VirusHead

I was rereading a bit about Emerson and self-reliance earlier. It affected me, as it always does. Before I wade into current political statements of opinion on the recent Presidential Directives (I’ve seen blog headlines), I’ve decided to treat it like I would treat any document I wanted to interpret. What follows is my initial set of impressions and thoughts. This will change, it always does. It might be interesting to do part 2 sometime later, when these thoughts bounce against those of others and I have to rethink things.

This is for my friend Mary, who asked me to blog on this (thank you, but look what you’ve done!).

HSPD-20 / NSPD-51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) is a presidential directive (not a law) that was issued by the White House on May 9. As you might have guessed from the numbers, there have been other directives. I’m not sure why this one is so special, or causing such a buzz.

The first time I read it, it really did fill me with alarm. I thought – “Oh, good lord, now all they have to do is drop a bomb here at home, and BOOM – no more elections.” But I’m not so sure that I completely understand its significance. Maybe they all read like that. After all, think of the topic of discussion. In a disaster, we do want some plans in place!

HSPD-20 is a presidential proclamation that declares how the White House plans to deal with a “Catastrophic Emergency” – “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

Yeah, that makes me nervous already. It’s the “regardless of location” that bothers me – a lot. Think about possible locations…

Ok, what KIND of plan, and what has changed?

There is the creation of the position of an executive branch “National Continuity Coordinator” who will be in charge of coordinating plans to ensure just the continuity of Federal Government structures and the implementation of Federal continuity policies – it’s about policy coordination for contingency plans?

This is a bit ambiguous. I think you could defend the interpretation that it declares the executive branch itself to be the “National Continuity Coordinator” over “executive departments and agencies” – what unspecified power for executive “guidance” is it claiming over local, state, and private organizations to ensure continuity for national security (as well for emergency response and recovery)? These are very different things. This is perhaps an extension of the powers of commander-in-chief (it’s only supposed to cover the army and navy).

The most ominous part of the document somehow is the revocation of Presidential Decision Directive 67, “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations.” What is being revoked? Why it is all being revoked? Why not just amend, or supersede?

It appears that the text of PDD67 has never been released to the public. This is going to be a pain.
but it’s unclear what Bush would see as needing to be revoked.

— OK, back. PDD67 was issued by Clinton in October 1998 – it directs all levels of government to plan for full minimum operations in any potential national security situation. Uniform policies were created for developing and implementing plans to ensure the continuation of essential operations during any man-mad, natural, technological, or national security emergency. So it’s about how to plan the plans? Sheesh.

Each federal agency was assigned specific functions based on their capabilities and authority, and each had to publish a contingency plan (”continuity of operations plan”- COOP), maintain the budget to support it, and ensure readiness with training, testing and evaluation (including computer simulations, war games, hazmat training, rehearsals, and the like). This built on and amended previous plans and directives, such as PDD-62 (Clinton, May 22, 1998), which established an integrated program to counter terrorist threats and to manage the consequences of attacks on the US. PPD-63 and the EPA’s Critical Infrastructures Protection Plan made each department and agency maintain plans to protect their own infrastructure (including their “cyber-based systems). In case of catastrophic disaster, the EPA is responsible for protecting the water and air supply against “corruption” (Don’t you feel safe now, knowing that the EPA has it under control? I’m starting to see why it’s so important for cronies to be in these positions… steady, steady – no ranting…).

So, to reword, plans were developed to identify possible requirements for a “Plan B” of chain of command and emergency functions and things like that in the event that the status quo was seriously disrupted. There were different roles for different agencies and departments (some or all of which may still apply?). So now it looks like they have to show metrics for successful performance? Is that new? I’m not sure. The EPA and the Department of Defense will probably still train state and local emergency responders, and so on.

We’re familiar with FEMA. Most of the resources of the National Preparedness Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] used to be spent on ensuring the continuation of civilian government in the event of a nuclear war, through what are known as these Enduring Constitutional Government programs.

They called it “coordinating consequence management activities.” Lovely.

I’m thinking sci-fi scenario – the underground bunkers, maybe even the secret blast-off to a satellite – but maybe that’s become a dated chain of thought (or maybe I’ve read too much science fiction).

“Like, dude, what do we do with all these people dying of radiation poisoning? How many towns do we have to quarantine to prevent the epidemic? Where should I put all these bones?”

“Never mind that, get the President and the Speaker and those lobbyists into the capsule.”

Keep laughing. The George W. Bush Administration was the first president ever to put the Continuity of Operations plan into action – right after September 11, 2201. They pulled a rotating staff of 75-150 senior officials and other government workers from every Cabinet department and other parts of the executive branch into two secure bunkers on the East Coast (a government-in-waiting that Congress didn’t even know about, nice).

Still, even if we don’t like to think about it, we do need to have executable contingency plans so that everyone wouldn’t be running around, not knowing what to do, or thinking that they should all sit and wait for the Rapture, or go hysterically violent, or something like that.

So what’s new? Under the previous arrangement (as far as I can glean), there is no ultimate coordinator or boss or czar or whatever. The Head of each Federal agency/department was responsible for ensuring continuity of functions, essential resources, facilities and records, and the delegation of authority for emergency operating capabilities (within applicable laws – and probably without, too).

This directive would take away some authority in planning, and probably impose a new uniform standard of some sort? Would it take away authority or action at the time of disaster too? I can’t tell.

Each branch of government is responsible for its own plans. This would add a functionary to coordinate with the other two branches for “interoperability.”

Would this Coordination be arbitrated by a higher authority? What grievance procedure could there be in this? What happens if the head of one of the federal agencies or departments disagrees with this “coordinator”? Then what? Who has the final word? What about oversight?

This Coordinator person has to come up with a plan for all this within 90 days. Right. So it’s already written, and the person is already chosen? Wolfowitz needs a job, for example? Shouldn’t this be a position that needs to be confirmed? Oh oh… he couldn’t be thinking Gonzales…Rumsfeld… Rove? No, no, couldn’t be. Back to the text.

The White House could be building on its previous successes in expanding the executive role (hence the concern) – in which case state and local governments, territories, other properties (Guantanamo?), and interestingly enough, also private corporations – would be his (and Cheney’s and ?) to command in case of a national emergency. That would be really, really bad – I’m guessing that’s the cause of all the buzz and noise, if people read it that way.

The other interpretation might be that he is trying to do what he’s done in other places, like Homeland Security, which is to centralize power and information. In this case, the executive branch would be (or have?) the ultimate “coordinator”, like a wedding planner. Think the right will steal that metaphor?

Still, even then, the language of “coordinating” might be a screen for more of a “dictating” role. Have you actually dealt with someone whose title was “coordinator”? So you know what I mean. Anyway, the document says it’s not a directive role…and there’s lots of repetitions of “constitutional.” Maybe he’s trying to respond to criticisms about how this government has failed to respond effectively to catastrophes.

There are two different time-frames being discussed – one is the coordination effort for planning, and the other is what kinds of authority would be activated in case the plans went into effect.

If it means that all these agencies and authorities and private interests have to answer to the White House or its representative during an actual disaster, that seems like a very bad idea. I’m not sure if that’s what it means or not, and I don’t think I’d be able to tell without having access to more of the document, which is classified. So I don’t know.

Are there any other “eyes” in the legislative branch who would know what we’re actually talking about here?

You don’t want to be waiting for authorizations at a time like that, and suppose communications systems are disrupted? And “systems are down”?

Decentralized and adaptive power structures are much more effective. There is some concern about communication networks in the document, and a science and technology officer is responsible for ensuring those systems. I guess it all depends on the kind of disaster…

One thing we should have learned from Global Terrorism (and Global Corporations – I wonder who learned from who?) is that “cells” and “units” with multiply-redundant lines of communication and feedback are more adaptive and effective than “headquarters.” Interpenetration is more effective than top-down management. Instead of using methods of intelligence-gathering integration, we blunder in without even knowing a language or culture and whip up hornets nests. We were better when we had some classy spies, and practiced protective camouflage. We’ve forgotten our roots as Revolutionaries. We’re the new “red coats” – sticking out a mile. But back to the matter at hand, already in progress…

There are those who are saying that this is a setup for Bush to become an actual, old-fashioned dictator. No – it’s a bit more subtle. The Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG) refers to all three branches – but the difference it that they would be “coordinated by the President.” I would need to hear more details about what the coordination and implementation would look like in order to start screaming “Dictator.” Bush would like to be a Dictator, I’m sure, but he’s not.

Most of the document that has been released is more about structures and planning than about actual implementation. Read one way, it’s almost a will, since it also provides for the succession to the Presidency. “Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.” Hmmm.

There will be a new threat alert/readiness system – the President will get to issue the COGCON level focused on threats to the National Capital Region.

Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions. COGCON? Are they kidding? It sounds like an inside joke. Cogswell Cogs, cog in the works, brick in the wall, conference, conjob, conning the cogs, the con about continuity of government. Anyway, that level issued (through the super-secret underground lair communication device?) will signal all the agencies and departments of the executive branch to comply with assigned requirements under the program.

“Bible college never prepared me for THIS – are you SURE that’s the required action for this department?” “Yeah, honey, now just stand over there…”

All details of the COGCON program are classified.

This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders. – George W. Bush

The directive does not have the same weight as, say, the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act. There may be aspects of it that are even more dangerous, that go further than “total information awareness” and the other kinds of surveillance on American citizens that this administration seems to crave.

Hermeneutics/deconstruction – deconstruction/hermeneutics.

Nope. Can’t get a fix. I can read it as intending to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution. And I can read it as a very scary document that we’ll think should have given us warning about the destruction of America as we know it. And I can believe it could even, in some sick way, be both.

We could say – “thank goodness we had this.” We could say – “they were planning it all along.” We could say – “he just wanted to one-up Clinton, and somebody wanted a new job.”

I have serious reservations, but I don’t think I have enough information to credibly argue about this document. For all I can tell, they’re just trying to reduce the paperwork.

One thing that I can tell you is that I am happy that I don’t write government documents for a living. I suspect that there are many things that we don’t know about – across the board – at the federal level of government.

After all this, I’ll have to stew some more. Sigh.

Well, at least I’ve got the initial bits that struck me.

Comments are welcome.

You’ve probably heard by now (via the attorney firing scandal, Monica Goodling) that the Bush administration has appointed more than 150 graduates of Regent (Pat Robertson’s 29-year-old bottom-tier law school) to prominent positions in the US government. No?

Regent itself estimates that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” Their students aren’t interested in attending top-ranked universities which might challenge them. They want to become “God’s instrument” in changing the policies – and perhaps even the very nature – of the U.S. government.

Mark Crispin Miller comments on the danger of simply laughing off the agendas of schools like Regent while such institutions continue to place their (undereducated?) graduates in influential governmental positions.

I completely agree with Mark about the dangers of creeping theocracy, but I still enjoyed the comedic takes of Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. Humor is also a good way of spreading information; it’s more contagious.

Just a spoonful of sugar…

Both of these examples were more informative than the network news programs that I saw. They both used comparisons to frustrate and mutate the stream of associations that people might have with the idea of the “university.” OK, the poke at Univ. of Phoenix was a little mean, but other than that…

I would be willing to bet a hunk of precious pennies that more Americans get their news and political information through satire and humor than via the news. They watch for entertainment, and they get some information too.

What’s the harm? It might spark an interest, and get them to research things for themselves. They’ll google it, they’ll check out the shelves at the library and the bookstore, and maybe even look through some other kinds of publications. They might try to reconcile conflicting information, collect evidence, make judgments. Independent thinking! Woo-hoo!

People need lines of flight – we are complex.

That’s why (for example) fundamentalists are all wrong to try to ban Halloween. Halloween already served their purposes by reframing and trivializing older religious traditions. If you follow the history of almost any community celebration, you’ll find all sorts of interesting overlaps and reversals. Halloween served to absorb and defuse those older traditions, overlaying them with new meanings. Now, by being “purist” or “fundamentalist,” they take away the carnivalesque, upside-down fun time. In Jungian terms, instead of embracing and taming the shadow they repress it and give it strength.

It is possible to take something heavily, and then a bit lightly. We do it all the time, and I believe it is probably part of the toolkit for human adaptability. Humor – and fiction – are survival tools. We tell stories, and we retell stories, and they change a bit in the retelling because the bits that are relevant are in a different context.

That is why there are traditions of the prankster and the jester and the representative of chaos. Life can only exist and thrive on the borders of order and chaos – either one alone will kill us. We live in the magical zone of transformations and patterns.

As others have pointed out, humor and satire can function to reaffirm the status quo by providing a little relief from order and law. Think pressure cooker. A little steam is let out to prevent an explosion. Some kinds of humor can even be hurtful.

Still, I’ve always thought that the complete lack of humor eventually helps to push a movement into its downfall. Think of how shrill people can become when they are focused on one issue that is very important to them. The more fanatical people get, the less they can laugh at themselves, and then humor can attack “from the outside,” so to speak.

Bill Maher and Jon Stewart and Lewis Black and SNL – and all court jesters – create rhetorical layers of understanding through exaggerations here and there. I’m all for it. Plant a seed.

I think we often take everything too seriously.

Performative protest that illustrates and entertains rather than sermonizes and dictates is sometimes more effective.

I like Billionaires for Bush, for example. And I like visual humor – there are some very intelligent and creative people doing editorial cartoons (see the blogroll under Humor).

Of course there have to be people who are able to provide the serious critiques, with all the details and proof and arguments, but these ought not to be drawn as incompatible with more humorous or entertaining approaches. They needn’t be.

They may create a resonating circuit of inquiry and reinforcement that helps to shape the milieu.

In this reality, many things happen at once. Patterns emerge. Networks intersect.

Where are we, America?

March 20th will be the four-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. We’ve succeeded in making a bad situation worse for the people of Iraq. We’ve killed and been killed. We’ve drained our financial resources for the foreseeable future, and handed out contracts to such ilk as Halliburton. The oil profits are still being debated, but does anyone believe that the Iraqi people will benefit? A majority of the soldiers themselves thought they should be out by the end of 2006. In a number of ways, our own government has shown how little they care for the lives of our military “volunteers,” or generally for any human lives – except for embryonic tissues, and that only to get votes. They have attempted to destroy the checks and balances of our system. They have illegally withheld information, they have deceived us, they have replaced our land of freedom with executive abuse of power, spying and surveillance systems, massive corruption, crony capitalism, and the cynical manipulation of religion for power. They have worked to legalize torture and undermine human rights, and have even passed legislation to provide themselves retroactive immunity for war crimes prosecution.

To the extent that the American people have allowed all this to happen, and even participated in it, we are also accountable (or in biblical terms, “blood-guilty“). Our extreme self-insulation, limitless self-adoration, self-congratulatory arrogance, over-worked fatigue and apathy, lack of access to or interest in relevant information and intelligence and so on all work against meaningful changes. We appear to lack understanding about even our own self-interest. Yes, we have a pseudo-religious fanaticism here, but even that pales in comparison to our own suicidal down-spiral.

Here is my nightmare: Most of us will not pay with our lives in any sort of splashy symbolic way (as do desperate terrorists), but we will pay instead by meaningless steps, by degrees, into our deaths (and the deaths of those we love) as the euthanasia of unnecessary lives takes hold. We’ll have workers with no rights or access to accountability or fairness; that’s why Bush wants the guest worker program and the union-busting. The profitable private prison systems will also be a source of labor. There will be no regard for real global systems such as the environment, but only for the big game of capital – a game for the few. You and I are hardly necessary except insofar as we can habitate our role as consumers. The profits will continue to go to the top; we will work more and more for less and less (remember the debate about the four-day work week? ha ha). Privatization, such as what occurred at Walter Reed hospital and elsewhere, will reward profitable incompetence. The medical crisis will get worse. As poverty increases and the gap between the rich and everyone else widens, the social safety net – such as it is – will be cut off, a result of “hard choices.” Safety standards of any kind – gone. The economy collapses. People lose their jobs and then their homes. As desperation and anger escalate violent crimes will exponentially increase. More and more people will simply entrench and cocoon – with the aid of killer drugs like meth, or by a withdrawal of engagement from reality. Neighbor will turn against neighbor. We will lose everything that so many have fought for. We will fail to thrive, we will be unable to thrive.

I fear that we are already past the tipping point. Perhaps the American experiment will end in spectacular (or simply dreary) failure. After the Cold War, can we really still say we “won”? It used to seem so, but there is a kind of return of the repressed here. The Orwellian bad points of the USSR seem to have been rebirthed in the USA, under corporate fascism and governmental abuse of power.

We have a policy of “preemptive war” now. Why isn’t that more shocking to the American people? Really. Have you understood nothing of history?

No matter what happens, we always seem to be able to get up the money for war. Other issues are for some reason not as sexy to the national psyche. Will we be able to count on medical insurance, retirement funds, education for our children and grandchildren? We don’t know. How much money are we printing? We don’t know; they don’t report that anymore. Was the stock market drop a warning from the nations who hold much of our national debt? We don’t know. What could be paid for if we could even just reduce the interest we have to pay on our debt? Have you looked? Will we be able to trust the food we eat, the air we breathe, the land upon which we walk?

Ironically, I see one possibility for a hopeful future coming from the very corporations whose greed extends the international slash-and-burn zone. Corporations who want to survive into the future (and not just cut and run from the country once they’re raped it) will be forced to offer ethics and fairness in order to continue to attract consumers and knowledgeable workers. They have to have consumers. And – they really have to have skilled workers. A massive skilled workforce shortage is on the way in this country as boomers retire or die. Long-range planning would dictate that they not kill off their number-one asset: their people.

Limiting education only to those of the upper financial classes will not be enough to keep the machine going. However, I think that education in America will tilt more and more into technical training rather than education, a kind of Spartan techno-culture. No history, no literature, no cultural understanding, no real analysis, no skill in debate or dialogue. All spin. Like Bush, “all hat, no cattle.”

I want to work through various events, such as the firings, and Halliburton going to Dubai, but at this point I feel as though I have at once too much information and not enough information. I’m slowing down a notch. I’m percolating. I need to steep. Or soak. Or wallow. Or consider. Or something like that. I’ll let you know.

Silly observation: Why is General Petraeus’s name pronounced everywhere as “Betray us”?

I’m not saying it means anything, but it’s kind of like the mouthpiece of the White House being named Tony Snow(job). Just one of those things it’s hard not to notice. I’ve been trying to hope that he knows what he’s doing, but every time I hear the news I can only hear “betray us.” It’s disconcerting.

On a more serious note, I’m disappointed in Speaker Pelosi. There were good ideas and plans on the table, like requiring targets rather than timetables. The Iraq Study group report (despite its ties to the oil industry) came up with some ideas that were summarily ignored by the White House. There have been additional plans, some of them with very good recommendations, which have also gone nowhere. The supplemental bill proposed by Speaker Pelosi will give Bush another $100 billion for the war in Iraq, with hardly any questions asked.

To get congressional votes, Nancy Pelosi seems to have become mired in compromises that would allow the war to drag into 2008. While I can understand the hard realities of her position, there is no excuse for removing the only amendment to the supplemental spending bill that would have forced Bush to get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran. It’s frightening to me. I can see that this White House would lose little sleep over another preemptive war, even if it included nuclear weapons. I would like to see a whole separate bill, requiring that they either call Iraq a “police action” or else be required to formally “declare war” so that they couldn’t avoid constitutional laws. Congress has to approve going to war. That’s the Constitution. The very fact that they feel they have to remind the President about that in the case of Iran is very ominous to me. After all, they know things we don’t know.

If things can still be changed, I doubt that the change will occur on the terrain of issues of war funding or authorizations for war. It seems as though that would be the leverage point, but I don’t think so. It seems as though we can only actually get moving on the less important issues. It is no surprise to me that the voters’ priorities are not really at issue. Hey, the illegal war in Iraq already abuses the terms of the authorization it got from Congress. No, it will have to be something else, something that goes deeper into the systems and networks that have built up to rob and control us.

I have to admit that I’m also disappointed in CodePink, a group of women for peace. I support them, along with the ACLU, the Feminist Majority, and a host of other groups who often work together. Still, this was kind of sad.

Here’s the song parody that CodePink members sang at Nancy Pelosi’s office (from the Beatles’ “Can’t Buy Me Love” – alternate lyrics by Rae Abileah).

Can’t buy me war, war
Can’t buy me war

Bush wants billions more for war to keep up the bloody fight
Bush wants billions more for war but we know that it’s not right!
‘Cause I voted for you Pelosi, Pelosi can’t buy me war

Our schools are broke, our parks are bare, and we need insurance too,
Our hearts are broke, our soldiers killed, and we’re all counting on you
I voted for you Pelosi, Pelosi can’t buy me war

Can’t buy me war, everybody knows it’s so
Can’t buy me war, no no no, no

Say you aren’t going to fund the war and I’ll be satisfied
Tell me that you want diplomacy, which bombing just can’t buy
I voted for you Pelosi, Pelosi can’t buy me war

Can’t buy me war, war
Can’t buy me war…no!

So that’s the endpoint, something specific, a real action: women singing a parody of a Beatles tune at the Speaker’s office, wearing pink statue-of-liberty hats and camping out in her home driveway. I guess we each do what we can, if we still care. Although I applaud the effort, the execution seems so dated and pathetic. I like what some women are doing in other countries a lot more. More on that on another occasion.

So, then, what?

Americans love images. That’s why camera-phones aren’t allowed in some areas. That’s why journalists can only be “embedded.” Let’s find more of the photographs and footage. Show it.

Let’s hear and tell the stories of all sides. Ethics requires that.

Let’s have the international debates. Real debates.

Let’s also have multi-pronged dialogue. Real dialogue.

There are possibilities. But I think that if anyone left of Attila the Hun wants to be elected President of the United States, s/he had better start doing more. Start with the actions now; those will speak far louder than your little platitudinous speeches and little sideways sniping. I’m so utterly sick of it.

If Rudy G is the best that the reichright-wing can come up with, there is a real chance here.

Let’s get some real investigations going. Journalists, academics, detectives, everyday people – whatever is needed. We have to have a better idea of what is really going on. I want to see money trails, forensic accounting, real oversight. I want to see governmental watchdog organizations headed up by people who are not inextricably tied to the industries they are supposed to be watching. That sort of thing. It’s not rocket science. The conflicts of interest are glaring. Just start looking, and you’ll see.

I want a national discussion and debate among the Presidential candidates. Not this fake thing they do, but an actual debate that goes into some depth on each issue. Each night, debate on one topic – the specifics. If people are too bored by that, then they don’t have to watch. Then I want mainstream network television coverage of the results of fact-checking by at least 2-3 reputable groups.

Ideally, we’d get rid of the two-party system that has served only to reinforce one another’s foibles and drive both sides further from the real issues and priorities of the people they claim to represent. I dream of a more representative (even parliamentary) democracy, where coalitions would need to be formed among several parties. Let’s have a dozen candidates and vote for the top three. The top two winners would be the President and VP.

America is just too diverse for the limited vision and power politics of the duo-party structure.

Well, I don’t expect to see that any time soon. But spring is coming, and I always seem to feel more hopeful when I can feel things – despite everything – still growing at the proper time.

Stay attuned.

“Everything we do here is on the defense. Any troops increase over here – they will just be more sitting ducks, more targets.” – Army Sergeant Ronn Cantu, serving his second tour in Iraq.

Get informed, and take action to oppose escalation in Iraq. The war – it isn’t “really” a war, and yet Bush has assumed war powers – is wrong. No “surge” of troops, no bloody sacrificial sop to Bush’s pride can be acceptable to informed Americans.

Sign at least a couple of the petitions, send emails to your representatives, participate in local events, write to your local newspaper or television news station.

Search for local events at America Says No.org (True Majority, Democracy in Action).

Sign the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Petition

Dear President Bush,

On Election Day, America spoke with one voice about its desire to end the war in Iraq. In the weeks and months since, members of Congress from both parties have urged you to heed the will of our nation and propose real change. Regrettably you have chosen to ignore the will of the American people. Concern about your escalation strategy is non-partisan. It is opposed by Democrats, it is opposed by Republicans, it is opposed by top military leaders, and it is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people.

Democrats, Republicans and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have all offered you a roadmap to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, begin the phased redeployment of American troops and end our open-ended commitment to Iraq. America doesn’t need another White House P.R. campaign — we need a real change of course in Iraq.

United for Peace March on Washington to End the War, January 27th.

10 Reasons Why the US Must Leave Iraq

Teddy Kennedy sums it up pretty well:

The President’s decision to send more American troops into the cauldron of civil war is not an acceptable strategy. It is against the advice of his own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the wishes of the American people and will only compound our original mistake in going to war in Iraq.

…The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress in 2002. The Iraq War Resolution authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, and was in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolutions.

Not one member of Congress would have voted in favor of it they thought they were sending American troops into a civil war.

The President owes it to the American people to seek approval for this new mission from Congress. Congress should no longer be a rubber stamp for the President’s failed strategy, and should insist on a policy that is worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

We have been irresponsible in allowing Bush to act like a King. It’s not the President’s decision anymore. It’s ours.

Senator Kennedy has introduced legislation that makes the issue plain. It states that any substantial new commitment in Iraq requires a plan from the administration and explicit authorization from Congress.

Add your name to the petition in support of Senator Kennedy’s legislation.

We still haven’t heard an answer to the basic question: for what “noble cause” have we invaded Iraq?

Are we in Iraq just to secure the oil for the energy companies that get so much support of every kind from the US government?

Not to be a party pooper or anything, but what about the death and pain and chaos and suffering? What is the reason for the sacrifices of U.S. and other allied soldiers? What is the justification for the thousands killed on every side?

For what reason have we punched the hornet’s nest in Iraq?

For what are we going into further, almost unthinkable debt?

How much longer will we turn away from the reality?

Declare war, or cut executive powers of war.

Argue for oil interests, or stop killing for them. You can’t tell me that we don’t have permanent bases along the pipeline.

Don’t send thousands more Americans out there. How does that help anything at all?

I’m just waiting for the someone to start making comparisons between the executions of Saddam and Jesus. USA Pilate and Judas, all mixed into one. Yeah, we made him, and we’ll make sure he’s hung like a witch… start the taunting…

Look! Look at reality. This is not a movie.

Wake up, America. Your future is being stolen from you, too.

The thing I remember most vividly is the soldiers screaming in pain and crying out for their mothers. My mother went up and down the aisles holding their hands, stroking their brows, giving them sips of water. My sister helped light their cigarettes. Many of them were amputees. Some had no stomachs, some had no faces. …

I hope that when President Bush discusses sending more troops to Iraq, knowing that we will have to pull out sooner rather than later, that the conversation comes around to the human suffering. Does anyone at the table ask about the personal anguish, the long-term effects, emotional, psychological and financial, on the families of those killed, wounded or permanently disabled?

When I hear about the surge, all I can think of is those young soldiers on the plane to Texas. We have already lost more than 3,000 soldiers, and many more have been wounded and disabled.

We have three choices here. All three are immoral. We can keep the status quo and gradually pull out; we can surge; or we can pull out now. When I think about those young soldiers on that plane coming back from Japan years ago, I believe pulling out now is the least immoral choice.

from The Least Immoral Choice: Squander No More U.S. Lives in Iraq
By Sally Quinn
(Washington Post Tuesday, January 9, 2007; Page A15)
(Sally Quinn is a co-moderator of On Faith, an online conversation on religion.)