On the upper right hand corner (where it will get the most attention -- in the US we read left to right) of the New York Times this morning is the headline "Bush Declares Iran's Arms Role In Iraq Is Certain." The Los Angeles Times, on the same story, headlines with "Tehran's Iraq role unclear, U.S. now says."
Now considering the New York Times put their nonsense on the front page Saturday, you might think they'd be rushing to make things as clear as possible. The headline doesn't. The headline adds to the series of articles they've run in the last few days which, to the rushed reader, give the impression that, as their headline proclaims "Iran's Arms Role In Iraq Is Certain."
Now at some point, the paper (and the press) may return to an earlier whine and wonder, "Why do people still believe the lie that there was a link between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein?" If that happens, it needs to be noted that for all the 'qualifiers' (not that many) that have been added since Michael Gordon became the joke of the week for journalism -- You have to crawl the sewers of unsourced stenography on your belly to reach the mental cavity that is the mind of Gordo -- the New York Times was more than happy to erase their minor efforts (since Saturday) at offering any journalistic skepticsm by running with the headline that includes the words "Iran's Arms Role In Iraq Is Certain."
The article itself (written by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Marc Santora) isn't as hideous as the headline (which they didn't write), but paragraphs deep as opposed to the blazing headline, what does the paper really think will burn through eyes of readers today?
But let's compare Stolberg and Santora's opening with that of Borzou Daragahi and James Gerstenzang (Los Angeles Times). First up, the double the double S of Stolberg and Santora:
President Bush said Wednesday that he was certain that factions within the Iranian government had supplied Shiite militants in Iraq with deadly roadside bombs that had killed American troops. But he said he did not know whether Iran's highest officials had directed the attacks.
That's the Times of New York, the Times of Los Angeles?
U.S. officials from President Bush to a top general in Baghdad said Wednesday that there was no solid evidence that high-ranking officials in Iran had ordered deadly weapons to be sent to Iraq for use against American troops, backing away from claims made by military and intelligence
officials in Baghdad this week.
Now one goes with reporting and a strong opening ("no solid evidence") and the other reads like Oh-My-God!-Did-you-hear-what-happened-yesterday-in-the-cafeteria? (Check out Doug Mills photo on A10 of the New York Times which Billie says appears to feature the Bully Boy attempting to entertain the press with his impersonation of White House dog Barney.)
Let's stay with the New York Times and do it quickly. Worth noting? Damien Cave's "U.S. Reverses on Cause of Copter Crash." There's an e-mail this morning asking why we didn't note this admission by the military? I believe that was made on Tuesday, late Tuesday. Time is pressed right now (and this is a dictated entry) and if you go back to when the CH-46 crashed last week, I don't believe you'll find the snapshot pretending that it was anything other than what it was. From Cave's article:
A Marine transport helicopter that crashed last week northwest of Baghdad was shot down, the top United States military spokesman in Iraq said Wednesday, reversing the military's earlier contention that mechanical failures had caused the crash.
The flack Cave's referring to is Willie Caldwell, Giddiest Gabor in Green Zone. Rachel L. Swarns "U.S. Considers Broader Visa Plan for Iraqis" attempts to find the positive in the laughable efforst regarding Iraqi refugees (see Elaine's "Disgusted" for a discussion on this and other things). Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Damien Cave's "Few Encounters in Sweep of Baghdad, the Americans' First Under Bush's Security Plan" should be skipped -- "Bombs, mortar shells and gunfights left at least eight people dead across the city" is worth skipping (click here and do the math).
What else? (Pru will cover what Alan Cowell bungles in tomorrow's round-robin.) Michael Gordon gets two solo quickies off. "A Prewar Slide Show Cast Iraq in Rosy Hues" could be a real article in the hands of a real reporter but when you only have one hand to report with . . . Skip Gordo and go to the National Security Archive. Then Gordo attempts to an impossible mission -- redeeming his digraced name -- with "Why Accuse Iran of Meddling Now? U.S. Officials Explain." If people want to explain, they need to go on record. Willie Caldwell was already outed as one of the unnamed by Sunday so naming him today is not "bravery" and Gordo's offering no "reporting" but he does lean heavy on the unnamed yet again.
One thing to consider as the Bully Boy seems to retreat -- how big was the rollout to accomplish what was wanted? There is no proof of anything with regards to Iran, yet notice how, some on the left, in their desperation, seemed willing to accept some elements to disprove the larger ones? You better believe Bully Boy noticed . . . long ago and that this "give" by the left and "take" by the right is noted, known and planned for.
We'll note this from Peter Spiegel's "Bush: Redeployments to Iraq don't hurt troop morale:
The president doesn't believe redeployments to Iraq are taking a toll" (Los Angeles Times) because it appears to have been forgotten:
The issue of troop morale has bubbled up repeatedly during the debate on Capitol Hill over legislation that would criticize the administration's decision to increase troop levels in Iraq. Some backers of the Bush plan say any congressional resolution condemning the buildup would undermine morale.
The issue also emerged in surveys of active-duty troops, whose opinion of Bush's handling of the war has plummeted in the last year. Among military personnel, only 35% approved of Bush's handling of the war during 2006, down from 54% a year earlier, polls by the independent Military Times newspaper found.
And one more time, from Courage to Resist, noted by Brad:
Demand Army drop charges and accept Lt. Watada's resignation now!
Next step following mistrial victory: Demand that the Army respect the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy by not attempting to court martial him again. Also:
"How Lt. Watada and GI resistance movement beat the Army"We (heart) "Augie"
U.S. Army Spc. Agustin Aguayo is a Iraq War vet facing court martial in Germany on March 6 for refusing to return to Iraq. Send him a Valentine's Day support greeting!
Mark Wilkerson refused to redeploy, sentencing Feb. 22
"There comes a time in a person's life when they must do the right moral decision for themselves, doubtless of how popular," he told the media in Crawford, Texas last August. (link only)
Ivan Brobeck, Iraq vet and war resister, released from brig!
Marine L/Cpl Ivan Brobeck was released from the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia on Feb. 5, three months after returning to the United States from Canada with a letter to President Bush asking him to "Bring the Troops Home Now!" (link only)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
michael r. gordon
richard a. oppel jr.
peter spiegel
damien cave
james gerstenzang
borzou daragahi
ehren watada
agustin aguayo
ivan brobeck
mark wilkerson
Thursday, February 15, 2007
"We Stand Behind You, Lieutenant Watada" (City on a Hill Press)
As the house of cards that was constructed to lead us into Iraq continues to fall down, City on a Hill Press salutes US Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, who is courageously standing atop the most solid of foundations--the United States Constitution.
The first active-duty soldier to refuse deployment in Iraq and publicly speak out against the war, Lt. Watada has joined the growing group of brave dissenters whose voices and rights are being repressed after questioning the unjust decisions of the Bush Administration. With the war in Iraq escalating toward more violence and chaos each day, and Bush's preparations to attack Iran, this country desperately needs the likes of Lt. Watada to fulfill duties as soldiers, as Americans, and as humans.
This quasi-democratic government is slow to respond to the post pressing of their constituent's demand--to end the occupation of Iraq. It is in this day that those of Lt. Watada's stature must be allowed a voice to question why their superiors keep sending them to die in a war that the American public was fooled into supporting and now clearly opposes. Lt. Watada is leading the way straight into that which our country holds most sacred--the rule of law.
Last summer, Lt. Watada was arrested for refusing to board a plane headed for a tour in Iraq and telling the press that he believed the war was illegal. Lt. Watada said that it was his duty under the military's code of conduct to refuse orders to serve in what he deemed an illegal war.
"An occupation violating the very essence of international humanitarian law and sovereignty is a crime against humanity," Lt. Watada said in a speech following his decision. "Our duty to the Constitution is an obligation, not a choice."
Lt. Watada faces a court marshal and up to four years in prison. He signed a stipulation agreement (a deal with the prosecution) mandating that the prosecution drop two counts for speaking against the war to the press, in exchange for Lt. Watada acknowledging that he refused to deploy and that he spoke out against the war--illegal acts for military personnel. On Feb. 7, during the third day of Lt. Watada's trial, Lt. Col. John Head, in a moment of confusion, declared a mistrial due to procedural misconceptions.
The above is from City on a Hill Press' "We Stand Behind You, Lieutenant Watada." Now if you see the idiot of the day, Jim's already called dibs on noting her at The Third Estate Sunday Review. She really is an idiot and her words are offensive. That someone sutdying journalism would think that kind of homophobia could play is just shocking. That she doesn't know the first thing she's talking about is less shocking. But that'll be dealt with on Sunday.
There is another entry going up this morning, we had trouble finding a New York Times (yes, across the country, there are many places who never get the Times -- lucky!). For now, we'll again note this from Courage to Resist:
Demand Army drop charges and accept Lt. Watada's resignation now!
Next step following mistrial victory: Demand that the Army respect the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy by not attempting to court martial him again. Also:
"How Lt. Watada and GI resistance movement beat the Army"We (heart) "Augie"
U.S. Army Spc. Agustin Aguayo is a Iraq War vet facing court martial in Germany on March 6 for refusing to return to Iraq. Send him a Valentine's Day support greeting!
Mark Wilkerson refused to redeploy, sentencing Feb. 22
"There comes a time in a person's life when they must do the right moral decision for themselves, doubtless of how popular," he told the media in Crawford, Texas last August. (link only)
Ivan Brobeck, Iraq vet and war resister, released from brig!
Marine L/Cpl Ivan Brobeck was released from the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia on Feb. 5, three months after returning to the United States from Canada with a letter to President Bush asking him to "Bring the Troops Home Now!" (link only)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
city on a hill press
ehren watada
agustin aguayo
ivan brobeck
mark wilkerson
the third estate sunday review
The first active-duty soldier to refuse deployment in Iraq and publicly speak out against the war, Lt. Watada has joined the growing group of brave dissenters whose voices and rights are being repressed after questioning the unjust decisions of the Bush Administration. With the war in Iraq escalating toward more violence and chaos each day, and Bush's preparations to attack Iran, this country desperately needs the likes of Lt. Watada to fulfill duties as soldiers, as Americans, and as humans.
This quasi-democratic government is slow to respond to the post pressing of their constituent's demand--to end the occupation of Iraq. It is in this day that those of Lt. Watada's stature must be allowed a voice to question why their superiors keep sending them to die in a war that the American public was fooled into supporting and now clearly opposes. Lt. Watada is leading the way straight into that which our country holds most sacred--the rule of law.
Last summer, Lt. Watada was arrested for refusing to board a plane headed for a tour in Iraq and telling the press that he believed the war was illegal. Lt. Watada said that it was his duty under the military's code of conduct to refuse orders to serve in what he deemed an illegal war.
"An occupation violating the very essence of international humanitarian law and sovereignty is a crime against humanity," Lt. Watada said in a speech following his decision. "Our duty to the Constitution is an obligation, not a choice."
Lt. Watada faces a court marshal and up to four years in prison. He signed a stipulation agreement (a deal with the prosecution) mandating that the prosecution drop two counts for speaking against the war to the press, in exchange for Lt. Watada acknowledging that he refused to deploy and that he spoke out against the war--illegal acts for military personnel. On Feb. 7, during the third day of Lt. Watada's trial, Lt. Col. John Head, in a moment of confusion, declared a mistrial due to procedural misconceptions.
The above is from City on a Hill Press' "We Stand Behind You, Lieutenant Watada." Now if you see the idiot of the day, Jim's already called dibs on noting her at The Third Estate Sunday Review. She really is an idiot and her words are offensive. That someone sutdying journalism would think that kind of homophobia could play is just shocking. That she doesn't know the first thing she's talking about is less shocking. But that'll be dealt with on Sunday.
There is another entry going up this morning, we had trouble finding a New York Times (yes, across the country, there are many places who never get the Times -- lucky!). For now, we'll again note this from Courage to Resist:
Demand Army drop charges and accept Lt. Watada's resignation now!
Next step following mistrial victory: Demand that the Army respect the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy by not attempting to court martial him again. Also:
"How Lt. Watada and GI resistance movement beat the Army"We (heart) "Augie"
U.S. Army Spc. Agustin Aguayo is a Iraq War vet facing court martial in Germany on March 6 for refusing to return to Iraq. Send him a Valentine's Day support greeting!
Mark Wilkerson refused to redeploy, sentencing Feb. 22
"There comes a time in a person's life when they must do the right moral decision for themselves, doubtless of how popular," he told the media in Crawford, Texas last August. (link only)
Ivan Brobeck, Iraq vet and war resister, released from brig!
Marine L/Cpl Ivan Brobeck was released from the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia on Feb. 5, three months after returning to the United States from Canada with a letter to President Bush asking him to "Bring the Troops Home Now!" (link only)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
city on a hill press
ehren watada
agustin aguayo
ivan brobeck
mark wilkerson
the third estate sunday review
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Linkfest
Demand Army drop charges and accept Lt. Watada's resignation now! Next step following mistrial victory: Demand that the Army respect the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy by not attempting to court martial him again. Also: "How Lt. Watada and GI resistance movement beat the Army"
We (heart) "Augie"U.S. Army Spc. Agustin Aguayo is a Iraq War vet facing court martial in Germany on March 6 for refusing to return to Iraq. Send him a Valentine's Day support greeting!
Mark Wilkerson refused to redeploy, sentencing Feb. 22"There comes a time in a person's life when they must do the right moral decision for themselves, doubtless of how popular," he told the media in Crawford, Texas last August. (link only)
Ivan Brobeck, Iraq vet and war resister, released from brig!Marine L/Cpl Ivan Brobeck was released from the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia on Feb. 5, three months after returning to the United States from Canada with a letter to President Bush asking him to "Bring the Troops Home Now!" (link only)
The above is from an e-mail Brad forwarded from Courage to Resist. We'll pair that with Eli Sanders' "Tactical Failure" (Seattle Stranger):
With military prosecutor Capt. Scott Van Sweringen looking frustrated and defeated, Judge Head then declared the stipulation inoperative, announced that he would be telling the jury to disregard it, and asked the prosecutors if they would like to ask for a mistrial. The prosecutors, who had rested their case the previous day and would have faced a daunting task in opening it back up and trying to rescue the proceedings, immediately took him up on the offer.
It was not the end that anyone at the court-martial had expected when it began on Monday, and it remained a mystery why Judge Head had suddenly become so concerned about the stipulation, particularly since the judge was very familiar with the document and two days earlier had questioned Watada in court about his understanding of it—and received essentially the same answers.
A spokesman for Fort Lewis said the judge's actions on Wednesday were "further evidence" that the Army could conduct a fair court-martial that protected the rights of the defendant. Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, said the judge had been no friend of his client's and that he was baffled by the judge's decision. But he added that in granting a mistrial at the request of the prosecutors (and over the objections of the defendant), the judge had provided him grounds for a motion to dismiss the case whenever it is reconvened.
"In this case, it is my opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effect of double jeopardy," Seitz said at a press conference shortly after the trial.
The judge seemed to think otherwise, scheduling the case to begin again on March 19. But it's highly unlikely the case will reopen then, if at all. Seitz plans to ask for a delay because of scheduling conflicts, and if the judge at the second trial (it could be Judge Head again or a new judge) doesn't grant the request for dismissal, Seitz said he would immediately appeal that decision to a higher court.
That's one of the things that should have made the snapshot and kept getting pushed back. Another thing that hasn't (it's a really busy week) is the student strike tomorrow. This is from Tanya Schevitz's "Students joining national protest against Iraq war" (San Francisco Chronicle):
It hasn't reached the level of the campus peace movement during the 1960s, but students at more than a dozen colleges from San Francisco State University to Columbia University in New York will stage strikes and rallies Thursday to protest the war in Iraq.
The anti-war demonstrations come as President Bush prepares to send more troops to Iraq and are timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the massive protests staged in the weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20, 2003.
"Me and my roommate were hearing all these stories about the war, and we said we can't just sit around anymore. We really need to bring it back to the protests of the '60s," said Alysha Higgins, 19, a freshman at UC Berkeley, where a rally is planned on Sproul Plaza at noon. "We just need to target this war and start this movement."
The national effort came after students at Columbia heard of plans by anti-war activists at UC Santa Barbara to stage a strike against the war on Thursday and decided to have their own. From there, a national campaign was launched with the help of the World Can't Wait, a political group that opposes the Bush presidency and urges resistance to his policies.
"There are a lot of students who are really looking for a vehicle for this. ... World Can't Wait saw that and was really inspired," said Ben Rosen, an organizer for the World Can't Wait. "These groups of passionate kids are ready to make a difference."
The campus movement has attracted the attention of schools across the country from Sarah Lawrence College and Fordham University in New York to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and in the Bay Area at UC Berkeley, San Francisco State, Mills College, Sonoma State University and UC Santa Cruz. Students at several high schools in the Bay Area, including Lowell High in San Francisco, Fremont High in Oakland and Berkeley High, are getting involved, too. The actions will vary from strikes where students skip class and refuse to patronize any stores or restaurants to informational rallies and marches.
This is why Dona, Jim and I are speaking this week. We hadn't planned to but we're trying to get the word out. Jim says this is a "triple time" schedule and it is faster paced than we're used to (and we're used to rushing). So if you're wondering about the entries here, that's what's going on.
Kyle notes Elayne Boosler's "Take Your Hand Off the Bible" (The Huffington Post) and we'll provide a linke but no excerpt. The point being made (not by Boosler, by a candidate) is an obvious one and we made it here back in January when John Howard came out in support of the escalation -- in support of it for the United States -- he wasn't sending anymore Australian troops to Iraq. He believes it's a battle that must be fought, an important battle, as long as he doesn't need to send more troops. And where do Australian troops go? Where are they injured? Mortars landed where? Howard's interested in cozying up to Bully Boy and has been the whole time. The laughable number of troops Australia has in Iraq doesn't make a difference on the ground but it does allow Bully Boy to cite Australia (a large country) and make it seem like he has "support." He doesn't. Australia won't send more because Howard can't, the war's too unpopular and to send more would be to risk the next election cycle, he knows that, his party knows that.
Another thing that Kyle sent that we can note (again, no offense intended to Boosler but this isn't a campaign site so a candidate doesn't interest us unless they're doing something regarding Iraq -- besides hot air -- that's why we didn't give space to John Edwards' blogger issues -- that and the fact that like John Kerry, he would -- and did -- buckle) is Janis Karpinski's "Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" (The Huffington Post):
Tuesday night's private screening of Rory Kennedy's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in Washington may serve to haunt Senator Lindsey Graham for many days to come. It was such a great opportunity and Senator Graham was such a great target, but he has only himself to thank. It is so sad and unfortunate for him to say the things he said, not so much because he thought he could simply say what he did against me not knowing I was there, but because it made everybody painfully aware of his inability to comprehend what he saw in the movie and his ignorance of the big picture.
He condemns the complicity of Miller, Sanchez, Rumsfeld et al., including a remark against the President, but sidesteps his responsibility in pinning medals on each one of them and letting them retire.
His first comment was about me -- his dismay over not having the chance to court martial me. Did he read even one page of all of the investigations, or perhaps not even bother because he was well aware it was a sham and a farce from the get go. The movie is so good at tying all of the parts and the real evidence together. He just refuses to get it, or maybe he is just not intelligent enough to get any of it.
I stand by my remarks about him being a coward.
Getting back to things that should have made it into the snapshot and I meant to add, this is from last week and Shonna e-mailed to note it, Arianna Huffington's "My Six-Point Reaction to Joe Klein's Seven-Point Response:"
I agree with Joe Klein's assessment that there are "far more important things going on in the world" than a clarification of his position on the war in Iraq. But I can't resist reacting to his seven-point response to my post on him:
1. Klein kicks off his seven-point defense (did I say seven-point?) of his pre-invasion stance on the war by saying, "Arianna Huffington, the doyenne of the Hollywood left, has taken time from her busy schedule to attack me for something I said on Meet the Press three years ago." Actually, Joe, I was taking you to task for something you wrote on your Time blog two days ago, namely that you opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I wasn't trolling around in Lexis Nexis looking for "stupid" remarks prominent journalists made in support of the war. There aren't enough hours in the day for that (hell, there aren't enough hours in the decade for that). I only did my quick Internet search after reading your attempt to rewrite history. Again.
2. Speaking of "the doyenne of the Hollywood left" (one of six times in his post Klein spits out a reference to "the left"), isn't it time for him to stop looking at the world through his musty right/left glasses, where triangulation between the two is seen as "delicious" and the height of political sophistication?
Real journalists don't lie about a bestseller they wrote. Lying about it, when there were real standards for the press, would've gotten a 'reporter' kicked to the curb with no hope of any future job offers other than at some weekly shopper. Joe Klein plays a journalist on camera. Even there, he's unconvincing. I meant to note that last week and time ran out. Shonna noted it today.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (Also no offense to Kyle. I explained why we wouldn't highlight candidates who think 2008 is the time to start addressing Iraq -- candidates currently serving in Congress.)
We (heart) "Augie"U.S. Army Spc. Agustin Aguayo is a Iraq War vet facing court martial in Germany on March 6 for refusing to return to Iraq. Send him a Valentine's Day support greeting!
Mark Wilkerson refused to redeploy, sentencing Feb. 22"There comes a time in a person's life when they must do the right moral decision for themselves, doubtless of how popular," he told the media in Crawford, Texas last August. (link only)
Ivan Brobeck, Iraq vet and war resister, released from brig!Marine L/Cpl Ivan Brobeck was released from the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia on Feb. 5, three months after returning to the United States from Canada with a letter to President Bush asking him to "Bring the Troops Home Now!" (link only)
The above is from an e-mail Brad forwarded from Courage to Resist. We'll pair that with Eli Sanders' "Tactical Failure" (Seattle Stranger):
With military prosecutor Capt. Scott Van Sweringen looking frustrated and defeated, Judge Head then declared the stipulation inoperative, announced that he would be telling the jury to disregard it, and asked the prosecutors if they would like to ask for a mistrial. The prosecutors, who had rested their case the previous day and would have faced a daunting task in opening it back up and trying to rescue the proceedings, immediately took him up on the offer.
It was not the end that anyone at the court-martial had expected when it began on Monday, and it remained a mystery why Judge Head had suddenly become so concerned about the stipulation, particularly since the judge was very familiar with the document and two days earlier had questioned Watada in court about his understanding of it—and received essentially the same answers.
A spokesman for Fort Lewis said the judge's actions on Wednesday were "further evidence" that the Army could conduct a fair court-martial that protected the rights of the defendant. Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, said the judge had been no friend of his client's and that he was baffled by the judge's decision. But he added that in granting a mistrial at the request of the prosecutors (and over the objections of the defendant), the judge had provided him grounds for a motion to dismiss the case whenever it is reconvened.
"In this case, it is my opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effect of double jeopardy," Seitz said at a press conference shortly after the trial.
The judge seemed to think otherwise, scheduling the case to begin again on March 19. But it's highly unlikely the case will reopen then, if at all. Seitz plans to ask for a delay because of scheduling conflicts, and if the judge at the second trial (it could be Judge Head again or a new judge) doesn't grant the request for dismissal, Seitz said he would immediately appeal that decision to a higher court.
That's one of the things that should have made the snapshot and kept getting pushed back. Another thing that hasn't (it's a really busy week) is the student strike tomorrow. This is from Tanya Schevitz's "Students joining national protest against Iraq war" (San Francisco Chronicle):
It hasn't reached the level of the campus peace movement during the 1960s, but students at more than a dozen colleges from San Francisco State University to Columbia University in New York will stage strikes and rallies Thursday to protest the war in Iraq.
The anti-war demonstrations come as President Bush prepares to send more troops to Iraq and are timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the massive protests staged in the weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20, 2003.
"Me and my roommate were hearing all these stories about the war, and we said we can't just sit around anymore. We really need to bring it back to the protests of the '60s," said Alysha Higgins, 19, a freshman at UC Berkeley, where a rally is planned on Sproul Plaza at noon. "We just need to target this war and start this movement."
The national effort came after students at Columbia heard of plans by anti-war activists at UC Santa Barbara to stage a strike against the war on Thursday and decided to have their own. From there, a national campaign was launched with the help of the World Can't Wait, a political group that opposes the Bush presidency and urges resistance to his policies.
"There are a lot of students who are really looking for a vehicle for this. ... World Can't Wait saw that and was really inspired," said Ben Rosen, an organizer for the World Can't Wait. "These groups of passionate kids are ready to make a difference."
The campus movement has attracted the attention of schools across the country from Sarah Lawrence College and Fordham University in New York to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and in the Bay Area at UC Berkeley, San Francisco State, Mills College, Sonoma State University and UC Santa Cruz. Students at several high schools in the Bay Area, including Lowell High in San Francisco, Fremont High in Oakland and Berkeley High, are getting involved, too. The actions will vary from strikes where students skip class and refuse to patronize any stores or restaurants to informational rallies and marches.
This is why Dona, Jim and I are speaking this week. We hadn't planned to but we're trying to get the word out. Jim says this is a "triple time" schedule and it is faster paced than we're used to (and we're used to rushing). So if you're wondering about the entries here, that's what's going on.
Kyle notes Elayne Boosler's "Take Your Hand Off the Bible" (The Huffington Post) and we'll provide a linke but no excerpt. The point being made (not by Boosler, by a candidate) is an obvious one and we made it here back in January when John Howard came out in support of the escalation -- in support of it for the United States -- he wasn't sending anymore Australian troops to Iraq. He believes it's a battle that must be fought, an important battle, as long as he doesn't need to send more troops. And where do Australian troops go? Where are they injured? Mortars landed where? Howard's interested in cozying up to Bully Boy and has been the whole time. The laughable number of troops Australia has in Iraq doesn't make a difference on the ground but it does allow Bully Boy to cite Australia (a large country) and make it seem like he has "support." He doesn't. Australia won't send more because Howard can't, the war's too unpopular and to send more would be to risk the next election cycle, he knows that, his party knows that.
Another thing that Kyle sent that we can note (again, no offense intended to Boosler but this isn't a campaign site so a candidate doesn't interest us unless they're doing something regarding Iraq -- besides hot air -- that's why we didn't give space to John Edwards' blogger issues -- that and the fact that like John Kerry, he would -- and did -- buckle) is Janis Karpinski's "Sen. Lindsey Graham and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" (The Huffington Post):
Tuesday night's private screening of Rory Kennedy's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in Washington may serve to haunt Senator Lindsey Graham for many days to come. It was such a great opportunity and Senator Graham was such a great target, but he has only himself to thank. It is so sad and unfortunate for him to say the things he said, not so much because he thought he could simply say what he did against me not knowing I was there, but because it made everybody painfully aware of his inability to comprehend what he saw in the movie and his ignorance of the big picture.
He condemns the complicity of Miller, Sanchez, Rumsfeld et al., including a remark against the President, but sidesteps his responsibility in pinning medals on each one of them and letting them retire.
His first comment was about me -- his dismay over not having the chance to court martial me. Did he read even one page of all of the investigations, or perhaps not even bother because he was well aware it was a sham and a farce from the get go. The movie is so good at tying all of the parts and the real evidence together. He just refuses to get it, or maybe he is just not intelligent enough to get any of it.
I stand by my remarks about him being a coward.
Getting back to things that should have made it into the snapshot and I meant to add, this is from last week and Shonna e-mailed to note it, Arianna Huffington's "My Six-Point Reaction to Joe Klein's Seven-Point Response:"
I agree with Joe Klein's assessment that there are "far more important things going on in the world" than a clarification of his position on the war in Iraq. But I can't resist reacting to his seven-point response to my post on him:
1. Klein kicks off his seven-point defense (did I say seven-point?) of his pre-invasion stance on the war by saying, "Arianna Huffington, the doyenne of the Hollywood left, has taken time from her busy schedule to attack me for something I said on Meet the Press three years ago." Actually, Joe, I was taking you to task for something you wrote on your Time blog two days ago, namely that you opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I wasn't trolling around in Lexis Nexis looking for "stupid" remarks prominent journalists made in support of the war. There aren't enough hours in the day for that (hell, there aren't enough hours in the decade for that). I only did my quick Internet search after reading your attempt to rewrite history. Again.
2. Speaking of "the doyenne of the Hollywood left" (one of six times in his post Klein spits out a reference to "the left"), isn't it time for him to stop looking at the world through his musty right/left glasses, where triangulation between the two is seen as "delicious" and the height of political sophistication?
Real journalists don't lie about a bestseller they wrote. Lying about it, when there were real standards for the press, would've gotten a 'reporter' kicked to the curb with no hope of any future job offers other than at some weekly shopper. Joe Klein plays a journalist on camera. Even there, he's unconvincing. I meant to note that last week and time ran out. Shonna noted it today.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (Also no offense to Kyle. I explained why we wouldn't highlight candidates who think 2008 is the time to start addressing Iraq -- candidates currently serving in Congress.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)