SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
They saunter into my classroom alone or with friends, at the height of their youthful beauty. They may be 17 or they may be 22; they may dress in classic preppy style or, more likely, they may have thrown on a pair of jeans and t-shirt, slapped a baseball cap on and hurried, half asleep, to class. As I look at them, my heart tightens in my chest: if they reinstate the draft, how many of these young men and women will have low numbers in the conscription lottery? How many will be sent to fight? How many will be picked off at a guard post by a sniper? Or blown to pieces when their jeep hits a mine? For this is what George W. Bush's war comes down to: The death of innocents for a senseless war, led by a man who shirked his own duty during a time of war.
Much has been made of Bush's privileged experience during the Vietnam era; I have heard some comment that they cannot criticize Bush for doing what anyone in his position would have done and, in fact, did: Avoid going to Vietnam by using whatever means necessary. Vice President Richard Cheney got two deferments. Former President Bill Clinton won a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford.
Yet when I hear my contemporaries boast about how they got out of serving in Vietnam, I taste bitterness on my tongue. So many of my working-class peers died in Vietnam! It was a debacle; to sustain it, several presidents, Democrats and Republicans, lied about it. Each lied because he did not want to be the first American president to lose a war. For that hubris, my generation paid and continues to pay: 58,229 dead and still counting.
9,087,000 or about 9.7% of the men in my generation fought in Vietnam. 7,484 women served, most of them as nurses. Names continue to be added to the Vietnam War memorial in Washington, D.C. because the fatalities did not stop when President Richard Nixon declared victory and abandoned the war.
We need only look in the doorways and on the park benches of our cities to find the human detritus of the war. Many of these veterans are so scarred from their experiences in Southeast Asia that they will never recover. Some will commit suicide; many already have.
Those 58,229 young men and women were once students in our schools, raised to love God and country. 76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds. One quarter were from homes whose family income was below the poverty line.
These are the students who would have been in my classroom had I been teaching then. It is not so far-fetched to imagine my current students pressed into service for this war.
The Vietnamese lack the ability to conduct a war by themselves or govern themselves. --Vice President Richard M. Nixon, April 16, 1954
Where have we heard similar sentiments recently?
Rosa Maria Pegueros (pegueros@uri.edu) is an associate professor of Latin American History and Women's Studies at the University of Rhode Island.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
They saunter into my classroom alone or with friends, at the height of their youthful beauty. They may be 17 or they may be 22; they may dress in classic preppy style or, more likely, they may have thrown on a pair of jeans and t-shirt, slapped a baseball cap on and hurried, half asleep, to class. As I look at them, my heart tightens in my chest: if they reinstate the draft, how many of these young men and women will have low numbers in the conscription lottery? How many will be sent to fight? How many will be picked off at a guard post by a sniper? Or blown to pieces when their jeep hits a mine? For this is what George W. Bush's war comes down to: The death of innocents for a senseless war, led by a man who shirked his own duty during a time of war.
Much has been made of Bush's privileged experience during the Vietnam era; I have heard some comment that they cannot criticize Bush for doing what anyone in his position would have done and, in fact, did: Avoid going to Vietnam by using whatever means necessary. Vice President Richard Cheney got two deferments. Former President Bill Clinton won a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford.
Yet when I hear my contemporaries boast about how they got out of serving in Vietnam, I taste bitterness on my tongue. So many of my working-class peers died in Vietnam! It was a debacle; to sustain it, several presidents, Democrats and Republicans, lied about it. Each lied because he did not want to be the first American president to lose a war. For that hubris, my generation paid and continues to pay: 58,229 dead and still counting.
9,087,000 or about 9.7% of the men in my generation fought in Vietnam. 7,484 women served, most of them as nurses. Names continue to be added to the Vietnam War memorial in Washington, D.C. because the fatalities did not stop when President Richard Nixon declared victory and abandoned the war.
We need only look in the doorways and on the park benches of our cities to find the human detritus of the war. Many of these veterans are so scarred from their experiences in Southeast Asia that they will never recover. Some will commit suicide; many already have.
Those 58,229 young men and women were once students in our schools, raised to love God and country. 76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds. One quarter were from homes whose family income was below the poverty line.
These are the students who would have been in my classroom had I been teaching then. It is not so far-fetched to imagine my current students pressed into service for this war.
The Vietnamese lack the ability to conduct a war by themselves or govern themselves. --Vice President Richard M. Nixon, April 16, 1954
Where have we heard similar sentiments recently?
Rosa Maria Pegueros (pegueros@uri.edu) is an associate professor of Latin American History and Women's Studies at the University of Rhode Island.
They saunter into my classroom alone or with friends, at the height of their youthful beauty. They may be 17 or they may be 22; they may dress in classic preppy style or, more likely, they may have thrown on a pair of jeans and t-shirt, slapped a baseball cap on and hurried, half asleep, to class. As I look at them, my heart tightens in my chest: if they reinstate the draft, how many of these young men and women will have low numbers in the conscription lottery? How many will be sent to fight? How many will be picked off at a guard post by a sniper? Or blown to pieces when their jeep hits a mine? For this is what George W. Bush's war comes down to: The death of innocents for a senseless war, led by a man who shirked his own duty during a time of war.
Much has been made of Bush's privileged experience during the Vietnam era; I have heard some comment that they cannot criticize Bush for doing what anyone in his position would have done and, in fact, did: Avoid going to Vietnam by using whatever means necessary. Vice President Richard Cheney got two deferments. Former President Bill Clinton won a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford.
Yet when I hear my contemporaries boast about how they got out of serving in Vietnam, I taste bitterness on my tongue. So many of my working-class peers died in Vietnam! It was a debacle; to sustain it, several presidents, Democrats and Republicans, lied about it. Each lied because he did not want to be the first American president to lose a war. For that hubris, my generation paid and continues to pay: 58,229 dead and still counting.
9,087,000 or about 9.7% of the men in my generation fought in Vietnam. 7,484 women served, most of them as nurses. Names continue to be added to the Vietnam War memorial in Washington, D.C. because the fatalities did not stop when President Richard Nixon declared victory and abandoned the war.
We need only look in the doorways and on the park benches of our cities to find the human detritus of the war. Many of these veterans are so scarred from their experiences in Southeast Asia that they will never recover. Some will commit suicide; many already have.
Those 58,229 young men and women were once students in our schools, raised to love God and country. 76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds. One quarter were from homes whose family income was below the poverty line.
These are the students who would have been in my classroom had I been teaching then. It is not so far-fetched to imagine my current students pressed into service for this war.
The Vietnamese lack the ability to conduct a war by themselves or govern themselves. --Vice President Richard M. Nixon, April 16, 1954
Where have we heard similar sentiments recently?
Rosa Maria Pegueros (pegueros@uri.edu) is an associate professor of Latin American History and Women's Studies at the University of Rhode Island.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.