This is why we are DIVIDED WE STAND!

I just opened this email from my good friend Debbie who always passes information on to me.  I can't believe how STUPID people are. Really! How the hell do you think our government is able to do so much destruction in this country? IT'S BECAUSE OF STUPID PEOPLE LIKE THIS! They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass. It's so sad how brainless we are as a country...and there are many who believe this way.

Subject: WELL SAID:....         

Could not have said this any better myself!

 The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela
 Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in
 business since 1980 doing interior design and home
 planning.
  She recently wrote a letter to a family member
 serving in Iraq.......
 
       Read it!
 
       WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
 
       "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?
 Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who
 brought it to our shores on September 11,2001? Were
 people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not
 brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan,
 across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a
 field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men,
 women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing
 death that day, or didn't they?
 
       And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the
 Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American
 soldier  kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I
 don't care at all.

  I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns
 himself in and repents for incinerating all those
 innocent people on 9/11. 
 Should I careabout the Koran when the fanatics in
 the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible,
 the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi
 Arabia.
 
  I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the
 world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head
 while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.
 
 I'll care when the cowardly so-called
 "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of
  disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
 
       I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow
       themselves up in search of nirvana care about
 the  innocent children within range of their
 suicide bombs.
 
       I'll care when the American media stops
 pretending that their First Amendment liberties are
somehow derived from international law instead of the
 United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
 
       In the meantime, when I hear a story about a
 brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to
 obtain information, know this: I don't care.
 
       When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked
 Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what
 amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I
 don't care.
 
      When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the
 head when he is told not to move because he might
 be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank
 that I don't care.
 
       When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a
 Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that
 is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his
 holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely
 believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
 
       And oh, by the way, I've noticed that
 sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well,
 Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it, I could
 not have said this any better myself!
 
       If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on
 to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll
 get to the people responsible for this ridiculous
 behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the
 deletebutton. Should you choose the latter, then
 please don't complain when more atrocities committed
 by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.


                    "PLANE CRAZY"    

Debbie's reaction explains it all: It may not be clear to this sick, demented, twisted, and STUPID author, but the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attack, we entered into an illegal war when Bush and company lied about weapons of mass destruction, and we have been responsible for the deaths of over 40,000 innocent Iraqi citizens. Believe me, I am no defender of Muslims and have tremendous issues with many Muslim cultures, but I do not advocate wholesale torture and murder of a people so we can confiscate their country's oil. This ignoramus, the writer, needs to be educated or she needs to shut her stupid mouth and keep her emails to herself and you should not be disseminating misinformation about which you have no knowledge.    

UPDATE:  I was going to send a letter to the person who I THOUGHT wrote the letter and look what I found

Pam Foster commentary on Islam-Fiction!

 

Enjoy your moments everyone!

**********************************************************

When six Justice Department civil rights lawyers unanimously agreed that Tom DeLay's 2003 Texas redistricting power grab illegally violated the civil rights of African-Americans and Latinos, you would think that the Justice Department would exercise its power under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to veto the proposed changes. You would be wrong.

Instead, George Bush's political cronies at the Justice Department approved the plan and Tom DeLay got the election map he wanted, resulting in a big electoral swing for Republicans in Texas. That the Bush administration would willfully ignore such blatant disregard for fundamental civil rights law is sad, but not surprising.

It's time to stand up to these disgraceful attacks on our civil rights. Join the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee today to speak out against these actions and to support our efforts to elect a Democratic Senate in 2006. We need your help to shift the balance of power in Washington.

http://www.dscc.org/votingrights

The truth is that this kind of unchecked power is what happens when you have one party rule in Washington. Our system of checks and balances breaks down when political advantage becomes the only guiding principle and Congress refuses to exercise its constitutional oversight duty.

That's why it is so important for you to support the DSCC today. Together, we will speak out against the Bush administration's and Tom DeLay's outrageous power grab. After we take back the Senate, we will hold them accountable for their actions.

http://www.dscc.org/votingrights

Tom DeLay, the Bush administration, and the rest of the rubber-stamp Republicans in Washington seem to think they are above the law. In this case, they were willing to ignore the unanimous opinion of six respected Justice Department civil rights lawyers. When you speak out today, you stand up to their unchecked power and you help strengthen the DSCC's efforts to change the balance of power in Washington.

Thank you so much for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Anne Lewis

P.S. We rely on word of mouth to grow our strength. If you think this issue is important, please forward it to your friends and family. Ask them to join our campaign today.

http://www.dscc.org/votingrights

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A01

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Revelation of the program last week by the New York Times also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignationand want to hear more about the president's program.

"I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company <!-- document.write('<div id="ad_links_bottom" align="center">') ; // -->

He is out of control! He needs to be GONE!

Bush’s Snoopgate

The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.

By Jonathan Alter / Newsweek

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential powergrab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

Help Gold Star Families

 

Hello to everyone -  

Congratulations on how well Camilo's events went!  

At the November MA counter recruiting meeting, Carlos and I introduced ourselves and the fact that we have been putting into a place some counter recruitment supportive work.  We are doing this in conjunction with Boston Mobilization who is our official fiscal conduit as of 12/12/05 when the Board of Directors provided approval.  Eve Lyman has been integral in making this all possible.  

 Fundraising is essential.  Donations will be deposited into the "People United for Peace" bank account at Wainwright Bank.  Since Boston Mobe is the conduit, any donations are tax deductible.  If you know of any individuals or organizations who might want to give a donation, have them send the check or money order to Melida Arredondo, People United for Peace, 11 Seymour Street, Roslindale, MA 02131.   Below you will find the plans slated for 2006.  Carlos and I would very much for the counter recruitment group members to be a sort of advisory board, etc.  I'm hoping that this can be on the agenda for January's meeting.  

Following is some information on what the direction of the "People United for Peace" project under Boston Mobe would be.  

 1.  Operation Find Out  

a.  Work with current counter recruitment coalition to create and launch 1-800-FIND-OUT and 1-800-MAS-INFO statewide telephone numbers so that students and their parents can find out alternatives to joining the military as well as the facts.   b.  Create commercials to be aired in Spanish on Telemundo stations in Massachusetts (A total of 3 thirty second spots = $60 - $90; $100 for production costs)   c.  Create commercials to be aired in English in Massachusetts  (production costs to be determined)  (Camilo agreed to appearing in one of the PSAs when I met with him recently.)   d.  Advertise in community newspapers throughout Massachusetts in English and Spanish so students and their parents know about 1-800 phone numbers.   e.  Work with current counter recruitment coalition to get Peace show on localpublic accesstelevision stations throughout Massachusetts

  2.  Lcpl. Alexander Arredondo memorial scholarship fund  

a.  Transfer $2500 in funds to Boston Mobe from current medical fund for this scholarship fund.   b.  Continue fundraising with a goal of earning $5000 per calendar year for this fund.   c.  Advertise the scholarship fund on commercials as part of Operation Find Out   d.  Set up bank account for scholarship contributions.

  3.  Speaker's Bureau and Tour Coordination Center  

a.  Work with both GSFP and MFSO in MA to unite families in touring the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and New England at least quarterly.   b.  Raise funds so that any speaker is paid for their time and gas mileage for their efforts.   c.  Transfer $2500 in funds to Boston Mobe from current medical fund for PUP administrative fund and set up set up bank account for non scholarship contributions.

  4.  Administrative and Creative Task Force  

a.  Carlos would be the creative task force leader and Melida would be administrative task force leader.   b.  Each task forces would begin with a minimum of five people.   c.  Task force members would meet a minimum of once a month with their respective task force leader.   d.  Supplies and minimum of paid task force time for the administrative and creative task force would be paid for out of PUP administrative fund.

************************************************************

Hello Friends,

Camp Casey Los Angeles

Just a reminder that every friday Los Angeles area Gold Star Familes for Peace along with Military Familes Speak Out, Orange County, Code Pink and the Camp Casey Peace movement are setting up a Camp Casey outside of Cal Sen Diane Feinsteins office.We are now in the 3rd week of our encampment. We will be there from 3pm to 6 pm waiting for her to answer the questions posed to her in September by Cindy Sheehan. For What Noble cause are our kids dying ? How many more lives are she willing to sacrifice for this Noble cause? And, what is she doing to bring an end to the US occupation of Iraq? Until she answers these questions we will be there.

Sen. Feinsteins office is located at: 11111 Santa Monica Blvd.

                                                 Los Angeles Ca.

                                                 Corner of Santa Monica/Sepulveda

Do you have a Camp Casey/Mike/Ken/David...etc set up outside of your Representatives office yet?

If so tell us here and we will send out weekly alerts announcing your action.

Does your Rep. support the war? Inquire here as to how to set up a Camp in your area.

Dear President Bush

Cindy’s mini book released in September. Send GSFP a $25.00 donation  and we will send you an autographed copy of Dear President Bush.

Send a $100.00 or more donation and receive an autographed copy of Cindy’s book, Not one more mother’s child.

Donations by check can be sent to: Gold Star Families for Peace 2010 Linden Ave. Venice Ca. 90291

Gold Star Families for Peace is a 501C3 tax-exempt organization.

 

In Peace,

Dede

Gold Star Families for Peace

Click here to help support Gold Star Families for Peace

The War and the Elections

[from the January 2, 2006 issue]    The War and the Elections

In fall 1967 Eugene McCarthy decided to force what he referred to as "a referendum on Vietnam" by launching an antiwar challenge to President Johnson. It was a courageous act. At the time polls suggested that while Americans were frustrated about the course of the war, their preferred solution was not the exit strategy McCarthy counseled but escalation. Democrats who oppose the current military engagement in Iraq face no such challenge. This fall's polls show a substantial majority of Americans believe the country should start bringing the troops home. And with the call by one of Congress's most decorated veterans, John Murtha, for establishing a withdrawal timeline, all but a handful of Congressional Democrats--and even some responsible Republicans--are beginning to talk about exit strategies. That does not mean, however, that everyone agrees about what must be done, or that an end to the war is in sight. But it does mean the Iraq debate has evolved from a contest over how to manage the US occupation into the question of whether the occupation should continue. That question will be a central--perhaps the central--issue of the 2006 Congressional elections.

In our November 28 cover editorial, "Democrats and the War," we took the stand that "The Nation will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign." We urged voters to join us. In recent weeks, as more Democrats have spoken out against the war and for a timely exit, we have come to believe even more firmly that antiwar candidates, with the requisite credentials, can prevail next fall. The first step in that process is, of course, to encourage support for such candidates, as we are doing this week and as we will continue to do throughout 2006.

Among leading Democratic Representatives and strategists, there is a palpable unease about laying out a withdrawal timeline. The DC insiders fear that doing so might provoke a voter backlash, despite the evidence of the polls. It is encouraging that recent weeks have seen significant if incomplete movement in the House Democratic caucus toward embrace of an exit strategy, especially since minority leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed Murtha's plan.

But the same cannot be said for the Senate caucus, which continues to send dramatically mixed messages. A handful of members, like Russ Feingold, clearly support a timeline, but others, like Joe Lieberman, still back Bush's "stay the course" talk. And top Democrats, like minority leader Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton--who has attracted an antiwar primary challenge from former National Writers Union president Jonathan Tasini--continue to try to have it both ways, expressing ever-increasing impatience with Bush's approach but rejecting a firm exit strategy. Clearly, the Senate could use more Feingolds. But that shift will not occur simply by electing Democrats in the half-dozen contests where seats are open or where Republican incumbents are weak. The key is to elect the right Democrats, or to force the wrong Democrats to get right about Iraq. That prospect now seems increasingly viable in the states where the most competitive Senate races are playing out; in most of them there is at least one serious antiwar contender. The outcome of these challenges is as uncertain as McCarthy's was in December 1967. But the value of every serious antiwar candidacy, even those that merely put pressure on eventual nominees to clarify their stances, is beyond debate. While contests in the House are often hard to "nationalize," Senate races tend to focus on national and international issues, and as the 2006 competition gears up, they are attracting more antiwar contenders than at any time since the late 1960s and early '70s, when opponents of the Vietnam War made virtually every Senate contest a referendum on the war.

Take the case of Rhode Island. Matt Brown started out as the decided underdog in the contest for the Democratic nomination to take on vulnerable Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee. But Brown, the Rhode Island secretary of state, is pushing for a timetable to bring the troops home by the end of 2006, and like a number of other antiwar candidates he is forcing not just his primary opponents but his party--which has begun to see the Rhode Island contest as pivotal in the fight for control of the Senate--to get serious about getting out of Iraq. In the primary Brown faces former state attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse, a much more cautious contender. Whitehouse is backed by the state's two Democratic Congressmen and has a clear fundraising advantage, but Brown's got the issue. Since August, when Feingold became the first senator to urge a specific timetable for withdrawal, Brown has been calling on the Administration to bring the troops home in 2006--and the 36-year-old former community organizer hasn't backed off since. Whitehouse is feeling the heat and now says he's for a "flexible" withdrawal timeline. But Brown says, correctly, that anything less than a precise timeline plays into the hands of an Administration that seeks an open-ended commitment to military occupation.

Brown is not alone. In Pennsylvania college professor Chuck Pennacchio proposed an exit strategy in June, forcing primary front-runner Bob Casey Jr. to at least begin talking about the failure of the Administration to define its goals in Iraq. In Montana John Tester, a leading contender for the Democratic nod, announced in November, "The time has come to support our troops by laying out a plan to bring them home." In Minnesota, where Democratic Senator Mark Dayton, a war critic, is retiring, child-safety advocate Patty Wetterling, who has emerged as one of the strongest contenders for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party nomination, announced her candidacy with a promise to make an exit strategy her top issue in 2006. "Next Thanksgiving I want us out of Iraq," she says. Like Brown, Wetterling has launched a petition to pressure the Administration for an exit strategy.

In Maryland the most prominent contenders in a multicandidate field to replace retiring Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes are Representative Ben Cardin and former NAACP chair Kweisi Mfume. Both are war critics, but Mfume, whose campaign struggled initially to match Cardin's fundraising and organizational strength, has sought to distinguish himself as the antiwar candidate by criticizing Cardin for failing to support Representative Lynn Woolsey's May 2005 amendment calling for a withdrawal timeline. Mfume is now in a dead heat with Cardin.

In Ohio a leading backer of the Woolsey amendment, Representative Sherrod Brown, has entered the Senate primary race against Paul Hackett, the Iraq War veteran who was bluntly critical of Bush's handling of the war during a losing race this past summer for an open House seat. In his House race Hackett surprised many fans of his anti-Bush remarks by opposing a timeline for withdrawal, and he has since disturbed war critics bydismissing the Congressional push for a timeline as "absolutely ludicrous." There is no such ambiguity with Brown. He was an outspoken foe of the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq, and since the start of the war he has written House letters demanding answers from the Administration about the misuse of prewar intelligence, co-sponsored withdrawal resolutions and regularly read letters from antiwar constituents--particularly members of military families--into the Congressional Record.

Even some Democratic incumbents are feeling the heat. Since Lieberman has emerged as the Administration's loudest Democratic defender, he has taken criticism from grassroots Democrats and groups like Democracy for America. Lieberman is unlikely to face a substantial antiwar challenge in the Connecticut primary. But he could still face serious opposition: Former Senator Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican turned Independent, is talking about mounting a "Bring the Troops Home" challenge come fall (see John Nichols, "Run, Lowell, Run," in his "Online Beat" blog on this site).

There will be plenty of twists and turns between now and November. But if Sherrod Brown wins in Ohio, where Republican Senator Mike DeWine is vulnerable, and Independent Representative Bernie Sanders wins Vermont's open seat, as now seems likely, two of the House's most articulate and savvy antiwar voices will be heard in the Senate. And if they are joined by others, like Minnesota's Wetterling, Montana's Tester or Rhode Island's Matt Brown, the Democratic leadership will get the message loud and clear: It's time to get out of Iraq.

******************************************************************

Close loopholes that permit war profiteering

By Sarah Anderson

By nearly any measure, the party David H. Brooks threw recently for his daughter's bat mitzvah was absurdly over the top. The New York businessman flew in musical mega stars Stephen Tyler and Joe Perry (from Aerosmith), 50 Cent, Tom Petty, Kenny G. and a gaggle of other celebrity acts, many by private jet, to perform for the girl in the Rainbow Room in Rockefeller Center. That the money for the bash, estimated by the New York Daily News at $10 million, came from war profits, made this excess even more obscene.

Brooks, CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB Industries, has seen his fortunes soar since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Last year, he earned $70 million, most of it from stock options. That represented an increase of 13,349 percent over his pre-9-11 compensation, according to Executive Excess, co-published by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.

Brooks' flaunting of his war wealth is exceptionally tasteless, given that the equipment which boosted his fortunes appears not to work very well. In May 2005, the Marines recalled more than 5,000 DHB armored vests after questions were raised about their effectiveness in stopping 9 mm bullets. Last month, the Marines and Army announced a recall of an additional 18,000 DHB vests.

Brooks is also under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for suspected financial wrongdoing and faces a number of investor class action lawsuits for fraud and insider trading.

For any CEO who has spent the war in the comfort of his executive suite to flaunt his war wealth sends the wrong message to those on the frontlines. As the body count continues to mount, news like this must be especially galling to U.S. troops. Most likely, they will never earn as much in their lifetimes as Brooks earned in one year.

Brooks is just one example of the many executives who are cashing in on the boost in military spending since 9-11. Defense contractor CEOs received raises on average of 200 percent between 2001 and 2004, compared to only 7 percent for average large company CEOs.

What can be done about war profiteering? It's important to remember that this is public money, in the form of defense contracts, which is driving these CEOs' personal profits. Taxpayers should have every right to insist that strings be attached to that money, including requirements that executive pay be restrained to reasonable levels during times of war.

In theory, U.S. law already imposes a ceiling on executive pay for defense contractors at about $430,000 per year. But loopholes in the law and technical difficulties with enforcement has made it meaningless in practice. The principle behind that law should be strengthened and loopholes closed.

Times of war call for a spirit of shared sacrifice, not greed. While those on the frontlines are paying the highest price for this war, American taxpayers are also making a tremendous sacrifice. In exchange, we should be able to feel confident that the hundreds of billions spent on the war are going to support a stable and prosperous Iraq.

Instead we see massive sums lining the pockets of defense CEOs -- and, in this case, their favorite entertainers.

Sarah Anderson is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the co-author of Field Guide to the Global Economy (New Press, 2005) and the Executive Excess report on CEO pay.

Copyright © 2005, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Mama Peace in Spain

Sheehan Leads War Protest in Spain

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan led a small protest Saturday outside the U.S. Embassy to denounce the war in Iraq.

About 100 protesters carried banners criticizing President Bush.

Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, called Bush a war criminal and said, "Iraq is worse than Vietnam."

The protest also was called in memory of Jose Couso, a Spanish television cameraman killed on April 8, 2003, in Baghdad when a U.S. tank fired at a hotel where many foreign correspondents were staying. Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian, also was killed in that incident.

       

US peace activist Cindy Sheehan whose son was a US soldier killed in Iraq makes a speech outside the U.S. embassy in Madrid Saturday Dec. 17, 2005. A large crowd gathered Saturday outside the embassy to protest the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Paul White)

       

   

File picture shows Nobel Literature prize winner Dario Fo during a demonstration in Rome September 14, 2002. Peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by the Nobel laureate. (Alessia Pierdomenico/Reuters)  

 

'Peace mom' Sheehan in new play by Nobel winner

U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

She said she hoped the play would help "put a human face" on the war.

Sheehan, from Vacaville, California, has become one of the best-known figures calling for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq since she protested for several weeks outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in August.

Bush has said he sympathizes with Sheehan over the death of her son in 2004 but will not pull out U.S. forces. Some of his supporters have gone further, accusing her of being an advocate of surrender in the face of terrorism.

The play was rushed into production to conclude a day-long conference of activists opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, with de la Tour reading some passages from a script.

Fo, the leftist playwright who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for Literature, said his wife and artistic partner Franca Rame would star in a longer final version of the play in Italy.

Peace Condrence

 

REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE
by David Swanson

David Swanson and Cindy Sheehan in London.

Steve Cobble and I participated in an historic international peace conference in London on December 10 and in various related events the same week. We met with several Members of Parliament and will be working to facilitate teamwork and future events with them and members of the US Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The conference, hosted by the Stop the War Coalition, was a great success. About 1,500 people packed into a large hall, including delegates from all around the UK, and from Iraq, the US, Iran, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Canada, Poland, Greece, Italy, Spain and many other European countries.

The conference passed a statement calling for an international weekend of action on March 18/19, 2006, to mark the third anniversary of the war.

The week of events included a reception with the Mayor of London, who is strongly opposed to the war and willing to say so in no uncertain terms. See report and photos:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5482

For one whole day, Cindy Sheehan and Andrew Burgin (the organizer of the conference) and I went to Scotland and met with Members of Parliament and with anti-war activists. This was quite an encouraging series of meetings. I spoke with Alex Salmond, a Member of Parliament working hard for the impeachment of Prime Minister Tony Blair. See report and photos:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5489

I spoke on a panel titled "Bringing Bush and Blair to Account." I discussed the work of the After Downing Street Coalition, the ways in which activists in the US and Britain have been able towork together to drive stories into the media, and the ways in which we can work together to impeach Blair and President George Bush. See my speech:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5520

On Sunday, the day following the conference, Steve took part in a strategy meeting at the Stop the War Coalition offices, while I joined Cindy Sheehan and many others in paying a visit to Blair's residence at 10 Downing Street. See report and photos:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5535

In the course of this trip, we made many connections, helping to build solidarity in an international movement. Our task now is to make March 18, 2006, bigger and even more successful than was February 15, 2003.

Click for the full report and photos:
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/events/london-peace-conf.php