This & That (Betty filling in for Rebecca)

Betty here, filling in for new mother Rebecca. Jim's "Jim filling in for Rebecca (and Betty)" and
Mike's "The grind (Mike filling in for Rebecca)" went up Friday. I can't grab Fridays but what's going on is that everyone wants to be sure Rebecca doesn't feel guilty. (Which she already does!) I am happy to fill in every day but Friday (and could do a post on Saturday to make up for not doing one Friday) but we thought we'd spread it out to make sure that she gets we can do this. She needs to take time for her. After every one of my pregnancies, the last thing I wanted to do was go back to 'normal' life. First of all, I was exhausted. Second of all, I had a new baby to take care of, to smile over, to rock and nurse, to, let's be honest, worry over. With my oldest getting closer and closer to his teens, I start to think I could have another child tomorrow with no worries because, at this point, what haven't I lived through? Cereal stuck up the nose? That would be my youngest son who thought it smelled so good it would smell even better up his nose. The first time, I made the mistake of taking him to the emergency room. The doctor handled it and showed me what to do -- crush the cereal and it falls out. But you don't think about that (or I didn't) when it's first happening. I was freaking out. The disappearing child? That would be my daughter. I have a huge mirror in my room. Practically floor to ceiling. It's my ex's, don't think I was the vain one. When we split he was supposed to pick it up. He never has and I always feel like the day I throw it out is the day he shows up and we end up with a huge scene (even though I've been stuck with it for years now). So where is my daughter? She was walking at this point. I'd sat her down with her brothers and went to the kitchen to fix dinner. I came back and where was she? They were watching TV and she walked off. We looked in her room, the hall, everywhere. I didn't see her in my room (the bed blocks the lower half of the mirror). Could she have gotten outside? I was freaking out and about to call my mother when my oldest son yells he's found her.

Of course she was studying herself in the mirror. (And pointing while saying "pretty.") You lose them once in the house and you figure out they have their spot they're going to go to. To this day, that is her spot. If she's playing Barbies, she wants to be in there. If she's brushing her hair, she wants to be in there. If she's dancing or singing, she's GOT to be in there.

All three of them have very different personalities. I'm sure they'll expand even more as they grow. But the point is, after three, I honestly believe nothing could surprise me. I'm sure I'm wrong. (And I'll never know because three is more than enough for me. I hated being pregnant. I hated being pregnant in the Georgia heat. I hated labor.)

So we're spreading out the filling in just to get Rebecca to relax. She doesn't need to worry, it's not difficult for me to log on and blabber about whatever struck me today.

"Ruth's Report" really was sad because Ruth's feelings about the departure of Larry Benksy came through loud and clear. I did listen to the retrospective and it really was something. Ruth also told me that Andrea Lewis is about to go on a very long sabbatical. She won some grant I'm forgetting. She's my favorite. Kat tapes KPFA for me so I never miss Andrea. I'm happy she's won a grant (I believe it was a grant) but I'm going to miss her while she's gone. Ruth said she just wasn't up to noting Benksy's departure and Andrea's.

"Kat's Korner: Patti from the Mount" also went up this weekend and Kat's reviewing Patti Smith's new CD Tracks. I have only heard it over the phone. I do know Patti's work. (My brother went through a heavy Bowie phase that he left only when he discovered Patti.) I like what I've heard of it so far but I really loved Kat's review. It made me want to rush out and get the CD. (I'll grab it this weekend. That's the thing about having young kids, you never rush out anywhere.) I just love the way Kat writes. Ava and C.I. do these amazing TV commentaries (this week's was "TV: Mid-wifing the rebirth of the yuppy") and I feel like the three of them tap into something so amazing. Kat really blows me away and I hate to write that here because she's just as bad as Ava and C.I. about "don't praise me!" If I wrote like them, even a little like them, I would wallow in any praise. I would strip naked, jump in, and roll around in it, trying to soak up every last bit. The hardest thing for Kat is getting that moment in a CD that sparks her, that speaks to her and puts the whole album into place. (My niece always says, "Stop calling them albums! They are CDs!") (My niece did very well in a science fair by the way. I don't want to embarrass her but she does read my stuff and I want to put this up here so she understands how proud I am of her.) When she can find that moment, she's got the review nailed. Ava and C.I. have to turn out a review (Ava would say "churn out") each week. So they really feel that they toss out whatever they have left in them at that moment. (Their TV commentaries are always worth reading and I doubt they have a bigger fan than my father who always quotes those reviews to me. He loves their writing.) So right now, Kat's trying to do a review each week. That's not from now until the end of time. But there are three more CDs she wants to review. Four CDs, actually. She's planning three reviews. One review will team up two CDs. After that, she may take some time off. She always points out, "I only agreed to one a month." She means with the community. She'll tell you C.I. always tells her not to worry about it and just do one whenever it comes to her. But we all love reading them and members do e-mail and say, "Hey, Kat, where are the reviews!"

I'll do links tomorrow but she's done five so far this year and has three more planned. So she will make her 12 for the year. Easily. She's like me in that she'll scribble things down. On scraps of paper, she'll jot down a note. Then when it starts to come to her, she'll gather all her notes and try to put it together. When she was in Ireland last summer, she ended up doing two reviews. That was by having C.I. go over to her place and gather the scraps (she'd started them before a relative got ill) and then piece them together with her over the phone while Kat thought of other things to write. One of them was "Kat's Korner: The death of Ani DiFranco?" which is wonderful. I love Ani DiFranco. I didn't know of her until I started helping out with the editions on Saturday/Sunday. Now I'm a huge fan. ("Both Hands," "Educated Guess" and "Sub-division" are my three favorites if I have to pick.) I think she captured both the beauty of Ani's new CD ("Half-Assed" is my favorite song on the new CD) and the reaction that a lot of us had when we heard Ani was pregnant.

I've avoided talking about Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. When Jim offered to blog last night, I was all for it because I was so angry I just wanted to scream. I also felt I would blame Canada. It's not Canadians. It's their court system. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey should be granted refugee status. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take their case and right the wrong. But I'm still so mad. (Vic and Vince are two community members in Canada that I know. There are others but I only know them. I did not want to rip apart Canada and risk hurting them. They are not their government and Canadians are not responsible for the decisions being rubber stamped. I really hope the Supreme Court rights the wrong and stands up for what is right.)

There's more on Hinzman and Hughey in C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, May 8, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, including a reported attack by US forces on a primary school that left children dead, Save the Children issues a report decrying the death toll for children in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times calls for troop withdrawal, and more.

Starting with war resister news. Leslie Ferenc (Toronto Star) reports that US war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey are appealing the decision of Canada's Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: "The deadline to file for a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is June 30. Unless they're successful, Hinzman and Hughey will be forced to return to the U.S. where they will be court-martialled and could face up to two years in jail for desertion." Up to two years? Ference is incorrect. (Ask Agustin Aguayo.) As in many countries, Canada's Supreme Court is the court of last appeals and only hears approximately 80 appeals each year (during its three sessions). 9 judges sit on the Court (which was created in 1875) with one designated in charge -- in the current Court that is Madam Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. Of the nine Justices, four are women which is three more than the US Supreme Court has. Hinzman and Hughey have been seeking refugee status from the Canadian government. The Federal Court of Appeal, in their ruling last week, decided that neither did enough to pursue c.o. status. Or that's the excuse the Court of Appeal gave for turning down the requests for refugee status.

In other war resister news, last week Camilo Meija's Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia was published and, as Courage to Resist reports, this week, he joins with Agustin Aguayo Pablo Paredes, and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:

Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.

Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.

Aguayo wants to take part in that but may not be released in time. If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Where's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

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


In media news, on Sunday, the Los Angeles Times called for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq joining -- a small number of daily newspapers around the United States have already done so but the Los Angeles Times has the largest circulation of any paper to make the call thus far. Entitled "Bring them home" the editorial concludes: "Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inveitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave." Editor & Publisher calls it "the strongest stand yet" of "major papers" and notes other papers that have also called for withdrawal: the Roanoke Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Baltimore Sun, and the Portland Press Herald. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called for withdrawal on September 15th of last year in ""Editorial: The Iraq mess / Harsh reality underscores the need to leave" which concluded: "A serious president would, instead, step up to the plate and take steps to get America out of Iraq." (Truthout has reposted the LA Times' editorial here.)

The LA Times call comes as the number of US troops in Iraq increase and as some pin their hopes that Congress is running out of patience. On the first, China's Xinhua reports that the Bryan Whitman, US Pentagon spokesperson, has announced that "10 more combat brigades with 35,000 troops" will be deployed to Iraq this year. On the latter, Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post) report that, for the US Congress, September will now be the day of reckoning -- or so say Congress members such as US Senator Gordon Smith who declares, "Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September. I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me." Is it? Let's hope so; however, we've heard this song and dance before. For example, Paul Reynolds (BBC) reported last October on US Senator John Warner's bluster: "In two or three months if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's a responsibility of our government internally to determine is there a change of course we should take. I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time." Again, those statements were made in October.

Cullen Couch (UVA Lawyer) interviews Warner for the Spring 2007 issue and Warner said that the illegal war "permeates everything on Capitol Hill today. It's all-consuming. I've seen World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and have served 29 years in the Armed Services Committee. Iraq is clearly the most complicated I have ever seen. And unfortunately, there's a very strong division n the Senate about what to do." Of Congress and the executive branch Warner states, "We're co-equal. I think checks and balances moves a little bit with the different presidencies and the different issues. But Congress
still has that power of the purse. And that's an awesome power." But will Congress use
it? And having boasted in October that no option is off the table, what has been
Warner's excuse for not already calling for Congress to stop funding the illegal war?

In other media news, Juston Jones (New York Times) observed yesterday that the big O has made a national endorsement. Media mogul Oprah Winfrey has endorsed US Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary. Jones either wrongly or kindly refers to this as "Winfrey's entry to the political waters" which, sadly for the big O, isn't true. The big O's first foray into "political waters" on the national level (on state level, she threw her weight behind the Governator) was in selling the illegal war. She should own it because it belongs to her. From the debut of Bill Moyers Journal which devoted two hours to the selling of the illegal war:

BILL MOYERS: Even Oprah got in on the act, featuring in October 2002 NEW YORK
TIMES reporter Judith Miller.
JUDITH MILLER: (OPRAH 10/9/02) The US intelligence community believes that
Saddam Hussein has deadly stocks of anthrax, of botulinium toxin, which is one of the
most virulent poisons known to man.
BILL MOYERS: Liberal hawk Kenneth Pollak.
KENNETH POLLAK: And what we know for a fact from a number of defectors who've
come out of Iraq over the years is that Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to
acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can.
BILL MOYERS: And the right hand man to Ahmed Chalabi.
OPRAH: And so do the Iraqi people want the American people to liberate them?
QUANBAR: Absolutely. In 1991 the Iraqi people were ...
WOMAN: I hope it doesn't offend you ...
BILL MOYERS: When one guest dared to express doubt Oprah would have none of it
WOMAN: I just don't know what to believe with the media and..
OPRAH: Oh, we're not trying to propaganda --show you propaganda. .... We're just
showing you what is.
WOMAN: I understand that, I understand that.
OPRAH: OK, but Ok. You have a right to your opinion.

And with that the Big O was done with the woman (very Big Babs Bush). What Oprah
aired was propaganda. Oprah sold the illegal war. Maybe she couldn't understand the
really bad lyrics to her 90s show theme (many couldn't) and thought what was being sung was "War on, war on, I believe I'll war on, See what the end will be, I believe I'll war on
. . ." Moyers could have also shown when the Big O invited Bill O'Reilly on. As Fedwa Wazwaz (St. Paul Pioneer Press via Common Dreams) observed in 2002, "TV personality Oprah Winfrey used her program to market the war. Winfrey ran video clips in a sound-bite manner by 'experts' as a 'moral' obligation to rid the world of Saddam Hussein.

To recap, Oprah has endorsed Obama. Her only previous national political endorsement was when she endorsed the illegal war by allowing her show to become a platform for propaganda. "We're just showing you what it is," said the Big O. Only it wasn't what it is or what it was -- it was propaganda, it was lies, it was embarrassing and it was shameful. Ironically, while chit-chatting with Bully Boy on her program in 2000, the issue of Iraq and bombing was raised by an audience member and brushed aside. (See "George W. Heckled on Oprah," Democracy Now!, September 20, 2000.) In 2003, Leah C. Wells (Waging Peace) described what happened: "Halfway through the show, impatient for the canned question period from the audience, Mr. [Danny] Mueller stood up and asked Bush, 'Mr. Bush, would you continue the Democrats' policy of boming and sanctions that kill 5,000 children a month in Iraq?" The show immediately cut to commercial. Mr. [Andrew] Mandell then stood and asked what the children of Iraq could expect. Bush started directly at him. Both Muller and Mandell were escorted out of the audience for their acts of conscience. More than two years later, the children of Iraq know what to expect."

The children of Iraq? Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "Iraq's infant mortality rate has soared by 150 percent since 1990 according to a new report by the charity Save the Children. One in eight Iraqi children now die of disease or violence before the age of five. In 2005 alone, 122,000 Iraqi children died before reaching their fifth birthday. Save the Children said Iraq's child-survival ranking is now the lowest in the world." Andrew Buncombe (Independent of London) quotes Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, stating "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."; and Voice of the Wilderness' Kathy Kelly stating, "The punishment of children through the economic and military war against Iraq has been the greatest scandal." Along with disease and violence, Iraqis face the issue of malnutrition. In March Cartias Internationalis reported that "[o]ver 11 percent of newborn babies are born underweight in Iraq today," that one third of Iraqi children now suffer from malnutrition, and quoted President of Caritas Middle East North Africa Claudette Habesch stating, "Iraq has the second largest oil supplies in the world, but it has levels of poverty, hunger and underdevelopment comparble to sub-Saharan Africa. The last four years, but in particular 2006, we have seen life get worser rather than better for the ordinary Iraqi."

Save the Children's (PDF format) "State of the World's Mothers" notes: "Safe water is essential to good health. Families need an adequate supply for drinking as well as cooking and washing." That as IRIN reports on the state of Iraq's Tigris river "since the US-led invasion in 2003, this amazing watercourse has turned into a graveyard of bodies. In addition, the water level is decreasing as pollution increases, say environmentalists. Pollution in the river is caused by oil derivatives and industrial waste as well as Iraqi and US military waste, they say. The river was one of the main sources of water, food, transport and recreation for the local population but after four years of war and pollution, it has been transformed into a stagnant sewer, according to environmentalists." In 2004, Dahr Jamail reported for The New Standard on the pollution of the Tigris, "With reconstruction of a highly inadequate water treatment and distribution system at a near standstill throughout much of Central Iraq, some residents of Baghdad are left with little choice but to drink highly polluted water from the Tigris River. Aside from a newly formed Iraqi non-governmental organization that is focusing on the cleanup of one section of the river, not much is being done to improve Baghdad resisdents' acces to potable water, and US contractors appear unable or unwilling to help." Bechtel had the contracts for both the water and the electricity, as Public Citizen noted before reminding: "The question of water in Iraq, a desert country with temperatures sometimes reaching to 130 degrees Fahrenheit (54 degrees Celsius), is buffeted by highly-charged hyrdo-geopolitics, the integral part that water plays in the oil industry, and the generally low quality of existing resources. . . . The issue of water is also very important to American and corporate-Halliburton efforts to develop the oil industry. It takes one barrel of water to produce one barrel of Iraqi oil."

On the issue of oil, Michael Schwartz (TomDispatch.com via Common Dreams) notes the historical power grab for Iraqi oil and takes a look at the scheme to privatize Iraq's oil to line the pockets of Big Oil at the expense of the Iraqis: "The draft petrochemical law, if enacted and implemented, could ensure that Iraq would remain in a state of neoliberal poverty in perpetuity, even if order did return to the country. The petrochemical law is hardly assured of successful passage, and -- even if passed -- is in no way assured successful implementation. Resistance to it, spread as it is throughout Iraqi society, has already shown itself to be a formidable oppontent to the dwindling power of the American occupation." The resistance is widespread, including labor and members of Parliament, and, as Schwartz notes, the Iraqis very clearly see the illegal occupation as having to do with their oil. Which is why attacks takes place on the pipelines such as the one reported by the Turkish Daily News where four were arrested on Tuesday after they had planted "a load of explisves . . . under an oil pipeline in northern Iraq that carries crude oil to Turkey".

Can the will of the Iraqi people be overridden? With a puppet government, anything is possible. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via Common Dreams) reminds of the new wall in Baghdad, "One casualty of the new plan is the authority of the Iraqi government. The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, announced in Egypt that the construction of a wall around the Sunni district of al-Adhamiyah would stop, but without effect. An Iraqi army spokesman simply said that the Prime Minister had been misled. The Iraqi Defence Ministry is largely under American control -- one senior Iraqi army official who obeyed a direct order from Mr al-Maliki late last year found himself jailed by US forces." al-Maliki, as nominal prime minister, is supposed to be the commander of the Iraqi military. The wall has revealed to the world that he is a mere puppet and even those who are supposed to take orders from him do not. Zaid al-Ali (OpenDemocracy) examines the puppet government and notes: "Iraqis were outraged when they heard that a wall was being built in their capital to separate one people from another. Demonstrations broke out everywhere -- with both Sunnis and Shi'a joining in -- to protest the plan. Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, whose influence over the US military is just about nil, laughably 'ordered' that construction be halted. It is uncertain if al-Maliki was being genuine or not, but in any event, the Americans have continued to proceed apace, and have even claimed that the Iraqi government continues to support its plans. Iraqi politicans who reject sectarianism know where this is leading and fear the worst. 'Al-Adhimiya today, Sadr city tomorrow. We are being cantonised,' they say." Today, while surveying the wall, Reuters reports, Col. Billy Don Farris "was shot by a sniper . . . evacuated from the area and is in stable condition."


In other violence in Iraq . . .

Bombings?

Garrett Therolf and Saad Fakhrildeen (Los Angeles Times) report: "A suicide car bomber attacked a croweded market in this holy Shiite city [Kufa] today, killing at least 16 people, injuring more than 70 and further stoking rising tensions between rival Shiite militias."
Reuters notes an Iskandariya mortar attack that killed 2 and left 10 others wounded.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that killed 1 person at a leather factory and left 3 more wounded, a Jalwla bombing attack on a police station that left 2 police officers dead and 20 more wounded.

Shootings?


Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports: "Around 10:30 am, an American helicopter opened fire on a primary school at Al-Nida (9 km north west of Mendli) killing 7 pupils and injuring 3 other pupils with huge damage to the school building. Eyewitnesses confirmed this report while the American side said that they opened fire on the building after being fired from it." To repeat, seven primary school children dead, three more wounded, when a US helicopter fired on an elementary school in the Diyala Province. Kadhim also notes Major Ibrahim A. Al-Nabi was shot dead on his way to work in Baghdad, and two police officers injured by gun fire in Salahuddin.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 25 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes that 7 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.

In activism news, returning to the roundtable where Ron Jacobs (Z-Net) speaks with student activists who occupied US Senator Herbert Kohl's office in Madison last month, we'll note the views of two more featured in the roundtable. Zach Heise explains, "I originally joined the antiwar effort due to what I view as a horrendous economic waste. Besides being illegal and founded on what have been proven to be Western expanision reasons as opposed to 'democracy' this war is costing over $3000 dollars every second -- every second, that much money is spent on this war. There's a great site, www.costofwar.com that allows you to see how much your exact area has estimated spending on the war. Well, Wisconsin's spending on the war could have purchased 12,000 full-ride scholarships to UW-Madison. Simply ridiculous. Maybe if this was a just and well-reasoned war, that could be justified. But as it is now, I find it simply appalling." Josh Brielmaier observes, "I think if we're serious about bringing an end to this war then its obvious traditional protest alone is going to be insufficient. It serves a purpose, but puts no real pressure on our elected representatives to do their job. As a newcomer to the antiwar movement I felt inspired by the energy and momentum of my comrades and the general sense that we were doing something differnt. We're no longer politely asking those in power to put an end to the war in Iraq; we're demanding it." Two of the voices of students. Students aren't apathetic. They are out there working to end the war, working on immigrant rights, et al. They just don't get covered by most in big or small media.

Finally, we'll close with this exchange from today's Democracy Now!:

MICHAEL PARENTI: The war has destroyed Iraq, and the war has already created a bloodbath. Bush said we can't leave because there will be a bloodbath. The bloodbath is now. It's going on now. I heard the same thing for ten years about Vietnam. "We can't leave. There's going to be a bloodbath." Well, in fact, when we left Vietnam, the bombings stopped, the Agent Orange spraying stopped, the napalming and killing people stopped, the Phoenix CIA assassination program stopped, the bloodletting stopped. And I think the same thing would happen in Iraq. That's my assessment.
AMY GOODMAN: What ended the Vietnam War?
MICHAEL PARENTI: US withdrawal and -- you mean, why they withdrew? It just became so untenable and unpopular in the US. It seemed endless. There seemed no out. And I think that's the same thing that's happening here. You've seen within the last six or seven months in Congress, it's amazing, and in the country, where before they were hesitant to say, "Oh, I'm not sure we want to get out." They're all now saying it, and they realize most of the American public wants to get out. Bush no longer uses the term "stay the course." They discovered that "stay the course," the American public was rejecting it, because it had kind of an endless quality. There was no exit to it, you know, this "stay the course." So they've dropped it. They never use it anymore. They know they, themselves, are in a dead end here.

iraq
brandon hugheyjeremy hinzman
the washington post
jonathan weismanthomas e. ricks
democracy nowamy goodman
ron jacobs
michael schwartz
michael parenti

Jim filling in for Rebecca (and Betty)

"Notes from the Underbelly isn't The Vagina Monologues Grabs a Pen." Jim here filling in for Rebecca (and grabbing tonight from Betty). The quote is from Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Mid-wifing the rebirth of the yuppy" that went up Sunday. It's those sort of lines that make their commentaries such a huge favorite. They are the drawing card for our site. Week in, week out, they say "We have nothing" and then end up with something like that.

One of the biggest questions to them in the e-mails (according to Ty) is, "How can you not re-read these things!" The answer is they hate them. They hate writing them. There was a time when it probably was fun. We'd all done them together for the first few weeks but the e-mails all were responding to Ava and C.I.'s contributions. It made sense to turn it over to them.

But they've done a commentary every week for two years plus now. One week, we asked them to cover a movie (or the critical reception to one) and they did. It's also true that there have been weeks when they've offered more than one. But at this point, they've written over 120 commentaries at least.

Somewhere it went from fun to a responsibility. They know it's expected each Sunday and that's the other reason they avoid re-reading: the pressure.

Knowing that for the bulk of our readers the commentary is the first thing they're going to read is a lot of pressure. Knowing that some readers just read that is even more pressure.

When they finish writing, they're done with it. (Ty goes in on Tuesdays and corrects grammer and spelling in all of our entries.) The worst thing any of us can do on Saturday is bring up an old TV review. If we do, it just freaks them out. They start thinking the stakes are too high and how can they meet the expectations?

Elaine's noted that you can quote a line or two to them and they'll laugh at "your" wit. Quote more than that and they'll catch on that your quoting their writing. But they don't go back and re-read because it would just add to the pressure.

Most editions, the TV commentary is the last thing written. If they're lucky, they'll be able to work on it before that. But it's happened enough that they're writing is when they are dead tired and that also adds into why they hate everyone.

We all believe that if they'd re-read them, they would love them. But we also understand why they don't. Dona noted that if she was going to save anything at our site, it would be the editorials and the TV commentaries. I can think of a few roundtables and our parodies but I'd be saving the TV commentaries as well.

I won't go through the whole story again; however, I will note that C.I. wasn't supposed to be helping each week. I'll also note that Ava really didn't feel included in the first two weeks. We are very lucky that C.I. and Ava both stuck around. We is those of us doing the site (Ty, Dona, Jess, me and Ava and C.I.) and we is also the many readers that love what Ava and C.I. do.

They're offering a feminist critique of TV and they always stress the "a" but, and Dona will back me up on this, their "a" critique was one of the few. We'd seen supposed feminists praise some really bad shows. I don't just mean boring or bad shows, I mean offensive shows. Check out Ava and C.I.'s review "TV Review: Threshold Surpasses the Audience's" and think. Like me, you can probably think of at least two self-identified feminists who praised that show -- a show where the public is repeatedly lied to, a show where torture is okay, a show where the female lead uses her body for the most minor of favors. Is that feminism? Only Ava and C.I. called it out. So they can say "a" but the truth is, often they're the only feminists offering a feminist critique.

Among my personal favorites of their commentaries are "TV: 24 -- like 60 Minutes with less action," " TV: 4 Days in 7th Hell," " TV review: Law & Order: Trial by Jury," " TV: TESR Investigates," "TV Review: Veronica Mars is from Mars," "TV Review: Don't call her Elaine,"
" TV Review: The Simple Life," "TV: The not-so-universal White Boy blues," "TV: Boys' WB!"
and "TV: White Man Talking (and talking and talking . . .)." Those are the ten that come to mind. I usually end up writing the title so when you see, as you do in the previous sentence, "Audience's," that's my mistake. I had one huge mistake with a title once (I forget which one and our archives are screwed up) that there were dozens of e-mails complaining about. Usually, I find a line in their review that stands out to me and make that the title. "Don't call her Elaine," for instance is stressed in the review of The New Old Christine. In the early days, I'd just title it "TV: __" and whatever the title of the show was. I should also note that they (Ava and C.I.) come up with titles on their own from time to time.

I firmly believe that they have created a strong body of work. The humor's there, no question. But the criticism is strong as well. When we started The Third Estate Sunday Review, we agreed that it would be group writing. I've already explained how the TV commentaries ended up being Ava and C.I.'s terrain. But even after they started writing those by themselves, we didn't rush to credit. Partly due to the fact that they didn't want an individual credit. What really changed that was hearing from friends and family, "That TV thing you wrote was incredible." Those things are incredible. Dona, Jess, Ty, me, none of us have any trouble saying so. But it can be embarrassing to get complimented for something you had no part in. So we lobbied and lobbied and finally Ava and C.I. agreed it could be noted that they write the TV commentaries themselves. (We even include that in the "About us" now.)

I wanted to give Betty a night off and also step up and do my part to fill in for Rebecca. We're all very happy about her baby. We want her to take as much time as she needs. If Betty's filling in all the time, it might lead Rebecca to believe she had to return sooner. She should take the time she needs and know that we'll all pitch in (gladly and without complaint) while she does.

Now here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and the news about Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey should really piss you off:

Monday, May 7, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, 12 US service members announced dead in Iraq on Sunday, the US military says to expect worse in the coming days, a peace plan emerges -- outside of the US and a Canadian court makes a decision by disregarding the evidence.

Starting with the issue of war resisters. A decision was made public over the weekend regarding two US war resisters in Canada. To set that news up, we'll start by noting this passage from Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale (pp. 226-227):

Although some Canadians have disagreed with me, and one man in British Columbia even threatened to put me in a boat and drag me to the American border, most of the people I've met in this country have treated me well. Yet it remains to be seen whether I will be allowed to stay in Canada. Just as this book was going to press, the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board rejected my application for refugee status. However, I am appealing that decision in court and will not give up my fight until I have explored every avenue to make Canada a permanent home for my wife, our children and myself. I also believe that the other men and women who have deserted the American armed forces because they do not wish to serve in Iraq should be allowed to stay in Canada. I believe that it would be wrong for Canada to force me to return to a country that ordered me repeatedly to abuse Iraqi civilians and that was later found to be torturing and humiliating inmates at Abu Ghraib prison. I don't think it's right that I should be sent back to do more of the same in Iraq, or that I should serve jail time in the United States for refusing to fight in an immoral war.

During Vietnam, Canada embraced war resisters. Today, the government refuses to do so. One person makes a decision and they hide behind "Immigration and Refugee Board" -- implying that a case is presented before a board, heard by several. That's not reality. It's one person. And no war resister has been granted asylum. But we're supposed to repeat the lie that the "board" is an independent body with the ability to make independent decisions. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were the first war resisters to go to Canada and be public about their move and their decision. They were the first to file for refugee status. Jack Lakey (Toronto Star) reports that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled (Saturday) that the two young men "are not entitled to refugee status" and that "The latest ruling noted neither made full use of steps open to them in the U.S. to win conscientious objector status, before fleeing here."

That may well be what the Federal Court of Appeal said, it is not, however, true. Hughey and Hinzman's strories underscore the realities that the court elected to ignore. Hinzman, from Rapid City, South Dakota, signed up in 2001 and taking part in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)as did his wife Nga Nguyen. It was in those meetings that Hinzman's beliefs were expanded/formed. He told Peter Laufer (p. 57 of Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq) "No matter how much I wanted to, I could not convince myself that killing someone was right." Hinzman applied for C.O. status. He served in a non-combat role in Afghanistan. His application was denied. Let's repeat that in all caps: HIS C.O. APPLICATION was denied. Back in the US and soon to be deployed to Iraq, Hinzman self-checked out and he, his wife and their child Liam moved to Canada in January 2004.

Let's move to Brandon Hughey and come back for the court's recent decision. Brandon Hughey, from San Angelo, TX, signed up at 17-years-old. Peter Laufer includes a speech that David Hughey, Brandon's father, gave at the Veterans for Peace conference (that would be the 2005 attended by many including Dahr Jamail and Cindy Sheehan who left the conference, went down to Crawford and started Camp Casey): "I'm the father of Private Brandon Hughey who is at this time in Canada. I'm basically a card-carrying Republican. Used to be. My story basically began when my young son called me from Canada and told me that he didn't want to risk his life for Bush and Cheney's son. That caused me a great deal of concern. As a matter of fact, it caused great conflict. Our first several conversations over the telephone were basically fights. But I started reading. I did a lot of research, an incredible amount of research. And I actually found myself not being able to believe what I was seeing happen to this country. So I sent my son basically a manifesto that said I support him. It took a lot out of me. As I guess you can tell, I'm not much of a speaker. So it's brought me to this point, basically, to make a long story short. You know, I've read the Constitution of the United States of America. I've read a lot of books written by a man named James Madison, a lot of things by Thomas Jefferson. When I did that, it helped me figure out that all of this is totally wrong. I had some really good quotes, but I can't recall 'em off the top of my head. I just thought I'd come up and introduce myself. I do support my son." Every war resister has a story, everyone around them has a story -- it's just independent (print) media that doesn't give a damn and isn't interested in telling those stories. Informing readers, in the case of The Nation, is far less of a concern than reproducing Democratic campaign literature and calling it "independent".

18-year-old Brandon Hughey completed his training and was sent to Ford Hood. Hughey: "I had asked my superiors at Ft. Hood on more than one occasion to grant me a discharge from the mimlitary, but they refused saying it was not my choice. I was never informed on any route I coud take to leave the military such as applying for conscientious objector status. I had promised myself that under no circumstances would I allo myself to become complicit in the illegal occupation of Iraq. No contract or enlistment oath can be used an excuse to participate in acts of aggression or crimes against humanity."

So, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals has dismissed both Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey's appeal and had the NERVE to state that "neither made full use of steps open to them in the U.S. to win conscientious objector status, before fleeing here." Hughey, like many enlisted, had no idea c.o. status even existed. Hinzman applied for it and was denied. But the Court wants to embarrass itself (and the memory of Pierre Trudea) by claiming that "neither made full use of steps open to them in the U.S. to win conscientious objector status". The Court doesn't know what it's talking about.

For the record, the US military is NOT following the guidelines outlined for granting C.O. status. This has included their refusing to grant the status to those who have found religion while serving, to those who have increased their religious beliefs, etc. Repeatedly, individuals have been turned down. Including those who spoke of a moral awakening but cited no religious beliefs. In the case of the last group, they've been told that they have to be religious. (No, they don't. The guidelines specifically state that is not true.) The US military turns down C.O. applications regularly (very few are granted) and the one constant is that each group makes up their own minds about what rules to follow and which ones to ignore. There is no consistency and there is certainly no recognition of the guidelines that have been set down in writing.

That's very obvious in the case of Agustín Aguayo who was refused C.O. status (by people who never even spoke to him). It's one of the reasons the Center on Conscience & War has declared May 14th (next Monday) the day to lobby Congress for COs because "it is important to support servicemembers who become conscientious objectors, to lobby for a place for conscience in an inherently violent organization suffering from a dire lack of it." They also note:


Come and lobby in Washington, DC or lobby your member of Congress at their local office near your home.Click here to sign up for lobby day.
Click here for information on the Military CO Act
Information on subway access, directions and parking.
Map of the Area Driving Directions Metro Access Parking -->

On May 15th, International CO Day, CCW is participating in 2 events:
Congressional Briefing: 9:00 am - 12:00 pmAn Aspect of Religious Freedom: Conscience in the Military,sponsored by FCNL, Peace Tax Fund, and John Lewis
Advisory Council, 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm @ Church of the Brethren (tentatively)
Church of the Brethren337 North Carolina Ave. SE Washington, DC 20003

Now in a blanket decision, the Canadian court has ruled that Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey didn't do enough to pursue C.O. status. How Hughey's supposed to pursue something he's never been informed of is a question the court sidesteps. They flat out ignore the fact that Hinzman did go through the process and was denied. So Brandon Hughey, the court wants to say, didn't do enough and they want to say them about Hinzman. There was no effort made to examine the issues -- the court appears to not even grasp the issues. They do appear (still) eager to avoid to avoid the entire issue. How proud they must be.

How this will effect other US war resisters in Canada who have applied for asylum isn't clear. (Despite what The Toronto Star says.) Others have different issues. Some, like Joshua Key and Patrick Hart have additional issues (such as serving in Iraq) and Kyle Snyder also has the fact that he's married to a Canadian citizen.

While the Canadian court system shows the maturity of a three-year-old, in the adult world, people are speaking out. Last week Camilo Meija's Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia was published and, as Courage to Resist reports, he will be joining Agustin Aguayo Pablo Paredes, and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:

Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.

Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.

Aguayo wants to take part in that but may not be released in time. If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Where's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others. (Filling in for Rebecca, Betty wrote about Sir! No Sir! last night.) To repeat, Sir! No Sir! airs tonight at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth (check local listings for other times, PST will be 9:00 pm as well).

In Iraq, Sunday saw even worse news from a region that rarely has genuine good news (though the Operation Happy Talkers do try, they really try). Reuters reports 11 announced deaths of US service members (8 of the deaths happened on Sunday, 2 on Saturday and one on Friday -- all were announced Sunday). Sudarsan Raghavan and Karin Brulliard (Washington Post) note it was actually 12 deaths, the death of 12 US service members, that were announced by the US military on Sunday. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "In Iraq, at least 150 people have died over the past three days." Counting corpses discovered, Reuters reported at least 77 Iraqis dead on Sunday alone. CBS and AP peg the number at 95: "at least 95 Iraqis were killed or found dead nationwide Sunday, police reported." In addition, the UK Defence Ministry announced on Sunday: "It is with deep sadness that the Ministry of Defence must announce the death of a soldier, who died today, 6 May 2007, as a result of injuries that were sustained in Iraq last week." And CNN reports that, on Sunday, US Col. Billy Don Farris was "shot in the leg" in Iraq and "was evacuated to receive treatment" but given "a Purple Heart before he was evacuated". Meanwhile, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that, still on Sunday, Major General Rick Lynch ("commander of the 3rd Infantry Division) basically sings "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet." Susman reports Lynch says "American casualties would rise in the coming months" -- this after April which, Susman notes, was "only the fourth time since the beginning of 2005 that U.S. deaths have exceeded 100 in a single month." Raghavan and Brulliard (Washington Post) quote Lynch stating, "All of us believe that in the next 90 days, you'll probably see an increase in American casualties because we are taking the fight to the enemy." Lynch would do well to work on identifying "the enemy" since no one serving above him or anyone in the White House can.

Today . . .

Bombings?

AFP reports twin car bombings today in Ramadi that left 20 dead and quotes Iraqi Colonel Tareq al-Dulaimi saying, "Ten were killed in each explosion and both were from suicide car bombs." AFP also notes that Al-Anbar Province was hailed by David Petraeus as "breathtaking" in its progress last month. Reuters reports that the death toll has climbed to 25 and also notes a mortar attack in Iskandariya that killed 2 (10 more injured), that "eight to 10" people (suspected insurgents) were shot dead by "U.S. army Apache helicopters". Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 Baghdad mortar attacks killed 10 today (7 wounded), 8 police officers dead from a Baghdad car bombing (12 more injured), a Bani Saad roadside bombing that wounded three ("father and two of his sons), a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded one person, woman wounded in a Basra explosion and a Basra rocket attack that killed one person.
.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad assualt that left 1 person dead (2 wounded), a Mandhili attack on a bus with 4 people shot dead (2 wounded), a police officer shot dead in New Baquba, an attack on a Khalis woodcarver that killed the man and "three of his sons who were helping in his job" and "Before noon, terrorism group pushed into a school at Khuailis (north of Baquba) executing two teachers (husband and wife) in front of pupils and teachers."

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 30 corpses discovered in Baghdad today, the corpse of "a police commissioner which was lain on the road of Hawija," and, in Al-Wajihiya, the corpse "of a man which was identified later as the chairman of Al-Wajihiya town municipality who was kidnapped yesterday". Reuters notes two corpses discovered near Hilla.

Today, Reuters reports the US military announced a soldier died from "small arms fire while on patrol in western Baghdad". ICCC's current count is 3377 for the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.


In US political news, Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports US Senator John Boehner declared on television Sunday (Fox "News") that "Over the course of the next three months or four months, we'll have some idea how well the plan is working." Boehner's referring to David Petraeus ("top commander in Iraq") scheduled report on the 'progress' in September -- 'progress' of the escalation which began in February. Boehner isn't the first Republican to float August or September as a date of (semi)reckoning. And, as MediaMatters has pointed out, John McCain makes such statements every few months (and apparently forgets he's made them -- Senator Crazy -- or maybe just assumes no one's paying attention).

Meanwhile US presidential candidate John Edwards appeared on ABC's This Week and stated, "My opinion is the American people spoke very clearly in the last election, said they wanted a different course in Iraq. . . . The way for Congress to stand firm is to resubmit another bill funding the troops but with a timetable for withdrawals." Sadly, by "another bill," Edwards means the same measure -- the same toothless, nonbinding measure. He was asked his why he was disdainful of US Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's joint-measure with US Senator Robert Byrd that's being billed as "Deauthorize the War."
Edwards responded that "the president has already exceeded the authority . . . America is now policing a civil war. The president was never given permission to police a civil war and the power that the Congress has to stop this war is the use of its funding authority. And that's what they should do. That's the place that the Congress is the most powerful, their Constitutional authority to use that to stop the war."

George Steph demonstrated that he left his common sense along with his heart when he stormed out of the Clinton White House by asking about a "genocide" that "a lot of people say" would happen if US troops left Iraq, Shi'ites would kill Sunnis! Keeping up with news from Iraq isn't required for the Sunday chat & chews but it should be. What George Steph is so concerned about? It's been ongoing since the start of the illegal war, since the US government decided to fund and fuel one side. (I'm told video is available online and that George Steph has on so much makeup he looks like George Hamilton -- who 'served' in the LBJ administration.) Edwards' response" ". .. Honestly it's a serious risk and something that the president of the United States needs to be thinking about and planning for and my position is that what I what I would do as president is as we withdrew our combat troops out of Iraq, I would not leave the region. I think we would need a troop presence in Kuwait, in the Persian Gulf . . ." Basically everywhere. Karen Button (Common Dreams) reports on a realistic plan for withdrawal which, no surprise, doesn't come from the US Congress but from "Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, Assyrian Christians, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and other minorities, the majjority of which are still in Iraq." Planning Iraq's Future is the 250-page plan for peace and Dr. Abdul Karim Hani tells Button, "This plan proposes a direction for the future of Iraq. We've been asked many times what is the political program of the resistance. Well, this is it." Button identifies the central points:

All foreign troop withdrawal, including military bases and security forces;
That fulfilled, Iraqi National Resistance declares ceasefire; -- Annulment of the current political process;
Installation of 2-year interim Prime Minister, nominated by consensus, under UN auspices;
Installation of temporary peace-keeping forces from Arab nations that did not cooperate with invasion, with UN consultation;
Elections held within two years;
Army and security forces not allowed in political process;
Interim government members not allowed in elections;
Reformation of Iraqi Army
US presidential candidate and US House Rep Dennis Kucinich commented on the Clinton-Byrd plan stating, "Now that Senator Clinton supports deauthorization, will she support defunding the war? When someone votes to fund the war 100 percent of the time and then says she support deauthorization, it looks like a gimmick. Last week she voted to fund the war again. Every time she votes to fund the war she reauthorizes it. The true test of her commitment to ending the war is whether she'll vote to stop funding it. Congress will soon be faced with yet another decision on whether or not to fund the war. Let's see how Senator Clinton votes, to see if she is to be believed." Alexander Cockburn (CounterPunch) concludes: "So the Democrats are edgy too, though not quite so much as McCain, whose only option is to turn on a dime and come out against the war at the end of the summer. What the Democrats fear is that a very significant number of voters are in a testy mood, ready to punish anyone -- Democrat as well as Republican -- who doesn't have a clear, simple plan to bring the troops back home. So now they are openly conceding they misunderstood the public mood. . . . they are caught between the public mood and the imperial imperative and the latter will prevail in their calculations and thus -- absent a prodigious orgy of doublespeak -- alienate their political base." (Cockburn is not referring to Kucinich or US presidential candidate Mike Gravel in the excerpt.)

In other, Bob Abernethy interviewed British War Cheerleader Andrew White ("Canon . . . of the Anglican Church in Baghdad" -- when he's present which isn't all that often -- his home is in England and he is a British citizen) for Religion & Ethics and the spirit faded for the cheerleader during the following exchange (as noted Sunday by The Third Estate Sunday Review) about Iraq's current puppet government:

ABERNETHY: And do you expect it to last?Canon WHITE: No.ABERNETHY: It will fall when? And what will replace it?Canon WHITE: The reality is that there's a very high chance that the present government will cease its existence in the coming months.

As Tom Hayden has noted, it's past time for the issue of what is the US government paying for, what are they supporting was addressed (supporting with debt that US tax payers will have to pay off). War Cheerleader White (whose church moved inside the heavily fortified Green Zone) admits/speaks what everyone already knows, puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has a very tenuous hold on the title of prime minister.

Finally, in news of activism, Ron Jacobs (Z-Net) speaks with Josh Brielmaier, Todd Dennis, Zach Heise, Bernadette Watts and Chris Dols (two students who took part in last month's occupation of US Senator Herbert Kohl's office in Madison), students . . . who aren't apathetic. Shocking only to those desk jockeys who never get out in the real world. Bernadette Watts tells Jacobs, "In Kohl's patronizing response email, he let us know that he was happy we came to show our discontent and he agrees with us but that he couldn't really do anything about the war in Iraq, as it lies in George W's hands. We occupied his office to make a statement. A statement telling Kohl that we refuse to be continually misrepresented in Washington, as he says he's against the war, yet continues to support funding for the war." Chris Dols declares, "Our goal is to build a movement that can stop the war. We haven't done that yet, obviously. But we have expanded the core of organizers sufficiently. (Four months ago our CAN meetings were attended by 4 of us. Today it's over 20 regularly.) Further, activists are learning from experience. The struggle itself is our greatest class room. The classes are getting bigger and the discussion are ahead, politically, of where they were several years ago. For example, racism against Arabs and Muslims is discussed as regularly as 'What would happen if the US left Iraq today?' and the America's broader goals in the Middle East, etc. These discussions are not only welcomed in the movement, but necessary for our growth. Our goal -- and we've begun to achieve this -- is to make antiwar activism more educational and fulfilling than school. Given the misery of schoolwork and the terrible job market for graduates, we're operating on fertile ground." At the end, Jacobs is thanked for taking the time to speak to students (thanked by the students) because, let's be honest, the press talks about students, they don't talk to them. (That's why from The Nation to the New York Times, they can all repeat the lie -- with a straight face -- that students are apathetic.) We've noted two of the students today and we'll include a sample of all of their voices (hopefully, the others will be quoted in tomorrow's snapshot). This doesn't count for Todd Dennis, I just want to note two events he's mentioning -- he notes that he will be taking part in Iraq Veterans Against the War's "Operation First Casualty action in NYC, going to France and then attending the Veterans for Peace national conference. We noted the conference earlier. 2005 spawned Camp Casey, 2006 presented Ehren Watada. 2007? What's known so far is it will last from August 15 through 19 and be held in St. Louis, Missouri (811 North 9th Street, at the Holiday Inn).

iraq
sir no sir
joshua keybrandon hugheyjeremy hinzman
the washington postsudarsan raghavankarin brulliard
democracy nowamy goodman
ron jacobs
alexander cockburn
peter laufer
the third estate sunday review

Sir! No Sir! airs Monday on The Sundance Channel

rebecca here. i'm not back to regular posting yet. i thank everyone for their e-mails (and i'm still reading them). if you're a regular reader of mine (who's written before) and you don't get the gina & krista round-robin, let me know and i'll fill you in on the baby. i am not sure what i will or will not post here. (i won't post pictures after what was done to the photo of kayla's baby.) i also thank mike and betty for filling in last week. betty plans to fill in this week as needed and i hope to be back to blogging next week. i may, however, take two weeks off.

i'm bloggin right now because i want to be sure every 1 is aware that sir! no sir! airs tomorrow night. that's monday night. on the sundance channel.

swiping from c.i.: 'In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others. (Filling in for Rebecca, Betty wrote about Sir! No Sir! last night.)'

if you get the sundance channel, please invite friends over. if you don't get it, check with friends to find 1 who does.

The grind (Mike filling in for Rebecca)

:D Guess who! Mike blogging for Rebecca.

This is just a talking post. I cut my own post short earlier tonight because it was my turn to rock Rebecca's baby. I've been waiting for that and really, really impatient. :D

To save time, these are the people who will probably get mentioned in this talking post:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude (like you don't know Rebecca :D),
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen (this is my mother)
and Wally of The Daily Jot

I like filling it at Rebecca's site because when I started my site, we were talking about how we'd be like flip sides of the same coin. It didn't work out that way but Rebecca's been a big blogging influence on me. She has let it rip from the start. She doesn't worry about it or try to figure out the polite way to put it.

That's not a slam at C.I. and I'll be talking about C.I. in this post later on.

But I was really getting pissed repeatedly. And that's the main reason I ended up starting my site. Wally and Rebecca were big helps on that. Rebecca because she was doing the sort of thing I thought I could try for and Wally (who wasn't blogging then) because he was listening to me piss and moan (and was the one who suggested I start a site). Me and Wally knew each other from roundtables for the gina & krista round-robin. And our moms had done a moms' roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin and they were calling each other all the time after that because (as you know if you read it) one of them would say ___ and the other would go, "Oh, I love that too!" Back and forth.

I'd also thank Jim because he was talking to me and calming me down as well. This was around the time the West nonsense started.

If you've read Rebecca for any length of time, you know the story. If not, a kid ended up getting slammed by a bully website (for the 'left') and the adults at that site were trying to track down dirt on him (on a kid!) and also sending him these threatening e-mails. Rebecca and C.I. stood up to that b.s. and, like Rebecca will tell you, no one linked to her outside the community. But C.I. was getting noted and linked to by all these outside sites and then it just stopped. A site I link to proved what I thought when a guy there forwarded me the e-mail. I knew it was happening. I knew what was happening. C.I. was being blacklisted for taking up for a little kid.
And I knew it was going on and members knew it was going on. And there are sites that C.I. can say "Check out . . ." and no one will to this day because we know they are COWARDLY SHITHEADS. I printed that e-mail (with permission) in the gina & krista round-robin and I really appreciate the guy forwarding it to me. I had talked about this b.s. at my site.

So that's when I started my site and I really need to thank Rebecca not just for being something to strive for but also for helping me a lot in the early days when I had no idea what to write about. She's a really special person and I love her for that and a whole lot more. She's almost forgiven me for not telling her when Elaine and I became a couple! :D Wally was the only one we told and it was obvious to him because he was staying with me. We'd made the plans for that summer ahead of time and I was really looking forward to it. Then the relationship I was in broke up and a little after that Elaine and I got together. And right after that starts, there's Wally. There was no way we could hide it from him. But we swore him to secrecy.

C.I. found out a little after. That's due to the cleaning report where C.I. heard about how one of our beds was never slept in. :D If Elaine and me had been thinking, we would have messed up a bed. But we weren't thinking. That's when we were all staying with C.I. last summer. C.I. never said a word. I didn't even know C.I. knew. Then we were doing a roundtable Rebecca put together (that ran here) and there's this big edit in that where I'm hinting around about something and C.I. says not to go there. Then you get the edit and Rebecca types that there's an edit and she wished it had stayed in because C.I. had a hilarious joke about how we were becoming Fleetwood Mac. (Rebecca didn't get it even then. No one did.)

But after that, at The Third Estate Sunday Review, it was kind of sort of coming out in a roundtable and C.I. did this long sigh and just spits it out. At that point, Elaine and I really didn't know how to tell anyone because it had gone on for so long. And if you read that roundtable you'll read Rebecca going something like, "I don't believe it." :D

We did a good job keeping quiet.

I got to know Rebecca because she loves the telephone. She'd call to say hi, she'd call to share something. She must make over 100 phone calls a day! And we're close enough to each other physically that she can just ride the ferry in and we can visit. So that's cool.

Her husband is "Flyboy" and I gave him that name because he can fly a plane. He has his own plane. He flew us to NYC for the World Can't Wait thing in 2006 (I think it was 2006). They had started dating again by that point and then they got remarried. He's really cool and really loves Rebecca.

He has money and probably won't be going back to work. I get asked about that sometimes because people in the Friday Iraq Study Group know them from that and they'll ask from time to time. Rebecca was in the public relations field and she made a lot of money and got the hell out. When they got back together, he was still working. That changed after she got pregnant. They were planning to adopt because she had a miscarriage right before they ended up getting remarried. And she had a lot of those. So while they were planning to adopt she said he needed to cut back on his work hours. And then when they found out she was pregnant, he just gave it up because, at first, they were worried about the pregnancy and then, when they didn't have to worry, it was like something they'd wanted the whole time they were married the first time so he just didn't see the point.

I'm like Rebecca because if I made money, I'd be done with working. I wouldn't feel like I had to work. Flyboy grew up with money and did feel like he had to work. But now they have a really pretty baby and that can be their work. :D

Rebecca, Elaine and C.I. have been friends for years and years. And when she went into labor, C.I. had already planned for that and the gang took a plane out here. There were a lot of people around because you had their friends (like me) and their family.

Early on, C.I. disappeared from the hospital and came back a while later with Rebecca's grandmother because Rebecca would have wanted her to be there. And stuff like that was going on and I was going, "Hey, C.I., what's up?" And C.I. explained what I wouldn't have gotten otherwise -- that there were a lot of people there and crowding wasn't going to be helpful. When I realized that I started hanging back and doing like C.I., running errands and taking care of stuff. We came back here at one point, that first day, to get all the stuff in the baby room together so it would be ready.

And Rebecca set up a speaking thing for C.I. at the hospital because one of the nurses was just really concerned about the war (like a lot of people are) so C.I. ended up speaking to some people at the hospital about that and I got to speak too. And so it wouldn't be like Rebecca had to worry about entertaining and stuff, C.I. put together some speaking engagements at high schools and I got to go along on those too. So we'd be in and out. And that made sense because Kat and the gang (Jess, Ava, Jim, Dona and Ty) would be back on the West Coast soon and that way they could spend some time.

So Rebecca laughed each day about what was it like running to keep up with C.I. and when I said I'd blog (Ty was going to but I'm not even sure they've landed yet), Rebecca goes to write about a day in C.I. life. :D

These are EST times because that's time I live in. C.I. woke me up at 4:30 a.m. Thursday morning because I said I wanted to get a sense of the day. So we go and run for an hour. And I'm not talking jog! :D I thought it would be a jog. I work out and all so it wasn't a problem but I was really surprised we were running. I know C.I. works out like crazy but I hadn't gone running before so I'll note here that C.I. can carry on a conversation while running and not be out of breath. (I was out of breath several times. Rebecca laughed at that and said I should put in that on the phone with her, if C.I.'s on the stepper or the treadmill, she never knows it until C.I. gets off and has to put the phone down to do some quick stretches.)

Then it was boot up the computer and hop in the shower. (No, I didn't hop in the shower with C.I. :D) Then it's get dressed, grab a glass of water (a huge glass of water -- C.I. drinks a ton of water), and go through the paper and the e-mails. C.I. usually brings up two screens for the morning entries. There are a lot of e-mails to read and C.I.'s scanning those real fast. Martha gets noted most mornings because she is specific in her e-mail titles. She'll write something like "Washington Post on the corpse count in Baghdad" or something like that. A lot of people (and I've done it too so I'm not slamming anyone) will write something like "Question" or "I saw this" and there's not time to go through everyone of those and do the morning entries. The first one takes about an hour and the second one had links and excerpts in it but it was time to hit the road for the first campus. So we're driving to speak and C.I.'s on the phone with a friend dictating the parts that C.I.'s comments over the phone and the friend posts that. That's the second entry of the morning.

C.I.'s got a big backpack. In the backpack are magazines, books, writing pads, pens, almonds, sunflower seeds and bottles of water. And who knows what else! It's like Felix's bag of tricks! :D So when we get there, C.I. pulls out a steno pad and looks at some basic notes made the night before about what needs to be hit on and one thing got crossed through to add something in the morning papers. Then we're in the school and then we're with the students and this was a bit bigger than we'd expected so we couldn't circle up and had to do the podium thing. C.I. hit on war resisters (including ), on the bodycounts and I forget the other thing. I talked about Congress before C.I. spoke. Then C.I. opens it up and people talk about the war and share their thoughts and there are questions in there too. That lasted about 55 minutes. Some of the students had home room for their next class and so they wanted to stay and talk some more so that added another hour. Then the same thing with another group of students.

Then it was on to the next high school. And C.I. had said, "Mike, when you're hungry, you have to let me know." C.I.'ll just do the bottled water and the almonds and sunflower seeds. If C.I.'s really tired, there might be a candy bar somewhere during the day. (Usually Milky Way dark, Three Muskateers, or plain M&Ms.) The minute we're on campus, C.I.'s got the ringers off on the cell phones. (C.I.'s got two in the backpack.) So we hit three schools, speaking to different groups and my stomach's growling like crazy at this point so I do say, "I'm hungry."

I was in the mood for pasta (C.I. doesn't care what it is) so we get a table and C.I.'s got the cell phones out of the backpack and the laptop on the table. C.I.'s returning calls and a lot of that is friends saying what their outlet covered or what somebody else's covered and C.I.'s either, "Great" or "Can't use that today." Sometimes it will, "Wait, I'm confused. Walk me through this." C.I. will be juggling the cell phones and a lot of times on two calls at once. If C.I. asks, "What's the URL?" it's going in the snapshot. And C.I. will type something -- depending on the time it will be a lot or a little. And it's like that over and over. C.I. had alfredo sauce and didn't eat much of that but did stab at the salad. Mainly, C.I. just drank water. "Thanks, gotta go" is how most of the phone calls end. They're really quick calls. At least twice, C.I. said, "Okay, let me call you back about that later." In the last ten minutes, C.I.'s off the phone and looking at what's in the e-mail. I scanned that and it's mainly stuff like "___ reports" and that's it. Sometimes there will be something after "reports" but mainly it's just names and outlets with links.

So then we're in the car and C.I.'s on the phone and dictating around the links to a friend. That's not done in order. C.I. will sometimes say, "I have no idea on that, let's jump to . . ." We got to the last school and C.I. goes into the phone, "I'll call you back in exactly an hour." If Kat hadn't been on the trip, C.I. would have called and asked her what was on KPFA that day and followed up anything on Iraq with an excerpt.

So we go in and speak like before. And then after the students have had their turn, C.I.'s asked if there's anymore time available. Yes, but 10 to 15 minutes are needed on the phone first is the reply.

So C.I.'s calling a friend (sometimes it's the same one, sometimes it's another one), getting them to log into the e-mail account and pull up the draft. Then it's fill in the spots that were skipped and C.I.'s looking at the watch this entire time and trying to make it take exactly ten minutes. At one point, C.I. was spelling something (I think a name) over the phone. And as time ticks away, C.I. will say "Pull __ and I'll pick up on that tomorrow." Then it's "Okay, gotta' go. Don't worry about typos, just e-mail it to the site."

And then it was back to listening to the students share their thoughts and ask questions.

Then we were back at the hospital and Rebecca wanted to know all about it. (I gave here five sentences, I didn't go all into it.) We were there for about three hours. Then C.I. dropped me off at home (so I could shower and blog -- I was wiped out, seriously) while Ava, C.I. and Jim went to speak to a community group. (Everyone was speaking at one thing or another except for Ty who was either with Rebecca or with his boyfriend who came down from NY.) Then Ava, C.I. and Jim were back. And we all went out (including my folks and my youngest sister and one of my older brothers) for some fun. We got back like a little before midnight and C.I. had the laptop out to start doing the "And the war drags on" entry. I had already crashed before that thing was done.

Then at 4:30 this morning, C.I.'s knocking at my bedroom door again. (By the way, I offered my room to Dona & Jim and Ava & Jess because they are couples. I also offered it to C.I. Everyone said they didn't want to kick me out of my room. Ty and his boyfriend were in the guest room. Ma had already said they got that because they don't get to see each other very often. Ty likes my folks already but he made a point of not just thanking Ma but telling me to tell her how much he appreciated that. The rest of the gang camped out in the living room. My folks have a room. My sister has a room. I have a room. And we have the guest room -- NOW! When I was growing up, forget it!) (I am one of 8 kids.) (Kat stayed at Rebecca's Thursday night.)

So groaning, I open the bedroom door and C.I. says, "Go back to sleep." But I didn't. We went for a run together. Then it was the same as before. And this time it was all of us going to speak (except Ty). We did that at two campuses and then went to Rebecca's. We spent a few hours there and then I drove them to the airport and turned around and came back here.

So what's a day with C.I. like? When C.I.'s speaking, it's crazy. It's hectic. I couldn't keep up. And I was thinking about that after I dropped the gang off at the airport. C.I. was probably up until one or two in the morning and then back up at 4:30 to work out. Kat always talks about how she must be old but she's not old, it's just C.I.'s moving so quick. (Kat would want me to add that she skips the run when she's on the road with C.I. :D)

And C.I. started doing this in February 2003. It's been over 4 years. A slow month is only two weeks on the road speaking. Elaine says one thing that's working to C.I.'s advantadge is being a lifelong insomniac. I know Ava and C.I. have no idea what they're reviewing this weekend. At one point, Jim brought that up and Ava said, "Jim, we don't know and if you suggest something, I will throw this at you." (This was whatever she was drinking Thursday night. :D)

C.I.'s mainly spoken to high school and college students during all of this but also to various groups. The new thing they're trying to work in ("they're" being C.I. and Dona -- Dona will schedule if she knows something's coming up -- whether she's on it or not -- because she thinks C.I. overbooks -- which is true -- nothing get's missed but, before Dona started scheduling, it would be nothing for C.I. to do 8 things in one day) is women's groups because C.I. spoke to a group last month and realized that they're being as left out as anyone else. (Kat wrote about it in "You just never know" and C.I. wrote about it in "And the war drags on . . ."). They spoke to a labor group at the end of last month, C.I., Ty and Kat and that was Kat's favorite of any non-student group so far.

Tonight, Rebecca explained to me how it started out and I'm glad because I forgot to ask. C.I. had a friend who'd scheduled some speaking things in February 2003 (at colleges) but couldn't do it at the last minute. So C.I. filled in thinking, "I'm just filling in." Then some friends found out and they said, "Oh, you've got to speak to . . ." Which was fine. And then, Rebecca says, next thing you know, it's August 2003. At which point, C.I. started working friends who were teachers and professors and principals and deans and started working various groups that C.I. belonged to in college. And that just carried it through 2004. Now those same people will call and ask or someone they know will call and ask. Dona says C.I. will say "yes" to anything so Dona prefers to take those calls and she'll say, "No. Not this month. How about . . ." She also tries to group everything as close together. And Dona will tell you she wasn't asked to do any of this, she just took it on herself. She did that because she's the one who goes out on the road the least. So this is part of her contribution. (She'll speak anywhere in the area they all live now but she really hates to skip class. She'll do it in a minute if they're in her family's area so she can catch up with them.) Ava, Jess, Ty and Jim don't worry so much about skipping (and it hasn't been a problem). It'll be different for Jess when he starts law school.

I just read this over to Flyboy and he said to put in that C.I. does this at no charge. He's right, Rebecca would want that noted. C.I. does not get a speaking fee, C.I. does not ask for (or take) traveling expense or lodging expense. Flyboy: "C.I. really has put life on hold for the war. I don't think that gets noted enough. C.I. could be lying by the pool at home relaxing instead of criss-crossing the country over and over to speak out against the war."

That's no joke. And C.I. has the frequent flyer miles to prove it (and is always asking people if they need them). C.I. travels with the backpack, the laptop and one carry on suitcase. Everything's rolled up (to avoid wrinkling) in the carry on.

I'll add that since The Common Ills started in November 2004, C.I.'s never missed a day. That's got to be a chore by now. I just blog Monday through Friday and just at night and there are some nights when I do not feel like I have something to blog about or I just don't want to (or I don't have time due to studying for classes).

Okay, Flyboy and me are going to get work on something for the nursery so let me put in C.I.'s
"Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, May 4, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces the deaths of more service members, the mainstream press gloms on an apparent lie, a US senator floats his inablity to stand (no spine), and more.


Starting with news of war resisters. Today Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) interviewed US Senator Daniel Akaka, the junior senator from Hawaii. Ehren Watada was brought up. Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. A February court-martial ended in an mistrial. This month (the 20-th through the 21st), pre-trial motions are scheduled. If the judge elects to ignore the Constituion's ban on double-jeopardy, Watada would then be court-martialed beginning July 16th. Before the Febuary court-martial, he spoke to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! Tuesday, January 23, 2006 and Goodman and Gonzalez played a clip for that for Akaka today:

In my preparation for deployment to Iraq, in order to better train myself and my soldiers, I began to research the background of Iraq, including the culture, the history, the events going on on the ground and what had led us up into the war in the first place, and what I found was very shocking to me and dismaying, and it really made me question what I was being asked to do, and it caused me to research more and more. And as I found out the answers to the questions I had, I became convinced that the war itself was illegal and immoral, as was the current conduct of American forces and the American government on the ground over in Iraq. And as such, as somebody who has sworn an oath to protect our Constitution, our values and our principles, and to protect the welfare and the safety of the American people, I said to myself that's something that I cannot be a part of, the war. I cannot enable or condone those who have established this illegal and immoral policy. And so, I simply requested that I have my commission resigned and I separate completely from the military, because of those reasons, and I was denied several times, and I was basically given the ultimatum: either you deploy to Iraq or you will face a court-martial.

Noting that Akaka is opposed to the war, that Carolyn Ho had visited him in DC to ask for his support for her son, Goodman asked Akaka, "Do you think he should be court-martialed?"

Akaka: I know him and I know his dad and his mom very, very well in Hawaii. I admire his position and, for me, it's a position that has grown with him being reared and brought up in Hawaii in a diverse population and with diverse culture and a care for people. And what he has done is so difficult for any young man to take a position like that, to the point where he is willing to resign his position as an officer and to leave the service of the United States. But he bases it on the mistakes that this country has made. And so, he needs to be admired for that. But he has had a difficult time to convince the military courts, as well, to just let him resign. But for me, we'll let the courts decide that. But I admire his position. It's very difficult, and we know that we all love our country, and I know he does too. But his reasons are, as I said, moral and that's really basic for anybody as he makes a difficult decision as he has.

For those lost in Akaka's useless wordage, the answer is "no." He will not do one damn thing. Would the answer have been different if Goodman or Gonzalez had raised the issue of double-jeopardy?

No. Akaka is as useless as his words. "I know him . . I know his dad and his mom . . ." Yes, he does know them. He was happy to have Bob Watada work his butt off for his campaign and many others. And while Akaka's happy to pose as BRAVE SENATOR AGAINST THE WAR he can't won't lift a damn finger to help anyone that's suffering for Akaka and other senators' useless manuevers. What is Akaka so scared of? He was just re-elected in November of 2006. He is 82 years old. Is he afraid he won't be able to be a senator at 88 if he shows some damn courage? When Time magazine picks you as one of the Five Worst Senators maybe it's time you stepped aside ("As a legislator, though, Akaka is living proof that experience does not necessarily yield expertise. After 16 years on the job, the junior Senator from Hawaii is a master of the minor resolution and the bill that dies in committee.") Voting against the war doesn't mean a damn thing if that's where you courage ends. Staying on dumb and useless, let's turn to Hawaii's other Senator (though let's note that when it's time to stand up for drilling in the AMWR, Akaka is present and accounted for), Daniel Inouye. Like Akaka, Inouye has strongly benefitted from the work of Bob Watada. Inouye is 82 as well (he is actually four days older than Akaka).

Inouye voted against authorization for the illegal war. At 82, why is he so scared to speak up in defense of Watada? Greg Small (AP) reported on Inouye's attitude towards Watada last August: not "too happy," rushed to note "he wasn't praising Watada" . . . So two senators, damn well old enough to know better, can't do one damn thing. They can't end the war, they can't speak out for someone forced to take a stand (one they themselves are too feeble or cowardly to take). They both knew Bob Watada. They're thanks for all the hard work he put in is to turn their backs on his son? May voters show them the same sense of 'loyalty' if the OLD FOOLS are idiot enough to run for re-election (2011 for Inouye, 2012 for Akaka). Inouye and Akaka the strongest reasons today for a mandatory retirement age for the Senate.

In other war resister news, this week Camilo Meija's Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia was published and, as Courage to Resist reports, he will be joining Agustin Aguayo Pablo Paredes, and Robert Zabala for a speaking tour from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. The announced dates include:

Wednesday May 9 - Marin 7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.

Thursday May 10 - Sacramento Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton 6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey 7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville 7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka 7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197Thursday May 17 - Oakland 4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.

Aguayo wants to take part in that but may not be released in time. If the military is thinking they'll clamp down on war resistance by holding Aguayo, they obviously aren't factoring the passion this tour will create and the questions of, "Where's Augie?" All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth which examines the Iraq war and features Jimmy Massey and Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty among others. (Filling in for Rebecca, Betty wrote about Sir! No Sir! last night.)


Now let's turn to the apparent lie. CBS and AP report that Manouchehr Mottaki (Iran's Foreign Minister) "walked out of a dinner of diplomats where he was seated directly across from Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, on the pretext that the female violinist entertaining the gathering was dressed too revealing." Cute. Kind of like the lie that Hugo Chavez said Noam Chomsy was dead, no? Other versions take greater strides to note that Rice wasn't walked out on, she wasn't present. But they love this apparently false claim of the scantily clad violinist -- in Egypt? the US State Department can't lie any better than that? -- and most include this non-diplomatic quote by Sean McCormack who is a spokesperson for the State Department: "I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state." What's the truth?

Oh, you don't think it's coming out of the braying mouth of Sean McCormack, do you? KUNA reports: "On Thursday evening, Mottaki left dinner in Sharm el-Sheikh before Rice arrived to sit at the same table" and "Asked why he did not meet Rice, Mottaki told a news conference: 'There was no time, no appointment and no plans. A meeting between foreign ministers has certain requirements (such as) political will and it also has to be clear on what basis such a meeting would be held." AFP, to its credit, noted the comments being put out by "US officials" were "a swipe" on the part of "US officials" but somehow Mottaki's press conference just slipped everyone's attention.

McCormack's statements aren't diplomatic but they are the sort of calculated cheap shots. So nice of so many in the press to run with them just because US officials said they were true. Our Hedda Hoppers of the press.

Staying on the topic of the press, in the current issue of Extra! (March/April 2007, put out by FAIR), Pat Arnow explores (pp. 9-10) the censorship the press doesn't fight. Using a photo (by Robert Nickelsberg) that ran with Damien Cave's "Man Down," Arnow explains how the New York Times groveled and apologized to appease the US military, "apparently removed the photos from their website" in order to gladly go along with the latest dictates of the US military: "Now publications of pictures of casualties violates new media ground rules for Iraq from the Department of Defense. The regulation states, 'Names, video, identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service member's prior written consent' -- which seems absurdly unlikely." The US military has declared that photos of casualties taken in a public area are not, in fact, public. It's the sort of thing one expects from Team Crusie, but not from the US military, and the sort of thing one doesn't expect for news reporters (as opposed to feature writers) to ever go along with; however, go along with it the Times and other outlets have (Arnow also names the Washington Post). Arnow concludes, "Photos of American suffering or suffering caused by Americans might indeed sicken and offend viewers. But by acquiescing to the military's censorship and avoiding most of these images of American involvement, the media does not offer a true portrayal of the consequences of war. . . . By accepting military censorship without discussion, though, the media demonstrates cowardice." (It should probably be noted that no one has yet to touch the much talked of incident where the Times pulled a reporter from Iraq to appease the US military.)

Barry Lando (The Middle East Online via Common Dreams) notes the "pretense that they [journalists] actually know what is going on in Iraq. It is more showbiz than fact. Because of the fearful security situation, they are restricted to the artificial enclave of the Green Zone, literally cut off from the rest of the country. When they venture out, it is usually only with helmet and flak jacket, safely embedded with American military units. Most of Iraq and most of its people are unknown territory. . . . Most reporters also avoid reporting that the claim of the squabbling do-nothing politicians in the Green Zone to be the government of Iraq is another fiction promulgated by the Bush administration. Everyone -- the media, visiting congressmen and officials all seem to play along -- but as retired General Barry McCaffrey recently pointed out: There is essentially not a single province in the country where 'the centeral government holds sway.'"

Today, the New York Times grabbed some ribbon and tied a 'terrorism' bow around any story they could. Damien Cave tries to fix the mess of official statements in opposition and ends up coming off like Faye Dunaway in the My-daughter-My-sister scene in Chinatown. So after wasting a ton of space and ink this week on whether or not this 'terrorist' was killed or that one was, Damien Cave tells us that the US military asserts they "killed a senior propagandist . . . who was involved in kidnapping Westerners, including the American journalist Jill Carroll." Though repeating every word purred by the Giddiest Gabor Green Zone (Willie Caldwell), Cave misses basic reality. As Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reports "Carroll says she doesn't recognize the photo released by the military of [Abdul-Latif al-] Jubouri." That much was known yesterday. Murphy also reports that Caroll identifies Abu Nour as a major player in her kidnapping and there is "no doubt in her mind that he was the most powerful of the captors". Murphy also reminds that "Over the past the year the US military has detained a number of figures believed to have been involved" in Carroll's kidnapping and that of Tom Fox and three members of CPT. Somehow, Cave misses all of that. But then, he is working for the paper that early on could have interviewed members of the resistance but a vexed look from a US military official was enough to send Dexy Filkins off to his corner, whimpering and sucking his thumb.

These days, very few outlets could get an interview with anyone in the resistance. Alive in Baghdad did get an interview this week, with a member of the Islamic Army in Iraq which has been dubbed "a resistance group" by Iraq's vice president Tareq al-Hashemi. Below is a transcript of the masked man's statements:

In the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. The new security plan is a huge failure. We have nothing against the American people. On the contrary, we know there are educated Americans and Americans who like the Iraqi people. Our problem is with the American occupiers who invaded our country. I ask any American, if an invader broke into his country, what would he do? Welcome them? He is going to use this weapon by the will of Allah. God is supporting us. Concering the execution of the hero martyr Saddam Hussein, I call on all the TV networks to visit Iraq and find someone who supported the execution of the Iraqi president. May God have mercy on his soul. When he executed the 148 men as the media claims, they were traitors when we were at war with Iran. If the American president faces an assassination attempt, what is he going to do? Is he going to release them from prison? He'll find the terrorists. This is very normal and the Iraqi president was in a war situation where he was about to be assassinated. So what could the man do? Iran sent these men and supported them and even Iranian weapons were found. My late uncle was a senior official in the state. He saw these weapons. All of them were made in Iran. Where did they get them from? From Iran. They say that the Iraqi president was Sunni and execute Shiites but that is a lie. Those executed by the president were traitors. They didn't deserve to live on the land of Iraq. So he was not sectarian. The late Iraqi president was a patriot who loved his country & people. He made us live in safety,
although the country was going through economic difficulties because of the embargo imposed by the Americans and the Kuwaitis. It was what God willed. This security plan has failed and the Iraqi government is loyal to Iran, to the Safavid [Iranians]. This government is unable to run a group of people. So how can it run an entire country with 28 million Iraqis? I call on the Americans to leave Iraq and re-build the former Iraqi army. By the will of Allah, I call upon the American people to withdraw their sons, brothers, and fathers before they are buried her in Iraq because we noble Sunnis do not accept that and the biggest proof for that was how the late president sacrificed himself and his sons for the sake of Iraq and the land of Iraq. And as it is said, we are people who will never surrender.

Alive in Baghdad does a contextual wrap around (at the end they're noting the Mongols) including: "We are aware that some may find this content objectionable or irresponsible, but we feel it is completely in line with our mission to detail facets of daily life in Baghdad." Those who find it objectionable may do so because they've become so used to what passes for reporting in the mainstream press. Alive in Baghdad, as BBC reported last December, "won a crop of 'Vloggie' industry awards for showing the human face behind Iraq's daily toll of deaths and kidnappings."


Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that killed 5 police officers and left 2 more wounded, a Baghdad taxi bombing that wounded one police officer, and a Babil car bombing that claimed 1 life and left 21 wounded. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A car bomb and two roadside bombs went off overnight in Kirkuk, killing six Iraqis and injuring at least 33" while a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 2 lives.

Wednesday's rocket attack on the Green Zone killed four contractors. Lelia Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports: "Two of the dead were from India, one was from the Philippines and one was from Nepal." Thursday's snapshot, citing Reuters, noted the four were all from the Philippines.

Shootings?

Hussien Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 guards were wounded by gunfire in Baghdad (Habibiya neighborhood) and two guards of the Imama Ali mosque (in Baghdad's Adhamiya neighborhood) were wounded in an attack that also led to the mosque being burned down, a Shurqat attack that left a police officer dead, and "For the last five days, the tribes of Shimar who live at the villages of Kinaan have been on fighting with the terrorists there with no help from the government having one man killed and five injured."

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 8 corpses in Suwayra, 6 in Baiji (all police officers) and 9 in Falluja. AP notes 7 corpses "found floating in the Diyala River in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, and snipers were preventing police and medical teams from recovering from the remains along with other bodies spotted in recent weeks from the waterway, police said."

Today the US military announced: "An improvised explosive device targeting an MND-B patrol killed one Soldier and wounded three others in a western section of Baghdad May 3."
And they announced: "An MND-B Soldier was killed and six others were wounded when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital May 3." And they announced: "A Task Force Marne Soldier was killed and two were wounded when their patrol was struck by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad today." Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports that there were 65 attacks using projectile bombs.
The deaths announced today brought the total number of US service members to die in the illegal war to 3363.

Finally Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) reported yesterday on an ethics study the US military conducted on marines stationed in Iraq. The study found that 40% was the number who stated they "would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian" and Rogers reported: "The report indeed showed that longer deployments and multiple tours of duty were increasing troops' rates of marital and mental-health problems, including post traumatic stress disorder." Pauline Jelinek (AP) reports on the study today and notes that "55 percent of Army soldiers would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian."

iraq
ehren watadabob watada
democracy nowamy goodmanjuan gonzalez
ann scott tysonthe washington post
barry lando
alive in baghdad
the new york timesdamien cave
the los angeles timestina susman