Saturday, January 26, 2008

NYT demands a rewrite when none was needed

I was having an emotional breakdown at work, seeking aide from the combat stress people we had there. I told them of my lack of sleep and loss of appetite. They put me on a med called Seroquel. It was not working for me too well for I was having bad dreams and was unable to focus. During a fire fight, when I was shot at, I froze, which was something that never had happened to me in any of my past engagements. It was not fear, but it was me thinking of my family, it was all that was rushing tough my head. In a few days the preterm problems at home were getting bad. I rushed and traded out my leave dates with another solider and came home earlier. The night I came home in early December, my wife went right into early labor. We went to the hospital in NY. She was only 33 weeks, so they stopped the labor and gave her meds. We went home and enjoyed some time together. We started to have a bit of a falling out, when I told her it was out of my power to go back to Iraq and that I would have to go. She kept telling me she couldn't do it all alone and why should she have to. I told her that I did not want to leave her and the kids. I was very stressed out about our new born son, who had some health concerns; going back to Iraq; finance issues; and just so much was going on in my head. I still was not sleeping or eating right I just did not have the urge.
So I went to mental health, where they said that they wanted to treat me further, but could not, due to the nature of my deployment and the fact they could not hold me back unless I was either suicidal or homicidal. So they put me on new meds called "TRAZODONE". The new pills help me sleep more at night, so at this point in the story I'm stuck because I know I have a big issue and that I need to fix it and take back control, but the Army just will not allow it. So what I did was go to my representative for my Unit here in the States and he got a hold of my Commander. I talked to my Commander a few times on the phone and he kept telling me that he understands and that he was on my side with this issues. He believes in family and my well being. My Commander knows me as a person. We have talked several times before and I had even seen him before I left Iraq to tell him about my issues a bit, so this was not a fully new issue to him. At this time I'm doing the right thing. By going to my Chain of Command, and trying to get this all settled the right way. My Commander told me that there was nothing he could do for me except write a letter to the Battalion Commander on my behalf. Witch he did...
My wife wanted to be close to family and did not want to be in the States. I really wanted the baby born in the States, but at this time nothing was going my way, so I followed her up to Canada. On Christmas Eve she went in to labor again and on Christmas morning at 6:01 a.m., we had our new baby boy, Grai Jacob William Keller. Christmas night I got a voicemail from my Commander telling me, all that he could advise at this time was for me to get on the plane and head back to Iraq. I was to leave on the December 26th at 5:00 a.m. in the morning. My Commander told me that there was too much going on in Iraq at this time to settle my problem right now and that they would want me to come back and fix it there. I know what they have to offer there and there’s nothing to fix me over there, so after spending 2 days in the hospital with my wife and son, I made up my mind that I was not going back. I was staying to be with my family. No matter what.
So now I'm AWOL and on the run but to me it is worth it 100%! I've done my time. I fought the battles (and continue to do so every time I fall asleep) and I came home and I’m staying home. The Army can take the hard road, but bring your worst, because I'm not going back to Iraq. As of Jan 26th, 2008, I should be officially marked AWOL. I make myself eat, because I know that I must. I can't stand crowds around me, so shopping for our children, before Christmas was almost impossible. I believe that I’m suffering from undiagnosed post traumatic stress and when you have that, you suffer and so does everyone around you. I’ve suppressed my issues and as long as I’m awake, I seem to be fine. After much struggle, when I can finally fall asleep, I have hideous dreams that are so real. My wife can’t sleep in the same bed as me, because apparently I jerk, talk out loud and moan all night long, so she lays beside me, so that we can cuddle and be close, but when I finally fall asleep, she has to get up and go into the next room. When I wake up in the morning, I follow her into that bed, because I need to feel her beside me again. I need to know that "she" is not just a good dream. I wake up exhausted. I believe that my problems sleeping are caused by a fear of dreaming. My dreams bring me back to Iraq every night.


The above is from Sgt. Allen Robert Keller's "Sgt. Keller in his own words" (Daytona Beach News-Journal) and, as with Audrey Parente's "Combat, family stress bring soldier to desert" (Daytona Beach News-Journal), was noted by Wally's grandfather.

In the New York Times today, Iraq appears on A7 and, sadly, is co-written. Stephen Farrell's piece that was completed and posted by three p.m. EST yesterday was much stronger. So the paper brings in War Pornographer Michael Gordon for 'touch-ups.' It is, in someone's cracked brain, important to have Gordo add touch ups from DC to what is a Baghdad and Mosul story.

It's titled "After Bombings in Mousl, Iraq Plans a 'Final' Battle" and we'll summarize that the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, is gunning for Mosul and making proclamations about "al Qaead" when the reality is that the people of Mosul are Iraqis. They're just Iraqis that don't care for puppet governments imposed by foreigners. Gordo's main contribution, besides watering down a strong piece, is to drag Saddam Hussein into it. He's a bit like Bully Boy in his first term always screaming, "It's Bill Clinton's fault."

Feel sorry for Farrell, he wrote a great article before Gordo's dirty fingers got a hold of it.

Gordo only knows 'simplicity' and war cheerleading. Farrell's original included strongly crafted sentences such as "After the second attack, the provincial governor, Duraid Kashmola, declared an emergency curfew in Mosul, the third-largest city in Iraq and the capital of . . ." which now are reduced to "After the second attack, the provincial governor, Duraid Kashmola, declared an emergency curfew in the city." Can't include the basics on Iraq when you're as determined as Gordo is to re-sell the illegal war. Stripping the life, the grace, the urgency out of everything -- that is Gordo whom you just know if he was asked to dance a ballet would be doing barre work in combat boots. He is the hippos in Fantasia. Clomp-clomp-clomp.

Here's a thought for the paper: Why spend so much money stationing reporters in Iraq if you're going to put them through the Gordo Mixer? Gordo, from DC, can just rewrite the wire services and save everyone a ton of money. (I've never been a big fan of US reporters grabbing credit -- let alone doing damage -- by glomming on a news organization's reporters from Iraq. That's why we've repeatedly avoided reports from one outlet this week. The US based reporter has nothing to offer and by offering the White man along with the Iraqi, it really begins to play out like the 'independent' source doesn't think an Iraqi can report on his own.)


Leila Fadel and Hussein Kadhim* (McClatchy Newspapers) report in "Some Sunni Muslims won't salute Iraq's new flag:"

Officials in Iraq's mostly Sunni Muslim Anbar province are refusing to raise Iraq's new national flag, which the parliament approved earlier this week.
"The new flag is done for a foreign agenda and we won't raise it," said Ali Hatem al Suleiman, a leading member of the U.S.-backed Anbar Awakening Council, "If they want to force us to raise it, we will leave the yard for them to fight al Qaida."
U.S. officials credit the Anbar Awakening Council, part of the American strategy of recruiting local Sunnis to battle Islamic militants, with driving al Qaida in Iraq, which once largely controlled the province, out of Anbar.
The dispute over the flag is a more accurate symbol of Iraq today than the flag itself is. "On nothing we are completely united," said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker.
Although parliament speaker Mahmoud al Mashhadani said the new flag would be raised immediately across Iraq after the parliament approved it Tuesday, it's nowhere to be seen. In fact, when the parliament met Wednesday, the old flag was still behind the speaker and his two deputies.


*Both Fadel and Kadhim are based in Iraq, for any wondering.

So the temporary measure (hailed by most of the press as a 'breakthrough,' but Fadel noted in real time that it was a band-aid) is already receiving objections?


The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
and Ruth's Ruth's Report

"Coded" language is all the rage in many paper's today. But who's using it? From Margaret Kimberley's "Why We Write About Obama" (Black Agenda Report):

In the week before the Nevada caucuses Barack Obama responded to our critics for us. If the stakes were not so high, we might exult in saying, "We told you so." The dangers presented by an Obama presidency are becoming clearer every day, and that is no reason for celebration. In an editorial board meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal, Obama said the following about Ronald Reagan:
"I do think that for example the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Not only did Obama praise Reagan, but he used racist, conservative code words from the GOP play book to do it. Obama's supporters should be the first to ask him what he believes to be the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." Does he think the Voting Rights Act was an excess? What about the Civil Rights Act? Were the protests against the Vietnam War excessive? What about Fair Housing legislation, was it all too much for the Republic to handle? Was abortion legalization an excess? Obama's very vocal fans should speak up. Their candidate is praising the right wing rollback of civil rights. Do they think the 60s and 70s were full of excess? If so, what were those excesses? If they don't agree with Obama, will they say so? What does this statement portend for the policies of an Obama administration? It is past time for the love fest to end, and hard questioning to begin.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.



















Canadian war resisters

Caroline Franks of 580 CFRA News Talk Radio notes that rallies are taking place in Canada to call on the Canadian Parliament to to provide a safe haven to US war resisters and that they took place at Canadian embassassies in the US yesterday.

That's a Canadian outlet. Vic is very angry at a 'Canadian' (I don't think she's Canadian Vic, she moved to Canada and she's always talking about how she plans to vote in this year's US election, so I don't think she's Canadian, I think she's a US citizen who just blathers on about Canada -- were she to change her citizenship, she wouldn't be able to vote in the US elections) who's taken to insisting that Canadian media is not covering the actions. Vic, one of our most vocal Canadian members, is correct that media -- big and small -- in Canada is covering this.

Yesterday, the CBC covered it -- that would be "big media" in Canada. From their "U.S. protesters demand Canadian protection for war deserters:"

Demonstrators gathered outside the Canadian Embassy in Washington Friday to demand protection for U.S. soldiers who seek refuge north of the border to avoid deployment to Iraq.
A group of about 50 American veterans of the Iraq war and their supporters said they want the Canadian government to provide sanctuary to men and women trying to escape military commitments in the U.S.

"We believe that these war resisters should be allowed a safe haven from persecution on the basis of resisting an illegal and immoral war and occupation," said Max Diorio, an organizer for California-based Courage to Resist.
In a letter addressed to Ambassador Michael Wilson, the protesters demanded the government bar the deportation of U.S. soldiers who have fled to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq.
Geoff Maillard, president of the Washington, D.C., chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War, said the refugee board that hears the soldiers' applications has wrongly refused to consider the question of whether the Iraq war is legal -- a question central to the soldiers' request for sanctuary.


The CBC piece notes it's also utilizing the Canadian Press, click here for Google's posting of the story (which may disappear in a few weeks) and you can go to The Canadian Press and search for the original article.

Yesterday evening, Carol Mulligan's "Anti-war activists to demonstrate in Sudbury on Saturday" (The Sudbury Star) went up:

Michael Espinal was so determined not to serve a second tour of duty in a war he considered immoral that he fled Florida with his pregnant partner in October and sought refuge in Sudbury. Espinal and Jennifer Harrison will be among those attending a rally Saturday to pressure the federal government to allow United States war resisters to remain in Canada.
Espinal participated in the siege of Fallujah when he was serving with the U.S. military in Iraq. Hundreds of civilians were killed in the attack, and Espinal suffers post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his experience there.
But he and Harrison, who is expecting in April, are making a new home in Sudbury with support from the War Resisters Support Campaign.


Mulligan notes that Sunday's Sudbury Star will have a longer article.

In the US, Jeff Paterson's "Supporters of War Resisters Stage Vigil at SF Canadian Consulate" (Indybay Media) notes:

Thousands of letter and petitions were delivered this afternoon to the Canadian Consulate in San Francisco. The "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay" letters ask that Canada find a political solution that will allow the approximately 200 U.S. war resisters now seeking sanctuary in Canada to remain. Three dozen supporters rallied in the rain, leafleted, and cheered on the Raging Grannies' songs about GI resistance. Courage to Resist organizers gave a report back from their trip to Canada last month. They met with many of the resisters and attended a Parliament hearing by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration of the House of Commons in Ottawa.
In a important preliminary victory, the committee adopted a motion that would allow any war resister seek sanctuary in Canada if opposing a war not sanctioned by the United Nations. It's now possible that the full House of Commons may vote on this resolution with a few weeks. In the meantime, deportation is becoming a real possibility for some of the resisters as most legal appeals have now been exhausted.

Pablo Paredes, Mike Wong, Ying Lee, and Stephen McNeil are among those noted in the article.
And Paterson is known for his photo journalism so, yes, photos also are included.

Paterson's work regularly appears at Courage to Resist but hasn't been cross-posted there yet (it's early in the morning as I write this, Mike's posting this for me later today when Wally and Cedric are getting ready to post) but you will find there that Friday's actions were planned in DC, NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, Dallas, LA, Minneapolis and Philadelphia.

Canada's right-wing press began noting the actions in the US and in Canada yesterday. We don't link to them. But it is worth noting that they were out to discredit the actions before they started.

Wally's grandfather notes Audrey Parente's "Combat, family stress bring soldier to desert" (Daytona Beach News-Journal):


Early December 2007:
In the midst of a desperate firefight in Iraq, as shots ricocheted around him, Sgt. Allen Robert "Robby" Keller IV froze for a moment. Any soldier knows that can be a death sentence.
The 23-year-old had enlisted at 19 "to get on a good financial foot for college." For months before that terrible instant of immobility, his combat stress had led to sleeplessness, nightmares and loss of appetite. He was wracked with worry about his wife, Michaelagh, at home having problems with her second pregnancy.
For the first time in his four-year military career, during his second deployment, Keller was losing control, having an emotional breakdown.
He made it safely out of the streets and sought help. He was soon going to be headed home on leave to Holly Hill. He had "aid from the combat stress people" in the form of medication, and surely everything would be OK.
While Keller was on leave, his wife went into early labor, and on Christmas Day she had her baby boy in Canada, her native land.
Keller was supposed to be away from his post for only a few weeks, but on Dec. 26 things changed.
That's when Keller went absent without leave.
He hasn't returned to his unit, and as of today he remains in Canada and will be dropped from the rolls at Fort Drum, N.Y., as a deserter and a warrant will be issued for his arrest.
Last year 4,698 soldiers deserted the Army, a number that has grown steadily. The number is more than 80 percent above the count for 2003, during the start of the Iraq War.


Due to the way PBS stations set their own schedules, Bill Moyers Journal may be airing today or tomorrow (or re-airing) in your area. If you missed it this week (remember you can also catch it online, fully accessible to all with computers), you will want to catch it. From opening to closing, it was the best thus far of 2008. Ruth's "Bill Moyers Journal" notes the program.


Noting the coverage, it may be interesting to ponder who much coverage an upcoming event will receive: IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.










Friday, January 25, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Friday, January 25, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, actions gear up in support of war resisters in Canada, the US military announces another death, Glen Ford offers a look at coded terms in the political races, the treaty that would tie the US and Iraq together (in combat) for years, and more.
 
Starting with war resistance.  Candace Hechman (Seattle Post Intelligencer) notes that Project Safe Haven is staging a "vigil in front of the Canadian consulate in downtown Seattle to plead that AWOL Iraq veterans be allowed to remain in sanctuary in the Great White North" and quotes Gerry Condon explaining, "Canada has a rich tradition of providing sanctuary to those who conscientiously refused to fight in war.  Now it is time for the Canadian government to do the right thing, before it's too late."
 
What's Condon referring to? On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of  war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey.  Parliament is the solution. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions.  The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
 
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure :
1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada.
For listings of local actions, see our
Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
 
 
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).
Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
 
War resister Patrick Hart states, "It's great that people all across Canada and the US are coming out to show support for the war resisters.  My family could be told we have to go back to the States anytime now.  We just want to be able to live here in peace and raise our son, Rian.  We hope that the politicians will let us do that."  Among the actions taking place in Canada on Saturday the 26th:
 
* Toronto at the Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor St. West, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and will feature, among others, activist and actress Shirley Douglas, Lawrence Hill (co-author of The Deserter's Tale with Joshua Key) and Member of Parliament Olivia Chow who has led on the issue of war resisters from early on.
 
*Saskaton at Frances Morrison Library Theatre, 311 23rd Street East, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in which Joshua Key will be the featured speaker, Navdeep Sidhu and Friends will provide music and Michelle Mason's documentary on war resisters () will be shown.
 
*Vancouver at the main branch of Vancouver Public Library (Georgia and Homer), starting at 1:00 p.m., and featuring IVAW's Ash Woolson and Canadian MP Bill Siksay.
 
 
War resister Brad McCall will speak in Saturday at Fairfield United Church Hall in Victoria (1303 Fairfield Road) starting at 10:00 am, along with MP Denise Savoie.  McCall explains his story in "From the U.S. Army to Canada: a resister's journey" (The Rabble) "One Sergeant explained how he shot a man in an alleyway just for being out after dark. He expressed how easy it was to kill "hajjis" once you did it for the first time. I listened as one soldier told how a specialist in my unit kept a human finger in his wall locker during his entire tour of duty. The laughing ensued as I heard the story of a soldier in another company eating the charred flesh of an Iraqi civilian, the unfortunate victim of an IED attack aimed at American forces. I thought about how callous these men had become, and how horrified I was at the idea of disrespecting human life in such a manner. This is when doubt began to flood my mind."
 
WemovetoCanada's Laura Kaminker (writing at Common Dreams) observes, "In discussing this issue with supposedly progressive Americans, I was shocked - and frankly disgusted - to learn that some people who oppose the war in Iraq do not support the war resisters' cause.  Their argument: 'If they didn't join in the first place, there wouldn't be a war!'  This strikes me as both extremely naive and horribly selfish.  Many of us were fortunate to grow up in homes where questioning authority was encouraged, where dissent and protest were a way of life - not to mention in families that could afford higher education and health care.  If you cannot imagine what kind of background might lead someone to enlist in the US military, I again recommend The Deserter's Tale.  But even if we never would have made such a choice, do we want to see people who have experienced such a radical change of mind punished for their beliefs?  Isn't this the very change of heart that we wish to instill in others?  And most importantly, should a person be imprisoned for refusing to kill?"
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.



Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
 
 

 
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.

 
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
 
In the United States yesterday the Green Party issued a call "on Americans who oppose the Iraq War to rebuff an agreement among pro-Democratic 'antiwar' lobbies to scale back pressure to end the war."  IVAW's Jason Wallace, running as a Green for the US House of Representatives from Illinois 11th District, is quoted stating, "MoveOn.org, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and other groups have decided that passing legislation in Congress that does nothing to end the war makes their favorite Democratic candidates look better than demanding action to end the war quickly.  The big myth of the 2008 election is that Democrats are the antiwar candidates.  In reality, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a longer occupation in Iraq and possibly a war with Iran."  Earlier this month  PR Watch explained that "Ryan Grim reports that the biggest and best-funded organizations in the liberal peace movement, primarily MoveOn and the groups in its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) coalition, are no longer advocating that Congress end the war. This year "the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. ... The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November."  The Green Party also quotes Titus North who is running for the US House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 14th district stating, "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they'd maintain a permanent US military presence in Iraq with only a limited draw-down of combat troops that could then be redeployed 'just over the horizon.'  This military misadventure is not in the best interests of Americans or Iraqis and only benefits the oil and weapons industries.  Groups like MoveOn that divert the energies of peace activists towards Democrat candidates who fail to push for a prompt and total withdrawal only undermine the peace movement and advance the war agenda.  Voters need genuine peace candidates like thos from the Green Party."  Bob Kinsey, who is running for the US Senate out of Colorado, explains, "The position of Green candidates is that we are not willing to accept any more dying by violence -- American or otherwise.  It has been the willingness of US military policy to accept collateral damage in the hundreds of thousands and forcing people to live under governments of our choosing, which drives hostility towards us and decreases our own security.  The recent statement by NATO leaders urging maintenance of a first strike nuclear policy is one more example of a dangerous position that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats."  July tenth through thirteenth is when the Green Party will be holding their National Nominating Convention in Chicago. Click here for the Green Party News Center, here for a database of Green candidates, here for video of the Green presidential candidates and of course, if it's Green news,  Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is probably posting about it. The Green Party has scheduled another presidential candidate forum for February 2nd at Busboys & Poets in DC (14th and V Streets) at ten in the morning -- Jesse Johnson and Kent Mesplay are confirmed to appear others may or may not.  More info click here.  This will be their second presidential  forum for the 2008 election.  Meanwhile, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) observes that the same exclusion practiced in the Democratic debates "will happen to the Green Party -- which, if they have any sense at all, will nominate former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney as their standard bearer.  But only those who keep up with such things will be aware that the Greens have a candidate" as a result of the media blackout.
 
Having ignored a real issue all week, it's not pretty when people try to play catch up. Today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) declared during headlines, "The New York Times is reporting the Bush administration plans to insist the Iraqi government agree to effectively extend the legal immunity enjoyed by foreign contractors operating inside Iraq. The demand is one of several expected from the White House as it negotiates an extension of its UN-backed occupation mandate set to expire at the end of the year." 
 
NO!  There are mistakes already but we're not going further after that one.  This isn't "an extension of its UN-backed occupation."  The United Nations is being written out of the picture.  How you fail to grasp that, I don't know.  But this isn't a new topic and we've covered and re-covered it for nearly two months now.  There is no extension of the UN mandate.  That's the whole point of what is going on, to escape the minor guidelines imposed by the United Nations.  al-Maliki ignored the Iraqi Parliament and renewed the mandate for one last year -- he says it's the last year -- which would carry the illegal war through December 2008 (and the UN ignored that he didn't have the authority to renew it by himself).  The White House and their Baghdad puppet are now attempting to sidestep the UN's 'oversight' and enter into a treaty which would bind the US to Iraq for many years to come.  Back to Goodman, "Democrats are demanding congressional oversight over what it says amounts to a full-on treaty. The White House also wants to expand the immunity for all U.S. military and extend its authority to hold Iraqi prisoners."  No, it's not just the Democrats.  There are Republicans wanting Congressional oversight as well.  Now, believe it or not, the big issue isn't the contractors.  The biggest issue is that it's a treaty and the Congress is bypassed.  So is the Iraqi parliament and, Goodman, they're objecting too.  So are legal scholars.  That headline was no help at all and just demonstrated that you can't rush in after ignoring an important topic and dispense with it in a few sentences.  This wasn't even the lead headline.  Bully Boy's attempting to circumvent the Constitution and, if he does, he will tie US forces to Iraq far beyond his departure from the White House.
 
 
President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.
After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.
By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.
 
Goodman's mistake is in citing the New York Times which always supports the State Department (regardless of who is in the Oval Office) and sent the clean up crew of Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myer to 'cover' the story today.  They accept the premise that the treaty is fine but there's a sticky point -- those pesky contractors. That's like arguing the only problem with the illegal war is that white phosphorus is used.  Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) do a little better job than Shanker and Myer and note US Senator Hillary Clinton spoke out against the treaty in Monday's Democratic presidential debate. 
 
Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
 
Charlie Savage notes, "The New York senator has filed legislation that would block the expenditure of funds to implement any agreement with Iraq that was not submitted to Congress for approval.  Her rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, became a cosponsor to the bill on Tuesday."  As the true dean of the DC press corps, Helen Thomas (Boston Channel), notes, "Congress should keep Bush from making commitments concerning Iraq that could tie the hands of his successor and trap the next president in his pointless war. In responde to my question, deputy White House press secreatry Tony Fratto said Bush had not signed any documents to keep the war going, but he added that work is under way on an agreement to cement the U.S. relationship with Iraq."  Lane Lambert (Sandwich Broadsider) notes, "U.S. Rep. William Delahunt is sounding the alarm about a new U.S.-Iraq security agreement that he says could bind this country to an unprecedented, possibly unconstitutional, commitment of American military force" and quotes Delahunt declaring, "This is one of the most significant foreign policy decisions that will be made this year or next year.  If this doesn't rise to the level of a treaty, I don't know what does."
 
As noted in yesterday's snapshot Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) is already calling it a treaty.  Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports on Zebari today and notes, "The Iraqi leaders are eager to sign by July a bilateral treaty with the US which would in effect determine who rules Iraq."  Treaty.  Ali Gharib (IPS) notes that Brookings Boy Mikey O'Hanlon thinks Congress has no say -- and we all know what a liar and war cheerleader O'Hanlon is. Brian Beutler (Mother Jones) notes the legal scholars that testified at Delahunt's subcommittee hearing Wednesday, "If covered within a treaty, Congress could block the president from making this sort of agreement with Maliki.  But without one the president could provide similar assurances informally, leaving the future president -- Democrat or Republican -- in a tricky diplomatic position if he or she decides not to honor Bush's promise.  Testifying on Wednesday, [conservative AEI's Michael] Rubin noted that any guarantee that U.S. troops would defend Iraqi territory would demand a treaty."
 
On US politics, Tom Hayden (writing at the San Francisco Chronicle) points out that the Democratic candidates for president (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) have not been pinned down and that "combat troops" does not equal "all troops," "To sum up, if all American combat troops ever are withdrawn, there still will remain 50,000 to 100,000 Americans involved in a low-visibility, dirty war in Iraq, just like those that involved death squads in Central American in the '70s, or the earlier Phoenix program in South Vietnam, in which the Viet Cong infrastructure was decimated by assassinations and torture.  Top American advisers in Baghdad today operated the El Salvador counter-insurgency and have praised the Phoenix program.  This, in fact, already is happening.  The Baghdad regime is described by a source in the Baker-Hamilton report as a Shiite dictatorship.  The recent lessening of violence in Baghdad largely is due to the ethnic cleansing of its Sunni population.  At least 50,000 detainees are imprisoned today without charges or trial dates.  The United States is paying Sunnis to fight Sunnis, funding the Shiite-dominated security forces, and has increased its bombardment from the air by fivefold since last year."
 
Let's turn to some of today's violence and it's Friday which means very little gets reported.
 
Bombings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded a police officer and a civilian and a Diyala Province roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left another person wounded.
 
Shootings?

Reuters reports US collaborators in the 'Awakening' Council in Samarra shot two people while outside Falluja they teamed up with the Iraqi police to shoot one person and leave another injured.
 
Corpses?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Saidiyah.
 
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier died Jan. 25 of noncombat related causes."  ICCC's total currently stands at 3932 US service members killed in Iraq while serving in the illegal war.
 
On this week's CounterSpin, Peter Hart spoke with Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford addressed the issue of candidate Barack Obama (Ford is not a Hillary supporter and notes the two are siamese twins).
 
Glen Ford: He has garnered White support at the expense of Black folks.  Now he has done this in so many ways I've had to pare it down.  But here are two.  He said in Selma that Blacks have already come 90% of the way to equality with the inference of course that if he gets to be president we will have come all the way.  Of course that's a signal to White people that this is almost over -- all this talk about race, all these 'complaints' from the likes of and they always fill in the blanks -- Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  'But I'm with you, it's almost over, the progress has been almost completed.' That is so blatantly an appeal to White folks who just don't want to hear  about race.  If it had come out of White man's mouth, Barack Obama would have been excoriated by Black people.  And now, most recently, in fact, effectively, he praised the Republicans for their ideas in the 90s and on Ronald Reagan.  And he talks about all the excesses of the 60s and 70s.  I have never heard a more blantant code phrase than that.  Which, of course, again, if it had come out of a White Democrat's mouth, that candidate would be persona non grata in all progressive quarters of the Democratic Party.  So Obama is in a very real sense -- and he's been doing this from the beginning -- running a campaign on race but one that's appealing to White people.
 
On the campaigns quickly, Taylor Marsh is covering everything but there's a problem for some with her site loading -- if you're checking out one post at her site, this one will give you the basics today including Matt Lauer's nonsense and it has a video clip. 
 


Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Other Items

With even more U.S. contractors now in Iraq and Afghanistan than U.S. military personnel, government officials told Congress yesterday that the Bush administration is not prepared to manage the contractors' critical involvement in the American war effort.
At the end of last September, there were "over 196,000 contractor personnel working for the Defense Department in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Jack Bell, deputy undersecretary of defense for logistics and materiel readiness.
Contractors "have become part of our total force, a concept that DoD [the

Defense Department] must manage on an integrated basis with our military forces," he also said in prepared testimony for a hearing yesterday of the Senate homeland security subcommittee. "Frankly," he continued, "we were not adequately prepared to address" what he termed "this unprecedented scale of our dependence on contractors."

The above, noted by Lloyd, is from Walter Pincus' "U.S. Cannot Manage Contractors In Wars, Officials Testify on Hill" (Washington Post) and let's be clear about what's being described, it's not about a 'lack of planning,' it's about expecting to fight the illegal war with hundreds of thousands of contractors and get away with it. That's why Pincus ends the article noting that the witnesses, when questioned, had to admit "they knew of none" "who had been fired or denied promotion because of contracting mistakes disclosed in more than 300 reports over five years".

Actions to support war resisters are gearing up and we'll again note this press release Twyla forwaded:

Rallies across Canada and U.S. to urge Parliament to let war resisters stay in Canada
On Saturday, January 26, rallies will be held in cities and towns across Canada
to urge the House of Commons to adopt a recommendation of its Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that would make it possible for US Iraq War resisters to obtain permanent resident status in Canada.
Supporters of the war resisters in Ottawa, Toronto, Sudbury, London, Thunder Bay, Saskatoon, Nelson, BC, Vancouver, and Victoria will also call on Parliament to take urgent action to stop the possible deportations of four of the war
resisters, several with families. This step was also recommended by the Standing Committee.
On Friday, January 25, there will be demonstrations in the US, also aimed at urging Canada to let the war resisters stay. In New York, Washington, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, supporters will gather outside Canadian consulates to show support for the war resisters in Canada.
"We believe it is urgent for Parliament to take action in line with the recommendation of the Standing Committee," said Lee Zaslofsky, coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign. "Canadians would be deeply upset if
their government forces any of the war resisters to go back to the US, where they would face imprisonment because they decided they would not take part in the Iraq War."
As well as the events on January 26, other events are planned in Halifax, NS, on January 29 and one was held in Grand Forks, BC, on Thursday (Jan. 24).
"It's great that people all across Canada and the US are coming out to show support for the war resisters," said Patrick Hart, a former sergeant in the US
Army who came to Canada in 2005 with his family. "My family could be told we have to go back to the States anytime now. We just want to be able to live here in peace and raise our son, Rian. We hope that the politicians willlet us do that."
War resisters will be available for comment on January 26.
Please contact us to arrange.
Visit War Resisters Support Campaign for details on events in Canada or
Courage to Resist for information on US events.

Staying with press releases, Third Party notes "Greens: Tactical retreat by pro-Democrat fake antiwar lobbies is setting back the peace movement" (Green Party USA):

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org/
For Immediate Release:
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614,
mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805,
starlene@gp.org
Substituting goal of electing Democrats for goal of immediate US troop withdrawal will lead to more war, say Greens
WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders called on Americans who oppose the Iraq War to rebuff an agreement among pro-Democratic 'antiwar' lobbies to scale back pressure to end the war."
MoveOn.org, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and other groups have decided that passing legislation in Congress that does nothing to end the war makes their favorite Democratic candidates look better than demanding action to end the war quickly," said Jason Wallace,
Green candidate for the US House in Illinois' 11th District <
http://www.electwallace.us/> and active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War . "The big myth of the 2008 election is that Democrats are the antiwar candidates. In reality, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a longer occupation in Iraq and possibly a war with Iran."
According to Politico <
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7949.html>, several mainstream antiwar groups in a recent K Street meeting have decided on a tactical retreat in
the face of Congress's failure to reverse the Bush war agenda.
Greens have sharply criticized Democrats in Congress and leading Democratic presidential candidates for offering vague and deferred timetables for withdrawing US troops from Iraq; refusing to cut off funding for the war; criticizing President Bush solely on the basis of strategic mistakes in Iraq; for signing on to Mr. Bush's military threats against Iran; having voted to surrender Congress's constitutional war powers to Mr. Bush in 2002; and refusing to rescind the war authorization after the 2006 election.Greens also noted that the Democratic Party leadership, including most presidential candidates, have rejected calls for impeachment despite evidence that the Bush Administration's fraudulent justifications for invading Iraq, war crimes, authorization of torture and warrantless surveillance of US citizens, broken treaties, and other abuses of power and violations of the US Constitution.
"Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they'd maintain a permanent US military presence in Iraq with only a limited draw-down of combat troops that could then be redeployed 'just over the horizon.' This military misadventure is not in the best interests of Americans or Iraqis and only benefits the oil and weapons industries. Groups like MoveOn that divert the energies of peace activists towards Democrat candidates who fail to push for a prompt and total withdrawal only undermine the peace movement and advance the war agenda. Voters need genuine peace candidates like those from the Green Party," said Titus North, Green Congressional candidate from Pennsylvania's 14th District <
http://www.votenorth.org/>.
MoveOn has called on the Democratic presidential candidates to "
be unequivocal in their commitments to remove all US troops within eighteen months of taking office,"
which could delay withdrawal until mid 2010. Greens contend that Democrats in Congress could have brought a rapid end to the war merely by stalling on White House requests for continued war funding.
"The position of Green candidates is that we are not willing to accept any more dying by violence -- American or otherwise. It has been the willingness of US military policy to accept collateral damage in the hundreds of thousands and forcing people to live under governments of our choosing, which drives hostility towards us and decreases our own security. The recent statement by NATO leaders urging maintenance of a first strike nuclear policy is one more example of a dangerous position that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats," said Bob Kinsey, Colorado Green candidate for the US Senate <
http://www.kinseyforsenate.org/>.
The Green Party recently opened a new web page featuring videos of Green presidential candidates and debates <
">http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/presidential-videos.php>. The party will choose its presidential and vice presidential nominees at the 2008 Green National Nominating Convention in Chicago, July 10-13.
"The election of a couple of Greens to Congress and a strong showing for the Green presidential nominee on Election Day 2008 would end the war quickly by showing Democratic and Republican politicians that they can no longer take votes for granted, especially votes from Americans who want peace," said Deanna Taylor, Desert Greens Green Party of Utah and participant in the Green Party Peace Network.
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193
Video of Green presidential candidates
http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/presidential-videos.php
Green candidate database for 2007 and other campaign information:
http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml
Green Party News Center
http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml
Green Party Speakers Bureau
http://www.gp.org/speakers
Media credentialing
http://www.gp.org/committees/media/kit.shtml
Green Party Peace Action Committee
http://www.gp.org/committees/peace/

I've inserted a link into the press release instead of allowing the web address to run. The address is too long and will throw the site off. The link is still there (the MoveOn) quote but it's inserted. On the links, Third Party notes there is a site we don't link to. I don't have time this morning to debate that with myself. It's included today. In the future, press releases for anyone or any organization that are noted here will not include a link to that site.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


The White House shreds the Constituation again

President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.
After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.
By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.


The above is from Charlie Savage's "Bush plan for Iraq would be a first: No OK from Congress seen; Constitutional issues raised" (Boston Globe). We'll come back to Savage in a moment but let's hop over to the New York Times where Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers' "U.S. Asking Iraq for Wide Rights on War" muddles through. From a stronger section of the article:


This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.
At the same time, the administration faces opposition from Democrats at home, who warn that the agreements that the White House seeks would bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush's policies and a long-term military presence.


That's about it for reality as they start doing their "one senior official" says and "one military officer" states and "Senior administration officials say" nonsense. You either go on the record or not. If you're rejecting interpretations of what's going on, you go on record or you don't get your lies in print. The paper is especially bad about allowing liars to hide in the shadows. Or as Savage notes, "The New York Times today reported that administration officials told a reporter that the final pact may not have security guarantees after all, but the article did not identify its sources." Savage also tells you that Barack Obama has become a co-sponsor of Hillary Clinton's legislation on this issue.

At the Los Angeles Times, Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes' "U.S. defends proposed Iraq accord" do better than the New York Times but it's a brief article and huge in its disappointments:

Although the accord requires the Iraqi parliament's approval, the Bush administration has said it does not need to be approved by Congress, a position that has angered Democrats and made the talks with Baghdad highly controversial.
In a Jan. 15 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said President Bush was trying to use the agreement to lock the United States into a long-term military presence in Iraq.
"I think we have to do everything we can to prevent President Bush from binding the hands of the next president," Clinton said. She has sponsored a Senate bill that would force the Bush administration to submit the agreement to Congress for approval.Bush recently said the accord would be similar to those with Kuwait and other nations.
State Department spokesman Tom Casey disputed Democratic contentions that the accord would obligate future presidents. He said it was not binding and was unlike treaties, which require ratification by the Senate.

Actually, Republicans are calling it out as well, among the Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. As for what Tom Casey did or didn't say, that's a curious reading of his laughable press briefing yesterday (see yesterday's snapshot). Casey was not prepared for the topic or for the press hitting so hard on the topic. He fumbled and gave several answers.

Some reports are noting Joe Biden's letter (such as Savage's), some aren't. So let's note it again in full:

December 19, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:
I write regarding the Declaration of Principles signed by you and the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 26, 2007, in which you committed the United States to negotiate a long-term security relationship with the Republic of Iraq.
The Declaration of Principles contains language suggesting that the agreement you intend to negotiate with Iraq may oblige U.S. Armed Forces to support Iraq in combating “Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.” I am concerned about the implications of such a commitment, as it could mire us in an Iraqi civil war indefinitely, especially if a sectarian Iraqi government determines who qualifies as a “Saddamist” or “other outlaw group.”
Equally troubling is the suggestion by General Lute, your Assistant for Iraq and Afghanistan, that, in negotiating the agreement anticipated by the Declaration, your Administration does not expect to seek “formal inputs from Congress” or even engage in formal consultations with Congress. Yet, the Declaration anticipates that the agreement would include “security commitments” to Iraq in order to “deter foreign aggression against Iraq.” As a matter of Constitutional law, and based on over 200 years of practice, I believe that such an agreement would require Congressional authorization.
In 1969, the Senate adopted the National Commitments Resolution, which expressed the sense of the Senate that “a national commitment by the United States results only from affirmative action taken by the executive and legislative branches of the United States Government by means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution of both Houses of Congress specifically providing for such commitment.” The National Commitments Resolution defined a security commitment quite broadly, stating that, among other things, it includes any “promise to assist a foreign country, government, or people by the use of the Armed Forces . . . either immediately or upon the happening of certain events.”
While the Executive Branch has never accepted the definition of national commitments reflected in the National Commitments Resolution, there has been general agreement that security commitments require Congressional authorization. The disagreement has focused on what constitutes a “security commitment.” In a 1992 report submitted to Congress by President George H.W. Bush, the Executive Branch defined a security commitment as “an obligation, binding under international law, of the United States to act in the common defense in the event of an armed attack on that country.” The report provided a list of U.S. security commitments, all of which were either undertaken as advice and consent treaties, or as congressional-executive agreements, and thus were concluded with Congressional authorization.
I expect that your Administration is using the same Executive Branch definition of “security commitments” in the Declaration of Principles with Iraq as was used in the aforementioned 1992 report. Yet, General Lute’s comments suggest that the Administration will not seek Congressional authorization or even Congressional consultations in negotiating such a commitment. The Constitution and our past practice clearly require that the executive and legislative branches act together in order to provide a legitimate security commitment to another country.
At the core of this issue is, of course, the war power of Congress. A careful study of the Constitution and the intent of the framers as reflected, for example, in statements made at the Constitutional Convention, leave no doubt that, except for repelling sudden attacks on the United States, the Founding Fathers intended decisions to initiate either general or limited hostilities against foreign countries to be made by the Congress and not the Executive. The President is to direct and lead the Armed Forces and put them to any use specified by Congress.
Over the years Administrations that have taken a particularly expansive view of the presidential power to repel sudden attacks have encroached on this original understanding of the war power of Congress. This theory of executive power has frequently been justified on the basis of expediency and practical necessity in view of the nature of modern conflict. But no prior Administration has suggested that the Executive’s power in this area is unlimited or that it applies to ex ante agreements where there is ample time for Congress to participate. Moreover, in my view, the division of war powers specified in the Constitution is both compatible with modern warfare and essential to constitutional government.
A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our Armed Forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities. Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. As stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations that accompanied the National Commitments Resolution in 1969, “[t]he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy.”
I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any “security commitments” the United States negotiates with Iraq.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman
[Senate Foreign Relations Committee]


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.





Thursday, January 24, 2008

I Hate The War

December 19, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:
I write regarding the Declaration of Principles signed by you and the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 26, 2007, in which you committed the United States to negotiate a long-term security relationship with the Republic of Iraq.
The Declaration of Principles contains language suggesting that the agreement you intend to negotiate with Iraq may oblige U.S. Armed Forces to support Iraq in combating "Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation." I am concerned about the implications of such a commitment, as it could mire us in an Iraqi civil war indefinitely, especially if a sectarian Iraqi government determines who qualifies as a "Saddamist" or "other outlaw group."
Equally troubling is the suggestion by General Lute, your Assistant for Iraq and Afghanistan, that, in negotiating the agreement anticipated by the Declaration, your Administration does not expect to seek “formal inputs from Congress” or even engage in formal consultations with Congress. Yet, the Declaration anticipates that the agreement would include “security commitments” to Iraq in order to “deter foreign aggression against Iraq.” As a matter of Constitutional law, and based on over 200 years of practice, I believe that such an agreement would require Congressional authorization.
In 1969, the Senate adopted the National Commitments Resolution, which expressed the sense of the Senate that “a national commitment by the United States results only from affirmative action taken by the executive and legislative branches of the United States Government by means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution of both Houses of Congress specifically providing for such commitment.” The National Commitments Resolution defined a security commitment quite broadly, stating that, among other things, it includes any “promise to assist a foreign country, government, or people by the use of the Armed Forces . . . either immediately or upon the happening of certain events.”
While the Executive Branch has never accepted the definition of national commitments reflected in the National Commitments Resolution, there has been general agreement that security commitments require Congressional authorization. The disagreement has focused on what constitutes a "security commitment." In a 1992 report submitted to Congress by President George H.W. Bush, the Executive Branch defined a security commitment as "an obligation, binding under international law, of the United States to act in the common defense in the event of an armed attack on that country." The report provided a list of U.S. security commitments, all of which were either undertaken as advice and consent treaties, or as congressional-executive agreements, and thus were concluded with Congressional authorization.
I expect that your Administration is using the same Executive Branch definition of "security commitments" in the Declaration of Principles with Iraq as was used in the aforementioned 1992 report. Yet, General Lute’s comments suggest that the Administration will not seek Congressional authorization or even Congressional consultations in negotiating such a commitment. The Constitution and our past practice clearly require that the executive and legislative branches act together in order to provide a legitimate security commitment to another country.
At the core of this issue is, of course, the war power of Congress. A careful study of the Constitution and the intent of the framers as reflected, for example, in statements made at the Constitutional Convention, leave no doubt that, except for repelling sudden attacks on the United States, the Founding Fathers intended decisions to initiate either general or limited hostilities against foreign countries to be made by the Congress and not the Executive. The President is to direct and lead the Armed Forces and put them to any use specified by Congress.
Over the years Administrations that have taken a particularly expansive view of the presidential power to repel sudden attacks have encroached on this original understanding of the war power of Congress. This theory of executive power has frequently been justified on the basis of expediency and practical necessity in view of the nature of modern conflict. But no prior Administration has suggested that the Executive’s power in this area is unlimited or that it applies to ex ante agreements where there is ample time for Congress to participate. Moreover, in my view, the division of war powers specified in the Constitution is both compatible with modern warfare and essential to constitutional government.
A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our Armed Forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities. Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. As stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations that accompanied the National Commitments Resolution in 1969, "[t]he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy."
I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any "security commitments" the United States negotiates with Iraq.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman
[Senate Foreign Relations Committee]

The above is a real issue, and maybe we should say that slowly, "r-e-a-l i-s-s-u-e." See, independent media can't find this issue. It didn't pop up this week. Biden's letter was sent last month he released it today at a press conference. But they give us nothing but garbage. Hillary Clinton raised the issue in Monday's debate and you wouldn't know that from the left. From the alleged left.

That's the same left that whines about the mainstream media not focusing on issues, trivializing the election, you know, you've heard all that crap over and over. You know their smug little speeches. You know their self-righteous pose. The week ends for the bulk of them tomorrow. Who bothered to note this issue?

They all wrote their pathetic I-Love-Bambi pieces, again. Again. How stupid do they think their audiences are? The stupid ones are the 'left' gas bags who've wasted yet another a week confessing their love of the groupie scene while failing to act like adults -- mature or otherwise.
While they've wasted their own and everyone else's time, the illegal war has continued. You wouldn't know it from the crap they've offered.

They whine that the press -- they mean Big Media -- won't address real issues but when presented with a real issue, they ignore it all week long. Democracy Now! found time for Iraq when? When they could go over "False Pretenses" with Charles Lewis today. Excuse me, with "Chuck" Lewis today. That's the gathering/tabulation of the lies the administration told about the illegal war. The old lies. And as Lewis noted, it wasn't news to Goodman's audience. But that's all the time she had for Iraq this week. She played highlights from Monday's debate but nothing that passed for an issue and she ignored this:

Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.

But they want to sit at the grown ups table. They whine from the little card table they've been seated at about how unfair it is and how they address real issues. But they didn't address this issue. Goodman or any of them. Don't even get me started on what Matthew Rothschild offered this week. We got smut, we got insults (to all women) and we got the right wing from the alleged left. At least William Grieder had the guts to say that trash himself as opposed to being so chicken s--t that he just linked to it the way one male 'lefty' did apparently thinking that gave him an excuse. It didn't. It only made him more pathetic.

You're seeing a lot of people on the 'left' who know better than try to race 'jokes' but have no problem going into the gutter and degrading women. That's what they've offered up this week instead of Iraq. And suddenly all the silences on the gang-rape of Abeer, while her parents and sister were being shot to death, and the murder of Abeer begins to make sense. The way they've all acted this week, they either think the War Crimes against Abeer and her family were funny or that the 14-year-old girl had it coming. I'm not joking. And on Sunday at Third, we'll go into the worst case of "Smut Merchant" this week. There's no excuse for it.

But that's what they paraded this week instead of Iraq. Tomorrow, in the US, actions begin for war resisters in Canada, they continue tomorrow and they also take place in Canada tomorrow. But we haven't heard a word about that either. A press release in full, which Twyla e-mailed:


Rallies across Canada and U.S. to urge Parliament to let war resisters stay in Canada
On Saturday, January 26, rallies will be held in
cities and towns across Canada to urge the House of Commons to adopt a
recommendation of its Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that would make
it possible for US Iraq War resisters to obtain permanent resident status in
Canada.
Supporters of the war resisters in Ottawa, Toronto, Sudbury, London,
Thunder Bay, Saskatoon, Nelson, BC, Vancouver, and Victoria will also call on
Parliament to take urgent action to stop the possible deportations of four of
the war resisters, several with families. This step was also recommended by
the Standing Committee.
On Friday, January 25, there will be demonstrations in the US, also aimed
at urging Canada to let the war resisters stay. In New York, Washington,
Minneapolis, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, supporters will gather
outside Canadian consulates to show support for the war resisters in Canada.
"We believe it is urgent for Parliament to take action in line with the
recommendation of the Standing Committee," said Lee Zaslofsky, coordinator of
the
War Resisters Support Campaign. "Canadians would be deeply upset if their
government forces any of the war resisters to go back to the US, where they
would face imprisonment because they decided they would not take part in the
Iraq War."
As well as the events on January 26, other events are planned in Halifax,
NS, on January 29 and one was held in Grand Forks, BC, on Thursday (Jan. 24).
"It's great that people all across Canada and the US are coming out to
show support for the war resisters," said Patrick Hart, a former sergeant in
the US Army who came to Canada in 2005 with his family. "My family could be
told we have to go back to the States anytime now. We just want to be able to
live here in peace and raise our son, Rian. We hope that the politicians will
let us do that."
War resisters will be available for comment on January 26.
Please contact us to arrange.
Visit
War Resisters Support Campaign for details on events in Canada or Courage to Resist
for information on US events.


That's reality and it's taking place and doing so with little to no attention from the Little Media in the US. That's disgraceful. Vic notes Brad McCall's "From the U.S. Army to Canada: a resister's journey" (The Rabble):

If I went to the United States border crossing right now, I would be arrested. That's right. As a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago a man hired to transport my vehicle back to the United States was held at gunpoint by a U.S. border guard because he was suspected of being me. Am I really that dangerous?
My being here in Canada is a true blessing. It's a lot better than being in a prison in the United States.
By now, you are probably very curious about what my crime is. Well, in short, I am guilty of desertion. That's right, I deserted the United States Army. But if one digs a little more deeply into what I have done, they may learn the truth of the matter: I am a victim of an unjust system.
I joined the U.S. Army on August 28, 2006, after learning that not only would I be serving my country, as every young man should, but that I would also be receiving benefits such as: Tricare universal healthcare, a $400,000 life insurance policy, a $37,000 Montgomery GI Bill, a $10,000 signing bonus, a dependable monthly income, and, last but not least, career training for when my contract reached its completion. As a 19 year-old kid recently independent from his parents, one might say that I needed what they were offering me. And I took it.
I went through the system fairly smoothly. No discipline problems. No UCMJ actions. No Article 13s. I was just another private swimming through a sea of conformity, trying not to stand out. (Although, when you read Voltaire on your breaks, I guess you’re going to stand out a little). I was stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado. A soldier in A Company, 1/67 Armour, 4th Infantry Division, I soon became a central focus for many jokes. I was referred to by my fellow soldiers as a "hippie", "commie", and "f****t" -- just to name a few. Times were, well, quite depressing.
Then came the stories from Iraq. Men in my unit who had already served in Iraq were one day explaining the various situations that they had encountered while "down range". One Sergeant explained how he shot a man in an alleyway just for being out after dark. He expressed how easy it was to kill "hajjis" once you did it for the first time. I listened as one soldier told how a specialist in my unit kept a human finger in his wall locker during his entire tour of duty. The laughing ensued as I heard the story of a soldier in another company eating the charred flesh of an Iraqi civilian, the unfortunate victim of an IED attack aimed at American forces. I thought about how callous these men had become, and how horrified I was at the idea of disrespecting human life in such a manner. This is when doubt began to flood my mind.
I began to regret ever signing the dreadful contract that imprisoned me. I became a recluse from my family. I began a rebellion of the mind, realizing that I was no longer a staunch defender of my nation, but that I now wore on my shoulder an emblem of hate and greed. I found alternate news sources to rely on, seeing that up until this point in my life I had relied on conservative news reports. I was building a new me, and the new me could not become an animal, accustomed to the needless loss of human life. So, when I realized that my tour of duty in Iraq was soon approaching, I immediately asked my chain of command for conscientious objector status. I was laughed at.
After repeatedly being told that my claim would be denied, I began researching alternate methods of living freely, without the guilt of forcing the will of imperialism on an innocent people. And then I learned of Canada. Dearest Canada. Pierre Trudeau described Canada as being a "refuge from militarism." After all, hadn't over 100 000 Vietnam era draft resisters fled to Canada? And what better place to go than a place with over 50 000 of those original "war resisters" still living and prospering within its borders. And so the decision was made. I was preparing for Canada.


It continues. That's a portion and may have exceeded fair use but it's the first natural stopping point.

That's reality and we're not hearing that from our 'independent' media. We're not hearing about the the National Priorities Project study. We're not hearing about what's going on in England with the 'sexed up' pre-war intel, we're not hearing about General Dynamics 42% surge in sales thanks to the Iraq War or about the Congressional Budget Office's report on the costs of the illegal war -- something CBO director Peter R. Orszag testified about to the House Budget Committee yesterday and to the Senate Budget Committee today.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3926. Tonight? 3931. Just Foreign Policy's total stands at 1,168,058 (it's not been updated since last Thursday).

The Iraq War hasn't stopped. A real independent media would be covering it. They'd be covering the 'Awakening' Councils, they'd be refuting the 'success' of the escalation. They'd damn well be noting that a bombing in Mosul yesterday resulted in 40 deaths and 220 wounded. Instead, they want to 'cover' the campaigns. Not in a way that matters or they'd be noting the issue of the treaty and how it goes against the US and Iraqi constitutions. They just want to gas bag. They just want to offer what they'd say if they were ever invited onto the Sunday chat & chews. They complain about the MSM coverage but they do nothing to change the discussion (well, they went to the gutter this week repeatedly, that was a bit of change), they offer nothing that's enlightening or informative, they just offer gushing on Bambi and hisses for Hillary. And they want to pretend that they've done something wonderful, something that justifies all the begging for money they do repeatedly. It's pathetic and it's not an 'alternative' to the MSM.

But it does prolong the illegal war and it does prolong the dying and the destruction.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.