Deep Blade Journal

The “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act” with nearly $100 billion more to fund the war passed the House of Representatives on a close 218-212 vote; while the measure is fatally flawed from an anti-war point of view, are its politics good?

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) declares the blank-check era for Bush’s war is over

Click image to download video of March 23 floor speech by Nancy Pelosi (15 min, 25 MB, wmv format); Pelosi says this vote is a major step to end the war in Iraq; anti-war protest can be heard near the end of the file

Bush says the “House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility” with “an act of political theater”

I’m not crazy about the Iraq war funding bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier today. After all, fundamentally it violates the theme of protests organized under the From Every Village Green banner in which I have been participating in recent weeks–NOT ONE MORE DEATH! NOT ONE MORE DOLLAR. The bill would spend a lot on the war and it would guarantee continued hideous levels of killing and death by and against American forces and the Iraqi population for months or years to come.

I spoke in person with an aid to Mike Michaud on Wednesday and implored that Mike should vote against the bill as a matter of conscience. I am happy to say that Mike was amongst a handful of Democrats who did vote AGAINST the bill because it continued funding the killing and maiming. I am very, very proud to be represented by Mike and to know that this Congressional district is chock full of people organized (From Every Village Green) to back him up on this. This is what democracy looks like. He could not vote this way without us. It’s that simple.

Before I agree with some of their arguments, I first want to point out that the way the liberal organizing campaign MoveOn.org handled this bill was very condescending to those who opposed it as a matter of conscience. I’m rather sickened by the way their email, “Rep. Allen does the right thing on Iraq”, quotes “progressive” writer David Sirota about how it is time to have “a seriousness about ending the war, rather than merely a seriousness about protesting the war.” Without naming anyone or discussing specific arguments, he accused those (I guess everyone) who campaigned against the bill of being “people just blowing off contrairian steam” who were the actual ones “selling out a viable way to end the war in order to grandstand for the cameras.”

The big thing missing in the MoveOn/Sirota argument is that there is incredible urgency about stopping this war. Tens of thousands of people are dying. The bill just passed would if it became law continue the killing for an undetermined period of time.

The case against the bill was well laid out by Military Families Speak Out in a March 15 document, partly reproduced below

MFSO TALKING POINTS – MARCH 15, 2007

The House Supplemental Appropriations Bill: “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act”
These talking points cover why Military Families Speak Out is urging a “no” vote on this bill.

• The House Supplemental Appropriations Bill as written would give funds to President Bush to continue the war in Iraq.

• The House Leadership is trying to get all Members of Congress who oppose the war in Iraq to support this House Supplemental Appropriations Bill, which they named the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act”. They claim it has the following provisions which are supposed to support our troops and bring about the end of the war in Iraq, but their claims are not supported by the facts:

Claim: Troop Readiness Requirements: no funds can be appropriated to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the unit is fully trained, equipped and “mission capable”
Reality: The bill includes a provision that allows the President to waive troop readiness requirements

Claim: No Extended Deployments: no funds can be appropriated for extending the deployment of the Army, National Guard or Reserves beyond a 365-day deployment, or a Marine unit beyond a 210-day deployment.
Reality: The bill includes a provision that allows the President to waive the prohibition on extended deployments

Claim: Rest Period Between Deployments: no funds can be appropriated for deploying any Army unit that has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days, or an Marine unit that has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days
Reality: The bill includes a provision that allows the President to waive the specified rest periods between deployments.

Claim: Requirements for Iraqi Government Progress: if the Iraqi government isn’t making substantial progress by October 1, 2007 and again by March 1, 2008 in making the country secure, democratic and reducing sectarian violence, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq within 180 days.
Reality: The bill allows the President to unilaterally certify “Iraqi Government Progress”

Claim: Date Certain for U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq: combat troops out of Iraq by August, 2008 at the latest
Reality: With three U.S troops dying each day the war continues, August, 2008 is not an acceptable deadline for withdrawal of US troops. It is not bringing our troops home now. Furthermore, the bill allows U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the August, 2008 withdrawal date if they are “engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach” NOTE: the terms “limited in duration and scope” are undefined in the bill]; and/or if they are “training members of the Iraqi Security Forces”. This provision could be used to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq for years to come.

[BOTTOM LINE:] The House Supplemental Appropriations bill as written would allow thousands of additional US troops and untold numbers of Iraqis to die before the U.S. occupation of Iraq is ended.

I do want to discuss, however, some reasons why I think the politics of the bill might turn out good for us, and why I am not overly upset with Rep. Allen for voting for it–yet. This opinion may be controversial with some in our movement, so I encourage lots of discussion. My own thoughts are just beginning to coalesce and are still somewhat fluid. But this is an area where we will be aided by having the largest number of people think this through that we can, and arrive at some positions and then focus and maximize our organizing power.

Here is what I mean by the plus for us of this bill, a point not so far from what MoveOn is saying (in its unfortunately condescending way): There is value in attaching troop-withdrawal language Bush does not like and will veto to to a bill that funds the war. In fact, if it does somehow get through the Senate and he does veto it, we win. Funds are cut off. This is the raw power of the House in the appropriation process. Bush does not get his war chest if the House decides not to let him have it without strings with which he objects enough to veto. The appropriation bill is a much easier way to stop the war than some policy-only resolution (as was tried in January).

The problem, of course, is that the House may drop the strings at some point, perhaps in a House-Senate conference committee, as if what happened today never happened. The president’s dismissal of the exercise of passing this bill as “political theater” would then be accurate. This is where we can come back in–we must force the House to stick to their guns. We must not let the strings get dropped or neutered to Bush’s liking. This won’t be easy. Busy hands in Washington will try to get the president his money. Already, there are “warnings” from the Pentagon (probably false) that the troops are about to run out of money, thus amping up the pressure on Congress that the only way to support the troops is Bush’s way. Our work is cut out for us. Let’s try to hammer out a good way to do it.

March 18 peace symbol event in context of four years of area actions against the Iraq war

Please go to You Tube and comment on it or favorite it. Especially, please pick up the code and send it to other sites. It is also posted at From Every Village Green.

Extraordinary coverage of March 17–18 peace events

Local newspaper cares now, this war must end

Years ago, the Bangor Daily News was among the very most reactionary newspapers around–much like the Union Leader in New Hampshire. As recently as 2002 they all but ignored several of our peace rallies at the Federal Building in Bangor. They’re making up for it. What you see above truly is amazing coverage. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

Here are two of the most important stories from about a dozen published since last week:

From Every Village Green, Monday March 19; Details on our big peace-symbol event near the Paul Bunyan statue in Bangor…

And this,

Iraq veteran home, now protesting war
By Toni-Lynn Robbins
Saturday, March 17, 2007 - Bangor Daily News

OLD TOWN - The boots. The helmet. The rifle. The dog tags.

A tribute to a fallen soldier. A faceless memorial, unless it belongs to a friend.

“It’s not a good story,” Spc. Brian Clement began.

“As the armorer, I had to take care of his weapon, which he had been carrying when he was killed,” Clement continued, his speech slowed as he sought the words to describe his friend’s death….

Brian may be forced back into the military from inactive reserve.

Bangor Daily News leads today with a stellar anti-war editorial!

15 cm of snow followed by 5 cm of rain with ice in between postpones Saturday protests

Today was going to be a day of over 100 anti-war demonstrations throughout the state of Maine, some large some small. The big storm pushed events in most places to Sunday. The Bangor event (one of the large ones) now will occur Sunday at 1pm next to the Paul Bunyan statue on Main Street. Full details at the Every Village Green website HERE.

Some places did hold their events today. Reports HERE.

Meanwhile, the Bangor Daily News has a positively smashing lead editorial today!

Bring the peace
By BDN Staff
Saturday, March 17, 2007 - Bangor Daily News

If all goes well today [and now Sunday], thousands of Mainers will gather on village greens to protest the war in Iraq, just as protesters are gathering in Washington to recreate the 1967 march on the Pentagon that marked the turning of public opinion on Vietnam. We hope their voices are strong and their message is heard. But “Stop the war” can’t be the only message. “Bring the peace” deserves even more support because with it comes the victory of lives saved in Iraq.

Four years into the Iraq war, the Bush administration’s original justifications for fighting have drifted away, with the falsity of the weapons of mass destruction claim exposed and the reality of Saddam Hussein dead, and been replaced with a grinding fight it didn’t properly anticipate. The public frustration and anger are understandable…

[READ THE REST HERE.]

The editorial concludes that Congress “must make peace as vigorously as it was willing to let the president make war.” Bravo, BDN!

This editorial follows excellent news coverage the last few days. THIS STORY on the Every Village Green project was great:

[Ron] Greenberg was drawn to active protest of the Iraq war by what he said was the lack of responsiveness from Maine’s two U.S. senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Letters expressing his concerns about the war drew no response from the two legislators, he said.

“I got no response at all. I was just ignored. That’s what got me so upset,” he said. “I got the sense that they were just rolling their eyes. I felt insulted as a citizen.”

Frustration led him to Snowe’s office in Bangor last summer where he and 10 others were arrested, which, in turn, led to a Bangor protest that drew several thousand people from all over Maine.

“They were frustrated and angry, and happy to have an outlet,” he said.

It was during that protest that Greenberg thought about people unable to make the trip to Bangor.

He came up with the Every Village Green concept.

Momentum. Let’s hope this hopeful thrust to stop this war continues to grow.

A political prisoner fights back

Maybe the Islamophobes within the US government who continue to persecute former University of South Florida Professor Sami Al-Arian view his 54-day hunger strike as “an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us,” as the US military did those unfortunate souls who hung themselves last summer in their Guantanamo dungeon cells.

The inability of these persecutors to obtain any convictions after waving a parade of trumped-up terrorism charges before a jury drawn from an O’Reilly-propagandized public during a six-month trial in US District Court in Tampa evidently royally has pissed them off. So much so that, according to a heartbreaking story today on Democracy Now!:

Sami Al-Arian has spent the past four years in jail despite a jury’s failure over a year ago to return a single guilty verdict on any of the 17 charges brought against him. He eventually signed a plea deal with the government in exchange for being released and deported.

This past January, with just three months left before his scheduled release, a judge found him in contempt after he refused to testify before a Virginia grand jury. The date of his release could now be extended by a year and a half. On January 22nd, Al-Arian - who is a diabetic - stopped eating in protest. Last month he was transferred to the Federal Medical facility in Butner Virginia as his health deteriorated.

It’s well worth listening to this whole story, and also reading a March 3 piece on Al-Arian by Alexander Cockburn, who describes the trial,

The government’s evidence against Al-Arian consisted of speeches he gave, magazines he edited, lectures he presented, articles he wrote, books he owned, conferences he organized, rallies he attended, news he heard and websites no one accessed. One bit of evidence consisted of a conversation a co-defendant had with al-Arian in his dream. The defense rested without calling a single witness or presenting any evidence since the government’s case rested entirely on First Amendment­protected activities.

The man presiding over al-Arian’s trial was US District Court Judge James Moody, a creature from the dark lagoon of Floridian jurisprudence. Hospitable to all testimony from Israelis, Moody ruled that al-Arian and his associates could not say a single word about the military occupation or the plight of the Palestinian people…

This is the picture of a political prosecution–the attempted condemnation of a man because he spoke and wrote in favor of justice for the Palestinians.

Gore was “arrogant” in 2000
Quite a twist on this story is Al-Arian was a big supporter of candidate George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. Nahla Al-Arian, Sami Al-Arian’s wife explained to Juan Gonzales and Amy Goodman today why she and her husband supported Bush, rejected Gore, and are now betrayed and persecuted,

JUAN GONZALEZ: Throughout this long ordeal, what’s your sense or your opinion about why your husband has been targeted in this way by the federal government?

NAHLA AL-ARIAN: Well, I feel, first of all, because he was very effective in talking about the Palestinian cause and in establishing ties with the larger society and in empowering the Muslim community, making them integrate into the larger society and exercise their political rights. Sami was very good in talking to everybody, helping and working with everybody, and what made things worse –

AMY GOODMAN: Also very good in supporting President Bush in his first run for office. The pictures of him and President Bush as they campaign through Florida — as Bush campaigned through Florida, Sami was with him.

NAHLA AL-ARIAN: Because Bush deceived us. Bush lied to the Muslim community. Bush gave us a picture of a compassionate person, and that’s completely the opposite. Later on, unfortunately, we found out. Al Gore was so arrogant, and he rejected talking to the Muslim community and addressing the issues that the Muslim community was worried about, such as the use of secret evidence against Muslims and Arabs. So that’s why, you know, we went to support Bush, because he’s the one who, in the second debate, came out and said we should support or we should stop the use of secret evidence and we should stop profiling Muslims and Arabs, so he was very outspoken. And that was unfortunately, you know, a very deceitful act. It wasn’t coming from his heart, as we found out later.

Of course they are not alone in the parade of those betrayed by President Bush. But it is highly illustrative to see how hostile the Democrats were towards Muslims in 2000, and have been since, doubtlesly at the relentless urging of the Israel lobby.

Law assigns powers to “executive managers from important related petroleum companies”

Antonia Juhasz may be the most important writer on Iraqi oil. She had an oped in the New York Times a couple of days ago, that I will reproduce below.

This oped by Ms. Juhasz is a refreshing departure for major media where just about only thing you ever hear about the Iraq Oil Law is that supposedly it will distribute evenly an unexplained portion of revenue on a per capita basis. In theory, this is probably the right way to do it. But that is just a small section the law. What never is discussed is that it is a blueprint for the privatization of control of Iraq’s oil.

A couple of brief media snippets from yesterday illustrate elite posturing on Iraq’s oil and the oil law. First, this is what Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) said in response to a C-SPAN caller’s question about “stealing” Iraqi oil.

I don’t think our intentions are to steal any oil from the Iraqi people. We are hoping to get those oil wells up so that the Iraqi people can build their nation back. They’ve got a lot of infrastructure to replace. Saddam basically decimated that country during his rule. We’re bringing a tremendous amount of resources to that country and not taking resources out of that country.

Note the lack of discussion about what actually happens to the money received from Iraqi oil sales, which has been stolen by both the American occupation and corrupt Iraqis. During the period beginning with the 2003 invasion, the US-run CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) did in fact steal every dollar in Iraq’s oil accounts.

It’s also a great technique to blame everything that happens on Saddam, even though he hasn’t been around for four years and, arguably, life for Iraqis along with their oil infrastructure vastly is worse today than it was four years ago today. There is not even mention of the oil law and how, as described below, it will privatize Iraq’s oil and empower multinational oil executives to make the most important decisions about it.

Second, just briefly, a Pentagon report yesterday said, “Some elements of the Iraq war are properly descriptive of a civil war.”

NPR dutifully reported yesterday on All Things Considered the Pentagon take on this admission, including mention of the “positive success” of the oil law, “which would evenly distribute revenues around the country. That’s expected to be debated soon in the full Iraqi Parliament. ”

If you’re curious about the actual text of the law, an expat Iraqi blogger has the whole thing translated here.

Note that the ORIGINAL draft was in English, brewed at a Camp David war council last June after several years of preparation. Then it was TRANSLATED to Arabic. Raed, the blogger, then translated it BACK to English after getting a copy that even the New York Times could not get.

Here’s how the system will work: Iraq will have a “Federal Oil and Gas Council” that will “assist the Council of Ministers in creating Petroleum policies and related plans”.

According to the Law, the Council SHOULD include

• “Federal Government’s Ministers from the ministries of oil, treasury, planning, and cooperative development;
• The director of the Iraqi central bank;
• A regional government minister representing each region;
• A representative from each producing province not included in a region;
• Executive managers of from important related petroleum companies including the national Iraqi oil company and the oil marketing company; and
• Three or less experts specialized in petroleum, finance, and economy to be hired for a period not exceeding 5 years based on a resolution from the council of ministers.”

Check out that fifth item–”executive managers from important related petroleum companies” will be the ones deciding what is best for Iraq’s oil!

Among many other absolute powers in deciding all aspects of exploration, development, and production contracts,

The Federal Oil and Gas Council is the competent authority to review and approve the transfer of rights among holders of Exploration and Production rights, the Federal Oil and Gas Council is responsible for ensuring that Petroleum resources are discovered, developed, and produced in an optimal manner and in the best interest of the people in accordance with legislation, regulations and contractual conditions as well as recognised international standards.

“Optimal manner” looks like an absolutely loaded phrase, doesn’t it? I’ll take it to mean that those “executive managers of from important related petroleum companies” will have at their disposal control of Iraqi oil valves, thus taking direct control of world swing oil production–what the Saudi’s have been in charge of since the Texas Railroad Commission lost its power due to the depletion of Texas oil reserves after 1971. The only way to keep these executives in charge will be to keep thousands of American troops in Iraq for an indefinite time, at least until the reserves deplete.

Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?

by ANTONIA JUHASZ
Published: March 13, 2007

TODAY more than three-quarters of the world’s oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn’t always this way.

Until about 35 years ago, the world’s oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They are among the world’s largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.

Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.

The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.

The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.

The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.

The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.

Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.

Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.

Iraq’s five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.” They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.

Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group, is the author of “The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.”

Update: I checked to see about cross-posting this over at Daily Kos, but there are already three good diaries on this oped. Plus another interesting diary concerning an attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to “offer an amendment on the floor to strip out the oil law benchmark from the supplemental” funding bill for Iraq. Sad that we are not so far stopping this funding entirely.

Update 2: HERE is an entry at Huffington Post describing the Kucinich “oil law not a benchmark” effort.

New York Times conveys Republican dissatisfaction

Via Think Progress, after Senator Chuck Schumer repeated calls for his head, I see that the New York Times is being used to communicate even Republican consternation with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, some of it apparently based in the White House itself.

After recitation of the regular White House statements in todays Times article, there is this:

‘Mistakes’ Made on Prosecutors, Gonzales Says

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JEFF ZELENY
Published: March 14, 2007

…

With Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, insisting that Mr. Gonzales step down, his appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said.

How much longer will Gonzales be around? Man, that guy really has stuck in my craw over the years, enough to fax the Senate Judiciary Committee THIS during the confirmation hearings for his current job. And also there was THIS on the day he was confirmed. Some of the better writing in the blog, if I don’t say so myself… well I’ll let readers judge if that’s saying much.

Entwined flags

Vice President Cheney threatens Iran at the 2006 event

Here is how critical the US Israel lobby sees the Christian Zionists and their effect on Congress. According to Bruce Wilson at the Talk to Action website:

Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United For Israel, a new and nominally “pro-Israel” American national political lobbying group, has built a career on aggressive support for hard right to fringe right Israeli politics and is now making inroads towards convincing the mainstream American Jewish community that he and CUFI are the best tactical allies Jews and Israel can expect to find. This Sunday, March 11th, Pastor John Hagee will make an evening address at a the American-Israel lobby AIPAC’s star-studded yearly convention which AIPAC’s website says may be attended by a substantial fraction of the US Congress and Senate.

To me, this guy, Hagee, sounds like an ultra-fringe nutcase:

At the center of it all is Pastor John Hagee, a popular televangelist who leads the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. While Hagee has long prophesized about the end times, he ratcheted up his rhetoric this year with the publication of his book, “Jerusalem Countdown,” in which he argues that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. In the best-selling book, Hagee insists that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West. Shortly after the book’s publication, he launched Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which, as the Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he said would cause “a political earthquake.”

Christ, 18,000-member Cornerstone Church?? “Precondition for Armageddon”????

Furthermore, the Israel lobby seems to be willing to overlook Hagee’s ties to the antisemitic past, associated with Klan, neo-Nazi, and John Birch beliefs, including screeds where he

“blames the Holocaust on Jews themselves and states that Nazi persecution of Jews was God’s way of driving Jews to Israel, seems to blame Jews for the death of Jesus Christ, holds that Jews cannot get into heaven, calls liberal Jews “poisoned” and “spiritually blind”, believes that the preemptive nuclear attack on Iran that he advocates will lead to a Mideast conflict that will kill most Jews in Israel and perhaps also lead to the Nuclear destruction of the East and West coasts of the United States of America”

I guess the AIPACers are satisfied that Hagee’s furies are sufficiently directed towards Muslims. Makes no sense considering what he has written, given that the Christian Zionist kooks merely see Israel as a temporary ally in the wars preceeding Armageddon, and that unconverted Jews will be dispatched.

Despite the appeal to the fringes, plenty of political luminaries–Democrat and Republican–will join Hagee on the AIPAC stage, a literal Who’s Who of Washington,

Featured speakers will include Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and House Republican Leader John Boehner - as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni…

Last year, Vice President Cheney used the event to threaten Iran with “meaningful consequences.” If that sounds familiar, it is just slightly off of the language inserted in UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (November 2002), that promised Iraq “serious consequences.” That came true with a vengeance. What bellicose rumblings will Cheney issue this year? Whatever, they seem sure to be compatible with Hagee’s. Expect that no Democrat either will stray from the party line.

Banner hung Wednesday from the Bangor office window of US Senator Susan Collins

Besides the video that has appeared here at Deep Blade Journal and two posts at the Every Village Green blog, news coverage of the March 7 Occupation Project protest at all the Congressional offices in Bangor has been sparse. It looks like one TV channel eventually came, a buried story appeared in the Bangor Daily News print edition (but not on the net), and WERU community radio faithfully covered the story.

So, here is some additional coverage along with a few photos from those shot by Kelly Bellis during the protest. First, read this story at Every Village Green:

Occupation Project Results in 12 Arrests

Twelve Maine peace activists were arrested just after 5:00 PM Wednesday for refusing to leave the Margaret Chase Federal Building and the offices of Senator Susan Collins. As part of the Declaration of Peace events planned calling on Congress to defund the war and end the occupation of Iraq, the protesters were in the vanguard of acts of nonviolent civil disobedience scheduled nationwide to coincide with the marking of the end of the fourth year that America has been mercilessly terrorizing Iraq, and sadly the beginning of the fifth horrific year.

[Read the rest HERE.]

In Senator Collins’s office on Wednesday

Robert Shetterly draws Beau Beaulieu, fallen soldier in Iraq

Walking to Snowe’s office on Wednesday (yours truly w/camera)

Below is the full text of the Bangor Daily News story, page B5 of print edition Thursday March 8. As of the end of the day March 8, this was not posted on the net.

Protesters in Bangor want troops home
By CHELSEY LEDUE and AARON SMITH of the News staff

BANGOR — Bring US. combat troops home from Iraq by the end of the year; a group of activists and ministers urged Wednesday morning, offering a veteran of the war as their featured speaker at a downtown news conference. Later in the day 12 anti-war protesters who occupied US. Sen. Susan Collins’ office were arrested for criminal trespassing after refusing to leave.

The focus of the rally and protest was President Bush’s proposal to increase the US. combat presence in Iraq by some 21,000 troops, an escalation known as the surge.

“We want to be much dearer about what we want,” said Sara Stalman of Brooksville during the press conference at the Bangor Public Library in the morning. Representing the Maine People’s Alliance, a self-described grass-roots organization that claims 28,000 members, Stalman said, “We want all combat troops home by the end of the year. President Bush has shown a total disregard for the views of the Iraq, Study Group and the American people.”

Led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Iraq Study Group’s mandate was to conduct an independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact, on the surrounding region, and consequences for US. interests, according to its Web site.

Brian Clement of Gardiner, an Army veteran who was deployed days after he graduated from high school, was at the news conference to signal his opposition to a widening war Clement served as a specialist with the Army’s 1st Cavalry in Taji, a city five miles from Baghdad.

“I thought, at the time, that we could make a difference,” he said. “But my mentality started to change while I was in Iraq. We were doing more damage and destruction and not being a positive influence,” he said.

Now a student at the University of Maine and a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War Clement said he encouraged Maine’s two Republican US senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, to help stop the Iraq war and prevent further loss of life in Iraq.

“I support the troops in Iraq. They are my brothers and sisters,” Clement said.

The Maine People’s Alliance and other protesters said they were joining Americans Against Escalation In Iraq, a national bipartisan group made up of veterans, union members, civic activists and others.

“We believe in our congressmen and senators because of the people they are and the people we are,” said Stalman. “We want to give the power to our government -to fix this. That’s.the way democracy works.”

Other speakers at the morning event Included Sarah Bigney of the Progressive Student Alliance; the Rev Brad Mitchell, Interim minister at the Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor; the Rev. Elaine Hewes, pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church of Bangor; and the Rev Gary Vencill of the United Methodist Church of Brooksville.

“Only Americans can save and preserve America,” Mitchell said.

Shortly after the press conference, more than two dozen protesters made their way down the street to Collins’ office at the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building. Six protesters sat in her office on the second floor, while another 20 or so stood with anti-war signs in the lobby of the building until it closed at 5pm.

After being warned to exit the federal building, 12 of the protesters who refused to leave either the office or the federal building were arrested, according to Bangor police. Everyone who was arrested was’ cooperative when taken into custody said Bangor police Sgt. Ed Potter The six protesters in Collins’ office, said they were with the Civil Disobedience and Occupation Project and expected to be arrested.

“We intend to stay here until we get what we want,” said protester Patricia Wheeler of Deer Isle.

“We’re here today essentially to present our grievances to the war that will hopefully fall on the ears of Susan Collins,” said Judy Robbins of Sedgwick.

At least one of the people arrested Wednesday, Nancy Hill, 54, of Stonington, had been among 11 activists arrested for criminal trespass at Snowe’s Bangor office in September last year.

Another 19 protesters were arrested for refusing to leave Collins’ office in December 2005.

Bangor police provided a list of those arrested Wednesday evening, which in addition to Wheeler, Robbins and Hill, included Maureen Block, Robert Shetterly, Jonathan Kreps, James Freeman, Dudley Hendrick, Douglas Rawlings, Peter Robbins, Henry Braun, and Diane Fitzgerald. No hometowns were provided.

A downloadable mp3 recording of Iraq war veteran Brian Clement of Gardiner, Maine speaking during a University of Maine teach-in last October is available at peacecast.us HERE.

On March 7, peace activists from Maine acting in concert with the national Occupation Project delivered a strong message to our representatives in Congress. This 3-1/2-minute clip records visits to the Bangor, Maine offices of Congressman Mike Michaud and Senator Olympia Snowe with the demand they STOP FUNDING WAR. Two additional clips below contain statements from Robert Shetterly and Doug Rawlings prior to entering the office of Senator Susan Collins with the same demand.

Update: Twelve were arrested at Susan Collins’s office in the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building in downtown Bangor. No news story appears to be available on the Internet by the end of the day on March 8. The only media covering this protest (besides Deep Blade) appears to have been WERU community radio and the print edition of the Bangor Daily News (not the Internet edition) for Thursday.