The biggest threat to the Peace Movement?

(You mean, aside from teargas and police brutality?)

The biggest threat to the Peace Movement? That'd be...the Peace Movement.

Folks, lets face it. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to making ourselves inviting to newcomers to the cause. It's not entirely our own fault. A majority of us have only been protesting for 4-5 years. We don't know what the hell we are doing. And it shows.

Fortunately, there are several groups who have been protesting...well, their entire lives, really. In polite society they are known as the "freaks." People who protest everything from lifesaving vaccines to sanctions against terrorist states. People who think Clinton should have been censored (and move on) and Bush should be impeached.

Because I've suddenly become fond of lists, I've created another one.

Top 13 Visuals To the Peace Movement Sabotaging the Peace Movement:

1. Sometimes we show ourselves to be a bit overenthusiastic to the cause.

2. None of us are willing to take one for the team.

3. We let the "natural birth control" proponents march with us.

4. We don't always make it easy to know what side we're on.

5. We don't always make it easy to understand what we're protesting.

6. We may occasionally use scary visuals.

7. See above.

8. We like women.

9. We like Chomsky.

10. We like a good conspiracy.

11. Our signs are a bit highbrow to some.



12. Our signs are uncomfortable reminders of reality.

13. Our signs hit a little too close to home.

Soldiering On

This information we've been getting from the mainstream media about the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center is pretty disgusting. In addition to the mold, feces, fees and government mischief, soldiers also face the double standard of support. Support for the troops, support for the war, support for killing. But when the soldiers themselves return from the front line, due to injury or end of tour, they are expected to demand no support. No benefits, no care, no counseling. Because if they do, they are deemed traitors.

Walter Reed's motto is "we provide warrior care." How true that is. Walter Reed has gamely followed along in the Bush Administration's footsteps in enlisted/veteran treatment. Which is to say, that they screw them while waving the red, white and blue flag of patriotism.

*

From the first days of the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration has tried to cut money from the most essential sources of enlisted/veteran care. The Pentagon announced the close of Walter Reed back in 2005, claiming care would be moved to a new facility as early as 2011. Is it any wonder that the quality of service suddenly dropped off?

A Quarter of US War Vets Diagnosed With Mental Disorder
For War's Gravely Injured, Challenge to Find Care
The Wider Shame of Walter Reed
Report: Army "Deliberately Shortchanging" Troops on Disability
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration at Army's Top Medical Facility
The Forgotten Families
Troops Return to Painful Wait for Needed Help
Pentagon Alters Casualty Figures
Pentagon Abandons Active-Duty Time Limit
Soldier's Harassment Claim Leads to Court-Martial
Shafting the Vets
For US Troops and Their Families, Iraq War's Invisible Costs Keep Piling Up
Law Cuts Survivor Benefits to 61,000 Military Widows
Homelessness a Threat for Iraq Vets
War Veterans Denied Education Benefits
Bush to Cut Veterans' Benefits to Pay for Credit Monitoring
Military Fails Some Widows Over Benefits
Pentagon to Close Walter Reed Military Hospital
Health Care for Veterans $1 Billion Short
Marines Recall Thousands of Faulty Combat Vests
From War Hero to Homeless
Discharged and Dishonored: Shortchanging Our Veterans
The Invisible Wounded

These are just some of the headlines since 2005. What is deplorable is that soldiers in the military unintentionally continue this abuse by keeping silent. It should not take the problem to reach this level of disgrace before people are willing to talk publicly about it. However, the military is saturated with fear. Fear that speaking up for a soldier's rights is harmful to the military as a whole.

I've seen it at the protests, when the pro-war side shows up and attacks the peace movement for dividing the nation, harming the moral of troops and providing aid to the enemy. Oddly enough, the people who scream loudest for the well-being of the soldiers are often the very same who know little about the true feelings of those in combat. Those who call for silence in the face of criticism, through their misguided faith in this administration end up unintentionally supporting budget cuts that cripple our military's effectiveness.

It is time for the Good Ol Boy mentality of the US Armed Forces to give way to something a little more effective. Soldiers should not fear that a legitimate complaint will result in punishment, abuse or discharge. The Bush Administration and their supporters demand an end to the public's right to know, and in exchange, they promise to take care of those that serve. Yet, we have seen time and again, that if there is money to be cut from a program that benefits people who are isolated from their civil liberties, this government leaps to do it. It is impossible to expect Bush Administration and their supporters to care for our men and women in uniform and well past time to stop relying on them. Soldiers need to speak up. The public needs to stand up.

~Lila Schow
Because Responsible Citizens Clean Up After Their Government
http://goodusgov.org/

*Disfigured Iraq vet Ty Ziegel and his fiancée, Renee, on their wedding day

So... ummmm... yeah. About that surge...

In his State of the Union speech, Bush laid out his plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq to stabilize the region. He assured us that these additional troops would quell the violence that's tearing Iraq apart. But that in and of itself was a flat out lie. The number of troops that would actually be going to Iraq in this "surge" would not be the 21,500 that he outlined in the State of the Union... not even close. The actual number of troops would be closer to 48,000 according to a report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Funny how he forgot to mention that another 25,000 "supporting" troops would be required to go to Iraq.

But wait... there's more! Oh yes there is!

Over the weekend, Bush announced that another 8,200 troops would be deployed to the region in addition to the 21,500 he's "surging" in. To fund these additional troops, he's announced his plan to cut 3.2 billion from "low-priority defense items." There was no mention of what those "low-priority defense items" might be however. If I were to take a guess though, I'd say he'd be cutting out maybe... federal defense funding to the blue states? But hey, I'm just guessing here.

So let's see... now he wants to send in another 56,000 troops at a cost of about $100 billion. Does anybody remember when we'd first invaded Iraq when Donald Rumsfeld said that a) he doubted the war would take more than 6 months and b) the oil revenues would more than pay for the entire Iraq war? Yeah, here we are 4 years and hundreds of billions of dollars into it. I guess they "misunderestimated" things a bit, huh?

We're pouring troops in while the British are pulling theirs out. And let's see if I can follow the logic here... The Brits are pulling out and Darth Cheney lauds it as a success...

"I look at it and what I see is an affirmation of the fact that in parts of Iraq … things are going pretty well."

So let's look at that for a second... The Brits getting out of Iraq is a sign of success. By Darth Cheney's logic, does that mean that because we're flooding more bodies in there that we're failing? But gee, how could that be when the Administration keeps painting the rosiest of pictures about what's going on in Iraq? You know, freedom is on the march, progress is being made and all that happy horseshit. What I don't get though is, shouldn't Darth Cheney be calling the Brits "cut and runners" and tell them that they're "aiding the enemy" by leaving before the "job is done." Hypocritical asshat.

If the British pull-out of Iraq is the model of success in Iraq, then that's the kind of success we can all get behind. But no, Bush and his cronies are going to go ahead and throw more kids into the meat grinder that is Iraq. They don't seem to care that the blood of more than 3,000 of America's best and bravest is on their hands. And if they do notice, they just don't give a damn.

More than 3,000 have died already. Throwing another 56,000 into the mix is only going to get more and more of them killed. And for what exactly? There can be no "victory" in Iraq no matter how many times Bush and his minions spout that word. Bush lost his war in Iraq long, long ago and he still can't admit it. He's just like a gambling addict, sitting at the blackjack table, convinced that he can win everything back on the next hand, that the cards will start falling right even though he's not won a hand all night. But guess what George? You've already busted.

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

~Kevin S.

Squeezing the Zit

Eleven things you didn't know you didn't know about Iran.

1. 70% of the population is under 30. That's 30 years under Iran's first democracy. And a large portion of their childhood spent with their country at war with Iraq. Currently the younger generation's biggest challenge is high unemployment.
   
   
2. 60% of the students attending their universities are women.



3. There are slightly more men than women and the life expectancy is 70 years. The official religion is Shi'a Islam.



4. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president, isn't actually the head of Iran. That is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad's popularity is declining sharply in Iran, his allies lost local elections and he has been heckled by the population.



5. Look at this map. See the countries and waterways that surround them? The US has bases or fleets in all but one (Turkmenistan). Iran's screwed:
   

   




6. Using the same systems of intelligence that assured US Iraq had WMD's, the capabilities and will to use nuclear weapons, we are now claiming that Iran is threatening us with their nuclear program.



7. The US claims that Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, as such, open for attack. The US is also in violation of the treaty.



8. To impair the Shi'a government in Iran, the US is paying terrorists connected to al-Qaeda to attack civilians inside the country.



9. The USS Stennis is in the Gulf of Oman. Named after a man who Reagan called "unwavering advocate of peace through strength," he's also well-known for being not "quite as virulently racist as James Eastland." Oh the irony of attacking Iran with a carrier named after a man who opposed equal rights for people of color.



10. Osama bin Laden is still alive and in hiding, but most people in the intelligence community don't think he's in Iran.



11. Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

I bring you this information because people on the receiving end of the club should not know more than those swinging it.

~Lila Schow

Because Responsible Citizens Clean Up After Their Government http://goodusgov.org/