Monday, February 02, 2009

Jill McLaughlin, Isaiah, Third

Monday, Monday. First up, Wally just called awhile ago, asks, "You have a minute?" Yeah. C.I.'s taught him a song on guitar. It's called "Sing For You" and is a Tracy Chapman song. I didn't know it before Wally played it (really well) so I downloaded it tonight. It's a really cool song. You should check it out. (I downloaded the whole album but I'm just listening to that one song -- it's the first song -- over and over.) That's so cool that Wally's learning the guitar.

Okay, now for news. What is it about New Yorkers that they're so racist? I just don't get it. In 2008, trying to keep African-Americans from voting. They should really be ashamed of themselves. But that's New York for you, right?

Oh, I'm sorry is some little New Yorker having their feelings hurt? Well too damn bad. Tell scummy Amy Goodman and the other fringe crowd to quit attacking the south. There's a book that we considered discussing for Third and I said, "No." My vote was because the author takes swipes at people in southern states. Before I got to travel and all, I did have this stereotype of the south and think, "Oh they're all racists and they're all stupid" and all this other stuff.

I don't ever want to be part of that.

But since the high and mighty New Yorkers want to stereotype others, let's note that four from Stanten Island tried to prevent African-Americans from voting. Yep, they're all racists in New York City. All of them. Just a bunch of racists.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Greedy Pig" went up yesterday.

The Greedy Pig

Tom Daschle, the big creepy. Major Weenie who rolled over everytime the Republicans coughed. What a stooge. And he tried to weasel out of paying his taxes. Doesn't that say it all.

And more truth telling can be found in Jill McLaughlin's "No I Can’t: A Dissident to U.S. Empire But A Fighter For Humanity:"

Just because Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th President of the United States doesn’t make the U.S. any less of an empire. And it doesn’t mean that this empire has any intentions of ending its control and expansion. Under the Bush Regime many people began to see the methods and means in which the U.S. maintains its super power status, while for years before it was easy to ignore. The methods and means under the Bush Regime were so escalated that people in the U.S. took notice and were horrified. People wanted it to end. And it seemed the only way to end it was to vote in someone who was nothing like Bush.
Bush was a public relations nightmare for the empire, so the ruling class of the empire put Barack Obama in front of the people. He promised hope and change, and while many good people who care about humanity thought this meant an end to the wars for empire and torture what he really promised was a change in methods and means in maintaining an empire. So even while he promised an escalation in Afghanistan, people accepted this because after all that was appropriate since "they" are responsible for 9/11. Afghanistan is the good war. Right? We need to go after the terrorists. And now that he has signed executive orders ending torture and closing Guantanamo the people want to celebrate and breathe a sigh of relief. We can all dance around and chant “Yes We Can”.
No I can’t. I realize that this may be a bit jarring to those of you who so hated the Bush regime and are celebrating and “waiting and seeing” what hope and change Obama is going to bring. I want to talk about what the Afghanistan war is really about. I want to tell you that even with the executive orders signed by Obama to end torture and shut down Guantanamo that torture and indefinite detention will continue as long as the empire continues the so called “war on terror”. And if you care anything about humanity like you said you did during the Bush regime and during the longest presidential race campaign you’ll listen.
The Afghanistan war is just as illegitimate and unjust as the one waged in Iraq. It is not, as people believe, an appropriate response to the attacks of 9/11. Long before 9/11 the neocons and the Bush regime were drafting designs and plans to expand U.S. domination in the Middle-East. Afghanistan was and still is -- even under Obama -- a part of this plan. Anyone who believes that the Afghanistan war and occupation is legal needs to refer to Francis Boyle’s September 17, 2002 article in Counterpunch on the illegality of the Afghanistan war. Boyle points out that Bush failed twice to get the U.N. Council to give him a resolution to authorize military force in Afghanistan. Bush insisted that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an act of war. But for there to be an act of war there needs to be an attack of one state against another. There was not, which is why the U.N. Council would not give Bush what he wanted. The U.S. attacked anyway.
Read More Here.

By the way, "more truth telling" referred to Isaiah's comic. I was not patting myself on the back. I'm going to call the author Jill because I have two friends with that last name and they both spell it differently meaning, at some point, I will mispell her name.

So Jill told some truth and then some. I really am proud of World Can't Wait. Very few people are standing up. Most are just so happy Bully Boy's gone they'll let Barack do anything and not complain. If you ask me, those claiming to be 'anti-war' who voted for Barack made the choice that they were okay with increasing deaths in Afghanistan. They're not 'saving' Iraqis, but they are happy to toss another nation's people onto the fire as well.

I voted for Ralph Nader. If you voted for Nader or Cynthia McKinney or wrote-in somebody, then you voted for peace. You voted for Barack, get ready to spend the next four years trying to wash the blood off your hands.

Okay, let's talk Third. Along with Dallas the week's edition was done by the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.

And a lot of stuff was written. Some of it made it online.

Truest statement of the week -- That was something we forgot to really think on. There may have been two worthy ones. When this was proposed, we all agreed it was truest.

A note to our readers -- Jim breaks down the edition and contains some tidbits about future editions.

Editorial: The fear paralysis -- I like this editorial and I didn't when I went to sleep Sunday morning. We really didn't have any energy left and I really thought we'd done a poor job on this. I read it Sunday night and it was a lot better than I thought.

TV: Fate laughs at 2006's handicappers -- Ava and C.I. do another amazing piece and April's article, mentioned in Jim's note, will be similar in many ways to this. That's all I'm saying. Not giving it all away. :D

Military sexual assault -- I did not think we were going to be able to write this. We had it and the editorial to do and we were all exhausted but this one really worked out and it was obvious before we finished that we'd managed to pull this one off. I'm glad because it's on a really important subject.

Congrats America, you elected a Jewish mother -- Now this is just funny! :D Short feature! Short feature!

Mailbag -- This was just supposed to be a mailbag but it ended up being a pretty good discussion. I wasn't at all bothered by waiting, by the way. I know that only C.I. or Wally can ever get Dallas to participate. And Dallas was really needed for a topic that came up. I really enjoyed this and my only regret is that we didn't have time for a roundtable.

And that's why you don't let Republicans in the door -- I like this one. It seemed like the only thing we had early on that worked. We worked for ever on an article about homophobia and it just would not come together. No matter how hard we tried.

The Shirley goes to . . . -- A reader suggested a feature and it's going to be a regular one and it's named after someone pretty important.

The backstory on the White House press briefings -- When Ava and C.I. wrote their TV article, the rest of us worked on this. It's turned out pretty good, I think.

Hypocrisy Corrente Style -- This lost about 1/2 of it's original length and suddenly became good. I'm not joking. I hated it before the gang edited it. I really loathed it. They stripped it down and that gave it some life.

ETAN says drop charges against Jose Belo -- Etan.

Roundtable -- Repost of the roundtable Rebecca did Friday.

Highlights -- And Rebecca, Betty, Ruth, Kat, Stan, Marcia, Wally, Cedric, Elaine and I wrote this and made the selections unless otherwise noted.

That's the edition and that's it for me. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, February 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a faux commission shuffles paper in public today, provincial elections took place Saturday in Iraq and the counting continues, and more.

Last year, Alex Gibney's amazing
Taxi to the Dark Side won the Academy Award for best documentary beating out the empire project builder No End in Sight. No End in Sight wasn't just a badly made documetary -- a director needs not a sense of the visual -- it was a bad documentary. Many alleged 'anti-war' types tried to praise that piece of garbage as 'anti-war.' The Council on/of/for Foreign Relations director of the propaganda film not only supported the illegal war before it started, he supported it while making the film, he supported it while promoting the film. It takes a real idiot to claim that film was 'anit-war.' No End in Sight argued not against the Iraq War or war itself. No End in Sight advanced the argument that the 'problem' with the Iraq War was that there wasn't 'better' planning. That argument is not an argument to stop illegal wars, it is an argument to work harder on them in the pre-war stage.

As someone who rallied friends to vote for Taxi to the Dark Side (and voted for it myself), I do take joy out of No End in Sight going down in flames. But there's a point to sharing that story (again) today. The Commission on Wartime Contracting (CWC) ("In Iraq and Afghanistan") held their first hearing. They would be, they insisted, like the Truman Committee. It was not like the Truman Committee. It was like the propaganda of No End in Sight. The Truman Committee, actually the Senate Special Committee Investigating National Defense, found fraud, graft and cost overruns and dealt with them, saving the United States billions. The
Institute for Policy Studies' Sarah Anderson explained in 2006 that the committee "called 1,798 witnesses for 432 hearings and issued 51 reports." This committee is only required to release two reports. It may exceed that, but that is all that's required. As for duties, CWC explains it this way, "The law establishing the Commission defines a broad and substantive mandate. The Commission is required to study, assess and make recommendations concering wartime contracting for the reconstruction, logistical support, and the performance of security functions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Commission's major objectives include a thorough assessment of the systematic problems identified with interagency wartime contracting, the identification of instances of waste, fraud and abusue, and ensuring accountability for those responsible."

Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reported before the hearing that among those offering testimony would be Special Inspector General for Iraq Stuart Bowen and the SIGR is publishing Hard Lessons, a new book by Bowen on the money wasted, today. Dieter Bradbury (Portland Press Herald) reported that US Senator Susan Collins will be among those offering testimony today: "Collins has overseen investigations into government contracting as ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee."

What might have seemed promising quickly became the joke everyone in DC thought it would be. Commissioner Linda J. Gustitus at least attempted to make it appear there was some teeth to the commission. She noted that "it wasn't ignorance" that led to the waste of US tax dollars in Iraq, "the [Bush] administration knew from the very beginning that security was going to be a big issue." She went on to site Bechtel's pre-war study which found Iraq's crumbling security would result in huge costs. She noted that "half of the cost -- half of the fifty billion we've spent -- went to security." She noted years into the Iraq War, the Iraq Study Group would find "no clear lines establishing who is in charge of reconstruction -- that's four years in." The 'lessons' from the Iraq War were things "we already knew before we went into Iraq but the administration chose to ignore them."

If that statement bothers you, it should. The problem with the Iraq War is that it's an illegal war built on lies. It does not meet -- nor did it ever -- the definition of a just war. It was a war of choice built on deceit. The commission might try to argue, "We're looking into monies." You're making statements that go far beyond money.

A great deal of time was spent by the commissions spit-polishing Colin Powell -- known LIAR to the United Nations. Poor Collie, or Collie told us, or Collie said. Collie, Collie, Collie. Trash, trash, trash. His "blot" will not go away even when laughable "commissioners" spend all their time trying to pretend he's a respected voice of authority. He has no authority, he has what he's defined as a "
blot." His words about his lying performance before the United Nations in which he sold lies about the then-impending war, "Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be, uh, part of my, uh, my record." Always be part of his record? The Commission on Wartime Contracting didn't think so.

But why would it? Look at the commissioners and marvel that such a bunch of losers -- so tied to the illegal war -- could be appointed to in any way review it. Throw a dart at the board and see it who it hits. Dov S. Zakheim! Dov is PNAC. Dov signed the PNAC statements (PNAC pushed the illegal war starting in the nineties, they are the neocon think-tank). Is the problem the Bush administration as Commissioner Gustituts indicated? Then why is Dov showing up as a commissioner and not as a witness? Dov was one of George W. Bush's foreign policy tutors in 1999 and 2000 -- along with Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley, Paul Wolfowtiz and Robert Zoellick. When their pupil was elected, Dov found a job in the Defense Dept where he was the chief financial officer. And he's a commissioner? He was the chief financial officer in 2003 and he is a commissioner? He's evaluating the actions that include his own actions?
The commission is a damn joke.and putting people like Dov on it ensure that it remains one. But it's like No End in Sight, it's about building a better empire. That became clear repeatedly as Iraq was treated as nothing but a failed experiment to learn from. (What a joy to Iraqis! They were reduced to mice in the laboratory!) Clark Kent Ervin tossed around a lot of phrases ("unity of command," "coherent mission statement," "cost-plus contracts," etc.) and wanted to know what Iraq means for Afghanistan. Or as Dov put it, "What's already changed on the ground that could help us in Afghanistan? . . . what could be a big help in Afghanistan?"

SIGR's deputy Ginger Cruz gave testimony and managed to offer a little more about Iraq than many. She noted that the "the true costs are unknown" because reconstruction was done by private contractors working in Iraq and their work is done "in a pocket [of security] created by the US military." The cost of the reconstruction, Cruz noted, did not include the cost for the security provided by the US military. So "costs could escalate dramatically" if "we have to use private security" to create those safe 'pockets' for reconstruction to take place in.

One section of interest was during the opening statement by DoD Deputy Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble 's comments regarding Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP):
CERP funds are appropriated through the DoD and allocted through each major command's sector of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up to $500,000 can be allocated to individual CERP projects, and CERP beneficiaries often receive payments in cash. We have also identified occasions where soldiers with limited contracting experience were responsible for administering CERP funds. In some instances, there appeared to be scant, if any, oversight of the manner in which funds were expended. Complicating matters further is the fact that payment of bribes and gratuities to government officials is a common business practice in some Southwest Asia nations. Taken in combination, these factors result in an environment conducive to bribery and corruption.

Remember Gimble's claim that up to $500,000 in CERP funds can go to a single project, we'll come back to that in a minute. CERP was an issue during the
September 10th House Armed Services Committee hearing (and see this entry by Mike). This is Committe Chair Ike Skelton's exchange with DoD's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman:

Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?Edelman: Yes, sir.Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll shae the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.Edelman then tries to stall and Skelton cuts him off with, "Remember you're talking to the American taxpayer." Edelman then replies that it is a fair question. He says CERP is important because it's flexible. It's important because they're just throwing around, if you ask me. They're playing big spender on our dime.Skelton: The issue raises two serious questions of course. Number one is they have a lot of money of their own. And number two the choice of the type of projects that are being paid for. I would like to ask Mr. Secretary if our committee could receive a list of expenditures of $100,000 or more within the last year. Could you do that for us at your convience please?Edelman: We'll work with our colleagues in the controller's office and - and . . . to try and get you --Skelton: That would be very helpful.
The CERP funds are not being tracked. They haven't. Congress has repeatedly raised this issue. As for the claim of "up to $500,000," that's a confusing remark considering that the [PDF format warning]
October 30th report from the SIGIR declared, "The recent Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009 imposed a ceiling of $2 million on the amount of CERP money that DoD could allocate to a single project. The new NDAA futher requires the Secretary of Defense to approve CERP projects costing over $1 million, certifying thereby that the project will meet Iraq's urgent humanitarian relief or reconstruction needs." Why did no one follow up to ask exactly when the 2009 budget was 'updated'? Or, for that matter, how it was 'updated' after it was passed by Congress and signed into law by the White House?\

Overall the disappointing hearing was nothing but the Empire Project regrouping to figure out how to take the failed empire building in Iraq and turn it into a success in Afghanistan. The commission had their first hearing today and lived up to all the ugly whispers and jokes almost immediately. And if you're not getting how pathetic the commission is and how derelict in their duties the US Congress is being, let's note two things. First, from the
Jan. 27th snapshot: "Was the illegal war legal under international law? The BBC reports that the Information Tribunal has decided that the cabinet meetings (Tony Blair's cabinet meetings) must be released. Rosa Prince (Telegraph of London) adds, 'Downing Street refused to reveal whether it would comply with the ruling by the Information Tribunal, which follows a long-running legal battle to keep details of the meetings secret'." Second, Reed Stevenson (Reuters) reports today. "Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende ordered on Monday an independent commission to examine the government's decision to support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003." Jurjen van de Pol (Bloomberg News) notes, "The independent commission, led by former Dutch Supreme Court President Willibrord Davids, will seek to complete the investigation before November and will inform parliament and government of the outcome". Radio Netherlands Worldwide adds, "The Prime Minister has consistently refused to agree to a full parliamentary inquiry in the matter, saying that all information about the decision to side with the Americans and the British is known already."

Matt Lauer offered the equivalent of journalistic footsie with US President Barack Obama on NBC (link has text and video):

Matt Lauer: Let's talk about some of those men and women who are serving this country overseas in Afghanistan, other locations, in Iraq and I'm sure they're watching today. It's a big event for the armed services and a lot of those people have a vested interest in one of your campaign promises, to end this war and get home as soon -- within 16 months or so -- as humanly possible. So when you look at them, can you say that a substantial number of them will be home in time for next Superbowl Sunday?Barack Obama: Yes, uh, er, I mean we're gonna roll out in a very, very formal fashion what our intentions are in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. But in conversations that I've had with the Joint Chiefs, with people -- the commanders on the ground, uh, I think that we have a sense, now that the Iraqis just had a very significant election, with no significant violence there, that we are in a position to start putting more responsibilities on the Iraqis and that's good news for not only the troops in the field but their families who are carrying an enormous burden.

That's the entire Iraq 'exchange' and despite the efforts of reporters to put Lauer's words into Barack's mouth, Barack's reply does not indicate what they've endlessly hyped. Barack's words are also remarkably similar to the previous White House occupant's words -- in tone and the fact-free nature. There were tribal fights, bombings, and much more during the elections.

Saturday in Iraq, provincial elections were held in fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces. In his January 10, 2007 radio address, George W. Bush declared, "To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year." Two years later and they still weren't able to meet the benchmark of provincial elections in all the provinces. Though the three provinces that make up the KRG did not hold elections, the
Kurdish Regional Government did issue a statement Saturday noting, "Although there are no elections scheduled in the three KRG goernorates and Kirkuk, the KRG supports all citizens who are voting today and is facilitating the voting process for those displaced individuals currently residing within the Region but casting absentee ballots for their original districts. In Suleimaniah, Erbil and Dohuk there are 15, 23, and 33 voting centres, respectively." Reuters reports today the Kurdish Naional Assembly Speaker Adnan Mufti announced that the Kurdish region will hold their elecitons May 19th. That would still leave Kirkuk out of the mix.

There were 14,428 candidates vying for 440 seats. Saturday the print version of the New York Times included a look at three of the candidates. Sam Dagher profiled Zeinab Sadiq Jaafar, an attorney running in Basra: "Over the last month, she hunted for votes in the city's worst neighborhoods. An independent, Ms. Jaafar makes the case that she is an 'authentic' daughter of Basra who better understands her city's anxieties and needs. She empahsizes that unlike many candidates, she is not backed by some big shot from Baghdad. She also wants to prove that women can compete and win in politics in Iraq on their own merit. Alissa J. Rubin profiled Haithem Ahmed Alam Khalaf who is a "38-year-old sheik" and is running in Abu Ghriab. He says: "There were many violations of human rights in our area by the Iraqi Army; it is better now, but honestly, the official departments of the government were not at the level we were expecting." He's an "Awakening." Timothy Williams profiled Khalid Shakar al-Dulaimi who is a 44-year-old man running in Baghdad and is running as a member of the Gathering of Iraqi Nationalists and Labor. He states: "The Sunnis and Shiite religious parties failed their opprotunity and involved the country in unrest. People want new faces and new ideas." The paper provided these
graphs regarding the elections. Timothy Williams predicted that the campaign posters will be the visual image of these elections (while the ink stained fingers were the visual in 2005). He covers expectations as well. Alissa J. Rubin and Sam Dagher explore Moqtada al-Sadr's low profile which includes no slate of candidates but "the movement is backing two parties." Those who prefer audio, click here and scroll down the left side of the page for Alissa J. Rubin offering analysis of the players.

New York Times live blogged the elections (the live blog is one continuous entry in terms of link, they break it up into sections but it's one link and you scroll through). Correspondent Mohammed Hussein wrote of walking over three miles and visiting four polling stations before he was allowed to vote -- repeatedly he was told he wasn't on that polling station's list. At the fourth station, he wasn't sure of the nominees listed. His wife gave up after repeatedly bing told she wasn't on that station's list to vote. Hatim Hameed tells the paper of experiencing similar problems in Falljua where it took trips to five polling centers "before I found my name. I had to walk for more than an hour." And, Abu Abdullah al-Jubouri explained, "There is no transportation to bring people to the voting centers. Don't they think about how the people will get to the places where they have to vote? I'm going to vote by myself because I won't bring my family that far." In today's paper, Stephen Farrell and Alissa J. Rubin report Nasreen Yousif went to three different polling centers in Baghdad before she gave up, "Now I am going home. Maybe there is a fourth school, but it is too far and I can't walk anymore." At the paper's blog, Timothy Williams explains western Baghdad voters were searched three times before they were even allowed to enter the polling center.

The paper's
Alissa J. Rubin observed Sunday, "In the United States, many Americans view the war as already over, even though more than 140,000 American soldiers remain on Iraqi soil." Omar al-Dulaimi offers his take on the illegal war, "The American military presence brought nothing to our streets but destruction and chaos." Stephen Farrell and Rubin noted of Saturday, "Driving was banned in most of the country to prevent suuicide bombers from attacking any of the more than 6,000 polling places and security checkpoints, often spaced just yards apart. The tight security, couples with confusion over where voters should cast their ballots, appeared to have reduced turnout in many districts across the country." They estimate Nineveh Province saw 75% turnout of registered voters while Basra saw only 50%. Deborah Haynes (Times of London's Inside Iraq) reported on one get-out-the-vote attempt: texting:I was being inundated, like everyone else in Baghdad, by mass text messages from hopeful candidates pitching for votes ahead of provincial elections tomorrow. A confusing array of more than 14,400 candidates from 407 different parties, independent entities and individuals are vying for just 440 seats on 14 provincial councils across the country. In a bid to make sense of the huge choice, the candidates are on lists -- either independent or for a party. The list has a number, which is what I stupidly mistook to be the varying price of my monthly phone bill.One voter-wooing text (received multiple times) read like this: "Vote for 302, the list of Prime Minister Maliki who achieved security and restored national sovereignty." Another one went: "With your vote we will hold them accountable and build our country. Elect from the list of Mithal Allusi, 292."A third message (I could go on forever) read:"Vote for a Baghdad with everyone living with freedom and security. Tawafuq 265." The votes are still being counted but AP notes election commission chair Faraj al-Haidari estimates turnout across the country to be at 51%. al-Haidari is an ass who won't take accountability, "It's not our fault that some people couldn't vote because they are lazy, because they didn't bother to ask where they should vote." If the percentage remains low when all votes are counted, that not only rejects the hype that the elections had captured Iraqi's fascination and that they were wild to vote. The reasons for the low percentage -- if that number holds -- may include not feeling vested in the puppet government or in their occupied country, not trusting the system or voter suppression. Votes can be suppresed, as 2004 voters in Ohio can attest, if you create chaos and frustration. Certainly having people forced to walk from polling station to another repeatedly and requiring they be frisked multiple times before enterting each polling center can be seen as security or as harassment. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) pins it on reluctance to embrace 'democracy' on the part of Iraqis (how could they embrace what they don't have?) and she notes, "Voter turnout in Iraq's provincial elections Saturday was the lowest in the nation's short history as a new democracy despite a relative calm across the nation. Only about 7.5 million of more than 14 million registered voters went to the polls." It's cute the way the press reported nearly 15 million registered voters when they thought the turnout would be huge and now that it wasn't huge, they stop using "nearly 15 million" to run with "more than 14 million".Ahmed Rasheed, Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie, Missy Ryan and Katie Nguyen (Reuters) cite "voter registration problems and tight security" as the reasons for the low turnout. They also note that 2005's provincial vote saw 76% of registered voters participating. Remember that. Today the votes are still being counted. (Maybe some news outlet can live blog that?) Turnout was very low despite talk during the lead up. Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times) explains, "Just over half of Iraq's 15 million registered voters cast ballots in weekend provincial elections, with turnout as low as 40% in at least one province, but Iraqi and international officials insisted Sunday that they were satisified with the participation." Morin notes that "turnout failed to reach the 73% predicted by a recent government poll of 4,570 Iraqis." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) examines the preliminary results and notes winners appear to be "several secular parties" and Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation. These are preliminary results, as Rubin points out, not official ones. She explains, "The Americans had pushed for the provincial elections as a way to redistribute power more evenly throughout the country after many Iraqis boycotted the last elections in 2005. It was unclear whether a lower-than-expected turnout, at 51 percent nationwide, would curb hopes that all Iraqi sectarian and ehtnic groups could be more accurately represented." Rubin states that Sunni participation was higher throughout Iraq than it was in 2005 (but at 40% in Anbar -- we'll come back to Anbar at the end). So Sunni participating increased and Shi'ite participation drastically fell? That is the conclusion one would have to draw. Remember that 76% of registered voters participated in 2005. The results, when known, will be interpreted in various ways. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) explains, "For the northern provinces of Iraq, the outcome of elections held Saturday will provide the first snapshot in decades of demographics and loyalties in areas that have become the subject of a visceral dispute between Arabs and Kurds. Newly elected leaders in these provinces, where Sunni Arabs are widely expected to gain political power, will be thrust into the debate over whether disputed territories, including the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, should be annexed to the Kurdistan Regional Government." Saturday, the KRG declared, "Unfortunately the KRG notes its great concern that thousnads of Kurds in Ninewah, Makhmour and Khanaqeen were unable to exercise their right to vote due to a logistical mix-up by the Independent Electoral Commission." Nineweh is a region the Kurds are thought to want, Mosul is the capitol of the province. The Los Angeles Times covered Mosul vote: "Hisham, an Iraqi Kurd, had watched as his city fell apart. His Kurdish, Christian and Shiite friends fled, but he resolved to stay on. Slowly, he came to resent the Kurdish parties that governed Mosul. So Hisham voted Saturday in favor of the Arab nationalist Hadba party. He saw the vote as a way to bring the city back to what it was before 2004, when he lived in peace with all his neighbors -- before Islamic militancy and ethnic tensions ravaged Mosul." Mosul is where Iraqi Christians were under attack in the second half of 2008 and had to flee. Kim Gamel (AP) also reported on Mosul and quoted Bassem Bello, "It's better at this point but we paid a high price for it. We're working very hard to make sure it doesn't happen again." Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) quotes Nineveh Province's Leila Solaiman Mohammed who states, "I voted for the Fraternity of Nineveh (Kurdish slate) because it represents my race and we hope it would help us get our rights as Kurds. We want to live in peace like others." Meanwhile Fadel al-Badrani (Reuters) reports that, in Anbar Province, "Tribal sheikhs who helped drive al Qaeda militants out of Western Iraq threatened on Monday to take up arms against the provincial government because of what they said was fraud in Saturday's provincial polls."
Today's reported violence including many bombings . . .

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing today that claimed 3 lives ("the father, the mother and their son"), another Mosul roadside bombing that left two police officers injured and a Baji roadside bombing that left two Iraq service members wounded. The Los Angeles Times reports an Iraqi child and the father of the child are dead. They were killed by the US military when the US military struck their car. Why the convoy struck the car and whether six more Iraqis were wounded (US version) or nine more Iraqis were killed (Iraqi officials version) is not known: "There was no way to reconcile the different accounts."

And Sunday the
US military announced: "A U.S. Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related injury in Kirkuk, Iraq Jan 31. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4237.

In the United States,
Iraq Veterans Against the War announces:
IVAW Participates in Historic Iraqi Labor Conference
IVAW will be traveling with a U.S. labor delegation to participate in the First International Iraqi Labor Conference in Erbil, Iraq, which takes place from February 27-28. The conference will bring together trade unionists from across Iraq with international allies from labor movements around the world. The objectives of the conference are: (1) to unify the Iraqi labor movement; (2) to increase pressure on the Iraqi government to enact a labor rights law that conforms to all international standards in the International Labor Organization Conventions on the Rights of Workers; (3) to defend Iraqi national resources and public assets against foreign acquisition; and (4) to demand restoration of full sovereignty, which can only be accomplished by ending the occupation and removing all foreign troops and bases.

iraq veterans against the war
the washington postkaren deyoungwalter pincusdieter bradbury
the los angeles timesmonte morinthe new york timesalissa j. rubin
the washington post
sam daghertimothy williams
deborah hayneskim gamelstephen farrellleila fadelmcclatchy newspaperssahar issalaith hammoudimohammed husseinrick mazeahmed rasheedwaleed ibrahimmichael christiemissy ryankatie nguyenned parkerusama redha