Ken Silverstein, Dave Lindorff, Betty, Cedric & Ty

Hump day! Almost the weekend. Sometimes when I'm sitting down in front of the computer it will just hit me that this has been going on for two years now (my site) and it really doesn't feel like that. As slow as Congress moves, the world seems to be moving about 10,000 times faster.

Okay, Silly Tomasky wrote in the Washington Post last weekend that impeachment would destroy the Democrats chances in 2008. Which really isn't true but it also beside the point. If you don't get it, this is from Ken Silverstein's "Keep Your Politics Out of My Impeachment:"

There are other arguments I have with the Post piece. Tomasky acknowledges that Republicans didn't suffer politically when they impeached President Bill Clinton in 1999 and even "retained control of both houses of Congress" in the following year’s election. But he says the reverse would happen now because the Republicans are ruthless whereas "defensive Democrats" are always quick to scamper back to the safety of "bland [political] terrain." So maybe the Democrats should be more like the Republicans instead of following Tomasky’s advice and scurrying back to bland terrain.
He also says with alarm that the country is evenly split on the question of impeachment, and predicts a bloody fight if impeachment goes forward. "Do we really want to drag the country through that?" he asks. "The thought of it--months of rancor, name-calling and mud-slinging that would almost certainly end in defeat for the impeachers--depresses me beyond words." I would expect (and hope) that the 2008 elections will be filled with rancor, name-calling and mud-slinging. Should the Democrats spare the country that and just concede defeat now?
Finally, Tomasky blasts the administration, writing, "Bush and Cheney--and conservatism in general--have wrecked our civic institutions and darkened our civic impulses. Nothing is beyond politicization . . . When everything is subordinate to politics, civic institutions and impulses suffer." But the whole crux of Tomasky's argument is that in the case of impeachment, everything should be subordinate to a politics, specifically an analysis of what's best for the Democratic Party.
In the end, impeachment should be pursued if Bush violated the constitution and put aside if he did not. No one knows for sure what the political consequences of that course would be but that’s not the fundamental question. And here's one thing we do know: when the Democrats decided not to seek the impeachment of President Reagan following the Iran/contra affair, the result was the weakening congressional branch and enablement of the all-powerful executive as practiced under George W. Bush.

I think Silverstein's right. If the Democrats ever actually stood up for the people (instead of against the people), there might not be 'close' (or stolen) elections anymore. Back in May, we wrote "Editorial: The Party of Stella Toddler" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) and that's really still true. The Democrats refuse to act and always promise they'll act next time. Then next time comes and they're still not acting. That's why there's still no end to the illegal war. And saying it better than I just did is Dave Lindorff. Here's a part of his "Democrats Aren't Wafflers, They're Wifflers:"

If you assume that the Democratic Party leadership is not a bunch of idiots, then the only alternative theory has to be that they think that we are.
How else to explain this continuing failed "policy" of so-called progressive Democrats in Congress of passing terrible legislation and claiming that they will "fix it" later?
The approach seems to have first been developed early in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton came up with his disastrous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for gays in the military. Everyone knew it was a shameful climbdown from his campaign promise to end discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military, but the claim, and that the policy was doomed to failure, but Clinton and his supporters claimed that they’d "at least" get that lousy policy adopted and then they'd "fix it" later.
They never did.
The same approach was taken to welfare "reform." Everyone could see that throwing people off of welfare after one five-year stretch in an economy that had no jobs and no childcare to offer was going to create more poverty and hardship, but Democrats promised that before that dire day came, they’d "fix it."
They never did and poverty rates have soared in America.
Likewise with the Clinton-era "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act," which pandered to right-wing clamor for get-tough laws after the Oklahoma City bombing by undermining habeas corpus. "We'll fix it," the liberals promised.
They never did, and it paved the way for the vitiation of habeas under President Bush.
Democrats in Congress since 9-11 have continued with this cheap ploy, hoping that by voting for crappy legislation, they can get "cover" from attacks from the right, while hanging on to liberal support with the false promise that later they will "fix it."
They did this when they provided their overwhelming backing for the USA PATRIOT Act and for its extension. They did it with the Military Commissions Act that seeks to retroactively legalize torture,
And now they've done it with the revision--destruction really--of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
In a sense, the Democratic backing for full funding of the Iraq War and occupation through September was the same kind of thing. "We'll fix this in October," was the mantra, as they provided Bush with all the money he wanted to keep the slaughter and killing going through the summer.
What makes this "strategy" (if it can even be graced with such a name) so shameless and deceptive is that the Democratic leadership knows that with their slim majority in House and Senate, they don't have a chance in hell of passing any corrective legislation, any more than they did when they were in the minority. Even with their small majority, if they could manage to pull together enough Democratic and liberal Republican votes to pass a bill, for example, to "fix" the FISA law and bring presidential spying under some kind of oversight, that bill would be vetoed in a flash by the president, with no chance of an override.

Here's one point I would add to the above. If Democrats had passed their own legislation and gone on vacation, Bully Boy would have vetoed it and they could have screamed, "Look who's not making America safe!" It's like they try to play his game but they're too stupid to know how to play to win. Instead of standing up to him, like Lindorff points out, they go to the right of him to tell voters "US TOO!!" and then they get all bent out of shape when people point out how little (or no) difference there is between the two parties.

Now, a question, why is it every time I do an excerpt of Dave Lindorff's writing, Elaine and I both end up with people e-mailing who hate him? I'm not talking about community members or my regular readers, I'm talking about the freaks (they love the Chipster!) who just seem to hate Dave Lindorff. I saw the message at his site this week about how it had been hacked and my first thought was, "Could it be that guy that keeps e-mailing trying to tell me 'the truth' about Dave Lindorff?"

So is impeachment going to move? I don't think it has to do with what the people want because I say we want it. Who's standing in the way? Dems in Congress. And put Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoywer and John Conyers at the top of the list. Okay at The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend, we didn't have time for a roundtable we'd planned. There were a lot of issues we wanted to roundtable on. When there were problems getting pieces up online (Flickr kept refusing to load illustrations), Betty, Cedric and Ty wrote "John Conyers Is No MLK (Betty, Cedric & Ty):"

Last week, we shared our feelings regarding a member of Congress, John Conyers. During the pieces that addressed Conyers, we made clear our opposition to sicking the police on activists practicing civil disobedience. For reasons that only Rev. Lennox Yearwood can answer, he's decided to back away from an intial strong stand.
Regardless of what his reasons were (and we are aware that he was under attack), we stand by our statements. We don't give a damn what anyone says about us. As African-Americans, we're fully aware that at least a third of the discussions going on in our community are 'ranking' and 'scoring' and 'cracking.' You can listen to a five minute burst of flow on Aretha Franklin's weight with cracks about her eating only to hear the dee jay then play one of her records and talk about how amazing her voice is.
So if anyone thinks our Black voices will be silenced, think again.
In a supposed piece on race, we felt Yearwood was cracking . . . on Whites. Yearwood offers that Whites writing things like 'Conyers is no MLK' was "deeply disrespectful" to "many" in the community. Gee, our phones didn't ring once. Was this a national poll?
No one in our families complained, no one in our (Cedric and Betty's) churches complained when we shared print outs of that column and similar ones. Apparently a Black Bougie-Bougie got a hold of Yearwood's ear and he's confused that with actual African-Americans.
While we missed that version in Gladys and the Pips' song, we're not surprised.
Yearwood writes, "I would say to my White progressive friends that they should be careful who they condemn for not following in the steps of the late Dr. King if they themselves have not been prepared to walk in those steps and be champions of the consistent fight for social justice." Well let these two Black brothers and this Black sister say it: John Conyers is not following in the footsteps of MLK.
Let us all note our OUTRAGE that MLK is being reduced to something that can be cited (as a comparison) by only African-Americans. That notion is deplorable. We encourage everyone to use MLK as a touchstone. He does not "belong" to one segment of the people, he belongs to all and we will not stand silent while he is ghetto-ized or his status as an international hero is reduced to "Black guy who marched."
John Conyers is no MLK. Your first clue is that MLK couldn't have been elected to Congress. Even were he alive today, it wouldn't happen. That's because MLK wasn't Marty & The March the way he is Disney-fied today. He was against illegal wars. He was against imperialism. He was against injustice. Reducing him solely to race does him a HUGE disservice and that bull might fly with the mainstream media but it doesn't belong among the left.
John Conyers is no MLK. Your second clue is that he stood. He didn't cower. Not even when he was shot down. He knew that day was coming and he didn't sit around wondering how to protect himself. He was on a mission to make the world a better place. Conyers is a coward who will not stand up to Nancy Pelosi. She took impeachment "off the table." If he put it back on the table, he'd find he had too much support from the people for Pelosi to monkey around with his seniority rights to chair a committee.
John Conyers is no MLK. Your third clue is that MLK stood up even when he knew the risks. He was slammed by the press in his final years and that was due to the fact that he refused to be silent. Conyers operates by political calculations. He is a COWARD.
John Conyers is no MLK. Your fourth clue is that the powers-that-be saw MLK as a threat that needed to be cut down while Conyers, over 70-years-old, retains his seat in Congress. Cynthia McKinney may have lost her seat but she never lost her voice even when the same sort of elements that cut down MLK during his life went after McKinney. And, if you missed it, Yearwood, when Pelosi gave the orders that there would be no support for McKinney, Conyers didn't violate that rule either. She'd announced she's be speaking about the incident with the police and she WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE BLACK CAUCUS. She didn't have any of their support. It was a White woman, Marcy Kaptur, one member of Congress and only one, who had the guts and convictions MLK lived by, who said, "I will stand with you, Cynthia" while her colleagues avoided McKinney like she had the plague. After Kaptur made it safe, a few others joined McKinney.
So save the speeches about how noble John Conyers is and how it's wrong to say he's not like MLK. MLK stood for what was right and Conyers has lived his Congressional life refusing to rock the boat.As we said last week, he's old, he's tired, it's past time he gave up his seat and let some new blood in. The only disgrace has been what he has done to his own image.
-- Betty, Cedric and Ty

I get mad all the time. I've only seen Cedric upset a few times. One when Koo Koo Katrina was dissing Harry Belafonte and another time was when people were trying to say Rosa Parks only mattered to African-Americans. He wrote about being pissed about that and he talked about it in roundtables. He was really mad about what Yearwood wrote. So were Ty and Betty, but he was really, really mad. We'll probably address that this weekend.

And that's it for me tonight. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and there's a link to Bill Moyers because the impeachment special is being re-run so heads up to that:

Wednesday, August 8, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military and the British military both announce deaths, a dawn air attack by the US on a residential area kills civilians, war resister Eli Israel tells his story, meet "The Other Iraq," and more.

Starting with war resisters. Camilo Mejia is the first war resister to return to the US and refuse to return to the US. Stephen Funk is the first war resister to refuse to to Iraq period. Eli Israel is the first known war resister to refuse while serving in Iraq. At Courage to Resist, Eli Isreal tells his story. He writes of growing up "in the custody of state of Kentucky," living on the streets, attempting to join the Marines at 16 but having no diploma and no GED so being turned down. Israel got his GED, took some college courses and, at 18, enlisted in the military. After leaving the military, he re-enlisted in 2004. In Iraq he was "a JVB Agent -- the JVB (Joint Visitors Bureau) served as protective service for 'three star generals and above' and their 'civilian equivalents'. This included the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," etc. and "when we didn't have any missions at JVB, it was common for us to be called on for 'search and cordon' operations and other infantry assignements". Israel writes:

I claimed like many that my actions during these missions were justified in the name of "self-defense." However, I came to realize it was that my perception was wrong. I was in a country that I had no right to be in, violating the lives of people, and doing so without regard to the same standards of dignity and respect that we as Americans hold our own homes and our lives to.

I had taken and/or destroyed the lives of people who were defending their families from being the "collateral damage" of the day. Iraqi boys are joining groups like "Al Qaeda" for the same reason street kids in the U.S. join the "Crypts" and the Bloods". It's about self protection, a sense of dignity, and a way of making a stand.


The young man whose father and cousin we "accidentally" killed, and whose mother and siblings cry every time the tank rolls through the neighborhood, doesn't care about who Osama Bin Laden is.


Israel writes of the destuction of Iraq, the daily deaths of Iraqis, martial law, the denial of basic services, and more leading to a realization: "The day I saw myself in the hateful eyes of a young Iraqi boy who stared at me was the day I realized I could no longer justify my role in the occupation." So Eli Israel attempted to become a CO but when he informed his superios of that decision, he was immediately isolated and placed under military guard for two weeks after which he was sent to Camp Arifjan for 30 days in prison which became 25 and he's now discharged and "scheduled to be out-processed from the Army within the month and plan on joining forces with anti-Iraq-War movements, such as Courage to Resist and Iraq Veterans Against the War." That's a synopsis and, again, you can read his story in his own words at Courage to Resist. He concludes, "Objecting to the war and standing up to the miliary was without question, one of the best decisions I have ever made. I made a stand that was the right one, and I have my freedom back as a bonus. Maybe ten years from now those of us resisting from within the military today will be seen as some of the first few to speak the truth and to follow up with action. Even now I have many to remind me that I'm not alone in my thinking, even a majority of Americans who know that all the pieces of this conflict simply don't add up."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.

Turning to Iraq where the air war continues. CBS and AP report that a dawn attack on the Sadr City section of Baghdad, a US helicopter attack, has left at least 9 civilians dead (2 women included in the fatalties). Reuters says the number, according to hospital officials, is 13 and note: "Hundres of angry mourners later marched chanting through the streets of the slum after the raid on the eve of a major Shi'ite holy day." BBC offers a series of photos of the mourners which include (a) a man seated on the ground holding his head while a small boy cries next to him, three boys and a man slumped over a table while two women cry, and a photo of marchers which numbers over a thousand -- not the "hundreds" billed -- taking to the treets, walking around buses, clutching their chests and their heads. BBC reports eye witnesses stating children were also killed and that the US military does conceed the point that women and children were present -- obvious point, this is a residential area that was bombed at dawn -- they assert none died. Later the US military is expected to also issue assertions that the Easter Bunny exists. Jaime Tarabay (NPR) notes that officials in "Sadr City say that there were no 30 terrorist killed there were acutally 9 civilians killed and among those were women and children and there were also six people that were injured."

In other violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports four Baghdad mortar attacks that claimed 2 lives and wounded twelve, a Baghdad roadside bombing that left three Iraqi soldiers wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer (six more wounded), a Kirkuk car bombing left four police officers and a civilian wounded. Reuters notes a bombing in a Baquba barbre shop that claimed 5 lives and left eight more wounded, a Samarra mortar attack that claimed 7 lives, and a Hawija roadside bombing that left one person dead.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two women wounded ("a mother and her daughter") in a shooting attack, while attorney Emad Dosh was shot dead in Najaf and Talai Bilal was attacked in Kufa but survived -- two security guards were wounded. Reuters notes a police officer was shot dead in Dujail and one person was shot dead in Jurf Al-Sakhar and another in Mahaweel.

Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 11 corpses discovered in Baghdad and the corpse of Muthhir Ali was discovered in Kirkuk.
Today the UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with deep sorrow that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of a British serviceman from 1 Squadron, RAF Regiment in Basra City, southern Iraq last night, Tuesday 7 August 2007. The serviceman died as a result of small arms fire attack which occurred at approximately 2030 hours local time during an operation in the Karmat Ali district of Basra City." ICCC's total for the number of British soldiers killed in Iraq is now 166. This follows Monday's announced death in Basra of 20-year-old Craig Barber whom, the UK Ministry of Defense notes, "leaves behind his loving family, including his wife Donna and son Bradley."

And today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed and four others wounded during combat operations in a western section of the Iraqi capital when an improvised explosive device detonated near their patrol Aug. 7." ICCC pegs the number of US service members killed in Iraq this month at 22 thus far and since the start of the illegal war at 3681.

As all this goes on, Bernd Debusmann (Reuters) offers a story on tourism in Iraq or to what is billed as "The Other Iraq" -- the Kurdish area. Why not? asks the headline. Gee, maybe because of the cross border struggles with Turkey that yesterday's meet and greet with al-Maliki didn't solve. Maybe because, as Steve Negus (Financial Times of London) pointed out a week ago, the census that was supposed to be taken of the area never was and December is when a vote is supposed to "determine the fate of a large oil-rich and bitterly disputed swathe of the country". Or how about James Cogan (WSWS) noting that Massoud Barzani ("president of the autonomous Kurdish Regional Government") has called for "a real civil war" if Kirkuk ("oli-rich" Kirkuk) does not become part of the Kurdish territory.

Turning to Japan where recent elections shifted the power. David Pilling (Financial Times of London) reports that the Democratic Party of Japan "took control of the upper house Tuesday" and "is considering introducing a bill to end Tokyo's logistical support in Iraq" meaning curtailing "the supply flights the Japan Air Self-Defence Force flew to Baghdad and northern Iraq from Kuwait."

Could that increase the cost of the illegal war for the US? On the topic of the cost . . . On July 31st, Gordon England, the US Dept. Secretary of Defense, appeared before the House Budget Committee of the US Congress and declared, "As Secretary Gates has said, the Department is firmly committed to an open and transparent dialogue with the Congress about war costs." Though only 8 days ago, England's remarks are already laughable. Today Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) reports that the Pentagon is now insisting that $750 million is needed immediately in order "to urgenly airlift needed armored vehichles to troops facing roadside bombs in Iraq." As Cedric and Wally pointed out Monday, the House just approved $459.6 billion in funding to military spending. Nicholas Johnston (Bloomberg News) reported this was "for fiscal year 2008". John Nichols (link goes to CBS) observed there was "virtually no debate" before the House approved the bill and that the "amount does not include the extra $147 billion Iraq war funding that the Bush administration has demanded that Congress approve when the Congress returns from its August recess." This latest last minute funding request comes as the cost of the illegal war continues to mount and not that long after noises about how Americans would not be paying for the illegal war in piecemeal, that the American people needed to know the true costs of the illegal war. In fact, one of the people decrying this sort of "haphazard, piecemeal funding" was the Bully Boy of the United States himself on May 10th. At the end of last month, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) noted Congress gave the Defense Department "$1.7 billion for military construction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, according to CRS [Congressional Research Service], but offered no breakdown of how the money was spent." Dropping back to December 2006, Carl Hulse (New York Times via IHT) noted that the Democrats who had just won control of both houses in the November elections were "planning to assert more control over the billions of dollars a month being spent on the conflict [Iraq] when they take charge of Congress in January." Hulse quoted two tough talkers. In the Senate, Kent Conrad declared, "They have been playing hide-the-ball, and that does not serve the Congress well nor the county well, and we are not going to continue that practice." From the House, John Spratt who stated, "We need to have a better breakout of the costs -- period." Possibly, Hulse misquoted Spratt and he really said "breakout of the costs -- period period period"? Ellipses would certainly make more sense when Spratt is quoted by Tom Vanden Brook today sounding ready to toss around the (public's) money without asking any questions such as why the Pentagon's only now interested in shipping the vehicles or what pork the Pentagon can eliminate on their own instead of expecting the US tax payers to foot the bill for every goody on their wish-list. Noting the waste in the bloated budget, John Nichols wondered "why was there no serious debate on the Pentagon budget? It's not just that the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress continue to use the war on terror as an excuse to enrich defense contractors such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton. As Winslow Wheller, a veteran of 31 years working with mostly Republican senators on defense issues and a former assistant director of evaluations of national defense programs with the U.S. Government Accountablility Office, 'Now in control of Congress and having made multiple promises to restore oversight of the war in Iraq and the executive branch in general, the Democrats have been successfully rolled by the White House, the military services, and the big spender pundits'." To repeat, July 31st, Dept. Secretary of Defense Gordon England stated to Congress that "the [Defense] Department is firmly committed to an open and transparent dialogue with the Congress about war costs."

Turning to US politics. Yesterday the AFL-CIO hosted a 'debate' with Democratic hopefuls for the 2008 presidential nomination (Mike Gravel was not present). US Senator Barack Obama is hindered by how much of his genuine rage (and he's got rage) he can show. He declared, at one point, "I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me". He declared? Well, he moved his lips. Samantha Power scripted that line. Samantha Power who immortalized herself with the autobiography A Problem From Hell (oh, it's not an autobiography? well with that title . . .) Barack Obama yesterday: "the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me." Samantha Power August 3rd "the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy." Sammy, get your axe. Or at least your Blackberry. The odor of Samantha Power lingers over the Barack Obama campaign and not merely because she was perviously an advisor to Obama. It's also because you look a bit unhinged when you mass mail, as Power did last week, your thoughts on Obama to "Interested Parties." Where Babmi can't show more than spunk, Power can. She will do it, she can do it, and she will bloody well control the White House!

That's actually how the unhinged Samantha Power plays out to many -- and for good reasons that aren't limited to the fact that she fires off those e-mails not from her own personal e-mail account but from the account she has as "Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy". As Noam Chomsky (ZNet) noted, in response to a question about Sammy Power, "A little more interesting is Power's tacit endorsement of the Bush doctrine that states that harbor terrorists are no different from terrorist states, and should be treated accordingly: bombed and invaded, and subjected to regime change"; "It's of some interst that Power is regarded -- and apparently regards herself -- as a harsh critic of US foreign policy. The reason is that she excoriates Washington for not paying enough attention to the crimes of others."; and "From a desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School at Harvard, that's doubltess how it looks."

The Carr Center? Tom Hayden (writing at The Nation, link goes to Hayden's site) asked last month: "Should a human rights center at the nation's most prestigious university be collaborating with the top U.S. general in Iraq in designing the counter-insurgency doctrine behind the current military surge?" Hayden goes on to reveal how The Carr Center's Sarah Sewell steered the creation of "the new Army-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual" which not only white washes the US involvement in the Salvadorian death squads of the Reagan years, it also seeks to use academic discipline to abuse a people. Hayden cites Stephen Biddle ("Baghdad adviser to Gen Petraues") explaining the real purpose of the plan the Carr Center took part in: "to manipulate both Shi'as and Sunnis into depending on the US occupation for self-protection." As Hayden points out, "counter-insurgency, being based on deception, shadow warfare and propaganda runs counter to the historic freedom of university life." As noted before the academy is abused today by the US military recruiting anthropologists to figure out how to lie and trick Iraqis. They've also found some psychologists eager to do their bidding and encourage torture which is a topic Amy Goodman again revists on today's Democracy Now! with The New Yorker's Jane Mayer and the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer.

But let's not leave Sammy Power just yet. Hayden notes: "Power is a close adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who supports a withdrawal of US combat troops by next year with exceptions for 'advisers' and special units to battle al-Qaeda. Power, who worked last year in Obama's Washington DC office, writes that even the proposed combat troop withdrawal can be reversed if Iraq's condition continues to worsen. Intentionally or not, the cautious, complicated Obama proposal as described by Power leaves open the likelihood of thousands of American troops remaining in counter-insurgency roles for years ahead. If that is the limit of legitimate debate at Harvard, the Pentagon occupation of the academic mind may last much longer than its occupation of Iraq, and may require an intellectual insurgency in response." The Carr Center is a collaborator in an illegal war and that reality is only surprising to anyone who doesn't grasp the realities of Sammy "Get me the axe!" Power.

While the War Hawk Loons seek ever more war, today The Toledo Blade editorializes on "Iraq's demise" noting that "the United States has essentially destoryed Iraq as a country" and concluding, "The only action left, assuming that the people of the United States do not want to take on Iraq as a project for the next 20 or 30 years, is to state categorically that we have done all that we are going to do there and leave."
In other news, Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) notes that even on something as mild as censure ("just a public spanking"), the Dems in Congress can't get it together and that if they really believe impeachment "would tie up" everything, what's their problem with censure? Cynthia Cooper (FAIR's Extra!) points out that the mainstream media ignores the prospect of impeachment or mocks it and makes false comparisons such as claiming Bully Boy isn't as awful as Tricky Dick: "But the 'consensus' on Nixon came after five months of inquiry by the House Judiciary Commitee, complete with subpoenas, sworn testimony and a staff of 100. A full consensus only emerged days later, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release tapes that contained damning comments by the president, and Nixon resigned." In disgrace, he resigned in disgrace. No offense, but let's not forget that detail. He was a petty crook and he left in disgrace. On PBS, Bill Moyers offered a serious discussion on impeachment. That one hour look (including guests such as John Nichols) at impeachment on Bill Moyers Journal is repeating and can also be viewed, listened to or read online currently.

ken silverstein

dave lindorff

the common illsmikey likes it

like maria said paz

thomas friedman is a great manthe third estate sunday review
iraq
democracy now
amy goodman
tom hayden
Noam Chomsky
the toledo blade
the washington post
walter pincus
bill moyers
bill moyers journal
matthew rothschild
the new york times
carl hulse
the daily jot
cedrics big mix

Dave Lindorff, Robert Parry, Scott Horton

Tuesday and I hope you had a good day. Unless you're a member of Congress. If you're a member of Congress, I hope you had an awful day because you really shouldn't be on vacation, you should be in DC doing your job which is bringing impeachment charges against the Bully Boy.

But Congress doesn't care about the Constitution. Sure, a few members do. A few will, but not enough. In fact, the Republicans might as well be controlling both houses in Congress for all the nothing that the Democrats have done. This is from Dave Lindorff's "The Gelding Congress:"

The do-nothing Democrat-led Congress, fresh from handing President Bush the power to spy on Americans without any judicial oversight, and just weeks after providing full funding for the continuation of the bloody war and occupation in Iraq, is now mounting an all-out campaign to co-opt and bury the growing grass-roots campaign to impeach President Bush and Cheney.
With 19 members of the House now signed on as supporters of Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney (H Res 333), a group which includes six, or more than a quarter of the House Judiciary Committee, and with polls showing clearly that a majority of Americans want impeachment of the president and vice president, it is getting harder and harder for the party leadership to keep a lid on this movement.
Last week, one such effort was made, by having Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), a known opponent of impeachment who showed his true colors by actively twisting the arms of key legislators in the Washington State Senate to prevent an impeachment resolution from coming to the floor there last spring, introduce a bill calling for the impeachment of... Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
This bill, which quickly garnered 20 co-sponsors, was a clear effort to siphon support away from Kucinich’s more serious Cheney impeachment bill. But as some of Inslee's co-sponsors started to also sign on to the Kucinich Bill, and as the Kucinich Bill continued to gain co-sponsors, it has become obvious that the Inslee diversion wasn't working.
In fact, the very act of filing a bill to impeach Gonzales effectively neutralized all the arguments Inslee himself, as well as party leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others had been making to explain their opposition to impeachment.
Obviously if impeaching Bush or Cheney would "detract from the Democrats' important legislative agenda," or "interfere with the effort to end the Iraq War" (sic), then so would an impeachment of Gonzales. Obviously, if impeaching Bush or Cheney would be "divisive" and "hurt Democratic chances in 2008," then so would an impeachment of Gonzales.

I don't know what kind of chances they think they're going to have when the whole country is watching as they don't do one damn thing? I mean, do they think we'll hand out prizes just because they showed up? They're not doing a damn thing. It's not like some tiny segment is asking them to move on the issue of impeachment or ending the illegal war. This is huge. And if they're the fine, upstanding Americans they like to present themselves as, the huge popular support shouldn't even matter. The war is illegal. It is Congress' job to end it. Bully Boy has conducted warrantless, illegal spying, he has lied a nation into war. Those are high crimes and misdemeanors before you even bring up torture and Guantanamo. If they believe in their oaths, they shouldn't need the public hollering for them to do something.

Not only are they not doing what needs to be done, they're giving Bully Boy even more room to destroy the country. I think Robert Parry's "Bush Gets a Spying Blank Check" really says it all:

On Aug. 4, Bush turned up the heat on the House. He called the spying powers contained in the bill crucial weapons in the fight against terrorism and declared that "protecting America is our most solemn obligation."
Many Americans would disagree, arguing that the most solemn obligation is to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic congressional leaders acted as if their highest priorities were getting away for the August recess and avoiding ugly attacks on their patriotism from Fox News and the right-wing media.
Instead of canceling the recess -- and using the month of August to fight over both Bush's extraordinary expansion of presidential powers and the Iraq War -- House Democratic leaders brought the Senate-approved "Protect America Act of 2007" to the floor. It carried, 227-183, with 41 Democratic defections.
Trying to put the best spin on their defeat, Democratic leaders pointed to their one concession: a sunset provision that requires President Bush to seek renewal of his powers in six months.
However, not only it is it hard to envision the Democrats finding more backbone to stand up to the "soft on terror" charge in an election year, but passage of the bill complicates the argument that Bush broke the law with his prior warrantless wiretapping.
Bush’s defenders can now cite this broad legislative authority as giving, in effect, a retroactive congressional blessing to Bush's apparent violations of FISA, which requires a secret court warrant for eavesdropping and other spying inside the United States.
Some rank-and-file Democrats also may wonder how valuable their party’s electoral victory in November 2006 has proved to be. Despite gaining control of Congress, the Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq War or to reinstate habeas corpus and other constitutional rights that were breached by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed before the election.
[For more on Bush's assault on American liberties, see our new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

I forgot habeas corpus. That means something like "produce the body." It's what our justice system is supposed to be based on. Bully Boy's tossed that out with his "enemy combatants" and his "military tribunals." And even after the Supreme Court ruled against them (when Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the Court), Congress won't do anything. I don't give points or prizes for doing nothing and I don't give points or prizes to Di-Fi for waiting this long to introduce a bill to close Guantanamo. Are we supposed to believe that it's going to be picked up when Congress comes back from their MONTH LONG BREAK?

The whole thing strikes me as tossing out something to calm down voters. I'm tired of the shell games and con jobs. This isn't stuff you can play around with. This is serious. Scott Horton's "The Boot Is Descending" explains it too:

Those who expected the Democrats to stand up to this may have gotten a shock. I wasn't shocked at all. Many see a Democrat-Republican divide over the rise of the National Surveillance State, but that's foolish. In Britain, the Labour Party has introduced legislation which arguably did more than even Bush to erode civil liberties (and of course, the Britons had fewer liberties to start with. The American Revolution was about something, after all). What we're witnessing is another demonstration of Lord Acton's famous maxim: those who hold power tend to seek to extend it. At this point, Democrats are nearly giddy with the prospects of recapturing the White House and resuming rule with a solid power base in the Executive and the Legislature. And with this prospect, suddenly the specter of intrusive big government seems somehow far more palatable to them, and America's constitutional system and the rights of the individual citizens are less of a concern.
Now President Bush's signing statement, released this morning, tells us that the process is still ongoing. You see, whatever ground Congress gives, it's never enough--there are always demands for more. And what's at the top of the president's list?
Immunity. Again. The Bush Administration's internal analyses line up with those of outside scholars: what Bush and his team have been doing for five years roughly is definitely illegal. Felonious. But as long as Fredo runs the Justice Department, there's no risk of prosecution. So what happens when he's gone and a real law enforcement official takes over? The prospect of prosecution of administration actors is hanging heavy. How many pardons can Bush issue in his final days?

That's a really good point about how Dems would be thinking they're going to sweep up in 2008 and suddenly they aren't real concerned about abuses because now they'd be the ones abusing.

Okay, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and read it and weep, amazing:

Tuesday, August 7, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqis are rendered invisible in their own story, the US military announces more deaths, students get active and so do parents, FAIR gets a little loose with the words, and more.

Goldie Goes To Africa. FAIR has issued a "Media Advisory" and whatever they're hoping to accomplish falls apart in the opening paragraph, in the opening sentence in fact, when they bill the overly praised Nation magazine article as an "investigation into the U.S. occupation's impact on Iraqi civilians". As Rebecca noted last night, it is no such thing. Not only is it no such thing, FAIR really flirts with xenophobia when they make that hyperbolic assertion. The Nation's bad (really, really bad) article did not present a single Iraqi voice. Iraqis can speak for themselves. Not only can they speak for themselves it is shocking that a media watchdog would ever claim that OCCUPYING FORCES in a country CAN OR SHOULD TELL the story of the people in an invaded country. The Nation's article is a piece of crap (and a journalistic laugh) but FAIR can praise (or pass on) whatever it wants. However, it cannot make XENOPHOBIC statements that betray the very reason FAIR was created without being called out.

If it's unclear to anyone how offensive the opening statement (echoed throughout the piece) is, ask whether or not members of the Israeli army should be hailed as tellers of the Palestinians' story, or whether the slaughter and genocide of Native Americans should be told from the point of view of the US military?

That is what we're talking about. In Robert Altman's The Player, there's a pitch for a project set in a foreign country and a backforth of dialogue ensues: "Goldie Goes To Africa!" "She's found by this tribe --" "Of small people!" "She's found and they worship her." "It's like The Gods Must Be Crazy except the Coke bottle is an actress." That scene (script by Michael Tolkin) sends up the "fish out of water" concept -- travelogue movies can only hold an American audience if they have an American front and center. The story of the Iraqi people is not and will not be told by non-Iraqis.

The very bad Nation article may do many things; however, it does not and cannot tell the story of what life is like for Iraqis today. It can't because it speaks to no Iraqis. It is their story to be told, it cannot be told for them. FAIR hopefully rushed that advisory out quickly. But the reality is that the wording is offensive and it shouldn't take Rebecca or myself to point out that very obvious fact. "The Nation's investigation into the U.S. occupation's impact on Iraqi civilians" has never been published because it's never been researched. To suggest otherwise is insulting. The US didn't send the Red Cross into Iraq, it sent in a professional military (and a private one was sent also). Only Iraqis can tell their story, only they should and to suggest otherwise is a grave insult. (I'm referring to the insult to the Iraqis but it's also true that suggesting otherwise is also an insult to the fine work FAIR has consistently done for many years.)

Turning to war resistance. In April, we noted Terri Johnson who signed up and realized she couldn't support the illegal war so she droppsed out in basic training. Johnson explained, "All you got to do is leave. Throw the towel in. They cannot stop you. Stay gone for thirty-one days. Get your two-way ticket to Lousiville, Kentucky. The MPs will meet you there and pat you down. You will be there for four days and eat this horrible food. The only thing you cannot do is get a federal job. Okay, I wasn't that interested in working for the federal government anyway. The other thing you can't do is re-enlist in another branch of the military."

Terri Johson is a war resister. So is Carla Gomez. Gomez' story is told in Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. Gomez was a 17-year-old high school student in Santa Cruz, Calif. when her new 'BFF' Sgt. Daniel Lopez entered her life. After forcing his way into the Gomez family, Lopez wants her to take a physical. Gomez was already having doubts. He takes her to San Jose for a physical but what happens is she's forced -- by one man after another -- to sign enlistment papers. A 17-year-old surrounded by adults, an hour from home, no way to get home, facing the equivalent of time-share sales people.

What saved Carla Gomez was knowledge that she didn't have to join. No matter what she signed. If you sign up on a delayed entry, you don't have to go. You can write a letter stating you've changed your mind. That should be all the contact you have with them. Gomez tells Laufer her letter stated, "My parents and I were coerced by Sergeant Lopez. The real reason why I ended up signing was because I was exhuasted. I thought the only way to go home was by signing. I feel I was not in my five senses at the time and I feel that I was pushed to sign the contract." [Gomez' story appears on pages 78-85 of Laufer's book.]

We're focusing on this aspect of war resistance today for a number of reasons including Tony Allen-Mills (Times of London) reporting Sunday that new things were being imposed by the Pentagon including that drill sgts. may no longer use the words "maggot" or "worm" as a result of what Allen-Mills describes as "a desperate bid to lower the fall-out rate among the dwindling numbers of young Americans ready to sign up". So the answer is to provide "calm authority" and not derision. Aimee Allison and David Solnit, in their book Army of None, detail the branding and marketing efforts to trick and deceive young people. They also note the success of counterrecruiting and how the military's response was to drop "Be All That You Can Be" (sounded like a lecture from a parent, polling groups determined) and go with "There's strong, and then there's Army Strong." (Which honestly sounds like one of those "Made for a man, but I like it too" advertisements.) The advretising budget for "Army Strong" is 1.35 billion over five years. (Ads began airing in Oct. 2006.) (Army of None, pages 45-66 which can be found at bookstores, online and via Courage to Resist).

Today, Prensa Latina reports: "Sectors from the Puerto Rican society will start a campaign next week against military recruitment in schools to enter the US Army, said activists from the Independentista Party of Puerto Rico (PIP) Monday." You can't vote in the presidential elections, the US won't allow you your independence but your children can die in an illegal war started by the US. And it's not just Puerto Rico and the US fighting military recruiters. Matthew Holehouse (New Statesman) reports on Students Against the War's protest in Camden at the Kids Connections' offices last week. What were they protesting Kids Connection was creating classroom modules (paid for by the UK Ministry of Defence) that propagandize about the illegal war. Matthew Holehouse notes that, in the United Kingdom, the failure to meet targets "was forcing the military recruiters to target children as young as 14". Returning to the US where, as Jorge Mariscal (Black Agenda Report) notes, "8,000 premanent resident aliens already enlist in the U.S. military every year". In the land where 'bi-partisanship' so frequently translates as "screwed twice over," US Senators Edward Kennedy and Arlen Specter can reach across the aisle and, as Mariscal points out, use the DREAM Act of 2007 to tie documented residency in the US with military service.

And as students return to classes in Phoeniz, Arizona, activists are there to inform. KVOA reports the citizens "are part of the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, the Arizona Counter Recruitment Coalition, Parents Against Violence in Education and the End the War Coalition" who fan out with postcards that the student and the parent can complete to opt out of the automatic data mining done by military recruiters (thanks to the "bi-partasian" nonsense that was the so-called No Child Left Behind). Andy Harvey (KPNX) gives the background on this and also a report on the protests (link contains text as well as streaming video). Adam Loveless, military recruiter, looks ridiculous in the new military uniform (everyone does) and attempts to liken targeting high schoolers with targeting college students. As Donna Winchester (St. Petersburg Times) points out, the opt-out forms must be filled out at the start of each school year. The Vallejo Times-Herald notes that high schoolers Aliesha Balde, Doris Le, Perla Pasayes and Shamar Theus are on the road through next Sunday working with the ACLU and other students "to scrutinize the military's recruitment campaign aimed at youth". The student activists have entitled their project "The Truth Behind the Camouflage: A Youth Investigation into the Myths & Truths of Military Recruitment & Military Service."

Those are only some of the stories of resistance with war. Carla Gomez is a war resister and there is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.

On July 31, 2007, the snapshot included this:"In Baghdad a small number (tiny) remains. They are all elderly. The last study estimated that they numbered 19." There is an update and a chuckle via AP which reports that 9 Jews remain in Baghdad and cite the same War Hawk (Andrew White) posing as a do-gooder who back on July 19th claimed there were no Jews in Iraq. He testified "I know every single one of the Jews left." Which was a LIE and why we noted the last study showed 19 Jews remaining in Baghdad. Here's the chuckle, AP today tries to bill the War Hawk and Liar as someone "who watches over the tiny Jewish group". Well watch a little closer, War Hawk White. End of July you were testifying they were gone and now you want credit for the 8 that still remain? This is all the more important when you read White telling the AP that he gives the Jewish residents money. Uh, you really aren't supposed to brag about charity. We won't quote White -- a man of the cloth shouldn't lie so frequently in public. We will note AP cites Jewish Agency in Jerusalem's Michael Jankelowitz as stating the 8 remaining do not want to leave. This does sound reasonable because, long before the number dropped to 19, efforts were being made and the ones then choosing to stay felt Baghdad had been their whole lives. Jankelowitz also says 4 are over 80 while 4 "are of working age". The Hague's Israeli Embassy spokesperson echoes that and states they are "in weekly contact" with one of the eight remaining. AP notes: "The eight Jews, belonging to four families, are all that is left in Iraq from the world's oldest Jewish community, dating to the 6th century B.C. when the Babylonians conquered ancient Palestine and exiled its people as slaves. Over the centuries the Jews flourished, and Baghdad became a center of Jewish culture and learning."

Many are leaving. In fact, many are leaving Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet. Yesterday, 5 more decided to do just that. Alexandra Zavis and Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) report that Salim Abudllah Jabouri (of the Sadr bloc that walked out last week) said the puppet was now on his "last chance to show goodwill" and if that doesn't happen there will be a move "to bring a vote of of no confidence" against the puppet. But though they have walked out, Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) notes that they maintain they will "continue to run their ministries but not attend any cabinet meetings. They cited as reasons for their action a lack of progress on issues such as the status of Iraqi detainees, the repatriation of displaced Iraqis and the return of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to government jobs." The BBC notes that their Baghdad correspondent, Andy Gallacher, feels "the latest events leave the administration of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki looking more fragile than ever."

While the puppet's cabinet crumbles, Nouri hot foots it over to Turkey. Turkish Daily News reported today that al-Maliki and Turkey's prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan, would sign an agreement; however, "Turkey will await implementation and wants to see concrete steps against the PKK". Selcuk Gokoluk (Reuters) reports that al-Maliki swore he would "crack down on Kurdish rebels" in northern Iraq; however, "Turkish officials said they knew Maliki had little clout in the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq and that he had also been weakened both by Iraq's dire security situation and by fresh turmoil in his crumbling government in Baghdad." And in other not-waiting-for-Maliki news, CBS and AP announce, "Iraq's autonomous Kurdish government approved a regional oil law on Tuesday, officials said, paving the way for foreign investment in their northern oil and gas fields while U.S.-backed federal legislation remained stalled. The measure gives the regional government the right to administer its oil wealth in the three northern governates -- Irbil, Sulaimaniyah and Dahuk --- as well as what it called 'disputed territories,' referring to Kirkuk, one of Iraq's largest crude production hubs."

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad mortar attacks climed 7 lives (nine wounded), 1 Iraqi soldier died in a bombing outside Baquba.Reuters notes a Samarra mortar attack that claimed the lives of 3 women and 2 children while a roadside bombing in Hilla left four police officers wounded.

Also, yesterday, on the Tal Afar bombing, this appeared: "CBS and AP note Brig. Gen Rahim al-Jibouri (Tal Afar police) states the death toll will most likely rise and that 9 are dead in a Baghdad roadside bombing (eight wounded)." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) informs, "The police chief of Tal Afar MG Wathiq Al Hamdani said that the final result of the explosion of Tal Afar town increased into 30 killed and 32 injured."

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a woman was wounded during a home invasion in Hawija. DPA reports a police officer "opened fire Tuesday on a crowd of civilians queuing outside an ice factory in Karbala, killing three people and wounding seven others in an apparently random shooting".

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 16 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 7 corpses were turned over to the Mosul morgue, 1 corpse was discovered outside Baquba, and 1 discovered in Kirkuk (cab driver).

Today, the UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with deep sorrow that the Ministry of Defense must confirm the death of a British soldier from 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh as a result of a small arms fire attack during an operation in Basra, southern Iraq, last night, Monday 6 August 2007." As Nico Hines (Times of London) notes, this was the 165th British soldier to die in the illegal war since it began.


Today, the US military announced: "Three Task Force Marne Soldiers were killed when an improvised explosive device struck their convoy August 4, south of Baghdad." For those not near a a calendar, those 3 died on Saturday. But no one's supposed to notice that. The US military also announced: "One Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed and another wounded when an explosively-formed penetrator detonated targeting their vehicle during combat operations in a western section of the Iraq capital Aug. 6." ICCC's total is 20 US service membres have died in Iraq for the month of August thus far; however, CBS and AP note, "The U.S. military tells CBSNews.com that 26 American service members have been killed in action in Iraq in the past week alone". That count apparently includes the last 3 days of July. A number that is firm is 162,000. AFP reports that's approximately how many US troops are currently on the ground in Iraq topping the previous high of January 2005 (about 161,000).


the common ills
mikey likes it
iraq
terri johnson
peter laufer
the washington post
molly hennessy-fiske
alexandra zavis
los angeles times

Third

Monday, Monday. It was a rainy Monday too. And though it's cooled things off, when that sun hits tomorrow, it's going to be muggy.


Let me talk The Third Estate Sunday Review:


Truest statement of the week -- Heidi was one of only two choices. Some weeks it's difficult because there are so many possibilities. Heidi Boghosian got it (and this may be the first time for her -- Dalia's had it twice or three times). (Dalia Hashad.)

A Note to Our Readers -- Jim breaks down the NIGHTMARE edition. The biggest reason it was a nightmare was due to the fact that nothing would post.

Editorial: Are you angry yet? -- This is a pretty cool editorial. Dona and C.I. sharpened it up. I read it today and was surprised because I knew they were sharpening up what we wrote. They really ripped it apart. It's what we were saying with a few things added in and they've rearranged it. I wasn't sure if we were saying anything to be honest. It seemed all over the place. We were really tired. Dona and C.I. did a miracle with this. Including the Stones' song at the end. I can read it and remember when one of us insisted on this or that, but they really worked on it.

TV: Plotz, Plots, Fizz, Fizz . . . -- The Woody Allen piece was mammoth. (Next up.) C.I. warned it would be. Jim didn't realize it would be that much work. Ava and C.I. had planned this and another piece but there wasn't going to be time so Jim said let's do the mammoth piece. They hated this. (They hate everything they write.) They wouldn't let Jim see it, wouldn't let us hear it. I had no idea what to expect and thought maybe they were right and I wouldn't like it. But this is really good. Ava and C.I. hate everything they write. I don't think they're a good judge. This is about critics of the Water Cooler Set who go on and on about things they don't know about and really need to start doing research or find another topic to write on. I really like this one. I was on the phone with Jim and we were talking about how hard hitting it was and how funny (the straight jacket line had me laughing out loud).

The Woody Allen Canon -- We did not know it would be that long. We did this roundtable style. It probably took four hours. Then came editing. I said, pull anything of mine, I don't care. Others pulled stuff of their own. It was edited and then came the typing nightmare. Ava and C.I. ended up taking turns because it was too much of a headache. When it's a really long piece, you're not going to see what you're typing until several lines later. The screen moves real slow. And spell check only works for half the piece. And Jim was really losing it. We were editing another piece and could hear him over the phone. So Ava and C.I. ended up typing about two-thirds of this. At some point "Elaine:" will be taken out. They didn't realize that was in there. It had been typed at some point by one of them and then they couldn't see it and hit enter several times or something. But the very last line (after several blank spaces) right now is "Elaine:". Now when they took over typing, they had to do another edit because they were also limited by the amount of space. When several lines turned into several paragraphs that they couldn't read (because they were typed but not showing up on screen), they said, "We need more cuts." Dona, Jess, Ty and Wally suggested that any other cuts from the final films (the final years ones) because those weren't worth noting as much. Tony asked me if I'd seen all the movies? Nope. I saw twice the number I'm commenting on in the piece. (And I commented on about 1/4 more than made it into the piece.)
Scoop was seen by only C.I., Ava, Jim and Wally. Wally said pull him because he didn't think his was that funny. Cedric and Jim saw the movie (forget the title) that Jim's commenting on and Cedric said pull his because Jim's comment said it all. Ava, C.I., Rebecca, Elaine, Jess and Wally saw the most. I think Ava and C.I. saw the most of anyone but even they didn't see everyone of the films. Okay, C.I. didn't see Celebrity and Ava didn't see Deconstructing Harry. They saw everything else. Jim saw a lot but I don't remember what he saw. I just remember Ava and C.I. because those were the only films they didn't comment on. (When they started typing, they pulled a lot of their stuff so that others would be able to have space.)

Aidan Delgado's The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib -- Jim kept saying we'd do a roundtable and a book discussion. C.I. kept saying, "We aren't going to have time." After the Woody piece that turned out to be true. So we did this just to note Aidan Delgado's book and to say, "Next week."

No End In Sight when the peace movement gets behind crap -- This is good, important and a must read.

The New Plantation -- I never really thought about human trafficking, to be honest. I was reading Elaine's issue of Ms. because Dona had said we'd address this article from Ms. It's a pretty scary situation.

John Conyers Is No MLK (Betty, Cedric & Ty) --Illustrations meant three pieces didn't go up (did go into print) and Betty, Cedric and Ty wanted to address this in the roundtable. Since that wasn't possible and we had huge holes, they did this. I'll be reposting it on Wednesday. (Ty wants til Tuesday to try to correct typos or I'd post it tonight.)

Ah, that's why The Nation sucks so -- We had an illustration for this and that would not go up at Flickr so finally, we just redid it. The original should run next week.

Green Party facts -- A piece on the Green Party to remind you that there are other candidates and other parties than what the MSM covers.

Highlights -- Kat, Cedric, Wally, Rebecca, Elaine, Betty and me wrote this and selected the highlights unless it's noted otherwise.

This is who worked on the above:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Wally of The Daily Jot

I want to note 4 more things. First, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Spineless" is really funny and about the Dems caving again. "Ruth's Report" is Ruth doing her thing and you know you don't want to miss it. "Cucmber Summer Salad" is by this strange woman ... I'm joking! That's my mother. She is fine. A lot of people are e-mailing worried. She's just really fascinated with her first grandchild. I also think another reason she's not in the mood for cooking main courses is that it's been so hot. But she really does just spend the evenings looking at her grandbaby. Sometimes she watches her. My brother and sister-in-law are not trying to use Ma as a baby sitter but they have gone out twice (and called repeatedly) because Ma usually watching the baby anyway or holding her or rocking her. Someone wondered if she wanted more kids? I don't think so. I know she doesn't want to be pregnant again! 8 times was really enough. :D But it's different, she says, because she's not responsible like a mother, she's a grandmother and can just have fun. (By the way, everybody says she has Ma's eyes. She does too.) And the fourth thing is Betty's "Stunned" where she really jumped a month in the outline she works from but she was bored and also Thomas Friedman's on vacation so it was either jump the outline or have nothing to write about.


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

Monday, August 6, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, at least 63 Iraqis are reported dead today, the US military announces the deaths of 5 more US service members, the puppet of the occupation's cabinet continues to shed members, who is arming so-called 'insurgents?, Marjorie Cohn discusses the illegal war with Amy Goodman, and more.
Starting with war resistance. "Justice is justified by what the elite want to justify." So said Bob Watada, father of Ehren Watada, yesterday. Ehren Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq (June 2006) and whose court-martial (February 2007) ended in a mistrial, over defense objection, when the defense was clearly leading. The next court-martial is scheduled for October. It may or may not take place. Issues involving the first court-martial are working their way through the appeals court. Bob Watada was speaking in Eugene, Oregon yesterday at Alton Baker Park. Andrea Damewood (The Register-Guard) reports approximately 150 gathered to "remember the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Jagasaki, Japan, . . . to remind that the weapons that unleashed such horror 62 years ago are more plentiful today. . . . With dusk approaching, peace activists moved to the duck pond where they lit tea candles and placed them in paper bags. The bags glowed orange as they caught the wind and set out as small beacons of hope, before slowly extinguish-ing. Koto zither music tinkled softly, and traditional Butoh dancers, painted entirely white, were silhouetted against the darkening sky."
On a similar horror scale, in the illegal Iraq War, torture has taken place repeatedly, most infamously at Abu Ghraibl In Aidan Delgado's The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq, he recounts his own journey which does include a stint at Abu Ghraib (beginning in November of 2003) when a prison uprising took place. From pages 150 to 152 of Delgado's book:
"Did y'all hear about the riot?"
This is how I learn what happened on the other side of the camp during the prisoner demonstration. Sergeant McCullough tells the story with quiet enthusiasm, nodding and gesturing for emphasis. Just after one o'clock, the prisoners in the Ganci compounds -- the eight razor-wire enclosures outside the prison wall, where most of the detainees are held -- began to riot, or at least that's what the Army called it, though I learn later they were mostly just marching and chanting. In essence, the prisoners were upset about their living conditions: cold weather and the lack of blankets, jackets, and warm clothing. They were also complaining about the food, which they claimed was often served spoiled or infested with vermin, and was generally inadequate. On top of this, the representative protested the confiscation of the prisoners' tobacco and not being able to smoke. They had been marching and demonstrating for several days in a row. The demonstration got out of control and turned violent. The prisoners started throwing stones and pieces of wood from the tent floor. The MPs on duty responded with nonlethal rounds: rubber bullets, beanbags, and tear gas. In Sergeant McCullough's telling, one of the prisoners threw a rock and hit a soldier in our company, Specialist Pitts, in his face. Sergeant McCullough expresses his anger at seeing one of his soldiers' faces bloodied. At some point during the demonstration, he can't say exactly when, they get the order to use lethal force. He tells us that he knelt down behind a barrier, loaded his weapon, said a prayer, then stood up and fired. He says he thinks he hit three prisoners and he knows he killed one. In total, twelve prisoners are shot and three of those die of their wounds. He says one of the prisoners was shot in the head and his face split open like in the movie Terminator 2. Another prisoner had been hit in the groin, and according to this account, the guards left him on the ground and he bled to death. He says they took pictures of the bodies after the shooting. They got copies in the TOC.
[. . .]
At first I don't know what to think or say. I only know that I am bothered. It takes a few minutes to process. Then I think, This is a little f**ked-up. He shot an unarmed prisoner on the other side of a barbed-wire fence for throwing a stone. Four people are dead for throwing stones in protest of their living conditions. Don't judge, I remind myself, you weren't there, you didn't see it. Maybe the action was necessary. They were probably afraid for their lives. Then I look to my left and right and see the young guys in my unit: laughing, smiling, talking about how much they wished they had "gotten one" too. I reconsider. This is f**ked up.

Speaking on Democracy Now! today, Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, answered Amy Goodman's question as to what "a body of lawyers" can do in terms of dealing with the illegal war: "We [National Lawyers Guild] have a new joint anti-war task force which is cooridinating our work, the Military Law Task Force which counsels thousands of GIs every month who are disenchanted, who don't want to go back to Iraq, who want to file for consientious objection status, some of them go to Canada. We have Mass, a huge Mass Defense Project where we do legal observing at anti-war demonstrations and we have an international committee that deals with these issues as well. We are putting out literature to try to convince members of Congress who don't think that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by the Bush administration that in the fact the war is illegal, it's not a mistake. And so we've been cooridinating all of our work and really focusing the major part of our work on ending the occupation." Among the literature NLG has released is (hot off the presses last week) Punishing Protest written by Heidi Boghosian (available online in PDF format for free and avaible in book format for $3 at the National Lawyers Guild website). The accounts from legal observers at demonstrations (on Iraq, on WTC and more) provide a strong *spine* to Boghosian's report.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.

Bob Watada wasn't the only one taking part in Sunday's Peace day. David Collins (The New Mexican) reports that IVAW's Adam Kokesh took part in the Sante Fe action and spoke of how he'd be willing to return to Iraq: "I'd like to organize some nonviolent resistance to the occupation. If the Iraqi people can get as many millions of protesters as they can when Sadr (Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr) says get in the streets, imagine what they could do if they just sat in around the bases there, prevented convoys from leaving the bases." Staying with IVAW, A.N.S.W.E.R. notes "Iraq War Veterans to Lead Mass 'Die-In' During September 15 Antiwar Demonstration to Coincide with Congressional War Debate" which will take place in DC; however, those with DC burnout, don't tune out yet, the mass "die-in" does demonstrate this will not be reheated left-overs. A.N.S.W.E.R. notes: "Those organizing for the September 15th demonstration include the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition; Ramsey Clark, United States Labor Against the War, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation; Mounzer Sleiman, Vice Chair, National Council of Arab Americans; Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney; Veterans for Peace (National); Iraq Veterans Against the War; Tina Richards, CEO of Grassroots America; Rev. Lenox Yearwood, CEO of Hip Hop Caucus; Code Pink; Father Roy Bourgeois and Eric LeCompte, School of Americas Watch; Kevin Zeese, Democracy Rising; Navy Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, co-founder Appeal for Redress; Liam Madden, Pres. Boston Chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War and co-founder of Appeal for Redress; Malik Rahim, founder of Common Ground Collective, New Orleans; Howard Zinn, Author and Historian; Carolos & Melida Arredondo, Gold Star Families for Peace. . . . To make arrangements for interviews with antiwar leaders, organizers, activists and military families, call Sarah Sloan at 202-904-7949." A.N.S.W.E.R. also notes CODEPINK will stage a September 17th "Peoples March Inside Congress." Saturday is the 15th, Monday is the 17th. There will be other actions in DC but the two may bring a new excitement to 2007 (and September 17th isn't that far away so CODEPINK will hopefully put some information up specifically about the "People March Inside Congress"). While we're noting actions (and being fully aware of what a downer DC is seen as on most campus currently -- hopefully the above actions will build some excitement) let's not that Congress is out of session until September 4th and United for Peace and Justice encourages you to think globally by acting locally -- meet with your representatives and senators who should be in their home districts (reps) and in their home states (senators). Since they are home, today also is the re-launch for the Occupation Project -- where nonviolent menas are used to occupy congressional offices. SDS -- Students for a Democratic Society -- is one week away from their action camps to be held in Lancaster, Penn (August 13-16th). SDS just finished their National Convention in Detroit. James Neshewat (CounterPunch) reports the convention addressed the theory of oppression.

World Can't Wait has their Orange Summer where each Friday, they're asking people to wear the color orange to show that the time is past due to "Drive Out the Bush Regime!" Orange because "the color that has been assigned to those detained and tortured with no due process". [Scott Horton (Harper's magazine) addresses new realities with "The Boot is Descending" as does Robert Parry (Consortium News) in "Bush Gets a Spying Blank Check."]

And of course Iraq Veterans Against the War and Tina Richards and Military Families Speak Out continue to get the word out: "Funding the war is Killing Our Troops." It's a message boiled down to the basics. One that will help destroy the nonsense pushed by the administration and some members of Congress that funding the illegal war is offering 'protection' to anyone.

At Military Families Against the War (UK), Tracy Hughes writes of having a son is in the Royal Engineers and how the wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) "are using our brave children as political pawns. The people who are responsible for them being there, (Tony Blair and George Bush) have the blood of hundreds of troops on their hands, we can only pray that our new prime minister will see what a fiasco Iraq and Afghanistan are and get our troops out of there asap."
Turning to violence, Amitabh Pal (The Progressive) looks at the nonsense wave of Operation Happy Talk (the killing of US troops is down to 2006 levels! -- only it isn't) and observes, "There's something of a whiff of racism in claiming that the Iraq War is not going too badly because American casualties have been marginally lower last month. On purpose or otherwise, this analysis misses the larger purpose of why U.S. troops are meant to be in Iraq: to make life better for the troops." The deaths of Iraqi increased and are basically back to the level the United Nations were noting with (rightful) alarm. Pal notes the right-wing blogger Hugh Hewitt is on board with Operation Happy Talk. Hewitt doesn't just do a blog, he also has a radio show (and I'm sure other outlets as well) and that's where John F. Burns (alleged reporter and Baghdad chief for the New York Times) appeared last week to declare, "I think there's no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference" and that if the US leaves Iraq it will "lead to much higher, and indeed potentially cataclysmic levels of violence, beyond anything we've seen to date." That would be an alleged reporter for the New York Times, rushing to be a guest on a right-wing talk show, offering non-verifable predictions which is a big no-no by the paper's guidelines. For simply making observations Linda Greenwood got smacked down by the paper who felt she'd crossed a line (she hadn't) between reporting and opinion (and her remarks were made on a campus, not broadcast over the airwaves). Will John F. Burns be disciplined for his unprofessional remarks (by the Times' standards for reporters, those were unprofessional remarks)? Magic Eightball says "It is unlikely."

Burns' dubious predictions (no one knows what will happen when US troops withdraw and -- at some point -- they will withdraw) are based on the assumption that things are 'bad' but not 'as bad' as they could be. Of course, had the foreign forces left in 2006, or 2005, or 2004, things wouldn't be as 'bad' as they are today. And had the US government not decided to illegaly start a war . . . Burns can't address that. In fact, the paper's reporters will repeat the company line when asked that they can't comment on a hypothetical and what does it mater since there is a war? It's interesting that reporters for the paper aren't supposed to predict or opine but when they do it and it's favorable to the administration, they never get into trouble.
For realities on the illegal war, go to (Democracy Now!) Amy Goodman's conversation with Cohn today:
Amy Goodman: Marjorie Cohn, a lot of people talk about the war as being a terrible mistake. You don't. You go way further than that.
Marjorie Cohn: Yeah, the war was premeditated, deliberate violation of the law. The UN Charter, also a treaty, also part of US law, says the only two instances where a country can use force against another is in self-defense or when the Security Council agrees. And there was never any evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to us or any other country. He hadn't invaded any country for 12 years, since Kuwaitt, and he had really been -- his military had been neutered by the Gulf War, by punishing sanctions, by the bombings in the No Fly Zones. And the Bush administration knew that. They knew that and yet they sold this war -- they sold this war -- they intended to invade Iraq way before 9/11 and now it's really clear why they did that and that is to install huge military permanent bases. The biggest in the world and the biggest US embassy in the world in Baghdad and to privatize Iraq's oil. They're trying to push through this Iraqi oil law that even Congress is touting as a 'benchmark' for Iraqi progress and it would give three-quar -- control of three quarters of Iraq oil to foreign oil companies. And yet we see the leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is saying she would -- she's not talking about taking the bases out, she's saying we'd leave a force there which means we would leave the bases there. So, and I don't hear anyone but Kucinich actually talking for -- talking about an end to the occupation which is what we should be talking about. But I think it's very important not to say "The war was a mistake. The war is being fought incompetently." The war is illegal. It's also immoral. It's killing thousands of US soldiers, it's killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. And it's draining our national treasury. And the majority of the American people know this. But Congress has not caught on yet.
The war is illegal but War Hawks attempt to mask that reality under the guise of "help." Thomas M. DeFrank (New York Daily News) reports that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, claims that "the military side of" things are going well but that the Iraqi government is failing "to get its political act together" (DeFrank) so it's doubtful there will be a reduction in the number of US troops in Iraq. Gates, to no surprise, shows no concern with the Iraqis (who are once again dying in huge numbers) but he is concerned with the 'benchmarks.' As Marjorie Cohn noted, that is the theft of the Iraqi oil. Heather Stewart (UK Observer) reported Sunday that Hussein Shahrastani, the country's Oil Minister, has banned "unions from participating in any official discussions about the new [oil] law" via a directive. On Friday, UPI reported that Ali al-Adeed "says a law governing oil reserves should be delayed until occupation forces leave the country." al-Added is a member of the Iraqi Parliament as well as a member of Nouri al-Maliki's political party. Steve Kretzmann (Oil Change) reports on a new poll ( 2,200 Iraqis surveyed -- New York Times polls typically feauture less than 1,000 respondents, often less than 9,000 by contrast) ) which has found 63% declaring Iraq's oil should "be developed and produced by Iraqi public sector companies rather than foreign companies" and a mere "4% of Iraqis feel they have been given 'totally adequate' information for them to feel informed about the oil law." Not surprising when many members of Iraq's parliament (that would be the branch tasked with legislation) have never seen the US drafted oil law. While Gates speaks of failed responsibilities and the illegal war is seven months away from the five year mark, exactly what responsibilities is the US administration going to cop to? AP reports Iraq's power grid is on "the brink of collapse." Last week was the news that the water was out. Other than some badly painted school buildings (that either have no or low attendence) what has the US done of the positive nature?

Well they've flooded the Iraqi blackmarket with weapons. Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) reports that 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005" are now unaccounted for. On Saturday, Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reported on the distrust within the US military serving in Iraq as "U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad." June 22, 2004, Patrick McCaffrey and Andre Tyson were killed in Balad. The families of both were told the killers were the catch-all 'insurgents'. That was not the case. The killers were known to McCaffrey and Tyson, they had been training them. For two years the US government lied to the families about how McCaffrey and Tyson had died. Marjorie Cohn (at CounterPunch) notes that the military refused "requests to see autopsy reports by the McCaffrey family" and that although the Army knew without a deoubt in September 30, 2005 (when they completed their investigation), they didn't notify the families until after US Senator Barbara Boxer wrote a letter (May 22, 2006) supporting the families and their right to know the details -- Cohn writes, "Nadia McCaffrey learned that after her son was shot, a US truck arrived. It picked up Lt. Tyson, who was dead, but did not take her son who was still alive. The truck returned later and took him to the base, where he bled to death." Democracy Now! has interviewed Patrick's mother Nadia McCaffrey many times. In a June 23, 2006 interview with Nadia McCaffrey, Amy Goodman quoted Senator Boxer stating her guess as to why there was the delay/cover-up, "I think it's pretty obvious that if the American people knew that the Iraqis we train would turn on our soldiers, support for the war would erode." In June of 2006, Hector Becerra and Scott Gold (Los Angeles Times) quoted Nadia McCaffry stating, "There have been so many lies, and so many things hidden. I have had enough. I have absolutely no doubt that the same thing that happened to Patrick -- being shot by people he was training -- has happened over and over and is still happening today. He was killed by the Iraqis that he was training. People in this country need to know that." And it will continue to happen as long as the US government thinks greed will trump all, thinks they can toss some paper bills around and suddenly former foes are now friends.
Yesterday, violence in Iraq claimed the lives of over 100 Iraqis. Today?
Bombings?
Tal Afar is again the setting for mass fatalities after a car bombing there today. Robin Stringer and Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) report that 27 died in the bombing with twenty-eight more wounded. CNN notes the death toll rose to 28 with (citing AP) nineteen of the dead being children. CBS and AP note Brig. Gen Rahim al-Jibouri (Tal Afar police) states the death toll will most likely rise and that 9 are dead in a Baghdad roadside bombing (eight wounded). Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a rocket attack in Basra claimed 1 life. Reuters notes an eastern Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Hama Ali Ahmed was kidnapped outside Kirkuk on Sunday and the 55-year-old truck driver's captors are asking for a ransom of the US equivalent of $100,000 for his release.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 17 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. CNN notes: "Iraqi security forces found the bodies of five Iraqi soldiers Monday in the town Sharqat, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) north of Tikrit, police said. The soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes, were on leave from a base in Mosul and were heading to Baghdad in a private car."
Today, the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and two Soldiers were wounded during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital Aug. 5." And they announced: "Four Task Force Lightning Soldiers died as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion while conducting combat operations in Diyala province, Monday."
The violence continues with at least 63 reported deaths of Iraqis and the deaths of 5 US service member. The puppet? On Sunday, Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) reported on how al-Maliki 'protects' -- by looking the other way. His p.r. flack -- Ali Dabbagh -- maintains no one pays attention to the issue of gays in Iraq which must be why no one noticed that they were being targeted and no one noticed that Ayatollah Ali Sistani "issued a fatwa" on them in October of 2005 that has still not been revoked. Also on Sunday, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, has refused to accept the resignations last week of the six cabinet ministers. Not surprising, al-Maliki refuses to accept reality. Accept it or not, al-Maliki has more walk outs. Peter Graff and Mariam Karouny (Reuters) report that four more ministers have left the puppet's cabinets (bringing the total to 17 to those who've walked out or are protesting via boycott).
Over the weekend, Jesse Spielman (who had confessed to some war crimes in the gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and the murders of her parents and her 5-year-old sister) was sentenced after he was found guilty of additional crimes. Paul von Zielbauer (New York Times) reported on the sentencing Sunday in a brief article that was the first article which ran in the Times by a reporter for the paper which mentioned 14-year-old Abeer by name.Reuters reported Spielman was found to have "participated in the planning of the attack as the soldiers drunk whiskey and played cards, and acted as a lookout. He was found guilty of four counts of murder, of rape, conspiracy to commit rape, housebreaking with the intent to commit rape, and conspiracy to commit rape. At the start of the hearing, he pleaded guilty to wrongful touching of a corpse, arson, obstructing justice and violating rules against drinking alcohol in a war zone." James P. Barker and Paul Cortez have already been convicted for their actions (which included partipating in the gang rape). Steven D. Green, who maintains he is innocent, has been fingered as the ringleader. He will be tried in a federal court due to having already been discharged back when the War Crimes were blamed on 'insurgents.'

the common ills

like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
ruths report
iraq
democracy now
amy goodman
marjorie cohn
national lawyers guild
heidi boghosian
adam kokesh
iraq veterans against the war
los angeles times
scott gold
hector becerra
molly hennessy-fiske
alexandra zavis
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan