In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
Read on.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Bush's Canadian 'Clone' in Jeopardy
By Richard L. Fricker
January 18, 2007
The political decision by American voters on Nov. 7 – flushing away Republican control of the U.S. Congress – is reverberating north of the border where Canada’s hard-line Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper may become the next ally of George W. Bush to be washed away.
Harper, who modeled his aggressive brand of conservatism on what the Republicans had done in the United States, is struggling in the polls and confronting a reenergized Liberal opposition that was encouraged by the Democratic victory.
Read on.
January 18, 2007
The political decision by American voters on Nov. 7 – flushing away Republican control of the U.S. Congress – is reverberating north of the border where Canada’s hard-line Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper may become the next ally of George W. Bush to be washed away.
Harper, who modeled his aggressive brand of conservatism on what the Republicans had done in the United States, is struggling in the polls and confronting a reenergized Liberal opposition that was encouraged by the Democratic victory.
Read on.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Scooter Libby's Time-Travel Trial
By Robert Parry
January 17, 2007
The trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is being billed by the Big Media as a case study of a favorite Washington cliché – “it’s not the crime but the coverup” – a smugly delivered line suggesting that Libby committed no real offense beyond trimming a few facts when questioned by overzealous investigators.
But the major U.S. news media is again missing the point. The real significance of the Libby trial is that it could demonstrate how far George W. Bush went in 2003 to shut down legitimate criticism of his Iraq War policies as well as questions about his personal honesty.
In that sense, the trial could be a kind of time machine for transporting America back to that earlier era of not so long ago when Bush and his team felt they controlled reality itself and were justified in tricking the American people into bloody adventures overseas.
It was a time when President Bush swaggered across the political landscape, a modern-day king fawned over by courtiers in the government and the press – and protected by legions of followers who bullied citizens who dared to dissent.
Read on.
January 17, 2007
The trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is being billed by the Big Media as a case study of a favorite Washington cliché – “it’s not the crime but the coverup” – a smugly delivered line suggesting that Libby committed no real offense beyond trimming a few facts when questioned by overzealous investigators.
But the major U.S. news media is again missing the point. The real significance of the Libby trial is that it could demonstrate how far George W. Bush went in 2003 to shut down legitimate criticism of his Iraq War policies as well as questions about his personal honesty.
In that sense, the trial could be a kind of time machine for transporting America back to that earlier era of not so long ago when Bush and his team felt they controlled reality itself and were justified in tricking the American people into bloody adventures overseas.
It was a time when President Bush swaggered across the political landscape, a modern-day king fawned over by courtiers in the government and the press – and protected by legions of followers who bullied citizens who dared to dissent.
Read on.
Bush's Iraq Plan Founders with Shiites
By Ivan Eland
January 17, 2007
Although President Bush’s escalation of the Iraq War has been opposed by a substantial majority of the American people, many generals, the Iraq Study Group, and most Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, the most important opposition may come from Iraqis.
Although Bush had trouble correctly reading the results of the November 2006 congressional elections, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki got the message loud and clear.
When Maliki met Bush in Amman, Jordan, later in November, he hoped the newly chastened American president would be sensible enough to lower the U.S. profile in Baghdad. Maliki demanded that the United States turn most of the security responsibilities in Baghdad over to the Iraqi government and withdraw U.S. forces to the outskirts of the capital.
Rather than training Iraqi security forces and moving toward the exits, however, the President has decided to do the opposite. His escalation of the war will now result in U.S. forces bearing the brunt of the fighting and dying in the Iraqi capital.
Read on.
January 17, 2007
Although President Bush’s escalation of the Iraq War has been opposed by a substantial majority of the American people, many generals, the Iraq Study Group, and most Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, the most important opposition may come from Iraqis.
Although Bush had trouble correctly reading the results of the November 2006 congressional elections, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki got the message loud and clear.
When Maliki met Bush in Amman, Jordan, later in November, he hoped the newly chastened American president would be sensible enough to lower the U.S. profile in Baghdad. Maliki demanded that the United States turn most of the security responsibilities in Baghdad over to the Iraqi government and withdraw U.S. forces to the outskirts of the capital.
Rather than training Iraqi security forces and moving toward the exits, however, the President has decided to do the opposite. His escalation of the war will now result in U.S. forces bearing the brunt of the fighting and dying in the Iraqi capital.
Read on.
35,000 Iraqis Killed Last Year, and Bush Says They Owe Us 'Gratitude'
In the latest grim news from Iraq, the UN said today that almost 35,000 civilians were killed in the country last year, a much larger number than that previously reported by the Iraqi government.
"Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the UN assistance mission for Iraq, said 34,452 civilians were killed and 36,685 wounded last year," reported the Guardian.
The news comes on the heels of President Bush's interview with "60 Minutes," in which he brushed off the suggestion that the U.S. may owe Iraqis an apology for unleashing such chaos in their country, and insisted that instead, they owe us a huge debt of gratitude. "Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology," Bush was asked, "for not doing a better job?"
"Not at all," he replied.
The only problem is, most Iraqis are opposed to the presence of American troops in their country, and have been for some time. As far as back as 2004, surveys of the Iraqi people were showing that a majority rejected the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Just before the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion, a poll showed that "A majority of Iraqis are opposed to the continued presence of occupation forces in Iraq," according to al-Jazeera.
Furthermore, more than 40% believed the invasion humiliated Iraq -- and this was before the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke. After that scandal became public, Iraqi opposition stiffened even further.
By 2005, the Iraqis were so hostile to the presence of foreign troops in their country that a secret poll taken by the British Ministry of Defence found that a majority of Iraqis supported suicide attacks on British troops, reported the Telegraph.
Of course, since then, the situation in Iraq has only deterioratied, largely because of the total inability of the occupation forces to provide security, which under the Geneva Conventions is an occupier's primary responsibility.
Considering that steady deterioration it wouldn't be surprising if Iraqis would take issue with Bush's assessment that they owe us a debt of gratitude, especially with all the "mistakes" that Bush now concedes the U.S. has made. When asked specifically what mistakes had been made, he rattled off a couple that popped into his head.
There is no doubt about that, but what is left unsaid by Bush, other politicians and most of the mainstream media, is that the biggest mistake of all may have been the initial invasion, which could be seen under international law as a war of aggression. And of course, according to the Nuremberg Principles, "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" is considered a "crime against peace," and is the most the serious of all war crimes.
The open-ended nature of the occupation could be considered the second biggest mistake, as it seems to have only exacerbated the situation as time has gone on. In one of his more honest and candid moments, Bush conceded that the occupation itself was a source of anger and instability in Iraq. "They're not happy they're occupied," he said in April 2004. "I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
Yet, now he insists that they owe us a debt of gratitude. Especially considering the staggering death toll of last year, it seems safe to say that Iraqis on the whole would disagree.
"Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the UN assistance mission for Iraq, said 34,452 civilians were killed and 36,685 wounded last year," reported the Guardian.
The news comes on the heels of President Bush's interview with "60 Minutes," in which he brushed off the suggestion that the U.S. may owe Iraqis an apology for unleashing such chaos in their country, and insisted that instead, they owe us a huge debt of gratitude. "Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology," Bush was asked, "for not doing a better job?"
"Not at all," he replied.
I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.
The only problem is, most Iraqis are opposed to the presence of American troops in their country, and have been for some time. As far as back as 2004, surveys of the Iraqi people were showing that a majority rejected the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Just before the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion, a poll showed that "A majority of Iraqis are opposed to the continued presence of occupation forces in Iraq," according to al-Jazeera.
A total of 2500 Iraqis were quizzed for a group of international broadcasting organisations including the BBC in a poll to mark the first anniversary of the US-led occupation.
Fifty-one percent said they took issue with the foreign forces occupying Iraq, against 39% who supported it.
Almost a fifth of those questioned said attacks on foreign forces were acceptable, while 14% said the same about attacks on the civilian administrators of the Coalition Provisional Authority and 10% on foreigners working with the CPA.
Furthermore, more than 40% believed the invasion humiliated Iraq -- and this was before the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke. After that scandal became public, Iraqi opposition stiffened even further.
By 2005, the Iraqis were so hostile to the presence of foreign troops in their country that a secret poll taken by the British Ministry of Defence found that a majority of Iraqis supported suicide attacks on British troops, reported the Telegraph.
Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.
The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
Of course, since then, the situation in Iraq has only deterioratied, largely because of the total inability of the occupation forces to provide security, which under the Geneva Conventions is an occupier's primary responsibility.
Considering that steady deterioration it wouldn't be surprising if Iraqis would take issue with Bush's assessment that they owe us a debt of gratitude, especially with all the "mistakes" that Bush now concedes the U.S. has made. When asked specifically what mistakes had been made, he rattled off a couple that popped into his head.
Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language like, you know, "bring them on" was a mistake. I think history is gonna look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better.
There is no doubt about that, but what is left unsaid by Bush, other politicians and most of the mainstream media, is that the biggest mistake of all may have been the initial invasion, which could be seen under international law as a war of aggression. And of course, according to the Nuremberg Principles, "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" is considered a "crime against peace," and is the most the serious of all war crimes.
The open-ended nature of the occupation could be considered the second biggest mistake, as it seems to have only exacerbated the situation as time has gone on. In one of his more honest and candid moments, Bush conceded that the occupation itself was a source of anger and instability in Iraq. "They're not happy they're occupied," he said in April 2004. "I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
Yet, now he insists that they owe us a debt of gratitude. Especially considering the staggering death toll of last year, it seems safe to say that Iraqis on the whole would disagree.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
The Logic of a Wider Mideast War
By Robert Parry
January 14, 2007
White House press secretary Tony Snow dismisses expectations of war with Iran as an “urban legend” and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace says that “from a military standpoint” there’s “no need to cross the Iranian border.” But there are still strong reasons to suspect the Iraq War may soon spill over to Iran and possibly Syria.
Indeed, absent some blinking of eyes in Tehran over its nuclear program or a chilling of feet in Tel Aviv and Washington over military options, the logic of a wider war seems compelling – and would fit with both recent evidence and motives of key protagonists.
Read on.
January 14, 2007
White House press secretary Tony Snow dismisses expectations of war with Iran as an “urban legend” and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace says that “from a military standpoint” there’s “no need to cross the Iranian border.” But there are still strong reasons to suspect the Iraq War may soon spill over to Iran and possibly Syria.
Indeed, absent some blinking of eyes in Tehran over its nuclear program or a chilling of feet in Tel Aviv and Washington over military options, the logic of a wider war seems compelling – and would fit with both recent evidence and motives of key protagonists.
Read on.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Washington's Epic Battle, War or Peace
By Brent Budowsky
January 12, 2007
With the Democratic Congress only days old, an epic battle is unfolding in Washington with great dangers, enormous consequences and a historic opportunity.
Let's review the playing field, which is often mischaracterized on the television news.
First, there is an unfolding Democratic strategy to halt the escalation of the war in Iraq as proposed by President Bush's speech in open defiance of the voters' will as expressed in the 2006 election.
Second, there is a raging battle behid the scenes pitting advocates of a preemptive attack against Iran, led by the same civilian neoconservatives who advocated the Iraq War, against critics who view such an attack as catastrophically dangerous. These opponents of a new preemptive war include many in the military and intelligence worlds in the United States and Israel.
Third, there is a grand constitutional battle that will soon be front-page news, pitting those who claim that the President possesses unilateral power to initiate preemptive war against those who argue that it is illegal and unconstitutional for the President to wage new wars without prior congressional approval.
While these battles superficially resemble the Washington kabuki play that preceded the Iraq War in 2002-03, there are two big differences that work to George Bush's great disadvantage and may result in a different outcome.
Read on.
January 12, 2007
With the Democratic Congress only days old, an epic battle is unfolding in Washington with great dangers, enormous consequences and a historic opportunity.
Let's review the playing field, which is often mischaracterized on the television news.
First, there is an unfolding Democratic strategy to halt the escalation of the war in Iraq as proposed by President Bush's speech in open defiance of the voters' will as expressed in the 2006 election.
Second, there is a raging battle behid the scenes pitting advocates of a preemptive attack against Iran, led by the same civilian neoconservatives who advocated the Iraq War, against critics who view such an attack as catastrophically dangerous. These opponents of a new preemptive war include many in the military and intelligence worlds in the United States and Israel.
Third, there is a grand constitutional battle that will soon be front-page news, pitting those who claim that the President possesses unilateral power to initiate preemptive war against those who argue that it is illegal and unconstitutional for the President to wage new wars without prior congressional approval.
While these battles superficially resemble the Washington kabuki play that preceded the Iraq War in 2002-03, there are two big differences that work to George Bush's great disadvantage and may result in a different outcome.
Read on.
The U.S.-Iran-Iraq-Israeli-Syrian War
By Robert Parry
January 12, 2007
At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.
Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said “there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way.”
Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.
“The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out,” Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.
Read on.
January 12, 2007
At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.
Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said “there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way.”
Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.
“The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out,” Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.
Read on.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Media Still Turning to Discredited 'Experts' for Analysis on Iraq
Despite the distastrous consequences that neoconservatives have unleashed with their foreign policy prescriptions for Iraq and the greater Middle East, the American media still gives an extraordinary platform to "experts" and academics from organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, one of the primary architects of the Iraq War, and the most vocal advocate for George Bush's new plan to escalate the war with a "surge" of 21,500 troops.
One of the media's current favorites is AEI scholar Frederick Kagan, the author of a report which apparently served as the basis for Bush's new strategy of escalation in Iraq. Kagan has been a regular on cable news and radio, and a Google News search with his name turns up over 700 hits in newspapers and other publications. What's extraordinary though is that representatives of AEI are turned to at all, considering their horrendous track record when it comes to foreign policy analysis. In baseball parlance, these intellectuals are batting at best .100.
The scholars at AEI and like-minded organizations provided the intellectual and scholarly rationale for the initial invasion of Iraq and the grander strategy of "reshaping" the Middle East, but as is obvious today, none of their predictions have played out the way they had hoped. Yet, they are still turned to as credible experts on Middle East policy and given a platform for their new policy prescriptions that are just as sure to fail as their past prescriptions.
Paradoxically, leaders of the grassroots antiwar movement -- who have been vindicated every step of the way -- are largely shut out of the media and still treated as if they are somehow less than credible. Leslie Cagan, coordinator of United For Peace and Justice, was interviewed on Democracy Now this morning, but a Google News search for her name only turned up 7 hits, compared to Frederick Kagan's 700. Representatives of the ANSWER Coalition, which organized many of the biggest antiwar demonstrations before the invasion of Iraq, are even more thoroughly excluded from the media debate.
In the interest of bringing to attention their analysis of the situation in Iraq, I'm posting in its entirety ANSWER's reaction to Bush's plan for a surge, which ANSWER suggests is a prescription for a bloodbath. We'll see whether ANSWER or AEI is proven correct.
-- ANSWER Coalition
Demonstrations are planned around the country today in opposition to Bush's plan for escalating the Iraq War. Click here for more information.
One of the media's current favorites is AEI scholar Frederick Kagan, the author of a report which apparently served as the basis for Bush's new strategy of escalation in Iraq. Kagan has been a regular on cable news and radio, and a Google News search with his name turns up over 700 hits in newspapers and other publications. What's extraordinary though is that representatives of AEI are turned to at all, considering their horrendous track record when it comes to foreign policy analysis. In baseball parlance, these intellectuals are batting at best .100.
The scholars at AEI and like-minded organizations provided the intellectual and scholarly rationale for the initial invasion of Iraq and the grander strategy of "reshaping" the Middle East, but as is obvious today, none of their predictions have played out the way they had hoped. Yet, they are still turned to as credible experts on Middle East policy and given a platform for their new policy prescriptions that are just as sure to fail as their past prescriptions.
Paradoxically, leaders of the grassroots antiwar movement -- who have been vindicated every step of the way -- are largely shut out of the media and still treated as if they are somehow less than credible. Leslie Cagan, coordinator of United For Peace and Justice, was interviewed on Democracy Now this morning, but a Google News search for her name only turned up 7 hits, compared to Frederick Kagan's 700. Representatives of the ANSWER Coalition, which organized many of the biggest antiwar demonstrations before the invasion of Iraq, are even more thoroughly excluded from the media debate.
In the interest of bringing to attention their analysis of the situation in Iraq, I'm posting in its entirety ANSWER's reaction to Bush's plan for a surge, which ANSWER suggests is a prescription for a bloodbath. We'll see whether ANSWER or AEI is proven correct.
U.S. Peace Movement Plans to “Escalate” Street Protests
The ANSWER Coalition Responds to
Bush’s War Speech of January 10, 2007
ANSWER Coalition Statement:
Unwilling to accept the failure of his war of aggression in Iraq, his “war of choice,” Bush announced tonight a plan that will succeed only in sending thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers to their graves in the next year.
What Bush is really proposing is using thousands of additional U.S. soldiers in a planned reign of terror in the streets and neighborhoods of Baghdad against those who want the U.S. to leave. Bush chose to use a euphemism about the planned reign of terror when he stated that one of the past “mistakes” of the U.S. military operation in Baghdad was that, “there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.” The blood will flow just as Bush promises but this plan will fail just as badly as every announced initiative since Bush arrogantly taunted the Iraqi resistance with his infamous “Bring em on” speech back in 2003.
Bush gave the people of the United States a warning that they should expect the coming year will be "bloody and violent," with "television screens filled with images of death and suffering." He tried to innoculate himself from responsibility for this carnage although his plan makes it inevitable.
Bush’s aspiration to salvage his “legacy” and his place in history isn’t worth one more life. Every mother and father of a U.S. soldier, every person who has a loved one in the U.S. armed forces should make it clear that the lives of their family members are too precious to be sacrificed for such an ignoble cause.
For the last six years, Bush has provided huge tax breaks for the billionaires and multimillionaires of this country. But it will not be their children who will be sent to fight and die in Iraq. The privileged ultra-rich, Bush's real "base," are shielded from the horrors of the war.
The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis since March 2003 (see Lancet medical journal 10/06), proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush’s claim that his invasion was for the liberation of the Iraqi people is a complete and utter lie.
“Clearing and holding neighborhoods in Iraq” is not the duty or right of members of the U.S. military. The people who live in those neighborhoods lived in peace before the arrival of the occupation forces. The occupation is illegal and the order to stiffen the occupation is illegal too. U.S. soldiers have the right and duty to disobey illegal orders.
Neither one more Iraqi nor one more soldier should die so that the politicians, who inaugurated a criminal “pre-emptive” invasion of a country that posed zero threat to the people of the United States, can postpone the verdict of history.
For their part, the Democrats in Congress are involved in a slightly more complicated dance. They want to posture as opponents of Bush’s escalation and so-called surge without taking responsibility for bringing the war to a close. They could cut funding for the war which is their exclusive Constitutional prerogative. But they will absolutely refuse to take this responsibility. They are merely posturing for the 2008 elections hoping to take advantage of the well deserved public disgust for Bush and the Iraq war.
The issue right now for the anti-war movement can not simply be opposition to a surge or an escalation: the issue is the war itself. The troops must be brought home now. As in Vietnam, that is the only solution. Those who initiated the war and who funded the war should be held accountable for one of the great crimes of the modern era.
Everything that Bush has said about the Iraq war has proved to be a lie. This was always a war for Empire in a strategic area that possesses two thirds of the world's oil supply. He proclaimed tonight that, "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." If Bush fails in Iraq the people of the United States lose nothing. It is not our Empire.
On March 17, 2007, the anniversary of the start of the criminal invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S. Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. The message of the 1967 march was "From Protest to Resistance," and marked a turning point in the development of a countrywide mass movement.
Thousands of organizations and individuals are mobilizing for the upcoming March on the Pentagon. Organizing committees and transportation centers are being established to bring people to the March on the Pentagon.
Tomorrow, January 11, there will be emergency demonstrations in scores of cities around the country protesting Bush's planned escalation of the war in Iraq. A schedule of the demonstrations can be found by clicking here.
The March 17 demonstration will assemble at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Constitution Gardens) at 12 noon in Washington, D.C. and march to the Pentagon. Go to http://www.answercoalition.org/ for more information. There are more than 1,000 endorsers for the March on the Pentagon, including:
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Alice Walker, Pulitzer prize winning author
Cynthia McKinney, Congresswoman
Cindy Sheehan, co-founder Gold Star Families for Peace, author
Ron Kovic, Vietnam Veteran, author, Born on the 4th of July
Malik Rahim, Founder, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit
Paul Haggis, Director of Crash, 2005 Academy Award for Best Picture
Elias Rashmawi, National Coordinator, National Council of Arab Americans (NCA)
Howard Zinn, Author, A People's History of the United States
Rev. Luis Barrios, Iglesia de San Romero - UCC
Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild
Chaplain James Yee, former Army chaplain, Guantánamo Detention Center
Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
Father Roy Bourgeois, Founder, School of the Americas Watch
Leonard Weinglass, Attorney for the Cuban Five
Eric LeCompte, National Office, School of the Americas Watch
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Co-founder, Partnership for Civil Justice
Brian Becker, National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition
Mounzer Sleiman, TV commentator and Vice Chair, National Council of Arab Americans
Ben Dupuy, Co-Director, Haiti Progres
Juan Jose Gutierrez, Executive Director, Latino Movement USA
Calvin Gipson, Former President, San Francisco LGBT Pride Committee
Rev. Graylan Hagler, Senior Pastor, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington D.C
Kay Lucas, Director, Crawford Peace House, Crawford, TX
Chuck Kaufman, Co-coordinator of the Nicaragua Network
Al Garcia, Alliance for a Just & Lasting Peace in the Philippines
Macrina Cardenas, Mexico Solidarity Network
Eugene Puryear, Howard University, student leader
Gloria La Riva, Coordinator, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five
CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities
Nodutdol for Korean Community Development
KAWAN: Korean Americans Against War and Neoliberalism
Justice Committee
Ed Asner, Actor
Shirley Knight, Actor
Debra Sweet, National Coordinator, World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime
Jennifer Harbury, Human Rights Lawyer, author
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)
Jim Lafferty, Director, National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles
Iglesia de San Romero - United Church of Christ
Mimi Kennedy, Actor (Dharma & Greg)
-- ANSWER Coalition
Demonstrations are planned around the country today in opposition to Bush's plan for escalating the Iraq War. Click here for more information.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
How Ollie North Helped Ortega Win
By Robert Parry
January 11, 2007
As Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega takes over as Nicaragua’s new president, some U.S. diplomats are privately blaming Iran-Contra figure Oliver North for unwittingly helping his longtime enemy split the anti-Sandinista vote and win last November’s election.
The bitter irony for some Bush administration officials is that North is a hero to many on the Right because, as a National Security Council aide in the 1980s, he spearheaded Ronald Reagan’s contra war seeking to oust Ortega and the leftist Sandinistas.
But now North is coming under criticism for making a last-minute trip to Nicaragua and throwing his weight behind a right-wing candidate who undercut another conservative favored by the U.S. Embassy.
Ortega prevailed in Nicaragua’s Nov. 5 election by winning a plurality of the vote (38 percent) while two conservative candidates – Eduardo Montealegre (28 percent) and Jose Rizo (27 percent) – divided up the anti-Sandinista vote.
The U.S. Embassy was behind Montealegre, a Harvard-educated economist and banker from the reformist Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance or ALN. But North was persuaded by former contra leader Adolfo Calero that Rizo, the candidate of the Liberal Constitutional Party or PLC, had the better shot to beat Ortega, according to sources familiar with the inside workings of Nicaragua’s politics.
Read on.
January 11, 2007
As Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega takes over as Nicaragua’s new president, some U.S. diplomats are privately blaming Iran-Contra figure Oliver North for unwittingly helping his longtime enemy split the anti-Sandinista vote and win last November’s election.
The bitter irony for some Bush administration officials is that North is a hero to many on the Right because, as a National Security Council aide in the 1980s, he spearheaded Ronald Reagan’s contra war seeking to oust Ortega and the leftist Sandinistas.
But now North is coming under criticism for making a last-minute trip to Nicaragua and throwing his weight behind a right-wing candidate who undercut another conservative favored by the U.S. Embassy.
Ortega prevailed in Nicaragua’s Nov. 5 election by winning a plurality of the vote (38 percent) while two conservative candidates – Eduardo Montealegre (28 percent) and Jose Rizo (27 percent) – divided up the anti-Sandinista vote.
The U.S. Embassy was behind Montealegre, a Harvard-educated economist and banker from the reformist Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance or ALN. But North was persuaded by former contra leader Adolfo Calero that Rizo, the candidate of the Liberal Constitutional Party or PLC, had the better shot to beat Ortega, according to sources familiar with the inside workings of Nicaragua’s politics.
Read on.
Pundits No, Everyday Citizens Yes
By Mary MacElveen
January 10, 2007
Turn on any news program in which political pundits are interviewed and what you will hear from a great majority of them is that Americans changed the direction of this country this past Election Day.
At the end of 2006, even Time Magazine chose ‘You’ as the person of the year in which a mirror was put on the front cover, so that the reader could see themselves as being the very one that did in fact change our course.
One columnist I know who writes for several major newspapers stated in an e-mail to me that Time Magazine was “pandering to its readers” because of “sluggish sales”. While at first I was disturbed at hearing that opinion, one only has to look within their magazine and others to see that the same old pundits and writers are speaking out and not everyday Americans.
Maybe the great majority of Americans do not know how to write, but hey, that is what editors and proof readers are for. Come on, Time Magazine; let ordinary Americans have their own columns. I for one would like to hear of their interesting stories.
Read on.
January 10, 2007
Turn on any news program in which political pundits are interviewed and what you will hear from a great majority of them is that Americans changed the direction of this country this past Election Day.
At the end of 2006, even Time Magazine chose ‘You’ as the person of the year in which a mirror was put on the front cover, so that the reader could see themselves as being the very one that did in fact change our course.
One columnist I know who writes for several major newspapers stated in an e-mail to me that Time Magazine was “pandering to its readers” because of “sluggish sales”. While at first I was disturbed at hearing that opinion, one only has to look within their magazine and others to see that the same old pundits and writers are speaking out and not everyday Americans.
Maybe the great majority of Americans do not know how to write, but hey, that is what editors and proof readers are for. Come on, Time Magazine; let ordinary Americans have their own columns. I for one would like to hear of their interesting stories.
Read on.
Saddam's Well-Timed Execution
By Robert Parry
January 10, 2007
Saddam Hussein’s rushed execution looks even more suspicious now that the trial of his co-defendants has resumed with prosecutors playing an incriminating tape recording of the dead Iraqi dictator discussing chemical weapons – but now without any possibility of him fingering U.S. officials and others who may have helped him get the poisons.
President George W. Bush and his supporters are sure to cite the tape recording as further evidence of Hussein’s guilt and thus vindication of Bush’s decision to press ahead with Hussein’s controversial hanging on Dec. 30.
But the troubling reality – virtually ignored in the major U.S. news media – is that Bush also silenced a particularly dangerous witness who could have implicated prominent U.S. officials from both his father’s and his own administrations.
The hasty execution prevented the Iraqi judges from turning to Hussein after the tape was played on Jan. 8 to question him about its authenticity and its context. Another obvious follow-up would have been how had Hussein obtained the dangerous chemicals that he allegedly deployed to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds.
In that sense, Hussein’s silence was golden for the international arms dealers who supplied his regime and for government officials who facilitated the shipments.
Read on.
January 10, 2007
Saddam Hussein’s rushed execution looks even more suspicious now that the trial of his co-defendants has resumed with prosecutors playing an incriminating tape recording of the dead Iraqi dictator discussing chemical weapons – but now without any possibility of him fingering U.S. officials and others who may have helped him get the poisons.
President George W. Bush and his supporters are sure to cite the tape recording as further evidence of Hussein’s guilt and thus vindication of Bush’s decision to press ahead with Hussein’s controversial hanging on Dec. 30.
But the troubling reality – virtually ignored in the major U.S. news media – is that Bush also silenced a particularly dangerous witness who could have implicated prominent U.S. officials from both his father’s and his own administrations.
The hasty execution prevented the Iraqi judges from turning to Hussein after the tape was played on Jan. 8 to question him about its authenticity and its context. Another obvious follow-up would have been how had Hussein obtained the dangerous chemicals that he allegedly deployed to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds.
In that sense, Hussein’s silence was golden for the international arms dealers who supplied his regime and for government officials who facilitated the shipments.
Read on.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Bush's Rush to Armageddon
By Robert Parry
January 8, 2007
George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel’s help.
On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq, and removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.
Most Washington observers have treated Bush’s shake-up as either routine or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a scenario for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and seeking violent regime change in Syria.
Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy fighter pilot and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups now poised off Iran’s coastline, such as support for possible Israeli air strikes against Iran’s nuclear targets or as a deterrent against any overt Iranian retaliation.
Read on.
January 8, 2007
George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel’s help.
On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq, and removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.
Most Washington observers have treated Bush’s shake-up as either routine or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a scenario for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and seeking violent regime change in Syria.
Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy fighter pilot and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups now poised off Iran’s coastline, such as support for possible Israeli air strikes against Iran’s nuclear targets or as a deterrent against any overt Iranian retaliation.
Read on.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Holding Intelligence Liars Accountable
By Ray McGovern and W. Patrick Lang
January 6, 2007
Lies have consequences.
All those who helped President George W. Bush launch a war of aggression—termed by Nuremberg “the supreme international crime”—have blood on their hands and must be held accountable. This includes corrupt intelligence officials. Otherwise, look for them to perform the same service in facilitating war on Iran.
“They should have been shot,” said former State Department intelligence director, Carl Ford, referring to ex-CIA director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin, for their “fundamentally dishonest” cooking of intelligence to please the White House. Ford was alluding to “intelligence” on the menacing but non-existent mobile biological weapons laboratories in Iraq.
Ford was angry that Tenet and McLaughlin persisted in portraying the labs as real several months after they had been duly warned that they existed only in the imagination of intelligence analysts who, in their own eagerness to please, had glommed onto second-hand tales told by a con-man appropriately dubbed “Curveball.”
In fact, Tenet and McLaughlin had been warned about Curveball long before they let then-Secretary of State Colin Powell shame himself, and the rest of us, by peddling Curveball’s wares at the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003.
Read on.
January 6, 2007
Lies have consequences.
All those who helped President George W. Bush launch a war of aggression—termed by Nuremberg “the supreme international crime”—have blood on their hands and must be held accountable. This includes corrupt intelligence officials. Otherwise, look for them to perform the same service in facilitating war on Iran.
“They should have been shot,” said former State Department intelligence director, Carl Ford, referring to ex-CIA director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin, for their “fundamentally dishonest” cooking of intelligence to please the White House. Ford was alluding to “intelligence” on the menacing but non-existent mobile biological weapons laboratories in Iraq.
Ford was angry that Tenet and McLaughlin persisted in portraying the labs as real several months after they had been duly warned that they existed only in the imagination of intelligence analysts who, in their own eagerness to please, had glommed onto second-hand tales told by a con-man appropriately dubbed “Curveball.”
In fact, Tenet and McLaughlin had been warned about Curveball long before they let then-Secretary of State Colin Powell shame himself, and the rest of us, by peddling Curveball’s wares at the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003.
Read on.
Defiant Neocons & a Realist Response
By Peter W. Dickson
January 6, 2007
During his State of the Union speech last year, President Bush puzzled many pundits with his frequent references to the lure of isolationism and its dangers.
No one at the time wondered or asked if this warning meant that Bush had some personal premonition of defeat in the Middle East. Surely it was strange for a man so confident then (and even until very recently) to raise the specter of isolationism – an impulse which has deep historical roots in American psyche since the nation was founded more than two centuries ago.
To discourage a pendulum swing in favor of greater withdrawal from the world, prominent neoconservatives and their allies within the Republican Party have sneered at the Baker-Hamilton report as providing political cover for defeatists who wish to sell out Iraq or otherwise capitulate to terrorist groups and nation-states that lend support to them such as Iran. Realists whether liberal or more conservative, such as Brent Scowcroft, are compared to Neville Chamberlain in a grossly misleading historical analogy.
Beyond this, the prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan in a Washington Post op-ed item entitled “Our Messianic Impulse” insisted that expansionism has always been the “dominant strain” in the nation’s character and should remain so no matter what happens in Iraq.
Read on.
January 6, 2007
During his State of the Union speech last year, President Bush puzzled many pundits with his frequent references to the lure of isolationism and its dangers.
No one at the time wondered or asked if this warning meant that Bush had some personal premonition of defeat in the Middle East. Surely it was strange for a man so confident then (and even until very recently) to raise the specter of isolationism – an impulse which has deep historical roots in American psyche since the nation was founded more than two centuries ago.
To discourage a pendulum swing in favor of greater withdrawal from the world, prominent neoconservatives and their allies within the Republican Party have sneered at the Baker-Hamilton report as providing political cover for defeatists who wish to sell out Iraq or otherwise capitulate to terrorist groups and nation-states that lend support to them such as Iran. Realists whether liberal or more conservative, such as Brent Scowcroft, are compared to Neville Chamberlain in a grossly misleading historical analogy.
Beyond this, the prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan in a Washington Post op-ed item entitled “Our Messianic Impulse” insisted that expansionism has always been the “dominant strain” in the nation’s character and should remain so no matter what happens in Iraq.
Read on.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Bush's Signing Statement and the First 100 Hours
The wrongheadedness of the Democrats' refusal to even entertain the notion of impeachment was underscored yesterday when it emerged that in signing a piece of postal legislation last month, George Bush issued a "signing statement" that effectively granted himself the right to open any American's mail without a warrant. The statement was attached to H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act," and the relevant passage reads,
Translation: Bush has the authority to open Americans' mail without a court warrant.
Much of the rest of the signing statement reaffirms the "authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch" and asserts the "constitutional limitation of Federal courts."
Despite Bush's views on the "unitary executive" with its "plenary powers," the signing statement he issued actually contradicts existing law and the bill he just signed, say experts who have reviewed it. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known," said a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized that the signing statement does not change the intent of the legislation, which prohibits the government from violating people's privacy. "Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection," he said, "the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant."
Indeed, the section of the legislation (section 1010) that Bush is "construing" to grant him the power to open mail without warrants is actually quite clear in its prohibition of warrantless surveillance of America's mail:
With such explicit language on the matter, it's rather astounding that the Bush White House could "construe" the legislation as granting the Executive Branch authority to open mail without a warrant. But what is perhaps more astounding is that after the repudiation of the Bush agenda in November, and even with the possibility for greater oversight from Congress, that the president would make such a bold statement on his views of executive power.
What is perhaps even more astounding than that is the continuing refusal of the new Democratic leadership to make more of an issue out of civil liberties, executive power, and individual privacy. As the Washington Post pointed out on Wednesday,
It could also be pointed out that there is no mention of addressing the use of presidential signing statements, which under Bush has skyrocketed. He's issued more than 1,200 as president, and has taken them to a level that no previous president ever has, essentially using them as a line-item veto, or even as a way to legislate from the Oval Office.
Many legal scholars argue that his use of signing statements is flatly unconstitutional, and may even be grounds for impeachment. It's obvious that at the very least, they undermine the intent of duly passed legislation, and could pose a major obstacle to the new Democratic majority's legislative agenda. But rather than confront the president on this and other issues, it seems the Democrats' emphasis is on cooperation.
The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.
Translation: Bush has the authority to open Americans' mail without a court warrant.
Much of the rest of the signing statement reaffirms the "authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch" and asserts the "constitutional limitation of Federal courts."
Despite Bush's views on the "unitary executive" with its "plenary powers," the signing statement he issued actually contradicts existing law and the bill he just signed, say experts who have reviewed it. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known," said a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized that the signing statement does not change the intent of the legislation, which prohibits the government from violating people's privacy. "Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection," he said, "the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant."
Indeed, the section of the legislation (section 1010) that Bush is "construing" to grant him the power to open mail without warrants is actually quite clear in its prohibition of warrantless surveillance of America's mail:
The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.
With such explicit language on the matter, it's rather astounding that the Bush White House could "construe" the legislation as granting the Executive Branch authority to open mail without a warrant. But what is perhaps more astounding is that after the repudiation of the Bush agenda in November, and even with the possibility for greater oversight from Congress, that the president would make such a bold statement on his views of executive power.
What is perhaps even more astounding than that is the continuing refusal of the new Democratic leadership to make more of an issue out of civil liberties, executive power, and individual privacy. As the Washington Post pointed out on Wednesday,
Nowhere in the Democrats' consensus-driven agenda is legislation revisiting last year's establishment of military tribunals and suspending legal rights for suspected terrorists. Nor is there a revision of the civil liberties provisions of the USA Patriot Act, a measure curbing warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency or an aggressive confrontation of the president on his Iraq war policies.
It could also be pointed out that there is no mention of addressing the use of presidential signing statements, which under Bush has skyrocketed. He's issued more than 1,200 as president, and has taken them to a level that no previous president ever has, essentially using them as a line-item veto, or even as a way to legislate from the Oval Office.
Many legal scholars argue that his use of signing statements is flatly unconstitutional, and may even be grounds for impeachment. It's obvious that at the very least, they undermine the intent of duly passed legislation, and could pose a major obstacle to the new Democratic majority's legislative agenda. But rather than confront the president on this and other issues, it seems the Democrats' emphasis is on cooperation.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
110th Congress Greeted With Calls for Impeachment
As the 110th Congress was sworn in this afternoon, about a hundred demonstrators gathered outside in a rally calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush and an end to the war in Iraq. With the Capitol Dome in the background, speakers denounced U.S. policies in Iraq and Guantanamo, and also highlighted domestic issues such as warrantless electronic surveillance and the abandonment of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Flanking the stage were a dozen demonstrators dressed up in orange jumpsuits and black hoods to represent the thousands of detainees being held in secret CIA prisons around the world, and at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was among the speakers as was "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, who yesterday disrupted a press conference by House Democratic leaders touting their proposed ethics reforms.
At one point, 12 protesters broke away from the rally and dropped a banner inside the Hart Senate Office Building denouncing war and torture. Inside the building, protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now," and "We will not be silent.”
Restoring the rule of law, ending the war in Iraq, and reining in the Executive Branch were the overriding themes of today's demonstration, but implicit in all of these goals was the necessity for George Bush's impeachment. One speaker, Sunsara Taylor of World Can't Wait, addressed the common refrain from anti-impeachment Democrats that impeaching Bush would distract Congress from enacting progressive policy, pointing out that progress will only be possible once Bush is removed from office.
In particular, when it comes to Iraq, she argued that because the president is unwilling to entertain proposals for a "graceful exit," and instead wants to escalate the war by sending a "surge" of 20,000 or more troops, only by removing Bush would peace be possible.
The crowd then erupted in a chant of "Impeach for peace! Impeach for peace!"
While the numbers at today's demonstration were not huge, what the rally made clear was that there will be no honeymoon for the new Democratic majority, and that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asserted that "impeachment is off the table," there are many Americans who will continue to insist that it is placed back on the table.
More demonstrations in the nation's capital are planned for the coming weeks, including one tomorrow at the American Enterprise Institute, where Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will publicly call for the U.S. to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. Next week, on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners arriving at Guantanamo Bay, a demonstration is planned against arbitrary detention and torture, during which more than a hundred activists will risk arrest by committing civil disobedience.
And on January 27, a mass march on Washington will call on Congress to heed the voters' demands and end the war in Iraq.
Flanking the stage were a dozen demonstrators dressed up in orange jumpsuits and black hoods to represent the thousands of detainees being held in secret CIA prisons around the world, and at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was among the speakers as was "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, who yesterday disrupted a press conference by House Democratic leaders touting their proposed ethics reforms.
At one point, 12 protesters broke away from the rally and dropped a banner inside the Hart Senate Office Building denouncing war and torture. Inside the building, protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now," and "We will not be silent.”
Restoring the rule of law, ending the war in Iraq, and reining in the Executive Branch were the overriding themes of today's demonstration, but implicit in all of these goals was the necessity for George Bush's impeachment. One speaker, Sunsara Taylor of World Can't Wait, addressed the common refrain from anti-impeachment Democrats that impeaching Bush would distract Congress from enacting progressive policy, pointing out that progress will only be possible once Bush is removed from office.
In particular, when it comes to Iraq, she argued that because the president is unwilling to entertain proposals for a "graceful exit," and instead wants to escalate the war by sending a "surge" of 20,000 or more troops, only by removing Bush would peace be possible.
The crowd then erupted in a chant of "Impeach for peace! Impeach for peace!"
While the numbers at today's demonstration were not huge, what the rally made clear was that there will be no honeymoon for the new Democratic majority, and that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asserted that "impeachment is off the table," there are many Americans who will continue to insist that it is placed back on the table.
More demonstrations in the nation's capital are planned for the coming weeks, including one tomorrow at the American Enterprise Institute, where Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will publicly call for the U.S. to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. Next week, on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners arriving at Guantanamo Bay, a demonstration is planned against arbitrary detention and torture, during which more than a hundred activists will risk arrest by committing civil disobedience.
And on January 27, a mass march on Washington will call on Congress to heed the voters' demands and end the war in Iraq.
Dems, We're Citizens, Not Consumers
By Robert Parry
January 4, 2007
As the Democrats regain control of Congress for the first time in 12 years, the party leaders still don’t seem to understand the forces that sent them into the wilderness in 1994 or the reasons they were summoned back in 2006.
Typical of their cluelessness was a “100 Hours Survey” distributed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in mid-December. The survey asked Democratic contributors to rank nine priority issues in order of importance for the new Congress.
The issues included raising the minimum wage, financing stem-cell research, revising the Medicare prescription drug program and stiffening ethics rules. The only national security issue on the list was the implementation of all the remaining – but unspecified – recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
No reference was made to ending the Iraq War, launching investigative hearings on President George W. Bush’s actions, reasserting checks and balances on the Executive, or restoring constitutional safeguards that have been overridden during the “war on terror,” such as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial.
Though many issues on the DCCC’s priority list surely have merit, what’s missing is any commitment to the larger purpose of the American Republic.
Read on.
January 4, 2007
As the Democrats regain control of Congress for the first time in 12 years, the party leaders still don’t seem to understand the forces that sent them into the wilderness in 1994 or the reasons they were summoned back in 2006.
Typical of their cluelessness was a “100 Hours Survey” distributed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in mid-December. The survey asked Democratic contributors to rank nine priority issues in order of importance for the new Congress.
The issues included raising the minimum wage, financing stem-cell research, revising the Medicare prescription drug program and stiffening ethics rules. The only national security issue on the list was the implementation of all the remaining – but unspecified – recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
No reference was made to ending the Iraq War, launching investigative hearings on President George W. Bush’s actions, reasserting checks and balances on the Executive, or restoring constitutional safeguards that have been overridden during the “war on terror,” such as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial.
Though many issues on the DCCC’s priority list surely have merit, what’s missing is any commitment to the larger purpose of the American Republic.
Read on.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Democrats Facing Pressure from Activists on the Left
The Washington Post ran an article today discussing the "mounting pressure from liberal activists" for Democrats in Congress "to chart a more confrontational course on Iraq and the issues of human rights and civil liberties, with some even calling for the impeachment of President Bush."
Many progressives are concerned that despite the clear repudiation of the Bush Agenda in the last election, Democrats in Congress will fail to address the issues that matter most to the Democratic base and the millions Americans who expelled the Republican majority from Congress. This concern may have been exacerbated by a survey sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee a couple of weeks ago that asked respondents which issues Democratic leaders should focus most of their attention on. Conspicuously absent from the list was ending the war in Iraq, restoring habeas corpus and other civil liberties, banning torture, and holding accountable members of the administration for misleading the nation into war.
In an effort to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire, activists are planning a number of demonstrations, beginning tomorrow, the first day of the new Congress: World Can't Wait Demonstration for Impeachment
On January 27, United for Peace and Justice is urging people to Bring the Mandate for Peace to Washington, DC
There will also be a demonstration in DC on January 11, in which various groups will be denouncing arbitrary detention and torture on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being sent to Guantanamo Bay.
With the mounting pressure from progressive activists over the war, civil liberties and human rights, it should be interesting to see how the Democrats respond. If Democratic leaders continue to ignore these issues, they could find themselves facing an increasingly angry base and a divided party heading into the 2008 presidential election.
The carefully calibrated legislative blitz that Democrats have devised for the first 100 hours of power has left some activists worried the passion that swept the party to power in November is already dissipating. A cluster of protesters will greet the new congressional leaders at the Capitol tomorrow. They will not be disgruntled conservatives wary of Democratic control, but liberals demanding a ban on torture, an end to warrantless domestic spying and a restoration of curbed civil liberties.
Many progressives are concerned that despite the clear repudiation of the Bush Agenda in the last election, Democrats in Congress will fail to address the issues that matter most to the Democratic base and the millions Americans who expelled the Republican majority from Congress. This concern may have been exacerbated by a survey sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee a couple of weeks ago that asked respondents which issues Democratic leaders should focus most of their attention on. Conspicuously absent from the list was ending the war in Iraq, restoring habeas corpus and other civil liberties, banning torture, and holding accountable members of the administration for misleading the nation into war.
In an effort to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire, activists are planning a number of demonstrations, beginning tomorrow, the first day of the new Congress: World Can't Wait Demonstration for Impeachment
The protest will be held at Upper Senate Park (Delaware & Constitution, just north of the Capitol) starting at 12:00 noon Thursday, Jan. 4.
The day Congress opens, World Can’t Wait will lead a major challenge to the political direction in this country since the election. A regime as criminal as the Bush regime still allowed to even remain in office? No! An unjust war started on lies, allowed to continue for four years despite an election where people meant to express how strongly they want it stopped? No! The Democrats, now the majority, allowing debate only on how to run the war more effectively, and saying that impeachment can’t even be considered? No!
Evening program:
Voices for Impeachment
Jan. 4, 7pm, National Press Club
Speakers to Include:
Cindy Sheehan
John Nichols
Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*
Debra Sweet
On January 27, United for Peace and Justice is urging people to Bring the Mandate for Peace to Washington, DC
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, NOW CONGRESS MUST ACT.
On Saturday, Jan. 27th, people from every corner of the country will march on Washington, DC. Our message will be clear, our voice will be strong: End the war in Iraq, Bring all the troops home now! We urge you to join us!
On Mon., Jan. 29th, we will take our message directly to the new Congress during our lobby day.
There will also be a demonstration in DC on January 11, in which various groups will be denouncing arbitrary detention and torture on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being sent to Guantanamo Bay.
With the mounting pressure from progressive activists over the war, civil liberties and human rights, it should be interesting to see how the Democrats respond. If Democratic leaders continue to ignore these issues, they could find themselves facing an increasingly angry base and a divided party heading into the 2008 presidential election.
Operation: Save Bush's Legacy
By Robert Parry
January 3, 2007
If press reports are correct – that George W. Bush will approve a troop “surge” in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000 soldiers – the follow-up question must be whether the escalation will do anything but get more Americans and Iraqis killed while only forestalling the defeat of Bush’s war policy.
Even top advocates for the “surge,” such as retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and neoconservative activist Frederick W. Kagan, have argued that U.S. troop levels must be increased by at least 30,000 for 18 months or more to bring security to Baghdad, what they call a “precondition” for any successful outcome.
“Any other option is likely to fail,” Keane and Kagan wrote in an Op-Ed article in the Washington Post on Dec. 27, 2006.
So, the more modest escalation of up to 20,000 soldiers would appear to represent what might be called “Operation: Save Bush’s Legacy,” with the goal of postponing the inevitable until 2009 when American defeat can be palmed off on a new President.
Read more here.
January 3, 2007
If press reports are correct – that George W. Bush will approve a troop “surge” in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000 soldiers – the follow-up question must be whether the escalation will do anything but get more Americans and Iraqis killed while only forestalling the defeat of Bush’s war policy.
Even top advocates for the “surge,” such as retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and neoconservative activist Frederick W. Kagan, have argued that U.S. troop levels must be increased by at least 30,000 for 18 months or more to bring security to Baghdad, what they call a “precondition” for any successful outcome.
“Any other option is likely to fail,” Keane and Kagan wrote in an Op-Ed article in the Washington Post on Dec. 27, 2006.
So, the more modest escalation of up to 20,000 soldiers would appear to represent what might be called “Operation: Save Bush’s Legacy,” with the goal of postponing the inevitable until 2009 when American defeat can be palmed off on a new President.
Read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)