dswanson's blog

By David Swanson

FACT CHECK: Is Iraq combat really over for US?
By CALVIN WOODWARD and ROBERT BURNS (AP)
WASHINGTON — Despite President Barack Obama's declaration Tuesday of an end to the combat mission in Iraq, combat almost certainly lies ahead. And in asserting the U.S. has met its responsibilities in Iraq, the president opened the door wide to a debate about the meaning of success in the muddle that most — but not all — American troops are leaving behind. A look at some of the statements Obama made in his Oval Office speech and how they compare with the facts:

___

OBAMA: "Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended."

By David Swanson

Lies aren't used just to start wars, but also to escalate them, continue them, and even reduce or end them. And we got a pile of war lies from the president Tuesday evening.

Obama claimed the war on Iraq was initially a war to disarm a state. Really? And then "terrorist" Iraqis attacked our troops in their country. Yet if they had done that in our country, I suspect they would still be the terrorists. And then it became a civil war which we were innocently caught up in. Uh huh.

From Gorilla Radio

By David Swanson

This coming March 19th we'll have two occasions to mark. One will be the start of the ninth year of occupying Iraq. And, if my math is correct, within a few days of that anniversary we'll reach the point at which the Democratic House of Representatives and Senate have funded more days of occupying Iraq than those chambers did when they had a Republican majority. In funding days of occupying Afghanistan, the Democrats already have a big lead in the Senate but trail far behind in the House.

Here's something I wrote in December 2008, with an update below:

2009: Year of the Filibuster

By David Swanson

As news stories are leading those still aware of the war on Iraq to believe it's over, it was encouraging to see Busboys and Poets restaurant in Washington, D.C., packed Sunday evening for a four-hour forum on actions needed to actually end that war, make reparations, and deter future wars of aggression. The event was advertised with the following description:

By David Swanson

Pretending to end a war and occupation, while stationing 50,000 soldiers, 18,000 mercenaries, and 84,000 support contractors in massive and permanent military bases in Iraq is a far cry from what candidate Barack Obama described as ending "the mind-set that got us into war in the first place." It fits better with Nobel Peace laureate Obama's description of war as "not only necessary but morally justified."

By LISA PROVENCE, The Hook

It's not too hard to pick out David Swanson's house. That would be the one with the "Wage Peace" and "End the War Now" signs in the front yard.

On his website, there's a picture of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and in the background there's Swanson, holding a small pink sign that reads, "Torture is Illegal."

Other places you might have run into David Swanson: Protesting former President George Bush at Monticello. Protesting "torture memo" author John Yoo at the Miller Center. Protesting a Congressional vote to spend an additional $33 billion in Afghan war spending at U.S. Representative Tom Perriello's office.

By David Swanson

I expected to be disappointed by "Green Zone". I mean the movie, not the chunk of Baghdad we've spent seven years and trillions of dollars killing over a million people to steal for an "embassy" containing 21 buildings on 104 acres. I'd been told that this movie was Matt Damon actually following the guidance of his teacher Howard Zinn. I'd been told this was a movie to expose the war lies. I remained dubious.

And then I finally got a chance to see it.

By David Swanson

If I'm going to properly confess my sins, I'll need to start at the beginning. In the beginning were the campaign promises, and let's just say that only flies and loyal partisans could stand the smell of them.

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." Thus spoke candidate Obama, and he hit the same theme over and over again at countless campaign events.

By David Swanson

Andrew Bacevich's new book, "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War," is a good summary of the past 65 years' worth of war thinking in Washington, D.C. "Prior to World War II," he writes, "Americans by and large viewed military power and institutions with skepticism, if not outright hostility. In the wake of World War II, that changed. An affinity for military might emerged as central to the American identity." For the past 65 years or so, Bacevich writes, these beliefs have been Washington's "sacred trinity":

By David Swanson

Michael Pertschuk's new book "The DeMarco Factor" is a guide to political activism in the form of a chronicle of the work of one man, Vincent DeMarco. A lot of people may never have heard of him, especially if you're not from Maryland, but DeMarco led campaigns over the past 20 years that successfully passed legislation in Maryland strengthening gun control despite the opposition of the NRA, raising taxes on cigarettes despite the opposition of big tobacco, and providing more people with healthcare despite the vicious opposition to that agenda we should all be familiar with. The strategies employed are worth examining.

If it's August, 2010, I'm writing a book. See you in September.

The United States today may be the planet's greatest ever war maker, but the wars are fought, the bases maintained, and the weapons manufactured against the will of the majority of U.S. citizens. We express our opposition to wars openly in ways that could not be done at all until around 1880, and in so doing we almost certainly prevent more war making and limit the tactics our government can employ. In fact, if wars were still fought in the way the U.S. Civil War was fought, with armies on battlefields, we would probably have ended war forever some generations back.

By David Swanson

The DISCLOSE Act, a bill passed by the House that would regulate corporate election spending was blocked in the Senate on Thursday by a filibuster -- momentum is building to eliminate that anti-democratic tool.

And momentum is building, as well, for reforms of our campaign finance system that go beyond what the DISCLOSE Act would do. On Tuesday, Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, proposed a new Constitutional Amendment that he described as a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case earlier this year. That ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited money from their general funds to elect or defeat political candidates.

By David Swanson

On Tuesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill already passed by the Senate that funds a $33 billion, 30,000-troop escalation in Afghanistan. The vote was 308 to 114. What could the good news possibly be?

By David Swanson

To hear some activist bloggers, we only lobby because we are sure of swift victory or want to express our inner feelings. I think that neglects the most significant and effective strategy for lobbying: Pressuring Congress in order to produce a record of who stands where under pressure in order to use that for and against candidates in the next election and then come back and win. We need people on record. And, yes, we have to unelect the ones on record for the wrong thing, even if they belong to the better of the corporate militarized Parties. Otherwise, what are we doing?

The most likely mechanism through which public pressure will end wars is House votes against funding, but that doesn't mean we'll win immediately, any more than we pass the rhetorical timetable stuff immediately or expect the Senate and President ever to approve of it. When the House ends funding, we won't need the Senate or the President.

By David Swanson

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is the latest in a series of major newspapers around the country that have announced a partnership with a group called PolitiFact which will aid them in the innovative practice of letting readers know whether statements made by politicians are true or not. Here's last Sunday's front page announcement:

Ninety congressional candidates and 31 national organizations are opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter what unrelated measures are packaged into the same bill, what amendments are offered, or whether the vote is a "procedural vote."

The 90 candidates are from 27 states and Washington, D.C., and include 29 Greens, 24 Libertarians, 22 Democrats, 5 Independent Greens, 4 Independents, 4 Peace and Freedom, 1 Republican, and 1 Socialist.  Seventy-eight are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and 12 for the Senate.

Here's where the hypocrisy hits the highway.  On July 1st, 162 congress members voted to require a withdrawal plan and end date for the occupation of Afghanistan, and 100 voted to fund only withdrawal, no continuation of war, while 25 voted to simply stop dumping any money into this war. 

Now all of them must vote yes or no, probably on Tuesday, on whether to fund a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan.  You won't hear anyone mention it, but this $33 billion is to add 30,000 troops plus contractors to the war.