As the war becomes more deadly, costly and counter-productive each day, a growing majority of citizens want to see a change of course in Iraq and U.S. foreign policies that better reflect American values.

With mid-term elections approaching, Peace Action's Peace Voter 2006 campaign will bring the occupation of Iraq and other key foreign policy issues to the forefront of the electoral debate.

We will put our elected officials on record on critical peace and security issues and demand their commitment to a more responsible foreign policy for our country.

By making peace the top priority in 2006, you can make a big impact at the local level, helping to build a powerful movement of people willing to organize for peace on Election Day, and beyond. This November, let's hold Congress accountable to the rising tide of public opinion that's urging an end to the war in Iraq and a new direction for U.S. relations with the world.

Become a Peace Voter today.

1100 Wayne Ave. Ste 1020, Silver Spring MD 20910 (301) 565-4050 www.Peace-Action.org

Become a Peace Voter:
Take the Pledge Today!

Print the Pledge

to use
in your community.

Register to Vote

Pasta for Peace

Hoosiers for Peace requests the honor of your presence…

What: Share Sunday Gravy with Local Progressives at Pasta for Peace. Good Food, Stimulating Conversation, Inspirational Music, Film, and Art and a Silent Auction. Did we mention the pasta was shaped like peace signs? To reserve your seat, call 202-9302 or e-mail heather@hoosiersforpeace.org. Seats are limited and going fast.

When: June 25, 2006 from 1 to 4 p.m. (with dinner at 2 p.m.)

Where: Indianapolis Peace and Learning Center (6040 DeLong Rd.) in Eagle Creek Park.

Why: Now is the time to spread the word to mainstream America to unite and stand up for peace. Hoosiers for Peace is sponsoring a statewide advertising campaign, which is focused on uniting the community to call for peace. This campaign will cost $14,000. This money will be used to pay for a full-page ad in the Indianapolis Star to ask more than 700,000 Hoosiers to call for peace. To find out more visit www.hoosiersforpeace.org

Cost: Adults $20, Children 5-12 $7, Children under 5 eat free. All proceeds will go towards the advertising campaign. Seats are limited, contact Heather for tickets today: 202-9302 or e-mail heather@hoosiersforpeace.org.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.  -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

May 7, 2006

Dear Peacemakers,

Will you help to spread and encourage peace? With a record number of American soldiers dying in April 2006 and possible military action against Iran becoming daily news, now is the time to spread the word to mainstream America to unite and stand up for peace.

Hoosiers for Peace is sponsoring a statewide advertising campaign, which is focused on uniting the community to call for peace. This campaign will cost $14,000. This money will be used to pay for a full-page ad in the Indianapolis Star to ask more than 700,000 Hoosiers to call for peace. We are contacting dozens of organizations to make a proposal to form a coalition to raise funds and send a collaborative message to Hoosiers to Call for Peace. The message is: Call your friends, your family, and your representatives and ask them to support the Call for Peace.

Like most Americans, we oppose war based on the following, which will be reflected in the advertisement:

A. War Kills. More than 2,400 American Soldiers have died and nearly 1,000 Hoosier soldiers are in harms way.

B. War depletes our resources. Billions of dollars are going to sustain war efforts while ordinary citizens struggle for social services.

C. War will not make us secure. Studies have shown that the U.S. is no more secure today than it was before 911.

Hoosiers for Peace, a website sponsored by Progressive Indiana, requests your support to make this advertisement a success. We will use the advertisement to call for peace. Each group in the coalition working on this project will be listed in the ad. Each group will be asked to raise $1000 by October 1, 2006. Below are some suggestions for fundraising:

1. Letter Writing Campaign: Contact your family and friends and ask them to support this call for peace. Tell them how many people we can reach and ask them to make a generous donation and spread the word. You may collect the money through your organization or you may refer them to Progressive Indiana. Donations may be sent through our secure online giving by going to www.progressiveindiana.org and click on donate now or log onto www.hoosiersforpeace and click on donate now. Checks may also be made payable to Progressive Indiana and mailed to:

Progressive Indiana

P.O. Box 55253

Indianapolis, Indiana 46205-0253

2. Host a house party. Go grassroots and organize a pasta dinner or backyard barbecue and ask for a donation from each guest. Play poker and donate half of each pot to the campaign for peace. Have a bake sale through your church or place of employment.

3. Plan a small event. Invite your community to an event and ask for donations for the ad. Small concerts, speakers, and socials are some ideas for these events. Get creative and network!

We need at least 14 groups to join the coalition and many more people to join the campaign to help fill in possible gaps. If we join together we can make this happen and we can bring Hoosiers together through this ad. As we Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, and call for an End to the War we can stand united for peace. We can make a difference by showing ordinary Hoosiers that there are many people like them working for peace. Please contact us as soon as possible if you would like to participate in this campaign. With a little work and collaboration we can make a large impact on our community.

In Peace,

Heather Allen-Garde

Director, Hoosiers For Peace

heather@hooisersforpeace.org

heatherreneeallen@yahoo.com

317/202-9302

It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it – Eleanor Roosevelt

About the Author

Dr. David C. Korten has authored numerous books, including When Corporations Rule the World, and The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism. He is a co-founder and board chair of the Positive Futures Network, which publishes YES! A Journal of Positive Futures; founder and president of The People-Centered Development Forum; an associate of the International Forum on Globalization; and a member of the Club of Rome. A former Harvard Business School professor, Air Force captain, and USAID advisor, he has more than thirty years experience living and working in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. He also serves on the boards of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute.

David Korten

Butler University

June 26, 2006

7pm

Reilley Room

Atherton Hall

Suggested Donation is $5.00

For more information

Click here

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Sign the ACLU's Petition against torture!

We demand our country back.

The Not Your Soldier Project gives youth the tools we need to stop the military invasion of our schools and our communities.

Not Your Soldier Action Camps bring together young people who are heavily targeted by military recruitment. At the camps, youth learn how to take action to fight military recruitment, the poverty draft, and the corporations that profit off of war.

In 2006, Not Your Soldier will be hosting a national camp for youth and adult allies.

>>Go to the Pick a Camp section to find out more!

If you're interested in hosting a regional Not Your Soldier gathering, find out more here.

Not Your Soldier National Days of Action are coordinated days of creative, non-violent direct action where youth take leadership and tell recruiters, "We are Not Your Soldiers!"

>>Sign up for our action alert e-mail list!

Parents: have questions? Check out Info for Parents, and our FAQ's to find out what the camps will be like.

Today's News and Views

Dozens of volunteers in the Indianapolis area convened at Veterans' Memorial Plaza on flag day 2006 to remember the 2,500 American soldiers lost in the illegal and immoral Iraq war. Their message was clear: "2,500 dead - not one more!"	As of flag day 2006, the Bush Administration has sent 2,500 American soldiers to their death serving in Iraq. Veterans For Peace Indianapolis, along with other local volunteers, planted one flag for every dead soldier at Indianapolis' Veterans' Memorial Plaza in a gesture of reverence and respect for their ultimate sacrifice in this illegal and immoral war.	The volunteers gathered to plant 2500 American flags at Indianapolis' Veterans' Memorial Plaza (one for every American soldier killed in Iraq) on flag day 2006 have one central message: War isn't working.

Veterans for Peace, along with other volunteers, planted 2500 flags at Indianapolis' Veterans' Memorial Plaza. Each volunteered under the flag of peace.	Each of the 2500 flags planted into the ground at Indianapolis' Veterans Plaza represents an American soldier's ultimate sacrifice for their Country. Each flag represents an unnecessary death, soldiers sent to die in an immoral war dictated by the Bush Administration.	Veterans For Peace Communications Director Harold Donle addresses the crowd amidst a sea of American flags adorned with black ribbons; each one representing a U.S. soldier whose life has been lost during the war in Iraq.

A Special Thanks to Shawn Plew for these photos -Harold, ed.

Here is another photo array of the flag action on June 14th from the Agitator in Fort Wayne, IN, Dave Lambert -Harold, ed.

House rejects Iraq pullout deadline

By Vicki Allen

2 hours, 12 minutes ago

In a vote charged with election-year politics, the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed a symbolic resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal.

The House voted 256-153 largely on party lines for the resolution that sparked two days of emotional debate as Republicans sought to depict Democrats as weak on terrorism while Democrats decried President George W. Bush's policies that they said led to chaos in Iraq and detracted from the fight against al Qaeda.

"Will we fight or will we retreat? That's the question that's posed to us," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican. "Defeating repressive radical terrorists and their allies is our defining task of the 21st century."

But in impassioned debate, Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Democrat, erupted in anger at Republicans who advocated continuing the fight in Iraq.

Murtha, a Vietnam veteran and defense hawk who rocked the Congress last year when he turned against the war, said it was "easy to stay in an air-conditioned office and say I'm going to stay the course." He added, "That's why I get so upset when they stand here sanctimoniously and say we're fighting this thing. It's the troops that are doing the fighting."

Bush has seen his popularity plummet this year largely because of the war, and Republicans are hoping to avoid being dragged down by the conflict in November elections that will determine control of both chambers of Congress.

The Senate prepared to debate Iraq next week after Republicans forced a vote on Thursday on Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry's amendment to withdraw U.S. forces by this year's end.

With Democrats blasting Republicans for the maneuver, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to put aside the measure which allows Kerry to bring it up again next week for full debate.

A large group of Senate Democrats also was working on an amendment to the defense policy bill for a troop withdrawal starting this year, but without a deadline for completion.

In the House, many Democrats called the Republican resolution a sham that tried to connect the Iraq war with the September 11 attacks, even though no such links have been established.

The nonbinding resolution that has no force of law declares that the United States will prevail in the war on terrorism and declares that it is not in the national interest to "set an arbitrary date to withdraw or redeploy U.S. forces" from Iraq.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California called it "an affirmation of the president's failed policy in Iraq."

But Republicans portrayed a vote against their resolution as a vote against winning the war on terrorism.

This vote is "sending a message about what they believe America's capable of doing, and about whether the global war on totalitarianism is worth fighting," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

With mounting public discontent over the war that so far has caused 2,500 U.S. military deaths, some Republicans acknowledged errors were made, but that the United States must stay to stabilize Iraq.

"To be sure mistakes have been made in Iraq, from pre-war intelligence to de-Bathification, to the destructive events of Abu Ghraib, but these mistakes should not stop us from our goal," said Rep. Charles Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican.

"There's no question Iraq is a petri dish for terrorists now," said Republican Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia.

Forty-two Democrats crossed lines to vote for the resolution, while three Republicans voted against it.

Records: Press aide knew online chat risks

1 hour, 47 minutes ago

In Internet and phone chats with someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl, a Department of Homeland Security press aide talked about underage sex, boasted about his job and called President Bush a "liar," according to transcripts released by prosecutors.

Brian Doyle, 56, of Silver Spring, Md., acknowledged his chat room pal — "Ashlynne" — could be a police officer "trapping" him, according to about 400 pages of records released this week. Undercover Polk County sheriff's detectives posed as the girl.

Doyle allegedly wrote that "law enforcement is very good at this ... i have soooo much to lose ... despite your denials that it was rape ... they would prosecute me. and i would go to prison."

Doyle resigned from his job shortly after his April 4 arrest on charges of trying to solicit sex with an underage child. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $230,000 bond. If convicted on all counts, he could be sentenced to life in prison.

Doyle's lawyer, Barry H. Helfand, said Thursday he hadn't seen the court records and couldn't comment on them. He said Doyle is seeking psychological counseling.

The transcripts say Doyle wrote to the fictitious girl: "hey it is illegal ... and it would be exciting and forbidden ... you are young — illegal — and gorgeous. and it would be great. fun. food, laughter, talk and yes sex."

The transcripts also quote Doyle as saying he met Bush, adding, "nice guy but not a good president ... he is not very bright and it is evident ... bush is a liar ... there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. total lie to go to war."

After Doyle's arrest, he told detectives he wasn't attracted to children but had explicit conversations as a "kind of a power trip," documents show. He said he never intended to meet with the girl.

June 16, 2006

Flag Burning Amendment and Desecration Bill Reveal Troubling Priorities

Filed under: News and politics — thatsnotchristian @ 2:20 pm

"The American flag deserves every protection that we can afford, and I assure you that under my leadership this Congress will do everything it can to protect it," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

No, Mr. Frist, the flag is most certainly not what deserves every protection you can afford. Much as we may admire it, the flag is a political symbol, a piece of fabric, a thing. Jesus never said, "Honor thy flag". He never said, "Love one another's political symbols".

As a self-labeled Christian, Bill Frist should know better what Christ would say "deserves every protection that we can afford": the sick, the elderly, the poor, the needy, the children, and our essential natural resources. For goodness' sake, Congress has bigger fish to fry, and ought to be working nose-to-the-grindstone until it finds a way to stop massive disasters that will affect Americans just a teeny bit more than flag burning: Have you heard the latest on what unchecked global warming could do to us all through the thawing of something terrible called "permafrost"?

Yet, if you check out the voting records of Mr. Frist, you'll find that he tends to vote to provide every protection, affordable or not, to large corporations and to symbolic wedge-issues like this one, in order to appease the most illogical but vocal part of his political base. Actions speak louder than words about one's true priorities.

The flag-burning amendment, like its cousin the flag-desecration bill, won't do anything to help anyone, but they can certainly divide America one more weary time.

Jesus didn't waste his time and breath on superficial issues. The closest he came to even addressing law-and-order specifics was when he told his followers to pay their taxes (give Caesar what is Caesar's) and to avoid taking people to court–though even these lessons were, biblical commentators have explained, based on both spiritual and quite practical concerns. See "Jesus on Parenting" for more on why Jesus advised his disciples to avoid dangerous rebellions toward powerful parties, even when those parties were known to be in the wrong and/or corrupt.

But the crux of the matter, and one that you no doubt have considered, is that this frenzy regarding a piece of fabric and what can and cannot be done with it (if burning it isn't okay, what about waving a frayed, dirty one on your pickup truck, or wearing it under your chin? I saw a doctor in the ER on Memorial Day sporting a flag tie, and with a few soup stains on it, it certainly does not inspire respect) reflects a flag-as-sacred mentality.

This mentality reveals what lies in the hearts of many rightwing politicians and religious pundits beneath their Christian veneer. What they ought to be worried about are the kinds of things that Jesus would be worried about, like the killing of 2500 young Americans and (very conservatively) 25,000 Iraqi human beings in the service of a sinful and unwinnable war, or the poverty in America that's growing by the day such that many children cannot eat a full meal except Mon-Fri during their school lunch, or the lack of health insurance that dooms so many Americans to unnecessary suffering and early death.

Instead, politicians like Bill Frist and Orrin Hatch, both of whom claim to be Christian, are focused on pointless "non-problems" (as Utah's other Republican Bob Bennett terms the flag-burning issue) rather than the serious problems that Jesus taught us to care most about in our communities. And that's not Christian!

BLOGGED BY Brad ON 6/14/2006 6:54PM

Congresswoman 'Apologizes' for Not Taking Allegations of Stolen 2004 Election Seriously!

Was it Stolen? 'Only Answer is Yes,' says Schakowsky who Claims DCCC to Announce Steps Soon to Avoid 'Repeat Performance'

EXCLUSIVE: Complete Text of Prepared Remarks from today's 'Take Back America' Conference…

I just got off the phone with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) who reportedly wowed 'em a few hours ago during her speech (posted in full below) on the closing afternoon of the "Take Back America" conference being held in Washington D.C.

In her remarks, Schakowsky apologized for "not taking seriously enough the allegations that the 2004 election was stolen." She now feels it was, and claims that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) will be launching an initiative. From today's speech:

I apologize for not taking seriously enough the allegations that the 2004 election was stolen. After reading Bobby Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone, "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?", I am convinced that the only answer is yes. He documents how 357,000 Ohio voters, the vast majority Democrats, "were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted…more than enough to shift the results." Watch for the DCCC to take some very public steps in the near future to ward off a repeat performance. In the meantime, there needs to be a citizens' effort starting now to assess the machines, the ballots, the registration process within each and every election jurisdiction in each and every swing district and state, in the case of Senate races. Where the situation looks perilous, go to the media, raise a stink, demand changes. This is a great project for the many of you who have been diligently working to guarantee fair and accurate elections.

Raise a stink? Can do. So can you! Sign Velvet Revolution's petition declaring "No Confidence" in the Busby/Bilbray race!

(Hat tip to my buddy Peter B. Collins, who is in DC to cover the conference, for his quick phone call alert after Schakowsky's speech earlier this afternoon!)

Schakowsky's prepared statement from today's Take Back America conference speech follows in full…

TAKE BACK AMERICA CONFERENCE - June 14, 2006

Remarks of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

My topic today is "Closing the Deal." Closing the deal. I believe that on November 7, Democrats can be in the majority in the Congress - both Houses. And I believe that the activists and leaders who are here today can make it happen. I am optimistic - cautiously optimistic.

At long last, nearly everyone in our country sees what we've seen for a long time. Let's just tick off a few of the problems of their own making that the Republicans face, beginning but not ending with the calamitous war in Iraq. During the time of this panel - one hour - your tax dollars will have contributed to the $11 million the U.S. spends in Iraq every hour - 24/7. And between Iraq and Afghanistan , the equivalent of one battalion of soldiers (600) is killed or injured each month. Move on to gas prices, heating costs, unaffordable health care, the Medicare Part D disaster. Katrina, Guantanamo Bay, Halliburton, Abu Ghraib; college tuition, the NSA spying on everyone (and proud of it), tax cuts just for the Paris Hiltons, drilling in ANWR, global warming, the 9/11 Commission failing grades, Dubai ports deal, stagnant or falling wages, everyone around the world hates us, Jack Abramoff, relentless attacks on women's reproductive rights, labor unions, affirmative action, gays and lesbians, civil rights and civil liberties. You know, after a while it starts to add up. These guys have got to go.

It's no wonder the President's approval, even after getting al Zarqawi, continues to slip. I don't know if Bush is the worst President in history. I'm not an expert on the Presidents. As far as I know, there may have been less intellectual Presidents. There may have been more incompetent Presidents or one or two with worse judgment or more reckless or less curious. I don't know about Chester Arthur or Millard Fillmore. Herbert Hoover was certainly delusional about the economy and James Polk allegedly manufacturing the war with Mexico.

But it never mattered as much as it does now. The decisions of the President of the United States, you know, the Decider, have never been more consequential than they are today. While military misadventures of the past certainly claimed many innocent lives, it is only in recent times that the result could be worldwide death and destruction. There may have been Presidents more contemptuous of science, though I doubt it. But nothing else ultimately matters if our planet becomes incapable of sustaining human life. Even the most upscale gated communities can't protect him and his friends. In the most profound ways, this President and his rubber stamp Congress are proving that elections really do matter.

You would think that the real question is how can we lose? The answer is we've already proven it can be done. Even when we win, we lose. Fool me once…or whatever the President tried to say. This is no time to play the fool. We need to close the deal. Our challenge, particularly the challenge of the progressives and activists here at this great conference, is not crafting the overarching thematics of the campaigns. Fortunately, the big theme is change, and the goal to put this failed President on every ballot, so far, seems to be working.

For us, it must all be about execution.

1) First, we must not allow the Republicans to steal the election-again.

2) We have to mobilize the voters who are already with us, and run picture perfect, aggressive, leave no voter behind GOTV, Get Out the Vote campaign.

3) We have to persuade the persuadables. (I'll go more into each of these.)

4) We have to travel. I'll tell you about the Committee of 100 in my district.

5) We need to keep our eyes on the prize - beating the Republicans.

1) Stealing: I apologize for not taking seriously enough the allegations that the 2004 election was stolen. After reading Bobby Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone, "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?", I am convinced that the only answer is yes. He documents how 357,000 Ohio voters, the vast majority Democrats, "were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted…more than enough to shift the results." Watch for the DCCC to take some very public steps in the near future to ward off a repeat performance. In the meantime, there needs to be a citizens' effort starting now to assess the machines, the ballots, the registration process within each and every election jurisdiction in each and every swing district and state, in the case of Senate races. Where the situation looks perilous, go to the media, raise a stink, demand changes. This is a great project for the many of you who have been diligently working to guarantee fair and accurate elections.

2) GOTV: "Intensity equals turnout." That is one of the political truths that we must NOT rely on. The Republicans learned about grassroots organizing from us and learned it well. We must count on their willingness and capacity to drag out their voters. There is a reason that they are throwing red meat at their base - Constitutional Amendments on same-sex marriage and Flag burning, and demonizing immigrants. They are attempting to motivate and mobilize their base voters. They also successfully targeted individual Republican voters in Democratic precincts, not just relying on larger demographic data. Their operation was often more sophisticated than ours. But we know how to do mobilization. It's grassroots, door-to-door campaigns that enable us to beat them on the ground. Air strikes - radio and TV, just get you so far; the personal contact drives home the point. As great as job as we did in 2004, we need to do it more and better.

3) PERSUASION: In 2004, the Republicans left no constituency untouched. Their goal was to shave off just enough points from Jewish voters or Hispanic voters. For the first time, they won the majority of Catholics. Why did we lose Catholics? They had a Catholic strategy, and we didn't. I'm told that Karl Rove met with selected Bishops and lay leaders on a weekly basis. Millions of "Voter Guides for Serious Catholics" were distributed both inside churches and, if that wasn't an option, outside the churches. It says, "This voter's guide identifies 5 'non-negotiable' issues and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices. Candidates who endorse or promote any of the 5 non-negotiables should be considered to have disqualified themselves from holding public office, and you should not vote for them." "It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions: 1. Abortion 2. Euthanasia 3. Fetal Stem Cell Research 4.Human Cloning 5. Homosexual "Marriage." Who produced and paid for the distribution of these Voter Guides? Religious leaders? Forget it. This campaign was run by political operatives, armed with political money to defeat John Kerry and other Democratic candidates.

Well, we know how to produce voter guides. We know how to pass out voter guides. I'm no expert on Catholic teachings, but I didn't see anything here about poverty, or health care or the dignity of work. Shame on us when we don't compete at all.

4) We have to travel. If you live in a safe Democratic district like mine, you need to consider every candidate in every winnable district as our candidate - at least adopt one or more of those candidates as your own. Let me tell you about an effort I'm helping build in my district called the Committee of 100. It started in 2004 with a group of activists, many first time activists, who called themselves the Kerry Travelers. Since Illinois was solidly blue, we were able to send over 1200 people to various cities in Wisconsin to go door-to-door for John Kerry, helping to put him over the top. No moping for them after the November election. They created the Committee of 100, 100 people who each agreed to contribute between $100 and $250 to a Congressional candidate and go work in a swing district - mine being blessedly safe. We just met last Sunday. So far they have recruited 200 people and are aiming for 1,000 by election day. Representatives from the campaigns of 4 Democrats running for Congress in Illinois came and made pitches for their candidates. Canvass days were announced for each of them, and people signed up to travel to their districts. Much of the organizing for the Committee of 100 takes place on the internet, but this is no virtual community. You can do it too, and my young political director, Alex Armour, would be happy to help you get started.

5) Finally, we all need to resist, as hard as I know it is at times, griping about the Democrats, one, because it's takes time away from the real work of defeating the Republicans, and two because it's counterproductive, demoralizing the very people we need to be engaged and enthusiastic. I am not necessarily talking about staying away from primaries. I refer to the time spent complaining about this or that performance, how we're not tough enough, we're not articulate enough, we are too wishy-washy. I agree that those critiques are often true. But keep in mind this one thing. Right now we are winning! We are not doing everything wrong.

I refer you to an article in the May Washington monthly by Amy Sullivan, called "Not as Lame as You Think, Democrats learn the art of opposition." Let me read just a few lines. "…the truth is that Newt Gingrich and the Contract loom so large - and today's DC Democrats seem so small - largely because of the magic of hindsight. Back in 1994, Republicans were at least as divided as Democrats are now, if not more so…As for unity of message, the now-revered Contract with America didn't make its debut until just 6 weeks before the election." She goes on to say that "On virtually all of the major slips this White House has made in the past year, there have been unnoticed Democrats putting down the banana peels." She gives as an example the Dubai port deal. "If you read the press coverage of the story, you would have thought the issue surfaced on its own. In fact, however, the story was a little grenade rolled into the White House bunker by Sen. Chuck Schumer…who had been tipped off by a source in the shipping industry." After it became a story, the President went on TV and asked the American people if they really thought he would support any deal that would pose a threat to our country. And Americans answered with a collective, "Yeah."

When someone starts griping to you, remind them we are winning and ask them to think of one good idea the Republicans have come up with. But if you just have to vent, pick a griping buddy and do it late at night or early in the morning when you are not working on winning.

Let me end with this. On Memorial Day, there was a Washington Post political cartoon by Tom Toles reprinted in the Chicago Sun-Times. It shows an old military veteran reading a newspaper with the banner headline that reads Security Bungle, and articles including Domestic Spying, Data Lost, Official Lying, America Loses Its Friends, and Inequality Growing. The Veteran is saying, "My country's identity has been stolen." I love this country. I know that what motivates you to be here at this conference, and to do what you do back home is a love of our country and its promise of justice and freedom, unfulfilled though it may be. This is a room full of patriots - true patriots, the real patriots. I DO feel as if our American identity has been stolen, but I believe that working with you we can, beginning in a mere 5 months, Take Back America.

The Iraq Non-Debate

Rep. Maxine Waters

June 15, 2006

Maxine Waters represents California's 35th congressional district in the House of Representatives.

For months, the 72-member "Out Of Iraq" congressional caucus , which I chair, has called for a full and honest debate on the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Members of our coalition have long pushed for a legitimate opportunity to debate the administration’s misleading and inaccurate pre-war statements, the abysmal way the war has been conducted and the mounting costs in both human lives and scarce federal dollars. Only through an open debate, in which members are permitted adequate time to speak and offer relevant amendments, would the U.S. be able to develop a coherent plan to bring its soldiers home.

Several weeks ago, we were encouraged by news that the Republican leadership in the House had scheduled such a debate. In a press briefing, John Boehner, the Republican Majority Leader said, “We are the people's house, and serious issues of the day ought to be debated here in the House” and announced that the debate would take place today, Thursday, June 15.

Unfortunately, the majority leader had not been completely forthcoming about his true intentions. When the terms of the debate became public, it turned out that what they had planned was anything but a substantive debate that is representative of “the people.” Simply put, HR 861, the legislation offered by the majority for purpose of this debate, is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing, election-year pat on the back for an embattled president and a majority Republican party poised to lose control of the House of Representatives. The script for Thursday's so-called debate has been playing out since the attacks on 9/11. Once again, Republicans will make every attempt to conflate the “global war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq—even after it has been repeatedly proven that there were no direct connections between Iraq and al-Qaida. In fact, all that these issues have in common is how badly the administration has bungled them.

Additionally, Republicans will accuse Democrats of wanting to “cut and run,” essentially abandoning the Iraqi people to bear the brutal insurgent attacks. They will call us unpatriotic and say that we do not support the U.S. troops—men and women whom the Bush administration has unjustifiably sent into harm’s way. All of these accusations are hollow diversions meant to prevent the American public from focusing on the fact that President Bush and congressional Republicans have failed to strengthen our homeland against another terrorist attack.

The president’s decisions leading up to and during the war have failed our men and women in uniform and the American people, and Congressional Republicans have endorsed every single decision by using its majority status to pass legislation perpetuating these mistakes. Republicans have turned a blind eye to the administration's failure to adequately plan for the invasion, failure to properly equip our troops with body armor and adequately armored Humvees and to Halliburton’s excessive waste and fraud. While at the same time, year after year, they have passed divisive resolutions that commend the administration and give the White House a blank check to fund its bungled efforts.

A true debate on Iraq would address these issues and the dozens of others surrounding the invasion. Instead, Americans, especially the brave men and women who have paid the ultimate price—the 2,500 U.S. soldiers who have died and the more than 18,400 injured—are being denied their right to a thoughtful, pointed discussion of efforts to continue to bring them home.

When the time came to have that debate, it is the Republicans who decided to “cut-and-run.” We have no doubt that the public will see this election year ploy for what it is—an attempt to give Republicans cover going into November and to halt the nose-dive in the president’s approval rate. The American people should have full accounting for the United States' botched policies in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform deserve a consistent voice—not motivated by political gain—that will fight to bring them home, and members of the "Out Of Iraq" Caucus will use their time on the floor to raise these issues regardless of opposition from the Republican leadership.

Posted on Thu, Jun. 15, 2006

House members draw party lines in debate on Iraq

By Jonathan Weisman
WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON - Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House on today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Republican leaders are moving quickly to capitalize on the past week's good news out of Iraq and trying to force Democrats on the defensive.

A memo from House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, urged House Republican members Tuesday to make the debate "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats."

After Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., was booed this week by liberal activists for her failure to resolutely oppose the war, Republicans hope to present a united front that highlights the fractures in the Democratic Party.

"As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world," Boehner wrote.

But the daylong debate will also give voice to some GOP members' misgivings about Bush administration policy -- and years of congressional support for it -- in an election year when Iraq will be a central issue.

The news of recent days has buoyed Republican spirits, but the party is still saddled with a war that remains deeply unpopular and is imperiling its continued control of Congress.

Some House Republicans have complained that their party has taken flight from its responsibility to debate and oversee administration policy.

The last time Iraq dominated the House's attention, the issue was far less politically fluid. In October 2002, many Democrats went along with Bush's resolution of force, fearing the political consequences of opposing a popular president and a bellicose national mood.

Now, some Republicans -- especially those representing battleground districts in the Northeast and Midwest -- will be swimming against the tide of public opinion.

Already, the resolution itself -- declaring that the United States will complete the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq and will prevail in the global war on terror -- has attracted strong criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

Democrats and antiwar Republicans object to the linkage between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, while some Republicans have said it sets unrealistic goals.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., a supporter of the war, called the resolution "strategically nebulous and morally obtuse."

But the strongest misgivings may be practical. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., called the entire exercise "a dumb idea" that will highlight precisely the issue that is threatening Republican political fortunes.

"When the country is war-weary, when the violence is still playing out on TV, I don't know why we want to highlight all that," he said.

But GOP leaders are trying to make sure today's debate is on Republican terms. The resolution, "declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror (and) the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary," was introduced with unabashed partisan overtones.

The rules of debate will not allow the resolution to be amended, nor will alternative resolutions be allowed on the floor for a vote.

Some war opponents, sensing a political trap, vowed Wednesday not to participate. Five House members -- three Democrats and two Republicans -- held a news conference with a yellow rope tied around their hands to denounce the terms of debate.

"This is nothing more or less than really a charade," said Rep. Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C., who made headlines in the run-up to the Iraq invasion by changing french fries to Freedom fries in the House dining room but has since turned strongly against the war.

June 13, 2006

House Approves $94.5 Billion for Iraq War and Katrina Aid

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:24 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As President Bush sought to bolster support for the Iraq government by appearing with its leaders in Baghdad, the House on Tuesday approved an additional $66 billion for military operations there and in Afghanistan.

When combined with earlier bills, the House-Senate compromise brings the tally for the three-year-old war in Iraq to about $320 billion. Operations in Afghanistan have now reached about $89 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The House Appropriations Committee approved another $50 billion for the war for the budget year starting Oct. 1. That should be enough to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through early next year, when Bush is expected to request more funds.

The $94.5 billion measure also provides funds for hurricane relief, bird flu preparations and border security at home.

The bill, which passed by a 351-67 vote, had only minimal debate Monday night.

Democrats said the huge cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan missions is being handled on the installment plan, hiding the cost from the public.

''In 18 separate actions, we will now have spent $450 billion on this adventure,'' said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. ''This is a huge expenditure for a misguided war.''

''This bill ensures we give (U.S. troops) all of the equipment and resources necessary to successfully fight and win the Global War on Terror,'' said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The bill contains almost $20 billion to further deal with the hurricane devastation along the Gulf Coast. Much of the money would go to Louisiana for housing aid, flood control projects and a new veterans hospital in New Orleans.

It also provides funding for small-business disaster loans, rebuilding federal facilities and replenishing Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster-relief coffers.

The Senate is to clear the measure for Bush's signature Thursday. The big margin in the House reflected lawmakers' support for U.S. troops overseas despite whatever reservations they may have about the war in Iraq and its $8 billion per month cost.

''How on earth has the monthly cost of the war in Iraq grown so much in just two years?'' asked Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. ''The Bush administration announced that major combat operations ended in May of 2003. But the costs of the war continue to spiral.''

The Iraq and hurricane relief measure's legislative odyssey began in February as a $92.2 billion request by Bush. He subsequently added $2.2 billion in Louisiana levee projects and $1.9 billion for a border security initiative featuring the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.

The House largely stuck to Bush's demands when passing its version back in March. But the Senate, led by Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., responded with a $109 billion measure that drew a veto threat from Bush for add-ons such as $4 billion in farm disaster aid, $648 million for port security and $1.1 billion in aid to the Gulf Coast seafood industry.

House negotiators killed a controversial Senate project to pay CSX Transportation $700 million for a recently rebuilt freight rail line along the Mississippi coast so the state could use its path for a new highway. The project had earned scornful media coverage and protests from the White House and conservative activists.

Although the measure sticks with Bush's demand of $94.5 billion -- including $2.3 billion to combat avian flu -- lawmakers cut back money for FEMA's main disaster fund for additional grants for Mississippi, Texas and Alabama and a new Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, Miss.

The FEMA disaster relief fund would still receive $6 billion, which includes $400 million for temporary housing sturdier than FEMA trailers. The funds also go toward debris removal, reimbursing state and local governments for infrastructure repairs and direct aid to individuals.

The compromise bill includes Bush's plan to provide 1,000 more Border Patrol agents along the Mexican border, deploy about 6,000 National Guard troops and build detention space for 4,000 illegal immigrants.

The bill contains $4 billion in military and foreign aid for Iraq and other allies and to combat famine in Africa and Afghanistan and support U.N. peacekeeping missions in Sudan.

The House approved the Iraq funds as Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill scrambled to unify behind a position on Iraq.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other senior Democrats were not quick to embrace Sen. John Kerry's proposal to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by year's end. Rather, several Senate Democrats said their caucus was discussing Iraq proposals that could get wide Democratic support.

Democratic officials said leaders are trying to build consensus around a proposal that would call for the redeployment of troops to start -- but not necessarily end -- this year.

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said: ''I think just a naked date, without it being attached to what our plan as to how you would succeed in leaving something better, would not be the most appropriate way to go.''

In the House, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and her lieutenants were discussing a possible alternative war resolution to one GOP leaders were calling up for a vote Thursday.

GOP leaders appeared set on choreographing the debate to maximize support for the GOP resolution, which asserts that the United States will prevail in the war on terrorism and praises U.S. troops. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he didn't think Democrats would be permitted a vote on an alternative.

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., called the GOP resolution a ''mom and apple pie'' proposal that was hard to vote against. ''The resolution as worded, there's not much to disagree with,'' he said.

The Name Is Kafka . . . Franz Kafka

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, June 16, 2006; A25

"So put aside your Captain Crunch decoder ring," recommends the Central Intelligence Agency, "for the moment." This is on the Internet site of the CIA's legal department. It's part of a pitch for recruits so startlingly moronic -- even as an attempt at adorable self-mockery -- that you think it must be some subtle comment on the double meaning of the word "intelligence." In good hall-of-mirrors fashion, it's lifted from some book, but the book quotes supposedly real CIA employees. Whatever, this is the agency's self-presentation on its own Web site.

"If the theme music from Mission Impossible runs through your head," it says, "or you get the urge to order a martini 'shaken, not stirred,' at the mention of the letters 'CIA,' '' -- why, then, you're just the kind of lawyer we want!

"We've been a major player in developing the law of national security vs. the First Amendment," the agency deadpans. "Or the Fourth Amendment. . . ." When "Americans [abroad] come across on our screen, they've got constitutional rights we've got to think about . . . . Or electronic surveillance . . . . In areas like that, we're helping to create the law, and that's a real rush."

And it's all true. The CIA is in the forefront of efforts to make sure that democracy, individual rights and stuff like that don't get in the way of our crusade for the spread of democracy, individual rights and stuff like that.

For years, all the intelligence agencies have been tussling with the American Civil Liberties Union over documents about the innovative Bush administration policy of locking people up in foreign countries where they can be tortured without the inconvenience of anyone knowing about it or bringing up, you know, like, the Constitution. It is not yet clear -- though there is little reason for optimism -- whether the courts will let them get away with it, but the official position of the executive branch under President Bush is that the U.S. government can lock you up anywhere in the world, torture you and tell no one about it. And if someone does find out and starts talking trash like "habeas corpus" or "Fourth Amendment," too bad: It's all okay under the president's inherent powers as commander in chief. Congress -- unbeknownst to Congress -- approved it all in its resolution shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, urging the president to fight terrorism. And the president deputized the CIA and other agencies to go forth and use this authority, in documents that you can't have and that may or may not exist.

In a twist fully worthy of Kafka, or at least Joseph Heller ("Catch-22"), the very suspicion that bad things are going on is a reason you can't find out. As a CIA legal document explains: "CIA confirmation of the existence of [evidence] would confirm a CIA interest in or use of specific intelligence methods and activities." After all, the agency gaily reasons, the "CIA would not request . . . authorization from the president for intelligence activities in which it had no interest."

Meanwhile, in another federal court, the ACLU has been arguing with the National Security Agency about the wiretapping of international phone calls to and from the United States. The 1978 intelligence reform law made clear as cellophane that these agencies had no authority to wiretap citizens of this country and in this country without permission from a judge. So clear, in fact, that the president doesn't deny that his wiretapping program violates the 1978 law. Instead, he says that Congress overruled that law in its 2001 resolution to oppose terrorism. That, plus the usual inherent powers of the presidency.

What's more, government lawyers say, they can prove all this. Or at least they could, but they can't, because the evidence must remain secret for national security reasons. And what are those reasons? Well, the reasons why the reasons why the program is okay are also secret. And without this evidence, there cannot be a trial. Sorry.

It's true that you and I are not being grabbed on the streets and sent to a former secret police torture-training camp in Godforsakistan. Nor is the government eavesdropping on your international phone calls or mine. Probably. Because I like you, I'll forgo the usual ominous warning about how they came after him and then they came after her and then they came after you. I'll even skip the liberal sermonette about how even bad guys have rights.

But your rights and mine are not supposed to be at the whim of the government, let alone the president. They are based in the Constitution and the willingness of those we put in power to obey it -- even as interpreted by judges they may disagree with. The most distressing aspect of this story is the apparent attitude of our current rulers that the Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome -- by conducting dirty business abroad or by wildly disingenuous interpretations of laws and the Constitution.

Just look at what these supposed worshipers at the shrine of "strict constructionism" and "original meaning" have done to the 2001 anti-terrorism resolution. Did any senator who voted for this resolution have any idea that he or she was, in essence, voting to repeal all the protections for individuals against government agency abuse that Congress enacted in 1978?

The fact that there are countries in this world where the government can torture people in secret and without fear of courts is supposed to be a tragedy -- not a convenience.

African-American Voters Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List

Published by Greg Palast June 16th, 2006 in Articles

Massacre of the Buffalo Soldiers
by Greg Palast
As reported for Democracy Now!

Palast, who first reported this story for BBC Television Newsnight (UK) and Democracy Now! (USA), is author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse.

The Republican National Committee has a special offer for African-American soldiers: Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.

A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority precincts.
Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by Republican operatives to a non-party website.

One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.

*******
For Greg Palast’s discussion with broadcaster Amy Goodman on the Black soldier purge of 2004, go to http://gregpalast.com/armedmadhouse/palastDN6-14-06.mp3

*******

Here’s how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, “Do not forward”, to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as “undeliverable.”

The lists of soldiers of “undeliverable” letters were transmitted from state headquarters, in this case Florida, to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters’ registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted.

One target list was comprised exclusively of voters registered at the Jacksonville, Florida, Naval Air Station. Jacksonville is third largest naval installation in the US, best known as home of the Blue Angels fighting squandron.

[See this scrub sheet at http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=160156893&context=set-72157594155273706&size=o ]

Our team contacted the homes of several on the caging list, such as Randall Prausa, a serviceman, whose wife said he had been ordered overseas.

A soldier returning home in time to vote in November 2004 could also be challenged on the basis of the returned envelope. Soldiers challenged would be required to vote by “provisional” ballot.

Over one million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 race were never counted; over half a million absentee ballots were also rejected. The extraordinary rise in the number of rejected ballots was the result of the widespread multi-state voter challenge campaign by the Republican Party. The operation, of which the purge of Black soldiers was a small part, was the first mass challenge to voting America had seen in two decades.

The BBC obtained several dozen confidential emails sent by the Republican’s national Research Director and Deputy Communications chief, Tim Griffin to GOP Florida campaign chairman Brett Doster and other party leaders. Attached were spreadsheets marked, “Caging.xls.” Each of these contained several hundred to a few thousand voters and their addresses.

A check of the demographics of the addresses on the “caging lists,” as the GOP leaders called them indicated that most were in African-American majority zip codes.

Ion Sanco, the non-partisan elections supervisor of Leon County (Tallahassee) when shown the lists by this reporter said: “The only thing I can think of - African American voters listed like this - these might be individuals that will be challenged if they attempted to vote on Election Day.”

These GOP caging lists were obtained by the same BBC team that first exposed the wrongful purge of African-American “felon” voters in 2000 by then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Eliminating the voting rights of those voters — 94,000 were targeted — likely caused Al Gore’s defeat in that race.

The Republican National Committee in Washington refused our several requests to respond to the BBC discovery. However, in Tallahassee, the Florida Bush campaign’s spokespeople offered several explanations for the list.

Joseph Agostini, speaking for the GOP, suggested the lists were of potential donors to the Bush campaign. Oddly, the supposed donor list included residents of the Sulzbacher Center a shelter for homeless families.

Another spokesperson for the Bush campaign, Mindy Tucker Fletcher, ultimately changed the official response, acknowledging that these were voters, “we mailed to, where the letter came back - bad addresses.”

The party has refused to say why it would mark soldiers as having “bad addresses” subject to challenge when they had been assigned abroad.

The apparent challenge campaign was not inexpensive. The GOP mailed the letters first class, at a total cost likely exceeding millions of dollars, so that the addresses would be returned to “cage” workers.

“This is not a challenge list,” insisted the Republican spokesmistress. However, she modified that assertion by adding, “That’s not what it’s set up to be.”
Setting up such a challenge list would be a crime under federal law. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlaws mass challenges of voters where race is a factor in choosing the targeted group.

While the party insisted the lists were not created for the purpose to challenge Black voters, the GOP ultimately offered no other explanation for the mailings. However, Tucker Fletcher asserted Republicans could still employ the list to deny ba

Indianapolis

Baghdad

Caracas

Tehran