Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Iraq and nonsense

Good evening, let's kick things off with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Iraq snapshot.
Chaos and violence continue . . . to continue.
And are we surprised? The usual Hawsk strut and pander while the violence claims more lives.
Bombings?
As Sandra Lupien noted on today's KPFA's The Morning Show, 2 bombers blew themselves up "outside the so-called Geen Zone." Along with being home to various embedded reporters and their bodygaurds, the Green Zone also houses Iraq's parliament, Defense Ministry, High Criminal Court and the US embassy -- a huge complex, as the AP noted in April, with "21 buildings on 103 acres" which makes it "six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington's National Mall."
The 'grandness' of it all suggests to some that the United States has no intent of handing over power or leaving. On the latter, Robert MacPherson (Mail & Guardian) reports that today, in England, Tony Blair announced England wasn't withdrawing anytime soon and that his wife, Cherie Booth, explained that he wasn't ready to step down. England's prime minister demonstrated what long ago led to him being dubbed the Bully Boy's poodle as he took slams at two nations in a single sentence: "Not for us the malaise of France or the angst of Germany."
In other nonsense, Gulf Times reports the William McCoy (US Army Corps of Engineers, "Major General") believes that, by the end of summer, electricity in Baghdad might be available for eleven hours. That's apparently "eleven hours" on some sort of Operation Happy Talk Clock since McCoy notes that right now electricity is available for six to eight hours -- a claim most media reports dismiss and note the figure is closer to between two and four hours a day.
More nonsense comes from Angel Ortiz (the Army Corps seems to have hacks and flacks all over today issuing press releases) who maintains that by the end of the year Falluja will have "clean water" in 80 percent of all homes as well as "an $8 million wireless telecommunications project". Falluja was reduced to rubble in November 2004 (the article notes the need to more "laborers to haul away seemingly endless piles of rubble) and there's been little done to assist or help with many residents of Falluja who fled as the US forces began their attacks nearly two years ago, still homeless. Expect both inflated predictions to be forgotten as the deadlines draw near.
Meanwhile back in the real word, Sunni parliamentarian Ayad al-Samaraie has asked that the United Nations supply peace keepers immediately due to the fact that: "the occupation forces cannot protect the people." This as the Associated Press estimates the chaos and the violence in Iraq today claimed the lives of "at least 47 people nationwide." (Look for the New York Times to pooh-pah that number as they've done with press reports for the last two days -- today with Edward Wong, yesterday with Kirk Semple. If you thought it was hard work selling an illegal war, step back and watch the paper of no record really get down to the business of selling the illegal occupation.)
Early on, the BBC estimated that the bombings in the Green Zone resulted in five deaths and ten injured. Reuters woud place the fatalities at 15 as the day wore on. Al Jazeera notes that in addition to the two bombers who blew themselves up, there was also a car bomb. The BBC notes that police assume the target was "a restaurant frequented by police" while the AP reports that Gufran al-Saadi (female Shi'ite parliamentarian) states that she believes she was the target. The car bomb went of near the restaurant, according to Al Jazeera, while "[a]n Aljazeera witness" place one of the bombers "in front of the governmental compound in the Green Zone".
The BBC reports the kidnapping of Wissam Jabr in Baghdad "an Iraqi foreign ministry official who had been serving as a diplomat in neighbouring Iran." Reuters reports his name as Wissam Abdulla al-Awadi.Also in Baghdad, Reuters notes that "eight employees of an Iarqge contracting company" were killed when their office was stormed by "gunmen" while the Associated Press notes two bakery workers were shot dead while on the job. CBS and the AP report two more bombs in Baghdad (one under a fuel tanker, the other a car bomb) that resulted in the death of at least four and and twenty-four wounded).Outside of Baghdad, CBS and the AP report that "an engineer with Iraq's North Oil Co. and his driver" were ambushed and killed in Kirkuk. Reuters reports the shooting deaths of 19 in Baquba and of nine (Iraq soldiers) in Al-Shirqat. And the AP reports that, in Tikrit, three people were wounded when a bomb went off near a "private clinic." Later the three wounded would become two wounded and one dead. Dr. Amira Qassim al-Rubaie died, "the wife of the governor of the dangerous Salahuddin province".
Reuters notes the end of the Sunni boycott of parliament following the kidnapping of Taiseer Najah al-Mashhadani. (No, al-Mashhadani has not been released.) The Associated Press quotes Adnan al-Dulaimi: "We have decied to attend the meetings as of tomorrow in response to the call Muqtada al-Sadr." Various reports note that those holding al-Mashhadani have stated they are treating her as "a guest" and that she will be released in the next few days. Reuters notes that the Iraqi Accordance Front (the Sunni bloc in parliament with 44 seats) has been in contact with the kidnappers.
[. . .]
On July 15th, a rally will be held "at the gates of Ft. Lewis in Tacoma, WA." Courage to Resist is getting the word on that event [and on Suzanne Swift]. Kevin Zeese recently spoke with Max Diorio who explained "resisters need to feel that they are being upheld and supported by people in their communities. To take such a large step into the unknown, it is invaluable for resisters to feel that they'll have people to rely on when they are being persecuted by the US military."

Packing in all the news you need and then some.

And that's a pointed remark.

I'll plug the community because the community doesn't drop Iraq from one day to the next or plug a sexist website. And to be real honest, considering who notes ____ each day and who doesn't, who notes public appearances and who doesn't . . . if you're mad, I am too. People know I spear headed a movement before and I'll do it again. I've already argued (with Jim and Dona backing me up) that ___ shouldn't be noted at all tomorrow at The Common Ills.

When you consider all the crap C.I. got for noting it all last week when it jerked off and wasted everyone's time and add in that it DID NOT, EVEN THOUGH EDDIE CONTACTED THEM ABOUT THE THE US GOVERNMENT KEEPING AN IRAQI BODY COUNT, FIND TIME TO EVER NOTE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wrote the above before Blogger went down and thought I could post before it went down but I went to post and nothing. I'm lucky I didn't lose the post.

I feel like a dick right now. Not for anything above, I stand by it.

But I really did hammer C.I. on the above (I wasn't the only one). Dona pointed out a little while ago that C.I.'s already gotten e-mails on this and that the fast is ongoing. (And it goes without saying but I know she was thinking it too, C.I.'s not really someone who can afford to be on a fast for seven or eight days straight -- weight wise. ) So I feel like a real dick right now.

I think we always expect that C.I. has the energy of a thousand of us and can do it all and take it all. And now I'm thinking I should have toned it down a lot more.

Dona said C.I.'s posting something, cross posting it and then going to bed. It's about 9:47 p.m. right now so that means it's like 6:47 there right now. If C.I.'s that tired, there was really no need for my hammering.

So anyway. Hmm.

I'm tired of crap. I should have found a nicer way to talk about it. C.I.'s didn't write that e-mail.

At the end of it, C.I. said, "Fine, it's not worth it to me. I don't need two weeks worth of headaches. I took shit last week for them. I won't do it two weeks in a row."

So tomorrow you won't see them at The Common Ills.

I can't believe that they plugged that crap in their e-mail. In terms of links, I've given them more links than they ever got there. (That's not saying plug me.) But that website is such a 'lite' clone. I won't get into all the rumors about it but most people know about that.

So my attitude is if you're going to plug that sexist, poli-lite, "it's all about winning the election no matter what a candidate stands for!" b.s., don't expect support from this community.

Miguel was not in the mood to note that show last week. C.I. asked Francisco and he did it but only because C.I. asked him.

And all week long, C.I. was getting e-mails, "EDDIE WROTE THEM! THEY KNEW ABOUT NANCY A. YOUSSEF'S ARTICLE! THEY DIDN'T COVER IT! STOP PLUGGING THEM!"

C.I. said, "I'm not going through week two of shit because of that ___."

I think it's pretty cool actually because I think if people don't represent you, you don't support them. Pretty clear to me.

So if someone wants to play like they're interested in the news but they can't note Nancy Youssef, even when they get e-mails about it, hey, go play somewhere else.

Are they banned?

To be honest, I wish they would be banned for a few weeks. Or they'd only be noted if they did something worth noting. But I'm not bringing it up again. (I'm not telling any member what to do. I'm speaking of me, myself. I really think I crossed a line. That's not "Oh no, C.I.'s going to be mad at me." C.I.'s not mad at me. I wish that were the case, then I wouldn't feel so bad right now.)

When I saw the site that they were plugging in their crappy e-mail and remembered all the stuff about it's sexism and how it's got all the rumors of pay-for-play around it now, I thought screw it and screw __. But there was no reason to be yelling, and I was yelling, about it at C.I.

I'm thinking of banning them from my site.

I'm not joking. I talked to Elaine about that before she left on vacation. She said, "I'll go along with whatever you decide." She can't believe that they didn't note the Youssef story to begin with but especially after she found Eddie contacted to them to request that they note it.

I don't think you plug websites in your e-mails. If you're going to be on a TV show, plug that, fine. But if you're plugging a website, then, whether you intend it or not, you are saying, "This site is endorsed by me." Because you are asking people to visit it. You're recommending it.

They ignore you all the time and they're a site with all this nonsense swirling around it. It just strikes me as sucking up. Kissing ass.

As someone who plugged ___ to everyone I knew, I took that e-mail as a personal insult. It was like spitting on the whole indy movement. Get the word out! I got the word out and all the sudden e-mails are plugging sites and they're going with a site that does nothing for ___ and that isn't a site that gets behind stopping the war? Or maybe ____ thinks supporting candidates who say they we have to stay in Iraq is somehow 'stopping the war'? It was just this huge gob of spit at the people who are going to protests and who are taking stands.

It was like "Dig me, I'm respectable! Go here so I can be loved."

All last week, I kept deleting things here. I kept remembering what C.I. said about no one's perfect and take what you can use. And after last week to have that e-mail this week?

I'm tired of it.

No wonder the war's an after thought, it's not about ending the war it's about "hits" and "visits."










Posted by at