Different post tonight. Wally, Ruth, Elaine and I are all just posting a video. It's an important topic. (We're also posting C.I.'s snapshot!) Wally's filling in for Rebecca.
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
This is from Women's Media Center:
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 27, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Ali al-Lami is not Ahmed Chalabi's lover (or that's the claim), the Iraq Inquiry hears from Peter Goldsmith who confesses to way more than he realizes, an Iraqi who died on Monday is remembered by those who knew him, and more.
Today the Iraq Inquiry in London heard from the former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith who apparently had trouble with timelines (link goes to video and transcript options). Ruth Barnett and Andy Jack (Sky News) report, "There was no evidence of an 'imminent threat' from Iraq to justify a war in self defence, Lord Goldsmith has told an inquiry." That was early in the morning. The hearing got more interesting as it went along. Goldsmith would explain the US never wanted a second resolution and if Goldsmith knew that, Tony Blair did which means Blair most likely never wanted a second resolution despite remarks to the British public as well as the Parliament in the lead up to the Iraq War. In addition, Goldsmith revealed that when he finally decided to flip on his own advice (he'd stated the Iraq War was legal without a second UN resolution), he did so not based on the law but based on whose side he wanted to be on -- as if a war is a game of dodge ball.
Before we get to the sorry excuse for a lawyer and human being that Goldsmith is, let's note that the Liberal Democrats issued a release today:Following Sir John Chilcot's admission today of 'frustration' over the Government's unwillingness to declassify certain information, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has called for key documents to be published before Tony Blair's hearing on Friday. The documents, which must be made public if the Blair hearing is to be effective, include correspondence between the then-Prime Minister and George W Bush which has already been discussed, but so far remains unseen. Commenting, Nick Clegg said: "Despite Gordon Brown's claim that he has 'nothing to hide' this has all the hallmarks of a cover up. Just as Liberal Democrats warned, the protocol on the release of documents is being used to gag the inquiry. "To restore trust in the inquiry the Government must immediately declassify certain key documents ahead of Tony Blair's hearing -- the memo from Sir David Manning to Tony Blair dated January 31, 2003 and the letter from Tony Blair to George W Bush sent July 2002. "Labour are leaving themselves open to charges of outright sabotage of Chilcot's work to save their own political skins. If Tony Blair gets through on the nod due to the withholding of key documents, the public will rightly dismiss this inquiry as a whitewash. "This will not go away. The Government must understand that the truth about this illegal war must and will emerge eventually, and that the time to come clean is now."
Now let's jump in to the hearing and if you're lost in the timeline, consider the confusion to be Goldsmith's fault. He will apparently identify an event, a trip, in February 2003 as having taken place in February 2002. Follow down the rabbit hole if you can.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: When did you actually give the Prime Minister your first advice?
Peter Goldsmith: Well, my advice remained preliminary until July -- I'm so sorry, until February. It remained preliminary until February, because I was still conducting my enquiries and researches. On, I think, 27 February, I met in Downing Street with, again, the Prime Minister's advisers and I told them then that, in the light of the further enquiries I had made, following my visit to the United States, following discussions with Jeremy Greenstock, following my investigation of the negotiating history, I was of the view that a reasonable case could be made -- I'm sorry, there was a reasonable case that a second resolution was not necessary, and that that was, on past precedent, sufficient to constitute a green light.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: You have moved ahead to 27 February.
Peter Goldsmith: Yes.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: We were hearing yesterday in discussion with Ms Wilmshurst, about presentation of draft advice by you in the middle of January to the Prime Minister.
Peter Goldsmith: Yes.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Advice that she said that she had, I think, seen unofficially.
Peter Goldsmith: She wasn't involved. Ms. Wilmshurst wasn't --
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Let's not personalise it and her. I think she was speaking for the FCO legal advisers collectively then. The question I wished to ask you is: what did you present to the Prime Minister, and how and when, in January?
Peter Godlsmith: As I said, I presented a sort of draft provisional advice as a basis for understanding what the response was to some of my concers, particularly drawing attention to the need to understand what was meant by "for assessment" in operational paragraph 4.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Was this in sort of fleshed-out form?
Peter Goldsmith: Yes.
Commitee Member Roderic Lyne: Was it quite a lengthy document?
Peter Goldsmith: Because the whole point was there were a number of textual arguments that were being raised. You couldn't explain those in a ten-second conversation.
Goldsmith then explained he met with Tony Blair, then prime minister, to discuss a draft of his findings. The draft also made it to Jeremy Greenstock and others but Goldsmith only provided it to Tony Blair. January 23, 2003, he met with Greenstock to discuss the findings. Greenstock told him that a resolution from the United Nations' Security Council authorizing the Iraq War was unnecessary. The issue of the first resolution (the one allowing UN inspectors into Iraq) was raised.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: In one of the early drafts of that resolution, that the United Kingdom and the United States, I think, showed to the French on 25 September 2003 -- and I appreciate that you were not being consulted on the drafting process, so let me quote from that: "We were bidding to include the following words in the resolution, that the Security Council", I quote: ". . . decides that false statements or omissions in the declaration and failure by Iraq to comply shall constitute a further material breach, and that such breach authorises member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area." Now, presumably, if we had succeeded in getting those words into the resolution, there would have been no need for a second decision at all?
Peter Goldsmith: Quite right.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: But we do not succeed in getting those words into the resolution. So in order to achieve a resolution, we had to give ground.
Peter Goldsmith: Well, the ground that was given particularly was to concede some second stage. The difficult question is whether the second stage was a Council discussion, where they would consider the discussion, or a Council discussion where they would decide what would happen next.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: We conceded that we had not been able to achieve a clear statement in this resolution that authorised member states to use all necessary means, ie to use force?
Goldsmith then goes off topic and Lyne tries to bring him back. Whenever Goldsmith goes off topic -- especially to avoid answering a question -- he ends up giving away much more than he realizes. He's not on topic but we'll jump in here anyway.
Peter Goldsmith: The United States, as everyone has said -- Sir Michael said it, I have said throughout, it is apparent on 7 March -- didn't believe they needed an United Nations Resolution at all. They believed they were able themselves to make the determination that Iraq was in material breach, and, therefore, they didn't need -- they didn't need 1441. Mr. Blair had -- and I said, I think to his credit -- had got President Bush to the UN table.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: I think, with respect, that's a separate point. We have gone past that point already.
Peter Goldsmith: With respect, may I make the point? Because it is important, and it is one of the things that came across very clearly in the meetings I had in February with the UN. Because the United States didn't need 1441 -- we did because we took the view that there had to be a determination of material breach. The United States didn't need it. They could have walked away from 1441 and said, "Well, we have been to the United Nations, they haven't given us the resolution we want, we can now take force." The only red line I was told by the State Department, legal adviser, the only red line that the negotiators had was that they must not concede a further decision of the Security Council because they took the view they could move in any event.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Yes.
Peter Goldsmith: Therefore, if they had agreed to a decision which said the Security Council must decide, they would have then lost that freedom.
Do you find Peter Goldsmith to be believable? That's a person call and people will have to make it on their own. But the above exchange -- an exchange Goldsmith offered willingly (in an attempt to avoid Lyne's questions) is rather explosive and people seem to be missing that.
Think for a moment what the Iraq Inquiry has been told. You've got, yes, one group that declares that England had 1441 and didn't need another resolution for the war to be legal and then you have the legal experts who say of course England needed a resolution authorizing the war. But back that up. Forget for a moment whether it was needed or not. We are told, over and over, that Tony Blair thought he could get a second one or thought that a second one would be sought. But Goldsmith has just revealed the US government's position -- after 1441 -- was that NO other resolution from the Security Council would be sought.
Because of wasting time? No.
The US government's position, according to Goldsmith, was that if a second resolution was passed it might limit the US' actions. Goldsmith (leaving out Lyne's "yes"): "The only red line I was told by the State Department, legal adviser, the only red line that the negotiators had was that they must not concede a further decision of the Security Council because they took the view they could move in any event. [. . .] Therefore, if they [the US] had agreed to a decision which said the Security Council must decide, they would have then lost that freedom."
That's rather important. Not because of the US administration's legal 'strategy' (or 'legal' 'strategy') but because if that was the US position and it was conveyed to Goldsmith then we've heard a lot of liars in this Inquiry insist that Blair was trying for a second resolution. Tony Blair was attached to George W. Bush at the hip and Bush was saying that a second resolution could restrain US actions so the US didn't want a second resolution, you better believe Tony Blair wasn't attempting a second resolution.
If you find Goldsmith believable, then the above is explosive because it reveals that witnesses have lied to the Inquiry (some may have been misinformed -- it would go to how high up they were) and it means Tony Blair has lied to the British people because the US position would have been in place before 1441 passed. When they saw the language emerging for 1441, the US position would have been in place and it would be, according to Goldsmith, "Fine. That's our resolution. We won't go back for another because it might hem us in."
The Inquiry should ask Tony Blair Friday to explain his understanding of the US position on a second resolution and when he became aware that they felt a second resolution might hem them in? At what point did Blair decide to go along with no second resolution? He should then be asked if he was sincere in his talk (during the lead up) about a second resolution? It does not add up, it does not make sense. Clearly, by March, it was too late to talk of a second resolution for Blair (because the date was already set for the war and Blair knew it). So at what point was Blair stringing along the public (and possibly his Cabinet members)?
In January 2003, as Blair prepared to meet with Bush at the end of the month, Goldsmith testified he again informed Blair a second resolution was necessary for the war to be legal. In February 2003, Goldsmith states he changed his mind about that. Repeated attempts by Committee Member Usha Prashar to determine why that was were met with Goldsmith doing everything but answering her questions.
February 10, 2003, Goldsmith went to DC. Please note, he is asked and he says it is February 10, 2002 (page 108 of the transcript, lines 21 through 25). That does not appear to be correct. He was in DC February 10, 2003. He was at the White House on Feburary 11, 2003 according to the official records. If indeed he visited in 2002 -- as he seems to think he did, that would mean that the US government and the British government defrauded the UN as well as the citizens of the world. 1441 is passed November 8, 2002. For Goldsmith's timeline to be correct -- maybe it is -- they would have had to have planned in February 2002, nine months before seeking the resolution, how they would not go for a second one. Again, I can get a confirmation on the February 2003 visit. I can't find out anything on a February 2002 visit. If I'm wrong and he did visit in February 2002 and that what follows took place then, there are some additional issues of fraud to the ones US House Rep John Conyers once noted.
Goldsmith testified he spoke with Will Taft IV of the US State Dept., he states he spoke to the legal adviser for the National Security Council, to Condi Rice, to "Colin Powell's people," to "Judge Gonzalez" (that's Alberto Gonzalez) and with John Ashcroft who was then the US Attorney General.
Peter Goldsmith: On one point, they were absolutely speaking with one voice, which is they were very clear that what mattered to them, what mattered to President Bush is whether they would, as they put it, concede a veto -- I need to explain that -- and that the red line was that they shouldn't do that, and they were confident that they had not conceded a veto. The point about conceding a veto was that the reg light was, "We believe" -- they were saying "that we have a right to go without this resolution. We have been persuaded to come to the United Nations" -- plainly some in the administration disagreed with that, you know that very well, "but the one thing that musn't happen is that by going this route, we then find we lose the freedom of action we think we now have", and if the resolution had said there must be a further decision by the Seucrity Council, that's what it would have done, and the United States would have been tied into that. They were all very, very clear that was the most important point to them and that they hadn't conceded that, and they were very clear that the French understood that, that they said that they had told -- discussed this with other members of the Security Council as well and they all understood that was the position.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: So they were very clear that the French had acknowledged, presumably in private, that there wasn't any need for a second decision?
Peter Godlsmith: Yes, in the discussions that they had had. They were very clear -- they were very clear that they had been adamant that this was key to them and that they had stuck to their guns and they had therefore conceded the discussion, the French acknowledged that, and discussion and no more.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: What evidence did they give you that the French had acknowledged this?
Peter Goldsmith: I wish they had presented me with more. That was one of the difficulties, and I make reference to this, that, at the end of the day, we were sort of dependent upon their view in relation to that. But I had seen -- certainly I had seen -- I looked very carefully at all the negotiating telegrams and I had seen that there were some acknowledgements of that, acknowledgments that the French understood the United States' position, at least, in telegrams that I had seen, and I was told of occasions when this had been clearly stated to the French.
To repeat, all the above describes what he would have encountered in February 2003 but he is saying it was February 2002.
In one of the more laughable moments, he explains he did not confirm the French government's position. He merely took the word of the Americans (and of people in his own government). Why? Because he insists he couldn't speak to the French government. It gets more crazy: He insists no British official could speak to the French. He couldn't place a call and no one could attempt to go through diplomatic channels.
Why?
He says because there were hard feelings between the US and France at that time and England was partners with the US and, golly, if the US saw Britian standing with France behind the gym, smoking a cigarette, the US might not invite Britain to the big party Friday. At "golly," I'm satirizing but it was his position and that's laughable. Even the Chair, John Chilcot, expressed surprise and asked of diplomatic channels which Goldsmith insisted couldn't be used.
Lyne asks Goldsmith what a court of law would say if he presented this? You have the official, public record of France's position. And if Goldsmith presented this hearsay of France's position (provided second hand by the US), what would a court say? A court would rule against it (it's hearsay) and Goldsmith knows that so he gets nervous (and gives away more than he realizes) and changes the topic. Asked what a court of law would say about that, he replies:
Well, can I answer this way, and I know I'm moving forward, but at that point that I took the view -- and I'll explain why -- that I had actually to come down on one side of the argument or other, I used a test which I quite frequently use when I'm having to advise on difficult matters, which is to say "Which side of the argument would you prefer to be on?" and I took the view I would prefer to be on the side of the argument that said a second resolution wasn't necessary.
WHAT??????
That's not what a lawyer does. A lawyer does not say, "Do I want to be on A or B side?" An attorney looks at the law. The law is the law. You can interpret it, you can argue for grey areas, but the law is the law. You do not say, "___ is guilty or innocent. Which side do I want to be on?" You look at the evidence. You look at the facts. You go to precedents and you make a call. But Goldsmith has confessed to the Inquiry that when Tony Blair and Jack Straw didn't want a second resolution -- even though Goldsmith had been insisting the war would be illegal without a second resolution -- Goldsmith decided he'd rather be on Tony Blair's side. (He testified he decided that in March . . . and he testified he kind of decided that in January. We'll just say "March" and leave it at that.) It's not about sides, it's about the law.
Goldsmith is a joke and should be disbarred. He is saying he decided on a position -- not based on the law -- and then cherry picked through various things to back up the position. He should be disbarred and the UK should make him return his salary because that's not practicing the law.
Nico Hines live blogs the hearing for the Times of London. Andrew Sparrow live blogs the hearing for the Guardian. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogs at Twitter. Chris Ames will blog and fact check at Iraq Inquiry Digest.
If you've ever wondered what it's like in the committee hearing room, Andy Beckett (Guardian) provides a detailed picture, he also sketches out each committee member and we'll note one section of his report:
As soon as I sat down and took out my notebook, a woman in a neighbouring seat with an intense air introduced herself. "I am from one of the bereaved families," she said. "My sister was kidnapped and died in Iraq."
Margaret Hassan was a British aid worker murdered during the Baghdad insurgency in 2004. Her family saw video footage of her captivity and death. Hassan's sister, Deirdre Manchanda, was contemptuous about the inquiry: "Sir John Chilcot," she said, with heavy sarcasm, "I wish he was my grandfather. When he consulted the bereaved families [before the hearings], I said, 'This is a huge conference centre, get another room for when Tony Blair appears. Or can the --bereaved families have reserved seats that day?'"
Manchanda went on: "I wouldn't shake Tony Blair's hand. But like other people here from the bereaved families, I haven't thrown eggs. We have conducted ourselves in a dignified way. Chilcot wrote back very politely, but not one proposal I put was agreed to."
And for the reaction of another person who lost a loved one in Iraq, we'll note Peter Brierly (father of Shaun Brierley) from "Tony Blair is guilty of mass murder" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):
'We've been saying what has now come out of the Chilcot inquiry for the last six years. The decision to go to war was made years before it was announced, it was illegal, and it was to depose Saddam Hussein.
They denied it all this time, and now it's out.
But that isn't enough. The only acceptable outcome is for Tony Blair to face investigation for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
When he gives evidence Blair will deny these things. Unless they put charges to Blair, the inquiry is in disrepute.
The Iraqi people should have a voice too, to come and give evidence. It wasn't just people who were killed -- a whole country was destroyed.
Every other day there seems to be a bombing or something similar in Baghdad.
The violence only exists because of the instability war has created.
We went and met with John Chilcot along with other military families before the inquiry started.
I met him individually and he said that if anything illegal came out in the inquiry he wouldn't hesitate to pass it on.
Well now it has come out of their own mouths that it was for regime change.
Since I refused to shake Blair's hand, he seems a bit different.
People used to say you'll never get what you want, but he's looking less cocky now, less confident.
We won't stop until we get him -- and until we get justice.'
There is more to "Tony Blair is guilty of mass murder" but we don't have the room in today's snapshot, we'll note the other half tomorrow. Great Britain's Socialist Worker's coverage on this topic also includes:
» Blair and Brown have blood on their hands » Afghanistan: Conference will not stabilise the 'good war' gone bad » Chilcot whitewash brings out the dirt » Attempt to ban protest outside Tony Blair's appearance at Iraq inquiry
Friday, one-time prime minister and forever poodle Tony Blair will appear before the Iraq Inquiry. A major protest is expected to take place outside as War Criminal Tony testifies. From Stop The War Coalition's "Protest on Tony Blair's Judgement Day: 29 January from 8am:"
Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Broad Sanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE On Friday 29 January, Tony Blair will try to explain to the Iraq Inquiry the lies he used to take Britain into an illegal war.
Writers, musicians, relatives of the dead, Iraqi refugees, poets, human rights lawyers, comedians, actors, MPs and ordinary citizens will join a day of protest outside the Inquiry to demand that this should be Tony Blair's judgement day.
There will be naming the dead ceremonies for the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in Blair's war. Military families who lost loved ones in Iraq will read the names of the 179 British soldiers killed.Join us from 8.0am onwards.
Yesterday's hearing remained in the news today due to Jack Straw. For recap, Jason Beattie (Daily Mirror) reports, "In dramatic evidence that suggested Mr Straw was pushing for invasion, Sir Michael revealed he sent the Foreign Secretary memos to say the "UK could not lawfully use force" and needed a second UN resolution. Sir Michael and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst also revealed all the department's legal experts regarded the invasion as unlawful." Richard Ford (Times of London) reports: "Jack Straw today defended his decision to ignore the legal advice of two senior Foreign Office lawyers in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The Justice Secretary rejected claims that he had ignored crucial advice over the legality of military action." BBC News reports Straw told them today that he was "reluctant" about the Iraq War "but in the event I made my decision and I stand by it." Then why the attempts at damange control?
Turning to some of today's reported violence in Iraq today.
Reuters notes 1 man shot dead in Zummar -- after which his vest exploded leaving three Iraqi police officers and 1 US soldier injured, a Mosul suicide bomber has taken his own life and left five people injured (four were police officers) and 2 people have been shot dead in Mosul in separate incidents. In addition Aseel Kami, Michael Christie and Ralph Boulton (Reuters) report a Baghdad assault on two buses containing Iranians making a pilgrimage to the Imam Moussa al-Kadhim with at least 2 people dead (an Iraqi bus driver and an Iranian woman).
Monday, Baghdad was slammed with bombings and the death toll has risen to at least 41 with over seventy wounded. Among the dead was Yasser, an Iraqi man who acted as a driver for various reporters. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (NPR's Morning Edition. link has text and transcript) remembers him:
He was fearless and saved my life many times. On one terrifying occassion, he swerved the car away from a knife-wielding attacker who wanted to steal the vehicle. In Iraq, the people you work with hold your life in their hands. Yasser took that role extremely seriously. He was loyal, devout, kind and curious. We became close. I met his family, ate at their home, traveled with him across the country on assignments. I often spent more time with him than with my own family. And over the many years I lived in Iraq, he was a steady presence in the almost unimaginable chaos.
James Hider (Times of London) remembers Yasser:
He joined the newspaper pretty much the same week I did, and toether we worked through the bloddiest periods of the war. Yasser -- whose surname I cannot put in print, even now, because of the danger to his brother, who also works as a Times driver -- was one of the thousands of Iraqis who have made the media coverage of the war possible: uncredited, unsung heroes of a war most people would rather forget.
He had survived some terrifying episodes, from being "ethnically cleansed" with his family by Sunni insurgents from their home in 2006, when they moved into our hotel but did not stop working, to blocking the road with his car as a vehicle full of armed kidnappers tried to abduct a Times reporter one evening near the Tigris river. He saved my life and the lives of colleagues at the risk of his own, only to step out of The Times office at exactly the wrong moment on Monday, the moment when a suicide car bomber fought his way into the compound and blew himself up.
Back to Lourdes Garcia-Navarro:The Iraq War is slowly fading from American newspapers and consiousness. Military men and politicians say it's better here now and indeed, these days there is less death. But people are still being killed. On Monday, I happened to know one of them. The legacy of the Iraq War is measured in these losses. The people who have died here cannot be forgotten. And I will not forget my friend, Yasser.
Moving over to the subject of oil, like Harold Ford Junior on the floor of Congress, getting in a female member of Congress' face and screaming, "Say it to Murtha!" a number of dumb asses have insisted they know something when they know nothing. We're referring to the stupid, the liars and the whores who want to insist that the US is shut out of Iraqi oil and therefor the Iraq War had nothing to do with oil. First off, as already noted, "multi-national." Multi-national companies (plus China's state oil) have won contracts -- multinationals with Americans serving on their boards. Second of all, the World Tribune reports: "Iraq's Oil Ministry has signed a deal with Italy's Eni and the U.S. firm Occidental Petroleum to enhance the Zubair oil field, with an estimated reserve of 4.2 billion barrels." Third of all, Monica Hatcher (Houston Chronicle) reports, "Chad Deaton, CEO of Houston-based Baker Hughes, said in an earnings call Tuesday that his company has submitted a contract bid to a potential customer and could begin work on the ground by as early as the end of the first quarter. And Weatherford International chief Bernard Duroc-Danner said Weatherford expects to have eight rigs working in Iraq by the end of the first quarter and a ninth by July. The company is based in Switzerland but maintains a regional office in Houston. The heads of sector giants Schlumberger and Halliburton said in the past week that they also see business ramping up in the coming year." Surely the New York Times and all the other outlets that pimped the lie are now readying updates to their stories, right? (Don't hold your breath.)
Speaking of dumb, is there anyone worse than Chris Hill, US Ambassador to Iraq as long as he has a lifecoach along for the ride? Hill spoke to Lindsay Wise (Houston Chronicle) and those paying attention to his first response may grasp he didn't learn a damn thing since his confirmation hearing. (de-Ba'athification was confusing to him even then.) But it takes a special kind of stupid to produce this exchange.
Lindsay Wise: There were recent rumors of a military coup in Iraq. The U.K.'s ambassador to Iraq, John Jenkins, has been quoted saying a coup in Iraq is a real possibility in the future, that a democracy here is "not a done deal." What do you think?
Chris Hill: As I understand [it], the ambassador to her majesty's government explained that he was quoted out of context.
What? "Her majesty's government"? Chris Hill, who are you serving? That's (a). (b)? Jenkins said it. He said it in public. He was not misquoted. And if the US government is so pathetic (Chris Hill certainly is -- let's hope he's not representative) that they can't determine what someone said in public, then no wonder there is one "intelligence failure" after another. Where did Jenkins make that statement?
The Iraq Inquiry. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) did not misquote Jenkins. Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) did not misquote Jeninks and we didn't in the January 8th snapshot. Here's what Jenkins said:
If you look at the history of Iraq and the history of military coups in Iraq, you have to think that is always a possibility, a real possibility in the future, but I think where we are at the moment is -- it is much better than we thought it was going to be back in 2004/2005.
That's at the end of his remarks (refer to that day's snapshot for his remarks before it and the question before it). Jenkins was not misquoted nor, pay attention Chris Hill, was he asked of a military coup. Jenkins floated that all on his own. And because Chris Hill never stops finding new levels to stupidity, we'll encourage him to click here for the video and transcript options for Jenkins testimony. You can lead a dunce to water, but you cannot make him think.
Or float. Vying for the title of Idiot of the Week, Hill has competition!, is Ali al-Lami who insists to Asharq Al-Awsat that he is not controlled by Iran. The fresh from prison al-Lami heads the extra-legal Accountability and Justice Commission. And certainly, if you were released from prison mere months ago, you too would be heading a government commission because that's what cronyism is all about, right, Ali? Don't call him Ahmed Chalabi's lover because they insist they are just friends. With no benefits. Or none they admit to. But Ali explains that he's cracked down on the media and they've figured out their place and "calmed down" because he's threatened them with "lawsuits". He's a little bully. Let's hope he and Ahmed are lovers, they certainly deserve one another. (And, to look at them, it's obvious no one else would have them.)
TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):
Haiti's catastrophic earthquake, in addition to leaving lives andinstitutions in ruin, also exacerbated a much more common and lethalemergency in Haiti: Dying during childbirth. Challenges intransportation, education, and quality health care contribute to Haitihaving the highest maternal mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere, anational crisis even before the earthquake struck. While great strides are being made with global health issues likeHIV/AIDS, maternal mortality figures worldwide have seen virtually noimprovement in 20 years. Worldwide, over 500,000 women die each yearduring pregnancy. On Friday, January 29 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), a NOW team thathad been working in Haiti during the earthquake reports on this deadlybut correctable trend. They meet members of the Haitian HealthFoundation (HHF), which operates a network of health agents in more than100 villages, engaging in pre-natal visits, education, and emergencyambulance runs for pregnant women.
iraq
reutersaseel kamimichael christieralph boulton
the guardian richard norton-taylor
nprmorning editionlourdes garcia-navarro
james hider
the times of londonrichard fordnico hines
andrew sparrow
the daily mirrorjason beattie
sky newsruth barnettandy jack
channel 4 newsiraq inquiry bloggeriraq inquiry digestchris ames
the socialist worker
now on pbs
pbs
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Chuck, health scare, Hooverism
Chuck aired on NBC last night. I watched it on Hulu today. Before we get to that, thank you to reader Jenna who e-mailed me to say Anna wasn't coming back on.
Anna was one of the best characters the show had and she was on in season one and two. She worked at the Buy More and didn't take any crap and could take care of herself. Morgan had the hots for her and they finally got together as a couple. She's now gone from the show. Jenna explained that in the two hour Sunday debut that kicked off this season, it was mentioned that when she and Morgan went to Hawaii, she fell in love with someone else. He came back and she stayed in Hawaii.
Jenna says she's now done with Chuck. She didn't watch Monday but she's seen enough this season to know "It's not the show I loved." She is tired of all the men and sick of Anna being written off.
I agree with her. That was a huge mistake and that just shows what idiots they are that they didn't realize how popular Anna was. I guess you have to put your penis between two halves of Subway bread for the producers of Chuck to pay attention.
Jenna asked that I note she is now boycotting Subway. Subway is backing Chuck with ads and some sort of monies towards the show's budget.
So what happened?
We got Lana Lang from Smallville. I have no idea how long she'll be on. She met Chuck on the airplane and ended up back in Burbank at the end. She's a good actress but the show doesn't need another damsel in distress. If the character's got something to offer, that'll be great but otherwise they're wasting the actress.
Chuck's new boss (Brandon Routh) sends him on a plane where he fights the bad guys. It was boring until Sarah took over control of the plane (Sarah wasn't on the plane). Then it was Buy More with the all male employees and how they disrespected Morgan and he enlisted Casey to help him and blah, blah, blah.
Without Anna, Morgan's really a whiny little baby.
The show was boring beyond belief. Chuck needs to flash to defend himself. Can he, can he!! Sure he grabs a sword and begins a swordfight. Chuck needs to flsh to defend himself. Can he, can he! Yes, he realizes how to use numbchucks. That's last night's episode and as bad as it is that it repeats in the same episode, reality, we've seen the Can he flash! Can he flash! in every episode this season. ("Flash" means use the computer intersect in his brain, for those who never watch the show.)
It was so boring and Brandon Routh is boring. Why they thought the man who BOMBED as Superman could save Chuck is beyond me. (I think he and Zachary Levi are friends or lovers or something in real life.) Routh's a lousy actor and he just saps the show everytime he's on.
This is from Carrie Budoff Brown and Patrick O'Connor (Politico):
Democrats searching for a way to resuscitate health reform ran into a wall of opposition from party moderates Tuesday — throwing into doubt whether congressional leadership can salvage the sweeping reform plan that once was President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
Signs were everywhere that Democrats were quickly shifting their focus from health reform that dominated 2009 to a jobs-and-economy agenda they believe must dominate this midterm election year, with congressional leaders saying they doubted Obama will gave any clear guidance on how to proceed during Wednesday’s State of the Union address.
If we're really lucky, Barry's BigBusinessGiveAway is dead in the water, sinking like the Titanic. Tomorrow's the big speech. I'm not planning to watch. I've got no interest in it and really can't take his . . . starts and . . . stops. I'll read the speech at some point but I just can't take listening to it. I was the same way with Bush.He's going to push more Republican programs off on us. That's the point of the speech. Andy Barr (Politico) reports:
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, January 26, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad again slammed with a bombing, the Iraq Inquiry hears that Blair and Cabinet were informed the Iraq War was illegal barring a second UN resolution, and more.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: Can I just then confirm, what were your views of the legal position on the use of force against Iraq before the Security Council Resolution 1441?
Elizabeth Wilmshurst: They were the same as described by Sir Michael Wood this morning, that it would be necessary to have a resolution of the Security Council, if force against Iraq were to be lawful, that the other lawful reasons for the use of force were not present at that time.
Commitee Member Usha Prashar: But there was a consistent view of all the law officers with the FCO [British Foreign & Commonwealth Office]?
Elizabeth Wilmshurst: Of all of the legal advisers within the FCO, yes.
Committee Member: Was the Foreign Secretary [Jack Straw] aware of your advice?
The illegal war. In London today, the Iraq Inquiry heard there was no legal basis for the Iraq War. Today's witnesses were Michael Wood (Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2001 - 2006), David Brummel (Legal Secretary to the Law Officers, 2001 -2004), Elizabeth Wilmshurts (Deputy Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2001 - 2003) and Margaret Beckett (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, May 2006 - June 2007) (link goes to transcript and video option). John Chilcot is the chair of the Inquiry and he noted this morning that the testimonies would focus on legal issue and, "It is important also to recall we shall be raising legal issues with Jack Straw when he appears again on 8 February and with Mr [Tony] Blair on Friday." The first witness was, Michael Wood who explained, "I was the chief legal adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1999, the end of 1999, until February 2006 when I retired. I was the head of a group of lawyers."
Usha Prashar: Sir Michael, thank you for your statement. What I want to cover is the legal position on the use of force before the Security Council 1441 and also what happened in terms of practical advice giving and the concerns you might have raised, but I think it would be very helpful if youc an just tell us whether you were ever asked to advise on the provisions of international law relevant specifically to regime change in Iraq, and who asked you, and when was this, and what advice did you give?
Michael Wood: It was such an obvious point that kept on coming up and we just stuck in the sentence: "Regime change is not a legal basis for the use of force." It wasn't really controversial, so -- I can't remember if and when I presonally put that sentence in, but it went constantly into documents and was not, as far as I can recall, challenged by anyone.
Usha Prashar: So you can't remember when you were specifically asked that question and by whom?
Michael Wood: I can't. I can remember when we were first -- at least, I think I can remember, having refreshed my memory with the papers -- when we first looked at the general question of the legal basis for the use of force prior to the adoption of 1441, if you would like me to set that out.
Committee member Usha Prashar: I would actually. That was my next point. I really wanted you to briefly give your view on the legal position of the use of force before.
Michael Wood: I think the legal position was pretty straightforward and pretty uncontroversial. The first possible basis would be self-defence, and it was clear to all the lawyers concerned that there was no -- a factual basis for self-defence was not present, unless circumstances changed, because there was not -- Iraq was not engaged in an armed attack, nor was there an imminent armed attack on us or its neighbours or anybody else. So self-defence was ruled out. The second possibility would have been the exceptional right to use force in the case of an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. This was the Kosovo argument, the argument we used in 1999, and also used for the No Fly Zones. Apart from the No Fly Zones, it was clear that there was no basis, using that rather controversial argument, for the use of force, in 2001/2002. So that left the third basis, possible basis, which was with authorisation by the Security Council. There, of course, we had a series of resolutions culminating in 1205 of 1998, which was seen as the basis for Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, and so there was a slight question whether that finding of a breach, a serious breach, was still -- still had some force. But I think all the lawyers who looked at it were pretty -- was very clearly of the view that it was not, and that if we sought to rely on that resolution of some years before, we wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. So the advice that was given was that there was no basis for the use of force in late 2001, when it first arose, I think, in 2002, without a further Security Council decision. There was one point that kept on coming up. Occassionally ministers, people, would say, "Well, Kosovo, we can do what we did in Kosovo. We didn't need a Security Council Resolution there". They remembered that we hadn't had a resolution, but, of course, Kosovo was very specific. It was based on the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, the hundreds of thousands of Kosovans being driven from their homes and their country.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: You made that very clear --
Michael Wood: We made it very clear throughout and I don't think it was very controversial. Occassionally, you would get ministers saying the wrong things, or the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] saying the wrong thing privately, and I would just jump in and remind people of this basic position, but the basic position was set out by one of my colleagues as early as November 2001, when I think President Bush made some kind of statement which made it look as though fource might be used. So we set out the position immediately. It was repeated in a document that was attached to repeated documents that went to that famous meeting on 23 July [Crawford, Texas meet up between Blair and Bush at Bush's ranch]. These, I think, are --
Committee Member Usha Prashar: What you are saying is that you and your colleagues were consistent in the advice you were giving prior to this period?
Michael Wood: We were, and I'm sure the Attorney was aware of what we were saying and agreed with it. It just wasn't really a controversial business at that stage.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: During this period, nobody challenged you, nobody disagreed with you.
Michael Wood: That's correct.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: This was the consistent view of you and your colleagues?
Michael Wood: Yes.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: I think this morning we have actually published notes that you sent to the Foreign Secretary on 26 Mrach, which is a -- records the Secretary of State's conversation with Colin Powell.
Michael Wood: Yes.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: I mean, were you concerned what he said, that he felt entirely comfortable making a case for military action to deal with Iraq's WMD? What were your concerns and why did he choose to write in this way?
Michael Wood: I was obviously quite concerned by what I saw him saying. I mean, often reports are not accurate. They are summaries, they are short. He may well not have said it in quite the form it came out in the telegram, but whenever I saw something like that, whether from the Foreign Secretary or from the Prime Minister or from officials, less often perhaps, I would do a note just to make sure they understood the legal position.
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed by the Security Council on November 8, 2002. It did not declare war. It allowed for inspections. The inspection process was ended when Bush announced Saddam could leave or the invasion would start. There was not a resolution for the invasion. The committee has heard some witnesses admit they would have liked a second resolution, some state that it was not needed and a few delicately question the war itself without a second resolution. Today the committee heard that the Iraq War was illegal without a second resolution and that the cabinet -- including the Prime Minister Tony Blair -- knew of that before the start of the Iraq War.
Wood testifed about a January 24, 2003 letter (which the committee made public) to Jack Straw written as a result of a meeting Straw and Dick Cheney (the US' then president of vice) had in DC where Straw insisted a second UN resolution was only a preference and the war was still a go "if we tried and failed" to get a second resolution. Wood stated of his letter, "That was so completely wrong, from a legal point of view, that I felt it was important to draw that to his attention." Elizabeth Wilmshurst testified in the afternoon.
Chair John Chilcot: Did it make a difference that Jack Straw himself is a qualified lawyer?
Elizabeth Wilmshurst: He is not an international lawyer.
Emma Alberici (Australia's ABC News) notes of the above exchange, "Even Sir John Chilcot could not resist but laugh." Jeremy Greenstock had earlier testified and noted that he didn't believe the Iraq War was "legitimate" but he would not weigh in on the legality.
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: You are saying that's actually part and parcel of the legal problem as well? That you don't necessarily see this distinction between legality and legitimacy?
Elizabeth Wilmshurst: In the case of Resolution 1441, he seemed to be saying that it was all right if we trod a very narrow line of textual interpretation, with which I didn't agree, of course, but he had a narrow textual argument, but which didn't have regard to what he said the majority of the Security Council believed. I was saying that, in this particular case, actually the whole question is: whose is the decision, the Security Council's or individual member states'? So that what in this case he was calling "legitimacy", I would call "legality". I would treat it as part of the legality argument. I do not know that I would make a wider proposition of it.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne used his questioning to, among other things, establish that the legal advice from the Foreign Office and the Attorney General's opinion was the same (illegal without a second resolution) and that it was the same "throughout 2002, before and after the adoption of Resolution 1441, and up until the point of the Attorney General's advice of 7 March 2003". That is when the divergence comes, days before the start of the Iraq War. It should also be noted that as last year drew to a close, Tony Blair told the BBC that even without WMD, the Iraq War was still justifiable on the grounds of regime change. That argument/defense was rejected by government attorneys as Blair damn well knew.
Will Stone (Morning Star) quotes Lindsey German, Stop The War, reacting to today's testimonies, "We all knew that the war was illegal but it's a disgrace that Mr Straw ignored legal advice. When you hear that legal advisers had doubts abou tthe war and were being ignored you realise that this is not just about Tony Blair but a whole host of people who all went along with it." Brian Haw tells Stone, "Nobody will accept responsbility for the war even though international law was thrown clean out the window. That's what they hung the Nazis in Nuremberg for." James Chapman (Daily Mail) emphasizes this from today's hearing, "Astonishingly, Downing Street asked lawyers to assess what the consequences would be if Britain toppled Saddam Hussein without legal authority. When they received the lawyers' memo, No.10 demanded: 'Why has this been put in writing?'"
Andrew Sparrow live blogged today's hearings for the Guardian. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogged at Twitter. Chris Ames fact checked at Iraq Inquiry Digest. At the Guardian, Chris Ames gives the backstory on the previous efforts to hide the legal advice and the disregarding of that advice:
Last year, the information tribunal ordered the government to release the minutes of the cabinet meetings of 13 and 17 March but Straw -- for the first time ever -- used the veto that he had himself put in the freedom of act to block publication. It had emerged during the tribunal hearing that there was considered to be insufficient discussion of the legal issues at the second meeting. It has since been admitted during the inquiry that all that happened at that meeting was that Goldsmith's very short legal advice was tabled and that a request by Clare Short for a discussion was rejected by the majority of the cabinet.
This lack of discussion is one of the key political and constitutional issues around the war. Should the cabinet have discussed the legality of a decision for which they were constitutionally collectively responsible?
Friday, one-time prime minister and forever poodle Tony Blair will appear before the Iraq Inquiry in London. A major protest is expected to take place outside as War Criminal Tony testifies. From Stop The War Coalition's "Protest on Tony Blair's Judgement Day: 29 January from 8am:"
Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, BroadSanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EEOn Friday 29 January, Tony Blair will try to explain to the Iraq Inquiry the lies he used to take Britain into an illegal war.
Writers, musicians, relatives of the dead, Iraqi refugees, poets, human rights lawyers, comedians, actors, MPs and ordinary citizens will join a day of protest outside the Inquiry to demand that this should be Tony Blair's judgement day.
There will be naming the dead ceremonies for the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in Blair's war. Military families who lost loved ones in Iraq will read the names of the 179 British soldiers killed.Join us from 8.0am onwards.
Paul Lewis and Vikram Dodd (Guardian) report, "Anti-war campaigners planning to protest when Tony Blair appears before the Iraq inquiry on Friday said today they had been barred from going near the building where he is giving evidence. Up to 1,000 protesters are expected to rally outside the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, in Westminster."
Turning to Iraq where Baghdad was again slammed today with a major bombing. Jenny Booth (Times of London) reports a Baghdad suicide car bombing has targeted the police forensic service. Booth notes many dead and "Around 80 people were injured in today's attack. Hospitals in the Iraqi capital reported receiving a surge of wounded people and dead bodies." Yousif Bassil (CNN) counts 18 dead in addition to the eighty wounded. Al Jazeera explains the forensic services were part of the Interior Ministry and adds "Five of the dead and 25 of those injured worked in the interior ministry building." John Leland and Anthony Shadid (New York Times) add, "The bombing set cars ablaze and sprayed glass through the assortment of nearby restaurants and shops, wounding several people, according to news reports, and rescuers picked through the rubble of the damaged forensics department building, looking for anyone buried in the blast." [Note, the Times report has been revised and now only carries Shadid's byline. It also now omits other violence that took place yesterday.] Saad Shalash, Khalid al-Ansary, Michael Christie, Missy Ryan and Noah Barkin (Reuters) quote eye witness Hassan al-Saidi stating, "I've heard many explosions in the past, but nothing like this." Liz Sly and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report the death toll has reached 21 and that "The bomb pulverized blast walls intended to protect the facility, caused extensive damage to the building and shattered windows for hundreds of yards around."
In other violence, Reuters notes today that Monday saw 2 police officers shot dead in Baghdad, two Baghdad roadside bombing which injured five people and a Baghdad grenade attack which left nine people injured.
Yesterday Baghdad was slammed by bombings and, if you doubted the news value, you missed the network evening news. (Jenny Booth reports the death toll of Monday's bombings has risen to 41.) All three US networks noted the bombings. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams provided the most time to the story:
Brian Williams: Overseas tonight, the situation in Iraq is suddenly back in the news today with a reminder that safety there can vanish in an instant. A series of bombings in downtown Baghdad, places frequented by Americans and other Westerners. Our own chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel who has spent so many years in Iraq is tonight with us in our New York studios. Richard what happened and what's the larger meaning do you think?
Richard Engel: First of all, the larger meaning is that the war in Iraq is not over and don't think that for a minute. They were three coordinated attacks on hotels used mostely by Western contractors and journalists. In one of the attacks, security cameras caught the white mini-van that was full of explosives as it was navigating through a security barrier, then it exploded. Why now? US troops are mostly staying on their bases, they're not patrolling nearly as much and it's a particularly volatile time. There are elections in Iraq in just six weeks and insurgents are trying to restart the civil war
Brian Williams: And also today, the death by hanging of a man we all came to know by a fiendish nickname
Richard Engel: Chemical Ali. One of the most hated men in Iraqi history, one of Saddam Hussein's chief henchman, responsible for killing by most accounts more than 5,000 Kurds in the -- during the Iran-Iraq War . He was put to death by the same tribunal that ultimately tried Saddam Hussein.
Brian Williams: Well perhaps some of the attention now shifts back to Iraq.
Click here for video of the above. ABC World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer provided the least time:
Diane Sawyer: Baghdad, Iraq was rocked today by three bomb blasts at hotels which are popular with Westerners and journalists. At least three dozen people were killed and more than 100 injured. And in related news, the Iraqi prime minister called for a fraud investigation into bomb testing equipment supplied by the British which reportedly doesn't do the job.
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric offered a summary (as did ABC) but paired it with a report on the 'bomb detectors':
In Baghdad today, suicide bombers attacked three hotels killing at least 37 Iraqis. Officials blamed Saddam loyalists out to undermine the government. That government has invested heavily in bomb detectors to try to prevent such attacks but as Richard Roth tells us, there's new evidence they don't work. .
Richard Roth: If you think the pictures in this promotional video are dramatic, just look at the claims made for the device it promotes. The ADE651 is a metal antenna on a plastic handle sold as a bomb dector that uses no batteries or electronics. According to its British distributor, it can point to hidden drugs, guns or explosives and it will work underwater, underground or in the air. According to the US military, it's completely useless.
Retired Lt Col Hal Bidlack: I can think of no practical application for this device beyond party entertainment.
Richard Roth: Yet the Iraqi government spent at least $85 million for about 2,000 of the so-called bomb detectors and a training program that teaches troops to shuffle their feet to generate static electricity to make the things work. Now Britian has just banned export of the devices and arrested the businessman who's made a fortune selling them. Jim Mccormack, a former police man, is accused of fraud but the ADE651s are defended by Iraqi officials who backed their purchase and they're still in use.
Retired Lt Col Hal Bidlack: They're fine for fooling a four-year-old at a birthday party but they're immoral if they're trying to supposedly save lives at a checkpoint.
Richard Roth: And they're also at checkpoints in Beirut and Amman, Jordan where the bomb detector guards are using it at this five star hotel, may provide no more security than a magic wand. RIchard Roth, CBS News, London.
For video of Roth's report click here and for text click here. The NewsHour (PBS) offered the following:
Hari Sreenivasan: In Iraq, Baghdad was hit by a series of bombings on the same day that a notorious henchman of Saddam Hussein was executed. We have a report narrated by Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.
Lindsey Hilsum: Three suicide car bombs in Baghdad today, all targeted at hotels where foreigners stay. The bombers didn't get right inside, but still managed to kill more than 30 people and injure seventy others. Neighboring houses were blown apart, firefighters helping survivors to safety. As Iraq heads towards elections in early March, such attacks are expected to continue or increase. The Americans say the perpetrators are probably al-Qaida in Iraq, a largely Sunni group supported by some members of Saddam Hussein's now banned Ba'ath Party. [. . .] Today's explosions show that Iraq is still volatile, maybe more so since the predominantly Shiite government barred many Sunni candidates from standing in the coming elections.
"[. . .]" is when Hilsum begins reporting on an execution. We noted it in yesterday's snapshot, Richard Engel's already been quoted noting it in this snapshot. The NewsHour isn't just an hourly news program aired on PBS from Mondays through Friday -- I say doing my part to appease PBS friends -- it's also a web experience. The NewsHour is increasing their online presence and they have a news blog which I've supposedly never mentioned before. (That may be true.) But we will note it now because Gwen Ifill interviewed New York Times' Anthony Shadid yesterday about the bombings (link is audio).
Gwen Ifill: Tell us what you can, the latest you know about today's bombings.
Anthony Shadid: There were 3 bombings today in Baghdad. They were detonated about 9 minutes apart. And they struck landmark hotels in the capital. It's part of the campaign that's been going on basically since last August, aimed at undermining the sense of government control in Baghdad. In the past, they've struck ministries, government offiices, a courthouse, a bank, colleges and this seemed to open up a new front in that campaign in some sense by striking landmark hotels that pretty much everyone knows in Baghdad and that also cater to foreigners -- foregin reporters businessmen and, in time, election observers for the vote on March 7th for a new parliament.
Gwen Ifill: Has anyone taken responsibility?
Anthony Shadid: No one's taken responsibilty yet. But that's not unusual in these type of attacks. Claims of responsibilty often come days later. Government officials have so far been blaming the same people they've blamed in the past which is al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Ba'athists. Now the government contends that they're working in concert -- al Qaeda and the Ba'ath Party or followers of the Ba'ath Party. The US military has maintained throughout this campaign, since last August, that al Qaeda alone is responsible for-for these attacks.
Gwen Ifill, in addition to NewsHour duties, also hosts Washington Week. NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro and Quil Lawrence filed on the spot reports and this NPR page (Mark Memmot's) (scroll down) has multiple links to their audio reports as well as to photos of the bombings. For text reports of yesterday's bombings, see an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy at Inside Iraq, Leila Fadel (Washington Post) first-hand report:Liz Sly blow-by-blow for the Los Angeles Times: and the Times of London's Oliver August.
TV notes. NOW on PBS:
Haiti's catastrophic earthquake, in addition to leaving lives andinstitutions in ruin, also exacerbated a much more common and lethalemergency in Haiti: Dying during childbirth. Challenges intransportation, education, and quality health care contribute to Haitihaving the highest maternal mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere, anational crisis even before the earthquake struck. While great strides are being made with global health issues likeHIV/AIDS, maternal mortality figures worldwide have seen virtually noimprovement in 20 years. Worldwide, over 500,000 women die each yearduring pregnancy. On Friday, January 29 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), a NOW team thathad been working in Haiti during the earthquake reports on this deadlybut correctable trend. They meet members of the Haitian HealthFoundation (HHF), which operates a network of health agents in more than100 villages, engaging in pre-natal visits, education, and emergencyambulance runs for pregnant women.
And Media Channel (home of Danny Schechter) is in need of funds:
NOTHING LASTS FOREVER So we are being forced to conclude that it may be time to declare victory and phase MediaChannel out. If we do, we will do it with pride of what we have accomplished overt the last decade. On the other hand, it's never over until it is. There is a small hope that other media sites that share our values may agree to some kind of consolidation, or a merger. Perhaps we can save ourselves if we work together. We know that collaboration is one of those values everyone supports in principle, but it's hard to give up our competitive instincts. Your ideas and financial support are welcome and needed. We have been fighting for years to keep going and are now thinking about other options and initiatives if we cannot. Clearly, we are better hell raisers than fundraisers. Our costs are not that high, but there are costs, for a Webmaster, technology, distribution etc.. One deep pockets funder could write a check to keep us going, but we can't count on it. And it doesn't look like we can count solely on our readers either. Perhaps we have gone to "the well" one time too many times. We are sure those who never wished us well, the hackers and wreckers will celebrate. So what? As we consider the options, we would like you to consider ideas, contacts, connections and interest you may have to help sustain our work or tell us that its time to move on. We need help in reaching out for partners, a merger, or sale. [Email dissector@mediachannel.org for suggestions.]
iraq
the guardianandrew sparrow
channel 4 newsiraq inquiry bloggeriraq inquiry digestchris ames
the times of londonjenny boothcnnyousif bassil
the new york timesjohn leland
anthony shadid
nbc nightly newsbrian williamsabc newsdiane sawyerabc world news tonight with diane sawyer
cbs newsthe cbs evening news with katie couric
pbsthe newshour
gwen ifill
the times of london
oliver august
the washington postleila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
now on pbs
danny schechter
Monday, January 25, 2010
The joke that never ends
Monday, Monday. At last! The weekend starts again. ("At last!" was a joke.) So now we have to wait and wait for the weekend. But we can get a laugh now via Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Commander of the Groin"
Hey, we can also get a laugh via Barack! This is from Josh Gerstein (Politico):
Ya think? Hey, here's another 'mistake' you might want to consider, Barry: Shutting out single-payer advocates but inviting in insurance and Big Pharma lobbyists.
Think about that one too.
In fact, face the fact that you f**ked up big time. It was such a f**k up that it tops Bush. You really should hang your head in shame.
Okay, let's talk Third. Along with Dallas the following worked on the latest edition:
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),
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
What's we come up with?
Okay, that's it, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Hey, we can also get a laugh via Barack! This is from Josh Gerstein (Politico):
Ya think? Hey, here's another 'mistake' you might want to consider, Barry: Shutting out single-payer advocates but inviting in insurance and Big Pharma lobbyists.
Think about that one too.
In fact, face the fact that you f**ked up big time. It was such a f**k up that it tops Bush. You really should hang your head in shame.
Okay, let's talk Third. Along with Dallas the following worked on the latest edition:
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),
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
What's we come up with?
- Truest statement of the week
- Cindy Sheehan racks up another truest.
- Truest statement of the week II
- This one is the New York Times. It's about Ahmed Chalabi.
- A note to our readers
- Jim breaks down the edition. This was a much, much better edition.
- Editorial: Pull all US troops out of Iraq
- I like this editorial and I like that Ty says some right-wingers read it and e-mailed basically "Maybe you people aren't so crazy. Yeah, the US should leave." I really think if the Panhandle Media gave a damn about Iraq, there would be a huge cry to end the war right now because the right's awakened from their slumber (with Bush gone). And there are still enough of us on the left (not at all represented by Panhandle Media) who will speak out regardless of who is in the White House.
- TV: Doing the John Edwards
- I love this. I really love this commentary. They nail it and it's hilarious. They're covering Haiti 'reporting' and much more.
- Roundtable
- This roundtable more than made up for last week's. And this edition more than made up for last week's. What was the big difference? Among other things, Ava and C.I. showed up with four story suggestions. I was for all four. They ended up doing two themselves when all four were put on "maybe" by Jim. My Howard Zinn idea is not killed, by the way. C.I. asked me if I had the Howard Zinn Reader? I don't. She's bringing me a copy when she comes into Boston Friday. She wants to work that in to the piece we're talking about doing. She says I'll understand why immediately.
- Toxic Barry
- Short feature!!!!! :D Third had e-mails from two bloggers, by the way, about how this guy named Jeffrey Mayes is pissing a fit that people are using his photos. Uh, Martha Coakley put your photos up on Flikr. Take it up with her. But because of that, we made sure not to use little Jeffy Mayes' photos.
- There is no such thing as rape (Ava and C.I.)
- Ava and C.I. call out NPR for refusing to call rape "rape." (NPR referred repeatedly in the story to it as "sex" until the last sentence.)
- Iraq
- The Iraq feature.
- The war on Social Security
- This war continues, you better accept it. If the left doesn't get its act together, the safety net is going to be gone. And Barry's fiscal talk today really just sets the stage for it.
- Go Gidget!
- We wanted to do a piece on idiots. Juan Cole is one such idiot. He says the Iraq War is over. Well tell it to the Iraqis. Then tell it to the Americans still stationed there.
- The Futility of Norman Solomon (Ava and C.I.)
- Ava and C.I. took on Normy.
- The Revolution will be streamed?
- Check out the video link. This is a pretty interesting set of videos (YouTube link only has one video, the other link has four).
- Highlights
- Wally, Cedric, Ruth, Betty, Rebecca, Marcia, Stan, Ann, Kat, Elaine and I wrote this.
Okay, that's it, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
| Monday January 25, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad is slammed with bombings, the Iraq Inquiry continues in England, the witch hunt against Nouri's political rivals continues in Iraq, and more. US Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Iraq at the end of last week as the intended March elections faced further threats. Will they take place? Will they be seen as fair and free or, for that matter, legitimate? All has been thrown into question by the moves of an extra-legal body assuming powers it does not have to ban this candidate and that candidate. Over 500 thus far with more said to be coming. Sunday on NPR's Weekend Edition, Liane Hansen spoke with Quil Lawrence (who is in Baghdad) about the purging/witch hunt of political candidates and who was involved in the purging . . . Liane Hansen: Ahmed Chalabi sounds -- it's a familiar name. Isn't he the man who was blamed with passing bad information to the Bush administration in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq? Quil Lawrence: Exactly. Chalabi's on the Iraqi political scene for years. He's never been elected to a post in Iraq but he is such a shrewd political survivor that he's managed to pull of this move and again become one of the most powerful people for this moment in Iraqi politics. It doesn't look like he's done anything strictly illegal. Chalabi himself right now is conveniently out of the country. [. . .] Liane Hansen: Well did Vice President Biden actually weigh in on the controversy? Quil Lawrence: He was walking kind of a fine line. He didn't want to come to Iraq appareing that he was here to save the day especially of how it might look if he didn't save the day. But Iraqi politicians had been saying for days before he arrived that he had been offering suggestions. Publicly Biden's team only said that they were concerned that this process wasn't transparent enough. And that is very clear on the streets of Iraq. No one really understands how this all happened. It leaked out at first it wasn't made public very forthrightly and no one's seen the evidence. At least one prominent name was allowed to withdraw, allowed to get his name off the list in agreement in return for taking his name out of the hat for the election. So people are very confused about this and it is giving that sort of perception of a taint to the process. Chalabi's running things or ruining things on the extra-legal Accountability and Justice Commission. The most prominent among the candidates banned is Saleh al-Mutlaq of the National Dialogue Front. On the most recent Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) which began airing Friday, he spoke with Jassim al-Azzawi. Jassim al-Azzawi: You have challenged this ban, you've resorted to the courts. Exactly on what grounds are you basing your challenge and when will the courts give its verdict? Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well I don't have any allegations to challenge the court but since they've said they have allegations, we went to the court. We sent our lawyer to go there just to register in order that we will not lose the time that we are allowed to go to the courts to reject the allegations against us. We sent many people to the Ministry of Accountability and what they call 'Justice' to give us -- to give us the allegations. They refused. They refused to give us anything. And in fact I know that they have nothing. They have nothing against us to prove that we are being subjected to the law so that we could be out of the election. But anyway, we are going now to the court, so let's see what's going to happen. Jassim al-Azzawi: Until we hear from the courts regarding your appeal, but let me take a hypothetical case, let me just suppose that the courts affirmed the ban and did not allow you to run in the March 7th election. What then? Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well first I trust the Iraqis though and I trust the jugdes. And actually the judges that I have seen their names, I asked for many people that they know about them, they say that they are very professional, they are fair and they are good judges. But at the same time, I have to say that, you know, there is a problem. That at first they were being appointed by the Parliament, the de-Ba'athification committee, they call it now Accountability, the first day they said three of them are Ba'athists, none of them know who is the Ba'athists among them. So they try to let them be scared from the beginning. They try to influence them politically so they could have a biased decision. But I still believe that our law, our judges are quite good. I trust them. And I feel that they have -- you know, they cannot go anywhere rather than saying we were right in doing all what we did and they have no allegations against us to prove that we will be out of this election. Jassim al-Azzawi: [Overlapping] Yes, I shall come to the scare tactics and the fear politics that you mention but before that, I guess our international audience would like to know, who stands behind this campaign to disbar more then 500 people? Some of them such senior figures as yourself. The National Dialogue Front has about 12 members in Parliament. You've been in politics for many, many years. I guess the logical question is: Who's behind it? It is my role as a presenter and a journalist to ask the tough questions and perhaps it's your role as a politician and even your perogative not to answer. Let me give you a couple of options and see which one you lean on. Is it Ahmed Chalabi, the former head of the de-Ba'athification? Is it Prime Minister al-Maliki fearing that Saleh al-Mutlaq has the wind behind him and one day he might even become the president of Iraq? Or is it another force? Who is exactly orchestrating this? Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well Ahmed Chalabi could not do what was done alone. I think there's a power behind that and my belief is that Iran is behind that and Ahmed Chalabi is only a tool -- Ahmed Chalabi agenda is a tool to do this. And Ahmed Chalabi is not alone. We discovered that Ahmed Chalabi now has an intelligence association in Iraq and he worked with so many people outside the Iraqi government. And what happened really surprised everybody. The same day that this decision was taken, everybody was saying, "I know nothing about it." You ask al-Maliki, he says, "I know nothing about it." You ask the president [Jalal Talabani], he says he knows nothing about it. You ask the Chairman of the Parliament, he knows nothing about it. Then who is doing that? We discover there is a small organization which does not exist legally. The de-Ba'athification committee has been frozen -- including Ahmed Chalabi himself -- has been frozen by the prime minister and by the president. And another committee, which is the Accountability, came in but it was not formed because the Parliament did not vote on the names that were being proposed by the prime minister because most of them are from al Dahwa Party [Nouri's party]. Jassim al-Azzawi: Let me stay with you for the thrust of your analysis and that is Ahmed Chalabi and behind him is Iran. It is quite telling you say that because you have joined in your analysis, the Americans because the Americans have discovered Ahmed Chalabi has great coordination with Iran. As a matter of fact, when they raided his offices several years ago, they actually charged him, they told him: "You have given all the codes to Iran." Saturday Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported, "Biden's national security advisor Anotony Blinken said the vice president would offer no specific proposals to resolve the controversy, but would emphasize the Obama administration's concern that the electoral process should be transparent and inclusive. The BBC added, "Mr Biden began by meeting the UN secretary general's special representative for Iraq, Ad Melkert, for a working breakfast, before holding talks with Prime Minister Nouri Maliki." At An Arab Woman Blues, Layla Anwar offers her take on these and other crimes taking place in Iraq and we'll note this reminder she gives about the ongoing illegal war on Iraq: The first thing to do is to break that image, that myth, that most people hold in their heads, namely that the American neocons policy towards Iraq as embodied by Bush and Co is strategically different from the so-called Democrats as embodied by Obama and that consequently the aims are different. This is a MYTH. A political myth grown out of some false loyalty to a belief that the Democrats are fundamentally different from the Republicans in American politics. Reidar Visser (Iraq and Gulf Analysis) sees signs that Biden's visit had little to no effect, "" Indications are that Vice-President Joe Biden came up against a wall of resistance when he visited Baghdad yesterday in an attempt at dealing with the recent row over de-Baathification. Apparently, both Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as well as the parliamentary speaker, Ayad al-Samarraie, went out of their way to defend the idea of "non-interference" in what they refer to as the Iraqi "constitutional" process. Also President Jalal Talabani, who had briefly indicated a position more compatible with the US preference for a delay of the whole de-Baathification process, seems to have fallen into line. At the end of the day, the three Iraqi leaders gathered for a meeting and settled for the worst possible outcome: Those excluded will simply have to await the outcome of their individual cases in the hastily-assembled special appeals tribunal for de-Baathification cases that came into existence only one week ago – the very solution advocated by Ali al-Lami and Ahmed Chalabi of the de-Baathification board all the way. Doubtless, "un-Baathifications" will be available for sale to those who can pay the right price (much in the way they were sold and bought last week) and may go some way to reduce the sense of marginalisation; after all, the aim behind this whole plot was probably just to secure a sufficiently sectarian climate before the elections, which has already almost been achieved. Before leaving, Biden expressed complete "confidence" in the Iraqi process. Along with questions of legitimacy, it is also thought that if the matter is not resolved, if candidates are not allowed to compete the elections, violence will increase. This as Baghdad was slammed with bombings today. Chip Cummins (Wall St. Journal) reports hotels were targeted in the bombings resulting in a death toll of at least 36 with seventy-one more wounded: "The attacks targeted the Ishtar Sheraton, Babylon and al-Hamra hotels, popular with both visiting businessmen and, in the case of the Sheraton and al-Hamra, journalists." Anthony Shadid and John Leland (New York Times) explain, "In neighborhoods near the hotels, which are within a mile of so of each other, residents spilled into the streets wailing, as plumes of dust, smoke and debris wafted across the skyline. Staccato bursts of gunfire echoed through the streets, as security forces tried to cordon off the bombing scenes, some of them draped in the banners and flags of a major Shiite Muslim commemoration this week." The Washington Post offers a photo essay here and 'plume' does not begin to describe the smoke rising from the Shearton bombing (AFP's Sabah Arar took the photo), it looks like a huge mushroom cloud rising in the sky the equivalen of four Sheratons stacked on top of one another. Leila Fadel, Ernesto Londono and Debbi Wilgoren (Washington Post) note that 3 of the paper's Iraqi correspondents were wounded in the bombings. Oliver August (Times of London) reports, "Someone said later that they saw a red flash just before the explosion. All I saw was the contents of my office, my bedroom, my kitchen flying through the room. The windows were blown out, pictures and bookshelves lay strewn across the floor." Jane Arraf and Laith Hammoudi (Christian Science Monitor) report that "some of the Iraqi residents of the nearby homes stood in the rubble of their damaged houses. Others -- their faces grim -- walked in the street covered in debris" and they quote one Iraqi exclaiming, "If anyone else tries to take pictures of my house I'll kill them." Along with the bombings, there were shootings. Fadel, Londono and Wilgoren report, "At the Hamra compound, witnesses said the attack began when two men in business suits opened fire on the security checkpoint. As guards retreated from the bullets, they released the gate lock, and a minibus laden with explosives drove past the blast walls. The guards shot the driver of the minibus, but the bomb ripped through an apartment building and shattered the glass and walls of homes and hotels in the surrounding area." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) also covers that attack, "Witnesses at the Hamra said checkpoint guards had come under fire from a few men dressed in business suits. During the firefight, the gate to the compound was opened and a white Kia van entered and exploded in a section of the compound with private homes. The blast ripped open a huge crater." Phillippe Naughton (Times of London -- link also has a Sky News video story) offers, "Outside the Sheraton, a high-rise tower with views of the Tigris River and the fortified Green Zone on the other side, the blast left a three-metre-deep crater in the parking lot. Cars were torn apart by the spray of metal and glass, which littered the lawns and courtyards of the popular fish restaurants along the river." Al Jazeera quotes journalist Ahmed Rushdi stating, "These hotels were supposed to have major security because its open for all the foreign journalists. Targeting these major hotels means that everyone here in Baghdad is targeted." John Leland tells New York Times Radio's Jane Bornemeier, "The thing that struck me was that really a mile away from these explosions -- or nearly a mile away -- as soon as the blasts came, our neighbors sort of started to walk into the streets crying. There was tremendous sorrow here in addition to the blasts and the violence." Leland goes on to note that 'bomb detectors' are still in use. From Friday's snapshot: Whether they can trust Barack or not, it appears they can't trust 'bomb detectors.' Caroline Hawley (BBC Newsnight -- link has text and video) reports that England has placed an export ban on the ADE-651 'bomb detector' -- a device that's cleaned Iraq's coffers of $85 million so far. Steven Morris (Guardian) follows up noting that, "The managing director [Jim McCormick] of a British company that has been selling bomb-detecting equipment to security forces in Iraq was arrested on suspicion of fraud today." Riyad Mohammed and Rod Norldand (New York Times) reported on Saturday that the reaction in Iraq was outrage from officials and they quote MP Ammar Tuma stating, "This company not only caused grave and massive losses of funds, but it has caused grave and massive losses of the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians, by the hundreds and thousands, from attacks that we thought we were immune to because we have this device." Despite the turn of events, the machines continue to be used in Iraq but 'now' an investigation into them will take place orded by Nouri. As opposed to months ago when they were first called into question. Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) adds that members of Parliament were calling for an end to use of the machines on Saturday. Martin Chulov (Guardian) notes the US military has long -- and publicly -- decried the use of the machines, "The US military has been scathing, claiming the wands contained only a chip to detect theft from stores. The claim was based on a study released in June by US military scientists, using x-ray and laboratory analysis, which was passed on to Iraqi officials." October 25th brought Bloody Sunday to Iraq's calendar, December 8th brought Bloody Tuesday, August 19th brought Bloody Wednesday and, apparently, today brings Bloody Monday. All the "bloody" days share the common threads of multiple bombings in Baghdad and the expectation that this is part of the violence to do with elections. Whomever is responsible for the bombings (al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is already being blamed -- and that's usually where the 'investigation' begins and ends -- blame them and it's 'solved') may be testing and/or exhibiting weak spots. If that is the case, that could mean some spectacular bombings are planned for when elections get closer. Martin Chulov (Guardian) offers these observations: The ease with which the hotels' security perimeters were penetrated, especially the Hamra and Babylon, has rattled locals who want to believe that things are safer now. But even more shocking is how big car bombs were again driven through highly strategic and ostensibly secure areas of the capital, past numerous checkpoints and security forces that are more competent now that at any time since the invasion. Of further concern is the timing of today's blast, within minutes of the execution of one of Saddam Hussein's most ruthless loyalists, Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali. He is the man who gassed the Kurds of Halabja, killing more than 5,000 in 1988. Chemical Ali is the most high-profile figure executed since Saddam himself. The office of the UN's Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued a statement today: "The Secretary-General strongly condemns the bomb attacks in Baghdad today that have killed dozens of people and injured scores more. No cause can justify these attacks on civilian targets. He extends his heartfelt condolences to the Government of Iraq and to the victims of these criminal acts, as well as to their families." As noted yesterday on the KPFA Evening News: Anthony Fest: A committee investigating Britain's involvement in the Iraq invasion will interview former prime minister Tony Blair this coming Friday. Blair was a staunch ally of US president George W. Bush during the Iraq invasion and kept a large contingent of British troops in southern Iraq for years. The five member panel is chaired by longtime civil servant John Chilcot and the investigation is known as the Chilcot Inquiry. It's already taken reports from many high ranking present and former Briths government officials The former chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office is scheduled to speak to the committee on Tuesday. According to Britan's Observer newspaper, Sir Michael Wood plans to tell the committee that, in his opinion, Britain went to war illegally in 2003. According to the Observer, Wood thinks the Iraq invasion would only have been lawful had there been a second United Nations' resolution. Also scheculded to speak on Tuesday is Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Wood's deputy during the build up to the invasion. She resigned from the Foreign Office two days before the British and US invasion of Iraq began because she believed the invasion to be a crime of aggression. This according to the Observer article. Andy Jack (Sky News) observes, "Ministers are bracing themselves for the biggest week at the Iraq Inquiry, leading up to the grilling of Tony Blair over whether he misled Parliament to take Britain into war." This Friday, January 29th, the former prime minister and all time poodle Tony Blair will appear before the Iraq Inquiry in London. A major protest is expected to take place outside as War Criminal Tony testifies. From Stop The War Coalition's "Protest on Tony Blair's Judgement Day: 29 January from 8am:" Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, BroadOn Friday 29 January, Tony Blair will try to explain to the Iraq Inquiry the lies he used to take Britain into an illegal war. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)