cynicism, it's hard to keep up

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.--George Bernard Shaw

There are a couple items that make good examples from the Forest Park Review.

When my children and I woke up Saturday morning, my 8-year-old daughter was very sad to see that her bicycle had been stolen during the night from our back yard. We then went to the police station to fill out a report. Officer Mike O'Connor was working that day and he listened patiently as another officer took our report. He told my daughter that he was sorry that her bike had been stolen and mentioned that he had recently bought his daughter a new bike, so he offered to give us her old one. We told him what a kind gesture that was but that it wouldn't be necessary.

Imagine our surprise to see that when we returned home, officer O'Connor had already dropped off his daughter's old bike on our front porch. Because of his kind and selfless gesture my daughter did not have to miss one day of bike riding with her friends.

With so many negative stories emanating from the Forest Park Police Department it's comforting to know that people with the good heart and character of officer O'Connor can be found with ease. It's very easy to write a letter or make a phone call to complain, I just thought that equal time should be given to highlight those things that are best as well.

Melissa, Anthony and Zianna Turek
Forest Park

I'm glad O'Connor showed generosity. And unlike many of the cops in the Forest Park PD, I've never anyone say anything bad about O'Connor.

But just because O'Connor is kind and generous in one situation involving children, it does nothing to disprove the thesis that the Forest Park PD is led by two corrupt, dishonest people (Mayor Anthony Calderone and Chief Jim Ryan) whose subordinates commit many incidents of misconduct.

The Forest Park Review (Michelle Keefe) includes a pro-war propaganda piece about children assembling care packages for servicemembers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Invading Iraq was an awful idea. The project was foisted on the nation by hysteria, lies and conflating the 9/11 attackers with Saddam Hussein. Now the elites who bought the lies and hype say the U.S. military can't leave because it would lead to an even worse situation. Meanwhile, the war profiteers, like Dick Cheney's former company, stuff money in their pockets.

But hey! Forest Park children are learning to be good patriots. So it's OK their older brothers and sisters are getting PTSD, getting maimed and dying in Iraq because people in Forest Park get to feel good about reading about care packages in the local paper.

And the situation in Afghanistan is only slightly better. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The Allies defeated Nazi Germany on May 8, 1945. The Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945. In less than four years the U.S. military and its allies defeated the Wermacht and the military of Imperial Japan.

We're coming up on seven years since the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. military has failed to neutralize the Taliban, defeat a few thousand guys fighting from caves or capture a 6'4" Arab with four wives and a kidney dialysis machine.

But the U.S. military has become a goon squad for a dubiously popular central government. Said goon squad kills a bunch of innocents while doing whatever goon squads have to do to keep the central government in power.

By what measure has invading Afghanistan has worked?

• Made Americans feel tough or like they were doing something about 9/11 or something
• Allowed Bush's cronies to begin war profiteering in the bonus round
• Helped get some pipelines built
• Created "war spending" that could be diverted to prepping for the Iraq War
• Increased opium production

But, it's also allowed Forest Parkers to read about their children being inculcated with patriotism in the local paper.

media & Michael Vick dogfighting case

While discussing the Michael Vick dog fighting case at a party, a friend pointed me to Nation of Islam Sportsblog.

I alluded to having an opinion on the case earlier. While at Club Napoletano, the center television is permanently tuned to ESPN. Maybe my circumstances skew my perception, but it seems like the issue of Vick engaging in dogfighting is the biggest legal story since O.J. Simpson was charged with murdering his ex and her lover.

My opinions:

1. Dog fighting should not be a federal crime except in cases where it's wrapped in with other criminal activity that crosses state lines.
2. Removing federal law enforcement agents from investigating political corruption and other serious crimes that diminish the quality of life for citizens is misuse of government resources.
3. The media coverage of the Vick case is mind boggling. We live in a country that invaded another country based on lies and racist innuendo. The occupation has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Millions have been displaced. Over 3,000 Americans have died. Over 10,000 Americans are maimed for life. Our political and media elites resist calling for an end to the occupation because they don't want to admit to how badly they got it wrong on Iraq. And the media is fretting over Michael Vick fighting and killing some pit pulls!? What the #%&@?

The media warps our reality. How many dogs died as the result of Michael Vick's actions? A half dozen? Two dozen? In the month of August--we're not done yet--the United States has lost 74 troops in Iraq. The Brits have lost four.

Not only are Iraqis less worthy of media attention than Vick's dogs--that's just a given--President George W. Bush (and the other screw-ups leading this country) can kill 80 Americans a month (that's a good month, some months are 100+) to procrastinate admitting they were wrong about Iraq and the media peddles the situation as reasonable. The media elite--who largely went along with the war--can pretend the absurd is reasonable as easily as they can make a case of an athlete dogfighting into this huge event. How many times did they replay the footage of Vick entering the court house?

To make the issue local, if the media wasn't absurd, the mismanagement, misconduct and criminality surrounding Proviso Township High Schools would get more media coverage than the Vick case.

And how would you feel if the FBI delayed prosecuting the politicians stealing from the high school for a year because the agents were spending time building a case against a dogfighting ring?

Democrats claim they want to end Iraq occupation; I say prove it

Yahoo (Natasha T. Metzler) wrote an article about Cindy Sheehan being arrested for protesting for impeachment at the office of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI). Conyers chairs the House Judiciary Committee where impeachment hearings would happen, the first step of the process that could lead to trying members of the executive branch for bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors in the U.S. Senate.

Conyers introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.

Why are ending the occupation of Iraq and impeaching members of the executive branch for behaving illegally mutually exclusive?

BTW, what progress can Democrats show toward ending the occupation of Iraq? Aren't there more U.S. military personnel in Iraq now than when the Democrats were elected? What's the plan for ending the occupation?

Isn't in conventional wisdom among Beltway Democrats that as long as the voters are blaming Bush and the Republicans for the Iraq debacle that it's better to allow the war to fester so Democrats can use the issue in the 2008 elections?

BTW, don't Saudi Arabia and Israel--countries that exercise huge influence over U.S. Middle East policy--both want the United States to continue to occupy Iraq? And aren't Democrats exceedingly reluctant to offend the Israel lobby?

[UPDATE: Fire Dog Lake quoted Dr. Maryam, an Iraqi medical relief worker:

Stop telling lies to yourself American. We know that your racist brutal murdering war criminal troops came from your society and reflect its values. we know that because we see how they behave and have to bury their victims. If you are stupid enough to think we feel anything but hatred and contempt for your soldiers and the country that sent them to make war on my people then you are a fool.

As to Saddam bad though he was your country is far worse.

[The truth is humbling, eh? What can we tell someone like Dr. Maryam? "When we're not inflicting suffering on your country we like sports, home cooking and... we're not so bad...."]

killing for a cause you don't believe in

In These Times (Joel Bleifuss) has an article on Vincent J. Emanuele, a Marine Corps veteran who participated in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (Photo from In These Times)

When did you change your mind about the wisdom of this war?

In 2004. What did it for me was Fahrenheit 9/11, which really gave me a new perspective.

Being over there with an antiwar mindset was difficult. The guys I was with knew I was opposed to the war, and I had a lot of support from them, even if they didn’t agree with me. But whenever I would voice my opinion to commanding officers, I was told to shut up.

Knowing what I knew, it was difficult to go on combat patrols and kick doors in and have to pull my trigger in self-defense. My attitude shifted particularly in terms of not wanting to take anyone’s life. Unfortunately, we encountered scenarios that dictated differently.

IRAQ, four years ago today "mission accomplished"

Steven Connell is a Poetry Slam, Inc. champion.


Tell Us the Mission is a project of Brave New Foundation.

h/t Daily Kos

Four years ago President George W. Bush stood on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and declared major combat operations were over under a banner than said "mission accomplished".

Alec Baldwin commits to scholarship for Army soldier

Associated Press (Amanda Lee Myers):

Actor Alec Baldwin was so moved by the story of an 18-year-old Army soldier who is scheduled to serve in Iraq, he's going to help pay for her college education after she leaves the military.

Baldwin was so moved by a March 4 New York Times story about Pvt. Resha Kane's last day with family and friends before going for training to prepare for serving in Iraq that he — not his people — tracked down Kane's mother at a discount store where she works to offer his assistance, his spokesman said.

I was recently discussing Baldwin's scene in Glengarry Glen Ross.

Baldwin's character visits the sales team to make a motivational speech. It includes a couple memorable lines.

"A, 'Always', B, 'be', 'C', 'closing'."

"There is no third prize. Third prize is you're fired."

WARNING: The scene includes the f-word and a slur against homosexuals.

GOV, Dems vote to fund Iraq War with conditions

Today the House Democrats passed a supplemental appropriation bill requested by President Bush to fund continuing the Iraq occupation. However, the Democrats attached some condition. The bill calls for withdrawing troops from Iraq by September, 2008. And President Bush must certify that progress is being made on the ground in Iraq. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation.

Associated Press (Anne Flaherty):

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) was elected to Congress in November. He is an Iraq War veteran.

IRAQ, happy fourth anniversay!

Today is the fourth anniversary of the United States invading Iraq. See Wikipedia's entry Iraq War, although the situation is now an U.S. military occupation resisted by guerrilla warfare with at least one civil war happening in the same place at the same time.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE and presidential candidate) recently highlighted that all the objectives in the Iraq War Resolution have largely been achieved. Saddam Hussein is no longer leading Iraq. There have been elections. There were no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (a misleading term that lumps relatively innocuous biological and chemical weapons with nuclear weapons).

IMO, historians will decide that invading Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history.

At Daily Kos, BarbinMD made a list of President George W. Bush's evolving statements about Iraq. The statements are labeled with dates and the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq at the time.


Brave New Foundation created Iraq Veterans Memorial. It's a cross between the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and YouTube.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush seems unwilling to admit that his policies have failed. He seems to be avoiding admission of failure by keeping U.S. military troops occupying Iraq. If he doesn't admit failure this somehow means the situation in Iraq isn't a failure.

In addition to Bush refusing to work with Democrats on Iraq, Bush has refused to allow Congress to limit his power in other areas, like wiretapping U.S. citizens without warrants, and attacking Iran. Bush has resisted Congress requiring Bush to seek a vote in Congress before attacking Iran as described in the Constitution.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) had this to say.


Jane Hamsher created the blog Fire Dog Lake. Fire Dog Lake's live blogging of the "Scooter" Libby trial was praised for being in depth and timely with superb analysis.

On Fire Dog Lake looseheadprop wrote an open letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

I have seen it reported in the press that you have publicly stated that “impeachment is off the table.” As a former prosecutor of public corruption and fraud against the government cases, this statement is deeply, deeply disturbing to me. Predetermining the outcome of a criminal investigation prior to the completion of that investigation and the uncovering of all the facts, is one of the very worst abuses of prosecutorial discretion and a grievous breach of the canons of ethics for prosecutors.

When he was NY State Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer was oft heard to remark that “as a prosecutor, you must follow the facts and the law where ever they may lead you, even if it somewhere you wish you did not have to go.” His was a correct statement of the standard that all prosecutors, even intermittent prosecutorial entities like the U.S. House of Representatives, must follow.

Today, in Chicago there will be a demonstration calling for bringing the troops home from Iraq. If you want to march with the Chicago chapter of Veterans for Peace, meet at the McDonald's at Chicago & State at 7 PM.

F08, Wes Clark builds opposition to attacking Iran

I didn't do much to oppose invading Iraq. I caught a bunch of grief from one of my activists friends who was busting her ass going to demonstrations and the like. I figured invading Iraq didn't make sense. Surely President George W. Bush was just saber rattling to get Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government to make concessions so Bush could claim he was tough enough to accomplish more than President Bill Clinton.

I was wrong.

Team Bush is crazy. Just because the world works a certain way, don't expect Bush to realize that he is constrained by reality. These people are dangerous.

Crooks & Liars (John Amato) has video of Bush being interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer in September, 2006. Bush denies Iraq is in a civil war based on what his appointees and subordinates are telling him. So either he appoints people who give him the mushroom treatment or Bush cannot process information that contradicts the reality he has chosen to believe.

The video was blogged because it contains the Bush quote:

I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.

If you watch the video you will see that Bush starts to say "Iran" but then switches to Iraq. Bush and his advisers have been planning to attack Iran from a ways back.

Wes Clark is organizing to oppose the United States attacking Iran. See StopIranWar.com. He's probably planning to use the email list for his presidential campaign. Whatever....

Attacking Iran is completely batshit insane. Since Iraq is majority Shia and Iran is a Shia country one blogger--I can't remember who--asked the question, have we considered which side our Iraqi allies will be on?

I hope the Democrats will do the right thing and stop Bush from starting a war with Iran. However, I'm pessimistic.

IRAQ, Get Out of Iraq by Simple Fears & They Lied by Jay Mankita

A couple musical selections for the weekend.

And Jay Mankita performs They Lied.

h/t benfrank.net

As if Bush's excellent adventure in Iraq wasn't bad enough, it seems like Team Bush is manufacturing an excuse to go to war with Iran.

Wes Clark, retired general and probable presidential candidate, and VoteVets.org is using a website, StopIranWar.com, to organize opposition to going to war with Iran.

GOV, Proviso Reps oppose troop escalation in Iraq

Proviso Township is represented by four members of the House of Representatives: Rep. Danny K. Davis, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Rep. Luis Gutierrez and Rep. Dan Lipinski. All are Democrats.

This week the House of Representatives debated a resolution expressing disagreement with President Bush's plan to escalate the level of troops in Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Earlier Proviso Probe covered Davis' statement. All Proviso representatives voted for the resolution, thereby going on record as opposing the escalation.

Here's what the other representatives had to say:

Lipinski:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and in support of a new policy in Iraq. Up until this point, the Bush administration's Iraq policy over the last 3 1/2 years appears to be one of America's worst foreign policy blunders. More than 3,100 of our brave men and women in uniform have been killed and more than 24,000 have been wounded, many very seriously, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and in some cases wasted. This has resulted from the tactical mistakes, errors in judgment and other major missteps by the Bush administration.

It is painfully clear that a change in strategy in Iraq is needed now. We need a plan for bringing stability to Iraq and bringing our troops home. Unfortunately, the President's plan to add over 20,000 additional troops does not provide this, and, therefore, I must support this resolution.

I see three main flaws in the President's plan.

First, the administration has not provided convincing evidence that this surge will succeed after many similar plans have failed. After almost 4 years in Iraq, the American people are asking, why should we have faith in this plan and place more troops in harm's way?

Second, by failing to provide clear benchmarks for success or a time frame by which we can expect the surge to yield positive results, the President's plan appears to commit our country to a ``stay the course'' strategy with no clear end in sight. Aid should be tied to a deadline for progress by the Iraqi Government.

Third, and most importantly, the President continues to place too much emphasis on a military solution, when it is clear that force alone will not solve this crisis. Solutions must support broad international engagement to promote stability and reconstruction in Iraq and must address political, economic and religious issues.

Because of the need for such a plan, earlier this year I laid out a set of recommendations, and this week I introduced H.Res. 152 based on these. My proposal consists of three core recommendations.

First, encourage achievement of important goals and national reconciliation, security and governance by arranging a peace conference for Iraq's ethnic and religious factions, similar to the conference that led to the Dayton Accords. One venue for this would be El Salvador, which has shown a strong commitment to stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq and has gone through its own recent history of a bloody civil war and ensuing reconciliation.

But wherever and however it is done, the political, economic and religious issues must be addressed if peace and security are to be established in Iraq. And it is essential that more pressure be put on the Iraqi Government and all interested parties in Iraq to find and accept real solutions so the American forces can begin withdrawal.

The second recommendation is to seek international cooperation to develop solutions for Iraq. This should include calling an international conference that will work on putting together a peacekeeping force and setting up an international reconstruction program.

Iraq's strategic position in the volatile Middle East, its potential to become a terrorist safe haven, its large supply of oil and the great potential for a humanitarian catastrophe make security in Iraq a critical international issue. It is time for America to engage the nations of the world to encourage them to address this international crisis.

The final recommendation is to require the administration to give Congress detailed reports on the situation in Iraq so that we can make informed decisions regarding funding for reconstruction and deciding when American forces can be redeployed. This new Congress has been vigorously conducting oversight after 3 1/2 years of congressional neglect, but we must have the full cooperation of the administration.

If the recommendations laid out in my resolution are followed, I believe American troops can begin redeployment in 2007, leaving a secure, stable Iraq.

As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``The search for genuine justice and peace in Iraq requires moral urgency, substantive dialogue and new direction.'' Unfortunately, the President does not give us this. That is why his plan is discouraging to many Americans who are weary of this war.

But no one is wearier than our troops and their families. This past weekend I spoke to a soldier who spent 13 months in Iraq and will likely be returning. He told me that it is important to make sure that we let our troops know that they have our complete support. We cannot let anything in this debate be construed otherwise. If this surge occurs even after we pass this resolution, we must continue to support our troops and pray for them every day, so that by God's grace they can succeed in their mission.

Lipinski represents the southern portion of Proviso Township.

Emanuel:

Mr. Speaker, we gather today to consider a question that is profoundly simple: Do we support the President's plan to further escalate America's involvement in Iraq, or not? After 4 long, painful years in which we have seen so many young lives lost, are we now willing to put even more of our brave heroes in harm's way, or will we acknowledge that the current course is failing, that doubling down on the status quo while hoping for a better result would be foolish.

There are those who oppose this resolution because they say it would hurt the troops' morale. Hurt morale? Our leaders promised them they would be greeted as liberators. Instead, we have put them smack in the middle of a shooing gallery, policing someone else's civil war, backing an Iraqi government that refuses to stand up for itself.

We have sent our soldiers back time and again. We have sent many of them without the life-saving equipment and armor they needed, and now they say this resolution would hurt troop morale? To suggest that more of the same just won't do.

They have done their duty with courage and discipline. Now it is time for Congress to do its duty. They deserve not to be sacrificed in the furtherance of a policy that failed for the last 4 years.

From the beginning, this war has been a saga of miscalculations, mistakes and misjudgments for which America will pay in many ways for years to come. Let us not compound those bad judgments by ratifying another.

The President assures us that this escalation of war is the most promising path to a more peaceful Iraq. For the past 5 years we have accepted the President's assurances on Iraq, only to learn that the facts on the ground belied his aggressive assertions and rosy rhetoric. We accepted his assurances about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's links to al Qaeda. We authorized a war on that basis, only to learn that much of what we were told simply wasn't true.

Against stern warnings, we accepted his assurances and those of the Vice President that a post-Saddam Iraq would welcome our presence and overcome deeply engrained sectarian differences. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us General Shinseki was mistaken when he said we needed far more troops to stabilize Iraq than the administration planned, and that the cost of this war would be minimal. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us the insurgency was in its last throes. It simply wasn't true.

Each of the last three troop surges has been countered with a surge in violence. It is for that reason that a bipartisan group of House Members and the American public oppose the forth troop increase. More troops doing more of the same is not a policy, it is not a strategy, it is not a tactic, it is the status quo plus.

The time is past for accepting this administration's assurances at face value. The human cost of its repeated assurances is too great.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I asked permission to establish a temporary memorial to the fallen in Iraq in Statuary Hall. The leadership at that time refused, so I began posting the pictures of the young soldiers we have lost outside my office. I have watched as that grim line of photos has grown past my doorway to fill the corridor. More than 3,000 dead, more than 20,000 wounded. When I walk by those photos, I see the purpose, I see the pride, and I see the promise in their young faces. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers who will never see their kids grow up.

I ask you, how long must this grim line of photographs grow before we acknowledge that this policy is not working? How many corridors must these memorials fill before we we say, not on my watch? How many more lives must we lose? How many more hearts must be broken?

It is time for this Congress to tell President Bush that his assurances are not enough. This escalation does not mean stability in Iraq, it will mean more loss and more photographs in the corridor.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Emanuel represents most of Melrose Park.

Gutierrez:

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution.

Four years ago, President Bush plunged our Nation into a misguided, pre-emptive war with Iraq. I voted against authorizing it then--and I have come to the floor today to affirm my strong opposition to this irresponsible war.

Unfortunately, after 4 years of failed strategies by this administration, the President is now poised to confound his tragic blunder, and ignore the will of the American people, by attempting to increase our presence in Iraq. And that is why this resolution is so important. Because it sends a strong statement. A statement that the vast majority of the country supports. And that is: escalating our presence in Iraq will not lead to success in the region, and more blank checks will not make America more secure.

Madam Speaker, our brave men and women in the military have done all that is asked of them over the course of the last 4 years. They are heroes who represent the finest our country has to offer--and they should be treated accordingly. But, from day one, this administration has spent more time planning its attacks on those who offered legitimate criticisms of the war and its tactics, than it has on planning for a stable and peaceful reconstruction of the region. And the results have been devastating and unworthy of our brave men and women serving in harm's way.

Enough is enough. Troop surges have not worked in the past, and there is no evidence that the same failed policies will work today. In fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.''

Yet, this administration continues to ignore the guidance of military experts, the Iraq Study Group, diplomats, decorated war heroes and former senior White House officials of both parties.

And rather than being open to debate and discussion with these experts, this Administration has routinely attacked their character and questioned their patriotism. Many of these individuals have bled on the battlefield. But to this administration, and its swift boat strategists, they are treated merely as political pawns. It is truly shameful.

Because of this Administration's hubris, we have seen troops without proper equipment, without basic body armor, without vehicles equipped to deal with roadside bombs and without the appropriate veteran's services when they return home.

Because of their ignorance, we have seen giant banners saying, Mission Accomplished, when today Iraq has spiraled into a bloody, religious civil war.

Because of their arrogance, we were told that we were going to be treated as liberators, not as occupiers.

And because of their incompetence, we were told that future oil revenues would more than cover the cost of the reconstruction.

They could not have been more wrong. The cost of the war continues to grow at an outrageous rate. To date, we have spent approximately $379 billion on this war, with estimates from some experts saying that the total long-term cost could exceed $1 trillion.

Think about that for a minute: $379 billion spent, more than $8 billion a month. That is enough to fully fund Head Start--100 times over. To give virtually every student in America a computer. Pay for prescription drug coverage for virtually every senior in our Nation. Offer summer jobs to every teen in our country. Put hundreds of thousands of additional police officers on the streets. Provide millions of scholarships to public universities for deserving students. And pay the salaries of millions of public school teachers.

But what do we have to show for that $379 billion--a country plagued with hardened religious sectarian violence.

Madam Speaker, it is time to stop this charade. It is time for the truth. It is time for the administration to really level with the American people.

Resurrecting and rehashing failed policies of the past is not the answer.

Real action is needed. Leadership is needed. Courage is needed. And that is why we are engaged in this debate--to stand up to the deception and the dishonesty.

We are here today to begin to set our strategy back on the right course. To protect our soldiers. And to ensure that we can win the real war on terror.

Madam Speaker, we are here today as patriots because we love our country. We are here because we support our troops. And we are here because we want our troops to be able to come home to their families and loved ones.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important resolution.

Gutierrez represents some of Melrose Park and Stone Park.

What arguments resonate with you? What arguments seem weak?

Davis and Gutierrez voted against the Iraq War Resolution in October, 2002. Emanuel's predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, was one of the 81 Democrats who voted for the resolution (126 Democrats voted "no"). Lipinski's father voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

In the past Emanuel and Dan Lipinski have been more supportive of Bush's Iraq policy than most Democrats.

GOV, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) speaks against escalation

The House of Representatives is debating a resolution that expresses disapproval of President George W. Bush's plan to escalate the troop level in Iraq.

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) gave the Republicans a piece of his mind. Ryan's so good at it some Republican tried to interrupt him a couple times. Ryan responded to the Republican request to derail his speech, "I don't yield."


Ryan has a history of smacking Republicans down on the Iraq issue. When Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced a proposal to re-instate the draft Ryan used the opportunity to hammer Bush's Iraq policy.

GOV, Congressman Davis speaks in favor of anti-escalation resolution

The House of Representatives is deliberating on a resolution expressing disapproval of President George W. Bush's proposal to escalate troops levels in Iraq. I first read about it on Fire Dog Lake (Peterr).

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Each House member gets five minutes to say his or her piece.


Congressman Danny K. Davis said:

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for providing what we never had in the last session, and that is ample opportunity to fully discuss Iraq , where we are and what we ought to be doing about it.

I have always been told that when you start with a faulty premise, you will inevitably reach a faulty conclusion. And the rationale given for entering the war was faulty. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to 9/11. Therefore, we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

But then after the invasion, the occupation of Iraq has been tragically mismanaged. Civilian military leadership ignored the advice of senior commanders on requirements for preventing chaos in the aftermath of the invasion. As a result, our extended presence in Iraq continues to worsen the situation, not only in Iraq , but in the entire region.

Terrorist incidents continue to flare up around the world, from England to Spain , from Indonesia to Jordan . Chaos and intolerance in the form of civil war now has secured a deadly grip on Iraq . The policy of escalation has failed, and failed again, to loosen that horrendous grip. The Iraqi people want us to leave, and so do the American people, especially those in my congressional district, and especially those that I encounter at churches, schools, synagogues, town hall meetings and on the street.

Madam Speaker, democracy and self-government cannot be imposed on Iraq by any foreign power, including us, the United States of America . Our troops have done everything we have asked of them, even when we have failed to equip and protect them. The problem does not lie with our troops, but with the distorted world view of this administration and the military and diplomatic doctrine of preemptive war as a solution to global political problems.

We must do everything possible to protect our troops and we must do everything in our power to take care of them when they return home.

It is impossible, Madam Speaker, to build a coalition against terrorism by attempting to unilaterally impose these doctrines on the international community. We cannot undo the many mistakes which have been made in Iraq . And when our national interests have been so distorted, when we have so lost our direction, it is the historical, moral, and constitutional responsibility of this Congress to set us back on course and on the right track.

It is time to recognize that we are enmeshed in an unending, vicious circle of escalating violence, rather than a force for peace, and that is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 508, which would bring the force of law to end this war.

Today we have before us a nonbinding resolution, most likely insufficient to end the occupation. But it can help to move us in the right direction and set us on the right path. Therefore, I support this resolution, because it reflects the will and interests of the American people, and I trust that this administration will abandon demagogic calls for constantly changing notions of success and victory and awaken to the world of reality.

Madam Speaker, it is time, it is past time, to bring our troops home. I am told that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results. This resolution sets us on the right course, gives us the right direction. I urge its passage.

Thanks to Robin at Code Pink for forwarding Davis' remarks.

MEDIA, don't fall for the lies about Iran

Yahoo (AP) headline: Bush: Iran supplying weapons in Iraq

Proviso Probe headline: Nyberg: Bush supplying lies to gullible media

Atrios put it like this:

Did the last 4 years not happen? Did these reporters not live through it? Did we not have a big discussion about how journalists should stop relying on the statements of administration officials and start asking for a little actual evidence?

The media deserves contempt for how it enabled the Iraq War. Partially they used 9/11 and the national mood as an excuse for their gullibility. "It just didn't seem right to question the President at that time," seemed to be the mood of journalists, editors, producers, publishers, CEOs and owners.

What's the #%&$ing excuse this time? Bush isn't popular. Americans are clearly sour about occupying Iraq indefinitely.

Yet the sheep in the national media are getting played the exact same way as with Iraq.

Here's what you need to know about Iran: it isn't a threat to U.S. national interests. And going to war against Iran whether by bombing or invasion will result in large numbers of Americans being killed.

Attacking Iran will hurt U.S. national interests. The Democratic Party has the votes to keep Bush from attacking Iran.

[UPDATE2: See TPMmuckraker.com (Spencer Ackerman) for details on how CNN's Barbara Starr got the story about Bush's claims about Iran wrong.]

[UPDATE: This Saturday there will be an anti-war meeting at the Maywood Public Library.]

The people voted against the war…
Tell the new Congress…

“Not One Penny More for the War!”

We don’t need Congress to spend another $100 billion for the Iraq War!

We need money to pay our heating and electric bills!
We need money to stop foreclosures!
We need money to stop water shutoffs!
We need money to feed our children!
We need money to pay for medical care!
We need money for jobs and education!

FEBRUARY 17TH has been declared NO MORE $$$$ FOR WAR DAY
It is a national day of coordinated protests across the country to demand that Congress VOTE NO!to any future funding of the war in Iraq

Come and Testify
at a COMMUNITY MEETING

(Congressman Danny Davis has been invited to come and listen. He is a cosponsor of Bill H.R. 508: To Require United States Military disengagement from Iraq)
Saturday – February 17, 2007 – 3:30 PM
Maywood Public Library (Room 202)
121 S. 5th Ave, Maywood Illinois

Bring the bills you can’t pay!
Bring your family!
Bring your determination to stop the endless war spending!

ALSO JOIN US IN WASHINGTON MARCH 17 AND CHICAGO MARCH 20
TO DEMONSTRATE TO END THE WAR AND BRING THE TROOPS HOME

Sponsored by: International Action Center
Chicago Chapter (773) 381-5839

GOV, anti-war activists lobby Emanuel

A group of anti-war activists met with Congressman Rahm Emanuel (January 22) and his legislative director, Luis Jimenez (January 29) to request actions intended to end the Iraq War. Emanuel represents most of Melrose Park in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This entry is based on notes provided by Aaron Dellutri.

Who were the activists?

[About] 20 people showed up, including people from Lincoln Park Neighbors United for Peace, Labor Groups, Progressive Democrats of America, Logan Square Neighbors for Peace, and other groups.

This is Dellutri's summary of the meeting with Emanuel.

The meeting demonstrated the effects of overwhelming opposition to the occupation of Iraq the the 5th district and in the nation. Rahm Emanuel, who had been a supporter of the war, has had to modify his position in response. Unlike his position before the election last November, Mr. Emanuel stated in the meeting that he was committed to supporting the efforts of Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA). Murtha wants to prevent any escalation of the war and to begin a process of redeployment of US troops out of Iraq. However, Emanuel refused to take any position on any effort to cut off funding for continuation of the war past the current fiscal year.

Emanuel said that he would ask Congress to require that the President seek approval for any millitary action against Iran, but he also said that this would not be taken up until after the debate on Iraq. Many of us felt that would be too late. He mentioned, however, that the special appropriation for Iraq includes several billion dollars for moving another fleet into the Persian Gulf, which could be interpreted as a show of force aimed at Iran. He suggested that he intended to expose and oppose this.

These were Dellutri's four talking points.

First, we urge Congressman Emanuel to come out against Bush's planned escalation of the troop level in Iraq.

Second, we suggest that Emanuel consider supporting a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of the year 2007.

Third, we would like to point out that Bush's planned escalation could easily start real war with Iran.

Fourth, we emphasize that the US Occupation of 2007 has already been paid for by the Congress. Since any cutoff in funding will not be felt until 2008, it cannot endanger the troops.

This is a summary of Emanuel's responses to these demands.

Rahm said that he had actually been the one who popularized the term 'Escalation' instead of 'Surge' within the Democratic Party, since it more accurately reflected the nature of the policy Bush wants to implement. Surge, he said, suggested a temporary tactic, but Bush intends to keep the new soldiers in Iraq.

Rep. Emanuel was urged to do something about the cutbacks in health care and other Cook County Services, especially in view of the fact that the war in Iraq is consuming so much of our national resources. Mr. Emanuel mentioned that he had done various things to try and limit the occupation, such as introducing a "Parity Act" which would have forced spending on Iraq to be matched by domestic spending. This bill did not get adopted.

He also mentioned a problem with soldiers who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and have mental difficulties, yet are sent back into combat. He said that he wants to address this problem.

He also said that he did not necessarily want to sign on to the Woolsey Bill HR 508 * as someone mentioned and asked him. He said that he wanted to go by Jack Murtha's plan, and said the best approach was one of re-deployment.

If Congress can't build a majority around a specific alternative to the Bush position then Bush continues to be able to do what he wants. If one was cynical about Emanuel one could suspect him of supporting Bush by failing to build a majority around a specific alternative.

Dellutri included a summary of Murtha's resolution.

1. US forces should be "re-deployed" from Iraq
2. A Quick-Reaction US force should be kept ready "over-the-horizon" to re-enter Iraq if necessary.
3. The US should pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

A couple of the other notes seemed interesting or important to me.

Katy Scott of Millitary Families Speak Out spoke of her son who was badly injured in Iraq. She gave Mr. Emanuel a photo album of her son. He seemed moved as he looked through the album and asked if he could keep it for a while and return it to her.

And Emanuel has this to say about possible war with Iran:

He said that votes would be taken about Iran in due time, but that he believed that Bush did not have the right to go to war with Iran without the explicit approval of Congress.

The follow-up meeting with Jimenez was in Washington, DC.

I started out the meeting with what we thought were our two biggest 'asks'. First, that Emanuel vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, or at least attach conditions to the Bill (such as, this money cannot be used to create Enduring Bases, or this money cannot be used in an attack on Iran). Secondly, we asked that Emanuel officially sign onto Rep. Murtha's House Joint Resolution #18 (which would redeploy troops from Iraq).

The reason we asked Emanuel to sign onto H J Res #18 is that in our previous meeting with Emanuel, Emanuel stated that he was dedicated to following Rep. Murtha's plan for exiting Iraq. However when we looked at the people who had signed on to Rep. Murtha's plan, Emanuel was not there. It was a very signifigant thing that Emanuel said he was with Murtha, so we want this to be a public stance on his part, not just something he says to us. In the meeting with Jimenez, we also thanked Jimenez on behalf of Emanuel, about Emanuel's statement that he was with Murtha.

Staff members are supposed to be completely non-committal unless the member of Congress has taken a position.

Jimenez said, one reason that Emanuel considers it diffcult to vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Bill is because of the way many items are bundled into the bill. Jimenez stated that the Appropriations Bill contains funding not only for the continued occupation of Iraq but also for other projects such as for the Afghanistan occupation, and many Domestic projects as well. Jimenez stated that Bush's strategy of funding the Iraq occupation through Supplemental Appropriations Bills is an inherently and intentionally misleading one.

Emanuel sounds like an enabler. "My spouse behaves badly when drinking, but I can't stop giving her/him money."

Jimenez mentioned that bipartisanship was important to Emanuel.

Bi-partisanship is good in theory, but there are good policies and bad policies. And I'd rather Emanuel advocate for good policies that are partisan than limit himself to worthless policies that are bi-partisan. What's the point of the Democrats having the majority if they still wait for Republican support on any legislation before acting?