Tuesday. And my mind's everywhere but here. That's how it goes sometimes, right?
Before I go further, "Kat's Korner: Ann Wilson sings and stands tall" -- you gotta read it. If you're thinking, "Who is going to stand up?" Or maybe, "Is anyone going to weigh in on the illegal war"? then you need to check out Ann Wilson's Hope & Glory which my Dad's been blasting since this weekend. :D It's a rocking CD, no question. But that review is the sort of hard hitting stuff you don't see in a world that wants to go goo-goo over Dylan's latest boxed set of old, previously released songs. And if you ever find yourself thinking, "The world would be a better place if everyone followed FAIR's stated mission . . ." Read "Ruth's Report" and wonder why FAIR doesn't follow FAIR's mission.
On a related topic, if you haven't read the snapshot yet today, be sure to read it at the bottom of my post. C.I. has a hilarious bit about Katrina vanden Heuvel.
There was one thing I wanted to quote from and then I started reading the comments. I changed my mind. There's this jerk ragging on the writer in the comments. I wouldn't give a damn about that most times, but it's the jerk who e-mails Elaine and me to complain about David Lindorff. I mean, this guy HATES Dave Lindorff. He's a real weirdo, if you ask me. He's all up in the Chipster and I really don't want to link to anything that guy's got comments (and links to himself) in. (This wasn't a blog, by the way, this was an online magazine. I really wish people would stop allowing comments on stuff.)
Here's something on the peace movement (C.I.'s got an amazing thing on the peace movement, by the way). This is from John V. Walsh's "Peace Movement Paralyzed:"
That means that the only route to end war and empire is through electoral activity outside the structure of the war parties. But there is as yet precious little activity in this direction, even though time is running out. Instead the antiwar movement seems to be wandering in a fog, incapable of taking this step.
It is time for this to end. And not in some abstract call for "independent" electoral action but in the real world. So what does the real world offer?
There are three alternatives on the horizon right now. First, the Green Party has the organization to put a genuine peace candidate on the ballot in a majority of states--and perhaps in all of them. (It is unfortunate that the Libertarian Party seems moribund at the moment, but it lost a lot of its following when most inside the Beltway libertarians betrayed their principles and opted for the war.) Second, Ralph Nader has the stature, integrity, following and electoral apparatus to get on the ballot in all 50 states and the D.C. --perhaps on his own, but definitely with the assistance of the Greens. (For this reason there is and will be a dirty tricks effort by the Dems to prevent Nader from getting Green Party support, a combination that has them very frightened. Todd Gitlin and his ilk are already very busy on this project.) Third, there is Ron Paul who also has the stature, integrity and following to mount a serious campaign outside the Republican Party whose nomination he is unlikely to win. (But should Paul win the Republican nomination, then an entirely new dynamic will emerge and the Republicans will be returned to their paleoconservative, libertarian roots, emerging as the antiwar party as they were before World War I. I assume here that Paul will not win the Republican nomination, but that will not be known with certainty until after the New Hampshire primary.) Third, there are other national leaders who can put together an electoral peace movement or be part of one. Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney come to mind. So there are some real world alternatives right now to the "duopoly," as many like to call the two war parties.
The most powerful antiwar and anti-empire movement would be an alliance of Greens and Libertarians under the leadership of Nader, Paul, Sheehan and McKinney and perhaps others. Barring that, we should make use of all the real world options available. I would hope that they would sit down for coffee sometime very soon. It is time to abandon the old ways of thinking, which are all embedded in the Cold War, and to form new, unexpected and surprising alliances adapted to the present time. Let us put an end to war and empire and then try to resolve other differences in the spirit of peace and liberty.
I like John Walsh and I'd be blown away by this but I've already heard some of an essay C.I. wrote that was supposed to go in today's Iraq snapshot but it was too long. I think Walsh makes some strong points and I'm not saying he's wrong (I won't vote for Ron Paul, just FYI, anyone who wants to should). But there's another level that's being missed. If I hadn't heard the section of C.I.'s essay, I'd probably be saying, "Yeah!" right now to Walsh. But he assumes that the peace movement has tried everything and it has failed and that's not the reality. The reality is that the peace movement needs to make some changes. And that has nothing to do with elections. In fact, I tend to disagree with this, "We must vote for ___!" attitude. Unless it's McKinney, Paul, Kucinich, Gravel or Richards as the nominee for their parties, we're not going to see an anti-war candidate on the ticket. (Nader would be a peace candidate but he hasn't declared yet.) And I really don't think we put the peace movement on hold.
When I read his title, I thought, "Oh, this is going to be the same as the points C.I. was making." It's not. But that's all I can say because I don't want to give it away. Right now there's a push to get C.I. (who doesn't have time) to finish it and post it at The Common Ills. I know C.I.'s schedule this week and there's not time so my hunch is it will wind up a piece that we finish up at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I was begging Elaine to read me more of the essay but she's worried I'll go into it with Jim (and that Third will snap it up without C.I. considering making time to finish it and post it at The Common Ills).
I want to be clear that I like Walsh's piece and recommend you read it. But I think there's another element that's out there, another option, and it should be tried. I doubt it will be tried. And I bet C.I. pisses off a lot of people with the essay. Good. My jaw was just hanging low, mouth wide open, when Elaine was reading it and I was like, "Did C.I. write ____?" I'm glad Walsh is thinking about the subject and, most important, writing about it. Most people don't. They play, "Let's all get along and blah blah blah." Things are not working. Walsh is right. And he's right about some of the stuff that's going on. He's really one of the strong writers out there.
Ring tone, I look at the i.d. and it's Jim. :D He just read Elaine's post (she must already have her post up) and he wants to know what the essay's about? :D I told him I swore to Elaine that I wouldn't talk about it with him. :D I also told him I only had like a paragraph or two read to me. He goes, "Give me something!" I go, "It's powerful." He asks, "Will it piss people off?" I said, "Oh yeah." :D
That's what I like about John Walsh to get back to him. He's not going, "Oh, I can't say that, it wouldn't be nice and let us all get along." He's trying to tell his truth and that's really important. We should all be doing that. Instead we all try to get along and that's not working.
Playing cheerleader's not working.
And cowardice isn't working either. I think it's disgusting. I'm about to say something before I highlight something and saying it means I won't get a link in the snapshot tomorrow. I'm serious. What I'm about to include would normally mean I'd get a link. But I'm about to compliment C.I. Do that and you don't usually get a link in the snapshot. If I trashed C.I., I'd get a link. (I wouldn't trash C.I. I'm just saying that's how it works. C.I. will say, "Oh, that's self-referential" or "I don't want to link to something that's" saying something nice.) But it's disgusting that C.I. had to yet again carry the weight while independent media played cowards and chickens. I'm talking about the myth of the 'great return.' C.I. was calling out that crap at the start of last month. C.I. was pretty much alone in that from the start. Now it turns out even the MSM has to admit, "It was a myth!" Where the hell was that brave independent media we keep hearing about? Independent media is not supposed to hide or play dumb. They're supposed to call out the lies of big media. But what happened was people got scared, "What if it's true!" It made no sense in the gut. C.I. called friends at the UN and elsewhere to ask what was going on and, yeah, got told, "We don't believe it, we're studying right now." But anyone in independent media should have been able to make some phone calls and do the same damn thing. Didn't happen. It was disgusting. And when the UN and the Red Crescent started saying, "That's not what we're seeing," independent media still played dumb and mum.
You know what it's like? It's like Barack Obama. He won't take a stand for fear that he'll be wrong and didn't he make his image off of being opposed to the Iraq War before it started? Can't risk losing the only card he has to play! Same token, independent media still wants to be thanked for calling out Judith Miller all that time ago and they get scared and nervous because what if they say the refugee return isn't as big as the Iraqi government is saying and it turns out that it is that big! Oh no! They let themselves be paralyzed and while they do that the myths take on this huge life.
Hamza Hendawi's "Come back, Iraqi TV urges exiles:"
The government says up to 40,000 refugees have returned from abroad and 10,000 internally displaced Iraqis have gone back to their homes.
The Iraqi Red Crescent says 25,000 to 28,000 have returned from Syria.
Not everyone is convinced. Ibrahim Karim, a 43-year-old civil servant, said: "Iraqi television paints a picture of a government that solved all the problems of Iraq because a small number of refugees returned."
The government, unruffled by the criticism, is offering returnees free transport from Syria, protection for bus convoys and £300 for each family to help with resettlement.
The focus on refugees returning has not been restricted to commercials, which end with the message: "How sweet it is to return to Iraq." Shows such as the daily Baghdad by Night air interviews with residents expressing gratitude for improved security and urging friends and relatives to return.
"Mohammed, I hope you come back," one boy said when asked whether he had a message for his best friend, living in Syria.
Other fixtures include interviews with relieved returnees just off the bus.
"We will never find a country like Iraq anywhere in the world," one woman said. "Being away from home is tough. Iraq needs us," another added.
The broadcaster repeatedly shows a recent beauty pageant, with contestants in modest clothes being asked leading questions on security.
But the government could risk uncomfortable comparisons by coming on too strong.
Iraqis remember when state television was the blunt propaganda tool of Saddam Hussein. They also have other viewing options now: pan-Arab news channels and private Iraqi stations.
The reach of all stations has become wider recently. Improvements in electricity supply let families watch television for longer than any time since the US-led invasion in 2003.
Iman al-Shweili, a teacher in the capital, said of Iraqiyah: "The station focuses on the handful of beautified and lit streets and ignores the destroyed homes and damaged streets. The government is more preoccupied with drowning out critics' voices than providing a better life."
This is what C.I.'s been talking about, the threats to the safety of Iraqi lulled back via false spin. And it did matter and it does. It's criminal that independent media elected to sit it out while the lies took hold.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, December 4, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Katrina provides the jokes, the 'great return' never was, oil deals are encouraged and Iraqis are told there's no money in the budget for children's milk . . .
Starting with war resisters. On November 15th, Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of US war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. David Stein (Canadian National Newspaper) examines some of the issues involved in their case and notes the work of the War Resisters Support Campaign. Stein notes, "The Supreme Court decision appeared to disrespect Canadian constitutional precedence in relation to the safe haven that Canada provided . . . during the 1960's, and current law associated with refugees fleeing oppression and persecutory law." Along with those points there is also a court ruling that came down at the end of November. Hinzman and Hughey wanted to be recognized as a refugees. The verdict they received appeared based on (and certainly the US ambassador to Canada echoes this line) the fact that Canada and the United States are so 'tight.' Not all that tight. Nicholas Keung (Toronto Star) reported November 30th, "Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the American border under a federal court ruling that deems the United States not a safe country for refugees -- opening the door for a potential flood of northbound claimants." What's going on? This has to do with refugees who land first in the United States and then continue onto Canada intending to apply for asylum there. These are not the same issues involved in Hughey and Hinzman's case, true, but one of the beliefs is that the US is peachy keen and no harm can come from expelling war resisters back to the United States. But, notice, with another class of refugees, a Canadian federal court says asylum seekers who land in the US and then continue onto Canada can not be refused entry and returned to the US. Keung notes the following as areas of concerns to Judge Michael Phelan: "the issues over the American authorities' use of expedited removals and use of detention, combined with concerns over the U.S.'s rigid application of the one-year bar to refugee claims, the provisions governing security issues and terrorism based on a lower standard, called into question whether the U.S. is safe for asylum seekers." Again, that case and the issues involved in the asylum claims by US war resisters are different, but one federal court is saying that one class of refugees cannot be refused entry into Canada and the Judge also specifically noted the United States' violation of the Convention Against Torture. The courts have failed war resisters and now the energy is focused on the Canadian Parliament which will hold hearings on the subject December 11th.
Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:
Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):
In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.
Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6
Courage to Resist profiles war resister Kimberly Rivera explaining how she ended up checking out and moving with her husband and children to Canada: "Kimberly Rivera grew up in Mesquite, Texas, a suburb east of Dallas. She had never thought of becoming a soldier until she was seventeen and the Army recruiters visited her home to meet with Kimberly and her parents. The recruiters offered money for college that her family did not have. Her mother was supporting Kimberly, her father, and her two sisters after her father suffered a work related accident. She took an aptitute test for job placement out of 'curiosity', but later signed up to be a mechanic. She was given an elistment date following graduation for the Army Resevers." She was released from the military due to pregnancy at the end of 200. With the costs of raising two children, she decided to re-enlist and found herself stationed in Iraq. "I felt like I was losing my mind. I was so close to death so many times. It scares me now. My life as I knew it was falling apart and I was unable to pull it together. I was surrouned by males who were filled with filthy comments and talking about all kinds of sexual things. I was there for three months and was scared that some of the guys might try to get me to trust them just so later they could have their chance to abuse me." A not uncommon nor unrealistic fear based on reported cases of sexual assault in the military. "While in Iraq losing soldiers and civilians was part of daily life. I was a gate guard. This was looked down on by infantry soldiers who go out in the streets, but gate guards are the highest security of the Foward Operation Base. We searched vehicles, civilian personnel, and military convoys that left and came back every hour. I had a huge awakening seeing the war as it truly is: people losing their lives for greed of a nation and the effects on the soldiers who come back with new problems such as nightmares, anxieties, depression, anger alcohol abuse, missing limbs and scars from burns. Some don't come back at all. On December 21, 2006 I was going to my room and something in my heart told me to go call my husband. And when I did 24 rounds of mortars hit the FOB in a matter of minutes after I got on the phone . . . the mortars were 10-15 feet from where I was. I found a hole from the shrapnel in my room in the plywood window. That night I found the shrapnel on my bed in the same place where my head would have been if I hadn't changed my plans and gone to the phone." The death of an Iraqi civilian and a base visit by an Iraq father and his daughter took place before her leave. While in Texas on leave, she and her husband made the decision to go to Canada. In the Iraq War, there are many resisters who never go public. Of those who go public, Stephen Funk is the first to resist. Camilo Mejia is the first Iraq veteran to resist, Jeremy Hinzman is the first resister to go public in Canada, Ehren Watada is the first officer to resist, Eli Israel is the first to resist while stationed in Iraq and Kimberly Rivera is the first female resister to go public in Canada.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $21 for previews and $41 for regular performances (beginning with the Nov. 18th opening night). The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
A lot to cover and we can probably use a joke before getting started. Fortunately editor & publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nation via Common Dreams) provides it, "But here's the real problem (because we all know horserace coverage is what we're going to get at this stage in this endless campaign). . . Even if the Post or the Times devoted a full story analyzing the leading candidates' healthcare proposals, how much attention would the two papers give to alternatives offered by someone like Congressman Dennis Kucinich -- the only candidate supporting a truly universal, Medicare for all, healthcare plan, that according to recent polls, has majority support? I suspect very little." Are you sides aching yet? The Nation has featured Dennis Kucinich on the cover once this year -- in a drawing of all the Democratic presidential candidates. Barack Obama was on that cover. He's also had two solo covers this year. On Iraq, Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to publicly oppose the illegal war consistently. (In 2002, Obama was against it. By 2004, he was stating the US had to stay and telling the New York Times that if he had been in Congress in 2002, he didn't know how he would have voted. He gets into the Senate and votes to fund the illegal war over and over. Somehow The Nation repeatedly misses everything that followed his 2002 'anti-dumb war' speech.) So vanden Heuvel is truly the last to lecture daily papers about their coverage of the campaign. She can't even include Kucinich's name in her post title. And, it gets better, after getting her high horse about how little coverage the New York Times or the Washington Post would give to Kucinich's health care proposal . . . she goes on to review the plans of . . . John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 24 paragraphs of 'coverage' and 'analysis' and she can't even include Kucinich in the mix -- after getting castigating others who might do . . . what she just did. Smooth down your skirt, your hypocrisy's showing.
Now to serious issue, Ira Chernus (Common Dreams) warns readers that various mouthpieces are trying to declare Iraq is no longer an issue: "If Iraq is disappearing from the headlines, there is some other factor at work here. I suspect it's that editors and cable show hosts are watching what's going on, not only in Iraq, but in Washington and in elite policymaking circles (like the Council on Foreign Relations, where [Peter] Beinart is a senior fellow). They know that at the highest levels the debate about what to do in Iraq pretty much ended over this summer." What is about the Council on Foreign Relations and how they refuse to get serious about the illegal war. You get the feeling that if they ran an allegedly left magazine, they'd be ignoring the war, war resisters, et al and doing cover stories on rubber duckies and horseraces. Hey, that describes The Nation. Oh, yeah, KvH, Council on Foreign Relations.
In the real world, Cara Buckley (New York Times) notes that the Red Crescent says 25,000 Iraq refugees have returned to Iraq since mid-September -- 25,000, only 25,000. CBS and AP note: "Officials in Iraq and Syria have said more than 46,000 refugees returned in October and claimed the flow has continued unabated." Far from the inflated numbers the puppet government has repeatedly told the press. Meanwhile the United Nations High Commission for Refugees Steffan de Mistura held a news conference to emphasize that "this is not a massive return" and that Iraq couldn't hanlde a massive return. CBS and AP quote the Iraqi Red Crescent report on why some are returning: "The high cost of living and rented apartments and the limited employment opportunities contributed to lack of stability of Iraqi families and increased their passion to return to their country." And of course being bribed and bused in doesn't hurt either. Who is the central (puppet) government in Iraq preying on? Hannah Allam and Miret el Naggar (McClatchy Newspapers) examine at life in Syria:Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees in Syria face a bleak winter, with rising fuel costs that could leave many without enough money for food, the director of the World Food Program said Monday.About a third of Iraqi respondents in a recent United Nations study said they skipped one meal a day to feed their children. Nearly 60 percent said that they're buying cheaper, less nutritious food to cope with a dramatic increase in prices.With the weather turning colder and heating prices rising, humanitarian workers predict more Iraqis will go hungry in order to keep up with rent and utilities."We need more help here," WFP executive director Josette Sheeran said in an interview.The WFP, a U.N. agency that is the world's largest humanitarian organization, provides food to about 50,000 Iraqi families who've sought refuge in Syria. Sheeran said that her organization doesn't have the funds to maintain its $5.6 million operation and that she soon will call for more international assistance.There are the refugees being preyed upon, being told it is 'safe' in Iraq, being bribed to return. And let's talk about what happens when they return. The United Nations' IRIN reports that Abid Falah al-Soodani (Trade Minister) announced yesterday that, starting next month, "the quantity of national food rations delivered freely to all Iraqi families will be futher reduced -- from 10 to five items." Now let's be clear, this isn't just halfing the food supplies. He told the Iraqi Parliament that the five items provided will be provided in lower numbers. Here's what's getting cut out: tea, beans, children's milk, soap detergent and tomato paste. Here's what's getting reduced: rice, sugar, cooking oil, flour and milk for adults. What a way to say, "Welcome Home!" And to be clear, despite the lies, this has nothing to do with a government 'shortfall.' This is about ending the subsidies which Paul Bremer already tried once. The Iraqi government has more money than they spend at this point (though a great deal ends up in personal pockets) and this claim that they can't afford to supply children with milk is nothing but a lie. In other attacks on the Iraqi people, UPI reports that the Samuel Bodman (US Secretary of Energy) met with the "Kurdish region's oil minister" to push for the Iraqi theft-of-oil law proposal and, in contradiction to previous White House public positions, he's giving a green light to "international oil companies" to start signing Iraqi oil deals.
Meanwhile Reuters reports US forces shot 4 Iraqi civilians at a checkpoint in Tamiya on Monday and that one has died. In other reported violence today . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded two people, a Dalli Abbas mortar attack that left eight people wounded and a Jalawla bombing that claimed the lives of 6 people with twenty-five more injured.
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the latest attacks on an official: today "gunmen opened fire attacking the house of the ministry of electricity Kareem Waheed in Zayuna neighborhood east Baghdad wounding three of his guards"; yesterday "Atallah Eskander, the member in the local council of Hawija town west of Kirkuk and his driver Hamad Ali Hussein" were shot dead; on Saturday Mun'im Hadi ("employee of Diwaniyah city intelligence directorate office") was shot dead in Najaf. Reuters notes 1 "security officer" was shot dead in Tuz Khurmato (his brother was injured).
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 2 outside Kirkuk. Reuters notes 3 corpses discovered in Mosul and 2 in Mahaweel.
Walter Cronkite and David Krieger (Common Dreams) explore the topic of the illegal war and what needs to be done:
The American people no longer support the war in Iraq. The war is being carried on by a stubborn president who, like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, does not want to lose. But from the beginning this has been an ill-considered and poorly prosecuted war that, like the Vietnam War, has diminished respect for America. We believe Mr. Bush would like to drag the war on long enough to hand it off to another president.
The war in Iraq reminds us of the tragedy of the Vietnam War. Both wars began with false assertions by the president to the American people and the Congress. Like Vietnam, the Iraq War has introduced a new vocabulary: "shock and awe," "mission accomplished," "the surge." Like Vietnam, we have destroyed cities in order to save them. It is not a strategy for success.
The Bush administration has attempted to forestall ending the war by putting in more troops, but more troops will not solve the problem. We have lost the hearts and minds of most of the Iraqi people, and victory no longer seems to be even a remote possibility. It is time to end our occupation of Iraq, and bring our troops home.
the common ills
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the third estate sunday review
david steinjeremy hinzmanbrandon hughey
anthony arnovehoward zinn
iraq veterans against the war
the new york timescara buckleyhannah allammiret el naggarmcclatchy newspapers