( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

As we approach the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, we progressive Democrats are becoming increasingly impatient with our elected officials and their reluctance to actively push for troop withdrawal.  Nowhere is this restlessness more apparent than in CA-10, the district represented by Ellen Tauscher.  Even though Democrats have a 12% registration advantage over Republicans and Barbara Boxer received 60% of the vote in 2004 (Kerry got 59%), Tauscher insists that she must pursue a “centrist” course of action to be in sync with her constituents.  So you might wonder what’s going on with those constituents in Tauscher Territory, as she so modestly refers to it. 

Well, today there was a march and rally to protest the Iraq occupation in the heart of Ellen Tauscher’s district, Walnut Creek.  Representatives were present from a local group called Resolution Peace, which bills itself as “A coalition of Democratic Clubs and progressive political organizations with common goals,” one of which is to “Promptly withdraw from Iraq.” Now, mind you, these folks are the members of the local Democratic clubs and the party activists who form the Democratic base in CA-10.  And they were busily handing out flyers and circulating petitions calling on Tauscher to back up her criticism of the Iraq war with action.  Apparently, her constituents have been paying attention to the fact that what Tauscher says and what she does are two very different things.

Check out the flyer for yourself.

So the next time you hear Ellen Tauscher try to claim that her refusal to take a strong stand for ending the war in Iraq is somehow in step with her “moderate” district, don’t fall for that story.  Tauscher has been spouting that line for so long that she’s apparently started to believe her own hpye.  But she’s the only one.  Her district is ready to move forward to end this war.  The only question now is whether Tauscher will move with them or they’ll simply leave her in the dust.

(Well that didn’t take long. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Cross posted at Say No To Pombo

UPDATE:  The largest newspaper in CA-11, the Contra Costa Times now has a story about this — and it even mentions Calitics!

Last Thursday, Jerry McNerney took the oath of office as a member of the 110th Congress. A scant five days later, with what must surely be unprecedented speed, the NRCC has sent out its first anti-McNerney campaign mailers of the 2008 election to voters in CA-11.

It’s worth noting that in the run-up to the 2006 elections, the NRCC spent over $1.3 million to prop up threatened incumbent Rep. Richard Pombo, all to no avail. In the days leading up to November 7, the NRCC sent out no less than 20 anti-McNerney mailers (strikingly, they couldn’t think of one single pro-Pombo message). Looks like old habits die hard.

So if anyone out there thinks that McNerney’s 2008 re-election will be easy simply because he won in 2006 by a 6% margin — er, not so much. Expect a steady drumbeat of anti-McNerney disinformation over the next two years. The only real question is, what are we going to do about it?

The ad is on the flip…

(I can’t say that I am surprised at this. – promoted by juls)

C’mon, Ellen, didn’t your mother ever tell you this?

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Sen. Edward Kennedy posted a diary today on Daily Kos announcing that he is submitting legislation to prevent President Bush from escalating our troop commitment in Iraq without the explicit consent of the US Congress.  Here is the complete text of Kennedy’s bill:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Prohibition on use of funds for escalation of United States forces in Iraq.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States Government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the level for such forces which existed as of January 1, 2007, without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase.

Kennedy went on to elucidate his reasons for submitting his legislation at this time.

Some have claimed that the president has the authority to escalate this war without the consent of House and Senate. They dismiss the possibility that Congress has a role to play stopping this president from leading us further into the quicksand in Iraq.

That may have been true when Republicans were in charge, but people elected Democrats to show some backbone. Congress is the voice of the American people, and it’s time those voices are heard in this debate.

Then Kennedy reiterates his theme once more for good measure, just to show that he really gets it:

Democrats swept the November elections because Americans wanted George Bush’s policies challenged by the branch of government constitutionally charged with representing the people.

So where does Ellen Tauscher stand on the issue of Congress challenging Bush on his disastrous and unpopular escalation scheme? Oh, right about where you would expect.  In yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor she fell all over herself deferring to George W. Bush. [Emphasis added]

“We’re not going to fight their civil war for them,” says Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D) of California, who chairs the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. She supports a shift of existing US forces out of areas of sectarian violence.

But if the president insists on adding forces into the most troubled areas, would she vote to deny him the funds to carry out his plan? “No,” she says. “That’s why he’s got us over a barrel.”

Excuse me while my head explodes.  Read that again.  Ellen Tauscher says that she would not vote to deny Bush the funds for troop escalation.  Then, as I read it, she goes on to say that the reason why Bush has “got us over a barrel” is because Democrats like her will not stand up to him.  Thank you, Ellen, for clearing that up.

Look, Ellen Tauscher is my representative in Congress.  And I live in a district that is heavily Democratic, a district in which a significant majority of the voters do not support either the Iraq War or its escalation.  In what world can she possibly imagine that we elected her to go to Washington, vote to fund escalation, and then complain that Bush has “got us over a barrel” because of her own actions?  If the president has us over a barrel, it’s precisely because pseudo Democrats like Ellen Tauscher are more interested in staking out their corporate/centrist political turf than in standing up for their constituents’ interests.

As Ted Kennedy would say, “Show some backbone.”

(Keep making us proud, Congressman-elect and don’t let the DC crowd dumb you down. – promoted by blogswarm)

Cross posted on SayNoToPombo

[UPDATE]:  You can listen to Jerry McNerney’s Weekly Democratic Radio Address here.

The text of the press release from Nancy Pelosi’s office is as follows:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 /PRNewswire/ — Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney (CA-11), an incoming freshman, will deliver the Democratic Radio Address on Saturday. In his address, Congressman-elect McNerney discusses Democratic plans to break the link between lobbyists and legislation and the need for a new direction in Iraq.

WHO:  Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney (CA-11)

WHAT:  Weekly Democratic Radio Address

WHEN:  Saturday, December 30, 2006 — 11:06 a.m. (EST)

WHERE: Major radio networks, including AP, ABC, NPR, CBS Radio, CNN Radio, C-SPAN, Armed Forces Radio Network, American Urban Radio Network, Voice of America Radio Network, BBC Radio, CBC Radio, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Below is a transcript of his remarks:

Embargoed until Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 11:06 a.m. EDT

“Good morning and Happy New Year. This is Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney of Pleasanton, California, a new Member in the 110th Congress.

“As we move into the New Year and the new Congress, I am excited about what we can achieve for the American people. In this election, the American people clearly called for change: change in the way we do business in Washington, change in the way that we shape our energy policy, and most importantly, a change of direction in Iraq.

“As our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this critical election, House Democrats will restore integrity and civility in Washington in order to earn the public trust.

“We will ban gifts from lobbyists and lobbyist-funded travel, prohibit the use of corporate jets, and shut down the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street Lobbyists. We will restore the House tradition of allowing a reasonable 15-minute voting period to prevent extended votes, and we will require that Congress put away the credit card and operate under a pay-as-you-go common sense budget rules. We will hold Members of Congress accountable to the people who voted them into office, not lobbyists and special interests.

“Our heavy dependence on foreign oil is putting our economy, our climate, and our national security at great risk. We are actually funding the very terrorists around the world who are trying to harm us. It’s our patriotic duty as citizens of this great nation to end our dependence on imported oil. Democrats will quickly and significantly reduce our consumption of foreign oil while creating jobs, prosperity, and a healthy environment with a new energy technology, including renewable energy and bio-fuels.

“Most of the technologies needed to reshape our energy future are already at hand; what has been lacking is the political will to develop and expand their use. Democrats have a vision of creating a new energy economy using good old-fashioned American ingenuity to achieve energy independence. New American jobs and a bright future will be the dividend.

“Democrats will also lead the way for a new direction in Iraq. My son was in the military when he convinced me to run for office, and we continue to keep our soldiers and their families in our prayers. But our troops need more than our well-wishes, and our veterans need more than lip service; we need a change in policy, as confirmed by the Iraq Study Group report released earlier this month.

“I share the concern of my Democratic colleagues that President Bush may use his same failed logic to increase our troop strength in Iraq by up to 30,000 soldiers. The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, has said that an increase in troops at best won’t change a thing, and at worst could exacerbate the situation even further in Iraq.

“The Iraqis need to understand that the responsibility for the future of that country is theirs. Beginning the redeployment of American forces would send that message. We must also improve the training of Iraq security forces by ensuring that Iraqi units are not infiltrated by either militia members or insurgents. The consequences of not doing so are unacceptable. In my district there is a Gold Star mom whose son was killed in Iraq by the very Iraqis he was training. He and his mom are always in my thoughts. We simply can not ask our young men and women to train Iraqis without doing everything possible to make certain that the people they are training are not attacking our troops.

“Our troops have done everything asked of them in Iraq with great courage. Particularly at this time of the year, when families gather to celebrate the holiday season, we need to remember the huge sacrifices being made by the brave men and women in our military, and give thanks for their service.

“Thank you for listening. I wish everyone the very best 2007 and pray that God blesses you and your families for this holiday season. This is Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney.”

____________________________________
Source: Office of Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi

(continuing coverage from Tauschertics… I mean Calitics. Jeez, I keep getting that wrong! – promoted by dday)

During the 2006 campaign, the Livermore/Pleasanton Independent ran a CA-10 candidate profile of Ellen Tauscher and her opponent Darcy Linn:

Incumbent demoncrat Rep. Ellen Tauscher [wow, there’s a crazy Freudian typo for you] has one challenger for the 10th Congressional District seat, Republican Darcy Linn. […]  Linn works in finance for a Fortune 500 retailer in San Francisco. She is single, and lives in Pleasant Hill. When she lived in San Francisco two years ago, she was a member of that county’s Republican central committee. This is Linn’s first try at public office. She said she chose to run because she “wanted to hold Tauscher accountable. She does not represent the views of the district.”

So what were Darcy Linn’s views on the issues of the day?  Well, her opinions were not exactly fully-formed and hard-hitting:

The ultimate goal of the war in Iraq is to spread democracy to the Middle East, said Linn. “I’m sure we have an exit strategy. It’s not announced.”

More over the flip…

Or her opinion on the federal budget and Congressional spending:

“We have to live within our means. The size of the federal government should not be increased. One lesson of Katrina was that the federal government can’t respond to disasters. We need to reduce the federal government, and leave more to local government. The closer you are to a situation, the more productive,” she said. Asked whether states should receive disaster funds from the federal government or have to generate their own to replace the federal government’s role, Linn said that she wasn’t sure about the mechanics of it.

But she had the Republican line down pat when it came to tax cuts — or something close, anyway:

Linn said that tax cuts are good, because history shows that tax revenue goes up when tax rates go down. More people have money to pay their taxes, she said.

And on the environment and global warming, Linn unsurprisingly supported Richard Pombo’s attempts to gut the Endangered Species Act.  But even Richard Pombo grudgingly admitted that global warming was a reality (just not a man-made reality).  Not Darcy.

Global warming is not an issue in this campaign, said Linn. “It was hotter in 1936 than it has been in the past 10 years. I think a lot of scientists think there is no global warming, and I agree,” she said.

Poor Darcy couldn’t even manage to play to the supposed Republican strength on homeland security.  When questioned about lack of federal funding for security at the Port of Oakand, she got really confused.

Asked if there were any problems with how the federal government is handing out funding for homeland security, she said she didn’t think so. Asked about the Port of Oakland being left off the list, Linn said she would have to understand more about where the money went. Oakland officials would have had to make a competent case for the money, “like anyone else who works for a living,” she said.

There’s much more hilarity in the profile, but I’ll leave you with this gem on campaign finance reform:

The federal government does not need campaign finance reform, said Linn. She was in charge of the San Francisco Republican county committee when the McCain-Feingold federal law “complicated things. People always find loopholes. It’s better to leave it up to people to do the right thing. You can’t regulate morality.”

It’s not really surprising that Darcy Linn inspired so much confidence among Republicans that she was able to raise a whopping $4,004 for her Congressional run.  Nevertheless, she managed to get 66,069 votes (33.5%) just by virtue of having an (R) after her name.  And in this case, the fact that she didn’t have enough money to get her campaign message out probably helped her quite a bit.

At the same time, district voters apparently weren’t too taken with the alternative offered by Crazy Jeff Ketelson and his decision to mount a write-in campaign in 2006.  Ketelson was the 2004 Republican nominee, and despite the fact that he got 95,349 votes in 2004 (34.2%), his message of extreme homophobia just didn’t resonate this year.  Even though he managed to raise more money than the Republican nominee ($5,440), he received only 50 votes.  I’m guessing his utterly AMAZING robocalls (I received one!) combined with this campaign video mostly managed to frighten the voters of CA-10.

So there you have Tauscher’s two Republican challengers for 2006 and 2004.  And in 2002?  The Republicans didn’t even field a nominee.  It’s worth noting that Tauscher’s only 2002 competitor was Libertarian Sonia Alonso Harden, who ran on a platform to “abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve, repeal NAFTA, and lead in the United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations.”  Harden received 456 votes in the primary and 40,807 (24.4%) in the general — most likely by virtue of not being a Democrat.

There’s been a quite a bit of talk about the extent to which CA-10 has become a safe Democratic seat.  Even though the D/R registration numbers and the Boxer/Kerry vote totals tell the story pretty clearly, there’s nothing like examining the Republicans’ inability to produce a viable candidate to drive the point home.  It’s revealing that Ellen Tauscher hasn’t even had to face a serious Republican challenger since CA-10 was redistricted in 2001.  They’ve given up.  And it seems to me that even more than the numbers, this goes a long way towards demonstrating exactly how blue CA-10 has become.

(Another excellent take on Tauscher – promoted by juls)

Last year, after most of the members of Ellen Tauscher’s New Democrat Coalition made a rare break with their globalist dogma to vote against CAFTA, NDC leaders scurried to assure K Street lobbyists that the Coalition was still on board to promote future free trade agreements.  At the time Roll Call (subscription only) carried this story:

[T]he centrist House New Democrat Coalition is reasserting itself with the business community and sending the message that it has not abandoned its support for opening up global markets.

The first sign of the 43-member coalition’s efforts came late last week when the New Democrat leadership met privately with high-profile business lobbyists to negotiate the terms of an upcoming free trade agreement with Thailand.

That session, the New Democrats say, was the first of many meetings with K Street to help troubleshoot trade deals that are set to come before Congress.

“We want to be sure the business community knows that we are at the ready to work with them, and we are interested in working with them,” said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (Calif.), chairwoman of the New Democrats. […]

Now, the New Democrats are looking to help fine-tune future agreements, including those involving Thailand, the Andean nations, Panama and others. Tauscher said her group is “engaged” and “in the game” when it comes to helping put together upcoming trade policies.

Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.), a New Democrat co-chairman, said the group has a long history of supporting small-scale trade agreements, including those with Chile and Singapore, as well as major deals, such as fast-track trade negotiating authority for the president and Permanent Normal Trade Relations status for China.

One Republican lobbyist who was initially disappointed when the New Democrats bucked K Street to oppose CAFTA last year, made  this comment about the business/NDC relationship:

New Democrats since then “have been reaching out” and trying to find common ground with K Street.

The lobbyist added, however, that the test will come over time as New Democrats stay true to the center even if it means bucking their own party to support Republican ideas.

Now, I think most of us understand the problems presented by CAFTA that forced even Tauscher and the New Democrats to vote against it.  But what about these “small-scale trade agreements”?  What, exactly are their ramifications?  Well, let’s start with the most recent FTA which was passed by the House just a few days ago. David Sirota wrote last Friday about the passage of the Vietnam Free Trade Agreement earlier in the day:

The House tonight caved to K Street and passed the Vietnam Free Trade Agreement. I received a copy of the New Democrats’ press release trumpeting the passage. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) claims that the deal “will help American workers and our economy by opening up a huge market for American industrial and agricultural goods and services.”

Sirota then went on to quote from BusinessWeek regarding the benefits to American businesses that will be relocating their operations to Vietnam to take advantage of the bill passed by Tauscher and her NDC cohorts:

A big reason for the change is rock-bottom wages. As labor shortages in some regions of China drive up costs, factory hands in parts of the mainland can earn more than five times the $55 per month that Vietnamese workers in foreign-owned factories are paid. That differential is a big reason why Sparton Corp. (SPA ) of Jackson, Mich., chose Vietnam over China last year when it made its first investment outside North America. It sank $8 million into a 50,000-square-foot plant to produce chemical diagnostic equipment. “I think productivity and quality will far exceed the U.S.,” says Jason Craft, managing director of Sparton subsidiary Spartronics Vietnam Co.

But it’s not just American manufacturing jobs that are being outsourced to foreign countries under these agreements.  American farmers are also under the gun, being forced to compete for market share with crops produced in other countries.  American commodity producers are increasingly finding themselves in a bind, according to Jeff Gargiulo, CEO of Sunkist, a cooperative of US citrus growers:

Almost half the produce sold in the United States today is grown outside its borders. American producers face increasing competition as the domestic markets are opened to more imports.

Those low-cost products, entering virtually duty free, put American producers at a substantial competitive disadvantage, says Gargiulo. Sunkist lemons grown in California and Arizona, for example, command about $16.50 per 40-pound box wholesale, while lemons transported from Chile earn about $13.50 per box. The major reason for the difference is the average hourly cost for farm and packinghouse labor. In Chile, it’s less than $1 vs. $16 in Sunkist country.

Couple this increasing domestic competition with stagnant export opportunities due to foreign tariff barriers, and American fresh citrus growers face enormous competitive challenges.

Obviously, Tauscher’s highly touted free trade agreements are mostly fair to business, not to labor or Americans concerned with earning a living wage so that they can support themselves and their families.

Finally, not content to just ship American jobs overseas, Tauscher and the New Democrats  have supported these “small-scale” free trade agreements which undermine American workers right here in America.  Under the terms of the Chilean, Singaporean and, now, Vietnamese agreements which are to serve as a model for the future Thai, Andean and Panamanian agreements, an unlimited number of workers may enter the US workforce on L-1 visas.  So what, exactly, is the problem with L-1 visas?

The L-1 visa has tended to attract less controversy in the popular press than its very contentious cousin, the H-1B visa. However, criticism has nevertheless been levelled that the L-1 visa allows foreign or multinational corporations to circumvent proper protections for US workers. For one thing, unlike with the H-1B visa, there is no requirement that the L-1 visa holder be paid a salary commensurate with that of US workers. For another, there is no limit on the number of L-1 visas that are granted annually. This has led to criticism that multinationals, especially consulting agencies, will hire a foreigner abroad for one year, and then transfer them to the US to work for US clients at a low salary as compared to US workers.

So is this how Ellen Tauscher and the New Democrat Coalition envision legislating to “help American workers and our economy”?  Is this the behavior of “a loyal Democrat… a real Dem”?

I’m going to stop right here and make a small confession.  I was motivated to write about Tauscher and her record of support for free trade agreements after reading Katie Merrill’s California Majority Report post yesterday. You know, the part where she said this:

[F]or the netroots, it’s not about an elected official’s entire record, it’s not about how they serve their district, it’s whether the elected official agrees with the netroots on their issue du jour (or, more to the point, issue of the cycle).

You see, I live in CA-10, and I am both a Democratic grassroots activist and a member of the netroots.  Ellen Tauscher gets paid $168,000 a year to go to Washington DC and represent me.  And yet, over the years, Tauscher has been very clear about whose interests she represents in DC, going so far as to make the following statement when she received the US Chamber of Commerce “Spirit of Enterprise” Award for her pro-business agenda: “I am pleased that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finally set the record straight by putting policy above politics and acknowledging my voting record on behalf of business.”  On the other hand, she has never felt particularly constrained by loyalty to her Democratic base:

Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, said in an interview that party loyalty isn’t the issue. “I don’t remember being elected to go to Washington to be a Democrat,” she said.

So instead of listening to her constituents and the activists who got her elected in the first place, Tauscher sends her lackey to accuse us of fracturing the Democratic party because we have the temerity to question her commitment to Democratic ideals.  Well, Katie Merrill can babble until she gets tired.  At the end of the day, Ellen Tauscher quite simply does not share the Democratic values held by me or any other Democrat in CA-10 of my acquaintance.

Cross Posted on Say No To Pombo and MyDD

The Hatch Act is a law that was originally enacted in 1939 to limit the participation of federal workers in political campaigns. To protect the public, it was decided that the interactions between politicians and government employees being paid with public tax dollars should be subjected to very strict and very specific laws.

In 1993, Congress amended the Hatch Act to make it less restrictive. Still, there are a solid set of rules and regulations that govern political interaction with government employees, especially when they are functioning in their paid positions and in a workplace setting:

Examples of activities prohibited by the preceding restrictions include the following: authorizing the use of a federal building or office as described above for campaign activities, such as town hall meetings, rallies, parades, speeches, fundraisers, press conferences, “photo ops” or meet and greets.  […]

Federal agencies should ensure that candidates who visit their facilities to conduct official business do not engage in any political campaign or election activity during the visit.

The National Association of Letter Carriers puts the issue of campaign activities a little more succinctly at their website:

Bottom Line: Be off the clock, out of the uniform (and government vehicles), and away from the work place.

That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?

That’s why, when Richard Pombo and his campaign staff paid a visit to the Stockton Post Office yesterday, the postal employees were more than a little chagrined.

Congressman Richard Pombo came to the Stockton Post Office, 4245 West Lane today. He said he was there to thank the employees for their hard work in delivering the political mail and to be ready for more to come. After a couple of speakers, Congressman Pombo went around shaking hands. Some of the employees were upset with the fact he was campaigning on the workroom floor and they were a captive audience.

Also some things said by Dan Meyers, Customer Relations Coordinator, were inappropriate and offensive. When he asked an employee what she thought about Congressman Pombo’s appearance, she asked Mr. Meyers if it was proper to allow the Congressman to be in the post office while employees are on the clock. His response to her was, “What are they going to do, slap me on the wrists?” He asked another employee after seeing Congressman Pombo, if she was now going to vote Republican.

A formal complaint filed on behalf of the Stockton postal employees by Darol Stewart, President of the American Postal Workers Union, Stockton Local 320, made the following statement:

I believe this is a violation of the Hatch Act for the Congressman to be allowed on the workroom floor to campaign during business hours. I also believe it is coercion by Mr. Meyers, who is a staunch Republican and Postal Manager, to try to persuade employees to vote in his party, while all involved were in a pay status. These employees were forced to listen to the Congressman. They were then put into the uncomfortable position of shaking the Congressman’s hand while he was allowed to roam the workroom floor.

So this is how Richard Pombo upholds the laws of our country. Last May, in his lone appearance at a public forum with his Republican challengers, Pombo, scrambling to defend himself from charges that he has behaved unethically, stated:

To my family, to my friends and my neighbors, and to my kids, I have never broken any rules in the House of Representatives. I have never broken any laws. All I have done is fight for what is right.

Apparently, that’s a lie; he has broken the rules and he has broken the law. But it’s okay. After all, “What are they going to do, slap me on the wrists?”

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Cross Posted at Say No To Pombo and MyDD

MoveOn.org released a report this morning to publicize the costs of the Iraq War to California’s 11th District. A group of voters from CA-11 met at Richard Pombo’s San Ramon office to deliver a copy of the report to Pombo and ask him to comment on it.

Since the Iraq war began, Congressman Richard Pombo (R-Tracy) has joined Republicans in Congress to spend more than $300 billion on President Bush’s failed [Iraq] policy…  The cost of the war to taxpayers in the 11th Congressional District is more than $974 million and counting.

$974 million from CA-11 alone.  Think of the ways that money could have been spent in the district to improve the daily lives of its residents. Education. Healthcare. Transportation. Levee repair. 

But that is only one, easily calculable, cost of the Iraq war. The human cost has weighed even more heavily on the people of Richard Pombo’s district than the loss of valuable financial resources. Think for a moment of the soldiers from the district who died in this war, the many more who have been severely wounded and maimed. Think of the two young men who, right now, are sitting in the brig at Camp Pendleton awaiting trial for war crimes. 

[War’s] glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families … It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. 
—William Tecumseh Sherman

I don’t know much about these two young marines sitting alone at Camp Pendleton. I do know that they are accused of participating in the murder of an innocent civilian in Iraq. I know that they have proclaimed their innocence. I know that they have families and many good friends — Cpl. Marshall Magincalda, 23, in Manteca, and Lance Cpl. Tyler Jackson, 22, in Tracy. I know that their families and friends see a boy who loved poetry and video games, a kid who ran track and taught himself to play the guitar, an all-around good guy who was a co-worker at the local movie theater, a son who fed the homeless in a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving. They refuse to believe that their sons, their best friends, could pull a man from his home, bind his hands and feet in duct tape, push him into a hole and shoot him multiple times at close range with an M-16.

I don’t know if these young men are guilty or innocent.  If they are innocent, then their country has betrayed them; and if they are guilty, their country has still betrayed them. Why? Because our leaders made a decision to enter this war of choice, to empower a bellicose and intransigent president, to continue on with no end in sight, knowing full well the terrible costs of war to all those who participate. Every student who ever sat through psych 101 knows about the Milgram experiment, knows that each of us is capable of deep, dark, horrible deeds. In the end it boils down to just one simple fact: war is hell. And yet our government continues to carelessly send our young people off to face its horrors. Before we ask our sons, our brothers, our friends, to sacrifice themselves at the altar of war, we have an abiding moral obligation to them to be certain that their suffering is absolutely and totally unavoidable. When we do anything less, we have betrayed them utterly and completely. 

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war to our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.
—William Tecumseh Sherman