Saturday, May 14, 2005

Peace Takes Courage

Posted by Unknown at 2:26 PM 0 comments

CIA-Trained Terrorist Comes Home to Roost [and By whittle georgie He Will 'Roost' Here!!]

  • A Terrorist Comes Home to Roost
  • By Jim Lobe
  • Inter Press Service
  • Friday 13 May 2005
  • http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051405Y.shtml
  • Washington - The sudden and untimely arrival on U.S. territory of a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asset and admitted terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, poses an embarrassing challenge to the credibility of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
    Posada, who in an interview with the New York Times seven years ago admitted to organising a wave of bombings in Cuba in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist and injured 11 others, is best known as the prime suspect in the bombing of a Cubana Airlines flight shortly after it took off from Barbados in October 1976.
    The incident, in which all 73 crew members and passengers including teenaged members of Cuba's national fencing team were killed, was the first confirmed mid-air terrorist bombing of a commercial airliner.
    Then-President George Bush in 1990 pardoned Orlando Bosch, another Cuban exile opposed to President Fidel Castro and implicated in the plot, overruling a strong U.S. Justice Department opinion that called for Bosch's deportation.
    Posada, who also worked for the operation supplying "Contra" rebels in Central America in the mid-1980s until the Iran-Contra scandal broke open with the downing of one of its planes, was also convicted of conspiring to assassinate Castro during a 2000 visit to Panama. A Panamanian court sentenced him to eight years in prison in 2004 but he was unexpectedly pardoned by outgoing President Mireya Moscosa last September and flew to Honduras.
    "This is a real test of (President) George W. Bush's commitment to fighting terrorism," said Peter Kornbluh, a Latin American specialist at the non-governmental National Security Archive (NSA). This week, the organisation released a series of declassified U.S. documents that detailed Posada's terrorist history and his previous association with the CIA.
    "Already, U.S. credibility has been eroded in the six weeks since Posada apparently arrived in the United States without the government doing anything about it," Kornbluh told IPS Thursday. He said Posada had apparently arrived in south Florida, almost certainly by boat, in late March.
    A spokesperson at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Miami, where Posada's attorney, Eduardo Soto, announced April 12 that his client had filed an asylum claim, told IPS that its agents were not looking for Posada because "no warrant for his arrest has been issued."
    "We do have an interest in talking with him but we don't have a way to exercise jurisdiction without a warrant," she said.
    Venezuela, where Posada was originally arrested shortly after the 1976 Air Cubana bombing, is expected to transmit a provisional arrest warrant to the State Department either Friday or Monday, according to Arelis Baiba, a spokesperson for its embassy here. The issuance of the warrant will be followed by a formal extradition request.
    In deliberating on the case earlier this week, the Venezuelan Supreme Court referred to Posada as "the author or accomplice of homicide," adding, "he must be extradited and judged."
    It is unclear how the Bush administration, whose ties to Venezuela are increasingly fraught, will react, although many analysts said they believe that Washington will not deport him to Caracas.
    Some said that administration intermediaries are trying to persuade Posada to leave the U.S. precisely in order to avoid further embarrassment for Bush.
    "I think they're trying to persuade him to quietly leave the country," said Wayne Smith, a Cuba specialist at the Washington-based Center for International Policy (CIP) who served as chief of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s. "But will he go along with that? I don't know."
    For now, the administration insists it has no idea where Posada is or even whether he is actually on U.S. soil. At a public appearance earlier this week, the hardline Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger Noriega, ignoring the fact that Posada's lawyer was the first to declare that he was in the United States, charged that more recent charges by Castro himself that Posada was here could be "inventions."
    In a call-in to a Miami radio station, Bosch, who said he believes Posada should indeed receive asylum, said he had talked with Posada who confirmed that he was in the United States.
    "In terms of where he presently is, I think it's fair to say we don't know," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey Monday. Asked whether the State Department considered Posada to be a terrorist, Casey said the foreign ministry had no "particular assessment."
    According to the NSA, Posada, who is now 77 years old, joined the U.S. military in 1963 and was recruited by the CIA, which trained him in demolitions. CIA documents posted at the NSA's Web site show that he was terminated as an asset in July 1967 only to be reinstated four months later.
    The relationship lasted until 1974, although he retained contact with the agency at least until June 1976, three months before the plane bombing, according to the documents. During that period, he worked as a senior official in the Venezuelan intelligence agency, DISIP.
    Another 1972 CIA document describes Posada as a high-level official in charge of demolitions at DISIP. The report noted that Posada had apparently taken CIA explosives supplies to Venezuela and was associated with a Miami mafia figure named Lefty Rosenthal.
    A series of 1965 FBI memos obtained by NSA describe Posada's participation in a number of plots involving sabotage and explosives, as well as his financial ties to Jorge Mas Canosa, another anti-Castro activist who would later go on to found and lead the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF).
    Plots included efforts to blow up Cuban or Soviet ships in Veracruz, Mexico, and the bombing of the Soviet library in Mexico City. One memo links him to a major plot to overthrow the Guatemalan government, an effort halted by the discovery by U.S. Customs agents of a cache of weapons that included napalm and explosives. During this period, Posada was working with the CIA.
    In one of the very first reports on the Oct. 6, 1976 bombing of the Cubana Air flight, a cable from the FBI Venezuelan bureau cites an informant who identified Posada and Bosch as responsible and notes that the two Venezuelan suspects -- who both worked for a Caracas private security firm set up by Posada in 1974 -- had been arrested by police in Barbados.
    A follow-up Nov. 2 cable cites information from another Cuban-exile informant for DISIP, Ricardo Morales Navarrete, also known as "Monkey" Morales, about Posada's participation in planning meetings before the bombing.
    Posada was arrested by Venezuelan authorities shortly after the bombing in what one former FBI counter-intelligence official described to the Times earlier this week as a "preventative measure -- to prevent him from taking or being killed."
    "They knew he had been involved," said Carter Cornick. "There was no doubt in anyone's mind, including mine, that he was up to this eyeballs," in the Air Cubana bombing. Posada then spent the next eight years in jail, punctuated by two inconclusive trials, before escaping a minimum-security facility in 1985 and making his way to Central America.
    Posada, who is rumoured to be suffering from cancer, now hopes to gain asylum in the United States, posing a particularly delicate problem for a president whose family has long courted anti-Castro militants in the Cuban-American community but who himself has sworn that neither terrorists nor the governments that harbour them should escape punishment.
    -------

  • (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
  • "Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Posted by Unknown at 12:15 PM 0 comments

Seymour Hersh: Iraq "Moving Towards Open Civil War"

Posted by Unknown at 6:48 AM 0 comments

Friday, May 13, 2005

The Family Released A Statement... Must Read

  • The obscene spectacle of the grieving families at funerals forced by the president’s dishonesty to defend the honor of their dead even as they mourn: Small wonder that the president, desperately attempting to hide behind a façade of rigid religiosity that glorifies war and false patriotism that exalts the very evils it claims to despise, never attends the funerals of those who have died in the line of duty. How could he?"
  • http://snipurl.com/evct {Go To URL for Links to Embedded Note Numbers}
  • The Family Released A Statement..
  • "Mass round-ups and detentions of innocent civilians, torture and abuse of prisoners and detainees, America’s honor and prestige at the lowest point ever, and investigations that whitewash the president’s men and blame it all on the enlisted personnel. Thus the obscene spectacle of the grieving families at funerals forced by the president’s dishonesty to defend the honor of their dead even as they mourn: Small wonder that the president, desperately attempting to hide behind a façade of rigid religiosity that glorifies war and false patriotism that exalts the very evils it claims to despise, never attends the funerals of those who have died in the line of duty. How could he?"
  • by Michael Gillespie05/13/05 "MMN" - -
  • If you've been paying attention to the exclusively local media coverage of the funerals of the mostly young American servicemen and security contractors killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, you will have noticed that the families are increasingly finding it necessary to make public statements declaring the goodness and decency of their loved ones who have given their lives in the line of duty or in the service of the corporations that provide manpower to meet the Pentagon's still growing demand for private security contractors. "He was noble and always carried himself with honor. He was kind and gentle and always gave all he could without hesitation. He was a loving husband and father. [He] believed in his mission in Iraq. He was a strong man and stood up for what he knew was right." "[He] died serving his country and protecting our freedom. [He was] a loving husband and father, a devoted son and brother. He was the best of the best our country had to offer." And, in the case of a security contractor, "[He was] a true patriot, a beloved brother, son and friend. . . . It was [his] deep sense of patriotism and his abiding Christian faith that led him to work in Iraq. He wanted to go where good people needed help. He will be dearly missed.” The sentiments expressed by these families reflect some of the most painful and deeply felt of all human emotions, and none can doubt the families' sincerity. Surely very few Americans, perhaps especially those who oppose the war, many because they have personally experienced the horror and terrible grief that accompany war, feel anything other than an empathetic sorrow at these families' grief. Though few commentators have dared to broach the topic, it is almost impossible not to recognize that there is something else, something other than shock, loss, and grief at work in these public declarations of the goodness, decency, selflessness, and nobility of America's fallen heroes. The public statements now in vogue are irrefutable evidence of the families’ evidently felt need to defend the honor and integrity of their loved ones. There can be little doubt why the families of America’s war dead find it necessary to issue such statements. They are a response to the ugly, demoralizing truth about America’s so-called war on terror. In the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, President Bush and his administration over-reacted. The cowboy president and his neoconservative cabal tossed aside the Geneva Conventions and more than half a century of progress in the area of human rights law. They privatized many of the functions of the U.S. military and pressured U.S. intelligence agencies and organizations to provide information favorable to their war plans. Then they and their willingly compliant media operatives used the public airways to stampede the nation into an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq on the basis of unreliable and falsified intelligence findings. In the days following September 11, as soon as he regained his typically arrogant bearing, the president, presumably as part of an effort to distract attention from his administration’s culpability in the massive intelligence failure that allowed the worst ever attack on the United States to succeed, publicly appealed to a vigilante ethic, the rough justice of the Old West that predates the established rule of law. "I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" [1] On September 17, 2001, the president sounded more like a frontier town marshal getting up a posse or a lynch mob than a president taking the modern world’s only superpower nation to war. That, as it turns out, was no accident. The tone the president set early on, which appears to have been an accurate reflection of his personal convictions, has had a profound influence on his administration’s war on terror. It’s effects, the unsurprising but nonetheless shocking result of incompetence, malfeasance, haste, and excess in support of questionable ideological goals, can be seen everywhere: A demoralizing torture and abuse scandal of unprecedented proportions that continues to resist all the administration’s attempts at whitewash and cover-up; reluctant allies abandoning a bloody, destructive, and enormously expensive occupation gone-wrong in Iraq; and a counter-productive foreign policy driven by a war on terror that produces more terrorists than it eliminates, all with no end in sight. When the president's publicly stated rationale for the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was revealed as a pack of lies designed to deceive the American people, the occupation and those actively involved in it necessarily became somewhat suspect even though many of them doubtlessly trusted their president and believed the false and misleading statements with which he and his administration and its media operatives took the nation to war. Photographs of U.S. troops and private contractors engaged in the brutal abuse, torture, and sexual humiliation of Iraqis and others at Abu Ghraib revealed America’s ill-conceived foray into Iraq as something other than the noble effort to democratize the Middle East advertised by the Bush administration as the search for weapons of mass destruction proved fruitless. Several subsequent investigations, even as they have sought to absolve higher-ups in the chain of command, have revealed persuasive evidence of systematic, wide-spread abuse and torture as an integral element of the Bush administration’s war on terror. [2] By absolving the civilian leadership in the Pentagon of responsibility and rewarding the authors of the policies that led to torture and abuse, including former White House counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush has protected the generals and his loyal political appointees by shifting blame and suspicion to the rank-and-file, those who actually risk their lives day after day in the war zones in behalf of his deeply-flawed policies. On the face of it, privatized war is an inherently evil and fundamentally un-American enterprise. There is little that is noble about war. Ask any combat veteran. There is even less that is noble about the Bush administration’s war-for-profit scheme that has, by some estimates, taken the lives of over 100,000 Iraqis since the 2003 invasion began. Private companies have always been allowed to make a reasonable profit from defense contracts, but the Bush administration has turned war into a get-rich-quick scheme in which “no-bid” [3] and “cost-plus” [4] contracts worth millions and billions of tax dollars go with minimal supervision to corporations such as Blackwater USA, CACI, Custer Battles, and Kellogg, Brown & Root, the engineering arm of Halliburton, which was formerly headed by vice-president Cheney, who is widely reported to have been the driving force behind the neoconservative cabal’s determined effort to manufacture intelligence findings favorable to the administration’s plans for war. [5] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has outsourced many military duties to private security firms that offer a wide variety of services, allowing the Bush administration to increase the size and scope of its military operations without resorting to a politically unpopular draft. Private security firms provide highly-skilled and experienced former military personnel for especially risky operations, for which some former U.S. special forces soldiers and officers trained at taxpayer expense reportedly charge as much as $1,500 per day. Many of some 35 private security firms with contracts in Iraq employ foreign nationals, including former members of the apartheid-era South African military and police forces. Blackwater USA, a major private security firm, reportedly employs about 60 ex-commandos trained by the regime of former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet, now under indictment for human rights crimes. [6] In the era of privatization, private security firms, which operate behind a veil of secrecy [7], wield substantial influence in official Washington not least because of the huge sums of money they are able to demand for their services. No less an American hero than Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th president and the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII, so intensely distrusted what is euphemistically called the defense establishment that he offered this prescient warning to Americans as he left the White House: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. [8] Reliable estimates have put the number of private security contractors employed by the Pentagon in Iraq at about 20,000. Some 5,000 of those are heavily armed, while others engaged in vital military logistical support roles such as driving, maintenance, training, communications, and interrogating prisoners are less heavily armed. All are paid very handsomely for their services. Private security firms have given new meaning to the term “soldier of fortune,” and money is typically a very important factor in the contractors' decisions to risk their lives for the Bush administration's plan to democratize Iraq at gun point and secure that country's oil reserves for U.S. oil companies. A Washington Post article reported last month that security contract personnel in Iraq average $500 to $600 per day for their services: As the Blackwater convoy sped down the airport highway, John "Tool" Freeman, a red-headed ex-Marine, was at the wheel of the lead Mamba, a high-riding, $70,000 armored vehicle designed to withstand antitank mines. Used by the South African military in Angola, the vehicle is Blackwater's primary means of zipping State Department employees and other nations' diplomats to Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. For additional protection, the convoys are shadowed by helicopters with armed guards perched at the open doors scanning for potential attackers. Freeman, of Portsmouth, Va., said he joined Blackwater after seeing some Marines on television during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "I'd been missing it for a while," he recalled. "I said 'Man, I really need to get back into this.'" But with average pay of $500 to $600 a day, he said, the money was also a big draw for him and his buddies. He said he planned to work for Blackwater for three years to save up cash for retirement – and a sailboat. Most of us have a plan – it's like, make hay while the sun shines," he said. [9] Saving up cash for retirement and to buy a sailboat are, to put it mildly, not traditional American reasons for going off to fight foreign wars. The lure of high-paying jobs that promise young men more money in six months than they can earn at home in two years is strong. But there is something unsavory – and distinctly un-American – about the very idea of going to war for mercenary motives, and that has not escaped most Americans despite the Bush administration’s deceptive, jingoistic sales pitch. That's why, from the beginning, the president and his glib spokespersons adamantly insisted that the invasion of Iraq was all about defending America from Saddam Hussein's deadly – and non-existent – arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, not about gaining exclusive access to and control over Iraq’s huge oil reserves. On December 15, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes presenter Steve Croft, “Mr. Secretary, what do you say to people who think this is about oil?” Rumsfeld responded: “Nonsense. It just isn’t. There – there – there are certain things like that, myths that are floating around. I’m glad you asked. I – it has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.” [10] Yet, during the invasion and in its aftermath, U.S. troops acted immediately to secure Iraq’s oil industry infrastructure and little else. Rumsfeld’s army stood passively by as looters ransacked the rest of the country, including arms and munitions storage facilities, with abandon. Later, rather than employ Iraqis desperately in need of work, combat-booted Coalition Provisional Authority honcho Paul Bremer arbitrarily disbanded the Iraqi army and left its soldiers to their own devices in order to provide lucrative jobs for private contractors, a great many of them from the southern U.S. states that form the core of Bush’s ideological base. American troops have paid and continue to pay a terrible price in blood for the neoconservative Bush administration’s ideologically-inspired mistakes, misjudgments, and miscalculations. In the 230-year history of our country it has never before been necessary to pay Americans exorbitant salaries to get them to defend their homes, their families, and their country in time of war. Americans have willingly fought and bravely died for little or no pay when the cause was just, freedom was at risk, and war was necessary. Today, military recruiters are failing to meet their quotas, not because Americans are unpatriotic, cowardly, or lazy, but because Americans increasingly find it difficult to trust a government that threw the rulebook out the window, rushed the country into war with a frenzied media campaign based on lies, sent troops with substandard equipment and no protective gear into combat to fight and to die, and then, when questioned, said, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." [11] Consider for a moment how men and women who enlisted in “not the army you might want or wish to have” to serve their country in its time of need might feel when they see private citizens and foreign nationals doing jobs very similar to their own in the war zone for salaries that exceed their own by $100,000 or more per year. When America goes to war because her elected leaders have no choice but to send troops in harm’s way to defend the country against “an imminent threat” [12] to national security, the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice for home, family, and country feel no need to publicly declare the goodness, decency, nobility, and patriotism of their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, and cousins, because the honor of their cause and the qualities that endear them to us and ensure our survival are never in doubt. But when America goes to war because dishonest and corrupt leaders want to tighten and maintain their hold on power, provide a boost for a sagging economy, and make it possible for their inordinately wealthy friends to reap windfall profits at the expense of the troops and their families, cruelly divisive and demoralizing dynamics obtain. Mass round-ups and detentions of innocent civilians, torture and abuse of prisoners and detainees, America’s honor and prestige at the lowest point ever, and investigations that whitewash the president’s men and blame it all on the enlisted personnel. Thus the obscene spectacle of the grieving families at funerals forced by the president’s dishonesty to defend the honor of their dead even as they mourn: “He was noble and always carried himself with honor.” “[He was] a loving husband and father, a devoted son and brother.” “He wanted to go where good people needed help.” “He will be dearly missed.” Small wonder that the president, desperately attempting to hide behind a façade of rigid religiosity that glorifies war [13] and false patriotism that exalts the very evils it claims to despise, never attends the funerals of those who have died in the line of duty. How could he? As flag-draped coffins continue to stream back to America under cover of darkness and a media blackout, as the funerals for the war dead continue to receive only local news coverage, as voices of dissent are systematically excluded by mainstream media, last week in North Carolina, the state that is home to Blackwater USA, there occurred an obscene spectacle of another sort in a Baptist church when a group of deacons voted to expel church members who don’t support President Bush and his policies. [14] Bush supporters in the congregation reportedly stood and applauded as excommunicated Democrats walked out of their church. Bush made no public statement distancing himself from the events in North Carolina. He and his neoconservative cabal seem not to understand or care that theocracy, one-party government in which only those who hold certain religious views are allowed to participate, is antithetical to our form of government and our way of life. In fact, the president’s silence signals his support for House Resolution 235, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act sponsored by Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina. [15] HR 235, which now has 165 co-sponsors, all of whom wish to see religion further politicized, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow churches and other religious organizations to engage in explicitly partisan political activity, including endorsing favored candidates and demonizing others, while maintaining their tax exempt status. If HR 235 becomes law, the only possible outcome is an America ever more deeply and dangerously divided. The violence the Bush administration has done and seems to be determined to continue doing to the American body politic, the injury to the intelligence community and to the military, the harm to the ethos of honesty and integrity in government and the rule of law, and, not least, the insult to America’s fallen heroes and their families, all of this is as inexcusable and as unforgivable as the chaos, death, and destruction visited upon Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians and others as a direct result of the president’s counterproductive war on terror and the unfolding disaster that passes for a neoconservative foreign policy. [16] America desperately needs leaders who are courageous enough to put principles before partisan politics, leaders who can be trusted not to sacrifice the lives and the honor of American civilian and military personnel and private citizens on the altar of corporate greed in wars of conquest and national aggrandizement, leaders who can be trusted to resist the temptation to politicize religion and turn the United States of America into a warrior theocracy bent on world domination or the apocalyptic glory of death and destruction, whichever comes first.
  • Freelance Investigative Journalist and Commentator Michael Gillespie writes about Politics and Media for Media Monitors Network (MMN). His work also appears frequently in the popular Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Posted by Unknown at 7:52 PM 0 comments

Thursday, May 12, 2005

New 'Truth' BillBoard Campaign - 'Bravo' GrassRoots Dems, South Dakota


GrassRoots Dems, South Dakota Posted by Hello

  • The big news; our billboards are up in Sioux Falls. The feedback and response has been AMAZING! We mainly received responses of sincere thanks, we heard some reserved concerns and we even got couple of pieces of hate mail – we appreciate all of it!
  • http://tinyurl.com/c2ju9
  • Democrats make America stronger.
    We firmly believe this. We are excited to take the message, “Democrats make America stronger”, to the street. We also believe discussion makes America stronger, that is why we did not shy away from reminding America of our values – taking care of the poor and managing the deficit. Based on the outpouring of financial support, we know you agree with us – Democrats do make America stronger.
  • http://tinyurl.com/coqjn
  • The Billboards are up and the feedback has been tremendous. The Argus Leader picked up the story on Tuesday and interviewed our own Lisa Engels.
    “The whole thing behind it is to counteract the Christian right and their so-called monopoly on religion,” "They have been able to get out there and convince people that the flag wraps better around them than it does us, and that is not true.”
    The sign above is located at 7th and Minnesota. The second sign is located at 3000 W Russell.

  • "We have received some hate mail, but most of the feedback has been very positive."
    Executive Director Roger Berggren noted, "I am not sure the 'Jesus cares for the poor' sign speaks to everybody, but it does speak to those Christian progressives that have spent the last two years walking though church seeing James Dobson fliers and hearing their Priests and Ministers tell them they cannot be a good Christian and a good Democrat at the same time."
    Amy Crusinberry a student at Sioux Falls University said she loves the sign. After attending an english class where a student calmly got up and told the class "all Democrats are going to hell," she changed her mind about being silent on faith issues. "For me, a huge part of being a Democrat is changing people's narrow-minded views and I think it's possible. It's just going to take some people who are not afraid."
    Others have expressed concerns that by posting this sign we are promoting a religious piety that imposes our beliefs on others. This is certainly not our intent. Our goal is to reach out to Christians and ask, who really cares for the poor? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and countless other programs that keep people out of destitute poverty are all programs started by and protected by Democrats. Republicans have been trying to destroy these programs for years by promoting faith without reason. Our June Book Club will be meeting to discuss the book God's Politics, where the author Jim Wallis, a liberal Democrat, addresses these issues of faith and why we can no longer remain silent.
  • Jim Wallis in an exchange with Jerry Falwell on Hannity & colmes on Feb 11
  • Wallis: The good news is the monologue of the religious right is over, and a dialogue has finally begun.
  • Falwell: I think . . .
  • Wallis: Jerry--you know--Jerry--I didn't interrupt you, Jerry. Millions and millions of Christians, including evangelicals like me, want the nation to know that you don't speak for us. That your Jesus is pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American, and your monologue is over.
  • We also have a second sign. It has not generated the calls the first one has, but it ties into the message of the first. As our deficit grows the Republicans can easily make an argument that social programs need to be cut. Meanwhile the government subsidize oil companies and funds two wars in the middle east.
  • Grassroot Democrats.P.O. Box 87929 101 S. Main Ave, Suite 501 Sioux Falls, SD 57109-7929
Posted by Unknown at 7:54 PM 0 comments

BUSH MENDACITY WILL SHOCK HISTORIANS - The HISTORY Has Already Started To Be Written!!

  • BUSH MENDACITY WILL SHOCK HISTORIANS
    By Bill Gallagher
  • http://tinyurl.com/bmn4c
  • DETROIT -- When historians write about our times, they'll shake their heads and wonder how so many people could believe so many lies for so long. They might actually write two parallel books -- one describing the cascading lies and deceptions George W. Bush and the Republicans sold and the other telling the truth.
    We're told, in effect, that trampling on civil liberties and eroding freedom are a sure way to protect us from terrorists who envy our freedom. That colossal lie will be one of the lasting stains on this era, and I fear the day coming when the Busheviks or their political heirs, gripped in fascist fever, will silence those who expose the fraud.
    The latest assault on liberty cloaked as protection is the Republican campaign in Congress for national identity cards. Of course, they don't call them that. Such candor sparks opposition. It's much more benevolent sounding to call the measure the Real ID Act.
    The plan is to impose national standards for driver's licenses and require four pieces of identification before states issue them. The House Republicans attached the proposed law to the bill for appropriating funds for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    The proposal is really aimed at immigrants and has nothing to do with terrorism. It would create a bureaucratic nightmare, impose an unfunded mandate on state governments and do nothing to protect us from al-Qaeda. What it means is that many laborers in California and Texas will no longer have a driver's license.
    While the ignorant are licking up the lie that national ID cards will make us safer, the Bush administration is making it easier for Saudis to get visitor visas. That's right. The same folks who brought us 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11, bin Laden himself, and the hateful Wahhabi sect will now have their tightened visa restrictions lifted.
    While the American media devoted enormous resources covering Paula Abdul's fling with an "American Idol" contestant, an announcement last week from the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia was buried. We should be following Abdullah, not Abdul.
    On the heels of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, we now know the prince and the president were doing more than holding hands in public. They were privately playing footsie to make it much easier for Saudis to enter the United States.
    After Sept. 11, Bush reluctantly allowed the State Department to impose some tightened restrictions on Saudi visitors attempting to enter the United States. Up until then, all a Saudi citizen had to do was fill out a form at a travel agent's office and they were here in a jiffy. That's just what the 15 Saudi hijackers did.
    But the tighter restrictions required security reviews and sometimes long waits. Saudi businessmen whined about the inconvenience, and after a few of them were denied visas, they went to the prince. He carried their complaints to the president, who listened.
    In a remarkably under-reported story, the Arab News carried an announcement from James C. Oberwetter, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, declaring that visa restrictions for Saudi visitors would be eased.
    "Last week's visit by Crown Prince Abdullah to the United States has given a major boost to bilateral relations," the ambassador said.
    The Saudis were surely miffed when one of the members of their own delegation was denied a U.S. visa because his name appeared on a watch list for alleged terrorists. Both the Dallas Morning News and the Agence France-Press (AFP) wire service reported the incident, in which the name of one of Prince Abdullah's minions popped up on a government no-fly list.
    "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in a routine check of the delegation passenger manifest, found that one traveler was on a government list meant to screen out possible terrorists," an official said on condition of anonymity to the AFP.
    The Dallas Morning News confirmed the report and quoted an administration official saying, "We're not going to discuss the individual because the information is classified."
    So let's get this straight. We're going to make it harder for Mexicans to drive cabs in Los Angeles and send them packing if they're caught without a driver's license and make it easier for Saudis -- proven producers of mass murderers -- to enter the country. That's just what George W. Bush is doing. The more ignorant and oblivious the American people are, the more the Busheviks and their lies thrive.
    The horrible carnage in Iraq is getting worse. The insurgents are hitting targets in most areas of the country and over the last 10 days more than 300 people have died in bombings and ambushes. But we're being offered the lie that the violence is sputtering out and the new government will bring stability.
    Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander in Iraq, says the insurgent forces are desperate and they can't sustain these attacks.
    "We do know that some of the insurgent Web sites have called this the jihad Super Bowl, if you will, and now's the time to come fight and try to kick the Americans out of the region," Conway told reporters. "How much people are responding to that, we're just not certain at this point, but we continue to seek that answer." The answer is bloody obvious.
    Two years after the chicken-hawk in chief made his cocky flight-deck strut and proclaimed victory under the Mission Accomplished banner, Iraq is in turmoil and the continued U.S. occupation there is a terrorist recruiter's dream.
    The two supreme lies about the war of choice in Iraq that future historians will marvel at are:
    Saddam was a serious and imminent threat to the United States because he had or planned to build terrible weapons.
    George W. Bush sought peace and did everything he could to prevent war that would only happen "as a last resort."
    The weapons of mass destruction lies are thoroughly documented. UN weapons inspectors came up empty-handed and our own multibillion dollar search yielded nothing. It's abundantly clear intelligence was shaped and distorted to create the myth of Saddam's weapons. No serious person believes otherwise.
    Now, we have the first document proving Bush had Iraq in his crosshairs and was committed to "regime change" removed from any factual findings. His public posture that he longed for peace was a damnable lie.
    The most important item coming from Britain in recent days was not Tony Blair's re-election but the publication of a "smoking gun" memo proving the Bush administration had no intention of dealing with Iraq peacefully and diplomatically.
    The Sunday Times of London got hold of the minutes of a 2002 meeting Blair had with members of his cabinet to discuss consultations with the Bush people on U.S. intentions toward Iraq.
    A Blair foreign police adviser, Matthew Rycroft, incorporated the minutes of the meeting in a memorandum described as "extremely sensitive." The document shows Bush and Blair had already decided to go to war in Iraq a year before the invasion.
    All the subsequent moves -- asking for a UN Security Council resolution, more weapons inspections, Bush's speeches to Congress and the case he presented to the American people -- were all ruses, hollow lies. He and his buddy Blair were already committed to war and their words in public were meaningless. The die was cast.
    The words of Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, blow the lid off the lies. Known as "C" in spy talk, his read on the U.S. position contained in the memo tells all.
    It states, "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wants to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. The NSC (National Security Council) has no patience with the UN route. There is little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
    British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw buttresses Sir Richard's views at the same meeting. "The Foreign Secretary said he will discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the meeting minutes note.
    This document is dynamite. As Joe Conason writes in "Salon" online magazine, it has received little notice outside the U.K. "Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damming evidence of those lies?"
    George W. Bush lied to the world when he said he sought peace in Iraq and war was a "last resort." That's what historians will write and they now have a document proving it.
    Journalism is often called the first draft of history. For the most part, America's big corporate media's first draft of Bush's war has been devoted to his propagating lies. That's very dangerous in a fragile democracy.
  • Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News.
  • His e-mail address is gallaghernewsman@sbcglobal.net.
  • Niagara Falls Reporter
  • www.niagarafallsreporter.com
  • May 10 2005
Posted by Unknown at 7:36 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Fwd: From Veterans For Peace - Help Communicate the Cost of War - Please Pass On Especially To Interested Parties Described


  • Ron Mulvihill of www.grisgrisfilms.com is producing/directing a documentary, LETTING GO, featuring women Iraqi war veterans.
  • Ron's father is a Vietnam Vet, and Ron traveled with him to Vietnam in the late 90's, where he and his father gathered with other vets and renewed their connection to Vietnam and its people. Ron did extensive filming while in there but did not at that time shape the film into a story. He and the writer of his latest project, Leigh Podgorski, are going to gather the interviews and stories of women Iraqi vets, and explore the impact of this war on the people who wage it, their families and communities, and the parallels and differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

  • Please forward this request to your lists and/or in other ways do whatever you can to help in this endeavor.

  • Leigh would like to interview either in person or via telephone women who have returned from Iraq.

  • Any interested people may contact her by e-mail at:

    leighpod@aol.com

  • Or they can telephone her at; 818-881-5100.

  • "I teach at a community college in the evenings, but I can be reached from around 7A.M til Noon most days, and 1PM until 3.
    The weekends are also good -- all day, as well as Friday all day.
    People are also welcome to leave their contact information -- either on the phone or by e-mail, and I will get back to them.
    Thank you so much.

  • I look greatly forward to hearing from you and some of these brave and wonderful women."

    Leigh Podgorski
    *****************************

  • "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Gandhi
Posted by Unknown at 8:36 PM 0 comments

They Lied to Us - Molly Ivins [Thousands Have Died and Are Maimed, No End In Sight, World Much Less Secure!!]

  • Published on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 by Working for Change
  • http://tinyurl.com/ajhfb
  • They Lied to Us Memo proves leadership knew Saddam was not a threat
    by Molly Ivins

  • Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.)
    Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?"
    However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.
    On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun."
    "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
    After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections.
    "The foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
    "The attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case."
    There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online. What's difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you remember how little you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most of us who opposed the war concluded some time ago this was the way it went down. There was plenty of evidence, though nothing this direct and cold. Think of the difference it would have made if we had known all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge story in Britain, but is almost unreported here.
    The memo does get us some forwarder. At least it finally settles this ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington.
    Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at least we're on the right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed Chalabi as oil minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is making it much harder for them. A tactical Catch-22. I was impressed by the premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all of Islam is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the traditionalists, between reformers and reactionaries.
    But in Iraq, which already had a secular state, we have the additional complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions -- your Sunnis, your Shiites, your Kurds -- not to mention, the tribalism within those divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul Wolfowitz said under oath, "There is no history ethnic strife in Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.)
    Our most basic problem in-country is that having the U.S. of A. on your side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in the Texas Legislature: We are working against the guys we want to win by supporting them. This requires some serious skulling but is not, in politics, all that unusual a pickle.
    There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a deal. What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis for us to withdraw -- as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the Americans out of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the Iraqis can.
  • Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?
  • © 2005 Working Assets Online
Posted by Unknown at 8:24 PM 0 comments

Guantanamo Abuses Show US Needs a Dose of Truth - 'America' Where Have You Gone - Must Read

  • Published on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 by the Capital Times (Madison, WI)
  • Guantanamo Abuses Show US Needs a Dose of Truth
    by Margaret Krome
  • http://tinyurl.com/andbf

  • Sometimes when I've been too critical of my children, I realize that, for their own emotional well-being, they tune me out. When I notice that glazed look, I jump to revise how and what I say. After all, some of my messages are essential to their safety and well-being. I need to make sure they can hear me.
    As a nation, I wonder if we hear so much bad news, so many examples of having lost our way morally, ethically and culturally, that we numb ourselves to painful truths. An example of this is a new book, "Inside the Wire," by Erik Saar and Viveca Novak, about Army Sgt. Saar's experiences as a military intelligence officer at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    As I read Saar's account of abuses, counterproductive interrogation practices and knowing disregard for Geneva Conventions, I wondered why this nation of morally attuned patriots is not fighting mad. There was a time when even a whisper of such abuse conducted in our name evoked outrage. But after revelations of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, have we normalized morally appalling behavior? Are we intentionally ignoring military horror stories because we can't listen anymore?
    Saar's story is one of transformation: a conservative soldier from a family military tradition and deeply held religious faith who committed himself to fight terrorism. It's a personal tale of his hopes that his military service would help him heal from a painful divorce. And it's a description of his struggle to reconcile the treatment of detainees that he saw at Guantanamo Bay with his beliefs about America's ideals, and why he finally decided to uphold those ideals by talking about his experiences.
    As a linguist and intelligence officer, Saar worked on various teams in Guantanamo Bay and saw different aspects of the camp. He quickly saw that there was something badly wrong with its military command structure, his first team's preparedness to deal with Muslim detainees, its utter lack of esprit de corps, and the camp's failure to correct its own dysfunctions.
    As Saar translated, he heard countless detainees' complaints about not knowing charges against them, being unable to talk with lawyers or communicate with families, of physical and emotional abuses, which he also witnessed. Abuses became more severe and frequent over the months he was there, as personnel became frustrated by their failures to gain information. Intelligence agencies worked badly together, and military interrogations were routinely recognized by staff as pointless.
    Many detainees' accounts of innocence, like having been picked up by bounty hunters in Afghanistan, were convincing enough that Saar began to doubt the moral legitimacy of holding many of the detainees and the value of any information being wrested from them. Especially, he realized that the complete failure to understand the power of Islamic faith to sustain prisoners was dooming the camp's efforts and strengthening the urge for jihad against our country.
    Others have raised concerns about the failures of intelligence. But Saar's account illustrates the long road that many Americans must travel to accept truths about how far our nation's military has fallen during this global war on terror from the ideals we thought defined our nation. The limited and badly sanitized news about this detention camp (called so because to call it a prison would require its occupants to be charged with crimes and receive protection of the Geneva Conventions) obstruct that understanding.
    When the book was published last week, a reactionary right-wing campaign to discredit Saar began. It's not surprising, given his detailed account of the camp's extreme dysfunction. Of course some don't want to hear the bad news. But it's important to listen.
    Guantanamo Bay has been less a sophisticated intelligence recovery site than it has a breeding ground of intense, faith-reinforced hatred of our country. The abusive and inept handling of detainees has furthered our nation's vulnerability to Islamic extremists. Do we really want to pretend that something so dangerous is not happening?
    Margaret Krome of Madison writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times.
  • © 2005 Capital Times
Posted by Unknown at 8:02 PM 0 comments

Home from Iraq: Speech Given by Reporter who Covered Occupation

  • ABOUT THIS SPEECH This article is adapted from a speech given by photojournalist Molly Bingham at Western Kentucky University last month. Bingham, a Louisville native, was detained in 2003 by Iraqi security forces and held in Abu Ghraib prison from March 25 to April 2, 2003. Eighteen days after her release, she returned to Iraq to pursue stories for The New York Times, The Guardian of London and others. Taking a short break during the summer of 2003, Bingham had the idea of working on a story to explore who was involved in the nascent resistance that was becoming apparent throughout Iraq. She scanned the papers that summer, looking for an article that would show some journalist had reported the story, had gone deeper to find out the source of the new violence. No one had. So in August 2003, Bingham returned with British journalist Steve Connors and spent the next 10 months reporting the story of the Iraqi resistance. Her account was published in Vanity Fair magazine in July 2004; Connors shot a documentary film on the subject. This speech was a challenge to journalists, and Americans, to speak up and be sure their comments, questions and thoughts are heard, and that the First Amendment is celebrated in all its strengths. Bingham began her career as a photo intern for The Courier-Journal and Louisville Times. ***************************
  • Home from Iraq: Speech Given by Reporter who Covered Occupation
  • Molly Bingham, Courier-Journal Posted 2005-05-09 18:41:00.0
  • http://tinyurl.com/73l7a
  • Mirror URL: http://tinyurl.com/7ffx3

  • Home from Iraq
    Journalist urges Americans to search for truth, freedom'
    We spent 10 months in Iraq, working on a story, understanding who the people are who are fighting, why they fight, what their fundamental beliefs are, when they started, what kinds of backgrounds they come from, what education, jobs they have. Were they former military, are they Iraqi or foreign? Are they part of al-Qaida? What we came up with is a story in itself, and one that Vanity Fair ran in July 2004 with my text and pictures. [My colleague Steve Connors] shot a documentary film that is still waiting to find a home. But the basic point for this discussion is that we both thought it was really journalistically important to understand who it was who was resisting the presence of the foreign troops. If you didn't understand that, how could you report what was clearly becoming an "ongoing conflict?" And if you were reading the news in America, or Europe, how could you understand the full context of what was unfolding if what motivates the "other side" of the conflict is not understood, or even discussed?
    Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you:
  • Lesson One: Many journalists in Iraq could not, or would not, check their nationality or their own perspective at the door.
    One of the hardest things about working on this story for me personally, and as a journalist, was to set my "American self" and perspective aside. It was an ongoing challenge to listen open-mindedly to a group of people whose foundation of belief is significantly different from mine, and one I found I often strongly disagreed with.
    But going in to report a story with a pile of prejudices is no way to do a story justice, or to do it fairly, and that constant necessity to bite my tongue, wipe the smirk off my face or continue to listen through a racial or religious diatribe that I found appalling was a skill I had to practice. We would never walk in to cover a union problem or political event without seeking to understand the perspective from both, or the many sides of the story that exist. Why should we as journalists do it in Iraq?
  • Lesson Two: Our behavior as journalists has taught us very little. Just as in the lead up to the war in Iraq, questioning our government's decisions and claims and what it seeks to achieve is criticized as unpatriotic.
    Along these lines, the other thing I found difficult was the realization that, while I was out doing what I believe is solid journalism, there were many (journalists and normal folks alike) who would question my patriotism, or wonder how I could even think hearing and relating the perspective "from the other side" was important.
    Certainly, over the last three years I've had to acquire the discipline of overriding my emotional attachment to my country, and remember my sense of human values that transcend frontiers and ethnicity. And with a sense of duty to history, I needed to just get on with reporting the story. My value of human life and rights don't fluctuate depending on which country I'm in. I don't see one individual as more deserving of fair treatment than another. . . .
    Now, I realize I'm in Kentucky, a state with many military connections, and there are many of you here who may have served, or have family members who serve, and let me take this moment to say that I have the utmost respect and sympathy for the American soldiers overseas right now, particularly in Iraq. They have been sent on a most difficult mission, to quell a population that will not be quelled, in a land awash with weapons. The American military is being used to find a solution to what is essentially a political problem, an equation that rarely adds up well. As if that were not enough, our soldiers have been sent with insufficient resources to protect themselves. In my mind, that is all inexcusable.
  • Lesson Three: To seek to understand and represent to an American audience the reasons behind the Iraqi opposition is practically treasonous.
    Every one of the people involved in the resistance that we spoke to held us individually responsible for their security. If something happened to them -- never mind that they were legitimate targets for the U.S. military -- they would blame us. And kill us. We soon learned that they had the U.S. bases so well watched that we had to abandon our idea of working on the U.S. side of the story -- that is, discovering what the soldiers really thought about who might be attacking them. There were so many journalists working with the American soldiers that we believed that that story would be well told. More practically, if we were seen by the Iraqis going in and out of the American bases, we would be tagged immediately as spies, informants and most likely be killed.
    As terrifying as that was to manage and work through, there was another fear that was just as bad. What if the American military or intelligence found out what we were working on? Would they tail us and round up the people we met? Would they kick down our door late one night, rifle through all our stuff and arrest us for "collaborating with the enemy?" Bear in mind that there are no real laws in Iraq. At the time that we were working, the American military was the law, and it seemed to me that they were pretty much making it up as they went along. I was pretty sure that if they wanted to "disappear" us, rough us up or even send us for an all expenses paid vacation in Guantánamo for suspected al-Qaida connections, they could do so with very little, or even no recourse on our part.
    I could go into a long litany of the ways in which the American military has treated journalists in Iraq. Recent actions indicate that the U.S. military will detain and/or kill any journalist who happens to be caught covering the Iraqi side of the militant resistance, and indeed a number of journalists have been killed by U.S. troops while working in Iraq. This behavior at the moment seems to be limited to journalists who also happen to be Arabs, or Arab-looking, but that is only a tangential story to what I'm telling you about here.
    The intimidation to not work on this story was evident. Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander just before we left. Dexter and the commander had gotten quite friendly, meeting up sporadically for a beer and a chat. Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment. And, again, this is not meant as any criticism of the military; they have a war to win, and dominating the "message," or the news is an integral part of that war. The military has a name for it, "information operations," and the aim is to achieve information superiority in the same way they would seek to achieve air superiority. If you look closely, you will notice there is very little, maybe even no direct reporting on the resistance in Iraq. We do, however, as journalists report what the Americans say about the resistance. Is this really anything more than stenography?
    And many American journalists often refer to those attacking Americans or Iraqi troops and policemen as "terrorists." Some are indeed using terrorist tactics, but calling them "terrorists" simply shuts down any sense of need or interest to look beyond that word, to understand why indeed human beings might be willing to die in a violent struggle to achieve their goal. Pushing them off as simply "insane, wild Arabs" or "extremist Muslims" does them no service, but even more, it does the U.S. no service. If we as Americans fail to understand who attacks us and why, we will simply continue on this same path, and continue watching from afar as a war we don't understand boils over.
  • Lesson Four: The gatekeepers -- by which I mean the editors, publishers and business sides of the media -- don't want their paper or their outlet to reveal that compelling narrative of why anyone would oppose the presence of American troops on their soil. Why would anyone refuse democracy? Why would anyone not want the helping hand of America in overthrowing their terrible dictator? It's amazing to me how expeditiously we turn away from our own history. Think of our revolution. Think of our Founding Fathers. Think of what they stood for and hoped for. Think of how, over time, we have learned to improve on our own Constitution and governance. But think, mostly, about the words I just used: It was our decision and our determination that brought us where we are now.
    Recall Patrick Henry's famous speech encouraging the Second Virginia Convention, gathered on March 20, 1775, to fight the British, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Why is it that we, as Americans, presume that any Iraqi would feel any differently? If the roles were reversed, do you think for a moment that our men wouldn't be stockpiling arms and attacking any foreign invader with the temerity to set foot on our soil, occupy our buildings of government and write us a new constitution?
    Wouldn't we as women be joining with them in any way we could? Wouldn't the divisions between us -- how we feel about President Bush, whether we're Republican or Democrat -- be put aside as we resisted a common enemy?
    Then why is it that this story of human effort for self-determination by violent means cannot be told in America? Are we so small, so confused by our own values that we cannot recognize when someone emulates our own struggle? Even if it is the U.S. that they are struggling against? I want to be careful to explain that I am not saying that the Iraqis fighting against us are necessarily fighting for democracy, but they are fighting for their right to decide for themselves what their nation looks like politically.
  • Lesson Five: What it's like to be afraid of your own country.
    Once the story was finished and set to come out on the street, I was rushing back to the States -- mostly because we could no longer work once the story was published -- and I found I was scared returning to my own country. And that was an amazingly strange and awful feeling to have. Again, you could call me paranoid, but the questions about what might happen to me once in America -- where at least I would have more rights -- kept racing through my brain. I'm still here, so you could say that my frantic mental gymnastics about what could happen to me in my own country were paranoid anxieties.
  • But I would turn that question around:
  • How many other American journalists, perhaps not as secure in their position as I, have thought to do a story and decided that it's too close to the bone, too questioning of the American government or its actions? How many times was the risk that our own government might come in and rifle through our apartment, our homes or take us away for questioning in front of our children a factor in our decision not to do a story? How many times did we as journalists decide not to do a story because we thought it might get us into trouble? Or, as likely, how often did the editor above us kill the story for the same reasons? Lots of column inches have been spent in the discussion of how our rights as Americans are being surreptitiously confiscated, but what about our complicity, as journalists, in that? It seems to me that the assault on free speech, while the fear and intimidation is in the air, comes as much from us -- as individuals and networks of journalists who censor ourselves -- as it does from any other source.
    We need to wake up as individuals and as a community of journalists and start asking the hard and scary questions. Questions we may not really want to know the answers to about ourselves, about our government, about what is being done in our name, and hold the responsible individuals accountable through due process in our legal or electoral system.
    We need to begin to be able to look again at our government, our leadership and ourselves critically. That is what the Fourth Estate is all about. That's what American journalism can do at its zenith. I also happen to believe that, in fact, that is the highest form of patriotism -- expecting our country to live up to the promises it makes and the values it purports to hold. The role of the media in assisting the public to ensure those values are reflected in reality is undeniably failing today.
    Go ahead, take a hard look in the mirror, ask the questions -- if there is something in our nation that needs repair or change, that is how it will get done, by asking those questions, getting answers and reporting them.
    We still have the freedom in this country as individuals and as journalists to defend the rights enshrined in the Constitution, to defend the values that we as individuals still hold dear -- so why aren't we doing it? Are we scared? If we're scared, then who will be there to defend those rights and values when it is proposed that they be taken away?
    I still believe in that country that I love so dearly, the place I think of when the words "freedom," "opportunity," "liberty," "justice" and "equality" are spoken on lips, but I want it to be a country I see, hear and feel every day, not one that lives in my imagination.
    It's time we looked in the mirror and began to take responsibility for what our country looks like, what our country is and how it behaves, rather than acting like victims before we actually are.
  • Or do I need to start facing the reality that all I love and believe in is simply self-delusion?
Posted by Unknown at 4:33 AM 0 comments

Monday, May 09, 2005

Beat the Peaceful, Embrace the Violent

  • Beat the Peaceful, Embrace the Violent
    by Uri Avnery
  • http://www.antiwar.com/orig/avnery.php?articleid=5827
  • The day before yesterday, two demonstrations were held, just a few dozen kilometers apart.
    One took place at the Homesh settlement, not far from Jenin. Tens of thousands of settlers and their sympathizers came to demonstrate against the planned evacuation of this settlement. The demonstrators swore to sabotage the decisions of the government and the Knesset. One of them declared that they could be removed only in coffins draped with the national flag.
    Hundreds of soldiers and policemen were stationed along the route to protect the demonstrators against all eventualities. The official Voice of Israel radio told its listeners that the traffic police were acting on instructions from the leaders of the Settlements Council.
    At the same time, another demonstration took place at Bil'in, west of Ramallah. The inhabitants of that and the neighboring villages, together with Israeli peace activists, demonstrated against the "Separation Fence" that is being put up on their land.
    This demonstration was savagely attacked by soldiers and policemen, who assaulted them, beat, injured, and arrested them, using old and new weapons. The security people, as the Hebrew expression goes, "had murder in their eyes."
    In this area, there is not even the pretense that the Separation Fence serves security purposes. The real aim is evident to anyone visiting the place: to rob Bil'in and the other villages of their land, in order to enlarge the settlement of Kiryat Sefer.
    I remember that place from some 10 years ago. Then, well-kept olive groves were being expropriated and destroyed by bulldozers. At that time, too, the villagers asked us to protest and try to stop this.
    Now, a large town of ultra-orthodox Jews has been built there and is growing rapidly. The Separation Fence will pass close to the last houses of Bil'in and cut the village off from the remainder of its lands. On this land, new neighborhoods of Kiryat Sefer will be built. Together with the nearby settlements of Modi'in Ilit and Matitiyahu, this is one of the "settlement blocs" that Israeli governments (whether Likud or Labor) want to annex to Israel, with the blessing of President Bush.
    The plan of the villagers was to conduct a peaceful demonstration on the path of the Fence and plant some symbolic olive saplings there. But experience in this area has taught us that one must expect the security forces to react violently. Therefore, only activists who know the conditions and are experienced in dealing with them were asked to take part. We were some 200 Israelis, men and women of all ages. The instructions given in the buses, orally and in writing, were to keep the demonstration strictly nonviolent.
    We expected the buses to be stopped on the way and were prepared for this eventuality. We were, therefore, quite surprised when we reached the village without incident. Only later did we realize that it was a trap.
    In the village, we joined some thousand inhabitants of this and the neighboring villages, men, women and children, and set off together toward the path of the Fence. At the head walked the former Palestinian minister Kadura Fares; the Palestinian presidential candidate Dr. Mustafa al-Barghouti; the Arab members of the Knesset Barakeh, Zakhalkeh, and Dahamsheh; the village chiefs; and me. We were holding olive branches in our hands, to plant along the path of the Fence. The village youngsters also carried a 50-meter long Palestinian flag. Ahead of us a decorated van was driving slowly, and a Palestinian activist on it announced in Hebrew through a powerful loudspeaker: "This is a peaceful and nonviolent demonstration!"
    About a kilometer before the path of the Fence, a line of security people stopped us. They wore no insignia, and so we did not know whether they were soldiers or border policemen.
    Suddenly, without any warning, a salvo of tear-gas grenades was launched at us. Within seconds, we were enveloped by a cloud of white gas, with the thump of bursting grenades coming at us from all directions.
    The demonstrators, coughing and choking, dispersed to the two sides. Many of them outflanked the soldiers and continued to move forward over the rocky terrain. They were stopped by a second line and also showered with tear gas.
    We, at the head of the demonstration, went on and reached a point about 50 meters from the path of the Fence, when a third line of soldiers attacked us. MK Barakeh had a heated exchange with an officer, and while they were arguing passionately, a soldier fired a gas grenade at point blank range between Barakeh's legs. He was slightly wounded in the leg. Another particularly ferocious soldier took hold of the poster I was holding in my hands – the Gush Shalom sign of the flags of Israel and Palestine – and pushed me savagely, knocking me over.
    At other places, the rampage was even worse. Muhammad Hatib, one of the village chiefs, noticed a man who, with his face covered, started to throw stones at the soldiers. He ran toward him, shouting: "We decided not to throw stones! If you want to throw stones, do it in your own village, not ours! What village do you come from, anyway?" The man turned toward him and attacked him, at the same time calling out to his associates, tearing the handkerchief from his face and donning a police cap.
    Thus the secret came out and was also documented by the cameras: "Arabized" undercover soldiers had been sent into action. These started throwing stones at the security people in order to provide them with a pretext to attack us. The moment they were uncovered, they turned on the demonstrators nearest to them, drew revolvers, and started to arrest them. Later on, when it became clear that the events had been recorded by foreign television crews, the police officially confirmed that throwing stones is the method used by "Arabized" undercover soldiers so as to merge with the crowd.
    In the course of the day, more details about the events emerged: this was a unit that had never before been used for such an action: the Prison Service unit "Massada," whose normal job is to suppress mutinies in the prisons. This is an especially savage unit, perhaps the most violent in the country, which was supplied with new means of "riot control." Among others: salt bullets that are designed to cause particularly painful wounds. Muhammad Hatib, the man mentioned above, 30 years old and father of two children, got four bullets in his back: large, swollen, black-blue rings the full width of his back.
    These salt bullets were brought to Israel from America at the beginning of the '90s, but until now the army has shrunk from using them, fearing a public outcry. They were tried on us for the first time.
    It appears that the army prepared the whole action in advance as a trap. The "Massada" unit tried out its tactics and weapons on this peaceful march of civilians.
    The shocking difference between the ways the two demonstrations were treated provides food for thought.
    The settlers are openly preparing and trying to paralyze the state, to prevent the implementation of the government and Knesset decisions, and, in effect, to overthrow Israeli democracy. But Ariel Sharon and his people call publicly to "embrace them," to "love them" and "view their pain with understanding." This is the directive given to the security forces. For peace activists, quite different treatment is indicated.
    This throws light on a much more important phenomenon that may determine the future of Israel. Here, people have got so used to it that they accept it as natural. Abroad, people don't know about it.
    The fact is that every day, all the Israeli media devote their main news reports to the settlers' propaganda. Every single news program on each of the three TV channels gives exhaustive coverage to the affairs of the settlers, speeches by settlers, and interviews with settlers. Often, these reports fill half the news program.
    Between the settlers and the media a kind of symbiosis has come into being – they work "with one head." Every day, several events are prepared for the media, who scoop them up greedily, to serve as unpaid propaganda organs of the settlers and the extreme right. Once upon a time, it was usual to give the other side the right of response, for the sake of "balance." Not anymore. There is no other side.
    In the news programs, not a word – literally not a word – of criticism of the settlers is ever heard. The establishment "leftists" also speak of the need to "embrace them" and "understand them," and so, of course, do all the spokespersons of the government and the big parties. To people who have an opposite opinion, no opportunity is given to speak about the settlers in the main media of the country.
    In this way, Israeli democracy puts all its media exclusively at the disposal of the enemies of democracy. Even in the Weimar Republic, stupidity did not go this far.
    Absurd? It only seems so. In reality, it reflects the real situation: in spite of all the loud talk about "disengagement," Sharon's heart is with the settlers. He intends to annex to Israel most of the West Bank settlements – if not all of them.
    The present controversy about a handful of small settlements in the Gaza Strip is, in his eyes, a kind of family spat, and will pass quickly. Actually, Sharon might be interested in feeding the commotion, so as to convince the Americans that it is unrealistic to expect him to dismantle the West Bank settlements and outposts. Fact: the army and police have never once used tear gas against right-wing demonstrators, even when physically attacked and injured by them (as happens regularly in Hebron, for example) or when the settlers block vital roads and cause huge traffic jams.
    On the other hand, the controversy with us, the peace activists, the real opposition to the government, is a genuine struggle for the future of Israel: whether it will be a state within the Green Line borders, a liberal, democratic state that lives in peace with a viable Palestinian state at its side; or an aggressive, nationalist state that will hold on to practically the whole of the West Bank and keep the Palestinians in some isolated enclaves.
    If one sees it that way, the directives given to the army are quite logical: Embrace the settlers, because they are our brothers, and hit the peace activists, because they are the enemy.
Posted by Unknown at 8:09 PM 0 comments

Support Veterans - From Veterans For Peace


NEW DOCUMENTARY - 'The Cost of War'
Posted by Hello

  • Support Veterans
  • NEW DOCUMENTARY - 'The Cost of War'
  • The DVD is available for $15 from New Spark Productions http://www.newsparkproductions.org/ Also check out VFP's homepage at http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ .
  • The Iraq Veterans Assistance Fund: Half of all donations made to purchase The Cost of War are being used to provide direct services and assistance to Iraq veterans.
  • THE COST OF WAR
  • Never before has truth suffered so greatly in time of war. This documentary seeks to give voice to truth through the experiences and observations of soldiers, veterans, and their families.The Cost of War offers only a brief glimpse of the war in Iraq and its incalculable human, personal, psychological and social costs, but it comes from a critical source - the perspective of those who have experienced war first hand.In The Cost of War, Iraq war veterans recount their views prior to deployment,their experiences in Iraq, and how those experiences changed them. Families and loved ones of those called on to fight in Iraq recount how the experiences of their loved ones have affected those they left behind.Veterans of Korea, Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm provide a perspective on these current wars, informed by their own experiences in those earlier conflicts and the truths they came to know.With an understanding of true patriotism born of experience, these men and women explain why they reject the claim that supporting the war is"supporting the troops”. They represent a long established and rapidly growing group of service members, veterans and military families who challenge the notion that blind loyalty in time of war is the mark of the patriot.The Cost of War explores the costs - in lives ended, families destroyed,health sacrificed and dreams lost - of waging war. It is not a pretty story with flags waving and music playing. It is the truth. It is a truth that every citizen of this country who really seeks to "support the troops" must learn.
  • How the story ends is up to us.
  • The Iraq Veterans Assistance Fund: Half of all donations made to purchase The Cost of War are being used to provide direct services and assistance to Iraq veterans. The remaining funds are being used to cover travel expenses for veterans to attend screenings and participate in panel discussions afterwards, to fund two additional documentaries including the "The Cost of War 2" which will feature more Iraq veterans and their families, and to recover duplication and production costs of "The Cost of War."
  • Thank you for your support!
Posted by Unknown at 6:03 PM 0 comments

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Happy Mothers Day Mr. Bush

  • Sorrowfully, there are 1579 families in this country who have "Iraq" carved on their hearts and souls for eternity. We have sacrificed more than the $1.99 it costs to buy a "Support the Troops" magnet for our cars.
  • http://tinyurl.com/93cyn

  • Name Withheld Pending Notification
  • By Cindy Sheehan 05/08/05 "ICH"
  • When I woke up this morning, the "official" death count in Iraq was 1576. The first thing I do in the morning after I boot up my computer is to check the DoD website to see if any more of our nation's precious children were killed in this horror of a nonsensical war. I was talking to another Gold Star Mom, Celeste Zappala, today and she sadly advised me that the count rose to 1579 (note: the official count is now 1594) while she was out to lunch. Celeste and I and too many other moms know what the significance of "Pending Notification" means: it means that there are people in our country going through their lives right now not even knowing that they are about to be ambushed with the most devastating news of their lives: "We regret to inform you…" Somewhere in America, there is a mom (I always think of the moms first) shopping for groceries, driving home from a long week of work, or maybe even planning her soldier's homecoming party. Somewhere, here in our country there is a mother who is hoping that she will receive a Mother's Day card from her soldier, or perhaps, if she is extremely lucky, a rushed telephone call. There is a mom out there who has been worried sick about her soldier since they arrived in the combat zone. Maybe the mom still supports George Bush and the occupation or maybe the mom is certain if her child is killed in this abomination that her sweet baby, her soldier will have died for lies and betrayals. In the end, and at that moment, the mom is not going to care about politics or about reasons for invasion and occupation. She won't care if her child died for freedom and democracy, or to make some people wealthier and more powerful. All she will see is the Grim Reaper in a uniform standing at her door before she collapses on the floor screaming for her child and pleading with the Grim Reaper to take her with him. Somewhere there is a father in America who won't know what hit him and who won't know whom to hit back. There are brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, spouses, and children who are about to step on the path of unbearable pain and seemingly endless grief. Today there are the families and friends of three wonderful human beings who never, until now, knew that the human body could produce so many tears. Somewhere in America live our fellow citizens who never even knew that a broken heart is not theoretical or symbolic. These most unfortunates are about to find out that a broken heart hurts far worse than a broken limb, and does not heal so readily, if ever at all. The families of these soldiers are also departing on a long tour of banalities uttered by well-meaning, but let’s face it, uninformed people. I hear these phrases over and over again: “Time heals every thing,” “Casey’s in a better place,” (oh really, I didn’t know that home with his mom was such a bad place to be) “Casey wants you to be happy,” “Casey died doing what he loved doing,” (he did?) or, my favorite, “Casey died defending his country.” Let me assure the reader, phrases like this do not help. They are clichés for one thing, and for another, none of them are true. None of them help a grieving family. If you, the reader, are ever in the situation facing a mom who had her son brutally murdered, God forbid, I will give you hints on what does help: hugs (lots and lots), make sure she eats, make sure she drinks plenty of water (tears are dehydrating), make sure she hears wonderful things about her child, bring boxes of tissues and toilet paper, and bring yourself. Leave your tired and impotent clichés at the door. Of course, the most tragic thing about the 1579 is that not even one should be dead. Our "president" cheerfully rushed this country into a needlessly horrendous and devastating invasion. Our "president" thinks stolen elections confer a mandate. Our Congress cheerfully relinquished their Constitutional responsibility to declare war. If they had any courage or honor they would claim that right back and end this travesty. I have a feeling our mis-leaders will be having a nice day with their moms or their children on Mother's Day. As they are eating their brunches and giving and receiving bouquets of Mother's Day flowers, they probably never even think about the moms in this world that their insanely reckless policies have destroyed. It never enters their wicked brains that they have ruined Mother's Day for so many families. This is a tragedy. Our media was, and still is, a willing shill for the Administration and has never told the American public the truth. Reporting about Iraq is always trumped by such as child molesters, Martha Stewart, Terri Schiavo, Scott Peterson, the American Idol, or now, Runaway Brides! Another tragic thing about this illegal and disastrous invasion and occupation is that there are only 1579 families in this country who even have to think about Iraq. Most Americans probably don't even know where to find Iraq on a map. The Halliburtons, Bechtels, KBRs, and the oil oligarchs of the world, who are laughing all the way to the bank, think of Iraq with greedy glee each day. Sorrowfully, there are 1579 families in this country who have "Iraq" carved on their hearts and souls for eternity. We have sacrificed more than the $1.99 it costs to buy a "Support the Troops" magnet for our cars. We have had a violent amputation. Even if our fellow citizens don't realize it, by allowing this occupation to continue, they are also losing a very important part of themselves: their humanity. My heart, my prayers, and my love go to the three families who are now embarking on this mournful, unnecessary journey. We at Gold Star Families for Peace are here for them. I hope they find comfort in what I know now seems like a comfortless world.
  • Peace.
  • Cindy Sheehan is a co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Her son was killed in Iraq on April 4th, 2004. [ email - http://us.f303.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Scindy121@aol.com ]
  • (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Posted by Unknown at 3:20 PM 0 comments

Amnesty International - Help Stop Violence Against Women


Stop Violence Against Women Posted by Hello

  • Last month, Amnesty International welcomed the release of political prisoner Rebiya Kadeer, a businesswoman and mother imprisoned since 1999 by China on trumped-up charges. Kadeer flew to the United States where she was reunited with her husband and family.
  • At a brief welcome ceremony hosted by Amnesty, Kadeer made an appeal that transcended her own situation on the particular plight of the Uighur minority to which she belongs. Instead, she spoke as a mother.
    You Can Make History
  • Please join mothers like Rebiya Kadeer and help stop violence against women and families.
    :: DONATE


  • “Thank you all for returning a mother to 20 million Uighurs; thank you for returning a mother to my children and a wife to my husband, who are all sitting here.
  • “My children's tears have finally stopped and my tears for my children have finally stopped. I thought of my children day and night and I cried, shed tears for them, because I could not give my love to them as a mother for the past five and a half years.
  • “I swore in prison that I would be a mother to the ones that did not have a mother and I would fight for human rights until the day I close my eyes, and I swear in front of you that I will do so.
  • “I remember something my younger daughter said a couple of days ago when she saw a mother walking with a child, and kissed her child: 'I wish that I was that child.' I love my children.
  • “I am not only a mother of eleven children, but to a lot of children.
  • “I can scream now, I can speak now, I can eat the food that I like. I can hold my children in my arms, I can kiss my daughter, I can laugh. I can move around freely.”
  • On behalf of the millions of mothers and children whose lives are ripped apart daily by violence and oppression, please join Rebiya Kadeer in rededicating yourself to the cause of stopping violence against women and families.
  • Please donate generously to Amnesty International’s Stop Violence Against Women Campaign using our secure and convenient online donation system.
  • http://tinyurl.com/7orbb
  • Your support will help Amnesty’s urgent life-saving work in war-torn Darfur, where government-sponsored marauders have made widespread rape and torture of women a hallmark of their gruesome work.
    Your support will help bring to justice the perpetrators of the disappearance and murder of nearly 400 women and girls in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico – where government officials have dragged their feet as the death toll mounts.
    And your support will give heart to the countless women who languish in prison – women like Rebiya Kadeer – separated from their families and silenced.
  • This Mother’s Day, please mark the occasion by thinking of your own mother, but also by lending a hand in support of mothers, families and universal justice. Your help is greatly appreciated!
  • SincerelyBill SchulzExecutive Director, Amnesty International USA
    P.S. Amnesty will never rent, sell or exchange your email information with any third parties.
  • Donating to AIUSA online, is quick, convenient and secure.
  • http://tinyurl.com/7orbb



  • Amnesty International USA, 5 Penn Plaza, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10001(212) 807-8400 http://women.amnestyusa.org/
Posted by Unknown at 10:40 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)