I'm not going to post on here anymore.
Visit my new blog at : Divided We Stand
I long for the time when we think of ourselves as Americans. Maybe then we won't be so divided, we will have peace if we think of ourselves as American first - not as a Demarcate, Republican, or NeoCon......but an American
GO TO MY NEW BLOG
Peace inside
Cindy
Dear AOL user,
In the last week, tens of thousands of us spoke out against AOL's "email tax." And, with your help, our diverse DearAOL.com coalition has jumped from 50 organizations to 500.
Now, AOL is striking back with an active misinformation campaign against their own customers and the public. One AOL support representative even claimed that our emails were a scam—and told the customer to block future emails from MoveOn (you can read the IM transcript below).
We're writing to set the record straight. So take a look at the "myth and reality" points below—and then please tell AOL to stop misleading their customers and stop their pay-to-send proposal.
Help us reach our goal of 1,000 contacts to AOL by clicking here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1526&id=6988-6727623-W_XULCR4B5bgUcdsKAj2iA&t=3
Please tell AOL it's wrong to sell access to people's inboxes, and that we won't let AOL destroy the free and open Internet that has become so important to democracy and innovation. We know the truth and we're pushing back.
Here are 3 myths that AOL hopes the public will believe:
MYTH #1: Nothing will change for those who don't pay to send.
REALITY: This weekend, the Silicon Valley-based San Jose Mercury News wrote an editorial entitled, "Paid e-mail will lead to separate, unequal systems; Free systems will become neglected." Here is an excerpt:
[AOL's pay-to-send system] is likely to work as an incentive for AOL to move as many senders as possible to the paid system...the temptation would be to neglect the free e-mail system, whose reliability would decline. Eventually, everyone would migrate to the fee-based system. There would be no way around the AOL tollbooth. [Read full editorial here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1522]
MYTH #2: AOL's pay-to-send system will reduce spam.
REALITY: AOL doesn't even claim its pay-to-send proposal would reduce spam—because it won't. Just the opposite, AOL wants to let commercial emailers pay to bypass spam filters. This creates a perverse incentive for AOL to err on the side of letting more unwanted emails into their customers' inboxes.
About this conflict of interest, the San Jose Mercury News editorialized, "why doesn't AOL announce it will forgo the fees—a decision that would help silence critics? AOL won't say."
MYTH #3: Nonprofits would not be hurt by AOL's email tax.
REALITY: Those who pay AOL's email tax would get guaranteed delivery, but everyone left behind would get increasingly unreliable service. Last Friday, AOL tried to create the illusion of responsiveness. They repackaged an already existing feature for nonprofits as if it was new, and then tried to divide our coalition by giving special email privileges to some "qualified" nonprofits while leaving other nonprofits, charities, small businesses, and even community and hobby mailing lists behind.
"I don't take bribes," responded Gilles Frydman, a coalition partner who needs email to run his free online network for cancer patients. "The solution is not AOL offering a few of us service for free in exchange for our silence—the solution is preserving equal access to the free and open Internet for everyone."
Please help us reach our goal of 1,000 contacts with AOL. Tell AOL to stop misleading their customers and stop their pay-to-send proposal that would hurt the free and open Internet—click here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1526&id=6988-6727623-W_XULCR4B5bgUcdsKAj2iA&t=4
–Eli Pariser, Noah T. Winer, Adam Green, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006
Sources:
1. "Email Blocking and Filtering Report," Return Path, 2005
http://www.returnpath.biz/pdf/deliveryIndex.pdf
2. "Paid e-mail will lead to separate, unequal systems; Free systems will become neglected," San Jose Mercury News, March 5, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1522
3. "Diverse Groups Team Up to Fight E-Mail Fee, Associated Press, February 28, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1524&id=
4. "AOL Trash Talks Cancer Patients Over Opposition to Email Tax," MyDD.com, February 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1523
INSTANT MESSAGE CONVERSATION EXCERPT, AOL STAFF & AOL CUSTOMER
AOL: Hello...Welcome to Live Technical Support. My name is Nezel.
USER: if AOL starts charging ANYONE for mail I will not continue to use the service...Just wanted to tell you.
AOL: I understand that you have received a notice that AOL will be charging you for e-mail...Please send the e-mail to my screen name: AOLTechCNR...
AOL: At this time, I can say that AOL will not be charging you extra for using e-mail feature.
USER: not me, certain groups...
AOL: At this time, AOL will not charge you extra for using e-mail feature alone...I want to check the email...AOLTechCNR@aol.com is my complete e-mail address.
USER: That doesn't answer the question I asked. You said I will not be charged. I asked if groups like MoveOn will be...
AOL: Did you send it?
USER: Yes..do u have it?
AOL: Yes. I got it...That e-mail is a scam...
USER: Its a scam?...really?...
AOL: Yes...It is REALLY a scam mail...Please do block the sender of e-mail from sending e-mail on your AOL account.
USER: I will check into it with MoveOn...
The end.
Please conact AOL today:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1526&id=6988-6727623-W_XULCR4B5bgUcdsKAj2iA&t=5
***********************************************************
I am very upset with AOL. So upset I'm working on getting my family used to
another ISP system. As soon as they learn the new system I will be dumping your
program from my PC.
Why am I so upset at you?
First: You decided to give up all of my personal information to the
government. At least Goggle put up a fight for our freedom on the internet. You,
without a fight, handed over all your customers information.
Second: I have been paying your high prices for your service for MANY years.
I am a member of MoveOn.org and volunteer for them in many events held here
in Broward County Florida. I need to be able to communicate with them. It's not
enough that you charge me for your service but you want to charge them to
send me an Email. This is the last straw for me and why I am working on getting
my family used to another system.
All you care about is Money for which I will no longer give to you. And you
have no regards for our freedom and liberties.
**********************************************************
Dear **,
We were very happy to receive your suggestion and are pleased when our members take an active interest in improving the service. Innovation is a big part of what we do at AOL, and it's great when our members give us new ideas to start working on. We are sharing our members' comments with the people who design, build and program the service. Your input is the key to helping us improve the AOL® service.
á
To clarify the issue, AOL may begin charging businesses a 1-cent fee to send commercial e-mail to AOL members. This is part of AOL's continued effort to protect our members from spam or unsolicited e-mail. Please note that the article is not suggesting that AOL members will be charged for each e-mail they send. Be assured that sending e-mail will continue to be free for AOL members.
á
We are now offering e-mail partners 3 choices to deliver their e-mail to AOL users. We are going from 2 free services that we will continue to maintain: Whitelist and Enhanced Whitelist, to an added third voluntary layer, Certified E-mail.áá
á
ABOUT THE CERTIFIED E-MAIL SERVICE
á
The Certified E-mail is an optional premium serviceáfor highly qualified mailers sending permission-based messages to existing customers. AOL will continue to offer "white list" and "enhanced white list" privileges to mailers who do not wish to take advantage of the Certified E-mail service.
á
Every free benefit that current e-mail partners receive now on the AOL Whitelist and Enhanced Whitelist will be maintained. Mailers who do not want take advantage of the Certified E-mail service can still send e-mails to AOL members as long as they are in our White List or Enhanced While List.
á
The addition of Certified E-mail in no way means that mailers need to pay to send to AOL e-mail boxes. This program adds to our existing, industry-leading spam-fighting efforts, which have dramatically cut the amount of spam reaching our e-mail usersÆ inboxes.
á
Below are some of the advantages for mailers in the Certified E-mail service:
á
- Recipients will quickly and easily recognize your e-mail such as a distinguishing icon for authenticated mail and guaranteed delivery for important e-mails. (AOL« Keyword: Certified Mail)
- Mailers will get detailed information and assistance for instances of undeliverable e-mails.
If you need further information about the Certified E-mail program, please visit the site:
á
http://ted.aol.com/index.php?id=55
á
Thanks again for your comments. The more we hear from members, the more we know what you think works, what should be improved and what you'd like to see next. Please continue to share your thoughts on how we can make AOL an even better service for you.
Roland P.
AOL Customer Care Consultant
Let’s go Ghandi
March 7 2006
Yesterday my sister Cindy Sheehan was arrested outside of the U.S. mission to the United Nations. A contingent of Women which included Cindy, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, Missy Beattie a GSFP member whose Nephew Chase Comley was killed in Iraq and eight Iraqi women were attempting to deliver the Women Say no to War petition to the U.S. mission. This visit was pre approved by the mission. As the women arrived one of New York’s finest “cited a change of plans from “higher up” and moved in to arrest them. Four of the women, Cindy, Medea, Missy and code pink member Patti Ackerman were handled very roughly during their arrest. The women linked arms when it became apparent they were to be arrested. For this they were physically abused and charged with resisting arrest.
What will it take for the majority of you who don’t support the occupation of Iraq or the Bush regime to rise up? Polls tell us that 59% of you believe the occupation is wrong and we are being lied to by Bush. I do not see 160 million of you out in the streets. Again, what will it take? I will tell you what it took to get me off of my ass. It took my sweet beautiful nephew Casey’s blood spilling in Sadr City Baghdad. It took watching my sister and family suffer a pain I don’t think I can ever explain well enough but know it is a pain I would not even wish on the Bush family. I feel an indefensible guilt because of my apathy. I live daily thinking maybe Casey and 2300 other kids would still be alive if I had been in the streets prior to March 19 2003. Our civil rights are slowly being taken from us.
The Senate voted 89-10 to renew the Patriot Act. It still must pass the house. After hearing of the Dubai port deal and learning of the illegal wire tapping of Peace activists it is very apparent to me that the Patriot Act is used more to curtail the actions of U.S. citizens than to protect us from Terrorists. Patriot Act II will further increase the powers of the Bush regime and further diminish our rights.
So when will you wake up and rise up?
Will it be when you are arrested for trying to deliver a petition to a Government entity that your tax dollar pays?
Will it be when you are arrested for wearing a shirt a government official finds offensive?
Will it be when your e-mails and phone conversations are monitored by the NSA?
Will it be when your Childsbrains are blown out in a foreign country?
Tell me please what it will take?
I was having this conversation with a dear friend of mine. Someone on our side. But a person comfortable in life and as yet untouched by the last 5 years. When I asked her to speak out, call her congressman, newspaper, etc. She said to me “who would listen?” my answer to her, no one if you don’t do anything.
I can’t stress enough to you. At some point your life is going to be impacted by this administration of evil and greed. I implore you, I beg you, don’t wait until it is too late. The time is now to take our country back. The time is now to make our elected official do our will.
Non Violent Civil Disobedience is a time tested and proven tool to effect change.
To quote Ghandi:
You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
An evil system never deserves such allegiance.
Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.
We must as Rep. Maxine Waters puts it “put street heat” on congress. It is time for us to as Ralph Waldo Emerson put it “ cast our whole vote”.
You must now be willing to do as much as you can to reclaim our country. Can you make daily phone calls to your Senators and Congressmen? I think you can. Can you get out one hour a week in front of the homes of your Congressional reps demanding they do our will?
I think you can. Will you dig your heals in and stand your ground when they will not listen? I think you should.
It is time to go Ghandi on them……will you?
In Peace,
Dede Miller
Proud Auntie of Casey Sheehan KIA Iraq 04/04/04
Gold Star Families for Peace
www.gsfp.orgPlease visit our website for ways to get active
****************************************************************
Gold Star Families for Peace co-founder Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, Gold Star Families for Peace member Missy Beattie and Code Pink member Patti Ackerman arrested at the U.S. mission to the United Nations tryin to deliver the Women Say not to War petition. Read the Truth Out story:
Women Say no to War March 6 2006 by David Swanson
A delegation of women from Iraq told stories last night in Washington, D.C., unlike anything we've ever heard about this war from the media in the United States. And the media was not there, so I'm going to tell you what they said.
The event was held at Busboys and Poets, the restaurant that serves as the gathering place for all social justice groups in Washington. The restaurant's owner is Andy Shallal, an Iraqi American and an active opponent of the war. Shallal spoke briefly, and then Gael Murphy of CODE PINK introduced six women. more:
It is time to be unreasonable.....a woman in Spain wonders why we are not all out in the streets. I do to..
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance.
Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.." Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi
In Peace, Dede..Gold Star Families for Peace. Help support Gold Star Families for Peace
<DIAEMAILID='90976063' thread="1023" />
It doesn't matter how many people vote, the results are always the same
What do you think of Cindy Sheehan?
I disapprove of her 66%
I admire her 25%
Mixed feelings 9%
Total Votes: 185,965
March 7, 2006 11:56am
What do you think of Cindy Sheehan?
I disapprove of her 64%
I admire her 26%
Mixed feelings 10%
Total Votes: 83,207
March 6, 10:30am
Daily Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq
As of Monday, March 6, 2006, at least 2,301 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 1,805 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is three lower than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Monday at 10 a.m. EST.
The British military has reported 103 deaths; Italy, 27; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, three; Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, one death each.
___
The latest deaths reported by the military:
• A soldier died Sunday in western Anbar province.
The latest identifications reported by the military:
• Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, Finksburg, Md.; died Friday in a vehicle accident in Anbar province, Iraq; assigned to Combat Service Support Group-1, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif.
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan (R) argues with a police officer before being arrested for blocking the door to the U.S. Mission offices in New York March 6, 2006. Sheehan, whose son was killed while on active military duty in Iraq, was arrested with three others while trying to deliver a petition to stop the Iraqi war to representative of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
REUTERS/KEITH BEDFORD
Peace activist Sheehan arrested in NY protest
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in the Iraq war, was arrested with three other protesters in New York on Monday after a rally with women from Iraq.
Sheehan became a central figure in the U.S. anti-war movement last summer after she camped outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch and has been arrested at least two other times at protests.
On Monday, she had joined a delegation of women from Iraq at the rally at the United Nations, urging the United Nations to help prevent civil war in Iraq.
About 20 protesters went to the U.S. mission to the United Nations to deliver a petition with 60,000 signatures seeking an end to the war. Nobody from the mission received them so Sheehan and three other American women sat down in front of the building, refused to leave, and were arrested.
A police spokesman said they were expected to be released later on Monday.
The Iraqi women plan to deliver a petition to the White House on Wednesday. Earlier they held a news conference at U.N. headquarters calling for the United States to withdraw its forces.
Entisar Mohammad Ariabi, a pharmacist at Baghdad's Yarmook Teaching Hospital, wept as she told reporters of the hardships experienced by Iraqi women.
"U.S. occupation has destroyed our country, made it into a prison," she said. "Schools are bombed, hospitals are bombed."
"We thank you, Mr. Bush, for liberating our country from Saddam. But now, go out! Please go out!" she said.
(Additional reporting by Irwin Arieff)
Cindy Sheehan, center, who became a peace activist after her son was killed in Iraq, is joined by Iraqi women Faiza Al-Araji, left, and Dr. Entisar Mohammad Ariabi while addressing reporters in front of the United Nations Headquarters prior to marching to the American Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Monday, March 6, 2006 in New York. Sheehan and three other anti war activist were arrested for tresspassing and resisting arrest after trying to deliver a letter to the American mission. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
Peace activist Medea Benjamin is arrested in front the building which houses the American Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Monday, March 6, 2006 in New York. Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan and two other anti war activist were arrested after trying to deliver a letter to the American mission. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan (R) speaks with Faiza Al-Araji of Iraq during a news conference to talk about ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq in front of the U.N. headquarters in New York March 6, 2006. Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed while on active military duty in Iraq, was later arrested with three others while trying to deliver a petition to stop the Iraqi war to representative of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. REUTERS/Keith Bedford
Cindy Sheehan, who became a peace activist after her son was killed in Iraq, reads a letter she and other peace activists tried to deliver to the American Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Monday, March 6, 2006 in New York. Sheehan and three other anti war activist were arrested after trying to deliver the letter to the American mission. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
From TruthOut.org
Editor's Note: t r u t h o u t's Rebecca MacNeice was on the ground in New York filming the events when the arrests took place. Rebecca described the police as very rough. She said that many in the crowd were thrown against a building including the press. She described the arrestees as being "drug off" in a rough manner. TO also spoke to Cindy Sheehan's sister Dee Dee Miller who spoke to Cindy after the arrest. Dee Dee said that Cindy indicated that the police were very rough with her and the other three arrested. She said that they were requesting an ambulance but we have not confirmed that anyone was seriously injured. Ann Wright who was also on the scene confirmed that the police were very rough and described that the arestees were carried with their arms behind their backs. She said at times that their arms were raised very high which could have caused an injury. We will have footage of the arrests very soon.
Steve Kent from Democracy Now! has provided us with the following update:
Here is an update on the arrest of Cindy Sheehan and three other activists at the UN today when they attempted to deliver a petition with 72,000 signatures organized by womensaynotowar.org to the United States mission. The four are being held now at Police Service Area 4, 8th Street and Avenue C, on their way to the DA's office. They are to be charged with resisting arrest. Sheehan is apparently rather injured from the arrest, according to Rev. Patti Ackerman who just called from custody, with a wrenched arm and bruises on her torso and head from being dropped on the pavement. After initially telling the activists they could deliver the petitions to a receptionist at the US Mission, where they had an appointment to do so, the New York police cited a change of plan from "higher up" and moved in to prevent the delivery and arrest the activists. In addition to rough handling of Ms. Sheehan, one of the Iraqi women with the group was punched in the stomach. This according to Rev. Ackerman on the phone. One broadcast producer with whom I spoke who saw footage of the incident said the police were "particularly nasty" in their handling of the women.
Way to go Cindy!!! They can arrest you but they will never shut you up!
************************************************
Cegelis vs. The MachineBy Cindy Sheehan
I am beginning to wonder what it is that such "Democrats" like Rahm Emanuel (Illinois), Chuck Schumer (NY), and Nancy Pelosi (Ca) are protecting in Iraq. What is it that they have at stake in keeping the occupation of Iraq going? Their constituents in every case are solidly anti-war and anti-Bush. They all come from the bluest of states and/or districts. Yet when faced with the chance to defend and promote antiwar candidates who agree with the majority of Americans that it's time to get out of Iraq this year, they go into overdrive to try to destroy their candidacies.
Take the case of Christine Cegelis. Cegelis opposed the war before it started. She supports single-payer health care and a strong transition to renewable energy.
She's pro-choice, and anti-CAFTA. And she has a strong grassroots following in her district. In short, Christine Cegelis is exactly the kind of candidate that the Democratic Party needs.
On top of that, in 2004 Christine took on the thankless task of running against arch-conservative Henry Hyde.
You remember Henry Hyde—the man whose name is on key right-to-life, the man who led the impeachment fight against Bill Clinton, the man who now chairs the International Relations Committee in the House and routinely buries antiwar Democrats' attempts to investigate the lies that took us into the Iraq Warthat then took Casey.
Surprisingly, Christine racked up 44% against Hyde, despite being outspent by 4-1. She immediately announced that she would run again, and faced with her continuing strong grassroots opposition, Hyde decided to retire.
What was her reward for this service? Not an infusion of money to help her win an open seat against a former Tom DeLay aide—No!
Instead, DCCC head Rahm Emanuel went out and found a candidate to run against her, a woman who did not even live in the district. Then, led by Emanuel, almost all the prominent Democrats in the country—John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and many others—have weighed in on behalf of Cegelis' opponent.
The new candidate deserves our praise for her service. Like my son, she served her country, and paid a high price for her service—and for that I applaud her. Tammy
Duckworth has served her country honorably in and out of the military and seems to be a good person. But here is her position on Iraq, straight from the
Republican talking points:
"The fact is that we are in Iraq right now and we can't simply pull up Stakes and create a security vacuum."
Duckworth is not a backer of setting a timetable in the Iraq War and getting out. And her lead sponsor is Emanuel, the man who infamously said, when asked about Murtha's effort to stop the war, that "At the right time, we will have a position."
Christine Cegelis is a true progressive on all the issues, and, in here is her
position on the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq:
"The war in Iraq has taken the lives of more than 2,000 American men and women
and killed and injured tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. More than
$200 billion tax dollars have been poured into the effort. Our credibility in
the eyes of the world has been severely damaged. The Bush Administration's
conduct in starting and executing this conflict has been a disaster from the
very earliest stages.
I have opposed this war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this
disastrous point does not solve the problem. It is time for us to bring our
troops home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive timetable for
withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible date.
We must bring home our 46,000 citizen soldiers of the National Guard and Reserve
home as soon as possible, where they can continue their lives as our police
officers, our firefighters, our workers and our neighbors. The
U.S. must spell
out a reasonable and detailed plan to transfer power to Iraq's military and
police forces.
Defending our nation against the threat of terrorism is a top priority. The
issues of Iraq and terrorism are now the same. Al-Qaeda had no link to Iraq
before our invasion. Now it is a breeding ground for hatred and terror, and an
ideal recruiting pool for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. Extending the
conflict in Iraq only gives terrorists more opportunities to foment hatred
against America. Instead of lessening the threat of terrorism around the world,
our war has accelerated it. We owe it to ourselves and the world to reverse this
trend, and to use our foreign policy muscle to truly lessen the global reach of
terror. A stable and sovereign Iraq can only occur when the
U.S. becomes an
ally, not an occupying force, and it is only then that we can rebuild trust in
the Middle East and with the Islamic communities of the world.
We need to let the Iraqis determine their own future. This means letting them
run their own political process, instead of meddling in it for our own political
gain. That also means pledging that we will not operate permanent military bases
in Iraq and renouncing any claims to Iraqi oil. We need to make sure that the
Iraqi people understand that we have no intention of permanently occupying their
country. If the Iraqis want international peacekeepers, we need to work
with
them to make that happen. The U.S. also needs to immediately involve
other countries in the effort to rebuild Iraq.
Dozens of countries have a stake in creating a stable Iraq.
The failures of this war must prevent the United States from making similar
mistakes in the future. And the only way we can make sure that lesson is learned
is to elect leaders who understand that lesson."
I agree with Christine Cegelis—we need our troops home as soon
and as safely as possible. George Bush, the Republican Party and too many Rubber-Stamp Democrats have created a security vacuum in the Middle East and in
our own country (does anyone remember Katrina and the devastation of the Gulf
States?)
And if we aren't careful to elect leaders who are strong on National
Security by also being strong on diplomacy and peace, Iran and who knows where
else is next.
As Iraq descends into a civil war prepared and propagated by the neocons with military bases and oil pipelines being constructed with very little reconstruction of
Iraq's infrastructure, 82% of the Iraqi people want the occupation to end and 49% think it's just fine to kill coalition troops to do so.
Meanwhile, our own children and grandchildren will be paying for the leadership vacuum created by both of our major political parties. Bushco has put
our country into deep and debilitating debt; they have made enemies for generations by their policies of terror; and we have lost and had maimed so much
of our national human treasure. Bushco is spying on and imprisoning Americans and other members of humanity without due process and selling our security to
the highest bidders.
In the 6th Congressional District of Illinois on March 21
st, a hometown grassroots progressive is being inundated by the elite forces of the D.C. Democratic Party. She and her team are being outspent and out-advertised, with money pumped in from out-of-the-district.
But Cegelis and her grassroots team are not being outworked; she has deep roots in the district, and has been running nonstop for 3 years now, and she is determined to pull an upset against the Big Boys that are trying to keep the Democratic Party from responding to its antiwar base.
You can help.
As I always say, it's not about "left and right." It is about "right and wrong." It's about good, not bad. It's about time to vote for peace.
It's about time for Congressional leaders like Christine Cegelis.
SAN FRANCISCO (March 5) - Lunching in the Mission District in a dark skirt, black cardigan and unfussy hairdo, Cindy Sheehan looks every bit the anonymous suburban mom she was not long ago.
That doesn't deter a man who stops at her table to ask for a snapshot and give a word of encouragement as a fellow war protester. "I remember people calling me a leftist," he tells her. "You got to ignore that."
In the months since she captured national attention with her August vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch, Sheehan has gone from grieving mother to widely recognized anti-war campaigner.
"She somehow managed to step out of the shadows and make her voice heard," says Michael Nagler, a University of California, Berkeley, professor and founder of the campus' Peace and Conflict Studies program.
She also has her share of critics, some charging she's been co-opted by the liberal groups that have helped her.
Her recent meeting with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's leftist president, raised eyebrows, as have her postings on liberal Web sites like that run by "Fahrenheit 911" filmmaker Michael Moore.
"Cindy Sheehan had one glorious shining moment and she took advantage of it and the peace movement took advantage of her as it created the attention that the movement hadn't had previously," says Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University.
Sheehan, 48, seems to be just about everywhere on her campaign that started with the death of her 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq two years ago this April.
She was arrested during Bush's State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that referred to the number of troops killed in Iraq then: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Weeks later, she held a San Francisco news conference to announce that she wouldn't challenge Sen. Dianne Feinstein. This month she and REM singer Michael Stipe will headline a New York concert, "Bring 'Em Home Now!" and at Easter it's off to Texas for another vigil outside the Bush ranch.
"She's been a kind of a lightning rod for the anti-war effort and it's because of the essential truth of her position: She's an aggrieved mother; that gives her tremendous power," says Nagler.
Some think Sheehan's overstayed her time in the spotlight.
"If she had just gone home I think she would have been remembered importantly, but she didn't just go home," says Hess.
Her mission has come at a cost. She and her husband, Patrick, split up in the aftermath of their son's death. He has made no public comment
Protesters rally against electronic voting machines
By Kevin Yamamura / Sacramento Bee
SACRAMENTO - Dan Ashby's button asked, "Who did your voting machine vote for?" Michelle Gabriel held a sign accusing Secretary of State Bruce McPherson of flip-flopping on voting security procedures.
Other activists promoted the slogan, "Live Free or Diebold."
Electronic voting critics rallied Wednesday at McPherson's downtown headquarters to denounce his decision last month to certify Diebold machines for 2006 and testify against three other computer-based systems under review.
They charged that electronic voting machines are prone to hackers and testified they would prefer paper ballots.
McPherson certified Diebold on Feb. 17 after receiving a state-conducted analysis that found Diebold's election system had "a number of security vulnerabilities," but concluded that "they are all easily fixable" and "manageable."
That analysis was intended to resolve concerns related to Diebold's memory cards. McPherson delayed certification of the cards in December when he found they had never been tested.
"I have established a voting system certification process that is the most stringent in the nation to make sure that any system used in this state is secure and reliable," McPherson said Wednesday in a statement.
As many as 21 counties, including El Dorado, plan to use Diebold equipment this year. While Diebold is no longer under review, activists asked McPherson to overturn his certification.
Wednesday's public forum focused on systems made by Electronic Systems and Software, Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart Intercivic, though some saw it as a chance to speak about Diebold.
"The recent actions of Secretary of State McPherson in certifying Diebold was a betrayal of election integrity and raises numerous red flags," said Eve Roberson, an activist with the California Election Protection Network.
Beforehand, dozens of activists held a grass-roots rally outside the secretary of state's office. Organizers sold $2 bumper stickers and buttons, as well as a "Truth CD" that was said to include "690 MB of the best documents and videos that tell the story of the stolen (2004) election that you won't find in the corporate media."
Among the bumper stickers was one mocking President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign that said "Bush Cheated '04" instead of "Bush Cheney '04." Other slogans included, "When Machines Count, Votes Don't."
The February state-conducted analysis on Diebold confirmed that one vulnerability exposed last year by computer hacker Harri Hursti existed and found 16 new bugs in Diebold's programming code. But it also said the problems could be overcome.
"Clearly there are serious security flaws in (the) current state of the AV-OS and AV-TSx software," the report's authors wrote. "However, despite these serious vulnerabilities, we believe that the security issues are manageable by a reasonably careful combination of short- and long-term approaches."
McPherson approved the equipment with the condition that counties employ security procedures intended to overcome potential problems. Among other things, local officials will be required to reset encryption keys and maintain a written log that records every transfer of a memory card.
"We were pleased with the depths the report went into and that there was a solution to the vulnerabilities addressed in the report," said McPherson spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns. "At the end of the day, we're satisfied with the use procedures and security measures that can be taken."
Kerns added that the secretary of state conducts "parallel monitoring" in which machines are randomly tested on Election Day to ensure security and accuracy.
Ashby, a San Pablo volunteer organizer with the California Election Protection Network, said he has no confidence in security procedures because he believes the Diebold machines have "too many attack pathways that can be overcome."
He said activists may pursue a lawsuit to stop them from being used.
McPherson's approval of Diebold came as he faced pressure to meet 2006 federal Help America Vote Act requirements for upgrades in voting technology and accessibility. Many of the state's registrars said McPherson had delayed certification for too long, while the secretary of state said he wanted to conduct a thorough review process.
He ordered two volume tests last year in which Diebold machines faced Election Day conditions. The company had problems with the first test because its paper-trail components jammed, but it passed the second one.
All voting machines in California will be required to use a paper trail that allows voters to verify their selections starting this year.
In response to activists who suggested votes could be tampered, Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters Steve Weir testified Wednesday that local officials have complete control over Election Day operations.
"Nobody counts my ballots but me," Weir said. "I want to say that that's true for every registrar that I know."
Warren Cushman, a Sacramento member of California Council for the Blind, said he considers new technology a positive step if it makes voting more accessible.
He took issue with activists who suggest that voting machine companies have curried favor with accessibility rights groups though donations, as one claimed during Wednesday's hearing.
"Our issue is voter accessibility, and when we're accused of being dupes, we have to disagree with that," Cushman said. "There has to be a respect issue because some folks are so wrapped up in their security issues that they forget about the right to vote for people with disabilities."
What Bush Was Told About Iraq
By Murray Waas
The National Journal
Thursday 02 March 2006
Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.
The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.
Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.
The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.
When U.S. inspectors entered Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime, they determined that Iraq's nuclear program had been dormant for more than a decade and that the aluminum tubes had been used only for artillery shells.
The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack theUnited States - except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.
The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.
On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.
However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.
The Bush administration used the potential threat from Saddam as a major rationale in making the case to go to war. The president cited the threat in an address to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, in an October 7, 2002, speech to the American people, and in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003.
The one-page documents prepared for Bush are known as the "President's Summary" of the much longer and more detailed National Intelligence Estimates that combine the analysis and judgments of agencies throughout the intelligence community.
An NIE, according to the Web site of the National Intelligence Council - the interagency group that coordinates the documents' production - represents "the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community regarding the likely course of future events" and is written with the goal of providing "policy makers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information - regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy." (The January 2003 NIE, for example, was titled "Nontraditional Threats to the U.S. Homeland Through 2007.")
As many as six to eight agencies, foremost among them the CIA, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the INR, contribute to the drafting of an NIE. If any one of those intelligence agencies disagrees with the majority view on major conclusions, the NIE includes the dissenting view.
The one-page summary for the president allows intelligence agencies to emphasize what they believe to be the conclusions from the broader NIE that are the most important to communicate to the commander-in-chief.
The President's Summary is among the most highly classified papers in the government. References to the summaries are contained in footnotes in the so-called Robb-Silberman report - officially, the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction - that was issued in March 2005 on the use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. The White House has refused to declassify the summaries or to give them to congressional committees.
The summaries stated that both the Energy and State departments dissented on the aluminum tubes question. This is the first evidence that Bush was aware of the intense debate within the government during the time that he, Cheney, and members of the Cabinet were citing the procurement of the tubes as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.
In his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, the president asserted, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
On October 7, 2002, less than a week after Bush was given the summary, he said in a speech in Cincinnati: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' - his nuclear holy warriors ... . Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
On numerous other occasions, Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then-U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte cited Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes without disclosing that the intelligence community was split as to their end use. The fact that the president was informed of the dissents by Energy and State is also significant because Rice and other administration officials have said that Bush did not know about those dissenting views when he made claims about the purported uses for the tubes.
On July 11, 2003, aboard Air Force One during a presidential trip to Africa, Rice was asked about the National Intelligence Estimate and whether the president knew of the dissenting views among intelligence agencies regarding Iraq's procurement of the aluminum tubes.
Months earlier, disagreement existed within the administration over how to characterize the aluminum tubes in a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the U.N. on February 5, 2003. Breaking ranks with others in the administration, Powell decided to refer to the internal debate among government agencies over Iraq's intended use of the tubes.
Asked about this by a reporter on Air Force One, Rice said: "I'm saying that when we put [Powell's speech] together ... the secretary decided that he would caveat the aluminum tubes, which he did ... . The secretary also has an intelligence arm that happened to hold that view."
Rice added, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or to me."
The one-page October 2002 President's Summary specifically told Bush that although "most agencies judge" that the use of the aluminum tubes was "related to a uranium enrichment effort ... INR and DOE believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons uses."
The lengthier NIE - more than 90 pages - contained significantly more detail describing the disagreement between the CIA and the Pentagon's DIA on one hand, which believed that the tubes were meant for centrifuges, and State's INR and the Energy Department, which believed that they were meant for artillery shells. Administration officials had said that the president would not have read the full-length paper. They also had said that many of the details of INR's dissent were contained in a special text box that was positioned far away from the main text of the report.
But the one-page summary, several senior government officials said in interviews, was written specifically for Bush, was handed to the president by then-CIA Director George Tenet, and was read in Tenet's presence.
In addition, Rice, Cheney, and dozens of other high-level Bush administration policy makers received a highly classified intelligence assessment, known as a Senior Executive Memorandum, on the aluminum tubes issue. Circulated on January 10, 2003, the memo was titled "Questions on Why Iraq Is Procuring Aluminum Tubes and What the IAEA Has Found to Date."
The paper included discussion regarding the fact that the INR, Energy, and the United Nations atomic energy watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, all believed that Iraq was using the aluminum tubes for conventional weapons programs.
The lengthier NIE also contained a note regarding the aluminum tubes disagreement:
"In INR's view, Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.
"INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets."
One week after Rice's comments aboard Air Force One, on July 18, 2003, the Bush administration declassified some portions of the NIE, including the passage quoted above, regarding INR's dissent regarding the aluminum tubes.
But the Bush administration steadfastly continued to refuse to declassify the President's Summary of the NIE, which in the words of one senior official, is the "one document which illustrates what the president knew and when he knew it." The administration also refused to furnish copies of the paper to congressional intelligence committees.
That a summary was also prepared for Bush on the question of Saddam's intentions regarding an unprovoked attack on the United States is significant because the administration has claimed that the president was unaware of intelligence information that conflicted with his public statements and those of the vice president and members of his Cabinet on the justifications for attacking Iraq.
According to interviews and records, Bush personally read the one-page summary in Tenet's presence during the morning intelligence briefing, and the two spoke about it at some length. Sources familiar with the summary said it was highly significant that the president was informed that it was the unanimous conclusion of the intelligence agencies participating in the production of the January 2003 NIE that Saddam was unlikely to consider attacking the U.S. unless Iraq was attacked first.
Cheney received virtually the same intelligence information, according to the same records and interviews. The president's summaries have been shared with the vice president as a matter of course during the Bush presidency.
The conclusion among intelligence agencies that Saddam was unlikely to consider attacking the United States unless attacked first was also outlined in Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs, highly classified daily intelligence papers distributed to several hundred executive branch officials and to the congressional intelligence oversight committees.
During the second half of 2002, the president and vice president repeatedly cited the threat from Saddam in their public statements. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," Cheney declared on August 26, 2002, to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
In his September 12 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush said: "With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."
In an October 7 address to the nation, Bush cited intelligence showing that Iraq had a fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president declared.
"We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America," he added. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, the president once again warned the nation: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
In March 2003, as American, British, and other military forces prepared to invade Iraq, the president repeated the warnings during a summit in the Azores islands of Portugal and in a March 17 speech to the nation on the eve of the war. "The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country," Bush said in the March 17 speech. "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it."
Senior Bush administration officials say they had good reason to disbelieve the intelligence that was provided to them by the CIA, noting that the intelligence the agency had provided earlier regarding Iraq was flawed.
And more recently, a 511-page bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on prewar intelligence regarding Iraq concluded: "Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysis determine the Iraqi regime's possible links with Al Qaeda."
The White House declined to comment for this story. In a statement, Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council said, "The president of the United States has talked about this matter directly, as have a myriad of other administration officials. At this juncture, we have nothing to add to that body of information."
The 9/11 commission concluded in its final report that no evidence existed of a "collaborative operational relationship" between Saddam and Al Qaeda, adding, "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
by Cindy Sheehan and Sam Bostaph
Three years ago, President George Bush ordered United States military forces to invade and occupy Iraq. Since that invasion, which was unconstitutional, illegal by all international standards, and immoral by any just-war theology, the world has watched as the Bush administration has directed the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, civilians, and insurgents at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. It has watched as over 2300 U.S. troops have been killed to date and almost 18,000 more wounded or maimed for life. It has watched the Bush administration kidnap, imprison, and torture hundreds of foreign nationals, as well as American citizens, without trial or conviction. It has watched as Bush administration lackeys have transported prisoners to secret prisons and then delivered them to torturers in less-developed countries. For three years, it has heard George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice move from one lie to another to justify each of these actions.
Just recently, Americans learned that these war criminals also have been secretly spying domestically in clear violation of federal law. On Monday February 6, 2006, the Attorney General of the United States of America appeared before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to defend the "terrorist surveillance program" that President George W. Bush ordered into existence in 2001. Both in a prepared statement and in his testimony before the committee, Alberto R. Gonzales defended the National Security Agency's warrantless, domestic wiretapping program as "lawful, reasonable and essential."
Gonzales claimed that domestic spying is an essential tool in the overall "War on Terror." He gave as the legal basis for this NSA program his opinion that Article II of the Constitution of the United States gives the President of the United States the authority and "inherent power" to do anything he thinks necessary to protect Americans. He also said that many of the presidency’s lawyers agree with him on the question of presidential power. And, besides, he added, Congress even authorized the President to respond with military force to the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks with its "Authorization for Use of Military Force" of September 18, 2001 – and he characterized this domestic "spying" as a "military action." He denied that the President was in any way constrained by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Congress had passed in 1978.
Attorney General Gonzales was not testifying under oath and he refused to answer any specific questions about the spying program or to give any examples of instances where the program provided protection for Americans. We are all just supposed to take his word for the content and effectiveness of Bush's domestic spying program. We are all to take the word of a member of this criminal administration that what they are doing is completely legal and for our own good.
In an opinion editorial in the February 13, 2006, Wall Street Journal, University of Chicago Distinguished Service Professor of Law Richard A. Epstein presented the reason why George Bush has clearly exceeded his constitutional powers in ignoring the FISA. It is that nothing in Congress's authorization of the use of military force in 2001 allows President Bush to ignore the FISA it had previously passed. Congress sets policy in matters of war and peace; the president executes it. It's just that simple. Epstein adds that only Congress can declare war; only Congress can fund war; and, only Congress can "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." We would add one more important fact – Congress has not declared war! Bush declared it when he invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq in clear violation of the Constitution he swore to uphold. We also would like to remind the Attorney General of the United States that the "War on Terror" is a catchphrase containing an amorphous and invented opponent. Just look at the phrase: "War on Terror." What can be worse than terror? We must have a war against it. We are allowing our leaders to wage war on a word. A concept. But real people are being destroyed by their expedient tail-wagging-dog phrase.
This is a time when people from all colors of the political spectrum must unite against this lawless administration. The recent escalation in fighting among Shi'ite and Sunni factions, and their joint call for an end to the U.S. occupation, show clearly that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq serves no interest of the American people. All Americans must demand that George Bush stop his war in Iraq and bring our troops home now. All of us must demand that he stop using the war he started to justify his continuing lawless campaign against whomever he decides to call an enemy. The discovery of this latest spying program makes it clear that he has been using his foreign wars to justify a domestic one – he has been attacking us!
It is clear that the Bush administration seeks nothing less than to use the wars it started in order destroy the rule of law in this country and replace it with the rule of an undistinguished former cheerleader. After all, in terms of being governed, there are only two alternatives: either we are to be ruled by law or we are to be ruled by someone else. To be ruled by law means that every one of us has a solid foundation in law for planning his or her personal future and achieving personal goals. That was the original purpose of the U.S. Constitution – to give us that legal foundation. To be ruled by someone else is to be a slave.
And there are people in this country who are willing to accept the role of obedient servant to a state that is out of control and dangerously corrupt. During the week of February 12, a former employee of the Justice Department told attendees at the annual meetings of the Conservative Political Action Conference that the rule of law must be abandoned in order for George Bush to protect us from al Qaeda. The response was not boos and cries of "For shame, for shame"; it was a standing ovation! The boos were reserved for former congressman Bob Barr when he responded that the first loyalty of all Americans is to our Constitution. In reporting on the CPAC goings on, Paul Craig Roberts aptly labeled this audience response as a signal that American Conservatism istransforming into "brownshirtism." We agree.
Even more do we agree with one another that the ideological differences that exist between Cindy and Sam must be set aside in the interest of a united front against this obscene war. If she had to do so, Cindy would describe herself as a progressive humanist who wants the militarism of America and the world to be replaced with kinder, more gentle foreign and domestic policies. She passionately believes that the vast amounts of our tax dollars that are being dumped into war and wasted by the "War" Department every year need to be returned to our communities to build a culture of plenty and peace.
If he had to do so, Sam would describe himself as a political and economic libertarian who wants a government that is limited solely to the protection of our human rights. This would eliminate almost all departments and agencies of the federal, state and local governments as they exist now. Like Cindy, he wants an end to militarism, the return of all U.S. military forces to the continental U.S. and the closure of all foreign bases.
But, Cindy and Sam are "we" in this struggle against the fascist, warlike society that America has become – particularly under the Bush regime – and "we" want a lot of company.
Whatever your political identification, please join us at Easter for a protest at Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas, from the 10th of April to the 16th. There, "we" will be joined by Katrina evacuees who are still unbelievably and unconscionably ensconced in the Astrodome and who will be invited to stay on our leased land next to the Secret Service check point of the Bush faux-ranch on Prairie Chapel Road until their homes are rebuilt in the Gulf States and they can return. The displaced Katrina victims care nothing about partisan politics or demented pork barrel peddling and cronyism; they just wantto go home. "We" will be joined in Crawford by Progressive Democratic Congressional candidates from all over the country, who are running for office against pro-war Democrats and Republicans. "We" will again be joined by old hippies, grandmas and grandpas and young activists; and we will be joined by Iraqi war veterans, as well as fresh-faced students who look like they just walked off the pages of a Gap catalog onto the Texas prairie.
Click above for full-size version.
Cindy Sheehan © Copyright 2005 by Robert Shetterly. All rights reserved.
"We," the authors of this article, have formed an unlikely friendship and partnership for peace. Our last collaborative piece, "The Human Cost of War," appeared in diverse online journals from Marxist sites to Libertarian ones. Those journals may be in deep philosophical opposition on other questions, but on this one they are as anti-war as we are. "We" the people of America need to reach deep inside ourselves and pull out the essential goodness that connects all of humanity together. Then, we can honor our differences, while uniting in opposition to the exploitation and ruination of our American way of life by the Bush crime family and its cronies. However, our biggest enemy is the citizens of this country's general ennui and complacency in the face of BushCo's blatant and bloody affronts to humanity.
"We" the people of America need to form a true coalition of peace if we are to reclaim our humanity and our inalienable birthrights.
Everyone is welcome. Everyone is needed.
March 2, 2006
Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan, KIA 04/04/04 She is co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. She is the author of Not One More Mother's Child and Dear President Bush. Sam Bostaph, Ph.D. [send him mail], is Professor of Economics and Chairman, Department of Economics, University of Dallas. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles on topics in intellectual history, economic theory and economic theory. A former Marine, who later served as a U.S. Army intelligence staff officer during the Vietnam War era, he is the proud father of Katie and Megan Bostaph and prays that they may never go to war themselves.
