|
|
 |
|
|
Jun 30, 2008
Into this heady and well-populated milieu steps Joe Allen's recently published Vietnam: The (Last) War the US Lost. This book is a comprehensive history of the US movement against the war in Vietnam, the revolutionary upsurge that sprang up in the wake of that movement’s growth and Washington's refusal to end the war, and the eventual end of the war and the movement against it. Utilizing a multitude of sources, Allen's history is unique in its methodology in that it takes the war, its conduct by the US military, and the antiwar movement as an interconnected whole. While definitely written from a perspective that not only considered the war to be wrong, but also as part of a foreign policy that can be described only as imperialism, Allen's book is not a diatribe. Instead, it is a reasoned and researched description of the US involvement in the French attempts to maintain its empire, the eventual assumption of the French role by Washington for its own reasons, and the development of the largest and most effective movement against war in US history.that's from ron jacobs' 'Vietnam Blues' ( dissident voice) and c.i. asked me if i could highlight it this week? of course. c.i. asks for so little. there were 2 things i was planning on writing about tonight and ron jacobs' article sets up 1 if not both. jacobs a strong writer and you should already be familiar with him. (joe allen is as well. i have a book by him that c.i. gave me on vietnam, i believe. not the 1 jacobs is writing about.) vietnam veterans against the war is a strong group. when jacobs or vvaw can be worked into the snapshot, they are and, if you pay attention, they're talking about the current illegal war. c.i. is aware of the importance of imparting the historical examples but is also aware that nothing turns off today's college-age and younger people as much as feeling your telling old stories. so c.i. tries to balance it at the common ills and it can be a tight rope at times. while we were working on 3rd, a topic was floated, the new york times' article about how the white house sent these people here in iraq and those there and it undermined the war! i proposed it as a humorous piece and c.i. blackballed it. :) seriously, c.i. said in a week or 2, maybe as a humor piece and that it could be a piece for sunday (yesterday) but 'i'm not taking part in it.' how come? we have seen this movie before. if you can remember vietnam (or maybe if you've studied it) you know that as that illegal war began it's many year wind-down, it was time for a bunch of nonsense stories from the mainstream press. and that's all the new york times offered on sunday. the take-away from their nonsense is 'the war could have been won if bully boy had paid attention to the tribal areas!' now there is no way to prove that. it's speculation. but it's the little out we saw over and over during vietnam: ways the illegal war could have been won. all speculation and all a distraction from the reality that the war (like today's) was illegal. for some pushing that sort of nonsense - and you can be sure this is the case with the new york times - it was the ground work for future wars. got prove we 'learned' something from it! but we're not learning anything if we're jerking off over tactics and not confronting the reality that the iraq war is illegal. the new york times published a story in their sunday paper about tactics. it was all over the net saturday night (which is where i saw it). it is still in the 'news.' it's been cited this morning by amy goodman. why? what does it matter? does it increase our understanding that the war was illegal? no. it only encourages some that the iraq war - which is lost - could have been won! if that goofy bully boy, that massive screw up, had paid attention to the details, we could've won! and since bully boy was the screw up, that means next time we will! hoo-ha! do you get what a distraction from reality it is? the story presents speculation of different tactics as a way to win. and what are 'we' winning? should we win an illegal war? where's the big new york times story on that? this is a variation on charles ferguson (who supports the illegal war, supported it before it started, supported it when he made the film, supported it while promoting the film - which is why c.i. worked like crazy to make sure no 1 was voting for it at the academy awards) piece of trash documentary. i hate to break it to you, but sometimes you lose. and sometimes you are supposed to lose. an illegal war has no 'win' in it. by some stroke of luck or extreme desperation, it might be 'won' military. but there are real issues here and we're not addressing them. there are people who still, all this time later, can't say 'illegal war' when discussing the iraq war. and the crap the new york times published sunday wasn't a help to our understanding. it was military porn. it was a bunch of jerking off around a game of battleship. but the iraq war isn't a game. people are dying. they are dying for what 'cause'? there is no cause and there is no legality to the war. when it was being killed at third (my idea for a story), c.i. and i were making these points. and c.i. said (rightly), 'you know i have made these points and will make them again. i'm not really sure that this is a new topic for the edition.' and when that was said, i responded, 'you are right.' because c.i. was right. my memory was never that good and 'shot to hell' doesn't begin to describe it today. but i remember the big picture from my college days and i should have been writing about this sort of thing here. however, i never have. so that's what i wanted to do tonight. not leave all the heavy lifting to c.i. - especially when it's a topic i actually can write about. when we're writing about war resistance 'back in the day' at 3rd, after elaine and c.i. have gone over and over something, a light bulb will begin to go off and i'll be like, 'oh yeah, i remember that.' but for those kind of intricate things, i need to be walked through. for the big picture items, i don't. (and c.i. chose to carry that feature over to third - it's now a weekly thing - because of the need to keep iraq at the forefront and not make it appear as if it's 'gather round kiddies and let me tell you bout the old days.' c.i. could write every article or editorial we've done at 3rd solo at the common ills. if there was a question, pick up the phone and call elaine. but it's carried over to third because there is the balancing act to take into account for the common ills.) am i posting on july 4th is the big question? i don't know. i will probably try to do something brief. remember this is the 1-year-old july 4th for my baby and i'm excited. (an e-mail i read today accused me of implying that all women should have babies or they weren't women. i laughed my ass off at that. if you're new to my site, i went through decades of miscarriages and, if i hadn't gotten a late life pregnancy under my belt and gone on months and months of bedrest, i wouldn't have a baby today. i had already accepted that i wouldn't have a child. so to accuse me of suggesting that women have to have babies or they are not women, really was insulting. it's probably better that i chose to laugh about it instead of ripping ___ a new 1. and, for the record, 'white mama' is a bette davis t.v. film. cedric came up with referring to these 'helpful' on race types who were women as 'white mama' after that film. in the tv movie, bette davis does not give birth - she's over 70 when the film was shot, by ron howard, i think. so if you're looking for reasons to hate me, look harder and stop being so 'creative.') i hadn't realized it was friday. i normally blog on friday. the plan is i'll do something brief. now, because i wasn't brief, let me cheat on links. i've mentioned: c.i. of The Common Ills
elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and cedric of Cedric's Big Mix oh, and ruth of Ruth's Reportruth did a ' Ruth's Report' for the common ills last night. be sure to read that. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, June 30, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, attempts to assassinate five Iraqi judges take place, four Abu Ghraib prisoners sue, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Henry Aubin's "Canada is wrong not to give asylum to U.S. war resisters" (Montreal Gazette) ran earlier this month. Today The Montreal Gazette notes the column was very popular with readers explaining "most writers supported Aubin's contention that welcoming U.S. war resisters would be the right thing to do" and quotes Nadia Alexan writing that "if there was ever a case made against an unjust immoral, manufactured war, the agression against Iraq should take the cake."
May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Douglas Glynn (The Barrie Examiner) quotes Corey stating, "The motion is not legally binding, though the majority of Parliament voted for it. I realized innocent people were being killed. I tried to quit the military while in Iraq," he said, "but my commander told me I was just stressed out and needed some R and R (rest and relaxation), because I was doing a job I was not trained to do. I went home on leave and said I was not coming back." So that's where it stands currently.
Courage to Resist is planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"
Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA
San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net
Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com
Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net
New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org
Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org
Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA
Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com
Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559.
Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States.
Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion.
Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th.
We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters.
Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced).
We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!"
http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." They are also asking for a July 2nd call-in. Diane Finley is the Immigration and Citizenship Minister and her phone numbers are (613) 996-4974 and (519) 426-3400 -- they also provide her e-mail addresses minister@cic.gc.ca ("minister" at "cic.gc.ca") and finled1@parl.gc.ca ("finled1" at "parl.gc.ca").
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma). Over the weekend, Joseph G. Cote filed "Marine is arrested, turned over" (Nashua Telegraph) which addressed the arrest of Marine Lance Cpl Jose Flores in Hudson, New Hampshire." Citing Police Capt Donald Breault, Cote reported that "[a] Marine representative had contacted Hudson police and asked them to arrest Flores because he was deemed a deserter". Saturday AP's nonsense brief was filed and Sunday AP filed more nonsense. Read the original article by Cote (which the first AP brief credits) and then the AP stories which maintain Flores was arrested at a traffic stop when there's not only no mention of that, what Cote reports is that the marines contacted the local police and told the police to pick up Flores. It does matter. When the military has told the police to go to a parents' home in Colorado and search, when the military was calling police stations up and down California to alert them to Kyle Snyder, when 'traffic stops' turn out to be searching homes (one war resister picked up at a 'traffic stop') was actually picked up at his brother's home and discovered during the search. The military wants to lie and pretend all they do is enter a name in a data base after thirty days. The reality is an entire unit is patrolling the web looking for tidbits, checking out MySpace pages, phoning in tips to local police. It's time for the lying to stop and the AP has now made the same mistake two days in a row. At this point, it is no longer a mistake, it is a lie.
Turning to Iraq. Nothing to note. Didn't you hear? The 'surge' worked. What's that? It didn't? It was nothing but whack-a-mole on a larger scale? Well someone forgot to tell Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel who declared the 'surge' a "success" yesterday on ABC's This Week. In the real world (your visa is revoked, Katrina), the targeting of officials only increases in Iraq with today seeing an apparent record number of assassination attempts on judges in Baghdad. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing "targeting the house of judge Suliaman Abdallah," " a Baghdad bombing "targeting judge Ali Hameed al Allaq," a Baghdad bombing apparently targeting "Judge Ghanim Abdallah al Shimmari, his wife and his daughter" (all three were wounded), a Baghdad car bombing targeting Judge Hasan Fouad and a Baghdad bombing that targeted Judge Alaa al Timimi. Other than al Shimmari, no judge was noted to be injured in the bombing. Five bombings today in Baghdad targeting judges. Friday, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) was reporting on Judge Kamal al-Showaili being shot-dead while "driving home" in Baghdad. Today Tawfeeq notes, "Hundreds of members of the Mehdi Army militia have been imprisoned in recent months in the wake of an Iraqi-led military crackdown to stamp out Shiite militants and establish authority in Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq." Reuters quotes High Judicial Council spokesperson Abdul Satar Birqadr declaring, "These attacks were organised. ALl happened on the same day, in the same way and the same part of Baghdad." (Reuters also states that the only person injured in the bombings was wounded except for "[t]he wife of Ali al-Alaq.") Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last week that, since the start of the illegal war (March, 2003), "40 judges have been assassinated" according to the High Judiciary Council.
Before we go into other news emerging today, let's drop back to the weekend. Hannah Allem (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Saturday on a Friday US raid in Karbala that resulted in at least one civilian death, a relative of Nouri al-Maliki's. Allem continued covering the story over the weekend. She noted, "Outrage over the mysterious operation has spread to the highest levels of the Iraqi government, which is demanding an explanation for how such a raid occured in a province ostensibly under full Iraq command." And, citing Iraqi sources, noted the raid was conducted by US special forces and that this put the treaty (passed off as a Status of Forces Agreement) in jeopardy. Allam and Qassim Zein reported that the man's name was Ali Abdulhussein al-Maliki and he "was killed at his guard post outside the villa belonging to Maliki's sister" and the brother of the late al-Maliki, Abdulhussein al-Maliki, told McClatchy US helicopters arrived before dawn and "about 50 American ground troops in camoflage then stormed into Janaja". The death of al-Maliki's relative follows last week's other known civilian deaths: 3 bank employees shot dead by US forces while returning to work and 4 members of a family killed in a US air bombing. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that the central government in Baghdad issued a "statement [which] demanded that the [US] soldiers be held accountable in Iraq." Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports that the rumbles in Baghdad are that al-Maliki will announce "[t]he appointmen tof a judge to hear evidence against U.S. soldiers" and quotes Iraqi MP Haider Abadi (from al-Maliki's Dawa Party) stating, "It's not acceptable, Iraqis getting killed without even knowing if it is the result of a tragic incident or this is negligence on the part of the U.S. military."
On the theft of Iraqi oil, Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reported today that the US State Department took part in the awarding of no-bid contracts to Big Oil despite previous claims that the Iraqis had made the decision with help from Big Oil that the US paried them with (click here for Kramer's June 19th report). Kramer notes that "any perception of American meddling in Iraq's oil policies threaten to inflame opinion against the United States, particularly in Arab nations that are skeptical of American intentions in Iraq, which has the third-largest oil reserves in the world." Andy Rowell (Price of Oil) quotes Greg Muttitt stating that "the contracts start to look very strange. For a start, the deals are with the wrong companies. The companies which usually carry out TSCs [technical service contracts] are specialist providers, like Schlumberger, Sapem or Baker Hughes. They are often hired in for geological, construction or drilling expertise, or to install a piece of technology. In no other country are the likes of BP or ExxonMobil carrying out such TSCs."
Though the contracts were supposed to be signed today, AFP reports that they haven't been and that "Iraq is still negotiating with Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total" as well as Small Oil and quotes Hussein al-Shahristani, the country's Oil Mister, declaring, "We did not finalise any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees as they wanted a share of the oil." This as CBS and AP report that the price of a barrel of oil hit $143 today.
In other news Daren Butler (Reuters) reports that four Iraqis have announced they "are suing U.S. military contractors CACI International Inc, CACI Premier Techonology and L-3 Services Inc (formerly Titan Corp) as well as three people who they say tortured them while they were detained in Abu Ghraib prison." The Center for Constitutional Rights (Katherine Gallagher), Burke O'Neil LLC (Susan L. Burke and William F. Gould) and Akeel & Valentine (Shereef Akeel) are representing the four who are:
• Mohammed Abdwaihed Towfek Al-Taee, a 39-year-old taxi driver who was detained and horrifically abused for nine months before his May 2004 release. He later learned that he likely was the victim of a customer who presumably turned him over in exchange for American money for intelligence "tips."
• Wissam Abdullateef Sa'eed Al-Quraishi, a 37-year-old married father of three, who was hung on a pole for seven days at the infamous Abu Ghraib "hard site" and subjected to beatings, forced nudity, electrical shocks, humiliating treatment, mock executions and other forms of torture during his incarceration at the prison.
• Sa'adoon Ali Hameed Al-Ogaidi, a 36-year-old Arabic teacher and shopkeeper and father of four, who was held for a year, caged, brutally abused at the prison "hard site," stripped and kept naked, and was a "ghost" detainee hidden for a time from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
• Suhail Najim Abdullah Al-Shimari, a farmer who was held for more than four years, including at the prison "hard site," was caged, threatened with dogs, and subjected to beatings and electrical shocks, and threatened with death and being sent to a "far away" place.
The three people being sued are contractors for the companies: Adel Nakhla, Timothy Dugan and Daniel E. Johnson.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul car bombing that claimed 1 life and left thirteen people wounded and a Baghdad car bombing that involved "an unidentified" corpse.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Mosul that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad and the corpse of 1 Iraqi soldier discovered in Mosul.
Moving to US politics. "It's political bigotry," independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader explained to George Stephanopoulos ABC's This Week yesterday when asked about (unfounded) anger at him for his 2000 run being taken out against organizations he is no longer a part of. "Why are all these people who agree with us on the issues behaving this way? Because they believe that the two parties own the voters in this country and you go for the least-worst party. And if you go for that least worst-party, you don't make demands on that least-worst party, your votes are going to be taken for granted and the corporate interests are going to pull both parties in their direction. They can't seem to figure that out. The Nation magazine for example and The Progressive magazine have all these recommendations and reforms and they're hostile or indifferent to the Nader-Gonzalez campaign which is the only one that comes up 6%, 4% sometimes 8 and 10% in Michigan in the polls is pushing their vergy agenda. They have no breaking point, George. There's no moral imperative. They will forever put the ring in their nose and provide the tether for the least worst Democrat." We'll address Nader's appearance later in the section on the presidential race; however, let's focus on the bigotry first. In the roundtable, George would declare Katrina vanden Heuvel's "name was invoked in the last" segment" (George invoked it, Ralph never mentioned her by name). Katrina declared, "First of all let me say that Ralph Nader, great citizen number one, but his great crusade against corporate power and for consumer rights has come from outside the electoral system. The Nation in 2004, again 2008 again said 'Ralph, don't run.' But the key thing, and I think Ralph understand this, and he mentioned another name, Bill Fletcher, Barack Obama is running for president, he is not running for the messiah. I'm shocked that he's moving to the center. I'm shocked. But we don't whine." If we did, we might whine, "Who told her to wear that ugly eye shadow?" Should we stay with this issue because Katrina didn't. She was asked about Nader's critique and she instead bragged that the magazine she is editor and publisher of ran a "Ralph, Don't Run" campaign in 2004 and again in 2008. That's something to be proud of? If she can tear herself away from whatever Russian bodice ripper she's currently thumbing through for a second, could Katrina refer to the Constitution and examine Article II? Could she try explaining how Ralph's criticism of her magazine and The Progressive was wrong? It wasn't wrong. Barack's caved on illegal spying and caved on public financing so far this month. Where's the feet to the fire? If The Nation will not support third-parties, will they even bother to hold Barack's feet to the fire? No. Nader's criticism was that he's shut out by 'independent' media (The Nation and The Progressive) whose stated beliefs and opinions are the ones his campaign is built on while they go with the least-worst choice from the Democratic Party. He is correct. Katrina refused to have that discussion. Not only is he correct on that, it's equally true that having decided to go with the least-worst of the two major parties, they betray their own beliefs. You saw it in all of Katrina's excuses (usually prefaced with "I'm not apologizing for" him as she went on to do just that). There was no attempt to hold him accountable. But Katrina doesn't dislike all third parties, she revealed. "The one who I think is going to gain real traction in this country," she said grinning like a demented fool, "is Bob Barr." So Bob Barr, whom Katrina sees as not 'winning' votes but 'stripping them away' from McCain is her kind of third party candidate. For Katrina, the 'good' third party is the one who does 'damage' to the candidate she dislikes. That's really more frightening than her pride over The Nation's undemocratic "Don't Run!" nonsense.
Turning to the US race for president. The so-called 'unity' campaign keeps floundering. Yesterday on CBS' Face The Nation (link has text and video), Barack Obama surrogate Wesley Clark was vouching for Barack's "good judgment" and other ridiculous things that Clark can see with some sort of decoder ring apparently. While the recordless Barack got a tongue bath from Clark, fur balls seems to be coughed up as Clark turned his fire on US Senator John McCain (the presumed GOP presidential nominee). While claiming "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war," mere minutes later, 'honor' turned to 'trashing' as Clark declared, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." CNN reports that McCain surrogate Rick Davis appeared on the cable network's American Morning today and declared, "Sending Wesley Clark out as a surrogate for your campaign and attacking John McCain and his war record and his military experience and his service is, I think, just the lowest form of politics." In the ongoing, illegal Iraq War, Byron W. Fouty, Alex R. Jimenez and Ahmed Quasai al-Taeli are classified by the Defense Department as "Missing or Captured." Rick Klein (ABC News) instructs, "Please, find me a single Democrat who thinks it's good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war." Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports the McCain camp assembled the following for a Monday morning conference call with the press: "Sen. John Warner, POWs Col. Bud Day and Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, McCain foreign policy advisor Bud McFarland, and Carl Smith a retired Navy pilot who served with McCain". Indpendent presidential candidate Ralph Nader was among the guests on ABC's This Week. The appearance preceded a Connecticut fundraiser which the AP reports raised $2000. AP also reported last week that 5% of Hillary Clinton supporters were now supporting Nader in the general election.
"If you really want to cover everybody in health insurance and save hundreds of lives and . . . hundreds of thousands of illnesses," Nader declared to Stephanopoulos, "you would go for single-payer which the majority of American people want and the majority of doctors want. . . . The HMOS are opposed to single-payer, the big health insurance compaines are opposed to single-payer. If you want to give a hundred million Americans a break in terms of their livelihood and wages, you would go for labor law reform. You'd repeal Taft-Hartley and give them the opportunity -- low-income workers -- to organize and collectively bargain. . . . If you want more jobs in the innercity, you know, public works, schools, clinics, libraries, sewage treatment systems, you've got to reduce the bloated, wasteful military budget, George."
"I think the two parties are hurting our country," said Nader of the Democratic and Republican Parties, "and they need more competition. As we see on our website VoteNader.org, you will see the issues we have on the table are majoritarian issues: single-payer health care, do something about the wasteful military budget, labor law reform, consumer protection . . . living wage, etc. . . . The problem is, George, there's too much political bigotry against small parties and candidates. You see it in these huge ballot access laws which we're trying to overcome now with our roadtrippers, very, very costly. We're excluded from the debates. Why do we ration debates? We ought to have staggered debates. You've got Wimbledon, the sixtieth seed gets a chance, you've got the NCAA, the sixtieth team gets a chance. You have a huge roll of wealth on it. We're appealing to the people in this country. . . . We're appealing to the people in this country who want more choices on the ballot and Nader-Gonzalez provides those choices." Team Nader states:
We need $10 from you to get Nader/Gonzalez on ten state ballots in ten days.
So, if you haven't donated to Nader/Gonzalez yet, now is the time - please give ten dollars now.
Our goal - $40,000 by July 6.
We have more than fifty young, energetic roadtrippers busting it on the ground all around the country for Nader/Gonzalez - the only candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations back to the people.
(If you think Obama is that guy, think again. Obama is moving in the other direction - running away from the people into the arms of the corporations. Check out Obama's most recent flip-flop on giving immunity to telecom corporations under the government surveillance and wiretapping bill. And then watch Ralph Nader say no to wiretapping here.)
In Illinois we've collected and turned in more than twice the signatures we need.
In Arizona, we've collected and turned in more than three times the signatures we need.
In Nevada, we will turn in more than twice the signatures we need.
By July 6, with your help, we'll be penciled in for ten states - Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Utah.
And we're targeting 40 states by the end of the summer.
There is a reason the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans are concerned about Nader/Gonzalez.
We're at six percent in the most recent CNN poll.
And we plan to be on 45 state ballots come November (up from 34 in 2004.)
So, drop a ten spot on Nader/Gonzalez now.
Of course, the more the merrier.
But $10 is what we're asking from each and every one of you - our loyal supporters.
So do it now.
 iraq
 the new york times
 andrew e. kramer
 andy rowell
 qassim zein
mcclatchy newspapers
hannah allem
 doug smith
 the los angeles times
alissa j. rubin
the center for constitutional rights |
Posted at 08:51 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 29, 2008
darren manzella and other things
Robert Castillo and John Pennycuff live in Chicago. This is the second time they've come to San Francisco to get hitched.
"It's a big thrill to marry the person you love, the person you want to spend the rest of your life with," said Pennycuff.
They were married in San Francisco back in 2004. That marriage was nullified, and when they heard the Supreme Court had ruled to allow gay marriages in California again, they had one question.
"How much are the flights?" asked Pennycuff.
They're one of hundreds of gay couples getting married at San Francisco City Hall on Friday. About a quarter of them are from out of state, visiting the area for the Gay Pride Weekend.that's from anne makovec's 'SF gears up for Gay Pride Weekend' (abc san francisco). it is gay pride month and, as it winds down, this weekend is gay pride weekend. darren manzella has been discharged from the army and he didn't want to be. he wanted to continue serving. he was kicked out because he is gay. in december, lesley stahl interviewed him for 60 minutes: "So, what you did, in effect, by telling him, was trigger the investigation you feared was underway?" Stahl asks.
"I did. And I felt more comfortable with that. I felt more comfortable bein' the one to say, 'This is the truth. This is what is real,'" he says.
"What a Catch-22. You go and tell your lieutenant the truth and now you violated the Army's rule," Stahl remarks.
"I didn't know how else to do it and keep my sanity," Manzella explains.
Manzella didn't hold anything back in the investigation, submitting photos of himself and A.J., and a video of a road trip, including passionate kissing. But when the investigation ended, Manzella says he was told to go back to work. "There was no evidence of homosexuality and go back to work," he says.
"Wait a minute. You've given them photographs of you and A.J.," Stahl remarks.
"Yes, and then they're like, 'Go back to work. You're not gay," Manzella says.
"So, no one ever said anything to you about the -- I don't even know what word to use, absurdity, confusing response?" Stahl asks.
"The closest thing that I was given by my superiors was, "I don't care if you're gay or not." now they care and they want him out. they kicked him out. the press release is in the snapshot. it's gay pride month and if you need to see how screwed up the country is, darren was kicked out of the army. he wanted to continue serving, but he was kicked out for being 'gay.' i say 'gay' like that because it's not really that he's gay. find a military in any country, at any time in history, and you can be damn sure that gay men were serving in it. gay men have always served. but the problem isn't that darren's gay, it's that he's 'gay'. meaning who he is isn't the problem. he's the same person they promoted to sgt. he's the same person who did the job asked. he's the same person praised by superiors. and all of that goes to who he is which includes being gay. but gay's not the problem, 'gay' is. 'gay' is that he won't tiptoe off to a closet and slam the door. he won't pretend he's not gay and he certainly won't pretend like he has a girlfriend or some woman he's going to married or some woman that broke his heart so badly that he just can't handle dating. he won't play the game. gay is fine. gay the military tolerates. what they don't tolerate is refusing to stay in the closet. so, at a time when the military can't even meet recruitment goals and has to lower the standards repeatedly, they have a qualified soldier, with the rank of sgt., who wants to continue serving. but he won't step quietly into the closet. so it's the heave-ho. and exactly who is protected by that? certainly not gays and lesbians with a message to the world that being either is so awful you must be expelled. certainly not the military that now has to replace some 1 that was doing an outstanding job. and certainly not the country. but, hey, maybe next year, they'll lower the bar for recruitment again and start going to the prisons, telling convicted felons, 'sign up for iraq! X years of duty vs. staying behind bars for life!' okay, kat's 'Nader, Carly Simon' went up thursday night and that was the post i said i'd link to when i blogged next. and kat also blogged friday night. how, i do not know. after the iraq study group, we ended up having a very late, very long discussion. 'we' was: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jess and Ava Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Wally of The Daily Jot, and Trina of Trina's Kitchenc.i said 'bring your appetite' and had ordered food (so that trina didn't have to cook or prepare anything). (we were at trina's.) so after the iraq study group broke up, there was basically an hour before we got together. jim and dona are out of town (they spent the week in france; ty goes next) and i was assuming c.i., ava and jess (who will be steering the edition with ty this weekend) were wanting to brainstorm some ideas for 3rd to get a leap on the edition. we did talk about 3rd in 2 ways. 1st we all wanted to know what ava and c.i. were going to do (their honest answer, 'we haven't even thought about that') and they wanted to talk about the war resistance features at third (they is ava, c.i., jess and elaine). if you've missed it (next week, i'll try to link to all those previous features, i'm too tired this morning), at 3rd we're largely picking elaine and c.i.'s brains and c.i.'s journals to address war resistance during vietnam because that truly is hidden history. there is, for instance, this myth that war resisters who went to canada were a group that was evading the draft when the reality was that deserters went to canada as well. and were allowed to stay. now i was part of that time (even if it was so long ago that my long ago shot memory has forgotten almost everything) and i can tell you that elaine and c.i.'s work in the underground railroad included 'draft dodgers' and 'deserters'. but somehow this false narrative has taken hold that it was only 'draft dodgers'. this allows people dismissing the rights of war resisters in canada today to say 'well there's no draft.' it was never about the 'draft.' and during vietnma, canada allowed both 'draft dodgers' and 'deserters' to stay. but this fictional narrative has popped up and it does SO MUCH damage to today's war resisters. (i have written before about how i did a trip to canada when some 1 showed up at c.i., elaine and my apartment and needed to go to canada. i got the keys and we went right away. in addition, there were trips to canada with other war resisters that c.i. and elaine went on - solo or together - that i also tagged along on. but i say it was their work because they busted their asses. i would love to lie to you today and tell you 'oh, i busted my ass too!' but except for the 1 trip, i was just tagging along.) sir! no sir! is an excellent movie. but for the subject, a multi-part pbs series is needed. like the space and time they give to ken burns' multi-part series. there is just so much history and it is so forgotten today. so this was a discussion of that period and what we have done at 3rd and what we still need to do in terms of that at third. and it allowed those who didn't live through it to ask questions that maybe there's not time for when we're working on the edition because we're always in such a hurry. and by asking those questions, new ideas will pop up. 1 thing c.i. threw out was 'do we want to get to the point where we're covering what, based on past history, will likely happen when the iraq war ends? do we want to offer some tips and suggestions to today's war resisters?' and c.i. gave a perfect example of how you could have the charges dropped against you if you were a war resister today and the illegal war was winding down. so c.i. and elaine talked about how some war resisters in canada ('deserters') were able to end up with a clean record even though jimmy carter didn't do anything for 'deserters' (his program was focused on 'draft dodgers'). so we'll probably do something at some point based on the examples elaine and c.i. were giving of that. throughout, it wasn't just history it was history as it applies today. and if some 1 famous dies (not wishing that on them), c.i. and elaine will likely either tell or allude to ____'s work with war resisters which included employment. ____ was active when called upon but is not really known today for any war resistance or even opposition during vietnam. c.i. has known ____ for years and called last week to ask, 'will it hurt you in any way if we mention this?' ____'s response was, 'oh like i care.' but c.i. was always able to call upon ____ and their spouse at the time and doesn't want to 'out' the person. (and in real time, some of ____'s work was known.) ____'s largely seen today as non-political (strange, because ___ is very political) and ____ is a lot older than c.i., elaine or i are so c.i. really doesn't want to do anything that might cause some right-wing crazies to launch public attacks on ____. so what c.i. told ____ was, 'i'm going to speak about it speeches but i'm not going to write anything unless you bring it up publicly or, heaven forbid, you know' (meaning pass away). and i understand that because ____ has a lot of corporate business (i'll word it that way) and if the right-wing went into demonizing, that could hurt the business. ____'s attitude is screw it but c.i. is very protective of friends. so we talked about that and wally had a lot of questions about 'how did they travel all over the country and outside the country with a war resister?' and c.i. pointed out that no 1 was going to do a damn thing to ____ in that period. which really is true. and we talked about today's peace movement and how it is failing. we talked about the earlier moratorium and how it worked as opposed to today's which seems non-existant. and i will say misconceived but c.i. shied away from blame talk. instead, c.i. offered examples of things that made the moratoriums during vietnam visible and how similar things are not being done today. so all of that was really interesting and very productive. wally, by the way, is on the road ava, c.i. and kat non-stop. he said it was the only way to keep going after the d.n.c. stole the nomination from hillary and gave it to barack. if he'd gone home to florida, he said he'd just have stayed in bed for several days depressed. he's going to spend some time (i think 2 weeks) at mike's later this summer (right after we all spend some time at c.i.'s next month) and then head back home. while i'm talking political campaigns, right after hillary suspened her campaign, about 4 days later, i had an angry e-mail from a hillary supporter that the community was now promoting ralph. i wrote back that it was my feeling (based on what c.i. had heard from the clinton camp) that hillary would do what she is doing now - campaigning with barack - and that we couldn't do posts every day where we focused on hillary's campaign while it was suspended. i said some sites would (outside the community) and that was fine but that we had talked about the weekend hillary suspended and we had asked how we want to use our power? the community members had already decided that if hillary dropped out, ralph was their vote (regardless of whether they were democrats, greens or independents) so we knew the sentiment of the community. we only have the power we use. the feeling from people c.i. spoke to was that hillary was going to suspend the campaign on saturday (which she ended up doing) and that, barring any scandal on barack, that was going to be it. it wasn't even thought that she'd press for a 1st round of voting in denver. that's her right. she was torn apart during this campaign by barack and the media. she fought and she earned my respect. i never knew she was that strong. but with what we knew, it seemed dishonest to be doing the hillary posts. the same person who e-mailed back then, e-mailed again friday to say, 'yeah, you were right to focus on ralph.' and we were. and ralph will be on abc's this week. that's sunday morning, so check that out. it's amazing how little his coverage his campaign has received and that made it all the more important for us to use our power. if any 1 asks me, i'm not shy about saying, 'vote for ralph.' that's what i'm doing and what i believe in. c.i. isn't comfortable telling any 1 'vote for ___.' that's not a slap at ralph. that's true of any candidate. c.i. will say, 'i'm voting for ___ because.' but c.i. doesn't like to say 'vote for ___!' i believe i shared the 2004 democratic primary story but in case any 1 missed that (i think i wrote about that in 2005), i couldn't decide. i knew c.i. had (but didn't know who c.i. was supporting) and i knew elaine had (she was supporting howard dean). i would talk to c.i. on the phone or on visits and c.i. would outline all the candidates to hlep me make my choice. even joe lieberman (whom c.i. does not like) would get a fair shake. (even dennis, who i didn't know c.i. disliked until the dnc convention, got a fair shake.) c.i. and i were friends and roommates in college (elaine as well) and if c.i.'s not comfortable saying, 'rebecca, support ___' to me, c.i.'s not comfortable telling any 1 how to vote. c.i. really believes that you should make your own decision and you should familarize yourself with as much information as you can and then make your decision. i've already shared that my assumption is c.i.'s voting for ralph. but i don't know that. other options might be voting for cynthia mckinney, writing in hillary, voting for bob barr (which i doubt, but who knows) or just not voting for the president. i know c.i.'s voting. c.i.'s voting to vote in the 8th district congressional election for cindy sheehan. and it's really too bad cindy decided to do nancy pelosi's work for her in the democratic primary. i was high on her campaign. i'm not now (i won't be voting in california, so she doesn't need to worry about losing a vote - however, flyboy and i were going to get a 2nd home there just to vote in that election. we're not going to do that now). going to common dreams and leaving all those hateful comments about hillary and giving the impression that barack was somehow different? if she'd asked, pelosi probably would have been willing to pay her to do that. she wasn't paid to do that, she was just stupid. and now he will likely have the nomination and he's not promising to end the illegal war (as he himself said on cnn june 5th). way to go, cindy! when hillary really got strong on iraq, c.i. was checking to be sure that this was not just campaign words. it wasn't hillary meant it. and if the peace movement had any real leaders, they would have thrown their support behind hillary. some 1 can say, 'oh, i don't believe her.' doesn't matter. if they'd gotten behind hillary publicly or even just noted her stand positively, it would have made barack move to the left. they should have been playing both candidates off each other. they were idiots. they decided to buy the myth of barack and to promote that. and now he's not even shy about saying publicly that his 'promises' on iraq were just words. and they still don't hold him accountable. by the way, lance selfa wrote an article this week which made the point c.i.'s been making for some time, samantha power is back with the barack campaign. no 1's supposed to notice that. i won't link to selfa but i'll give him credit for realizing that. i won't link to him because it's the socialist worker and they really embarrassed themselves (i don't know that lance himself did) this primary as they hyped and lied for barack non-stop. i think sharon smith was the most disgusting in her 'white momma' piece. with all outlets, i think we saw how shallow they were, how they would lie, how it wasn't about ending the illegal war for them. it was important to get on board with bi-racial barack and to portray him as black. there is finally a bit of crack there in the mainstream. there should be. he's bi-racial and the bi- and multi-racial community has worked so hard for recognition in this country. all of their work was trashed thanks to barack deciding it was easier to get elected using 'black' as a crutch. it's really interesting when he himself used bi-racial for most of his adult life. he even used it publicly. but it was time to betray that movement because if he used 'black' he could use it as a crutch to beat people over the head with. had his mother been asian, you have to wonder if it would have been so easy to get away with? but the white liberal guilt - nader's right about that - kicked in. and idiots like sharon smith were happy to stab diversity in the back and write as if the year was 1948 and not 2008. they were happy to trot out the civil rights (a movement barack sneers at as evidenced by his remarks about jeremiah wright and 'anger'). it was really shameful and, let's be honest, hurtful. bi-racial and multi-racial are not the past, they are the trend of the future. there have always been bi- and multi-racial people. but we will see more and more in the population. and they have a right to respect and recognition. and they worked so hard in the 90s and actually achieved recognition - finally - from the u.s. census. all that work went down the drain as the left pushed the nonsense meme of 'black' barack. it's going to be real hard to come away from that and c.i., who has many friends in that movement, was always vocal about that. but let's face it, the left media is nothing but white people and a few token african-americans. they really don't get the country because they are so far removed from it. so it was no big deal for them to rip apart the work done by the bi- and multi-racial community. all for 1 man. their christ-child. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, June 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the deporation clock ticks down for Corey Glass, another Iraqi judge is assassinated, MTV accepts political advertisements . . . or at least some, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Iraq Veterans Against the War Matthis Chiroux remains in the news. Chiroux announced June 15th that he would not report to duty (as he'd stated he wouldn't on May 15th). South Carolina's WIS News 10 reported on some reactions yesterday (link has text and video):
David Stanton: Being called to deploy? It is a possibility that all of South Carolina's bravest face but the refusal of one soldier to go to Iraq has many military members talking. Sgt. Mathhis Chiroux was honorably discharged about a year ago. He served in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and the Phillipines. Chiroux was then called back to duty for service in Iraq. But Chiroux says he will not report to Fort Jackson as ordered. As Trey Paul found out some have a hard time supporting the decision.
Mst. Sgt. Gary Villanueva: My father always taught me that a handshake was a man's honor. And signing on the dotted line is equivalent to a handshake. And s-s-so if they made that comitment I believe they should honor it and if they didn't, quite frankly, I question them as a man.
Trey Paul: We asked and Mst. Sgt. Gary Villanueva did not hold back.
Gary Villanueva: Maybe it's best if they don't come into the military because that type of person I would really question my . . . uh . . . back half of my life. And then protecting me or any other individuals I fight with.
Trey Paul: When it comes to a soldier who doesn't complete a military contract lets just say Villanueva doesn't agree
Gary Villanueva: I-I-I uh really think that uh there subject to the punishment that the military law stipulates because they signed a contract.
Trey Paul: Villanueva is one of several soldiers here at Fort Jackson taking part in the IRR -- that's the Individual Ready Reserve. It's the same type of program that Sgt. Matthis Chiroux was required to attend. Other reservists like Sgt. Nolze don't agree with Chiroux either but he thinks he understands where Chiroux's coming from.
Specialist Joshua Nolze: Up until a couple of years ago the military never really used IRR and they told you when you signed the contract, 'Don't really worry about it. You're not going to get called up.' Now days, it's a different story, different world. You're getting called up so it's something you've got to think about before you sign up.
Trey Paul: The IRR works like this: As a soldier you always sign at least an eight-year contract. Most spend at least two of those years serving active duty. The remainder of the contract is spent in some form of the reserves. Mostly the IRR. First Sgt. Reid is helping train these reservists.
1st Sgt. Michael Reid: I also have mixed feelings because some of these young fellows have already been two or three times and probably don't want to go back.
Trey Paul: Since 9-11 a spokesman for the national IRR says Chiroux is just one of seven-hundred who have been a no-show
Gary Villanueva: Whether I agree or disagree with this war is im-imaterial. But one thing I'm soli- I'm sure of, that there are servicemen overseas that need support and that's why I'm coming back to support them.
Trey Paul: At Fort Jackson, Trey Paul, WIS News 10.
IVAW notes:
How you can help:
Find out more about Matthis Chiroux.
Moving to Canada, "I'm refusing to kill innocent people and I'm the one waiting to go to prison and they're the ones setting us up to commit war crimes and they go free," US war resister Ryan Johnson explains to Bill Kaufmann in "Writing on wall for deserters" (The Calgary Sun). Ryan and his wife Jenna Johnson moved to Canada in June 2005. Johnson notes that if a war resister is deported in July, he would most likely be the next one. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Douglas Glynn (The Barrie Examiner) quotes Corey stating, "The motion is not legally binding, though the majority of Parliament voted for it. I realized innocent people were being killed. I tried to quit the military while in Iraq," he said, "but my commander told me I was just stressed out and needed some R and R (rest and relaxation), because I was doing a job I was not trained to do. I went home on leave and said I was not coming back." Ryan also notes the motion and points to the apparent dismissal of it by Stephan Harper (prime minister of Canada) wondering, "He ran on a platform of democratic reform -- he should take some advice of his own."
Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a " Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." They are also asking for a July 2nd call-in. Diane Finley is the Immigration and Citizenship Minister and her phone numbers are (613) 996-4974 and (519) 426-3400 -- they also provide her e-mail addresses minister@cic.gc.ca ("minister" at "cic.gc.ca") and finled1@parl.gc.ca ("finled1" at "parl.gc.ca"). To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma). "Ultimately, the way I look at it is," McClatchy Newspaper's Leila Fadel offered to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) yesterday, "there were 23 death certificates, 24 people died. Among them were toddlers and women, and Sergeant Wuterich has said this is what his training told him to do--go into the houses, throw grenades, and apparently shoot children and women. And it did happen, no one disputes that these women and children were killed. And that is what is angering the people of Haditha, that somehow, even with all of these bodies, that no one is being held accountable. And from what I understand, the case against Sergeant Wuterich is particularly strong and he's given eight--I think seven Marines immunity in order to have testimony against the sergeant. And he says, 'I did the right thing.' But toddlers--three-year-olds--and women died." Fadel was on to discuss the realities she reported in " Hadith victims' kin outraged as Marines go free" ( McClatchy Newspapers, and link has text and video):"Khadija Hassan still shrouds her body in black, nearly three years after the deaths of her four sons. They were killed on Nov. 19, 2005, along with 20 other people in the deadliest documented case of U.S. troops killing civilians since the Vietnam War. Eight Marines were charged in the case, but in the intervening years, criminal charges have been dismissed against six. A seventh Marine was acquitted. The residents of Haditha, after being told they could depend on U.S. justice, feel betrayed." With Gonzalez and Goodman, Fadel shared, "We took a drive back to Haditha last week, trying to get a reaction to the dismissals and the one acquittal regarding this case of 24 people being killed on November 19, 2005. And the ultimate feeling I came away with: people felt betrayed. They felt betrayed that journalists told them if they told their story, somebody would be held accountable. They felt betrayed investigators told them that U.S. justice--that they could depend on that, and nobody is being held accountable. Many of them said, 'How many bodies does there have to be for someone to be punished for this?'" This as Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports a US military raid in Karbala today resulted in 1 civilian being killed. On the heels of three bank employees being shot to death by the US military while on their way to work and a family air bombed by the US military. Earlier this week at Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent remembered "Yasser Salihee, a physician and a father of one lovely girl" who had worked for McClatchy until being shot dead by a US soldier "Friday June 24, 2005". "Your friends and colleagues never forgot you and will not," writes the correspondent, "[. . .] I've been in so many places Yasser, I saw many die. I saw children, women and men were killed by terrorists or troops and we will keep trying to tell their stories. If we die my friend we will be dying telling the truth, telling the people what really happens here." Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province roadside bombing last night that claimed the life of 1 shepherd and left two more wounded. Reuters notes a Shirqat roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 "Awakening" Council members and left three more wounded. Shootings? Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports 1 "senior city appeals judge" was shot dead in Baghdad Thursday. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) identifies the judge of "Kamil al-Swaili, Head of Appeal Court" and quotes a High Judiciary Council spokesperson explaining over "40 judges have been assassinated since March 2003". Reuters explains, "Assailants using two vehicles blocked the judge's way, a police source said. They shot the judge, who was alone in his vehicle, before driving away, he said." Iran's Press TV states, "The assassination of al-Shewaili -- head of one of Baghdad's two appeals courts -- is the latest in a series of judges, academics and other professionals to be targeted by militants." Reuters notes a police officer was injured in a Jurf al-Sakhar shooting. Corpses? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mahaweel. Meanwhile at the same the US military calls back service members who have been discharged, they kick out those who want to serve. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network explains:
Decorated Army Sergeant Darren Manzella has been discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law banning lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service, effective June 10. The Iraq war veteran was one of the first openly gay active duty service members to speak with the media while serving inside a war zone. In December 2007, Manzella was profiled by the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes. He told correspondent Lesley Stahl that he served openly during much of his time in the Army, with the full support of his colleagues and command.
"The discharge of battle-tested, talented service members like Sergeant Manzella weakens our military in a time of war. National security requires that Congress lift the ban on gays in the military and allow commanders to judge troops on their qualifications, not their sexuality," said Adam Ebbin, Communications Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).
SLDN reports that a growing number of service members are also serving openly without incident. The organization is aware of more than 500 troops who are 'out' to their colleagues and, in some cases, their commands.
Sergeant Manzella said, "My sexual orientation certainly didn't make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad. It shouldn't be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve."
Manzella, 30, enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2002 and was twice deployed to the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While under fire on the streets of Baghdad, he provided medical care to his fellow soldiers, Iraqi National Guardsmen and civilians. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge, and also received several other awards recognizing his courage and service.
For more information on Sergeant Manzella, SLDN and the campaign to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," visit www.sldn.org.
In December of last year, Leslie Stahl spoke with Manzella for CBS' 60 Minutes (link has video and text)
Turning to the US political race for president, Josie Swindler (Radar) reports MTV had decided to take political advertising. Wait? Madonna, naked with the flag around her wasn't political speech? (Well, it sure wasn't art.) But, Swindler reports, there's a catch. They will allow the GOP and the Democratic nominees -- whomever they might be -- to buy ads. And other candidates? MTV v.p. of communion (I'm being sarcastic) Jeannie Kedas states, "We would consider and accept third-party advertisements on a case by case basis." Which is a good time to note that Bill Coleman shares his thoughts on the presidential race in a letter to the Bennington Banner:
In reality, candidates such as Ralph Nader are disregarded from the outset because the election of someone such as Mr. Nader would bring about a true day of reckoning for American corporations.
As long as these corporations are permitted to on the one hand have the same or greater rights than individual citizens, and on the other hand to never face the death penalty or anything more than self regulation or slap on the wrist fines, they can continue to wreak havoc everywhere they go and drain average people of every last cent of economic vitality they can muster.
Yes, Ralph Nader supports an end to corporate personhood, in contrast to Barack Obama or John McCain, whose campaigns are awash in contributions from corporate America.
The differences between Mr. Nader and the candidates that you are permitted to read about or see on television each day are very far reaching and vast.
The candidates you are allowed to see . . . To MTV, according to today's news, or not to MTV.
Two upcoming events for the Nader campaign: (1) "Private Conversation and Fresh Summer Buffet on the River" fundraiser in Litchfield, Conn. Sunday at 2:00 pm and (2) a Honolulu Nader for President 2008 Rally Thursday (July 3) at 8:00 pm at the Univeristy of Hawiaii. For more information on the events, click here. Team Nader notes:
Ralph Nader will be a guest on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Sunday June 29, 2008. (Check here for broadcast times in your area).
By the way, there are many definitions of "talking white."
Here's our definition, from the Nader/Gonzalez dictionary:
Talking white means telling the white corporate power structure what they want to hear, rather than calling them out and telling them what they need to hear.
Onward
And please note, whether George Steph plays it straight or goes into attack mode, don't turn off your television after -- you'll miss out on the unintentionally hilarious roundtable to follow featuring two Punches and two Judys. In other TV news, US Senator Barbara Boxer will be among the guests on this week's Bill Moyers Journal. Moyers broadcasts Friday nights on most PBS stations (and may repeat in some markets so check local listings). The Journal features online transcripts, online audio, online video and a blog to leave comments. In addition, Bill Moyers and Michael Winship often post commentaries there, either a Moyers commentary or a Winship commentary, or this week, a commentary by both. From the opening of "It Was Oil, All Along:"
Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire, and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be....the bottom line. It is about oil.
Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, "....Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." He elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war."
Remember, also, that soon after the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld.s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, told the press that war was our only strategic choice. "...We had virtually no economic options with Iraq," he explained, "because the country floats on a sea of oil."
Shades of Daniel Plainview, the monstrous petroleum tycoon in the movie There Will Be Blood. Half-mad, he exclaims, "There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet!" then adds, "No one can get at it except for me!"
as does NOW on PBS which asks, "Is there a way to keep desperate homeowners in their houses? One enterprising entrepreneur has come up with a creative and self-sustaining way to prevent foreclosures and protect individuals from predatory subprime lenders, but not everyone agrees with his approach. Is this another cautionary tale in the making?" PBS' Washington Week will find Gwyn speaking with the New York Times' Linda Greenhouse and NBC's Pete Williams about the Court's latest rulings; Peter Baker (New York Times) and Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) will round out the roundtable. And independent journalist and artist David Bacon continues to cover the immigration experiences and his latest photos from Mixteca are amazing. Click here for his photos of documenting the experiences of immigrants. This fall (September) Bacon's Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants us released by Beacon Press.
iraq
 corey glass
 ryan johnson
 matthis chiroux
 douglas glynn
 bill kaufmann
 trey paul
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
juan gonzalez
 bill moyers journal
 linda greenhouse
 david bacon
 washington week
 pbs
 now on pbs
 peter baker
 shailagh murray
 the washington post
|
Posted at 09:06 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 25, 2008
want ad: nation mag seeks new p.r. director
what a day for bambi obama. he decided it was time to play the race card again. get criticized and called out for your inaction and the bambi playbook is to falsely denounce your critic as a racist. so far al sharpton's the only 1 rushing to defend. when al sharpton's your only defense, it's a sure sign that you've played the card once too often. he's entered the michael jackson stage where it's just not worth it anymore to rush to his defense unless you're in the cult. you're fully aware that, like m.j., he's going to surround himself with whites (not kids like m.j. does) as soon as the scandal's over and you just wonder how you're going to work up enough enthusiasm or energy to argue for him yet again. but little ben wyskida did his master's bidding today. ben's a lap dog for katrina vanden heuvel. he runs interference for her when she's called out for the sexism that led the nation magazine to print only 149 female bylines while serving up 491 male bylines in 2007 issues. so little benny hightails it over to 'pinkomag' with his green ass (when did ben become a democrat? i'm as confused as c.i. on that) to offer up, of arab-american ralph nader 'ralph nader is very deeply black.' that's not funny. that's not cute. that's offensive. but that's really all katrina's coffee-fetchers have to offer. there a bunch of eunichs (she surrounds herself with men - the ugly girl no 1 noticed puts men on the payroll to feel 'pretty') hoping katrina will toss some of granddaddy's money their way. but should a publicity director of any democratic magazine be publishing/posting at something called 'pinkomagazine'? no. in fact, not just no, but hell no. sorry benny, i actually got a degree, i actually worked in public relations, ended up heading my own firm and cleaned up well enough to retire very, very early. so benny, i know the job you're failing at. 1st rule, when you are the p.r. face, you have to be bland. you do not do anything that distracts from the magazine. 'pinko magazine.' you want every 1 to think the nation magazine is a bunch of communists? (the whole point of only publishing closeted 1s during mccarthyism was to make sure no 1 got that impression.) it's not that pinko magazine is communist (i doubt it is communist), it's the title. as the p.r. person for the nation magazine, you do not publish at anything with 'pinko' in the title. you are supposed to be the corporate person, the responsible face. you do not do something that rush or any 1 can run with and say, 'look, their p.r. director is publishing at a thing called pinko! i knew they were all reds!' what an idiot. c.i. would know if ben holds a degree in public relations. i don't. (c.i. actually knows ben from the bay area and an aimee allison campaign.) but ben's obviously never been worked in real p.r. or he'd know he's made a HUGE mistake. when he was a little coffee fetcher, he amused katrina with 'jokes' about alexander cockburn. katrina loves a good 'joke' about how 'crazy' and 'insane' cockburn is. it always amazed me that cockburn elected to stay with the nation magazine after that. (c.i. outed that crap in real time because it pissed c.i. off to hear flunky benny telling 'jokes' while katrina - at least editor but i think she was editor & publisher - laughed at the little nothing's insults of a regular and popular columnist.) i think he just transferred from court jester to p.r. guy but i could be wrong. where i'm right is that benny's a p.r. disaster and some 1 needs to talk to him about the titles of sites he chooses to publish at. it doesn't matter that pinko magazine is not a communist magazine (again, i don't believe it is 1), it matters how easily this could be twisted and the blowback for the nation magazine. it was a stupid, stupid mistake. it would be like me handling a beef account and then getting my picture taken while participating with p.e.t.a. in a protest. (i support p.e.t.a. and always have. i never took any food account that conflicted with p.e.t.a. because i knew it would be a nightmare if the business press got ahold of it: '___'s new beef account is being handled by an animal rights activist! she's protesting in her off hours and taking money on the clock! when is ___ going to get their house in order?') when i handled 'talent,' i never forgot that they were the attraction. in any of my accounts, i never forgot what their aim was and made sure to do nothing that would conflict with their aims. i was no saint. (look at my many, many marriages.) but i didn't do anything publicly that could hurt any account i represented. and that was considered an ethic of a business not known for having ethics. so i doubt benny's up to handling the job he's been given. if he were, he wouldn't have made this huge mistake. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, June 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, over 34 reported deaths in Iraq today, the US military announces more deaths, Ralph Nader is called "White" (he's not) by Saint Barack's Holler Monkeys, the Los Angeles Times continues to make life difficult for every other mainstream media outlet, and more.
Starting with war resistance. The War Resisters Support Campaign notes:
With less than 16 days remaining until U.S. war
resister Corey Glass' scheduled deportation, three parliamentary parties and
Amnesty International are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Citizenship
and Immigration Minister Diane Finley to cease deportation and removal
proceedings against Glass and U.S. war resisters seeking refuge in Canada.
The federal government's July 10 deportation order against Glass is still
in effect, creating enormous stress, anxiety and turmoil for him and all war
resisters and their families who are hoping the government will be guided by
the expressed will of Parliament.
The successful passage of a June 3 landmark parliamentary motion called
on the Conservative government to allow U.S. war resisters who have refused or
left military service related to the illegal invasion of Iraq, and their
immediate family members, to stay in Canada and be able to become permanent
residents, and to immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that
may have already commenced against such individuals.
A poll carried out in June 2007 by Stratcom Ltd., showed that 64.6% of
Ontarians agreed that the war resisters should be allowed to stay in Canada.
They will be holding a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
At the White House today, Bully Boy met with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani (in the US to again visit the Mayo Clinic) and Bully Boy noted of the illegal war he started, "There's still a lot of work to be done, we recognize that. We talked of a variety of subjects. We talked about a strategic framework agreement that suits the Iraq government. We talked about elections and different laws that have been passed. I did compliment the President on working hard to see to it that the legislative session this year has been very successful. We talked about the fact that the economy is improving, and that the attitude of the people there has improved immeasurably over the years." After Bully Boy stopped repeating "we talked" and completed his summer vacation report, Talabani noted, "We improved our relation with our neighbors -- with Turkey, with Egypt, with Jordan, with Kuwait. We normalized our relation with Iran and with Syria, also. So Iraqi government is now going to play its role in the Arab world as one -- a founder of the Arab League. And there is no -- I think no more, any kind of isolation of our government." In other White House news, press flack Dana Perino was badgered for war with Zimbabwe today ("Why is military action not an option!") -- never assume the press merely takes dictation. Perino noted on the Talabani meet-up and talk of a treaty ("agreement") that she "couldn't put odds on it either way."
Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division – North Soldiers and an interpreter were killed in an improvised explosive device attack in Ninewah Province at 10:45 p.m., June 24." This brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4109 with 25 for the month thus far. And that's 7 announced dead this week so far. Two US soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday in a bombing and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports, "The explosion occured hours before a vote to replace Abdul Hassan Jbara as chairman of the Sadr City District Advisory Council." The US State Dept's Stephen Farley was also killed in the bombing and CBS and AP report that Brett Farley (his son) stated that his father was nervous about the vote, "It was today that they were scheduled to vote on electing a new chairman, a pro-democracy chairman, and he told me pointedly that it was the biggest moment that they had faced over there. He fully understood what the risk was, but he was willing to bear it." Zavis explains, "The bomb was planted outside the office of his [Abdul Hassan Jbara's] deputy and would-be successor, Hassan Shamma" according to "council members who were there" and the police. Alissa J. Rubin and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) quote council member Qasim Abdul Zahra stating, "The explosion happened just outside the room, near the Americans . . . They were the ones that received the most shrapnel and that's why we are still alive." At the State Dept yesterday, Casey stated of Farley and others, "They're there to help support the development of local government institutions, help them in providing services for the people in developing Baghdad and developing Iraq's democratic institutions and practices." Casey descirbed Stephen Farley as "a expert in local governance issues and was -- of course, understandably, one of the reasons why he would be visiting the town council was to talk to them as they're working on setting up some of their practices and systems there. But basically, part of his function, or his main function, was to help assist in the development of local government institutions" and Farley was "one of the many other people who the State Department has employed and worked with over time who have expertise in some of these areas that, again, as the Secretary has testified to, aren't nomrally the kinds of things that either regular duty, active duty military officers, or regular Foreign Service Officers generally have as part of their experience." Casey was asked if Farley "was some sort of contractor" and replied, "Yeah. I mean, that would – I think that would probably pretty much adequately describe his employment status. But he was a direct hire of the State Department, he's part of our diplomatic and part of our State Department family, and certainly we are – you know, we're very privileged to have him working with us on this, and it's an important component of our staffing in Iraq to have these kinds of people with these kinds of specialties and expertise who can really help assist us in doing the work."
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 3 lives and wounded ten people, a Diyala Province home bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and wounded three more, and a Karbala car bombing that claimed the lives of 2 people and left fifteen more wounded. Reuters notes a Kirkuk car bombing that claimed 1 life and a Tikrit US air assault "on a house killed a family, including four children aged between four and and 11".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Diyala Province that claimed the life of 1 "Awakening" Council member, Khalid Mahmoud ("Mosul municipality director") and the man driving him were shot dead in Mosul and an armed clash in Nasiriyah City that involved the Iraqi military and "US helicopters to control" that resulted in seven people being wounded. Reuters notes the US military shot dead 2 'suspects' in Samara and they shot dead 3 people in a car "near Baghdad airport". On the 3 in Baghdad, Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Officials at Yarmouk Hospital identified the dead as a manager and two female employees of a bank at the airport. Iraqi police also reported that two bodyguards were injured" while the US military maintains they were attacked by the bank employees.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
As Rebecca noted last night, CNN reports that there have now been 20 female "suicide bombers" since the start of the year. Which is CNN's jumping off point to launch into talk of the female "Awakening" Council members and either CNN didn't get the facts correct or the women have gotten a bump in pay since they will now be paid (by the US government) $300 a month, the same amount that the males make.
Turning to the US presidential race, Paul Farhi (Washington Post) profiles independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader: "Joan Claybrook, who has known Nader since 1966 and worked with him on his pioneering auto-safety crusade against General Moters, says he reads 10 books a week and speaks seven languages (Chinese, Portugese, Italian and Arabic among them) well enough to converse with native speakers. . . . 'Ralph is really a charming guy,' says Claybrook, who heads the advocacy group Public Citizen. 'He has a great sense of humor. If the public knew him really well, they would be enthralled with him'."
Meanwhile Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) scores Barack: "Give AIPAC everything they want and then some. Check. Slander black men. Check. Continue illegal government surveillance. Check. Endorse conservative white Congressman against black progressive challenger. Check. . . . Obama is held to no standard at all. He is free to do exactly as he pleases to black people, who are all too happy to go along with any treatement that he chooses to mete out. This sorry state of affairs is the result of years of black political inaction and misleadership. The Congressional Black Caucus long ago gave up the fight, the movement tat gave black Americans full citizenship has been derided as a relic from a past age, instead of being seen as a blueprint for present da action. It is little wonder that the Obama campaign 'come-to-Jesus' meeting is consider a substitute for true political organizing." Slander Black men? As Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report via ZNet) explained, "The Democratic presidential nominee-apparent seldom speaks directly to Black people, but when he does it is usually to denounce individuals once close to him or to criticize The Race in general for some moral failing. Thus it was no surprise that Barack Obama used the occassion of Father's Day to give Black males the back of his hand, no doubt to the delight of millions of potential white supporters. Black males have 'abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men,' said Obama, citing statistics on female-headed households. 'You and I know how true this is in the African-American community.' Even the New York Times could see through Obam's transparent bid for white approval at Black people's expense. Reporter Julie Bosman noted that Obama 'laid out his case in start terms that would be difficult for a white candidate to make' -- terms (such as boy?) that 'his campaign hopes [will] resonate among white soical conservatives in a race where these voters may be up for grabs'." And see Cedric and Wally's "Bambi attacks" and "THIS JUST IN! BARACK ATTACKS AGAIN!". That's something to keep in mind because something true was said about Saint Obama and it's time for The Cult of Saint Obama to start screaming.
Rocky Mountain News' M.E. Sprengelmeyer asked Ralph Nader if he thought there was a difference between Barack Obama and the 2000 candidate Al Gore (or any other Democratic candidates in the recent past)? Here for audio of the first half, here for full transcript.
Ralph Nader: No. I mean, he's deceiving people. He takes, he takes -- in this very building he would take money from corporate lawyers who are not registered lobbyists but whose desks are across the aisle from corporate lawyers who are register lobbyists in the same law firm -- that's been reported more than once in the mainstream press. Six out of seven industrties as of a month ago have given more money to Obama than they have to McCain. Only transportation industry was more equal opportunity corruption . Look at the health care industry which has poured money into his campaign. The Secuirty industry. Defense industry. No. There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comees to being a Democratic presidential candidate he's half African-American. Wheter that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk White? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards. I think his main problem is that he censors himself he knows exactly who has power, who has too much, who has too little what needs to be done right down the community level but he has bought the advice that if you want to win the election you better take it easy on the coproation abuses and do XYZ and when I hear that I say Oh I see. So he's doing all this to win the eleciton and then he'll be diferent? Well let's see if it worked. Did it work for Mondale? Did it work for Dukakis? Did it work for Clinton? Yes, but only because of Perot? Did it work for Gore? Did it work for Kerry?
M.E. Sprengelmeyer: Do you think he's trying to, what was your term, 'talk white'?
Ralph Nader: Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a Black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law. Haven't heard a thing. I mean, the amount of economic exploitation in the ghettos is shocking. You'd think he'd propose a task force to at least study it. I mean, these people are eroded every day. The kids, bodies are asbestos and lead, municipal services discriminate against them because it's the poor area, including fire and police protection and building code enforcement. And then the lenders, the loan sharks get at them, and the dirty food ends up in the ghettos, like the contaminated meat. It's a dumping ground for shoddy merchandise. You don't see many credit unions there. You don't see many libraries there. You dont's ee many health clinics there. This is, we're talking 40-50 million Americans who are predominatly African-Americans and Latinos. Anybody see that kind of campaigning? Have yous ee him campaign in real poor areas of the city very frequently? No, he doesn't campaign there.
M.E. Sprengelmeyer: What do you think the purpose of that is?
Ralph Nader: He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a political threatening, another politically-threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to White guilt. You appeal to White guilt not by coming on as a Black is beautiful, Black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the White power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.
And the response? Muted from the Obama campaign . . . at first. They set out their Holler Monkeys to yet again scream "RACISM!" All the usual crew was there yet again. Latoya Peterson (Racialicious) needs someone to explain to her that Nader is not White. Not that facts matter to her. At Josh Michah Marsh's Hairy Crack, Eric Kleefeld at least has more sense than Peterson (he doesn't call Nader "White"). Kathy (LeftField) plays dumb -- it's playing right? -- and stresses Barack is a "black presidential candidate." Barack Obama is bi-racial. The Christ-child's lineage must not be questioned. See, there was never the conversation on race that the press told you was talking place. It never could take place because it would mean facing the fact that Barack was bi-racial, not "Black." And look, there's Ben Wyskida of The Nation, the arm pit sniffing Benny-boy, making cracks about Nader's race ("deeply black"). Does Ben think saying that to someone of Arab descent is 'funny' because that sounds pretty RACIST.
Isn't it cute that the publicity director for The Nation should blog at PINKOMAG.COM -- it's only natural, right? Pinko? Oh, it's a joke? Like Sam Graham-Felsen 'pretending' to be a Marxist? (And Ben, that's not a hint for you to bother/bore me again.)The push back's really important because the Christ-child has to be seen as Black. Even though he isn't. (It's the White guilt vote that Nader gets at.) So all the usual Holler Monkeys are recruited into service of the lie. Including 'plays mainstream journalist' Don Frederick whose ass should be fired from the Los Angeles Times -- in fact they should all be fired, all their 'political bloggers.' Having stated that John McCain was having a "hissy fit" over campaign finance should have made it clear how in the tank for Obama the paper is and, guess what, that's exactly what a MSM outlet CAN NEVER BE SEEN AS.
If the paper won't police their own, it may be time for others in Real Media to point out the problems. This is how the charges of bias get started (and they are true in LAT's case) and it these charges amplify and grow and soon all MSM outlets are tarred and feathered due to the actions of one outlet. It's unacceptable.
Sunday at Third, interesting feature that will be a docu-drama piece on the Christ-child's miracle birth and other things. Noting that allows me to pull six paragraphs and get the snapshot reduced to a reasonable size. Julie Bosman (New York Times) reports Nader's spokesperson Chris Driscoll said there would be no apology. Nor should their be. Bosman quotes Driscoll reading a statement attributed to Ralph Nader, "Obama's abstract campaign has been delusional and irresponsible when it comes to avoiding concrete policies that truly defend and empower the 100 million Americans living in poverty or near poverty." Sugar (Sugar N Spice) notes that Barack's made clear that he doesn't "care about inner-city crime and poverty" and notes his 'joke' "in Philadelphia last week. A city so plagued with murders and mayhem it is now commonly called Killadelphia. He stated, 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun . . . Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans.' He thought it was cute. I think it akin to telling folks in a Cancer ward, 'I guess we better not take any of you guys on a tour of Chernobyl site anytime soon, huh? Heehee."
iraq
corey glass
the los angeles times
 alexandra zavis
the new york times
 alissa j. rubin
 mudhafer al-husaini
 mcclatchy newspapers
margaret kimberley
glen ford
 paul farhi
the washington post
 julie bosman
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
Posted at 09:40 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 24, 2008
Two new government reports, released late Monday, agreed that civilian violence has decreased and security has improved in Iraq, but were pessimistic about prospects for political and economic progress and warned that costly military gains would remain fragile.that's from barbara ferguson's 'future progress in iraq may be "slow and uneven".' and i agree with c.i. that the government reports are a joke. how is violence down? violence goes up and down in iraq - it never goes away - and calling it 'down' really just depends upon what period you are reporting on. it's nonsense. violence doesn't go away. in the last few weeks, there have been at least 2 mass graves found. no 1 knows when those people died. (it was during this war.) how do you count those when estimating if violence is up or down? in march and april you had slaughter in basra and the sadr city neighborhood of baghdad. reporters are not going around the country. the reality is very few reporters are even in iraq anymore. the networks are pulling them out (too 'costly') and very few papers even had them there to begin with. violence is 'down' when reporters can move with ease through the country. they can't do that. they can't do even move with the same ease they would in any 'normal' war zone. they're holed up in baghdad, in the green zone. some go in and out of iraq (via the green zone) and some stay in the green zone (and go out with military patrols). there is no 'safer but not safe'. remember when bully boy tried to use that nonsense? that's basically what the 'independent' arm of congress is pushing with their report. i had an e-mail about the snapshot today before i'd even had time to read it. a bragg (that's his last name) whined that c.i. wasn't promoting the senators (including john kerry) who are trying to stop the no-bid contracts from going to total, et al. do you know the actual story there? those senators are objecting, yes. but what they are recommending is that iraq's parliament pass the theft of iraqi oil bill. now maybe you're for a privatization of iraq's oil that would give big oil over 70% of the profits. i'm not and neither is c.i. we're not going to help promote john kerry, et al's shell game. c.i. will address cnn's article tomorrow in the snapshot. among its findings are that there have been 20 women 'suicide bombers' so far this year. the larger topic is 1 c.i. has addressed repeatedly and there just was not room to do so today. but, bragg, if something's not in the snapshot that you notice, guess what, there's a lot that's not in there. there were 2 awols picked up this week and c.i. was hoping to include those (they may or may not be war resisters - 1 was a female, 1 was male). c.i. has to pick and choose and generally goes with what is not being emphasized. condi rice's statement is in today's snapshot in full. i don't agree with her words or terms, nor does c.i. but it's news because condi went to iraq this year and pissed off state dept workers as she went on and on about the sacrifices ... by the u.s. military. does she not realize that she is the secretary of state and that she was addressing the people serving in the state dept? it was insulting. and c.i. heard about it from friends in the state dept. in terms of knowing her job & doing it, today's statement was news. so there's some iraq news and i should do it more often but, like every 1 else in the community, i generally let c.i. do the heavy lifting. we all get to write about 'fun' topics. whatever we see as we log on that interests us. c.i.'s got to cover iraq and, if you missed it, media coverage of iraq dropped considerably this year. c.i. covers war resistance every day because no 1 else does. no 1 else covers it every day. no 1 else can even claim to cover it every week. there is also the political race and ralph nader (who c.i. may vote for or not, i don't know) is getting no publicity so c.i. will include nader in full. that didn't happen with hillary. she was excerted in the snapshot. but ralph is being ignored by the media - big and small - and that's 1 of those correctives that c.i. can do. it's about owning your own power. and if cynthia mckinney's campaign hadn't announced that she was running to win the white house, just to get 5% of the vote, c.i. would be covering that as well. but time is limited and so is space. so c.i.'s not going to waste time on a candidate who isn't running to win the white house. ralph is running to win. and he should be on the ballot in illinois now. this is from u.p.i.:"They are so small-minded that to keep the myth up that it wasn't them that got Bush in the White House, it was Nader/LaDuke -- to keep that myth and sustain it in the public's mind, they can't possibly associate with me or have me testify. Even though they knew they blew it in 1,000 ways in '00 and '04," Nader said.c.i. passed that on via e-mail because when we were on the phone earlier this evening, i had mentioned the positive response to last week's post on nader from my readers. he's a new name for many of them and some are too young to vote but they can volunteer, they can get the word out. they can make a difference. and i'll again confess that, embarrassingly, i bought into the nonsense nader's railing against. i did blame him for 'spoiling' the election. and i knew al gore was not a perfect candidate who ran a perfect campaign. c.i. (who voted for gore in 2000) would get so frustrated with me over that and it would be 'let's go over this 1 more time.' eventually, i got it. we have a democracy in this country. that means, yes, that any 1 who wants to run for office should (unless they don't meet the rules due to a conviction or age requirement). but a democracy also means that candidates compete for your votes. no 1 owns votes. so the people who chose nader chose nader. those were votes he won. if al gore wanted them, he could have competed for them. that doesn't mean he would have won them, but to claim that the votes nader won were 'stolen' votes or that nader was a 'spoiler' goes against what a democracy is supposed to be. i'm supporting nader. i'm glad that there was such a strong reaction to last week's post and that so many of you are interested in him. some are learning of him for the 1st time. so it's especially important that this lie that he stole votes from gore be rejected. i shared the nader quote with kat because i knew she'd get a kick out of it. so be sure to read her tonight! let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, June 24, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a bombing in Sadr City, and more.
Starting with war resistance. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." Meanwhile the Vancouver branch of the War Resisters Support Campaign needs help housing war resisters in that area:
Dear friends; the two things that we need help with most right now in Vancouver are housing for war resisters and your participation in our outreach and lobbying in Conservative ridings and keeping up the media visibility.
Below is a housing appeal, please pass it on freely.
Also in Vancouver we will be doing another visit to a Conservative riding, probably either Emerson's in Vancouver or Nina Grewal in Fleetwood-Port Kells. That is tentatively planned for Saturday June 28.
War Resister Housing Appeal
Do you have an extra-room or a fold-out couch in your home? Do you want to help end the war in Iraq? Would you like to see Canada, once again, become a sanctuary for American soldiers refusing to participate in an illegal war?
If you answered yes to the questions above, the War Resisters Support Campaign in Vancouver needs you!
The War Resisters Support Campaign helps American soldiers who have come to Canada seeking sanctuary. These young men and women face imprisonment in the US because they obeyed their conscience.
They turned their backs on George Bush's war.
We need volunteers to house US war resister for a few days to a few months, while we help them to get settled in and work their way through the refugee immigration process.
Right now in Vancouver we are in urgent need of housing for two war resisters.
If you can house a war resister in the lower mainland, for at least a week starting this week please contact James Leslie at jamesleslie@telus.net or (604) 736-9804
After Friday June 20, 2008 call or email Sarah Bjorknas at 778-837-1475 or vanresisters@yahoo.ca
For more info, or to volunteer housing in other parts of BC or the rest of Canada, please see our website http://www.resisters.ca/
Dear Campaigners; As you know, on June 3, the House of Commons did a pretty important thing. The MPs voted 137-110 for the War Resisters Motion, which would make it possible for the war resisters to apply for permanent residence in Canada, and which would stop the deportation of any of them, including Corey Glass, whose deadline to "leave or be removed" is now July 10.
The CBC and Newsworld, had a 7-minute report the previous Sunday (June 1), with Terry Milewski, a prominent reporter, anchoring the story. It was a great piece, and it mentioned that the vote would take place on the following Tuesday.
Then, on Tuesday, NOTHING -- NADA -- ZERO -- ZILCH!
MEDIA COVERAGE NOW IS SUPER IMPORTANT IF WE ARE TO GET THE CONSERVATIVES TO IMPLEMENT THE WAR RESISTERS MOTION.
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO DROP A LINE TO THE CBC AT
http://www.cbc.ca/contact/
AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT
MORE COVERAGE OF THE WAR RESISTERS ISSUE!
And by the way -- don't be shy about writing to your local media, or to "national" media like the Globe & Mail, which has ignored the story except for a teensy little paragraph that whispered "don't read this" the day after the vote.
The Tories would love this issue to disappear from view. Don't let them have their way.
PEACE,
LEE ZASLOFSKY
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Yesterday we noted the death of two US service members. Today Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports a split in the who of the shooting with Iraq's Ministry of Interior stating the shooter was "a local official and said he emerged from the building with the Americans" while eye witnesses insist the shooter "was a former council member who joined the Sunni Muslim insurgency after he was outsed from his job in sectarian fighting in 2006." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) identifies the shooter as "a council member" and notes that three other service members were injured as was 1 Iraqi translator. Citing eye witnesses Rafi Sleiman and Abu Dawood, London names the shooter as Raed Hmmod Ajil. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reported yesterday that Raed Mahmoud Ajil was the council member who did the shooting. Those deaths took place as the Government Accountability Office released a report yesterday which James Glanz (New York Times) sums up as detialing a decline in violence and that "several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect of far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged." 2 US service members killed yesterday, more today and we're supposed to accept that there's been an improvement in violence?
Really? In Berlin today, US Secretary of State delivered the following statement: "The attack in Sadr City that killed State Department employee Steven L. Farley, along with Department of Defense civilian and military personnel today, is a terrible reminder of the dangers that our colleagues face daily in advancing our critical foreign policy goals. Steven Farley's devotion to public service was reflected in his many years of duty in the United States Navy Reserve, and to his hometown of Guthrie, Oklahoma. Farley was mobilized shortly after September 11th, and served with distinction on the staff of the U.S. Seventh Fleet in the western Pacific. Along with thousands of other citizen-patriots, he volunteered to serve in Iraq, joining the State Department in April of 2007. He was one of the hundreds of dedicated men and women serving on Provinicial Reconstruction Teams, helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild and revitalize their local governments after years of Saddam's tyranny. Our heartfelt sympathy and gratitude go out to Steven Farley's family and his wife Donna, and to the numerous men and women who worked alongside him in Iraq. I have conveyed my sympathy to Ambassador Ryan Crocker, I salute the courage and commitment of all of our colleagues in Iraq." That's included in full because it's the first time this year (or last) that Rice has remembered she's the head of the State Dept. (On her last visit to Iraq she forgot/refused to acknowledge the work done by the State Dept and, judging by her comments and whom she praised, appeared to think she was heading the Defense Dept.) So what's Rice talking about? James Hider (Times of London) explains: "Four Americans were killed today when an explosion ripped through a Baghdad council meeting they were attending as part of efforts to boost reforms in Sadr City, one of the capital's most sensitive trouble spots." The US military announced: "Two Coalition forces soldiers and two civilians serving with Coalition forces were killed after an explosion inside the District Advisory Council building in a southern neighborhood of Sadr City district at approximately 9:30 a.m. today. One Coalition forces soldier and three DAC members were also wounded in the attack." The announced deaths brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4106 with the total for the month so far to 22. AFP notes 6 Iraqis died in the blast and that the wounded include 1 "US soldier, three members of the district council and seven other Iraqis". CBS and AP report: "Tuesday's blast occurred in the office of the council's deputy chief as Americans and Iraqi officials were gathered nearby about half an hour before a meeting to elect a new chairman, said Hassan Karim, Sadr City's top administrator." Ernesto London and Saad al-Izzi (Washington Post) offer, "A spokesman for Sadr's office in Sadr City suggested that U.S. officials staged the bombing to 'create chaos and strife.' He said the explosion occurred in an area where only U.S. and Iraqi security forces can drive into." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) points out that, "The explosion shattered the relative calm that has been seen in Sadr City since a truce in mid-May ended fighting there between the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi government." Alissa J. Rubin and Graham Bowley (International Herald Tribune) note: "The neighborhood meetings are held regularly and well publicized, and they therefore can make relatively easy targets. The visit by the American troops to the meeting had been unexpected, however, the council spokesman, Ahmed Hassan, said. 'American forces do not attend regularly and that is why we were surprised this morning,' he said. 'The explosion happened inside the room where some members of the council and Americans were' in discussion, he said."
Turning to some of today's other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one person, a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two people and a Ninevah Province car bombing that left 2 people dead (plus the driver of the car) and fifty-seven people wounded. Reuters notes the number wounded from the Mosul car bombing has risen to seventy-three.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a mayor in Kirkuk was shot dead. Reuters notes a police officer (who was also a college student) was shot dead at the University of Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Reuters notes 4 college students kidnapped in Mosul -- two of which were later released.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpses discovered in Mosul.
Turning to US politics. In "The Triumph of double-think," Joseph (Cannonfire) examines the way The Cult of Barack requries that up be up until Barack says it is down. He specifically examines Barack's NAFTA nonsense -- Barack's lying about Hillary Clinton's stand, Barack's printed handouts and the way, and when it was revealed that Barack's 'tough' talk on NAFTA publicly came as his campaign's Austin Goolsbee rushed to assure the Canadian government that these were just words tossed out and Barack didn't mean of them. He goes into how an effort then took place to smear Hillary with an unsourced whisper claiming it was her campaign in talks with the Canadian government and charts how that lie was repeated online. But it wasn't just repeated online. Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! is available online, on radio and TV. March 9th, Ava and I observed:
Noting that Nichols was in Canada, Goody let Nichols smear Hillary Clinton with a false whisper (that two days later still hasn't panned out) presented as a "revelation" by never-a-journalist John Nichols. Remember how Bambi talked big and strong in the Texas debate about NAFTA? Probably not because he mainly repeated the answers Hillary had already given. But he did. He talked big, he talked strong. Down with NAFTA! But his campaign also talked to the Canadian government and assured them that, basically, you have to say certain things to get elected, you know, you have to put one over on those stupid American voters.
Amy Goodman likes to put one over on viewers which is why, before the show began, she was laughing with John Nichols about how they could introduce the unsourced smear against Hillary. (We are actually told she was "cackling.") Goody did that on the program with this fanciful lie, "Well we have covered the Barack Obama aspect of that [NAFTA] quite a bit. What are they saying about Hillary Clinton?" Goody thinks she covered Bambi's NAFTA-Gate "quite a bit"? No, she just thinks her viewers are too stupid to remember reality and that they are too lazy to check the archives
[. . .]
So informed viewers were most likely laughing when Goody declared that she had "covered the Barack Obama aspect of that quite a bit." She did two headlines. One minimized what had taken place by leaving out the fact that his campaign had offered non-stop denials over a series of days that only ceased when AP published the memo, the other that attempted to act as if the leaking of the memo was the story. (Yes, this is the same Goody who grandstanded recently on the shutting down of Wiki-leaks. Leaks are only good when they don't effect her candidate. And again, she calls this distract-from-the-discovered-lie-by-launching-an-investigation-into-the-leak nonsense out when the White House does it.)
Despite the fact that the AP had to publish not just the stories of NAFTA-gate but also the memo before Goody could get off her tired ass and note NAFTA-Gate, on Friday, she was eager to set John Nichols up so he could turn an unsourced whisper into a "revelation." It was nothing and not worth repeating. It certainly wasn't journalism but, hey, consider the two goons we were watching.
Yes, John Nichols of The Nation. And Amy Goodman. Who had nothing for the March 7th Democracy Now! broadcast. But he smeared and he lied with encouragement from Goody. "So this story just gets deeper and deeper and more complex," lied Nichols from Canada, 'hunting down' the story that was a non-story. But it was never about reality. It was about launching a smear, an unfounded rumor against Hillary because Barack had been caught lying. Saint Barack wasn't so saintly and it was really important to spread rumors and lies about Hillary to take the focus off that fact. As Joseph explains, "Even though Austan Goolsbee initially asserted that he never spoke about NAFTA with Georges Rioux of the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago -- and even though the Obama campaign officially denied the CTV report -- all parties now admit that Team Obama lied. Lied. The Canadian government conducted an investigation which confirmed the existence of the Goolsbee/Rioux meeting and sought to assign blame for the leak." Hillary's campaign was never in talks with the Canadian government about NAFTA. Barack's campaign was telling the government to ignore what Barack was saying, that it was just words. And now? Nina Easton (Fortune magazine) reported last week, "In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally repopen negotiations on NAFTA. 'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy. Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? 'Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself,' he answered." The article also notes Goolsbee's being dispatched to "the Canadian counsul general in Chicago" February 8th to provide "assurances that Obama's rhetoric was 'more reflective of political manuevring than policy'" according to a new memo that Fortune got a hold of. Yes, Barack lied. He lied to get votes when he needed them. He was caught out in the middle of lying and he denied it. His Holler Monkeys had to distract from the damaging revelation so they tried to drag Hillary into it and smear her with lies. Now that he thinks he has the nomination, Barack admits he never meant what was he was saying -- something he had Goolsbee tell the Canadian government in real time. He LIED to American voters while telling the Canadian government he was LYING. And he thinks he's qualified to be the leader of the United States?
Ralph Nader is running for president with Matt Gonzalez as his running mate. AP reports that they turned in over "50,000 signatures" yesterday and are now should be on the Illinois ballot in November. Team Nader notes:
Tomorrow, Senator Obama has a choice.
He can vote to defend the American people and the U.S. Constitution.
Or he can vote with the snooping Bush White House and the telephone companies.
The bill in question grants immunity to the phone companies that illegally participated in the White House's warrantless wiretap program.
Obama says he will seek to remove the immunity provision - but will vote for the bill if that doesn't succeed.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) calls the bill a capitulation to the phone companies and to the White House.
According to Senator Feingold, under under this bill, "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S."
Last October, Obama said he would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
Now he says he will vote for it.
Liberal Democrats are surprised and outraged that Obama would flip-flop this way.
But we're not surprised.
From the beginning, we saw through Obama's "Change You Can Believe" mantra.
Obama is just another corporate candidate.
At times, he might sound like a progressive.
But he's not.
That's why we're here.
We're here to give the American people a choice in November.
You can support the corporate candidates - Obama and McCain.
Or you can shift the power from the corporate candidates and the corporations to the people.
And support Nader/Gonzalez.
Increasingly, progressives and liberal Democrats are seeing the light and breaking away.
What's your breaking point?
iraq
alexandra zavis
the los angeles times
 james glanz
the new york times
mcclatchy newspapers
 hannah allam
 gina chon
the washington post
 ernesto londono
alissa j. rubin
Posted at 08:51 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 23, 2008
katty-van-van and state of the world
to get the week started right, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Wheel of Greed" poor little katrina vanden heuvel, what a piece of trash. she thinks because she pitched a few pennies at bernie sanders over the last few years (very few) that she's something wonderful but she's nothing but a lousy hypocrite. all her dumb ass jaw boning about the importance of public financing and when her hero becomes the 1st to break with public financing - the 1st presidential candidate ever (if he gets the nomination) - she plays dumb and won't call it out. she's as pathetic as her trashy father. she bought herself a seat at the table at the magazine because she couldn't hack it in the real world of journalism (i know the abc horror stories) and she's as pathetic at the nation as she was anywhere else. she wants to be a player but she never will be. she took over the magazine at its highest circulation ever and no 1 wants to talk about circulation these days, have you noticed? because she's destroyed circulation. before she becomes editor AND publisher, the nation covered iraq, covered war resistance, even used the term in print. katty-van-van takes over and the magazine becomes a worthless piece of crap - thereby reflecting her imprint. a dull, democratic party organ. obsessed with elections - not in a deep manner but the sort of useless garbage you get from the chat & chews. as a child, she lived in a fantasy world - resulting from no 1 wanting to play with her. and she's as out of touch today as she was then. if barack's the nominee, he stands a good chance of losing. and katty-van-van will have promoted (non-stop) a loser and done so at the expense of the magazine. she'll have nothing to show for it politically or journalistically. it's why you don't put mental midgets in charge of magazines. think about it for a second. some 1 puts you in charge of the nation (after you buy your way in) and you can do anything. what do you do? i'm sure you'd do more than write about how much pressure you were under and how you need multiple days off because your daughter was about to turn 16. that alone tells you she's not a journalist. children turn 16 every day of the year and most parents are not able to take off a lengthy period of days to plan and orchestrate everything. and most wouldn't want to. from her mansion in harlem, katrina is seriously out of touch with the country and the world. and she spends all her time plotting alliances and take overs. they never come to pass (remember when she was going to take over the council on/for/of foreign relations?) but she's always convinced that the next insane scheme will make her important. she'll never be important because she is so intensely shallow. that was obvious when she was still a child and i'm not really sure she ever grew up. nothing she's ever done indicates she's anything but 1 of the 'ladies who lunch' who treats running a weekly magazine as if it's a hobby. if liza featherstone or doug henwood were in charge, you'd get serious looks at the economic realities for people across the country. if alex cockburn were in charge, there would be 1 investigative story after another. if eric alterman were in charge, he'd be probing the elections a lot deeper than the laughable 'editorials' katrina & crew (handmaidens) put out. if katha pollitt were in charge, women might be taken seriously. instead you've got a girl (not a woman, even at her age) who couldn't cut it as a socialite but, sadly, really wants to be a debutante. mother nature ensured that would never happen. so she dabbles and the magazine under her reflects that. along with subscriptions falling, it's also having problems getting stocked in stores that used to carry it. (my mother-in-law credits c.i. but c.i. says, 'all i did was speak to some friends to find out how well the magazine was selling in various chains. when they found it was pretty much a non-seller, they either cut back or stopped stocking it.') katrina has put her mark on the magazine and, sadly, it was just another urine stain. i hope every 1 is paying attention that and aware of what a waste of paper the nation has become. this is not a minor issue. whatever victor's faults (and he did decimate d.c. coverage), he had a mind and the magazine reflected that. now there's a ditz running things and that's reflected as well. look at the awful story of last summer, the 1 they pimped as telling the iraqi experience which didn't interview 1 iraqi. that's bad enough. even worse is that she had to have 'balance' so to include members of iraq veterans against the war, she had to include the centrist group (led by the 'we have to stay' mommy's pantyhose) and a right-wing front group. we would scream our heads off if the msm did that but, to katty-van-van, it's balance. and of course the term 'war resister' couldn't be used in the article. it's too controversial for katty. she's trying to appeal to the crowd that reads the sunday arts section in the new york times. trash.
great. i lost the whole post. i tried to publish and got a 'tempoary unavailable' message. i hit back and all i had was the snapshot and isaiah (which i had added in 1st). i was freaking out but remembered ruth called c.i. last time (when we all got the '502 error' last week) and c.i. was able to save ruth's post. c.i. wasn't able to save my entire post but, following what c.i. told me to do allowed me to get back a huge chunk of it.
i had a highlight and i went over this for about 10 paragraphs. i don't have it in me for that again but i do want to higlight leslie sanchez' 'Commentary: Can Obama's money buy him love?' (cnn):
Is Obama trying to buy the election? He threatens to outspend McCain by six -- perhaps eight --- to one. Now, rather than engage in a "Great Debate" about America's future, Obama is trying to win through tactics.
Since Nixon, most candidates have followed a predictable strategy: Run an ideological campaign during the primaries to lock up your base -- then move to the center for the general election.
This allows resources to be husbanded for fall campaign spending to increase turnout among people who only might vote -- including self-described independents, youth voters and so-called presidential-year voters, who only come out "when it's really important."
yes, he is trying to buy votes. that's why he's ignoring spending limits. the first presidential candidate (if he gets the nomination in august) to do so since public financing was established for presidential elections.
and he won't get called out by the likes of katty-van-van. they reward him non-stop. he is their great bi-racial hope. they never call him out and it's why he's such a lousy candidate.
he's a spoiled brat that's been fawned over and protected and that's why latinos and white working class voters do not like him. they don't like to the manor born barack.
he has nothing to offer and that's why katty-van-van had to spend 2 years demonizing hillary. she couldn't build barack up with issues or accomplishments (hence all the gushing praise) so she had to tear down hillary. at 1 point, it was so bad that the rag had an article calling hillary out for a missed vote in 2004 and only did an online correction when they were called out repeatedly. (hillary did miss the vote. her husband bill was having heart surgery. considering katty had to take 5 or so days off to plan that sweet 16 birthday, you'd think she'd understand some 1 with an actual family emergency.) katty-van-van doesn't like hillary because hillary worked for what she has whereas katty-van-van and barack had everything handed to them.
even so, neither can accomplish much. or are we all still pretending to notice that even as a legacy, he couldn't get into harvard right away? had to go to two different colleges 1st. go read ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Breaking what?' for realities on what panhandle media actually has to offer (or doesn't have to offer).
let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, June 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, two US service members are shot dead in Iraq, war resistance continues, Nouri has a new target and more.
Starting with war resistance. Stefani E. Barner (Llewellyn Journal) notes, "When Lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, his cause was met with international support -- and a Court Marshall. His case ended in a mistrial and at the last update, the Department of Defense was preparing to re-try him on charges of missing troop's movement and conduct unbecoming of an officer. If the D.o.D. decides to pursue a retrial, Lt. Watada faces up to six years in prison for speaking out against a war that he believes violates the oath he took upon receiving his commission. While Lt. Watada is not Pagan, his case along with those such as Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia -- both of whom chose to face prosecution and serve jail time rather than participate in a war they opposed -- have inspired some Pagan service personnel to follow suit, and spurred the larger Pagan communtiy to question what role we should play when it comes to the Conscientious Objector." Pagan resources for Pagan COs and resisters include Sacred Well Congregation, The Covenant of the Goddess, the Military Pagan Network and the Lady Liberty League of Circle Sanctuary. Barner notes, "In Hanna v. Secretary of the Army (1st Cir., Jan. 9, 2008) the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Army's Conscientious Objector Review Board had no basis for denying CO status to an Army doctor (Capt. Mary Hanna) on the grounds that her beliefs were not gained through 'rigorous training, study, or contemplation.' Because this ruling seems to exclude the need for formal religious instruction such as would typically be obtained through religious classes or from a spiritual authority such as a rabbi or minister, and instead allows individual spiritual and moral authority to influence the decision to seek CO status, Hanna v. Secretary of the Army should be extremely useful in dealing with the confusion that the diversity of Pagan philosophies can often present to organized institutions such as the military."
Last week, outside Fort Knox, war resister James Burmeister's mother held a press conference. James Burmeister is an Iraq War veteran wounded in the war who went to Canada and came back this year to turn himself in. Last fall, Maria Hinojosa (NOW on PBS) interviewed him (as well as Agustin Aguayo) and noted, "During his many missions, James was caught in three road-side bombings." Burmeister explained that after one bombing (which was captured on tape) "I had actually passed out in my room. Passed out, just hit the floor."
Maria Hinojosa: James says that was the first sign of his post traumatic stress disoreder. He says doctors thought he also may have sustained a traumatic brain injury, so he was sent to Germany on medical leave. Two months later, while still on medication, he was ordered back to Iraq.
James Burmeister: They were desperate for people to get back there. They just needed people in Baghdad. They just need bodies to man the guns and the equipment.
Maria Hinojosa: James saw only two options: either go back to Iraq . . . or go AWOL, Absent Without Leave, a crime punishable by jail time and even court-martial.
James Burmeister: I got back home -- talked to my wife. You know, I said, "I think I'm gonna leave." It was like a 15 minute decision that I'm -- I'm gonna leave -- I'm gonna leave the army."
Saturday, Chris Kenning (Louisville Courier Journal) reported on Helen Burmeister's decision to "demonstrate outside the post [Fort Knox] . . . in hopes of persuading the military to let her take her son home" and quotes her stating, "I'm hoping to take him back to Oregon with me." Kenning notes that "fiscal year 2007" found desertion had "risen 92 percent since 2004" in the army.
Last week, Helen Burmeister spoke and was backed up by supporters carrying signs. One read "SHAME, SHAME ON the U.S. Army!" while some of the other signs read "I SUPPORT PFC James Burmeister & family! Let James be free!" and "Combat Troops DESERVE OUR SUPPORT -- Not Court Martials".
Helen Burmeister: I'm Helen Burmeister and I'm here today to support my son Prviate 1st Class James Burmeister. My son is an Iraq War veteran and I'm very proud of him today. He fought bravely in Iraq. He followed orders. He was wounded in a roadside bomb and he's been diagnosed with PTSD and a possible brain injury. Our request today is that the army release James. We want James to be able to put this traumatic experience behind him so he can begin to heal -- both emotionally and physically. I believe my son has done his part. Now it's time for him to be given the recognition he deserves. Short of that, we are requesting that he be allowed to go home to Oregon. And thank you. Thank you to everyone for all your support today.
Also showing support was Vietnam Veterans Against the War's Carol Rawert Trainer.
Carol Rawert Trainer: I am a Vietnam Era veteran and my husband is a retired USAF officer and Vietnam Veteran. We belong to Lousiville Peace Action Community and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, two great organizations that work for peace and justice. I learned of PFC James Burmeister through my involvement with the GI Rights Hotline. We are disgusted at the way the government treats our returning war heroes and we will not sit by and watch it happen. You hear the slogan 'Support Our Troops.' Well that is why we have come here today. I have personally heard too many horror stories of veterans in the Lousiville area who return from war and do not receive proper medical care or benefits or counseling for PTSD which is all too prevalent in this war. The Army seems to care more about their retention at any cost to the soldier and family than they do about the care of the soldiers affected by this war. Too many soldiers are battling their physical and emotional problems alone. The suicide rates have risen dramatically. This is obscene. We are here today to demand that the army grant James a discharge in lieu of court-martial. We are watching what the army is doing. James served honorably in Iraq and carried out his duties as commanded. He received head injuries and shrapnel in his face in the 3rd attack on his convoy. He also has PTSD and seizures and is on many medications as a result of his experience. When he was recuperating in the hospital in Germany he realized that what he was commanded to do -- killing innocent people, sometimes in bait-and-switch schemes, was immoral. The army trains these troops from basic to kill, kill, kill and does not differentiate between innocent Iraqis or insurgents. James could not, would not, do it any longer. He had to live with himself and his actions for the rest of his life. The army does not care about the lifelong problems these honorable soldiers face. In fact they were going to send James back to Iraq even though he was on medications for high blood pressure, depression, sleep problems and more. At least James is one of the lucky ones who realized he needed help before it was too late. Going back to Iraq would be dangerous to his life as well as to those who served with him. We are here today to support James and his family in their struggle for justice! James' family has suffered through other family circumstances that dictate that James be home to help them. We hope the army will grant James an immediate discharge not only for his own personal needs but for his families' needs. Even though he would not receive medical benefits which he needs, he would be home in a safe and loving environment. This is what is fair. This is what is just. James was there when the army needed him. Now the army must be there for James and the countless other heroes who need assistance and support as they cope with their war-induced problems.
A video of the press conference can be found here.
Meanwhile US war resisters in Canada continue to fight for safe harbor. Henry Aubin (Montreal Gazette) offered Saturday, "The federal government has ordered a deserter from the U.S. Army to return to the United States by July 10. If he doesn't leave voluntarily, the government will deport him. Either way, Corey Glass, a former sergeant, would become the first Iraq war resister to be booted out of Canada - thereby setting a precedent for other U.S. war resisters who are seeking refuge in this country. A majority of the House of Commons voted 137-110 two weeks ago in favour of a motion urging the government to refrain from ousting war resisters; about 100 of whom are believed to be in the Canada. All three opposition parties supported the measure, sponsored by the New Democrats' Olivia Chow. The Conservatives dissented. Yet the motion seems futile. Nothing obliges Prime Minister Stephen Harper to respect it - it's non-binding." To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.
In addition, War Resisters Support Campaign announces "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" which is July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." In addition, the Vancouver branch of the War Resisters Support Campaign needs help housing war resisters in that area. (And we'll note that in more depth -- hopefully in full -- in tomorrow's snapshot.)
Back to the US, Iraq Veterans Against the War Matthis Chiroux announced June 15th that he would not report to duty (as he'd stated he wouldn't on May 15th). Chiroux served his time and was honorably discharged. Then the army decided to 'recall' him and to send to Iraq. Chiroux knows the Iraq War is an illegal war and will not take part in that. On the 15th of this month, he explained, "Today I stand in resistance to the occupation of Iraq because I believe in our nation, its military and her people. I resist because I swoare an oath to this nation that I would not allow it to fall into decay when I may be serving on the side of right. . . . I stand here to make it known that my duty as a soldier is first to the higher ideals and guiding principles of this country which our leaders have failed to uphold. I stand here today in defense of the US Constitution which has known no greater enemy, foreign or domestic, than those highest in this land who are sworn to be governed by its word." Matthis' father Robert Chiroux told The Huntsville Times, "It was tough for me to get up where the cameras could see me . . . I don't agree [with his son]" but "[i]f a man can't stand up for his son, how can he stand up for his country?" And Ellis Eskew (WHNT, CBS) quotes Matthis explaining, "I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the army if they so wish to pursue them. I refuse to participate in the Iraq operation."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma). Turning to Iraq. Saturday, Haydar al-Alak and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reported that Moqtada al-Sadr Amara spokesperson Adnan Selawi states that Iraqi troops have committed abuses during the operation in Amara ("we found many breaches and violations") and that another member of Sadr's bloc (unnamed) stated there is stand-down order from Moqtada al-Sadr during the current crackdown on Amara. Walter Ibrahim and Tim Cocks (Reuters) report that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki promised today that the next to be raided would be Diyala Province. Why Diyala Province? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday that a woman detonated a bomb in Diyala Province killing herself and 16 other people. Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) added of the bombing, "A woman pretending to seek assistance from police detonated a suicide belt under her traditional robe today, killing 15 people in the busy civic center of Baqubah, police said." A report earlier today (no byline on the article) noted that the woman appeared to be around 35-years-old. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) cited Jassim Mohammed al-Saedi (a police officer wounded in the bombing) stating that the woman "stepped out of a car, walked toward a group of police officers and detonated explosives strapped to her waist." Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) states that violence in Diyala Province yesterday claimed "at least 25" lives. Citing the US military, CBS and AP report that the bombing was "the 21st suicide mission carried out by a woman in Iraq this year".Meanwhile Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) report that Iraqi city council member Raed Mahmoud Ajil fired at US service members after they had attended "a weekly joint meeting on reconstruction" and 2 US service members died with three more "and an interpreter" left wounded. CBS and AP quote eye witness Hussein al-Dulaimi stating, "The attacker got out of the car with an AK-47 assault rifle in his hand and he started to fire on the American soldiers until he was killed by return fire." AP also reports 2 dead (earlier today the military was saying one dead).In some of today's other reported violence . . .Bombings?Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded three police officers. Reuters notes a Mosul roaside bombing left five people injured. Shootings?Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports and 1 police officer and 1 "civilian female" were shot dead in Mosul in an attack that wounded two more people. Reuters notes another police officer was shot dead in Mosul and a college student was shot dead as well.Corpses?Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.Turning to the US race of president and moving quickly. Barack Obama continues to lie and break promises. Joseph (Cannonfire) explores the thinking of the Cult of Obama, their "gift for self-deception" which allows them to say the sky is blue when Barack says so and insist it is a purple when Barack changes his mind. He does this with various examples including NAFTA. Time permitting, we'll return to Joseph's findings tomorrow (but who knows what's going to be happening tomorrow) -- in the meantime, you can use the link to explore his writing. The perfect book-end to that piece is Glenn Greenwald (Salon) on Barack's broken promise to fight for the Constitution and against illegal spying on American citizens and the reaction to it from the Cult of Saint Obama: "In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA 'compromise' isn't really so bad after all." This has been going on all along. The 2007 year in review contains the following observation: "If independent media went out of their way to avoid Iraq and all Iraq related stories, what did they cover? 2007 was when the bulk of little media enlisted in the Barack Obama presidential campaign -- a Katrina coffee fetcher even went to work for it. Bambi would walk on his own and go to potty all by himself in 2008, indy media insisted, but right now he needed coaxing. And what better way to guarantee that than by lavishing him with non-stop praise. As they crowded around the potty chair, they produced many embarrassing moments." It's 2008 and he's still being babied. While he's stabbing the left in the back. People need to grow up and, for those doubters who need a reason, as LBJ was leaving the White House, Jules Feiffer looked back on what he had to offer ("LBJ in Caricature," Harper's magazine, February 1968) and included this point, "Defenders of Johnson further assert that had Kennedy lived, and made the same moves in Vietnam as his successor, he would not be subjected to the same sort of vilification. They are undoubtedly right -- which goes to prove how fortunate, in this case, at long last to have a President whose style coincides with his content. Kennedy could possibly have convinced us that Vietnam was a just war, and a whole generation of young people, hypnotized by charisma, could possibly have marched proudly off to napalm and defoliate knowing that their country stood firmly behind them." No, I don't think Barack's JFK. You can't buy charisma. But he's something to the Cult -- denied their own Janis Joplin so going ga-ga over Miley Cyrus -- the same sort of desperation/settle for anything that leads them to Barack. But what Jules is noting JFK could have gotten away with, the left better start realizing applies to Barack as well -- in fact, he's getting away with it right now while the left does and says nothing.Meanwhile Ralph Nader is a candidate for president and Team Nader notes:
Watch The Nader Challenge.
Which Presidential candidate would eliminate the billions of dollars in corporate welfare we pay every year to the ethanol industry?
Obama!
Wrong. (According to today's New York Times, Obama actually has very close ties to corn ethanol industry - an industry that Ralph Nader has called "a multifaceted monstrosity radiating damage in all directions of the compass.")
Many people still consider Obama the progressive candidate in the race.
He's not.
He's just another corporate candidate.
Who's the progressive in the race?
Ralph Nader.
To drive home the point, today we launch The Nader Challenge.
Check out the video here.
Who favors single payer national health insurance?
Obama!
Wrong.
Nader/Gonzalez.
Who favors cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget?
Obama!
Wrong.
Nader/Gonzalez.
With your ongoing and generous help, we're destined to make a splash in November.
Together, we are making a difference.
iraqjames burmeister
pbs
 maria hinojosa
now with david branccacio
iraq veterans against the war
matthis chiroux
corey glass
ellis eskew
chris kenning
henry aubin
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
the los angeles times
doug smith
 richard a. oppel jr.
the new york times
the washington post
ernesto londono
Posted at 09:15 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 21, 2008
barack insults women again
so john mccain announces may was a fundraising record for him with $21 million and, shortly after, barack's crowing he raised $21.9 million. yeah, i've seen that nonsense before, barack's inflated figures. jake tapper and kate snow's 'Clinton's Ghost: Tense Moment in Obama's Meeting With Black Caucus' (abc news) reports on what happened when bi-racial barack met with the black caucus: According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words -- "Get over it." She found them dismissive, off-putting.
"Don't use that terminology," Watson told Obama.'if women ...' - before you even get to the insulting 'get over it' remark, i think we've already been insulted. sheila jackson-lee had raised his problems connecting with women and his immediate response is what women should do? barack, that's your problem. what kind of dumb ass candidate are you that you think you win votes by expecting others to come to you? you have work to get votes, candy ass. barack's been burped and changed so much, he's forgotten what a campaign really is. what a loser. barack's strongest bloc was eggheads and african-americans (including some eggheaded african-americans). if hillary were the presumed nominee, i don't think if sheila jackson-lee asked her how she was going to work to connect with african-americans that hillary would respond, 'if african-americans would think a moment they'd see john mccain wasn't for their issues and then they'd get over it.' hillary would be out there trying to win votes. she'd probably have responded to sheila jackson-lee, 'that is a very real concern of mine and i'm going to work my hardest to win their support. i've got ____ and ____ planned and if you have any ideas or suggestions, please pass them on.' but see, barack doesn't do that. the christ-child needs no help. speaking with women in congress, including women that supported hillary, he doesn't think to ask for advice. even if he was going to blow it off, it is the polite thing to do. instead he says what 'they' need to do, not what he needs to do. that's not how you run a winning campaign. barack's a loser and a liar. ralph nader is the best candidate. and he is the candidate i'm voting for. barack's still blaming women for his inability to connect with them. he's still saying that the problem is 'their problem' when it is very much his problem. women aren't running for president, barack is. he needs their votes. women do not need him. and he's made it clear that he's just too busy to be bothered trying to earn their votes. he wants 'sweeties' to just give him their votes. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, June 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, today is World Refugee Day, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Matthew Chiroux was the subject of a broadcast CBS 23 News (WIFR, link has text and video) last night:
Mike Garrigan: 24-year-old Matthis Chiroux says he will not deploy to Iraq. The young soldier was asked to report to duty June 15th but he refuses, calling the war in Iraq and illegal war. Chiroux has been in the US army for five years and has completed a tour of Afghanistan; however, he says he has no intentions of returning.
Matthis Chiroux: My decision was entirely based on my desire to no longer continue to violate my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation.
NBC's WAFF 48 also reported on Matthis last night (link has text and video):
Kimberly Essex: An army Sergeant is refusing to deploy from Iraq and his family is dealing with his decision to do so. WAFF 48 reporter Eric Sollman joins us now and, Eric, you spoke with the soldier's father.
Eric Sollman: Yes, Kim, and being a military man himself, Robert Chiroux, he has mixed -- mixed reactions to the whole ordeal. His son Matthis, a military photo journalist, is one of thousands of military ready reserve troops recalled to combat and now, according to army officials, he's one of about 700 called from this group that have failed to report in the last seven years. Last time Matthis Chiroux made local news was when [clip from December 2004 shown] was four years ago. The story involved his girlfriend at the time and a car break-in. Now this US army Sergeant is making national headlines for refusing to redeploy to Iraq. He's not hiding his protest and his family isn't dodging questions either.
Robert Chiroux: My son made the decision not to report. He feels that the war in Iraq is unconstitutional and unjust.
Eric Sollman: His father Robert is a navy veteran who lives in Huntsville [Alabama]. He said his son was to report to Fort Jackson Sunday for reactivation from the Individual Ready Reserve. Matthis refused.
Robert Chiroux: My son has certainly indicated that if he had been called back from the Inactive Ready Reserve to active duty to serve in Afghanistan, he would not have hesitated to go. So I know that my son -- inspite of things that I have heard said of him -- he's certainly not a coward. He just has decided that he feels this war is illegal and he's taking a stand.
Eric Sollman: While Robert doesn't necessarily agree with his son's stand, he stands by him.
Robert Chiroux: My son asked me to come to Washington [DC] to be with him on Father's Day. I had some reservations about standing behind my son while he made his statement but he's my son and, of course, I love him and I'm going to stand with him.
Eric Sollman: And Robert says he would gladly take his son's place and serve if he could and, Kim, of course there were a lot of issues that we talked about that we couldn't fit into the story so we put his interview in its entirity on our website at waff.com.
Kimberly Essex: Well your heart just goes out to this father because he really is in a tough position. He wants to support his son but it doesn't coincide with maybe what he really believes.
Eric Sollman: And he says it's something that only a parent could understand.
WAYYTV's Brett Haas notes, "The 24-year-old is in Washington lining up support from like-minded members of Congress." AFP explains, "Chiroux served five years in the army, with tours in Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the Philippines."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma). Today is World Refugee Day. The United Nations' IRIN notes that "Iraqi experts have been urging the government and international community to do more to help the large number of Iraqi refugees in the Middle East" and quote Iraqi Parliamentarian Abdul-Khaliq Zankana stating, "Day after day Iraqi refugees in neighbouring countries are getting more frustrated by the harsh conditions in which they live. Sooner or later they are going to have a negative impact on the stability of the whole region." Amnesty International has released Iraq: Rhetoric and Reality: The Iraqi Refugee Crisis (here for HTML and here for PDF) this week. Picking up with obligations: "Under international law a duty exists to not send or force a person to return to a situation where they would be at risk of serious human rights abuses. This principle attaches to all states as a principle of customary international law, as well as to state parties to the ICCPR, Convention against Torture and Refugee Convention and Protocol." But as the report points out the resposibility isn't just to host countries, the international community has an obligation to provide assistance as well. The report repeatedly stresses that refugees cannot be returned to Iraq because the country is not stable. On Northern Iraq, they note: "There have been acts of political violence between Iraqi Arabs and Iraqi Kurds and against members of the Yazidi religious minority in several areas along the border between Kurdistan and Nineweh (Mosul) governorate. Tension and insecurity also increased when attacks by a Turkey-based armed group, the Kurdistand Workers Party (PKK), against Turkish troops stationed near the border with Iraq were followed in October 2007 by Turkish military operations against PKK bases in northern Iraq." When even the highly touted 'safe' region of Iraq is not safe, there's no 'safe' area. Despite that reality, many countries are attempting to send Iraqi refugees back to Iraq.Norway was attempting to do that but, the report notes, it appears to have stopped. Other countries continue attempting deportation. Among the offenders are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, Greece and the Netherlands.
"Instead of avoiding the reality," the report notes, "the international community should be confronting a medium- to long-term displacement crisis, in view of the likelihood that Iraqi refugees will need sancturay for years to come. Recognition of the on-going nature of the crisis must be grasped now if the suffering of the millions of displaced Iraqis is to be ameliorated. Host nations need to be provided with on-going assistance and support from the international community through increased and sustained funding."
US senators Hillary Clinton and Ben Cardin and House Representatives Alcee Hastings and John Dingell sent a letter to the White House today on the refugee issue (Barack Obama refused to sign on). Here's the letter sent to the White House:
As you know, the Iraq War and subsequent ethnic and sectarian conflict has caused the displacement of millions of Iraqis. While we have great concerns about the United States response to this humanitarian crisis, we write to you about a specific population of especially vulnerable Iraqis: those who have worked for our government and American organizations in Iraq and whose lives have been placed in grave danger because of that service.
Recent statistics and reports have indicated that the current system of identifying and resettling our Iraqi allies has structural complications and procedural inefficiencies. Since March 2003, the United States has admitted fewer than 8,000 Iraqi refugees in total. Your Administration's goal of admitting 12,000 Iraqi refugees during this fiscal year seems an unlikely goal, given that less than 6,000 have been resettled to date. At a recent Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission) briefing, one panelist, an attorney providing pro bono legal services to help resettle Iraqi refugees noted, "unresponsiveness and protracted delays in interviews and processing have themselves contributed to…individual emergencies…The cost in human lives and suffering due to institutional breakdowns in such aberrational instances speaks to the pressing need to ensure that our system is better equipped to respond to these challenges."
The role our own government has played in prolonging the suffering of our courageous Iraqi allies who risked their lives to assist our country is troubling and simply unacceptable. To better understand why the Administration continues to delay processing our Iraqi allies for resettlement, we respectfully request that you provide us with the necessary information in response to the following:
• While we are pleased that the United States has opened a processing center in Baghdad to assist Iraqis at risk in applying for resettlement to the United States, we remain concerned by reports that the office lacks the necessary personnel and resources at this time to quickly and efficiently process those Iraqis who are in imminent danger. It is most troubling that only Iraqis with sufficient connections to enter the Green Zone are able to receive help. What is the Administration's immediate and long-term strategy to improve and increase the efficiency of the current processing system?
• At the Baghdad center, in particular, significant problems inhibit expeditious and efficient processing of our Iraqi allies. For example, logistical and security issues prevent access to the Green Zone for many applicants and contribute to complications with assisting applicants with medical conditions. In light of the inherent difficulties of in-country processing, what is the current status of a proposal by State Department officials to allow the Department of Defense to airlift Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants for expedited processing to a central processing center at the United States Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base in Kuwait?
As you know, this past April, England's Prime Minister Gordon Brown ordered an airlift of British-affiliated Iraqis to a military airfield in Oxfordshire, England in order to expeditiously and safely process them there. Denmark also evacuated and resettled 370 Iraqi interpreters and other Iraqis who worked for Danish troops prior to the Danish contingent's departure from Iraq last year. We strongly urge your consideration of a proposal similar to those that are now being successfully implemented by our Coalition partners.
• The appointment of Ambassador James Foley at the State Department and Lori Scialabba at the Department of Homeland Security as senior coordinators within those agencies with respect to Iraqi refugee issues was an important and useful step. However, it appears as if there are still problems with respect to interagency cooperation. One particular problem that has been identified is that FBI background checks, even for those Iraqis who have been working directly with the United States military in Iraq, are subject to inordinately lengthy delays. To address this ongoing issue, we strongly urge you to appoint a Senior Coordinator for Iraqi Refugee Issues in the White House.
• When will the Department of Homeland Security issue its policy directive to implement the provisions of Sections 1241-1249 of Public Law 110-181, the "Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act," for which it is responsible?
• What is your Administration's policy regarding medical parole for those Iraqis whose cases are of high priority due to serious medical conditions?
Our government has a moral responsibility to provide aid and protection to those courageous Iraqi allies who have risked their lives and the lives of their families to assist American efforts to build a democratic and stable Iraq. We are deeply concerned that, to date, you have not acknowledged their sacrifice or effectively marshaled the assets of our government to help them. We urge you to speak out about the service of our brave Iraqi allies and direct the appropriate agencies in your Administration to take immediate steps to provide them with the attention and resources they desperately need and deserve. Each day, more Iraqi allies face increased danger or even murder for their service to the United States. To ensure that more do not suffer because they chose to help us, a prompt response to these concerns is appreciated and we believe appropriate.
Sincerely,
Alcee L. Hastings, M.C.
Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S.S.
John D. Dingell, M.C.
Russell D. Feingold, U.S.S.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S.S.
Robert P. Casey, Jr., U.S.S.
John W. Olver, M.C.
Janice D. Schakowsky, M.C.
G.K. Butterfield, M.C.
James P. McGovern, M.C.
Timothy H. Bishop, M.C.
Joseph Crowley, M.C.
Diane E. Watson, M.C.
Earl Blumenauer, M.C.
Peter Welch, M.C.
Hilda L. Solis, M.C.
Ike Skelton, M.C.
Repeating, Barack elected not to sign. Consider it another skipped vote -- or, dropping back to the Illinois state legislature, a "present" one. William C. Mann (AP) observes, "A half-million Iraqis fled their embattled country in 2007, the third consecutive year more Iraqis were displaced than any other nationality, a survey of the world's refugees reported Thursday." The organization is US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) and they also rank the ten worst countries. For Iraq, they note: "Shia militias in Iraq have particularly singled out Palestinians for retribution since the fall of the Hussein regime in 2003. From 2004 to 2007 more than 85,000 Palestinians fled targeted violence, leaving only 15,000 in Iraq. Gunmen in Ministry of the Interior uniforms have killed Palestinians, firing on UN buildings in the process. Insurgents have tortured Palestinians to death and fired mortars into Palestinian neighborhoods." IRIN notes the UNHCR's findings that 50% of the 50,000 Iraqi refugees in Lebanon are children. Citing the International Organization for Migration, Kim Gamel (AP) explains, "But women and children who have been forced to flee their homes are particularly vulnerable because the men in the family have often been killed or abandoned them in a conservative Islamic society that generally doesn't value women in the workplace." Adnkronos International notes the Spanish Commission of Refugee AID (CEAR) which found that "All 1600 refugees who sought asylum in Spain in 2007 were rejected by the government."
On refugees, the Times of London's Deborah Haynes won an award from Amnesty Interntaional for her coverage of Iraqi collaborators who face obstacles to safe harbor from the United Kingdom. Haynes wrote multiple articles on the topic. As noted before, we're not concerned with the plight of the collaborators. They have their champions -- such as Haynes.
Meanwhile, the invasion of Amara continues with Iraqi troops and US troops taking part in the 'crackdown.' Hannah Allam and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) quote Faiq Hanoun declaring yesterday, "The city is quiet even though the operation has started, and I haven't heard a gun-shot or the sound of a plane. Life is going on in the normal fashion. Markets are open and movement in and out of the city hasn't stopped." Ernesto London and Aahad Ali (Washington Post) note the arrest of the vice governor which "angered followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr . . . Sadrist leaders in Maysan have vowed to cooperate with Iraqi troops but have suggested that the government is trying to expand its presence in Sadr strongholds to weaken the movement politically before provincial elections scheduled for the fall." Alissa J. Rubin and Suadad Salhy (New York Times) discover, "There were reports of rough treatment and especially of arrests of eminent followers of Mr. Sadr. It was unclear whether the units making the arrests had warrants, as required under Iraqi law. If so, Mr. Sadr's followers said they would not protest the detentions. However, Mr. Sadr's supporters protested at least two cases in which Iraqi troops seized family members of wanted figures when they could not find the person they were seeking. Iraqi military leaders responded that they had arrested only one relative of a wanted man. The American military has used similar tactics, drawing criticism from Iraqis in and out of the government." ANTARA NEWS and AFP explain that today saw the arrests of five more aides to al-Sadr. Aref Mohammed (Reuters) quotes Adnan al-Selawi ("head of the Sadr movement's office in Amara) stating that "we found many breaches and violations" in the 'security sweep.'
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left seven people wounded, a Nineveh roadside bombing left eleven Iraqi soldiers wounded, a Mosul car bombing left six police officers wounded and, dropping back to yesterday, Diyala Province home bombings left one person wounded.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Iskandariya.
Meanwhile, in the US, Robert O'Harrow Jr. (Washington Post) reveals that the Democrats have set up a panel to investigate the contracts 'awarded' throughout the illegal war. The press release at US Senator Jim Webb's online office notes, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have named a co-chair and three additional commissioners to the Commission on Wartime Contracting. Established as the result of legislation introduced by Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) last spring and signed into law January 28, 2008, the Commission is charged with addressing the systemic problems associated with the federal government's wartime-support, reconstruction, and private security contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Today the US military announced: "One Soldier was killed and five wounded in three roadside bomb attacks on Coalition force patrols in Diyala province June 20. All casualties were evacuated to a Coalition hospital."
Turning to US politics, Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing [see Wally's "THIS JUST IN! DNC OR GOP? WHO CAN TELL?," Cedric's "Extreme DNC Makeover!," Mike's "LAT and Barack -- liars liars pants on fire," Ruth's "Barack sells out, Matthis stands firm," Kat's "Glen Ford, Kevin Zeese" and Rebecca's "the liar barack" and yesterday's snapshot] leads the New York Times to editorialize "Public Funding on the Ropes" and Team Nader notes:
Ralph Nader stands for shifting the power from the big corporations back to the people.
Period.
Full stop.
End of story.
Contrast that with Senator Obama.
The old Obama said that he thought NAFTA was a "big mistake."
The new Obama isn't so sure.
The old Obama said he would abide by public spending limits in this election.
The new Obama he says he won't.
The old Obama said he was for a change in foreign policy and surrounded himself with innovative thinkers with a chance to make a difference.
The new Obama has surrounded himself with veterans of the military industrial complex status quo.
The old Obama talked economic populism.
The new Obama talks corporate-speak and surrounds himself with economists from the Chicago School.
You know where Nader and Gonzalez stand on corporate power.
And that isn't changing.
We're at six percent nationwide in the most recent CNN poll.
We're going to be on ten state ballots by the end of June.
And we're shooting for 40 by the end of the summer.
Together, we are moving forward.
And together, we will make a difference in November.
Onward.
Non-Iraq related, independent journalist David Bacon continues to explore the issue of immigration. And his latest is "HOW DO YOU SAY JUSTICE IN MIXTECO?" (TruthOut). NOW on PBS (airs tonight in most markets) asks: "Will a booming worldwide middle class drive up consumer costs?" PBS' Washington Week will include AP's Charles Babington, Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus and CNBC and the New York Times' John Harwood.
iraq
matthis chiroux
mcclatchy newspapers
 hannah allem
 ali al basri
the washington post
ernesto londono
 aahad ali
david bacon
alissa j. rubin
the new york times
washington week
pbs
 charles babington
 doyle mcmanus
now on pbs
Posted at 03:46 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 19, 2008
'this decision was a mistake.' ap reports that senator russ feingold said that today. what was he talking about? barack obama broke another promise today. i know, i know. it's so very hard to keep track of the 'hope'ium, of the 'different kind of candidate'. this was his promise to use public financing in the general elections. barack promised to. then he broke his promise. he's trying to say that the problem is with the system. he never voiced any objections when he was making his promise. but he's greedy. you know how greedy people are. they lie a lot. that's barack obama. a liar. the baltimore sun reports he's got a new commercial he'll begin airing tomorrow which brags about public law 110-181 and how important it is ('health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected') but barack never voted for the law. the vote took place january 22, 2008 and barack was campaigning. 'this is an important law!' the commercial tries to say, but apparently it wasn't important enough for barack to vote for it. again, he's a liar. good for russ feingold for calling barack out. but wait and see if any 1 else does. barack wants to take us back to the days of watergate. people should be getting really worried and considering all the lies he's told and broken promises he's racked up already, people should get that he is not to be trusted. this is what he will be attacked with - his inability to tell the truth. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, June 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Matthis Chiroux gets attention from Big Media, Barack finds a new left belief to sell out, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq. Chiroux had served in the army and been honorably discharged. Then came the 'recall.' The day he was due to report was June 15th and he did not deploy and explained why in a public statement. Ben Evans (AP) covers Chiroux story today and gives the backstory of being raised in Auburn, Alabama, getting his diploma from Auburn High School, signing up with the army. Evans reports that the military has not yet contacted Chiroux for refusing to deploy and he quotes Chiroux explaining, "I have just come to the point where I have the strength to stand for what I know is right. I feel like it's my responsibility as a soldier and keeping with the higher values of this nation to oppose this . . . I'm not going anywhere. They know where to find me."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
The refugee crisis. Today on KPFA's The Morning Show, co-host Aimee Allison spoke with Sarnata Reynolds of Amnesty International and Joshua van Praag (director of Iraqis In Egypt) about the Iraqis who have been internally and externally displaced as a result of the illegal war. "Most Iraqis are in an urban setting," Reynolds explained of external refugees. "They've actually gone into communities and gone into cities" making it more difficult for relief to be provided from one central location.
Aimee Allison: Is there any historical precedent for this number of people being moved around and what did history teach us about what can be done, what should be done in order to deal with this crisis?
Sarnata Reynolds: The scale of this crisis, as Joshua's pointed out too, it's incredible significant historically. We have seen other huge refugee crisis emerge -- or displacement crisis. Afghanistan actually -- right now -- another country where the US has involvement, has a huge displacement crisis. The difference with this one though is that the amount of people who have left and are really struggling with nothing -- either inside Iraq or outside Iraq and the failure of the international community to respond really at all. Or the primary response of apathy which is really just basically they don't care is shameful. And so what we know from the past and what we know right now is that refugee crisis require international responsiblity and that they require the sharing of the responsiblity.
Aimee Allison: I mean, what's going to happen long term if the international community -- all the countries in that region as well as the United States don't step up with some solutions, some money, to help these people?
Sarnata Reynolds: Well what we're going to see again is people living inside Iraq or outside Iraq without homes, growing more and more desperate, without access to education, perhaps without access -- or right now anyway -- without access to work, without access to health care and people will become more and more destitute. Without any -- Hope will decline, of course it will decline, hope is already declining and so -- It's hard to say what will happen. What we know for sure is that more and more people will become destitute and how they will be treated by host states right now, we don't know. As time goes on, we don't know what will happen if more people aren't resettled out of the region and into countries where they can begin to restart their lives and build their family structure again. . . . In terms of historically the scale of this it's hard to predict because it's a huge massive amount of people what we know is that the vast majority of them can't go home right now, probably won't be able to go home for many years and some of them will never be able to go home.
Allison is co-author, with David Solnit, of Army Of None. Reynolds was discussing Amnesty International's new reports on the Iraqi refugee crisis (text, photos, videos). Yesterday we started noting Amnesty's Iraq: Rhetoric and Reality: The Iraqi Refugee Crisis (here for HTML and here for PDF) with sections two and three and ended with some of section four (the myth of the great return). Majid is a father of seven and a widower who had to return to Iraq: "Majid had fled Iraq in February 2008 after two of his nephews, Mansour and Sami, aged 17 and 19, were beheaded by members of an armed group in a rural area north of Baghdad. The young men's mother, Rasha, was reportedly present when in December 2007 armed men in civilian clothes knocked at the door and took away Mansour and Sami. Rasha went to Baghdad and informed Majid about the incident. In the evening a photographer informed the family that the heads of Mansour and Sami had been found on the banks of the Tigris river." In Syria, Majid was unable to be granted residency and the savings were quickly gone : "Weeping, he explained to Amnesty International that he had no alternative but to return to Iraq."
The reality of the small return (as opposed to The Myth of the Great Return), Amnesty finds, is that Majid's experience is the norm with 46% of those who returned also citing the money issue and another 25.6% citing the visa issue. That left 14.1% who returned. Willingly? No. They weren't informed, they were misinformed by a media quick to repeat the propaganda as news. The 14.1% returned after hearing "that the security situation had improved." That never happened. [And credit to the New York Times' Damien Cave and Cara Buckley one more time for telling the truth when it still mattered.] Amnesty points out that the issue of the returns also includes "duration" and that no one had bothered to collect information on that. Amnesty's research indicated that the bulk of returns are planned as "temporary stays".
Looking outside the MidEast, Amnesty finds other obstacles facing refugees. The UK cuts off support services after 21 days if your application for asylum is rejected, the Netheralands do the same after four weeks of the second appeal. Belgium also cuts off most assistance following a rejection and reducing rights (and designates you an "illegal immigrant"), while Denmark pulls most of your rights (such as employment). Germany's especially 'creative.' They're in the midst of taking refugee status away from Iraqis they granted it to previously -- granted while Saddam Hussein was ruling Iraq. Let's repeat that: Iraqis who entered Germany and applied for refugee status, prior to the start of the Iraq War, were recognized as refugees. These same people ("approximately 18,000 Iraqis") are now being informed that they are no longer refugees. Apparently, the government believes Iraq is now safe. It takes a lot of nerve to remove a refugee status after you've granted it -- especially when you're expecting them to return to a war zone.
From this section we'll note the following:
At present, Amnesty International believes that the time is not right for returns of any kind to Iraq, whether they are explicitly forcible or effectively forcible but disguised as "voluntary". In addition to obligations not to forcibly return Iraqis in a direct manner as discussed below, Amnesty International believes that all states must ensure Iraqi refugees are not forced into a situation where they have no real option but to return, so indirectly forcing them to return.
Amnesty International also believes that voluntary returns should not be promoted at present. This view is shared by UNHCR, which does not regard the conditions as conducive to return in safety and dignity as required by international standards. Amnesty International opposes all forms of encouragement of voluntary returns, including indirect and coercive means such as restricting assistance and forcing people into destitution. Amnesty International believes that such policies not only impact on the enjoyment and fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights, but may also put the state in a position where it is in breach of the principle of non-refoulement.
It's too violent for returnees. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing ("adhesive bomb stuck to a civilian car") that claimed 1 life and left two people wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a woman was shot dead in front of her home in Mosul and her husband was wounded. Reuters notes a police officer was shot dead in Mosul
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Mahmoud al-Dwadi was kidnapped by gunmen yesterday" in Diayal Province and that his corpse was discovered by police.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and lat last night ("11:30 p.m.") Sadiq Ismail's corpse was found in Albu Sabah. Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Tuz Khurmato.
Meanwhile, Al Jazeera magazine reports, "Iraqi police and soldiers swept house to house through the southern city of Amara and surrounding Maysan province" today. Aref Mohammed (Reuters) estimates 250,000 people inhabit Amara. CBS and AP report that the region's deputy governer (Rafia Abdul-Jabbar) "has been arrested" or 'arrested' by Iraqi troops.
Turning to the peace movement in the United States. The good? Retired Col. Ann Wright continues traveling to speak to groups. Samantha Fex (Molokai Times) reports on Wright's visit to Hawaii: "Col. Wright also provides information about the realities of military enlistment because she wants people to be able to make the most informed decision possible when joining the military" and quotes Wright stating, "It's wonderful to be able to come to a place like Molokai. Small towns and small communities in our country seem to be the places where most of our military enlistees come from. So, it's important to come to a community like this to acknowledge what's going on." The bad? Eric Ruder (Dissident Voice) nails it in his recent piece where he notes no major demonstration since January 27, 2007, a failure to connect with the ones opposed to the illegal war, a desire to repeatedly water down arguments to reach those who still haven't made up their minds, moderate demands (or 'demands') and the cow-towing to the November elections: "The problem is that an electoral calculation without a genuinely antiwar candidate runs smack up against the need to build an antiwar movement capable of forcing whoever ends up in the White House to bring the troops home now."
What does our 'vital' and 'living' peace movement have to show for it? Nicholas Johnston and James Rowley (Bloomberg News) report that the Congress voted yesterday to give Bully Boy all the Iraq War funding he wanted. No conditions, no timelines. That would be the Democratically controlled Congress. Democrats control the House and the Senate. The November 2006 elections were supposed to bring 'change' and they brought nothing. All the Democratic 'leadership' has done is create a back-and-forth over funding the illegal war. It has not stopped funding it. It indicates it will or might. Then it goes ahead and does it anyway. So you get some griping before American tax payer moneys are handed over and that's really all you get for handing control of both houses over to the Democrats. The Iraq War is dropped as an issue by activists and the Democratic Party makes a few noises about Iraq in an attempt to drive up votes in November. And the illegal war drags on. As Mike observed last night, "It's time for CODESTINK and all the other groups that can't focus on Iraq to leave the stage. Just go away, no one will miss you."
Wall Street: $19,103,119; Big Energy $1,102,918; Pharmaceutical Co.'s $696,063. That's Barack Obama's "donation" totals and can be found in this Ralph Nader video. Those numbers explain why Barack broke his pledge regarding public financing. Sam Youngman (The Hill) reports that Barack declared today "that he will not accept public financing for the general election". As Brian Edwards-Tiekert worded it on the seven a.m. news break on KPFA (first segment of The Morning Show), Barack is "abandoning an earlier committment to use public financing if his Republican rival did as well" and "Today's announcement marks the first time that a presidential candidate has opted out of the public financing system for a general election since that system was created in 1974." Back in February, Jeff Zeleny and Steven Greenhouse (New York Times) quoted Barack declaring, "If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward. It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don't even know if the other side will agree to it." At the LA Times' political blog, trash Amina Khan is an embarrassment -- but that was clear when we said "LA Times' political blog," wasn't it? And they wonder why so many are about to lose jobs? At the grown ups table, Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post) quotes John McCain (presumptive GOP presidential nominee) declaring, "Senator Obama's reversal on public financing is one of a number of reversals that he has taken. He said he would stick to the agreement. He didn't. This is a big, big deal. He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." Jonathan D. Salant (Bloomberg News) quotes Barack explaining, "The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system." How interesting, go back to the February New York Times link and you won't find any of those 'concerns.' They appear to have sprouted overnight. No talk of 527s. This is appalling and you need to see how Panhandle Media plays it because early indication appears to be that our 'left' media outlets are rushing to justify it and, in fact, celebrate the decision. One more belief tossed on the bonfire for the Cult of Saint Bambi. Public financing came about for a reason and, while it does need fixing, Barack's not proposed fixing it. (Like his Iraq War 'plan,' "Details to come later!") He's never voiced concerns for the system. Now he wants to pretend that anything other than greed is at play here. And what's Panhandle Media going to do? Go ga-ga again at the dollar signs? Do they have even an ounce of integrity left at this point or have they sold it all off as an in-kind-contribution to St. Bambi?
Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer issued the following on Barack's decision:
Democracy 21 is very disappointed that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has decided not to accept public financing for his presidential general election campaign.
We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.
We do not agree with Senator Obama's rationale for opting out of the system. Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system.
With his decision, Senator Obama will become the first major party presidential nominee to reject public financing for his general election campaign, since the public financing system was established in 1974.
Senator Obama's decision to opt out of the general election public financing system makes it all the more important for Senator Obama to personally make clear to the public in no uncertain terms that if he is elected, one of the early priorities for his Administration will be enacting legislation to repair the presidential public financing system.
In the current Congress, Senator Obama is one of the three lead Senate sponsors of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 (S.2412), legislation to fix the presidential public financing system, particularly the system for presidential primaries. The other lead Senate sponsors of this bipartisan legislation are Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME).
Revitalizing the presidential public financing system is essential to protecting the integrity and credibility of the presidency and the interests of citizens in fair government decisions.
It needs to be called out. But watch everyone hope and pray that their past words on the buying of elections is forgotten. Which is why the really embarrassing trot out an American Enterprise Institute type to praise Barack's decision. AEI? That's who the left takes its cues from? They also made time to slam and slime Ralph Nader. How very 'left' of them. Ralph Nader is running for president. Ballot Access notes Indiana's restrictive laws and that "Indiana is one of only five states in which Ralph Nader has never appeared on the ballot." They noted yesterday that Nader will be on Arizona's ballot. Bitchier Than Thou is asking North Carolina residents to sign the petition so that Nader can make the state's ballot. And Team Nader issued this press release earlier this week from Ralph Nader:
"During his Nobel Laureate acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway, Al Gore laid out in stark terms the single most important act the next President of the US can do to avoid dangerous climate change:
'And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon – with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.'
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html
Senators Obama and McCain both oppose a CO2 tax and instead favor the more politically expedient, manipulatable, evasive cap-and-trade approach.
In the last eight years, Al Gore has invested too much in trying to protect our climate to just a write a blank check of endorsement to a candidate on one of the most important perils of our time.
I challenge Al Gore, as one of the leading figures in the war on global warming, to uphold the courage of his convictions and demand that Senator Obama support a carbon pollution tax.
The people want the next President to take action to reign in global warming. The litmus test for whether a Presidential candidate is serious about global warming is if he or she has the courage to support a CO2 tax.
Unlike a cap-and-trade program, which can be easily gamed, a straight-out carbon tax on hydrocarbon production at the production source forces better choices of technology from the get-go.
Meanwhile Iraqi oil production is not suffering. They're at record levels. But Big Oil wants Iraq and Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reports they've got it, via no-bid contracts. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP all have contracts -- not via the Iraqi Parliament which refuses to legalize the theft of Iraqi oil but via Iraq's Oil Ministry. Andy Rowell (Oil Change) observes, "The long wait may finally be over to claim the last great prize left for the oil industry. But not, importantly, how the oil industry, or the Bush administration wanted it to."
AP states: "The deals, once signed, are something of a stopgap measure to help Iraq begin to increase production until the country is able to approve a new national oil law - now held up by political squabbles among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds."
Posted at 09:39 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 18, 2008
marlene e-mailed to say she is supporting ralph nader. she wondered if i knew who c.i. was voting for? i don't. i will probably never be told. i know in the past, c.i. always voted for the democratic candidate for president. but i also know ava and c.i. made it clear again sunday that they would not vote for barack. if you've read the common ills since it started or recently, you know c.i. will not vote for john mccain. that leaves cynthia mckinney (who c.i. likes but doesn't think her campaign staff is doing her justice), bob barr (who c.i. knows due to barr's work with the aclu as well as barr being in congress), ralph, write-in some 1 or vote for all races except the presidential 1. i don't know but i did call elaine today and she said she was writing about nader tonight. i mention that because it's your best hint. elaine and c.i. frequently split during a primary in terms of who they support. but they always vote the same on the offices in the general election. so if elaine's supporting ralph then my guess is c.i.'s not just covering ralph, c.i.'s supporting ralph's run and will vote for ralph. but, again, that's my guess. marlene pointed out that ralph is in all the snapshots these days. and that's true, but as she also pointed out, she thought c.i. was for dennis kucinich because, when dennis was a real candidate in the race, dennis got more positive coverage than any candidate in the snapshots. and, of course, c.i. doesn't like dennis. and that's the thing, you can never go by the coverage. c.i. will be fair. c.i. will praise some 1 for something they did that was notable and praiseworthy and you will never know c.i. loathes them. there's the guy who tried to force himself on c.i., for example (he's not in congress) and when there's been reason to mention him, c.i.'s noted him and to read it, you'd think c.i. thought the world of him. c.i. plays fair in ways i never do and never would. kat last night was writing about how some 1 was assuming that because c.i. praised claire mccaskill's work in the senate committee tuesday, that meant - since claire supports barack - c.i.'s supporting barack! no. c.i. will not support barack. and c.i. may hate claire. i don't know on claire. but if claire was mentioned it was because she did something outstanding that deserved attention. as a person, c.i. loves dianne feinstein but c.i.'s called her out at the common ills plenty of times on her votes and on her remarks in commitees. there was a woman in the house that c.i. thinks the world of personally and politically but she made an idiot out of herself in a house hearing and c.i. called her out for that. never confuse the common ills with c.i.'s journal. it doesn't work that way. unless c.i. says 'my opinion,' c.i.'s voicing the community's opinion. and in terms of house or senate hearings, if c.i. has to cover them (c.i. would prefer not to, a friend's kid is now a house intern - or senate intern - and brought up all the hearings that were not getting attention. that's why c.i. started covering hearings.), c.i.'s going to call it fairly. i'll give out 1 across the aisle. c.i. likes lindsay graham as a person and thinks he can be reached on some issues involving prisoners at guantanamo and elsewhere. but if you read yesterday's snapshot, you saw c.i. call him out for behaving like an idiot. so if some 1 gets praise for doing their job well, don't try to read that as c.i.'s supporting them. remember, c.i. never said a word against dennis kucinich until dennis gave his supporters away in iowa. up until that point, you never saw c.i. say a word against dennis. and you saw c.i. argue for dennis' right to be covered and for his right to be defended. c.i. defended dennis on the u.f.o. 'scandal'. unlike the nation or the progressive, c.i. didn't shut dennis out of the race. if the race was noted in any way, there was something on dennis in each snapshot and it was never negative. and c.i. loathes dennis. i was at the 2004 convention. i remember that young student crying because dennis had sold out his supporters. c.i. was telling her not to blame herself and to just know that's dennis. (only in very strong terms.) so the only indicator i would go by is elaine. and since elaine's supporting ralph, my best guess is that c.i. is as well. ralph would get coverage regardless because c.i. finds the treatment ralph's received offensive. that was made clear in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007 at the common ills. c.i. does not believe that any party or any candidate 'owns' some 1's vote. in a democracy, you have to work for votes and, if you don't get them, you either didn't work hard enough or the media was against you or both. and c.i. corrected me on that personally after the 2000 election because i would rag on ralph. (i am voting for ralph in november - i do not see the d.n.c. coming to their senses and giving hillary the nomination she earned.) don't take voters for granted. if you do, they can go elsewhere. and if you come here very often, you know i pipe off when i want. and so i got that speech probably a dozen times from c.i. 'ralph did not steal or spoil the election. voters decided ralph was their choice and they voted for him.' i finally got the message but, honestly, assumed c.i. had voted for ralph in 2000. i didn't learn otherwise. c.i. didn't think, as a stranger, it was fair to make the argument that ralph didn't steal anyone's vote without revealing 'i voted for gore.' and c.i. made it very clear online in 2004 and as 2005 began that there would not, at the common ills, ever be any nonsense about how some 1 stole a vote by running for public office. by the way, we all tried to pull together a post quickly last night after we all lost them. ruth's 'Sexism and more' is a must-read and more than makes up for any posting problems the erest of us may have had. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Wednesday, June 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the refugee crisis continues, Nader confronts myths, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Courage to Resist reports the latest on James Burmeister:
James Burmeister was serving in Baghdad, Iraq when his humvee was caught in an IED explosion and he was hit in the face with shrapnel. Suffering from the physical wounds, as well as emotional ones resulting from his injury and working with the military "bait and kill" teams, James went to Canada and was AWOL until earlier this year when he decided to turn himself in.
At this point, his fate is undecided. Because of his PTSD, James and his family are requesting that the Army gives him an "Other Than Honorable Discharge" in leiu of a special court martial which could send James to a military prison for up to a year. You can help!
1. Please contact the Post Commander General Campbell to request a speedy discharge for James. Contact the Fort Knox Public Affairs Office at 502-624-7451 or knox.pao@conus.army.mil and demand better treatment for our soldiers. Ask that they discharge PFC James Burmeister now so that he can get the help that he needs.
2. Attend a Press Conference at Fort Knox, KY on Thursday, June 19, at 11am.At N Wilson Rd & Knox Blvd, Radcliff, KY 40160 (map with directions)
3. Write James and give him words of support and encouragement. PFC James Burmeister; HHC - Building 298, Gold Vault Road; Fort Knox KY 40121
Meanwhile on Firday, war resisters in Canada will share their stories. Stathroy Age Dispatch reports that war resisters Josh Randall, Tim Richard and Rich Droste will share their experiences and answer questions and Michele Mason's Breaking Ranks documentary will be shown. The event will take place at the Quaker Meeting House, 359 Quaker Lane Coldstream in Ontario. What time? No time's given in the report at the Quaker Meeting House. You can use both links to continue checking for when a time is posted.
What is known is that Canada's House of Commons passed a motion to grant war resisters safe harbor and you can keep pressure on the Harper government right now. Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").
Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq. The day he was due to report was June 15th and he did not deploy and explained why in a public statement. Leo Shane III (Stars & Stripes) quotes him explaining, "I don't feel like I'm doing illegal at all. We basically have no cause for military presence in Iraq. I'm making this decision because I believe my first loyalty is to the higher ideals of this country, which are being blatantly violated by our leaders. . . . It's not about what job I'd do. Any order to deploy there is unlawful."
Courage to Resist interviewed Matthis ahead of June 15th and in one section he explains how he came to learn about his rights and how he enjoys getting that information out to others:
I went to a peace event in Brooklyn where I met up with a number of Iraq Veterans Against the War and this is an organization that that I completely agree with all their basic points of unity. I basically felt like 'wow this is maybe the most intelligent and well spoken and in touch group of soldiers that I have ever seen in my life and they are all speaking out freedom and justice and peace in the wake of having their rights so violated and having violated the rights of others so badly." And one soldier in particular really, really did it for me. And her name is Selena Coppa and she's actually an active duty soldier who is stationed in Germany and she was on leave speaking out against the war in Iraq. And she started off with a disclaimer where she said you know 'the opinions expressed here are my own and not of the US military' and went on to talk about her feelings about the Iraq War and I looked at that and said, 'Oh my goodness. Here is an active duty soldier with the courage to speak up and speak out and, then you know return from leave to uniform and face her command afterwards.' And I looked at that and I said if she can do it then there's absolutely no reason I can't do it. And furthermore, I've been wasting my time with silence these last five years because somehow I've been convinced that I didn't have a right to participate in speaking for peace and justice at all because I had signed away those rights when I listed. And so many people believe this is true. And I have such a good time actually informing soldiers of what their actual rights are and then pointing them out in the regulations because a lot of it is jaw dropping when they realize 'Oh, you mean even as an active duty soldier you mean I can participate in peace protests as long as they're non-partisan and I'm not in uniform and I'm not speaking for the army? I had no idea that was possible.' And so I started there and I started going to IVAW meetings and I started planning an IVAW beneift at my college which finally came to fruition May 13th and I started speaking on the radio about my feelings concerning the Iraq occupation and why it broke my heart that I would have to deploy there June 13th.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Yesterday's snapshot noted the Baghdad bombing. NPR's Corey Flintoff (All Things Considered) reported, "Judging by the length of time it took for police and rescue teams to sort through the remains to arrive at a casualty count it was also extraordinarily destructive." Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) highlight "A 14-year-old girl, dressed in a black headdress and robe, towed a boy by hand and searched for her father. 'Where are they going to take the injured?' the weeping girl asked other distraught pedestrians." Hannah Allem (McClatchy Newspapers) quotess eye witness Muhannad Mahmoud: "People were screaming. A taxi driver pulled over and got out, with his face covered with black smoke. He asked me to check whether he was injured or not. One of the people told me he was hit by something really hard. He looked to see what had hit him and it was a man's arm." Richard A. Oppel Jr., Mudhafer al-Husainia and Ali Hameed (New York Times) quote survivor Ali Mustafa, "My shop collapsed on my head. There was a huge hole and a lake of blood [in the street] and burnt flesh of men and women and kids." Ali Mustafa also maintains the US military was present and caught off guard by the bombing: "They went crazy, but they tried to help people."
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a Mosul car bombing injured 14 people and a car bomb in a suburb of Mosul resulted in four people being wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left three police officers wounded and another resulted in the death of 1 police officer and another being wounded.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Monday Amnesy International issued reports on the Iraqi refugee crisis (text, photos, videos) and noted: "Iraq remains one of the most dangerous places in the world. Its refugee crisis is worsening. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, an estimated 4.7 million have been displaced both within and outside Iraq and for many the situation is desperate."
The first report is entitled Iraq: Rhetoric and Reality: The Iraqi Refugee Crisis (here for HTML and here for PDF). It notes how very "little or nothing" governments around the world have done to assist the refugee crisis (externally and internally displaced) that has reulted in at least 4.7 million people displaced. Those attempting to leave the country encounter numerous blockades and those who leave their homes and have not been able to leave the country are estimated to be 2.77 million. The blockades and obstacles in other countries mean many Iraqi refugees have to consider returning to Iraq which is still not a safe place but food and financial assistance is in short supply in the limited number of host countries an Iraqi refugee can enter. Amnesty observes:
Resettlement is a small but essential part of the response needed. Despite repeated calls for this option to be taken seriously, most states have ignored the calls and some of the most able to help have agreed only to minimal quotas. The UK, for example, a key player in the invasion that sparked the current refugee crisis, has an overall resettlement quota of 750, which includes places for Iraqis. The authorities in Chile and Brazil, however, have made positive moves in their approach to resettlement that deserve to be commended.
Iraqi widow Zahra and her family moved to Syria and she told Amnesty, "I will never return to Iraq where they killed my husband and took our house away." Amnesty notes that for all the talk of a decline in violence, the first portion of 2008 has already seen an increase from the Operation Happy Talk Wave of "violence is down!" only mere months ago. Along with violence, there is a lack of potable water in Iraq and there is lack of food (and remember that the rations program is being chipped away bit by bit by the puppet government to please the White House). Of countries taking in Iraqi refugees, Syria has "the largest Iraqi refugee population" with an estimated 1.5 million. Due to the large flow into Syria and due to al-Maliki insisting that Syria alter their visa program (remember The Myth of the Great Return?), many who previously could have gained asylum and entry to Syria are now rejected.
Today, some categories of people can obtain a visa. These include academics and their immediate families; Iraqi students enrolled in Syrian universities and other higher education institutions; children attending schools; truck and passenger drivers operating on the Baghdad-Damascus route; Iraqis who need medical treatment in Syrian hospitals, provided they have relevant official documentation; members of cultural and sporting delegations visiting or passing through Syria; and traders and business people with commercial interests needing to travel to Syria.
Families with children attending schools in Syria or with family members in need of medical treatment can apply for temporary residence permits, which must be renewed monthly and only for up to a year. Such permits allow Iraqis to obtain permission from the Syrian authorities to travel to Iraq with an option of returning to Syria within three months. With the school year nearing an end, concern is growing in the refugee community about the future of visas obtained this way.
After Syria, Jordan hosts the largest number of Iraqi refugees (450,000 to 500,000). The report notes Jordan's new restrictions. (These are also restrictions imposed by al-Maliki at the White House's insistence. All parentheticals are me and not the report.) Now for an Iraqi to be allowed to enter Jordan, they need to apply for a vise before leaving Iraq. (That would be done at Jordan's embassy. And that's outside the Green Zone in a very violent section of Baghdad.) The report notes that one plus to life in Jordan is universal education for all children. However, Iraqis in Jordan are like other refugees in that the economic opportunties are highly limited and they must live off savings.
Lebanon has the third largest number of Iraqi refugees (50,000) where they "suffered from a lack of legal status, detention and deportation, particularly in 2007. Until February 2008, Iraqi refugees in Lebanon were not given a secure legal status nor recognized as refugees by the state." Egypt has 10,000 -150,000 Iraqi refugees. Those living there do so without employment because they are not able to legally be employed, their children are not allowed to attend schools, they have no "official status" and cannot receive any social services. From the report, debunking The Great Return, we'll note:
The international community has failed to respond adequately to the Iraqi refugee crisis. Rather, governments have tended to ignore the crisis or distort reality for political reasons – for example, to try and back up claims of military "successes" or to distance themselves from the issue.
In this respect, examples of Iraqi refugees returning home have received substantial media coverage, particularly since October 2007, while little attention has been given to the limited choices available to the refugees or the dangers they might face back in Iraq.
The Iraqi authorities too have an interest in promoting an overly positive and optimistic picture of Iraq's security situation and expectations. The Syrian government's introduction of strict visa regulations in October 2007 followed a visit to Damascus by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who requested closure of the border. The request appeared to be aimed at limiting the negative press coverage spurred by the continuing mass exodus from Iraq – the most visible indicator of the continuing high level of danger and insecurity in Iraq.
Following this, the focus shifted to highlighting what were portrayed as widespread "voluntary" returns of refugees to Iraq as a sign of improved security. Amnesty International was informed by the Iraqi Embassy in Damascus that three private coaches were being used to take hundreds of people back to Iraq. The Iraqi government has strongly encouraged "voluntary" returns, particularly since the end of 2007. Such encouragement has taken the form of advertisements on state-owned television channels, asking people to tell friends and relatives to return because of the perceived decrease in violence, and an organized return convoy. There have also been official statements at the highest level, including Prime Minister al-Maliki's April 2008 speech to the European Parliament in Brussels, which called for Iraqis to return home. Figures given by the Iraqi authorities of the numbers returning continue to be much higher than those provided by other sources, including UNHCR and the Iraqi Red Crescent.
We'll return to the reports throughout this week and next.
Turning to the US presidential race, Ralph Nader notes:
Here is a counter-intuitive story for you. Why don't organized corporate interests challenge damage or risks to their clear economic interests?
Think about oil prices for big consumers, not just your pocketbook. Airlines are groaning, limiting flights, and laying off employees because of the skyrocketing price for aviation fuel. Executives in that industry say that fuel costs are close to 40 percent of the cost of flying you to your destination.
The powerful chemical industry is under pressure from the prices they're paying for petroleum-probably their main raw material.
The powerful trucking industry is beside itself with diesel fuel going to $5 per gallon.
You can add your own examples-cab companies, tourist industry, auto companies, etc.
Why aren't these very influential lobbies throwing their weight around Washington to get something done about the speculators on Wall Street determining what is paid for gasoline and related petroleum products? It is in their own economic interests.
Nader is running for president as an independent. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Today Amy Goodman interviewed him for approximately a half-hour on Democracy Now!. Earlier this week she asked someone who had not served in Iraq to tell her about his service in Iraq. This morning Goody got off another groaner:
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, you said in 2000 it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president. Do you feel that way today?
RALPH NADER: I didn't say that. I said the similarities between Bush and Gore tower over the dwindling real differences that they're willing to argue over. And, of course, my focus is not on some of the single issues. Obviously, Gore is better on Social Security, better on Medicare, better on gay, lesbian rights. Obviously in those areas, the Democrats have a much clearer position, better position, than the corporate Republicans. But in the gross area of corporate power and domination of every agency and department in our government, from the Department of Defense and Department of Labor, the Democrats are moving in the direction of the Republicans. It's quite clear in terms of their voting record. There are exceptions, like Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy, Ed Markey. But for the most part, these parties have moved very heavily into the grip, the iron grip of corporate power, corporate money, corporate ultimatums on globalization, for example, and above all, the distortion of the federal budget in the direction of corporate contracts, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, and the swelling of this enormous, corrupt, wasteful military budget that's draining money.
We're going to repeat this reality: Candidates get the votes they win. The ones they lose go to another candidate. Goodman repeatedly used the angle that Nader's taking votes from Barack Obama. Well, if Barack would drop out of the race right now, think of all the votes Ralph could get! It's nonsense. Candidates earn your vote or they don't. They are responsible (and the media). Ava and I will address the interview Sunday at Third. Here is Nader responding to the issue of Iraq:
Six-month corporate and military withdrawal from Iraq, during which we negotiate with the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis for modest autonomy, which they worked out in the 1950s before the dictators took over. Under a unified Iraq, continue humanitarian aid, some peacekeepers from nearby Islamic countries, and UN-sponsored elections. That's the way you knock the bottom out of the insurgency. That's the way you get the authority figures, the tribal leaders and the religious leaders and others, who still have authority over millions of Iraqis, to get together, because the alternative is constant bloodshed and civil strife. So you give them a stake by using the only chip we have, which is to give back Iraq to the Iraqis, including their oil. Now that--otherwise, it's constant, constant strife.
You saw that huge explosion in Iraq, in Baghdad, yesterday. The Pentagon doesn't count Iraqi civilian tolls. They don't even count officially US injuries unless they occur right in the middle of combat. So US injuries are triple what their official figure is. And all the press, including the liberal press and the indie press, still uses that figure of some 32,000 injured soldiers, when it's triple that. I don't understand why they follow that kind of Pentagon line. So that's the way to deal with it.
iraqiraq veterans against the warmatthis chirouxleo shane iiihannah allemmcclatchy newspapersthe new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.usama redhaned parkerthe los angeles timesnpr
Posted at 08:28 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
ap reports that barack's having so many problems raising money that he and hillary will meet with donors together. that's certainly nice of hillary but it really doesn't matter. she's not on the ticket, as patti solis dias proves, so who gives a f--k? i'm really serious. my husband and i won't give barack a penny. and you know elaine & c.i. won't. and considering how much they forked over 2000 and 2004 and the fact that they (elaine & c.i.) have made their feelings perfectly clear to other friends, i'm not surprised barack's struggling with big money. what barack doesn't grasp is that he's an inteloper. that's due to the fact that no 1 knows him and has nothing to do with his race. it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that his parents probably weren't married (well, they weren't married - the u.s. does not allow 2 wives so if barack's parents had a ceremony, it wasn't legal because, in the u.s. bigamy's illegal). it has nothing to do with michelle. it has everything to do that big money knows each other, was raised with each other (unless they are 'new money' - which i am no my own but i'm married to 'old money') and barack's got the panhandlers on his side. katty-van-van is not 'old money.' she's not even really 'money.' but her trashy family isn't going to be able to help. they're 'show' money (from show business) and they're all living off something her grandfather did years ago. (i'd be very interested to know where katty-van-van stands publicly on copyrights and fair use and public domain since, the second she and her kindred can't rake in more dough off grandpa, they're going to have to get real jobs.) he's got penny and elaine and c.i. know penny and will speak to her but they don't like penny. and most don't. that family's had too many scandals. (my mother-in-law will not even acknowledge penny.) when i married in, i had to learn all the rules and, sorry, barack, you have the wrong people on your side. you dress too snazzy for daily wear and come off 'flashy' to old money. i just thought of 1 woman who could walk him through it. but i doubt she'd bother. she is old money and will be voting democrat (because she always does) and she's astute, wise and a great social critic. but while she may vote for him, she's not going to risk her club membership by actually taking him by the hand and introducing him around. you can have all the rejects in the world supporting you. but you're nothing in their books. barack was never smart enough to get an entre. the chicago political machine is thuggish and has always been considered that. so he can forget them and shouldn't count them as plusses. oprah's new money and people grew tired of her some time ago. there are things you do and things you don't do. it would be easy to write it off as 'class' bias but it's really not that. it's about how you conduct yourself. katty-van-van's ridiculed as new money and borrowed money because she doesn't conduct herself well. you can be as poor as can be but have outstanding manners and graces and be warmly welcomed. barack's money backers are either involved in numerous scandals (often non-criminal but backbiting and betrayal) or else they're just thugs. he's going to have to learn to dress down 1st off because show horses are for the tracks. (my mother-in-law will borrow that line and make it her own.) i worked like crazy when flyboy and i were married the 1st time to always look great (i like to look good regardless) and it only bit me in the ass. c.i. took me by the hand and showed me who to wear and when to wear. you don't flaunt, you don't parade. doing so gets you a reputation. you especially don't come off 'flashy' to people you are asking for money because you don't look like some 1 who budgets wisely. and clothes aren't his only problem. abc news reports that the 'bounce' from hillary was not much of a bounce. (c.i. said the same thing sunday at 3rd, check the roundtable). barack's got no bounce and the article highlights all of his problems - all evident to any 1 paying attention during the primaries. voters don't think he has experience. he still doesn't have 'unity' behind him. nancy pelosi, howard dean and harry reid should never have installed him. he has the same problems he always had and abc news reports he's whining that john mccain is getting better press. ah-poor-baby. can you believe that? the man whose press clipping file should look like gushings from teen people is whining about the press? okay, there are problems with blogger/blogger tongiht. this is my 2nd attempt at a post. hopefully this will go up. we're all getting 502 error and losing our posts when we go to publish but are all planning to post something tonight even though we've all lost what we're working on. (ruth didn't because she wisely called c.i. who told her to hit 'back' and immediately pull up 'manage posts'. by doing it immediately, the 1/4 a post you pull up does not go into 'auto save' knocking out what you already wrote.) let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
|
Tuesday, June 17, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, another journalist is killed in Iraq, a bombing with mass fatalities in Baghdad reminds the press the Iraq War drags on still, the US Senate examines torture, and more.
Starting with war resistance. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. The vote found all the other parties outvoting the Conservative Party. That is the party of Stephen Harper who is the country's prime minister. On Saturday, rallies took place. Mario Cootauco (Canwest News Service) reported on one in British Columbia that US war resister Rodney Watson attended. Watson explained that he didn't want to return to Iraq, "There's no need for us to be over there and I saw that first-hand. I decided I needed to get out of there. I wanted to go just to be a support. I didn't want to go kicking down doors, killing children or innocent people or getting my hands dirty or anything. I support my country, but I don't support the way we're going about it." As Cootacuo observes, "It's now up to the Conservative government to implement the decision."
Joan Wallace wrote to Nanaimo Daily News over the weekend to share her opinion:
I agree with the writer who urges our government to comply with the recent vote in the House of Commons, in which a motion passed allowing U.S. war resisters to stay in Canada.
Phone calls and e-mails from thousands of Canadians went a long way in achieving this first step to open our doors to these men and women. Some of them have been in Iraq and seen the horrors of war and cannot with conscience support it any longer. Our doors must also open to those who enlisted to serve their country, but who came to the realization later that they could not go through with their commitment to fight in an illegal war that continues to breach international and human rights law.
Thanks to the NDP for putting this motion forward and also to the other opposition parties for supporting the motion.
It is now up to us to keep this issue on the radar. We need to write to our prime minister, to our MPs, and to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and urge them to create the legislation necessary to grant a permanent haven in Canada to all U.S. war resisters.
To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").
Turning to the US. Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq. The day he was due to report was June 15th, Sunday, and he delivered a speeh explaining why he wouldn't be deploying (see yesterday's snapshot). Iraq Veterans Against the War advises:
IVAW members Matthis Chiroux and Kris Goldsmith have been pounding the pavement in Washington DC, with the help of IVAW's DC chapter, to get members of Congress to support Matthis in his refusal to deploy to Iraq. Matthis was honorably discharged from the Army in 2007 after five years of service, but he received orders in February 2008 to return to active duty from the IRR for deployment to Iraq.
On Sunday, June 15th, the day he was due to report for active duty, Matthis stood with his father and supporters in DC and reaffirmed that he is refusing his orders on the grounds that the Iraq war is illegal and unconstitutional.
How you can help:
Find out more about Matthis Chiroux.
On Democracy Now! today, Matthis explained, "OK, I was supposed to report Sunday, Father's Day. I did not. I was in Washington, D.C. with the Iraq Veterans Against the War at their chapter house. I gave a short speech on the porch of our house there, and I stood with my dad, and I kept my promise to the military, I kept my promise to my country, to refuse an illegal order to participate in an unlawful occupation. . . . Well, right now it's turned into a bit of a waiting game, as far as the military goes. You know, I made my intentions clear, and then I followed through on them, and I'm waiting to hear from the military. There's no real way I can know what consequences to face here. You know, many, many members of the Individual Ready Reserve, about 15,000 of them, have been called up since the beginning of this occupation of Iraq, and only 7,500 of them have reported. So there's about half there that's unaccounted for. And many of those individuals have been ignored by the military, as they should be. It is an illegal order to call up and deploy to Iraq. Others have been charged with desertion. So, during a time of war, actually, desertion can be punishable by death. So, you know, my spectrum of consequence is in the situation range literally anywhere from nothing to death. So I will wait faithfully in the United States, as I promised to do, to see how the military will react."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to Iraq, where the Times of London reports, "The most deadly Baghdad attack since March ripped through a crowded market today killing at least 51 people in the Iraqi capital." BBC notes, "The bomba appeared to have been timed to go off during the early evening rush hour, when the bus stop was crowded with waiting passengers." The toll for the wounded is currently seventy-five. Both figures may rise. Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Ali Hamid (New York Times) declare, "Survivors and relatives of the victims in the Tuesday blast were enraged and on edge. One man lost 11 relatives, including five female cousins. At a courtyard in front of the Kadhimiya Hospital morgue, people screamed, wept and shrieked. Some cursed the government for allowing the blast to happen while others called on God for revenge. People fleeing the balst site who were interviewed by a New York Times reporter at a cordon set up around the scene of the attack said there had been two boms, not the single explosion that Iraqi officials described." Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) informs, "Many victims were trapped in their apartments by a raging fire that engulfed at least one building, according to police and Interior Ministry officials".
Turning to some other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad motorcyle bombing that claimed the lives of 4 "Awakening" Council members and left two other peoplw ounded, a Bahgdad roadside bombing that wounded one police officer "and three civilians" and another Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in one person being wounded a Diyala Province car bombing wounded eighteen people.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad armed attack on "two employees of the prime minister's office" resulting in the death of 1 employee and the other being wounded. Bushra Juhi (AP) reports that Muhieddin Abdul-Hamid, an Iraqi TV reporter/anchor, has been shot dead in Mosul. Al Dulaimy explains the journalist was "a newscaster at a local station called Nineveh Television". Reporters Without Borders explains that he is the 216th journalist killed in Iraq (they divide up the category, here we just count all working on news as journalists because they're all doing more than one job) and they quote Samir Slouki explaining that threats had come in on on Al-Nakib. Reporters Without Borders states, "The journalist was ambushed in front of his home, an attack which bears the hallmarks of a number of armed groups that are the scourge of the press in Iraq. Even without any claim of responsibility, it is highly likely that the journalist was targeted because he worked for a state media. We urge the government of Nuri al-Maliki to open an investigation into who was responsible and to bring them to trial. The impunity that has prevailed in the country for more than five years only encourages the killers of journalists to continue their evil work." Reuters notes 1 "municipal worker" shot dead in Tuz Khurmato while a Mosul home invasion resulted in 1 woman being shot dead and another Mosul shooting resulted in 1 police officer being shot dead..
Kidnappings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 people were kidnapped in Kut by unnamed assailants who then set the kidnapped victims vehicles ablaze luring the police to the scene but a roadside bombing claimed the life of Col Ali Mohammed and left six other police officers wounded.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad
"It never entered my mind." "I had no knowledge of it." Either statement pretty much sums up the stonewalling the US Senate Armed Services Committee received today. The first statement was made by Retired Lt. Col Daniel J. Bumgartner Jr. and the second was by the DoD's former Deputy General Counsel for Intelligence Richard L. Shiffrin. They and the laughable "Dr." Jerald Ogrisseg ("Former Chief, Psychology Services" for the Air Force) made a mockery not only of the US Congress but also of humanity. Helping with that were Senators Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham. That said, there weren't a lot on the committee doing anything to take pride in.
SERE stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. The lie is that the military and psychologists -- some with the military, some brought in -- are doing something good. No, they're not. And several times during the first panel today, someone would almost reach that line before rushing away from it. The SERE program tried waterboarding on US service members. Why?
That's the question that no one wanted to ask. The implied reason is that SERE is attempting to study . . . What? You can have sat through the entire hearing and you never got an answer. You got lies. You heard talk of "survival" and "resistance." Gee, POWs can -- and historically -- have been shot. Does that mean the US needs to begin shooting service members for a study?
The big OH-NO! in the hearing was how SERE had mission creep. And that is appalling. But it crept from somewhere. It never should have been a program. No one, not even the chair Carl Levin, wanted to question SERE. SERE would not be acceptable in any civilian setting. The 'tests' being done -- such as water boarding -- would result in legal charges if implemented in a civilian setting. With the government and the military behind it, they are doing tests that are brutal. In the hearings, Richard L. Shiffrin and Jerald F. Ogrisseg tried to minimize what was going on and referred to . . . What they wanted to say was "safe word". They backed off because "safe word" will remind most people of S&M. And that's really what this is. Non-consensual S&M which is also known as torture.
You heard a great deal in the hearing from well meaning Senators where they decried what was done in Guantanamo or Iraq. But everyone needs to grow up enough to grasp that what SERE is doing -- and has done -- is not science anymore than Nazi Germany's 'experiments' were science. (I'm not referring to concentration camps in the Nazi illustration. I'm referring to the very well known torture techniques.) Shiffrin played with himself (scratching his chest, his left nipple) and smirked throughout. To Levin he would insist that things like "good cop/bad cop" have "been around for years." We're not talking a lawful interrogation; however. We're not talking about a one interrogator plays the nice one and the other the menacing. What SERE does is devise "bad cop" techniques and punishments. Until that's addressed, don't expect to see any real changes in the US.
Jerald Ogrisseg would use strange words for an alleged pshychologist. He would refer to his group as "the good guys" and he would float al Qaeda to try to spin the minds. For the record, al Qaeda didn't run the SERE program.
Senator Claire McCaskill would bring up the issue of "immunity in advance" annd wonder "what planet are we on? There is no such thing as immunity in advance?" Shiffrin found that so amusing, he not only chuckled, he played with his left nipple repeatedly. Despite, like McCaskill, having been a prosecutor, he attempted to dance around the issue forever. But, no, immunity in advance -- the White House policy -- has no known legal standing and goes against the rule of law as McCaskill pointed out. Shiffrin just wanted to be vauge (and to touch himself). McCaskill would ask for "the names of people" and point out -- as did other senators -- that they were looking for accountability and responsibility: then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, president of vice Dick Cheney, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then-Homeland Security chief Michael Cherton. Others? "There are still people involved at the periphery of this that are in positions of responsiblity in today's government, so our frustration is that we would like to hold someone responsible, and i's like trying to catch shadows here," McCaskill noted. When pressed, Shiffrin defocused and tried to dance away. "Could you give me the names of other lawyers that were there when you were given the impression . . . besides, Jim [William] Haynes, who was in the room?" He finally moved away from "a number of people" to Charles Allen. He actually named others but he stated Allen was "in some of these meetings" plural which took the conditional "I believe" off the statement. McCaskill asked him about a meeting with Haynes and Shiffrin responded he would need a date.
Shiffrin: "If you me the day of -- of course I met with Mr. Haynes every day.
McCaskill: November 27, 2002.
Shiffring: I don't have a recollection.
"I think you're probably a really good lawyer and probably care deeply about your country," McCaskill told him but "we're trying to figure out here who decided that we're going to go ddown this road and when did it get decided?"
In the third 'panel' -- which consisted solely of William Haynes (fromer general counsel to the DoD), McCaskill pointed out that as senior lawyer William Haynes was over those under him. She noted the questions coming into him, "You had received the information from various lawyers . . . asking legal questions about these techniques?" ("This is again six years ago, so my memory is not perfect," was his nonsense reply.) The point McCaskill was making was the he was in charge of all legal issues for the Defense Department and (my point) he didn't do his job no matter how often he said "I take my, and I took my, responsibilities very seriously" (which he said later to Senator Jack Reed). McCaskill's point was that, reviewing all the documents available, she found no legal opinion other than Lt Col Beaver. She asked, "You have said the you relied on the legal advise of Lt. Col Beaver, is that correct?" He agreed it was and she pointed to the one page memo he wrote (that he would brag he typed himself during his exchange with McCaskill) which cites no legal precedent, doesn't cite Geneva, the US Constitution, any legal opinions. He tried to weasel out, he tried to cut off McCaskill. She would interrupt him with, "Wait, wait, there was no legal opinion in that package other than her [Beaver] legal opinon. Was there any other legal opinion that you relied on . . . written legal opinion that you relied on other than Lt Col Beavers' opinion?" He attempted to weasel out of that but, as McCaskill pointed out, no one he was naming was a lawyer. McCaskill's point was that this was a huge shift in the law (to put it mildly) and the Defense Department's chief lawyer created and/or waived through a policy (with questionable legal basis -- to put it mildly) and did so without any effort to create a legal opinion of his own. He would tell Reed he did an "analysis" but any attorney attempting to justifying billing by providing that one page memo would be laughed at. To Reed he would insist that the US Constition didn't apply nor did Geneva. Where is that analysis in writing? With Reed, he would finally admit, "I didn't write a memorandum to that effect." Reed would ask, "Did you write any memorandum?" Referring to the one page memo, Haynes would point to "that memorandum you have in front of you." The issue is did he blow off responsibilities or are there additional documents that have not been provided to the Congress.
Lt Col Diane Beaver participated in the second panel and told the Senate that she didn't believe the opinion she prepared "would become the final word. I did not expect to be the only lawyer to write an opinion on this monumentally important decision." Nor should she have expected that. Her argument should have been explored further up the line by people higher than her including Haynes. Reed would ask about these conditions placed on the torture techniques that Haynes referred to. Haynes stated everyone knew them, that it was obvious. Reed flipped a mountain of pages and noted that there were no conditions in them and asked Haynes to discuss the conditions which a testy Haynes refused. If they were so readily apparent to all involved, Reed would wonder, why was it that Haynes couldn't list them? In response, Haynes attempted to suggest Reed's comments were insulting to the US military to which Reed responded, "Don't you go around with this attitude that you protect the integrity of the military, you degrade the integrity of the military."
An out of control administration with no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law stained the reputation of the United States at home and abroad. The US government has been utilizing torture and the White House worked to create a fake legal basis for it. There was none. Those involved need to be held accountable but the Senate has accepted the idea that SERE isn't the problem. SERE is the problem. Without SERE, it wouldn't have happened. SERE argues it is defensive (it's trying to find out how to protect people from torture or prepare them for it -- reality, there is no prep and there is no protection if someone's captured). The committee wants to act shocked that a defensive research program would be used for offensive (illegal) actions. There's no shock there. It just took one out of control administration and SERE is as much an issue as is the White House. Repeatedly the first panel would say they never could have guessed (did Condi coach them?) that their work would be used for offensive actions. Reed would ask if it ever entered thier minds "when you were sending this information over to the General Counsel office why they needed it?" No. Never. They did their jobs, they insisted. And, in a way, they're right. But those jobs should never have existed. Experiments on humans that involve torture are not 'medical' and are not needed. McCaskill made the point that lawyers know about interrogations and know what works. She's right. And the medical field is not about creating harm to figure out how much a human being can hold up to. Again, those type of experiments took place in Nazi Germany, they are not supposed to take place in the United States. Punishing those responsible for implementing torture needs to take place but allowing SERE to continue just means someone else will come along at some point who will do the same as the current occupant of the White House. Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported this morning that today's hearing was expected to undersorce "that the use of the aggressive techniques was planned at the top levels of the Bush administration and were not the work of out-of-control, lower-ranking troops" and that the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency was "asked . . . for help devising the techniques." If SERE had not existed, it couldn't have been utilized.
Turning to the US race for president. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader will be on Democracy Now! tomorrow. Today Team Nader notes:
You've asked for it.
Now, you've got it.
More videos.
More videos.
More videos.
Here's a brand new one featuring Ralph with Patti Smith singing "Awake from Your Slumber."
Here's one of Ralph shooting hoops.
Here's one of Ralph responding to someone who told him "Don't Run."
Here's one of Ralph in Googleland being interviewed by the staff at Youtube.
And here's one of Ralph outside the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, Maine urging the impeachment of Bush.
As a result of these and other videos, Ralph's probably the hottest politician - along with McCain and Obama - on the Internet.
Check out all of our campaign videos at the Nader/Gonzalez Youtube video page.
Now, we need your help to spread these videos far and wide.
Forward them to your friends and family to strike up that discussion you've been meaning to have.
Rate the videos, add your comments, and give the thumbs-up to other good comments.
Also, we need your help to put together a team of people to help push our Youtube videos, to help build our social networking sites, and to get as many people as possible to learn about the Nader/Gonzalez platform.
So, if you have some experience and are interested in helping do online activism for the campaign, please contact jacob@votenader.org now.
Together, we are making a difference.
iraq
 iraq veterans against the war
matthis chiroux
rodney watson
mario cootauco
richard a. oppel jr.
the new york times
mcclatchy newspapers |
Posted at 08:24 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Jun 17, 2008
let's start out with Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing" hilarious! now let's get serious to note a serious campaign. this is team nader's ' Will Obama Let Big Corporations Buy the Democratic Convention?' and this is different than what c.i. notes in the snapshot: For
most thoughtful observers, John McCain's pretensions to independence
from corporate power dissolved in the face of his initial decision to
stock his campaign from stem to stern with lobbyists.
Yet Obama's
pledge to refuse special interest money and his ability to raise vast
amounts from small contributors have led many to overlook the fact that
his seed money of several million dollars came from Wall Street.
But
Obama is now head of the Democratic Party, and the Democrats convention
in Denver is inviting corporate donors to become "sponsors" of the
convention, promising executives a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to
rub shoulders with Democratic senators, members of Congress, and
governors. According to The New York Times of June 7, donors who give
$1 million or more are given access to all hospitality suites and
private events, providing what one public interest group called,
"special access to federal elected officials [and] national party
leaders."
Perhaps fearing that some corporate officials might be as
dense as the proverbial piano player at the whorehouse who claimed not
to know what was going on upstairs, a brochure from the host committee
proclaims that "this is a rare opportunity to play a leadership role in
a substantive discussion on timely issues affecting your industry with
. . . elected officials and members of the media."
We of the Nader
Campaign invite Obama to throw open the doors of the convention, tip
over the tables, and drive the money changers from the temple. We
invite him to toss out the corporations and invite in the people,
proclaiming a new Democratic Party, one in which the people will be the
masters, and the corporations our servants.
And if nothing of the sort happens, we invite fellow progressives to come to the appropriate conclusion.help
me out on when big money became something to be thrilled about in a
campaign? i seem to recall katty-van-van and a host of others mounting
their high horses about money buying elections and the need for
election reform. these days, those 'progressive' leaders don't
give a damn. it's all about barack. betray any belief, sell out any
idea, that's the 'progressive' mantra of 2008. if any of them
had any self-respect, they'd be endorsing barack publicly. instead they
go with the counter-insurgency supporting,
never-going-to-get-the-u.s.-out-of-iraq, best friend of wall street
barack. you either stand by your beliefs or you don't. you can't
bore every 1 with a lot of platitudes in off-election years and then
say, 'oh come on, suck it up, vote democrat!' that's nonsense.
if that's the way katty-van-van is, the nation magazine should be
asking the dnc to write their editorials. if nothing else, they'd be
better written than what katty and the gang can come up with. in 2004, when ralph declared his run for presidency, people shut him out. people told him not to run. it was disgusting. people need to stand for something. instead a lot of his 'name' supporters got cowed. michael moore, where are you? or for that matter susan sarandon. sarandon's let herself be cowed. it's
funny because i knew sarandon when she was trying to go from atlantic
city (many years after) to something other than the hunger. and all
she'd do was bore people with conversations about how she wanted to be
political and tell the same damn story over and over. 'my manager said
it was okay to be political. then he said "well you're not going to be
like jane fonda are you?"' she told that story over and over. i
didn't represent her but i was representing a clinet at the time who
was also doing a junket and i would tell him every time, 'they're all
bored with that damn story. she's told it for years, she trots it out
over and over. no 1 gives a damn about that story. the best thing you
can do is be interviewed after she's bored them yet again with that
dumb story.' but there's susan. former nader supporter.
prostituting herself for barack who is not ending the illegal war. not
promising to either. we cover his cnn's statements in ' Editorial: Nader's a real candidate with real stands.'
(i should note my feelings about sarandon are my own. i am not speaking
for c.i. c.i. sees good in people i wouldn't give the time of day too.
susan sarandon is 1 of those i would never give the time of day to.
she's always struck me as a fake. when she was 'hot' in the 90s she was
portrayed - and portraying herself - as a trailblazer and she wasn't
doing anything that jane fonda hadn't done in the late 70s and early
80s at the same age sarandon was then. she hit the same wall fonda did.
that's why she really doesn't have hit films anymore. that and people
are sick of her 1st lady of film portrayals. when steam brings you to
the top - atlantic city & bull durham - you don't move over to play
marmie in little women unless you're trying to kill your career.) ava amd c.i. wrote another amazing piece sunday, ' TV: Strength greeted with confusion, attacks & silence' and i want to highlight this from today's snapshot (snapshot will be posted below in full): Sunday, Ava and I noted the attacks, 'confusion' and silences regarding Katie Couric's commentary calling out sexism in the media. And we linked to Betty's astute critique
of how Ms. magazine might want to try thinking before leaping just
became Barack wants them to. Betty did a wonderful job explaining how
the slang terminology had changed in the last two years. But Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) catches another point:
Michelle Obama on video calling Barack her "baby's daddy." Will Ms.
rush to call out Michelle? Will they insist that Michelle's implying
she and her husband are not married? Ms. has been pretty pathetic of
late so anything they might do next would not be a surprise.
so
if you missed it, on friday ms. magazine disgraced itself yet again.
they were screaming that 'baby's mama' was sexist and it was so
disrespectful to michelle obama because it was about an unmarried
mother. by 2006, the word had morphed and no longer had to mean an
unmarried mother. betty called that crap out. delilah boyd posted a
video of michelle calling barack her 'babby's daddy.' will ms. magazine
leap into action with a 'that's sexism! and racism!' post again? ms.
is pathetic. it really is. it didn't do s**t when hillary was attacked
daily, when it was 1 non-stop sexist attack after another. the magazine
takes its marching orders from the barack obama campaign. i need to steer you to 1 more thing. at third we wrote ' Where are the demands? Where is the knowledge?'
and what i really want to note here is this is part of a continuing
series on war resisters that we will be doing where we recover the
forgotten history. i wish i could tell you i help uncover but i don't.
we just pick c.i. & elaine's memories. yes, i was around back them
with them. but i have the worst memory and college was so long ago. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:' Monday, June 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue
Yesterday Matthis Chiroux spoke in DC. His father, who traveled from Huntsville, Alabama, and four members of Iraq Veterans Against the War stood with him as he explained why he was not deploying to Iraq.
Sgt.
Matthis Chiroux: Good afternoon. We gather here this Father's Day on a
very somber note. The American occupation of Iraq -- an illegal,
immoral war which is ripping this nation apart as well causing an
immeasurable harm to the Iraqi people and the people of the world
alike. We gather in the remembrance of the sacrifice of many whose
fathers weep on this joyous day for they know their own flesh and blood
has been torn and siphoned from them for what we collectively hope will
be this last blunder of American military might. We gather here and
hope that our fathers will forgive us for the wrongs we have
perpetrated on our bodies, hearts and minds alike in this cruel decade
of disaster which stems from the very city in which we stand.
This
father's day, we gather here to calm the vicious and vengeful alike.
The first day I came to Washington, D.C. was less than one month before
I shipped out to basic training. I was so moved by this country and its
history that it reinvigorated my belief in the righteousness of what I
was doing: Joining the army not only in search of personal progress but
to participate in the efforts to bring justice to the individuals
responsible for 9-11.
I
remember standing at the base of the Washington Monument and watching
the fireworks explode in the sky that Fourth of July and wondering how
it was that we could have come under attack on American soil and
believing firmly that I would be participatingin dealing justice for
September 11th.
I remember
standing before the Lincoln Memorial and feeling the presence of not
just the former president and emancipator but of Martin Luther King and
his dream for a brighter and more united future for the children of
this nation.
That young me
could not have known where he'd be standing almost six years later and
what he would be saying this Father's Day. I am Sgt. Matthis Chiroux
and tonight at midnight I may face further action from the army for
refusing to reactive to participate in the Iraq occupation.
This
fact hangs heavy on my heart as I look back at my five years of service
in uniform. But I understand that what I am doing is in keeping with
the values I shared with my friends-in-arms while we wondered if things
could really get any worse?
Today
I stand in resistance to the occupation of Iraq because I believe in
our nation, its military and her people. I resist because I swore an
oath to this nation that I would not allow it to fall into decay when I
may be serving on the side of right. And my country is in decay and in
these times of crisis Thomas Paine once said, "The summer soldier and
sunshine patriot will flee from service to our country."
I
stand here today as a Winter Soldier. To serve our nation, its military
and its people in this dark time of confusion and corruption.
I
stand here to make it known that my duty as a soldier is first to the
higher ideals and guiding principles of this country which our leaders
have failed to uphold.
I
stand here today in defense of the US Constitution which has known no
greater enemy, foreign or domestic, than those highest in this land who
are sworn to be governed by its word.
I
stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their
voices in this occupation for the warriors of this nation have been
silenced to the people who need to start listening.
We
are here to honor the memory of our fathers who more than two centuries
ago brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in
liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal, as Abraham Lincoln once noted.
We
are here to honor the struggle of our fathers and their fathers and
their fathers before them to build this nation and bring it together --
through slavery and poverty, to sexism and racism, through materialism
and imperialism. They built this nation and struggled to keep it alive
as we've blundered and learned and blundered again. We owe it to our
fathers to stand for this nation now when a dark cloud has descended
upon it in the form of an administration who is stealing the lives of
us all to wage an illegal war -- conceived in lies and birthed [born]
of manipulation.
As a
soldier I was told it was not my place to question the orders of those
appointed above me. I had that lie trained into me from my first day of
basic training to my last day of active duty. But I have learned the
truth, the truth that the occupation of Iraq is inherently illegal and
that it is my duty as a soldier to refuse illegal orders to reactivate
and deploy in support of it.
I
have learned that in these times of crisis one must look deep into
their own values to know the path that they must walk. I have learned
that feeling and thinking and speaking and acting and keeping with
courage and honesty in preservation of a righteous cause is blessed and
may give a person strength to utter truths that may calm the vicious
and the vengeful alike.
I
believe that this nation and this military may come to know the same
truth: That the rule of law has been forsaken and we must return to it
or be doomed to continue disaster. I believe in the goodness of the
American people and I believe that justice is not dead because we as a
people believe that it is our responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government in our names. We know this truth to be
self-evident that our nation can unite to oppose an illegal occupation
which is killing and scarring and shattering the lives of our youth and
the Iraqi people.
On this
Fathers Day, know, America, that your children need you. We need you to
care for us and to care for our country which we will inherit when you
are finished with her. We need you to end this occupation of Iraq which
has destroyed a country and scattered its people to the wind like ashes
in the tempest -- a tempest that has engulfed the nation of Iraq and
scrubbed any sign of peace and prosperity from the surface of a
civilization older than even history itself.
Fathers,
we need you to care for your children and the children of Iraq for they
know not why you fight and carry no fault in the conflict.
Fathers,
your sons and daughters need you now to embrace peace for though we
were attacked, we have dealt in retaliation that same suffering
one-thousand times over to a people who never wronged us. The nation
will know little healing until first we stem off the flow of blood and
human life for justice and healing will never be done by a blade or a
bullet or a bomb or a torture cell.
By
continuing to participate in the unjust occupation of Iraq, we, as
service members, are contributing to that flow of human life and we
cannot now -- nor could we ever -- call the Iraqi people an enemy in
the fight against the use of terror. But terror is all we now know. We
are terrified of the prospect that we have been lied to. We are
terrified by the idea that we have killed for nothing. We are terrified
to break the silence. We are terrified to do what we know is right.
But
never again will I allow terror to silence me. Nor will I allow it to
govern my actions. I refuse terror as a tactic for uniting a people
around an unjust cause. I refuse to allow terror to motivate me to do
violence on my fellow man especially those who never wronged me in the
first place. I refuse to be terrified to stand in defense of my
Constitution. And I refuse to be terrified of doing so in great
adversity.
As a resister
to the Iraq Occupation, I refuse to be terrified by what may come for I
know those who stand against me are in terror of the truth. But I will
speak my truth, and I will stand by it firmly and forever will my soul
know peace. Thank you.
Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq and yesterday was the day of deployment. At the start of this month, Matthis Chiroux appeared on The Scott Horton Show (audio link) and pointed out
that recalling people in IRR back into the service really isn't allowed
outside of declared wars and the US Congress never declared war on
Iraq. He explained that encountering members of IVAW was when he began
to see that service members have a right and duty to speak out. He also
discussed how, following his discharge, he moved to NYC and had let his
hair grow out ("about five inches") when he was informed that,
discharge or not, he was being pulled back on. With Courage to Resist (audio link), Matthis discussed
going into a deep depression when he first learned his discharge meant
nothing and he was being deployed to Iraq. But "in mid-Marth I went to
a peace event in Brooklyn" and encountered members of IVAW. He singeled
out IVAW's Selena Coppa as someone who especially stood out. Matthis was not the only one to recently refuse to deploy. Courage to Resist notes
that 5:00 a.m. last Friday was when Jose Crespo was due to report to be
deployed to Iraq but that Jose informed the military this was a "could
not" do that due to family obligations ("serious health crisis").
In
Canada, war resisters are pressuring the Stephen Harper government to
honor the House of Commons vote. We're at a maximum on "K" (size of the
e-mail) so this topic is being pulled and will be picked up tomorrow.
In the meantime, to keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist
all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").
There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste,
Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano
Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal,
Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall,
Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve
Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha
Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister,
Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck,
Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine,
Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma). In Iraq, confuse continued over the weekend regarding the treaty the White House wants. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported
on Saturday that Moqtada al-Sadr's call for protests every Friday
against the treaty were met in Karbala (and the photo run with the
article demonstrated the protests continued in Baghdad as well) and
that US officials were stating that the impasse was not a problem. Leila Fadel and Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) reported
that Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, was making his
displeasure well known and they quoted him stating: "Iraq has another
option that it may use. The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the
right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international
forces on Iraqi sovereign soil." CNN reported Bully Boy blustering in Paris Saturday that, "If I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis." Alissa J. Rubin and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) report
today that members of the Iraqi Parliament are stating that it "will be
very difficult" for a treaty to be finalized prior to July 31st and the
reporters note: "The overarching question is how much control Iraq will
have over the activities of the American military on Iraqi soil."Returning to al-Sadr. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) noted
the possible October elections and that al-Sadr's "latest approach
appears to be an effort to ensure that he gets some representation in
provincial governments. But by not running candidates directly under
the Sadr banner, he may hope to avoid blame for a poor showing." Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) offers
today, "Aides to anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said
Sunday that although his movment will not field an official slate of
Sadrist candidates in upcoming elections, it could support individual
Sadrists running for office." It could also be that with threats to ban
anyone from the list that's connected to a militia, al-Sadr could be
creating a division within his movement (a clear one, those carrying
firearms are supposed to have his written permission) that would allow
his bloc to run for office. A point Dean Yates (Reuters) makes as well:
"That could allow the Sadrist bloc to skirt a draft election law that
bans any party with a militia from competing and possibly avoid a row
with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over the issue. Maliki, himself a
Shi'ite, has threatened to bar the movement from political life unless
it disbanded the Mehdi Army." No one knows al-Sadr's reasonsings. "[A]
day after Mr. Sadr announced that he was reorganizing his movement," Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) pointed out, al-Maliki ordered troops into Amara -- "a power base of" al-Sadr's. Ned Parker and Raheen Salman (Los Angeles Times) offer the backstory -- no participation in the 2005 elections, the assault on Basra "widely interpreted as a move against Sadr". Aref Mohammed (Reuters) reports
al-Maliki is telling Amara residents that have until Wednesday to
surrender all firearms and weapons (or?) and that al-Sadr's has order
the Medhi Army to stand-down. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings?Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
two Baghdad bombings within 15 minutes of each other with the first
claimeing the life of 1 Iraqi service member and leaving three more
wounded as well as wounding five college students while the second
explosion resulted in four college students being wounded, a Baghdad
mortar attack that left four people wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that
wounded one person, a Mosul home bombing that claimed the life of 1
child and left two people wounded -- this was one in a series of
bombings in Mosul, four in all, aimed at various houses in Mosul today,
a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded one person and a Diyala Province
roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 3 "Awakening" Council
members and left another wounded.Shootings?Reuters notes 2 college students were shot dead at Mosul University by "Iraqi security forces" for the 'crime' of resisting arrest.Corpses?Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.Turning to US political races. First up, LeftTurn is delinked. Repeating a LIE isn't journalism. Repeating a debunked LIE goes beyond shoddy. We're not in the mood for it. When it's June and you're repeating a lie debunked at the start of March,
you're just pathetic. So is attacking someone because of your own
shoddy system for comments but that's what happened to LavenderLiberal.
No link to the trash attack, but here's LavenderlLiberal explaining
why Obama is a "no" vote: "Really, to hell with it. Vote for the
senior-disdaining, homophobic, DLC-beholden global corporatist with no
experience, and lose the next three or four terms to the GOP. I just
don't care anymore. As the Obamaniacs themselves keep telling me,
there's no room for me in their mythical 'big tent.' I believe them."In the real world, as opposed to Panhandle Media's Pravda for Obama, Naomi Klein (link goes to ICH) points out,
"Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out
of the race to declare, on CNBNC, 'Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market
guy. I love the market'." Klein goes on to point out that show-boating
Barack who stated he wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart has Jason Furman heading
his economic team. Meanwhile, John Pilger (New Statesman) observes,
"The nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless
commentator, 'marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US
history', is a product of the new delusion. . . It is time the
wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great
power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious
presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an
expansionsit. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the
war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton
demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater
need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws
out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the
great power game. The 'truly exciting and historic moment in US
history' will only occur when the game itself is challenged." Pilger's article can also be found at Dissident Voice. Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent candidate. West Virginia's Charleston Daily Mail includes this observation:
"If you are as angry as I am that our vote did not count and the
delegates chose our presidential candidat, vote independent. Vote for
Ralph Nader. He makes more sense than Obama." Joel S. Hirschhorn (Swans Commentary) outlines
reasons to support Nader: "In so many ways Ralph Nader deserves to be
president of the U.S. more than any Republican or Democratic candidate.
For anyone that understands the need to overturn the two-party
plutocracy and the corporate money that supports both major parties,
Nader is the only credible candidate. He is also the most honest one
and the only one that has the best interests of ordinary Americans as
his highest priority." Meanwhile Dave G. (Digital Journal) reports
that anti-Iraq War candidate Ron Paul dropping out of the GOP race for
the presidential nomination -- no, the media didn't rip into him to
drop out the way they did Hillary but note the "him" -- has Nader and
Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr competing for Paul's
supporters. Paul Bedard (US News & World Reports) speaks
with Chris Driscoll of the Nader campaign who explains that they're
hoping to be included in the presidential debates this fall and Bedard
notes Jesse Ventura's victory in Minnesota last decade, "He startd with
little support in the polls, got invited to the Minnesota gubernatorial
debates, and eventually won after people got a chance to compare him
with his foes." Noting Nader's ballot access in Colorado, Joe Hanel (Cortez Journal Online) speaks with
Jenny Przekwas whos is spearheading the campaign's Colorado work and
explains, "We're concerned with voting our conscience and voting for a
candidate that best represents our views."Team Nader notes:Obama and the Democrats are raking it in from the big corporations. Big corporate executives, for some reason, like Obama and the Democrats, but do not like Nader/Gonzalez. Therefore, we must rely on you - our loyal supporters. After securing the nomination, Obama immediately ripped into absentee black fathers, while kowtowing to the right-wing AIPAC lobby. What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong is that Obama is moving right. He's got the corporate money, the powerful lobbies, and big business in his corner. And he's not looking back. But we have to make sure Obama knows that we are organizing. And will be relentless in pursuit of justice throughout the year. Obama might have the corporate executives and big law firms in his corner. But we have you. And with your help, Nader/Gonzalez will be on ten state ballots by the end of the month. And forty by the end of the summer. So once again, thank you for your generous and ongoing donations to our campaign. Together, we are making a difference.
Sunday, Ava and I noted the attacks, 'confusion' and silences regarding Katie Couric's commentary calling out sexism in the media. And we linked to Betty's astute critique of how Ms.
magazine might want to try thinking before leaping just became Barack
wants them to. Betty did a wonderful job explaining how the slang
terminology had changed in the last two years. But Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) catches another point: Michelle Obama on video calling Barack her "baby's daddy." Will Ms. rush to call out Michelle? Will they insist that Michelle's implying she and her husband are not married? Ms. has been pretty pathetic of late so anything they might do next would not be a surprise.
iraqiraq veterans against the warmatthis chiroux scott horton
the washington post
 amit r. paley
the los angeles times
 ned parker
 raheem salman
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
 suadad al-salhy mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
mike tharp thomas friedman is a great man
Posted at 07:28 am by politicsscree
Permalink
|
|
|
jeff zeleny
perry bacon jr.
nicholas johnston
james rowley
