Hump day, hump day and the weather's even worse. I think we're all sick of weather at this point except young school children dancing because they don't have to go to school.
Tonight we've got a theme post and Rebecca and I did a last minute substitution of the planned theme. We changed it to rumors and did so because we really are blown away by the snapshot and thought rumors might be a topic that would result in the potential audience for the snapshot being expanded. There was an important Congressional hearing and it's not receiving the attention it needs. So our part was to come up with a topic that we thought could catch some drive bys on top of regular readers.
Barney, the Purple Dino, is really not someone I grew up on so much. He comes along just as I'm getting too old for him. But I do remember him and, yeah, thought he was cool for about six seconds or so. But everyone knows Barney, right?
And he was really popular. Kids loved him. They watched his TV show and bought his cassette tapes and went to his concerts.
And then he was gone. Where did Barney go? Why did he go?
I always heard that he was singing a song and stubbed his toe and then swore (a long string using the f-word and everything else). This was shocking to viewers and their parents so his show got pulled.
Now I loved that rumor.
It's false.
I could have told it was false all along. But I loved it too much.
First off, Barney's TV show as not live. So if the actor in the dino suit stubbed his toe and cursed, they just would have stopped the tape and redone it.
But it was just so wonderful to picture that things like facts really didn't matter.
The child star Barney swearing like crazy. Shocking children. It's really just too perfect.
And that's what makes for a good rumor. It takes something that feels like justice and attaches it to a deserving personality.
Okay, before I get to the snapshot, I want to offer a little bit of Debra Sweet's "Report From D.C.: Intense Engagement With Thousands:"
Why Call Obama a "war president?" Worldcantwait.org has an Obama Watch going, already documenting the responsibility of Barack Obama for attacks on civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unmanned drones made two strikes into Pakistan, killing women among what the Obama administration says were Taliban. And, re the "good war" in Afghanistan:
The Associated Press reported January 24 that "Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council in Laghman, said village elders arrived at his office hours after the early morning operation to complain that the 15 killed were innocent civilians. During a call from an Associated Press reporter, Rahmzai relayed questions to the village elders directly, who angrily shouted that they would swear on the Quran, the Muslim holy book, that all those killed were civilians. The elders claimed that women and children were among the dead. The villagers told Rahmzai that they are shepherds and have no ties to militants. The New York Times reports today that village elders and the pro-US central government agree that 13 civilians were killed and 9 wounded.
Afghan officials say that when U.S. forces raid villages in their hunt for Taliban fighters, they end up killing civilians and ultimately undermine their cause.
Juan Cole, at Salon.com today in an article headed, "President Obama, meet Lyndon Johnson" writes, "The Bush administration launched 30 air attacks on targets in Pakistan in 2008, killing 220 persons. The strikes seem to have started in the summer, during the presidential campaign, about a year after candidate Obama began urging this policy. Bush may have instituted the aerial attacks to deny Obama a campaign talking point and to prevent him from out-hawking John McCain. That is, Obama may have pushed Bush -- who had earlier been wary of alienating Pakistan – to the right." http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/26/obama/
As a friend just wrote me, the people in Pakistan don't have the luxury of adopting a "wait and see" attitude about Obama's intentions in pursuing the so-called "war on terror."
That's pretty important and so is today's snapshot so be sure to read it all if you haven't already. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 28, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri tries to buy votes, the US Congress holds a hearing on sexual assault in the military, and more.
The woman with the long red hair and glasses spoke halting, "I didn't realize why I was acting the way I was and neither did he. It ruined our marriage." The woman is Laura Watterson and she was offering testimony to a US House Armed Services Committee hearing this morning. Sexually assaulted in 2001 and suffering from PTSD and MST (Military Sexual Trauma), she sought help and attempted to utilize policies already in place only to confront a system that ignored the policies, didn't care about her sexual assault and devoted 'help' time to silencing her. As much as the sexual assault traumatized her, the military 'response' was equally traumatizing. "I began therapy at the VA because I lost everything as a result," she explained. She had followed the rules ("I reported it as I was supposed to"), she was told by her supervisor and his supervisor "that it would be taken care of and I trusted that." But she was betrayed and there was more interest in silencing her than in holding the assailant accountable.
Laura Watterson: Part of my wellness is testifying today, forcing me to get out and do things that are challenging because they are more important. I'll leave here today but hopefully my message will not leave. If I had a caring SARC representative, I believe that I would not have ended up in the mess that I have ended up in.
The subcommittee was the Military Personnel Subcommittee and the hearing was entitled Sexual Assault in the Military: Victim Support and Advocacy. US House Rep Susan Davis is the chair of the committee. In her opening remarks, she noted, "Sexual assault is a complex problem where most, if not all, aspects are interrelated. Such a topic does not lend itself to a single hearing. As a result, we have chosen to hold multiple hearings on discrete topics so that members and witnesses can have in-depth discussions about various issues to build towards a comprehensive understanding of the problem. This will guide our deliberations on what can and should be done next. Today we will be focusing on victim advocacy and support. Our next hearing will look at current and planned Department of Defense programs to prevent sexual assault. I would like to say that we are encouraged by the level of commitment, resources, and expertise that the services are applying to prevention programs to educate service members and change cultural norms. Finally, we will hold a hearing to examine how sexual assaults are prosecuted by the military."
That maps out some of the subcommittee's tasks for the year. As part of that exploration, Davis had a question after all the witnesses had offered testimony. Along with Laura Watterson, witnesses on the first panel included the Air Forces' Capt Daniel Katka (Sexual Assault Response Coordinator), the Army's Sgt 1st Class Michael Horwatch (Sexual Assault Response Coordinator/Victim Advocate) and the Navy's Chief Petty Officer Tonya D. McKennie (Victims Advocate).
US Rep Susan Davis: Ms. Watterson, clearly the system did not keep you safe and I know you don't believe it keeps other members of the military safe today either. But the time that we are talking about, it was prior to some new policies that were put in place and, with the work that you've done and your advocacy, I wonder if you could speak to a few instances where you think perhaps the system would have served you better and in those cases when you don't think anything that has been done really would have made a difference. I think you alluded to some of that in your testimony but if you could go back and talk to us a little bit about that, that would be very helpful.
Laura Watterson: Well one big thing is the confidentiality so that the victims do feel safe and be able to tell them that, you know, I have insomnia, I'm throwing up all the time, I'm drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels at night, you know, all that kind of stuff. They need to feel safe that they can tell someone about that so that they can go get treatment and in my experience with working with active duty and also working with veterans recently there is a big problem with many many many bases and commanders who have tried to brush off what the mandates and the law are that have already been put in place. There's one commander in, for example, who treated me like I was an absolute idiot. He was completely cocky about the whole thing and I read off the mandates about this is what you're supposed to be doing for your troop and you're not doing it all. For example, I had one that was a male victim of MST [Military Sexual Trauma] and they were not protecting him as well. They were allowing people to walk by him and call him "f*g." They were allowing people to beat him up because they were saying that he was a f*g. He was being administered psychiatric drugs by his peers and not a medical professional, it was his peers and he was still in training he was -- it wasn't basic training but he hadn't gotten the training for his job, that's where he was. And it was it was disgusting and it has been I had to, I've had to call the IG and I asked these troops and things, "Have you talked to your IG yet?" "What's an IG?" Well have you talked to your SARC [Sexual Assault Response Coordinators] yet? "I don't think so." And a lot of the SARCs, they have the initial meet and how are you doing and then that's it. They don't call to check up and see how you're doing or let's make sure you get into the hospital and make sure your meds are correct -- basic -- [. . .] to take car of them, to make them feel like they have someone because most of them their families are very far away and especially in training they probably don't have any friends either. But that is a large thing. The SARC needs to be able to have enough power to fight the commander when the commanders are ignoring and basically mocking the system that is supposedly been put in place. That is a huge, huge problem.
US House Rep Susan Davis: Thank you. I'd like to actually turn to our folks here and see. Could you respond and help us with that as well because I think there is a big question of whether the SARC comes to a commander and says "Listen we've got a problem here" and nothing happens, what kind of authority do you have to follow up?
Capt Daniel Katka: Yes, ma'am. We report directly at my base we report directly -- and in the Air Force -- to the Vice Wing Commander, essentially the second on the base, which helps tremendously, by the way. So we are able to kind of go and interact with commanders. Of course not to tell them what they must do but recommend highly -- with the vice -- [with] their understanding that the vice wing commander is who we report to. So it helps us tremendously in advocating for the survivor and whatever his or her needs are.
Sgt 1st Class Michael Horwath: We're very similar, ma'am. We do a monthly sexual assault review board and we report everything involved in the program to the senior movement commander at whatever institution we are happen to be on for me that happens to be the division commander and it is reported up from there. [. . .]
US Rep Susan Davis: And quickly Chief McKennie, I'm out of time.
Chief Petty Officer Tonya McKennie: Well the Navy, where I'm affialited in San Diego, all our SARCs are civilian personnel so they are not normally subject to military intimidation.
They have free reign and a lot of leeaway in being able to deal with any commanding officers or military personnel. So in my experience, we do not have that problem.
Under questioning from US House Rep Loretta Sanchez, Katka defended the use of volunteers for Victims Advocates in the Air Force. As opposed to making it a paid position. He insisted it keeps the position filled with dedicated people. What clever little spin. Equally true is that a paid position is taken more seriously by everyone in the environment. Equally true is that an all volunteer force is addressing a serious and deeply embedded cultural crime (Sanchez noted at least 600 assaults had taken place in Iraq) with limited resources and those resources include limited training. Equally true is that when you refuse to create a paid position, when you refuse to create a real training program for those who do the job, the bulk of the volunteers are constantly treading water just to keep up and that undercuts any advancements that might be made. Of course, that could be the entire point of making the positions volunteer and not permanent, paid positions.
But don't worry, Kafta likes calling around looking for volunteers. So it's an unpaid position and it's one Katka is qualified to staff how?
Sorry to break it to Katka but he doesn't seem trained to staff and until the Air Force moves beyond the attitude that Victims Advocates are as 'disposable' as candy stripers, don't expect to see any improvement. Sanchez asked him, "Do you see that the volunteers, because this is based on volunteers, do you see that it's most women stepping forward to volunteer?"
"Yes," replied Katka, noting that as many 70s VAs are on his base and "we have about 15 that are men." "There is a challenge," Katka says, "I'll admit to you." Asked for how to make it better, Katka said he'd try but somehow never got around to doing that. Unless he thought his continuity binder -- his notebook -- was somehow the road to improvement.
Asked near the end to offer her evaluation of whether or not she saw any improvement, Laura Watterson replied:
To be honest, no. I've seen a lot of new mandates and a lot of new whatever but the fact is that the majoirty of what I've seen and dealt with and heard from other survivors is that nothing has changed. They are still using the McDowell check list to basically they can turn it around and make it look like the person is lying. And so someone who comes forward and wants to report it could be charged with conduct unbecoming, filing false charges and -- if either the victim or the rapist/assaulter is married -- they can be charged with adultry. That is a big reason why people do not come forward and other women will see what happens to one woman -- bascially getting their life torn apart because they went forward and asked for help. They get stalked by the friends of the perpretator, it's -- I don't see any change.
2008 demonstrated that nothing has been done. Maria Lauterbach was a Marine. She came forward to charge Cesar Armando Lauren with rape. The military did not take it seriously and they did not take Maria seriously. Maria was forced to continue to work with Cesar, her rapist, and his friends. She was not protected. She was not given help. She was pregnant from the rape. Possibly encouraged by the lack of response from the Marine command, Cesar took it further. He murdered Maria. He dug a hole in his back yard, shoved her corpse into the hole and attempted to burn her corpse.
Maria was missing for weeks and weeks. Her mother was attempting to get the Marines to do something, anything. She had to go to the Onslow County police to get any kind of help. While the Marines drug their feet for weeks as Maria was missing, Ed Brown's sheriff's dept, once on the case, was quickly able to narrow the suspects down to Cesar and quickly find Maria's corpse. Though Brown had conveyed to the Marines that Cesar was the chief suspect (conveyed it prior to the discovery of Maria's corpse), the Marines refused to place any conditions on Cesar such as refusing to allow him to leave the base. Cesar was able to slip away hours before Maria's corpse was uncovered and he made it to Mexico where he remains at present, still awaiting extradition. (Cesar has not been convicted of the crimes. One coming forward after he escaped was Cesar's wife who revealed Cesar told her he killed Maria.)
Maria's mother knew something was wrong right away. Her daughter was pregnant and due to give birth shortly. There was no reason for her to go missing. And if she truly was missing (and alive), she needed help right away due to her pregnancy. But the Marine command didn't care. They didn't believe Maria. And, besides, everybody liked Cesar, he was such a 'man'.
If you're wondering where the Marine command's public apology for their handling of the case is, keep wondering because there has yet to be accountability. Maria Lauterbach's mother, Mary Lauterbach, was present for today's hearings. Jessica Wehrman (Dayton Daily News) reports:
The Inspector General of the Defense Department has been asked to postpone an investigation into how the military handled the rape investigation of Vandalia Marine Maria Lauterbach until the man accused of raping and murdering her has been extradited and tried for her murder.
The decision was crushing for Mary Lauterbach, Maria's mother, who said she believes it will mean that many of those involved in Maria's rape investigation will never be held accountable. She said at least one of the people involved in the handling of Maria's case plans to retire within the year.
Maria Lauterbach, 20, and the body of her unborn son were found buried in Cesar Laurean's backyard on Jan. 11, 2008. Laurean fled to Mexico and has been charged in Lauterbach's murder. He is currently fighting extradition charges, and last November received permission to have his wife, Christina, visit him in Mexico.
We've only noted two of the panels for this morning's hearing and we could go into even more depth on those two and may if there's not other coverage on it to highlight tomorrow. Thus far, Talk Radio Network has filed a four paragraph report which opens with this:
"Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq," Congresswoman Jane Harman (CA) reported to the congressional committee for Military Sexual Assault Victim Support and Response. The committee met Wednesday with military personnel to discuss how the Department of Defense can improve victim support and advocacy. Beginning the hearing was former marine Laura Waterson. Ms. Waterson was sexually assaulted by an officer in her unit in early 2001. Her testimony shed light on the meager and often time insulting support provided to her by the military following her report that she was sexually abused. Through out her often weepy eyed testimony Waterson described the extremely painful aftermath of her assault that ultimately to "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the end of her marriage, and extreme irrational behavior."
If you wonder why these sexual assaults happen, they happen because people don't take it seriously. They happen because when Congress devotes a full morning to the topic, the press apparently can't be bothered (the press was out for the hearing, they just haven't gotten any reports out yet) with the topic. They happen because the issue isn't take seriously. Barack going to jawbone with Republicans yesterday was treated as the most pressing and important news of the day. US House Rep Jane Harman declares, "Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq" -- and how many will treat it as news?
Okay, Stars & Stripes has just filed. (Hopefully the first of many.) Leo Shane III reports:
When Laura Watterson told her commanders that a fellow airman had raped her, she expected the Air Force to investigate and punish the offender.
Instead, she said, he was promoted to be her supervisor and she was told to "get over it."
"They said in basic that I'd be taken care of [in the Air Force] and I trusted that," she told a House committee on Wednesday. "I thought I had joined a band of brothers as a sister. I became an outcast."
Watterson's testimony was part of the first of a series of hearings scheduled by the House Armed Services Committee on the military's sexual assault response.
Turning to Iraq, Peter Graff and Aseel Kami (Reuters) report that voting in Iraq's provincial elections (fourteen of the eighteen provinces are holding elections) officially begins Saturday but early voting has started for "soldiers, police, prisoners and displaced people". In an alleged 'analysis' of the upcoming vote, Leila Fadel (and the Institute for War and Peace Reporting?) offers this at McClatchy: "Men who once fought against the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the American military are now among about 14,500 candidates who are competing for seats in the provincial assemblies. Even some who have no trust in the current government have put away their weapons and are trying their hands at democracy. If their votes don't produce the changes they seek, they say, they'll have no choice but to pick up their weapons again." Leila is, of course, a woman and McClatchy's Iraq branch is largely staffed with women. So it's cute that the only gender Fadel deems of interest is males. Strange because others have found a way to provide reports on female candidates and on female voters. Maybe the Institute for War and Peace Reporting overruled Leila? Or maybe she doesn't care? Regardless, it's very telling that an alleged analysis of an upcoming vote -- in a country where there are more women than men (Iraq has a huge number of widows) -- decides to ignore them.
Timothy Williams and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) explain that due to the Shi'ite pilgrimage in honor of Imam Hussein, it is feared some Shi'ites may miss out out on voting in the provincial elections. The provincial elections will be held in fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces, whether you are a pilgrim or an internally displaced Iraqi, you can only vote in your own province. Independent candidate Hakim al-Mayahi declares Shi'ites potentially voting in smaller numbers will make it more difficult for independent candidates to be elected. While it is true that the small number participating in polling have indicated a preference for non-sectarian candidaes, this is not an overwhelming presence and it doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing.What's being predicted is that candidates not alligned with extremists (Sunni or Shia) will fare better in this election cycle than they did in 2005. That may end up being the case but it may not and nothing is known at this point.To stick with the polling response -- and the sample size has not been encouraging (we're talking about real polling, not the random interviews that the Los Angeles Times did for a story this week -- and LAT didn't present that as a poll). But the segment that is saying, "I'm tired of the bickering between Shi'ites and Sunnis" or "a pox on both of them" may end up being not all that different from US citizens polled who state "I'm tired of ___" and then go on to vote the exact same way because while they're tired of Congress they generally make an exception for their own member of Congress.When you take the comments being made about some rejecting the religious extremists and put them in that light, it should cause a number of people to stop suggesting that indications (at best, indications) are facts of the final tally discovered before the election took place.So with all that in mind, if a Shi'ite pilgrimage is taking place and it may result in many Shia not being able to participate in voting, the most likely candidates to suffer would be Shia candidates. Not independents. And that likelihood is why, as the article explains, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is asking that people vote before leaving on their pilgrimage.Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) examine the Communist Party and note there are 27 candidates running in Baghdad (there are 57 slots open on the provincial council) and that the Communist Party "won two seats on the council" in the 2005 elections, while Parliament has 275 seats with two of those held by Communists. Abdul Munim Jabber Hadi is quoted stating, "In the past five years, the people have begun to understand that these political parties failed to achieve what people were hoping for." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) focuses on Nineveh Province, which has been a source of tension for some time and which has the city that's emerged in 2008 as the most violent in Iraq: Mosul. He notes the power struggles going on and how the boycott of the 2005 elections by Sunni Arabs led to over-representation on the council by Kurds ("The Kurds currently hold 31 of the 37 seats on the provincial counil, the equivalent of an American state legislature"). Londono explains, "Taking the reins of Nineveh's government would allow Arabs to appoint a governor and use their political power to roll back Kurdish expansion, which is being bitterly contested in villages across the 300-mile swath of disputed territories, as well as in Baghdad and in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite Arab, and Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, have exchanged heated accusations in recent weeks, underscoring the intensity of a conflict that U.S. officials and Iraq experts have come to view as Iraq's most potentially destabilizing."
Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation. al-Maliki, who is not running for office, is attempting to make the 2009 election all about him. He's attempting to buy votes for his political party and promising the sun, stars and sky. He will, of course, fail to deliver. (As is his pattern.) Monday's snapshot included: "Waleed Ibrahim and Michael Christie (Reuters) report that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, declared that US [combat only] forces will be pulled quickly. They report he made this announcement to 'a crowd of supporters in the southern Iraqi city of Babel during a campaign rally ahead of Jan. 31 provincial elecitons' -- translation, a campaign promise by al-Maliki -- eager to pump up the number of seats held by his Dawa Party. And of course, if Barack had decided on that, he would let Nouri break the news, right? No need to inform the Pentagon or Joint Chiefs first. Just tell Nouri and let him tell the world." Yesterday's snapshot included this, "Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times) reports that Nouri al-Malik (of all people) has warned that no one should 'corrupt the elections by buying votes'." The puppet of the occupation is attempting to make the provincial elections all about him and he is attempting to buy votes. Today Campbell Robertson (New York Times) explains al-Maliki's latest spin: free land or cheap land for Iraqi journalists! Robertson explained the bribe came with another "admonition to journalists to focus on stories of progress and reconstruction".
Nouri tried to get reporters -- foreign and domestic -- to sign a contract and if they violated his 'feel-good-news' edict, they would be fined. Not only did he do that, he tried to pass it off as UNAMI's wishes. Those were never the wishes of UNAMI. He pushed that on a Friday (Kim Gamel of AP was the first to cover the contract) and it had fallen apart by the following Sunday (including the cover story that UNAMI wanted the contract). That is only one example in his long, long history of attacks on the press. A more recent example would of course be Muntadhar al-Zeidi -- the Iraqi journalist who was beaten and tortured for tossing two shoes. Muntadhar remains in prison and never doubt that's where al-Maliki would like to put all the press. The contract's only a surprise to those who weren't paying attention in July of 2006 when al-Maliki launched his first attack on the press or who didn't notice how much more violent al-Maliki's thugs were. It's when al-Maliki takes over that there's no pretense about physically going after journalists. Whether it's the photographer they insisted was an insurgent or aiming a gun at two reporters for the New York Times and pulling the trigger (the chamber was empty, it was a 'joke'). al-Maliki has fostered disrespect and loathing for the press because that's how he feels and those feelings festered when he was living in Syria and Iran where his rages against the press were fairly well known. Though largely confined to the press in Syria and Iran, he was also known to pop off about the press in the country he'd fled (Iraq) and how if he could control the press, he'd be as powerful as Saddam. Since being installed as the puppet, al-Maliki has attempted to do just that.Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another wounded and a second Mosul roadside bombing that injured three people.
Shootings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Maiyadah Al Baiati ("member of the Islamic party") was shot dead in Baghdad and 1 police officer was shot dead in Salahuddin Province and another was wounded.
In diplomatic news, the Associated Press explains, "Iraqi museums and sites suffered extensive damage and looting in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The National Museum of Baghdad, a treasure trove of artifacts from the Stone Age through the Babylonian, Assyrians and Islamic periods, fell victim to bands of armed thieves. Up to 7,000 pieces are still missing." yesterday's snapshot included:Yesterday, Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, was in Athens, where he met with Greece's Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis (see photo below from Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and prepared for a day of talks on Tuesday to include meeting with the country's Prime Minister, Kostas Karamanlis as well as Dimitris Sioufas, the President of the country's Parliament. Renee Maltezou (Reuters) reports Greece has offered both "financial aid and expertise" to attempt to repair the damange done by the plundering of Iraqi antiquities at the start of the illegal war. Athens News Agency explains, "The establishment of a Greek Economic and Commercial Affairs Office in Iraq was decided on Tuesday during a meeting in Athens between foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis and her Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari, as well as Greece's assistance in the protection of Iraq's cultural heritage and erecting a statue of Alexander the Great in Gaugamela."
At the briefing following their meeting, Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis declared, "It is with great pleasure that I once again welcome Iraqi Foreign Minister Mr. Hoshyar Zebari to Athens. I am happy that we have the opportunity to host him in Greece once again. And this, of course, underscores and confirms the traditional relations of mutual trust and friendship between the Greek and Iraqi peoples. We had a very substantial discussion on a series of issues of bilateral and broader interest, as well as on developments in the Middle East, of course. Greece has supported Iraq with all its power on a political and economic level so as to stabilize the democracy and the country which has experienced such difficult times in recent years. As you know, we will be opening an trade office in Arbil. We jointly observed that our economic cooperation must be strengthened. At the same time, we agreed that we will intensify our cooperation in the cultural sector. As you know, Iraq's cultural heritage was hard hit by the destruction of ancient sites and artifacts, and Greece, with its particular sensitivity to this issue, will help with know how and financing to rebuild the museums of Iraq. My friend the Minister and I also agreed on the raising of a monument to Alexander the Great in Gavgamila, symbolizing precisely the interaction of cultures in this critical region. In closing, I think it is obvious, but I want to stress this, that Greece is firmly in favour of the unity, independence and territorial integrity of Iraq, and, of course, actively supports its efforts to win a future of stability and development." In other diplomatic news, Iraq has appointed their first ambassador to Syria in approximately thirty years. Waleed Ibrahim, Missy Ryan and Louise Ireland (Reuters) report Alaa al-Jawadi has been named to the post. It probably goes without saying but we'll say it: al-Jawadi is a man. Even their ambassadors to Western countries are males. It's becoming a real issue that goes beyond mispelling Dora Bakoyannis' last name but also referring to her as "Mrs." when the her own Foreign Ministry refers to her as "Ms."
In the US, Barack Obama has yet again tossed women under the bus. An economic 'stimulus' that is little more than dusted off FDR (we don't have the same work force we had in the 1930s, nor do we have the same jobs) and largely excludes women, just got a lot more anti-woman. Around the net, NOW, NARAL and assorted 'leaders' are being called out for their silence -- and they should be called out. A friend at Feminist Majority Foundation notes this from their Feminist Wire Daily:
A provision in the proposed economic stimulus package that would expand family planning coverage under Medicaid has drawn harsh criticism from Republicans and may be removed from the proposed stimulus package as early as today. President Barack Obama has reportedly told congressional Democrats to remove the provision and may offer this move as a concession to congressional Republicans in meetings today.The current version of the stimulus package (see PDF) would no longer require states to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services and contraceptives under Medicaid.Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi defended the inclusion of the family planning provision this weekend (see video) and said that, ultimately, "the family planning services reduce cost." Democrats argue that the provision is an investment that would save money long term and that it could create health care jobs and bolster state progams, according to .
You'll note that FWD does not attempt to blame any Republican in the minority, they note who is responsible for removing the funding: Barack. I have no problem giving Feminist Majority Foundation -- which owns and operates Ms. magazine and FWD -- credit when they earn it. While it's easy to read the above and say, "Well they just did their job," that alone would be enough. But if you've missed some of the calling out -- rightful calling out -- of the silence and the minimizations and the excuses, you're aware it would have been very easy for Feminist Majority Foundation to have run with the pack and stayed silent, declared it no-big-deal or invented a Republican to blame the whole thing on. They didn't. Credit when it's earned, Feminist Majority Foundation did call this one right and they did so publicly.
Lastly, the American Freedom Campaign explains:
While we may have a new president dedicated to reversing some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration, there is at least one unconstitutional executive power President Obama is trying to protect. Congress must take action to ensure that the power to sign international agreements related to military activities does not rest solely in the hands of the executive branch. Please take two minutes to tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor a resolution declaring the recently signed U.S.-Iraq agreement merely advisory in nature unless it is submitted to Congress for approval. Just use the following link to take action: We cannot emphasize enough the importance of this issue. As things currently stand, the Bush administration deemed the U.S.-Iraq agreement a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a type of agreement that has always been used to establish basic legal standards related to the presence of the U.S. military in another nation. SOFAs do not require congressional approval. But the U.S.-Iraq agreement goes well beyond the traditional boundaries of a SOFA, dictating how long the U.S. military will stay in Iraq (up to three years at a possible cost of $10 billion per month) and even giving Iraq a measure of control over U.S. troops. As the Obama administration seems satisfied with the current agreement, it may be tempting for members of Congress to leave well enough alone and move on to other matters. Part of the feeling, especially among Democrats, may be that the agreement is the best we are going to get at this point so there is no need to reopen the debate. But this misses the entire point. If nothing is done today, then President Romney, President Palin, or - god forbid - President Cheney may sign a far-reaching "SOFA" of their own with Iran in 2014 or 2018. That may seem far off in the distance now, but in the span of this nation's history, nine years is nothing. This agreement, if Congress is not included in the process, will set a strong precedent for future presidents to cite. They will be able to say that congressional approval is not required for these kinds of agreements and will point to 2009 as their justification. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) has introduced a resolution (H.Res. 72) expressing the sense of the House that the U.S.-Iraq agreement will be considered merely advisory in nature absent congressional approval. Such action is needed to force President Obama to seek approval from Congress. Please click on the following link to urge your U.S. representative to co-sponsor this critically important piece of legislation: Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message. Thank you so much for taking action. Steve Fox Campaign Director American Freedom Campaign Action Fund
iraqleo shane iii
the new york timestimothy williamssuadad al-salhythe los angeles timestina susmanraheem salmanthe washington posternesto londonopeter graffaseel kamicampbell robertsonamerica freedom campaign
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
feminist wire daily
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Larry Jones, Palin starts a PAC, and more
Tuesday! Is it extra cold or am I just so sick of winter that it feels that way? I really am in the mood for spring. My grandfather (who I love) is a tough guy. He's broken several bones in his life. And when it gets cold like today, his foot is one of the places that really hurts. His hip too. When I get to be that age, I hope I'm living somewhere warm and tropical. I think I've had enough winters for my lifetime. It was cool when I was little. It was just something to play in and then get warm inside. Even shoveling the drive wasn't a problem in the early years because it was new and all. But I do not plan on living through winters all my life. I'm serious. I just don't like the cold. The older I get, the less I like it. And I'm like o.d.ing on vitamin C right now. Last two winters, it's been depressing just to look out the window on the worst days (let alone walk in it), so I thought maybe that was the absence of sunlight (although that would really be vitamin D, right) that was getting to me.
And sorry, I hit publish. Someone who comes by while I'm working on the rest may think, "Wow, that's all he wrote tonight." :D
Okay Elaine's "ETAN, Isaiah, Green Party" from yesterday went up today. :D She must have hit the wrong button last night.
She's got "Anchorage" playing right now and I know I was just saying that I didn't want to live anywhere cold (and I don't) but when I hear this song by Michelle Shocked, I always think, "Yeah, it would be cool to live in Alaska." :D I would freeze my butt off! But that is a cool song.
Oh, semi-related. Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, has started a PAC. This is from Kenneth Millstone (CBS News):
PACs are groups – regulated by federal law -- that use donations to influence elections. The basic rules are that donors may contribute up to $5,000 per PAC per year and PACs may contribute up to $5,000 per candidate per election (with primaries and general elections counted separately. (Read more from the Center for Responsive Politics.)
The PAC's Web site is pretty sparse, offering some political boilerplate ("Our country, founded on conservative principles and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity, innovation, and determination"), several shout-outs for energy independence, a form to sign up for e-mails and, pivotally, a place to donate.
I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin because we believe in different things. But I do have a lot of respect for her. She put herself through college. She put herself into politics and worked her way up to governor of a state and the vice president on a presidential ticket. She's a strong woman and I have a lot of respect for her.
World Can't Wait has a lot of great stuff up (as always) and I'll go with this one. If I sound dejected it's because it's too important not to go with and there's one I wanted to excerpt last night that was really funny. But I'll wait for that one another night. So this is from Larry Jones' "Anti-Immigrant Program in Obama's Stimulus Plan:"
Thanks to my weekly e-mail from “Truth In Immigration” (TII), I just learned that the present version of Obama’s economic stimulus package contains expanded funding for the “E-Verify” program. “E-Verify” is an online program operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration. This is a program that requires employers to electronically check prospective employees’ legal status. As DHS states, “employers can check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from an employee's I-9 form against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. The overriding purpose of this program is to subject all prospective and existing employees – particularly immigrants -- to an unprecedented degree of government screening and monitoring, under the guise of determining “eligibility” for employment. It is also calculated to be a key part of whipping up an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust towards immigrants. And finally, as TII points out, it is a program which often contains harmful errors (see: http://www.truthinimmigration.org/Home.aspx).
Currently, according to DHS, “87,000 employers are enrolled in the program, with over 6.5 million queries run so far in fiscal year 2008.” DHS also claims that the number of employers using E-Verify is growing by over 1,000 a week, and that its use is “an essential tool … to maintaining a legal work force”. Beginning January 15 this year, all employers who contract with the federal government are required to use E-Verify.
The TII email stated that “Last week, the House Appropriations Committee approved two amendments in the economic stimulus bill that would expand the harmful and ineffective program.” The National Immigration Law Center says that“[t]his will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
It's an important issue and it's a well written article, so check it out. Staying on the serious news note, Lauren Coleman-Lochner (Bloomberg News) reports:
Target Corp., the second-biggest U.S. discount retailer, plans to eliminate 9 percent of the jobs at its headquarters and close a distribution center to reduce costs in the shrinking economy.
The company will slash 600 existing jobs and 400 open positions, mainly in its hometown of Minneapolis. It will also close its Little Rock, Arkansas, distribution center, which employs 500, later this year, Target said today in a statement.
Ma's going to blame herself. :D She used Target as an example in a post recently and rushed to say that she doesn't believe it's having economic problems and knows of no economic problems. She's going to feel she jinxed 'em. That's got to be it. We're trying to watch Silent Movie tonight. I've never seen it. It's a Mel Brooks movie. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, January 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Robert Gates acts like a fool before Congress, four days until Iraq's provincial elections, Barack Obama makes clear he's running the most secretive and non-press friendly White House (there's a new Bully Boy in town), and more.
"It does require careful balancing," US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated agreeing with Senator John McCain on an issue (transitioning some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan) in this morning's Senate Armed Services Committee encounter. "Encounter" because don't call that garbage a hearing. The United States is officially involved in two wars. It is not a joke, it is not a laughing matter. When Senator Saxby Chambill made a fool of himself talking about how 'hard' football is, the comfort factor was the idiot was a Republican. So you could grimace as the A&M jokes flew and Robert Gates declared it was "probaly a lot less stress here" in DC, as the Defense Secretary than as a football coach. And Chambliss laughed, "Your Aggies were wearing you out pretty good."
No, it's not funny. It's shameful and it's embarrassing. 4 US soldiers died in Iraq yesterday. If Gates wants to engage in jokes about how easy he has it now, then he's obviously not doing his job. There was no sense of perspective, there was no sense of honor. It was embarrassing, it was shameful. Again, Dems could take comfort in the fact that Chambliss and Gates -- two Republicans -- were making idiots out of themselves, looking like beyond-middle age men trying to make like frat boys. But then Democrat Kay Hagan decided she wanted a piece of that too. So the shame was bi-partisan.
Gates would later attempt to turn somber and declare, "I think this is the longest war we've fought since the Reovlutionary War with an all volunteer force." That just goes to the issue that he's not stressed enough because he's not doing his damn job. Which war, Gates? Afghanistan or Iraq? When you're the Secretary of Defense, you shouldn't need prompting to know the country's involved in two wars. He did know that the 16-month 'withdrawal' (combat troops only) was only one of several plans being looked at (but the May 2010 'plan' is the shortest).
He came off like a real idiot. The Ace bandage on his left arm didn't add to that image alone (though this is what, his twentieth injury in office?). It did allow the chair Carl Levin to joke (apparently fearing that there weren't enough jokes in the nearly three hour hearing), "I know you're struggling with the arm wrestling you undertook." But while the bandage alone would have, at worst, caused raised eyebrows, the fact that he decided to go through the hearing with his jacket half on and half off helped seal the impression of Gates as a real idiot. You wear the jacket or you don't. It was as though we were watching FlashDefense starring Robert Gates as Alex Owens -- Defense Director by day, exotic dancer by night. What a feeling!
His prepared statement at least allowed him a few minutes of being serious. However, it was rather frightening: "As our military presence [in Iraq] decreases over time, we should still expect to be involved in Iraq on some level for many years to come -- assuming a soveriegn Iraq continues to seek our partnership. The stability of Iraq remains criticial to the future of the Middle East, a region that multiple presidents of both political parties have considered vital to the national security of the United States." In his prepared remarks he stated, "The goal for the Army is two years off for every year of deployment." He said nothing about the marines. In his prepared remarks, he jolly noted that the "24-month lifetime limit on deployment" for the National Guard and Reserve has been eliminated. He also stated of them, "The goal is five years of dwell time for one year deployed. We have made progress towards this goal but are not there yet." The laughter you hear is coming from across the nation since, no, Gates is "not there yet" and, in fact, is no where near "there yet." In comments to questions (it's hard to call them "replies), Gates would declare that in 2009, a year deployed will be followed by 15 months at home and, in 2010, it should be a year deployed means 2 years at home.
April 1, 2008, the US House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health heard testimony from US Army Director, Divisions of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research's Col Charles W. Hoge who declared, "One of the issues with multiple deployments and the dwell time for soldiers when they've come back, we've learned from the research that we've done, [is] that 12 months is not enough time for soldiers to reset and go back for another deployment." US House Rep Shelley Berkley followed up, "Not enough time between tours of duty, did I hear you correctly?" Hoge paused frequnetly in his reply, "Yes . . . What we've found . . . Yes. That's what I said . . . The 12 months is insuf- . . . appears to be insufficient." As Berkely noted, not only was that the not the policy but some were "being called back in less than 12 months" leading Hoge to pathetically reply, "I don't know." (It's his job to know and if Hoge doesn't know his job, hint to Gates, that's something you might want to stress over.) As noted in the January 21st snapshot, the British troops already have 24 months (2 years) between deployments and there is apush to go to longer than that. BBC reported this month that Gen Richard Dannatt is pushing for 30 months between deployments. And that's with six months of deployment -- six months deployed, thirty months home. Gates isn't stressing because he's not doing his damn job.
Instead of making jokes, he should have been pressed to explain why he's still not up to what the military's own medical experts say are needed? He should have been pressed on why US service members do not get the reset time the British military does? This is insane. The man is not stepping into the job, he's had the job. Since December of 2006. It's past time he had some answers to supply.
"Tough morning in the Senate?" asked US House Rep John McHugh early in the House Armed Services Committee. The Ranking Member of the Minority was refering to the cast (he said sling -- Gates sometimes wears a sling with the bandage, he wasn't wearing a sling at that time). Not much time to reply because before any questions could be asked, it was time to rush to the floor for a vote and the hearing was placed on hold for over forty minutes. When they returned US House Rep Mac Thornberry attempted to seize the role of House clown and did it so well he was awarded House fool. It's very rare that you manage to top Fox 'News," but Thornberry did so with a highly inventive incident ("before you were secretary") of a grand conspiracy involving al Qaeda, trick photography, wire services and, presumably, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (that would be the secretary before Gates). "Stuff happens," no doubt, was secretive al Qaeda code. Thank you, Thornberry for demonstrating that "The Fool On The Hill" isn't just a Beatles song.
Thornberry's turn at House fool appeared to take the pressure off everyone and the House members -- on both sides -- largely stuck to specific issues and not stand up. (For example, US House Rep Gene Taylor wanted specific information about the number of ships and, as with most specific questions, Gates had no answer.) There was little on Iraq and even less that Gates had answers to. We'll cover another section later in the snapshot. For now, we'll just note that the House committe, chaired by Ike Skelton, was more focused and far more serious than was the Senate.
Two senators want answer from Robert Gates. They do not serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's a real shame that none of the Democrats on the committee could be bothered to ask a question on behalf of Senators Bob Casey and Byron Dorgan. From the January 23rd snapshot:
Meanwhile KBR and its former parent Halliburton collect bad press like treasured coins. Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) reports the latest scandal from those who sought to make a buck cheaply off an illegal war: "An Army criminal investigator told the family of a Green Beret who was electrocuted while taking a shower at his base in Baghdad that the soldier's death was a case of "negligent homicide" by military contractor KBR and two of its supervisors. The report last month to the family of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth said Houston-based KBR failed to make certain that qualified electricians and plumbers were working on the barracks where Maseth was killed a year ago, according to a U.S. government official who has seen the correspondence." James Risen (New York Times) notes the response from the Vultures, Heather Browne (publicity hack) declares, "KBR's investigation has produced no evidence that KBR was responsible for Sergeant Maseth's death." You get the feeling teachers knew not to leave the classrooms when KRB execs were taking tests?
Today Rick Maz (Army Times) reports Casey and Dorgan want answers regarding the deaths by electrocution and "are demanding a face-to-face meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates to discuss the prolonged investigation and why no one has been sanctioned or punished." Today the Fayetteville Observer editorializes on the issue and notes, "That the case exists at all is a tribue to Maseth's mother, Cheryl Harris. Harris testified before Congress last year, and has pushed for full accountability. War is big business. Haliburton and its subsidiaries have made a killing in Iraq. It must have been terrifying for Harris to go toe to toe with the big boys. But she hasn't shied away one bit. Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, has credited her with the legwork behind the Army's investigation. Casey said it's important that the contractors are held fully accountable, but it's equally important that the Pentagon be held accountable, as well. It's hard enough to send our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers off to war without having to wonder whether or not they are going to be at risk inside their own barracks." Because of KBR's 'work' some people died (at least 18) and some were left badly injured. Scott Huddleston (San Antonio Express) reports on Justin Shutts who "just wanted to take a shower" after the end of his patrol and was electrocuted instead so that he now "has a weakend left hand and can't run without pain because of the burns to his groin. . . . Shults, who wears compression garments over some of the third-degree burns covering 13 percent of his body, said he received his war scars Oct. 17 in a shower trailer installed by KBR that sent a 220-volt surge through his body." Huddleston quotes Shults making a comment similar to the editorial's conclusion, "We have so many things to think about over there. You shouldn't have to worry about going into a shower and getting injured."
Provincial elections are scheduled for fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces Saturday, Janurary 31st. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) files another in-depth report and focuses on Diyala Province. Saja Khadori, from Nouri al-Maliki's ticket, sees al Qaeda in Iraq everywhere (possibly even hiding under her bed with the other bogeymen). Another candidate, Sheik Abdul Rahman Jassam al-Mujalmi, tells Rubin, "I call on the new American president to think about withdrawal of forces seriously, because maybe there will be a day when we will witness a revolution against their forces and there will be battles in the streets. So I advise him to withdraw his soldiers. . . . I doubt that they will withdraw. They said they would offer democracy and freedom, but where is democracy, where is freedom? And they said they would build, but what have they built? They have brought only destruction. When an American tank passes me I feel it is driving over my heart." The Washington Post notes (in an editorial):
The campaign for positions in 14 provinces so far has been a major improvement over the previous Iraqi elections -- not to mention the rigged or tightly limited ballots staged by most other Arab countries. Some 14,400 candidates are competing for 440 seats; in contrast to the last provincial vote, in January 2005, candidates are identified by name rather than being presented anonymously on a party slate. Thousands are openly competing in Iraqi cities and towns once paralyzed by violence or controlled by al-Qaeda. Blast walls have been papered with posters, and much of the debate is focused on improving government services. Violence, which spiked four years ago, so far has been a minor factor: Two candidates have been reported killed, and U.S. and Iraqi casualties this month are among the lowest since the war began.
AP's Yahya Barzanj notes 63,000 of the 2.8 million internal refugees have completed the paperwork to vote this week with some very eager to vote. Not all of the internally displaced share that feeling and Ali Hashim explains he will not be voting, points to a campaign poster which reads "Vote for a better future for your kids" and Hashim asks, "What future? My child was born in the tent." Xinhau reports, "Iraq will shut borders, close airports and impose night-time vehicle ban during the provincial polls on Saturday when people go to choose members of their provincial councils, an electoral security source said Tuesday." At the polls, Missy Ryan (Reuters) explains, "Voters' identities will be double-checked and special stamps will mark the back of ballots to further deter fraud." Joe Sterling (CNN) notes that, "There has not been a recent census in Iraq, but Shiites are thought to make up about 60 percent of the population and Sunni Arabs between 15 and 20 percent." Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times) reports that Nouri al-Malik (of all people) has warned that no one should "corrupt the elections by buying votes." Meanwhile Fadhil al-Badrani (Reuters) reports an Al Anbar Province polling station has been attacked by assailants who "set fire to" it.
Yesterday two US helicopters crashed and four US soldiers were killed. "To the children of our resisting Iraqi nation, we bring you the joyous news of downing two helicopters belong to the American enemy with the Sadeed rockets," reads a leaflet the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order has strewn throughout the region of the crash. Sam Dagher (New York Times) breaks that story and explains the group also claims to have footage that they say will be posted online at some point.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing targeting the customs head, Police Maj Gen Ahmed al-Attiya, that left three of his guards injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul car bombing which claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers ("including one officer") and left two more wounded.
Yesterday, Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, was in Athens, where he met with Greece's Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis (see photo below from Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and prepared for a day of talks on Tuesday to include meeting with the country's Prime Minister, Kostas Karamanlis as well as Dimitris Sioufas, the President of the country's Parliament. Renee Maltezou (Reuters) reports Greece has offered both "financial aid and expertise" to attempt to repair the damange done by the plundering of Iraqi antiquities at the start of the illegal war. Athens News Agency explains, "The establishment of a Greek Economic and Commercial Affairs Office in Iraq was decided on Tuesday during a meeting in Athens between foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis and her Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari, as well as Greece's assistance in the protection of Iraq's cultural heritage and erecting a statue of Alexander the Great in Gaugamela."
Was the illegal war legal under international law? The BBC reports that the Information Tribunal has decided that the cabinet meetings (Tony Blair's cabinet meetings) must be released. Rosa Prince (Telegraph of London) adds, "Downing Street refused to reveal whether it would comply with the ruling by the Information Tribunal, which follows a long-running legal battle to keep details of the meetings secret."
Turning to the US where the president met with Republicans in Congress today to try to build support for his proposals. Rick Klein and Jake Tapper (ABC News) quote someone (presumably a Republican senator) quoting Barack in that closed-to-the-press meet-up declaring, "I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republicans colleagues, but hope we can keep politics to a minimum." If the quote is accurate, two things. Barack is no longer in the Senate. Other senators are no longer his colleagues. Two, if you want to "keep politics to a minimum," get the hell out of DC and don't run for public office. That's Barack, always eager to smear something or someone. Politics is what keeps a democracy thriving. Someone break the news to the idiot. Michael Dawson (Dissident Voice) writes up an incident many seemed to think I was ignoring. Last week, Barack Obama wanted a little attention (yes, he was pouting over Hillary's rousing welcome at State) so he popped into the White House Press Room. When the reporters attempted to do their job, Barack got huffy declaring he wouldn't be back "if I'm going to get grilled every time I come." As Dawson notes, 'If the Press Room is going to ask President Obama questions, then he's not coming there. Simple as that." He's a petulant little bully and a secretive one as well.
We did not miss that last week, we were holding it to pair it with something. The DC press corps is overworked for all outlets. Not only have layoffs meant that journalists are having to do their jobs and others, they're also expected to do new content for the web as well. There is not enough time. This week a friend whom we all through would be the first of the press corps to have a problem with one of Barack's changes-no-one-should-believe-in had it. Interview or press briefing. Press briefings have transcriptions and usually video. Do the interview.
Oh, silly journalist. That was in the secretive days of Bully Boy. Under the EVEN MORE SECRETIVE BARACK, there is no video posted at the White House website nor is their any official transcript. Yes, Barack Obama is MORE SECRETIVE than George W. Bush. We all noticed those changes last week when a White House staffer was bragging about the changes to the website. "But where's the folder for the press briefings?" Huh? He pointed out the "pool reports" folder (now striken). I sat on that because we were told it must be an oversight and as soon as the first press briefing took place, it would be posted. It's not been posted. You have some insane "highlights." So the White House holds the press briefing and their spokesperson is so INCOMPENTENT that they have to futher whittle down the spin offered?
That's BULLS**T YOU CAN BELIEVE IN. And I almost mentioned this last week when Danny Schechter was making a silly fool out of himself raving over the White House website. A reporter -- even a former reporter -- should damn well notice first thing that the press briefings are gone. Damn well should notice. So what happens now? The way DC reporters are talking, don't be surprised if the number of reporters showing up for those dwindles. (By contrast, the State Department continues to feature their press briefings. Maybe because Hillary Clinton's a grown up and not some scared little baby running from the public record.) And along with reporters pissed off, the White House has gotten thirty complaints from citizens on this already this week. There is no transparency in the Barack Obama administration. At the start of the month, Carol Marin (Chicago Sun-Times) warned but not many were listening, "The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."
Barack's wrongly been praised for closing Guantanamo (still open) and ending torture. The first subject came up in Congress today -- multiple times. In the afternoon, Robert Gates said the one-year-deadline was important for closing Guantanamo because "without it we'd just keep kicking that can down the road." Kicking the can down the road is what Barack did. Committee Chair Ike Skelton attempted to simplify things for Gates by saying he'd break it down into five categories and Gates could correct him or let him know if that was correct. The first category was "those that we're willing to turn loose now." Gates initially agreed with all the listings but came back later in the hearing saying he needed to clarify that "They would not be people who would be turned loose" but instead would be monitored and/or imprisoned by their own governments. So there's no one being turned loose. Pay attention to that Vinnie Warren before you make an idiot of yourself in public again. "Two, three and four, those categories in which they might be tried in a court-martial, federal court . . . or a commission like the one now in existance," offered Skelton and Gates agreed immediately and didn't come back to correct that later. Skelton: "The fifth category -- the ones you know full well will go back and fight Americans and our coalition partners and what can you do with them? . . . Am I correct in categorizing those five?" "I think," Gates responded, "that's correct, Mr. Chairman."
Vinnie Warren, speak for the Center for Constitutional Rights again and tell us all about how thrilled we're supposed to be with what Barack's allegedly done because -- reality check, he's not done a damn thing.
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (Information Clearing House) explains it's all a p.r. game:
While around the world, Obama's measures were interpreted as completely reversing the Bush administration policies of torture, extraordinary rendition and secret prisons -- starting with the declaration of the complete closure of Guantanamo Bay -- deeper inspection of the details of his Executive Orders suggests, unfortunately, that cries of joy are slightly premature. First, it should be understood that regardless of what elected US governments have said or left unsaid about the practice of torture by military intelligence services, torture is, and always has been, endemic and officially sanctioned at the highest levels. Declassified CIA training manuals from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, prove that the CIA has consistently practiced torture long before the Bush administration attempted to legitimize the practice publicly. This means that what made the Bush era distinctive was not the systematic practice of torture by US military intelligence agencies, but rather the US government's open and widely known endorsement of such practices, and insistence either on their obvious legality, or otherwise of the irrelevance of law in the context of fighting terrorism. This means that Obama's public disavowals of torture do not actually represent the end of the systemic practice of the CIA's traditional interrogation techniques, conducted without public scrutiny for decades. Rather, they portend a sheepish return to secrecy -- or in other words, a return to the obvious recognition that open declarations of covert US practices such as torture as official policy are detrimental, not conducive, to US hegemony. Closer scrutiny of President Obama's first Executive Orders reveals that they were designed less to transform illegal US military intelligence practices, than to allow them to continue in secret without legal obstruction, by redefining their character (while retaining their substance):Allan Nairn (Dissident Voice) also notes that the spin isn't reality:
When President Obama declared flatly this week that "the United States will not torture" many people wrongly believed that he'd shut the practice down, when in fact he'd merely repositioned it.
Obama's Executive Order bans some -- not all -- US officials from torturing but it does not ban any of them, himself included, from sponsoring torture overseas.
Indeed, his policy change affects only a slight percentage of US-culpable tortures and could be completely consistent with an increase in US-backed torture worldwide.
The catch lies in the fact that since Vietnam, when US forces often tortured directly, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy -- paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed.
That is, the US tended to do it that way until Bush and Cheney changed protocol, and had many Americans laying on hands, and sometimes taking digital photos.
The result was a public relations fiasco that enraged the US establishment since by exposing US techniques to the world it diminished US power.
Mike address late to the party Nairn here. And we'll close with this from ETAN:
January 26, 2009 - The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) today called on Timor-Leste's (East Timor) prosecutor-general to drop criminal defamation charges against the local weekly Tempo Semanal and its editor, Jose Belo.
"Tempo Semanal and Jose Belo should not have to face charges under this obsolete and repressive law," said John M. Miller, National Coordinator of ETAN. "We urge the prosecutor-general to immediately drop any charges."
In October 2008, Tempo Semanal published an article alleging that Timor-Leste's Justice Minister Lucia Lobato had improperly awarded government contracts to friends and business contacts. The report cited leaked mobile phone text messages. Lobato filed the defamation charges in November, accusing the paper of breaching her privacy and violating the ethical code of journalists.
Belo argues that his publication wrote only about Lobato's performance in her role as a public official, not her private activities. "
"Information about government activities should not be subject to defamation laws. Rather than attack the messenger, Timor-Leste's leadership should support freedom of expression and encourage a dynamic, investigative media," said Miller.
Background
The government of Timor-Leste has proposed decriminalizing defamation under a new penal code. Although drafted several years ago, it has not yet been enacted.Timor-Leste's criminal defamation statutes are a leftover from Indonesia's criminal code. Journalists and activists in Indonesia are still charged with criminal defamation, although the 1999 Press Law created a body to adjudicate disputes involving the press.
Belo was notified of the defamation charges in mid-December. On January 19, he was questioned for 3 hours by the prosecutor's office.
Tempo Semanal was told by the Office of the Prosecutor-General that they would not be given copies of relevant documents because they are confidential.
In an interview with ABC Radio Australia, Jose Belo, Tempo Semanal's founder, said "we don't have any money or any resources. So we can't fight a person who has influence [and] who has money. So I presume it is very, very difficult to win this case in the court."
If convicted, Belo could face fines or prison. During Indonesia's brutal, illegal 24-year occupation of Timor-Leste, Belo was imprisoned or arbitrarily detained many times for passing information about human rights violations to foreign journalists and human rights groups, for a total of about three years. It is ironic that in democratic, independent Timor-Leste he could face double that time for exposing government corruption.
The Office of the Prosecutor General, Longuinhos Monteiro, has reportedly told Belo that the truth of what he published in his newspaper is not relevant to the charges against him and will not be admissible in court. This contradicts legal precedent set in April 2006, when the same prosecutor, charged Yayasan HAK (a human rights NGO) with defamation. accusing him of abuse of power by interfering with the justice process in a case where HAK served as the defense attorney. In that case, a judge ruled that the defamation charges could not be adjudicated until the original case was resolved. That case was brought to trial. Under that precedent, the allegations of corruption against the Minister of Justice should be tried before the defamation case, but the prosecutor has not begun a legal case against her.
ETAN advocates for democracy, justice and human rights for East Timor and Indonesia. For more information, see [ETAN]
In April 2006, ETAN urged then-President Xanana Gusmao to veto the criminal defamation provisions of the proposed penal code.
Elaine and Kat noted that for Ty last night.
iraqthe new york timesalissa j. rubinyahya barzanjfadhil al-badrani
sam dagher
joe sterling
missy ryan
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
etan
jake tapper
the los angeles timesmonte morin
And sorry, I hit publish. Someone who comes by while I'm working on the rest may think, "Wow, that's all he wrote tonight." :D
Okay Elaine's "ETAN, Isaiah, Green Party" from yesterday went up today. :D She must have hit the wrong button last night.
She's got "Anchorage" playing right now and I know I was just saying that I didn't want to live anywhere cold (and I don't) but when I hear this song by Michelle Shocked, I always think, "Yeah, it would be cool to live in Alaska." :D I would freeze my butt off! But that is a cool song.
Oh, semi-related. Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, has started a PAC. This is from Kenneth Millstone (CBS News):
PACs are groups – regulated by federal law -- that use donations to influence elections. The basic rules are that donors may contribute up to $5,000 per PAC per year and PACs may contribute up to $5,000 per candidate per election (with primaries and general elections counted separately. (Read more from the Center for Responsive Politics.)
The PAC's Web site is pretty sparse, offering some political boilerplate ("Our country, founded on conservative principles and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity, innovation, and determination"), several shout-outs for energy independence, a form to sign up for e-mails and, pivotally, a place to donate.
I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin because we believe in different things. But I do have a lot of respect for her. She put herself through college. She put herself into politics and worked her way up to governor of a state and the vice president on a presidential ticket. She's a strong woman and I have a lot of respect for her.
World Can't Wait has a lot of great stuff up (as always) and I'll go with this one. If I sound dejected it's because it's too important not to go with and there's one I wanted to excerpt last night that was really funny. But I'll wait for that one another night. So this is from Larry Jones' "Anti-Immigrant Program in Obama's Stimulus Plan:"
Thanks to my weekly e-mail from “Truth In Immigration” (TII), I just learned that the present version of Obama’s economic stimulus package contains expanded funding for the “E-Verify” program. “E-Verify” is an online program operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration. This is a program that requires employers to electronically check prospective employees’ legal status. As DHS states, “employers can check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from an employee's I-9 form against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. The overriding purpose of this program is to subject all prospective and existing employees – particularly immigrants -- to an unprecedented degree of government screening and monitoring, under the guise of determining “eligibility” for employment. It is also calculated to be a key part of whipping up an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust towards immigrants. And finally, as TII points out, it is a program which often contains harmful errors (see: http://www.truthinimmigration.org/Home.aspx).
Currently, according to DHS, “87,000 employers are enrolled in the program, with over 6.5 million queries run so far in fiscal year 2008.” DHS also claims that the number of employers using E-Verify is growing by over 1,000 a week, and that its use is “an essential tool … to maintaining a legal work force”. Beginning January 15 this year, all employers who contract with the federal government are required to use E-Verify.
The TII email stated that “Last week, the House Appropriations Committee approved two amendments in the economic stimulus bill that would expand the harmful and ineffective program.” The National Immigration Law Center says that“[t]his will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
It's an important issue and it's a well written article, so check it out. Staying on the serious news note, Lauren Coleman-Lochner (Bloomberg News) reports:
Target Corp., the second-biggest U.S. discount retailer, plans to eliminate 9 percent of the jobs at its headquarters and close a distribution center to reduce costs in the shrinking economy.
The company will slash 600 existing jobs and 400 open positions, mainly in its hometown of Minneapolis. It will also close its Little Rock, Arkansas, distribution center, which employs 500, later this year, Target said today in a statement.
Ma's going to blame herself. :D She used Target as an example in a post recently and rushed to say that she doesn't believe it's having economic problems and knows of no economic problems. She's going to feel she jinxed 'em. That's got to be it. We're trying to watch Silent Movie tonight. I've never seen it. It's a Mel Brooks movie. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, January 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Robert Gates acts like a fool before Congress, four days until Iraq's provincial elections, Barack Obama makes clear he's running the most secretive and non-press friendly White House (there's a new Bully Boy in town), and more.
"It does require careful balancing," US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated agreeing with Senator John McCain on an issue (transitioning some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan) in this morning's Senate Armed Services Committee encounter. "Encounter" because don't call that garbage a hearing. The United States is officially involved in two wars. It is not a joke, it is not a laughing matter. When Senator Saxby Chambill made a fool of himself talking about how 'hard' football is, the comfort factor was the idiot was a Republican. So you could grimace as the A&M jokes flew and Robert Gates declared it was "probaly a lot less stress here" in DC, as the Defense Secretary than as a football coach. And Chambliss laughed, "Your Aggies were wearing you out pretty good."
No, it's not funny. It's shameful and it's embarrassing. 4 US soldiers died in Iraq yesterday. If Gates wants to engage in jokes about how easy he has it now, then he's obviously not doing his job. There was no sense of perspective, there was no sense of honor. It was embarrassing, it was shameful. Again, Dems could take comfort in the fact that Chambliss and Gates -- two Republicans -- were making idiots out of themselves, looking like beyond-middle age men trying to make like frat boys. But then Democrat Kay Hagan decided she wanted a piece of that too. So the shame was bi-partisan.
Gates would later attempt to turn somber and declare, "I think this is the longest war we've fought since the Reovlutionary War with an all volunteer force." That just goes to the issue that he's not stressed enough because he's not doing his damn job. Which war, Gates? Afghanistan or Iraq? When you're the Secretary of Defense, you shouldn't need prompting to know the country's involved in two wars. He did know that the 16-month 'withdrawal' (combat troops only) was only one of several plans being looked at (but the May 2010 'plan' is the shortest).
He came off like a real idiot. The Ace bandage on his left arm didn't add to that image alone (though this is what, his twentieth injury in office?). It did allow the chair Carl Levin to joke (apparently fearing that there weren't enough jokes in the nearly three hour hearing), "I know you're struggling with the arm wrestling you undertook." But while the bandage alone would have, at worst, caused raised eyebrows, the fact that he decided to go through the hearing with his jacket half on and half off helped seal the impression of Gates as a real idiot. You wear the jacket or you don't. It was as though we were watching FlashDefense starring Robert Gates as Alex Owens -- Defense Director by day, exotic dancer by night. What a feeling!
His prepared statement at least allowed him a few minutes of being serious. However, it was rather frightening: "As our military presence [in Iraq] decreases over time, we should still expect to be involved in Iraq on some level for many years to come -- assuming a soveriegn Iraq continues to seek our partnership. The stability of Iraq remains criticial to the future of the Middle East, a region that multiple presidents of both political parties have considered vital to the national security of the United States." In his prepared remarks he stated, "The goal for the Army is two years off for every year of deployment." He said nothing about the marines. In his prepared remarks, he jolly noted that the "24-month lifetime limit on deployment" for the National Guard and Reserve has been eliminated. He also stated of them, "The goal is five years of dwell time for one year deployed. We have made progress towards this goal but are not there yet." The laughter you hear is coming from across the nation since, no, Gates is "not there yet" and, in fact, is no where near "there yet." In comments to questions (it's hard to call them "replies), Gates would declare that in 2009, a year deployed will be followed by 15 months at home and, in 2010, it should be a year deployed means 2 years at home.
April 1, 2008, the US House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health heard testimony from US Army Director, Divisions of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research's Col Charles W. Hoge who declared, "One of the issues with multiple deployments and the dwell time for soldiers when they've come back, we've learned from the research that we've done, [is] that 12 months is not enough time for soldiers to reset and go back for another deployment." US House Rep Shelley Berkley followed up, "Not enough time between tours of duty, did I hear you correctly?" Hoge paused frequnetly in his reply, "Yes . . . What we've found . . . Yes. That's what I said . . . The 12 months is insuf- . . . appears to be insufficient." As Berkely noted, not only was that the not the policy but some were "being called back in less than 12 months" leading Hoge to pathetically reply, "I don't know." (It's his job to know and if Hoge doesn't know his job, hint to Gates, that's something you might want to stress over.) As noted in the January 21st snapshot, the British troops already have 24 months (2 years) between deployments and there is apush to go to longer than that. BBC reported this month that Gen Richard Dannatt is pushing for 30 months between deployments. And that's with six months of deployment -- six months deployed, thirty months home. Gates isn't stressing because he's not doing his damn job.
Instead of making jokes, he should have been pressed to explain why he's still not up to what the military's own medical experts say are needed? He should have been pressed on why US service members do not get the reset time the British military does? This is insane. The man is not stepping into the job, he's had the job. Since December of 2006. It's past time he had some answers to supply.
"Tough morning in the Senate?" asked US House Rep John McHugh early in the House Armed Services Committee. The Ranking Member of the Minority was refering to the cast (he said sling -- Gates sometimes wears a sling with the bandage, he wasn't wearing a sling at that time). Not much time to reply because before any questions could be asked, it was time to rush to the floor for a vote and the hearing was placed on hold for over forty minutes. When they returned US House Rep Mac Thornberry attempted to seize the role of House clown and did it so well he was awarded House fool. It's very rare that you manage to top Fox 'News," but Thornberry did so with a highly inventive incident ("before you were secretary") of a grand conspiracy involving al Qaeda, trick photography, wire services and, presumably, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (that would be the secretary before Gates). "Stuff happens," no doubt, was secretive al Qaeda code. Thank you, Thornberry for demonstrating that "The Fool On The Hill" isn't just a Beatles song.
Thornberry's turn at House fool appeared to take the pressure off everyone and the House members -- on both sides -- largely stuck to specific issues and not stand up. (For example, US House Rep Gene Taylor wanted specific information about the number of ships and, as with most specific questions, Gates had no answer.) There was little on Iraq and even less that Gates had answers to. We'll cover another section later in the snapshot. For now, we'll just note that the House committe, chaired by Ike Skelton, was more focused and far more serious than was the Senate.
Two senators want answer from Robert Gates. They do not serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's a real shame that none of the Democrats on the committee could be bothered to ask a question on behalf of Senators Bob Casey and Byron Dorgan. From the January 23rd snapshot:
Meanwhile KBR and its former parent Halliburton collect bad press like treasured coins. Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) reports the latest scandal from those who sought to make a buck cheaply off an illegal war: "An Army criminal investigator told the family of a Green Beret who was electrocuted while taking a shower at his base in Baghdad that the soldier's death was a case of "negligent homicide" by military contractor KBR and two of its supervisors. The report last month to the family of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth said Houston-based KBR failed to make certain that qualified electricians and plumbers were working on the barracks where Maseth was killed a year ago, according to a U.S. government official who has seen the correspondence." James Risen (New York Times) notes the response from the Vultures, Heather Browne (publicity hack) declares, "KBR's investigation has produced no evidence that KBR was responsible for Sergeant Maseth's death." You get the feeling teachers knew not to leave the classrooms when KRB execs were taking tests?
Today Rick Maz (Army Times) reports Casey and Dorgan want answers regarding the deaths by electrocution and "are demanding a face-to-face meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates to discuss the prolonged investigation and why no one has been sanctioned or punished." Today the Fayetteville Observer editorializes on the issue and notes, "That the case exists at all is a tribue to Maseth's mother, Cheryl Harris. Harris testified before Congress last year, and has pushed for full accountability. War is big business. Haliburton and its subsidiaries have made a killing in Iraq. It must have been terrifying for Harris to go toe to toe with the big boys. But she hasn't shied away one bit. Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, has credited her with the legwork behind the Army's investigation. Casey said it's important that the contractors are held fully accountable, but it's equally important that the Pentagon be held accountable, as well. It's hard enough to send our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers off to war without having to wonder whether or not they are going to be at risk inside their own barracks." Because of KBR's 'work' some people died (at least 18) and some were left badly injured. Scott Huddleston (San Antonio Express) reports on Justin Shutts who "just wanted to take a shower" after the end of his patrol and was electrocuted instead so that he now "has a weakend left hand and can't run without pain because of the burns to his groin. . . . Shults, who wears compression garments over some of the third-degree burns covering 13 percent of his body, said he received his war scars Oct. 17 in a shower trailer installed by KBR that sent a 220-volt surge through his body." Huddleston quotes Shults making a comment similar to the editorial's conclusion, "We have so many things to think about over there. You shouldn't have to worry about going into a shower and getting injured."
Provincial elections are scheduled for fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces Saturday, Janurary 31st. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) files another in-depth report and focuses on Diyala Province. Saja Khadori, from Nouri al-Maliki's ticket, sees al Qaeda in Iraq everywhere (possibly even hiding under her bed with the other bogeymen). Another candidate, Sheik Abdul Rahman Jassam al-Mujalmi, tells Rubin, "I call on the new American president to think about withdrawal of forces seriously, because maybe there will be a day when we will witness a revolution against their forces and there will be battles in the streets. So I advise him to withdraw his soldiers. . . . I doubt that they will withdraw. They said they would offer democracy and freedom, but where is democracy, where is freedom? And they said they would build, but what have they built? They have brought only destruction. When an American tank passes me I feel it is driving over my heart." The Washington Post notes (in an editorial):
The campaign for positions in 14 provinces so far has been a major improvement over the previous Iraqi elections -- not to mention the rigged or tightly limited ballots staged by most other Arab countries. Some 14,400 candidates are competing for 440 seats; in contrast to the last provincial vote, in January 2005, candidates are identified by name rather than being presented anonymously on a party slate. Thousands are openly competing in Iraqi cities and towns once paralyzed by violence or controlled by al-Qaeda. Blast walls have been papered with posters, and much of the debate is focused on improving government services. Violence, which spiked four years ago, so far has been a minor factor: Two candidates have been reported killed, and U.S. and Iraqi casualties this month are among the lowest since the war began.
AP's Yahya Barzanj notes 63,000 of the 2.8 million internal refugees have completed the paperwork to vote this week with some very eager to vote. Not all of the internally displaced share that feeling and Ali Hashim explains he will not be voting, points to a campaign poster which reads "Vote for a better future for your kids" and Hashim asks, "What future? My child was born in the tent." Xinhau reports, "Iraq will shut borders, close airports and impose night-time vehicle ban during the provincial polls on Saturday when people go to choose members of their provincial councils, an electoral security source said Tuesday." At the polls, Missy Ryan (Reuters) explains, "Voters' identities will be double-checked and special stamps will mark the back of ballots to further deter fraud." Joe Sterling (CNN) notes that, "There has not been a recent census in Iraq, but Shiites are thought to make up about 60 percent of the population and Sunni Arabs between 15 and 20 percent." Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times) reports that Nouri al-Malik (of all people) has warned that no one should "corrupt the elections by buying votes." Meanwhile Fadhil al-Badrani (Reuters) reports an Al Anbar Province polling station has been attacked by assailants who "set fire to" it.
Yesterday two US helicopters crashed and four US soldiers were killed. "To the children of our resisting Iraqi nation, we bring you the joyous news of downing two helicopters belong to the American enemy with the Sadeed rockets," reads a leaflet the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order has strewn throughout the region of the crash. Sam Dagher (New York Times) breaks that story and explains the group also claims to have footage that they say will be posted online at some point.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing targeting the customs head, Police Maj Gen Ahmed al-Attiya, that left three of his guards injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul car bombing which claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers ("including one officer") and left two more wounded.
Yesterday, Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, was in Athens, where he met with Greece's Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis (see photo below from Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and prepared for a day of talks on Tuesday to include meeting with the country's Prime Minister, Kostas Karamanlis as well as Dimitris Sioufas, the President of the country's Parliament. Renee Maltezou (Reuters) reports Greece has offered both "financial aid and expertise" to attempt to repair the damange done by the plundering of Iraqi antiquities at the start of the illegal war. Athens News Agency explains, "The establishment of a Greek Economic and Commercial Affairs Office in Iraq was decided on Tuesday during a meeting in Athens between foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis and her Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari, as well as Greece's assistance in the protection of Iraq's cultural heritage and erecting a statue of Alexander the Great in Gaugamela."
Was the illegal war legal under international law? The BBC reports that the Information Tribunal has decided that the cabinet meetings (Tony Blair's cabinet meetings) must be released. Rosa Prince (Telegraph of London) adds, "Downing Street refused to reveal whether it would comply with the ruling by the Information Tribunal, which follows a long-running legal battle to keep details of the meetings secret."
Turning to the US where the president met with Republicans in Congress today to try to build support for his proposals. Rick Klein and Jake Tapper (ABC News) quote someone (presumably a Republican senator) quoting Barack in that closed-to-the-press meet-up declaring, "I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republicans colleagues, but hope we can keep politics to a minimum." If the quote is accurate, two things. Barack is no longer in the Senate. Other senators are no longer his colleagues. Two, if you want to "keep politics to a minimum," get the hell out of DC and don't run for public office. That's Barack, always eager to smear something or someone. Politics is what keeps a democracy thriving. Someone break the news to the idiot. Michael Dawson (Dissident Voice) writes up an incident many seemed to think I was ignoring. Last week, Barack Obama wanted a little attention (yes, he was pouting over Hillary's rousing welcome at State) so he popped into the White House Press Room. When the reporters attempted to do their job, Barack got huffy declaring he wouldn't be back "if I'm going to get grilled every time I come." As Dawson notes, 'If the Press Room is going to ask President Obama questions, then he's not coming there. Simple as that." He's a petulant little bully and a secretive one as well.
We did not miss that last week, we were holding it to pair it with something. The DC press corps is overworked for all outlets. Not only have layoffs meant that journalists are having to do their jobs and others, they're also expected to do new content for the web as well. There is not enough time. This week a friend whom we all through would be the first of the press corps to have a problem with one of Barack's changes-no-one-should-believe-in had it. Interview or press briefing. Press briefings have transcriptions and usually video. Do the interview.
Oh, silly journalist. That was in the secretive days of Bully Boy. Under the EVEN MORE SECRETIVE BARACK, there is no video posted at the White House website nor is their any official transcript. Yes, Barack Obama is MORE SECRETIVE than George W. Bush. We all noticed those changes last week when a White House staffer was bragging about the changes to the website. "But where's the folder for the press briefings?" Huh? He pointed out the "pool reports" folder (now striken). I sat on that because we were told it must be an oversight and as soon as the first press briefing took place, it would be posted. It's not been posted. You have some insane "highlights." So the White House holds the press briefing and their spokesperson is so INCOMPENTENT that they have to futher whittle down the spin offered?
That's BULLS**T YOU CAN BELIEVE IN. And I almost mentioned this last week when Danny Schechter was making a silly fool out of himself raving over the White House website. A reporter -- even a former reporter -- should damn well notice first thing that the press briefings are gone. Damn well should notice. So what happens now? The way DC reporters are talking, don't be surprised if the number of reporters showing up for those dwindles. (By contrast, the State Department continues to feature their press briefings. Maybe because Hillary Clinton's a grown up and not some scared little baby running from the public record.) And along with reporters pissed off, the White House has gotten thirty complaints from citizens on this already this week. There is no transparency in the Barack Obama administration. At the start of the month, Carol Marin (Chicago Sun-Times) warned but not many were listening, "The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."
Barack's wrongly been praised for closing Guantanamo (still open) and ending torture. The first subject came up in Congress today -- multiple times. In the afternoon, Robert Gates said the one-year-deadline was important for closing Guantanamo because "without it we'd just keep kicking that can down the road." Kicking the can down the road is what Barack did. Committee Chair Ike Skelton attempted to simplify things for Gates by saying he'd break it down into five categories and Gates could correct him or let him know if that was correct. The first category was "those that we're willing to turn loose now." Gates initially agreed with all the listings but came back later in the hearing saying he needed to clarify that "They would not be people who would be turned loose" but instead would be monitored and/or imprisoned by their own governments. So there's no one being turned loose. Pay attention to that Vinnie Warren before you make an idiot of yourself in public again. "Two, three and four, those categories in which they might be tried in a court-martial, federal court . . . or a commission like the one now in existance," offered Skelton and Gates agreed immediately and didn't come back to correct that later. Skelton: "The fifth category -- the ones you know full well will go back and fight Americans and our coalition partners and what can you do with them? . . . Am I correct in categorizing those five?" "I think," Gates responded, "that's correct, Mr. Chairman."
Vinnie Warren, speak for the Center for Constitutional Rights again and tell us all about how thrilled we're supposed to be with what Barack's allegedly done because -- reality check, he's not done a damn thing.
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (Information Clearing House) explains it's all a p.r. game:
While around the world, Obama's measures were interpreted as completely reversing the Bush administration policies of torture, extraordinary rendition and secret prisons -- starting with the declaration of the complete closure of Guantanamo Bay -- deeper inspection of the details of his Executive Orders suggests, unfortunately, that cries of joy are slightly premature. First, it should be understood that regardless of what elected US governments have said or left unsaid about the practice of torture by military intelligence services, torture is, and always has been, endemic and officially sanctioned at the highest levels. Declassified CIA training manuals from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, prove that the CIA has consistently practiced torture long before the Bush administration attempted to legitimize the practice publicly. This means that what made the Bush era distinctive was not the systematic practice of torture by US military intelligence agencies, but rather the US government's open and widely known endorsement of such practices, and insistence either on their obvious legality, or otherwise of the irrelevance of law in the context of fighting terrorism. This means that Obama's public disavowals of torture do not actually represent the end of the systemic practice of the CIA's traditional interrogation techniques, conducted without public scrutiny for decades. Rather, they portend a sheepish return to secrecy -- or in other words, a return to the obvious recognition that open declarations of covert US practices such as torture as official policy are detrimental, not conducive, to US hegemony. Closer scrutiny of President Obama's first Executive Orders reveals that they were designed less to transform illegal US military intelligence practices, than to allow them to continue in secret without legal obstruction, by redefining their character (while retaining their substance):Allan Nairn (Dissident Voice) also notes that the spin isn't reality:
When President Obama declared flatly this week that "the United States will not torture" many people wrongly believed that he'd shut the practice down, when in fact he'd merely repositioned it.
Obama's Executive Order bans some -- not all -- US officials from torturing but it does not ban any of them, himself included, from sponsoring torture overseas.
Indeed, his policy change affects only a slight percentage of US-culpable tortures and could be completely consistent with an increase in US-backed torture worldwide.
The catch lies in the fact that since Vietnam, when US forces often tortured directly, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy -- paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed.
That is, the US tended to do it that way until Bush and Cheney changed protocol, and had many Americans laying on hands, and sometimes taking digital photos.
The result was a public relations fiasco that enraged the US establishment since by exposing US techniques to the world it diminished US power.
Mike address late to the party Nairn here. And we'll close with this from ETAN:
January 26, 2009 - The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) today called on Timor-Leste's (East Timor) prosecutor-general to drop criminal defamation charges against the local weekly Tempo Semanal and its editor, Jose Belo.
"Tempo Semanal and Jose Belo should not have to face charges under this obsolete and repressive law," said John M. Miller, National Coordinator of ETAN. "We urge the prosecutor-general to immediately drop any charges."
In October 2008, Tempo Semanal published an article alleging that Timor-Leste's Justice Minister Lucia Lobato had improperly awarded government contracts to friends and business contacts. The report cited leaked mobile phone text messages. Lobato filed the defamation charges in November, accusing the paper of breaching her privacy and violating the ethical code of journalists.
Belo argues that his publication wrote only about Lobato's performance in her role as a public official, not her private activities. "
"Information about government activities should not be subject to defamation laws. Rather than attack the messenger, Timor-Leste's leadership should support freedom of expression and encourage a dynamic, investigative media," said Miller.
Background
The government of Timor-Leste has proposed decriminalizing defamation under a new penal code. Although drafted several years ago, it has not yet been enacted.Timor-Leste's criminal defamation statutes are a leftover from Indonesia's criminal code. Journalists and activists in Indonesia are still charged with criminal defamation, although the 1999 Press Law created a body to adjudicate disputes involving the press.
Belo was notified of the defamation charges in mid-December. On January 19, he was questioned for 3 hours by the prosecutor's office.
Tempo Semanal was told by the Office of the Prosecutor-General that they would not be given copies of relevant documents because they are confidential.
In an interview with ABC Radio Australia, Jose Belo, Tempo Semanal's founder, said "we don't have any money or any resources. So we can't fight a person who has influence [and] who has money. So I presume it is very, very difficult to win this case in the court."
If convicted, Belo could face fines or prison. During Indonesia's brutal, illegal 24-year occupation of Timor-Leste, Belo was imprisoned or arbitrarily detained many times for passing information about human rights violations to foreign journalists and human rights groups, for a total of about three years. It is ironic that in democratic, independent Timor-Leste he could face double that time for exposing government corruption.
The Office of the Prosecutor General, Longuinhos Monteiro, has reportedly told Belo that the truth of what he published in his newspaper is not relevant to the charges against him and will not be admissible in court. This contradicts legal precedent set in April 2006, when the same prosecutor, charged Yayasan HAK (a human rights NGO) with defamation. accusing him of abuse of power by interfering with the justice process in a case where HAK served as the defense attorney. In that case, a judge ruled that the defamation charges could not be adjudicated until the original case was resolved. That case was brought to trial. Under that precedent, the allegations of corruption against the Minister of Justice should be tried before the defamation case, but the prosecutor has not begun a legal case against her.
ETAN advocates for democracy, justice and human rights for East Timor and Indonesia. For more information, see [ETAN]
In April 2006, ETAN urged then-President Xanana Gusmao to veto the criminal defamation provisions of the proposed penal code.
Elaine and Kat noted that for Ty last night.
iraqthe new york timesalissa j. rubinyahya barzanjfadhil al-badrani
sam dagher
joe sterling
missy ryan
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
etan
jake tapper
the los angeles timesmonte morin
Monday, January 26, 2009
Economy, Third, Isaiah, Allan Nairn
Monday, Monday. The weekend seems so far away. :( And I'm sick of winter and ready for spring. Okay Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Who Could Have Guessed" went up last night.
Since it went up, Geithner's been confirmed. Which shows you how little 'vetting' took place in Barack's research. (How did they miss Geithner not paying taxes?)
Meanwhile, people continue losing jobs. Real people, working people, not big wigs like Timothy Geithner. This is from CNN:
Sprint Nextel Corp. will cut a total of about 8,000 jobs by March 31, the company said Monday.
The plan is to reduce internal and external labor costs by about $1.2 billion on an annual basis, Sprint Nextel (S, Fortune 500) said in a press release.
The cuts will affect all levels of the company and various geographic locations, said telecommunications company, which currently employs about 60,000 people.
8,000 jobs. Can you believe it? The economy is in the toilet and I don't see Barack doing a damn thing to help the working class. And if you don't believe me, read this but fix yourself a drink first. For more on the economy, be sure to check out my mother's "Smoked sausage, Peppers, Onions in the Kitchen."
Tom Eley's "Obama's orders leave framework of torture, indefinite detention intact" is a must-read. C.I. has it in the snapshot. :D I called to say, "You sent me this to note and you've got it in the snapshot." C.I. laughed and said, "I'm so tired, sorry." C.I. suggested Allan Nairn's "The Torture Ban that Doesn't Ban Torture: Obama's Rules Keep It Intact, and Could Even Accord With an Increase in US-Sponsored Torture Worldwide:"
Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so.
His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of "...an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict..." which means that it doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of "armed conflict," which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict.
And even if, as Obama says, "the United States will not torture," it can still pay, train, equip and guide foreign torturers, and see to it that they, and their US patrons, don't face local or international justice.
This is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more US-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years.
Under the old -- now new again -- proxy regime Americans would, say, teach interrogation/torture, then stand in the next room as the victims screamed, feeding questions to their foreign pupils. That's the way the US did it in El Salvador under JFK through Bush Sr. (For details see my "Behind the Death Squads: An exclusive report on the U.S. role in El Salvador’s official terror," The Progressive, May, 1984 ; the US Senate Intelligence Committee report that piece sparked is still classified, but the feeding of questions was confirmed to me by Intelligence Committee Senators. See also my "Confessions of a Death Squad Officer," The Progressive, March, 1986, and my "Comment," The New Yorker, Oct. 15, 1990,[regarding law, the US, and El Salvador]).
Now that's funny! Allan Nairn pimped Barack like crazy. He lied for him. He excused him. He invented reasons to support him. He refused to call out Barack. And now Barack's in office. Allan, you helped elect him.
You better do more than call Barack out, you better belly up and take your share of the blame. If not, you're a sorry excuse for a human being.
Okay, let's talk Third. First up Dallas and the following worked on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
And Sunday produced a variety of articles.
Truest statment of the week -- This is Paul Street and he's a regular when it comes to truest.
Truest statement of the week II -- This Martha Raddatz and what I like about her getting the truest is that this is her first one. I like it when we can find someone new for a truest. It does not mean, "They are amazing!" It means they uttered some true words that can qualify for "truest" for the week.
A note to our readers -- Jim breaks down the edition and does a pretty good job of it.
Editorial: Barack kicks the can -- Ty said some fool e-mailed to gripe and launch an attack because they don't know kick the can (actually a game kids play) is different from "kick the bucket." Some people should not be allowed to operate a computer. I really like this editorial and I noticed C.I. tweaked it with one line. It really improves it. (I know it was C.I. because no one else wanted to go back in until Tuesday. I'm assuming C.I. added the one line last night. It was bacially providing a stronger verb and making the sentence stronger but it really works better now.) On Social Security, Barack wants to get cracking (Social Security is fine and not a crisis). On Guantanamo, he needs a year to figure out what to do.
TV: Baby, I Know -- Ava and C.I. do a great job this weekend with the TV commentary. There's a lot of humor in this one.
Roundtable -- Yeah, Jess was ticked off. We could hear it in his voice. And no one blamed him for being ticked off. We all got it, understood and realized how easily that could be us. I'm hungry now. Elaine was eating earlier and I was saying, "I'm just not hungry." I really wasn't. I felt like I had just eaten lunch, all stuffed. But now my stomach's growling. That has nothing to do with the roundtable, I'm just tossing it out there. I like Betty's remarks in the roundtable a lot. :D
Hillary Clinton becomes 67th Secretary of State -- This is a short feature and it works as such and also completes the coverageof Hillary by noting she has become the 67th Secretary of State.
More great moments in Feminist Barack History -- This may end up being a regular feature. Barack is not a feminist and we can use this to demonstrate that repeatedly.
'Caroline, No' cries Babycakes Bringiton -- A long feature on a topic Elaine, Ava and C.I. weren't interested in covering. What changed? Call-and-response. When this became a way to write about it, they were interested. But they worked on this issue (successfully) offline and had covered it online as well. They truly were done with it. Until the idea of responding to Babycakes presented itself.
This week's Bronze Boobs -- Reader Marcy suggested these nominees.
Green Party on how they'd handle 1st 100 Days -- Repost of how the Green Party would handle the first 100 days if a Green were in the White House.
Highlights -- The usual crew wrote this and I'm sorry for putting it that way but I'm starving.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, January 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continues, the US military announces multiple deaths, provincial elections loom, Nouri al-Maliki makes laughable statements (redundant or just expected?), and more.
This morning the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Four Coalition Soldiers died Jan. 26, when their aircraft crashed in Northern Iraq. The cause is unclear at this time and does not appear to be by enemy action. An investigation is ongoing. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4236 with 15 for the month thus far. Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) cited an unnamed Iraqi police source who states the aircraft was a helicopter and they note, "Initial reports from the U.S. military said two aircraft were involved, but later reports said it was only one aircaft that went down in the incident, which occured around 2:15 a.m." In a later update (1:23 p.m. EST), they note that it was two helicopters. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reminds, "The crash was the first since Nov. 15, when an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter landed with difficulty after hitting wires in the northern city of Mosul. Two US pilots were killed. The worst crash of the conflict was in January 2005, when a U.S. Marine CH53E Super Stallion helicopter went down in western Iraq, killing 30 Marines and a Navy sailor." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds, "At least 70 American helicopters have gone down since the war started in March 2003, according to military figures. Of those, 36 were confirmed to have been shot down." Jordan's Al Bawaba notes the US military refuses to say where the crash took place but it appears to have been outside Kirkuk based on unnamed sources: "One observer indicated that the crash report was very unusual, because if two Blackhawk helicopters were involved as the U.S. Military claims then they would have carried at the least eight crewmembers in both machines, but only four were reported . He suggested several possible explanations, including that the aircraft involved were actually attack helicopters, which carry only two crew each, that only one helicopter had crashed (which makes the claim of a mid-air collision highly unlikely), or that there was a far higher casualty list from the incident, which the Americans were deliberately hiding." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) locates the crash similiary, "An Iraqi police general responsible for Salahuddin province said two small helicopters had collided near the city of Kirkuk, 155 miles north of Baghdad."
Today's announcement follows two over the weekend. Saturday, the US military announced: " A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier died of non-combat related causes in southern Iraq today." And [PDF format warning] they announced, "A 3rd Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier died as a result of non-combat related injuries Jan. 24." The Seattle Times identified the second death ["A 3rd Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier] as "24-year-old Sgt. Kyle J. Harrington" and notes he is survived by Faith, his wife, and by Joshua (their five-year-old son) and Kaylee (their two-year-old daughter).
On Sunday news of other Saturday violence emerged. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reported on a Saturday raid by US forces in Hawija in which a husband and wife were killed by US forces and their young daughter was wounded. The house raid, Williams explained, required helicopters and was done at two in the morning. For the killing of the wife (Fathiya Ali Ahmed), the official story is she reached for something and, later, a gun was allegedly found under a mattress. After he saw his wife slaughtered, the husband (Dhiya Hussein) went after the US soldiers and was killed. Ahlam Dhia, the eight-year-old daughter, was shot by US soldiers for no official reason cited and she is quoted stating, "They killed my mother and father right in front of me. I was under the blanket. I heard my mom screaming, and I started to cry." Based on descriptions, Williams hypothesized the soldiers were American Special Ops. It is interesting that when Iraq supposedly has control over their country, US forces -- not Iraqi forces or, for that matter, US forces and Iraqi forces -- are conducting house raids. Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) reported, "The chairman of the Hawija Council said the woman's husband, Dhia Hussein, had not been linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq, as the U.S. military claimed" and quote Hussein Ali Salih (the chair) stating, "I personally know Col. Dhia Hussein; he is one of the former army officers and he was trying to return to the new Iraqi army. He has no affiliations with any armed groups." NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered -- link has video and text) reports:The U.S. military said the operation was conducted with and approved by Iraq's security forces, as stipulated by a security agreement that went into effect at the beginning of the year. But a senior Iraqi government spokesman said there were no Iraqi forces present and is calling for an investigation of the deaths."The Americans were on foot," said Hussein Ali, the father of the man who was killed. "They threw percussion hand grenades at the door, then they started shooting. When I got inside the house, the Americans were gone. I found [my son and daughter-in-law] in the bedroom, dead beside each other. They shot my son at close range. His blood was all over the wall."McClatchy's Leila Fadel (and possible the Institute for War and Peace Reporting?) felt the above information could wait until paragraph eight and spent the first seven pagraphs repeating the US military's version in what can only be characterized as Blind Faith Typing. Were Judith Miller still working for the New York Times and had she filed the exact same report Fadel did, she'd be called out non-stop on through next month for that one report. Instead, the anger only emerges in Iraq. Anthony Shadid and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) explained, "In the angry aftermath, 40 cars carrying hundreds of people converged on the family's funeral later in the day, said Fadhil Najm, a neighbor. He said the mourners shouted, 'Death to America! Death to killers of women!' as they buried the bodies." The two also point out that the head of the province's police force, General Jamal Tahir Bakir, states "U.S. forces acted on their own in the raid." China's Xinhau cites an unnamed police source, "The source also said that local security forces were not informed about the raid and that the reasons behind the killings are unclear yet."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left six injured, a Baquba bicyle bombing that left five people injured (and the bicyclist shot dead by the police), a Mosul car bombing that left six injured and a Mosul roadside bombing that left three wounded.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.
Iraq Body Count lists 12 dead on Saturday and 14 on Friday. They don't have a number for Sunday or today yet. They are an undercount but they're also one of the few still covering Iraq. For example, Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,307,319. That's the number they offered last Sunday, and the Sunday before that. In other words, JFP wants you to believe that no Iraqs have died since January 4th. Or maybe it's just that counting the Iraqis killed only matters when a Republican is in the White House?
KUNA repots that the Interior Ministry has announced that "5000 servicewomen" have finished training "to work in female inspection posts in state ministires and bodies."
Meanwhile Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) examines the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki, noting the two attempts by Parliament to oust him: "The anger at Mr. Maliki from the political class is strong enough that he has twice narrowly missed being voted out of office, in December and in late 2007." Those are not the only attempts to get rid of him, just FYI. Rubin goes on to explain that al-Maliki is popular with some Iraqis and, even later, goes on to explain why: Doling out pennies. Hmmm. It's a shame no one ever noticed that al-Maliki was sitting on all that money. It's a shame no one has thought to call for an audit of it.al-Maliki's creation of his private guards, so similar to Saddam Hussein's actions, are noted as well. The US government backed Saddam and they've backed al-Maliki. Should the Iraqi people not have their way, it will be important to remember who created the puppet in forty years. His private guards are the Baghdad Brigade and the Counterterrorism Task Force which bypass everyone else and report only to him and have no supervision or transparency. A Kurdish MP, Mahmoud Othman, is quoted observing, "The country is being militarized. People think he has overreached."And for those who can't grasp why the US should have already left (should have never gone but is continuing to do damage), note this section:American military commanders privately defend Mr. Maliki, saying that he has had to exert control over security forces and that having forces loyal to him reduces the influence of Shiite and Kurdish militias that function within the security ministries. For those not aware, the US military -- or any military -- is not the person to judge what's best for democracy or democracy building. Democracy building is not a task a military should ever take on because it is beyond its scope and ability. The judgments being made by the US commanders? You damn well better believe they impact orders on down the chain and it's putting the US military into the position Joe Biden warned against in April, choosing sides in a civil war. He also declared, in that Senate hearing, "Just understand my frustration, we want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."That paragraph in Rubin's article should alarm but it will just sail over most heads because there is so little interest in Iraq and there is such a meager knowledge base on what a military can and can't do and what democracy actually is.Biden warned that the US military was being put in the position of propping up one set of thugs. For those who doubt that's taking place, from Rubin's article:Other parties accuse these military forces [al-Maliki's two private guards] of detaining their members for political reasons. Ammar Wajih, a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party's political leadership, said the senior Sunni member of the provincial council in Diyala, Hussain al-Zubaidi, had been detained since November.Provincial elections are scheduled to be held in fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces on January 31st, five days from now. Rubin's reporting on how al-Maliki's tossing the pennies around in various areas in the hopes of increase support for his political party, Dawa. Over the weekend, Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) examined Al Anbar Province where various tribal leaders claim democracy has taken hold and where Dr. Sabah al-Ani replies, "If you believe in a stone, you can says it's God. We wanted technocrats and we were left with the tribes." Kimi Yoshino (Los Angeles Times) writes of a non-scientific poll the paper did (with a sample size of a little more than tweny) where the responses indicated "security takes a back seat to basic services, the economy and culture". She notes 14,8 million Iraqis have registered to vote. Monte Morin (LAT's Babylon & Beyond) explains that the weight of all the eleciton kits is 607 tons, while the ballots are 559 tons and the polling screens are 180 tons. The paper's Tina Susman examined some of the campaign materials and noted "In a country where few candidates have the means to produce glossy election literature, most simply splash letters across white sheets or poster paper and drape the signs between trees or signposts . . . Others use photographs or potraits of themselves . . ." Susman offers photos of various candidates including Nouri al-Maliki who actually is not running for a provincial council seat but is, as Rubin and others have noted, attempting to make this week's elections all about himself. AFP reports that Sunday found Nouri and KRG president Massoud Barzani trading swipes: "The two have been at odds over Maliki's plans to ammend the constitution to clear the way for a stronger central government in Baghdad at the expense of the powers of Barzani's administration based in the northern city of Erbil." Waleed Ibrahim and Michael Christie (Reuters) report that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, declared that US [combat only] forces will be pulled quickly. They report he made this announcement to "a crowd of supporters in the southern Iraqi city of Babel during a campaign rally ahead of Jan. 31 provincial elecitons" -- translation, a campaign promise by al-Maliki -- eager to pump up the number of seats held by his Dawa Party. And of course, if Barack had decided on that, he would let Nouri break the news, right? No need to inform the Pentagon or Joint Chiefs first. Just tell Nouri and let him tell the world.
Friday on PBS' Washington Week, Iraq was briefly discussed. As Ava and I noted, "ABC News Martha Raddatz explained to Gwen ('I didn't know') Ifill how Barack claimed he would 'meet with the Joint Chiefs and I think they were a little confused at the White House that that's not really who he would meet with right away, the Joint Chiefs, to talk about military advice. . . . That's not who he would meet with. He would meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He'd meet with his NSC advisor'." Radditz also noted she'd just returned from another trip to the Middle East but this time it did not include Iraq. (Remember ABC News has entered into an agreement with the BBC to air the BBC's Iraq reports.) This exchange was the key moment on Iraq:
Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws -- Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq. Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely. That was the show's finest movement and, alone, made up for so much of the gas baggery Gwen usually dumbs down America with. More like that and you might have a show that actually informs. Pete Williams also deserves notice for telling the reality about Barack 'closing' of Guantanamo. It should be noted that Professor Patti objected to Barack's plan for Guantanamo as well, she and Bill Moyers just didn't feel they owed it to PBS viewers to explain what Barack was proposing. Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) reports the US "military has already been quietly moving materiel out of Iraq over the past 18 to 24 months, said a military official who requested anonymity" but it's the same Lubold who can't grasp the so-called SOFA so factor that in. He also wrongly estimates that as many as US troops could remain in Iraq after 'withdrawal.' (70,000 is the number the administration tosses around.) Barack's 'withdrawal' is a lot like his 'closing' Guantanamo. As Heart (Women's Space) observes, "Beacuse that's the sense I get reading what Obama has said -- that he wants to clean up our reputation quick, hoping everyone forgets the atrocities of the Bush Administration, so we can continue to fight a Democratic Administration version of the 'war on terror,' which seems to bear a striking resemblance to the one the Bush administration has been engaged in, to our national shame, for the last eight years." Mickey Z weighs in (at Dissident Voice):
So, the Pope of Hope announced his (purported) objective of closing the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba ("Gitmo") within one year and we're expected to herald this announcement as a drastic break from the past. But -- as some of the regulars on my blog instantly declared -- if President Obama were serious about hope and change, he'd close the prison tomorrow, apologize to the detainees, and offer them financial reparations. That could be promptly followed up with the immediate indictment of all government officials (including those in Obama's administration) responsible for supporting torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial punishment, etc. And why not toss in the immediate closing of the US military base at Guantánamo Bay and the return of that land to Cuba? That, I submit, would be a minuscule first step upon which we could build.
Waiting a year to close a single prison is nothing to celebrate. Transferring those illegally detained humans is not change anyone can believe in. Public promises about not torturing have been heard before and even if we could trust such dubious assurances, why are we so goddamned appreciative when a US president merely declares his theoretical intention to think about adhering to fundamental international law?
Also calling the nonsense out is Tom Eley (WSWS):
On Thursday, President Barack Obama issued executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in a year's time, requiring that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual's prohibitions on torture, and closing secret CIA prisons overseas. While the media is portraying these orders as a repudiation of the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, they actually change little. They essentially represent a public relations effort to refurbish the image of the United States abroad after years of torture and extralegal detentions and shield high-ranking American officials from potential criminal prosecution. In cowardly fashion, Obama staged his signing of the orders in a manner aimed at placating the political right and defenders of Guantanamo and torture and underscoring his intention to continue the Bush administration's "war on terror." He was flanked by 16 retired generals and admirals who have pushed for the closure of the prison camp in Cuba on the grounds that it impedes the prosecution of the global "war" and reiterated in his own remarks his determination to continue the basic political framework of the Bush administration's foreign policy.The continuation of the ideological pretext for wars of aggression and attacks on democratic rights ensures that the police state infrastructure erected under the Bush administration will remain intact. This is further reinforced by Obama's assurances that his administration will not investigate or prosecute those officials -- including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and others -- who were responsible for the policies of torture and illegal detention.
the common illsthe third estate sunday reviewlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
iraq
the new york timestimothy williamsned parkersaif hameedthe los angeles timesanthony shadidthe washington postnprall things consideredlourdes garcia-navarro
alissa j. rubinmartha raddatzpbswashington week
caesar ahmed
kimi yoshinomonte morintina susmantom eley
mickey z.
gordon luboldwaleed ibrahimmichael christie
the third estate sunday review
Since it went up, Geithner's been confirmed. Which shows you how little 'vetting' took place in Barack's research. (How did they miss Geithner not paying taxes?)
Meanwhile, people continue losing jobs. Real people, working people, not big wigs like Timothy Geithner. This is from CNN:
Sprint Nextel Corp. will cut a total of about 8,000 jobs by March 31, the company said Monday.
The plan is to reduce internal and external labor costs by about $1.2 billion on an annual basis, Sprint Nextel (S, Fortune 500) said in a press release.
The cuts will affect all levels of the company and various geographic locations, said telecommunications company, which currently employs about 60,000 people.
8,000 jobs. Can you believe it? The economy is in the toilet and I don't see Barack doing a damn thing to help the working class. And if you don't believe me, read this but fix yourself a drink first. For more on the economy, be sure to check out my mother's "Smoked sausage, Peppers, Onions in the Kitchen."
Tom Eley's "Obama's orders leave framework of torture, indefinite detention intact" is a must-read. C.I. has it in the snapshot. :D I called to say, "You sent me this to note and you've got it in the snapshot." C.I. laughed and said, "I'm so tired, sorry." C.I. suggested Allan Nairn's "The Torture Ban that Doesn't Ban Torture: Obama's Rules Keep It Intact, and Could Even Accord With an Increase in US-Sponsored Torture Worldwide:"
Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so.
His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of "...an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict..." which means that it doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of "armed conflict," which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict.
And even if, as Obama says, "the United States will not torture," it can still pay, train, equip and guide foreign torturers, and see to it that they, and their US patrons, don't face local or international justice.
This is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more US-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years.
Under the old -- now new again -- proxy regime Americans would, say, teach interrogation/torture, then stand in the next room as the victims screamed, feeding questions to their foreign pupils. That's the way the US did it in El Salvador under JFK through Bush Sr. (For details see my "Behind the Death Squads: An exclusive report on the U.S. role in El Salvador’s official terror," The Progressive, May, 1984 ; the US Senate Intelligence Committee report that piece sparked is still classified, but the feeding of questions was confirmed to me by Intelligence Committee Senators. See also my "Confessions of a Death Squad Officer," The Progressive, March, 1986, and my "Comment," The New Yorker, Oct. 15, 1990,[regarding law, the US, and El Salvador]).
Now that's funny! Allan Nairn pimped Barack like crazy. He lied for him. He excused him. He invented reasons to support him. He refused to call out Barack. And now Barack's in office. Allan, you helped elect him.
You better do more than call Barack out, you better belly up and take your share of the blame. If not, you're a sorry excuse for a human being.
Okay, let's talk Third. First up Dallas and the following worked on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
And Sunday produced a variety of articles.
Truest statment of the week -- This is Paul Street and he's a regular when it comes to truest.
Truest statement of the week II -- This Martha Raddatz and what I like about her getting the truest is that this is her first one. I like it when we can find someone new for a truest. It does not mean, "They are amazing!" It means they uttered some true words that can qualify for "truest" for the week.
A note to our readers -- Jim breaks down the edition and does a pretty good job of it.
Editorial: Barack kicks the can -- Ty said some fool e-mailed to gripe and launch an attack because they don't know kick the can (actually a game kids play) is different from "kick the bucket." Some people should not be allowed to operate a computer. I really like this editorial and I noticed C.I. tweaked it with one line. It really improves it. (I know it was C.I. because no one else wanted to go back in until Tuesday. I'm assuming C.I. added the one line last night. It was bacially providing a stronger verb and making the sentence stronger but it really works better now.) On Social Security, Barack wants to get cracking (Social Security is fine and not a crisis). On Guantanamo, he needs a year to figure out what to do.
TV: Baby, I Know -- Ava and C.I. do a great job this weekend with the TV commentary. There's a lot of humor in this one.
Roundtable -- Yeah, Jess was ticked off. We could hear it in his voice. And no one blamed him for being ticked off. We all got it, understood and realized how easily that could be us. I'm hungry now. Elaine was eating earlier and I was saying, "I'm just not hungry." I really wasn't. I felt like I had just eaten lunch, all stuffed. But now my stomach's growling. That has nothing to do with the roundtable, I'm just tossing it out there. I like Betty's remarks in the roundtable a lot. :D
Hillary Clinton becomes 67th Secretary of State -- This is a short feature and it works as such and also completes the coverageof Hillary by noting she has become the 67th Secretary of State.
More great moments in Feminist Barack History -- This may end up being a regular feature. Barack is not a feminist and we can use this to demonstrate that repeatedly.
'Caroline, No' cries Babycakes Bringiton -- A long feature on a topic Elaine, Ava and C.I. weren't interested in covering. What changed? Call-and-response. When this became a way to write about it, they were interested. But they worked on this issue (successfully) offline and had covered it online as well. They truly were done with it. Until the idea of responding to Babycakes presented itself.
This week's Bronze Boobs -- Reader Marcy suggested these nominees.
Green Party on how they'd handle 1st 100 Days -- Repost of how the Green Party would handle the first 100 days if a Green were in the White House.
Highlights -- The usual crew wrote this and I'm sorry for putting it that way but I'm starving.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, January 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continues, the US military announces multiple deaths, provincial elections loom, Nouri al-Maliki makes laughable statements (redundant or just expected?), and more.
This morning the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Four Coalition Soldiers died Jan. 26, when their aircraft crashed in Northern Iraq. The cause is unclear at this time and does not appear to be by enemy action. An investigation is ongoing. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4236 with 15 for the month thus far. Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) cited an unnamed Iraqi police source who states the aircraft was a helicopter and they note, "Initial reports from the U.S. military said two aircraft were involved, but later reports said it was only one aircaft that went down in the incident, which occured around 2:15 a.m." In a later update (1:23 p.m. EST), they note that it was two helicopters. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reminds, "The crash was the first since Nov. 15, when an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter landed with difficulty after hitting wires in the northern city of Mosul. Two US pilots were killed. The worst crash of the conflict was in January 2005, when a U.S. Marine CH53E Super Stallion helicopter went down in western Iraq, killing 30 Marines and a Navy sailor." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds, "At least 70 American helicopters have gone down since the war started in March 2003, according to military figures. Of those, 36 were confirmed to have been shot down." Jordan's Al Bawaba notes the US military refuses to say where the crash took place but it appears to have been outside Kirkuk based on unnamed sources: "One observer indicated that the crash report was very unusual, because if two Blackhawk helicopters were involved as the U.S. Military claims then they would have carried at the least eight crewmembers in both machines, but only four were reported . He suggested several possible explanations, including that the aircraft involved were actually attack helicopters, which carry only two crew each, that only one helicopter had crashed (which makes the claim of a mid-air collision highly unlikely), or that there was a far higher casualty list from the incident, which the Americans were deliberately hiding." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) locates the crash similiary, "An Iraqi police general responsible for Salahuddin province said two small helicopters had collided near the city of Kirkuk, 155 miles north of Baghdad."
Today's announcement follows two over the weekend. Saturday, the US military announced: " A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier died of non-combat related causes in southern Iraq today." And [PDF format warning] they announced, "A 3rd Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier died as a result of non-combat related injuries Jan. 24." The Seattle Times identified the second death ["A 3rd Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier] as "24-year-old Sgt. Kyle J. Harrington" and notes he is survived by Faith, his wife, and by Joshua (their five-year-old son) and Kaylee (their two-year-old daughter).
On Sunday news of other Saturday violence emerged. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reported on a Saturday raid by US forces in Hawija in which a husband and wife were killed by US forces and their young daughter was wounded. The house raid, Williams explained, required helicopters and was done at two in the morning. For the killing of the wife (Fathiya Ali Ahmed), the official story is she reached for something and, later, a gun was allegedly found under a mattress. After he saw his wife slaughtered, the husband (Dhiya Hussein) went after the US soldiers and was killed. Ahlam Dhia, the eight-year-old daughter, was shot by US soldiers for no official reason cited and she is quoted stating, "They killed my mother and father right in front of me. I was under the blanket. I heard my mom screaming, and I started to cry." Based on descriptions, Williams hypothesized the soldiers were American Special Ops. It is interesting that when Iraq supposedly has control over their country, US forces -- not Iraqi forces or, for that matter, US forces and Iraqi forces -- are conducting house raids. Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) reported, "The chairman of the Hawija Council said the woman's husband, Dhia Hussein, had not been linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq, as the U.S. military claimed" and quote Hussein Ali Salih (the chair) stating, "I personally know Col. Dhia Hussein; he is one of the former army officers and he was trying to return to the new Iraqi army. He has no affiliations with any armed groups." NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered -- link has video and text) reports:The U.S. military said the operation was conducted with and approved by Iraq's security forces, as stipulated by a security agreement that went into effect at the beginning of the year. But a senior Iraqi government spokesman said there were no Iraqi forces present and is calling for an investigation of the deaths."The Americans were on foot," said Hussein Ali, the father of the man who was killed. "They threw percussion hand grenades at the door, then they started shooting. When I got inside the house, the Americans were gone. I found [my son and daughter-in-law] in the bedroom, dead beside each other. They shot my son at close range. His blood was all over the wall."McClatchy's Leila Fadel (and possible the Institute for War and Peace Reporting?) felt the above information could wait until paragraph eight and spent the first seven pagraphs repeating the US military's version in what can only be characterized as Blind Faith Typing. Were Judith Miller still working for the New York Times and had she filed the exact same report Fadel did, she'd be called out non-stop on through next month for that one report. Instead, the anger only emerges in Iraq. Anthony Shadid and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) explained, "In the angry aftermath, 40 cars carrying hundreds of people converged on the family's funeral later in the day, said Fadhil Najm, a neighbor. He said the mourners shouted, 'Death to America! Death to killers of women!' as they buried the bodies." The two also point out that the head of the province's police force, General Jamal Tahir Bakir, states "U.S. forces acted on their own in the raid." China's Xinhau cites an unnamed police source, "The source also said that local security forces were not informed about the raid and that the reasons behind the killings are unclear yet."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left six injured, a Baquba bicyle bombing that left five people injured (and the bicyclist shot dead by the police), a Mosul car bombing that left six injured and a Mosul roadside bombing that left three wounded.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.
Iraq Body Count lists 12 dead on Saturday and 14 on Friday. They don't have a number for Sunday or today yet. They are an undercount but they're also one of the few still covering Iraq. For example, Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,307,319. That's the number they offered last Sunday, and the Sunday before that. In other words, JFP wants you to believe that no Iraqs have died since January 4th. Or maybe it's just that counting the Iraqis killed only matters when a Republican is in the White House?
KUNA repots that the Interior Ministry has announced that "5000 servicewomen" have finished training "to work in female inspection posts in state ministires and bodies."
Meanwhile Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) examines the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki, noting the two attempts by Parliament to oust him: "The anger at Mr. Maliki from the political class is strong enough that he has twice narrowly missed being voted out of office, in December and in late 2007." Those are not the only attempts to get rid of him, just FYI. Rubin goes on to explain that al-Maliki is popular with some Iraqis and, even later, goes on to explain why: Doling out pennies. Hmmm. It's a shame no one ever noticed that al-Maliki was sitting on all that money. It's a shame no one has thought to call for an audit of it.al-Maliki's creation of his private guards, so similar to Saddam Hussein's actions, are noted as well. The US government backed Saddam and they've backed al-Maliki. Should the Iraqi people not have their way, it will be important to remember who created the puppet in forty years. His private guards are the Baghdad Brigade and the Counterterrorism Task Force which bypass everyone else and report only to him and have no supervision or transparency. A Kurdish MP, Mahmoud Othman, is quoted observing, "The country is being militarized. People think he has overreached."And for those who can't grasp why the US should have already left (should have never gone but is continuing to do damage), note this section:American military commanders privately defend Mr. Maliki, saying that he has had to exert control over security forces and that having forces loyal to him reduces the influence of Shiite and Kurdish militias that function within the security ministries. For those not aware, the US military -- or any military -- is not the person to judge what's best for democracy or democracy building. Democracy building is not a task a military should ever take on because it is beyond its scope and ability. The judgments being made by the US commanders? You damn well better believe they impact orders on down the chain and it's putting the US military into the position Joe Biden warned against in April, choosing sides in a civil war. He also declared, in that Senate hearing, "Just understand my frustration, we want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."That paragraph in Rubin's article should alarm but it will just sail over most heads because there is so little interest in Iraq and there is such a meager knowledge base on what a military can and can't do and what democracy actually is.Biden warned that the US military was being put in the position of propping up one set of thugs. For those who doubt that's taking place, from Rubin's article:Other parties accuse these military forces [al-Maliki's two private guards] of detaining their members for political reasons. Ammar Wajih, a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party's political leadership, said the senior Sunni member of the provincial council in Diyala, Hussain al-Zubaidi, had been detained since November.Provincial elections are scheduled to be held in fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces on January 31st, five days from now. Rubin's reporting on how al-Maliki's tossing the pennies around in various areas in the hopes of increase support for his political party, Dawa. Over the weekend, Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) examined Al Anbar Province where various tribal leaders claim democracy has taken hold and where Dr. Sabah al-Ani replies, "If you believe in a stone, you can says it's God. We wanted technocrats and we were left with the tribes." Kimi Yoshino (Los Angeles Times) writes of a non-scientific poll the paper did (with a sample size of a little more than tweny) where the responses indicated "security takes a back seat to basic services, the economy and culture". She notes 14,8 million Iraqis have registered to vote. Monte Morin (LAT's Babylon & Beyond) explains that the weight of all the eleciton kits is 607 tons, while the ballots are 559 tons and the polling screens are 180 tons. The paper's Tina Susman examined some of the campaign materials and noted "In a country where few candidates have the means to produce glossy election literature, most simply splash letters across white sheets or poster paper and drape the signs between trees or signposts . . . Others use photographs or potraits of themselves . . ." Susman offers photos of various candidates including Nouri al-Maliki who actually is not running for a provincial council seat but is, as Rubin and others have noted, attempting to make this week's elections all about himself. AFP reports that Sunday found Nouri and KRG president Massoud Barzani trading swipes: "The two have been at odds over Maliki's plans to ammend the constitution to clear the way for a stronger central government in Baghdad at the expense of the powers of Barzani's administration based in the northern city of Erbil." Waleed Ibrahim and Michael Christie (Reuters) report that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, declared that US [combat only] forces will be pulled quickly. They report he made this announcement to "a crowd of supporters in the southern Iraqi city of Babel during a campaign rally ahead of Jan. 31 provincial elecitons" -- translation, a campaign promise by al-Maliki -- eager to pump up the number of seats held by his Dawa Party. And of course, if Barack had decided on that, he would let Nouri break the news, right? No need to inform the Pentagon or Joint Chiefs first. Just tell Nouri and let him tell the world.
Friday on PBS' Washington Week, Iraq was briefly discussed. As Ava and I noted, "ABC News Martha Raddatz explained to Gwen ('I didn't know') Ifill how Barack claimed he would 'meet with the Joint Chiefs and I think they were a little confused at the White House that that's not really who he would meet with right away, the Joint Chiefs, to talk about military advice. . . . That's not who he would meet with. He would meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He'd meet with his NSC advisor'." Radditz also noted she'd just returned from another trip to the Middle East but this time it did not include Iraq. (Remember ABC News has entered into an agreement with the BBC to air the BBC's Iraq reports.) This exchange was the key moment on Iraq:
Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws -- Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq. Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely. That was the show's finest movement and, alone, made up for so much of the gas baggery Gwen usually dumbs down America with. More like that and you might have a show that actually informs. Pete Williams also deserves notice for telling the reality about Barack 'closing' of Guantanamo. It should be noted that Professor Patti objected to Barack's plan for Guantanamo as well, she and Bill Moyers just didn't feel they owed it to PBS viewers to explain what Barack was proposing. Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) reports the US "military has already been quietly moving materiel out of Iraq over the past 18 to 24 months, said a military official who requested anonymity" but it's the same Lubold who can't grasp the so-called SOFA so factor that in. He also wrongly estimates that as many as US troops could remain in Iraq after 'withdrawal.' (70,000 is the number the administration tosses around.) Barack's 'withdrawal' is a lot like his 'closing' Guantanamo. As Heart (Women's Space) observes, "Beacuse that's the sense I get reading what Obama has said -- that he wants to clean up our reputation quick, hoping everyone forgets the atrocities of the Bush Administration, so we can continue to fight a Democratic Administration version of the 'war on terror,' which seems to bear a striking resemblance to the one the Bush administration has been engaged in, to our national shame, for the last eight years." Mickey Z weighs in (at Dissident Voice):
So, the Pope of Hope announced his (purported) objective of closing the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba ("Gitmo") within one year and we're expected to herald this announcement as a drastic break from the past. But -- as some of the regulars on my blog instantly declared -- if President Obama were serious about hope and change, he'd close the prison tomorrow, apologize to the detainees, and offer them financial reparations. That could be promptly followed up with the immediate indictment of all government officials (including those in Obama's administration) responsible for supporting torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial punishment, etc. And why not toss in the immediate closing of the US military base at Guantánamo Bay and the return of that land to Cuba? That, I submit, would be a minuscule first step upon which we could build.
Waiting a year to close a single prison is nothing to celebrate. Transferring those illegally detained humans is not change anyone can believe in. Public promises about not torturing have been heard before and even if we could trust such dubious assurances, why are we so goddamned appreciative when a US president merely declares his theoretical intention to think about adhering to fundamental international law?
Also calling the nonsense out is Tom Eley (WSWS):
On Thursday, President Barack Obama issued executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in a year's time, requiring that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual's prohibitions on torture, and closing secret CIA prisons overseas. While the media is portraying these orders as a repudiation of the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, they actually change little. They essentially represent a public relations effort to refurbish the image of the United States abroad after years of torture and extralegal detentions and shield high-ranking American officials from potential criminal prosecution. In cowardly fashion, Obama staged his signing of the orders in a manner aimed at placating the political right and defenders of Guantanamo and torture and underscoring his intention to continue the Bush administration's "war on terror." He was flanked by 16 retired generals and admirals who have pushed for the closure of the prison camp in Cuba on the grounds that it impedes the prosecution of the global "war" and reiterated in his own remarks his determination to continue the basic political framework of the Bush administration's foreign policy.The continuation of the ideological pretext for wars of aggression and attacks on democratic rights ensures that the police state infrastructure erected under the Bush administration will remain intact. This is further reinforced by Obama's assurances that his administration will not investigate or prosecute those officials -- including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and others -- who were responsible for the policies of torture and illegal detention.
the common illsthe third estate sunday reviewlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
iraq
the new york timestimothy williamsned parkersaif hameedthe los angeles timesanthony shadidthe washington postnprall things consideredlourdes garcia-navarro
alissa j. rubinmartha raddatzpbswashington week
caesar ahmed
kimi yoshinomonte morintina susmantom eley
mickey z.
gordon luboldwaleed ibrahimmichael christie
the third estate sunday review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)