Magdalena Emperatriz was kidnapped on May 31, 1982 during a counter-insurgency campaign carried out by the Salvadoran army. She was 15 days old. The campaign resulted in the killing of hundreds of civilians and the destruction of dozens of towns and hamlets as well as the abduction and disappearance of 54 small children.

In 1995, when Magdalena was 13 years old, she was located in an orphanage in San Salvador. The late Dr. Robert Kirschner, former director of the International Forensic Program of Physicians for Human Rights, identified the girl through an analysis of her and the putative father’s DNA. The two were finally reunited.

Dear Mr. Wasserman,

I just read your fine article (posted at CommonDreams) on "Bush's Military Defeat."

Coincidentally, this morning I heard NPR's Daniel Schorr comment that this was a "brilliant" military victory. (Isn't it a shame about how he's become such a voice of the government -- understandable considering NPR's leadership, which is made up of former Radio Free Europe bosses.)

I'm writing to say that there was no brilliant military victory.

It appears there was a deal made, likely long ago, when Rumsfeld was so confident that 10,000 troops could take the country. Saddam and his generals made virtually no defense of their country at all. No bridges blown up, roads torn up, streets barricaded, surface-to-air missiles fired, few tactical short-range missiles used, none of the at least 100 available fighter jets used. . . . And the Iraqis are courageous people, whose pilots would have risked their lives if they thought it would defend their country and, especially, their honor.

There were few roads available for heavy armorand trucks, all of them easily torn up if the defenders

Eye sockets roll down the red carpets,
Mute zombie pedestrians push traffic stand buttons,
Flags lay flat on the backs of young oafs' t-shirts,
DJs pump up the crowd with yankee doodle dandy whistles,
Fat mayors and Century 21 realtors give speeches,
It's a Victory Parade for America,
Only the lemonade tastes bad,
and, no one is...

George W. Bush has fittingly stopped short of declaring victory in Iraq. He doesn't want to claim a definitive triumph because it would legally obligate the US to begin cleaning the place up and enforcing human rights obligations.

But in fact, the US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have been shattering defeats.

Let's count the ways:

  • At least three times US troops have fired live ammunition against angry crowds of "liberated" Iraqis. Far from "dancing in the streets" over the American presence, the people of Iraq have made it clear they want the US out just days after the removal of Saddam Hussein, who most Iraqis understand was put in power by the US in the first place.

  • US troops have now killed at least twenty Iraqis in demonstrations that appear to be nonviolent. Military claims of self-defense are reminiscent of lies that Kent State students fired weapons during the May, 1970 massacre there. Those four deaths put the US in an uproar; in Iraq, less than 1/10 the size of the US, the equivalent of 20 dead would be more than 200.

  • Eighteen months from now, citizens will vote for president. If the 2004 campaign is anything like the last one, the election returns will mark the culmination of a depressing media spectacle.

    For news watchers, the candidates and the coverage can be hard to take. Appearances on television are apt to become tedious, nauseating or worse. Campaign ads often push the limits of slick pandering. Journalists routinely seem fixated on "horseracing" the contest instead of reporting about the huge financial interests that candidates have served.

    Media-driven campaigns now dominate every presidential race, badly skewed in favor of big money. And while millions of progressive-minded Americans are eager to have an impact on the political process, they often face what appears to be a choice between severe compromise and marginalization.

    Remarkable transitions occur during presidential campaigns. People who are usually forthright can become evasive or even downright dishonest -- in public anyway -- when they declare themselves to be fervent supporters of a particular contender. Nuances and mixed assessments tend to go out the window.
    AUSTIN, Texas -- Don't worry about a thing! The Texas Legislature is riding to the rescue. Oh, sure, we still have a $10 billion deficit, but the House just outlawed gay marriage. At last, we're safe from the hideous threat of gay marriage, which would have directly ruined our entire lives.

    Meanwhile, the House has:

    -- Eliminated 10,810 state jobs;

    -- Cut 250,000 poor children off the Children's Health Insurance Program and about 365,000 from health insurance through Medicaid;

    -- Cut prenatal care and delivery for 17,000 pregnant women and services for 366 women with breast and cervical cancer;

    -- Closed one state school for the mentally retarded and one state mental hospital;

    -- (This one's my favorite) Cut $22 million from a criminal justice program that provides medication and treatment for mentally impaired offenders who are out on probation or parole. (Isn't that nice? They'll be wandering around the state without their meds.)

    But fear not, as our peerless leaders have passed a 24-hour
    The Historical Trekkers group will tour Dysart Woods this Saturday, May 3 with muskets and 18th century attire. They say that Dysart Woods is one of the extremely rare places where they can see a historic tract of the old growth forest that once covered 95 percent of Ohio.

    They will arrive at the ancient forest between 10-10:30 a.m. this Saturday. Media are welcome to record the event. “With the current permit to mine directly under the ancient forest, this may be the last opportunity of its kind to tour a significant historic forest in Ohio, unless the permit can be stopped in the Ohio Division of Mineral Resources or in court,” said Dysart Defenders Coordinator Chad Kister.

    “With only .004 percent of old growth left, this is an extremely important historic resource,” said Kister. “For the Ohio Valley Coal Company to request to mine under every acre of Dysart Woods is wrong and it needs to be challenged and stopped.”

    The following is a statement from Thom "Swanny" Swan, Coordinator of Historical Trekkers:

    That GLAAD's campaign against the 'Savage Nation' show on MSNBC has itself generated strident criticism should surprise no one. Though considered by many "an act of faith," as William Fulbright so eloquently referred to it, and as GLAAD apparently grasps it, dissent seems today a much-maligned concept both within our community and nation.

    Fear of terrorism, the war in Iraq and one party control of all three branches of the federal government have together helped foster an environment in this nation hostile to dissent--however loyal or reasonable it may be. Those who express unpopular or critical views regarding our nation's policies and actions are oft labeled "unpatriotic," and calls for "unity" are frequently utilized by those in power to bully opponents and suppress dissent.

    Don't think the antiwar movement has dropped off the political map. A lot of those people, and there were millions of them, are thinking: Who should I vote for in 2004?

    This brings us to the Democratic candidates vying for the honor of running against G. Bush in 2004. Senators Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Bob Graham, John Kerry and Rep. Dick Gephardt all supported the war with varying degrees of enthusiasm

    Firmly antiwar were one white, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and two blacks, the Rev. Al Sharpton and former U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.

    Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, now vying with Kucinich for the support of the progressive crowd, stood by his position that any attack on Iraq should have the explicit blessing of the U.N. Security Council.

    The logic of Dean's position is that if the U.N. Security Council had approved, war would have been justified. By contrast, Rep. Dennis Kucinich has always taken the position, as has Rev. Al Sharpton, that the U.N. inspectors should have been allowed to do their work. In
    AUSTIN, Texas -- The sour joke is: "Of course we know the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. We have the receipts." At this point, the administration would probably be delighted if it could find the WMDs the Reagan administration gave Saddam Hussein. At least it could point to some WMDs.

    This is a "what if ..." column, since I have no idea whether Saddam Hussein was or was not sitting on great caches of chemical and biological weapons. What is clear is that not finding the WMDs is getting to be a problem -- and if we don't find any, it's going to be a bigger problem. And if we do find some, we'd better make plenty sure they come with a chain-of-evidence pedigree, or no one is going to believe us.

    You don't have to be an expert on WMDs in the Middle East to know that when the administration starts spreading the word that "it wouldn't really make any difference if there were WMDs or not," it's worried about not finding any.

    In the weeks before Gulf War II, the United States told the world Saddam Hussein was hiding mobile chemical laboratories, drones fitted

    Pages

    Subscribe to Freepress.org RSS