Sheehan among 4 convicted of trespassing

By SAMUEL MAULL, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan and three other women were convicted of trespassing Monday for trying to delivery an anti-Iraq war petition to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and refusing to leave.

A Manhattan Criminal Court judge sentenced them immediately to conditional discharge, which means they could face some form of penalty if they are arrested in the next six months, and ordered them to pay $95 in court surcharges.

Sheehan and about 100 other members of a group called Global Exchange were rebuffed last March when they attempted to take a petition with some 72,000 signatures to the U.S. Mission's headquarters across a street from the United Nations.

Prosecutors said they were arrested after ignoring police orders to disperse.

The four were acquitted of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and obstructing government administration. They had faced up to a year in jail if convicted of all counts.

Sheehan, 49, of Vacaville, Calif., lost her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq on April 4, 2004. She has since emerged as one of the most vocal and high-profile opponents of the war, drawing international attention when she camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the war.

The women, calling their campaign "Women Say No To War," had hoped to give the petition to Peggy Kerry, the mission's liaison for non-governmental organizations and sister of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as they had in 2005.

Kerry refused to meet with the women in the presence of Cindy Sheehan and the news media. She testified during the trial that the presentation seemed like a publicity stunt.

The women ignored police orders to leave and were reading it aloud on the sidewalk when police moved in. The women sat on the sidewalk and were carried to patrol wagons.

Sheehan's co-defendants were Melissa Beattie, 57, of New York; Susan "Medea" Benjamin, 54, of San Francisco; and Patricia Ackerman, 48, of Nyack, N.Y.

They Told You So: PAUL KRUGMAN

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times

OP-ED COLUMNIST
They Told You So
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 8, 2006

I’d like to offer some praise to those who correctly predicted the folly of the Iraq war.

Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, "The Cassandra Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers." Among those the article mocked was a "war novelist" named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from Virginia.

The article's title was more revealing than its authors knew. People forget the nature of Cassandra's curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true. And so it was with those who warned against invading Iraq. At best, they were ignored. A recent article in The Washington Post ruefully conceded that the paper's account of the debate in the House of Representatives over the resolution authorizing the Iraq war — a resolution opposed by a majority of the Democrats — gave no coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem prescient.

--MORE--

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions

New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 4, 2006; A04

Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They include not only members of the new House leadership but also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar, both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command -- a part of which is in Spratt's district.

"They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.

Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which would have required Bush to come back to Congress before launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He recalled that extended hearings were held before the Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this time about how we got to get answers before this train leaves the station," Spratt said.

The incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke in support of Spratt's amendment, stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary."

Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."

Skelton went on to note the "extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions and its isolated economic system." He also warned that Bush's postwar strategy must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy."

Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the Appropriations Committee, was among the group that organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed after listening to State Department officials.

He recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action until inspectors from the United Nations completed their work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would pass." It got 72 votes.

Obey said Spratt's amendment was the only approach "that could gather critical mass, and that's what most of us in the caucus settled on."

The number of House Democrats who supported Spratt "was a remarkable achievement," Obey said, "given it meant opposing the president in the wake of 9/11." Obey's district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq, he said.

On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked." That information, she said, came from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had provided to the Senate.

Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of weapons of mass destruction?"

Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how to get out of Iraq."

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a committee with national security jurisdiction, was among the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no history of democratic government in Iraq," that its "economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a great deal of money."

Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?"

Baldwin said recently that she put together her statement after reading public commentary and talking with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."

The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.

"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.

Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of the administration's "rush to war," with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.

Anti-Iraq war Rep. to head House intelligence panel

19 minutes ago

Iraq war opponent Silvestre Reyes will become chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee when Democrats take control of Congress in January, Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi said on Friday.

In choosing Reyes, a former border patrol agent and Vietnam War veteran, Pelosi skipped over two more senior Democrats to head the committee.

The top-ranking Democrat on the panel, California Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), has had strained relations with Pelosi, and the next in line, Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record) of Florida, is a former federal judge who was ousted from that post after allegations of corruption.

Pelosi said of Reyes: "When tough questions are required, whether they relate to intelligence shortcomings before the 9/11 attacks or the war in Iraq, or to the quality of intelligence on Iran or North Korea, he does not hesitate to ask them."

Reyes, a five-term congressman who won reelection in November, is expected to seek more information about the Bush administration's classified programs since the September 11 attacks to gather data on enemies inside and outside America.

The committee has oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency.

Why the U.S. is to blame for Iraq’s nightmare

Escalating violence marks tragic new chapter in the occupation

December 1, 2006 | Page 3

A HORRIFIC attack on Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite neighborhood on the edge of Baghdad, has unleashed a cycle of sectarian retaliation and counter-retaliation that marks a tragic new chapter in the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

The fury and speed with which Shiite militias lashed out following the November 23 attack, targeting Sunni homes and mosques with mortars and machine guns to exact revenge, are telling signs of the degree to which sectarian violence is gripping Iraq.

The sheer scale of the bloodshed has reached the highest levels since the U.S. invasion, according to United Nations (UN) statistics that are based on morgue reports. The October death toll marked an 11 percent increase over September, according to the UN, and November’s is certain to be higher still.

The character of the violence has taken an alarming turn, as well. “Sixty-five percent of all deaths in Baghdad were categorized as unidentified corpses,” according to the New York Times, “the signature of militias, who kidnap, kill and throw away bodies at a rate that now outstrips the slaughter inflicted by suicide bombers.”

U.S. politicians chastise Iraqis for “failing to clamp down on the violence,” “turning their backs on democracy” or some variation on these themes. But the blame for this nightmare lies squarely with the occupiers.

Historically, divisions between Shia and Sunni Muslims had less meaning in Iraq than almost any other country in the region.

It was U.S. occupation forces, not Iraqis, who imposed a sectarian logic on the division of political power in Iraq after the fall of the Saddam Hussein government. Washington’s approach of parceling out power to the leaders of Iraq’s three main ethno-religious groups--Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds--simultaneously allowed the U.S. to play the sides against one another and unleashed a sectarian dynamic that has now taken on a life of its own.

“There was no civil war in Iraq until we got there,” journalist Nir Rosen told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! “And there was no civil war in Iraq, until we took certain steps to pit Sunnis against Shias... “What we’ve managed to do is not only destabilize Iraq, but destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. This is going to spread for decades. The region won’t recover from this for decades--and Americans are responsible.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THAT’S WHY in spite of the conflicts and violence, there is one demand that the vast majority of Iraqis agree on--that U.S. forces should leave Iraq, and sooner rather than later.

Seven out of 10 Iraqis want U.S. troops out within a year, according to a September opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (immediate withdrawal was not included as a possible response).

Among Baghdad’s Shiites, who have generally held a more positive view of U.S. forces, not a single one surveyed in this latest poll wanted the U.S. to stay “until the security situation improves.” At the beginning of this year, more than half of Baghdad’s Shiites said yes to this option.

In the face of ever-increasing hostility to U.S. forces, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki finds himself walking a tightrope.

Maliki was scheduled to meet George W. Bush in Jordan this week, but Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who controls one of the largest blocks of seats in the Iraqi parliament, has issued an ultimatum--that if Maliki goes ahead with the meeting, Sadr will withdraw his support for the government in parliament.

That could well lead to the collapse of Maliki’s administration--and potentially turn Sadr’s powerful Mahdi Army militia from a prop upholding the Iraqi government into one of its most powerful foes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DESPITE THE clear rejection of the Iraq war by U.S. voters in the midterm congressional elections, the Bush administration still talks about finding a way to “win” in Iraq--including the possibility of a “surge option” that would increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000.

No less than three separate strategy evaluations are underway--a Pentagon review, a National Security Council study and the deliberations of the Iraq Study Group headed by Bush family fixer James Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton.

It’s obvious why U.S. war planners want to stay--oil. Years of scheming are coming to a head in December with the deadline for new legislation to govern Iraq’s oil sector.

“The whole point is a new oil law--which is in fact a debt-for-oil program concocted and imposed by the International Monetary Fund,” reports Asia Times commentator Pepe Escobar. “This is the point of the U.S. invasion--a return on investment on the hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money spent. It’s not war as politics by other means; it’s war as free-market opening by other means--full U.S. access to the epicenter of the energy wars and the perfect geostrategic location for ‘taming,’ in the near future, both Russia and China.”

The U.S. agenda for Iraq has always centered on this goal, and the Democratic Party, though it benefited this election from the strategic blunders of the Bush administration, has always shared the commitment to that agenda.

That’s why Sen. Barack Obama’s recent proposal for an “exit strategy,” on closer inspection, doesn’t sound like an exit strategy at all.

Obama called for “a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.”

But he stressed that the timetable shouldn’t be “overly rigid,” that the U.S. “should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground,” that “redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels,” and that “it could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger.”

In other words, Obama includes enough qualifications in his “exit strategy” to keep the U.S. in Iraq indefinitely.

Whether it is pushed by a liberal Democratic star like Obama or a centrist Democrat like Rep. John Murtha, redeployment isn’t designed to end U.S. intervention in Iraq or the rest of the Middle East, but to find ways to continue intervention from a safe distance--safe, that is, for U.S. troops.

In fact, one little-noted aspect of the various redeployment plans is increased reliance on U.S. airpower in Iraq itself--a surefire recipe for many more Iraqi casualties, not fewer.

Every day that the occupation continues means more violence, a greater threat of civil war and worsening conditions for ordinary Iraqis. The U.S. has to get out of Iraq--immediately and unconditionally.

This is the demand that the antiwar movement needs to champion in order to connect with the sentiment of large numbers of Iraqis and Americans alike.

The plans for a national antiwar mobilization in Washington, D.C., on January 27 will be a welcome opportunity for everyone opposed to the occupation to take a public stand. Opponents of the war can start to mobilize for January 27 now--and begin to reach out to a new audience with local organizing initiatives.

The politicians of both parties want to come up with a “new course” in Iraq that won’t end the occupation, but repackage it. Our stand has to be for the U.S. to get out of Iraq now--not in a year, not in six months, but now.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/611/611_03_Iraq.shtml

How war losses are attributed to "stab in the back" anti-war activists

Nov 28, 2006

The stab in the back in Europe 1918, China 1949, Vietnam, and Iraq


Everyone in Germany in 1918 knew that they had the best army in the world. Everyone in Germany knew that peace with Russia would release thousands of soldiers to the Western Front. Everyone in Germany knew that the Americans had too small an army to make a difference. Then Germany was defeated, her armies in full retreat, her homeland threatened with invasion. The only reason that made sense was treachery at home. The mighty invincible German military was "stabbed in the back" by pacifists, defeatists, Communists, and Jews at home. (The fact was that the German army was bled white and had no way to repulse the fresh American troops who went "over the top" and because they didn't know the German army was the best in the world, beat it.)

When China was taken over by Mao and the Communists in 1949, everyone in the US knew that the only way our policy could have lost and our ally Chiang Kai-Shek defeated was by treachery at home. Our policy-makers were the best and brightest in the world, we had just won World War II, and so Communists, pinkos, and fellow-travelers had to have sabotaged our efforts. (The face was that the Chinese preferred their own brand of dictatorship rather than one supported by foreign powers, and it wasn't long before China broke with the USSR's supervision.)

Current myth-making about the war in Vietnam has been expressed by GW Bush when he said, "We will win unless we quit." After General Westmoreland's strategy of American dominance in the war seemed to have failed, Vietnamization was the order of the day. This meant supporting the efforts of the government and army of South Vietnam to fight their own battles and win their own war. But just as we were on the verge of victory, defeatists at home sabotaged this effort and we ended up withdrawing our troops, assuring a Communist victory. (The fact is we won every battle, including the Tet offensive, but nevertheless could not win the war. The Vietnamese had been struggling for independence at least since 1918 when Ho Chi Minh as a student in Paris was turned down at the Versailles peace meetings for self-rule for Vietnam, and weren't about to give in now).

We see this same thing happening with regard to Iraq, that we can just win if we hang on and don't listen to the negative thinkers who actually are undermining our troops' morale and efforts. But consider this: We won the war against Saddam, but we are losing the peace. To win the peace we need to declare victory in the war and withdraw our troops. Our presence in Iraq cannot help the situation and can only hurt it. Primum non nocere (First, do no harm).


--By ceratotherium