Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Peace

Wednesday and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this community must be blushing. Of course, if stealing others turns of phrase is just theft, we've been robbed. Jim's opinion is a robbery took place and I can see why he thinks that. When you can't think of your own wording, you apparently steal from others and don't credit.

Now something on my to-do-list. This is from Media Matters' "O'Donnell misrepresented Democrats on Iraq withdrawal, falsely claimed no experts support them:"

On the November 26 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell misrepresented a Democratic proposal for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq as "essentially a pullout in four to six months." In fact, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced the proposal in June 2006 and called for a phased redeployment to begin by the end of the year, or approximately six months from that time. O'Donnell further asserted that Democrats will "wind up -- even though they were validated somewhat in the message by these elections ... looking weak on national security because ... [t]here is not one military or foreign-policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that, and second, that would be a good idea." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, numerous military and foreign-policy experts support a phased withdrawal, to begin immediately or within a time frame consistent with the Levin-Reed proposal.

I've been meaning to note the above but it's been busy. Norah O'Donnell is a professional Democrat-hater and everyone needs to be aware of that. She's been at it for years now and hopefully the work of Media Matters is getting that point out there.

Now it's time for a joke. Robert Gates was confirmed today as the new Secretary of War. After the Dems rolled over and got punked out. Now this is from the laughable DSCC e-mail sent out yesterday at 10:35 am -- after the Senate Armed Service Committee had already started, ALREADY STARTED, their hearing with Gates:


Americans voted Democrats into the majority in the Senate because they wanted us to ask the tough questions and demand accountability from the Bush administration. That is exactly what we plan to do. We want to know what Mr. Gates plans are to:
Rectify a situation in Iraq that now has American troops in the crossfire of a civil war.
Fix a military stretched so thin that some units are on their third or fourth tours in Iraq.
Ensure that the abuse scandals we have seen at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay will not be repeated.
Prevent Afghanistan from once again coming under the sway of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
These are the defining security issues of our time and Mr. Gates must prove that he is up to the challenge of facing them. My fellow Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee have been preparing for this crucial confirmation hearing for weeks and we are ready.

Preparing for weeks? They didn't act like it and if you're preparing for weeks and asking people what questions they want asked, you send the damn e-mail out before the hearing starts!

Stupid, cowardly, sell out Dems. Wally and Cedric nailed it on the head with "THIS JUST IN! 216-YEAR-OLD SPINE MISSING!" and "The missing spine" (joint post). Don't take it. Don't roll over and act like it didn't happen. That's what elected Democrats do. Cowards, whores and sellouts. Come 2008, they shouldn't be surprised if they can't scare up many voters. They didn't present a plan on Iraq but acted like they were opposed to the war. And now they sell out the voters AGAIN. They don't even wait to be sworn in.

Now about yesterday's post, "Jim Lafferty, Law and Disorder, peace movement." I've never gotten so much e-mail in one day! :D Some of you have given me a pat on the back for my questions but let's be real honest, C.I. made that interview. "Amazing" is what Beau's one word e-mail said and he's right. That's why, when C.I. brought it up after we finished writing Sunday, Jim was all, "Why didn't you bring that up before!" :D Those are strong points and I'm just happy that they got made here. Jim didn't have a problem with that. He wanted them out there and was even asking -- he says "begging!" -- C.I. to put them up at The Common Ills but with the trip to DC and other stuff, C.I. didn't have time. Thanks to C.I. for yet another gift. I'm really proud they went up here. And I'm still reading e-mails on them so if you didn't get a reply yet, I've got 82 more to go. Like I said, I've never gotten so much e-mail in one day.

I want to take a moment here to note that I agree and that I'm really lucky because C.I. and Elaine do not take slams against the peace movement. If someone makes them in print or on air, they don't buy it and they never have. In this community, we're all a part of the peace movement and this touches on what Rachel wrote about which was that "in my frustration over the level of activism, I would read a desk jockey blaming the movement itself and start wondering, 'Maybe he's right.' One of the biggest affirmations from the community and from C.I. for me has been to see just what an amazing job everyone has done, all the organizations, and how they've done that even with all the barriers thrown in their way."

That's how conventional wisdom works. They repeat something over and over and then people start feeling like it's everywhere and it must be true. So let's salute reality and salute the peace movement because the reality is they've moved mountains and they've done it by themselves and without help from people outside the movement. CODEPINK, United for Peace and Justice, Not In Our Name, World Can't Wait, A.N.S.W.E.R., Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Courage to Resist, and all the rest, they've made a real difference and have done the hard work. If you have a favorite organization, consider making a donation to them. I'm making one in Ma's name because I was having the worst time figuring out what to get her this year -- she loves books but C.I.'s always passing on books and Ma's favorite thing is to draw a bath and read a book, she says she could do that for about two years right now! :D -- so she said a donation would mean a lot to her. So you can do like I did, go the website of the one you pick, donate and print up the receipt. That way the organization doesn't have to send out anything and you can put that in a card for the holidays. Peace is the best gift for the holidays!

Check out Like Maria Said Paz for Elaine's thoughts tonight.


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

Wednesday, December 6, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the James Baker Circle Jerk finally spews, Dow Jones reports ten US soldiers dead in Iraq today from two IEDs, and the Democrats demonstrate that "bipartisan" is Beltway Latin for "Screw the voter."

Starting with the vocab lesson first, for all the gas bagging after the election by The Elector (in all their forms) and all the talk of "change" and "listening to the people," Democrats -- swept into power by voters wanting change -- demonstrate that "bipartisanship" is just Beltway Latin for "Screw the voter." First up was the character assassination took John Murtha out of the running for the post of House Majority Leader and allowed War Hawk Steny Hoyer to be installed. Last week Dems were supposed to be cheerleading around the nation over Silvestre Reyes who was being installed as House Intelligence Committee chair. "Yeah, Silvestre!" was the kind of "critique" the public got as the gas bags of the left (and 'left') tried to paint over the fact that others were (again) passed over. Now, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes an interview Reyes gave to Newsweek where he expressed his desire to send an "up to 30,000" additional US troops to Iraq.

The vocabulary lesson is not limited to House Dems, Democrats on the Senate Armed Service Committee collectively stated, "Screw the voter." As Robert Parry (Consortium News) observes, "Despite winning the Nov. 7 elections largely due to public anger over the Iraq War, congressional Democrats crumbled in their first post-election confrontation with President George W. Bush on the future direction of that conflict."

As elected Dems attempt to 'educate,' the mainstream press attempts to present the marginalized as the norm. Though polls repeatedly demonstrate US citizens want US troops out of Iraq, though polls repeatedly demonstrate that Iraqi citizens wants US troops out of Iraq, Big Media thinks they can pull one over on the public again.

Tossing Judith Miller onto the stake and burning her as the public scapegoat is supposed to satiate the masses and allow War Pornographer Michael Gordon to get off scott free again. (Gordo was Miller's writing partner quite often including on one story that was mentioned in the Times' mini-culpa.) Norman Solomon (Common Dreams) observes that Gordo and David Sanger have both contributed articles pushing the "the US must stay myth" and concludes: "What's now going on in mainline news media is some kind of repetition compulsion. And, while media professionals engage in yet another round of conformist opportunism, many people will pay with their lives."

It's not limited to the New York Times, but to stay on Gordo and the Times, FAIR notes that, on November 15, 2006, Gordo was on CNN telling Anderson Cooper "while the politicians in the United States would like to see a withdrawal of forces, particularly on the Democratic side, that's simply not realistic given how precarious the security situation is at this point in time" and drawing a comparison between Democrats who actually call for a withdrawal (there are a few of those) and 'insurgents': ". . . there are a significant number of players in Baghdad today who don't mind if the Americans withdraw. These are the militia leaders. They would be happy if the United States withdrew . . ." Now does any of that sound anything like a policy judgement or recommendation?

Because when attempting to foist his bad book off on the public, Gordo refused to weigh in on the war itself, telling Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!), "Well, that's a policy judgement and a political judgement that's really beyound the scope of our book."

But now, he can can make those judgements? Of course he can, he made them during the invasion as well -- in fact, he made them on CNN. March 25, 2003, Gordo took the CNN airwaves (Aaron Brown's now cancelled show) to cheerlead a US attack of a civilian target, a TV station, stating, "And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target." Three year later, Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) noted to Gordo that his [Gordo's] remark were "condemned by many journalism organizations around the world" and Gordo sputtered: "Well, I think, when -- you know, I don't know what was in General Franks' mind . . ." Blah, blah, blah. Gordo can't own his own mistakes, neither the can the paper.

Judith Miller was one person. The dog pile on her while others were ignored created a climate of impunity. Ditch digger Dexy is outed as a the go-to-boy (outed by a mainstream daily) for the US military and, if noted, it's reduced to an aside. While everyone obsessed and dog piled on Judith Miller's pre-war 'reporting' (which included co-writers), there wasn't time to call sob sister Dexy out. Even now, as the paper's attempts to marginalize US public opinion is called out, who's noting the story, filed from Iraq, that couldn't find a single Iraqi who wanted the US to withdraw (a position held by the majority of Iraqis)? No one.

Miller's departure changed nothing at the paper. But bash-the-bitch and golden oldies did allow many to feel, three years later, that they were 'commenting' as they again trotted out the name "Judy Miller." The only thing surprising about Gordo is that his war porn has taken so long to be called out.


Bombings?

Qais Al-Bashir (AP) reports a mortar attack in the Sadr City section of Baghdad which took 8 lives and left "dozens" wounded. while in Iskandariyah, a bomb claimed 4 lives and left at least 12 wounded. The US military reports a blast "near the Old Ministry of Defense building in the Rusafa neighborhood of central Baghdad" which killed at least 15 Iraqis and left 25 more wounded. Reuters reports that a bomber "blew himself up inside a minibus" in Baghdad resulting in 3 other deaths and at least 16 people wounded


Shootings?

KUNA reports a British soldier wounded in Basra "after armed clashes between British troops and an armed group". Conflicts in Basra have already resulted in the British pulling embassy staff out of the area. Reuters reports a police officer was shot dead in Hawija while a police brigadier was wounded in an attack in Baghdad and his driver shot dead, another shooting attack in Mosul left a college professor wounded, and in Khalis an attack on a farm workers traveling in a bus left one dead and eight wounded. On the college professor, CNN notes this is "a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki pledged that the government would protect professors and students in the wake of a Sunni insurgent group's threat to target professors and students."


Corpses?

Reuters reports three corpses were discovered in Mahmudiya, one in Kirkuk and a headless one in Mosul. And, in an update, Reuters notes that 48 corpses ("gunshot wounds . . . signs of torture) were discovered in Baghdad.

The US military notes: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed during combatoperations in the Iraqi capital Dec. 3" and also says 'Woops! We issued the information on two deaths in two different press releases Sunday!' ICCC counts 2907 US troops dead in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. And AFP notes that the total of US troops who have died in Iraq has passed the 2900 mark and counting. This comes as Dow Jones reports that 10 US troops have been killed in Iraq today and cites MSNBC on the "two incidents involving improvised explosive devices." That would take the 2907 up to 2917. And possibly it will also give the New York Times and others still silent the chance to note that the 2900 mark was passed?

The James Baker Circle Jerk released their report today. The thing that should stand out the most is that the 142 page report is actually 96 pages (with illustrations) and that 36 pages are end credits -- including a special spotlight for each member. Apparently, notions of a group shot were ditched due to the fact that a visual like that would have most Americans asking who those Circle Jerkers were supposed to reflect? They're old, they're White (one African-American), they're male (one woman). "Tell Us What To Do About The War, Rich Gramps?" could be the working title.

Having stroked each other raw, the Circle Jerk spews 79 recommendations. With few exceptions, they're all based on a principle: "Stupid Iraqis! We will educate you!" You see that in "Recommendation 76" and its focus on "civilian tasks" and "key civilian agencies, including Treasury, Justice, and Agriculture" which "need to create similar technical assistance capabilities." Every now and then, a concrete recommendation stumbles in such as "Recommendation 72" which addresses the requesting of funds for the war ("should be included in the President's annual budget request, starting in FY 2008: the war is in its fourth year") or noting that need to keep an accurate count of incidents of violence and death.

But in the end, you're left with gas bags tasked to do the job that Congress should have. In the real world, the people's Iraq Study Group released their findings last week. Using the same phrase, The Nation notes a poll by World Public Opinion who will release their full results tomorrow. The summary of the polling is currently available. From that:

*1,326 Americans were surveyed.

*75% of respondents desire talks between the US and Iran (something Bully Boy is nixing, click here)

*58% of respondents want a timetable for withdrawal

*78% of those who identified Democrat "think U.S. forces should be out within two-years or less, including 61 percent who favor a one-year or less"

*Withdrawal is supported even stronger by respondents "if the majority of the Iraqi people say they want the U.S. to commit to withdraw U.S. forces"

From the summary: "A poll of the Iraqi public conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org in September 2006 found that 71 percent want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year." Again, the full results will be released tomorrow.

Meanwhile William Roberts (Bloomberg) reports that Tom Vilsak (who declared he was running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008) has called for the withdrawal of "most American troops from Baghdad and southern Iraq" and declares, "We have created an opportunity for the people of that nation and its government to make fundamental decisions for themselves. We have given them enough time."

While Nancy Trejos (Washington Post) reports that Nouri al-Maliki wants a "regional conference on stabilizing his country but rejected a proposal from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that it take place outside Iraq."

Finally, in peace news US war resister Ehren Watada is noted as the United Methodists reflect on 2006: "United Methodists rallied in support of Army Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, who has refused deployment to Iraq because he feels the war is 'morally wrong' and 'a breach of American law.' He faces charges of missing troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt towards officials. United Methodists joined a vigil and rally at Fort Lewis in Tacoma, where Watada is being held."

And as Indybay IMC notes, "December 8th through 10th with be National Days of Action to Support GI resistance and GI rights." More information can be found at Courage to Resist and in the Bay Area, "Friday, December 8th, 7:30pm at the College of Marin in Kentfield, segments of the film "Ground Truth" will be shown, and Iraq combat veteran-turned-war-resister Darrell Anderson will speak. Also that evening, at 7:30pm at the Buena Vista United Methodist Church in Alameda, the film "The Ground Truth" will be shown, and there will be a panel with Rev. Michael Yoshii, and Bob Watada and Rosa Sakanishi. That night in San Jose, there will be a reception and fundraiser for Kyle Snyder at 6pm at the San Jose Friends Meeting House. On Saturday December 9th, there will be a peace vigil in support of Lt. Ehren Watada, in front of the MLK, Jr. Library in San Jose from 12-4pm. Read more about these events."







iraq
democracy nowamy goodmanjuan gonzalezthe new york timesmichael r. gordon
the washington postnancy trejos
robert parry
norman solomon
ehren watada
Posted by at

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Jim Lafferty, Law and Disorder, peace movement




Tuesday! :D Hope you heard at least some of the coverage of the Gates hearing today. I caught the second half, when, according to Larry Bensky and Aaron Glantz' commentary, all the life had left them.

Does it matter? Yeah, it does. It matters because of the position we're talking about and it matters because we got to hear what the 'empowered' Democrats were going to do. And the answer? Not a damn thing.

The illustration is from The Third Estate Sunday Review's "The One About The Nation" and Elaine and me both wanted to highlight the art. I love the words we all wrote but I think the painting the gan did was pretty special.

Now don't forget to check out Like Maria Said Paz for Elaine's thoughts.


Jim Lafferty was the guest for the third segment of WBAI's Law and Disorder Monday. He's with the National Lawyers Guild, he's also an activist and he does a show for KPFK and, according to C.I., about a hundred million other things on any given day!

He had a really good discussion with the hosts (Michael Ratner, Dalia Hashad, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian are the hosts of the show). In his area, Los Angelese, there's been a lot of activism and that was one of the topics. This built on the interview with Marjorie Cohn, about how you couldn't just wait around for elected officials to decide to "give" because they won't. You have to pressure them and make them act.

So Jim Lafferty has been on the front lines and one of the issues was about how the movement is growing and how it was so huge before the illegal war started. So what's going on? Is it active and if not how come it's not. I believe Lafferty made the point about how much further the peace movement was then during Vietnam. And then the issue of the draft came up.

Lafferty and Michael Ratner felt that without a draft it was easier for some people to ignore the war. And this was the point I wanted to get from C.I., the thing Jim was all, "Why didn't you bring that up while we were writing!"

C.I. understands Lafferty's point and agrees with it but thinks there's another aspect to it ("and Lafferty probably would as well") which is the draft itself wouldn't change much at this point.

"Wait, wait," you scream, "Charlie Rangel thinks it's the answer!"

C.I.'s point is based on "modeled behavior."

C.I.: What Lafferty has done so well is motivate and model. Others are doing that as well, Leslie Cagan with United for Peace & Justice, Medea Benjamin and Jodi Evans with CODEPINK, and many other people and many other organizations. But what the draft point overlooks is that during Vietnam you had attention. A concert, by Joan Baez, didn't just happen with draft cards being turned in. It started slowly. People were lost, the way some are today, and it started with one person deciding to turn in or burn their card and then there was a road for others to follow. The word got out, the word spread. There was now an organized way for people to resist, young males in this case. And Joan did the poster "Girls Say Yes to Boys Who Say No" with her sisters Pauline and Mimi. Lafferty's point is valid but a draft, which he's not advocating for, wouldn't mean the movement was further along today. It means that people would be opposed to the war but I think, my opinion, the polling demonstrates that they already are, much sooner than during Vietnam. The draft, during Vietnam, did have an impact. But what I'm seeing and have seen is that there's little behavior to model. When someone like Lafferty makes an impact, and he's made a huge impact, they're doing it without the attention it deserves and, more importantly, needs. All across the country, there are groups that go to the local offices of their senators and representatives. Let's just use that as an example. It gets very little coverage, very little publicity. It is a way, not 'the' way, a way, to register your protest. But that behavior, like Lafferty's work, depends on word of mouth because there's very little media coverage of it. A draft in 2002 and 2003, even 2004, might have helped the illegal war become unpopular sooner but today it is unpopular. What's needed are examples. They are out there. They're just not covered. I think the spark Cindy Sheehan provided is missed. She put a face on it. But the face she put on it was a face for the cost of the illegal war and a face for protest. If she'd just stayed home, people would have been sympathetic. But she went down to Crawford, she camped out at Bully Boy's ranch. What was the effect? It wasn't just people saying, "I support her." It was people coming from all over the country to take part in that protest. She was, and is, both a face for the war and a face for protest. What I've experienced speaking to students is people wanting ideas, wanting examples. Cindy Sheehan provided one. Has provided others as well. The protests to end the war on Vietnam didn't happen in isolation. Activism with the civil rights movement and the students movement preceeded it and activism in the women's movement, the gay rights movement, Black Power, the Native American movement, the Chicano movement, the labor movement, etc. were going on. The point is, there was a base to build from. There was behavior to model. The anti-globilization movement and rallies in support of reproductive rights are pretty much all that many are aware of today and 9-11 was used as a club to batter the anti-globilization movement. What message does the reproductive rights movement send? I support that movement, I march in rallies. I'm not attacking it. But the movement, in terms of activism, often is a big rally in DC. That's the example some students cite when they're asked about activism. I'm not putting those rallies down. I think they're important. But with Iraq, you're needing more than a once a year rally. One of the things I'm usually asked is what are students doing in other areas? Everyone's looking for idea, looking for models. In Los Angeles, Jim Lafferty's done a wonderful job providing that. He and others with A.N.S.W.E.R. have created a strong environment of modeling behaviors and getting out there and being active. They deserve credit for that and everyone organizing against the war does as well. But across the country, there are groups with similar aims that aren't even aware of one another. Media coverage would change that but media coverage isn't something to count on. The movement, across the nation, still grows largely due to peer-to-peer word. What I hear repeatedly on campuses is that they weren't given a heads up to an action. An event will take place in their area and they'll hear about it afterwards. Media coverage, which it deserves, would change that. But it's not going to happen. Groups need to stop thinking, I have one in mind, that their protest against the war will only turn out themselves and whatever friends they can activate through word of mouth, they need to be working the colleges. You're dealing with students who very often are not from the area. They go off to college. They're not aware of all that's going on in the communities they're living in to go to college. I have a friend with an organization in the Mid-West and she had been very disappointed in the turnout at events. When I was speaking to colleges in that area, they weren't even aware of the group. Everyone's in isolation to a degree, if you're not in an area with a strong organization that's well established, and unaware of who else is addressing the war, trying to end it. When the movement to end the war was building in the sixties, it didn't happen overnight and the country certainly hadn't turned against that war as quickly as the country's turned against this one. When it started to turn, you had an excitement and, with that, an awareness of what was around you. The complaints about the media coverage existed then as well but, by comparison, there was nothing to complain about. Today, the alt weeklies are all lifestyle papers with few exceptions. The desire is there, what's not is the connection and the examples. That's the hurdle the movement is going to have to leap next, and they will, but the movement is growing. The draft alone, during Vietnam, did help people, males, feel a sense of urgency, and possibly their girlfriends and wives, that isn't present today. But we're already seeing a much larger portion of people who are opposed to the war, in polling. So I don't think the draft by itself is the issue at this point. I think it comes down to the issue that activism isn't a pattern with all these various strands when you compare it to the sixties.

So that was C.I.'s opinion and I got that last night. Today, we did a Q&A follow up. I'm in italics.

So students are lost?

C.I.: Not in terms of their feelings on the war. And it needs to be noted that since Vietnam there have been many movements. But in terms of anything like the civil rights movement or, for students, the student movement of the sixties, no, there aren't a wealth of examples they're being presented with by the media. The most common type of comment I continue to hear is, "I want to do something but I'm not sure what?" Even with that, students are being active. But in terms of the movement itself, which continues to grow, there seems to be questions as to what you do besides rally in DC? And there will be a march and rally in DC on January 27th so let's note that. That does matter and you know that because when you've returned from those everyone's peppered you with questions.

Right, they want to see photos and hear all about it. And then they want to go. I've got people asking about the January march that surprise me because I wouldn't have guessed that they were interested in participating.

C.I.: And the decision was made for the 2005 spring rallies to focus on communities which was a smart move, underscoring that you don't just take your protest to DC. I want to be repeat, the peace movement has done a wonderful job. But it has done that by peer-to-peer, word of mouth. It hasn't had the kind of media it deserves. And there are a lot of people doing a lot of work but feeling that they're the only ones in the areas. Media attention could change that but you know my opinion on how that's not going to happen.

So we're stuck with the movement getting the word out on itself?

C.I.: Pretty much, do you see any change? Do you see anyone covering Abeer? Covering Mark Wilkerson, Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, or any of the war resisters? How much attention did Troops Home Fast get from independent media? People like Medea Benjamin, Jodi Evans, Jim Lafferty, Jeff Paterson, Leslie Cagan, go down the list, they are getting the word out, they are being inventive and creative and that's what's kept the movement growing and what's allowed the country to turn against the war. We need to remember that Vietnam didn't have a 9-11 in front of it. Vietnam didn't have "you're either with us or you're against it" wall to wall. It's been very difficult and that the movement's overcome all of that is a testament to the hardwork of everyone, organizers and participants. The movement carved out the space for the mainstream media, which canonized Bully Boy, to actually criticize him, still not the way they should, but far greater than you could see in 2002 or 2003. It also benefits from what Maria long ago noticed in her own classrooms, as her students were learning about the history of the United States and what it's supposed to stand for, they were confronted with the reality of what it stands for under the Bully Boy. That is a strong bloc of people and they are out there. The issue now is overcoming the barriers that are keeping various pockets from being aware of one another, both nationally and locally.

Putting you on the spot because I know your private answer but you may not want to offer it here. We have various left magazines, I won't name them, and who writes about the peace movement?

C.I.: No one. You know that. If someone's reading, for instance, The Nation, chances are they are against the war. Chances are that they would both like to know and benefit from knowing stories of protest and resistance. They're not getting that in the print magazine. You can't blame the peace movement for that. And people who want to whine from their desks about what they think is going on would be wise to leave their offices and get into the real world.

You don't think anyone's going to suddenly provide a column that covers the peace movement?

C.I.: We hit the four year mark in March. The war didn't just start. Do you see a column covering the peace movement? You can see column after column covering DC and elected officials and let's not kid that such coverage, with nothing else offered, doesn't send a message, intended or not, that you pin your hopes and dreams on elected officials and root for them from the sidelines. It reduces activism to nothing but the voting booth.

What's the effect of the elections last month?

C.I.: Anger. Anger when people grasp that they were hyped to believe an election changed anything. In the end, that'll just fuel the peace movement as well. But, think back because you were in high school on 9-11, the fear to speak out, the fear to question the press-annointed god that Bully Boy was. And a lot of people you're age and slightly younger are looking for ways to protest. Many of them already are protesting. But they need examples. Some wonderful ones have been provided but they have to rely on word of mouth because there's no coverage.

Anything else you want to add?

C.I.: Just that I'm not criticizing the peace movement. It's overcome one barrier after another and continues to grow. It's impacted the nation and the opinions on the illegal war. With Camp Casey, you saw the same excitement and interest, resulting from coverage that made people aware, as marches and protests during the civil rights era. Cindy Sheehan gave a face to the cost and moved people but she also gave them a way to protest. That's why, from across the country, people traveled to Camp Casey. Organizers are providing examples and, with media attention, the peace movement would be all that some, who scorn it, want it to be. But the realities of the 60s were that there were solid examples of activism that people grew up around and behaviors they could model. There are other issues as well, including the current press system, demographics and much more. But modeling behaviors and information continue to be the problems I hear cited the most. And let me repeat one more time, because students have gotten a very bad rap, students are active all over the nation, they are interested in ending the war.

-----

I'll add that Jim Lafferty was a great guest and I hope they have him back on. That was a great discussion and you can hear it at WBAI or Law and Disorder. I'll either write about the first segment either tomorrow or Thursday.

So that's it for me tonight. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and I wish I could have gone to DC with Wally and C.I. but I'm glad they went and hope they're having fun tonight.

Tuesday, December 5, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the Senate Armed Service Committee stages a new comedy, and the 2900-dead mark has been passed, who's noting it?

Starting with the American troop fatality count. On Sunday, ICCC made the call that 2900 US troops had died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Yesterday, Sandra Lupien noted the 2900 mark on The KPFA Evening News. Today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes: "The US death toll in the war has topped 2900." CNN's counts 2,901 while also reporting 2899. The latter figure is what the Defense Department goes with as well, 2899. ICCC reports the number is 2906 (which is what we'll go with).

Does the number matter? It should. It should matter especially if you're appearing before Congress. Robert Gates, who would like to replace Donald the Rumsfled as Secretary of Defense, cited another number: 2892. Testifying today, he goes with 2892? If this is Gates "on the ball," let's all worry.

KPFA's Larry Bensky and Aaron Glantz are anchoring the gavel-to-gavel coverage of Gates' confirmation hearing and it's being carried live on KPFA, WBAI, KPFT, KPFK, KCFC and at
at the Pacifica website. Those not in broadcast range can listen online at any of the links provided in the previous sentence. (And if you missed the live coverage, you can use the links for an archived broadcast.) While Pacifica Radio covers the hearings live NPR decided to 'hit hard' by covering the celebrity auction of Dick Clark.

So along with grasping that Gates doesn't care enough about the job to use any accepted figure for the US military's fatality toll, what else have we learned? Bob Dole did standup early on. The former US senator was one of two walking Gates down the aisle. Who gives Gates away? Dole and Doren. Dole told a joke about how the phone rang asking that "Senator Dole" introduce Gates and, too late, Bob Dole realized they meant Elizabeth Dole (his wife who is currently a US senator). Having wowed 'em like he hasn't since he schilled for Pepsi with Britney Spears, Dole stepped aside for the Senate's own Norma Desmond: David L. Boren.

Boren was supposed to be introducing Gates but instead seemed lost in the past, a murky one, that needed to be reclaimed unless we were are prepared to "ultimately destroy the fabric" of the country. Boren couldn't shut up about the past including "15 years ago." So let's take a look at the Senate when Boren still served on it.

Boren did sometimes work with people on the other side of the aisles: Democrats. Though supposedly a Democrat, he was usually to be found triangulating with Republicans. Boren's 'bipartisanship' resulted in many things, a greatest hits reel can't be provided here. But two highlights. Boren voted to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The country still suffers as a result. Boren was among those who put "civility" above the truth regarding Iran-Contra and, it can be argued since many of the same players repeat today, that doing so implicates him in today's illegal war.

Possibly, he shouldn't grab that white Bible with his bloodied hands? White Bible? Oh, the one he used to publicly swear that he wasn't gay back when those rumors floated. Today's heart-felt intro recalled a great deal of the drama of that 1979 moment.

Robert Gates told Senator John Warner that he felt the Bully Boy wanted him "to take a fresh look and all options are on the table" regarding Iraq. But some things do not require a "fresh look," apparently. On the issue of remaining in Iraq, Gates stated that it seemed to him that the US would "have to have some presence in Iraq for a long time." He then offered the WRONG number and mentioned a woman who approached him to declare, "I have two sons in Iraq. For God's sake, bring them home safe."

After that, it all got even zanier as there appeared to be a contest among Republicans to see who could look the most insane as they attempted to scare Americans and spin the illegal war.


Honorable mentions go to the following:


Jeff Sessions who declared both the need to "reach out and grasp each other's hands" (stay of the cloakroom) went even touchier-and-feelier, soaring into clouds that the laughable Peggy Noons (Noonan) couldn't even approach as he spoke of US troops who had died in Iraq: "I talked to their families. I talked to those who lost their lives."

No word as to whether "those who lost their lives" talked back to Jeff Sessions.

Pat Roberts wants the troops home but frets over how it could be done "the wrong way." See, pulling them out too soon, bringing them home, could cause problems. Such as? Roberts didn't know. He was suddenly discussing "sleeper cells in this country" and terrorists of a second generation. If he truly believes there are "sleeper cells" in the United States, one would assume that the troops might be needed in the US. But Roberts was busy trying to frighten America and that appeared to be the Republican game plan.

Joe Lieberman (officially billed these days as "Independent") attempted to work through his own issues, publicly, in front of the committee. He warned of what could happen "if we end up leaving Iraq in chaos" because, apparently Joe Lieberman has missed the fact that Iraq is in chaos and has been. "Bipartisanship" was a buzz word for NoMentum as well and he wanted the entire nation to band together to go after all the enemies he sees elsewhere in the world ("everybody around the world who wishes us evil") which demonstrated that Lieberman hasn't lost his sense of persecution.

But the winner? James Inhofe in the first round. Inhofe's never met a fact he can't fudge or mangle. His statements were concerned with pushing the illegal war except when he went into alarmist mode of Chinese computer hackers and raged that others (on the Senate? in the United States?) "don't seem to read these, they don't seem concerned about this!" What Inhofe was concerned primarily with was noting that "the mass graves [in Iraq], that's not taking place anymore."

Oh Inhofe, apparently you're not reading what you need to read. November 30, 2006, the US military announced the discovery of a "mass grave" with 28 bodies in it. And, no, it's not from the era of Saddam Hussein.

The Democrats? Evan Blah showed what a suck up he could be, Carl Levin probed and Hillary Clinton appeared to be setting up for the next round of questioning. (The hearings are on a lunch break. During that Pacifica will be offering analysis.)

The big news is supposed to be that Gates noted (the obvious fact) that the US isn't "winning." (Nor can it, unsaid by Gates.) What should be noted is how often he couldn't remark, he didn't know enough, his "view is too uninformed," "I'm not well enough informed at this point to make a decision" blah, blah, blah. This is the man who was sitting on the James Baker Circle Jerk, right? He was tasked with recommendations the US should take re: Iraq, right?

And in Iraq?


Bombings?

AFP reports an attack on bus in Baghdad that began with a car bomb and was followed with gunfire resulting in at least 15 dead and 9 wounded, while an attack on a police academy in Baghdad with a car bomb followed by gunfire resulted in 7 people killed and 12 wounded, a roadside bomb in Baghdad resulted in 2 Iraqi soldiers being killed, a car bomb in Baghdad claimed three lives, and a mortar attack in Baghdad left 2 children dead. Reuters notes three car bombs in Baghdad ("near a fuel station) that resulted in 16 deaths and at least 25 injured. The BBC reports that "[m]ost of the victims were people queuing for petrol."

Shootings?

See above combined attacks.

Corpses?

Reuters reports the corpse of a police officer was found in Kirkuk.


Today, the US military announced: "Insurgents attacked a Multi-National Division - Baghdad patrol Dec. 4, killing one Soldier and wounding five others. The patrol was conducting operations to deny enemy movements and enforce curfew restrictions in a northeastern neighborhood of the city when it was attacked"; and "A 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed in an accident when his M-1117 Armored Security Vehicle rolled over North of Logistics Support Area Adder Dec. 4."


In news of sick mind games (played to cover their own ass?, played to keep the news coverage more 'upbeat'?), on Monday the Department of Defenense announced: "Spc. Dustin M. Adkins, 22, of Finger, Tenn, has been unaccounted for since Dec. 3 in Haditha, Iraq, when the Chinook helicopter he was in made an emergency landing. He is assigned to the Group Support Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group, Fort Campbell, Ky." But AP reports that "relatives of 22 year old Dustin Adkins of Finger told The Jackson Sun newspaper Monday night that his body has been recovered after the soldier was listed as missing." Note the key word "after." Ned B. Hunter (AP) reports that "Mayrine Adkins, the soldier's grandmother, said the family was notified about 3 p.m. Monday that his body had been found. Mayrine Adkins said her grandson was one of two Army soldiers on the helicopter along with several Marines."

This is the Sunday helicopter crash ('crash landing,' if you prefer, but it's a crash) that claimed the lives of four Marines. Kirk Semple (New York Times) reports that there were 16 people on board and that the lake it crashed onto was Lake Qadisiya. Though the military claims it was 'mechanical' issues that brought about the crash, Nancy Trejos (Washington Post) reports two sources who state differently: "The mayor of Haditha, Ibraheem al-Bayati, and Iraqi army Lt. Hussein Muslih said the helicopter had been shot down by insurgents with machine guns as it was taking off from the town" and Trejos notes: "the Islamic State of Iraq posted a sign on a nearby mosque in Haditha announcing that the helicopter had 30 passengers on board and had been downed".

Turning to Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Baghdad death of Jake Kovco released their report December 1st. Dan Box (The Australian) reports that Judy Kovco (Jake's mother) and Shelley Kovco (Jake's wife) have "received legal advice" and will "demand an independent review of the military's finding that the young paratrooper was skylarking with his pistol when he was fatally shot." Ian McPhedran (Herald-Sun) feels that the inquiry has demonstrated "why a civilian should run such investigations" and McPhedran provides strong examples including "ruling out suicide even before its hearings had concluded"; refusal to apportion blame for the failure to preserve evidence in terms of Kovco's room, et al; and a failure to seriously explore the mix up of Jake Kovco's body with the body of Juso Sinanovic.


MCPhedran notes: "Jake Kovco's mother, Judy, has labelled the excercise a cover-up and she is absolutely correct." Last weekend, Judy Kovco spoke out about some of the problems with the inquiry and its findings noting that she had "sat through three months of listening to all of this" and that no explanations have been provided including why there was "more DNA on that gun that Jacob's own DNA inside and out and their excuse for that DNA being on the gun and the cartridge is just laughable."

Judy Kovco is specifically referring to Steven Carr, identified during the inquiry as "Soldier 14," whose DNA was found on Jake Kovco's gun. Carr maintained that he never touched Jake Kovco's weapon and offered laughable excuses such as maybe he touched a radio and then Jake touched a radio and then Jake touched his gun and that's how his (Carr's) DNA got on Jake's gun. It was laughable but it got picked up and run with as though it was even possible. Forensice expert Michelle Franco rejected that laughable claim to the inquiry and noted that were that transfer nonsense true that within a half-hour, Carr's DNA would have been all but gone from the gun. Instead, it was found on the gun's slide in significant amounts (it was also found elsewhere) that were consistent with Carr having handled the gun.

The inquiry's findings sidestepped and ignored the government's witness and avoided this issue which is only example of how they failed to address the death of Jake Kovco.

Yesterday, in the US, Bully Boy met with Shi'ite Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim and appeared to offer a 'strategy' that Robert Knight ( KPFA's Flashpoints) called addressing death squads with . . . death squads. Dilip Hiro (Guardian of London) sees the meet up with the Bully Boy as an attempt to divide Shias (and neutralize Sadr). On The KPFA Evening News yesterday, Sandra Lupien noted that "al-Hakim said the only way to stave off civil war in Iraq is for US forces to strike harder against Sunni-led resistance fighters" and that his organization fought on the side of Iran in the 80s Iraq-Iran war. Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times) reports that al-Hakim "remarked last week that if Iraq deteriorated into civil war, Sunni Arabs would be the 'biggest losers' -- a comment that was widely interpreted as a veiled threat to Sunnis." Divide and conquer has worked so well for the US administration -- oops!, it hasn't. It's resulted in a civil war in Iraq.



























Posted by at

Monday, December 04, 2006

Law and Disorder, Marjorie Cohn, The Third Estate Sunday Review

Monday! And I'm busy tonight (getting ready for a test tomorrow) but not all that tired for a change. This wasn't a dragging Monday where I have to juice up on Dr. Pepper just to make it to noon.

Now today WBAI had their new episode of Law and Disorder. There were three segments to the program and what I'm going to do is just talk a little about each segment. I'll do the second one tonight and have all three done before Friday gets here. Which means I may skip a day and do the last one on Thursday. It's a busy week for me.

Tomorrow, I'll do the last segment and C.I.'s going to give me some stuff for that. What stuff? After we finished writing one article on Sunday morning, C.I. and Wally were talking and like Jim said, "Why didn't you say that when we were writing!" :D

So when C.I. called to check and see if I was going to be talking about any of the stuff tonight on the show I asked if I could get something to put up tomorrow when I do the thing on the third segment.

If you missed the show, you can hear it at WBAI in the archives or at the website for Law and Disorder. The hosts are Dalia Hashad, Heidi Boghosian, Michael Smith and Michael Ratner.
And for the second segment, they interviewed Marjorie Cohn who is the new president of the National Lawyers Guild.

She had a lot to talk about and basically covered the four-part series, in a lot of ways, that the show just did. In fact, "Ruth's Report" from last night talks about the four-part series too. So Marjorie Cohn talked about Jose Padilla and enemy combatant and how that could be applied to anyone. She talked about Haliburton's contract to build detention centers in the US and how those could be used to house anybody and for interment like during WWII. She talked about the Patriot Act and just pulled it all together.

Then she was talking about how maybe Democrats in Congress, the majority when the new Congress takes over in January and when she got done Michael Ratner goes that he's not sure if they're going to disagree over this or not but he doesn't believe we can just wish & hope Congress is going to do something.

Remember, he has put a lot of time in on the Guantanamo prisoners issue. And it's really a no-brainer because either or legal system is something we believe in and follow or it's not. But even though that's so obvious, Democrats in Congress didn't want to stand up. They didn't want to do their job and used the election as an excuse. There's always going to be an election, every two years, the House has an election.

So his point was that we need to see some activism and we need to see people speaking out and all. Cohn didn't disagree with that and they both talked about how the government doesn't just give out stuff, people have to fight for it.

She also talked about the importance of getting the word out by talking about it ("on shows like this") and doing op-eds and other stuff.

She was a really good guest, Heidi introducted her, and Michael Smith said he hoped she could be a regular guest which would be pretty cool IMO.

In terms of activism, I'll grab that with tomorrow's discussion (of the third segment).

Okay, now let me talk, quickly, about the latest edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review:

A Note to Our Readers -- Jim's note explaining the edition. With a tip to what next week will have.

Editorial: Return of the Toad, Robert Gates -- Slam the gate on Gates! There were two illustrations for this, one was a drawing of him, then there's the one (that's used) that was charcoal and had him as a toad. They weren't sure it had enough color and were thinking they'd go with the other one but Rebecca argued for this one. The gang (Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and C.I. plus Kat since she's back) did all the illustrations out in Cali. They e-mailed them to Rebecca for photoshopping. I saw them and agreed with Rebecca that the toad thing was better.

TV: Big Rip Off -- My sister actually taped the pice of crap show Ava and C.I. are reviewing. She never watched it. Sunday afternoon, she goes we should watch it. So we go in and it's possibly worse than what Ava and C.I. said. They really nailed that show good.

What happened in Amman? -- Nouri al-Maliki, the puppet. Or is he! :D Seriously, I like the point of this and I love the painting they did.

The One About The Nation -- A guest got rude with Laura Flanders and that made this go from possibility to must-do. The illustration is really cool so check that out, I don't know if they used water color or oil but it really turned out good. I think the words did too. It's pretty powerful and if The Nation doesn't find the war real quick (in a non-hide behind way), I'm done with that magazine.

Yes, RadioNation with Laura Flanders did air -- This is about the guest wanting to tell Laura she didn't know the news and she didn't know what "neocon" meant and only he knows what is what. He didn't appear to know much beyond his name.

Worst Video Collection -- The illustration is great. It really looks like Dave Matthews Band.

NYT: Wednesday Repeats -- This is about the New York Times running a repeat.

Highlights -- These are highlights and they forgot Kat! Jim told me that today. Kat was helping them pick highlights so she forgot to mention herself too! She forgot herself. :D Everyone except the West Coast division had already gone to bed.

Iraq Study Group Calls for All US Troops to Leave ... -- This is a repost of the thing Nina, Tony and I did.

Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz for Elaine's thoughts. Now here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, December 4, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, another marker is passed -- 2900 US troops dead, the US Defense Department notes (in a whisper) that someone did die last week and wasn't "missing," a US war resister finds inspiration from a relative, and Mark Danner (New York Review of Books) suggests: "Anyone wanting to answer the question of 'how we began' in Iraq has to confront the monumental fact that the United States, the most powerful country in the world, invaded Iraq with no particular and specific idea of what it was going to do there, and then must try to explain how this could have happened."
Starting with peace news: (202) 224-3121. What is that? The phone number to the Congressional Switchboard. Today, as CODEPINK notes, is " National Call in Day to hold Congress accountable to the Mandate for Peace!" The action asks that those in the United States call the number and ask their US House Representative and their two US Senators to "bring the troops home now."
On Sunday, weighing in on Iraq's civil war, Kofi Annan (Secretary General of the United Nations) told the BBC that conditions in Iraq are "much worse". Edward Wong (New York Times) notes Annan joins others such as Colin Powell (former US Secretary of State) and Ayad Allawi (former prime minister of Iraq) in making that call. Amy Goodman writes (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) that the hair splitting over whether to use the term or not has stopped "the harangues that the media are not covering the 'positive stories' or the 'good news' -- there simply is no good news in Iraq." Goodman notes it "is definitely in a civil war. A civil war started by the U.S. invasion and fueled by the U.S. occupation."
Meanwhile, in a step usually reserved for couples in the world of entertainment, Zalmay Khalilzad and George Casey release a joint press statement. No, they're not dispelling rumors of a break up. They are announcing that, "Together we will bring peace to all Iraqis and restore dignity and security to this great nation." Well then, one-two-three-four-five-sis-seven-eight . . . Schlemeel, schlemazel, hasenfeffer incorporated. They're going do it!
Or maybe not.
Bombings?
Reuters notes a car bomber in Mosul killed himself and left five civillians wounded.
Shootings?
AFP reports seven people were shot dead in Baquba today -- "including four employees of the department of agriculture of the Diyala province". Reuters reports four police officers were shot dead in Mosul. CBS and AP report two shooting deaths in Khalis.
Corpses?
CNN reports that a total of 84 corpses have been discovered in Baghdad alone in the last two days. Reuters reports that seven corpses were turned over to a hospital in Mosul and a corpses was found in Mahaweel.
AFP notes that almost "150 Iraqis have died over the last two days alone in sectarian and insurgent attacks." That number doesn't include unreported deaths or corpses discovered.
So, for instance, Hidaib Mejhoul's corpse isn't in the count. Mejhoul's body was discovered Saturday, he was kidnapped Thursday.
In addition, yesterday ICCC noted that the total number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war had reached 2900. This follows Saturday's announcement that "One Soldier assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Armored Division died Dec. 1 from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province." And Sunday's many announcements (from "And the war drags on . . ."): "Earlier today, the US military announces today: 'A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died from injuries sustained when the convoy he was traveling in struck an improvised explosive device near Taji, Iraq, at approximately 8:30 a.m. Saturday' and 'Two Soldiers assigned to the 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) were killed by an improvised explosive device while conducting a security patrol in the Al Anbar province of Iraq Dec 2.' Since then, they've also announced: 'Baghdad Soldier was killed during combat operations in the Iraqi capital Dec. 3."and they've announced: 'Two Soldiers assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and one Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Saturday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province.'
Today? The US military announced: "Two Task Force Lightning Soldiers, assigned to 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, were killed and two others were wounded from an explosion near their vehicle that occurred while they were conducting operations in Multi-National Division -- North, Dec. 3." They also announced one death in the emergency landing of a helicopter on a lake in in Iraq. CBS and AP note that the count from that crash has now risen to four marines dead (16 were reported to be onboard). CNN notes: "It was not clear if the Marine chopper went down in a lake or a river." The US military notes only that it took place in Al-Anbar province. Al Jazeera cites witness in Haditha who "said it came down in a lake, which was sealed off by US forces" while Reuters says it's Lake Qadisiya.
The military is maintaining the helicopter was not hit or even shot at. On that note, Troy Gilbert was piloting the F-16 that crashed last week. Residents who witnessed the crash stated he had died. For some reason, the US military listed him as "missing." On Sunday, the Defense Department released the following: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of an airman deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Maj. Troy L. Gilbert, 34, of Litchfield Park, Ariz, died Nov. 27 when his F-16C fighter crashed 20 miles northwest of Baghdad, Iraq." He died, according to DoD, November 27th and was identified via DNA. Which calls into the question the more than 48 hours the US military pushed that Gilbert was missing to the press while his wife (Ginger Gilbert) waited for answers. (The couple have five children.)
2900 and counting is among the costs of the war. Over 655,000 is another number -- estimate of the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war. The injured, the frightened (those living in a war zone), the ones who mourn, all part of the cost of Bully Boy's illegal war of choice. And currently, the estimated financial cost of the war is $348,000,000,000" (via the counter on Tom Hayden's website). This comes at a time when James K. Galbraith (writing for the Guardian of London) observes: "The US economy is going soft faster than the inflation hawks and growth optimists thought. . . . The US trade deficit is near all-time records. . . . That is partly why Economists for Peace and Security -- a group I chair -- opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. As far back as 2002, we understood - as the economically illiterate neo-imperialists did not - that a world system very favourable to America was on the line. And it was not, as they seemed to think, just a matter of military might. We knew that if the war undermined confidence in the power, good faith and common sense of the United States, that could lead toward disastrous changes on the financial front. Four years in and with no end in sight, that risk may finally be catching up to the almighty dollar."
In other financial costs, Julian Borger and David Pallister (Guardian of London) report that Iraq faces a less noted danger -- "being brought down by the wholesale smuggling of the nation's oil and other forms of corruption that together represent a 'second insurgency'". Borger and Pallister note that the US Special Inspector General for the Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, has "referred 25 cases of fraud to the justice department for criminal investigations, four of which have led to conviction, and about 90 more are under investigation."
Not much 'imagination,' just a lot of crooked behaivors. Addressing the lies and myths that led the US into an illegal war of Bully Boy's choice, Mark Danner (New York Review of Books) theorizes: "[T]he War of Imagination draped all the complications and contradictions of the history and politics of a war-torn, brutalized society in an ideologically driven vision of a perfect future. Small wonder that its creators, faced with grim reality, have been so loathe to part with it. Since the first thrilling night of shock and awe, reported with breathless enthusiasm by the American television networks, the Iraq war has had at least two histories, that of the war itself and that of the American percention of it."
Exploring the British media's response to the illegal war, Dr. Piers Robinson (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports on a study conducted by social scientists at three universities on the pre-war and earliest days coverage -- the study "found that stories dealing with the justifications for war 'overwhelmingly reflected the official line,' with over 80 percent of stories mirroring the government position and less than 12 percent challegning it."
In the United States, Bully Boy is meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Guy Dinmore (Financial Times of London) first met with Condi Rice and that the trip to DC has "fuelled the perception of an administration that is seeking a new direction in Iraq while tacitly admitting it is not winning the war." Or maybe the US administration is just auditioning the next puppet to be installed? The BBC notes that their correspondent, Sarah Morris, "says the meeting has attracted controversy since Mr Hakim has ties to Iran and is thought by many to have links to a militia group."
If Nouri al-Maliki, current puppet is replaced, chances are the next installed will also move only when strings are pulled. Raed Jarrar (CounterPunch) notes that al-Maliki made the decision to seek a renewal of the United Nations Security Council's occupation mandate without consulting the Iraqi parliament beforehand or advising them of what he'd done which, if it matters, is probably a violation of the Iraqi constitution. If it matters? Without US backing and stroking al-Maliki wouldn't be the current puppet, he missed the Constitutional deadline for naming his cabinet (as well as the extra-Constitutional extension he gave himself). Jarrar speaks with various members of the Iraqi parliament and Sale al-Mutlaq's comments may sum up the consensus: "This is totally unexpected. It is another example of the Prime Minister dismissing the views of the parliament and monopolizing all power."
(Jarrar discuseed this with Sandra Lupien on the November 29th broadcast of The KPFA Evening News for anyone who would like audio or additional information.)
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) report that, "Disquiet is arising all around because the present Iraqi government is losing support -- and so is the United States in its occupation of Iraq" and that al-Maliki's seen as a failure because, as one Iraqi shares, "He and other Dawa party leaders did not keep the promises made to the Sadr movement before the elections. . . . People are complaining that this government is not paying any attention to them and their ruined city despite the huge contracts signed for reconstruction."
Monopolizing all power includes attacking free speech which is what al-Maliki has done from early on. He has closed TV stations, implemented rules that there will be a 30 minute delay when broadcasting live from the parliament, had a laughable (and failed) "four-part" "plan" whose third part was nothing but censorship. Today, People's Daily Online reports that Nabil Ibrahim al-Dulaimi, a journalist, "was killed in front of his house while he was heading to work". On Thursday, Editor & Publisher explored some of the other issues including that "Iraq's Interior Ministry . . . formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect." The attempts to curb the press continue.
Meanwhile, in the US, war resistor Mark Wilkerson finds inspiration and support from the past -- specifically from his great-grandfather. Writing at his website, Red, White & Blurry: My Life As An AWOL Soldier, Wilkerson explains that his grandmother passed on a letter to him, one that his great-grandfather wrote then-US-president Calvin Coolidge when his son (John F. Hemphill) died in Nicaragua. Wilkerson reproduces the letter as his site and notes:
"When I read this for the first time, I couldn't help but crying. Because through this letter, I can't help but feel that my great-grandfather would be proud of what I'm going through, and could relate with me on many levels. I feel that reading this somehow connected me again to a part of my family that I haven't been close to much lately, and I'm thankful for that. I also feel more now, than ever, that as a veteran, it is my obligation to speak out when I feel that an injustice is being done in our country today through this so-called War on Terrorism."
Mark Wilkerson self-checked out of the US military for approximately eighteen months before, August 31st, announcing at Camp Casey III that he would be turning himself in. Speaking with Dennis Bernstein on KPFA's Flashpoints the same day, Wilkerson explain that he had applied for c.o. status but been denied and told that he could not begin the rebuttal process until after he completed his second deployment in Iraq.
Wilkerson is part of a movement within the military of war resistance that also includes
Kyle Snyder, Ehren Watada, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Joshua Casteel, Clifford Cornell, Agustin Aguayo, Patrick Hart, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, and Kevin Benderman. Those are only some of the names of those resisting who have gone public.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Soldier Say No!, the War Resisters Support Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans For Peace. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Their actions are helping to end to the war as are the actions of others demanding an end to the illegal war. Today on WBAI's Law and Disorder, co-host Michael Ratner spoke with Marjorie Cohn (president of the National Lawyers Guild) about the need to press Congress but also the need to do much more. Cohn agreed and noted that the advances of the Civil Rights era weren't a gift that a generous Congress just decided to offer, they resulted from demands, protests and activism. Mike will be addressing the broadcast later today at his site Mikey Likes It! (The four hosts of the program are Ratner, Dalia Hashad, Heidi Boghosian and Michael Smith.)
And finally, tomorrow on KPFA (airwaves and online):

KPFA Special Broadcast: Robert Gates Confirmation HearingTuesday, December 5th, 06:00amLive, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Robert Gates Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill. With Larry Bensky, Aaron Glantz and our guest experts.

This will also be carried at the Pacifica website. For more background on Gates see Consortium News and for Robert Parry's latest click here. Gates shouldn't be back-patted and glad-handed with his history. Danny Schechter the News Dissector notes: "Sadly, I saw John Kerry on CNN say he will vote for Gates because the country doesn't need a debate now on his appointment as the new Rummy Dummy. Huh?"






































Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)