Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:27 pm


A soldier in Iraq asks in despair: Why are we here?


By Donald C. Hudson Jr

06/01/07 "Clarksville TN" -- --- After watching his roommate fatally wounded in a roadside bombing, an Army private wonders why the lives of good men are being lost when the Iraqis pose no threat to us and don't want us there.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17814.htm
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:32 pm
The Secret Carnage

78,000 Iraqis Have Been Killed by Coalition Airstrikes
[/size]

By Sherwood Ross

06/01/07 "Counterpunch" --- - -An estimated 78,000 Iraqis were killed by U.S. and Coalition air strikes from the start of the war through June of last year, an article in "The Nation" magazine says.

The estimate is based on the supposition that 13 percent of the 601,000 Iraqis who met violent deaths reported by The Lancet study released last October "had been killed by bomb, missile, rocket or cannon up to last June," author Nick Turse writes in the June 11th issue of the weekly magazine.

"There are indications that the air war has taken an especially grievous toll on Iraqi children," Turse said.

"Figures provided by the Lancet study suggest that 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 in that same period (March 2003 through June 2006) were due to coalition airstrikes."

Since April, 2003, Turse reports, the U.S. has dropped at least 59,787 pounds of cluster bombs in Iraq, a type of weapon Human Rights Watch(HRW) termed "the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use."

The author notes cluster bombs have "a high failure rate" so that unexploded bomblets that fall to ground become, in fact, landmines which, Marc Garlasco of HRW points out, are "already banned by most nations."

Garlasco, the HRW senior military analyst, says, "I don't see how any use of the current U.S. cluster-bomb arsenal in proximity to civilian objects can be defended in any way as being legal or legitimate."

At a time when many nations are moving toward banning cluster munitions, the U.S. China, Israel, Pakistan and Russia are opposing new limits of any kind. At a conference in Oslo last February, 46 of 48 governments supported an international ban on cluster bombs by 2008.

The cluster bomb bursts above ground and releases hundreds of smaller "bomblets" that create a kill radius about the size of a football field, shredding virtually every object in the zone.

Aside from these deadly devices, Air Force officials acknowledge Coalition aircraft dropped at least 111,000 pounds of other types of bombs in Iraq last year as part of 10,519 "close air support missions," author Turse said.

According to Les Roberts, co-author of two surveys of mortality in Iraq published in the British medical journal The Lancet, "Rocket and cannon fire could account for most coalition-attributed civilian deaths." The magazine quotes him further as stating, "I find it disturbing that they (Pentagon) will not release this (figure), but even more disturbing that they have not released such information to Congressmen who have requested it."

Turse's article is titled, "The Secret Air War in Iraq," and alleges "The devastation from U.S. bombing is underreported---and may be increasing." He writes, "That an occupying power regularly conducts airstrikes in or near dense population centers should have raised serious concerns in the mainstream media, unfortunately, reports on the air war are sparse and mostly confined to regurgitations of military announcements."

"..Until reporters begin bypassing official U.S. military pronouncements and locating Iraqi sources, we will remain largely in the dark regarding the secret and deadly U.S. air war in Iraq," Turse concludes.

Sherwood Ross is a Florida-based writer who covers military and political topics. Reach him at [email protected]
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:41 pm
Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Cowering In The Suburbs of Berlin
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:49 pm
Don't We Have a Constitution, Not a King?

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted June 1, 2007.

Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?

As the nation focused on whether Congress would exercise its constitutional duty to cut funding for the war, Bush quietly issued an unconstitutional bombshell that went virtually unnoticed by the corporate media.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.

If a "catastrophic emergency" -- which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster -- occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

http://www.alternet.org/story/52801/
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 06:01 pm
"When I heard that Cindy Sheehan was quitting the peace movement, you could've knocked me over with a feather. I never realized America actually had a peace movement in the first place."
[/color]

Mickey Z
http://www.mickeyz.net/
0 Replies
 
lostnsearching
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 12:07 am
Endymion wrote:
Hey, Naima

What would I do without you? :wink:


Not really....

You'd just have a funny looking angel hammering on your head whispering wierd incantations.... Laughing

(No, I don't know what that means!)
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 12:20 am
i bet you're not as funny looking as me Laughing
0 Replies
 
lostnsearching
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 12:23 am
whoever said i was funny looking? I'm not funny looking at all.... I was talking about the angel... you know ... the wierd one...who doesn't exist...but only you can see it!?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 12:42 am
****, sorry Laughing

****, Naima -

mornings are not a good time to talk to me - I haven't slept yet.. I dunno - I had a bit of a weird one last night.

I'm sure you're not 'funny looking' - I'm not sure what 'funny looking' means really...
0 Replies
 
lostnsearching
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 01:55 am
Oh c'mon! I didn't mean to be offended or anything... I was just saying that....

There's really nothing good or bad in bieng 'funny looking'... and i'm sure your not either! .... It's got its own special beauty to it!!! Confused
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 03:20 am
I know you weren't offended - I just couldn't believe I hadn't read your post properly -

It's good to talk to you Naima
Smile
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2007 08:44 pm
Putin warns Europe in missile row

Moscow may target weapons at Europe if the US builds planned missile defence facilities in the region, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Russia has not pointed missiles towards Europe since the end of the Cold War.

Last week, Russia said it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.

The US wants to expand its missile defences into Eastern Europe. It says the system is not aimed at Russia but Moscow says its security is threatened.

'Not our fault'

Mr Putin made the comments in an interview published in Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera ahead of the G8 meeting which starts in Germany on Wednesday.
He repeated warnings that the US defence shield could lead to a new arms race but said it would the fault of the Americans if this happened.

He said the US had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.

"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said.

"It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles."

US President George W Bush is due to meet Mr Putin at the three-day G8 summit in the German resort of Heiligendamm.

Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

Last Tuesday, Russia tested an RS-24 missile that successfully struck its target 5,500km (3,400 miles) away.

It was designed to evade missile defence systems, Russia's defence ministry said.
Moscow may target weapons at Europe if the US builds planned missile defence facilities in the region, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Russia has not pointed missiles towards Europe since the end of the Cold War.

Last week, Russia said it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.

The US wants to expand its missile defences into Eastern Europe. It says the system is not aimed at Russia but Moscow says its security is threatened.

'Not our fault'

Mr Putin made the comments in an interview published in Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera ahead of the G8 meeting which starts in Germany on Wednesday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6717119.stm

Russia says US starting 'arms race'

Russia's recent missile tests were a direct response to US plans to build a missile defence system and new military bases in Europe, the Russian president said.

Vladimir Putin on Thursday criticised "diktat and imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia would strengthen its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.

"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about the missile tests at a news conference after talks with his Greek counterpart.

Russia tested a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile on Tuesday.

"There is no reason to fear these actions by Russia, they aren't aggressive. It's merely a response to tough and unfounded unilateral actions by our partners," Putin said.

"These actions are aimed at preserving a global balance."

He also attacked the US and other Nato members for failing to ratify an amended version of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which limits the deployment of heavy non-nuclear weapons around the continent.

Putin said: "We have signed and ratified the CFE and are fully implementing it. We have pulled out all our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia to [locations] behind the Ural Mountains and cut our military by 300,000 men.

"And what about our partners? They are filling Eastern Europe with new weapons. A new base in Bulgaria, another one in Romania, a [missile defence] site in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.

"What are we supposed to do? We can't just sit back and look at that."

Putin's comments came a week before he meets George Bush, the US president, and other leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialised nations at a summit in Germany.

The White House dismissed Putin's thinly veiled attacked on US policies.

Gordon Johndroe, US national security council spokesman, said: "While we have some differences, they are nothing other than issues that can be worked out through the continued dialogue we have face to face.

"The United States and Russia co-operate on a range of issues from counter-terrorism to global energy solutions."

Moscow has repeatedly rejected US assurances that the planned missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic are meant to counter a potential threat from nations such as Iran and pose no danger to Russia.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B553494A-A8B9-429B-8248-4C2C1521DF95.htm


GREAT
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 10:17 am
Report doubts US control of Baghdad

Two-thirds of Baghdad remain out of the US military's control, three months after an influx of troops to stabilise the city, the New York Times has reported.

The newspaper said on Sunday it had obtained a leaked military report, providing the first examination of a US troop "surge", ordered by George Bush, the US president in February.

The assessment found US and Iraqi forces were able "to protect the population" and "maintain physical influence over" only 146 out of 457 the capital's "neighbourhoods".

In the remaining 311 areas, troops have either not begun operations or still face "resistance", the newspaper report said.

'Difficult point'

The paper quotes Brigadier-General Vincent Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division which has responsibility for the Baghdad area, as saying that the operation "is at a difficult point right now, to be sure".

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7309B35E-93F5-417C-94B6-62A6E4CAC670.htm

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/6/4/1_221277_1_5.jpg
US and Iraqi forces are unable to "protect the population" in over two-thirds of Baghdad [AFP]
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 10:28 am
Even in death, migrants were let down by Europe
By Peter Popham in Rome
Published: 04 June 2007

The bodies of 21 would-be migrants picked up from the Mediterranean by a French frigate 120 miles south of Malta were left to rot on board the ship while Maltese, French and Libyan authorities argued for hours over where the bodies would be taken for burial.

*

"There is no peace, democracy or respect for basic human rights in Eritrea today. There are only guns and terror against its own people. The world must address these basic issues, then issues of migration and asylum could also be solved."

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2611745.ece
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 10:33 am
Solidarity demonstration with Anti-G8 activists
German embassy, London.


Demo in solidarity with anti-G8 protestors in Germany and the world, in opposition to heavy police brutality and surveillance of demonstrators and social centres. Tuesday the 5th of June, midday, outside the German embassy in London:

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
23 Belgrave Square
London
SW1X 8PZ

Tel. 020 7824 1300
Fax. 020 7824 1449

Bring banners, noise-making stuff, literature and most importantly anger and energy.

Please forward widely through all medias.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/372181.html
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:05 pm
Guantanamo Saudi 'kills himself'
A Saudi Arabian prisoner has died in an apparent suicide at the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the US military has said.

A statement by the US Southern Command said the inmate was found unresponsive and not breathing by guards, and attempts to revive him failed.
Two Saudis and a Yemeni prisoner were found hanged in an apparent suicide at the camp in June last year.
There are about 380 prisoners at the camp, some held for five years.
There were no details as to how the prisoner died. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service has begun an inquiry into the incident.
"The detainee was found unresponsive and not breathing in his cell by guards," the statement said.

"The detainee was pronounced dead by a physician after all lifesaving measures had been exhausted."
A cultural adviser was working with the military to ensure that the prisoner's remains were handled "in a culturally sensitive and religiously appropriate manner", Southern Command said.

The president of the US Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, told the Associated Press news agency the death was likely an act of desperation.
"You have five-and-a-half years of desperation there with no legal way out," Mr Ratner said.

The death came just days before two detainees - Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, and Omar Khadr, a Canadian - were due to face trial before a US military tribunal on charges of war crimes.
On Wednesday, Mr Khadr fired his American lawyers, leaving him without representation for Monday's hearing.

Mr Khadr's former lawyer, Marine Lt Col Colby Vokey, said his former client was being held under a process that was "patently unfair".

"He doesn't trust American lawyers, and I don't particularly blame him," Lt Col Vokey said.

Mr Hamdan won a landmark case last year when the US Supreme Court ruled the military tribunal system illegal.

The decision forced US President George W Bush to return to Congress to authorise the tribunals.

Inmates at the Guantanamo Bay facility are not protected by the Geneva Conventions covering prisoners of war, the US says, as it describes them as "unlawful enemy combatants".


Guantanamo Canadian case dropped
A US military judge has dropped charges against a Canadian held at Guantanamo Bay, saying he could not be tried under new laws governing military tribunals.


Omar Khadr was just 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43007000/jpg/_43007743_omar_ap_203b.jpg
He appeared in court charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and providing support for terrorism.

But the judge ruled he could not be tried under current laws because he was not classified as an "unlawful" enemy combatant in previous hearings.

The charges were dismissed "without prejudice", said Col Peter Brownback, the presiding judge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6706635.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6720315.stm
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:07 pm
"We don't need any more evidence that it's a failure. This system should just stop."

Marine Col Dwight Sullivan
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:14 pm
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.

(Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:48 pm
All they have is each other..

By Sheila Samples

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."~~Dante

06/04/07 "ICH " -- -- Okay. Let's talk about troops. Everybody's doing it. We're bombarded round-the-clock with "support the troops...fund the troops...bring the troops home...surge the troops...use the troops for Commander Guy photo opps..." Congress is embroiled in a ghoulish "troop" food fight that has gone on far too long. Democrats say Republicans demoralize and dishonor the troops by sending them into an unwinnable war built on lies. Republicans counter that, by suggesting the war is lost, Democrats demoralize and dishonor the troops by calling them "losers."

Losers? Oh, yes. Big time. The men and women who wear this nation's uniform are losers every day, in every way. They are not only demoralized and dishonored, but are dehumanized by a diabolical den of dimwits whose eyes never waver from the 2008 prize, and who view "troops" as a faceless mass of political capital to be spent toward winning that prize. Their deserter commander-in-chief and his chickenhawk minions are very careful to call military personnel "troops," lest they assume human form and enter the slumbering masses' consciousness -- a vacuous pit otherwise known as the "dead zone."

Killing the Troops

On Armed Forces Day, May 19, eight soldiers were blown to bits by roadside bombs in Iraq -- a total of 15 for the weekend, which brought the casualty toll since the March 2003 invasion to 3,419. As the troops lay dead and dying, body parts scattered amidst the explosive ruin in a foreign land, their president took to the airwaves to somberly discuss...how to make life easier for illegal immigrants here at home. Less than a week later, as Bush and the press were bobbing and weaving in the Rose Garden, the number of dead troops rose to 3,432, a day later to 3,444 and, finally, on May 26 -- two days before Memorial day -- to 3,455.

That's 36 American men and women, most under the age of 30, lost in one week. Lost forever. On Memorial Day, as Bush yet again disgraced the hallowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery with more babbling about how his will cannot be broken and the only way to honor the dead troops is to complete his "mish-shun," eight American troops were slain in a Baghdad roadside explosion, another in an explosion near Tahir, two perished in a helicopter crash, and five British troops were kidnapped. It's difficult to keep up, but the total now stands at 3,467. No, 3,471. No, 3,474. No, 3,480. No, 3,495.

God, I can't keep up with the numbers. It's impossible to do the math -- to stay abreast of the burgeoning number of precious human beings who were lied into a death trap and who return to orphans, widows, and parents physically maimed, psychologically deranged or as neatly folded US Flags. There is no evidence that Bush knows, or cares, that 633 soldiers and marines have been brutally wiped off the face of the earth since he was given the Iraq Study Group report, then strutted off like a college kid on Christmas break to "decide" whether to pull the troops out of the trap or to keep using them as bait. We knew, and Congress knew, what his decision would be -- and what it was -- more troops.

Betraying the Troops

The surge has been quietly ongoing since then, in spite of angry shouts from the American people -- shouts that fell on deaf ears not only in the Oval Office, but throughout the Congress. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caved to Bush's demands, while vowing to come back in September and "hold the president to account." Reid announced with bowed head, "We will never, ever, ever, ever give in to this president." Then he gave in.

Sad. There is no honor in a nation whose leaders are given the power to choose life or death for their fellow citizens held captive in an illegal, treasonous, bloody occupation -- and choose death. What do you do after betraying those who elected you -- trusted you -- to stem the needless flow of American blood? Do you dash off to Greenland to check on the climate, or do you stand in the well of the Senate, eyes downcast, with your tail between your legs?

It doesn't matter. They knew what they were doing -- extending tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months, sending other troops back for second and third tours -- weary, wounded and disheartened. They had the purse strings, the Constitutional power, and the mandate of the American people to bring Bush's madness to a screeching halt -- to save the lives of those citizens he daily condemns to death.

They chose, instead, to back down. They chose to allow Bush -- as Texas commentator Jim Hightower said -- to stick the troops in another country's vicious civil war. "They're under attack from every direction by every faction, every hour of every day," Hightower wrote, "hit by car bombs, roadside bombs, chlorine bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, rocket fire, mortar rounds, snipers, and assassins. There is no safety in Iraq."

The legislators who voted to fund Bush's folly until September were casting votes of betrayal. Nothing will change in September. A second surge, sans the initial fanfare, is underway that could double the number of troops in Iraq by December, bringing the total to more than 200,000. We can disregard December if we are to believe CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre, who reported on Memorial Day that "no major troop reductions are planned until at least January 2009."

We can also disregard January 2009. Accordng to Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there is no plan to even plan withdrawal of troops. "We do have ongoing replacements of forces, and we do change the size of the force over time so that that system is available to either plus-up or draw down," Pace told the Senate in early May, "but we have published no orders saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown." However, Pace did say they planned to maintain a series of military installations for a long period of time -- maybe a few decades...

You'd think as a minimum, the top military brass and the troops' commander-in-chief would know at any given moment exactly how many lives were lost in their war. However, the only thing Bush knows is that he "grieves 'n mourns" for the heroes who "give their lives" for his mission. Numbers aren't important. What's important to Bush is that he "pre-shates" their sacrifice. And Pace, who monitors the number of gays wearing the hetro-military uniform, commented last week that we lost "nearly 3,000 Americans on 9-11," and then warned we are "getting close" to losing that many troops in Iraq.

Actually, Pete, we are losing three or more American men and women every single day. It's six months -- 180 days -- 540 dead troops until December. It's 18 months -- 545 days --1,635 dead troops until January 2009. How many days -- how many dead troops -- are there in a "few decades"? You do the math.

Supporting the Troops

George Bush and the corporate war profiteers have blanketed the landscape of the entire country with yellow ribbon. "Support the Troops" is non-sequitural double think -- a psyops tool cleverly used by both Republicans and Democrats to desensitize and control the slobbering masses. It means you are anti-American if you scream in pain each time a soldier or marine is killed -- innocent Iraqis are massacred. It means shut the hell up and support whatever deranged blather comes out of Bush's mouth, even if we must sacrifice our sons and daughters on his killing fields.

So many of them died in vain.

In Feb. 2005, the Marines sent a "priority 1 urgent" request for more than 1,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. In spite of the MRAP's proven ability to withstand blasts from IEDs and to save lives, it was 21 months (Nov. 2006) before this urgent plea was acted upon. After a few MRAPs trickled into the area and their life-saving value was recognized, both the Army and Marines requested as many as 18,000 to replace the totally inadequate humvees. Although Defense Secretary Robert Gates "talked the talk" that the MRAP is the Pentagon's "highest priority" new gear buy, until the Pentagon "walks the walk," Americans will continue to be slaughtered by the ever-present IEDs.

Supporting the troops is ensuring they have sufficient equipment and materiel in order to survive, and providing the proper care for the wounded and maimed when they return. This type of support is not a high priority with the Bush administration. In addition to forcing soldiers to dig through scrap piles for metal to reinforce vehicles, injured troops are billed for damaged or lost body armor, charged for food while in the hospital and routinely have their pension benefits cut. Because of Bush's brand of support, troops are faced not only with having to deal with the traumatic reality of their injuries, but most of them face financial ruin as well.

Bush has relentlessly fought supporting the troops from the outset. He not only opposes, but "strongly opposes" any pay raise for his troops. He threatened to veto the 2008 defense authorization bill if it included a paltry 3.5-percent raise for the military, a $40 monthly increase for widows and survivors, or any attempt to curb prices for prescription drugs the troops are forced to buy under TRICARE. Current pay and benefits are "sufficient," he said, echoing the refrain of Barbara Bush, his mother, as she looked out over the Katrina refugees penned up in the Houston Astrodome -- "...so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this -- this (she chuckled slightly) is working very well for them."

And, on Mar. 18, 2003, the day before Bush's bloody invasion of Iraq, the former first lady appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" to shrug aside the death sentences he was imposing upon an entire generation of Americans. "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Bush is truly his mother's son -- shallow, unfeeling, incapable of compassion. In a recent meeting with five families of slain soldiers, one, Elaine Johnson, asked him why we were in Iraq. Bush could not answer that, nor could he explain what we were fighting for. But he did toss each of them a presidential coin and quipped, "Don't go sell it on eBay."

To Bush, body bags and deaths are simply an inconvenience and, with the help of the corporate media, he is very adept at hiding them from prying eyes. Bush is on a righteous mission -- he is the President, the Decider, the Commander-in-chief and God has chosen him to lead this country to its destiny.

And the troops? They have learned when it comes to support, all they have is each other. All they have is each other.


Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at [email protected].

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17827.htm
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 02:14 am

"So who are we honoring here?"



Our Loss

By David Michael Green

06/04/07 "ICH" -- -- Cindy Sheehan announced her departure from the American public sphere last week, and the loss of her voice touched me deeply.

I am saddened for her personally, for few have sacrificed so much for their country, with so little to show for it. She gave her son, Casey, for George Bush's war in Iraq. Then she spent the next three years giving up her health, her marriage, the full-time parenting of her surviving children, and every ounce of her time and energy - all to prevent other mothers from suffering the same fate.

Arguably, she has nothing to show for her sacrifices other than the scorn of America's rabid right, most of whom somehow never seem to show up themselves when there is fighting to be done abroad. That plus another hole in her heart, to match the one left by the waste of her son's life.

To read Sheehan's farewell letter is to realize that she now also mourns another death along with Casey's, that of America as the country she and so many others of us grew up believing in.

Most Americans know of Sheehan from the stand she took outside Bush's vacation ranch in Crawford, asking only that he meet with her. The sheer courage and simplicity of that act made for a compelling David versus Goliath story that few could not find inherently sympathetic.

Which is precisely why it drove conservative pundits ballistic, and why they launched their vitriolic personal attacks against her, just as they have with every other one of their critics or political adversaries. To observe the savaging of a mother who had given her son for this country, because she dared to ask inconvenient questions, was perhaps the greatest shame of all in an epoch of one astonishing political disgrace after another.

But that is precisely what happened. Fred Barnes said, "She's a crackpot". Michelle Malkin had the audacity to claim that Casey wouldn't approve of "his mother's crazy accusations". And there were much, much worse, and far, far more personal attacks beyond these.

Not to mention hypocrisy. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with three fundamental propositions about Iraq: that we were lied into the war, that we are failing there, and that Americans should be coming home. Today, Bill O'Reilly says "It was the wrong battlefield. It was. And there's no getting around that. We made a mistake."

Leaving aside the known fact, based in documentary evidence, that it was no "mistake" at all, this is the same O'Reilly who only a few years ago argued that Cindy Sheehan - then making essentially the same arguments he makes today - was "in bed with the radical left", that "this kind of behavior borders on treasonous" and that she was linked to "people who hate this government, hate their country".

Are you not now also a traitor then, Bill?

And what does it say of America that the president couldn't meet with her, couldn't address her questions, couldn't risk exposure of his deceits, couldn't argue the virtues of his own policy? And what does it say of Americans that we weren't universally enraged at this? And that we weren't universally disgusted at the visage of the most powerful man in the world cowering in his ranch home behind an army of Secret Service agents, desperately hiding from an ordinary American mother standing out in the sun holding a sign?

Actually, though many people don't know it, Cindy Sheehan did meet with George W. Bush once.

Even more harrowing than the meeting they didn't have, is the one they did. It came in the wake of Casey's death, back when Sheehan was still on board with the administration's propaganda program. That would soon change. To read Cindy's description of that encounter between her family and George Bush is to come face to face with the numbing depth of his heartlessness.

Bush came bounding into the meeting, all full of frat-boy ebullience. An astonished Sheehan family watched as he glibly blurted, "So who are we honoring here?" and repeatedly referred to Cindy as "Mom". As if that weren't contemptuously disrespectful enough, Bush hadn't bothered to learn Casey's name. When the family tried to show him pictures of this fallen soldier - the very kind of person the president loves to refer to as a hero in the abstraction of countless photo-ops - he refused to look. Faced with the real grief of real people, he then demonstrated the same cut-and-run tactic for which he is so fond of excoriating others for using in trying to clean up his mess in Baghdad.

If this man has a heart, and if he cares about the damage he has wrought in the hearts of others, he surely hid it well that day.

But on this day - today - as the American disaster in Iraq descends into further chaos, as it lasts longer than our involvement in World War Two, and as even conservative scholars now refer to it as the worst foreign policy blunder in our long history, Mr. Bush's war takes another bloody toll at home as well, ripping a gash in the fabric of our national soul.

For, while I like to think Cindy's work will someday pay handsome dividends of revived sanity in America, in the short term what I see is that Casey is gone, Cindy is gone home, and George and Bill remain.

Maybe this was once the land of the free and the home of brave, perhaps way back in the olden times of the twentieth century. But right now the free are at home with their wide-screen TVs and the brave are retiring from the field, exhausted and disgusted.

If that isn't the perfect formula for national decline, I don't know what is.

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles ([email protected]), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17824.htm


In response to the article above

Who are we honouring here?


Who are we honouring here? He said
My son, my son is dead
You must be mom? Eh, mom? He said
My son, my son is dead
Thanks for sacrificing - what was his name?
She repeated it over and over again
But he couldn't keep it long in his brain
My son, my son is dead
Here is his picture
Look at his eyes
But he turned away
And to her surprise
Flipped her a white-house coin instead
Don't sell it on e-bay! He grinned and said
My God, oh God, my son
My son is dead


Endymion 2007
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Revolution
  3. » Page 27
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 04:57:23