Cape Cod & Islands Peace Community

BOYCOTT DUNKIN' DONUTS

2008-06-02T10:22:00.002-04:00

Boycott Dunkin' Donuts! Click Here and Tell A Friend!

Dunkin’ Donuts has capitulated and withdrawn an advertisement for its products following the allegation by a right-wing hack, Michelle Malkin, that the spokeswoman in the ad was pictured wearing a kaffiyeh, a scarf which is a staple of clothing traditionally worn by Palestinian men.

The scarf pictured in the ad is not actually a kaffiyeh. But the anti-Arab racism of the right-wing, pro-Bush ideologues like Malkin is so extreme that they launched their campaign because they “thought” the scarf was this traditional Arab garment. Dunkin’ Donuts pulled their ad apologizing that the scarf might even resemble a kaffiyeh.

1. Review the message on the right.
2. Complete the form below with your information.
3. Click the Send Your Message button to send your letter to the following places:
1) Jon Luther, CEO, Dunkin Brands, Inc.
2) Dunkin Donuts Corporate Offices

I am outraged at your decision to stop running a commercial based on the possible perception that it contained an Arab kaffiyeh. Until your company issues an official apology for yielding to anti-Arab racists, I am boycotting all of your products and stores -- and I'm encouraging all my friends and family members to do the same.

I also am aware that by supporting your products I am directly funding one of the many consumer unfriendly corporate owners, The Carlyle Group., knowing what I know now I will not spend another dollar in your Dunken Donuts or other retail outlets.

Here's what an October 31, 2001 Guardian story had to say about the Carlyle Group:

It should be a deep cause for concern that a closely held company like Carlyle can simultaneously have directors and advisers that are doing business and making money and also advising the president of the United States," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit-making Washington think-tank. "The problem comes when private business and public policy blend together. What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and causes policy changes there? Or when James Baker helps argue the presidential election in the younger Bush's favour? It's a kitchen-cabinet situation, and the informality involved is precisely a mark of Carlyle's success. [...]

But what sets Carlyle apart is the way it has exploited its political contacts. When Carlucci arrived there in 1989, he brought with him a phalanx of former subordinates from the CIA and the Pentagon, and an awareness of the scale of business a company like Carlyle could do in the corridors and steak-houses of Washington. In a decade and a half, the firm has been able to realise a 34% rate of return on its investments, and now claims to be the largest private equity firm in the world. Success brought more investors, including the international financier George Soros and, in 1995, the wealthy Saudi Binladin family, who insist they long ago severed all links with their notorious relative. The first president Bush is understood to have visited the Binladins in Saudi Arabia twice on the firm's behalf. [...]

But if the Binladins' connection to the Carlyle Group lasted no more than six years, the current President Bush's own links to the firm go far deeper. In 1990, he was appointed to the board of one of Carlyle's first purchases, an airline food business called Caterair, which they eventually sold at a loss. He left the board in 1992, later to become Governor of Texas.

WIKIPEDIA CARLYLE FACTS: Political figures

North America

* George H. W. Bush, former U.S. President, Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003.
* George W. Bush, current U.S. President. Was appointed in 1990 to the Board of Directors of one of Carlyle's first acquisitions, an airline food business called Caterair, which Carlyle eventually sold at a loss. Bush left the board in 1992 to run for Governor of Texas.
* James Baker III, former United States Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush, Staff member under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Carlyle Senior Counselor, served in this capacity from 1993 to 2005.
* Frank C. Carlucci, former United States Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1989; Also, former Princeton wrestling partner of former US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Carlyle Chairman and Chairman Emeritus from 1989 to 2005.
* Richard Darman, former Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George H. W. Bush, Senior Advisor and Managing Director of The Carlyle Group from 1993 to the present
* Randal K. Quarles, former Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President George W. Bush, now a Carlyle managing director
* Allan Gotlieb, Canadian ambassador to the United States (1981-89) and member of Carlyle's Canadian advisory board.
* William Kennard, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle's Managing Director in the Telecommunications & Media Group from 2001 to the present.
* Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2001 to the present
* Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2003 to the present
* Dan Senor - political consultant
* Peter Lougheed - Premier of Alberta (1971-85)
* Luis Téllez Kuenzler, Mexican economist, current Secretary of Communications and Transportation under the Felipe Calderón administration and former Secretary of Energy under the Zedillo administration.
* Frank McKenna, Canadian ambassador to the United States and former member of Carlyle's Canadian advisory board

Europe

* John Major, former British Prime Minister, Chairman, Carlyle Europe from 2002 until 2005

Asia

* Liu Hong-Ru, former chairman of China's Securities Regulatory Commission
* Anand Panyarachun, former Prime Minister of Thailand (twice), former member of the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board until the board was disbanded in 2004
* Fidel V. Ramos, former president of the Philippines, Carlyle Asia Advisor Board Member until the board was disbanded in 2004
* Thaksin Shinawatra, deposed Prime Minister of Thailand, former member of board, who resigned on taking office in 2001

Middle East

* Shafig bin Laden, older brother of Osama bin Laden

Media

* Norman Pearlstine - editor-in-chief of Time magazine from (1995-2005)
Enough Said?

Marines Press to Remove Thier Forces From Iraq

2007-10-11T06:36:00.000-04:00

October 11, 2007

By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.

The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.

The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.

As described by officials who had been briefed on the closed-door discussion, the idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.

At the moment, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so American forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 marines among the 160,000 American troops there.
It is not clear exactly how many of the marines in Iraq would be moved over. But the plan would require a major reshuffling, and it would make marines the dominant American force in Afghanistan, in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq.

Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.

It is not clear whether the Army would support the idea. But some officials sympathetic to the Army said that such a realignment would help ease some pressure on the Army, by allowing it to shift forces from Afghanistan into Iraq, and by simplifying planning for future troop rotations.
The Marine proposal could also face resistance from the Air Force, whose current role in providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan could be squeezed if the overall mission was handed to the Marines. Unlike the Army, the Marines would bring a significant force of combat aircraft to that conflict.

Whether the Marine proposal takes hold, the most delicate counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan, including the hunt for forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, would remain the job of a military task force that draws on Army, Navy and Air Force Special Operations units.
Military officials say the Marine proposal is also an early indication of jockeying among the four armed services for a place in combat missions in years to come. “At the end of the day, this could be decided by parochialism, and making sure each service does not lose equity, as much as on how best to manage the risk of force levels for Iraq and Afghanistan,” said one Pentagon planner.

Tensions over how to divide future budgets have begun to resurface across the military because of apprehension that Congressional support for large increases in defense spending seen since the Sept. 11 attacks will diminish, leaving the services to compete for money.

Those traditional turf battles have subsided somewhat given the overwhelming demands of waging two simultaneous wars — and because Pentagon budgets reached new heights.
Last week, the Senate approved a $459 billion Pentagon spending bill, an increase of $43 billion, or more than 10 percent over the last budget. That bill did not include, as part of a separate bill, President Bush’s request for almost $190 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior officials briefed on the Marine Corps concept said the new idea went beyond simply drawing clearer lines about who was in charge of providing combat personnel, war-fighting equipment and supplies to the two war zones.

They said it would allow the Marines to carry out the Afghan mission in a way the Army cannot, by deploying as an integrated Marine Corps task force that included combat aircraft as well as infantry and armored vehicles, while the Army must rely on the Air Force.
The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.
The Marine Corps has recently played the leading combat role in Anbar Province, the restive Sunni area west of Baghdad.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior Army officer in Iraq, and his No. 2 commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, also of the Army, have described Anbar Province as a significant success story, with local tribal leaders joining the fight against terrorists.
Both generals strongly hint that if the security situation in Anbar holds steady, then reductions of American forces can be expected in the province, which could free up Marine units to move elsewhere.

In recent years, the emphasis by the Pentagon has been on joint operations that blur the lines between the military services, but there is also considerable precedent for geographic divisions in their duties. For much of the Vietnam War, responsibility was divided region by region between the Army and the Marines. As described by military planners, the Marine proposal would allow Marine units moved to Afghanistan to take over the tasks now performed by an Army headquarters unit and two brigade combat teams operating in eastern Afghanistan.
That would ease the strain on the Army and allow it to focus on managing overall troop numbers for Iraq, as well as movements of forces inside the country as required by commanders to meet emerging threats.

The American military prides itself on the ability to go to war as a “joint force,” with all of the armed services intermixed on the battlefield — vastly different from past wars when more primitive communications required separate ground units to fight within narrowly defined lanes to make sure they did not cross into the fire of friendly forces.

The Marine Corps is designed to fight with other services — it is based overseas aboard Navy ships and is intertwined with the Army in Iraq. At the same time, the Marines also are designed to be an agile, “expeditionary” force on call for quick deployment, and thus can go to war with everything needed to carry out the mission — troops, armor, attack jets and supplies.

General Petraeus is due to report back to Congress by March on his troop requirements beyond the summer. His request for forces will be analyzed by the military’s Central Command, which oversees combat missions across the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and by the Joint Staff at the Pentagon. All troop deployment orders must be approved by Mr. Gates, with the separate armed services then assigned to supply specific numbers of troops and equipment.

Marines train to fight in what is called a Marine Air-Ground Task Force. That term refers to a Marine deployment that arrives in a combat zone complete with its own headquarters, infantry combat troops, armored and transport vehicles and attack jets for close-air support, as well as logistics and support personnel.

“This is not about trading one ground war for another,” said one Pentagon official briefed on the Marine concept. “It is about the nature of the fight in Afghanistan, and figuring out whether the Afghan mission lends itself more readily to the integrated MAGTF deployment than even Iraq.”

YOUR MISSION IS NOT ACCOMPLISHED !

2007-09-29T14:47:00.000-04:00

Dear Messrs Kennedy, Kerry and Delahunt

Lance Corporal Alexander Arredondo, USMC pictures above, is just one of the 141 New England service men and women who have fallen for a failed republican policy of the Bush Administration.

Alex cannot march with us on Veterans Day in Boston but we will march along his Gold Star parents Carlos & Melida Arredondo and the Veterans for Peace parade.

These American treasures were killed during YOUR watch in Congress! We want you to know that thousands of us will contacting your with letters and cards like this in a campaign, stating our opposition to this war and one that you should have heeded!

Last November 2006, we gave our Mass delegation a mandate to stop the war, and we were serious! When you came back into the district last January 2007, you all promised not to fund the war.

You have all broken your promise to we the people and voters who put you in office. Messer’s Delahunt, Kerry & Kennedy, it is YOU that have failed YOUR mandated mission, which we wanted and needed accomplished! Change your own course and don 't give this Republican failed administration one more death, dollar or day in Iraq!

STOP Funding the Iraq War!

Bring Our Troops Home NOW!

Picture thousands of Massachusetts Progressive Democrats at the your next election standing in our voting booths, NOT VOTING FOR YOU - Congressman William Delahunt, Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator John Kerry unless you heed us and stop funding this war now!

READ THIS BOOK!

2007-05-07T10:24:00.000-04:00

The book Natural Capitalism was used as a text book for a young family friend, Tim Marcella, has helped me with eyes W I D E - O P E N ((0)) ^ ((0)), and showed that .."if we always do what we always did, we will always get what we always got". I want and the world needs a different USA foreign policy and a different president!

As John Lennon said in his 1968 Xmas greeting, War is Over! ....... :) "if you want it"

After hurricane Katrina, I became deeply involved in the work of stopping the occupation of Iraq, by trying to show the human cost of war. Arlington East was one of the fruits of that labor, displaying 2800 grave markers for the fallen on a autumnal day in October 2006, on Cape Cod. With over 215 grave markers for Iraqi children killed as well.

How many US suicides have there been and has it been under reported?
How many US deaths will it take?
How many US wounded? How many Iraqis?
For what ? Oil Profits? Saddam is gone, No WMD! The Iraqis have a new democracy, new leaders. What about the reconstruction and reconciliation. Who running for president cares about this problem?

How many years and what natural resources , and human capital will we squander and for what end?

Millions of refuges from Iraq, the Sub-Sahara, and the whole of Africa are being displaced by war and Global Warming.

How many Iraqi dead or displaced? Millions!

Q. How many Iraqi refuges in Iraq?
Source - Refugees International

A. (RI) Refugees International generates lifesaving humanitarian assistance and protection for displaced people around the world, and works to end the conditions that create displacement. RI website states that... "An estimated 1.8 million Iraqi refugees have fled Iraq since the U.S. conflict began in 2003 and are now living throughout the Middle East, including Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Inside Iraq, 1.7 million people have been internally displaced -- with 600,000 displaced since 2003. Many of these people have fled targeting by insurgents due to their alleged collaboration with U.S. forces and the new Iraqi government. Others are fleeing the growing sectarian violence at home. RI conducted assessment missions to the region in November 2006 and February 2007 to assess this crisis and is working to bring these refugees to the attention of U.S. officials and UNHCR."

Q. What main countries absorbed the Palestinian refuges in 1948?
A. In the Jordan, Syria and Lebanon!

What was the human cost of these wars?

A. Natural Capitalism gave me some strategies to my new understanding of how we can make a better, more peaceful world. It has the way forward toward hope.

In "Natural Capitalism" the authors Amory B. Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, Paul Hawken redefine expendable humanity. The "human capital" shows to us the REAL need for anyone to see how we must can change our thinking from old capitalism to "human focused" Capitalism. A must read for anyone running for President, or voting for President in 2008. This young graduate student of the earth who happens to be in Tern Island, Hawaii studying albatross eggs is my teacher, Thanks Tim!

The Albatross - legendary protector of seafarers - is heading for extinction. Biologists have discovered that swordfish and tuna fishing fleets are eliminating more that 100 000 of these birds every year. In a couple of decades most species will be wiped out unless urgent action is taken. Tim is taking action on Tern Island!

Peacefully yours,
John Bangert

--
Not one more dime!
Not one more day!
Not one more death !
Bring Our Troops Home Now!

Cape Cod Times Letter by Member - Dan Corrigan

2007-05-01T09:24:00.000-04:00

'Our enemies' means Bush's enemies

May 01, 2007 MAY DAY-2007

None of the people America is killing in Iraq are enemies of mine.

When President Bush and his cohorts speak of "our enemy," he's not speaking for me. I've got nothing against any Shiite, Sunni, or Kurdish man, woman or child. When Bush orders these people killed, he's not killing them for me. He might be killing them for his America, but he's not killing for mine, because my America is different from that.

My America would never torture anyone — an America where government serves the poor as well as it serves the rich. My America believes in justice, talking about our differences with other countries and not killing over them, and belief in the rule of law.

Bush's America, however, is a different story.

It may irritate Sen. Inhofe if he heard it, but let me be clear: None of these Iraqis America kills, maims, or totally terrifies are enemies of mine, especially the children. And I apologize as deeply as I can to these victims of Bush's reckless, unchecked greed. I wish I could tell all of Iraq how saddened I am, how ashamed I am of what America has done to them. When will their Bush-caused nightmare ever end? When will ours?

Dan Corrigan

Harwich

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Follow Citizens Impeachment !

2007-04-02T18:20:00.000-04:00

Impeach in Boston on April 28

Public Impeachment of George W. Bush & Richard B. Cheney

at Faneuil Hall

Saturday April 28, 2007, High Noon

Faneuil Hall,

75 State St., Boston , MA 02109

Speakers to include David Swanson, Co-Founder of: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

Park of a national day of events: http://www.a28.org

Sign up here to attend: http://impeachbush.meetup.com/335/calendar/5605491

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Fellow citizens, you are cordially invited to an IMPEACHMENT! It shall be a People's Impeachment, where WE THE PEOPLE shall impeach Bush and Cheney by Public Proclamaton.

Patriotic citizens, we are calling YOU to do your duty on Sat. Apr. 28th at historic Faneuil Hall in the city of Boston, Massachusetts.

Technically, "IMPEACH" means, simply "to bring charge against". And, THAT is precisely what we in Boston intend to do that day by public mandate! April 28th has been designated as a national day of action on impeachment: http://www.a28.org/boston

If the Congress won't do it, then we will! Together we'll show them how it's done.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENT:

We shall gather there at HIGH NOON by the statue of Sam Adams in the public square in front of Faneuil Hall (the birthplace of the American Revolution) to hear charges of impeachment formally and publicly declared against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney.

We the people shall publicly indict them for their persistent abuses of power, their official misconduct and gross negligence while in office, for their numerous violations of the U.S. Constitution and their sworn oaths to uphold it, and last but not least, for their continued violations of international law and crimes against humanity!

See list of charges HERE: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/petition-4.pdf )

When the people have publicly assembled, our Town Crier shall call them to order. The accused (see photo: http://www.backbonecampaign.org/chaingang.cfm ) shall then be made to face their accusers, the betrayed American public, assembled before them.

The Town Crier shall then commence with the public reading of the impeachment charges against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, aloud for all to hear .

We there, so assembled as a People's Committee on Impeachment, shall then be asked to consider the charges against the accused and to vote 'YEA' or 'NAY' whether Bush and Cheney should be charged with the list of crimes read before them. If the vote by the people be 'YEA', then WE THE PEOPLE (on behalf of the citizens of the city of Boston and United States) SHALL at that time DECLARE Bush and Cheney formally IMPEACHED BY PUBLIC PROCLAMATION ratified by a mandate from the people (in accordance with the 1st & 10th ammendments to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of Declaration of Independence)!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO, COME, SPEAK OUT! LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

Come celebrate your independence from those corrupt usurpers power in Washington who everyday shows such contempt for our Constitution and the rule of law in America.

Come join us as we exercise our rights to peaceably assemble and speak out demanding a redress of grievances from the government!

After we the people have stood up and charged this corrupt administation with for the crimes they have committed, then we will have a number of notable speakers on various issues relating to the impeachment charges, and others talking about impeachment activism locally and across the country.We will also invite ordinary members of the public to step up to the podium and declare their personal reasons for stepping up and impeaching Bush and Cheney for their crimes on that day.

So, come BE A PART OF HISTORY! Or, AT LEAST, if nothing else... come be a part of a REALLY FUN, SELF-EMPOWERING STREET PROTEST and (hopefullly) a REALLY GOOD YOUTUBE VIDEO too - that will help inspire others to speak out and take action as well!________________________________________________________

Of course, we will NEED YOUR HELP, if we're going to successfully pull off this creative bit of street theatre. To send a big message, we need a big crowd.
To get a big crowd of people, all standing up and voting to impeach, we need your help in organizing it.

We need help on that day, Sat. Apr. 28th, and before then helping to promote the event and organize other logistics of the event.

If you can VOLUNTEER for the event (and/or know any groups that would like to help co-sponsor the event with us), let us know.

Email us back and sign up at: http://volunteerforchange.org/e/959?refcode=

We are also holding weekly planning meetings, between now and Apr. 28, each Wed. night at 6:30 pm at the Green Dragon Tavern (the pub favored by the plotters of the Revolution) near Faneuil Hall. Further details on the event and upcoming planning meetings will follow soon.

This event is being sponsored by:

Bostonians for the Overthrow of King GeorgeImpeach for Peace - Boston Chapter
http://www.a28.org/boston

Code PinkRaging GranniesWorld Can't WaitProgressive Democrats of America...and others

http://impeachbush.meetup.com/335/calendar/5605491

###

Can a War Hero Love A Peace Hero? Ya Sure You Betcha!

2007-03-22T09:09:00.000-04:00

John Murtha, Hero of the War Protesters
He's Pro-Gun, Likes Pork, But on Iraq, the Legislator Is Firmly in Their Camp

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007;

Gruff, jowly John Murtha wouldn't seem to be a Code Pink kinda guy, what with his appetite for pork and his pro-gun, antiabortion Marine hero bona fides.

But there the congressman was, in a Rayburn House Office Building hallway, gallantly protecting some war protesters from the group who had been tossed out of a hearing room and threatened with arrest.

"He said 'I know these people,' he gave me his hand and said we wouldn't be arrested," said Medea Benjamin, a San Francisco human rights activist who was doing her earnest best Tuesday to end the war when her lobbying methods provoked the displeasure of the U.S. Capitol Police. Code Pink ladies on one side; uniforms on the other. In the middle, the impressive bulk of 74-year-old Murtha. He called the sergeant at arms and didn't leave until he was assured the women would be released, Benjamin said.

"He's one of the most principled people I have ever met," said Benjamin of the Pennsylvania Democrat. "I don't know about the past. I'm sure there's plenty I wouldn't like. I'm sure there's plenty about his present record I wouldn't like. But I really respect his position on this issue. And today, he stood up for us."

For the antiwar women of Code Pink, the progressive thinkers at MoveOn.org and liberals from Berkeley to Brooklyn, the 33-year congressional career of Murtha might as well have begun on Nov. 17, 2005.

That's when the defense hawk and decorated 'Nam vet from Johnstown, a gritty town best known for its worst flood, stood alone on the House floor and called for an end to the war in Iraq. He called it "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion." He stunned his colleagues and electrified war protesters, who recognized that his staunch military support could supply credibility to a cause sputtering between teach-ins, action alerts and e-mail campaigns.

They made him an icon, his fellow Democrats eventually moved his way and into control of Congress, and tomorrow, the House is expected to vote on a resolution that would set an end date for the conflict. The legislation, due largely to Murtha's efforts, allows President Bush to deploy troops who don't meet readiness standards as long as he publicly declares it. It includes nearly $1 billion in money for mental health services and brain injury care for Iraq soldiers and veterans, $2.5 billion for training and equipment for military reserves, and $123 million more than the president requested to armor vehicles and upgrade other equipment headed to Iraq.

To embrace him, the antiwar left has ignored Murtha's dealmaking with a man they revile, former Republican leader Tom DeLay. And his support for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and doling out pork from his seat on the powerful Appropriations defense subcommittee to defense companies in his district. And the delight he also inspires in antiabortion, pro-gun advocates.

"To be honest, I didn't know much about him before he stood up against the war," said Gael Murphy, a District resident and co-founder of Code Pink, which awarded Murtha its "badge of courage" last year. "Then I was reminded about the Abscam scandal. He has another side of him."

Ah, yes, Abscam. That 1980 FBI sting featured G-men posing as the posse for an Arab sheik named Abdul who needed asylum in the United States. The public corruption probe brought down a flock of officials, including a senator and five congressmen, before it was over. Murtha's canny political wiles were captured right on hidden camera: He repeatedly refused the $50,000 proffered, but kept the door open if the sheik might invest in some business in his district. "I want to get the goddamned jobs in the district, some bank deposits, later after we've dealt awhile, we might want to do more business," Murtha said. The FBI named Murtha as an unindicted co-conspirator in the scandal. He testified against two other House members who were convicted of bribery and conspiracy.

Then there was the nonprofit a staffer set up in Johnstown to help disabled people find work; defense contractors and lobbyists wound up on its board.

None of that bothers Tom Matzzie of MoveOn.org, the progressive group calling for an end to war. "For people who want to get out of Iraq, John Murtha is a hero," he said. "The issue is the war. Americans are getting shot and killed every day. If Tom DeLay wanted to become an antiwar activist, we'd take him."

When Yvette Clark was running for Congress from Brooklyn last year, she brought Murtha to speak. In affluent Park Slope, with its bistros and chic baby boutiques, the former owner of Johnstown Minute Car Wash packed 'em in. "I had been quoting him throughout the campaign," said Clark, who won and is now a freshman lawmaker. "It was great to have Jack there. He added credibility to what I had been saying."

Murtha is in the unique position of being able to speak to both the antiwar movement and the Pentagon. But he makes it clear that his common ground with the liberals is limited strictly to the Iraq war.

"It's a marriage of convenience," said G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College. "Once this is over, he's going to continue to vote for strong defense and they'll part."

Soon after the Iraq war started, Murtha began weekly visits to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center, a ritual he continues. "I always ask, 'What happened to you?' " Murtha said.

As the war progressed, the answers alarmed him. Complaints about a lack of body armor. Tales of equipment shortages. Murtha returned shaken from the visits, his ruddy face set in a frown. Simultaneously, he was hearing private concerns from military commanders about the way the war was being prosecuted. "The reality didn't match the rhetoric of what the administration was saying, that everything was going well," Murtha said. "They lied so much."

He began to think Iraq was draining resources and damaging the country's military reserves, making it unable to respond to new threats. By November 2005, Murtha had had enough. "I was so frustrated that I had to speak out," he said.

The next two weeks, Murtha's office received about 18,000 letters and e-mails from around the country, 80 percent of them supporting him. Someone from California tucked a $10 bill into a letter, encouraging Murtha to fight on. Strangers stopped him at the airport to thank him.

He has barreled ahead, through his failed bid to be elected majority leader, to craft a strategy to redeploy troops out of Iraq, sparking weeks of internal wrangling within his party over how to end the war.

"We have the same goal, we absolutely want our sons and daughters home," said Tina Richards, the 44-year-old mother of a Marine, who came from Missouri to lobby lawmakers earlier this year. She thinks the Democrats' plan under consideration today doesn't go far enough, but adds, "I completely respect Mr. Murtha because he's trying to deal with the politics and find the best route."

Murtha sees redemption ahead.

"In the end, everything I've said is right," he said. "Every single thing I've said from the time I started out is right. I said it was going to hurt the troops, that the strategic reserve is going to be depleted, that we can't sustain this militarily, that we've got to do it diplomatically. All those things are coming about."

March on Pentagon View by Artist and Mother

2007-03-21T20:34:00.000-04:00

This march was grim, unlike the rally on January 27th. It was cold and we had counter-demonstrators.

We arrived early, as usual, about eight am, after a long, slow ride through snow and freezing rain, and a middling breakfast at The Waffle House north of Baltimore.

The first thing we noticed on arrival was a maze of snow fences crisscrossing the lawns around the staging area and the Vietnam Memorial. As we moved around getting a feeling for the territory we passed a line going through a security checkpoint. As it turned out, this was the current entrance to the Vietnam Memorial. The line was occupied by men, all leather-jacketed biker types who challenged us as we walked by them yelling things like “You do not belong here” and “You can’t come in here.” I had not planned to go to the Vietnam Memorial but I had thought I would go look at the Roosevelt Memorial or perhaps the Lincoln Memorial. The way to either was blocked by snow fences and heavy security.

I learned later that there had been rumors circulating on some right wing web sites, specifically a site called gatheringofeagles.org, that the peace marchers were planning to defile the Vietnam Memorial, this because someone had spilt paint on the steps of Congress at the January rally. I don’t imagine any of the marchers had any such idea, the Vietnam Memorial being something utterly different from the steps of Congress, but by the look of things, DC officials were sufficiently alarmed by this turn of events to impose some heavy security around the area.

(If you go to the Gathering of Eagles site be sure to scroll down the and hit the link “about” under “sections” in the right hand column. )

It started the day on a depressing note.

The Gathering of Eagles, dressed in their black leather jackets, stood in a group at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. There was a barricade in front of them, a space about a lane deep in front of the barricade, and then another barricade behind which was the staging area for the march. Police, including mounted police on huge shiny well-muscled horses, stood watch between us. Our group found a spot at the front of the crowd and opposite The Gathering. They taunted and swore at us, while the march organizers encouraged the crowd with speeches and chants and lively anti-war music. We danced to stay warm. When the march got under way the Gathering of Eagles lined the street like watchers at a parade. Security was everywhere. They were hostile, mean, squinty eyed, hard faced, and scary. They yelled insults and shook their heads.

The march over the Potomac was frigid. As icy winds came blowing up from that very, very wide river, we felt that we were on the longest bridge in the world. When we got to the other side I kept trying to look back to see how long the march was, it seemed to me that there were still marchers on the bridge as we approached the rally site, but it was hard to tell. We were very close to the front of the march and among the first to arrive at the rally where it was staged on the parking lot south of the Pentagon. The Pentagon itself, huge and unapproachable, served as a formidable and colorless backdrop to the stage. Out of all those many windows, I wondered, how did we look standing here?

We stood close to the stage, almost to the barricade, and were able to see and hear the speakers perfectly. We moved and swayed and marched in place to stay warm. Cindy Sheehan was there and spoke about how standing in front of the Pentagon was like being in the shadow of the Death Star. She spoke about the march against the Vietnam war forty years ago and how we were here again forty years later and how she didn’t want to be out here in the cold as a ninety year old woman marching against another war. Ramsey Clark, attorney general under Johnson and Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman from Georgia also spoke, among others.

(Democraynow.org has video of some speakers on their website.)

The demonstrators started wondering off at around four, an hour before the rally was slated to end. We were all frozen and the best of the speakers had spoken. Our group followed the crowd to the Arlington Cemetery Metro station. While we waited on line to purchase fare cards, which took about an hour, we nibbled on the cheese and crackers and pepperoni that I had brought with me. No one had eaten since our breakfast at The Waffle House. At the Pentagon City mall we thawed out and warmed up and recouped our resources with a burger and a beer before boarding the bus around seven pm and heading home.

As the bus pulled out of the city some riders used the bus’s mike to talk to us and reflect on the days experience. One talked about getting caught up in the snow fence maze with his young daughter and being abused by the Gathering of Eagles as they tried to negotiate the labyrinth and return to the demonstration. Among the vets on the bus one talked about the MIA POW flags that some members of the Gathering of Eagles were flying. How the POW MIA movement symbolized everything that had gone wrong for the Vietnam Vets and how strange it was to see these flags flying on the other side. As I listened I was struck by the irony of these vets supporting an administration that has been so negligent in regard to returning soldiers. I was also struck by how muted the reaction was on our side. The dominant emotion among us in regard to the Gathering of Eagles seemed to be a kind of sadness. I thought to myself that, at the end of the day, we must have outnumbered them fifty to one.

Peace,

Andrea

PS If you feel that you missed out on making donations to the Cape Cod Peace bus, never fear. We came up short and could still use your donations. Make checks out to:

John Bangert
5 Stage Coach Road
Harwich, MA 02645

You won't see this in the Cape Cod Times!

2007-03-21T10:31:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON DC (March 19, 2007) – A platoon of Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.IVAW.net) took to the streets of downtown Washington DC today reenacting their experiences in Iraq as participants in an unjust war.

A dozen others people filled the roles of Iraq civilians under foreign occupation. Troops reenacted mass roundups and detentions, prisoner searches and interrogations, and patrol operations on the Capitol Building lawns, the gates of the White House, the Washington Monument, the Treasury Building, and a military recruiting station. Troops barked orders,

“To shut the hell up or I’ll blow their freaking head off !”

to suspected insurgents and/or Iraqi civilians. Leaflets were distributed to people walking by to explain that “this is what is happening every day in Iraq.” Although the IVAW platoon was detained briefly near the Capitol Building, and shadowed by a multi-agency SWAT team, no casualties were taken. Midway throw the day the platoon joined a press conference with Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, and the Appeal for Redress to call on congress to “Support the troops by de-funding the war.”

http://www.couragetoresist.org

SOURCE: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/19/1837944 6.ph p

Iraq and Vietnam: contrasting protests

2007-03-21T09:52:00.000-04:00

By DAVID CRARY, AP National WriterTue Mar 20, 5:44 PM ET

America's current anti-war movement is resourceful and persistent, but often seems to lack the vibrancy of its counterpart in the Vietnam era when protesters burned draft cards, occupied buildings and even tried to levitate the Pentagon.

The biggest difference, say activists and historians, is the lack of a draft.

Today's college-age youth face no threat of conscription to fight in Iraq, and campuses are more tranquil than during Vietnam.

"We're not as unified, not as hard-core, not as big," said Frida Berrigan, 32, a board member of the War Resisters League and daughter of the late peace activist Philip Berrigan. "There's a reason there's not a draft."

Since Saturday, protests marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war have been held in hundreds of communities nationwide, ranging from small-town vigils in Maine to a "die-in" in San Francisco. Passions sometimes ran high and more than 100 protesters were arrested. But attendance in many cities was modest, no national turnout figure was announced, and at no point did the events come close to dominating the national agenda.

"There is tremendous anti-war sentiment in the country that has not all found its way into activism," said Leslie Cagan, a student protest organizer during the Vietnam War and now national coordinator of the anti-war coalition United for Peace and Justice.

"Our challenge is to tap into that sentiment and help people see legitimate, productive ways to express themselves," Cagan said. "Part of what we're up against is an attitude that you can't fight the powers that be."

With both Iraq and Vietnam, public opinion gradually shifted over the years until polls showed more opponents than supporters. In each era, protesters railed against White House determination to pursue the war regardless of widespread doubts.

But there are several key differences now: far lower U.S. casualties — roughly 3,200 vs. about 58,000 then; less of the generational conflict that added fuel to the Vietnam protests; and, a desire by many anti-war leaders not to demonize the military.

"There's a lot of caution now," said David Schmitz, a history professor at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Wash. "Many people who oppose the war in Iraq are very concerned that they not be seen as being against the troops."

James Carafano, an Army veteran and defense policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the contrast in attitudes toward the military is stark.

"During Vietnam, the perception was that atrocities were everywhere — the military was looked down on," he said. "There is a serious effort now not to stigmatize the military — a conscious effort to say, 'This is not a bunch of baby-killers.'"

For Vietnam protesters, the military served as a prime foil. Students demanded the ouster of ROTC programs from their campuses and protested at draft centers, chanting "Hell No, We Won't Go." Four days of demonstrations at Kent State University — that included the burning of an ROTC building — ended disastrously when National Guard gunfire killed four students in 1970.

Now campuses are quieter, and some liberal baby-boomer professors grumble that students are too detached. But 24-year-old Miranda Wilson, national campus coordinator for Peace Action, says such stereotyping is wrong and contends there is broad, though often low-key, opposition to the war.

"During Vietnam, people were questioning the government itself — it got a lot more coverage," she said. "What's happening now isn't so dramatically visible from the outside."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who returned from Vietnam combat duty to join the anti-war movement, said the lack of a draft "has greatly affected the level of activism and the intensity" of today's protest campaign.

"Right now, it's not changing a lot of minds," he said in a telephone interview Tuesday. But the anti-war movement is "putting some pressure on people as they run for public office. It will help change the makeup of Congress — it already has."

The Vietnam era featured larger-than-life figures — Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, Muhammad Ali — and colorful provocateurs such as Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. Hoffman masterminded the attempt to levitate the Pentagon in 1967; both were at the center of protests that sparked clashes with police at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.

For all their intensity, however, the Vietnam protests failed to produce quick results, with U.S. troops pulling out six years after the first huge anti-war rallies in 1967. The effectiveness of the current movement remains to be judged; even some of its leaders sound unsure.

"The so-called normalcy of life allows people to go about their business, even if they're against the war," said Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action. "Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney don't care how low their popularity is — they're going to keep doing what they're doing until someone stops them."

Barry Romo, who served with the Army in Vietnam, became an anti-war activist after his return home and remains a national leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

While proud of the Vietnam protest movement, he says the Iraq anti-war campaign is even more impressive under the circumstances.

"It cuts across class lines," he said. "You see black churches and trade unions involved. When I go to demonstrations, it really is a rainbow."

Comparing the two movements, Frida Berrigan suggested today's protesters perhaps have a broader sense of compassion and global awareness.

"A lot of the opposition to Vietnam was motivated by people's fear of going to war — maybe it was pretty self-centered," she said. "With this movement, maybe it's not as big, but it comes from a deeper place than 'Hell No, We Won't Go.'"

Ted the Afghan_Vet Speaks Out!

2007-03-20T11:30:00.000-04:00

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

CC&I Peace Community Letters

2007-03-06T12:09:00.000-05:00

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.

And so it is with so many Americans. We all CARE God knows about fair play, justice, and the old American ways, but are we willing to act?? Care and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee! Complacency has given us what we deserve. If we are not willing to move off the couch we can’t expect our elected leaders to tow the line, or for that matter get new leadership which could reverse the tide of corruption, lying, and the total disregard for our form of government as stated in the Constitution of the United States.

Think about this since it doesn’t effect the vast majority of us, how would you like to have a daughter, son, husband, wife, father, or mother killed or maimed because of this senseless, trumped up, and lied to war... How would you like to be an Iraqi who has had their sovereign country invaded, occupied and destroyed for basically doing nothing but minding their own business? How would you like to be an Iraqi and have your ancient culture destroyed by looters, while winked at by the US government? How would you like to be an Iraqi and have your history lost when your priceless books are destroyed by fire. How would you like to be the parents of young Iraqis, or our own soldiers, who for generations to come will suffer terrible illnesses and birth deformities because of our use of depleted uranium to coat our ammunition which is being shot all over Iraq, and has a shelf life of millions of years. How would you like to not feel safe, remember 911. The people of Iraqi and our soldiers feel that way daily. How would you like to have your family and friends blown up just because you tried to live your life in a normal way by going to school, work, church, a mosque, or the market.

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 Nicaragua what was happening to our country. I will never forget what a very wise Guatemalan doctor said to me at the time. “Welcome to the real world! You in the States have never known what it is like to feel unsafe. The rest of the world lives with this constantly.”

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 Washington DC on Saturday March 17. ImpeachBush@VoteToImpeach.org

It is finally time to say THAT IS ENOUGH!

Marnie Stanton

Vineyard Haven

Press Release

2007-03-06T11:29:00.000-05:00

Press Release

CONTACT:

John J Bangert

Cape Cod & Islands Peace Buses
Phone: (508) 432-0545
veterans4peace@comcast.net
http://capecodpeacecommunity.blogspot.com

CAPE & ISLAND PEACE COMMUNITY PLANNING BUSES for MARCH on PENTAGON!

HARWICH, ORLEANS, NATUCKET ISLAND, and MARTHA’S VINYARD, MA, March 5, 2007 – On Saturday, March 17, 2007, the 4^th anniversary of the start of the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S. Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40^th anniversary of the historic 1967 anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War.

Cape Cod and Islanders are once again planning to take buses to Washington, D.C., to participate in the march, leaving on March 16^th and returning on March 18^th.

There will be three convenient pickup locations. Buses will leave from Orleans at the Staples parking lot on Route 6A, from Barnstable at the commuter parking lot on Route 132, and from the Falmouth/Bourne area from the IHOP parking lot at the Bourne rotary.

LOCAL CONTACTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Lower Cape: Jennifer Smith (508) 237-1384

Mid-Cape: John Bangert (508) 432-0545

Cape Cod Community College: Melissa (508) 776-8887 or Whitney (774) 722-3641

Falmouth: Kate Mahoney (508) 457-1788

Nantucket: Jonathan Thayer (508) 257-9740

Martha's Vineyard: Caroline Eddy (508) 696-1839 & Chris Fried (508) 693-7741

Mattapoisett: Luther Damon Howard (508) 758-4012

Riding a runaway train

2007-03-04T14:50:00.000-05:00

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.

Executive Branch

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: _________________________

War is Over!

2007-03-04T13:42:00.000-05:00

Suggested by and with my thanks to you - Mr. Ethan Silon!

Antiwar Caucus Wants to Be Heard Now

2007-03-04T11:01:00.000-05:00

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.”