Friday, August 03, 2007

Law & Disorder: Adam Kokesh, Camilo Mejia

Friday!!!!! :D I've finished one book and have to try to get done with another if we're doing a book discussion for Sunday. :( Okay, I need to get started. First up, this is from Democracy Now! today:

Jury Deliberations Begin Iraq Rape, Murder Case
Jury deliberations begin today in the military trial of a U.S. soldier accused in the rape and murder of the fourteen-year old Iraqi teenager Abeer Qasim Hamza and the killing of her parents and younger sister in the town of Mahmoudiya last year. The soldier, Private First Class Jesse Spielman, is accused of conspiracy to commit rape and murder. Three servicemembers have already been convicted in the case. The alleged ringleader, former soldier Steven Green, awaits trial as a civilian in federal court.

I don't see that a decision's been reached yet so it may come over the weekend or Monday.

I'm going to be really lazy and swipe this from Third so I don't have to do a ton of links. These are the people I mention in this post and their websites:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz

Second. Elaine does her site and I do mine. I support what she does. She supports what I do. Please do not e-mail either of us to complain about the other. We are involved so it's even worse than if you'd e-mail me about another community member.

You won't get on my good side dogging on Elaine.

I saw two such e-mails tonight.

Paul Craig Roberts is a Republican. I've mentioned him here (though I don't think the e-mailer knew that) when Michael Ratner, Michael Smith, Dalia Hashad and Heidi Boghosian interviewed him. If they interview him again, I'll mention him again.

Elaine does sometimes link to him when something of his appears on CounterPunch. Elaine has never said "He's a God!" She has noted he's a Republican.

If you don't like Paul Craig Roberts, I really don't need to hear about it. If you think Elaine makes a mistake linking to him, I really don't care what you think. She supports CounterPunch and links to them regularly. (I support them too but they are like the main outlet Elaine links to.)

Here's another tidbit for those whining. Elaine didn't want to do a blog (still doesn't). When her guest blogging (for Rebecca) was dying down in the summer of 2005, I started a petition within the community to get her to continue blogging. So if you're unhappy with the site, you're really complaining to the person who egged it on.

I don't care for a certain Fat, Rotund, Media Voice who got all giddy like a school girl over Harold Ford Jr. It's a little insulting to read an e-mail praising that FAT ASS that also wants to talk about neo-civil war or whatever. Ford Jr. posed in front of a Confederate Flag during his failed attempt to get into the Senate. I also don't care for Fat, Rotund because he set himself up pretty (or fatty) by trashing a really important group (that he was once part of) when the heat was on. He's a sell out and a fat ass in my book. If he's something different in your book, well there are a lot of books that don't interest me. And to be really blunt, Fat, Rotund is not African-American so maybe he shouldn't try to be the public face of an organization that very often deals with African-American issues. Maybe he should step aside and allow African-Americans to grab that face time? Maybe there's something really insulting about a White man thinking he should be speaking for an organization over and over when it's a largely African-American organization? Ponder that.

One of the people who wrote doesn't like Dave Lindorff. I do. But I would've included his thing until I saw Fat Rotund's name. I would have done that to be nice because that guy seemed nice (except for what appeared to be a slam at Elaine). Then I saw Fat Rotund's name and that was that.

Fat Rotund doesn't do a thing to end the war. Dave Lindorff does. Fat Rotund is not my idea of a 'source.' I think Fat Rotund sees Neo-Nazi everywhere he doesn't see Mountains of Chocolate, Chocolate-Chip Ice Cream. I am highly skeptical of his I'm The White Man Who Will Save The Black Race routine for a number of reasons. But if he wants to help African-Americans, try letting the ones at the organization get the face (and mike) time he keeps grabbing.

Now let's move on to WBAI's Law and Disorder which aired Monday (and a new episode airs again this Monday). It airs at 10:00 am EST every Monday on WBAI and on other stations throughout the week. It's a weekly, hour long program hosted by four attorneys: Michael Ratner, Michael Smith, Dalia Hashad and Heidi Boghosian.

Heidi wasn't on this week. The three interviewed Adam Kokesh but I think that was an older interview that just got aired because of some of the things they were talking about. WBAI just got done with pledge drive and they might have held that during the pledge drive. Someone (guess who) knows the jerk off that was prosecuting Adam. (Knows should have been your clue. I was told, "You can hint, but don't say.") So here's what happened, in 1998 on a West Virginina campus, someone who knows everyone (you know who I'm talking about) was on the phone with a woman whose parents were friend of the unnamed. The woman had a presentation to do for a class and was speaking to ____ about it because her parents said, "Call ___." So there's a knock at the door and the woman puts the phone down and it's little Jeremy.
He stays for an hour and ____ thinks either the woman is coming back to the phone or that it's meant to be listened in on. So ___ hears the whole thing. Little Jeremy's interested in this woman and "It was like Rainman II: Dustin Dates!" (Didn't that give you your last hint, hint! :D)
An hour later, after he leaves, ___ is waiting and waiting and then starts making noise so the woman comes to the phone and says, "I forgot you were on the phone." They then talk about Jeremy and how weird that was. It was like Rainman trying to date. That's the short version.
I heard about it from Dona today on the phone. She goes when Adam said Jeremy's name, it clicked with ___ and ___ goes, "I think I know of Jeremy." Dona goes ___ knows everyone but even she was doubtful on this because __ was saying "I think" and not "I know." So ____ calls a law firm and asks for a friend and says, "Hey, remember when you were an undergrad and I was on the phone when that creep came to your door? Uh-huh. I'm going to pass the phone to a friend. Tell her the creep's name." It was little Jeremy (who not only could complete a pass, he was soaked in sweat by the time he finally hemmed and hawwed and left). Dona got the whole low down from ___'s friend. Little Jeremy was an odd one and had trouble communicating with women. The friend said everyone thought he would turn out to be a serial killer because he was so weird. She said she had no idea why he was coming over to her place to begin with. But it was so creepy and she was just thinking, "Oh, let him go, please let him leave now." So that's Little Jeremy. No ladies' man and also really creepy when he's trying (badly) to come on to a woman.

I also heard he was always losing arguments in classes and would insist, even after he was proven wrong, that he was right.

So there's a little story I thought I'd share. (____ didn't recognize the name in print. It was only when Adam said the name on the broadcast and "sneered it" that ___ was reminded of the way the woman sneered the name over the phone.)

So Adam discussed the kanagroo hearing against him and how the military tried to shut him up from speaking. They went after him, remember, for wearing his camos, not his dress uniform.
This was during street theater and C.I.'s covering it in the snapshot later on so I'll assume if you don't already know the story, you can read about it then.

I agree with C.I.'s thing about Dalia, she did make the obvious point. That's not an insult. I'm not going, "Oh, she's so obvious." I'm talking about when she brought up the way the press has told his story and how badly they've done it. She's right. But most people won't say it. I really think that's what Dalia does best, says what others might think but won't say. That's true when she's talking about Israeli aggression or anything else. She just comes off really straightfoward and doesn't try to pretty it up. If I ever needed a lawyer and had my pick of anyone in the world, I'd go with her because she's probably that way with her clients too. If I was thrown into Guantanmo tomorrow for not loving the Bully Boy of the United States, she'd level with me (if she could get in!) and say, "Here's what I'm going to try but here's the way this has gone in the past." She's not afraid to say she's fed up too which is another reason I always wish she'd talk more.

By the way, as C.I. noted Tuesday, Dalia was right about Camilo Mejia in that interview awhile back. I noted where she read that in his book to point out she was right awhile back. (C.I. linked to it in the Tuesday snapshot and gave me credit but let's give credit back because, like I say in the snapshot, I was reading and re-reading Camilo's book over and over and couldn't find it. Then I finally ask C.I. and get told, "It's in the afterword, page ___." :D

Camilo was a guest on Monday's show too. I was glad he made the point about how his 8 year contract was up. He didn't get to make, he may have been cut off, the point about how the US military couldn't extend his contract because he was a US resident and not a citizen and they aren't allowed to extend the contracts of non-citizens. I'm always surprised when I hear him on a show because he did this HUGELY BRAVE THING in standing up to the illegal war and he's always got the softest voice. Sometimes it's almost a whisper. I bet when he gets mad, he's loud but when he's talking he's almost a whisper. Oh, and point, he brought up the fact that he was stopped-lost and that he was extended 28 or so years. In fact, one of the Michaels (I think Ratner) made a joke about that. And Michael Smith shared about how his grandparents left Romania and came to the US and one of the reasons was because of stuff like that because males there were drafted and expected to serve something like 55 years.

Camilo was a good interview. I don't know that Adam got to really tell his story or not. Eddie's mentioned in the snapshot so I'm guessing he e-mailed C.I. what he e-mailed me about which was he wished they had discussed the Supreme Court case more. I don't think the second guest, Adam's lawyer, really could. He didn't even mention the title or quote from the majority opinion. At one point he was talking about how it was pretty much the same as Adam's case (and it pretty much is) and I wish Dalia or the Michaels had asked how so? I'm not sure he could have answered. But that might have just been him being more reserved. I don't know. If he's not reserved, I'm not sure he knows the case.

I should be on the show! I know that case forwards and backwards! :D I would have said, "Okay, Dalia, Michaels, let me break it down for you . . ." :D That's because we were working on that thing back in June at The Third Estate Sunday Review. (I've told this story here before, it deserves retelling.) C.I. goes f-word that we're writing this and accepting the mainstream narrative. C.I. goes there's a case that applies here. C.I. can't think of it. Elaine and C.I. get on a separate line (we were all on a conference call writing up the edition) and are gone forever! :D
They're going back over that time period and Elaine's tossing out things to try to jog C.I.'s memory and finally C.I. remembers and they discuss the case. And then they're supposed to come back and join us but C.I.'s afraid that they're remembering wrong. So C.I. calls the attorney on retainer (after Elaine points out, forget the hour, you pay them a monthly retainer and never use them for anything) and Elaine calls Jess' mother (a good and radical lawyer -- who is not at all bothered to be awakened by a call on a matter like this). They go over the case and then they compare notes. Then they come back and give us a tutorial on the Supreme Court Case.

(I'm not really asking to be on the show, by the way.)

As far as C.I. knows, no one in the press mentioned that case during the 'trial' and only Radar magazine mentioned it in any coverage after. That's a Supreme Court case. (By the way, the dude at the Kansas City Star was informed of the case but chose to ignore it. I'm spilling all the beans tonight! :D) It goes to war resistance so we should know about it and we should talk about it. That was why I really didn't care too much for the second segment (that was Adam's attorney). Michael Smith made a good point about GI rights in Vietnam and all but I really felt like the Supreme Court case was the thing to cover there. But maybe that case is one of those things that it takes a Howard Zinn to talk about because it's one of those things that just drops out of our collective memory? That shouldn't be the case because this was a huge win for war resistance.

Adam explained about how the military was also trying to shut up Cloy Richards and Liam Madden. Liam's now fine, the military wrote that weak ass e-mail to him saying, basically, the matter was dropped. I don't think they liked Liam's replies to them. He was telling them they better stop saying he was a disgrace or dishonor or whatever it was. Because he hadn't made any disloyal statements. And after they'd already attacked Adam and seen he couldn't be shut up and that he got all this support from all over, I think they looked at Liam and thought, "Oh God, another one of them!" :D Adam really made a difference fighting back and he needs to be applauded for that. He's not done fighting this but I think he really scared the military. They thought they could send their nasty little e-mails to him and he'd say, "Okay, okay, I'll stop." Then when he not only said he wouldn't but told them to f--k off, they thought they could stand up to him. But that didn't really turn out too good for them either.

So I think he's scared them. And when they saw Liam was going to be another Adam, they were probably like, "I can't take another!" :D

Adam's attorney did make a point I didn't know about which was that the investigating officer wrote some note where he basically defined Adam as "the enemy." Good to know the investigation was conducted by someone impartial!

So that was the program and, like C.I. notes in the snapshot, Heidi Boghosian's just done a book with The National Lawyers Guild "Punishing Protest written by Heidi Boghosian (available online in PDF format for free and avaible in book format for $3 at the National Lawyers Guild website)." I started reading that tonight thinking I could pull something from it here. I thought "$3? This may be really brief." It's like 80 pages or something (with some illustrations -- like newspaper headlines and photos of this guy at the 2004 RNC convention with this big old bruise/wound on his forehead after he'd been shot with a rubber bullet) and I was thinking, before I looked at it, "I can do a quick read on this." Nope. But I really like what I've read so far and urge, URGE, you to read it too. All four of the hosts are attorneys and they're busy and all but this book may be why Heidi wasn't on so much before the break. It looks like this took a lot to write (there are researchers and editors with the NLG credited for their contributions). It flows really well. And you aren't bored. I was tempted to just read it all the way through and not blog but I know if I don't blog now, I won't tomorrow. (I also know I've got to finish Aidan Delgado's book. I've got to start it! I just finished the other book we're going to put it with for a book discussion.) C.I. gave me that book when we were all at C.I.'s on vacation and I should have started it then but I was just in fun mode. Ava's got to read Army of None tonight (after they get back to California) and I've got to read Aidan's book but I think everyone else has read both of them already.

Okay I had to stop to get to the Iraq Study Group (the real one, not the James Baker Circle Jerk) but we're on a break and I'm going to post this now.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, August 3, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, the puppet tries not to notice the government collapsing around him, the National Lawyers Guild issues a report by Heidi Boghosian on the state of rights in the United States, and more.

Starting with war resistance.
Cindy Chan (Epoch Times) reports on the creation of the War Resisters Support Campaign "launched shortly after an American deserter from the Iraq War named Jeremy Hinzman arrived in Canada seeking asylum that January" in 2004 and how it was quickly realized that both a legal and a political effort would be needed and that's certainly true with both war resisters Hinzman and Brandon Hughey's case now being appealed to Canada's Supreme Court following the Federal Court of Appeal's decision that "rights of conscience" could be applied to "a refugee claimant [who] is a high-level policy-maker or planner of the military conflict" but not "a mere foot soldier". So apparently Henry Kissinger, for instance, could get refugee status for his war crimes in Canada but Canada will not give asylum to war resisters. As Chan notes, that was not always the case. During Vietnam, the Canadian government stood up but that's when they had a prime minister who wasn't a lackey of the United States. Chan notes that Hughey and Hinzman are expected to hear this month or next whether the Supreme Court will hear their case.
Just as during Vietnam, war resistance is on the rise. "I think something similar is beginning to happen now because those same unities coming together to oppose the war say, 'No, we're not going to continue fighting in this war.' We have the organization I belong to,
Iraq Veterans Against the War, we have up to 500 members, the majority of whom have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are saying, 'No, we're not going to continue to fighting this war.' And you know by the Pentagon's own estimates we have since the war started 8 to 10,000 troops who have decided not to go back to the war. To put it in perspective, that's a division size element that's been wiped by desertion and AWOL," explains war resister and CO Camilo Mejia on this week's Progressive Radio, Matthew Rothschild interviewed Mejia who has told his story in the recently released Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia (The New Press).

Matthew Rothschild: Did you get a lot of negative feedback from either people who saw you on the media or from soldiers or former soldiers?

Camilo Mejia: Definitely there was some negative feedback but by and large the feedback was very positive partiicularly when it came from the members of the military. People in the army, or in the armed services, don't really feel that they have the right to go public with their views and opinions . . . but secretly in a more private way a lot of people came up to me and said they agreed with me although they didn't feel they could do so publicy. The feedback was very positive.

Mejia described the things he saw at the POW camps for Iraqis and Rothschild asked if he realized then that the Geneva Conventions were being violated? Mejia replied that he didn't realize it at that point, "It just felt wrong." Mejia explained that the events "on a daily basis" in Iraq didn't allow him much time for reflection but he had that time while he was on leave back in the US. He and Rothschild discussed the bond (socialization) within the military and how that can effect choices made. Mejia stated the people need to "realize that there's a greater tragedy in Iraq . . . The people of Iraq, 90% of the people who are dying are civilians, you know children, unarmed men, women, the elderly, the entire life being destroyed, the infrastructure is being destroyed so we have got to step outside our own fears and our own interests and our own feelings to look at the bigger picture and realize that saying that we're fighting for one another is no reason enough for participating in this criminal war."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key,
Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one 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, 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. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.


Mejia was interviewed on Monday on
WBAI's Law and Disorder as was Adam Kokesh spoke with hosts Dalia Hashad, Michael Ratner and Michael Smith (Heidi Boghosian, the fourth host was not part of this broadcast, but we'll cover Boghosian in a moment). Kokesh is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and he discussed the military brass' efforts to suppress his freedom of his speech. Kokesh wore his fatigues (without markings or name tags) in Operation First Casualty in DC (and elsewhere but DC was the one that led to retaliation) which is street theater meant to convey for Americans what life is like for Iraqis during the illegal war.

"The media stories that we've read haven't captured this accurately," Dalia Hashad noted. Kokesh explained that, after the DC action, he got an e-mail which he didn't know what to make of -- was it for real? -- and he discussed it with Tina Richards (
Grassroots of America) who explained that her son Cloy Richards had received similar e-mails from people in (or claiming to be) the military and out of it. So Kokesh replied to the e-mail and the brass response was "which is completely unprecedented" because he had already been honorably discharged by the military and placed in the IRR Kokesh described it as a kick in the stomach and a surprise, "They can't do this, legally there's no grounds for this. You know it says Article II of the UCMJ it doesn't apply to the IRR it says in my enlistment contract". Dalia Hashad asked to explain about the IRR and Kokesh offered that "when you're in the IRR you're only responsibilites are to maintain a valid address and to show up if called back to active duty."

Michael Smith asked about wearing "a uniform" in street theater? Kokesh explained that a JAG attorney was activated from the reserves, Jeremy Sibert, for the prosecution team. Sibert is the Criminal Division Assistant US Attorney in the Del Rio Office [Texas} for the Department of Justice. Attorney Mike Lebowitz spoke on the program as well and (as requested by Eddie) we'll one more time go over that what Adam Kokesh and others do in street theater is
not an issue the military has any say in. Daniel Jay Schacht took part in street theater during Vietnam. He and others staged it outside a military recruitment center. At that point in time, the military thought they had rights that they didn't. Schacht was arrested for wearing a military uniform in the production. The military's reasoning was that it gave the armed forces a bad name -- the play, the performance, whatever. At that point, the military would allow or disallow theater productions the 'right' to utilize uniforms or not. In 1970, Schacht v. United States was heard by the Supreme Court. The Court found in Schacht's favor noting that the military had been granting permission to some. By denying permission to others, this was now a free speech issue. The US military, the Court determined, had no say in theater productions -- if some could use the uniforms, all could. The military had no say over what Schacht or anyone said in a theater production when they wore a uniform and they had no say over whether the uniform could be worn. This was true of all productions, including street theater. Justice Hugo Black wrote:

Certainly theatrical productions need not always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area such as a conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the people of the world.
Kokesh is appealing and, due to the Supreme Court's 1970 verdict, it should be an easy win; however, Schacht v. United States should have ensured that the matter never went as far as did.
"The idea that citizens are free to dissent is ingrained in the American mythos, a concept even older than the Declaration of Independence itself. Equally important in this value system is the conviction that no nation state can survive as a democracy unless it safeguards political expression and activity," so writes Heidi Boghosian in Punishing Protest. And yet, Kevin Egler has a pre-trial date August 9th in the Portage County Municipal Court in Kent, Ohio. His crime,
as David O'Brien (The Record Courier via Common Dreams) explains, placing an "IMPEACH" sign on public party. And yet, Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) reported last month on the White House's policy of keeping people out of tax payer events -- something clearly taking place throughout the 2004 campaign but the White House put it in writing. In the United States, the Los Angeles Times reports a record $1 million settlement by the District of Columbia due to the police round ups of demonstrators against the illegal war in 2002. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes that the monies will go "to more than one hundred demonstrators" and that "D.C. previously agreed to pay more than $640,000 to fourteen other demonstrators. A larger class-action suit covering more than four hundred people awaits trial." The money involved in the DC payout may seem great but does it really cover the cost of violating people's First Amendment rights? And many other attacks on free speech and the right to assembly go under the radar. The National Lawyers Guild has just released Punishing Protest written by Heidi Boghosian (available online in PDF format for free and avaible in book format for $3 at the National Lawyers Guild website).

We're going to zoom in on one section (from page six) and just to provide background (by me, take it up with me, not Boghosian) 2004 was a presidential election. Though some voices, such as Naomi Klein, sounded alarms about the peace movement allowing itself to be subverted into a get-out-the-vote drive for a candidate who was not calling for an end to the illegal war (Democratic nominee John Kerry), most went along with it. One of the biggest peace demonstrations took place in NYC during the GOP convention. In the lead up to the rally and march, the Bloomberg administration denied (wrongly) Central Park access and along with attempting to fight that ban, the peace movement also had to deal with the middle age panice so many (such as Toad) were in the grip of -- alleged lefties who were saying that protesters shouldn't come to NYC or swearing they were leaving NYC for the entire convention. With that background in mind, on page six Boghosian addresses the importance of the media in providing a light and in demonizing and silencing:

For example, the New York print media engaged in hyperbolic coverage months before the 2004 Republican National Convention. The cover of the May 17, 2004 issue of New York magazine promoted companion articles, accompanied by a photograph of a protester wrapped in a U.S. flag. One headline taunted: "Cops to Protesters: Bring It On." The other read: "The Circus is Coming to Town: A Bush-hating nation of freaks, flash-mobbers, and civil-disobedients is gathering to spoil the GOP's party." Nearly the entire front page of the July 12, 2004 edition of the New York Daily News contained an exaggerated proclamation: "ANARCHY THREAT TO CITY Cops fear hard-core lunatics plotting convention chaos." Inside the paper, a two-page headline announced: "FURY AT ANARCHIST CONVENTION THREAT. 'These hard-core groups are looking to take us on. They have increased their level of violence.' -- Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly." The Daily News reported how "Kelly and company have to combat a shadowy, loose-knit band of traveling troublemakers who spread their guides to disruption ovre the Internet." Although the New York Daily News is a tabloid, and prone to sensational headlines, it has the largest circulation and readership in the New York market.


Boghosian then quotes Mara Verheyden-Hillard (NLG's co-chair of Mass Defense Committee) explaining, "Such misleading news coverage is part of an effort to get the activists and the legal community to buy into the police line that there are 'good protestors' and 'bad protestors' and therefore agree that there is a real threat that then necessitates police response to protest. Take action against the fictional bad protestors but don't trample on the rights of the 'good' kind of response, which diverts from those who are the real violent actors over and over -- the police." Also on the press coverage, Boghosian notes a study that found "college newspapers are generally doing a better job reporting on local antiwar events than other local newspapers" while the corporate (alleged grown up) press "fail to research accurate attendance numbers, or fail to mention estimates entirely". Boghosian covers the varying fees applied to some groups but not to others, police pre-demonstration raids on the premises where activists are staying (that harrassment also takes place in Canada, as Naomi Klein explains in Fences & Windows) and may 'find' or invent "a housing violation as a pretext to close down the premises." On page 27, Boghosian addresses the appalling "free speech zones" in Boston during the DNC convention, the containment pens endorsed by the Bloomberg administration which are a saftey hazard for demonstrators as well as a violation of free speech, the issues of bail, illegal spying, infiltration, court room shenanigans and more. The report, to be clear, is not focused on the peace movement. The report is about the erosion of rights in a democracy (or possibly, in an alleged democracy the way things are currently going) and also addresses the war on environmentalists, on Critical Mass and other cyclists. Among the points Boghosian sums up in her conclusion is this:

Decades ago, government spying, infiltration and disruption tactics of the FBI and CIA against domestic political groups (Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO) led to the establishment of guidelines limited federal investigative power. Under the Bush Administration many of those guidelines are being loosened or abandoned altogether as the government engages in the same surveillance and infiltration activities through advancing a policy of preemptive "warfare." And once again, the executive office, working in close coordination with all levels of federal and local law enforcement, is engaging in what Justice Powell called "dragnet techniques" to both intimidate and silence its critics, the very practice that led to the Fourth Amendment and its protections against overreaching government searches and seizures.
By characterizing those who speak out as 'enemies' or 'terrorists,' as the government is increasingly doing, those charged with upholding the constitution are defying it in a cowardly fashion.


Again, the
PDF format of the report is available online -- 89 pages -- and it can be purchased for $3.00 at the National Lawyers Guild.

In Iraq realities are captured at
Inside Iraq where an Iraqi journalist working for McClatchy Newspapers offers a post that really needs to be read in full but will excerpt from the end:
.
All these good-doers, thousands of them, in four years, what have they presented to the poor Iraqi Man that they all wish to serve?


Thousands of reconstruction contracts have been awarded -- and the projects said to be implemented.


What are they?
Where are they? Where are they?
Wouldn't a sinking government jump at the chance to show such accomplishments -- had there been any?
Wouldn't an accused occupier jump at the chance to show some
succesful, truly fundamental infrastructure developments and shout them from the roof tops?
Do we have sanitary drinking water?
Do we have electricity?
Do we have medical services or basic neighbourhood services?
Thank you, but no thank you.
But you see . . . no one asked me.



Great Britain's
Socialist Worker notes Oxfam's report and judges it "a daming report on the state of Iraq four years into the occupation" while also noting that Iraqi children "are the biggest losers in the occupation, with 28 percent malnourished, compared to 19 percent before the invasion, while nine out of ten children suffer learning difficulties." The Oxfam report also found that 70% of Iraqis do not have "access to adequate water supplies." This as CBS and AP report: "Much of the Iraqi capital was without running water and had been for at least 24 hours, compounding the urban misery in a war zone and the blistering heat at the height of the Baghdad summer. Residents and city officials said Thursday large sections in the west of the capital had been virtually dry for six days because the already strained electricity grid cannot provide sufficient power to run water purification and pumping stations. Baghdad routinely suffers from periodic water outages, but this one is described by residents as one of the most extended and widespread in recent memory. The problem highlights the larger difficulties in a capital beset by violence, crumbling infrastructure, rampant crime and too little electricity to keep cool in the sweltering weather more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion." They note 52-year-old Jamil Hussein who has two children with "severe diarrhea" due to the water and that he and they will have to continue drinking it. That's criminal, the potable water is still a longed for dream all this time after the illegal war began is criminal.


In some of the rare reporting on today's violence (the soccer team returned -- or parts of it -- so it's time for everyone in the press to don a jock strap and go into fluff mode) . . .




Shootings?



KUNA reports 3 prisoners killed in "Badoush detention camp" by "the Multi-National Force" (US forces) who used "tear gas, live ammunition and rubber bullets to put down the riots." Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) reports: "A spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, said an aide to the cleric was shot and killed Thursday by gunmen in Najaf. Less than two weeks before, another Sistani aide was stabbed and killed near the cleric's office in Najaf, and another aide was killed a month before in a drive-by shooting."



Corpses?



Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 13 corpses discovered in Baghdad today.


Today the
US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers were killed and 11 others wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital August 2. Four of the injured were treated for minor injuries and were returned to duty." This brings the August total to 5 US service members killed in Iraq and the total since the start of the illegal war to 3665.


In news of the attempts by the US administration (and elements in the US Congress) to steal Iraqi oil for the benefit of corporations,
Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported today, "Support is growing in the U.S. for Iraqi oil workers striking against the U.S.-backed oil law under debate in Iraq. The main union representing American oil workers is calling on Congress to stop pressuring Iraq to pass the law and to shift support to the Iraqi oil workers' demands. In a letter to House and Senate leaders, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard says: 'The oil privatization law now under consideration by Iraq's government is designed to benefit the multinational oil companies; not the Iraqi people'." And the Iraqi parliament, like the US Congress, is now off on a month long vacation. Jonathan Steel (Guardian of London) observes, "Glad tidings from Baghdad at last. The Iraqi parliament has gone into summer recess without passing the oil law that Washington was pressing it to adopt. For the Bush administration this is irritating, since passage of the law was billed as a 'benchmark' in its battle to get Congress not to set a timetable for US troop withdrawal. . . . Just as General David Petraues, the current US commander, is due to give his report on military progress next month, George Bush is supposed to tell Congress in mid-September how the Maliki government is moving forward on reform."

Earlier this week the Iraqi Accordance Front withdrew from the puppet government.
Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports that "Iraqi and Western observers say Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his inner circle appear increasingly unable to pull the government out of its paralysis. At times consumed by conspiracy theories, Maliki and his Dawa party elite operate much as they did when they plotted to overthrow Saddam Hussein -- covertly and concerned more about their community's survival than with building consensus among Iraq's warring groups, say Iraqi politicians and analysts and Western diplomats." Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) reports, "Withdrawals from the government by individual ministers and by political groups was the first sign of the end of al-Maliki's political life, but the U.S. government has remained insistent on keeping al-Maliki at the top of Iraq's leadership" and notes, "Security, basic services, and all measurable levels of Iraq's infrastructure are worse now than under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, the U.S., Britain and Iran all continue to support this government."

































Thursday, August 02, 2007

US loses weapons in Iraq, IMF wants to steal

Thursday barely! I had a nice day off running with Tony and some other buds. About 3 o'clock, C.I. called and asked if it was okay to delay the snapshot? They were going to go visit a friend on location filming a movie if it was okay? Okay? Like I do the snapshot! :D Seriously, C.I. was making sure it wouldn't be a problem to delay it today and it's no problem with me. Ended up going out to a movie and goofing off. It also provided another trial run (another's scheduled for this month) for C.I. to make sure the snapshot could be done later in the month (when it will go up late because C.I.'s visiting an old friend living up in the mountains with an analog phone line and very little of what we consider modern technology).

Okay, this is from Democracy Now! today:

Report: U.S. Loses 190,000 Weapons in Iraq
In other Iraq news, a new report shows the U.S. government cannot account for some 190,000 weapons issued to Iraq's security forces. The weapons were handed out in 2004 and 2005.

And yet Michael Gordon wants to whine about foreign governments? The US is providing the weapons, the Iraqi security forces are passing them on the black market. Maybe it's time for Bully Boy to attack the US! (Don't laugh, as crazy as he is, he just might.)

Now Reuters reports that the IMF has made an obvious observation: the security situation in Iraq is "dire." Nice of the mercenaries of IMF to notice. The International Monetary Fund isn't concerned with Iraqi lives, they just want to raid the country of everything they can. If that's shocking to you, I'd recommend two things. See Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein's The Take (it's available on DVD) on what happened in Buenos Aires and read Antonia Juhasz' THE BU$H AGENDA (available at any decent bookstore). I often wonder if the illegal war wouldn't be over already if the corporations had made their profits already on the ground. Not the contractors, they're raking it in big time. But they were all supposed to clean up and take over Iraq's industries and businesses. They thought the war would be quick and then, during the occupation, they could swoop in and take over. That's why I don't call this the "occupation." I follow C.I.'s lead and call it the illegal war and occupation because the war hasn't stopped. If it had been the cake walk, the corporations would be raking it in big now controlling Iraq's various industries and destroying the people economically as has happened in so many other countries.
We'd probably have a dozen or so permanent US bases but many of the soldiers would be home and the press would talk about how 'brief' and 'quick' the illegal war was. The war drags on. That's not a lie. And the fact that it does is why all the ones who lined up to support this illegal war still can't make the profits by taking over Iraqi commerce. Yet. But they're waiting. And plotting.

So, like I said yesterday, the July death count for US troops in Iraq rose to 80 and (as you'll read in a bit) it rose to 81 today. That means all those hours of the talking point and all those printed copies of the talking point that July deaths were the lowest in 2007 and the lowest since 2006 were LIES. Whose issuing their corrections? The American people got played again by the so-called news media. For more on that and other things, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, August 2, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, a talking point falls apart (to only the MSM's suprise), the US military announces more deaths, convcitions in a war crime case are announced, Baghdad goes without running water, Robert Gates attempts to (yet again) shift the blame for the puppet government off on the Iraqi people and more.


Starting with the talking point that imploded. By making July about the slow trickle in announcements, the US military repeatedly misled on the number of US service members dying. The press didn't want to call it out. They'd pretend multiple deaths on a Sunday being announced on a Thursday was perfectly normal (and in their print editions this morning, include a late announcement but refer to it as taking place "Tuesday" and not in "July" which is the height of dishonesty having all run with the "July" "count" the day prior).
A week ago, what was already noticeable was underscored when Lt. Gen Raymond T. Odierno was selling to the press that after April, May and June all saw US troop fatalities climb past 100 each month, the figures were down for July (he ignored the reality that the air war had been beefed up -- a time tested manner for the US to reduce deaths somewhat) and even though the slow trickle of announcements was known, everyone played dumb in their reports and ran with the talking point despite the fact that hours after Odierno's Thursday spin the US military would announce 7 more deaths with none of them taking place that day -- all "backlogged" and on the slow trickle. The US miiltary was back to the old tricks used in 2003 and 2004 and for much of 2005: hold off on death announcements in light of the first day of the month when outlets would run with their "looking back on the month" pieces. They dropped that stunt in 2005 in part because they were caught doing it once too often but also because many outlets were already bored with the illegal war and no longer interested in filing the obligatory monthly piece. Odierno puts the US military's official stamp on the talking point and suddenly all the outlets are back to doing monthly pieces and all are stressing on August 1st that July deaths were down, that July deaths were the lowest of the year. Some went with 72, some went with 74. The count was incomplete (as would be demonstrated throughout that day) but qualifiers were in short supply. The lowest number of deaths for 2007! was the talking point and all ran with it. July 2007 was also the deadliest July of the illegal war for US service members (and for Iraqis the death rate tripled) but it was sell-sell-sell that this was some 'good news'. One of the few exceptions was Stephen Farrell (New York Times) who did note a qualifier in a piece that ran on the morning of August 1st:
"Estimates of the death toll varied, but Iraq Coalition Casualty Count put the July total so far at 74, down from 101 in June and the lowest number since November 2006. Some casualties in late July may be reported after the beginning of August, so the count is not yet definitive for the month." But even Farrell forgot to consider past Julys when touting the 'progress' that wasn't really there. Today,
ICCC reports that the number for US service members' announced deaths in July has risen to 81.Those who are confused can check out ICCC's period details but, remember, you were supposed to be confused. That was the point of the slow trickle of announcements. (In the period details, you can also note that all but four announced deaths -- there may be more coming -- for July have already had their names announced by the Defense Department.) 81, for those who've forgotten or never paid attention, is the number of announced deaths in February and March. July, despite the burst of press enthusiasm and stupidty, was not the lowest of the month of the year for US fatalities nor was it the lowest since 2006 (November of 2006 saw 70 deaths announced). Who will run the corrections? Reporters aren't responsible for writing headlines; however, the headlines have all been seen by readers yesterday proclaiming that July was 'good news' or, as the New York Times worded it, "U.S. Death Toll In Iraq in July Expected to Be Lowest in '07." By whom was never said but only a fool "expected" that to happen and only the fools are attempting to cover themselves now in embarrassment because JULY IS NOT THE LOWEST IN '07.

The talking point has imploded but we'll all supposed to pretend otherwise.It was nothing but another wave of Operation Happy Talk in the same way that
a nothing soccer match was repeatedly treated as some sort of sign of 'progress' in an illegal war with many alleged reporters writing allegedly of Iraqi response but focusing only on the men (who ripped their shirts off, fired their guns in the air and generally must have given the boys in the press a heady dose of homo-eroticism to sniff). A better indicator was Oxfam's "Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in Iraq," released this week, but it addressed reality and didn't jibe with the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk so it was largely ignored.

While the boys of the press beat themselves excitedly in frenzy over some Iraqi males shirtless, Oxfam provided less of a sexual high as they noted, "
Forty-three per cent of Iraqis suffer from 'absolute poverty'. According to some estimates, over half the population are now without work. Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 per cent before the US-led invasion in 2003 to 28 per cent now." Hard to get your jollies on that so the press elected to under report or ignore the realities of what the illegal war had really brought.

Throught the reporters of Jock Boy High's jock boy high, bombs were exploding and mass fatalities were taking place, but that fact was more or less ignored in the push for: "It's soccer!" Today
CBS and AP note that "at least" 142 Iraqis died yesterday but look through this morning's paper to find that headline. You won't because when it's time to sell-sell-sell the illegal war again, realities have to drop out of the picture. In this case, 142 Iraqis dying is judged unimportant. For the New York Times, the big news, the front page piece, is Mark Mazzetti pondering fantasy at length in the latest push to sell the illegal war. Elisabeth Bumiller's "White House Letters" had nothing on Mazzetti (and her "letters" didn't run on the front page). Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) points out the ugly reality: "The death toll from the car bombings was the highest for Baghdad since February, when the United States began increasing the number of troops in the capital in an effort to cut violence." No change in US military deaths, no change in Iraqi deaths. The realities of the Bully Boy's escalation which he initiated over the strong objections of the US public and over the 'symbolic' rejection of the Democratically controlled US Congress. Despite these realities, CBS and AP report that the administration is claiming "security is improving".


Repeating, the announced deaths for July thus far have now reached 81 making it not the lowest of the year nor the lowest since 2006. Do not expect to see any outlets run corrections to their earlier (false) coverage. As Aimee Allison and David Solnit point out in their book Army Of None, "Corporate media's steady stream of lies, distortions, and repetition of the United States government 'war on terror' rhetoric was essential in propagating the pretense for the invasion of Iraq and is key to maintaining some level of public support for the war and occupation" (p. 155).

Turning to war resistance, David Zieger (director of the amazing
Sir! No Sir!) observes of an earlier illegal war, "Like the Vietnam War itself, the GI Antiwar Movement started small and within a few years had exploded into a force that altered history. And like the times from which it grew, the movement involved organized actions and spontaneous resistance, political groups and cultural upheaval. Between 1966 and 1975, groups of soldiers -- some small and some numbering in the thousands -- emerged to challenge the war and racism in the military. Group action and individual defiance, from the 500,000 GIs who deserted over the course of the war to the untold numbers who wore peace signes, defied military discipline and avoided combat, created a 'F**k the Army" counter culture that threatened the entire military culture of the time and changed the course of the war." That also can be found in Allison and Solnit's Army Of None (p. 146), the new book published by Seven Stories Press and available for purchase ($14.95) at Courage to Resist. Though little attention has been given to the matter, Eli Israel recently became the first service member to publicly refuse to serve in the illegal war while stationed in Iraq. Little attention has also been given to the military's investigative team that locates self-checkouts (or tries) and then tips off the police after their hours of surfing the net and, in one instance, crawling through MySpace pages. Despite the fact that the US military crossed the Canadian border and posed as Canadian police while attempting to shake down Canadian citizen Winnie Ng at her home in their attempts to locate war resister Joshua Key, little attention has been given to that either or the US military ordering the arrest of Kyle Snyder, by Canadian police, on his wedding day. It was a way to screw with Snyder (charges had to be dropped and Snyder released because it's not a crime in Canada to resist the US military) and a way to postpone the wedding, even for a few days, because Snyder would be marrying a Canadian citizen (and he did) putting him out of the reach of any efforts to deport him or refuse him citizenship in Canada.

In a really bad but overly praised recent article in The Nation, the magazine continued their long standing practice of ignoring war resisters (and added censorship to their list of tools by annoucing, in the article, that the magazine was in possession of "dozens" of photos of abuses but the magazine refused to print any). They could speak to members of a centrist organization, they could speak to members of a White House front committee and readers were supposed to be thrilled that at least a few members of
Iraq Veterans Against the War got included. Or that Camilo Mejia was included. The term "war resister" wasn't applied to Mejia, despite the fact that he freely uses it; however, the magazine could label him a deserter. Someone save us from the faux left and those who fancy themselves 'celebrities' as opposed to journalistic editors and publishers. As Mejia himself explained on WBAI's Law and Disorder this week, "Let me start by saying that when I allegedly went AWOL, I didn't really go AWOL because when we received orders to go to Iraq I had pretty much come to the end of my eight year service. So what happened was that I was extended from the year 2003 to the year 2031 by this thing that they called 'stop loss'." It's an important point -- and was to US Senator Bill Nelson when Mejia was in Iraq and his contract was ending -- but one lost on The Nation.

Also lost to The Nation was the
War Resisters Support Campaign which the magazine's overly praised article pointedly ignored. The War Resisters Support Campaign is a Canadian organization helping and raising awareness of war resisters who go to Canada. Meet Christian Kjar (who was wrongly billed as "Christian Care" by many -- including myself, my apologies). War Resisters Support Campaign informs, "Christian Kjar, 21, is originally from California. Christian joined the US Marine Corps in 2004. It was not long before he found that, despite the motto of 'Honour, courage, commitment' posted on the recruiting office wall 'this was not the place to go if you value human dignity.' While posted in North Carolina Christian decided he could not participate in the Iraq war. He arrived in Canada in October 2005, and currently lives in Toronto." Canadian Mennonite reported that the Santa Barbara raised Kjar
began questioning his decision to enlist in boot camp quoting Kjar stating, "I knew it was stupid and foolish and wrong. This was not the place to go if you value human dignity. Instead, it was an extremely violent atmosphere where they train you to change a human being into an object by using phrases like 'communist bastards' and singing about stamping on Iraqi children. It's very difficult to go against the grain in that setting because it's a group thing. So I kept trying to reassure myself that I could be a warrior. But I couldn't let go of the fact that the intent was taking the life of a living breathing human being. When I was posted to Cherry Point [a Marine Corps base in North Carolina, in preparation for deployment to Iraq], it was eating me inside that I couldn't express how I felt to others. Prayer and meditation were very important to me at that time. During a four-day grace period [before deployment], I had time to really reflect and come to grips with what my conscience was telling me. One day I opened the Bible at Deuteronomy 5 and read, 'Thou shalt not kill.'
'After that I was honest with myself. I now knew what I didn't want to be. Also, the just war thing didn't work for me…. I knew there is no justice to be complicit in the suffering of people of differing faiths and origins, and was convinced that the U.S. government has failed utterly and miserably in preserving the dignity of human life in Iraq, where thousands of people have died."
Irene Kuan (The Eyeopener) reported that after learning of the War Resisters Support Campaign and speaking with attorney Jeffrey House, Kjar began the trip to Canada via Buffalo after saying goodbye to his girlfriend who remained in the military. Audio and video of Kjar speaking can be found here.

War resister
Agustin Aguayo, like Mejia and many others, attempted to get CO status but was repeatedly (and wrongly) denied (even in civilian courts) and he's now speaking out about his experiences in Iraq, his court-martial and more. Joan Trossman Bien (Ventura County Reporter) covers a speaking engagement from last week where Aguayo discussed his introduction to military life in Iraq via a speech delivered upon arrival, "They said to us, if you guys think as medics that you have to follow the Geneva Conventions, you're very wrong, This is Iraq. This is the real thing." And people wonder how Abu Ghraib or the gang-rape and muder of Abeer happens? Aguayo reflected, "It was so sad. We would harass civilians for no reason, cursing at teenagers for no reason, taking stuff from Iraqi homes for no reason. We have found the most immoral thing that could possibly be done to these people who have done nothing to us. So the message then is, these people are not like us. It's OK to hurt them."


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key,
Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one 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, 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 Iraq, the US installed puppet government is falling apart. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tries to go philosophical and spread the blame beyond the US by declaring,
as AP reported, "In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation. The kinds of legislation they're talking about will establish the framework of Iraq for the future so it's almost like our constitutional convention ... And the difficulty in coming to grips with those, we may all have underestimated six or eight months ago." As for the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) notes he has "reacted cautiously to the Sunni walkout". The walkout, noted yesterday, refers to the Sunni Accordance Front's decision to leave the posts of Deputy Prime Minister and the heads of five ministry. Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) observed it was "the latest indication of growing Sunni frustration with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported, on the withdrawal,"The pullout reduces Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to little more than caretaker status. Barring a major political realignment, it also makes it less likely that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's regime will be able to reach significant compromises on legislative benchmarks sought by the Bush administration to help quell sectarian strife. Tawafiq member Tariq Hashimi retains his post as one of Iraq's vice presidents.The bloc's pullout cast the gravest challenge yet to Maliki's tenure as prime minister. His government has been burdened for months by talk of conspiracies, most prominently featuring former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi." Some of the conspiracy talk has come repeatedly from al-Maliki who, while under siege by his puppet masters, probably shouldn't have regularly held press conferences where he declared every plot (real and imagined) he has detected to oust him. Parker notes that along with former CIA asset Allawi, Ibrahim Jafari and Adel Abdul Mehdi are also being mentioned as potential replacements (both are Shi'ite) and that "At least one plan for an alternative government to Maliki's has been submitted to the U.S. Embassy by Iraqi political leaders." Nancy A. Youssef (McClathy Newspapers) reports six may be about to become seven as Tariq al Hashemi, Iraq's Sunni vice president, has informed "he also is on the verge of resigning" and that he's already informed Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, of that possibility. Speaking of a possible resignation, al Hashemi explained, "We need these major political moves to tell everybody that what is happening is in no way tolerable. Nobody on earth or in Iraq is happy with the performance of the government." Nor is it in any way a legitimate government. CBS and AP do a head count and not that "only two Sunnis in the 40-member Cabinet" are left.


Meanwhile the chaos and violence caused by the illegal war continues.

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left another person wounded, a Hashiimiyat car bombing that claimed the lives of 4 police officers and four civilians ("including the head of Hibhib communications department with some members of his family"), three people wounded in a Kirkuk explosion "inside a shop for making military uniforms," a Mosul mortar attack that claimed 1 life and left four more wounded, a roadside bombing outside Kirkuk that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, and a Basra mortar attack that wounded a police officer. Reuters notes the death toll of the bombing attack in HIbhib on the police station has risen to 13 dead, that a Balad moratar attack claimed the life of "one girl and wounded five other children," that a Balji mortar attack claimed 3 lives and that a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 3 lives.


Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Baghdad shooting death of the general managr "of the ministry of industry" and three police officers injured in a shooting in Kirkuk. Rueters notes: "Three people were killed and two wounded in clashes between a tribe and insurgents in the town of Jbela 65 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad. An Iraqi army patrol responding to the incident was hit by a roadside bomb that wounded two soldiers, police said."

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 24 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 14 corpses discovered in Hibhib. Reuters notes that the corpses of five brothers were discovered to the south of Kirkuk.


Turning to legal news. Starting with Abeer.
CBS and AP report, "A soldier in prison for conspiring to rape an Iraqi girl and kill her and her family has left military prosecutors at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, struggling to recover after his testimony. Specialist James Barker admitted yesterday that he previously made false statements implicating a comrade. Barker testified he deliberately misled prosecutors depending on how they posed their questions, and had allowed investigators to draft sworn statements for him that implicated Private First Class Jesse Spielman of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, in the crime." Steven D. Green, who maintains his innocence, has been fingered as the ringleader of the war crimes by Barker, Paul Cortez and others involved. No doubt his attorneys will have a field day with Barker's admission. (And for any slapping their heads and proclaiming "Spielman was innocent!" -- no, he is not. He has already confessed to his role in some of the crimes. Largely at stake now is what he knew and when he knew it.)

In other legal news,
Tony Parry (Los Angeles Times) reports that a military jury made up "of five officers and four enlisted personnel" reached a conviction on Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins, Reuters notes that he was found guilty of "murder and larceny, made false official statements and participated in conspiracy in the crime." Neither report names the victim or notes that he was a grandfather. In fact, details of what took place take a second seat to courtroom details -- as though the whole issue had to do with presentation and not an actual murder. For that reality, news consumers had to turn to Democracy Now! today where Amy Goodman noted another conviction in the same case, "Corporal Marshall Magincalda has been found guilty of conspiracy to murder, larceny and housebreaking but acquitted of pre-meditated murder. The victim, Hashim Ibrahim Awad, was dragged from his home, shot, and then planted with a weapon to make it appear he was planning an attack. Six other service-members have been convicted in the case." No victim (named), no crime, is that the MSM way of handling these court cases? Can you picture domestic coverage of a US murder trial that didn't name the victim? The planted weapon was to make it appear that the grandfather and former police officer was an 'insurgent'. In addition to planting the rifle, they also planted a shovel by the body to make it appear that he was on a mission to dig a hole and plant a roadside bomb. These were war crimes but search the Los Angeles Times or Reuters for any indication that an innocent man was pulled from his home in the middle of night (actually early morning hours) and made to look like an 'insurgent' to justify the kill.

AP reports that Hutchins "was convicted Thursday of unpremeditated murder in the killing of an Iraqi man in the town of Hamdania during a frustrated search for an insurgent. Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III, 23, had been charged with premeditated murder but premeditation was stricken from the verdict that was returned by a military jury. Hutchins was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, making a false official statement and larceny. He was acquitted of kidnapping, assault and housebreaking." They also note "no mandatory minmum sentence for unpremeditated murder" which could mean Huthins walks the same way Trent Thomas did after a jury convicted him in the same incident but a military judge decided Iraqi life was so unimportant, murder didn't require prison time. For more on that travesty, see Monica Benderman's "Facing the Truth" (CounterPunch).

In other criminal news,
Steven R. Hurst (AP) reports, "Much of the Iraqi capital was without running water Thursday and had been for at least 24 hours, compounding the urban misery in a war zone and the blistering heat at the height of the Baghdad summer." With temperatures regularly topping well over 100 degrees (F) and with the US administration repeatedly citing water 'progress' this is criminal.

In other news,
Carl Hulse (International Herald Tribune) reports that by a 229 to 194 vote, the US House of Representatives voted on a measure that would "limit how quickly American troops can be sent back to Iraq after serving a rotation there" allowing the troops the rest that
Bully Boy has denied them as he has altered and ignored policies and requirements throughout his illegal war of choice. The Dems are in back-patting mode but Hulse notes the measure may not pass the Senate and it should also be noted that guaranteeing US troops the vacation time they are promised is hardly 'brave' but probably necessary as the US Congress prepares to embark (Friday) on their own month long vacations. The measure was noted included or pursued by Democratic leadership in the Democratically controlled House during Nancy Pelosi's fabled first 100 days. In the same article, Hulse mentions a possible withdrawal measure that could come before the House prior to their vacation beginning and quotes War Hawk Steny Hoyer explaining it would be something to add "to the debate but it is not a major policy document." No need to rush, eh, Steny?









Wednesday, August 01, 2007

This and That

Wednesday and we're all late! It happens. Be sure to read Wally's "THIS JUST IN! OBAMA MEANS "HE SPEAKS WITH BOMBS"!" and Cedric's "Bambi gets 'tough'" and that's why we're late. Wally e-mails his posts. This one would show up at the site. Even though he had it listed in his posts when he went into Blogger/Blogspot.

We were all brainstorming and finally C.I. returns Wally's call. (C.I. was speaking when Wally called.) C.I. asks (a) Did anyone think to call the UK Computer Gurus "because they live for this?" Nope. (b) Did you try ___? I heard about it from Wally and forget what it was but Wally did it and finally it went up. C.I. always goes, "I don't know anything about computers," but ask Jim and he'll tell you (or ask UK Computer Gurus and they'll tell you), "knowing" or not, C.I.'s usually the one who can figure out how to get something to work in Blogger/Blogspot.

Now let's get to an e-mail. Bradley is a non-community member and a huge dumb ass. He writes today that C.I.'s ripped off Juan Cole's "discovery" that July 2007 was the deadliest for US troops today in "Deadliest July yet for US service members in Iraq." Cole apparently posted on that this morning as did C.I. C.I. doesn't read Cole. Cole supported the illegal war in the lead up. Cole came out against withdrawal (and tries to rewrite that when Steve on CounterSpin brought it up, tried to deny it). No one in this community cares for Cole. When he was being pushed like crazy by indy media, two visitors campaigned to get him on the TCI links. He was up for a few hours before C.I. had friends calling saying, "You obviously don't know this but he supported the illegal war." He was pulled the same day he went up. C.I.'s never read his writing.

But if Cole made a "discovery" today, Bradley should be aware that not only does C.I. note the fatality count for US troops each Thursday and Sunday night, C.I. tends to do that every day there's a death announced. Which is why C.I. noted it was already the deadliest July of the illegal war LAST FRIDAY MORNING in "Rewriting Ned Parker on the death toll."

C.I. doesn't "live online" and really doesn't go site to site or surf. There's no time. C.I.'s on the road most weeks speaking out against the illegal war (like this week and Dona and Ava are doing it to). C.I. also prefers print to screen (and radio to TV). As someone who has twice written about how the snapshots are put together (and observed them put together many, many more times), I can tell you C.I. will be on the phone with a friend from CBS, for instance, and going, "No, no, no, no, okay. Read that to me. What's the link?" That happens with papers as well. It's also true that members suggest stuff via e-mails and that will make it in as well. Usually, C.I. will call Jess and say, "I've got a paragraph or two I can do." And Jess will note what were the most interesting things that came in and C.I. will do the "No, no, not interested, okay. Give me the quote there." And some things get saved for other days. C.I. may know people are working on a topic and hold something so that they can all be grouped together later in the week.

Because the community has a variety of members with various capabilities (both online and in terms of their own lives), C.I. tries to always include at least one audio link.

But Juan Cole? I can tell you C.I. would not ever go to that site. If there's time, C.I. goes to Danny Schechter's News Dissector but there's not even time for that most days (and that's probably C.I.'s favorite site). C.I. doesn't like reading online and most days will do anything to avoid it. That's one reason you'll get page numbers in a lot of entries, C.I.'s using the print version. There's not time to surf and, honestly, the laptop (or one of the CPUs) are like anchors to C.I. -- anchors around the neck. C.I.'s always saying, during the Saturday night all night & all morning writing editions, "I'm sick of looking at a computer screen."

Most important, all C.I. did was use the data ICCC compiles and, of course, was smart enough to check that last week when the military was pushing the lie that July was a 'good' month for US troops.

Hey, maybe in a month, when people are calling out the PEDOPHILE, Bradley can give them credit and act like C.I. hasn't already been doing that forever as well?

Just to say it one more time, this was a visitor. This was not an e-mail from the community's Brad or Bradley.

Now Tony, my buddy, asked me to highlight Jessica Long's "Era of the Bourgeois Romantic:"

Those in favor of globalization please raise your hands! Does this include you? If it does there is good reason to believe that you are indeed a bourgeois romantic. What is a bourgeois romantic and why should you care? In the era of globalization, bourgeois romantics serve as the propellants of international corruption while operating under an altruistic fa├žade. The ingenuity of the bourgeois romantic paradigm is that the individual is often unaware that he/she falls into the category at all. As of late, bourgeois romanticism has evolved as a social trend. Hollywood stars, politicians, NGO workers and civilians of all sorts propagate the system fully unaware of its adversary effects. Its popularity stems from its appeasement of both liberal "hippie" movements and corporate/political interests. Liberals and Conservatives are both subject to its seduction. So what truly defines a bourgeois romantic? And what are the tell-tale signs that you might be one? Let us take a look at the definition a little more thoroughly.
Bourgeois romantics are neo liberals who emphasize free market methods in lieu of a better global civil society. They envisage a global market composed of different ethnicities and cultures in which all will be able to trade and share resources in a mutually beneficial manner. They are the CEOs who give a portion of their profit to Southern aid programs. They are the corporate industrialists who argue modernity and technology will enhance Southern economies. They are even the so-called "humanitarians" that coerce third world markets into the global market arena promising to ameliorate mass poverty. They are everywhere. They exist in all forms, colors, professions, religions and political spheres. In short, a bourgeois romantic is a hypocritical capitalist: one whose intentions are socialist but whose priorities are capitalist. They are the "good intentioned" proponents of free trade.
What they refuse to acknowledge is that free trade is anything but free. Although it allows the global North free market range, it leaves the global South in shackles. Free trade is a modern euphemism for unrestricted global capitalism. We call it free trade when national and corporate interests unite to increase their profit margin while simultaneously manipulating international trade pacts. We call it free trade when established institutions like the IMF or World Bank, whose sole purpose is to aid the poorest of nations, operate under the biases of wealthy nations.


That's a good article, so I didn't mind doing that. She raises a lot of important stuff so check it out.

Tomorrow I have a day off from work and am skipping classes as well. I was thinking about blogging more than usual and I said that to C.I. and got back, "Mike, if I ever had a day off, I think I would try to stay far, far from a computer and enjoy it." :D I'm taking that advice. Tony and me are going to run some errands early and then just chill and have some fun. Maybe watching some DVDs. I've been itching to see Raising Arizona again. That used to be on TV all the time when I was little so I saw it over and over that way. And I've got it on DVD but never have time to watch it (or anything). So we're just going to have a best buds day and have some fun. (I will be blogging tomorrow night.)

Crap, I forgot to do something. C.I. asked me to pull up ICCC tonight and see if any figures were added to July's totals. It's taking forever to load on the other screen. Yep, the July count's gone up. It went up all day. Some reports in paper were saying "74" and that wasn't accurate this morning. It's now up to 80. Here's the latest announcement from the US military: "Two Task Force Marne Soldiers were killed and 10 were wounded in an indirect fire attack Tuesday." Tuesday was July 31st. They announced it when it was already Thursday in Baghdad. They knew about those deaths. They waited, just like C.I. said they would. Who knows what else they are waiting on?

So the big talking point was that this was the lowest (they were using "74") month of fatalities for the military this year and crediting the 'surge' (escalation) in US troops for 'safety.' Read the snapshot and you'll see the Iraqi death toll went up in this supposedly 'safe' month. But February and March had 81 deaths for US troops. July has one less as it stands now. (That number may go up.) So the point here is that nothing has really 'gotten better' and the press needs to develop a damn spine or admit that they're nothing but suck ups for the US military and still trying to sell the illegal war.


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, August 1, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, over 100 Iraqis are dead or reported dead today, the press tries to sell the illegal war some more despite reality, the July death toll for US service members rises again, and a pig attempts to book his own title match: Pedophile vs. the Peace Mom (with everyone rooting for Cindy).
Starting with war resistance. In June of 2006,
Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq (after months of working privately with his military superiors, offering to resign, offering to serve in Afghanistan, etc.). In violation of the Constitution's double-jeopardy clause, he faces a second court-martial October 9th following last February's court-martial which ended just as he was about to take the stand in his own defense only to find Judge Toilet (aka John Head) rule a mistrial over defense objection. The October 9th date is considered iffy at this point by his civilian attorneys due to the appeals process that will address issues such as double-jeopardy and whether or not Judge Toilet should recuse himself. Thus far those (and other issues) have not been addressed. (Judge Toilet ruling that his own actions do not violate the Constitution or ruling that he's fit to serve on another court-martial does not make for objective rulings.) Watada's bravery has inspired many and that's not limited to the military. Melissa Regennitter (Muscatine Journal) reports on Ashley Casale and Michael Israel's March for Peace which began May 1st in San Francisco and is headed for DC and added a third person, Antonio Kies, on Sunday and a fourth, Isabelle Salmon, on Monday. Asked why she was joining the march, Isabelle Salmon explained she'd just completed college, wanted to take part in an action to end the illegal war and "I'd have to say inspiration comes from Lt. Watada and my belief in world peace." And exploring the connections between art and activism, Jen Angel (Boise Weekly) recounts, "This past January I spent a week in a chilly warehouse in Tacoma, Wash., making puppets with 20 other activists to support Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to public refuse deployment to Iraq. We were creating a play to perform on Feb. 5 at the vigil outside the gates of Fort Lewis, Wash., where his court-martial -- which would end in a mistrial -- was being held. We spent hours painting, taping, cutting, gluing, eating and talking. For the characters in our play, we created a 15-foot-tall judge with a sculpted cardboard head and papier-mache hands, jurors and witnesses, and, for our finale, doves and suns to end with a vision of a beautiful future."
Watada and others inspire action with the stories of the courage as does
Iraq Veterans Against the War. On June 19th, when Eli Israel decided he couldn't serve in the illegal war, while stationed in Iraq, the response was swift from the military and equally swift was the response of support he received. Last week, Courage to Resist filed an update noting, "Last month Army Spc Eleonai 'Eli' Israel, while stationed at Camp Victory in Baghdad with JVB Bravo Company, 1-149 Infantry of the Kentucky Army National Guard announced that he would refuse any combat role in Iraq. Afterwards, Eli noted 'It would have been a lot "easier" for me to simply keep doing combat missions for a couple more weeks, and be done with things. Moral convictions are not based on timing or convenience.' He is scheduled to be released today [July 26th] from the Theater Field Confinement Facility at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait where he served a 30 day sentence. Eli pleaded guilty to five counts of disobeying orders at a summary court martial. He expects to receive an Other Than Honorable discharge and to be flown to Mississippi within a couple of weeks. After he's out, he plans on fighting for a discharge upgrade as the officer who sentenced him ignored his application for discharge as a conscientious objector or take into account his prior service."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key,
Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one 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, 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 Iraq today everything was falling apart.
Lebanon's Daily Star reports that today saw the Sunni Accordance Front resigned today which "pushed the government into a new crisis undermining its efforts to reconcile Iraqis and end sectarian strife." Mairam Karouny and Peter Graff (Reuters) identify the withdrawal as being the heads of "the ministers of culture, women, planning, and higher education, and the junior foreign affairs minister" as well as Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie. And, as The Daily Star also reports, there's the issue of the Baghdad bombings.
Now those who live and breathe by their Operation Happy Talk talking points should take a deep breath because that 'turned corner' just got drop kicked out of the narrative.
Several bombs in Baghdad led to mass deaths.
Al Jazeera notes the "fuel tanker rigged with explosives" and BBC describes the bombing near "a popular ice-cream parlour" using a parked car. AFP says there were 3 "large bombs" in all and notes: "Iraqi forces sealed off the area, as residents and ambulances ferried the dead and dying to city hospitals. Tens of bodies were taken to Ibn Nafees hospital following the explosion". CBS and AP note, "An Associated Press reporter at the scene said the explosion ripped a hole one yard deep and one and a half yards wide in the asphalt. Three minibuses and six cars were damaged by flames and flying debris. Blood pooled in the street."
Al Jazeera and Reuters figures for the dead are at least 70. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) offers more detailed figures noting 20 dead from the parked car bombing near the ice cream shop, 50 dead from the fuel tank bombing and 3 dead from a parked car bombing in Doura (that's the third of the three being reported on by most outlets) and notes 105 were reported wounded from the three bombings.
The numbers will likely rise as the rubble is cleared and bodies are discovered, as some on the wounded list do not pull through. But it may be a big shock for some Americas buying into the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk. It's, as
Robert Parry (Consortium News) has dubbed it, New Pro-War Propaganda": "No need to wait until September. It's already obvious how George W. Bush and his still-influential supporters in Washington will sell an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Iraq -- just the way they always have: the war finally has turned the corner and withdrawal now would betray the troops by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. At one time, the Iraq story line was how many schoolrooms had been painted or how well the government security forces were doing. Now there are new silver linings being detected that will justify a positive progress report in September -- and the U.S. news media is again ready to play its credulous part."
.And hasn't it been glorious? Sell-sell-sell. Ignore realities about the US death counts (see below after corpses), ignore reality period.
Turned corner?
Alexandra Zavis and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report, "The number of Iraqi civilians killed in violenc rose to 1,753 in July. The toll in June was 1,227. The number of bodies found in and around Baghdad also climbed in July, to 619, compared with 540 in June." Lebanon's The Daily Star crunches the figures to note, "New goverment figures also showed civilian deaths in the country rose by a third last month, dealing a further blow to a five-month-old security plan designed to stabilize Baghdad and allow for reconciliation." A blow? Yes. The Daily Star, not a US outlet. Who knows how the New York Times and others will rush to spin it tomorrow (only their military handlers know for sure?) But it's a huge blow. And the escalation which was supposed to bring security for Iraqis? Deaths rose a third. Repeating, deaths rose a third.
73 dead from 3 Baghdad bombings and those weren't the only bombings in Baghdad, nor the only violence.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Iraqi police said that 4 people were wounded when US army helicopters bombed Zafaraniyah neighborhood southest Baghdad at 4:00 am" in Baghdad, two US Humvees and one US tank were destroyed or damaged in Baghdad by explosions, a downtown Baghdad car bombing claimed 3 lives (six more wounded), a Baghdad IED exploding claimed the life of 1 police officer (seven more wounded), a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 2 lives, and a Falluja bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers. Reuters notes the bombing of a building in Madaen that claimed 4 lives (six more injured) and an Iskandariya roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider (three more injured). That's 20 reported dead. Add the 73 from the other bombings and that's 93 reported dead.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Major Gen. Mahir Nori was shot dead in Baghdad and 2 "men working for the anti terror directorate were killed by gunmen in Saidiyah neighborhood south Baghdad". 96 is now the total reported dead today.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 25 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Counting corpses discovered it's 121 reported dead today.Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers were killed and six others wounded when an explosively formed penetrator detonated near their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 31." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed by small arms fire during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 31."
This brings the
ICCC totals for number of US service members killed in the illegal war since it started in March 2003 to 3657 and the number of announced deaths for the months of July thus far to 78 making July 2007 the deadliest July for US troops since the start of the illegal war. The first July (2003) saw the deaths of 43 US troops, July 2004 saw 54, July 2005 also saw 54 and July 2006 saw 43. With 77 announced deaths thus far, this was the deadliest July of the illegal war for US troops.
Which we repeat because
Big Media largely missed that point. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) shared reality this morning, "U.S. commanders meanwhile are touting last month's US death toll as a sign of progress on the ground. Seventy-seven servicemembers were killed in July, the lowest monthly total since November. But the July total is also the highest over the five Julys since the U.S. invasion. The July death toll one year ago was forty-three."
Are there more July deaths to be announced?
Last week we saw deaths announced as late as four days later. It happened this week and, in fact, for the month, the standout feature about deaths was how slowly MNF announced them. The July announced deaths is now at 78. And the press wants to run with the nonsense that this is an improvement? Are they serving Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno? Last Thursday, he gave the Operation Happy Talk point that the deaths were "falling" and cited the July totals as good news. It's not. Nor is it a sign that the escalation is working. But notice how many outlets grabbed that talking point and repeated it today.
Today the
UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with much sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of a British soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment in Basra City, southern Iraq last night, Tuesday 31 July 2007. The soldier died as a result of injuries sustained by an Improvised Explosive Device attack which targeted a British Forces Warrior vehicle patrol that was carrying out routine duties in the Mustashfa district of Basra City." This death brings to 8 the number of British soldiers who died in Iraq last month and brings to 164 the total number killed in the illegal war since it started.
Thank goodness we have an independent press. Thank goodness we have a press that doesn't just run with whatever talking point they are fed.
In other news,
the pig who should probably be behind bars is squealing again. Not booked on The Nation cruise -- indicating that perhaps Katrina vanden Heuvel's fine with promoting his work but doesn't wasn't associate with known pedophiles -- he kicks up his own feces at Truth Dig today. (Link goes to Truth Dig's main page. We do not link to that pig.)
Looking at the comments, you will see people are shocked and outraged by the Pedophile's latest nonsense (sliming
Cindy Sheehan, suggesting a National Nazi Program -- that's all his suggestion of 'national service' is, etc.). Where the shock really should be is with those who have felt the need to promote the Pedophile. It's a long list of people (and include Sy Hersh who went on a truck and bus tour with him repeatedly). Whatever analysis the Pig had to offer were of no use after the illegal war started. (Yes, he's repeatedly stated that the US will go to war with Iran -- in fact, he's offered predictions of specific time frames . . . which have all have passed. There's your first clue about his 'analytical' abilities.) As I stated last week, not having promoted a known pedophile, I have no blood of my hands.
Maybe those leaving outraged comments now wouldn't be shocked by the latest nonsense if they grasped that we are talking about someone who the MSM reported was twice arrested for attempting sexual set ups with underage females? Maybe if they made sure everyone grasped that
when he was asked directly about it on CNN, he refused to discuss it and lied claiming he couldn't because the records were sealed (as the defendant, he could speak in this matter, sealed or unsealed records). So the MSM washed their hands of him (rightly) and that had nothing to do with Judith Miller, it had to do with the fact that someone twice arrested for attempting sexual relations with underage females -- a CRIME -- isn't someone to shore up or go rushing to. But small media picked him up, propped him up and acted as though existing reports of the two arrests didn't exist. Which makes you question their committment to their own audiences?
So the Pedophile wants to explain that Cindy Sheehan's a distraction,
David Swanson's a distraction, Hurricane Katrina is a distraction . . . everything's a distraction. Except himself. And John Conyers! Conyers is "one of the strongest antiwar advocates in the U.S. Congress". Well no wonder the country's in trouble! John Conyers isn't an advocate for anything these days. He is hemmed in and allows himself to be hemmed in. (I don't expect the pedophile to know Congress. Most members refuse to meet him.) He gets in the sexist slame that Sheehan lacks "grace". What does he know about grace? Or is he confusing grace with the leniancy he was shown in his pedophile busts?
When the pig first took his attacks on Sheehan public, we called it out (over a year ago) and noted that he wants to turn to the peace movement into the military with himself as commander. In fact, he earned his own special spot in "
2006: The Year of Living Dumbly" (he really earned it):
Another low happened when The Nation, Democracy Now! and about every left and 'left' outlet decided to continue to give a platform to the man they portray as a Cassandra but whom the mainstream media has noted was twice arrested in stings to capture sexual predators. As Chrissie Hynde once sang in "How Much Did You Get For Your Soul," "How much did you, How much did you, How much did you get?" He went around the country with Seymour Hersh slamming the peace movement (and wanting to turn it into the military -- presumably with himself as commander), he ridiculed and mocked Cindy Sheehan in an independent weekly, and despite that, despite the mainstream media's reports of two busts for seeking out sex with underage girls online, he was given a platform repeatedly.
He's a moron and disgusting trash. And he's selling "mandatory national service" like a good little Nazi today much to the shock of many commenting. They should be more shocked that a KNOWN PEDOPHILE can get away with penning statements about what "legally, morally and structurally binds our nation together" becuase, if the MSM coverage is to be believed, were it not for backdoor deals (that led to some firings), the Pedophile would be behind bars where his CRIMINAL ASS belongs. The Pedophile calls Cindy Sheehan's actions "self-destructive". That's rich -- a pedophile wants to speak of destruction. Reality is that the trash should have been carried to the curb. Reality is that the MSM did. It's independent media that's decided a PEDOPHILE is just, apparently, what the world needs now.
And it's time to start demanding accountability from small media. I don't tolerate pedophiles, I have no idea why The Nation, Truthdig and others are welcome to give them a 'pass.' I doubt they'd give the same pass to Mark Folely but the objects of his affection were male. (And it should be noted, Folely does not appear to have attempted anything with anyone under 18 which means he is not a pedophile.) With the Pig, apparently Small Media is saying that it's perfectly understandable for those things to happen. Two busts being reported and the perv refusing to respond to the reports is okay. It's not okay.
But it allows him to trash Cindy Sheehan yet again. And laugh as the twice busted pedophile wants to warn Sheehan's about to destroy "whatever vestige of credibility is left to her as a mainstream activist." This from the Pedophile who has no mainstream outlet because -- unlike Small Media -- MSM was firm in refusing to air the opinions of a Pedophile.
He's never liked Sheehan -- though he pretends today he liked the summer 2005 actions when the reality is he was trashing her at the start of 2006 and trashing the same actions he now pretends to like. Pedophile could never like the Peace Mom. She is a "mom." She's a mother. A wounded mother grieving over her child. Pedophiles need to divorce their victims from any sort of relations other than objects for the pedophile's perversion. Mothers are very scary to pedophiles.
He's a pedophile, he's a right-winger and he can't shut up about "anti-war." He's trashed Cindy Sheehan repeatedly. Why the left wants to embrace him is anyone's guess. But we don't embrace pedophiles. A good question to ask now is why others on the left continue to give him an outlet? Non Credo's remarks stand out among the ones read to me over the phone. From the opening of Non Credo's comments: "How dare ____ smear Sheehan as a 'narcissist.' ____ wants to pose in contrast as the 'manly man'. It's sexist and crass. It's ____ who's preening here, in his pretty uniform. And ___, this idea is nuts. If Bush had us all in his army, we'd all have to shut up, the way he shuts up anybody now serving, on the excuse of military necessity."
Avoid the Pedophile. But call him out if you see him around children -- especially girls.
Finally, as
Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, the Oil Ministry in Iraq has put in a place a ban on anyone dealing with the oil unions in Iraq who went on strike in opposition to the theft of Iraqi oil.