Peace Pundit

Several previous PeacePundit posts discussed Blackwater Worldwide’s alleged unprovoked killing of 17 Iraqi civilians on on September 16, 2007 (see list below). The two most recent of those posts indicated that Blackwater would not be hurt by the tragedy/crime. The latest Associated Press report, excerpted below, supports that by indicating that the chances of charges being filed against Blackwater are low to nil.

San Francisco Chronicle, 10 May 2008

Criminal charges not likely for Blackwater in killings of Iraqis

Matt Apuzzo & Lara Jakes Jordan
Associated Press

Blackwater Worldwide, the security contractor blamed by an angry Iraqi government for the shooting deaths of 17 civilians last year, is not expected to face criminal charges — all but ensuring the company will keep its multimillion-dollar contract to protect U.S. diplomats.

Instead, the 7-month-old Justice Department investigation is focused on as few as three or four Blackwater guards who could be indicted in the Sept. 16 shootings, according to interviews with a half-dozen people close to the investigation.

The final decision on any charges will not be made until late summer at the earliest, a law enforcement official said. …

…

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said, “If it is determined that there are any individuals who need to be held accountable, we support that.”

The shootings began when a Blackwater convoy, responding to a Baghdad car bombing, entered the Nisoor Square traffic circle. Blackwater says the convoy was ambushed by insurgents, touching off a firefight. Iraqi witnesses described an unprovoked attack in which security guards fired indiscriminately, killing motorists, bystanders and children in the square.

The shooting enraged the Iraqi government, which originally sought to expel the company from the country, and strained diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad.

…

[Read Entire Article]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

• Blackwater Not Hurt, but Rather Thriving
• Evidence Mounts that Blackwater Shot First in Nisoor Square
• Blackwater Mercenaries Have Killed Many in Iraq
• Blackwater Busted for Killing Iraqi Civilians

Today the NY Times ran a story asserting that the Democrats plan to “defy” the Bush Administration by attaching restrictions on torture, veterans’ benefits, and domestic unemployment funding to a war-funding bill Bush requested. The claim is that if Bush wants his war money, he will have to accept the attached measures as well. [Read NYT Story]

This is a lame attempt by the Democrats to make it seem that they are standing up to Bush, when in fact they are giving Bush all the war-funding he wants through the end of his term, and even several months into the next President’s administration.

Truly standing up to Bush would mean ending all funding for his occupation of Iraq (let’s not call it a war). The Democrats claim that they cannot simply stop all war funding because:

• it would put the troops at risk,
• it would make them look weak on defense in an election year, and
• they don’t have enough of a majority to override a presidential veto.

These are false excuses.

Cutting off funding would not put the troops at risk. The troops are already at risk in Iraq: 4075 have died and about 35 die every month they remain in Iraq. Cutting off funding would require bringing the troops home, away from risk. If Bush, as Commander in Chief, left the troops in Iraq without funding, he — not the Democrats — would be the one putting the troops at risk. Congress cutting off funds is how the Vietnam debacle ended, and is how the Iraq debacle should be ended.

Second, cutting off funding would not make the Democrats look weak in an election year. On the contrary; it would finally make them look strong! It would show that they have a spine. It would also express the will of the U.S. electorate: over seventy five percent of voters — of all political persuasions — want the U.S. out of Iraq. Yes, a few right-wing militarists, fundamentalist anti-Muslim wing-nuts, and oil-grabbing neo-cons want the U.S. to occupy Iraq forever, but they are such a tiny minority that they should simply be ignored, just as the U.S. ignored right-wingers who wanted the U.S. to side with Hitler against Stalin in WWII.

Third, the lack of a veto-proof majority is no excuse for continuing to fund the war. To exercise his veto, Bush must have something to veto. Congress should simply not send Bush any more war-funding bills, giving Bush nothing to veto.

Please, call your Democratic Representative today and ask — no, tell — her or him to stop funding the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. No more war funding! Bring our troops home!

Find your representative’s phone number using this directory or the official directory of congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s phone numbers are: SF Office: 415/556-4862; DC Office: (202) 225-4965

Then We Have the Clueless Repubs

The Republicans deserve even more scorn than the Democrats. They attack the extra appropriations the Democrats have attached to the war-funding bill as “unnecessary”. They, like Bush, want the Democrats to pass the war-funding by itself and then separately request the other funding… which Bush would of course veto. In their twisted view, $70 billion in veterans’ education and domestic spending is wasteful, whereas $108 billion in war-funding is prudent and necessary.

Republicans need to learn the difference between an investment and an expense. When I blow $100 on a fancy dinner, that’s an expense. When I put $100 into my child’s education or double-pane windows on my house, that’s an investment that will yield a return.

Money for veterans’ education is an investment. The return is a more productive workforce and a higher living standard.

In contrast, almost all money spent on war is an expense. There is very little, if any, return on it. Aircraft, vehicles, and weapons costing millions of dollars are destroyed on a daily basis (ironically, they are called “durable goods” by economists).

The Iraq occupation is a particularly strong example of money thrown down a rat-hole: not only is Iraq in worse shape than it was before the U.S. invaded, the U.S. and the world are in worse shape too. Tens of thousands of our troops have been killed or wounded physically and psychically, reducing our nation’s productivity. Millions of Iraqis have been killed or wounded, and Iraq’s infrastructure is destroyed, creating lasting simmering hostility and destroying any chance of economic and political stability.

The Republicans want to throw more good money — and lives — down that stinking rat-hole?

Republicans accuse the Democrats of being “tax and spend liberals”. A good label for the Republicans is “borrow and blow”: they spend money we don’t have on expenses that have no return value, putting us in hock as a nation, depressing the dollar in world markets, and driving down our domestic economy.

The Republicans need to admit that Bush, even though he is from their party, is the worst President in U.S. history, and that almost nothing he has initiated deserves to be continued. John McCain, take note.

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

• House Dems Assembling Biggest Iraq Spending Bill
• Sanders: Why the Democrats Aren’t Stopping the Iraq War
• Cuomo: Bush Doesn’t Have Authority to Declare War
• Cheney on Why Invading Iraq Would Be a Bad Idea
• Delusional or Liars? You Be The Judge
• One Day of Iraq War = $720 million

Just after uploading a blog-post summarizing an economist’s recent analysis of the costs of the Iraq War (see previous post, below), I read an extremely disappointing story on the front page of today’s SF Chronicle. Below are excerpts and a link to the story, followed by my letter to the Chronicle, which they printed on May 1 (Mayday).

SF Chronicle, 28 April 2008

House Dems Assembling Biggest Iraq Spending Bill

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Washington DC — House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure … expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president’s term.

The bill … signals that Democrats are resigned to the fact they can’t change course in Iraq in the final months of President Bush’s term. Instead, the party is pinning its hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.

…

The bill is expected to provide $108 billion that the White House has requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lawmakers … drafting it say it … will include a … bridge fund of $70 billion to give the new president several months of breathing room …

…

View Entire Article

Printed in San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2008

Editor,

It is almost unbelievable that House Democrats are preparing to give President Bush the war funding he seeks for the remainder of his term ["House Dems Assembling Biggest Iraq Spending Bill", April 28].

In the last congressional election, the Democrats asked progressives to work to help them retake Congress. They promised they would end the Iraq war once in the majority. We walked precincts, registered voters, staffed get-out-the-vote phone banks, raised funds. The Democrats won the majority.

What have they done with that majority? Kowtowed to the Bush regime. Behaved as if they were still the minority party. Caved in to conservative members of their own party who wrongly claim that cutting off war funding would make them look “weak on security”.

Apparently, helping elect Democrats isn’t working as a strategy to end the war.

Yo, Speaker Pelosi, listen up: end this war pronto or you’ll lose our support. We won’t be fooled again.

Jeff Johnson
PeacePundit.com

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-laureate economist and former World Bank President, has analyzed the cost of the Iraq War. His analysis makes several points that war critics have been making since before the war was launched:

• The war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted.
• The Bush administration continues to grossly underestimate the cost of the war.
• The Bush administration cost-estimates exclude the cost of rehabilitation and health care for veterans injured, who constitute a higher proportion of casualties than in any prior U.S. war.
• The Iraq War is the second most expensive in U.S. history (after WWII) and the second longest (after Vietnam).
• The cost of the war helped cause the sub-prime banking crisis, which threatens the whole world’s economy.
• The war is primarily responsible for a dramatic rise in oil prices since the war began.
• The war will cost another half trillion between 2008 and 2010 if not ended.
• The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world. Just a few days’ funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered.

An article published recently in “The Australian” summarizes Stiglitz’s analysis. A quote from the article:

“When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn’t focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired.

“(Then Defence Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said ‘baloney’, and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion.

“We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion. Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that.” View Entire Article

Stiglitz’s mind-boggling cost-estimates are put into perspective by a recent video produced by the American Friends Service Committee: “One Day of Iraq War”. It shows the many productive uses to which one day’s Iraq War cost could be put. View video.

My previous postings about civilian war-deaths have all been about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Unfortunately, civilians are often casualties of wars in other countries as well.

Below are excerpts of four news reports of civilian casualties in Somalia, where a civil war (with Ethiopian involvement) has been raging for many years. The last report-excerpt gives a human-rights organizations’s estimate that, through the end of 2007, about 6500 civilians had died in Somalia’s conflict.

As elsewhere, civilian casualties in Somalia have been caused by both insurgents and government troops. However, several reports indicate that government retaliation to insurgent activity can be heavy-handed and indiscriminate, too often hitting people who had the misfortune of being near where the insurgents were.

San Francisco Chronicle, 30 March 2008

Ten Civilians Killed as Somalia Shells Rebels

At least 10 civilians were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia’s chaotic capital … after government troops shelled a market area known to be an insurgent hideout.

According to witnesses, the fighting started when insurgents fired mortars at Villa Somalia, the presidential palace and seat of the transitional government. At the time, Somalia’s President, Abdullahi Yusuf, was meeting with Ethiopia’s foreign minister, Seyoum Mesfin. It was not immediately clear if any government officials or Ethiopian troops, who are helping guard the palace, were hit.

The government and Ethiopian forces then responded, sending a barrage of mortar or artillery shells back toward the direction where they had been fired, witnesses said. The shells landed in the crowded Bakara market, which insurgents have used as a base to attack government troops.

PressTV.ir, 18 April 2008

Seven civilians killed in Somalia

Ethiopian troops have killed seven civilians in fresh round of attacks on Buulo Burde town in central Hirran region in Somalia.

The victims were forced out of their homes and shot to death, eyewitnesses told the Press TV correspondent in Mogadishu. They said Ethiopian troops have also taken some others into an unidentified place.

“The victims were suspected of creating panic among residents and provoking the displacement,” the witnesses said.

Hundreds of civilians have evacuated their homes and begun fleeing the town after the victims had said that the Islamic Court Union members (ICU) were approaching the city.

…

Associated Press, 23 Feb 2008

Three civilians killed by roadside bomb in Somalia’s capital

MOGADISHU, Somalia: A roadside bomb killed three civilians and wounded five others Saturday in an attack apparently meant for a passing convoy of Ethiopian troops in Somalia’s war-battered capital, witnesses said.

“There were limbs and flesh everywhere,” said resident Abdulkadir Barre, who said he saw three bodies in the middle of the street.

Among the dead were two sisters who ran a shop near the site of the explosion, he said. Another witness, Isse Osman, said he saw five others with serious injuries, one of them a student.

Thousands of people were killed last year in Somalia, many of them caught in the crossfire as Islamic insurgents battle government troops and their Ethiopian allies.

Those who saw the explosion said the bomb went off just after a convoy of Ethiopian soldiers in pickup trucks and other vehicles passed through the area. The site was cordoned off and surrounded by troops in the afternoon.

…

Reuters, 31 Dec 2007

Mogadishu violence kills 6,500 in past year

MOGADISHU - Conflict in Somalia killed 6,501 civilians in the capital Mogadishu in 2007 and wounded 8,516 more, a local human rights group said on Monday.

The Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation said it had recorded 1.5 million people uprooted from homes in the city during a year that began with the toppling of an Islamist movement, spawning an insurgency.

The group’s chairman, Sudan Ali Ahmed, blamed Ethiopian forces supporting the interim Somali government for many of the civilian deaths. Residents are often caught in the crossfire as Ethiopian soldiers battle Islamist-led guerrillas.

“The international community must intervene in Somali affairs to force the Ethiopians to get out. At the same time they must bring a joint international peacekeeping force to secure the country,” Ahmed told a news conference.

He said he believed the United States was funding Ethiopia to keep its troops in Somalia, and must take some of the blame.

The Horn of Africa nation has been mired in lawlessness since warlords ousted dictator Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991. The transitional government is the country’s 14th attempt at restoring central government since then.

In the latest violence, a mortar strike killed eight members of a family at a refugee camp north of Mogadishu on Sunday. …

…

Recently I attended a talk on ways to protest paying income taxes that fund wars, particularly the Iraq war. The speaker was a longtime Quaker peace-activist who decided that although he supports income taxes when they are used for peaceful purposes, he could no longer in good conscience pay the portion of his income-tax bill that funds war.

The War Resisters League’s analysis of the U.S. government’s FY-2009 budget (see links at end of post) shows that about 54% of federal spending is for military purposes. The total budget is $2.65 trillion, so 54% is about $1.45 trillion.

The speaker made several noteworthy points about war-tax resistance:

• War-tax resisters are not opposed to taxes. They believe that as citizens of a democracy, they have a responsibility to pay their share of national costs for education, infrastructure, poverty reduction, etc. However, they are opposed to paying for violence and destruction, i.e., war. They strongly distinguish and distance themselves from people who are opposed to paying income taxes in general.
• Pay non-war taxes. According to the War Resisters League, 46% of your tax bill pays for things other than war. Pay that.
• Pay for military pensions. Some military expenses provide pensions and health services to veterans. Many war-tax resisters count this as “non-war” spending because they believe our veterans earned our support for the sacrifices they have made. Taking military pensions out of the 54% mentioned above, reduces it to somewhere around 40% of the total U.S. budget.
• You won’t go to jail. Many people don’t like paying for war, but do it because they worry they will go to jail or prison. That won’t happen. The IRS doesn’t want to incarcerate people; it just wants the money.
• The IRS moves slowly. If you stop paying war-taxes, the immediate response will be… nothing. For a long time — sometimes years — you’ll hear nothing from the IRS. Then they will send you letters asking you to pay back-taxes and accrued penalties. The letters will continue for a while, then the IRS will threaten to attach your bank accounts. Eventually, they will do that and collect the money you owe. All this moves very slowly: over a period of years — sometimes many years.
• Most war-tax resisters don’t hide their money. They don’t stash it in offshore accounts or mattresses. They keep it in normal accounts, where the IRS can find it and, sometimes, collect it. The point is not to pay war-taxes willingly.
• The IRS won’t take your property. The IRS wants the money you owe them; not your property. In the past, the IRS occasionally grabbed resisters’ property, but found that homes, land, cars, furniture, etc. are too hard to convert into money, so they basically stopped doing that. (The speaker told a story in which the IRS years ago took a war-tax resister’s furniture and sold it at auction, and the war-tax resister’s friends and family went to the auction, bought it back, and gave it all back to him.)
• There are legal ways. There are many ways to protest paying war-taxes, some of which incur no legal liability at all. Two such ways are:
• Don’t make enough. Reduce your income below the taxable level. Many war-tax resisters live this way.
• Pay under protest. Include in your tax return a letter saying you are paying your taxes under protest (see sample letter below). Such letters are filed by the IRS with your tax records but have no legal consequences whatsoever.
• Support a Peace Tax. Join the campaign to create a Peace Tax Fund, so that taxpayers who are opposed to war-taxes can allocate their tax payments into a fund that will not be used for military purposes.

Sample Letter for Paying Taxes Under Protest (PeacePundit version)

Date

To whom it may concern:

I am determined to fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen of the United States. One such responsibility is paying income taxes. Income taxation is a valid way for a democratic nation to spread the costs of education, infrastructure development, community development, poverty alleviation, environmental protection, and other constructive causes fairly among its citizenry.

One of my responsibilities as a citizen is to let my government know that I believe it to be seriously misguided in using violence and destruction as a means of addressing international problems.

I am opposed to paying taxes to support the United State’s involvement in wars. In particular, the U.S.-led wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were poorly conceived and have been even more poorly executed. They have caused many deaths and injuries that would not otherwise have occurred. They have caused incalculable damage, and have increased, rather than diminished, anti-U.S. sentiment and the threat of terrorism.

Therefore, I am filing my IRS 1040 form and paying my taxes under protest.

I support the establishment of the proposed Peace Tax Fund, which if enacted into law would allow conscientious opponents of war to direct their tax payments into programs that support community life and constructive efforts in the U.S. and around the world.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Social security number:
Address:
Copies to: (congressional reps, newspapers, etc.)

War-Tax Resistance Resources

• National War-Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee
• War Resisters League (W.R.L.)
• W.R.L. Pie-Chart of Where Tax Dollars Go
• Legal Method to Not Owe Any Income Tax: Limit Earnings
• Calculate Your War Tax
• Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund
• Cost of War counter

Below are excerpts from two recent newspaper reports of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The first reports the killing of six Afghan civilians by a Taliban suicide bomber. The second reports the killing of several civilians in Pakistan by a U.S. missile strike from across the border in Afghanistan.

Suicide Bomber Kills 6 Afghan Civilians, Injures Dozens

San Francisco Chronicle, 14 March 2008

Kabul, Afghanistan — A suicide bomber targeting U.S. troops instead killed six Afghan civilians Thursday (3/13)…

[The] attack in Kabul, near its international airport, was aimed at a two-vehicle U.S. military convoy. In addition to at least six civilians killed, more than a dozen were wounded.

Western news agencies reported that the Taliban claimed responsibility.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai called the bombing a cowardly attack, one of many he said was meant to harm innocent civilians. However, public anger over such attacks by militants often rebounds against Karzai’s government and the presence of more than 50,000 foreign troops.

…

U.S. coalition’s strike in Pakistan said to kill civilians, not Taliban

Associated Press, 14 March 2008

Tangrai, Pakistan — U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan fired across the border into Pakistan in a strike targeting Taliban militants, and the Pakistani army said Thursday that civilians were killed.

The attack illustrates American concerns that the Taliban and al Qaeda are using Pakistan’s lawless frontier as a base for attacks in Afghanistan.

But anger at civilian deaths could lead to a review by the incoming Pakistani government of the country’s counterterrorism strategy and its U.S.-backed policy of using military force to root out militants.

A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan said troops used “precision-guided munitions” to strike a compound about a mile inside Pakistan on Wednesday.

Maj. Chris Belcher said that the troops were responding to an “imminent threat” and that the coalition informed Pakistani authorities after the strike. “We received reliable intelligence indicating senior Haqqani network members were in the compound at the time of the strike,” Belcher said Thursday in Kabul.

Siraj Haqqani is a prominent Afghan militant. On Wednesday, a coalition statement accused him of organizing a suicide attack that killed two NATO soldiers at an Afghan government office March 3. It said Haqqani “has become the most dangerous Taliban leader in Afghanistan.”

In Tangrai, a village of about 40 houses surrounded by fields and mountains, residents led an Associated Press reporter to the rubble of the house hit in the attack. Only one of its four walls was standing amid a tangle of mud bricks, bedding and cooking pots.

“We are innocent, we have nothing to do with such things,” said Noor Khan, a grocer who said the wrecked building had been his family home. He said six of his relatives - four women and two boys - died in the attack. “We are poor people just trying to earn a living,” he said.

The Pakistani army said four civilians — two women and two children — died. There was no way to resolve the discrepancy between the numbers.

It was not clear whether the coalition forces fired from the ground or the air or what weapons were used. Belcher said he could not detail the threat and had no information on casualties.

Pakistan’s army, which has received billions of dollars from Washington to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, initially said the incident was an accident.

…

There have been several incidents in the past of coalition fire landing in Pakistani territory.

Some may be due to the poor demarcation of the long, rugged border. Last June, a rocket fired during a battle between U.S.-led NATO forces and insurgents in Afghanistan struck a home in North Waziristan, killing 10 civilians.

But there also have been several cases where unmanned U.S. drones have fired missiles at suspected militant hideouts in Pakistan’s border regions…

A sad milestone has been reached: today, March 23, 2008, the official count of U.S. military dead in the Iraq war reached 4000 (icasualties.org).

Omitted from that count are deaths of private security “contractors” (aka mercenaries) and deaths of troops from other Coalition countries.

The number of Iraqi dead also continues to grow, with estimates ranging from 88,000 (IraqBodyCount.org) to almost 1,000,000 (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health).

Another significant milestone is that, at five years and counting, the war on Iraq has lasted longer than the U.S.’s participation in WWII.

SF Veterans’ Peace Vigil in Response to the Milestone

On Monday, March 24, Veterans for Peace in San Francisco, along with other veterans/military-related groups, will hold a solemn candlelight ceremony to mark the milestone. It will take place at SF Civic Center, on the Polk Street side of SF City Hall.

Participants should arrive at Civic Center by 6 pm. The ceremony will begin at 7 PM.

The organizers need help setting up, especially lighting the candles. Call (415) 255-7331 for more information or to volunteer. The Veterans for Peace office is in the Veterans War Memorial Building at 401 Van Ness, Room 125. The organizers need 5-6 people from 5 pm. Please notify the organizers beforehand if you will be able to help set up.

This will be a solemn event: please no banners/posters other than those of VFP, its affiliated American Legion Post 315, and other Posts along with a board with all the U.S. casualties in Iraq. Organizers will read the 1,000 names of servicemen and women who died in Iraq since the last reading (”Ties to Remember”, January 1, 2007).

Below is a sampling of photos I took at the Anti-War rally and march in San Francisco on March 19, 2008, the fifth anniversary of the war against Iraq. The SF Chronicle reported that about 4000 people participated. The rally organizers estimated the crowd at about 7000. The true number is almost certainly somewhere between those two estimates. My own judgement is that about 6000 people participated.

March 19 2008 is the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which initiated the U.S.-led war that continues to rage in that country, costing hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Iraqi lives, almost 4000 U.S. soldiers lives, many thousands more people with injuries, and over 2.8 trillion dollars.

Express your opposition to the Iraq war at any of the following events:

SF Bay Area

• Sun March 16, 5 pm. Peace Vigil, SF Unitarian Universalist Church, Franklin & Geary, San Francisco. Speakers: Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Gregory Stewart, and more.
• Wed March 19, 7 am - 4 pm. Peace Vigil, outside Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office, Montgomery BART station. We will read the names of the more than 600,000 Iraqis and 4,000 Americans killed in the senseless war as we leaflet commuters during the morning. We invite everyone to join us in a nonviolent spirit as we set a solemn tone. Bring flowers. Poets and musicians are encouraged to blend their work with the reading of the names. Join us for part or all of the morning and into the afternoon. At some point during the lunch hour, numbers of us will take nonviolent direct action and invite you to join us.
• Wed March 19, noon. Peace vigil, Market and Powell St.
• Wed March 19, 5 pm. San Francisco, March and Rally, SF Civic Center. This is the big one.
• Fri March 21, 12-1 pm. Mission District vigil, corner of Mission and Virginia.
• Fri March 21, 2-4 pm. Berkeley Vigil, University & Acton St.
• Fri March 21, 6-7 pm. Bernal Heights Vigil, Cortland Ave & Andover St.

Anti-War Events Nationwide

• MoveOn.org
• IraqMoratorium.org.
• IraqMoratorium-sfbay.org.
• International A.N.S.W.E.R.