T-Shirt Gets 80-Year-Old Arrested

By all accounts Don Zirkel, 80, a church deacon from Bethpage, NY led an exemplary life and had never been arrested before...that is until he refused to turn his T-shirt inside out or leave the mall, where he was participating in an anti-war rally. Suffolk police charged him with criminal trespassing 3rd degree and resisting arrest. He was released on bail and is due to be arraigned May 22 in Central Islip.

What was wrong with the T-shirt? Well it was an anti-war T-shirt. It said: "4,000 Troops, 1 Million Iraq's DEAD" and had red ink spots to represent blood. See the picture above.

According to the police, Zirkel was handing out anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers and that mall security told him to stop and turn his shirt inside out. They claimed that the T-shirt was disturbing to some mall patrons. Zirkel refused to turn his shirt inside out and wouldn't leave, police said. Security placed him on "civilian arrest" and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel passively resisted attempts to bring him to a police car.

Don Zirkel has a different version of what happened. He said he was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife Marie, 77, and several others when police and mall security officers approached and demanded they remove their anti-war T-shirts. The others complied, but Zirkel said he refused, and when he wouldn't stand up to be removed and arrested, authorities brought over a wheelchair.

"They forcibly picked me up and put me in the wheelchair," said Zirkel. "Eighty years, and I have never been arrested before for fighting injustice."

As Zirkel was being wheeled to the police car, the crowd chanted "We shall not be moved!" Moments later, they moved; police and mall security had ordered them off the property. Many joined a larger anti-war crowd assembled by the mall's entrance, off mall property, on Veterans Memorial Highway.

Zirkel disputes the police claim that he was distributing leaflets at the mall. He said he was at the rally to support the anti-war protesters. "I was an encourager. I was an affirmer," he said.

"I'm being punished for six words that spoke the truth. That's insanity. War is insanity," said Zirkel, who said his nephew recently returned from active duty in Iraq. "I'm wearing the T-shirt again," he added.

Don Zirkel is a deacon for Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Church in Wyandanch, which last year suffered a fire that destroyed its rectory. As a young man Zirkel attended a Bay Shore seminary but decided that he did not want to become a priest; instead, he married, Marie, his childhood sweetheart. He served in the Army during the Korean War as a corporal and chaplain's assistant. After he was discharged, Zirkel attended St. John's University, earning a bachelor's degree in philosophy and theology. After graduating he became editor of The Tablet, the Diocese of Brooklyn's newspaper. He left the newspaper after 37 years in 1985. Mario Cuomo, the then governor of NY, hired him as spokesman for the state Division of Human Rights where he worked for 7 years before retiring.

He began protesting the Iraq war "when the pope sent a cardinal to see President Bush and tell him it's an immoral war, which I 100 percent agree with," Zirkel said.

"There are people my age getting killed over there," he said, referring to Iraqi civilians.

The P.R. company that represents the mall's owner, Simon Property Group says the media is not telling the full story and issued a statement part of which said:

Contrary to media reports, there were other circumstances that contributed to the arrest of Mr. Zirkel that extended well beyond his claims, including his insistence on continuing to rally inside Smith Haven Mall by handing out pamphlets and interacting with patrons in the mall’s food court, despite being asked to cease and desist these activities.

War with Iran?

By a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

To see how each Senator voted on this resolution click here:

Have we learned nothing from the war in Iraq? Are we now preparing to take on Iran? Instead of looking for ways to bring the Iranians into an alliance that will promote peace and stability in the region, we are doing our best to antagonize and provoke them. I am not claiming that Iran is one of the "good guys" but they certainly have legitimate interests in what is going on in their neighborhood. Iraq is their neighbor and they share ethnic, cultural and religious ties. The Iraqi government has been engaging Iran in talks aimed at bolstering economic and security agreements. They are both majority Shiite states. They have a lot in common that can be of benefit to both countries. Why not encourage them to work together?

The resolution states that "it is a vital national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from turning Iraq's Shiite militias into a "Hezbollah-like force" and says that US policy should "combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies." To accomplish this task, Kyl and Lieberman advocate "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq." Finally, the resolution dubs Iran's largest military branch, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, "a foreign terrorist organization."

US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days, with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) in criticizing the resolution said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.”
He also slammed the lack of debate and examination that was accompanying the amendment, saying “this is not the way to make foreign policy”:

We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.

Hillary Gets Tough

Sen. Hillary Clinton shows that she will not be easily dealt with or ignored. In a letter dated May 22, 2007 and addressed to the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, Sen. Clinton asked if there were contingency plans for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and if so, could he share with the appropriate congressional committees what those plans were.

She received a reply, not from the Secretary of Defense, but from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Eric Edelman, which she claims not only did not respond to her inquiries but his comments were "outrageous and dangerous" in insinuating that congressional oversight emboldens the enemy.

In a second letter, again addressed to the Secretary of Defense, she renewed her request for a response to her original letter and demanded to know if the views expressed by the Under Secretary of Defense in his letter were the same views held by the Secretary of Defense. Below are excerpts from the three letters involved. For the entire contents of all three letters click here

Sen. Clinton's first letter addressed to Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense:

Given the express will of the Congress to implement a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq and the importance of proper contingency planning to achieve that goal, I write to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress - including the Senate Armed Services Committee - with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning....................

The response written by Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense:

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia..............
I assure you, however, that as with other plans, we are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."

Sen. Clinton's response to Edelman letter, again addressed to Robert Gates:

I am in receipt of a letter from Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who wrote that he was responding on your behalf. Under Secretary Edelman's response did not address the issues raised in my letter and instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman - writing on your behalf - instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backwards. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous............
Redeploying out of Iraq will be difficult and requires careful planning. I continue to call on the Bush Administration to immediately provide a redeployment strategy that will keep our brave men and women safe as they leave Iraq - instead of adhering to a political strategy to attack those who rightfully question their competence and preparedness after years of mistakes and misjudgments...................
I renew my request for a briefing, classified if necessary, on current plans for the future withdrawal of US forces from Iraq or an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.......Finally, I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Elelman's letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

In this commentary, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC provides his perspective on the entire episode:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDLGlzLuio]

Scooter Libby to go to Jail

On March 6, 2007, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted of four out of five felonies; two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to FBI agents and one count of obstructing justice. For this on June 5, 2007, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000.

Now the questions begin. Libby will appeal the verdict. Can he avoid prison during the appeal process? Will Bush pardon him? What role will politics play in all of this?

As U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton imposed the sentence and a $250,000 fine, he said his decision came "with a sense of sadness" because he was torn between admiration and disappointment. "I have the highest respect for people who take positions in our government and [try] ... to protect this country," he said. At the same time, the judge said, "I also think it is important we expect and demand a lot from people who put themselves in those positions. Mr. Libby failed to meet the bar."

Judge Reggie Walton did not immediately send Mr. Libby to prison. The decision on whether he can remain free while appealing the sentence will be delivered next week.

"The American people were reminded that even people in power, with friends in high places are not above the law"......Katie Couric, CBS news:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuXTCOIQe_c]

"From the White House to the Big House"....Keith Olbermann on Libby's sentence, MSNBC

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77CqJUUgj5Q]

The War will Continue

In a stinging, but not surprising, defeat the anti-war Democrats in Congress lost to President Bush in their bid to set a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. In fact the vote was not even close (Senate 80-14, House 280-142) to give the President exactly what he wanted, funds for the troops with no strings attached. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd all voted against the bill, as did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid leaders of the House and Senate respectively.

President Bush, in an interview after the House version passed, says, "By voting for this bill, members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our servicemen and women in harm's way." "As it provides vital funds for our troops, this bill also reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice."

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Sixty-one percent of Americans say that the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, and 76 percent say that things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found. Still, the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals.

Congressional leaders were still sounding defiant after the vote and promised that this was not the end:

"This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and if anything, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was more emphatic. "Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president," he said.

In the meantime commentators such as Keith Olbermann were not pleased with the performance of the Democrats and in this commentary below blasts them for collaborating with President Bush.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H00zSRc7LJw]

".....The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted with the only caveat being not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks to the Iraqi government but OPTIONAL meaningless symbolism about benchmarks to the Iraqi government. The Democratic leadership has in sum claimed a compromise with the Administration in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats and the lives of our brave and doomed friends and family in Iraq......."

" .......The electorate figured this out six months ago........on the subject of Iraq, the people have been ahead of the media, ahead of the government, ahead of the politicians for the last year or two years or maybe three, our politics is about now about the answer to one briefly worded question; Mr. Bush has failed, Mr. Warner has failed, Mr. Reid has failed. So, who among us will stop this war, this war of lies........there is only blame for this shameful and bipartisan betrayal.