Wednesday! I have been so hungry today and had no time to eat. I got home and threw some popcorn in the microwave. (Everyone's out tonight. Some church thing.) I'm just scarfing it down. I am a real grouch when I get hungry. (I know that because everyone always tells me that! :D) But I had a paper due and I wanted to redo the conclusion before class and I also had a test and it was just rush, rush, run, run all day. I was going to get a Snicker and even put my money in the machine but nothing. The machine eat my money. And what's with that refund nonsense? I think you should be able to get a refund on site, not "Call this number blah blah blah." That's the short version, if you were on campus with me today you would have heard ROAR ROAR ROAR! :D
As soon as I get done blogging, I'm going to the kitchen and making some sandwiches. Like six or seven! :D
By the way, I hate listening online, streams drop out and all that crap. But C.I.'s got a link to a Jane Fonda interview in the snapshot and I'm trying to download that. It's like 13.5 MB and it is downloading s-o-o-o slow!!!!! Roar!
It's also slowing everything else down. C.I. was really nice and sent me a drive. It's to burn stuff. My computer, be prepared to be shocked, doesn't have a drive to save things on -- not a diskette drive and not a disc drive. I've got a CD drive and a DVD drive but they don't burn. So C.I. got me a drive (I didn't ask, honest) thinking that if I'd put some of my papers and notes for school on disc, my computer would move quicker and also because if I ever crash, I could lose everything. That arrived Monday in the mail but I haven't had time to install it yet because I've been studying for the test (the one I took today) and also finishing up my paper (that I turned in today). I have some MP3s that I'll also take off my hard drive after I burn them onto a disc. 13.8 MB and still the interview is downloading!
So the Show Boat Express announced today he wants to be president. Is anyone surprised? He spent all of 2004 kissing Bully Boy's ass and that was all about this run. I think he's too angry, not too old, but too angry to be president. John McCain's always exploding and snarling. He's like Dick Cheney's twin brother.
One thing that I'm wondering about lately is what is the Scooter jury doing? Today was day six of their deliberations. A quick verdict is supposed to be good for the defense so hopefully this means Scooter will do some time.
Don't tell Elaine, but I just found out I must be gay. In fact, you may be too. At least according to Michael Savage. This is from Media Matters' "Savage on Media Matters: 'a gay website that attacks me every day' :"
On the February 27 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage responded to a Media Matters for America item that quoted him saying: "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I think it's child abuse." In his response, Savage said, "I don't know why they're attacking me for what I believe in," and added, "I stick by every word I wrote." Savage, although reading directly from the Media Matters item, did not refer to Media Matters by name, calling it instead "a gay website that attacks me every day." On his January 30 show, Savage vowed, "I'm not even going to read [Media Matters'] name anymore."
As Media Matters has documented, Savage has repeatedly claimed that Media Matters has an "obsession" with him and has referred to Media Matters as "a group of swine."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show. The Creative Artists Agency, one of the world's leading talent and literary agencies, recently announced that it had signed Savage for "representation in all areas," including television and film.
I didn't realize that it was a "gay" website. :D Thank goodness we have a smart fellow like that Michael Savage to help us on that one!
Okay, now to get serious. Impeach the Bully Boy, Impeach Cheney! Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! This is from Elizabeth de la Vega's "Public Misconduct: A Call to Investigate All of the President's Men:"
Last week, apparently belatedly realizing the obvious -- that the attack on former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame was a White House family affair -- New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called for the administration to come clean. Bush and Cheney owe "the American people a candid explanation" of their conduct with regard to the leaking of Plame's identity as a CIA agent, Kristof insisted.
If, after observing this administration for over six years, Nicholas Kristof thinks that the President and Vice President are going to suddenly be overcome by conscience and tell all because he has put his foot down, then Nicholas Kristof is downright adorable.
The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was merely a snapshot view of this administration in daily action; but incomplete as it was, it nevertheless starkly revealed what many had known all along: that the most powerful officials in the United States government -- including, but not limited to, the Vice President, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, the Deputy Secretary of State, the President's Press Secretary, the President's Chief of Staff, and, yes, the President himself -- had responded to the barrage of criticism being aimed at their fictitious case for war in the spring and summer of 2003 by focusing their sights on a man and woman who had devoted their lives to public service.
Such people -- those who will use the highest offices of the United States government to protect themselves and their prospects for reelection by whatever means they deem necessary, regardless of the damage they leave in their wake -- are not going to confess to anything…ever.
Indeed, in answer to questions from a reporter about this very issue on February 14, President Bush explained helpfully, "I'm not going to talk about any of it." We will surely all expire if we hold our collective breath waiting for the President to change his mind about this (or anything else, for that matter). Fortunately, we do not need to hear what Bush and Cheney have to say about "it" right now.
Nor do we have to wait for the outcome of any further investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, even though it is entirely possible he and his eminently capable prosecutors Peter Zeidenberg, Debra Bonamici, and the rest of their team will continue to explore possible criminal activity on the part of Vice President Cheney and others. A continued investigation would, in fact, be both appropriate and warranted, given the abundant evidence of Cheney's wrongdoing.
We wrote about Elizabeth de la Vega's appearance on Laura Flanders in "If he exceeds his reach, you must impeach" (The Third Estate Sunday Review). I really enjoyed her book. We've been waiting and waiting to note the impeachment books (mainly because I'm a slow reader!) and finally did in this. It wasn't a roundtable but we've got so much still to note, this long list, and C.I. was saying, "We're going to have to scrap this list." I understand that. I hope we don't. But I was way behind during the last semester because it was so rough. But my picks for the impeachment books to read are (in this order): Center for Constitutional Rights' Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, Elizabeth de la Vega's United States v. George W. Bush et al., and Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky's The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office. No offense to the other books, but those are the ones that really spoke to me.
One more highlight, from the National Lawyers Guild's president Marjorie Cohn's "Why the Boumediene Case Was Wrongly Decided:"
Last week, in Boumediene v. Bush, two judges on a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that strips the rights of all Guantanamo detainees to have their habeas corpus petitions heard by U.S. federal courts. If that decision is left to stand, the men and boys detained at Guantanamo can be held there for the rest of their lives without ever having a federal judge determine the legality of their detention. In my opinion, this appellate decision will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court next term.
A little background:
In November 2001, President Bush established Military Commissions to try non-citizens accused of war crimes.
In June 2004, the Supreme Court decided Rasul v. Bush, which upheld the right of those detained at Guantánamo to have their petitions for habeas corpus heard by U.S. courts, under the federal habeas statute.
The ink was barely dry on Rasul when Bush created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, ostensibly to comply with the Rasul ruling. But, as I will explain, setting up these tribunals was really an end-run around Rasul. They were established to determine whether a detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant. They are not criminal courts, like the military commissions.
On December 31, 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which included the famous McCain "anti-torture" amendment. But it also stripped habeas corpus rights from Guantánamo detainees who had not already filed habeas petitions before December 31, 2005. Some 200 detainees had pending petitions.
At the end of last term, the Supreme Court struck down Bush's military commissions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld because they did not comply with due process guarantees in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
Then, in October of last year, in another end run, this time around Hamdan, Bush rammed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 through a Congress terrified of appearing soft on terror in the upcoming midterm elections. The Act does many things, but it notably strips statutory habeas corpus rights from all Guantánamo detainees, even those whose petitions were pending on December 31, 2005.
The two-judge majority in Boumediene upheld the Military Commissions Act's stripping of statutory habeas jurisdiction that the Supreme Court had recognized in Rasul. (Congress had passed the original habeas statute, and amended it in the Military Commissions Act). The Boumediene decision found the Act's elimination of habeas to be constitutional.
Art. I of the Constitution contains the Suspension Clause, which says that Congress can suspend the right of habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it. As the dissenter in Boumediene pointed out, Congress has only suspended habeas corpus four times before, and made findings of rebellion or invasion in each case. We are not now in a state of invasion or rebellion, and Congress did not make such a finding.
That's another reason to impeach Bully Boy and Cheney, Guantanamo. They've disgraced the nation and broken the law over and over again. Yesterday, Kat's "Walter Cronkite, Tariq Ali" wondered what people knew if they were too young to remember Walter Cronkite or if he was off as anchor before they were born. That's me! :D I couldn't tell you what he looked like, or sounded like. But I do have this sense of him being trusted and supposed to be a real anchor and not just a prompter reader. So that's really all I know. I'm going to post this, make some sandwiches, and listen to the Jane Fonda interview. It's 14.6 MB. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, February 28, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; wounded US service members get targeted by the US administartion; Dems in Congress play "hot potato" with the war (and don't seem to grasp that they'll end up holding it); and US war resister Joshua Key declares, "Iraq is a country and it's going to have to make its own path in history and its own way in life. No other country can do that and you definitely can't do that by means of a gun or a tank. But they have to make their own course and do whatever's necessary for themselves. I think that no outsiders are going to help it or solve the problem."
Starting with news of petty retaliation which, after all, is the Bully Boy's M.O. as demonstrated for the last seven years (if not sooner.) As noted by Aaron Glants today on KPFA's The Morning Show, Kelly Kennedy (Army Times) is reporting that Walter Reed Army Medical Center's Medical Hold Unit patients are being "told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media" in what is widely seen as a punishment for the recent Washington Post expose on the deplorable conditions at what is supposed to be the United States top facility for military medical care. In addition, Kennedy reports, the soldiers receiving medical care were informed that will move from Building 18 into Building 14 and, just happenstance -- surely, unlike Building 18, Building 14 requires that "reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel."
In a series of articles that concluded last week, Dana Priest and Anne Hull (Washington Post) examined the realities behind the image of the 'premier medical center' -- focusing largely on Building 18, and revealed problems such as cockroach infestation, lack of heat, lack of water, mice and black mold, clerks that were overworked or didn't care. The answer for the US administration when confronted with reality is apparently the same answer they always reach for "DESTROY." Joe Wilson goes public about Niger, out Valerie Plame (his deep cover CIA wife). Soldiers talk to the press about the deplorable conditions that the administration is fine with them living in? Punish the soldiers.
The Bully Boy who loves strut around in uniforms (with or without codpieces) is far less willing to do anything to actually help the soldiers wounded in his illegal war and the administration's answer to the Walter Reed scandal is to punish the troops with daily inspections and other idiotic chores WHILE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE RECEIVING MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR WOUNDS.
Turning to news of war resisters, Tina Chau (Hawaii's KMGB9) reports that Ehren Watada's court-martil has been set for July 16-20 and that the "pre-trial motions are to be heard on May 20 and 21." In June, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. In August of last year, the military held an Article 32 hearing at Fort Lewis to determine whether or not to go forward with a court-martial. At the start of this month, the court-martial of Watada began and ran for three days -- on the third day, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) ruled a mistrial over the objections of the defense (and initially without even the prosecution in support of a mistrial). Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, has maintained that the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution now applies and that he will appeal any attempts to court-martial on that basis.
Lehia Apana (The Maui News) reports that Ehren Watada's father Bob and his step-mother Rosa Sakanishi were at the Maui Community College Library on Monday where Bob spoke to "an energetic crowd" of at least 75 people about his son and how "he believes the judge realized his son had a chance of being acquitted of the charges and therefore forced the prosecution to request a mistrial."
Last Friday the military re-filed charges against Watada, the day prior, as Conor Reed and Steve Leigh (Socialist Worker) observe was Mark Wilkerson's court-martial and that he issued a statement, "My Conscience is Clear," at his website:
I am now a twenty three year old man. When I made the decision to join the Army, I was a boy. When I made the decision to go AWOL I was still in many ways a boy.I realize in retrospect that going AWOL may not have been the right decision for me to make, but given the circumstances I found myself in at that time, I felt it was the only logical decision for me. I felt as though I wasn't being taken seriously by my chain-of-command. I was crushed when my conscientious objector application was denied. I had failed somehow in conveying in words just what I felt in my head and heart, and that was that I could not, in good conscience, serve as a soldier in the United States Army. I could not deploy to a foreign land with a weapon in my hand, representing my government. I am not willing to kill, or be killed for my government. When I enlisted in the Army, I thought I would be able to, but after Iraq, my beliefs became such that I could no longer participate.This was what I told my chain-of-command. I felt they didn't care what I said or believed. So I fled. I quit my job. No other occupation in the United States punishes you as badly as what the military does for quitting your job. But that's ok. I'm willing to face whatever punishment the government deems appropriate.In my Battalion's Retention Office, there is a quote by Retired Army General Bernard Rogers, and it states "This is a volunteer force. Soldiers volunteer to meet our standards. If they don't meet them, we should thank them for trying and send them home." Well, I enlisted into the Army with the best intentions. I had other options. But I wanted to serve my country. And when I felt my country was doing the very thing we pretend to condone, I took a stand. And to me that is the core of democracy. If the Army feels as though I didn't meet the standards, they should thank me for trying and send me home. There's no lesson prison can teach me. Prison is established for criminals who committed crimes that the majority of our society can say in morally wrong. And with this crime, I don't know if that can be said. Even though I committed a crime, I'm no criminal. And even if I do go to prison, I'm no longer a prisoner. My conscience is clear. I'm no menace to society. I have stayed true to myself and my moral code throughout my life, and that will never change. Just let me live my life, and I know I will live it well.
Susan Van Haitsma (CounterPunch) shares some of her encounters with Wilkerson and observations before concluding: "Mark wanted to help his country, but his country betrayed him. His country capitalized on his honorable intentions, gave him false promises, fed him misinformation, used him to carry out inhumane missions, caused him psychological injury and then punished him by making him an object lesson for his fellow GI's. In fact, Mark is an example of the best kind, for all of us. In the same courtroom where soldiers were sentenced for harming Abu Ghraib prisoners, Mark was sentenced for refusing to harm."
Wilkerson is scheduled to be released in September; however, the judge could release him earlier. Going before a judge Tuesday, March 6th in Germany is war resister Agustin Aguayo. Workers World notes that he is "charged with desertion and missing movement because of his refusal to go to Iraq." Though not etched in stone, the military has generally attempted to use desertion charges for those who were absent without leave for a month or more. In Aguayo's case, they've elected to toss that (Aguayo was gone from September 2nd through September 26th). Gillian Russom (Socialist Worker) spoke with Helga Aguayo, Agustin's wife, about his case, his feelings about the war, her own and much more. Agustin was a medica and he joined the military to support his family and to help people (he and his wife have two young daughters). Helga explained to Russom that, for her, it was seeing the experiences of military families that made her start questioning the war -- the creation of "geographical single mothers" -- and that for her husband, a book on Iraq's history took him from conscientious objector to the belief "that the war in Iraq has essentially been created of the personal gain of a few people." Helga also notes that her husband saw Sir! No Sir! and "it just revved him up for what he knew he might have to face." He's facing? Agustin Aguayo could be sentenced to as many as seven years in prison if convicted during his court-martial because the military is going for desertion. Why go for desertion?
Aguayo and Kyle Snyder both were screwed over by the military in different ways and they were among the last ones going public. (Snyder is back in Canada.) Tossing aside the rule of thumb re: desertion to charge Aguayo with that is considered as part of an effort by the military to clamp down on the growing movement.
Aguayo, Watada, Wilkerson and Snyder are part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Joshua Key, war resister and author of the new book The Deserter's Tale, speaks with Christina Leadlay (Canada's Embassy Book Review) and notes that the passport requirement for travel back and forth between the US and Canada "would deter a lot of people [who] don't have passports, and if you're on the run and a deserter from the military, you're not going to be able to gain that passport." Joshua, his wife Brandi and their children went to Canada after Key returned from Iraq. There, he has sought refugee status and is currently appealing the denial of asylum. Key describes his decision to join the military as part of "the military's poverty draft" telling Leadlay: "You're stuck. You have no money. There is no other choice. If you want health care, if you want steady pay, and if you're even considering going to college, the [military] billboards pretty well offer it to you. When I joined there was not a wealthy person in the entire operation. I'd never seen a rich person in the military. I'd never seen a politican's son; I'd never seen anybody with any stature. We were all the same . . . coming from places that most people wouldn't even hear of, small towns, farms boys, and you're just looking for a way out."
Key's statements jibe with the study Kimberly Hefling (AP) reported on last week -- the communities in America that are most directly effected by the US military death toll in Iraq -- almost half of the dead are "from towns . . . where fewer than 25,000 people live" and that "nearly three quarters of those killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average."
Sir! No Sir!, noted above, is a study of resistance within the military during the Vietnam era. The amazing documentary, directed by David Zeiger, was recently re-released in a special director's cut version with additional bonus features. In addition, (audio link) DJ Dave Rabbitt interviews Jane Fonda here. DJ Dave Rabbitt, along with Pete Sadler and Nguyen, operated an underground radio station (Radio First Termer) while serving in Vietnam. (He also acts as the dee jay for the soundtrack to Sir! No Sir!)
Returning to Minority Rights Group International (PDF format) report Assimilation, Exodus, Eradication: Iraq's minority communities since 2003," we'll note that it examines the abuses minorities in Iraq are suffering. Yesterday, we focused on women. Today, we'll note that the religious and ethnic minoirites (who "make up about 10 percent of the Iraqi population") include Armenians, Baha'is, Chald-Assyrians, Fali Kurds, Jews, Mandaens, Palestinians, Shabaks, Turkomans and Yazidis.
A table on page 12 of the report charts the diminishing Mandaean population in Iraq by looking at the figures for April 2003 and the figures for April 2006. In 2003, 1600 families lived in Baghdad and three years later the figure had dropped to 150. Though that was the largest drop, the Mandaen population diminished in all areas -- Baquba (from 200 families to 40), Diwaniya (from 400 to 62), Kirkuk (from 250 to 75), Kut (from 400 to 65), Missan (from 900 to 300), Nasriya (from 950 to 320) and Ramadi (from 275 to 75). The report notes that "Mandaen or Sabian religion is one of the oldest surviving Gnostic religions in the world and dates back to the Mesopotamian civilisation. John the Baptist is its central prophet and water and access to naturally flowing water remain essential for the practice of the faith. Scholars believes the religion pre-dates the time of John the Baptist, however, and is has a similar creation myth to the Judeao-Christian Adam and Eve story." The report also notes that the Mandaen language has been "listed in the 2006 UNESCO Atlast of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing" and that their faith does not allow them to carry weapons and "forbids the use of violence". The report traces a similar disappearance of Jewish people noting that in 2003 there were "a few hundred" Jews in Baghdad, by 2005, the number had dropped to only 20 and that by 2006 there were only 15 Jews living in Baghdad (most assumed to be "older than 70" years-old).
And in Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a mortar attack in southwestern Baghdad that left nine wounded, a car bobm in southern Baghdad ("near a vegetable market") that killed 10 people and left 21 wounded, a bomb attack on a Baghdad police station that killed 2 police officers and left two more wounded, a roadside bombing in Riyadh that wounded four Iraqi troops, a mortar attack in Iskandariya that killed a woman and a man, and a mortar attack in Mahmudiya that killed one person and left four members "from the same family" wounded.
Shootings?
CNN reports: "Two brothers of a prominent Sunni politician were shot and killed Wednesday, the Iraqi Islamic Party said in a statement. Salim al-Joubori's brothers were killed in Muqdadiya, north of Baghdad. Al-Joubori is a member of parliament and spokesman for the Iraqi Accord Front, Iraq's biggest Sunni Arab political bloc." Reuters notes a man shot dead ("inside his car") in Tikrit, and the shooting death of Abdul-Haid Mahmoud in Mosul. CBS and AP report that, in Taji, "Eight people died when American helicopters and fighter planes fired on a palm grove".
Corpses?
Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Himreen, and the corpse "of a police colonel who had been kidnapped two months ago" discovered in Baghdad.
Today, the British Ministry of Defence announced "the death of a British soldiers in Iraq as a result of an incindent on the morning of 27 February 2007."
Yesterday, Dahr Jamail spoke with Nora Barrows-Friedman on KPFA's Flashpoints on a number of topics (click here for Rebecca's summary) and on the violence and the oil law, he stated, "I absolutely find no evidence on the ground to support that statement that this oil law is going to unite Iraq or anything like that. I think it's just blatant propaganda that would go along with the signing of this legislation that is really, the approval of the draff of the oil law essentially which has basically paved the way for western oil companies to finally get their hands on Iraq's oil which is what this has been about or one of the primary reasons the invasion was launched to begin with and so the corporate media, outlets like National Public Radio -- you know the joke on the ground with me and many of my colleagues from the United States who were operating in Baghdad was we would call it 'National Petroleum Radio' or 'National Pentagon Radio' because their reporters always love to embed I saw them ebedded in places like Falluja or in Baghdad, on more than one occassion -- and so that they're now issuing this propaganda that I'm sure would make the Pentagon very happy and of course the US State Department and the Bush administration and the corporations that support them saying that this is a very good thing, a positive thing. It's another way to put a spin on the occupation just like the transfer of soveriegnty on June 28, 2004 was a 'positive' thing, just like the Jan. 30, 2005 'elections' were a positive thing. And we all know, those of us with pulses, where those events have taken us today."
As all the above goes down, Anne Flaherty (AP) reports that, in the US House of Representatives, "Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn't cut off money for U.S. troops in Iraq but would require President Bush to acknowledge problems with an overburdended military. The plan could draw bipartisan support but is expected to be a tough sell to members who say they don't think it goes far enough to assuage voters angered by the four-year conflict." Dana Bash (CNN) reports that efforts continue "to bridge differences within the [Democratic] party after backwing away from legislation that would set condictions on war funding." That would be US House Rep John Murtha's proposal. Bash quotes Yawn Emmanuel making his usual self-serving statements and notes that the Senate's 'bravely' (my mock, not Bash's) decided to postpone debating anything "for at least two weeks." (Insert joke about Bully Boy being "The Decider" here.) Yesterday, US Senator Russ Feingold issued the following statement:
I am working to fix the new proposal drafted by several Senate Democrats, which at this point basically reads like a new authorization. I will not vote for anything that the President could read as an authorization for continuing with a large military campaign in Iraq. Deauthorizing the President's failed Iraq policy may be an appropriate next step if done right, but the ultimate goal needs to be using our Constitutionally-granted power of the purse to bring this catastrophe to an end.
With few exceptions, including Feingold, the Democrats holding Congressional office appear more than willing to take Bully Boy's war and make it their own which is what they do as they rush to grab cover and refuse to call out an illegal war. Meanwhile, Larry Kaplow (Cox News Service) reports that a "public affairs guidance" note was "sent to units in Iraq from the Baghdad command" which includes generic talking points created by the Pentagon which may also be controlling the Democratic Party judging by their own generic talking points. Meanwhile Edward Epstein (San Francisco Chronicle) reports that there is no backing away from the Murtha plan but don't pin your hopes on it, Yawn Emanuel shows up to offer more talking points. Jill Zuckman and Aamer Madhani (Chicago Tribune) may call it best: "Democrats in the House and Senate are struggling to find the best way to express congressional disapproval of the war and President Bush's troop buildup. They are wary both of going too far and not going far enough" -- "wary being the key word.
Finally, in policy news, Jake Tapper (ABC News) reports that when US House Rep Marty Meehan "introduces legislation to overturn the ban on openly gay and lesbian troops serving in the military," he will be joined by Eric Alva (a Staff Sgt. "first U.S. Marine seriously wounded in Iraq" -- March 21, 2003) who is now openly gay.
Alva tells Jose Antonio Vargas (Washington Post): "The truth is, something's wrong with this ban. I have to say something. I mean you're asking men and women to lie about their orientation, to keep their personal lives private [. . .] That's one fact. The other factor is, we're losing probably thousands of men and women that are skilled at certain types of jobs, from air traffic controllers to linguists, because of this broken policy."
like maria said paz
marjorie cohn
elizabeth de la vega
kats korner
jane fonda
mikey likes it
the common ills
iraq
ehren watadaagustin aguayomark wilkersonkpfa
aaron glantz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
nora barrows friedmanflashpointsdahr jamailsteve leighconor reed
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Grab bag
Tuesday. :D So what's going on? They're saying a bombing in Afghanistan was an attempted hit on Dick Cheney aka Dr. Evil. No one seems too concerned. I'm not hearing any, "Oh my God!"s in the TV coverage. How about you? Cheney ran to the bunker again, just like on 9-11.
I'm hearing a lot of horse racing coverage of the campaign and I almost decided not to highlight the next thing for that reason. But I think that it's got something to say so this is from Ed Garvey's "Hillary Cornonation Wanted by 'the Bigs':"
A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?The race for president is in full swing, but feel no need to get excited, contribute to a candidate or watch the debates. Selecting the "American Idol" will be a more democratic process than nominating the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.
You, my friends, are not needed. Big media conglomerates, pollsters, consultants, big drug and insurance companies, and other captains of industry will take this burden from your shoulders. You have plenty to keep you busy just making a living, so you can let the big boys ("bigs") and their bagmen make the decision for you. Rather comforting, wouldn't you say?
The bigs want a close race between the Democrat and the Republican, so that both must beg them for big bucks in their Faustian bargain.
The Democratic Leadership Council bigs decided five years ago to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008. Sure, Barack Obama is a rising star with charisma Hillary would kill for, but he won't get the big money he needs. You say, "But people like him." So what? Too unpredictable. The bigs don't know enough about him. You will be told, "not enough experience." Translated, that means "he might have his own agenda."
He might pursue peace in the Middle East while pushing for universal single-payer health care or proposing that the bigs pay Social Security taxes on all income coupled with a progressive tax system. Yikes! Better stick with Hillary. The bigs know her game, and she plays well. Remember NAFTA?
John Edwards? Hell no. He is way too serious about poverty, and that could bring more money and smaller classes to public schools but less for the military-industrial complex. What if Edwards pushes through a living wage, health care, fewer prisons, and decent housing? One can almost hear the bigs yelling, "What about us?" Iraq? Bring 'em home. Iran? Leave it to the U.N. Besides, Edwards thinks corporations should be responsible for their misdeeds. What is he a commie?
I think Garvey's written something pretty funny and pretty true. I don't know that I'll highlight anymore pieces on the 2008 campaign this year but if I come across something as strong as Garvey's I may reconsider. Now this is a more serious topic, from Robert Parry's "Bush Faces Opposition on Iran Attack:"
A number of U.S. military leaders, reportedly including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have waged an extraordinary behind-the-scenes resistance to what they fear is a secret plan by George W. Bush to wage war against Iran.
One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Though Pace has given no public signal on resigning, he has undercut Bush's case for an expanded Middle East war by challenging the administration claims about Iran's alleged sponsorship of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and by telling Congress that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have eroded American military capability to confront another crisis.
In a classified report to Congress, Pace warned that there is a significant risk that the U.S. military would be unable to respond quickly and fully to a new threat, the Associated Press reported, citing "senior defense officials."
Pace's grim assessment represents a mark-down from a year ago when Pace concluded that the risk was only moderate. The AP wrote that a report accompanying Pace's review said that while the Pentagon is working to upgrade its readiness, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels." [AP, Feb. 27, 2007]
In other words, the Pentagon brass is raising an alarm over how stretched the U.S. military has become because of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggesting that another front in Iran could add to American vulnerabilities.
Sources familiar with concerns inside the Pentagon have told me that senior U.S. military commanders, including Pace, have publicized their differences with the White House as part of a shadow bureaucratic battle to head off Bush's Iran war plans.
Can Bully Boy's war on Iran be stopped? I don't know. I hope, if he does try to go for it, Congress has the guts to impeach him but there has been much evidence of guts in Congress lately, have there?
But what about the guts in this community? Did you read Rebecca's "women and owning power while you have it" or Elaine's "It's a democracy, not a junta"? Those are strong pieces. Ma had a strong commentary on Saturday with "Arroz Con Pollo in the Kitchen" (and thanks to my oldest sister for reminding me to note that). She's talking about how so many won't talk about war resisters or rape, so many supposed brave voices. I asked her about that and she said, "C.I. hit hard on the rape issue and I went to other websites looking for someone else, anyone else, who was willing to address these issues but there wasn't anyone. I know my readership and that they would care about these issues but I had to wonder what other people have for readers? I was seriously disappointed in the websites and that's magazines and especially supposed feminist blogs." Ma hit hard on the issues and I really did love that post. On Mondays, I'm just playing catch up and always forget stuff. So thanks again to my sister for reminding me (she called me and said, "Don't forget our mother!" :D). Ma really does run a great site and I didn't realize it was a year last month so let me take a second to say, "Congratulations, Ma." She really didn't think she could do her own blog and she didn't think anyone would care what she had to say. She was wrong!!! :D I bet she's glad she was wrong.
By the way, if you missed it, Bully Boy, who used his daddy to get out of Vietnam and then went AWOL on the Guard during Vietnam, is now handing out medals to Vietnam veterans. You can't make it up! But Wally and Cedric invented a great backstory in their joint-posts of "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY MEETS MR. HECKLES!" and "Bully Boy works a tough room (humor)" so check that out.
Keith Olberman really rips Condi a new one, this is from his "Condi Goes Too Far:"
As they asked in that Avis commercial: "Ever get the feeling some people just stopped trying?"
Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought he could equate those who doubted him with Nazi appeasers, without reminding anybody that the actual, historical Nazi appeasers in this country in the 1930s were the Republicans.
Vice President Cheney thought he could talk as if he and he alone knew the "truth" about Iraq and 9/11, without anyone ever noticing that even the rest of the administration officially disagreed with him.
The president really acted as if you could scare all of the people all of the time and not lose your soul - and your majority - as a result.
But Secretary of State Rice may have now taken the cake. On the Sunday morning interview show "Of Broken Record" on Fox, Dr. Rice spoke a paragraph, which if it had been included in a remedial history paper at the weakest high school in the nation would've gotten the writer an "F" - maybe an expulsion.
If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present: "... it would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change, then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
The secretary's résumé reads that she has a master's degree and a Ph.D in political science. The interviewer should have demanded to see them, on the spot. Dr. Rice spoke 42 words. She may have made more mistakes in them than did the president in his State of the Union Address in 2003.
There is, obviously, no mistaking Saddam Hussein for a human being. But nor is there any mistaking him for Adolf Hitler.
Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to exterminate the Jews; who sought to overtake the world is not just in the poorest of taste, but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it and defeated it.
Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler. And George W. Bush is not Franklin D. Roosevelt - nor Dwight D. Eisenhower. He isn't even George H.W. Bush, who fought in that war.
However, even through the clouds of deliberately spread fear, and even under the weight of a thousand exaggerations of the five years past, one can just barely make out how a battle against international terrorism in 2007 could be compared - by some - to the Second World War.
The analogy is weak, and it instantly begs the question of why those of "The Greatest Generation" focused on Hitler and Hirohito, but our leaders seem to have ignored their vague parallels of today to instead concentrate on the Mussolinis of modern terrorism.
But in some, small, "You didn't fail, Junior, but you may need to go to summer school" kind of way, you can just make out that comparison.
But, Secretary Rice, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was akin to overthrowing Adolf Hitler? Are you kidding? Did you want to provoke the world's laughter?
And, please, Madame Secretary, if you are going to make that most implausible, subjective, dubious, ridiculous comparison; if you want to be as far off the mark about the Second World War as, say, the pathetic Holocaust-denier from Iran, Ahmadinejad - at least get the easily verifiable facts right: the facts whose home through history lies in your own department.
"The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?
On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department - your office, Secretary Rice - and 90 minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the chief of the department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier, and the Germans simply piled on.
Your predecessors, Dr. Rice, didn't spend a year making up phony evidence and mistaking German balloon-inflating trucks for mobile germ warfare labs. They didn't pretend the world was ending because a tin-pot tyrant couldn't hand over the chemical weapons it turned out he'd destroyed a decade earlier. The Germans walked up to the front door of our State Department and said, "We're at war." It was in all the papers. And when that war ended, more than three horrible years later, our troops and the Russians were in Berlin. And we stayed, as an occupying force, well into the 1950s. As an occupying force, Madam Secretary!
If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy. We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq. And if that's the way you see it, you damn well better come out and tell the American people so. Save your breath telling it to the Iraqis - most of them already buy that part of the comparison.
"It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
We already have a subjectively false comparison between Hitler and Saddam. We already have a historically false comparison between Germany and Iraq. We already have blissful ignorance by our secretary of state about how this country got into the war against Hitler. But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq; that it would be as ridiculous in the secretary's eyes as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do! We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown! It was called the Marshall Plan.
Marshall!
Gen. George Catlett Marshall!
Secretary of state!
The job you have now!
Poor, mixed up Condi. :D Okay, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, February 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; was a soccer field bombed or did the US military detonate a controlled explosion; the Iraqi oil law moves from the cabinet to the parliament but no one's supposed to notice; 4 US troops are announced dead; a new report reveals women and other minorities are suffering in the US occupied Iraq;
and call it "civil war," a US official says it's okay.
Starting with the subject of war resisters. Agustin Aguayo was the topic today on KPFA's The Morning Show and Philip Maldari spoke with Jeff Englehart and Tom Cassidy of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Pointing to the common thread between Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson and Ehren Watada, Englehart observed: "These guys have basically opted not to go based on the illegality of the war and the criminality of it." They then addressed Aguayo's case specifically noting that he was "a medic who actually signed up to help people, not to take lives," that he refused to load his weapon while serving in Iraq (Cassidy: "I'd say that more than anything validates his conscientious objector status."), and how being in Germany added a physical distance (his wife Helga is attempting to raise money to travel to the court-martial). They discussed how the AWOL process varies from case to case (Cassidy: "It seems like no two AWOL cases are the same" Englehart: "Military justice is an oxymoron."), and how those serving on Aguayo's jury will be "guys who are lifers," "serious hardliners basically determining the fate of his life." The also addressed the war.
Engelhart: Jeff: Generally I kind of questioned the war from the very outset and I went into Iraq very skeptical. But it was while I was there I saw some things that really solidified in my mind what I would consider an anti-war sentiment. . . The most important thing I saw that really turned me against the war was the, uh, well two things really. A lot of the civilian deaths. Basically the way I saw a lot of the civilians deaths, and there were many, they were caused because of our complicit involvement in the occupation.
Maldari: . . . Complicity with who was killing whom and why?
Jeff: Well anytime you have an occupying force and the strongest military in the world occupying heavily populated urban areas, civilian deaths occur on any given second in response to small arms attacks from insurgents. We have to understand, we're using some of the most advanced weaponary in the world, like 50 caliber machine guns, . . . grenade launchers, you know, 500 lb bombs, 1000 lb bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorus . . . All these things take into account. And you're dropping them essentially on civilian neighborhoods and you're using them in civilian neighborhoods. And a lot of those civilians deaths I saw were the result of sectarian differences basically what I viewed as our US forces pitting ethnic groups against each other to establish a subservient ethnicity to govern the Iraqis but a lot of those car bombs and suicide bombs that killed a lot of civilians was internal, it was in fact internal, but what I viewed as basically our own involvement was causing it. And a lot of times in any kind of urban strife just our own sheer power would destroy, you know, vast amounts of urban neighborhoods. And that's one thing I think we really lost the war in the fact that we lost the hearts and minds and you really can't win the hearts and minds with shock & awe.
Maldari: Well I interrupted you. You said you had a second reason as well.
Englehart: Just the dehumanization of Arab culture. As opposed to what the West would like to view the Arabs as backwards people who need our help. And . .. . Just scratch the surface of any kind of knowledge you would want to gain from the Arab world, you'd find that they are peaceful people, who are very intelligent and can govern themselves without any help.
Cassidy spoke of the derogatory words "used on a lot of official documents as a term to describe the Iraqi people which is sad because we had a civil rights movement like forty or fifty years ago and we still haven't gotten over just blatantly being racist to other cultures."
Elsa Rassbach (American Voices Abroad Military Projects) joined them in the last five minutes. And, FYI, re: Thomas Cassidy and Jeff Englehart. They have been speaking on campuses [AnnMarie Cornejo (San Luis Obispo Tribune) reported on a high school appearance last Thursday] and they and other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War are very interested in discussing their experiences. If you'd like to request a speaker, click here.
To clear up some confusion. Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months as part of a plea agreement. Mark Wilkerson was also charged with being AWOL. Though he was not gone a full month (he was gone September 2nd through September 26th), Agustin Aguayo has been charged with desertion. Desertion charges come with longer potential sentences than do charges of AWOL. Aguayo is facing a maximum of seven years imprisonment if he is found guilty in the March 6th court-martial and if he receives the maximum sentence.
Maldari noted these upcoming events for Aguayo:
*6:30 War Memorial Building in San Francisco tonight. (401 Van Ness). This is a fundraising dinner.
*Tomorrow (Tuesday) 10 to noon City College of San Francisco Diego Rivera Theater, Ocean Campus, presentation of Iraq: The Case For Immediate Withdrawal and The Growing Military Resistance to the War.
* Saturday, in Oakland, 7pm to 2 am a party benefit that will include dee jays and performers (Taiko Ren, Qeen Deelah & Cov Records Artists, ICAF-Oakland, Zazous, Fuga, DJ Zahkee and Qbug.
For more information on the above, click here.
An article in Germany's Der Spiegel, by Mary Wiltenburg, mentions Aguayo but it is not about Aguayo. (About a fifth of the article covers Aguayo.) Wiltenburg looks at the growing resistance "[o]n military bases across Germany" and, noting there are "no guarantees," reports: In practice, many soldiers who go AWOL overseas follow the advice of the Army's deserter hotline and quietly turn themselves in to Ft. Sill or Ft. Knox. Ft. Knox spokeswoman Gini Sinclair says most of the 14,000-plus troops who have been processed through the two centers since the invasion of Aghanistan were discharged within two weeks." Wiltenburg speaks with Michael Sharp ("director of the Military Counseling Network, a non-profitogranisation near Heidelberg that helps American soldiers who are considering leaving the service") and reports: "Last month the group took on 30 new clients, three times its previous average."
Meanwhile, Carolyn Tate and Maizie Harris Jesse (Nevada Appeal) note: "Thirty-nine years ago in March, the horrible incident at Mai Lai in Vietnam occurred. When Lt. William Calley was court martialed, he insisted he was just following orders. Remarks were made at the time that he should have disobeyed and refused to kill civilians. Now they are trying to court martial Lt. Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq. Lt. Watada has said he will go to Afghanistan and fight, but not Iraq, because he believes it to be an 'illegal' war (we agree). Double standard? Is it his Mai Lai? Or is he derelict for not following orders? Think about it."
Yesterday on The KPFA Evening News, Aaron Glantz reported on the army's decision to refile charges against Ehren Watada last Friday. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, stated, "It is my professional opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effects of double-jeopardy. . . . Once jeopardy has attached and it clearly did attach in this case when the jury panel was sworn in and when the first witness testified the protection against double-jeopardy applies as a Constitutional matter."
Jeff Paterson (Courage to Resist, Not In Our Name) told Glantz: "The military wanted to avoid showing to all the other people, all the other troops who are facing 2nd and 3rd and 4th deployments to Iraq is that if you don't go to Iraq and you speak out, you'll have a thousand people rally to your defense, pay all your legal bills, Sean Penn will hang out with you and [you will] go to prison for a few months or do you go to Iraq? And I think some people would go for that deal of the public support and spending a few months in prison instead of Iraq."
Glantz also noted that Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months last Thursday and that he will be imprisoned until September (unless he is released early).(Glantz' report also aired on yesterday's Free Speech Radio News).
This month is an anniversary as well. First Coast News' Shannon Ogden noted: "This month is also the anniversary of Camilo Mejia's release from military prison." Mejia was released on February 15, 2005. Mejia self-checked out of the military after serving in Iraq and received a one-year sentence. Odgen spoke with Camilo Mejia who states, "You know, I couldn't really justify, I'd say, 90 percent of the things we did in Iraq." He also offers that "the entire invasion lacked authority . . . it was not in response to an attack on the US." Echoing the issue Tate and Harris Jesse raised above, Mejia noted, "In the military, we have a duty to refuse an order that we know is illegal." He also notes, "Absolutley. And I do feel like a coward but not for not going back but for going in the first place. Because I knew the war was wrong from the beginning." Odgen mentioned that Mejia will soon begin a lecture tour behind his upcoming autobiography. That book is Road from ar Ramadi: The Prviate Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia -- due out May 1st, from The New Press, with an afterword written by Chris Hedges.
Aguayo, Watada, Wilkerson and Mejia are part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Turning to the topic of violence in Iraq but starting with what's seen as yesterday's attempt on Iraq's Shi'ite vice president Adel Abdul-Mahdi. On yesterday's The KPFA Evening News,
Mark Mericle noted that yesterday's bombing at the Ministry of Public works raised a number of questions including how the bomb got into the building and when since US forces had walked through with bomb sniffing dogs prior to the start of the conference.
Bringing the violence up to today, AFP reports that US Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that "civil war" was the term to use in describing Iraq and that deterioation will continue at recent rates barring some ability to halt the chaos "during the 12-18 month time frame" that the crackdown is expected to last. To repeat, 12 to 18 months. That's "good news" the same way that the 600+ corpses discovered in Baghdad for the month thus far is down because of the 'crackdown'! (That's a nonsense talking point and we're not even bothering to link to it.) Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reports: "Minority groups in Iraq are facing 'desperate conditions', 'a barrage of attacks' and the threat of being 'eradicated' from their homeland." That's based on a new (PDF format) report from Minority Rights Group International (based in London). The report, credited to Preti Taneja, is entitled "Assimilation, Exodus, Eradication: Iraq's minority communities since 2003." We'll zoom in on women (pp. 5-6):
A further hidden layer is the degenerating situation for women from minorities. They are subject to rape and harassment from sectarian groups, as well as a continuing toll of domestic violence in their own communities.
Pages 22 and 23 focus soley on women and the section kicks off with the chair of the Iraqi Women's League, Souad Al-Jaziry, noting that the chaos and violence "provide a golden opportunity for the reactionary forces to impose their will, curtail the role of women and violate their rights." (A topic Rebecca was addressing yesterday.) Both the attacks and the fear of being attacked result in "a progressive curtailment of freedom in daily life, including not being able to drive or go out without a male relative to accompany them. In March 2006, Women's Right Assoication (WRA), a local Baghdad NGO, reported that since 2003, the number of women attacked for choosing not to wear head scarves or veils has more than tripled." Confinement to the home (for many) results in "raising families traumatised by living in fear." It notes that minority women face increased threats and that they are more likely to be raped, the victims of other violence, and little legal recourse ("funamentalists cite a belief that that rape of an 'unbeliever' constitutes an act of purification and is not unlawful" -- an "unbeliever" can be a Christian, Jew, Baha'is, etc.). Due to the lack of legal action (see Nouri al-Maliki's own rush to judgement last week for just one example) when reported and the social opinions of the victims (who are often blamed for the rape instead of the attacker), most rapes go unreported. In addition the police maintain that they do not have the resources to pursue the cases. The example of one 18-year-old is given. The unnamed woman "was abducted, raped, then forced to wear a belt loaded with explosives and sent to bomb a cleric's office in Khadamiyah, where she turned herself into the police." Her reward? Seven years in jail "for her sake" (the rape meant she was less than 'pure'). (FYI, those incidents are among the reasons we do not use the term "suicide bomber.") The section covers women being kidnapped and forced to convert to other religions by their kidnappers (whom they 'marry' under duress). This includes Mandaean women as well as Yazidi women. Women who are 'unbelievers' are often denied employment, education and forced to wear a hijab or other Islamic article of clothing. The section concludes by noting how weak women's rights are in the Iraqi constitution.
That's the constitution under Bully Boy. Women had more rights under the constitution in place before the illegal war.
The (PDF format) report has other sections and we'll address some of them tomorrow but the general response to these reports by news organizations has been to ignore the section of the continued destruction of women's rights in Iraq so that was our first focus. And, again, that's from the London based Minority Rights Group International.
Chaos and violence continued though there's a bombing in dispute. Dean Yates and Ibon Villeabeitia (Reuters) note that the US military claims no knowledge of a bombing in Ramadi that is said to have taken place on or near a soccer field and killed 18 people while Iraqiya state TV is broadcasting that the 18 were 12 children and 6 women. The Telegraph of London cites "an Iraqi defence official" who says that in addition to the 18 dead, 20 boys were wounded but note that the US military stated "a controlled explosion carried out today by American soldiers near a football field in Ramadi had injured 30 people, including nine children." Noting both explanations, Brian Murphy (AP) observes: "It was unclear if there were two blasts or whether there was confusion over the casualties from a single explosion."
Bombings?
CBS and AP note "a bomb in a plastic bag at a restaurant killed at least three people and injured 13" in Baghdad. CNN notes that bombing and one at an ice cream shop in Baghdad that resulted in a total of 8 deaths (5 in the ice cream shop alone) as well as a parking lot bombing in Baghdad that claimed one life and left three wounded and a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed two and left six wounded. Reuters notes a truck bombing in Mosul targeting a police station that killed seven and left 47 wounded, a bombing in al-Baaj that killed four and left six wounded and a roadside bombing in Iraq that killed two people and wounded eleven more.
Shootings?
Reuters notes a college student shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Reuters notes four corpses discovered in Baghdad.
The US military reports: "One 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed and two were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on their M-1114 HMMWV near Ad Diwaniyah at approximately 10:30 p.m. Feb 26." And they announced: "On Feb. 27, an MND-B unit struck an improvised explosive device while conducting a route clearance mission southwest of the Iraqi capital, killing three Soldiers and wounding another."
Also in Iraq, the long planned and hoped for (by the US administration) Iraq oil law has cleared the cabinet and now awaits the parliament's response. As Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) observes, "'Shared economic interest' i code for giving control of Iraqi oil to US and other multinational oil companies. What many people cannot understand is why the Iraqis are doing it." Danny Schechter (News Dissector) calls it thusly: "The Iraqi Oil Ministry has made a deal to please the international oil companies which, when all is said and done, we will learn was a powerful motive for this war that was totally unexamined in the depth it deserved."
Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar, who've been following this oil law for some time now, team up (at CounterPunch) to report: "Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law's key negative components harm Iraq's national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy. The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq's oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preferences in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts." The two note, as they have before, that there was no need to rush through an oil law and that attempts by the US to push it through will only further inflame the chaos and violence.
Who owns the illegal war? Speaking with Yanmei Xie on Monday's The KPFA Evening News and Monday's Free Speech Radio News, CODEPINK's Nancy Kricorian explained why it was important for Democrats to make a strong proposal regardless of whether they can garner enough votes to pass legislation: "Then if it fails, that's one thing. But if they continue funding the war and voting for these appropriations bills to fund the war the war is no longer Bush's war, it's the Democrats and the Congress' war because they voted to pay for."
Finally, January 29, 2006, ABC's Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt were injured in Iraq. For Woodruff, it's been a long struggle back (during which Charles Gibson stole the anchor desk from an injured Woodruff and a pregnant Elizabeth Vargas). Tonight (Tuesday) on ABC (10:00 pm EST), To Iraq and Back focuses on Woodruff's injuries, his recovery, injuries among veterans serving in Iraq and the level of care they are receiving.
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
the common ills
ehren watadaaaron glantz
kpfa
the morning showthe kpfa evening news
iraq
agustin aguayo
mark wilkerson
antonia juhaszraed jarrar
I'm hearing a lot of horse racing coverage of the campaign and I almost decided not to highlight the next thing for that reason. But I think that it's got something to say so this is from Ed Garvey's "Hillary Cornonation Wanted by 'the Bigs':"
A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?The race for president is in full swing, but feel no need to get excited, contribute to a candidate or watch the debates. Selecting the "American Idol" will be a more democratic process than nominating the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.
You, my friends, are not needed. Big media conglomerates, pollsters, consultants, big drug and insurance companies, and other captains of industry will take this burden from your shoulders. You have plenty to keep you busy just making a living, so you can let the big boys ("bigs") and their bagmen make the decision for you. Rather comforting, wouldn't you say?
The bigs want a close race between the Democrat and the Republican, so that both must beg them for big bucks in their Faustian bargain.
The Democratic Leadership Council bigs decided five years ago to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008. Sure, Barack Obama is a rising star with charisma Hillary would kill for, but he won't get the big money he needs. You say, "But people like him." So what? Too unpredictable. The bigs don't know enough about him. You will be told, "not enough experience." Translated, that means "he might have his own agenda."
He might pursue peace in the Middle East while pushing for universal single-payer health care or proposing that the bigs pay Social Security taxes on all income coupled with a progressive tax system. Yikes! Better stick with Hillary. The bigs know her game, and she plays well. Remember NAFTA?
John Edwards? Hell no. He is way too serious about poverty, and that could bring more money and smaller classes to public schools but less for the military-industrial complex. What if Edwards pushes through a living wage, health care, fewer prisons, and decent housing? One can almost hear the bigs yelling, "What about us?" Iraq? Bring 'em home. Iran? Leave it to the U.N. Besides, Edwards thinks corporations should be responsible for their misdeeds. What is he a commie?
I think Garvey's written something pretty funny and pretty true. I don't know that I'll highlight anymore pieces on the 2008 campaign this year but if I come across something as strong as Garvey's I may reconsider. Now this is a more serious topic, from Robert Parry's "Bush Faces Opposition on Iran Attack:"
A number of U.S. military leaders, reportedly including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have waged an extraordinary behind-the-scenes resistance to what they fear is a secret plan by George W. Bush to wage war against Iran.
One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Though Pace has given no public signal on resigning, he has undercut Bush's case for an expanded Middle East war by challenging the administration claims about Iran's alleged sponsorship of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and by telling Congress that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have eroded American military capability to confront another crisis.
In a classified report to Congress, Pace warned that there is a significant risk that the U.S. military would be unable to respond quickly and fully to a new threat, the Associated Press reported, citing "senior defense officials."
Pace's grim assessment represents a mark-down from a year ago when Pace concluded that the risk was only moderate. The AP wrote that a report accompanying Pace's review said that while the Pentagon is working to upgrade its readiness, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels." [AP, Feb. 27, 2007]
In other words, the Pentagon brass is raising an alarm over how stretched the U.S. military has become because of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggesting that another front in Iran could add to American vulnerabilities.
Sources familiar with concerns inside the Pentagon have told me that senior U.S. military commanders, including Pace, have publicized their differences with the White House as part of a shadow bureaucratic battle to head off Bush's Iran war plans.
Can Bully Boy's war on Iran be stopped? I don't know. I hope, if he does try to go for it, Congress has the guts to impeach him but there has been much evidence of guts in Congress lately, have there?
But what about the guts in this community? Did you read Rebecca's "women and owning power while you have it" or Elaine's "It's a democracy, not a junta"? Those are strong pieces. Ma had a strong commentary on Saturday with "Arroz Con Pollo in the Kitchen" (and thanks to my oldest sister for reminding me to note that). She's talking about how so many won't talk about war resisters or rape, so many supposed brave voices. I asked her about that and she said, "C.I. hit hard on the rape issue and I went to other websites looking for someone else, anyone else, who was willing to address these issues but there wasn't anyone. I know my readership and that they would care about these issues but I had to wonder what other people have for readers? I was seriously disappointed in the websites and that's magazines and especially supposed feminist blogs." Ma hit hard on the issues and I really did love that post. On Mondays, I'm just playing catch up and always forget stuff. So thanks again to my sister for reminding me (she called me and said, "Don't forget our mother!" :D). Ma really does run a great site and I didn't realize it was a year last month so let me take a second to say, "Congratulations, Ma." She really didn't think she could do her own blog and she didn't think anyone would care what she had to say. She was wrong!!! :D I bet she's glad she was wrong.
By the way, if you missed it, Bully Boy, who used his daddy to get out of Vietnam and then went AWOL on the Guard during Vietnam, is now handing out medals to Vietnam veterans. You can't make it up! But Wally and Cedric invented a great backstory in their joint-posts of "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY MEETS MR. HECKLES!" and "Bully Boy works a tough room (humor)" so check that out.
Keith Olberman really rips Condi a new one, this is from his "Condi Goes Too Far:"
As they asked in that Avis commercial: "Ever get the feeling some people just stopped trying?"
Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought he could equate those who doubted him with Nazi appeasers, without reminding anybody that the actual, historical Nazi appeasers in this country in the 1930s were the Republicans.
Vice President Cheney thought he could talk as if he and he alone knew the "truth" about Iraq and 9/11, without anyone ever noticing that even the rest of the administration officially disagreed with him.
The president really acted as if you could scare all of the people all of the time and not lose your soul - and your majority - as a result.
But Secretary of State Rice may have now taken the cake. On the Sunday morning interview show "Of Broken Record" on Fox, Dr. Rice spoke a paragraph, which if it had been included in a remedial history paper at the weakest high school in the nation would've gotten the writer an "F" - maybe an expulsion.
If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present: "... it would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change, then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
The secretary's résumé reads that she has a master's degree and a Ph.D in political science. The interviewer should have demanded to see them, on the spot. Dr. Rice spoke 42 words. She may have made more mistakes in them than did the president in his State of the Union Address in 2003.
There is, obviously, no mistaking Saddam Hussein for a human being. But nor is there any mistaking him for Adolf Hitler.
Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to exterminate the Jews; who sought to overtake the world is not just in the poorest of taste, but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it and defeated it.
Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler. And George W. Bush is not Franklin D. Roosevelt - nor Dwight D. Eisenhower. He isn't even George H.W. Bush, who fought in that war.
However, even through the clouds of deliberately spread fear, and even under the weight of a thousand exaggerations of the five years past, one can just barely make out how a battle against international terrorism in 2007 could be compared - by some - to the Second World War.
The analogy is weak, and it instantly begs the question of why those of "The Greatest Generation" focused on Hitler and Hirohito, but our leaders seem to have ignored their vague parallels of today to instead concentrate on the Mussolinis of modern terrorism.
But in some, small, "You didn't fail, Junior, but you may need to go to summer school" kind of way, you can just make out that comparison.
But, Secretary Rice, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was akin to overthrowing Adolf Hitler? Are you kidding? Did you want to provoke the world's laughter?
And, please, Madame Secretary, if you are going to make that most implausible, subjective, dubious, ridiculous comparison; if you want to be as far off the mark about the Second World War as, say, the pathetic Holocaust-denier from Iran, Ahmadinejad - at least get the easily verifiable facts right: the facts whose home through history lies in your own department.
"The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?
On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department - your office, Secretary Rice - and 90 minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the chief of the department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier, and the Germans simply piled on.
Your predecessors, Dr. Rice, didn't spend a year making up phony evidence and mistaking German balloon-inflating trucks for mobile germ warfare labs. They didn't pretend the world was ending because a tin-pot tyrant couldn't hand over the chemical weapons it turned out he'd destroyed a decade earlier. The Germans walked up to the front door of our State Department and said, "We're at war." It was in all the papers. And when that war ended, more than three horrible years later, our troops and the Russians were in Berlin. And we stayed, as an occupying force, well into the 1950s. As an occupying force, Madam Secretary!
If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy. We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq. And if that's the way you see it, you damn well better come out and tell the American people so. Save your breath telling it to the Iraqis - most of them already buy that part of the comparison.
"It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
We already have a subjectively false comparison between Hitler and Saddam. We already have a historically false comparison between Germany and Iraq. We already have blissful ignorance by our secretary of state about how this country got into the war against Hitler. But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq; that it would be as ridiculous in the secretary's eyes as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do! We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown! It was called the Marshall Plan.
Marshall!
Gen. George Catlett Marshall!
Secretary of state!
The job you have now!
Poor, mixed up Condi. :D Okay, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, February 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; was a soccer field bombed or did the US military detonate a controlled explosion; the Iraqi oil law moves from the cabinet to the parliament but no one's supposed to notice; 4 US troops are announced dead; a new report reveals women and other minorities are suffering in the US occupied Iraq;
and call it "civil war," a US official says it's okay.
Starting with the subject of war resisters. Agustin Aguayo was the topic today on KPFA's The Morning Show and Philip Maldari spoke with Jeff Englehart and Tom Cassidy of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Pointing to the common thread between Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson and Ehren Watada, Englehart observed: "These guys have basically opted not to go based on the illegality of the war and the criminality of it." They then addressed Aguayo's case specifically noting that he was "a medic who actually signed up to help people, not to take lives," that he refused to load his weapon while serving in Iraq (Cassidy: "I'd say that more than anything validates his conscientious objector status."), and how being in Germany added a physical distance (his wife Helga is attempting to raise money to travel to the court-martial). They discussed how the AWOL process varies from case to case (Cassidy: "It seems like no two AWOL cases are the same" Englehart: "Military justice is an oxymoron."), and how those serving on Aguayo's jury will be "guys who are lifers," "serious hardliners basically determining the fate of his life." The also addressed the war.
Engelhart: Jeff: Generally I kind of questioned the war from the very outset and I went into Iraq very skeptical. But it was while I was there I saw some things that really solidified in my mind what I would consider an anti-war sentiment. . . The most important thing I saw that really turned me against the war was the, uh, well two things really. A lot of the civilian deaths. Basically the way I saw a lot of the civilians deaths, and there were many, they were caused because of our complicit involvement in the occupation.
Maldari: . . . Complicity with who was killing whom and why?
Jeff: Well anytime you have an occupying force and the strongest military in the world occupying heavily populated urban areas, civilian deaths occur on any given second in response to small arms attacks from insurgents. We have to understand, we're using some of the most advanced weaponary in the world, like 50 caliber machine guns, . . . grenade launchers, you know, 500 lb bombs, 1000 lb bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorus . . . All these things take into account. And you're dropping them essentially on civilian neighborhoods and you're using them in civilian neighborhoods. And a lot of those civilians deaths I saw were the result of sectarian differences basically what I viewed as our US forces pitting ethnic groups against each other to establish a subservient ethnicity to govern the Iraqis but a lot of those car bombs and suicide bombs that killed a lot of civilians was internal, it was in fact internal, but what I viewed as basically our own involvement was causing it. And a lot of times in any kind of urban strife just our own sheer power would destroy, you know, vast amounts of urban neighborhoods. And that's one thing I think we really lost the war in the fact that we lost the hearts and minds and you really can't win the hearts and minds with shock & awe.
Maldari: Well I interrupted you. You said you had a second reason as well.
Englehart: Just the dehumanization of Arab culture. As opposed to what the West would like to view the Arabs as backwards people who need our help. And . .. . Just scratch the surface of any kind of knowledge you would want to gain from the Arab world, you'd find that they are peaceful people, who are very intelligent and can govern themselves without any help.
Cassidy spoke of the derogatory words "used on a lot of official documents as a term to describe the Iraqi people which is sad because we had a civil rights movement like forty or fifty years ago and we still haven't gotten over just blatantly being racist to other cultures."
Elsa Rassbach (American Voices Abroad Military Projects) joined them in the last five minutes. And, FYI, re: Thomas Cassidy and Jeff Englehart. They have been speaking on campuses [AnnMarie Cornejo (San Luis Obispo Tribune) reported on a high school appearance last Thursday] and they and other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War are very interested in discussing their experiences. If you'd like to request a speaker, click here.
To clear up some confusion. Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months as part of a plea agreement. Mark Wilkerson was also charged with being AWOL. Though he was not gone a full month (he was gone September 2nd through September 26th), Agustin Aguayo has been charged with desertion. Desertion charges come with longer potential sentences than do charges of AWOL. Aguayo is facing a maximum of seven years imprisonment if he is found guilty in the March 6th court-martial and if he receives the maximum sentence.
Maldari noted these upcoming events for Aguayo:
*6:30 War Memorial Building in San Francisco tonight. (401 Van Ness). This is a fundraising dinner.
*Tomorrow (Tuesday) 10 to noon City College of San Francisco Diego Rivera Theater, Ocean Campus, presentation of Iraq: The Case For Immediate Withdrawal and The Growing Military Resistance to the War.
* Saturday, in Oakland, 7pm to 2 am a party benefit that will include dee jays and performers (Taiko Ren, Qeen Deelah & Cov Records Artists, ICAF-Oakland, Zazous, Fuga, DJ Zahkee and Qbug.
For more information on the above, click here.
An article in Germany's Der Spiegel, by Mary Wiltenburg, mentions Aguayo but it is not about Aguayo. (About a fifth of the article covers Aguayo.) Wiltenburg looks at the growing resistance "[o]n military bases across Germany" and, noting there are "no guarantees," reports: In practice, many soldiers who go AWOL overseas follow the advice of the Army's deserter hotline and quietly turn themselves in to Ft. Sill or Ft. Knox. Ft. Knox spokeswoman Gini Sinclair says most of the 14,000-plus troops who have been processed through the two centers since the invasion of Aghanistan were discharged within two weeks." Wiltenburg speaks with Michael Sharp ("director of the Military Counseling Network, a non-profitogranisation near Heidelberg that helps American soldiers who are considering leaving the service") and reports: "Last month the group took on 30 new clients, three times its previous average."
Meanwhile, Carolyn Tate and Maizie Harris Jesse (Nevada Appeal) note: "Thirty-nine years ago in March, the horrible incident at Mai Lai in Vietnam occurred. When Lt. William Calley was court martialed, he insisted he was just following orders. Remarks were made at the time that he should have disobeyed and refused to kill civilians. Now they are trying to court martial Lt. Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq. Lt. Watada has said he will go to Afghanistan and fight, but not Iraq, because he believes it to be an 'illegal' war (we agree). Double standard? Is it his Mai Lai? Or is he derelict for not following orders? Think about it."
Yesterday on The KPFA Evening News, Aaron Glantz reported on the army's decision to refile charges against Ehren Watada last Friday. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, stated, "It is my professional opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effects of double-jeopardy. . . . Once jeopardy has attached and it clearly did attach in this case when the jury panel was sworn in and when the first witness testified the protection against double-jeopardy applies as a Constitutional matter."
Jeff Paterson (Courage to Resist, Not In Our Name) told Glantz: "The military wanted to avoid showing to all the other people, all the other troops who are facing 2nd and 3rd and 4th deployments to Iraq is that if you don't go to Iraq and you speak out, you'll have a thousand people rally to your defense, pay all your legal bills, Sean Penn will hang out with you and [you will] go to prison for a few months or do you go to Iraq? And I think some people would go for that deal of the public support and spending a few months in prison instead of Iraq."
Glantz also noted that Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months last Thursday and that he will be imprisoned until September (unless he is released early).(Glantz' report also aired on yesterday's Free Speech Radio News).
This month is an anniversary as well. First Coast News' Shannon Ogden noted: "This month is also the anniversary of Camilo Mejia's release from military prison." Mejia was released on February 15, 2005. Mejia self-checked out of the military after serving in Iraq and received a one-year sentence. Odgen spoke with Camilo Mejia who states, "You know, I couldn't really justify, I'd say, 90 percent of the things we did in Iraq." He also offers that "the entire invasion lacked authority . . . it was not in response to an attack on the US." Echoing the issue Tate and Harris Jesse raised above, Mejia noted, "In the military, we have a duty to refuse an order that we know is illegal." He also notes, "Absolutley. And I do feel like a coward but not for not going back but for going in the first place. Because I knew the war was wrong from the beginning." Odgen mentioned that Mejia will soon begin a lecture tour behind his upcoming autobiography. That book is Road from ar Ramadi: The Prviate Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia -- due out May 1st, from The New Press, with an afterword written by Chris Hedges.
Aguayo, Watada, Wilkerson and Mejia are part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Turning to the topic of violence in Iraq but starting with what's seen as yesterday's attempt on Iraq's Shi'ite vice president Adel Abdul-Mahdi. On yesterday's The KPFA Evening News,
Mark Mericle noted that yesterday's bombing at the Ministry of Public works raised a number of questions including how the bomb got into the building and when since US forces had walked through with bomb sniffing dogs prior to the start of the conference.
Bringing the violence up to today, AFP reports that US Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that "civil war" was the term to use in describing Iraq and that deterioation will continue at recent rates barring some ability to halt the chaos "during the 12-18 month time frame" that the crackdown is expected to last. To repeat, 12 to 18 months. That's "good news" the same way that the 600+ corpses discovered in Baghdad for the month thus far is down because of the 'crackdown'! (That's a nonsense talking point and we're not even bothering to link to it.) Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reports: "Minority groups in Iraq are facing 'desperate conditions', 'a barrage of attacks' and the threat of being 'eradicated' from their homeland." That's based on a new (PDF format) report from Minority Rights Group International (based in London). The report, credited to Preti Taneja, is entitled "Assimilation, Exodus, Eradication: Iraq's minority communities since 2003." We'll zoom in on women (pp. 5-6):
A further hidden layer is the degenerating situation for women from minorities. They are subject to rape and harassment from sectarian groups, as well as a continuing toll of domestic violence in their own communities.
Pages 22 and 23 focus soley on women and the section kicks off with the chair of the Iraqi Women's League, Souad Al-Jaziry, noting that the chaos and violence "provide a golden opportunity for the reactionary forces to impose their will, curtail the role of women and violate their rights." (A topic Rebecca was addressing yesterday.) Both the attacks and the fear of being attacked result in "a progressive curtailment of freedom in daily life, including not being able to drive or go out without a male relative to accompany them. In March 2006, Women's Right Assoication (WRA), a local Baghdad NGO, reported that since 2003, the number of women attacked for choosing not to wear head scarves or veils has more than tripled." Confinement to the home (for many) results in "raising families traumatised by living in fear." It notes that minority women face increased threats and that they are more likely to be raped, the victims of other violence, and little legal recourse ("funamentalists cite a belief that that rape of an 'unbeliever' constitutes an act of purification and is not unlawful" -- an "unbeliever" can be a Christian, Jew, Baha'is, etc.). Due to the lack of legal action (see Nouri al-Maliki's own rush to judgement last week for just one example) when reported and the social opinions of the victims (who are often blamed for the rape instead of the attacker), most rapes go unreported. In addition the police maintain that they do not have the resources to pursue the cases. The example of one 18-year-old is given. The unnamed woman "was abducted, raped, then forced to wear a belt loaded with explosives and sent to bomb a cleric's office in Khadamiyah, where she turned herself into the police." Her reward? Seven years in jail "for her sake" (the rape meant she was less than 'pure'). (FYI, those incidents are among the reasons we do not use the term "suicide bomber.") The section covers women being kidnapped and forced to convert to other religions by their kidnappers (whom they 'marry' under duress). This includes Mandaean women as well as Yazidi women. Women who are 'unbelievers' are often denied employment, education and forced to wear a hijab or other Islamic article of clothing. The section concludes by noting how weak women's rights are in the Iraqi constitution.
That's the constitution under Bully Boy. Women had more rights under the constitution in place before the illegal war.
The (PDF format) report has other sections and we'll address some of them tomorrow but the general response to these reports by news organizations has been to ignore the section of the continued destruction of women's rights in Iraq so that was our first focus. And, again, that's from the London based Minority Rights Group International.
Chaos and violence continued though there's a bombing in dispute. Dean Yates and Ibon Villeabeitia (Reuters) note that the US military claims no knowledge of a bombing in Ramadi that is said to have taken place on or near a soccer field and killed 18 people while Iraqiya state TV is broadcasting that the 18 were 12 children and 6 women. The Telegraph of London cites "an Iraqi defence official" who says that in addition to the 18 dead, 20 boys were wounded but note that the US military stated "a controlled explosion carried out today by American soldiers near a football field in Ramadi had injured 30 people, including nine children." Noting both explanations, Brian Murphy (AP) observes: "It was unclear if there were two blasts or whether there was confusion over the casualties from a single explosion."
Bombings?
CBS and AP note "a bomb in a plastic bag at a restaurant killed at least three people and injured 13" in Baghdad. CNN notes that bombing and one at an ice cream shop in Baghdad that resulted in a total of 8 deaths (5 in the ice cream shop alone) as well as a parking lot bombing in Baghdad that claimed one life and left three wounded and a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed two and left six wounded. Reuters notes a truck bombing in Mosul targeting a police station that killed seven and left 47 wounded, a bombing in al-Baaj that killed four and left six wounded and a roadside bombing in Iraq that killed two people and wounded eleven more.
Shootings?
Reuters notes a college student shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Reuters notes four corpses discovered in Baghdad.
The US military reports: "One 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed and two were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on their M-1114 HMMWV near Ad Diwaniyah at approximately 10:30 p.m. Feb 26." And they announced: "On Feb. 27, an MND-B unit struck an improvised explosive device while conducting a route clearance mission southwest of the Iraqi capital, killing three Soldiers and wounding another."
Also in Iraq, the long planned and hoped for (by the US administration) Iraq oil law has cleared the cabinet and now awaits the parliament's response. As Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) observes, "'Shared economic interest' i code for giving control of Iraqi oil to US and other multinational oil companies. What many people cannot understand is why the Iraqis are doing it." Danny Schechter (News Dissector) calls it thusly: "The Iraqi Oil Ministry has made a deal to please the international oil companies which, when all is said and done, we will learn was a powerful motive for this war that was totally unexamined in the depth it deserved."
Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar, who've been following this oil law for some time now, team up (at CounterPunch) to report: "Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law's key negative components harm Iraq's national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy. The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq's oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preferences in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts." The two note, as they have before, that there was no need to rush through an oil law and that attempts by the US to push it through will only further inflame the chaos and violence.
Who owns the illegal war? Speaking with Yanmei Xie on Monday's The KPFA Evening News and Monday's Free Speech Radio News, CODEPINK's Nancy Kricorian explained why it was important for Democrats to make a strong proposal regardless of whether they can garner enough votes to pass legislation: "Then if it fails, that's one thing. But if they continue funding the war and voting for these appropriations bills to fund the war the war is no longer Bush's war, it's the Democrats and the Congress' war because they voted to pay for."
Finally, January 29, 2006, ABC's Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt were injured in Iraq. For Woodruff, it's been a long struggle back (during which Charles Gibson stole the anchor desk from an injured Woodruff and a pregnant Elizabeth Vargas). Tonight (Tuesday) on ABC (10:00 pm EST), To Iraq and Back focuses on Woodruff's injuries, his recovery, injuries among veterans serving in Iraq and the level of care they are receiving.
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
the common ills
ehren watadaaaron glantz
kpfa
the morning showthe kpfa evening news
iraq
agustin aguayo
mark wilkerson
antonia juhaszraed jarrar
Monday, February 26, 2007
Third, Ralph Nader
Monday. I lost my post. The electricity flickered and the computer went down. And "recover post" doesn't work at all. So I'm starting over.
Let me start by noting The Third Estate Sunday Review:
"A Note to Our Readers" -- Jim discusses the edition. The gang went to the Oscars by the way. Lucky! :D I'm not jealous, honest!!!!!!! :D
"Editorial: Watada, they go after, Watada" -- if you missed it, Friday the army refiled charges against Ehren. There's just not enough for them to do, they've got nothing to do but go after Ehren one more time. They don't care about double jeopardy or the Constitution. They just want to keep trying to destroy Ehren.
"TV: Aftermath leaves an aftertaste" -- This really is a great review by Ava and C.I. I think it came a good time too with all the rapes last week. I don't know if they'd have written it the way they did at another time. But this is really great, you have to read it.
"The Weeping Rapist" -- Paul Cortez cries. That he let his buds down. He doesn't know why he took part in the gang rape of Abeer. But he cries for his buddy. Cry baby.
"Talking artistic representation with The Common Ills' Isaiah" -- This is really cool and we all love Isaiah, so check this out. There's a lot of good stuff in the interview.
"Mailbag" -- some of the e-mails that had come in last week. Quick feature because everyone wanted some rest after last weekend's never ending nightmare.
"If he exceeds his reach, you must impeach" -- new version of a piece we worked on last weekend but had to hold it when we went with a theme at the last minute.
"The Nation Stats" -- Is there any magazine worse than The Nation these days?
"All is revealed" -- tells you the 5 heroes in the drawing from last week.
"Highlights" -- Wally, Betty, Cedric, Rebecca, Elaine and me picked out the highlights and wrote this.
So that's the new stuff.
I said more about it in my first try that got lost when the power flickered.
Okay, now this is from Ralph Nader's "Bush and Cheney Must be Impeached Before More Die:"
The invasion-occupation of Iraq has been described as a classic case of asymmetrical warfare. Unable to begin to match the modern land, aerial and sea weaponry of the United States, the insurgents are fighting back with roadside IEDs, rifles and grenades to sow chaos, death and destruction. Many of these attacks have been in civilian marketplaces. The casualties show the inability, or unwillingness, of the U.S. to keep the peace and protect civilians, as required, by the way, under international law. The carnage, in turn, is supposed to generate more resistance to the U.S. occupation by the people of Iraq.
The idea behind asymmetrical attacks is not to directly engage U.S. forces because that truly would be a series of suicide missions. Almost four years into the occupation, an ominous new phase is revealing itself from the insurgents. They are concentrating on bringing down U.S. helicopters eight since January 20th, more than in all of 2006. Military strategists say they are not surprised. The New York Times reports that "the attackers used a variety of weapons, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and unguided rockets that cannot be diverted by the flares helicopters disperse to fool heat-seeking missiles."
Now comes the move to chemical attacks namely chlorine that is used to decontaminate drinking water. Historically, armies fought with physics, chemistry and, less frequently, biology. Moving toward chemistry, the insurgents are opening up the possibility of megadisasters that are very difficult to stop. Again, reports The Times, "the attacks seem to have been poorly executed, burning the chemical agent rather than dispersing it, but more sophisticated weapons involving chlorine could injure hundreds and cause mass panic." Make that thousands. Sabotaging large tank cars with chlorine could generate a deadly cloud that could cover and devastate life over numerous square miles.
Bully Boy needs to be impeached. You see any Democrats in Congress saying that? No. You do see Ralph Nader saying that. I've talked about how I get e-mails from people who are really mad everytime I talk about Nader but that's just how it's going to be. If it's too much of a problem for you, go ahead and stop dropping by. I'm not trying to kick anyone out but Nader, if he never did anything else, is standing up against the war and against Bully Boy.
Now he's actually done a lot more than that. But that alone should make some people who just see red when his name comes up tone it down. I've noted before that Nader didn't steal votes from Al Gore but when you've got silly dopes like Katrina vanden Heuvel wanting to make silly jokes in 2006, it's no surprise that some people still believe the nonsense.
I'll try one last time though. Okay, we're all in senior year high school. Someone's going to be elected class president. I'm running. Cedric's running. Betty's running. Rebecca's running. Maybe you want to run? Okay, you're running too. You don't steal any votes from me. You get the votes you earn. Everybody gets the votes they earn. Okay now, me and Wally are real tight and think a lot a like. I think you're going to win so I start trying to sound like you and Wally keeps it real. He ends up with votes that could have been mine not because he stole them but because he kept it real. That's the 2000 election, if you want my opinion. Nader didn't take votes from Al Gore but Al Gore sure gave some voters reasons not to vote for him.
Now here's Chris Hedges and maybe this from his "Pariah or Prophet?" will get it across better than I can:
I can't imagine why Ralph Nader would run again. He has been branded as an egomaniac, blacklisted by the media, plunged into debt by a Democratic Party machine that challenged his ballot access petitions and locked him out of the presidential debates. Most of his friends and supporters have abandoned him, and he is almost universally reviled for throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush.
I can't imagine why he would want to go through this one more time. But when Nader hinted in San Francisco that he might run if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee, I knew I would be working for his campaign if he indeed entered the race. He understands that American democracy has become a consumer fraud and that if we do not do battle with the corporations that, in the name of globalization, are cannibalizing the country for profit, our democratic state is doomed.
I spent the last two years reporting and writing "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." The rise of the Christian right--the most dangerous mass movement in American history--can be traced directly to the corporate rape of America. This movement, which calls for the eradication of real and imagined enemies, all branded as “satanic,” at home and abroad, is an expression of rage. This rage rises out of the deep distortions and dislocations that have beset tens of millions of Americans shunted aside in the new global marketplace. The massive flight of manufacturing and professional jobs overseas, the ruthless slashing of state and federal assistance and the rise of an unchecked American oligarchy have plunged many Americans into deep economic and personal despair. They have turned, because of this despair, to "Christian" demagogues who promise magic, miracles, angels, the gospel of prosperity and a fantastic Christian utopia. And the Republicans and the Democrats are equally culpable for this assault.
There are only two solutions left. We must organize to fight the corporate state, to redirect our national wealth and resources to fund a massive antipoverty campaign and curb the cycle of perpetual war that enriches the military-industrial complex and by extension the two political parties that dominate Washington, or we must accept an inevitable Christo-fascism backed by these corporations. Don't expect glib Democratic politicians such as John Edwards, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama to address these issues. They are, as Nader understands, hostage to corporate money.
Nader, perhaps better than anyone else, has grasped the long, disastrous rise of the corporate state.
Awhile back I talked about his interview two Fridays ago with Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room and Ruth talked about it in her report Saturday. I really think you should listen to that interview. It doesn't cost anything, you can go to the archives and listen for free. But he's not copping attitude. He doesn't think he's better than the voters, he thinks the voters are too smart to be talked down to. I'm not saying you ever have to vote for him (though I would honestly consider him seriously if he ran again), but I do think you need to get that he is not the enemy. You can be an idiot, like Katrina vanden Heuvel, and make jokes about him (that aren't funny and honestly made her look tacky in the entertainment industry because you don't, as C.I. pointed out, treat the Oscars as a sport, especially before nominations are announced). Or you can face some realities that some of the people warning you about him and griping about him have either been misguided or liars.
Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz for Elaine's thoughts. And check out "And the war drags on . . ." which is really a joint-post by C.I. and Rebecca. Now here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, February 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; the Iraqi president is out of the country recovering while one of the vice-presidents is targeted; a group that tried so damn hard to play it apple pie learns that when you're given the spotlight and have nothing to say you bore everyone; the privatization of Iraq's oil moves to parliament; and mass protests took place in London and Glasgow over the weekend.
Starting with news of war resistance. Friday, the US military decided to charge Ehren Watada again. In June of last year, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. At the start of this month, he was court-martialed for his stand. Over defense objection, and only after repeatedly hinting to the prosecution that they should request a mistrial, Judge Toilet (John Head) declared the court-martial a mistrial. The US military is attempting to maintain that the double-jeopardy clause doesn't apply. Peter Boylan (Honolulu Advertiser) reported Saturday that Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, was "surprised" by the decision to refile the charges and that he believes "the Army has made so many bad mistakes in this case that the chances of them having a successful outcome are very slim." Tuesday, The Honolulu Advertiser notes, Eric Seitz will debate Michael Lewis at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa -- the debate is billed as "Lt. Watada's Case and the Legality of the War in Iraq" (12:40 pm to 1:25 pm).
Ehren Watada is part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Agustin Aguayo (scheduled to be court-martialed in Germany beginning March 6th), Ivan Brobeck, Mark Wilkerson, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In addition CBS' Lara Logan spoke with a group of people who have signed a petition that states: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home." But, as demonstrated in statements to Logan for the piece that aired Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, the war not being "worth the price" doesn't mean that any signer won't go. The speakers took great stride to point out that they were good soldiers who would obey every order. Maybe next time they can be ordered not to sign petitions? Coming off less than appealing (Ronn Cantu: "By volunteering we've done more than about 99 percent of the population"), they (or their egos) may have finally buried their own timid action. Putting out the weakest and most rah-rah voices didn't help. Playing politically stupid didn't help. A smart group of service members put the project together and in the weeks since it's been repeatedly dumbed down for public consumption.
As Mike noted Friday, The Pooper was crowing about how he was the first to cover the timid group -- as though that's something to be proud of? -- but the reality is many others (including Nora Barrows-Friedman, that's Law & Disorder) had covered it long before the Pooper did.
Today, Jon Cohen (Washington Post) reports on the paper's most recent joint-poll (with ABC) which found that respondes favored "Congressional Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq by a 54 percent to 34 percent margine"; however, there was also "a five-point increase in the number who trust neither the Democrats in Congress nor the President on the issue". This as Jeff Leys (CounterPunch) reports on how Dems in Congress "are buying the Iraq war lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, fewer votes may be cast against continuing Iraq war funding this year than last". The five-point increase in the Washington Post - ABC poll could increase next go round if Democrats do not start recognizing what's gone on around the country. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "In Election news, five peace activists were arrested on Friday at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in San Francisco. They held banners that said 'We Need a Peace Presidet' and 'Hillary, Stop Funding War'." The Occupation Project -- where citizens visit and sit in at the offices of their elected representiatives -- is currently going on throughout the country and you can click here for more information. Meanwhile Margaret Taley (AP) reports that Dems in the US Congress are feeling boxed in by the meaningless, marketed phrase that was created to clampdown on dissent but silly fools thought that adding "We" in front of it would 'frame' it.
Meanwhile, as Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) reports, US Secretary of State (and Anger) Condi "Rice spoke out Sunday against efforsts in Congress to limit the role of U.S. forces in Iraq, saying President Bush would not allow himself to be constrained by such a 'micromanagement of military affairs'." Congress, of course, has the right, power and duty to oversee the Iraq war (and bring an end to it). But Rice is fully aware that on the chat & chews she can say whatever she wants and get away with it. It's only when called to testify under oath that things get ugly. All together now, "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'."
Turning from "No one could have guessed" Condi to Ahnold, Peter Nicholas (Los Angeles Times) notes that Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, spoke with Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation yesterday where he "reiterated . . . that the U.S. needs to set clear timelines for bringing troops home, lest Iraq devolve into a quagmire with no end in sight."
Also appearing on Face the Nation (PDF format warning) was 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards who stated, "I think the Congress should use its authority, its funding authority to bring down the troop level an initial 40- to 50,000 out of Iraq, and continue to use that authority to redeploy troops out of Iraq over the next year or so." Also, on the issue of those, such as Hillary Clinton, who cannot or will not apologize for their 2002 vote that led to the illegal war, Edwards declared: "I--I think that there are two issues. One is what the situation -- difficult situation we're in, in Iraq now, what's the right and responsible course, and telling the American people and the world, for that matter, the truth about that. I also think it's important for those of us who were responsible for voting on the resolution in 2002 to say whatever the truth is for us about that vote. For those who voted for it, including me, if we believe we were wrong -- and I believe I was -- I think it's important to be honest about that and to say it. But I think that's an individual decision to be made by those who were responsible."
Meanwhile US House Rep and 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich received an award yesterday. "[T]he only Presidential candidate who voted against the original Iraq war authorization and every funding appropriation since has received the first-ever Champion for Peace Award in Hollywood from a group of families of military members opposed to U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. Military Families Speak Out honored Kucinich for being 'a strong advocate for bringing the troops home now and never wavering from that position despite the politics going on,' said Pat Alviso, leader of the organization's Long Beach and South Bay Chapter." Last week, in Nevada, Kucinich noted, "It must be really tough for Presidential candidates to come before the American people and claim that they were tricked, deceived, misled . . . by George Bush? Well here's one person who wasn't. I saw the same information all these other candidates saw."
Across the Atlantic, in the United Kingdom, over 100,000 gathered in London and Glasgow to march against the war Saturday. Matthew Cookson (Socialist Worker) reports on the London rally: "The march once again showed the depth, breadth and vibrancy of the anti-war movement. Thousands of students, trade unionists, Muslims, Christians and campaigners joined the protest." Manchester.com offers that "[t]he main emphasis of the London protest was against the war in Iraq" and that demonstrators met up "at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park before marching to Trafalgar Square." Arifa Akbar (Independent of London) spoke with Ceinwen Hilton who participated in the 2003 peace demonstration and explained why she was taking part again, "In 2003, the feeling was incredible. I was delighted that people had made an effort to show just how widely the opposition to war was felt. I remember the amazing feeling I had walking down Shaftesubry Avenue and seeing all the cast of Les Miserables cheering us from the balcony. When we were demonstrating four years ago, 600,000 were not dead. I'll be remembering them on today's march." The protests came with a theme song and a video. Life Style Extra reports that Stop The War Coalition has taken the song "War" and created a video with Tony Blair in it, where he appears to be singing the song, with the hopes of getting it into the top ten next Sunday -- "Mobile users can text PEACE1 to 78789 to download the tune" and you can purchase it here and you can watch the video (no purchase necessary) here. The BBC reports that, along with the London and Glasgow rallies, "Relatives of soldiers killed or serving in Iraq set up a camp outside Downing Street on Friday to coincide with the protest. They handed in a letter to Mr Blair calling for all British troops to be withdrawn immediately and demanding a meeting with him." CBS and AP note: "The speakers in London, and at a second demonstration in Glasgow, Scotland, also voiced fears the United States and Britain could take military action against Iran over its . . . nuclear programme."
Iran? As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted: "The New Yorker magazine is reporting the Pentagon has established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran. According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the new planning group has been charged with a developing a bombing plan that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President Bush. Hersh also reveals that U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives." Iran and Iraq were also addressed on KPFA's The Morning Show today with the guest Chris Toensing of the Middle East Report. Philip Maldari pointed out the push to scapegoat Iran for the problems in Iraq, specifically attempting to draw relationships between Iran and roadside bombs, and, as Toensing noted, "they threw it up against the wall, it didn't stick, so back to the drawing board." [Richard A. Oppel Jr. and James Glanz (New York Times) reported this morning on another attempt to pass weapons off as tied to Iran: "But critics assert that nearly all the bomb components could have been produced in Iran or somewhere else in the region. Even if the evidence were to establish that Iran is the source, they add, that does not necessarily mean that the Iranian leadership is responsible."] Maldari noted the attempts by the US administration to draw ties between Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran while ignoring how close Nouri al-Maliki was to Iran and how al-Maliki was in Iran "for decades before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." Toensing agreed and observed that, "If one wants to look at major Iraqi political figures who've recently been to Iran, the list would be long and they're all allies of the United States."
Andrea Lewis noted the sentencing of Paul Cortez for his role in the gang rape of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and Tinsling pointed out how significant it was that two women came out last week to state that they had been raped by Iraqi security forces. Feminist Wire Daily notes the the gang rapes and quote Jodie Evans (CODEPINK) stating, "This is nothing new. Women . . . pay the worst price of the war, they live in total anarchy and in fear for their lives constantly -- [imagine] how easy rape is in that situation." Feminist Wire Daily also notes that Ann Wright (retired army col.; retired State Dept.) has "asked military personnel to refuse potentially imminent orders to attack Iran." This as Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter (Times of London) report: "Some of America's most seniour military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack."
Writing at Truthout, Wright noted: "George Bush is going to war again. We see it in the Bush administration's rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program. We see it in the Bush administration's commentary on Iran's reported role in training and equipping Iraqis who are fighting US forces that have invaded and occupied that country. We see it in the Bush administration's criticism of Iran's role in funding and equipping Hezbollah in Lebanon. We see it in the Bush administration's direction to the US military to detain Iranian diplomats in Iraq, breach diplomatic facilities, and capture or kill Iranian operatives in Iraq." CNN reports that five Iranians are currently being held by US forces includ Mohsen Chirazi who has been held since December.
In Iraq the never-ending 'crackdown' continues (ongoing since June). Yesterday, CNN reported that Jalal Talabani had been flown to Amman, Jordan following a collapse. Talabani is the president of Iraq. Today, CBS and AP quote his doctor stating that he was suffering "from exhaustion and a lung inflammation". The presidential post is thought to be ceremonial in Iraq (though those who've read the Iraqi constitution closely dispute this to a degree and also dispute how many powers are actually vested in the country's prime minister position). Serving under Talabani are two vice-presidents, one Sunni, one Shia.
This morning in Baghdad, an attack was launched against Adel Abdul-Mahdi who is the Shia vice-president of Iraq. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported that the bomb was not from a car but actually inside the building a conference was being held in. Ahmed Rasheed and Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) report that six people were killed in the bombing, 31 were wounded, that Riad Ghareeb (Public Works Minister) was injured and that Abdul-Mahdi had "shrapnel wounds." CBS and AP report that Tariq al-Hashemi, Iraqi's Sunni vice-president, "has urged the Americans to come up with a 'Plan B' in case the current crackdown fails to stem the violence in Baghdad."
In addition to an attempt on the Shia vice-president's life, Iraq was also rolled by a Sunday bombing that resulted in mass fatalities. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports: "A suicide bomber pushed past guards at a crowded college campus Sunday and set off a thunderous blast that killed at least 40 Iraqis, most of them female students waiting in line to enter classrooms for midterm exames. The attack was the second in recent weeks to target the mainly Shiite Muslim Mustansiriya University. Even as rescue workers mopped up blood from the college grounds, the Iraqi government insisted that the U.S.-Iraqi security plan launched nearly two weeks ago was succeeding." Also yesterday, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) quoted a statement reported to be from Muqtada al-Sadr noting: "I'm certain, just like all oppressed Iraqis are certain, that no security plan will work and no good will come of any occupier. Here we are, watching booby trapped cars exploding to harvest thousands of innocent lives from our beloved people in the middle of a security plan that is controlled by an occupier who does as he please."
Today?
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an explosion in southern Baghdad killed two police officers and left another wounded, while a mortar attack in downtown Baghdad killed two people and wounded four. Reuters reports one Iraqi soldier dead and two more wounded in a bombing attack on a "checkpoint near the small town of Abbasi".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack in Baghdad on "a center of civil defense unit" which utilized "machineguns and grenades" and left three police officers dead and three more wounded.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that 18 corpses were discovered today in Baghdad.
Also today, the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Forces-West was killed Feb. 26 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
Last Friday, Antonia Juhasz and Kris Welch discussed the privatization of Iraq's oil on KPFA's Living Room. Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) notes today that the "hugely controversial oil law edged closer to approval after Kurds said some key issues had now been resolved between them and Baghdad." Dr Ashti Hawrami, Kurdistan Regional Government's Minister for Natural Resources, answers some basic questions here and raises more questions (and fears) than he addresses. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that the proposed law has already been approved by the Iraqi cabinet and now will move to parliament.
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
ralph nader
chris hedges
kpfa
kris welch
living room
ruths report
the common ills
iraq
agustin aguayo
ehren watada
antonia juhasz
kpfakris welch
living room
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.
Let me start by noting The Third Estate Sunday Review:
"A Note to Our Readers" -- Jim discusses the edition. The gang went to the Oscars by the way. Lucky! :D I'm not jealous, honest!!!!!!! :D
"Editorial: Watada, they go after, Watada" -- if you missed it, Friday the army refiled charges against Ehren. There's just not enough for them to do, they've got nothing to do but go after Ehren one more time. They don't care about double jeopardy or the Constitution. They just want to keep trying to destroy Ehren.
"TV: Aftermath leaves an aftertaste" -- This really is a great review by Ava and C.I. I think it came a good time too with all the rapes last week. I don't know if they'd have written it the way they did at another time. But this is really great, you have to read it.
"The Weeping Rapist" -- Paul Cortez cries. That he let his buds down. He doesn't know why he took part in the gang rape of Abeer. But he cries for his buddy. Cry baby.
"Talking artistic representation with The Common Ills' Isaiah" -- This is really cool and we all love Isaiah, so check this out. There's a lot of good stuff in the interview.
"Mailbag" -- some of the e-mails that had come in last week. Quick feature because everyone wanted some rest after last weekend's never ending nightmare.
"If he exceeds his reach, you must impeach" -- new version of a piece we worked on last weekend but had to hold it when we went with a theme at the last minute.
"The Nation Stats" -- Is there any magazine worse than The Nation these days?
"All is revealed" -- tells you the 5 heroes in the drawing from last week.
"Highlights" -- Wally, Betty, Cedric, Rebecca, Elaine and me picked out the highlights and wrote this.
So that's the new stuff.
I said more about it in my first try that got lost when the power flickered.
Okay, now this is from Ralph Nader's "Bush and Cheney Must be Impeached Before More Die:"
The invasion-occupation of Iraq has been described as a classic case of asymmetrical warfare. Unable to begin to match the modern land, aerial and sea weaponry of the United States, the insurgents are fighting back with roadside IEDs, rifles and grenades to sow chaos, death and destruction. Many of these attacks have been in civilian marketplaces. The casualties show the inability, or unwillingness, of the U.S. to keep the peace and protect civilians, as required, by the way, under international law. The carnage, in turn, is supposed to generate more resistance to the U.S. occupation by the people of Iraq.
The idea behind asymmetrical attacks is not to directly engage U.S. forces because that truly would be a series of suicide missions. Almost four years into the occupation, an ominous new phase is revealing itself from the insurgents. They are concentrating on bringing down U.S. helicopters eight since January 20th, more than in all of 2006. Military strategists say they are not surprised. The New York Times reports that "the attackers used a variety of weapons, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and unguided rockets that cannot be diverted by the flares helicopters disperse to fool heat-seeking missiles."
Now comes the move to chemical attacks namely chlorine that is used to decontaminate drinking water. Historically, armies fought with physics, chemistry and, less frequently, biology. Moving toward chemistry, the insurgents are opening up the possibility of megadisasters that are very difficult to stop. Again, reports The Times, "the attacks seem to have been poorly executed, burning the chemical agent rather than dispersing it, but more sophisticated weapons involving chlorine could injure hundreds and cause mass panic." Make that thousands. Sabotaging large tank cars with chlorine could generate a deadly cloud that could cover and devastate life over numerous square miles.
Bully Boy needs to be impeached. You see any Democrats in Congress saying that? No. You do see Ralph Nader saying that. I've talked about how I get e-mails from people who are really mad everytime I talk about Nader but that's just how it's going to be. If it's too much of a problem for you, go ahead and stop dropping by. I'm not trying to kick anyone out but Nader, if he never did anything else, is standing up against the war and against Bully Boy.
Now he's actually done a lot more than that. But that alone should make some people who just see red when his name comes up tone it down. I've noted before that Nader didn't steal votes from Al Gore but when you've got silly dopes like Katrina vanden Heuvel wanting to make silly jokes in 2006, it's no surprise that some people still believe the nonsense.
I'll try one last time though. Okay, we're all in senior year high school. Someone's going to be elected class president. I'm running. Cedric's running. Betty's running. Rebecca's running. Maybe you want to run? Okay, you're running too. You don't steal any votes from me. You get the votes you earn. Everybody gets the votes they earn. Okay now, me and Wally are real tight and think a lot a like. I think you're going to win so I start trying to sound like you and Wally keeps it real. He ends up with votes that could have been mine not because he stole them but because he kept it real. That's the 2000 election, if you want my opinion. Nader didn't take votes from Al Gore but Al Gore sure gave some voters reasons not to vote for him.
Now here's Chris Hedges and maybe this from his "Pariah or Prophet?" will get it across better than I can:
I can't imagine why Ralph Nader would run again. He has been branded as an egomaniac, blacklisted by the media, plunged into debt by a Democratic Party machine that challenged his ballot access petitions and locked him out of the presidential debates. Most of his friends and supporters have abandoned him, and he is almost universally reviled for throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush.
I can't imagine why he would want to go through this one more time. But when Nader hinted in San Francisco that he might run if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee, I knew I would be working for his campaign if he indeed entered the race. He understands that American democracy has become a consumer fraud and that if we do not do battle with the corporations that, in the name of globalization, are cannibalizing the country for profit, our democratic state is doomed.
I spent the last two years reporting and writing "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." The rise of the Christian right--the most dangerous mass movement in American history--can be traced directly to the corporate rape of America. This movement, which calls for the eradication of real and imagined enemies, all branded as “satanic,” at home and abroad, is an expression of rage. This rage rises out of the deep distortions and dislocations that have beset tens of millions of Americans shunted aside in the new global marketplace. The massive flight of manufacturing and professional jobs overseas, the ruthless slashing of state and federal assistance and the rise of an unchecked American oligarchy have plunged many Americans into deep economic and personal despair. They have turned, because of this despair, to "Christian" demagogues who promise magic, miracles, angels, the gospel of prosperity and a fantastic Christian utopia. And the Republicans and the Democrats are equally culpable for this assault.
There are only two solutions left. We must organize to fight the corporate state, to redirect our national wealth and resources to fund a massive antipoverty campaign and curb the cycle of perpetual war that enriches the military-industrial complex and by extension the two political parties that dominate Washington, or we must accept an inevitable Christo-fascism backed by these corporations. Don't expect glib Democratic politicians such as John Edwards, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama to address these issues. They are, as Nader understands, hostage to corporate money.
Nader, perhaps better than anyone else, has grasped the long, disastrous rise of the corporate state.
Awhile back I talked about his interview two Fridays ago with Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room and Ruth talked about it in her report Saturday. I really think you should listen to that interview. It doesn't cost anything, you can go to the archives and listen for free. But he's not copping attitude. He doesn't think he's better than the voters, he thinks the voters are too smart to be talked down to. I'm not saying you ever have to vote for him (though I would honestly consider him seriously if he ran again), but I do think you need to get that he is not the enemy. You can be an idiot, like Katrina vanden Heuvel, and make jokes about him (that aren't funny and honestly made her look tacky in the entertainment industry because you don't, as C.I. pointed out, treat the Oscars as a sport, especially before nominations are announced). Or you can face some realities that some of the people warning you about him and griping about him have either been misguided or liars.
Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz for Elaine's thoughts. And check out "And the war drags on . . ." which is really a joint-post by C.I. and Rebecca. Now here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, February 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; the Iraqi president is out of the country recovering while one of the vice-presidents is targeted; a group that tried so damn hard to play it apple pie learns that when you're given the spotlight and have nothing to say you bore everyone; the privatization of Iraq's oil moves to parliament; and mass protests took place in London and Glasgow over the weekend.
Starting with news of war resistance. Friday, the US military decided to charge Ehren Watada again. In June of last year, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. At the start of this month, he was court-martialed for his stand. Over defense objection, and only after repeatedly hinting to the prosecution that they should request a mistrial, Judge Toilet (John Head) declared the court-martial a mistrial. The US military is attempting to maintain that the double-jeopardy clause doesn't apply. Peter Boylan (Honolulu Advertiser) reported Saturday that Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, was "surprised" by the decision to refile the charges and that he believes "the Army has made so many bad mistakes in this case that the chances of them having a successful outcome are very slim." Tuesday, The Honolulu Advertiser notes, Eric Seitz will debate Michael Lewis at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa -- the debate is billed as "Lt. Watada's Case and the Legality of the War in Iraq" (12:40 pm to 1:25 pm).
Ehren Watada is part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Agustin Aguayo (scheduled to be court-martialed in Germany beginning March 6th), Ivan Brobeck, Mark Wilkerson, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In addition CBS' Lara Logan spoke with a group of people who have signed a petition that states: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home." But, as demonstrated in statements to Logan for the piece that aired Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, the war not being "worth the price" doesn't mean that any signer won't go. The speakers took great stride to point out that they were good soldiers who would obey every order. Maybe next time they can be ordered not to sign petitions? Coming off less than appealing (Ronn Cantu: "By volunteering we've done more than about 99 percent of the population"), they (or their egos) may have finally buried their own timid action. Putting out the weakest and most rah-rah voices didn't help. Playing politically stupid didn't help. A smart group of service members put the project together and in the weeks since it's been repeatedly dumbed down for public consumption.
As Mike noted Friday, The Pooper was crowing about how he was the first to cover the timid group -- as though that's something to be proud of? -- but the reality is many others (including Nora Barrows-Friedman, that's Law & Disorder) had covered it long before the Pooper did.
Today, Jon Cohen (Washington Post) reports on the paper's most recent joint-poll (with ABC) which found that respondes favored "Congressional Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq by a 54 percent to 34 percent margine"; however, there was also "a five-point increase in the number who trust neither the Democrats in Congress nor the President on the issue". This as Jeff Leys (CounterPunch) reports on how Dems in Congress "are buying the Iraq war lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, fewer votes may be cast against continuing Iraq war funding this year than last". The five-point increase in the Washington Post - ABC poll could increase next go round if Democrats do not start recognizing what's gone on around the country. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "In Election news, five peace activists were arrested on Friday at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in San Francisco. They held banners that said 'We Need a Peace Presidet' and 'Hillary, Stop Funding War'." The Occupation Project -- where citizens visit and sit in at the offices of their elected representiatives -- is currently going on throughout the country and you can click here for more information. Meanwhile Margaret Taley (AP) reports that Dems in the US Congress are feeling boxed in by the meaningless, marketed phrase that was created to clampdown on dissent but silly fools thought that adding "We" in front of it would 'frame' it.
Meanwhile, as Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) reports, US Secretary of State (and Anger) Condi "Rice spoke out Sunday against efforsts in Congress to limit the role of U.S. forces in Iraq, saying President Bush would not allow himself to be constrained by such a 'micromanagement of military affairs'." Congress, of course, has the right, power and duty to oversee the Iraq war (and bring an end to it). But Rice is fully aware that on the chat & chews she can say whatever she wants and get away with it. It's only when called to testify under oath that things get ugly. All together now, "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'."
Turning from "No one could have guessed" Condi to Ahnold, Peter Nicholas (Los Angeles Times) notes that Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, spoke with Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation yesterday where he "reiterated . . . that the U.S. needs to set clear timelines for bringing troops home, lest Iraq devolve into a quagmire with no end in sight."
Also appearing on Face the Nation (PDF format warning) was 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards who stated, "I think the Congress should use its authority, its funding authority to bring down the troop level an initial 40- to 50,000 out of Iraq, and continue to use that authority to redeploy troops out of Iraq over the next year or so." Also, on the issue of those, such as Hillary Clinton, who cannot or will not apologize for their 2002 vote that led to the illegal war, Edwards declared: "I--I think that there are two issues. One is what the situation -- difficult situation we're in, in Iraq now, what's the right and responsible course, and telling the American people and the world, for that matter, the truth about that. I also think it's important for those of us who were responsible for voting on the resolution in 2002 to say whatever the truth is for us about that vote. For those who voted for it, including me, if we believe we were wrong -- and I believe I was -- I think it's important to be honest about that and to say it. But I think that's an individual decision to be made by those who were responsible."
Meanwhile US House Rep and 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich received an award yesterday. "[T]he only Presidential candidate who voted against the original Iraq war authorization and every funding appropriation since has received the first-ever Champion for Peace Award in Hollywood from a group of families of military members opposed to U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. Military Families Speak Out honored Kucinich for being 'a strong advocate for bringing the troops home now and never wavering from that position despite the politics going on,' said Pat Alviso, leader of the organization's Long Beach and South Bay Chapter." Last week, in Nevada, Kucinich noted, "It must be really tough for Presidential candidates to come before the American people and claim that they were tricked, deceived, misled . . . by George Bush? Well here's one person who wasn't. I saw the same information all these other candidates saw."
Across the Atlantic, in the United Kingdom, over 100,000 gathered in London and Glasgow to march against the war Saturday. Matthew Cookson (Socialist Worker) reports on the London rally: "The march once again showed the depth, breadth and vibrancy of the anti-war movement. Thousands of students, trade unionists, Muslims, Christians and campaigners joined the protest." Manchester.com offers that "[t]he main emphasis of the London protest was against the war in Iraq" and that demonstrators met up "at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park before marching to Trafalgar Square." Arifa Akbar (Independent of London) spoke with Ceinwen Hilton who participated in the 2003 peace demonstration and explained why she was taking part again, "In 2003, the feeling was incredible. I was delighted that people had made an effort to show just how widely the opposition to war was felt. I remember the amazing feeling I had walking down Shaftesubry Avenue and seeing all the cast of Les Miserables cheering us from the balcony. When we were demonstrating four years ago, 600,000 were not dead. I'll be remembering them on today's march." The protests came with a theme song and a video. Life Style Extra reports that Stop The War Coalition has taken the song "War" and created a video with Tony Blair in it, where he appears to be singing the song, with the hopes of getting it into the top ten next Sunday -- "Mobile users can text PEACE1 to 78789 to download the tune" and you can purchase it here and you can watch the video (no purchase necessary) here. The BBC reports that, along with the London and Glasgow rallies, "Relatives of soldiers killed or serving in Iraq set up a camp outside Downing Street on Friday to coincide with the protest. They handed in a letter to Mr Blair calling for all British troops to be withdrawn immediately and demanding a meeting with him." CBS and AP note: "The speakers in London, and at a second demonstration in Glasgow, Scotland, also voiced fears the United States and Britain could take military action against Iran over its . . . nuclear programme."
Iran? As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted: "The New Yorker magazine is reporting the Pentagon has established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran. According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the new planning group has been charged with a developing a bombing plan that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President Bush. Hersh also reveals that U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives." Iran and Iraq were also addressed on KPFA's The Morning Show today with the guest Chris Toensing of the Middle East Report. Philip Maldari pointed out the push to scapegoat Iran for the problems in Iraq, specifically attempting to draw relationships between Iran and roadside bombs, and, as Toensing noted, "they threw it up against the wall, it didn't stick, so back to the drawing board." [Richard A. Oppel Jr. and James Glanz (New York Times) reported this morning on another attempt to pass weapons off as tied to Iran: "But critics assert that nearly all the bomb components could have been produced in Iran or somewhere else in the region. Even if the evidence were to establish that Iran is the source, they add, that does not necessarily mean that the Iranian leadership is responsible."] Maldari noted the attempts by the US administration to draw ties between Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran while ignoring how close Nouri al-Maliki was to Iran and how al-Maliki was in Iran "for decades before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." Toensing agreed and observed that, "If one wants to look at major Iraqi political figures who've recently been to Iran, the list would be long and they're all allies of the United States."
Andrea Lewis noted the sentencing of Paul Cortez for his role in the gang rape of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and Tinsling pointed out how significant it was that two women came out last week to state that they had been raped by Iraqi security forces. Feminist Wire Daily notes the the gang rapes and quote Jodie Evans (CODEPINK) stating, "This is nothing new. Women . . . pay the worst price of the war, they live in total anarchy and in fear for their lives constantly -- [imagine] how easy rape is in that situation." Feminist Wire Daily also notes that Ann Wright (retired army col.; retired State Dept.) has "asked military personnel to refuse potentially imminent orders to attack Iran." This as Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter (Times of London) report: "Some of America's most seniour military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack."
Writing at Truthout, Wright noted: "George Bush is going to war again. We see it in the Bush administration's rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program. We see it in the Bush administration's commentary on Iran's reported role in training and equipping Iraqis who are fighting US forces that have invaded and occupied that country. We see it in the Bush administration's criticism of Iran's role in funding and equipping Hezbollah in Lebanon. We see it in the Bush administration's direction to the US military to detain Iranian diplomats in Iraq, breach diplomatic facilities, and capture or kill Iranian operatives in Iraq." CNN reports that five Iranians are currently being held by US forces includ Mohsen Chirazi who has been held since December.
In Iraq the never-ending 'crackdown' continues (ongoing since June). Yesterday, CNN reported that Jalal Talabani had been flown to Amman, Jordan following a collapse. Talabani is the president of Iraq. Today, CBS and AP quote his doctor stating that he was suffering "from exhaustion and a lung inflammation". The presidential post is thought to be ceremonial in Iraq (though those who've read the Iraqi constitution closely dispute this to a degree and also dispute how many powers are actually vested in the country's prime minister position). Serving under Talabani are two vice-presidents, one Sunni, one Shia.
This morning in Baghdad, an attack was launched against Adel Abdul-Mahdi who is the Shia vice-president of Iraq. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported that the bomb was not from a car but actually inside the building a conference was being held in. Ahmed Rasheed and Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) report that six people were killed in the bombing, 31 were wounded, that Riad Ghareeb (Public Works Minister) was injured and that Abdul-Mahdi had "shrapnel wounds." CBS and AP report that Tariq al-Hashemi, Iraqi's Sunni vice-president, "has urged the Americans to come up with a 'Plan B' in case the current crackdown fails to stem the violence in Baghdad."
In addition to an attempt on the Shia vice-president's life, Iraq was also rolled by a Sunday bombing that resulted in mass fatalities. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports: "A suicide bomber pushed past guards at a crowded college campus Sunday and set off a thunderous blast that killed at least 40 Iraqis, most of them female students waiting in line to enter classrooms for midterm exames. The attack was the second in recent weeks to target the mainly Shiite Muslim Mustansiriya University. Even as rescue workers mopped up blood from the college grounds, the Iraqi government insisted that the U.S.-Iraqi security plan launched nearly two weeks ago was succeeding." Also yesterday, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) quoted a statement reported to be from Muqtada al-Sadr noting: "I'm certain, just like all oppressed Iraqis are certain, that no security plan will work and no good will come of any occupier. Here we are, watching booby trapped cars exploding to harvest thousands of innocent lives from our beloved people in the middle of a security plan that is controlled by an occupier who does as he please."
Today?
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an explosion in southern Baghdad killed two police officers and left another wounded, while a mortar attack in downtown Baghdad killed two people and wounded four. Reuters reports one Iraqi soldier dead and two more wounded in a bombing attack on a "checkpoint near the small town of Abbasi".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack in Baghdad on "a center of civil defense unit" which utilized "machineguns and grenades" and left three police officers dead and three more wounded.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that 18 corpses were discovered today in Baghdad.
Also today, the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Forces-West was killed Feb. 26 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
Last Friday, Antonia Juhasz and Kris Welch discussed the privatization of Iraq's oil on KPFA's Living Room. Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) notes today that the "hugely controversial oil law edged closer to approval after Kurds said some key issues had now been resolved between them and Baghdad." Dr Ashti Hawrami, Kurdistan Regional Government's Minister for Natural Resources, answers some basic questions here and raises more questions (and fears) than he addresses. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that the proposed law has already been approved by the Iraqi cabinet and now will move to parliament.
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
ralph nader
chris hedges
kpfa
kris welch
living room
ruths report
the common ills
iraq
agustin aguayo
ehren watada
antonia juhasz
kpfakris welch
living room
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)