Work and election stuff all day, and off to an election-eve event.

But I saw something while scanning the blogs I thought more people should see.

Via Global Voices, I got linked to the blog of Palestinian Daoud Kuttab, who discusses the internal implications of the referendum being called by Abbas.

Abbas’ referendum has exposed a simmering split within the Islamic resistance movement, which Hamas tried to keep behind the scenes. It has shown at least three different positions vis-à-vis recognition of
Israel. Ironically, it turns out that the most moderate position within Hamas belongs to those in prison; those in the bigger prison of occupation and siege are not as moderate and those completely free in Syria are the most radical.

A deeper look reveals the obvious. Everyone knows that the balance of forces is not in favour of the Palestinians. So the differences of opinion are often focused on accepting a compromise now or waiting for the possibility of a better deal later; optimists hope the balance of forces will redress in the Palestinians’ favour. The more restrictive the conditions people live in the more they see the need for short-term relief and not just long-term dreams.

Hamas’ leaders in Damascus can wait for a long time because their daily lives are not affected by occupation, siege and imprisonment. There is an appropriate Arabic proverb. “Those who are feeling the whip are not like those counting the number of flogs.”

There is an even more important reason why prisoners and those under occupation have a more pragmatic point of view. A quick look at the Palestinian and Arab positions over the past half a century does not give much hope that things will be any better in 10 or 20 years. On the contrary, an honest look will show an erosion of the political programme. What we accept today (the 1967 borders) we rejected some time ago, and so on. Therefore, prisoners, whether behind bars or behind checkpoints, are not willing to waste their lives waiting five or ten years for their leaders to accept what they are rejecting now.

Interesting, and a blog worth keeping track of.

[Update: I wrote this post while doing nine other things and failed to make elementary arguments supporting my claim that voting for Debra – or getting your friends to vote for Debra – will make a massive difference in how voting is handled in the U.S. (hint: it will; go see Brad Friedman at HuffPo – and remember that he’s a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist while I’m a committed debunker of those theories and we completely agree on this) and see my letter below.]

As an aside, if you live in California and are a registered Democrat or Independent, the most important thing you can do to improve voting is to vote tomorrow for Debra Bowen for Secretary of State.

There’s been an interesting and long (if thinly populated) comment thread on my post regarding RFK Jr’s risable Rolling Stone article.

Note that while I’m passionate about improving voting systems – meaning improving the accuracy, auditability, transparency, and trustworthiness of the systems (meaning human, physical, and technical) we use for voting, I’m very dismissive of Jr’s claims.

I’m dismissive because my biggest concern is building the political will to make the changes we need to make to get us where we need to go. And as long as the argument is framed as “we need to fix the system to keep your side from doing all the bad things you do” – which is fundamentally the position of two of the commenters – two things happen. Instead of a bipartisan reform movement (the only way it will succeed), we get a wedge issue. Worse, instead of an issue where we can calmly agree on facts and work outward to plans, we get a conflicting array of unproven (and unprovable) assertions which quickly degenerate (as the thread has) to “did so!” and “did not!”I’ll make my position clear – again – in saying that both sides have and do game the system, and that I do not doubt that both sides have committed fraud. If you’re a Democrat, you should want to fix the mechanics of voting to make sure that Ohio can’t happen again. If you’re a Republican, you should want to fix the mechanics of the system to make sure Washington State doesn’t get done to you again.

I think it is highly unlikely that there has been ‘massive’ organized fraud in recent elections. That doesn’t mean that elections – local and national haven’t turned on votes that were a) from people who shouldn’t have been able to vote; b) that never were placed, because of people who were unfairly kept from voting; c) that were – at a retail level (i.e. in the hundreds or thousands but not tens of thousands). Like bad calls in baseball games, I tend to see them as averaging out.

But the game is being watched more closely – there are cameras that can secnd-guess the umpires’ calls – and there is more at stake.

So we need to work together to determine what it would take to have a system in place that both sides – that all Americans – can trust.

As I noted at the top of this post, tomorrow there will be an election in California where we have a chance to mark the low point in electoral trust in this country, and to begin – not in arguments on blog pages, but in reality – to build a system that we all trust.

We’ll do it by voting for Debra Bowen. If this issue matters to you, and you live in California and can vote for her, do it.

If you can’t, find your friends who can, and tell them to vote for her.

That way we can turn this argument from sniping to building, and start debating the ways that we can build a system that each of us will trust.

That’s Bowen for Secretary of State.

[Update: Here’s the email I sent to 1,200 people in my address book. I got about 100 positive replies and about 50 dinner invitations…

I’m sending this to everyone I know in California, and asking you all to vote for Debra Bowen for Secretary of State in the Democratic primary on Tuesday.

Sending out mass requests isn’t usually my thing, but this is important enough for me to put that discomfort aside.

Why? Secretary of State is a downballot race that few, if any, people pay much attention to – which means that getting a small group to vote for Debra will make a big difference. And it will be a difference that will mean a lot to all of us.

Because one of the critical functions of the office is overseeing election procedures and technology in California.

In the last decade, the mechanics of elections – something that only the hardest-core of hard-core political junkies cared about – have suddenly become news. This month’s Rolling Stone has an article by Robert Kennedy Junior challenging the handling of the Ohio presidential balloting in 2004 (note that Mother Jones had an article in November that disproves many of his claims). But the article is evidence of a growing loss of faith in the mechanics of our political process.

[horrible metaphor alert!…I’m wincing reading this now…]

The fuel provided by this loss of faith combined with increasingly bitter partisanship on both sides is about to be ignited by the implementation of deeply flawed technology in the form of voting machines using technology and procedures that no corporation could use under Sarbanes-Oxley.

I believe, more than anything, that people’s faith in the electoral process is what ties us to our political system and provides legitimacy to our government at all levels.

To defend that we need voting systems – technology and processes – that can be defended when challenged, that are widely perceived to be fair, and that restore confidence in our political process.

Debra gets this.

She gets the nitty-gritty technical and procedural details that it will take to make this happen. I’ve listened to her opponent, Deborah Ortiz, and she doesn’t.

It’s important that you vote on Tuesday, but I’m asking you all to please, please vote for Debra because I think that it’s critical that in 2008 and thereafter you’re confident that your vote was actually counted.

Her campaign website is at http://www.debrabowen.com/ and it’s not too late to donate a few bucks, if you’re so inclined.

For those that I haven’t talked to in a while, howdy, things are going well, and please drop me a note and let me know how you’re doing.

To everyone, please understand that I wouldn’t send this if I didn’t think it was vitally important. Thanks for taking a moment to read it. Feel free to contact me with questions – this is obviously important to all of us.]

OK, Robert Kennedy Jr.’s article on “Was The 2004 Election Stolen?” (hint: he thinks the answer is ‘Yes‘) is up at Rolling Stone.

Commenter hypocracyrules lays it down as a trump card to prove that “repugs” are inherently bad, evil, etc etc.

I thought I’d take a few minutes after cleaning the wok to quickly Google Jr’s claims and see what comes up.

What happened was that I found a pretty dispositive article – in the sense that independent investigation was done on several of the specific claims made by Jr. – in, of all places, Mother Jones (the noted neocon journal).

The article, in the November/December 2005 issue is by Mark Hertsgaard, an investigative reporter whose books include “On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency” goes through several of the same claims that Jr. highlights, and traces the intellectual history of some of Jr’s claims.

Go read both articles, if you want to – but here are some highlights.

Jr’s claim:

In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.

Hertsgaard:

Now to Warren County, where officials locked down the building used to count votes and told a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter that there’d been a terrorist threat. The skeptics are right that the FBI denied issuing any such warning. But it’s not true that votes were counted in secret, say both Susan Johnson, the Republican Board of Elections director, and Sharon Fisher, the Democratic deputy director. Not only were Johnson and Fisher present, so were the four Board of Elections members (two Democrats, two Republicans) plus an observer from each party. The only person shut out, Johnson says, was the reporter, “but reporters have never been allowed into our counting room before.”

Jr’s claim:

Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls…

Hertsgaard:

Blackwell’s two most potent acts of disenfranchisement, skeptics say, were the purging of 133,000 mostly Democratic voters from the rolls and the non-counting of 92,000 ballots rejected by voting machines as unreadable. “It’s clear to me that somebody thought long and hard back in 2001 about how to win this thing,” says Fitrakis. “Somebody had the foresight to check an obscure statute that allows you to cancel people’s voter registrations if they haven’t voted in two presidential elections.” Fitrakis notes that newspapers reported the purging of 105,000 voters in Cincinnati and another 28,000 in Toledo. But because the purging was conducted gradually between 2001 and 2004, no one saw the big picture until the Free Press connected the dots.

O’Grady, the Democrats’ general counsel, agrees that Blackwell purged voter rolls, especially in large urban counties that figured to lean Democratic. But he points out that the purging was done legally, and he says it wasn’t necessarily underhanded. The Democratic base, he says, is more transient, so a voter may accumulate three different addresses on state voting rolls—a perfectly sound reason for a purge. As for the larger argument that Ohio was stolen, O’Grady says, “That point of view relies on the assumption that the entire Republican Party is conspiratorial and the entire Democratic Party is as dumb as rocks. And I don’t buy that.”

Jr’s claim:

The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren’t just off the mark — they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)

Hertsgaard:

The discrepancy between exit polls and the official results is a key part of the skeptics’ argument: Kerry was projected to win nationwide by a close but comfortable 3 percent, and in Ohio by 6.5 percent. But the skeptics betray a poor grasp of exit polling, starting with their claim that exit polls are invariably accurate within tenths of a percentage point. In truth, the exit polls were wrong by much more than that in the 1988 and 1992 presidential elections.

Warren Mitofsky and Joe Lenski, the pollsters who oversaw the 2004 exit polls, concluded that one source of their incorrect forecast was an apparent tendency for some pro-Bush voters to shun exit pollsters’ questions. “Preposterous,” claims Mark Crispin Miller, who also sees trickery in the adjusting of exit polls after the election, though that is utterly routine. And is it really so strange to imagine that Bush supporters—who tend to distrust the supposedly liberal news media—might not answer questions from pollsters bearing the logos of CBS, CNN, and the other news organizations financing the polling operation?

Besides, how do skeptics explain New Hampshire? The state conducted a hand recount of precincts that critics found suspicious; the recount confirmed the official tally, as Ralph Nader’s campaign, which paid for the exercise, admitted. Apparently one reason Bush did better than expected in those precincts was an influx of conservative Catholics who relocated from neighboring Massachusetts—the kind of anomaly that can confound even persuasive-sounding assumptions about voters.

Look, I don’t doubt that there were a host of irregularities in Ohio, which went narrowly for Bush. Just as there were in Minnesota, which went narrowly for Kerry.

To take my earlier metaphor of umpiring a step further – and as someone who has been Chief Umpire of a competitive Little League – the goal is to minimize the number of bad calls, try and make sure they don’t favor one team over the other, and hope like hell they don’t determine the outcome of the game.

I’ll leave the final word to Hertsgaard:

Meanwhile, the focus on vote rigging distracts from other explanations for the 2004 outcome and, more importantly, from what Democrats need to do differently in the future. Paul Hackett, the Iraq combat veteran whose congressional bid is covered elsewhere in this issue, suggests an answer. Hackett, who made no bones about his disdain for Bush and the war, nearly won a district that in 2004 chose Bush over Kerry 64 to 36 percent. Lesson: Democrats can do well, even in staunchly Republican areas, if they give people a reason to vote for them—an unapologetic alternative. Do that in 2008, and the election won’t be close enough to steal.

People with political opinions that can’t be expressed without neck-vein popping rage aren’t totally new to me; it’s just that they used to be a small sliver of humanity, usually found on the steps of university buildings, as gadflies in city council meetings, or convening fringe political parties deeply concerned about fluoridation and a return to the gold standard.

Sadly, they’re much more common now. I tend to see the Democratic version, because my social circles are composed of urban professionals – the cohort keeping the Democratic Party alive (like the pudgy – but well dressed! – man in the elevator today who talked about “DumbFuckistan. You know, the people between the coasts who fell for Bush’s bullshit.” – that’s a verbatim quote, by the way). I see my share of the other wing on my shooting lists and in other areas of the Right that I visit, places where Hillary is busy wiping the fingerprints off the gun she used to murder Vince Foster.

So What? you ask. Other than making the political precincts depressing places to visit for normal human beings, why does this matter?It matters because the glue that holds us together is starting to crack, and there is one narrow and specific place where we ought to be able to restore it and make it better.

It’s about voting.

On some level, it’s the vote that keeps us together. We believe in the overall fairness of the umpire’s calls, in the system where losers shake winners’ hands and plan for next time.

Or we believed it.

Rolling Stone is about to run a series by RFK Jr. setting out charges that the Presidential election in 04 was stolen and that Republican operatives succeeded in – again – stealing the election.

I haven’t seen the article as of this writing (it hits the Net tomorrow), so can’t comment on the specifics, which in a lot of ways don’t matter. What does matter is that the fight – which should be about policies and competence and what can and will be done – is now about to be over simple legitimacy. And the people who say “Not my president” will stand a little taller and pop their veins a little more proudly.

The problem, of course, is that in ’09, we’ll hear the same things – even if the Democrats win. because now the strain of mad vitriol that has been uncapped is our common property.

We can put the cap back, however.

We can do it by fixing a fundamentally damaged voting system. The system is damaged today – and has been for some time, as residents of Chicago and some precincts in Milwaukee know. And the rise of the clunky voting machines is about to make it whole lots worse.

I raise this issue not because I agree with RFK Jr. about much of anything, necessarily. But because I want to see a system where charges like the ones he is about to raise can be categorically proved – or disproved.

It’s a simple thing – an honest umpire – and one that we can and must demand. I’ll talk more about specifics over the next few days.

[Edited for clarity.]

I’ve always admired Greg Djerejian, over at Belgravia Dispatch. He’s intelligent, well-read, and thoughtful – qualities that are wider-spread than most of us fear but are still rare in the visible world of blogs and the media.

I’ve watched his change of heart about Iraq and worried, more than a little, over my own heart’s unwillingness to budge. I worry about that solidity, and about the fact that the events which drive him into what – for him – passes as vein straining paroxysms of rage only elicit a sad shake of the head when I read about them.

I’ve been amused at his attacks on the ‘six monthers‘ – those who think the next six months will see all as well. But then again, I’ve always been more of a ‘six yearer‘ myself. I do think, with some confidence, that the next six years will determine the outcome of this conflict.

In a way, I believe this because I think that the comic novels of George McDonald Frasier – the Flashman books – are closer to the truth of history than the neatly packaged, inevitable histories we all learned from and hang so much of our understanding – of ourselves and of others – upon. In the Flashman universe, incompetence, cowardice, and ignorance contest regularly with courage, skill and luck to decide the outcome of things. Frasier highlights the mess underneath the events we think we know, and in so doing renders them more real I’ll argue, than the historians who manage to edit it out.My professor Page Smith (famous for his book on chickens) wrote what is to me the best work of history that I know – his ‘People’s history ‘ of the Revolutionary War “A New Age Now Begins” (I sent my copy to the ITM brothers). What I love the most about this history is reading the contemporaneous accounts of the people who lived through the events and the sense of confusion, fear, and doubt that they felt and the overwhelming sense of contingency – of uncertainty about outcome – that they experienced.

Djerejian’s core position on Iraq today is best summed up, I think, by this paragraph from this post:

But, if you are like me, and you believe Baghdad is the strategic epicenter of Iraq, and that a Baghdad descending into Beirut like civil war means that the country will likely mostly disintegrate, then I’m afraid I am less optimistic than West. And so, again, on this Memorial Day, when we thank and remember the sacrifice of our troops over the decades, we must also ask, painful as it is, what precisely they are accomplishing at the present hour in Iraq? Yes, here and there they are making progress. Yes, they are staving off total anarchy. But, if you fear it’s a slow grind that we are losing, rather than winning, particularly given the continued lack of credible leadership at the Pentagon, the continued incorrectly placed concerns on ‘dependency’ theory, the continued dearth of troops, you must, at least to some extent if you are honest with yourself ponder, would it be worth my life (or the life of my son or daughter)? And the answer, it seems to me, is a very, very, very close call indeed.

We’re not clearly winning, so we must be losing. Boy, I’ve got to believe that sentiment would have made sense in the taverns of New England back in the day – but they pressed on regardless.

Why is the response to this uncertainty so different today? In no small part, I’ll suggest that it’s because of three things.

First, our sense of invulnerability. This was a war of choice, a war of revenge. We have nothing at stake, people would argue. We can’t really be harmed by our enemies. At worst, there is a kind of simple arithmetic (Greg again):

The bottom line is that more U.S. and Iraqi Army/Police forces (I’m not counting civilians, many of whom have died via generalized civil strife more than the insurgency, per se) have died since Cheney’s comment than perished on 9/11.

What’s really at stake there?

Greg goes on to discuss why it is that America is so badly regarded in the world today. He cites Roger Cohen in Times Select:

The image of the United States is in something close to a free fall.

There are lots of reasons, beginning with the fact that any elephant this big bestriding the world’s stage is going to irk people, especially when George W. Bush is riding it. But I suspect a basic cause is that in the 65-year period of 1941-2006, the United States has been at war in some form or another for all but 14 years.

There was World War II and then, after a two-year break, the Cold War, which ran until 1989, and then, after an interlude of a dozen years, the war on terror. These were different sorts of wars, of course, and among them were Korea and Vietnam. But somewhere along the way, most acutely in the past few years, people got tired.

They got tired of America’s insatiable need for an enemy; suspicious of the talk of freedom and democracy and morality in which every struggle was cast; forgetful of the liberty preserved by such might; alarmed at the American fear that appeared to fire American aggression; and disdainful of the distance between declarations and deeds.

In short they stopped buying the American narrative.

What’s missing from this, of course, is any sense of context at all for that narrative, any sense that – for example – there was an expansionist and brutal Soviet Union who would have gladly conquered all of Europe – and kept it conquered had we not opposed them. Or that there was a brutal China led my the mad, bad, and dangerous Mao Tse Tung who would have gladly enslaved all of Asia had we not opposed them. I’m more than a little puzzled by Greg’s failure to point out that gaping hole in Cohen’s logic.

So in that view, why is there war? Because America fights, of course.

I mentioned this in an email to neo-neocon:

I’ve thought for a while that this was a form (forgive me for stepping on your turf) of narcissism – they think that we (our culture, the West) are so powerful that we are, in effect, omnipotent. So of course we can get the bad guys without hurting them; of course we need rules to contain our strength. Because we’re so strong that everything that happens anywhere in the world is a reflection of something we do or have done.

And I do think it’s the strongest influence on our behavior and attitude toward this war. And, I believe that once it is gone – once the delusion of invulnerability slips away – we will be more brutal and bestial than the worst opponents of the wars today imagine us to be in their fevered dreams.

I’m reminded of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles – when my devoutly liberal friends suddenly spouted a core of racist invective and anger, and when they were enraged that I wouldn’t lend them guns because I thought they were unhinged with fear and rage.

Second, because we have no direct experience of loss. I’ve wondered how it is, isolated from the blood and meat of death, that we have become so fascinated with a pornography of violence in our arts. Things which were everyday to a farmer in the 18th century – privation, disease, death – the crushing hand of Necessity – are strangers to us. But not to most of the people in the world.

That means that we are shocked by it when we see it; we don’t accept it as a part of the natural context of life.

My father (as I’ve written) built high-rise buildings. Construction work – particularly heavy construction work – is dangerous. Height, tools, heavy steel, cranes lifting buckets of concrete all combine to make up a hostile environment to the unlucky or careless. I think there were seven or eight deaths on his jobs in his career. The days that happened were the lowest I ever saw him. Was it worth it? To build an apartment building for rich people or an office building for lawyers?

Would it be different if they’d fallen of a barn roof? Or been maimed by a thresher and bled to death in a field?

Bad things happen all the time as an inevitable part of the human condition; of society. Somewhere today in Iraq, a U.S. soldier is abusing an Iraqi. Somewhere in Iraq this month, a U.S. soldier is murdering an Iraqi (I’ll write about Haditha soon).

Do I forgive them and consider what they did understandable? No, of course not. They are vile criminals, and worse for being criminals in the uniform of our country. I think that our greatness as a society is that we self-correct better than any society that there has ever been.

Should we do it better? Of course we should.

Will we ever be perfect? Will we ever be able to point to anything we do, whether go to war, go to the moon, build a building, or cure a disease without waste, death, and folly? I know we won’t and I’ve got to believe that Greg does as well. Does that make those things not worth doing?

Which brings me to the final point, and to me the most frightening. It’s an adjunct to the first two, and simply put, it suggests that everything that happens isn’t really about the thing itself – the war in Iraq as an example – but it’s about us; how we feel about ourselves, who has political advantage, who profits and who loses in the courts of power, prestige and wealth.

I’m genuinely afraid that the ruling cohort, and those who enable it by participating in the political process, have so much lost touch with the realities that we face that they are incapable of looking at an issue like Iraq, or 9/11, or the economic straits we have spent and borrowed ourselves into as a nation except as a foothold in climbing over the person in front of them. I imagine a small table of gentlemen and -women, playing whist on a train as it heads out over a broken bridge. The game, of course maters more than anything, and the external events – they’re just an effort to distract they players from their hands.

For those who can’t get pun-ished enough, today’s “Get Fuzzy” is a new high low.

We can assume that Darby Conley is a Queen fan.

One and a half Feghoots.

As you’ll notice, we have changed out homepage and will shortly be changing our achive pages to allow us to run ads (our first go-round is with TribalFusion. We’ll see how that does and then look at alternatives if we’re unhappy).

Joe has stuck to running Winds as a labor of love – which I’ve also believed in – for some time. But hosting is starting to get expensive as our traffic grows, and the increasing maturity of the blogosphere suggests that it’s time to go selling out – and That’s Motivation.

A little birdie (actually an attractive, well-armed birdie) mentioned that Karpinski is on a college lecture tour as a part of a program put on by the “World Can’t Wait” folks – the ones whose tagline is ‘Drive Out The Bush Regime’.

If you go to their website, and then to the Speaking the Unspeakable: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity section, you’ll see that Karpinski spoke on April 26 at Harvard, on the 27th at MIT, on May 3 at Berkeley, the 4th at Stanford, May 9 at Northwestern, and will be speaking on May 18 at UCLA, along with

Larry Everest, a journalist and author of Oil, Power, and Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda. He has covered the Middle East and Central Asia for over 20 years for Revolution newspaper and other publications.

among others.

She’s a co-signer on the site of a petition (the whole thing, including the notables who signed it at below the fold) which pretty much takes on all the moonbat Hitler-simile talking points and is signed by everyone from Mumia to Cindy Sheehan to Susan Sarandon, with a few Democratic Congressmen thrown in for good measure (note that next time you argue that I’m unfairly linking Democrats to the lunatic fringes).

The main impact on Karpinski is, sadly that she’s blowing any chance to have herself taken seriously as a military critic or reformer by aligning herself with these folks. And that for skeptics like me, it’s easier to dismiss her claims as a part and parcel of a worldview that’s only loosely attached to any reality that I know. That’s a shame, because part of me does believe that there are some things that need reforming in the military, and we need brave – if sane – critics to stand up and lead the way.Here’s the petition:

Sign the Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime

Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn’t fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People look at all this and think of Hitler — and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Millions and millions are deeply disturbed and outraged by this. They recognize the need for a vehicle to express this outrage, yet they cannot find it; politics as usual cannot meet the enormity of the challenge, and people sense this.

There is not going to be some magical “pendulum swing.” People who steal elections and believe they’re on a “mission from God” will not go without a fight.

There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into “leaders” who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.

But silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn — or be forced — to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it.

And there is a way. We are talking about something on a scale that can really make a huge change in this country and in the world. We need more than fighting Bush’s outrages one at a time, constantly losing ground to the whole onslaught. We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime’s program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.

Acting in this way, we join with and give support and heart to people all over the globe who so urgently need and want this regime to be stopped.

This will not be easy. If we speak the truth, they will try to silence us. If we act, they will try to stop us. But we speak for the majority, here and around the world, and as we get this going we are going to reach out to the people who have been so badly fooled by Bush and we are NOT going to stop.

The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US.

The World Can’t Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime!

Sign the call now!

Co-signers include (heck, here’s the whole list – it defines the beating heart of the “Amerikka” crowd):

ACT UP, New York City

Mumia Abu-Jamal, political prisoner, journalist

Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid, mosque of Islamic Brotherhood; Justice Committee, Majlis Ash-Shura, NY

Pam Africa, Move Organization and International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal

After Downing Street Coalition

Vicente “Panama” Alba, Organizer, Laborers Union Local 108, New York

“Alberto Lovera” Bolivian Circle, New York

Aimee Allison, army conscientious objector (Gulf War

90)/counter-Recruiter

Tom Ammiano, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Anti-Flag

Aris Anagnos, Los Angeles

Arab American Community Coalition, Seattle Washington

Carlos Arango, director of Casa Aztlan*

Edward Asner

Asociacion Tepeyac de New York

Axis of Justice

Rosa Ayala, Justice for Janitors*

William Ayers, professor and author

Russell Banks, writer

Father Luis Barrios, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas, New York

Rev. Willie Barrow, Women Connecting*

Ed Begley Jr.

Harry Belafonte

Dave Berenson, Cleveland, OH, U.S. Green Party

Michael Berg, anti-war activist

Jessica Blank, writer, actor

Blase Bonpane, author

Bob Bossie, SCJ, 8th Day Center for Justice*

Father Roy Bourgeois, MM

St. Clair Bourne, film maker

Elombe Brath, Patrice Lumumba Coalition, NYC

Catharina Breinholm, musician (Nina Hagen)

Jane Bright, Co-founder, Gold Star Families for Peace

Carol Brightman, author, “Total Insecurity: The Myth of American Omnipotence”

Dennis Brutus

Gabriel Byrne, Actor

Campus Anti-War Network(CAN)

Tim Carpenter, Director, Progressive Democrats of America

Center for Constitutional Rights

Chicago ADAPT

CHOICE USA

Ward Churchill

Citizens For Legitimate Government

Kate Clinton, humorist

Clothing of American Mind

David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate

Code Pink: Women for Peace

Steve Colman, poet
John Conyers, US Representative

Carlos Cornier, percussionist, Funkadesi, Old Town School of Folk

Music

Barry Crimmins, writer/
correspondent, Air America Radio 

Culture Clash

Charles W. Dahm (Father Chuck), Pastor, St. Pius V, Chicago

Chris Daly, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Julie Delpy, Actress

DC Anti-War Network

Democrats.com

Carl Dix, Revolutionary Communist Party

Leonard “Len” Dominguez, Candidate for Cook County Commissioner, Illinois

Dominican Women’s Development Center, New York

Ariel Dorfman, writer

Tom Duane, NY State Senator

Michael Eric Dyson, author, “Is Bill Cosby Right?”

Steve Earle, musician

Niles Eldredge, curator of the Darwin Show at the Museum of Natural History, NYC

Edwin Ellis, President of Veterans for Peace, LA*

Daniel Ellsberg, author of “The Pentagon Papers”

Eve Ensler

Michelle Esrick, actress, poet, filmmaker

Donelle Estey, artist, Artists Against the War

Christian Ettinger, exec. prod. of film “The Weather Underground“

Jodie Evans, Code Pink

Nina Felshin, curator, writer

Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Rev. John Fife

Jane Fonda

Prof. Barbara Forrest, Southeastern Louisana University (testifed in Dover against intelligent design)

Michael Franti, musician

Aaron Freeman, comdian

Samina Faheem Fundas, American Muslim Voice*

reg e. gaines, poet, playwright

Martin Garbus, NYC

Deborah Glick, NY State Assemblywoman

Ted Glick, Climate Crisis Coalition

Global Justice and Peace Ministries, Riverside Church,

New York

Frances Goldin, literary agent

Sam Greenlee, poet

André Gregory, theater director

Andy Griggs, US Labor Against the War, Exec. Board of United Teachers of LA*

Jose Guerrero, artist and muralist, Chicago

Lawrence Guyot, former SNCC member and former Chairman of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party

Paul Haggis, Academy Award Winning Director/Writer of Crash, screenwriter of Million Dollar Baby

Haitian Coalition for Justice

Suheir Hammad, poet

Sam Hamill, Poets Against War

Kathleen Hanna, Le Tigre

David Harris, founder of The Resistance*, writer

Jon Hendricks, jazz singer/lyricist

Jon Hendricks, artist

Warren M. Hern, MD, MPH, PhD, Director, Boulder Abortion Clinic

Eric Hilton, Thievery Corporation

Hip Hop Caucus

Dorothy Hoobler, PEN

Marie Howe, poet and writer

Impeach Bush Coalition

Mesha Monge Irizarry, Idriss StelleyFoundation

Islamic Association of America

Abdeen Jabara, past president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee*

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson

Ron Jacobs, writer

Dahr Jamail, independent journalist

Pramila Jayapal, Executive Director, Hate Free Zone Washington

Alan Jones, Dean of Faculty at Pitzer College*

Bill T. Jones, dancer

Sarah Jones, poet and actor

Rickie Lee Jones, musician

Esther Kaplan, author of With God On Their Side

Janis Karpinski, Brig. General (retired)

Casey Kasem

M. Ali Khan, American Muslim Council

C. Clark Kissinger

Frances Kissling, President, Catholics for a Free Choice*

Yuri Kochiyama

Ron Kovic, author, Vietnam Veteran

Jonathan Kozol

Joyce Kozloff, artist

Jim Lafferty, Executive Director of the National Lawyer’s Guild of Los Angeles

Ray Laforest, organizer, DC 1707, AFSCME*; member, Pacifica National Board*

Beth Lamont

Jessica Lange

Lewis Lapham, former editor, Harper’s Magazine

Martha Lavey, Chicago

Mark Leno, California Assemblyman

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine

James Levin, co-director of Cleveland Festival of Arts & Technology (Ingenuity)

Simon Levy, director, “What I Heard About Iraq” at Fountain St. Theatre

Toby Devan Lewis

Bruce Lincoln, professor, History of Religions, University of Chicago

Margarita Lopez, New York City Council Member

Haki R. Madhubuti, chairman, publisher, Third World Press

Devorah major, poet & novelist

Make the Road by Walking, Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY

Mike Malloy, syndicated radio talk show host

Lucinda Marshall, Founder Feminist Peace Network*

Bill Martin, philosopher

Bill Martinez, Attorney, Producer

Father Matthius, Pastor, St. Pius V, Chicago

Malachy McCourt, actor & author

Rosie Mendez, New York City Council

Allen Michaan, owner, Grand Lake Theater, Oakland, CA

Cynthia McKinney, US Representative

Ellen McLaughlin, actress and playwright

Camilo Mejia, conscientious objector

Dave Meserve, Arcata California city council member

Carol Migden, CA State Senator

Carly Miller, Clothing of the American Mind

Mark Crispin Miller, author, “Fooled Again”

Alderman Joe Moore, Chicago’s City Council

Millions More Movement, Pittsburg /Antioch CA organizing committee

Bill Mitchell, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace*

Leon Mobley, musician

Tom Morello, Audioslave

Tracie Morris, poet

Andrew Muñana, Images Salón, East Los Angeles

Steve Murphy, editor of Tales of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Cecil Murray, Retired Minister First AME Church, Los Angeles

Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan

National Lawyers Guild
Armando Navarro, chair and professor, Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside

The Network in Solidarity with the People of the Philippines

Bill Nevins, teacher, Albuquerque

Northwestern College Feminists

Not in Our Name

Mike and Julie Nussbaum

Efia Nwangaza, director, African American Institute for Policy Studies, Greenville, SC

Brian O’Leary, PhD., author, former astronaut

Bertell Ollman, prof. Dept. of Politics, NYU

R. Tomás Olmos, President, Mexican American Bar Foundation, Los Angeles County*, Dean Emeritus, People’s College of Law*

Barbara Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights

E. Rendel T. Osburn, Southern Christian Leadership Foundation*

Outernational

Major Owens, 11th Congressional District, D-NY

Ozomatli

Jose Padilla*, executive director, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA)

Cristina Page, author of “How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America”

Grace Paley, writer

Patrick Henry Democratic Club

Harvey Pekar, American Splendor

Sean Penn

Bill Perkins, New York City Council

Rosalind Petchesky, prof., Hunter College & Grad. Center, CUNY

Peter Phillips PhD, Project Censored, Sociology Dept Sonoma State University

Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter, Bulworth

Harold Pinter, Nobel Prize winning playwright

Frances Fox Piven

Sterling Plumpp, poet

Kevin Powell, writer

Sr. Helen Prejean CSJ, Moratorium Campaign to End the Death Penalty*

Progressive Democrats of America

Francine Prose, novelist

Puerto Rican Nationalist Party – New York Branch

Queers for Economic Justice

Jerry Quickley, poet and playwright

Malik Rahim, New Orleans Community Organizer

Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*

Reach Hip Hop Coalition

Raghava Reddy, stem cell biologist, biomedical scientist, film maker

Maggie Renzi, filmmaker

Eric Resnick, Gay People’s Chronicle* reporter, peace activist, one time candidate for US Congress

Allan Rich, screenwriter/actor

Boots Riley, The Coup

Walter Riley, lawyer

Dennis Rivera, President of Local 1199 SEIU

Joshua Rosenblum, Composer/ Director of Bush is Bad

Mark Ruffalo, actor

Bobby Rush, US Representative, Chicago

Douglas Rushkoff, author

Kalamu ya Salaam, Listen to the People

Angelica Salas, executive director, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles*

JD Samson, Le Tigre

Sonia Sanchez

Rev. Henry Sanders, Fountain of Life Missionary Baptist Church, Watts, CA

San Francisco Bayview Newspaper

Sapphire, poet, writer

Sheley Secrest, Attorney, President NAACP Seattle-King County Branch

Susan Sarandon

John Sayles, filmmaker

Rinku Sen, Colorlines*

Richard Serra, artist

Rev. Al Sharpton

Lou Shaw, writer, creator of Quincy MD

Cindy Sheehan

Martin Sheen

Stanley Sheinbaum, economist, LA

Nancy Spero, artist

Dona Spring, Berkeley Council member

Gloria Steinem

Malcolm Suber, People’s Hurricane Relief Fund*

Serj Tankian System of a Down

Sunsara Taylor, Revolution newspaper

Studs Terkel

Marianne Torres, Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane*

Dwight Trible, jazz vocalist

George Tuttle & Ben Cushman, grapegrowers

Gore Vidal, writer

Kurt Vonnegut

Alice Walker

Maxine Waters, US Representative

Wavy Gravy

Leonard Weinglass, lawyer

Rev. Dave Weissbard, senior minister, The Unitarian Universalist Church, Rockford, IL

Cornel West, Princeton University

Rev. Phil Wheaton, Episcopal Co-pastor, Community of Christ, Washington DC

Joan Wile, Director, Grandmothers Against the War

Saul Williams, poet

Standish E. Willis, National Conference of Black Lawyers

S. Brian Willson. Veterans for Peace

Krzysztof Wodiczko, artist

Ann Wright, former US diplomat, resigned in protest of Iraq war

Daphne Wysham, Institute for Policy Studies

Leland Y. Yee, Speaker pro Tem, California State Assembly

Juanita Young, courageous resister, leader in October 22nd Coalition*

Dr. Quentin Young, Health and Medicine Policy Research Group*

Dave Zeiger, filmmaker, “Sir, No, Sir!”

Zephyr, graffiti artist, writer

Robert Zevin, Robert Brooke Zevin Associates, Inc.

Howard Zinn, historian, “A Peoples’ History of the United States

David Zirin, author, “What’s My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States

*Organization for identification purposes only.

Click here to view full list of signatories. 

So, a whole bunch of people have pointed out to me that the IG investigation document I linked to in the Karpinski post was marked “Secret/No Foreign”, implying that putting it up on whe Web is a Bad Thing.

As a reminder, I didn’t put it on the web, I just found it on the NPR.org site using Google. Given that, I’m inclined to say that the barn door is open, and the horse has left. I’m interested in what other folks think I should do.

I have written NPR to ask if they are aware that their copy is classified, and I’m looking for someone to contact at the Army to mention it as well.

I’ll keep people posted, and as I find out more. I may well pull the article if the approproate folks feel I should.

And if you of you know a name in the Army I can contact to discuss this, I’d love to get it – in an email, please.

Speaking of Iran, check out this article in Opinion Journal which analyzes Libya’s surrender of it’s nuclear weapons program.

How and why did Col. Gadhafi, the despotic, still dangerously capricious leader, decide to abandon a lifetime of revolution and terrorism and abandon the WMD programs he had pursued since seizing power in a coup in 1969? What role did American intelligence play in that decision? And how much change can Col. Gadhafi tolerate and still retain power?

Col. Gadhafi’s hip, 34-year-old son, Saif-al-Islam, told me in Vienna–where he earned an M.B.A. and lives when he’s not carrying out tasks for his father, or studying for a doctorate in political philosophy at the London School of Economics–that his father changed course because he had to. “Overnight we found ourselves in a different world,” said Saif, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks. “So Libya had to redesign its policies to cope with these new realities.”

But a review of confidential government records and interviews with current and former officials in London, Tripoli, Vienna and Washington suggest that other factors were involved. Prominent among them is a heretofore undisclosed intelligence coup–the administration’s decision in late 2003 to give Libyan officials a compact disc containing intercepts of a conversation about Libya’s nuclear weapons program between Libya’s nuclear chief and A.Q. Khan–that reinforced Col. Gadhafi’s decision to reverse course on WMD.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

(h/t Ann Althouse)