Alex Cornell du Houx, a friend of Campus Progress, an Iraq War veteran, a graduate of Bowdoin College in Maine, and an outspoken leader for progressive causes, has just been featured in Newsweek Magazine.
He has spoken at the last two Iraq Action Camps sponsored by Campus Progress, and the students in attendance loved his passion and frankness when speaking about his experiences serving as a Marine in Iraq.
Read his story and watch a video here. We're thrilled that he's continuing his activism and getting recognized for it.
Get involved in our Iraq Campaign to bring a safe end to this war by clicking here.
Anti-war leaders have bemoaned the current scarce coverage of the war in Iraq. The war is finally back in the headlines, so it’s a great chance for young people to make sure that they are part of the discussion.
Since the earliest days of this administration, Young America’s Foundation has been reaching out to encourage strict enforcement of the Solomon amendment, in order to improve opportunities for students to serve their country and to force an accounting of institutions hostile to our military.
The Solomon amendment is the reason why schools and universities throughout the nation are forced to violate their non-discrimination policies at job fairs by allowing branches of the military to participate. Blockading military tables at job fairs has nothing to do with blocking opportunities for students to serve. It is about ending discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policies, it is about changing a system that deceives young people into going to war, and it is about protesting an unfair and illegal war.
In both the US and Iraq there are efforts to get more Iraqi students to American universities.
In the states, educators have been working with their counterparts in Syria to help relocate students. NPR reports that they have formed the “Iraqi Student Project,” in which fourteen universities are currently participating. It sounds like they are doing good work:
…program coordinators visit promising applicants in their homes for personal interviews. Students are selected after further review of their academic performance and grasp of English; then, they spend time working with tutors on their English and other skills. Students then apply to participating American schools that offer programs in their major fields of interest.
Students from the Campus Anti-War Network and other groups helped to pass a referendum at UW-Madison that would raise money from student fees to help bring Iraqi students to campus. Apparently, it wasn’t too hard (so you should do it too!):
“It was actually a lot easier than I thought it was. I wasn’t expecting people to be as supportive of this as they were,” said Wustmann, who was heavily involved in collecting signatures. “Some reactions were so enthusiastic, like ‘how can I help this? It’s such a great idea.’”
Sure, he doesn't come out and say it directly, but you and I know that John McCain represents the veterans of America - and that, by default of his service, McCain is hailed as an American hero, and therefore, by some faulty logic, also a foreigncy policy wonk. I am here to tell you that neither does McCain represent veterans, nor is he a foreign policy wonk.
Without endorsing any candidate, I'd like to point out that whoever is pitted against McCain will be painted as one without military service or experience, and that someone, McCain looks like a better choice for America, at a time of war, than the other two. Not true.
While we are thankful for McCain's service, the fact of the matter is that bad foreign policy is bad foreign policy, whether proposed by a hero like McCain, or someone who thought too highly of himself to go to Iraq, like our current president.
This isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of ideologies, and whether McCain - for all his claims of loving America and the military - is actually going to make a good commander in chief. From his actions and the way he approaches many military issues, McCain most certainly is not.
Think of the veterans benefit package past by Congress this week and ask yourself whether McCain supported it? He did not. The package, much like many other packages aimed at helping veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was proposed by a freshman senator from Virginia, not a seasoned military veteran who claimed he is good America. Much like the Bush Administration, McCain's claims of a "thankful nation" and "support the troops" are merely lip service. While he'll readily send young Americans to foreign nations based on failed foreign policy assesments, he is not ready to help those young Americans when they get home and become veterans.
So, on this Memorial Day, if you do see McCain make a speech - just remember that actions speak louder than words. Actions mean learning from our mistakes of past wars, and continiuing to support the military women and men who come home from the war injured and displaced. McCain, much like Bush, is not doing that.
McCain supporters have painted his opponents as inexperienced and fresh and bound to make mistakes. But honestly, after eight years of the Bush Administration, I am ready to make new mistakes. With McCain, it'll be simply making the old mistakes over and over again. Aside from their military service, there isn't a damn thing different between McCain and Bush.
Tomorrow - we talk the college culture of data rape and construction of masculinity as well as feminism. The day after that we talk young voters and the issues they're concerned about in this election.
It is now their war. Iraq has been and will be the war of every Senator and Representative who funds the madness.
Over four thousand U.S. troops have been killed in battle in Iraq. Ten times that number have major injuries. Sixty thousand have post traumatic stress disorder. Suicides among veterans are at an epidemic rate, 18 per day, particularly for those who have served in combat.Over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the lawlessness and unrest due to the Bush-Cheney invasion. There are five million Iraqi orphans. "Before it's over," the war will cost three trillion dollars, but there's no end in sight Read More »
This Thursday, May 1st, is the 5th anniversary of President Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. On this day in 2003, he stated that all major combat operations had ended and that our goals had been achieved.
General David Petraeus, the man commanding the Iraq War, called Tuesday for an open-ended suspension of the United States withdrawals this summer, arguing that an immediate withdrawal would destroy security “gains,” according to the Associated Press.
Gen. Petraeus told a Senate committee that he recommends a “45-day period of consolidation and evaluation.” This will happen once the extra combat forces that President Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus described the security situation in Iraq as improved since he last appeared before Congress this past September. President Bush is expected to accept Petraeus’ recommendation.
It bothers me slightly that Gen. Petraeus understands that we are in a predicament and will “pause” our mission in Iraq, but will not pull our troops out. I will honestly admit, it is an idealistic thought to want ALL of the troops withdrawn. In a perfect world, I would want this to happen as well. However, since we do not live in a perfect world, the best method is to withdraw troops in increments. Instead of taking this pause, I wish we could somehow admit that we went into this war for essentially no reason. Oh yes, I forgot, it was to fight the evil terrorists. Either way, I hope this means the United States are a step closer to realizing that we lost 4,000 troops for nothing.
Obviously, Bush Administration officials were outraged and called KBR to account. Demanded answers. Threatened to revoke their contract.
Well…not exactly. Instead, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell found humor in the accusations, joking that in Iraq “they make it perfectly clear that you don't want to drink the water” and the troops “should read the signs and just drink bottled water.”
Except the troops didn't drink KBR's water. They got sick because they used it to take showers and do their laundry.
Once again, the Bush Administration refuses to hold KBR accountable -- whether it's for covering up the rape of an employee, evading taxes through offshore subsidiaries, or sickening the troops they're supposed to serve. I suppose this is what passes for national security when we hand power to people who combine their faith in war as the answer with their belief that what's good for business is good for America.
Berkeley, Calif. has been flooded with pro-military and anti-war demonstrators after the city council voted to ban Marine recruiters from the city.
CNN is reporting that over 300 protestors have been there since sunrise and that the protests might culminate in a "showdown" when the city council reconvenes to discuss whether or not to rescind their decision.
More information on the protest and pictures, as well as more information about the city council’s original decision, can be found at the source.
Edited to add this little gem:
"Their treasonous action, especially at this time of war right now, is not acceptable," said Mary Pearson, a spokeswoman for the group Move America Forward.
According to an AFP article, A pipe blockage in Iraq means sewage is forming a foul lake so large it can be seen "as a big black spot on Google Earth." Read More »
One of the resolutions that got killed Saturday was the one that would have put a referendum on Iraq on the primary ballot. This was the second round in the fight to get the Iraq referendum on the ballot. The Iraq referendum resolution had already passed the Resolutions Committee at the last SDEC meeting a few months ago and it was even brought up to the full SDEC meeting back then. It would have passed the full SDEC then, but it was unnecessarily tabled at that earlier meeting because party leaders were ignorant of the Texas statute that allowed the SDEC to put referendums on the ballot. They had to go look up the statute after the meeting and then found out that the grassroots activists were right and the SDEC could put referendums on the ballot just by a vote of the SDEC. It is unbelievable that the party tabled the proposal on such a lame motion. The parliamentarian or the person chairing the meeting should have been aware of the rules and allowed a vote on the resolution. Such ignorance of the rules is a joke. We need to elect party leaders at the next convention who have a basic understanding of state laws pertaining to party business.
Thanks to the undemocratic refusal of party insiders to allow a vote, the resolution failed to pass a second time last weekend. So now there will be no referendum on Iraq on the Texas Democratic Party ballot. I wanted to find out what happened, so tonight I called a few people on the phone. Madeleine Dewar, a member of the SDEC and one of the official sponsors of the Vote Us Out of Iraq resolution, called the meeting a "disaster" and said that she had the thirty two votes needed to pass the resolution in advance of the meeting. Scott Cobb, who initiated the campaign, last summer to get the referendum on the ballot said: "In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that had passed the California legislature on Aug 31 to put a referendum on Iraq on the ballot in California. The Texas Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself for acting like Schwarzenegger and preventing a referendum on Iraq from being on the ballot." Read More »
Though it may not be much of a cinematic accomplishment (considering it was directed by Mike Nichols and features Philip Seymour Hoffman in a prominent role) Charlie Wilson's War makes a much needed statement about American foreign policy. Read More »
In response to Tanya' query, I think that Santa Barbara's anti war resolution is at best meaningless, and at worse counter productive. While it's true that the war affects local politics, it's untrue that local politics, specifically the passing of resolutions, has any affect on the course of the war. If a Democratic majority in Congress can't end the war, then the Santa Barbara City Council doesn't have much of a chance. What the Santa Barbara City Council can do is waste its time and distract their constituents from problems that they have the mandate and ability to address -- like, say, violence in Santa Barbara.
My antipathy towards these types of resolution comes from close to home. Though I don't live in the People's Republic of Berkeley, they've been passing these types of inane resolutions for as long as I've been around (which isn't very long, but I digress). The Berkeley City Council had its own anti-war resolution, they had a resolution to stop the bombing in Afghanistan, and mulled signing on as co-plantiffs in a German war crimes suit against Rumsfeld. While these are mostly worthy causes, the Berkeley or Santa Barbara city council has no ability to actually convict Rumsfeld or stop the war.
These do-nothing resolutions also trivialize the work of city government, so that when they try to enact real policy, like school funding or increasing numbers of local police, the citizenry is less likely to take them seriously.
Last night amidst an outpouring of applause, the city council of Santa Barbara, California voted unanimously to pass a resolution "urging cessation of combat operations in Iraq and the return of U.S. troops" within a year. Read More »
Via Kaiser's Health 08 site. A new Associated Press poll shows that voter concerns about health care are "essentially tied" with concerns about Iraq among progressive voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. This could be that because things are "better" in Iraq lately, voters are starting to turn to issues like health care -- something that affects the day-to-day quality of life for people in America.
The Hill reports on antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan's quixotic campaign against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her San Francisco House seat. Sheehan criticizes the Democrats' funding of the war:
“If I tell my children, ‘Don’t do drugs’ … and then one of my children asks, ‘Mom, can I have money for drugs?’ and I give them money for drugs, that’s showing them my approval,” she said. “[Congress is] giving [its] approval to President Bush to wage this occupation of Iraq.”
Indeed, nearly a year after the big Democratic win in '06, more and more people are asking, what do we have to show for it? And this is interesting:
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
