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

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

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

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!

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 résumé 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

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/

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."

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

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

E-mail

Graphic

Popular

del.icio.us

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.”

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! ]