Wednesday, August 17, 2005

A Mother and Her Son by Elizabeth Edwards





A Mother and Her Son by Elizabeth Edwards





Casey Sheehan was born May 29, 1979, the first born child of Cindy and Pat Sheehan. It was a long labor. Fifty-one days after Casey was born, our first child, Wade was born, also after a long labor. They started school the same year, played the same games, watched the same television shows, loved the same country. On April 4, 1996, three weeks after going to Washington as a winner in a national contest about what America meant to him, Wade died in an automobile accident. On April 4, 2004, eight years later to the day, Casey, who loved his country enough to wear its uniform, died in Iraq. Cindy and Pat's hearts broke, as had ours.

We teach our children right from wrong. We teach them compassion and honor. We teach them the dignity of each life. And then, sometimes, the lessons we taught are turned on their heads. Cindy Sheehan is asking a very simple thing of her government, and she and her family, and most particularly Casey, have paid a very dear price for the right to ask this.

Cindy wants Casey's death to have meant as much as his life - lived fully - might have meant. I know this, as does every mother who has ever stood where we stand. And the President says he knows enough, doesn't need to hear from Casey's mother, doesn't need to assure her that Casey's is not one small death in a long and seemingly never-ending drip of deaths, that there is a plan here that will bring our sons and daughters home. He doesn't need to hear from her, he says. He claims he understands how some people feel about the deaths in Iraq.

The President is wrong.

Whether you agree or disagree with every part, or any part, of what Cindy wants to say, you know it is better that the President hear different opinions, particularly from those with such a deep and personal interest in the decisions of our government. Today, another voice would be helpful.

Cindy Sheehan can be that voice. She has earned the right to be that voice.

Please join me in supporting Cindy's right to be heard.

I grew up in a military family. My father and my grandfather were career Navy pilots. I saw what it meant to live a life every single day when the possibility of an honorable death is always there, at the dinner table, on the playground, at the base school. Will someone's father not come home tonight? And I didn't just feel the possibility, I saw the real thing, and, believe me, it stays with you, it changes you.

I also saw, then and more recently as I campaigned across this country and spent time with courageous military mothers and wives, how little attention is paid to the needs and the voices of military families. It has to change. The sacrifices that our military men and women make assure us that we have the strongest military in the world, but the sacrifices that their families make are too often ignored. The President's cavalier dismissal of Cindy Sheehan is emblematic of a greater problem. This is a mother who raised her son to love his country enough to serve. This is a mother who lived the impossible life of a mother of a soldier serving in Iraq, unable to sleep when he sleeps, unable to sleep when he is on duty, unable to watch the television, unable to stop watching the television.

And when the worst does happen, when the world comes crashing down and she puts the boy she bore, the boy she taught, the boy she loved in the ground, what does that government say to her? It says we'll do the talking; we don't need to hear from you. If we are decent and compassionate, if we know the lessons we taught our children, or if, selfishly, all we want is the long line of the brave to protect us in the future, we should listen to the mothers now.

Listen to Cindy.

Join me so Cindy knows we believe she has earned the right to be heard.




Elizabeth Edwards




For Families of the Fallen, Grief is Not the Only Emotion



For Families of the Fallen, Grief is Not the Only Emotion

Paul Schroeder and his wife Rosemary Palmer lost their boy Augie (Edward "Augie" Schroeder). He was killed in Iraq in a roadside explosion. He was one of the many Ohio-based Marines killed recently in Iraq.

Rosemary and Paul are currently supporting Mrs. Sheehan in Crawford, TX.

They have expressed not only grief, but anger. "Our comments are not just those of grieving parents," Mr. Schroeder said. "They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated."

Recently, Mr Schroeder said:
"To honour [Augie] I can no longer sit still, keeping quiet and being politically correct. I will not rest the rest of my life until the Republican Party is considered an afterthought for a generation or two and the Democratic Party finds some people with backbone to stand up and do what's right. [column: Debate rages in US over Iraq]
These families are searching for someone - anyone -who will stand up for them in all their grief, confusion, disillusionment, and anger.

If there has not been a major tipping point on public opinion of the handling war yet, I think this one person - Cindy Sheehan - will have been the unexpected force which will have funnelled the public focus down to the many mistakes which have been made in Iraq and the many misleadings that have taken place on the road to this war.

I am disturbed to learn that there have been political 'tools' used to keep our own Representatives out of the loop on intelligence about WMD when they were asked to vote on the Iraq resolution, causing them to make decisions on massaged information when classified documents were shielded and guarded by the ultra-secretive (and conniving) Bush administration.


Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Troop Memorials Deliberately Destroyed



Troop Memorials Deliberately Destroyed
Hatred and Anger Visits Mother of Fallen Soldier in Crawford


The hypocrisy of those who say they support the troops
Courtesy of Rising Hegemon

You know what? This is how the bitter hatespeak of influential people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and SC Senator Jim DeMint (who called mothers of fallen soldiers "the enemy") is translated to the physical world. Congratulations. Larry Northern is your new poster boy. I think you've gone too far.

That flag lying on the ground is today's perfect representation of the state of civic unity and the spirit of one America.
Sad.


Feelings



Feelings

Dick Cheney criticized John Kerry's comment about the need to fight a sensitive war last year, saying
"A 'sensitive war' will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more."
Neither has the Iraq war, obviously.

Cheney's not a "feelings" kind of guy - but top military commanders "in the know" are surely finding their way through feeling. So it turns out that John Kerry was right after all.

_____________


General McCaffrey worries that the Pentagon's plan to equip Iraqi forces won't give them enough punch to survive on their own in the long term. He estimated in a postvisit report to Congress that the Iraqi Army needed 120 Black Hawk helicopters, 2,000 armored humvees and 2,000 M113 armored personnel carriers to be effective without U.S. support. "If we want to get out of there we have to make that kind of commitment," Gen. McCaffrey says.
Ouch! Talk about sensitive. Wait until taxpayers get the bill for those babies.


WaPo News Guild Won't walk Freedom Walk



WaPo News Guild Won't walk Freedom Walk

Do Washington Post staffers still wish to be seen as reporters who believe and base their reporting on the spirit of neutrality? Will they allow themselves to be seen, throug their paymaster, as willing supportive participants in the lockstep marching of one divisive camp?

Some will not stand for having their professional credibility put on the line for what is being called "Freedom Walk."

Editor and Publisher is reporting that "Newspaper Guild leaders at The Washington Post on Monday afternoon called on the newspaper to withdraw its sponsorship of a controversial Sept. 11 memorial walk organized by the Department of Defense. The event has drawn opposition from several groups for its alleged pro-war tilt."

They have serious concerns about "lending their support to a political event that links the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to the war in Iraq -- a link that The Post, in its reporting, has shown to be false."

Howard Kurtz noted his opposition to the Post sponsorship in an online chat with readers today.

I expect that Right bloggers will call them "liberal" media, when in truth, they are trying to be "neutral media". There's a world of difference between the meaning that lies between those two labels.

Tar Heel Tavern 25



Tar Heel Tavern 25

The Tarheel Tavern opens it's doors for the 25th Edition: "Flights of Fancy".
Mandie's done a beautiful job of displaying this week's links.

Nonny's "Converge South - The Movie" is a name-dropping flight of fancy you don't want to miss!
Of course, the cream of the blogosphere were in attendance, including Hoder, Jay Rosen, Dan Gillmor, Sybril Bennett, Nancy McLaughlin, David Hoggard, John Robinson, Lex Alexander, Ruby Sinreich, Ed Cone, Michael Moran, Christie Seals, Allison Perkins, John Teleha, Ted Vaden, DeWayne Wickham, Jeff Jarvis, Phil Meyer, Bob Steele, Francisco Camara, George Curry, Kevin Sites, Duncan Black (Atrios), Amanda Congdon, Dave Winer, Sandy Carmany, Tiffany Brown, Herb Everett, Roch Smith, Jr., Ruby Sinreich, Michael Bowen, Jimmy Wales, Sue Polinsky, Iddybud, Seth Godin, Dave Taylor, BL Ochman, Tris Hussey, Toby Bloomberg, Andy Wibbels, Denise Wakeman, Steve Rubel, Rick Bruner, Wayne Hurlbert, John Jantsch, Neville Hobson, Biz Stone, Eric Alterman, Stowe Boyd, Henry Copeland, Wil Wheaton, Wiley Wiggins, Cory Doctorow, Arianna Huffington, Al Franken, Lawrence Lessig, Doc Searls, David Corn, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, James Wolcott, Juan Cole, Matthew Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan, Evan Williams, and God herself!
The movie poster's fun - I'm just under the "H".


CAFTA and Future Wars?



CAFTA and Future Wars?

Will we soon turn away from the Middle East and focus our foreign policy sights on Central America? What does CAFTA(which was narrowly passed in the House on July 28th after vote buying and arm twisting) mean for America's economy, security and future? President Bush has expressed concern that growing anti-American sentiment in Latin America is flourishing and could lead to terror. He used that scare tactic to try to convince the House to pass the bill.

Did you know that four of the six countries who will benefit from CAFTA — the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua — have assisted the U.S. military effort in Iraq? Payback?

Costa Rica was holding out because of mounting opposition by trade unions, some farm groups and even some business leaders who say CAFTA's intellectual-property clauses are too invasive. Costa Ricans worry that CAFTA may lead to the privatization of the country's free universal health-care system, which puts the poor country on par with industrialized nations in many important health indexes. Just 38% of Costa Ricans polled in February who had heard of the deal thought it would benefit their country. They are being strong-armed into CAFTA by warnings that US Congress would eventually cut off existing trade preferences if their legislature didn't approve CAFTA. [WSJ]

Could CAFTA destabilize Central American democracies and cause internal struggles (and while we say we promote democracy across the globe - will our troops be used?)

A Gallup poll says that 65% of Guatemalans believe CAFTA will hurt their country.

The Guatemalan government’s response to the massive opposition to CAFTA has been to criminalize protest, utilizing the army and police forces to disperse crowds and intimidate social movement and human rights groups. Not exactly democratic.

Yet, President Bush said this on August 3rd (hear the hypocrisy) :
"CAFTA was more than a trade bill; CAFTA was a statement about democracy in our own neighborhood. We entered into a pact, a long-term pact with new democracies, countries that not all that long ago were wrestling with civil strife and dictatorships. These young democracies turned to America, and said, we want to be allied with you through an economic trade pact. And by passing that bill, the United States of America made a clear statement to those young democracies that we stand with you; we will help you develop free markets and free societies; we will help you stand as you struggle to build your democracy."
I am not sure I like the sound of that "we will stand with you" part, knowing how loose and fast Bush tends to play with our military.

Spreading democracy? In last Sunday's WaPo talks about the eye-opening reality behind the Bush-slogan spin:
"...lawmakers who voted to pass CAFTA in late July may not have realized that a part of the trade agreement threatens to do just the opposite. That's because of a little-understood legal clause included in CAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and other, already existing bilateral investment treaties. Designed to protect foreign investors against unfair treatment by a signatory state, these "investor-state arbitration" provisions actually hand foreign businesses powerful rights that trump the interests or desires of local citizens."
This seems more like a clamp-down on freedom of citizens to me - how about you?


"“This is a magic moment!”
an effusive Donald Rumsfeld declared in Guatemala last March when he was expressing Bush's desire to bestow once-frozen military aid upon their country.
Can the United States support armies in their new role that is more focused on internal security rather than defense? I believe this is the spirit of Rumsfeld’s visit to Guatemala.”
This curious quote came from Guatemalan Defense Minister Carlos Aldana, in an interview with the Guatemalan daily El Periodico.

__________


Do you recall the Chapter 11 provision of NAFTA which opens up great financial liability and risk on the part of national governments who subscribe (including our own)? [Bill Moyers has the best explanation] According to the WaPo, CAFTA has the same provision. In a nutshell, this is a democray-snuffer:
"How can a multinational corporation that objects to local environmental, health or safety regulations sue a national government? That license is provided under NAFTA. Once CAFTA is signed, it will provide the same right. In each case, a provision of the agreement allows a foreign corporation to sue a national government for money damages if it believes that the actions of the federal, state or local government in a given country are discriminatory, violate international law or can be considered -- directly or indirectly -- an expropriation of the company's investment. If complying with an environmental regulation makes a project no longer worth the cost, a company can claim that its investment has been expropriated by the state."
In other words, one investor in a foreign company can sue the United States because of an environmental protection law in California - and legally grab YOUR tax dollars while he - a foreigner - is directly attacking your American democracy.

Welcome to the new world order.


"It's Over"



"It's Over"

I think perhaps President Bush is most upset with Cindy Sheehan because she came along at exactly the wrong moment as far as he was concerned, and he knows what she is saying is right. It's just that I think that he wanted to be the one to say he was bringing the troops home, and he didn't want the public to think he was getting all "girlie-man" and doing it for a woman who's getting so much support from those darned "focus groups". (Like the big focus group with its league of millions who marched around the world on February 15, 2003, begging for him not to begin this war.) Cindy is stealing his thunder - maybe even stealing his opportunity to come up with the perfectly-concocted political rationale for bringing them home. I read this today, and in the simplest of terms, it gives you a snapshot of political reality:

It's over.

For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things:

- defeating the Iraqi resistance;
- establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.;
- maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done.

None of these three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance.
Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil.
Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."

As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered in ignominy.


- Yale senior research scholar Immanuel Wallerstein (PhD. Columbia University)


I think, if President Bush had been a man of different character all along - if we had been capable of trusting his administration; if it didn't seem as if he wanted to deliberately divide his American citizen-supporters from those citizens who dared to question him; if his administration hadn't tried to overtly destroy any public figure who dared to challenge them; if there'd been an earnest attempt to involve the international community rather than putting out messages encouraging citizens to distrust "old European" allies such as France and Germany; if the neocons hadn't driven the misleadings which the President employed in order to forward what we now know were false notions; if we hadn't been issued so many changing rationales for invading Iraq; if there had been a post-war plan; and if the President hadn't made this war an adjunct of his political campaign, along with FOX News; then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today.

If I had anything to say to President Bush today, I would beg him to change his direction and strategy on this war, which really is a global struggle. We know it was never just to bring a war on terror upon a secular nation whose government had no connection to 9/11, even if Iraq had the most evil dictator in the world. There were alternative ways to depose the powerful gangster that ran Iraq. I'd ask the President to talk to America with his heart - not with those Gawd-awful slogans. They may work at the polls on election day, but they cannot cover up a disaster that every eye can see and every keen mind can analyze. We need the support of every world leader or Iraq is going to fall into civil war. You began this war, President Bush. You unleashed the terror and even dared for it to be brought on. Staying the course, as you have laid it out to us in your slogan-speak, will mean supporting Iraq throughout the entirety of its civil war. It's obvious they will not have the capacity to do it by themselves. Is that what we are going to do? Talk to us! We're all Cindy Sheehan today.

BIG Quake in Japan



BIGQuake in Japan

A 7.2 magnitude earthquake hit northeastern Japan Tuesday, triggering tsunamis along the country's Pacific coast, collapsing buildings, knocking out power and shaking skyscrapers in Tokyo, more than 300 kilometres away.


Monday, August 15, 2005

Hitchens: Sheehan case "sentimental nonsense"



Hitchens: Sheehan case "sentimental nonsense"

Christopher Hitchens, in a cold denunciation of Maureen Dowd's philosophical bestowal of "absolute moral authority" upon Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier, says that he distrusts "anyone who claims to speak for the fallen."

While I agree with that opinion when it comes to political groups or individuals who do not have loved ones who have served in the military, I vehemently disagree that a mother does not have moral authority to speak out after losing her son to an American cause. It was her sacrifice, too.

"...and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them," says Christopher Hitchens.

No one is asking for Mr. Hitchens' trust, it seems. If anyone out there is opining about Mrs. Sheehan, they are either voicing their moral support for the woman as the mother of a fallen soldier, or they are smearing her with every ridiculous excuse they can find.

I don't trust Christopher Hitchens here, which falls right in line with his own philosophy, curiously. So I suppose he would have no argument with me.

He begins his column with one of the angriest anti-neocon statements he could dig up on Mrs. Sheehan.

What is "dreary sentimental nonsense" to the matter-of-fact intellectual Christpher Hitchens is pure Apple Pie to most Americans. What he neatly categorizes away as the military and its relatives having no extra claim on the chief executive's ear is about as accurate as saying that those who serve in the military get no special respect in America, when in reality they are held on a pedestal when they fight our wars. (Just look at all the yellow ribbon magnets - which Hitchens will probably say is "sentimental nonsense" and a "waste of space" as well).

A mother's love for her child is fierce. Mr. Hitchens should know better. It's not about the head - it's about the heart. The maternal instict is traditionally American and universally accepted. Motherhood does not end at a child's death.
Mr. Hitchens asks:

"Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal?
The question, rephrased, is: Are we so sure he WOULDN'T?"

Voila! None of us has the answer.

You are still free to decide if a mother has special moral authority to speak for her fallen young man - a boy she raised to love his nation enough to serve it as a loyal soldier.

"Sentimental nonsense" indeed.

__________


About Cindy Sheehan's words to President Bush, Butler Shaffer writes:
"This is powerful language, not just because it comes from a mother whose son was killed as a result of an act of unprovoked aggression by the United States against Iraq; but because her words are a clear challenge to the collective mindset upon which every mob depends for its power. Cindy’s stance is reminiscent of that of Wang Wei-lin, the young man who confronted the row of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. When the human spirit stands up to the cold, faceless, dehumanizing, destructive machinery of the state, there is a release of emotional energy whose force transcends material calculation."

How Pat Roberts helped fix pre-war intelligence



How Pat Roberts helped fix pre-war intelligence

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!
Did I tell you or not?

Raw Story has received limited access to intelligence documents which reveal how Senator Pat Roberts and a handful of other strategically-placed Washington players stymied all questions into pre-war intelligence on Iraq and post-invasion cover-ups, including the outing of a CIA covert agent, by using targeted leaks and artfully deflecting blame from the White House

From Raw Story:
"....what was said to be an effort to protect the United States became a tool by which the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so."

Kudos to Muriel Kane and Larisa Alexandrovna.
Here are links:

Page One of Robert's activities: Senate Intelligence chairman quietly 'fixed' intelligence, and diverted blame from White House over Iraq

Page Two of Roberts' activities: Through leaks and smears, Senate chairman protects White House to blame CIA, Democrats

Presidential directive [pdf]


I would still like to see hack journalist Jeff Gannon/Talon News' part in this. Was Roberts leaking the INR memo information to the fake journalist as part of a plan to smear Joseph Wilson? The CIA was extremely pissed off at whoever did.

Is Powerline Slandering Mother of Fallen Soldier?


slander: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone

Is Powerline Slandering Mother of Fallen Soldier?
You decide.

John Hinderaker is clearly desperate - accusing mother of fallen soldier Cindy Sheehan of "anti-Semitism" because an organization called the Crawford Peace House, has provided her with moral and financial support.

This is forwarding a false notion (some may call it slander) that Mrs. Sheehan is far more involved in the politics of Israel than she has ever been.

I've seen no material indication whatsoever that Israel has ever been a pointed concern of Ms. Sheehan's, other than the discomfort she feels with the neocon/Israeli connection and the Bush administration's foreign policy on Iraq. Recent U.S. indictments against the Pentagon's Lawrence Franklin would reasonably support this kind of suspicion. One doesn't have to be an anti-Semite or anti-American to be concerned about the outing of a CIA agent, the smearing of Joseph Wilson, the 16 words in the President's 2003 SOTU speech, the Downing Street memo leaks, the likelihood of the abuse of intelligence by war planners, and the abuse of the public trust in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

We know one thing clearly:

America and support of its troops is the grieving mother's overt cause.

Excerpt from Powerline:
Cindy Sheehan: is she a poor, benighted woman unhinged and rendered irrational by grief, or is she a calculating, vicious anti-Semite and anti-American like the extremists with whom she associates?
Slanderous!

The woman is no more irrational than is she an anti-American OR an anti-Semite.
She is very clear in her mission.
She's had an anguished year to pay close attention to President Bush's words about the Iraq cause.
She wants clarity, honesty, truth. She wants an end to slogans and spin.
Most Americans are fed up with the slogans and the spin.

What's anti-American to ask for truth, transparency, and honesty?

A mistake the radical right often makes is to portray themselves as Israel's only friends, and it's laughable.

I fully support the people of Israel and their democracy. Most liberal Jews support the people of Israel. It doesn't mean every last thing the Israeli government does is something all must agree with or they are automatically official anti-Semites.

Poppycock!

I can't speak for Cindy Sheehan's opinion on Israel, except that it seems to only revolve around the palpable anguish she feels over the loss of her heroic son, the fallen American soldier fighting for America's cause.

Here's something Cindy has actually said about Israel:
"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neocon PNAC agenda after 9/11.
I guess the booming majority of Americans who put stock in this same opinion, after reviewing all the facts that have been laid out for media consumption, are all anti-Semites. (NOT!).

The Israel/Palestine problem isn't the reason Cindy Sheehan's in Crawford, regardless of who's deciding to offer their support.

In the case of activism regarding Israel's politics, Crawford House is fair game.

Have at Eugene Bird; have at Ward Churchill.

Just don't expect anyone with half a brain to think Mrs. Sheehan's in lockstep-league with Eugene Bird and Ward Churchill.

Cindy Sheehan is not fair game. She's in this cause because of her son Casey, a boy she helped along to become an Eagle Scout. Nothing she has done implies that she is an "anti-Semite" as Powerline is falsely accusing her of.

If Hinderaker and the Little Green Footballs crowd want to go for a political target, I would expect them to get tough on Crawford House, but to imply that Cindy Sheehan is a wild-eyed Jew hater is so ridiculous that if Powerline wasn't such a visible sight, I would laugh it off.

By the way, if you don't agree with every move the Israeli government makes, it doesn't make you an anti-Semite, you pea-brained f**king fools - just as criticizing our government is our democratic responsibility and is not anti-American.

_ _ _


Note - If you want a real whiff of what anti-Semitism is about, see William Donahue, the leader of the radical Catholic League, who recently said "Jews who hate Jesus control Hollywood."

____________



UPDATE -

I have been categorized as "heaping on apologetics" for Cindy Sheehan by a fellow blogger because of an e-mail he dug up on a search. Here's what I said, in response:
I do try not to practice hyperbole, so I must say that I don't think your categorization of my "heaping on apologetics" was a fair one at all.

I do think that Powerline was coming very close to slandering Mrs. Sheehan, I stand by that, and Mrs. Sheehan has said this herself:
"Another "big deal" today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that. I had supposedly said it in a letter that I wrote to Ted Koppel's producer in March. I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a Nightline Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted Bettag and cc'd a copy to the person who gave me Ted's address. I believe he (the person who gave me the address) changed the email and sent it out to capitalize on my new found notoriety by promoting his own agenda. Enough about that."

In addition, I wish to comment that, when we call people out as anti-Semites, the accusation means a lot more, in its connotation, than saying you think someone is angry with Neoconservatives and governments. It is an accusation with overtones of hatred for an entire race. It is ludicrous to accuse Ms. Sheehan of such hatred.

Bottom line, I prefer to give Mrs. Sheehan the benefit of the doubt, based upon her own words. If I'm wrong, I'm still no apologist. I'm simply somone who chose to take the word of a distraught mother of fallen soldier over right wing partisans at Powerline who will go to any length to discredit her. No apologies.


Israel - -My heart lies with you today



Israel -My heart lies with you today

My hope for Israel is peace.

That's what I want to say today, at this difficult time for those who have been living in the Gaza Strip and now must leave.

My heart aches for them. I'd like to hug each one of them and tell them that their dreams won't end, because they will always have their determination and the freedom their democratic nation affords them - even if it means making a life in a new place.

I hope their nation will afford them every available opportunity for a comfortable new life.

My heart yearns for peace for this nation, filled with so many good and hopeful people from all corners of the earth who share a dream.

My prayer is that they do not lose hope - and that this move will be a positive one for the state of Israel. This is a dramatic act of good will and good faith toward Israel's Palestinian neighbors.

May it succeed, because the pain it's causing is profound.


Goalposts moved on Constitution - WaPo Positive Headline finds popularity at a time of Doubt



Goalposts moved on Constitution - WaPo Positive Headline finds popularity at a time of Doubt

I couldn't help but notice that one particular article is getting a lot of blog attention today. The headline is intriguing - Iraqi Sunnis Battle To Defend Shiites - it sounds so bold, so new, a mark of success. Curiously, it's at a time of a lot of confusion in Iraq. The goalposts have been arbitrarily moved on the deadline for the Iraq constitution, which is not in accordance with Iraq's original Transitional Administrative law.

Here's an excerpt from the WaPo article:
Washington and the U.S.-backed Iraqi transitional government have worked to split mainstream Iraqi Sunnis from the radical foreign fighters, hoping to draw them away from the insurgency and into the political process that many rejected after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government in 2003.
[WaPo]


I have serious questions about the accuracy and tone of this particular statement.
The writers, who are both excellent writers, in my opinion, lead us to believe there are mainstream Sunnis, and there are radical foreign fighters.

And nothing in between.

They also seem to ask us to believe that Washington has consistently worked to win the hearts and minds of Sunni-Arabs, yet I have seen actions (political and military) that scream something different. One example - Operation Lightning, where Shi'ites and Kurds were employed to fight Sunni Arabs - an opening salvo to civil war if I've ever seen one.

Iraq's Sunni Arabs believe things have never been worse. As recently as two months ago, Sunni Arabs accused Shiite militiamen of killing their clerics and hounding them out of government jobs to make way for supporters of ruling coalition parties. These are not foreign fighters we're talking about here, people.

Approximately 15 percent of the population who are Sunni Arabs, primarily of the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, subscribe to a broad spectrum of ideologies and affiliations, many of which have little to do with religion. Their ethnic identity is more of a force for either social unity or discord than their religious identity. Iraq's Sunni Arabs inhabit the valleys of the Euphrates above Baghdad, and of the Tigris between Baghdad and Mosul. Ar Ramadi is about 75 miles West of Baghdad, on the road to Damascus via Rutba. It's the capital of Al Anbar province.

The story about Sunni neighbors helping to protect Shi'ite neighbors is a positive one, and there are close ties of friendship, marriage and compassion which bind Shiites and Sunnis in Ar Ramadi. (as quoted from the WaPo article).

I am not surprised that most of these people do not want their city to be turned to rubble, as they saw happen to al Fallujah. I do not blame them for fighting back on their own. I would imagine any of us decent souls would do the same thing.

Now let's get back to the big picture.

The Sunni Arabs-Shia division has been, mostly a political and socioeconomic struggle over the allocation and distribution of wealth and political power, with "radical foreign fighters" as a minority (albeit a powerful minority).

As columnist Jim Hoagland said back in 2003, democracy has been a code word for U.S. domination to Sunni Arabs, and even many in the Shiite majority. We have never seemed to have developed a successful strategy that has convinced Sunni Arabs that a new Constitution would adequately protect their interests. We have not yet succeeded in splitting the Sunni Arab population from the killers based among them.

If we had succeeded, there would be a Consitution today, with Sunni Arabs ready and willing at the table. Instead, I've heard talk that they may have to be excluded from the Constitutional process altogether in order to meet the deadline.

It sounds as if Iraqi neighbors helped their neighbors today in Ar Ramadi. That's a good thing. I happen to believe that the Iraqi people are not unlike you or me - we have compassion for our neighbors. I'd imagine this is not an isolated incident, although it has been brought into the spotlight by the White House at a most necessary time - and for a political purpose.

The story as told by the Washington Post today, especially the misleading headline, seems frighteningly reminiscent of the old pre-war Iraq adherence to the White House-style "happy talk" without a nod to the larger reality on the ground.

Perhaps I'm just feeling defensive of hard truth after seeing the public led down a garden path in Iraq. I am confident that Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer are both wonderful writers.

It's just that today, of all days, I understand that the struggle cannot ever be "won" without winning the Sunni Arabs, and we are hearing this one bit of positive news on the day when the Iraq Constitution has failed to meet the deadline.

Is this more of the mainstream media editors creating "happy talk" headlines without the journalists properly educating the reading public about the realities? Isn't it their job to be particularly clear in thsi time when teh public is scrutinizing what they read in the press? I'm not sure who the orininal leads were for the journalists' story, so I'm not presuming to know - I'm just wondering.

Iraq remains the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist, yet even the New York Times is being pressured to talk "happy talk."


Why Ashcroft recused himself; appointed Special Counsel



Why Ashcroft recused himself; appointed Special Counsel

Murray Waas [Village Voice] is all over this Plamegate story. His latest clarifies the importance of the naming of Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and shed light on then-Attorney General Ashcroft's self-recusal. Basically, John Ashcroft appointed the special prosecutor because the FBI had questioned his Rove connections:
"...new disclosures as to why Ashcroft recused himself from the Plame case and why a special prosecutor was named are important for a number of reasons:

First, they show that from the very earliest days of the criminal probe, federal investigators had a strong belief and body of evidence that Rove and perhaps other officials might be misleading them.

Second, the new information underscores that career Justice Department staffers had concerns that the continued role of Ashcroft and other political aides might tarnish the investigation.

Finally, the new information once again highlights the importance of the testimony of journalists in uncovering whether anyone might have broken the law by disclosing classified information regarding Plame. That is because both Rove and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney—who are at the center of the Plame investigation—have said that they did not learn of Plame's employment with the CIA from classified government information, but rather journalists; without the testimony of journalists, prosecutors have been unable to get to the bottom of the matter."
Judith Miller is still sitting in jail, refusing to talk.


Blog Mockery About a Serious Subject



Blog Mockery About a Serious Subject

It genuinely pains me to see Americans mocking military families - especially when those families have lost a son or daughter to a cause in which America is engaged - in a war that many of the mockers support.

I want to share some comments I made to a person at a blogpost that I believe is particularly in poor taste, and has obviously been inspired by some major Right pundits.

The post featured a photoshopped iamge of Cindy Sheehan as a marionette, strings attached, cameras focused on her. Curiously, it asks you to "pity" Cindy Sheehan, not because she lost her boy Casey in the war and has initiated a pilgrimage to Crawford to seek a face-to-face with her President once again, but because the blogger wished to forward a political attack upon the mother's moral supporters.

Who's using who?

I had commented that I thought the posting was in poor taste, and was immediately categorized as "a moonbat," rather than being seen as an individual with individual ideas.

One reader commented:

I just believe that some things are worth fighting for and although Hrubec (another reader) in his fake indignation can't see it, this war is changing the middle east and sowing the seeds of democracy and freedom.
My reply:
You see, I can find agreement in your words.
I regret coming here and being referred to in deragotary words such as "moonbat" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Some things are, indeed, worth fighting for. Who can doubt that any one of those military families wants to believe their loved one died for a successful cause?

The problem is, this war, at least the way we've approached it to date, may have changed the Middle East for the worse. Iraq is a breeding pit for violence and terrorism today - and is already suffering the consequences of civil war, whether or not we citizens choose to see it as such.

The U.S. is resorting to 'Iraqification' - using Shi'ites and Kurds to fight Sunnis - and it's a sign that we know we have lost the original vision we may have had about "winning" the Iraq war.

What "Iraqification" actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war. "Operation Lightning" - the highly publicized counter-insurgency fought with 40,000 mostly Shi'ite troops rounding up Sunni Arabs - can be read as an early salvo of civil war in Iraq. (see: El Salvador, 1980s)

It has been an unwinnable war all along, and President Bush was not up-front with the American public about that fact. (Just as he was not up-front while leading the American masses toward war).

If we can realize our mistakes and come up with a better, successful plan for the fragile burgeoning democracy in Iraq, I'd love to see it.

I don't want to think any of those men and women died in vain - and their families don't, either. We need to stop attacking the military families - and one another - and ask our leaders for a real plan for success which does not include employing Kurds and Shi'ites against their Iraqi brethren. Otherwise, Iraq will fall apart - and we don't want that, believe me.

If any of these sentiments and opinions are once again called Moonbat ravings, I'll consider this blog a non-productive partisan venue and will remove it from my list of blogs to check.

We deserve to give one another far more respect, and we should use more care in how we talk to one another about such serious issues.

This isn't grade school. People are dying.


Our sights have been lowered in Iraq. How will that translate to a just and noble cause? It remains to be seen. The heavy hand of reality is just now meeting with activity within the Bush administration that, to me, has bordered upon a flight of neocon fancy. How this will turn out is unclear. The new and ever-changing rationales dished out by the Bush administration are going to lead us to slow success with greatly lowered expectations - or sure failure with an unstable Middle East. The buck stops with the Commander in Chief.


I am a Democrat - and I Support Cindy Sheehan





I am a Democrat - and I Support Cindy Sheehan

I heard Fox News Sunday pundit Bill Kristol intimidate Democrats yesterday on the show. Speaking about Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Families for Peace (a coalition of military families whose loved ones have died in war), Kristol said "Is this the message Democrats are identifying with?"

Kristol was trying to say that supporting Casey's mother would be a "disaster" for the Democrats because of an implied "anti-war" theme. The truth is that many military families who have also lost loved ones have rushed to Mrs. Sheehan's side in search of answers to questions which they have deemed as important to their peace of mind.

Think about that for a moment. Kristol would like you to believe the Democrats who support Cindy do so because they are using her for an "anti-war" cause.

I see this as a cheap and all-too-easy "slam-dunk" for Right-minded partisans to use against the Democratic party, but the problem is actually a moral one.

When the political smoke is cleared away, and should the end of August come and Cindy Sheehan has packed in her gear and goes home alone without her President having looked her in the eye, President Bush will have had a gaping moral hole exposed for all to see.

The Right can scream all they want about military families' "anti-war" causes, but no one can remove the truth - the sons and daughters of these families have died for America's cause and what they seem to want is clarity. These families have strong moral authority.

Rather than this being an "anti-war" cause, a "successful plan" cause is closer to the truth of what these military families are calling for.

Every one of us is smart enough to know we cannot "cut and run". Our President got our country into this and we are a decent people. We need to have a plan to get them out while taking care to shore up a plan for Iraqi peace. I don't think anyone with a heart wants to see the Iraqis' burgeoning democracy fall into a void of further violence.

President Bush needs to learn a lot about the word "humility," which is one of the greatest virtues a leader could possess. He (and his administration) need to come up with a better plan for success in Iraq.

I've yet to see it.

I've been blogging about this for well over two years. During that time, I've publically pleaded with the President to act humbly, with strength, and to convince the world that he has a plan that would summon the angels of their better nature -regardless of what respective nation they live in - whether it's France, Iraq, Germany, Iran, England, Morocco, Israel, Spain, Indonesia, or Timbuktu.

But here's what Kristol, O'Reilly, Drudge, Michelle Malkin, and many others on the Right are doing, and it pains me to see them doing it: They are saying that families of fallen soldiers are "the enemy."

SC Senator Jim DeMint [jimdemint.com] was heard saying it outright. [dailykos.com]

It pains me because we are all Americans and it does not show support of our troops when we call soldiers' moms and dads "the enemy".

How could it all have come to such a sad state of civic affairs in our nation - where Republican leaders call troops' families "the enemy"?

When it comes to asking the President for clarity, truth, and honest talk, the most effective spokespeople for civic leadership are the mothers, fathers and family members of soldiers killed in Iraq, who are demanding to know why President Bush sent their sons, daughters, husbands and wives off to this war in Iraq. They're the ones with the real moral authority.

And yes, count me as one. THIS Democrat identifies with Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Familes. Proudly.

You may wish to see my BlogCritics.org political column [blogcritics.org]. It has garnered a lot of responses and discussion.

A particularly interesting comment (among many by vets and active duty soldiers on the comments) is #242.
Excerpt:
I am a US Paratrooper and I am curious as to how Mr. Bush would treat my mom and what all of you people would say about me and my mother if I was killed as was Casey and if my mom wanted answers as does Miss Sheehan. I am SHOCKED and ASHAMED at what I am hearing..



Articles:

The Grief of Cindy Sheehan [The Nation]

Cindy's Victory - [William Rivers Pitt - Truthout]

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over [NY Times - Frank Rich]

Doesn’t the disastrous outcome of this venture entitle Cindy Sheehan to ask a few uncomplicated questions about Judith Miller’s war? [Media Monitors Network]

Iraq: A Soldier speaks his mind, values truth



Iraq: A Soldier speaks his mind, values truth

I've pulled this directly from the page filled with almost 350 comments at my BlogCritics.org column from August 9 about Cindy Sheehan. It's easy for discussions, such as these, to get "lost in the crowd."

The following is a conversation between a reader named 'rebel' and an active duty soldier who simply refers to himself as 'wil'.

I wonder just how many American soldiers are thinking this way? In the age of internet technology, the free flow of information and the free exchange of ideas is connecting the troops to the world - and this opens a new adjustment of which war planners will have to make when plotting a strategy. (Providing that we citizens are to remain free - even at times of possibly endless war with no time-parameters or end games).

Transparence of purpose must be paramount in shipping soldiers off to battle, because they are going to hear and participate in an open discussion, even while the battle rages.

This soldier seems to have serious doubts that anyone at the top ever really cared about "democratizing Iraq." It seems that he sees the "democratizing" reason for war as an afterthought, after all other rationales for war slipped away, unsupported by truth.

Read it and decide for yourself:

__________________


Comment from a reader called 'rebel':
"As a "Proud F*ckin' Civilian", i think the mind set of those who have volunteered to protect the freedoms of my loved ones and myself are of paramount importance. You are protecting our freedoms, right?"


Wil:

The last time I checked...


Comment from 'rebel':
"I understand you’re a little disgruntled over having been lied to and being asked to accomplish a definitive action against an ideology but nobody said it would be easy."

Wil:

Nor did I expect it would be, but thank you for acknowleding that yes, indeed, I as well as every soldier, sailor and Marine has been lied to.

Look...if Mr. Bush had been honest from the start and said, "We're going into Iraq to remove Saddam from power and secure the oil fields" I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In fact, I'm all for it. We need oil, oil is important to our national interests (as well as our economic survival) and if it means we gotta swipe it from someone like Saddam so I don't go into the poor house topping off the tank on my SUV, so be it.

But do not, under any circumstances, bullshit me.

Don't tell me that there is a threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons where none exists.

Don't tell me that the country I'm about to invade is directly responsible for the tragedy of 9/11 when it wasn't.

And when those reasons are shown for the bullshit they really are, don't tell me that we're going to liberate and bring democracy to their people, especially when nobody ever gave a shit about democratizing them at all.

Comment from "rebel":
"I only hope that if (Goodness Forbid) you are ever tasked to actually DEFEND your homeland, you won't let this little episode sour your enthusiasm. Again, i thank you."
Wil:

I am actually defending the homeland, 'rebel'.

I'm currently over here in South Korea, facing north toward the real threat, the one we should have been focusing on from the start. I'm patiently waiting for the missiles to start flying and for two million North Korean soldiers to spill over the border at any moment
who would like nothing better than to have "One Korea, under communism."

As I look out the window, I see North Korean soldiers glaring back at me.

Yes, I'm *that* close.

Please don't presume to lecture me about "actually" defending my country, or being asked to accomplish a definitive action against an ideology. As you can plainly see, I'm all too intimate with the concept.

- wil


[Blogcritics Comment 98]

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Iraq Constitution? Trouble.



Iraq Constitution? Trouble.

Juan Cole, a trusted and well-informed source for information on what's happening with the progress of a new Iraq constitution, holds out little hope for a reaching of the August 15th deadline. He comments that the approval of a constitution would not have halted the guerrilla war, "because the guerrillas reject what they see as a colonially imposed government."
"..now even the facade of progress is peeling away. Thirty more bodies of police or police recruits were found in Baghdad Sunday; most of these are probably Shiites killed by Sunni Arab guerillas in an unconventional civil war already begun.

So this is the time Bush chooses, as he is mired in an intractable conflict in Iraq in which its Shiites are moving close to Iran, to intimate that he could take military action against Iran over its nuclear program -- in an interview broadcast from Israel (which rejected the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and made hundreds of atomic bombs with British help). The Rove theory of looking active and carrying the fight to the enemy isn't working as well in the Middle East as it did against poor John Kerry."


- Juan Cole
SEARCH GOOOGLE FOR UPDATES

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Looking back at a Colonel's mission in Iraq




Colonel Dana Pittard - a loyal American


Looking back at a Colonel's mission in Iraq

Colonel Pittard has a confusing mission, and my heart goes out to him for his loyalty to our country

This is a reprint from May 5, 2004 - well over a year ago. You can see how Iraq has deteriorated since then - and how I was so right in saying that it was bound to happen. It's not the fault of our American soldiers. It's the fault of the war-planners. Why - and how could we have risked so much in blood and treasure while going headlong into certain chaos?


*An update on Colonel Pittard can be seen at this post and this post.
It's no wonder that military families, especially mothers, are concerned and confused.


_________________




May 5, 2004:

Allow me to begin by saying I do not know Colonel Dana Pittard. From what I do know of the Colonel, I believe he is a loyal and good American. I've read a lot about him, he's captured my attention and my heart in many ways. I want to make some comments in his support and in the support of all the men and women in the U.S. armed services in Iraq today.

Compare the two following stories/statements from/about Colonel Pittard.

The first is from just a month ago (April 2004):

"The support of the population is key to everything we do. From the commander down to the squad leader, we must touch, engage the Iraqis,'' says Pittard, who commands the 1st Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade, which arrived in the country less than a month ago.
..The unit's predecessor in the province, the 4th Infantry Division, focused on fighting, which has claimed the lives of 34 U.S. soldiers and left nearly 200 others wounded. There have been a few accidental killings of Iraqis and frequent detentions of civilians. Now, while still trying to kill or capture as many insurgents as possible, the brigade is getting involved with everything from attempting dialogue with Islamic college radicals to combating an insect plague ruining date palm plantations.


And now....(this was from May 2004):

"My intent is to destroy Sadr's militia, absolutely destroy it," said Col. Dana Pittard, commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Infantry Division, which is leading the operation dubbed Operation Duke Fortitude. "And then to capture or kill Sadr. That is our mission. We're just waiting to be unleashed."
...Acknowledging that invading Najaf could offend Muslims worldwide, he added: "It's that sensitive. If we do this wrong, it will be felt from Morocco to Indonesia."


Colonel Pittard has been placed, by this Pentagon, in a completely confusing position. They want him to be a social worker one day and a trained soldier with a fighting mission (which is what he trains for) the next.

This is where the mission falls apart. It's not up to Colonel Pittard to pretend to care about the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. His mission is to destroy anything that gets in the way of his nation's goal.

Pentagon/Rumsfeld/Bush--you'd best shit or get off the pot. Get a new U.N. resolution. Get your social workers from the U.N. if you need them. Let Colonel Pittard do his job. Give General Abizaid an exit strategy. Get our troops home where they're loved, appreciated, and needed. I'm so ashamed of this administration's pie-in-the-sky lunacy about today's military. They've tried to be some kind of heroes, and they've wound up revealing themselves to be megalomaniacs endangering American security at home and throughout the world. Our President, I fear, is a theo-megalomaniac who, in his public relations, creates a crusade-style mission attitude. This bodes terribly for our armed forces' mission.

I'm speaking out for those in our military who, because of the rules, cannot speak for themselves. I say to the Bush administration: Get on the stick. You're using our military carelessly. General Sanchez is doing his best with the most chillingly horrendous Commander-in-Chief in American history. Colonel Pittard and General Sanchez cannot and would not tell you this. I can...and I will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At Defenselink, Lt. John R. Vines is quoted to have said that mastering information operations will go a long way toward influencing people "to lay down their weapons and quit fighting and rebuild their country." But for now, he said, "We don't do that nearly as well as we could."

It's crystal-clear we aren't doing it well. It's an opportunity-area the size of an elephant, yet the Bush administration continues to stubbornly insist pro-American P.R. in Iraq is working. It's not working.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."

--George Will [LINK]





______________________


Since this writing, al Sadr is in the mainstream again - being accepted and invited into the fold of Iraqi politics. After we destroyed Sadr city. How things have changed.

Since this writing, General Sanchez is the highest-ranking scapegoat to date in the Abu Graib scandal, while the war planners and Bush administration attorneys who approved forms of torture go on with no consequence. Some have even been rewarded.

So many mistakes have been made. No one will be accounatble for them. The buck stops no where. The President doesn't believe in the buck - unless it's the bucks he can shell out to Big Oil while we pay $2.60 per gallon at the pumps.

And the President drives right by a grieving mother begging to have him look her in the eye.