Saturday, January 28, 2006

VIDEO SPECIAL | Venezuela Day 1

VIDEO SPECIAL | Venezuela Day 1:

Kickoff at the World Social Forum

A film by Chris Hume and Sari Gelzer

t r u t h o u t is at the World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. Chris Hume and Sari Gelzer are covering both the events of the forum, and taking a look at Chavez's Venezuela. Day 1 of our series of reports is about the anti-war march that kicked off the forum, including interviews with Cindy Sheehan. Stay tuned for more reports in the coming days.

Velvet Revolution - Action




In support of our new campaign, beginning next week, we will begin circling Capitol Hill with an enormous billboard truck featuring the following signs. This will be on one side:




This will be on the other side:



We need your help in funding this campaign and the creation of these billboard signs (Not to mention gas for the truck!) Please click here to DONATE to VR to support our efforts! And help spread the word!

VIDEO - 'Mosh' Before Bush's SOTU

VIDEO -
'Mosh' Before Bush's SOTU



Prepare for the lies...

State of the Union 2006




The 2006 State of the Union - a Preview
by Matt Stoller, Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:04:51 AM EST
I was near the White House yesterday, and I found a CD with a 'training version' of the State of the Union in a Starbucks. Stupid White House aides.



Watch this hilarious take on the State of the Union, with James Adomian doing a great impression of President George W. Bush!

Here's the
quicktime version
.

Checks, Balances and the Duty to Filibuster

Posted 01/27/2006 @ 11:46am
The Nation


No one runs for the U.S. Senate on the slogan: "Elect me and I will maintain the status quo."

No one runs for the U.S. Senate promising to go along to get along.

Yet, when push comes to shove, most senators end up as cautious players who choose the easy route of partisanship, ideological predictability and personal political advantage over the more dangerous path of adherence to the Constitution. Americans have grown so accustomed to the compromised nature of the chamber that they often forget that the founders of the American experiment intended the Senate, in particular, to serve as a check and a balance on the excesses of the executive branch.

Unfortunately, major media outlets that now serve as little more than a stenography service for the D.C. consensus regularly reinforce this misinterpretation of senatorial duty by painting members of the body who choose to embrace their Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities as, at best, eccentric or ambitious and, at worst, vindictive or dangerous to the healthy functioning of the body politic.

The move, led by Massachusetts Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court with a filibuster is already being dismissed by White House aides, Republican operatives and their echo chamber in the media as a mad misadventure that exposes the Democrats as legislative anarchists bent on wrecking the smooth-functioning processes of the Senate. The Republican National Committee's Tracey Schmitt summed up the sentiment when she peddled the official line of the man who would be monarch, arguing that in George W. Bush's America the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities are no longer required.

"The judicial confirmation process, particularly one for the nation's highest court, should be insulated from such thoughtless bomb throwing..." Schmitt growled.

Bomb throwing?

Samuel Alito has established himself, through his record as an appellate court judge and his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, as the consumate judicial activist. He seeks a place on the Supreme Court in order to advance his vision of an imperial presidency that does not obey the laws of the land or answer to the Congress. Alito is, by his own admission, intellectually and politically at odds with the intents of the founders, and with the Constitutional system of checks and balances that they established. He has gone so far as to advise past presidents on strategies for expanding executive power and, as a judge, he has erred on the side of even the most reckless abuses of executive authority.

As Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor and Constitutional scholar, explained: "In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito's bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe."

Turley put the Senate consideration of this nomination in context when he wrote that: "The Alito vote might prove to be the single most important decision on the future of our constitutional system for decades to come. While I generally defer to presidents in their choices for the court, Samuel Alito is the wrong nominee at the wrong time for this country."

Seen in the context of the threat that Alito poses, the use of the filibuster -- an entirely legitimate legislative tool -- to block Alito's nomination is not "bomb throwing." It is an appropriate and necessary embrace of duty by senators who recognize the entirety of their advice-and-consent mandate. Of course there will be political risks for those who back the filibuster. But senators do not swear allegiance to their political security; they swear it to a Constitution that requires them to hold the executive branch to account. In this moment, and in this circumstance, senators can only provide the necessary checks and balances by backing the filibuster.

Taking Hostages

Associated Press
Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic
By CHARLES J. HANLEY , 01.27.2006, 01:51 PM



Silly me. I thought taking hostages was against the rules
of war. The 4th Geneva Convention says, and I quote,

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities,
including members of armed forces who have laid down
their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness,
wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse
distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith,
sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain
prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with
respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to
life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of
hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the
passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees
which are recognized as indispensable by civilized
peoples."

Maybe the administration's copy reads "permitted" instead
of "prohibited"? Or maybe they're just going for a war crime
quadfecta.

Friday, January 27, 2006

THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA

As Eric, over at Bush Flash puts it so Simply:

THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA


Encore feature- you should watch this, every day.




James Starowicz
Member: Veterans For Peace
VFP 'Declaration Of Impeachment'
Sign On and Pass Link To Others

Opening of the Heart



Nationwide screening of Voices in Wartime film from January 30-April 4.
memorial anniversaries of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King

Dramatic Performance of Voices, Feb. 9th - LA

Fond du Lac in February! Community events, teacher workshop, film screening, communications workshop.

Opening of the Heart aims to transform how we respond to, engage in, and recover from conflict, through education and the arts. Acknowledging that conflict is inevitable, we envision a world in which individuals, communities and nations move beyond polarization, instead viewing conflict as an opportunity for positive change.





Study Reveals Lack of Funds

All-purpose headline a perfect fit for mostly ignored U.S. slush-fund scandal in Iraq. (This subhead also works, but it's too long.)




Member: Veterans For Peace
VFP 'Declaration Of Impeachment'
Sign On and Pass Link To Others

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Vietnam and Iraq: Six Stages of Deception

On the eve of the 38th anniversary of the Tet Offensive, it is instructive to study the parallels between the Vietnam debacle and the current situation in Iraq.
by David Robson and Richard Krohn
During the present conflict in Iraq many of us who lived through Vietnam have been hearing echoes of that earlier conflict. The echoes are getting louder and are not just coincidence.Two of us stood in the bunker that night, guarding the base perimeter. We had cleaned our rifles, loaded the machine gun and checked the wires to the Claymore mines when a jeep slid to a stop. The Captain of the Guard growled, “You men better stay alert tonight. You know what time of year this is...it’s Tet!” Two years earlier the infamous Tet Offensive had caught the U.S. Army off guard and the Captain wasn’t about to let that happen again on his watch.
January 30th thirty-eight years ago: Tet began with simultaneous attacks in every major city. When the month-long battle ended, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong had suffered a sweeping military defeat in Vietnam, but had scored a major political victory in the United States. President Lyndon Johnson had assured anxious Americans the war was going according to plan. Tet exposed his assurances as deceptions.

During the present conflict in Iraq many of us who lived through Vietnam have been hearing echoes of that earlier conflict. The echoes are getting louder and are not just coincidence. Because each nation was distant and no direct threat to the United States, the President’s unfounded alarm triggered six stages of a war based on deception.

1. SELLING THE WAR
The President needs to depict the war as a mandatory response to provocation.
Early in the Vietnam conflict, President Johnson accused North Vietnam of attacking U.S. destroyers, but he withheld information about prior U.S. gunboat raids on the North Vietnamese coast. Congress reacted to the reported Gulf of Tonkin attack by endorsing increased military action.

Before invading Iraq, President Bush insisted that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear bombs that threatened the U.S., but he withheld government intelligence that questioned reports about African uranium and aluminum tubes. Congress reacted by authorizing the President to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

2. DISMISSING HISTORY
More intent on selling the war than planning for it, the administration ignores the dynamics of the region’s history and religion.
Vietnam’s long domination by China, France, Japan, and France again, followed by eight years of war, taught the Vietnamese how to outlast the U.S., which they began to see as another occupying force. Iraq’s long domination by the Ottoman and British empires, and Saddam’s recent brutality taught Iraqis the importance of covert resistance, and they began to see the U.S. as another occupying force.

For a century in Vietnam, French rulers had used the Catholic church and schools as part of their governing apparatus, and during the U.S. era Buddhists burned themselves to protest the Catholic-dominated regime. In Iraq, Saddam drew his governing class from the Sunni Muslim sect. With Saddam gone, Shiite death squads killed Sunni leaders, and Sunnis retaliated by bombing Shiite mosques.

3. STAYING THE COURSE
U.S. leaders stick with policy in the face of facts to the contrary.
In Vietnam, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara believed massive bombing would cause North Vietnam to surrender. In Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted on a lean, agile invasion force. Neither policy admitted the rapidly-shifting facts in the field.

In both wars U.S. commanders believed in the power of superior technology: Vietnam--helicopters, hovercraft and remote troop sensors; Iraq--unmanned aerial vehicles, smart bombs and depleted uranium tank shells. The Viet Cong found low-tech ways to counter U.S. technology, using tree trunks as decoy cannon emplacements; the Iraqi guerrillas triggered roadside bombs with radio-controlled garage door openers.

Guerrillas smuggled supplies across borders the U.S. could not secure: from North Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh Trail; from Syria and Iran into Iraq.

In both wars the U.S. assumed liberation would win the “hearts and minds” of the common people. But destruction of villages and farms in Vietnam, and extensive bombing of Iraqi cities like Bahgdad and Fallujah killed thousands of civilians, alienating millions more.

Pentagon planners ignored the question “What will we do if they don’t surrender?” In Vietnam, the Tet Offensive smashed the image of long-term victory. In Iraq when insurgencies followed Saddam’s capture, Paul Wolfowitz said “It was difficult to imagine before the war that the criminal gang of sadists and gangsters who have run Iraq for 35 years would continue fighting.”

Meanwhile, lacking real military progress, the administration resorted to statistics. In 1965 the U.S. Air Force boasted that during one month it had destroyed 5,349 “structures” in South Vietnam. In 2005, the U.S. stated that “by mid-June, the Iraqi forces had been given 306 million rounds of ammunition, roughly 12 bullets for each of Iraq’s 25 million people.”

4. DOUBTING AND DEFECTING
When claims of substantial progress prove false, the administration’s solidarity cracks.
U.S. State Department officials resigned in protest: during Vietnam, diplomats William Watts, Roger Morris and Anthony Lake in 1970; during Iraq, John Brown, John Brady Kiesling and Mary Wright in 2003.

During Vietnam, the New York Times published excerpts of the 43-volume Pentagon Papers, leaked by a Pentagon official; during Iraq the Sunday Times in 2005 published the leaked British Downing Street Memo that “Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.”

A key architect of each war acknowledged the lack of progress...and was soon re-assigned to direct the World Bank. During Vietnam, McNamara commented in 1967, “The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing and injuring 1,000 noncombatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one.” Re-assigned the next year. During Iraq, Wolfowitz said on July 22, 2003 “The fact is. . .we often just make mistakes. We do stupid things.” Re-assigned in 2005.

5. DENYING THE TRAP
The administration finds itself in a trap of its own making--unable to escalate or exit--and sells optimistic slogans.
In Vietnam, Gen. William Westmoreland requested 206,000 more troops in 1968, but President Johnson refused, knowing the U.S. public would not accept more escalation. During Iraq, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki said post-combat Iraq would require “several hundred thousand soldiers,” which Wolfowitz called "wildly off the mark" because it contradicted Pentagon policy.

Meanwhile, each administration claimed success was near. In 1967, shortly before the Tet Offensive, Westmoreland said “We have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view,” but six long years later Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird was making the same sales pitch: "As a consequence of the success of the military aspects of Vietnamization, the South Vietnamese people today, in my view, are fully capable of providing for their own in-country security against the North Vietnamese."

During Iraq Vice President Dick Cheney said “I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency,” and in June 2005, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "The best way to get our troops home is to...train Iraqi forces so that they can take over all of the security of their own country."

6. WITHDRAWING
Public discontent makes continued selling of the war impossible.
The U.S. President realizes he must withdraw.
In Vietnam, five years after the Tet Offensive, the last U.S. troops were withdrawn in 1973.

In Iraq, after years of insurgency. . . ?



---=---------


David Robson is a Vietnam veteran who teaches science at Towson High School in Maryland. Richard Krohn, Ph.D., is a historian who teaches at St. Paul’s School, near Baltimore, Maryland. Contact them, respectively, at drobson@bcps.org or rkrohn@stpaulsschool.org.

IAVA Anounces Launch of PAC - And.......

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans political movement has begun and they need your help!

Today, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee ( IAVA PAC ) announced its launch. Although IAVA PAC is a separate organization from IAVA Action Fund, it embodies the same principles that attracted you to become a supporter of IAVA Action Fund.

IAVA PAC is the first and only political action committee headed by an Iraq Vet, Jon Soltz, strictly to benefit Iraq Veterans running for office. General Wesley Clark will be leading the Board of Advisors. IAVA PAC is not tied to the Washington establishment nor does it endorse either party. Please visit IAVA PAC's website - www.iavapac.org - and sign up, so you can receive updates from them, and consider making a donation. IAVA PAC has set a high fundraising goal for its inaugural week -- $25,000. They need your help!

Your investment in IAVA PAC will go towards funding a wide array of activities. IAVA PAC will provide support and training for qualified candidates and their campaigns, give them an immediate influx of money, and reach out to every voter. They will be running hard hitting television ads that tout these candidates, and take those to task that voted for the war but against the Troops and Veterans.

Many of you have written to us requesting that IAVA Action Fund get involved in political races, to help insure that Veterans of the current conflicts make it into office. Because of our tax status, we are not able to. IAVA PAC represents what you were hoping for - an organization that follows the core principles of IAVA Action Fund, but is more directly involved in election activities.

IAVA PAC's slogan is "Support the Troops - Send them to Congress!" If you believe in that sentiment, please visit IAVA PAC today!

Thank you for your support,

Paul Rieckhoff
Iraq Veteran and Executive Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund





Peoples Video - Break the Corporate Media Blockade
PVN is pleased to announce the launch of Peoples Video TV. We now have a wide selection of video podcasts available on line, covering a wide variety of topics, including Ramsey Clark speaking on the war in Iraq, coverage of the TWU strike and support rallies, community organizing in reponse to Katrina, and many more.
We are a group of media activists who video and audio podcast, and produce and edit dvd's and videos about issues the corporate media will not touch. In our archives are hundreds of dvd's and videos documenting the struggle. (To see a complete list of videos available for order, go to Peoples Video ) We have sent correspondents to the Lacondon Jungle, Haiti, Russia, Cuba, Korea, New Orleans, Puerto Rico, South Africa, and Iraq. Our goal is to break the information blockade of big business media.




Member: Veterans For Peace
VFP 'Declaration Of Impeachment'
Sign On and Pass Link To Others

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Welll, saddam Couldn't Get bush To Go One on One Before Invasion....

Saddam to sue Bush and Blair



AMMAN, Jordan, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- Defence lawyers for Saddam Hussein Wednesday distributed copies of a lawsuit against President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for destroying Iraq.

The suit accuses Bush and Blair of committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction and internationally-banned weapons including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, notably in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar.

The Amman-based legal team had said Sunday that the ousted president intended to start legal action against the two leaders of the Iraq war in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but the text of the suit was made available Wednesday.

The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife.

Bush and Blair were also accused of polluting Iraq's air, waters and environment.

The lawsuit demanded that Bush and Blair appear before court to answer the charges filed against them and requested the harshest punishment in line with Dutch legislation and the rules of international and humanitarian laws.

It also requested compensation for all material and moral damage inflicted on the Iraqi people.


************


And from
'Booman' at his Tribune:


And just to make sure we understand the full extent of the irony:

Reasons we invaded Iraq:

1) Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons. (Not true, and Bush has plenty of nuclear weapons).
2) Saddam killed a lot of Iraqis. (Bush: check)
3) Saddam used chemical weapons to kill Iraqis. (Bush: check)
4) Saddam tortured Iraqis. (Bush: check)
5) Saddam supported terrorism. (Bush's actions have strengthened recruitment for terrorist organizations and increased terrorist incidents).



I'd be perfectly happy if both Bush and Hussein were bunkmates in the Hague.

Vietnam Vet, Moment Of Silence, At Sentencing!

Vietnam Vet and Civil Resister, Peter DeMott, Sentenced in Federal Court


Peter DeMott, a Vietnam veteran and civil resister, began his opening remarks at his sentencing in Binghamton federal court today by asking the court for a moment of silence to remember the dead who had perished in Iraq: both the American and Iraqi casualties. DeMott noted that thirty percent of the Iraqi dead are children. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy granted this request stating, “The Court will join you in a moment of silence because it is a good thing to do. I feel that loss deeply.”


Tuesday, January 24, 2006

New Flash Presentation 'Bravery'

Peace Takes Courage


1/23/2005
New Animation

Bravery



A Call For 'Impeachment'

Reid Speaks Truth to the Corrupt Existing POWER!!

Reid Addresses the Real State of Our Union

By Senator Harry Reid
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Tuesday 24 January 2005

Remarks as prepared for delivery by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid at the Center for American Progress.
I went to college in the 1960s and studied government. One of the things I remember discussing was a quote by Lord Acton:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

It's been many years since I graduated college, but I finally understand what Lord Acton meant.

Republicans today control the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. They have absolute power, and it has corrupted their Party and led to the culture of corruption that we see now in Washington.

We have the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, admonished three times for ethics violations and under indictment now for money laundering.

We have the White House, where an employee has been indicted for the first time in 135 years.

There's Karl Rove, who is under investigation and David Safavian, the man appointed by President Bush to be charge in charge of hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts who was led away in handcuffs because of his dealings with Jack Abramoff and others.

And then, we have the Republican K-Street Project, which has invited lobbyists inside our nation's Capitol as long as they are willing to pay the right price.

The Republican abuse of power comes at great cost to our country, and we can see it in the present state of our union. Special interests and the well-connected have grown stronger, while our national securitys our economys our health cares and our government have grown weaker.

What is the state of our union in 2006?

We have a national security policy that protects Halliburton's bottom-line with no-bid contracts but sends our troops to Iraq without body armor.

We have Vice President Cheney's energy policy that helped Big Oil make a hundred billion dollars in profit in 2005 but this same policy has America paying 70 dollars for a barrel of oil and families paying twice as much for heat and gasoline as did in late 2001.

We have students priced out of college by skyrocketing tuition - and Republicans in Congress who want to cut student loans in order to pay for special interest tax breaks.

We have 46 million Americans without health insurance and poverty numbers on the rise - but a President whose economic policies benefit the wealthy and well-connected.

This is what happens to the state of our union when leaders put special interests ahead of the America's interest.

These are the costs of Republican corruption.

The questions. is will President Bush acknowledge these costs when he delivers his State of the Union next Tuesday night?

If history is any indicator, the answer is no.

Watching the video earlier, I was reminded of another lesson from college, this one taken from George Orwell and his book, 1984.

In that book, Orwell spoke of "doublespeak" - naming something just the opposite, in order to cover how unpleasant it is in reality.

As we saw in the video, the President has been giving us doublespeak for years. He utters platitudes about helping Americans, when he's really helping his special interest friends.

When he wanted to let energy companies release more pollution into the air, he called it the "Clear Skies Initiative."

When he wanted to give tax breaks to his special interest friends - even though it meant adding more than $50 billion to the deficit, he called it the "Deficit Reduction Act."

His "Leave No Child Behind Act" is leaving children behind every day because he refuses to fund it. And his new Medicare drug benefit hardly resembles a "benefit" for seniors.

Tuesday night, it is time for President Bush to end to this pattern of deceit. In his State of the Union, it is not enough for him to declare that the "state of our union is strong."

America can do better, and only the pessimistic would suggest anything less.

In his speech, the President needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong.

The President can start with national security.

In his 2005 address, the President said: "In the three and half years since September 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans."

It took only seven months and the winds of Katrina to prove he was wrong.

Americans have heard tough talk from President Bush over the last five years, but the reality is, his policies have made America less safe.

The President's failed record speaks for itself.

Just over four years ago, Osama Bin Laden attacked America and took 3,000 lives. The President said at the time that he wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive."

But four years later, Bin Laden is still on the loose and continues to threaten America. Meanwhile, the number of terrorist attacks across the world has increased, and we now face the risk that Iraq will become what it was not before the war: a haven and launching pad for international terrorism.

Four years ago, the President declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil," whose nuclear threats we needed to preemptively strike.

But four years 23 hundred American lives and more than 250 billion dollars later, we have found that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the problem of Iran has been outsourced to Europeans, and North Korea's nuclear weapons program has likely quadrupled.

Four years ago, the President said in his State of the Union: "America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" which include the "the rule of law."

But four years later, we've heard that the President has ignored the rule of law in order to spy on Americans. We've also found that the White House given the green light to torture, even though it violated our laws and made our troops less safe.

After reviewing the Republican record, I know why Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove want to play politics with national security in 2006 instead of having an honest debate about who can keep Americans safe. It's because this is a debate Republicans cannot win.

Republicans run good campaigns, but when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence.

Democrats know that keeping Americans safe means more than talking tough.

It means providing our troops proper planning and equipment, like body armor.

It means securing our ports, nuclear plants and cargo holds.

It means making 2006 a year of significant transition in Iraq.

And it means doing everything in our power to protect, not trample, the rights set out in this document.

Tuesday night, the President must unite the nation behind our most important goal - keeping our people and way of life safe. We need to hear honesty and humility from the Commander in Chief, not swagger from the Campaigner in Chief.

After national security, the President needs to talk honestly about what he has done to the economy.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, the President said: "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and to other generations."

That might not be doublespeak, but it is deeply dishonest.

President Bush is "passing along" problems to other generations. He's bankrupting our country and placing an enormous tax on our children and grandchildren, simply so he can hand out tax breaks to special interests and the wealthy.

Next month, because of George Bush's reckless spending, America will hit a debt ceiling of 8.2 trillion dollars

In 2005, we had the third-highest budget deficit ever - 319 billion dollars.

Two years earlier, we had the second-highest budget deficit - $378 billion.

And in 2004 - the year President Bush was re-elected - we had the highest budget deficit ever - $412 billion.

In baseball, it's three strikes, you're out. But under the rules of this White House, that fiscal record is a home run for special interests.

George Bush has no one to blame but himself for today's fiscal mess. Not 9/11 Not a weak economy And certainly not the Democrats.

Democrats want to return to the responsible fiscal policies of the 1990s - led by Bill Clinton - that yielded a budget surplus. We believe in restoring "pay as you go" rules. We've fought the president's irresponsible spending, and we've promoted a pro-growth agenda with tax fairness for hard-working Americans.

We have a proven record. The Republicans do not.

Tuesday night, the president has the opportunity to show that he understands what is happening to our economy. He needs to acknowledge the anxiety felt by middle-class families, who are seeing their wages go down and their costs go up.

And he needs to speak honestly about how he's going to put our fiscal house in order, so we do not pass his enormous debt on to our children and grandchildren.

Next, the President needs to talk about how he's going to fix his bait and switch Medicare drug program.

In his 2003 State of the Union, President Bush called Medicare the "binding commitment of a caring society." Three years later, we can see it is not seniors the president cares about.

Democrats have always supported adding a drug benefit to Medicare, but nearly all of us voted against the Medicare Bill of 2003 because it was clear that President Bush's plan would help drug companies more than seniors.

Unfortunately, time has proven us right. The state of our union today is that we have seniors begging in the streets for the medicine they need.

We need to fix Medicare and do it now.

Last week, Senate Democrats introduced a plan to fix the Medicare crisis this White House has created.

Tuesday night, we must hear a similar plan from President Bush.

The President's fourth obligation is to talk honestly about energy.

In previous State of the Unions, George Bush has offered lofty rhetoric about making America "less dependent on foreign energy." But for the last five years, America has moved in the opposite direction.

In 2000, 58.2 percent of the oil we consumed was imported. Today, that has increased to nearly 62 percent.

As our dependence on foreign oil has gone up, so have prices. Heating costs have risen by more than $500 per month for some families since George Bush's first full winter in the White House, and the cost of gasoline has increased by 56 percent - with no end in sight.

Democrats have offered a series of proposals to make America energy independent by 2020, to create new jobs and to strengthen our country.

Tuesday night, it's time for the President to turn his rhetoric on into action. He needs to level with the American people and admit that making us "less dependent on foreign energy" will take more than giveaways to Big Oil - giveaways exemplified by the Republicans attempt to break Senate rules in the middle of the night and open the pristine Alaskan wilderness to drilling.

We stopped them, and I'm glad.

Finally, we must hear the President commit to honest leadership.

In his 2000 campaign, George Bush promised to bring "dignity" to the White House but we've since found that he brought Jack Abramoff instead.

President Bush needs to quit stonewalling about his White House's connection to corruption, and finally tell us how he's going to reform Washington.

Honest leadership is not a partisan goal. It is the key to a stronger union. Then we make leaders accountable to people, not lobbyists, there is no limit to how far America can go.

We can be energy independent have affordable health care a strong economy and real security.

Last Wednesday, Democrats unveiled our Honest Leadership and Open Government act.

I assure you - that is not Orwellian doublespeak. Our bill does exactly what it says.

Tuesday night, President Bush must show that he is committed to similar reforms.

When the President speaks next week, he faces a choice: offer a fresh start or more of the same.

He can continue to speak in platitudes, like we've seen in the last five State of the Unions, or he can choose to come clean. On Iraq On Corruption And how the Republican Party's wrong priorities are holding America back.

2006 can be a year of promise, all it will take is a commitment to honest leadership from President Bush when he speaks in seven days.

He needs to join Democrats in putting progress ahead of politics, so we can have a state of the union as honest and strong as the American people.

-------

Why You May Ask!

Answer: This Country DOES NOT SUPPORT IT'S TROOPS, Words Are Cheap and Hypocritical, As They Laugh About 'Purple Heart Bandages'!!



Vets, Widows Fade Away In Poverty

Dennis McCarthy, Columnist


It comes down to this: Do we want our impoverished veterans or their widows to live out their lives in dignity?
A 2004 study conducted by the Office of Policy, Planning and Preparedness in the Department of Veterans Affairs found that VA pensions "do not provide sufficient income to cover veterans' and spouses' living expenses ... allowing them to live their lives in dignity and not turn to welfare assistance.
"The program does not meet congressional intent to provide a level of income that places VA pension participants above the poverty line."
Thank you for your service, G.I. Joes and Janes. Now here are some K rations and a cot to get you through your final days. Some life of dignity.
I promised to get back to you with answers from our congressional leaders on a column I wrote last week about the 89-year-old widow of a World War II combat veteran who was ineligible to receive her late husband's pension because she was earning too much - $11,880 a year on his Social Security pension.
To qualify as a surviving spouse with no dependent children, Bea Cordell would have to be living on a maximum of $7,094 a year - or roughly $590 a month.
Had she been housebound, she could have been making all of $8,670 a year to be eligible. Good luck paying rent and utilities and eating three squares a day on that kind of income.
"The theory that someone living on $11,000 a year Social Security doesn't need a VA pension and isn't eligible as the widow of a combat veteran is unconscionable," Rep. Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys, said Monday.
Berman cited the VA report and promised to meet next month with the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans Affairs Committee - Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois - to introduce a bill that would increase the income limits.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also promised to introduce legislation to change the income limits.
"An annual income limit of about $7,000 for a widow of a service member to qualify for pension benefits is ridiculously low," she said. "This would make virtually any serviceman's wife now living in California - or elsewhere in the country - ineligible for these benefits."
As a start, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, suggested the government treat a widow's income benefit level the same as a veteran's with no dependents - $10,579 a year.
"A little old lady can't live any cheaper than a little old man," Sherman said. "No one can live anywhere in the country on 7,000 bucks a year."
It's not as if the government doesn't have the money. VA officials complained last month that they were having only limited success in finding the nation's poor veterans and impoverished widows to share in the $22 billion the VA had lying around.
Now we know why the pension pot had so much money in it. Nobody qualifies for money. You have to be living so far below the poverty line you're not even on the VA's radar screen.
"Most veterans are slightly above the poverty line, and spouses are well below it, forcing pensioners to make sacrifices to make ends meet," the report states.
"Given the study results show 83 percent of the spouses are at or below the poverty line, Congress should consider increasing the VA pension benefit amount."
You're probably wondering where this report has been hiding for the last year, because I sure am. Wish I had an answer. VA officials promised Monday to track it.
Congress shouldn't escape criticism, either. Many veterans or their widows have been complaining for years about how absurdly low their income must be for them to get pension money, but their complaints have fallen on deaf ears.
To let those income levels go unchanged just shows Congress wasn't paying attention. Maybe they thought vets and their widows were yesterday's news. They're not. They're the reason we're still a democracy today.
The least we owe these men and women is a little money - a few hundred dollars more a month - to live out their lives in dignity.

Dennis McCarthy's column appears Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday.
Dennis McCarthy, (818) 713-3749
dennis.mccarthy@dailynews.com

Conservative Rag: The White House prepares for the worst

Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst


President Bush waved to the press on Jan. 22 after returning to the White House from Camp David. (Susan Walsh/Associated Press)


Issue Date: January 23-29, 2006, Posted On: 1/23/2006

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.

"A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.

Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.

Sources said the probe to determine whether the president violated the law will include Republicans, but that they may not be aware they could be helping to lay the groundwork for a Democratic impeachment campaign against Mr. Bush.

"Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president," the source said. "If we work hard, there could be a tie."

The law limits the government surveillance to no more than 72 hours without a court warrant. The president, citing his constitutional war powers, has pledged to continue wiretaps without a warrant.

The hearings would be accompanied by several lawsuits against the administration connected to the surveillance program. At the same time, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that demands information about the NSA spying.

Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and Pennsylvania Republican, has acknowledged that the hearings could conclude with a vote of whether Mr. Bush violated the law. Mr. Specter, a critic of the administration’s surveillance program, stressed that, although he would not seek it, impeachment is a possible outcome.

"Impeachment is a remedy," Mr. Specter said on Jan. 15. "After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution. But the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price."

Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance. Another leading Republican who has rejected the administration's argument is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

On Jan. 16, former Vice President Al Gore set the tone for impeachment hearings against Mr. Bush by accusing the president of lying to the American people. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 election to Mr. Bush, accused the president of "indifference" to the Constitution and urged a serious congressional investigation. He said the administration decided to break the law after Congress refused to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore said.

"I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution,” he said. “Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the constitution of our country."

Impeachment proponents in Congress have been bolstered by a memorandum by the Congressional Research Service on Jan. 6. CRS, which is the research arm of Congress, asserted in a report by national security specialist Alfred Cumming that the amended 1947 law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of a domestic surveillance effort. It was the second CRS report in less than a month that questioned the administration's domestic surveillance program.

The latest CRS report said Mr. Bush should have briefed the intelligence committees in the House and Senate. The report said covert programs must be reported to House and Senate leaders as well as the chairs of the intelligence panels, termed the "Gang of Eight."

Administration sources said Mr. Bush would wage a vigorous defense of electronic surveillance and other controversial measures enacted after 9/11. They said the president would begin with pressure on Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Bush would then point to security measures taken by the former administration of President Bill Clinton.

"The argument is that the American people will never forgive any public official who knowingly hurts national security," an administration source said. "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress."

Monday, January 23, 2006

The State of Our Values



A group of students at Baylor University are inviting their neighbors in Waco, Texas, for a State of Our Values watch and discussion at a local church as President Bush delivers his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Jan. 31. At St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Riverside, California, Bible study groups are organizing a watch and inviting others to join. At Lee Heights Community Church in Cleveland, Ohio, teenagers and children are encouraged to join with adults and offer their opinions.
These are just a few of the many State of Our Values watches that Sojourners supporters around the U.S. have organized. We hope you will join us!
+ Search for a State of Our Values watch near you
Can't find one in your area?
+ Organize a State of Our Values watch near you




In last year's State of the Union address, President Bush proclaimed boldly that "Over the next several months, on issue after issue, let us do what Americans have always done, and build a better world for our children and our grandchildren." Did the actions carried out after that speech line up with your values?
We do not yet know what the president will say in his address this year. Will the president proclaim his vision for reducing or ending poverty in our time? Will he advance moral budget priorities? Will he lay out a plan for peace abroad and in our neighborhoods? Will he talk about restoring honest government? Most importantly, will he present a moral vision for our country that is in line with your values?
This speech will likely occur one day before the House of Representatives votes on a budget that harms low-income families and children by cutting vital services such as child support, Medicaid, and assistance for disabled persons. We believe this is the real moral scandal in Washington, yet it is receiving little attention.
As people of faith who believe in justice and compassion, we must ensure that our moral values are represented and our prophetic voices are heard.
+ Search for a State of Our Values watch near you
+ Organize a State of Our Values watch near you


The Devastation We Inflict: {UPDATED}

Mother Jones
Just received the MoJo News Letter, after posting these letters up. They have picked up on the Tom Dispatch Report and have a Three Page Commentary with a Number of Embedded Links. This Is A Must Read As The Letters Are!!
The Devastation We Inflict - Two Letters from Vietnam Vets


Mirror URL {for just the letters}: TruthOut


The Devastation We Inflict:
Two Letters from Vietnam Vets on "Collateral Damage" in Iraq

By Tom Engelhardt
Tom Dispatch.com

Sunday 22 January 2006

Almost two weeks ago, I published a piece by Michael Schwartz, "A Formula for Slaughter," on the brutal nature of American "rules of engagement" from the air in Iraq and the consequent proliferation of Iraqi civilian casualties. As it happened, this piece spurred powerful memories in a number of Vietnam veterans who wrote vivid e-responses in to Tomdispatch - striking enough that I chose the two most eloquent to send out (with permission, of course) in my latest dispatch (along with a discussion of my own on the way the Vietnam experience has dogged the Bush administration in its Iraqi adventure). The first letter comes from Wade Kane, once a helicopter door gunner and crew chief in Vietnam, who wrote in from Crescent City, Florida; the second is from George Hoffman, a former Vietnam medic, from Lorain, Ohio, which he describes as being "thirty miles west of Cleveland, in the heart of the industrial rust belt, and my apartment has a scenic view of the smokestacks and the steel mill." Both in their accounts give the Vietnam analogy in Iraq painful new meaning. These are the sorts of voices we should hear far more from in this country and, unfortunately, almost never do. Don't miss this dispatch.

Letter #1

Wade Kane writes:

Dear Tom,

Although I'm sure we occasionally execute some innocent person after years on Death Row, we as a nation go to great lengths not to execute any innocents. Only the worst of murderers seem to reach death row. So it seems quite ironic that we accept seeing some men apparently planting a bomb on the side of a road in Iraq via a video from a Predator drone and, using that information, decide to drop a 500-pound bomb on a house where they might be hiding, a house where we don't have a clue if there are other people.

Killing innocent women and children is okay, "just" collateral damage… If this is "okay," then why wasn't what Lt. Calley did in Vietnam okay? Similarly, why were Hiroshima and Nagasaki okay, but My Lai wasn't? Somehow, when our soldiers shoot innocents at close range we are appalled, but when it is done via bombs or artillery it's "okay."

At about the same time My Lai occurred, I was flying as a crew chief/gunner on a Chinook [helicopter]. Passing a small village I thought I heard a single shot directed at my helicopter. Or maybe it was just "blade pop." Looking into the village, I could see women and children in the streets in what I'd call a "pastoral scene." I elected not to "return fire," though by my unit's rules of engagement I could have done so. About an hour later we happened to fly past that village again. There was no one in sight, but there were numerous bomb craters in the rice paddies and where homes had been. My guess is that someone else received fire, or thought they received fire, returned fire, and the pilots called for an air strike. I doubt any of the people in the village had time to flee from the attack. Never ever have I heard anything about that event, just My Lai...

I'm not guiltless. At about the same time, flying low level - like 20 feet AGL [Above Ground Level] at 140 mph - we passed a family tending a tapioca field. As we came by, a young boy of 12 or so picked up his hoe and pointed it at us like a weapon. I tried to swing my M-60 around and shoot him, but we were going too fast. At the time, I would have felt it was a good shoot as he was "practicing" shooting us down. Now, with young sons of my own, I'm appalled I could have been so callous.

People here got really worried about a flashlight at a Starbucks (which might have been a bomb). Had it been a bomb, which it wasn't, it would have weighed about 1/500th of what we routinely drop in residential neighborhoods in Iraq. It's like most people don't seem to realize what devastation we inflict there on a frequent basis. Today, for example, someone I know sent me some "feel good pictures" about our troops in Iraq. You know: old ladies holding up "Thanks, Mr. Bush" signs, smiling kids. Pictures she said that "just don't make the news." For "don't make the news," how about some pictures of kids that our bombs have eviscerated? Pictures of the sort that are found in Where War Lives, a Photographic Journal of Vietnam by Dick Durrance (intro by Ron Kovic).

We should be the bright light to the world, spending our tax monies on cures for malaria, not on killing innocents.

Have we no shame?

From the bottom of my heart I wish to thank those who, like yourself, are trying to bring an end to this war madness.

Wade Kane

War time:
SP/5 Wade O. Kane RA 14952996
Co. A, 228th AVN BN (ASH)
1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile)
June &'67 to June &'68
Door Gunner on Chinook 64-13137, Aug '65 to Nov '67
Crew chief/door gunner on Chinook 64-13140, Nov '67 to June '68
Occasional ramp gunner various Co. A Chinooks, Feb '68 to June '68

Campaigns/Battles:
The Que Son Valley & LZ Leslie
Battle for the Citadel at Hue during Tet '68
The relief of the Marines at Khe Sanh
The April &'68 A Shau Valley campaign





-----------------


Letter #2

George Hoffman writes:

Dear Tom,

I want you to know that many Vietnam vets really have had a hard time dealing with this unnecessary war in Iraq that has taken the lives of so many innocent Iraqis as well as American men and women serving there. I am sure that the reason I have such deep feelings about this war is that, as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, every day for a year I had to go into a hospital, face such casualties, and deal with them on such a visceral level.

I served in Vietnam as a medical corpsman from May 31, 1967 to May 31, 1968 at the 12th USAF Hospital in Cam Ranh Bay. Besides treating wounded soldiers, the facility also had a special ward for Vietnamese nationals. Usually they were the officials and relatives of the Thieu administration, highly educated and employed in government positions. But occasionally the patients were peasants, average people whom the Americans were supposedly trying to win over to our side (the hearts-and-minds issue). And they were usually patients wounded by shrapnel - "collateral damage." And, of course, having been wounded by the Americans, they were angry at them and their hearts and minds were lost to the other side, the supposedly evil VC guerillas.

With that bit of unfortunately necessary personal information, let me move on to your latest dispatch. I understand the rationale of the Bush administration's policy of air supremacy which seems logical in military terms, but it is a complete failure in diplomatic terms. I am sure that many thousands of innocent Iraqis, whose only sin is that they lived next to some house with insurgents, or in that house, have been murdered in these so-called surgical air strikes with precision bombs; and, as in Vietnam, these operations are becoming a major reason that Americans are losing Iraqi hearts and minds as well turning Iraqi civilians into insurgents.

In addition to the reporters and editors in the mainstream media, most of whom remain ignorant of the horrible reality for Iraqi civilians in these operations, the average American citizen seems to have taken the bait of the Bush administration's propaganda about how the war is being prosecuted, hook, line, and sinker. Civilians really have no concept of how horrible "collateral damage" can be and it will be a hard lesson to learn, since major media outlets basically refuse to report on this issue.

Of course, the insurgents love the American policy of air supremacy, because each new wound and/or death is a great tool for recruitment to their side. I think it is more than a coincidence that the married couple, who traveled from Iraq to Jordan and were found to have lived in Fallujah, were among the suicide bombers that participated in the attacks in the hotels in Amman. In one article that I read, a reporter stated that residents in Fallujah were quietly celebrating the attacks. Remember, the siege of Fallujah in November 2004 leveled close to two-thirds of all the buildings in that city. As the grunts used to say in Vietnam, payback is a real motherf--r.

Related to the siege of Fallujah is another issue that hasn't been well reported by the mainstream media. During the siege, the American forces used white phosphorus artillery rounds. I treated soldiers in Vietnam, who had been wounded by shrapnel coated in white phosphorus or, as the grunts nicknamed it, Willy Peter. Unlike napalm, Willy Peter shrapnel burns until it completely oxidizes with the air. So it burns through the skin and down to the bone. Again, the American military commanders in Iraq have used a weapon which turned Iraqi civilians against their so-called liberators and put them into the camp of the insurgents. As more American troops are redeployed out of Iraq, due to the political pressure applied to the Bush administration since Rep. Murtha came out so strongly against the war, I am sure that the field military commanders have been told to keep American casualties to a minimum, so they are likely to rely even more upon a policy of using air supremacy to take out insurgents.

One last personal observation: I suspect that, in the coming decades, historians will look back on the war in Iraq in the same way they now do on the war in Vietnam. Both wars were predicated on a false premise (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution versus Iraq's nonexistent WMD and Saddam's nonexistent links to Al Qaeda's jihadists) and blindly accepted by congressional representatives who had the moral fortitude of jellyfish. LBJ's [President Lyndon Baines Johnson's] propaganda about nations in Southeast Asia falling like dominoes to the communists fits all too well with Bush's assertion that making Iraq a democratic model in the Middle East will mean the surrounding kingdoms and dictatorships then fall like so many dominoes to democratic reforms. Widespread illegal domestic spying on American civilians during Vietnam matches the current warrantless spying on Americans by the National Security Agency and the American military's TALON program. Finally, as with key officials in LBJ's administration, the very officials who influenced President Bush to prosecute this unnecessary war are the first to leave the administration when domestic criticism is directed at them. Of course, here I am referring to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was the architect of the Vietnam War, and Paul Wolfowitz, who served a similar role in the war in Iraq. They both fled to the World Bank, where each later admitted that he had discounted the resolve and determination of the enemy; and, in Wolfowitz's case, that he was surprised when the war became a guerilla-style one.

If I had one word to describe the most essential quality of both the New Frontiersmen in LBJ's administration and the neocons in the Bush administration, that word would be hubris.

Sincerely,
George Hoffman

-------

Tribunal Indicts Bush

Click on Pic, or Title, to visit 'Bush Crimes Commission' site


International Commission of Inquiry On
Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration --
Concluding Session was held Jan. 20-22



All photos of the Commission © Laura Hanifin for BushCommission.Org


Articles in:

Revolution

Newsday

Newsday

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Matriotism

Matriotism
By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t | Perspective


Sunday 22 January 2006

Much as I wish I could take credit for the word "Matriotism," another woman wrote to me and gave me the concept. I was so intrigued by the word that I have been meditating on the possible ideology behind it, and a on new paradigm for true and lasting peace in the world.

Before I dive into the concept of Matriotism, let's explore the word "patriotism." Dictionary.com defines it as: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it. When we all know that patriotism in the US means: exploiting others' love for country by sending them and their children off to sacrifice for my bank balance!

There have been volumes written about patriotism, defining it, supporting it, challenging the notion of it, etc. I believe the notion of patriotism has been expediently and nefariously exploited, and used to lead our nation into scores of disastrous and needless wars. The idea of patriotism has virtually wiped out entire generations of our precious young people and has allowed our nation's leaders to commit mass murder on an unprecedented scale. The vile sputum of "if you aren't with us, then you are against us" is basically the epitome of patriotism gone wild. After the tragedy of 9/11, we were on our way to becoming a fledgling Matriotic society until our leaders jumped on the bandwagon of inappropriate and misguided vengeance to send our young people to die and kill in two countries that were no threat to the USA or to our way of life. The neocons exploited patriotism to fulfill their goals of imperialism and plunder.

This sort of patriotism begins when we enter kindergarten and learn the nationalist "Pledge of Allegiance." It transcends all sense when we are taught the "Star Spangled Banner," a hymn to war. In our history classes the genocide of the Native American peoples is glossed over as we learn about the spread of American Imperialism over our continent, though it wasn't named until the 1840s, when the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was expounded to justify the USA's conquest of and "civilizing" of Mexican territories and Native American populations. Manifest Destiny sought to spread the "the boundaries of freedom" to the American Continent, with the notion that we have a special mission from God. Sound familiar?

All through school, we are brainwashed into believing that somehow our leaders are always right and certainly have our best interests at heart when they wave the flag and convince us to hate fellow human beings who stand in the way of making immense profits from war. As Samuel Johnson said, patriotism is the "last refuge of scoundrels."

Matriotism is the opposite of patriotism ... not to destroy it, but to be a yin to its yang, and balance out the militarism of patriotism.

Not everyone is a mother, but there is one universal truth that no one can dispute, no matter how hard they try (and believe me, some will try): Everyone has a mother! Mothers give life, and if the child is lucky, mothers nurture life. And if a man has had a nurturing mother he will already have a base of Matriotism.

A Matriot loves his/her country but does not buy into the exploitive phrase of "My country right or wrong." (As Chesterton said, that's like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober.") A Matriot knows that her country can do a lot of things right, especially when the government is not involved. For example, I know of no other citizens of any country who are more personally generous than those of America. However, a Matriot also knows that when her country is wrong, it can be responsible for murdering thouands upon thousands of innocent and unsuspecting humans. A true Matriot would never drop an atomic bomb or bombs filled with white phosphorous, carpet-bomb cities and villages, or control drones from thousands of miles away to kill innocent men, women and children.

There is one most important thing that Matriots would never do, mhowever, and this is the key to stopping killing to solve problems: a Matriot would never send her child or another mother's child to fight nonsense wars ... and would march into a war herself that she considered just, to protect her child from harm. Aha! Matriots would fight their own battles, but take a dim view of having to do so, and would seldom resort to violence to solve conflict! Patriots cowardly hide behind the flag and eagerly send young people to die to fill their own pocketbooks.

Women flocked to Camp Casey in August to run the huge enterprise and work for peace, and women from all over the US and the world have invited me to visit and speak and advocate for true and lasting peace. Men who are in touch with the Matriot inside them have also been important to the cause of eradicating war.

Whether you are a male or female Matriot, Code Pink Alert, endorsed by Gold Star Families for Peace, is calling for an International Day of Peace on March 8 th ... called for, organized by, and supported by women. Women and men with Matriotic tendencies can get more information and endorse the call for peace at: www.womensaynotowar.org. It is past time for us Matriots to get together to stridently call for an end to the immoral bloodshed in Iraq.

I know one thing from the bottom of my heart. My son Casey, who was an Eagle Scout and a true American patriot, was not served well by his idea of patriotism. I will never forgive myself for not trying harder to counteract the false patriotism he was raised on, with a true sense of Matriotism.

I also know that the women of the world who don't have a voice, such as the mothers of Iraq who are struggling just to survive in their needlessly destroyed country, are counting on us women who do have voices to use them to end George Bush's manifestly idiotic doctrine of pre-emptive wars of aggression based on the justification that "I think that country might be dangerous to me and my pals."

War will end forever when we Matriots stand up and say: "No, I am not giving my child to the fake patriotism of the war machine, which chews up my flesh and blood to spit out obscene profits."

It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.
-Baha'u'llah


Matriotism above all is a commitment to truth and a celebration of the dignity of all life.

The Other Big Brother

The PERFECT Picture of the 'rummy' Studying To Ply His Trade!

{Visit Link For Photo}
Rumsfeld tours Lithuania’s KGB Museum, a torture site during the Stalin era, in October 2005




The Pentagon has its own domestic spying program. Even its leaders say the outfit may have gone too far.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Jan. 30, 2006 issue

Evidence of War Lies


By David Swanson
Testimony for International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration, Riverside Church, New York, Jan 20-22, 2006. Thanks to Jonathan Schwarz and Bob Fertik for assistance.
More on the Commission:
Bush Crimes Commission

Accompanying Powerpoint

[Powerpoint Slide 1]
Were I to list all the pieces of evidence that Bush took us to war with lies, we'd have lost tens of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars before I finished. So, I'll give you a short version. But we're killing people every day and churning through tens of thousands of dollars a second, so even this isn't going to be cheap.
[Powerpoint Slide 2]
Congressman John Conyers has produced a 273-page report that focuses on this topic. Congressman Henry Waxman has put online a searchable database of lies. You can find these and numerous other collections of evidence at www.afterdowningstreet.org Some of the best sources of this material are books. Much has been reported in books, as well as on the internet and the radio that has never made it into newspapers or television. Larry Everest's book is one of the best at making this case, and it was written prior to the surfacing of the strongest piece of evidence, the one I'm going to talk about, the Downing Street Minutes.
While Bush's war plans (as well as – according to recent reporting by Jason Leopold on truthout.org – his illegal spying on Americans) predate Sept. 11, 2001, that date is pivotal. The crimes of that day were used to justify another crime.
On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." The resolution also said "Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution." That Nixon-era resolution restricts the president's ability to take the nation to war without Congressional approval.
[Powerpoint Slide 3]
On Sept. 25, 2001, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote a memo stating, "The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11." The memo says that the president's powers are "unreviewable."
[Powerpoint Slide 4]
The Downing Street Minutes that were leaked to the media this past spring were accompanied by seven other secret documents, one a background paper circulated in preparation for the meeting that the minutes recorded on July 23, 2002. The other six were memos exchanged by top British officials in March, 2002.
The March memos make clear that Bush had determined to go to war and was building a case around WMDs and ties to 9-11, a case that the British found unconvincing. They also make clear that Blair had agreed to go along with the war but was seeking to persuade Bush to invest more effort in winning over public opinion and in "the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors." That is: to give an ultimatum to Hussein that he would refuse – a refusal that could be used to argue that the war was legal.
By July, 2002, Blair still had concerns. We have known since last May that on July 23, 2002, as recorded in the Downing Street Minutes, Blair was briefed by Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, about talks he had recently had with members of the Bush administration.
[Powerpoint Slide 5]
But it was only this month, with the publication of James Risen's book "State of War" that we learned that Dearlove was in part reporting on a CIA-MI6 summit he had attended with other top MI6 officials at CIA headquarters on Saturday, July 20, 2002, and that, according to "a former senior CIA officer," the meeting was held "at the urgent request of the British." CIA officials believe "Blair had ordered Dearlove to go to Washington to find out what the Bush administration was really thinking about Iraq." During the day-long summit, Dearlove met privately with CIA head George Tenet for an hour and a half.
[Powerpoint Slide 6]
Risen is a New York Times reporter. It was this same book that compelled the New York Times to publish the story of unauthorized NSA spying. No U.S. corporate media outlet has yet published the story of the CIA-MI6 meeting. It is unclear for how many months the New York Times refused to publish that story prior to the release of Risen's book, but it clearly intends to maintain its silence.
[Powerpoint Slide 7]
Three days after that meeting, and months before Bush went to Congress or the UN or the public for approval of a war, Blair and Dearlove met at #10 Downing Street, and the minutes of that meeting are recorded as the Downing Street Minutes or Downing Street Memo. Also taking part in the meeting were:
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
Then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith
Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee John Scarlett
Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff, head of Britain’s armed forces
Sir David Manning, a foreign policy advisor
and Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide who took the minutes
The Downing Street Minutes are short, to the point, and shocking. They make clear that
1. Bush had already decided to go to war long before approaching Congress or the public or the UN about it, and had already started the attack with increased bombings;
2. Bush had already decided to lie about weapons of mass destruction and ties to 9-11;
3. The Brits were concerned by the illegality of an aggressive war, but the Bush Administration was not;
4. Going to the UN was an attempt to justify the war, and the hope was to craft an ultimatum that Saddam Hussein would reject;
5. The focus of the Bush and Blair administrations was on selling the war to the public, and not at all on trying to avoid it;
6. The Bush and Blair administrations were aware that Iraq was no threat, and were willing to attack Iraq precisely because it posed no serious threat of fighting back.
[Powerpoint Slide 8]
When the Downing Street Minutes were first published by the Sunday London Times, shortly before the 2005 British election, the Blair Administration chose not to deny their authenticity. Shortly after the Minutes were released, sources within both the Bush and Blair Administrations confirmed their accuracy to the press. A former senior US official told Knight Ridder that the Downing Street Minutes were "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired." Two senior British officials, who asked not to be further identified, told Newsweek in separate interviews that they had no reason to question the authenticity of the Downing Street Minutes.
The minutes begin with the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee John Scarlett reporting on plans for regime change in Iraq. While publicly the Bush-Blair administrations were saying they wanted to avoid war and were only concerned by Iraq's alleged WMDs, privately they were focused on regime change and saw war as the only way to effect it.
[Powerpoint Slide 9]
The Minutes then move to Dearlove's report on his meeting with Tenet and the CIA. Dearlove is referred to as "C."
"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. The NSC had no patience with the UN 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."
Dearlove's conclusions are corroborated by other sources. We know from independent reporting that Bush had a war with Iraq in mind even prior to his first term in office, as did the Project for a New American Century. Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says Bush was planning war and regime change in January 2001. In March of 2002, Bush was reported as saying "F--- Saddam, we're taking him out." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was reported as planning an attack on Iraq just hours after the Sept. 11, 2001, airplanes hit. National security official Richard Clarke says Bush told him on Sept. 12th to find reasons to attack Iraq. Republican Senator Trent Lott says the Bush Administration was focused on regime change in Iraq shortly after 9-11. On September 19 and 20th, the Defense Policy Board met at the Pentagon and discussed ousting Hussein. On September 20th, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, wrote a memo advocating attacking Iraq, which he referred to as "deliberately selecting a non-al Qaeda target like Iraq." Also, on September 20th, it is reported that Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror. Bush replied, "I agree with you Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq."
In February 2002, Senator Bob Graham told the Council on Foreign Relations that a military commander had said to him: "Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."
That Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" is borne out by the entire "marketing campaign," which fixated on these twin justifications. The Bush Administration formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) in August 2002 to market the war. The Administration waited to introduce the WHIG's product to the public until September 2002, because, as White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told The New York Times,"[y]ou don't introduce new products in August."
That "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is confirmed by the multi-layered effort by the Administration to pressure officials within the Administration to find links between Saddam and September 11 and to manipulate intelligence officials and agencies into overstating WMD threats. Further evidence includes the forgery of documents purporting to show that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium, and the retribution exacted against those who questioned that lie (including Ambassador Joseph Wilson and IAEA Director General and now Nobel Peace Laureate Mohammed El Baradei). Just this week, the New York Times reported on a newly released State Department memo that, in early 2002, had debunked the claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium in Niger.
[Powerpoint Slide 10]
The Downing Street Minutes go on to record that Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff (referred to as CDS), reported that military planners would brief CENTCOM, Rumsfeld, and Bush in early August. After detailing military options for the attack on Iraq, according to the Minutes,
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."
That the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to pressure Iraq has been subsequently confirmed by numerous accounts. As reported in the Sunday London Times, in May 2002, with a conditional agreement in place with Britain for war, the US and UK began to conduct a bombing campaign in Iraq. This was 10 months before the Bush Administration supposedly determined that all diplomatic means had been exhausted and six months before Congressional authorization for the use of force. According to a document found by RawStory.com, Lieutenant-General T Michael Moseley said that the "spikes of activity" were part of a covert air war that "laid the foundation" for the war.
[Powerpoint Slide 11]
The Minutes continue:
"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 neighbours, 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 UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
The Minutes go on to relate that the Attorney General explained that regime change is not a legal basis for military action, but Blair said that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."
As planned here, the US and the UK did in fact ask for UN authorization to demand the reintroduction of weapons inspectors, which they received on November 8, 2002. But they were unable to "wrongfoot Saddam" or legalize the war, because he accepted the terms eight days later, and inspections resumed on November 27th. On March 18, 2003, the inspectors left Iraq on the advice of the United States. On July 14, 2003, Bush – pretending that the wrongfooting of Saddam had actually worked – lied in response to a question from a Washington Post reporter by saying: "The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
[Powerpoint Slide 12]
When Bush and Blair were asked about the Downing Street Minutes last summer, their main response was that after the meeting recorded in the Minutes, they had gone to the United Nations in an effort to avoid war. But the evidence is clear that going to the UN was an attempt to legalize a war that they had already decided upon. When this failed, when an avenue to avoid war opened up in the form of new inspections, and when the UN refused to authorize the war, Bush and Blair launched the war anyway.
Finally, the Minutes state that the Chief of Defence Staff said
"The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? [Manning] said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
This section suggests that at least some in the room believed Hussein might actually have some sort of WMDs, although – as already stated – they did not believe he was threatening anyone, and they believed that whatever WMDs he had, they were less than those of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.
[Powerpoint Slide 13]
Here's another date: March 18, 2003
This is not just the date on which inspectors left Iraq. It is also the date on which Bush sent Congress a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Bush sent Congress a one-page letter and a nine-page report.
The report claimed that Iraq possessed biological and chemical weapons, as well as proscribed missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles with which to deliver them, and that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program.
It further claimed that members of al Qaeda were in Iraq, that Iraq was aiding and harboring other international terrorist organizations, and that Iraq had provided training to al Qaeda.
It is a felony to lie to Congress.
[Powerpoint Slide 14]
More on the Commission:
Bush Crimes Commission


Highlights from the 1st Session Oct, 2005

Watch 14 minutes highlights (QuickTime format)
Watch 14 minutes highlights (RealAudio format)

PROTEST PAINTINGS




RogerART.com