By now, in our fifth year of Iraq war fatigue, no single term has been bandied about and abused as "Support the Troops". Part of it has its origins in guilt about the way returning Vietnam Vets were treated by certain people. And naturally, no matter how much one may or may not support what the troops are actually doing, I hope it's still safe to say that we support them as human beings in a difficult situation. And many of us reading this blog know that the best way to 'support the troops' is to remove them from harm's way and bring them home as soon as humanly possible.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, as you all know, often views the troops as nothing more than props and political pawns. They talk about 'supporting the troops' every chance they get, yet their policies do anything but, whether it be the Bush-McCain-Lieberman escalation, the atrocities at Walter Reed Hospital, cuts in Veteran's services, insufficient body armor, you name it. I'm sure you're well aware of them. Yes, it's criminal.
So, today I was a bit stunned (but not surprised) to read in the Times Argus that the VT GOP is proposing a resolution that will declare "full support to our troops and their mission in conducting the War on Terror." The TA reports that "The bill seeks to designate May 6 as "Vermont Vets for Victory Day" and coincides with a six-day support-the-troops rally beginning on May 1 through several communities, including Rutland, Chester and Bennington." It's not as simple as it sounds...
There's an interesting bit over at ThinkProgress. Now, we are wise to take anything and everything from the TV talking heads with the utmost degree of skepticism, yet once in a while something pans out. On this morning's 'Chris Matthews Show', NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell put out there that the top universal commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has recently met with the Senate Republican caucus:
"Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August," Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. "They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn't progress by August - and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity - that they will pull the plug."
Mitchell also states that moderate Repubs had told the they didn't believe the surge would work and the President has until Labor Day. "After that, they're running."
The Occupation Project, who inspired last week's non-violent protest at Peter Welch's office last week is having another sit-in at Bernie Sanders' office tomorrow in hopes that he will not vote to approve the supplemental funding for the war. From the press release:
Citizen Sit-In and Call-In at Senator Bernie Sanders' Office to Protest War Funding
Meet in front of Burlington City Hall on Church Street at 2pm Tuesday, March 27 to plan
Walk to Bernie's Office, 1 Church Street, between 2:20 and 2:30 pm
There will be a Citizen Sit-In and Call-In at Senator Bernie Sanders' office in Burlington on Tuesday afternoon to voice dissent about the $100 billion supplemental war funding up for debate in the US Senate. Inspired by a national movement called The Occupation Project and Voices for Creative Nonviolence, participants from all over the state will be asking Senator Sanders to vote no on the funding approved by the US House on Friday. Iraq Veterans Against the War, college students, members of local peace organizations, and concerned citizens are all planning on participating either by visiting Sanders' office or calling the office. They will meet in front of Burlington City Hall on Church Street at 2pm Tuesday, March 27 to plan.
They will then walk to Bernie's Office, 1 Church Street, to arrive at 2:30 pm. Participants will each decide for themselves how long they would like to stay at the office.
Odum's post here last week discussed the war bill, and many of you were not in support of it. I called Sanders' office a few moments ago, and the person on the phone told me that Sanders has not indicated how he will vote. His statement on the website isn't clear, either:
In the coming week, the Senate is set to debate legislation that calls for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Having originally voted against the war, Senator Sanders has been an outspoken advocate for bringing our troops home as soon as possible. "We have got to use the budget to tell the president that this war cannot go on. We have to bring our troops home as soon as possible," Senator Sanders told Thom Hartmann during his weekly Air America interview program "Brunch with Bernie."
So, if you are in opposition to the continued funding of the war, this is an opportunity to let Bernie know loud and clear.
I'm one of those people who's participated in quite a few marches in my lifetime, and with the exception of one that landed me in jail, I always leave them with an empty feeling, that although there was a 'support group/community' feeling to be gained from it, the reality is that the people in power could really care less about us marching in the streets. And half of the time, many on the left have a bit of a focus problem, in that instead of staying on task with a single-minded objective, we get the Free Palestine/Mumia/The Whales/Go Vegan/insert-liberal-cause here crowd, and it dilutes the message. So I've resolved not to do it anymore. Sure, I'm jaded. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to do it, it's just not for me anymore.
One complaint we've heard is that Iraq protesters don't really go far enough. Some people have singled out the people who vigil in front of the Federal Building in Montpelier every week. Although I thoroughly respect the people who do it, and would never say they shouldn't, I am inclined to agree with the critics in terms of its lack of any real effectiveness.
It's a much different world than it was thirty years ago. The idea of civil disobedience, of really laying one's body on the line, sometimes at the risk of bodily harm was something that, up until recently, has had a rich tradition in the United States, and you don't have to go back to Henry Thoreau to see it. Just go back 30 or 40 years.
Well, anyways, thankfully, some people haven't forgotten. Enter the Occupation Project. The O.P. is a coalition of several anti-war organizations such as Veterans for Peace, United for Peace and Justice, CODE PINK, and many others, whose objective is :
"a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding."
And to those of you who are hungering for a more direct, somewhat confrontational activism, the Occupation Project has targeted Peter Welch's office, this Wednesday, March 21st. They'll be meeting at at the Peace and Justice Center in Burlington at noon, where they will then proceed to Peter Welch's office. Anyone of our readers that attend, please post a diary with your experiences, if you feel so inclined.
Note: I realize I'm going to catch some hell for this from some people. My posting this is simply because there are people that think Welch hasn't gone far enough, and would be interested in this. I personally think Welch has done okay on the war, but could definitely be more visible and strong, so spare me the tongue-lashing. It's definitely VT political news, and therefore appropriate.
Long ago and far away, there was a time when network television poked fun at power. It was a time when light hearted satire skewered cold-hearted politics. It was a time when Saturday Night Live was still funny, and SCTV made Canadians laugh 'til they cried.
Sadly, those times are gone. Network TV has ruled out funny in favor of stupid, or harmful, or propagandistic:
This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind "24." Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. At first, Finnegan-wearing an immaculate Army uniform, his chest covered in ribbons and medals-aroused confusion: he was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time his "call" was.
In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show's central political premise-that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country's security-was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I'd like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show's producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."
But in the dark recesses of a network known mostly for it's special blend of "stupid" and "propaganda," there comes an occasional spark. Fox, the progenitor of what some call Faux News, has brought us this little satirical gem:
The NYT's Frank Rich, one of their better columnists, really tackles one of the biggest problems facing Hillary Clinton. In his 'Bring Back the Politics of Personal Destruction', he asks the question that Hillary should be asked every single day until the race is over:
The issue is not that Mrs. Clinton voted for the war authorization in 2002 or that she refuses to call it a mistake in 2007. Those are footnotes. The larger issue is judgment, then and now. Take her most persistent current formulation on Iraq: "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." It's fair to ask: Knew what then? Not everyone was so easily misled by the White House's manipulated intelligence and propaganda campaign. Some of her fellow leaders in Washington - not just Mr. Obama out in Illinois, not just Al Gore out of power - knew plenty in the fall of 2002. Why didn't she?
Why didn't she, indeed? The one frustrating thing about this is, isn't a little too late to be asking this question? I was asking it of John Kerry back in '04. That's why John Edwards' mea culpa doesn't hold water with me. So many of us knew how bogus this war was from the get go. All it took was a bit of time to seek out the facts. And almost all of what we were saying back then has turned out to be true. How did so many in the Senate and Congress, with all of the resources they have that we don't, manage to miss something that was so obvious to many Americans? That is a question that they all need to answer, not just Hillary. Considering that the truthful answer probably has to do with fear of the right-wing noise machine and being branded 'unpatriotic', I'm not holding my breath waiting for that answer. It seems to be more motivated by a lack of courage, conviction and principle than being taken in by misinformation. And that, folks, should seriously raise a red flag on any of those candidates' ability to lead.
Today's Times Argus is reporting that the Vermont Senate committee which is hearing testimony from anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan want to have a balanced discussion on the matter. Problem is, they can't find someone willing to testify in support of the war:
Committee Chairman Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, R-Essex-Orleans said Monday that he has been unable to find anyone to testify in favor of the four-year-old war during the noontime hearing in the Senate chambers later this week.
Illuzzi said he has contacted the state departments of Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, along with representatives of the Vermont National Guard Enlisted Association, but none wanted to come before the committee opposite Sheehan.
"I wanted a balanced hearing to show that there are two sides to the question," Illuzzi explained. "But so far everyone had declined the opportunity to speak in favor of the war."
Why not ask Barre City Rep. Leo Valliere? He seems to have some strong opinions on it, considering he has spoken out against the VT legislature's antiwar resolution:
Rep. Leo Valliere, R-Barre, spoke twice against the resolution because of the message he said it would send to the American military and the enemy. "I wasn't elected to aid and abet the enemy."
You'd think someone with such strong opinions as Valliere would relish the opportunity to take one of the right-wing's favorite targets, Cindy Sheehan, right? Don't hold your breath. The hearing will be held at noon in the Senate Chamber in the Statehouse, Montpelier, Friday, March 2nd.
For the second time in two weeks, the Senate has voted not to allow an up-or-down vote on a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's plan for military escalation in Iraq.
There was little doubt today's vote would turn out as it did. Senate Democrats needed a 3/5ths majority to successfully invoke cloture and force a vote, but they had little chance of getting there. The Democratic caucus is technically 51 strong, but they came in with only 49 votes today -- Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota is still hospitalized after experiencing bleeding in his brain in December and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an "independent Democrat" who is part of the Democratic caucus, is one of the most vocal supporters of the president's plan. As such, the Democrats would have needed 11 Republicans to cross the aisle in order to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary for victory. They got seven.
Still, this was an increase, by five, over the last vote less than two weeks ago.
Whereas, approximately 2,300 Vermont National Guard troops have served in Iraq since March of 2003, and
Whereas, Vermont has had the highest number of soldiers per capita who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in this war, and
Whereas, approximately 80 Vermont National Guard troops are now deployed in Iraq, and more could be deployed in the coming months if the Bush Administration policies continue in the current direction, and
Whereas, at the time the Iraq conflict started in March 2003, the American public was told that the primary reason for this incursion was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had allegedly stockpiled, and it has been since documented that no weapons of mass destruction were stockpiled in Iraq at the time the American military forces entered that country, and
Whereas, it is now apparent that the U.S. Department of Defense did not develop an exit strategy prior to the invasion, falsely assuming that the Iraqi people would welcome United States forces with open arms, and that withdrawal would not be a difficult problem, and
Whereas, the continuing and daily onslaught of sectarian violence and indications of ethnic cleansing in some areas of the nation have proven disruptive to nearly all aspects of Iraqi society, and
Whereas, over 3,000 American military personnel have died since March 2003, and
Whereas, many Vermont veterans have returned home from Iraq and the region with significant unmet physical and mental health care needs, and
Whereas, the cost of this war according to the Congressional Research Service is at least $379 billion, and
Whereas, based on the state's population, Vermont's share of the cost exceeds $750 million, and
Whereas, these costs will have a significant impact on Vermont households and the Vermont state budget process for years to come, and
Whereas, the Bush Administration recently called for and has started to implement an escalation in the number of American military troops actively engaged in Iraq, now therefore be it
The Grammys stood up for freedom of speech tonight.
You probably remember the big fights the Chicks have had the last few years: the death threats, the boycotts, the hostility. All because they aren't big Bush fans, and had the temerity to say so.
Thigs have turned around a little bit since then, but not necessarily in the world of country music. The Grammy awards are on tonight. A big, big night for commercial music of all kinds. And get this: the Dixie Chicks have won three awards--UPDATE--MAKE THAT FIVE--, including Record of the Year for their song Not Ready to Make Nice. A big ovation in the room, and Don Henley was visibly elated to announce their win, but as the cameras scanned the country music contingent the reactions seemed to range from stony silence to polite applause.
My recent (as of last summer) ally in the Progressive camp here in Franklin County, Anaiis Salles, has posted her terrific idea over on The ProgBlog: Call in sick of war on Town Meeting Day, March 7.
She calls it "Sick with the Iraq Flu" ("Iraq: Free, Liberated, and United in deciding on its own destiny"). You'll find the sickout idea about three-quarters of the way down after the jump on her entry.
The idea has beauty in simplicity: many of us take the day off to go to Town Meeting anyway. Why not use a half hour or so of that day to email or phone our Congressional delegation to support the actions they've taken (Leahy and Welch), or to give them a shove toward what they were elected for (Bernie, whose name we haven't seen on significant anti-Iraq-escalation legislation, although he's verbally rattled his budgetary sword).
Why not use another half hour or less to contact your state legislators in both Vermont House and Vermont Senate and their leadership: Gaye Symington and Peter Shumlin.
Anaiis gets another part just right:
Town Meeting Day is the perfect day to call or e-mail Nancy Pelosi and tell her impeachment isn't off the table. Ms. Pelosi doesn't decide that, the electorate does.
UPDATE:Senator Feingold's resolution was introduced today, and indeed, Senator Leahy is a co-sponsor. He is also a co-sponsor of Senator Obama's legislation that would require all combat brigades to be redeployed by March 31, 2008. Check after the fold for instances in recent history where Congress has restricted funding for specific military operations or campaigns (and - surprise, surprise - two of the four listed targeted Clinton)
As much as activists are demanding otherwise, I and others have been assuming that the question of pulling congressional funding for the Iraq War wouldn't come up until March - when the next supplemental funding request from the Pentagon was likely to show up. But Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to bring it up now. He is proposing legislation that would prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. Here's Feingold explaining his legislation:
The Judiciary Committee Chair is, of course, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, which means he'll have a big role in how this plays out. I'm confident he'll do the right thing, but he should hear from his constituents in support. Give him a holler if you can at 202-224-4242 or 1-800-642-3193.
I've just been on a conference call sponsored by the "Progressive States Network," aimed at generating support for opposition to the Bush/McCain escalation of the war in Iraq. Joining the call was Senator Ted Kennedy, there to promote his bill requiring separate authorization for any such escalation, and most particularly for the funding of any such escalation.
But the main thrust of the call was to inform state level actors of their right and responsibility to speak out on this issue, even though it might be considered purely a matter of federal policy. State legislatures, we were reminded, can have a profound impact on Washington, and most especially on their representation in Congress. And it's not as if such issues haven't been addressed at the state level in the past. The PATRIOT Act, Social Security privatization, the genocide in Darfur, CAFTA and other trade agreements -- all have been addressed in the recent past by state legislatures.
All fascinating, of course. And to no one's surprise, there was no mention of impeachment, a subject about which four state legislatures have already seen resolutions introduced -- almost all greeted with the same objection, often from both sides of the aisle, that it was "a federal issue."
Well, next week -- on the day President Bush delivers his State of the Union address, actually -- New Mexico will become the fifth.
The resolution will be introduced by State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Albuquerque), along with cosponsor John Grubesic (D-Santa Fe). Democrats control both houses of the legislature: 24-18 in the Senate; 41-28 in the House. The signature of the Governor of New Mexico, Democrat Bill Richardson, is not required. Richardson is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.
On his way out the door as governor of Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate (and DLC Chairman!) Tom Vilsack delivered a surprise package in his last address to the state legislature:
Departing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack used his final Condition of the State speech Tuesday to condemn the Bush administration's plan to send as many as 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
"Now the president and the Congress are poised to make a big mistake even bigger," the Democrat seeking the 2008 presidential nomination told a joint session of the Iowa Legislature. "Understand that escalation will come at the expense of families and communities here in Iowa and across the nation."
Vilsack also urged the Legislature, with new Democratic majorities in both houses, to pass resolutions condemning Bush's plan.
An interesting approach, don't you think? And it reminds me of a little something we saw up in Vermont last year:
Troop Surge Already Under Way
90 Advance Troops from 82nd Airborne Arrive in Baghdad
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007- - President Bush's speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.
ABC News has learned that the "surge" President Bush is expected to announce in a primetime speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne division arrived in Baghdad today.
Okay, I'm sure you think that this was some kind of test, and somehow my keyboard passed (or failed?) by letting me type the title of this diary. That would be a good hypothesis, but in this case it turns out not to be correct.
Actually, I'm writing to recommend another site. I've been a regular viewer of BloggingHeadsTV, a site that Robert Wright has been running for a couple of years now. It's like the video version of blogging, and the way it works is that Bob Wright and someone else (commonly, but not always, Mickey Kaus) sit at their computers, with their webcams and headsets, and debate issues. They call them diavlogs, and they do two or three a week, sometimes Bob and Mickey, sometimes two other people.
It varies. John and I have talked about it, and I suspect he doesn't watch BHTV because of how much he can't stand Mickey. This is entirely understandable, because Mickey is one of these guys (they seem to be legion, like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert) who like to parlay a long-ago staff job for some Democrat into some kind of Democratic bona fides, even though they have slipped irredeemably, or nearly so, into conservatism. Bob does challenge Mickey on his claims to be a Democrat, and I think he routinely has the better of the argument, but I still think some of the diavlogs can be enlightening.
Tonight I just watched one between Bob Wright and Andrew Sullivan, whom you may know as the former editor of the New Republic. I thought it was very good, largely because (here's the shocking part) Andrew Sullivan admits that he was wrong to support the Republican War in Iraq, and talks at great length about why. His comments are really way beyond the norm for former war supporters, and they seem to demonstrate that not only does he realize that he was wrong, but that he has understood that he has to rethink his whole way of looking at things.
You can certainly judge for yourself if you think that's true, but I think it's worth viewing the diavlog for that and other reasons.
One of the main reasons is that they talk about why, knowing what we know now about the runup to the war--excuse me, the Republican War in Iraq--it is more important than ever to talk about impeachment.
(Crossposted to Daily Kos)
Between me and Odum, we'll keep you on memory lane....plus, I'l give you the latest on a dear friend.
Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. On March 20, 2003, her 66th birthday, she was arrested for participating in a peaceful protest against the war. After her arrest, she was incarcerated, hand cuffed, booked, finger printed, photographed, arraigned, tried, convicted and sentenced. The jury arrived at a guilty verdict in less than 10 minutes. The conviction has been appealed in the State Supreme Court. The decision of the court is expected to be rendered sometime within a year. If the appeal is won, the government will retry Rosemarie. If the appeal is lost, Rosemarie will most likely go to prison.
Principles are not always convenient....
The legal struggle continues below the fold.
Retired General Anthony Zinni spoke to an audience of 250 people at Montpelier's Unitarian-Universalist Church Wednesday night. While he has been in the news in recent years for his criticism of the Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq, his discussion Wednesday ranged far beyond the war, and was primarily concerned with how the United States can exist and be effective in the world as it now exists.
Zinni's thesis was that we are living with the results of the third great global transformation of the Twentieth Century. The first was after World War I, the second was after World War II, and the third was at the end of the Cold War. As Zinni put it, "The world did not change on 9/11, it changed in 1989-90 when the Soviet Union dissolved."
General Zinni was first commissioned as a brigadier general at the time the Berlin Wall fell, and he recalled travelling to Berlin for his orientation, a process as disorienting for the trainers as for the trainees. Zinni and the other new general officers were taken on an unauthorized tour of East Berlin by a lieutenant who drove right through Checkpoint Charlie, now unmanned, and around the streets of the Potemkin village that was East Berlin, before returning with a sledge hammer to break off pieces of the Wall as souvenirs. What Zinni learned in that process, and the years that followed, was that, "We are living in a changed world that we don't understand, and which we are ill-equipped to deal with."
He also learned that Bush 41's New World Order did not bring the stability that was anticipated and promised, due to forces as diverse as globalization, revolutions in technology and communications, and the rise of regional hegemonies, and the conclusion he draws is that "Instability is the primary enemy."
The audience included Adjutant General Michael Dubie and defeated Congressional candidate Martha Rainville. While Zinni's subject was broader than the war in Iraq, he received questions on the war, and on the Military Commissions Act.
Bob Mills was hired to write for Bob Hope in August, 1977. He spent the next seventeen years writing jokes, routines, parody songs, speeches and television scripts for the legendary performer, in the process logging over half a million miles "on the road" with Hope, visiting all corners of the globe from Peking to London, Stockholm to Bora Bora with plenty of stops in between. HOPE WRITER: "My Life Inside Bob Hope's Comedy Factory" was written between 1993 and 1995 and is dedicated to all the wonderful people who shared a golden age in the history of entertainment, and were privileged to work for one of the most legendary performers of all time. Since 1998, Bob has sailed thousands of miles with Crystal, Princess and Celebrity cruise lines, sharing his TV experiences. He is an Emeritus member of the Writers Guild of America, West.
Crossposted from Bereft on the Left, with graphics and links added.
Bob's biography, "Hope Writer" is a fascinating read and linked here.
All original material by Bob Mills.
Links and graphic support by kestrel9000.
Keith Richards was injured when he fell out of a palm tree in Fiji. The Mick has told him a hundred times "Never try to trash a palm tree."...
Rush Limbaugh is off the hook. He pleads to one count of doctor shopping and walks. The Broward County Sheriff's Office has even removed the yellow tape from around his medicine chest....
250-1
55-1
