support Columbia University protesters!

*Please circulate widely*

Take action to defend Columbia University protesters!
Write to Columbia University, demand: no reprisals!

On Wednesday night, October 4, progressive students at Columbia University protested the racist Minuteman Project inside and outside the auditorium where they were speaking. Although the students were subject to vicious and violent attacks by Minutemen stormtroopers, they held their ground and Jim Gilchrist, the Minutemen founder, terminated his speech. Now the university is threatening to punish the anti-racist students. It is urgent that you take action now to show your support.

The ANSWER Coalition has set up an easy-to-use mechanism to send a letter to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger in support of student protesters who are being threatened with reprisals following their protest against Jim Gilchrist, founder of the racist anti-immigrant vigilante organization, the Minuteman Project. The protesters went on stage with banners that said, "No One is Illegal" and "Say No to Racism." The protesters were physically assaulted by Minutemen and their supporters. When they spoke out against fascism and racism, they spoke for all of us. Yet, there has been a coordinated campaign seeking reprisals against the students, initiated by FoxNews, the Minutemen, New York City's Republican Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the New York Times, and other media.

It is important to understand that the Minuteman Project is at its core, the same as the Nazis and the KKK. This fact has been confused by the legitimacy granted to the Minutemen by Lou Dobbs on CNN, FoxNews, and other so-called mainstream media, including NPR. David Duke, the white supremacist leader of the KKK, achieved some of the same "legitimacy" from the mainstream media when he ran for Governor in Louisiana. Taking the hood off a Klansman, or the swastika off the arm of a Nazi, doesn't change their fascist essence.

Click here to send a letter to Bollinger expressing your support for the protesters, and to demand that the students suffer no reprisals.

For the initial report from the protest, click here. To see the statement of the protesters, explaining their decision to go on stage, see below.

Racist and fascist groups are not welcome!
Statement of Columbia anti-Minutemen protesters who took the stage against Jim Gilchrist on October 4

October 6, 2006

In the aftermath of the protest on the night of October 4 against Jim Gilchrist and the racist Minutemen at Roone Arledge auditorium, we want to state clearly: We are proud to send the message to the country that racist and fascist groups are not welcome at Columbia or in New York City.

As Chicanos and Latinos, alongside African Americans and progressive people of other nationalities, we took it as our responsibility to give voice to the undocumented immigrant families who live in fear at terrorist vigilante groups like the Minutemen. Armed patrols by these groups force more and more people desperate for work to find even more hazardous ways into the United States. Over 3,000 people—including hundreds of children—have died in the desert. Their blood is on the hands of Gilchrist and his thugs.

Fascist scapegoating is not up for academic discussion. Like Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany, Gilchrist and the Minutemen attempt to demonize foreign-born poor people, blaming “illegals” for society’s problems. His group doesn’t present reasoned debate. It spouts racism and hatred, aiming to divide people against one another.

Regardless of how Gilchrist tries to sanitize his message for national audiences, more candid moments tell the real story. Gilchrist is a member of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, which is now notorious for referring to Mexicans as “savages.” Speaking about Mexicans and Central American immigrants, Minuteman co-founder Chris Simcox once said, "They have no problem slitting your throat and taking your money or selling drugs to your kids or raping your daughter and they are evil people."

This vile racism translates directly into violence on the ground. “It should be legal to kill illegals,” said one Minutemen volunteer. “Just shoot 'em on sight. That's my immigration policy recommendation.” It is no wonder that neo-Nazi organizations like the National Alliance praise the Minuteman Project in their publications, and have members signing up for Minutemen militias.

We are sure that if the Nazi party held a public meeting on campus, Jewish groups would be there to challenge them—so would we. We are sure that if the Ku Klux Klan held a public meeting on campus, African American groups would be there to challenge them—so would we. The Minutemen are no different.

We are pleased that an overwhelming number of people answered our call to demonstrate against the racist, fascist Minutemen the night of October 4. The hundreds of people outside Roone Arledge chanting, “Minutemen, Nazis, KKK, racists, fascists, go away!” represented students and community people from all walks of life. Inside the auditorium, perhaps as much as 80 percent of the crowd was repelled by the Minutemen’s message of hate.

When we walked on stage on the night of October 4, with anti-racist banners for immigrant rights, we were met with violent attack by Gilchrist’s goons. We were the ones who were punched and kicked. We are proud that despite these attacks, we held our ground. When Gilchrist walked off stage, it was because he and his Minutemen outfit were isolated.

This is not an issue of free speech. The Minutemen were able to reserve a hall at our university and had the protection of campus security and the NYPD—all to espouse their hate speech. We along with hundreds of others expressed our right to speak and protest.

Over the last 50 years, throughout the Civil Rights movement and the women’s rights movement, ultra-right wing groups have routinely used violence, lynchings, armed assaults and bombings against oppressed people. Yet when we organize to oppose them to express our contempt for their violence, we are criticized for inhibiting the free speech of the ones who perpetrate violence.

We thank everyone who joined our protest inside and outside of the auditorium.

Shame on the Columbia University administration for launching an investigation of peaceful protesters, and failing to condemn the perpetrators of violence. Shame on the College Republicans for inviting this fascist thug and provoking such outrage on our campus.


So, waterboarding is now okay ...

Waterboarding Republic

James Abourezk

October 05, 2006

James Abourezk served as the a congressman and senator from South Dakota from 1973-1979. His memoir, Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate, was published in 1989. Abourezk founded the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and he is a signer of the Call from World Can’t Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime , which today is holding protests in over 150 cities.

So, waterboarding is now okay . So is the suspension of one of our basic rights of freedom—the writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus—which guarantees prisoners the right to know the charges against them—according to the U.S. Constitution, can only be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion. Our Supreme Court has held, “habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.”

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ during the Civil War, and even then it was a questionable act. And even more hopeless is that part of the law that permits President George W. Bush to interpret Common Article Three of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Although Bush claims that the article is vague, no one before him has had any trouble understanding that torture is wrong, and in violation of intern ational law.

But the suspension of the writ in 2006 is not only unconstitutional because there is neither a rebellion nor have we been invaded. It is flat out wrong.

The only rebellion we were faced with was the one begun by three Republican Senators—John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John W. Warner. All three had served in the military, but McCain had actually spent time as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Many of us cheered when he stood up to the president to say that if we permitted torture, which is what Bush and Cheney were trying to legalize, our own soldiers, sailors and airmen would be subject to the same brutalization as Bush was hoping to inflict on his “terror suspects.”

But the rebellion was quickly quelled when McCain, Graham and Warner caved in and said that the compromise they worked out with the president would both preserve our morals and get valuable information from enemy combatants.

First, people who are experts in interrogation of the enemy pretty much agree that torture doesn’t work. Those being tortured will say anything they think their interrogators want to hear, just so the torture will stop. Secondly, the information, even if true, which is rare, in virtually every case is outdated by the time the torture is finished. Certainly no enemy would continue with plans known to someone who was captured.

But even more importantly, as former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell said, we lose our moral high ground if we torture prisoners. To me, that is a hundred times more powerful a statement than Bush's repetitious rantings that “we are protecting Americans.” That phrase, of course, is born of polling that says Americans want to be protected, and delivered by the likes of Karl Rove, who, if nothing else, knows how to demagogue.

But the hottest place in political hell should be reserved for members of Congress, including the weak-kneed Democrats, who essentially went along with Mr. Bush’s “compromise.”

It did not seem to bother senators and representatives that the writ of habeas corpus is being suspended for enemy combatants. There is now no way to learn whether or not the prisoner is indeed an enemy, or just someone who was gathered up in a sweep of foreigners in Afghanistan, because, without habeas corpus, their detention cannot be tested in a court.

Senate Democrats, who in recent years have dug in to filibuster at the slightest provocation, this time merely stood up to record their opposition, knowing full well they would lose a straight up or down vote on the Bush compromise. But instead of really trying to stop the legislation, those who opposed it were content to make a speech and vote against it so they could later brag about their principled stand.

Everyone knew that was the Bush/Rove strategy—bring it up just before the elections so you can accuse the opposition of being soft on terrorism. It worked with the Iraq War resolution in 2002, so why not now?

My wife, who is from the Middle East and is in fact from a country that tortures its prisoners, was nearly in tears when, after hearing about the legislation, told me that everyone in her home country always looked up to America as a beacon of freedom. But those who loved America as an idea would now feel completely alone.

President Bush continually says that, "they" hate us because of our freedoms. That may explain why, in this legislation and in the PATRIOT ACT, he is, piece by piece, trying to remove our freedoms. If this is his idea of protecting Americans, we really can't stand much more protection.

The public's opposition to this Draconian law is the only thing that will give Congress the backbone to preserve our freedoms.


"Smith told the media that he raised his right, black- glove- covered fist in the air to represent black power in America while Carlos' left, black - covered fist represented unity in black America. Together they formed an arch of unity and power. The black scarf around Smith's neck stood for black pride and their black socks (and no shoes) represented black poverty in racist America.

While the protest seems relatively tame by today's standards, the actions of Smith and Carlos were met with such outrage that they were suspended from their national team and banned from the Olympic Village, the athletes' home during the games."

Clenched Fists, Helping Hand

By Mike Wise
Thursday, October 5, 2006; E03

The night he ran the race of his life, Peter Norman was told by the other 200-meter medalists that they would be making a political statement during the medal ceremony. Two black American sprinters were about to raise their clenched fists toward the heavens and bow their heads as "The Star-Spangled Banner" blared through a stunned stadium. Norman was a white Australian, living in a country where change comes embarrassingly slowly, where Aborigines were not allowed to vote in federal elections until 1962 and were not counted in the national census until 1967. What would you do?

"I did the only thing I believed was right," Norman said over a beer six years ago. "I asked what they wanted me to do to help."

The third man on the podium in Mexico City died on Tuesday of a heart attack. Peter Norman was 64. But he will remain 26 in the mind's eye, with shaggy brown locks and a solemn stare. He was part of that indelible image from the 1968 Games -- the photo of Tommie Smith and John Carlos using their black power salutes to further the civil rights cause at home.

When Carlos was reached in Palm Springs, Calif., yesterday morning he said he was "just hurtin' " from the news. "Peter was a piece of my life," he said. "When I got the call, it knocked the wind out of me. I was his brother. He was my brother. That's all you have to know."

Norman not only wore a human-rights badge in support of the two that night, but in an interview years later he told me he actually came up with the idea to split Smith's black gloves in the athletes' lounge, so both at least had one to cover their fists.

Many of us were children or not yet born, but there was a time when having a social conscience superseded personal wealth and popularity in sports, a time when empowerment among elite athletes had nothing to do with economics. You either believed in a cause and took action or you hushed up. In 1968, against the wish of his own nation, Peter Norman did something.

"Any other white guy, I don't think he would have had the courage to go through with it," Carlos said yesterday. "Our lives were threatened. We were being demonized in the media. People were saying we wanted the destruction of society instead of what we really wanted, equal rights. I just don't think most white individuals would not have been strong enough to make that commitment.

"At least me and Tommie had each other when we came home," he added. "When Peter went home, he had to deal with a nation by himself. He never wavered, never denied that he was up there with us for a purpose and he never said 'I'm sorry' for his involvement. That's indicative of who the man was."

I spent a good hour with Norman in the Olympic Village in 2000, a week before the Sydney Games. He tugged on a cigarette and chugged a glass of Victoria Bitters, a golden-colored Australian ale. He spoke of his life since 1968, how one moment had profoundly altered everything. His recall after the race was incredibly vivid.

"From there, we walked into the athletes' lounge and began combing our hair and prettying ourselves up for the ceremony," he remembered. "Tommie and John were talking about what they were going to do. They involved me in the conversation. It wasn't as if they were having a secret huddle. They were letting me know."

Wanting to show his solidarity, Norman asked Carlos if he had another human-rights badge like the one the two Americans planned to wear over their hearts.

"If I get you one, will you wear it?" Carlos asked.

"I sure would," Norman said.

The badge, about three inches wide, said "Olympic Project for Human Rights," the words outlined by a green laurel wreath. Norman had been raised in the Salvation Army church -- he referred to himself as a "fifth-generation Salvo" -- and was keenly aware of the ugly racial climate in America in the late 1960s. The Mexico City Games took place months after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

"I couldn't see why a black man wasn't allowed to drink out of the same water fountain or sit in the same bus or go to the same schools as a white guy," Norman said. "That was just social injustice that I couldn't do anything about from where I was, but I certainly abhorred it."

Norman also recalled an almost surreal detail before the medal ceremony. "The guys probably don't even remember, but it was my suggestion that they split Tommie's gloves," Norman said.

Go ahead, look at the photo again. Smith, the right glove around his clenched fist, and Carlos, with the left glove, are raising opposite hands toward the sky. "That's why he had the left hand and I had the right," Smith told me in 2000.

Improbable, no, an Aussie helping hatch the plan for the black-power salute?

Norman was reprimanded by the Australian Olympic Committee the day after the incident and ostracized by the media in his homeland. During the 2000 Sydney Games, it was a crime that there was so little mention of the last Australian male sprinter to medal. You had to take a train through a downtown Aboriginal community before a large photo of the 1968 medal ceremony emerged, plastered on the side of a house, under the words, "Three Proud Men."

No one knew, for instance, that Norman never ran faster than the 20.06 seconds that night in the 200 meters, that he came home and fathered two daughters and about 10 years ago survived gangrene and the near amputation of his right leg from a running injury. They never knew that his friendship with Smith and Carlos grew into a genuine bond. Both plan to attend the funeral and memorial service in Melbourne on Monday. He last saw them during the unveiling of a statue at San Jose State last year, commemorating the event, where Carlos's children called the sun-bleached Australian, "Uncle Pete."

Peter Norman, who came to Mexico City as merely an Olympian and left as a participant in history during the tumult of the 1960s, is survived by family -- including the two brothers he stood beside proudly that night on the podium.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


"It will be a long, hard slog."


Is War on Terror a Religious War?

Aired October 22, 2003 - 16:30 ET

ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala; on the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE: A general's comments about Islam and terrorism provoke a political firestorm.

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Ask him to take on another assignment.

GEN. PETER PACE, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: He does not see this battle as a battle between religions. He sees it as a battle between good and evil.

ANNOUNCER: What do you do when a general exercises his freedom of speech?

Plus: getting these guys to lighten up, advice from Jay Leno's writer -- today on CROSSFIRE.



ANNOUNCER: Live from the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.



The Pentagon has decided not to reassign General William Boykin, even while he's under the investigation for the unspeakable crime of saying what's true.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Well, what General Boykin apparently thinks is true is debatable. He says that the war against terrorists is a religious war. That's a view that puts him in opposition to the commander in chief he swore to obey. Well, was General Boykin just expressing his religious views? Or, as a top general in the war on terror, was he undermining American foreign policy? That is our debate.

We'll get to the debate right after the best political briefing in television, the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." In a memo to his senior staff, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reveals how deeply dishonest the Bush administration has been about the war on terror. President Bush says -- and I'm quoting him here -- quote -- "We're making good progress" -- unquote -- in hunting down al Qaeda. Rumsfeld writes -- quote -- "We're having mixed results" -- unquote. Mr. Bush says -- quote -- "Our nation is waging a broad and unrelenting campaign against the global terror network" -- unquote.

Rumsfeld writes -- quote -- "We've not yet made truly bold moves" -- unquote. Mr. Bush says, "We're winning the war on terror." Rumsfeld writes, "We lack the metrics to know if we are winning or losing." And while Mr. Bush speaks of his success in Afghanistan and Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld admits -- quote -- "It will be a long, hard slog."

So, now we know that the Bush administration, at least one member of it, is capable of telling the truth, just not to us.


CARLSON: Now, you should keep in mind that both Rumsfeld and Bush are members of the same administration. I will say, I'm amazed that you could actually read the Rumsfeld memo and not come away impressed by its pure honesty.

This is a guy who is not looking to cover his tracks or cover his failures or cover the administration's or America's failures. But he really wants to know how we can do better. It's a very serious memo by a very serious guy. It made me think a lot more of him. I think everyone ought to read



BEGALA: I agree with all that. Everybody should read it. But then they shouldn't believe the public P.R. B.S. that they feed us, because that's a line of bull. They ought to just tell the truth not just in memos to themselves, but to the rest of us.


CARLSON: Actually, it was a memo leaked to everyone, including us.


CARLSON: Retired General Wesley Clark issued yet another overheated press release today attacking the foreign policy of an administration he supported, in fact, lavishly and publicly praised, just last year. Of, he wasn't running for president then.

Politically convenient conversions like this are annoying, so it's no surprise that Clark has famously few friends from his years in the service. That's a problem. This weekend, Clark made the case for his own popularity, as he told "The Washington Post" -- this is a quote -- "How do you think I could have succeeded in the military if everybody didn't like me? It's impossible. Do you realize I was the first person promoted to full colonel in my entire year group of 2,000 officers? I was the only one selected. Do you realize that? Do you realize I was the only one of my West Point class picked to command a brigade when I was picked? A lot of people love me."

Now, repeat after me: "A lot of people love me. A lot of people love me. A lot of people love me." Good luck.

BEGALA: You know who some of those people are? General Alexander Haig, no liberal. He wrote glowing performance reviews of then Major Wesley Clark, General John Shalikashvili, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Barry McCaffrey, a hero from the Vietnam and the first Gulf War.

CARLSON: That's great. That's great. I agree.

BEGALA: There's lots of generals who


CARLSON: That's great. I love that as a campaign platform. "A lot of people love him." Well, you know, Paul, a lot of people love me. OK, Sally Field, settle down.



BEGALA: But he was asked why everyone he served with him didn't like him. That's not true. This is a right-wing smear campaign.


CARLSON: No, no, that's not true. It's not a right-wing...

BEGALA: It's a smear campaign against a fine man and a great general.

CARLSON: It's not a smear campaign. It's actually true.

BEGALA: This is what we expect from the right.

Well, the Bush White House has for weeks maintained that there's no need for an independent investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name. They say the investigation is being handled by career prosecutors, not by John Ashcroft's political pals. But in congressional testimony yesterday, Justice Department officials admitted that Mr. Ashcroft has been regularly briefed on key details of the investigation.

Mr. Ashcroft has been informed of the names of those interviewed by the FBI and has taken a more hands-on role than previously disclosed. It looks like Mr. Ashcroft wants to cover up more than just the boobs on that statue of justice.


CARLSON: I think that's a completely and unfair inference.

BEGALA: Absolutely true.

CARLSON: This is -- you have no evidence at all that the attorney general of the United States has corrupted the FBI. That's a very serious thing to allege. And there's no evidence. When evidence arrives, I'll denounce them all as corrupt.


BEGALA: Let me tell you what I allege, Tucker. I allege that they're misleading us about the role he's playing in this investigation. They say career people are handling it. But when they're under oath, they have to admit that Ashcroft is being briefed on the details.


CARLSON: He's the attorney general of the United States.

BEGALA: He recused himself from the Enron investigation, for good reason. He should recuse himself from the Bush investigation of the CIA leak as well.

CARLSON: Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul...

BEGALA: He's even closer to Bush than he is to Enron.



CARLSON: This is such a crazy conspiracy theory. He's the attorney general. No one has alleged that the FBI in any way is doing anything less than a very serious job.


CARLSON: If they're corrupt, present the evidence. Otherwise


BEGALA: Mr. Ashcroft is hopelessly compromised.

CARLSON: OK. People love me, truly.


CARLSON: Well, Mike Leavitt was nominated more than three months ago to be the new EPA administrator. He's still not confirmed, due largely to the efforts of Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Lieberman says he has unresolved questions about Leavitt's fitness for the job. And until he gets answers, Lieberman says, he'll continue to stall Leavitt's nomination. Here's the interesting part. Lieberman doesn't know anything about Mike Leavitt because he hasn't bothered to learn. According to a piece by ace reporter Sam Dealey in this morning's "Hill" newspaper, Lieberman has missed 25 of his 27 committee commitments this year. He even skipped all seven legislative markups, where bills are actually written. He didn't even show up at Leavitt's testimony.

When Levitt tried to schedule a meeting with Lieberman, the senator declined. Instead, Lieberman has been running around the country desperately trying to shake down donors for his doomed presidential campaign. Fine. Good luck, Mr. Lieberman. But if other people actually want to run the country, let them.


BEGALA: Like who?

CARLSON: Like Mike Leavitt. Seriously.

BEGALA: Like George W. Bush, who...


BEGALA: George W. Bush is about to break Ronald Reagan's record for vacation days. His view is, hard work never killed anyone, but why take a chance. He's the laziest man we have ever had in the Oval Office and you're going to bang on Joe Lieberman?


CARLSON: That's great. OK. OK. Bush is Satan.

I'm just saying, if he's very serious about Mike Leavitt not being fit for the job, at least meet with him.


CARLSON: Come back from your Malibu fund-raiser and meet with the guy just once. Come on. It's ridiculously unfair.


CARLSON: Anyway, people love me.

Is religion a factor in the war against religious extremists? One general dared say yes and he may lose his job for it. We'll debate the question just ahead.

And later, just how can politicians get in touch with their comic side, given that they have one? We'll get advice from an expert.

We'll be right back.



Lieutenant General William Boykin is leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden. And he's also an evangelical Christian. Last June, while speaking to a group of evangelicals, Boykin reportedly said that radical Muslims hate the U.S. because -- quote -- "We're a Christian nation and the enemy is a guy named Satan," all of which is undeniably true and too much for the usual commissars of political correctness, who complain that Boykin is being insensitive to the terrorist community.

Well, should Boykin be fired for pointing out the obvious?

To debate it, we're joined this afternoon by Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. And in Lynchburg, Virginia, is the founder and chancellor of Liberty University, the Reverend Jerry Falwell.


BEGALA: Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us.

Jerry Falwell, you are always gracious about joining us. And I want to thank you for that.

Not to be ungracious, but I want to put you on the spot here. You know what General Boykin said, in my eyes, rather outrageous statements about Islam. He even called the god of Islam an idol, a false god. I want to play you a piece of videotape of our president, who has a very different view.

Here's President George W. Bush.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.


BEGALA: Reverend Falwell, I think President Bush is right and General Boykin is wrong. Who do you agree with?

JERRY FALWELL, CHANCELLOR, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Well, first of all, I agree with both of them.

General Boykin never said that Islam in general and the radical terrorists who composed two large a group among the Islamics are the same. As a matter of fact, he made quite a huge difference in that. And it was President Lincoln, during the war between the states, who was asked: Mr. President, are you praying that God will be on our side?

He said: No, I'm praying we'll get on God's side. It was Benjamin Franklin who called the Constitutional Convention to prayer in 1787, saying that, if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without God's notice, is it likely a nation can rise without his aid. It's only been in recent times that it's become politically correct to attack Christians and to have open game on anyone like General Boykin, who, in his own church, among believers, exercises his First Amendment rights and shares his faith, a faith, by the way, that scores of millions of Christians believe that there is a true and living God in heaven and that there is a real person named Satan and that there is good and evil.

CARLSON: And Mr. Falwell, I'm going to have to ask Hussein Ibish a question.


CARLSON: Let's consider what General Boykin said.


CARLSON: He said, first, that Islamic extremists are worshipping a false God. Undeniably true.

IBISH: No, he didn't say that.


CARLSON: Let me finish. Let me finish.

IBISH: All right.

CARLSON: He said, second, they are waging a religious war. These are Muslims, educated in Muslim schools, waging a war on behalf of their idea of Islam. In what sense is he wrong? He spoke the truth and it just offends you, but tough.


What he said was that the United States is a Christian nation that derives its power from Christianity, that we go into battle against our enemies in the name of Jesus, and that President Bush wasn't elected by millions of Americans; he was appointed by God. I have to say that those kind of statements, in a country that we live in, a democratic country, which is a multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious, are unacceptable.

I think they bespeak a religious extremism that is totally inappropriate for the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, a highly sensitive, highly important job. I think he revealed himself to be a religious extremist, a fanatic, and someone who is, frankly, irrational.


BEGALA: Well, Reverend Falwell, let me ask you about one of those comments that Hussein just mentioned. General Boykin said -- and I'm quoting him here about our president -- "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him." He's right about that. "Why is he there? And I tell you this morning, he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

Now, in case General Boykin is watching, and for our folks at home, let me show a couple of images here. First, this is God. God is depicted, actually, by Michelangelo in his masterpiece in ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. On the right side of your screen is William Rehnquist. He's the chief justice of the Supreme Court. He's the one who put George Bush in the White House, isn't he, Reverend Falwell? Not God.


FALWELL: Well, if -- if you don't take the Bible seriously, what you and Hussein just said would be true.

But the vast majority of believers worldwide, Christian, followers of Christ, believe that God rules in the affairs of men. And history would support that.


FALWELL: Wait a minute.

BEGALA: So God put President Clinton in office?

FALWELL: You worked for a long time for Bill Clinton. You worked for a long time for Bill Clinton.

BEGALA: So God put him there.

FALWELL: I think that we needed Bill Clinton, because we turned our backs on the lord and we needed a bad president to get our attention again.


FALWELL: To pray for a good president. That's what I believe.


IBISH: You know, I really think this kind of extreme religious rhetoric is very disempowering, because it says to us, whatever is happening is the fault of God. God did this. God elected Bush. God elected Clinton. No, he didn't. The American people did that.



CARLSON: Wait. Hold on. You're very quick...

IBISH: And whatever problems we have, we can sort them out for ourselves, without blaming God. This is absurd. CARLSON: Well, I notice that you're extremely quick to pounce on a certain sort of religious extremism. But you, like, I would say, most representatives of organized Islamic groups say nothing when it comes to Islamic leaders.

IBISH: I don't work for an Islamic group. I work for an Arab- American group that includes both Christians and Muslims.


CARLSON: I want to give you an example. This, as doubtless you've seen it, is the prime minister of Malaysia. This is part of what he said last week.

IBISH: Yes. Yes.

CARLSON: Here we go.


MAHATHIR MOHAMAD, PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA: The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today, the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.




CARLSON: But it's outrageous. but there were no demonstrations by Muslim groups in the streets.

IBISH: Well, no one's demonstrating about Mr. Boykin. Mahathir Mohamad is the outgoing...

CARLSON: Actually, you are here demonstrating against him. Why aren't you in the streets denouncing that?

IBISH: No, no, no. I was invited here to discuss Mr. Boykin. Now you want to talk about Mahathir Mohamad? I'll say, I'm glad that, in 10 or 12 days time, he's not going to be the president of Malaysia anymore. And that's very good. Those kind of comments have no place


CARLSON: Is that right? Well, tell the foreign minister of Egypt, who praised him today.


IBISH: I certainly will, if he calls me up and asks me. Or if I'm invited on a show, I'll certainly be happy to say that.


IBISH: But I'm more concerned about our own government officials here in the United States.

CARLSON: I can see that.

IBISH: And that's our responsibility as Americans first. But I agree. Mahathir Mohamad's comments were absolutely ludicrous and outrageous. Religious extremism is all over the world. We don't need it in the Defense Department.


BEGALA: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I want one quick last question to Reverend Falwell.

General Boykin also talked about looking at a photograph in Mogadishu which he said included an unexplained dark mark, which he explains as a manifestation of evil. Do you believe that this general has photographs of Satan?

FALWELL: I don't believe he was saying that. I believe he was saying that men who are wicked enough to kill women, children, bomb buses with little children on them, and do the terrible things, bring down the Trade Center, bring -- and so forth, that people who do that kind of thing, like Stalin, like Adolf Hitler, like all the wicked leaders in human history, are satanically controlled, satanically possessed.


FALWELL: And General Boykin was saying exactly what born-again Christians all over this world believe. And I'm surprised there's nobody on that platform, besides Mr. Carlson, who doesn't know that.


BEGALA: That has to be the last word from Reverend Jerry Falwell, who joins us from Lynchburg, Virginia.

Reverend Falwell, always good to have you. Thank you, sir.


BEGALA: Hussein Ibish here in Washington, thank you as well, my friend. Good job on both parts.



BEGALA: Thank you.

Well, you've heard the debate now. We want to know, should General Boykin be fired for his comments? We'll have the results for you later in CROSSFIRE.

But first, is there any way to make George W. Bush amusing? Of course, other than dressing him up in a flight suit, like G.I. Joe. (LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Well, we'll ask one of Jay Leno's writers for his advice for our president and other politicians in a minute.

And then, right after the break, Wolf Blitzer will tell us what he's doing hanging out with actress Angelina Jolie today. Come on, Wolf. Come clean.

Stay with us.




BEGALA: Wolf, thanks a lot.

I think I've annoyed somebody at CNN. Wolf gets to hang out with Angelina Jolie, and I'm with Tucker Carlson.

Well, anyway, here I am with Tucker. We're here talking about humor in politics. Of course, President John F. Kennedy was famous for his wit. And nobody could deliver one-liners like the Gipper, Ronald Reagan. And President Clinton's routines at those Washington power dinners brought down the house. So how come so many of today's politicians can't seem to lighten up a little bit?

Well, we thought we would get an expert in to give them a few pointers. "Tonight Show" writer Jon Macks is a former political consultant, a consultant to the HBO show "K Street," and the author of the new book "How To Be Funny," which is outstanding and hilarious and great.

Jon Macks, welcome to CROSSFIRE.


CARLSON: It is an outstanding the book. I read it. I loved it, actually.

"The Tonight Show" is off this week. If you were on tonight, what would you be writing about?

JON MACKS, AUTHOR, "HOW TO BE FUNNY": I think there would be -- to me, it's a shame we're off because of this whole story, the David Gest suing Lisa Minelli over -- I think suing for $10 million, saying that she -- that in these alcohol-fueled rages, she gained superhuman strength.

Right now, the Redskins are saying middle linebacker, definitely. We will definitely want to go with that. And then again, David can play on both teams. He goes it both ways. So he would be great.

(LAUGHTER) MACKS: Also, that whole last segment was amazing.

BEGALA: The debate we had with Reverend Falwell?

MACKS: Oh, the debate you just had was just -- see, in L.A., it's a little different, because when you speak of the almighty, we think you're talking about Steven Spielberg.


MACKS: I mean, it's totally, totally different out there.

BEGALA: Well, OK, let me ask for some free advice for our president. I actually think he's quite a funny guy. I disagree with his policies. But he's got a good sense of humor, doesn't he? What does he need to do to be funnier, or has he got it right, right now?

MACKS: I think the most important thing is, when you're the president, you're the No. 1 guy. And you can never make fun down. You always have to make fun going up. So when you're the president, there's only one person equal to you. And that's yourself. So you need to be much more self-deprecating. And I think...

BEGALA: In his case, Dick Cheney I guess would sort of be his boss.


MACKS: Either way, going up.

But he needs to be much more self-deprecating. He's got to talk about -- when he's talking about, for example, going to an undisclosed, secret location, that's Crawford, Texas, to me, things like that. He's got to be making fun of himself, talking about -- again, with this, he would be talking about the almighty. He would be referring to, of course: I thought they meant my mom.

Anything that takes it to his family and himself in a way, as opposed to anything that has an edge or a little mean to someone.

CARLSON: Is there any way to make Howard Dean funny? He seems like such a grouchy little guy.

MACKS: I think, with him, what's the one thing we know about Howard Dean? He's a doctor. You know that. And, in this case, if I were him, I would refer to that, because it's -- in a way, it's talking about one of his strengths.

But, on the other hand, you can make fun of it. So you he could say something, do a little story about how he was out there and he's a doctor and he's very successful. And he called his mom, at one point, his mom and dad, and said: You know, I'm going to be running for president of the United States. And they could be going: Where did you go wrong? How did you give this up? You had a good career.

(LAUGHTER) CARLSON: Well, speaking of good careers, Jon Macks, you have a great career, "Tonight Show" writer, former political consultant, author of "How To Be Funny." We wouldn't recommend it if it weren't worth reading. And it is.

Thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.

MACKS: Thanks, Tucker.

BEGALA: Great job, Jon. Thank you very much.


BEGALA: After the break, we'll find out whether you think General William Boykin ought to be canned for his religious comments.

And, in "Fireback," one viewer has a new line of work in mind for General Boykin. We'll tell you what that is when we come back.

See you in a moment.



CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

It's time for "Fireback."

Jon Macks, as he was walking off the set, said he just remembered why General Boykin's name sounded familiar. It was actually Clinton's nickname when he was commander in chief, General Boykin.

BEGALA: General Boykin.


First up, Dan Hoffard of Iowa writes about the question of whether this is a religious war: "A rose by any other name is still a rose. The Islamic terrorist will tell you it's a religious war. When they kill someone in the name of God, it is a religious war."

Well, that's right.

BEGALA: When a general undermines the president's foreign policy, he needs to be removed. He has a right to his religious views. God bless him for holding them, but he's speaking opposite of what our president wants to tell the world. He's got to go.


CARLSON: I generally -- I generally agree with that. I'm not sure that he crossed that line.

(CROSSTALK) BEGALA: Well, it will be a long time before I defend President Bush again. But he's right about this and he ought to get rid of this general.

Judy Simmons of Tulsa, Oklahoma, writes about General Boykin: He "needs to decide whether he wants to be an active soldier or an active preacher. The two may not be mutually exclusive, but it's certainly confusing to watch someone fight and preach at the same time."

Well, that's a good point.


CARLSON: OK. A lot of people really kind of hate religious expression. It's interesting.

Stephen Charchuk of Yarmouth, N.S. -- that must be in Canada -- writes: "Even though I totally disagree with what Lieutenant General Boykin said, he still has a right to say it, even if we don't like it. He's just expressing an honest opinion and one most likely held by far too many Americans."

I'm not sure far too many. But I think a lot of Americans think Islamic extremism is evil. And they're right. It is evil. I don't know what's wrong with saying that.

BEGALA: Well, again, he's entitled to his opinion, which is the same opinion Osama bin Laden has, which is, he wants a religious war and he sees this as a religious war. Our president thinks it's not. I think the president is right.

CARLSON: But Osama is waging a religious war.

BEGALA: Sissy Riffin in Waco, Texas, writes: "Where is the human in human rights? We can't expect the world to respect the U.S. when our officials are ignorant of the basic tenets of all other religions. The religious extremists in this country are embedded in the Republican Party."


BEGALA: And she writes from Waco, Texas -- Waco, Texas.


BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. That's it for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson.

Join us again tomorrow for another edition of CROSSFIRE.


The Web
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.

Falwell on Boykin and Clinton

October 24, 2003
Falwell on Boykin and Clinton

Mark Evanier catches Jerry Falwell saying something really dumb on Crossfire.

BEGALA: General Boykin said -- and I'm quoting him here about our president -- "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him." He's right about that. "Why is he there? And I tell you this morning, he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." Now, in case General Boykin is watching, and for our folks at home, let me show a couple of images here. First, this is God. God is depicted, actually, by Michelangelo in his masterpiece in ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. On the right side of your screen is William Rehnquist. He's the chief justice of the Supreme Court. He's the one who put George Bush in the White House, isn't he, Reverend Falwell? Not God.

FALWELL: Well, if -- if you don't take the Bible seriously, what you and Hussein just said would be true. But the vast majority of believers worldwide, Christian, followers of Christ, believe that God rules in the affairs of men. And history would support that.

BEGALA: So God put President Clinton in office?

FALWELL: You worked for a long time for Bill Clinton. You worked for a long time for Bill Clinton.

BEGALA: So God put him there?

FALWELL: I think that we needed Bill Clinton, because we turned our backs on the lord and we needed a bad president to get our attention again to pray for a good president. That's what I believe.

You know, if one looks at it that way, that is a pretty good reason for believing that God put Bush in the White House. Falwell was just wrong about which President God installed as a means to get our attention. Makes as much sense as anything else does.

Full transcript here. It should be noted that there was laughter after Falwell's last line, so perhaps it was all intended and interpreted as a joke, I don't know. Doesn't change what I said, though.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 24, 2003 to Show Business for Ugly People |

"International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me"

Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this: Lt Gen William Boykin, speaking of G. W. Bush, New York Times, 17 October 2003

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany. Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side: Aristotle

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator. George W. Bush, 18 December 2000

International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me; George W. Bush, 12 December 2003

(b.July 4, 1776, d. September 28th, 2006)

New York Times Obituaries page A-22
Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:46:39 PM PDT

*America, United States of
(b.July 4, 1776, d. September 28th, 2006)*

An historic moment came yesterday when the world's oldest democracy,
its greatest and youngest nation quietly passed away in her sleep.

"The world is a darker place." lamented several saddened and tearful
citizens. "I have known America my entire life, she knew my parents
and my parent's parents and I am speechless with grief. We did all we
could. I can't believe she is gone."

America passed away yesterday after a long fight with cancer; cancer
of the congress specifically. Her ten year battle for survival endured
two presidencies and several false remissons. She nearly capitulated her
struggle in 1998 during the Clinton Impeachment hearings, but somehow
she managed to push through.

"She lasted 230 years. She was a tough old broad, but history shows
us that no gets out of this world alive not even the most vibrant,
inspiring and hopeful democracy the world has ever seen", wept a
Democratic senator.

Born in 1776 to a cadre of European revolutionaries who raised her
to be different from any nation the world had ever seen, America was
fortunate to be the daughter of many brilliant and attentive fathers.
They shaped her (unwittingly or not) to be a beacon of hope to the
world's citizens depite their own subjugation in despotic regimes. She
welcomed those who were oppressed, rejected or ignored by their own
countries and offered them a chance at a new life. And, for this
reason, she grew quickly and grew strong. So strong that at the
tender age of 85, she survived a breath-taking attempt on her life with the
help of her friend and protector, President Abraham Lincoln.

Once a fragile and insecure nation, she grew to be the true leader of
the world, serving as a bellweather for new democracies that began to
spring up around the globe.

"She led by example." said former president Bill Clinton. "The world
felt safer just knowing she was there. Even if they were poor,
vulnerable and a stricken populus, other nations knew that help
could be asked of her and more often than not, she gave and gave much. She
offered money, medical supplies, food to starving populations,
protection and did so with no expectation of reimbursement."

Her greatest and most historic moment for which she is best
remembered was, ironically, her amazing and improbable victory over the
forces of fascism in Europe in the 1940's. The same type of fascism that
eventually took her own life, she smashed for the good of the entire
world and showed them them a better way.

Never a wall-flower and always controversial, America did her best,
but admittedly had some notable and egregious lapses; Rwanda, Darfur,
East Timor and many others, yet her mystique and unfailing optimism again
and again perplexed, befuddled and eventually won over a war-weary world
who felt the flicker of hope in their own lives take hold because of
Amerca's resilience.

Recently, even though she refused to be slowed down, coddled or
pitied, her illness had clearly taken it's toll; she had one of her basic
insitutions, fair voting, removed during a painful operation six
years ago in 2000 that people close to her said she had never truly fully
recovered from although she maintained a brave face. She also had
her fourth estate amputated under mysterious and controversial
circumcstances. Through it all, however, her hope remained as did
her citizens;

"She had endured so much, survived so many trials that no ever really
thought she could ever really die. But looking back that was
foolish, complacence and naivete." said a constitutional scholar.

As is the way of life confronting death, America fought to the end.
Ironically, her optimism, grace, generosity and faith that helped her
live so long were betrayed by her congressional cancer and even as
she gave ground again and again the cancer eventually spread into her
heart of hearts; spread into an area no doctor ever thought the cancer
could spread to -- eventually did; her foundation, her soul, her greatest
asset as well as her sometimes most frustrating trait; the heart that
pumped her blood, the congressional cancer carved habeas corpus right
out of her broad and warm bosom.

Without habeas corpus, America's heart slowly subsided and faded
until no heartbeat could be detected. And she lie there still and peaceful.

And so on the afternoon of September 28th, 2006, America, like so
many great and admirable entities in history, passed into and became a
part of history. She went gently into her goodnight. Many of her citizens
did not even know that she was ill, never mind that she had passed.
Upon seeing the deep sadness and fear from some of their fellow
citizens who DID know and cherish her, many of these reacted with shrugging
disdain at the "over-reaction", thinking that they had known her too,
but in reality had, in foolish complacence and naivete took her for
granted--even in death refusing to admit to themselves she was gone.

As my father would most likely say if he were alive today, who fought
side by side with her in World War II, who passed away days before
her mortal wound inflicted on September 11th, 2001; The wound that
metastisized her congressional cancer,

"She will be deeply missed and her absence will most certainly be
felt for generations to come."

Rest in Peace

RESIST: support war resisters

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector
enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today."
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

The Growing Iraq Resistance Movement in the U.S. Military

By Peter Laufer, AlterNet

On Sept. 26, Peter Laufer, author of, "Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq" (Chelsea Green, 2006) spoke at Rep. Lynn Woolsey's (D-Calif.) Iraq forum, "The Mounting Costs of the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq and Lost Opportunities," on the growing number of American soldiers turning against the U.S. military mission in Iraq on moral and ethical grounds. The following is the text of his testimony.

Congresswoman Woolsey, thank you for this opportunity to speak about a critical matter I've been studying. What I want to share with you are the thoughts and experiences of some of the brave men and women I've met over the past year. It has been an honor for me to meet these soldiers, Americans on the front lines of what may be their most important battle: a fight for our country's soul.

One of the things that's surprised me most as I returned from travels around the U.S., up to Canada, and over to Germany talking with soldiers opposed to the Iraq war is how few civilians know about the growing resistance within the military to Bush policy in Iraq.

Over and over, when people asked me what I was working on and I told them of the collected stories of opposition, I heard comments like "There are soldiers against the war? I didn't know that."

The tragedy of civilian deaths in Iraq is devastating. U.S. troops assigned to the kind of duty that leaves innocent civilians damaged and destroyed are also victims. The escalating number of troops returning from the war suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is proof.

One soldier after another told me about their being devastated by orders that put them in the position of disobeying, or of shooting what they feared were noncombatants.

These soldier's stories are critical to hear. Their credibility cannot be impugned. They volunteered for the military. They've seen it from the inside.

Consider Darrell Anderson. I met with him in Toronto. He deserted after fighting in Iraq rather than face another deployment there.

In addition to taking shrapnel from a roadside bomb -- an injury that earned him a Purple Heart -- Darrell told me he often found himself in firefights.

Darrel described a Baghdad street battle that scarred him -- and scared him about himself. He was in an armored vehicle. Other soldiers were riding on the outside, when it came under attack from an enemy armed with rocket-propelled grenades. One of the soldiers riding outside was hit and injured severely. Darrell told me the scene still returns to him in the nightmares he suffers every night. "I look at him and he is bleeding everywhere. He's spitting up blood." Someone had to take his place on the outside, Darrell realized. "Me, I'm gung-ho. I go up there. There're explosions. They tell us if you're under attack, you open fire on anybody in the streets. They say they're no longer innocent if they're there. I take my weapon and I find someone running. I point and I pull my trigger, but my weapon is still on safe."

By the time Darrell clicked it over to fire, he realized he was about to shoot a kid who was running away from the violence, a kid he was by then sure was not part of the battle. But what was most traumatic for him were his own emotions. "I'm angry. My buddy is dying. I just want to kill." He told me he realized then he had become a different man, changed by the pathology of war and the suffering of the innocents. "When I first got there, I was disgusted with my fellow soldiers. But now I'm just the same. I will kill innocent people, because I'm not the person I was when I got there." The attack ebbed, and Darrell survived it, as did the running boy.

A timely example of how the war is tearing at the conscience of the troops came in an email I received the other day from a conflicted soldier. He is an army reservist, a counterintelligence agent who served in Afghanistan, where he was awarded two Bronze Star medals for his valor.

"My unit may be deploying to Iraq in January, and I am contemplating not going," he wrote. "This is somewhat complicated by not being a conscientious objector, which limits my options." This reservist requested my assistance steering him toward sources that can provide him with credible information about the alternatives open to him and the ramifications of refusing orders.

More and more soldiers with the pedigree of my email correspondent are considering destroying careers and enduring prison time because they oppose the Iraq war. Imagine the courage it takes for a soldier -- such as the reservist who requested a referral -- to reject the mission, and instead respond to the calls of conscience and say no to the Iraq war.

The fact that both the Marines and the Army are faced with dipping into the Ready Reserve to force soldiers back to Iraq is another indication that more and more soldiers are opposed to the war. What will be important to watch now is how many refuse this recall to active duty.

In his Sept. 11 speech a few weeks ago, President Bush again invoked the names of the soldiers dead in the Iraq War. He claimed again, as he has so many times before, that the war must go on so that their sacrifice is not wasted, and he noted that over a million and a half Americans have enlisted in the services since the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

What do those volunteers think today? We could use a poll that asks them all. In the meantime, I've tallied the feelings of some of them.

Meet Joshua Key, combat-hardened from his Iraq time, now a deserter in Canada seeking refugee status. He misses his family and he blames the Bush administration. "I blame them because they made me do it. You can lie to the world; you can't lie to a person who's seen it. They made me have to do things that a man should never have to do, for the purpose of their gain -- not the people's -- their financial gain."

George W. Bush is culpable for crimes in Iraq, according to Joshua Key. "He'll pay for it one day. On the day he goes to prison, I'll go sit in prison with him. I say if he goes to prison -- George Bush -- I'll go sit in prison with him. Let's go. I'll face it for that music. But that ain't never going to happen." And Joshua Key laughed a bitter, bitter laugh in his basement apartment in Toronto.

Meet Steven Casey, still susceptible to recall from the Inactive Ready Reserve after his time fighting in Iraq. He says he'll never put his uniform back on. "You'll see me on the news. I won't be back. I'll be a statistic of a guy who doesn't show up." His voice is quiet as he says it again, "I'm not coming back." Steven Casey says he's going to college, an education he'll pay for with the money the Army guaranteed him when he enlisted. "I did get what I was promised," he says about his benefits package. "I got everything they said I was going to get," he says about the tuition money. "I got a hunk of money for school, and with that I got social anxiety and I got this cool skin rash that I'm never going to get rid of. I've got a social disorder. I yell at my wife. I don't think I won. There are a lot of things that came with this that are irreparable and I'm going to have the rest of my life." He talks about anger and anxiety. He wonders if he's suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, if he's facing a lifetime of prescription drugs and psychiatrists. "I wish I could make it all go away, to be honest with you. But I can't. I should have worked at McDonalds and found a way to pay for my tuition."

Meet Clifton Hicks, who returned from fighting in Iraq to apply for and receive an honorable discharge based on his conscientious objection to war he developed in Iraq. It's a war, says Clifton Hicks, fought for the "filthy rich too cowardly to do it themselves" who want more money, fought by "us, the masses of uneducated fools killing each other."

Soldiers such as these -- who have been on the ground in Iraq, awarded medals for their valor, seen and done things unimaginable to most of us -- offer us some of the best news reports of this war. I believe the stories from these soldiers can help us understand what is wrong in Iraq.

Thank you for the opportunity to share these stories here today.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:

The best way to end the war is to support war resisters.

This article/news event/clipping/essay is copyrighted material, the use of which
has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to:

duck web
duck list
feed the duck


Been down too long....

Too much shit is happening and I can no longer ignore
this space I have created to bring my views into your
world. So here ya are, in your face. Day of attonement.