Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Why VFP Likes General Smedley D Butler!

George Herbert Walker and his Son-in Law Prescott Bush worked direct to finance Hitler with the Union Banking Corporation. The reason Auschwitz was located where it was is because it was close to Fritz Thyssen's coal, steel, and railroads. Through the Union Banking Corporation, Prescott Bush, and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyseen, became Hitler's banker. War is A Racket!

This made it possible for I.G. Farben to synthesize fuel from coal gasification, to make aviation fuel, gas for their tanks and war machines, and for synthesizing rubber for making tires. They also made Zyklon B gas, which the Germans used to annihilate two million Jews according to the trial testimony of the Auschwitz camp commander.

Fritz Thyssen published a book titled I Paid Hitler in 1941. It described how Hitler used the money he received from Fritz Thyssen through Prescott Bush, sponsored the Storm Troopers of Ernst Roehm as early as 1933, allowing them to build up to 4,500,000 strong to take over Germany.

Another Blogger connects the dots ... between General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC and Prescott Bush pictured with his son George Hubert Walker Bush, grandaddy to George W. Bush

Click and read above link!

Saturday, November 24, 2007

The Century of the Self BBC DocU-education

The Century of the Self

You see it, you want it, you buy it, on credit of course!

Not because YOU NEED it, but because we have been manipulated into agreeing with the psychology of advertisers who show us this that these products will make us feel happy inside, if we only buy them today before the sale ends with 0% interest and no money down!

The Pursuit Of Happiness of the individual, marries the corporate concept dictum of -- " buy our products first and feel happy now."

General Motors Sign and Drive

Here is a BBC video series that should be view by all interested in the politics of elections or the Selling of a Candidate!

"This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." - Adam Curtis

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, changed the perception of the human mind and its workings profoundly. His influence on the 20th century is widely regarded as massive. The documentary describes the impact of Freud's theories on the perception of the human mind, and the ways public relations agencies and politicians have used this during the last 100 years for their "engineering of consent".

Among the main characters are Freud himself and his nephew Edward Bernays, who was the first to use psychological techniques in advertising. He is often seen as the "father of the public relations industry". Freud's daughter Anna Freud, a pioneer of child psychology, is mentioned in the second part, as well as Wilhelm Reich, one of the main opponents of Freud's theories.

Along these general themes, The Century of the Self asks deeper questions about the roots and methods of modern consumerism, representative democracy and its implications. It also questions the modern way we see ourselves, the attitude to fashion and superficiality.

The business and, increasingly, the political world uses PR to read and fulfill our desires, to make their products or speeches as pleasing as possible to us. Curtis raises the question of the intentions and roots of this fact. Where once the political process was about engaging people's rational, conscious minds, as well as facilitating their needs as a society, the documentary shows how by employing the tactics of psychoanalysis, politicians appeal to irrational, primitive impulses that have little apparent bearing on issues outside of the narrow self-interest of a consumer population. He cites a Wall Street banker as saying "We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs."

In Episode 4 the main characters are Philip Gould and Matthew Freud, the great grandson of Sigmund, a PR consultant. They were part of the efforts during the nineties to bring the Democrats in the US and New Labour in the United Kingdom back into power. Adam Curtis explores the psychological methods they now massively introduced into politics. He also argues that the eventual outcome strongly resembles Edward Bernays vision for the "Democracity" during the 1939 New York World's Fair.

To quote the BBC site:

To many in both politics and business, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power has finally moved to the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?


Watch them for Free by clicking the links below. Each segment is about an hour long. John Bangert

Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Part Four:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007


The Veterans Day 18

Ann Smith, Arthur Brien, Bruce Macdonald,
Dick Smith, Doug Stuart, Henry Deeks, Joe Bangert, Kathleen Dailey, Ken Farr, Mark Alston-Follansbee, Mike Tork, Nate Goldshlag, Pat Scanlon,
Paul Brailsford, Sev Bruyn, Terrence Rothman,
Tony Flaherty, and CodePINK's Trish Gallagher

This letter from Nate Goldshlag!

Hi folks,

The Veterans Day 18 have been arraigned on charges in Boston of disturbing a public assembly, which we did not do. In the description of the charges it is alleged that we were "loudly chanting anti-war slogans" which is absurd since we had gags in our mouths.

I have gotten lots of emails asking how people can help us. At this time the best support you could give us is to write, call, fax, and email the Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino. Or do all four. The thing that is best is regular mail, then calls, then fax, then email. Let's inundate the Mayor's office with outrage at our arrests. Please do this in the next day or so, while the story is hot. And please forward this email to friends and political mailing lists, far and wide. If you live outside Massachusetts please write anyway. This story has gone out worldwide.

Mayor Menino's contact information is given below. And to make it really easy we are including a template of a letter you could write. Feel free to copy and paste it into a Word document and modify it as you see fit, or write your own.

Phone 617.635.4500 Fax 617.635.2851


Address given below in letter

Thanks for taking the time to do this. And apologies if you receive this email more than once.

Best Regards,
Nate Goldshlag
Co-Coordinator, Smedley D. Butler Brigade Chapter 9 Veterans For Peace

P.S. Here are some interesting links:

  1. Keith Olbermann's Countdown show on MSNBC:
  2. VFP member's blog on Democratic Underground:
  3. Paul Rifkin: YouTube

Mayor Thomas Menino

Mayor’s Office

City Hall Plaza

Boston, MA 02201

Dear Mayor Menino,

I am writing to express my outrage at the arrest of 15 veterans and 3 supporters on Veterans Day for silently, peacefully protesting the exclusion of Veterans For Peace from speaking at the city-sponsored Veterans Day event on City Hall Plaza. The pictures of these gagged and silent men and women being carted off, which have gone out around the world, are an embarrassment to a city that calls itself the Cradle of Liberty, and to its Police Department.

What has happened to free speech in Boston? Why is Veterans For Peace being prevented from speaking at this event, which always features pro-war, pro-Bush administration messages? Why are these men and women being charged with “loudly chanting anti-war slogans” when it is obvious to the world that these gagged people did no such thing?

The only thing these real patriots are guilty of is their expression of free speech and dissent against this illegal and immoral war. You were in a position to prevent this travesty from occurring but did nothing. Your lack of intervention serves only the interests of those who would eliminate our constitutional rights - the American Legion and George Bush. Shame on you.


Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Keith Olberman Veterans for Peace Cannot be Silenced!


A stand against silence
The patriots’ offensive line
November 14, 2007 4:50:48 PM

CAN’T ASK, CAN’T TELL: Denied a spot in the American Legion’s Veteran’s Day Parade, members of the local Veterans for Peace showed up anyway, and were arrested for their silent protest against censorship.

Their hearts were warmed by passion, despite the cold temperatures. Armed with signs, upside-down flags of distress, and anti-war fliers, the Smedley D. Butler Brigade, Chapter 9 of Veterans For Peace (VFP), refused to be censored — their request to participate in this past Sunday’s annual Veterans Day parade was denied by the American Legion, which coordinates the event each year. But official exclusion did little to deter the group from marching at the end of the parade, behind the street sweepers, and carrying out its objectives: promoting peace, speaking out against the war in Iraq, and supporting the troops by calling for their immediate return home.

“We want to put our message out to the crowd along the route, and make it clear that we will not be silenced by the American Legion,” said Nate Goldshlag, an Army veteran and one of the Brigade organizers who led the rally of about 40 disgruntled vets down Tremont Street to City Hall Plaza. (Goldshlag is no stranger to activism: in 1969, he and fellow Vietnam War opponents participated in the infamous student takeover of Harvard’s University Hall, an incident that garnered national attention and got him expelled.)

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner, a strong supporter of VFP, also weighed in on the Legion’s decision, calling it “an insult to vets everywhere.” The Legion, however, asserts the parade is a non-political event, a claim hotly contested by Goldshlag and Turner, who argue that in previous years the parade’s speakers have been “pro-war.”

For the most part, the crowd along the parade route was supportive of VFP. But Jeff Monico of Saugus, a Marine and Iraq War veteran, was angered by the anti-war group’s display of upside-down flags. “It’s disrespectful at this event to be holding the flags like that,” he said. A young boy next to him agreed. “You’re not holding the flag the right way,” shouted the youth. “If I were a cop, I'd put you in jail.” His words were all too prophetic.

As people trickled into the plaza, a single line of VFP members began to form in front of the podium. Faces stoic and mouths stuffed with handkerchiefs, the demonstrators now silently protested with signs draped across their bodies that read: AMERICAN LEGION SILENCES MESSAGES OF PEACE FROM VETERANS. The American Legion band played on as people anxiously waited to see what would happen next. Slowly, one by one, the veterans were handcuffed and arrested by the Boston Police, the rat-a-tat-tat of the drums ringing in their ears as they were led off into the distance.

Eighteen of the VFP vets were subsequently charged with disturbing a lawful assembly of people, and, at press time, were scheduled to be arraigned on Tuesday and Wednesday in Boston Municipal Court.

By Rachel Leamon
The Daily Free Press ( Boston U. )
(U-WIRE) BOSTON -- Patriotism and antiwar passion collided Sunday when 18 former soldiers turned activists were arrested during a Veterans Day parade at City Hall in front of the uniformed, whom they blamed for unnecessary bloodshed in Iraq. Members of Boston Veterans for Peace, a group of former soldiers who oppose U.S. involvement in the war, were reprimanded by police when they refused to move away from the main podium after continued warnings.

The city permitted the group to march in the parade Sunday, but banned carrying antiwar signs. "The American Legion sponsors this parade and doesn't like veterans who are against war," Veterans for Peace member and Vietnam veteran Jim Packer said. "The Legion thinks that to support the soldiers, you have to be for the war, but I think that the best way to support soldiers is to bring them home." Packer, who stood near the rear of the crowd, said he developed a new perspective on war after he graduated from Boston University in 1966 and enlisted in the Marines. "I came back from Vietnam with a commitment not to allow this country to start another war based on lies," he said.

According to its website, Veterans for Peace, which has four chapters in Massachusetts, aims to peacefully stop hostile intervention in foreign affairs and eradicate war as a policy tool. Veterans for Peace member Paul Atwood, also a BU graduate, said Veterans Day pageantry glorifies militarism. "A day like this should be a day of sovereign reflection," Atwood said. Other protesters turned American flags upside down. "The upside-down flag is a symbol of soldiers in distress," said Montserrat College of Art freshman Casey Furtado.

"Our country is in distress as a result of the war." According to the Boston Police Department website, those arrested are being charged with disturbing a lawful assembly. Other spectators said they recognize anti-war activists' right to free speech, but their message had no place at a Veterans Day event. "I think everyone here should support the war and the soldiers," said Lizbeth Sanchez, a junior Reserve Officer Training Corps member. "They're entitled to voice their opinions, but making a demonstration due to their political opinions is inappropriate at this occasion," Suffolk County American Auxiliary Legion officer Albert Ashe said. "They can't protest anywhere they feel like it."

Monday, November 12, 2007

Veterans Arrested on Veterans Day in Boston

Here is a picture of the pro-war thug who assaulted 76 year old Korean and Viet Nam Navy Veteran, Tony Flaherty in front of hundreds of cops on City Hall Plaza. Did this Boston cop, capture Tony's assailent ? Let's ask the Mayor! 3-ways to do just that below.
Phone 617.635.4500 ~ Fax 617.635.2851 ~Email

On Veteran's Day, 76-year-old Viet Nam veteran, Tony Flaherty from South Boston, was beaten and thrown to the ground as a war supporter stole his American flag. Flaherty was arrested by Boston Police along with 17 other peaceful protesters in front of City Hall. Flaherty's assailant was NOT arrested.

Tony Flaherty, we salute you for your great poise and non-violent dignity. Many chicken-hawks, who not unlike George W. Bush, can sucker punch the brave, then run away like the coachroach cowards which they really are.

The Gathering of Idiots, seen in the photograph above, did the same thing to Carlos Arredondo in Washington, DC.

We shall be more vigilant, yet, peacefully, non-violent, unlike our violent and ignorant oppressors.

Viet Nam veterans, Joe Bangert, from Brewster, MA, as seen in photograph above was one of 18 protesters including 4 women veterans who all were arrested in front of City Hall Plaza on Veterans Day. Falmouth US Navy veteran, Mike Tork, and former USMC Capt. John Niles, from Barnstable, were the three Cape Codders arrested as well.

Boston, Mass, -Paul Brailsford, a 92 year old WW ll Veteran, and member of Samantha Smith Chapter of Veterans for Peace Chapter, was arrested and his cane was taken from him as he was handcuffed and dragged away to Boston Police headquarters.

Arrests Made At Veterans Day Event
City Hall Ceremony Sparks Controversy

BOSTON -- Several anti-war veterans were arrested Sunday when they protested their exclusion from a Veterans Day event outside Boston City Hall.

The Boston chapter of a group called Veterans for Peace estimated that 15 of its members and supporters were arrested when they refused to move away from the podium at an event sponsored by the American Legion. Boston Police said several arrests were made, but did not have an exact number.

"We're opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we're opposed to the planned invasion of Iran," said Winston Warfield, a Vietnam War veteran and member of the group. "A lot of veterans view us as traitors."

Warfield said the American Legion rejected their request to have a speaker at the event on City Hall Plaza. An after-hours call to the American Legion office in Boston was not immediately returned Sunday.

"From our point of view, it's a public affair," Warfield said, despite U.S. Supreme Court precedent that allows private groups that obtain proper permits to choose who can participate in their events.

Earlier Sunday, Gov. Deval Patrick and U.S. Sen. John Kerry honored five surviving members of the World War II Tuskegee Airmen, the first group of black fighter pilots allowed into the U.S. Army Air Corps.

Patrick presented the men with their Congressional Gold Medals. They are William M. Bennett, Charles Diggs, George W. Giddings, James McLaurin, and Willis Saunders.
"It is an honor to formally recognize these heroic pioneers," said Patrick, the state's first black governor. "Their bravery and ability to rise to the challenges of the time and of war will be forever remembered, as will the great courage of all the men and women who have served our country in the past and who do so now across the world."

The Statehouse event included a tribute to women veterans, led by Air Force Capt. Jenny D'Olympia.

Eighteen members of Veterans for Peace, an outspoken fraternity of former servicemen and women opposed to the Iraq War, were arrested by Boston police for disturbing the Veterans Day ceremony on City Hall plaza yesterday, after they lined up across the speakers’ platform with gagged mouths.
The group was made to bring up the rear of the annual parade - for which hundreds of patriots lined Boylston and Tremont streets - and were even placed behind the street sweepers.

“They do not want to adhere to our rules of conduct,” James Lawler, commander of the American Legion in Suffolk County, told the Herald, suggesting the protesters’ time would be better spent in Washington, D.C., fighting for benefits and better VA hospitals.

“This is not a political parade,” said Lawler, an Air Force veteran of the Korean War and former Boston police officer, “it’s to show our veterans respect.

It kills me that we have service veterans coming back maimed, but all we can do is help them.”
Veterans for Peace member Winston Warfield, a veteran of the Vietnam War, acknowledged Lawler was right about his organization’s political motives, but said, “We’re all servicemen. Some of us have wounds to prove it.”

Both sides were met with applause, whether by tots in strollers waving flags, Marines calling out “Semper Fi!” or modern-day hippies chanting for peace.

Cynthia Johnson-Smith, on behalf of 9,000 members of the Massachusetts American Legion Auxiliary, said the turnout alone “means that we appreciate our freedom at the price these veterans have paid.”

Brookline native Sue Gracey, 73, who calls herself “a raging granny,” chose to march with the war protesters, but said she still supports the troops.

“Our country’s in trouble,” Gracey said. “I love the flag, but it needs to be shown with humility.”
Kristine Galeota knew her kids’ thoughts were on hot chocolate after the parade, but before they left the ceremony there was so much more she wanted them to drink in.

“With children, you never really celebrate the holiday the way that it’s supposed to be,” Galeota of Townsend said, her daughter, 8, and son, 10, at her side, their cheeks stung pink by the cold.
“Whether you agree with the war or not, you should still support the veterans,” she said. “There are opposing sides. You need to deal with it. It’s the United States of America.”

Sunday, November 11, 2007

You will not shut us up!

"Wow! I have a DD-214 in my back pocket that shows I have nine years, ninths and six days of honorable service in Uncle Sam’s Army.

That stint included two trips to Nam and two Bronze Stars. I was ‘lucky’ enough to see Tet of ’68 up close and personal. My second trip included about six weeks in Cambodia in April of ’70.

I know how to fly a helicopter, shoot a four deuce mortar and fix pretty much anything electronic. Not exactly an REMF, but I was there.

Now I realize that my anti-war views are not welcomed in some quarters, but don’t diss me because I disagree with you.

There are a few facts that we should be able to agree upon:

1. Veterans are treated like shit by the Veterans Administration.
2. Veterans represent 25% of the homeless population of the United States, yet comprise only 11% of the adult population of this country.
3. The Veterans Administration is woefully under funded.
4. Jobs and Veterans are problematic.
5. PTSD and TBI are going to become epidemic as time passes.
6. Depleted uranium is going to dwarf Agent Orange in terms of scope and toxicity.

You will not shut us up.
On Sunday the Veterans For Peace marched behind the American Legion’s Veterans Day parade in Boston, about a block behind the parade. Led by five motorcycle Officers.
My pics of the day are somewhat spotty, as I was attending to business.

We assembled!"
Un-Happy Camper

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Veterans for Peace New York

Click here to see what VFP- NY Jim Murphy has been up to!

Monday, June 4, 2007

Thoughts on Cindy Sheenhan and what her leaving may mean!,0,3178263.story


Today's protester, lacking guts, gets no glory

By Rex W. Huppke
a Tribune staff reporter

June 3, 2007

That shrill sound you're hearing isn't coming from the cicadas. It's the cackle of conservatives reveling in war protester Cindy Sheehan's abrupt decision to leave the anti-war movement and return home to California.

Typical liberal, they're saying. Cut and run.

Apparently, Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, was withering from the heat of public activism and grew disillusioned with the apathy of her fellow modern-day peaceniks. She embarked on her crusade two years ago and willingly became the face of the anti-war movement -- a movement that now appears to lack a face and guts.

Despite a rising tide of public discontentment with the war, turnouts at protest rallies nationwide have shrunk precipitously. The Democratic Congress, swept into office on a wave of anti-war sentiment, showed the timidity of a neurotic deer mouse as it handed President Bush the war funding he requested without any stipulation for troop withdrawal.

One would expect at least a smidge of public outrage.

"I think what's extraordinary right now is how there hasn't been a major street presence at any point during the war," said Jeremi Suri, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and author of the book "Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente."

"If anything, that presence has declined in the past months, even as the public outcry against the war has been increasing."

Sheehan's departure and the flaccidity of America's anti-war movement raise deep questions about this country's moral fortitude. Unlike the protesting icons of the 1960s and '70s, members of today's "anti" crowd struggle to maintain momentum.

During the first major Iraq war protest in Chicago in 2003, 10,000 people turned out. This year, on the fourth anniversary of the war, hot on the heels of President Bush's controversial troop surge, only 3,500 Chicagoans took to the streets.

And this lack of follow-through isn't unique to war protesters.

Chicago's first immigration rally last May drew 400,000 people, but the second rally this May brought in only 150,000. In the immediate wake of the Virginia Tech shootings in April, there was considerable hue and cry over gun control -- what happened to that?

Today's activists seem easily bored and distracted, content to simply blog away their angst and then move on to the next issue that flares up. One has to imagine Abbie Hoffman -- Vietnam War protester and proud member of the Chicago Seven -- writhing in his grave.

So what's keeping people from raising hell? Where is the fervor and esprit de corps of the American protester? Why were the rabble-rousers of the '60s and '70s so potent, while those of today are so, to put it politely, "non-potent"?

There are likely several reasons.

For one, there's no military draft. That means fewer opponents are frontline stakeholders in the war. Nothing incites passion quite like fear, and as long as we have a volunteer military, the butts on the line won't be those of the anti-war contingent.

Outlook is another factor. The youthful idealism of generations past has largely given way to a cynical view of politics and life in general. It's harder to get into a good college. It's harder to get a good job. Politicians seem increasingly disingenuous.

"People really feel like they lack efficacy today," said Rachel Einwohner, a Purdue University sociologist who studies protests and social movements. "Despite what lots of people around the world think, despite opposition, this administration just proceeds with a particular agenda. Maybe activists look at that and say, 'What could we possibly do?' They're forced to wonder how they can stop it."

In 1962, a group of college students meeting in Michigan created a manifesto called the Port Huron Statement, which laid out a path for a near-Utopian democracy. Those young men and women truly believed they could change the world, and their fervor carried on through the sweeping civil rights and Vietnam War protests of that generation.

Now when Suri, the Wisconsin professor, shows a copy of the Port Huron Statement to his students, they laugh out loud, mystified that anyone could ever have been so naive.

"It's not that they don't care; it's that they don't believe they can make a difference," he said. "Students have become very risk-averse. They care, but they're afraid that if they go out and get involved in something they might not get into law school or get the job they want."

Indeed, since camera phones and YouTube, would-be rebels engage in sit-ins and other forms of civil disobedience at their own peril, knowing that images some might deem incriminating could easily come back to haunt them.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, better communication technology may actually be taking a bit of oomph out of political activism. People once had to come together in smoke-filled coffeehouses to plan demonstrations. Now they just stay home and hammer out mass e-mails, expanding their reach but eliminating the close personal bonds that were the glue of past protest movements.

"People can have these virtual online communities and have all these conversations online without ever coming together," Einwohner said. "That might explain why we have this massive disapproval of the war, but we don't see the visible public mass protest. Maybe all those folks who in another era might have been out on the streets, maybe they're home sharing their ideas and opinions with their best blogging buddies."

And maybe that, in part, is what drove Cindy Sheehan away. It's unlikely there has ever been a mother of a soldier killed in war who has been so publicly pilloried. And by the end of her two-year run, as she aimed her criticism at Democrats as well as Republicans, Sheehan was getting it from the right and the left.

Of course, she put herself out there. She allowed this to happen. But in the end, this Gold Star Mother, who came of age in the '60s and '70s, simply didn't fit in the modern-day world of protest.

She was blogged down by a society that seems incapable of clinging to any cause for too long. And like many of us, she was probably disheartened to learn that what's blowing in the wind these days isn't the answer.

It's just a lot of hot air. ----------

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Bush & Putin in Kport JULY

Bush to host Russia's Putin in Maine in July 1st & 2nd!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will host Russia's President Vladimir Putin in July amid tensions over U.S. plans to build a missile shield in Europe and criticism that Moscow is retreating on democracy.

Putin will visit Bush at his parents' home in the resort town of Kennebunkport, Maine, July 1-2, White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Wednesday.

"The president looks forward to the visit as part of the intensive bilateral dialogue with President Putin," Snow said. "Cooperation between the United States and Russia is important in solving regional conflicts, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and combating terrorism and extremism."

The two presidents will discuss Iran, civil nuclear cooperation and missile defense, Snow said. They will also see each other next week during the Group of Eight summit in Germany.

Putin is opposed to U.S. plans for a missile shield in Europe that Bush says is to counter potential threats from other states.

U.S. officials emphasize that the United States will keep trying to convince Moscow that U.S. plans to put 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic are not designed to threaten Russia but rather to protect Europe.

Russia successfully test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile this week that had multiple warheads, and Putin said deployment of a missile shield in Europe would turn the continent into "a powder keg."

Another strain in relations is U.S. concern that human rights and democracy are backsliding in Russia.

But despite their differences, Bush still views Putin as a straight-talker and a leader with whom he can have candid discussions.

"The fact is, look, there are some areas where we disagree, where we've had open disagreements," Snow said.

"And one of the interesting things about the president and President Putin is that they are not afraid to ventilate them and they're brutally honest with one another," he said. "The president has always made the point that when he is talking with President Putin, President Putin's never lied to him."

The visit will be "partly social," and inviting Putin to the home of Bush's parents, rather than the White House or the president's Texas ranch was "a reflection of the fact that these guys do get along," Snow said.

Julianne Smith, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said discussing contentious issues like human rights and missile defense in the relaxed setting of Kennebunkport might be more conducive to frank talks.

"My sense is the president has got a really tough message to deliver to Putin," she said.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan)

Bush & Putin Kennebunkport, Maine July 1st & 2nd!

The Kennebunkport PEACE Department has wasted no time and is getting a march permit for Sunday July 1st when President Bush comes to meet Putin in Kennebunkport.

I am calling for a mobilization of people of conscience from Maine, New Hampshire and Connecticut and Massachusetts.

I will be organizing a pre-march rally and will let everyone know the details as soon as possible.

However, please get the word out that the Kennebunkport PEACE Department is still having their big event on August 25th, however I believe that we should hold him accountable where ever he goes.

Pass the word to your organizations, churches, temples, mosques.
for more info:

Contact Jamilla at

Bush & Putin Kennebunkport, Maine July 1st & 2nd!

The Kennebunks PEACE Department has wasted no time and is getting a march permit for Sunday July 1st when President Bush comes to meet Putin in Kennebunkport.
I am calling for a mobilization of people of conscience from Maine , New Hampshire and Conneticutt and Mass achusetts.
I will be organizing a pre-march rally and will let everyone know the details as soon as possible. However, please get the word out that the
Kennebunks PEACE Department is still having their big event on August 25th, however I believe that we should hold him accountable where ever he goes.
Pass the word to your organizations, churches, temples, mosques.
for more info:
contact Jamilla at

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Cindy Sheehan Steps Down :( Daily Kos

by CindySheehan

Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:57:01 AM PDT

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an "attention whore" then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too...which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Just in from Ted Goodnight

Not only have two Marine, Iraq war veterans, in the Inactive Ready Reserves been threatened w/reversal of their Honorable Discharges to Other Than Honorable for their recent, post-discharge protest of the war, now it seems that a Gulf War vet has been arrested for speaking out against recruiting. It seems standing up for truth and humanity is becoming unlawful!! At the least it appears as though the government feels our military is only good enough to fight and die for our liberties, not to enjoy the exercise thereof!


Vet Prosecuted for Opposing Recruitment in Library

Vet Prosecuted for Opposing Recruitment in Library
By Matthew Rothschild
Tim Coil served in the first Gulf War and now suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
On March 12, he and his wife, Yvette, went to the Stow-Munroe Falls Public Library in Ohio. At 37, she is a student at Kent State and needed to study for a biology test. Tim, 40, was reading some books.
Then they noticed two military recruiters trying to enlist someone in a nearby room, with a large glass window.
She decided to take action.
She took out some 3x5 cards and wrote messages to the man being recruited and then put them up on the window sill.
For the rest of story
This is just absolutely unacceptable. A war vet being charged for a crime that doesn’t exist. This is appalling.
Go here to support Tim and write a few letters Please. He did nothing wrong and should never have been charged. He should be commended for his courage.
Trial date is June 5, 2007
What are the police thinking?
I support her husband’s decision. He is to be congratulated for his efforts to keep his freedom of speech. It's people like Yvette and Tim that make a difference. He has been charged with a crime that really doesn't exist. All he did was use his freedom of speech in a correct manner. He did nothing wrong.
This should not happen to anyone.
I suppose if the KKK put up posters at the Library they would be left there no problem. Seems they have more rights then people like Yvette and Tim. That is a shame.
Libraries have become a target of the Bush Gov. Seems all the good people in American are now his targets. Imagine Recruiters having a Vet thrown in jail. Now that is just pathetic on their part.
I think letting your member of Congress about this would not be out of line either.
Use your Imagination.
POST and PASS it on to any where you want. You don't even have to change it just copy and past it. These people need some help. Add Ideas along the way. I want the charges dropped and an apology given to these people.
This could happen to anyone in America. Helping them is helping yourself.
Imagine a truck load of letters hitting the Court house.


Let me add that you can go to this site, they have contact info for media, radio talk shows, government, etc.


IVAW Supporter,

I am writing to let you know about an urgent issue that is affecting
several of our IVAW members. Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are both very
active members and former Marines. Because of their outspoken
opposition to the war, the Marine Corps is threatening to revoke their honorable
discharges and change them to other than honorable. We cannot allow
this suppression of free speech to occur! Adam and Liam need our help to
pay for legal defense and travel to their hearings. Adam just found
out his hearing is in Kansas City on June 4th, less than two weeks away!
Attached below is a letter from Adam, describing his situation and
for your help. Besides financial contributions, we also need people
who are in the Kansas City area to gather support for Adam before his
June 4th hearing. Please contact me at if you are in the
area and would like to find out how you can help. I will keep you
updated on both Adam and Liam's cases as they unfold.
Thank you so much for your time and support, it really means everything
to our veterans who dare to speak the truth.

In Peace,
Kelly Dougherty
Former Sergeant Army National Guard
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Remember All in War ! MEMORIAL DAY for PEACE

Meet the People, Not the Press! Media: FULL STORY

Can You Hear Us NOW?
Anti-war march gets more coverage—but the message is still muted

by Frances Cerra Whittelsey, FAIR Extra!

The stage had been set up in front of the reflecting pool below Capitol Hill, facing the length of the Mall and the Washington Monument. Just behind the stage, in a space set aside for media interviews, huddles of reporters moved scrum-like from the Rev. Jesse Jackson to actress Susan Sarandon to Rep. John Conyers before each took their turn addressing the January 27 antiwar rally and march in Washington D.C.

Out in front of the stage, two multi-step risers held a phalanx of TV cameras and their operators. Still photographers and reporters edged in for a few inches of space, trying to see the extent of the crowd that poured in from all sides. On this sunny and blessedly mild mid-winter day, with police watching benignly from the sidelines, the full apparatus of the media seemed poised to show the U.S. public a full-throated example of democracy in action, of people who had sacrificed sleep and comfort to collectively affirm their role in the political process.

Tired images

To its credit, this literal mass of media did provide more and better coverage of the January 27 Iraq War protest than of ones preceding it. However, with some excellent exceptions, the coverage was narrowly focused—and, among conservative media, radically biased. Story after story, whether print or broadcast, focused on the small picture: soundbites or short quotes from celebrities, other speakers, individual protesters.

Despite the many previous protests against this war, most stories conjured tired images of tie-dyed, Vietnam-era protesters, and used actress Jane Fonda’s appearance to support that story line. Conservative media inflamed their audience by playing up the appearance of “Hanoi Jane” and a single exchange of spittle between a marcher and a counter-demonstrator. (See sidebar.) Many stories noted the absence of Democratic presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton, and pegged the number of demonstrators at just “tens of thousands,” diminishing the importance of the protest.

Many of the stories failed to put the demonstration in political context, even though Conyers, now the powerful head of the House Judiciary Committee, couldn’t have made it easier. Conyers, one of more than 40 speakers, described the protest as a continuation of the antiwar vote in the mid-term elections, and said, “Not only is it in our power to stop Bush, it is our obligation.” He—along with other Democratic House members, including Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, both from California—promised to block continued funding of the war.

The protest also reflected the steady, determined antiwar effort at the grassroots that continued after global protests in February 2003 failed to stop the U.S. invasion, despite their prescient warnings of the consequences of war. Rather than despairing at that failure, the antiwar movement stayed alive in churches and community organizations across the country. Members of these groups repeatedly responded to calls for mobilization by United for Peace & Justice, and others. But the actions and organizing of these antiwar groups, with the major exception of Cindy Sheehan’s vigil outside the Bush ranch, went largely unreported by media that shunned coverage of dissent as unpatriotic.

Blink and you missed it

As a reporter with 30 years of experience, now freelancing and teaching journalism at Hofstra University, I hung my press pass around my neck for this demonstration so I could compare my observations with the versions of events reported by my colleagues. In recent years, I have been a participant in several antiwar demonstrations rather than reporting on them, marching with the crowds as another concerned citizen. Afterward, I have been disappointed with the news coverage because it either made the protests appear inconsequential or failed to report sufficiently on the violations of protesters’ civil rights.

For example, I participated in the September 2005 protest in Washington, D.C. As FAIR reported a few days later (Media Advisory, 9/27/05), if you relied on television for news, you’d hardly have known about it. The NBC Nightly News (9/24/05) devoted 87 words to the story. CNN anchor Aaron Brown (9/24/05) used coverage of Hurricane Katrina as the excuse for his network’s near-total silence about the protest.

I walked with another enormous crowd in New York City on that bitterly cold day of global protests in February 2003. Denied a permit to march, we were making our way to a rally just north of the United Nations. Suddenly, we found our progress blocked. Police barricades held us locked in a side street where we shivered, shoulder-to-shoulder, for two hours. We were never able to reach the rally. At one point, without warning, stony-faced police rode horses at a trot through the tight crowd just a few yards from where we stood.

The next day (2/16/03), the Times’ page-one story, an overview of the global protests, explained that New York police had prevented thousands of people from reaching the rally. Why? Because the pens set up for protesters near the U.N. were full. It went on to report the arrests of protesters who had “tried to breach the police lines.” There was no mention of the hardships endured by the demonstrators, the hostility of the police or the total absence of communication with the crowd.

A separate Times story that day devoted one short paragraph to the police handling of the event. Three days later (2/19/03), a follow-up story reported on a videotape showing police using pepper spray and night sticks on protesters. But since no Times reporter had apparently witnessed these incidents in the paper’s front yard, the story described “complaints” of being corralled, and worse, as mere “allegations.”

Political context

This time around, the New York Times’ editors used a front-page teaser on the protest to lure readers to a story on page 21 (1/28/07), judging other stories, including one about Barack Obama’s college days, as more deserving of the front page. The protest story, once again, consisted primarily of quotes from a wide range of protesters and speakers, but did place the protest in the context of antiwar sentiment in Congress.

The Washington Post (1/28/07) distinguished itself by assigning six staff writers and a researcher to the protest. Its page-one story conveyed the upbeat mood of the crowd and its diversity. It gave prominence to protesters with relatives in Iraq, let us hear a mother explaining the protest to her son as an exercise in free speech, and reported the crowd chanting for impeachment of George W. Bush.

But the paper went beyond human interest, explaining the protesters’ political goal of prodding Congress into action. By naming 10 of the organizations that have come together under the umbrella of United for Peace & Justice, which coordinated the event, it showed the political blending of the agendas of feminists, religious organizations, farmers, active and retired military members and others.

The Post’s coverage also included two sidebars, one about college student protesters and the other a collection of pictures and quotes from a variety of protesters.

The lead of the Associated Press story (1/28/07) told of the presence of a “half-dozen lawmakers,” and was one of the few to quote Conyers, albeit selectively. In AP’s version, his remarks about Bush ended with, “He can’t fire us.” It left out the continuation: “But we can fire him, we can fire him.” At that, the crowd roared, “Impeach! Impeach!” This political message was apparently deemed not to be taken seriously—or else too serious to be reported.

NBC’s Nightly News (1/27/07) offered viewers a brief view of protesters chanting for peace, inconsequential soundbites from Conyers and Fonda, and then brought in a political analyst to talk about Bush’s effort to distract Democrats from taking action against the troop build-up.

ABC’s World News (1/27/07) offered a similar group of soundbites from Fonda and actor Sean Penn. The story did note that “antiwar demonstrators” had raised $1.5 million to support a lobbying effort that would follow the demonstration, but there was no mention of any organization involved in that accomplishment.

The CBS Evening News (1/27/07) similarly settled for soundbites and avoided speaking to any of the leaders of the multitude of organizations involved. It did, however, emphasize that amorphous “activists” were “determined to raise the profile of military families opposed to the war.” It went on with an interview of Larry Syverson, whose three sons have collectively served in Iraq five times, and ended with a line right out of the Bush playbook: “Military families like Syverson’s can provide important political cover here on Capitol Hill, especially for Democrats who are concerned about looking unpatriotic if they stand up to the president,” said reporter Joie Chen.

Same old protest

When I was still in journalism school, a veteran City Hall reporter told me something I’ve never forgotten: When stories all start to seem the same, it’s time to find other work. The reporters, pundits and editors who saw little new about the protest on January 27 should consider his advice.

A major storyline for coverage of the protest was that it was a repeat of the Vietnam-era protests by the very same long-haired hippies—only now their ponytails are gray. Fonda’s appearance at the rally made this slant easy. Ironically, as she explained herself in her brief remarks, she had stayed away from antiwar marches for 34 years knowing she made such an easy target for conservatives. Selectively emphasizing the “same old protest” theme meant avoiding mention of the political goals of the demonstrators, including the demand that Congress bring the troops home by de-funding the war. That focus, of course, is why the march this time did not pass the White House. (Protesters instead circled Capitol Hill.)

Despite this clear message, CNN began its morning coverage the day after the protest (1/28/07) with reporter Gary Nurenberg intoning, “The comparison to peace rallies to end another war 40 years ago was a constant theme among demonstrators who want to end the war in Iraq.” Segue to Fonda, the two dozen pro-Bush supporters who staged a tiny counter-protest, and a pro-Bush pundit who drew a bloody contrast with the Vietnam era: “There is something they [the protesters] don’t understand,” said former RNC spokesperson Clifford May (identified as representing the Foundation for Defense of Democracies). “Ho Chi Minh at his worst never thought he was going to send suicide bombers to America to kill American children. The people we’re fighting in Iraq, they intend to do that.” Nurenberg asked for no evidence for such a horrific prediction; none, at least, was provided.

Later in the day, CNN showed an interview with an active member of the Navy who had taken part in the protest. But unlike May, who was not challenged, Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto was asked if he wasn’t supposed to simply follow the orders of his commander-in-chief.

The headline on the New York Daily News’ protest story (1/28/07) said, “Fonda Leads Army of Celebs at Antiwar Rally.” Accurate if five people make an army.

Salon’s Alex Koppelman (1/28/07) wrote that the demographics of the war protests had changed, with “more yuppies, more families with small children, more older people and even a fair number of stylishly dressed young girls.” Still, he felt compelled to take a swipe at “professional protesters . . . the kind for whom protests are a lifestyle choice.”

The numbers game

Accused in the past of biased counting, neither the National Park Service nor the D.C. police will give any count of the number of protesters at any demonstration in Washington. The government, of course, could provide an excellent count by analyzing photos taken from the helicopters that always fly over demonstrations. Looking at the crowd from the ground does not help. When I stood on the top step of the camera risers and peered the 1.5 miles to the Washington Monument, there were protesters as far as I could see. But I could not tell how close together they were.

Noting the absence of any official count, the Washington Post (1/28/07) described the crowd size as “thousands.” The Associated Press (1/28/07) settled on “tens of thousands,” and quoted an anonymous police officer saying “privately” that attendance was less than 100,000. The “tens of thousands” estimate was also used by the New York Times (1/28/07), Reuters, NBC, ABC and CBS (all 1/27/07). Only the Los Angeles Times (1/28/07) dared to estimate 100,000. Newspapers that in the past would probably have had their own reporters covering the story used the AP story and therefore its count. That included papers like Newsday (1/28/07) that have suffered major staff cuts.

Perhaps the most telling story about turnout was reported on National Public Radio’s All Things Considered broadcast at 7 p.m. on the day of the protest (1/27/07). Jacki Lyden introduced the story this way: “Today’s antiwar protest may be one of the largest in years, but while polls say that most Americans are against the war, most people have not been taking their politics to the streets.” The news staff at NPR seems to have decided on this theme the day before the protest, when reporter Melissa Block, conducting an interview with Judith LeBlanc, co-chair of United for Peace & Justice, said to her:

When you look at what the antiwar movement has done over the last four years of the war, it seemed like there was a big presence at the beginning. And then for a lot of people, maybe it drifted away. It was hard to see where you were. What do you think the problem has been there, in terms of your presence and people’s recognition of what you’re doing? Why haven’t you been able to push the debate forward more?

It does not seem to have occurred to NPR’s news staff that they, like most of the rest of the media, had ignored protest after protest, and now, suddenly awakening, are wondering at the blank in their memory. They might be surprised to learn that the January 27 protest was the eighth since 2003 that “had at least 100,000 people,” according to Leslie Cagan, LeBlanc’s co-chair at United for Peace & Justice.

LeBlanc responded to Block by pointing out that if one travels the country as she has,

what you see is that there is a grassroots movement that hasn’t always gotten the attention of the national media. So . . . in between these big demonstrations, there are people doing some very heavy lifting, showing films and having discussions, and doing door-to-door work in their neighborhoods. . . . We do have the attention of the national media now, and what is going on in our country is a reflection of all of that work that goes on under the radar.

LeBlanc’s response was a diplomatic way of saying that the news media suffer from a chronic lack of interest in covering grassroots organizations, preferring public opinion polls with their bloodless and controlled questions to actually reporting on community activists. Grassroots activism has not only pushed the war debate forward but also contributed to the election of many antiwar members of Congress., for example, reported that in 2006, volunteers made 7 million phone calls, organized 7,500 house parties, and launched 6,000 in-district events.

Antiwar activists, of course, would love the opportunity to “push the debate forward” by participating in media discussions of the war. But as study after study has shown (Extra!, 5–6/03; Extra! Update, 6/99; Extra!, 5/91), they rarely get the chance.

How big?

So how big was the crowd? Cagan estimated the number of protesters at a minimum of 350,000, based on “collective experience over many years of doing large demonstrations.” She pegged this march as “a little bigger” than the September 2005 demonstration in Washington, which she gauged at 300,000, but smaller than the demonstrations in New York City in February 2003 and in August 2004, during the Republican National Convention. She estimated participation at both of those at more than 500,000 people.

It’s impossible to know if Cagan is correct, since the media outlets with the financial resources to do an independent count made no effort to do so. It wasn’t the only squandered opportunity, as the reporters and camerapeople massed around the stage on January 27 neglected to interview organization leaders who could have enlightened the public about their ideas for bringing the war to a close.

They could also have asked individual protesters about the groups to which they belong and for whom they volunteer, finding out whether there really has been an absence of protest as this war has mercilessly gone on. They could have wondered at their own failure to listen and observe the vigils, local government antiwar resolutions, the barrage of e-mails and letters to members of Congress and the White House.

They could have speculated about the health of democracy in America when the executive branch can so easily ignore the voice of the people. And, instead of disdaining protesters of any age or hairstyle, they could have shown respect for people who got up off their couches on a mid-winter day to affirm the right of the people to be part of the political process.