The Shaun Says This..."Ever Wonder"

The Shaun says this...

Ever wonder what's going on in the minds of our leaders as it relates to the IRAQ war.

Now that it has lasted over 5 years and more people have died in this war than who died in the tragedy of 9/11 (which was what was said to be the reason we started the war).

Do you think they pray for the safe return of our troops?

Is it blind patriotism that gives us the faith that this war is just?

Without the tragic events that led to the war, how does that effect the support for it?

Why has the news of coverage of the war slowly faded over the last few months?

Why, once a hot topic in the presidential race, is the war seemly an afterthought?

Never be afraid to ask yourself or your leaders the tough questions because if they're never asked, we'll never work on getting the answers to those questions.

Just because you may not want to know the answers to those questions, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked.

THE SHAUN HAS SPOKEN

There's more: "The Shaun Says This..."Ever Wonder"" >>

Iraq: Five Years Later

As we suspected &mdash and blogged previously &mdash, the recent "improvement" that resulted from Georgie's "surge," or rather repeated redeployment of worn-out troops, was an illusion manipulated mainly by the media with the assistance of complacent rightwingnut apologists in the U.S.


As with the economic crisis, people have been warning for a long time that the situation in Iraq is inherently unstable. Jaish al-Mahdi have been, so far, obedient to Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, their leader. Mostly. In recent months, as blogger James Schneider notes (click above link), the Jaish al-Mahdi appears to be splintering with some of the more thuggish elements moving out of al-Sadr's control.



Now The Guardian, one of the last bastions of good journalism, offers us a look at the Sons of Iraq, or the Sunni Awakening, or whatever they're calling them this week. The Sunnis whom we supposedly armed and financed &mdash oops, it appears that we just promised them money, we forgot to pay them.

Given how good our credit is around the world, can you see why the Sunnis are not too happy?

Consider this: 80,000 armed angry Sunni fighters. Plus unknown numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq fighters. Plus Jaish al-Mahdi. Against 160,000 U.S. troops.

Sure, we have superior firepower. But superior firepower doesn't mean much when most of the country is filled with people who want you dead. Ask the French. They still remember Dien Bien Phu.

From Iraq, Mohammed blogs the fifth anniversary of the war. It is to weep bitter tears of blood.

Update:It appears that we missed out on the latest news from the battlefield &mdash Jaish al-Mahdi fighters have attacked both Iraqi and US military in Kut and Baghdad. Casualties appear to be few, so far.

Crossposted over at ThePoliticalCat

There's more: "Iraq: Five Years Later" >>

Bring The Troops Home NOW!

Well. Isn't that just ducky? Raw Story tells us that, after reviewing hundreds of thousands of captured Iraqi documents, the Pentagon has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any connection at al with al-Qaeda.

Apparently, the only links between Saddam and any terrorist groups were just like ours. Just as we funded and armed Osama bin Laden to wage Islamic Jihad against the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan in support of Babrak Kamal's government, Saddam Hussein funded and armed groups to attack "Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime."

The study is due to Congress and for general release by midweek.



The article, penned by Warren Strobel of McClatchy's Washington Bureau, states, in part:

[...] the upcoming Pentagon report promises to be a particularly stark and thorough refutation of one of the primary Bush administration arguments for the invasion of Iraq [i.e., that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda. Another Bush Misadministration argument, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, has already been thoroughly refuted.] The subsequent war has come at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, nearly 4,000 US troop deaths, and some half a trillion US dollars and counting.

Mr. Strobel's math skills are poor &mdash or perhaps McClatchy prefers to err on the cautious side of the balance ledger. Current wisdom has it that the total cost of Shrubya's Little Misadventure will run to over three trillion dollars. These costs do not address the Iraqis we've maimed and wounded, or the bills that other countries foolish enough to join in the "coalition of the willing" face. Britain, for example, announced today that their estimated cost will total approximately ten billion pounds sterling.

The article adds that the Bush Misadministration continues to lie about Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaeda, despite previously released documents and reports indicating the same findings as the forthcoming extensive review. As recently as last April, Vice President Dick Cheney again asserted a link between the Iraqi dictator and the terror network. So, if you know anyone stupid enough to listen to them and believe, please buy a copy of the review when it is released and use it to beat some sense into them.

The study is entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." Although it has been essentially complete since last year, it has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

The article notes, in a painful aside, that "In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion." Was that before or after Commander Codpiece was strutting around on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a uniform before a banner that screamed "Mission Accomplished," to the collective spooging of the shameless press corps?

Photo montage from grupo-utopia.com with the request that you spread it around

Meanwhile, we note that almost exactly a month ago, Auntie Beeb published a piece about the "reverse surge" that appears to be grimly prophetic. That article was pointing out the increase in violent incidents, many of which seemed to be targeting the Sunnis that the U.S. has been wooing with large sums of money:

US commanders on the ground [...] have pumped money into local economies by employing tens of thousands of young Sunni men as local auxiliaries - now re-named "Sons of Iraq" after several unhappier titles such as "Concerned Local Citizens" - to act as the eyes and ears of the US and Iraqi troops in the struggle against the militants.

They are also trying to encourage the Baghdad government to be more proactive in providing services and job-creation schemes in areas where the insurgents have been driven out.

But as we, and many others, have pointed out, the war has been going on for five years at this point. It's a bit late to start trying to win "hearts and minds." What's more, as the U.S. military strategy in Vietnam might suggest, the buying over of the "Sons of Iraq" sounds suspiciously like Tricky Dick's "changing the color of the corpses."

Al-Qaeda, and those Iraqis who are fighting the U.S. military will treat as traitors any Iraqis who side with the U.S. military. The U.S. is not going to stay in Iraq forever, John McCain or no John McCain. We simply cannot afford to. Sooner or later, our internal economic straits will be so dire, as a result of siphoning money out of the country to fund a prolonged war, that our economy will collapse. The U.S. is not willing to accept Iraqi refugees in any significant number. Despite the fact that more than 4 million Iraqis are now refugees, either in their own country or in Syria, Jordan, and other neighbouring nations, only approximately 7,000 have been accepted into the U.S. to date, and the original target of 25,000 has been lowered to 7,000.

Besides, the "hearts and minds" that the U.S. military is trying to win are deeply split even among themselves. We've said this repeatedly: Iraq has always been a fractured, heterogenous nation, with many different ethnic and religious groups, divided loyalties, in many ways still adhering to family, clan, tribe and feudal notions of society.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that Auntie Beeb once again informed us just yesterday that a woman had detonated her explosive vest when she came calling on another "leader" of the Sons of Iraq. Chances are that, just like the Issawi celebrants mentioned in the previous link, the woman was either a member of the tribe of the slain "Son of Iraq," Thaer Ghadban al-Karkhi.

According to Auntie Beeb, al Karkhi was the head of one of the majority-Sunni Arab Awakening Councils, allied with the US military against al-Qaeda in Iraq. How true that is, we have to wonder, since the same piece identified "Sheikh" Abdul Sattar Abu Risha as the head of the Awakening Council in Anbar, a key US ally who was widely credited with having defeated al-Qaeda in much of western Iraq. Greg Palast can give you the lowdown on the "Sheikh."

We ourselves have blogged about the "Sheikh's" mysterious trips with U.S. money. $75 million worth, fellow-taxpayers.

Meanwhile, to add further credence to Auntie Beeb's prognostications, Raw Story is telling us that forty-two people died in Iraq today as the result of violence. Forty-two. Do you know forty-two people? Add up your family members. You might have to include a few neighbours or colleagues.

Now imagine that these people who you, maybe, love, or like, or just know, were blown to smithereens. An assemblage of body parts, bloody meat, barely recognizable as human. Now imagine that happens to you every day. You probably don't know enough people to sustain that kind of loss every day for a year, probably not even a month. Well, for the Iraqis, this has been going on for five long years. And some days, it's a lot more than forty-two people.

In other news, eight U.S. servicemen were also killed. When are we going to bring our troops home? Because this has gone on too damned long. The troops did the job they were sent there to do. An army's job is to fight. They fought. The other stuff has to be done by non-military qualified and experienced civilian personnel. But Boy George wanted to send his friends and cronies out there to bilk the taxpayer, and because they're the friends and cronies of an incompetent boob, to no one's surprise they too are incompetent boobs. So now we have a failed state, in which people are being killed every day in large numbers. And it's too dangerous to send qualified experienced civilian personnel out there to help to fix the mess we made.

Every day that the soldiers stay there is one more day that they present a target to a people furious that their country has been invaded, their jobs are gone, their economy is faltering, they don't have power or light or working telephones, their streets are unsafe, and their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters are being raped and beaten and killed, while their sons, brothers, fathers, and husbands are kidnapped, tortured, and killed.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, articles like this are just beginning to show up on the radar. The article states that railcars due to ease congestion in Philadelphia will be delayed. See if you can guess why.

New SEPTA Regional Rail cars will be at least four months late, delaying relief for riders on the increasingly crowded rail lines, SEPTA officials said yesterday.

[...] delivery of the rest of the 120-car order will also be pushed back at least four months, Nowakowski said. Final delivery of all the railcars is now scheduled for October 2010.

Rotem [the company building the cars, Ed.] was unable to procure enough of the type of steel specified in the SEPTA contract because the U.S. government has cornered the market; it is using the steel for armoring vehicles bound for Iraq, Nowakowski said.

For the sake of the dying, dead, maimed and wounded, in Iraq and at home; for the sake of the faltering economy, the people losing their homes, the people without health care, or with inadequate care; for the sake of the families that are being fractured by the stresses of this war; for the sake of the nation that is tottering under the accumulation of debt and the loss of its sons and daughters &mdash bring them home. End the war now.

Cross-posted over at La Casa de Los Gatos.

There's more: "Bring The Troops Home NOW!" >>

Well! Ain't THIS a "Corker"?

Freshman Senator Bob Corker (R - Tennessee) stunned more than a few folks with his relatively honest assessment of aWol's acumen re: Iraq...

"I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House," Corker said.

Bob - if you continue down this path, we are going to have to show you the secret handshake known only to members of the "Reality Based Community."

[That's all, folks...]

There's more: "Well! Ain't THIS a "Corker"?" >>

Some Politicians Just Never Learn

The rest had better learn, for their own good.

Isn't that right, Nancy? Harry? Never Give An Inch

There's more: "Some Politicians Just Never Learn" >>

Sen. Dodd Blocks FISA Bill, Skewers The Lies, Sets Example For Defunding & Ending Iraq Occupation

Let's hear a big round of applause for Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT).

President Dodd?

Speaker Pelosi? It is time to stop funding and put an end to George Bush's occupation of Iraq and get all the troops there home. Now. You have exhausted all your excuses, and all of them have just been shown up to be nothing more than the hot air they are. If you will not end it before November 2008, after Chris Dodd's clear example yesterday of real, honest legislative leadership, you deserve to be unseated and sent home in disgrace.

Dodd issued a press release yesterday stating

...that he would block the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "from being considered by the full Senate and from receiving a vote on the Senate floor." The statement came as the Senate Intelligence Committee met to consider the legislation -- and weeks before it is likely to reach the floor.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of Senators and the Bush administration reached a compromise on the politically charged bill, which governs the federal government's domestic surveillance program, including a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies. Civil libertarians oppose the compromise as going too far to protect telecoms that were revealed to have participated in a warrantless wiretapping program, and because the legislation wouldn't establish warrants for each individual wiretap.

Dodd said he would place a "hold" on the FISA bill, a device available to any senator to stop legislation from moving forward. "By granting immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's terrorist surveillance program, even though such participation may have been illegal, the FISA reform bill sets a dangerous precedent by giving the President sweeping authorization to neglect the right to privacy that Americans are entitled to under the Constitution," Dodd explained in a statement outlining his concerns.

The rhetoric got hotter with every paragraph. "It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the president is the perpetrator," Dodd said. "I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this President's agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness."

Chris Dodd deserves to be elected President next year.

He has just blown out of the water all of the claims by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership that they are unable to defund and end the occupation of Iraq with the claims that they 'don't have the votes', and set a clear, effective example of the "power of the purse" that Pelosi now has no excuse not to follow.

David Swanson explains in greater detail on the flip.

Dodd Ends Spying, No Senator Will Do Same for War
By David Swanson. After Downing Street, Thursday, October 18, 2007

Senator Chris Dodd on Thursday single-handedly blocked a bill to legalize unconstitutional spying and immunize criminals who have engaged in it. But by doing so, Dodd may have made the biggest blunder Washington has seen in many months. He advertised the fact that a single senator with nerve has the power to block a bill, including – of course – every bill to further fund the occupation of Iraq. Now, how will Dodd explain his past and future failure to use the same power to end the war that he has used to end warrantless spying? How will other senators, including Harry Reid, explain their own failure? How will Nancy Pelosi manage to keep asserting in every conversation that only 67 senators can end a war?

Dodd released the following statement:

It's been a busy day, but I wanted take a moment and let you know that I have decided to place a "hold" on legislation in the Senate that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution.

But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document.

That's why I am stopping this bill today.

But blocking a bill, not passing one, is exactly what's needed to get our troops and mercenaries home from Iraq. It is a lie that Congress must pass a bill to end the occupation of Iraq. The occupation can be ended with an announcement by Congressional leaders that there will be no more funding. Any proposal to fund it can be blocked by 41 senators filibustering or by a single senator putting a hold on the bill. Bush has plenty of money for withdrawal and could be given more for that exclusive purpose. When your television tells you the Democrats need 60 or 67 senators to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could if they wanted announce today that the House and Senate will no longer bring to a vote any bills to fund anything other than withdrawal. They have many colleagues already on board with that position, not to mention two thirds of the country. It would take 218 signatures on a discharge petition to force a bill to the floor of the House without Pelosi's approval. It is unlikely enough Democrats would oppose their party to fund Bush's war in that way. In the Senate, Reid alone could refuse to bring a bill to the floor, or another senator could put an open or secret hold on a bill. And, while not all bills can be filibustered (appropriations bills can be, budget reconciliation bills cannot), you can hardly claim you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster without admitting that with only 41 you could launch your own filibuster and that with 51 you could defeat any bill. Once you understand the goal as blocking bills rather than passing them, the number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.

In fact, Senator Dodd has just very publicly advertised his ability to take action on Iraq in January, thereby earning the right to be president. This would be a major shift from his current proposal that we elect him president first, after which he'll see about ending the war.

Thank Dodd and urge others to join him in blocking the FISA bill here:
http://www.democrats.com/hold-the-wiretap-bill

There's more: "Sen. Dodd Blocks FISA Bill, Skewers The Lies, Sets Example For Defunding & Ending Iraq Occupation" >>

How U.S. policy has destabilized the Middle East

(Originally posted at The Motley Patriot and is an update to an article I wrote posted at TalkLeft)


I originally posted a diary at TalkLeft entitled, `The Merry-Go-Round of Iraqi Sectarian Violence`, in which I show how U.S. policy in Iraq is fueling the sectarian violence. Given Turkey's recent vote to allow incursions into northern Iraq against the PKK, I thought an update appropriate.



So, first, exactly how is the U.S. policy in Iraq fueling the sectarian violence? Because we are arming militia's and using our influence to get militia's incorporated into the Iraqi government, then, these militia's use their newfound positions to attack others. Joe Klein wrote:

According to soldiers I spoke with in Baghdad, the Mahdi Army has a major presence in the local Iraqi Security Forces, especially the local police, which was precisely the point that the seven enlisted men were making.

How did the Mahdi Army get positions in the local Security Forces? An article at Crooks and Liars states:

(W)hen General Petraeus says that they're merely applauding these tribes from the sidelines, he's lying. I mean, while we were embedded with the Americans, we saw American military commanders hand wads of cash to tribal militias. And when he says that they are facilitating their integration into the country's security forces, what he means is they're pressuring Iraq's government to incorporate these militias wholesale into the police forces. In fact, that's one of the promises that these tribes are given, that after working with the Americans for a few months, they'll become Iraqi police, be armed by the Iraqi state and be put on regular payroll. So it's completely disingenuous, what he's saying.

And, where is all that cash to pay off the local tribes? Were we not treated to this as well?

Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

So, to recap the sectarian violence alone:

- The U.S. disbanded the Iraqi Army in May 2003.

- The U.S. then lost $9 billion dollars.

- The U.S. then payed tribal leaders in "wads of cash", helped to arm them, and promised to get their militia's jobs in the local security forces if they would simply help the U.S. troops.

- The security forces then have used their new positions to commit sectarian violence.

But, what about Turkey and the PKK?

The PKK is on the State Department list of organizations deemed to be "terrorist" organizations.

#21. # Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)

The U.S. policy in Iraq has been to support the Kurd's, and thus, the PKK, as the PKK was causing problems for Iran. But, they have been causing problems for Turkey as well. Now, Turkey has had enough and has voted to allow incursions into northern Iraq to seek out the PKK. This now puts the United States into the situation of "who do we support?", the PKK and Kurd's, or Turkey, or both, or neither?

This doesn't even take into account Iran and the administration's wish to take out Iran's government, or, Pakistan tribes supporting al-qaeda and the Taliban against Afghanistan, or, Israel attacking Syria, or Russia's support for Iran.

See a problem here? Do we see how our invasion of Iraq has destabilized the entire region, just as was predicted? Do we not see, with Bush warning of WWIII, where this is heading?

There's more: "How U.S. policy has destabilized the Middle East" >>

Never Give An Inch

If you ever doubted it...

...this should resolve the question once and for all: We are on our own.
...
Asked about her "greatest mistake," Pelosi said Why don't you tell me? 'Cause I think we're doing just great." Remember when Georgie stumbled over a similar question and couldn't recall any mistakes? It seems Our Only President is not the only one so afflicted.

The hand-off...
It has been pointed out to me many times that the Iraq Occupation and the FISA amendment are only two issues of many, on most of which the Democrats are incrementally better than Republicans, and this has been used as an argument against the conclusion that there is no difference between them.

They are incrementally better. Is that a reason to give them a pass for being complicit in the mass death caused by the Iraq Occupation and in the bankrupting of America? Or a reason to give them a pass for hacking away at freedom and privacy?

Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership are confidant that they will win the presidency and the Congress next year simply on the strength of peoples fear of Republicans.

Sadly, if that happens "rethugs" will be back in power for another four or eight years, dressed up as and self-labelled as "democrats". And the shell games will continue.

And it all can be turned around - if enough people quit whining about how powerless they feel, and remember that they have the power.

If every time a Democratic candidate met with constituents or knocked on peoples doors or phoned them looking for money or votes they heard...

"If you Democrats defund and end the occupation of Iraq before November 2008 I'll contribute to you and vote for you.

Don't waste my time with excuses. Come back or call back when you're done and you'll get my money and my vote. Have a nice day."

... the Democratic Leadership would quickly sit up and listen.

And the Iraq occupation would be history. Along with the FISA amendment. And along with all the bullsh*t of the past seven years.

If enough people quit whining about how powerless they feel, and remember that they have the power...

and use it.

If they believe they will have the votes without doing what they were elected to do, and instead keep enabling Bush, then they have no reason to change and there is no effective difference between them and the rethugs.

I will not, two years down the road, be defending myself for supporting people who enabled Bush when they had the power to stop him.

I also will not wait for millions or tens of millions of other people to use the threat of support withdrawal to pressure them before I will do so.

Waiting for that to happen would mean someone else would have to go first, and would mean that I do not have the courage of my own convictions  but would stand with my finger in the wind...

Someone has to go first. If it's me then so be it. I've stood alone most of my life.

There are two taglines on my blog. One from Hunter Thompson: "The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."

And one from me: "The opposite of conventional wisdom is the likely truth of most things."

"If you Democrats defund and end the occupation of Iraq before November 2008 I'll contribute to you and vote for you.

Don't waste my time with excuses. Come back or call back when you're done and you'll get my money and my vote. Have a nice day."

There's more: "Never Give An Inch" >>

Iraq: The Failure of an Entire World

(Originally posted at The Motley Patriot)

In 2003, the United States under President Bush set a dangerous precedent; it invaded a foreign, sovereign nation based on lies. Why was this unprecedented? No, it wasn't the war itself; nations have warred for centuries. It wasn't that the war was based on lies or false rhetoric in the press; both of those have occurred before. It was unprecedented because the world had two responses to this action; part of the world yawned then turned their heads while the other part actually signed on to assist.

In 2003, the United States under President Bush set another dangerous precedent; it disbanded a government totally, told the native citizens it would live under new rules, new guidelines, and it would do so at the end of a gun. Why was this unprecedented? No, it wasn't the changing of governments after an invasion; that has occurred. No, it wasn't that the natives were forced to comply upon threat of violence; that, too, has occurred. No, this was unprecedented because, again, the world either yawned and turned their heads, or, actively participated.

The war in Iraq is not just the failure of President Bush, but, of the entire world.



In 1937, Japan invaded China. The world was neither silent nor complicit. Immediate embargos were put against Japan by the United States, Britain and the East Indies. It was, after four years of these sanctions, that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It was December 7th, 1941, that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. It was December 8th, 1941, that America and Britain declared war on Japan.

It was September 1st, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. On September 2nd, 1939, Britain and France tell Germany that unless it withdraws its forces, Germany would face war with not only Poland, but, with Britain and France, as well. On September 3rd, 1939, Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany.

On March 20th, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq. On March 21st, 2003, the world was silent or complicit to this invasion.

Why would the world sit idle while America and its "allies" attacked, invaded, and occupied a sovereign country?

- United Nations resolutions

It was on February 5th, 2003, that Colin Powell made the case for war against Iraq to the United Nations; a case that has now been totally discredited. In 2003, a United Nations resolution authorizing war with Iraq was sought and subsequently withdrawn when France threatened to veto it. The United States then relied on earlier UN Resolution 1441 to "justify" the invasion of Iraq. UN Resolution 1441 had just been passed by the United Nations in November 2002. However, UN Resolution 1441 gave no specific authority to invade and occupy Iraq to other UN member states. In fact, by the United States seeking just a specific resolution through the United Nations that did authorize war, the United States was admitting that there were no previous authorizations given.

So, why did the United Nations then fail to act when the United States did invade Iraq?

- Blackmail

On February 26th, 2003, almost a full month prior to the United States assault on Iraq, the Institute for Policy Studies released a report on just how President Bush was applying "pressure" to countries to either join in the attack, or, look the other way. In fact, only six nations seemed to join the "coalition of the willing" in 2003... well... willingly; Spain, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Portugal, and Japan. The rest of the "coalition" was, in fact, coerced, bribed or bullied. While I would love to reprint this entire report in full, I cannot due to space, so, please take the time to read it.

- The wiretapping of United Nations officials

In February 2004, allegations surfaced that Prime Minister Blair had "bugged" United Nations Secretary General Annan's office. However, it was in March 2003 that the Observer wrote that the NSA was wiretapping United Nations officials.

- The United States withdraws from the International Criminal Court

On May 7th, 2002, President Bush withdrew the United States from recognizing the International Criminal Court. No doubt, this was done because of the torture memo's, the foreseeable debacle of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons, much less the invasion itself.

- The United States blackmails countries into signing Bi-Lateral Immunity Agreements

In June 2003, the United States blackmailed Croatia and Slovenia into signing the agreement. However, due to some countries resisting the pressure and the blackmailing being exposed by the press, President Bush took another tact; make the blackmail legal. In December 2004, the United States Congress sanctioned the blackmail by passing a bill that stated, in part, that: "None of the funds made available in this act ... may be used to provide assistance to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court and has not entered into an agreement with the United States."

This is only part of the history of how President Bush kept the United Nations silent or complicit. The fact remains; the United Nations, and countries in the world, allowed President Bush to blackmail them, allowed themselves to be bullied, and they share as much of the blame for Iraq as President Bush for doing so. As I write in this article, it appears that the Democrats in Congress share in the distinction of being blackmailed, or at least bullied, by President Bush, and as such, they too hold a measure of blame for Iraq.

That our country is run by a criminal and a bully is not news. That the nations of the world would sit idly by, or allow themselves to be blackmailed into complicity, shouldn't be either, but, it happened. There was a time when our Congress stood up to bullies and criminals. There was a time when the world did the same. Obviously, that time, it seems, has sadly passed.

If our own Congress will not stand up, if the leaders of the world will not stand up, who then, is left but the private citizens? We stood up. Citizens around the world stood up. We protested. We marched. As one collective voice we said "NO". We were, and have been, ignored by our politicians.

As possible war with Iran looms over the horizon, as it appears our own Congress will once again be cowed, or blackmailed, into complicity, but, what of the world? Will the nations of the world, once again, sit idly by, or worse, be blackmailed into complicity again? Or, is this to be World War II all over again, as one nation attacks another and the world stands tall issuing a firm demand, "remove your troops or face war." Time will tell.

There's more: "Iraq: The Failure of an Entire World" >>

Putting the "ACT" back into activist media

[Guest-posted by Joel Wendland of Michigan Class Notes]

Putting the "ACT" back into activist media

Building toward the October 27th national day of action to end the war in Iraq

Dear activist media representative,

George Bush is planning to occupy Iraq indefinitely, and many of our national leaders appear to be accepting that. We know that we cannot rely on the mainstream media to tell the story of our resistance to endless war and occupation honestly and accurately.

You don't need to be convinced that we must have our own voice, and that our voices are stronger when joined together and when linked to activism.

Political Affairs (http://www.politicalaffairs.net) and our friends at People's Weekly World (http://www.pww.org) invite you to join the nation wide effort that is building right now toward the October 27th antiwar demonstrations scheduled for at least 11 cities in all regions of the country.

The marches are being sponsored and organized in a collaborative way by United for Peace and Justice and local coalitions and organizing committees.

The activist media can play a special role in promoting the marches and mobilizing our audiences to speak out in their local newspapers, radio shows, in meetings with elected officials, and more.

We request you to either carry an image, see: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5910 with a link to http://www.oct27.org or develop your own graphic with a link. We'd like to hear your suggestions on how to build this movement, to give voice to the organizers of the marches, to amplify the voices of the peaceful, the veterans and the families, the workers, and so on. Can we share information and stories?

We also invite you to join with us in a media campaign that will orient our voice toward the mainstream media and demand that the voices of the peace movement be heard.

If you use the image and want to be listed with us in the campaign to "Put the ACT Back into Activist Media" just send us an e-mail at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

As part of our mainstream media press release, we will include you on a list of media, websites, and blogs that want to speak out, help publicize, and join the October 27th marches to demand an end to the war, to bring the troops home, and to leave no one behind. Feel free to send us your links, quotes, contact info for interviews and so on.

Thank you,

--
Joel Wendland
managing editor
http://www.politicalaffairs.net
http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com
http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com
734-547-8084
646-437-5336

There's more: "Putting the "ACT" back into activist media" >>

On Partitioning Iraq

[Cross-posted from The Motley Patriot]

There seems to be those in the United States Congress that believe it is up to the United States to decide the fate of Iraq. The "conventional wisdom" in Washington DC, to which I compare to "military intelligence", is that Iraq never knew how to govern itself before the U.S. invasion and, that Iraqi's will not be able to govern themselves after we leave so it is our right, our duty, to govern them.

Even some Democrats, both political and in the blogosphere, now say that we have to do "something - anything". Unfortunately, this mentality of "just do something", of "do anything", is no different than being stuck on a cliff and because you feel you have to do something - do anything - you jump to your death.

Iraq was the cradle of civilization. The region has seen the rise and fall of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian cultures. The region, like any other during the time of Empire, saw its share of war. The region was conquered, ruled over, and then conquered again; Persia, Hellenistic, Parthians, and then Sassinid Persians all took their turns ruling over the region. The region was decimated by the Mongols and then annexed by the Ottomans, who lost the region, then regained it, only to lose it again after WWI when the League of Nations put the region under British rule.

Historians recite the history of Iraq like some justification to treat the region just as everyone else treated it; a prize to be won or lost. Yet, the turbulent history of the region is no different than any other. It was the dawning of civilization and of empire. An empire expanded, conquered, and then fell. Civilizations began and ended. Land had few borders other than what could be competently defended. Iraq was granted its independence in 1932 and then re-invaded by the British in 1941.

Like any country, Iraq had its share of political problems. The Hashemite monarchy was overthrown in a military coup. The cycle of regime, coup, regime ended when the Ba'ath Party took power in Iraq and Saddam Hussein rose to control Iraq. Few countries haven't seen this cycle of regime, coup, regime, and at times, it was the United States government itself that performed the coup; Chile, Guatamala, Iran, among the few.

The region of mesopotamia survived during a time before America was even born. The country of Iraq, once granted its independence from foreign rule and occupation, governed itself. The people of the region, and the country, have endured hardship and war before. They have risen from the ashes before and they can, they will, do so again.

The people of Iraq do not need our government trying to tell them what is "best" for them; that is what put the people of Iraq into the situation they are in now. President Bush told the world that the people of Iraq would be better off if Saddam Hussein wasn't the ruler of Iraq, and, we invaded. We destroyed their infrastructure, their livelihood, their families, their culture, and their system of government.

The abuses of Saddam Hussein were but one of the many changing justifications for the U.S. invasion in 2003. Dissidents to the government were jailed, tortured, and even killed. Names like Hitler and Stalin are frequently tossed out when talking of dictators who abused, tortured, and murdered its citizenry. Abuses such as secret prisons, people "disappearing", secret police, torture, and unfair trials are frequently cited by those who decry those rulers, yet, in America under President Bush, our own CIA has kidnapped innocent people off the street, tortured them, kept them in secret prisons, and then started "military tribunals" to get their desired verdicts.

President Bush did not have the "good" of the Iraqi people in mind when he invaded or the reconstruction efforts would not have been the sham they became. Iraqi's have now lived under Saddam Hussein's Abu Ghraib and America's Abu Ghraib; there has been little difference. Iraqi's have now lived under Saddam Hussein's militaristic rule and America's military occupation; there has been little difference since Iraqi's were gunned down in the street by Saddam's military and our own American troops/contractors do the same. Yet, our nation feels like we have some moral authority to decide the fate of Iraq? We believe that we can arbitrarily decide that partitioning Iraq would be "best" for them after we destabilized their entire culture, government, and tossed their country into anarchy?

Our Congress cannot even govern our own country effectively. While hundreds of thousands of people are homeless and millions lose their homes due to the rising disparity of income to cost of living, our Congress is voting to censure a political groups advertisement. Any real legislation is squashed while our Congress debates hip-hop lyrics. As more children go uninsured due to the rising cost of insurance premiums that provide less and less benefit, our Congress works to give immunity to corporations who violated established law. This is the government that is going to tell another country how to govern and what is "best" for their people?

The fact of the matter is that our invasion destabilized an entire country. It threatens to destabilize an entire region. We cannot fix the mess that we caused but we can do more damage and, it seems, we are hell-bent to do exactly that now that Sen. Biden believes that Iraq should be partitioned into three states; Shia, Sunni and Kurdish. When did Sen. Biden have the authority to make any decision that effected any country other than the United States? Since when did the American Congress decide Iraqi political matters? Where is that in our Constitution?

This is the exact reason that the people of the world hate Americans now; our belief that we control the world; that we can decide the fate of other, sovereign nations; the pure hubris and hypocrisy under which we live in this country while trying to tell every other nation how to behave and live.

The Iraq war has been the downfall of two countries; America and Iraq. The Iraq war has been the downfall of political leaders who supported it in America, Spain, Italy, and England. The Iraq war has been a travesty from day one and there is but one thing left to do; get out and stay out. We can leave no military forces at any base that we usurped or built in Iraq. We can leave no Embassy in Baghdad that will see the home of the CIA, American forces, and, as an afterthought, American diplomats. It is time for the Iraqi people to govern themselves without interference just as they did for centuries before our invasion.

There's more: "On Partitioning Iraq" >>

Does the current state of most Democrats demand less idealism, or MORE?

Here’s my take on my willingness to vote third-party in 2004, and again in 2008, or in future midterm elections, even should I live in a swing state like Ohio:

Is it a “test of ideological purity” to say that I won’t vote for candidates that support remaining in Iraq, or a political party, too?

Sorry, but that fact (especially my mentioning Greens “too often”) was one of the two reasons I got banned from Daily Kos — proudly banned, I’ll ad.

BG makes my point exactly, but with a different conclusion: the older I get, the more I see there’s too much at stake for half measures on a number of issues. I voted against Kerry, and for David Cobb, not only over the Iraq War itself, but, the imperialism-lite of too many Democrats. (It's too bad Kevin Drum didn't tackle this issue at Political Animal in his otherwise excellent post about the “foreign policy establishment.”

To me, the “we gotta support the Democrats in the end” exemplifies not just what’s wrong with current Democrats/Democratic Party, but what’s wrong with the deep structure of U.S. politics.

First, to look at the Democrats.

Where’s a bill for federal public financing of Congressional campaigns, including reasonable provisions for financing third-party campaigns? Before the midterm elections, a federal Congressional campaign finance bill, but one that would squeeze out third parties, was rumored to be in the mix. I found it appalling that such a thing would even be considered under the guise of campaign reform.

Where, at state or federal levels, are Democratic supports for things like Instant Runoff Voting? Nonexistent, that’s where.

At an even deeper level, and even more idealistic one, though, I’m convinced our Constitution itself needs reform. Not at the edges, though, right at the center.

The only real way for third parties to have a chance in the American process, AND the only way to adapt the speed of the American government to the nuclear/computer age, is to move in the direction of parliamentary democracy.

I heartily recommend David Lazare’s “Frozen Republic” as the best writing I’ve seen on this subject. (Reviewed by me on Amazon.)

Short of that, though, I won’t hold my breath on either Democrats or Republicans doing anything at all at the federal level, and precious little at the state level, to make it easier for third parties to get more of a purchase on the political process.

Beyond that, I hope that as I get older, I become less apologetic for being idealistic.

There's more: "Does the current state of most Democrats demand less idealism, or MORE?" >>

From Times Select: He’s in Iraq. U.S. Reward: Deport Wife?

He’s in Iraq. U.S. Reward: Deport Wife?
By CLYDE HABERMAN
Published: August 28, 2007

While Alexander Gomez was in Iraq at the United States government’s bidding, that same government was trying to kick his wife out of this country. For the Colombian-born Mr. Gomez, more accurately Specialist Gomez of the New York Army National Guard, something was definitely out of kilter.

Not that he could do much about it, not from the military base near Nasiriya, in southern Iraq, where he was a mechanic in an Army maintenance company. “I had to stay focused on what I was doing there,” he said.

As things go in this war, Nasiriya was hardly the most dangerous place, said Specialist Gomez, who returned from Iraq last year after 14 months and now lives with his wife, Marly Sampedro, in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Still, “It wasn’t summer camp,” he said. “We were in a hostile environment. The most important thing was to stay focused. If you lose focus, you’re going to go home in a bag.”

In the end, everything worked out fine for him and Ms. Sampedro, who is also from Colombia. But their story offers insight into some of the problems that are peculiar to immigrants serving in the wartime United States military.

There are thousands of foreign-born men and women like Specialist Gomez, who remains on active duty with the 145th Maintenance Company, based on Staten Island. According to the Defense Department, about 21,100 legal immigrants who are noncitizens are serving in the United States armed forces. Each year, several thousand of them become citizens, taking advantage of a speeded-up naturalization process offered to those who put their lives on the line for their adoptive country.

That’s what Specialist Gomez, 33, did. He had a green card and was not a citizen when he joined the Guard in 2003. Nor when he met Ms. Sampedro in 2002. Nor when he married her in 2004, around the time that their son, Alexander Jr., was born. Nor when he headed off to Iraq in November 2004.

Thanks to the expedited process for service members, he got his citizenship in April 2005. That did not do Ms. Sampedro any good, though. The circumstances are somewhat complicated, but they boil down to this:

Ms. Sampedro, who is 37 and struggles with English, had come to this country from Cali, Colombia, in 2001, with a son from a previous relationship, Milton, now 14. She applied for asylum. The request was ultimately denied, but when she first arrived, it was good enough for a hearing officer to let her in temporarily.

That made her an “arriving alien,” in the jargon of the immigration world. When she applied for permanent residence — a green card — the authorities told her in 2005: No way. Arriving aliens, they said, may not seek an adjustment of their immigration status. That she was married to someone who by then was a United States citizen made no difference.

Not only that, but the authorities wanted to deport Ms. Sampedro and Milton right away. They said she had lied to them by claiming American citizenship for herself. In fact, she had made no such claim. The charge was a mistake, as the government later acknowledged.

Nonetheless, there she was in the spring of 2005, with deportation staring her in the face, with a husband in Iraq and with no idea what to do about their baby: take him with her to troubled Cali or find foster care in New York?

Desperate, she turned to the New York Association for New Americans, an immigrant services agency. An agency lawyer, Michael Lehach, took up her cause.

To cut to the chase (and through a thicket of legalese), he blocked a deportation order and then got the government to back down altogether. Ms. Sampedro and Milton not only got to stay, but they also recently got green cards of their own. End of story.

But there is a larger point. For Mr. Lehach, it is that “Marly and Milton are not the only family members of United States servicemen who find themselves in jeopardy with Immigration.” There may be hundreds of people, if not thousands, with similar troubles, he said.

To him, “it’s unacceptable that a bona fide spouse and child could be removed while he’s serving his country. They should get the maximum amount of favorable discretion that the government can give.”

As for Specialist Gomez, he fully expects to be sent at some point back to Iraq or perhaps to Afghanistan. Does he bear any resentment over how his family was treated? Not at all.

“It’s the law, and we all have to obey the laws,” he said. “I always believe in this country and its laws.”

E-mail:haberman@nytimes.com

There's more: "From Times Select: He’s in Iraq. U.S. Reward: Deport Wife?" >>

OOIBC Renovations

Well, it's been a rather intense few days getting the new OOIBC site design to this point. The renovations are for the most part complete, though there are still a few tweaks here and there to be done.

Graphics wizards T. at Blue Girl, Red State and Joe at American Leftist are in development of a new header graphic for us. I won't give away their design philosophy and concept here but I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

Thanks to all for your patience with the rapid and perhaps unsettling changes over the past few days.

Here's a place for you to leave comments on the design, any suggestions you might have, and or functionality wish lists. Let us know what you think.

I can't promise that everything can be done, but let me know what you'd like to see and we'll do our best to make it happen.

I also want to take this opportunity to welcome our two newest members, Intrepid Liberal Journal and Gold Star Mom Speaks Out. I'm looking forward to see both of them posting here any day now.

In the meantime let's keep after the people in Washington, who seem to be having trouble "getting it", and keep beating them over the head to end the awful debacle that has been created by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and to support the troops over there by getting them home and keeping any more more of them from being injured or worse...

One of the best reasons IMO is that, as James McMurtry & The Heartless Bastards said, "We Can't Make It Here Anymore":

There's more: "OOIBC Renovations" >>

Peace will not be silenced by Fear

On June 24, 1826, a terminally ill Thomas Jefferson wrote the following about the 50th anniversary Independence Day celebration that was coming up:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be ... the signal of arousing men to burst the chains ... and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form, which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. ... For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

We now must breathe life back into the words of Thomas Jefferson above. We must use these words as a battle cry that we will not accept the tyranny of George Bush any longer. We will fight for self-government as it was meant to be by our founding fathers and we will fight to end the War in Iraq. We will not be silent; to do so shows tacit approval of the current administration’s actions and the inactions of our Congress on the issue of Peace vs. the “War for Oil” known as the Iraq War. We must stand firm and scream it loud and clear; We will not be silent, we will not accept this unjust war, we will secure the rights of our brothers and sisters here in America to have Peace, not Bush’s War for Oil.



George Bush was not duly elected. The Supreme Court put him in the Oval Office my dear reader. Rogue’s who were not elected by the people are running the Executive Branch of our government. They lied us into the War in Iraq, and they strive to silence all opposition. We Will Not Be Silent! We want Peace and we want it NOW! Over 70% of the population of the United States agrees with us and mutha fuckas..We Will Not Be Silent!

We don’t really think about the reason for the day, it’s just a big BBQ/party day in modern America. But the folks that took the stand against England back in 1776 and put everything on the line have much in common with those of us who are tired of being screwed by George Bush and his corrupt, warmongering minions. We are tired of the Little Dictator; we will no longer stand by and let this man have his way with the entire world. We must stand united in a common goal of ending Bush’s Wars and bringing him to justice for all the evil he was wrought upon the world. We are tired of our rights being usurped in the name of FEAR. We want Peace and we want it NOW!

So we must heed Mr. Jefferson’s words and those of the founding fathers that stood their ground and fought for what they knew was right and just. We must make our voices loud and clear..united in the common goal; We Want Peace and We Want It NOW!

It’s time for a New American Revolution.

Are you with us or against us? Its your right to be on either side..but if your part of the warmongering crowd, stand aside and give us plenty of room because we will not go away. We will not be SILENCED.

Cross-posted at LeftwingNutJob

Tags: Impeach Bush, Peace is Patriotic, End The War in Iraq Now

There's more: "Peace will not be silenced by Fear" >>