Marjorie Cohn, Matthew Rothschild

Tuesday. And isn't it great news about Robert Zabala being granted c.o. status? Notice that the military didn't do it. Took the courts. (If you're scratching your head, C.I. has it in the snapshot and also wrote about it in "Robert Zabala granted C.O. status by federal court.") This is a really big moment for Zabala and for the war resisters movement. So congratulations to Zabala and, hopefully, he's partying with family and friends to celebrate. It is time to celebrate. Imagine what that was like? That hasn't happened to anyone. Zabala had to be thinking, "Well, it's probably not going to happen. I hope it does, but the odds aren't great." Or maybe he's one of those positive people who do think the impossible will happen and don't prepare themselves for the worst? That could be. Even so, I bet it was a great surprise and a really wonderful moment. So congratulations to him and may this outcome be the outcome for many, many more.

So while a federal court stood up and did the right thing, our own Supreme Court? This is from
Marjorie Cohn's "Coming Up Short on Habeas Corpus for Gitmo Detainees:"

On Monday Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell one vote short of the four needed to grant review of the lower court decision which went against the detainees. It was no surprise that Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to deny review.
Two justices - John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy - declined review on procedural grounds, saying the detainees had to exhaust their remedies before appealing to the high court. That means they must first go through the appeals process of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT's).
The CSRT's are used to determine whether a detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant. They deny basic due process protections such as the rights to counsel, to see evidence, and to confront adverse witnesses.
The procedure for challenging a CSRT decision is found in the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It is limited to determining whether the decision was consistent with the CSRT's standards and procedures, and whether the use of those standards and procedures was legal and constitutional.
There are two issues the Supreme Court would have to decide if it did review this case. First, do the Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus? In 2004, the Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the habeas statute applied to those detainees because the United States maintains complete jurisdiction and control over Guantánamo.
Second, even if the Court applied its Rasul reasoning to constitutional habeas corpus, it would then need to determine whether the procedure for contesting Combatant Status Review Tribunal decisions constitutes an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.
It should have been a no-brainer for Justices Stevens and Kennedy to vote to hear this case. The DTA's review procedures cannot cure the sub-standard standards of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

So why would Stevens not sign on? Cohn suggest that he may have been courting Kennedy for a later vote. I read this to C.I. because I had some questions about this. C.I.'s take was Cohn's probably right and that it may go to, or be another issue, the mood of the Court. You've got two Bully Boy appointees and they may be willing to go to any length to defend their sponsor. Stevens might be hoping that as the support in the country continues to erode for the Bully Boy, even his cheerleaders may weaken a little. But this case is a direct challenge to Bully Boy because this is his administration's policy -- they created it and are practicing it. So Stevens may be thinking that Kennedy could go either way and that Roberts and Alito are prepared to campaign heavily. C.I. added that Kennedy has spoken of international law and there may be some case we're unaware of elsewhere that Stevens is aware of that would back this up. Example: Country A is on our enemy list and they've done something like this and get repudiated. Since Kennedy has come out noting that international law does matter (a shock to some Republicans), a case elsewhere could have impact. Kennedy's worried about his legacy. That's what everyone trying to sway him will go for. Roberts and Alito, short of something like a disease, have a long run in front of them and aren't going to fret over legacies. Sandra Day O'Connor would most likely have been a vote on this but Roberts replaced her.

By the way, C.I. passed on that Danny Schechter is scheduled to be on Democracy Now! tomorrow. That almost got into the snapshot but after the Naomi Klein thing (when she didn't end up being on the next day) and a lot of members (and some visitors) being upset about that, C.I. decided to just note it tomorrow at The Common Ills and not in the snapshot where everyone would have to post it. So Danny Schechter may be on Democracy Now! tomorrow.
Now this is from Matthew Rothschild's "Bush Plays Superhero in Iraq:"

He went down to Birmingham to give a talk. (Don't kid yourself; it wasn't to hail civil rights, it was to raise cash for Republican Senator Jeff Sessions.) And Cheney took the occasion to try to relink the Iraq War with 9/11, a link he's stressed all along, never stopping when the evidence failed to materialize.
Facts are insignificant to him.
It's propaganda that counts.
And bullying.
So he peddled the canard that Democrats in Congress are working "to undercut General Petraeus and the troops."
And he made clear that he has no understanding of, or patience for, the constitutional powers of Congress.
"The fact is," said Cheney, "the United States military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill."
But Cheney omitted a couple of crucial facts.
Like the Congress funds the military.
And the commander-in-chief can't go to war without a Congressional declaration of war, which, in actual fact, it never gave.
Congress certainly has the constitutional right to tell the President to stop fighting a war it never declared.
Not to be outdone in bluntness by his Vice, Bush held a press conference on Tuesday where he parroted Cheney's lines, included the exact verb "undercut." Bush said, "The House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops."

I think the excerpted part is strong. If you use the link, I disagree with the opening. I don't think Congress is trying to stop the war. It's hard to stop a war when you agree to fund it. And it's even harder to stop a war when you say if Bully Boy vetoes your toothless measure, you'll give him what you want -- that's what Barack Obama did. Wally's "THIS JUST IN! OBAMA'S SOMEONE PERSONAL JESUS!" and Cedric's "He really can't walk on water, FYI" take that on with the help of some dopey art student.

And that's it for me tonight. Again, big congratulations to Robert Zabala. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, April 3, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, a US war resister receives conscientious objector status, the puppet gets his strings pulled tighter and the lies that led to illegal war.

Starting with news of war resistance, Robert Zabala has received his conscientious objector status. Tony Parry (Los Angeles Times) reports that the C.O. status was granted, not by the military, but instead by U.S. District Judge James Ware who "ordered the Marine Corps to discharge Zabala within 15 days." Zabala's long journey is outlined in Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. Zabala comes from a military family, finished boot camp "at the top of his class"
as he grew more and more sure that he could not participate in warfare.

Zarbala tells Sandra Gonzales (San Jose Mercury News) that 'motivational' shorts (music videos) and seeing the swapping of photos picturing dead Iraqis made him sent him on his journey and that, although "evaluated by a pshychologist and chaplains who believe he was qualified" for c.o. status, "the commandant of the Marine Corps" thought otherwise. Henry K. Lee (San Francisco Chronicle) reports a 2004 excahnge "with a fellow Marine" which prompted even more contemplation -- Zabala, "I began to think about the thousands of people who died in the past year in war, who didn't die due to just one soldier or suicide bomber, but largely by an organization. This organization trains to kill human life."


Zabala tells Peter Laufer that about discovering the classification of C.O., "You ever heard that song 'Pina Colada'? The singer is reading off that description and he realizes, 'Hey, this is my wife!' I was reading the CO description and I realized -- hey, this is me! I wanted my conscientious objector discharge. If they put me in a nonfighting job, I still saw myself as a cog in the Marine Corps machine." In 2003, Robert Zabala completed his C.O. paperwork ("I will no longer participate in an organization that sustains war.") Zabala told Laufer, "I will get my conscientious objector discharge. I will make the Marine Corps see me as a conscientious objector regardless of what anybody says. If they reject my claim I'm going to appeal." It took the federal court system's help but Robert Zabala was awarded C.O. status.

Peter Laufer's book is Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq and it provides an overview of various war resisters and peace efforts. Norman Solomon provides the foreward and the list price (US) is fourteen dollars.

Zabala is a part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Joshua Key, Corey Glass, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.


Moving to the lies of an illegal war, last Thursday, on Flashpoints, Dennis Bernstein interviewed Peter Eisner -- deputy foreign editor of the Washington Post and co-auther with Knut Royce of The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq. As Rebecca noted last week, Bernstein and Eisner discussed the false claim by the Bully Boy that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellow cake from Niger. To back and give the briefest overview, one of the lies the US administration used to scare a nation into war was the repeated use of "mushroom cloud" (Condi, Bully) and the claims that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting nuclear programs, biological weaponry, WMDs, blah, blah, blah. In 2004, Joe Wilson began discussing his earlier trip to Niger. He was sent by the CIA to check the validity of a claim coming from Italian intelligence that Hussein was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium (which would then be used in nukes -- according to the lie). Wilson went, found no proof of the claim. (The claim was false from the start.) As the falsehood continued to be repeated, Wilson spoke with Nicholas Kristof (New York Times) who penned a column. Eventually, Wilson would write "What I Didn't Find In Africa" for the New York Times. Elements in the White House became nervous as Wilson was speaking the truth and an effort was made to send a message. Hence the floating of Valerie Plame's name. Plame is married to Wilson, she was a covert CIA agent. The US administration elected to out her as part of their petty war on the truth. To be clear, that is my summary of the events. For Eisner's thoughts and summary of the events, listen to the interview. (Community members who signed up for Hilda's Brew can read a transcript of it by checking their inboxes.)

Two points from the interview that we'll note here:

1) On the chances that the steps to the illegal war can be unraveled publicly

Peter Eisner: And there are lower ranking people that have stepped foward, many other are bureacrats that . . . fear for their jobs or fear that their lives would be made difficult by stepping forward. But even someone like [former CIA director] George Tenent, interesting case, he's also about to come out with a book. His book has been stopped up in CIA vetting for months and one would think maybe that at the end of the vetting process, he might be toning down some of the other things that he might otherwise be able to say about the Bush administration's march towards war. He, because of CIA rules, he can't speak out openly without getting CIA approval on what he says in his book. So there are many people that are capable of speaking and will speak especially if they're placed under subpoena and required to speak. Remember that during the Iran-Contra period people were called before Congress and ended up, as you and I well remember, talking about an off the shelf operation which basically was an extra-Constitutional to try to do . . . what needed to be done to win support for the Contras and deal with Iran at the same time. Some of the same players are still in place. Cheney among them. So there are chances to get people to speak, Royce and I didn't have the ability to go beyond those who were brave enough to speak, but under subpoena more people would speak.


2) On press coverage.

Dennis Bernstein: There was a huge publicity campaign at a lot of levels, not only to support the information, get the United States into a war, but also to attack the credibility of those calling into question who knew best about it, like Joe Wilson, calling into question what this information was about, whether it was real and whether the Bush administration was misusing it? And among the things that occurred was an extraordinary disinformation campaign against Joe Wilson which, for instance, found its way into the pages of your newspaper the Washington Post. And your, I guess, op-ed director was willing to stomp all over Wilson to go with the information. So tell us about the selling of this story and how that occurred that anybody who tried to resist got nailed.


Peter Eisner: Uh, the news, fortunately I can say that the news pages of the Washington Post were, uh, skeptical all along about the information. Not only about the purchase of uranium but overall of the concept of Iraq trying to restart its nuclear program. There was another item that included the so-called reconditioning of aluminum tubes that Iraq had purchased for the creation of centrifuges that would spin down lightly processed uranium into
bomb grade uranium and that material was also being bandied, uh, about in the fall of 2002, populary reported in September 2002 by the New York Times --

By Michael Gordon and Judith Miller only one of which no longer works for the New York Times. (I'm cutting it off there. Every community member knows it wasn't just Miller -- or just Miller and Gordon.) Today in the Washington Post, Peter Eisner probes the subject of the false claim further.

Staying with Flashpoints, US Senator and presidential candiate John McCain's antics were addressed by Robert Knight on yesterday's program:

In tonight's Knight Report, more turmoil in Somolia and Iraq as John McCain celebrates April Fool's Day in Baghdad. I'm Robert Knight in New York. . . . And finally there was yet another major American deployment Sunday in a Baghdad market where Senator John McCain engaged on a walking tour to promote the Bush administration's current escalation in Iraq. McCain, in defiance of various independent reports that Iraq's daily death toll actually increased last month, nevertheless declared that the so-called 'surge' was "making progress" and that Americans were "not getting the full picture of what is happening in Iraq"; however a zoom out from McCain's photo op shows that he was actually surounded by orbiting F16 fighter planes, three Black Hawk attack helicopters, 2 Apache gun ships, more than 100 US troops, snipers and armed vehicles, a flak jacket and personal body armour. The presidential contender and Congressional comedian concluded his celebration of April Fool's Day by declaring with a straight face that "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today. These and other indicators and reasons for cautious optimism about the effects of the new strategy." And that's some of the news for Monday, April 2, 2007. From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight.

Also noting the realities of Crazy John McCain and The John McCain Showboat Express trip to Baghdad on Sunday is Kirk Semple (New York Times) who notes that the stroll through the market required "more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees -- the equivalent of an entire company -- and attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior American military . . . The soldiers redirected traffic from the area and restricted access to the Americans, witnesses said, and sharpshooters were posted on the roofs. The congressmen wore bulletproof vests throughout their hourlong visit." Semple also quotes Ali Jassim Faiyad ("owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market") on the just-an-average-stroll-according-to-McCain visit, "The security procedures were abnormal! They paralyzed the market when they came. This was only for the media. This will not change anything." CBS and AP report Iraqis residing in Baghdad have called McCain's visit "propaganda" and quote Jaafar Moussa Thamir who states, "They were just making fun of us and paid this visit just for their own interests. Do they think that when they come and speak few Arabic words in a very bad manner it will make us love them? This country and its society have been destroyed because of then and I hope that they realized that during their visit." Michael Luo (New York Times) notes that "365 members of Congress . . . visited the country since May 2003, when Mr. Bush declared the end of major combat operations. But it is unclear just how illuminating the trips have been. The duration and scope of Congressional visits are tightly controlled. Lawmakers from opposing parties often travel together, but draw opposite conclusions from the same trip on the war's progress."


In Iraq today there is news of kidnappings. CNN reports Jalal Sharafi, Iranian diplomat, was released by kidnappers today after have been kidnapped on February 4th. He should not be confused with the Iranian diplomats the US is holding after storming their consulate and abducting them; however, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sees a pattern between the kidnappings and argues that the US was responsible for the kidnapping of Sharafi. Laura King (Los Angeles Times) reports that video of Hannelore Krause and Sinan Krause (mother and son) has surfaced with a demand that if Germany does not "withdraw troops from Afghanistan" in ten days, the two, kidnapped February 6th, will be killed. Finally, on the subject of kidnapping, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspaper) notes the kidnapping of Sheikh Wisam Sadoon ("iman of Al Salam mosque") along with a bodyguard following "the afternoon prayers". Turning to other violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports: "Two young men (students in the college of pharmacy) were killed in an IED explosions" and that 3 people were killed (2 wounded) in a south Baghdad explosion. DPA reports a US air attack in Falluja that killed six people.


Shootings?

Laith Hammoud (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a police officer was shot dead in Tikrit, a person was shot dead on his way to work in Karkuk, another man was shot dead in Baquba (with two more wounded) and, in Baghdad, a police officer was shot dead. Reuters notes two police officers were shot dead in Latifiya, a guard of a gaas station was shot dead in Kut (one more wounded),

Corpses?

CNN reports the discovery of an eleven-year-old's corpse and Reuters notes the discovery took place in Taji. Laith Hammoud (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 10 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 5 in Hibhib.Reuters notes 5 corpses discovered near Ramadi and 7 corpses discovered in Baquba.

Today the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West died April 2 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." And they announced: "A large truck bomb exploded at a police station in Kirkuk, Monday, killing two Iraqi police officers and 10 local nationals. Three coalition Soldiers were injured by the blast and one later died of wounds." And they announced today: "An MNC-I Soldier died at approximately 4:00 pm Monday. The Soldier was wounded earlier in the day when a vehicle-born bomb exploded near his location in Kirkuk." The last two announcements cover the same death.

On the subject of Kirkuk, as Robert Knight (Flashpoints) noted yesterday, "Kirkuk has become a hotbed of tribal conflict due to the US installed occupation's regime's policy of ethnic cleansing whereby Arabs are now being intimidated or offered payment to move out of Kirkuk" as a result of an "initiative . . .intended to reverse the Baath party's policy of integrating the Kurdish enclave with Arab residents and to stack the voter rolls prior to a referendum over ceding the city to . . . the northern province of Kurdistan." Bassem Mrolie and Wassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) report that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki had the decision "forced on him" at the threat of Kurd walking "out of his ruling coalition" which would "bring down the government".

Finally, noting US Senator Barack Obama's decision to tell AP that the Bully Boy supplemental would go through regardless (see yesterday's snapshot), Robert Naiman (Common Dreams) observes: "The question here is not just what one predicts will be the outcome of the confrontation between Congress and President Bush. Obama, as a member of the Senate and as a leading Democratic presidential candidate, is a key protagonist in the confrontation. What kind of organizer confides to the media that when push comes to shove, his side is going to back down?"


mikey likes it
the common ills
marjorie cohn
matthew rothschild
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
iraq
tony parryrobert zabalapeter laufer
robert knightflashpoints
dennis bernstein
the new york timeskirk semple
michael luo
the washington post

Dennis Jett, Hilda's Brew, Third Estate Sunday Rev.

Monday. It's kind of a nice day today. I kept saying that and nobody else seemed to agree. :D

Okay, let me do the new stuff at The Third Estate Sunday Review:

"Highlights" -- Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Wally, Elaine and me wrote this and picked the stuff except where it's noted otherwise. And we remembered Isaiah! :D

"Reality" -- This is just some of Robert Knight's commentaries that C.I. had typed up. And "just" is because this is just pulled together. It's not an insult to his commentaries. You can hear him Monday through Thursday on Flashpoints from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm (his stuff is the first five or so minutes and the show also airs on Friday) or you can use the link and listen to archived broadcasts whenever you want. Those are some strong commentaries, so check it out. I can't believe C.I. wrote them up though because of all the work with Hilda's Brew. That's the new community newsletter and it starts tomorrow. It's Hilda's and I'll talk about it in a bit.

"On music and Kat reviews Holly Near's Show Up" -- This could have been "just" a repost and it would have been worth it. Saturday, Kat's latest review, "Kat's Korner: Holly Near Shows Up," went up. Wally & Elaine said that even though it's a pain to copy and paste, it should be done for this review. We all agreed and Ty, Jim and Dona pointed out that the very first edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review carried a repost of one of Kat's reviews so they, Ava, Jess and C.I. worked on an intro to the piece that became much more. I think it's worth reading and you know you have to read Kat's "Kat's Korner: Holly Near Shows Up" -- Holly Near's CD is really great. I'll write a bit (maybe a paragraph or more) tomorrow. It's called Show Up. You should really check it out.

"The Nation Stats" -- We were all tired when this was written. So tired, it was typed as it was written by C.I. who Jim kept saying "has fallen asleep again!" Jim says it's funny because if you wake C.I. up in time, the line is typed as C.I. dozes off. But if you wait a minute or so after C.I.'s fallen asleep you get the last letter over and like this "sssssssssssssss" :D We were all tired. This was supposed to be a short edition. (Aren't they all supposed to be?) It went much longer.

"Crazy John" -- Elaine called me to point out how "Crazy" is now being used with McCain's name. It should be. And it needs to be noted that Wednesday or Thursday, C.I. was calling Crazy "Crazy" and getting e-mails from 'concerned' bloggers saying, "You can't do that." These were non-right winger bloggers. Can't do it? Do you really think anyone can stop C.I. from anything? :D The more that nonsense came in, the more C.I. used it. So we did this post about Crazy John McCain and, if you check it out, "Crazy" is now okay. (I'll be kind and not name the 'concerned' bloggers who offered their 'advice' but Jess told me every one of them.)

"Mailbag" -- We were supposed to be doing short pieces. Didn't really happen. This was supposed to take 10 or 15 minutes. It really ended up being a roundtable and Dona and Jim edited it down. (I didn't lose anything. Most of us were being silent as much as possible because it was supposed to be a short piece. (That's not an insult to Rebecca, C.I., Dona, Ava or Betty. Or Elaine though I think she said the least. They were addressing some important things. I really enjoyed listening to this and wish the whole thing could have gone up but who wanted to type it? If I had, it would be The Third Estate Tuesday Review! :D)

"Loving the Dems -- Mmm mmm good!" I love the artwork here. It's inspired by a famous painting that I don't know. That's really the only original artwork, I think. They used artwork from the past to try to hurry the edition along. But when they sent Rebecca this to photoshop, she hollered for Elaine and me to come look. That's really cool. Along with the cool artwork, check out the article -- and we were being sarcastic.

"The Big Waah" -- This was almost two paragraphs in the editorial. Dona and C.I. both said, "No, pull those paragraphs, it's an article." So that happened and this was probably the quickest to write.

"TV: Nothing Great About Cheese" -- Ava and C.I. did not want to do a TV review. DID NOT WANT TO DO A TV REVIEW. They were not in the mood. They both had a headcahe. They had two or three shows they could have written a review but they just weren't into it. And Ty mentioned that there had been a lot of e-mails in the last weeks on a PBS special. They didn't care. Then Ty goes Billie e-mailed that it was airing in her area. Billie's a community member. So C.I. goes, "What special?" It was Rod Stewart and Ava and C.I. had already seen it. They got the DVD and watched it quickly to refresh and then wrote their review. I love this review and I think you will as well. I love it also because I read the first draft. They usually do one draft and that's it. But they did this one and were done. It was good. I don't think anybody complained. We all laughed and all. But then, 6:00 my time, they decided to take another crack at it and redid the whole thing. I thought it was good before but not like now.

"Editorial: War resistance continues and increases" -- You know the name Dean Walcott if you've been reading the snapshots. He's the latest war resister to go to Canada. But if you read The Nation, you wouldn't know him. They still can't decide whether it's a movement or not. It's a movement and maybe, if like C.I., any of them spoke to people in the military, they'd know that. They'd also know that people are considering following and/or following Ehren Watada's stand. But they're not part of the movement. They're just part of the gas baggery.

"Truest statement of the week" -- a good pick (by Marcia) of Larry Kramer calling hate speech "hate speech."

Okay, two highlights. First, this is from Dennis Jett's "Get Out - Now:"

Despite all the rhetoric and resolutions emanating from Washington, two fundamental facts about the war in Iraq won't change. The killing will continue, but not all of it has to.Iraqis will continue to die in large numbers regardless of what the United States does. The troop surge will shift the violence to other locations or cause the combatants to go underground for a time, but will do nothing to resolve the reasons for the fighting. The ignorance, arrogance and incompetence of the American architects of the invasion and its aftermath have created the perfect storm of factors that made the current civil war possible and inevitable for years to come. The deepening of the sectarian divide, the struggle over who gets to steal the oil revenue and the proxy fight for influence being waged by other countries in the region all ensure that peace will not break out soon.
The war is lost
The politicians in Washington, whether they support the war or oppose it, do not want to end it at all costs, however. Those who pass legislation calling for a fixed timetable for withdrawing American troops do so secure in the knowledge that it will never be enacted. They would not pass a bill that would actually take effect because they are not about to remove the Iraqi albatross from around President Bush's neck and hang it around their own.
Those political leaders who say they support the war know it is lost, but cannot admit it. Their constituents cannot accept the idea of defeat. What has been won, how or why does not matter. In the Vince Lombardi school of international relations, winning is the only thing. So, for them, there is no accepting any outcome called defeat even though invading Iraq has not made us safer and debilitates us more every day. Instead they have to stay the course hoping something they can call victory will miraculously appear.
And so the conflict continues, but it doesn't have to, at least for the Americans. While Iraqis will fight and die for some time to come, the Americans can withdraw now.

The war is lost. It's time to start bringing the troops home. Past time. Now the second highlight is me talking about Hilda's Brew. I hope you signed up for it. The first one goes out tomorrow and the newsletter will publish every Tuesday. Hilda says she's got a stockpile of things to use thanks to C.I. We were exchanging e-mails because I told her I wanted to plug it here and make sure everyone was aware of it.

She says that along with the weekly column by C.I. and the review/overview of radio programs that Ava and C.I. will be doing, C.I.'s written eight pieces that can be used "basically anytime." They're columns on various topics. She said C.I.'s biggest advice was to have a backlog. There's never time for that at The Common Ills or The Third Estate Sunday Review. But C.I. told her, "If I could do it, if I had time, I would." So she has that. She's also got some photos that everyone's passed on (including me). Just different things she can use. The first issue has a roundtable that was done by instant messenger and you'll really enjoy that (I took part in it and I enjoyed it). One thing that seems to be the most interesting to me is that different members who are disabled will be sharing their stories each week. Hilda's deaf and she really wants to use the newsletter to draw attention to those issues. (C.I.'s first six columns will also focus on this.) But there will also be commentary on the war and Congress and on movements.

Eli's daughter created a logo for the newsletter and e-mailed it to her Saturday. She'd said something like Hilda could use if she liked it. Hilda really loves it. So it's just all coming together. If you're a community member, you really should sign up for it. And if you're a community member who wants to help out in some way, let her know.

She did tell me one thing that I really want to include. She didn't ask C.I. to do a weekly column. She knows C.I.'s already doing that the other community newsletters and Ava and C.I. are doing two TV reviews for El Espirito. She was e-mailing C.I. asking about how much interest there would be in this? And during that, C.I. kept asking her what she needed. She kept saying nothing. Then C.I. e-mailed, "This is what I can do if you need it . . ." And she took C.I. up on the offer. But there's a strong interest and a lot of community members have already signed up. Also, Gina and Krista will reprint two pieces from this newsletter in the gina & krista round-robin to make sure everyone gets a good sense of it if they haven't signed up yet.

My big question to Hilda was, "Are you nervous?" She wrote that she got nervous sometimes but, when she did, she'd remember Gina's attitude about how the newsletters are just in the community. She also talked about a really great e-mail she got from Krista. This story's been told before and Krista said she didn't mind my repeating it. Krista was sharing things at The Common Ills and then, because of the snit fit of 1 person, she felt like she was stupid or something. She's not. But she doesn't have to worry about that in the newsletter. And now she just says whatever she wants. The e-mail went into that a lot more but I'll just leave it at that and note that Hilda really appreciated it. Oh, one more thing. Charlie sent her something on Friday and it's going to run but also he's going to write for Hilda's Brew each week.

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

Mondy, April 2, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; Crazy John can't stop fluffing; while the House and Senate bills have yet to be reconciled, a new Senate bill is announced and appears to be more of the same (continuing the war),

Starting with war resistance. Randy Richmond (London Free Press) reports on the United in Song, United in Peace event in Canada yesterday where US war resister Tim Richard sang (Richard self-checked out in 2005) and US war resister Dean Walcott spoke about his "two tours of Iraq" and his decision to self-check out in Decemeber. Walcott has applied for refugee status. Friday, US war resister Corey Glass appeared before the Canadian Immigration and Refugee board to plead his case. Unlike during the Vietnam era, no war resister has yet been granted refugee status. Today, 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. PST, Chris Cook's Gorilla Radio will feature War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky discussing "treatment of a more sinister nature" such as the US military's harassment of Kyle Snyder via a supposedly Canadian police force.

Glass, Key, Snyder and Johnson are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Ryan Johnson, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.


Resistance takes place outside the military and the Grandmothers Against the War were interviewed by Janet Coleman today on WBAI's CAT RADIO CAFE about peace, the war and their arrest October 17, 2005 at Times Square Recruiting Center in NYC. They group described this activism in a 2005 statement as: "We are grandmothers heartbroken over the huge loss of life and limb in Iraq. We feel it is our patriotic duty to enlist in the United States military today in orders to replace our grandchildren who have been deployed there far too long and are anxious to come home now while they are still alive and whole. By this action, we are not supporting the use of military force in Iraq -- in fact, we are totally against it. But inasmuch as it exits, our goal in joining up is only to protect young people from further death and maiming." Call, call, call, was one point, and tell your legislatures to vote for peace by stopping funding of the illegal war. (AP's Mike Glover reports that Senator Barack Obama says if Bully Boy vetoes the proposed Congressional bill, "quickly" -- like whipped puppies -- Congress "will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline". Obama would stand if he wasn't on all fours.) The Congressional switchboard is (202) 224-3121.

Meanwhile, US Senator Russ Feingold announces he's teamed up with the Majority Leader Harry Reid for a piece of legislation that, as described, is honestly disappointing coming from Feingold. The way it will be reported -- by KPFA and others -- is "The bill ends funding for the war"! The reality is the same escape clauses built into the House and Senate measures (House measure passed two weeks ago, Senate measure passed last week) that still need to be reconciled. As with those measures, the bill, as described, says, "War is over . . . except for" and these are the exceptions:

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes -- The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi securit services.

If it all seems familiar, we're back to the age-old issue, "Are you a soldier or are you an adviser?" As Robert Knight noted last Monday on Flashpoints, "This would leave an equal or greater number of US troops in Iraq under the vague but permanent classifications of counter-insurgency, security and training for what New York Senator Hillary Clinton calls 'remaining vital national security interests in the heart of the oil region.' The rhetorical flourish of referring only to the withdrawal of combat troops recalls the tactic by which earlier administrations once referred to US soldiers in Vietnam as advisers rather than troops." (Those unable to utilize or benefit from the archived broadcast can click here for a text version -- with typos I'm sure.) Lisa Goddard (CNN) asserts this proposed bill, if passed, "would end the majority of Iraq war funding after March 31, 2008".

Staying with politics and Iraq, US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich spoke to over 200 people in Olympia, Oregon. Brad Shannon (The Olympian) reports that Kucinich stated, "We have to remember that Democrats are expected to stand for peace, to balance the power of this administration, to stand for the truth, to stand for social justice, and to stand for a domestic agenda instead of a military build-up. . . . Congress should be using its power now to pull the plug on the war and to stop this war and to stop the bloodshed and take a new direction. And Congress has the power to do it."

Max Elbaum (LeftTurn) explores a history Congress would do well to remember:

The heartbreaking truth is that officials at the top level of the U.S. government KNEW they could not win in Vietnam (and WHY they couldn't win) even before the first bombing runs and deployments of U.S. ground troops. And they were right. Ten years later the Vietnam War ended exactly the way it would have in 1965 if Washington not massively intervened: U.S. troops fled the country under enemy fire, and Vietnam was reunified under the leadership of the communist revolutionaries who had been anchoring the fight for Vietnamese Independence for 50-plus years.
The cost between 1965 and 1975 was more than two million Vietnamese and 50,000 U.S. dead; uncounted wounded and innumerable lives ravaged on all sides, much of Vietnam poisoned by Agent Orange for two generations.
All this carnage because of U.S. leaders' calculations about the damage to empire if Washington was forced out of Vietnam, as well as fear of being politically destroyed at home by the charge of "losing Vietnam." It took a decade, but in the end the combination of Vietnamese tenacity, international isolation and protest, and antiwar resistance at home forced the guardians of empire to confront the fact that they would pay a bigger political price for staying than leaving. At a huge cost in lives and anguish, the U.S. was finally forced to withdraw.


In other US Congressional news, Crazy John McCain took The John McCain Showboat Express to Baghdad yesterday where he again made like McCartney asserting Iraq was getting better all the time, a little better all the time, getting so much better . . . Kirk Semple (New York Times) reports things got "testy" in the Green Zone when Senator McCain took questions from reporters following a "stroll" in Baghdad accompanied by "a convoy of armored military vehicles and was accompanied by a large contingent of heavily armed soldiers. The politicians wore body armor while they shopped." [ Note, Friday's snapshot mentioned a report by Semple but left out the link -- it's "More Than 100 Are Killed in Iraq as a Wave of Sectarian Attacks Shows No Sign of Letting Up."]

Sudarsan Raghavan and Saad al-Izzi (Washington Post) note Senator Crazy's claim from last week that it was safe to walk some of the streets of Baghdad -- an assertion Crazy now though he was demonstrating as he and others "rode in armored Humvees protected by dozens of U.S. soldiers and wore bulletproof vets. Those without a military patrol/brigade escorting them, feel differently. Mussab Al-Khairalla (Reuters) reports that merchants from the Shorja market McCain briefly visited yesterday disagree with his assessment and notes Abu Ammar stating, "Who said there was security? I told him there were snipers who were really harming us. I told him the plan had improved security but Shorja still wasn't safe." Crazy John probably heard Ammar's voice but he hears so many voices these days.

Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) notes McCain's "media hype," but notes the increased airwar going on in Iraq (and the lack of coverage of it) reminding: "American news outlets will be inclined to depict the Iraq war as winding down when fewer Americans are dying in it. That happened during the last several years of the Vietnam War, while massive U.S. bombing -- and Vietnamese deaths -- continued unabated." Which is a good lead in for today's violence in Iraq . . .

Bombings?
AFP reports "eight Iraqi schoolgirls and a toddler" as well as 3 adults were killed in a Kirkuk bombing. BBC reports that 192 were wounded from the bombing which was on "a truck laden with explosives". Yahya Barzanji (AP) reports: "Video by an Associated Press cameraman showed at least four wounded U.S. soldiers and one badly damaged American Humvee. The soldiers were being treated by Army medics, with one seated while having guaze bandages wound around his bloodied head. Another soldier, whose nose was bleeding, was standing and waving directions to others. A third soldier was carried away on a stretcher and the fourth was being treated on the ground." AFP observes, "Many of the wounded were pupils at the nearby school and local residents, after the suicide bomber blew up the truck outside the criminal investigations department in the Kurdish district of Rahimawa" and they quote fifth grader Naz Omar who states, "We were at the last lesson and we heard the explosion. I saw two of my class mates sitting near the window. They fell on the floor drenched in blood. . . . They could not speak. I was terrified. I said God is Great. I need my mother. I need my father." Louisa McLennan (Times of London) quotes 13-year-old Sarah Samad stating, "The gate fell on my leg and broke it."

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a bomb contained in a freezer killed 3 women in al-Khalis and left 23 people (6 were women) wounded. Reuters notes two bombings in Baghdad that killed a total of 4 people and left 14 wounded (one in the Doura neighborhood, one in Bayaa neighborhood). CBS and AP note a car bombing in western Baghdad that killed 3 people. CNN, which identifies the location of the bombing as "southeastern Baghdad," notes 3 dead and 10 wounded.
Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Baghad (al-Ghadeer neighborhood), : "Before sunset, A motorists was killed by American check point which was near Um Al-Tibool mosque in Yarmouk neighborhood" and that the man was an off duty Iraqi soldier.


Corpses?

Al Jazeera notes that 19 corpses were discovered. These are the men who were kidnapped on Sunday. AFP reports that, "Medics say the Shiites' handcuffed and blindfolded bodies were found near a water treatment plant in Moraiyah village in Diyala after daybreak."

The UK Ministry of Defence announced that Danny John Wilson is the British soldier who died in Iraq Sunday "as a result of injuries sustained during a patrol in Basra City on 1 April 2007." They also announced "the death of a British soldier from 2nd Battalion The Rifles in Iraq earlier today, Monday 2 April 2007." The BBC notes that both men were "wounded on patrol in the same area" and that the two deaths bring the total number of British soldiers who have died in the illegal war to 136.

Turning to the cheap laugh of today, Bob Herbert (New York Times) half-writes a column and some on the left rush forward to say, "Yea, Gary Sinise!" Gary Sinise is a supporter of the Bully Boy, a defender of the abuses in Abu Ghraib, part of a front group. He is not a left hero, he's not even a good actor. For whatever reasons (intended or just not knowing what he was writing about), Herbert files a valentine to Sinise and some on the left rush forward to embrace the never-was-a-star.

Reality check. On CBS' The Early Show November 8, 2005, Sinise tried to build a wave of Operation Happy Talk, "It's always about a bomb or a suicide bomber or somebody getting killed. And, of course, that's dramatic and all of that. But on a day-to-day basis, there's a lot of improvement. There's a lot of hope." That's the same sort of fluff (lies) that Laura Bush was slammed for giving out over CNN or John McCainn today. In Feburary of 2006, the Abu Ghraib defending Sinise argued, in a News Max interview, "But on the other hand, I would say -- where's the other side?" Yes, where is the other side to torture -- and, gosh darn it, why can't that be covered? Donald Rumsfeld may have introduced Sinise as a "superstar" when Sinise did his concert for the Pentagon in May of 2006, but he's barely a second-rung TV star (and never made it as a movie star). Bill O'Reilly may hail him as "a true patriot" (which he did at the start of last month) but the left doesn't usually rush to embrace O'Reilly's designated chosen . Sinise is a spokesperson for America Supports You. From SourceWatch:

America Supports You is a government-funded public relations program to generate support for the Bush Administration's [global war on terror] by organizing publicity and support for soldiers. Susan Davis International (SDI) is a Washington D.C.- based PR company funded to work on American Supports You.
History
In December 2004, O'Dwyers PR Daily reported that SDI "is handling the Pentagon's 'America Supports You' campaign to drum up support for the nearly 150,000 U.S. forces that may be occupying Iraq during the next four years." "America Supports You," a Defense Department campaign, was originally planned to run through May 2005 but as of July 2006 is ongoing.
On December 3, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld presented an "America Supports You" dog tag to Bill O'Reilly on his Fox News show, calling O'Reilly "a terrific supporter of our troops." President Bush also plugged the "America Supports You" campaign during an address to Marines and their families at Camp Pendleton, California.

That's the reality of the idiot who's getting praised: Gary Sinise, the Little Miss Connie Francis of this decade.

Finally, in a speech broadcast today on Democracy Now!, Naomi Klein address the various layers involved in the continued war on and occupation of Iraq:

What's so extraordinary about what has happened in Iraq -- and Amy mentioned the "Baghdad Year Zero" article -- is that you really have all of these layers of colonialism and neocolonialism, this quest for privatization, forming a kind of a perfect storm in that country. On the one hand, you have sort of old-school colonial pillage, which is, let's go for the oil. And as many of you know, Iraq has a new oil law. It's passed through cabinet, hasn't yet passed through parliament. But, really, it legalizes pillage. It legalizes pillage. It legalizes the extraction of 100% of the profits from Iraq's oil industry, which is precisely the conditions that created the wave of Arab nationalism and the reclaiming of the resources in the 1950s through the '70s. So it's an undoing of that process and a straight-up resource grab, old-school colonialism.
Layered on top of that, you have sort of colonialism 2.1, which is what I was researching when I was in Iraq, which is the looting of the Iraqi state, what was built up under the banner of Arab nationalism, the industry, the factories. The kind of rapid-fire, shock therapy-style strip-mining privatization that we saw in the former Soviet Union in the '90s, that was the idea, that was Plan A for Iraq, that the US would just go in there with Blackwater guarding Paul Bremer and would sell off all of Iraq's industries. So you had the old-school colonial, then you had the new school.
And then you had the post-modern privatization, which was the idea that the US military was actually going to war, the US Army was going to war, to loot itself, which is a post-modern kind of innovation, right? If we remember, Thomas Friedman told us less than a decade ago that no two countries with a McDonald's have ever gone to war. Now, we go to war with McDonald's, Taco Bell, Burger King, in tow. And so, the process of waging war is a form of self-pillage. Not only is Iraq being pillaged, but the United States coffers of this government are being pillaged. So we have these three elements, all converging this perfect storm over this country.
And one of the things that I think is most important for progressives to challenge is the discourse that everything in Iraq is a disaster. I think we need to start asking and insisting, disaster for who, because not everybody is losing. It's certainly a disaster for the Iraqi people. It's certainly a disaster for US taxpayers. But what we have seen -- and it's extremely clear if we track the numbers -- is that the worse things get in Iraq, the more privatized this war becomes, the more profitable this war becomes for companies like Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, and certainly Blackwater. There is a steady mission creep in Iraq, where the more countries pull out, the more contractors move in, which Jeremy has documented so well and will talk more about.
The danger. These are the stakes that I think we need to understand. And I really do want to keep this brief, so that we have a fruitful discussion afterwards. What are the stakes here? The stakes could not be higher. What we are losing is the incentive, the economic incentive, for peace, the economic incentive for stability. When you can create such a booming economy around war and disaster, around destruction and reconstruction, over and over and over again, what is your peace incentive?
There was a phrase that came out of the Davos conference this year. Every year, there's always a big idea to emerge from the World Economic Summit in Davos. This year, the big idea was the Davos dilemma. Now, what is the Davos dilemma? The Davos dilemma is this: for decades, it's been conventional wisdom that generalized mayhem was a drain on the global economy, that you could have an individual shock or a crisis or a war that could be exploited for privatization, but on the whole -- and this was the Thomas Friedman thesis -- there needed to be stability in order to have steady economic growth; the Davos dilemma is that it's no longer true. You can have generalized mayhem, you can have wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, threats of nuclear war with Iran, a worsening of the Israeli occupation, a deepening of violence against Palestinians, you can have a terror in the face of global warming, you could have increased blowback from resource wars, you can have soaring oil prices, but, lo and behold, the stock market just goes up and up and up.
In fact, there's an index called the Guns-to-Caviar index, which for seventeen years has been measuring an inverse relationship between the sale of fighter jets and executive luxury jets. And for seventeen years, this index, the Guns-to-Caviar index -- the guns are the fighter jets, the caviar are the executive jets -- has found that when fighter jets go up, executive jets go down. When executive jets go up, fighter jets go down. But all of a sudden, they're both going up, which means that there's a lot of guns being sold, enough guns to buy a hell of a lot of caviar. And Blackwater is, of course, at the center of this economy.
The only way to combat an economy that has eliminated the peace incentive, of course, is to take away their opportunities for growth. And their opportunities for growth are ongoing climate instability and ongoing geopolitical instability. Their threats -- the only thing that can challenge their economy is relative geopolitical and climatic peace and stability, so I suppose we have our work cut out for us to fight the war profiteers.

mikey likes it

the common ills

the third estate sunday review
iraqdean walcottkyle snyder
naomi kleinharper's magazine
robert knightflashpoints
wbaicat radio cafe
norman solomon
the new york timesashley gilbertsonkirk semplesudarsan raghavanthe washington post

Law and Disorder

Friday. I'm rushing because Elaine and I were running errands for Ma and the Iraq study group's tonight.

So I'll just focus on WBAI's Law and Disorder.

First off, a friend of C.I.'s played a segment over the phone and also asked that C.I. note the Patti Smith bumper music used, "People Have The Power." "We can turn the world around, we can turn the earth's revolution!" It's acoustic and if you like the song or love Patti, that's reason enough to check out the show. I'm not joking. Go to and listen if you're a fan of Patti Smith's. The song starts about 28 minutes in, it's a recording of her performing it acoustic and live.

Okay, Daliah Hashad had to phone in because she wasn't able to be in the studio. I'm listening to it Wednesday night (that's when I got the burned CD of it from C.I.'s friend) and Ma comes in just as Daliah says, "I'm here." Ma goes, "Where?" She was looking around, and Michael Ratner had started speaking -- he wasn't on the phone -- and Ma's looking around my room while I'm laughing. Daliah and one of my sisters sounds just alike. Ma walks in, hears the voice she knows saying, "I'm here" and is just looking around the room. :D She finally realized it was Law and Disorder.

Okay, so Daliah and Michael (Ratner) talked about the forced confessions and how torture doesn't produce honest confessions. Daliah ended up reading off the confession of Kahlid Sheik Mohammad (and that's probably mispelled but I don't have time to look it up or to call C.I. -- you want a post tonight, live with my errors! :D). He's got everything on that confession except Enron as far as I can tell!

Seriously, there's no way one person could do all of that. It's obvious he was tortured and tortured until he'd make up anything just to get the torture to stop.

They noted that, Daliah noted this even with the problems in our court systems, we do have them and they are set up and should be used to prosecute crimes, not these kangaroo tribunals. Michael noted that not doing so gave them a classification of "warrior" as opposed to "whatever you call it" criminal.

Michael then weighed in on Alberto Gonzales' scandal. I agree with him that torutre is more important than firing 8 prosecutors. But the reality is Congress won't move on torture (he knows that, he's talked about it before and talked about it again). They're cowards. And too many Americans still don't want to know about it, even after Abu Ghraib, they want to avoid the realities that the United States has authorized torture, has carried out torture.

As Rebecca points out, it's not the firing. It's the conspiracy that they plotted to lie to the people and to the Congress. That is important and as important, my opinion, as torture. You can't have a democracy when the people are lied to like that.

This is what they've done all along. Do what they want, then lie to the people -- they did it with torture.

I think Alberto sweating this and going down for this could lead to a lot more.

But, like Michael Ratner, I don't believe for a minute that Congress is going to do one damn thing. They've done nothing -- Democrats and Republicans. They've ignored it over and over, year after year. They've given Michael the excuse that they can't do anything right now because they have an election coming up -- that was the 2002 excuse, the 2004 excuse, that's always the excuse.

Okay, so Guieliann Sgrenia (sp!) and Anthony Arnove were on the next segment and spoke with Michael (Ratner). GS was talking about the shooting of the car carrying her in Iraq after she was kidnapped -- she was wounded, the man driving was wounded, and one of Italy's agents was killed. She talked about how there was no warning shot or anything.

Okay, I'm swiping from C.I.'s Monday "Iraq snapshot" (which Elaine just said "Go!" she'll copy and paste it, Tony's going, "Come on dude!"):

On WBAI's Law and Disorder today, Michael Ratner noted that Anthony Arnove's latest book was IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal and asked him about the Congressional measure and what's been proposed by US Senators and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Anthony Arnove: In terms of the proposal that's now in Congress about withdrawal it has about 8 million loopsholes. First of all it refers to combat troops even those combat troops that it talks about setting a timetable for removing from Iraq -- that timetables is based on conditions so in other words at any point along the line they can say "well the conditions require us to continue as an occupying force". Then, of course, it's not calling for a complete withdrawal of troops. It's not talking about the mercenaries that the US is sponsoring in Iraq.

Ratner: Which are probably almost the equivalent of the US soldiers, right? It's over 100,000.

Arnove: Well there are more than 100,000 private contractors. We don't know if all of those are involved as actual mercenaries but certainly the second largest contigent of military force in Iraq is private contractors, not England -- which is what you hear about in the media. But also the plans say nothing about removing US military bases. They don't address the fact that today the US is building the largest embassy it has in the world in Baghdad.

Ratner: It's 300,000 square feet, right?

Arnove: It's just this enormous compound. And it's very clear that they're going to stay that they want to establish military bases, that they want to establish a client regime in Iraq, they want to continue a presence in Iraq and they want to be able to not only control events in Iraq and, of course, control the oil in Iraq. but They want to be able to use Iraq as a staging ground to protect their power in the region particularly vis a vi Iran but also Syria and other countries.

Ranter and Arnove then discussed Antonia Juhasz' op-ed that ran in the New York Times regarding the oil privatization and how the issue was about the control -- who will get it, who won't, a weapon against other countries whose oil needs are growing such as China.

Okay, I'm picking up there, Arnove said that the laws "favor the interest of US oil corporations and that the US will ultimately determine which way the oil flows." It's not about using the oil for the United States, it's about making sure the U.S. decides who can use it. He made that real clear when he talked about how they wanted to use the resource as a "weapon" and that "The bigger question is who controls Middle Eastern resources and the power that flows from that."
Michael Ratner pointed out that this is Democrats and Republicans. I don't have time to find it but community member Lynda is somewhere at The Comon Ills asking about that or saying that she doesn't think the Dems will do a damn thing until Iraq's oil is privatized because they want it too. Ratner's point was that they both supported it. Both parties support this -- it's why it's in the Senate and House bill (me on that last part).

Anthony talked about how you have "the sentiment expressed in opinion polls" and how the "political leadership" has different priorities. I believe he said "If we rely on the Democrats we'll bury ourselves." I'm rushing and don't have time to go back on the CD and find that. Ratner would agree with that from past statements, but I think Anthony said it by my notes.

Let me grab the last segment, it was from this year's Left Forum and it was Vincent Warren (Center for Constitutional Rights) talking about 4 main issues of concern and I've got to start the presentations in group tonight (Tony and me are addressing how Dem cheerleaders like David Sirota prolong the war by telling people to fall in line and lick Dem boots like Sirota does) so I'll note two of the thing he mentioned:

1) the creation of perpetural war
2) mechanism of bringing in, through congress, a broad grant of presidential authority to do whatever it is that he wants to do

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

March 30, 2007. Chaos and violence continues in Iraq, war resister Corey Glass appears before a supposed independent body, and the puppet of the occupation plays catch & release while the 'crackdown' again cracks up.

Starting with war resisters. In Canada, a US war resister appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board today. Matthew Chung (Toronto Star) reports that Corey Glass and his attorney, Jeffrey House, will attempt to argue that the Iraq war is illegal. Chung notes: "Glass joined the National Guard in Indiana four years ago to, so he says, fill sand bags and help guard U.S. soil. Instead he was sent to Iraq, a war he said he doesn't believe in. He fled during a two-week leave." So he says, Chung? He's maintained that repeatedly including when he spoke at Tilley Hall Auditorium in October of last year "filling sand bags to stop a flood on American soil". After self-checking out, Glass was underground for seven months before going to Canada and, during that time, the Army (which supposedly just waits for traffic violations to catch self-check outs) was visiting his parents, calling phone numbers trying to track him down. As October started last year, Corey Glass, Justin Colby, Ryan Johnson and other war resisters in Canada were considering returning to US as a result of the way Darrell Anderson's discharge was resolved. However, once the military attempted to screw over Kyle Snyder, that changed. Glass told Brett Barrouqere (AP) at the start of November, "After what they did to him, I don't see anybody going back." In September of last year, Glass stated, "I knew the war was wrong before I went, but I was going to fulfil my end of the bargain, right or wrong and eventually my conscience just caught up with me. . . I felt horrible for being a part of it. If I could apologise to those people [Iraqis], every single on, I would." The supposed independent body of the Immigration and Review Board has refused to grant asylum thus far to every Iraq war resister who has come before it.

Staying on war resistance, Joshua Key, who is in Canada with his wife Brandi Key and their children, wrote, with Lawrence Hill, his story in the new book The Deserter's Tale which has been receiving favorable reviews across the political spectrum. Karen Alego Krizman (Rocky Mountain News) is the latest to review the book and observes, "Key admits he believed the recruiter who promised he wouldn't have to go overseas or into combat if he joined the Army - mere months after 9/11. Couple this naivete with the steady dose of racism Key says the Army fed recruits and it's no wonder that abuses such as Abu Ghraib occur." Paul Gessel (Ottawa Citizen) notes the Ottawa International Writers Festival from April 15-22 will include Lawrence hill, David Suzuki, Tom Harpur, Roy MacGregor and Barbara Gowdy and reports: "Hill is riding high this year with two books, one a novel about the slave trade called The Book of Negroes and the other a non-fiction story called The Deserter's Tale, about an American soldier who went AWOL while home on leave from fighting in Iraq. That soldier, Joshua Key, is trying to obtain refugee status in Canada and will be joining Hill at the festival April 16."

On Monday, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees took a look at Kyle Snyder and other war resisters who were making a life in Nelson British Columbia. Cooper noted, "We all know the stories about Vietnam War-era deserters who fled to Canada. But less well-known are the members of today's armed forces who are refusing to serve in Iraq. Many have fled to the same town in Canada where they're being welcomed with open arms." Thelma Gutierrez was the reporter for the segment.

Kyle Snyder: I joined when I was 19. . . I sat back, I put my weapon down beside me, and then, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, real quick, very, very loud, I could just remember the look on the man's face. . . . I was a .50 cal. machine gunner and I was an escort for very high-ranking officials. What drew the line for me was one mission in particular where I had witnessed an innocent civilian shot in front of me. . . . I was first angry at that. And then I became angry at the fact that there were no repercussions. This -- there was nothing done to prevent this from happening again. . . . I made my decision off of the things that I personally witnessed in Iraq. I didn't just wake up one morning and say, 'I'm going to leave my country, I'm going to leave my friends behind, I'm going to leave everything that I know and everything that I love and built my entire life on,' nobody does that. . . . I can walk around shops here and, you know, I see "war resisters welcome here" signs. I see community getting involved and getting together. High schoolers come up and say, what can I do to support the anti-war movement?

Meanwhile, Canada's Chronicle Herald reports, "Police have initiated an investigation into" Snyder's arrest "which will be conducted by the Abbotsford police". Snyder was pulled from the home he shares with Ryan and Jen Johnson, the day before his wedding, arrested in his boxers and carried to a jail where he was held (still in his boxers) for several hours as a result of some sort of 'special' and 'unofficial' deal between the police and the US military.

Glass, Key, Snyder and Johnson are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.


In the United States, the press continues to believe that claims of a withdrawal garner more interest than headlines of "Some Troops May Come Home . . . Someday." The realities were addressed on yesterday's Flashpoints:


Meanwhile in Washington the Senate a sort time ago passed a long discussed resolution that ties military funding to non-specific suggestions that President Bush accept the goal but not the requirement of removing less than half of the 150,000 US occupation troops from Iraq by the unenforceable deadline of March 2008. Nevertheless, President Bush has promised a veto. Today's 51 to 47 vote was mostly along party lines and now the Senate and House must resolve their respective legislation neither of which require a full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq till well after the installation of the next American president. And that's some of the news this Thursday, March 29th, 2007. From exile, I'm Robert Knight.


Robert Knight has been one of the consistent voices throughout. (Also on yesterday's Flashpoints, Dennis Bernstein interviewed the Washington Post's Peter Eisner. Rebecca will be covering that late tonight.) This week's CounterSpin (which began airing today) featured a discussion on the issue of what the US House and Senate bills actually state as opposed to the way the press has portrayed them. Co-host Janine Jackson spoke with The Institute for Policy Studies Erik Leaver. Leaver noted that
the bills' "terms of reference only are for combat troops and if you look at the current number of troops deployed in Iraq only half of them would be considered as are combat troops." Jackson, noting reality versus coverage, asked, "Well then are some of the press characterizations or glosses of this as a withdrawal bill, it sounds as though that's not quite on the money?" To which Leaver responded, "That's exactly correct."


Janine Jackson: Well looking at that broader context and we don't have much time left, the majority of the population want an end to the occupation and the war and media acknowledge that, it's their polls that show that, but it doesn't seem somehow guide the questions that they ask or the sources that speak to and I wonder in this case were there not other pieces of legislation that maybe came closer to what the public was calling for? Was there no way for journalists to kind of put this in the context of: "Is this going to end the war sooner?"

Eric Leavler: I think that is the missing element in the story. Again, if the news media reported on: "This brings half the troops home" I think you would see a lot more public discontent about the bill and they would perhaps I think there would be a lot more dissatisfied with Democrats than they are.

Michael Shank (Foreign Policy in Focus) interviews US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich explains why he refused to vote 'yes' on the House bill, "It's very simple: the bill kept the war going. I want to see this war end. I have created, with the help of people who worked on security and peacekeeping missions for years, a plan to end the war. It's embodied in H.R. 1234. It would end the U.S. occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, establisha parallel process creating a peacekeeping and security force, reach out to the nations of the region and the international community for help -- something we won't get as long as we continue to occupy Iraq. That plan is much more expansive and in the course of this interview I'd be happy to over it with you but in short, I oppose the resolution because it kept funding the war. And I say we need to the war now. Not a year from now, not two years from now, not five or ten years from now, but now."

Military Families Speak Out issued (PDF format) "Military Families Speak Out Responds to Senate Vote To Continue Funding For Iraq War" yesterday which notes:

"People across this nation voted in November for an end to the war, not for Congress to provide President Bush with the funds to continue it. Our loved ones were first betrayed when they were sent off to fight a war based on lies. Congress is now continuing that betrayal by failing [to] cut off funding for this unjustifiable war."Miliary Familes Speak Out renews our calls for Congress to use their 'power of the purse' to support our troops and de-fund the war. We call on Congres to fund our troops by funding a safe and orderly withdrawal from Iraq and by funding care for our troops when they return home. This is the 'funding for troops' that is desperately needed."Leadership and courage, two character traits that our loved ones rely on every day as they put their lives on the line, seem to be in short supply on Capitol Hill. We hope that as the Supplemental Appropriations bill goes through the House-Senate Conference Committee and then back to the floors of the House and Senate, we will see our elected officials stand up for our troops and for our nation by ending the funds that allow this unjustifiable war to continue and providing the funds for a safe and orderly withdrawal and the care they need when they get home."

Richard W. Behan (CounterPunch) zeroes in on one aspect of both the Senate and the House's measures, the privatization of Iraq's oil law, defined by the Bully Boy and both houses of Congress as a 'benchmark' Iraqis must meet, "If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5's of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goals of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing 'benchmark' Mr. Bush conscisously avoided any hint of it. The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next october that the benchmarks have been met -- specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That's the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years." Steve Kretzmann (Oil Change) notes that the Iraqi oil unions were locked out of the drafting process but they are quite clear where they stand on the law: "The British and American oil companies were the first to obtain the concession to extract and invest Iraqi oil, nearly 80 years ago. After Iraq got rid of this octopus network, these foreign oil companies have again attempted to dominate this important oil wealth, under numerous pretexts and invalid excuses."

The House and the Senate managed to endorse the privatization of Iraq's oil even if they didn't bother to address the malnutrition -- Cartias Internationalis reports "[o]ver 11 percent of newborn babies are born underweight in Iraq today," that one third of Iraqi children now suffer from malnutrition, and quotes President of Caritas Middle East North Africa Claudette Habesch stating, "Iraq has the second largest oil supplies in the world, but it has levels of poverty, hunger and underdevelopment comparble to sub-Saharan Africa. The last four years, but in particular 2006, we have seen life get worser rather than better for the ordinary Iraqi. And people are voting with their feet. Everday 5000 people leave Iraq. In 2007, one in ten Iraqis is expected to leave the country. We are seeing minority groups such as Christians completely disappear from the country or leave their homes for safer areas."

And when someone tries to return? Edward Wong and Ashley Gilbertson (New York Times -- Wong text, Gilbertson photos) report on Suaada Saadoun, a 49-year-old Iraqi woman who made the mistake of believing a wave of Operation Happy Talk that the latest juiced up version of the eternal 'crackdown' would make Baghdad safe. Suaada returned to her home last month amidst the big talk of the protection and how things would be safer. She, her four daughters, her son-in-law, and grandchildren returned to her Baghdad home after fleeing Iraq for Syria when the Shia gangs and militias became too threatening. Upon returning, Suaada attempted to deal with the new threats by notificing the Kurdish and US military. When two thugs, Abbas Radhi and Zuhair Naama, showed up with papers from the Ministry of Finance (which, make the connection, they obviously worked for), she phoned the Kurdish and American military. The Kurdish military was able to stop the two men at a checkpoint. They and the US military arrested the two men. Suaada was shot dead the next morning in front of a bakery. Her family has now fled the home.

But it was safer, said US military flacks, things were better in Baghdad -- this version of the crackdown was really something, really accomplishing something . . . Really nothing but more of the same. Oh, there is a difference. More attacks. Attacks on the fortified Green Zone are up. Kristin Roberts (Reuters) reports the US military is saying that car bombs have "soared 30 percent since the start of a security crackdown in Iraq last month" -- since the start of the latest version of the crackdown that's been ongoing since June of 2006 is ther reality. David Byers (Times of London) reports that "the death toll rose to nearly 400 in four days following a multitude of deadly bomb and shooting attacks." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "violence is returning to previous levels throughout the country. The number of unidentified bodies found dumped on Baghdad streets, which had dropped to an average of 13 per day in the weeks just after the plan began, has averaged 19 a day for the past two weeks. The average numbers of people killed and of car bombs also have increased slightly, according to statistics that McClatchy compiled."

Meanwhile CNN reports that Moqtada al-Sadr "is calling for an anti-American protest in the Iraqi city of Najaf on April 9, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad." Sounds like Clear Channel needs to get off their asses and head on over to Iraq to stage some of their propaganda rallies they held in the US during 2003. CBS and AP note that al-Sadr's call comes as "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose backing is dropping even among fellow Shiites, issued an angry statement pledging to bring the bombers responsible for Thursday's attacks to justice." That apparently means al-Maliki will make a big show about detaining them and then release them hours later with no fanfare. Kirk Semple (New York Times) reports that the 18 police officers who went on a massacre in Tal Afar, dragging people from their homes, killing at least 70 people, the ones identified by survivors, the ones who were taken into custody with much, much fanfare -- "had been freed after being detained for only a few hours." CNN reports that they were arrested (re-arrested) today. No word yet on whether they've also already been released.



Bombings?

CNN reports: "A U.S. airstrike in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood about 2 a.m. Friday killed at least 16 people and wounded 14 others, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said. He said all of those killed were guards who protect neighborhoods in Sadr City. The U.S. military said it is looking into the report."

Shootings?

Reuters reports two police officers were shot dead in Hilla.

Corpses?

CNN reports 25 corpses were discovered in Mosul.

Today, the US military announced: "While conducting a combat security patrol, a MND-B Soldier died and another was wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near the Soldiers in a southern section of the Iraqi capital March 29." AP notes this brought the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal to 3,245.


CBS and AP report that six weeks after the Washington Post (Dana Priest and Anne Hull) and ABC News Brian Woodruff put the scandals of veterans health 'care' front and center, Bully Boy mosied down to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to throw some empty words around about how "we're going to fix the problem" and that he toured an "empty" patient room. Hopefully, his prepared remarks weren't delivered there but with the Bully Boy who knows . . .


Finally, students in the US have been protesting and continue to protest the Iraq war. The latest indication that gas bags need to rethink is The Nation magazine which makes the new SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) their latest cover and includes a sketch (no articles -- it's fastly becoming the Highlights of the political set). Been there, done that and never awarded a student, as The Nation did not that long ago, for writing an essay spitting on her peers, LeftTurn was there first and best with Doug Viehmeyer's article "Steppin It Up: The New SDS." From the article: "SDS has gone forward, with 250 chapters springing up nationwide (and internationally). The most surprising aspect of the growth of SDS has been the number of chapters established at high schools and community colleges. When compared with the initial years after the founding of the original SDS, we are ahead of the curve. The spring and summer of 2006 was the incubation period for SDS, with the initial chapters getting off the ground and spreading via word of mouth and the web, participating in joint actions with other groups, and beginning the slow development of organizational vision and strategy." Applause to Viehmeyer and LeftTurn for doing such an amazing article that The Nation (already suffering bad campus cred -- for good reason) had to rush to copy.

mikey likes it
the common ills
law and disorder
anthony arnove
wbai
trinas kitchen
like maria said pazmikey likes it
corey glasssex and politics and screeds and attitude
counterspinjanine jackson
kyle snyderjoshua key
the new york timesedward wongashley gilbertson
kirk semple
robert knightflashpointsdennis bernstein
military families speak out