Drone wars and TV

Hump day, hump day. First TV. Chuck apparently didn't do great in the ratings and two of you e-mailed with the numbers and asked what was going on?

I think this has been one of the better years. But I also think there have been too many repeats, too many weeks not on, etc.

That's just not helpful. I wanted to give The Event another chance because I'd heard so much good stuff about it. But it airs the same night as Chuck, both on NBC, and every time I'd try to watch, it wouldn't be on.

You can't maintain a following that way.

I think Chuck is suffering from the fact that NBC pulls it here or schedules repeats there and it can just be very hard to find the show.

I had one e-mail about Fringe. Do I think it will get the axe? I have no idea. What I do know is that Joshua Jackson (Peter) has been encouraging everyone to watch and that he appears to be concerned about the ratings. I would assume he'd have a reason for that.

I hope both come back next fall. I have no idea what will happen though.

Okay, this is from Debra Sweet's "True Concern for Humanity vs. Flying Robot Death Machines" at World Can't Wait:

The events we're sending this week are in New York state. But they could be happening where you are. Write and let's make plans for protests, film showings, and discussions where you are!

Stop the Drone Attacks Action & Walk for Peace Ithaca to Syracuse NY 4/17-4/22

Beginning April 17, activists are walking from Ithaca NY to Syracuse, which is home to Hancock Airfield and the 174th New York State Air National Guard. Hancock, formerly an F-16 fighter jet base, is now the national maintenance center for the Reaper drone. The MQ-9 reaper drones are used in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere, according to Voices for Creative Nonviolence.

Friday, April 22 · 3:00pm - 4:00pm vigil at the front gate of Hancock National Guard base 6001 East Malloy Road, Mattydale, NY Google Map

Nick Mottern writes in Drones Fly Through Congress to Enter US Skies that "Within weeks and possibly days, President Obama is likely to sign into law a bill that will bring unmanned aerial vehicles - drones - into US general airspace, crisscrossing the country in company with passenger planes and other human-carrying aircraft."

The Drone Wars are getting almost no attention. We should be ashamed. This is our president, our War Criminal doing this. I didn't vote for the jerk (I voted for Ralph Nader) but most Americans did (unlike with Bush) so we gave him the office and the power. And now we need to remind him who he works for. Because I don't think we hired anyone to do killing.

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

Wednesday, April 20, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the Arab League summit next month in Baghdad is . . . off, protests continue in Iraq, the president of Turkey brags about his behind the scenes influence in Iraq, a Canadian War Hawk denies reality (but it is reality), US political prisoner Bradley Manning is moved to another prison, and more. In Mosul, protests continue today. This is day 12 of the ongoing sit-in. The Great Iraqi Revolution notes that "Mosul university, faculty and students, have joined the Demonstrators in their vigil, in Al Ahrar square" and that "The Liwayziyeen, Mityout and Ubaid Tribes have joined the SITIN and Vigil in Mosul." Among the people participating in the sit-in, GIR notes, is a blind woman ""carrying the Holy Qura'an in her hands" who has been taking part since day one of the sit-in. GRI notes, "The Vigil in Mosul is the First Step towards Liberation." And it's noted of head counts (we used these counts in a snapshot earlier this week) "that as usual the number of demonstrators reported by the western press is incorrect once again -- it seems to me that the western press despite its alleged freedom of speech is very frightened of reporting the news as is because it has now wish to upset the American Administration." Protests have been going on in Sulaimaniyah as well and the response to that? AFP reports that yesterday officials "slapped a ban on unauthorised protests". Ekklesia explains, "Following 62 days of continuous protest in Suleimaniya, Iraq, against corruption and trible rule within the Kurdistan Regional Government, legal permission for the protest has been revoked. A source within the armed Peshmerga Forces has now said that they have been given orders to shoot to kill any demonstrators. The otherwise nonviolent demonstrations in Suleimaniya at Azadi (Freedom) Square ended in major violence on 17 and 18 April 2011. On both days, security forces formed a ring around Azadi Square. Claiming they were provoked by groups of young men throwing rocks, the forces entered the square which has been filled with an average of 1,000 unarmed and noviolent demonstrators, shooting tear gas and live bullets, beating people with batons and clearing the square of all demonstrators." Aswat al-Iraq adds,Kamal Nouri of the Iranian Sahar channel states, "We ["two-people crew"] were beaten by Peshmerga and security forces, which confiscated our equipments and cameras." Press TV notes, "In an indication of how the unrest in Sulaymaniyah is affecting the confidence of the ruling party there, the PUK, regional Prime Minister Dr Barham Salih, wrote a letter to PUK leader and President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, offering to tender his resignation. In the letter, leaked to the French press, Dr Salih complains of Mafia-like practices in his party being used against the press and protesters, and says that some of the leaders of the party are quote 'unable to go on'." Shwan Mohammed (AFP) quotes Barham Saleh, "I am ready to resign from the leadership of the party in order to renew it and the political bureau." Salih belongs to the PUK -- Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the same party as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. The two major political parties in the KRG are the PUK and the Kurdistan Democratic Pary of Iraq which is the party of KRG President Massoud Barzani. A third political party, Goran, sees itself as a challenger. It has US-backing. Alsumaria TV reports, "Goran Kurdish Change Movement said on Monday that the USA is responsible for the people's blood in Suleimaniah and Irbil in Kurdistan. Change Movement pointed that the region's authorities are dealing in a hysteric way with the protesters." The Archbishop of Kirkuk, Monsignor Louis Sako spoke with Asia News and declared: Arab nations will not be stable or democratic unless they grant all their citizens the same citizenship. Arab nations are a mixture of various ethnic groups, cultures, languages, languages and doctrines. They include Arabs, Kurds, Assyro-Chaldeans, Turkmen, Shebeks, Copts, Armenians, Shias, Sunnis, and Christians of various denominations, Yazidis, Druses and more. Their traditional mindset is patriarchal, tribal and sectarian. Education and teaching programmes are usually imposed from above and are viewed as infallible. Thus, they do not stimulate thinking and analyses or kindle the quest for new knowledge or possibilities. On the subject of Kirkuk, Harun Akyol (Today's Zaman) lays out the basics on the disputed territory of Kirkuk: My primary aim was to assess the impact of Kurdish, Turkmen and Arab political discourse on the politics of Kirkuk. My secondary aim was to make some social and political observation about the people of Kirkuk. Initial interviews with representatives from each of these main ethnic groups established some common points in the construction of their discourses. Each group has its own narrative relating to their presence in Kirkuk, the number of their ethnic group present and their roots in the city. Each group backs up their claims with historical, official and anecdotal evidence. For Kurds, Kirkuk is historically and geographically the center of Kurdistan; as a result, they are not prepared to negotiate under any circumstances. They believe that a political solution around Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution, which imposes normalization, census and referendum in Kirkuk, is how to decide its political fate. For the Turkmen and the Arabs, Kirkuk was not, is not and should not be part of Kurdistan; they view it as an ethnically mixed city. To these groups, Article 140 is dead and not applicable. Both groups are happy to acknowledge that the Kurds are victims of Saddam's iron fist policy. The difference is that these other groups claim that the Kurds used and abused this victimization by returning to Kirkuk many more Kurds than Saddam expelled from Kirkuk. One older Arab said, "Yesterday they were the victims [mazlum], but today they are the oppressors [zalim] of Kirkuk." Both groups fear that if the Kurds manage to annex Kirkuk into Kurdistan, they will then declare their independence. Monday's snapshot noted Rawya Rageh's Al Jazeera report from Kirkukk on the Arab population. Yesterday she filed from the region on the Turkmen (link is video): Rawya Rageh: In the yard of his Kirkuk home, Mohammed Raouf Saleh feels the space with folk tunes. They're called hoyrats [also spelled qoyrats] an ancient form of song and poetry unique to Iraqi Turkmen. It's difficult to tell exactly when it began but there's little doubt over where. Mohammed Raouf Saleh: Centuries ago, hoyrats originated in Kirkuk. People in Azerbaijan and Turkey speak our language but they don't sing our horat. Rawya Rageh: It's a steadily eroding art song, Saleh says, just like his community in the city that's claimed by several ethnic groups. Turkmen formed the third largest ethnicity in Iraq. There exact number is politically controversial though they believe that they make up up to 10% of the population. Here in the central Kikruk market, most of the merchants are Turkmen. Traditional crafts that were brought by their ancestors dating as far as the 9th century are no longer here. They've been replaced by modern goods instead. But, make no mistake, the sense of identiy here is clear. The older generations who lived through years of Saddam Hussein's assimilation policies still cling to their traditional dress. Many here will tell you their ancestoral heritage is an integral part of both Kirkuk's history and present day life. Unlike the Kurds, the Turkmen have not asked for an autonomous state in modern Iraq, nor did they take up arms over territory. But their involvement in running the country falls short of what they desire. Sadeddin Ergech (Iraqi Turkmen Front leader): As long as key positions are being divided between the two ethnicities -- Arabs and Kurds, we, the third main group, have a right too. It's a national entitlement. We should get a vice president post too. We feel there are always attempts to get round Turkmen national rights. Rawya Rageh: In the fight over Kirkuk, the Turkmen have sided with the Arabs in not wanting the city to be folded into semi-autounomous Kurdish Region. But in a recent political alliance, they were given a key post in the city's provincial government controlled for years by Kurdish parties. For this hoyrat master, though, the battle for a say in the new Iraq is pointless iIf not enough is done to stop their folklore, the corner stone of their identity, from slowly fading away. Rawya Rageh, Al Jazeera, Kirkuk. This week Abullah Gul, president of Turkey, has made some interesting remarks. Abdul Qader al-Wendawi (Zawya) reports Gul claims, "Turkey discussed Kirkuk issue with NATO and with the European Union and the rest of the international parties interested in Iraq's situation and assured them that Kirkuk is a miniature of Iraq and our demand that its three spectra (Turkmen, Kurds and Arabs) would live with equality and justice." Gul also bragged that "if not for the Turkish positions, Iraq would be divided, but the problem in this country is the Shiaa-Sunni fighting". This morning Nizar Latif (National Newspaper) weighed in on the proposed Baghdad summit for the Arab league, "The Iraqi government continues to insist the Arab League summit, scheduled for Baghdad next month, must go ahead. In reality however, few Iraqis expect their capital to host the meeting. Militant attacks, including recent car bombs in the heart of Baghdad, are a reminder of Iraq's persistent danger and the dogged insurgency that years of warfare and billions of dollars have failed to defeat." The summit was supposed to take place in March. It wasn't secure enough then. People pretend it is now. For how much longer or if the summit will be held next month in Baghdad is unknown. Press TV states Iraq may leave the Arab League. While that's in part, Iran's state media working off a grudge against its Arab neighbors, it's also true that Iran has a lot of pull in the puppet government out of Baghdad. AFP reports that the summit has been postponed -- again. It was supposed to be held March 29th but got delayed and then rescheduled to May 10th. The postponement was not a surprise to everyone. Aswat al-Iraq released their reader poll results this morning which found, "76.68% of the total 491 voters believed that the Arab Summit won't be held in Baghdad in its scheduled time, due to the current challenges facing the Arab Region." Alsumaria TV reports, "The Arab League has scheduled an urgent meeting for Arab Foreign Ministers on May 15 to set a new date for the Arab Summit and appoint a new Arab League Secretary General as a successor for Amro Moussa, [deputy secretary Ahmed] Ben Hill said." UPI explains, "The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council expressed outrage over Baghdad's criticism of the minority Sunni leadership in Bahrain, calling for the cancellation of an Arab League summit scheduled next month in Iraq. The tiny island kingdom is under scrutiny for its response to a Shiite uprising." Arab News adds that an unnamed Arab "League official said the summit will probably be held in September. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. [. . .] The Arab League summit was considered by many Iraqi officials as an opportunity to show off the strides the country has made since the height of the US-led war, and they have spent millions of dollars refurbishing buildings and hotels in anticipation of the meeting." Earlier this month, Al Mada reported that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hoshyar Zebari, has declared holding the Arab Summitt in Baghdad (May 10th through 11th) will cost the country $450 million in US dollars. Lost money and lost prestige at a time when Iraq's puppet government is attempting to ignore the violence and pretend they are a democratic oasis in otherwise dry region. Ahmed Eleiba (Ahram) reports, "Iraq's Permanent Ambassador to the Arab League Qais Al-Azzawi said that his country respects the decision to delay the Arab summit, scheduled to be held in May in Baghdad, due to the current uprisings in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria." On the realities of Iraq versus the illusion the US government and its puppet government in Baghdad would like to sell, Alsumaria TV reports: Renowned Iraqi poet Saadi Youssof said on Tuesday he doesn't feel he belongs to Iraq anymore and added that Iraq is currently a US colony ruled by an Islamic regime. Youssof cherished the British nationality he holds and said that there's nothing that links him to Iraq but the memories of his childhood. "I don't feel anymore that Iraq is my country. I used to remember Iraq a free and independent country and not a colony or an occupied territory, Youssof said during an interview with the Czech republic official Radio Station Cesky Rozhlas following an homage party in his honor after he won Spiros Vergos Prize for Freedom of Expression organized by Prague Writers Association. "Nowadays I feel that Iraq is a US colony", Youssof added. "Iraq where I used to live was a secular and liberal country, but today it is ruled by an Islamic regime, it became an Islamic republic", the writer declared. "I cannot stand this fact and I cannot imagine myself as a part of this country anymore," he added. Reuters notes a Baghdad bombing left three people injured, an attack on a Baghdad police patrol left one police officer injured, 1 high school student was shot dead in Mosul, a Mosul sticky bombing targeted an Independent High Electoral Commission employee, a Baghdad roadside bombing targeted a "deputy minister of construction and housing," two Baghdad bombings left 3 dead and another Baghdad bombing left two people injured. Fang Yang (Xinhua) adds, "In Salahudin province in the north of Baghdad, a booby-trapped car parked in central the provincial capital city of Tikrit detonated at about 7 a.m. (0400 GMT) near the convoy of Faisal al- Azzawi, chief judge in the Salahudin's Court of Appeal, a provincial police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity. Azzawi escaped the attack unharmed despite damages to his vehicle, but four of his bodyguards were wounded by the blast, the source said." Moving over to England, an editorial in today's Independent of London covers yesterday's revelations about the British government and the oil industry: Prior to the invasion, Mr Blair said that the idea that the invasion was, in any way, motivated by Iraq's oil was "absurd". He argued in a debate hosted by BBC's Newsnight in February 2003 that if oil was the West's goal, it could just as easily have cut a deal with Saddam. Yet this does not serve to refute the argument that oil was a motivation behind toppling the Iraqi dictator. It is perfectly possible that Western powers anticipated getting access to Iraq's oil on favourable terms after the removal of Saddam. This is not fanciful speculation. The US was conspicuously slow to hand over power to an Iraqi civilian government in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority was only disbanded after protests by the dominant Shia community. The US gave every impression that it wanted to continue pulling the strings in Iraq, including over the awarding of energy contracts. Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, for one, has reached the conclusion that the Iraq war was "largely about oil". As for Mr Blair, the former Prime Minister was certainly not shy about championing the interests of British oil companies around the world. When he met Muammar Gaddafi in the Libyan desert in 2007, Mr Blair saw fit to take the then chairman of BP, Peter Sutherland, along with him. A few days later, BP signed a $900m exploration deal with the Libya Investment Corporation. Realpolitik was entwined with access to fossil fuels in Libya. It is no great stretch to imagine that there were similar motivations over Iraq. These documents do not prove that the British government's invasion was primarily motivated by a commercial desire to profit from Iraq's oil. Indeed, it is probably too simplistic to present any single factor as the decisive motivation for this calamitous misadventure. But they do make it clear that, contrary to ministerial denials, oil was something that ministers were thinking about in those months prior to the invasion. And maybe somewhere there's the hope that, from across the Atlantic, the British can provide the leadership that the American government refuses to? If so, release that fantasy. If you're expecting to see leadership on the issue, vist the New Labour party organ: the Guardian. In fact, we can make it real simple, just click here and you go to all their Iraq coverage. They have none on the revelations. They are as silent as they were on the Downing Street Memos. Tony Blair was the man who turned Labour into New Labour (think DLC -- only worse -- in the US). The Guardian went along with him and now they continue to cheerlead him and to cover up for him. A newspaper, as opposed to a party organ, would have been reporting on the revelations. Turning to the US and Canada and the intellectual War Hawk Mating Zoo that is the Carr Center. Harvard should have shut it down -- and even loss of donations hasn't led to a shut down because the Carr Center gets War Dollars. Trashy Sarah Sewall and Samantha Power -- both of whom promoted the Iraq War despite efforts by the press to lie otherwise -- and their little War Hawk Mini-Institute should have been shut down a long time ago. Instead, they threw their lot in with Barack. Brian Lilley (Toronto Sun) reports: As a politician in Canada, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has said that he was on the sidelines of the Iraq war, but new information reveals he was on the front lines of pre-invasion planning when he worked in the U.S. Ignatieff -- long known to be a supporter of the decision to invade -- was part of an academic advisory team that helped U.S. state department and American military officials conduct strategy sessions. The academic-turned-politician was singled out in a Pentagon briefing the day before the invasion started. One of the top officials in Air Command cited Ignatieff's work in helping the military ready comprehensive plans to mitigate collateral damage while preparing for the invasion. "I personally have been working with The Carr Center for Human Rights," said U.S. Col. Gary Crowder on March 19, 2003. "Michael Ignatieff and Sarah Sewell (another Carr Center employee) and their program are a wonderful program." Crowder told reporters that he was working with Ignatieff on how to best conduct the war while minimizing civilian deaths. The Carr Center should have been shut down. In a functioning world, it would be and it's notables like Sewer and Power would be shunned. Toronto Life notes that the news "doesn't come off as too much of a surprise" considering Ignatieff's War Hawk support for the Iraq War. Bryn Weese (Toronto Sun) reports Ignatieff is denying the reports and claiming he did other work. Kind of like when Marianne (Elaine May) and Reva (Marlo Thomas) are speaking to Lureen (Melanie Griffith) in In The Spirit and Reva's embarrassed to pose as a form porn actress so she claims she didn't make porn per se, she made porn musicals. ("No, I wasn't in 20 Laps. I was in a musical.") In the United States, a court-martial began today at Fort Stewart in Georgia. Greg Bluestein (AP) reports Sgt Joseph Bozicevich is accused of murdering Sgt Darris Dawson and Sgt Wesley Durbin while the three were serving in Iraq. Michelle Tan (Army Times) offers: Sgt. Joseph C. Bozicevich was yelling as he lay facedown on the ground, restrained by at least two other soldiers at Patrol Base Jurf at Sahkr, Iraq. Nearby, the two soldiers Bozicevich is accused of shooting lay bleeing at medics and fellow students worked furiously to save them. Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson, a 24-year-old squad leader from Pensacola, Fla., and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin, who, like Bozicevich, was a team leader, later died from their wounds. Durbin, 26, was from Hurst, Texas. As Elaine noted last night, June 1st is the date scheduled for Bradley Manning's Article 32 hearing. The hearing will determine whether the military believes the charges against Bradley are worth pursuing. Bradley Manning? Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning has been at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key, for months. Earlier this month, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. David E. Coombs is Bradley's attorney and he provided a walk through on Article 104. Like many, Sophie Elmhirst (New Statesman) emphasized the possibility of the death penalty. Philip J. Crowley was fired from the State Dept over the weekend (actually, he was asked for his resignation which he tendered). Why? Because he disagreed publicly with the treatment of Bradley Manning. US House Rep Dennis Kucinich has stated he wants to review the conditions under which Bradley is being held. Last month, he spoke with Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio -- link has audio and a transcript). Excerpt: US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: That's right. I put in a request to the Secretary of Defense who referred me to the Secretary of the Army who referred me to the Secretary of the Navy who referred me to the Secretary of Defense and still not an answer on whether or not I can visit Private Manning. Scott Horton: Unbelievable. I could see them giving the runaround like that to a reporter or something but you're a Congressman. They can't treat you that way, can they? US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Actually they shouldn't treat reporters that way but -- they shouldn't treat anyone that way. They should be accountable. But unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Pentagon doesn't have any accountability. Last Friday, Nancy Goldstein presented an open letter to Barack Obama on Laura Flanders' GRITtv (link has video and text) which included: Laurence Tribe, the legendary constitutional law professor, is really ticked off with you. That should be some kind of wake up call. Because he was your constitutional law professor. One of the key backers of your 2008 presidential campaign. Even joined your justice department as a legal adviser in 2010 -- briefly. This week Tribe and over 250 American legal scholars have a letter in the New York Review of Books. It's about Bradley Manning, the soldier charged with leaking US government documents to WikiLeaks. It calls Manning's reported treatment a violation of the US constitution. In particular, the eighth amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment; and the fifth, which prevents punishment without trial. Manning's had no trial yet; he's been found guilty of nothing. Still, he's been in military prison for nearly 10 months now in maximum security -- 23 hour a day solitary confinement, with the 24th reserved for pacing a different cell -- again, alone. Under the ruse that Manning's suicidal, which he disputes, his jailors ask if he's okay every five minutes, all day long, and he has to respond. At night, too, if he pulls the blankets over his head, or turns his back to the cell door. Today Steve Cannane (Lateline, Australia's ABC) reports, "After intense criticism of the conditions of his 10-month-long stinkt in solitary confinement, the 23-year-old Army intelligence officer will be transferred from a marine base in Virginia to a new medium security facility in Kansas." Narayan Lakshman (The Hindu) points out, "The transfer will follow closely on intensifying criticism of the Pentagon for meting out harsh treatment to Mr. Manning, including allegations that he was kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, allowed no contact whatsoever with other inmates, and that he was stripped naked every night and forced to sleep in only a smock. [. . .] Further, a top United Nations official, Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez, said earlier this month that he was 'deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarications of the U.S. government,' after he was denied permission for unmonitored visits to Mr. Manning." Bradley's civilian attorney David E. Coombs notes: The defense recently received reliable reports of a private meeting held on 13 January 2011, involving high-level Quantico officials where it was ordered that PFC Manning would remain in maximum custody and under prevention of injury watch indefinitely. The order to keep PFC Manning under these unduly harsh conditions was issued by a senior Quantico official who stated he would not risk anything happening "on his watch." When challenged by a Brig psychiatrist present at the meeting that there was no mental health justification for the decision, the senior Quantico official issuing the order responded, "We will do whatever we want to do." Based upon these statements and others, the defense was in the process of filing a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court ruling that the Quantico Brig violated PFC Manning's constitutional right to due process. See United States ex. rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 74 S.Ct. 499 (1954) (violation of due process where result of board proceeding was predetermined); United States v. Anderson, 49 M.J. 575 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (illegal punishment where Marine Corps had an unwritten policy automatically placing certain detainees in MAX custody). The facts surrounding PFC Manning's pretrial confinement at Quantico make it clear that his detention was not "in compliance with legal and regulatory standards in all respects" as maintained at the Pentagon press briefing. While the defense hopes that the move to Fort Leavenworth will result in the improvement of PFC Manning's conditions of confinement, it nonetheless intends to pursue redress at the appropriate time for the flagrant violations of his constitutional rights by the Quantico confinement facility. And we'll close with this from Peter Cornett's "Devil's Advocate: Don't re-elect Obama" (Daily Titan): Barack Obama supports military interventionism: A recent study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the United States alone accounts for 43 percent of global military expenditures (more than $687 billion). The people screaming about the military-industrial complex seem to be right. Obama has failed to withdraw troops from Iraq (nearly 50,000 troops still remain, according to CNN), and U.S. troops are still dying in Afghanistan. The recent military assault on oil-rich Libya has convinced me that Obama doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize he was given for allegedly strengthening "international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Barack Obama continues to break his promises: During his initial campaign, Barack Obama presented himself as a reform candidate and a constitutional scholar. The reality, however, doesn't live up to the fantasy. Obama has broken a vast array of campaign promises, from public negotiation of his health care policy to the immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. We have not seen even minimal progress on the comprehensive immigration reform bill he guaranteed would surface in the first year of his presidency or on the cap and trade bill to limit carbon emissions. The campaign slogan of "Yes we can!" has become "No we didn't." Why would anyone believe his grandiose promises when this man begs for another four years? Actually, no, we have one more thing. Peace activist, Civil Rights activist, ground breaking attorney, feminist and grandmother Lynne Stewart is also a US political prisoner. She doesn't get the attention that she or her case require. At the end of last month, an appeal was filed to reduce Lynne's current sentence (which you may remember was increased as a result of her refusal to put on a sack cloth and denounce her beliefs and historical actions on behalf of liberty, equality and democracy): Click here to read brief (PDF) The Brief appealing the Draconian sentence of 120 months/10 years meted out to Lynne Stewart by Judge John Koeltl in July 2010,after he was reprimanded by the judges of her panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was served upon the Court and Government on 3/30/11. The same panel (Judges Walker, Calabrese and Simon) will hear this case in the fall of this year. Lynne had previously been convicted in 2005 along with two men of Egyptian origin, Ahmed Sattar,and Mohammed Yousry of material aid to terrorism based upon a public press release to Reuters from her client Dr. Abdel Rahman commenting on the long standing struggle in that country against the dictator/thief/torturer Hosni Mubarik. The points made in the brief, are I. In relying on Lynne Stewart's public statements to enhance the original sentence of 28 months, her First Amendment rights were abridged II. The fourfold increase in the sentence was substantively unreasonable and failed to balance her lifetime of contribution to the community and country with the criminal act of which she was convicted. III The Judge's findings of Perjury and Misuse of her position as an Attorney on which he also based the increase, were error. She asked for a reversal and remand. Her team of Lawyers are Jill Shellow, 111 BRoadway, NY NY, Robert Boyle, 250 Broadway, NY NY and Herald Price Fahringer, E. 56 Street, NY NY, of counsel. Many lawyers and other supporters also helped in the preparation of the document which can be read in its entirety on the website LynneStewart.org. Lynne, herself can be reached at Lynne Stewart, FMC Carswell, Box 27137, Fort Worth, Texas 76127. Ralph Poynter, her husband and spokesperson can be reached at 917 853 9759. It was under Barack Obama that Lynne suffered even more greatly. It's under Barack that Bradley Manning joins Lynne as a political prisoner. Things are not getting better. iraq xinhua fang yang alsumaria tv afp shwan mohammed the national newspaper nizar latif the daily times al jazeera rawya rageh antiwar.com antiwar radio scott horton the daily titan peter cornett the toronto sun brian lilley the independent of london

Bradley Manning, Chuck

Tuesday. Sorry about last night but (a) I lost my original post and (b) I quickly did a replacement post and then saw some of it ran together. Sorry. Didn't have time or the desire to do another. Jim Miklaszewski (NBC News) reports: Under increasing public pressure and facing accusations of prisoner abuse, the Pentagon said Tuesday that it will transfer the soldier suspected of leaking secret documents to the Army prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The change for Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, which could come as early as Wednesday, sources told NBC News, could include a dramatic shift in the conditions of his confinement. Manning was held in maximum security at the Marine Corps brig Quantico, Va., where he spent 23 hours a day and ate all his meals in an isolated cell, was permitted no contact with other prisoners, and was forced to wear chains and leg irons any time he was moved. He also was often forced to strip naked at night and stand nude in his cell for early morning inspection. NBC is also home to Chuck. Last night's episode was great. Sarah's father was a guest. Chuck and Sarah were visiting the wedding planner to ensure that everything went well for their wedding. They gave her the check and everything. Then there was a question and they attempted to call her only to learn she was a con artist who had left. They had no money for their wedding left so they lied to General Beckman and Chuck staged a flash in from of the general to convince her that the woman (they never told her it was their wedding planner) was a national security threat. General Beckman called in all the branches of the government. Sarah and Chuck tried to catch the planner first. It did not work out the way they wanted and they had to confess to the General who suspended them. Then Chuck is telling the general about all the people the planner had swindled and he has a real flash. A wedding she's doing will bring three Iranian terrorists together. The General doesn't believe them. Sarah's con artist father is in town. He ends up helping them plan a reception that looks like it was pricey and they attempt to steal a flash drive from the Iranians. In the course of it, Casey's fiancee who thought he died years ago finds out Casey is alive. They clear their names and Sarah and her father get closer, a bit. It was a good episode with a lot of humor in it. Casey and Sarah were the ones who really made the episode. I think sometimes that I praise the actor playing Casey too much but he really is that good. This episode, he had to do a heavy scene (with his fiance who carried his child and raised his child who just graduated from college and all these years later finds out he is alive) and immediately go into another scene that was action and light comedy and he really nailed it. And Morgan is so much better because of his scenes with Casey. Casey's the uncredited hero of this show. Sarah got to go undercover as a wedding planner and she was very funny with a funny accent. It was a nice show case for her comedic skills.

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

Tuesday, April 19, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's political slate makes noises about ousting the Speaker of Parliament, Moqtada gets another fan rave from the press, British documents show the government of Tony Blair meeting with the oil industry ahead of the Iraq War to ensure they got a "fair slice" (British official's words), and more. Last week Dan Amira (New York magazine) wanted to have a few laughs at Donald Trump's expense. No problem there but don't mistake your own thoughts for universal. Specifically, Amira wanted to ridicule Trump for believing that the US should sieze Iraq's oil and assume that his revulsion over Trumps's proposal (link has transcript and video) was shared by many. I'm not sure it is nor do I think Amria can demonstrate that more people agree with him than agree with Trump. (For the record, I believe that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people -- only to them. Not to foreign governments, not to US-installed puppet governments in Baghdad.) The video is of Trump being interviewed by the Wall St. Journal, excerpt: Trump: We have thousands of people that died, our great soldiers. They died. Men and women, lots of people. We have thousands of people all over this country that are wounded, horribly wounded, with legs and arms. And lots -- WSJ: I think that they thought they were -- Trump: Excuse me. WSJ: Sorry. Trump: And I would not want to be the one that would tell their parents that your son, your daughter, has died in vain, been wounded in vain. But I would not want to be the one who goes up to somebody that has a son or daughter that died in Iraq and tell them, "By the way, Iran has taken over Iraq, because we have so weakened that nation that they essentially don't have an army that can fight back as they have for hundreds of years." So I would absolutely keep the oil ... WSJ: I think that the soldiers fighting in Iraq were also fighting for freedom, not necessarily fighting for oil. Amira has all sorts of would-be pity remarks mixed in between excerpts. And he appears to have felt very proud of himself. But how accurate was he? "National security" is a catch all that, less and less in the US government's use of the phrase, means preventing an attack on the country. More and more, it's used to note the perservation of a way of life. I don't agree with that switch in definitions but that switch has been ongoing for sometime now -- including all the years ago when I was a college student -- and, unlike Amira, I've had conversations with people who live more than five blocks from my home and there are many in this country -- and a lot of them in the government -- who happen to feel that "national security" is "preserving the way of life." The Iraq War was sold and continues to be sold on numerous lies. In the US, those lies have included (but are not limited to) WMD, 'another Hitler,' democracy, freedom, etc. But no one in the White House since the illegal war began has been able to give a plausible reason for the ongoing war. This was what upset Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan, you may remember. George W. Bush was declaring that those US troops who died in Iraq died for a noble cause. Cindy camped out in Crawford hoping to ask him what noble cause? For what nobel cause did her son Casey Sheehan die in Iraq April 4, 2004? It would appear that oil was at least one of the main causes. Whether or not you consider that a noble cause (I don't) or national security (ibid) is up to you. The reaction of most Americans to the news has not been mass revolts. The reaction has been less than shock or even mild surprise. For example, one of the most respected (by the press) people in the US releases a book in the fall of 2007. The Los Angeles Times reported September 17, 2007 that the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World included: "The Iraq war is largely about oil." Graham Paterson (Times of London) offers the full quote running continuously, "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Did you see Congressional hearings called on the issue? No, you didn't. Greenspan told the truth, a few were bothered, so he offered a half-hearted 'clarification' -- as if the brief statement contained subtle complexities hidden to the average reader? -- and everyone moved right on. The Iraq War started in March 2003. Four months after that, July 2003, the government was finally forced to turn over to Judicial Watch the documents on Dick Cheney's highly secretive Energy Task Force. Click here for the Judicial Watch page and note these documents: Iraq Oil Map Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts - Part 1 Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts - Part 2 United Arab Emirates Oil Map United Arab Emirates: Major Oil and Natural Gas Development Projects Saudi Arabia Oil Map Saudi Arabia: Major Oil and Natural Gas Development Projects These are the topics the man given the title of Vice President of the United States (Dick Cheney) discussed with oil companies, before the Iraq War started. Judicial Watch made the documents public. Many media outlets looked the other way. (A number of news outlets supported the Iraq War because they did see oil as "national security." And you were "very naive" -- or I was told that I was -- if you couldn't 'see' the need for the war.) Project Censored provides context on the documents here. Some were bothered by the secrets revealed by the documents. Most took a pass. Trump's position isn't a 'new' one. He's modified it a bit recently. George Stephanopoulos blogged about the interview he did with Trump for ABC News this week and includes some excerpts: Trump: George, let me explain something to you. We go into Iraq. We have spent thus far, $1.5 trillion. We could have rebuilt half of the United States. $1.5 trillion. And we're going to then leave. So, in the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils. You go in. You win the war and you take it. … Stephanopoulos: It would take hundreds of thousands of troops to secure the oil fields. Trump: Excuse me. No, it wouldn't at all. … Stephanopoulos: So, we steal an oil field? Trump: Excuse me. You're not stealing. Excuse me. You're not stealing anything. You're taking-- we're reimbursing ourselves-- at least, at a minimum, and I say more. We're taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves. Is that 'shocking'? If it is, few were shocked before the start of the war when Knut Royce's article began appearing around the country (starting in Newsday -- link goes to Sun-Sentinel) in January 2003. Opening paragraph: "Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq." That wasn't the end of the talk or similar talk which went continued. In June 2006, Lee Russ tackled this topic for Watching the Watchers and included many quotes such Donald Rumsfeld, then-Secretay of Defense -- testifying to the Senate Appropriations Hearing March 27, 2003 that "funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a vareity of other things, including the Oil for Foood, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it." January 7, 2007, Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb covered the issue for the Independent of London noting: Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." [. . .] Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer. A number of people were bothered by such talk but it wasn't a majority judging by the response. So this oh-Donald-Trump-is-so-crazy-and-who-could-agree-with-him? Actually a lot more people might agree with Trump than may agree with either Dan Amira or me. I'd love for that to be reversed but if we're dealing in reality, there are no facts to back up the idea that Trump's going to be ridiculed throughout the land for his comments. (He will be ridiculed by a number of talking heads. They may get some cheap laughs but they'll fail to tackle the issue and likely only succeed in shoring up support for Trump.) The issue is back in the news today not due to Donald Trump but due to a new batch of government documents -- this time UK documents. Paul Bignell (Independent) reports, "The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." Bingell explains: Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change. The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms. Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis." Paola Totaro (Sydney Morning Herald) adds, "Another minute quotes Edward Chaplin, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, who noted that Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in Iraq for the sake of their long-term futures, adding that 'we were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq'." The Daily Mail notes, "The theory that Iraq's oil was of interest to the UK was even dismissed as 'absurd' by then prime minister Tony Blair as the British government prepared for the invasion while BP also insisted they had 'no strategic interest' in Iraq." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) picks up on that last point, "At the time of the invasion, officials insisted BP had 'n o strategic interest' in Iraq -- yet they were clearly tellling the Blair government the opposite." The Independent's Patrick Cockburn offers this conclusion, "It has never seemed likely that the US and Britain invaded Iraq primarily for its oil. Reasserting US self-confidence as a super-power after 9/11 was surely a greater motive. The UK went along with this in order to remain America's chief ally. Both President Bush and Tony Blair thought the war would be easy. But would they have gone to war if Iraq had been producing cabbages? Probably not." AFP (link has text and video) notes, "A new book by oil campaigner Greg Muttitt claims oil was one of the UK Government's main strategic considerations for going to war in Iraq and that there was collusion with oil companies." David Swanson (War Is A Crime) writes a parody of an apology-fest caused by the revelations: "Former Congressman David Obey, who screamed at Congressman Dennis Kucinich in a Democratic caucus meeting for suggesting that oil might be one factor in the war, is currently on a plane back to Washington to MC the mass apology." Puppet and thug of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki is gearing up for another power grab. Al Mada reports that Nouri's State Of Law is stating that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi needs to go and quotes State Of Law's Hussein al-Asadi stating that al-Nujaifi isn't "fair" and al-Asadi's whine continues that "some cases" find al-Nufaifi allowing topics to be aired and some do not. [Flayeh al-Jourani (Zawya) covers the charges -- in English -- here.] that They say they can replace him the way Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was replaced. For those who have forgotten, though supposedly on the same side, al-Mashhadani stood in Nouri's way (Nouri being a puppet, al-Mashhadani stood in the way of the US as well). The theft of Iraqi oil was one of the big stumbling blocks, as the US government saw it, and reason enough to give al-Mashhadani the heave-ho. So a campaign of lies was started. This went on for months and months. At its worst, the MSM was enlisting and whoring (as were elements of the 'left'). They were running LIES about al-Mashhadani. These lies included that he was "despondent" and hiding out in his father's home. At the time, Parliament was in recess and al-Mashhadani was traveling the region, al-Mashhadani was in Jordan meeting with government officials. It was disgusting. It was beyond whoring. You never expect people to be so willing to be caught lying in public. But they were. When the news that he was in Jordan went up here, the response was for the MSM to attack. From the August 17, 2006 snapshot: Moving to an item a friend's wanted noted for the last two days: Where is Mahmoud al-Mashhadani? On Tuesday, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was 'the' news in many Iraq reports. Was he on his way out? One report noted that al-Mashhadani didn't return a phone call -- why was that? Marie Cocco (Truthdig) offers today that he's "openly toying with relinquishing his post". From where? From where is he openly toying with the idea? Juan Cole (Salon) offers that "when the Iraqi parliament reconvenes next month, the first item on the agenda will be firing Mashhadani." Cole feels that al-Mashhadani "has put his foot in his mouth too many times." al-Masshadani may very well be on the way out next month but right now he is in Jordan working on a trade agreement. It's an interesting part of the story left out of the mainstream media's he's-so-out-of-here narrative. Whether or not he remains speaker after the parliament reconvenes may be influenced by what's going on in Jordan. As mentioned above, a friend had asked that we note where al-Masshadani was. And we did and, goodness, didn't the whiners e-mail. From that night's "And the war drags on:" First, picking up from the snapshot today where it was noted that Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was in Jordan, five (count 'em five) reporters wrote in and Ava and Jess say they were their usual 'charming selves' as they argued that (basically) "you can't just make something up!" Oh, can't you? Seems the mainstream does that quite often. Their problem is that there is no "proof." The Jordan item was passed on verbally over the phone by a friend who is a foreign correspondent (mainstream media). I take the friend's word, I've known him for many years. He's wanted that noted for two days now and pestered me to do so. (Which is sometimes the only way something gets included, there's a lot to cover and I don't have a lot of time.) Though I'm not surprised that the five e-mailers weren't quick to take my word, I am surprised (maybe I shouldn't be?) that the five can't do their own research instead of screaming "liar! liar!" From Petra: Jordanian and Iraqi parliamentarians held talks on Tuesday in Amman on bilateral ties and means of strengthening them, especially in the economic and parliamentary fields. Talks, which were co-chaired by Speaker of the Lower House of the Parliament Abdel Hadi Al Majali and his Iraqi counterpart Mahmoud Al Mashhadani, also covered regional developments, especially in Iraq. [. . .] For his part, Mashhadani stressed the Iraqi keenness on enhancing relations with Jordan in all fields, noting to Jordan's supportive stances towards Iraq. '' Jordan, under the leadership of His Majesty King Abdullah II, exerts great efforts to restore security and stability to Iraq,'' said Mashhadani, calling on Jordan to play a greater role and build ties with all segment of Iraqi people. He also underlined the importance of promoting parliamentary ties between the two sides, calling for benefiting from the Jordanian parliamentary expertise in this regard. Mashhadani highlighted the necessity of establishing the Jordanian- Iraqi parliamentary brotherhood committee, which is expected to have a vital role in developing bilateral ties. From KUNA: Speaking during talks with Iraqi Speaker of Parliament Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani, Al-Zoo'bi said "Iraq is considered Jordan's number one trading partner since both countries have strong commercial and economic links." He added the free trade agreement with Iraq was waiting for Iraq's endorsement to become official. Nouri got his way (and the US' way) back then. Will he this time? Dar Addustour notes that among the complaints is that al-Nujaifi, last Thursday, did not go in alphabetical order when putting vice presidential nominees forwardfor a vote (none were voted in) but, as Dar Addustour notes, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Speaker to go in alphabetical order. If you're confused by the sudden need of Nouri's supporters to attack al-Nujaifi, let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot: Alsumaria TV reports that Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament, declared in a press converence today that if the government cannot resolve the current problems (corruption, imprisonment and other issues which started the protests this year) within the 100 day period . . .. "if the Cabinet fails to provide people with their rights and to deal with the services, unemployed, security and foreign relations files. . . therefore this partnership shall not last for a long time and there will be demands to hold new elections." The 100 days is supposed to end June 7th. But then again, Iraq held national elections March 7, 2010 which was supposed to create a new government; however, all these months after the election, they still have no vice presidents and no full Cabinet. Hopefully al-Nuijafi won't be as naive as Mahmoud al-Mashhadani who, as late as 2009, continued to insist that Nouri was his "ally" and not involved in his ouster. Can the current Speaker be ousted? Yes. If Nouri's State of Law can get enough votes, they can oust the Speaker. How many votes? 163. That number may be familar. It should be. The Constitution demands an absolute majority to vote out the Speaker and the Parliament was expanded (in the 2010 election) to 325 seats. 163 is the absolute majority of 325, it is also the magic number that a would-be prime minister had to reach following the March 7, 2010 elections. You remember how long it took for that to be reached? How much horse trading? Nouri may very well already have the 163 votes needed. Or he might just think he does. He thought he had it in October of 2010, right before he visited Syria. That trip was planned to show how 'statesmanly' he was. But they had to kill the the circus (but not the trip) because he was four votes short of 163 at the start of October (and would remain short of the necessary votes throughout all of October). So this could just be a trial balloon being floated and it could be a trial balloon that's supposed to distract from an appeal to the courts that Nouri's filing or has already filed (he's fond of that step as well). Assuming Nouri can gather the 163 votes, is it a smart thing to do? As noted in the January 12, 2009 snapshot: Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years. He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.) The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House. The following day. December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament. The week prior he had stated he was resigning. He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him. It is now January 12th and they have still not appointed a new Speaker. April 19, 2009, Parliament would finally have a Speaker again. When al-Mashhadani was ousted, it was months and months before a replacement was agreed upon and that should bother a number of Iraq watchers. Nouri still lacks a full Cabinet all this time later -- specifically, he has no security ministers. And now he and State of Law are attempting to kick out the Speaker of Parliament? Whether that would happen again -- a long delay -- is guess work at this point. But it happened before and the long political stalemate following the March 7, 2010 elections would appear to indictate it is a possibility. However, in fairness to Nouri, he may have wanted a long delay. al-Mashhadani was ousted -- State Dept term, not mine, see [PDF format warning] "Iraq Status Report:" "The COR has yet to reach a consensus on appointing a new Speaker since Mahmoud Mashadani was ousted on December 23, 2008." -- at an important time for Nouri. As Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported April 19, 2009, there had been talk of Parliament ousting Nouri. (And Nouri had pbulicly labeled such an effort a "coup" that Ahmed Chalabi had noted such a move would be Constitutional and not a coup.) No Speaker delayed that vote and bought Nouri time -- not just because the Parliament had to fill a position but would they really oust their sitting prime minister at a time when they had no Speaker of Parliament? That may be what's going on here today. Nouri, fearing he will get a no confidence vote from Parliament, may be falling back to old tricks in an effort to ensure such a vote doesn't take place. Moving over to news of Moqtada. Tim Aragno posts it at the New York Times' blog. The second paragraph includes: "[. . .] recent demonstratons demanding an end to the United States troop presence here by loyalists to Mr. Sadr" -- demonstrations? Plural? There have been many demonstrations against the occupation in the last three months and, hate to break it to anyone but Moqtada al-Sadr's name doesn't mean s**t in the Sunni-stronghold of Anbar Province. Falluja and other areas in Anbar have repeatedly seen protests against the occupation in the last months. Moqatada's weekend protest wasn't even the most recent protest against the occupation. That would be a protest that took place Monday. From yesterday's snapshot: UPI reports approximately 700 Iraqis protested today in Mosul calling for the departure of US troops with Sunni tribal leaders among those participating. Mujbil al-Assafy informs Aswat al-Iraq, "A delegation, comprised of 76 tribal chieftains and leading personalities and religious men, has headed today (Monday) from Falluja to Mosul, to share in the peaceful sit-in demonstration in Mosul." However, they note that at least 40 people from Falluja were not allowed -- by security forces -- to enter Mosul and take part in the demonstrations. Aswat al-Iraq explains that protesters today joined protesters who had been present for the last ten days staging a sit-in. Mosul, Iraq's second largest city (population wise), isn't a Shi'ite city. It's majority Sunni Arab (with Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians and others in the minority). Tim Arango may be unaware of the 2006 and 2007 ethnic cleansing in Iraq but Moqtada al-Sadr's death squads were among those targeting Sunnis and the Sunnis have not forgotten that. (Nor have many Shi'ites who did not approve of the thuggery and crime.) The Mosul protest against the occupation on Monday had nothing to do with Moqtada al-Sadr. Tim Arango declares that Moqtada is the Iraqi politician "with probably the most grass-roots support among the Iraqi people." Probably? You throw that weasel word in when you can't back up what you're saying. Is this a dispatch from a New York Times hard news reporter or did Moqtada just make the cover of People magazine cause it reads like a People magazine profile. (And, no, that's not a good thing.) If Moqtada were so damn popular, that would translate into votes for his political bloc. But Iraqis in the 2010 election (as well as the 2009 provincial elections) rejected the fundamentalists and Moqtada's bloc didn't win the horse race. Arango doesn't take the thoughts of an American official seriously and that's got to be a New York Times first. And while we'll applaud him for that, he actually might have needed to pay attention because what's being stated is the US government consensus on Moqtada, yes. It is also the consensus of the British government and of two Arab governments. Doesn't make it true but Moqtada is seen, by government analysts, to be at his weakest right now. (If need be, we can return to that topic later in the week and go over some of the indicators.) From Arango's post: The Americans, meanwhile, privately play down Mr. Sadr's influence. Referring to Mr. Sadr's residence in Iran, where he is continuing religious studies in Qum, a senior Untied States military official told reporters recently: "It's really incredible. He will come back in the country and he's kinda stuck on the same agenda that he had four years ago and the people have moved beyond that." The official spoke on condition of anonymity under ground rules on briefing the news media. The official also said Mr. Sadr's ability to mobilize popular support was overstated, and argued that the turnout for the recent demonstration was much lower than Mr. Sadr had called for. "I think his goal was to have one million to two million people participate in this latest million man march," the official said. "We counted about 29,000. And that's after he bused up people from Basra and other areas of the south. There's over one million people in Sadr City alone. But you didn't see that kind of participation that he thought he was going to get to come out and be anti-American." The official noted that Mr. Sadr's militia had fought hard against the Americans and the Iraqi Army in 2008 in Sadr City and Basra, but that it would be a different fight this time, should the Mahdi Army be reconstituted. The assault wasn't smart for a number of reasons including that Moqtada's hold was fading and the assault on the Sadr City section of Baghdad and on Basra allowed Moqtada to command press attention yet again. But the assault revealed a number of things. In Sadr City, Moqtada had to order the white flag waived and few bothered to note that (or to note that Nouri had sent the Iraqi military into that area -- most just noted what was going on in Basra). In Basra, you had numerous defections -- from both sides -- but Moqtada's 'supporters' were the ones who defected in larger numbers and there was grumbling -- the US government documented this in real time -- from the defectors about how they were risking their lives for a leader who wasn't even present in the country. (I noted in real time here that the assault was a mistake if it was to weaken Nouri. Friends at the State Dept then countered that wasn't the case and pointed to these statements from defectors -- and I'm using the term "defector" -- the State Dept used the term "deserter." I still say that it was a mistake because Moqtada's hold was weakening due to his own actions.) Another takeaway from the assaults, as Gen David Petreaus testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 2008, Nouri pushed that operation. It was supposed to be a joint US-Iraqi operation. And the US certainly provided fire power, no question. But Nouri jumped the date, Nouri demanded more fighters than originally planned, go down the list. Nouri was eager to go up against Moqtada by that point. And Nouri won the physical battle. Moqtada had to back down. You really think Nouri's afraid to tackle Moqtada again? The Iraqi military has even more weapons now, even more training than they did in 2008. Tim Arango doubts an official US government source and we will give him credit for that. I think he's wrong but I may be the one wrong (wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't be the last time). But good for him for refusing to be spoonfed by the US government. (And I mean that 100% sincerely. It probably more than makes up for the Moqtada as celebrity sections of his blog post.) Reuters notes today's violence includes a Ramadi roadside bombing which left six people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left three people injured, 2 corpses discovered in Mosul, 1 pesh merga shot dead in Mosul, 1 Iraqi police officer shot dead in Baghdad, 1 "general director of the Education Ministry" was killed by a Baghdad sticky bomb which left two other people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing targeted guads of the Ministry of Finance and injured six people, a Mussayab roadside bombing apparently targeted an MP from Moqtada al-Sadr's group and, dropping back to last night, a Kirkuk home invasion resulted in three women being killed. Back to Parliament, Dar Addustour notes that al-Najaifi called out the possible cancellation of the Aab Summit which is supposed to be held in May. This was supposed to take place in March but was cancelled due to security reasons. Over the weekend, Ayad Allawi (of the Iraqiya slate, as is Najaifi) called out what he said was a push to cancel the summit. Gulf Daily News notes that Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari is stating that a delay could take place. Zebari's remarks are seen by some as part of a rollout to announce the summit will not take place as scheduled. The Iraq War isn't over and Gulf News notes it is "far from over" in an analysis by Mohammad Akef Jamal which includes: The US troops' withdrawal, according to the agreement, is supposed to be completed by December 31, 2011. However, reports point to Washington wanting 47,000 troops to remain in 10 major military camps spread around Iraq. The US is not expected to face any difficulties in achieving its wish, as the final date of troop withdrawal according to the Sofa agreement was and still is a topic of disagreement, given the chaotic nature of Iraqi politics. Away from ostentatious statements intended for public consumption, there are still those in the US and Iraq who see that extending troop presence is now inevitable, and may be in the interest of both parties. The US has its own considerations. It did not come to the region to leave after a while, especially under the current circumstances of the Middle East. Furthermore, the dramatic recent events may just be a precursor to other occurrences, which the US does not want to be watching from afar. Lastly, Ellen Willis passed away in the fall of 2006. Her survivors included her husband Stanley Aronowitz and their daughter Nona Willis-Aronowitz. Nona is an author and writer herself and she's also compiled a number of her mother's writings online and is the editor of the forthcoming Out of the Vinyl Deeps: Ellen Willis on Rock Music which collects her mothers writing on rock music from The New Yorker, The Village Voice. The book comes out in May and, April 30th, there will be a conference at NYU entitled "Sex, Hope & Rock 'n Roll: The Music Writing of Ellen Willis" which will feature a large number of participants including Bikini Kill and Le Tigre's Kathleen Hanna, music journalist Richard Goldstein, Maxim's Joe Levy (formerly of Rolling Stone), the Los Angeles Times' Ann Powers, Rolling Stone's Rob Sheffield, Georgia and Robert Christgau, Elle's Karen Durbin, Donna Gaines, the New Yorker's Alex Ross, Billboard's Evie Nagy, NYU's Susie Linfield and music journalist Joan Morgan. iraq cindy sheehan george stephanopoulos the times of london the los angeles times the daily mail the independent of london paul bignell reuters patrick cockburn al mada dar addustour new sabah gulf daily news david swanson the new york times tim arango alsumaria tv jason ditz antiwar.com zawya