United for Peace and Justice/NYC Alert

www.unitedforpeace.org | 212-868-5545 | Click to subscribe

Please forward widely!

Bring NYC out on Jan. 27-29!

City-Wide Mobilizing Meeting
Tues, Dec. 12, 6:30 p.m.
UFPJ Office, 261 W 36th. St, bet. 7th & 8th Aves (Use Freight Elevator)

On Jan. 27, we will come together from all over the country in a massive march in Washington, D.C. to send a strong, clear message to the new Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country voted to end the war in Iraq and to bring the troops brought home now!

On Jan. 29 we will flood the halls of Congress to express support for those who are prepared to take immediate action against the war; to pressure those who are hesitant to act; and to speak out against those who remain tied to a failed policy.

We need your help to get the word out in NYC- to get people on the buses from every borough and all the surrounding areas! Come out on Tuesday, Dec. 12 to find out how you can get involved! Pick up fliers and bus tickets. Sign up to go leafleting at events and in busy areas of the city.

Also, please consider making a generous donation today. We need to pay the bus company a deposit of $33,000 by the end of this month! And we need funds to print leaflets, stickers and posters. Make a donation here.

    December 5, 2006 #49

A gift donation this holiday season?

Not in Our Name would like to thank those of you who contributed to our fall fund drive. Thanks to your generous donations, we are on our way to raising the funds that enable us to continue our important work. As we head into 2007, we will need the help of every one of our friends and supporters to:

Demand an immediate end to war and occupation
Out of Iraq now!

Over 600,000 Iraqis are dead. The rest are living without access to basic essentials like access to health care, basic utilities and clean water. Even the mainstream media has acknowledged that a civil war is raging, and US officials admit there is no military solution. Recent polls show that over 80% of Iraqis want the occupying forces to leave. Still, the politicians squabble over timetables and an "honorable" way to leave. Help us demand an immediate exit from Iraq now, and an end of war on all the people of the Middle East.

Support military resisters

Help us continue to support those in the military who refuse to participate in the illegal war and occupation of Iraq. This Friday through Sunday, Not in Our Name is a participating in a weekend of support for military resisters (more information below). On February 5th, Lt. Ehren Watada will face a court martial for courageously refusing to take part in the illegal and immoral war. From the beginning, Not in Our Name has provided crucial support for the soldiers that refuse to fight. Help us help them.

Fight police state restrictions and attacks on immigrants

The recently enacted Military Commissions Act legalizes the brutal legacy of torture, illegal detentions, and spying on peaceful dissidents carried out by our government, in our names. A group of Imams are detained and prohibited from flying for praying in an airport. A new, "permanent" detention facility is being planned for Guantanamo. We continue to provide education and encourage action against these and other attacks on our freedoms.

Demand that all politicians listen to the people

The recent elections have shown that the people are fed up with the direction our government is taking. Still, without pressure from us, politicians will not consider impeachment or overturn the draconian laws that erode our civil liberties. They will continue to provide funding for the war while tens of thousands more die each month ("On the outcome of the midterm elections"). Not in Our Name Activists will be traveling to DC to participate in creative and forceful actions to demand that our voices be heard.

As a grassroots project, we can't do any of this without your help. Unlike some organizations, we don't have full-time staff or fundraising professionals. Your contributions go directly to organizing expenses, educational materials, and support for our network of volunteer activists around the country. Please take a moment and donate whatever you can. We deeply appreciate your support.

We pledge resistance!

Support GI Resistance and GI Rights December 8-10

Join resisters, their families, veterans and friends taking public action

"From the very beginning, when my son Ehren bravely spoke out and stood up against the illegal war in Iraq, Not in Our Name has been extremely helpful and very supportive. With his military trial coming up, we need more people to stand up for Ehren and against the war. No illegal war or prosecution of courageous resisters. Not in our name!" – Robert Watada father of Iraq War resister U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada

It's time for us to escalate public pressure and action in support of the growing movement of thousands of courageous men and women GI's who have in many different ways followed the their conscience, upholding international law, taking a principled stand against unjust, illegal war and occupation and stood up for their rights. Widespread public support and pressure will help create true support for courageous troops facing isolation and repression, and help protect their civil liberties and human rights.  We call for the  following:

• Support for War Objectors
• Protect the Right to Conscientious Objection
• Protect the Liberties & Human Rights of GI's
• Sanctuary for War Objectors

We urge you to join us December 8-10th for a weekend of action in support of GI Resistance and GI Rights!

For more information:
www.CourageToResist.org

A few of the resisters facing military trials:
Suzanne Swift (Jan 8)
Lt. Ehren Watada (Feb 5)
Kyle Snyder
Ivan Brobeck
Agustin Aguayo

New at notinourname.net

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3012

Media Advisory

Withdrawing From Debate on Iraq
Public's view too 'extreme' for media discussion

12/4/06

The forthcoming report from the independent Iraq Study Group, which according to press reports will possibly recommend a gradual and tentative withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq while rejecting any deadlines or timetables to carry it out, seems likely to further marginalize advocates of meaningful troop withdrawal in the media debate over Iraq.

The group, led by Bush family friend and ally James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, will reportedly recommend a staged pullback of troops, with further withdrawal dependent on certain advances by the Iraqi government. The group apparently rejected any firm timetables. But as Time magazine notes this week (12/11/06), the commission's report will likely dominate media discussion of Iraq, with "several days of nonstop interviews on every media outlet, network and cable-TV station—a media blitz that will run well into the Sunday-morning news programs."

That "media blitz" seems more likely to embrace the narrow range of debate among elites than the sentiments of the public. According to the 2006 exit polls, 55 percent of voters prefer that the U.S. withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a finding consistent with other major opinion polls. And a recent Pew poll (11/9-12/06) found that respondents who favored a timetable outnumbered those opposed by 56 percent to 36 percent.

Immediately following the midterm elections, though, many in the media sought to eliminate the prospect of troop withdrawal from serious discussion. The Washington Post's editorial page (11/14/06) weighed in against Rep. John Murtha's bid to become majority leader, claiming that Murtha's call for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq is "an extreme step that most congressional Democrats oppose." That is hard to square with the fact that about half the Democrats in Congress have co-sponsored Murtha's resolution (ThinkProgress, 11/14/06).

The next day, the New York Times front-paged a story by reporter Michael Gordon headlined, "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say." The Times relied on three "experts" to challenge Democrats' call for troop withdrawal: former military officers Anthony Zinni and John Batiste, who call for additional troops in Iraq, and Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution, who was one of the most forceful pre-invasion proponents of the Iraq War.

That evening, the Times' Gordon was backing the opinions of those sources, telling CNN's Anderson Cooper that "while the politicians in the United States would like to see a withdrawal of forces, particularly on the Democratic side, that's simply not realistic given how precarious the security situation is at this point in time." Gordon went on to claim that "it's just the American military that stands between Iraq and civil war at this point. And, in that context, you can't withdraw a lot of troops."

Gordon criticized Democrats who are calling for withdrawal "because there are a significant number of players in Baghdad today who don't mind if the Americans withdraw. These are the militia leaders. They would be happy if the United States withdrew, because, then, they can go and carry out their ethnic cleansing campaign against the Sunnis." Gordon is wrong to suggest that the Iraqis who favor U.S. withdrawal from their country are just the "militia leaders." A recent poll of the Iraqi public (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 9/27/06) found that 7 in 10 Iraqis favored troop withdrawal.

Nonetheless, many reporters echo the White House in denouncing troop withdrawal as misguided. NBC reporter Norah O'Donnell derided pro-withdrawal Democrats on the Chris Matthews Show (11/26/06), saying that

the problem for the Democrats once again is they wind up, even though they were validated somewhat in the message by this elections, they wind up looking weak on national security, because what they're proposing is essentially a pull-out in four to six months. There is not one military or foreign policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that, and second, that it would be a good idea. So why are they proposing that?

O'Donnell's ignorance of the wide variety of military and foreign policy experts who support withdrawal from Iraq calls into question her competence to report on the issue. Retired general William Odom, who was the head of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan, supports troop withdrawal from Iraq, as do former CIA director John Deutsch and conservative Boston University military historian Andrew J. Bacevich (Washington Post, 8/21/05). Former Democratic presidential candidate and Sen. George McGovern and former State Department official William Polk have co-authored a recent book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. Historian Howard Zinn and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg are just two of the many progressive experts who have consistently opposed the presence of U.S. troops in—but as blogger Glenn Greenwald has noted (12/1/06), having been right in the first place about the likely effects of a U.S. invasion of Iraq practically disqualifies one from participation in the mainstream media debate.

Time magazine's senior international correspondent Aparisim Ghosh argued against U.S troop withdrawal (12/11/06) in favor of, among other things, "30,000 more coalition soldiers and a real willingness to thrash the Shi'ite militias, something they've avoided so far," a process that "may take five more years. But if the U.S. leaves sooner, Iraq will devolve into an even bigger mess." Speaking of military and foreign policy experts, it's not clear how many would see a declaration of war against the Shi'ite majority's militias would accomplish anything beyond increasing the 62 percent of Shi'ite Iraqis who already approve of attacks on U.S. forces (PIPA, 9/27/06).

Leaks to the media about the Iraq Study Group's likely conclusions seemed to only contribute to a narrowing of the media discussion. A December 1 New York Times "News Analysis," headlined "Idea of Rapid Withdrawal From Iraq Seems to Fade," was emblematic, reporting that "the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option." Why this might be so is hard to determine from the Times; reporter David Sanger only noted that Democrats "with an eye toward 2008, have dropped talk of a race for the exits, in favor of a brisk stroll." Sanger went on to claim that the "debate in Washington and much of the country" has rejected the White House's stay-the-course policy in favor of "renewed efforts to prepare the Iraqi forces while preparing to pull American combat brigades back to their bases, or back home, sometime next year."

While Sanger attributed this position to "much of the country," opinion polls would seem to show much more willingness on the part of the public to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq sooner than pundits and politicians would like. A recent Pew survey found 48 percent support for bringing troops home "as soon as possible," compared to 46 percent support for staying "until the situation has stabilized." Similarly, the same survey found much more concern for staying in Iraq too long (55 percent) than in leaving too early (33 percent).

On November 20, the PBS NewsHour With Jim Lehrer analyzed the debate over withdrawal from Iraq. A taped report skewed heavily towards pro-war views: It featured George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), along with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and U.S. military commander John Abizaid; Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was the lone supporter of a phased withdrawal from Iraq. The debate that followed was introduced by Lehrer as "our own version of the debate, two men who've advised President Bush on Iraq policy this year." Neither guest—Fred Kagan from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and Michael Vickers of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments—advocated withdrawal; Kagan favored troop increases, while Vickers mostly parried, saying we don't have enough troops to send more. To get a wider range of discussion, the NewsHour probably would have had to go outside the small circle of former Bush advisers.

And ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson hosted a roundtable on November 29 with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former adviser to George W. Bush. Two of the guests—Keane and Haass—tentatively supported troop increases, an idea that has little public support. Asked about discussion of troop withdrawals, Keane called it "defeat," leading Gibson to declare, "Bottom line, there is no good option."

Whatever the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, their report presents an opportunity for the press to engage in a more wide-ranging debate on Iraq policy—not just a chance to further restrict debate over the most important issue of our time.

December 4 , 2006

Take Action Today!

Join thousands across the country in a National Call in Day to hold Congress accountable to the Mandate for Peace: Tel. 202-224-3121 Congressional Switchboard

Call your Representative and Senators and tell them: "The voters issued a Mandate for Peace! That means, bring the troops home now!"

Members of Congress return to Washington on Monday, December 4. Let's greet them with a flood of phone calls, because, as incredible as it may seem, many still don't get that the troops need to come home from Iraq. Since the elections, the carnage in Iraq has only gotten worse. Our 140,000 troops in Iraq are unable to stop the ever deepening spiral of violence. In the last week we have witnessed the bloodiest attacks since the U.S. invasion almost 4 years ago. Yet congress and the administration sit and wait... for the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, for the Pentagon study group report, the White House study group -- for anything they can hide behind. On November 7, the people gave Congress a mandate for peace. Congress has the power to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq -- they control the purse strings and can stop this war -- and if it fails to do so, we will hold them responsible for the continued violence in Iraq.

Call your Representative and both Senators tell them: "I insist that Congress act immediately to bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq NOW! The Congress has the power end this occupation. Use your power or you will be held responsible for the continuation of this war."

Call the Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121, or call your Representative and Senators in their district offices. You can find out who your Representative and Senators are and also look up their district office phone numbers here.

Please make 3 phone calls: to your Representative and to each of your Senators.

Background: The United States has now been engaged in Iraq for longer than our engagement in WWII. Violence in Iraq has again spiked to ever-higher levels. It is impossible to say how many Iraqis have died during the war and occupation, but Johns Hopkins University estimates 650,000. We know that over 2,890 U.S. troops have died, over 21,000 have been maimed or wounded and over 9,500 have deserted. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to end this war through the power of the purse. Sen. Robert Byrd has described this as "the fulcrum of the people's leverage...to shackle the hands of an overreaching chief executive." Congress must use this leverage to bring occupation of Iraq to an end. For more information about the Mandate for Peace campaign, a joint effort of dozens of peace and community groups, click here.

Working together we will end to the US occupation in Iraq and bring our troops home.
Please call TODAY!

Andrea, Anedra, Dana, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Jodie, Laura, Liz, Medea, Nancy, Patricia, Rae, Samantha, and Sonia

P.S. Keep up the pressure. On January 27, 2007, we will converge from all around the country for a massive march on Washington, D.C. Make your travel plans now to join CODEPINK and thousands of others to demand that the new Congress take immediate action to end the occupation. If you're flying to Washington, be sure to support our movement by booking your flight through CODEPINK.

To unsubscribe click here