Op-Ed

“The best strategic minds in both parties have argued for months that the answer is essentially to muddle our way out, cut our losses carefully and try to salvage what we can from a mission gone bad.”

This isn’t pretty. Not when you think about the glory we reveled in four years ago. A superpower swooped into Iraq, routed a dictator, toppled a statue. Our prez did the equivalent of a dance in the end zone aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Damn, we’re good.

And now? All that glory is something at the back of the refrigerator. “A mission gone bad.” Hold your nose and see what you can salvage. Here’s Time magazine in its July 30 cover story, holding its nose, detailing the ignominy: “U.S. agricultural inspectors insist that, before it re-enters the U.S., Army equipment be free of any microscopic disease that . . . ‘can wipe out flocks of chickens and stuff like that.’”

Bawk-k-k! Bawk-k-k!

John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies opened an event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.  Cavanagh announced that with the recent addition of Santa Fe, N.M., a total of exactly 300 towns, cities, and states have passed resolutions against the occupation of Iraq.  These governments, he said, represent about 50% of the people in the United States.

  Karen Dolan, the director of Cities for Peace, explained the project.  Arrayed behind her were dozens of men and women holding signs with the names of their cities and states. 

  Next to speak was an Alderman from Chicago, Joe Moore, who has led the passage of anti-war resolutions in Chicago.  He recalled being in this same room 4.5 years ago with representatives of 160 cities and towns opposing the invasion of Iraq.  Then, as is planned today, they marched from here to the White House to present their resolutions and make their case to the president.  Needless to say, he didn't listen. 

On Tuesday morning in Washington, D.C., a five-member group of Americans reported on their just-completed 12-day trip through Iran.  As with other delegations of this sort, they reported on a country that bears very little resemblance to the horrifying axis-of-evil member we hear about on U.S. television.

Phil Wileto of the Virginia Antiwar Network and the Richmond Defender said the Iranian people were extremely welcoming.  They were mobbed by 80 school children wanting to practice their English.  They encountered by chance 300 members of the Iranian National Guard who were delighted to meet Americans and spoke immediately of peace and friendship.  There does not appear, Wileto said, to be any campaign in Iran to prepare the people there for war.  The Iranian people view Americans with friendship, admiration, curiosity.

When a Member of Congress wants to push an agenda forward, even one supported by very few other Congress Members, he or she will introduce or sign onto a bill and urge others to do the same.  Almost every Congress Member is willing to do this sort of thing, often on very controversial issues.  But when a Member of Congress wants to oppose an agenda without explaining why, he or she will tell you "I can't sign onto that because we don't have the votes."  In addition to the inconsistency, another problem with this excuse is that there are many examples of Congress finding the necessary votes as a result of a small group of Congress Members pushing an agenda forward.

If you think the war on terrorism is going badly – and our intelligence agencies warn that al Qaeda has reconstituted itself – take a look at the war on drugs.

It has been twenty-five years since Ronald Reagan declared war on drugs. Our prison population has quadrupled since then. A multi-billion dollar prison-industrial complex has sprouted up to house all those sentenced for dealing or using illicit drugs. Instead of building schools, states are building prisons. Billions more has been spent at the borders, and in efforts to eradicate drug cartels from Colombia to Afghanistan. And yet today, experts report that drugs cheaper and more potent than ever are easily available across the country.

It's remarkably common for a grandson to take up his grandfather's major project.  This occurred to me when I read recently of Thor Heyerdahl's grandson taking up his mission to cross the Pacific on a raft.  But what really struck me was the BBC story aired on July 23rd documenting President George W. Bush's grandfather's involvement in a 1933 plot to overthrow the U.S. government and install a fascist dictatorship.  I knew the story, but had not considered the possibility that the grandson was trying to accomplish what his grandfather had failed to achieve.

Prescott Sheldon Bush (1895 to 1972) attended Yale University and joined the secret society known as Skull and Bones.  Prescott is widely reported to have stolen the skull of Native American leader Geronimo.  As far as I know, this has not actually been confirmed.  In fact, Prescott seems to have had a habit of making things up.  He sent letters home from World War I claiming he'd received medals for heroism.  After the letters were printed in newspapers, he had to retract his claims. 

Congressman Robert Brady, (D., PA), who represents portions of Philadelphia, on Tuesday signed on as a cosponsor of House Resolution 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. 

Also on Tuesday, Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Carlos Arredondo, Bill Perry and many other leaders of the movement for impeachment held a rally in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia was the first stop on the Journey for Humanity Tour after Monday's march and civil disobedience in Washington, D.C.  The tour began in Crawford, Texas, on July 10.

Congressman Brady is to be congratulated for his heroic stand in support of the rule of law.  He can be reached at (215) 389-4627 or http://www.house.gov/formrobertbrady/issue.htm

With the addition of Congressman Brady, and including the original sponsor of H Res 333, Dennis Kucinich, there are now 15 Congress Members for impeachment.  Including Jesse Jackson Jr., who says he supports impeachment, but who has not signed onto any bill, brings the total to 16. 

Probably few people this side of Gitmo are more profoundly outcast from society and human sympathy than convicted child molester priests. How tempting, then, to allow ourselves to feel a terrible spark of collective pride in our dysfunctional penal system at their sentencing — in anticipation of the “prison justice” they likely face.

“He is also at higher risk of sexual violence, though the notion that McCormack deserves protection from the very type of crime he committed offends some,” the Chicago Tribune writes of ex-priest Daniel McCormack, who was recently convicted of molesting five boys while assigned to a parish on Chicago’s West Side, and was sentenced to five years at Illinois’ Jacksonville Correctional Center.

“I just don’t think a priest has been equipped in his life to go through what he’s probably going to go through,” a union rep for prison guards told the Tribune. “Inmates tend to have their own code of justice. It’s a different world inside the prison fence or wall.”

Joel Wendland has written an article opposing impeachment. His claims, and all claims of impeachment opponents, have long since been answered here. But here's some redundancy:

Wendland objects to calling Conyers "no Martin Luther King". Most of us are no Martin Luther King, but the point of that comment from Ray McGovern was that Conyers is backing away from a controversial and urgent life-or-death demand for justice. He is backing away in a manner that Dr. King almost certainly would not have. Wendland opposes attempting impeachment because it is "not likely to pass in the House". That's nonsense. The Democrats could vote as a block and pass it, and some Republicans might join them. Whether it would pass the Senate is harder to predict but far from impossible, and an impeachment with an acquittal would be far better than no accountability whatsoever. It would send a signal to future administrations that breaking the law at least MIGHT be punished.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.

I was a guest today on Bree Walker's radio show. She's the progressive radio host from California who purchased Cindy Sheehan's land from her in Crawford, Texas.

Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" But, of course, what we're waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge rally on the National Mall and declared "We can fire them!" but later explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and Bush and Cheney's terms would end. Was this week's remark just more empty rhetoric?