Sir! No Sir is Coming to Cape Cod for an Advance Screening!

Stop This War
Part ll

COMING THIS FRIDAY APRIL 21, 2006 at 7pm Sir! No Sir!", a new documentary film about the GI movement during the Vietnam War, will have a very special screening this Friday, April 21, at the Harwich Community Center 100 Oak Street (across from Harwich High School) at 7:00 p.m. This special film screening and will be followed by a discussion led by Joe Bangert, of Brewster who is a participant in the film. Two weeks ago US Army Iraq Veteran, Andrew Sapp, who just came back from his tour of Iraq, also spoke out against this wrongful war here in Harwich.

Cape Cod Today NEWS

This film "Sir, No Sir"! is sponsored by the following groups.

• Cape Codders for Peace and Justice Coalition
• Change the Course, Cape Cod,
• Iraq Veterans Against the War
• Veterans for Peace Cape Cod Chapter,
• VVAW Viet Nam Veterans Againist the War

and thousands of other folks who came or will come out, against this war!

Baghdad Blogs

The Open Parachute Film Series sponsored by Cape Codders for Peace & Justice, is now showing a weekly spring film festival at Harwich Community Center at 7:00 PM

Directions: from Hyannis or Boston Rte. 6 to exit 10, left at blinking light Queen Anne Rd. Right on Oak Street across from Harwich High School

This Week on Friday





The CAPE COD ONLY FILM PREMIER of "Sir ! No Sir !" with guest speaker Joe Bangert and perhaps a few US Army veterans just home from the war, will have a few things to say on this war as well !

Come hear the not ready for prime time news! This will not be on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and certainly not ever on FOX!

IVAW or http://www.ivaw.net/

R.I.P. Specialist Doug Barber

"It is with great sadness that IVAW announces the death of one of our own. Specialist Doug Barber, a member of IVAW, recently took his own life after returning from Iraq. A main contributor to his death was the PTSD he dealth with; the same PTSD that originated from the time Doug spent in the war in Iraq. Another contributing factor was the failure of the VA to provide adequate mental care services to heal the wounds of war.

This is not the first time that a soldier has taken his life after returning from the battlefield. Even today, the list of the tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans who have committed suicide continues to grow. Aiding Iraq Veterans continues to be one of the main goals of IVAW. With your continued support, we will keep up the fight to make sure that returning vets receive the benefits and help they need and deserve."

Below is an article that was written by Jay Shaft, who had spoken extensively with Doug about his experiences. At the bottom of the article, there are links to articles Doug had written and audio interviews he had given.In Memory of Specialist Doug Barber

In Memory and Mourning of the Tragic Death of Douglas Barber

"Today I come to you with a heavy and troubled heart. I have the unfortunate task of giving you some very tragic news. Yesterday afternoon Specialist Douglas Barber, an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, took his own life after struggling with the demons and nightmares of PTSD for over two years.

No one really knows what caused his sudden and deadly breakdown. Doug had been on the phone laughing and kidding around with one of his best friends about an hour before the incident. Several friends have said that Doug seemed to be in an upbeat and playful mood throughout the morning, and that he never mentioned any problems.

He was on his way over to his best friend's house to hang out and try to forget about his problems for awhile. Something happened after that which caused Doug to give up and make the decision to take his own life. For some reason Doug decided he could no longer bear the ongoing pain, agony and inner torment.

The Lee County, Alabama sheriff's department was on the scene trying to talk Doug out of it for over 30 minutes. The investigating officer has stated that every effort was made to stop the situation and save Doug's life. Doug apparently turned his back to the officers, fired one shot, and ended his life.

William Wooldridge is a fellow veteran who served in Iraq in 2003. He said that Doug called and left two messages that were playfully making fun of him for still being in bed. William woke up to find one last horrifying message from Doug on his answering machine. He tried to get in contact with Doug's friend and found out it was already too late.

Today I was supposed to publish a positive update to Doug’s case for 100% service connected PTSD with the VA. He had finally achieved a victory in his long struggle and fight to get counseling and medical benefits.

Instead I find myself mourning someone who had become a good friend of mine. Instead of writing Doug's story of hope and courage, I find myself compiling a his final memorial. An overwhelming wave of sadness washes over me as I write this. What was a story of triumph has turned into a tale of tragedy.

I find myself unable to deny a friendship with Doug, especially after we had invested over a month in telling his story of what happened in Iraq and after he came home with PTSD. He was extremely excited and relieved about going through the process of receiving his full disability and medical benefits.

I was helping Doug to arrange his personal account into an outline for book publication. I have spent hours helping him talk out the chapters and to flesh out his story in fuller detail.

As a result of this work I was in contact with him at least three times a day and we spent over 100 hours in contact over the phone. Next week Doug was planning on coming down to visit and to meet me in person.

Even though I was talking to him every day, I was not aware of how close Doug was to a breakdown. Sadly, I will never be able to shake his hand or go out for a beer and just shoot the shit. We were planning on just sitting down, having a normal conversation, and forgetting about all the problems we had shared and discussed.

I spoke to him on Sunday and was prepared to conduct a final interview about the progress in his life yesterday morning. I never spoke to Doug again. I feel such a loss that I cannot begin to comprehend it. One of the last things he said to me was that he was happy to be standing up for all the other vets who were getting screwed by the VA and the military.

Doug had just been awarded a 50% disability with 100% to be awarded within 90 days. After over two years of hell and agony he was finally able to access proper counseling for his PTSD. Sadly it was too little, too late.

He had been denied treatment for so long that he was in an unimaginably horrifying mental state. All the problems that had been buried and untreated for the last two years finally overcame Doug’s ability to deal with it.

He was looking towards a conclusion to his personal war for benefits and treatment. After fighting for over two years, the end of his struggle appeared on the horizon. He repeatedly told me that the clouds of PTSD were breaking up and that he felt the light of day in his darkness and despair. Those were the last words he ever spoke to me.

He hung up in a cheerful and jubilant mood. All he could think about was that the update was coming out today, and everyone would see that a vet could win against the system if he stuck in there long enough. He wanted every vet to know that they could stand up and tell everyone if they had been denied treatment or recognition from the VA.

He kept his hopes up with the thought that he was leading the way for every returning soldier who would follow in his footsteps. The overwhelming public response and support gave him courage and strength when he was at his weakest.

He could see that his story had made a tremendous impact with the public and had resonated to the highest levels of the VA, Pentagon, and Congress. Because of his story and words of truth, hurried investigations have been initiated and VA administrators are now reviewing their policy in regard to the treatment of returning Reservists and National Guardsmen.

Doug may have taken his own life, but the blame should rest squarely on the shoulders of the VA. They stonewalled his claim and prevented him from getting treatment at every step of the way. He struggled for two years to get any type counseling for his problems.

Last year he turned himself in for emergency crisis treatment through the VA. Their response was to give him a counseling appointment every three months and give him medication without any real supervision or follow-up.

Because they did not immediately respond to Doug’s cry for help, his condition was allowed to grow into an insurmountable problem. If they had given him access to therapy and full PTSD counseling and support I doubt his life would have come to this unnecessary end. It was a complete failure on the part of the VA that led to this senseless death of a man who put his life on the line for his country.

They had the ability to step in last year after they knew without doubt that he was in imminent crisis and desperate for help. Instead they stalled him to the point of utter mental breakdown. His pleas for help were ignored and shuffled through the chain of endless paperwork, applications for services and case reviews.

What happened to Doug has happened to thousands of veterans who have returned from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also happening to vets from every previous war.

Doug was just the latest soldier in a long tale of tragedy and woe being suffered by this nation. Many families have lost a loved one after every option and resource was unavailable to a soldier in dire need of immediate care and compassion.

The VA by its denial of assistance and betrayal of trust helped Doug to reach his final day of desperation. It is their failure to help, not Doug’s reaction to problems he could no longer cope with that needs to be the story behind this tragedy. They must be held accountable for their failure not only to help Doug but the hundreds of thousands of other vets being denied their benefits.

We all must realize that if Doug was getting the proper care and supervision, his problems would have been addressed and a path of healing could have been offered. As it was he got no help until he broke down and took his own life because he had lost all hope of recovery. This should never have to happen to another veteran who has served this country.

I will be releasing an article tomorrow in tribute to Doug’s memory and the truth he helped to expose. He should be remembered as a common man who stood up for his brothers and sisters in arms. His personal views may have caused conflict, but his desire for fair treatment of all vets carried above any political views he had.

I have spoken to Doug’s wife Robin and several of his close friends. I have been in contact with many people who loved and cared for Doug, and his death is not going to be forgotten or ignored. I will be releasing some comments and experiences from Doug’s friends that were in touch with him over the last few days. Please look for a press release to come out by tomorrow evening.

I am also releasing over two hours of audio interviews with Doug so that everyone can hear his experiences recounted in his own words.

As I write this I am listening to Doug’s interview with talk show host Doug Basham conducted on 12/16/05. I sit here with tears in my eyes when I realize how much I will miss Doug’s frank and open honesty. I will miss his desire to stand up and expose the truth for the whole country to see.

I will especially miss his burning and ardent dedication to revealing the facts of how veterans are being denied healthcare and access to proper counseling and treatment.

I am unable to write any more at this time. I find myself really feeling the shock and loss for the first time since I heard the tragic news. I just can’t write any more without breaking down. I join in mourning with Doug’s family and friends. I share the pain of all those who knew Doug and will miss his forthrightness, dedication and honesty."


Jay Shaft, Editor, Coalition For Free Thought In Media
coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia@yahoo.com

Doug’s interview “Iraq took away our innocence” can be read at
http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/msg/2fe6cd944011c4b5?dmode=source

To listen to a followup to the interview go to
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722502.php

To hear the interview with Doug Basham go to
http://www.dougbasham.com/12-16-05DouglasBarber.mp3

I published Doug’s last article on the 10th of January. Sadly it will stand as his final thoughts and the last words that were ever written by him.

Please read it if you wish to understand the dedication Doug had to his cause.
Spc. Doug Barber: PTSD - A Soldier's Personal War!
http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/msg/339447f2ecaef4db

coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia@yahoo.com

Doug’s interview “Iraq took away our innocence” can be read at
http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/msg/2fe6cd944011c4b5?dmode=source

To listen to a followup to the interview go to
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722502.php

To hear the interview with Doug Basham go to
http://www.dougbasham.com/12-16-05DouglasBarber.mp3

I published Doug’s last article on the 10th of January. Sadly it will stand as his final thoughts and the last words that were ever written by him.

Please read it if you wish to understand the dedication Doug had to his cause.
Spc. Doug Barber: PTSD - A Soldier's Personal War!
http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/msg/339447f2ecaef4db

General, your tank is a mighty vehicle.
It shatters the forest and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs drivers.

General, a man is quite expendable.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.”
-- Bertolt Brecht

Winner of several Best Documentary awards at film festivals across the U.S., the film tells the little known story of the anti-war movement inside of the military in the words of the GI's themselves. Alternating with historic footage are present day interviews with the veterans. Their candid reflections are extremely relevant to contemporary events at the same time that they provide a needed revision to the distorted and incomplete view most Americans have of the controversial conflict that ended 30-some years ago.

We proudly and gratefully welcome home today's veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but are we listening to their stories? If it is possible to learn from history, we have a great opportunity on Friday night.

John Bangert jjbangert@comcast.net Phone: (508) 432-0545 - Harwich, MA

Andy Sapp andrewsapp@comcast.net Phone: (978) 930-4731 - Concord, MA

Joe Bangert joebangert@yahoo.com Phone: (508) 896-6258 - Brewster, MA
Anne Spear
For more information contact: Anne Spear

---

---

Come join us for viewing of documentaries/educational videos in an attempt to broaden our understanding of the world and people around us. Have a date on us.

THE MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE, IT WORKS ONLY WHEN IT IS OPEN!

"The universe is wider than our view of it!"
Henry David Thoeau





Come see future past feartures like
The Academy Award Winner The Fog of War!"


"As in Morris movies like Gates of Heaven and The Thin Blue Line, the filmmaking is meticulous and the ideas are endlessly thought-provoking."

-- David Sterritt, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

"The interviews were filmed a year before the war in Iraq. That so many of McNamara's lessons have come into play imbue The Fog of War with an eerie clarity."

-- Jeff Strickler, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE

"It will knock you for a loop like no other movie this year."

-- Peter Travers, ROLLING STONE



Also Coming Soon! Winter Soldier!







Brewster's Joe Bangert was one of the members of this Winter Film Collective and starred in both of these films as himself, a young angry, man who was mislead by his President, his Country and his moral leaders but for the brave and few exceptions. Sounds not too unlike now!

US Marine Sgt. Joe Bangert, USMC in Viet Nam 1968

Background for Joe Bangert and VVAW and WinterSoldier

'Sir! No Sir!' - Review - Movies - New York Times

'Sir! No Sir!' - Review - Movies - New York Times

Sir, No Sir as Review in The Village Voice

Sir! No Sir! never mentions the words Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't have to. Unseen and unremarked upon, those bloody venues nonetheless inhabit the entire 85 minutes of David Zeiger's impassioned documentary like some deadly, creeping virus for which there's no cure.

Zeiger's actual subject, which he says has been on his mind for decades, is the G.I. anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, a phenomenon far more powerful than the Swift Boat Veterans and all those neocon revisionists dedicated to putting a heroic new face on the ugliness of the Vietnam War would have us believe. From its mild beginnings—poetry readings and discussion groups for young recruits at coffeehouses set up near U.S. military bases—to its angriest, most desperate measures (the "fragging" of officers by their own men in the jungles of Southeast Asia), radical opposition to American foreign policy by thousands of our own soldiers, sailors, and airmen during Vietnam has been largely forgotten. So have the uniformed dissidents' underground newspapers, pirate radio stations, and huge stateside demonstrations. If we can believe Zeiger (and his evidence is pretty convincing), the entire movement has been more or less erased from the record, like the inconvenient fact of romantic love in 1984 or the notion of individual freedom in Stalinist Russia.

Sir! No Sir! recalls the follies and failures of one American war, but disturbing parallels to the one now being waged by the Bush administration are inescapable. For Zeiger, who as a young activist helped organize demonstrations of veterans against the war, the time is right to remember. To that end, he has assembled a collection of grizzled servicemen who have plenty to say about what happened to them. The myth of the silent vet reluctant to talk about his war experience goes up in smoke here. Dr. Howard Levy, a dermatologist who served three years in prison for refusing to continue training Green Beret medics, tells how during his court martial, hundreds of G.I.'s would hang out of their barracks windows, flashing him the peace sign or the clenched fist. David Cline, an ex-grunt who was wounded three times in the killing fields, recalls the terrible day that he shot a North Vietnamese regular at close range and, moments later, stared into the dead soldier's face, wondering about his family, his life, his dreams. Medic Randy Rowland remembers grotesquely paralyzed U.S. soldiers begging him to kill them in their hospital beds because they couldn't do it themselves. Later, Rowland helped organize the now forgotten "Presidio 27" stockade protest in San Francisco, provoked by the shooting of an escapee. "I kind of came in as an AWOL," he says, "and within two days of hitting the stockade, I was facing a death sentence for singing 'We Shall Overcome.' "

Love her or leave her, Jane Fonda's also in the film, talking (a bit self-absorbedly) about how she found a way to combine her acting career with her anti-war sentiments: "It just seemed like a perfect fit." Fine, but how shall we "fit" into the larger scheme of things a black soldier and outspoken war critic named Billy Dean Smith, who in 1969 was singled out as a scapegoat in a "fragging" case? Held in solitary confinement for 22 months, he was eventually acquitted because there wasn't a shred of evidence against him. He wound up homeless, then landed back in prison. As for John Kerry, he's not mentioned here because Zeiger thought he would have been a major distraction. You'll have to catch Going Upriver for that story.

As it is, this one is compelling enough, a potent mix of outrage, residual anger, and sorrow that speaks not just to the legacy of our misadventures in Vietnam, but to the entire uncertain future of a nation at war.

Mom's On Main Street

Moms Sign up the Senior Class, is a nonpartisan national grassroots project whereby mothers (and others) visit classrooms of high school seniors and register them to vote.
It’s simple, really. Just like we’ve always done, we moms help our kids fill out forms.

But this time it isn’t a permission slip for a school field trip, or even a college application.
It’s something that we hope they’ll use for the rest of their lives.
It’s a voter registration form.

Every spring, millions of 18-year-olds graduate from high schools across the country.

These young adults – our children - are newly eligible to vote.

But there is no concerted effort nationwide to register them while they are still in high school and relatively easy to reach as a group.

We’ve got a plan to change that, called Vote@18: Moms Sign up the Senior Class.

The Need a little inspiration first? Read one mom’s story.
If you’re feeling a little shy, remember, you’ll be talking to students in your own kid’s school, in your own community.

You’ll be making a valuable contribution to their new lives as grown-ups, and it feels darned good. Help build on the groundswell of increased youth voter turnout in the 2006-2008 elections, and forge a culture of energized, engaged youth. Help sign up senior class!

Check out our http://www.themmob.org/voteat18/voteat18toolkit.html.

Good luck, and have fun meeting the Class of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2010!

Mainstreet Moms (The MMOB) is an education-in-action project committed to big change through the accelerated engagement of women, particularly as they identify and self-organize as mothers. MMOB is strictly guilt-free.
MMOB believes moms are hard-wired for sustainability. We have to think 10, 20, 30 years out because our kids will be there. Times like these call for more of us to be on the move, but traditional volunteerism doesn't always fit into the nooks and crannies left in a mom's full day. That's why MMOB works to serve it up. We know how to pull a good time out of chaos, and we aim for impact. This year, it's all about the vote reform.
MEANWHILE, the MMMOB offers easy-to-use tools for Moms and Honorary Moms of every stripe and flavor, pure and simple. The MMOB welcomes Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Independents, Decline-to-States and Plain Fed Ups -- absolutely anyone who'd like to join us in THE PURSUIT OF A RESTORED DEMOCRACY, THE NEXT ENERGY CHAPTER, MORE MOMS IN CHARGE, MORE KIDS ENGAGED, LESS IRAQ, AND truth in everything.
Current "education-in-actions" at The MMOB include Hold on HAVA, a vote reform project, Leave My Child Alone, a family privacy project focused on No Child Left Behind's military recruitment section, and http://www.themmob.org/voteat18/voteat18.html, a high-school senior voter registraion project.
The MMOB is a 501(c)3 corporation (in process). Contributions to the MMOB are tax deductible.

Press for Progress

What will it take to wake us up?

A corrupt foreign policy!

A illegal war in Irag!

Our sons and daughters killed!

Corporations running our government, our schools, and our news reports!

Stop the madness! Stop and Impeach Bush Now!

Bush Lied. Thousands Died. : Politics & Culture: From the Left - anti-Bush : CafePress.com

Argulets

Bush Misled Us about the Threat from Iraq
If Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to America, as the White House claimed, then Bush might have been justified in invading Iraq. But it appears that Bush misled the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating the threat from Iraq. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.
Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address.
Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN]
Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarised student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Lie Factory - The Secret Propaganda Team - Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]
Resources
"Ex-CIA official: Bush administration misused Iraq intelligence", statements by Paul R. Pillar, CNN, 2/10/06
"Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance" by Jeff Cohen
List of Lies and News Links from BuzzFlash
"Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel" 11/23/05, by Murray Waas
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States - Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371
Fraud and False Statements - Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001

Bush Authorized Secrets' Release, Libby Testified

WW I

Samuel Prescott Bush

Bush was the son of Harriet Fay and the Rev. James Smith Bush, an Episcopalian priest at Grace Church in Orange. He grew up there and in San Francisco but the family returned to Staten Island. He married Flora Sheldon on June 20, 1894. They had four children: Prescott Sheldon Bush, Robert (who died in childhood), Mary (Mrs. Frank) House, Margaret (Mrs. Stewart) Clement, and James.

He lost his wife Flora on September 4, 1920 in Narragansett, Rhode Island when she was hit by a car. He remarried to Martha Bell Carter of Milwaukee.
Bush graduated from the Stevens Institute of Technology at Hoboken in 1884, where he played in one of the earliest regular college football teams. He took an apprenticeship with the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad at the Logansport, Indiana shops, later transferring to Dennison, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio, where in 1891 he became Master Mechanic, then in 1894 Superintendent of Motive Power. In 1899 he moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin to take the position of Superintendent of Motive Power with the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad.

Just two years later, in 1901 he returned to Columbus to be General Manager of Buckeye Malleable Iron & Coupler, which manufactured railway parts. The company was run by Frank Rockefeller, the brother of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, and among its clients were the railroads controlled by E. H. Harriman. The Bush and Harriman families would be closely associated at least until the end of World War II. In 1908 Rockefeller retired and Bush became President of Buckeye, a position he would hold until 1927, becoming one of the top industrialists of his generation.

He was the first president of National Manufactures Association, and cofounder of Scioto Country Club and Columbus Academy. He was an avid sports buff. In the spring of 1918, Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board of Bernard Baruch - a close associate of E.H. Harriman and Clarence Dillon - with national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with weapons companies including Remington (at the time controlled by Percy Rockefeller- who along with Averill Harriman took time to arrange for Harriman's and Bush's sons Bunny Harriman and Prescott Bush to be admitted to Yale University's Skull and Bones in 1916.) Remington dominance of ammunition and small arms contracts during World War I continued during Bush's government service and many years beyond.

Samuel Bush was a close advisor to President Herbert Hoover.
During the height of American isolationism, a Senate Munitions Inquiry, often called the Nye Committee after its chairman, Senator Gerald Nye, critically examined the military-industrial complex of government agencies, corporations, labor unions, and banking. The Nye Committee has been portrayed as a naive isolationist search for evil arms dealers ("Merchants of Death") who caused wars, underplaying the social, intellectual, political, and cultural currents of the 1930s which have more recently been re-examined (see reference Coulter). The Committee was formed in August 1933. It examined World War I military-industrial finances in January and February 1936. In spite of this second historical connection, most of the records and correspondence of Samuel P. Bush's arms-related work with the government were destroyed at the National Archives, in order 'to save space'.
Bush is interred at Green Lawn Cemetery, Columbus, Ohio

WWI & WWII

US Senator Prescott Bush

Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City.

The Harriman business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:
Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman)
Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)
the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)
Silesian-American Corporation (with Walker)

The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward. UBC was dissolved in 1951. Bush's interest in UBC consisted of one share. For it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000. These assets were later used to launch Bush family investments in the Texas energy industry. This presupposes that Union Banking Corporation was worth $4 billion, of which almost all would have been paid to the Harrimans. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html by Cecil Adams addresses this claim with some skepticism.

Toby Rogers has claimed that Bush's connections to the Silesian-American Corporation makes him complicit with the corporation's mining operations in Poland which used slave labor out of Oswiecim, where the Auschwitz concentration camp was later constructed. Allegations that Prescott Bush profited from slave labor or the Auschwitz concentration camp remain unsubstantiated.
There are unsubstantiated rumors concerning Prescott Bush's associations with the Nazi party. The Anti-Defamation League has stated, "Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated." [1] The rumors began with extreme right-wing attacks on George H.W. Bush during his 1980 presidential run and were renewed during his 1988 run.

The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush only as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The label was ironic, since by the time the Tribune article appeared, Hitler had turned on Thyssen and imprisoned him. Reportedly, however, there has been a determined effort by Canadian bloggers, apparently connected with Lyndon LaRouche, to circulate reports that Bush himself was known as "Hitler's Angel".

WW II, Viet Nam War, UN,

CIA Director, Gulf War I

President George Herbert Bush

George Herbert Walker Bush, GCB, (born June 12, 1924 in Milton, MA) was the 41st President of the United States (1989–1993). Prior to being President, he had served as a U.S. congressman from Texas (1967–1971), ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973), Republican National Committee chairman (1973–1974), Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (1974–1976), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1976–1977), Chairman of the First International Bank in Houston (1977–1980), and the 43rd Vice President of the United States under President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989). He has run unsuccessfully twice for the United States Senate, three times for President of the United States; including once for his reelection to that office. A decorated naval aviator he is the last World War II veteran to date to have served as President. Bush is the father of the 43rd and current president, George Walker Bush. His father, Prescott Bush, was a United States Senator.
From a policy standpoint, Bush pursued moderate policies in both domestic and foreign policy. During the final days of the Cold War, he was responsible for managing US foreign policy during the delicate transition of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe from being communist states to being liberal democracies. He championed the concept of a New World Order where international law and global consensus would replace military and strategic confrontation as a means of accomplishing diplomatic objectives. This idea was exemplified during the Gulf War, when the US rallied a global coalition to reverse the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In domestic policy, Bush's most notable initiative was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, a controversial compromise with congressional Democrats that traded spending controls for tax increases, to balance the federal budget.

AWOL- Viet Nam Era Veteran, Invader of Iraq

President George Walker Bush

George W Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and former governor of Texas. He is the son of the 41st president, George H.W. Bush, brother of the current governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, and grandson of former U.S. Senator Prescott Bush. His family has been in the country since the colonial period and he is a descendant of the Fairbanks family. He is the second son of a former United States president to become president himself; the first was John Quincy Adams.
A member of the Republican Party, Bush was elected the 46th governor of Texas in 1994, then re-elected in 1998. He won the nomination of the Republican Party for the 2000 presidential race and ultimately defeated Democratic Vice President Al Gore in a particularly close and controversial general election ending in the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore[1] In 2004, Bush was elected to a second presidential term, defeating John Kerry, the junior Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. His term will expire on January 20, 2009.
Bush's presidency has been defined by the ongoing War on Terror following the September 11, 2001 attacks. After the attacks, Bush and the United States Congress created the Department of Homeland Security and increased the powers of law enforcement agencies with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. In 2003, the United States and a multinational force took military action in Iraq, overthrowing and eventually capturing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The commitment of United States and British troops has been controversial both domestically and internationally. A central theme in Bush's continuing policy in Iraq has been the creation of a democracy, to which end, Iraq held free elections in 2005.
Bush has also signed into law large tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan. He has appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, Samuel A. Alito and John Roberts, with Roberts fulfilling the post of Chief Justice after the death of William Rehnquist. Bush's terms of office coincided with Republican control of the U.S. Congress, giving him greater control over policy formulation than presidents dealing with an opposition-controlled legislature.
While continuing American policy of support for Israel, Bush also endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. His promise of $15 billion (over 5 years) to Africa for AIDS relief was funded by Congress. In late 2005 and 2006, Bush led the world community in opposition to Iran's announced intention to develop nuclear technology.
Prior to his political career, he was involved in the oil industry, running several companies related to petroleum energy. He later served as the managing general partner/owner of the Texas Rangers Major League Baseball team.




Bush Authorized Secrets' Release, Libby Testified

Do You Know Enough to Enlist? : Military Recruitment : Youth & Militarism : AFSC

Do You Know Enough to Enlist? : Military Recruitment : Youth & Militarism : AFSC

Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold!

Here is someone with guts enough to at least question Bush's authority! Where is Kennedy & Kerry or Hillary?





Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold
Introducing a Resolution to Censure President George W. Bush


March 13, 2006

Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.

All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.

And we must do that. The President’s actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.

At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.

This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President’s conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.

Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.

As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.

Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances:

“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president’s actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.

This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the Patriot Act, and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. In both of those instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President’s actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.

That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law. If there were a demonstrated need to change that law, Congress could consider that step. But instead the President is refusing to follow that law while offering the flimsiest of arguments to justify his misconduct. He must be held accountable for his actions.

The facts are straightforward: Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as “FISA”, nearly 30 years ago to ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also protect innocent Americans from unjustified government intrusion. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil. The President has broken that law, and that alone is unacceptable. But the President did much more than that.

Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions, and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program.

He has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people.

The President’s own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.

We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after September 11th. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way in several speeches to assure the public that the government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States – something that he now admits was not the case.

On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.”

In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn’t being upfront with the American people.

Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: “Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”

Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”

In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn’t telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political battle during the presidential campaign, and later over Patriot Act reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a systems of checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration’s performance.

This conduct is unacceptable. The President had a duty to play it straight with the American people. But for political purposes, he ignored that duty.

After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress until February, but the President’s surrogates held press conferences and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted lawfully.

Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign. In the State of the Union address, he implied that the program was necessary because otherwise the government would be unable to wiretap terrorists at all. That is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t need a warrant to wiretap terrorists overseas – period. You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rules for these types of domestic wiretaps.

FISA created a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. They are the judges who review applications for business records orders and wiretapping authority under the Patriot Act. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. It has used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time it asserts that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” in this age of terrorism and can’t be complied with. Clearly, the Administration can and does comply with it – except when it doesn’t. Then it just arbitrarily decides to go around these judges, and around the law.

The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could remove if it wanted.

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.

This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.

In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.

The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.” A letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.” The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.” And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.” Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.

The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.

But it is one thing to make a legal argument that has no real support in the law. It is much worse to do what the President has done, which is to make misleading statements about what prior Presidents have done and what courts have approved, to try to make the public believe his legal arguments are much stronger than they are.

For example, in the State of the Union, the President argued that federal courts have approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. I asked the Attorney General about this when he came before the Judiciary Committee, and he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.

In the same speech, the President referred to other Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course, those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch could no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. I asked the Attorney General about this issue when he testified before the Judiciary Committee. And neither he nor anyone in the Administration has been able to come up with a single prior example of wiretapping inside the United States since 1978 that was conducted outside FISA’s authorization.

So the President’s arguments in the State of the Union were baseless, and it is unacceptable that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.

The President also has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.

Finally, the President has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program.

Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.” Nor does the latest agreement to allow a seven-member subcommittee to review the program comply with the law. Granting a minority of the committee access to information is inadequate and still does not comply with the law requiring that the full committee be kept fully informed.

In addition, we now know that some of the Gang of Eight expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. One of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.

None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do.

And perhaps that is what is most troubling here, Mr. President. Even more troubling than the arguments the President has made is what he relies on to make them convincing – the credibility of the office of the President itself. He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply because of the office he holds.

But Presidents don’t serve our country by just asking for trust, they must earn that trust, and they must tell the truth.

This President hides behind flawed legal arguments, and even behind the office he holds, but he cannot hide from what he has created: nothing short of a constitutional crisis. The President has violated the law, and Congress must respond. Congress must investigate and demand answers. Congress should also determine whether current law is inadequate and address that deficiency if it is demonstrated. But before doing so, Congress should ensure that there is accountability for authorizing illegal conduct.

A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the President thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable. If Congress does not reaffirm the rule of law, we will create another failure of leadership, and deal another blow to the public’s trust.

The President’s wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future, but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.

Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive’s conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities. Both of those alternatives are ways for Congress to affect future action. But when the President acts illegally, he should be formally rebuked. He should be censured.

The founders anticipated abuses of executive power by creating a balance of powers in the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, require us to preserve that balance, and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious transgression by the President with a serious response. We must work, as the founders urged us in Federalist Number 51, to control the abuses of government.

The Constitution looks to the Congress to right the balance of power. The American people look to us to take action, to speak out, with one clear voice, against wrongdoing by the President of the United States. In our system of government, no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks. I yield the floor.



# # #