okay, so c.i. does it again. raises the bar again. i'm talking about the last part of the snapshot. i didn't see that coming. but i am behind it. molly ivins space needs to be preserved but, unlike john nichols thinks, not just for a 'progressive.' it needs to go to a woman. at 1 point it was a bi-weekly column but it dropped to a weekly (due to her illness) and amy goodman does a weekly column. give the space to goodman. she's known. she can write.
i listened to the interview on counterspin with john nichols. i wasn't impressed. his agenda wasn't molly ivins, it was media reform. he wasn't funny. he was deadly earnest. and when he was on a real tear about molly ivins wasn't just funny! she wasn't just funny!
i don't think i read any 1 saying she was 'just' anything.
but she was funny as hell. 'get 'em with a giggle'. she used humor quite well. and she used politics quite well. i've never heard some 1 so adamently against humor. what was up with that?
does he not think women can be funny? does he think that 'humorist' is an insult? (does he know the work of mark twain?)
molly ivins was funny. it was part of who she was.
having a public foot stomping, door slamming over the fact that she was funny seemed more than a bit strange.
humor helped molly ivins stand out. it wasn't the only thing but there's no denying it was a key part of who she was.
which had me thinking about how few funny people we have writing on the left. in terms of 'professionals' there's jim hightower who is very funny and there's will durst. but who else do we have that does a column?
maybe the reason molly ivins had so many outlets (newspaper, the progressive, truthdig, etc.) is because there was a need for some laughter in these dark times?
maybe the fact that she wasn't going to launch into a lecture that left you yawning is why she was so embraced.
her politics were as important as humor. i don't know why he wants a division where there was none.
does he think 'humor' is a dirty word? is he himself humorless?
i have no idea but molly ivins was a smart woman and she was a funny 1.
leave it to a man to try to downgrade a woman's humor. and think he's doing her memory a favor as he does!
it's really not all that different from, women of a certain age will remember this, the days when we would be telling a joke only to have a man interrupt us because men could tell it 'better.'
molly ivins was funny.
this is not up for debate. you can stomp your feet all you want, but it's not in dispute.
maybe some 1 who can't utter the words 'bob watada' (or jane fonda) when writing of d.c. last weekend or a man who can't write about ehren watada (pathetic pieces on pathetic sarah olson don't count) has enough problems without trying to decode funny?
i'm not in the mood for it.
and, a correction, i met molly ivins 4 times. c.i. corrected that. i'd forgotten 1 time. and for any who wonder, she was always funny, all 4 times. i'm sure, had john nichols been speaking of another woman, she'd be the 1st to howl with laughter at his silly nonsense.
'molly ivins was late to the media reform movement, it took her awhile to notice the problems' - he says something like that as well.
so not only is she not funny, she's not too quick.
warning: do not ask john nichols to speak at your own funerals.
along with c.i. being on fire today, so was elaine. read her 'Tell your local newspaper: Draft Amy Goodman!' and laugh and love it. it's brilliant. she's covering the reasons for asking that your local papers carry amy goodman and she's also taking on peace movement hata' liza featherbrain. liza's praciticing revisionist history - apparently, the death of jeanne kirkpatrick left a void.
what a dunce. i really cannot believe the crap that the nation puts out week after week. you know who i blame, (all together) katrina vanden heuvel. she tries to play the peace card today. she'll drop it as soon as she can. queen bess katrina - the woman with a thigh master where a brain should be.
if you think about it, her snit fit with arianna huffington really told you the direction the rag was headed. a d.l.c. type war hawk was picked to give a speech and arianna objected - as any 1 with 1/2 a brain would - and there was katrina taking every 1 to task (as though we work for her? does she think we're the hired help? i'm sitting on more money than she is and i didn't have to drag my grandfather's name through the mud in a messy court room battle where i tried to get around tax laws - this is the 'economic justice' queen, remember). katrina was supposedly arguing that we should give him a chance.
the reality was that she was yet again hopping on all 4s for the democratic party and decrying the voice of the people.
for someone so snobby, she truly has nothing to be snobby about. (i'll hear about that and all that follows from c.i. but that's fine.) her father, the spy, was a joke. it's only on the maternal side that she even stood a shot a polite society and she doesn't mix well. the big concern for most hostesses is where to sit her?
she gives people a headache with her simplistic views of the world. the little school girl who married her professor and always needs to look to him for confirmation anytime she's mangling a point.
the big guessing game in the circles that feel obligated to invite her still (due to her late grandfather) is how stupid is she?
people can't figure out if her 'colorful' stories of her husband's family are told to make it seem as though she married a 'man of the earth' or if it's just her (unfounded) snobbery coming through? but she can't have a conversation without it burning up telephone wires. (i hear all about it from elaine and my mother-in-law. c.i. never passes on anything and, since i write about katrina here, won't.)
i think we're all tired of the lack of support for war resisters, the lack of coverage of the peace movment, liza featherbrain's distortions of it, the sappy victories, and robbing people of their power.
it doesn't end the war, it only prolongs it.
and it's obvious from my e-mails that people are outraged to realize that the nation's male-writer-to-female-writer ratio is 4 to 1. that's just disgusting.
this is from c.i.'s 'And the war drags on' and i apply it to the nation - c.i.'s taken a phil ochs' lyric and reworked it to apply to our gas bags in independent media:
I am just a dumb ass and I've just got time to burn
I spend all my time trying to steer you from areas of true concern.
Since I checked out on reality, I've thrown in the towel
So when I've got a chance to gas bag, I'm going to gas bag now.
queen bess katrina offers gas baggery which is pretty disgusting. so let's note a writer who isn't, robert parry. this is the opening of his 'Bush Is Hiding the Ball on Iran' (consortium news):
George W. Bush is again guiding the nation toward a preemptive war -- this time with Iran -- without allowing anything like a full debate of the underlying facts, probable consequences of the conflict or peaceful alternatives.
Bush is following the same course he chose in the run-up to war in Iraq: he insists that war is "a last resort" yet puts in motion the engines of war; he times the release of alarming intelligence reports for maximum political effect; he brushes aside doubts and warnings; he then presents war as unavoidable or a fait accompli.
Despite the painful lessons from the Iraq War disaster -- including more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers dead and Iraq torn apart by sectarian civil war -- the key institutions of Washington, particularly the Congress and the press, are playing similar roles, too.
The capital again is possessed of an air of unreality as the clock ticks down to a likely military showdown with Iran.
Though the documentary record is now clear that Bush set his sights on war in Iraq a year or so before the actual invasion, the President is still believed when he insists now that he wants a diplomatic solution with Iran.
and that's it for me tonight. long day. here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, February 2, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, a US helicopter is shot down in Iraq, Ehren Watada's court-martial is scheduled to take place in three days, 'civil war' to describe Iraq becomes a less loaded term and the myth of Najaf continues to be dispelled.
Starting with Ehren Watada who became the first comissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq in June and now faces a court-martial in Fort Lewis, Washington on Monday.
Daisuke Wakabayashi (Reuters) says the case "could determine the limits of free-speech rights for officers." Dean Paton (Christian Science Monitor) takes a look at the life that led up to the brave stand: "When it came time for Watada to enlist, he was diagnosed with asthma and declared physically unfit. He paid $800 to have an outside test done and was accepted into the Army's college-option program. He completed basic training in June 2003, and went to Officer Candidate School in South Carolina. He emerged 14 weeks later as a 2nd lieutenant." Ben Hamamoto (The Nichi Bei Times) reports on some of the activities Carolyn Ho has been taking part in to raise awareness of her son including suggesting people write letters to Congress, sign petitions (one is at Ehren Watada's site) and "post signs demanding that the military drop the charges and allow Watada to resign" because, Ho stated, "The way this resolves itself will speak to the soldiers and tell them whether or not they are being supported and it will speak to the politicians as to how we feel about the war (and soldiers' rights)."
Diane Kay (The Maine Campus) traces his life from college to speaking out: "Watada was a finance major, and graduated magna cum laude. The war in Iraq had just begun, and Watada, like many Americans, believed that Iraq posed a real threat to the United States, had WMDs and was connected to Sept. 11. He entered the U.S. Army officer candidate program following graduation to pursue a career in the military. Watada served in Korea in 2003 and 2004, earned the rank of lieutenant, and received excellent reviews of his work by his superior officers. In 2005, Lt. Watada and his unit returned to the United States, and were stationed in Ft. Lewis, Wash. Lt. Watada knew that his unit would eventually be deployed to Iraq, and he began to study as much as he could to prepare himself and his unit for deployment." This is where Ehren Watada starts to learn about the Bully Boy's lies of war. He had been assigned to Iraq. It was his duty (and superiors encouraged him in it) to study up so that he would be more effective and also able to answer questions from those serving under him (big one: "Why are we even here?"). It took the American people (many, not all) time to wake up to the lies of war and that didn't happen overnight. (Nor did it happen via the media as Liza Featherstone laughably suggests in The Nation. But then how would she know about the Downing Street Memos -- which The New York Review of Books, not The Nation, published. Jessica Lee, of the Indypendent, covers what Featherstone can't or won't -- click here.) What happened in the United States was activists and some journalists and publications pursued the topic (again, really not The Nation -- they had food issues and environmental issues and so much more to cover -- which is why they've never once written of the gang rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer). People carved out a space for it and certainly Cindy Sheehan took it up a notch.
All that was needed for the lies to be exposed and the public to turn against the war. Ehren Watada was not in the United States. He was stationed in Korea. And it's really important to remember that. Many who've served in Iraq have seen the lies fall away before their eyes (which reality will do) but in terms of how the war was sold, don't think that troops serving overseas are getting the same media that those in the United States do. In the lead up to his announcing his decision to his mother on January 1, 2006, he was cramming in three-plus years worth of information, reporting, critiques, etc. Which is why Hatsue Katsura of El Cerrito notes to The Contra Costa Times: "It was a gradual awareness and realization of facts about the war that were publicly disclosed over time. It became obvious our administration lacked reliable intelligence and was lying to justify an illegal and immoral war.I respect and support Watada for his decision. By refusing to obey orders, he knew he'd probably face a jail sentence. But he responded to a higher calling to serve his fellow man as an American and a world citizen."
Or, as Ehren Watada asked Daisuke Wakabayashi, "When you have leaders that are unaccountable, who have already deceived people over something as serious as war and are willing to do it again, you have to ask yourself, 'where do you stand?'" Or, as he explained to Judith Scherr (Berkeley Daily Planet), "I'm willing to go to prison for what I believe in. . . .
I've taken an oath to defend the constitution, I must be willing to sacrifice."
That sacrifice shouldn't involve sacrificing the truth of his story so possibly some might need to correct Tom Zeller Jr. (New York Times) who writes: "But Lieutenant Watada is no ordinary deserter, and he did not claim to be a conscientious objector." Ehren Watada is "no oridinary deserter" -- in fact, he's no deserter of any kind. Not since Zeller Jr. dismissed concerns over the Ohio vote immediately after the 2004 election has he seemed so out of touch with what he is supposed to be covering. Watada isn't a deserter. He refused to deploy. That is not desertion. He is not charged with desertion. Since he refused deployment, he has reported to the base for work every day. Zeller's fact-free approach to reporting made him a laughing stock in 2004 (all the more so with the recent Ohio convictions on voter fraud in the 2004 election) and he's obviously more concerned with maintaining that status. So let's speak slowly for Zeller Jr.: Desertion follows AWOL. AWOL is what most are charged with if they are gone for less than thirty days. Watada is not charged with desertion because he never went AWOL. He has been at Fort Lewis for every scheduled hour since he went public. He is not a deserter and the fact-free approach of Zeller's is not reporting. If the Junior Zeller is still confused, someone can refer him to the reporting of Andrew Buncombe (Independent of London): "When Lt Watada refused to go to Iraq last summer the army charged him with missing movement -- for failing to deploy -- as well as several counts of conduct unbecoming an officer."
Amnesty International has issued a press release entitled "USA: War objector's freedom of conscience must be respected" which notes: "'If found guilty, Amnesty International would consider Ehren Watada to be a prisoner of conscience and call for his immediate and unconditional release', said Susan Lee, Amnesty International's Americas Programme Director. 28-year-old Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada faces a possible four year prison sentence on charges of 'missing movement' -- due to his refusal to deploy to Iraq in June 2006 -- and of 'conduct unbecoming an officer' --- because of his public comments regarding his objections to the war in Iraq. Ehren Watada has stated that his refusal is based on his belief that the Iraq war is illegal and immoral. In a pre-court martial hearing held on 16 January, a military judge ruled that he could not base his defence on the legality of the war in Iraq." As Amnesty International steps up to the plate and The Nation plays useless, is it any wonder that so many are starting to believe organizations are more worthy of their dollars than those in independent media who make themselves useless?
As noted, Watada will not be allowed to present a defense. Lt. Col. 'Judge" Head will preside. A military jury will render the verdict on the charges. The hearing itself is expected to go rather quickly since the 'judge' has disallowed Watada's right to present a defense. (The August Article 32 hearing went quickly, since witnesses like Ann Wright, Denis Halliday and Frances Boyle will not be allowed to testify for Watada this time, it's expected to be over in a couple of hours.)
Suzanne Goldenberg (Guardian of London) interviewed Watada who told her, "It was so shocking to me. I guess I had heard about WMD and that we made a terrible, terrible mistake. Mistakes can happen but to think that it was deliberate and that a careful deception was done on the American people -- you just had to question who you are as a serviceman, as an American."
Saturday, Ehren Watada will be speaking:
Your last opportunity to hear from Lt. Watada in person prior to his military court martial!! Saturday, February 3, 7 PM University Temple United Methodist Church 1415 NE 43rd Street, Seattle WA(next to the University Bookstore). $10 suggested donation for the event. No one will be turned away.
In addition, his mother, Carolyn Ho, will be speaking Saturday in Little Tokyo (in Los Angeles) at an event Saturday organized by the Asian Emrican Veterans Organization (event starts with a meet up march at the intersection of San Pedro and Second at 4:00 pm)..
More information on all events can be found by clicking here.
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March 6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell 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.
Again, the court-martial beings Monday. Courage to Resist lists actions taking place at Fort Lewis and elsewhere. They note that the court-martial is open to the public (you need to get a visitors pass), will be held (at Fort Lewis base) in Building 2027 and that the proceedings are scheduled to begin at 9:00 am.
And Iraq Veterans Against the War are staging actions throughout the weekend:
Friday, February 2nd through Monday, February 5th, the day of Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial, IVAW's Olympia Chapter and IVAW Deployed will be holding a series of events/fundraisers in order to raise awareness on the importance and details of Ehren's action, and subsequently, his court-martial.
We will show up on the day of Ehren'' trial with a presence and message that cannot be ignored nor denied. Our message is simple: George W. Bush and those who choose to partake in war crimes are the people that should be on trial. Lt. Ehren Watada's argument is legitimate and should be adopted by all who might be given unlawful orders.
Yesterday on KFPA's Flashpoints, co-host Nora Barrows Friedman interviewed Dahr Jamail about the Najaf massacre. "What we do know for sure according to Iraqi doctors," Darh explained, that "253 killed and another 210 wounded." Jamail described the people in the region as wanting to self-govern and that "members of the tribes were starting to stand up because they want to be self-governing". The violence started with a tribal leader and his wife being gunned down which is a far cry from "the bogus story about a Shia messianic cult" plotting and conspiring to kill clerics.
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily have covered many details of the Najaf story (see "Official Lies Over Najaf Battle Exposed") and Stan Goff (Huffington Post) notes their work and compares the lies of Najaf (from the US government and from the mainstream media) to the 'glory' days of Centcom past: "They were dead at the hands of the US and its sketchy Iraqi armed forces 'allies,' and one of the perennial CENTCOM lies of the day is that every Iraqi who dies during any US operation is an 'insurgent' or a 'gunman.' In fact, most of them were religious pilgrims who were gunned down without any provocation . . . more then 200 of them. This was no 'battle.' It was a massacre. The dead were religious pilgrims, not a 'cult.' All of us should figure it out, especially news people, that urban guerillas do not concentrate in groups of 200-plus, and that any time we learn that more than 200 people have been killed, it is a pretty good bet that they were mostly civilians.
Dahr also spoke of what happened in Baquba which had been a "very mixed town" for Shias and Sunnis prior to the illegal war but "just weeks after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003" the US military "brought together all of the religous leaders into a tent" in Baquba and had Shia and Sunnis go to opposite sides which is the sort of division that the US created and cemented and which some politicians (such as US Senator Joe Biden) favor: splitting Iraq into three regions (Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites). What Dahr spoke of echoes what MADRE's Yanar Mohammed witnessed and discussed with Laura Flanders on the December 9th broadcast of RadioNation with Laura Flanders -- after the invasion, all Iraqis faced one question when dealing with the occupation government (Americans): "Are you Shia or Sunni?"
That helped solidify divisions and conflicts. Today, Karen deYoung and Walter Pincuse (Washington Post) broke the news of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq which found the biggest obstacle in Iraq today to be the sectarian conflict. David Morgan (Reuters) reports: "Escalating violence between Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites met the definition for a civil war, but the politically charged term did not describe all the chaos in Iraq, the report said. . . . An unclassified version of the NIE's key judgments said the term civil war 'accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence and population displacements'."
In Iraq today, CNN reports: "A U.S. Apache helicopter went down Friday in Iraq, killing two American soldiers, the military said. It was the fourth helicopter to crash in two weeks.
The U.S. military recovered the soldiers' remains and secured the site northwest of Baghdad near Taji. The number of U.S. military fatalities in the Iraq war stands at 3,090, including seven civilian contractors of the Defense Department." For those who've forgotten, New Year's Eve brought the news that the count of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war had reached 3,000. For those who've missed it, helicopters have been coming down in Iraq for some time. "Crash landings" and "emergency landings" and no press follow up to determine what happened. In January, that finally began to change. The helicopter that went down today was shot down. This morning, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reported, "An American helicopter crashed north of Baghdad Friday morning, and an Iraqi police spokesman said it had been downed by a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile." AP confirms it was shot down: "A U.S. Army helicopter crashed Friday in a hail of gunfire north of Baghdad, police and witnesses said -- the fourth lost in Iraq in the last two weeks. The U.S. command said two crew members were killed, and the top U.S. general conceded that insurgent ground fire has become more effective." Note that it was brought down with gunfire. As has happened before but the flacks for the military have dismissed crashes resulting from gunfire and have maintained that the 'hardware' needed to down helicopters just wasn't to be found in Iraq. Such claims fly in the face of reality, of memories of Vietnam and of your average action adventure film that features helicopters. It's taken some time for the mainstream press to address the realities that, yes, helicopters can be shot down with gunfire.
Bombings?
Sahar Al Shawi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two bombings in Baghdad that left three people wounded, three people wounded in Kadhimiya "as a result of a Katiosha missile aimed at the area today", and three people wounded in Khalis from a mortar attack.
Kim Gamel (AP) notes a roadside bombing in Mosul that killed one police officer.
And Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports that the death toll for the two bombings in Hilla yesterday has now reached "at least 73 killed and 152 injured".
Shootings?
Sahar Al Shawi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that yesterday's shooting of the Dean of the College of Physical Education (Walhan Hameed Al-Timimi) and his son was carried out "in full view of the teachers on campus" at Dyala University and that some are pointing the "finger at the President of the univeristy, Dr. Alla' Al-Atbi, saying that he is involved with armed groups and facilitates their tasks by setting up targets and doing nothing in way of calling for assistance if any attacks took place".
Kim Gamel (AP) reports that "Sunni chairman of the Fallujah City Council, Abbas Ali Hussein" was shot dead.
Corpses?
CNN reports that 32 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
Lastly, on CounterSpin today, John Nichols discussed Molly Ivins passing and worried that Ivins, whose columns were the most heavily circulated progressive ones in newspapers around the world, death would mean the space would go blank (of course, it could also go to a right-winger or centrist) so he suggested that if your local paper carried Ivins' columns, you contact them and ask that they continue to carry a progressive column. To go one further, Molly Ivins was one of the few women to make the top twenty most widely circulated columnists. So if you want to continue to see columns that address reality and you'd like to see a woman continue to be represented on the op-ed pages, you can ask your local paper to carry Amy Goodman (of Democracy Now!). Goodman's doing a weekly column now. I personally doubt that top 10 lists make for worthy or even "good" reading. Molly Ivins stood for something in each column (and humor was a part of it though Nichols wanted to downgrade it -- don't stand by him at a party). It's not just that any progressive voice is needed (or liberal voice), it's one that will use the space well. Goodman's demonstrated that she intends to tackle real topics. Goodman's columns can be found many places and Common Dreams is one. That said, if you're recommending that it be picked up to a newspaper, you need to note a paper that provides the column. "Resistance to war cannot be jailed" is Goodman's most recent column and the link takes you to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If you're pitching Goodman to your local paper, you should also note that she wrote (with her brother David) two bestselling hardcover books (Exception to the Rulers and Static) (say "New York Times bestsellers") and that she is an award winning journalist (George Polk Award, Aflred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, Robert F. Kennedy Prize for International Reporting and is the 2006 RECIPIENT OF THE PUFFIN/NATION PRIZE FOR CREATIVE CITIZENSHIP). You should also note that she hosts (with Juan Gonzalez) Democracy Now! which is broadcast on over 500 radio stations around the world as well as online and as a podcast. Also stress that Ivins wrote a weekly column and Goodman does as well. (Important because, from time to time, a columnist may choose to do a series of columns -- think Bob Herbert -- and newspapers with a weekly slot now open aren't going to want to fill it with a twice weekly column when they only have one day open each week.)
Amy Goodman is my personal choice. Members may have their own choice. If your choice is someone else, e-mail and we'll figure out the best way to present to present your choice to your local paper. But it is not enough to say, as John Nichols did, demand a progressive voice. (He may have been trying to leave it up to listeners or may not have wanted to pick one person over another.) You need to provide a concrete example otherwise you may find that the same editorial boards that boast Thomas Friedman is a liberal (I'm referring to his column in syndication -- the Times is stuck with him) have a very different idea than you do of what "progressive" or "liberal" is. This isn't something you wait on. The op-eds are 'valuable real estate' and they have a fast turn over. Once a spot is occupied, it is very difficult to get a paper to drop a columnist. (Complaints are sometimes seen as 'proof' of how many people read the columnist.) (Sometimes it is proof -- sometimes it's just a sign of how bored and tired readers are with the same-old, same-old.)
2/02/2007
2/01/2007
john mccain's show boat express
While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George W. Bush’s war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.
Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region -- and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.
the above is from robert parry's 'Iran Clock Is Ticking' (consortium news) and i meant to note it yesterday but when kat called me with the news about molly ivins ... i pretty much forgot everything. in the snapshot, c.i. notes matthew rothschild's piece on molly and i want to pull something out from the excerpts he did of molly's columns for the progressive:
August 2005: The Downing Street Memos and the Media
"When I read the first Downing Street Memo, my eyes bugged out and my jaw fell open. It was news to me. [… But] The New York Times and The Washington Post have both gone way out of their way to deny that the Downing Street Memos (it's now plural) are news. . . . I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense, but they strike me as a hell of a lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated. He used the government for petty political vindictiveness. Shit, I'd settle for that again over what we're looking at now."
now there are many other wonderful excerpts and if you haven't already checked it out, maybe emphasizing the best of molly that rothschild provides will get you over there.
and to honor molly, let's talk iraq. this is from cnn:
Gen. George Casey, nominated for the post of Army chief of staff, faced severe questions Thursday from senators about the strategies he implemented when he was the commander of U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq.
During confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the ranking Republican senator on the committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, questioned Casey's decisions in Iraq and raised doubts about the general's ability. "While I do not in any way question your honor, your patriotism or your service to our country, I do question some of the decisions and judgments you have made over the past two and a half years," McCain told Casey. (Watch Sen. McCain's exchanges with Gen. Casey )
"We have paid a very, very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of what is now agreed to by literally everyone as a failed policy," said McCain, a Vietnam war veteran.
show boating john mccain, the show boat express takes off yet again - destination nowhere. so john mccain thinks that george casey executed a fail strategy?
i don't disagree with show boater mccain on that; however, i'm not the 1 advocating more u.s. troops go to iraq. if the strategy was a failure (it was) and if the new 'plan' is the same thing with just a little more troops, doesn't that mean the show boater is pushing for failure?
just 1 more tale of a craven desire for press attention from the show boat express.
and like the lap dogs they are, desperate for table scraps, watch the pundits chase after the tidbit above and never note the obvious as they pant, open mouthed, over the john mccain show boat express.
in other news, hateful baby cries a lot decided to give the nation a valentine - he's leaving air america radio (no jokes about the rats bailing the sinking ship). his last show, rumored to cause impotence, will air on valentine's day. thom hartman will have his slot which means maybe air america learned something. (shoving the annoyingly nasal sam seder into it would have proven air america radio has learned nothing from their many failures.)
i had a number of e-mails about 'where is your blog?' there was some problem with blogger/blogspot today. at 1 point, the whole thing was down for 'scheduled maintenance' - 1 that they hadn't announced. i believe things are fine now. if that happens again, if you come here and get an error message, sherry e-mailed that the thing to do was to hit reload repeatedly 'after the 3rd or 4th time, i could get it to display.'
goldie e-mailed to note that katrina vanden heuvel didn't bother to write anything on molly ivins. she said her mother (marlene) said that just proves how desperate katrina vanden heuvel is to refuse to identify with women.
if you a woman writing about politics, you probably owe a debt to molly ivins. she was the most widely circulated columnist the left had - printed in papers around the country. so i agree with marlene & goldie, it really does show just what a 'queen bess' katrina is.
'queen bess' in the title earlier this week was a typo. (i'm not cutting my nails, as i've said before.) but i like it and there are a number of e-mails on that from people saying 'queen bess' is a good name for the queen bees.
shayla compared it to bess in the nancy drew mysteries who was always (in the older books) just sitting on the sidelines. nancy and george (a female) were mixing it up and then there was bess, wanting to be pretty.
shayla's e-mail was so wonderful, it made me wish my typo had been intentional. but i agree with everybody 'queen bess' is a good term. so that's what we'll call the queen bees, the katrina vanden heuvels and all the other women (maybe they'd prefer 'ladies' or 'girls'?) who are in it for themselves. the reactions to calling out the nation on their shameful and unacceptable ratio of male to female bylines has been positive across the board. sunny goes through elaine's e-mails and i called her today and talked about that to see what the reaction was? very positive.
i think that's very positive. i am going to miss reading molly ivin's writing and, even though i only met her those 3 times, i am going to miss having her in the world because she added to it and made it better just by being her. but the fact that so many women (and men) are hearing about how the nation is offering you 4 male bylines for every 1 by a woman proves that the fighting spirit is alive and that we're not going to take this crap. molly's fighting spirit lives on in every 1 of us who say, 'that's not good enough!' and it's not good enough.
and queen bess katrina vanden heuvel will get the message. she'll probably attempt to ignore it. but at some point, she will have to deal with it or she can accept the fact that she will have the stigma of being a woman who benefitted from the work of other women but is happy to sit on her ass and let women make up a quarter of the bylines in the nation.
there was a time when women thought they had to ask nicely for representation. then women got real and started occupying the offices of so-called women's magazines. that fighting spirit needs to come back. we don't need to look at the nation's sorry representation of women and shrug out shoulders. we need to demand better.
read elaine's 'Howard Zinn, Isaiah, Joshua Frank' and here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot' (i know c.i. hates to note deaths since the health scare and if it's cancer, even more so, so i was really surprised - happily so - to see the last part of the snapshot today):
Thursday, February 1, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the Najaf-'cult' story takes another hit, Ehren Watada's court-martial approaches, Bully Boy's Iran tales aren't easily swallowed, and Molly Ivins passed away yesterday.
In June of last year, Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq.In four days, he faces a court-martial in Fort Lewis, Washington where, if convicted of all the charges, he could face four years in prison. "You can jail the resisters but you can't jail the resistance," reminds Amy Goodman (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) before asking, of Watada and other war resisters, "Without Congress taking decisive action, these soldiers are left to fend for themselves. How many must die, how many must be sent to prison or flee to Canada, before Congress ends this war?"
Ehren Watada spoke at the South Puget Sound Community College in Washington yesterday. Christian Hill (The Olympian) reports that Watada "was greeted as a hero" with the audience providing him "several times with standing ovations." Hill reports: "Concluding his speech, Watada said that in the years ahead, Americans will look back and recognize 'the criminality of this current administration.' People then will ask who stood up against it, he said. He ticked off a several names: Women in Black, the local chapter that holds weekly silent vigils in downtown Olympia, and Veterans for Peace, an anti-war group that has been a key supporter of Watada. 'And Ehren Watada,' someone in the audience yelled out."
The court-martial is scheduled for Monday. Ehren Watada will not be able to present any defense, 'Judge' Head has ensured that will not happen. Paul Rockwell (Baltimore Sun) notes that with "the outcome of the hearing Monday . . . all but pre-determined, Lieutenant Watada's attorneys are prepared for appeals. Eventually, the Supreme Court may be called upon to reject the Machiavellian doctrine that 'in war, the laws are silent'." Events will be taking place around the country and Courage to Resist has more information on that.
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell 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.
While war resisters continue to increase, the war enablers haven't dropped like flies. Two incidents aren't working out quite the way the US administration wishes they were -- Najaf and Iran.
Starting with Najaf. We're all supposed to buy a 'cult' was bound and determined to kill in a huge conspiracy-based plot (notice how those fly out of the mouths of domestic reporters when it involves another country) and the Iraqis led and the US backed them up and, goodness golly, justice was preserved, a cult stopped and al Qaeda thwarted.
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) investigate and find things are far less 'blockbuster' than many of the reports keep telling you. Jamail and al-Fadhily: " Many southern Shia Arabs do not follow Iranian-born cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They believe the religious leadership should be kept in the hands of Arab clerics. Al-Hatami and al-Khazaali are two major tribes that do not follow Sistani. Tribal members from both believe the attack was launched by the central government of Baghdad to stifle growing Shia-Sunni unity in the area." (And, it should be noted, when money's to be made rivalries become intense -- this is the area where the US government has bought off several tribal leaders.) The Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn appeared on Democracy Now! today and noted that "it's very difficult to maintain the theory that there was this bunch of conspirators that were about to attack Najaf and muder all the religious leaders there. The governor of Najaf, Asaad Abu Gildel, has actually said now that he -- his council had a convened secret meeting and made a decision to attack people who he describes as outlaws. So, even those who carried out the attack are no longer insisting that they discovered a conspiracy at the last minute and they were able to nip it in the bud. They've completely changed their story." Earlier this week, Cockburn reported on this incident and noted: "The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called 'Soldiers of Heave,' planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders." As details continue to emerge, it's worth remembering what Bully Boy said of the events at the start of the week: "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something." Show him slaughter of innocents?
Moving to the second item of Lies My Bully Boy Told Me news, as Bully Boy continues to beat the war drums on Iran, Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) notes the stone walling others ignore: "The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said. U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans. But some officials in Washington are concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive . . ." Doesn't it feel like a flashback to the lead up to the Iraq war? A lot of charges made. No proof offered. Tom Baldwin (Times of London) reports: "Senior British officials, citing mistakes over Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, are voicing scepticism about US efforts to build an intelligence-based case against Iran. Sources in London and Washington suggest that the British Government has been 'badly scarred' by its Iraq intelligence dossiers. Amid signs of a concerted American operation to prove that Iran is threatening US troops in the region, British officials say that they are 'not aware of a smoking gun' they would justify taking military action against Tehran." File it under another story about a little (Bully) boy who cried wolf.
Bombings?
AFP reports a Baghdad bombing that "tore through a bus on the main room in Karrada district" that left 6 dead and 12 wounded while another car bomb claimed three more lives and left 2 wounded (also in Baghdad). CBS and AP report that two "bombers blew themselves up Thursday in a crowded outdoormarket in" Hilla. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports that the death toll in the Hilla bombings has risen to 61 and 150 were wounded.
CBS and AP note report a mortar attack in Baghdad and quote eye witness Maamoun Abdel-Hadi: "We fell on the ground . . . I saw four wounded persons lying on the ground and screaming for help. We put them in the car and rushed them to the hospital. . . . We are peaceful people who have nothing to do with any militias or armed groups. What is the guilt of innocent children, women and men who were walking in the street?"
Reuters notes three Iraqi soldiers dead and six more wounded in Qaem from a car bombing, four wounded in Tikrit from an attempted bombing of the governor, and 2 dead in Mosul from a mortar attack.Shootings?
Reuters reports two police officers shot dead in Diwaniya and Walhan Hamed al-Rubaie (dean of the Physical Education College of Diyala) was shot dead.
Corpses?
Reuters notes ten corpses discovered in Mosul and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) notes thirty c
Today, the US military announced: "One soldier assigned to Multi National Force - West died today from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbrar Province Jan. 30. AFP places the number of US troops killed in Iraq during the month of January at 90 -- a figure that may increase due to the US military's delays in announcing deaths. CNN notes a source in Iraq's Interior Ministry who states that the toll they ministry has for January is 1,990 civilians killed, 1,9836 civilians wounded.
In addition, Reporters Without Borders has released their (PDF format) "Freedom of the Press Worldwide in 2007" which documents press freedom around the world and notes that 65 journalists were killed in Iraq in 2006 "making it the deadliest year since fighting began in the country in March 2003. The Iraqi authorities imposed restrictions on the media that could endanger news diversity." On the latter, "Iraqi journalists faced restrictions and bans imposed during the year by the authorities. The government of prime minister Nuri al-Maliki regularly threatened to shut down media outlets it blamed for 'inciting violence.' TV stations were accused of 'stirring up religious and ethnic passions' and banned from showing film of 'blood and killing' that officials said 'amplified the horror of the violence.' In addition, the report notes that 30 journalists were arrested in Iraq "during 2006 and four of them were still being held without charge at the end of the year."
In legislative news, KUNA reports that Mahmoud al-Mashhadani will lead a delegation to Kuwait "early next week for talks with Kuwaiti officials." al-Mashhadani is the Speaker of the Iraqi parliament and he and others will "implore them to waive off Iraq's debts to Kuwait."
Meanwhile, James Glanz (New York Times) reports on the fraud and waste found in Iraq reconstruction contracts which has ed to "the country's electrical output and oil production" being "still below prewar levels" Griff Witte and Renae Merle (Washington Post) zero in on the monies that were supposed to go to security forces in Iraq: "The police training program has been repeatedly flagged by U.S. officials as particularly crucial to the war effort. . . . At the $73 million Baghdad Police College, meanwhile, inspectors uncovered numerous examples of shoddy construction, including one that pose potential health problems to Iraqi recruits. The problems, some of which were first reported publicly in September, had still not been fixed when inspectors returned to the site months later for follow-up inspections. Auditors said the contractor, California-based Parsons, knew about the plumbing problems as early as a year ago but failed to correct them."
Finally, author, journalist, columinist, humorist and valued voice for democracy Molly Ivins passed away yesterday (1944-2007). Ivins wrote for many publications over the years. Of national magazines, she is most identified with The Progressive (most identified with by anyone with a functioning brain). Matthew Rothschild remembers her twenty years of contributions with "Molly Ivins, In Memoriam" "She was, far and away, the readers' favorite. Even my sister told me she read Molly first. She was the favorite not only because of her humor and her style. She was the favorite because she never lost hope in the promise of America." Along with remembering Ivins, Rothschild also provides a cutting from some of her columns over the years. Strange that the New York Times couldn't remember Ivins association with the magazine when one of the paper's columnists (Nicky K) distorted what Ivins said (apparently Nicky K only reads headlines -- how very Cokie Roberts of him). "Enough of the D.C. Dems" (The Progressive) was one of the 2006 most popular columns in the magazine and online -- resulting in a huge outpouring to the magazine because readers recognized the honesty in the writing (a hallmark of Ivins' work). Another magazine the mainstream media ignores in their write ups is Ms. magazine. Ivins work was featured there as well (especially in 1988). The Feminist Wire Daily notes Ivins' passing due to breast cancer and reminds: "In her last column, 'Stand Up Against the Surge,' Ivins urged Americans to be active in their opposition to the war in Iraq, writing, 'We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous.'" Margie Burns remembers Ivins here ("best way to praise her is to quote her writing"). Thomas P. Healy (CounterPunch) remembers asking her about the efforts to silence voices against the war and Ivins responded: "People asked me during the Iraq war if I was afraid to speak out. I said no. During World War I parades of patriots used to go around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that they were German dogs. But you'll notice people like that never kick German Shepherds." Anthony Zurcher, who edited her newspaper columns, notes: "Even as Molly fought her last battle with cancer, she continued to make public appearances. When she was too weak to write, she dictated her final two columns. Although her body was failing, she still had so much to say. Last fall, before an audience at the Univiersity of Texas, her voice began as barely a whisper. But as she went on, she drew strength from the standing-room-only crowd until, at the end of the hour, she was forecefully imploring the students to get involved and make a difference." And on today's Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez offered Molly Ivins in her own words via a 2004 interview Goodman conducted with Ivins. In response to Goodman's point that Republican pollster Frank Luntz had "advised Republicans to explain 'the policy of pre-emption and the war in Iraq' by recommending that 'no speech about....Iraq should begin without a reference to 9-11," Ivins noted:
:
Well that's it. You keep making that connection, and that's why something like 70% of the American people thought, when we went into Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to 9/11. And the Bush people just made that connection over and over and over and over and over. And it's phony. I mean, it's just not there. The interesting thing to me about politics these days -- and that Luntz piece reminds me of it -- he was explaining how, for example, a Republican candidate would deal with working women. Now, you're going to be amazed, Amy. But by dint of a shrewd professional questioning in focus groups, Frank Luntz determined that what working mothers need most is more time in their lives. We were all so astonished to hear this. And so, what he suggests is the Republican candidates say to a group, you know, when he's campaigning, "Now, I'll bet I know what it is you ladies need most. I bet -- I think you need more free time." And the ladies will nod, and they'll raise their hands and agree, and you've bonded with them, and you've shown empathy toward their major problem in life.
Well, yeah, you've shown empathy toward their major problem in life, but look at the record. The record is, you cut programs to early childhood education, you cut Head Start, you cut after school, you cut K-12, you cut housing vouchers. You're going to change your overtime. They have done everything they can to make this poor woman's life more harried and frantic than ever. That's the record. But what we call politics now and what most political writers write about is the empathy and the bonding and the word choice and the horse rights, and it has nothing to do with what's really happening to people's lives.
Words some should expecially pay close attention to. Kat and Rebecca and Elaine have all written of Ivins recently.
Reminder: Trying to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour before the court-martial next Monday. Some of her dates this week include:
Thursday February 1
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region -- and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.
the above is from robert parry's 'Iran Clock Is Ticking' (consortium news) and i meant to note it yesterday but when kat called me with the news about molly ivins ... i pretty much forgot everything. in the snapshot, c.i. notes matthew rothschild's piece on molly and i want to pull something out from the excerpts he did of molly's columns for the progressive:
August 2005: The Downing Street Memos and the Media
"When I read the first Downing Street Memo, my eyes bugged out and my jaw fell open. It was news to me. [… But] The New York Times and The Washington Post have both gone way out of their way to deny that the Downing Street Memos (it's now plural) are news. . . . I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense, but they strike me as a hell of a lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated. He used the government for petty political vindictiveness. Shit, I'd settle for that again over what we're looking at now."
now there are many other wonderful excerpts and if you haven't already checked it out, maybe emphasizing the best of molly that rothschild provides will get you over there.
and to honor molly, let's talk iraq. this is from cnn:
Gen. George Casey, nominated for the post of Army chief of staff, faced severe questions Thursday from senators about the strategies he implemented when he was the commander of U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq.
During confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the ranking Republican senator on the committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, questioned Casey's decisions in Iraq and raised doubts about the general's ability. "While I do not in any way question your honor, your patriotism or your service to our country, I do question some of the decisions and judgments you have made over the past two and a half years," McCain told Casey. (Watch Sen. McCain's exchanges with Gen. Casey )
"We have paid a very, very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of what is now agreed to by literally everyone as a failed policy," said McCain, a Vietnam war veteran.
show boating john mccain, the show boat express takes off yet again - destination nowhere. so john mccain thinks that george casey executed a fail strategy?
i don't disagree with show boater mccain on that; however, i'm not the 1 advocating more u.s. troops go to iraq. if the strategy was a failure (it was) and if the new 'plan' is the same thing with just a little more troops, doesn't that mean the show boater is pushing for failure?
just 1 more tale of a craven desire for press attention from the show boat express.
and like the lap dogs they are, desperate for table scraps, watch the pundits chase after the tidbit above and never note the obvious as they pant, open mouthed, over the john mccain show boat express.
in other news, hateful baby cries a lot decided to give the nation a valentine - he's leaving air america radio (no jokes about the rats bailing the sinking ship). his last show, rumored to cause impotence, will air on valentine's day. thom hartman will have his slot which means maybe air america learned something. (shoving the annoyingly nasal sam seder into it would have proven air america radio has learned nothing from their many failures.)
i had a number of e-mails about 'where is your blog?' there was some problem with blogger/blogspot today. at 1 point, the whole thing was down for 'scheduled maintenance' - 1 that they hadn't announced. i believe things are fine now. if that happens again, if you come here and get an error message, sherry e-mailed that the thing to do was to hit reload repeatedly 'after the 3rd or 4th time, i could get it to display.'
goldie e-mailed to note that katrina vanden heuvel didn't bother to write anything on molly ivins. she said her mother (marlene) said that just proves how desperate katrina vanden heuvel is to refuse to identify with women.
if you a woman writing about politics, you probably owe a debt to molly ivins. she was the most widely circulated columnist the left had - printed in papers around the country. so i agree with marlene & goldie, it really does show just what a 'queen bess' katrina is.
'queen bess' in the title earlier this week was a typo. (i'm not cutting my nails, as i've said before.) but i like it and there are a number of e-mails on that from people saying 'queen bess' is a good name for the queen bees.
shayla compared it to bess in the nancy drew mysteries who was always (in the older books) just sitting on the sidelines. nancy and george (a female) were mixing it up and then there was bess, wanting to be pretty.
shayla's e-mail was so wonderful, it made me wish my typo had been intentional. but i agree with everybody 'queen bess' is a good term. so that's what we'll call the queen bees, the katrina vanden heuvels and all the other women (maybe they'd prefer 'ladies' or 'girls'?) who are in it for themselves. the reactions to calling out the nation on their shameful and unacceptable ratio of male to female bylines has been positive across the board. sunny goes through elaine's e-mails and i called her today and talked about that to see what the reaction was? very positive.
i think that's very positive. i am going to miss reading molly ivin's writing and, even though i only met her those 3 times, i am going to miss having her in the world because she added to it and made it better just by being her. but the fact that so many women (and men) are hearing about how the nation is offering you 4 male bylines for every 1 by a woman proves that the fighting spirit is alive and that we're not going to take this crap. molly's fighting spirit lives on in every 1 of us who say, 'that's not good enough!' and it's not good enough.
and queen bess katrina vanden heuvel will get the message. she'll probably attempt to ignore it. but at some point, she will have to deal with it or she can accept the fact that she will have the stigma of being a woman who benefitted from the work of other women but is happy to sit on her ass and let women make up a quarter of the bylines in the nation.
there was a time when women thought they had to ask nicely for representation. then women got real and started occupying the offices of so-called women's magazines. that fighting spirit needs to come back. we don't need to look at the nation's sorry representation of women and shrug out shoulders. we need to demand better.
read elaine's 'Howard Zinn, Isaiah, Joshua Frank' and here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot' (i know c.i. hates to note deaths since the health scare and if it's cancer, even more so, so i was really surprised - happily so - to see the last part of the snapshot today):
Thursday, February 1, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the Najaf-'cult' story takes another hit, Ehren Watada's court-martial approaches, Bully Boy's Iran tales aren't easily swallowed, and Molly Ivins passed away yesterday.
In June of last year, Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq.In four days, he faces a court-martial in Fort Lewis, Washington where, if convicted of all the charges, he could face four years in prison. "You can jail the resisters but you can't jail the resistance," reminds Amy Goodman (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) before asking, of Watada and other war resisters, "Without Congress taking decisive action, these soldiers are left to fend for themselves. How many must die, how many must be sent to prison or flee to Canada, before Congress ends this war?"
Ehren Watada spoke at the South Puget Sound Community College in Washington yesterday. Christian Hill (The Olympian) reports that Watada "was greeted as a hero" with the audience providing him "several times with standing ovations." Hill reports: "Concluding his speech, Watada said that in the years ahead, Americans will look back and recognize 'the criminality of this current administration.' People then will ask who stood up against it, he said. He ticked off a several names: Women in Black, the local chapter that holds weekly silent vigils in downtown Olympia, and Veterans for Peace, an anti-war group that has been a key supporter of Watada. 'And Ehren Watada,' someone in the audience yelled out."
The court-martial is scheduled for Monday. Ehren Watada will not be able to present any defense, 'Judge' Head has ensured that will not happen. Paul Rockwell (Baltimore Sun) notes that with "the outcome of the hearing Monday . . . all but pre-determined, Lieutenant Watada's attorneys are prepared for appeals. Eventually, the Supreme Court may be called upon to reject the Machiavellian doctrine that 'in war, the laws are silent'." Events will be taking place around the country and Courage to Resist has more information on that.
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell 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.
While war resisters continue to increase, the war enablers haven't dropped like flies. Two incidents aren't working out quite the way the US administration wishes they were -- Najaf and Iran.
Starting with Najaf. We're all supposed to buy a 'cult' was bound and determined to kill in a huge conspiracy-based plot (notice how those fly out of the mouths of domestic reporters when it involves another country) and the Iraqis led and the US backed them up and, goodness golly, justice was preserved, a cult stopped and al Qaeda thwarted.
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) investigate and find things are far less 'blockbuster' than many of the reports keep telling you. Jamail and al-Fadhily: " Many southern Shia Arabs do not follow Iranian-born cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They believe the religious leadership should be kept in the hands of Arab clerics. Al-Hatami and al-Khazaali are two major tribes that do not follow Sistani. Tribal members from both believe the attack was launched by the central government of Baghdad to stifle growing Shia-Sunni unity in the area." (And, it should be noted, when money's to be made rivalries become intense -- this is the area where the US government has bought off several tribal leaders.) The Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn appeared on Democracy Now! today and noted that "it's very difficult to maintain the theory that there was this bunch of conspirators that were about to attack Najaf and muder all the religious leaders there. The governor of Najaf, Asaad Abu Gildel, has actually said now that he -- his council had a convened secret meeting and made a decision to attack people who he describes as outlaws. So, even those who carried out the attack are no longer insisting that they discovered a conspiracy at the last minute and they were able to nip it in the bud. They've completely changed their story." Earlier this week, Cockburn reported on this incident and noted: "The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called 'Soldiers of Heave,' planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders." As details continue to emerge, it's worth remembering what Bully Boy said of the events at the start of the week: "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something." Show him slaughter of innocents?
Moving to the second item of Lies My Bully Boy Told Me news, as Bully Boy continues to beat the war drums on Iran, Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) notes the stone walling others ignore: "The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said. U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans. But some officials in Washington are concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive . . ." Doesn't it feel like a flashback to the lead up to the Iraq war? A lot of charges made. No proof offered. Tom Baldwin (Times of London) reports: "Senior British officials, citing mistakes over Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, are voicing scepticism about US efforts to build an intelligence-based case against Iran. Sources in London and Washington suggest that the British Government has been 'badly scarred' by its Iraq intelligence dossiers. Amid signs of a concerted American operation to prove that Iran is threatening US troops in the region, British officials say that they are 'not aware of a smoking gun' they would justify taking military action against Tehran." File it under another story about a little (Bully) boy who cried wolf.
Bombings?
AFP reports a Baghdad bombing that "tore through a bus on the main room in Karrada district" that left 6 dead and 12 wounded while another car bomb claimed three more lives and left 2 wounded (also in Baghdad). CBS and AP report that two "bombers blew themselves up Thursday in a crowded outdoormarket in" Hilla. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports that the death toll in the Hilla bombings has risen to 61 and 150 were wounded.
CBS and AP note report a mortar attack in Baghdad and quote eye witness Maamoun Abdel-Hadi: "We fell on the ground . . . I saw four wounded persons lying on the ground and screaming for help. We put them in the car and rushed them to the hospital. . . . We are peaceful people who have nothing to do with any militias or armed groups. What is the guilt of innocent children, women and men who were walking in the street?"
Reuters notes three Iraqi soldiers dead and six more wounded in Qaem from a car bombing, four wounded in Tikrit from an attempted bombing of the governor, and 2 dead in Mosul from a mortar attack.Shootings?
Reuters reports two police officers shot dead in Diwaniya and Walhan Hamed al-Rubaie (dean of the Physical Education College of Diyala) was shot dead.
Corpses?
Reuters notes ten corpses discovered in Mosul and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) notes thirty c
Today, the US military announced: "One soldier assigned to Multi National Force - West died today from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbrar Province Jan. 30. AFP places the number of US troops killed in Iraq during the month of January at 90 -- a figure that may increase due to the US military's delays in announcing deaths. CNN notes a source in Iraq's Interior Ministry who states that the toll they ministry has for January is 1,990 civilians killed, 1,9836 civilians wounded.
In addition, Reporters Without Borders has released their (PDF format) "Freedom of the Press Worldwide in 2007" which documents press freedom around the world and notes that 65 journalists were killed in Iraq in 2006 "making it the deadliest year since fighting began in the country in March 2003. The Iraqi authorities imposed restrictions on the media that could endanger news diversity." On the latter, "Iraqi journalists faced restrictions and bans imposed during the year by the authorities. The government of prime minister Nuri al-Maliki regularly threatened to shut down media outlets it blamed for 'inciting violence.' TV stations were accused of 'stirring up religious and ethnic passions' and banned from showing film of 'blood and killing' that officials said 'amplified the horror of the violence.' In addition, the report notes that 30 journalists were arrested in Iraq "during 2006 and four of them were still being held without charge at the end of the year."
In legislative news, KUNA reports that Mahmoud al-Mashhadani will lead a delegation to Kuwait "early next week for talks with Kuwaiti officials." al-Mashhadani is the Speaker of the Iraqi parliament and he and others will "implore them to waive off Iraq's debts to Kuwait."
Meanwhile, James Glanz (New York Times) reports on the fraud and waste found in Iraq reconstruction contracts which has ed to "the country's electrical output and oil production" being "still below prewar levels" Griff Witte and Renae Merle (Washington Post) zero in on the monies that were supposed to go to security forces in Iraq: "The police training program has been repeatedly flagged by U.S. officials as particularly crucial to the war effort. . . . At the $73 million Baghdad Police College, meanwhile, inspectors uncovered numerous examples of shoddy construction, including one that pose potential health problems to Iraqi recruits. The problems, some of which were first reported publicly in September, had still not been fixed when inspectors returned to the site months later for follow-up inspections. Auditors said the contractor, California-based Parsons, knew about the plumbing problems as early as a year ago but failed to correct them."
Finally, author, journalist, columinist, humorist and valued voice for democracy Molly Ivins passed away yesterday (1944-2007). Ivins wrote for many publications over the years. Of national magazines, she is most identified with The Progressive (most identified with by anyone with a functioning brain). Matthew Rothschild remembers her twenty years of contributions with "Molly Ivins, In Memoriam" "She was, far and away, the readers' favorite. Even my sister told me she read Molly first. She was the favorite not only because of her humor and her style. She was the favorite because she never lost hope in the promise of America." Along with remembering Ivins, Rothschild also provides a cutting from some of her columns over the years. Strange that the New York Times couldn't remember Ivins association with the magazine when one of the paper's columnists (Nicky K) distorted what Ivins said (apparently Nicky K only reads headlines -- how very Cokie Roberts of him). "Enough of the D.C. Dems" (The Progressive) was one of the 2006 most popular columns in the magazine and online -- resulting in a huge outpouring to the magazine because readers recognized the honesty in the writing (a hallmark of Ivins' work). Another magazine the mainstream media ignores in their write ups is Ms. magazine. Ivins work was featured there as well (especially in 1988). The Feminist Wire Daily notes Ivins' passing due to breast cancer and reminds: "In her last column, 'Stand Up Against the Surge,' Ivins urged Americans to be active in their opposition to the war in Iraq, writing, 'We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous.'" Margie Burns remembers Ivins here ("best way to praise her is to quote her writing"). Thomas P. Healy (CounterPunch) remembers asking her about the efforts to silence voices against the war and Ivins responded: "People asked me during the Iraq war if I was afraid to speak out. I said no. During World War I parades of patriots used to go around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that they were German dogs. But you'll notice people like that never kick German Shepherds." Anthony Zurcher, who edited her newspaper columns, notes: "Even as Molly fought her last battle with cancer, she continued to make public appearances. When she was too weak to write, she dictated her final two columns. Although her body was failing, she still had so much to say. Last fall, before an audience at the Univiersity of Texas, her voice began as barely a whisper. But as she went on, she drew strength from the standing-room-only crowd until, at the end of the hour, she was forecefully imploring the students to get involved and make a difference." And on today's Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez offered Molly Ivins in her own words via a 2004 interview Goodman conducted with Ivins. In response to Goodman's point that Republican pollster Frank Luntz had "advised Republicans to explain 'the policy of pre-emption and the war in Iraq' by recommending that 'no speech about....Iraq should begin without a reference to 9-11," Ivins noted:
:
Well that's it. You keep making that connection, and that's why something like 70% of the American people thought, when we went into Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to 9/11. And the Bush people just made that connection over and over and over and over and over. And it's phony. I mean, it's just not there. The interesting thing to me about politics these days -- and that Luntz piece reminds me of it -- he was explaining how, for example, a Republican candidate would deal with working women. Now, you're going to be amazed, Amy. But by dint of a shrewd professional questioning in focus groups, Frank Luntz determined that what working mothers need most is more time in their lives. We were all so astonished to hear this. And so, what he suggests is the Republican candidates say to a group, you know, when he's campaigning, "Now, I'll bet I know what it is you ladies need most. I bet -- I think you need more free time." And the ladies will nod, and they'll raise their hands and agree, and you've bonded with them, and you've shown empathy toward their major problem in life.
Well, yeah, you've shown empathy toward their major problem in life, but look at the record. The record is, you cut programs to early childhood education, you cut Head Start, you cut after school, you cut K-12, you cut housing vouchers. You're going to change your overtime. They have done everything they can to make this poor woman's life more harried and frantic than ever. That's the record. But what we call politics now and what most political writers write about is the empathy and the bonding and the word choice and the horse rights, and it has nothing to do with what's really happening to people's lives.
Words some should expecially pay close attention to. Kat and Rebecca and Elaine have all written of Ivins recently.
Reminder: Trying to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour before the court-martial next Monday. Some of her dates this week include:
Thursday February 1
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
1/31/2007
molly ivins
kat just called and warned me she had bad news. molly ivins has died.
i met molly 3 times at functions c.i. took me along for. she had such a wide smile. if i was a caricaturist and drawing her, i would have emphasized that smile because it was so wide and because that really captured her. the 2nd time i met her the iraq war had already started and i was depressed about that and everything else. we only spoke for a few minutes but i remember she talked about the need to fight and the need to fight to despair. she worded it better (of course) but i remember 'despair' being the word she used.
you can hear that and you can think, 'what a bunch of bull.'
that's because most people who say that are just patting you on the head. they're just telling you that and there's no indication that they believe it. possibly because they're sad sacks or cold people. but when she said it, it rang true because of that smile and that laugh.
as bad as things could get, i always picture her with that smile and that laugh and i hope that was true of her last days as well. breast cancer is an awful thing. and it's something that, despite the claims of it being on the downslide, 1 in 4 women will still likely face. there is no cure for it. women get treatment (and some men - men can get breast cancer) but it tends to recur.
gilda rander died of it. and now molly ivins. women who made us laugh and feel and think.
buying pink products isn't going to end it. money might find a cure. ending lies about it would help. (the bully boy has allowed the lie that breast cancer is linked to abortion to go up at government websites.)
i'm noting this in full. this summer a blogger trashed molly ivins. it was a male blogger (isn't it always a man who's threatened by a woman) and he was basically calling for her death. sadly, he thinks he's left or at least democratic. he had a big man crush on bill clinton and couldn't stand that molly ivins could turn her keen eye on hillary clinton and see a human being and not perfection. so i was nervous when i started surfing, wondering if that was going to be the attitude. i found buzzflash's wings of justice pick for this week. molly had been nominated and they had selected her and posted this before she died tonight.
i think it says more than i ever could. it's very well written. and i'm going to re-post it in full. for those who don't know the wings of justice award, each week, buzzflash picks a winner from nominations that their readers make.
here's this week's pick, honoring molly:
Just over a year ago, on January 25, 2006, a BuzzFlash reader nominated and we selected Molly Ivins for the weekly Wings of Justice Award.Molly Ivins has had cancer for several years now – and she was just hospitalized as a result of a serious recurrence. Throughout her remissions and flare ups, Ivins hasn't given up her fight for her health and her fight for justice. Bush, her long-term nemesis -- although there are few politicians that pass Ivins' barbed scrutiny -- is a manufactured phony image of a tough talkin' Texan who supposedly cares about people. As Ivins has shown us many a time in her columns, nothing could be further from the truth.
Ironically, it is Molly who is the real authentic gruff Lone Star Stater with enough compassion to fill the Astrodome -- and with enough wit to beat even Jon Stewart in a satire contest.We can't make Molly better as she faces down a ravaging disease, but we can sincerely thank her for her courage, humor, and mighty fine journalism.
She has reminded us that there are some Texans that truly talk the talk and walk the walk -- not just cardboard cutouts like Junior.
Molly, as is fitting, a fellow Texan nominated you, because they know down there the value of a yellow rose: beautiful to look at, wonderful to smell, but watch out for the thorns.May the BuzzFlash "Wings of Justice" take flight to your hospital room and return you soon to your loyal fans.
here's a buzzflash interview with her from 2003. i just called c.i. and there's apparently 1 in 2004 or 2005 as well, when she had just had who let the dogs in? published.
i just read the new york times obit. sorry, kit seelye, it's a load of crap. try knowing some facts. molly ivins contributed a column to the progressive for years - you'd think the paper would note that when their own nicholas kristof distorted 1 column and matthew rothschild's letter to the editor on nicky k's troubles with reading was printed in the paper.
i especially hated the 2nd part and thought 'kit's talking about other people's facts? kit who speared gore with every rumor and made up thing she could think of?'
well the new york times always treated molly like shit and that only continued after she left the paper. as c.i. observed somewhere at the common ills, she was the 1st wife that they just wanted to disappear and be destroyed but never was - in fact she became famous after her stint at the new york times.
here's kit:
Covering an annual chicken slaughter in New Mexico in 1980, she used a sexually suggestive phrase, which her editors deleted from the final article. But her effort to use it angered the executive editor, A. M. Rosenthal, who ordered her back to New York and assigned her to City Hall, where she covered routine matters with little flair.
c.i. says molly called the event a 'gang-pluck.' kit doesn't even have the guts to use it and it's not a dirty term. it should have run then and it should have run now.
molly was very bothered last summer when the media dropped iraq as a topic. she met with codepink and wrote about them and she had decided to make iraq her focus until the war ended.
we need her voice. and i doubt any 1 will step up to the plate and say 'i'll carry on what she had planned.' instead, they'll turn out their useless crap (come on, katha, a book review? the nation already has a book review section and you still haven't written about the gang rape and murder of abeer).
1 who does cover iraq is c.i. and here's today's 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, January 31, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the White House tries to spin two plates at once (lowering expectations and pushing spin), impeachment discussions refuse to be dismissed by the 'all knowing', and the court-martial of Ehren Watada is five days away.
Starting with Ehren Watada who is the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq to serve in the illegal and immoral war. He faces a court-martial this coming Monday (February 5th) and, if convicted on all charges, could serve a maximum of four years in prison. Some are weighing in.
US Rep Mike Honda (in the San Francisco Chronicle) notes that Watada's awakening to the lies of war is reflected in the similar awakenings a large number of citizens have had as time (more so than the press) has exposed Bully Boy's lies of war:
In facing charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, it is my belief that Ehren Watada has laid bare a fact that is becoming increasingly plain: Mr. Bush has handled this war in a manner unbecoming a United States president. At best, our president misled the nation on the rationale for going into Iraq. He has embroiled this great country in a cycle of brutality there that has grievously tarnished America's international reputation, has further destabilized an already precarious Middle East and has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Watada has risked being deemed guilty of breaking one law in furtherance of a higher, moral one, rather than participate in a fight that, in his and my view, needlessly sends our compatriots to their deaths. In Watada's own words: "To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers and service members can choose to stop fighting it" (www.thankyoult.org, click on YouTube video).
Noting the reduction of two counts which has allowed the maximum time Watada could spend, if convicted, in prison, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer observes:
We would prefer further reductions and no prison time for a conscientious refusal to serve in what Watada believes, right or wrong, is an illegal war in Iraq.
Military leaders have shown commendable flexibility in dealing with a variety of conscience- and belief-motivated requests to be excused from service. For instance, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, last week granted conscientious-objector status to Pvt. Ronnie Tallman to allow the 21-year-old to pursue a newfound calling as a Navajo medicine man. Under Navajo spiritual law, Tallman could not serve in a special group of certified spiritual healers if he participated in any killing.
Actions like Conway's have given the military greater rather than lesser stature in the difficult circumstances of the Iraq war. Similar flexibility on policy at a higher level might save many Americans from the dangers of Iraq combat. Unless Congress insists, however, the Bush administration will stay the course.
Reporting on the rally in San Francisco, Judith Scherr (Berkeley Daily Planet) notes Carolyn Ho, mother of Ehren Watada, spoke: "He went in believing he was really trying to do his duty to his country in trying to preserve our freedoms. He said to me at one point, 9/11 happened and I will never be the same again . . . But then my son, after doing the research and finding the facts realized that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we entered a preemptive war on a lie. That has to stop." Carolyn Ho is on a speaking tour and the dates will be at the bottom of the snapshot.
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell 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 Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports "a car bomb exploded in a downtown street where a crowd was waiting to catch a minibus" resulting in at least five deaths; Zavis quotes Naim Zamel who witnessed the bombing and ended up hospitalized due to injuries: "The sound and the pressure were hard. Shrapnel was flying all over the place. I saw three cars on fire, people injured and shops destroyed." Bushra Juhi (AP) notes another Baghdad bombing in "a predominatly Shiite area in eastern Baghdad earlier Wednesday, killing two people and wounding 10" and quoting Abu Talal on the alleged car bomber: "A seeminly normal person parked this car and told us that he would not be long. When that person disappeared for more than 20 minutes, we tried to call the police but the car exploded as we were trying to do so." Reuters notes a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed four and left 20 wounded; a car bomb in Tal Afar that wounded 10; a roadisde bomb in Kirkuk that killed one and wounded two, and a roadside bomb in Baiji that resulted in six police officers being wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters reports that a teenager was shot dead in Falluja.
Corpses?
AFP reports that the corpses of "three law professors and a student kidnapper Sunday from near the university in Baghdad, a government statement said." AP reports that six corpses were discovered in Falluja. Reuters reports that a corpse was discovered in Mosul and two were discovered in Baiji.
In addition, Claudia Parsons (Reuters) reports that the US military announced an additional four deaths of US troops while Wlliam Fallon ("tapped to take over command of U.S. forces in the Middle East") stated progress on the illegal war will "be a long time coming." Lowered expectations -- hallmark of the Bully Boy White House.
From lowered expectations to Operation Happy Talk, James Glanz and Mark Mazzetti (New York Times) did their part to be out US government spin that was also quite racist: Iraqis weren't 'smart' enough to have planned the Saturday attack in Karbala that led to 1 US soldier being killed on the spot while 4 others were killed after they'd been kidnapped. The weapons, Glanz and Mazzetti write as the US military whispers in their ears, just weren't available in Iraq! (Apparently Times reporters have never visited the blackmarket? Possibly they can't get a military escort to it?) "The uniforms!!!" cry the boys of the pre-Times. They tick off this and that when the reality is that you truly have to believe that Iraqis are stupid to believe they couldn't accomplish what was done and you have to work for the Times to believe you can sell a war of choice (this time Iran) with whispers and unsourced statements. But damned if the pre-Boys of the pre-Times don't get so excited they keep checking one another to see who's sprouting pubes first? Keep looking boys.
Along with promoting a war with Iran, the US spin allows the puppet government to hide. Puppet in chief Nouri al-Maliki, CNN reports, is screaming in agreement that, yes, the violence is Iran's fault. As opposed to the inability of a puppet to do anything other than move when his strings are pulled? CNN tells you that the "theory is only a preliminary view, and there is no conclusion." The New York Times prefers the much weaker "may" -- Iran "May" have done this and left the other half of the sentence ("may not") for readers to fill in.
Now if puppet Nouri believed it for a moment, it's doubtful Iran would still be invited to the regional peace conference in March -- but they are as the AFP notes.
In other news of things-aren't-quite-what-the-US-government-says, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports that "suspicions in Iraq" are emerging that the Najaf 'cult' story "in wich 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre."
CBS and AP are reporting that the toothless, symbolic, time consuming, non-binding measure proposed by US senators Joe Biden, Carl Levin and Chuck Hagel will most likely be overtaken by an even weaker version of do nothing, this one proposed by Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News notes that, on the other hand, "You don't usually hear cheers like that in Senate hearing rooms" -- Attkisson was speaking of the reaction yesterday to US Senator Russ Feingold's hearing into Congressional powers with regards to war where Feingold declared, "Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to."
Yesterday, Feingold used his power as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" where he concluded his opening remarks with this:
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.
At the end of yesterday's hearing, Feingold noted, "It is clear that this administration took the country into war on a fraudulent basis with the president insisting we had no other option
but to pre-emptively attack Iraq. Now four years into the war we are still in Iraq, and the president insists that we have no other options but to stay -- with no end in sight and we have to say. As long as this president goes unchecked by Congress our troops will remain needlessly at risk and our national security will be compromised. Today we have heard convinciny testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to.
[Applause, chants of "DO IT!" DO IT!] The president has no plan for ending our mission in Iraq, worse still, his Iraq centered policies have undercut our national security worldwide."
Feingold's plan for addressing the Iraq war is summarized in this fact sheet.
In other political news, CODEPINK continues to demand Congress represent the people. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported that the DC office of US Senator Hillary Clinton was occupied, that activists carried banner ("We want a woman for peace, not just a woman.") and six were arrested. Yesterday's actions were part of a series of actions by CODEPINK following Saturday's protest and march in DC. In a press release issued before Tuesday's actions, Jodie Evans explained, "We met with Hillary Clinton right before the war, begging her to oppose the invasion but she refused. She gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq and now pretends she was against the war. Worse yet, she still refuses to take a clear position to defund the war and bring the troops home." Medea Benjamin explained, "We're tired of the lies, the obfuscations, the spin. If Hillary wants to become president, she better start being a leader. If she's in to win, she better stop the spin." And Gale Murphy observed, "This country is hungry for leaders who will get us out of Iraq. We'll be giving Hillary a chance to cut her web of war and join the majority of people in this country who want to bring the troops home."
Meanwhile Gold Star Families for Peace's Carlos Arredondo is in Times Square. Reuters reports that he's gone to NYC with "a pick-up truck carrying an empty flag-draped coffin and a picture of his son's open casket and funeral." Carlos Arredondo's son Alex died in Iraq on August 25, 2004. Last Saturday, he was among the speakers in DC. Arrendondo recognized the other families who had lost loved ones and noted, "This is the cost of war!"
Do costs ever get paid? Sanford Levinson -- sometime law professor & full time psychic -- said "No" and argued in The Nation that impeachment shouldn't happen because of some gut feeling he had (I believe that was gas). In the real world, Robert Scheer (Truthdig) notes the various developments emerging in the trial of Scooter Libby and notes that Cathie Martin's testmony revealed her own and the vice-president's office role in lying to the people and to Congress when they crafted a statement/cover for George Tenet -- Scheer: "Certainly this deliberate corruption of the integrity of the CIA, the nation's premier source of national security information, rises to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which the Constitution holds out as the standard for impeachment. And can there be any more egregious example of betraying the oath of office of president to uphold the Constitution than his deceiving Congress from the very well of the House on the reasons for going to war? The Constitution clearly delegates to Congress, and not to the president, the exclusive power to declare war, and deceiving our representatives in making the case for war is a far more important crime than the perjury charge against Libby."
On the same topic, historian Howard Zinn, in the (The Progressive), observes:
The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about "realism" (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being "the art of the possible" (while setting limits on what is possible).
I know I'm not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable). There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it's been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual "indictment" has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.
There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of "people's impeachment hearings" all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.
Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour before the court-martial next Monday. Some of her dates this week include:
Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
i met molly 3 times at functions c.i. took me along for. she had such a wide smile. if i was a caricaturist and drawing her, i would have emphasized that smile because it was so wide and because that really captured her. the 2nd time i met her the iraq war had already started and i was depressed about that and everything else. we only spoke for a few minutes but i remember she talked about the need to fight and the need to fight to despair. she worded it better (of course) but i remember 'despair' being the word she used.
you can hear that and you can think, 'what a bunch of bull.'
that's because most people who say that are just patting you on the head. they're just telling you that and there's no indication that they believe it. possibly because they're sad sacks or cold people. but when she said it, it rang true because of that smile and that laugh.
as bad as things could get, i always picture her with that smile and that laugh and i hope that was true of her last days as well. breast cancer is an awful thing. and it's something that, despite the claims of it being on the downslide, 1 in 4 women will still likely face. there is no cure for it. women get treatment (and some men - men can get breast cancer) but it tends to recur.
gilda rander died of it. and now molly ivins. women who made us laugh and feel and think.
buying pink products isn't going to end it. money might find a cure. ending lies about it would help. (the bully boy has allowed the lie that breast cancer is linked to abortion to go up at government websites.)
i'm noting this in full. this summer a blogger trashed molly ivins. it was a male blogger (isn't it always a man who's threatened by a woman) and he was basically calling for her death. sadly, he thinks he's left or at least democratic. he had a big man crush on bill clinton and couldn't stand that molly ivins could turn her keen eye on hillary clinton and see a human being and not perfection. so i was nervous when i started surfing, wondering if that was going to be the attitude. i found buzzflash's wings of justice pick for this week. molly had been nominated and they had selected her and posted this before she died tonight.
i think it says more than i ever could. it's very well written. and i'm going to re-post it in full. for those who don't know the wings of justice award, each week, buzzflash picks a winner from nominations that their readers make.
here's this week's pick, honoring molly:
Just over a year ago, on January 25, 2006, a BuzzFlash reader nominated and we selected Molly Ivins for the weekly Wings of Justice Award.Molly Ivins has had cancer for several years now – and she was just hospitalized as a result of a serious recurrence. Throughout her remissions and flare ups, Ivins hasn't given up her fight for her health and her fight for justice. Bush, her long-term nemesis -- although there are few politicians that pass Ivins' barbed scrutiny -- is a manufactured phony image of a tough talkin' Texan who supposedly cares about people. As Ivins has shown us many a time in her columns, nothing could be further from the truth.
Ironically, it is Molly who is the real authentic gruff Lone Star Stater with enough compassion to fill the Astrodome -- and with enough wit to beat even Jon Stewart in a satire contest.We can't make Molly better as she faces down a ravaging disease, but we can sincerely thank her for her courage, humor, and mighty fine journalism.
She has reminded us that there are some Texans that truly talk the talk and walk the walk -- not just cardboard cutouts like Junior.
Molly, as is fitting, a fellow Texan nominated you, because they know down there the value of a yellow rose: beautiful to look at, wonderful to smell, but watch out for the thorns.May the BuzzFlash "Wings of Justice" take flight to your hospital room and return you soon to your loyal fans.
here's a buzzflash interview with her from 2003. i just called c.i. and there's apparently 1 in 2004 or 2005 as well, when she had just had who let the dogs in? published.
i just read the new york times obit. sorry, kit seelye, it's a load of crap. try knowing some facts. molly ivins contributed a column to the progressive for years - you'd think the paper would note that when their own nicholas kristof distorted 1 column and matthew rothschild's letter to the editor on nicky k's troubles with reading was printed in the paper.
i especially hated the 2nd part and thought 'kit's talking about other people's facts? kit who speared gore with every rumor and made up thing she could think of?'
well the new york times always treated molly like shit and that only continued after she left the paper. as c.i. observed somewhere at the common ills, she was the 1st wife that they just wanted to disappear and be destroyed but never was - in fact she became famous after her stint at the new york times.
here's kit:
Covering an annual chicken slaughter in New Mexico in 1980, she used a sexually suggestive phrase, which her editors deleted from the final article. But her effort to use it angered the executive editor, A. M. Rosenthal, who ordered her back to New York and assigned her to City Hall, where she covered routine matters with little flair.
c.i. says molly called the event a 'gang-pluck.' kit doesn't even have the guts to use it and it's not a dirty term. it should have run then and it should have run now.
molly was very bothered last summer when the media dropped iraq as a topic. she met with codepink and wrote about them and she had decided to make iraq her focus until the war ended.
we need her voice. and i doubt any 1 will step up to the plate and say 'i'll carry on what she had planned.' instead, they'll turn out their useless crap (come on, katha, a book review? the nation already has a book review section and you still haven't written about the gang rape and murder of abeer).
1 who does cover iraq is c.i. and here's today's 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, January 31, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the White House tries to spin two plates at once (lowering expectations and pushing spin), impeachment discussions refuse to be dismissed by the 'all knowing', and the court-martial of Ehren Watada is five days away.
Starting with Ehren Watada who is the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq to serve in the illegal and immoral war. He faces a court-martial this coming Monday (February 5th) and, if convicted on all charges, could serve a maximum of four years in prison. Some are weighing in.
US Rep Mike Honda (in the San Francisco Chronicle) notes that Watada's awakening to the lies of war is reflected in the similar awakenings a large number of citizens have had as time (more so than the press) has exposed Bully Boy's lies of war:
In facing charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, it is my belief that Ehren Watada has laid bare a fact that is becoming increasingly plain: Mr. Bush has handled this war in a manner unbecoming a United States president. At best, our president misled the nation on the rationale for going into Iraq. He has embroiled this great country in a cycle of brutality there that has grievously tarnished America's international reputation, has further destabilized an already precarious Middle East and has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Watada has risked being deemed guilty of breaking one law in furtherance of a higher, moral one, rather than participate in a fight that, in his and my view, needlessly sends our compatriots to their deaths. In Watada's own words: "To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers and service members can choose to stop fighting it" (www.thankyoult.org, click on YouTube video).
Noting the reduction of two counts which has allowed the maximum time Watada could spend, if convicted, in prison, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer observes:
We would prefer further reductions and no prison time for a conscientious refusal to serve in what Watada believes, right or wrong, is an illegal war in Iraq.
Military leaders have shown commendable flexibility in dealing with a variety of conscience- and belief-motivated requests to be excused from service. For instance, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, last week granted conscientious-objector status to Pvt. Ronnie Tallman to allow the 21-year-old to pursue a newfound calling as a Navajo medicine man. Under Navajo spiritual law, Tallman could not serve in a special group of certified spiritual healers if he participated in any killing.
Actions like Conway's have given the military greater rather than lesser stature in the difficult circumstances of the Iraq war. Similar flexibility on policy at a higher level might save many Americans from the dangers of Iraq combat. Unless Congress insists, however, the Bush administration will stay the course.
Reporting on the rally in San Francisco, Judith Scherr (Berkeley Daily Planet) notes Carolyn Ho, mother of Ehren Watada, spoke: "He went in believing he was really trying to do his duty to his country in trying to preserve our freedoms. He said to me at one point, 9/11 happened and I will never be the same again . . . But then my son, after doing the research and finding the facts realized that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we entered a preemptive war on a lie. That has to stop." Carolyn Ho is on a speaking tour and the dates will be at the bottom of the snapshot.
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell 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 Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports "a car bomb exploded in a downtown street where a crowd was waiting to catch a minibus" resulting in at least five deaths; Zavis quotes Naim Zamel who witnessed the bombing and ended up hospitalized due to injuries: "The sound and the pressure were hard. Shrapnel was flying all over the place. I saw three cars on fire, people injured and shops destroyed." Bushra Juhi (AP) notes another Baghdad bombing in "a predominatly Shiite area in eastern Baghdad earlier Wednesday, killing two people and wounding 10" and quoting Abu Talal on the alleged car bomber: "A seeminly normal person parked this car and told us that he would not be long. When that person disappeared for more than 20 minutes, we tried to call the police but the car exploded as we were trying to do so." Reuters notes a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed four and left 20 wounded; a car bomb in Tal Afar that wounded 10; a roadisde bomb in Kirkuk that killed one and wounded two, and a roadside bomb in Baiji that resulted in six police officers being wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters reports that a teenager was shot dead in Falluja.
Corpses?
AFP reports that the corpses of "three law professors and a student kidnapper Sunday from near the university in Baghdad, a government statement said." AP reports that six corpses were discovered in Falluja. Reuters reports that a corpse was discovered in Mosul and two were discovered in Baiji.
In addition, Claudia Parsons (Reuters) reports that the US military announced an additional four deaths of US troops while Wlliam Fallon ("tapped to take over command of U.S. forces in the Middle East") stated progress on the illegal war will "be a long time coming." Lowered expectations -- hallmark of the Bully Boy White House.
From lowered expectations to Operation Happy Talk, James Glanz and Mark Mazzetti (New York Times) did their part to be out US government spin that was also quite racist: Iraqis weren't 'smart' enough to have planned the Saturday attack in Karbala that led to 1 US soldier being killed on the spot while 4 others were killed after they'd been kidnapped. The weapons, Glanz and Mazzetti write as the US military whispers in their ears, just weren't available in Iraq! (Apparently Times reporters have never visited the blackmarket? Possibly they can't get a military escort to it?) "The uniforms!!!" cry the boys of the pre-Times. They tick off this and that when the reality is that you truly have to believe that Iraqis are stupid to believe they couldn't accomplish what was done and you have to work for the Times to believe you can sell a war of choice (this time Iran) with whispers and unsourced statements. But damned if the pre-Boys of the pre-Times don't get so excited they keep checking one another to see who's sprouting pubes first? Keep looking boys.
Along with promoting a war with Iran, the US spin allows the puppet government to hide. Puppet in chief Nouri al-Maliki, CNN reports, is screaming in agreement that, yes, the violence is Iran's fault. As opposed to the inability of a puppet to do anything other than move when his strings are pulled? CNN tells you that the "theory is only a preliminary view, and there is no conclusion." The New York Times prefers the much weaker "may" -- Iran "May" have done this and left the other half of the sentence ("may not") for readers to fill in.
Now if puppet Nouri believed it for a moment, it's doubtful Iran would still be invited to the regional peace conference in March -- but they are as the AFP notes.
In other news of things-aren't-quite-what-the-US-government-says, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports that "suspicions in Iraq" are emerging that the Najaf 'cult' story "in wich 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre."
CBS and AP are reporting that the toothless, symbolic, time consuming, non-binding measure proposed by US senators Joe Biden, Carl Levin and Chuck Hagel will most likely be overtaken by an even weaker version of do nothing, this one proposed by Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News notes that, on the other hand, "You don't usually hear cheers like that in Senate hearing rooms" -- Attkisson was speaking of the reaction yesterday to US Senator Russ Feingold's hearing into Congressional powers with regards to war where Feingold declared, "Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to."
Yesterday, Feingold used his power as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" where he concluded his opening remarks with this:
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.
At the end of yesterday's hearing, Feingold noted, "It is clear that this administration took the country into war on a fraudulent basis with the president insisting we had no other option
but to pre-emptively attack Iraq. Now four years into the war we are still in Iraq, and the president insists that we have no other options but to stay -- with no end in sight and we have to say. As long as this president goes unchecked by Congress our troops will remain needlessly at risk and our national security will be compromised. Today we have heard convinciny testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants to.
[Applause, chants of "DO IT!" DO IT!] The president has no plan for ending our mission in Iraq, worse still, his Iraq centered policies have undercut our national security worldwide."
Feingold's plan for addressing the Iraq war is summarized in this fact sheet.
In other political news, CODEPINK continues to demand Congress represent the people. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported that the DC office of US Senator Hillary Clinton was occupied, that activists carried banner ("We want a woman for peace, not just a woman.") and six were arrested. Yesterday's actions were part of a series of actions by CODEPINK following Saturday's protest and march in DC. In a press release issued before Tuesday's actions, Jodie Evans explained, "We met with Hillary Clinton right before the war, begging her to oppose the invasion but she refused. She gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq and now pretends she was against the war. Worse yet, she still refuses to take a clear position to defund the war and bring the troops home." Medea Benjamin explained, "We're tired of the lies, the obfuscations, the spin. If Hillary wants to become president, she better start being a leader. If she's in to win, she better stop the spin." And Gale Murphy observed, "This country is hungry for leaders who will get us out of Iraq. We'll be giving Hillary a chance to cut her web of war and join the majority of people in this country who want to bring the troops home."
Meanwhile Gold Star Families for Peace's Carlos Arredondo is in Times Square. Reuters reports that he's gone to NYC with "a pick-up truck carrying an empty flag-draped coffin and a picture of his son's open casket and funeral." Carlos Arredondo's son Alex died in Iraq on August 25, 2004. Last Saturday, he was among the speakers in DC. Arrendondo recognized the other families who had lost loved ones and noted, "This is the cost of war!"
Do costs ever get paid? Sanford Levinson -- sometime law professor & full time psychic -- said "No" and argued in The Nation that impeachment shouldn't happen because of some gut feeling he had (I believe that was gas). In the real world, Robert Scheer (Truthdig) notes the various developments emerging in the trial of Scooter Libby and notes that Cathie Martin's testmony revealed her own and the vice-president's office role in lying to the people and to Congress when they crafted a statement/cover for George Tenet -- Scheer: "Certainly this deliberate corruption of the integrity of the CIA, the nation's premier source of national security information, rises to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which the Constitution holds out as the standard for impeachment. And can there be any more egregious example of betraying the oath of office of president to uphold the Constitution than his deceiving Congress from the very well of the House on the reasons for going to war? The Constitution clearly delegates to Congress, and not to the president, the exclusive power to declare war, and deceiving our representatives in making the case for war is a far more important crime than the perjury charge against Libby."
On the same topic, historian Howard Zinn, in the (The Progressive), observes:
The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about "realism" (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being "the art of the possible" (while setting limits on what is possible).
I know I'm not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable). There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it's been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual "indictment" has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.
There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of "people's impeachment hearings" all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.
Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour before the court-martial next Monday. Some of her dates this week include:
Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
1/30/2007
queen bess hurt other women
January 30, 2007
Listen to Senator Feingold's Opening Statement
Good morning, and welcome to this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." We are honored to have with us this morning a distinguished panel of legal scholars to share their views on this very important and timely issue.
I thank Chairman Leahy for allowing me to chair this hearing. Let me start by making a few opening remarks, then I will recognize Senator Specter for an opening statement, and then we will turn to our witnesses.
It is often said in this era of ubiquitous public opinion polls that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006, we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop.
The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act.
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power "[to] declare War," "[t]o raise and support Armies," "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy," and "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." In addition, under Article I, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.
Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded."
The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation.
There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that's not their responsibility."
Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It's not going to stop us."
In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the President. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying "your policy is mistaken." And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way.
This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way -- they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:
"None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose."
More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.
Our witnesses today are well aware of this history, and I look forward to hearing their analysis of it as they discuss Congress's power in this area. They are legal scholars, not military or foreign policy experts. We are here to find out from them not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.
that's from russ feingold's 'Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.' when wally and cedric want something noted, i'm there. they're really knocked out by what russ feingold did and they should be. you should be. i am knocked out. there's 1 spine in the senate, at least.
russ, russ, russ, why won't you run for president? your country is calling you!!!!
c.i. has a strong snapshot today - usually does, but i'm talking in terms of media. we were on the phone tonight and the 1st thing c.i. said was 'i am so sorry, i meant to link to you but we'd just finished three campuses and i had exactly 30 minutes to pull that together and almost didn't get it done in time.' there was no need to link and i assumed, due to the topic, that it wouldn't be linked.
but the topic, of women who won't support and assist other women, needs to be addressed. (and we both have addressed it.) today, c.i. is addressing the not-so-fresh terry gross who has 1 of the worst records for interviewing women. when i still listened to npr, it was something like 2 women a week and 7 to 8 men a week.
younger people may not get why that is offensive. before npr, it wasn't common to encounter women on the radio. i'm not talking rock radio which could usually manage 1 to 2 women on a day and night as deejays. i'm talking about news. and npr's last claim to fame may be evening out the balance between women and men on air - as reporters and as hosts. so the not so fresh terry gross benefitted from that system created by npr and her thank you to other women has been to produce a male heavy show. her regulars, such as the lame entertainment weekly critic, are male. her guests are mainly males.
now let me explain something for her and to katrina vanden heuvel and all the women who climbed over the backs of other women. we didn't create the pyramid so you could get to the top and then do nothing to help other women.
we were happy to be part of the pyramid (yes, i was a cheerleader) because we saw the fight, the struggle, as being fought by women for women. we weren't expecting a 'victory' to be 'oh look terry gross has her own show! isn't it great for terry gross!' or 'oh look katrina's editor and publisher of the nation! how amazing for katrina!'
the hope was that when women made it through doors, they'd bring other women with them. when women got to power positions, they'd be interested in equality and not in being queen bees.
what a terry gross or a katrina vanden heuvel is doing is being a queen bee.
they climbed our backs to get on top of the pyramid and apparently we all suffered for that just so they could be the only woman in the room. apparently it wasn't about women, it was, for each, about themselves.
now at some point this week, katrina wrote a post on motherhood. (sometime this week because the nation screws up their posts. they aren't on the west coast so it's not a time zone issue but if you visit that site fairly often you've learned not to trust the time stamp.)
suddenly katrina's interested in portraying herself as a mother?
when it was time to pick a writer to cover the state of the union address, she not only didn't go with a woman, she went with a man cnn reported was arrested in a sting for sexual predators. he was arrested for attempting to meet up with what he thought was an underage girl.
he said then that he was innocent. but he wouldn't provide the court records and has even claimed that he couldn't because they're 'sealed.' he can unseal them. he's the 1 charged. he can make it public. he chooses not to. why is that?
as long as he only offers 'i didn't do it and i'm not going to explain myself,' he's a sexual predator in my book.
so i find it so offensive that katrina wants to talk about motherhood so shortly after getting a sexual predator to write about the state of the union address.
now if you'd told me, when we were all fighting for equality, that a queen bee would come along and not only would she ignore women but she would publish a sexual predator repeatedly in her magazine, i would've thought you were crazy.
but enough time has gone by for 'queen bee' to become a popular term. and katrina vanden heuvel is a queen bee.
when some female friends complained to c.i. late last year about how the nation wasn't publishing women and provided a list of women that had been turned down (but other publications published their work), c.i. said 'we'll start tracking it.' and when ava and c.i. steered the third estate sunday review edition on christmas weekend, they implemented that feature.
how it works is we cover each issue as it arrives in the mailboxes. we do a simple stats. how many women did they publish and how many men did they publish. so this week's 'nation stats' (that's the title of the feature when it runs) brought us up to the 5th issue for 2007. and how are women doing?
just on the 1st 5 issue, males had 37 more bylines than women. the ratio is approximately 1 woman for every 4 men. now if this continues for the year, you're looking at something like males receiving 370 more bylines in the nation for the year of 2007 than women do.
if they want to count 2006 (c.i. did after the problem was pointed out) they'll see that this isn't a new problem and that women are grossly under represented in the nation.
why does it matter? a woman's the editor and publisher. katrina vanden heuvel has the last say. she can commission an article, she can accept a freelance 1. somehow, katrina's not interested in women. she's benefitted from the fight that women have fought but she's not interested in doing her part to continue the fight, she just wants her titles.
now that's bullshit. and it needs to be called out.
and women (and hopefully men) need to be appalled by that. 4 male bylines for every 1 by a woman? that's disgusting. and we need to start calling out women who allow that to happen.
we need to call terry gross out for her male heavy show.
women did this before. we protested, we demanded. and the results were that a terry gross comes along and her road is much easier than it would have been without the women's movement. so the idea that she doesn't have a debt to pay is crazy.
the idea that she's even trying to pay that debt is nonsense.
and women need to stop trying to prod and plead. we demanded when men were in charge and we can damn well demand when a woman's in charge - can and should.
it's past time that the terry grosses and katrina vanden heuvels knew that women weren't going to stand for this shit.
we were fighting for equality. and we still don't have it. and when women who have benefitted from the work of other women want to burst that glass ceiling just so they can piss on us, we need to call them out on it.
when katrina got her position as editor, there was a bit of joy for some women. when she went on to also get the title of publisher, more so. but she's done nothing with that.
and do we want to talk topics? the magazine didn't publish 1 word on the gang rape of 14-year-old abeer. now katrina loves to run the sexual predator's pieces but a 14-year-old girl is raped and murdered by u.s. soliders (some of whom have confessed) and her 5-year-old sister was murdered and both of her parents as well ....
she doesn't need to give us her bullshit mommy pieces because no feminist in the world would feel comfortable with publishing (over and over) the work of a man busted in a sting to capture sexual predators. i can't imagine why a mother would feel comfortable publishing a sexual predator, but a feminist certainly wouldn't.
so we need to start calling people out. we need to make sure that the fact that she wrote a boring, dopey article on abortion in russia back in the 80s doesn't hide the fact that she's not doing 1 damn thing for women.
if we don't call it out, other women have to deal with it on down the line. it is our duty.
if someone's thinking, 'well maybe women just aren't interested in politics?' - visit the real world. but also note that even in the arts section, where katrina's assigning pieces left and right, whole issue go by where it's man after man reviewing books without even 1 women.
apparently, in katrina's world, women can't even read.
she is our american taliban and just because she has a vagina doesn't mean she can't hurt women.
she is hurting women and we need to start calling it out and letting all the queen bees know that it's not acceptable and that we will not stand for it.
now i have no interest in writing for any magazine (i never have). but i will not be silent while other women get nixed because there are already 'too many' women in an issue. 'too many' - if you notice - doesn't mean equal. too many averages out to 1 woman for every 4 men. that's embarrassing and women need to start calling this out. ava and c.i. stepped up (no surprise, they're fearless and they take feminism very seriously). but others need to be stepping up to. and paying attention. until we start complaining and start demanding, nothing is going to change.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
January 30, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy's spin on Najaf comes loose, Ehren Watada's court-martial is still scheduled for Feb. 5th but there is a new development,
and US Senator Russ Feingold maintains he is not running for president in 2008 but delivers something sharper, more focused and harder hitting than any of the declared candidates has yet to offer: "In the United Sates of America, the people are sovereign, not the Presidents. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misquided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying 'your policy is mistaken.' And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities."
Last week, Ehren Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq appeared on NPR's Fresh Air with his attorney Eric Seitz where they were interviewed by NO HELP TO ANYONE Terry Gross. Gross cited the laughable Seattle Times editorial and Watada's response was:
When we join the military we don't swear an oath to a person or, especially officers, in our oath we do not swear an oath of loyalty to any one person or any group of people or even an institution. We swear an oath to protect the Constitution and also the American people as a whole and we have to follow the rule of law as it says in the Constitution and when we have . . . When I joined the military in March 2003, I believed the administration when they said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there were ties with Sadam to al Qaeda and 9-11. We all know those lies were false now and there have been many reports coming out of retired CIA analysts and officers saying that the intelligence was not bad it was intentionally falsified to fit the policy. When we have as I said a group of people in our government who mislead the public who mislead the other branch of government in order to justify their war that is a violation of the Constitution. And, um, I just have to say that regardless of what they convict me on, if they convict me or sentence me, I am doing what I swore an oath to do when I joined the military 3 years ago and as I said I did not realize the extent of the deception that was waged upon us that I do now.
That was the first segment of the January 25 show. The second is where she got into real trouble and there's a reason for that: Terry Gross can find a man anywhere. Her next book might need to be entitled Manhunt. It's women she can't find. And she's far from alone on that -- as of the February 5, 2007 issue of The Nation, for the magazine to offer women in equal number (equal, not more) there February 12, 2007 issue would have needed to print 37 pieces written or co-written by women and none by men. The Nation ratio by gender is basically 1 female for every 4 males. Gross specializes in her nerdy dominitrix pose on air -- full of tension and archness -- and it's a laughable bit but she's made it profitable. What she has not done (appalling when you consider that NPR broke down barriers for women -- including Gross) is do her part to offer women an equal platform. Appalling considering the history of NPR, more appalling considering the information she was seeking in the second segment of the show when she interviewed Eugene Fidell asking him questions about issues that he frequently hems and haws on. If you're asking about the Law of Land Warfare, Gross, you can go to a woman. Retired colonel Ann Wright taught that.
NPR audiences were cheated out of a full discussion about Ehren Watada because Queen Bee Gross can have countless males on her show each week (several guests each day) but somehow more than two or three women send Gross into a panic. It's harmful to all women and, in the case of Ehren Watada, it prevented Gross from being able to find the answers to her questions.
Had Ann Wright been invited into the second segment (instead of one male 'expert') she could have stated, "As part of our overal military training there is a history of service personnel being told that you do not have to follow an illegal order. It comes from the commissions that we take that we are to uphold the lawful orders of our superios. Implicit in that is that if there is an illegal order you are under no obligation to follow it." Wright served in the military, served in the US State Department and the quote is from what she testified to in the August Article 32 hearing.
Ehren Watada faces a court-martial on February 5th (and got the Diane Sawyer "Aren't you ashamed!" treatment from Gross last week). Though it never would have been the court-martial of Sarah Olson (despite where independent media put their emphasis in what passed for 'coverage'), she and Gregg Kakesako will not appear in court. All the hand wringing was for nothing. All the, "Phil, you've got to write about this! We need you!" phone calls were a waste of time. Already today Amy Goodman's interviewed Olson and no one ever needs to do so again. Goodman made the mistake of asking a very basic question -- Now that she's not going to be asked to testify, will she be covering the court-martial? It was too much for Olson -- she sputtered, she stammered, she had no answer. The parody "Run, Olson! Run!"
never looked so true.
Ehren Watada was always the defendant in his court-martial -- even if that basic point couldn't be grasped by indy pundits. The charges reduce the maxiumum number of years Watada could serve if he is punished in the court-martial -- from six years, it has now dropped to a maximum of four years in prison. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, told AP, of the kangaro court awaiting his client: "This is not a justice proceeding but a disciplinary proceeding. Really, the only thing the Army is interested in here is what kind of punishment to mete, not whether Lieutenant Watada is guilty or innocent of the charges."
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell 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.
On the topic of going to Canada, Patrick Malone (Canada's The London Free Press) reports
on Matt Lowell who was attempting to receive refugee status in Canada and has heard back from the Immigration and Refugee Board: "Eight pages long, it can be summed up in one word: No." The article also notes a meeting this Thursday at 7:00 pm at the Tolpuddle housing co-op, common room, 380 Adelaide St. at King Street in London (Ottawa, not England) where you can meet with Iraq war resisters and those "offering support to military resisters."
In Iraq, the big (press) issue is still what happened in Najaf.
Bombings?
Sam Knight (Times of London) reports an "explosion, in the town of Mandali, 60km north east of Baghdad and near the border with Iran, claimed the lives of 23 worshippers at a Shi mosque, doctors said. A further 60 people were injured when a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives in the midst of a crowd of around 150 people entering the Ali al-Akbar mosque". Michael Howard (Guardian of London) reports a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed "at least 17 people and injuring 72." Kim Gamel (AP) notes "a bomb in a garage can exploded as scores of Shiites - most them Kurds -- were performing rituals in Khanaqin, a majority Kurdish city also near the Iranian border. At least 13 people were killed and 39 were wounded, police Maj. Idriss Mohammed said." Reuters notes a car bomb in Mosul that killed two police officers (wounded two more) and a secon mortar attack in Baghdad left nine people wounded.
Shootings?
Al Jazeera reports that "four Ashura pilgrmins" were shot ded with an addition six injured in Baghdad today.
Also today the US military announced: "One Marine assigned to Multi-National Forces-West died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province" and they announced: "LSA Anaconda, Iraq– A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed in an accident when a M-1114 HMMWV rolled over northwest of An Nasiriah Jan 29."
Meanwhile Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) further discredits Bully Boy's false assertion that the February 22nd bombing in Samarra of a Shi'ite mosque began the sectarian violence -- Fadel notes that the claim is already disputed by "U.S. diplomats, Iraqi politicians, U.S. intelligence analysts and journalists [who] had reported throughout 2005 that attacks on Sunnis by Shiite militias were rising and that the militias had infiltraded the security forces"; however, Fadel reports that Ibrahim al Jaafari (former prime minister of Iraq0 states "he told U.S. officials nearly two years ago that Shiite Muslim militas were infiltrating the country's secuirty services".
In latest lies the Bully Boy told the world, CBS and AP report that Bully Boy continues to cite the recent events in Najaf as proof of yet another turned corner: "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something." Marc Santora (New York Times) reported today that, contrary to the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed . . . and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed".
In other news, does US Senator Arlen Specter watch Democracy Now!? If so he may have seen the speech US Rep Maxine Waters delivered at the rally in DC Saturday -- where she made the point that Bully Boy was not the decider. AP reports that Arlen Specter said something similar, in milder terms, today: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsiblity." Then, Specter saw his shadow and won't be spotted again until spring.
Staying on the topic of the US Congress, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes US Rep Maxine Waters recent appearance on CNN where she outlined the plans by the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to visit "early Democratic primary states" in order to make some Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate a spine. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if this were a reference to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, "they both have to prove themselves," was Waters' response.
Also addressing the issue of spine and justice, Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The logic of Withdrawal) observes (at CounterPunch): "The other night, on 60 Minutes, President Bush said 'Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction.' Yet millions of us who protested this war before it started were right, and were ignored. We did not have access to any special intelligence. We simply used our intelligence. And today we have the intelligence to know that each day we continue the occupation of Iraq, the situation gets worse. Every time we have been told 'we are turning the corner,' the situation gets worse. And we have the intelligence to know that you cannot oppose the war, as some Democrats have proclaimed, and yet fund this war. To those who say we cannot withdraw 'precipitously,' there is nothing precipitous about pulling out after four years of occuyping another country against its will. And to those who say we are abandoing the troops, the best way to support the troops is to bring them home."
Today, US Senator Russ Feingold held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Excercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" to explore the issue of what powers Congress has in ending Bully Boy's illegal war. From Feingold's opening statement:
"It is often said . . . that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006 we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop. The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act." Noting the words written into the US Constitution (Congress has the power to declare war, the power of the purse, etc.), Feingold then stated, "The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way. If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation. . . . There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: 'Frankly, that's not their responsibility.' [. . .] It’s our job to fix the mess, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities. Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way."
On last weekends protests, rallies and marches, Danny Schechter writes at BuzzFlash to remind everyone that the numbers reported do matter as do media coverage: "Do the anti-war organizaers see this as a problem? Don't they think they should try to do something about it as a problem and protest this ritualistic treatement? Shouldn't they make the media coverage a issue? Are they only listening to themselves? I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and feisty host Bree Walker, a former TV anchor, agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of 'alienating' the press." To be clear, Danny's writing of the mainstream press. I would expand that to include independent media as well (and no community member would disagree with that assertion).
Also addressing the issue of big media at BuzzFlash, Cindy Sheehan writes: "In the United States today, we have a media controlled b corporations that are, for the most part, controlled by other entities that profit off of war. NBC is owned by General Electric, a major war profiteer (which used to be a crime punishable by hanging). The corporate media has a lot at stake by keeping the wag-the-dog occupation of Iraq aloat on BushCo's failed ship of state.
Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour. Some of her dates this week include:
Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
Finally, the lies that led to war include the false claim of 'yellowcake' in Bully Boy's 2003 State of the Union address. When it imploded on him, they attempted to attack and silence Joseph Wilson by destroying his wife Valerie Plame -- a CIA agent until those at the White House decided to blow her cover. Rory O'Connor is blogging about Scooter Libby's trial and Judith Miller was supposed to appear today.
Listen to Senator Feingold's Opening Statement
Good morning, and welcome to this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." We are honored to have with us this morning a distinguished panel of legal scholars to share their views on this very important and timely issue.
I thank Chairman Leahy for allowing me to chair this hearing. Let me start by making a few opening remarks, then I will recognize Senator Specter for an opening statement, and then we will turn to our witnesses.
It is often said in this era of ubiquitous public opinion polls that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006, we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop.
The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act.
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power "[to] declare War," "[t]o raise and support Armies," "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy," and "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." In addition, under Article I, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.
Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded."
The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation.
There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that's not their responsibility."
Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It's not going to stop us."
In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the President. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying "your policy is mistaken." And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way.
This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way -- they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:
"None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose."
More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.
Our witnesses today are well aware of this history, and I look forward to hearing their analysis of it as they discuss Congress's power in this area. They are legal scholars, not military or foreign policy experts. We are here to find out from them not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.
that's from russ feingold's 'Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.' when wally and cedric want something noted, i'm there. they're really knocked out by what russ feingold did and they should be. you should be. i am knocked out. there's 1 spine in the senate, at least.
russ, russ, russ, why won't you run for president? your country is calling you!!!!
c.i. has a strong snapshot today - usually does, but i'm talking in terms of media. we were on the phone tonight and the 1st thing c.i. said was 'i am so sorry, i meant to link to you but we'd just finished three campuses and i had exactly 30 minutes to pull that together and almost didn't get it done in time.' there was no need to link and i assumed, due to the topic, that it wouldn't be linked.
but the topic, of women who won't support and assist other women, needs to be addressed. (and we both have addressed it.) today, c.i. is addressing the not-so-fresh terry gross who has 1 of the worst records for interviewing women. when i still listened to npr, it was something like 2 women a week and 7 to 8 men a week.
younger people may not get why that is offensive. before npr, it wasn't common to encounter women on the radio. i'm not talking rock radio which could usually manage 1 to 2 women on a day and night as deejays. i'm talking about news. and npr's last claim to fame may be evening out the balance between women and men on air - as reporters and as hosts. so the not so fresh terry gross benefitted from that system created by npr and her thank you to other women has been to produce a male heavy show. her regulars, such as the lame entertainment weekly critic, are male. her guests are mainly males.
now let me explain something for her and to katrina vanden heuvel and all the women who climbed over the backs of other women. we didn't create the pyramid so you could get to the top and then do nothing to help other women.
we were happy to be part of the pyramid (yes, i was a cheerleader) because we saw the fight, the struggle, as being fought by women for women. we weren't expecting a 'victory' to be 'oh look terry gross has her own show! isn't it great for terry gross!' or 'oh look katrina's editor and publisher of the nation! how amazing for katrina!'
the hope was that when women made it through doors, they'd bring other women with them. when women got to power positions, they'd be interested in equality and not in being queen bees.
what a terry gross or a katrina vanden heuvel is doing is being a queen bee.
they climbed our backs to get on top of the pyramid and apparently we all suffered for that just so they could be the only woman in the room. apparently it wasn't about women, it was, for each, about themselves.
now at some point this week, katrina wrote a post on motherhood. (sometime this week because the nation screws up their posts. they aren't on the west coast so it's not a time zone issue but if you visit that site fairly often you've learned not to trust the time stamp.)
suddenly katrina's interested in portraying herself as a mother?
when it was time to pick a writer to cover the state of the union address, she not only didn't go with a woman, she went with a man cnn reported was arrested in a sting for sexual predators. he was arrested for attempting to meet up with what he thought was an underage girl.
he said then that he was innocent. but he wouldn't provide the court records and has even claimed that he couldn't because they're 'sealed.' he can unseal them. he's the 1 charged. he can make it public. he chooses not to. why is that?
as long as he only offers 'i didn't do it and i'm not going to explain myself,' he's a sexual predator in my book.
so i find it so offensive that katrina wants to talk about motherhood so shortly after getting a sexual predator to write about the state of the union address.
now if you'd told me, when we were all fighting for equality, that a queen bee would come along and not only would she ignore women but she would publish a sexual predator repeatedly in her magazine, i would've thought you were crazy.
but enough time has gone by for 'queen bee' to become a popular term. and katrina vanden heuvel is a queen bee.
when some female friends complained to c.i. late last year about how the nation wasn't publishing women and provided a list of women that had been turned down (but other publications published their work), c.i. said 'we'll start tracking it.' and when ava and c.i. steered the third estate sunday review edition on christmas weekend, they implemented that feature.
how it works is we cover each issue as it arrives in the mailboxes. we do a simple stats. how many women did they publish and how many men did they publish. so this week's 'nation stats' (that's the title of the feature when it runs) brought us up to the 5th issue for 2007. and how are women doing?
just on the 1st 5 issue, males had 37 more bylines than women. the ratio is approximately 1 woman for every 4 men. now if this continues for the year, you're looking at something like males receiving 370 more bylines in the nation for the year of 2007 than women do.
if they want to count 2006 (c.i. did after the problem was pointed out) they'll see that this isn't a new problem and that women are grossly under represented in the nation.
why does it matter? a woman's the editor and publisher. katrina vanden heuvel has the last say. she can commission an article, she can accept a freelance 1. somehow, katrina's not interested in women. she's benefitted from the fight that women have fought but she's not interested in doing her part to continue the fight, she just wants her titles.
now that's bullshit. and it needs to be called out.
and women (and hopefully men) need to be appalled by that. 4 male bylines for every 1 by a woman? that's disgusting. and we need to start calling out women who allow that to happen.
we need to call terry gross out for her male heavy show.
women did this before. we protested, we demanded. and the results were that a terry gross comes along and her road is much easier than it would have been without the women's movement. so the idea that she doesn't have a debt to pay is crazy.
the idea that she's even trying to pay that debt is nonsense.
and women need to stop trying to prod and plead. we demanded when men were in charge and we can damn well demand when a woman's in charge - can and should.
it's past time that the terry grosses and katrina vanden heuvels knew that women weren't going to stand for this shit.
we were fighting for equality. and we still don't have it. and when women who have benefitted from the work of other women want to burst that glass ceiling just so they can piss on us, we need to call them out on it.
when katrina got her position as editor, there was a bit of joy for some women. when she went on to also get the title of publisher, more so. but she's done nothing with that.
and do we want to talk topics? the magazine didn't publish 1 word on the gang rape of 14-year-old abeer. now katrina loves to run the sexual predator's pieces but a 14-year-old girl is raped and murdered by u.s. soliders (some of whom have confessed) and her 5-year-old sister was murdered and both of her parents as well ....
she doesn't need to give us her bullshit mommy pieces because no feminist in the world would feel comfortable with publishing (over and over) the work of a man busted in a sting to capture sexual predators. i can't imagine why a mother would feel comfortable publishing a sexual predator, but a feminist certainly wouldn't.
so we need to start calling people out. we need to make sure that the fact that she wrote a boring, dopey article on abortion in russia back in the 80s doesn't hide the fact that she's not doing 1 damn thing for women.
if we don't call it out, other women have to deal with it on down the line. it is our duty.
if someone's thinking, 'well maybe women just aren't interested in politics?' - visit the real world. but also note that even in the arts section, where katrina's assigning pieces left and right, whole issue go by where it's man after man reviewing books without even 1 women.
apparently, in katrina's world, women can't even read.
she is our american taliban and just because she has a vagina doesn't mean she can't hurt women.
she is hurting women and we need to start calling it out and letting all the queen bees know that it's not acceptable and that we will not stand for it.
now i have no interest in writing for any magazine (i never have). but i will not be silent while other women get nixed because there are already 'too many' women in an issue. 'too many' - if you notice - doesn't mean equal. too many averages out to 1 woman for every 4 men. that's embarrassing and women need to start calling this out. ava and c.i. stepped up (no surprise, they're fearless and they take feminism very seriously). but others need to be stepping up to. and paying attention. until we start complaining and start demanding, nothing is going to change.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
January 30, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy's spin on Najaf comes loose, Ehren Watada's court-martial is still scheduled for Feb. 5th but there is a new development,
and US Senator Russ Feingold maintains he is not running for president in 2008 but delivers something sharper, more focused and harder hitting than any of the declared candidates has yet to offer: "In the United Sates of America, the people are sovereign, not the Presidents. It is Congress' responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misquided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying 'your policy is mistaken.' And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it's the President's job to fix the mess he made. It's our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities."
Last week, Ehren Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq appeared on NPR's Fresh Air with his attorney Eric Seitz where they were interviewed by NO HELP TO ANYONE Terry Gross. Gross cited the laughable Seattle Times editorial and Watada's response was:
When we join the military we don't swear an oath to a person or, especially officers, in our oath we do not swear an oath of loyalty to any one person or any group of people or even an institution. We swear an oath to protect the Constitution and also the American people as a whole and we have to follow the rule of law as it says in the Constitution and when we have . . . When I joined the military in March 2003, I believed the administration when they said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there were ties with Sadam to al Qaeda and 9-11. We all know those lies were false now and there have been many reports coming out of retired CIA analysts and officers saying that the intelligence was not bad it was intentionally falsified to fit the policy. When we have as I said a group of people in our government who mislead the public who mislead the other branch of government in order to justify their war that is a violation of the Constitution. And, um, I just have to say that regardless of what they convict me on, if they convict me or sentence me, I am doing what I swore an oath to do when I joined the military 3 years ago and as I said I did not realize the extent of the deception that was waged upon us that I do now.
That was the first segment of the January 25 show. The second is where she got into real trouble and there's a reason for that: Terry Gross can find a man anywhere. Her next book might need to be entitled Manhunt. It's women she can't find. And she's far from alone on that -- as of the February 5, 2007 issue of The Nation, for the magazine to offer women in equal number (equal, not more) there February 12, 2007 issue would have needed to print 37 pieces written or co-written by women and none by men. The Nation ratio by gender is basically 1 female for every 4 males. Gross specializes in her nerdy dominitrix pose on air -- full of tension and archness -- and it's a laughable bit but she's made it profitable. What she has not done (appalling when you consider that NPR broke down barriers for women -- including Gross) is do her part to offer women an equal platform. Appalling considering the history of NPR, more appalling considering the information she was seeking in the second segment of the show when she interviewed Eugene Fidell asking him questions about issues that he frequently hems and haws on. If you're asking about the Law of Land Warfare, Gross, you can go to a woman. Retired colonel Ann Wright taught that.
NPR audiences were cheated out of a full discussion about Ehren Watada because Queen Bee Gross can have countless males on her show each week (several guests each day) but somehow more than two or three women send Gross into a panic. It's harmful to all women and, in the case of Ehren Watada, it prevented Gross from being able to find the answers to her questions.
Had Ann Wright been invited into the second segment (instead of one male 'expert') she could have stated, "As part of our overal military training there is a history of service personnel being told that you do not have to follow an illegal order. It comes from the commissions that we take that we are to uphold the lawful orders of our superios. Implicit in that is that if there is an illegal order you are under no obligation to follow it." Wright served in the military, served in the US State Department and the quote is from what she testified to in the August Article 32 hearing.
Ehren Watada faces a court-martial on February 5th (and got the Diane Sawyer "Aren't you ashamed!" treatment from Gross last week). Though it never would have been the court-martial of Sarah Olson (despite where independent media put their emphasis in what passed for 'coverage'), she and Gregg Kakesako will not appear in court. All the hand wringing was for nothing. All the, "Phil, you've got to write about this! We need you!" phone calls were a waste of time. Already today Amy Goodman's interviewed Olson and no one ever needs to do so again. Goodman made the mistake of asking a very basic question -- Now that she's not going to be asked to testify, will she be covering the court-martial? It was too much for Olson -- she sputtered, she stammered, she had no answer. The parody "Run, Olson! Run!"
never looked so true.
Ehren Watada was always the defendant in his court-martial -- even if that basic point couldn't be grasped by indy pundits. The charges reduce the maxiumum number of years Watada could serve if he is punished in the court-martial -- from six years, it has now dropped to a maximum of four years in prison. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, told AP, of the kangaro court awaiting his client: "This is not a justice proceeding but a disciplinary proceeding. Really, the only thing the Army is interested in here is what kind of punishment to mete, not whether Lieutenant Watada is guilty or innocent of the charges."
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March
6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell 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.
On the topic of going to Canada, Patrick Malone (Canada's The London Free Press) reports
on Matt Lowell who was attempting to receive refugee status in Canada and has heard back from the Immigration and Refugee Board: "Eight pages long, it can be summed up in one word: No." The article also notes a meeting this Thursday at 7:00 pm at the Tolpuddle housing co-op, common room, 380 Adelaide St. at King Street in London (Ottawa, not England) where you can meet with Iraq war resisters and those "offering support to military resisters."
In Iraq, the big (press) issue is still what happened in Najaf.
Bombings?
Sam Knight (Times of London) reports an "explosion, in the town of Mandali, 60km north east of Baghdad and near the border with Iran, claimed the lives of 23 worshippers at a Shi mosque, doctors said. A further 60 people were injured when a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives in the midst of a crowd of around 150 people entering the Ali al-Akbar mosque". Michael Howard (Guardian of London) reports a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed "at least 17 people and injuring 72." Kim Gamel (AP) notes "a bomb in a garage can exploded as scores of Shiites - most them Kurds -- were performing rituals in Khanaqin, a majority Kurdish city also near the Iranian border. At least 13 people were killed and 39 were wounded, police Maj. Idriss Mohammed said." Reuters notes a car bomb in Mosul that killed two police officers (wounded two more) and a secon mortar attack in Baghdad left nine people wounded.
Shootings?
Al Jazeera reports that "four Ashura pilgrmins" were shot ded with an addition six injured in Baghdad today.
Also today the US military announced: "One Marine assigned to Multi-National Forces-West died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province" and they announced: "LSA Anaconda, Iraq– A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed in an accident when a M-1114 HMMWV rolled over northwest of An Nasiriah Jan 29."
Meanwhile Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) further discredits Bully Boy's false assertion that the February 22nd bombing in Samarra of a Shi'ite mosque began the sectarian violence -- Fadel notes that the claim is already disputed by "U.S. diplomats, Iraqi politicians, U.S. intelligence analysts and journalists [who] had reported throughout 2005 that attacks on Sunnis by Shiite militias were rising and that the militias had infiltraded the security forces"; however, Fadel reports that Ibrahim al Jaafari (former prime minister of Iraq0 states "he told U.S. officials nearly two years ago that Shiite Muslim militas were infiltrating the country's secuirty services".
In latest lies the Bully Boy told the world, CBS and AP report that Bully Boy continues to cite the recent events in Najaf as proof of yet another turned corner: "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something." Marc Santora (New York Times) reported today that, contrary to the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed . . . and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed".
In other news, does US Senator Arlen Specter watch Democracy Now!? If so he may have seen the speech US Rep Maxine Waters delivered at the rally in DC Saturday -- where she made the point that Bully Boy was not the decider. AP reports that Arlen Specter said something similar, in milder terms, today: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsiblity." Then, Specter saw his shadow and won't be spotted again until spring.
Staying on the topic of the US Congress, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes US Rep Maxine Waters recent appearance on CNN where she outlined the plans by the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to visit "early Democratic primary states" in order to make some Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate a spine. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if this were a reference to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, "they both have to prove themselves," was Waters' response.
Also addressing the issue of spine and justice, Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The logic of Withdrawal) observes (at CounterPunch): "The other night, on 60 Minutes, President Bush said 'Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction.' Yet millions of us who protested this war before it started were right, and were ignored. We did not have access to any special intelligence. We simply used our intelligence. And today we have the intelligence to know that each day we continue the occupation of Iraq, the situation gets worse. Every time we have been told 'we are turning the corner,' the situation gets worse. And we have the intelligence to know that you cannot oppose the war, as some Democrats have proclaimed, and yet fund this war. To those who say we cannot withdraw 'precipitously,' there is nothing precipitous about pulling out after four years of occuyping another country against its will. And to those who say we are abandoing the troops, the best way to support the troops is to bring them home."
Today, US Senator Russ Feingold held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Excercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War" to explore the issue of what powers Congress has in ending Bully Boy's illegal war. From Feingold's opening statement:
"It is often said . . . that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006 we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop. The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act." Noting the words written into the US Constitution (Congress has the power to declare war, the power of the purse, etc.), Feingold then stated, "The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly four years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way. If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers -- defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation. . . . There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: 'Frankly, that's not their responsibility.' [. . .] It’s our job to fix the mess, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities. Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way."
On last weekends protests, rallies and marches, Danny Schechter writes at BuzzFlash to remind everyone that the numbers reported do matter as do media coverage: "Do the anti-war organizaers see this as a problem? Don't they think they should try to do something about it as a problem and protest this ritualistic treatement? Shouldn't they make the media coverage a issue? Are they only listening to themselves? I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and feisty host Bree Walker, a former TV anchor, agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of 'alienating' the press." To be clear, Danny's writing of the mainstream press. I would expand that to include independent media as well (and no community member would disagree with that assertion).
Also addressing the issue of big media at BuzzFlash, Cindy Sheehan writes: "In the United States today, we have a media controlled b corporations that are, for the most part, controlled by other entities that profit off of war. NBC is owned by General Electric, a major war profiteer (which used to be a crime punishable by hanging). The corporate media has a lot at stake by keeping the wag-the-dog occupation of Iraq aloat on BushCo's failed ship of state.
Attempting to get the word out on her son Ehren Watada, Carolyn Ho is rallying for one more speaking tour. Some of her dates this week include:
Wednesday January 31 3:00 to 5:00pm
The Center for Race, Politics & Religion University of Chicago Chicago, IL
7:00-9:00pm
St. Xavier University 3700 West 103rd St. (103rd & Pulaski) McGuire Hall Professor Peter N. Kirstein (773) 298-3283 Kirstein@sxu.edu
Indiana
Thursday February 1 10:00 to 12:00am
Emerson High School 716 East 7th Avenue Gary, Indiana Carolyn McCrady (219) 938-1302 Jim Spicer (219) 938-9615
12:30 to 2:30pm
Purdue Calumet University 2200 169th St. Hammond, Indiana Professor Kathy Tobin (219) 989-3192 tobin@calumet.purdue.edu Classroom Office Building CLO 110
7:00-9:00 pm
Valparaiso University U.S. Hwy 30 & Sturdy Rd Room 234 Neils Science Center Valparaiso, Indiana Libby A Hearn Partners for Peace (student group) (309) 834-2199 Libby.AHearn@valpo.edu Lorri Cornett Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War (219) 916-0449 la_cornett@yahoo.com
Friday February 2
Noon Purdue University Wesley Foundation 435 West State St. West Lafayette, Indiana Sheila Rosenthal (765) 404-5489Lafayette Area Peace Coalition
Finally, the lies that led to war include the false claim of 'yellowcake' in Bully Boy's 2003 State of the Union address. When it imploded on him, they attempted to attack and silence Joseph Wilson by destroying his wife Valerie Plame -- a CIA agent until those at the White House decided to blow her cover. Rory O'Connor is blogging about Scooter Libby's trial and Judith Miller was supposed to appear today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)