As many of you know,
Signs of the Times is not supported by major funding like
many other news sites, and is not affiliated with any
government, political group, corporation, or news agency.
SOTT is financed by any donations we receive as well as
money out of our own pockets. The benefit of this setup
is that we do not have any sponsors that might introduce
unwanted bias into our work. The
obvious and major drawback is that we do not have the
funding to do all the things we would like to do for our
readers.
Almost one year ago, SOTT created the Pentagon
Strike presentation, which has now been viewed by
well over 300,000,000 people worldwide, and is available
in nine different languages. Recently, we wrote and produced
the song You
Lied, performed by Away
With the Fairys. We also recorded our first ever podcast,
beginning a project which we had been trying to get off
the ground for over a year.
A
SOTT editor poses next to his computer
To produce the Signs page, we work very long days (often
upwards of 14-16 hours) without pay. We do it because
we love it, and because our readers often write to tell
us how they have benefited from our work. In order to
continue expanding our work and deepen our analysis and
understanding of our world, we need to enlarge our library.
There are many books we would like to have that we cannot
afford. With our increasing use of sound files and our
future projects that include video, we have and will continue
to incur higher bandwidth costs. As well, the Signs page
and related projects are created on several computers
which are each upwards of five years old. They are very
slow, increasingly unreliable, and won't support regular
podcasts and videos.
Unfortunately, we do not have the financial means to
purchase the books we need, much less new equipment. Current
donations only support our basic needs and living expenses.
In order to continue producing the Signs page, the podcast,
Flash presentations, and expand our operations further,
we need your support.
At the moment, we are preparing six Signs of the
Times Commentary books. These books are collections
of SOTT commentary grouped according to theme. They will
be available for sale soon, and any proceeds will go towards
helping to cover our increasing operating costs.
Our target, based on estimated costs for all the necessary
materials, upgrades, and operating costs for the coming
year is 28,000 euros.
--
Here's How You Can Help Signs of the Times --
Any donation you
can make will help us to continue to produce and improve
the Signs page.
If you donate 50 euros
(approximately US$60; click
here for current exchange rate), you will be a Bronze
Supporter.
Bronze
Supporters will receive a complementary
copy of the 911 Conspiracy Signs
Commentary book.
If you donate 100
euros, you will be a Silver
Supporter.
Silver
Supporters will receive a complementary copy
of 911 Conspiracy, US Freedom, and The
Media.
Donations
of 175 euros will qualify you as a Gold
Supporter.
Gold
Supporters will receive the entire set of
six commentary books: 911 Conspiracy, The
Human Condition, The Media, Religion,
US Freedom, and The Work.
Donations of 250 euros will
qualify you as a Platinum Supporter.
Platinum
Supporters will receive the entire set of
six commentary books: 911 Conspiracy, The
Human Condition, The Media, Religion,
US Freedom, and The Work. In addition,
they will receive one other book of their choice free
from our bookstore.
We have more projects like our podcast in
the works - but we need your
help to make them a reality!
Thank
you in advance from the editors and the rest of the team
at Signs of the Times!
There's much more to this story
than a "sexual indiscretion." The sudden firing
of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) Commander,
four star General and New York City native Kevin P.
Byrnes, one of only 11 four star generals in the Army,
has much more to do with a policy dispute than an anonymous
Pentagon-reported story about an alleged "extra-marital
affair."
Although Byrnes has recently been involved in divorce
proceedings, Pentagon insiders
report that Byrnes was fired for insubordination.
Byrnes' firing fits a pattern of neocon demonizing of
policy opponents by tossing out unsubstantiated charges
from "anonymous source." For example, when
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski was demoted to Colonel over
trumped up charges over her role as commander of Iraqi
prisons during the time of the prisoner abuse (and after
she revealed the presence of Israeli interrogators in
Iraqi prisons), the Pentagon spin machine, joined at
the hips with neo-con think thanks and media outlets
in Washington, cited a dated and totally unsubstantiated
shoplifting accusation against her.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, who Donald
Rumsfeld hauled out of retirement to head up the Army
after Gen. Eric Shinseki was fired and after no other
active duty general wanted the job, relieved Byrnes
of his command at Fort Monroe, Virginia. Byrnes had
previous run-ins with the neo-cons in the Pentagon.
In 2002, Byrnes was faced with
being retired at Lt. Gen. after he clashed with then-Rumsfeld
aide Stephen Cambone over proposed troop strength cuts.Then Army Secretary Thomas White,
intervened on behalf of Byrnes and he received his fourth
star. White was later fired by the Pentagon neo-cons.
What has not been reported is
that recently, one of Byrnes' subordinate commands,
Fort Rucker in Alabama, had been told to stand by for
an influx of 50,000 military trainees -- a level the
base has not seen since the Vietnam War. Byrnes'
relief of command came on the heels of the Pentagon
announcing that it might permit Spanish-language entrance
examinations. Byrnes, who was in charge of Army training,
would not only face recruits with lower education levels
and past criminal records, but a lack of proficiency
in English. Pentagon insiders
report that it was Byrnes' policy disagreements with
the Pentagon neo-cons over the new recruitment policies
and the potential for calling up Army retirees and reinstating
military conscription without adequate TRADOC funding
that resulted in his firing. The personal misconduct
charges were concocted by the Pentagon to cover up the
fact that there are serious disagreements
with Bush and Rumsfeld among the flag officer ranks
in the military.
Byrnes was also associated with a group of officers
who spent time at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle
Barracks in Pennsylvania. The Army War College has been
a center of opposition to the war in Iraq and it is
believed that Byrnes was recognized by the neo-cons
as one of the unofficial leaders of a group of Army
flag rank opponents of Bush's war in Iraq and potential
military action against Iran.
Comment: As
Bush's approval rating plummets, it seems that there
may indeed be a battle in progress between the Neocons
and some top military officials who are fed up with
their commander-in-chief...
News is flying in regard to the
nuclear terror drill set for this month. It
is feared by informed researchers that an actual nuclear
detonation may be piggybacked on the drill, as was the
modus operandi in the 9/11 and 7/7 inside jobs.
As reported at this site, the drill involving a nuclear
warhead being smuggled into Charleston, South Carolina
is to involve the Atlanta-area FEMA office and be run
out of Fort Monroe, Virginia. Today, the four-star general
in charge of Fort Monroe was fired. Anonymously-sourced
and speculative reports on the leading alternative media
websites posited General Kevin Byrnes was fired for
attempting to prevent the drill from going live. (See
Lehrman/Physics911.net,
Szymanski/Arctic
Beacon, Jones,Watson/PrisonPlanet,
Skolnick/Cloak).
Now a Washington Times report, also anonymously-sourced,
highlights the flimsy basis on which he was fired --
adultery. Not the Jeff Gannon kind of military adultery
popular in the White House; but involvement, while separated
from his wife, with a woman in a separate command. It
also turns out Rumsfeld tried to chase him out the military
three years ago. Looks like he finally found
a pretext.
An official announcement yesterday
did not specify why Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, 52, was
removed from his command of all soldier training and
doctrine development, but two retired Army
officers said it was for having an extramarital affair.
Adultery is illegal in the military, constituting
conduct unbecoming an officer. The sources said they
think the woman was not a subordinate of Gen. Byrnes
at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe,
Va.
It is rare in modern times
for the Army to relieve a four-star general.
...
Gen. Byrnes, one of 11 four-star Army generals,
was nearing the end of a three-year term at U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command when Gen. Peter Schoomaker,
the Army chief of staff, relieved him of command yesterday.
[...]
Gen. Byrnes had been under investigation for some
time and had been in the throes of a divorce.
A number of officers went
to bat [for Byrnes] in 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld threatened
to end his career at lieutenant general. [...]
An antiterrorism exercise to test the effectiveness
of installation plans and procedures in response to
a terrorist attack will take place here Aug. 17.
A series of live emergency response drills are scheduled
throughout the day, according to Bill Moisant, Fort
Monroe's antiterrorism officer. ...
Impacts could include extremely thorough security
checks at gates, restricted movement near emergency
response drill sites and temporary closure of some
customer service activities.
Moisant explained that the Fort Monroe Crisis Action
Team, first responders, supporting agencies, and assigned
and tenant organizations will be evaluated on their
ability to respond to a simulated terrorist incident.
He said the exercise could involve City of Hampton
police and fire officials, as well as other off-post
agencies. [...]
Exact times and locations of exercise site events
are not indicated due to OPSEC requirements. Cooperation
by personnel and agencies affected by the exercise
is greatly appreciated.
The exercise is not open to the
general public or local news media.
Comment: No
official reason was given for Byrne's dismissal, and
it is extraordinarily rare for a four star general to
be booted out of the military. Given Rummy's previous
attempt to get rid of Byrnes, as well as the "terror
drill" planned for just a few days from now, it
seems fairly certain that Byrne's firing had nothing
to do with adultery. Perhaps the Bush gang is doing
a little house cleaning in the military...
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
The Telegraph
14/08/2005
The top American commander in Iraq
has been privately rebuked by the Bush administration
for openly discussing plans to reduce troop levels there
next year, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
President George W Bush personally
intervened last week to play down as "speculation"
all talk of troop pull-outs because he fears that even
discussing options for an "exit strategy"
implies weakening resolve.
Gen George Casey, the US ground commander
in Iraq, was given his dressing-down after he briefed
that troop levels - now 138,000 - could be reduced by
30,000 in the early months of next year as Iraqi security
forces take on a greater role.
The unusual sign of US discord
came as Iraqi politicians and clerics drafting a new
constitution continued their own wrangling over autonomy
demands by various factions. [...]
Comment: Um,
hasn't the Bush administration itself remarked on several
occasions about future troop reductions?
In this
Reuters article, we discover that two top US lawmakers
- Joseph Biden and John McCain - are also calling for
sending more troops to Iraq.
Former Navy Lieutenant Harvey Tharp
of Iraq Veterans Against the War spoke publicly for
the first time on July 4 during a lunchtime break of
the National Education Association's Representative
Assembly. His talk was sponsored by the NEA's Peace
and Justice Caucus.
Tharp was honorably discharged from the Navy in March
2005. Six months after the invasion
of Iraq, Tharp, along with five others was, in Tharp's
words, raided from the Navy Staff Corps. Tharp
was called upon because he had studied Arabic five years
earlier. Although Colin Powell
had spent five million dollars on a study for how to
operate in post war Iraq the study was nixed and the
neo-conservatives wouldn't send experienced Arabic speakers
or diplomats to Iraq.
Tharp says that when he showed up in Baghdad his co-workers
said, "Wow, we have people to send out." Tharp,
armed with 180,000 dollars in reconstruction for a population
of one million was sent to Kirkuk. When
asked how he could communicate with Baghdad, he was
told to sign up for a hotmail account. As for security
he was armed with an AK-47 and provided a security briefing.
Having no body armor, Tharp sent off to bulletproofme.com
to acquire his own. When he asked who his CO was, he
was told, "We're working on it." Kirkuk
wasn't as important as the Oil Ministry, which had the
South African Army and Halliburton to provide security
as well as an unlimited budget.
The Navy was unable to rob Tharp of his humanity. Working
with Iraqis he was impressed by their manners and decency.
When he heard about Abu Ghraib, he thought to himself
that he was glad that he was no longer in Iraq because
he didn't think that he could face the Iraqis who worked
for him. "This was not Animal House," he said
about Abu Ghraib. He quoted the British Major General
who said that Americans treated Iraqis as if they were
untermenschen and remarked, "American society doesn't
care about lives of people overseas."
The lies perpetuated by the Bush administration
are mere "window dressing for the ultimate reasons
we're in Iraq." Reasons cited by Tharp include
oil, protecting allies, and control of the world.
Tharp, faced with another tour in Iraq, which would
require him to direct combat, felt certain that "having
met those people changed my perspective [and I knew
that] I could not voluntarily nor involuntarily kill
them." Luckily for Tharp, the Navy had a surplus
of lieutenants and he was able to resign; unfortunately
this is not the case for enlisted personnel.
"I am going to do everything
I can to end this war as soon as possible," Tharp
says. "The one thing that we can do is to keep
them from getting fresh mortar bait." His
mission now is to caution children that to join the
Army or Marine Corps right now is a "bad idea."
For teachers, it is important to understand that the
"weak point of the military machine" is in
the recruiting.
Harvey Tharp is the first person in the US Military
whom I have encountered who acknowledges the humanity
of the Iraqis and who has not been brainwashed regarding
the reasons we are there.
Comment: It
looks like fresh cannon fodder will be necessary as
more and more coalition troops are pulling out of Iraq...
ROME (Xinhuanet) -- Italy is starting
to withdraw troops from Iraq, about one month ahead
of schedule, local media reported on Saturday.
The withdrawal process was put forward because 130
Marines in southern Iraq had finished their mission
and it is pointless to replace them as Italy had planned
to pull out 300 troops in September, a spokesman of
the Italian contingent in Nassiriya was quoted as saying.
The 130 troops will leave for home soon, he said.
An official of the Italian Defense Ministry, who refused
to be named, said the decision was purely logistical
and financial, rather than political.
Italy has some 3,000 troops in Iraq, the fourth largest
foreign contingent there after the United States, Britain
and South Korea. Most of the Italian forces are deployed
in southern Iraq.
Comment: With
Israel and the US eyeing Iran, Bush's decreasing popularity,
increasing anti-war pressure from the American people,
the stumbling US economy, and the continuing need for
US troops in Iraq, it seems that a "nuclear terror
drill" along the lines of 9/11 would be just the
thing to give Bush, the Neocons, and the Zionists the
boost they desperately need right now.
Although Doug Stout, 77, won't
pin illegal entry on his property to his harsh comments
about Bush, but says one thing for sure "I don't
smoke pot and everybody in town knows it." After
hovering over his property with a helicopter, officers
then swarmed on his land, looked at some shrubbery and
then left without any explanation.
Don Stout looked up into the Midwestern
sky one afternoon two weeks ago and saw a strange helicopter
flying over his five-acre piece of land in rural Albany,
Ohio.
Before he knew what happened, the
77-year-old long-time resident, law-abiding citizen
and Korean War veteran had eight law enforcement officials
swarm on his property, checking the place out for marijuana.
Never before having a run-in with the law, Stout said
the heavy-handed looking group
of law enforcement thugs "came and went without
saying a word" after suspiciously looking
at a large bush on his property not in the slightest
bit resembling a pot plant.
"I've been here since 1994
and everybody's knows me including the sheriff. I never
smoked marijuana and they know it, but I think they
just like terrorizing people," said Stout
in a telephone conversation from his rural home, adding
he still hasn't received an answer from anyone why law
enforcement officials invaded his privacy and entered
his land without a proper search warrant.
"It scared the hell out of me as eight or ten
men swarmed my place. I was weeding my garden and the
next thing you know, they were on my property, looked
at this bush and left without saying a word. It
was ridiculous, but the sheriff, the deputy sheriff
and the game warden all raided my place for no reason
and I am still looking for an explanation."
Although Stout can't pinpoint why authorities entered
his property without a warrant, earlier
that day he aired his strong opinions against President
Bush, calling him an outright liar, on a free speech
and truth-telling talk radio show on the popular WAIF
AM770 local radio station.
Stout said he has been calling in regularly voicing
his anti-Bush opinions, saying people in rural Ohio
are finally starting to wake up to lies, deceit and
treachery imposed on the American people by what he
calls a "lying dog of a President."
"I think he and the rest of his buddies are corrupt,
down right crazy and Bush should be impeached plain
and simple for lying to the people about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq," said the former Korean
War veteran, who lashed out at Bush for going to war
illegally and in the process killing thousands of innocent
civilians, including more than 1,700 GI's.
"I think George Bush is a liar and is personally
responsible for the deaths of many good young men in
order that his rich buddies could profit from this illegal
war."
Considering himself a "true American" who
honorably fought for his country and drove a Greyhound
bus for many years, the plain speaking Bush critic thinks
America is in a crisis and at the brink of martial law
at the hands of government tyrants bent on destroying
the country from within.
"I think we have lost this country
and many people feel it's too late and feel helpless
about doing anything about it," said Stout. "I
am pretty outspoken about a lot of things and it wouldn't
surprise me if another terrorist hits us harder than
9/11, putting the country under a state of emergency
and martial law while at the same time taking the heat
off Bush.
"This reminds me of Nazi Germany.
The people are being fed propaganda and in turn the
dollar is going to hell as are the rest of our freedoms.
I don't think we should give up our freedoms in order
to be safer, when all the government is trying to do
is take us over from within.
"The Founding Fathers would have never stood for
what is going on and would have thrown Bush and his
buddies out on their ears. I think the people of Ohio
are starting to wake up and I do not intend to stop
talking about how I feel on that talk radio show."
Besides the strange raid on Stout's
property, the radio station giving the thumbs up to
air the controversial truth-telling radio program in
the traditionally conservative heartland also has reported
mysteriously having its transmitter knocked out on two
occasions from "two mysterious bolts of lightning."
Housewife Lauren Dowling, another avid WAIF listener
and unofficial promoter of the truth-telling show that
schedules many of the guests for broadcaster Sharon
Elliot and station owner Joe Edwards, isn't pointing
fingers but said this week from her rural home that
the two "bolts of lightening"
in the last six weeks was very unusual.
Although Elliot and Edwards have been airing a controversial
show from their station headquarters in Nelsonville,
Ohio, radio for quite some time, it hasn't been until
recently that they decided to bring on even more controversial
figures like anti-establishment broadcaster Alex Jones
and others to talk the traditionally mainstream audience
at WAIF.
"And Maureen Jones just came on the other day
educating people about fluoride in the water, which
was very interesting," said Dowling, adding calls
have been coming in from all over the South East quadrant
of Ohio, including parts of West Virginia about the
station that has small town roots but a large broadcast
reach.
"I thought it was time the people of our community
heard the truth from people like Alex Jones, who by
the way, probably shocked a few listeners, but had a
very important message which has been basically censored
by the mainstream press.
"I'm just an average Mom, giving
out a common sense dose of the truth to these arrogant
leaders."
Besides Jones, WAIF is scheduling for future morning
shows other alternative broadcasters and activists basically
silenced in rural America by the Bush propaganda machine
and a cooperative press.
Plans also include interviewing many people who have
had their voices silenced about 9/11, especially eye-witness,
victims and journalists who have struggled hard to wake
up a sleeping country.
"It's never too late and people
around here are starting to open their hearts and minds,
tuning in to listen and participate," added Dalling.
And Stout, who many people in the community believe
had his civil rights violated by law enforcement officials
for voicing his regularly on WAIF, had one last message
to President Bush before getting to the bottom of why
officials illegally swarmed down on his private property:
"I don't intend to trade of security for my rights
as an American. I believe we need to take our country
back from these thugs and brown shirts before or jobs,
our financial security and our lives are taken away
from us right before our very eyes."
"I want the American people to
know that a lot of other people here in Ohio feel like
I do and also know the election was stolen by Bush.
He is losing popularity because a lot of people over
here are finally starting to see through his lies, lies
that are costing young American lives every day this
illegal war continues."
JESSICA LYNCH, the former US army
supply clerk who became a national icon after her capture
and rescue during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, says
she was "used" by the Pentagon to "show
the war was going great".
Ms Lynch, 22, told Time magazine:
"I think I provided a way to boost everybody's
confidence about the war . . . I was used as a symbol.
It doesn't bother me anymore. It used to." Ms Lynch
says that her book, I Am a Soldier, Too: The Jessica
Lynch Story, will "set the record straight".
Ms Lynch said that the television
movie of her life was inaccurate. Ms Lynch said
that she hopes to become a teacher. In a few weeks she
begins classes at West Virginia University, where her
tuition fees have been paid for by the state.
Ms Lynch, from Palestine, West Virginia, was a private
in the US Army when she was captured in Iraq on March
23, 2003, near al-Nasiriyah, a crossing point over the
Euphrates River. She suffered two spinal fractures,
nerve damage and a shattered right arm, right foot and
left leg when her Humvee crashed during a firefight.
Eleven other soldiers in her unit were killed in the
ambush. She was rescued from
an Iraqi hospital by US forces on April 1, 2003 - the
first rescue of an American prisoner of war since the
Second World War.
However, accounts of Ms Lynch's rescue
were contradictory and it was claimed that the rescue
was staged.
Anti-war
protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed
in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment,"
and for Israel to get out of Palestine!
"You get America out of Iraq and
Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism,"
Sheehan declares.
Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President
Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004.
I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son,
George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my
son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back
taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."
"And now I'm going to use another
'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these
people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and
go to jail."
The 48-year-old California mom remains tented up in a
ditch along the one-lane road that leads to Bush's Texas
ranch.
As her protest entered its second week, hundreds of people
with conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq descended
on the area.
TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets
support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but
he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to
come home because you need to support us at home."
Developing...
Comment:
The right-wing talking points, slander mill is burning
up important quantities of energy resources as these fossils
fuel the hate machine with lies and foul shots at Cindy
Sheehan, as the next few articles well document. The idea
that someone would begin to question the wisdom of the
elected appointed-by-God commander-in-chief is
too much for the Bush hit gang.
Drudge, one of the early neocon Internet storm troopers,
recounts Sheehan's statement on Iraq and Palestine as
if they were a bad thing! Oh, yeah. For the loonies in
charge of the US, such statements are subversive aid to
the enemy.
Indeed, if Israel didn't exist and if the US was out
of Iraq, there would be no more terrorism, but that only
underlines that most of it, including the "suicide
bombs" they tell us are delivered by Islamic fundamentalists,
are the work of the US and Israel, the world champions
and record breakers in false flag operations.
Soon, it'll be a crime to make such statements. People
will be hauled away for giving succour to the enemy. The
pundits, such as the vile-mouthed Michelle Malkin, have
been laying the groundwork for such arrests by upping
the rhetoric over the last few years. They are paid for
this and are promoted via propaganda factories like Fox
News. We recently received a copy of OutFoxed
from a reader. We weren't able to stomach the entire film
at one sitting such was the depth of the cesspool. Using
the tricks of music videos to spin the news, Fox has found
a powerful way of programming the population on a vast
scale. And it is successful.
The shameless savaging
of Cindy Sheehan continues.
Bill O’Reilly says she’s a tool of “far
left elements.”
The New York Sun echoes the charge, evidently reading
the same rightwing talking points.
In an editorial on August 11, it says Sheehan “has
put herself in league with some extreme groups and individuals.”
This is old-style McCarthyism, straight on down to the
red-baiting.
The editorial quotes Sheehan about some of the groups
she’s involved with, including Code Pink, Veterans
for Peace, and Military Families Speak Out.
It then notes that these groups are on the steering committee
of United for Peace and Justice, along with the Communist
Party USA. (A person representing that party is one of
the forty-one members who was voted onto the steering
committee.)
This classic guilt-by-association trope just shows the
reflexive response of the right: When your critic has
credibility, and you can’t find anything else on
her, destroy her with the old standby: You’re a
communist dupe!
The Sun also points out that Sheehan is working with
the Crawford Peace House, and it says that group’s
website “includes a photo depicting the entire state
of Israel as Palestine.” Actually, it depicts a
protester holding a sign showing four maps of what is
now Israel and the Occupied Territories, noting how Palestinians
have been allowed less and less land over the past 60
years.
“Nobody is anti-Israel here,” says John Wolf,
one of the founders of the Crawford Peace House. “We’re
just asking for peace with justice and respect for international
law.”
But for the New York Sun, the Crawford Peace House’s
view of the Israel-Palestine conflict is convenient enough
to tar Cindy Sheehan with.
Rightwing talk show host Phil Hendrie goes even lower,
writing an article amazingly entitled “Anti-War
Mom: Another Ignorant Cow,” Hendrie called Sheehan
a “self-righteous ignoramus,” and then went
into full mockery mode: “A mother grieving her loss.
The inhumanity of war. Oh, the wickedness of it all.”
I’ve seen callousness before, but this piece may
top them all. And catch Hendrie’s defense of the
Iraq War: “This war was unavoidable, brought on
by an historic clash of culture and ideal, powered by
the American people themselves, rising to meet the future,
pissing off the rag heads.” Rag heads?
By the way, Hendrie’s screed was posted on the
website, freerepublic.com, which calls itself “the
premier online gathering place for independent, grassroots
conservatism on the web.”
Sheehan responds to her critics: “Nothing you can
say can hurt me or make me stop what we are doing. We
are working for peace with justice. We are using peaceful
means and the truth to do it.”
The invective toward
Cindy Sheehan seems to know no bounds. Phil Hendrie’s
“ignorant cow” line drew some criticism at
the posting site, but it also attracted the following
remarks:
“In a more civil society, we’d toss her ass
in jail for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
“This woman deserves nothing more than a swift
kick in the ass.”
“The only pain I hear from this woman is the pain
of having to live in a nonsocialist society.”
“I think her son would call her worse things.”
On drudge.com, the Drudge Retort (as opposed to the Drudge
Report), there is a long exchange on Sheehan. Here are
some of the uglier comments:
“Shut your pie hole bitch. Let your son rest in
peace.”
“Another lying liberal bitch with an agenda.”
“Seditious cunt.”
“What would have been funny is if this crazy ho
was to blow herself up on live TV.”
If you find additional outrageous comments on Sheehan,
especially from rightwing media figures, please forward
them to Matt Rothschild at The Progressive, at editorial@progressive.org.
I’ll try to post some of them here. Thanks, Matt.
The
right wing attacks on Cindy Sheehan -- desperate, pathetic,
and grasping at straws -- expose much less about their
target than about the attackers.
I mean, trying to slime a grieving Gold Star mom because
she is inconveniently questioning the reasons her son
was sent off to die in Iraq? Why that would be like trashing
a much-decorated war hero or outing an undercover CIA
agent…
Oh, right…
How much longer can the Bushies get away
with mauling the very values they profess to stand for
before their supporters start getting wise to the fact
that the only value they really value is power?
Think about it, they’ve shown absolutely no compunction
about turning the sleaze machine on an undercover agent
who’d spent her career working to protect us from
weapons of mass destruction, a Silver Star/Purple Heart
veteran who volunteered to fight in a war the administration
chickenhawks gamed the system to avoid, and now the mother
of a dead soldier.
The right wing smear machine whirrs on -- using its media
mouthpieces to do this dirtiest of dirty work. First it
was the lie that Sheehan had, in the words of Drudge,
“dramatically changed her account” of her
June 2004 meeting with Bush. Despite the fact that this
supposed flip-flop was a total distortion created by taking
quotes out of context, the story quickly made its way
into the hands of conservative bloggers… and allowed
the TV jackal-pack to start tearing away at Sheehan’s
flesh. For all the details on how this went down, check
out Media Matters blow-by-blow description. The lowlights
included Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin tag-teaming
up to push the idea that Sheehan’s “story
hasn’t checked out”. O’Reilly also claimed
Sheehan “is in bed with the radical left”,
and, later suggested “this kind of behavior borders
on treasonous”… and, for bad measure, tried
to slime Sheehan by linking her with “people who
hate this government, hate their country”.
Rush Limbaugh played his usual role, parroting the flip-flop
party line, saying that Sheehan was “trying to pull
a little bit of a swindle” and that “she’d
been totally co-opted by…the whole Michael Moore
leftist mentality.” Fred Barnes piled on, saying
of Sheehan: “She’s a crackpot” (no doubt
using the same video-based diagnostic technique pioneered
by Bill Frist). And Michelle Malkin went all Patricia
Arquette on the case, using her heretofore unpromoted
ESP powers to let us know that Sheehan’s dead son
Casey wouldn’t approve of “his mother’s
crazy accusations”.
Beyond contempt. But I will say this for these sleazeballs:
they are nothing if not resilient. After the Cindy as
Flip-Flopper story was revealed as a very poorly done
hatchet job, a second load of sludge was quickly dumped:
the ludicrous statement from the (ahem) “Sheehan
Family” condemning Cindy’s “political
motivations and publicity tactics” (run under a
banner headline proclaiming “Family of Fallen Soldier
Pleads: Please Stop, Cindy”).
Where do I start with this piece of
manufactured offal? How about the fact that no one put
their names on the statement, which was “signed”
by “Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles
and numerous cousins”. Don’t these folks have
names? The only name attached to the “Sheehan Family”
statement (delivered to Drudge via email with permission
“to distribute as you wish”) belongs to Cherie
Quartarolo who describes herself as Casey’s aunt
and godmother. So did I miss something? Since when does
godmother outrank mother? What I really want to know is:
how does Casey’s second-cousin-twice-removed feel
about Cindy’s vigil? How about his ex-brother-in-law’s
cleaning lady?
Cindy deals with all this very succinctly in her latest
post, but suffice it to say that Casey’s
dad and their three other children are all supportive
of what Cindy is doing. Hmm… I always thought
conservatives were big proponents of the importance of
the nuclear family. Does James Dobson know about this
attempt to undermine the primacy of a mother?
I guess it takes a village to trash a grieving Gold Star
Mom.
Retired
four-star Army General Barry McCaffrey to Time Magazine:
"The Army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24
months. We are now in a period of considerable strategic
peril. It's because Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and
said, I cannot retreat from my position."
Cindy Sheehan testifying at Rep.
John Conyers public hearings on the Downing Street
Memo: "My son, Spc Casey Austin Sheehan, was KIA in
Sadr City Baghdad on 04/04/04. He was in Iraq for only
2 weeks before [Coalition Provisional Authority head]
L. Paul Bremer inflamed the Shi'ite Militia into a rebellion
which resulted in the deaths of Casey and 6 other brave
soldiers who were tragically killed in an ambush. Bill
Mitchell, the father of Sgt. Mike Mitchell who was one
of the other soldiers killed that awful day is with us
here. This is a picture of Casey when he was 7 months
old. It's an enlargement of a picture he carried in his
wallet until the day he was killed. He loved this picture
of himself. It was returned to us with his personal effects
from Iraq. He always sucked on those two fingers. When
he was born, he had a flat face from passing through the
birth canal and we called him ‘Edward G' short for Edward
G. Robinson. How many of you have seen your child in his/her
premature coffin? It is a shocking and very painful sight.
The most heartbreaking aspect of seeing Casey lying in
his casket for me, was that his face was flat again because
he had no muscle tone. He looked like he did when he was
a baby laying in his bassinette. The most tragic irony
is that if the Downing Street Memo proves to be true,
Casey and thousands of people should still be alive."
Donald Rumsfeld testifying before the House Armed
Services Committee in March, 2005: "The world has
seen, in the last 3 1/2 years, the capability of the United
States of America to go into Afghanistan . . . and with
20,000, 15,000 troops working with the Afghans do what
200,000 Soviets couldn't do in a decade. They've seen
the United States and the coalition forces go into Iraq.
. . . That has to have a deterrent effect on people."
(Ann Scott Tyson, "U.S. Gaining World's Respect From Wars,
Rumsfeld Asserts," the Washington Post, March 11,
2005 [scroll
down])
George
Bush on arriving for a meeting with families of the
bereaved, including Cindy Sheehan and her husband on June
17, 2004: "So who are we honoring here?"
A teaser at the "Careers and Jobs" screen of GoArmy.com:
"Want an extra $400 a month?" Click
on it and part of what comes up is: "Qualified
active Army recruits may be eligible for AIP [Assignment
Incentive Pay] of $400 per month, up to 36 months for
a total of up to $14,400, if they agree to be assigned
to an Army-designated priority unit with a critical role
in current global commitments."
Who Is in That Ditch?
Casey Sheehan had one of those small "critical roles"
in the "current global commitment" in Iraq that, in Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's words, "has to have a deterrent
effect on people." As it happens, Sheehan was one of the
unexpectedly deterred and now, along with 1,846
other American soldiers, is interred, leaving his
take-no-prisoners mother Cindy -- a one-person anti-war
movement -- with a critical role to play in awakening
Americans to the horrors, and dangers, of the Bush administration's
"current global commitments."
Over the last two years, administration officials, civilian
and military, have never ceased to talk about "turning
corners" or reaching "tipping points" and achieving "milestones"
in the Iraq-War-that-won't-end. Now it seems possible
that Cindy Sheehan in a spontaneous act of opposition
-- her decision to head for Crawford, Texas, to face down
a vacationing President and demand an explanation for
her son's death -- may produce the first real American
tipping point of the Iraq War.
As a million news articles and TV reports have informed
us, she was stopped about 5 miles short of her target,
the Presidential "ranch" in Crawford, and found herself
unceremoniously consigned to a ditch at the side of a
Texas road, camping out. And yet somehow, powerless except
for her story, she has managed to take the President of
the United States hostage and turned his Crawford refuge
into the American equivalent of Baghdad's Green Zone.
She has mysteriously transformed August's news into a
question of whether, on his way to meet Republican donors,
the President will helicopter over her encampment or drive
past (as he, in fact, did) in a tinted-windowed black
Chevrolet SUV.
Faced with the power of the Bush political and media
machine, Cindy Sheehan has engaged in an extreme version
of asymmetrical warfare and, in her person, in her story,
in her version of "the
costs of war," she has also managed to catch many
of the tensions of our present moment. What she has exposed
in the process is the growing weakness and confusion of
the Bush administration. At this moment, it remains an
open question who, in the end, will be found in that ditch
at the side of a Texas road, her -- or the President of
the United States.
Confusion in the Ranks
Ellen
Knickmeyer of the Washington Post reported last week
that "a U.S. general said... the violence would likely
escalate as the deadline approached for drafting a constitution
for Iraq." For two years now, this has been a dime-a-dozen
prediction from American officials trying to cover their
future butts. For the phrase "drafting a constitution"
in that general's quote, you need only substitute "after
the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons" (July 2003),
"for handing over sovereignty" (June 2004), "for
voting for a new Iraqi government" (Jan. 2005) --
or, looking ahead, "for voting on the constitution" (October,
2005) and, yet again, "for voting for a new Iraqi government"
(December 2005), just as you will be able to substitute
as yet unknown similar "milestones"
that won't turn out to be milestones as long as our President
insists that we must "stay the course" in Iraq as he
did only recently as his Crawford vacation began.
After each "spike of violence," at each "tipping point,"
each time a "corner is turned," Bush officials or top
commanders predict that they have the insurgency under
control only to be ambushed by yet another "spike" in
violence. This
May, for example, more than three months after violence
was supposed to have spiked and receded in the wake of
the Iraqi election, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen.
Richard Myers offered a new explanation -- the "recent
spike in violence… represents an attempt to discredit
the new Iraqi government and cabinet." When brief lulls
in insurgent attacks (which often represent changes in
tactics) aren't being declared proof that the Iraqi insurgency
is faltering/failing/coming under control, then the spikes
are being claimed as "the last gasp" of the insurgency,
proof of the impending success of Bush administration
policies -- those
"last throes" that Vice President Cheney so notoriously
described to CNN's Wolf Blitzer as June ended.
Recently in a throw-(not throe-)up-your-hands mode,
Army
Brig. Gen. Karl Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd
Infantry Division, which oversees Baghdad, offered the
following, taking credit for having predicted the
very throe his troops were then engulfed in: "If you look
at the past few months, insurgents have not been able
to sustain attacks, but they tend to surge every four
weeks or so. We are right in the middle of one of those
periods and predicted this would come... If they
are going to influence the constitution process, they
have only a few days left to do it, and we fully expect
the attacks to continue."
You would think that someone in an official capacity
would conclude, sooner or later, that Iraq was
a spike in violence.
It's an accepted truth of our times that the Bush administration
has been the most secretive, disciplined, and on-message
administration in our history. So what an out-of-control
couple of weeks for the President and his pals! His
polls were at, or near, historic lows; his Iraq War
approval numbers headed for, or dipping below, 40% --
and polls are, after all, the message boards for much
of what's left of American democracy. As he was preparing
for his record-setting Presidential vacation in Crawford,
George and his advisors couldn't even agree on whether
we were in a "global struggle with violent extremism"
or in a Global War on Terror. (The President finally
opted for war.) He was, of course, leaving behind in Washington
a Special Counsel, called into being by his administration
but now beyond its control, who held a sword of judicial
Damocles over key presidential aides (and who can probably
parse sinking presidential polls as well as anyone).
Iraq -- you can't leave home without it -- has, of course,
been at the heart of everything Bushworld hasn't been
able to shake off at least since May 2, 2003. On that
day (when, ominously enough, 7 American soldiers were
wounded by a grenade attack in Fallujah), our President
co-piloted
a jet onto the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft
carrier halted off the San Diego coast (lest it dock and
he only be able to walk on board). All togged out in a
military uniform, he declared "major combat operations"
at an end, while standing under a White House-produced
banner reading "mission accomplished." Ever since then,
George has been on that mission (un)accomplished and Iraq
has proved nothing if not a black hole, sucking in his
administration and the American military along with neocon
dreams and plans of every ambitious sort.
The Iraqi insurgency that should never have happened,
or should at least have died down after
unknown thousands of its foot soldiers were killed
or imprisoned by the American military, inconveniently
managed to turn the early days of August into a killing
zone for American soldiers. Sixteen Marine Reservists
from a single unit in Ohio were killed in a couple of
days; 7 soldiers from the Pennsylvania National Guard
were killed, again in a few days. Thirty-seven Americans
were reported to have died in Iraq in the first 11 days
of the presidential vacation, putting American casualties
at the top of the TV news night after night. And yet the
administration has seemed capable only of standing by
helplessly, refusing to give an inch on the "compassion"
President's decision -- he and his advisors are still
navigating by the anti-Vietnam playbook -- not to visit
grief-stricken communities in either Ohio or Pennsylvania,
or ever to be caught attending the funeral of one of the
boys or girls he sent abroad to die. He did manage, however,
to fly to the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico
to sign the energy bill and also left his ranch to hobnob
with millionaire Republican donors.
In this same period, cracks in relations between an
increasingly angry military command in Iraq and administration
officials back in Washington began to appear for all to
see. The issue, for desperate military officers, was –
as for Cindy Sheehan -- how in the world to get our troops
out of Iraq before the all-volunteer military went over
an Iraqi cliff, wheels and all.
As July ended, our top general in Iraq, George W. Casey,
announced
(with many conditional "ifs") that we should be able to
start drawing-down American troops significantly by the
following spring -- that tens of thousands of them were
likely to leave then and tens of thousands more by the
end of 2006, and Don Rumsfeld initially backed him up
somewhat edgily. Then, as Rumsfeld hedged, more military
people jumped into the media fray with leaks and comments
of all sorts about possible Iraqi drawdowns and there
was a sudden squall of front-page articles on withdrawal
strategies for a hard-pressed administration in an increasingly
unpopular war. At the same time, confusingly, reports
began to surface indicating that, because of another of
those prospective "spikes" in violence, the administration
would actually be increasing American troop strength
in Iraq before the December elections by 10,000-20,000
soldiers.
Finally, after a war council of the Rumsfeld and Rice
(Pentagon and State Department) "teams" in Crawford last
week, the
President held a press conference (devoted in part
to responding to Cindy Sheehan) and promptly launched
a new, ad-style near-jingle to explain the withdrawal
moment to the American people: "As Iraqis stand up," he
intoned, "we will stand down."
But in a week in which the
American general in command of transportation in Iraq
announced that roadside bomb attacks against his convoys
had doubled over the past year, such words sounded empty
-- especially as news flowed in suggesting that, while
the insurgents continued to fight fiercely, the new Iraqi
military seemed in no rush whatsoever to "stand up" and
that our own commanders believed it might never do so
in significant numbers. At his news conference, our never-never-land
President nonetheless spoke several times of being pleased
to announce "progress" in Iraq. ("And we're making progress
training the Iraqis. Oh, I know it's hard for some Americans
to see that progress, but we are making progress.")
He spoke as well of attempts to ease the burden on the
no-longer-weekend warriors of the National Guard and the
Reserves (who are taking
unprecedented casualties in August). He said: "We've
also taken steps to improve the call-up process for our
Guard and for our Reserves. We've provided them with earlier
notifications. We've given them greater certainty about
the length of their tours. We minimized the number of
extensions and repeat mobilizations." Unfortunately, at
just this moment, Joint Chiefs head Myers
was speaking of the possibility of calling soldiers back
for their third tours of duty in Iraq: "There's
the possibility of people going back for a third term,
sure. That's always out there. We are at war."
"Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal
to the enemy," the President insisted as he turned to
the matter of withdrawal in his news conference. He then
dismissed drawdown maneuvers as "speculation and rumors";
and, on being confronted by a reporter with the statements
of his own military men, added, "I suspect what you were
hearing was speculation based upon progress that some
are seeing in Iraq as to whether or not the Iraqis will
be able to take the fight to the enemy."
While that may sound vague, it was, nonetheless, the
sound of a President (who, along with his Secretary of
Defense, has always promised to abide by whatever his
generals in the field wanted) disputing those commanders
in public. Gen.
Casey was also reportedly "rebuked" in private for
his withdrawal comments. Our commanders in Iraq are, of
course, the official realists in this war, having long
ago given up on the idea that the insurgency could ever
be defeated by force of U.S. arms and worrying as they
do about those "wheels coming off" the American military
machine.
In fact, the Bush administration's occupation of Iraq
-- as Howard
Zinn put the matter recently, "[W]e liberated Iraq
from Saddam Hussein, but not from us." -- is threatening
to prove one of the great asymmetric catastrophes in recent
military history. A rag-tag bunch of insurgents, now estimated
in the tens of thousands, using garage-door openers and
cell phones to set off roadside bombs and egg-timers
to fire mortars at U.S. bases (lest they be around when
the return fire comes in), have fought the U.S. military
to at least a draw. We're talking about a military that,
not so long ago, was being touted as the most powerful
force not just on this planet at this moment but on any
planet in all of galactic history.
Previously, such rumors of withdrawal followed by a
quiet hike in troop strength in Iraq might have been simply
another clever administration attempt to manipulate the
public and have it both ways. At the moment, however,
they seem to be a sign not of manipulation but of confusion,
discord, and uncertainty about what to do next. If the
public was left confused by such "conflicting signals"
about an Iraqi withdrawal, wrote Peter
Baker of the Washington Post, "it may be no more unsure
than the administration itself, as some government officials
involved in Iraq policy privately acknowledge." An unnamed
"military officer in Washington" typically commented to
Anne
E. Kornblut of the New York Times, "We need to stick
to one message. This vacillation creates confusion for
the American public."
Even administration officials are now evidently "significantly
lowering expectations" and thinking about how exactly
to jump off the sinking Iraqi ship. The President, beseeching
"the public to stick with his strategy despite continuing
mayhem on the ground," is, Baker commented, "trying to
buy time." But buy time for what? This is the question
that has essentially paralyzed George Bush's top officials
as they face a world suddenly not in their control.
Cindy and the Media
And then, if matters weren't bad enough, there was Cindy
Sheehan. She
drove to Crawford with a few supporters in a caravan
of perhaps a dozen vehicles and an old red, white, and
blue bus with the blunt phrase, "Impeachment Tour," written
on it. She carried with her a tent, a sleeping bag, some
clothes, and evidently not much else. She parked at the
side of the road and camped out -- and the next thing
anyone knew, she had forced the President to send out
not the Secret Service or some minor bureaucrat, but two
of his top men, National
Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Deputy Chief of
Staff Joe Hagin. For forty-five minutes, they met and
negotiated with her, the way you might with a recalcitrant
foreign head of state. Rather than being flattered and
giving ground, she just sent them back, insisting that
she would wait where she was to get the President's explanation
for her son's death. ("They said they'd pass on my concerns
to George Bush. I said, 'Fine, but I'm not talking to
anybody else but him.'")
So there she was, as people inspired by her began to
gather -- the hardy women of Code Pink; other parents
whose children had died in Iraq; a former State Department
official who
had resigned her post to protest the onrushing Iraq
War; "a
political consultant and a team of public relations
professionals"; antiwar protestors of all sorts; and,
of course, the media. Quite capable of reading administration
weakness in the polls, trapped in no-news Crawford with
a President always determined to offer them less than
nothing, hardened by an administration whose objective
for any media not its own was only "rollback,"
and sympathetic to a grieving mother from Bush's war,
reporters found themselves with an irresistible story
at a moment when they could actually run with it.
Literally hundreds of news articles -- almost every
one a sympathetic profile of the distraught mother and
her altar-boy, Eagle-Scout dead son -- poured out; while
Sheehan was suddenly on the morning TV shows and
the nightly news, where a stop-off at "Camp Casey" or
the "Crawford Peace House" was suddenly de rigueur.
And the next thing you knew, there was the President at
his news conference forced to flinch a second time and,
though Sheehan was clobbering him, offer "sympathy" to
a grieving mother at the side of the road five miles away
whom he wasn't about to invite in, even for a simple meeting,
but who just wouldn't leave. ("And so, you know, listen,
I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about
her -- about her position. And I am -- she has every right
in the world to say what she believes. This is America.
She has a right to her position…")
Talk about asymmetric warfare. One woman against the
massed and proven might of the Bush political machine
and its major media allies (plus assorted bloggers) and
though some of them started whacking away immediately,
Cindy Sheehan remained unfazed. After all, she had been
toiling in the wilderness and this was her moment. Whatever
the right-wing press did, she could take it -- and, of
course, the mainstream media had for the time being decided
to fall in love with her. After all, she was perfect.
American reporters love a one-on-one, "showdown" situation
without much context, a face-to-face shoot-out at the
OK Corral. (Remember those endless weeks on TV labeled
"Showdown with Saddam"?) In addition, they were -- let's
be honest -- undoubtedly angry after the five-year-long
pacification campaign the administration had waged against
them.
But they had their own ideas about who
exactly Cindy Sheehan should be to win over America. They
would paint a strikingly consistent, quite moving, but
not completely accurate picture of her. They would attempt
to tame her by shearing away her language, not just the
profanity for which she was known, but the very fierceness
of her words. She had no hesitation about calling the
President "an evil maniac," "a lying bastard," or the
administration "those lying bastards," "chickenhawks,"
"warmongers," "shameful cowards," and "war criminals."
She called for the President's "impeachment," for the
jailing of the whole top layer of the administration (no
pardons). She called for American troops to be pul