Change the Course, Cape Cod

2007-04-27T10:49:00.000-04:00

Join Peace Patriots at Faneuil Hall to Impeach Bush & Cheney

Click on link below!

IMPEACHMENT ACTIVITY SAT APRIL 28th BOSTON

Samuel Adams
American Patriot & Politician

1722 - 1803

" If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. "

—Samuel Adams

Howdy Folks,

It Friday morning, so I am on my way up to Boston to meet with (*)Dave Swanson, and (**)Elloitt Adams, VFP President, and decedent of President's John Adams, and Boston Patriot, Samuel Adams.
We have invited theses folks to speak at Faneuil Hall tomorrow. I am wondering who may have the CCPJ megaphone? I will be staying with Carlos & Melida tonight and will be with my friend Pat Scanlon, VFP tomorrow at the rally. Call me at (508) 432-0545 or in Boston (617) 323-5623! Come on up!

OpEdNews

April 26, 2007

The GE Democratic Presidential Debate

By David Swanson

MSNBC, owned by weapons-maker General Electric, opened Thursday night's debate with the unavoidable topic of Iraq, and unavoidably allowed each of the eight candidates on the stage to address it. Two of them, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel, spoke in favor of ending the war. Kucinich advocated cutting off the funding. Gravel proposed passing a law to make it a felony to remain in Iraq.

Of course, it's also a felony to spy in violation of FISA, to mislead Congress into war, to expose an undercover agent, etc., etc. And, of course, Bush and Cheney can find money at the Pentagon to continue an unfunded war. But Kucinich and Gravel were serious about trying to rein in this White House. The other six Democrats on the stage Thursday night (Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards) made clear that they oppose serious steps to force a swift end to the war. They would prefer to end the war as president, regardless of who has to die in the meantime, and heedless of the failure of such waffling to win elections in the past.

GE spokesman Brian Williams directed the debate and turned it next to scandal questions, asking each candidate a different question about some accusation of wrong doing. Most of the candidates blatantly refused to answer the questions and simply changed the subject. Asked if he could be trusted not to make regrettable comments, Biden gave the one-word answer "Yes."

Amazingly, Williams could come up with nothing to accuse Kucinich of. "You were against the war before being anti-war was popular," he said. "Why do you think you don't have more traction?" Kucinich gave an optimistic response on gaining traction. He may very well be right that he is gaining traction. But I wonder if his answer would have been different had this question come at the end of the debate, because Williams answered his own question by proceeding with much of the debate as if Kucinich and Gravel were not on the stage. One factor that may have encouraged GE in this, at least in the extreme nature of the imbalance it pursued, may have been that Gravel, an alumnus of Camp Democracy http://www.campdemocracy.org took his turn on the scandals questions and simply kicked ass. He said he was embarrassed by the current Congress and that some of the candidates scared him, especially by their refusal to oppose any nuclear attack on Iran. Gravel did not quite fill the role of Al Sharpton in last season's debates, but he appeared to speak with great off-the-cuff uncalculated honesty, putting the pro-war candidates in their place. GE immediately put him in his, and when he got a chance to speak much later he said he was beginning to feel like a potted plant on stage.

The next series of questions were about domestic policy, and focused largely on divisive issues like abortion. GE skipped Kucinich and Gravel. Then came health care question, which skipped Kucinich and Gravel. Clinton, who throughout the debate seemed the most ill at ease and the most unwilling to say anything substantive, gave an interesting account of her failed effort at health care reform as first lady. She said that people originally supported her plan, but that their view of it soured after she'd let the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies work on it. From this, as from her vote for the Iraq War, she drew no lessons. She would again allow the insurance companies to continue to exist and to draft her plan, but she would go into the process with more pessimism. (You and the rest of us, Hillary!)

GE next asked each Democrat what the worst mistake was they'd ever made. This was not terribly enlightening, except perhaps by comparison to the upcoming Republican debate in which GE will likely ask the candidates what the worst mistakes are that Democrats have ever made.

Then candidates got a variety of different issue questions, including right-wing phrasing like "illegal aliens." In this round, former Senator Edwards was asked to criticize oil companies' profiteering and refused. Gravel was skipped. And Kucinich was finally called on, about health care. He was given about 20 seconds but nailed it. The plan that he and Congressman John Conyers have put forward for single-payer health care cuts through all of the bluster and bombast (to use an Obama phrase) of the other candidates, who have by now reached the point of warning each other that their band aids won't repair severed limbs.

Next came a series of questions about "non-Iraq foreign policy." Obama was asked to name three allies and only got to two (Europe and Japan) before proposing to use the military to relate well to China. Williams accused Obama of having said that the Palestinian people are suffering, and Obama assured him that he meant they were only suffering from their own leaders' failures and that Israel is not to blame.

This time around, Kucinich was skipped but Gravel was called on. GE asked him to name three enemies. He replied that it was absurd to think we had any enemies while we spend as much on our military as all other nations combined. "Who are you afraid of, Brian?" he asked the nearest representative of the military industrial complex, which he accused of running not only the government, but also "our culture."

Williams asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed there was such a thing as a "global war on terror." Kucinich's hand was one of the few or the only one (MSNBC.com's video does not do as well as its audio, so I couldn't see) not raised, so Williams asked him to explain. He said that the phrase "global war on terror" has been used as a pretext for aggressive war. Kucinich then went back and answered one of the questions he'd been skipped on – that of enemies and allies – and concluded by putting at the top of his agenda brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace in an even-handed manner.

Kucinich got to answer one other question as well. Williams asked which candidates supported impeaching Dick Cheney. Kucinich's hand was the only one, or one of the few, raised (again, I couldn't see, but I'm guessing Gravel raised his hand too).

Kucinich raised a copy of the Constitution and spoke of his duty to uphold it. He said that the country had been taken into war on the basis of lies, and that the administration was threatening to do the same on Iran. Sadly, the audience had been strictly forbidden to applaud during the debate. (GE claims to ban clapping to save time, but it would save more time by turning off Richardson's microphone each time he runs over his assigned time limit just clearing his throat. And the debates would be better to watch if some segment of the public were involved.) There was no ban on applause at an event where Kucinich spoke the day before.

Here's video: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/21806

Then several candidates got new random questions: gay marriage, Cuba, the climate. Even Gravel got a question, on nuclear energy. Kucinich, who was skipped, raised his hand during Obama's turn to challenge the Illinois Senator on his refusal to oppose nuking Iran. Gravel jumped into the exchange as well. But Obama refused to take the option of aggressively nuking another nation off the table.

And that was it, until the post-debate spin room. GE did not ask about the budget or wages or the right to organize.

There were, quite stunningly, no questions about which of the new presidential powers these candidates would use if elected. Would you, as president, spy on your political opponents without court warrants? Would you detain people without charge? Would you use any secret prisons? Would you torture? Would you disobey laws? Which ones? Would you announce your intentions in "signing statements"? Would you engage in any aggressive wars? Would you launch any wars not declared by Congress? Would you ever intentionally mislead Congress? Would you lie to the public about matters as grave as hurricanes, wars, and spying? None of these topics came up.

Plenty of accusations against Democrats did arise. Why, Williams wanted to know, are Democrats labeled as less able to protect us? Well, they aren't in polls, but they are by weapons makers. Williams asked what these candidates would do in response to an event like 9/11, but he didn't ask that simple question. He asked how they would use the military overseas to respond to an attack like 9-11. The candidates who got that question did not challenge its unstated assumptions. Clinton, in particular, sounded exactly like Bush. And Biden, who was not asked this question but jumped in to answer it later, sounded worse.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(*)David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.org Progressive Democrats of America , and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. His website is www.davidswanson.org. In April 2007, Swanson began consulting part-time for Kucinich for President 2008.

Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org

Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.--

(**) Veterans for Peace President: Elliott Adams

Elliott Adams was a paratrooper in the infantry serving in Viet Nam, Japan, Korea, and Alaska.Elliott has been active in Veterans For Peace, his local Chapter (#10, Albany, NY) as well as regionally and nationally. He's worked with IVAW. Elliott has stepped forward bringing all of his experience and passion to the work of VFP, including attending the last three Board meetings, being one of the finalists for the Executive Director position and creating and filling the VFP Nonviolence Training Coordinator position. He is a decedent of US President John Adams & US Revolutionary Samuel Adams.

Hope to see you on the road towards peace.
John Bangert,
Progressive Democrats & Peace Community

Not one more dime!
Not one more day!
Not one more death !
Bring Our Troops Home Now!

Who’s Running?

2007-02-21T21:11:00.000-05:00

Some notable names in the field of potential presidential candidates:

DEMOCRATS

OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut
John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina
Mike Gravel, former senator from Alaska
Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa

ESTABLISHING EXPLORATORY COMMITTEES
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico

WIDELY MENTIONED
Al Gore, former vice president; from Tennessee
Gen. Wesley Clark, retired NATO commander; from Arkansas

OFFICIALLY NOT RUNNING
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin
Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia

REPUBLICANS

OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
Representative Duncan Hunter of California
Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts

ESTABLISHING EXPLORATORY COMMITTEES
Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas
Senator John McCain of Arizona
Tommy G. Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin
James S. Gilmore III, former governor of Virginia
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado
Representative Ron Paul of Texas

WIDELY MENTIONED
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
Gov. George E. Pataki of New York
Newt Gingrich, former House speaker from Georgia

OFFICIALLY NOT RUNNING
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee

Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times.

Tips

To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.

Senator Clinton Pressured on Iraq

2007-02-21T21:05:00.001-05:00

February 21, 2007

NY Times

By PATRICK HEALY

CARSON CITY, Nev., Feb. 21 — Two Democratic presidential rivals of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton applied more pressure to her over Iraq today, extolling the virtue of admitting mistakes about the war — which she has not done — and comparing politicians who do not to President Bush.

The toughest words, made here at the first Democratic candidate forum of the 2008 race, came from former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. He said that Americans needed “a different kind of leadership” from a president who, Mr. Edwards said, had refused to admit errors on Iraq. Mr. Edwards has apologized for his 2002 vote to authorize military action in Iraq; Mrs. Clinton cast the same vote and has stood by it while also criticizing the war strategy.

“We need a leader who will be open and honest with you and with the American people — who will tell the truth, who will tell the truth when they’ve made a mistake, who will take responsibility when they’ve made a mistake,” Mr. Edwards said.

“If we want to live in a moral and just America and we want America to be able to lead in a moral and just world, we need a leader who is honest, open and decent,” he added.

Asked by the forum’s moderator, George Stephanopoulus of ABC News, about Mrs. Clinton’s explanation that her vote was cast sincerely based on military intelligence at the time, Mr. Edwards replied: “Whether it’s good enough I think is between her and her conscience — it’s not for me to judge.”

Another candidate, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who has also renounced his 2002 vote, said there was “nothing wrong” with admitting mistakes.

“There are two things that people in public life — two responses people in public life never like to give, and I don’t understand why: ‘I made a mistake’ and ‘I don’t know,’ ” Mr. Dodd said. “I’ve made them in the past, I’ll make them in the future.”

Because the forum rules prevented direct engagement among the candidates — indeed, they only appeared on the stage one after another — Mrs. Clinton was inhibited from responding immediately. Once it was her turn, she reiterated her opposition to the war and outlined her new plan to cap troop levels and start withdrawing some units from Iraq within 90 days.

If the president does not move in her direction, she added, “I think we should require that he has to seek additional congressional authority, because it has run out on what George Bush has tried to do in Iraq.”

Of the major Democratic candidates, only Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was absent; he was campaigning in Iowa. Yet he was here in spirit — at times the focus of the forum, and of some reporters, drifted to the e-mail attacks today between the campaign war rooms of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama over an Obama donor’s personal criticism of the Clintons this week.

Mr. Geffen, in an interview with a columnist for the New York Times, described Mrs. Clinton as “incredibly polarizing” and “ambitious,” and also said Mr. Clinton might make trouble for his wife’s campaign by causing a new scandal in their lives.

Mrs. Clinton, when asked at the forum if Mr. Obama should denounce Mr. Geffen’s remarks, said: “I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don’t want Democrats or the supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction. I think we should stay focused on what we’re going to do for America.” She added, to strong applause, “And you know, I believe Bill Clinton was a good president, and I’m very proud of the record of his two terms.”

When pressed, she said she would leave it up to the Obama campaign to make its decision on Mr. Geffen, and then noted that she was “excited” to be in Nevada “with the other candidates who came” — a comment that only drew attention to Mr. Obama’s decision to skip the event.

The Geffen remarks bubbled up throughout the forum: One candidate, former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, joked about being “polite” to Mrs. Clinton, while another, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, said Mr. Obama should denounce Mr. Geffen’s remarks.

“If we’re going to win, we have to be positive,” Mr. Richardson said. “I think these name-callings are not good. I don’t know Mr. Geffen. I don’t know what was said. I was actually studying for this presentation, so I didn’t see all the news,” he added, to laughter.

Mr. Richardson and another candidate, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, also used the Geffen flap to call on the Democratic field to forswear negative campaigning.

Not everyone seemed to agree with that. Outside of the event here in the state capital of Nevada — which is scheduled to hold the second round of presidential caucuses next January — leaflets attacking Mrs. Clinton as unelectable were tucked under the windshield wipers of cars. The leaflets, of unknown provenance, were titled “Why Can’t She Win?” and cast her as unlikable among liberals (over the war) and conservatives (over just about everything).

Other than Iraq, health care insurance received the greatest discussion among the candidates, with most of them promising to enact universal health coverage. Mr. Richardson pledged that he would not increase taxes to expand health care, but rather focus on preventative care, while Mr. Edwards repeated his plans for a massive health care program that would include higher taxes on wealthy Americans.

“I think we have reached a place in American history where small baby steps, incremental steps are not enough — we need big, transformational change,” he said to some applause.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been portrayed by Edwards advisers and others as an incrementalist, said she wanted to develop a plan to provide universal care without spending billions of dollars more, given that the United States already spends hundreds of billions more on health care than any other nation.

Yet she also presented herself as a bold goal-setter, recalling President John F. Kennedy’s pledge to put a man on the moon in a decade.

“I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term, and with everybody working on that I think we can do it,” she said to applause.

Edwards Needles Clinton About Iraq Vote

By BETH FOUHY

CARSON CITY, Nev. - Former Sen. John Edwards jabbed gently at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday in the first all-candidates forum of the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, saying her refusal to disavow a 2002 vote on Iraq was "between her and her conscience."

"It's not for me to judge," said Edwards, who _ like Clinton _ voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq, but unlike her, has since apologized for his vote.

The event format did not permit Clinton to respond to Edwards' swipe, which stood out on an afternoon in which Democrats launched serial attacks on President Bush's war policies.

"The worst we can do is tear each other down," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who called on his Democratic rivals to sign a pledge to avoid negative campaigning and concentrate their energy on taking the White House away from the Republicans next year.

Among Democratic presidential contenders, only Barack Obama skipped the event, which was hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union. The Illinois senator campaigned in Iowa instead.

The convergence of so many candidates underscored Nevada's newfound importance in the 2008 nominating campaign. The state will hold caucuses on Jan. 19, five days after the lead-off Iowa caucuses and presumably only a few days before New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary.

In their time on stage, several of the candidates made an explicit pitch for the votes of union members, stressing their backing for legislation designed to make it easier to join unions, for example.

Edwards, Clinton and others drew cheers when they voiced support for universal health coverage, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio vowed to pull the United States out of NAFTA soon after taking office in the White House.

But the Iraq war overshadowed all else at the two-hour event, Democrat after Democrat vying to show their eagerness to end U.S. participation in a conflict that has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

"Sign me up. No negatives," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said just after Richardson made his appeal. Moments later, though, he spoke dismissively of congressional efforts merely to stop Bush's plan to deploy additional troops. "Don't talk about capping and all that. Do something," he said.

Clinton and Obama support separate bills to prevent an increase in troop levels above those in effect in January.

Kucinich was more direct. He said he had voted against authorizing the war in 2002, adding, "People are looking for a president who does the right thing when it matters the most."

Former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, a quarter-century out of office, was the eighth candidate. "I don't think it's a big deal whether I get elected president or not," he said at one point.

The event occurred on a day in which aides to Obama and Clinton clashed over remarks made by DreamWorks founder David Geffen, a one-time supporter of President Clinton who has lined up behind the Illinois senator in 2008.

The Hollywood mogul was quoted in the New York Times as saying while "everybody in politics lies," the former president and former first lady "do it with such ease, it's troubling." Aides to the New York senator promptly called on Obama to give back a campaign donation from Geffen.

Clinton sidestepped a question of whether Obama should denounce Geffen's remarks. "I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction," she told moderator George Stephanopoulos.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the first to speak, brushed aside a suggestion from some administration allies that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq would create chaos.

"How much more chaos could there be in Baghdad than exists today?" he asked to applause from the audience at a union-sponsored event near the Nevada state capitol.

"Time has run out on what President Bush has tried to do in Iraq," said Clinton when she took her turn on stage. She touted her legislation to begin a troop withdrawal within 90 days, and as she has repeatedly, declined to apologize for her vote to authorize the war in 2002.

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack struck a similar note. "I want to challenge every single one of you and ask a simple question, what have you done today? What have you done today to end this war in Iraq?

"It needs to be ended now. Not six days from now, not six months from now. Not six years from now. It needs to be ended now, and it is up to you," he said.

Edwards, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, said it was time to begin a troop withdrawal. "I voted for this war. I was wrong to vote for this war. I should never have voted for this war. I take responsibility for that. No one else is responsible for it.

He added, "But the truth is, if we want to live in a moral and just America, and we want America to be able to lead in a moral and just world. We need a leader who is honest, open and decent and trying to do the right thing."

Stephanopoulos asked Edwards moments later whether he had been referring to Clinton.

"Well, whether it's good enough I think it's between her and her conscience. It's not for me to judge," said the former North Carolina senator.

The program called for each contenders to make brief opening comments, then field three questions from Stephanopoulus, an ABC News broadcaster and former aide in Bill Clinton's White House. That meant, for example, that Clinton was backstage when Edwards spoke.

The Republican National Committee used the forum to try to put its own spin on the candidates, releasing "research documents" containing unflattering critiques of each of the Democrats hours before the event.

In recent years, Democrats have sensed political opportunity in the mountain West, a fast-growing region long dominated by Republicans. Nevada, with its large Hispanic population and influential labor unions, was considered a battleground state in 2004, and President Bush won the state by just 3 percentage points.

Associated Press Writer Brendan Riley in Carson City, Nev., contributed to this story.

A service of the Associated Press(AP)

Here is something which you can do today!

2007-02-21T14:51:00.000-05:00

Let's get ready for the March on the Pentagon.

On March 17th, 2007 we will be Marching from the Viet Nam Veterans Monument (The Wall) to the Pentagon. Not one more dime, Not one more day, Not one more death!
Buses will be leaving from Cape Cod. Barnstable & Orleans,

UK and Denmark Sending Troops Home

2007-02-21T10:18:00.001-05:00

SPIEGEL ONLINE - February 21, 2007, 03:19 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467813,00.html

PARTIAL IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

While the United States is ramping up its military presence in Iraq, the UK and Denmark feel its time to start sending the troops home. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that there will be less than 5,000 British troops in southern Iraq by the summer and Denmark plans to withdraw its entire contingency.

AFP

Some British soldiers in Iraq are eying a return home.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that the UK will withdraw about 1,600 soldiers from Iraq in the "coming months" and aims to have troop levels below 5,00 by late summer -- that is if the local forces can secure the southern part of the country currently under British control.

Appearing for his weekly Prime Minister's Question Time in the House of Commons on Wednesday, Blair said: "The actual reduction in forces will be from the present 7,100 -- itself down from over 9,000 two years ago and 40,000 at the time of the invasion -- to roughly 5,500."

British troops will remain in Iraq until at least 2008 and work to secure the Iran-Iraq border and to maintain supply routes to US and coalition troops in central Iraq, Blair told parliament. He said the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had agreed to the plan.

"What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it means that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis," he said.

The proposed cut in the numbers of British troops is in marked contrast to the current United States policy, which is to send in more troops. President George W. Bush's new Iraq Strategy involves sending 21,500 extra soldiers to Iraq in an attempt to quell the continuing insurgency there.

The allies have had very different Iraq Wars since the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. While the British control the Shiite-dominated southern part of the country, which has been relatively calm, the United States has become bogged down in Sunni-dominated central Iraq, and in the capital Baghdad -- home to both Sunnis and Shiites. Blair acknowledged this difference during his speech, saying "the situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad -- there is no Sunni insurgency, no al-Qaida base, little Sunni on Shia violence," adding that it was nothing like the "challenge of Baghdad."

The White House confirmed that Bush and Blair had discussed the plans to withdraw troops on Tuesday. "While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said "we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis," he added. "The United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq."

Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

In October, the head of the British Army, Sir Richard Dannat had warned that the presence of UK troops in the south was if anything making things worse by exacerbating security problems and some opposition politicians have pressuring Blair to bring British troops home.

Last month Blair, who has said he will step down by September of this year at the latest, told parliament that he would outline his future strategy in Iraq following the completion of Operation Sinbad, a joint British and Iraqi mission targeting police corruption and militia influence in Basra. At the time British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said that Operation Sinbad offered the prospect of a "turning point for Iraq." On Sunday, in an interview with the BBC, Blair had said that the operation was now complete and "successful."

Another key ally in the Iraq War, Denmark, has also announced troop withdrawals. On Wednesday Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that the 460 Danish troops in the south of the country will have left by August. He added: "We expect that the Iraqis during 2007 will take over security in southern Iraq."

US Senate To Vote On Iraq Surge Today

2007-02-17T08:43:00.000-05:00

US senate to vote on Iraq measure

The Democratic party has the majority in both the upper and lower houses of congress [AP]

A resolution condemning the US president's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq moves to the US senate, one day after it overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives.

The non-binding measure, passed in the lower house by a vote of 246 to 182 on Friday.

Opposition Democrats controlling the senate decided to hold a rare meeting on Saturday to renew their bid in the upper legislative chamber to reject George Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq.

However, Democrats hold a razor-thin 51-49 majority in the senate.

Republicans loyal to Bush have warned they would try again to block debate on the resolution.

Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, said: "Senators will have another opportunity to express their view on the war in Iraq.

"Americans deserve to know whether their senator stands with the president and his plan to deepen our military commitment in Iraq, or with the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this escalation.

"Let us be clear: Anyone voting 'no' ... is voting to give the president a green light to escalate the war."

Resolution dismissed

Your Views

"Has any of the Bush Iraq plan worked other than causing the worst destruction?"

Zaffar Zohair, Islamabad, Pakistan

Send us your views

Democratic leaders in the House successfully pushed through the resolution on Friday, winning the support of 17 of the chamber's 201 Republican members.

The White House immediately dismissed the document, noting that it was non-binding, and warned Democrats against moving toward cutting off war funding.

The resolution said congress "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007" to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

It adds that "congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honourably in Iraq."

The vote ended a week of debate, the most serious debate organised on the Iraq war since the US-led invasion in March 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein. More than 3,100 US troops have since died.

Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, said: "Some of our House colleagues claimed this week that this resolution is merely symbolic and meaningless.

"If they believe that the sentiments of the people's House expressed by an overwhelming majority is meaningless and only symbolic, then our democracy is at risk."

War funding

Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq has
been condemned by a House resolution [AFP]

But the White House has said it would press on with the new strategy and warned Democrats against moving toward cutting off war funding.

In a statement shortly after the House vote, the White House said: "The president believes that the congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our armed forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country."

"Soon, congress will have the opportunity to show its support for the troops in Iraq by funding the supplemental appropriations request the president has submitted, and which our men and women in combat are counting on."

In the coming weeks, congress will have to debate and vote on the budget for the "war on terror", beginning with an outlay of more than $93bn for 2007.

Most opinion polls show 51 per cent of Americans support a non-binding resolution repudiating the president's troop "surge" proposal, while 63 per cent back proposals for getting US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008.

A House Not So Diveded! Now Senate Do Your Thing!

2007-02-17T05:34:00.000-05:00

A Divided House Rebukes Bush on Iraq
By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL LUO

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — A sharply divided House of Representatives passed a resolution on Friday formally repudiating President Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 new combat troops to Iraq.

The rare wartime rebuke to the commander in chief — an act that is not binding, but that carries symbolic significance — was approved 246-to-182, with 17 Republicans breaking ranks to join all but two Democrats in supporting the resolution.

Passage was never in doubt, but the debate, lasting full days and much of three nights, brought nearly every member to the floor to declare, briefly but often vehemently, where they stood on a short, resolution affirming support for the troops but denouncing Mr. Bush’s new approach to the war.

“We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. “Today, we set the stage for a new direction in Iraq.”

With 392 members speaking, the debate lasted twice as long as when Congress voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

And it illustrated how the partisan divide over the war has deepened. While Democratic leaders had purposefully written the resolution to attract a bipartisan following, the number of Republicans who joined them was only about half of what some Democrats had predicted.

“Republicans may have lost the vote on this nonbinding resolution,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader. “But we won the debate.”

The Senate is expected to consider Saturday whether to move toward a vote on an Iraq resolution, but there, enough Republicans are expected to hold ranks to block the Democrats’ approach, at least for now. In political terms, the resolution carries weight because of public sentiment, particularly from voters who placed Democrats in control of Congress.

Several historians compared its significance to the repeal by Congress in 1971 of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing the Vietnam War. That vote did not halt the conflict as members of Congress approved continued financing for two more years.

The House resolution stood out, historians said, because it criticized a specific battlefield tactic proposed by the president. It also could set the stage for a more consequential clash with the White House if Congress begins exercising broader power and authority in an effort to bring the war to a close, possibly by restricting financing.

“Never before in our history has Congress attempted to control or restrict strategic battlefield decisions,” Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said. “It is wrong as a matter of policy and it will come back to haunt us for years to come.”

The deliberations represented the third major Iraq debate in four years, but with Democrats controlling Congress, the rules, tone and outcome changed. Republicans were not allowed to offer their own alternative proposal, but they forcefully defended the president and his policy.

Now, questions of financing the conflict loom large for Democrats in Congress. The White House and Republicans pre-emptively accused the party of starting along a path to cut financing for the troops, a suggestion Democratic leaders denied. But some of their rank and file are pressing for exactly that.

On Friday afternoon, as the debate neared an end, people seated in the gallery applauded when Ms. Pelosi praised the fortitude of American forces. Lawmakers and spectators rose as she called for a moment of silence to honor the more than 3,100 United States troops who have died in Iraq since the conflict began.

The resolution specifically stated Congress’s disapproval of the president’s plan to deploy more than 20,000 troops to Iraq, which Mr. Bush outlined in a speech on Jan. 10. But through more than 45 hours of deliberations, the debate grew far beyond the context of the resolution.

The arguments grew familiar as the hours marched past, with lawmaker after lawmaker rising to address what was typically a nearly empty chamber. Democrats argued that Americans should not referee a civil war, that previous efforts to pour more troops into Iraq had failed and that diplomatic measures were the only way out of the crisis.

Republicans, meanwhile, sought to portray the war in Iraq as a key battleground in a titanic global struggle against militant Islam and criticized the resolution as a slap in the face for troops on the battlefield. Failure in Iraq, they said, would lead to widespread instability in the region.

“What we’re doing with this resolution is not a salute to G.I. Joe,” said Representative Phil Gingrey, a Georgia Republican. “It’s a capitulation to Jihadist Joe.”

The White House, reacting to the vote, turned its attention to what many assume will be the next fight: the president’s spending request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The president,” Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said, “believes that the Congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our armed forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country.”

Even before the House voted at midafternoon, senators had already started to speak about the resolution in their chamber. The Senate has been locked in a stalemate over Iraq for two weeks, but Democratic leaders are seeking to put Republicans on the record during a brief Saturday session.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference, dismissed the significance of the weekend vote, which is on a procedural question, and announced that he and Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, were flying to Baghdad instead. Two Democrats scheduled to take the trip canceled.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, planned to miss the vote to campaign in Iowa. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton planned to break away from campaigning in New Hampshire to vote.

Iraq has dominated this session of Congress. While Democrats are broadly aligned against the war, there is little unity on the next step. Some lawmakers seek to cut financing and cap troop levels while others propose delving into war strategy.

“There is a long tradition of Congressional dissent during wartime, but I don’t know that it’s ever formalized itself the way this is shaping up,” said the associate Senate historian, Donald Ritchie. “Taking a stand in opposition to a commander in chief’s decision on a war policy, that’s unusual.”

After the vote, Democratic leaders painted their victory as an expression of public outrage at the war and a sign that the new Congress intends to challenge the president. “It’s the first time he has had a review of his policy, rather than a rubber stamp,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Representative Boehner, the Republican leader, said the Iraq debate highlighted the intentions by Democrats to begin reducing financing of the war, which he described as “a slow-bleed policy that cuts off funding and reinforcements for our troops in harm’s way.”

Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, has said he would seek to block new deployments by requiring troops to meet a series of conditions and training guidelines. A day before the vote, he presented his plan in a 24-minute broadcast on MoveCongress.org, a Web site dedicated to ending the war.

Democratic lawmakers and senior aides said they believed Mr. Murtha’s appearance could have kept some Republicans from supporting the resolution, fearful of being linked to the antiwar coalition.

But for all the attention paid to the symbolic resolution, it remains an open question whether it will have much immediate effect.

“It is very hard to change war policy from Capitol Hill,” said Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. “We won’t have a real solution on Iraq until Republicans walk down to the White House and say, Mr. President, the jig is up, this is a bad direction and you need to rethink what you’re doing.”

Congress Concurs with the Majority of People Say No to Surge!

2007-02-17T05:16:00.000-05:00

House passes resolution disapproving of troop increase in Iraq: 246 to 182; 17 Republicans vote 'yea'

02/16/2007 @ 3:38 pm

Filed by Ron Brynaert

The House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving of President Bush's troop increase in Iraq today. The resolution passed by 246 to 182, with six Congressional members abstaining. While many reports indicated that only twelve Republican House members would support the resolution, seventeen ended up voting "yea."

Republican House members Gilchrest (MD), Jones (NC), Kirk (IL), English (PA), Keller (FL), Upton (MI), Duncan (TN), Walsh (NY) LaTourette (OH), Inglis (SC), Johnson (IL), Paul (TX), Ramstad (MN), Coble (NC), Castle (DE), Davis (VA) and Petri (WI) voted "yea." While Democratic House members Marshall (GA) and Taylor (MS) voted "no."

A total of 246 of the current 434 House members voted for the motion, which says "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007" to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

It adds that "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."

The vote came at the end of a week of debate, the most serious organized on the Iraq war since the US-led invasion in March 2003, in which all members of the House had a chance to voice their opinion.

For the new Democratic Party majority, Friday's vote finally gives voice to the voters who swept them to power in both chambers of Congress in November elections amid a wave of anger over the Iraq war, which has claimed more than 3,100 US lives.

It presages a rare Saturday session of the upper chamber of Congress, the Senate, which will hold a key procedural vote on whether to kick-start its own debate on a similar motion.

The American electorate "voted for a new direction in our nation -- including a new direction for the war in Iraq," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said ahead of Friday's vote.

He called on his fellow lawmakers to "demonstrate that we not only have heard the voters' message but also that we have the collective will to send one of our own."

The White House has mounted a broad campaign to explain Bush's new plan to lawmakers and has appealed to Congress not to use its power over the budget to cut off funding for the war.

"The important debate will come when we talk about whether or not Congress will provide the needed support for our troops," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Bush told a news conference Wednesday: "I am going to make it very clear to the members of Congress ... they need to fund our troops."

In the coming weeks, Congress will have to debate and vote on the budget for the "war on terror," beginning with an outlay of more than 93 billion dollars for 2007.

The debate over financing the war has essentially begun. Under the US constitution, the president is the military commander-in-chief and in charge of foreign policy, but Congress holds the purse strings.

The left wing of the Democratic Party as well as a Democratic presidential contender for the 2008 election, former senator John Edwards, have been pushing Congress to cut war funding.

So far the Democratic establishment has signaled its reluctance to cut funds for the US troops already deployed in Iraq.

But Jack Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and one of the fiercest critics of the Iraq war, has announced he would condition the release of additional funds in a way that would hamper future troop deployments.

Lawmakers must "deny the president the ability to send more US troops into Iraq and to insist instead on restoring our military readiness," Murtha told the activist group Moveon.org.

The Build-a-War Workshop

2007-02-11T06:53:00.001-05:00

New York Times Editorial

It took far too long, but a report by the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war.

The report said the team headed by Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, developed “alternative” assessments of intelligence on Iraq that contradicted the intelligence community and drew conclusions “that were not supported by the available intelligence.” Mr. Feith certainly knew the Central Intelligence Agency would cry foul, so he hid his findings from the C.I.A. Then Vice President Dick Cheney used them as proof of cloak-and-dagger meetings that never happened, long-term conspiracies between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that didn’t exist, and — most unforgivable — “possible Iraqi coordination” on the 9/11 attacks, which no serious intelligence analyst believed.

The inspector general did not recommend criminal charges against Mr. Feith because Mr. Rumsfeld or his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, approved their subordinate’s “inappropriate” operations. The renegade intelligence buff said he was relieved.

We’re sure he was. But there is no comfort in knowing that his dirty work was approved by his bosses. All that does is add to evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and repeatedly misled Americans about the intelligence on Iraq.

To understand this twisted tale, it is important to recall how Mr. Feith got into the creative writing business. Top administration officials, especially Mr. Cheney, had long been furious at the C.I.A. for refusing to confirm the delusion about a grand Iraqi terrorist conspiracy, something the Republican right had nursed for years. Their frustration only grew after 9/11 and the C.I.A. still refused to buy these theories.

Mr. Wolfowitz would feverishly sketch out charts showing how this Iraqi knew that Iraqi, who was connected through six more degrees of separation to terrorist attacks, all the way back to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

But the C.I.A. kept saying there was no reliable intelligence about an Iraq-Qaeda link. So Mr. Feith was sent to review the reports and come back with the answers Mr. Cheney wanted. The inspector general’s report said Mr. Feith’ s team gave a September 2002 briefing at the White House on the alleged Iraq-Qaeda connection that had not been vetted by the intelligence community (the director of central intelligence was pointedly not told it was happening) and “was not fully supported by the available intelligence.”

The false information included a meeting in Prague in April 2001 between an Iraqi official and Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 pilots. It never happened. But Mr. Feith’s report said it did, and Mr. Cheney will still not admit that the story is false.

In a statement released yesterday, Senator Carl Levin, the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has been dogged in pursuit of the truth about the Iraqi intelligence, noted that the cooked-up Feith briefing had been leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine so Mr. Cheney could quote it as the “best source” of information about the supposed Iraq-Qaeda link.

The Pentagon report is one step in a long-delayed effort to figure out how the intelligence on Iraq was so badly twisted — and by whom. That work should have been finished before the 2004 elections, and it would have been if Pat Roberts, the obedient Republican who ran the Senate Intelligence Committee, had not helped the White House drag it out and load it in ways that would obscure the truth.

It is now up to Mr. Levin and Senator Jay Rockefeller, the current head of the intelligence panel, to give Americans the answers. Mr. Levin’s desire to have the entire inspector general’s report on the Feith scheme declassified is a good place to start. But it will be up to Mr. Rockefeller to finally determine how old, inconclusive, unsubstantiated and false intelligence was transformed into fresh, reliable and definitive reports — and then used by Mr. Bush and other top officials to drag the country into a disastrous and unnecessary war.

Putin Accuses U.S. of Inciting Arms Race

2007-02-10T22:17:00.000-05:00

White House 'Disappointed' by Remarks

By SLOBODAN LEKIC

The Associated Press

MUNICH, Germany - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday blamed U.S. policy for inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves from an "almost uncontained use of military force" a stinging attack that underscored growing tensions between Washington and Moscow.

"Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem, they have become a hotbed of further conflicts," Putin said at a security forum attracting senior officials from around the world.

"One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

The Bush administration said it was "surprised and disappointed" by Putin's remarks. "His accusations are wrong," said Gordon Johndroe, Bush's national security spokesman.

In what the Russian leader's spokesman acknowledged was his harshest criticism of the United States, Putin attacked Bush's administration for stoking a new arms race by planning to deploy a missile defense system in eastern Europe and for backing a U.N. plan that would grant virtual independence to Serbia's breakaway province of Kosovo.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was also attending the conference, described Putin's remarks as "the most aggressive speech from a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War."

The United States and an increasingly assertive Russia repeatedly have butted heads during the past year, with Vice President Dick Cheney accusing Moscow of using its energy resources as "tools of intimidation or blackmail." Washington also has been angered by Russia's reluctance to impose meaningful sanctions against Iran, which is accused of seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic energy program.

But Putin said it was "the almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations" that was forcing countries opposed to Washington to seek to build up nuclear arsenals.

"It is a world of one master, one sovereign ... it has nothing to do with democracy," he said. "This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons."

"This is very dangerous, nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law," Putin told the gathering.

Putin did not mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but he voiced concern about NATO's expansion plans as possible challenges to Russia.

"The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe," Putin said. "On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust."

On the missile defense system, Putin said: "I don't want to accuse anyone of being aggressive" but suggested it would seriously change the balance of power and could provoke an unspecified "asymmetric" response.

On Kosovo, Moscow has said a solution imposed against Serbia's consent could serve as a model for other separatist provinces elsewhere in the world. Washington, which supports Kosovo's independence, maintains that the Kosovo situation is a "one-off" because the province has been under U.N. rule since 1999 when Serb forces were ejected following a brief aerial war with NATO.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had little to say about the accusations, remarking only that Putin "was very candid."

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he was disappointed by Putin's criticism about NATO expansion. "Who can be worried that democracy and the rule of law is coming closer to somebody's border?" he asked.

Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the president's speech was not "confrontational" and attributed his blunt words to the sense that the number of conflicts fomented by Washington "was constantly growing" and that international law was being undermined by such actions.

"It is in the interest of the United States, the European Union and other countries that international law is upheld, not further destroyed," Peskov said.

Minutes earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel whose country holds the European Union's rotating presidency had praised Russia, saying it would be a reliable energy supplier to Europe. She called for closer relations between the EU and Moscow to enhance stability on the continent.

"How relations between the EU and Russia evolve will have a crucial impact on how security in the region will develop," Merkel told the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy. The forum is often used as an opportunity for officials to conduct diplomacy in an informal setting.

Russia's reputation as a supplier of natural gas to the West was damaged in the recent past when it halted supplies to Europe through main pipelines crossing Belarus and Ukraine due to pricing disputes with those two countries.

Merkel also said that the international community is determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Tehran needed to accept demands made by the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency, she said.

On the sidelines of the conference, Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani defended his country's nuclear program as peaceful, saying: "We are no threat to our region or other countries," while indicating a willingness to return to negotiations.

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and David Rising contributed to this report.

New York Times:

Putin Says U.S. Is Undermining Global Stability

By THOM SHANKER and MARK LANDLER

MUNICH, Feb. 10 — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia accused the United States on Saturday of provoking a new nuclear arms race by developing ballistic missile defenses, undermining international institutions and making the Middle East more unstable through its clumsy handling of the Iraq war.

In an address to an international security conference, Mr. Putin dropped all diplomatic gloss to recite a long list of complaints about American domination of global affairs, including many of the themes that have strained relations between the Kremlin and the United States during his seven-year administration.

Among them were the expansion of NATO into the Baltics and the perception in Russia that the West has supported groups that have toppled other governments in Moscow’s former sphere of influence.

“The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance,” Mr. Putin said. “We have the right to ask, ‘Against whom is this expansion directed?’ ”

He said the United States had turned the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sends monitors to elections in the former Soviet sphere, “into a vulgar instrument of ensuring the foreign policy interests of one country.”

The comments were the sternest yet from Mr. Putin, who has long bristled over criticism from the United States and its European allies as he and his cadre of former Soviet intelligence officials have consolidated their hold on Russia’s government, energy reserves and arms-manufacturing and trading complexes.

Rubble from the Berlin Wall was “hauled away as souvenirs” to countries that praise openness and personal freedom, he said, but “now there are attempts to impose new dividing lines and rules, maybe virtual, but still dividing our mutual continent.”

The world, he said, is now unipolar: “One single center of power. One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign.”

With the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and a Congressional delegation sitting stone-faced, Mr. Putin warned that the power amassed by any nation that assumes this ultimate global role “destroys it from within.

“It has nothing in common with democracy, of course,” he added. “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations — military force.”

“Primarily the United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every area,” said Mr. Putin, who increasingly has tried to re-establish Russia’s once broad Soviet-era influence, using Russia’s natural resources as leverage and defending nations at odds with the United States, including Iran.

American military actions, which he termed “unilateral” and “illegitimate,” also “have not been able to resolve any matters at all,” and, he said, have created only more instability and danger.

“They bring us to the abyss of one conflict after another,” he said. “Political solutions are becoming impossible.”

The comments irritated some European leaders and prompted sharp criticism from the Americans in attendance. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican widely expected to make a bid for the White House, made a rebuttal that began, “In today’s multipolar world, there is no place for needless confrontation.” He said that the United States won the cold war in partnership with powerful nations of Western Europe, and that “there are power centers on every continent today.”

Mr. McCain then hit back at Mr. Putin more directly. “Will Russia’s autocratic turn become more pronounced, its foreign policy more opposed to the principles of the Western democracies and its energy policy used as a tool of intimidation?” he asked. “Moscow must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions, at home and abroad, conflict fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies.”

In Washington, Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said in a statement: “We are surprised and disappointed with President Putin’s comments. His accusations are wrong. We expect to continue cooperation with Russia in areas important to the international community such as counterterrorism and reducing the spread and threat of weapons of mass destruction.”

Russia has also faced criticism from the United States and other Western countries that believe it has used energy reserves and transport pipelines to reward friendly countries and to punish those seeking to distance themselves from Kremlin control. Some analysts saw the tone of the speech as evidence of how much oil and mineral revenues have strengthened Mr. Putin.

The occasion of the speech was the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy — an event begun deep in the cold war, when Germany was divided and hundreds of thousands of American troops were stationed in Western Europe as a bulwark against Warsaw Pact forces.

Mr. Putin began with an apology for the tough talk to come. But during a lively question and answer period full of challenges and rebukes, the Russian president indicated that he relished provoking the international audience of legislators, government leaders, political analysts and human rights advocates.

“I love it,” Mr. Putin said as he reviewed a long list of questions. He has long enjoyed high and durable public approval ratings at home, in part for standing up to the West and for pursuing an assertive foreign policy with former Soviet states.

He did offer at least two significant and conciliatory statements to the United States.

President Bush “is a decent man, and one can do business with him,” he said. From their meetings and discussions, Mr. Putin said, he has heard the American president say, “I assume Russia and the United States will never be enemies, and I agree.”

And while Mr. Putin denied that Russia had assisted the Iranian military with significant arms transfers, he also criticized the government in Tehran for not cooperating more with the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency or responding to questions about its nuclear program.

Other American lawmakers offered measured criticism afterward. “He’s done more to bring Europe and the U.S. together than any single event in the last several years,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, described the speech as “confrontational,” saying, “some of the rhetoric takes us back to the cold war.”

Iran’s top nuclear official, Ali Larijani, listened impassively from the back of the room. His attendance had become a sideshow in itself. After accepting an invitation to speak Sunday, he canceled, citing health reasons, after a tense meeting with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna that concluded with a decision to freeze technical cooperation projects.

Mr. Putin joked that he worried the United States was “hiding extra warheads under the pillow” despite its treaties with Moscow to reduce strategic nuclear stockpiles. And he indicated obliquely that the new Russian ballistic missile, known as the Topol-M, was being developed at least in part in response to American efforts to field missile defenses.

He expressed alarm that an effective antimissile shield over the United States would upset a system of mutual fear that kept the nuclear peace throughout the cold war. “That means the balance will be upset, completely upset,” he said.

Addressing tensions between Europe and Russia over energy exports, Mr. Putin said 26 percent of Russian oil was extracted by foreign companies. While Russia is open to outside investment, he said, it has found its businessmen blocked from deals abroad.

The Kremlin has been criticized for attempting to impose registration and taxation laws that could restrict the work of foreign nongovernmental organizations with offices in Russia to aid democratization.

But Mr. Putin said his concerns about the work grew from the fact that they “are used as channels for funding, and those funds are provided by governments of other countries.” That flow of foreign money to assist opposition Russian political organizations, he said, is “hidden from our society.

“What is democratic about this?” he asked. “This is not about democracy. This is about one country influencing another.”

Mrs. Merkel, in her opening speech, struck a far more diplomatic tone than Mr. Putin, though she alluded to the tensions between Europe and Russia over energy shipments and the independence of Kosovo.

Addressing herself to Mr. Putin, who was sitting in the front row, Mrs. Merkel said, “In my talks with you, I have sensed that Russia is going to be a reliable and predictable partner.” But she added, “We need to speak frankly with each other.”

Mrs. Merkel had previously criticized in sharp terms Russia’s recent shutdown of oil shipments to Belarus, which followed a dispute over natural gas prices. She is pressing Russia to sign a charter with the European Union on energy, which Moscow has resisted.

Mrs. Merkel alluded to another potential confrontation between Europe and Russia. The United Nations is weighing a proposal that would put Kosovo on the path to independence from Serbia, which Russia opposes because it fears that such a move could upset its own turbulent relations with ethnic groups in the Caucasus. Russia has crushed one separatist-minded people within its own borders, in Chechnya, but supports two breakaway regions in Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“We’re going to come to the stage where we have to decide: does Serbia, does Kosovo want to move in the European direction?” Mrs. Merkel asked. “If that’s the route they choose, both will have to make compromises.”

C. J. Chivers contributed reporting from Moscow.

Bring The Troops Home Now!

2007-02-10T12:31:00.000-05:00

Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol

Washington Post | February 09, 2007

CHICAGO, Feb. 8 -- When Sen. Barack Obama heads downstate to Springfield on Saturday to announce his candidacy for president, he will speak in lofty tones of America and Abraham Lincoln, but also of a more prosaic topic: his own eight years in the Illinois Senate.

The heart of Obama's political rÃ©sumÃ© lies in Springfield, where he arrived in January 1997. He was a newcomer to elective politics after time as a community organizer and University of Chicago law professor operating largely outside the city's Democratic machine.

From a district on the South Side of Chicago, he reached Republican-dominated Springfield as a committed liberal, later writing that he understood politics in the capital "as a full-contact sport, and minded neither the sharp elbows nor the occasional blind-side hit."

Yet he emerged as a leader while still in his 30s by developing a style former colleagues describe as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. He cobbled together legislation with Republicans and conservative Democrats, making overtures other progressive politicians might consider distasteful.

Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform. He overcame law enforcement objections to codify changes designed to curb racial profiling and to make capital punishment, which he favors, more equitable.

"When you come in, especially as a freshman, and work on something like ethics reform, it's not necessarily a way to endear yourself to some of the veteran members of the Illinois General Assembly," said state Sen. Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican who became a friend. "And working on issues like racial profiling was contentious, but Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

"He wasn't a maverick," said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "There were other legislators I would turn to if I just wanted to make a lot of noise. That wasn't his style."

Obama was a persistent foe of social conservatives on issues of reproductive rights. He was also a reliable vote for gun control and backed a ban on assault weapons, although he took a political hit from Democrats for missing an important gun vote while in Hawaii for the Christmas holidays.

In 1997, Obama was not instantly embraced, Dillard said: "The fact that he was a law professor -- and a constitutional-law professor -- and he was a Harvard graduate made many members of the General Assembly roll their eyes."

Obama went to work. Afterward, he played golf and pickup basketball. He made the social rounds at Springfield cocktail parties. He joined a weekly poker game with legislators and lobbyists in which the ante was a dollar or two.

One regular, former Democratic state senator Larry Walsh, said Obama was competitive yet careful -- and always hard to read.

"One night, we were playing and things weren't going very well for me," Walsh said. "I had a real good hand and Barack beat me out with another one. I slammed down my cards and said, 'Doggone it, Barack, if you were a little more liberal in your card playing and a little more conservative in your politics, you and I would get along a lot better.' "

The campaign finance effort came at the initiative of former U.S. senator Paul Simon (D-Ill.). A Republican and a Democrat in each legislative body were tapped to tighten a system that, among other things, allowed politicians to use campaign accounts for personal expenses.

Obama was given the job of representing Senate Democrats by state Sen. Emil Jones Jr., who chose him on the recommendation of Abner J. Mikva, a former judge and Democratic congressman.

"He was very aggressive when he first came to the Senate," said Jones, now president of the state Senate. "We were in the minority, but he said, 'I'd like to work hard. Any tough assignments or things you'd like me to be involved in, don't hesitate to give it to me.' "

Obama favored more ambitious changes in campaign law, including limits on contributions, but nipped and tucked in search of consensus.

"What impressed me about him was his ability in working with people of the opposite party," said Mike Lawrence, director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. "He had definite ideas about what ought to be contained in a campaign finance reform measure, but he also was willing to recognize that he was probably not going to get everything he wanted."

The result, according to good-government groups, was the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure.

Five years later, Obama waded into a complex capital-punishment debate after a number of exonerations persuaded then-Gov. George Ryan (R) to empty death row.

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

In proposing changes, Obama met repeatedly with officials and advocates on all sides. He nudged and cajoled colleagues fearful of being branded soft on crime, as well as death-penalty opponents worried that any reform would weaken efforts to abolish capital punishment.

Obama's signature effort was a push for mandatory taping of interrogations and confessions. It was opposed by prosecutors, police organizations and Ryan's successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who said it would impede investigators.

Working under the belief that no innocent defendant should end up on death row and no guilty one should go free, Obama helped get the bill approved by the Senate on a 58 to 0 vote. When Blagojevich reversed his position and signed it, Illinois became the first state to require taping by statute.

"Obviously, we didn't agree all the time, but he would always take suggestions when they were logical, and he was willing to listen to our point of view. And he offered his opinions in a lawyerly way," said Carl Hawkinson, the retired Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "When he spoke on the floor of the Senate, he spoke out of conviction. You knew that, whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him."

Obama paid a political price for missing an important vote on a crime package. That was during the 1999 Christmas holidays, as Obama -- who describes himself as suffering from "chronic restlessness" -- embarked on an ill-fated attempt to unseat Rep. Bobby Rush, a popular Chicago Democrat.

When the legislature was called into special session to vote on gun control, Obama and his family were visiting his grandmother in Hawaii. His 18-month-old daughter, Malia, was sick and unable to fly. The measure was narrowly defeated, and Rush criticized him. Obama lost by 31 points, his only electoral defeat.

"I take my legislative responsibilities extremely seriously," Obama said after the measure fell five votes short. "In the midst of a congressional race, I'm well aware of the potential risk of missing a vote, even if that vote doesn't wind up making the difference on a particular piece of legislation. But at some point, family has to come first."

Obama was a steady supporter of abortion rights, said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood's chief lobbyist in Springfield, although he caught flak from the political left in 2004 as he ran for the U.S. Senate.

The reason was a series of votes on such issues as late-term abortion and parental notification when Obama voted "present" instead of yea or nay. He said he was not tacking toward the center, but an opponent in the Democratic primary sent mailers portraying a rubber duck and proclaiming, "He ducked!"

Obama said his votes helped provide cover for other legislators. Sutherland said the votes were part of a strategy designed with Obama's help to deny Republicans easy campaign sound bites.

"The Republicans loved to put out legislation all the time that would put their opponents in a trick box during the elections," Sutherland said. "It was a strong statement to those who promoted bad legislation that we're not going to take this; you can't use this against us."

Vigils called for Friday to demand immediate discharge for Lt. Watada

2007-02-09T09:29:00.001-05:00

Will the Watada Mistrial Spark an End to the War?

by JEREMY BRECHER & BRENDAN SMITH

[posted online on February 9, 2007]

A military judge in Fort Lewis, Washington, has declared a mistrial in the court-martial of Lieut. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer prosecuted for refusing to go to Iraq. A new trial is believed to be unlikely before summer, if at all. The mistrial represents a significant victory for Watada, for the rights of military resisters and for the movement of civil resistance to US war crimes in Iraq.

On the surface, the ruling by Lieut. Col. John Head appears to result from a procedural technicality, but in fact it is a defeat for the Army's central goal in prosecuting the 28-year-old officer. The judge had gone to extraordinary lengths to try to keep Watada from achieving his objective of "putting the war on trial," ruling that Watada's motivations for refusing to deploy with his unit were "irrelevant" and that no witnesses could testify on the illegality of the war.

But in its zeal to exclude the real meaning of the case, the court tied itself up in procedural knots. Prosecutors wanted the judge to find that Watada had agreed to pretrial stipulations that he had violated his duty when he refused to show up for movement to Iraq. But Watada made clear that he believed his duty, under his oath and military law, was to refuse to participate in an illegal war. As the underlying question of the war's illegality emerged like a family secret in the courtroom, the judge agreed to the prosecutor's motion to declare a mistrial. But Time.com reported that Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, says he will file an immediate motion to dismiss the case on grounds of double jeopardy if the Army tries to resurrect it.

Watada maintained that his refusal to participate in an illegal war in Iraq was justified, indeed required, under the Army's own Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under Judge Head's rulings, however, there simply would be no way for a soldier to resist an illegal order. Indeed, an American military person could be ordered to commit mass murder or genocide and then be denied the right even to make a case for the lawfulness of his actions. The judge's rulings fly in the face of the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, which stood for the principle that all US officials are bound by national and international law not to commit war crimes.

The Army maintained that the duty to refuse an illegal order, established at the Nuremberg Trials and enshrined in the Universal Code of Military Justice, applies only to orders to commit particular criminal acts like executing a prisoner. But in Watada, Resister, a January 27 video by New America Media's Curtis Choy, Watada says that responsibility "doesn't just include individual war crimes. It includes the greatest crime against the peace, which is, as they determined after Nuremberg, wars of aggression, wars that are not out of necessity but out of choice for profit or power or whatever it may be."

Watada's dissent was intended to spark a movement of civil resistance on the part of the American people. As he told the Veterans for Peace annual convention in Seattle recently, the peace movement needs a change of strategy.

"To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.... If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols--if they stood up and threw their weapons down--no President could ever initiate a war of choice again," he said.

But the young officer's appeal is not only to people in the military. He told the Veterans, "Should citizens choose to remain silent through self-imposed ignorance or choice, it makes them as culpable as the soldiers in these crimes." In the Watada, Resister video, he added, "No longer can any American citizen or organization simply sit on the fence and say, Well, we don't take a position on the war, because the war in itself is unconstitutional in many forms, and we as Americans have to step up and say either we agree with what's going on or we disagree with what's going on.... If you disagree...then you are going to have to ask yourself what are you willing to sacrifice of yourself in order to correct the injustice and wrongs of this government in regard to the Iraq War."

"We all take part in it--if you pay your taxes, you're taking part in this war. We all have a responsibility, as they determined after Nuremberg, whether you're the lowest soldier or the highest ranking general, or just a regular civilian, we all have responsibility...to resist and refuse enabling and condoning this criminal behavior," he said.

Sparking Resistance

Indeed, Watada's stand is helping spark resistance in many walks of American life. More than 1,000 active-duty soldiers have now signed the Appeal for Redress, asking for an end to the Iraq War. Appeal founder Jonathan Hutto made the connection between Watada's case and the soldiers' action. "The Appeal for Redress stands in solidarity with all those who resist the current occupation of Iraq, the mass murder of the Iraqi people, the harm and destruction done to American service members and their families, and the ill use of American tax dollars.... We hope that Lt. Watada is successful in his defense of his actions. We further hope that his actions inspire other service members to look deeply into the cause of this conflict and to follow their moral conscience."

The Washington Post reported that at a student rally held during the January 27 antiwar demonstration in Washington, DC, "Many students mentioned the case of Ehren Watada...as an important step in building a cohesive antiwar movement. Watada's father spoke from the main stage at the protest as student speakers at a side rally organized by the Campus Antiwar Network hailed the young man as a hero and said the war will not end until other soldiers make the same decision."

Watada has also inspired a growing movement of civil disobedience against the war. Ying Lee, a former member of the Berkeley City Council, wrote in the Berkeley Daily, "Watada is a young man with extraordinary clarity about his moral responsibility and I am grateful for his principled and clearly articulated thoughts about his obligation to defend the Constitution, the UN charter, and the Nuremberg Principles.... My gratitude to him is expressed in committing civil disobedience by blocking the doors of the San Francisco Federal Building."

A majority of the American people now tell pollsters they believe the Iraq War is wrong. More than a dozen Congressional committees are now investigating aspects of the Iraq War and the "war on terror," including war crimes ranging from top officials' lies about weapons of mass destruction to illegal rendition and torture of captives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Iraq War is the greatest moral issue facing the United States. And the midterm elections are almost universally interpreted as a call to end the war in Iraq. Yet the war only escalates. Could Lieutenant Watada's strategy of civil resistance provide the key to bringing it to an end?

America's Constitutional Crisis

Watada's stand is based on fundamental constitutional principles and responsibilities. It goes to the heart of America's current political, moral and constitutional crisis. As he told Democracy Now!, "In our democracy, according to our Constitution, one person, one man, cannot hold absolute power, hold himself above the law, including in actions in declaring war or waging war on another country. And it is my belief that in deceiving the American people, through what a majority of us now know to be true, the leaders of our country were violating their oath to this country and violating constitutional law."

Watada's reasoning provides a pivot for redirecting America's understanding of what has happened to us and what we must do about it. He challenges us to confront a chain of implications that starts with the truth about the criminality of the Iraq War, moves through the principles of the Constitution and US and international law, and ends with our personal responsibility.

Watada also provides a living example of what it means to step up to personal responsibilities. "There was a long time when I went through depression because I told myself I didn't have a choice," he told New America Media. "That I joined the military and I had only one duty and that was to obey what I was told, regardless of how I felt inside. It really hurt me for a long time because I imprisoned myself by telling myself I didn't have a choice. It didn't matter that I might be sent to prison. I was already in prison, my freedom was already gone.

"When I told myself that I do have a choice, I have a choice to do what is morally right, what is in my conscience, and what I can live with for the rest of my life--even though that comes with consequences, I do have that choice. When I realized that, and when I chose what was right for me, I became free again. And I think everybody has to remember that and to realize that is what is important in life.1,000 rally for Lt. Watada at Ft. Lewis during court martial

Recent Iraq war vets join all day rally for Lt. Watada at Ft. Lewis 2/5/07 Photo by Jeff Paterson

Vigils continue outside the gates of Ft. Lewis and a "victory rally" is planned for Friday to demand that the Army discharge Lt. Watada and drop all charges against him.

Supporters in the Ft. Lewis area will gather outside the gates of the Army base at Exit 119 from 4pm-7pm for banner and sign-holding followed by a candlelight vigil with speakers and music. (more info) Plan one in your community!

On Monday, the first day of the court martial, over a thousand people and giant puppets rallied at the gates of Fort Lewis, Washington in support of Lt. Ehren Watada. Formed for the occasion, the “Tacoma Puppetistas” visually dominated the mass rally by putting the war on trial via huge puppet theater. Meanwhile Iraq Veterans Against the War and families of military resisters led chants and marches from rallies in a nearby park to the base gates.

On Fort Lewis, supporters of Lt. Watada lined up at the visitors station beginning at 5:00 am in order to gain entry to the court proceedings. Many were turned away, but about 50 civilians were eventually allowed to view the proceedings from a viewing room with an audio/video feed.

Helga Aguayo and dughters outside Ft. Lewis
during Watada court martial 2/5/07.
Photo by Jeff Paterson

At the rally outside, Helga Aguayo, with her two daughters and mother-in-law at her side, spoke of her husband Agustin’s three year battle with the Army for a conscientious objector discharge—only to then be forced to refuse to return to Iraq for a second deployment.(video) Spc. Aguayo is now facing seven years imprisonment at a upcoming March 6 court martial for desertion. For more information on Agustin Aguayo's case,to download the informational flyer to distribute, and to
contribute to his defense fund visit:
http://www.couragetoresist.org/aguayo

Also: Tuesday (Day 2) photos from outside the courtroom, and at the gates of Fort Lewis .

Previous Lt. Watada news from Courage to Resist:

Army drops activist subpoenas for Lt. Watada trial (Jan. 31)

Lt. Watada prosecutors surrender on journalist subpoenas (Jan. 28)

Judge rules “illegal war” debate forbidden during court martial (Jan. 16)

For additional information about Lt. Watada's case visit: http://www.thankyoult.org/

2007-02-09T04:12:00.001-05:00

Veterans Group Speaks Out on War
Congressional Democrats Let VoteVets.org Talk for Them, Bluntly

By Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 8, 2007; Page A04

When Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of "aiding the enemy," the Democratic senators gathered around him yesterday did not wince. Nor did Democrats object when Soltz, the chairman of a group called VoteVets.org, called President Bush and Vice President Cheney "draft dodgers."

In the United States Congress, where decorum usually holds sway, Soltz and his small band of veterans are saying things many Democrats would like to express but can't. And as the politics heat up over the Iraq war, Democratic leaders increasingly are being drawn to Soltz and his angry soldiers.

VoteVets.org's Jon Soltz, at center, with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, left, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, right, head of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said yesterday, "We need a vote that tells the president that his strategy is not working."

Photo Credit: By Nikki Kahn -- The Washington Post

VoteVets.org appears to be the most active group trying to influence the debate about the president's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Last month, it dispatched veterans to the home states of Republican senators waffling over resolutions on the war. Next, it ran a stark television ad on Super Bowl Sunday that drew national attention. And this week, group members crisscrossed Capitol Hill, trying to persuade lawmakers and their staffs to oppose the troop increase.

Their efforts are supported by a coalition of liberal groups that blocked the president's 2005 plan to privatize Social Security. But this new campaign could prove more difficult.

The veterans are selling a blunt message: The Bush strategy in Iraq is a failure, and adding troops sends more young men and women to their deaths. If you care about the military, they told lawmakers, vote against the troop increase. Legislators who are stalling debate on the matter are "cowards," they said.

This week marked their third pilgrimage to the Capitol. They met privately with the staffs of 11 senators, mostly Republicans. They talked strategy behind closed doors with the Democrats who run the House and then held a media event with those leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who praised them for speaking out.

Soltz, the group's intense 29-year-old co-founder who served in Iraq in 2003, displayed a fiery impatience with the procedural morass that has paralyzed the Senate. "I don't need some fancy Senate talk about why they can't vote," he said in an interview. "We just want a vote. We need a vote that tells the president that his strategy is not working."

In several news conferences, Soltz accused McConnell of "aiding the enemy" by allowing the Bush administration to build up troops in Iraq at the expense of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. "We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war," he said, referring to Iraq. "Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan."

Soltz called Cheney a "draft dodger," repeating charges he made last month when he disparaged a "president who frankly knows nothing of war and a vice president who knows even less." He said: "Senators on the fence have a choice. They can stand with veterans like us, or they can stand with the draft dodgers down the road."

Democrats said they will not muzzle the veterans. In many ways, the former soldiers and Marines are expressing sentiments the lawmakers want broadcast, and they help inoculate Democrats against Republican claims that opposing the president's plan undermines the troops.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who appeared with four veterans yesterday morning, said he saw parallels between VoteVets.org and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the group of protesters he led during Vietnam. He said he recognized the anger he saw in Soltz. "When you come back from fighting the enemy, you are passionate and feel very strongly about duty," Kerry said. "Each one of these folks has earned the right to express their thoughts. Their words ought to stand for themselves. That's exactly how they feel and people ought to listen to them."

In the office of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), the chief of staff and several aides listened with rapt attention Tuesday as Brian Van Riper, a 25-year-old former Marine machine gunner, told how he struggled with creeping doubts during his Iraq tour that peaked when he met a 12-year-old Iraqi girl with a scarred face and missing leg. She was a casualty of the initial air bombing of Baghdad, Van Riper said. "That night, I felt a tear down my eye," he said.

Soltz, Van Riper and the others got polite if reserved receptions from Republicans, with one exception. The veterans said they stormed out of a Tuesday meeting with Sen. Larry E. Craig's chief of staff. "He was almost dismissive in his tone," said Joe Kramer, 31, who was in the light infantry in Iraq. "We agreed to disagree. Very loudly."

Dan Whiting, a spokesman for Craig, would say only that the Idaho Republican's chief of staff, Mike Ware, sees things differently.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and likely presidential candidate who supports the addition of troops, dismissed VoteVets.org as a "handful of veterans" not representative of the military.

VoteVets.org has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, said spokesman Eric Schmeltzer. The PAC is part of a coalition of left-leaning groups organized by Americans United for Change that includes labor unions and liberal groups such as MoveOn.org.

The veterans group raised just over $1.3 million in the last election cycle. Some of that money came in large doses, from Wall Street and Hollywood sources. Lynne Wasserman, daughter of the late Hollywood mogul Lew Wasserman, shelled out $25,000. Hedge fund owner Kevin Toner, a generous Democratic contributor, gave $25,000, as did Brian Snyder, another New York investor. Other donors include Phil Donahue, Democratic doyenne Beth Dozoretz, TV producer Norman Lear and architect Frank Gehry. At least $20,000 has come from organized labor and another $5,000 came from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's (D-Nev.) Searchlight Leadership Fund. But most donations have been $1,000 or less.

Soltz said the group is pro-military and not a front for the Democrats. "I'm a conservative," said Soltz, who volunteered on Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "I don't think 20,000 more troops is Democratic, I don't think 20,000 troops is Republican. I think it's stupid."

2007-02-09T03:55:00.000-05:00

Norman Solomon: Making an Example of Ehren Watada

By: Norman Solomon Published: Feb 8, 2007 at 07:37
Email this article

Printer friendly page

The people running the Iraq war are eager to make an example of Ehren Watada. They've convened a kangaroo court-martial. But the man on trial is setting a profound example of conscience -- helping to undermine the war that the Pentagon's top officials are so eager to protect.

"The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to ship out for Iraq barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying Monday [Feb. 5] about the legality of the war," the Associated Press reported.

While the judge was hopping through the military's hoops at Fort Lewis in Washington state, an outpouring of support for Watada at the gates reflected just how broad and deep the opposition to this war has become.

The AP dispatch merely stated that "outside the base, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated in support of Watada." But several hundred people maintained an antiwar presence at the gates, where a vigil and rally -- led by Iraq war veterans and parents of those sent to kill and be killed in this horrific war -- mirrored what is happening in communities across the United States.

Many of the most compelling voices against the Iraq war come from the men and women who were ordered into a conflagration that should never have begun. Opinions may be debatable, but experiences are irrefutable. And the devastating slaughter that the U.S. war effort continues to inflict on Iraqi people has a counterpoint in the suffering of Americans who are left with unspeakable grief.

In direct resistance to the depravity of the Bush administration as it escalates this war, Lieutenant Watada is taking a clear and uplifting position. Citing international law and the U.S. Constitution, he points out that the Iraq war is "manifestly illegal." And he adds: "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order. It is my duty not to follow unlawful orders and not to participate in things I find morally reprehensible."

Watada says: "My participation would make me party to war crimes."

Outside the fence at Fort Lewis -- while the grim farce of Watada's court-martial proceeded with virtually all substance ruled out of order -- the criminality of the war and the pain it has brought were heavy in the air.

Darrell Anderson was a U.S. soldier in Iraq. He received a Purple Heart. Later, he refused orders to return for a second tour of duty. Now, he gives firsthand accounts of the routine killing of Iraqi civilians. He speaks as an eyewitness and a participant in a war that is one long war crime. And he makes a convincing case that "the GI resistance" is emerging and pivotal: "You can't call yourself antiwar if you're not supporting the resistance."

At Fort Lewis, outside the gates, I met Carlos Arredondo. He's traveling the country in a long black hearse-like station wagon, with big photos and letters from his son Alexander plastered on the sides of the vehicle. At age 20, more than two years ago, Alexander died in Iraq. Now, a conversation with Carlos Arredondo is likely to leave you in tears, feeling his grief and his rage against this war.

"When the Marines came to inform Arredondo of his son's death and stayed after he asked them to leave, he set their van on fire, burning over a quarter of his body in the process," the Boston Globe has reported. Carlos and his wife Melida Arredondo are now members of Military Families Speak Out.

Among the speakers at a nearby event the night before Watada's court-martial began was Helga Aguayo, whose husband Agustin Aguayo is a U.S. Army medic now charged with desertion. After deployment to Iraq in 2004, he applied for recognition as a conscientious objector, without success. During a year in the war zone, he refused to put ammunition in his weapon. Today, he is looking at the prospect of up to seven years in prison.

Many others in uniform are struggling to extricate themselves from the war machine. Information about some of them is available at: .

Soldiers have to choose from options forced upon them by the commander in chief and Congress. Those who resist this war deserve our gratitude and our support. And our willingness to resist as well.

Ehren Watada faces four years in prison. Half of that potential sentence has to do with the fact that he made public statements against the war. The war-makers want such honest courage to stop. But it is growing every day.

The paperback edition of Norman Solomon's latest book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," was published in June. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com.

FIRST MASS WOMAN KILLED IN CHOPPER CRASH IN IRAQ

2007-02-08T20:23:00.001-05:00

FIRST MASS WOMAN KILLED IN CHOPPER CRASH IN IRAQ

Friends remember Jen Harris as ‘smart, warm and wonderful’

Friends remember Jennifer Harris, killed By George Derringer/swampscott@cnc.com
Thursday, February 08, 2007

Feb. 7 in Iraq, as “a wonderful girl,” in the words of Madeline Romano, her sailing program leader, and both “smart and warm” in the words of one of her 1996 Swampscott High School classmates, Kelly Sears.

“She was a wonderful girl,” said Romano, who led the Swampscott Sailing Program with her husband, John, in the early and mid-1990s. “She started sailing when she was a young kid, 9 years old, I think, and she was very good.”

Harris and the couple’s daughter, Tia Romano, teamed up in sailing races and even placed during Marblehead Race Week, Madeline Romano saysl.

“Then, in high school, Jennifer applied to be one of the instructors and she got the job,” she adds. “In fact, I even wrote one of her recommendation letters for the U.S. Naval Academy. Today is a sad day.”

Classmate Sears told the Reporter, “Jennifer is the first person I know who was killed in Iraq. We were in a lot of classes together and belonged to a lot of the same clubs. She was very active in Harvard Model Congress, Political Action Club, and one of the smartest and warmest people in the whole school.”

Sears says she’s confident she is not alone in her sentiments.

“I am sure many people from SHS feel the same way about her. That is very, very sad news,” Sears said.

FIRST MASS WOMAN KILLED IN CHOPPER CRASH IN IRAQ.

Feb 8, 2007 1:00 pm

Female Marine From Swampscott Killed In Iraq Crash
(WBZ) SWAMPSCOTT A female Marine captain from Swampscott was one of the 7 Americans killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq Wednesday.

28-year-old Jennifer Harris is the first woman from Massachusetts to be killed in the war, according to Sen. John Kerry's office. She was due to come home next week.

Harris was the pilot of the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter that crashed north of Baghdad.

Four other Marines and two sailors also died.

A military statement did not give a cause for the crash, but a senior U.S. defense official in Washington told the Associated Press the helicopter did not appear to have been hit by hostile fire. An Iraqi air force officer said, however, the helicopter was shot down with a missile. An al-Qaeda-linked Sunni group said in a Web statement it was responsible.

Harris was a graduate of Swampscott High School. She went on to the Naval Academy and then trained to fly helicopters.

"According to her father, she always wanted to fly ever since she was a kid," said Marine veteran Jim Schultz.

"It was devastating because I thought the world of Jennifer."

The local Veterans of Foreign Wars post hosted a welcome home party for her just last summer.

Schultz and some Swampscott police officers sent care packages to her in Iraq. She sent back gifts to thank them a week-and-a-half ago. One was an American flag that was flown in Iraq in honor of the Swampscott police department.

"Her family and friends will miss her very much," said Harris family spokesman Anthony Macone. "We are all taking this very hard."

Sen. Kerry praised Harris in a statement Thursday afternoon.

"Captain Jennifer Harris' death is a devastating loss for Massachusetts. During her years at the Naval Academy and throughout her three tours of duty in Iraq, she made both her fellow Marines and her hometown of Swampscott proud. Teresa and I offer our prayers and condolences to her family and friends in this difficult time."

Harris is the second Swampscott native to be killed in Iraq.

20-year-old Army Specialist Jared Raymond was killed last September when his tank was hit by a makeshift bomb.

According to the Massachusetts Department of Veterans' Services, more than 60 Massachusetts service members have died while serving the country in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From The New York Times- "I think this is a report on how Capt. Jen Harris died. Editor JJB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Copter Crashes Suggest Shift in Iraqi Tactics

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and JAMES GLANZ

BAGHDAD, Feb. 7 — With two more helicopter crashes near Baghdad, including a Marine transport crash on Wednesday that killed seven people, the number of helicopters that have gone down in Iraq over the past three weeks rose to six. American officials say the streak strongly suggests that insurgents have adapted their tactics and are now putting more effort into shooting down the aircraft.

The number also includes a previously unreported downing of a helicopter operated by a private security firm on Jan. 31.

Some aspects of the recent crashes indicate that insurgents have become smarter about anticipating American flight patterns and finding ways to use old weapons to down helicopters, according to military and witness reports. The aircraft, many of which are equipped with sophisticated antimissile technology, still can be vulnerable to more conventional weapons fired from the ground.

Details about the Marine helicopter, a CH-46 Sea Knight transport that crashed into an open field in an insurgent-heavy region northwest of Baghdad, were still sketchy Wednesday night. Witnesses said the aircraft appeared to have been shot down, but some military officials suggested that the crash might have been caused by a mechanical failure.

The private security helicopter shot down last week was being flown in support of State Department operations and was forced down 10 miles south of the capital after insurgents attacked it with heavy-caliber ground fire as it flew from Hilla to Baghdad, American officials said Wednesday. Another American helicopter quickly swooped in to rescue the passengers and crew.

There have been four other fatal downings of American helicopters since mid-January that killed at least 20 people and that military officials have suggested were all caused by small-arms fire. In some cases, however, witnesses indicated that missiles had been fired from the ground.

American officials emphasize that a new sense of coordinated aggressiveness on the part of insurgents toward attacking aircraft, or even luck, may be playing as large a role in the high pace of crashes as improved skill and tactics among insurgents.

“I do not know whether or not it is the law of averages that caught up with us,” said Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during Senate testimony on Tuesday. Another possibility, he said, was that there had “been a change in tactics, techniques and procedures on the part of the enemy.”

Among the troops, helicopters are still seen as a less vulnerable way to travel than the ground convoys that are commonly subject to roadside bombs that can tear through thick vehicular armor.

Historically, improved tactics in shooting down helicopters have proved to be important factors in conflicts in which guerrillas have achieved victories against major powers, including battles in Somalia, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

A senior military official in Washington said Wednesday that, while the episodes were still under investigation, the rash of helicopter shoot-downs appeared to be part of an insurgent strategy to inflict heavier losses on American forces at the start of the new push to secure Baghdad.

“There is certainly the expectation here that insurgents are trying to inflict some losses as we’re building up forces as a means to try to discourage the Iraqis and us that this is a futile plan,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several officials said it was unclear whether the attacks had succeeded because insurgents had adopted new tactics, but judging only by the number of successful attacks, it appeared to be part of a coordinated effort.

Part of the explanation, one official said, may be that fighters are simply firing at low-flying American helicopters. In recent years, there has been relatively little small-arms fire against helicopters, the official said.

One Air Force commander in Baghdad said the recent crashes appeared largely to be a result of old weapons long available in Iraq and not an influx of new hardware or technology. “I haven’t seen anything like that,” the American commander said.

The Sea Knight, the aircraft that crashed Wednesday, is a large transport helicopter that is easily distinguished by its twin rotors, one mounted near the cockpit and one mounted on a tall tail at the back. It can carry more than two dozen passengers and crew members. The military said all seven people on board died in the crash but did not identify the victims.

Video of the aftermath broadcast by the BBC showed bright red flames and thick black smoke billowing from the burning hulk of the helicopter as the wreckage lay in an open field.

Witnesses said the helicopter appeared to have been attacked from the ground.

“I looked at the sky and saw this big helicopter with double rotors and it was hit in its tail and burning,” said one Iraqi who declined to give his name but said he saw the crash while tending to his herd of grazing sheep near Karma, an area heavy with Sunni Arab insurgents between Baghdad and Falluja.

Another helicopter, with one rotor, was flying just behind the burning aircraft, he said. The twin-rotor helicopter flew for another half mile or so before crashing, he said. “I saw a lot of airplanes after the crash, and I took my herd and left,” he said. “I was afraid there would be shooting after that.”

An Internet message from an insurgent group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq took responsibility for shooting down the helicopter, the latest in a string of crashes that the group has claimed responsibility for. The message said that the group’s “antiaircraft” battalion downed the aircraft about 10:40 a.m. near Karma, and asserted that the crash was witnessed by hundreds of onlookers shouting “God is great,” according to the SITE Institute, which tracks Internet postings by insurgent groups.

American military officials emphasized that the investigation into the crash was scrutinizing a possible mechanical failure along with other potential causes.

Two American officials said the previously unreported downing of the private helicopter supporting State Department operations last week came after it was subjected to a hail of gunfire from the ground. One official described the gunfire as heavy caliber and said that after the helicopter crash-landed a second aircraft set down and evacuated the stranded passengers and crew.

But the official said that as a quick reaction force rushed to the crash scene, the force was struck by at least one large roadside bomb and suffered several casualties. The force withdrew from the site, and American officials decided to destroy the aircraft rather than risk it falling into insurgent hands.

Before the most recent crashes, at least 57 American military helicopters have crashed or been shot down since May 2003, according to a tally by the Brookings Institution. The highest total for any single month was five aircraft lost in January 2004. The overall tally since 2003 showed that at least 172 American service members had died in helicopter crashes, or about 5.5 percent of the total American troop fatalities.

On Jan. 20, in the deadliest recent crash, attackers appear to have fired from a pickup truck near Baghdad. The first of two Black Hawk helicopters passed over the truck and saw nothing amiss. But a witness said that the second helicopter fired the flares that were used to confuse heat-seeking missiles before bursting into flames and then crashing.

An Apache gunship in the area then pursued the truck and destroyed it. The American military later said that the debris from the truck contained tubes consistent with missile launchers.

Reporting was contributed by David S. Cloud from Washington, and Ali Adeeb, Qais Mizher and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Baghdad.

Home > News & Opinion > Columnists & Opinion > Herald Columnists > RSS Feed

High-flying Marine’s future was bright
By Peter Gelzinis
Boston Herald Columnist

Friday, February 9, 2007 - Updated: 03:06 AM EST

A slightly faded red and gold Marine Corps flag billowed in the frigid breeze yesterday, just above Bob Faulkner’s front door. Though this Swampscott firefighter never donned a Marine uniform, he flew the banner with all the requisite love and pride.

Wednesday night, after the Marine envoy and a chaplain completed their sorrowful visit to Faulkner’s neighbor, Raymond Harris, Faulkner rushedover.

“Ray gave me the (Marine) flag,” Faulkner said yesterday afternoon, his voice faltering, “and asked me if I would fly it in honor of Jen. I was humbled.”

A week before she was to come home, Marine Capt. Jennifer Harris became the first Massachusetts military woman since the Vietnam War to die in a war zone.She was killed Wednesday while piloting a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter above Fallujah. Whether her chopper was downed by enemy fire or mechanical failure has yet to be determined.

Much of what Bob Faulkner has come to know of the extraordinary 28-year-old woman who grew up just down street, he has learned from the father who glowed in the reflection of his daughter’s stunning accomplishments.

“I know if Ray wasn’t in such shock right now,” Faulkner said, “you guys would be sitting in his living room, hearing stories told by the proudest parent in this world. And no doubt, Ray and Rosalie would show you the shrines they have to Jen, the light of their lives. She was their only child.”

A 1996 honors graduate of Swampscott High School, Jennifer Harris had her choice between West Point and Annapolis. “She wanted to fly,” recalled Swampscott police Detective Jim Schultz, “so she chose the Navy and the Marines. Last night,” the cop said, a smile gracing his face, “her father remembered when he, Jen and Rosalie were on a flight together.

“Ray was telling us how Jen, who was little at the time, kept looking out the window and back at her parents. ‘I’m going to be flying a plane like this one day,’ she says, ‘and I’ll have two seats for you and Mom right behind me.’ ”

When Peter Sack switched on the TV news very early yesterday morning, the former principal of Swampscott High felt a pain tear through his chest.

“Unfortunately, I can’t say I was overcome by a sense of disbelief,” Sack said, “The path Jen had chosen was incredibly dangerous and yet . . . so singularly heroic. It’s just so painful to realize she’s gone.

“When someone dies, reputations often tend to get inflated,” he added softly, “but when it came to Jen, all her achievements and accomplishments were real. She easily could have gone to any of the (Ivy League schools). She was destined for greatness. It was clear to everyone in the school. As a senior, she won both citizenship awards, class secretary for all four years, played in the band, joined every club, volunteered at the library.

“You know, I am lucky enough to have two sons, healthy and on their own now,” Sack said, “but if I could have a daughter, I’d want her to be Jen. She was goodness and grace incarnate.”

Yesterday afternoon, Detective Schultz went to a patch of grass overlooking Nahant Bay and replaced the single gold star flag, honoring 20-year-old Army Specialist Jared Raymond, the son of Swampscott who perished last September, with a flag containing two stars. Two gold stars for two only children lost.

Next Wednesday, after finishing her third tour in Iraq, Jennifer Harris was to come home to Elwin Street and the parents who could finally let go of their worst fear.

Bob Faulkner had begun to look for the “Welcome Home, Jen” banner he knew that Ray and Rosalie Harris were going to drape across the front of their home.

“Ray told me how Jen was anxious to start her new Marine assignment at a desk in Washington,” Faulkner said, his voice trailing off. “She could have written her own ticket to anywhere. She was that special.”

2007-02-08T08:03:00.000-05:00

Nightmare war claims another American hero

By Mike Barnicle
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 -

They buried Alex Fuller yesterday. His funeral Mass took place at St. Francis Xavier in Hyannis. It was exactly four years to the day after Colin Powell was set up by Bush and Cheney and the rest of a reprehensible crew to help lie us into a war with Iraq by appearing before the United Nations and investing a general’s credibility and career in a hoax that has taken Fuller and 3,422 other noble Americans to their death since the world heard Powell’s words.

Fuller was 21, a sergeant in the Army, serving proudly with the 61st Calvary Regiment, 2nd Brigade, right there in Baghdad, right in the middle of a sectarian civil war, just a dozen days ago when an IED exploded, crushing his Humvee, taking away all he ever dreamed.

The wake for Alex Fuller was held Monday night at the Doane, Beal & Ames Funeral Home in Hyannis, an evening so cold that whispers seemed to freeze in the air. The young soldier grew up in Centerville, attended Newton North High and Barnstable High School, got his GED and then signed up to serve his country.

“He loved the Army,” his uncle Robert Mogavero said as he stood greeting the mourners Monday night. “It was what he wanted to do. He died doing something he loved. That’s something, isn’t it?”

Now, as Mogavero spoke, the dead sergeant’s widow arrived at the funeral home. Her name is Anastacia and she is 19, pregnant, quite beautiful and appears shockingly young.

“I still can’t believe this,” “Stacey” said.

Her husband’s closed casket was draped with the American flag. His medals and Combat Infantryman Badge were framed above the casket. Two posters displaying pictures of Alex Fuller, his bride, friends and family - portraits of the soldier as a young man - stood on easels at the entrance to the funeral parlor.

“This is a tough one,” said Bill Crowley, the funeral director, looking at the snapshots of a kid
swallowed by a war ignited by political duplicity and managed with total incompetence

A priest from St. Francis Xavier, Father Tom Frechette, said a prayer. The mourners, many so young, stood numbed by the cold reality of the casket, the war, the loss.

“My son got the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star,” Sgt. Fuller’s mother Linda said. “The Bronze Star is almost the highest medal. I am so proud of him and I know he’s with God now. I know he is.”

The funeral home is across from a couple of pizza joints and a Chinese take-out. It is down the road from the Cape Cod Melody Tent and Main Street in Hyannis where on summer nights a soft ocean breeze cools sidewalks spilling over with people the same age as Alex Fuller.

This war seems to touch very few of them. Or us. It is a remote enterprise to many - a headline, a casualty list - and it remains what it was from the start: a war of choice, manufactured by people like Bush and Cheney whose only real risk is political defeat.

And so, four years to the day after Colin Powell was used by the cynical to promote a lethal fiasco, another fine young American boy, Sgt. Alexander Fuller, was buried in the cold ground of a country gripped by a nightmare called Iraq.

[ Veterans for Peace Cape Cod Branch had an honor guard at the Funeral Mass and Wake. Flags were put to half mast on Harwich Town buildings, and we wondered why those who recant with ubiquitous "yellow ribbons" to "SUPPORT OUT TROOPS" would have made the effort to attend this fallen soldier's funeral, out of real respect and honor. Shame on you! By the way it is interesting to note that the the Hyannis VFW across failed to honor the fallen son of Cape Cod by not lowering their flag to half mast! ]

2007-02-08T06:27:00.000-05:00

A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada

Thursday, Feb. 08, 2007 By ELI SANDERS/SEATTLE

1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial is under way at Fort Lewis, south of Seattle. Watada refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit.

John Froschauer / AP

The highly anticipated court-martial of Army Lieut. Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq ended in a mistrial on Wednesday, a surprising development that left military prosecutors clearly frustrated, observers stunned and defense attorneys claiming that the military had blown its only chance at a conviction.

"Our hope is that at this point the Army will realize that this case is a hopeless mess," said Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, speaking at a press conference shortly after the mistrial was declared.

Watada, based at Fort Lewis, just south of Seattle, said he refused to go to war with his unit last June because he had come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is illegal. In conversations with his superiors, in media interview and at the court-martial this week he contended that his Army oath required him not to follow what he called an "illegal order" to deploy.

His case has become a rallying point for the anti-war movement, attracting high profile supporters such as Sean Penn and Cindy Sheehan, but military prosecutors had moved to quash all discussion of the war's legality at the court-martial. The military judge, Lieut. Col. John Head, sided with the prosecutors, ruling that questions about the war's legality were beyond his court's jurisdiction. But barring arguments about the war's legality created a disconnect that ultimately caused the military's case against Watada to unravel.

Watada, 28, faced charges both for failing to deploy and for making public statements about the war that the Army considered "conduct unbecoming an officer." In a pretrial stipulation as part of an agreement to lower the number charges against him, Watada had admitted his failure to deploy. He did not admit guilt on the charge, however, because he felt his failure to deploy had been justified by the war's alleged illegality.

Prosecutors were satisfied with this arrangement and were prepared to let the jury decide the matter. So was the judge, until Wednesday, the third day of the court-martial.

"The judge was concerned that the stipulation amounted to a confession by Watada to an offense to which he intended to plead not guilty," said Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek. It was unclear why it had taken the judge three days to come to this conclusion concerning a document that was a pillar of the prosecution's case, but it was nevertheless devastating to the military prosecutors, who had rested their case the previous day.

Stammering at points in his arguments with the judge and looking extremely frustrated, Army prosecutor Capt Scott Van Sweringen asked for the mistrial after Judge Head, having personally questioned Watada about the stipulation, ruled that he was going to reject the agreement and tell the jurors that is should be disregarded. The judge himself seemed to urge a mistrial request at that point, saying of his direction to the jurors: "How do you un-ring that bell?"

A new trial date was set for March 19, and Piek said the unusual turn of events was proof that the Army "steadfastly protects the rights of the accused."

But it seemed highly unlikely a new trial would actually begin on March 19. Seitz, Watada's lawyer, said there would be scheduling conflicts and that in any case he would file an immediate motion to dismiss the case whenever it was finally reconvened. "It is my opinion that Lieut. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effect of double jeopardy," he said, contending that because it was prosecutors who asked for the mistrial, and because the judge granted the mistrial over the opposition of defense lawyers, the prosecutors could not subsequently retry Watada.

Seitz said Watada was frustrated that the case had ended in a mistrial rather than a verdict, but he also said of the case: "I do not believe it will ever be resurrected."

In the end, Seitz said, the problem was that the military did not want to discuss the reasons for his client's failure to deploy. "I think whenever a prosecutor tries to keep out the substance of why a person acted, when it relates directly to the charges that are there, it creates an untenable series of contradictions," he said.

2007-02-08T06:19:00.000-05:00

A spade's a spade, and this is not a war

The notion of “war” contextualizes certain hostile actions and in a legal way justifies offensive actions against some identified enemies. When a war metamorphoses into an occupation, it is still referred to as a war, lest support for such characterization lead to questioning the hostilities or rationale for continued offensive operations.

In the immediate case of Iraq, it is no longer a war, but an occupation. Our troops are caught in violence as targets of opportunity in a civil war. Their deaths are recorded as combat deaths. The wounded are cared for as combat wounded. To change the identification of Iraq as an occupation would bring havoc on veterans killed and wounded in terms of insurance payments and VA support. We can’t call it an occupation because our Constitution would be violated by such a term. No president is authorized to occupy a country. We are only allowed to go to war!

Our men and women dying and wounded in this fray are suffering for another constitution, not ours. The seeds of impeachment lie in developing the White House’s set of organized propaganda to the point where the lies of our executive branch can be unraveled for all to see.

Thomas P. Johnson

Harwich Port

Other Views on March on Washington, DC

2007-02-07T05:48:00.000-05:00

Email this article • Print this article

Photo courtesy of Deb Quantock McCarey
Free speech: Corey and Colin McCarey took time off from school to attend the march in Washington, but they learned plenty anyway.

Civics 101

By DEB QUANTOCK MCCAREY

Initially, when I told my two teenage sons we'd be flying into Washington D.C. to participate in the United for Peace and Justice anti-war rally and march against President Bush's troop escalation in Iraq, they didn't protest. After all, it was a day off from school.

But on that Saturday as the colorful and raucous multitudes of dancing, singing and chanting anti-war protesters poured into the green spaces on the National Mall, Colin, 16, and Corey, 14, were swept into the teeth of it.

That day we hooked up with a small group from Unity Temple of Oak Park and members of the Oak Park Coalition for Truth & Justice. Under blue skies and mild temps, we peacefully protested. Most memorable for both boys, they told me later, was when we encountered a vociferous pro-war group demonstrating outside a makeshift fence. As hundreds of thousands of peace marchers passed by, a dozen or so rancorous activists were hurling insults and hanging a mannequin of Jane Fonda in effigy. Many of our marchers stopped to argue with the few. One of the pro-war signs read "Hippies Smell." Go figure.

"We all started chanting, 'Tell me what democracy looks like ... This is what democracy looks like' over and over again," said Colin, a junior at OPRF High School. "That was a pretty cool snapshot of what was going on there, especially with the Capitol building as a backdrop. Also, looking down from one of the hilly streets and spotting marchers as far as you could see, and realizing that they just kept coming-the sheer numbers-was incredible."

Throughout the celebrity-saturated pre-march rally, free speech emanated from podium and crowd-through T-shirts, signs and buttons. Slogans were angry, poignant, funny and obscene. One sign showed a cartoon of President Bush with his head up his lower extremity; a group from New Jersey carried a sign picturing a tank with a flower coming out of a cannon. Another group held aloft an oversized cloth dove that flew in the wind. Nearby, a band of drummers kept the beat for stilted and costumed women and men who strode through the masses without ever falling, while organized hip-hop dancers weaved in and out of the crowd. Their cause, besides anti-war sentiment, was school funding. In an effort to stay on the periphery, we had planted ourselves in a sea of socially active Unitarians from everywhere-no Garrison Keillor jokes, please.

In addition, there were cells of young radicals hawking socialist newspapers. Vietnam war vets, military wives and loved ones stood in protest on behalf of a lost or living American soldier. Seasoned activists, like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Jane Fonda, who had spoken out during the Vietnam War, were back. When actor Tim Robbins called for impeachment, the rowdy 20-somethings picked up his angry fervor and chanted back, adding Vice President Cheney's name in their swelling roar. Like many other families, we were first-time anti-war protesters, and covered the activist spectrum. We traveled to Washington D.C. by car, van, bus, train and plane for a deadly serious cause.

"I don't really think about what is going on in Iraq that often," admitted Corey, an eighth-grader at Percy Julian Middle School, "but this giant march showed me people can do something. But from the reaction of the president, I'm not sure it helped. I don't know if kids my age can make a difference," he added. "I think it really depends on the person and who will listen to them when they take a stand and speak."

About two-thirds of the way into the march, after we had passed the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress, Colin, who was wearing his OPRF letterman jacket, was approached by a short reporter. My son had spotted him earlier during the rally perched in a tree.

"The reporter said: 'Sir, can I ask you two questions'," Colin recalled. "'One, do you think you would be able to lift me up over the crowd so I could take a photograph, and two, would you lift me up over the crowd so I could take a photograph?' I complied, and he got his photo. That was pretty cool."

Regarding President Bush's resolve to escalate troops by 21,500, Colin agrees with his brother that the president probably won't change his mind about Iraq. However, with enough public pressure, he hopes Congress will.

"To be honest, the first thing I thought when I was told we were going to an anti-war protest in Washington D.C. was that I would be able to miss a day of school," Colin said, smiling. "The next thing I thought was that it would be pretty cool to go. If not historic, it was a chance to participate in something I wouldn't get another chance to do for a long time, if ever. I went as an observer, and returned home as an observer. I don't believe in the policies of President Bush, but I'm not sure where I stand regarding the method of protests. At this point, I'm more interested in getting a good grip on how political activism works."

2007-02-07T05:15:00.000-05:00

"The Student Peace Alliance advocates the Legislation for a Culture of Peace through education and grassroots action"

Objective

-Lobby for the Legislation for a Department of Peace

-Create cultures of peace on campuses and in communities

The youth in our country and abroad are drastically affected by violence. The impact of violence is far from discrete, it seeps into our homes and communities through the media. People are building peace in our communities, our schools and across the globe. A Department of Peace will support those already building peace as well as augment our current problem solving modalities.

The Student Peace Alliance formed in March of 2006 as a group of local student initiatives spreading across the country in support of the legislation for a Department of Peace. Students and youth have been organizing, education, and lobbying in support of a Department of Peace in Vermont, New Jersey, Minnesota, California, and in Massachusetts -where the first SPA chapter was formed at Brandeis University.

The Student Peace Alliance is currently active on 15 campuses. The Student Peace Alliance has organized Peace Walks around the country, screenings of the Gandhi film to commemorate the 100th anniversary of his commitment to nonviolence, letter writing campaigns, a National Call In day, and meetings with members of Congress in an effort to advocate for a Department of Peace.

Please join us in calling for a Department of Peace. To read more please check out the rest of our website.

Massachusetts Department of Peace Download Petition PDF

FAQ PDF

For more information about the Student Peace Alliance, please email college@thepeacealliance.org

STOP THE WAR, CAPE COD COALITION

2007-02-06T07:31:00.000-05:00

Dear Friends,

Anti-war sentiment is at its highest level since the invasion of Iraq almost four years ago. Despite the plans to continue the Occupation and the maneuvers of the war makers, opposition to the Occupation is deepening. Millions support an end to the Occupation and the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. Our task is to unite and mobilize the millions who agree with us. Along with supporting the calls for national actions in Washington, DC on January 27th and March 17th, the GREATER BOSTON STOP THE WARS COALITION is calling on the entire antiwar movement to organize a large, region-wide demonstration on the Boston Common on March 24th, 2007 to END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ! and to BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

It is also important to draw attention to the “Home from Iraq Now” referendum in November that passed overwhelmingly all over the state calling for an immediate end to the war and to bring all the troops home now. We should include a regional demand against the use of National Guard troops from Massachusetts. Together we can build a coalition that can mobilize the widest cross-section of the people and help put an end to this criminal occupation. Our movement can help to massively shift the political agenda in this country to further global justice, human needs and international solidarity. The success of our efforts can infuse movements for the rights of working people and oppressed social layers with confidence and initiative.

Your organization can help:

1. Endorse the Action!

Get your organization and allies to endorse the March 24th action; simply reply to this e-mail if you can endorse or if you have any questions or comments.

2. Plan the Action!

Participate in the planning and organizing meetings that will take place every Monday evening at 6:30 PM at Encuentro 5, 33 Harrison Ave, 5th floor in Chinatown (Boston). The first planning meeting will be on MONDAY, JANUARY 8th AT 6:30 PM.

3. Resource the Movement!

Help by providing human resources (including volunteer time), funds, logistical support, and artistic ideas for building the action.

4. Network with Results!

Help reach out to other organizations, groups and individuals to support the action and add more voices to this movement.

5. Educate the Public!

Hold teach-ins, film screenings and other events in the run up to the action; STWC can provide essential support (including materials, logistics, publicity, and speakers).

6. Build Grassroots Outreach!

Leaflet, flyer, and poster in your neighborhood(s); STWC can help with copying, production, targeting, etc.

And, of course... MOBILIZE EVERYONE YOU KNOW to SHOW the WORLD that the ANTIWAR MOVEMENT has the POWER to BUILD, SPREAD and turn millions more against this war and ultimately STOP THE WARS of the future.

For more information, please visit stopthewars.org or respond to this email with your phone number and a good time to call, and we will be in touch soon.

Sincerely,

The Greater Boston Stop the Wars Coalition

Will Delahunt support HR 508?

2007-02-04T23:01:00.000-05:00

Delahunt will support Iraq pullout legislation
By John Basile - Yarmouth Register
Thursday, February 01, 2007 - Updated: 08:52 AM EST

Cape Codders who oppose the war in Iraq are pushing U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Quincy, to sign on to legislation that would de-fund the war and set a timetable for the return home of U.S.troops. “We just want him to take a leadership role,” said Lee Roscoe, one of the activists who met Monday with Delahunt’s aide Mark Forest in Hyannis.

Delahunt opposes the war in Iraq and is a longtime critic of the Bush administration’s handling of it, however he does not support impeachment efforts pushed by many anti-war activists and he has not endorsed HR508, which seeks to stop funding for the war and also calls for complete funding of the Veterans Administration health care system.

Forest said that bills could be potentially be very costly and that Delahunt will be an original co-sponsor of a bill filed by U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days of passage of the legislation. Withdrawal would take no more than 180 days and would be paid for by funds already appropriated. Under McGovern’s bill, upon completion of withdrawal, all funds for deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq would be terminated. Exceptions would be for military personnel assigned to the U.S. embassy in Iraq and Army Corps of Engineers personnel working on reconstruction projects.

Forest said Delahunt wants to support legislation “that will have a more direct impact on changing our Iraq policy.”

As for why Delahunt has not endorsed efforts to impeach President Bush, Forest was succinct: “Two words; President Cheney,” he said. “We have not found much enthusiasm for a President Cheney.” Roscoe stressed that while Delahunt’s anti-war credentials are solid, a stronger message should be sent.“There needs to be censure of this kind of imperial presidency,"Roscoe said. Roscoe said people in the anti-war movement are encouraged by the large turnout in Washington last weekend, “and that so many kids and their parents are involved in this.”

Letters to the Editor - Cape Cod Times

2007-02-04T09:14:00.000-05:00

February 12, 2007
D.C. peace ralliers were pro-life, too

In a misguided effort to garner more media exposure, some anti-abortion activists have chosen to attack the local students and others, including Sarah Peake, who attended the recent peace rally in Washington.

An October 2006 Washington Post article cited a Johns Hopkins study that estimates Iraq’s “excess” death toll since the start of the war at 655,000. That is in addition to the 3,000-plus U.S. soldiers who have died in this fiasco.

My 16-year-old son spent 20 hours on a bus in addition to the time at the rally exercising his First Amendment rights, which his grandfathers, uncles, aunt and his father guaranteed to uphold with more than 135 years of honorable active duty and reserve military service.

Those who participated in the peace rally are very much “pro-life”: pro-lives of the military families who will endure the loss of their soldiers, pro-lives of the soldiers who will return from battle physically and emotionally scarred, and pro-lives of the Iraqi civilians sacrificed in an ill-planned war.

My mother often heard the lament “it’s not fair” for some perceived inequity. Her timeworn response was, “Get over it.” I commend the Cape Cod Times for its coverage.

Noreen Thompsen

Eastham

Protesting war takes mature independence

As one of the “callow youths” mentioned in a recent letter objecting to the anti-war demonstration, I write in rebuttal.

Perhaps, yes, before attending this march some of the youthful attendants could be called inexperienced at protesting and exercising their rights. However, to call the young people going to this rally callow by its “immature” definition would be incorrect, considering that it shows maturity and independence to make political and moral decisions.

Furthermore, I do, in fact, greatly support and honor the returning veterans and troops on the ground. Expressing opposition to certain military actions does not mean one does not support and honor those serving our country. I oppose the war, not for the reasons of my parents, but for my own. I think ignoring the requests of the U.N. and the deaths of so many of my peers is immoral and needs to stop.

The war has not liberated the Iraqi people. Before our invasion, the Iraqis feared the government; they now fear leaving their homes and sending their children to school. Some 650,000 or more Iraqis have been killed as a result of this war, and I hardly see that as liberation.

Claire Bangert

Harwich High School student

Young group inspired marchers in D.C.

It was our privilege to travel to Washington, D.C., the weekend of Jan. 27 with an extraordinary group of high school and college students to protest the escalation of the war in Iraq.

These young people wanted to be a part of this important demonstration, and it was their desire to go that motivated us to put together this last-minute venture. The large expense for transportation was offset by donations from members of our community who wanted to support our youth, or who were thrilled to have someone younger march for them.

We acknowledge these inspiring young people who made us so proud, and thank all who gave so generously. Additionally, our heartfelt thanks to the Earth House in Orleans, which coordinated our funds, donated space and helped us create wonderful signs to express our feelings about this continuing national and international tragedy.

Jennifer Smith

Orleans

John Bangert

Harwich

Democracy not about mindless allegiance

Ruth Keir’s Feb. 1 letter regarding the weekend war protest held a confusing interpretation of democracy. While she concedes the right of people to vote for representatives, she believes the actions of officials should never be challenged once elected.

On the contrary, I believe it is our constitutional duty to hold them to the highest of standards. It’s their job to represent the will of their citizens.

Our president continues to ignore his responsibilities to his constituents, 70 percent of whom oppose an increase in troops. The letter writer seems to have lost sight of the fact that the people who took part in the protest were exercising their most fundamental constitutional right – the right to free speech. Most of the children who took part are not yet old enough to vote, but they made me very proud. They took the time to participate in governmental decisions in the only manner made available to them.

Ms. Keir states that she would be proud if her son or daughter were killed in Iraq. This misses the point. These children are dying in a war that came about through lies and deception.

Mary E. Loebig

South Dennis

In such times, protest is civic responsibility

Perhaps Ruth Keir had the childhood experiences she cites in the USSR or 1930s Germany or Japan (Letters, Feb. 1).

The U.S. Constitution, fortunately, goes to great length to safeguard our right to protest and even to fight against governmental abuse.

If she reads Jefferson she will discover that the right to bear arms (which he sponsored) is about defense against repression by our own government.

George W. Bush is not the first president we have had who is incompetent or dishonest, and he won’t be the last.

When such a president kills and maims Americans by the thousands, despite the overt demands of a majority that he change his behavior, protest becomes a deep civic and patriotic responsibility. It is mandated by the need to cause such an irresponsible president to obey the will of the American people.

I protest to ensure that I can be proud of my country.

Carl Pitasi

Yarmouthport

An insult to youths who assert their right

With all due respect, Ruth Keir’s Feb. 1 letter was misguided and insulting to our young adults and to our democratic system.

I was very proud of all of the young adults who exercised their rights as citizens of this democracy. The right to assemble and protest events that directly impact the lives of our young adults is indeed the truest form of democracy. Freedom of speech and assembly – what wonderful aspects of a true democracy.

Not one of these young people expressed any negative feelings for our brave men and women currently serving in Iraq. On the contrary, the march was organized to express anger with the administration that took us into a war under false pretenses, lack of knowledge and corporate greed. These young adults are exercising their rights as Americans – we should all be proud of them.

Jan Leavitt

Hyannis

D.C. counterprotest barely worth mention

One measure of protest success is crowd size. Counting protesters is not easy, and few observers are impartial. A reporter once said that the best way to estimate rally numbers is to cut the organizers’ number in half, double the police number, and average the results.

Many papers, including this one, reported “tens of thousands” at last weekend’s peace march in Washington. Since anything over 20,000 qualifies, this is a safe but uninformative statement.

United for Peace and Justice, the lead organizer of the protest of the unnecessary (hence illegal and immoral) war on Iraq, estimated 500,000; the D.C. police reportedly estimated “tens of thousands.” Use of the above formula thus yields a guesstimate of 180,000.

But those who support the war can also stand and be counted. How many regional pro-war demonstrations have there been over the past four years? I believe the answer is zero.

The otherwise fine Cape Cod Times article of Jan. 28 stated, “Smaller numbers of counterprotesters were present.” I traveled the entire march route and saw zero counterprotesters; others who did all saw fewer than a dozen, or 0.00007 of the total – a small number indeed!

David Agnew

Harwich

A surge in Iraq, or a purge in D.C.?

I respect Thomas Sowell for his consistency. His conservative views never vary. Unfortunately, he is also and mostly consistently wrong. His last column, “The media to blame for tragedy in Iraq” (Jan. 19) is a prime example.

The decision to go into Iraq was not a media ploy but a political decision as have been most of the subsequent decisions. The former Army chief of staff advised former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that it would take 500,000 troops to invade and bring order in Iraq. He was ignored and then dismissed. To blame the media for the disaster in Iraq is as plausible as to claim that the moon is made of cheese.

The current plan to send an additional 20,000 troops into Iraq, the so-called surge, to stem the violence and stabilize the situation has as much chance of succeeding as thinking one can fly by walking faster. What is needed now is not a “surge” in Iraq, but a purge in Washington.

Albert C. Ronander

Yarmouthport

Voices must be raised against the Iraq war

Each of us is but one voice, but collectively we can stop this president from sending more young men to die in a hell hole of his own making.

Everyone agrees there are no good answers left to closing up this Pandora’s box, but it is clear that digging the hole you are in with a bigger shovel is not the answer. Our president has put us more at risk now, both militarily and economically, and we have squandered the ability to use other countries to exert their influence.

Throughout this war, each strategy has been colored with the rosiest of outcomes, with no contingencies if that scenario does not result. It is hard to forget “greeted as liberators,” “mission accomplished,” “last throes of the insurgency,” “we are winning the war,” “and there is no civil war.”

It is no different today. When Secretary of State Rice was asked what the plan was if this latest “augmentation” failed, she did not have an answer.

Call or e-mail the White House. Just voice your opinion in two sentences and you are done. America is a great country because its people have a voice. Use yours.

Shirley A. Frye

Falmouth

Bush seeks to put off defeat till he’s gone

The surge of troops to Iraq is being brought to you by the same people who said this conflict would last at most six months and be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues.

This so-called surge isn’t going to mitigate the defeat of America in Iraq, which is inevitable, but it is designed to postpone the defeat until someone else is president.

In a recent poll more than 70 percent of Iraqis interviewed wanted the American soldiers out of their country; 20,000 more troops will only add to this discord and continue the downward spiral of destroying more of Iraq infrastructure, increasing the estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilian causalities, and add to the number of American soldiers killed or maimed.

Our military is overextended and cannot absorb an escalation. Some soldiers are on their second and third yearlong tours. The stress being placed on the military family is just deplorable.

The administration has made many mistakes since 2003 and none can be reversed. It would be a disaster to add to those blunders. America should begin a phased withdrawal immediately and hold the Iraqi army responsible for its own safety. End the war now and put the blame for this catastrophe squarely where it belongs.

James A. Devine

East Dennis

Adding troops seems counter to all advice

President Bush has announced he will escalate the war in Iraq by sending more troops into the civil war. The president’s plan ignores the American people who voted against that same-old, same-old policy in November, and who continue to demand we bring our troops home.

It seems to me that over the past few weeks, the military, the generals, the independent panels appointed by the president, and almost everyone involved in the situation has said that increasing the number of troops will not help the situation, and in fact will almost certainly worsen it. Why then would the president go against the recommendations of his top advisers?

This clearly is a political ploy, and it must be stopped before more American and Iraqi lives and treasure are lost, and before America’s ideals and position in the world are trashed beyond retrieval.

Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid must continue to question the president over this wrongheaded and dangerous plan, and do whatever needs to be done to stop it in Congress. The people are making their voice heard, and if the president isn’t going to listen, the Democratic Congress will.

Judith Barnet

Yarmouthport

Stop cheerleading and dig into D.C. lies

Your endorsement of Bush’s “surge” (Jan. 9) was shameful. Whom are you serving? What business interest benefits from “one more try” in Iraq? For, surely, the people of the United States do not benefit. The 21,000 soldiers who will die, be maimed, or have their lives ruined forever will not benefit.

It is time for the press to investigate the lies of the administration, rather than serve as its cheerleaders.

Candace Perry

Wellfleet

Fear the finger on the trigger

Weapons of mass destruction.

Who has them? We do. More than anyone else. All kinds – chemical, biological and radiological.

Who has the power to use them? George Bush.

Who has the power if something happens to Bush? Cheney.

Get serious. He can’t even handle a shotgun!

Do you feel safer?

Alan B. Reed

Hyannis

A 'surge' of troops can only worsen war

President Bush should reject the plan for a “surge” of troops to Iraq and instead begin serious planning for bringing troops home soon.

We believe the invasion of Iraq was immoral, illegal under international law, incompetently prosecuted, and without a clear objective. We predict that a “surge” of a few tens of thousands of troops for a few months will not be enough to overcome the insurgency and will only lead to more U.S. and Iraqi deaths, wasting huge amounts of money to add to our deficit, and postponing the time Iraqis will be forced to address their own predicament. We wonder what Bush’s plan will be when the “surge” has proved as catastrophically mistaken as the original invasion.

At this point all the options are bad, but bringing the troops home is the least bad. The president should end this nightmare now and start bringing troops home!

Larry and Jane Dingman

Eastham

Facts alone subvert Bush 'surge' strategy

Jan. 28 letter writer Chris Dyer expresses concern that the Times employs opinion rather than facts to direct readers’ views on the war.

Here is a short list of facts that have helped this reader make up his mind:

- Osama bin Laden is still at large.

- Mission unaccomplished – in fact, the “mission” changes regularly.

- Vice President Cheney (five Vietnam-era deferments) wonders if Americans “have the stomach for the war.”

- Our government tortures suspects – sometimes to death.

- Almost four years after beginning this war, we don’t even control the capital city.

I couldn’t ask another American soldier (never mind 20,000) to attempt the impossible in an urban battlefield with little or no understanding of the culture and language. But then, I’m not the decider.

Bob Rice

Brewster

Let other nations fight their own fights

Have you ever been “surged”? As a young second lieutenant stationed in Texas, I got surged in 1966 by then-President Lyndon Johnson.

My unit, along with 50,000 other GIs, was part of the first escalation of the Vietnam War. I spent 21 days on a troopship and then lived next door to a decent-size village of farmers in a rural part of Qui Nhon. Back home, I watched this small Asian country absorb one surge after another.

Today, I can honestly agree with President Bush’s May 7, 2004, quote, “Nobody wants to be occupied.” During my brief stay in Southeast Asia, I watched the Vietnamese people struggle to maintain a centuries-old lifestyle while the United States built up a staggering military presence that clogged roads with military vehicles and smothered the cities and towns of this country with American soldiers.

In the end, more troops did not make a difference. It took our government almost a decade to admit that this strategy of military escalation – today they call it surging – didn’t work.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes our current and future leaders to figure out that fighting other people’s battles is not what we should pay our soldiers to do.

Richard Conron

Bourne

P'town turns out for Delhunt's FireSide Chat! Iraq, Iraq, Iraq!

2007-02-03T10:18:00.000-05:00

By KAREN JEFFREY
STAFF WRITER
PROVINCETOWN - Like a master musician, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., struck all the right notes with fellow Democrats as they crowded onto the second floor of Napi's Restaurant last night.

But as guest speaker at an event sponsored by the Lower Cape Democratic town committees, Delahunt did not hesitate to sing out in favor of bipartisan cooperation, a leitmotif from the fall campaign.

''I am extremely hopeful,'' he said, of increasing congressional support to end the war in Iraq. ''Is it going to be an easy journey? No. But we're in this together.''

Whether the topic was the war in Iraq, the need to normalize relations with Cuba, or Delahunt's optimism that ''John Edwards' two Americas can be united as one America,'' an appreciative audience frequently punctuated his comments with applause.

An estimated crowd of 100 people attended last night's ''Fireside Chat,'' an ongoing series of meetings with public officials.

The purpose of the chats is to encourage a vigorous give-and-take between party members and elected officials, said Robert Vetrick, head of the Provincetown Democratic Committee. The impetus for the ''chats'' came from the Democrats' success in the November elections, Vetrick said. ''We wanted to keep that energy going.''

Delahunt was nothing if not energetic. From the start, he promised that his remarks would be ''very succinct,'' which prompted an anonymous ''yeah sure'' from the audience, leading Delahunt to throw back his head and laugh along with the crowd. But his initial comments were, in the vernacular of music, capriccio - quick and spirited.

It was during the question-and-answer period that he spoke in more measured tones, saying it is time for the U.S. to return to its true values and regain a voice of ''moral authority.'' Current foreign policy - including the war in Iraq - has tarnished America's image worldwide, he said. In places like Canada, Ireland and Great Britain - nations that traditionally liked the United States - we are now negatively perceived, he said.

''Foreign policy in many respects has become domestic policy,'' Delahunt said, noting that these worldwide negative perceptions are costing places like the Cape millions in overseas tourist dollars.

Among those who attended last night was a band of peace activists who handed Delahunt a petition signed by 180 people, calling on him to support legislation (HR 508) to end the war.

Delahunt is a co-sponsor of House resolution 746, filed by U.S. Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

John Bangert of Harwich, a longtime activist, noted earlier that the majority of Americans want to see an end to the war, ''We're finally part of the moral majority,'' he said, nodding his head toward fellow activists.

Cost of War: $245 billion more

2007-02-03T08:25:00.000-05:00

Cost of war: $245 billion more

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:30 am CST

In the pursuit of wartime budget-making, the Bush administration has worked outside the bounds of the traditional federal budget. So when President Bush proposes a new nearly $3-trillion federal budget next week, he also will be seeking another $245 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That includes $99.6 billion in additional war-spending for the remainder of the 2007 budget year, which closes at the end of September, plus another $145.2 billion in supplemental war spending for the 2008 budget year, according to a senior administration official. The White House will officially roll out its new budgets on Monday.

All told, taking into account all of the president's supplemental war budgets, this places the projected costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan at close to $700 billion by the end of 2008.

As the Senate debates non-binding resolutions protesting the president's new deployment of troops in Iraq, Democrats acknowledge that they lack the votes to take their sentiments any further at this point – actually restricting war spending. In any event, the White House maintains it has the money needed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), while promising that U.S. troops "will receive everything they need to do their jobs,'' also warns that the president's newest war budget will get closer scrutiny than the nearly $400 billion in war spending that has preceded it.

"We will also subject this supplemental to the tough and serious oversight that Congress has ignored for four years. Furthermore, we believe this should be the last such supplemental appropriation,'' Reid said in a statement issued Friday night. "It is past time for the president to accurately and appropriately budget for this war and give the American people a full accounting of its true cost.

"America has already spent almost $400 billion on this war, too much of which has been wasted on boondoggles like Olympic-sized swimming pools in unused multi-million dollar training camps in the desert.,'' Reid said. "The American people deserve better.''

Yet the non-binding resolution that senators will debate next week falls far short of any spending-restriction -- with some Democrats planning to oppose the resolution for its lack of real restraint. on the president's war policy.

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, was asked this week what the president will do once a resolution is adopted. The president, he said, will press ahead with the new troop deployment.

But down the road, the president and a war-weary Congress will have plenty to talk about. The new, $245 billion in war spending that the White House spells out next week will not be the end of Bush's requests.

The White House, warning that this is a long war, plans to set aside a "place-holding'' $50 billion for war in the 2009 budget, though these place-holders typically have been followed by supplemental requests.

This is not the first year the White House has sought nearly $100 billion in supplemental war spending.

Last February, the White House sought a supplemental $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to get through the remainder of the 2006 budget year.

The year before, in February 2005, the White House sought a supplemental $81.9 billion.

All of this comes in addition to what the federal government is budgeting for defense, which has seen a nearly 50 percent boost in spending since the start of the Bush administration in 2001.

The defense budget that Bush seeks in his new 2008 budget will be nearly $500 billion, a 10 percent increase for the coming year. Add that to the $245 billion in war spending to finish this year and finance the next year, and the total will exceed $700 billion -- more than the overall Gross Domestic Product of all but about a dozen nations.

H. R. 508

2007-02-02T06:07:00.000-05:00

H.R.508
Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
Beginning
January 17, 2007

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 201. Modification of authorities relating to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

TITLE I--UNITED STATES MILITARY DISENGAGEMENT FROM IRAQ

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

SEC. 103. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.

SEC. 104. DISENGAGEMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND CONTRACTOR SECURITY FORCES FROM IRAQ.

SEC. 105. PROHIBITION ON PERMANENT UNITED STATES MILITARY INSTALLATIONS IN IRAQ.

SEC. 106. PROVISION OF IRAQI POLICE AND HOME GUARDS TRAINING.

SEC. 107. DEPLOYMENT OF INTERNATIONAL STABILIZATION FORCE TO IRAQ.

SEC. 108. LIMITATION ON TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AT UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD, IRAQ.

SEC. 109. PROHIBITION ON PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENTS FOR IRAQI PETROLEUM RESOURCES.

TITLE II--UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND RECONCILIATION IN IRAQ
Subtitle A--Bilateral Assistance

SEC. 201. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION.

SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORT ON DAMAGE TO IRAQI CIVIL SOCIETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

SEC. 203. ASSISTANCE TO ESTABLISH AN IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION CORPS.

SEC. 204. ASSISTANCE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF LAND MINES AND RELATED ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ.

SEC. 205. ASSISTANCE TO DISMANTLE AND DISPOSE OF FORTIFICATIONS AND OTHER REMNANTS OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

SEC. 206. ASSISTANCE TO RECOVER ANCIENT RELICS AND TO RESTORE ARCHEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL SITES IN IRAQ.

SEC. 207. COMPENSATION FOR IRAQI NONCOMBATANT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.

SEC. 208. ASSISTANCE TO ESTABLISH AN IRAQI INSTITUTE OF PEACE.

Subtitle B--Multilateral Assistance

SEC. 211. INTERNATIONAL FUND TO REDEVELOP CIVIC INSTITUTIONS IN IRAQ.

SEC. 212. INTERNATIONAL FUND TO RECONSTITUTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM IN IRAQ.

TITLE III--GUARANTEED HEALTH CARE FOR VETERANS OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OTHER CONFLICTS

SEC. 301. ASSURANCE OF ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE.

`Sec. 321. Assured funding for veterans health care

TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE ORIGINS AND CONDUCT OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

SEC. 402. DUTIES.

SEC. 403. MEMBERSHIP.

SEC. 404. POWERS.

SEC. 405. STAFF.

SEC. 406. FUNDING.

SEC. 407. TERMINATION.

Is this what democracy looks like?

2007-02-01T06:17:00.000-05:00

Photo by Christoph Bangert NY Times

Carlos Arredondo in the Big Apple , Takes on the Times Square!

2007-02-01T05:39:00.000-05:00

A Father With a Coffin, Telling of War’s Grim Toll

By TRYMAINE LEE

Published: February 1, 2007

Carlos Arredondo leaned toward the coffin in the back of his pickup truck yesterday and renewed a promise to his dead son, one that he has kept for more than two years.

Josh Haner/The New York Times

Carlos Arredondo, Wednesday in Times Square with a memorial to his son, a marine killed in Iraq.

In a whisper, he vowed never to let his son’s death be forgotten. He closed his eyes and slid his right hand across the American flag stretched over the coffin, his fingertips tumbling over each of its faded red stripes.

“This is my whole world,” he said, facing the truck, his arms open wide. “This is my burden.”

Mr. Arredondo, 46, stood on West 43rd Street in Times Square, shivering in the morning chill. His son, Lance Cpl. Alexander S. Arredondo, 20, was a marine killed in Iraq in 2004 while fighting in Najaf.

Passers-by slowed or stopped to view Mr. Arredondo’s mobile memorial: the coffin, filled with his son’s prized possessions, and the green Nissan truck, each side adorned with poster-size photos of the young marine. Some pictures show him smiling, his teeth bright white. Others show a machine-gun-toting warrior in battle gear. Another shows him lying dead at his funeral.

The display is sad, personal and emotionally jarring. But this is how Mr. Arredondo honors and mourns his son, who was a fire team leader in Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), First Marine Expeditionary Force. This is how Mr. Arredondo heals.

“As long as there are marines fighting and dying in Iraq, I’m going to share my mourning with the American people,” he said.

Mr. Arredondo, who lives in Boston, travels the country putting his sorrow on display. He accepts donations along the way. The coffin he takes with him holds some of his son’s things: a soccer ball, a pair of his favorite shoes, a Winnie the Pooh. He also shows people his son’s boots, uniform and dog tags.

Healing has been long and slow. First there was denial and self-destruction.

It all began on Aug. 25, 2004, Mr. Arredondo said, his 44th birthday. A government van eased in front of his home, then in Hollywood, Fla., and three Marine officers in dress blues stepped out.

At first Mr. Arredondo thought it was his son making a surprise birthday visit. Instead, the officers told him that his son had been killed in a hail of gunfire after being trapped in a four-story hotel that his platoon had been clearing. They were surrounded by enemy fighters. It was his son’s second tour of duty in Iraq.

“I just screamed,” he said. “I said ‘No, no! It can’t be my son.’ ”

Mr. Arredondo said he “lost it.” He ran to his garage and grabbed a gallon of gasoline and a propane torch.

He took a sledgehammer and smashed the government van’s windshield and hopped inside. As the officers tried to calm him, Mr. Arredondo doused himself and the van with gasoline and lit the torch.

There was an explosion, and the officers dragged Mr. Arredondo to safety. He suffered second- and third-degree burns over 20 percent of his body.

“I went to my son’s funeral on a stretcher,” he said.

After nearly 10 months of healing, including several in the hospital, Mr. Arredondo became a full-time war protester, quitting work as a handyman to remind people across the country of the human price of war.

His son was posthumously awarded a Purple Heart. But no commendation will fill the void he left behind, Mr. Arredondo said.

“Every day we have G.I.’s being killed, and people don’t really care enough or do enough to protest about how the war is going,” Mr. Arredondo said yesterday. “Some people say I’m dishonoring my son by doing this, but this is my pain, my loss.”

Delahunt in P-Town on Friday Night Let's chat about HR 508!

2007-01-31T09:06:00.000-05:00

Petition for Congressman William Delahunt calling for him to co-sponsor, and sign on to HR 508!

Cape Cod Students for Peace, Cape Codders for Peace & Justice, Cape Cod Peace Bus, Vietnam Veterans Against the War Again, Progressive Democrats, and Independents and war-weary Republicans as well as independent non-affiliated citizens of Cape Cod.

H.R.508 Title: To require United States military disengagement from Iraq, to provide United States assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] (introduced 1/17/2007)

Latest Major Action: 1/17/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Veterans' Affairs, Rules, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Congressman Bill Delahunt will be in the district this Friday night at Napi's Restaurant Feb 2, 2007 from 5;30 pm - 7:30 pm for a "Fire Side Chat" Let's get folks out to speak to him about signing on to HR 508! Call John Bangert (508) 432-0545

Click here for Virtural Petition for HR 508

This just in from Mark Forrest congressional aide to William Delahunt. Thank you. But we also need and want our representative to join Barney Frank in the Massachusetts delegates to join on to HR 508 as well.

This was introduced today. HR 746
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

-----Original Message-----
From: Forest, Mark
To: Forest, Mark
Sent: Wed Jan 31 19:32:08 2007
Subject: DELAHUNT SPONSORS THE SAFE AND ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ ACT

Just wanted you to know that this bill was introduced today.

Delahunt is an original co-sponsor.

THE SAFE AND ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ ACT
Rep. James P. McGovern (MA-3)
110th Congress

1) 30 days after enactment, the U.S. shall begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq;

2) Withdrawal to be completed within 180 days;

3) Withdrawal will be paid for by already appropriated funds; and

4) Upon completion of the withdrawal, all funds for deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq shall be terminated.

Exceptions include:

1) Military personnel assigned to the security of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and U.S. diplomatic personnel; and

2) At the request of the Government of Iraq, members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may remain in Iraq in order to complete reconstruction projects currently in process.

Other provisions of the legislation:

1) The number of troops may not be increased during the period of withdrawal;

2) Nothing in the bill restricts the locations outside of Iraq to which units and members of the Armed Forces may be redeployed, including nearby countries or Afghanistan/Operation Enduring Freedom;

3) U.S. facilities, bases, etc. will be transferred to the authority of the Government of Iraq as part of the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq;

4) The bill does not prohibit the Department of Defense from providing financial assistance and equipment to the Iraqi armed forces and/or to a multinational force, at the request of the Government of Iraq; and

5) Nothing in this act prohibits non-Defense Department funding for social and economic reconstruction.

Mark Forest
Chief of Staff
Congressman Bill Delahunt (Ma-10th)
mark.forest@mail.house.gov

March on the Pentagon

2007-01-29T18:45:00.000-05:00

Saturday, March 17, 2007

~ 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 march on the Pentagon ~
~ 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war ~

Download flyers

On March 17, 2007, the 4^th anniversary of the start of the criminal invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S. Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40^th anniversary of the historic 1967 anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. The message of the 1967 march was "From Protest to Resistance," and marked a turning point in the development of a countrywide mass movement.

In the coming days and weeks, thousands of organizations and individuals will begin mobilizing for the upcoming March on the Pentagon. Organizing committees and transportation centers are being established to bring people to the March on the Pentagon.

The March 17 demonstration will assemble at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Constitution Gardens) at 12 noon in Washington, D.C.and march to the Pentagon.

Click here to read the full ANSWER statement on why we're marching.

Endorse the March on the Pentagon.
Organize transportation to the March.
Donate to help make the March a powerful success.
Sign up for email updates.
Download flyers to distribute in your area.

Initial endorsers include:

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Maxine Waters, Congresswoman
Alice Walker, Pulitzer prize winning author
Cynthia McKinney, Congresswoman
Cindy Sheehan, co-founder Gold Star Families for Peace, author
Ron Kovic, Vietnam Veteran, author, Born on the 4th of July
Malik Rahim, Founder, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit
Paul Haggis, Director of Crash, 2005 Academy Award for Best Picture
Elias Rashmawi, National Coordinator, National Council of Arab Americans (NCA)
Howard Zinn, Author, A People's History of the United States
Rev. Luis Barrios, St. Mary's Church
Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild
Chaplain James Yee, former Army chaplain, Guantánamo Detention Center
Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
Father Roy Bourgeois, Founder, School of the Americas Watch
Leonard Weinglass, Attorney for the Cuban Five
Eric LeCompte, National Office, School of the Americas Watch
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Co-founder, Partnership for Civil Justice
Brian Becker, National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition
Mounzer Sleiman, TV commentator and Vice Chair, National Council of Arab Americans
Waleed Bader, Vice chair of the National Council of Arab American, Chair of NCA NY/NJ Chapter, Former President of Arab Muslim American Federation - NY
Ben Dupuy, Co-Director, Haiti Progres
Juan Jose Gutierrez, Executive Director, Latino Movement USA
Calvin Gipson, Former President, San Francisco LGBT Pride Committee
Rev. Graylan Hagler, Senior Pastor, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington D.C
Kay Lucas, Director, Crawford Peace House, Crawford, TX
Iglesia de San Romero - United Church of Christ
Chuck Kaufman, Co-coordinator of the Nicaragua Network
Al Garcia, Alliance for a Just & Lasting Peace in the Philippines
Macrina Cardenas, Mexico Solidarity Network
Eugene Puryear, Howard University, student leader
Gloria La Riva, Coordinator, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five
CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities
Nodutdol for Korean Community Development
Iglesia de San Romero - United Church of Christ
Da Urban Butterflies
KAWAN: Korean Americans Against War and Neoliberalism
Justice Committee
Ed Asner, Actor
Shirley Knight, Actor
Debra Sweet, National Coordinator, World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime
Jennifer Harbury, Human Rights Lawyer, author
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)
Jim Lafferty, Director, National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles
James Petras, Professor Emeritus, SUNY Binghamton (State University of New York)
Mimi Kennedy, Actor (Dharma & Greg)

Not One More Dollar, Day , or Death! Bring Them Home Now!

2007-01-29T17:25:00.000-05:00

Today playwrite, Lee Roscoe, CCP&J, John Bangert, CCP&J, VFP, Margret & David Lilenthal, William "Billy"Stewart VFP, VVAW, meet with Congressman William Delahunt's congressional aide, Mark Forrrest in the conference room for over an hour today Lobby Day to discuss what we need to do and how we can work together to stop the madness of George W. Bush.

Also we asked Mr. Forrest if we could provide input help from our community at large. We also expressed our approval on his leadership on HR 18, HR 353 and HR 41 bills.

Over 130 folks traveled from Cape Cod to March on Washington, DC to
Bring Our Troops Home Now! Not One more Dollar! Not One More Day! Not One More Death!

A) We asked our Congressman through Mr. Forrest to consider supporting a call for the impeachment of George W. Bush!

B) To see if our Congressman will support and sign on to HR 508.

HR 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007

s. WOOLSEY (for herself, Ms. LEE, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. NADLER, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. COHEN, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. FILNER, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. PAYNE, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Veterans' Affairs, Rules, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To require United States military disengagement from Iraq, to provide United States assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq, and for other purposes.

We need to our community on Cape Cod to contact Congressman Delahunt's office at these telephone numbers.

Washington, DC
2454 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-3111
Fax: 202-225-5658

Cape and Islands Office
146 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
508-771-0666
Toll-Free: 800-870-2626
Fax: 508-790-1959

Media Downplays Anti-War March Site & Attendance Counts

2007-01-29T09:02:00.000-05:00

January 28, 2007

Media Downplays Anti-War March Site

By Danny Schecter

New York: January 28: This past weekend's anti-war march was big, say the organizers and I have no reason to doubt them.

They made this claim:

"Washington, D.C. -- In a massive showing of public opposition to the Iraq war, 500,000 people filled the streets around the Capitol today, completely surrounding the building. Participants converged on the National Mall from all over the country to voice their support for an end to the conflict in Iraq."

Three hundred buses rolled in early this morning, coming from more than 40 states and including at least 20 buses filled by New York City trade unions. United For Peace & Justice, the march coordinator, called this one of the the largest and most diverse demonstrations since the war began. According to UFPJ National Coordinator and veteran peace and justice leader Leslie Cagan,

"This is a decisive moment in the history of this country and of our peace movement. In November, the people of this nation voted for peace. We are here today, all ages, from all walks of life, to hold our elected officials to the mandate of the people."

Add in protests in the rest of the country and it was even bigger.

But is that the picture most of America received? I didn't see any report Saturday night on the front page of the Sunday NY Times online but by the morning in the print edition, the Times wrote:

"Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the war began." The story was carried as headline at the bottom of the page, not prominent positioning. No Photo. A story about tennis got bigger play.

This was not the coverage "organizers hoped" for. Actually the organizers said it WAS the largest show of force since the war began with 500,000. The Time only acknowledged "tens of thousands." Does this matter?

It doesn't if the numbers game doesn't matter, and sadly it does in country where perception trumps reality. Years, ago the National Park Service which initially always underreported crowd sizes and then began having aerial photos taken that were analyzed by experts using grids, decided not to provide police estimates which were routinely reported. Perhaps that's why the march did its own count.

Yesterday, the March claimed a half million---which IS "one of the largest shows of anti-war sentiment" (although I seem to remember the number of 750,000 used to quantify how many showed up in the big pre-war march of 2003). But the papers, maybe following the AP's earlier in the day estimated "tens of thousands." True to form, the Washington Post online edition reported "THOUSANDS." The Huffington Post headline: "Why The Anti-War March Won't Change Anything..."

Was this right on Or right off ? I wasn't there this time. My first anti-war march was in l965 so I have burned up my share of shoe or sneaker leather over the years as well as energy cheering some of the same speakers who turned up Saturday. I wasn't feeling well enough to make the trip this time, but reported on it anyway.

I support marches as PART of a bigger strategy, not as THE strategy. And at least this time, many activists were planning to lobby Congress.

As readers know by now, I think its kind of important to get this message out to the people through the media, and not just the message that there's opposition to the war bit that there's a movement opposing it. We need to show activism in action as a way for citizens to try to hold politicians accountable and participate in the process. Did that double message get through?

This approach requires a media strategy--and a challenge to the media--- beyond sending out press releases and getting on Pacifica radio outlets.

On Saturday morning, the United For Peace and Justice website announced (Watch live on C-SPAN!) Wow, I thought, you could see the March and Rally LIVE on CSPAN. At l:30, I tuned in just before the march was slated to start, and sure enough several cameras were in the crowed. The only commentary I heard then was that there were â€œthousandsâ€ there. Sounded small. All we saw was a rapper on the stage and people milling around, No interviews. No explanation. I guess I missed it.

Soon, a notice appeared on screen that CSPAN would switch away from the March to cover Hillary Clinton's first speech in Iowa. And so they did, off to East High School for a stump speech. I expected them to come back while the march was happening. They didn't.

Instead they rebroadcast last Friday's coverage of a National Review Institute conference on conservatism. Was CSPAN that nervous, that they had to preemptively â€œbalanceâ€ the anti-war march? Instead of the ongoing march, we heard righter than right columnist Michelle Malkin complaining that the media didn't show the (throngs at a right to life march, but only a few counter demonstrators. (CNN had the 15 counter demonstrators at this one and an interview with a conservative critics ,but also a song by the raging grannies and a sound bite or two from well-known speakers like Jane Fonda.)

CSPAN promised to show it later, but when I tuned in, CSPAN l was running a session from the Memphis Media Conference earlier this month at 9:30 PM. (Later I received an email saying I was in it so I can't criticize that, can I?)

I am sure the anti-war rally will be rebroadcast but the format with its endless parade of speakers and torrent of rhetoric is not exactly a media or audience turn on.

My point is that there was no real live coverage on the main CSPAN channel that I saw in a culture with news channels that can't wait to go live. (When I worked at ABC, there was a term called SLR for Silly Live Remote referring to someone on freeway overpass (reporting live) on an ordinary rush hour where nothing was happening.) We have a media that will go "live" to the opening of an envelope, but not to anti-war marches.

Coverage is more than just showing it; it is reporting on it, commenting on it, interviewing people there etc.

I flipped to Fox. If there was coverage I missed it. They were spinning a statement by John Kerry to the effect that world public opinion does not support the US war. This was being presented as â€œanti-American.â€ What do you expect from Faux News?

CNN did have a report with a journalist who had been at the march discussing it, saying there were â€œtens of thousands,â€ not a half million. He was in the studio, not on the Mall, with an anchor who patronizingly referred to protesters as "the kind of people we seen before."The march was treated as ho-hummer with the only interest expressed about whether active duty soldiers were marching. The CNN man said he heard about there were but didn't see them.

It was then time for a standup from the White House lawn with a reporter discussing how the White House would respond to Congressional criticism of the war, as if the marchers didnâ€™t exist. And then there was a replay of a soundbyte from President Bush under a graphic banner that said, can you believe, â€œTHE SOUNDS OF DISSENT.â€

AP reported "tens of thousands" not half a million.

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.

Andrea Hsu of NPR turned tens of thousands into: "Thousands of protesters gathered Saturday on the Mall in Washington, D.C." Thousands!

NPR reported January 27: "While some citizens have protested against the Iraq war ever since the invasion of March 2003, the movement has failed to mobilize large numbers of people in public spaces. Has that changed now that a majority of Americans oppose the war?"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7051538

For some reason, there seemed to be more movie stars speaking than usual. What signal does that send? Of course CNN ran images of Jane Fonda now and in North Vietnam in l973. There was a photo of Sean Penn marching.

Headline in a newspaper in Komo Washington: "Middle America meets celebrity glitter in anti-war march."

Some outlets, but mostly on the West coast noted that there were protests there too: "WASHINGTON" Anti-war protesters from around the country converged on Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities today,

Don't the anti-war organizers see this as a problem? Don't they think they should try to do something about it as a problem and protest this ritualistic treatment? Shouldn't they make the media coverage a issue. Are they only listening to themselves?

I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and feisty host Bree Walker, a former TV anchor agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of "alienating" the press.

Give me a break! This is a pattern, deliberate! Back in 2003, the Washington Posts own omsbudsman Michael Getler indicted his own newspaper for "downplaying protests." He now works for Public Television.

This coverage is deplorable, but worse: the anti-war movement has not made it an issue. With more than half the country opposing the war, the movement is still being under-reported and marginalized! And not doing much about it.

We still need a march on the media. Anyone with me?

Authors Website: http://www.Mediachannel.Org

Authors Bio: New Dissector Danny Schechter is ?blogger in chief? at Mediachannel.Org and author of "The Death of the Media and the Fight to Save Democracy" News. His new film is about numbers -- In Debt We Trust See Newsdisssector.org/store.htm. Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Lobby Day Stop the War Click Below and virtually lobby your represenatives.

2007-01-28T19:44:00.000-05:00

Contact Congressman William "Bill" Delahunt

Washington, DC
2454 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-3111
Fax: 202-225-5658

Cape and Islands Office
146 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
508-771-0666
Toll-Free: 800-870-2626
Fax: 508-790-1959

South Shore Office
1250 Hancock Street
Suite 802-N
Quincy, MA 02169
617-770-3700
Toll-Free: 800-794-9911
Fax: 617-770-2984

Send the Congressman an Email

What Can you do today Monday January 29, 2006 Lobby Day!

Another Cape Soldier from Centerville, Killed In Action RIP!

2007-01-28T19:27:00.000-05:00

By MARY ANN BRAGG
STAFF WRITER
CENTERVILLE - They were sweethearts since their early teens, married two years ago and expecting their first child in April.

Army St. Alexander Henry Fuller
(Cape Cod Times)
But late Thursday night, Anastacia Fuller, 19, of Centerville, MA on Cape Cod, learned that her husband, Army Sgt. Alexander Henry Fuller, 21, was killed in Iraq when a bomb exploded near his convoy.

Two military men came to the home the couple shared with her parents on Thread Needle Lane. It was 10:30 at night.

''He was the best damn soldier, I think, in the whole Army,'' Fuller said yesterday recalling her husband's quick rise to a military leadership position.

She sat in the kitchen surrounded by family, with plates of food wrapped in aluminum foil and a pamphlet about grieving on the counter. A bulky navy sweatshirt hid her pregnancy. Her face was wan and her eyes red.

''He was the best soldier,'' she repeated. ''He tried to make a difference.''

Alex Fuller, who was born in New Bedford, had hoped to be a police officer when he got out of the Army - even though he was also very interested in recording and writing rap music, his wife said. He met Anastacia, who at age 3 immigrated with her family from Russia, when she was 13 at a teen dance in Hyannis. They quickly decided they belonged together.

Alex joined the Army in 2004 after some bouncing around in his youth from Florida to Cape Cod, living with a friend at times and with Anastacia's family.

The couple was married Oct. 16, 2004, in South Yarmouth, between Army boot camp and Alex's first assignment in South Korea. He and Anastacia also spent a year in Colorado during his second assignment. He had been in Iraq since October and had recently seen his first photo of Anastacia's expanding stomach.

In a recent telephone conversation, Alex told his young bride he was ready to come home, Anastacia said.

''He was like a son to me,'' said Anastacia's mother, Irena Zinov. ''Every time he could, he tried to help with something around the house. ... I can't really count the ways, why he was so important. He was just like a son and it's an unimaginable loss that no mother should experience.''

Mary Ann Bragg can be reached at mbragg@capecodonline.com.

(Published: January 28, 2007)

The Boston Channel interview with Anastacia Fuller, 19 year old Cape Cod teenager, who quoted Alex's last conversation with her on Tuesday,......

" I got bad feelings... We're just dying over here, we shouldn't be here! "

-Army Sgt. Alexander Henry Fuller spoke out on Tuesday, January 23, 2007

He died on Thursday while we were in Earth House, making banners and posters for our march on Washington, DC

Cape marches on Washington

2007-01-28T18:40:00.000-05:00

January 28, 2007

Click here to watch a video on this story!

By DOUG FRASER STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON, D.C.

Nauset Regional High School senior Sam Silver was honest about his reasons for going to Washington this weekend for what organizers hoped would be a massive rally against the war in Iraq.

(Staff photo by Paul Blackmore)

Brian Bilbo, 18, of Eastham participates in the protest against the Iraq war in Washington, D.C., yesterday. Two buses filled with Cape Codders left for D.C. Friday night.

He wanted to experience a big protest, hear the arguments against the war, and listen to how people wanted to go about ending it.

''I'm definitely not on the fence; I don't feel it's right,'' he said aboard a crowded bus that left Orleans Friday night. ''But I don't feel it's right to be vehemently one way or the other without having a good knowledge of the truth, although being anti-war seems like the way to go.''

Two buses left Cape Cod Friday night for Washington with more than 100 protesters on board.

In less than a week, 35 of Silver's peers signed on to pay $65 and spend 22 hours round trip on a bus for just eight hours marching and listening to speeches on the National Mall. Silver said many more expressed interest in going, but found it hard to arrange on just a week's notice.

''The pop culture tries to pass us off as being apathetic, but we're not,'' Silver said of America's youth.

The students' interest prompted the trip, said Jennifer Smith, one of the coordinators of the Cape caravan. The second bus was filled with members of Cape Codders For Peace and Justice.

Under sunny skies, the Mall warmed to 54 degrees yesterday, positively balmy to those who left the Cape's single digit temperatures Friday night. Gradually, the Mall filled up with protesters, although it was impossible for participants to get an accurate count of how many were there.

Thousands demonstrate

Trip organizer John Bangert said the march was expected to draw more than 300 bus loads of protesters, or about 150,000, plus those who walked or drove themselves. Protesters from more than 30 states were expected to make the trip.

The protest was largely organized by the group United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of 1,400 local and national organizations. Included in the coalition are the National Organization for Women, United Church of Christ, the American Friends Service Committee, True Majority, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans Against the War, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, CodePink, MoveOn.org, and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

Police officials declined to provide crowd estimates, but Hany Khalil, a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, said the protesters numbered around 400,000.

Counter-protesters also converged on the mall in far smaller numbers.

Demonstrators listened to speeches from a roster of politicians and entertainment figures including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, U.S. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio, a candidate for the presidential nomination in 2008, and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Actors Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also addressed the crowd.

As speech after speech droned on, with bleachers filled with press photographers blocking their view of the speakers, a small knot of Cape Cod protesters dressed much like their parents probably did in the Woodstock era, moved through the crowd, looking for a little excitement.

''I came here because I believe that patriotism means standing

up for what you believe,'' said 17-year-old Whitney Bashaw of Orleans. Her long, flowing peasant dress, headband, dreadlocks and peace sign painted on one cheek would have fit seamlessly into the protest garb of another generation.

Bashaw said she reads the British Broadcasting Corporation news online because she believes it gives her a less biased view of the United States. Bashaw would like to see American leaders reduce their emphasis on military operations in Iraq and put more money into rebuilding the infrastructure of the country and help the Iraqi government function independent of U.S. influence.

Mimi McConnell of Cotuit said she was marching on Washington for her children and grandchildren.

McConnell said she felt there were deeper meanings to the protest than just ending the war. She worried what was happening to democracy and government in the United States, with Congress and the people allowing the war to continue along with domestic wiretapping and the torture of prisoners. With Democrats making significant gains in November's mid-term elections, McConnell said the time is ripe for change.

''Congress is finally waking up; maybe this (demonstration) will help stiffen their backbone,'' McConnell said.

Nauset Regional High senior Anna Struna, 17, said it was important for her generation to participate by voting and expressing opposition to policies with which they don't agree.

''We're the ones who have to pay for this,'' she said.

Struna said some of her friends were already paying a high price: Veterans in their 20s who have returned from the war changed forever by their harrowing experiences.

Adults, some of whom were veterans of Vietnam War protests, were thrilled to have the students onboard.

Jennifer Smith said student enthusiasm for the trip was a motivator for the adults, both the ones on the bus and the ones who couldn't go. Smith said she received scores of e-mails and phone calls from people who couldn't go because of health or scheduling. Many of those contributed money to help defray the costs, so the trip was more affordable for students.

''You are marching for those who are too ill and tired to march anymore,'' she told the students.

Like many teens who attended yesterday's protest, Whitney Bashaw said she would vote when she comes of age. For now, she is flexing her citizenship muscle united in a common cause.

Bashaw's group struck up an impromptu dance circle on the Mall, fueled by drums, guitars and even a jazz trumpet. A chant broke out that wasn't flattering to President Bush, but finally settled into ''Peace, Not War.''

Sophie Hatch, 16, of Eastham said she'd done research on the U.S. civil rights movement and the Vietnam War protests. She said her mother and father had participated in anti-Vietnam War rallies.

''It's in my blood,'' Hatch said.

Doug Fraser can be reached at dfraser@capecodonline.com.

(Published: January 28, 2007)

By KAREN JEFFREY
STAFF WRITER
Delight rang through Sarah Peake's voice when she heard that a bus load of Cape Cod

Nauset Regional High School sophomore Aneka Davidson, left, and junior Tory Meter prepare signs at the Earth House in Orleans for use in tomorrow's march in Washington protesting U.S. policy in Iraq.
(Paul Blackmore/Cape Cod Times)

teens will be going to Washington tonight for tomorrow's National Peace March.

''That's wonderful, just wonderful. Oh, I'm so glad,'' said Peake, during a telephone conversation from the Statehouse, where she recently began her first term representing the 4th Barnstable District.

''It is gratifying to see that young people are beginning to understand the repercussions of this war, that the cost of this war will continue long into their adult lives,'' she said.

Peake is not the only one gratified to discover young people want to express their views on the war.

''The response was nearly overwhelming,'' said Jennifer Smith, an Eastham resident and member of Cape Codders for Peace and Justice, which planned the trip.

The response from adults was no surprise, but the response from students at Nauset Regional High School was unexpected, she said. Within hours of sending out an electronic notice, Smith heard from almost 50 teens, thanks in part to Nauset teacher Lisa Brown, who mentioned the trip to some students.

Within two days, Smith was able to secure a bus, and with the help of some Lower Cape residents - who donated money to defray the cost - Smith had close to 30 students signed up. Parents are accompanying those 16 or under. ''We probably have 30 kids signed up. Not really room for any more on the bus. I just wish there was time to rent another bus because the interest has been that high,'' said Smith, who has four children and is a captain in the Eastham Fire Department. ''These kids are very knowledgeable, very articulate and very much want to be involved.''

Peake, a Democrat, will also travel to Washington for the rally. She is one of more than two dozen Cape residents - not including the teens - who will travel 11 hours on the Cape Codders for Peace and Justice bus.

Peake is going, she said, both as a private individual and as a representative of the 4th Barnstable District, which covers most of the Lower Cape. ''I am doing my part for the troops in voting in favor of benefits for veterans,'' she said, ''and now I will go to Washington as part of a nationwide movement to call for bringing our troops home, and ensuring they have a soft landing when they arrive.''

Karen Jeffrey can be reached at kjeffrey@capecodonline.com.

Anti-War March on Washington

2007-01-28T14:47:00.000-05:00

CODE Pink Iraqi Shoe Memorial!

Click Here for Video

Submitted by cactuspat on Sun, 2007-01-28 01:11. Activism | Media

Ah, yes, the obligatory "tens of thousands", as if that's anywhere near representative of the number of people marching in the streets. What? we just can't have hundreds of thousands of US citizens marching on the streets of the US Capital and cities across the country?...

Tens of thousands march against Iraq war
WASHINGTON - Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq. Celebrities, a half-dozen lawmakers and protesters from distant states rallied in the capital under a sunny sky, seizing an opportunity to press their cause with a Congress restive on the war and a country that has turned against the conflict...

Marching with them was Jane Fonda, in what she said was her first anti-war demonstration in 34 years. "Silence is no longer an option," Fonda said to cheers from the stage on the National Mall. The actress once derided as "Hanoi Jane" by conservatives for her stance on Vietnam said she had held back from activism so as not to be a distraction for the Iraq anti-war movement, but needed to speak out now.

The rally on the Mall unfolded peacefully, although about 300 protesters tried to rush the Capitol, running up the grassy lawn to the front of the building. Police on motorcycles tried to stop them, scuffling with some and barricading entrances. Protesters chanted "Our Congress" as their numbers grew and police faced off against them. Demonstrators later joined the masses marching from the Mall, around Capitol Hill and back.

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition group sponsoring the protest, had hoped 100,000 would come. Police, who no longer give official estimates, said privately the crowd was smaller than that.

At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd: "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar."

The sixth-grader from Harvard, Mass., organized a petition drive at her school against the war that has killed more than 3,000 U.S. service-members, including seven whose deaths were reported Saturday.

More Hollywood celebrities showed up at the demonstration than buttoned-down Washington typically sees in a month.

Actor Sean Penn said lawmakers will pay a price in the 2008 elections if they do not take firmer action than to pass a nonbinding resolution against the war, the course Congress is now taking.

"If they don't stand up and make a resolution as binding as the death toll, we're not going to be behind those politicians," he said. Actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also spoke.

Fonda was a lightning rod in the Vietnam era for her outspoken opposition to that war and her advocacy from Hanoi at the height of that conflict. Sensitive to the old wounds, she made it a point to thank the active-duty service-members, veterans and Gold Star mothers who attended the rally.

She drew parallels to the Vietnam War, citing "blindness to realities on the ground, hubris ... thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed." But she noted that this time, veterans, soldiers and their families increasingly and vocally are against the Iraq war.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), threatened to use congressional spending power to try to stop the war. "
George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing," he said, looking out at the masses. "He can't fire you." Referring to Congress, the Michigan Democrat added: "He can't fire us.

"The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Now only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."

On the stage rested a coffin covered with a U.S. flag and a pair of military boots, symbolizing American war dead. On the Mall stood a large bin filled with tags bearing the names of Iraqis who have died.

A small contingent of active-duty service members attended the rally, wearing civilian clothes because military rules forbid them from protesting in uniform.

Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee, 26, an intelligence specialist at Fort Meade, Md., said she joined the Air Force because of patriotism, travel and money for college. "After we went to Iraq, I began to see through the lies," she said.

In the crowd, signs recalled the November elections that defeated the Republican congressional majority in part because of
President Bush's Iraq policy. "I voted for peace," one said.

"I've just gotten tired of seeing widows, tired of seeing dead Marines," said Vincent DiMezza, 32, wearing a dress Marine uniform from his years as a sergeant. A Marine aircraft mechanic from 1997 to 2002, he did not serve in Iraq or
Afghanistan.

About 40 people staged a counter-protest, including Army Cpl. Joshua Sparling, 25, who lost his leg to a bomb in Iraq.

He said the anti-war protesters, especially those who are veterans or who are on active duty, "need to remember the sacrifice we have made and what our fallen comrades would say if they are alive."

Bush reaffirmed his commitment to his planned troop increase in a phone conversation Saturday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president was in Washington for the weekend. He is often is out of town during big protest days.

"He understands that Americans want to see a conclusion to the war in Iraq and the new strategy is designed to do just that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Protest organizers said the crowd included people who came on 300 buses from 40 states.

MARCH ON WASHINGTON DC CAPE COD PEACE FLEET

2007-01-26T09:18:00.000-05:00

Confirmed Speakers and Performers for Jan. 27th Rally

Who, What Where to Go, Maps, Program

William Penn House

Washington DC Metro Map Links

Things to Bring on Jan. 27th

Walk in Their Shoes
A recent John Hopkins report revealed that over 655,000 Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion, and polls show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave. Shoes help people visualize the unspeakable pain and suffering this war has inflicted on the Iraqi people.

Join CODEPINK and Iraqi Voices for Peace to create a massive and powerful Walk in Their Shoes installation. Bring shoes to contribute throughout the weekend! Help create the installation! www.walkintheirshoes.org For more info, contact Liz at lizkimmerly at gmail.com or 310 460 9082.

We Will Not Be Silent: White Roses
"We Will Not Be Silent" was a statement of the White Rose resistance movement in Nazi Germany. Today, a group of artists/activists is building a national campaign based on that message. They are encouraging us all to bring white roses to the Jan. 27th mobilization as part of the message we will be delivering to Congress. It will be a symbolic gesture to demand that Congress end the occupation of Iraq and bring to justice those responsible for a U.S. policy of torture and illegal detentions. At the end of the march we will gather the thousands of white roses your bring to Washington as a symbol of our strength. For more information contact: www.thecriticalvoice.org

Other items to bring to help send our message to Congress:

signs and posters that include where you are from
flags and banners that express your ideas
puppets and other theatrical items
drums and horns and any musical instrument you play
any other noise makers you can carry

Drums and Other Noisemakers: To help make this march a spirited, energizing, and powerful event, bring drums, tambourines, and other noisemakers. Improvise -- pots, pans, and plastic tubs all make great percussion instruments. Drum sticks for drumming are OK.

Banners, Signs, and Sticks: We will have posters available in the assembly area to promote the key messages of the march, but we encourage you to bring your own signs and banners, identifying the community or constituency you represent and/or expressing your reasons for why the war and occupation in Iraq must end. NOTE ABOUT STICKS: Sticks are OK for posters, if they are more like slats than sticks, i.e., relatively thin and rectangle-shaped. Posters can also be attached to cardboard tubes.

Speakers, in alphabetical order

Mayor Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City

Moriah Arnold, 12-year-old sixth-grader from Harvard, MA

Carlos Arredondo, Gold Star Families for Peace

Medea Benjamin, founder of CodePink

Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator, United for Peace and Justice

Eve Ensler, playwright

Jane Fonda, actress, author

Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women

Danny Glover, actor/activist

Reverend Graylon Hagler, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington, DC

Reverend Jesse Jackson, RainbowPUSH Coalition

Jonathon Hutto, active-duty member of the U.S. Navy

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Magazine

Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action

Tim Robbins, actor/activist

Susan Sarandon, actor/activist

Bob Watada, father of Lt. Ehren Watada, first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq

Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

Ann Wright, retired Army Colonel, former State Dept. diplomat

Confirmed but speaker to be announced:

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Veterans for Peace

Cape Codders for Peace & Justice

Music

“Emma’s Revolution”

Bedouin - rapper

Choir from Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington, DC

“Raging Grannies,” from California to New York

Peace Prayers for all Religions!

2007-01-25T07:06:00.002-05:00

Jainist Prayer

Peace and universal love is the essence of all the Gospels.
Forgive do I creatures all,
and let all creatures forgive me.

Jewish Prayer

Oh come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
that we may walk the paths of the Most High.
And we will beat our swords into ploughshares
and our spears into pruning hooks.

Shinto Prayer

We earnestly wish that the wind will soon puff away
all the clouds hanging over the tops of the mountains.

Native African Prayer

For you are one who does not hesitate to respond to our call, you are the cornerstone of peace.

Native American Prayer

Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and to be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.

Muslim Prayer

Praise be to the Lord of the Universe,
who has created us and made us into tribes and nations
that we may know each other,
not despise each other.

Baha'i Prayer

Be a breath of life unto the body of humankind,
a dew upon the soil of the human heart,
and a fruit upon the tree of humility.

Sikh Prayer

Know that we attain God when we love,
and only that victory endures in consequence of which
no one is defeated.

Christian Prayer

Love your enemies,
do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you,
pray for those who abuse you.
Blessed be the Peacemakers,
for they shall be called the Children of God.

Buddhist Prayer for Peace

May all beings everywhere plagued with sufferings of body and mind quickly be freed from their illnesses.
May those frightened cease to be afraid
and may those bound be free.
May the powerless find power,
and may people think of befriending one another.
May those who find themselves in trackless,
fearful wildernesses - the children, the aged, the unprotected - be guarded by beneficent celestials,
and may they quickly attain Buddhahood.

Zoroastrian Prayer for Peace

We pray to God to eradicate all the misery in the world:
that understanding triumph over ignorance,
that generosity triumph over indifference,
that trust triumph over contempt, and
that truth triumph over falsehood.

PEACE TRAIN & BUSSES TO DC

2007-01-23T05:08:00.000-05:00

Click on me to Hear Peace Train

by the artist formerly know as Cat Stevens - now Yusuf Islam!

Now I've been happy lately, thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be, something good has begun

Oh I've been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it co

uld be, some day it's going to come

Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again

Now I've been smiling lately

, thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be, something good has begun

Oh peace train s

ounding louder
Glide on the peace train

Come on now peace train
Yes, peace train holy roller

Everyone jump upon the peace train
Come on now peace train

Get your bags together, go bring your good friends too
Cause it's getting near

er, it soon will be with you

Now come and joi

n the living, it's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer, soon it will all be true

Now I've been crying lately, thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating, why can't we live in bliss

Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again

Community members including - students, parents, members of CCP&J, and other progressive folks have procured another Bus leaving on Friday after supper January 26th from Orleans, Staples Shopping Center at 7:pm ! Riding and sleeping all night getting into Washington, DC Saturday Morning and then following the March returning by Peace Bus overnight for 12 Noon arrival in Orleans on Sunday January 28th!

All Aboard - the Cape Cod Peace Bus.

Use may us PayPal to reserve!

Send $ 65. to PayPal account or stop by The Earth House in Orleans. If we have enough interest we will be able to go. Anyone under 18 must have a parent or guardian present when applying. We must also have a signed parental permission slip and rules will be applied. Dr. Nancy Clarke, and Jennifer Smith will be bus captains as well as John, Gail, Claire & Bangert on board.

mailto:jjbangert@comcast.net

Call Jennifer Smith (508) 255-3468

or The Bangert's (508) 432-0545

or email us
jjbangert@gmail.com

The Cape Cod Peace Bus Round Trip $65. from Orleans!

THE AMTRAK PEACE TRAIN

AMTRAK Cost Range $ 108. 00 - $ 188.00
each way from Rt 128 and South Stations

Everyone can take the train instead of flying.

Step 1- Write a letter to your Representative in congress.

Step 2 - Get your train tickets to Washington DC for the last week in January, 2007:

www.AMTRAK.com

Step 3 - Get or make something you can wear onboard that says PEACE TRAIN to DC on it.

Newswire Services

January 17, 2007

Peace March Expected to be Among Largest Since War Began

MoveOn.org, National Organization for Women, Labor Unions Mobilize Members; Buses and vans coming from 30 states and 111 Cities.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jr., Members of Congress, Military Families, and Soldiers to Speak.

NEW YORK, NY -- Americans angered by Bush's plans to escalate the Iraq war will flood the streets of Washington on Saturday, January 27, in a massive national peace march organized by United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). Marchers will call on Congress to listen to the voters, not Bush, by using its power to end Bush's war and bring the troops home. The last three national marches organized by UFPJ each attracted between 300,000 and 500,000 people.

MoveOn.org has called upon its 3.2 million members to join UFPJ, describing the march as potentially a "turning point for the war" comparable to how "Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington in 1963 was a turning point in the fight for equality and civil rights." The National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) is mobilizing its chapters to participate. Local antiwar groups in cities and towns across the nation are mobilizing.

This is bigger than the Super Bowl It's About Peace In Our World!

2007-01-22T22:33:00.000-05:00

Huddle Up!
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/703
By David Swanson

Team, huddle up. Huddle UP! Now, listen. I'm not going to even tell you what to do in the second half unless you understand what you did in the first half. Do you?

You think you're tired and worn down and you got beat bad, right? Is that what you think? When you pulled off the most powerful offensive attack in league history on February 15, 2003, putting millions of people in the streets against this war, you think no points went up on the board, right?

You need to understand that you sidelined three-quarters of their lineup. They've been using the same players without a break ever since. You sent most of the nations on the globe and the United Nations out of the stadium.

You left them with a couple of skinny Brits and a fat Italian as substitutes, and that's it. Now, do you think you're the ones who are dog tired? Their uniforms look bright and clean, but they're hurting bad.
And what about your defense? Have you seen them move into North Korea or Iran or Syria yet? You're holding them to the little stuff.

They're losing the ability to think and adjust. And when you thumped them in the November 7, 2006, elections in the final seconds of the half, you could see the fear in their eyes. They're running on rubber legs, they're spitting blood, and they're scared. And look at your bench! You could each play a half a minute and go home. You've recruited two-thirds of the stands onto the team. You've also put the refs on your side by calmly and relentlessly exposing their cheating. The cards are in your hands, and this is your game to lose.

Now, I'm going to talk about the second half and we're going to go out there and finish this thing right. But first you're going to give me 100 pushups. Now! You think you're tired? You think you're ready and wasting energy?

The more energy you use the more you're going to have. We're playing for the world here, and we have the world to work with. Don't think about saving resources. We've got resources you can't drill for in any wilderness. You can only find them in a crowd. You can only find them on a team. There you go! Faster! 2 – 3 – 4! Push it! Don't stop! It's making you stronger! Strong enough to walk out there and win this thing with a look.

Stand up! If you think you've struggled, you don't know your history. And you don't know the misery of your opponents' victims. Pain is not the worst thing you can face. Pain together for the better good of all is a pleasure you should value. You're not going to win a field full of virgins in paradise. But nobody else is either. You're going to win something that actually exists. You're going to win peace and life and freedom – and before any of that you're going to find solidarity.

Did you know that protesting is good for your health? It is the brotherhood and sisterhood. It nourishes your soul. It brings you in from your masochistic exurban mansions of isolated media intake and puts you into action with others. You will get stronger the longer you struggle. And it's going to be a struggle. They haven't exhausted their playbook yet. They're going to open the second half with a defensive formation called the Democrats.

Pay attention. This is when you strike hard and long. This defense is misleading. You move into it and it gives way, but it cushions your blow and then moves you to the side, to the side, to the side, and endlessly out of bounds. You start out right up the middle demanding an end to funding the war. They are going to counter with a claim that bringing our men and women safely home is an attack on those troops. You'll think you've heard them wrong, but you cannot pause.

They're just throwing sand in your eyes. They're about to hit you with an escalation and an opposition to the escalation, and they'll have the fans getting into the opposition too. And you'll find yourself sliding out of bounds unless you stay in the middle and cut off the funding for the war. If you do that, you'll slowly gain traction, and if you hit them hard with articles of impeachment they'll be on their backs wondering which way up is.

Their offense is still going to look like a standard corporate media assault on free thought, but it's going to overreach and commit more errors. Your best defense is a good offense. Turn to the independent media and build it, and play tough with the corporate corrupters of communication. You can shut them down and turn them around. They need you much more than you need them.

Our opening drive is January 27th in Washington, D.C. If you are not there you are letting down the team. If you are not there you will feel shame when your grandchildren ask you about your life. If you are not there you are not in solidarity with the people of the world who do not know what Americans think because not enough of us are there. Get up! There are no excuses. No, not even that one. No, not that noble one. Not that personal one. Not that strategic one. NO excuses.

You need to be in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, January 27th. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts you could just go buy a trophy and put it on your television. You've got to EARN IT, my friends. You've got to get your ass to Washington, D.C., this Saturday, or you can join the other team. We don't need you. We'll win without you. Have a nice glass of oil with your steak. Or come and eat and march and sing and share and laugh with us as we turn this world on its axis.
We're going to march past the U.S. Capitol, and it's surrounded by Capitol Police, but they are on our team and they know we're marching for them too.

We're marching to tell Congress what it has to do. But we're also going to march past Fox News, and this is where we throw a screen pass and go long. We're going to hit Fox News with a protest so loud that deep within their studios a guest will seize his throat and some truth will come out. We're going to rock the opposition's two key players, Fox News and the U.S. Senate, to the ground. We're going to demand an end to this war now: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
And then we're really going to start. Then we're going to reach way back into our playbook and drag out of our memory what really happened in Washington, D.C., the last time it was run by a man named Dick.

The antiwar movement last time around built the momentum for an impeachment movement, which gave Congress the nerve to end the war, and then the threat of impeachment stopped Nixon from vetoing the bill that cut off the war funding, and the exhilaration of doing the decent thing and cutting off the war funding drove impeachment to the goal line.

You can come to Washington on Saturday and march, but you can't go back home. We need you on Sunday as we train and prepare:http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/january27
And we need you on Monday as we lobby Congress to cut off the money and start the investigations:http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16562

We need you for three days. Three key days. Then you can climb back on any cross you choose. This game is within our reach, but they're tough and determined and devilishly slippery. They can't beat you, but they can and will drive this into overtime.

On February 5th you will hit them hard all over the country with nonviolent and creative occupations of congressional offices:http://vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project
When you walk out of those offices it will be because you have won, and you will walk out with a smile, a handshake, a hug, and friendship for our newest teammates: your congress members.
Now, put your hands together here! Who's going to win this game? The people! Are we going to win it for the Gipper? Hell no! Are we going to win it for Halliburton? Hell no! Are we going to win it for Hillary Clinton? Hell no! Are we going to win it for our grandchildren's grandchildren and their loved ones? Hell yes! Are we going to win it for the people? Hell yes! Get out there!

Banner & Poster Making Party - Thursday, Jan 25th, Earth House Orleans

2007-01-22T06:30:00.000-05:00

Cape Codders come out against this war! Sunday was the 2nd most bloodiest with over 27 American GI's DEAD, and over 100 Iraqis. ENOUGH! You can do something about this. March on Washington, DC this weekend. Bus will leave from Orleans on Friday Evening January 26th from Staples Shopping Center 7PM, returns from Washington on Sunday at Noon time, January 28th. Tickets $65. Round trip!

Call Earth House at (508) 240-0257 for more information!

Mobilize Thursday at the Earth House to make Banners and Posters.
If you can't go donate materials and art and crafts. Empower yourself and your neighbors to SAY NO MORE TROOPS! Bring them Home - Now!

Join Carlos Arredondo, with his Camp Alex on the steps of the US Capital. His truck with flag draped coffin will lead the Massachusetts Delegation.

Also in Boston Banner Making Party! on Mon. Jan 22, 6:30,11 Garden St, Harvard Sq. Mobilize for DC March Join Peace Action, for Peace and Pizza. Bring your favorite slogans and arts and crafts supplies - markers, canvas, paints, poster board, etc. (Materials will also be provided.) RSVP to help give us a count for pizza and supplies members@masspeaceaction.org or 617.354.2169 - though anyone is welcome to drop by, as well! Mass Peace Action, First Congregational Church, 11 Garden St, Cambridge (Harvard Square T)Citywide Meeting!!

Come on Wed. Jan. 24. Hear more about the rally, march and lobbying in Washington DC Jan.27-29. Meet up with others who are going! At the Democracy Center, 45 Mt Auburn St, Harvard Sq 6:30-8:00 People may also buy bus tickets (if there are any left). We will also have information about solidarity events in the Boston region. Let's mobilize together to end the war!

Last Minute Travel from Logan - Washington DC

2007-01-21T16:05:00.000-05:00

Hey Folks! If you don't want to take the bus Gus, or ride the Peace train Jane, then get on Jet Blue and don't you stew for as low as $39. each way dude!

Massachusetts March on Washington DC

2007-01-17T21:02:00.000-05:00

Massachusetts

City: CAPE COD
Departure Location: Hyannis
Departure Date: Friday, Jan. 26
Return Date: Sun AM
Type of Transport: Bus
Number of Seats: 55
Cost: $60 round trip

Organization: Cape Codders for Peace and Justice
Email: tturco@comcast.net
Telephone: (508)432-1744

Contact Person: Diane Turco
Comments: Overnight round trip bus ride to DC march. Can also pick up/drop off at other locations if needed.

This Bus is Full!

City: West Barnstable (across from Cape Cod Community College)

Departure Location: 9:30 PM Barnstable commuter lot
Departure Date: Friday, Jan. 26
Return Date: leave DC Sat. 6:00 PM return Sunday AM
Type of Transport: Bus
Number of Seats: 55
Cost: $60 This BUS IS FULL!
Organization: Cape Codders for Peace and Justice
Email: tturco@comcast.net
Telephone: (508)432-1744 (h)
Web Page: www.capecodpeaceandjustice.org
Contact Person: Diane Turco

City: Amherst
Departure Location: UMass, Amherst
Departure Date: 1/27/07 - midnight before protest
Return Date: 1/27/07
Type of Transport: Bus
Number of Seats: up to 165
Cost: $50
Organization: UMass Anti-War Coalition
Email: BusToDCat@gmail.com
Telephone: (615)351-6913
Web Page:
Contact Person: Noah Charney
Comments: Contact us by Dec. 22nd if you are interested. First bus has filled, currently selling tickets for a second.

City: Boston/Cambridge
Departure Location: Boston Common/Alewife/Andover/Riverside
Departure Date: January 26, 2007
Return Date: January 27, 2007
Type of Transport: Bus
Number of Seats: 6 buses - 47 seats per bus
Cost: $75. with discounts:student/senior/low income
Organization: United for Justice with Peace, Veterans for Peace
Email: ujpcoalition@yahoo.com
Telephone: 617-491-4857
Web Page: www.capecodpeaceandjustice.org
Contact Person: Pat O'Brien
Comments: Buses leave at 10 PM Friday evening January 26 from Boston area sites and Saturday evening January 27 from DC

City: Pittsfield
Departure Location: Berkshire Community College
Departure Date: Friday, January 26 11:30 PM
Return Date: Sunday, January 28 2 AM
Type of Transport: Bus
Number of Seats: 55 seats
Cost: $55.00
Organization: Berkshire Citizens for Peace and Justice
Email: jlcooney@yahoo.com
Telephone: 413-997-2108
Web Page: -
Contact Person: Jamie Cooney
Comments: Send check for $55 to Jamie Cooney, 50 Richmond Ave., Pittsfield, MA 01201. First come, first served.

2007-01-17T16:06:00.000-05:00

Senators agree on resolution against troop buildup

By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A group of senators including a Republican war critic announced agreement today on a resolution opposing President Bush's 21,500 troop build up in Iraq, setting their marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.

The non-binding resolution, which was also gaining interest from a second key Republican, would symbolically put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress.

"I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it Wednesday night," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, who joined Democrats at a press conference on the resolution.

"I think it is dangerously irresponsible," Hagel said.

Even as skeptical Republicans were summoned to private meetings with Bush and national security adviser Stephen Hadley at the White House, Bush's aides made clear that the Capitol Hill challenge would be met aggressively by the administration.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said resolutions passed by Congress will not affect Bush's decision-making.

"The president has obligations as a commander in chief," he said. "And he will go ahead and execute them."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., a chief author of the Senate resolution, said it says "we do not support increased troops, deeper military involvement" and calls for shifting the mission of U.S. troops from combat to training, counterterrorism and protecting Iraq's territorial integrity.

He said it also calls for "the greater engagement of other countries in the region in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq."

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told reporters that she is considering supporting the resolution and said she believed it heads in the right direction.

"I want to make sure it's something I can support," said Snowe, who has adamantly opposed to the increase in troops.

The Senate leadership is expected by Thursday to propose the resolution, with debate planned around the same time that Bush delivers his State of the Union speech next Tuesday.

Hagel's agreement to help Democrats champion the resolution amounts to a setback to the administration and to Bush, who has argued vehemently that some 21,500 additional U.S. troops are needed to help the Iraqi government calm sectarian violence in Baghdad and Anbar province.

Bush announced on Jan. 10 that he planned to increase the 130,000 U.S. forces in Iraq with an additional 21,5000 troops.

The resolutions in Congress seemed likely to be largely symbolic and they would not affect the Pentagon's war budget or challenge the president's authority over U.S. forces. Such votes, however, could be a shot across the bow to Bush.

The resolutions also would help Democrats measure GOP support for more aggressive legislative tactics, such as cutting off funds for the war.

Such a vote puts many Republicans in an uncomfortable position. They will have to decide whether to stay loyal to an unpopular GOP president and risk angering voters disillusioned by the war or buck the party line.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said today she thinks there should be a cap on U.S. troops in Iraq and said she wants "to condition American aid to the Iraqis on their meeting political benchmarks."

"I am opposed to this escalation," she said on NBC's Today program. "The Bush administration has frankly failed to put any leverage on this government," said Clinton, considered a likely 2008 Democratic presidential front-runner, although she has not yet entered the race.

Bush has been trying to sell his revised war plan to the public in a series of television interviews. He told PBS's Jim Lehrer in an interview broadcast Tuesday that keeping his old policies in place would lead to "a slow failure," but withdrawing from Iraq, as some Democrats and other critics suggest, would result in an "expedited failure."

"I am frustrated with the progress," Bush said. "A year ago, I felt pretty good about the situation. I felt like we were achieving our objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself. No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq."

Several GOP members of Congress have offered only lukewarm endorsements of Bush's plan.

Republican Rep. Chris Shays — who scraped by in the November elections while his GOP Connecticut colleagues Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson lost their seats — said his vote would depend on what Democrats come up with. He said he supports the troop push if there are guarantees offered by the Iraqis that they will reach a political settlement.

Lining up behind Bush in the Senate are Republican stalwarts and a few members who have long backed sending more troops to Iraq, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Acknowledging their party is divided on Iraq, Republican leaders are trying to stave off a showdown in Congress by casting Democratic efforts as a political ploy to embarrass the president.

The White House cautioned lawmakers about the consequences of voting against a buildup.

"The one thing the president has said is, whatever you do, make sure you support the troops," press secretary Tony Snow said at the White House. "And the question people who support this resolution will have to ask is, how does this support the troops?"

Meet the Cape Cod Press

2007-01-15T19:28:00.000-05:00

Cape Cod Times
January 15, 2007
March on Washington to unplug this war

Two Cape Codders For Peace and Justice Strike Up the Band!

Diane Turco & Joe Bangert

Kudos to Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. James McGovern for putting into proper perspective the issue of peace versus Bushâ€™s bellicose plea for another failed escalation of hostilities in Iraq.

There is no wriggle room here, and as the 110th Congress will verify after the populist Jan. 27 March on Washington, the American people desire an immediate end to this unnecessary war and definitely, absolutely, no way will we stand for an escalation of troops to enter Bushâ€™s debacle in the desert.

Many of us with gray on our roofs experienced firsthand how to unplug a futile and useless war on countless occasions: the late war in Vietnam, and the little dirty low-intensity wars against our American neighbors in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala.
I urge any and all Cape Codders to help unplug this insane folly of Bush to march on Washington on Jan. 27 to bring the mandate for peace home and into the portals of power. End the war in Iraq now!

Let's unplug this war the old-fashioned way, with boots on the ground in D.C. Forward March!

Joe Bangert
Vietnam Veteran Against the War (Again)
Brewster

Exploits in insanity, over and over again
Give Iraq one more try? Albert Einstein said it best – insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Diane Turco
Harwich

Who will be Bush's Goldwater?

2007-01-14T11:24:00.000-05:00

Frank Rich: Only Republicans, Not Democrats, Can Stop Bush -- But Who Will Play Goldwater?

Published: January 13, 2007 9:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Frank Rich, The New York Times columnist, is old enough to remember the earthquake set off in 1974 when conservative icon Sen. Barry Goldwater accomplished what Woodward, Bernstein, Sam Ervin, even Judge John Sirica, could not -- he convinced President Nixon to start on the path to resigning his office.

President Bush is nowhere close to that, but Rich, in his Sunday column, suggests that a respected and powerful Republican must step forward in the same manner to get Bush to at least quit -- his latest Iraq folly.

Sen. McCain, he notes, is highly unlikely to do it, since he is in favor of a greater escalation. So Rich puts forward Sen. John Warner as a possible hero, but would clearly accept someone else.

The question now is how to minimize the damage before countless more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered to serve the president’s endgame of passing his defeat on to the next president. The Democrats can have all the hearings they want, but they are unlikely to take draconian action (cutting off funding) that would make them, rather than Mr. Bush, politically vulnerable to blame for losing Iraq.

I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush’s own party to ring down the curtain on his failed policy, and after the 2006 midterms, that is more true than ever. The lame-duck president, having lost both houses of Congress and at least one war (Afghanistan awaits), has nothing left to lose. That is far from true of his party.

Even conservatives like Sam Brownback of Kansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota started backing away from Iraq last week. Mr. Brownback is running for president in 2008, and Mr. Coleman faces a tough re-election fight. But Republicans not in direct electoral jeopardy (George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) are also starting to waver. It’s another Vietnam-Watergate era flashback. It wasn’t Democrats or the press that forced Richard Nixon’s abdication in 1974; it was dwindling Republican support. Though he had vowed to fight his way through a Senate trial, Nixon folded once he lost the patriarchal leader of his party’s right wing.

That leader was Barry Goldwater , who had been one of Nixon’s most loyal and aggressive defenders until he finally realized he’d been lied to once too often. If John McCain won’t play the role his Arizona predecessor once did, we must hope that John Warner or some patriot like him will, for the good of the country, answer the call of conscience. A dangerous president must be saved from himself, so that the American kids he’s about to hurl into the hell of Baghdad can be saved along with him.

Larry Brown The Surge: a way to win while losing

2007-01-13T08:18:00.000-05:00

January 12, 2007

The surge: a way to win while losing

It has been awhile since I’ve heard from Roy, my imaginary friend. But there he was, rounding the door into my office.

“What are you writing about?” he asked.

I told him I wasn’t sure. I’ve been sick for two weeks and gotten to the point where I have more thoughts than feelings.

“You should write about the surge,” Roy said firmly. “Did it ever occur to you that the surge might be more effective against Democrats than insurgents? Halliburton has already won this war. So has Kellogg, Brown & Root. For the powerful corporations that supported the Bush candidacy, Iraq has been a howling success. Now to sell the surge, Bush promises to build up the Army, boost their numbers and appropriations. No more of Rummy’s slimmed-down war machine. We’ll not only get more muscle but a bigger gut besides. More winners.”

Roy’s cynicism occasionally stuns me.

“OK, fair enough,” I said, “but you’re missing the point. What about the actual war – the one we’re fighting on the ground in Iraq? Rightly or wrongly, Bush thinks we can win it. And he doesn’t want to give up now.”

Roy sighed at me as if I were more an idiot than he’d wanted to believe. “Look,” he said. “First, winning in Iraq was saving America from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. But there weren’t any. So Bush could have called an all-clear and come home, but then victory was redefined as creating a democracy in Iraq, which was going to be easy because the locals were going to love us for dumping Saddam. Now, the objective has quietly changed again. The object is not to win in Iraq; it’s not to lose in Iraq – or at least not to appear to lose. Somehow, the Iraqi government has to hold the ball long enough for us to make it to the sidelines. Then we can declare victory and leave. If that doesn’t work, the blame has to be shifted elsewhere. If Bush didn’t lose it, then somebody else has to be responsible. Who might that be?”

“Well,” I said, “a number of commentators are blaming the Iraqis. After all, it is their country. If they’re going to blow each other up and cut their own pipes and power lines, there’s a point where that has to be their choice and their responsibility. You know, free will and all that.”

“Ya, that’s true,” said Roy. “But it’s going to be so much more useful to blame the Democrats. Look: When we come to the next election cycle, the Republicans will say what a lot of Americans will want to hear – especially if they’ve sent a loved one to Iraq. They’ll say victory was within our grasp but we were stabbed in the back by the wimpy liberals in Congress who, at the critical moment, withdrew their support. How will we want to remember this war a few years from now – as a failure? We’re a proud people. No, my friend. We’ll want to believe it was ours to lose. Bush offers a surge, which is another way to say a victory, if we’re willing to do everything we’ve already tried one more time. If the Democrats say no, Bush gets to walk away saying what happens after that is their fault.”

As I said, I haven’t been feeling too hot lately, so I was slow with a come-back. In fact, I had no response at all and just sat there. So Roy finally walked out. At the threshold, he looked back.

“Nobody ever said Bush can’t play politics with his own war. And just because you opposed the war doesn’t mean he won’t blame you when it fails. Just you watch. When the dust settles, this is going to be your fault.”

Change the Course, Cape Cod

Join Peace Patriots at Faneuil Hall to Impeach Bush & Cheney

IMPEACHMENT ACTIVITY SAT APRIL 28th BOSTON

Samuel AdamsAmerican Patriot & Politician

1722 - 1803

Who’s Running?

Tips

Related Searches

Senator Clinton Pressured on Iraq

NY Times

By PATRICK HEALY

Here is something which you can do today!

UK and Denmark Sending Troops Home

PARTIAL IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

NEWSLETTER

US Senate To Vote On Iraq Surge Today

A House Not So Diveded! Now Senate Do Your Thing!

Congress Concurs with the Majority of People Say No to Surge!

House passes resolution disapproving of troop increase in Iraq: 246 to 182; 17 Republicans vote 'yea'

02/16/2007 @ 3:38 pm

The Build-a-War Workshop

It took far too long, but a report by the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war.

Putin Accuses U.S. of Inciting Arms Race

White House 'Disappointed' by Remarks

By SLOBODAN LEKIC

The Associated Press

Putin Says U.S. Is Undermining Global Stability

Bring The Troops Home Now!

Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol

Washington Post | February 09, 2007

Vigils called for Friday to demand immediate discharge for Lt. Watada

Will the Watada Mistrial Spark an End to the War?

Sparking Resistance

America's Constitutional Crisis

FIRST MASS WOMAN KILLED IN CHOPPER CRASH IN IRAQ

Copter Crashes Suggest Shift in Iraqi Tactics

A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada

A spade's a spade, and this is not a war

Other Views on March on Washington, DC

STOP THE WAR, CAPE COD COALITION

Will Delahunt support HR 508?

Letters to the Editor - Cape Cod Times

Young group inspired marchers in D.C.

Democracy not about mindless allegiance

In such times, protest is civic responsibility

An insult to youths who assert their right

A surge in Iraq, or a purge in D.C.?

Voices must be raised against the Iraq war

Bush seeks to put off defeat till he’s gone

Adding troops seems counter to all advice

Stop cheerleading and dig into D.C. lies

Fear the finger on the trigger

A 'surge' of troops can only worsen war

Facts alone subvert Bush 'surge' strategy

Let other nations fight their own fights

P'town turns out for Delhunt's FireSide Chat! Iraq, Iraq, Iraq!

Cost of War: $245 billion more

H. R. 508

Is this what democracy looks like?

Carlos Arredondo in the Big Apple , Takes on the Times Square!

The Reach of War

Delahunt in P-Town on Friday Night Let's chat about HR 508!

March on the Pentagon

Not One More Dollar, Day , or Death! Bring Them Home Now!

Media Downplays Anti-War March Site & Attendance Counts

Lobby Day Stop the War Click Below and virtually lobby your represenatives.

Another Cape Soldier from Centerville, Killed In Action RIP!

Cape marches on Washington

Anti-War March on Washington

MARCH ON WASHINGTON DC CAPE COD PEACE FLEET

Peace Prayers for all Religions!

Jainist Prayer

Jewish Prayer

Shinto Prayer

Native African Prayer

Native American Prayer

Muslim Prayer

Baha'i Prayer

Sikh Prayer

Christian Prayer

Samuel Adams
American Patriot & Politician