Tuesday!!!! Vacation week. Probably light posting all week.
Thomas Ward who wrote to the Baltimore Sun is our focus tonight. He's a tool. A real idiot. His letter opens with:
When the right-wing president George Bush decided to go to war against Iraq, a country that had committed no crime against the United States, there was at best a muted protest. In fact, when televisions in restaurants and bars showed the "shock and awe" campaign on their screens, many patrons were mesmerized, their eyes glued to the screen. When center-left president Barak Obama decided it was time to legislate health-care reform to move toward insuring the 20 percent of the population that must rely on charity when it gets sick, the protest against it is loud, boisterous and monological in nature. This was seen again at Senator Benjamin Cardin's town meeting Monday night.
He probably feels real proud of it, probably told everyone about it.
Too bad he doesn't know what the f**k he's talkinga bout.
The month before the illegal war started, there was the largest global protest (including in this country) that has ever taken place so for Tommy to claim "there was at best a muted protest" is for Tommy to lie. To LIE. Tommy Lie. Tommy Liar.
He also doesn't appear to grasp what he's suggesting to readers: The right wing fights and our side just caves. That's what his uninformed letter argues.
It forgets 9-11. It forgets a media that didn't just refuse to probe the lies, it also hectored and attacked the American people who spoke out.
2003? Compared 2009? Apples and oranges.
Tommy Ward's a fool.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, August 11, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, officials say Iraq's biggest threat to stability is the Kurds, unless officials say Iraq's biggest threat to stability is the PKK, and more.
Today the US Dept of Defense announced a death in Iraq and i.d.ed the fallen, Spc Richard A. Walters Jr. who died in yesterday from "injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident." Currently, the link is not working. If it's still not working when the snapshot goes up, we'll note the passing in tomorrow's snapshot as well. We just said that DoD identified the fallen and that they announced the death. See a problem? MNF is supposed to announce the deaths. DoD is supposed to identify them (after the immediate family has been notified). So what happened? MNF 'forgot' to announce the death. That's the second time in two weeks that they've missed their key function. They're nothing but a press relations crew and one of their duties is to announce deaths. The DoD is only supposed to (later) provide the name. MNF gets away with this because the press has never once protested. The announcement brings to 4331 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
From Friday through Monday, there were reports of 124 deaths and 624 injured from violence. Natalia Antelava (BBC News) analyzes these developments and postulates that instead of death tolls, "Looking at the nature of the attacks might provide better insight. As the US generals prepared for the June withdrawal of their troops from Iraqi cities, US military officials argued that the attacks had become much less organised and sophisticated. However, less than two months after the pull-out, this seems to be changing. The latest bombings resemble the well co-ordinated, well planned strikes of the earlier years of heightened violence." Antelava is correct and the only thing to add to that is that maybe newspaper headlines which read "Afghanistan bombs more deadly" can also be seen as a taunt in Iraq? How do you even measure that? Considering the differing landscapes and everything else and what is that sort of headline anyway, some war mongering reporting's notion of fantasy football? Equally true is that reporters have rarely grasped the ebb and flow of the Iraq attacks. Or maybe they just didn't care to detect a pattern? When's the next big attack coming? Press reports suggest one was just prevented. BBC News reports Kuwait is claiming that they have stopped a plan to attack a US military base in Iraq and arrested 6 of their own citizens who have "confessed to the crimes after they were arrested."
Whether the arrests and confessions are valid, violence didn't stop in Iraq today.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which left four people wounded, a Baghdad car bombing which left nine people wounded, three Baghdad roadside bombings which claimed 3 lives and left ten injured ("police said that this figure was a preliminary") and a Falluja roadside bombing which left four people wounded. Reuters notes 2 Baghdad car bombings which claimed 8 lives and left thirty people injured.
That's today. In the future? Adam Entous (Reuters) reports on the Pentagon briefing by Geoff Morrell today where he stated, "But we are very nervous, continue to be, about the overall Arab-Kurdish tensions. [. . .] We are going to remain vigilant. A certain number of U.S. forces are required in that country . . . in no small measure to try to assist . . . the Arabs and the Kurds solve some of these problems while we are still there." Kat covered the Kurdish issue last night, "AFP reports today that Maj Gen Jamal Taher Bakr, who is the police chief of Kirkuk, says 'It would be better' when asked if US troops should stay until 2012 or 2013. Remember that Kirkuk is disputed. In the country's constitution (ratified in 2005), it says a referendum will be held following a census and that will determine Kirkuk's fate. It's an oil-rich region and the central government wants it and so does the Kurdistan region. This was supposed to have been decided long, long ago. Instead of deciding, the issue has been a can that everyone's played kick the can with. It's not surprising that the issue alarms the police chief or any resident of Kirkuk and I'm not making fun of them or even saying, 'You're wrong!' I am saying that the longer the issue is put off, the worse it gets." Kirkuk is disputed by the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government in Baghdad, both of which want it to be part of their region. Among those outside players attempting to influence events is the government of Turkey which fears Kurdish power and self-rule due to its own internal issues. Complicating the matter further are the PKK which is a labeled a terrorist organization by the US, England, the European Union, Turkey and many others. These are Kurdish fighters who support Kurdish independence within Turkey. They have set up bases in the mountains of northern Iraq to stage attacks. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Montior) reports that the foreign ministers of Iraq and Turkey -- Hoshyar Zebari and Ahmet Davutoglu -- held a press conference in Baghdad today where they revealed an offer of water for Iraq were it to crack down on the PKK. The water issue is an important one to Iraq. Anthony DiPaloa and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reported last week that the country was set to "have its worst harvest in a decade this year as an extended drought cuts its water supply, forcing the third-biggest OPEC producer to increase grain imports as oil revenue drops."
Will Nouri attack the PKK? Very likely. July 28th, he launched an attack on the residents of Camp Ashraf. With more on that, this is from Amnesty International:
Thirty-six Iranian residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq remain at risk of being forcibly returned to Iran where they could face torture or execution. The 36 have been detained since Iraqi security forces stormed the camp, about 60km north of Baghdad, on 28 July. At least eight Camp Ashraf residents were killed and many more injured during the raid. Most of the 36 are reported to have been beaten and tortured. At least seven are said to need urgent medical care. Camp Ashraf is home to about 3,500 members of the People's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition group which has been based in Iraq since 1986. Following the raid, the 36 were taken to a police station inside the camp. They were held there for an hour and are reported to have been tortured and beaten before being transferred to a police station in the town of al-Khalis, about 25 km south of Camp Ashraf. According to reports, the detainees were told to sign documents written in Arabic by those detaining them, but refused to do so. They have also sought access to lawyers, so far unsuccessfully. Of the seven reported to need medical treatment, Mehraban Balai sustained a gunshot injury to his leg and a broken arm after being beaten by Iraqi security forces. Habib Ghorab is said to suffer from internal bleeding and Ezat Latifi has serious chest pain. He is thought to have been run over by one of the military vehicles used by Iraqi forces in seizing control of the camp. The PMOI established itself in Iraq in 1986 (during the Iran-Iraq war, 1980-88), at the invitation of the then President Saddam Hussein. In 1988, from its base at Camp Ashraf, the PMOI attempted to invade Iran. The Iranian authorities summarily executed hundreds, if not thousands, of PMOI detainees in an event known in Iran as the "prison massacres". For a number of years it was listed as a "terrorist organization" by several Western governments. Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the PMOI members disarmed and were accorded "protected persons" status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This lapsed in 2009, when the Iraqi government started to exercise control over Iraq's internal affairs in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a security pact agreed by the governments of Iraq and the USA in November 2008 and which entered into force on 1 January this year. US forces in Iraq provided effective protection for Camp Ashraf until mid-2009, after which they completed their withdrawal to their bases from all Iraqi towns and cities. After they disarmed, the PMOI announced that they had renounced violence. There is no evidence that the PMOI has continued to engage in armed opposition to the Iranian government, though people associated with the PMOI still face human rights violations in Iran. Since mid-2008 the Iraqi government has repeatedly indicated that it wants to close Camp Ashraf, and that residents should leave Iraq or face being forcibly expelled from the country. Amnesty International has urged the authorities not to forcibly return any Camp Ashraf resident or other Iranians to Iran, where they would be at risk of torture and other serious human rights violations. The organization has called upon the Iraqi authorities to investigate all allegations of torture and beatings, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. The organization has also called on the authorities to provide appropriate medical care to the 36 detainees and to release them unless they are to be promptly charged with a recognizable offence and brought to trial according to international standards for fair trial.
Read More
Iraq: Concern for detained Camp Ashraf residents (Public statement, 4 August 2009) Eight reported killed as Iraqi forces attack Iranian residents of Camp Ashraf (News, 29 July 2009)
Iran's Press TV reports today that protestors gathered in Diyalah Province in a 'brave and dangerous' demonstration (that's sarcasm) to support the decision of Nouri al-Maliki to expell the residents of Camp Ashraf. In any country, the most pathetic thing is the lackeys who feel the need to pimp the government line. (As true in Iraq as it is in the US -- whether it comes from Barry O's astroturf friends or Bully Boy Bush's 'freedom rallies'.) Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) notes the human rights lawyers calling on the US government to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents sent "Documents Show Iraq, U.S. in Breach of Obligations to Protect Camp Ashraf Residents" to the public e-mail account (Betty noted it last night):
In a news briefing today at the National Press Club, international and U.S. lawyers of residents of Camp Ashraf presented documents of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Iraqi government during the July 28 attack on Camp Ashraf. They also made public the agreements signed between the U.S. government and every resident of the Camp Ashraf for their protection. Camp Ashraf is home to members of the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK). Its residents had signed an agreement with the Multi-National Force-Iraq in 2004, according to which the US agreed to protect them until their final disposition."The official U.S. government response to the events at Ashraf is that all issues concerning the Camp are now matters for the Iraqis to determine, as an exercise of their sovereignty. But that is a red herring: no one contests the sovereignty of the State of Iraq over Ashraf. Sovereignty does not provide an excuse for violating the human rights of the residents. Nor does it justify inaction on the part of the United States," said Steven Schneebaum, Counsel for U.S. families of Ashraf residents.He stressed: "The U.S. was the recipient of binding commitments by the Government of Iraq to treat the Ashraf residents humanely, and we know that has not happened. Moreover, it was the United States with whom each person at Ashraf reached agreement that protection would be provided until final decisions about their disposition have been made. And the United States remains bound also by principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law that make standing by during an armed attack on defenseless civilians unacceptable, and that impose an obligation to intervene to save innocent lives."Francois Serres, Executive Director of the International Committee of Jurists in Defense of Ashraf, which represents 8,500 lawyers and jurists in Europe and North America, added, "This [assault] is a manifest of crime against humanity by the Iraqi forces, attacking, with US-supplied weapons and armored vehicles, unarmed residents of Ashraf. The Iraqi government cannot be trusted in protecting the residents of Ashraf. The U.S. must undertake efforts to protect them until international protection is afforded to the residents." "We will pursue this matter before the International Criminal Court and courts in France and Belgium. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki is fully responsible for these atrocities and he will be held to account," he added. Zahra Amanpour, a human rights activist with the U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents also spoke at the news briefing. Ms. Amanpour, whose aunt is in Ashraf, said: "Why are the Department of State and the White House stone-walling us, the families of Camp Ashraf residents? Thirty-five people have been on a hunger strike outside the White House for 13 days, and we still don't have any reply by the administration."Claude Salhani (Washington Times) reports on the press conference and notes, "French lawyer Francois Serres said at a news conference in Washington that he would be taking legal action against Mr. al-Maliki in European courts as well as in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Other lawsuits would be filed in U.S. courts against the U.S."
"They gave me a gun" he said
"They gave me a mission
For the power and the glory --
Propaganda -- piss on 'em.
There's a war zone inside me --
I can feel things exploding --
I can't even hear the f**king music playing
For the beat of -- the beat of black wings."
[. . .]
"They went you -- they need you --
They train you to kill --
To be a pin on some map --
Some vicarous thrill --
The old hate the young
That's the whole heartless thing
The old pick the wars
We die in 'em
To the beat of -- the beat of black wings."
-- "The Beat of Black Wings," words and music by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm.
Danny Fitzsimons served in the British military for eight years and was stationed in Afghanistan and Kosovo as well as Iraq. He is in the news for his time in Iraq as a British contractor, or mercenary, accused of being the shooter in a Sunday Green Zone incident in which 1 British contractor, Paul McGuigan, and 1 Australian contractor, Darren Hoare, died and one Iraqi, Arkhan Madhi, was injured. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports today that Fitzsimons' parents, Eric and Beverly, and stepmother, Liz, state their son, now potentially facing the death penalty in Iraq's 'justice' system, has PTSD: "We are seeking funding in order to get a fair trial for Daniel, who served his country in Afghanistan and Iraq and left the Army suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. This situation is every parent's worst nightmare. We have been unable to speak directly to Daniel and are currently in contract with the Foreign Office, Fair Trials Abroad and our local MP, Jim Dobbin." Eric and Liz Fitzsimons speak to the BBC (link has video):
Liz Fitzsimons: You see, when he came out of the army because the army had always been his life, it was then at a real crossroads in his life and where some people might be able to cope, unfortunately, Daniel didn't cope well because he did enjoy army life. It was all he ever wanted, he loved it. And you come out and you live Middleton, which is where he ended up, and he couldn't find a path that suited him, he couldn't find a job although he tried very hard. And a testament to Daniel is that he joined a gym and kept himself -- Daniel likes routine. Daniel goes to the gym every day almost, I would suggest, every day, goes jogging he's a very clean young man. You know, he's not sort of gone wayward and just gone to the dogs kind of thing. And he met a girl, like you want your children to do, but then he wanted the normal life and he wanted the money that would go with a normal life. How does he do that when he can't find a job? And unfortunately becoming a security --
Eric Fitzsimons: He went back into doing security.
Liz Fitzimons: -- person in Iraq. [. . .] Oh, awful. Awful. The situation in Iraq isn't good, is it? We all know it's not good. But he would be out in convoys I believe their main job is to escort to --
Eric Fitzsimons: Oil [workers? Second word isn't clear.]
Liz Fitzsimons : Yes but they do escort people to jobs. And they do ride shotgun basically. They ride around --
Eric Fitzsimons: He's told us quite a lot of --
Liz Fitzsimons: Yeah.
Eric Fitsimons: -- tales
Liz Fitzsimons: He saw some awful things. The person in the cab next to him was blown up.
Eric Fitzsimons: Yeah.
Liz Fitzsimons: Next to him. At the same he had a bullet in his foot.
Eric Fitzsimons: Bullet in his foot, yeah, he's seen all sorts of IEDs you know, sorts of explosions at the side of the road. Loads and loads of them. And seen lots and lots of his friends killed.
They're asked about whether or not they attempted to talk Danny out of being a mercenary ("mercenary" is the term Eric Fitzsimons uses) and his father notes that they had conversations with him going back many years but he is a grown up who makes his own decisions. They express their sympathies for the families of the two men who were killed. "We're not saying that Daniel doesn't have to face what he's done," Liz Fitzsimons explains. "He does. He does have to face that. And we know he does. But what we want is for it to be fair and unfortunately where he is now, we don't think it will be."
While Danny Fitzsimons' family is unable to speak to him, Oliver August (Times of London) reports his paper has been able to and that Fitzsimons states the incident was self-defense: "I got into a fight with two colleagues and they had me pinned down. I received a real beating. They beat me and that's when I reached for my weapon. I was drunk and it happened very quickly."
The early morning shooting followed the consumption of alcohol. Oliver August teams with Deborah Haynes to note that "private security guards [in Iraq] always carry weapons, even when drinking" and they note the various bars to be found in the Green Zone including the now closed "CIA Bar" and the "FBI Bar." Fitzsimons worked for ArmorGroup and Haynes gives an overview of the company here. August reports that "the investigators told the judge that they have all the evidence they need to proceed with a trial. The Foreign Office is checking options on how to help Mr Fitzsimons but there appears to be little chance that he could be handed over to British officials or stand trial in UK for the alleged murder of a British and an Australian security guard also on contract with ArmorGroup." Martin Chulov (Guardian) was not present in the Iraqi court yesterday but he quotes Maj Gen Abdul-Kareem Khalaf stating Fitzsimons "made admissions." Take it with a grain of salt and remember all the distortions Iraqi government officials made of what the shoe tosser had supposedly stated. Jamie Walker and Sarah Elks (The Australian) note, "Aged in his 20s, the Briton is set to become the first foreign security contractor to face Iraqi justice; he could receive the death penalty if he is found guilty of gunning down Mr Hoare and Mr McGuigan." The New Statesman explains, "Last night British Embassy staff were trying to secure access to Fitzsimons. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is looking into how it can help but there appears to be little chance that he will stand trial in Britain."
Turning to the US, Camilo Mejia is the author of Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia and he's an Iraq War veteran, a war resister and a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (the chair until they announce Jose Vaquez as the new chair). Costa Rica Hoy notes, "Camilo Mejia is the first American soldier that served in Iraq who publicly opposed the war. He was imprisoned for refusing to return. At present, he is in the process of appealing his bad conduct discharge." The Center for Constitutional Rights noted the appeal last week and quoted Camilo stating, "Increasingly I found that I could no longer tolerate my complicity in what I considered immoral occupation. I could not go back to an environment where torture and abuse were destroying the lives of the Iraqis and the soldiers who were ordered to engage in such acts. I knew that if I returned I would have been required to do things that violate the Geneva Conventions."
We're going to stay with this topic for a moment. I was hoping IVAW's recent conference, which ended Sunday, would result in Street Trash leaving the organization. Street Trash's name doesn't appear at this site because Street Trash went public and then had a meltdown when we picked up the news of Street Trash being public from another website. Though it was already over the net, Street Trash was in a panic. We had to remove Street Trash's name from the Iraq snapshot!!!!! Trina and I went into every community site and edited out Street Trash's name and asked, "What the ___ is ____'s problem?" At which point, we were no longer interested in Street Trash. I believe it was 13 sites back then, and we had to go into 13 sites to edit out Street Trash's name because Street Trash had gone highly public and was now worried? Now?
Street Trash has spent the last months threatening to quit IVAW. This follows Street Trash's 'resignation' (from a non-elected IVAW board spot). In that 'resignation,' Street Trash trashed Camilo with rumors and just gutter gossip. It was so awful that Street Trash (karma?) had to go and remove the post from Street Trash's website. What Street Trash wrote, however, is still being said online by Street Trash, ST just does it at right wing sites. ST has already (again) attacked Camilo this week.
I'm not in the mood for that piece of garbage. We wrote about some of this nonsense at Third and Ty started getting crazy e-mails from Street Trash -- who is still in the miltiary and, as an IVAW member pointed out to Ty when I suggest he call him, was writing these while 'serving.' In other words, Street Trash now has an office job and apparently spends all day -- on the tax payer's dime -- leaving comments at websites and writing angry e-mails. The article, by the way, was "Who's duping who?" and Street Trash is not named or even referred to in that article. Mainly because we don't promote gutter trash, we take it to the curb. But that didn't stop Street Trash from lecturing Ty in repeated e-mails (all in one day -- seriously, Street Trash does no work for the military, just stays on the computer for eight hours each 'work' day) about journalism. Stupid ass, Street Trash, Ty has a degree in it. No one needs to interview you first before writing a story. Why would we? Because of your vanity? Because you think you're important? You're nothing but trash.
As outlined in the article, a number of trashy people had left the organization (since Street Trash refuses to leave, we obviously couldn't be referring to ST) and they're whispering and sometimes outright saying (Street Trash is saying it at right wing blogs) that IVAW is a Communist menace and a Communist front and blah, blah, blah. The real problem is that Street Trash and ST's cronies love 'em some Barack. They need to go to the vets group that's a front for the Democratic Party. That's the only way they'll be happy (and even then . . .). IVAW is Republicans, is Democrats, is Socialists, is Communists, is libertarians, is non-believes in any political theory or party. It's a diverse group. But say 'diverse' and Street Trash hears "Communist conspiracy!"
This week alone, Street Trash has repeatedly trashed Camilo and you have to wonder why ST doesn't just leave the group -- like ST promised would happen if ST didn't like the election results. (Considering that Jose publicly corrected ST when ST lied about Camilo, you'd assume ST wouldn't be thrilled with Jose's victory.) Beyond the world of the crazies, Camilo not only has every right to appeal, he should have a strong case. Camilo was not a US citizen. He was serving in Iraq and his contract ended. He was stop-lossed. However, only US citizens could be stop-lossed. This was pointed out to his command which chose to ignore it -- chose to ignore federal law. Camilo's discharge needs to be re-evaluated because he never should have been stop-lossed and once the government made clear they weren't going to respect the law, they stepped onto real weak ground.
Street Trash is screaming Communist menace! We'll come back to it because it's not isolated crazy. But, before we go further, let's talk about something that matter (we're about to talk about people making fools of themselves -- we're taking a musical detour before that) Cass Elliot. Cass, of course, is known for her own strong solo work as well as for her work as a member of one of rock's first super groups: the Mamas and the Papas. Cass is on my thoughts a great deal lately and not just due to a letter I remembered and dug through the journals to re-read. But let's do that sidebar briefly: A woman who claims to be a feminist and claims she never wasn't a feminist and that people have distorted her on that blah blah blah. Reality? The woman was in the US long before she claims and she was trying to be famous even back then which is how she ended up on the daytime talk show with Cass and two other women and, yes, the Greek social climber was perfectly disgusting even then and, yes, Cass observed just how sad (and anti-woman) she was. In addition to being one of the country's finest singers, Cass also did a great deal of TV work. At the end of this month, The Mama Cass Television Program is released for the first time ever on DVD. Her guests on the TV special include Joni Mitchell, John Sebastian and Mary Travers (of Peter, Paul and Mary). Jeffrey Kauffman (DVD Talk) gives the release strong praise noting, "Cass is perfectly at ease (in fact, perhaps a bit too much so -- she fluffs a few lines here and there and isn't really 'formal' in the sense that most television variety show hosts and hostesses were back in the day) and makes a very appealing central figure. . . . I couldn't help but feel a little sad watching this special, and not just because of the weird writing of the skits. Mama Cass was a distinctive, warm hearted performer with a lush voice who left us far, far too early. At least we have her recordings (several of which have been surfacing on Lost), as well as her film and television performances to remind us that, as she states to [Buddy] Hackett at the top of this special, true beauty comes from within." We linked to Joni and, from her website, we'll note this: "For a new boxed set due out this November, Joni would like to invite the community to send in a statement of why they enjoy her music. It can be one sentence or a short paragraph and the best will be chosen for the liner notes for the project. It can be a personal experience with the music or why in general you like it. Joni feels it might be more interesting to hear from the people who truly like the music rather than from a critic or PR person. Submit your liner notes here."
Now back to the crazy. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer embarrassed themselves and the positions they hold by charging US citizens with being "unAmerican." Search in vain for The Progressive or The Nation calling that b.s. out. There are brave voices, however. Once again, Cindy Sheehan steps up to the plate and notes how dangerous it is and how it recalls the House Committee on Un-American Activities which helped lead the witch hunts:
It, apart from Senator Joseph McCarthy, investigated Bolsheviks and communists and many other "subversive" organizations and people. There is nothing in the Constitution, as far as I know, that prevents one from being a Communist, but people's lives were ruined because of this committee, and the committee even went as far as shaping the movie industry, and of course frightened many people into un-American silence.Today, an op-ed that was "co-written" by Nancy Pelosi (House Speaker) and Steny Hoyer (House Majority Leader), which was more than likely written by an overworked staffer, called anyone who is protesting at the Healthcare Town Hall meetings: "un-American." The person who advised this, should be summarily fired…with all due haste.I don't agree with a single word that is coming out of the right-winger's mouths. Obama is not a socialist and the Democrats are not socialists, they're fascists, and even though I think the Healthcare reforms are a bad idea for other reasons, I support the right of my fellow Americans to speak as loudly as they want and put forth their message any way they can.Even though I know that most of the Town Hall disrupters do not or did not support my right to do so---I have been escorted out of many hearings or meetings---but I support any American's right to expression, as long as it doesn't involve hate speech. Hanging a Congressperson in effigy is not hate speech---it's protected free speech---just like when Bush was hanged in effigy many times by the other side.
The Speaker of the House, whomever is in the position, is on dangerous grounds when she or he calls other US citizens "unAmerican." It's not just offensive, it's also historically dangerous. This is the Cliff Note version (Jim's called it for Third and we're also limited on space in this snapshot). Take what Bob Somerby's covering today (very accurate, very sound). Among other things to grasp from his writing today is that, no, people don't listen to you when you call them names -- when you tar and feather and entire group of people, they're not going to listen to you. But also grasp the rage on Nancy Pelosi's side. Not just the people she's raging against, but the rage within her. What she did is appalling. It's shameful. And it is not playing in the Bay Area, she's in hot water again. It's stupid and it's dangerous. And ObamaCare may or may not pass. If it doesn't pass, you need to grasp the anger in people like Nancy already. And you need to grasp that they're also telling left critics of ObamaCare to stop speaking. You need to grasp how angry they are at those people. Then you need to grasp that a large number of those people aren't Democrats but posed as such. There's nothing wrong with being a Socialist or a Communist. It's leagal in this country and, in many cases, it's a strong ethical position to take. But Street Trash is a Democrat and Street Trash is attacking others as Communists. And what history has never really bothered to get right is that the McCarthy era witch hunt couldn't have happened without Democrats. Dems who were tired of the non-Dems posing as Dems, Dems who didn't like Communists to begin with, and many other groupings. When Nancy voices her rage, you better grasp how dangerous the situation is. Not for the right wing. They're her natural opponent. But when her frustration lets her make such a stupid and harmful comment ("un-American"), you need to grasp where it heads next if she can't control her own temper. One way of stopping it is for people to get honest. Matthew Rothschild finally did, after the election, when he finally fessed up to being a Socialist -- why a grown man felt the need to hide in a political closet is a question to ask. He's far from the only one. Take Robert McChesney. And let's get honest about the word "progressive." It doesn't mean a Democrat and it never did. When you lie (I'm referring to spokespeople and gas bags) you create the climate for your own backlash. Nancy's already made clear she's comfortable judging what is American and what is unAmerican. In the last century, that meant people like Matthew Rothschild, Robert McChesney and others would be targeted. So it's about time they started speaking out along with everyone else on the left. I grasp that some Democrats won't because they're pissed off that non-Democrats hijacked the party in 2008. (And some Dems won't speak out for other reasons including hatred for and fear of Communists and Socialists.) But we warned about this, Ava and I, all through 2008 and started sounding the alarm at the end of 2007. The ground is moving and you either call out Nancy or you accept that the Speaker of the House can judge what is and is not American. And you grasp how quickly her rage turns on the left and you grasp that people like Street Trash have already launched efforts to persecute people based on their political beliefs. This isn't the distant past, this is the beginning of a new period of McCarthyism unless people call out Nancy Pelosi. (It would also help if some would hop out of the political closets. A known face is usually a friendly face and personalizes the issue.) That's jumbled and we'll work it out at Third but the basics are: 1) Nancy Pelosi crossed the line and needs to be called out. 2) Her frustration and rage is going to whip over to the left if allowed to go unchecked. 3) People right now would do well to come out of the political closets because a known and friendly face is hard to demonize. 4) History repeats if you don't learn. 5) What needs to be learned from McCarthyism is that it was bi-partisan and you either stop it immediately or you accept and encourage a witch hunt.
iraq
bbc news
natalia antelava
jane arraf
caroline alexanderbloomberg news
joni mitchell
the times of londonoliver augustdeborah haynesmartin chulov
amnesty international
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
cindy sheehan
cass elliot
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Bob Fertik is an idiot (and apparently a racist)
Monday, Monday! California Dreamin' in California. :D So it's vacation time and it's going to be a lot of fun. Like Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Telemarketer in Chief"
Now do you know Bob Fertik? He runs Democrats.com -- a house organ for the Democratic Party. And he's a real idiot. He was on KPFA Friday acting the fool for a segment that called anyone who disagreed with Obamacare a racist. So let's face it that Bob's the racist.
Bob's a dumb ass for sure. Ava and C.I. chronicled that awful KPFA segment in "Hate Speech Radio (Ava and C.I.)" and notice this on dumb ass Bob:
But facts never mattered. Bob Fertik, speaking of Republican US Senator Mel Martinez declared, "You've got Mel Martinez retiring today he was the only person of color in the Republican Congress in the Senate or the House."
What a f**king idiot. And had KPFA the least bit of concern with Latinos, that little lie would have been corrected immediately. You can be damn sure, had a Latino guest been on the panel, Bob's f**king lie would have been called out immediately. Mel Martinez is not the only Republican of "color" n the Senate or House. Latino Republicans in the House? Mario Diaz-Balart (of Florida), Devin Nunes (of California). As for the Senate, Martinez was the only Republican Senator who was Latino. But before you feel as smug as Bob Fertik did, grasp that Martinez' departure reduces the number of Latino Senators to . . . one. (Bob Menendez out of New Jersey.)
If Bob Mendenez retired tomorrow would Fertik spin that as destruction for the Democratic Party? No, he wouldn't.
As a general rule, hate speech is never concerned with facts.
What an idiot. He feels the need to lie or flaunt his stupidity, you decide which.
We're rushing tonight because we're all going to a club and enjoying being together for the week.
So quickly, Dallas and the following worked on Third this weekend:
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),
Trina of Trina's Kitchen
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And here's what we came up with:
Truest statement of the week
A note to our readers
Editorial: When you've got nothing to sell, attack...
TV: He puts the cess in cesspool
Idiot of the Week
Hate Speech Radio (Ava and C.I.)
The Proposal as a feminist statement
Roundtable
How to ensure that your party is seen as a joke
Week three
Why the left shouldn't recruit right wingers
Highlights
And that's it because everyone's getting ready to go. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, August 9, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, rumors swirl that Nouri in bed with the Righteous League, details of assassination attempt on Nouri emerge, a plea for Camp Ashraf and more.
Bombings rock Iraq today with mass fatalities in Baghdad and just outside Mosul. Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) report that Khazna, outside Mosul, houses a population of approximately 500, at least 35 of which died today, with many being Shabaks. The reporters label them Shi'ites which is what most Shabak's self-identify as; however, the Shabaks have affinities with Kurds as a result of campaigns against them during Saddam Hussein's reign including the Al-Anfal Campaign. The United Nations funded Aswat al-Iraq reported in November last year on the Shabak protest in Ninewa ("hundreds of Shabak people") "calling to incorporate them into the Kurdistan region on the basis that they are Kurds, not Arabs." Shabaks live in over 30 villages in northern Iraq and practice a religion which blends Islam, Christianity and other faiths. Londono and Mizher note comments from Sunni officials (blaming the Kurds for the bombings) which may strike some as rather insulting since the Sunnis have been accused of committing genocide against the Shabaks -- Sunni groups in the region have claimed credit for multiple beheadings of Shabaks and threats aimed at them (leading some Shabaks to become external refugees). Sam Dagher (New York Times) labels this bombing "the most devastating attack" today: "a pair of large flatbed trucks packed with bombs exploded simultaneously shortly after dawn". Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) states of the bombs, "They left huge craters and levelled 35 homes. More than 130 people were injured, out of a village population of 3,000." Mujahid Mohammed (AFP) quotes nurse and eye witness Falah Ridha stating, "Eleven people in my family were killed when their house collapsed. All of them woke up after the first bomb, but the second bomb was very close to my house, it was like an earthquake. No one else escaped, just me." Jamal al-Badrani, Mohammed Abbas, Muhanad Mohammed, Waleed Ibrahim, Yara Bayoumy and Jon Boyle (Reuters) quote survivor Umm Qasim asking, "What have we done for terrorists to kill innocents in their sleep?" The reporters note she was "covered in blood . . . holding her wounded son. The bodies of four relatives, including her husband and sister, lay nearby." England's ITN adds, "Police say the death toll could rise further because people are buried under the rubble of their own homes." BBC News has a photo essay of the aftermath. UK's Channel 4 News (link has text and video) notes today's violence is "raising fears of a return to sectarian violence."
Jonathan Rugman: The plains beneath the Kurdish mountains are becoming Iraq's most dangerous region. Two truck bombs exploding east of the city of Mosul today, destroying scores of homes. 30 dead and over 150 wounded. This crater destroying an entire Shi'ite village. All this after a similar attack on local Shi'ites killed 37 only last Friday. The pattern emerging here is one of minorities being deliberately targeted in the north of Iraq. A foretaste perhaps of a long feared Kurdish-Arab civil war.
Mark Kattuner (Minority Rights Group International): Well I think through most of Iraq, including from Baghdad, the Americans have withdrawn from patrolling the cities. But in Mosul they're still patrolling in cooperation with the Iraqi army because they realize just how dangerous the situation is. The city is still contested. In particular, the land all around it in the Nineveh Plain is contested between Kurds and Arabs. And therefore everything that's happened in the last month hasn't happened just because the Americans have left. It's happened while they are still there. And it shows that they are incapable of protecting the minority communities on the ground.
AGI states the population is "mainly . . . Shia Muslims" with Shabaks a secondary population and they state the target most likely was a mosque. The village was not only area rocked by bombings. Ann Barker (Australian Network News) notes, "In Baghdad two car bombs targeting labourers killed 16 people and wounded 81 in another Shi'ite area in the city's southwest." Sam Dagher (New York Times) notes two of the Baghdad bombings "struck lines of workers who had gathered to look for jobs as day laborers, one in the Amil district, the other in Shurta al-Rabiaa, both of which are mainly Shiite areas." with the first blast claiming 7 lives and leaving forty-six injured and the second blast claiming 9 lives and leaving thrity-five injured. Eye withness Jabir Abid tells Laith Hammoudi and Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers), "A big ball of fire went up in the air, and there was a very big bang. Suddenly, I couldn't see anything because a black cloud of smoke covered everything." Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that in addition to those two Baghdad car bombings, Baghdad was rocked by seven roadside bombings resulting 2 deaths and nineteen people injured, while a Baghdad sticky bombing on a mini bus resulted in 1 death (the driver) and three injuries, a third Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and wounded eighteen and a Tikrit bombing claimed the lives of 2 "little brothers" while 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters adds a Mosul home invasion resulted in the death of 1 woman and a man being wounded.
Today's violence follows weekend reports of 8 deaths and seventeen injured in violence and, as noted already, Friday's Mosul bombing which claimed at least 38 lives and left two-hundred and seventy-six people injured while other reported violence on Friday resulted in 15 deaths and 58. Adding all of the deaths reported on Friday and since together results in 124 dead and 624 injured. Interestingly, today's fatalities is approximately the same number as Friday's and the wounded toll on both days is also similar. BBC News reports, "The BBC's Natalia Antelava in Baghdad says the Iraqi government is keen to show its troops are fully in control and capable of doing their job without the help of US forces." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) refers to Nouri speaking to "a gathering of Iraqi security commanders" today and repeating his b.s. about the "coming election" (scheduled for January); however, I've got two reporters telling me on the phones that Nouri was speaking live on Iraqi state television, hence to the Iraqi people and not just to security commander. Arraf does a good job of describing the Shabak's (better than I did above) and she also notes that the Sunni Arab governor is blaming the pesh merga for the attacks if only in a 'they failed' kind of way which, naturally, leads him to just happen to suggest/insist that the Iraqi military should control the area. This is a disputed region and, again, the Shabaks have publicly demonstrated to be part of the Kurdistan Region. Apparently the Shabaks aren't people, they are a political football (or cannon fodder) to be used to win territory. While some attempt to use the violence to secure land, Ali Sheikholeslami (Bloomberg News) notes that there has been "no immediate statement of responsibility for the blasts". Minority Rights Group International issues a statement on the violence which quotes Mark Lattimer (noted earlier in the snapshot) stating, "The bombings of minority communities near Mosul and Kirkuk are more than just an expression of religious hatred. They are a deliberate attempt to grab control over contested territory in northern Iraq by puhsing out the minorities who live there." CNN reports that Iraq's Interior Ministry, via their spokesperson, is going with the blanket culprit: al Qaeda in Iraq.
Yesterday an Australian contractor (Darren Hoare) and a British contractor (Paul McGuigan) were shot dead in the Green Zone and, in the incident, an unidentified Iraq was injured with British contractor Danny Fitzsimons arrested in the shootings. The two deaths and the wounded Iraqi are included in the earlier count of deaths and injuries in the last four days, FYI. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) speaks with a spokesperson for Iraq's Internation Ministry, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who "said Fitzsimons got into a dispute with colleagues as they were drinking. 'They got into an argument and he started shooting his colleagues,' Khalaf said." The Minneapolis Star-Tribune features a news round up which quotes an Iraqi military spoksesperson, Qassim al-Moussawi, insisting the incident "started as a squabble. The subject is facing a premeditated murder charge." Oliver August (Times of London) reports that British contractor "fled the scene with a pistol, was held after a shootout and handed to Iraqi police." (He was held by US troops who turned him over to the Iraqi police.) August speaks with an unnamed witnesses who sketches out the contractors all drinking and getting into a skirmish which turned increasing violent. At some point, August says 4:00 a.m., the not so surprising feature to a drunken, aggressive squabble among armed people took place: Fitzsimons pulled out a gun and waived it around. Iraqis have mentioned execution. Jay Price (Raleigh News & Observer) adds, "According to AP, the gunman could be the first Westerner tried for murder under Iraqi law since an agreement that took effect Jan. 1 between the U.S. and Iraq ending the immunity Western contractors had enjoyed since not long after the war began in 2003." August files a report where he focuses just on the drinking and the skirmish and contains more details from eye witnesses with Fitzsimons allegedly waiving the pistol and others attempting to disarm him when, apparently, the shooting began. August adds, "Consular officials from the British Embassy have visited Mr Fitzsimmons, as well as a second British national, believed to be another ArmorGroup employee, who was being held there but not considered a suspect and has now been released." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) offers a commentary which includes, "It is also a huge embarrassment for Britain at a time when Gordon Brown is still waiting for the Iraqi parliament to ratify a new security agreement between the two countries -- somethign that should have happened by the end of May but is unlikely to take place until autumn at the earliest. The arrest comes at a time when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is trying to secure the release of three remaining British hostages in Iraq, two of whom are thought to be dead." We'll drop back to the August 6th snapshot for background on the British hostages:
Jason Swindlehurst, Jason Creswell, Alec Maclachlan, Alan McMenemy and Peter Moore, all British citizens, were kidnapped in Baghdad May 29, 2007. Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell were dead when their bodies were turned over to the British authorities after the two leaders of the group bragging about having done the kidnappings were released from US custody. (The same group, and why the brothers had been imprisoned originally by the US, bragged about their actions in assaulting a US base and killing 5 American soldiers.) The British government considers Alec and Alan to be dead (the families remain hopeful) and it is thought (by the British government) that Peter Moore is alive. The group taking credit for the kidnappings and for the deaths of 5 US soldiers is alternately called the Righteous League or the League of Righteous by the press. The press? They got press this week, see Monday's snapshot, because Nouri met with them to bring them back into the government. As noted in the Tuesday snapshot, the press spin that the group has given up violence is false. Their spokesperson says they will not attack Iraqis but that they will continue to go after US service members.
Now, for the 5 US soldiers killed by the Righteous League (they've claimed credit for the assualt) we'll drop back to the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
So we should all be on the same page: The League of Righteous has claimed credit for the deaths of 5 US soldiers and credit for kidnapping 5 British citizens, at least 2 of whom are known to be dead. In addition, British outlets noted last month that the Iraqi government appeared to be involved in the kidnappings (see the July 31st snapshot if you're late on this story). Gareth Porter (Asia Times) is reporting that recent developments demonstrate how Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation and US-installed thug, has long been working with the League of Righteous:
The history of the new agreement confirms what was evident from existing information: the League of the Righteous was actually the underground wing of the Mahdi Army all along, and the Sadrist insurgents were secretly working closely with the Maliki regime against the Americans and the British - even as it was at war with armed elements within the regime. The contradictory nature of the relationship between Maliki and the Sadrists reflects the tensions between pro-Sadrist elements within the regime - including Maliki's Da'wa Party - and the anti-Sadrist elements led by the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The relationship between Maliki and the US was also marked by contradictions. Even though he was ostensibly cooperating with the US against the Sadrists in 2007 and 2008, the Maliki regime was also cooperating secretly with the Sadrist forces against the Americans. And Maliki - with the encouragement of Iran -- was working on a strategy for achieving the complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq through diplomatic means, which he did not reveal to the Americans until summer 2008.
What Gareth Porter is reporting is something news outlets in England and the US should be digging into because, if true, it's a huge slap in the face to both countries. Meanwhile in non-surprising (but non-reported) news, Rahmat al-Salaam (Ashraq Alawsat) reports thug Nouri was targeted by "a member of his own security protection team
Meanwhile NPR's Deborah Amos recently returned to Iraq and shares her observations which include this on Baghdad: "The blast walls -- tall, gray barriers that surround most neighborhoods -- make the city unrecognizable. I had read about these ugly concrete ravines, but it is still shocking to see the magnitude of the divisions in Baghdad. How long will it take to dismantle walls that saved lives but divided the population? Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged to remove Baghdad's concrete maze over the next 40 days, which means the city would be transformed by the end of the holy month of Ramadan. Can he move that much concrete in 40 days? Is this a reckless campaign pledge when civilians are still a target for random bombs?" Amos also notes the Sunni-Shi'ite divide has not vanished and fears remain of more 'ethnice violence' (genocide). FYI, Sam Dagher (New York Times) reported that "most" of the walls will be removed in 40 days -- not all.
July 28th there was a bank heist resulting in the death of at least 8 guards and, it turned out, the robbers were guards for Iraq's Shi'ite vice president. What's taken place since have been efforts to appease thug v.p. Adel Abdul-Mahdi. The Iraqi police has had to negotiate the story with Adel and that includes frequently lying in print that it was the 'tremendous' help of Adel which allowed the bank robbers to be caught. (An improvement over Adel's original demand which was the press lie that only one of his guards were involved in the robbery.) Iraqi journalist Ahmad Abdul Hussein published an article entitled "8000 blankets" in Al Sabah which dealt with allegations about the robbery and deal with bribery during the January provincial elections and that the lawsuit could have been to raise cash to influence the elections scheduled for January 2010 -- a lawsuit is now filed against the paper. Alsumaria reports a demonstration is scheduled this Friday in Baghdad "in defense of press freedom which was most damaged by the aftereffects of Rafidain's Bank heist in Al Karrada. The protest is due on Friday at 10:30 in the morning in Al Mutannabi Street carried out by the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory in cooperation with other parties to respond to Jalal Eddin Saghir, a leader in Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council who called in his Friday sermon to sue Al Sabah Newspaper on account of the "8000 blankets" article." Ammar Karim (AFP) reports that Al Sabah editorialized on the matter yesterday with a call for people such as Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini to step in and defuse the remarks of Jalal Eddin Saghir, a member of the v.p.'s political party: "The language that Saghir used was full of insults and incitements against Al-Sabah newspaper, its editors and one of its reporters. This is not how Islamic discourse should be."
David Morgan and Jackie Frank (Reuters) note Camp Ashraf: "Human rights lawyers from the International Committee of Jurists in Defense of Ashraf advocacy group accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of ignoring Baghdad's assurances to Washington that camp residents would be treated humanely." They're asking that the US take control of Camp Ashraf to protect the residents who have been under assault from Nouri's security forces.
Meanwhile three Kurdistan provinces held elections last month. The final, official count for the Kurdistan regional elections have been released. From the KRG:Electoral Commission announces final results of Kurdistan Region elections Erbil, Kurdistan -- Iraq (KRG.org) -- The Independent High Electoral Commission of Iraq (IHEC) released the final results of the Kurdistan Region presidential and parliamentary elections yesterday - 7 August 2009. A total of 1,819,652 individuals, about 80 per cent of eligible voters, participated in the election. The results are as follows. Presidential election: Masoud Barzani, 1266397 votes – 69.6% (winner) Kamal Mirawdly, 460323 votes – 25.3% Hallo Ibrahim Ahmed, 63377 votes – 3.5% Ahmed Muhammad Nabi, 18890 votes – 1% Husain Garmiyan 10665, votes – 0.6% Parliamentary election: Kurdistan List, 1076370 votes, 59 parliamentary seats Change List, 445024 votes, 25 parliamentary seats Reform and Services List, 240842 votes, 13 parliamentary seats Islamic Movement, 27147 votes, 2 parliamentary seats Freedom and Social Justice, 15028 votes, 1 parliamentary seat Parliamentary Seats reserved for minority groups: Turkoman Democratic Movement, 18464 votes, 3 parliamentary seats Turkoman Reform List, 7077 votes, 1 parliamentary seat Turkoman Erbil List, 3906 votes, 1 parliamentary seat Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council, 10595 votes, 3 parliamentary seats Al-Rafidain List, 5690 votes, 2 parliamentary seats Aram Shahin Dawood Bakoyian, 4198 votes, 1 parliamentary seat
Saturday Nancy Dickeman wrote the New York Times about their article on Col Timothy Reese's memo recommending all US forces leave Iraq by the end of 2010 ("Declare Victory and Depart Iraq, U.S. Adviser Says," by Michael Gordon) and she observes, "We are not merely guests overstaying a welcome, but are invaders and occupiers. It is time to act upon the inescapable truth that Iraq -- its people, desert, rivers, cities, farms and oil beneath the sand -- are not ours to cliam or control. It takes our going home to give Iraq back to the Iraqis." The New Jersey Star-Ledger editorializes "Iraq War: Declare victory and leave:"
Reese offers a realistic perspective of where we find ourselves now: "Our operations are in support of an Iraqi government that no longer relishes our help while at the same time our operations generate the extremist opposition to us as various groups jockey for power in post-occupation Iraq.The U.S. military, he says, is now the subject of attacks meant not to drive us out of Iraq but as "messages sent by various groups as part of the political struggle for power in Iraq." In Reese's sober assessment, there's no point in staying in Iraq just to get stuck in the middle of yet another struggle for power. The removal of combat troops could begin immediately and be completed by this time next summer, he suggests. That move might actually improve our standing with the Iraqi government and, perhaps more important, save us "blood and treasure," he writes. Back in 2003, we seemed to have an infinite amount of both, but that has also changed in the intervening six years. Reese's report has no status as policy and the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, has rejected it. The counter-argument centers largely on our role in preventing a resumption of the various feuds among the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurds that could erupt in our absence. But those feuds might still erupt in future years. And in any case, preventing those feuds was not among the goals of the original invasion. Those goals, or at least those stated for public consumption, were removing Saddam Hussein and creating an opportunity for free elections. Done. And done. As for babysitting the Iraqis for the foreseeable future, that was not a goal. The sooner they are left to their own devices, the better for America.
That's not a left view for withdrawal, but it's an argument for withdrawal and it's one that Ava and I noted two Sundays ago and pointed out that this is the time when withdrawal for Iraq is truly not a left issue. It has a broad base of support that goes beyond the left and beyond people from the right and center who are embarrassed that they supported the illegal war. If there was a functioning peace movement in this country that would be built upon because this a tremendous moment but it's not even being noted, it's not even being addressed. Col Timothy Reese's memo is reaching beyond the left -- actually the left outlets have largely ignored it. Which is a point that Tim McGirk (Time magazine) also notices:
That question isn't being asked only by liberal anti-war opinion-makers. It has also been raised by a growing number of senior officials in Washington and U.S. commanders in Iraq. An internal memo drafted by Col. Timothy Reese, an adviser to the Iraqi senior military command, and leaked to the New York Times last month, doesn't mince words. He writes that it is time "for the U.S. to declare victory and bring our combat forces home."
The gist of the colonel's argument is that there is nothing significant that a continued U.S. military presence can do to improve either the delivery of "essential services" to Iraqis, or the ability and inclination of Maliki's sloppy and quarrelsome Shi'ite-dominated government to reconcile with the Sunnis and Kurds.
In fact, there are a growing number of warning signs that the Iraqi government is no longer under the sway of their American forces that brought it into being. Reese notes a "sudden coolness" being displayed by Iraqi commanders towards their American counterparts after June 30, the date on which the Status of Forces Agreement concluded between Baghdad and Washington last December required that U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq's towns and cities. Following that date, suspects detained by U.S. soldiers were freed by Iraqis. And the Iraqi government openly disdained the recent offer by Vice-President Joe Biden, during a visit to Baghdad, to help mediate in its conflicts with Kurds and Sunnis. Top military adviser Reese likened the relationship between Iraqi and U.S. soldiers to "a father teaching his kid to ride a bike without training wheels, " explaining: "Our hand on the back of the (Iraqis') seat is holding them back and causing resentment. We need to let go before we both tumble to the ground."
One of the few genuine voices against the Iraq War (as opposed to the faux 'anti-warriors') is Chris Hedges and (link goes to Dandelion Salad) he notes that nothing has changed under Barack, the US "killas as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush." He notes a great deal more than that and we'll include him in an entry tomorrow morning; however, the point of noting that is the Barack supporters were fooled the same way Bush supporters were. I belive they call that "common ground." A peace movement dedicated to ending the unpopular and illegal war could really accomplish something now. If it existed.
Finally Chris Johnson and Lou Chibbarro Jr. (Washington Blade) report on a fundraiser for Iraq's LGBT community which became the staging area for a number of allegations:A fundraising event to benefit an LGBT community center in Lebanon last week took a surprise turn when stunned audience members were shown graphic photographs of beheaded corpses and images purportedly depicting U.S. soldiers preparing to execute gay Iraqis.Two gay Iraqi refugees, who declined to use their real names, delivered a presentation at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters July 24 in which they detailed alleged abuses of fellow gay Iraqis while calling on their audience to donate funds to Helem, a Lebanon-based center that works to address the plight of LGBT people in the Middle East.One of the Iraqis, who goes by the name "Hussam," showed the audience of about 80 people gruesome images, including shots allegedly of a beheaded man who was gay and another of the victim's twin brother grieving over the severed head.While asserting that anti-gay violence in Iraq is often committed by Iraqis, Hussam also said U.S. service members were involved in anti-gay hostility. For example, he said service members displayed signs in front of their barracks with the words "F**k Off F**s."But the reaction from the audience turned from anger to shock when Hussam said U.S. service members had detained Iraqi civilians perceived to be gay and executed them.
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 endsthe world today just nuts
iraq
the washington posternesto londono
qais mizherthe new york timessam dagher
jane arraf
mcclatchy newspapersadam ashtonlaith hammoudi
sahar issa
the times of londonoliver augustdeborah haynes
the new york timesrod nordlandjay price
npr
deborah amosjonathan rugman
gareth porter
the washington bladechris johnsonlou chibbarro jr.
chris hedges
Now do you know Bob Fertik? He runs Democrats.com -- a house organ for the Democratic Party. And he's a real idiot. He was on KPFA Friday acting the fool for a segment that called anyone who disagreed with Obamacare a racist. So let's face it that Bob's the racist.
Bob's a dumb ass for sure. Ava and C.I. chronicled that awful KPFA segment in "Hate Speech Radio (Ava and C.I.)" and notice this on dumb ass Bob:
But facts never mattered. Bob Fertik, speaking of Republican US Senator Mel Martinez declared, "You've got Mel Martinez retiring today he was the only person of color in the Republican Congress in the Senate or the House."
What a f**king idiot. And had KPFA the least bit of concern with Latinos, that little lie would have been corrected immediately. You can be damn sure, had a Latino guest been on the panel, Bob's f**king lie would have been called out immediately. Mel Martinez is not the only Republican of "color" n the Senate or House. Latino Republicans in the House? Mario Diaz-Balart (of Florida), Devin Nunes (of California). As for the Senate, Martinez was the only Republican Senator who was Latino. But before you feel as smug as Bob Fertik did, grasp that Martinez' departure reduces the number of Latino Senators to . . . one. (Bob Menendez out of New Jersey.)
If Bob Mendenez retired tomorrow would Fertik spin that as destruction for the Democratic Party? No, he wouldn't.
As a general rule, hate speech is never concerned with facts.
What an idiot. He feels the need to lie or flaunt his stupidity, you decide which.
We're rushing tonight because we're all going to a club and enjoying being together for the week.
So quickly, Dallas and the following worked on Third this weekend:
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),
Trina of Trina's Kitchen
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And here's what we came up with:
Truest statement of the week
A note to our readers
Editorial: When you've got nothing to sell, attack...
TV: He puts the cess in cesspool
Idiot of the Week
Hate Speech Radio (Ava and C.I.)
The Proposal as a feminist statement
Roundtable
How to ensure that your party is seen as a joke
Week three
Why the left shouldn't recruit right wingers
Highlights
And that's it because everyone's getting ready to go. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, August 9, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, rumors swirl that Nouri in bed with the Righteous League, details of assassination attempt on Nouri emerge, a plea for Camp Ashraf and more.
Bombings rock Iraq today with mass fatalities in Baghdad and just outside Mosul. Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) report that Khazna, outside Mosul, houses a population of approximately 500, at least 35 of which died today, with many being Shabaks. The reporters label them Shi'ites which is what most Shabak's self-identify as; however, the Shabaks have affinities with Kurds as a result of campaigns against them during Saddam Hussein's reign including the Al-Anfal Campaign. The United Nations funded Aswat al-Iraq reported in November last year on the Shabak protest in Ninewa ("hundreds of Shabak people") "calling to incorporate them into the Kurdistan region on the basis that they are Kurds, not Arabs." Shabaks live in over 30 villages in northern Iraq and practice a religion which blends Islam, Christianity and other faiths. Londono and Mizher note comments from Sunni officials (blaming the Kurds for the bombings) which may strike some as rather insulting since the Sunnis have been accused of committing genocide against the Shabaks -- Sunni groups in the region have claimed credit for multiple beheadings of Shabaks and threats aimed at them (leading some Shabaks to become external refugees). Sam Dagher (New York Times) labels this bombing "the most devastating attack" today: "a pair of large flatbed trucks packed with bombs exploded simultaneously shortly after dawn". Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) states of the bombs, "They left huge craters and levelled 35 homes. More than 130 people were injured, out of a village population of 3,000." Mujahid Mohammed (AFP) quotes nurse and eye witness Falah Ridha stating, "Eleven people in my family were killed when their house collapsed. All of them woke up after the first bomb, but the second bomb was very close to my house, it was like an earthquake. No one else escaped, just me." Jamal al-Badrani, Mohammed Abbas, Muhanad Mohammed, Waleed Ibrahim, Yara Bayoumy and Jon Boyle (Reuters) quote survivor Umm Qasim asking, "What have we done for terrorists to kill innocents in their sleep?" The reporters note she was "covered in blood . . . holding her wounded son. The bodies of four relatives, including her husband and sister, lay nearby." England's ITN adds, "Police say the death toll could rise further because people are buried under the rubble of their own homes." BBC News has a photo essay of the aftermath. UK's Channel 4 News (link has text and video) notes today's violence is "raising fears of a return to sectarian violence."
Jonathan Rugman: The plains beneath the Kurdish mountains are becoming Iraq's most dangerous region. Two truck bombs exploding east of the city of Mosul today, destroying scores of homes. 30 dead and over 150 wounded. This crater destroying an entire Shi'ite village. All this after a similar attack on local Shi'ites killed 37 only last Friday. The pattern emerging here is one of minorities being deliberately targeted in the north of Iraq. A foretaste perhaps of a long feared Kurdish-Arab civil war.
Mark Kattuner (Minority Rights Group International): Well I think through most of Iraq, including from Baghdad, the Americans have withdrawn from patrolling the cities. But in Mosul they're still patrolling in cooperation with the Iraqi army because they realize just how dangerous the situation is. The city is still contested. In particular, the land all around it in the Nineveh Plain is contested between Kurds and Arabs. And therefore everything that's happened in the last month hasn't happened just because the Americans have left. It's happened while they are still there. And it shows that they are incapable of protecting the minority communities on the ground.
AGI states the population is "mainly . . . Shia Muslims" with Shabaks a secondary population and they state the target most likely was a mosque. The village was not only area rocked by bombings. Ann Barker (Australian Network News) notes, "In Baghdad two car bombs targeting labourers killed 16 people and wounded 81 in another Shi'ite area in the city's southwest." Sam Dagher (New York Times) notes two of the Baghdad bombings "struck lines of workers who had gathered to look for jobs as day laborers, one in the Amil district, the other in Shurta al-Rabiaa, both of which are mainly Shiite areas." with the first blast claiming 7 lives and leaving forty-six injured and the second blast claiming 9 lives and leaving thrity-five injured. Eye withness Jabir Abid tells Laith Hammoudi and Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers), "A big ball of fire went up in the air, and there was a very big bang. Suddenly, I couldn't see anything because a black cloud of smoke covered everything." Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that in addition to those two Baghdad car bombings, Baghdad was rocked by seven roadside bombings resulting 2 deaths and nineteen people injured, while a Baghdad sticky bombing on a mini bus resulted in 1 death (the driver) and three injuries, a third Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and wounded eighteen and a Tikrit bombing claimed the lives of 2 "little brothers" while 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters adds a Mosul home invasion resulted in the death of 1 woman and a man being wounded.
Today's violence follows weekend reports of 8 deaths and seventeen injured in violence and, as noted already, Friday's Mosul bombing which claimed at least 38 lives and left two-hundred and seventy-six people injured while other reported violence on Friday resulted in 15 deaths and 58. Adding all of the deaths reported on Friday and since together results in 124 dead and 624 injured. Interestingly, today's fatalities is approximately the same number as Friday's and the wounded toll on both days is also similar. BBC News reports, "The BBC's Natalia Antelava in Baghdad says the Iraqi government is keen to show its troops are fully in control and capable of doing their job without the help of US forces." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) refers to Nouri speaking to "a gathering of Iraqi security commanders" today and repeating his b.s. about the "coming election" (scheduled for January); however, I've got two reporters telling me on the phones that Nouri was speaking live on Iraqi state television, hence to the Iraqi people and not just to security commander. Arraf does a good job of describing the Shabak's (better than I did above) and she also notes that the Sunni Arab governor is blaming the pesh merga for the attacks if only in a 'they failed' kind of way which, naturally, leads him to just happen to suggest/insist that the Iraqi military should control the area. This is a disputed region and, again, the Shabaks have publicly demonstrated to be part of the Kurdistan Region. Apparently the Shabaks aren't people, they are a political football (or cannon fodder) to be used to win territory. While some attempt to use the violence to secure land, Ali Sheikholeslami (Bloomberg News) notes that there has been "no immediate statement of responsibility for the blasts". Minority Rights Group International issues a statement on the violence which quotes Mark Lattimer (noted earlier in the snapshot) stating, "The bombings of minority communities near Mosul and Kirkuk are more than just an expression of religious hatred. They are a deliberate attempt to grab control over contested territory in northern Iraq by puhsing out the minorities who live there." CNN reports that Iraq's Interior Ministry, via their spokesperson, is going with the blanket culprit: al Qaeda in Iraq.
Yesterday an Australian contractor (Darren Hoare) and a British contractor (Paul McGuigan) were shot dead in the Green Zone and, in the incident, an unidentified Iraq was injured with British contractor Danny Fitzsimons arrested in the shootings. The two deaths and the wounded Iraqi are included in the earlier count of deaths and injuries in the last four days, FYI. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) speaks with a spokesperson for Iraq's Internation Ministry, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who "said Fitzsimons got into a dispute with colleagues as they were drinking. 'They got into an argument and he started shooting his colleagues,' Khalaf said." The Minneapolis Star-Tribune features a news round up which quotes an Iraqi military spoksesperson, Qassim al-Moussawi, insisting the incident "started as a squabble. The subject is facing a premeditated murder charge." Oliver August (Times of London) reports that British contractor "fled the scene with a pistol, was held after a shootout and handed to Iraqi police." (He was held by US troops who turned him over to the Iraqi police.) August speaks with an unnamed witnesses who sketches out the contractors all drinking and getting into a skirmish which turned increasing violent. At some point, August says 4:00 a.m., the not so surprising feature to a drunken, aggressive squabble among armed people took place: Fitzsimons pulled out a gun and waived it around. Iraqis have mentioned execution. Jay Price (Raleigh News & Observer) adds, "According to AP, the gunman could be the first Westerner tried for murder under Iraqi law since an agreement that took effect Jan. 1 between the U.S. and Iraq ending the immunity Western contractors had enjoyed since not long after the war began in 2003." August files a report where he focuses just on the drinking and the skirmish and contains more details from eye witnesses with Fitzsimons allegedly waiving the pistol and others attempting to disarm him when, apparently, the shooting began. August adds, "Consular officials from the British Embassy have visited Mr Fitzsimmons, as well as a second British national, believed to be another ArmorGroup employee, who was being held there but not considered a suspect and has now been released." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) offers a commentary which includes, "It is also a huge embarrassment for Britain at a time when Gordon Brown is still waiting for the Iraqi parliament to ratify a new security agreement between the two countries -- somethign that should have happened by the end of May but is unlikely to take place until autumn at the earliest. The arrest comes at a time when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is trying to secure the release of three remaining British hostages in Iraq, two of whom are thought to be dead." We'll drop back to the August 6th snapshot for background on the British hostages:
Jason Swindlehurst, Jason Creswell, Alec Maclachlan, Alan McMenemy and Peter Moore, all British citizens, were kidnapped in Baghdad May 29, 2007. Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell were dead when their bodies were turned over to the British authorities after the two leaders of the group bragging about having done the kidnappings were released from US custody. (The same group, and why the brothers had been imprisoned originally by the US, bragged about their actions in assaulting a US base and killing 5 American soldiers.) The British government considers Alec and Alan to be dead (the families remain hopeful) and it is thought (by the British government) that Peter Moore is alive. The group taking credit for the kidnappings and for the deaths of 5 US soldiers is alternately called the Righteous League or the League of Righteous by the press. The press? They got press this week, see Monday's snapshot, because Nouri met with them to bring them back into the government. As noted in the Tuesday snapshot, the press spin that the group has given up violence is false. Their spokesperson says they will not attack Iraqis but that they will continue to go after US service members.
Now, for the 5 US soldiers killed by the Righteous League (they've claimed credit for the assualt) we'll drop back to the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
So we should all be on the same page: The League of Righteous has claimed credit for the deaths of 5 US soldiers and credit for kidnapping 5 British citizens, at least 2 of whom are known to be dead. In addition, British outlets noted last month that the Iraqi government appeared to be involved in the kidnappings (see the July 31st snapshot if you're late on this story). Gareth Porter (Asia Times) is reporting that recent developments demonstrate how Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation and US-installed thug, has long been working with the League of Righteous:
The history of the new agreement confirms what was evident from existing information: the League of the Righteous was actually the underground wing of the Mahdi Army all along, and the Sadrist insurgents were secretly working closely with the Maliki regime against the Americans and the British - even as it was at war with armed elements within the regime. The contradictory nature of the relationship between Maliki and the Sadrists reflects the tensions between pro-Sadrist elements within the regime - including Maliki's Da'wa Party - and the anti-Sadrist elements led by the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The relationship between Maliki and the US was also marked by contradictions. Even though he was ostensibly cooperating with the US against the Sadrists in 2007 and 2008, the Maliki regime was also cooperating secretly with the Sadrist forces against the Americans. And Maliki - with the encouragement of Iran -- was working on a strategy for achieving the complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq through diplomatic means, which he did not reveal to the Americans until summer 2008.
What Gareth Porter is reporting is something news outlets in England and the US should be digging into because, if true, it's a huge slap in the face to both countries. Meanwhile in non-surprising (but non-reported) news, Rahmat al-Salaam (Ashraq Alawsat) reports thug Nouri was targeted by "a member of his own security protection team
Meanwhile NPR's Deborah Amos recently returned to Iraq and shares her observations which include this on Baghdad: "The blast walls -- tall, gray barriers that surround most neighborhoods -- make the city unrecognizable. I had read about these ugly concrete ravines, but it is still shocking to see the magnitude of the divisions in Baghdad. How long will it take to dismantle walls that saved lives but divided the population? Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged to remove Baghdad's concrete maze over the next 40 days, which means the city would be transformed by the end of the holy month of Ramadan. Can he move that much concrete in 40 days? Is this a reckless campaign pledge when civilians are still a target for random bombs?" Amos also notes the Sunni-Shi'ite divide has not vanished and fears remain of more 'ethnice violence' (genocide). FYI, Sam Dagher (New York Times) reported that "most" of the walls will be removed in 40 days -- not all.
July 28th there was a bank heist resulting in the death of at least 8 guards and, it turned out, the robbers were guards for Iraq's Shi'ite vice president. What's taken place since have been efforts to appease thug v.p. Adel Abdul-Mahdi. The Iraqi police has had to negotiate the story with Adel and that includes frequently lying in print that it was the 'tremendous' help of Adel which allowed the bank robbers to be caught. (An improvement over Adel's original demand which was the press lie that only one of his guards were involved in the robbery.) Iraqi journalist Ahmad Abdul Hussein published an article entitled "8000 blankets" in Al Sabah which dealt with allegations about the robbery and deal with bribery during the January provincial elections and that the lawsuit could have been to raise cash to influence the elections scheduled for January 2010 -- a lawsuit is now filed against the paper. Alsumaria reports a demonstration is scheduled this Friday in Baghdad "in defense of press freedom which was most damaged by the aftereffects of Rafidain's Bank heist in Al Karrada. The protest is due on Friday at 10:30 in the morning in Al Mutannabi Street carried out by the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory in cooperation with other parties to respond to Jalal Eddin Saghir, a leader in Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council who called in his Friday sermon to sue Al Sabah Newspaper on account of the "8000 blankets" article." Ammar Karim (AFP) reports that Al Sabah editorialized on the matter yesterday with a call for people such as Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini to step in and defuse the remarks of Jalal Eddin Saghir, a member of the v.p.'s political party: "The language that Saghir used was full of insults and incitements against Al-Sabah newspaper, its editors and one of its reporters. This is not how Islamic discourse should be."
David Morgan and Jackie Frank (Reuters) note Camp Ashraf: "Human rights lawyers from the International Committee of Jurists in Defense of Ashraf advocacy group accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of ignoring Baghdad's assurances to Washington that camp residents would be treated humanely." They're asking that the US take control of Camp Ashraf to protect the residents who have been under assault from Nouri's security forces.
Meanwhile three Kurdistan provinces held elections last month. The final, official count for the Kurdistan regional elections have been released. From the KRG:Electoral Commission announces final results of Kurdistan Region elections Erbil, Kurdistan -- Iraq (KRG.org) -- The Independent High Electoral Commission of Iraq (IHEC) released the final results of the Kurdistan Region presidential and parliamentary elections yesterday - 7 August 2009. A total of 1,819,652 individuals, about 80 per cent of eligible voters, participated in the election. The results are as follows. Presidential election: Masoud Barzani, 1266397 votes – 69.6% (winner) Kamal Mirawdly, 460323 votes – 25.3% Hallo Ibrahim Ahmed, 63377 votes – 3.5% Ahmed Muhammad Nabi, 18890 votes – 1% Husain Garmiyan 10665, votes – 0.6% Parliamentary election: Kurdistan List, 1076370 votes, 59 parliamentary seats Change List, 445024 votes, 25 parliamentary seats Reform and Services List, 240842 votes, 13 parliamentary seats Islamic Movement, 27147 votes, 2 parliamentary seats Freedom and Social Justice, 15028 votes, 1 parliamentary seat Parliamentary Seats reserved for minority groups: Turkoman Democratic Movement, 18464 votes, 3 parliamentary seats Turkoman Reform List, 7077 votes, 1 parliamentary seat Turkoman Erbil List, 3906 votes, 1 parliamentary seat Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council, 10595 votes, 3 parliamentary seats Al-Rafidain List, 5690 votes, 2 parliamentary seats Aram Shahin Dawood Bakoyian, 4198 votes, 1 parliamentary seat
Saturday Nancy Dickeman wrote the New York Times about their article on Col Timothy Reese's memo recommending all US forces leave Iraq by the end of 2010 ("Declare Victory and Depart Iraq, U.S. Adviser Says," by Michael Gordon) and she observes, "We are not merely guests overstaying a welcome, but are invaders and occupiers. It is time to act upon the inescapable truth that Iraq -- its people, desert, rivers, cities, farms and oil beneath the sand -- are not ours to cliam or control. It takes our going home to give Iraq back to the Iraqis." The New Jersey Star-Ledger editorializes "Iraq War: Declare victory and leave:"
Reese offers a realistic perspective of where we find ourselves now: "Our operations are in support of an Iraqi government that no longer relishes our help while at the same time our operations generate the extremist opposition to us as various groups jockey for power in post-occupation Iraq.The U.S. military, he says, is now the subject of attacks meant not to drive us out of Iraq but as "messages sent by various groups as part of the political struggle for power in Iraq." In Reese's sober assessment, there's no point in staying in Iraq just to get stuck in the middle of yet another struggle for power. The removal of combat troops could begin immediately and be completed by this time next summer, he suggests. That move might actually improve our standing with the Iraqi government and, perhaps more important, save us "blood and treasure," he writes. Back in 2003, we seemed to have an infinite amount of both, but that has also changed in the intervening six years. Reese's report has no status as policy and the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, has rejected it. The counter-argument centers largely on our role in preventing a resumption of the various feuds among the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurds that could erupt in our absence. But those feuds might still erupt in future years. And in any case, preventing those feuds was not among the goals of the original invasion. Those goals, or at least those stated for public consumption, were removing Saddam Hussein and creating an opportunity for free elections. Done. And done. As for babysitting the Iraqis for the foreseeable future, that was not a goal. The sooner they are left to their own devices, the better for America.
That's not a left view for withdrawal, but it's an argument for withdrawal and it's one that Ava and I noted two Sundays ago and pointed out that this is the time when withdrawal for Iraq is truly not a left issue. It has a broad base of support that goes beyond the left and beyond people from the right and center who are embarrassed that they supported the illegal war. If there was a functioning peace movement in this country that would be built upon because this a tremendous moment but it's not even being noted, it's not even being addressed. Col Timothy Reese's memo is reaching beyond the left -- actually the left outlets have largely ignored it. Which is a point that Tim McGirk (Time magazine) also notices:
That question isn't being asked only by liberal anti-war opinion-makers. It has also been raised by a growing number of senior officials in Washington and U.S. commanders in Iraq. An internal memo drafted by Col. Timothy Reese, an adviser to the Iraqi senior military command, and leaked to the New York Times last month, doesn't mince words. He writes that it is time "for the U.S. to declare victory and bring our combat forces home."
The gist of the colonel's argument is that there is nothing significant that a continued U.S. military presence can do to improve either the delivery of "essential services" to Iraqis, or the ability and inclination of Maliki's sloppy and quarrelsome Shi'ite-dominated government to reconcile with the Sunnis and Kurds.
In fact, there are a growing number of warning signs that the Iraqi government is no longer under the sway of their American forces that brought it into being. Reese notes a "sudden coolness" being displayed by Iraqi commanders towards their American counterparts after June 30, the date on which the Status of Forces Agreement concluded between Baghdad and Washington last December required that U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq's towns and cities. Following that date, suspects detained by U.S. soldiers were freed by Iraqis. And the Iraqi government openly disdained the recent offer by Vice-President Joe Biden, during a visit to Baghdad, to help mediate in its conflicts with Kurds and Sunnis. Top military adviser Reese likened the relationship between Iraqi and U.S. soldiers to "a father teaching his kid to ride a bike without training wheels, " explaining: "Our hand on the back of the (Iraqis') seat is holding them back and causing resentment. We need to let go before we both tumble to the ground."
One of the few genuine voices against the Iraq War (as opposed to the faux 'anti-warriors') is Chris Hedges and (link goes to Dandelion Salad) he notes that nothing has changed under Barack, the US "killas as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush." He notes a great deal more than that and we'll include him in an entry tomorrow morning; however, the point of noting that is the Barack supporters were fooled the same way Bush supporters were. I belive they call that "common ground." A peace movement dedicated to ending the unpopular and illegal war could really accomplish something now. If it existed.
Finally Chris Johnson and Lou Chibbarro Jr. (Washington Blade) report on a fundraiser for Iraq's LGBT community which became the staging area for a number of allegations:A fundraising event to benefit an LGBT community center in Lebanon last week took a surprise turn when stunned audience members were shown graphic photographs of beheaded corpses and images purportedly depicting U.S. soldiers preparing to execute gay Iraqis.Two gay Iraqi refugees, who declined to use their real names, delivered a presentation at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters July 24 in which they detailed alleged abuses of fellow gay Iraqis while calling on their audience to donate funds to Helem, a Lebanon-based center that works to address the plight of LGBT people in the Middle East.One of the Iraqis, who goes by the name "Hussam," showed the audience of about 80 people gruesome images, including shots allegedly of a beheaded man who was gay and another of the victim's twin brother grieving over the severed head.While asserting that anti-gay violence in Iraq is often committed by Iraqis, Hussam also said U.S. service members were involved in anti-gay hostility. For example, he said service members displayed signs in front of their barracks with the words "F**k Off F**s."But the reaction from the audience turned from anger to shock when Hussam said U.S. service members had detained Iraqi civilians perceived to be gay and executed them.
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 endsthe world today just nuts
iraq
the washington posternesto londono
qais mizherthe new york timessam dagher
jane arraf
mcclatchy newspapersadam ashtonlaith hammoudi
sahar issa
the times of londonoliver augustdeborah haynes
the new york timesrod nordlandjay price
npr
deborah amosjonathan rugman
gareth porter
the washington bladechris johnsonlou chibbarro jr.
chris hedges
Friday, August 07, 2009
Iraq
Friday!!!! :D We're in California for two weeks. It's really nice weather and it's fun, of course, to be around everybody.
This is from Free Speech Radio News today:
Bombings kill at least 36 in Iraq
A string of attacks in Baghdad, and a bombing in Mosul have left 36 dead and more than 100 injured. The attacks seemed to primarily target Shiites heading to or from Friday services; 3 roadside bombs hit vans carrying religious pilgrims, and the largest, a bomb in Mosul, was outside a Shiite mosque. Last Friday, several bomb attacks targeting Shiite Mosques killed at least 29 people.
The Iraq War is not over. Anyone saying it is would be a liar.
But isn't it amazing how the coverage vanished? Just disappeared completely. The Iraq War goes on every day, six years and counting. And the news media treats it as though it ended, ignores it and, every few days, offers a headline and nothing else.
It's disgusting.
And we take it. We accept it. We go along with it without even complaining.
If Bush were still in office, we'd be screaming our heads off.
If Bush were still in office, we'd be offended by the 'plan'.
That's not speculation. Barack's operating under the Status Of Forces Agreement. That's his Iraq War 'plan.' That's the SOFA Bush rammed through.
Barack's plan is to follow exactly what Bush was doing.
When Bush did it, we were appalled. But Barack does the same thing and suddenly it's okay.
Sunday, Ava and C.I. will do a take down on Kris Welch most likely. Betty's blogging about the awful show and she mentioned it to Ava and C.I. who are listening to it right now (and watching a TV news show), making notes and prepping the framework for a piece.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, August 7, 2009. Chaos and violence, continue, at least 69 are dead and 198 injured in today's violence, Nouri offers more nonsense, the US administration has no clues on Iraq and neither does the press assigned to cover them, and more.
Three US citizens were allegedly hiking and allegedly crossed from Iraq into Iran and are now -- the only point of the story which doesn't require "allegedly" -- being held by Iran. The issue was raised on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, where Diane was joined by McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef, Foreign Policy's Susan Glasser and National Journal's James Kitfield.
Diane Rehm: And what about the three Americans who were arrested for apparently crossing the border from Iraq into Iran, Nancy?
Nancy Youssef: That's right, that's right. These are three hikers in Iraq in Kurdistan who somehow crossed the border and we learned this week and again there's a question of what their fate is and what-what --
Diane Rehm: But they were warned. That's what bothers me. They were warned by Iraqis that they were getting close to the border.
James Kitfield: Can we -- can we put out an all points bulletin now: "Please American hikers don't go into the Kurdistan mountains near the border with Iran because that's not helpful. It's not helpful to you and it's not helpful to our diplomacy with Iran."?
Susan Glasser: And it's not helpful to Iraq which is so trying to change its image and saying that this is a place you can come to and this is a safe place and trying to revamp it's image and, um, this does not help it.
Diane Rehm: So what happens next or is there some ongoing communication, Susan?
Susan Glasser: Well, I think, unlike in dealing with North Korea, there is a much more established, you know, track record of Americans being able to engage with Iran through back channels. Europeans, of course, several countries actually have relations with Iran. So, you know, there's a much more filled out relationship that's ongoing even in times of stress than with North Korea for example. One question and I didn't see what the follow up was, I think these hikers actually were still being kept in Iranian Kurdistan which probably bodes well for their fate. You know, if they're trucked all the way to Tehran --
Diane Rehm: I see.
Susan Glasser: -- and they're put on trial as spies and that sort of thing, then they're going to -- you might need another President Clinton mission at that point to get them out. If it remains at that level, I think you're dealing with something, once the Iranians verify these do indeed seem to be semi-clueless students who were language students in the region in Syria, at least, a couple of them were. So perhaps they can still be handled at the level of clueless interlopers.
James Kitfield: History suggest they'll use them as pawns in whatever game in whatever diplomatic game they decide to play with us and eventually let them go. What-what I will say about this is interesting to me right now is that the clocks that are ticking on the Iran issue are almost out of sync. We -- Obama has set for next month, as a deadline for Iran to-to-to respond to his offer of engagement. A lot of people are saying we should have a tactical policy because you don't want to be engaging with a regime that's lost significant legitimacy because of these elections. On the other hand, the Israelis who are trying to sort of push them to peace negotiations are saying "You have got to at least put a deadline on your dealings with Iran and your sanctions because we think they're going to get the bomb sometime in the next year to sixteen months." So it's very difficult right now this-this problem, these internal problems with Iran, although interesting have really sort of skewed the diplomatic schedule that Obama has set for Iran and it's difficult to know how you put it back in sync.
We'll come back to that program in a bit but that is covering what's known about the three Americans. And it is, as serious news consumers know, The Diane Rehm Show that you count on to provide you information about Iraq. Each Friday, there's a strong chance it will be addressed in the second hour of the program (the international hour). (In addition, Iraq was touched on by the increasingly flaky Senator Barbara Boxer on Wednesday's program and it was addressed in much more depth by Diane and her guest Anthony Zinni on Thursday's program.) These are discussions, not 15 second headlines. And that needs to be pointed out because Pacifica can't do a damn thing on Iraq as is most obvious with Democracy Now! where Goodman wastes one hour after another each day. Camilo Mejia is on (this week) and maybe we'll get to hear about Iraq? Hear about Iraq? Goodman doesn't even know he's the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Camilo has to correct on air. That's how pathetic and uninformed she is. Because one of the American citizens is a 'journalist' who filed a 'report' on Iraq six months ago for her program, Goodman re-airs that today. And that's supposed to thrill us all. Hey, maybe if Dahr gets detained, she can re-air one of his segments -- though she'd have dip back very far because she hasn't had Dahr on in forever, despite the fact that he's just released a new book. (We'll be noting Dahr's book later in the snapshot.) It's embarrassing and it's shameful and she, not Diane Rehm, claims to go "where the silences are." She, not Diane Rehm, rests her reputation -- in every public appearance -- on her supposed Iraq reporting. When it's time to beg for more money, she's on air reminding people that she did this on Iraq or that and my goodness what about the New York Times' Judith Miller????? It's about time someone told her she looks cheap, disgusting and flithy as she falsely uses the Iraq War to raise money for her increasingly useless program. If you're a serious news consumer considering making a donation to public radio before the end of the year, make a point to remember that it has been The Diane Rehm Show in 2009 which has regularly covered Iraq. Don't buy Amy's self-hype and self-promotion and posing. She's done nothing. So if you do have it to spare before the end of the year and you're wanting to donate to public radio, remember Diane Rehm's the only one who regularly covers the ongoing war.
Today Iraq was rocked by violence. Getting the most attention was a bombing outside of Mosul, targeting a mosque, in which Reuters counts at least 38 dead and and at least one-hundred-and-forty injured. (Despite that and despite the fact that the bombing was known early this morning, Amy Goodman didn't even include it in headlines. Typical.) Sam Dagher (New York Times) informs the bombing utilized 1 Kia truck with reports conflicting over whether it was parked or "was driven by a suicide bomber". Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) report, "The massive bomb exploded as worshipers were leaving the mosque in the village of Shraikan after attending Friday prayers, officials said. The bombing, which demolished 10 nearby homes, is certain to raise tensions between Kurds, who control the area, and the Sunni Arab administration of Ninevah province, of which Mosul is the capital." Ernesto Londono and Dlovan Brwari (Washington Post) add, "Zuhair Muhsan Mohammed, the mayor of Mosul, said many people at the mosque were attending a funeral when the bombing occurred. He said the assailant, driving a Kia truck, got through a checkpoint by telling guards he was there to pay condolences to the dead person's relatives." They quote eye witness Hussein Abbas Farhat stating, "I was screaming, but I couldn'te ven hear myself scream." CNN provides this context, "Friday was the end of a Shiite Muslim celebration in Karbala celebrating the birthday of Imam al-Mahdi, the last of 12 historic imams revered by Shiites. Pilgrims participating in such celebrations have been the target of similar attacks by Sunni Muslims."
Turning ot some of the other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Baghdad roadside bombings which claimed 8 lives and left twenty-four injured, a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 6 lives (three were police officers) and left thirty wounded and a Mosul bombing attack on the home of a Christian family in which two women were wounded. (Some press reports say the Baghdad car bombing was a motorcycle bombing.)
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul, an attack on a Mosul checkpoint in which 2 police officers were killed, 1 woman shot dead on the street in Mosul, a Mosul home invasion in which 1 man was shot dead (silencers used on the guns) and a Sulaimaniyah Province checkpoint was attacked resulting in the death of 1 police officer and two more being wounded.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 1 corpse ("half-burnt") discovered in Kirkuk.
A huge day of violence in Iraq and yet the US State Dept didn't even mention the country during their press briefing and the reporters assigned to cover the State Dept didn't bother to ask. It was the same way at the White House where plus-size spokesmodel Robert Gibbs held court and avoided Iraq -- as you would if you weren't interested in ending the illegal war even though the man you work for promised to do that while campaigning -- and the press wasn't interested. Not only that, but Robert Gibbs, with no objections from the press, defined what he considered the legitmate scope of discussion for the press, "I think continuing to discuss the issues that are important -- ranging from health care to the economy to the war in Afghanistan -- I think those are things that are of great interest to the American people." Iraq was not mentioned. For those idiots who don't grasp it, the US military has approximately 130,000 troops stationed on the ground in Iraq. That's more than were present in Iraq before Bully Boy Bush began his 2007 'surge.' The numbers have still not gone down and Barack's now occupied the White House for over six months -- the man who promised one brigade out of Iraq each month if he was elected.
Those paying attention to reporting this week grasped that the Iraq War has not ended. Scott Fontaine (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) explains approximately "75 members of Fort Lewis' 602nd Forward Support Company" are receiving welding courses in prep for their deployment to Iraq. Writing for the Albany Democrat-Herald, US Spc Cory Grogan reports:"Soldiers from the Oregon Army National Guard's 2-218 Field Artillery's First Platoon, 2nd Squad were reminded that Iraq is still a combat zone when they were struck by two separate improvised explosive devices last week." Monica Hernandez (Jackson, MS' WLBT -- link has text and video) reports on 170 members of the 114th military police command that is deploying to Iraq. Ruth Ingram (The Clinton News) reports on the departure ceremony, "The ceremony, moved from Arrow Field inside to the auditorium after clouds grew gray, attracted at least 1,000 supporters and family. The 750-seat room was filled; family and friends lined the walls, sat on steps to the stage, and even had to watch from outside the room." Erin Toner (WUWM, link has text and audio) reports on Russell Seager of the VA Medical Center in Milwaukee, a 51-year-old nurse who is deploying to Iraq. Henry Cunningham (Fayetteville Observer) reports, "About 3,500 soldiers of the 1st Brigade Combat Team have begun departing for a year in Iraq to advise and assist local security forces, the commander said Thursday." Conan Gasque (News 14, link has text and video) reports they'll be in Anbar and quotes Col Mark Stammer stating what everyone but members of the US Congress should grasp, "It's still a dangerous place down there." Also deploying to Iraq is San Diego's 10News' Angele Ringo who has already done one tour of Iraq. Yet Kimberly Page (WALB) reports that US House Rep Sanford Bishop just completed a for-show walk-around in Iraq and issuing laughable statements such as, "Things seem to be going very, very well. In fact, better than expected." He's claiming there's 'progress' and he's pleased with the 'withdrawal' thus far and generally making the sort of ass out of himself that the country regularly saw Republicans do under Bush. Putting the Democrats in power did not end the illegal war. Cindy Sheehan's latest column walks you through what could have been if the Democrats really wanted to end the Iraq War, or prosecute torture or shut down Guantanamo, Bagram and all the secret black ops sites. They were given the power in the 2006 mid-term elections (filibuster meant they always had the power to end the illegal war, even prior to 2006). They have control of both houses of Congress now and the White House and the Iraq War continues. Cindy Sheehan notes, "I see signs of this country coming out of the 'Hope'-nosis of Obama as positive change is not even in the forecast but the reawakening is not happening fast enough and we really need everyone to walk towards the light of truth and peace if we ever want to see any of my dreams become reality!"
Iraq events were explored on today's Diane Rehm Show:
Diane Rehm: James, tell me how we're doing with Iraq, after the US troop withdrawal from cities and towns?
James Kitfield: Well, you know, it's- it's a mixed bag. But I'll tell you there's a lot of concern on the American side that -- that we have Iraqi elections coming up for the prime minister next January and there's a lot of concern that Maliki, Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki is doing a lot of things to rush -- sort of putting Americans in the background because it plays really well politically. He's removing all the blast areas from Baghdad. [Kitfield means the blast walls, also known as Bremer Walls.] I can tell you, there's a lot of concern that that will lead to a renewal of these suicide bombs in the market places and those barriers do a couple of things for you. They keep the blast contained but they also make it hard for the bombers to-to escape, they make it hard for -- and they make it easy for people to regulate who comes through the main parts of the city. So it will be great if it works and there's not a whole lot of violence but there's concern that will lead to violence. There's concern also that he's taken all American checkpoints out of the Green Zone. He's basically taken -- the Green Zone is now all policed by the Iraqis themselves and the Americans are pretty much consigned to their embassy in the Green Zone.
Diane Rehm: And tensions with the Kurds, Nancy?
Nancy Youssef: That's right he went up to Kurdistan, met with [President Masoud] Barzani who just won his re-election there and this effort to reach out and deal with what the Americans say are the most divisive and long term issues facing Iraq: What to do with Kurdistan -- the autonomous region there, what to do with Kirkuk, the distribution of oil revenues? These are critical issues that frankly I think most people don't think can be resolved by the time the US troops withdraw by the end of 2011. And I think there's an effort and pressure on Maliki to get started on that now because this is something that will take years and years to resolve. If I can just go back to the blast walls because I lived in Iraq and Baghdad when those walls went up and it was really painful to watch. I mean, you just, you almost cried at the sight of it because it was such a sign of defeat when you went -- everywhere you went. In the middle of areas where people prayed, these huge 20 foot high blast walls and it was one of the most depressing times in Iraq, to see them go up. And so I think James is absolutely right, I think Maliki's taking a lot of political risks but I think those symbolize defeat and violence in Iraq in a way that most things didn't in terms of people's daily life.
Diane Rehm: But -- but are you concerned as James said --
Nancy Youssef: Of course -- of course. 37 Shi'ites were killed today in Mosul and Karbala. I mean the costs of that is extremely high. I just want to point out the political costs of those blast walls. They are tremendous.
With all the problems facing Iraq, including Nouri's announcement this week that he can't pay General Electric (Con-Ed would have turned off the electricity by now), Nouri finds the time for the 'important' things: pushing an anti-smoking law. White phosphorus and 'mini-nukes' and everything else that has been used in the last six years on Iraq have created a health hazard and nicotine really is among the least of the country's worries. Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) report, "So news that the government plans to introduce a stringent, Western-style anti-smoking law has been greeted with surprise, and considerable dismay by Iraqis accustomed to lighting up wherever and whenever they choose. The draft law includes a ban on smoking in cafes, restaurants, clubs, and government and private offices, all places where life currently unfolds amid clouds of cigarette smoke. Penalties of $2,500 to $4,200 will be applied to violators." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) speaks with Iraqis one of whom, Ala al-Kanini, wants Saddam Hussein back and another, Waleed Habba, states, "We have no electricity, no jobs, people still get killed. We all have to deal with anger issues here. That's the reason people smoke here, to run away from that."
Independent journalist Dahr Jamail's latest book was just released last month month and is The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Foreign Policy In Focus offers a book excerpt and we'll note the opening of it:
The phrase "Winter Soldiers" was adopted by Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) when they organized the first Winter Soldier event in response to the human rights violations that were occurring in Vietnam. The event, called "Winter Soldier Investigation," was held in Detroit from January 31, 1971, to February 2, 1971, and was intended to publicize war crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. Armed Forces in the Vietnam War. VVAW challenged the morality and conduct of the war by exposing the direct relationship between military policies and war crimes in Vietnam. The three-day gathering of 109 veterans and 16 civilians included discharged servicemen from each branch of military service, civilian contractors, medical personnel, and academics, all of whom presented testimony about war crimes they had committed or witnessed during 1963–1970.
A smaller, modern-day incarnation of VVAW is IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), which was founded in 2004. It seeks to offer a platform to those who have served in the military since September 11, 2001, to speak out against what they see as an unjust, illegal, and unwinnable war in Iraq. At the time of this writing, IVAW had more than 1,400 members in 49 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and on military bases overseas. IVAW held a national conference called "Winter Solider: Iraq and Afghanistan" outside Washington, D.C., in March 2008. The four-day event brought together more than 200 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in both occupations. Although largely ignored by the corporate press, the event was of historical significance. For the first time since the invasion of Iraq in early 2003, former and current members of the U.S. military had organized with the specific purpose to make public the truth of their experience. It was hoped, in vain as it turned out, that the testimonies of veterans would provide the press with sufficient information to report on the truly catastrophic nature of the occupations and rouse people to take action.
At this first modern-day Winter Soldier event, I spoke with scores of veterans during breaks in the powerful panels of testimony. A constant refrain I heard was that individuals who had joined the military for honorable reasons were disillusioned upon sensing how they were being misused by the government of the country they had sworn under oath to serve and defend.
Hart Viges had felt compelled to join the U.S. Army the day after September 11, 2001, in the genuine belief that he could help make the world a safer place. Like other speakers at the Winter Soldier event, he admitted that U.S. troops routinely detained innocent people during home raids. "We never went on the right raid where we got the right house, much less the right person -- not once." He said it was common practice for troops to take photographs as war trophies. "We were driving in Baghdad one day and found a dead body on the side of the road. We pulled over to secure the area and my friends jumped off and started taking pictures with it, smiling. They asked me if I wanted to join them, and I refused. Not because it was unethical, but because it wasn't my kill. Because you shouldn't make trophies of what you didn't kill. I wasn't upset this man was dead, but just that they shouldn't be taking credit for something they didn't do. But that's war."
Ron Jacobs explores the book at Dissident Voice:
Meanwhile, the US antiwar movement founders in the wake of a substantial part of its membership giving their collective soul to the Democratic Party. Since November 2008, it's as if the bloodshed perpetrated by US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is okay because Barack Obama is leading the charge instead of George Bush. Besides the National Assembly's call for local and regional protests against the Iraq occupation and Afghan war in October, there has been barely a peep from other national antiwar organizations. This is despite the fact that Congress and Obama have approved several more billion dollars for the wars and the size of the US force in Afghanistan has nearly doubled while the promised withdrawal of US forces in Iraq has not even begun.
It is the opinion of many antiwarriors that veterans have a key role to play in any organized resistance. After all, it was their presence in the movement against the Vietnam war that shook the conscience of the US public in that war's later years. However, as Dahr Jamail and his subjects point out again and again in The Will to Resist, the strength in numbers and the political power of the GI movement against the war in Vietnam was directly related to the strength of the greater antiwar movement. So, despite the commitment of today's GI and veteran resisters profiled in Jamail's book, that commitment is limited by the weakness of the antiwar movement as a whole.
Jamail highlights the various organizations organizing GI resistance, from the Iraq Veterans Against the War to the group Courage to Resist. He also commits a chapter to each of the primary forms of resistance and reasons for that resistance. He describes instances of individual resistance and the refusal of entire units to carry out missions. He also explores the nature of the sexist culture of the military and the immorality of the wars themselves. One of the most interesting chapters in The Will to Resist is titled "Quarters of Resistance." It describes the mission and interior of a house in Washington, DC run by a couple veterans. The purpose of the house is to operate as a sort of clearinghouse for the GI resistance movement. At times, the house has provided shelter for veterans and GIs attending antiwar activities in DC. It is also a place that the founder of the house, Geoffrey Millard, calls a "training ground for resistance." In addition to these quarters, Jamail discusses the beginnings of a coffeehouse movement slowly developing outside major US military bases.
Jamal's book is also about his learning to understand and appreciate the humanity of the US soldier. Originally inclined to consider them all killers without conscience, his conversations and other interactions with the young men and women who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill in America's name have led him to understand that many of these folks struggle with their souls on a daily basis. With this growing understanding of folks who are essentially his contemporaries, The Will to Resist becomes more than just another collective biography of troops who discover their conscience under the duress of war.
Tuesday's snapshot reported on the Democratic Senate Policy Committee's hearing on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tuesday night, Kat covered it at her site and noted how the whole thing struck her as for-show. The hearing was chaired by US Senator Byron Dorgan and, in the hearing, Dorgan noted the government's inability to take accountability from time to time such as with Agent Orange or, more recently, the repeated denials about KBR's shoddy electrical work in Iraq which led to the deaths of US service members. In an update to the electrical work story, Braden Reddall and Eric Beech (Reuters) report, "The U.S. Army has found that the death of Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted while showering at a Baghdad base in January 2008, was accidental, the Defense Department said on Friday." The reporters note the May hearing of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. That's a May 20th hearing. From that day's snapshot:
"Today's hearing is a result of this committee's continuing investigation into the deaths of some US soldiers by the death of electrocution in Iraq," explained Senator Byron Dorgan who chaired this morning's Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing "Rewarding Failure: Contractor Bonuses for Faulty Work in Iraq."
Senator Byron Dorgan: That investigation has led us to internal Pentagon documents showing that in 2007 and 2008, contractor KBR received bonuses of $83.4 million for work that, according to the Pentagon's own investigation, led to the electrocution deaths of US troops. Let me repeat that: The Pentagon gave bonuses of $83.4 million to KBR for work that resulted in the electrocution deaths of American soldiers.
Dorgan spoke of Ryan Maseth, a Green Beret and Army Ranger with the rank of Staff Sgt who died in Baghdad January 2, 2008 from taking a shower in KBR's 'safe' facilities. Dorgan noted that in the July hearing, "we obtained testimony that KBR had known of this very electrocuting hazard since at least February 10, 2007, 11 months before Ryan Maseth's death. In fact, the prior occupant of Staff Sgt Maseth's room was shocked in the same room four to five times between June and October 2007, in the very same shower were Ryan was killed. According to his sworn affidavit, each time this soldier was shocked, he submitted a work order to KBR." In fact, $34.4 million of KBR's $83.4 million in bonus pay was paid after Ryan Maseth was killed by their shoddy, cheap work and the military's investigation, as Dorgan noted, now lists the death as due to negligent homicide.
That's took place in May along with much more. The Reuters' report today reduces the May hearing to basically two sentences and the excerpt above provides more context than the Reuters report which also failes to note that KBR has been found responsible for other electrical deaths in Iraq this year.
Turning to TV notes. Bill Moyers Journal begins airing tonight on most PBS stations. Hi s guests tonight are Chris Jordan and Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot. The shows head writer Michael Winship explores "Neighborhood Watch on Planet Earth:" For a bit of change, let's talk about a different kind of health care reform - the kind that affects the health of the planet. The other evening, I was listening to All Things Considered on NPR. Robert Siegel was interviewing Dr. Hal Levison, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, about the king-sized comet that slammed into Jupiter a few weeks ago. The comet's impact - it punched a hole the size of the Pacific Ocean, and would have annihilated a lesser planet, like Earth - was discovered by an amateur astronomer in Australia. Siegel asked how such an event escaped the notice of the world's great observatories. "There are only a few really large telescopes," Levison explained. "They're hard to get time on, and so they're dedicated to particular projects. And the amateurs really are the only ones that have time just to monitor things to see what's happening." "Part of the Neighborhood Watch looking out the front door," Siegel suggested.Neighborhood Watch. Dr. Levison liked that analogy and so do I. Combined with the recent passing of space enthusiast Walter Cronkite and the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, it got me thinking about the value of exploring the cosmos at a time of economic destitution on the ground and a national deficit that makes the word "astronomical" seem inadequate. As a kid, I was in thrall to the space program. Squinting into the night above rural upstate New York, my family and I sometimes could see those early, primitive satellites traverse the dark sky, and my younger brother, a skilled amateur astronomer to this day, would haul out his telescope for us to look at the craters of the moon, or Jupiter or Saturn's rings. In the auditorium of my elementary school, a modest, black and white television set was placed on the stage so we could watch the space flights of Alan Shepard and John Glenn, and for a class project in the sixth grade, I tracked the mission of astronaut Gordon Cooper, dutifully moving a tiny, construction paper space capsule across a map of the world as Cooper orbited the planet 22 times.Six years later, in 1969, we sat downstairs in the family room of our home and watched the mission of Apollo 11. I remember Cronkite's exultant, "Oh boy!" as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the lunar surface, and staying up through the night to watch the first moonwalk. (Years later, editing a TV series on the history of television, colleagues and I noted how, in his excitement, Cronkite almost talked over Armstrong's "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.") As time went by, America became blasé about space exploration. The budget for moon landings was curtailed after the first few, and flights of the space shuttle became commonplace save for the horrific, fatal explosions of Columbia and Challenger. We speak now of returning astronauts to the moon and manned missions to Mars yet efforts to do so seem half-hearted. But there can be no denying the greater understanding of the universe gained from the amazing images obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope, and data from satellites and unmanned interplanetary probes. And beyond the jokes about Tang and Velcro, NASA and the space program have generated advances in a range of technologies. Which brings us back to that notion of the Neighborhood Watch, for one of the most valuable contributions of our exploration of the skies has been the knowledge gained from being able to examine our own earthly neighborhood from the distance of space. Invaluable information is obtained from satellites monitoring weather and the damage created by drought, floods, fire, earthquakes and climate change. But that fleet is aging and few new satellites are being launched to replace them.Just a couple of weeks ago, Jane Lubchenco, the new head of the National Oceanic and Administrative Administration (NOAA), was quoted in the British newspaper The Guardian. "Our primary focus is maintaining the continuity of climate observations," she said, "and those are at great risk right now because we don't have the resources to have satellites at the ready and taking the kinds of information that we need... We are playing catch-up." The paper went on to report that, "Even before her warning, scientists were saying that America, the world's scientific superpower, was virtually blinding itself to climate change by cutting funds to the environmental satellite programmes run by the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. A report by the National Academy of Sciences this year warned that the environmental satellite network was at risk of collapse." This news comes on the heels of a NOAA report that the world's ocean surface temperature for June was the warmest on record and the release of more than a thousand spy satellite photographs of Arctic sea ice that were withheld from public view by the Bush Administration. On the morning of July 15, the National Research Council issued a report asking the Obama administration to release the pictures; the Department of the Interior declassified them just hours later. A source told the Reuters news service, "That doesn't happen every day... This is a great example of good government cooperation between the intelligence community and academia." The images are remarkable. You can see a selection of them online at http://gfl.usgs.gov/ArcticSeaIce.shtml. Arctic ice is in retreat from the shores of Barrow, Alaska, along the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and west of Canada's Northwest Territories, and from the Bering Glacier, among many other sites."The photographs demonstrate starkly how global warming is changing the Arctic," The Guardian noted. "More than a million square kilometres of sea ice - a record loss - were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year. Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery. Ice cover for 2008 was almost as bad as for 2007, and this year levels look equally sparse." One reason, of course, for the Obama White House's release of the dramatic photographs is to bolster support for the climate change bill narrowly passed by the House and now awaiting action in the Senate. The bill's a thin soup version of what many believe needs to be done. It inadequately reduces emissions, gives away permits and offsets to industry, and, as Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth recently told my colleague Bill Moyers on Bill Moyers Journal, strips away the Environmental Protection Agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But even this watered down version of the climate legislation is in jeopardy, collateral damage from the health care reform fight. "A handful of key senators on climate change are almost guaranteed to be tied up well into the fall on health care," the Web site Politico.com reports. "Democrats from the Midwest and the South are resistant to a cap-and-trade proposal. And few if any Republicans are jumping in to help push a global warming and energy initiative." If true, it's hard to imagine a bill passing before December's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. Harder still, without a law of our own, to imagine the United States being able to convince China, India and developing nations to pass climate regulations and change polluting behaviors. In other words, there goes the neighborhood. NOW on PBS rebroadcasts a show from the first of the year: Will the green energy dream come to fruition? This week NOW explores obstacles to the promise of renewables--energy generated from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, and rain. As America looks to dramatically increase its use of renewable energy, an inconvenient reality stands in the way: the need to upgrade the country's antiquated electricity grid. Part of that overhaul involves the construction of gigantic and expensive long-distance transmission lines to carry clean energy from remote sites to population centers. NOW travels to California, which has the most ambitious clean energy plan in the nation. But the state's efforts face stiff opposition from property owners and conservationists who prefer renewable energy from "local sources," such as photovoltaic rooftop solar panels. Complicating the matter are claims that the transmission lines are not actually carrying renewable energy at all, but represent a thinly-disguised strategy to stick to old energy practices. On Washington Week, Gwen sits around the table with John Harwood (New York Times), Peter Baker (New York Times) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News). Bonnie Erbe and her guests explore population growth on this week's edition of PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: The Price Of Bananas Chiquita Brands International says it paid murderous paramilitaries in Colombia to protect the lives of its employees there, but the families of civilians killed by the paramilitaries say the company is responsible for their deaths. Steve Kroft reports. Watch Video Brain Power People who are completely paralyzed due to illness or trauma are getting help communicating with a new technology that connects their brains to a computer. In the future, brain computer interface, or BCI, may restore movement to paralyzed people and allow amputees to move bionic limbs. Scott Pelley reports. Watch Video Swimming With Sharks Because tour operators use food to attract sharks for their "shark tourist" customers, critics say surfers and swimmers are in more danger now because the dangerous fish are associating humans with food. Bob Simon reports. 60 Minutes Sunday, Aug. 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
the common ills
iraq
nprthe diane rehm show
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssef
sahar issa
the new york timessam dagher
the los angeles timesliz slysaif hameed
dahr jamail
the washington posternesto londono
cindy sheehan
michael winshipbill moyers journal60 minutescbs newspbsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbs
cory groganmonica hernandezruth ingramkimberly pagehenry cunningham
This is from Free Speech Radio News today:
Bombings kill at least 36 in Iraq
A string of attacks in Baghdad, and a bombing in Mosul have left 36 dead and more than 100 injured. The attacks seemed to primarily target Shiites heading to or from Friday services; 3 roadside bombs hit vans carrying religious pilgrims, and the largest, a bomb in Mosul, was outside a Shiite mosque. Last Friday, several bomb attacks targeting Shiite Mosques killed at least 29 people.
The Iraq War is not over. Anyone saying it is would be a liar.
But isn't it amazing how the coverage vanished? Just disappeared completely. The Iraq War goes on every day, six years and counting. And the news media treats it as though it ended, ignores it and, every few days, offers a headline and nothing else.
It's disgusting.
And we take it. We accept it. We go along with it without even complaining.
If Bush were still in office, we'd be screaming our heads off.
If Bush were still in office, we'd be offended by the 'plan'.
That's not speculation. Barack's operating under the Status Of Forces Agreement. That's his Iraq War 'plan.' That's the SOFA Bush rammed through.
Barack's plan is to follow exactly what Bush was doing.
When Bush did it, we were appalled. But Barack does the same thing and suddenly it's okay.
Sunday, Ava and C.I. will do a take down on Kris Welch most likely. Betty's blogging about the awful show and she mentioned it to Ava and C.I. who are listening to it right now (and watching a TV news show), making notes and prepping the framework for a piece.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, August 7, 2009. Chaos and violence, continue, at least 69 are dead and 198 injured in today's violence, Nouri offers more nonsense, the US administration has no clues on Iraq and neither does the press assigned to cover them, and more.
Three US citizens were allegedly hiking and allegedly crossed from Iraq into Iran and are now -- the only point of the story which doesn't require "allegedly" -- being held by Iran. The issue was raised on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, where Diane was joined by McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef, Foreign Policy's Susan Glasser and National Journal's James Kitfield.
Diane Rehm: And what about the three Americans who were arrested for apparently crossing the border from Iraq into Iran, Nancy?
Nancy Youssef: That's right, that's right. These are three hikers in Iraq in Kurdistan who somehow crossed the border and we learned this week and again there's a question of what their fate is and what-what --
Diane Rehm: But they were warned. That's what bothers me. They were warned by Iraqis that they were getting close to the border.
James Kitfield: Can we -- can we put out an all points bulletin now: "Please American hikers don't go into the Kurdistan mountains near the border with Iran because that's not helpful. It's not helpful to you and it's not helpful to our diplomacy with Iran."?
Susan Glasser: And it's not helpful to Iraq which is so trying to change its image and saying that this is a place you can come to and this is a safe place and trying to revamp it's image and, um, this does not help it.
Diane Rehm: So what happens next or is there some ongoing communication, Susan?
Susan Glasser: Well, I think, unlike in dealing with North Korea, there is a much more established, you know, track record of Americans being able to engage with Iran through back channels. Europeans, of course, several countries actually have relations with Iran. So, you know, there's a much more filled out relationship that's ongoing even in times of stress than with North Korea for example. One question and I didn't see what the follow up was, I think these hikers actually were still being kept in Iranian Kurdistan which probably bodes well for their fate. You know, if they're trucked all the way to Tehran --
Diane Rehm: I see.
Susan Glasser: -- and they're put on trial as spies and that sort of thing, then they're going to -- you might need another President Clinton mission at that point to get them out. If it remains at that level, I think you're dealing with something, once the Iranians verify these do indeed seem to be semi-clueless students who were language students in the region in Syria, at least, a couple of them were. So perhaps they can still be handled at the level of clueless interlopers.
James Kitfield: History suggest they'll use them as pawns in whatever game in whatever diplomatic game they decide to play with us and eventually let them go. What-what I will say about this is interesting to me right now is that the clocks that are ticking on the Iran issue are almost out of sync. We -- Obama has set for next month, as a deadline for Iran to-to-to respond to his offer of engagement. A lot of people are saying we should have a tactical policy because you don't want to be engaging with a regime that's lost significant legitimacy because of these elections. On the other hand, the Israelis who are trying to sort of push them to peace negotiations are saying "You have got to at least put a deadline on your dealings with Iran and your sanctions because we think they're going to get the bomb sometime in the next year to sixteen months." So it's very difficult right now this-this problem, these internal problems with Iran, although interesting have really sort of skewed the diplomatic schedule that Obama has set for Iran and it's difficult to know how you put it back in sync.
We'll come back to that program in a bit but that is covering what's known about the three Americans. And it is, as serious news consumers know, The Diane Rehm Show that you count on to provide you information about Iraq. Each Friday, there's a strong chance it will be addressed in the second hour of the program (the international hour). (In addition, Iraq was touched on by the increasingly flaky Senator Barbara Boxer on Wednesday's program and it was addressed in much more depth by Diane and her guest Anthony Zinni on Thursday's program.) These are discussions, not 15 second headlines. And that needs to be pointed out because Pacifica can't do a damn thing on Iraq as is most obvious with Democracy Now! where Goodman wastes one hour after another each day. Camilo Mejia is on (this week) and maybe we'll get to hear about Iraq? Hear about Iraq? Goodman doesn't even know he's the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Camilo has to correct on air. That's how pathetic and uninformed she is. Because one of the American citizens is a 'journalist' who filed a 'report' on Iraq six months ago for her program, Goodman re-airs that today. And that's supposed to thrill us all. Hey, maybe if Dahr gets detained, she can re-air one of his segments -- though she'd have dip back very far because she hasn't had Dahr on in forever, despite the fact that he's just released a new book. (We'll be noting Dahr's book later in the snapshot.) It's embarrassing and it's shameful and she, not Diane Rehm, claims to go "where the silences are." She, not Diane Rehm, rests her reputation -- in every public appearance -- on her supposed Iraq reporting. When it's time to beg for more money, she's on air reminding people that she did this on Iraq or that and my goodness what about the New York Times' Judith Miller????? It's about time someone told her she looks cheap, disgusting and flithy as she falsely uses the Iraq War to raise money for her increasingly useless program. If you're a serious news consumer considering making a donation to public radio before the end of the year, make a point to remember that it has been The Diane Rehm Show in 2009 which has regularly covered Iraq. Don't buy Amy's self-hype and self-promotion and posing. She's done nothing. So if you do have it to spare before the end of the year and you're wanting to donate to public radio, remember Diane Rehm's the only one who regularly covers the ongoing war.
Today Iraq was rocked by violence. Getting the most attention was a bombing outside of Mosul, targeting a mosque, in which Reuters counts at least 38 dead and and at least one-hundred-and-forty injured. (Despite that and despite the fact that the bombing was known early this morning, Amy Goodman didn't even include it in headlines. Typical.) Sam Dagher (New York Times) informs the bombing utilized 1 Kia truck with reports conflicting over whether it was parked or "was driven by a suicide bomber". Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) report, "The massive bomb exploded as worshipers were leaving the mosque in the village of Shraikan after attending Friday prayers, officials said. The bombing, which demolished 10 nearby homes, is certain to raise tensions between Kurds, who control the area, and the Sunni Arab administration of Ninevah province, of which Mosul is the capital." Ernesto Londono and Dlovan Brwari (Washington Post) add, "Zuhair Muhsan Mohammed, the mayor of Mosul, said many people at the mosque were attending a funeral when the bombing occurred. He said the assailant, driving a Kia truck, got through a checkpoint by telling guards he was there to pay condolences to the dead person's relatives." They quote eye witness Hussein Abbas Farhat stating, "I was screaming, but I couldn'te ven hear myself scream." CNN provides this context, "Friday was the end of a Shiite Muslim celebration in Karbala celebrating the birthday of Imam al-Mahdi, the last of 12 historic imams revered by Shiites. Pilgrims participating in such celebrations have been the target of similar attacks by Sunni Muslims."
Turning ot some of the other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Baghdad roadside bombings which claimed 8 lives and left twenty-four injured, a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 6 lives (three were police officers) and left thirty wounded and a Mosul bombing attack on the home of a Christian family in which two women were wounded. (Some press reports say the Baghdad car bombing was a motorcycle bombing.)
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul, an attack on a Mosul checkpoint in which 2 police officers were killed, 1 woman shot dead on the street in Mosul, a Mosul home invasion in which 1 man was shot dead (silencers used on the guns) and a Sulaimaniyah Province checkpoint was attacked resulting in the death of 1 police officer and two more being wounded.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 1 corpse ("half-burnt") discovered in Kirkuk.
A huge day of violence in Iraq and yet the US State Dept didn't even mention the country during their press briefing and the reporters assigned to cover the State Dept didn't bother to ask. It was the same way at the White House where plus-size spokesmodel Robert Gibbs held court and avoided Iraq -- as you would if you weren't interested in ending the illegal war even though the man you work for promised to do that while campaigning -- and the press wasn't interested. Not only that, but Robert Gibbs, with no objections from the press, defined what he considered the legitmate scope of discussion for the press, "I think continuing to discuss the issues that are important -- ranging from health care to the economy to the war in Afghanistan -- I think those are things that are of great interest to the American people." Iraq was not mentioned. For those idiots who don't grasp it, the US military has approximately 130,000 troops stationed on the ground in Iraq. That's more than were present in Iraq before Bully Boy Bush began his 2007 'surge.' The numbers have still not gone down and Barack's now occupied the White House for over six months -- the man who promised one brigade out of Iraq each month if he was elected.
Those paying attention to reporting this week grasped that the Iraq War has not ended. Scott Fontaine (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) explains approximately "75 members of Fort Lewis' 602nd Forward Support Company" are receiving welding courses in prep for their deployment to Iraq. Writing for the Albany Democrat-Herald, US Spc Cory Grogan reports:"Soldiers from the Oregon Army National Guard's 2-218 Field Artillery's First Platoon, 2nd Squad were reminded that Iraq is still a combat zone when they were struck by two separate improvised explosive devices last week." Monica Hernandez (Jackson, MS' WLBT -- link has text and video) reports on 170 members of the 114th military police command that is deploying to Iraq. Ruth Ingram (The Clinton News) reports on the departure ceremony, "The ceremony, moved from Arrow Field inside to the auditorium after clouds grew gray, attracted at least 1,000 supporters and family. The 750-seat room was filled; family and friends lined the walls, sat on steps to the stage, and even had to watch from outside the room." Erin Toner (WUWM, link has text and audio) reports on Russell Seager of the VA Medical Center in Milwaukee, a 51-year-old nurse who is deploying to Iraq. Henry Cunningham (Fayetteville Observer) reports, "About 3,500 soldiers of the 1st Brigade Combat Team have begun departing for a year in Iraq to advise and assist local security forces, the commander said Thursday." Conan Gasque (News 14, link has text and video) reports they'll be in Anbar and quotes Col Mark Stammer stating what everyone but members of the US Congress should grasp, "It's still a dangerous place down there." Also deploying to Iraq is San Diego's 10News' Angele Ringo who has already done one tour of Iraq. Yet Kimberly Page (WALB) reports that US House Rep Sanford Bishop just completed a for-show walk-around in Iraq and issuing laughable statements such as, "Things seem to be going very, very well. In fact, better than expected." He's claiming there's 'progress' and he's pleased with the 'withdrawal' thus far and generally making the sort of ass out of himself that the country regularly saw Republicans do under Bush. Putting the Democrats in power did not end the illegal war. Cindy Sheehan's latest column walks you through what could have been if the Democrats really wanted to end the Iraq War, or prosecute torture or shut down Guantanamo, Bagram and all the secret black ops sites. They were given the power in the 2006 mid-term elections (filibuster meant they always had the power to end the illegal war, even prior to 2006). They have control of both houses of Congress now and the White House and the Iraq War continues. Cindy Sheehan notes, "I see signs of this country coming out of the 'Hope'-nosis of Obama as positive change is not even in the forecast but the reawakening is not happening fast enough and we really need everyone to walk towards the light of truth and peace if we ever want to see any of my dreams become reality!"
Iraq events were explored on today's Diane Rehm Show:
Diane Rehm: James, tell me how we're doing with Iraq, after the US troop withdrawal from cities and towns?
James Kitfield: Well, you know, it's- it's a mixed bag. But I'll tell you there's a lot of concern on the American side that -- that we have Iraqi elections coming up for the prime minister next January and there's a lot of concern that Maliki, Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki is doing a lot of things to rush -- sort of putting Americans in the background because it plays really well politically. He's removing all the blast areas from Baghdad. [Kitfield means the blast walls, also known as Bremer Walls.] I can tell you, there's a lot of concern that that will lead to a renewal of these suicide bombs in the market places and those barriers do a couple of things for you. They keep the blast contained but they also make it hard for the bombers to-to escape, they make it hard for -- and they make it easy for people to regulate who comes through the main parts of the city. So it will be great if it works and there's not a whole lot of violence but there's concern that will lead to violence. There's concern also that he's taken all American checkpoints out of the Green Zone. He's basically taken -- the Green Zone is now all policed by the Iraqis themselves and the Americans are pretty much consigned to their embassy in the Green Zone.
Diane Rehm: And tensions with the Kurds, Nancy?
Nancy Youssef: That's right he went up to Kurdistan, met with [President Masoud] Barzani who just won his re-election there and this effort to reach out and deal with what the Americans say are the most divisive and long term issues facing Iraq: What to do with Kurdistan -- the autonomous region there, what to do with Kirkuk, the distribution of oil revenues? These are critical issues that frankly I think most people don't think can be resolved by the time the US troops withdraw by the end of 2011. And I think there's an effort and pressure on Maliki to get started on that now because this is something that will take years and years to resolve. If I can just go back to the blast walls because I lived in Iraq and Baghdad when those walls went up and it was really painful to watch. I mean, you just, you almost cried at the sight of it because it was such a sign of defeat when you went -- everywhere you went. In the middle of areas where people prayed, these huge 20 foot high blast walls and it was one of the most depressing times in Iraq, to see them go up. And so I think James is absolutely right, I think Maliki's taking a lot of political risks but I think those symbolize defeat and violence in Iraq in a way that most things didn't in terms of people's daily life.
Diane Rehm: But -- but are you concerned as James said --
Nancy Youssef: Of course -- of course. 37 Shi'ites were killed today in Mosul and Karbala. I mean the costs of that is extremely high. I just want to point out the political costs of those blast walls. They are tremendous.
With all the problems facing Iraq, including Nouri's announcement this week that he can't pay General Electric (Con-Ed would have turned off the electricity by now), Nouri finds the time for the 'important' things: pushing an anti-smoking law. White phosphorus and 'mini-nukes' and everything else that has been used in the last six years on Iraq have created a health hazard and nicotine really is among the least of the country's worries. Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) report, "So news that the government plans to introduce a stringent, Western-style anti-smoking law has been greeted with surprise, and considerable dismay by Iraqis accustomed to lighting up wherever and whenever they choose. The draft law includes a ban on smoking in cafes, restaurants, clubs, and government and private offices, all places where life currently unfolds amid clouds of cigarette smoke. Penalties of $2,500 to $4,200 will be applied to violators." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) speaks with Iraqis one of whom, Ala al-Kanini, wants Saddam Hussein back and another, Waleed Habba, states, "We have no electricity, no jobs, people still get killed. We all have to deal with anger issues here. That's the reason people smoke here, to run away from that."
Independent journalist Dahr Jamail's latest book was just released last month month and is The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Foreign Policy In Focus offers a book excerpt and we'll note the opening of it:
The phrase "Winter Soldiers" was adopted by Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) when they organized the first Winter Soldier event in response to the human rights violations that were occurring in Vietnam. The event, called "Winter Soldier Investigation," was held in Detroit from January 31, 1971, to February 2, 1971, and was intended to publicize war crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. Armed Forces in the Vietnam War. VVAW challenged the morality and conduct of the war by exposing the direct relationship between military policies and war crimes in Vietnam. The three-day gathering of 109 veterans and 16 civilians included discharged servicemen from each branch of military service, civilian contractors, medical personnel, and academics, all of whom presented testimony about war crimes they had committed or witnessed during 1963–1970.
A smaller, modern-day incarnation of VVAW is IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), which was founded in 2004. It seeks to offer a platform to those who have served in the military since September 11, 2001, to speak out against what they see as an unjust, illegal, and unwinnable war in Iraq. At the time of this writing, IVAW had more than 1,400 members in 49 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and on military bases overseas. IVAW held a national conference called "Winter Solider: Iraq and Afghanistan" outside Washington, D.C., in March 2008. The four-day event brought together more than 200 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in both occupations. Although largely ignored by the corporate press, the event was of historical significance. For the first time since the invasion of Iraq in early 2003, former and current members of the U.S. military had organized with the specific purpose to make public the truth of their experience. It was hoped, in vain as it turned out, that the testimonies of veterans would provide the press with sufficient information to report on the truly catastrophic nature of the occupations and rouse people to take action.
At this first modern-day Winter Soldier event, I spoke with scores of veterans during breaks in the powerful panels of testimony. A constant refrain I heard was that individuals who had joined the military for honorable reasons were disillusioned upon sensing how they were being misused by the government of the country they had sworn under oath to serve and defend.
Hart Viges had felt compelled to join the U.S. Army the day after September 11, 2001, in the genuine belief that he could help make the world a safer place. Like other speakers at the Winter Soldier event, he admitted that U.S. troops routinely detained innocent people during home raids. "We never went on the right raid where we got the right house, much less the right person -- not once." He said it was common practice for troops to take photographs as war trophies. "We were driving in Baghdad one day and found a dead body on the side of the road. We pulled over to secure the area and my friends jumped off and started taking pictures with it, smiling. They asked me if I wanted to join them, and I refused. Not because it was unethical, but because it wasn't my kill. Because you shouldn't make trophies of what you didn't kill. I wasn't upset this man was dead, but just that they shouldn't be taking credit for something they didn't do. But that's war."
Ron Jacobs explores the book at Dissident Voice:
Meanwhile, the US antiwar movement founders in the wake of a substantial part of its membership giving their collective soul to the Democratic Party. Since November 2008, it's as if the bloodshed perpetrated by US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is okay because Barack Obama is leading the charge instead of George Bush. Besides the National Assembly's call for local and regional protests against the Iraq occupation and Afghan war in October, there has been barely a peep from other national antiwar organizations. This is despite the fact that Congress and Obama have approved several more billion dollars for the wars and the size of the US force in Afghanistan has nearly doubled while the promised withdrawal of US forces in Iraq has not even begun.
It is the opinion of many antiwarriors that veterans have a key role to play in any organized resistance. After all, it was their presence in the movement against the Vietnam war that shook the conscience of the US public in that war's later years. However, as Dahr Jamail and his subjects point out again and again in The Will to Resist, the strength in numbers and the political power of the GI movement against the war in Vietnam was directly related to the strength of the greater antiwar movement. So, despite the commitment of today's GI and veteran resisters profiled in Jamail's book, that commitment is limited by the weakness of the antiwar movement as a whole.
Jamail highlights the various organizations organizing GI resistance, from the Iraq Veterans Against the War to the group Courage to Resist. He also commits a chapter to each of the primary forms of resistance and reasons for that resistance. He describes instances of individual resistance and the refusal of entire units to carry out missions. He also explores the nature of the sexist culture of the military and the immorality of the wars themselves. One of the most interesting chapters in The Will to Resist is titled "Quarters of Resistance." It describes the mission and interior of a house in Washington, DC run by a couple veterans. The purpose of the house is to operate as a sort of clearinghouse for the GI resistance movement. At times, the house has provided shelter for veterans and GIs attending antiwar activities in DC. It is also a place that the founder of the house, Geoffrey Millard, calls a "training ground for resistance." In addition to these quarters, Jamail discusses the beginnings of a coffeehouse movement slowly developing outside major US military bases.
Jamal's book is also about his learning to understand and appreciate the humanity of the US soldier. Originally inclined to consider them all killers without conscience, his conversations and other interactions with the young men and women who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill in America's name have led him to understand that many of these folks struggle with their souls on a daily basis. With this growing understanding of folks who are essentially his contemporaries, The Will to Resist becomes more than just another collective biography of troops who discover their conscience under the duress of war.
Tuesday's snapshot reported on the Democratic Senate Policy Committee's hearing on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tuesday night, Kat covered it at her site and noted how the whole thing struck her as for-show. The hearing was chaired by US Senator Byron Dorgan and, in the hearing, Dorgan noted the government's inability to take accountability from time to time such as with Agent Orange or, more recently, the repeated denials about KBR's shoddy electrical work in Iraq which led to the deaths of US service members. In an update to the electrical work story, Braden Reddall and Eric Beech (Reuters) report, "The U.S. Army has found that the death of Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted while showering at a Baghdad base in January 2008, was accidental, the Defense Department said on Friday." The reporters note the May hearing of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. That's a May 20th hearing. From that day's snapshot:
"Today's hearing is a result of this committee's continuing investigation into the deaths of some US soldiers by the death of electrocution in Iraq," explained Senator Byron Dorgan who chaired this morning's Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing "Rewarding Failure: Contractor Bonuses for Faulty Work in Iraq."
Senator Byron Dorgan: That investigation has led us to internal Pentagon documents showing that in 2007 and 2008, contractor KBR received bonuses of $83.4 million for work that, according to the Pentagon's own investigation, led to the electrocution deaths of US troops. Let me repeat that: The Pentagon gave bonuses of $83.4 million to KBR for work that resulted in the electrocution deaths of American soldiers.
Dorgan spoke of Ryan Maseth, a Green Beret and Army Ranger with the rank of Staff Sgt who died in Baghdad January 2, 2008 from taking a shower in KBR's 'safe' facilities. Dorgan noted that in the July hearing, "we obtained testimony that KBR had known of this very electrocuting hazard since at least February 10, 2007, 11 months before Ryan Maseth's death. In fact, the prior occupant of Staff Sgt Maseth's room was shocked in the same room four to five times between June and October 2007, in the very same shower were Ryan was killed. According to his sworn affidavit, each time this soldier was shocked, he submitted a work order to KBR." In fact, $34.4 million of KBR's $83.4 million in bonus pay was paid after Ryan Maseth was killed by their shoddy, cheap work and the military's investigation, as Dorgan noted, now lists the death as due to negligent homicide.
That's took place in May along with much more. The Reuters' report today reduces the May hearing to basically two sentences and the excerpt above provides more context than the Reuters report which also failes to note that KBR has been found responsible for other electrical deaths in Iraq this year.
Turning to TV notes. Bill Moyers Journal begins airing tonight on most PBS stations. Hi s guests tonight are Chris Jordan and Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot. The shows head writer Michael Winship explores "Neighborhood Watch on Planet Earth:" For a bit of change, let's talk about a different kind of health care reform - the kind that affects the health of the planet. The other evening, I was listening to All Things Considered on NPR. Robert Siegel was interviewing Dr. Hal Levison, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, about the king-sized comet that slammed into Jupiter a few weeks ago. The comet's impact - it punched a hole the size of the Pacific Ocean, and would have annihilated a lesser planet, like Earth - was discovered by an amateur astronomer in Australia. Siegel asked how such an event escaped the notice of the world's great observatories. "There are only a few really large telescopes," Levison explained. "They're hard to get time on, and so they're dedicated to particular projects. And the amateurs really are the only ones that have time just to monitor things to see what's happening." "Part of the Neighborhood Watch looking out the front door," Siegel suggested.Neighborhood Watch. Dr. Levison liked that analogy and so do I. Combined with the recent passing of space enthusiast Walter Cronkite and the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, it got me thinking about the value of exploring the cosmos at a time of economic destitution on the ground and a national deficit that makes the word "astronomical" seem inadequate. As a kid, I was in thrall to the space program. Squinting into the night above rural upstate New York, my family and I sometimes could see those early, primitive satellites traverse the dark sky, and my younger brother, a skilled amateur astronomer to this day, would haul out his telescope for us to look at the craters of the moon, or Jupiter or Saturn's rings. In the auditorium of my elementary school, a modest, black and white television set was placed on the stage so we could watch the space flights of Alan Shepard and John Glenn, and for a class project in the sixth grade, I tracked the mission of astronaut Gordon Cooper, dutifully moving a tiny, construction paper space capsule across a map of the world as Cooper orbited the planet 22 times.Six years later, in 1969, we sat downstairs in the family room of our home and watched the mission of Apollo 11. I remember Cronkite's exultant, "Oh boy!" as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the lunar surface, and staying up through the night to watch the first moonwalk. (Years later, editing a TV series on the history of television, colleagues and I noted how, in his excitement, Cronkite almost talked over Armstrong's "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.") As time went by, America became blasé about space exploration. The budget for moon landings was curtailed after the first few, and flights of the space shuttle became commonplace save for the horrific, fatal explosions of Columbia and Challenger. We speak now of returning astronauts to the moon and manned missions to Mars yet efforts to do so seem half-hearted. But there can be no denying the greater understanding of the universe gained from the amazing images obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope, and data from satellites and unmanned interplanetary probes. And beyond the jokes about Tang and Velcro, NASA and the space program have generated advances in a range of technologies. Which brings us back to that notion of the Neighborhood Watch, for one of the most valuable contributions of our exploration of the skies has been the knowledge gained from being able to examine our own earthly neighborhood from the distance of space. Invaluable information is obtained from satellites monitoring weather and the damage created by drought, floods, fire, earthquakes and climate change. But that fleet is aging and few new satellites are being launched to replace them.Just a couple of weeks ago, Jane Lubchenco, the new head of the National Oceanic and Administrative Administration (NOAA), was quoted in the British newspaper The Guardian. "Our primary focus is maintaining the continuity of climate observations," she said, "and those are at great risk right now because we don't have the resources to have satellites at the ready and taking the kinds of information that we need... We are playing catch-up." The paper went on to report that, "Even before her warning, scientists were saying that America, the world's scientific superpower, was virtually blinding itself to climate change by cutting funds to the environmental satellite programmes run by the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. A report by the National Academy of Sciences this year warned that the environmental satellite network was at risk of collapse." This news comes on the heels of a NOAA report that the world's ocean surface temperature for June was the warmest on record and the release of more than a thousand spy satellite photographs of Arctic sea ice that were withheld from public view by the Bush Administration. On the morning of July 15, the National Research Council issued a report asking the Obama administration to release the pictures; the Department of the Interior declassified them just hours later. A source told the Reuters news service, "That doesn't happen every day... This is a great example of good government cooperation between the intelligence community and academia." The images are remarkable. You can see a selection of them online at http://gfl.usgs.gov/ArcticSeaIce.shtml. Arctic ice is in retreat from the shores of Barrow, Alaska, along the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and west of Canada's Northwest Territories, and from the Bering Glacier, among many other sites."The photographs demonstrate starkly how global warming is changing the Arctic," The Guardian noted. "More than a million square kilometres of sea ice - a record loss - were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year. Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery. Ice cover for 2008 was almost as bad as for 2007, and this year levels look equally sparse." One reason, of course, for the Obama White House's release of the dramatic photographs is to bolster support for the climate change bill narrowly passed by the House and now awaiting action in the Senate. The bill's a thin soup version of what many believe needs to be done. It inadequately reduces emissions, gives away permits and offsets to industry, and, as Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth recently told my colleague Bill Moyers on Bill Moyers Journal, strips away the Environmental Protection Agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But even this watered down version of the climate legislation is in jeopardy, collateral damage from the health care reform fight. "A handful of key senators on climate change are almost guaranteed to be tied up well into the fall on health care," the Web site Politico.com reports. "Democrats from the Midwest and the South are resistant to a cap-and-trade proposal. And few if any Republicans are jumping in to help push a global warming and energy initiative." If true, it's hard to imagine a bill passing before December's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. Harder still, without a law of our own, to imagine the United States being able to convince China, India and developing nations to pass climate regulations and change polluting behaviors. In other words, there goes the neighborhood. NOW on PBS rebroadcasts a show from the first of the year: Will the green energy dream come to fruition? This week NOW explores obstacles to the promise of renewables--energy generated from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, and rain. As America looks to dramatically increase its use of renewable energy, an inconvenient reality stands in the way: the need to upgrade the country's antiquated electricity grid. Part of that overhaul involves the construction of gigantic and expensive long-distance transmission lines to carry clean energy from remote sites to population centers. NOW travels to California, which has the most ambitious clean energy plan in the nation. But the state's efforts face stiff opposition from property owners and conservationists who prefer renewable energy from "local sources," such as photovoltaic rooftop solar panels. Complicating the matter are claims that the transmission lines are not actually carrying renewable energy at all, but represent a thinly-disguised strategy to stick to old energy practices. On Washington Week, Gwen sits around the table with John Harwood (New York Times), Peter Baker (New York Times) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News). Bonnie Erbe and her guests explore population growth on this week's edition of PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: The Price Of Bananas Chiquita Brands International says it paid murderous paramilitaries in Colombia to protect the lives of its employees there, but the families of civilians killed by the paramilitaries say the company is responsible for their deaths. Steve Kroft reports. Watch Video Brain Power People who are completely paralyzed due to illness or trauma are getting help communicating with a new technology that connects their brains to a computer. In the future, brain computer interface, or BCI, may restore movement to paralyzed people and allow amputees to move bionic limbs. Scott Pelley reports. Watch Video Swimming With Sharks Because tour operators use food to attract sharks for their "shark tourist" customers, critics say surfers and swimmers are in more danger now because the dangerous fish are associating humans with food. Bob Simon reports. 60 Minutes Sunday, Aug. 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
the common ills
iraq
nprthe diane rehm show
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssef
sahar issa
the new york timessam dagher
the los angeles timesliz slysaif hameed
dahr jamail
the washington posternesto londono
cindy sheehan
michael winshipbill moyers journal60 minutescbs newspbsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbs
cory groganmonica hernandezruth ingramkimberly pagehenry cunningham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)