A BUSH ATTACK ON IRAN TO SAVE THE PRESIDENCY?

US-Led Military Thrust Focuses Heavily on Broad Naval DeploymentDEBKAfile Exclusive Military Report http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=1223
October 30, 2006, 11:53 AM (GMT+02:00)

Hundreds of US and allied war ships foregathered in the strategic seas of the Middle East and India in the last days of October 2006 for two primary missions: To prepare for a US-led military strike against Iran which has stepped up its uranium enrichment program with a second centrifuge project - undeterred by the prospect of UN sanctions; and measures to fend off palpable al Qaeda threats to oil targets. DEBKAfile’s military sources provide details of the massive deployments: 1. A large-scale US-Indian sea exercise called Malabar 06 is in progress off the Indian coast of Goa, ending Nov. 5. The American vessels taking part are the USS Boxer carrier, the USS Bunker Hill guided missile battle cruiser, the guided missile destroyer USS Howard and the USS Benfold , as well as the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine Providence and the Canadian guided missile frigate HMCS Ottawa .

Indian maritime might is displayed with its warships like INS Beas , INS Mysore , INS Shakti , INS Ganga , tanking ship INS Gharial , submarine INS Shankush and Coast Guard ship CGS Samar Malabar also involves the landing of large number of soldiers ashore, ahead of the Indian acquisition of the massive amphibious USS Trenton transport dock which can carry six helicopters and about a 1000 soldiers.

Our Tehran sources report that last Thursday, Oct. 26, Iranian officials were seriously rattled by a rumor that an Iranian spy plane had located the USS Boxer heading for the Persian Gulf. It prompted fears of an imminent American military assault to lift Republican prospects in the coming US midterm elections of Nov. 7. In any case, the Iranians suspect that at the end of the joint US-Indian exercise in the Arabian Sea, Boxer will veer west and head into the Persian Gulf.

There would then be four US air carriers with task forces parked opposite Iranian shores, including the USS Enterprise Strike Group, the USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group and the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, which are already in place.

According to the intelligence reaching Iran, the Boxer and its escorts carry 850 Marines who have just spent months in special training for operations on offshore oil rigs and platforms.

2. American, Italy, France, Britain, Australia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait are taking part in an exercise practicing the interception of ships carrying nuclear materials or components for use in advanced weapons. The exercise opposite Bahrain is the first to be held in the Persian Gulf under the three-year old proliferation security initiative. It applications could be translated equally into the enforcement of sanctions against North Korea, which conducted its first nuclear test on Oct. 9, or Iran.

On Oct. 27, Robert Joseph, the US undersecretary of state for arms control remarked: “From Iranian news reports we know the exercise got the attention of Iran.” But rather than climbing down, Tehran referred two days later to the war games as “adventurous” and placed its armed forces on a high alert which encompassed the joint naval units of the military and Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, while the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian army, navy and air force were placed on “yellow” alert, one level short of full war.
Also Oct. 29, , supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced Iran’s air force chief, Karim Qavami with Brig Gen Capt Ahmad Miqani, on the recommendation of the Revolutionary Guards commander.

DEBKAfile’s Iran sources report that Khamenei did not approve of Qavami’s admiration for America’s military capabilities – especially the US air force’s advanced aircraft and equipment. Qavami was wont to speak out at general staff meetings in favor of procuring a new air fleet the better to stand up to a possible US attack. His successor follows the supreme ruler unquestioningly and has complete faith in the ability

3. Saudi Arabia did not join the multinational Bahrain exercise, but instead mustered its entire navy and all its special forces for deployment in dense defensive array around the biggest oil terminal in the world, at Ras Tanura.

Riyadh acted in response to tangible intelligence that al Qaeda is preparing to attack its oil installations.Warnings have intensified in recent days of impending al Qaeda attacks on the oil fields, oil ports, oil tankers and oil fields of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian oil emirates. One threat specifically targets the Bahraini offices and staff of the Benin Republic’s Societe Togolaise de Gaz and Societe Bengaz S.A. It is not clear exactly why al Qaeda is targeting this African-owned oil company in particular. In addition, the US embassy in Riyadh has warned Americans operating in the Gulf region to stay clear of all oil installations, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Another pointed alert covers Western residential compounds in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, specifying American expatriates as al Qaeda targets. Saudi security forces are standing guard at these compounds which were fatally attacked in November exactly three years ago.

4. The fourth major naval concentration is deployed in the Red Sea along Saudi Arabia’s west coast. The oil kingdom has placed its military and fleet at their highest level of preparedness for Al Qaeda-instigated terrorist attacks along this coast, particularly at the ports of Jeddah and Yanbu.

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report: That the Saudis have by and large switched their defenses against al Qaeda to coastal targets indicates the receipt of intelligence input of a new local sea base established by al Qaeda, which enables the jihadist group to stretch its capabilities for assaulting oil and Western shore targets from the sea. This base might be located on the shore of a Gulf nation, somewhere in the Arabian Sea or in the Horn of Africa.Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

RE: Naval Interdiction Exercise Said Planned for Persian Gulf By REUTERS
Posted 10/12/06 12:16DefenseNews.com

A BUSH ATTACK ON IRAN TO SAVE THE PRESIDENCY?According to the semi-official DefenseNews.com

(*A&B), a Naval interdiction exercise, (long?) “set for Oct. 31, is the …. first to be based in the Gulf near Bahrain, across from Iran,” “A senior U.S. official insisted the exercise is not aimed specifically at Iran, although it reinforces a U.S. strategy aimed at strengthening America’s ties with states in the Gulf, where Tehran and Washington are competing for influence.”According to former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter: “The path that the United States is currently embarked on regarding Iran is a path that will inevitably lead to war. Such a course of action will make even the historical mistake we made in Iraq pale by comparison.”

(*C)As Zbigniew Brzezinski has said: “In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world." (*D)Is Bush is operating on the principle that “after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along?” (Articulated by Herman Goering, one of Adolf Hitler’s henchmen.) (*E)Will a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident with Iran do the trick for the President?

Would a 9/11 size casualty loss such as a big carrier be within his budget?
Douglas Marshall, LCDR USN Ret.24
Powderhorn Way
Sandwich, MA 02563
508-429-3151

NOTES FOR BACK GROUND:

A) For the Full Defense News article see:

B) For fuller background on Defense News see:By its own description “Defense News and its Web site, DefenseNews.com, are part of the Army Times Publishing Company, the leading military and government news periodical publisher in the world.”

C) See: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/16/144204

D) See Vanity Fair, 2006: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s "I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

E) See Scoop New Zealand - 2006-08-28:

(Hermann Goering) as quoted in an article entitled “US vs. Iran - Is An Attack Inevitable?:”

“Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

'Antiwar' and Other Fighting Words- NYT

October 29, 2006
‘Antiwar’ and Other Fighting Words
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON
DEMOCRATS have spent three decades trying to exorcise the ghost of Senator George S. McGovern, whose losing 1972 presidential campaign calling for a withdrawal from Vietnam crystallized his party’s image as soft on national defense.
But surveying the midterm elections last week, Mr. McGovern, 84, said he sees an opportunity for an antiwar campaign in the 2008 presidential race.
“I would love to be running again if I were 25 years younger,” he said in an interview from his Montana home. “I think I would win.”
On the eve of the midterms, dismay over the Iraq war has propelled the Democrats to a political status they have not enjoyed since before Mr. McGovern: for the first time in decades, polls show that the public trusts Democrats as much as Republicans to handle foreign affairs.
But as they look ahead, Democrats are torn between two visions of their history. Some potential candidates in the 2008 Democratic primary and many liberal activists argue that the Republican responsibility for the Iraq war has, in effect, freed the Democrats from Mr. McGovern’s legacy. They say the 2006 elections will provide a mandate for a new antiwar argument: that troops can be pulled from Iraq in order to shore up American security elsewhere in the world.
Other strategists and political scientists argue that the Iraq war has given the Democrats a different opportunity to lay to rest their McGovernite image, in part by rejecting calls for a quick withdrawal in Iraq.
“All voters are doing is giving Democrats a chance, and we better not blow it,” said Gary Hart, the former senator and presidential candidate.
A younger McGovern could probably win the Democratic primary, Mr. Hart said, but he would still lose the general election. “Just running on a platform of ‘get us out of Iraq’ is not going to solve the Democrats’ problem on the issue of national security,” he said.
After Vietnam, there was a brief time when both parties seemed to compete to be seen as the party of restraint: the moment in the 1976 presidential race when Senator Bob Dole, the Republican nominee for vice president, charged that the “Democrat wars” of the 20th century had killed or wounded “1.6 million Americans, enough to fill the city of Detroit.”
But the Iranian hostage crisis three years later put an end to that short peace fad. And ever since President Ronald Reagan’s campaign for a military buildup, Democrats have suffered from a reputation as the party that was less sure to keep America safe. Their only presidential victories were in the years of relative peace between the end of the cold war and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
During the midterm campaigns, Democrats have risen in the polls merely by attacking President Bush’s conduct of the war. They have not spelled out or agreed on a clear alternative of their own.
That luxury, however, is coming to an end. On Nov. 8, the day after the election, attention will shift toward the 2008 presidential race. How to handle Iraq could be the defining issue of the Democratic primary, and criticizing President Bush may not count for much in the general election since the Republican nominee may also be a vocal critic of his administration’s handling of the war.
Pleasing the party’s “bring ’em home” base while burnishing its security credentials may not be easy. A USA Today poll released Friday showed that more than 80 percent of the public expects Democrats to set a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq if they take control of Congress. But so far none of Democratic Congressional leaders has called for a fixed deadline.
And although all the potential primary candidates — and President Bush for that matter — say they want the troops home as soon as possible, on the question of a timetable, their views could hardly be more disparate.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the most prominent candidate, has rejected any timetable for withdrawal. Senator John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, and Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin have already called for a fixed deadline.
Many Democrats, Mr. Feingold argued, have made a “serious mistake” by getting caught up in the party’s Vietnam history. Fearing Mr. McGovern’s fate, they are stuck in what he called “the Iraq trap.”
“They think if somebody calls for a timetable to get out of Iraq they will be labeled as ‘cut and run,’ ” Mr. Feingold said. Democratic gains in the 2006 elections, he said, will show that the public accepts the broader argument for a pullout from Iraq in order to fight terrorism more effectively elsewhere in the world.
Kevin Mattson, a liberal historian at Ohio University, argued that the comparisons to the McGovern campaign were misleading and “goofy.”
For one thing, unlike critics of the Iraq war, neither Mr. McGovern nor any other prominent Democrat opposed the Vietnam War because it was an impediment to the fight against Communism — an argument that would have been hard to make at that advanced stage of the cold war. Advisers to Vice President Hubert Humphrey urged him to make such a case in 1968 but he refused, Mr. Mattson said.
Others, however, argued that letting their victories this year eclipse the McGovern experience may be the biggest risk that Democrats face in 2008. “My concern is that some Democrats will learn the wrong lessons from our victory,” Senator Joe Biden of Delaware said.
Noting the number of conservative Democratic challengers this fall, he said that voters are seeking “a bipartisan consensus” about how to leave more than chaos and instability in Iraq. “A pullout is not a plan,” Mr. Biden said, “it is a reaction.” What sealed the Democrats’ image after Vietnam, historians say, was not just Mr. McGovern’s campaign but also their reaction as public opinion turned on the war. After 1968, Democrats in Congress began pressing to curtail the war or cut off its financing. And their efforts reached a peak after the post-Watergate midterm election of 1974, when many Democrats interpreted their landslide gains as a mandate to cut back on national defense.
No one is making similar proposals today. But James M. Lindsay, a director of the Robert S. Strauss for International Security and Law at the University of Texas in Austin and a former national security official in the Clinton administration, said big wins in 2006 may well embolden antiwar Democrats in 2008, while pulling “centrists” like Mrs. Clinton closer to withdrawal.
“But there are going to be a lot of Democratic strategists whispering in their ears that ‘you don’t want to go there’ because it is bad politics, and it is bad policy to boot,” he said. “The problem is you also have to win the general election. You don’t need to appeal to people who have made up their mind and had a bumper sticker on the back of their car for the last four years.”
Mr. McGovern, for his part, said the debate reminded him of the way Republicans used to accuse Democrats of being weak on Communism, even though containment was a Democratic idea. “I sure hope we are not going to have 50 years of being weak on terrorism in the eyes of Republicans,” he said.

Listen to Veteran's home from Iraq too! Hear them!

Interview with Sergeant Jimmy Massey USMC


Back From Iraq: "I Killed Innocent People For Our Government"

Active-duty troops go public to oppose Iraq war

By STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 25, 2006

WASHINGTON — A small group of active-duty military members opposed to the occupation of Iraq, including a Norfolk-based sailor, has created a Web site intended to collect thousands of signatures of other service members who agree.

Service members can submit their name, rank and duty station if they support the prompt withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

The electronic grievances will be passed along to members of Congress, according to the Web site. “Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home,” the Web site says.

Seaman Jonathan Hutto, a Norfolk-based sailor said in a telephone interview with The Virginian-Pilot that the group has collected about 120 names and is trying to verify that they are legitimate service members.

There are 1.4 million troops on active duty, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.

The group thinks their actions are legal and distinct from their official responsibilities as service members.

“We’ve given enough,” said Hutto, who joined the Navy almost three years ago. “We’ve sacrificed too much at this point.”

He said he is not a pacifist, but he has been skeptical about the reasons behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq. “This is the crisis we have created,” Hutto said. “We’re not anti-war. But at this point, our position is anti-occupation.”

Another member of the anti-war group, Liam Madden, said he opposed the war in Iraq even before he deployed with his Marine unit in late 2004. He came home more convinced that the war was wrong.

“The more informed I got, the more I opposed the war,” said Madden, 22, a Marine Corps sergeant in Quantico . Madden said the group’s long-term goal is to get U.S. troops out of Iraq.

“The short-term goal,” Madden said, “is to spread the word that service members who feel like we do have a tool to have their voice heard, and it’s their duty as a citizen of a democratic society to participate in democracy.”

The grass-roots movement is being sponsored by several anti-war groups, including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, and Military Families Speak Out.

Retired veterans have long waded into politics, including the 2004 presidential campaign when a group of veterans challenged Sen. John Kerry’s war record. More recently, several retired military generals have called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign, contending he botched the war and put troops at risk.

Hearing publicly from active-duty troops is rare. Military laws bar officers from denouncing the president and other U.S. leaders, and regulations typically prevent service members from lobbying for a particular cause while on duty or wearing the uniform.

Legal experts who reviewed the Web site said the effort probably would not violate any rules because the site is not a personal attack on members of the administration and allows service members to quietly pass their grievance to Congress in their free time.

Backers of the Web site also cite a “whistle-blower protection” law as added protection. Under the law, service members can file complaints to Congress without reprisal.

At least two senators – both critical of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq – said they were concerned that service members speaking out against the president may undermine the military’s apolitical status.

“We expect our soldiers to follow … the legitimate orders of their commanders,” said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who is helping lead Democratic opposition to the war this election season.

“And if you feel a course of action is inappropriate, your choice is just getting out of the service, basically, if you can, and making your comments as a civilian,” said Reed, a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger and paratrooper.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former reserve judge for the Air Force, said vocal complaints by active-duty members represented a “disturbing trend” that threatened to erode the cohesiveness of the military.

“We’ve had a long tradition making sure the military doesn’t engage in political debate,” said Graham, R-S.C.

Hutto and supporters of his Web site said they see no problem with active-duty military personnel weighing in to politics.

Hutto, 29, is a native of Atlanta who graduated from Howard University with a degree in political science. He says he joined the Navy to bring structure and focus to his life .

He won Blue Jacket of the Quarter for his diligence in the photography department aboard the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, according to a news release on the ship’s Web site.

Hutto draws a bright line between his Navy and civilian responsibilities.

He cited the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and thousands of enlisted active-duty Vietnam War protesters as sources of inspiration . By joining the Navy, he said, “I don’t believe I have somehow cancel ed my rights as an American citizen.”

Scott Silliman, director of Duke University’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, said he sees the increasing political noise being made from military members – active and retired – as a relatively new phenomenon .

“Fifteen, 20 years ago you wouldn’t have seen it happen,” Silliman said.

Still, Silliman said, he sees little wrong with troops speaking out on their own time so long as they are not senior-ranking officers needed to carry out the president’s orders. “It depends certainly on who it is” ramping up opposition to the executive branch, he said.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said members can share their views with the media so long as they are not wearing the uniform and make clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the armed forces.

This article was compiled from reports by The Associated Press, McClatchy-Tribune News Service and Pilot staff writer Louis Hansen.

USER COMMENTS

Comments 1 - 10 of 41 View All Comments

I agree (hide comment) As a current active duty member, and a Republican I agree that members of the Armed Services have a right to question this war. The war itself is hurting military readiness. I have seen many people do six month turn around deployments. Moral is very low, and I believe retention of active duty members is declining. The argument of "following and not question orders" was the defense of many Nazi leaders at Nuremburg. Just because one chooses to join the military does not mean they become a "puppet on a string". For thoes of you who say "get out", they are... More than you might realize - Andy g. - Norfolk I agree (view comment)

Comments (hide comment) Just because someone says they are against this war, does not mean they are against all war. Just because someone criticizes the Bush administration, does not mean they are unpatriotic. The people out there that want to force those who do not agree to keep quiet are the ones who are unpatriotic in my mind. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion, not just those who agree with the war or the administration. -Active Duty - Jeffrey H. - Norfolk Comments (view comment)

They have the right to speak out. (hide comment) These servicemen/women absolutely have a right to speak out as we all do! As long as they do their jobs, and obey a few extra (well justified) rules they can voice their opinions. You don't lose absolutely all your rights just because you joined the military. All the people that think you don't have a right to speak out should move to a country where you can't. There are plenty of them. Move to Russia or China or N. Korea. I don't think you would like living there! So let them voice their opinion just as you do yours. Lastly, Did some of you actually read the article? A link to the website is in the fourth paragraph!!! Or did you just read the headline and fire off an uneducated opinion? This is the most uneducated city I have ever seen! - James Woods - Norfolk They have the right to speak out. (view comment)

How amusing... (hide comment) I am one of several other posters who have taken the oath to obey all orders, obey all officers, etc. I'm not a mental giant, but I'm pretty sure the oath doesn't forbid me from voting, nor does it prevent me from contact my elected officials on an issue of great imprtance to me. As long as these servicemen and women are making their grievances known in their off time, and they are not claiming to speak on behalf of their service, then they are perfectly within the limits of the regulations. If their message upsets you, that's too bad. You have the right to ignore it, and you have the right to start a counter-movement of your own. But you do not have the right to silence the voice of another American citizen because it offends your delicate sensibilities. If silence of dissent is to your liking, I hear real estate is booming in Beijing... - Andrew M. - Virginia Beach How amusing... (view comment)

Former and current military dependents do understand too. (hide comment) I am offended as a former military spouse that our opinion does not count as much as "active" duty members do. We serve and did serve too, in our way. We were home with the children during deployments, paying the bills, keeping the house up and working a full time job. I am no longer a military spouse but I did "serve my time" I have been overseas to a foreign country and made to sit at home because there were no jobs for "dependents". I have suffered deployments, no I have never been in the line of fire and I do not take that away from you but I have served my country in my way, by supporting my troops, all of them. No I do not agree with this war and yes I feel we need to pull our troops out. The military family is suffering by lost loved ones, lost fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and children. We have kids who will never know their parent and for what? So a third world country can keeping killing each other like they have the past 1000 years?! - Nicole E. - Virginia Beach Former and current military dependents do understand too. (view comment)

Obviously military people... (hide comment) Obviously military people don't appreciate being lied to about the "Decider's" war any more than the rest of us do. Especially since they and their families appear to be the only ones sacrificing for it. No WMDs? Well, no there weren't. No terrorists in 2003? Well, no maybe not then, but they are there are now. But hey, the economy is up, the Dow just hit a record and, some of us are making money. Not only that, those making the most money received tax cuts' and also we're fighting this war on credit, so someone else's kids, middle class kids probably, will wind up paying for it. My old grand-daddy had a saying, "it's a rich man's war and a poor man's fight". Appears he was well versed in human nature. But it's asking a lot of our military to make all the sacrifices and ignore the obvious. - charles h. - montpelier Obviously military people... (view comment)

They have the right to speak out. (hide comment) These servicemen/women absolutely have a right to speak out as we all do! As long as they do their jobs, and obey a few extra (well justified) rules they can voice their opinions. You don't lose absolutely all your rights just because you joined the military. All the people that think you don't have a right to speak out should move to a country where you can't. There are plenty of them. Move to Russia or China or N. Korea. I don't think you would like living there! So let them voice their opinion just as you do yours. - James Woods - Norfolk They have the right to speak out. (view comment)

Only Those Who Have Served - Have a Right to Criticize (hide comment) I have read most of the comment and some of you (who may have served or not) feel that if you are a volunteer, you need to "shut up and color"! I am retired now, and I remember the oath about following the lawful orders of the officers appointed over me; since when has it become lawful to illegally invade another country and remove the rightful leader. Since when is it lawful for us kill innocent civilians and call it "collateral damage". We say we are the greatest nation on earth and I would like to be able to think that, but when we become the aggressors, and in the eyes of most of the world the "bad guys" that I begin to question our leaders. I retired from the Air Force after serving for 23+ years, and I have seen mostly under the Republican leadership a deterioration of America's prestige as a leader of human rights. I would not normally support an active duty member making a political statement, but if you watch television news you know that our generals are doing it now! - tom m. - minot Only Those WHo Have Served - Have a Right to Criticize (view comment)

User Comment (hide comment) Once again...for all of you civillians ... You have no idea baout military life and I agree with those who say that military members have the most right to comment on the war...We are the one's that are affected. ... You have no idea about how promotion works, or what kind of training we recieve. We are constantly in training...Army, Air Force, Marines or Navy...Everday is training on something. The war on terror is a great thing...this world needs it...but the occupation of a country in not what we need. The situation is obviously getting worse as observed by battlefield commanders on the ground in Iraq. My point is...if you have no idea about the military or how it works...then shut up. Don't act like you know whats going on...just go back to your cup of coffee and Sunday paper...we'll take care of the rest. - vincent o. - Barksdale AFB User Comment (view comment)

Sad as it may be (hide comment) What right does enlisted Navy have to say about this war basing their opinions on what they see on the news??? Very few Navy know what Iraq is really like as they are not part of the ground troops like the Marines and Army. I think it is a discrace to voice an opinion when they have no real experience fighting. Most Army and Marines are proud to serve their country and fight for our freedom and know that is what they signed up to do! - Deonna W. - Virginia Beach Sad as it may be (view comment)

Photographs by Tom Turco ARLINGTON EAST

Tom Turco's photos are now on the CCPJ site at

http://www.capecodpeaceandjustice.org/imgs/AE/WebPix.html

Thanks, Tom! If anyone reading this has any good pix which you'd like to share from 10/13 or 10/14, please send them to us.- David Agnew, and John Bangert

Sit Down for Peace, Justice, and Accountability

I usually end my articles with a call to action, but today, I begin with one. Maybe readers get bored with my pieces before the end and don't get to the action part, which is the most important part.

Gold Star Families for Peace is calling for an action in front of the White House on the days of November 6th to November 9th (due to the urgency of our situation, we are beginning the sit-in on Saturday, Nov. 4) to perform a Gandhi-like sit down for peace and justice. Join us to sit down for all or part of the time we will be there. We might as well face it, the White House is where the power is. Congress has spent 6 years invalidating themselves and creating a Unitary Executive Branch that pats Congress on the head for being obedient and circumvents the Supreme Court and goes whining to the same agreeable Congress when the Court (in rare cases) slaps Georgie on the wrist. The potential Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) has already said that if the Democrats take back the House, impeachment proceedings will not be forthcoming. Who's going to sit down with us to hold the war criminals in power accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity and peace?

Yesterday, without a peep from we the people, and while 10 soldiers were being murdered in George's horrendous war for corporate greed, he signed HR6166 into law. 10 soldiers were killed defending the war machine's right to garner obscene profits while the soldiers were being told that they were spreading "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. While they were dying for this supposed "freedom and democracy" their commander in chief and Congress were busy taking away ours.Who's going to sit down with us for these 10 young people to make sure their deaths do count for freedom and democracy?

HR6166 is the Military Commissions Act which allows everyone from George on down to the actual torturer to inflict inhumanity on our fellow human beings with impunity. The Act also allows George to decide who is a terrorist who does not deserve the right to Habeas Corpus and who is not a terrorist who does deserve the right to Habeas Corpus.

Who's going to sit down with us to say: "I demand my rights to Habeas Corpus and I repudiate torture in all forms."

Where were the massive demonstrations against this bill? Where was the outrage when King George the Illigitimate Pretender to the Throne signed it into law? Where are we the people? May I assume by the relative silence that the majority of Americans approve of torture and suspending Habeas Corpus? When does silence begin to equal complicity? Who's going to sit down with us to say "I am not a war criminal like BushCo?"

We the people, over two-thirds of us who disapprove of BushCo and their destructive foreign and callous domestic policies, need to stand up to be counted. Such memorials to our children who have been killed in Iraq as Arlington West and Eyes Wide Open are excoriated by the reich as "political," but they serve the purpose of showing we the people what 2768 actually looks like. 65% of America is just an abstract number. Who's going to sit down with us to show our blood-thirsty administration and Congress what a majority of America looks like?

George has condemned our irreplaceable young people to early graves and almost 700,000 innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered due to his policies. This number is staggering and heart rending to me. I met a young man in an airport that was in tears. He is a member of the First Cavalry (like Casey) and his unit is heading back to Iraq at the end of this month. He was just told that they would have to stay there for 18 months! He said he feels like he was just sentenced to a year and a half in prison for the crime of having enlisted to serve his country. Who is going to sit down with us for my young friend, Carl, and the tens of thousands of Carls who have been sentenced to similar fates?

While we the people have been naively pinning our hopes on the mid-term elections, 68 of our children have been killed in Iraq this month and untold numbers of innocent Iraqis have met similar and unjust fates. 68 families have been violently torn asunder so far this month, with no end on the horizon. 68 flag draped coffins will be coming home in a veil of secrecy, as if their civilian leaders are ashamed of them, to 68 devastated families while the war profiteers on all levels of society are rubbing their blood-stained hands with glee. 68 funerals, that George will never attend, while BushCo are planning the next wars using our children (not theirs) as pawns in their evil game of death for profit. How can we justify our comfortable complacency when 68 mothers will never be comfortable again? Who's going to sit down with us so no other mothers, Iraqi or American, white or brown, Christian or Muslim, end up with the same sorrow-filled fate?

We at Gold Star Families for Peace wonder why our children died? They all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies "foreign and domestic" and our leaders are busy decimating the same document, after they also took an oath. Who's going to sit down with Gold Star Families to help us bring closure to this war and help us make our loved ones' death count for the Noble Cause of peace?

There is no Noble Cause for war and other people's children are dying while our emperor without clothes, courage, or honesty is fiddling with our nation's freedoms, treasure (or lack thereof) and he is dishonorably mis-using our honorable babies who would never sign up to fight wars for the war machine if they knew what they were really getting into. Who is going to sit down with us to show the war machine that we intend to throw a monkey wrench into its ravenous cogs?

We the people do have recourse, but we can't sit on our duffs waiting for bereaved families to do most of the dirty work. It is up to us, we are the ones we have been waiting for, not the blood-thirsty Congress where most of the members are benefitting financially from the fiascoes in the Middle East. We know we can't count on the blood drenched administration to help us...George has said over and over that the troops aren't coming home while he is President. Who's going to sit down with us to make sure that Congress does the right thing and institutes impeachment proceedings so our young people can finally come home from the nightmare in the desert and so the people of Iraq can go about the business of rebuilding their own country and their demolished lives?

Please, please, please....join GSFP in front of the White House. If there ever was a time to end our complacency and commitment to politics as usual and the status quo of wars for profit, it is now.

There are people all over the world counting on us to do our parts for true democracy and for world peace.

Who's going to sit down with us for true democracy and world peace?

The time is now. The person is you!

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was KIA in Iraq on 04/04/04. She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and author of the newly released book: Peace Mom, A Mother's Journey Through Heartache to Activism.
For more information on the sit in go to Gold Star Families for Peace or email

CampCaseyMom@yahoo.com

Cape and Islands NPR Monday Morning Report

Play Taps


Photo was taken by Ken F in the afternoon at Coast Guard Beach, Eastham, Mass.

ARLINGTON EAST

NPR Radio Spot Click Here To Listen!


Coast Guard beach in Eastham should be deserted at dawn on a cold October morning. But this past Saturday, just after six AM, volunteers offload white wooden crosses from the back of a truck.
Donated coffee and doughnuts sit on a small table nearby. The volunteers hoist the crosses - 2,700 in all - onto their shoulders for the long trek down to the beach. There, the crosses will be arranged in a 600-foot long memorial called Arlington East, designed to recall Arlington National Cemetery. The idea is modeled after similar displays on the west coast, and near the Bush ranch in Texas. The event is sponsored by Cape Cod Veterans for Peace, and Cape Codders for Peace and Justice. They've received a one- day permit from the Park Service, and the elaborate display will be removed by day's end.

Diane Turco: "Oh my God, this is going to be just - very powerful. wow."That's Diane Turco, one of the events main organizers. In addition to the white crosses, a group of 200 thin plywood gravestones symbolize Iraqi children killed in the war.

Reporter: "How many of these gravestones are there?"Diane Turco: "There are 200 gravestones representing children who have died in Iraq. And as you can see, they lettered in English the name and age of the child, and then they wrote their names in Arabic.

"Reporter: "Can you read a couple?"Diane Turco: "Kahn Naj Adan, age 6, Zahara Kahlad Adar, age 7, Kahlid Gali Assan, age 5.

"Just beyond the grey headstones, John Bangert coordinates a team of volunteers who hammer the white crosses into the sand in neat rows. Bangert wears a red baseball cap, and a large, multi-colored peace flag is draped around his shoulders like a Superman cape.

John Bangert: "We're putting these crosses, as the morning sun is reflecting brightly on these all-recycled painted crosses, they're 10 inches by about 26 inches, and they're designed to fit deep into the Cape Cod sand. And we're leveling them, and we're trying to do the visual to make it look like Arlington cemetery in Virginia. And it's not a protest. It's just really a visual for people to come to some conclusion about this. And we hope they do.


'Aseel Al Banna has traveled from her home in Washington, DC to be here. She grew up in Baghdad, and her family is now living temporarily in Aman, Jordan. She says she's angry about the American occupation of her country, but she says she appreciates the people behind the beach memorial.

Aseel Al Banna: "I'm proud of them. They did this, they organized this, they're here at six in the morning to make this happen. I'm also thankful that they're honoring the Iraqi children and civilians that died.

"Not far down the beach, surfers in wet-suits paddle out to ride the perfect early-morning breakers. One of them is Matt Rivers of Orleans. He emerges from the water, surfboard under one arm and salt spray glistening on his face. He doesn't quite know what to make of the rows of white wooden crosses and headstones.

Matt Rivers: "Kinda eerie, kinda spooky (laugh). A lotta people, like, that don't follow the media - I'm kinda one of 'em, really - like, to see it up front in your face kinda awakens you a little bit, you know, to what's going on over there. Pretty sad."

Around noon, the finished display begins to attract a crowd. One of the onlookers is Andrew Sapp, an Iraq veteran diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder.


Andrew Sapp: "When you look at all these crosses..."Reporter: "We're looking literally as far as the eye can see, right?"Andrew Sapp: "Literally, yeah, hundreds and hundreds of feet, and rows on rows of crosses here. And when you stop and think that every one of these stands for a life, and every life has a mother and a father, spouse, children, siblings, the effect of this war is so huge.

'The crowd gathers around a bonfire for an interfaith prayer service and family remembrances of loved ones lost in Iraq.Supporters of the Iraq war point out that 2,700 American fatalities, while tragic, is relatively low compared to the 55,000 soldiers who were killed in the Vietnam War. They also point out that although the Iraq war has now lasted nearly as long as the American involvement in World War II, 2,700 dead represents less than one percent of the more than 500,000 Americans who died in that conflict. Arlington East will be mounted in other locations around the East Coast, with Philadelphia next on the list.

Broadcast October 16, 2006Brian Morris reports for WCAI, the cape and Islands NPR Station.

http://www.wgbh.org/cainan/article?item_id=3061393&parent_id=0&blurb_item_id=3061413

This just in from VFP Dr. Richard Gilchrist, who helped at Arlington East!

John,
Hope everyone is recovering. I'm in VA to visit my brother. Always a touchy thing because we are 180 deg apart on Bush and the war. When I was working on the display, I really didn't think much about each maker that we were putting in, but when we were finished and took time to look at the rows and columns of 2795 markers the realization of what the display really got to me- what a total waste of life. I saw lots of tears and very somber people. Bush should be made to visit such a display.

Saying 2,795 is one thing, but seeing the markers go on and on really brings the point home. Went from MA to DC and stopped at the Vietnam Memorial. Another dumb and needless war- as if any were really needed. Looking at 58,285 names on black granite and reflecting on the waste of such lives along with this present war is almost unbearable, but I guess we have plenty of room on the mall for more memorials.

The government will just keeping waving the flags and keep telling the people that we are being attacked and we'll keep building more memorials an interesting experience come down from MA. I was only a mile or two away from Edgewood, MD (my main army post) and I thought that I take a picture of the front gate to show my wife.

Big mistake, I got out on the van with my camera and rapidly was surrounded by five police cars and about a dozen federal cops. After about an hour of checking me out, they finally decided that I wasn't a threat to the national security and let me go. They took pictures of the back of my van-which is covered with anti war and anti Bush stickers.

They went through my van but didn't find anything that would put me in jail so I'm a free man-well, as free as one can be in the present US.Hope things are going well!

Dr. Richard Gilchrist, Korean War Vet
Veterans for Peace Chapter 56,
Humbolt, CA
WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER !

THE ART OF ARLINGTON EAST

To See More ARLINGTON EAST PHOTOS CLICK HERE:






These pictures were taken by VFP Ken who was the chief of installation.
Many many thanks for a excellent job, done well by all!
Super Peacefully Yours,

John Bangert

The human cost
By K.C. MYERS STAFF WRITER
EASTHAM - Her son taught nursery school. He was a case worker for mentally retarded adults. And he was a member of Pennsylvania National Guard who hoped the military would help him pay for his education.

Sgt. Sherwood Baker, 30, lost his life on April 26, 2004, when shrapnel from a nearby explosion in Iraq struck him in the back of his head, said his mother, Celeste Zappala of Pennsylvania.
His death is what brought Zappala to Coast Guard Beach in Eastham yesterday, where her son's cross stood among about 2,800 small grave markers plunged into the sand, each representing a U.S. soldier who has died in Iraq. Headstones nearby represented some of the Iraqi children killed in the war.

On a clear day, they stretched as far as the eye could see. The erection of ''Arlington East: The Human Cost of War'' took more than 200 volunteers in excess of six hours. They started at dawn, and would only begin to take down the grave markers after a rendition of Taps was played at 6 p.m., said Diane Turco, of Cape Codders for Peace and Justice.

For three months, her group, Veterans for Peace, and other volunteers found and cut the recycled wood and nailed together crosses. Their display, which has also been done by activists in California and Texas, made a breathtaking impact.

Every cross represents grief for family members, some of whom were there to speak out.
''Seamus was idealistic,'' said his father, Derek Davey, of Lowville, N.Y. ''He believed in his country and he believed he had a responsibility to serve.'' Seamus MacLean Davey, 25, died on Oct. 21, 2005, during combat in Iraq. ''We believe that responsibility goes two ways,'' his father continued. ''The civilian leaders have to use military forces wisely and not for their personal gain.''

The Daveys were opposed to the war from the beginning, but supported their son's decision to join the Marines in 1998 as soon as he graduated from high school.
After his death, they joined the Gold Star Families for Peace so that their son's death wouldn't be a total waste.

''We're pushing for everyone to vote,'' said his mother, Lorene Davey. ''I'm afraid people who are apathetic, who don't have a personal stake, won't come here to see this.''


Aseel Al Banna, an Iraqi who left the country in 1991 after experiencing two wars, knows the toll all too well.

Her parents are among about one million Iraqis who fled the violence to live in Amman, Jordan, where they are not allowed to work and yet must pay high rents in the adopted city, said Al Banna, who came as a member of Code Pink, an organization of women opposed to war.
''I don't know a single family that hasn't been affected directly,'' she said.

From her perspective, the United States has only made things worse. U.S. troops dismantled the government, disarmed the military, and now the country is ''a free for all'' for religious fanatics and violent groups with power and money, she said.

''It's already a civil war,'' she said. ''Yes, it will get worse temporarily if the U.S. pulls out. But then the Iraqis can rebuild it. It's their country. They've done it before.''
Andy Sapp, an Iraq war veteran who returned to his teaching job in Concord a year ago, couldn't agree more. Sapp was hammering crosses into the sand yesterday.
''I was in the National Guard,'' he said. ''We had no clear vision. It was do your time, stay alive and get out.

''I am here because most veterans and those in active duty cannot speak out,'' he continued. ''There is very real pressure. Everyone who died here is my comrade in arms. This is a very real way to support the troops.''
K.C. Myers can be reached at kcmyers@capecodonline.com.
(Published: October 15, 2006)

US troops may stay in Iraq until 2010

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010, the top Army officer said yesterday, a later date than Bush administration or Pentagon officials have mentioned thus far.

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying troops levels could be adjusted to actual conditions in Iraq. He said it is easier to hold back forces scheduled to go there than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.
''This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better,'' Schoomaker told reporters. ''It's just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot.''

Even so, his comments were the latest acknowledgment by Pentagon officials that a significant withdrawal of troops from Iraq is not likely in the immediate future.
Currently there are 141,000 troops in Iraq, including 120,000 Army soldiers. Those soldiers are divided among 15 Army combat brigades plus other support units.

Schoomaker's comments come less than four weeks before congressional elections, in which the unpopular war in Iraq and the Bush administration's policies there are a major campaign issue.
Last month, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, said the military would likely maintain or possibly even increase the current force levels through next spring.
(Published: October 12, 2006)

Bring them home!

Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000 Study Says

October 11, 2006

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 — A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.

The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq. That month was the highest for Iraqi civilian deaths since the American invasion.

But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

It is the second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.

The findings of the previous study, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, in 2004, had been criticized as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1,000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error.

The new study is more representative, its researchers said, and the sampling is broader: it surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq. The selection of geographical areas in 18 regions across Iraq was based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.

The study comes at a sensitive time for the Iraqi government, which is under pressure from American officials to take action against militias driving the sectarian killings.

In the last week of September, the government barred the central morgue in Baghdad and the Health Ministry — the two main sources of information for civilian deaths — from releasing figures to the news media. Now, only the government is allowed to release figures. It has not provided statistics for September, though a spokesman said Tuesday that it would.

The American military has disputed the Iraqi figures, saying that they are far higher than the actual number of deaths from the insurgency and sectarian violence, in part because they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime, like domestic violence.

But the military has not released figures of its own, giving only percentage comparisons. For example, it cited a 46 percent drop in the murder rate in Baghdad in August from July as evidence of the success of its recent sweeps. At a briefing on Monday, the military’s spokesman declined to characterize the change for September.

The military has released rough counts of average numbers of Iraqis killed and wounded in a quarterly accounting report mandated by Congress. In the report, “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,” daily averages of dead and wounded Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police officers rose from 26 a day in 2004 to almost 120 a day in August 2006.

The study uses a method similar to that employed in estimates of casualty figures in other conflict areas like Darfur and Congo. It sought to measure the number of deaths that occurred as a result of the war.

It argues that absolute numbers of dead, like morgue figures, could not give a full picture of the “burden of conflict on an entire population,” because they were often incomplete.

The mortality rate before the American invasion was about 5.5 people per 1,000 per year, the study found. That rate rose to 19.8 deaths per 1,000 people in the year ending in June.

Gunshots were the largest cause of death, the study said, at 56 percent of all violent deaths, while car bombs accounted for about 13 percent. Deaths caused by the American military declined as an overall percentage from March 2003 to June 2006.

Violent deaths have soared since the American invasion, but the rise is in part a matter of spotty statistical history. Under Saddam Hussein, the state had a monopoly on killing, and the deaths of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds that it caused were never counted.

While the near collapse of the Iraqi state makes precise record-keeping difficult, authorities have made considerable progress toward tracking death figures. In 2004, when the Johns Hopkins study was first released, authorities were still compiling deaths on an ad hoc basis. But by this year, they were being provided regularly.

Iraqi authorities say morgue counts are more accurate than is generally thought. Iraqis prefer to bury their dead immediately, and hurry bodies of loved ones to plots near mosques or, in the case of Shiites, in sacred burial sites. Even so, they have strong incentives to register the death with a central morgue or hospital in order to obtain a death certificate, required at highway checkpoints, by cemetery workers, and for government pensions. Death certificates are counted in the statistics kept by morgues around the country.

The most recent United Nations figure, 3,009 Iraqis killed in violence across the country in August, was compiled by statistics from Baghdad’s central morgue, and from hospitals and morgues countrywide. It assumes a daily rate of about 97.

The figure is not exhaustive. A police official at Yarmouk Hospital in Baghdad who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he had seen nationwide counts provided to the hospital that indicated as many as 200 people a day were dying.

Gilbert Burnham, the principle author of the study, said the figures showed an increase of deaths over time that was similar to that of another civilian casualty project, Iraq Body Count, which collates deaths reported in the news media, and even to that of the military. But even Iraq Body Count puts the maximum number of deaths at just short of 49,000.

As far as skepticism about the death count, he said that counts made by journalists and others focused disproportionately on Baghdad, and that death rates were higher elsewhere.

“We found deaths all over the country,” he said. Baghdad was an area of medium violence in the country, he said. The provinces of Diyala and Salahuddin, north of Baghdad, and Anbar to the west, all had higher death rates than the capital.

Statistics experts in the United States who were able to review the study said the methods used by the interviewers looked legitimate.

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”

But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

Sabrina Tavernise reported from Baghdad, and Donald G. McNeil Jr. from New York.

Organize Support & Endorse means you can help us in many ways!

What it means to support, endorse or cosponsor. We are not at all corporate. What we need, is to get the word out to those who can and will help with ARLINGTON EAST. Hands, hearts, and yes, some money will make this happen.

Checks made out to

Veterans for Peace, Chapter 41,
Arlington East Fund

Duke Ellis
45 Sassafras Ln
Marstons Mills, MA 02648

This money will be deposited and is tax deductible. These may be given to anyone on committee. We have weekly meetings at Borders Books, Hyannis, MA 6:30 PM Wednesdays. Call anyone on committee for updates.

This weekend we need a few good man women and men with 2 in'' paint brushes, and gallons of white primer to paint 1200 markers at John Brewster Hopkin's barn in Truro, MA Route 6A, right after Whitman restaurant.

Call Veterans for Peace- Cape Cod Chapter

veterans4peace@comcast.net

John Brewster Hopkins - 774-836-6403

Bill Stewart - 508-775-4045

Nancy Clarke - 508-385-8636

Duke Ellis - 508-420-5532

John Bangert - 508-432-0545

Contacts for CCP&J ccpj@earthlink.net

Dianne Ashley - 508-255-2752

Diane Turco - 508-432-1744

John Bangert -508-432-0545 Cell: (508) 413-0142

Chuck Micciche -508-432-4757

Directions: just a reminder about painting grave markers this weekend, bring a 2" brush for latex, primer or white latex paint if you have any old usable cans at home, maybe a rag or two and paint clothes.

My Address: is 314 Route 6 at Augustus Construction sign right after great Hollow Road and the Whitman House Resturant eveything is set up in the barn. All day is okay for any amount of time you can do. 8am to 5 pm

John Brewster Hopkins

Gold Star Families Speak Out is a chapter of Military Families Speak Out, comprised of members whose loved ones served in the military during the period including the build-up to the war in Iraq (fall, 2002) to the present, and have been killed or have died. We believe the best way to support our troops is to bring them home now and to take care of them when they get here.

Recognizing our own and our nation's need to grieve, Gold Star Families Speak Out is the first place we seek to find peace in our hearts. All of us in this group have suffered a tremendous loss and our collective efforts to be heard can and will make a difference!
All of our stories are sad and all of them need to be told so people will understand the human cost of this war.

We are committed to truth and to bringing an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. We work together with like-minded organizations to build strong partnerships
Your support makes a huge difference and helps to bring the voices of Gold Star Families Speak Out to the country.

To schedule one of our speakers for interviews, speaking out at forums, rallies, workshops and other events, please visit the Members Page to contact one of our family members or send email to speakers@gsfso.org

==================================================================

ARLINGTON EAST SPEAKERS(*)

(*) CARLOS & MELIDA ARREDONDO, ROSLINDALE, MA
Carlos' son & Melida's stepson, Lcpl Alexander Arredondo was killed in Najaf, Iraq on 8.25.04

(*) KEVIN & JOYCE LUCEY, BELCHERTOWN, MA
Kevin & Joyce's son, Lcpl Jeffrey Lucey took his own life 6/22/04, after struggling with PTSD for several months.

(*) DEBBIE LUCEY
Debbie's brother, Lcpl Jeffrey Lucey took his own life 6/22/04, after struggling with PTSD for several months.

(*)CELESTE ZAPPALA- Philadelphia, PA
Celeste's son, Sgt Sherwood Baker was killed in Baghdad, Iraq on 4.26.04

ANDY SAPP IVAW

ALICE BROWN Military Families Speak Out

DUKE ELLIS Veterans for Peace - Cape Cod Chapter Chair-Host

Endorsements as of 10/06 this morning, - many more coming!

PS Party Larkin singer invited she lives in Wellfleet!

Diane Ashley, Cape Codders for Peace & Justice

Diane Turco, Cape Codders for Peace & Justice

David Agnew, Cape Codders for Peace & Justice

Sarah & Ben Thacher, Cape Codders for Peace & Justice

William "Duke" Ellis, Veterans for Peace, Cape Cod Chapter 41

Nancy E. Clarke Ph.D , Veterans for Peace Founder Smedley Butler Chapter, & Chapter 41

William Stewart ,VVAW, VFP Western Mass Chapter, and CC Chapter

Nina Teeper, Teacher Bourne, MA

Gail M. Bangert, Mother, Writer

John J. Bangert, Father, Veterans for Peace, Cape Cod Chapter 41, CCP&J

Joe Bangert, Veterans for Peace Smedley Butler, VVAW, VAIW, CCP&J

Appeared in Sir, No Sir, Winter Soldier

Anne Spear, Cape Codders for Peace & Justice

Code Pink Massachusetts

Debbie Mc Culloch RN, Nurse- Falmouth Hospital

Ken Farr -Veterans for Peace General Smedley Butler Chapter-Boston

Pat Scanlon- Veterans for Peace, North Shore Merrimack Valley

Winston Warfield,Veterans for Peace General Smedley Butler Chapter-Boston

Frank Corcoran,Veterans for Peace, Philadelphia Chapter 31

John Grant, Veterans for Peace King of Prussia Chapter, PA

John Beitzel, Veterans for Peace, Philadelphia, VVAW, Sir, No Sir!, Winter Soldier

Bill Perry, Veteran For Peace, Levittown, PA

Richard Gilchrist, VFP Chapter 56 Humboldt, CA

Veterans For America Delaware Valley, PA

Arlington North Philadelphia, PA 5/30/06

The Honorable Edward Mc Manus , Harwich Selectman

The Honorable Sarah Peake, Provincetown Select(wo)man

Carlos & Melida Arredondo, Gold Stars Families Speak Out- E-Mail:

Chuck Micciche, Cape Codders for Peace & Justice, Yarmouth Friends Meeting

Rev. Malcolm Mc Dowell, Priest - Christ Church Episcopal

Sheila House,Harwich

Capt. Jennifer Smith, Eastham Fire Depatment, Mother, College Student

Elaine Walsh, CCP&J,

Serena Walsh Student-Bridgewater State College

Sheila Lyons,Wellfleet Activist and Leader

The Martha's Vineyard Peace Council endorses VFP's Oct. 13th & 14th days of action.

Western Mass Jobs with Peace

Town of Dennis Democratic Town Committee Pat Bresnahan- Chair

Democratic Town Committee of Wellfleet, MA

Democratic Town Committee of Sandwich, MA

Democratic Town Committee of Provincetown, MA

Steve Morse, GI Rights (CCCO) and VFP Chapter 069.

Will Thomas Coordinator - "NH Veterans for Peace endorses Arlington East."Sow Justice, Reap Peace," AJ Muste Chapter NH VFP

Veterans for Peace -General Smedley Butler Brigade Chapter Boston

Traprock Peace Center, Sunny Miller Deerfield, MA

Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors

Military Families Speakout

Gold Star Families Speak Out

Gold Star Families for Peace

IVAW - Iraq Veterans Againist War

UUSC -UnitiarianUniversalist Service Committee

AFSC -American Friends Service Committee

Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee of Mass

Mainsheet CCCC Newspaper (Letter to the Editor)

EPIC-USA Education for Peace In Iraq

Eastham United Methodist Church Social Concerns Committee

Rev. Mike Davis Pastor, EUMC

The Nauset Interfaith Association voted to endorse Arlington East.

Rev. Mike Davis, Eastham United Methodist Church (Host for Pot Luck)

Rev. Larry Snow, Wellfleet United Methodist Church

Rev. Wesley Williams, Orleans United Methodist Church

Rev. Mark Wilkerson, Church of the Holy Spirit (Orleans Episcopal)

Rev. Michele Rogers-Brigham, Federated Church of Orleans

Rev. Mal Bertram, United Church of Christ (Retired)

Rev. Kent Moorehead, United Methodist (Church Retired)

Florence Seldin, Am Ha Yam Fellowship Hebrew Havurah Eastham

Rev. E. Bonnie Goodwin Minister, Christian Union Church, North Truro, MA

New Hampshire Peace Action

Merrimack Valley People for Peace

Massachusetts Peace Action

ARLINGTON WEST

Massachusetts Veterans for Peace

WHY CROSSES ?

The Arlington West's, and North's, East's, and South's use the ancient pre-Christian symbol of a cross for economic reasons, as well as storage ability. We certainly know and of course acknowledge that those thousands who were killed, were not just Christians, but women and men who embraced the full spectrum of faiths and no faiths. So the symbols of crescents for Arabs, Star of David for Jews, or symbols for the panoply of faiths cannot detract from the real reason and symbol DEATH.


From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man's civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples, while numerous instances, dating from the later Stone Age to Christian times, have been found in nearly every part of Europe. The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship. (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1910, Vol. 7, pg. 506. Emphasis ours.)

Veterans for Peace Video