKE A PUSHY KID TRYING TO START SOMETHING, CLINTON TRIED TO PLAY THE POPULACE AND SOME AREN'T BUYING IT.
 
SAID A CONSULTANT FOR BARACK OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN, "OH NOW WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER?  NOW?  SHE VOTED FOR THAT WAR.  BUT NOW WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER?  'RUSHED US TO WAR'?  IS IT TOO HARD FOR HER TO SAY 'LIED US INTO WAR' OR IS 'LIED' AND 'PRESIDENT' TOUCHING ON SOMETHING TOO PERSONAL FOR HER?"
 
THE CONSULTANT THEN RUSHED TO ASSURE US THAT HE WAS SPEAKING ONLY FOR HIMSELF AND NOT THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN.  HE DID, HOWEVER, OFFER TO LEAK SOME LEGAL FILES ON THE CLINTON'S MARRIAGE IF WE WERE INTERESTED.
 
 
 
On KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett today, Garrett spoke with US House Reps Barbara Lee and Dennis Kuckinich -- both of whom voted against the Pelosi measure and Dennis Kucinich is also running to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008.
 
Garrett: What is good in this bill?
 
Lee: Just having the House of Representatives establishing a timeline is good.  Whether you agree or disagree with the timeline, whether it's enforceable is another question.. . .
 
Garrett: Barbara Lee, we want to know what's enforceable?  Is the banning of permanent bases enforceable?  Is the banning of torture enforceable? 
 
Lee: It's enforceable if the Bush administration wants to follow the law.  But, remember now, he's going to veto this bill and, remember, the only enforceability that you can require on a supplemental bill is taking him to court -- Congress can take the Bush administration to court.  But how many times have you seen the Congress take the  administration to court?
 
Lee went on to note the things in the bill such as its attempt to address avian flu and other non-bird related and, certainly, non-Iraq related issues.
 
Garrett: You have a lot of good things here but my question is how much of it is enforceable and what you're telling us is that really, basically, none of it is enforceable  because he has the option should he decide that the circumstances warrant it  not to follow this bill, isn't that true?
 
Lee: Yeah, that's the waiver positon but also remember he's going to veto it . . .
 
For those who missed it, the answer to Lila Garrett's question, which she asked more than once, is that the Pelosi measure cannot be enforced -- or as Garrett noted near the end of the interview, "The bill forces him to do nothing."  (Contractors and a number of other issues -- including Iran were discussed.  Jeremy Scahill also was on the program to discuss his book on the mercenary company BlackWater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army which is a BuzzFlash premium -- those unable to listen to Garrett's interview can also check out BuzzFlash for their interview with Scahill.)  Garrett then spoke with Kucinich in an interview taped right after Friday's vote.
 
Kucinich: I voted against it and I voted against it because it will continue to fund the war through the end of the president's term.  That President Bush is talking about vetoing it is no small comfort. The Democrats essentially bought the war and now President Bush is saying even that isn't enough.
 
Garrett: The bill has contained with in it, some people will argue, and some of the Democrats argued, some very positive things.  The president wanted 93 billion dollars to continue the war and he got it, but there were 25 billion dollars worth of things, some of which were very worthwhile, 1.7 billion for the health care for the veterans, there was money for child and spousal abuse, there was money for contractor control, there was money that banned permanent bases, banned torture, that provided troop readyness.  What's your response to the so-called positives in this bill?
 
 
Kucinich:  Are you kidding?  The war's going to keep going through the end of President Bush's term.  No amount of attempt to sweeten this is going to make it anything but a mess.  We need to get out of Iraq, the Democrats have the power to do it. Why they chose not to excercise it today is beyond me but I will tell you this that the American people are going to have a rising demand for peace, they're fed up with this war, they're fed up with the Democratic party not standing up for the people,  And frankly the idea that somehow we can end the war somehow we can end this war if we just give it a little more time?  Baloney.  You end the war by ending a war you don't end the war by letting it go for another year or two.  And it's the same kind of thinking that got us into Iraq -- says, "Well, you know, we don't have any other alternative to go and attack Iraq and now we're saying we don't have any other alternative but to keep the war going for a year or two until we figure out what to do with it. We got to stop this war and I voted against it.
 
Kucinich and Garrett then discussed the reality of Iraq today ("bombed their country to smitheerens") and the nonsense behind the attitude that demandes "benchmarks" from an occupied, puppet government.  Kucinich then spoke of  "making the administration accountable for their actions."  Kucinich propsed a national discussion on impeachment.  To be clear for those who didn't hear or won't be able to listen, he's proposing a discussion of the topic -- he's not (or not yet) proposing introducing a bill in the House.  On why he's now bringing up this issue, Kucinich stated, "I didn't talk about it as long as there was a chance that we could stop this war but with Congress determined to give the president the money he wants to keep the war going, it appears that the war is going to just keep going no matter what and so I think, at this point, we need to get back to how we got into war.  We got into war because President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied to the American people.  You know what?  There's got to be consquences for that.  And I think it's time for us to have a discussion so I'd like to hear from your listeners, I'd like to hear from others as to whether or not this is the time to start talking about impeachement and the time to start drawing up resolutions of impeachment.
 
Garrett brought up a conversation she had with US Senator Ted Kennedy about impeachment where he asked her if she would like President Dick Cheney and Kucinich responded, "When you talk about resolutions you need to use the plural 'resolutions'."  To repeat, Kucinich is proposing a dialogue on this issue and, from that, other steps would or would not be taken.
 
On WBAI's Law and Disorder today, Michael Ratner noted that Anthony Arnove's latest book was IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal and asked him about the Congressional measure and what's been proposed by US Senators and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
 
Anthony Arnove: In terms of the proposal that's now in Congress about withdrawal it has about 8 million loopsholes.  First of all it refers to combat troops even those combat troops that it talks about setting a timetable for removing from Iraq -- that timetables is based on conditions so in other words at any point along the line they can say "well the conditions require us to continue as an occupying force".  Then, of course, it's not calling for a complete withdrawal of troops.  It's not talking about the mercenaries that the US is sponsoring in Iraq.
 
Ratner: Which are probably almost the equivalent of the US soldiers, right? It's over 100,000.
 
Arnove: Well there are more than 100,000 private contractors.  We don't know if all of those are involved as actual mercenaries  but certainly the second largest contigent of military force in Iraq is private contractors, not England -- which is what you hear about in the media.  But also the plans say nothing about removing US military bases.  They don't address the fact that today the US is building the largest embassy it has in the world in Baghdad.
 
Ratner: It's 300,000 square feet, right?
 
Arnove: It's just this enormous compound.  And it's very clear that they're going to stay that they want to establish military bases, that they want to establish a client regime in Iraq, they want to continue a presence in Iraq and they want to be able to not only control events in Iraq and, of course, control the oil in Iraq. but They want to be able to use Iraq as a staging ground to protect their power in the region particularly vis a vi Iran but also Syria and other countries.
 
Ranter and Arnove then discussed Antonia Juhasz' op-ed that ran in the New York Times regarding the oil privatization and how the issue was about the control -- who will get it, who won't, a weapon against other countries whose oil needs are growing such as China.  Michael Ratner is one of the co-hosts of Law and Disorder (Daliah Hashad, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian are also co-hosts) and that's the segment I heard but the firend who phoned (and held up the phone so I could hear) also wanted me to note that today's program features, in music between segments, a very strong acoustic performance of "People Have The Power" by Patti Smith.
 
I believe everything we dream
Can come to pass through our union
We can turn the world around
We can turn the earth's revolution
We have the power
People have the power . . .
"People Have The Power," written by Patti Smith, originally on her Dream of Life
 
Which also acts as segue to Howard Zinn who wrote (in The Progressive): "As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.  In response to the Bush Administration's 'surge' of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months.  And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.  That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal saying that progressives in Congress, 'like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.'  Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war.  It's as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this iwth an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.  When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall meekly behind them."
 
Also weighing in is Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan (via AfterDowningStreet.org) -- against the weak measure and against MoveOn while noting, "In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House.  The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008.  The prolongation of the occupation is now opposed by two-thirds of all Americans; we want our troops safely home by this Christmas, not politically chicanery.  As a consequence Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll.  The Democrats failue to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections."
 

Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)