The Longer the War, the Larger the Lies
by Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 17 September 2006
Rarely has a television network presented a more perfectly matched double feature. President Bush's 9/11 address on Monday night interrupted ABC's "Path to 9/11" so seamlessly that a single network disclaimer served them both: "For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."
No kidding: "The Path to 9/11" was false from the opening scene,when it put Mohamed Atta both in the wrong airport (Boston instead of Portland, Me.) and on the wrong airline (American instead of US Airways).It took Mr. Bush but a few paragraphs to warm up to his first fictionalization for dramatic purposes: his renewed pledge that "we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them." Only days earlier the White House sat idly by while our ally Pakistan surrendered to Islamic militants in its northwest frontier, signing a "truce" and releasing Al Qaeda prisoners. Not only will Pakistan continue to harbor terrorists, Osama bin Laden probably among them, but it will do so without a peep from Mr. Bush.
You'd think that after having been caught concocting the scenario that took the nation to war in Iraq, the White House would mind the facts now. But this administration understands our culture all too well.This is a country where a cable news network (MSNBC) offers in-depth journalism about one of its anchors (Tucker Carlson) losing a prime-time dance contest and where conspiracy nuts have created a cottage industry of books and DVD's by arguing that hijacked jets did not cause 9/11 andthat the 9/11 commission was a cover-up. (The fictionalized "Path to9/11," supposedly based on the commission's report, only advanced the nuts' case.) If you're a White House stuck in a quagmire in an election year, what's the percentage in starting to tell the truth now? It's better to game the system.
The untruths are flying so fast that untangling them can be a full-time job. Maybe that's why I am beginning to find Dick Cheney almost refreshing. As we saw on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, these day she helpfully signals when he's about to lie. One dead giveaway is the word context, as in "the context in which I made that statement last year." The vice president invoked "context" to try to explain away both his bogus predictions: that Americans would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and that the insurgency (some 15 months ago) was in its "last throes."
The other instant tip-off to a Cheney lie is any variation on the phrase "I haven't read the story." He told Tim Russert he hadn't read The Washington Post's front-page report that the bin Laden trail had gone "stone cold" or the new Senate Intelligence Committee report(PDF)contradicting the White House's prewar hype about nonexistent links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Nor had he read a Times front-page article about his declining clout. Or the finding by Mohamed El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war that there was"no evidence of resumed nuclear activities" in Iraq. "I haven't looked at it; I'd have to go back and look at it again," he said, however nonsensically.
These verbal tics are so consistent that they amount to truth in packaging - albeit the packaging of evasions and falsehoods. By contrast, Condi Rice's fictions, also offered in bulk to television viewers to memorialize 9/11, are as knotty as a David Lynch screenplay.Asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News last Sunday if she and the president had ignored prewar "intelligence that contradicted your case," she refused to give up the ghost: "We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq," she insisted, as she continued to state again that "there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda" before the war.
Ms. Rice may be a terrific amateur concert pianist, but she's an even better amateur actress. The Senate Intelligence Committee report released only two days before she spoke dismissed all such ties. Saddam,who "issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with Al Qaeda,"saw both bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as threats and tried to hunt down Zarqawi when he passed through Baghdad in 2002. As for that Zarqawi"poisons network," the Pentagon knew where it was and wanted to attack it in June 2002. But as Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported more than two years ago, the White House said no, fearing a successful strike against Zarqawi might "undercut its case for going to war against Saddam." Zarqawi, meanwhile, escaped.
It was in an interview with Ted Koppel for the Discovery Channel,though, that Ms. Rice rose to a whole new level of fictionalizing by wrapping a fresh layer of untruth around her most notorious previous fiction. Asked about her dire prewar warning that a smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud, she said that "it wasn't meant as hyperbole." She also rewrote history to imply that she had been talking broadly about the nexus between "terrorism and a nuclear device" back then, not specifically Saddam - a rather deft verbal sleight-of-hand.
Ms. Rice sets a high bar, but Mr. Bush, competitive as always, was not to be outdone in his Oval Office address. Even the billing of his appearance was fiction. "It's not going to be a political speech," Tony Snow announced, knowing full well that the 17-minute text was largely Cuisinarted scraps from other recent political speeches, including those at campaign fund-raisers. Moldy canards of yore (Saddam "was a clear threat") were interspersed with promising newcomers: Iraq will be "a strong ally in the war on terror." As is often the case, the president was technically truthful. Iraq will be a strong ally in the war on terror - just not necessarily our ally. As Mr. Bush spoke, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was leaving for Iran to jolly up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Perhaps the only way to strike back against this fresh deluge of fiction is to call the White House's bluff. On Monday night, for instance, Mr. Bush flatly declared that "the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad." He once again invoked Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, asking, "Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia?"
Rather than tune this bluster out, as the country now does, let's try a thought experiment. Let's pretend everything Mr. Bush said is actually true and then hold him to his word. If the safety of America really depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad,then our safety is in grave peril because we are losing that battle. The security crackdown announced with great fanfare by Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki in June is failing. Rosy American claims of dramatically falling murder rates are being challenged by the Baghdad morgue. Perhaps most tellingly, the Pentagon has now stopped including in its own tally the large numbers of victims killed by car bombings and mortar attacks in sectarian warfare.
And that's the good news. Another large slice of Iraq, Anbar Province (almost a third of the country), is slipping away so fast that a senior military official told NBC News last week that 50,000 to 60,000additional ground forces were needed to secure it, despite our huge sacrifice in two savage battles for Falluja. The Iraqi troops "standing up" in Anbar are deserting at a rate as high as 40 percent.
"Even the most sanguine optimist cannot yet conclude we are winning," John Lehman, the former Reagan Navy secretary, wrote of the Iraq war last month. So what do we do next? Given that the currentcourse is a fiasco, and that the White House demonizes any plan or timetable for eventual withdrawal as "cut and run," there's only one immediate alternative: add more manpower, and fast. Last week two conservative war supporters, William Kristol and Rich Lowry, called for exactly that - "substantially more troops." These pundits at least have the courage of Mr. Bush's convictions. Shouldn't Republicans in Congress as well?
After all, if what the president says is true about the stakes in Baghdad, it's tantamount to treason if Bill Frist, Rick Santorum and John Boehner fail to rally their party's Congressional majority to stave off defeat there. We can't emulate our fathers and grandfathers and whip today's Nazis and Communists with 145,000 troops. Roosevelt and Truman would have regarded those troop levels as defeatism.
The trouble, of course, is that we don't have any more troops, and supporters of the war, starting with Mr. Bush, don't want to ask American voters to make any sacrifices to provide them. They don't want to ask because they know the voters will tell them no. In the end, that is the hard truth the White House is determined to obscure, at least until Election Day, by carpet-bombing America with still more fictions about Iraq.
September 17, 2006
September 12, 2006
Lie by Lie: The Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline
Lie by Lie: The Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline (8/1/90 - 6/21/03)
In this timeline, we've assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the second installment of the timeline, with a focus on how the war was lost in the first 100 days. This is an incredible site...just follow the timeline.
In this timeline, we've assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the second installment of the timeline, with a focus on how the war was lost in the first 100 days. This is an incredible site...just follow the timeline.
September 11, 2006
Bush Confesses to War Crimes
By Nicolas J S DaviesOnline Journal Contributing WriterSep 11, 2006, 00:31
Email this article Printer friendly page
George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.
These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.
At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.
His profession of concern for military and intelligence personnel was utterly misleading. Military personnel charged with war crimes have always been, and continue to be, prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than the War Crimes Act; and the likelihood of CIA interrogators being identified and prosecuted under the act is remote -- they are protected by the secrecy that surrounds all CIA operations.
The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors.
Bush asked Congress to do three things in these amendments. “First, I am asking Congress to list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.”
One prong of the U.S. government’s attack on the Geneva Conventions has been the assertion that they do not provide a laundry list of what techniques of treatment and interrogation are permitted or prohibited. This is, of course, because the Geneva Conventions instead contain blanket prohibitions on torture, cruelty and humiliation. It has only been the efforts of U.S. officials to encroach on these prohibitions that may have raised doubt among U.S. personnel as to what is and is not permitted.
Captain Ian Fishback, the military interrogator who blew the whistle on Camp Nama (Nasty Assed Military Area) in Iraq, has contrasted his orders in Iraq with the rules he had been taught, "My feelings were that it clearly violated what I had learned as the appropriate way to treat detainees at West Point. . . . You don't force them to give you any information other than name, rank, and serial number. That's the gist of the Geneva Conventions." Captain Fishback’s account of the war crimes he was involved in at Camp Nama is in the latest edition of Esquire magazine.
Bush continued, “Second, I’m asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel are fulfilling America’s obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.”
This is the crucial change that Bush wants in the law. The War Crimes Act currently criminalizes murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, humiliating and degrading treatment, and arbitrary punishment of prisoners, based on the prohibitions in Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. Bush is asking Congress to replace the straightforward prohibitions in Common Article 3 with the provisions of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which includes extraordinary protections for U.S. officials.
These protections are clearly designed to undermine the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act and even the Nuremberg Principles. Section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act states that, in the case of “operational practices . . . that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary good sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful.”
This would shift the legal standard from the clear one defined by the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act as it is presently written to one of who knew what when, requiring courts to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator knew his actions were unlawful. Even if opinions written by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith and David Addington were found to have no legal basis at all, they could suffice to cast doubt on Bush and his colleagues’ knowledge of their crimes, which would be crucial under the amended law.
“Third," Bush said, "I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and the women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they’re doing their jobs.”
This would protect U.S. officials from civil liability for human rights violations. Prisoners released from Guantanamo have already filed such lawsuits against the U.S. government, Bush, Rumsfeld and other officials, which might help to explain why these amendments are Bush’s “top priority.”
The central myth of the War on Terror is that the world faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism that renders obsolete the existing laws of war and international behavior.
Bush framed his justification of torture in a classic use of this mistaken logic: “And in this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed and knowledge about what plots are under way. This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information. To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question and, when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world.”
The context Bush did not provide is that this applies equally to all prisoners of war. Captured soldiers usually do possess information that would be valuable to their captors, and the Geneva Conventions do constrain the ability to extract this information from them, but this is by design. Based on bitter experience, the people and governments of the world have decided that torture is so abhorrent that it must be completely outlawed, even though this results in the loss of information that might save lives or even alert captors to an existential threat to their country.
The purpose of the Hague and Geneva Conventions is to provide all people with certain protections in times of war, to place some limits on the otherwise limitless human suffering that war inflicts. Arguably, governments have agreed to rules of war precisely so that they can continue to wage limited war without plunging their societies into the total chaos that would result from unrestricted use of increasingly destructive modern weapons against entire populations. The Geneva Conventions afford different status to different classes of people, giving rise to different protections for combatants, prisoners of war and civilians. However the notion that certain classes of people fall entirely beyond the protection of these Conventions is not a serious interpretation, unless one is talking of something other than human beings.
For five years, U.S. government officials have justified unlawful actions with political arguments that have no legal merit. Now that the political tide is turning, Bush and his associates are behaving like other war criminals throughout history, marshalling what power they have left to shield themselves from the legitimate consequences of their actions.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email this article Printer friendly page
George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.
At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.
His profession of concern for military and intelligence personnel was utterly misleading. Military personnel charged with war crimes have always been, and continue to be, prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than the War Crimes Act; and the likelihood of CIA interrogators being identified and prosecuted under the act is remote -- they are protected by the secrecy that surrounds all CIA operations.
The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors.
Bush asked Congress to do three things in these amendments. “First, I am asking Congress to list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.”
One prong of the U.S. government’s attack on the Geneva Conventions has been the assertion that they do not provide a laundry list of what techniques of treatment and interrogation are permitted or prohibited. This is, of course, because the Geneva Conventions instead contain blanket prohibitions on torture, cruelty and humiliation. It has only been the efforts of U.S. officials to encroach on these prohibitions that may have raised doubt among U.S. personnel as to what is and is not permitted.
Captain Ian Fishback, the military interrogator who blew the whistle on Camp Nama (Nasty Assed Military Area) in Iraq, has contrasted his orders in Iraq with the rules he had been taught, "My feelings were that it clearly violated what I had learned as the appropriate way to treat detainees at West Point. . . . You don't force them to give you any information other than name, rank, and serial number. That's the gist of the Geneva Conventions." Captain Fishback’s account of the war crimes he was involved in at Camp Nama is in the latest edition of Esquire magazine.
Bush continued, “Second, I’m asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel are fulfilling America’s obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.”
This is the crucial change that Bush wants in the law. The War Crimes Act currently criminalizes murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, humiliating and degrading treatment, and arbitrary punishment of prisoners, based on the prohibitions in Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. Bush is asking Congress to replace the straightforward prohibitions in Common Article 3 with the provisions of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which includes extraordinary protections for U.S. officials.
These protections are clearly designed to undermine the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act and even the Nuremberg Principles. Section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act states that, in the case of “operational practices . . . that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary good sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful.”
This would shift the legal standard from the clear one defined by the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act as it is presently written to one of who knew what when, requiring courts to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator knew his actions were unlawful. Even if opinions written by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith and David Addington were found to have no legal basis at all, they could suffice to cast doubt on Bush and his colleagues’ knowledge of their crimes, which would be crucial under the amended law.
“Third," Bush said, "I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and the women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they’re doing their jobs.”
This would protect U.S. officials from civil liability for human rights violations. Prisoners released from Guantanamo have already filed such lawsuits against the U.S. government, Bush, Rumsfeld and other officials, which might help to explain why these amendments are Bush’s “top priority.”
The central myth of the War on Terror is that the world faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism that renders obsolete the existing laws of war and international behavior.
Bush framed his justification of torture in a classic use of this mistaken logic: “And in this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed and knowledge about what plots are under way. This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information. To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question and, when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world.”
The context Bush did not provide is that this applies equally to all prisoners of war. Captured soldiers usually do possess information that would be valuable to their captors, and the Geneva Conventions do constrain the ability to extract this information from them, but this is by design. Based on bitter experience, the people and governments of the world have decided that torture is so abhorrent that it must be completely outlawed, even though this results in the loss of information that might save lives or even alert captors to an existential threat to their country.
The purpose of the Hague and Geneva Conventions is to provide all people with certain protections in times of war, to place some limits on the otherwise limitless human suffering that war inflicts. Arguably, governments have agreed to rules of war precisely so that they can continue to wage limited war without plunging their societies into the total chaos that would result from unrestricted use of increasingly destructive modern weapons against entire populations. The Geneva Conventions afford different status to different classes of people, giving rise to different protections for combatants, prisoners of war and civilians. However the notion that certain classes of people fall entirely beyond the protection of these Conventions is not a serious interpretation, unless one is talking of something other than human beings.
For five years, U.S. government officials have justified unlawful actions with political arguments that have no legal merit. Now that the political tide is turning, Bush and his associates are behaving like other war criminals throughout history, marshalling what power they have left to shield themselves from the legitimate consequences of their actions.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
August 9, 2006
IOWA PEACE FEST
Donations Needed for PEACEFEST IOWA 2006(PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY)
Friends,
Planning for Peacefest Iowa 2006 is well underway. We're excited to announce our keynote speaker, Antonia Juhasz, author of the book The Bush Agenda. In addition, Peacefest will include local musicians, workshops, and speakers from local organizations working towards peace and justice . PeaceFest 2006 brings together peace and justice activists and supporters for a day of community action calling for the immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Our aim is to help to create and strengthen ties among the progressive/activist/grassroots community, and reach out to others who want to work to help build a democratic, just and peaceful world.
PEACEFEST IOWA 2006 WILL BE HELD SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 23rd FROM NOON-5PM AT COLLEGE GREEN PARK, IOWA CITY, IA.
As you can imagine, there are considerable expenses involved in planning such an event. So we welcome donations of any amount from individuals and organizations. Donations can be sent to the following address(checks may be made out to “Peacefest”): PeaceFestc/o Ralph Siddall1100 Arthur St. Apt O-2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Since we do not have nonprofit status, unfortunately we can not issue donation acknowledgements for tax purposes. If you are unable to make a donation at this time, consider eating at Thai Flavors on September 5th from Noon to1:30 and/or 5:30 to 8:30pm. Thai Flavors is donating a percentage of its revenue that day to Peacefest, and we are eternally grateful to them for this. [Thai Flavors is located at 340 E Burlington St.,Iowa City]. For more information on Peacefest, links to progressive/left resources, websites for veterans and current military enlistees, the event schedule list and co-sponsors (in progress), and other good and useful stuff, check out our website: www.peacefestiowa.org One more thing: we are now reaching out to local peace and justice organizations to participate in the event by setting up an information table and spread the word about work that is being done locally.
If your group is interested in co-sponsoring Peacefest and/or having a table, let us know (http://us.f322.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=peacefestiowa@riseup.net&YY=2934&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b)
We will send you the details. (We may already be planning on contacting you)
Contact us at http://us.f322.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=peacefestiowa@riseup.net&YY=2934&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b
with any questions?.Subscribe to our announcement list at http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/peacefestiowa-announce
We’ll see you September 23rd at College Green Park! In Solidarity, The Peacefest Iowa 2006 Organizing Committee *********************University of Iowa Antiwar Committee www.uiantiwar.org Contact us at: http://us.f322.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=uiantiwar@riseup.net&YY=2934&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b
Friends,
Planning for Peacefest Iowa 2006 is well underway. We're excited to announce our keynote speaker, Antonia Juhasz, author of the book The Bush Agenda. In addition, Peacefest will include local musicians, workshops, and speakers from local organizations working towards peace and justice . PeaceFest 2006 brings together peace and justice activists and supporters for a day of community action calling for the immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Our aim is to help to create and strengthen ties among the progressive/activist/grassroots community, and reach out to others who want to work to help build a democratic, just and peaceful world.
PEACEFEST IOWA 2006 WILL BE HELD SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 23rd FROM NOON-5PM AT COLLEGE GREEN PARK, IOWA CITY, IA.
As you can imagine, there are considerable expenses involved in planning such an event. So we welcome donations of any amount from individuals and organizations. Donations can be sent to the following address(checks may be made out to “Peacefest”): PeaceFestc/o Ralph Siddall1100 Arthur St. Apt O-2 Iowa City, IA 52240 Since we do not have nonprofit status, unfortunately we can not issue donation acknowledgements for tax purposes. If you are unable to make a donation at this time, consider eating at Thai Flavors on September 5th from Noon to1:30 and/or 5:30 to 8:30pm. Thai Flavors is donating a percentage of its revenue that day to Peacefest, and we are eternally grateful to them for this. [Thai Flavors is located at 340 E Burlington St.,Iowa City]. For more information on Peacefest, links to progressive/left resources, websites for veterans and current military enlistees, the event schedule list and co-sponsors (in progress), and other good and useful stuff, check out our website: www.peacefestiowa.org One more thing: we are now reaching out to local peace and justice organizations to participate in the event by setting up an information table and spread the word about work that is being done locally.
If your group is interested in co-sponsoring Peacefest and/or having a table, let us know (http://us.f322.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=peacefestiowa@riseup.net&YY=2934&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b)
We will send you the details. (We may already be planning on contacting you)
Contact us at http://us.f322.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=peacefestiowa@riseup.net&YY=2934&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b
with any questions?.Subscribe to our announcement list at http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/peacefestiowa-announce
We’ll see you September 23rd at College Green Park! In Solidarity, The Peacefest Iowa 2006 Organizing Committee *********************University of Iowa Antiwar Committee www.uiantiwar.org Contact us at: http://us.f322.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=uiantiwar@riseup.net&YY=2934&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b
August 5, 2006
Guess Who's Not Fighting These Wars?!?!
Absence of America's Upper Classes From the Military
OPINION By KATHY ROTH-DOUQUET
Aug. 3, 2006 — - Thanks to Sen. John McCain's youngest son checking into Marine Corps boot camp, the number of Congress members with enlisted children will skyrocket a whopping 50 percent. McCain's son Jim joins two other enlisted service members who have a parent in Congress (a few members of the officer corps are children of federal legislators).
In all, about 1 percent of U.S. representatives and senators have a child in uniform. And the Capitol building is no different from other places where the leadership class in this country gathers -- no different from the boardrooms, newsrooms, ivory towers and penthouses of our nation.
Less than 1 percent of today's graduates from Ivy League schools go on to serve in the military.
Why does it matter? Because, quite simply, we cannot remain both a world power and a robust democracy without a broad sense of ownership -- particularly of the leadership class -- in the military. Our military is too consequential, and the implications of our disconnect from it too far-reaching. We are on the wrong path today.
Those who opine, argue, publish, fund and decide courses of action for our country rarely see members of their families doing the deeds our leaders would send the nation's young adults to do, deeds that have such moment in the world.
These deeds hardly begin and end with the Iraq War -- 200,000 U.S. troops are deployed in 130 other countries around the world, keeping it "flat," to borrow Thomas Friedman's phrase. They train other nations' security forces, help keep the peace, provide humanitarian assistance, rescue Americans from Lebanon, stand ready to go to Darfur if sent, to go wherever the country calls on them for assistance. In short, they do the complex work of the world's sole superpower. Yet these doers are strangers to most of us, and the very missions they do are mysterious.
When the deciders are disconnected from the doers, self-government can't work as it should. Most of these decisions about whether and how to use the U.S. military are hard, and we need to be as best equipped as possible to make them. We need to be intellectually capable and have as much real knowledge as possible about what the military actually does, but we also need to be morally capable, which means we need a moral connection to those Americans we send into harm's way. Moreover, we need the largest pool of talent from which to draw those troops. Military work must not simply become fee for service.
A Duke University study demonstrates that it matters whether civilian decision makers have military experience: A review of U.S. foreign policy over nearly two centuries shows that when we have the fewest number of veterans in leadership and staff positions in Congress and the executive branch, we are most likely to engage in aggressive (as opposed to defensive) war fighting. And we are most likely to pull out of conflicts early.
A study by the eminent military sociologist Charles Moskos shows that people living in a democracy are not willing to sustain military engagements over time if those in the leadership class do not serve in the armed forces. When they don't serve, they send a signal that the conflict is not vital or worthwhile. Since we don't know what conflicts lie ahead -- or what party will be in power when they hit -- these findings should matter to all of us.
The Triangle Institute of Security Studies has tracked the growing disconnect between the military and the leadership class, and it finds evidence of a growing distrust of both groups toward one another. The group in America that reports having the lowest opinion of the military is the elites: The elites are almost six times more likely than those in the military to say they would be "disappointed if a child of mine decided to serve."
In past wars, the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Sulzbergers of The New York Times -- in other words, the elites -- served. Sure, there were always shirkers, but many did join their middle-class and working-class compatriots. Today narrow self-interest, a sense of other priorities or a misguided sense of moral preference means most of the upper class never considers military service.
In my own travels to talk about this issue, the most problematic comment I've come across is an idea expressed by many, including many in the upper classes, that it is somehow more moral to refrain from military service than to serve, because that way one can avoid an "immoral" war.
There are so many problems with this statement. It certainly shows a misunderstanding of military service. Military service is not about our political opinions, which can after all be wrong. The oath given at the "pinning on" ceremony for a second lieutenant or a general involves not a promise to fight a particular war or support a given president but to protect and defend the Constitution. Young men and women who join the military do not know what future conflicts or engagements will bring. They even know that some of the decisions that flow from the deciders will be flawed, because people are flawed.
But service members also know that Americans will be sent to do the nation's bidding. And we want those who are sent to act with skill, judgment and integrity. Many of those who serve see that Americans are being sent to act in the interests of our country and say, as the famous sage Rabbi Hillel said, "If not me, who?"
Military service is not a political statement. Democrats did not rush to sign up when Clinton became president, and wealthy Republicans didn't suddenly join when Bush was elected. Military service is service to the country, and even more perhaps, service to your fellows.
But how can we expect privileged young people to do military work? Military work is dangerous. You could be asked to kill or be killed. It is fraught with the risk of being sent into an unpopular conflict, as many now understand Iraq to be. Why should the children of our leadership classes or those ambitious for leadership chose such a path, when there are so many better options available to them?
In World War I, one of Congress's stated reasons for proposing a draft was that without it, too many of the upper-class children would rush to service, and we'd lose the leadership class of the country. In 1956, a majority of the graduating classes of Stanford, Harvard and Princeton joined the military, and most were not drafted. Leadership was then understood to have a moral dimension. The cry "follow me" was more convincing than "charge!" Those who aspired to future leadership saw military service as necessary to their credibility.
As a country, we have stopped viewing military service as a way to make a principled statement. We sell it instead as a job opportunity, one from which those with better options are excused. We need to revisit our stance on who should serve, and why. All members of our elite class need not serve, just a representative number, enough to bring the country's leadership in line with the rest of the country. With such leaders, with such a military, we will be a stronger, fairer, better country. With such leaders, the enlistment plans of young Jimmy McCain need not seem so surprising.
Kathy Roth-Doquet co-wrote "AWOL, The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service and How It Hurts Our Country" (Harper Collins, 2006).
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
OPINION By KATHY ROTH-DOUQUET
Aug. 3, 2006 — - Thanks to Sen. John McCain's youngest son checking into Marine Corps boot camp, the number of Congress members with enlisted children will skyrocket a whopping 50 percent. McCain's son Jim joins two other enlisted service members who have a parent in Congress (a few members of the officer corps are children of federal legislators).
In all, about 1 percent of U.S. representatives and senators have a child in uniform. And the Capitol building is no different from other places where the leadership class in this country gathers -- no different from the boardrooms, newsrooms, ivory towers and penthouses of our nation.
Less than 1 percent of today's graduates from Ivy League schools go on to serve in the military.
Why does it matter? Because, quite simply, we cannot remain both a world power and a robust democracy without a broad sense of ownership -- particularly of the leadership class -- in the military. Our military is too consequential, and the implications of our disconnect from it too far-reaching. We are on the wrong path today.
Those who opine, argue, publish, fund and decide courses of action for our country rarely see members of their families doing the deeds our leaders would send the nation's young adults to do, deeds that have such moment in the world.
These deeds hardly begin and end with the Iraq War -- 200,000 U.S. troops are deployed in 130 other countries around the world, keeping it "flat," to borrow Thomas Friedman's phrase. They train other nations' security forces, help keep the peace, provide humanitarian assistance, rescue Americans from Lebanon, stand ready to go to Darfur if sent, to go wherever the country calls on them for assistance. In short, they do the complex work of the world's sole superpower. Yet these doers are strangers to most of us, and the very missions they do are mysterious.
When the deciders are disconnected from the doers, self-government can't work as it should. Most of these decisions about whether and how to use the U.S. military are hard, and we need to be as best equipped as possible to make them. We need to be intellectually capable and have as much real knowledge as possible about what the military actually does, but we also need to be morally capable, which means we need a moral connection to those Americans we send into harm's way. Moreover, we need the largest pool of talent from which to draw those troops. Military work must not simply become fee for service.
A Duke University study demonstrates that it matters whether civilian decision makers have military experience: A review of U.S. foreign policy over nearly two centuries shows that when we have the fewest number of veterans in leadership and staff positions in Congress and the executive branch, we are most likely to engage in aggressive (as opposed to defensive) war fighting. And we are most likely to pull out of conflicts early.
A study by the eminent military sociologist Charles Moskos shows that people living in a democracy are not willing to sustain military engagements over time if those in the leadership class do not serve in the armed forces. When they don't serve, they send a signal that the conflict is not vital or worthwhile. Since we don't know what conflicts lie ahead -- or what party will be in power when they hit -- these findings should matter to all of us.
The Triangle Institute of Security Studies has tracked the growing disconnect between the military and the leadership class, and it finds evidence of a growing distrust of both groups toward one another. The group in America that reports having the lowest opinion of the military is the elites: The elites are almost six times more likely than those in the military to say they would be "disappointed if a child of mine decided to serve."
In past wars, the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Sulzbergers of The New York Times -- in other words, the elites -- served. Sure, there were always shirkers, but many did join their middle-class and working-class compatriots. Today narrow self-interest, a sense of other priorities or a misguided sense of moral preference means most of the upper class never considers military service.
In my own travels to talk about this issue, the most problematic comment I've come across is an idea expressed by many, including many in the upper classes, that it is somehow more moral to refrain from military service than to serve, because that way one can avoid an "immoral" war.
There are so many problems with this statement. It certainly shows a misunderstanding of military service. Military service is not about our political opinions, which can after all be wrong. The oath given at the "pinning on" ceremony for a second lieutenant or a general involves not a promise to fight a particular war or support a given president but to protect and defend the Constitution. Young men and women who join the military do not know what future conflicts or engagements will bring. They even know that some of the decisions that flow from the deciders will be flawed, because people are flawed.
But service members also know that Americans will be sent to do the nation's bidding. And we want those who are sent to act with skill, judgment and integrity. Many of those who serve see that Americans are being sent to act in the interests of our country and say, as the famous sage Rabbi Hillel said, "If not me, who?"
Military service is not a political statement. Democrats did not rush to sign up when Clinton became president, and wealthy Republicans didn't suddenly join when Bush was elected. Military service is service to the country, and even more perhaps, service to your fellows.
But how can we expect privileged young people to do military work? Military work is dangerous. You could be asked to kill or be killed. It is fraught with the risk of being sent into an unpopular conflict, as many now understand Iraq to be. Why should the children of our leadership classes or those ambitious for leadership chose such a path, when there are so many better options available to them?
In World War I, one of Congress's stated reasons for proposing a draft was that without it, too many of the upper-class children would rush to service, and we'd lose the leadership class of the country. In 1956, a majority of the graduating classes of Stanford, Harvard and Princeton joined the military, and most were not drafted. Leadership was then understood to have a moral dimension. The cry "follow me" was more convincing than "charge!" Those who aspired to future leadership saw military service as necessary to their credibility.
As a country, we have stopped viewing military service as a way to make a principled statement. We sell it instead as a job opportunity, one from which those with better options are excused. We need to revisit our stance on who should serve, and why. All members of our elite class need not serve, just a representative number, enough to bring the country's leadership in line with the rest of the country. With such leaders, with such a military, we will be a stronger, fairer, better country. With such leaders, the enlistment plans of young Jimmy McCain need not seem so surprising.
Kathy Roth-Doquet co-wrote "AWOL, The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service and How It Hurts Our Country" (Harper Collins, 2006).
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
August 2, 2006
International Peace Day--Let's Plan Some Midwest Events
The International Day of Peace is September 21st! Here is the basics if you want more ideas or information check out the link referenced in the title...
WHAT? The International Day of Peace provides an opportunity for individuals, organizations and nations to create practical acts of Peace on a shared date. Use the International Day of Peace annually to highlight the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001 to 2010.
WHEN? Established by a United Nations resolution in 1981, the International Day of Peace was first celebrated September 1982.Now held annually, 21st of September - The International Day of Peace!
WHERE? Wherever you are!
WHO? You and all who care about building Cultures of Peace for the children of this and future generations.
WHY? To mark our individual and collective progress toward building Cultures of Peace, and serve as a reminder of our permanent commitment to Peace, above all interests and differences of any kind.So do any of us have some great ideas about how we in the Midwest can get active on this day? DISCUSS YOUR IDEAS HERE AND GET ORGANIZED!!!
WHAT? The International Day of Peace provides an opportunity for individuals, organizations and nations to create practical acts of Peace on a shared date. Use the International Day of Peace annually to highlight the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001 to 2010.
WHEN? Established by a United Nations resolution in 1981, the International Day of Peace was first celebrated September 1982.Now held annually, 21st of September - The International Day of Peace!
WHERE? Wherever you are!
WHO? You and all who care about building Cultures of Peace for the children of this and future generations.
WHY? To mark our individual and collective progress toward building Cultures of Peace, and serve as a reminder of our permanent commitment to Peace, above all interests and differences of any kind.So do any of us have some great ideas about how we in the Midwest can get active on this day? DISCUSS YOUR IDEAS HERE AND GET ORGANIZED!!!
July 25, 2006
AFT Peace & Justice Caucus Action
From the AFT Convention.....
On Sunday, at its biannual convention in Boston, the American Federation of Teachers declared that it opposes the war in Iraq, calls upon the US for withdrawal of troops and military bases in "a rapid and timely manner," and directs the AFT to urge its local and state affiliates to work with AFT and AFL-CIO in working to bring the troops home rapidly. The actual resolution follows below.It should be noted that the resolution also includes the resolution that passed the AFL-CIO last summer, with all its outdatedness and weaknesses, but members of the newly formed AFT Peace and Justice Caucus were glad that we finally got the membership to agree that we OPPOSED THE WAR!Unfortunately, some pretty awful resolutions got passed as well, and I will report on that soon (as well as the exciting activities of the Caucus and its future plans). These included a resolution supporting Israel in its attacks on Lebanon (???????), which we believe will marginalize AFT, and another resolution in support of Chinese workers, which for the most part is good, but has some red-baiting in it, and fails to also condemn the US government and the multi-national corporations for their role in the exploitation of those same workers, due to its neoliberal policies.
Submitted by Andy Griggs
Amended Resolution 31: US Policy in Iraq
(as passed by the AFT Convention)
(bold type indicates language inserted by members of AFT Peace and Justice Caucus in the International Relations Committee, after narrowly losing an effort to substitute language calling for immediate withdrawal)
WHEREAS, AFT has always supported American troops in combat; and
WHEREAS, we have now lost more than 2,500 brave Americans in Iraq to date, and Iraqi civilian dead and wounded number over 100,000;
RESOLVED, that the American Federation of Teachers oppose the war in Iraq, and call upon our country's leaders to withdraw all troops, bases, and operations in a rapid and timely manner and to put a stop to the unending military presence that will waste lives and resources, undermine our nation's security and weaken our military; and
RESOLVED, that the AFT support AFL-CIO Resolution 53, below, on the war in Iraq; and
RESOLVED, that the AFT actively encourage its state and local affiliates to join AFT in working with the AFL-CIO to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home rapidly.
Well it is just too bad that our national organization is still too squemish to get involved in an issue that is killing OUR STUDENTS.
On Sunday, at its biannual convention in Boston, the American Federation of Teachers declared that it opposes the war in Iraq, calls upon the US for withdrawal of troops and military bases in "a rapid and timely manner," and directs the AFT to urge its local and state affiliates to work with AFT and AFL-CIO in working to bring the troops home rapidly. The actual resolution follows below.It should be noted that the resolution also includes the resolution that passed the AFL-CIO last summer, with all its outdatedness and weaknesses, but members of the newly formed AFT Peace and Justice Caucus were glad that we finally got the membership to agree that we OPPOSED THE WAR!Unfortunately, some pretty awful resolutions got passed as well, and I will report on that soon (as well as the exciting activities of the Caucus and its future plans). These included a resolution supporting Israel in its attacks on Lebanon (???????), which we believe will marginalize AFT, and another resolution in support of Chinese workers, which for the most part is good, but has some red-baiting in it, and fails to also condemn the US government and the multi-national corporations for their role in the exploitation of those same workers, due to its neoliberal policies.
Submitted by Andy Griggs
Amended Resolution 31: US Policy in Iraq
(as passed by the AFT Convention)
(bold type indicates language inserted by members of AFT Peace and Justice Caucus in the International Relations Committee, after narrowly losing an effort to substitute language calling for immediate withdrawal)
WHEREAS, AFT has always supported American troops in combat; and
WHEREAS, we have now lost more than 2,500 brave Americans in Iraq to date, and Iraqi civilian dead and wounded number over 100,000;
RESOLVED, that the American Federation of Teachers oppose the war in Iraq, and call upon our country's leaders to withdraw all troops, bases, and operations in a rapid and timely manner and to put a stop to the unending military presence that will waste lives and resources, undermine our nation's security and weaken our military; and
RESOLVED, that the AFT support AFL-CIO Resolution 53, below, on the war in Iraq; and
RESOLVED, that the AFT actively encourage its state and local affiliates to join AFT in working with the AFL-CIO to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home rapidly.
Well it is just too bad that our national organization is still too squemish to get involved in an issue that is killing OUR STUDENTS.
July 23, 2006
Sad Results of Israeli Strikes....
This story just rips your heart out. And remember folks, the Israelis are using American made weaponry paid for through our tax dollars....
Collateral Damage
An Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon hits a bus filled with women and children trying to flee the region, raising questions about whether Israel is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties.
By Kevin Sites, Sun Jul 23, 9:02 PM ET
Email Story IM Story
TYRE, Lebanon -- Israeli air strikes are taking a tremendous toll on the civilian population in southern Lebanon, with an attack Sunday on a bus filled with women and children that left three dead and 13 injured, many of them severely.
Their faces are both mummy-wrapped with gauze bandages. There are openings only for their noses and mouths. What can be seen of their faces is deeply disturbing. There is blood seeping at the edges of Rhonda's bandages, while Radije's lips are stitched with medical sutures, the skin on her chin speckled with red tissue damage caused by the blast.
Rhonda is still deeply sedated from surgery, but when she does regain consciousness she will be told that her husband and her mother are dead, both killed when the bus was hit.
A nurse at the hospital says the victims were traveling from their village of Tairi, fleeing north because of the air strikes, when their own bus was hit.
In another room down the hallway, another victim of the bus attack, Radia Shaitoo, raises her bandaged and broken arm near her face, which is covered with tiny blast lacerations. She rolls her head back and forth on the pillow and moans almost as if she is sick. She mumbles something like, "only people with no religion would do this," an insult against
Israel.
The bus incident is the latest, and one of the most dramatic, illustrations of civilians being killed and wounded by Israeli air strikes, which Israel claims are focused on Hezbollah forces and weapons. Yet the strikes are having a punishing effect on the general Lebanese population and infrastructure.
Shell shock in Tyre » View
"People are starting to realize this isn't a war against Hezbollah," says Timor Goksel, former head of the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for more than 25 years. "It's a war against the country, against the infrastructure."
Some analysts have theorized that with attacks against civilians and non-military installations, Israel is trying to turn the Lebanese population against Hezbollah by making them pay a price as Hezbollah's host nation. Goksel says the strategy will never work, since Hezbollah isn't just an organization, but part of the fabric of Shia society.
"I spent a lot of time in the south," he says. "I've seen women down there attack Israeli tanks with knives. You're not going to turn these people against Hezbollah by making their lives miserable."
At the entrance to Jabel Amel Hospital, an exhausted medical technician, Bassem Mteirek, lies on an empty gurney, taking a short break from the flood of patients.
"We've seen more than 400 people come through this hospital in the last ten days," he says, shaking his head.
At the base of the gurney is a suitcase covered with blood. It belonged to one of the passengers on the bus. A man comes out of the entrance, talking on the telephone. He has lost his wife in the attack. He says he's too heartbroken to speak. He picks up the suitcase and walks back inside.
In another hospital room inside, Aneza Hamza lies in bed with a head injury and a broken leg, a victim of an earlier air strike. When I approach her, she covers the bandages on her head with her scarf. She is an older woman, but despite her injuries smiles beatifically and seems almost cheerful.
Aneza Hamza
"What can we do," she says, with a slight shrug.
Imani Darwish doesn't have a scratch but lost her husband and four of her eight children in an air strike against an apartment building in Tyre. The only reason she is alive, she says, is because one of her daughters was in the hospital, pregnant, and she was visiting. She shows no sign of grief or emotion about the loss.
"We can't cry every day," she says. "What good will that do? It's all up to God what happens."
Amina Shaloub and her 12-year-old son, Hussein, were victims of an air strike against a civil defense building in Tyre. Her face has the now familiar marks of blast trauma. Her son took shrapnel in the stomach, which had to be removed by surgeons.
"I'm happy for my life and I'm happy for the life of my son," she says. "But it doesn't really matter if we live or die. Whatever [happens] is God's will."
Asked if they can ever live in peace with Israel, especially after the toll from the recent air strikes, she is surprisingly conciliatory.
"If they stop bombing the women and children, if they let us live in freedom," she says, "then we can live with them like family, like brothers and sisters."
Collateral Damage
An Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon hits a bus filled with women and children trying to flee the region, raising questions about whether Israel is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties.
By Kevin Sites, Sun Jul 23, 9:02 PM ET
Email Story IM Story
TYRE, Lebanon -- Israeli air strikes are taking a tremendous toll on the civilian population in southern Lebanon, with an attack Sunday on a bus filled with women and children that left three dead and 13 injured, many of them severely.
At Jabal Amel Hospital in the southern city of Tyre, where most of the victims were taken after the incident, Rhonda Shaloub is wheeled into a recovery room next to her 15-year-old niece, Radije, following emergency surgery.
Their faces are both mummy-wrapped with gauze bandages. There are openings only for their noses and mouths. What can be seen of their faces is deeply disturbing. There is blood seeping at the edges of Rhonda's bandages, while Radije's lips are stitched with medical sutures, the skin on her chin speckled with red tissue damage caused by the blast.Rhonda is still deeply sedated from surgery, but when she does regain consciousness she will be told that her husband and her mother are dead, both killed when the bus was hit.
A nurse at the hospital says the victims were traveling from their village of Tairi, fleeing north because of the air strikes, when their own bus was hit.
In another room down the hallway, another victim of the bus attack, Radia Shaitoo, raises her bandaged and broken arm near her face, which is covered with tiny blast lacerations. She rolls her head back and forth on the pillow and moans almost as if she is sick. She mumbles something like, "only people with no religion would do this," an insult against
Israel.
The bus incident is the latest, and one of the most dramatic, illustrations of civilians being killed and wounded by Israeli air strikes, which Israel claims are focused on Hezbollah forces and weapons. Yet the strikes are having a punishing effect on the general Lebanese population and infrastructure.
Shell shock in Tyre » View
"People are starting to realize this isn't a war against Hezbollah," says Timor Goksel, former head of the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for more than 25 years. "It's a war against the country, against the infrastructure."
Some analysts have theorized that with attacks against civilians and non-military installations, Israel is trying to turn the Lebanese population against Hezbollah by making them pay a price as Hezbollah's host nation. Goksel says the strategy will never work, since Hezbollah isn't just an organization, but part of the fabric of Shia society.
"I spent a lot of time in the south," he says. "I've seen women down there attack Israeli tanks with knives. You're not going to turn these people against Hezbollah by making their lives miserable."
At the entrance to Jabel Amel Hospital, an exhausted medical technician, Bassem Mteirek, lies on an empty gurney, taking a short break from the flood of patients.
"We've seen more than 400 people come through this hospital in the last ten days," he says, shaking his head.
At the base of the gurney is a suitcase covered with blood. It belonged to one of the passengers on the bus. A man comes out of the entrance, talking on the telephone. He has lost his wife in the attack. He says he's too heartbroken to speak. He picks up the suitcase and walks back inside.
In another hospital room inside, Aneza Hamza lies in bed with a head injury and a broken leg, a victim of an earlier air strike. When I approach her, she covers the bandages on her head with her scarf. She is an older woman, but despite her injuries smiles beatifically and seems almost cheerful.
Aneza Hamza
"What can we do," she says, with a slight shrug.Imani Darwish doesn't have a scratch but lost her husband and four of her eight children in an air strike against an apartment building in Tyre. The only reason she is alive, she says, is because one of her daughters was in the hospital, pregnant, and she was visiting. She shows no sign of grief or emotion about the loss.
"We can't cry every day," she says. "What good will that do? It's all up to God what happens."
Amina Shaloub and her 12-year-old son, Hussein, were victims of an air strike against a civil defense building in Tyre. Her face has the now familiar marks of blast trauma. Her son took shrapnel in the stomach, which had to be removed by surgeons.
"I'm happy for my life and I'm happy for the life of my son," she says. "But it doesn't really matter if we live or die. Whatever [happens] is God's will."
Asked if they can ever live in peace with Israel, especially after the toll from the recent air strikes, she is surprisingly conciliatory.
"If they stop bombing the women and children, if they let us live in freedom," she says, "then we can live with them like family, like brothers and sisters."
July 16, 2006
NEA Representative Assembly--Orlando
The NEA held it's representative assembly in Orlando over the 4th of July holiday. The major peace and justice issuses that came up were as follows...* We asked President Reg Weaver what the NEA had done in the previous year after we adopted a call for a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq at the last rep. assembly. The President admitted on the floor of the RA that the national leadership had not yet taken any action on that New Business Item. Supposedly, the leadership will try to do something this year but there are no promises. (My own editorial comment here: This is frustrating when the elected body of representatives votes for such a commitment by our organization and then one year later nothing has been done. I urge you to e-mail President Reg Weaver and express your concern. Kudos to Andy Griggs from California for asking the question at RA!)* We failed to get a new business item discussed on the floor asking for a pull out of the troops. It was met with the old "Object to Consideration" trick. I should say that the body was pretty well split on the issue however.* We did get a commitment to give NEA's assistance (and some money) to assist the striking teachers in Oaxaca, Mexico.* Iowa's delegation raised a large amount of money to send to schools in Chiapas, Mexico. A big thanks to Muscatine's Carol Kula who donated $30 a month to the cause!* Another issue that was debated was whether the NEA should sponser/co-sponser a march on Washington D.C. to try and influence the nation and Supreme Court over the desegregation case that will be heard next year. This case could alter the desegregation plans of schools around the country. The R.A. did not feel it necessary to sponser a march based on a huge cost estimate and a doubt on some peoples' part that marches are effective anymore. Instead the NEA is filing an amicus brief with the court.Enrollment in NEA Peace and Justice continues to grow. In our Iowa delegation we signed up more people than we had last year thanks to the velvet touch of Tom Wolfe.
June 24, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
