2 US soldiers announced dead

Tuesday. Okay. Redoing my start. C.I. just called and asked if I include something? Of course.

Tonight the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING STATION KALSU, Iraq – Two U.S. Soldiers died yesterday of non-combat related injuries resulting from a vehicle accident. Two other Soldiers were injured in the same accident that is currently being investigated. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense.The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member’s primary next of kin.The incident is under investigation."

That's bad news. And you realize that if all US troops had been pulled out of Iraq, those two would be alive, right?

So those are the first two for this month. And two more reasons why the Iraq War needs to end now. Two more reasons why you need to participate in the March 20th demonstrations calling for an end to the wars.

Okay, there's a disturbing article today entitled "Shocking birth defects in Fallujah:"


Children in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are still being born with severe birth defects.
BBC journalists visited a hospital in Fallujah last week. They found babies born with three heads and children suffering paralysis.
Eyewitness Dr Salam Ismael exposed in Socialist Worker how the US flattened the city in 2004, using shells containing depleted uranium (» The truth at last).
The US claims it is unaware of any official figures for deformities in Fallujah. That’s because no official reports exist—doctors and other specialists are scared to speak out.
The Iraqi government says there are only one or two cases a year above the national average in Fallujah.
But Dr Samira al-Ani, who works in the Fallujah general hospital, says she sees two or three new cases every day.
Socialist Worker reported on the high levels of birth defects in June 2008 » Silent killer stalks streets of Fallujah).
This is the true legacy of imperialism.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Inquiry into torture claims begins
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version

C.I. covered that last week and some last month but I haven't made a point to include it here though I should have. Do you realize how many children are being born with birth defects because of the way Iraq's been polluted with chemicals from all the US weapons? There's no clean up. There won't be. The government (US) won't even admit what weapons were used. Won't even admit that the stuff is life threatening.

And this is going to continue. It's going to get into the soil and into the water. And it's just going to continue to make Iraqis sick, one generation after another.

Meanwhile, check out this from AP David Germain's review of Green Zone:

Their thriller about the futile search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a visual and visceral knockout that's utterly deflated by a story as common, coarse and unappetizing as Army field rations.
The movie pales further by arriving in theaters just days after the Academy Awards triumph of the vastly superior Iraq war story "The Hurt Locker," a film many people have yet to see. For the price of a couple of tickets to "Green Zone," you can own the DVD of a truly great war film in "The Hurt Locker."

I love that. C.I. said Green Zone was a turkey that would get bad reviews and she wasn't lying. You need to use the link to really enjoy it.

And we're all so damn sick of George Clooney -- with his Ellen Degeneres hair -- and his homoerotic posse that goes around making gay 'jokes' to the point that you have to wonder are they trying to confess?

I just need Matt Damon to go do a CSI or Law & Order and stop boring us with his bad movies.
And Green Zone may be what he needs to send him on his way. This is from Rex Reed's review:

A Superman epic masquerading as a political exposé The Green Zone is one of those crypto-technical thrillers I usually have to consult a 10-year-old child to explain to me. This time, with The Green Zone riding on the bare-bottomed Oscar backside of The Hurt Locker, nothing could be simpler. It’s a deeply flawed fictionalization of events widely believed to be true (but still unproven) about the political corruption of the U.S. military, which, in backroom collusion with the alleged lies and greed of the George Bush administration, plunged us into an illegal war in Iraq we can’t get out of. Shot by Barry Ackroyd, the same cinematographer who filmed The Hurt Locker, and using the same camera techniques, this movie looks like outtakes from a much better film. The battle footage and the chaos of war seem like the work of a rewind button. Paul Greengrass, who turned the Jason Bourne series into sharp but incoherent political hash, gets the horror and confusion of disoriented kids meeting death in the streets of Baghdad, but Kathryn Bigelow got there first.
Iraq, 2003. Matt Damon, looking like the shortstop from a high-school baseball team, plays Roy Miller, a junior crusader and patriotic chief warrant officer dispatched to search for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (hereafter referred to as “WMDs”), yelling, “This is a disaster!” He must have read the script.

Are you loving it? Me too! :D Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, March 9, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, ballot counting continues, a new Inquiry begins in London, March 20th is a day for action in the US, and more.

Sunday Iraq held Parliamentary elections. Yesterday on The NewsHour (PBS link has text, video and audio options), Gwen Ifill spoke with the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf about the elections.

Gwen Ifill: Jane, it took 156 days to negotiate a new government in 2005, when the outcome was close as this one is expected to be. Is similar instability feared this time as well?

Jane Arraf: There is actually quite a lot of concern, Gwen. In fact, that's probably the major concern, because, really, what we're looking at is a very closely fought race, in which it's not clear who is going to emerge the winner. But what is clear is that whoever it is doesn't have the power to actually form a government by themselves. So, that means we're looking at weeks, if not several months, of jockeying for position and bargaining to actually form a government. And that's really what a lot of US, as well as Iraqi officials are worried about. What happens in between, in between the time that this parliament actually phases out and the new one is set to come in? There are some safeguards that have been put in place. But, certainly, it's a worry as to who actually holds the reins of power and what happens if there's an emergency.

Yesterday on the radio program The Takeaway, Iraq was discussed at length. We'll note this section.

Miles O'Brien: Alright, Phebe, this sets the clock or starts the clock on the withdrawal of US combat forces. What role does the US play at this point?

Phebe Marr (Middle East Institute): Well it plays, I think, and increasing less role -- less of a role. It's-it's muscle, of course, gets less. As we know, we're to have 50,000 there until the following year and then all troops are set to be out. But I would like to put one caution in. If things don't go so well or violence tends to flare up, say in the Kurdish area, we could possibly configure a slow-down of that withdrawal although nothing at the present moment suggests that's going to happen. I personally think that there's a possibility after the election gets settled and a new government comes in that we may actually be asked to keep a small contingent there because we're rely -- we're expected under the strategic agreement to be training, supplying, equipping, there'll be logistics and so forth for the Iraqi and all of that might require some troops -- not, perhaps, combat troops -- on the ground. And, of course, we have a huge diplomatic mission and the Iraqis are going to have to turn to us for a number of things including the debt and elimination of many US restrictions and so on. So they're still going to be a behind-the-scenes, definite role for the United States. Perhaps as a discreet mediator in some of these disputes.

Also on the program was Anthony Shadid (the New York Times is one of the producers of The Takeaway) and he spoke of how fraud was expected in the election and had been a part of the previous post-war election and how the question many are asking is how much fraud is allowable. Iraq was placed under 'crack-down' for several days due to Sunday's elections. Shaalan Juburi, Li Laifang, Jamal Ahmed and Zhang Xiang (Xinhua) report that government ministries and schools reopened today and Abu Ahmed thinks the election process was fine "but he told Xinhua that he is afraid of any fraud in the counting of ballots." Many outlets are reporting that the race is between A and B. Votes are still being counted. Not only are they still be counted but the plan to release a preliminary count today has been aborted. We're not going to make the snapshots about who may be in the lead or who it may be between. The 2000 US election was about controlling the press when the vote was unknown with both the Al Gore camp and the Bully Boy Bush camp attempting to win the day's news cycle. We're not playing that game here. Nouri has been courting the press. Last week, Hannah Allem (McClatchy's Middle East Diary) noted that Nouri threw a luncheon for -- not at -- the press. Even that was apparently too much for Nouri:

At the lunch before the news conference, journalists sat at banquet tables as sharply dressed waiters served us the grilled Iraqi fish known as mazkouf, trays of lamb, several kinds of rice and honey-soaked pastries from Baghdad's best confectionary. Everyone was hungry, but we were advised not to start until "the host" arrived. Until that moment, nobody had realized Maliki would be dining with us, which is rare for a man whose administration has had a testy and often combative relationship with the media.
Maliki swept into the dining area in a navy suit and tie. He didn't work the room, he didn't greet journalists with anything more than a cursory nod and mumbled "As salamu alaikum," followed by an order for everyone to sit. Aloof and somber, he had a hangdog look about him, and none of the charm of, say, an Ayad Allawi or Ahmad Chalabi.
It was a bit awkward, honestly, to be tucking into a delicious Iraqi meal a table over from the prime minister, who was technically our host but barely acknowledged his guests' presence. I sneaked a few glances at him and found him picking at a small piece of lamb, sipping a Diet Pepsi and trying only a forkful of the rich dessert. He indulged in an after-meal chai and then slipped away to prepare for the press conference.

We will quote Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) observing, "Facts are scarce, and spin is everywhere, in the aftermath of Iraq's election"

Some initial thoughts: voter turnout was 62 percent, according to initial reports from Iraq. That's down from about 75 percent in the 2005 election. In Baghdad, the key province with 70 seats in parliament at stake, turnout was the lowest in Iraq, at 53 percent. It isn't clear, yet, if that total includes any or all of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who fled Baghdad during the sectarian purge of 2005-2007, mostly Sunni voters who either fled to Syria and Jordan or to safer provinces in western Iraq. According to initial reports, again, election officials at polling places were ill-equipped to handle displaced voters, meaning that many internally displaced persons didn't get to vote. If the election is close, and perhaps even if it isn't, the disputes over the votes of refugees and displaced persons will be bitter and explosive.

Today at the New York Times' At War Blog, many correspondents contribute to an entry on voting in Iraq and we'll note the following Iraqi voices from Sam Dagher's section on Kirkuk:

Jabbar Mohammed, 45, North Oil Company employee
Mr. Mohammed, a Sunni Arab, said he would vote for a candidate within Ayad Allawi's coalition.
"He is a well-spoken man, educated and has previous experience in parliament," he said. "We want to change the situation. I hope Kirkuk becomes an Iraqi city again. We boycotted the last elections but these elections are different."
Karwan Hamid, 19
Mr. Hamid said he and his friends voted for the Kurdistan Alliance. Asked why he did not vote for the new reformist group Gorran Mr. Hamid said "They did not even assume power and already they cut deals with Baathists and enemies of Kurds."
Kamal Fares, 57 Oil driller
A Turkmen, he voted for a candidate on Ayad Allawi's slate. "He's like me, a Turkmen."

The United Nations was an international organization in Iraq observing the voting -- and they are observing the counting of ballots. They issued the following from Ad Merlkert, the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Iraq (SRSG):

I congratulate the more than 12 million Iraqis who went to the polls, some braving insecurity to cast ballots for a better future, marking the historic character of election day. This turnout was beyond the expectations of many. I commend the IHEC Board of Commissioners and the more than 300,000 Iraqis engaged by IHEC, for their efforts to conduct elections in a well organized and professional fashion. UNAMI is proud to have supported their work.
I congratulate the Iraqi Security forces, who were solely responsible for all security on eleciton-day for safeguarding the electoral process, despite effots by some to deter Iraqis from voting. There can be nod obut that the Iraqi people stand together in their wish that reason prevails over confrontation and violence.
UNAM visited polling centers in Anbar, Ninewa, Kirkuk, Erbil, Najaf, Sulaimania, Salahadin, Diyala, Basra, Dohuk and Baghdad. We were pleased with the conduct of the vote and the evident enthusiasm for the elections among the different Iraqi communities. I join Iraqi and international leaders in the call for patience and restraint as the results are counted and tabulated. I also encourage political agents and observers to continue to monitor the process, and to direct any complaints to the IHED in accordance with the law. Only IHEC can announce the official results of these elections, which will be certified by the Federal Supreme Court.
The most crucial moment will arrive when the results are announced. The UN calls on all candidates and parties to unite in accepting the results. This will set an example for a culture of democracy that requires commitment beyond elections. The UN also calls on all those newly elected to move resolutely to seat parliament and form the new government so that political, economic and social progress is not delayed.

On the topic of the UN and the Iraqi elections, Matthew Russell Lee (Inner City Press) reports:While there is much to be said about the Iraqi elections just held, the UN can't seem to get it act together on what to say, or even what it should be talking about. Top UN envoy to Iraq Ad Melkert spoke for the second time in a month to correspondents at UN headquarters Monday, this time by video, and painted a rosy picture of the election. Inner City Press asked about the sample complaints of Ayad Allawi, about irregularities and confusion at polling stations, and his call for an investigation. We are aware of points of various candidates, Melkert said. It is is not my task to comment on particular statements. Video here, from Minute 10:42. But how could Melkert's rosy assessment not be seen as an implicit rejection of Allawi's complaints, Inner City Press asked. Video here, from Minute 11:52. It is not my task or UNAMI's task, Melkert replied, to assess complaints. I did not refer to fair elections, only that turn out was good, that it was a big day, Melkert said. "You cannot attribute to me any assessment."

Along with the UN, the US had observers. Among them were members of the National Foundation of Women Legislators who issued "U.S. Elected Women Observe Iraqi Elections; Witness Fearless Determination" yesterday:
(WASHINGTON, DC) -- A delegation of U.S. elected women from across the nation selected by the National Foundation for Women Legislators (NFWL) in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State served as official Election Observers in Baghdad yesterday.
The NFWL Delegation released the following statement:
We were honored to bear witness to the Iraqi People's fearless determination to exercise their right to vote, even in the wake of violence and bombs aimed at disrupting the election. We met a brave woman who assured us, "I voted today as a challenge to the terrorists!" She told us that violent attempts to scare Iraqis would only encourage more people like her to get out and vote. We witnessed a determined man named Ahmed bring his wife and 2 daughters ages 2 and 4 to vote. He was eager to tell us that, "For 30 years, we lived under Saddam's dictatorship without the freedoms we're voting for today. Even though there are bombs and violence, and people will die trying to vote today, the people of Iraq will vote because we see it as a tax for freedom that we are willing to pay for with our lives. We are on a train to freedom and my family and I will do our part in making sure we don't come off that freedom track." In the face of death and violence, today [March 7th] the National Foundation for Women Legislators proudly stood with courageous Iraqi voters as they cast their votes for democracy.
· State Representative Debbie Riddle (R-Houston, Texas), Chairman Elect NFWL
· State Representative Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-St. Louis, Missouri)
· State Representative Bette Grande (R-Fargo, North Dakota)
· State Representative Gayle Harrell (R-Port St. Lucie, Florida)
· State Representative Helene Keeley (D-Wilmington, Delaware)
· State Representative Susana A. Mendoza (D-Chicago, Illinois)
· State Representative Diane Winston (R-Covington, Louisiana)
NFWL is one of only two groups of Americans that were invited to oversee Iraq's election on March 7th. The other group includes former Members of Congress.
NFWL has been asked to participate in the Iraqi elections due to the unique status of women in Iraq. There are over one million widows in Iraq, many very highly educated, and there is a requirement that 25% of the candidates on the ballot be women. NFWL is charged with bringing a calm and credible presence to the elections, and women leaders such as the hearty band of 7 women leaders representing NFWL recognize the importance of free and fair elections to the stability of Iraq and the United States' national security.
The women leaders were invited to join this delegation to lend their integrity and experience to a process that is new to the citizens of Iraq, and graciously answered the call.
"These incredible women have shown themselves to be strong leaders through NFWL and I know their presence in Iraq during this historic time will ensure the Iraqi people have a real chance at Democracy," stated Robin Read, NFWL's President and CEO.
NFWL has been invited by the U.S. Department of State and foreign nations to bring delegations of elected women together to monitor elections, mentor women leaders across the globe, and participate in important dialogues concerning free trade and other vital issues on several occasions starting in 1993.
"There is a sense expressed by our elected women that Iraq is an incredibly important place to reach out, not only because of the United States' current relationship with the country but also due to women in Iraq traditionally having enjoyed a unique level of education and public visibility." stated Read. "We see a wonderful opportunity to empower and support women in public leadership in Iraq."
About the National Foundation for Women Legislators, Inc. (NFWL)
Through annual educational and networking events, the National Foundation for Women Legislators supports elected women from all levels of governance. As a non-profit, non-partisan organization, NFWL does not take ideological positions on public policy issues, but rather serves as a forum for women legislators to be empowered through information and experience. www.womenlegislators.org

Along with who won, what the elections mean or meant is still unknown. Paul McGeough (Sydney Morning Herald) observes, "As Iraqis voted on Sunday, a message emanating from the White House was that the elections and its aftermath were now 'in the hands of the Iraqis.' But the visit of a leading Kurdish politician to Washington this year and direct intervention by Barack Obama in settling the pre-election stand-off suggest a continuing hands-on role. And if American hands are on the Iraqi levers, others can be expected to grasp for them, too -- particularly neighbouring Iran, which sees Iraq as a proxy theatre of engagement with the US."

Violence continues in Iraq . . . .

Reuters notes 1 person shot dead at a Mosul bus terminal, an armed Mosul clash resulted in 1 police officer and 1 assailant being shot dead, Iraqi police wounded a 'suspect,' in Kirkuk the district police chief's convoy was targeted injuring two bodyguards and, dropping back to Monday, 2 people were shot dead in Falluja (another was injured).

Amy Goodman and Anjali Kamat (Democracy Now -- link has video, audio and transcript) addressed the violence of the Iraq War today with guest Wafaa Bilal who lost his brother Haji in 2004 when a US missile hit their Kufa home six years ago. In memory of his brother and other Iraqis who have died in the illegal war, Wafaa Bilal is getting tattoos. He's using the more accepted number of 100,000 dead Iraqis (one million was estimated some time ago) and he explains:


"... And Counting" is a new project I'm doing, which is using a tattoo as a medium and playing with the idea of visible-invisible issue. You have 5,000 American deaths in Iraq, and you have 100,000 Iraqi deaths, as the consequences of this war. And what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to create something as an engagement. I'm trying to create a platform, a virtual and physical platform, one people could come and even just, as a start, acknowledge the number. The number is just staggering. And when I was invited by the Elizabeth Foundation of the Arts to talk about the Iraq issues and the death, I didn't know -- or I didn't want to create another physical monument that's going to be abandoned after a few years or few months, few days maybe. And how do you remember human being that's been killed by an aggression? And what I wanted to do, I wanted to create that monument, when I could carry it with me. And what I'm doing is, the entire product is three stages. Stage one, I lay down the Iraqi cities, Iraqi map with no border. Then I am putting 100,000 dots, one dot for each Iraqi, in an invisible ink. It's not going to be visible unless you have a UV light. And stage three is the 5,000 American deaths going to be on top of the 100,000. So, at the first glance, on my back, you are going to see the Iraqi cities in Arabic and the 5,000 dots that represent American death. And there are different circumstances when you have a UV light. You are going to see the 100,000 dots come to life. And that is examining the issue of Iraqi death is not being visible, is not being acknowledged. And the number, it's so high we cannot even comprehend. With that project, a place and a dot, for each dot, we are -- people donating one dollar for Rally for Iraq organization to raise a scholarship money for Iraqi children who lost their parents during this war. And this is just an objective of leaving something tangible, not just the art piece on my back, but also something that's practical, something that gives hope to the Iraqi generation under this war.



Meanwhile, in England, there's a new inquiry, the al-Sweady Public Inquiry. What's going on? In the face of claims that following a 2004 battle (which the British dubbed "Danny Boy"), British forces violated the human rights of Iraqis and via mistreatment and at least one alleged killing, the inquiry was set up "to seek to establish the facts as required by its terms of reference. The Chairman will make appropriate recommendations in light of his findings in fact." Great Britain's Socialist Worker states, "Evidence of torture includes close-range bullet wounds, the removal of eyes and stab wounds." David Sapsted (UAE's The National Newspaper) reports that the assertion is that at least "20 Iraqis were unlawfully killed" and Hamid al-Sweady was a 19-year-old who died during "Danny Boy."


Thayne Forbes is charing in the inquiry -- among other things, his past achievements inclduing presiding over many courts as a judge. Lee Hugehs of the UK Ministry of Justice is sitting on the inquiry. Jillian Glass, Jonathan Acton Davis, Jason Beer and Emma Gargitter are all attorneys -- all four -- four more than sit on the Iraq Inquiry
Yesterday, we covered David Miliband's testimony to the Inquiry and the announced plan was to follow that in the next snapshot with critical press examination of his testimony. The press decided to avoid calling David out in the UK. Iran's Press TV offers a critique:Miliband also claimed that the UK is now in a "stronger position," believing that UK decisions on Iraq have not "undermined our relationships or our ability to do business" in the region. The top official meanwhile alleged that "many Iraqis" view Britain as having been instrumental in "freeing the country from a tyranny that is bitterly remembered."This is while according to polls conducted by The Arab American Institute and the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2007 and 2006, the majority of people in the Middle East and Europe viewed the war negatively and believed that the world was safer before the Iraq War and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.


In peace news, protests and marches are being planned for March 20th. Among the organizers is A.N.S.W.E.R. who notes:


On Saturday, March 20, 2010, there will be a massive National March & Rally in D.C. A day of action and outreach in Washington, D.C., will take place on Friday, March 19, preceding the Saturday march.There will be coinciding mass marches on March 20 in San Francisco and Los Angeles.The national actions are initiated by a large number of organizations and prominent individuals. To see a list of the initiators, click this link. We will march together to say "No Colonial-type Wars and Occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Haiti!" We will march together to say "No War or Sanctions Against Iran!" We will march together to say "No War for Empire Anywhere!" Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing. March 20 is the seventh anniversary of the criminal war of aggression launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq. One million or more Iraqis have died. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have lost their lives or been maimed, and continue to suffer a whole host of enduring problems from this terrible war. This is the time for united action. The slogans on banners may differ, but all those who carry them should be marching shoulder to shoulder. Click here to become an endorser.

Meanwhile Military Families Speak Out issued the following last month:

As we face the 1,000th troop death, the next horrific milestone in the Afghanistan War, Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), an organization of over 4,000 military families opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, calls on the 111th Congress to honor the fallen and prevent further deaths by taking action to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Members of Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), and their chapter Gold Star Families Speak Out (GSFSO), will be participating in nationwide vigils to commemorate the 1,000th U.S. troop death.
On March 20, 2010 MFSO and GSFSO members will travel to Washington, D.C. to call on the incoming 111th Congress to act decisively to curtail more deaths and any more horrific milestones by de-funding and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How many more lost lives will it take before our Congressional leaders will demonstrate the kind of courage our loved ones in the military show every day? When will Congress stop thinking about political posturing, show the courage to end the war, to put a stop to further unnecessary death?
Across the nation, members of Military Families Speak Out will honor the more than 1,000 troops who have lost their lives and mourn the countless Afghan children, women and men who will die daily until Congress uses its "power of the purse" to fully fund the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and de-fund the war.



iraq
pbsthe newshour
the christian science monitorjane arrafthe nationrobert dreyfussthe new york timessam dagher
mcclatchy newspapers
hannah allam
the inner city pressmatthew russell lee
press tvthe takeaway

Comic, Third, Massa

Monday, Monday. I hate it when the weekend seems to only last six hours. :( Okay, this is

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "War Hawk Youth Mentor"

And there we go. An answer to the idiot Barry O: Bush is mentoring him. It all suddenly makes sense.

Last week I was writing about Eric Massa who is leaving Congress. And there's some same-sex sexual harassment claim. He said yesterday that it was a remark at a wedding when he had been admittedly drinking and that it was intended as a joke. If that's all it is, the matter's over for me. But he's going to be in the news for a bit longer. Raymond Hernandez (New York Times) reports of Eric Massa stepping down:

Mr. Massa, a freshman member of Congress, said he had had a turbulent relationship with Mr. Emanuel since his early days in Congress. He said they had an argument in the House gym over Mr. Massa’s refusal to support President Obama’s budget proposal.
“I am sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel,” Mr. Massa said, adding that Mr. Emanuel poked “his finger in my chest, yelling at me at me because I wasn’t going to vote for the president’s budget.”
“You know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?” he continued.

OMG. Go. Watch. This. Episode. Of. Archer. While. It. Is. Still. Up. :D It's Rahm and Massa! Head and shaft!!!! It's the episode Ava and C.I. praised in this review. Their review is why I checked it out on Hulu and Archer is so funny.

Speaking of Third . . . Latest edition was worked on by Dallas and 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),

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.

And we came up with?

Truest statement of the week -- This was Jason Ditz.

Truest statment of the Week ii -- and this was a guy at the Washington Times. "ii"? Ava and C.I. do a lot of the typing at Third and they typed nothing this weekend. :D

A note to our readers -- Jim breaks down the edition.

Editorial: March 20th -- This is basically . . . basic. This is what a lot of our editorials look like in their original draft and then we work and work and work. And we didn't have that kind of time this week. But it achieves its purpose which is to draw your attention the March 20th protests.


TV: Why? -- Ava and C.I. wrote this and address the new TV show Parenthood and they address Iraq.

Melissa Silverstein: Gender Reassignment Required -- Elaine, Betty, Dona, Ava and C.I. wrote this and it's hugely popular. This was planned as a group effort but we didn't have the time. In part because Ava and C.I. had to be done by 4:00 a.m. to get some sleep before they had to get ready for attending the Oscars.

Roundtable -- This was to round out the edition on Dona's recommendation because she thought we had a lot of long pieces and thought a transcript piece would go well with them.

Political mags -- One of the long pieces. Ava and C.I. and Elaine and Betty and Dona are working on this until the Katha Pollitt part ends, I think.

Comic themes -- Another of the long pieces and this was a lot of fun to write. Check out the comic book covers in this.

ETAN on Indonesia's special forces -- ETAN repost.

HerStory -- An FYI.

Highlights -- Rebecca, Betty, Kat, Ruth, Marcia, Stan, Cedric, Ann, Wally, Elaine and I wrote this.

And that's what we got.

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

Monday, March 10, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, counting the votes continues, the US military continues to attempt to punish a soldier for the 'crime' of rapping, and more.

Iraq completed elections over the weekend. The latest episode of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) began airing Friday. Jasim al-Azawi interviewed Iyad Allawi.

Jasim al-Azawi: I am delighted now to welcome from Baghdad, Iraq's former prime minister and the leader of the National Iraq Movement, Iyad Allawi. Iyad Allawi, welcome to Inside Iraq.

Iyad Allawi: Thank you.

Jasim al-Azawi: Let me ask you about the description and the adjective that have been used for this election. "This is going to be decisive. This is going to be historical. This is going to change the destiny of Iraq." That is exactly what they said about the 2005 election. So why should we believe that this election is going to change the misery of Iraqis?

Iyad Allawi: We hope it will change the misery of Iraqis. This election is going to be a milestone. And the -- and the movement of Iraq forward in history. And I think the withdrawal of the American forces, the draw-down which is starting soon, the Constitutional issues that need to be discussed, which are quite hot now on disputed areas and territories and certain provinces in Iraq. The overall situation in the Middle East as a whole is not encouraging. Those are some indications why this election is going to be an important and significant election for this country.

Jasim al-Azawi: Yet cynics say, "The players are the same. The Constitution remains the same. The political game is the same." So why should we believe there is a possibility for a movement forward?

Iyad Allawi: The United States is -- as you know -- going to-to start the drawdown. It's going to be ready for the pulling out of Iraq. And indeed the Iraqis need to co-exist and they need to create a government which is worthy of Iraq and can implement the security and have the security prevail, can provide services to the people that have been denied the proper services for a -- for a human beings and to increase the revenues of the Iraqi family. And a very wealthy nation, we'll have millions of Iraqi refugees outside and millions are displaced and so we hope that these elections will bring government that can undertake these important steps taking Iraq forward.

Jasim al-Azawi: Let us talk about you, Iyad Allawi. For the past five years, you've been working very hard to build this powerful coalition that is challenging the current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. You are secular. You believe in modern liberalism. You don't believe in sectarian politics. You managed to pull many people from different parts of life representing many different ideologies. What you have right now, is it enough to beat al-Maliki?

Iyad Allawi: Well it's not a matter of beating al-Maliki. There is nothing personal with al-Maliki or anybody else. We have clashes with programs. We think that the only way for Iraq to proceed forward is to get away from sectarianism. It's to build national reconciliation. It's to move in a modern way of management and to have Iraq for all Iraqis -- regardless of their ethnic, their religious, their sects, their background. And that's where we differ with some -- with some groups including the group on the slate of Mr. al-Maliki. And we hope that we can achieve our goals because we have been witnessing a withdrawal of people from sectarianism, more people are embarking on national reconciliation and they cannot tolerate anymore politicizing of religion in this country. Religion is sacred and is respected and we respect religion. It's part of our identity. But to politicize the sects and the religion is not acceptable. That's why we hope that we will defeat other groups who believe in sectarianism and do not believe in national reconciliation.

[. . .]

Jasim al-Azawi: In the last two minutes left to me, I'm going to ask you two questions. First, how fearful are you that the election will be riddled with fraud? You -- you are on record saying that if you come to the conclusion that fraud has reached a certain level, that you are going to boycott the entire political process.

Iyad Allawi: Well, you know, Jasim, we have seen fraudulent elections last time. Now the environment is not encouraging -- the political environment. There are already problems, by the way, in the elections which have started abroad. There is reduction of the polling stations which is not compatible with the number of Iraqis willing to vote. This has occurred in Syria, this has occurred in the UAE and it is unacceptable measure. However, we are willing to accept a little bit of fraud in the elections because people trying to hang to power will try to make whatever is necessary, whatever it takes. But if this becomes out of proportion, we will go back to the report of the Security Council which was produced two weeks ago.

Jasim al-Azawi: Yes.

Iyad Allawi: About calling for inclusive, fraud free elections in Iraq and we are going to decide in the Iraqiya what the position is going to be because we cannot have democracy raped in the way it is being. We cannot have the political process being diverted.

Jasim al-Azawi: Final ---

Iyad Allawi: And we will strive and do our best.

Jasim al-Azawi: Final question Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi vice president in an interview with al Hayat newspaper, he said, "If al-Maliki loses and he loses big, he just might engineer a miltary coup d'etat. Do you share his concern?

Iyad Allawi: All the indications are not comfortable -- are not making us feel comfortable. And I think my brother Tareq al-Hamashi does have some concerns -- which I share some of his concerns. But I will tell you this: that the Iraqi people are not going to allow anybody to-to take their world and to take their destiny and the Iraqi people are going to be proud of this. They have been proud of their history. And they are and they will ensure that nobody is going to steal them from their right and from their freedom. Whoever this person may be. Whether it's me or anybody else. Iraq is for Iraqis. No doubt about this. Maybe we are now passing through a difficult stage but I'm sure that the Iraqi people will victor again ["one day" or "at the end of the day"].

Omar Chatriwala (Voices From Iraq, Al Jazeera) offers video of Iraqis sharing their thoughts on the elections and we'll note the following (there are more speakers than we're noting -- we are noting every woman in the videos).

Iraqi Man: I have been here since five o'clock in the morning. I have not been able to find my name on the list. I've come back a few times but still can't find my name. Yes, my vote counts. Many voters have left without casting their vote. Why is my voice not heard?

Iraqi Woman: We look forward to seeing more freedoms and democracy in Iraq and we hope the right man is put in the right place I supported and voted for the Iraq bloc led by Iyad Allawi. He's a secular politician and is serving the country. Religious blocs are no longer popular in Iraq. Iyad Allawi is a popular politician who loves his country.

Iraqi Boy (under ten years old): I hope that the previous government will not come back. I look forward to a new one. I look for a change. I want stability and security. We wish to see things we did not see before. All the previous politicians did not deliver. The open list allows the voters to elect the candidates that they trust

Iraqi Woman (holding young child): I will not vote. The previous government did not deliver anything. What should I expect from the coming one. I do not think that we would benefit if we elect any candidate. We look for employment. I have been working for three years on temporary contracts and was promised a permanent job with the last election.

Iraqi Woman: We hope that Iraqi people will be able to live in comfort and security. Simply speaking, we the Iraqis in general have never felt safe or secure.

Young Iraqi Man: No, I will not vote in the coming elections. I've been living in a block of flats owned by the state. I've been unemployed with no job for years I have applied many times to join the National Guard. I cannot accept that Iraq is rich in oil but we work as servants to the Americans and others. Where is the Iraqi president? What is he offering? What has he delivered to us?

Martin Chulov (Guardian) also offered some Iraqi voices:

"We got up at 7am and were planning to vote. Next thing. I was digging my wife out of the rubble. She is eight months pregnant and both her legs are broken. My children are not badly wounded but look at their eyes. We don't have a future, we want to leave. We need to go somewhere else to secure anything like a future. I hope my family can stay in the hospital. This is the only place we have."
--Zuhair Hikmat, 40, at the Yarmuk hospital in central Baghdad
"I left my house to go to the election centre at 7am. I walked near a pile of rubbish and the bomb went off. I think this situation will deteriorate again. I am unemployed and they were going to pay me for one day's work. Now I have nothing." --Salim Turki Najim, 45, from the west Baghdad neighbourhood of al-Hurriya


Voting ended in Iraq yesterday. Early voting took place prior to Sunday. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on Sunday, "More than one hundred attacks upon civilians with small home made bombs and 13 roadside bombs exploded in Baghdad alone, Sunday that resulted in at least 38 civilians killed and around 90 others injured on Elections Day, March 7." Reuters added a Falljua mortar attack which left six people injured, a Mahmudiya mortar attack claimed 1 life and left eleven people injured, a Yusufiya mortar attack that injured one person, a Mosul roadside bombing which left two people injured, a Mosul grenade attack which left seven people injured, and a combination of Iraqi forces, US forces and Kurdish peshmerga shot a Mosul council member and two bodyguards with the shooting being termed "a misunderstanding." This is what US Preisdent Barack Obama calls "a milestone"? It gets worse. Anne Gearan (AP) reports US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated of Sunday, "All in all, a good day for the Iraqis and for all of us." Including the dead? Far more common sense was shown by the top US Commander in Iraq. AFP reports that he was shown a new cover of Newsweek featuring George W. Bush with the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner and he replied, "I don't think we'll know whether we were successful or not in Iraq until three to five or 10 years down the road." Meanwhile China Daily notes that "the American military presence so prominent in 2005 was limited on election day to helicopters buzzing over head as a massive deployment of Iraqi forces took the lead on the ground."

There are no results yet and the only 'poll' on voting is a poll commissioned by Nouri al-Maliki's government which really doesn't go to "independence." Andrew Lee Butters (Time magazine) explains, "With thousands of polling places using paper ballots, and a ban on vehicle travel and other security measures for election day itself, the exact figures on voter turnout, as well as the results themselves, won't be known for days." Here's another example, Elizabeth Palmer CBS News (link has text and video) explains it will be days before results are known and that there were 10,000 polling stations in Iraq. Ben Knight (Australia's ABC) adds, "Voting in Iraq's parliamentary election has finished and as the long process of counting the votes begins, Iraqis have celebrated their national elections. Counting of the votes is already underway and it is expected to be some days before official results are announced, but there is still danger that the militants who tried to derail yesterday's vote will attack again." Caroline Alexander and Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News)also note, "Vote-counting is under way in Iraq, where citizens defied bombs and mortar shells to get to the polls in yesterday's national parliamentary election. They probably will face months of haggling by fractious leaders over the formation of a coalition government." Not only are votes still to be counted, Karen Brown (CBS News -- link has text and video) reports that the UN "says ballots will be counted twice and any polling station with significant discrepancies will be audited immediately." Rather basic but Quil Lawrence and Steve Inskeep (NPR's Morning Edition) have made it necessary that we be very remedial on this topic. Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) offers some advice NPR should consider heeding:

First, don't rush to speculate on who won or what it means. All the Iraqi lists are loudly claiming victory, but the truth is that no official (or even unofficial) results yet seem to exist. The anecdotal evidence still points to the pre-election speculation -- Maliki on top, Allawi a strong second, the ISCI/Sadrist Shi'a list fading -- but it's only anecdotal. It does make a difference who comes out on top, and who becomes Prime Minister - Maliki and Allawi, for instance, would have very different styles, as would Chalabi or some such. But at the same time, there's almost certainly going to be a coalition of some kind (fully inclusive or otherwise) and the differences probably won't be as stark as some people expect.

McClatchy live blogged the elections (also click here). RTT News reports that the percentage of non-police, non-defense, non-hospitalized and non-imprisoned Iraqis voting in Iraq "has been officially confirmed as 62.5." This would mean that, as Free Speech Radio News pointed out today, the percentage voting was "lower than the 76 percent that turned out in 2005."

Reuters drops back to yesterday to note 1 Iraqi woman killed and thirty-six people injured in Mosul and six injured in Kirkuk. These are Sunday deaths and injuries in addition to the ones reported yesterday.

In London today, the Iraq Inquiry continues with Bill Jeffrey (MOD Permanent Secretary from 2005 to 2009) and David Miliband testifying. As disclosed before, I know and like David. In April of 1999, then-prime minister Tony Blair gave what was considered to be one of the defining speeches of his career, one that would be billed as "The Blair Doctrine." The NewsHour (PBS) covered it and reproduced it in whole and, from it, we'll note:

We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not We cannot refuse to participate in global markets if we want to prosper. We cannot ignore new political ideas in other counties if we want to innovate. We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure.
On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organising our international institutions.
After World War II, we developed a series of international institutions to cope with the strains of rebuilding a devastated world: Bretton Woods, the United Nations, NATO, the FU. Even then, it was clear that the world was becoming increasingly interdependent. The doctrine of isolationism had been a casualty of a world war, where the United States and others finally realised standing aside was not an option.
Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community. By this I mean the explicit recognition that today more than ever before we are mutually dependent, that national interest is to a significant extent governed by international collaboration and that we need a clear and coherent debate as to the direction this doctrine takes us in each field of international endeavour. Just as within domestic politics, the notion of community - the belief that partnership and co-operation are essential to advance self-interest - is coming into its own; so it needs to find its own international echo. Global financial markets, the global environment, global security and disarmament issues: none of these can he solved without intense international co-operation.

In that speech, you can find the basis for many of David Miliband's statements today -- such as these following.

David Miliband: There is an argument about whether or not medium-seized countries should think of themselves as global palyers and I think it is an argument that is going to become more and more pressing in the months and years ahead, because of the temptations for politicians, never mind those concerned with the finances, to rein us in, and I think that ask a lot of those whom we put into harm's way, and I think that the way in which the Prime Minister [Gordon Brown's testimony last week] summed up the -- not just the gratitude but the respect and the sadness, the profound sadness that is felt by people in government, was absolutely right.
But, equally, we mustn't be a country that turns our back on the world, because, if we do, because of the hard decisions that are faced with, we will be much poorer in all senses of that term.

Nearly three-fourths of the way into his testimony, David Miliband declared:

I can honestly say to you, thirdly, that in the Arab world today, I don't believe that the Iraq decisions have undermined our relationships and our abilities to do business. Actually, some of our ambassadors say that we are in a strong position in various ways at the moment.

And we're going to pair that with another section which In The News reported on earlier today:Mr Miliband, who was a junior minister at the time of the invasion, said: "The authority of the UN, I think, would have been severely dented if the hypothetical case that you are putting - that we had marched to the top of the hill of pressure and then walked down again without disarming Saddam - then I think that would have been really quite damaging for any of the multilateral aims that we have that need to be pursued through the UN."The fact that the argument was made very clearly, notably in this country, that feeble follow-through undermines strong words, I think, is significant." That's nonsense and laughable. For the purposes of this discussion, people need to leave their opinions of George W. Bush and others at the door. (I loathe Bully Boy Bush.) David Miliband is making a case that can be tosses around in poli sci, especially in international relations courses. During the Cold War, the global system was thought to be bi-polar -- not a medical diagnosis. It was thought that the US and the USSR were the two centers of power, the poles, and that all others went to one or the other poll (or was neutral). The USSR collapsed and what some thought might emerge was a multi-polar system but what a number believe (especially many in the US) is that a uni-polar system developed with the US as the only power/pole.

If you follow that, let's bring Bully Boy Bush into the equation. He made the infamous "Axis of Evil" speech prior to the Iraq War and statements of 'you're either with or us against us,' and dozens and dozens of other bellicose remarks. As many in the US felt, he looked nuts. He looked crazy. He looked irrational.

An actor on the international stage who appears irrational (regardless of whether they are irrational or not) keeps the system of balance, keeps everyone guessing and can have a sort of power. He or she can frighten others. The fear factor can result in his/her country getting its way. Muammar al-Gaddafi (Libya) is someone often labeled as an "irrational actor" and he's worked that for years. To his benefit in some cases but, as past air strikes also demonstrate, to his (and his country's) misfortune. Because when they don't know what you will do and won't do, when you're that 'irrational,' often times "reason" isn't something they want to try with you.

The danger in Bully Boy Bush was not only the wars he started but that other countries might begin to worry that he truly was crazy (and maybe he was) and feel that they needed to 'address' the problem. Because he was the leader of the United States, that day didn't come. But this "He's mad! He's crazy!" fear can result in a level of respect. It's not necessarily earned respect and it's not necessarily something that helps bring about peace, but everyone wants to avoid angering Crazy.

So US diplomats might observe that some foreign powers -- due to Bush's insantiy -- interact easier these days. That may be the case. I don't know that it is, I don't know that it's not. But we're talking political theory here on the balance of powers and the actors involved.

That's Bush. That's not Blair. There is no way in the world (and I say that as someone who knows David) that Miliband meant what he said. He's too smart for that. Blair was not seen as the 'crazy.' He was seen as "The Poodle." That's not an empowering name. Nor did England's actions look impressive on the fear scale. What the world saw was that if George W. Bush took some form of action (starting an illegal war, in this case), The Poodle would "tag along."

The "tag along" is not a power position. Not only is it not a "power position," it is, in fact, a weak position. Bush is playing the Bully and Blair's playing The Poodle and you want to strike back at the West. Do you with go after Crazy, Insane? You might. But often you will feel safer going after the "tag along." You're striking them -- the perceived weaker of the two parties -- and, due to their being an ally with Crazy, you're getting to strike Crazy via proximity.

Point (and I'm oversimplifying the theory to get it across), England is actually in a worse position globally then it was before the start of the Iraq War if you buy the balance of powers arguments and that power is a zero sum game and all the other little beliefs that go with those war lord theories. Why? Because England stuck by the Big Bully but England didn't prove itself to be a Big Bully. If the theory is true (I'm not promoting the theory -- but David is promoting a version of the theory -- one that he knows is incorrect) then England is at greater risk today than it's ever been. (And that's even more true with Labour still in charge of the UK government. The US Bully is gone. Replaced with someone from the opposition party. That may -- or may not -- dilute some of the world hatred.) That would mean that the Iraq War -- if the theory holds -- has made the British more apt to be kidnapped and targeted outside their own country.

Kidnapped. A large number of British citizens have been kidnapped during the Iraq War. When the British government got involved, the kidnapped tended to turn into corpses. The governments of Italy, Spain, the US and others were often able to strike bargains of some form or another. Not so with England. (Don't confuse, for example, the work of the Telegraph of London to free one of their reporters with the work of the British government. That was the newspaper's work, not the government's.)

Committee Member Usha Prashar: My final question is about hostages, because a particular challenge has been the risk to UK nationals in Iraq being taken as hostages. Looking back, are there lessons to be learned as to how we deal with hostages.

David Miliband: Look, I'm very glad you mentioned that, because I notice at the end of all these sessions you say, "Is there anything else you'd like to say?" and I was going to raise this issue. So I do thank you for raising this. I think all of the witnesses have paid tribute to the work of our armed forces, and the devastation for the nearly 200 families who have lost a loved one here [No, David, you are incorrect, all the witnesses did not do that], never mind been injured, is profound, and all of us think about that, never mind the very significant number of Iraqis who have lost their lives, but there is also the case of the five hostages, which has weighed significantly on me in terms of time and effort, but not one hundredth or thousandth as much as it has weighed on the families. You know the situation, that one of the five hostages has returned, thankfully alive, but three have been killed, and there is the continuing agony in respect of Alan McMenemy, and that is something I think it is important that it is on the record in a case like this. I know that Foreign Office staff, but also staff from other government departments, never mind Iraqis, have really strained every sinew in trying to get a successful rescue or release of these five innocent people and it is the human cases in a way that bring out the -- some of the big discussions that one can have about this. We have a very, very clear policy, that we will not make substantive concessions to hostage-takers and I don't think that a -- any lesson of this affair should be that we should change that policy. I think that we have worked very, very hard in terms of our engagment with all those -- and Imphasise all those -- who might have a way of helping exert pressure or incentive for release, and tragically, in three, I think four, of the cases it has not been successful.

Let's stop him. (Prashar will in a moment, anyway.) Alec Maclachlan, Jason Crewswell, Alan McMenemy, Peter Moore and Jason Swindelhurst were kidnapped in Baghdad May 29, 2007. Only Peter Moore has been returned alive. The other three were returned in corpse state and what's happened to Alan McMenemy remains unknown. To get the release of Moore (and the corpses), the US had to let the leader of the League of the Righteous out of US prison in Iraq, release his brother as well. When this took place -- and David denied the deal publicly at the time -- the UK 'secured' the release of Moore. David wants to insist that they don't make concessions? Okay, I guess he meant that they just ask their allies to?

Prashar stops him to point out she hasn't heard one word from him on a lesson learned. He replied that it was never difficult to figure out who took a hostage, just where the hostage was kept. Prashar noted he claimed that his office kept in touch with the families of hostages, "but when we have talked to the families of hostages, they have complained to us about the lack of information in the context of the FCO. Have you any comments on that?" David Miliband wanted details and went on to say that if those family members "have ideas or complaints, then we want to know about them" (the quote continues, we're not interested) which may have been the most laughable moment. Will anyone notice that he rested on the (US) success and avoided mentioning anyone like Margaret Hassan who was kidnapped and murdered?

And I wonder what her family thought of his ignoring her. Margaret Hassan's kidnapping was a worldwide event. Her loss unimaginable to anyone but her family but the news of her kidnapping was shocking and the entire world watched.

In the US, Ms. magazine is increasing their online presence by starting a new blog:


Ms. Magazine Launches the New Ms. Blog
On this International Women's Day, March 8th, Ms. magazine - the flagship feminist publication - launches the Ms. Blog, showcasing the sharp writing and informed opinions of a community of feminist bloggers from around the nation and the globe.
The Ms. Blog will be a hub for exchange, collaboration and discussion, introducing fresh perspectives on national and global politics, culture, media, health, law and life.
The range, diversity and quality of bloggers is already exceptional: In the months leading up to this historic launch, Ms. was inundated with blogging offers from academics, activists and journalists. There are contributors from seven countries and counting, and the overall contributors' roster ranges from well-known names to up-and-coming writers and thinkers. We at Ms. are thrilled about the prospects of intercultural and intergenerational exchange.
Among the bloggers who have signed on to this exciting new project are novelist Diana Abu-Jaber, sexuality author Hanne Blank, L.A. journalist and scholar Lynell George, health activist/author Paula Kamen, masculinity critic/scholar Michael Kimmel, environmental journalist Sonia Shah, feminist writer Deborah Siegel, sociologist Shira Tarrant, media scholar Ebony Utley, memoirist Aimee Liu, Chicana activist and "mommyblogger" Veronica Arreola, Moroccan feminist scholar Fatima Sadiqi, gender and global development expert Lina Abirafeh (reporting from Haiti), Iraqi activist Yanar Mohammed, Muslim feminist Melody Moezzi, Chicana author Michele Serros and law professor Pamela Bridgewater.
Recognizing that no aspect of life is immune from gender politics, the Ms. Blog will address the intersectionality of gender with race, class, nationality and sexuality. And although there will be personal talk on the Ms. Blog, it will always be with the recognition that the personal is political.
Ms. executive editor Katherine Spillar is available for interviews about the new Ms. blog.
Contact: Jessica Stites
P. 310-556-2515 Email: jstites@msmagazine.com

We last noted Marc Hall in the March 3rd snapshot. He was being held in jail and due to be transported to Iraq for an Article 32 hearing and a court-martial. By holding the hearings in Iraq, the military will deprive Marc of many of the witnesses he needs to make his case. For those who don't know the story, Marc is facing punishment, possible imprisonment and worse for the 'crime' of rapping. Iraq Veterans Against the War has posted a letter from Marc:



IVAW is partnering with Courage to Resist to raise awareness and funds for Marc Hall.
Please donate now: https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=30624
Letter from Army SPC Marc Hall, February 20, 1010:
I never thought that I would join the Army only to one day be incarcerated by the Army. I have never been to jail in my life, until now. The Army is charging me with Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "communicating threats" towards my chain of command. Yet I was only communicating how I felt about what I have experienced in the Army and how I felt about the Army's "Stop-loss" policy. That policy meant that I could not leave the Army when I was supposed to, and after I had already served in Iraq for 14 months.
I guess this all started with a hardcore "rap" song I made about the Army's very unpopular "Stop-loss" policy back in July 2009. Like any "rap" or rock song, I was expressing my freedom of expression under the US Constitution. Being that the Army's "Stop-loss" policy was a Pentagon decision from what I had heard on the news, I decided to send a copy of my song directly to the Pentagon.
I don't know if anyone at the Pentagon listened to my song, but somebody in Washington DC mailed the package back to my chain of command. My First Sergeant called me in to his office to discuss it. I explained that the rap was a freedom of expression thing. And that it was not a physical threat, nor any kind of threat whatsoever. I explained that it was just hip hop. He told me that he kind of liked the song, that it sounded good.


iraq
al jazeera
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
time magazineandrew lee buttersalsumaria tvcbs newselizabeth palmerabcben knightbloomberg newscaroline alexanderdaniel williamskaren brown
the guardian
martin chulov
ms.ms. magazine
iraq veterans against the war

Those scandals that never end

Friday! The weekend at last! Just watched this online from CBS News (that's video, here for text) and what the heck?

Charlie Rangel I knew about. David Paterson I knew about. Eric Massa? I didn't know about. Hadn't even heard of him before today.

He posted this at his website:

An open letter from Rep. Massa

Two days ago as I sat reading my new annual CAT scan, having been told that the anomalies in the films may or may not be scar tissue, I decided to finally take the advice that my doctors have repeatedly given me, and that is to take care of my family and myself before my profession. After I decided not to run again I was told, for the first time, that a member of my staff believed I had made statements that made him feel “uncomfortable.” I was told that a report had been filed with the Congressional Ethics Committee. At no point prior to this had any member of the Ethics Committee communicated with me directly - if fact I first read it on the internet.

I own this reality. There is no doubt in my mind that I did in fact, use language in the privacy of my own home and in my inner office that, after 24 years in the Navy, might make a Chief Petty Officer feel uncomfortable. In fact, there is no doubt that this Ethics issue is my fault and mine alone. But in the incredibly toxic atmosphere that is Washington D.C., with the destruction of our elected leaders having become a blood sport, especially in talk radio and on the internet, there is also no doubt that an Ethics investigation would tear my family and my staff apart. Some would say that this is what happens when you stand apart from political parties, which I have done. Others will say that this is what happens to a non politician when they go to Washington DC. I want to make something perfectly clear. My difficulties are of my own making. Period. I am also aware that blogs and radio will have a field day with this in today's destructive and unforgiving political environment. In that investigators would be free to ask anything about me going back to my birth, I simply cannot rise to that level of perfection. God knows that I am a deeply flawed and imperfect person.

During long car rides, in the early hours of the evening, late at night and always in private, I know that my own language failed to meet the standards that I set for all around me and myself. I fell short and I believe now, as I have always believed, that it is not enough to simply talk the talk, but rather I must take action to hold myself accountable.

Therefore, effective at 5 PM on Monday the 8th of March I will resign my position as the Federal Representative of New York's 29th Congressional District in the 111th Congress. I do so with a profound sense of failure and a deep apology to all those whom, for the past year, I tried to represent as our Nation struggles with problems far greater than anyone can possibly imagine. I hope that my family, constituents, and fellow Members of Congress can accept this apology as being both genuine and heartfelt and I wish for them and all Americans only the best. I will take all actions possible to ensure that my personal health is secured in that I know that mine is a far more fragile lifeline than most. For the millions of fellow cancer survivors with whom I share this experience, they, more than anyone else, will understand the honesty and openness in this statement.

I ask that members of the press respect the privacy of my family, my staff, and me at this time.

-Congressman Eric Massa

No offense to Massa intended (I don't think it's an insult to be gay), but I think there's more to the story than what his letter says. If you used bad or vulgar language, I doubt you'd have a complaint filed on you. Unless it was sexual, unless you were propositioning.

If he was, fine. The other guy must be an adult. The other guy said "no" and that's that, everything's cool. But it smells more like a sexual harassment complaint.

But then again, maybe his letter is completely true.

If it's not, if he does have same-sex affairs, he should get honest about them because the press will dig around and his family doesn't need to be trotted out as some sort of a dam against a flow of rivers.

Massa was against the Iraq War. Didn't know it. Good for him. If he's gay or bi, good for him still. If he's gay or bi and comes out of the closet, great for him. Only thing that would change that for me would be if he sexually harassed someone working under him.

Okay, Oscars air on Sunday. My picks?

Best film: The Ugly Truth . . . what? Not nominated! :D I'm joking. My pick is The Hurt Locker.

Best director: Kathryn Bigelow

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges

Best Supporting Actor: Woody Harrelson

Best Supporting Actress: Maggie Gyllenhaal

Best Origianl Screenplay: The Hurt Locker

Best Documentary: The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers

And those are the only awards I care about. That's who I want to win. I'm not predicting who will.

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

Friday, March 5, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, campaigning for elections continue, birth defects are on the rise, Gordon Brown appears before the Iraq Inquiry, we are not your sin eaters, and more.

This morning on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Susan Page (USA Today) guest hosted for Diane and she spoke with the panelists Tom Gjelten (NPR), Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy) and David E. Sanger (New York Times).

Susan Page: Well Iraqis -- most Iraqis who are going to vote, go to the polls on Sunday, the first national election in five years. David Sanger, what seats are up?

David Sanger: Well an amazing number of candidates are up. Uh there are going to be 6127 candidates for 325 seats. So you could see a fair number of people who come in with one, two and even three votes if they, you know, get Moms and spouses to vote for them. You'll also see uh about 50,000 polling places. And I guess they must have all read those books about uh how Lyndon Johnson conducted polls in Texas in the 40s and 50s because not only are they writing this on special paper and numbering the ballots but the ballots then go into clear plastic boxes so that it gets a little bit harder to fiddle with. That said, the ingenuity of Iraqis with fiddling with uh ballots now may be as good as Americans have had at various points in our history. Uh, I think what you need to think about for this election are two things. First is it could be a long time before we see a serious result. When this happened in 2005, it took about five months to put the government together. Here it may not take as long but it could be a few months. And the second big question is: Does anything come up out of this that gets in the way of the American withdrawal strategy? And that is all linked to the divisions of Sunni and Shia, the levels of violence and so forth. For President [Barack] Obama who has already said that he's not out to make a Jeffersonian democracy and either Afghanistan or Iraq the big question is can he just stay on schedule.

Susan Page: Well what do you think, Susan, will he be able to stay on schedule with the withdrawal of US troops over the next two years or do you think that's in some peril?

Susan Glasser: Uh, well, you know, if I had a crystal ball for this one, we-we could all go home. But I do think that the election will be an intersting indicator. And what comes after it, as David mentioned, of just how riven is the political space in Iraq right now. There have certainly been some uh disturbing signs in the weeks leading up to the election that this is a highly polarized, highly sectarian environment going into the elections. Uhm, you know, there are signs of levels of divisions between Sunni and Shia that have probably reached their highest level of the last two years in the context of this campaign. So will renewed violence break out? What does it do to the potential unraveling of political space in Iraq? How much is the current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki -- what is he willing to do to hold onto power over the next few weeks and months?

Susan Page: Tom, is there someone the US hopes emerges as the new leader of Iraq?

Tom Gjelten: No, I-I think what the United States hopes is simply stability. Uh, as David said, I think the, you know the prospect of divisions following this election is so unnerving that the United States would basically settle for any candidate that's able to keep the country more or less, uh, uh, on track and stable. I mean there seem to be -- You know, the good news is that all sectors of the Iraqi political spectrum are-are represented in this election. The bad news is that all sectors of the Iraqi political spectrum are represented in this election including some very violent, anti-American militia members. Moqtada al-Sadr who's responsible for a lot of the attacks even though he's currently living in Iraq, we think. His-his party is well represented. We've got an alleged former death squad leader who's represented. We have Sunni religious groups represented, Sunni secular groups, Shia religious groups, Shia secular groups. So everybody is represented but what that also does is it really is a recipe for what Susan and David are talking about, the kind of, the warring factions in the aftermath.

Susan Page: But I wonder if, to look on the bright side maybe, a second democratic election in five years, since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, does it indicate democracy or an Iraqi form of democracy is really taking root? Or do you think that goes too far, David?

David Sanger: It represents an Iraqi form of democracy. We've had other moments in Iraqi history, including in the 1950s, when there were similar forms of democracy and they didn't last. I mean, Iraq is a place that, at various moments, has gravitated towards strong-man leaders and that could well happen again.

Echoing that thought are Ernesto Londono and Leila Fadel (Washington Post) who explain, "After the ballots are cast and counted, voters will have provided the first conclusive evidence of what kind of democracy is likely to take root in the heart of the Middle East -- if one does at all." Charles Levinson (Wall St. Journal) reports, "Iraq's leading candidates made final appeals to voters and an influential anti-U.S. cleric unveiled a unqiue election-day strategy, on the final day of campaigning for Sunday's national polls." Iraqi refugees will vote in the US, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, the UAE, Lebanon, Iran, Canada, England, Denmark, Australia, Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands. And in Iraq, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) looks at the approximately 3 million young, first-time voters in Iraq who express frustration and note that their lives have been plagued by violence, unemployment and lack of basic services. The Iraq War started in March 2003 and that's seven years ago. 20-year-old Iraqis were 13 when this illegal war started. Arraf reports, "This should be an exciting threshold to a new future for young people. But a broad range of interviews reveal that for this generation, born into a decade of trade sanctions and raised in war, there is an overriding sense of frustration, fears about security, and the struggle to find their place in a country still emerging from conflict." Among the first time voters is Nada Hatem Farhan and Jane Arraf examines what the elections mean to her and her life: Not much at all. She's like to be an attorney or journalist but instead states she must become a teacher which is about it in terms of 'respectability' for women in her area -- but that's if she's able to go college. There is a push for her to get married to her cousin as soon as she finishes high school. At Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers notes that all the candidates are decrying foreign influence and foreign money in the process but that those who serve in Parliament refused to address the situation before the elections. The correspondent observes:

The parties that are ruling Iraqi now are the same, two were established in Iran, and that we can find an explanation because Saddam was hunting the opposition down and killing their beloved ones so they had to find a safe place to live and seek change, but what me and my fellow citizens cannot comprehend is why these parties still receiving money and show allegiance to Iran or other countries and then criticize the foreign support.
And the most important part, these parties didn't mind an invasion and called it a liberation in 2003, later they called it occupation and interference, and they keep forgetting that it is the foreign interference and invasion that brought the democracy to the country, so why Iraqis need to oppose foreign funds, when everything was and still coming from outside.

In other deveopments, Layla Anwar (An Arab Woman Blues) expresses her anger very clearly today over Zeinab Khadum Allwan (we covered her in Wednesday's snapshot) but she's confused George W. Bush with "Western feminists" and we won't play dumb, Layla, just because we respect you. Rage and scream and do so against "Western feminists" if you want but don't expect us to play dumb with you.

First off, there's nothing about a burqa in Zeinab's story as told by the BBC -- nor is she 'modestly' dressed. She's dressed in tennis gear, so why Layla wants to use shame of the human body and how the West has allegedly torn off the 'mystique' of the female form (that would be "the other" for all educated in feminist theory, that which is cloaked, that which is hidden) to try to score points is actually a mystery.

Let me be really clear before I go further, I've noted this before online. I've posed nude. I have no hang ups about being naked and anytime someone wants to play the shame game re: nudity, it's never going to work with me. So call that A and B. C, George W. Bush is not and never was the face of feminism. If the Iraq War was sometimes sold as 'liberation' for Iraqi women, that came from Bush and his supporters in the media. Western feminists, as a group, opposed the Iraq War. We won't be your sin eater on this, Layla. You're angry and you have every right to be. You can lash out at whatever grouping you want including Western feminists. But I'm not of the Chickie-baby-boom-boom 'school' who's confused a push-up bra and a party schedule with feminism nor do I stand still while hit with a two-by-four.

Feminists in the West have got to learn to fight back and that includes saying, "I understand your anger but your facts are wrong." And, Layla, your facts are wrong. No feminist in the US or England or Canada has hailed the Iraq War as a success for female liberation nor would they. What we have repeatedly noted in the West was that Iraq had a more progressive policy regarding women than any other country in the region and that the invasion actually set the rights of women backwards. In fact, Rebecca was just writing about that last night, before you posted your attack on Western feminists today:

it's women's history month and the recent history for iraqi women isn't a good 1. they were better off before the invasion. they had rights. they were not required to hide themselves away. iraq was a secular state. why is it that women are always the 1s to suffer in any society? it could be us in the united states to lose our rights. it's not as if we have an equal rights amendment in the constitution. even if we did, before the 2003 invasion, iraqis could point to their own constitution and show how women's rights were in it. the true story of women's history appears to be that every day we have to struggle and fight and that's largely just to remain in the same spot. forget getting ahead.

You can be angry, you can lash out any group you want to. But we're not going to play stupid here when you attack feminism and attack it with distortions. As for "you" have to watch? I watched. I watched and wrote about it on Wednesday. Two days later you show up? Welcome to the party, Layla, food's all gone but pour yourself a drink.

Layla's angry, she has every right to be. Her country's been destroyed. There's no band-aid for it. And while we'll understand that, I do not play the game where we're Western feminists so we turn the other cheek while some one attacks us with lies. (Ava and I wrote a piece calling out the refusal to fight back in November of last year.) Had second wave leaders stood up in real time, a lot of lies and distortions wouldn't have taken hold in the last decades. Layla's angry. It's a deep anger and it's completely understandable. And she can lash out if she wants at whomever she wants. But if that lashing out includes a distortion of feminism or feminists, I'm not going to play. I'm not your sin eater. You need to grow up and take accountability for your own actions and that includes knowing who your enemies are. I already raised my children, I'm not going to baby any grown up at this late date.

Turning to England where the Iraq Inquiry today took testimony from Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former UK Secretary of State (2007-2009) Douglas Alexander (link goes to transcript and video option). Brown became the current Prime Minister in June 2007, prior to that he served in Tony Blair's Cabinet beginning in 1997. John Chilcot chairs the Inquiry and he kicked things off in today's hearing.

Chair John Chilcot: It has been borne in on this Inquiry from the outset that the coalition's decision to take military action led directly or most often, indirectly to the loss of lives of many people, servicemen and women in our and the Multi-National Forces, the Iraqi security forces, and many civilians, men, women and children, in Iraq. Still more have been affected by those losses and by other consequences of the action. Given all that experience, I should like to ask right at the outset whether you believe the decision to take military action in March 2003 was indeed right.

Gordon Brown: It was the right decision and it was for the right reasons. But I do want, at the outset, to pay my respects to all the soldiers and members of our armed forces who served with great entourage and distinction in Iraq for the loss of life and the sacrifices that they have made, and my thoughts are with their families. Next week, we will dedicate at the national arboretum a memorial to the 179 servicemen and women who died in Iraq and I think the thoughts and prayers of us are with all the families today.

Sentences two and three might have taken some of the sting out of sentence one were it not for the fact that those assembled had already seen Gordon Brown strut into the room, glad handing and beaming as if he was going to a christening,

You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your had strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed
That they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner and . . .
You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain
I bet you think this song is about you
Don't you, don't you?
-- "You're So Vain" -- words and music by Carly Simon

And that number one song, which Carly's re-recorded as part of her reimaging classic songs from her canon on Never Been Gone, never had a video. But Carly Simon and Iris Records are having a contest:

BE THE FILMMAKER TO CREATE THE FIRST AND ONLY VIDEO FOR CARLY SIMON'S CLASSIC ROCK SONG "YOU'RE SO VAIN" IN ASSOCIATION WITH AOL MUSIC'S SPINNER.COM
THE GRAND PRIZE WINNER WILL HAVE THEIR VIDEO PREMIERED AT THE 2010 TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL, FEATURED ON AOL AND MEET CARLY SIMON IN-PERSON
Los Angeles, California. Thirty seven Decembers ago, pop songstress Carly Simon tore up the record charts with her single "You're So Vain." The song captured the number-one slot on both the Billboard Hot 100 and the Adult Contemporary charts, and to this day remains one of the most popular classic rock songs of all time. Perhaps more than any other track in pop music, the song's central mystery captivated the public. Ironically, even with all this speculation, the song has never had a music video to accompany it.
To coincide with her critically-acclaimed latest release, NEVER BEEN GONE, fans and filmmakers are invited to submit a music video to accompany the newly recorded version of "You're So Vain." If you'd like to add elements of the original 1972 version of the song feel free, but your video has to incorporate at least some of the 2010 recording, making the most of the new footage that can be downloaded here.
Carly will screen and judge all of the entries herself. The winning video will be featured on AOL Music's Spinner.com and screened at this years' Tribeca Film Festival in April, where the winner will also have the opportunity meet Carly Simon.
To help fans and filmmakers out, Carly has created a template of optional tools which can be utilized in the creation of the video including recently shot green screen footage, stills, video blogs and more all of which can be found and downloaded HERE.
You can submit your video from February 8th 2010 through April 15st 2010.


You don't have to include Gordon Brown in your video; however, if you're Sarah Brown, you certainly should consider doing so. Ann Treneman (Times of London) offers a textual sketch of Gordo in repose:

The Prime Minister yesterday was particularly stunning and I mean that in the same way that Brazilian tree frogs are stunning. He entered the first session with one of his awful smiles and immediately began to explain the Iraq conflict as a "paradigm" in a "post Cold War world", which occasionally came out as "postcode war world". Members of the public began to fall asleep almost immediately and, after the first coffee break, two people never returned, early victims of Browning.
His strategy was brilliantly simple -- attack early, attack often and never stop talking. He revealed straight away -- and not in response to any question -- that he had never turned down any request for funds from the military for Iraq -- ever. Full stop.

Gordon also quickly became Susan Megur's oil painting "The Two Sides of Ones Self." Gerald Warner (Telegraph of London) explains that in his first ten minutes, Gordon made it sound like he was in the loop but, after that, he pulled a blank whenever asked about key moments, key decisions and key events. Apparently, when the gang wanted fish & chips, they sent Gordo on a snack run and took care of business before he could get return.
While Gordon testified or testi-lied inside, Stop The War Coalition was present outside. The Telegraph of London reports the protestors included an activist wearing a Gordon Brown and holding a giant check, stained with blood, indicating 8.5 billion pounds were spent on the Iraq War by England. The organization's John Rees is quoted stating, "Gordon Brown was the paymaster for this most unpopular of wars and was the second most powerful man in the Government. He has cleverly avoided the political stigma Tony Blair attracted but he bears the same responsibility and should be held to account by this inquiry."


Committee Member Roderic Lyne: So you and other Cabinet ministers, except, of course, for the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, were not aware that the Attorney General's position had been equivocal only two weeks beforehand in his document of 7 March and had been indeed directly opposed to the position he took in Cabinet up to about 11 February? You were completely unaware of this and you were unaware also that the Foreign Office's legal advisers, specialists in international law, did not agree with the position that the Attorney General presented to Cabinet?

Gordon Brown: I think there had been some press coverage about the Foreign Office. I may be wrong on that, but I think there may have been some press coverage.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: The Foreign Secretary referred to some press coverage.

Gordon Brown: Look, the question that came before us was the advice of the Attorney General that this was lawful or not? The Attorney General gave unequivocal advice to the Cabinet. I think he has been along to the committee to explain the basis on which he gave that advice. I have heard him now give his evidence to the Committee, but he had a straightforward question to answer. It wasn't a simple question, but it was a straightforward question, "Was it lawful or was it not?" and he gave an unequivocal answer.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: You don't think the Cabinet needed to know whether this was based on a robust position or a slightly controversial position?

Gordon Brown: I think, in retropsect, people as historians of this matter, will look at it very carefully and look at what happened and what was said between different people at different times and what were the first drafts, the second drafts and the third drafts. But the issue for us was very clear. I mean, we are a Cabinet making a decision. Did the Attorney General, who is our legal officer responsible for giving us legal advice on these matters, have a position on this that was unequivocal, and his position on this was unequivocal. He cited, as I have already done, the United Nations resolutions that led to us believe that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with international law. He cited 1441 and the importance of the final opportunity for Saddam Hussein. All these things were said and it laid the basis on which we could make a decision, but it wasn't the reason that we made the decisions. He gave us the necessary means to make a decision, but it wasn't sufficient in itself.

The UK Liberal Democrats issued the following statement today:

"How can we trust a man who still believes that this illegal war and all the horror it has caused was right?" said the Liberal Democrat Leader.
Commenting on Gordon Brown's appearance at the Iraq inquiry, Nick Clegg said:
"This was the day Gorodn Brown finally had to come clean and admit that he believes the Iraq war was right.
"We now know we were betrayed by Gordon Brown and we were betrayed by the Labour Party.
"How can we trust a man who still believes that this illegal war and all the horror it has caused was right?
"When the Liberal Democrats were the only party to oppose this immoral invasion we didn't just speak for us, we spoke for the nation."

At the Guardian, Chris Ames explains that Brown indicated weeks ago that he would be arguing "the convention of collective cabinet responsiblity, which requires cabinet ministers to back policies that they do not agree with" and he concludes that the policy "is not just a licence to lie, but a requirement to do so." It also doesn't speak well to Brown's alleged leadership -- and his leadership is already in question in England just due to the economic disaster. But on top of that, Gordon wants to argue that we must all back policies even if we don't agree with them -- does not show leadership when he served under Blair and doesn't show leadership now that he's prime minister. It shows a disdain for an open process, for differening opinions and for the law itself.


Committee Member Roderic Lyne: If you had known that his position had been equivocal only ten days previously in formal advice presented to the Prime Minister, would it have changed your view?

Gordon Brown: I don't think it would have changed my view, because unless he was prepared to say that his unequivocal advice was that this was not lawful, then the otehr arguments that I thought were important played into place, and that was what I have already talked to you about [. . .]

It wouldn't have mattered said Gordon. Strange because before that exchange (page 51 of the transcript), he told Lyne, "No, and I think that -- look, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an international lawyer." Which he isn't. So it's amazing that he wants to declare that if he'd been told that Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General, had just changed his mind in a matter of days on the legality of the war, it would not have changed his mind or even bothered him. Apparently, it's not just that he's not a lawyer, it's also that he just doesn't care too much. Again, his well rehearsed testimony did not inspire or demonstrate leadership. For Tony Blair, that wouldn't matter. But Blair's not the sitting prime minister, Brown is.

Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) live blogged the testimony. At this Sky News webpage, there are multiple options on Brown's testimony including Glen Oglaza once again live blogging testimony. Chris Ames live blogged at Iraq Inquiry Digest. Channel 4 News Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogged at Twitter. Also live blogging at Twitter was BBC News' Laura Kuenssberg. Alice Tarleton (Channel 4 News) offers a look at how Brown's statements to the Inquiry differ from those made by his predecessor Tony Blair. And Vicki Barker (NPR's All Things Considered) has an audio report here.

The Scottish National Party issued the following statement:

Commenting on Gordon Brown's appearance at the Chilcot inquiry, SNP Westminister Leader and Defence Spokesman Angus Robertson MP said:
"Where Blair spun, Brown ducked, but he still confirmed he was part of the inner circle that led the country into the worst foreign policy disaster in modern times.
"The Iraq inuqiry has been massively damaging for Labour. With every evidence session, the UK Government's case for war and the actions of Labour Ministers are further discredited.
"The people won't forget Labour's role in planning and executing this illegal war. The Chilcot inquiry has laid out the eivdence -- it's now up to the voters to cast their verdict at the ballot box.
"It's no wonder Brown wanted the inquiry conducted behind closed doors. He's clearly keeping a great deal hidden.
"Contradicting Sir Kevin Tebbit's claim that the MoD was operating a crisis budget, the Prime Minister insisted every request for funding was met.
"Sadly, for all of those who opposed the Iraq invasion and for the thousands who lost thier lives to it, truth of the Iraq invasion may have been forever lost to the New Labour spin machine."

As his turn before the committee, Brown remembered a note and wanted to insist that the loss of life "leaves us all sad" and "leaves me very sad indeed". He squeezed it in twice in his closing remarks because he threw it out once in his opening remarks in the first half of the day ("any loss of life is something that makes us very sad indeed") but forgot to work it in again and again, as advised, so he could demonstrate some resource. Sian Ruddick (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) notes how two bodies heard explored war today:

A war criminal and an anti-war soldier both faced questioning this Friday. One will get off with no repercussions -- the other could be sent to prison for two years.
Gordon Brown has tried to keep his distance from the Iraq war, hoping that the legacy of mass murder will be left with Tony Blair. But Brown's hands are far from clean.
He wrote the cheques for the war, funding the destruction that rained down on Iraq.
And in the run up to the war Brown was "absolutely core" in shoring up support amongst backbenchers, insists Sally Morgan, one of Blair's key aides.
Brown says the Iraq war is all over now -- but it isn't. There are still thousands of US and British troops in the country.
And the lasting legacy of devastation and chaos created by the occupation continues to blight the lives of millions of Iraqis.

The legacy includes a country destroyed, lives lost and birth defects among other issues.
John Simpson (BBC News) reports on the birth defects stemming from the illegal war and weapons used in it (some exploded, some still not exploding) which have contaminated the country:We went to a house where three children, all under six, were suffering from birth defects.Two boys were partially paralysed, and their sister clearly had serious brain damage.Like all the other parents we spoke to, their mother had no doubt that the American attacks were responsible.Outside, a man who had heard we were there had brought his four-year-old daughter to show us. She had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot.She was also suffering from a number of other serious health problems. The father told us that the house where they still lived had been hit by an American shell during the fighting in 2004.There may well be a link with drinking-water, especially in al-Julan.After the fighting was over, the rubble from the town was bulldozed into the river bank, and most people in this area get their water from the river. Ben Leach (Telegraph of London) adds, "The level of heart defects among newborn babies in the city is now said to be 13 times higher than in Europe.Some doctors have reported they are seeing as many as two or three cases a day, mainly cardiac defects." Alex Sundby (CBS News) notes the issue here. I believe we last noted the birth defects in the January 4th snapshot when we covered this episode of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera):

Jasim al-Azzawi: Dr. Jawad al-Ali, you are a physician, you are a member of the Iraq Cancer Board and you have seen the astronomical rate in cancers rise as well as defects in children. Explain to me what is going on in Basra?

Dr. Jawad al-Ali: Really, as you know, Iraq is effected by three wars, three destructive wars. The last two -- the 1991 war and the 2003 war -- where depleted uranium is used for the first time in history. The 1991 war, they used depleted uranium at the western part of Basra and also they dropped some of the uranium weapons [. . .] during the withdrawal of the Iraqi army. And also they dropped some of the depleted uranium at the eastern part of Basra where it was the only way to withdraw our army from Kuwait.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Did that cause such an astronomical rise in the cancer rates in 1991 and the 90s? And also in the 2003?

Dr. Jawad al-Ali: After three or four years, that is in 1994, I, myself, I noticed that the hospital receiving many patients with cancer. And we were surprised at that time. And we don't what was the link. But, after two years, that is 1996, one of the intelligent persons, worked with the intelligence and he's escorting one of the delegations, he told me that depleted uranium is used. And he told me this is a secret, please keep it inside your brain.

Jasim al-Azzawi: It is no longer a secret, Dr. al-Ali, let me bring in Christopher Busby. Mr. Busby, you were a witness expert in one of the British trials regarding a soldier who developed cancer immediately after returning from deployment in southern part Iraq.

Christopher Busby: In September of this year, I was asked by the coroner in the West Midlands near Birmingham to attend an inquest as an expert witness. I've become a witness on the health effects of depleted uranium. I sat on a number of government committees including a [UK] Ministry of Defense committee and I've studied the health effects of Uranium for almost 15 years and I've closely followed these arguments about the increase in cancer in Iraq and in other areas where uranium has been used. So I was -- I was asked to give evidence as an expert witness in this case. This man, Stuart Dyson, has worked as an Ordnance Corps support soldier. So basically what he did, he cleaned up the vehicles and, as a result, he became contaminated with depleted uranium which collected on the vehicles which were used in the 2003 Gulf War and he then developed cancer at a very early age, about 38. I mean, it's very, very rare to get that cancer, colon cancer, at that age. The normal rate is about 6 in a million people. Now we know as a result of cancer research that cancer is caused by exposure to something that causes a mutation in cells. So we have to look to something that he was exposed to that caused mutations in cells.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Yes.

Christopher Busby: And really there isn't anything else but depleted uranium.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Dr. Jawad al-Ali, you were also a member of a research team in Iraq, especially in the south, and you have seen the deformities and the defects among newly born babies in Iraq. How bad is that?


Dr. Jawad al-Ali: You know, depleted uranium, it's not only a cancer inducing factor but also it might effect the chromosomes whether in the husband or the mother of a child. And many, many children are born with deformities, with loss of limbs, with a big head, with deformed legs and the rate of this -- these deformities is increasing about seven times since 1991until 2002. And also another phenomena we noticed here that families cluster -- cluster of cancer in families -- a husband and a wife are effected. And many families, I got their pictures with me. The other phenomena is the appearance of double and triple cancers. That is three cancers in one patient or two cancers in the same patient. These phenomena are very strange for us. I haven't seen it before. Because I worked in Basra for about 39 years. And I haven't seen such cases of cancer [before]. The other thing is the change of pattern of cancer as said by Dr. Busby. We have a change in the pattern that is the cancers of elderly people appearing now in a younger age group. And this is surprising. Even the breast cancer which is disease of middle and elderly ladies now appearing at the age of 20.

Back to the US where A.N.S.W.E.R. and other organizations are sponsoring March 20th marches in DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The march is to demand the withdrawal of all US and NATO troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan and Peace of the Action will be staging a Camp Out NOW but they have had to push the start-up date back two days:

Due to an unexpected crimp in our permit, Camp OUT NOW will be erected on March 15th instead of the 13th -- but we will still have St. Stephen's to sleep in that weekend.
The reason we're not setting up Camp on the 13th is that the people who are running the St. Patty's Day parade won't allow us to keep Camp up during the parade. So on Sunday during the parade, we will be passing out info and making an anti-war presence --
We will gather in Lafayette Park (across from the White House) at 10am the morning of the parade.
We are still looking for donations, and you can donate here:
http://peaceoftheaction.org/give/



TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):

Americans have a longstanding love affair with food -- the modern supermarket has, on average, 47,000 products. But do we really know what goes into making the products we so eagerly consume? On Friday, March 5 at 8:30 PM (check local listings), David Brancaccio talks with Robert Kenner, director of the Oscar-nominated documentary Food, Inc., which takes a hard look at the secretive and surprising journey food takes on the way from processing plants to our dinner tables. The two discuss why contemporary food processing secrets are so closely guarded, their impact on our health, and another surprising fact: how consumers are actually empowered to make a difference.
Staying with TV notes, Washington Week begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (and throughout the weekend, check local listings) and joining Gwen around the table this week are Jeanne Cummings (Politico), Michael Duffy (Time magazine) and John Harwood (CNBC, New York Times). And along with catching the show, you can click here for Gwen's take on two of the current political scandals (text report). Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Sam Bennett, Karen Czarnecki, Nicole Kurokawa and Patrice Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. And at the website each week, Bonnie and her guests offer an extra video on a topic not covered on the show. The current web extra is a discussion of retirement proposals to 401(k)s and IRA accounts. For the broadcast program, check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes:
"60 Minutes Presents: Blood Brothers""60 Minutes" will be pre-empted this week for a special edition of "60 Minutes Presents: Blood Brothers." This hour explores the world of Spanish bullfighting brothers Francisco and Cayetano Rivera-Ordonez, top matadors from one of Spain's most famous bullfighting families. Bob Simon follows the bullfighters outside and in the ring, where the "dance of death" nearly ends the life of Cayetano in a horrifying moment caught on camera. Watch Video
"60 Minutes Presents: Blood Brothers", Sunday, March 7, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.


iraq
nprthe diane rehm show
the wall street journalcharles levinson
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the telegraph of londonthe times of londonann treneman
channel 4 newsiraq inquiry bloggeriraq inquiry digestchris ames
the guardianandrew sparrow
alice tarleton
sian ruddickthe socialist worker
the telegraph of londonben leachalex sundby
al jazeera
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
60 minutescbs newspbsnow on pbsto the contrarybonnie erbe
washington week