"People vs Corporations
by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:11:39 PM EDT
"Barry Ritzholtz, The Left Right Paradigm Is Over, discusses a paradigm shift that is happening in politics:
"For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.
"The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.
"This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.
"Barry goes on to list a few examples, all of which are spot on. Loyalists want to know why the turn against Obama? This pretty well sums it up:
"For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.
"What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.
"Likely, there are very few people in the partisan blogosphere that see's the world this way. So its not surprising that its from out of the financial blogosphere that this insight comes... If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world at all . . ."
Vote for the Democrat Jim Holbert for U.S. House KY-05!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Guthrie/Marksberry Debate. Click Here.
Kentucky Tonight
(#1740) 2nd Congressional District
A discussion with the 2nd Congressional District candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. Guests: U.S. Rep. S. Brett Guthrie, Republican Party, and Ed Marksberry, Democratic Party. A 2010 KET production.
Listen to the debate, then vote for the Democrat!
(#1740) 2nd Congressional District
A discussion with the 2nd Congressional District candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. Guests: U.S. Rep. S. Brett Guthrie, Republican Party, and Ed Marksberry, Democratic Party. A 2010 KET production.
Listen to the debate, then vote for the Democrat!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Hatchett/Whitfield Debate. Click here.
1st District Candidates
Watch Online
first aired on Sept. 13, 2010
Candidates:
Charles Kendall Hatchett (D)
Edward Whitfield * (R)
Watch the Debate, then vote for the Democrat!
Watch Online
first aired on Sept. 13, 2010
Candidates:
Charles Kendall Hatchett (D)
Edward Whitfield * (R)
Watch the Debate, then vote for the Democrat!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Angry? Be a Democrat!
"Arianna Huffington.Posted: September 22, 2010 11:40 AM
"Dear Angry American, Joining the Tea Party Is NOT Your Only Option
"The Tea Party is angry! Really, really angry. So we are told again and again by the media. According to the conventional wisdom, it's the story of the election, and likely the next one: those opposed to Obama are angry and have coalesced around the Tea Party. But like much conventional wisdom, it's wrong.
"There's no doubt the Tea Partiers are angry. But what's missing from this narrative is the fact that everybody is angry.
"As I discovered when I spoke at the Teamsters Women's Conference on Saturday, even people who love the president, and who would not dream of voting for anyone other than a Democrat, are angry.
"Velma Hart, the African-American woman who was the first questioner at Monday's town hall meeting on CNBC, gave powerful expression to this anger. After identifying herself as a chief financial officer, a mother, a wife, and a military veteran, Hart said:
"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for. And deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people and I'm waiting sir, I'm waiting. I don't feel it yet.... My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we're headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?
"It's a question tens of millions of Americans are asking themselves right now. And when they do, a mixture of dread and anger rises inside them.
"And it's not hard to understand why. How can you look at what's happening in America and not become angry? Every time I look at the news, I get freshly angry. Poverty on the rise, and no end in sight for high unemployment and foreclosures.
"As the president's chief economic advisor Austan Goolsbee said last week, those numbers aren't going to change any time soon.
"So no wonder it's not just Tea Partiers who are angry. And if we keep associating anger exclusively with the Tea Party, our public debate becomes a false choice between the status quo and an agenda that would, quite simply, destroy America.
"As Jane Mayer showed in her must-read New Yorker profile on the billionaire Tea Party-backing Koch brothers, those behind the Tea Party have been pushing the same ideas for a long time now, but have cynically appropriated the legitimate anger in the country and steered it to serve their own ends. Are you angry? Well then, you're obviously on board for their program. Or so they would have you believe.
"But, in fact, there is more than one way to channel anger. Yes, you can demonize and divide and scapegoat. You can play on people's economic fears by whipping up a deeply un-American campaign of hate against a religious minority. You can foment suspicion and more fear by -- as Newt Gingrich just did at the so-called Values Voters Summit -- calling for a "federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States." You can try to sever the pathways of empathy by implying, as Sharron Angle does, that those out of work are just lazy bums who would rather sit around and collect unemployment checks than look for work. "You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn't pay as much," she said. "We've put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry."
"The northernmost Tea Party favorite, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller, goes a step further and claims that unemployment benefits are actually unconstitutional.
"So, sure, going all lizard-brain and playing on people's fear and anger and economic anxiety to divide them from one another is one way to go. But there's no reason that, as the media seems to assume, this has to be the only logical outgrowth of anger. There is, in fact, another path to take. Anger can be harnessed and redirected -- the energy behind it used to connect, to reach out, to take action, to make life better both for your family and for others who need help.
"These days, we mostly talk about our shortages -- a shortage of jobs, a shortage of revenues (hence our growing deficit and mounting debt). But we also have a surplus of energy, skills, and -- for those unemployed or underemployed -- a surplus of time.
"What most took me by surprise during the researching of my book -- and now as I'm traveling around the country -- is the extraordinary creativity being brought to bear in communities all around the country on the problems facing America.
"For instance, there is Seth Reams of Portland, Oregon whom I write about in Third World America. After losing his job as a concierge in December 2008, and submitting over 500 job applications to no avail, he began to feel as if he wasn't a member of society anymore. So he and his girlfriend Michelle King decided to take matters into their own hands and started an organization called We've Got Time to Help. It's an online meeting house that matches up people who have time on their hands (many of whom, like Reams, have been laid-off) with local needs in the community. So far they've helped out by building community gardens, repairing cars for those who can't afford a mechanic, building a wheelchair ramp, helping people who move from their homes, etc, etc. Instead of using anger to drive immigrants out, they've harnessed that energy to teach immigrants to drive.
"Then there is lawyer Cheryl Jones, who along with her work as a torts lawyer at a big firm had been doing pro bono work as part of the highly successful Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program in Philadelphia that helps homeowners facing foreclosure through the legal process. After being laid-off, Jones took on even more foreclosure cases, eventually opening her own practice dedicated to helping people keep their homes.
""I charge my clients very little or nothing at all," she says. "They can't afford to pay me. If you can't afford your mortgage, you probably can't afford a lawyer." Although she is working harder and earning much less, she told HuffPost's Sara Yin that she's never felt happier. "When I know I've kept somebody in their home, the feeling is so amazing. I know how I'd feel if I was in danger of losing my home and someone helped me stay in it."
"When I was Detroit recently, I met Eric Jirgens, an interior designer with a lot fewer jobs than he used to have in his recession-ravaged city. So he's using his underutilized skills to transform a women's shelter into a beautiful and more welcoming space for the women who have to temporarily call it home. He's working with suppliers to get donations and bringing in other designers. The idea isn't to just spruce things up with a few donated rugs and chairs, but to really create a sense of warmth and safety and comfort.
"In New York, noted designer Steven Gambrel, accustomed to decorating multimillion dollar homes on the Upper East Side and the Hamptons, has connected with Bob Kelty and New York's Coalition for the Homeless to develop an inexpensive how-to kit to help people who are having to start over, often due to foreclosure or the loss of a job. The idea of the kit is to allow them to quickly and easily establish a sense of home and personalize it, in what is likely a chaotic time in their lives. He's also starting a mentoring program to teach other designers around the country how to work with families in need.
"So, as we are at this crossroads in our nation's history, Seth, Cheryl, Eric, and Steven -- and tens of thousands of others around the country -- are demonstrating another way to go.
"We can choose connection rather than division. Understanding rather than fear. Reaching out rather than turning away. It's Hope 2.0. It's a widespread choice, yet it's getting a fraction of a fraction of the coverage the media is giving the Tea Party.
"Our anger will either lead us to tap into our baser instincts or into the better angels of our nature. And nothing less than the future of our country rides on the decision.
Angry? Be a Democrat. Elect Jim Holbert to Congress KY-05!
"Dear Angry American, Joining the Tea Party Is NOT Your Only Option
"The Tea Party is angry! Really, really angry. So we are told again and again by the media. According to the conventional wisdom, it's the story of the election, and likely the next one: those opposed to Obama are angry and have coalesced around the Tea Party. But like much conventional wisdom, it's wrong.
"There's no doubt the Tea Partiers are angry. But what's missing from this narrative is the fact that everybody is angry.
"As I discovered when I spoke at the Teamsters Women's Conference on Saturday, even people who love the president, and who would not dream of voting for anyone other than a Democrat, are angry.
"Velma Hart, the African-American woman who was the first questioner at Monday's town hall meeting on CNBC, gave powerful expression to this anger. After identifying herself as a chief financial officer, a mother, a wife, and a military veteran, Hart said:
"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for. And deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people and I'm waiting sir, I'm waiting. I don't feel it yet.... My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we're headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?
"It's a question tens of millions of Americans are asking themselves right now. And when they do, a mixture of dread and anger rises inside them.
"And it's not hard to understand why. How can you look at what's happening in America and not become angry? Every time I look at the news, I get freshly angry. Poverty on the rise, and no end in sight for high unemployment and foreclosures.
"As the president's chief economic advisor Austan Goolsbee said last week, those numbers aren't going to change any time soon.
"So no wonder it's not just Tea Partiers who are angry. And if we keep associating anger exclusively with the Tea Party, our public debate becomes a false choice between the status quo and an agenda that would, quite simply, destroy America.
"As Jane Mayer showed in her must-read New Yorker profile on the billionaire Tea Party-backing Koch brothers, those behind the Tea Party have been pushing the same ideas for a long time now, but have cynically appropriated the legitimate anger in the country and steered it to serve their own ends. Are you angry? Well then, you're obviously on board for their program. Or so they would have you believe.
"But, in fact, there is more than one way to channel anger. Yes, you can demonize and divide and scapegoat. You can play on people's economic fears by whipping up a deeply un-American campaign of hate against a religious minority. You can foment suspicion and more fear by -- as Newt Gingrich just did at the so-called Values Voters Summit -- calling for a "federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States." You can try to sever the pathways of empathy by implying, as Sharron Angle does, that those out of work are just lazy bums who would rather sit around and collect unemployment checks than look for work. "You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn't pay as much," she said. "We've put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry."
"The northernmost Tea Party favorite, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller, goes a step further and claims that unemployment benefits are actually unconstitutional.
"So, sure, going all lizard-brain and playing on people's fear and anger and economic anxiety to divide them from one another is one way to go. But there's no reason that, as the media seems to assume, this has to be the only logical outgrowth of anger. There is, in fact, another path to take. Anger can be harnessed and redirected -- the energy behind it used to connect, to reach out, to take action, to make life better both for your family and for others who need help.
"These days, we mostly talk about our shortages -- a shortage of jobs, a shortage of revenues (hence our growing deficit and mounting debt). But we also have a surplus of energy, skills, and -- for those unemployed or underemployed -- a surplus of time.
"What most took me by surprise during the researching of my book -- and now as I'm traveling around the country -- is the extraordinary creativity being brought to bear in communities all around the country on the problems facing America.
"For instance, there is Seth Reams of Portland, Oregon whom I write about in Third World America. After losing his job as a concierge in December 2008, and submitting over 500 job applications to no avail, he began to feel as if he wasn't a member of society anymore. So he and his girlfriend Michelle King decided to take matters into their own hands and started an organization called We've Got Time to Help. It's an online meeting house that matches up people who have time on their hands (many of whom, like Reams, have been laid-off) with local needs in the community. So far they've helped out by building community gardens, repairing cars for those who can't afford a mechanic, building a wheelchair ramp, helping people who move from their homes, etc, etc. Instead of using anger to drive immigrants out, they've harnessed that energy to teach immigrants to drive.
"Then there is lawyer Cheryl Jones, who along with her work as a torts lawyer at a big firm had been doing pro bono work as part of the highly successful Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program in Philadelphia that helps homeowners facing foreclosure through the legal process. After being laid-off, Jones took on even more foreclosure cases, eventually opening her own practice dedicated to helping people keep their homes.
""I charge my clients very little or nothing at all," she says. "They can't afford to pay me. If you can't afford your mortgage, you probably can't afford a lawyer." Although she is working harder and earning much less, she told HuffPost's Sara Yin that she's never felt happier. "When I know I've kept somebody in their home, the feeling is so amazing. I know how I'd feel if I was in danger of losing my home and someone helped me stay in it."
"When I was Detroit recently, I met Eric Jirgens, an interior designer with a lot fewer jobs than he used to have in his recession-ravaged city. So he's using his underutilized skills to transform a women's shelter into a beautiful and more welcoming space for the women who have to temporarily call it home. He's working with suppliers to get donations and bringing in other designers. The idea isn't to just spruce things up with a few donated rugs and chairs, but to really create a sense of warmth and safety and comfort.
"In New York, noted designer Steven Gambrel, accustomed to decorating multimillion dollar homes on the Upper East Side and the Hamptons, has connected with Bob Kelty and New York's Coalition for the Homeless to develop an inexpensive how-to kit to help people who are having to start over, often due to foreclosure or the loss of a job. The idea of the kit is to allow them to quickly and easily establish a sense of home and personalize it, in what is likely a chaotic time in their lives. He's also starting a mentoring program to teach other designers around the country how to work with families in need.
"So, as we are at this crossroads in our nation's history, Seth, Cheryl, Eric, and Steven -- and tens of thousands of others around the country -- are demonstrating another way to go.
"We can choose connection rather than division. Understanding rather than fear. Reaching out rather than turning away. It's Hope 2.0. It's a widespread choice, yet it's getting a fraction of a fraction of the coverage the media is giving the Tea Party.
"Our anger will either lead us to tap into our baser instincts or into the better angels of our nature. And nothing less than the future of our country rides on the decision.
Angry? Be a Democrat. Elect Jim Holbert to Congress KY-05!
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Whistleblower!
Bradley Manning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Arrest of Bradley Manning)
This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 14 September 2010.Jump to: navigation, search
Wikinews has related news:
US intelligence analyst arrested over Wikileaks video
Private First Class Bradley E. Manning (born 1987) is a United States Army soldier who has been arrested and charged with the unauthorized use and disclosure of U.S. classified information.
"Manning was an intelligence analyst assigned to a support battalion with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. He was arrested by agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command acting on information received from federal authorities provided by an American journalist informant, Adrian Lamo, in whom Manning had previously confided.[1][2][3] Lamo, stated he came forward as an act of conscience.[4][5] Manning allegedly told him via instant messaging that he had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to the whistleblower website Wikileaks.[4][5] The media has described Manning as a whistleblower.[6][7]
"On July 5, 2010, Manning was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with violations of Article 92 and Article 134, for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source".[2][7] The maximum possible prison sentence for the charges is 52 years.[1] An Army spokesman stated that an Article 32 hearing, similar to a grand jury, would be held to determine whether or not there was enough evidence to proceed to a court-martial.[1]
Background
* * *
"Manning enlisted in the United States Army to become an intelligence analyst and was deployed with a support battalion with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. Before being arrested, Manning had been demoted from Specialist to Private First Class for assaulting another soldier and was to be discharged early.[4][9]
Alleged motivations
"Manning allegedly told journalist and former hacker Adrian Lamo via instant messaging that he had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to the whistleblower website Wikileaks.[4][5] Lamo handed the instant messenger chat logs to U.S. investigators, who began searching for evidence to determine whether Manning's apparent statements to Lamo were true.[3] The "Collateral Murder" video showed a series of attacks by a U.S. helicopter crew, who had been assigned the task of protecting an infantry company by clearing out insurgents.[10] In the first two attacks, two children were wounded, and several men were killed, including the father of the children and two men who were later identified as Reuters employees.[2][11][12] The video showed a third strike in which the same helicopter crew destroyed a building, reportedly killing several people including children.[13] Manning reportedly said that the diplomatic documents expose "almost criminal political back dealings" and that they explain "how the first world exploits the third, in detail."[9][6] He said that he hoped the release of the videos and documents would lead to "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms."[14] Manning reportedly wrote, "Everywhere there's a U.S. post, there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed."[4] However, Wikileaks said "allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect."[6][15]
Partial release of chat logs
Wired released apparent excerpts from the chat logs between Manning and Lamo on 10 June 2010.[14] The order of events is not made clear from the excerpts, and significant material appears to be missing.[14][16][17] On 19 June, Boing Boing published what they called a "slightly less redacted version" of the chat logs.[16]
"In the logs, Manning explains his growing disillusionment with the U.S. Army and foreign policy.[14] He gives one example of being assigned the task of evaluating the arrest of Iraqis for allegedly publishing "anti Iraq" literature, only to discover that the writings were in fact scholarly critique of corruption in the cabinet of Iraq Prime Minister Al-Maliki titled "Where Did the Money Go?".[18] He reportedly said to Lamo, "I immediately took that information and ran to the officer to explain what was going on. He didn’t want to hear any of it. He told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding MORE detainees."[14] Manning reportedly characterized some of the allegedly leaked cables to Lamo as, "explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective."[9]
"anning apparently asked Lamo "if you had free reign [sic] over classified networks for long periods of time ... say, 8–9 months ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ... what would you do? ... say ... a database of half a million events during the Iraq war ... from 2004 to 2009 ... with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures ... ? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective?"[16] Manning apparently told of his discovery of the Collateral Murder video and his subsequent research into the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes: "at first glance ... it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter ... no big deal ... about two dozen more where that came from right ... but something struck me as odd with the van thing ... and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer's directory… so i looked into it ... eventually tracked down the date, and then the exact GPS co-ord ... and i was like ... ok, so thats what happened."[14]
"Manning wrote, "event occurs in 2007, i watch video in 2009 with no context, do research, forward information to group of FOI activists, more research occurs, video is released in 2010, those involved come forward to discuss event, i witness those involved coming forward."[14] In the logs Manning wrote, "lets just say *someone* i know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks, mining data like the ones described ... and been transferring that data from the classified networks over the "air gap" onto a commercial network computer ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it to a crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country very long".[16] Manning explained to Lamo his motive for releasing the material: "I want people to see the truth ... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."[7]
"Lamo told Associated Press that he gave the chat logs to Army criminal investigators after consulting with a friend who had worked in Army counterintelligence. Lamo said that "it was a combination of an act of conscience and an act spurred by my understanding of the law," Lamo said. "I did this because I thought what he was doing was very dangerous."[7]
Arrest and criminal charges
Manning was arrested by agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command in May 2010 and held in pre-trial confinement in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.[1][2][3] On July 5, 2010, two misconduct charges were brought against him for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system" and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source".[2][7] The charges included unauthorized access to Secret Internet Protocol Routers network computers, download of more than 150,000 United States Department of State diplomatic cables, download of a secret PowerPoint presentation, and downloading a classified video of a military operation in Baghdad on 12 July 2007. Manning is also charged for forwarding the video and at least one of the cables to an unauthorized person.[19] The maximum jail sentence is 52 years.[1] Lieutenant Colonel Eric Bloom has said that "as part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the next step in proceedings would be an Article 32 Hearing, which is similar to a grand jury. An investigating officer will be appointed, and that officer looks into all facts of the matter, does an investigation, and upon conclusion, the findings will be presented to a convening court martial authority. The division commander will consider based on what is in that, what the next steps are. Either there is enough evidence or not enough evidence to proceed to a court-martial ... A date has not yet been set. We haven't even identified the investigating officer. We're still in the early stages of this case".[1]
"Wikileaks have said that they are unable as yet to confirm whether or not Manning was actually the source of the video, stating "we never collect personal information on our sources," but saying also that "if Brad Manning [is the] whistleblower then, without doubt, he's a national hero"[6] and "we have taken steps to arrange for his protection and legal defense".[5][20] Manning's official military attorney is Capt. Paul Bouchard.[21] On June 21, Julian Assange told The Guardian that WikiLeaks had hired three U.S. criminal lawyers to help defend Manning, but that they had been denied access to him.[22][1] Boing Boing asked Lt. Col. Eric Bloom whether Manning was "represented by any civilian attorney" and Bloom responded, "I do not know of any rebuffing. I've been in the military for 26 years, and I've never heard of any party's attempt to secure legal representation being denied. We don't rebuff representation."[1] In late August Manning selected former military attorney David Coombs to lead his defense team. Coombs had previously defended US Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar who was convicted of killing two officers in an attack in 2003 while serving in Kuwait.[23] A military spokesperson told CNN that Manning was processed at the Quantico detention facility on July 29. As of July 31, he remained in solitary confinement. The official told CNN that Manning could be taken to a military judge in Washington in August, but that it would likely be delayed.[21]
Afghan War Diary
Manning has been considered a "person of interest" in the leak of over 90,000 documents to Wikileaks pertaining to the War in Afghanistan, which were released to the public on July 25, 2010.[24]"
There's your Whistleblower. You fur 'im or again' im?
International Days of Action in Support of Bradley Manning
"International Days of Action in Support of Bradley Manning
"Imprisoned for 81 days
"On September 16-19, groups and individuals will call on the United States government to drop the charges against Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. Manning's imprisonment has resulted in an international outcry, with groups and activists throughout the US and abroad demanding his release and calling for transparency in America's war policies.
"http://www.bradleymanning.org/days-of-action/
"Bradley Manning Support Network Grows Stronger Every Day!
•Activist San Diego
•Prof. Noam Chomsky
•Code Pink Women for Peace
•Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
•Courage to Resist
•Daniel Ellsberg
•Senator Mike Gravel
•Scott Horton
•Iraq Veterans Against the War
•Ethan McCord
•Ray McGovern
•Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild
•Michael Moore
•No FEAR Coalition
•James Oaksun
•Oklahoma Center for Conscience
•QueerToday
•Justin Raimondo
•Marakay Rogers
•San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality
•San Diego Military Counseling Project
•San Diego Peace and Justice Coalition
•San Francisco Labor Council
•Christina Tobin
•Tom Hayden Peace and Justice Resource Center
•United for Peace and Justice
•UXO Show
•Veterans for Peace
•Voters for Peace
•War Resisters League
•Washington Peace Center
•The World Can't Wait
•Ann Wright"
Bradley Manning is a Whistle Blower. If American Troops are slaughtering civilians, and unarmed women and children in our undeclared wars, our Whistleblowers like Bradley Manning should not be jailed, they should be welcomed as heroes for being Whistle Blowers!
"Imprisoned for 81 days
"On September 16-19, groups and individuals will call on the United States government to drop the charges against Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. Manning's imprisonment has resulted in an international outcry, with groups and activists throughout the US and abroad demanding his release and calling for transparency in America's war policies.
"http://www.bradleymanning.org/days-of-action/
"Bradley Manning Support Network Grows Stronger Every Day!
•Activist San Diego
•Prof. Noam Chomsky
•Code Pink Women for Peace
•Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
•Courage to Resist
•Daniel Ellsberg
•Senator Mike Gravel
•Scott Horton
•Iraq Veterans Against the War
•Ethan McCord
•Ray McGovern
•Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild
•Michael Moore
•No FEAR Coalition
•James Oaksun
•Oklahoma Center for Conscience
•QueerToday
•Justin Raimondo
•Marakay Rogers
•San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality
•San Diego Military Counseling Project
•San Diego Peace and Justice Coalition
•San Francisco Labor Council
•Christina Tobin
•Tom Hayden Peace and Justice Resource Center
•United for Peace and Justice
•UXO Show
•Veterans for Peace
•Voters for Peace
•War Resisters League
•Washington Peace Center
•The World Can't Wait
•Ann Wright"
Bradley Manning is a Whistle Blower. If American Troops are slaughtering civilians, and unarmed women and children in our undeclared wars, our Whistleblowers like Bradley Manning should not be jailed, they should be welcomed as heroes for being Whistle Blowers!
Kenneth Stepp salutes Community Colleges.
My Dad used to stress the importance of "research universities" like University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Clemson, where they have Ph.D. programs. They are important but Community Colleges are important, too. My son attends a Community College. Kenneth Stepp salutes Community Colleges.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
"it was like a slap in the face"
Iraq combat over but U.S. troops still in danger
By Rania El Gamal
CAMP SPEICHER, Iraq | Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:36am EDT
CAMP SPEICHER, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Staff Sergeant Kendrick Manuel swung his rifle over his shoulder and grumbled about being viewed as a "non-combat" soldier in Iraq.
"When NBC talked about the last combat troops are gone, they made it sound like everything is basically over," he said, after escorting a 19-truck convoy through a part of northern Iraq where roadside bombs and mortar attacks are still a danger.
"To us it was like a slap in the face, because we are still here ... we are still going in harm's way every time we leave out of the gate," Manuel said at a U.S. military base, Camp Speicher, near Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit.
On August 31, the U.S. military formally declared an end to its combat mission in Iraq, 7-1/2 years after the invasion that removed Saddam and led to sectarian warfare and a fierce insurgency in which tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed. More than 4,400 U.S. soldiers have been killed since 2003.
* * *
"On September 7, two U.S. soldiers were killed and nine wounded when an Iraqi soldier opened fire on them at an Iraqi commando base.
"The hype around the change of mission, which allowed President Barack Obama to say he was fulfilling a pledge to start ending the unpopular war, set off complaints among some soldiers left behind who were no longer viewed as combat troops.
"U.S. military convoys are still shot at and bombed, and bases are mortared, despite a change in the name of the U.S. mission from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn.
"That doesn't really change a thing, it is still dangerous," said 22-year-old Specialist Byron Reed, on his second deployment in Iraq, as he prepared to escort a convoy to Camp Speicher from Balad air base in Salahuddin province.
"Manuel said changing the mission's name meant little if any of his soldiers were to be killed by a roadside bomb.
"If a life is gone, it is gone," he said. "As long as we are going in harm's way, it (the war) is not over for us."
"LITTLE REAL CHANGE
"U.S. soldiers said there had been little change in their mission since September 1. Most U.S. military units switched their focus to training Iraqi troops and police when they pulled out of towns and cities on June 30 last year.
"While overall violence has dipped sharply in the past two or three years, Iraq is still a fragile place and al-Qaeda-linked insurgents and Shi'ite militia are active. Furthermore, tension has been heightened by the failure of politicians to form a new government six months after an inconclusive election.
""We do present a big target for the enemy, we still get attacked, just not as frequently," said Lieutenant Colonel David Gooch, an infantry battalion commander, at Balad, about 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad.
"Over the last week, I think we probably got attacked, say, five times. Those attacks are becoming less lethal I guess you would say, because we have some really good vehicles as you can see," he said, standing in front of a U.S. army MRAP -- Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected trucks.
"The MRAP, heavily armored and V-hulled to deflect bomb blasts, is credited with saving many soldiers' lives in Iraq.
* * *
"Because it is not my country, really, it is their country."
(Editing by Michael Christie and Andrew Dobbie)
Out with Hal Rogers! Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05! Jim Holbert is the anti-war candidate and would bring all the U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The choice is simple, War or Peace. Holbert for Peace!
By Rania El Gamal
CAMP SPEICHER, Iraq | Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:36am EDT
CAMP SPEICHER, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Staff Sergeant Kendrick Manuel swung his rifle over his shoulder and grumbled about being viewed as a "non-combat" soldier in Iraq.
"When NBC talked about the last combat troops are gone, they made it sound like everything is basically over," he said, after escorting a 19-truck convoy through a part of northern Iraq where roadside bombs and mortar attacks are still a danger.
"To us it was like a slap in the face, because we are still here ... we are still going in harm's way every time we leave out of the gate," Manuel said at a U.S. military base, Camp Speicher, near Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit.
On August 31, the U.S. military formally declared an end to its combat mission in Iraq, 7-1/2 years after the invasion that removed Saddam and led to sectarian warfare and a fierce insurgency in which tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed. More than 4,400 U.S. soldiers have been killed since 2003.
* * *
"On September 7, two U.S. soldiers were killed and nine wounded when an Iraqi soldier opened fire on them at an Iraqi commando base.
"The hype around the change of mission, which allowed President Barack Obama to say he was fulfilling a pledge to start ending the unpopular war, set off complaints among some soldiers left behind who were no longer viewed as combat troops.
"U.S. military convoys are still shot at and bombed, and bases are mortared, despite a change in the name of the U.S. mission from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn.
"That doesn't really change a thing, it is still dangerous," said 22-year-old Specialist Byron Reed, on his second deployment in Iraq, as he prepared to escort a convoy to Camp Speicher from Balad air base in Salahuddin province.
"Manuel said changing the mission's name meant little if any of his soldiers were to be killed by a roadside bomb.
"If a life is gone, it is gone," he said. "As long as we are going in harm's way, it (the war) is not over for us."
"LITTLE REAL CHANGE
"U.S. soldiers said there had been little change in their mission since September 1. Most U.S. military units switched their focus to training Iraqi troops and police when they pulled out of towns and cities on June 30 last year.
"While overall violence has dipped sharply in the past two or three years, Iraq is still a fragile place and al-Qaeda-linked insurgents and Shi'ite militia are active. Furthermore, tension has been heightened by the failure of politicians to form a new government six months after an inconclusive election.
""We do present a big target for the enemy, we still get attacked, just not as frequently," said Lieutenant Colonel David Gooch, an infantry battalion commander, at Balad, about 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad.
"Over the last week, I think we probably got attacked, say, five times. Those attacks are becoming less lethal I guess you would say, because we have some really good vehicles as you can see," he said, standing in front of a U.S. army MRAP -- Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected trucks.
"The MRAP, heavily armored and V-hulled to deflect bomb blasts, is credited with saving many soldiers' lives in Iraq.
* * *
"Because it is not my country, really, it is their country."
(Editing by Michael Christie and Andrew Dobbie)
Out with Hal Rogers! Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05! Jim Holbert is the anti-war candidate and would bring all the U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The choice is simple, War or Peace. Holbert for Peace!
Vote for Tax Cuts for the other 98%! Vote for Holbert!
"Robert Kuttner.Co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect
"Posted: September 12, 2010 08:33 PM
"Maybe Not Such a Mid-Term Blowout
"Winston Churchill once said that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing--after they've tried everything else.
"The Obama administration has kept progressive economic policies to be used as a last resort -- In Case of Emergency Break Glass.
"Well, the emergency is here in the form of a protracted recession and a threatened mid-term election blowout. And sure enough, President Obama is discovering his inner populist.
"Rejecting the advice of his departing budget director, Peter Orszag, Obama has insisted that the Bush era tax cuts, which expire this year, be extended for "only" about 98 percent of Americans, but not for households making over $250,000 a year. Hard to argue with that, but watch the GOP try. The more the Republicans hold hostage this plan for tax relief for millionaires, the more voters appreciate whose side they are really on.
"Obama has belatedly proposed a $50 billion infrastructure program, to put Americans back to work. He should have proposed four times as much, and long ago, but it's a start.
"He has begun smoking out Republican inconsistency and hypocrisy on issues like regulation of banks, where the GOP tries to be anti-Wall Street but also anti-regulation. And how can the right be in favor of both fiscal discipline and tax cuts for the rich?"
Hal Rogers will hold out to protect the tax cut for the "over $250,000 a year" crowd. Jim Holbert would vote for tax cuts for folks like you and me. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
"Posted: September 12, 2010 08:33 PM
"Maybe Not Such a Mid-Term Blowout
"Winston Churchill once said that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing--after they've tried everything else.
"The Obama administration has kept progressive economic policies to be used as a last resort -- In Case of Emergency Break Glass.
"Well, the emergency is here in the form of a protracted recession and a threatened mid-term election blowout. And sure enough, President Obama is discovering his inner populist.
"Rejecting the advice of his departing budget director, Peter Orszag, Obama has insisted that the Bush era tax cuts, which expire this year, be extended for "only" about 98 percent of Americans, but not for households making over $250,000 a year. Hard to argue with that, but watch the GOP try. The more the Republicans hold hostage this plan for tax relief for millionaires, the more voters appreciate whose side they are really on.
"Obama has belatedly proposed a $50 billion infrastructure program, to put Americans back to work. He should have proposed four times as much, and long ago, but it's a start.
"He has begun smoking out Republican inconsistency and hypocrisy on issues like regulation of banks, where the GOP tries to be anti-Wall Street but also anti-regulation. And how can the right be in favor of both fiscal discipline and tax cuts for the rich?"
Hal Rogers will hold out to protect the tax cut for the "over $250,000 a year" crowd. Jim Holbert would vote for tax cuts for folks like you and me. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
Friday, September 10, 2010
Would you sell your government for silver?
Jeremy Rifkin.Author, 'The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis
Posted: September 9, 2010 01:59 PM
"Third World America: Is Anyone Listening?
"* * *
"What has happened to the great American Experiment that was, for so long, considered the gold standard to which millions of people in the world looked for inspiration and guidance?
"Arianna Huffington has taken us on a difficult journey -- a kind of collective self-discovery. Her new book, Third World America, is hard to read, not because of the way it's written -- the prose is eloquent and riveting -- but because of what she's telling us. She lays bare the unraveling of the American Dream at the hands of the "special interests" on Wall Street and their friends in high places in the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
"The book is really about two intertwined stories: the first is the story of the coup d'état -- the systematic dismantling of the coveted American way of life by the rich and powerful; and the second is the very personal, heart-wrenching stories of some of the millions of families whose lives have been ruined as a result of that coup. By the end, we come to understand that the great numbness hanging over America today resembles a post-traumatic stress disorder, the kind of battle fatigue that soldiers experience after long periods of engagement in war zones -- except this is not a hot war or a cold war but a stealth war executed with ruthless calculation and designed to rob millions of Americans of their birthright. It succeeded.
"But now, at least, there is no longer any way to claim we didn't know. Arianna is asking us to quit living in a kind of mass denial about what's happened to our country. As she said, we need to "connect the uncomfortable dots" and the most important connection she makes is the financing of elections by special interests. The bottom line is that our elected officials are, to a great extent, beholden to the corporations that "donate" millions of dollars to their campaigns to ensure that their voice will be heard above all others when it comes to drafting and passing legislation. It's a national disgrace.
"President Obama had a moment in which he could have turned America around and put us back on track but he chose not to understand the opportunity presented to him or seize it. When Wall Street was threatened with collapse in the Fall of 2008 and desperately needed the American people to bail them out with hundreds of billions of dollars, the president could have demanded a quid pro quo. That is, in return for the tax payers' bailout of Wall Street, the business community would have to accept the passage of legislation that would end private financing of elections and require that all elections be publically financed as they are in many other democratically elected governments in the world. Wall Street would have had no choice but to capitulate. It didn't happen. In fact, I suspect that no one in Congress even thought about taking such a course of action. Why would they since most of them owe their public careers, in large part, to the generosity bestowed on them by the Wall Street interests that they are supposed to oversee and regulate?
"As to the recent bitterly divided 5-4 Supreme Court decision that corporations have a Constitutional right to make contributions to politicians, I suspect that the passage of tough, uncompromising legislation mandating an end to the practice might have led to a different outcome -- or, at the very least, forced an interesting debate between the Court and the public about the relationship between financial and political power and the governance of America.
"Unless we end this despicable practice of buying elections, we will continue to witness a free fall of the American Dream, a shriveling of the American Middle Class and an erosion of what was once the greatest social experiment in modern history. Is anyone listening?
" Third World America
"Related News On Huffington Post:
"Third World America Stories Archive
"Devin Ludwig Portland, OR A liberal arts graduate from a lower-middle class family who has been unable to find long-term employment since he graduated..."
If you always vote for the candidate who has the most advertising, then you have sold your government for silver. Thirty pieces of silver. If you are like me, you will ignore the money bought advertising, and vote for the candidates that agree with you on the issues. It's true that Hal Rogers will outspend Jim Holbert 500 to 1, but I plan to vote for Jim Holbert anyway because Jim Holbert is the only anti-war candidate in that race (KY-05 U.S. House), and I agree with him that it's time to bring the American troops home and stop fighting those foreign and undeclared wars. Kenneth Stepp
Posted: September 9, 2010 01:59 PM
"Third World America: Is Anyone Listening?
"* * *
"What has happened to the great American Experiment that was, for so long, considered the gold standard to which millions of people in the world looked for inspiration and guidance?
"Arianna Huffington has taken us on a difficult journey -- a kind of collective self-discovery. Her new book, Third World America, is hard to read, not because of the way it's written -- the prose is eloquent and riveting -- but because of what she's telling us. She lays bare the unraveling of the American Dream at the hands of the "special interests" on Wall Street and their friends in high places in the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
"The book is really about two intertwined stories: the first is the story of the coup d'état -- the systematic dismantling of the coveted American way of life by the rich and powerful; and the second is the very personal, heart-wrenching stories of some of the millions of families whose lives have been ruined as a result of that coup. By the end, we come to understand that the great numbness hanging over America today resembles a post-traumatic stress disorder, the kind of battle fatigue that soldiers experience after long periods of engagement in war zones -- except this is not a hot war or a cold war but a stealth war executed with ruthless calculation and designed to rob millions of Americans of their birthright. It succeeded.
"But now, at least, there is no longer any way to claim we didn't know. Arianna is asking us to quit living in a kind of mass denial about what's happened to our country. As she said, we need to "connect the uncomfortable dots" and the most important connection she makes is the financing of elections by special interests. The bottom line is that our elected officials are, to a great extent, beholden to the corporations that "donate" millions of dollars to their campaigns to ensure that their voice will be heard above all others when it comes to drafting and passing legislation. It's a national disgrace.
"President Obama had a moment in which he could have turned America around and put us back on track but he chose not to understand the opportunity presented to him or seize it. When Wall Street was threatened with collapse in the Fall of 2008 and desperately needed the American people to bail them out with hundreds of billions of dollars, the president could have demanded a quid pro quo. That is, in return for the tax payers' bailout of Wall Street, the business community would have to accept the passage of legislation that would end private financing of elections and require that all elections be publically financed as they are in many other democratically elected governments in the world. Wall Street would have had no choice but to capitulate. It didn't happen. In fact, I suspect that no one in Congress even thought about taking such a course of action. Why would they since most of them owe their public careers, in large part, to the generosity bestowed on them by the Wall Street interests that they are supposed to oversee and regulate?
"As to the recent bitterly divided 5-4 Supreme Court decision that corporations have a Constitutional right to make contributions to politicians, I suspect that the passage of tough, uncompromising legislation mandating an end to the practice might have led to a different outcome -- or, at the very least, forced an interesting debate between the Court and the public about the relationship between financial and political power and the governance of America.
"Unless we end this despicable practice of buying elections, we will continue to witness a free fall of the American Dream, a shriveling of the American Middle Class and an erosion of what was once the greatest social experiment in modern history. Is anyone listening?
" Third World America
"Related News On Huffington Post:
"Third World America Stories Archive
"Devin Ludwig Portland, OR A liberal arts graduate from a lower-middle class family who has been unable to find long-term employment since he graduated..."
If you always vote for the candidate who has the most advertising, then you have sold your government for silver. Thirty pieces of silver. If you are like me, you will ignore the money bought advertising, and vote for the candidates that agree with you on the issues. It's true that Hal Rogers will outspend Jim Holbert 500 to 1, but I plan to vote for Jim Holbert anyway because Jim Holbert is the only anti-war candidate in that race (KY-05 U.S. House), and I agree with him that it's time to bring the American troops home and stop fighting those foreign and undeclared wars. Kenneth Stepp
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
President Obama has some words about Republicans and the Economy.
Keep America moving. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House. KY-05!
Arianna speaks to you.
Turn America back from Third World status. Elect Jim Holbert to U.S. House KY-05!
Friday, September 03, 2010
The UAW and Rahm Emanuel!
Marcus Baram Marcus@huffingtonpost.com |
Rahm Emanuel's 'F--k The UAW': White House Pushes Back On Account In Rattner Book
" F--k The UAW,
" The White House is forcefully pushing back on former car czar Steve Rattner's upcoming book about his time in Washington, specifically the allegation that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once blurted "F%*k the UAW" when told that tens of thousands of autoworkers' jobs were at stake in the restructuring of the auto industry.
"In "Overhaul", as first reported by Huffington Post on Thursday, Rattner offers an insider's account of the Obama administration's rescue of the auto industry, pulling no punches when it comes to describing the foibles of such heavyweights as Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, economic adviser Larry Summers and FDIC chair Sheila Bair.
"While not specifically denying that Emanuel uttered those words, a White House aide rejected the implication that the chief of staff wasn't looking out for workers toiling at GM and Chrysler.
"Throughout the entire process that saved the auto industry, Rahm tirelessly defended and advocated on behalf of the auto workers," the aide said. "Any suggestion to the contrary is simply ridiculous."
I've noticed neither one of them seem interested in getting a Democratic Congressman for the KY-05 District! Maybe both are too cozy with Hal Rogers!
Rahm Emanuel's 'F--k The UAW': White House Pushes Back On Account In Rattner Book
" F--k The UAW,
" The White House is forcefully pushing back on former car czar Steve Rattner's upcoming book about his time in Washington, specifically the allegation that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once blurted "F%*k the UAW" when told that tens of thousands of autoworkers' jobs were at stake in the restructuring of the auto industry.
"In "Overhaul", as first reported by Huffington Post on Thursday, Rattner offers an insider's account of the Obama administration's rescue of the auto industry, pulling no punches when it comes to describing the foibles of such heavyweights as Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, economic adviser Larry Summers and FDIC chair Sheila Bair.
"While not specifically denying that Emanuel uttered those words, a White House aide rejected the implication that the chief of staff wasn't looking out for workers toiling at GM and Chrysler.
"Throughout the entire process that saved the auto industry, Rahm tirelessly defended and advocated on behalf of the auto workers," the aide said. "Any suggestion to the contrary is simply ridiculous."
I've noticed neither one of them seem interested in getting a Democratic Congressman for the KY-05 District! Maybe both are too cozy with Hal Rogers!
Thursday, September 02, 2010
The War in Iraq: At What Cost?
Jim Wallis.Christian leader for social change
Posted: September 1, 2010 03:24 PM
The War in Iraq: At What Cost?
"The emotion that grips me this morning, after watching President Obama's speech last night and listening to the commentary about the "end of our combat mission in Iraq," is a deep sadness. Even in the Oval Office speech last night, the mission of the war in Iraq still wasn't made clear -- and it never was.
"This was a war started on a false pretext -- that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them or hand them off to terrorists. At the time there were other ways to determine that and respond accordingly (international inspections were underway), but we went to war instead. The Bush Administration's fearful predictions of "mushroom clouds" went along with insinuations that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 despite the fact that it was not. That Saddam Hussein was a terrible and brutal dictator was well known, but bombing his cities and people wasn't the only way to deal with him, as many church leaders pointed out at the time. And, of course, the U.S. hadn't made war on the countries of every other dictator who was as bad, or worse, than Saddam. But those dictators weren't sitting on deserts full of oil -- always the unspoken reality of our foreign policy and wars in the Middle Eastern region.
"Of course the "shock and awe" of America's military might easily defeated the army of Saddam Hussein, but the post-invasion strategy was horribly botched, a complete misunderstanding of Iraq's religious and ethnic conflicts was soon revealed, incidents of prisoner abuse and torture shamed America's image around the world, and the impact of the U.S. deciding to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq served to inflame global opinion about the United States, and caused us to lose the moral high ground we had around the world after the vicious attacks of 9/11 (remember that?). And the strategic consequences of neglecting Afghanistan and inadvertently strengthening Iran because of the U.S. war in Iraq are now being discussed by the political talking heads.
"But that's all history now, and the president asked the nation to "turn the page" last night. But what makes me so sad this morning is the enormous human cost of the war in Iraq; and how a massive number of people and families -- in America and Iraq -- have had their lives ended or changed forever because of this war and will have a hard time turning the page.
"It is precisely because of the terrible human cost of war that Christian leaders and churches are supposed to ask the hardest questions about it. And many did about the war in Iraq. Let's remember the fact today that most Christian leaders and churches around the world rejected the arguments for America going to war against Iraq and opposed the U.S. invasion and occupation. They applied the peace-making ministry of Jesus and the rigorous historical criteria for what constitutes a "just war" and found the Iraq war painfully lacking adequate moral justification. But the United States government didn't heed the warnings and the objections of the international faith community, even in America, where political opinion was split about 50-50. The global church was right in rejecting this war from the outset, and the government of the United States was wrong for fighting it.
"The human cost of the Iraq War is literally breathtaking. I went to a website last night that has documented the number and published the pictures of those who died, 4,400 so far. I couldn't stop looking at their pictures -- so young -- so many husbands and wives, fathers, mothers, and those still almost children themselves. I kept thinking about how much they will be so sorely missed by those who loved and needed them. Then I listened to so many stories of the 35,000 wounded, many who lost their arms and legs, their strong young bodies, their long-term abilities, or their emotional and mental health. I winced when I heard there are about 18 suicides each day among returning veterans.
"As people of faith or moral conscience, we must also consider the cost to the Iraqis. Even conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian causalities are now over 100,000 with some estimates peaking over 1.3 million. It's sad that there were no websites I could find with their pictures. But just imagine them and all the families and children whose lives will be forever changed.
"The unbelievable financial cost of the Iraq war also has clear human consequences. What could that $1 trillion -- $745 billion in Iraq and $330 billion so far in Afghanistan -- have done instead of war? How might the eventual $3 trillion in estimated costs that include long-term consequences and veteran's needs have been better used?
"On a graphic produced by the National Priorities Project, the numbers continue to fly by and rise up each second at an amazing speed. I couldn't help think of all the things that we lost because of spending those precious resources on this war, such as not re-building our crumbling infrastructure, not making critical improvements in our schools, not paying for enough teachers, police, and firefighters, not getting health care for children who don't have it, and not moving to a clean energy future as quickly as we need to. How about helping to prevent this recession instead of helping to cause it? Or helping to create millions of jobs and preventing millions of foreclosures? Again check websites that list the trade-offs we have made for the War in Iraq.
"I watched the arguments on the talk shows about the continuing political instability in Iraq, the lack of a functioning government six months after an election, the deep worries about continuing ethnic division and conflict. The president said it was up to the Iraqis now. The truth is that it always was up to the people -- both in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the mistake of "empire" is the belief than endless war and occupation can change those political realities. Leading by example would have been better, offering a whole array of non-military help to Iraq and now Afghanistan would have been more effective -- and so much less costly.
"The president rightly praised the sacrifice of so many in the military, many of whom served multiple tours of duty in Iraq, at great costs to their families. But as has been said countless times, the troops always end up fighting in war mostly for each other -- defending and helping their brothers, and now sisters, in often heroic ways. Many also showed concern and compassion for the Iraqi people among whom they have lived and fought. But they didn't decide to fight this war; politicians made that decision and they went. To praise them now for their sacrifice is not to praise this unnecessary war, for which none of them should have been sent in the first place.
"So was the war in Iraq worth the enormous human cost? My answer is no, the results are definitely not worth the cost. That is both a political and a theological statement; but it is primarily a moral judgment -- which is exactly what those of us in the faith community are supposed to make about wars.
"But today, it matters less about who was right or wrong about the war in Iraq. Today I feel little celebration in America for the "end" of our combat mission in Iraq. I feel mostly relief ... and sadness."
"Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com."
KY-5 Elect Democrat Jim Holbert, the anti-war candidate, to the U.S. House. The best peacekeeper is an anti-war candidate. Elect Holbert!
Posted: September 1, 2010 03:24 PM
The War in Iraq: At What Cost?
"The emotion that grips me this morning, after watching President Obama's speech last night and listening to the commentary about the "end of our combat mission in Iraq," is a deep sadness. Even in the Oval Office speech last night, the mission of the war in Iraq still wasn't made clear -- and it never was.
"This was a war started on a false pretext -- that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them or hand them off to terrorists. At the time there were other ways to determine that and respond accordingly (international inspections were underway), but we went to war instead. The Bush Administration's fearful predictions of "mushroom clouds" went along with insinuations that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 despite the fact that it was not. That Saddam Hussein was a terrible and brutal dictator was well known, but bombing his cities and people wasn't the only way to deal with him, as many church leaders pointed out at the time. And, of course, the U.S. hadn't made war on the countries of every other dictator who was as bad, or worse, than Saddam. But those dictators weren't sitting on deserts full of oil -- always the unspoken reality of our foreign policy and wars in the Middle Eastern region.
"Of course the "shock and awe" of America's military might easily defeated the army of Saddam Hussein, but the post-invasion strategy was horribly botched, a complete misunderstanding of Iraq's religious and ethnic conflicts was soon revealed, incidents of prisoner abuse and torture shamed America's image around the world, and the impact of the U.S. deciding to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq served to inflame global opinion about the United States, and caused us to lose the moral high ground we had around the world after the vicious attacks of 9/11 (remember that?). And the strategic consequences of neglecting Afghanistan and inadvertently strengthening Iran because of the U.S. war in Iraq are now being discussed by the political talking heads.
"But that's all history now, and the president asked the nation to "turn the page" last night. But what makes me so sad this morning is the enormous human cost of the war in Iraq; and how a massive number of people and families -- in America and Iraq -- have had their lives ended or changed forever because of this war and will have a hard time turning the page.
"It is precisely because of the terrible human cost of war that Christian leaders and churches are supposed to ask the hardest questions about it. And many did about the war in Iraq. Let's remember the fact today that most Christian leaders and churches around the world rejected the arguments for America going to war against Iraq and opposed the U.S. invasion and occupation. They applied the peace-making ministry of Jesus and the rigorous historical criteria for what constitutes a "just war" and found the Iraq war painfully lacking adequate moral justification. But the United States government didn't heed the warnings and the objections of the international faith community, even in America, where political opinion was split about 50-50. The global church was right in rejecting this war from the outset, and the government of the United States was wrong for fighting it.
"The human cost of the Iraq War is literally breathtaking. I went to a website last night that has documented the number and published the pictures of those who died, 4,400 so far. I couldn't stop looking at their pictures -- so young -- so many husbands and wives, fathers, mothers, and those still almost children themselves. I kept thinking about how much they will be so sorely missed by those who loved and needed them. Then I listened to so many stories of the 35,000 wounded, many who lost their arms and legs, their strong young bodies, their long-term abilities, or their emotional and mental health. I winced when I heard there are about 18 suicides each day among returning veterans.
"As people of faith or moral conscience, we must also consider the cost to the Iraqis. Even conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian causalities are now over 100,000 with some estimates peaking over 1.3 million. It's sad that there were no websites I could find with their pictures. But just imagine them and all the families and children whose lives will be forever changed.
"The unbelievable financial cost of the Iraq war also has clear human consequences. What could that $1 trillion -- $745 billion in Iraq and $330 billion so far in Afghanistan -- have done instead of war? How might the eventual $3 trillion in estimated costs that include long-term consequences and veteran's needs have been better used?
"On a graphic produced by the National Priorities Project, the numbers continue to fly by and rise up each second at an amazing speed. I couldn't help think of all the things that we lost because of spending those precious resources on this war, such as not re-building our crumbling infrastructure, not making critical improvements in our schools, not paying for enough teachers, police, and firefighters, not getting health care for children who don't have it, and not moving to a clean energy future as quickly as we need to. How about helping to prevent this recession instead of helping to cause it? Or helping to create millions of jobs and preventing millions of foreclosures? Again check websites that list the trade-offs we have made for the War in Iraq.
"I watched the arguments on the talk shows about the continuing political instability in Iraq, the lack of a functioning government six months after an election, the deep worries about continuing ethnic division and conflict. The president said it was up to the Iraqis now. The truth is that it always was up to the people -- both in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the mistake of "empire" is the belief than endless war and occupation can change those political realities. Leading by example would have been better, offering a whole array of non-military help to Iraq and now Afghanistan would have been more effective -- and so much less costly.
"The president rightly praised the sacrifice of so many in the military, many of whom served multiple tours of duty in Iraq, at great costs to their families. But as has been said countless times, the troops always end up fighting in war mostly for each other -- defending and helping their brothers, and now sisters, in often heroic ways. Many also showed concern and compassion for the Iraqi people among whom they have lived and fought. But they didn't decide to fight this war; politicians made that decision and they went. To praise them now for their sacrifice is not to praise this unnecessary war, for which none of them should have been sent in the first place.
"So was the war in Iraq worth the enormous human cost? My answer is no, the results are definitely not worth the cost. That is both a political and a theological statement; but it is primarily a moral judgment -- which is exactly what those of us in the faith community are supposed to make about wars.
"But today, it matters less about who was right or wrong about the war in Iraq. Today I feel little celebration in America for the "end" of our combat mission in Iraq. I feel mostly relief ... and sadness."
"Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com."
KY-5 Elect Democrat Jim Holbert, the anti-war candidate, to the U.S. House. The best peacekeeper is an anti-war candidate. Elect Holbert!
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
A promise kept, a promise deferred.
Robert Naiman.Policy Director, Just Foreign Policy
Posted: September 1, 2010 01:10 PM
"Iraq/Afghanistan: A Promise Kept, a Promise Deferred
* * *
The Iraq war is not over. This is not a left-wing critique. The consensus account of mainstream U.S. print media is that the 50,000 U.S. troops who remain have been rebranded from "combat" brigades to "advise-and-assist" brigades. The unfailingly pro-war Washington Post editorial board wrote yesterday:
"For one thing, combat won't really end on Sept. 1. Fifty thousand U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, and their duties will include counterterrorism work as well as continuing to train and assist Iraqi forces....
Moreover, the United States government is still "meddling" in Iraq's internal political affairs, to use the term our media uses when countries we don't like do it. U.S. officials are still trying to determine who will be in the Iraqi government and who should not. This is a key factor in the current political impasse in Baghdad, a fact which is generally omitted in mainstream press accounts that bemoan the failure of Iraqi politicians to form a government. It's true that there is a failure on the part of Iraqi politicians, but they have enablers in their failure: the outside powers, including the U.S., Iran, and other countries, which are lobbying furiously for a government to their liking, and working to block any government that they don't like. The impasse between the Iraqi politicians is also an impasse between the outside powers, fighting a proxy political war for influence in Iraq.
"This week, Antony Blinken, Vice-President Biden's national security adviser, told the New York Times that Prime Minister Maliki's State of Law coalition and Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya coalition should be part of "the foundation of the next government," along with the Kurdish alliance. But the Sadrists, according to Blinken, should not be included, because
the United States did not see them as useful members of a new governing coalition - or, as he put it, the Iraqi government should include "coalitions that are interested in building a long-term partnership with the United States."
In his speech last night, President Obama said:
"Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people.
"Blinken's more detailed statement suggests that when President Obama said "inclusive," he meant "including State of Law, Iraqiya, and the Kurds, but not the Sadrists."
"A major objective of the Bush Administration's war -- which, as a Senator, Joe Biden supported -- was to remove Saddam Hussein's government and replace it with a pro-U.S. government. The Obama Administration, according to the statement of Biden's aide, is still pursuing the second half of this objective. But the pursuit of this objective continues the war, not only because it was a key objective of the war, but also because it is a politically divisive objective among Iraqis; many Iraqis don't want to have a "pro-U.S." government, and some of them are prepared to use violence to prevent that from happening.
"If the fact that some Iraqis are prepared to use violence to prevent their country from having a "pro-U.S." government seems extreme to you, reflect for a moment on how extreme it was for the United States to invade Iraq, defying the United Nations Charter and world opinion and unleashing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, in order to establish a "pro-U.S." government in Iraq.
"President Obama was right to call for an Iraqi government that is "an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people." But as of this week, this is not yet actually U.S. policy. If the Iraqi government is to be representative and accountable to the Iraqi people, people who do not want to have a "pro-U.S." government cannot be walled out: continuing to try to exclude them from power is a recipe for continued violence.
"Some may see it as an immutable fact of life on Earth that the U.S. must try to control the governments of the broader Middle East, even if the attempt to do so produces terrible violence.
"But the example of Lebanon proves that it is not so. Today the major political factions in Lebanon -- which have a long history of bitter civil war -- live within the confines of a national political accord in which they share power, an accord that guarantees that the government will be neither "pro-U.S." nor "anti-U.S." All the major outside powers which back the major factions have signed off on this agreement, explicitly or implicitly, including the U.S. (during the Bush Administration!), Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
"For the foreseeable future, if Iraq will have peace, that is what it will almost surely look like: a government that is neither pro-U.S. nor anti-U.S., but in which pro-U.S. and anti-U.S. factions share power. So for the U.S. to accept peace in Iraq requires that it accept for Iraq what it has already accepted for Lebanon.
"And this brings us back to the other thing that Senator Obama promised. He said he didn't just want to end the war: he wanted to end the mindset that leads to war.
"The belief that we can and must control other people's governments, that we can and must decide who will participate in power in other people's countries, is a key component of the mindset that leads to war. If an effective consensus had not developed in Washington that the United States could and should decide who would govern Iraq, the war would never have taken place.
"People who say that the war succeeded because Saddam Hussein was removed from power are perpetuating the mindset that leads to war. To say that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and the millions displaced, among the many human tragedies produced by the war, are justified by Saddam Hussein's removal from power is not simply wrong; more fundamentally, it's not our call. Only the people who live in a country are morally qualified to make this kind of trade-off about what sacrifices they think are justified to change (or keep) their form of government, given the likelihood that they will pay 99% of the sacrifice. It's obvious that many Iraqis, especially among the millions who lost family members, would not have chosen to make this trade-off.
"And this question could not be more relevant today, because we are still pursuing a policy in Afghanistan that is based on the same premise: the United States government can and must determine who will participate in power in Afghanistan.
"About Afghanistan, the President said in his speech last night,
"As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can't do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That's why we're training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin -- because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's.
It's a good thing that President Obama re-affirmed the beginning of drawdown next summer; it's a good thing that he affirmed U.S. support for a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems.
"But as with Iraq, there are key differences between the policy being articulated by the President in his speech to the American people and the actual policy being implemented by U.S. officials. The U.S. has done little to promote a political resolution. The Pentagon is building long-term U.S. military bases in Afghanistan -- something Congress could do something about. As it was in Iraq, U.S. policy in Afghanistan is still premised on trying to exclude from power people who are opposed to a long-term U.S. military presence. The majority of Americans -- and the majority of House Democrats -- want a timetable for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan -- not just the beginning, but also the endpoint. But the White House still refuses to accept, in the case of Afghanistan, that which it promoted in the case of Iraq: a timetable for full U.S. military withdrawal.
"So how much credit the President should get for keeping his promise is very much an open question. He is drawing down from Iraq, and for that he deserves credit. But he has done little to end the mindset that leads to war, and in response to that, he needs continued pressure. On October 2, people from across the United States will go to Washington as part of the peace contingent of "One Nation Working Together" to demand that the wars end and that the troops come home: everyone who is able should make an effort to be there -- or to help someone else to go."
Vote for a Peace Candidate. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
Posted: September 1, 2010 01:10 PM
"Iraq/Afghanistan: A Promise Kept, a Promise Deferred
* * *
The Iraq war is not over. This is not a left-wing critique. The consensus account of mainstream U.S. print media is that the 50,000 U.S. troops who remain have been rebranded from "combat" brigades to "advise-and-assist" brigades. The unfailingly pro-war Washington Post editorial board wrote yesterday:
"For one thing, combat won't really end on Sept. 1. Fifty thousand U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, and their duties will include counterterrorism work as well as continuing to train and assist Iraqi forces....
Moreover, the United States government is still "meddling" in Iraq's internal political affairs, to use the term our media uses when countries we don't like do it. U.S. officials are still trying to determine who will be in the Iraqi government and who should not. This is a key factor in the current political impasse in Baghdad, a fact which is generally omitted in mainstream press accounts that bemoan the failure of Iraqi politicians to form a government. It's true that there is a failure on the part of Iraqi politicians, but they have enablers in their failure: the outside powers, including the U.S., Iran, and other countries, which are lobbying furiously for a government to their liking, and working to block any government that they don't like. The impasse between the Iraqi politicians is also an impasse between the outside powers, fighting a proxy political war for influence in Iraq.
"This week, Antony Blinken, Vice-President Biden's national security adviser, told the New York Times that Prime Minister Maliki's State of Law coalition and Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya coalition should be part of "the foundation of the next government," along with the Kurdish alliance. But the Sadrists, according to Blinken, should not be included, because
the United States did not see them as useful members of a new governing coalition - or, as he put it, the Iraqi government should include "coalitions that are interested in building a long-term partnership with the United States."
In his speech last night, President Obama said:
"Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people.
"Blinken's more detailed statement suggests that when President Obama said "inclusive," he meant "including State of Law, Iraqiya, and the Kurds, but not the Sadrists."
"A major objective of the Bush Administration's war -- which, as a Senator, Joe Biden supported -- was to remove Saddam Hussein's government and replace it with a pro-U.S. government. The Obama Administration, according to the statement of Biden's aide, is still pursuing the second half of this objective. But the pursuit of this objective continues the war, not only because it was a key objective of the war, but also because it is a politically divisive objective among Iraqis; many Iraqis don't want to have a "pro-U.S." government, and some of them are prepared to use violence to prevent that from happening.
"If the fact that some Iraqis are prepared to use violence to prevent their country from having a "pro-U.S." government seems extreme to you, reflect for a moment on how extreme it was for the United States to invade Iraq, defying the United Nations Charter and world opinion and unleashing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, in order to establish a "pro-U.S." government in Iraq.
"President Obama was right to call for an Iraqi government that is "an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people." But as of this week, this is not yet actually U.S. policy. If the Iraqi government is to be representative and accountable to the Iraqi people, people who do not want to have a "pro-U.S." government cannot be walled out: continuing to try to exclude them from power is a recipe for continued violence.
"Some may see it as an immutable fact of life on Earth that the U.S. must try to control the governments of the broader Middle East, even if the attempt to do so produces terrible violence.
"But the example of Lebanon proves that it is not so. Today the major political factions in Lebanon -- which have a long history of bitter civil war -- live within the confines of a national political accord in which they share power, an accord that guarantees that the government will be neither "pro-U.S." nor "anti-U.S." All the major outside powers which back the major factions have signed off on this agreement, explicitly or implicitly, including the U.S. (during the Bush Administration!), Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
"For the foreseeable future, if Iraq will have peace, that is what it will almost surely look like: a government that is neither pro-U.S. nor anti-U.S., but in which pro-U.S. and anti-U.S. factions share power. So for the U.S. to accept peace in Iraq requires that it accept for Iraq what it has already accepted for Lebanon.
"And this brings us back to the other thing that Senator Obama promised. He said he didn't just want to end the war: he wanted to end the mindset that leads to war.
"The belief that we can and must control other people's governments, that we can and must decide who will participate in power in other people's countries, is a key component of the mindset that leads to war. If an effective consensus had not developed in Washington that the United States could and should decide who would govern Iraq, the war would never have taken place.
"People who say that the war succeeded because Saddam Hussein was removed from power are perpetuating the mindset that leads to war. To say that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and the millions displaced, among the many human tragedies produced by the war, are justified by Saddam Hussein's removal from power is not simply wrong; more fundamentally, it's not our call. Only the people who live in a country are morally qualified to make this kind of trade-off about what sacrifices they think are justified to change (or keep) their form of government, given the likelihood that they will pay 99% of the sacrifice. It's obvious that many Iraqis, especially among the millions who lost family members, would not have chosen to make this trade-off.
"And this question could not be more relevant today, because we are still pursuing a policy in Afghanistan that is based on the same premise: the United States government can and must determine who will participate in power in Afghanistan.
"About Afghanistan, the President said in his speech last night,
"As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can't do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That's why we're training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin -- because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's.
It's a good thing that President Obama re-affirmed the beginning of drawdown next summer; it's a good thing that he affirmed U.S. support for a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems.
"But as with Iraq, there are key differences between the policy being articulated by the President in his speech to the American people and the actual policy being implemented by U.S. officials. The U.S. has done little to promote a political resolution. The Pentagon is building long-term U.S. military bases in Afghanistan -- something Congress could do something about. As it was in Iraq, U.S. policy in Afghanistan is still premised on trying to exclude from power people who are opposed to a long-term U.S. military presence. The majority of Americans -- and the majority of House Democrats -- want a timetable for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan -- not just the beginning, but also the endpoint. But the White House still refuses to accept, in the case of Afghanistan, that which it promoted in the case of Iraq: a timetable for full U.S. military withdrawal.
"So how much credit the President should get for keeping his promise is very much an open question. He is drawing down from Iraq, and for that he deserves credit. But he has done little to end the mindset that leads to war, and in response to that, he needs continued pressure. On October 2, people from across the United States will go to Washington as part of the peace contingent of "One Nation Working Together" to demand that the wars end and that the troops come home: everyone who is able should make an effort to be there -- or to help someone else to go."
Vote for a Peace Candidate. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
