Posts Tagged ‘Iraq’

McCain Declares Victory in Iraq

September 11th, 2016
by Walwyn

During his recent interview with pastor Rick Warren, Senator John McCain described General David Petraeus as a “great leader. . .who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq.” Obviously, General Petraeus deserves all the acclaim he is usually afforded by citizens and politicians alike for making the Surge an effective strategy. The Surge, together with the Sunni Awakening and the stand-down by Shiite militias, have successfully reduced violence in Iraq. But what must have surprised some is McCain’s claim to have achieved “victory” in Iraq. Previously, the Senator has repeatedly stated that he will never leave Iraq until US and Coalition forces had achieved “victory.” McCain has chided Senator Obama for trading votes for victory, for wanting to leave Iraq before we had a chance to win, thus not putting America first-something McCain claims he will always do. Now, it seems as if we have done exactly that-achieved “victory.” Has McCain suddenly realized that we have achieved his end goal? We are left to wonder if we have, indeed, achieved “victory,” what do we do now? What is our exit strategy? Did he mean that the Surge has “worked”? And that now we must move on toward “victory”? Or did he simply mis-speak? Did he, perhaps, mean to use a different verb tense-not “took us to victory” but rather “is leading us toward victory.”

If the latter be the case, what then constitutes “victory” in Iraq? The Administration is always speaking about “the facts or conditions on the ground.” So what are those conditions or facts that warrant declaring victory? Perhaps they include some or all of the following: Numbers of casualties Binding agreements amongst Shia, Sunni and Kurd Viable oil sharing laws Conducting future elections Using oil resources to fund reconstruction Functioning of civic organizations-free press, keeping schools open, viable market place and availability of electricity, water, sewage Having Iraqi armed forces fully “stand up” to their own defense Security of borders and absence of terrorist sanctuaries Productive relations with neighbors Support for the United States Perhaps these are the sum total of the kind of security we hope for in Iraq.

And, if we haven’t quite achieved “victory,” what is our strategy for doing so? We are now withdrawing Surge forces. Prime Minister Maliki has agreed to some kind of time table withdrawal. We haven’t heard of a new strategy from Senator McCain. Senator Obama’s objectives are quite different, obviously. This doesn’t mean that Obama is any less patriotic. He analyzes the problem differently. And, we should note that “victory” may just be an outworn concept for this “war on terror.” There will be no signing on the forward starboard main deck of the USS Missouri as there was in Tokyo Bay on 2 September, 1945. There will be no Paris Peace Accords that terminated the Vietnam conflict in January, 1973. Whatever “victory” looks like it is certain, as Petraeus and others have told us, it will be achieved not only by military power but the force of diplomacy, discussions, the very hard work of reaching agreements amongst disparate groups and power sources. So, Senator McCain, have we indeed achieved “victory” or are we still working toward it with a strategy you and others have not clearly articulated? The key to preserving our democracy is to continually ask politicians important questions about policy, philosophy and performance. We must, as Dr. Sally Ride has said of a NASA manager, be “inquisitive to a fault.” We must keep asking serious questions of all who would be in government-questions about philosophy, priorities and, especially, performance. This is our only guard against the tyranny of a few, our only means of preserving our democracy.

John Barell Author, Quest For Antarctica-A Journey of Wonder and Discovery (2007)

John Barell is a national consultant to schools desiring to foster inquiry, critical thinking and authentic assessment in classrooms for all students. He is author most recently of Why Are School Buses Always Yellow? (2008); Surviving Erebus–An Antarctic Adventure (2008); Quest for Antarctica–A Journey of Wonder and Discovery (2007) and “Inquisitive to a Fault”–Preserving American Democracy.

Washington | Posted by Fabrice Dollmach

Barack Obama says American Alcohoilism is the Cause of Iraq War

June 30th, 2016

According to Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, American Alcohoilism is the root cause of the Iraq War, soon to be the Iran War. The immense, gluttonous, ridiculous over consumption of oil by the people of the United States of America is the root cause of the Iraq War said Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

At the time that America went to war in Iraq Senator Barack Obama was a state legislator. He opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning unlike all of the other leading candidates from both parties who voted to go to war in Iraq proving that the color of your skin and long years of experience do not always translate into good foresight and wisdom. Yesterday Barack Obama addressed the DNC Winter Meeting. Here is a part of what Barack Obama said:

“We’ve got 130,000 Americans fighting halfway across the world in a war that should never have been waged, led by leaders who have no plan to end it. The decisions that we make in the next decade will determine the future of our children and the future of our grandchildren. The campaign, our mission is to figure out how we can do some good for this precious country and planet of ours. Our oil dependence is threatening not just our pocketbooks but the safety of our planet.”

Barack Obama blasted President Bush’s new war escalation and budget which asks for the American people to throw another trillion dollars after bad for the war in Iraq. This warmongering by George Bush is bankrupting health care, social security, education and creating a deficit which will lead to the bankruptcy of the country, leading to another great depression or runaway inflation.

The root cause of the Iraq War and the American dependence on other countries for oil is not a lack of domestic oil but an insane over consumption of oil by the people of the United States. This graph is worth a billion words and shows in one glance the amount of oil used every day by every country on the planet earth. Look at it, click on it NOW to understand the root cause of the Iraq War.

The people of the United States of America consume 20 million barrels of oil each and every day, far in excess of any other nation on Earth. For the past 5 million years before a hundred years ago our ancestors used zero oil. Russia and India use 2 million barrels of oil per day. Indonesia with nearly the same population as the U.S. uses 1 million barrels of oil per day. Laos and many other countries use 3 thousand barrels of oil per day.

Now look at this chart of exports and production of oil by every country on Earth. This chart shows that Saudi Arabia exports 9 million barrels of oil more per day than it imports. On the other end of the scale the United States the world’s largest polluter by far imports 12 million barrels of oil per day on top of the 5 million barrels per day we produce domestically in the United States. The Iraq desert is capable of producing 2 million barrels of oil per day at a cost of $ 1 per barrel and this is why the United States invaded Iraq, to steal their oil. Every one of the 1.3 billion Muslim people on Earth knows this. The Iraq War and Iran War exit strategy is for the people of the United States of America to over the next year cut back on our ridiculous over consumption of oil to 2 million barrels of oil per day.

Russia and China consider Iran to be their own backyard. They are both going to back Iran just like they backed tiny North Vietnam to defeat the United States, when the United States attacks Iran. Russia and Iran have half of the world’s oil and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Russian President Vladimir Putin just announced their own gas OPEC. Russia, the Soviet Union, the long time enemy of the United States is building the Iranian nuclear reactor in Busheher Iran and the Soviet Union just delivered $ 1 billion worth of advanced surface to air missiles to Iran to protect it.

Yesterday Senator Barack Obama said, “Our oil dependence is threatening not just our pocketbooks but the safety of the planet.” The American dependence upon foreign oil because of our ridiculous over consumption of oil every day caused the Iraq War, is leading to the Iran War and then to nuclear world war 3, the extinction of life one earth in nuclear world war 3 and its aftermath nuclear winter then ultraviolet summer aka Mad, Mutually Assured Destruction. Furthermore the burning by the United States every day of 20 million barrels of oil, the American Alcohoilism is a leading cause of the impending global warming catastrophe when Antarctica, Greenland and the Arctic ice continents melt and the earth’s one Ocean rises permanently 50 feet, permanently submerging the United States under 50 feet of water. The United States is like a codeine addict thinking that the solution to his problems is to break into a drug store and steal the pills.

The real solution to our war and global warming problems is to eliminate our consumption of oil completely. Our ancestors did fine without it for five million years. Why are SUV’s legal? Why isn’t it a law that every American must drive a Smart Car or an electric car or an ethanol car which runs on corn or a fuel cell car which runs on water and emits only water vapor or ride a bicycle? Think of the reduction in oil consumption. Think of the end of the need to colonize the Middle East. Ford Motors is now approaching bankruptcy and Japanese Toyota just reported record sales and profit because of the difference in their cars’ gas mileage. Isn’t it about time that we as American people took the fifth step at Alcohoilics Anonymous and admitted to God, to ourselves and to everyone else the exact nature of our wrongs, that we drank too much oil, and isn’t it about time that we as Americans stopped needlessly drinking so much oil? Our very existence and the continued existence of life on Earth depends upon it said Senator Barack Obama yesterday. It’s just plain common sense. We know how much war costs in dollars and lives lost. How much money will peace save the American taxpayers, who are being taxed out of their minds by the hidden George Bush War Tax, which just went up another trillion dollars yesterday?

Karen Fish is a writer currently living in Los Angeles California. The Temple of Love

Related Senate Articles

Washington | Posted by Fabrice Dollmach

John McCain On Iraq: We Won And Obama Ruined It

August 19th, 2014

“U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) blasted President Barack Obama on Friday amid an increasingly tenuous situation developing in Iraq. McCain, that has been p…
Movie Rating: 4 / 5

Washington | Posted by admin

Iraq government launch air attack on ‘al-Qaeda base’

December 30th, 2013

The Iraqi government release video taken from an offensive to hunt down al-Qaeda-linked militants in the country’s volatile western desert Get the latest hea…

Washington | Posted by admin

Splinter Cell: Conviction – Walkthrough (Part 5) – Diwaniya, Iraq (part 1 of 2) – Realistic

January 31st, 2013

Splinter Cell: Conviction - Walkthrough (Part 5) - Diwaniya, Iraq (part 1 of 2) - Realistic

• 01 – Merchant’s Street Market • 02 – Kobin’s Mansion • 03 – Price Airfield • 04 – Diwaniya, Iraq • 05 – Washington Monument • 06 – White box Laboratories • 07 – Lincoln Memorial • 08 – Third Echelon HQ • 09 – Michigan Ave. Reservoir • 10 – Downtown District • 11 – White House

World War Two memorial in Washington DC, USA

Washington | Posted by admin

Senator Biden’s Plan for Iraq: Can it Work?

September 27th, 2012

The midterm Congressional election results have been widely interpreted as a public rejection of the Bush Administration’s handling of the ongoing war in Iraq. Democrats swept to victory promising a change in course, although their “New Direction” has yet to reveal itself to the American people. Recommendations are expected next week from the Iraq Study Group (ISG), headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, and the Pentagon has commissioned its own panel to provide the President additional options in case he is unsatisfied with the ISG’s report.

While everyone is frantically trying to come up with recommendations for the White House, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden some time ago proposed a plan for Iraq that is quickly gaining lots of attention, from Democrats and Republicans alike. The question, though, is whether or not the plan has a realistic chance of succeeding. Each of the five parts of the plan, along with an assessment of each, is presented here.

Part One: Establish One Iraq, With Three Regions. Senator Biden’s plan calls for separate Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish autonomous regions with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad. The regional governments would be responsible for administering their own areas, while the government in Baghdad would be given responsibility for border defense, foreign policy, oil production, and oil revenues.

There has been a concerted effort recently, primarily by Shiites and Kurds, for separate autonomous regions in Iraq. In fact, the reality on the ground is that the Kurds already run their own governmental operations in the north while the Shiites control Iraq’s south. The problem, though, is the Sunnis. The only area left for this minority sect to inhabit as their autonomous region is economically stagnant, devoid of oil resources and without any real economic potential at all. Knowing that they cannot survive in such a region, the Sunnis have used a violent insurgency to force Shiites and Kurds to reach some sort of political accommodation that provides for Sunni inclusion in Iraq’s future. Unfortunately, neither the Shiites nor the Kurds have been willing thus far to deal with the Sunni minority that oppressed them for three decades under Saddam Hussein’s ruthless dictatorship. And there is not much chance that will change anytime soon.

Another factor that must be considered in any partition plan is the potential response of Iraq’s neighbors. None of the nations sharing borders with Iraq have expressed an interest in dividing the country into separate regions, and Turkey, a key U.S. ally in the region, is adamantly opposed to any division because of the potential for future demands for outright independence from the Kurds. Such a move would foment unrest among Turkey’s Kurdish population, a scenario Ankara is insistent upon avoiding.

So, while talk of partition continues in Baghdad and Washington, and while neighboring countries weigh in with their opinions, and while the Kurds and Shiites exert more and more autonomy, the violence continues to escalate. The problem of Sunni inclusion is too complex to be solved by a simple division of the country into largely autonomous regions with a central government in Baghdad. Mixed population cities will not suddenly become peaceful and security forces would likely be more loyal to regional governments than to the enforcement of any foreign or oil policies to emerge from Baghdad.

It is doubtful, to me at least, that Iraq can remain a unified country. Attempting to hold on to some sort of central government in Baghdad is likely to create more problems than it will solve. And, while regional and allied concerns must be considered, a more realistic scenario is the division of the country into two independent states, a Kurdish north and a Shiite south. Sunnis will have to recognize that they are a minority, and they will have to learn to live peacefully and productively in the societies in which they find themselves. The Kurds are not likely to give up control of their region, and the Shiites are not likely to give up control of theirs. The remaining Sunni area is not economically sustainable on its own. Of course, the answer is not as simple as this, as control of Baghdad and some other key areas will still have to be resolved, and the Sunnis will have to accept the fact that they will not be returning to minority rule. But given the other options put forth thus far, it is an idea worth considering.

Part Two: Share Oil Revenues. To address the problem of an economically depressed Sunni region, Senator Biden proposes guaranteeing Sunnis twenty percent of all present and future oil revenues, which would be roughly equivalent to their proportion of the Iraqi population. The central government in Baghdad would be empowered to set national oil policy and distribute all oil revenues.

While such an agreement would provide much needed capital for any autonomous Sunni region, the difficulty lies in securing the cooperation of all the parties involved. Sunnis are divided, with some opposing anything but a return to their minority rule, some backing the fledgling government in Baghdad, some joining forces with foreign jihadists, and some just looking for a piece of the Iraqi oil pie. The Shiites are similarly divided, with some favoring a unified Iraq, some pushing for a strong alliance with Iran, and some content to live in a Shiite region in the south, with responsibility for their own security and control of the southern oil fields. Each sect has its own militia and death squads are running rampant conducting sectarian killings with increasing savageness.

The point is that there is no single, unified leadership for either the Sunnis or the Shiites. A plan that may be accepted by some will be rejected by others. The central government would face tremendous difficulties in attempting to administer any type of central oil production and revenue distribution policy from Baghdad, and any real enforcement capability would likely be severely limited. I agree with Senator Biden that a unified oil production system for all of Iraq would attract more foreign investment, which is desperately needed for an aging and failing infrastructure. But the reality of differing sectarian goals and regional loyalties makes such an arrangement a distant dream at best.

Part Three: Convene International Conference, Enforce Regional Non-Aggression Pact. Senator Biden’s plan calls for the convening of a regional security conference, with the United Nations, where Iraq’s neighbors would pledge to support Iraq’s power sharing agreement and respect Iraq’s borders. The plan includes direct engagement with Iraq’s neighbors, presumably to include Syria and Iran. Additionally, this part of the plan calls for the creation of a standing contact group that would be charged with the enforcement of the commitments made by neighboring countries.

Diplomatic efforts are always worth the time and effort involved, but this is not a new approach. President Bush has repeatedly asked the United Nations and Iraq’s neighbors to take a more active role in stabilizing the situation there. Syria and Iran have repeatedly said they are doing all they can to prevent instability and claim to be taking all necessary actions to prevent the smuggling of weapons and fighters across their borders.

Of course, we know that Syria and Iran are actually contributing to the increasing levels of violence in Iraq and that the United Nations is still upset that it was bypassed by the Bush Administration when it would not agree to enforce its own resolutions on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. To expect a sudden reversal in attitude by Syria, Iran, or the United Nations is a bit idealistic to say the least.

Syria and Iran are both using the violence in Iraq as bargaining chips for their own national interests and their cooperation will likely come at an exorbitant price. Iran sees the United States as bogged down, and can offer help with the Shiites in exchange for concessions on its nuclear program. Syria, similarly, could do more to secure its border with Iraq, but will likely want concessions on its control of Lebanon. Direct engagement may lead to a reduction in Iraqi sectarian violence, but it will come at a price the United States is probably not willing to pay.

Finally, it will be extremely difficult to secure commitments for a contact group that may have to use force along Iraq’s borders or within Iraq itself. No new nations are likely to step forward, given the current level of violence in Iraq and the global distaste for the war, and many of the nations that are there now plan on withdrawing their troops sooner rather than later. Additional international cooperation is extremely unlikely, especially given the potential for increased violence in Iraq or a potential showdown with Iran or Syria.

Part Four: Responsibly Drawdown U.S. Troops. Senator Biden’s plan would direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and redeploy almost all U.S. forces by the end of 2007. It would maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force (the plan says perhaps 20,000 troops) to take care of any concentration of terrorists, to help keep Iraq’s neighbors honest, and to train Iraqi security forces.

The problem here is that any withdrawal of U.S. troops must be conditions-based, and not time-based. The argument that Iraqis have had enough time to get their act together does not take into account the difficulties of transition from dictatorship to democracy, especially when that transition is occurring under fire.

Government security forces have to be trained to switch roles from protection of Saddam Hussein at any cost, including mass murder and terror, to serving the national interests of Iraq without regard to sectarian loyalties. That training is happening every day in Iraq, but it takes time. How much time? The answer to that question can only be answered by the commanders on the ground. We have trained them and placed them in leadership positions as subject matter experts on fighting and winning America’s wars. Do we not trust them to bring our sons and daughters home as quickly as possible, with the honor that comes from accomplishing their mission under the most difficult of circumstances?

The commanders in Iraq have told us that government security forces are making progress. Yes, they have been infiltrated by insurgents. Yes, they lack proper equipment and are not as skilled as their American trainers. But they are making progress. Despite daily roadside bombs and the constant threat of death at the hands of insurgents, Iraqis line up every day to join the Army and Police forces. Abandoning them now would be to leave them at the time of their greatest need.

The terrorist threat has not diminished. Syria and Iran continue to allow weapons and fighters to cross their borders into Iraq. If 140,000 troops are deemed insufficient to control the situation there, what good will 20,000 do? The answer may not be fewer troops, but more troops. Senator McCain has suggested an increase in forces. General Abizaid has said he doesn’t need them. Who do we listen to? Do we trust the Senator in Washington or the soldier in Iraq? Do we trust both? What General Abizaid has asked for is more time, not an increase or decrease in troop levels. Do we trust him as the subject matter expert that we trained him to be? Or do we not?

The point of all this is that we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of allowing Washington to make tactical decisions. The government gives our armed forces a mission based on national goals, resources them for that mission, and then assesses whether or not that mission is being accomplished. Military commanders are not, and should not be, free to do whatever they want, but their hands cannot be tied either. If confidence in them is lost, then the civilian leadership that is vital to our military system can take corrective action that it deems necessary. But we must, at a minimum, take into consideration what our military leaders are telling us.

Part Five: Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program. Senator Biden proposes more reconstruction assistance that would be tied to the protection of minority and women’s rights and the establishment of a jobs program designed to provide opportunities for young Iraqis. The plan would also insist that other countries take the lead in funding Iraqi reconstruction, especially the countries in the Middle East.

Here Senator Biden and I agree. Any U.S. reconstruction aid must be conditional. The issuance of blank checks is foolish policy and the protection of minority and women’s rights will be crucial to Iraq’s future as a democratic state. And, Iraq’s neighbors should be the parties most interested in the reconstruction of the war-torn country. Stability in their backyard should be a national security concern for all Middle East nations, and the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure and the opportunity for economic advancement will go a long way toward providing that stability. The alternative is continued strife and a potential refugee problem as people look to escape destitute and violent areas.

While I don’t agree with all aspects of Senator Biden’s plan, it is a plan with some merit. There are both positive and negative aspects to what he proposes, and the plan at least puts forth some ideas. Where we go from here must begin with such proposals, no matter what they may entail. Intelligent men and women will debate the merits of the ideas and the country will move forward from there. So, while I don’t think the plan will work as written, it is a proposal at least worthy of our consideration. From it we may draw options for the President and the Congress to consider. And that at least gives us a place to start.

Related Washington Concert Articles

Music | Posted by admin

Joe Lieberman is the 50th Republican Sleeper Senator on Iraq

August 23rd, 2012

Article by Karen Fish

Joe Lieberman is the 50th Republican Sleeper Senator on Iraq – Society – Politics

Search by Author, Title or Content

Article ContentAuthor NameArticle Title

Submit Articles
Author Guidelines
Publisher Guidelines
Content Feeds
RSS Feeds
Contact Us

There is no question that in the ice age before the invention of television the Republicans would have at least held onto the Senate because George Allen would have just lied and said that he never called the reporter a macaca, that the macaca was making it up, and the KKK would probably have lynched the macaca before he ever got to tell anyone that George Allen had called him a macaca. Most people think that George Allen called the black reporter working for his opponent a piece of feces because for the first 4 years of our lives we were told that Kaka was poo poo.

Never mind that Macaca Boy cost the Republican party the Congress. Republicans need not be too concerned. Don’t tell anyone but the Republicans still have the Senate. Once again Karl Rove has thrown a Hail Mary pass and beaten the Democrats. The word Democrat is a combination of the words Democ and Rat. Who would want to vote for a rat? When one thinks of a rat one thinks of Kim Jong Il. Who would elect him to the Senate? Perhaps his tall blond American harem groupies but what’s 500 votes? It’s the number of black voters who were behind the son of the former Washington Redskins football coach, who had spent a lifetime building goodwill for his son to make a run for the Presidency of the United States. Perhaps now in another classic display of good judgment Pope Bush the Flying Crusader will appoint George Allen as ambassador to the United Nations.

George Allen Sr. was the son of Earl Allen, who was a chauffeur in Detroit Michigan in the early 1900’s. George Allen Sr. earned varsity letters in football, track and basketball. He was like Bo Jackson. George knew Macaca. He was an officer trainee for the U.S. navy during World War 2, prior to the invention of 100 megaton nuclear bombs, which when kicked through the uprights at RFK Stadium will blow a permanently radioactive 10 square mile hole in the ground large enough for Arnold Palmer to make a putt.

You may think that the Republicans lost the Senate. They only managed to get 49 seats in the Senate. The Senate today is like the Ryder Cup. The team holding the trophy only needs a tie to win. It’s like kissing your brother. Had the Republicans gotten one more seat then Vice President Richard Cheney would break the tie for the Republicans. But wait. Karl Rove has an ace up his sleeve. His field goal kicker is passing to Jerry Rice who just blew by Nancy Pelosi and is waiting unguarded in the end zone with the clock dying down. Unlike Iraq, American politicians are not playing with both hands tied behind their back. Karl Rove used his KKK advisors to make a commercial ensuring that Harold Ford Jr. did not become the first black Senator from the South ever. Talk about Confederates holding a grudge. Who needs Lincoln Chafee? Karl Rove deliberately ran a welching card counter with the alias of “Alan Gold” in Connecticut to ensure that Joe Lieberman won as an “Independent”. The United States thinks that it just knocked out the Republican Party because of Iraq, but Joe Lieberman is the Sleeper Republican on the Iraq purse strings, and the boys and girls are never coming home.

About the Author

Karen Fish is a writer currently living in Los Angeles California.The Temple of Love

Use and distribution of this article is subject to our Publisher Guidelines
whereby the original author’s information and copyright must be included.

Karen Fish

RSS Feed

Report Article

Publish Article

Print Article

Add to Favorites

Article Directory
Contact Us
Advanced Search
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer ? 2012, All Rights Reserved.

Karen Fish is a writer currently living in Los Angeles California.The Temple of Love

Use and distribution of this article is subject to our Publisher Guidelines
whereby the original author’s information and copyright must be included.

Related Senate Articles

Washington | Posted by admin

Bremner, Bird, and Fortune: George Parr (Iraq oil)

July 26th, 2010

An interview with ‘George Parr’ (a fictional character stating real facts). Shown in 2007 during Bremner, Bird, and Fortune the interview features Iraq and it’s oil. Taken from the new series of BBF currently on Channel 4 (captured via Channel 4 +1).

Washington | Posted by admin

Iraq: One Winter Soldier’s Tale

July 13th, 2010 In the spring of 2007, a conference was held on the outskirts of Washington, DC. Entitled Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan, it harkened back to the Winter Soldier testimonies held three decades ago during the Vietnam War. Of the testimonies we filmed, this one, by Iraq War vet Jon Michael Turner, was the most compelling and intense. CONTENT MANAGERS AND BLOGGERS: If you are a webmaster, blogger or in charge of content management for your site and want to get direct advance updates without going through the mailing list, sign up here: FACEBOOK: We just created a group on Facebook and would love for you to join our group and encourage your online communities to do so: TWITTER: Follow ANP’s latest doings on Twitter: RSS FEED: If you would like immediate notification of our new stories as they are posted, please subscribe to our RSS feed: NEWSLETTER: For news about ANP and new initiatives. FUND A BEAT: Get behind community-funded journalism:

Washington | Posted by admin
%d bloggers like this: