Showing posts with label pretender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pretender. Show all posts

Friday, July 13, 2007

Congratulations -- (revised) We are all one week closer to death

Progress is our most important product





Illustration:

The Decider meets with his brain trust to shore up support with his neo-con base.

As we continue our slide down the razor blade of life[i] and continue to notice the absurd events surrounding the Decider, some bright incidents are worth noting.

Michael Moore appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (who is an enigma in himself) and Moore sliced him up quite nicely, asking for an apology from him for his endorsement of the war in Iraq. He then appeared on Larry King and sliced up Dr. Sanjay Gupta to all accounts. Of course, he did make Mr. Blitzer look very incompetent, but I am not sure how much credit he should get for that as David Duke was able to do the same a few months ago.

I am posting an item by Keith Olbermann, one of the few people on mainstream media who is tolerable, but must offer a caveat. I was concerned at first as to whether it was copyrighted and whether MSNBC would allow this repost. I checked their legal statement line by line, but was unable to interpret it, although it did clearly prohibit one from distributing software from their site. I decided to post it in complete ignorance of their real concerns and, if they object, and simply post a note in the comments link at the bottom of this entry, I will remove it immediately. Those of you who know him or are familiar with him realize that Keith would not mind himself, but then he speaks English, not legalese. He also confirms a belief I have held for a long time. Journalists should be required have a background in sportscasting as they do not call foul balls home runs, although newscasters indulge in a similar practice daily as a matter of policy (it may be a part of their job description). I thank the reader who forwarded it to me as their site did not like my software configuration. (It is possible that Bill Gates has something to do with this as the site is a joint venture between General Electric and Microsoft.)

Also included as a transcript of Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. She followed up on a story published this week by the Nation magazine. It contains interviews with our soldiers who were acting in our name, or God’s name (which amounts to the same thing), in Iraq. It clearly explains why we have gained so much gratitude from Bin Laden as we have contributed more to his recruitment efforts than any other single cause. A new video tape by his second in command seems to make this point, but only very brief snippets (how does one spell that word?) have appeared on our media or the BBC or Deutsche Welle.

Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign

‘I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.’

MSNBC video




SPECIAL COMMENT

By Keith Olbermann

Anchor, 'Countdown'

MSNBC

Updated: 7:13 p.m. CT July 3, 2007

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

That—on this eve of the 4th of July—is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The man who said those 17 words—improbably enough—was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world—but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust—a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing—or a permanent Democratic majority—is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate—instantaneously—became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting—in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush—and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one—and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org

The Other War: Iraq Veterans Speak Out on Shocking Accounts of

Attacks on Iraqi Civilians

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1335208

The Nation magazine has published a startling new expose of fifty

American combat veterans of the Iraq War who give vivid on-the-record

accounts of the US military occupation in Iraq and describe a brutal

side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in

newspaper accounts. The investigation marks the first time so many

on-the-record, named eyewitnesses from within the US military have been

assembled in one place to openly corroborate assertions of

indiscriminate killings and other atrocities by the US military in Iraq.

We speak with the article?s co-author, journalist Laila Al-Arian, and

four Iraq veterans who came forward with their stories of war. [includes

rush transcript]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As debate continues in Congress over the Iraq war, the Pentagon says it

is probing new allegations of wrongdoing during the US military assault

on Fallujah three years ago. U.S. Marines are said to have killed as

many as eight unarmed Iraqi prisoners when U.S. forces attacked Fallujah

in November of 2004. The Marine unit under investigation is the same

involved in the killing of twenty-four civilians in Haditha in 2005,

where after an IED exploded killing a marine, his unit rampaged through

several neighboring houses and killed twenty-four civilians.

This comes as The Nation magazine publishes a startling new *expose

* that

paints a disturbing picture of the effects of the four-year-old

occupation on average Iraqi civilians. Over the course of several

months, The Nation magazine interviewed fifty American combat veterans

of the Iraq War. The soldiers gave vivid on-the-record accounts of the

US military occupation in Iraq and described a brutal side of the war

rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

The Nation investigation marks the first time so many on-the-record,

named eyewitnesses from within the US military have been assembled in

one place to openly corroborate assertions of indiscriminate killings

and other atrocities by the US military in Iraq.

The cover story is titled *?The Other War: Military Veterans Speak on

the Record about Attacks on Iraqi Civilians.?

* In it,

journalists Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian write: ?The war the vets

described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a

powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and

occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war

on Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.?

Today we spend the hour with Iraq war veterans around the country who

tell their stories of war.

* * Laila Al-Arian*. Co-author of the Nation article, ?The Other

War: Military Veterans Speak on the Record about Attacks on Iraqi

Civilians.? She is a writer with the Nation Institute?s

Investigative Fund.

* * Sgt. John Bruhns*. Served in Baghdad and Abu Ghraib with the

Third Brigade, First Armor Division, First Battalion, for one year

beginning in April 2003.

* * Spc. Garett Reppenhagen*. Cavalry scout and sniper with the

263rd Armor Battalion, First Infantry Division, who was deployed

to Baquba for a year in February 2004.

* * Staff Sgt. Timothy John Westphal*. Served on the outskirts of

Tikrit for a yearlong tour with the Eighteenth Infantry Brigade,

First Infantry Division, beginning in February 2004.

* * Sgt. Dustin Flatt*. Served with the Eighteenth Infantry Brigade,

First Infantry Division, for one year beginning in February 2004.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

/This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us

provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV

broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.

*Donate* - $25

,

$50

,

$100

,

more...

/

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *As debate continues in Congress over the Iraq war, the

Pentagon says it is probing new allegations of wrongdoing during the US

military assault on Fallujah three years ago. US Marines are said to

have killed as many as eight unarmed Iraqi prisoners when US forces

attacked Fallujah in November of 2004. The Marine unit under

investigation is the same involved in the killing of twenty-four

civilians in Haditha in 2005, where after an IED exploded killing a

marine, his unit rampaged through several neighboring houses and killed

twenty-four civilians.

This comes as /The Nation/ magazine publishes a startling new expose

that paints a disturbing picture of the effects of the four-year-old

occupation on average Iraqi civilians. Over the course of several

months, /The Nation/ magazine interviewed fifty American combat veterans

of the Iraq War. The soldiers gave vivid on-the-record accounts of the

US military occupation and described a brutal side of the war rarely

seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

/The Nation/ investigation marks the first time so many on-the-record

named eyewitnesses from within the US military have been assembled in

one place to openly corroborate assertions of indiscriminate killings

and other atrocities by the US military in Iraq.

*AMY GOODMAN: *The cover story is titled "The Other War: Military

Veterans Speak on the Record about Attacks on Iraqi Civilians." In it,

journalists Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian write, "The war the vets

described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a

powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and

occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war

on Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.?

Today, we spend the hour with Iraq war vets around the country who will

tell their stories of war. Sergeant John Bruhns served in Baghdad and

Abu Ghraib for one year, beginning in April 2003. Specialist Garett

Reppenhagen was a cavalry scout and sniper with the First Infantry

Division and was deployed to Baquba for a year in February 2004. They

both join us from Washington, D.C. And here in our firehouse studio

we?re joined by Laila Al-Arian, co-author of /The Nation/ article,

writer with the Nation Institute?s Investigative Fund.

Before we go to the soldiers around the country, Laila, talk about the

scope of this investigation. When did you begin it?

*LAILA AL-ARIAN: *We began this instigation in July of 2006, so about a

year ago. And we conducted interviews over the course of seven months,

and we spoke with fifty combat vets about their experiences. And we

decided because the war is such a vast enterprise, as you mentioned, we

decided to really focus on just a few snapshots of the war, the

flashpoints of violence. So we looked at convoys, which run throughout

the country, checkpoints, which are also all over Iraq. We also looked

at home raids and detentions of Iraqis and also the overall perception

of Iraqis, the demonization of them in the military.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And how were you able to recruit the soldiers who would

talk to you and agree to be interviewed on the record?

*LAILA AL-ARIAN: *We initially approached veterans organizations. We

approached Iraq Veterans Against the War and also Iraq and Afghanistan

Veterans of America. And through them, we were put in touch with many

veterans who were willing to speak about their experiences. And from

then on, it really became word-of-mouth. People would refer us to their

friends. And that's how we went about it. It wasn't an easy process.

*AMY GOODMAN: *And how many soldiers did you talk to? How did you

document what they said?

*LAILA AL-ARIAN: *We spoke with forty soldiers, eight Marines and two

sailors. We tape-recorded every conversation, every interview we had,

and we transcribed them into thousands of pages of transcripts. And from

then on, we began the process of writing the piece. But, for us, it was

very important to have all of these interviews on the record.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *In your article, you mention that there was a recent

report by, I think it was, the Army Surgeon General talking about the

attitudes of -- general attitudes that they have found of American

soldiers toward Iraqi civilians. Could you talk about that?

*LAILA AL-ARIAN: *Yes. Interestingly, that report came after we began

our own reporting. So, to us, it really confirmed what we saw through

our reporting. The report stated that 47% of soldiers and 38% of Marines

said that Iraqis should be treated with dignity, and only 55% of

soldiers and 40% of Marines said that they would turn in a friend in the

military who basically killed or injured an unarmed Iraqi combatant. And

that really confirmed what we found in our piece.

*AMY GOODMAN: *We?re going to go now to Washington, D.C. to speak with

two of the soldiers: Sergeant John Bruhns, again, serving in Baghdad and

Abu Ghraib with the Third Brigade, First Armored Division, First

Battalion, for one year beginning in April of 2003; and Specialist

Garett Reppenhagen, with the Cavalry, scout and sniper with the 263rd

Armor Battalion, First Infantry Division, deployed to Baquba.

Specialist Garett Reppenhagen, let's begin with you. Tell your story,

what you saw, what you experienced, what you participated in.

*SPC. GARETT REPPENHAGEN: *Well, you know, I was a sniper, and I

operated in the Diyala province, which is a pretty active region right

now. And the thing about the article is, all those stories are very much

true. Those things happened. The situation is that most soldiers, most

Marines are professional soldiers, they?re professional Marines, and

they?re going to do their job to the best of their ability. And,

unfortunately, Iraq is a very complex, untraditional battlefield, and

it's very difficult to operate in that terrain and not have civilian

casualties and not have these, you know, these incidents occur, because

we?ve developed very brutal techniques to be able to operate safely and

conduct our missions in that theater, and ultimately the soldiers are

going to stick together. We feel very much like we?re out there and all

we have to look for, you know, to protect ourselves is each other. And

the bottom line is, you know, we want to come home alive, we want to

come home safe, and we?re going to conduct ourselves as the best of our

ability to do that, and sometimes that means that, you know, innocent

civilians, Iraqi people, are going to get in the way, and they're going

to get hurt.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *Well, Specialist Reppenhagen, in reading the article

and the accounts, what most struck me was the massive number of searches

that were being conducted of individual homes in the middle of the night

and the enormous psychological impact this had on those people, who,

when a group of soldiers burst into their home in the middle of the

night, were not -- had nothing to do with the insurgency, obviously, and

the impact on them. Could you talk about that and the impact on you

being involved in those kinds of raids?

*SPC. GARETT REPPENHAGEN: *The house raids were a very difficult piece

of my experience in Iraq. We conducted a lot of house searches. And, you

know, we felt we had to. We didn?t have the initiative in Iraq. The US

military, nine times out of ten, are on the defensive. We?re being

attacked, and combat is usually initiated by the enemy. So a lot of

times we?re just -- we?re searching homes. We?re going on whims, hoping

that we can catch the Iraqis, the ones who are trying to do the US

forces harm. And, you know, we search a lot of houses. We kick in the

doors, and we separate the people.

And, you know, we had a checklist where we went through -- did they have

contraband? Yes/no. If they did, we apprehended them, and we would put a

bag over their head and marked it with an ?A.? You know, did they have

an identification card? If they didn?t, we?d mark them with a ?B,? we

take them. If they didn?t belong in that house, if they didn?t live in

that house, we?d mark them with a ?C,? and we?d take them. So we take a

lot of these people out of their homes. And a lot of these people, we

push out through the chain of command, and they get interrogated, and

they get pushed up further. And a lot of these people never make it home

the following day or ever again.

So it?s very difficult. It?s hard to see the people, to go into their

homes, especially when you know that most of the time you have bad

intelligence and you?re raiding a house that usually the people inside

are innocent and have nothing to do with the insurgency or any harm to

US soldiers.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *About how many houses do you estimate, roughly, that

you participated in raids of during your tour there?

*SPC. GARETT REPPENHAGEN: *Well, I can only guess. I?m thinking about

thirty -- probably around thirty houses are ones that I raided

personally. I was involved in cordons on the outer edges of a lot of

these raids, where I didn?t actually go into any of the houses, I just

pulled security on the outside. A lot of my sniper missions, I did

overwatch and just stayed in a heightened position and gave intelligence

to the people on the ground. So, you know, I saw a lot of them, but I

was only actually entered probably about thirty houses myself.

*AMY GOODMAN: *And the response of the families whose homes you raided?

Were they able to understand what you were saying? And your feelings

when you would go into someone's home?

*SPC. GARETT REPPENHAGEN: *Most of the time we didn?t have interpreters

with us, so, no, there was a huge miscommunication, really problems with

the language barrier. A lot of times we found that once we started these

raids, we would get to the second or third house, and the family would

be awake, the lights would be on, the men and women would already be

separated. The men would have their shoes on. They would be dressed and

ready to go and be taken by the US military. So they got almost

accustomed to it. And it was constantly -- you could see the frustration

on their faces, the anger, the sadness, the worry, the fear. You know,

it was very hard to see the faces of the Iraqi people when you took

their family members away.

*AMY GOODMAN: *We're going to break, and we?re going to come back to

this discussion and also speak with Sergeant John Bruhns, who was at Abu

Ghraib and in Baghdad beginning in April of 2003.

[break]

*AMY GOODMAN: *Our guest in studio in New York is Laila Al-Arian, who

together with Chris Hedges wrote the cover story of /The Nation/

magazine this week, interviewing scores of Army war veterans from Iraq

talking about their experiences. We are joined in Washington, D.C. by

Specialist Garett Reppenhagen, as well as John Bruhns, Sergeant John

Bruhns, who served in Baghdad and Abu Ghraib with the Third Brigade,

First Armored Division, First Battalion, beginning in April of 2003.

Sergeant Bruhns, talk about your experience. You participated in how

many raids?

*SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: *Well, Amy, thank you very much for having me on. I

just want to make one small correction. I invaded Iraq on day one, March

19th of 2003, so I just want to, you know, make sure I put that in the

record. So, having --

*AMY GOODMAN: *What was that first day like?

*SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: *It was very confusing. You know, we were -- in my

unit, along with 150,000 other soldiers, were massed on the border of

Kuwait and Iraq. And finally, our commander said, ?OK, go,? and we went

into Iraq. And we went into the southern Iraqi desert, and it took days

to find civilization.

And at that point in time I had a lot of reservations, because I was

looking around, and I saw 150,000 troops making their way to Baghdad in

the open desert, and here?s President Bush, and he?s accusing Saddam

Hussein of having a massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction,

possibly a nuclear weapon, saying that he?s a homicidal dictator

addicted to these weapons and we have to stop him now. And I was

thinking to myself, I said, you know, what would be a better time for

Saddam Hussein to use these weapons? He has 150,000 troops in the

southern Iraqi desert, and he could launch these weapons on us directly

and kill nobody but us.

So it was very frightening, especially because our military commanders

were telling us that he has these weapons, this is his last stand, we?re

coming to kill him, to take over his government, and he will use these

weapons. And we were anticipating at least 50,000 casualties that day.

That?s what we were being told. So it was very frightening.

But once I started to make it into populated areas and the weapons were

not used at a time that was ripe for Saddam Hussein to use them, I just

-- I totally came to the -- I was completely convinced that President

Bush either made a complete and total incompetent decision to go to war

or he deliberately misled us into war.

*AMY GOODMAN: *The number of raids you were involved with?

*SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: *The number of raids I was involved with, I estimate

probably about a thousand. What we would do -- how these raids would

occur and why we would go on the raids is this: let's say there?s a

roadside bomb, an IED goes off in our sector one day, and then the next

day there?s an RPG attack, and then the day after there are some

sporadic gunfire at US troops. Well, a battalion commander reasonably

would call a mission, and he would say, ?You know, let's go into the

sector. We?ll quarantine it, and we won?t let anybody in or out. And

we?ll send the infantry in, and we?ll do cordons and searches,? which

are raids, ?and we?ll go house to house, and we?ll look for weapons,

we?ll look for bomb-making material, we?ll look for anti-US propaganda,

any intelligence at all that would lead to the insurgency.?

So you go there in the middle of the night, and you want to catch them

-- you want to catch the Iraqis off guard. So you enter the house fast

and furious. You kick down the door, and you run upstairs, and you get

the man of the house and you get him out of bed, and his wife is laying

next to him. It?s Baghdad, it?s July, it?s August. His wife sometimes

may be exposed, because of her night garments in the middle of the

night, which is humiliating for that woman and for that man and for that

family. And you separate the man from his wife, and if he has children,

you put his family in a room, and, you know, you put two soldiers on the

door, outside the door, to make sure that his family stays in that room.

And then you get -- we had interpreters, so we would take interpreters

with us throughout the house. And we would have the man of the house,

and we would interrogate him over and over again. ?Who are the

insurgents? Do you know who they are? Are you with them?? And, you know,

basically we would tear his house apart. We would, you know, take his

bed, turn that upside-down, dump his closets, his drawers, if he had

them. I mean, just anything.

And I would say eight out of ten times we never really found any

intelligence at all within these homes that would lead us to believe

that these people were members of the insurgency. What they were was

just Iraqis in their own communities. And we came in there, and we came

in uninvited. And I believe -- and I don?t blame this on the US military

at all. I don?t. I blame this on George Bush. But when you?re involved

in a military operation like that, you enter these homes as if you?re

going after the enemy, as if you?re going after bin Laden himself, when,

for the most part, they're just families living in their homes, trying

to get a night's rest before they get up and go to work in the morning,

if there is work for them. And it?s just -- I believe that this created

a lot of resentment among the Iraqi people, causing them to join a

resistance movement against US and coalition forces in Iraq.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And the impact on you and your fellow soldiers of

having to conduct these constant raids and realizing that many of the

people that you were dealing with were perfectly innocent? Did you -- in

your times when you were off duty, did you talk about it among

yourselves? And what kind of conversations? And the impact that it had

on you psychologically?

*SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: *Well, it had a tremendous psychological impact on

me, because, you know, a lot of these raids and a lot of these cordon

and searches did not -- you know, they were not very productive. Now,

there were times when we did catch people that we would, you know, label

so-called terrorists. But like I said, for the most part they were just

Iraqis, Iraqi people, Iraqi families in their communities, you know,

carrying on their daily activities, their lives. And we would go in

there and disrupt their lives and make life difficult for them in our

hunt for an unidentifiable enemy. That?s the problem.

When you?re in Iraq, you do not know who the enemy is. They know who you

are. If you?re on a patrol in a market and somebody opens fire on you

and the US military, I mean, if we respond -- if we return fire in that

direction with overwhelming firepower and, let's say, a

thirteen-year-old girl gets killed, you?re just going to have to assume

right then and there that her father and her brother and her uncles --

they're not going to say, you know, Saddam was a bad guy and thank the

United States for coming in here and liberating us. They?re going to

say, ?If the United States never came here, my daughter would still be

alive.? And that?s going to cause them to join the resistance. And when

they do join the resistance, President Bush says, ?They?re al-Qaeda.

They?re al-Qaeda.? But they?re not. They?re just regular Iraqi people

who feel occupied, and they?re reacting to an occupation.

*AMY GOODMAN: *Sergeant Bruhns, talk about the day you were sent into a

house that you believed there were Syrian terrorists or insurgents inside?

*SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: *Yes, ma?am. Well, we were -- my squad leader called

a meeting and said that he had gotten word from the company commander

that there was a Syrian resistance movement within a home in our sector

and that there were Syrian terrorist fighters in the house and that what

we were going to do was that our squad was going to, you know, basically

kick in the front door and go in and apprehend these Syrians, who

supposedly were in there with weapons waiting to shoot at us. And that

just didn?t sound right to me.

And it was getting very close to the time that I was supposed to be

leaving Iraq. So I said to my -- I was the -- see, when you have an

infantry squad, you?ll have your squad leader, then you?ll have Alpha

Team, and you?ll have Bravo Team. I was Alpha Team leader, and my job

was to go in the front door, arrest the Syrians, while Bravo Team

conducted the cordon outside. So I said to my squad leader, I said,

?Hey, you know what?? I said, ?If you?re so sure and if our commander is

so sure that there is a Syrian resistance movement in this home, I?m

going to go in there, and I?m -- I mean, if you?re just going to send me

through the front door two or three weeks before I?m going to go home,

I?m going to shoot everybody in there. I mean, if you?re going to put me

in that situation, they?re not -- they?re probably not likely to --

they?re probably unlikely to be willing to turn themselves in.? And

they?re like, ?No, they're in there, and we have to get them.? So I

sarcastically said, ?Well, you know what? You might as well just pull a

Bradley up to the front of the house and fire a TOW missile through the

front window, if you?re that sure.? Like I said, I said that sarcastically.

And when the raid went down -- and I actually was selected to stay

outside that night, because my squad leader could tell that I really

wasn?t too happy about the intelligence report that we received -- they

sent in a different team. And when they went inside, it was just a

family. There was an old man inside, a few children and a woman. There

were no Syrians.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And, Garett, a final comment from you. I?d like to ask

you, this whole issue of an occupation force -- you have a situation

where United States soldiers obviously, from a religious standpoint,

racially, linguistically, have nothing in common with the Iraqis that

they are there supposedly to protect. Could you talk about that sense of

being totally a fish out of water in Iraq?

*SPC. GARETT REPPENHAGEN: *Well, I mean, it was obvious, you know, that

the majority of US soldiers do not fit in. I mean, the military, US

military, is made up of a lot of different people, and there are Iraqi

Americans in the US military, there?s Lebanese Americans, there?s a lot

of Middle Eastern Americans in the military, so some people do fit in.

But the majority of us, yeah, you know, we don?t speak the language. You

know, most of us are not Muslim. Most of us, you know, do not look Arabic.

So the contrast is very real, and the division, once you?re there and

you?re being told to give these people democracy and they?re shooting at

you and trying to kill you, it creates a lot of tension, and the

American soldiers begin to hate the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people hate

the American soldiers. And the bottom line is, we?re not seen as

peacekeepers. US forces in Iraq are no longer seen as peacekeepers by

the Iraqi people and most of the Muslim world. We?re seen as occupiers

and invaders, and that undermines our ability to keep the peace there,

it undermines our ability to do our jobs, and it undermines our national

security here at home. So right now it?s a very complex situation, and

the animosity is growing. And there?s no cure other than removing

ourselves from Iraq.

*AMY GOODMAN: *Final question to Sergeant John Bruhns: you were at the

news conference yesterday with Senator Harry Reid. What do you want to

happen right now? What do you want the US government to do, the Bush

administration, Congress?

*SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: *I would like Congress to draft binding bipartisan

legislation that requires President Bush to bring our troops out of

Iraq. This is a man that does not understand the meaning of the word

?bipartisanship.? We have to fight fire with fire when it comes to

President Bush. He?s stubborn. He refuses to acknowledge his mistakes.

And he?s in his own little world when it comes to Iraq.

So now, Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, has to do -- they

have to do their job. They have to carry out the will of the American

people. Over 70% of the American people want an end to this war. So my

message to Congress is: you can stand with Bush or you can stand with

the American people. Bring our troops home.

*AMY GOODMAN: *On that note, I want to thank you both very much for

being with us. We?re going to be heading to Denver next to speak with

some soldiers. Sergeant John Bruhns served in Baghdad with the Third

Brigade, First Armored Division, First Battalion; Specialist Garett

Reppenhagen, Cavalry scout and sniper with the 263rd Armor Battalion in

Iraq. This is /Democracy Now!/, democracynow.org, ?The War and Peace

Report.?

One of the soldiers quoted in /The Nation/ article is Sergeant Camilo

Mejia, a National Guardsmen from Miami who served in Iraq for six

months, beginning, yeah, April 2003. While on a two-week leave in the

US, Mejia refused to redeploy to Iraq. He was the first US soldier

court-martialed for desertion, was ultimately sentenced to a year in

jail. We interviewed him in March of 2005. Here, he describes a typical

US military raid on an Iraqi household.

*CAMILO MEJIA: *Well, you would get information on people setting

up improvised explosive devices, known as IEDs, and people

mortaring Army bases. And based on this intelligence, you would

set up -- you would come up with a plan and, depending on the size

of the target, you know, it could be down to a squad level all the

way up to a battalion level, and you would pretty much surround

the whole place and go in there, you know, set up a security

element, a casualty collection point, and then go in there with

your squad, depending on whatever mission you had, and just raid

the home. You go in there 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, put

everybody from the household in one room and then take the owner

of the house, who is usually a man, you know, all through the

house into every room, open every closet and everything and look

for weapons and look for, you know, literature against the

coalition. And then get your detainees and move out.

*AMY GOODMAN: *Could you read the literature?

*CAMILO MEJIA: *No. Because it was in Arabic. So it's really hard.

And the intel was really bad, too. Sometimes they would tell us,

you?re looking for a man, you know, who?s 5'7", dark skin, has a

beard, which is like about 90% of men in Iraq.

*AMY GOODMAN: *Sergeant Mejia also described the treatment of Iraqi

prisoners by the US military.

*CAMILO MEJIA: *[?] areas made by concertina wire, which is worse

than barbed wire, and they had military police units bringing in

detainees. And then you had what we call ?spooks? in the military,

which are people that no one knows who they are or where they come

from. They wear no unit patch or anything. And they pretty much

made an initial assessment, and they decided who was or who wasn't

an enemy combatant, and then we separated these people into

groups. And those who were deemed enemy combatants were kept on

sleep deprivation. And the way we did that was, when we arrived

there, we relieved another unit, and then they told us the easiest

way to do that is just by, you know, yelling at these people,

telling them to get up and to get down -- they were hooded

prisoners -- yell at them, tell them to get up and get down, let

them sleep for five seconds so they?ll get up disoriented, bang a

sledgehammer on a wall to make it sound like an explosion, scare

them, and if all of that fails then, you know, cock a 9mm gun next

to their ear, so as to make them believe that they?re going to be

executed. And then they will do anything you want them to do. And

in that manner, keep them up for periods of forty-eight to

seventy-two hours, in order to soften them up for interrogation.

And these were the kind of things that, you know, they were asking

the infantrymen to do.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *Another soldier quoted in /The Nation/ article is Army

Reserve Specialist Aidan Delgado. He served in Iraq from April 2003 to

April 2004, where he was deployed in Nasiriyah and Abu Ghraib. Soon

after his arrival in Iraq, he sought conscientious objector status and

turned in his weapon. We interviewed him in December 2004. He described

witnessing US soldiers abusing in killing Iraqi detainees.

*AIDAN DELGADO: *I found some things that were just really

disturbing, like I discovered that the majority of prisoners at

Abu Ghraib weren't even insurgents. They weren't even there for

crimes against the coalition. They were there for petty crimes:

theft, public drunkenness. And they were here in this horrible,

extremely dangerous prison. That's when I began to feel, oh, my

God, I can't believe, you know, I'm participating in this. And

then there was sort of a series of demonstrations or prisoner

protests against the conditions, against the cold, against the

lack of food and the type of food. And the military's response to

these demonstrations was, I felt, extremely heavy-handed. I'm not

going to say it was illegal. I don't have the background to bring

a legalistic challenge, but I will say that it was immoral, the

amount of force they responded with. I mean, I think I shared some

images of prisoners beaten to within an inch of their life, or

dead, by the guards. And five prisoners that I know of were shot

dead during a demonstration for what amounted to throwing stones.

*AMY GOODMAN: *Aidan Delgado did get conscientious objector status.

Camilo Mejia served almost a year in jail. Before we go to break, Laila

Al-Arian, co-author of this almost full magazine piece in /The Nation/,

"The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness," your quick comment?

*LAILA AL-ARIAN: *Following up on what Sergeant Mejia said about the

poor intelligence on which these raids were based, several of the

veterans told us that, in fact, on a number of occasions raids were

based on Iraqis trying to settle family feuds with each other. They

would approach the US soldiers and tell them that family members or

their neighbors were insurgents, and that would simply be enough to raid

a home. And in one case, a son told the soldiers that his father was an

insurgent, and they raided the middle-aged man?s home, and only to find

out that the son actually just wanted the father?s money that was buried

in the farm.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And you also -- some of the soldiers indicated that the

Army was paying for information -- right? -- so that there was also the

monetary incentive for people to give tips that may or may not be accurate.

*LAILA AL-ARIAN: *Definitely. That was something that also troubled some

of the soldiers.

*AMY GOODMAN: *We?re going to Denver after break to speak with two more

soldiers. This is /Democracy Now!/, democracynow.org, ?The War and Peace

Report.? Back in a minute.

[break]

*AMY GOODMAN: *We turn now to two other soldiers, two other vets of the

Iraq war quoted in /The Nation/ article. Staff Sergeant Timothy John

Westphal served on the outskirts of Tikrit for a yearlong tour in Iraq.

Sergeant Dustin Flatt served with the 18th Infantry Brigade in Iraq also

for a year. They both served from February 2004 to February 2005,

joining us from Rocky Mountain PBS in Denver, Colorado. Juan?

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *Yes. I?d like to begin with Sergeant Dustin Flatt.

We?ve been discussing a lot of the house raids that occurred by US

soldiers, but also many violent incidents occurred around convoys with

civilians. And in your interview, you talked about some very chilling

situations that you were involved in: deaths of innocent civilians as a

result of them coming into contact with US convoys. Could you talk about

that?

*SGT. DUSTIN FLATT: *Yes. The innocent deaths happened at different

times, different places and different occasions. Convoys were

commonplace. The only incident I have firsthand knowledge of was a

convoy that was actually not our convoy. It was a convoy had just driven

by us. And an Iraqi vehicle with a mother, three daughters and an older

teenage son who was driving the car were following a convoy too close.

It got too close, and they shot into the car. It was a warning shot, and

it ended up killing the mother. And they actually pulled the car over,

or the son pulled the car over right next to us, and we just happened to

be near a hospital in Mosul at the time. And the mother was obviously

dead, and the children were just crying and asking if they could

actually get into the hospital.

*AMY GOODMAN: *So the mother was dead. The three little girls, what

happened?

*SGT. DUSTIN FLATT: *Right. The three little girls, we just -- we took

them and just -- the last time I saw them they were on the side of the

road just crying. They had no idea what had just happened. And it was

funny -- it was with another unit -- it was a unit actually that we were

attached to in Mosul, and on the back of their last Humvee in the

convoy, they had a sign that read, "Stay back 100 meters." And after

that, we took our interpreter, our Iraqi interpreter, up to the sign to

see how far away he could read it, and he had to be within about thirty

or forty feet before he could read it.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *You also mentioned, I think, a checkpoint situation,

where an elderly couple was killed at a checkpoint, and then their

bodies were just left for several days, that you would drive back and

forth and you?d still see them there?

*SGT. DUSTIN FLATT: *Yes, depending on -- that happened in different

cities, too. Again, up in Mosul, there was an instance where one of our

platoons -- I think an elderly couple just stumbled upon one of our --

an area where some of our guys were, and they had gotten too close and

were driving, you know, just a little too fast, and that?s it.

You know, our rules of engagement -- we?ve got, you know, set rules that

you follow, you know, verbal commands, using signals, shooting warning

shots, and all of that happens very quickly when somebody?s coming at

you at fifty miles an hour, which I can see happening.

In any of these circumstances, I don?t necessarily fault the soldiers

who did it. I don?t think it?s -- they?ve been put in a place where they

have to make these split-second decisions on whether someone is a threat

or not. And in a place where you don?t understand anything and can?t

tell the difference between an enemy and just a regular civilian, I can

see where soldiers are making these decisions.

*AMY GOODMAN: *In both cases, Sergeant Dustin Flatt, in the case of the

mother being killed with her three little daughters in the car and the

case of this elderly couple, what was your response and the

conversations you were having with the other soldiers? How did this

affect you?

*SGT. DUSTIN FLATT: *I believe -- well, actually, we were part of a very

-- TJ and I were part of a very disciplined unit, or at least we believe

so. Our chain of command was fantastic. We very much admired them. We

talked about different things all the time and about our rules of

engagement and that sort of thing. And it got to a point -- at this

instance, actually, up in Mosul when we were attached to a different

unit that a different mentality, it was -- we didn?t come to blows, but

there were many times when it came close, when we were actually

screaming at each other, telling them to knock it off, that they were

just shooting indiscriminately at people. You know, I think that --

*AMY GOODMAN: *Like when?

*SGT. DUSTIN FLATT: *There were times when you were just driving down

the road, and another car -- just like we would in America -- would come

at an intersection, and they wouldn?t see you coming. You?d be in a

convoy of four Humvees. And, of course, everywhere you went you went at,

you know, at a pretty good clip. All of the sudden, a car would come up

on an intersection, and they would fire on a car just because they

approached the intersection. They would literally directly fire into the

vehicle.

There were times when we had to -- there was one specific time when the

Humvee in front of me from the other unit fired into this car, continued

to drive past it. We stopped right in front of it, jumped out to see if

the people inside were OK, because they were obviously of no threat. We

jumped out, looked. Windows were shattered by bullets. I grabbed the

guys inside and I grabbed our interpreter, and I?m screaming at him,

going, ?Ask them if they?re OK!? Somehow they lived through it. But the

fact that they just shot the car and continued to drive on was pretty

much a daily occurrence.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And when these accidents occur, and civilians are shot

or killed, what were the rules or the orders that you had, as to what

the responsibilities were of the soldiers who were involved with these

people who were shot or killed?

*SGT. DUSTIN FLATT: *I think with our specific company, we?d do whatever

it took to help the people in the first place. If there was any way that

we could evac them to a point to get medical attention, we would. It

depended on the circumstances at the time, too. If we had been in the

middle of battles or firefights at the time, I think it was a completely

different situation. You know, mission first, and then take care of the,

you know, collateral damage, I guess you could say, at that point. We

did our best to take care of the innocents. I don?t know about other

units. I had a completely different feeling about the unit we were

attached to in Mosul. Our other times in Tikrit or Samara or any other

place was usually with our unit, and our unit was very disciplined when

it came to that sort of thing.

*AMY GOODMAN: *I wanted to turn to Staff Sergeant Timothy John Westphal,

TJ Westphal, who served on the outskirts of Tikrit for a yearlong tour

with the 18th Infantry Brigade, First Infantry Division, beginning in

February of 2004. Talk about that summer night in 2004, the farmhouse

you raided.

*STAFF SGT. TIMOTHY JOHN WESTPHAL: *That summer night will stand out in

my mind for the rest of my life. That was really the turning point for

me, when I realized that our involvement in Iraq was something that I

wasn?t proud to be a part of. You know, you understand that as an

American soldier, we?re all volunteers. We love our jobs, we love our

country. We grew up watching John Wayne storm the beaches of Iwo Jima

and idolizing World War II heroes, and so forth. So there?s a tremendous

amount of pride that we all felt and that we all had in our jobs. And

for me, that eroded that summer night in Iraq.

I was the patrol group leader in charge of a raid, which we conducted on

an Iraqi farm. And it was the middle of the summer, very hot outside,

definitely over 100 degrees, had about forty or so guys. My particular

squad, our job was to jump the wall -- every Iraqi home has a wall -- my

job was to take our guys over the wall, infiltrate the compound. And

there were several houses within the farm compound. And we were told

that there were insurgents, bomb makers, living at this residence.

So my men and I jumped over the wall. There were fifteen or so other

guys outside pulling a cordon, or perimeter security. We went inside and

found a big -- basically a big cluster of people laying outside. And in

Iraq during the summer, many Iraqis sleep outside, because it?s just too

hot to sleep inside. We weren?t sure what to expect. We just saw a big

clump of bodies. It?s dark. There?s no exterior lighting in the

compound. So I told my guys to get their flashlights ready. All of our

flashlights are mounted on our weapons, so anywhere your flashlight is

pointed your weapon is pointed also. I had my guys surround the clump of

people who were sleeping outside and told them basically, ?On the count

of three, we?re going to light them up and see what we have under here.

Be prepared for anything. These guys could be armed. So just be on the

lookout.?

So I counted to three. I basically just kicked the clump of people there

to wake them up, turned on my flashlight, and all my guys did the same

thing. And my light happened to shine right on the face of an old man in

his mid-sixties. I found out later he was the patriarch of that family.

And as we scanned the cluster of people laying there, we saw two younger

military age men, probably in their early twenties. Everybody else --

I?d say there were about eight to ten other individuals -- were women

and children. We come to find out this was just a family. They were

sleeping outside.

The terror that I saw on the patriarch's face, like I said, that really

was the turning point for me. I imagined in my mind what he must have

been thinking, understanding that he had lived under Saddam's brutal

regime for many years, worried about -- you know, hearing stories about

Iraqis being carried away in the middle of the night by the Iraqi secret

service and so forth, to see all those lights, all those soldiers with

guns, all the uniform things that we wear, as far as the helmet, the

night vision goggles, very intimidating, very terrifying for the man. He

screamed a very guttural cry that I can still hear it every day. You

know, it was just the most awful, horrible sound I?ve ever heard in my

life. He was so terrified and so afraid for his family. And I thought of

my family at that time, and I thought to myself, boy, if I was the

patriarch of a family, if soldiers came from another country, came in

and did this to my family, I would be an insurgent, too.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And you say that that was a turning point for you. In

what way?

*STAFF SGT. TIMOTHY JOHN WESTPHAL: *It was a turning point for me in the

sense that -- you know, prior to going into Iraq, both Dustin and

myself, we talked about this many times in the days leading up to the

war. We came into Iraq after the initial invasion, so we had a chance to

see a little bit of the buildup to the war, as well as the actual

invasion piece. And several of us, including Dustin and myself, were

very much opposed to the Iraq war. However, we chose to go, number one,

out of a sense of loyalty to each other and our unit; second, because we

were hoping as leaders, as combat leaders, leaders of soldiers, we would

be able to influence those young men to make good decisions and not do

things like kill indiscriminately or let their emotions get into their

decision-making abilities. So that?s why we chose to go. And again,

because this is our profession, we were very proud of what we were

doing, even though we opposed the mission itself, are proud to serve

with our brothers and to be a part of something like that.

However, that night -- and that was about halfway through my yearlong

tour -- that night I really admitted to myself -- and it was a very hard

thing to do, but I admitted to myself that America is not the good guy

in this thing. And, you know, if you factor in that you have these young

men who most of them are high-school-educated -- some have a bit of

college, some do have college degrees -- but the education level, for

the most part, is high school graduates only.

*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And, Sergeant Westphal, we only have about thirty

seconds left. I?d like to ask you: you went in in February 2004. Did you

ever expect that we?d be in this situation now, more than three years

later?

*STAFF SGT. TIMOTHY JOHN WESTPHAL: *I never imagined that America would

ever get to this point. I never imagined that the American public would

be so apathetic as they have been, in my estimation. A lot of them don?t

listen to the stories we tell. There?s a reason that all these guys got

together for this article, because they have a commitment to the truth,

and we definitely want the truth to be out there, that America has

brought terror to the country of Iraq, and that?s something that we have

to deal with.

*AMY GOODMAN: *Do you think the US soldiers should be brought home now?

*STAFF SGT. TIMOTHY JOHN WESTPHAL: *Absolutely. You know, I support the

United States military. I?m a soldier. I always will be. I?m

tremendously proud of the men I served with. However, yes, I do believe

that we need to bring our troops home right now, because all we?re doing

is making more terrorists and more people who hate America.

*AMY GOODMAN: *I want to thank you both for being with us, Staff

Sergeant Timothy John Westphal, TJ Westphal, and Sergeant Dustin Flatt,

speaking to us from Rocky Mountain PBS in Denver Colorado. And that does

it for our broadcast. Also special thanks to Laila Al-Arian, who?s the

co-author with Chris Hedges of this magazine-long piece, ?The Other War:

Iraq Vets Bear Witness? in /The Nation/ magazine. Thank you for joining us.

www.democracynow.org



[i] Metaphor stolen by me from noted mathematician Tom Lehrer.