Pam really enjoyed Steamed Fish and Green Apples and has been playing with it to find other ways to prepare it. Like Billie, she doesn't have a steamer so she uses a collander over a dutch oven pan of boiling water and places a lid over the collander.
She adds a splash of the vinegar to the water before she boils it.
Ingredients
2 tomatoes sliced into wedges
1 onion, chopped
2 cloves of garlic minced
4 fillets of cod fish
dash of sea salt
dash of pepper
Everything under "Ingredients" goes into the collander which you steam by placing it inside the dutch oven (the handles on the collander keep it above the water) and then cover with the lid of the dutch oven.
Pam steams for eight minutes and then serves on plates. She also adds sun dried tomatoes to the recipe from time to time (in addition to regular tomatoes). When I was making the recipe this week, I had been using celery for another dish earlier in the week and had some stalks that were going to have to be tossed if I didn't find something to use them (or eat them by themselves) quickly. So I chopped that up and steamed it with the other ingredients as well. I am also a big fan of freshly ground pepper so I topped my serving off with some of that as well.
This is from The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Roundtable:"
Jim: Okay, let's talk about the illegal war and I'm sorry that it's waited for the last. Community member Brandon e-mailed to praise Trina's "Basic in the Kitchen" and to say "Thank you to Trina and C.I. for taking it to a new level." That's the lies that keep us in the illegal war. And Trina's stating in her post that she's basically writing up C.I.'s speech from the Iraq study group that takes place at her house every Friday night.
C.I.: Well, I think that's being kind on Trina's part and robbing her of her credit for what she did which was more than 50%.
Rebecca: Oh shut up, that was an amazing speech you gave.
Elaine: It really was.
C.I.: I have no idea. I was tired. That group goes on for at least three hours. I wasn't planning on speaking. Usually, Ava and I will do a brief bit on what we saw that week speaking around the country. Ava had to take care of some stuff and I wasn't sure what to talk about until I stood up. Trina took my ramble and made it coherent. The illegal war started because of lies. Lies continue to keep the US in Iraq. They aren't the same lies and too often we're being encouraged to believe that they are. When someone's going to the well again on Judith Miller, for instance, we're being sent a message that those were the lies. When they're not confronting today's lies, with Miller gone from The New York Times and Miller the only one being named over and over, the implication is that the lies have stopped. But they haven't stopped. They continue. We're being told, for instance, that 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' are launching attacks in Iraq. No, Iraqis are launching attacks in their own country. The lies of 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' are to divide up the people for US audiences. That's very clear if you saw Gates' joint-press conference last week, by the way. And if one more Iraqi official participates in a conference by opening with "Praise be to God," I really think Americans are going to start asking, "Who are these kooks we've put in charge?" And Americans need to ask that because the Iraqi government is a puppet government. It is not legitimate in the eyes of Iraqis because it does not serve the Iraqi people. That's why it's hidden away in the Green Zone. As bad as Bully Boy is, and he's really bad, as illegitimate as his rule is, he still hasn't felt the need to wall off DC with physical barriers and set up check-points that Americans have to pass through and may, in fact, be denied entry to DC as a result. When Iraq's puppet government has to be hidden away, has to be locked away, when Iraqis cannot freely travel to and in Baghdad, it's a sign of how little support there is for al-Maliki and how little he is seen as a ruler for Iraq. Apologies to Ava because I'm speaking really fast because I know we've got a time limit. That's just one example of the current lies that exist to prolong the illegal war. In Vietnam, the false "North" and "South" was created by outsiders. Vietnam was a single country. In Iraq, the false "Shi'ite" versus "Sunni" was created, by the US, to foster an idea that the US was staying in Iraq to protect the 'good' Iraqis. Briefly, the US repeatedly required Iraqis, from the start of the illegal war, to identify themselves as Sunni or Shi'ite. They created the division. They have fueled it by siding with the Shi'ites early on, by installing them into government. By training them and arming them. Now, to prolong the illegal war, they're alarming the Shi'ites by training the Sunnis. Iraqis could make their own future if the US wasn't picking sides -- and constantly switching -- and fostering the divisions. So you've got two divisions right there, two lies, that prolong the illegal war. You've got the myth of 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' and you've got the myth of Shi'ites and Sunnis cannot get along. Extremists from either sect -- and they are not the only populations in Iraq -- probably will have difficulty getting along. But when you've put in one lunatic fringe, put them in charge, and they are a lunatic fringe based on the behaviors of the thugs at the Interior Ministry and based on the attacks they have condoned -- legal and with a wink of the eye -- on women and the gay community, you create the illusion that only the US can bring peace and only the US can save Iraq from itself. It's a lie and it's a big one because it continues and prolongs the illegal war.
Ty: I heard of that speech from Mike and Trina but I really wish I'd heard it. I think those are excellent points. And by refusing to make them and make them repeatedly, independent media -- which lost interest in Iraq sometime ago -- is prolonging the war. Mike was really impressed with your part on the air war, from the speech.
C.I.: Well, again, it's a lie that prolongs the illegal war. It's told to US audiences that only 'terrorists' are killed. If there's a push back by enough in the Big Media, they will come out, the US military command, with a brief "We regret the deaths of civilians." Well when you bomb a neighborhood, you have to know you are going to kill civilians. If you really regret it, you wouldn't be ordering people to do those missions. And civilians are being killed but, always, Iraqis are being killed. Whether they are part of a resistance, nut jobs or whatever, they're being killed in their own country by foreign forces. And the press releases come out from M-NF and everyone rushes to rewrite them and include them in their reports but very few bother to note that the dead 'terrorists' are always alleged 'terrorists.' You've had wedding parties killed because they were mistaken for 'terrorists.' You've had people sleeping on roofs due to the heat killed because they were mistaken for 'terrorists.' So this idea that the press will go along with calling them 'terrorists,' the press that generally wasn't in any way present for the bombings, is just beyond belief. It's a nice little lie that is supposed to make people in the US feel good. "The US military killed 7 terrorists." Yea! No, not really. That's not what happened. And by repeatedly using that language, the press continues the illegal war. The ones dropping the bombs have no idea who they're dropping bombs on, they're too far up in the sky. The ones ordering it usually aren't present but are dealing with a request. The ones making the requests may be spooked, may be nervous, may be any number of things. But when, as happened this month, 40,000 pounds of bombs are dropped in one area in ten minutes, let's not pretend that this isn't a slaughter. I know we're pressed for time so I would encourage everyone to read Trina's "Basic in the Kitchen" -- she covers it better than I did or am doing here.
I need to add a thank-you to Brandon for enjoying my post and I need to clarify C.I.'s statement because I do not deserve over 50% of the credit, I don't even deserve 50%. At best, I pulled from C.I.'s speech for last week's post (as I pointed out here last week). I would also urge you to read "The Truth About Gloria" which is the only time I've cursed myself, when reading, for not taking them up on the offer to help out in the writing.
And as long as I am noting The Third Estate Sunday Review, be sure to read Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Democracy Sometimes?" which is brilliant.
Another week and so little coverage of Iraq. Maybe you noticed, maybe you didn't?
For me, Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" really drove home how little coverage we're getting of Iraq. In that, C.I.'s talking about the treaty that Bully Boy is trying to iron out with puppet Nouri al-Maliki. This treaty would anchor the US to Iraq. And not just if Iraq was attacked from outside (Turkey, Iran, you name it) but also if a civil war broke out within Iraq. If that happened, the US military would have to defend the puppet government. The treaty would bind the president sworn into office in January 2009 to a multi-year (illegal) occupation of Iraq. This is very big news and it's unconstitutional because the executive branch cannot make treaties on their own. Treaties must be approved by the US Congress.
Bully Boy's trying to get around the Constitution by claiming it's not a treaty but that is exactly what it is. And in England an early version of the WMD dossier is being released per The Information Tribunal and it will reveal whether or not there was en effort to 'sex up' the findings in order to sell the illegal war. On selling, General Dynamics is raking it on the Iraq War. The illegal war allowed them to report a 42% increase in their fourth quarter.
Look at that snapshot and just marvel over how much is going on and how little is being noted.
In Canada on Saturday, there will be actions to support US war resisters and convince the Canadian Parliament of the need to grant asylum/safe haven to them. Since independent media showed no interest in the lead up to this (actions took place in the US today), I doubt they'll show any interest come Monday. They always have something else to report.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:
Friday, January 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, actions gear up in support of war resisters in Canada, the US military announces another death, Glen Ford offers a look at coded terms in the political races, the treaty that would tie the US and Iraq together (in combat) for years, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Candace Hechman (Seattle Post Intelligencer) notes that Project Safe Haven is staging a "vigil in front of the Canadian consulate in downtown Seattle to plead that AWOL Iraq veterans be allowed to remain in sanctuary in the Great White North" and quotes Gerry Condon explaining, "Canada has a rich tradition of providing sanctuary to those who conscientiously refused to fight in war. Now it is time for the Canadian government to do the right thing, before it's too late."
What's Condon referring to? On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
War resister Patrick Hart states, "It's great that people all across Canada and the US are coming out to show support for the war resisters. My family could be told we have to go back to the States anytime now. We just want to be able to live here in peace and raise our son, Rian. We hope that the politicians will let us do that." Among the actions taking place in Canada on Saturday the 26th:
* Toronto at the Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor St. West, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and will feature, among others, activist and actress Shirley Douglas, Lawrence Hill (co-author of The Deserter's Tale with Joshua Key) and Member of Parliament Olivia Chow who has led on the issue of war resisters from early on.
*Saskaton at Frances Morrison Library Theatre, 311 23rd Street East, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in which Joshua Key will be the featured speaker, Navdeep Sidhu and Friends will provide music and Michelle Mason's documentary on war resisters () will be shown.
*Vancouver at the main branch of Vancouver Public Library (Georgia and Homer), starting at 1:00 p.m., and featuring IVAW's Ash Woolson and Canadian MP Bill Siksay.
A full list of Canadian actions can be found here.
War resister Brad McCall will speak in Saturday at Fairfield United Church Hall in Victoria (1303 Fairfield Road) starting at 10:00 am, along with MP Denise Savoie. McCall explains his story in "From the U.S. Army to Canada: a resister's journey" (The Rabble) "One Sergeant explained how he shot a man in an alleyway just for being out after dark. He expressed how easy it was to kill "hajjis" once you did it for the first time. I listened as one soldier told how a specialist in my unit kept a human finger in his wall locker during his entire tour of duty. The laughing ensued as I heard the story of a soldier in another company eating the charred flesh of an Iraqi civilian, the unfortunate victim of an IED attack aimed at American forces. I thought about how callous these men had become, and how horrified I was at the idea of disrespecting human life in such a manner. This is when doubt began to flood my mind."
Laura Kaminker (writing at Common Dreams) observes, "In discussing this issue with supposedly progressive Americans, I was shocked - and frankly disgusted - to learn that some people who oppose the war in Iraq do not support the war resisters' cause. Their argument: 'If they didn't join in the first place, there wouldn't be a war!' This strikes me as both extremely naive and horribly selfish. Many of us were fortunate to grow up in homes where questioning authority was encouraged, where dissent and protest were a way of life - not to mention in families that could afford higher education and health care. If you cannot imagine what kind of background might lead someone to enlist in the US military, I again recommend The Deserter's Tale. But even if we never would have made such a choice, do we want to see people who have experienced such a radical change of mind punished for their beliefs? Isn't this the very change of heart that we wish to instill in others? And most importantly, should a person be imprisoned for refusing to kill?"
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
In the United States yesterday the Green Party issued a call "on Americans who oppose the Iraq War to rebuff an agreement among pro-Democratic 'antiwar' lobbies to scale back pressure to end the war." IVAW's Jason Wallace, running as a Green for the US House of Representatives from Illinois 11th District, is quoted stating, "MoveOn.org, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and other groups have decided that passing legislation in Congress that does nothing to end the war makes their favorite Democratic candidates look better than demanding action to end the war quickly. The big myth of the 2008 election is that Democrats are the antiwar candidates. In reality, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a longer occupation in Iraq and possibly a war with Iran." Earlier this month PR Watch explained that "Ryan Grim reports that the biggest and best-funded organizations in the liberal peace movement, primarily MoveOn and the groups in its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) coalition, are no longer advocating that Congress end the war. This year "the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. ... The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November." The Green Party also quotes Titus North who is running for the US House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 14th district stating, "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they'd maintain a permanent US military presence in Iraq with only a limited draw-down of combat troops that could then be redeployed 'just over the horizon.' This military misadventure is not in the best interests of Americans or Iraqis and only benefits the oil and weapons industries. Groups like MoveOn that divert the energies of peace activists towards Democrat candidates who fail to push for a prompt and total withdrawal only undermine the peace movement and advance the war agenda. Voters need genuine peace candidates like thos from the Green Party." Bob Kinsey, who is running for the US Senate out of Colorado, explains, "The position of Green candidates is that we are not willing to accept any more dying by violence -- American or otherwise. It has been the willingness of US military policy to accept collateral damage in the hundreds of thousands and forcing people to live under governments of our choosing, which drives hostility towards us and decreases our own security. The recent statement by NATO leaders urging maintenance of a first strike nuclear policy is one more example of a dangerous position that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats." July tenth through thirteenth is when the Green Party will be holding their National Nominating Convention in Chicago. Click here for the Green Party News Center, here for a database of Green candidates, here for video of the Green presidential candidates and of course, if it's Green news, Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is probably posting about it. The Green Party has scheduled another presidential candidate forum for February 2nd at Busboys & Poets in DC (14th and V Streets) at ten in the morning -- Jesse Johnson and Kent Mesplay are confirmed to appear others may or may not. More info click here. This will be their second presidential forum for the 2008 election. Meanwhile, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) observes that the same exclusion practiced in the Democratic debates "will happen to the Green Party -- which, if they have any sense at all, will nominate former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney as their standard bearer. But only those who keep up with such things will be aware that the Greens have a candidate" as a result of the media blackout.
Having ignored a real issue all week, it's not pretty when people try to play catch up. Today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) declared during headlines, "The New York Times is reporting the Bush administration plans to insist the Iraqi government agree to effectively extend the legal immunity enjoyed by foreign contractors operating inside Iraq. The demand is one of several expected from the White House as it negotiates an extension of its UN-backed occupation mandate set to expire at the end of the year."
NO! There are mistakes already but we're not going further after that one. This isn't "an extension of its UN-backed occupation." The United Nations is being written out of the picture. How you fail to grasp that, I don't know. But this isn't a new topic and we've covered and re-covered it for nearly two months now. There is no extension of the UN mandate. That's the whole point of what is going on, to escape the minor guidelines imposed by the United Nations. al-Maliki ignored the Iraqi Parliament and renewed the mandate for one last year -- he says it's the last year -- which would carry the illegal war through December 2008 (and the UN ignored that he didn't have the authority to renew it by himself). The White House and their Baghdad puppet are now attempting to sidestep the UN's 'oversight' and enter into a treaty which would bind the US to Iraq for many years to come. Back to Goodman, "Democrats are demanding congressional oversight over what it says amounts to a full-on treaty. The White House also wants to expand the immunity for all U.S. military and extend its authority to hold Iraqi prisoners." No, it's not just the Democrats. There are Republicans wanting Congressional oversight as well. Now, believe it or not, the big issue isn't the contractors. The biggest issue is that it's a treaty and the Congress is bypassed. So is the Iraqi parliament and, Goodman, they're objecting too. So are legal scholars. That headline was no help at all and just demonstrated that you can't rush in after ignoring an important topic and dispense with it in a few sentences. This wasn't even the lead headline. Bully Boy's attempting to circumvent the Constitution and, if he does, he will tie US forces to Iraq far beyond his departure from the White House.
Here's how Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) explains it today:
President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.
Goodman's mistake is in citing the New York Times which always supports the State Department (regardless of who is in the Oval Office) and sent the clean up crew of Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myer to 'cover' the story today. They accept the premise that the treaty is fine but there's a sticky point -- those pesky contractors. That's like arguing the only problem with the illegal war is that white phosphorus is used. Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) do a little better job than Shanker and Myer and note US Senator Hillary Clinton spoke out against the treaty in Monday's Democratic presidential debate.
Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
Charlie Savage notes, "The New York senator has filed legislation that would block the expenditure of funds to implement any agreement with Iraq that was not submitted to Congress for approval. Her rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, became a cosponsor to the bill on Tuesday." As the true dean of the DC press corps, Helen Thomas (Boston Channel), notes, "Congress should keep Bush from making commitments concerning Iraq that could tie the hands of his successor and trap the next president in his pointless war. In responde to my question, deputy White House press secreatry Tony Fratto said Bush had not signed any documents to keep the war going, but he added that work is under way on an agreement to cement the U.S. relationship with Iraq." Lane Lambert (Sandwich Broadsider) notes, "U.S. Rep. William Delahunt is sounding the alarm about a new U.S.-Iraq security agreement that he says could bind this country to an unprecedented, possibly unconstitutional, commitment of American military force" and quotes Delahunt declaring, "This is one of the most significant foreign policy decisions that will be made this year or next year. If this doesn't rise to the level of a treaty, I don't know what does."
As noted in yesterday's snapshot Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) is already calling it a treaty. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports on Zebari today and notes, "The Iraqi leaders are eager to sign by July a bilateral treaty with the US which would in effect determine who rules Iraq." Treaty. Ali Gharib (IPS) notes that Brookings Boy Mikey O'Hanlon thinks Congress has no say -- and we all know what a liar and war cheerleader O'Hanlon is. Brian Beutler (Mother Jones) notes the legal scholars that testified at Delahunt's subcommittee hearing Wednesday, "If covered within a treaty, Congress could block the president from making this sort of agreement with Maliki. But without one the president could provide similar assurances informally, leaving the future president -- Democrat or Republican -- in a tricky diplomatic position if he or she decides not to honor Bush's promise. Testifying on Wednesday, [conservative AEI's Michael] Rubin noted that any guarantee that U.S. troops would defend Iraqi territory would demand a treaty."
On US politics, Tom Hayden (writing at the San Francisco Chronicle) points out that the Democratic candidates for president (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) have not been pinned down and that "combat troops" does not equal "all troops," "To sum up, if all American combat troops ever are withdrawn, there still will remain 50,000 to 100,000 Americans involved in a low-visibility, dirty war in Iraq, just like those that involved death squads in Central American in the '70s, or the earlier Phoenix program in South Vietnam, in which the Viet Cong infrastructure was decimated by assassinations and torture. Top American advisers in Baghdad today operated the El Salvador counter-insurgency and have praised the Phoenix program. This, in fact, already is happening. The Baghdad regime is described by a source in the Baker-Hamilton report as a Shiite dictatorship. The recent lessening of violence in Baghdad largely is due to the ethnic cleansing of its Sunni population. At least 50,000 detainees are imprisoned today without charges or trial dates. The United States is paying Sunnis to fight Sunnis, funding the Shiite-dominated security forces, and has increased its bombardment from the air by fivefold since last year."
Let's turn to some of today's violence and it's Friday which means very little gets reported.
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded a police officer and a civilian and a Diyala Province roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left another person wounded.
Shootings?Reuters reports US collaborators in the 'Awakening' Council in Samarra shot two people while outside Falluja they teamed up with the Iraqi police to shoot one person and leave another injured.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Saidiyah.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier died Jan. 25 of noncombat related causes." ICCC's total currently stands at 3932 US service members killed in Iraq while serving in the illegal war.
On this week's CounterSpin, Peter Hart spoke with Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford addressed the issue of candidate Barack Obama (Ford is not a Hillary supporter and notes the two are siamese twins).
Glen Ford: He has garnered White support at the expense of Black folks. Now he has done this in so many ways I've had to pare it down. But here are two. He said in Selma that Blacks have already come 90% of the way to equality with the inference of course that if he gets to be president we will have come all the way. Of course that's a signal to White people that this is almost over -- all this talk about race, all these 'complaints' from the likes of and they always fill in the blanks -- Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. 'But I'm with you, it's almost over, the progress has been almost completed.' That is so blatantly an appeal to White folks who just don't want to hear about race. If it had come out of White man's mouth, Barack Obama would have been excoriated by Black people. And now, most recently, in fact, effectively, he praised the Republicans for their ideas in the 90s and on Ronald Reagan. And he talks about all the excesses of the 60s and 70s. I have never heard a more blantant code phrase than that. Which, of course, again, if it had come out of a White Democrat's mouth, that candidate would be persona non grata in all progressive quarters of the Democratic Party. So Obama is in a very real sense -- and he's been doing this from the beginning -- running a campaign on race but one that's appealing to White people.
On the campaigns quickly, Taylor Marsh is covering everything but there's a problem for some with her site loading -- if you're checking out one post at her site, this one will give you the basics today including Matt Lauer's nonsense and it has a video clip.
iraq
brad mccall
iraq veterans against the war
charlie savagethom shankerthe new york timesjulian e. barnesthe los angeles times
walter pincusthe washington post
kimberly wilder
glen fordblack agenda report
peter hart
counterspin
tom hayden
patrick cockburn
mcclatchy newspapers
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Basic in the Kitchen
I got a lot of e-mails on last week's post and was a little fearful about opening them. I was thinking, "Oh, I must have offended someone with my comments" (and figured it was about impeachment).
That wasn't the case. So we're going to have some kitchen basics.
A number of you wrote to say you were glad that canned foods were being noted and this was apparently the thing no one wanted to raise. There's no reason to feel guilty about using canned foods. I'm very glad that Rita and Laraine both tried the Del Monte Fresh Cut Zucchini and recommend it highly.
But the canned food issue has raised some other ones. So, again, this is just some kitchen basics.
Frozen food. What should I have on hand?
You should have what you like.
Let's talk berries first because (a) some areas do not have fresh all the time and (b) transporting fresh around the country costs a lot more than transporting frozen.
My husband and my son Mike are both allergic to fresh strawberries. I'm pretty sure Mike outgrew that but he may not have. If we have strawberry shortcake, we have it with frozen strawberries. Blueberries are more common in the frozen section these days so you could try those to see what you think of them.
I wasn't aware that a number of people were unsure in the frozen section of the grocer. Cheryl wanted to know what's easiest because she usually grabs Green Giant roasted potatoes and tosses it in the microwave but doesn't go with anything else.
I believe all frozen foods are microwaveable for the most part (if they need cooking). An exception is corn on the cob. If you like corn, that would be my recommendation. You boil water (salt it if you want) and boil the corn. It's a very easy to fix food. You're not even having to take the husks off.
One dish I enjoy (in single serving size) is creamed spinach. I've never made creamed spinach in my life and only know it from the frozen section. (I do have a spinach recipe that I'll share next week provided Wally's mother has no problem with it. It requires fresh spinach, however. But there were requests for spinach recipes in this week's e-mails.)
You may not care for creamed spinach. That's your real clue. Even if something is easy to cook, don't pick it up if you don't generally like it.
I don't like frozen beans or peas. If I'm making split-pea salad, for instance, I use canned. If I'm having beans (other than green beans), I generally buy them dry. But that's a personal taste issue and if you enjoy them frozen, that's for you to decide.
That's really the point in all the e-mails, people are worried about what they are eating or wanting to eat. No one wrote, "Is it okay to eat Death By Chocolate for every meal?" So everyone writing grasps the importance of increasing fruits and vegetables (for yourselves and/or your families).
I've obviously done several things wrong if people are worried what I'm going to think. If you need to picture me in the kitchen with you, know that I'm just happy someone else is cooking and, if you know it tastes wonderful, I'm sure I'll love it as well.
But at least one e-mail indicates it's not just me. Kent e-mails about a PBS cooking show (he doesn't name it but I think I know which one he means and I caught it as well). Kent lives in Texas. The host is from the east. He made a big to-do about refried beans and insulted every canned variety offered to him -- comparing them to dog food.
I met Kent when we were all in Texas last March. Kent can't get over the nonsense of that host (it's not just Kent having that problem). Here's the deal for anyone in Kent's situation: You live in Texas, you know more about Tex-Mex food than an outsider.
I thought that segment was ridiculous when I saw it. He was being spooned refried beans out of a can. I can't imagine anything he'd enjoy being spooned out of a can. He just wanted to be snide and he achieved that. Ignore him. Ignore his program.
If you're outside of Texas (or the southwest), you may not grasp that you season the refried beans if you're using canned. (You also season them if you're using dried pintos from scratch.)
That can include a fresh pepper, a clove of garlic, pepper, you name it.
If I say something here that makes you uncomfortable, by all means let me know. I certainly am not trying to make anyone feel nervous in their own kitchen. It's your kitchen and you're in charge. Everyone else, including me, is a guest and a guest trying to take over your kitchen is like someone in the backseat trying to tell you how to drive. Blow them off. Unless it's me. If it's me, let me know. Because the whole point of this site is that people who aren't (or weren't) comfortable in their kitchens would realize that it's not scary and they can handle it.
If you're vegan, you already know your basics. If you're not vegan, I'd recommend keeping the following in your kitchen: eggs, your favorite cheese, bread, flour and sugar at a minimum. Milk? I have a big family so we never have milk go bad unless we're away from home. But milk is so expensive these days that I'd hesitate to recommend anyone keep it on hand unless they normally do.
I normally have rice and dried pasta on hand. But that's because I like to eat those things. If you don't, there's really no point in keeping them on hand except for an emergency situation when you have nothing else to eat.
A big question from the men was if it was okay to just cook one dish. I'm assuming they are cooking for themselves because two people are rarely in synch enough to take the same meal day after day. But if you want to do that, there's a plus to it. The more you cook something, the more comfortable you are with it and the easier it is for you to cook it. You can try different spices or other things if you'd like.
I think I've shared this before but C.I. and Ava are usually here every Friday (usually with Kat) and one night, when Wally was also here so it was during the summer, I was embarrassed to find out that they were cooking pigs in a blanket. I felt like I'd failed or something as a host. I hadn't. They wanted to fix something quick and easy that everyone would eat. I ended up having some as well and the best meal is always something someone else cooked.
So just eat what you want. If we work at listening to our bodies, we'll know what we need. I know that may cause a panic for some because you may think you'll be eating sweets non-stop. But if you're making a point to increase your fruits and vegetables, you should find that you really begin to want to eat them.
One e-mail came in from a woman who's just switched apartments. It's a downgrade, due to the economy, and she hates it. In terms of the kitchen, she has no windows and she says the kitchen is tiny and she feels like she's in a jail cell everytime she's in there. We exchanged e-mails and one of the things she's done is hang up pots and pans which has given her a lot more room (she only had one cabinet below waist level (it's under the sink) and the two cabinets on the wall are being used for glasses, plates, etc. She liked the idea of hanging pots and pans but checked a hanging device and it was too expensive. I don't know what the item is called, she found it at Target, but you can get a thing (wooden or metal) that is just hooks on an expandable base. She got it in metal for less than ten bucks, hung it up and all her skillets and pans are hanging from it now. She also tried my suggestion of moving a radio into the kitchen and it feels less like a jail cell for her now. As we were exchanging e-mails, I thought about two things.
First, with the awful economy, I'm sure she's not the only one downgrading just to stay above water. Two, whether you downgrade or stay where you are, if the kitcehn is a source of grief, you're not going to want to go in there. One of my son's 'decorating style' (I'm laughing kindly) is NBA. He's a big basketball fan and if you go into his kitchen, he's got action figures hanging on the walls (in their original boxes), trading cards and everything else up on the walls. It makes it a room he wants to be in. So you may want to try that. I have a friend who, when she was really depressed for a series of month, would clip out a comic strip from the paper each week and put it on her fridge.
There are little touches you can do (and I don't mean things you have to go out and shop for) that will make the kitchen feel more like your room.
The last e-mail was from a man who has a skillet, one large pot and two sauce pans. He said a friend's been "ribbing" him about that. It's wonderful to have a large number of pots and pans but he can cook a full meal with what he has on hand.
Again, a large number of e-mails seemed to be about permission. You give yourself permission. If you want mine, you've got it.
So the illegal war? We found out this week that the Iraq War is not only not planned to end anytime soon, but the government is telling us it will go on much longer than most of us have expected in our worst nightmares. And if they're admitting to five more years, you know they're hoping for even more.
The illegal war is not going to end in phases, my opinion. It's going to end or it's not going to end. It could last a century (didn't John McCain suggest that earlier this month?). Troops come home or they stay. Even a partial number staying risks more being sent back over.
The Iraqi government can't get it together because it's not a government of the people. It's a government the US has installed. As long as US forces are on the ground there, the government will look to the US for approval. It will not be representing Iraqis.
Bully Boy is attempting to by-pass the United Nations and create agreements with his puppet (al-Maliki) that will allow the US to stay as long as the puppet (or later puppets) want. That is appalling. The US should not have gone into Iraq and it should not be over there now. But we should not mistake whatever a puppet agrees to with the will of the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people, in poll after poll, has made it clear that they want all foreign forces out of their country.
We would feel the same way.
And maybe that's one of the answers? Realizing what we we'd feel like in their shoes? Realizing that they aren't the "other" but people just like us. Adults, not children, who can steer their own course and should.
We hear a lot about how US troops have to remain in Iraq to protect "them." Who is "them"? Iraqis? Who is the US protecting "them" from? I wasn't aware that another country had annexed parts of Iraq. (Though some parts do want to split off.)
The US is doing what it did during Vietnam: Propping up a government that doesn't represent the will of the people. Year after year, it can be propped up but it's not a legitimate government or one that can stand on its own because it is not a government that came up from the country, it's one being imposed from outside.
There was violence when the US left Vietnam. There was also a healing period. We now have diplomatic (and economic) relations with Vietnam and their current government is not the puppet government the US spent years propping up.
A legitimate government is of the people and by the people. The US military or US government is not composed of Iraqis and should not be in the business of propping up governments in foreign countries.
We were lied to about why the US needed to go into Iraq. We're being lied to now about why the US has to stay.
(If I seem especially focused tonight, I should note that I'm ripping off from a presenation C.I. gave to the Iraq study group tonight. I do have permission to write about this and I have added my own thoughts and not just provided a transcript.)
"The lies of war" is how C.I. opened it and I thought we were going to hear about WMDs, democracy, liberation and all the usual lies of war that we know by heart.
But C.I.'s point was that those lies got the US over there. There are new lies that keep the US there. We need to start thinking about that and exploring that. We need to be exposing that. I can't do justice to the section where C.I. was talking about the bombs being dropped. But I will note that when the US has to drop bombs on a country, there is no democracy, there is no legitmacy to the puppet government.
Lies got us into war and we can hear that over and over from the ones who think talking about Iraq means bringing up Judith Miller, et al. But lies are keeping us there and addressing that may be one way to end the illegal war.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday, January 17, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the illegal war keeps going (and gets extended?), John Edwards addresses the realities of Ronald Reagan, and more.
Starting with war resisters, Courage to Resist has posted a number of interviews with war resisters. Today we'll focus on their interview with Brandon Hughey who spoke of how he turned against the illegal war, advised his superior of it and finally took matters into his own hands by checking out from Fort Hood for 28 days (starting in January 2004) "to see if maybe they would boot me out. Once I go AWOL and once I show that I'm not a 'good soldier' maybe they'd just boot me out. So I came back in 28 days, instead of kicking me out of the army they said, 'We're glad to have you back. We're going to give you extra duty and dock your pay. But I suggest you pack your backs and start getting ready to go to Iraq.' So basically that idea I had backfired. I had tried to get myself booted out and even that didn't work. So at that point, I began to feel like I was trapped. There was no way out."
Courage to Resist: And none of your superiors ever informed you of Conscientious Objector status?
Brandon Hughey: No, I had never even heard of that. I didn't even know that existed until I after I came to Canada.
Courage to Resist: So you were told to get ready to ship out to Iraq after being AWOL for 28 days? What did you do then?
Brandon Hughey: Basically, I began to think of what other options I had to get out of the military. You know, I couldn't really think of anything. I tried going AWOL and coming back, at that point I just felt trapped. I had remembered that tens of thousands of people had come up -- during Vietnam -- had come up to Canada and I thought at the time, 'Maybe as a last resort option I could leave the country?" And so I kept that in the back of my mind and when I realized that, you know, there didn't seem like any other way I could get out I began to feel like, "Okay, leaving the country is an option." So, at that point, I began to make plans to go to Canada.
Courage to Resist: How did you prepare yourself to make this huge decision?
Brandon Hughey: I was just going to pack my bags and drive myself there -- try to set aside whatever money I could and hopefully have enough to get myself started in a new life and a new country. I really didn't have much a plan because I didn't know what I was getting myself into. And that was pretty much it.
Courage to Resist: And when did you actually make the move?
Brandon Hughey: I came up in March of 2004, when I arrived.
Courage to Resist: Did you make contact right away with anybody with the War Resisters Support Campaign or any other resisters.
Brandon Hughey: Well the War Resisters Support Campaign hadn't been formed yet when I arrived. But I was staying with a Quaker family for a few months when I first arrived. So the Quaker community did a lot and they, you know, they did a lot to support me. That was really my first support network when I came to Canada.
Courage to Resist's audio interviews are part of their ongoing Audio Project.
A number of war resisters have gone to Canada and attempted to be granted asylum.
November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
And the war drags on and on. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) pieces together several press conferences to explain, "Gates and top uniformed officers sketched out a plan that runs counter to pledges by Democratic presidential contenders to bring about a rapid drawdown of the U.S. military presence in Iraq" and cites Lt. General Raymond Odierno (the number two) declaring that it "could be five to 10 years" that the US forces remain in Iraq. Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) observes, "Senior U.S. military officials projected yesterday that the Iraqi army and police will grow to an estimated 580,000 members by the end of the year but that shortages of key personnel, equipment, weaponry and logistical capabilities mean that Iraq's security forces will probably require U.S. military support for as long as a decade." Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reminds, "Iraq's defense minister, Abdul-Qader Mohammed Jassim Mifarji, has said Iraqi forces will not be able to assume responsibility for internal security until 2012 or be able to defend the country's borders before 2019."
In the face of that, the alleged 'anti-war groups' cave again. They aren't anti-war groups, they aren't peace groups. They are Win Without War and all the other useless groups that do nothing to end the illegal war. Nothing the reports of the cave, PR Watch explains that "Ryan Grim reports that the biggest and best-funded organizations in the liberal peace movement, primarily MoveOn and the groups in its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) coalition, are no longer advocating that Congress end the war. This year "the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. ... The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November." AAEI's PR spokesperson, Moira Mack of Hildebrand Tewes Consulting, called it "the perfect legislative opportunity." In other words, as Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber pointed out last March, for MoveOn and other Democrat-aligned peace groups it's not about ending the war, it's about electing Democrats. Most of the tens of millions of dollars that MoveOn and AAEI have spent lobbying and organizing for "peace" has been directed at pressuring and embarrassing pro-war Republicans, while the Democratic Congress has continued to fund the war and pro-war Democrats have generally been given a pass." All those 'groups' have to offer is silent vigils and online petitions. And we've seen serveral years before.
A rude comment on IVAW comes from a surprising online source. We're not linking to it. We're not linking to that site while it's up. (The same way all the ones lying about Gloria Steinem aren't being linked to. See The Third Estate Sunday Review for a piece tentatively titled "Hey Little Girl Are You All Alone, Did You Go and Leave Your Brain at Home" dedicated to the Mud Flap Gals and all the other useless play-feminists online who never thought they needed to educated themselves on any topic before weighing in.) IVAW is being slammed for not allowing an event that marks the anniversary of the illegal war. Buy a clue, idiots, IVAW's Winter Soldier Investigation ends before the anniversary. But apparently, the 5th anniversary of the illegal war can't be marked if it can't be done on a weekend. Apparently, we're supposed to have "5th Anniversary of the Illegal War" observed and then, during the week, the actual date?
It's too damn bad that there are some hurt feelings and people whining and carping about IVAW. IVAW isn't preventing anyone from doing anything. They have planned the Winter Soldiers' Investigation and the dates are March 13th through March 16th. You have to be really STUPID not to grasp that the 5th anniversay of the illegal war is AFTER the Winter Soldiers' Investigation. IVAW's Kelly Dougherty observes:
As we enter 2008, please stop for a moment and consider where we are now, and where we are going. In just over a year, America will have a new President. We will have endured a year of campaign commercials and attack ads. We'll have watched debates devoid of any real discussion of the withdrawal from Iraq that a growing number of Americans now call for. We'll have waited, for yet another year, for our leaders to find a way to say what we know in our hearts: we must leave Iraq.
But what will have changed in the next year that will make that happen?
We must face this fact: we run the serious risk that one year from today we'll be right where we are now, but with another year's worth of casualties, a year's worth of grieving families, a year's worth of Iraqi anger and suffering built on our occupation of a country we now know was no threat to us. Ending this war in a year is different than ending it now, just as ending it now is different than ending it a year ago, or a year before that. There is a price to pay for every day that we wait.
She's exactly right. And in 2004, we saw the peace movement shut down shop because the most important thing wasn't ending the illegal war, it was 'elections!' The peace movement can't make the same mistake in 2008. If people have hurt little feelings, too damn bad. Too much time has been wasted with the peace movement wasting their energies on the John Kerry presidential bid or the Democrats 2006 Congressional races. People in the peace movement will most likely favor a candidate on their own. That's to be expected. But the peace movement is not a get-out-the-vote movement nor should it be hijacked (willingly or not) by political parties.
IVAW is not the only thing happening in DC. March for Peace exists around it and blocks out the 13th through the 16th for IVAW. Possibly, those whining online about IVAW don't believe students matter and that's why they flaunt their ignorance of March for Peace? You can find their schedule here.
CBS and AP report that Turkey is declaring that they "bombed nearly 60 Kurdish rebel targets in an attack this week in northern Iraq." Christian Peacemaker Teams have protested noting that the bombings -- as with all ariel bombings including the ones the US is doing in Iraq -- are indiscriminate and targeting civilians.
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives and left four wounded, a Baquba home bombing left 2 police officers dead and two more wounded while another Baquba home bombing claimed the lives of 2 children and four adults wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Basra that left at least two soldiers injured, three Iraqi police officers injured and an unknown number of civilians injured while Dr. Luma Salih was shot dead in a seperate incident as she left the hospital, a Wajihiyah armed clash left 2 police officers dead and three more wounded, 8 people were shot dead in Kirkuk and a Nasriyah Province clash in which 9 people were killed and at least forty wounded.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 3 in Diyala Province. Reuters reports 7 corpses "were found after one" US "air strike in the town of Riyadh".
In US political news, the Green Party has scheduled another presidential candidate forum for February 2nd at Busboys & Poets in DC (14th and V Streets) at ten in the morning -- Jesse Johnson and Kent Mesplay are confirmed to appear others may or may not. More info click here. They've also created a new webpage for videos with the San Francisco forum held Sunday already on it and plans for more videos to be added. The Green Party's official blog can be found here and certainly if it's happening and known Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is probably posting about it. In Democratic presidential politics, Shailagh Murraqy (Washington Post) quotes John Edwards response to Barack Obama's praise of Ronald Reagan (see yesterday's snapshot): "When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people. He was openly -- openly -- intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country . . . He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment. I can promise you this: thie president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change."
This MLK weekend, PBS' Bill Moyers Journal includes an essay by Moyers (who served in the Johnson White House) reflecting on history and present day -- in addition, he speaks with the New York Times David Cay Johnston about the truths regarding taxation and spending. In most markets, that airs tonight. It will stream online and provide transcripts and audio.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapersann scott tysonthe washington postjulian e. barnesthe los angeles times
bill moyersbill moyers journal
kimberly wilder
That wasn't the case. So we're going to have some kitchen basics.
A number of you wrote to say you were glad that canned foods were being noted and this was apparently the thing no one wanted to raise. There's no reason to feel guilty about using canned foods. I'm very glad that Rita and Laraine both tried the Del Monte Fresh Cut Zucchini and recommend it highly.
But the canned food issue has raised some other ones. So, again, this is just some kitchen basics.
Frozen food. What should I have on hand?
You should have what you like.
Let's talk berries first because (a) some areas do not have fresh all the time and (b) transporting fresh around the country costs a lot more than transporting frozen.
My husband and my son Mike are both allergic to fresh strawberries. I'm pretty sure Mike outgrew that but he may not have. If we have strawberry shortcake, we have it with frozen strawberries. Blueberries are more common in the frozen section these days so you could try those to see what you think of them.
I wasn't aware that a number of people were unsure in the frozen section of the grocer. Cheryl wanted to know what's easiest because she usually grabs Green Giant roasted potatoes and tosses it in the microwave but doesn't go with anything else.
I believe all frozen foods are microwaveable for the most part (if they need cooking). An exception is corn on the cob. If you like corn, that would be my recommendation. You boil water (salt it if you want) and boil the corn. It's a very easy to fix food. You're not even having to take the husks off.
One dish I enjoy (in single serving size) is creamed spinach. I've never made creamed spinach in my life and only know it from the frozen section. (I do have a spinach recipe that I'll share next week provided Wally's mother has no problem with it. It requires fresh spinach, however. But there were requests for spinach recipes in this week's e-mails.)
You may not care for creamed spinach. That's your real clue. Even if something is easy to cook, don't pick it up if you don't generally like it.
I don't like frozen beans or peas. If I'm making split-pea salad, for instance, I use canned. If I'm having beans (other than green beans), I generally buy them dry. But that's a personal taste issue and if you enjoy them frozen, that's for you to decide.
That's really the point in all the e-mails, people are worried about what they are eating or wanting to eat. No one wrote, "Is it okay to eat Death By Chocolate for every meal?" So everyone writing grasps the importance of increasing fruits and vegetables (for yourselves and/or your families).
I've obviously done several things wrong if people are worried what I'm going to think. If you need to picture me in the kitchen with you, know that I'm just happy someone else is cooking and, if you know it tastes wonderful, I'm sure I'll love it as well.
But at least one e-mail indicates it's not just me. Kent e-mails about a PBS cooking show (he doesn't name it but I think I know which one he means and I caught it as well). Kent lives in Texas. The host is from the east. He made a big to-do about refried beans and insulted every canned variety offered to him -- comparing them to dog food.
I met Kent when we were all in Texas last March. Kent can't get over the nonsense of that host (it's not just Kent having that problem). Here's the deal for anyone in Kent's situation: You live in Texas, you know more about Tex-Mex food than an outsider.
I thought that segment was ridiculous when I saw it. He was being spooned refried beans out of a can. I can't imagine anything he'd enjoy being spooned out of a can. He just wanted to be snide and he achieved that. Ignore him. Ignore his program.
If you're outside of Texas (or the southwest), you may not grasp that you season the refried beans if you're using canned. (You also season them if you're using dried pintos from scratch.)
That can include a fresh pepper, a clove of garlic, pepper, you name it.
If I say something here that makes you uncomfortable, by all means let me know. I certainly am not trying to make anyone feel nervous in their own kitchen. It's your kitchen and you're in charge. Everyone else, including me, is a guest and a guest trying to take over your kitchen is like someone in the backseat trying to tell you how to drive. Blow them off. Unless it's me. If it's me, let me know. Because the whole point of this site is that people who aren't (or weren't) comfortable in their kitchens would realize that it's not scary and they can handle it.
If you're vegan, you already know your basics. If you're not vegan, I'd recommend keeping the following in your kitchen: eggs, your favorite cheese, bread, flour and sugar at a minimum. Milk? I have a big family so we never have milk go bad unless we're away from home. But milk is so expensive these days that I'd hesitate to recommend anyone keep it on hand unless they normally do.
I normally have rice and dried pasta on hand. But that's because I like to eat those things. If you don't, there's really no point in keeping them on hand except for an emergency situation when you have nothing else to eat.
A big question from the men was if it was okay to just cook one dish. I'm assuming they are cooking for themselves because two people are rarely in synch enough to take the same meal day after day. But if you want to do that, there's a plus to it. The more you cook something, the more comfortable you are with it and the easier it is for you to cook it. You can try different spices or other things if you'd like.
I think I've shared this before but C.I. and Ava are usually here every Friday (usually with Kat) and one night, when Wally was also here so it was during the summer, I was embarrassed to find out that they were cooking pigs in a blanket. I felt like I'd failed or something as a host. I hadn't. They wanted to fix something quick and easy that everyone would eat. I ended up having some as well and the best meal is always something someone else cooked.
So just eat what you want. If we work at listening to our bodies, we'll know what we need. I know that may cause a panic for some because you may think you'll be eating sweets non-stop. But if you're making a point to increase your fruits and vegetables, you should find that you really begin to want to eat them.
One e-mail came in from a woman who's just switched apartments. It's a downgrade, due to the economy, and she hates it. In terms of the kitchen, she has no windows and she says the kitchen is tiny and she feels like she's in a jail cell everytime she's in there. We exchanged e-mails and one of the things she's done is hang up pots and pans which has given her a lot more room (she only had one cabinet below waist level (it's under the sink) and the two cabinets on the wall are being used for glasses, plates, etc. She liked the idea of hanging pots and pans but checked a hanging device and it was too expensive. I don't know what the item is called, she found it at Target, but you can get a thing (wooden or metal) that is just hooks on an expandable base. She got it in metal for less than ten bucks, hung it up and all her skillets and pans are hanging from it now. She also tried my suggestion of moving a radio into the kitchen and it feels less like a jail cell for her now. As we were exchanging e-mails, I thought about two things.
First, with the awful economy, I'm sure she's not the only one downgrading just to stay above water. Two, whether you downgrade or stay where you are, if the kitcehn is a source of grief, you're not going to want to go in there. One of my son's 'decorating style' (I'm laughing kindly) is NBA. He's a big basketball fan and if you go into his kitchen, he's got action figures hanging on the walls (in their original boxes), trading cards and everything else up on the walls. It makes it a room he wants to be in. So you may want to try that. I have a friend who, when she was really depressed for a series of month, would clip out a comic strip from the paper each week and put it on her fridge.
There are little touches you can do (and I don't mean things you have to go out and shop for) that will make the kitchen feel more like your room.
The last e-mail was from a man who has a skillet, one large pot and two sauce pans. He said a friend's been "ribbing" him about that. It's wonderful to have a large number of pots and pans but he can cook a full meal with what he has on hand.
Again, a large number of e-mails seemed to be about permission. You give yourself permission. If you want mine, you've got it.
So the illegal war? We found out this week that the Iraq War is not only not planned to end anytime soon, but the government is telling us it will go on much longer than most of us have expected in our worst nightmares. And if they're admitting to five more years, you know they're hoping for even more.
The illegal war is not going to end in phases, my opinion. It's going to end or it's not going to end. It could last a century (didn't John McCain suggest that earlier this month?). Troops come home or they stay. Even a partial number staying risks more being sent back over.
The Iraqi government can't get it together because it's not a government of the people. It's a government the US has installed. As long as US forces are on the ground there, the government will look to the US for approval. It will not be representing Iraqis.
Bully Boy is attempting to by-pass the United Nations and create agreements with his puppet (al-Maliki) that will allow the US to stay as long as the puppet (or later puppets) want. That is appalling. The US should not have gone into Iraq and it should not be over there now. But we should not mistake whatever a puppet agrees to with the will of the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people, in poll after poll, has made it clear that they want all foreign forces out of their country.
We would feel the same way.
And maybe that's one of the answers? Realizing what we we'd feel like in their shoes? Realizing that they aren't the "other" but people just like us. Adults, not children, who can steer their own course and should.
We hear a lot about how US troops have to remain in Iraq to protect "them." Who is "them"? Iraqis? Who is the US protecting "them" from? I wasn't aware that another country had annexed parts of Iraq. (Though some parts do want to split off.)
The US is doing what it did during Vietnam: Propping up a government that doesn't represent the will of the people. Year after year, it can be propped up but it's not a legitimate government or one that can stand on its own because it is not a government that came up from the country, it's one being imposed from outside.
There was violence when the US left Vietnam. There was also a healing period. We now have diplomatic (and economic) relations with Vietnam and their current government is not the puppet government the US spent years propping up.
A legitimate government is of the people and by the people. The US military or US government is not composed of Iraqis and should not be in the business of propping up governments in foreign countries.
We were lied to about why the US needed to go into Iraq. We're being lied to now about why the US has to stay.
(If I seem especially focused tonight, I should note that I'm ripping off from a presenation C.I. gave to the Iraq study group tonight. I do have permission to write about this and I have added my own thoughts and not just provided a transcript.)
"The lies of war" is how C.I. opened it and I thought we were going to hear about WMDs, democracy, liberation and all the usual lies of war that we know by heart.
But C.I.'s point was that those lies got the US over there. There are new lies that keep the US there. We need to start thinking about that and exploring that. We need to be exposing that. I can't do justice to the section where C.I. was talking about the bombs being dropped. But I will note that when the US has to drop bombs on a country, there is no democracy, there is no legitmacy to the puppet government.
Lies got us into war and we can hear that over and over from the ones who think talking about Iraq means bringing up Judith Miller, et al. But lies are keeping us there and addressing that may be one way to end the illegal war.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday, January 17, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the illegal war keeps going (and gets extended?), John Edwards addresses the realities of Ronald Reagan, and more.
Starting with war resisters, Courage to Resist has posted a number of interviews with war resisters. Today we'll focus on their interview with Brandon Hughey who spoke of how he turned against the illegal war, advised his superior of it and finally took matters into his own hands by checking out from Fort Hood for 28 days (starting in January 2004) "to see if maybe they would boot me out. Once I go AWOL and once I show that I'm not a 'good soldier' maybe they'd just boot me out. So I came back in 28 days, instead of kicking me out of the army they said, 'We're glad to have you back. We're going to give you extra duty and dock your pay. But I suggest you pack your backs and start getting ready to go to Iraq.' So basically that idea I had backfired. I had tried to get myself booted out and even that didn't work. So at that point, I began to feel like I was trapped. There was no way out."
Courage to Resist: And none of your superiors ever informed you of Conscientious Objector status?
Brandon Hughey: No, I had never even heard of that. I didn't even know that existed until I after I came to Canada.
Courage to Resist: So you were told to get ready to ship out to Iraq after being AWOL for 28 days? What did you do then?
Brandon Hughey: Basically, I began to think of what other options I had to get out of the military. You know, I couldn't really think of anything. I tried going AWOL and coming back, at that point I just felt trapped. I had remembered that tens of thousands of people had come up -- during Vietnam -- had come up to Canada and I thought at the time, 'Maybe as a last resort option I could leave the country?" And so I kept that in the back of my mind and when I realized that, you know, there didn't seem like any other way I could get out I began to feel like, "Okay, leaving the country is an option." So, at that point, I began to make plans to go to Canada.
Courage to Resist: How did you prepare yourself to make this huge decision?
Brandon Hughey: I was just going to pack my bags and drive myself there -- try to set aside whatever money I could and hopefully have enough to get myself started in a new life and a new country. I really didn't have much a plan because I didn't know what I was getting myself into. And that was pretty much it.
Courage to Resist: And when did you actually make the move?
Brandon Hughey: I came up in March of 2004, when I arrived.
Courage to Resist: Did you make contact right away with anybody with the War Resisters Support Campaign or any other resisters.
Brandon Hughey: Well the War Resisters Support Campaign hadn't been formed yet when I arrived. But I was staying with a Quaker family for a few months when I first arrived. So the Quaker community did a lot and they, you know, they did a lot to support me. That was really my first support network when I came to Canada.
Courage to Resist's audio interviews are part of their ongoing Audio Project.
A number of war resisters have gone to Canada and attempted to be granted asylum.
November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
And the war drags on and on. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) pieces together several press conferences to explain, "Gates and top uniformed officers sketched out a plan that runs counter to pledges by Democratic presidential contenders to bring about a rapid drawdown of the U.S. military presence in Iraq" and cites Lt. General Raymond Odierno (the number two) declaring that it "could be five to 10 years" that the US forces remain in Iraq. Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) observes, "Senior U.S. military officials projected yesterday that the Iraqi army and police will grow to an estimated 580,000 members by the end of the year but that shortages of key personnel, equipment, weaponry and logistical capabilities mean that Iraq's security forces will probably require U.S. military support for as long as a decade." Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reminds, "Iraq's defense minister, Abdul-Qader Mohammed Jassim Mifarji, has said Iraqi forces will not be able to assume responsibility for internal security until 2012 or be able to defend the country's borders before 2019."
In the face of that, the alleged 'anti-war groups' cave again. They aren't anti-war groups, they aren't peace groups. They are Win Without War and all the other useless groups that do nothing to end the illegal war. Nothing the reports of the cave, PR Watch explains that "Ryan Grim reports that the biggest and best-funded organizations in the liberal peace movement, primarily MoveOn and the groups in its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) coalition, are no longer advocating that Congress end the war. This year "the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. ... The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November." AAEI's PR spokesperson, Moira Mack of Hildebrand Tewes Consulting, called it "the perfect legislative opportunity." In other words, as Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber pointed out last March, for MoveOn and other Democrat-aligned peace groups it's not about ending the war, it's about electing Democrats. Most of the tens of millions of dollars that MoveOn and AAEI have spent lobbying and organizing for "peace" has been directed at pressuring and embarrassing pro-war Republicans, while the Democratic Congress has continued to fund the war and pro-war Democrats have generally been given a pass." All those 'groups' have to offer is silent vigils and online petitions. And we've seen serveral years before.
A rude comment on IVAW comes from a surprising online source. We're not linking to it. We're not linking to that site while it's up. (The same way all the ones lying about Gloria Steinem aren't being linked to. See The Third Estate Sunday Review for a piece tentatively titled "Hey Little Girl Are You All Alone, Did You Go and Leave Your Brain at Home" dedicated to the Mud Flap Gals and all the other useless play-feminists online who never thought they needed to educated themselves on any topic before weighing in.) IVAW is being slammed for not allowing an event that marks the anniversary of the illegal war. Buy a clue, idiots, IVAW's Winter Soldier Investigation ends before the anniversary. But apparently, the 5th anniversary of the illegal war can't be marked if it can't be done on a weekend. Apparently, we're supposed to have "5th Anniversary of the Illegal War" observed and then, during the week, the actual date?
It's too damn bad that there are some hurt feelings and people whining and carping about IVAW. IVAW isn't preventing anyone from doing anything. They have planned the Winter Soldiers' Investigation and the dates are March 13th through March 16th. You have to be really STUPID not to grasp that the 5th anniversay of the illegal war is AFTER the Winter Soldiers' Investigation. IVAW's Kelly Dougherty observes:
As we enter 2008, please stop for a moment and consider where we are now, and where we are going. In just over a year, America will have a new President. We will have endured a year of campaign commercials and attack ads. We'll have watched debates devoid of any real discussion of the withdrawal from Iraq that a growing number of Americans now call for. We'll have waited, for yet another year, for our leaders to find a way to say what we know in our hearts: we must leave Iraq.
But what will have changed in the next year that will make that happen?
We must face this fact: we run the serious risk that one year from today we'll be right where we are now, but with another year's worth of casualties, a year's worth of grieving families, a year's worth of Iraqi anger and suffering built on our occupation of a country we now know was no threat to us. Ending this war in a year is different than ending it now, just as ending it now is different than ending it a year ago, or a year before that. There is a price to pay for every day that we wait.
She's exactly right. And in 2004, we saw the peace movement shut down shop because the most important thing wasn't ending the illegal war, it was 'elections!' The peace movement can't make the same mistake in 2008. If people have hurt little feelings, too damn bad. Too much time has been wasted with the peace movement wasting their energies on the John Kerry presidential bid or the Democrats 2006 Congressional races. People in the peace movement will most likely favor a candidate on their own. That's to be expected. But the peace movement is not a get-out-the-vote movement nor should it be hijacked (willingly or not) by political parties.
IVAW is not the only thing happening in DC. March for Peace exists around it and blocks out the 13th through the 16th for IVAW. Possibly, those whining online about IVAW don't believe students matter and that's why they flaunt their ignorance of March for Peace? You can find their schedule here.
CBS and AP report that Turkey is declaring that they "bombed nearly 60 Kurdish rebel targets in an attack this week in northern Iraq." Christian Peacemaker Teams have protested noting that the bombings -- as with all ariel bombings including the ones the US is doing in Iraq -- are indiscriminate and targeting civilians.
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives and left four wounded, a Baquba home bombing left 2 police officers dead and two more wounded while another Baquba home bombing claimed the lives of 2 children and four adults wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Basra that left at least two soldiers injured, three Iraqi police officers injured and an unknown number of civilians injured while Dr. Luma Salih was shot dead in a seperate incident as she left the hospital, a Wajihiyah armed clash left 2 police officers dead and three more wounded, 8 people were shot dead in Kirkuk and a Nasriyah Province clash in which 9 people were killed and at least forty wounded.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 3 in Diyala Province. Reuters reports 7 corpses "were found after one" US "air strike in the town of Riyadh".
In US political news, the Green Party has scheduled another presidential candidate forum for February 2nd at Busboys & Poets in DC (14th and V Streets) at ten in the morning -- Jesse Johnson and Kent Mesplay are confirmed to appear others may or may not. More info click here. They've also created a new webpage for videos with the San Francisco forum held Sunday already on it and plans for more videos to be added. The Green Party's official blog can be found here and certainly if it's happening and known Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is probably posting about it. In Democratic presidential politics, Shailagh Murraqy (Washington Post) quotes John Edwards response to Barack Obama's praise of Ronald Reagan (see yesterday's snapshot): "When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people. He was openly -- openly -- intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country . . . He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment. I can promise you this: thie president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change."
This MLK weekend, PBS' Bill Moyers Journal includes an essay by Moyers (who served in the Johnson White House) reflecting on history and present day -- in addition, he speaks with the New York Times David Cay Johnston about the truths regarding taxation and spending. In most markets, that airs tonight. It will stream online and provide transcripts and audio.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapersann scott tysonthe washington postjulian e. barnesthe los angeles times
bill moyersbill moyers journal
kimberly wilder
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Mushroom and Pepper Omelet
I had an e-mail asking about omelets. Jean wrote that her mother made the best omelets in the world but she can't seem to get the knack of it. We exchanged a few e-mails on the topic and the big problem appeared to be that Jean can't flip the omelet to cook the other side so it remains a large, fluffy circle.
That's something that requires a great deal of practice and, often, a lot of butter, spray or oil for beginners. But you don't have to flip it. If you eat out very often, you'll notice that most places now make omelets that are basically in the shape of a "D" and that's because it's far easier to make those. If you're attempting to make an omelet in a circle, I would advise you to use the smallest skillet you have. I have a huge non-stick one and my youngest daughter always thought she could manage an omelet easier in that but that's really not the case. You really need a small skillet that the omelet will fill up, then you go around it with the spatula and then you flip it with the spatula.
However, it is much easier to just fold it in half instead of flipping it -- hence the "D" shape -- when it's cooking and then flip the "D" over after if it's cooked some more.
Mushroom and Pepper Omelet
1 small can of mushrooms or 1 fresh mushroom chopped
1/2 onion, chopped
1 whole jalapeno pepper from a jar of them, chopped
dash of pepper
dash of Parmesan cheese
2 ounces of mozzarella cheese shredded
3 eggs
Break the 3 eggs in a bowl, add pepper and Parmesan cheese. Using a whisk or fork, stir repeatedly for about 1 minute. Add the onion, mushroom and jalapeno pepper. If you're using a spray, spray your skillet. If you're using an oil or butter or a butter substitute, add it to the skillet. Place the skillet on a stove burner. Stir the contents of the bowl and then add to the skillet (if you're using butter or a substitute, you'll need to allow time for it to melt). Pour the mixture from the bowl into the hot skillet.
If you're using butter, the temptation is to put the burner on high to melt the butter quickly. That's fine but you need to turn the burner to medium or medium low to cook the omelet. If you leave it on high, you're going to burn it.
As it cooks, the mixture will thicken. Use your spatula to make sure the edges do not stick. When you're ready to 'flip' it, instead of flipping, use the spatula to lift half of it and fold it over into a "D". This will cause some of the mixture to run so you'll allow it to cook for a bit more before flipping the "D" over.
When the "D" is sealed and cooked on both sides, the omelet is ready to serve.
I make garden omelets and many kinds of them. I went with those ingredients because they were Jean's favorites. However, you can leave out any of them -- you can make an omelet with just eggs and cheese -- or you can add anything you want. Olives -- green or black -- are very good. I've added celery before when I've had celery on hand for another dish and more than I needed for that dish. Anchovies will work, I have an aunt who loves them, but with those, tomatoes or anything damp or oily, you need to be sure that they cook.
By adding vegetables, you're increasing the nutritional value. Generally speaking, if it can be a pizza topping, it can go into an omelet. That includes meat toppings. If I'm making omelets for dinner, I might add meat -- chopped ham, Canadian Bacon, etc. -- but in the morning or afternoon, I generally just add vegetables. (Usually, onions, olives -- black and green -- and mushrooms.)
A note of caution if you're cooking it for someone. Do not be upset if they grab the catsup. Some people use it on eggs. When I first got married and cooked omelets, I was so offended when my husband added catsup to it. I thought it was saying, "I need to do something to make this taste good." His family, however, adds catsup to omelets and scrambled eggs. I had never encountered that before. I have a neighbor who adds honey to a cooked omelet and, these days, a number of people enjoy serving it with fresh salsa.
I've left out salt because the cheese should contain enough sodium for taste. But if you're someone who adds salt to everything, you can add a dash of it in the first step, when you're first mixing it in the bowl.
Never. C.I. never said, "Trina, your support is wrong." C.I., in fact, helped me find things to note many weekends. But it was never an issue. I called C.I. (after church, I was on my way out when I saw the note) and asked what was up? C.I. explained what was discussed and made sure that I understood that my support wasn't a problem. I appreciated that but I wouldn't have doubted it myself because I knew it was a non-issue just by the fact that when I was happy I had picked Kucinich, C.I. was happy for me being happy. I have no idea who C.I. will support and believe 100% that C.I. doesn't even know right now. The Iraq War is a bit more important than front runners who don't want to end it.
Kucinich has no chance in winning. That's reality. He gave away his Iowa support and revealed himself not to be running a real campaign. I got an e-mail Friday that only drove that point home further:
URGENT: Help defend the rights of American voters
Friends,
Once again, America is faced with questions about the integrity of machine-counted ballots and about the rights of Americans to decide for themselves who they should be allowed to vote for in this crucial Presidential election.
In New Hampshire, it's a question of whether votes were counted or manipulated. In Nevada, it's a question of whether the GE-owned NBC television network should have the power to decide who your choices should be for President.
The vote counts in New Hampshire are suspicious. And, today's decision by NBC to exclude Dennis from next week's Presidential debate - even though he met the criteria - is outrageous. And, we need your help to deal with both of these matters. Because of the unexplained disparities between hand-counted and machine-counted ballots in New Hampshire, Dennis has asked for a recount. "I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf," Dennis said in his letter to the Secretary of State of New Hampshire. But, he cited “serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" that question the integrity of the machine-controlled process.
If New Hampshire agrees to a recount, this campaign will have to pay for it. And we can't investigate what happened in New Hampshire - or protect every other state in the Union - without your help.
Likewise, NBC and MSNBC have made a corporate decision to exclude the one and only voice who represents you and those things that the Democratic Party should stand for. If you are as outraged as we are, feel free to call:
NBC/MSNBC at ********************
email NBC/MSNBC at****************
PLEASE share this message with everyone you know so that the voice of the people will be heard and their votes WILL be counted.
Strength through Peace,
The Kucinich Campaign
It's Kucinich trying to glom on something that will get attention. He's not helping anyone. New Hampshire hasn't been up in arms about the results and no reports were made about voter fraud in real time. But it's one more stunt for him to pull that takes away from the issues and marginalizes him. It's not a real issue. If you believe fraud took place, it doesn't matter. You may believe a friend should leave her husband. If she doesn't share your opinion, you don't launch a "I WILL PROTECT HER!" campaign. It basically says that New Hampshire voters are too stupid to know a theft has taken place.
He says it won't change his results (it won't) and New Hampshire voters aren't taking to the streets. So this isn't about a real issue, this is one more attempt for him to play wack-job and get some press coverage that way -- he'll embrace the ridicule if only they'll mention his name.
He's being excluded from another debate! Oh my. He had nothing to offer but his jokes and they won't be missed. I made that point here somewhere awhile back, about how I wished he would stop trying to be funny. I said maybe others felt differently. But it really did bother me that the candidate I was taking seriously didn't appear to take his own campaign seriously.
I wasted my time and I wasted your time.
I'm going to try not to waste time in the future. For instance, no "impeachment!" talk here because it's now 2008 and, barring a discovery that forces the Dems to investigate, it's not happening. It's not happening in a state like Washington either. Maybe in Texas or a state where the Democrats don't have much pull. But the Democratic National Party does not want impeachment, has made that very clear. They will not allow it to go through.
The destruction of CIA videos of torture might change that. Sibel Edmunds talking in non-code might. But unless something emerges that forces the Congress to begin impeachment, it's not happening. The people cannot force it in the limited time Bully Boy is in office (he'll be gone in almost exactly one year) because the Democrats in power don't want it. They think it will hurt their chances at election so they're not going to do a thing.
I'm not trying to pee on anyone's parade. I would love nothing more than to see Bully Boy impeached. But it's an election year and those are rarely times of bravery. A stunning revelation could force Congress to act; however, with their inaction in 2007, I do not see it happening from we the people applying pressure. They have ignored us on the Iraq War and they have ignored us on impeachment.
So I won't be pushing impeachment here unless there's something that comes up, some revelation. I'll probably focus on the Iraq War, war resisters and topics like that.
I certainly won't be focusing on Kucinich's attention-getting stunts. I thought it was a huge mistake to go for impeachment of Cheney instead of Bully Boy. Supposedly, he was going for Cheney first. Well the Cheney motion is buried in committee and going nowhere.
I think a large portion of the people do support impeaching Bully Boy. I think going after Cheney is a big mistake. What I fear would happen, if the motion went forward, is that the media which is hostile to impeachment, would be issuing decrees (and when the press talks, politicians listen) so that if Cheney was impeached, the attitude of Congress would be, "That's over." There would be no higher up.
I'm basing that on Richard Nixon. He should have been impeached. Instead, Gerry Ford pardoned him. Ford was not called out for that (though he should have been) and the press was pleased as punch with Gerry. I think we'd see the press undermining an impeachment process (of Cheney) and, when it came to an end, if Congress had the guts to defy the establishment press, that would be all the guts they had. There would be no, "Now we go after the Bully Boy!" It would be, "We impeached Cheney!"
It is 2008, an election year. By September, I doubt Congress will be doing anything at all other than show votes. The House, where impeachment originates (the Senate tries the 'case'), has members who are elected every two years so everyone in the House will be up for re-election. In 2007, if they'd listened to the people, I think impeachment was possible; however, they didn't and the closer we get to the election, the less likely impeachment is.
If the White House declares war on Iran, that, supposedly, would lead to impeachment, based on statements by senators such as Joe Biden.
I do think Bully Boy (and Cheney) need to be impeached. I just do not see how we're going to see that happen in 2008. Maybe Cindy Sheehan's campaign will be so hugely popular (I don't doubt that it will be), that Nancy Pelosi will say, "Cindy, if you drop out of the race, I will move impeachment to the floor." That could bring about impeachment. So those really wanting impeachment could make a real difference by supporting Cindy Sheehan.
I know John Conyers said, on KPFK (because C.I. noted it and, suddenly, a day later, the impeachment blogger 'found' it) that Bully Boy could be impeached after he left office. Do we believe John Conyers?
I like Conyers but he's been up against Pelosi all last year and I can't imagine him having any real sway on this issue in 2009. I would like to believe he would. But I also know how the establishment press works which is to always say, "We need to move on." So if impeachment is impossible while Bully Boy's in office, I think trying to impeach him after he's out of office is even more difficult.
If you disagree with any of the points I'm making, that's great. Use your energy to prove me wrong. I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. If impeachment is your big issue, you should devote as much time as you can to it. I won't assume you're wasting your time because you really think it can happen. But, on my end, I don't see it happening and it would be false of me to blog otherwise.
Before Kucinich sold his supporters out by making a deal with Bambi Obama for Iowa, I was already beginning to wonder. I had doubt for about two weeks, serious doubts. He was still playing funny-guy and using a ton of time to talk about every issue in the world and defocus from his strongest points -- healthcare and the illegal war. Before the deal, my last post wasn't even about Kucinich. It was about Bambi and how people shouldn't get fooled.
So I was even more offended that Kucinich sold us out and told us to support Bambi.
And the lesson for me in it was that I'm blogging, from now on, in only what I strongly believe in. That's ending the illegal war. If you disagree with me, please start your own blog and advocate for what you believe in. Don't think, "Trina says it's not happening, so it's not." I could be wrong. If your reaction reading this is, "I disagree," please fight for what you believe in. Blogger/Blogspot is free and if I can do a blog, anyone can. So if you disagree, please consider starting your own site to make your case and get your voice out there.
This post was started last night and I completed about half of it. But we all looked at Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude), who was flushed and sweat was pouring off her. She had a nasty bug. Since she's a friend and a house guest, I offered to take care of but C.I. pointed out that my son and his wife had gone off for a weekend because I'd agreed to watch their baby. Point was, if I got sick, I would either be no help there or else pass it on to my grand baby. C.I. said Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) gets so little time to spend with my other son (Mike) that they shouldn't give up 'relationship time.'
There's a point to this. C.I. was so tired but stayed up all night taking care of Rebecca (her husband was watching their baby). My grand baby woke up around three this morning and I took her into the kitchen to get a bottle. Rebecca's fever had finally broken and C.I. was in here working on the morning entry at The Common Ills (which Mike will post when all the community sites have posted this morning). And I thought about how we all expect C.I. to cover Iraq every day, every entry. C.I. shows a focus that no one else does. That's no one in the community, no one outside of it.
Think about paid media -- Big or Small -- and how they don't cover Iraq. Even if that's their alleged area. They drop it when Lebanon is under attack or when something else in the MidEast flares up. C.I. just stays focused on Iraq.
I supported Dennis Kucinich when I thought he was a real candidate. I supported him first and foremost because of his position on the illegal war. He's not a real candidate and pinning false hopes on his campaign isn't ending the illegal war. So, due to all the above, I just want to focus on what matters. I don't want to be like The Nation magazine, hopping all over the place and never having any impact.
Betty's latest chapter ("Unbelievable") is up, so please read that. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" from yesterday:
Friday, January 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, false predictions come back to haunt the White House, Adam Kokesh and Cindy Sheehan receive good legal news, guess who's made an agreement with the US to transport Iraqi oil, and more.
Starting with war resisters. In 2005, David Hughey spoke at the Veterans for Peace conference in Irving, Texas:
I am the father of Private Brandon Hughey who is at this time in Canada. I'm basically a card-carrying Republican. Used to be.
My story basically began when my young son called me from Canada and told me that he didn't want to risk his life for Bush and Cheney's son. That cuased me a great deal of concern. As a matter of fact, it caused great conflicts. Our first several conversations over the telephone were basically fights.
But I started reading. I did a lot of research, an incredible amount of research. And I actually found myself not being able to believe what I was seeing happen to this country. So I sent my son basically a manifesto that said I support him. It took a lot out of me.
as I guess you can tell, I'm not much of a speaker.
So it's brought me to this point, basically, to make a long story short. You know, I've read the Constitution of the United States of America. I've read a lot of books written by a man named James Madison, a lot of things by Thomas Jefferson. When I did that, it helped me figure out that all of this is totally wrong.
I had some really good quotes, but I can't recall 'em off the top of my head.
I just thought I'd come up and introduce myself. I do support my son.
The speech can be found in journalist Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. Laufer co-hosts Washington Monthly Radio which will feature, among other guests, Gore Vidal on the January 13th broadcast. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were the first war resisters to publicy seek refugee status in Canada. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Yesterday, we ntoed that Maria Lauterbach had been missing since mid-December. The soldier who was eight months pregnant when she went missing is now said to have been murdered and CNN reports that Onslow Country Sherriff Ed Brown stated today that they are looking for her corpse and that Ceasar Armando Lauren ("a fellow Marine whom Lauterbach had accused of sexual assault") is a suspect. WTOL quotes family neighbor Kent Zimmerman saying that Maria Lauterbach was "very polite, very respectful." The Cleveland Leader states, "According to court documents, the anticipated birth of Lauterbach's baby 'might provide evidentiary credence to charges that she was sexually assaulted by a senior military person.' Investigators also said that the military had been pursuing rape charges against Lauren, and had plans to hold a hearing in December."
Currently there is tension in Australia and England over the issue of blood provided by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) reports, "British soldiers and civilians contractors seriously injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are being tested for HIV, hepatitis and other diseases as a health campaigners reacted angrily to the news that they had been given blood from American donors who [had] not been properly screened. British defence officials confirmed that the US military had not followed its own procedures by testing all the donors after the blood was given to 18 British service personnel and six civilians." The Daily Mall reports that Frances Shine, whose son Steve Shine lost "his left leg when his tank was blown up in Basra, southern Iraq" and who now must wait to find out if he received tainted blood. In Australia, Mark Dodd (The Australian) reports, "Defence officials are urgently checking whether Australian soldiers have been exposed to contaminated blood amid fears 18 British troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan received tainted transfusions. . . . ADF spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic said he believed the risk of Australian troops being infected was low but checks were being made." The Australian Defence Force spokesperson states, "It's a very low probability any of our people would have been infected." Michael Evans (Times of London) explains, "The Pentagon revealed at a meeting in Washington in early November that, according to its records, 11 British servicemen had received life-saving blood transfusions from American volunteer donors at US military centres in Iraq and Afghanistan over the six-year period. None of the donors had been pre-screened to detect for any sign of HIV, hepatitis C, syphilis or other blood diseases." CNN quotes the UK undersecretary of defense Derek Twigg stating, "The (U.S. Defense Department) has told us that for the British service personnel they have records for, they know that the blood that they received is clean. However they do admit that their records are incomplete." Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) points out, "The infections could have occurred any time between 2001 and last year to soldiers or civilian security guards who needed emergency blood transfusion while being treated in American field hospitals in Iraq or Afghanistan." Pay attention to this from the CBC: "In emergency situations, military forces sometimes use other coalition medical facilities, blood or blood products if they are available sooner, the ministry explained on its website. If supplies are exhausted, medical officials use emergency donor panels which are later screened." The warning went out in November -- so why did the UK wait so long to notify anyone? And when you put the above together, it may apply to US service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The US military supplied the blood -- not some US hospital's mobile blood bank doing runs through Ramadi.
Yesterday at the US State Department, the department's deputy spokesperson Tom Casey delivered the briefing. He was asked, "Mr. Casey, on Turkey, do you favor a political dialogue between Turkey and the Kurdish organization PKK?" He rsponsed, "We favor putting the PKK out of business. It's a terrorist organization. . . . We want a political dialogue between the Government of Turkey and the Government of Iraq, which is ongoing and continuous, over how to defeat the PKK. I don't believe anyone in the U.S. Administration has ever called for dialogue with a terrorist organization." That was yesterday. Today Reuters reports, "Turkish artillery shelled northern Iraq on Friday morning, but there were no immediate reports of any casualties or material damage, a Kurdish government official said." This as Reuters reports that Turkey and the US have reached an agreement where "Turkey will help the United States to operate and transport neighbouring Iraq's oil as part of its drive to become an energy hunb" according Hilmi Guler, the Energy Minister of Turkey.
Meanwhile, the escalation is set to wind down in Iraq. Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) noted yesterday that it was one year since Bully Boy announced that the "surge" would take place (and Congress, of course, rolled over offering only 'symbolic' resistance). Ricks and DeYoung observe, "In many cases -- particularly on the political front -- Iraqi solutions bear little resemblance to the ambitious goals for 2007 that Bush laid out in his speech to the nation last Jan. 10. 'To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis,' he pledged. 'Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year . . . the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.' Although some progress has been made and legislation in some cases has begun to slowly work its way through the parliament, none of these benchmarks has been achieved. Nor has the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki taken over security responsibility for all 18 provinces, as Bush forecast it would. Last month's transfer of Basra province by British forces brought to nine the number of provinces under Iraqi control." There were no provincial elections, there was nothing. Yesterday, in a Pentagon briefing, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declared, "And so I think that our hope is that in the relatively near future we will see some progress on one or more of the key pieces of legislation that we've talked about at the national level, but we clearly are hoping that the reconciliation and improvement in the political environment that has taken place at the local and provincial level over the past number of months will now meet further progress coming at the national level." Yes, we have repeatedly heard that song and dance every year of the illegal war.
As the US Institute of Peace's Barbara Slavin (on leave from USA Today) declared on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, "One disturbing note, I mean, there has been an increase in violence apart from the US combat. There have been more suicide bombings, more attacks. It seems to be stepping up again. So you know, we've had all these stories celebrating the surge and saying what a huge success it's been, obviously it has not succeed in securing the country." To see the failures of Bully Boy you don't have to drop back a year. South of Baghdad and Diyala Province (to the north) are targeted for slaughter this week. In ten minutes Thursday, 40,000 pounds of bombs were dropped outside of Arab Jabour and Jamie Gumbrecht and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) remind the administration "recently held" the region "up as a security success" with Bully Boy, speaking in November, declaring, "Slowly but surely the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves."
From Bully Boy's November 2, 2007 speech at Fort Jackson, South Carolina (remember, he can't really appear before the general public with his disapproval ratings):
Here's what this progress means to one shopkeeper in the former al Qaeda stronghold of Arab Jabour. He's a local butcher. He says that as recently as June, he was selling only one or two sheep per week. Now, the terrorists cleaned out and residents returning home, he's selling one or two sheep per day. Slowly but surely, the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves. You must undertand an Iraqi mom wants her child to grow up in peach just like an American mom does.
Does that "Iraqi mom" see the bombs falling and say, "It's okay, it's just the US bombing us this time?" Or does she it as terrorism as well? In the same speech, Bully Boy got a qucik shout out to Diyala Province, "In Diyala province, tribal groups come together for the first time to foster reconcillation." The 'success' stories only a two months ago has fallen apart and civilian populations are now being targeted in collective punishment which is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The US is claiming success in a massive air-strike campaign sough of Baghdad. More than 40,000 pounds of bombs were dropped on the Arab Jabour district in one of the most intense air attacks since the US invasion. . . . The Pentagon says no civilians were killed but the claim hasn't been independently verified." However, in their briefing yesterday Gates babbled on -- apparently thinking no one was listening -- and declared the latest attacks on the population were going well because "frankly, after these places, there's not much else -- not many places they can go." That statement led to this, "Three follow-ups, then. The current bombing south of Baghdad, after this you say there's not many places they can go. I mean, after this, is it all over? And what should Americans, after yesterday seeing -- nine service members killed in Iraq, what would you say to the American people? Should they still expect days of heavy casualties? What do you forecast?" Gates had no real replies but noted he didn't find it to be "a suprise" that the US would "see some higher casualties" -- all heart -- and that "this job is not finished. There is more to do." Yeah, we've heard that every year of the illegal war as well.
But, hey, speaking with NBC's David Gregory today (link has text and video), Bully Boy showed no concern. NBC reports: "Asked about recent comments by Republican presidential hopefuly Sen. John McCain that it would be fine to have a U.S. military presence in Iraq for 100 years, Bush said it's up to Iraq. 'That's a long time,' he said, adding that there could 'very well be' a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq at the invitation of the government in Baghdad. When asked if it could be 10 years, Bush replied, 'It could easily be that, absolutely."
So, as Barbara Slavin noted, "Obviously" the escalation has "not succeeded in securing" Iraq.
It's Friday, very little violence gets reported. Among the reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives with eight more wounded. Reuters notes a Mahmudiya roadside bombing that left three police officers injured.
Shootings?The US military announces it shot 2 people yesterday and labels them "terrorists" -- strangely the 11 also arrested are just "suspects". If you die, you're a terrorist, apparently.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
IVAW co-chair Adam Kokesh blogs, "After the government had three and a half months to preapre their case against those of us challenging our arrests from September 15th, the case finally went to trial January 3rd. Sort of. One of my tendefendants, Sholom Keller had come down from Philadelphia the day before and was staying at our new house in the Petworth neighborhood where our new office is set up. S**** ***** (an active duty US Army soldier and member of IVAW) who had been present on September 15th came up from Pensacola as a witness." "How do you resist liars?" Kokesh asked speaking to the September 15th rally before answering, "Speak the truth. How do you stop a war based on lies? It starts with the truth!" He ended his speech (available in full here) stating, "Today may very well mark the beginning of the American anti-fascism revolution. March with us. Honor the dead with us. If you are willing to risk arrest, lie in the street, if not, lie in the grass. Die-in when you hear the air raid sirens. Raise your voice and your fist with us in defiance to send a message to our leadership. If you will not make peace for us, we will make it for ourselves! Power to the people!" As Karissa Marcum (The Hill) reported that day, approximately 200 demonstrators were arrested, "[a]t least two protestors were pepper-sprayed after they tried to breach the police barricade on the west end of the Capitol. The men joined the 187 other anti-war activists who were arrested after crossing a police line. One person was charged with a felony. Iraq Veterans Against the War co-chairman-elect Adam Kokesh stood on the concrete fence and was arrested by Capitol Police wearing riot gear." In other peace and legal news, Reuters reports, "A U.S. appeals court on Friday overturned Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan's conviction for demonstrating without a permit on the White House sidewalk in 2005 and ordered a new trial. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Sheehan's conviction had been based on errors of law by the magistrate judge that eliminated the prosecutor's burden to show her criminal intent." On a related note, this Sunday, January 13th, the Green Party presidential debate is held in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, Jard Bell, Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson Jr. and Ralph Nader to participate. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
Today a photo exhibit of the work of artist and journalist David Bacon opens at the Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110): "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." The exhibit is from January 11th through February 23rd (Enero 11 - Febrero 23, 2008). "An exhibition documenting communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California through photographs and the narrative experiences of community residents and leaders" y "Una exposicion que documenta a traves de fotografias y testmonios de lideres y residentes las comundades indigenas de campesinos mexicanos." Inauguracion de exposicion (Opening Reception) Enero 11 7:30 p.m. (January 11th). Y mesa redonda de fotografos (photographers' panel) Sabado, Enero 26, 2:00 p.m. (photographers' panel, Saturday, January 26). And on WBAI, Sunday, The Next Hour features Malachy McCourt (broadcasts NYC, streams live online, 11:00 am to noon) while Monday's Cat Radio Cafe finds Janet Coleman and David Dozer joined by Hattie Gossert (author of "the immigrant suite: hey zenophobe! who you calling a foreigner?), Paul Browde and Murray Nossel (from the Barrow Street Fortnight's Two Men Talking), Dan Barrett (International Street Cannibals) and the latest on the Save Carnegie Hall Towers actions. Lastly in audio Time 4 Hemp is a podcast (free podcast) whose broadcasts feature, among others Ed Rosenthal (a regular guest on Kris Welch's Living Room), Tere Joyce, Keith Stroup, Steve Hager, Allen St. Pierre, Steve Bloom, Jack Cole, Gatewood Galbraith and Carl Olsen. Upcoming interviews will include Andy Dick.
iraq
jeremy hinzmanbrandon hughey
adam kokesh
iraq veterans against the war
cindy sheehan
peter laufer
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington postkaren deyoungthomas e. ricks
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssef
radio
the diane rehm showwbaithe next hourcat radio cafe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)