Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts

Sunday, June 3, 2012

A Crossroads

The predominant subject matter of my blog depresses me. Paying such close attention to how things work in the world depresses me. Being awake and knowing about what's really going on depresses me (even if I don't have the complete picture), especially when so many are still asleep and refuse to wake up.

I've joined a band, the Loafing Oafs. I have a bunch of songs to learn, and that's how I am going to spend most of my free time. This does NOT depress me.



I'll still post occasional articles more along the lines of what I posted the last four or five times. I'll try to post more positive stuff, though that sounds silly. And of course, I'll post details about the Loafing Oafs as they become available.

Peace. May we get to the point where we understand what that word REALLY means.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Netanyahu Lectures Obama in Oval Office

(And if this isn't reason enough to distance from Israel, then a reason doesn't exist. Plus, they spy on us, steal top secret data from us, and merely being associated with them makes us a target to much of the Arab world. Israel is like the idiot friend you keep having to bail out of trouble. At some point, you have to cut them off.--jef)

++++++++++++++


WASHINGTON -- Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu has warned Barack Obama against chasing what he called a Middle East peace "based on illusions" as he lectured the US president amid a widening rift in US-Israeli ties.

In a dramatic Oval Office appearance, after 90 minutes of talks Friday, Prime Minister Netanyahu emphatically vowed Israel would never return to its 1967 borders and laid down a set of non-negotiable conditions for peace talks.

The exchange, which left hopes for Obama's peace drive more remote than ever, came a day after the US president called on Israel to accept a return to territorial lines in place before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, with mutual land swaps with Palestinians to frame a secure peace.
But Netanyahu seized on the notion that he was being asked to return solely to Israel's 1967 footprint, which he said was nine miles wide in places and half the size of the "Beltway" highway surrounding Washington.

"While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines -- because these lines are indefensible," Netanyahu said, looking Obama squarely in the eye.

Israelis argue that returning to the former border configuration would leave Israeli population centers vulnerable and mean uprooting hundreds of thousands of settlers from homes in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Netanyahu did not however mention the second part of Obama's stipulation -- namely that land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians, would change those 1967 lines to ensure two secure, contiguous states.

The White House insisted that it had never said that Israel should return to a narrow definition of its 1967 territorial lines.

Asked whether Netanyahu was willfully misinterpreting Obama's remarks, White House spokesman Jay Carney said such an observation was "interesting."

Privately, White House officials appeared infuriated by Netanyahu's combative approach, which even included a lecture for Obama on the historic struggles of the Jewish people.

In his first reaction to Obama's comments on the border issue, in a major speech on the Middle East on Thursday, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said that Obama should press Netanyahu to accept his position.

"Netanyahu's position is an official rejection of Mr Obama's initiative, of international legitimacy and of international law."

Obama admitted that he had Netanyahu had "differences" on language and formulations over the best approach to reviving peace talks stalled since last year, but saw a moment of opportunity amid the "Arab spring."

"I think that it is possible for us to shape a deal that allows Israel to secure itself, not to be vulnerable, but also allows it to resolve what has obviously been a wrenching issue for both peoples for decades now."

Obama also noted that he shared Israel's concerns over Syria and Iran and backed the Israeli position on the tie up between the Palestinian Fatah movement and the Islamist group Hamas.
Netanyahu said Abbas had to pick between Hamas, which advocates Israel's destruction and peace, or making peace with Israel.

The Israeli leader then launched into a history lesson of the struggles of the Jewish people, which Obama watched from a nearby chair, his hand over his mouth.

"A peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality," Netanyahu said.

"We don't have a lot of margin for error... because, Mr President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance."

After the talks, a senior Israeli official accused Obama of raising "unreasonable expectations" that could set the peace process back "dozens of years" by seeking a Middle East deal based on the 1967 borders.
 
"We had to put our foot down," he added.

Analysts said Obama became the first president to specifically state that the 1967 borders should be the basis for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, shut down over a settlements row last year.

But they also warned the statement could cost him support during next year'e elections among Jewish and pro-Israel voters.

"A lot of Democrats are not going to agree with this, and a lot of Democrats are not going to be Democratic in the voting booth," said New York political strategist Hank Sheinkopf.

On Sunday, Obama will address the powerful Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) before heading off on a week-long trip to Europe.

Netanyahu will also speak to AIPAC and will make a joint address to Congress next week, encouraged by Republican leaders who support his position.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Proposed: A March on the Capitol in Washington, D.C. to Peacefully Overthrow the Govt.

Peaceful Overthrow of the US Govt
by Spiderlegs

That title get your attention? I hope so. I usually post a lot of articles on my blog and every now and then post something of my own, and here is that every now and then. The bulk of those who read my blog are on Google Buzz, so shout out to the Buzzers.

This summer, I propose we the people make a march on the Capitol in Washington, D.C., like it's been done so many times before, as a protest to the govt budget cuts directed by the corporate interests which have obviously taken over the govt. Here's the deal:

The purpose of the march is a "Peaceful Overthrow of the Govt.," similar to what happened in Egypt. We demand that Congress steps down, the president steps down and that the armed forces don't step up. Ideally, we would set up new elections and such, but this is obviously a symbolic event to get corporate influence out of govt.

The point we'll make is that corporations no longer get to influence budgets, since they don't pay taxes, they are stripped of their corporate "personhood", they cannot fund election campaigns, and their lobbying status is removed. And this is where it gets hairy. We demand this while we are there and we won't leave until laws are written and passed that remove corporate influence from government completely.

That means corporate lobbyists no longer write our laws with loopholes that favor the corporations directly affected by those laws. It means that corporations cannot buy politicians to favor their interests at the expense of the people. Anyone remember "...Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."Well, it has perished here in Corporate America. And it will only get worse until we finally man-up take responsibility for our country. 

Our budget deficits are rooted in 3 things, none of which are caused by the objects of deficit hawks with their pruning knives:
  • Corporations don't pay their taxes and the IRS doesn't pursue them for it. Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office. This is a projected loss of a minimum of $100 billion a year in lost taxes--just in offshore tax havens. Oh, and they have outsourced many of our jobs overseas, in addition to not paying their taxes. Oh, and all the companies which received billions in federal bailout money? GM and the Wall Street banks--none of them have paid taxes in that period. Screw them!
  • The Bush Tax Cuts don't do any of the things those who pushed for it say they did. No job creation, no trickle down, no re-investment, they are just sitting on it. Corporations made record profits in 2010. RECORD PROFITS, and we have the highest unemployment numbers since the Great Depression. What it HAS done is to widen the wealth disparity of this country to pre-Federal Reserve era numbers. The wealthiest 1% control 30% of the total wealth, while the top 20% control 85% of the total wealth, and pardon my language, that is FUCKED UP! Over the next 10 years (to 2020), total tax-cut costs will equal $3.9 trillion, reaching nearly $600 billion or 3.3% of the economy in 2014 alone. Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2014, the direct costs of the enacted  tax cuts will total $2.8 trillion.  The cost equals 2.1 percent of the economy in 2014. From 2005 through 2014, the increased interest payments on the debt that result from the tax cuts would amount to $1.1 trillion.  The tax cuts increase deficits by nearly $4 trillion between 2005 and 2014. The cost of these tax cuts are more than the combined shortfall in the Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust funds, which are in danger of being cut--to afford the Bush Tax cuts.
  • And of course, there are the two never-ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which have cost $1 trillion since 2001 (according to the CBO). By the end of the decade, assuming the wars will still be going--and what has given any indication that they won't?--even with a drastic reduction in troops, just those wars will cost another $1 trillion. This doesn't even include the regular Pentagon budget which averages about $700 billion/yr, not including the black budget.
Do the math: by 2020, those 3 huge deficit whore programs will cost us:

Lost corporate tax revenue (2005-2020): $1.5 trillion
Bush Tax cuts (2005-2020):                       $4 trillion
Iraq/Afghan Wars:                                        $2 trillion
                                                                       $7.5 trillion

We can't bury ourselves in distractions anymore. Some of us won't be able to stay for long, and in fact, none of us can afford it, with costs being so high, but the cost of doing nothing is more than we can ever afford to pay. We have to do this. We have to demand our govt be free from the corporate agenda which has done everything to destroy the people of this country, and I want to tell you something personal about me: I'm a patriotic person. I don't care about the flag, about our history, good and bad, about our wars, about our politics (as such), but what I care about are the two things that make America great: it's people and their freedom.

This protest will let our govt know there will be a retribution at the polls in 2012. If you are a Republican, typically, vote in the primary for the opponent to your GOP representatives and senators. If there isn't one, vote libertarian. But for just this coming election in 2012, don't vote Republican or Democrat.

Democrats, you can vote green or libertarian or progressive, just don't vote for a Republican or Democrat. I wish more than anything (even more than I wish for a flying car and a laser gun), that it would just "click" with everyone to vote out the two party system, that is essentially a single harlequin wearing both his "happy" and "sad" masks on either side of his head. Their interests are not ours, and thus, our protest to "peacefully overthrow the govt" is based on that: we the people are not fairly represented by those we elect, and therefore, their service is rendered null and void by we, the electorate. The president sucks too. They all have since Eisenhower, and he wasn't "all that."

If the future of the corporate role in our government concerns you; if you look to the future and only see darkness; if you love the people and the freedom of this country, and take that love seriously, I'm going to ask that you please reshare this one post from me in order to cause a discussion about logistics (dates and locations and such). I wrote it, it's not spam (though, I admit to hoping it becomes a meme), and I will not ask for you to reshare anything else I post, unless it pertains to a specific protest in Washington against the corporate control of our govt. It is my burning issue. It is my bogeyman, my paranoid conspiracy theory come true. I don't believe in the Illuminati, I don't believe the Freemasons have much to do with much, I don't believe in UFOs or Bigfoot or Nessie or anything of the sort. I do believe that the people who run the global corporations are, to a man/woman, corrupted by greed so much they can't be saved--like pedophiles. No amount of therapy--of basic moral understanding--will convince them to abandon their control of the govt. They are a cancer that must be removed if we are ever going to experience the freedom we thought we had as described by the Constitution, a beautifully flawed document that was supposed to keep us from having to do what we must do in order to preserve it. We need to set a date really soon.

If no one cares, then that's my answer, and I thank you for reading this to the end of the post.

"...Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."--Abraham Lincoln

Peace and non-violence.

--jef

Friday, July 16, 2010

Marketing Peace and War

Making a Killing
By MISSY BEATTIE

I’m happy to run with the six peaceniks that stood trial in DC Superior Court on July 12th. Three are with Peace of the Action (POTA) and include Cindy Sheehan, national director of the organization, as well as Jon Gold and Jim Veeder. They were acquitted. Elaine Brower of Military Families Speak Out and Matthis Chiroux of Iraq Veterans Against the War were convicted, as was Leflora Cunningham-Walsh. I applaud these citizens of the world and their devotion to peace and activism. Sheehan and Gold have articles about the trial on POTA’s web address: peaceoftheaction.org/.

On July 13th, some of us gathered at the White House. We took a bullhorn to the president’s presidio and told Barack Obama what we think of his George Bushiness foreign policy. This was gratifying, a celebratory wrap for POTA’s July action, especially since the defendants, prior to the trial, had been under a “stay away order” from this area of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now, this:
The young woman who sat across from me as I rode DC's Metro was an advertisement for peace. A large, flashy gold bracelet with interlocking peace medallions encircled her right wrist. Everywhere I turned, I saw peace symbols. On purses, backpacks, shirts, sandals, and earlobes.
While participating in POTA events, I rode the rails, walked, and ranted and railed. And I observed. Even infant wear is decorated with peace signs. Soon, Pampers will bear the insignia—if they don't already.

The commodification of peace is an extension of our war culture. If there were no war, the merchandizing of peace images would be unnecessary. But in our consumption-obsessed society, we juggle all the trends we can afford and much of what we can’t.

Parents buy for their children action figures with hands molded to support weaponry. Then, moving to the next store at the “maul,” they are lured to the register to have credit cards swiped to purchase toddler t-shirts with an image of a dove, a peace emblem, and, often, a written message. To wear with Star Wars undies. Both peace and war have become fashion statements. Malia Obama has fallen victim, wearing shirts adorned with peace symbols, despite her father’s stock in tirade—the war rhetoric—amid his war lust, robotic war, and nationalistic clichés.

Eight US troops were killed in Afghanistan over a 24-hour period during the writing of this article. July could be even more violent than June for NATO-led soldiers. One hundred died last month. I know, personally, that families who have opened the door to hear words that change lives forever are feeling a fall-to-the-floor agony and for months will say, "This can't be real."

In the center of criminal power that is Washington, DC, POTA brought together six to twelve people, most days, for antiwar actions.

Meanwhile, more than 1000 Afghans just amassed in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, shouting "Death to America." Is anyone surprised? Our invasion, occupation, and barbarism have devastated a population and an environment, killing who-knows-how-many civilians, yet the Afghan insurgency grows. The country is a slaughterhouse.

Here at home, specialty wholesalers and retailers are making a killing, selling peace images, manufactured, probably, in China.

The masters/merchants of war are making a killing, as well.

And the people who are apathetic to any understanding that war is impacting our planet, the economy, our humanity, and lives both at home and in the countries we occupy buy STUFF because it's shiny, comes in pretty colors, and is all the rage. Those who have no engagement in what is being committed in their names exploit peace.

Again, I say, if there were no war, peace symbols would be unnecessary. And so would a peace movement.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Questioning War, Answering Peace

Root Contradictions
By WINSLOW MYERS

The article in Rolling Stone that ended the meteoric career of General McChrystal shines light on the thought-process not only of one military man, but also on the dysfunctional paradigm now failing in Afghanistan. It is a textbook demonstration of how the mind-set of war itself, the notion of annihilating an enemy and emerging victorious, has become obsolete.

It has been clear for decades (so clear that Kissinger, Nunn, Schulz and Perry called in 2007 for the abolition of all nuclear weapons) that victory by nuclear war is a logical contradiction. The level of destruction resulting from the detonation of even a small number of warheads, such as might occur in a “regional” war between two nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, could bring about a planet-wide change in cloud-cover that could shut down agriculture worldwide for a decade—in effect a death-sentence for our species.

But what about conventional war? Setting aside the risk that a “small” war between two nuclear powers could escalate into nuclear war (and even if the war is “small,” the risk is not—think Israel/Iran sometime in the future), must we not retain the idea of the military force of a given nation defending itself against direct attack or responding to conditions beyond its borders that threaten its interests?

Of course there will continue to be circumstances so clear-cut that a military response would be a necessary and positive step—most especially the prevention of genocide, though the motivation in that case would presumably be humanitarian rather than directly self-interested. And yet everything points to the conclusion that war, any war, works less and less well. There is need for this realization of the obsolescence of war to sink in not just in the U.S., but globally, leading to processes of reciprocal demilitarization.

In terms of self-interest, General Colin Powell has listed a series of questions the United States ought to be able to answer clearly before it goes to war:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the American people?

Do we have genuine broad international support?

Sensible as this set of criteria may be, it resembles Just War Theory (just cause, proportional response, right intention, last resort, minimum necessary force, etc.). In both the Powell Doctrine and Just War Theory, the assumption is that outcomes, including escalation, can be calibrated and controlled. But as we keep having to relearn, war inevitably includes unforeseen consequences—Mr. Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns.” The objective of annihilating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan melted away with the melting away of Al Qaeda itself. Suddenly the edges of our mission became blurred, bleeding into the open-ended nation-building that also still drains our resources in Iraq.

And so we arrive at the root contradiction: successful war, as a mind-set, requires the dehumanization and utter destruction of the enemy, the motive behind General McChrystal’s past success with counter-insurgency. Only then can the fearsome cruelty and destructiveness (proportionality be damned!) that resulted in past victories be rationalized. But modern global communications have made it far less simple to convince masses of people, including trained soldiers, to accept the crude stereotypes of dehumanization. If our adversaries are potential participants in a post-conflict reconstruction process, it becomes schizoid madness to keep on trying to kill them. The atomization of tribal culture makes it impossible to discern who is beyond the reach of reconciliation and who is not. We require our officers to read Greg Mortenson’s “Three Cups of Tea,” a book about building schools for girls, and we also want them to summon an efficient murderousness against the very same tribesmen who just might welcome, beyond the alienating paradigm of “you’re with us or against us,” new schools for their daughters.

As the Rolling Stone article puts it: our strategy is “Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps,” and the result is that having spent “hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth [we have] failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile.” It is no wonder our soldiers come home half out of their minds, even if their bodies make it through in one piece.

Time for a new paradigm. Bring home the soldiers and send in the Peace Corps. Greg Mortenson knows the territory, and could put them in touch with the right people. War is so 20th century.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Peace has almost no audience

How the Enlightened Liberal Class Is Complicit in the Country's Downward Spiral
The voices of sanity, the voices of reason, those who have a moral core have little chance now to be heard.

By Chris Hedges
May 3, 2010

We are approaching a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq is in its eighth year. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands more Afghans and Pakistani civilians have been killed. Millions have been driven into squalid displacement and refugee camps. Thousands of our own soldiers and Marines have died or been crippled physically and psychologically. We sustain these wars, which have no real popular support, by borrowing trillions of dollars that can never be repaid, even as we close schools, states go into bankruptcy, social services are cut, our infrastructure crumbles, tens of millions of Americans are reduced to poverty, and real unemployment approaches 17 percent. Collective, suicidal inertia rolls us forward toward national insolvency and the collapse of empire. And we do not protest. The peace movement, despite the heroic efforts of a handful of groups such as Iraq Veterans Against the War, the Green Party and Code Pink, is dead. No one cares.

The roots of mass apathy are found in the profound divide between liberals, who are mostly white and well educated, and our disenfranchised working class, whose sons and daughters, because they cannot get decent jobs with benefits, have few options besides the military. Liberals, whose children are more often to be found in elite colleges than the Marine Corps, did not fight the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 and the dismantling of our manufacturing base. They did nothing when the Democrats gutted welfare two years later and stood by as our banks were turned over to Wall Street speculators. They signed on, by supporting the Clinton and Obama Democrats, for the corporate rape carried out in the name of globalization and endless war, and they ignored the plight of the poor. And for this reason the poor have little interest in the moral protestations of liberals. We have lost all credibility. We are justly hated for our tacit complicity in the corporate assault on workers and their families.

Our passivity has resulted, however, in much more than imperial adventurism and a permanent underclass. A slow-motion coup by a corporate state has cemented into place a neofeudalism in which there are only masters and serfs. And the process is one that cannot be reversed through the traditional mechanisms of electoral politics.

Last Thursday I traveled to Washington to join Rep. Dennis Kucinich for a public teach-in on the wars. Kucinich used the Capitol Hill event to denounce the new request by Barack Obama for an additional $33 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The Ohio Democrat has introduced H. Con Res. 248, with 16 co-sponsors, which would require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the Afghanistan war. Kucinich, to his credit, is the only member of Congress to publicly condemn the Obama administration’s authorization to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and cleric living in Yemen, over alleged links to a failed Christmas airline bombing in Detroit. Kucinich also invited investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, writer/activist David Swanson, retired Army Col. Ann Wright and Iraq war veteran Josh Stieber to the event.

The gathering, held in the Rayburn Building, was a sober reminder of our insignificance. There were no other Congress members present, and only a smattering of young staff members attended. Most of the audience of about 70 were peace activists who, as is usual at such events, were joined by a motley collection of conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job or that former Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash, was assassinated. Scahill and Swanson provided a litany of disturbing statistics that illustrated how corporations control all systems of power. Corporations have effectively taken over our internal security and intelligence apparatus. They run our economy and manage our systems of communication. They own the two major political parties. They have built a private military. They loot the U.S. Treasury at will. And they have become unassailable. Those who decry the corporate coup are locked out of the national debate and become as marginalized as Kucinich.

“We don’t have any sort of communications system in the country,” said Swanson, who co-founded an anti-war coalition (AfterDowningStreet.org) and led an unsuccessful campaign to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. “We have a corporate media cartel that overlaps with the war industry. It has no interest in democracy. The Congress is bought and paid for. It is absolutely corrupted by money. We kick ourselves for not being active enough and imposing our demands, but the bar is set very high for us. We have to try very, very hard and make very, very big sacrifices if we are going to influence this Congress prior to getting the money out and getting a decent media system. Hypocritical Congress members talk about money all the time, how we have to be careful about money, except when it comes to war. It is hypocritical, but who is going to call them on that? Not their colleagues, not their funders, not the media, only us. We have to do that, but we don’t in large part because they switch parties every number of years and we are on one team or the other.”

Scahill—who has done most of the groundbreaking investigative reporting on private contractors including the security firm Blackwater, renamed Xe—laid out how the management of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is being steadily transferred by the Pentagon to unaccountable private contractors. He lamented the lack of support in Congress for a bill put forward by Rep. Jan Schakowsky known as the Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act, H.R. 4102, which would “responsibly phase out the use of private security contractors for functions that should be reserved for U.S. military forces and government personnel.”

“It is one of the sober realities of the time we are living in that you can put forward a bill that says something as simple as ‘we should not outsource national security functions to private contractors’ and you only get 20 members of Congress to support the bill,” Scahill said. “The unfortunate reality is that Rep. Schakowsky knows that the war industry is bipartisan. They give on both sides. For a while there it seemed contractor was the new Israel. You could not find a member of Congress to speak out against them because so many members of Congress are beholden to corporate funding to keep their House or Senate seats. I also think Obama’s election has wiped that out, as it has with many things, because the White House will dispatch emissaries to read the riot act to members of Congress who don’t toe the party line.”

The entire government is basically privatized,” Scahill went on. “In fact, 100 percent of people in this country that make $100,000 or less might as well remit everything they owe in taxes to contractors rather than paying the government. That is how privatized the society is, that is how much of government has been outsourced in this society. There are 18 U.S. intelligence agencies on the military and civilian side and 70 percent of their combined budget is outsourced to for-profit corporations who simultaneously work the United States government as well as multinational corporations and foreign governments. We have radically outsourced the intelligence operations in this country because we have radically outsourced everything. Sixty-nine percent of the Pentagon’s entire work force, and I am not talking only about the battlefield, is now privatized. In Afghanistan we have the most staggering statistics. The Obama administration is infinitely worse in Afghanistan in terms of its employment of mercenaries and other private contractors than the Bush administration. Right now in Afghanistan there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors alongside 68,000 U.S. troops. There is almost a 2-to-1 ratio of private-sector for-profit forces that are on the U.S. government payroll versus the active-duty or actual military forces in the country. And that is not taking into account the fact that the State Department has 14,000 contractors in Afghanistan.”

“Within a matter of months, and certainly within a year, the United States will have upwards of 220,000 to 250,000 U.S. government-funded personnel occupying Afghanistan, a far cry from the 70,000 U.S. soldiers that those Americans who pay attention understand the United States has in Afghanistan,” Scahill said. “This is a country where the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, said there are less than 100 al-Qaida operatives who have no ability to strike at the United States. That was the stated rationale and reasoning for being in Afghanistan. It was to hunt down those responsible for 9/11.”

Josh Stieber spoke at the end of the event. Stieber was deployed with the Army to Iraq from February 2007 to April 2008. He was in Bravo Company 2-16, which was involved in the July 2007 Apache helicopter attack on Iraqi civilians depicted on the video recently released by WikiLeaks. Stieber, who left the Army as a conscientious objector, has issued a public apology to the Iraqi people.

“This was not by any means the exception,” he said of the video, which showed helicopter pilots nonchalantly gunning down civilians, including a Reuters photographer and children, in a Baghdad street. “It is inevitable given the situation we were going through. We were going through a lot of combat at the time. A roadside bomb would go off or a sniper would fire a shot and you had no idea where it was coming from. There was a constant paranoia, a constant being on edge. If you put people in a situation like that where there are plenty of civilians, that kind of thing was going to happen and did happen and will continue to happen as long as our nation does not challenge these things. Now that this video has become public it is our responsibility as a people and a country to recognize that this is what war looks like on a day-to-day basis.”

I was depressed as I walked from the Rayburn Building to Union Station to take the train home. The voices of sanity, the voices of reason, those who have a moral core, those like Kucinich or Scahill or Wright or Swanson or Stieber, have little chance now to be heard. Liberals, who failed to grasp the dark intentions of the corporate state and its nefarious servants in the Democratic Party, bear some responsibility. But even an enlightened liberal class would have been hard-pressed to battle back against the tawdry emotional carnivals and the political theater that have thrust the nation into collective self-delusion. We were all seduced. And we, along with thousands of innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond, will all be consumed.