OutOfIraq

Torture News Strike

Bob Fertik — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:25:34 -0400

Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer
Kansas City Star
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News

On 4/11/08, George Bush told ABC News he personally approved of the approval of torture - including waterboarding - by Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet.

Bush said, "Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

You would think a President confessing to war crimes would be on the front pages of all the nation's newspapers, and all over their editorial pages - not just on Countdown and The Daily Show.

You'd be wrong. The only newspapers that have covered the story are in the box on the right.

Is your newspaper missing from this list? Then let's work together to do something about it.

We're calling this action our "Torture News Strike."

Call the Editor of your local newspaper and tell him/her you are suspending your subscription until they give Bush's torture confession the serious coverage it deserves either in the news or editorial section, or preferably both.

If you get home delivery, then call the circulation department and tell them to suspend delivery until further notice. (If you buy at the newsstands, read something else.)

Want to connect with other activists who read the same newspaper as you? Read more...

1. Login to Democrats.com and look for a "Local" forum devoted to your newspaper, either under "state" or "county". If you don't see your newspaper listed, skip to (3) below.
http://democrats.com/local

2. Post a comment about your action and the editor's response in the forum.

3. If your newspaper isn't listed on your "Local" page, please add it:

Find the name and contact info for your newspaper's editor by opening the newspaper, using Google, or using this list:
http://www.mondotimes.com/world/usa/newspapers.html
click on your state
click on your local newspaper
Open Notepad and copy/paste the full name of the newspaper
Scroll down and look under "contact information" for the name of the editor
Copy/paste the editor's name into Notepad
Just above "contact information," click the web site
Find the main phone number and copy/paste into Notepad
Post this information on Democrats.com
Login and click http://democrats.com/local
If your newspaper serves an area smaller than your County, click the [Post] link next to "County" - if it serves more than one County, click the [Post] link next to "State"
For "Subject" use "Newspaper Strike:" and the name of your newspaper
For "Democrats.com Forums" choose "Hot Topics"
For "Body" copy/paste the Editor's name and phone number

4. Use the "Send" link below your local newspaper forum to invite your friends to participate.

Want to do more?

1. Write a letter to your local newspaper about Bush's torture scandal and the paper's failure to cover it. Also call your favorite talk shows.

2. Also sign our petition to Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture:
http://www.democrats.com/impeach-for-torture

Thanks for all you do!

To learn more about the Torture scandal, visit these links:

ABC News 4/11/08: Bush Approved Torture
Democrats.com torture news
Troutfishing (How you can fight, What about sexual torture)
Invictus
AmericanTorture.com
Emptywheel
White House Watch by Dan Froomkin (Bush OK'd torture meetings)
The Abu Ghraib Scandal and the U.S. Occupation of Iraq by John Cox
Died hanging from wrists and gagged, with over 25 rib fractures by bewert
Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Elsewhere by Cooperative Research
The Green Light by Philippe Sands
Psychological Torture by US Forces, Physicians for Human Rights
Watch the new documentary: Standard Operating Procedure

Iraq Town Halls

Bob Fertik — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:07:15 -0400

Co-sponsors and speakers:
Progressive Democrats of America
Gold Star Families for Peace
Win Without War
AfterDowningStreet
FireDogLake
Hip Hop Caucus
Cities for Peace
Velvet Revolution
The Nation
The Backbone Campaign
Brad Blog
Clout on Air America
Willie Nelson Peace Research
Voters for Peace
Code Pink
Democracy Cell Project
Veterans for Peace
Global Exchange
Liberty Tree
Filibuster for Peace
The Young Turks on Air America
United for Peace and Justice
Brave New Films
Declaration of Peace

Speakers:
Iraq Veterans Against the War

http://iraqtownhalls.com

In April, Congress will vote to give George W. Bush and Dick Cheney another $102 billion for Iraq - unless we finally persuade our Representatives to Just Say No.

One of the best ways to persuade a Representative is to hold a town hall meeting and fill the hall with people who care and are willing to speak passionately. (Another way is to turn out a crowd for a town hall that your Representative is already scheduled to attend.)

So we're asking YOU and the 500,000 members of Democrats.com to organize Iraq Town Halls in all 435 Congressional districts on any day in April.

Check for an Iraq Town Hall already being planned in your district: To do this, you must be registered and logged in on this website. Once you are, go to http://democrats.com/local and look for an Iraq Town Hall announcement below the "Congressional District" heading. If you see one, open it and post a comment below it offering to help, or contact the organizers in whatever way they have suggested (they may have posted a phone number or Email address).

Start organizing an Iraq Town Hall using the tools on this website: If there's nothing yet being planned in your district and you want to start talking with others about planning a possible town hall, or if you're ready to post an announcement of an Iraq Town Hall, please Email us at: iraqtownhall@democrats.com We will walk you through the steps involved. To get started on your own (it's really not that hard) CLICK HERE.

For tips on how to make your Iraq Town Hall a success, READ MORE.

Getting Organized:

Ask at least one reliable friend to help you organize this event.

Ask local organizations to take part.

Reserve a convenient hall or auditorium.

You should hold your event with or without your Representative, so you can call and ask about their availability before or after you pick a date. Weekends are the most likely times for them to be available. We recommend calling the District Office (not DC office) of your Representative (you can find the # here) and ask for the scheduler. If your Representative won't give you a date promptly, pick one yourself - and leave an empty seat on the stage for your Representative.

Invite key speakers. A number of organizations are making speakers available for these Iraq Town Halls. Here is a list.

Reach out to community to participate: here are some outreach ideas.

Make a 1-page flyer (or use this one) and post it in busy locations (coffee shops, supermarkets, libraries, post offices, etc.)

Post your event on every community calendar you can think of (internet, radio, newspaper, etc).

Email and/or call local reporters (TV, radio, newspaper, blogs) to personally invite them to attend.

An Agenda for Your Event:

Your agenda will depend on whether your Representative attends, what key speakers attend, what groups are involved, etc. Here are some ideas:

Be aware of how your Representative has voted in the past on funding the occupation.

Be aware of how much total money the Iraq Occupation is costing: http://3trillion.org

Be aware of exactly what you can ask Representatives and Senators to do.

Come early to set up and bring all the items you need.

Test the sound system to make sure it works.

Bring video cameras to record the event for Youtube.

Set up tables in the back for literature from your allies.

Set up a table and chairs on the stage with a readable sign for each speaker, including your Representative - whether (s)he attends or not.

On the podium, tape a sign with your Representative's name and DC phone number in large letters so everyone can add them to their cellphone.

Set up a card table at the door with several clipboards for sign-in sheets. Ask for name, zip, email, and cellphone for texting.

Bring a cash box for contributions.

Greet reporters at the door, thank them for coming, and invite them to sit in the front and interview the speakers.

After the speeches, ask everyone to call their Representative and leave a message with their name and address and a simple demand: vote NO on $102 billion more for Iraq.

Form a committee to keep up the pressure on your Representative through grassroots events like honkathons, ironing-board letter-writing, anti-war film showings, tables at community events, etc.

Make a plan to pass local resolutions in support of ending current wars, not starting new ones, impeachment, and indictment.

Show videos of the Winter Soldier testimony available at http://ivaw.org

Display and discuss the financial cost to your district of the occupation of Iraq. Find figures at http://costofwar.com and multiply by 6 to approximate the full cost as calculated by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes in "The Three Trillion Dollar War."

_______

Please post this graphic link to http://iraqtownhalls.com on your site:

Return to: http://iraqtownhalls.com

Nobody's Hero: My War Story

dlindorff — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:32:53 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I’m certainly no hero, but since some readers of my last post have
reacted by attacking my courage and integrity on the grounds that I
“never served,” I want to at least set the record straight on my
youthful response to war.

In 1967, when I was a senior in high school in Storrs, CT., I faced
a momentous decision. In April, I would turn 18, and would have to
register for the draft. The Vietnam War was by then in full swing. A
year or two earlier, I’d been an avid fan of military aviation
magazines, and bought into the whole anti-Communist Cold War thing. But
by ’67, I had seen enough of the violence being done in Vietnam against
a desperately poor peasant population—the napalm attacks on civilians,
the burned babies, etc.—that I had done a 180-degree turn. I wanted
nothing to do with war and killing. So I made a decision: I would fill
out my registration at the draft board, and I’d get my draft card, but
I would not let myself be inducted into the military.

When I told my parents, who still supported the war, of my plan,
they were of course upset but supportive. My dad was an engineer and a
former Marine and my mother a Navy WAVE in WWII. My paternal
grandfather had earned a silver star in WWI and my maternal grandfather
had had his lungs permanently scarred by mustard gas in the same
conflict. A history teacher, Bernie Marlin, referred me to a junior
high teacher in the school who had been a conscientious objector during
the Korean War. I talked with him, a Mr. Storrs, at length, and was
very impressed with his story, but I soon realized that I didn’t really
think I was CO material. I did feel war could be justified
sometimes—for example if America were attacked. At any rate, in early
April of ’67, I went ahead and filled out my draft registration form.

That fall, I began college at Wesleyan University. By then, I had
been working as a foot soldier in the anti-war movement a bit, and had
already been to one anti-war demonstration and march in New York City.
At college registration, there was a table for registering for a
student deferment. I decided on the spur of the moment to pass that up.
It seemed unfair to me that friends of mine in high school, who were
not college bound, were going to get drafted, but I wouldn’t because I
was lucky enough to be going to college. So unlike Vice President and
Warmonger-in-Chief Dick Cheney, I just skipped it. I figured when my
time came and I got an induction notice, I would just refuse, and
they’d jail me.

In October, there was a huge demonstration and march in Washington
against the war—the famous “Mobe” about which Norman Mailer wrote in
“Armies of the Night.” I went down to DC with a few other students. We
ended up near the front of the march, and then up on the Mall of the
Pentagon. Through the night, federal marshals were arresting people up
there on the Mall. I made it through until morning, when I was finally
grabbed by the legs, yanked through a line of bayonet-armed soldiers,
beaten with clubs and carried off to a paddy wagon, which took me to a
federal minimum-security prison in Occoquan, VA. I spent a couple days
there in the company of a hundred or so other demonstrators in a prison
dormitory. It was an education like no other. Veteran anti-war and
civil rights activists ran workshops about the war and about a strategy
of resistance, and about how we could build a better world. I soaked it
all up avidly.

When I was released, with a small fine and a 10-day suspended
sentence for “trespassing” on the Pentagon, I hitchhiked back to
school, all fired up to challenge the war. The night before my arrest,
I had joined hundreds of other protesters in burning my draft card. I
had kept the ashes in my shirt pocket, and when I got home, I put them
in an envelope and mailed them to my draft board, with a note saying I
would never carry that card again (a federal crime). My draft board
responded by sending me a new I-A card. I tucked it in my wallet,
saving it for the next card-burning opportunity.

Over the next two years, during which time I participated actively
in student radical activism, building sit-ins, and draft-resistance
actions, such as informational picketing of inductees at the induction
center in New Haven, CT, I had occasion to burn my card and tear up my
card several times—including once at a communion at the Yale chapel,
where we turned our cards in to Rev. William Sloane Coffin. Each time,
I’d send the ashes or the pieces of card to my draft board, and each
time, they’d send me a new one. Along the way, the infamous draft
lottery was established. I was number 81—a certainty to be called up.

At one point, back in the summer of 1968, I filed a CO application,
but I made it clear that I was not religious, and that I was not
opposed to all wars. When I had my CO hearing at the draft board, the
board members were sitting at a table, with all my destroyed draft
cards set in a pile in front of them. I explained to the men sitting in
judgement on me that while I opposed the war in Vietnam, if I were
Vietnamese, I would surely be fighting for my country against the US.
That didn’t go over very well. My application was unanimously rejected.

My day came in the spring of 1969. At the time, I was in a full leg
cast, having broken both bones in my lower leg just above the ankle in
a ski accident. I notified the induction center that I was on crutches
and in a cast and suggested they postpone my pre-induction physical
until I was out of the cast and all better—a delay of about four months
according to my doctor. They said no. They wanted to see me to make
sure I was genuinely injured.

So on a cold late-winter day, I found myself on a bus riding from
the draft board in Rockville, CT to New Haven with a bunch of
frightened young men. I handed out informational packets to everyone,
telling them their rights, how to apply for CO status, etc., and talked
about what was wrong with the war.

When we arrived, I joined everyone in taking the so-called
intelligence test. Then we went for our physicals. I was pulled from
the line and told I needed to go to see a consulting physician at
Yale-New Haven Hospital. Since the address was a mile or so away, and
the sidewalks were icy, I said I’d need cab fare. I was told by the
head of the medical unit that the government didn’t pay for
transportation. He informed me there was a bus that stopped outside
that would take me there.

I replied that I was on crutches, and that I hadn’t asked to be sent
to a consultation—in fact I had asked for a postponement until my leg
was healed—and said that if they wanted to send me anywhere they could
fucking well pay for the transportation. That didn’t make the guy very
happy. He had a screaming fit, and called the head of the center, who
came down. “What’s the problem?” he asked. I explained the situation,
and said that if they wanted me to go all the way to a hospital because
they didn’t trust that my leg was truly broken, they could pay my
fucking cab fare. The guy got angry, called me a “little prick,” but
then took out his wallet and threw some bills at me. I picked the money
up off the floor and went down to the street. Seeing no cab, I went
over to the bus stop. I looked up and saw the Induction Center
commander looking out of a window, so as the bus pulled up, I flipped
him a one-finger salute and got on.

At the hospital, I discovered that the office of the doctor in
question was closed for the day. Angry that I’d wasted all this time
for nothing, I got back on the bus and returned to the Induction
Center. This time, I went directly to the office of the head of the
center, and tossed an envelope of X-Rays from my doctor on his desk.
“It’s no wonder you’re losing the fucking war!” I said. “You guys can’t
even arrange a doctor’s appointment. The office was closed.” I told him
that he could check my X-Rays, and added, “But I’ve come down here once
already, and it’s the last time I’m coming. If you want me back, you
can send the FBI to bring me.” I hung around until the end of the day
and rode home on the bus to my draft board.

When I got there, I went into the office, where the office
secretary, an older woman with a neat grey perm, was still at her desk.
“Excuse me,” I said. “But I’m really pissed off.” She started at my
coarse language. I recounted my experience and she said, “Well, I think
they owe you an apology.” To my astonishment, she picked up the phone,
called the Induction Center, and asked to speak to the head of the
operation—the guy who’d thrown the money at me. “I have a young man
here who is very angry,” she said into the phone. “And I think you owe
him an apology.”

She handed me the phone.

“All right, you little prick,” he said, sounding like he was gritting his teeth. “I’m sorry.”

“You fuckin’ oughta be,” I said, again shocking the secretary.

I put down the phone, thanked the secretary and left.

A month later, to my astonishment, instead of FBI agents at my door,
I got a letter from my draft board. It was a card declaring me to be
IV-F—“unfit for military service.”

Clearly, there was no medical justification for my rejection. My leg
bones healed up just fine a few months later, and I spent part of the
next year loading heavy boxes in a warehouse and driving semi-trailer
trucks. I suspect that, it being 1969, and the army in Nam being by
then in a state of near insurrection, the Army had concluded it didn’t
want people like me anymore. Perhaps a year earlier, before Tet, I
might instead have been sent into the infantry.

I tell this story because while it may not be heroic, and while
other war resisters paid heavily for their stands, I nonetheless think
it contrasts well with the likes of a Dick Cheney, who hid through the
war years behind student deferments and his wife’s skirt, or of a
George Bush, who joined the Air National Guard and made care to check a
box saying he would be “unavailable for overseas duty”—something the
poor guys in the Guard now doing multiple tours in the Iraqi desert on
Bush's orders didn’t have the option of doing.

I don’t apologize for my opposition to the Vietnam War. And while
being prepared to go to jail for a principle may not rank on the
courage meter anywhere near to standing one’s ground under fire during
an enemy assault, or jumping on top of a live grenade, I’m proud that I
did my best to oppose it, and that I never once tried to duck
responsibility for my own actions. Furthermore, I’ll stand my actions
up against any of those in the Bush administration or in Congress who
are so quick to support wars, but who hid behind student deferments or
used powerful connections to avoid military service or combat duty
themselves when it was their turn to “serve.”
__________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist.
His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006
and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34504';
digg_title = "Nobody\'s Hero: My War Story";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\nI’m certainly no hero, but since some readers of my last post have reacted by attacking my courage and integrity on the grounds that I “never served,” I want to at least set the record straight on my youthful response to war.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

What's So Special About Veterans?

dlindorff — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:37:25 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The teacup tempest over retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s self-evident
remark about John McCain—to whit that flying a fighter aircraft and
getting shot down and captured is not particularly relevant to the
skill set needed to be a president—raises a larger question: Why do
veterans, and particularly the veterans of the criminal and pointless
war in Iraq, or the earlier criminal and pointless one in Vietnam,
automatically get “hero” status, and why are they seen as naturals to
run for higher national office?

I’m sure there are plenty of heroes in the military—people who put
their lives on the line, and even give their lives, for their comrades,
people who give up safe jobs and leave their families for what they see
as a patriotic duty. But let’s face it: the whole recruiting project is
about convincing young men and women that joining the military is in
their self-interest—a way to get ahead, a way to see the world, a way
to get financial aid for college, a way to have some excitement, a way
to get a fat signing bonus so you can buy that new car you’ve been
coveting. And people who sign up for these self-interested reasons are
no more heroic than people who go to work for Merrill Lynch or Wal-Mart.

Furthermore, while there are dangerous posts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the nature of the military is that the vast majority of
people who wear a uniform just work in offices or motor pools, and face
dangers no greater than workers who do the same thing in civilian life
at home. In fact, in the case of more hazardous work, like heavy
equipment repair or flying cargo planes, it’s probably safe to say that
after years of speedups and of gutting worker safety rules and
inspections, it may be safer working for the Pentagon than working for
a civilian employer.

Beyond that, there are people who are easily as heroic as many of our
uniformed citizens who don’t get any credit for their courage and
dedication to humanity and to their country. How about young doctors
who eschew lucrative careers in plastic surgery to work as GPs in
low-income communities or on Indian reservations? How about Peace Corps
or Vista volunteers who go to dangerous places at home and abroad to
help people improve their lives? The Pennsylvania soldier who died
throwing himself on top of a live grenade to save his buddies is a true
hero. But so is the 23-year-old math teacher slain in Philadelphia last
month who left safe, suburban Minnesota to take a low-wage post
teaching underserved kids in this notorious murder capital. Even in
uniform there are heroes who don’t get credit for their courage. How
about people like Lt. Ehren Watada or Sgt. Camilo Mejia, or other members of the military who risked jail, or even did hard time rather than fight, or continue to fight in an illegal war?

There are heroes in our schools, heroes on the job, heroes who work
in jobs like police officer or firefighter, heroes trying to raise
families in adversity, even heroes in politics (though these are few
and far between!). Most of them aren’t ever recognized by society for
what they do. Not everyone who serves in the military is a hero, and plenty of people who don’t, or won’t, wear a uniform are genuine heroes.

Furthermore, as Gen. Clark noted, wearing a uniform, and going to
war, or even earning a medal, do not make a person better suited for
government or politics. But I’d go him one further. Even having been a
high-ranking officer, and having had significant administrative or
policy-making experience in the military does not make a person any
better suited for an executive or a legislative position in government.
In fact, arguably, it makes a person less well suited for government in
a democratic society. The military is not a place that values open
expression of opinions. It is a top-down organization in which
obedience to “superiors” is valued more highly than initiative and
self-direction. The military isn’t even as democratic as the old
Bolshevik Party. At least in theory, Lenin’s Bolshevik model was
supposed to encourage democratic discussion until a decision was
reached by the leadership, after which there would be discipline and
unquestioned obedience. In the military, the democratic discussion part
is eliminated from the model. What that has to do with democratic
governance I don’t know.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a endless sympathy for the hundreds of
thousands of military personnel, active duty, reservist and National
Guard members, who got dragged off under false pretenses to have to
serve in an illegal war of aggression, even to get seriously wounded or
to die there, and I’m a strong supporter of generous veterans’ benefits
for all of them and for their long-suffering families.

But let’s not cheapen the term “hero” by assigning it to all of
them—especially while ignoring the heroism of those who have refused to
fight, or of those who engage in heroic efforts to better the lives of
their fellow human beings instead of just helping to kill them.

And let’s stop pretending that having worn a uniform somehow
automatically makes someone a better person, and a more competent
leader, than someone who never wore one.

The returned soldiers I’ve known from Vietnam, and the soldiers I’ve
spoken to who have served in Iraq, have for the most part been the
first to say that they don’t feel like heroes. It is, in fact, the
charlatans and political cowards in government who are busy promoting
endless war who are tossing that label around with such abandon. They
are in both parties, and we should recognize their abuse of the term,
“hero” and their fake stances of “respect” and “support” for the
troops, for what it is: cheap political posturing, designed to
intimidate critics of a criminal war.
___________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006,
and now available in paperback. His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

More Blood Money from Our Democratic Congress and Democratic Presidential Candidate

dlindorff — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:49:05 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended
benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional
Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving
the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the
Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost
of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and
supplies.

When workers pick up those unemployment checks from their state
Department of Labor offices, though, they should see them as dripping
blood. Those checks have been bought with the blood of American men and
women in uniform who have been sent over and over into harm’s way in
those two countries in misbegotten and criminal adventures that have
nothing to do with defending America and everything to do with boosting
the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, and with getting
Bush re-elected and Republicans elected.

Iraq Vets, too, should not
overlook the blood on their VA education benefits checks, because their
tuition will be paid by the blood of active-duty comrades still left
stranded in battle zones overseas.

It didn’t have to be like this.

For generations, Congress has voted supplemental funding for
unemployment benefits to be extended during economic downturns—not
always willingly, but always eventually, following enough pressure from
workers and the labor movement.

For generations, too, Congress has voted for education benefits for veterans.

This being an election year, passage of a freestanding supplemental
benefits bill for unemployment insurance and a restoration of decent
education benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would have
been a sure thing. Even Republicans facing the prospect of re-election
campaigns would have signed on to both measures by Labor Day and the
votes would have been there to override any Bush veto. Neither
measure—both important in themselves and badly needed—had to be tied to
a war-funding bill.

But Democrats in the House and Senate leadership weren’t really
thinking about the plight of the unemployed or the needs of returning
veterans in this case. They were, rather, thinking of a way of putting
some “progressive” window-dressing on a war-funding bill that they
wanted to pass without having to take responsibility for it. Their
objective was to push the whole issue of funding the wars out past
Election Day, in hopes of not having to discuss it in the coming
campaign.

Funding Bush’s and Cheney’s war in Iraq especially has, after all,
become a more and more unpopular and difficult affair for Democrats. In
this last go-round, fully 141 House Democrats voted against further
funding of the war—nearly the same number as voted for it (149). At
first, back in mid-May, the measure didn’t even pass, because
Republicans cleverly joined with the anti-war Democrats in blocking the
measure, forcing Democratic leaders to scramble to round up the votes
to pass a bill the second time around.

Americans clearly don’t want the war to continue, and Democrats
don’t want to have to face the voters, as every member of the House and
a third of the Senate have to do this November, being labeled as war
backers. That’s why they come up with these pathetic excuses like, “I’m
opposed to the war but we have to support the troops.”

Any sentient being in the country by now knows that most of the
long-suffering and abused troops, as polls have shown, think that the
best way to support them is to bring them home immediately. A Zogby
poll of active-duty troops in Iraq taken in 2006 found that 72% wanted
the US out within a year, while one in four wanted all US troops out
immediately. Only one in five supported staying “as long as necessary.”
(With many of those troops on yet another rotation, in some cases their
fifth, those numbers are probably even more in favor of immediate
withdrawal today.) Military experts have also written about how all the
troops in Iraq could be pulled out safely in as little as two weeks’
time. All the Pentagon would need to do is start running a constant
convoy of trucks south to Kuwait, carrying troops and weapons systems.
They could leave the porta-potties, the McDonalds stands, the bowling
alleys, the gyms and the barracks to the Iraqis and then blow up
whatever they didn’t want falling into the wrong hands. It would be
easy and fast. There’s no need for Obama’s proposed 16-month staged
withdrawal, which would just mean more unnecessary deaths and killings.

Democrats in Congress know all this, but congenitally spineless and
devoid of principle, they’re afraid if they don’t fund the war they
could be accused by Republicans of being “soft” on defense—as though
the Iraq War had anything at all to do with protecting America.

And so they have come up with this shameless ruse of attaching a
$95-billion domestic spending package, including unemployment funding
measure and a veterans’ education benefits measure, to a $162-billion
atrocity—a measure that assures more death and destruction in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and more dead and maimed American military personnel.
They’re pretending that they “pulled one over” on Bush by forcing him
to sign an unemployment extension bill and a veterans’ bill, when they
know Republicans would have forced him to sign those anyway, later in
the summer.

The real joke is on the American people, and on those very workers
and veterans who will be receiving the unemployment checks and tuition
reimbursements funded as a result of this duplicitous tactic.

The $162 billion that Congress has voted for the continuation of
the two pointless and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together
with the money already allocated for the so-called “War on Terror,” is
all borrowed, and is a major contributor to the collapse of the dollar
and to the resulting soaring of the price of oil, electricity and
imported goods. It is thus a major contributor to the credit crisis and
the collapse in the housing market that has pushed the nation into what
may be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Furthermore, the blood-money unemployment and tuition checks bought
through his gutless subterfuge by House and Senate Democrats will be
pissed away in no time on higher gas prices spent by workers on
desperate job searches, or on long commutes to distant jobs or commutes
if they are lucky enough to find them. It will be pissed away too for
veteran/students on their commutes to college, and on higher heating
bills for their families at home.

Equally important, the $160 billion wasted in Iraq, along with the
half trillion dollars being wasted every year on military spending for
a military colossus that encircles the globe for no good purpose other
than intimidation of other nations, assures that those Democrats who
control Congress can do nothing of consequence to shore up retirement
funds, to develop a national health program, to improve our dismal
school system, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, or to develop
alternative, non-polluting energy sources that could combat global
warming.

The Democratic Congress has shown itself to be worse than useless.
It is part of the problem. That includes Sen. Barack Obama, who like
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, signed onto this
contemptible funding bill.
_______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

David Swanson at Marquette University on June 19, 2008

davidswanson — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:07:43 -0400

I Hate to Say We Saw it Coming, But

davidswanson — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:27:16 -0400

By David Swanson

I posted the following on TomDispatch at the start of the current (and last?) Congress:

Can Congress End the War?
Democratic Leaders May Prefer to Claim They Tried But Failed
By David Swanson

The shortest route to ending the Iraq war (and preventing additional wars) is almost certainly through Congress. Influencing the White House directly is unimaginable, and stopping the war through the courts unlikely. Clearly, Congress is the way to go. But what specifically can Congress do?

How We Got Here

The peace movement lobbied a Republican Congress without success for four years. Then, on November 7, 2006, the American public elected a Democratic Congress in a clear mandate delivered at the polls. Not a single new Republican was elected, and 30 new Democrats were ushered in, with voters overwhelmingly telling pollsters that they were voting against the war; and by "against the war," they meant "against the war," not "against the escalation." Remember, the President's "surge" into Baghdad had not yet been announced.

Voters also appeared to be voting for accountability and possibly for the launching of impeachment hearings as well. Polls prior to the election found that a majority of Americans believed a Democratic Congress would impeach. Candidates who campaigned on the theme of accountability, including Keith Ellison (Dem., Minnesota) who promised impeachment, did well. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor impeachment or wish Bush's presidency were over. Voters in November even booted out a couple of Republicans who had turned against the war, saying that they were voting for a Democratic majority so that the Democrats could investigate the war as well as end it -- something a majority of Americans continue to say they want.

Prior to the election, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi had already ordered the Democrats in the House to oppose impeachment, but she had not ordered them to support the war. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), chaired by Congressman Rahm Emanuel, however, directed most of its financial support to candidates who did not call for ending the war. Of the 22 candidates funded by the DCCC, only 8 won. The rest of the victorious Democratic challengers, many of them strongly opposed to the war, got themselves elected without Emanuel's help.

Halfway Steps in the House

Of course, now that the election is over and the Democratic leadership has heard the people speak so clearly, now that, on January 27th, half a million Americans encircled the Capitol in opposition to the war, now that the new Congress has in its hands the power that the Republicans had a year ago, surely ending the war is at the top of its agenda.

Well, not according to Emanuel's way of thinking, as reported in the Washington Post:

"For the rest of the year, Emanuel says, the leadership hopes to stress energy independence (with fuel-saving efficiency standards for appliances and cars) and a move toward better health care for children. And here's what Emanuel doesn't want to do: fall into the political trap of chasing overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health care, and he shakes his head... Reform of Social Security and other entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky... The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

So, clearly the question before us is not just what Congress can do to end the war, but also how the American public can persuade a Democratic Congress to want to end the war. Most Republican members of Congress still follow White House orders like sheep, and leading House Democrat Emanuel is openly telling the media that he'd just as soon have the war still going on in 2008. The war has cost an estimated 655,000 Iraqi lives and over 3,000 American ones in its first 4 years, with the death rate increasing over time, so by a safe estimate Emanuel has just written off perhaps another few hundred thousand lives for the sake of an electoral strategy.

Prior to the recent Congressional recess, Congressman Jack Murtha proposed that he draft a new bill, agreeing to throw $93 billion or so at the war in the form of another "emergency supplemental" outside the regular federal budget. That may not sound like an anti-war proposal, but it certainly passed for one in Washington, D.C. In fact, Murtha was pilloried by Republicans and much of the media because he proposed including requirements that troops be properly rested, trained, and equipped before being sent to Iraq. Murtha argued that these requirements would force Bush to end his "surge."

In a climate in which opposition to the "surge" had become confused with opposition to the war, Murtha's plan was, amazingly enough, treated as the near equivalent of pacifism. And no strong defense of it emerged from the Democratic leadership. Instead the plan evolved into a proposal to require the President to inform Congress when he was deploying troops lacking adequate rest, training, or equipment. But it is unclear how this would even curtail the present escalation, much less end the war, and there has been no indication of what Congress would do if Bush failed to obey this reporting requirement.

Bizarrely, this whole discussion has taken place without any reference to the fact that, in November 2003, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which placed limits on the number of days that a member of the Armed Forces could be deployed. Bush signed that bill into law, but added a signing statement announcing his intention to disregard that section. The U.S. Constitution gives the President the power to sign bills into law and enforce them, or to veto them. There is no constitutional middle course. Yet Bush has routinely used signing statements to announce his plans to disregard portions of bills he signs into law. This abuse might be addressed by impeachment proceedings, something the Democrats are not currently considering. But short of addressing this abuse, Congress Members could at least behave as though they were aware of it.

Wholehearted House Actions

Numerous peace and justice organizations seeking to end the war are urging Congress Members to vote "no" on the $93 billion supplemental bill. At the same time, they are watching closely for possible amendments to the bill that could require the money be spent on a rapid withdrawal. Such amendments might be introduced and voted on in the House Appropriations Committee, on which Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., California) serves, along with Murtha, or they might be introduced and voted on in the full House.

If a bill provided billions of dollars for the war but required that it all be spent on the withdrawal of troops, and if such a bill passed both houses of Congress, the President would be unable to veto it without denying himself a source of funding he badly wants. And there is at least a chance that Congress would take umbrage and pay attention if he cancelled the end of the war with another of his signing statements.

Other possibilities for ending the war in the House include not passing a supplemental bill at all, or passing one of the four bills that have been introduced (by Representatives Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler, and Dennis Kucinich) that would use the power of the purse to try to bring the war to an end. There are also several bills that would instruct the President to end the war while continuing to fund it, an approach that seems more likely to pass both houses of Congress, but far less likely to achieve anything close to their stated goal.

Senator Russ Feingold held hearings in January on the constitutional power of the Congress to end a war. One point on which there seems to be consensus: Congress has the Constitutional power to control what money is spent on (even if that power has hardly been touched in any meaningful way in recent years). If Congress says no more money can be spent on the war, then that is the law of the land -- although the history of the Iran-Contra scandal, the secret beginning of the current Iraq War, and operations now underway in Iran remind us that the law of the land and the acts of the White House can sometimes be two separate matters.

Congressman Kucinich's bill is brand new. The other three House bills have been in play for some weeks. While Congressman Nadler's bill does not have the support among his colleagues that Woolsey's and McGovern's do (thanks to both friendships and political alliances), Nadler has perhaps done the best job of crafting a bill in which Congress could make use of its undisputed power to end the war. While the other two bills first instruct Bush to end the war in a specific period of time, and only afterward forbid the use of additional funds for the war that is now theoretically over, Nadler's bill immediately restricts the use of any money appropriated by Congress to withdrawing the troops from Iraq.

Actually, Nadler's bill restricts the use of funds to protecting the troops and withdrawing them. He admits that the "protecting the troops" part is a bit of nonsense, since the only way to protect them is to withdraw them. But all of these bills have been written with a keen eye to repelling the commonplace criticism that bringing our troops safely home somehow constitutes a failure to "support the troops."

Senate Shortcomings and Opportunities

A new sideways approach to ending the war without saying you're ending it is only now emerging in the Senate. This one involves "reauthorizing" the war. This war was, of course, never declared but pre-authorized to be launched at the President's discretion for the purpose of eliminating Iraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction and combating those falsely alleged to have been behind the attacks of 9-11. The facts have already repealed that authorization, but it would be useful for Congress to do so as well.

Actually reauthorizing the war, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be less useful, as it might appear to the public to be support for the war; while any aspects of the reauthorization aimed at slowly ending the war will surely be viciously attacked by the administration and its supporters. In fact, that's already begun. The White House is denouncing any attempts to restrict the war as "micromanagement" and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced that Bush will probably disregard restrictions placed on the war by Congress. Rice was asked in a broadcast interview whether the President would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days. "The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done," she replied. This brazenly unconstitutional stance is another one of those "details" -- like Bush's past signing statements -- that Congress might do well to bear in mind and cease trying to ignore.

There are a couple of possible ways the Senate might get around this. One would simply be not to pass the Pentagon's supplemental spending bill -- something that 41 Senators could accomplish through a filibuster. The other would be to pass Senator Russ Feingold's bill to stop funding the war, which would obviously require a far higher voting hurdle than that filibuster. Passing a bill would involve gathering a majority -- and overriding a veto to maintain it, a two-thirds vote in both houses. The filibuster, however, presents another kind of hurdle in that it requires some Senator or group of Senators to find the decency and courage to begin it, uncertain of success.

Legislating a Unitary Executive

What is lost in all of these strategy discussions, of course, is the question of whether any sort of Congressional cut-off of funds would actually truncate either the surge or the war. Remember, the President and Vice President began the preparations for the invasion of Iraq secretly with at least $2.5 billion illegally taken from other areas. They have promised never to end the war. They have asserted the power of a "unitary executive." They have launched pre-war operations in Iran without any authorization or funding from Congress. They have built permanent bases in Iraq without any approval from Congress, and continued that construction work in violation of a bill passed by Congress forbidding the use of any funding for it.

So, the question is not just whether Congress can cut off the money, but whether the Bush administration can find enough money in other places illegally to continue a war that has never in any sense been legal. The amount of money we're talking about is enormous, but it is a fraction of the Pentagon's budget, and it seems clear that -- given the kinds of "black budget" moneys floating around in that world -- the war could be continued for some time (long enough at least to gin up a new enemy to scare Congress with); that is, unless the military sides with Congress in this dispute and refuses to pursue the war with misappropriated funds.

If any of these strategies to end the war come to fruition in Congress, a more likely outcome than an actual end to the war would be a full-scale confrontation with the "commander-in-chief" presidency of George Bush (and the vice-presidency of Dick Cheney), leading to possible impeachment proceedings.

Here's the reality, however: None of these strategies are likely to advance very far very soon. A movement for impeachment now might strengthen the hand of those in Congress who want to move on ending the war. During the Vietnam War, the peace and impeachment efforts aided each other. And the Democrats then won the next elections, something they failed to do after choosing not to pursue impeachment proceedings against Ronald Reagan for the Iran-Contra scandal.

What Could Change

Two events on the horizon might change this outlook. One is an attack on Iran. Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers have said they favor launching the impeachment process if the Bush administration attacks Iran. Needless to say, it would be better to begin proceedings to impeach in order to prevent an attack on Iran, but that is unlikely in the present political atmosphere.

The other event that could take us all surprising places is the completion of the trial of I. Lewis Scooter Libby. The evidence made public by that trial points to an urgent need for impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney. The evidence suggests that Cheney was the driving force behind the campaign of retribution against ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, including the outing of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. Journalist Murray Waas has indicated some of the points that cry out for investigation. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has urged Cheney to "come clean," offer an explanation for his actions, or resign. A blogger with the handle emptywheel has drafted a mock indictment of Cheney, and Wil S. Hylton has recently published possible articles of impeachment against the Vice President in the men's fashion magazine GQ.

It seems everyone's getting into the act, except Congress. But Congress could do so. The evidence uncovered by the Libby trial did not exist when Pelosi ordered impeachment "off the table" a year ago. Among the public, there is a lot of fear that impeaching Bush (and removing him from office) would give us a President Cheney. By impeaching the incredibly unpopular Cheney first, Congress would allay these fears. Impeaching Cheney might actually unite the mood of the public with that of Congress more easily than the impeachment of George W. Bush -- under the motto: Business Before Pleasure -- Impeach Cheney First!

In the meantime, the Democrats' strategy of letting the war continue, not thoroughly investigating the fraud that launched it, and not holding the war-makers accountable may prove not to be the electoral winner that Party figures like Emanuel expect. It might even prove a political equalizer and so a loser in 2008 or beyond. Every day that the Democrats don't move to end the war in Iraq is another day in which that war, stretching ever on, can become the Democrats' war. Only if they come to believe that the war's unpopularity will work against them in the voting booths in 2008 or thereafter will they be strongly motivated to take the sorts of actions that might actually bring it to an end.

David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. His website is davidswanson.org.

[Note: For those who want to know more about bringing citizen pressure on Washington and/or promoting and lobbying for the launching of impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney, check out David Swanson's previous Tomdispatch piece, "The Impeachment Moment," and then visit ImpeachO7.org.]

McCain Advisor Offers Solution for Iraqis: Servitude!

davidswanson — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:47:11 -0400

Meet Martin Eisenstadt. Thanks to Raed Jarrar for pointing this out.

Raed comments: "oh, man. This is classic! this video is so funny i can't believe it's real. I don't get how an untranslated english interview can be aired on Al-Iraqiya, but it is a must see anyway. ladies and gentlemen, please meet the new US strategy to unite Iraq: Giuliani/McCain's adviser (Mr. Eisenstadt) wants to use the same uniform for Iraqi servants in the Green Zone. So whether you were a Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd, you will be working in the brand new casinos with the saaaaame outfit...."

Thanks to Shakesville for a history of this hoax.

Videos from June 13 Iraq Forum, "Reframing the Iraq War Discussion," in Cherry Hill, NJ

dlindorff — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:16:21 -0400

Adam Kokesh of Iraq Veterans Against the War (Part 1)

Kokesh Reams Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) for Backing the War (Part 2)

Dave Lindorff on the Bush/Cheney Push for War with Iran (Part 1)

Dave Lindorff on the Bush/Cheney Push for War with Iran (Part 2)

"Blood and Oil" an Important Film to See and Share

davidswanson — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:42:07 -0400

"Blood and Oil" is a very, very well made film that will show you something new even if you already know that - as Dubya admits - the United States is addicted to oil, even if you know the deal that FDR cut with the king of Saudi Arabia on February 14, 1945 (and have already seen the film footage of them meeting on a US ship accompanied by the king's slaves and astrologers), even if you know the openly oily basis of the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, and Reagan's Persian Gulf policies, the origins of Centcom, and the oily panic of Bush I (who finally established that the policy of blood for oil would be hushed up and disguised by phony war justifications), even if you know that Bush I's reneging on his promise to leave Saudi Arabia after driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait turned Osama bin Laden into an enemy of the United States, even if you've followed the crimes of Cheney-Bush and the establishment of Africom, even if you have been screaming against war for oil since before Shock and Awe.

Get this film and host an event showing it!

http://www.bloodandoilmovie.com