Notice: the Cape Cod Today Folks asked us NOT to post more than 2 x a week!
Why not protest in a time of declared war, especially when that war was unprovoked? And, yes, I do think this administration is repeating the mistakes of the Viet Nam conflict. Of course, as veterans (am I going too far to assume you are a vet?) we know that no one has more interest in peace, today or any other time, than the soldiers who go to work, risking life and limb, when it fails. As for the message our demonstrations send, there I must beg to differ with you as I will differ another time about the soldiers fighting being an "all voluntary" force.
I was in Afghanistan, OEF IV, on a mission I was proud to undertake--the hunt for Bin Laden. Mere months after the invasion of Iraq, even after the officially touted, "End of Combat Operations"; we saw our logistical support drying up, being diverted to Iraq. It came to the point where we were running short on fuel, parts, even ammunition. Still, we managed to carry on. My unit participated in numerous Combined Arms Operations, missions planned to apprehend or terminate key leaders in Al Qaeda. Each time, despite flawless execution of our operations, we came up empty handed. By the end of my rotation, I was informed through my chain of command that those Combined Arms Operations were merely shows of force. As if that wasn't enough, there were other instances when one of these key leaders was located in or around Kabul. Rather than mobilize an Army Special Forces team that was less than an hour away, the Pentagon deferred the target to SEAL teams that were several hours away. Needless to say, by the time they got there, the target was no longer on site.
This is the kind of incompetence and dishonesty that turned me against this administration. As a former member of the Armed Forces, with fifteen years of service, I am very patriotic and concerned with the security of my nation and the safety of my fellow Americans. However, I have come to feel that it is the actions of our government, more than our ideology that has steeled our enemy against us. Four years after the invasion of Iraq, we have not established security in Iraq despite numerous troop increases. We have yet to make more than a dent in improving the infrastructure in Iraq or providing jobs for the population. Furthermore, by proposing an economic plan that would give 80% of Iraqi oil revenue to US companies, our administration is demonstrating its economic agenda towards Iraq, and perhaps its true motivation for invading the country in the first place.
Regardless of your views of September 11th, the fact remains that Iraq was not involved in that attack. This administration intentionally manipulated or created intelligence to deceive the American people and Congress into supporting an invasion of Iraq. Subsequent investigations and numerous testimonies have confirmed this. We were told that once Hussein was captured, we'd leave. That was also a lie. We were told our forces would withdraw once stability was established in Iraq, yet coalition forces have participated in the perpetuation of instability. (With this I refer to the British soldiers, SAS that were caught in the process of planting explosives in a Shia neighborhood while dressed in Sunni garb, driving a civilian vehicle loaded with explosives and carrying no identification. This is widely documented by a variety of foreign media sources but was swept under the rug by US media and spun outright by the British media. Where one Special Forces team was caught, it is not a far leap to believe more were in play.)
In a time of global extremism, moderate positions are more conducive to compromise and therefore peace. Instead of arbitrarily accepting that our enemies hate us for our freedoms, perhaps we should look to our actions as instigation of their animosity. Imperialism and terrorism are opposing forces that rarely exist exclusively of one another. Imperialistic governments rely on propaganda to provide public support for their agendas. Often, as is documented, state-sponsored terrorism is used to create the fear that suppresses the question of governmental reports and press releases. When dissent is suppressed, then democracy is effectively snuffed--the people no longer have a voice and are no longer served by the government.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall, Luft Waffe Commander, testimony from the Nuremburg Trials after WWII.
The signs that were carried by the Eagles rang of the very kind of propaganda rhetoric that Goering was speaking about. When the population blindly accepts the propaganda of its government, the rationality of the people is called into question and hope for peaceful resolution of conflicts with that nation is lost. When hope for peace is lost, violence is the only course remaining. That is why I feel justified in my opinion that sending more troops and insisting on "Staying the course" is fueling the violence against our troops--getting more and more of them killed without reason.
How many times have we been told that we're "Bringing Democracy to the people of Iraq"? Well, my question is, how can we bring Democracy to others when it is a struggling notion here at home? Democracy is based on the discussion of differing ideas to find a compromise that meets the needs of the majority of the people. When those who have ideas that differ from those of the administration are demonized, insulted, and assaulted, that represents a clear suppression of the freedom of speech, the refusal of our elected representative(s) to acknowledge the concerns of the people. While we're talking about the people and Democracy, let's remember that there is a definite and distinct difference between one's country and one's government. Our Fore Fathers knew this very well. They took a stand for what was best for our country, against the government at that time. Similarly, but hopefully peacefully, we take a stand against our government, to demonstrate that there are plenty among the US population that retain our wits about us, despite the anger, fear, and hate the administration's propaganda machine is churning out upon us. It is now our charge to make our concerns known and take a stand for what we believe is best for our nation, not the government or its wealthy elite cohorts.
Going back to the "mistakes of Viet Nam" discussion, the propaganda our government is churning out now rings the same sentiments that were conveyed then. Back then we were told of the dangers our withdrawal would hold: That the fight against Communism would find its way here, that South Viet Nam would be thrust into bloody chaos--spilling the blood of thousands of innocents. Those threats did not come to bear. We did not fight Communism on US soil and Viet Nam found its own stability soon enough, later to become a normalized trading partner with the US and a forgiving member of the global community. The people of Viet Nam, even under Communist influence, were able to find their own way through and returned to their cultural roots. Similarly, if we withdraw from Iraq, they will find their own way through this. Eventually, likely sooner than later, they will form a governmental system that suits their needs and culture, not the economic desires of US corporations. From my point of view, no economic interest or political agenda warrants the loss of our precious human lives.
How can you justify flying POW/MIA flags, making a statement against a government that left its soldiers behind then, only to show support for a government that is willing to do the same. The Bush administration will not even fund the only national memorial to our service members who have lost their lives since September 11th, the "Faces of the Fallen" memorial. That memorial has been entirely privately funded and is only temporarily housed in the Women's War Memorial at the Arlington National Cemetery. A rendering of a friend of mine is displayed there.
Such is the true nature of this administration--they would leave us behind. This administration has repeatedly cut funding to the Department of Veteran's Affairs. More are being turned away and denied treatment or disabilities fur injuries sustained in this war. Like in Viet Nam, those suffering from PTSD are not receiving adequate treatment.
Why are the flag-draped coffins of our fallen not greeted by veterans when they return home anymore? Why does the administration refuse to consider the human cost of war? In stead of "no child left behind", we need a "no service member left behind" policy. With great power comes great responsibility. If our government is not willing to take care of its soldiers, then we should end the war. Total power corrupts totally. There are only two solutions to a corrupt government--regime change or protest. Which would you prefer???
Afghan_Vet
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
CC&I Peace Community Letters
I Can’t Take Any More, That’s Enough!
Reading the paper and watching the daily news can be deadly when it comes to feeling light hearted and disengaged. Just a couple of days ago yet another friend confessed she’d had enough. “The war is too depressing, the news is dreadful and I can’t stand to hear his voice one more time,” she said, referring to our president. “That’s it.. Enough! I’m tuning out!!” she added with great conviction.
Picture what it would be like to go into Cronig’s to buy some coffee and while you’re mulling over what brand to buy a bomb goes off and kills half the shoppers in the store. Or how about getting your car finally parked in the ferry and you are just settled into the newspaper and a cup of coffee upstairs when a suicide bomber blows up the ship. As bad as all of that is, picture the fact that Iraqi is in a relentless daily state of horrific chaos that doesn’t go away. They and our soldiers are dealing with this terrifying situation constantly.
I was out of the country during 911 and watched with horror on CNN in
It is true many of us have lived safe privileged lives. And now since we have had a brief encounter with the fear and uncertainty of our safety and that of our families it is doubly important to pay attention to where that takes us. Are we going to hide out and let some one else handle our problems or are we going to finally rise up and take a stand. The big question that always gets asked as we lead up to another election is this.. Has George Bush made us safer? No, is the answer. And we are all to blame for allowing our country to get into the mess that it is in. But it may not be too late. I was heartened by the many thumbs up and that’a boys that the three of us got demonstrating against the war recently at 5 corners. And only one guy gave us the finger! Is that progress or what? The Vineyard is a tiny place and in the whole scheme of things what happens at 5 corners has no consequence to anyone, except perhaps to make those out there feel better. But what does matter is when the vast sea of grandfathers and grandmothers from the 60’s once again hit the big streets and bombard congress with letters, emails, and phone calls to demand our country back. Remember the huge demonstrations against Vietnam.. WE need to wake up, get up, and lead, not follow. We need to let our voices be heard for the safety of our children and grandchildren.
With that said, I invite you to an Impeachment march in
It is finally time to say THAT IS ENOUGH!
Marnie Stanton
Vineyard Haven
Press Release
Press Release
CONTACT:
John J Bangert
Phone: (508) 432-0545
veterans4peace@comcast.net
http://capecodpeacecommunity.blogspot.com
CAPE & ISLAND PEACE COMMUNITY PLANNING BUSES for MARCH on PENTAGON!
HARWICH,
There will be three convenient pickup locations. Buses will leave from
LOCAL CONTACTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Mid-Cape: John Bangert (508) 432-0545
Mattapoisett: Luther Damon Howard (508) 758-4012
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Riding a runaway train
There's a hairpin curve in the train tracks at Altoona, Pennsylvania, where passengers on the train actually get to see the engine pass as it rounds Horseshoe Bend. In my mind's eye, I see US citizens as passenger's on such a train, watching and crying out in horror as the train heads for disaster and the three locomotives at the head of the train, symbolizing the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government, allow it to rush full speed ahead. Terrorized passengers cannot be numbed by the crisis or placated by non-binding resolutions of disapproval. They have to apply the emergency brakes.
Legislative Branch
Judicial Branch
Imagine- 3 Branches of government working together to change the course in Iraq!
There are 50 other passengers car on this train for each 50 states. From the web cam in the Massachusetts car, I don't see our own Congressman Delahunt or many of the MASS delegation, applying the brakes. We must help them. That's was thier message from the majority of voters in November 2006.
Those in our delegation that have joined the Out of Iraq Caucus to slow this wreck are Rep. Marty Meehan and Rep. Ed Markey, who have taken the pledge to cut off funding now! We need Bill Delahunt is part of the Out of Iraq Caucas, but has yet to sign and publish his pledge to cut off funding.
There can be no delay in taking action. There are individual brakes on railroad cars, and passengers must pull them in unison. The road map calls for the cutting off of funding because the first "decider engine" is out of touch and out of control.
It's back to March on the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. in 10 Days time to remind Congress about the election results!
Editor -John J. Bangert
PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL
FUNDING FOR THE IRAQ WAR†
I, Rep. William Delahunt, pledge to vote against the supplemental spending measure that President Bush will seek in 2007 from Congress to fund the war in and occupation of Iraq. I will take leadership in getting other Representatives to also vote against the supplemental.
Signed: _________________________________________________
Date: _________________________
Antiwar Caucus Wants to Be Heard Now
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: March 4, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 2 — About a dozen members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus gathered on a sunny day last summer on the terrace outside the Capitol for a news conference. The only problem: no reporters showed up.
The members of the group, made up entirely of House Democrats, cracked jokes among themselves before heading back inside, chalking it up as another failed attempt to get noticed.
“I had 30 press conferences where no one showed up,” said Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat who leads the 75-member caucus in the House.
Now, with a change in power in Congress and a new military strategy to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the members of the group — most of them liberals — are suddenly much in demand, finding themselves at the center of the debate over the war.
Yet even with a majority of Americans opposing the war, the caucus is struggling to overcome its fringe image and is becoming increasingly frustrated by what its members say is the Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to heed their calls for decisive action to the end the war.
At the same time, though the members are united in their desire to bring American military involvement in Iraq to a speedy end, they are still debating the best way to do so. In that sense, they reflect the broader struggle among Democrats in Congress, who have been unable to coalesce around a single position on how strongly to confront President Bush over the war.
House Democratic leaders this week seemed to back away slightly from a proposal by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to limit Mr. Bush’s latest supplemental spending request for the war. Mr. Murtha’s proposal would have required strict readiness for troops sent to Iraq, essentially limiting the president’s ability to follow through on his plan to deploy an additional 21,500.
Mr. Murtha’s conditions were favored by caucus members, though it has come under fire from Republicans who labeled it a “slow bleed” strategy. The proposed strategy has also run into opposition from conservative House Democrats, who argue that their concerns need to be taken seriously because they helped deliver the Democratic majority in the midterm elections. The Murtha proposal, they said, would leave the party vulnerable to charges of abandoning troops.
“My concern, representing the state where we’ve got the highest percentage call-up of guard and reserve in the country, I want to make sure Congress does not do anything that hamstrings troops on the ground,” said Representative Jim Matheson, a Utah Democrat who is a member of the Blue Dogs, a coalition of party moderates and conservatives.
Democratic leaders have responded to critics by floating a new plan that would allow Mr. Bush to waive the readiness standards, a possibility that has left many of the party’s vocal left wing unhappy. About 30 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus met Thursday to plot strategy. They warned that they might vote against any supplemental bill that did not more strictly limit the president’s options, a vote that could prove embarrassing for a Democratic leadership trying to preserve a fragile majority.
“Nothing is going to happen unless we use the power of the purse,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York. “It’s time to draw a line in the sand.”
The House minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said Republicans would oppose any measure that “restricts the president’s ability to win the war in Iraq.”
Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, a co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, is drafting an amendment that would allow financing only to protect American troops in Iraq pending a full withdrawal under a set timetable.
Assuming the supplemental bill is unsatisfactory to the caucus, war opponents are discussing whether to threaten to vote against it when it comes to a vote in the House floor in mid-March, unless the House leadership also permits a vote on the amendment from Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee said her goal was to shift the discussion to a “fully funded withdrawal” from “cutting off funding.”
“There’s a distinction between cutting off funding and using the funding to begin a speedy and secure withdrawal within a specific timeframe,” she said.
Created as an offshoot of the Progressive Caucus in the summer of 2005, the Out of Iraq group began with about 50 members. Its slow climb began when Mr. Murtha, an influential lawmaker and Vietnam veteran, unveiled his first plan calling for redeployment of troops in late 2005.
“The Out of Iraq Caucus grabbed onto Murtha,” Ms. Waters said. “Don’t forget, we were considered liberals and/or progressives that did not present a real threat to the administration, or even to the leadership.”
Suddenly, though, they had Mr. Murtha’s backing. The group’s numbers have since swelled, and now include a third of the Democratic majority.
The roster includes nine House committee leaders. Also among its membership are Representative George Miller of California, a trusted confidant of Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, and Representative John B. Larson of Connecticut, the vice-chair of the Democratic Caucus and the only member of the leadership in the group.
But many members rarely attend meetings. Some of its active members are lawmakers who play easily into Republican characterizations of some Democrats as peaceniks far from the mainstream. Ms. Lee was the lone dissenting vote in Congress against the resolution authorizing the president to use force to respond to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill with Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio (also a caucus member), and others to create a cabinet-level office called the Department of Peace.
With such a large tent, caucus members are hardly uniform in their views. Some are pondering whether they should simply continue to be patient. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, who heads the influential Ways and Means Committee, said he was not sure how he would vote on the supplemental measure.
He called the war “morally wrong” and said “it goes even beyond the brutality of slavery and the lynchings.” At the same time, he said, Democratic leaders must be careful to carve out a consensus path.
Governing as a majority requires compromise, said Representative James P. Moran of Virginia, a caucus member who also sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “Hopefully we don’t have to compromise too much.”
Friday, March 2, 2007
Occupation Project
Voices for Creative Nonviolence is organizing the Occupation Project, a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding.
We invite your participation and your organization’s endorsement. To become involved with this campaign, please contact us via phone at 773-878-3815 or via email, occupationproject@vcnv.org. We also encourage you to sign up for the project using our sign-up form.
Read the campaign’s foundational document: The Occupation Project: A Campaign of Sustained Nonviolent Civil Disobedience to End the Iraq War
Participating Organizations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)