Gordon Brown has criticised "crude" personal attacks in politics as the debate between Labour and the Tories over spending continues to rage.
People should "think twice" before making accusations, Mr Brown said, stressing he avoided personal attacks.

that's bbc and i think people should think twice before supporting illegal wars that kill innocent civilians. but hey, that's me. gordon brown's fine with that. he wanted to be p.m. some day so he went merrily along with tony blair. gordo doesn't like 'crude' personal attacks?

how humorous.

if you're missing it, his cabinet had a 'crude' insult today. from the chancellor of germany, angela merkel. this is from brian parkin (bloomberg news):

In a speech to lawmakers in Berlin today, Merkel criticized countries for bowing to pressure from banks to duck new rules as the global crisis eases. While she didn’t name the U.K., Merkel said she agrees with comments made by her finance minister, Peer Steinbrueck, who attacked Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling for allying with London’s banking industry in refusing greater regulation.
“No sooner have they recovered somewhat than we see banks exhibiting defensive reflexes against further reforms,” Merkel told the lower house of parliament. Revamping market rules “must be international and no state can be allowed to pull out of the process.”
Merkel’s comments, folded into a speech on next week’s G-8 summit in Italy, underscore Germany’s determination to press for tighter regulation at the risk of a confrontation with Gordon Brown. Merkel, facing national elections Sept. 27, pledges in her campaign program to overhaul financial-market rules that she blames for causing Germany’s worst recession in over 60 years.

merkel's actually right. gordon brown feels different because he's new labour which the british equivalent of dlc or 'new democrat.'

now jeff randall (telegraph of london) has also noted that we're seeing gordon brown's final days:

Smell the burning rubber; hear the screeching brakes. Watch in awe as the wheels fly off and the chassis crumples. Then avert your eyes, because the final crash is ugly. As the Prime Minister's bandwagon of deceit slams into a wall of immovable realities, the Government's casualties are piling up. Crushed in the wreckage are the careers and self-regard of Labour ministers who did not see it coming. It never occurred to them that the driver would lose control of their carriage. But he has – and there's no escape.
When Andrew Lansley, the shadow health minister, admitted recently that cuts in public spending of about 10 per cent would be required in order to restore sanity to the nation's finances, while protecting Tory commitments to the NHS and aid programmes, Mr Brown and his fawning minders became excited. This was the moment, or so they thought, to brand Labour as "investors" and the Tories as "cutters". Never mind the quality of analysis, feel the width of an opportunity to brainwash unknowing voters with megaphone politics.
Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, who, despite a Cambridge education, appears to be in need of remedial tuition, blurted out his leader's tactic: "Today, Mr Lansley let the cat out of the bag… today, Mr Cameron became 'Mr 10 Per Cent', and we will hang that around his neck until the next election." The message of "mean Tories" versus "munificent Labour" would be thrashed out daily, until it was established as fact in the minds of a bewildered electorate.
This follows Mr Brown's strict adherence to the first rule of propaganda: dehumanise the enemy. Make them seem like monsters. If, for instance, they oppose unlimited immigration, brand them as racists. Should they talk about reforming education, label them as toffs. And when it comes to protecting the taxpayer from scandalous abuse, portray every penny saved as butchery of the welfare state. Why not? After all, it has worked before. At the last election, Conservative proposals to reduce the growth of government spending by £4 billion (at the time, the entire Budget was about £500 billion) were shamelessly dressed up as an assault on schools and hospitals.

gordo's corporate and he's preparing to have a tag sale on the u.k.'s treasures. this is from patrick wintour (guardain):

Gordon Brown started to dilute his unconditional commitment to further increases in public spending by saying that goal depended on achieving growth in the future.
The prime minister said he would concentrate on making big savings through efficiencies and asset sales and acknowledged that the government would have to make hard choices.

the daily mail notes the realities of gordo's attack on the social net but 1st serves up a reminder of his recent 'hits' that some may have forgotten:

In the past seven days he has retreated on an Iraq war inquiry, ID cards, Parliamentary Standards Bill and the Royal Mail sell-off.
When asked if individual programmes might be slashed to move funding to frontline services, Mr Brown told BBC News: 'If these programmes are cut then that's fine, but I've got no interest in keeping inefficient services that are not useful to society or the economy growing.'

so that's our latest on gordo brown. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, July 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad sees renewed violence, Joe Biden visits Iraq, Odierno reveals US troops really aren't out of Iraqi cities, and more.

Despite the for-show hype, US troops haven't really pulled out of Iraqi cities. That revelation came from the top US commander in Iraq when he was being interviewed by Judy Woodruff for yesterday's NewsHour (PBS):

GEN. RAY ODIERNO: Well, what we have is we have U.S. forces in joint coordination centers all over Iraq, inside of the cities, and they are there doing training, advising, assisting, and they also are coordinating with the Iraqis. So we have these relationships that are built from the lowest levels up to the highest levels that allow us to communicate. And if they need assistance, they can ask, and we will provide that.JUDY WOODRUFF: So they're not technically out of the cities. They're still there, but they're working side by side with the Iraqis?GEN. RAY ODIERNO: That's right, but we're at much lower numbers. These are just small advisory and coordination cells, and they're not related to combat formation, such as brigades and battalions. Those are now outside the cities. But we have coordination cells that work very closely with the Iraqis to enable them and train them and advise them and coordinate with them.
Technically? That's right, Odierno immediately agrees. The non-change was the subject on NPR's Morning Edition earlier today:

David Greene: So 130,000 that's a big number -- the number of US forces remaining in these forward operating bases outside the cities and we'll probably be there until next fall. What exactly does this withdrawal mean? Is anything really different?

Thomas E. Ricks: I don't think it really is that different. I think politicians are trying to make more of it, especially Iraqi politicians, then is really warranted here. American troops are going to continue to fight in Iraq, they're going to continue to die in Iraq. In fact, I suspect, in the areas around Baghdad, the so-called 'belts,' you're going to see some real fighting this summer.

David Greene: One of the Iraqi politicians you're speaking of is probably Nouri al-Maliki. He's made some pretty significant pronouncements of optimism saying, 'We've got this covered.' Let's play out a scenario, if things don't go that well in the city, can he reach out and say to the Americans, 'I need you back?'

Thomas E. Ricks: He can pull the Americans back and, in fact, that's happened several times. This is not the first time the Americans have tried to transfer security responsibility to Iraqi forces. We tried it several times, it hasn't worked several times. Now we look back and say, 'Well that was a rush to failure.' So the question now is: Are Iraqi forces up to the job? And the answer is: nobody knows.

David E. Greene: You joined us on this program back in March and you said at the time you thought we might be half-way through this war. Is that about still where we are?

Thomas E. Ricks: Yeah. I might have been a bit optimistic.

David E. Green: Optimistic?

Thomas E. Ricks: Yeah, I think we have a lot longer road ahead of us in Iraq than anybody in this country seems to think. It worries me that Americans have turned their eyes away from Iraq and have almost gotten bored with it. The old 1960s slogan was: What if they gave a war and nobody came? Now we're in a situation: What if they gave a war and nobody paid attention?
David Greene: A lot of Americans would be shocked to hear we're less than half-way through this war Certainly President Obama seems to be sending a different message. You also said something about the president. You said that Iraq was going to change Obama more than Obama changes Iraq. Uh, what's your sense so far? Have you seen him adapting since taking office?
Thomas E. Ricks: Well, yeah. I think in fact, he has broken more campaign promises on Iraq than on any other area. He campaigned saying he would take a brigade out a month from the day he took office instead he's keeping troop levels about where they were during the entire Bush administration. Instead of getting out quickly, he's actually is looking at getting out rather slowly. Bush said the mission was accomplished when it wasn't and Obama's saying we're going to get the combat troops out. Well guess what? There are no non-combat troops in the US military. There is no pacifist wing in the military.

David Greene: So what does that mean when he says get the combat troops out?

Thomas E. Ricks: It's a meaningless phrase. Either you have troops there or you don't. If American troops are there, they will be involved in combat. In fact, American troops who are advisers to Iraqi units are going to be vulnerable.

Not all politicians are attempting to spin this into another wave of Operation Happy Talk. US House Rep Dennis Kucinich explained the reality of the 'pull-back':

The withdrawal of some U.S. combat troops from Iraq's cities is welcome and long overdue news. However, it is important to remember that this is not the same as a withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors from Iraq.
U.S. troop combat missions throughout Iraq are not scheduled to end until more than a year from now in August of 2010. In addition, U.S. troops are not scheduled for a complete withdrawal for another two and a half years on December 31, 2011. Rather, U.S. troops are leaving Iraqi cities for military bases in Iraq. They are still in Iraq, and they can be summoned back at any time.
This is not a great victory for peace. On May 19, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Iraqi and U.S. military officials virtually redrew the city limits of Baghdad in order to consider the Army's Forward Operation Base Falcoln as outside the city, despite every map of Baghdad clearly showing it wih in city limits. In afact, according to Section 24.3 of the "SOFA" U.S. troops can remain at any agreed upon facility. The reported reason for this decision is to ensure U.S. troops are able to "help maintain security in south Baghdad alon gwhat were the fault lines in the sectarian war."
This troop movement should not be confused with a troop withdrawal from Iraq. In reality, this is a small step toward Iraqi sovereignty as Iraqi security forces begin assuming greater control over security operations, but it is a long way from independence and a withdrawal of the U.S. military presence.

Also issuing statements were insurgent and resistance leaders. Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reports that they issued statements which "all commanded Iraqis to continue fighting the American military until it has left the country completely; nearly 130,000 troops remain. The statements also insisted, in unusually clear language, that Iraqis not turn their violence on one another."

Meanwhile Vice President Joe Biden is in Iraq. The White House released the following statement, "Vice President Biden has arrived in Iraq to visit U.S. troops and to meet with Iraqi leaders, including President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Speaker of the Council of Representatives Ayad al-Samarrai. The Vice President will reiterate the United States' commitment to fully implement the Security Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement and to carry out President Obama's plan to draw down US forces. He will discuss with Iraq's leaders the importance of achieving the political progress that is necessary to ensure the nation's long-term stability. This is Vice President Biden's second trip to Iraq this year and his first as Vice President." The Vice President's oldest son, Beau Biden, is serving in Iraq as a member of Delaware's Army National Guard. Mark Silva (Chicago Tribune) notes that it is "a two-day series of meetings" for Vice President Biden who "was greeted at Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abbawi and Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of American forces there."

In Baghdad today, violence 'returned.' Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and wounded ten people including two more Iraqi soldiers. Patrick Quinn (AP) adds, "The attack occurred near a bridge that controls access to the walled-off Green Zone in central Baghdad." Quinn also notes 2 dead and fifteen injured from a Baghdad car bombing. Aseel Kami, Michael Christie and Charles Dick (Reuters) report that Iraqi police claim it is the first Baghdad bombing since Tuesday but that it is "not immediately possible to verify the claim that the bomb was the first but no major incidents were reported in Baghdad on Wednesday." Alice Fordham (Times of London) adds, "Despite concerns, the Iraqi security forces in Baghdad have already begun a policy of reopening closing roads, reducing the number of fixed checkpoints and removing the concrete barriers that have long dominated the Baghdad streetscape. "

In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing injured two people, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left fifteen people injured and Falluja roadside bombing targeted an Iraq military officer but killed his driver ("The officer was not in the car"). Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing injured three people, a Yusufiya car bombing claimed 2 lives and left fifteen people injured, an Al-Zab car bombing claimed 1 life and injured six people and a Falluja sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and and left two others injured..

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 1 person was shot dead in Mosul and 1 Iraqi "army major" was shot dead in Kirkuk.

Those following the oil industry can refer to Tamsin Carlisle's "Iraq seeks plan B after auction" (The National):Iraq said yesterday its state oil companies would manage and exploit two gasfields and possibly one oilfield that failed to attract acceptable bids from foreign companies in the country's first post-war oil and gas licensing round.Baghdad also rejected further offers it received after the close on Tuesday of a televised auction of service contracts for work on six of the country's biggest oilfields and the two gasfields."The offers from the foreign companies were rejected by the government," said Ali al Dabbagh, a government spokesman. "If they want the oilfields they have to match the prices offered by the ministry of oil."Reporters who are handmaidens to Big Oil have repeatedly attempted to play the events as a failure. Iraq doesn't need foreigners to reap millions on oil. If they're not happy with the bidding, they don't have to award contracts. There's a Western attitude of "you must" that Iraq fails to respond to (no surprise, that's been the case for Iraq historically). "Emboldened by what Iraqi oil officials are calling a successful first oil-licensing round this week," Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports, "the oil ministry is to move up a second auction that was to be held at the end of this year for 11 oil and natural-gas fields." As Chon explains, Big Oil was the one who "balked" in the auction. AFP quotes Nouri al-Maliki declaring, ""Some companies succeeded, others did not. The oil ministry will think about how to exploit the oil resources of Iraq." Repeating: Big Oil removed itself from the process (kind of the way Barack took his name off the Michigan ballot -- maybe Big Oil thought the DNC 'Rules' Committee would award it contracts regardless?). Big Oil's Pimp Sheila McNulty (Financial Times of London) spins it as a win for Chevron: "The US oil company did not even bid for one of the highly touted contracts. While Chevron is not saying anything about what kept it out of the race, an industry source says the world's third biggest oil company decided the terms being offered were too unfavorable for the company to make money." Meanwhile Vivienne Walt (TIME magazine) notes the hesitation to bid on Kirkuk fields in the past:

Until now, major oil companies such as Chevron and ExxonMobil have stayed out of investing in the Kurdish zone for fear that investing there might prompt Baghdad to blacklist them from bidding for the far larger fields down South. But those fears have diminished as the stalemate in parliament over oil has dragged on. Big Oil might also be emboldened to make deals on oil fields in the Kurdish areas since last week, when the Chinese oil giant Sinopec announced that it was acquiring the Swiss oil company Addax Petroleum, which operates in Iraqi Kurdistan. "It will be much more difficult to blacklist Sinopec," says Yousni. "This is China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, not some small oil company," he says. Having dared to take on Baghdad, China has increased the Kurds' ability to become an autonomous economic power, and perhaps allowed other companies to follow suit. "The Chevrons and Exxons of this world can now do the same, and go into Kurdish fields." For now, some may see that as a safer bet than the riches on offer, at a steeper price and risk, further south.

In yesterday's snapshot, we noted Josh Drobnyk's "Iraq war veteran will lead effort to reverse 'don't ask, don't tell'" (Los Angeles Times) but we'll return to it to note this:With Murphy, 35, the Democratic leadership has an aggressive two-term lawmaker who in 2006 was the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress. A former prosecutor and West Point professor, Murphy was a captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.He said he anticipated a struggle to rally enough support to bring the bill to the floor. "This is going to take months and months, but change is going to happen."The legislation's prospects are similarly uncertain in the Senate, where Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is suffering from a brain tumor, is expected to take the lead.Opponents are readying their own fight, arguing that gays' open service would hurt national security.It goes on to quote hag, you know who we mean. Monday's snapshot noted Senator Roland Burris' commitment to work with Kennedy on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While that's wonderful that Burris has shown the courage to step up on this issue, Kennedy's not only suffering from a tumor, he's also got his hands on the health care. Burris needs a senior senator to work with and it's past time someone stepped up to the plate. This can't wait for Ted Kennedy to finish working on health care, it needs to be addressed now.Iraq War veteran Anthony Woods is running for Congress, he was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Kel Munger (Sacramento News & Review) spoke with him (and I've added their names before they speak to make it easier to follow):Kel Munger: So you were discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Did they ask or did you tell?Anthony Woods: I told. I reached the point where I had fully accepted who I was, and the more I thought about it, the more I understood that it was not right at all to lie about who I was. I was on the honor committee at West Point. I was raised with regular American values and taught that it's not right to lie in any context. As I started to think about it more and more, it baffled me that we had a policy in place that was the law of the land that required every member of the GLBT community who served to lie.Kel Munger: There's something fundamentally wrong with that, especially in our country. It's unacceptable.Anthony Woods: That compelled me to be honest with my commander. And because of the law, she was required -- whether she wanted to or not -- to launch an investigation into my background to confirm the truth of the matter. I had to provide her with lists of names of people who knew me and knew I was gay. After a six-month investigation, I was honorably discharged. I was asked to repay the tuition that the Army had paid for at West Point, which was about $35,000.Kel Munger: How many years had you given the military? You'd already done two tours in Iraq, right?Anthony Woods: When I was discharged, I'd served just a little over five years. After grad school, I was going to do five more years.[. . .]Kel Munger: And what about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is kind of where we started this conversation?Anthony Woods: Think of all the straight soldiers who are left in the unit now who are going into battle with one less person on their side, one less resource for their unit. Look at my friend Dan Choi, for example. He's an Arab linguist, speaks Arabic fluently. Now his unit has to go to war without translator. They're less effective at doing their job and they're more at risk while they try to do it. It simply doesn't make sense to take talented, competent people who want to do their job and remove them and send everyone else off to war without them. Or we could talk about the $400 million it has cost us to implement "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." That would buy a lot of body armor and a lot of armored Humvees. Instead, we've got a net benefit of zero.Dan Choi is fighting for his military career. Tuesday an army board recommended he be dischared. Catherine Philip (Times of London) reports:An Iraq war veteran has been ordered out of the US military after publicly announcing his homosexuality in a direct challenge to the army's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy.Lieutenant Dan Choi, who speaks fluent Arabic, outed himself in March in the military journal Army Times and on national television at the launch of Knights Out, an association representing gay and lesbian graduates of West Point military academy.He said that his declaration was a protest against a policy that forced soldiers to lie in order to serve their country. "It's an immoral code that goes against every single thing we were ever taught at West Point with our honour code," he said.



And from ETAN:The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras)Joint Statement on Accountability in the Run-up to the Indonesian Presidential ElectionsAs Indonesia prepares for its second direct presidential election on July 8th, the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras) together urge the Indonesian government, its citizens, and the international community to highlight past human rights violations and to push the next Indonesian administration to end impunity for human rights violators.We are especially concerned about the well-documented human rights records of some of the candidates, including vice presidential candidates Prabowo Subianto and Wiranto. Prabowo, vice-presidential candidate for Megawati Sukarnoputri, was commander of Indonesia's special forces unit Kopassus from 1995 to 1998. Under his command, Kopassus kidnapped and disappeared a group of student activists during the last part of the dictator Suharto's rule. For this, he was later forced to retire by a military court. He also presided over brutal actions by Kopassus in occupied East Timor, including the torture, kidnapping and killings of independence supporters.Wiranto, vice-presidential candidate for Jusuf Kalla, was commander of Indonesia's military during the tumultuous period of 1998 and 1999, when Suharto was pushed from power by widespread demonstrations and elite disillusionment with his rule. The military and its militias wreaked havoc in East Timor during its vote for independence. For his role, Wiranto was indicted for crimes against humanity by the UN-backed serious crimes process.Kontras and ETAN are concerned that should either of these candidates assume office, their past crimes will impede the next president's ability to satisfactorily resolve outstanding cases of human rights violations by Indonesia's security forces and hinder the critical movement toward military reform and accountability. Almost certainly Wiranto and Prabowo's own impunity would continue for human rights and war crimes.Under the current Yudhoyono administration, progress in the major human rights cases has been halting at best and military reform efforts have stalled. Also a former general, he has shown only a limited commitment to expanding human rights. Human rights violations have escalated in Papua. The involvement of the highest levels of the government's intelligence agency in the assassination of human rights activist Munir, who was murdered just prior to Yudhoyono taking office, has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. President Yudhoyono once declared the Munir case a "test case for whether Indonesia has changed."As the legal process has stalled in a number of important cases, the installation of a presidential team which respects human rights and can inject new momentum into these cases is critical. The international community can greatly assist efforts for genuine accountability and military reform by restricting military assistance to Indonesia. Together Indonesia's government, its citizens, and the international community must push for human rights accountability no matter who assumes office.Contact:Usman Hamid (Indonesia) +62 811 812 149John M. Miller (United States) +1-718-596-7668; +1-917-690-4391Komisi Untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan (KontraS)East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) Pernyataan bersama tentang akuntabilitas dalam pemilihan presiden IndonesiaSeiring dengan persiapan Indonesia menghadapi pemilihan presiden langsung keduanya pada 8 Juli 2009, the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) dan Komisi untuk orang hilang dan korban tindak kekerasan (KontraS), bersama mendorong pemerintah Indonesia, warganya, dan komunitas internasional untuk mengingat pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) di masa lampau dan untuk mendorong pemerintah Indonesia agar mengakhiri impunitas pelanggaran HAM.Kami sangat prihatin dengan catatan HAM- yang terdokumentasikan dengan baik- dari beberapa kandidat, termasuk kandidat Wakil Presiden Prabowo Subianto dan Wiranto. Prabowo, kandidat Wakil Presiden untuk Megawati Sukarnoputri, adalah komandan komando pasukan khusus (Kopassus) dari tahun 1995-1998. Dibawah pimpinannya, Kopassus menculik dan menghilangkan sekelompok aktivis mahasiswa pada masa akhir kepemimpinan diktator Suharto. Karena ini, ia dipaksa untuk pensiun oleh pengadilan militer. Ia juga terlibat dalam tindakan brutal Kopassus di wilayah okupasi Timor Timur, termasuk penyiksaan, penculikan dan pembunuhan terhadap pendukung kemerdekaan. Wiranto, kandidat Wakil Presiden untuk Jusuf Kalla, adalah Panglima Angkatan Bersenjata pada masa bergejolak 1998-1999, ketika Suharto dijatuhkan dari kekuasaan oleh demonstrasi yang meluas dan disilusi elit pada kekuasaannya. Militer dan milisinya melancarkan kekacauan di Timor Timur pada masa referendum kemerdekaan. Untuk perannya ini, Wiranto dituduh kejahatan atas HAM melalui proses peradilan kejahatan serius yang disokong oleh PBB. Kontras dan ETAN prihatin bila salah satu kandidat ini berhasil menang, maka kejahatan masa lalu mereka akan menghalangi kemampuan presiden selanjutnya untuk menyelesaikan kasus kasus besar pelanggaran HAM masa lalu yang dilakukan oleh angkatan bersenjata Indonesia, serta menghalangi gerakan kritis terhadap reformasi militer dan akuntabilitas. Hampir dipastikan impunitas Wiranto dan Prabowo akan terus berlangsung dalam pelanggaran HAM dan kejahatan perang. Dibawah pemerintahan Yudhoyono yang sedang berjalan, perkembangan kasus-kasus HAM besar terhambat dan upaya reformasi militer tersendat. Sebagai mantan Jendral, ia menunjukkan komitmen terbatas dalam penegakkan HAM. Pelanggaran HAM meningkat di Papua. Keterlibatan pejabat tinggi badan intelijen pemerintah dalam pembunuhan aktivis HAM, Munir, yang terbunuh beberapa saat setelah Yudhoyono memangku jabatan, belum terselesaikan secara memuaskan. Presiden Yudhoyono pernah mengatakan "kasus Munir adalah suatu batu ujian seberapa besar Indonesia telah berubah."Seiring terhentinya proses hukum beberapa kasus penting, pembentukan pasangan presiden yang menghargai HAM dan bisa menyuntikan momentum baru pada kasus ini adalah kritis. Komunitas internasional dapat membantu upaya upaya menegakkan akuntabilitas sejati dan reformasi militer dengan membatasi bantuan militer ke Indonesia. Bersama-sama, pemerintah Indonesia, warganya, dan komunitas internasional harus mendorong akuntabilitas HAM, terlepas siapapun yang memangku jabatan.
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
ETAN welcomes your financial support. Go to http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm to donate. Thanks.
John M. Miller fbp@igc.org
National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA
Phone: (718)596-7668 Mobile phone: (917)690-4391
Skype: john.m.miller
Web site: http://www.etan.org


iraq
pbsthe newshourjudy woodruff
nprmorning edition
thomas e. ricks
the new york timescampbell robertson
tamsin carlislethe wall street journalgina chonetan
the times of londonalice fordham
josh drobnykkel mungercatherine philip

back to gordon brown. life really seemed to have turned a corner for him awhile back, while he wasn't looking, and it all came loose. he keeps trying to wind the yarn back up but it's not just one strand that's come loose, it's the anchor stitch. (if that made sense, thank my grandmother who tried to teach me to knit when i was 14. if it didn't, blame me for not knowing what the hell i think i'm talking about.) nigel morris (independent of london) explains:

Gordon Brown suffered a wounding double blow to his authority yesterday as he abandoned moves to sell a stake in Royal Mail and was defeated by Labour rebels over plans to clean up the Commons after the expenses scandal.
The fresh setbacks came after he endured bruising clashes with David Cameron over spending plans and faced ridicule from Tory MPs after he spoke of a "zero per cent rise" in budgets.
The retreat over part-privatisation of Royal Mail was blamed by Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, on the struggle to attract buyers in the recession. But the opposition parties claimed the climbdown had been forced by the growing opposition to the sale among Labour MPs and trade unions.

now i thought, and i was obviously wrong on this, that tony blair would end his prime minister run as the new harold wilson.

harold wilson was p.m. of the u.k. largely during the vietnam era (p.m. from 1964 to 1970 and then 1974 to 1976). and he was going to do this and do that and, to his credit, he did a little. not much. but he had all this power given to him by having control of both houses and the end result was that he weakened not only his party in terms of elections (after wilson, it wasn't all that hard for tories to take over) but he weakened his party's platform and beliefs. he watered down and watered down what it meant to be labour so that the 'new labour' (neo liberals) could show up in the 80s and claim they were the true successors of the party, the rightful heirs.

this is ross lydall from the scotsman:

THE UK government yesterday performed its second major U-turn in two days, when controversial proposals to part-privatise Royal Mail were abandoned.
Critics said the move, hard on the heels of the scrapping of compulsory ID cards, was a humiliating climbdown and showed Gordon Brown's administration was in a "state of paralysed indecision".It adds to a series of blows to Mr Brown, from the 10p income tax fiasco to the reversal of his decision to hold the Iraq inquiry in secret, and comes a month after he was undermined by a series of Cabinet resignations and forced to fight for his political life.

he is the wounded and the sharks are circling, they smell the blood in the water. it is going to be something to watch as this drags on and on. if i were gordon brown, i would immediately step down and allow the party to appoint some 1 else so that they'd have a better shot at stronger returns in the upcoming elections.

michael white (guardian) rightly observes 'trust is easy to lose, impossible to regain:'

Thatcher's admirers claim she only lied twice – large lies, since they involved the Westland scandal and the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser Belgrano – which is generous. But, unlike Harold Wilson, she had a reputation for plain speaking so got away with things. Early in his career, Wilson had been dogged by a mistake he owned up to, and resorted to verbal trickery to avoid repeating the experience. He remained terrified of being caught in a lie, old hands still recall.
Less deft than Wilson, Gordon Brown retreats into statistical juggling and double-counting, even as he protests his Presbyterian integrity. "I have always told the truth, I have always told people as it is," he told the BBC as he struggled to defuse Tory accusations that he has systematically misled voters about his public spending plans.
There is nothing new in charge and counter-charge. As Disraeli once observed there are "lies, damned lies and statistics". As shadow chancellor in the mid-90s, Brown was brilliant at wrapping selective stats around John Major's neck, a habit he carried into the Treasury, initially with some success.


and when even the guardian has stopped carrying gordon's water, he's in trouble.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, July 1, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Kenneth Pollack Laments, Patrick Murphy tackles Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and more.

Today US House Rep Patrick Murphy spoke about the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Clinton era compromise came about when Colin Powell and others flaunted their homophobia and refused to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, a pledge Bill Clinton campaigned upon. The compromise was that you couldn't be asked about your sexuality and you couldn't talk about it. Unless you were straight. It was a compromise and, for that time period, a step forward. Today is out of date and out of step. Josh Drobnyk (Pennslyvania Ave. Blog) reports that with Ellen Tauscher's departure from Congress (she's now Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security), Murphy will now take the lead on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which would not only repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it would also allow everyone to serve regardless of their sexuality and with no requirement that they hide who they are. Iraq War veteran Murphy states, "This is going to take months and months, but change is going to happen." Yesterday Lt Dan Choi learned that a US Army board was recommending he be discharged because he is gay and refuses to hide in a closet. Martin Wisckol (Orange County Register) quotes Choi, "I'm a leader. A setback is an opportunity to keep fighting, and I'm going to do that through my actions." Yesterday Jasmyn Belcher (WRVO -- audio and text) spoke with Choi who explained, "My job is to be here and to continue being an officer everything I was trained to do regardless of the discomfort, regardless of the emotions that are going on, you still do your duty. I believe this is my duty to stand up and to fight to stay in." Choi is not done fighting and hopefully he will be successful at a higher level but if he's not he will be, as Stan noted last night, the 266th US service member to be discharged for being gay since Barack Obama was sworn in as president. If Barack wanted to, all he need do is issue an executive order for a stop-loss on discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That would stop it right away. Congress could then address it but all the people (over 200 under Obama already) being discharged would no longer be drummed out of the military as a result of that executive order. CNN notes this citing Knights Out's Sue Fulton: "Fulton said that while Obama can't change the law himself, he could sign an executive order halting discharges while the policy is under review." Barry O likes to play helpless but he's not. One executive order is all it would take. The Syracuse Post-Standard editorializes for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to be eliminated and observes that "enforcing the policy has cost taxpayers more than $400 million since 1994."

Joe Garofoli (San Francisco Chronicle) adds, "Still, some analysts say Choi's case is another example of how Washington leaders aren't showing much urgency -- or leadership -- in overturning 'don't ask, don't tell.' Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn the law; congressional laders say they are waiting for the president to take the lead; and military leaders say they won't change the policy unless directed by Congress." Mike McAndrew and Mark Weiner (Syracuse Post-Standard) report Choi "said he refuses to lie about being involved in a relationship with another man. Choi said the relationship has made him a better person, a better Christian and a better officer." Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) quotes Choi explaining, "All I did was tell the truth. I refused to lie about my boyfriend. His name is Matthew, not Martha."

Today McClatchy Newspapers' Sahar Issa appeared on Democracy Now! to address Iraq.

Sahar Issa: National Sovereignty Day, of course, is a day that is celebrated by the hearts of all Iraqis, you must know that Iraqi's pride -- is a proud country -- Iraqis are proud people. It is difficult for them not to be happy at the action of foreign troops leaving their cities and streets. At the same time that they are happy to gain control over their streets and cities there is doubt in their hearts whether the Iraqi security forces are actually adequate to the task that is in front of them in the coming days and weeks and months of keeping the peace and keeping the population secure. This is as the bottom of the doubts that you see: Is the Iraqi force actually adequate to the task? Are the Iraqi forces infiltrated by many? The Iraqi force has been formed upon somewhat sectarian lines. The Iraqi force also because of the administrative corruption -- has many people who have brought in their relatives, their friends, their neighbors, people who are not professional. And after six years, perhaps it would be a legitimate question to ask and to forward to the American forces: after six years of training they have understaken to present Iraq with a new force after dismantling the old one, why isn't the Iraqi force actually adequate to the task? The people of Iraq ask this question. It is the first question they ask. They are still not confident that the Iraqi forces are capable.

Those observations jibe with those of Alissa J. Rubin's (New York Times), "The excitement however, has run hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country's security forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government's claims of independence as overblown." Back to the Democracy Now! segment:


JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Sahar Issa, what about the ability of the Iraqi government to provide basic services to the population? There's obviously many reports of corruption within the government and continued infighting among the various factions. How has the public seen the ability of the government to administer the society?

SAHAR ISSA: To tell you the truth, if you look back a little bit, you will find that with the height of violence that only started coming down in the beginning of 2008, and while human life was at stake, violence was like a blanket, cutting off a cross-section of what is really happening inside the Iraqi government, because everything was so clouded, people were hurt, they couldn't look further than their lot.
But when the violence ebbed after the beginning of 2008, people started picking up the reins of their lives, looking around to see what was going on. And they found, horrendously, that the government is totally riddled with corruption. It is totally built on tribal and sectarian bases, where people have their relatives in very sensitive places simply to make the profit. And the confidence in Iraqis that they had at first when they went to elect their government, they lost this confidence. They said, "Then what is the difference, if it is going to be tribal again? What is the difference between this government and the past, even if it is elected, if it is going to use the same lines?"
And that is, of course, part of the problem, is that it is not a matter of just putting the government out there. The problem is this government needs to gain the confidence of the people. It needs to give them something that they can hold onto. It needs to look at their very difficult lives. They didn't have electricity when the -- you know, outside this building, if I walk out now, it is so hot, toys will melt in cars. To just to give you an idea, toys will melt in cars. That is the heat. And people don't have electricity. After six years, they don't have water in their homes.
I spoke to a person yesterday in Beya'a neighborhood, when we were touring the city for reactions. And she said, "How can I be happy with sovereignty, if sovereignty has not brought me enough water to bathe, I can't wash my clothes, if I don't have electricity so I can sleep at night? What kind of sovereignty is this?" We are struggling, my dear friend. We are struggling so hard to reach square one. And so far, we haven't achieved it yet.

AMY GOODMAN: Sahar Issa, are you afraid of having your image known, of being identified as a reporter?

SAHAR ISSA: Oh, certainly, certainly, certainly. Working for a foreign -- never mind a US, American -- news agency will have me very clearly titled as the pastor's pie or working for the occupation. People -- the simpler people, let us say -- can't differentiate between a person who is picking up information and lighting things and making things public for -- to, how do you say, to extend a hand to other people to know what is actually going on inside our country. They can't tell the difference between this person and the person who's gathering information perhaps for intelligence preferences. And therefore, yes, of course, I am afraid. No one knows. Only my parents and my children and the people working with me know. And even the people who are working with me, not all of them know where I live. That's how bad it is.

Jeremy Scahill was also a guest on the segment.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, this is a very contrived sort of Hallmark holiday here. I doubt that decades from now many Iraqis are going to be, you know, telling their grandchildren where they were on National Sovereignty Day. I mean, remember the whole stumbling of President Bush: when he declared Iraqi sovereignty, he talked about the definition of sovereignty as a sovereign entity. Paul Bremer already officially handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis five years ago, and yet we have 130,000 US troops that remain in the country. This really is George Bush's Iraq plan that Barack Obama is now implementing and taking the political risk of implementing, because if the violence blows up, then of course it looks very much like Barack Obama has been a failure in Iraq, and not George Bush. So Obama, in many ways, has played into the Bush administration's hand. But we can see the clearest endgame of the US occupation in the fact that the Iraqi government, on a day when they declare their own sovereignty and you have the US military commander handing over the keys to the Defense Ministry, the Iraqi Oil Ministry opens up the country for bidding now on its oil resources, and you had eight of the ten top oil companies in the world that are not part of a nationalized state apparatus. In other words, eight of the ten most powerful private oil corporations in the world are now bidding for large shares of the Iraqi oil supply. I mean, to me, this is a grotesque symbol of what exactly is happening in Iraq.
And let me just say, Juan, that while we're seeing the sort of contrived celebrations, where ordinary Iraqis, for the most part, are not permitted to go into these big celebrations -- it's largely off-duty police officers, Iraqi soldiers and dignitaries -- the reality is that US soldiers are simply going to the outskirts of the cities and could easily go in to strike at them. General Ray Odierno, the top US military commander there, would not be clear on how many US soldiers are going to remain in the region. At the end of the day, the US has a massive eighty-football-field-size embassy. They have thousands upon thousands of contractors, 130,000 troops still in the country. And they're going to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 residual US forces when Obama is officially done withdrawing from Iraq. So, in reality, we see Barack Obama implementing, almost to the letter, George Bush's and the neocons' plan for Iraq, while putting a Democratic stamp on it and essentially downsizing and rebranding what remains a US occupation. So, no, this is Hallmark holiday stuff. And I think it's clear for anyone who's been following this that this is the same situation as when Bush tried to declare Iraqi sovereignty, when Paul Bremer snuck out of Baghdad in June of 2004.

At Information Clearing House, Jeremy explains of the for-show play-day:

While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the U.S. "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As previously reported, U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the U.S. and Iraq gives the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. Article 27 of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." As the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of history. Five years ago -- almost to the day -- President Bush put on an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer "handed over sovereignty" to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real sovereignty was non-existent.

Meanwhile CNN reports that Moqtada al-Sadr has released a call for all US forces to leave Iraq and stated their presence "shows that the (Iraqi) government and the occupation are not serious about the withdrawal". Noting the silence on Iraq in the US, Dan Baltz asks "Have We Forgotten Iraq?" (Washington Post) in which he wonders, "If they [the White House] are wrong [about Iraq being able to stand up], there may be questions about what kind of country Americans are preparing to leave behind. Obama could find himself under pressure to adjust the withdrawal timetable." Or he could realize that it was a mistake to delay withdrawal because there is nothing else the US military can do (even the war hawks should agree with that) and allowing them to remain in the country as babysitters really turns them into sitting ducks of the continued occupation. And let's stop pretending the White House doesn't have plans. As we noted in Third's "Editorial: Save us from the panty sniffers" Sunday, US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill gave a press conference in the US June 18th:

What should have bothered Americans was Hill's refusal to discuss "contingency plans" for Iraq should the (partial) pull-back from cities (June 30th) result in increased violence. "Well, again," he repeated, "I don't want to discuss contingency plans." Why not? And why aren't these contingency plans known to the American public?

While Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) ignored Hill's press conference, he feels something important is missed from the press conference Gen Ray Odierno held yesterday in Baghdad: "We'll be operating in the belts around Baghdad." Ricks takes that to mean "that the U.S. strategy in the coming months will be to try to protect Baghdad by cutting off insurgents and militias operating in the fields, towns and palm groves that surround much of the capital. And that was where some of the heaviest fighting took place during the spring and summer of 2007, as 'the surge' began." So that may be, that may be, as Cass Elliot once sang ("California Earthquake") but equally true, and reporters know this, when a person loses it at a scheduled press conference, that's also known as "very telling." Translation, Reuters shouldn't have been the only outlet to report on Odierno Earthquake yesterday. And, no, Ricks hasn't written of that.

Here's some of the exchange from the DoD transcript:Q General, it's Andrew Gray from Reuters. You talked about a small number of U.S. forces remaining in the cities to train and advise. Can you put a figure? How many U.S. forces will remain? GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, people have been trying to get me to say a figure now for about a month. And the reason I won't do it is because it's going to be different every single day, and it'll be based on how much training, how much advising, how much coordination is required. That will change each and every day. So I won't put a number on it. It is a smaller number, a significantly smaller number than what we've had in the cities now. But it has very specific missions: train the Iraqi security forces, advise them as we continue to move forward, enable them in order to -- potentially if they need some help with aviation, logistics, et cetera. But more -- almost as important, coordinate and help us to continue our situational awareness of all situations within Iraq. And that will help us to better support the Iraqi security forces.

Q General, just to follow up briefly, I am disappointed you didn't give us the scoop after a month of holding out, but I wonder if you could at least give us a -- you know, is it an -- a few thousand? If you could give us a kind of ballpark -- are we talking about several thousand? Would that be a reasonable ballpark to use? GEN. ODIERNO: Again -- again, there's hundreds of cities around, and we have hundreds of -- you know, and I've let the local commanders work this out. So for me to give a number would frankly be inaccurate, and I just don't want to do it. There'll be trainers, advisers, helping throughout all of the Iraqi cities where we continue to support and advise Iraqi security forces. Q Whatever the number is, how are you going to convince them basically, the U.S. forces remaining, not to jump in and be helpful, where perhaps you would prefer that the Iraqis take the lead? What will be different about what they're told to do, in a situation where they might think, their first instinct is, gosh, we can do that better.

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again this is -- I call it -- we are working on changing our mindsets in the city. And I equate it to when we first started the surge, where we had to change our mindset. So pushing our soldiers back out, getting back into the communities, really partnering with the Iraqi security forces and today, it's the same kind of thing. We have to change our mindset. When we're in the cities, there's very specific things that we'll do. Actually we've been out of the cities, a large majority of the cities now, for the last eight months. So it's really only Mosul and the last remnants that we've had, in Baghdad, that have pulled out over the last few weeks. So we've actually been implementing this in many parts of Baghdad for a long time. And they understand what their mission is. They understand what we expect them to do. And you know, we have worked this very closely with all of the leaders in Iraq. We've worked -- I've worked very closely with the minister of defense, the minister of interior, the operations commanders, the operational commanders in order to work this out. And I feel very comfortable with where we're at.

Q General, it's Tom Bowman with NPR. I mean, you're reluctant to talk about how many trainers and mentors are in the cities. And it raises a question about whether or not this is just a show or not whether, you know, this is just semantics. There are essentially U.S. soldiers with guns in the cities. You can call them trainers or mentors. But how different is it from what we saw maybe two-three weeks ago? And if you have U.S. soldiers just outside the cities, I mean, what is this? Is this just a show for the American people?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I would say, you probably didn't listen to what I just said. Because what I just said was, having battalions and brigades inside a city is significantly different than having trainers, advisers and MiTT teams. And I said, we'll be operating in the belts around Baghdad. I've been very clear about this, just like we did in the surge. We had -- the reason we had to surge forces is, we had to get people in the cities. And then we had to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries in the belts around Baghdad. It's the same thing, except the Iraqis will take responsibility for security in the cities. We will continue to do full-spectrum operations, outside of the cities, to work the safe havens and sanctuaries around the cities. And we will continue to do that. And it's legitimate, legitimate operations that we'll continue to conduct outside of the cities. If you're here in Baghdad, you would know. There is a significant change inside of the cities. There are thousands among thousands of soldiers that have pulled out of Baghdad. There -- and there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in southern Iraq, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Ramadi, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Fallujah for months now. And we've been executing this very well. So again, if you're here in Iraq, you would see it for yourself there is a significant change.

As we noted yesterday, he apologized for his outburst (and referred to it as his "temper"). But that's a key moment of the press conference and not just because some reporters are now talking of starting a pool to see how quickly they can get Odierno to explode in the next press briefing, but also because that's not normal behavior from him. He's under huge pressure from the White House to walk their line and stick to their script and his feelings are rather well known about that at this late date. The troops haven't left Mosul and are not leaving Baghdad and no one knows what else and no one knows how many. Except Ray Odierno. He knows exactly what is going on with US troops in Iraq. And he's not allowed to reveal that. That's where his frustration comes in. He felt like the biggest idiot in the world because he couldn't answer the question that he knew the answer to but which the White House won't let him speak on. That, Thomas E. Ricks, is an important detail.

Now let's sit down at the piano, it's time for "Miss Kenneth Laments" -- the lost Cole Porter song. "Sure, well, first, of course," hemmed and hawed War Hawk and Cheerleader Kenny Pollack, "as listeners of your show are aware, 'cause I've been on the show any number of times to talk about, this, I did believe that an, uh, invasion would be necessary but not the invasion that we got. Not in the time that we did it, not in the way that we did it, not how we did it or with whom we did it. As for what have we accomplished? I think the jury is still out." Brookings Boy Kenny sure was nervous and, please note, his 'answer' was to a question about whether or not the Iraq War was worth it. Monday on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Diane explained, "And here's a question for you, Ken Pollack, you were among those who favored US invasion of Iraq. What do you believe we have gained if anything?" The question wasn't did he support the illegal war before it started.

And yet, he nervously stated, before getting to the question he'd been asked, ""Sure, well, first, of course, as listeners of your show are aware, 'cause I've been on the show any number of times to talk about, this, I did believe that an, uh, invasion would be necessary but not the invasion that we got. Not in the time that we did it, not in the way that we did it, not how we did it or with whom we did it." First, let's again note, this is the talking point and War Hawks pushed it after Vietnam as well. It goes like this: "The problem wasn't the war and its illegality, the problem was the way it was fought." No, the problem was the war. As for what he advocated for? His 2002 book Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq made it pretty clear in the title but in it he argues for the US "to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam's regime, and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction." Saddam had no WMDs. Kenny boy forgot to include that on NPR Monday. He forgot to admit that or own any of his mistakes. Instead, he wanted to complain that the war he dreamed of arrived in the wrong size and color.

The Wall St. Journal's Gina Chon appears briefly at the start of the program, reporting from Iraq, but technical difficulties sideline her.

Diane Rehm: Okay, let's talk about what the Iraqi people can and cannot do.

Paul Pillar: As part of the bargaining that Prime Minister Maliki had to get agreement with his cabinet and Parliament for the security agreement, he agreed that there would be a referendum to approve or disapprove the agreement. Your caller is correct that July 30th was the date that had been previously set but it appears that it is most likely going to be delayed until January to coincide with the Parliamentary election. So that will be an important outcome -- whether or not the Iraqi people approve it. If they disapprove it, then what -- as I understand the agreement -- what comes into play is the withdrawal clause which basically says 'either party has a year to terminate the agreement' which means that would move up the deadline for all US forces to -- to get out by almost a year -- to 2010 rather than 2011. But, again, that does not preclude some new agreement being negotiated between the governments of the day in Baghdad and Washington.

Kenneth Pollack: This is a really important point because what you're seeing now is the Iraqis using the politics to deal with the security situation in potentially very difficult ways, dangerous ways. We talked a lot about how the Iraqis, the Iraqi people, are ambivalent about the agreement. We haven't talked about Prime Minister Maliki and his own ambivalence. At one level, he knows that he can't allow the country to fall apart and he's nervous that his own security forces can't hold it together. By the same token though, he sees the United States as an impediment to his consolidation of power and I think that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that he's moving it to January in hope that it will either discredit all of his political adversaries or cause a termination of the agreement prematurely exactly as Paul was suggesting.

[. . .]

Diane Rehm: Just before the break, one of our callers, Lily in Syracuse, New York, had asked about the referendum that's going to take place -- the decision of the Iraqi [. . .] [people] to stay or not to stay. That's a really important point, Paul.

Paul: It's very important and I'm glad we got the call, that raised the issue but I would simply agree with what we heard from Ken before the break. It's partly Maliki continuing to play a political game. But if -- if the referendum, it's voted down, uh, in January, uh, there are going to be extremely difficult decisions for the Obama administration to make about its policy and posture in Iraq over the course of the next year. To some extent, it might be seen as a political blessing for much of his constituency, it means getting out earlier, but he is going to have to sit down with his commanders, with General Petraeus, General Odeireno, or who ever is occupying their jobs at that time and have some very hard talk about the security situation in Iraq as of the end, not of 2011, but of 2010.

Diane: Elise?

Elise Labott: And let's not forget that President Obama won, in part, the presidency on his campaign to withdraw US forces from Iraq. He said that the war in Afghanistan was the more important war, the war that was the greater threat to US national security with the emergent -- the reemergence of the Taliban and al Qaeda and he wanted to pay more attention to that war and by all accounts you can't do that with 130,000 troops in Iraq. But the question is if the sectarian violence gets worse, if Iraq continues to spiral, the question is: Does Barack Obama have blood on his hands if -- if he withdraws all of his troops from Iraq and a lot of people -- it's a moral dilemma for him.

Diane Rehm: Ken Pollack?

Kenneth Pollack: Well I think that there's also a strategic consideration which is that the truth is that Iraq is ultimately of far greater strategic consequence to the United States than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a problem because of the terrorism problem and because of relationship to Pakistan but you can't solve the problem of Afghanistan through Pakistan.

That last Pollack 'gem' is included to dissuade his cult from e-mailing and saying, "His 2002 book said!" Don't give me that crap. Don't spit out the Slate book review claiming Kenny's 2002 book said Afghanistan was more important. Kenny's all over the map, always has been, there's never been a cohesive argument from him. Only baseless charges followed by meaningless laments. The full hour was devoted to Iraq (here for that segment itself) for those who missed it. (I did. An NPR friend passed it on.) The guests were (very briefly) Gina Chon, CNN's Elise Labott, Brookings Kenneth Pollack and Georgetown's Paul Pilar.

Earlier mid-June US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill claimed that fatalies were down in the month of June. Silly Chris and silly reporters who fell for that garbage. Reuters reports that there was a spike and that the official numbers from the Iraqi Health Ministry is 373 for the month of June. Those are the Iraqi government figures. The actual figures are likely far higher. In some of today's violence, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Iraqi forces shot dead a man in Mosul (a 'suspect') and that a Mosul roadside bombing injured a police officer.

Sir! No Sir! Exposing and Debunking Military Lies from Vietnam to Iraq notes a national anti-war conference put on by National Assembly to End the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pittsburg End The War to be held at La Roche College in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Veterans for Peace's Michael T. McPherson, Arab American Union's Marily Levin, Black Voices for Peace's Gail Austin, Arab American Union's Monadel Herzallah and Iraqi poet-activist Zaineb Alani are among those participating. Cindy Sheehan will be participating as well and we'll note her in just a moment. Diane Rejman is also with Veterans for Peace and she tackles recruitment at CounterPunch noting:

The recruiting system leaves out the second part of this. Recruiters talk about travel, adventure, skill-training, and getting your college education paid for. They don't mention that the travel and adventure may involve being in 110 degree+ temperatures, loaded up with gear, sleeping in tents, having your life threatened on a daily basis, and maybe not even having enough clean water to drink. They don't mention that the skill-training is usually not transferable to a civilian job, or that some of the skills taught include how to be a prejudiced, hate-filled, bigot, who can be capable of killing another human being without feeling. They don't explain that the military will teach a person to hate when he or she enlists, but doesn't teach love when the soldier returns. And they certainly don't mention that only 14 percent of soldiers who sign up for the GI Bill use the benefit.
The lies of omission often go further. A recruiter may promise a job as a pilot, knowing the soldier won't qualify and will possibly end up as a truck driver in Iraq – one of the most dangerous jobs. A prospective Navy medic may not understand that he or she may end up in a combat zone since they are the ones who take care of Marines. Or the biggest lie of all – they convince the soldier he or she is signing up for three years, and don't point out that these days, with the stop-loss program in place, the enlistment agreement (note I don't use the word "contract") currently commits the soldier potentially to a life sentence.
But you know what, these are only a few of the lies involved in keeping a war machine going. The bigger ones come from society itself. That war is a good thing. That movies and video games represent reality. You get killed in a video game, press a button, and start over. You don't lose a friend, body parts, or your mind.

Click here to see Diane Rejman performing Bob Dylan's "Joe Brown."

As noted in yesterday's snapshot, US presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and others on The Spirty of Humanity being detained by the Israeli government and prevented from delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is calling out the detention:

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, Human Rights' Activist and Gold Star Mother, Cindy Sheehan, calls on the Israeli government to immediately release the members and crew of the boat The Spirit of Humanity that was attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to the devastated peoples of Gaza.Speaking from Newton, Mass, Ms. Sheehan commented: "The detention of the crew and human rights' workers on The Spirit of Humanity is a clear violation of international law, as the blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of not only international law but the human rights of the people of Gaza. Not only must the Israeli government immediately release and recompense the captives, but it must allow the humanitarian aid to penetrate the blockade."
She continued: "I not only call on the Israeli government to do the right thing, but I call on our own President, who has claimed that he is an advocate for human rights, to condemn this act of international piracy by the rogue state of Israel and also demand the release of the kidnapped aid workers. This condemnation must be as strong and clear as the condemnation for the Somali 'pirates' was. A very courageous and dear friend of mine, Cynthia McKinney, was on that boat and the captives must all be treated with dignity and respect and speedily released."

Cindy Sheehan's Myth America Tour continues this month. The dates for the start of the month include:

July 8th Wednesday 2 to 4 p.m. Cleveland Book Signing
Mac Bac's Books
1820 Coventry Road
Cleveland Hts. OH

Akron Main Public Library
July 8th 7 to 9 p.m.
60 S. High St.
Akron, OH 44326

Cleveland Community pot luck with Cindy
July 9th four to six p.m.
10220 Clifton Ave.
Lakewood, OH

St. Coleman's Parish Hall
July 9th seven to nine p.m.
West 65th and Madison

Drum Circle
July 10th noon to two p.m.

National Assembly to End the War
July 11th to 12th
Pittsburgh


Al Franken in a US Senator. See, the US can do recounts and can be patient. Al Franken and Norm Coleman (his Republican opponent who lost) proved (probably not intentionally on Coleman's part) that the Supreme Court did not need to stop the process in Bush v. Gore. The votes could have been counted. And would have been easily before Christmas 2000. Al Franken is interviewed by former US Senator Fred Thompson here. The only one put out by the long drawn out process was Senator Amy Klobuchar and even she and her staff managed. The US can do recounts, no matter what the Supreme Court thinks.

iraqmike mcandrewmark weinerjoe garofolithe san francisco chroniclealexa james
jeremy scahillthe washington postdan balzthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsahar issamcclatchy newspapersdemocracy now
nprthe diane rehm show
cindy sheehan
elise labott

Mr. Young’s proposal states that he was writing the book because he had become disillusioned with Mr. Edwards’s behavior and recklessness, which he said included participating in the production of a sex tape with Ms. Hunter that Mr. Young later discovered.

that's from the new york times, jim rutenberg and motoko rich, and i'm opening with it to demonstrate how when sex might actually matter, the press takes a pass. i stumbled across that. john edwards, mr. can't keep it in his pants (and couldn't the whole decade - his defenders better shut up because there are far too many women for him to continue to claim 1-time-only). edwards tag-teamed hillary, sand-bagged her, joined barack in doing it.

when you look at the mess you have in this country today, don't forget to pin the blame on liar john edwards.

the pathetic piece of s**t who used his cancer ridden wife to hide his infidelities.

and i'm serious, don't defend him. there are 2 many women edwards has come on to. since the story of rielle hunter broke, i know too many women who are saying that edwards came on to them too and i know 1 woman who was a supporter of edwards in 2002 and suddenly dropped her support. why? she won't say. but i know from the past the only time she walks away from a candidate is if he makes a pass and it has to be a crude 1.

this book that's going to come out is just going to open the floodgates for others to start talking.

and i think we need to ask ourselves why our press so interested in digging through bill clinton's boxers didn't care to dig around johnny's briefs?

the rumors were there in 2007 and edwards was denying them. why did the press ignore it?

out of concern for elizabeth edwards? she's a liar as far as i'm concerned; however, it's interesting how her feelings were so important.

hillary's feelings never mattered. hell, hillary's feelings not only didn't protect her from the press attacks on her husband, they didn't protect her from the press attacks on her.

john edwards did a really stupid thing and never should have run.

not only did he do a stupid thing by running, the way he chose to run set barack up for the nomination.

he repeatedly trashed hillary. he repeatedly refused to call out barack.

he was heckle to barack's jeckle and they did a little two-step across hillary's back.

john edwards is disgusting.

and i do hope every detail emerges about him so that all of his supporters can find out just how disgusting he is.

his political life is over.

i can see him crying next to oprah, 6 months after elizabeth dies, saying 'i love riley but i had to stay by elizabeth. now i can be with riley and we've decided i should run for the presidency.'

he's all ego. he has no brains at all.

he was the ultimate air head.

people who know them and have observed them will tell you elizabeth did all the heavy lifting.

he destroyed the 2008 race and his ass never should have been it.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Tuesday, June 30, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces mulitple deaths, Lt. Dan Choi fights for his career, bombings grip Iraq, Barack Obama has another routine day while Ralph Nader speaks out and Cynthia McKinney gets active, and more.


Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- Four Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldiers died June 29 as the result of combat related injuries. The Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement today took the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4321, with 15 for the month upsetting Operation Happy Talk plans for billing June as the second lowest month for US service member deaths since the start of the illegal war.

June 30th. The for-show play-day of pretend 'pull-out'. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The American and Iraqi militaries had different notions of when the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from major cities would start. The Americans thought that "after June 30," as written in the status of forces agreement, meant 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, July 1. The Iraqis -- whose timeline ultimately prevailed -- interpreted the dawn of their new authority as when the clock ticked past midnight to Tuesday, June 30. That's one reason that so many Iraqis celebrated the handoff of authority Monday night with singing, dancing and parties in their streets and parks. In the end, once both sides realized the communications breakdown, the Americans simply told their forces to start abiding by the new rules 23 hours and 59 minutes earlier than they'd planned." So if it was a historic day, let's go to the numbers, let's go to the stats. Woops. Reporters tried to do that during a Baghdad briefining with top US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno and it wasn't not pretty. Reuters quotes him exclaiming, "Because it would be inaccurate! Because I don't know exactly how many [US service members] are in the cities. It varies day-to-day based on the mission. [. . . .] How many times you want me to say that? I don't know." They note he apologized for his outburst ("temper" was his term) and it must be stressful to be the one who has attempted to avoid the spin but have it shoved off on you. CBS and AP cite CBS News' Lara Loogan quoting al-Maliki declaring, "Those who think Iraqis are unable to defend their country are committing a fatal mistake" and making that declaration from "a makeshift stand -- as much due to security concerns as by designs." Free Speech Radio News interviewed Iraqi Baswa Alkhateeb, an Iraqi mother of two in Baghdad (here for the segment). Manuel Rueda noted, "She says that nothing will change on a daily basis because US soldiers have already decreased their presence in Baghdad."

Baswa Alkhateeb: We don't see them around much like before so they've already shrinked their activites in the cities. They've already done that for the past four or five months. [. . . . On why she's not celebrating today.] We have a lawless state The alligance of the security forces that are taking over is not for the country or for the state it's for the Islamic groups for the clerics who are in the Parliament who ruling now so it's not really a blessing or something to be happy about. Add to that the whole institutions were dismantled. So the way that it was rearranged after 2003, 2004, it's not about the state, it's about allegiance to their sects, to the cultural, political cultural, that put them there. [. . .] What's happening now is no employment, no educational system, no health care, nothing. IDPs [Internally Displaced Persons] all over. We have graduates from university who do not have a place to be employed unless they're part of this political culture which is following the clerics and the Islamic extreme parties ruling the country. It's something new and deformed actually. Our elites are outside, they've all left. We need experts, we need professional people here. So it will take time I don't know and all these political groups, the extremist Islamists have militias. And more were enrolled in the armies -- in the security forces.

But don't believe her, Marc Santora (New York Times) stuck his big toe out of the Green Zone and declares, "Schools are open, including one where a teacher had been strung up by her feet and her face cut off by extremists." Santora whores it so well he probably forgets that most readers of the paper may be thinking, "Why the hell didn't we ever hear about that story?" You didn't hear it because they didn't want you to. They looked the other way during the slaughter on Haditha Street, they looked the other way as thugs were installed, they looked the other way as Nouri and his thugs threatened the press (though they did pull the reporter whom Iraqi forces 'jokingly' shot at), they ignored so very much and now you're left with the choice of believeing Marc Santora who is paid by the paper that sold the illegal war or an Iraqi mother in Baghdad with children who damn well knows what the situation on the ground in her city is. While Santora worked himself into a frenzy trying to make it appear today was historic, the US government was less busy. At the State Dept's press briefing today, Iraq wasn't a topic Ian Kelly or the press bothered to bring up. At the White House, on this 'historic' day, tubby Robert Gibbs opened the press briefing laughing about his foul mouth being caught on (and edited from) video tape. Forced to address Barry O's lackadaisical attitude towards Iraq, Gibbs began insisting that wasn't the case and then dropped back to making jokes about the previous administration because when you have no plans yourself, let alone accomplishments, better to keep pointing the previous screw-up.

The 'pull-out' is not the 'drawn-down' or, heaven forbid, a withdrawal. Though he repeatedly lied to voters during the primary and presidential campaigns, Barack Obama's not done a damn thing he promised and BBC News explains that "131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected tro drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election in January." Even then we wouldn't see withdrawal and the January elections were supposed to take place in December. Violence or other options might push them back again.

Violence? Kirkuk was the site of mass deaths from a car bombing. Tim Cocks and Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) count at least 32 dead with over one hundred injured Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) notes that the bombing also destroyed 30 shops in a market. Ali Windawi and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) explain, "The attack came barely a week after nearly 80 people were killed in a suicide truck bomb in Taza Khurmatu, a Shiite Turkmen town just south of the city. Both blasts pointed to a deliberate effort to fan the ethnic tensions in an oil-rich area that Kurds with to claim as part of their self-governing region in northern Iraq and Arabas want tied to the central government in Baghdad. The blast marred a day that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had hailed as a historic victory". Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) notes the death toll has risen to "at least 41 people and wounded 120 others."

Kirkuk was the subject of the Christian Science Monitor's editorial "Iraq's next milestone: the Kurdish question" this morning -- excerpt:Tension between Mr. Maliki – an Arab – and the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in the north has escalated significantly in the last year. It touches issues of fundamental importance -- national unity, oil wealth, and the balance of power between the central government and the regions. Left unaddressed -- or worse, provoked -- the Kurd-Arab divide could split the Iraqi state. A wide swath of disputed territory lies at the heart of the problem. Last August, only direct negotiation between Kurdish President Masoud Barzani and Maliki was able to head off a military showdown between Iraqi and Kurdish forces in the Kurdish-administered town of Khanaqin. Nothing is more central to the territorial tug of war than the province of Kirkuk, which lies next to an oil field that contains 20 percent of the country's proven oil reserves. The Kurds consider Kirkuk historically theirs, but it is now populated by a mix of Kurds, Turkmens, Christians, and Arabs -- the latter group was sent by Saddam Hussein to flood the area. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution calls for Kirkuk's status to be set by referendum, but the vote keeps being delayed. In other reported violence today . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings which left four people injured

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Mosul with 1 death.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 3 corpses ("alcohol dealers" remember fundamentalists thugs rule in Iraq) were discovered in Tikrit.

While the for-show 'pull-out' captures the bulk of the attention today, many other telling moments took place. In Iraq?

The tag-sale on Iraqi oil had a . . . Well, Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) calls it a disappointment: "Iraq was seeking bids from firms to develop eight of its existing oil and gas fields, but only one contract was awarded to work one oil field at a public auction televised live from Baghdad's Rashid Hotel inside the heavily fortified Green Zone." But it wasn't disappointing for everyone. This morning Keith Bradsher (New York Times) reported on what he saw as a surprise move on the part of Chinese oil companies to enter into the bidding. Surprising or not, a partnership between China National Petroleum Corporation and British Petroleum proved to be a winning combo. Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports they won "access to Iraq's biggest oilfield" in the auction. It needs to be noted that there were other winners, they just didn't like what they wong. Pagnamenta reports that "all other foreign companies involved in bidding for a total of eight fields, including Royal Dutch Shell, rejected what were considered to be punitive terms on offer fromt he Iraqi Government. In total, nearly 30 overseas companies withdrew."


In the US?

Yesterday, as Marcia and Stan noted, Barack Obama invited LGBT 'leaders' to the White House and tried to use his oily charm and pretty words to pretend he might someday -- not any time soon, understand -- do something. Someday. Maybe. In the real world, Lt. Daniel Choic fights for his career and does it with no help from the alleged 'fierce advocate' for the LGBT community. Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) reports that closed-door deliberations continue by a US Army board over what to do about the New York National Guard member who's 'crime' was being honest about who he was. James notes, "Choi graduated from West Point in 2003 as an Arabic major and served as an interpreter in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. He left active duty and joined the Guard last June." Daniel Nasaw (Brisbane Times) explains, "In one of the last instances of government-sanctioned discrimination, the military allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military only if they keep quiet about their sexuality. For more than a year after meeting his boyfriend and falling in love, Lieutenant Choi was forced to lie or risk joining a list of almost 13,000 gay and lesbian personnel discarged in the past 16 years under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy'." Mike McAndrew (Syracuse Post-Standard) notes the hearing began this morning at eight o'clock. Scott Horsley (NPR's All Things Considered) files a report featuring noted homophobe and hag Elaine Donnelly, apparently taking a break from writing for the National Review and taking ugly lessons, who weighs in against any changes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell declaring, "We don't make policy based on popular culture or marching in the streets or party favors." Party favors? The last time Donnelly was invited to a party, Howdy Doody was still on the airwaves, thereby explaining her bitter bitchiness. Bitchy? Oh, we're back to Barack who wanted to talk about how he was committed to changing people's minds when all the lazy ass needs to do is sign an executive order putting a stop-loss on discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's all it takes. If he'd do that, Dan Choi would not be fighting for his career, no one would be at risk. It would cost him nothing and he wouldn't even have to go through Congress. Barry O loves to mingle with his fellow celebrities posing as 'leaders'. But Barry just doesn't like to do anything. June 19th on Democracy Now!, it was explained how simple it was for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be stopped immediately:

AMY GOODMAN: And what is the significance of it being passed by Congress, rather than just a policy of the Pentagon?
NATHANIEL FRANK: Well, a couple things. First of all, because it's now a matter of federal law for the first time, because before that it was just a Pentagon policy and regulation, it's now that much more difficult for the policy to be repealed, because as a law passed by Congress, Congress would need to repeal it.I do want to correct one thing that Secretary Alexander said, that President Obama does have the power to stop the firings. He can act unilaterally to use his powers of stop-loss through a statute, 12305 from 1983, in which Congress itself gives the President the power to stop separations in the military for a variety of reasons. And so, he has said that he wants to stop the firings, and he actually has the power to stop the firings. And so, it's really been very unclear to many of us why he's unwilling to take that step. The White House has been --
AMY GOODMAN: You mean it would be an executive order?
NATHANIEL FRANK: It would be an executive order halting all separations while we are under a national emergency, which the statute defines as being -- having the National Guard mobilized, as it currently is. And then he could go to Congress some months down the line and say, "Look, we've had openly gay service officially" -- incidentally, we already have openly gay service; thousands of people are serving openly, notwithstanding the policy. But he could turn to this situation officially and say, "We have openly gay service because of this executive order. The sky hasn't fallen. Now, Congress, let's move to get this off the books permanently." So it would be a one-two punch. And that is an option that Obama has. And he's been asked about it, the White House has been asked about it, and they haven't given a good reason why, given what he said about wanting to stop the firings, he's continuing to let the firings go, when he has the power to do otherwise.

But he chooses not to do a damn thing. And the board has reached a decision to recommend that Lt Dan Choi be discharged. For the 'crime' of being gay and being honest about it. Mike McAnder (Syracuse Post-Standard) reports Choi was informed of the decision at five this evening and that "he plans to appeal to higher ranking officers" because, "I refuse to lie about my love relationship."


The reality is that Barack could have stepped in at any point and put a stop to this witch hunt but he chose not to. And eality is that Barry O will be judged him not by his pretty words and empty promises but by his actions. Related, Chris Hedges' "The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free" (Information Clearing House): All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.Hedges supported Ralph Nader in 2008 and Ralph Nader's sent out an e-mail today entitled "Obama Betrayal Syndrome" which opens with:

"I want my money back, President Obama!" That's the title of Marie Marchand's column in Common Dreams this week.
Marie Marchand says she gave $20 a week for seven months to the Obama campaign -- plus $60 every once in a while for a t-shirt and sticker.
"I gave of my modest purse joyfully," she writes. "I thought I was supporting change I could believe in, not more of the same bloodshed and war!" She now feels betrayed. Millions of Americans are feeling betrayed. They thought Obama as President meant change we can believe in. They thought Obama as President meant withdrawal from Iraq.


"Well they were wrong then, weren't they?" as Marty Feldman says in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. Nader's e-mail is promoting Single Payer Action TV, so check that out. Cynthia McKinney also ran for the US presidency in 2008. And Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) passes on this news release:

ISRAEL ATTACKS JUSTICE BOAT; KIDNAPS HUMAN RIGHTS WORKERS; CONFISCATES MEDICINE, TOYS AND OLIVE TREES For more information contact: Greta Berlin (English) tel: +357 99 081 767 / friends@freegaza.org Caoimhe Butterly (Arabic/English/Spanish): tel: +357 99 077 820 / sahara78@hotmail.co.uk www.FreeGaza.org [23 miles off the coast of Gaza , 15:30pm] - Today Israeli Occupation Forces attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Noble laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (see below for a complete list of passengers). The passengers
and crew are being forcibly dragged toward Israel . "This is an outrageous violation of international law against us. Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza
Strip," said Cynthia McKinney, a former U.S. Congresswoman and presidential candidate. "President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're
asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey." According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report released yesterday, the Palestinians living in Gaza are "trapped in despair." Thousands
of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier during Israel 's December/January massacre are still without shelter despite pledges of
almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of their patients due to Israel 's disruption of medical supplies. "The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of Gaza , hope
that the sea route would open for them, and they would be able to
transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the schools, hospitals
and thousands of homes destroyed during the onslaught of "Cast Lead". Our mission is a gesture to the people of Gaza that we stand by them and that
they are not alone" said fellow passenger Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her work in Northern Ireland . Just before being kidnapped by Israel , Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator on this voyage, stated that: "No
one could possibly believe that our small boat constitutes any sort of threat
to Israel . We carry medical and reconstruction supplies, and children's toys. Our passengers include a Nobel peace prize laureate and a former U.S. congressperson. Our boat was searched and received a security clearance
by Cypriot Port Authorities before we departed, and at no time did we ever approach Israeli waters." Arraf continued, " Israel 's deliberate and premeditated attack on our unarmed boat is a clear violation of international law and we demand our immediate and unconditional release." One of the last labor reporters left in the United States is independent journalist David Bacon -- whose latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). At Immigration Prof Blog, Bacon's photos of a Mixtec migrant Margarito Salvador's family who work in the strwaberry fields of Watsonville, Calif.


iraq
free speech radio news
the washington post
ernesto londono
cbs news
the los angeles timesned parker
mcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
mike tharpthe chistian science monitorbbc news
tim cocksnprall things considered the new york timesmarc santorachris hedges
david bacon
democracy nowamy goodman

above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barry & Bully" which went up yesterday.

now we're diving into gordon brown.

c.i. covers gordo's latest big problems (a military report that says gordo and tony blair failed as leaders and put the troops at risk).

linda heard (arab news):

Word has it that Blair recently sent Gordon Brown the message that he wants the inquiry to be held behind closed doors. Brown would like nothing more but has been forced by shouts of an establishment stitch-up to compromise, promising that some sessions will be open to the public. Other Brown stipulations ensure that the real truth will remain elusive. He says the enquiry will not be mandated to apportion blame or open criminal investigations. He has implied that the investigatory committee will only have access to British citizens and documentation retained by Britain’s archives, and will not be allowed “the most sensitive information touching on Britain’s security.” In other words, nobody is to be held accountable, which means Blair can continue getting a good night’s sleep.
However, according to The Mirror, Blair and Brown are being blamed by “army bosses” for the “botched occupation” or Iraq. A 100-page leaked document titled “Stability Operations in Iraq” prepared by former military head honcho Gen. Sir Mike Jackson “attacks Mr. Blair for uncritically accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops.” The report also alleges that Brown blocked vital funding for humanitarian aid, clean water and the reconstruction of Basra, which contributed toward the loss of Iraqi hearts and minds. Shamefully, this military report is destined to remain officially secret.
Will anyone ever be brought to book for willful destruction of a country? I doubt it! The establishment, as always, will close ranks as the British public’s appetite for the unvarnished truth wanes.

and the troubles keep piling on for gordon brown. the guardian has a round up and i'll highlight 1 of the people they speak to:

Simon Jenkins: Gordon Brown's statement is desperate. It is John Major-ish, a mishmash of abstractions and cobbled together statistics as if he were manager of a Stalinist collective. Thousands, millions and billions seemed to fall from the PM's lips like spittle. Nothing he says carries substance, with buzzwords such as "guarantee", "entitlement", "right" and "power" coated in splurges of "investment".
Much of this cannot be true. What is "a mandatory job for every school-leaver unemployed for a year" or "a guarantee to local people of more power to keep their neighbourhood safe" or a "guarantee of a personal tutor for every parent" or an "enforcible entitlement to see a consultant"? Such pledges cannot be fulfilled when Downing Street has no way of bringing them about, any more than Tony Blair did when struggling with his delivery unit.
The abandonment of so-called targets is equally meaningless with no indication of what is to replace them. Such is the dirigisme of Brown's Treasury that its grants to local authorities and hospitals must be related to some indicator of performance. What else is a target? Like broadband for all and yet another innovation fund, this is not proper government but political mood music. It is the drone of a man trying to keep up his embattled spirits as he contemplates impending defeat.

repeating, i don't know who's going to win the upcoming elections. but labour or not labour, gordon's not going to be prime minister. he's wounded and bleeding and he's now a huge liability to the labour party.

it would be very smart for labour members to begin moving against him, drawing lines between him and themselves because otherwise they may see control of the government flip to the conservative party (the tories). gordon's only going to grow more unpopular as the year wears on.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, June 29, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, one media outlet prepares to offer indepth coverage of the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, June 30th play day frenzy builds, uh-oh-Gordo, he's in trouble again, and more.

In a week when Iraq 'dates' will be discussed non-stop, we'll start with an important one: July 5th. That's when BBC Radio 5 airs Gay Life After Saddam (7 to 8 p.m. in England -- that will be eleven to noon PST). Ashley Byrne and Gail Champion produce the special for Made in Manchester. James Chaperlard (Crain's Manchester Business) reports:

In Gay Life After Saddam, presenter Aasmah Mir finds out how life for the country's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community (LGBT), has got worse since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Human rights campaigners claim hundreds of LGBT people have been killed or tortured while others have fled the country fearing for their safety since Saddam was toppled from power six years ago.

Not noted in the article but among the people interviewed for the special is Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, and his remarks should be of especial interest since he's done nothing to prevent the continued assault on Iraq's LGBT community. Note that this special is being commissioned and aired by the BBC. Did Joan Kroc's McMillions to NPR come with a codicil barring NPR from reporting on the gay community? NPR has never covered the ongoing assault on Iraq's LGBT community. June 1st, the assault was addressed on KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett between Garrett and LA City Council member Bill Rosendahl and that's day's snapshot included the following rundown -- and this is a partial rundown:

As noted May 15th, "Ruben Vives (Los Angeles Times) reports that the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to approve Council Rep Bill Rosendahl's 'resolution calling for federal legislation urging the Iraqi government to prevent the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people'." Lila noted that the segment was taped ahead of time so, for perspective, the resolution passed May 15th. This year, the targeting's been noted here first in more on the issue, you can see this snapshot, this entry and the roundtable Friday night ["Roundtable on Iraq," "Roundtabling Iraq," "the roundtable," "Iraq," "Iraq in the Kitchen," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Talking Iraq," "Iraq," "Talking Iraq roundtable" and "Iraq roundtable"] That's going back to the start of April and it is not true that the MSM has ignored it. They could do a lot more but they have covered it and where there has been no amplification is in Panhandle Media which appears to feel it's a 'niche' story to be left to the LGBT media. In April, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN), the Dallas Morning News, UPI and AFP reported on it. Michael Riley (Denver Post) covered the story and covered US House Rep Jared Polis' work on the issue (which included visiting Iraq), PDF format warning, click here for his letter to Patricia A. Butenis. Polis is quoted at his website stating, "The United States should not tolerate human rights violations of nay kind, especially by a government that Americans spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year supporting. Hopefully my trip and letters to US and Iraqi officials will help bring international attention and investigation to this terrible situation and bring an end to any such offenses." For the New York Times, Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Iraq's Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder" covered the topic. BBC News offered "Fears over Iraq gay killing spate." The Denver Post offered an editorial entitled "Killing of gay Iraqis shouldn't be ignored: We applaud Rep. Jared Polis for his efforts last week to shine the spotlight on the killings of homosexuals in Iraq," Nigel Morris offered "Iraqi leaders attacked over spate of homophobic murders" (Independent of London), the Telegraph of London covers the issue here. Neal Broverman (The Advocate), Jessica Green (UK's Pink News), and Doug Ireland
covered it (here's one report by Ireland at GayCityNews -- he's filed more than one report), AFP reported on it again when signs went up throughout Sadr City with statements such as "We will punish you, perverts" and "We will get you, puppies" (puppies is slang for gay men in Iraq) and Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported on that as well. Chris Johnson offered "Polis seeks to aid Iraqis: Says gays 'fear for their life and limb' after fact-finding trip to Baghdad" (Washington Blade), Killian Melloy (The Edge -- this is the April 2nd story that contains the State Dept stating it's not happening -- the denial) and [PDF formart warning] the April 15th "Iraq Status Report" by the US State Dept notes the killings. Amnesty International weighed in as did the International Gay and lesiban Human Rights Campaign. Jim Muir (BBC News -- text and video) reported on the targeting and the attacks. UK Gay News covered it, last week ABC News offered Mazin Faiq's "Tortured and Killed in Iraq for Being Gay" Chicago Pride and UPI covered the latest deaths last week. And AFP and Jessica Green (UK's Pink News) covered the public statement from Moqtada al-Sadr about how they needed to be "eradicated" for "depravity" and he thinks they can be 'taught' not to be gay. As for the technique, Bill Rosendahl didn't want to discuss on air Doug Ireland (ZNet) reported on that in May[.]

Though it's a partial list, NPR's not omitted. No major outlet is. ABC News, BBC, CNN, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News (a news roundup), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, UPI and AFP are major outlets. So is NPR but it had other things to do. Now BBC's commissioned and will be airing (July 5th -- and it will stream live online) and NPR's still playing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Matthew S. Bajko (The Edge) notes that this is being termed the "Summer of Obummer" and reviews Barack Obama's stumbles and fumbles on LGBT issues including: "In court papers the Obama administration has defended the policy, and it has also refused to issue an executive order ending discharges of LGBT service members as it determines what course of action to take." Jean Stanula (Examiner) points out that hideous policy creates many victims, including the service members' partners: "There is another group of people who are devastatingly affected by this policy as well, a group of people who are not even members of the military -- the partners of these LGBT soldiers who struggle with the same trials as military spouses, yet receive none of the support from the government, who must, in fact, remain invisible for the protection of their military partners. The husbands and wives of American soldiers receive special benefits from the government, in addition to the love and support they recieve from their communities. Some of these benefits include: receiving compensation if their husband or wife is injured or killed in the line of duty, disabled veterans who are married receive extra compensation to support their spouse, veteran's pensions, military support networks, next-of-kin notifications and more. Partners of LGBT service members are denied these benefits, even the simple benefit of expressing pride openly of their love ones." Last week, 77 members of the US House of Representatives wrote Barack about ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy:

Although we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our LGBT service members and our country's national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed until 2010 or 2011. We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don't Ask, Don't Tell until Congress repeals the law. To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell. Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don't Ask, Don't Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination. This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and demonstrate our nation's lasting commitment to justice and equality for all.
As the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our country's military competence and readiness. Despite the great strain on our military's human resources, the Armed Forces have discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the last five years. This is indefensible. The financial cost alone of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8 million. Our nation's military has always held itself to the highest standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our best and brightest. To do anything less only hurts our country's military readiness and our service members.
We also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in action. New York National Guard First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and protecting the American people. Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they face impending discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
First Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation for refusing to lie about his identity.
Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force. Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if discharged.
The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara revealed that 73 percent are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni co-founded by First Lieutenant Choi.

That's an excerpt. The letter (in full) can be found at US House Rep Alcee L. Hasting's website and "was authored by Hastings and signed by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), José Serrano (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jane Harman (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), John Larson (D-CT), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), David Wu (D-OR), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Mike Honda (D-CA), James Langevin (D-RI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Diane Watson (D-CA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), André Carson (D-IN), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP)."

While there has been action in the US House of Representatives calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this month, the only US Senator publicly raising the issue is Roland Burris. As his office notes:

Last week, Senator Burris met with Equality Illinois and a number of GLBT leaders in Chicago to discuss the current military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Burris, a member of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs voiced his strong opposition to the current discriminatory policy. During a June 22nd press conference at Equality Illinois, Senator Burris vowed to work alongside Senator Ted Kennedy to bring an end to the military's ban on gay servicemen and women, and to make the United States Armed Services more inclusive and accepting of all the brave individuals who wear our nation's uniform.
"When we dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual orientation, we undermind the strength of our fighting forces. When we fail to recognize the brave contributions that gay and lesbian service members continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as much as we diminish their service," Senator Burris said. "We should end this offensive and discriminatory policy, so they can be the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines they can be, while living their lives openly and honestly."
This Sunday, Senator Burris will march alongside members of the GLBT community in Chicago's Pride Parade.

Charlotte Starck and KOMO-TV Staff (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) note that Burris, Illinois Govenor Pat Quinn and the state's Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined "the festivicites that have attracted hundreds of thousands in recent years" yesterday. Yesterday's events were part of the activism around the 40th anniversary of Stonewall and, for more on that, you can refer to Amy Goodman's "Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement," "Trans Day of Action: 'The Rebellion Is Not Over'" and "A Look at the Gay Rights Movement Beyond Marriage and the Military" (Democracy Now!).

Turning to England where Rupert Hamer (Daily Mirror) informs, "A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the country. The dossier -- prepared for ex-military chief General Sir Mike Jackson -- criticize then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding fuds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in. And the 100-page document attacks Mr Blair for 'uncritically' accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops." Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) adds, "In a memo to the Iraq war inquiry, they say Mr Brown's refusal as Chancellor to release vital funds for the Army played into the hands of insurgents. Its criticisms are the latest in a line of attacks from senior Army figures on Mr Brown, who was Chancellor when U.S. and British troops attacked Iraq in March 2003." Nicholas Watt (Mail & Guardian) reminds that last week was when a debate in the House of Commons forced Gordon Brown and his cabinet to back off of the inquiry being held completely in private and notes that the chance "that Blair and Brown will be cross-examined on their roles in the Iraq war during the build-up to the general election that is expected to take place next year." The debate also forced Brown and his cabinet to back off the claim that the inquiry would not apportion blame. Scottish National Party leader Angus Robertson states, "This leaked document would appear to be a damning critique of the two most senior members of the Labour government at the time -- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It also suggests that there may be great unease about Gordon Brown's decision to allow the inquiry to be held in secret when it wished. The whole point of this inquiry was to get to the truth about the Iraq war. People wanted an open and honest inquiry, not some establishment stich-up. This leak would appear to support the fact that by every measurement the Iraq war has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this mess." Meanwhile the Yorkshire Post reports, "Families of soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan are suing the Ministry of Defence, claiming that the lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in which they died should never have been used on the frontline. Over the past four years, dozens of our troops have been killed in this way."

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died June 28 as the result of combat related injuries. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4317 the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war.

In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bombing today which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and a Mosul car bombing claimed the lives of 9 police officers and left eleven people injured. Reuters notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing left one person injured and, dropping back to Sunday, Ramadi roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 "member of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and wounded his son".

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer was shot dead in Diyala Province.

Corpses?
Reuters notes 4 corpses were discovered in Mosul today.


Turning to the issue of the June 30th 'pull-out' and starting with this from Alice Fordham (Times of London), "The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." That's noted in Thursday's snapshot and we're noting it again because on Friday an outlet (NYT) reported on the holiday for the first time and has since gotten credit (unearned) for being the outlet to break that news. Alice Fordahm had already reported it. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes wary Iraqi Jbory stating, "I will celebrate when I see my country living in peace. I will celebrate when there is electricity and clean water, when people go to the park and feel safe. I'll celebrate when kids on the street look clean and are wearing new clothes. I will celebrate when people can earn a living." Hala Jaber, Ali Rifat Amman and Tony Allen-Mills (Times of London) quoted Sheiak Harith al-Dhari stating, "The resistance will not subside. I expect the insurgency to increase in both strength and ferocity, at least until the total withdrawal of the occupiers. Logic dictates that as long as there is fire under the pot, then the pot will continue to boil." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "The guys with the guns and bombs and best-laid plans may think the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from major Iraqi cities will work. But some ordinary Iraqis habor another idea." Meanwhile Thomas E. Ricks debates himself. First he argues, "Will the Iraqi be able to keep the population relatively secure? To be honest, I don't know, and no one else does." Less than 20 minutes later he offers, "Iraq is probably going to be violent for many years to come, and likely will be a closer ally of Iran than of the United States". While I would personally guess that his second argument is the likely outcome for the foreseeable future, I can say 100%, I don't know. What is known? Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers some reality on the pull-out: "But the Status of Forces Agreement setting the June 30 deadline leaves a lot of discretionary decisions to the Americans. Lieut. Col. Drake Johnson, 39, a liaison officer with the Iraqi police, could have termed the patrol a 'force protection' mission, not a 'combined patrol.' In that case, only Americans would've been walking the route. That's one reason on Tuesday, when Iraqis wake up, they will still see U.S. soldiers and Marines on patrol and in convoys. That's why some Iraqis -- like the one who yelled at the patrol, 'Hey, it's too bad you guys will be leaving soon!' -- may be disappointed with the profile, the footprint, that the Americans will still display in Iraq." Alice Fordham (Times of London) describes the current scene in Baghdad: "Lurid artificial flowers and tinsel decorated the police cars and balloons and streamers adorned the concrete security checkpoints of South Baghdad". Derrick Henry (New York Times) reports that Iraqi MP ("and a former national security adviser") Qassim Daoud is calling for the Status Of Forces Agreement to "be extended to 2020 or 2025."

On the 'pull-out' of US forces from some cities, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained this morning, "In most cases, they'll be shifted to areas encircling the places they leave. American forces will also remain in the town of Mosul for an indefinite time." And they will remain in Baghdad where their bases sprawl in and out of the city. On the encircling, we'll fall back to Friday's snapshot:As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals, that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them," "put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and that this has US military officials worried that US service members as well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.



The illegal war hasn't ended. Elizabeth Baier (Minnesota Public Radio) reports, "More than 550 troops from the Minnesota Army National Guard will head to Iraq next month, where they will serve a one-year deployment as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bob Von Sternberg (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) adds, "They are scheduled to return to Minnesota next April." Lindsay Wise (Houston Chronicle) reports on the Texas Army National Guard's 72 Brigade will be shipping to Iraq for a nine month tour of duty.

Turning to Iraqi oil, Tamsin Carlisle (The National) observes of the "live auction of oil contracts," "What is certain is that billions of dollar will be put on the table to develop some of the country's biggest oilfields. But little else is assured." Including the when as there has been a one day postponement. The postponing, Robert Tuttle and Anthony DiPaola (Bloomberg News) explain, is due to a sandstorm.


iraq
connect the dots with lila garrettlila garrettkpfk
the los angeles timesruben vives
michael rileythe new york timestimothy williamstareq maher the denver postbbc newsnigel morris
doug ireland
chris johnsonthe washington bladekilian melloy
the los angeles timesliz sly
jim muir
abc newsmazin faiq
mohammed tawfeeqcnn
democracy nowamy goodman
rupert hamerdaniel martinnicholas watt
mcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
laith hammoudi
mike tharp
alice fordhamthe times of london
hala jaberali rifattony allen-mills
thomas e. ricks
tamsin carlislerobert tuttleanthony dipaola
the washington posternesto londonothe new york timesderrick henry
the christian science monitorjane arraf

c.i.'s 'i hate the war' went up last night and i want to blog some about that.

c.i. hates obits and that's reading them.

when we were in college and all living together (c.i., elaine and me), if i wasn't madly hung over, i'd grab the obits. that's what i'd look at at the paper. we got 4 papers. c.i. would be going through the international and d.c. sections. elaine would be going through international and any science or medical. i'd be reading through the obits.

and i was 1 of those people that would say, 'hey, did you know --' and start talking about what i was reading. i'm sure it was annoying.

but c.i. hates obits. hates them.

and noted, after the 1 on ellen willis in 2005, that there was absolutely no interest on c.i.'s part in writing them. there were 10 people c.i. would write an obit on if they died while the common ills was up and running.

farrah was 1 of them.

but c.i. really didn't want to write that obit.

and it was weird because c.i. had told me the 10 who would get an obit back in 2005 and, back then, farrah didn't have cancer.

i honestly think c.i. would have avoided the issue if people (reporters) had given farrah her do in their write ups. but they didn't.

and if c.i. was ticked off, c.i. was going to write.

and farrah pointed that out in 2005. when c.i. had her own cancer scare. c.i. was doing therapy and just wiped out and saying 'i just can't do it' meaning the website. and farrah said (paraphrase) 'who's going to call them out then?' and made the point that all it would take is the press lying again for c.i. to kick herself for stopping the site.

and c.i. agreed she was right.

i knew farrah through c.i., by the way. i wasn't friends with her. when i was around her, she was always very sweet and very nice but the only other thing that stands out for me is her perfume. she wore a sporty kind of zest in the 70s and then she moved over to a more musky fragrance in the 80s and then a combination of that and a floral smell. she always smelled very nice. she didn't overwhelm you with the smell. but she did layer it and she obviously cared about how she smelled.

and she smelled good.

but i know c.i. didn't want to write that and when i read it, i was reminded of when i went out to california in 2005 to be with c.i. for the treatments and how farrah said that all it would take is the press getting it wrong for c.i. to want to write something for the common ills.

farrah was right and if the media had gotten it right, c.i. probably wouldn't have written a word.

but farrah was an artist and the coverage was reducing her to a male enhancement drug or an excuse to be bitchy.

farrah didn't deserve that. she was very talented.

i remember being in the foyer of candy and aaron's spelling's home in the 80s and smoking a cigarette and farrah coming by and our both noting a disgusting man who was a threat to women. and i thought about that in the coverage because a lot of disgusting men were getting back at farrah for the fact that they were disgusting.

a 52-y.o. man was quoted in 1 story i saw, where a reporter went to a bar to get reactions on farrah's death, saying 'she looked good until a few years ago, i still would have done her.' lucky farrah!

how did that garbage get into print?

that's just disgusting.

so i'm really glad c.i. wrote about farrah's art and i'm especially glad c.i. wrote about butterflies are free. we went to florida to see farrah in that and she was amazing. and no 1, no 1, else has written about that play or what it mean to farrah.

c.i. is our online avenging angel.

amy goodman had a show you could really enjoy today. if you missed it, here are the links to the segments:

Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement
Trans Day of Action: “The Rebellion Is Not Over”
A Look at the Gay Rights Movement Beyond Marriage and the Military


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, June 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi oil garners attention, the pull-out becomes a ring around the roses, the Defense Department announces a death, Barack talks Iraq (briefly), and more.

Violence continues this morning in Iraq. Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson (New York Times) explain a Baghdad motorcycle suicide bombing which has claimed multiple lives. Nizar Latif (The National) reports the bomb was "packed with nails and ball-bearings, designed to make the blast even more deadly". CNN counts the dead to be 15 with another forty-six injured. Abdul Rahman Dhaher, Missy Ryan, Michael Christie, Tim Cocks, Sophie Hares and Bill Trott (Reuters) add, "Shredded shoes and bits of bloody clothing were scattered around the twisted frames of motorbikes. The blast site was swiftly sealed off by Iraqi soldiers and police."
The motorcyle bombing was the second in Baghdad this week. The first was Wednesday's which resulted in at least 78 deaths. That wasn't a suicide bombing, however, the bomber was said to have fled the motorcyle (used to pull explosives hidden beneath produce) before it exploded. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the third took place Friday night in Baghdad and resulted in the death of 1 man and left three more injured. In other violence . . .
Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and wounded two more. Reuters notes Thursday included a Mosul car bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldiers, a Baghdad overnight mortar attack which left four people injured and a Baghdad roaside bombing which injured two people.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Iraqi security forces in Mosul shot dead a suspected bomber. Reuters drops back to the Thursday to note: "Gunmen wearing military uniforms attacked a convoy carrying a senior criminal judge in Mosul on Thursday, wounding one of his bodyguards, police said. The judge was not hurt."

Today the Defense Department announced a death (one MNF never reported): "Spc Casey L. Hills, 23 of Salem, Illinois died June 24 in Iraq of injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over. He was assiagned to the 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry Regiment, Pago Pago, American Samoa. The circumstnaces surrounding the incident are under investigation." The announcement brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4315.

Turning to the US, yesterday's Free Speech Radio News featured a report on the latest Winter Soldier by Iraq Veterans Against the War. Click here for the segment.Manuel Rueda: At home Iraq Veterans Against the War, a grassroots organization of vets opposed to US wars, continues to organize Winter Soldier hearings across the country. It´s a venue where veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan can tell stories from their war days, in a venue where veterans can tell stories from their war days in an environment that's safe and supportive. Leo Paz reports from Los Angeles. Leo Paz: Ryan Endicott is a former Marine Corporal who did multiple tours in Iraq and returned to the US in 2006. He talked about what it's like for US marines to enforce martial law in a foreign country. Ryan Endicott: Young boys 18 to 22 are having martial law over a group of people. It's complete oppression and it actually borders on the line of terrorism. I mean you strap dead bodies to your Humvee and drive around a city with it, that's terrorism. That's scaring a group of people into your beliefs -- into your belief system and structure and that's exactly what we're doing, we're terrorizing them.Leo Paz: Corporal Endicott who was in Ar Ramadi Iraq says these were not isolated incidents but daily occurrences. Ryan Endicott: Every single day, every time you kick in a door and drag a man out of his bed in the middle of the night, that's terrorism. That's not -- we're not saving people that's not liberation. You don't liberate people by -- by kicking in their doors in and arresting people by mass numbers by shooting them that's not liberation, that's occupation. Leo Paz: Some of the soldiers recalled the harsh treatment of Iraqi civilians stopped at the numerous checkpoints installed by the US throughout the country. Former Marine Corporal Christopher Gallagher compared the checkpoints in Haditha and Falluja to herding cattle. Christopher Gallagher: If any Iraqis voiced their opinion for the way they were being treated the Iraqi police -- we had a checkpoint -- would handle the situation by harassing and assaulting them. Leo Paz: According to Gallagher when the US military went door to door in the middle of the night, raiding homes to eliminate any resistance to the occupation, Iraqis held massive protests. Gallagher described the typical US response to this protest. Christopher Gallagher: In 2004 the Iraqis would hold protests in the town of Haditha against the occupation typical response for this was to have fighter jets fly over the crowd and scare them away. Leo Paz: Corporal Endicott questioned the sanitized version of war portrayed in mainstream American media. Ryan Endicott: What should be on the media is the thousands of doors that are kicked in every day and the thousands of people that are terrorized by the US soldiers that are pumped up on adrenaline and just looking to kill people. I mean there's plenty of people that joined the military just to kill people. Leo Paz: Endicott is one of many vets who denounced the indiscriminate shooting of civilians by US military. Devon Read a former Marine infantry Sgt who took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw comrades anxious to fire at whatever came in their path. He told people at winter soldier about driving through Nazaria, speeding on the way to Baghdad, on the back of a Humvee and Marines in his unit shooting randomly at people in houses. Devon Read: You know, none of the grunts that wanted to shoot people really cared about that. If it was an opportunity to shoot someone, they'd be shooting. So there's two of us on my side of the vehicle and three guys on the other side of the vehicle and we're facing outboard and suddenly the guys on the other side of the vehicle start shooting and I'm curious what the heck they're shooting at but I can't really look because I'm paying attention to my side and the other guy that's with me decides to switch sides, switches over to the other side and starts shooting also. And I finally take a moment to look and I'm looking and they're all just shooting wildly. Leo Paz: Sgt. Reed was appalled by the random gunfire and wondered how many civilians had been shot by US troops that day. Devon Read: There's, you know, people in windows way off in the distance, who really knows? Plenty of civilians with their -- poking their heads out of the window but its just someone to shoot at and there's shooting going on so no one's going to ask any questions if they start pulling the trigger too. So everyone starts shooting randomly and I talk to everyone after and none of them had any idea what they were shooting at or why. Leo Paz: Many Vietnam war vets showed up to support the IVAW and the Iraq veterans in denouncing war and violence. Ed Garza an army gunner with the 173rd airborne Brigade still has nightmares forty years after the war. Ed Garza: I remember the dead bodies and I remember seeing them and I remember we used to kill the Vietnamese and we'd put our patch on them To remind the other Vietnamese in the area that uh that we were there, the 173rd airborne. So those are some of the things I remember. Leo Paz: According to a study conducted by Iraqi doctors, and published in a British medical journal, Iraqi dead are in the hundreds of thousands since the US invasion in 2003, Afghan civilians are estimated at more than 10,000 dead. Now into the 8th year of the war, more than 5,000 soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan according to the US military. Leo Paz, FSRN.

Staying with resistance to illegal wars, Australia's The Guardian (The Worker's Weekly) carries an interview by Elsa Rassbach with war resister Andre Shepherd who is appealing for asylum in Germany after having served one tour of Iraq already.

Elsa Rassbach: Since the "war on terror" began, there have been many US soldiers who have spoken out and many who have refused to serve. But you are the first so far to apply for asylum in Germany. What are the grounds on which your application is based?

Andre Shepherd: Well, it's very simple: In the war of aggression against the Iraqi people, the United States violated not only domestic law, but international law as well. The US government has deceived not only the American public, but also the international community, the Iraqi community, as well as the military community. And the atrocities that have been committed there these past six years are great breaches of the Geneva Conventions. My applying for asylum is based on the grounds that international law has been broken and that I do not want to be forced to fight in an illegal war.

Elsa Rassbach: In your asylum application, you mention the Principles of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which were incorporated in the UN Charter. In Nuremberg, the chief US prosecutor, Robert H Jackson, stated: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In opening the trial on behalf of the United States, he stated that "while this law is first applied against German aggressors, this law includes and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment." What does Nuremberg mean to you?

Andre Shepherd: The Nuremberg statutes are the foundation of many US soldiers' refusal of the Iraq war and to some extent of the Afghanistan war. The United States with its allies after World War II crafted these laws stating that even though you've gotten orders to commit crimes against humanity, you don't have to follow them, because every person has their own conscience. That was more than 60 years ago. Today the US government seems to be under the impression that those rules do not apply to it. In invading Iraq, they did not wait for a UN mandate, they didn't let the inspectors do their job, and they made up stories about who's a real threat. This is totally violated everything stated in the Nuremberg statutes. The US Constitution states that the US is bound to our international treaties, for example with the UN. When we ignore the UN, we are violating the US Constitution, which every US soldier is sworn to uphold. And the US must also respect our own very strict laws against war crimes and torture. Since the Obama administration refuses to investigate and prosecute the previous administration, it's clear to me that the Obama administration is an accomplice to the previous administration's crimes. They're setting a very dangerous precedent for the future of the world, something I don't want to see. The German people are well aware of the history; it is here that the Nuremberg tenets were first set down. Now we have to find a way to restore those tenets, to actually respect the Nuremberg tenets as well as the Geneva Conventions. Germany needs to tell the US, "Look, you guys helped create these laws, and now you guys should abide by your own rules."

On Iraq, the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show featured Michael Hersh of Newsweek, Elise Labot of CNN and Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers and Iraq was addressed early on.


Diane Rehm: Michael Hirsh, there have been bomb attacks all across the country in Iraq this week. What's going on?

Michael Hirsh: Well you have what remains of the insurgency trying to forment sectarian violence and war to get them back to -- very close to the civil war in Iraq they were at in 2006 as the US prepares for this dramatic withdrawal from Iraqi cities which is really effectively the end of George W. Bush's surge. The surge was all about putting American troops on the front-line in the cities. It worked along with other aspects of change policy. So this is a -- this is a very, very critical moment, perhaps the most critical moment since the beginning of the insurgency in Iraq War.

Diane Rehm: But why this week is it an attempt to get the US to change it's mind? is it a protest, what is it, Warren?

Warren Strobel: I think it's an attempt to portray the US withdrawal as a retreat by the insurgents. We saw similar stuff happen in Gaza a few years ago when the Israelis withdrew and Hamas was trying to do this, so that's -- that's part of it. I totally agree with Michael. I think this at least the most critical moment in Iraq since the surge began -- if not since the insurgency began. I mean this is a really, really critical point and uh it's -- we're going to see whether the Iraqi security forces all the money and training we've thrown into them can handle this.

Diane Rehm: That's a huge question, Elise.

Elise Labott: And it's not just the American troops that are leaving. They're taking with them this whole infrastructure of support and logistics and intelligence that the Iraqis have come to rely on. I mean you have intelligence satellites, cameras, bomb-sniffing dogs, medical evacuations. All of these things that the Iraqis have kind of come to rely on that they're not going to have anymore. And I think on Warren and Michael's point, it's not just about trying to portray it as a retreat, I think it's also trying to show, um, that the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki is not suit -- able to handle this. And I think what we need to see right now is whether you're going to start to see the development of militias that we saw in 2005 when there was a lack of confidence in the government to be able to protect the people.

Michael Hirsh: There will continue to be a quiet presence of the US special forces and intelligence

Diane Rehm: Yes --

Michael Hirsh: In addition --

Diane Rehm: -- in what numbers?

Michael Hirsh: We don't know. As well as uh obviously surveillance from the skies And let's not forget either that uh, you know, Maliki has an air force, the US air force which is actually both his artillery and his air force and proved to be very effective when he first began cracking down on the militias as he did in Basra. So it's not a total withdrawal nor will it be, I believe, even when we supposedly fully pull out at the end of 2011. But it is a real, real test for Maliki's leadership and, as Warren said, the training of the Iraqi forces.

Diane Rehm: So what is the mood of the Iraqi people as the US prepares to withdraw, Elise?

Elise Labott: Well I think they're kind of ambivalent about it. On one hand they're ready to see the Americans go. I mean this is the last true symbolism of their sovereignty but at the same time, the reports that we hear from Iraq is that a lot of Iraqis aren't really looking for the United States to leave, they're worried as to whether the government can handle this and I think it is, it's going to be looking to the government to pick up the slack. They're not sure if Nouri al-Maliki is able to do it.

Warren Strobel: Well I think they wanted us to leave [laughing] until we actually started to leave. And now some at least Some people are having second thoughts.

Elise Labott: You don't know what you've got till it's gone.

Warren Strobel: Exactly. And there was this guy quoted in the paper from Sadr City, a huge Shi'ite neighborhood in Baghdad, expressing great concern about the pull-out of a specific, I guess it was a US security station maybe it was a joint-security station there, about what would happen next. I mean I agree with Michael that we're still going to have a lot of US assets there but the American ability to influence the situation has been steadily declining and it's going to decline a lot more in the coming months.

Elise Labott: I think you also started to see the US and the Iraqis working to implement of the US withdrawing from the cities but maybe trying to fudge the lines of what the city constitutes so that some forces could stay but at the same time technically they're outside of the cities. And the US acknowledges that it's very difficult because it's time for the Iraqis to stand up on their own. The longer the Americans are there, the Iraqis are going to become dependent on them they need to be seen as leaving for the Iraqis to step up.

Diane Rehm: What about rebuilding those cities? To what extent might that begin to take place? And do the Iraqis themselves have to go about doing that? Where do they get money, Michael?

Michael Hirsh: Well I mean obviously the oil, their oil industry is back on line to some degree. Accompanying this development of US withdrawal you finally have serious interest by US oil companies and wri-- agree to contracts that they have been unwilling to do up until now because of the violence. So they'll be getting additional revenues from that but this is -- this is also a very good test for Maliki. One is security, the other is rebuilding. You still have long periods of blackouts in Baghdad. You know, six years or more into this, you have very, very poor infrastructure and a lot of unhappiness among the Iraqis.

Diane Rehm: Michael Hersh of Newsweek, Elise Labot of CNN, Warren Strobel of McClatchy.


As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals, that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them," "put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and that this has US military officials worried that US service members as well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.


At the White House today, President Barack Obama met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and he spoke about Iraq when NPR's Don Gonyea asked about Iraq's "upsurge in violence; a lot of bombings, a lot of deaths, does that give you any second thoughts on the coming deadline to pull the combat troops from the cities?"


Barack Obama: On Iraq, obviously any time there's a bombing in Iraq we are concerned. Any time there's loss of innocent life or the loss of military personnel, we grieve for their families and it makes us pay attention. I will tell you if you look at the overall trend, despite some of these high-profile bombings, Iraq's security situation has continued to dramatically improve. And when I speak to General [Ray] Odierno and Chris Hill, our ambassador in Iraq, they continue to be overall very positive about the trend lines in Iraq. I think there's still some work to do. I think the Maliki government is not only going to have to continue to strengthen its security forces, but it's also going to have to engage in the kind of political give and take leading up the national elections that we've been talking about for quite some time. And I haven't seen as much political progress in Iraq, negotiations between the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds, as I would like to see.
So there are always going to be -- let me not say "always" -- there will continue to be incidents of violence inside of Iraq for some time. They are at a much, much lower level than they were in the past. I think the biggest challenge right now is going to be less those attacks by remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq or other insurgent groups, and the bigger challenge is going to be, can the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds resolve some of these major political issues having to do with federalism, having to do with boundaries, having to do with how oil revenues are shared. If those issues get resolved, then I think you will see a further normalization of the security atmosphere inside of Iraq.

Later at the White House, spokesmodel Robert Gibbs was asked to clarify Barack's statement ("express some of the things the president is hoping for and what is he intending to do about that?") and he responded, "Well -- I mean -- Obviously, he's met continually with Ambassador Hill. Obviously, the stops -- or the meetings -- that we made during the stop in Baghdad on the -- I guess that was in late March, early April -- Obviously, without getting specific, there continues to be progress in terms of political reconciliation in terms of oil and hydrocarbons that, as move throughout a year -- a very important year -- of elections in Iraq, again, proving that it will take the steps necessary to govern its country." Interesting and telling that Gibbs would go straight to the theft-of-Iraqi-oil law.

Staying with oil, when you're caught serving up US government propaganda at the start of the week, you'd think you'd keep your head low for the rest of the week. Not only do your talking points end up on the US government propaganda outlet Voice of America (and all its spin-offs with "Radio Free . . ." in the title), but you're rah-rah Nouri talking point is slapped down by Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) and public events slap down your 'Western companies aren't going to do oil business in Iraq!'. But apparently you woke up yesterday begging for a beating which is why Timothy Williams offers up "Warily Moving Ahead on Oil Contracts" in this morning's New York Times. In the real world, AP offers a list of the Big Oil countries rushing in to bid on Iraqi oil and we'll note their first eight countries on the list:UNITED STATES: Chevron, ConocoPhilips, Exxon Mobil, Hess Corp., Marathon International Petroleum Ltd., and Occidental Petroleum Corp. United Kingdom: BP Group PLC. Japan: Inpex Holdings Inc., Japex and Nippon Oil Corp. Australia: BHP Billiton Ltd. and Woodside Petroleum Ltd. China: China's CNOOC Ltd., CNPC International Ltd., Sinochem International Co. Ltd., and Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical co. Ltd. Italy: Edison International SPA and Eni. Russia: JSC Lukoil and JSC Gazprom Neft. France: Total SA. Anthony DiPaola (Bloomberg News) explains that Exxon and Shell are foaming at the bit and they are only 8 "of the world's top 10 non-state oil producers" who are rushing to cash in on Iraq oil. Sinan Salaheddin's "Big Oil poised for return to Iraq" (AP) explains the basics. While Timothy Williams played the violins for Big Oil on Monday and begged for a greater theft of Iraqi oil, Ahmed M. Jiyad (UPI) details what the contracts actually allow and concludes, "Considering the above and their possible implications it seems these model related to the first bidding round do not and could not deliver the best interest for the Iraqi people, and probably this explains the growing opposition to them." Reuters explains, "Here are some facts about Iraq's oil industry" in this report which points out: "Iraq's oil has been coveted by foreign powers for decades." Also of interest, Christopher Helman's "Cashing In On Iraqi Oil" (Forbes). Earlier this month, IVAW's Aaron Hughes reported on his trip to Erbil for the International Labor Conference in Iraq at US Labor Against War at which a resolution was passed "against the draft oil and gas law" :The conference was set up to bring together the major labor constituencies from across Iraq to form a confederation based on worker rights. At the end of our second day, the eve of the conference, workers from fifteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces began to arrive. There were representatives from Iraq's oil and gas industry, its port union, the electrical generation and distribution industry, construction, public sector, transportation, communications, education, rail roads, service and health care industries, machinists and metal working sector, the petro-chemical industry, civil engineers, writers and journalists, food oil workers, tailors and students.The historical nature of the conference was clear. This opportunity for the international community and the workers across Iraq to show solidarity was long overdue. After the United States invaded Iraq and set up the provisional government, a new constitution was drafted that included worker rights. However, at the same time, Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, retained Saddam Hussein's labor laws.
[. . .]
Leading by exmaple is the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU) lead by its president Hassan Juma'a Awad, which exploded in size over the past four years to over 25,000 members. It is the strongest and most powerful union in Iraq and is also extremely militant in regards to workers rights. For example, the union has protested, gone on strike, and used direct non-violent tactics to force the British occupation forces to stand down and furthermore drove the US contractor KBR from the oil fields near Basra.

In their 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (from February 25, 2009), the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor notes:"The constitution provides the right to form and join unions and professional associations, subject to regulating law. Labor Law 150 of 1987, enacted by the Saddam government, ...declared virtually all public sector workers to be government 'executives,' and therefore legally ineligible to form or to join unions, a move that, in effect, eliminated unions and the right of association from the public sector. In the private sector, the extant 1987 Trade Union Organization Law ...was also intended, in practice, to remove the right of association from a majority of private sector workers, because most private sector businesses employ fewer than 50 workers. Decree 8750 of 2005, which cancelled unions' leadership boards, froze their assets, and formed an inter-ministerial committee to administer unions' assets and assess their capacity to resume activity, also inhibited union activity. The laws and decree do not prohibit anti-union discrimination by employers or others. In addition to this oppressive legal and regulatory framework, violence and insecurity, high unemployment, and maladapted labor organizational structures inhibited the exercise of labor rights."Throughout the conference, in moments here and there, over sips of tea, in the hallway between talks, over a meal of lamb and rice, or in the marble floored lobby I had the opportunity to speak with the different labor leaders. Their stories were hopeful and humble. They were filled with courageous acts of resistance against the many odds stacked against them. Their government does not legally recognize unions and organizing in the public sector (seventy percent of the economy) is illegal. Union assets are frozen and confiscated. The US military has raided union leaders' homes and occupied factories and plants. The local militias target union leaders and female workers. Despite these odds, the unions are organizing, growing and winning.

Last week, Andy Rowell (Oil Change) noted the Independent's report on the "public fury" in Iraq as "the country is handing over control of its fields to foreign companies." And you can also refer to an article by Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal). Rowell also notes a cartoon by Peter Brookes (Times of London) about the Iraq inquiry in England and concludes, "Whether the inquiry is in secret or public, one thing is certain an inquiry is unlikely to tell us whether Iraq was ever about oil." The Great Britain's Socialist Worker observes, "The row over the transparency, or otherwise, of the inquiry into the war on Iraq has exposed the continuing influence of Tony Blair on the Labour Party -- and the weakness of Gordon Brown. Blair put pressure on Brown to ensure that the inquiry into the war would be held in private." They conclude that testimony and evidence should be submitted by peace activists and they should "hold protests at MPs' surgeries to demand that the warmongers are brought to justice."

Not interested in the oil and despite foreign forces and foreign media leaving the country, Sister Maria Hanna has no intention of leaving. She explains to Carmen Blanco (Catholic Spirit), "I am committed to staying in Iraq for those who remain: the poor, the vulnerable, the widows and their chilren." Blanco adds, "Sister Hanna, a member of the Dominican Sisters of St. Catherine of Siena in Mosul, Iraq, visited Washington in June to talk about her work and to give Catholic agencies and organizations an update on current conditions in the country. She has set goals to build schools and hospitals for those remaining in Iraq and to give hope to all Iraqis."

TV notes. Coming up on NOW on PBS:American streets are littered with foreclosed houses, but one daring advocate says these homes shouldn't go to waste. He encourages and facilitates homeless squatting. It's an idea that addresses two issues at once - homelessness and foreclosed homes -- and it's also illegal.This week, NOW travels to Miami to meet with Max Rameau, an advocate for the homeless. Rameau's organization, Take Back the Land, identifies empty homes that are still livable, and tries to find responsible families willing to take the enormous legal risks of moving in.Rameau, who considers his mission an act of civil disobedience, says it's immoral to keep homes vacant while there are human beings living on the street. But while these squatters have morality in their hearts, they don't have the law on their side.With the faltering economy separating so many people from their homes, what's society's responsibility to those short on shelter?That and other PBS programming noted begin airing on many PBS stations tonight, check local listings. Only on PBS can you get crap like Gwen gas bagging with three men and one woman in 2009 and have that junk be considered 'appropriate' and 'diverse'. On Washington Week, Gloria Borger (US News & World Reports, CNN) is the lone woman. Pete Williams (NBC), David Sanger (NYT) and John Dickerson (Slate, CBS News) are the men. To actually see women address the week's issues, join Bonnie Erbe who sits down with Sam Bennett, Victoria Lipnic, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Tara Setmayer and Genevieve Wood on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
The Cheaters 60 Mintes and The Washington Post reveal how online poker players suspecting cheating were forced to successfully ferret out the cheaters themselves. That's because managers of the mostly-unregulated $18 billion Internet gambling industry failed to respond to their complaints. Steve Kroft and The Washington Post's Gilbert Gaul report. Watch Video
Mind Reading Neuroscience has learned so much about how we think and the brain activity linked to certain thoughts that it is now possible - on a very basic scale - to read a person's mind. Lesley Stahl reports. Watch Video
Gorongosa American Greg Carr is using his great wealth to try to help some of the poorest people in Africa by attracting more tourists to their neighborhood - the beautiful national park of Gorongosa in Mozambique. Scott Pelley reports. Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, June 28, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

On this week's White House plant in the press conference, please check out this video from Newsy. The Hurt Locker opens in Los Angeles and New York today and opens July 10th in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. Kenneth Turan gives it a rave review in "The Hurt Locker" (Los Angeles Times):

"The Hurt Locker" has the killer impact of the explosive devices that are the heart of its plot: It simply blows you apart and doesn't bother putting you back together again. Overwhelmingly tense, overflowing with crackling verisimilitude, it's both the film about the war in Iraq that we've been waiting for and the kind of unqualified triumph that's been long expected from director Kathryn Bigelow.



iraq
free speech radio newsleo paziraq veterans against the wardevon readchristopher gallagherryan endicott
the washington postanthony shadid
jane arraf
ernesto londono
us labor against the war
aaron hughes
gina chonthe wall street journal
ahmed m. jiyadanthony dipaolacarmen blanco
60 minutescbs newsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbsnprthe diane rehm showpbs
the los angeles timeskenneth turankathryn bigelow

Few politicians would challenge the contention that Gordon Brown’s decision to bring back Peter Mandelson was a masterstroke that has helped to sustain him in office.
On the night that James Purnell’s shock resignation put Mr Brown’s premiership in great peril, it was Lord Mandelson who rang the other Blairites, including David Miliband, to make sure that they would not follow suit. And it was the Business Secretary who steadied the ship in the days that followed.
It is known that he talked to former ministers such as Hazel Blears to dissuade them from rocking the boat further.
Tony Blair always said that the new Labour project would be completed when the Labour Party had learnt to love Mr Mandelson.

that's from philip webster's 'Gordon Brown praises Lord Mandelson, the man who saved his skin' (the times of london). i didn't realize gordo would be in the news cycle but, hey, when you got a good joke, you repeat it and that's what the news does. lord mandelson, for those who don't know, is the 1 who ran to gordo and told him tony blair would not NOT NOT be testifying in public. tim shipman (the daily mail) notes that in his article:


Lord Mandelson stitched up a deal with Gordon Brown for a tame Iraq inquiry to protect Tony Blair, it is claimed today.
The Business Secretary persuaded the Premier to pick a panel of establishment figures who would probe the conflict in secret – in exchange for his support heading off a Cabinet coup against Mr Brown.
But with the original plans blown out of the water following a public outcry, the Government yesterday engineered yet another U-turn.

gordo has no power and is not in control. he's just doing what he's told and has to because mandelson may have saved gordo's position but he's wounded and bleeding and all the sharks circling can smell the blood.

if you use the link for tim shipman's article, note the photo of mandelson and tony blair together and what a striking woman tony blair makes. (i really did think that was a woman at 1st.)

the iraq inquiry has to be as public as possible and anika bourley (the telegraph and argus) reports on 1 mp who agrees:

A Bradford MP who opposed the Iraq war is heading up a Commons campaign to ensure full details of the inquiry are made public.
Marsha Singh has tabled a Commons petition which said the Government must ensure transparency, allowing full details to be heard in the open unless they impact on national security.

i really am appalled that there hasn't been real coverage of this in the u.s. the rest of the world has been following the developments but in the u.s. we are oblivious and, thing is, we can't pretend like it's a language barrier because we speak the same language. then again, maybe we can call it a language barrier? in england, they speak proper english.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, June 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military brass continues its attempts to censor a Stars and Stripes reporter, Congress holds a hearing to see if the VA is ready to issue payments under the new GI Bill, and more.


Starting in the US where Barack Obama likes a scripted press conference. As noted yesterday, Dana Milbank (Washington Post) broke the story on Arianna-toy Nico Pitney being a plant in Barack's press conference. As Cedric and Wally noted in their joint-post yesterday, CBS News' Peter Maer raised the issue to portly Robert Gibbs in yesterday's White House press briefing.

PETER MAER: All right. I've got a procedural question about yesterday's news conference. What led to your decision to plant a designated hitter right here to ask the President a question? And what kind of a message do you think that sends to the American people and to the world about the kind of free-flow and pure questioning that's been expected at presidential news conferences? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it did nothing more than underscore that free-flow. Peter, that was a question from an Iranian in Iran, using the same type of manner and method to get that information as, I guess, many of you and virtually every one of your outlets has done, because in this country we enjoy the freedom of the press.In Iran, as many of you know, your colleagues have been dismissed. They've been kicked out. Some of them have been rounded up. There aren't journalists that can speak for the Iranian people. What the President did was take a question from an Iranian. That's, I think, the very powerful message that that sent just yesterday. PETER MAER: Couldn't he have accomplished that without you guys escorting someone through here and planting him the room? MR. GIBBS: Did you get a question yesterday from an Iranian that you had hoped to asked the President? PETER MAER: No, I did not. MR. GIBBS: Well, then I guess the answer to that would have been, no. PETER MAER: Is this going to become a regular feature of President Obama's news conference, that you all are going to bring people in here that you select to ask questions? MR. GIBBS: Well, let's understand -- let's be clear, Peter. I think you understand this, so -- but I'll repeat it for your benefit. There was no guarantee that the questioner would be picked. There was no idea of what the exact question would be. I'll let you down easily: A number of questions that we went though in prep you all asked. Iran dominated the news conference, not surprisingly. But Peter, I think it was important and the President thought it was important to take a question using the very same methods, again, that many of you all are using to report information on the ground. I don't have any -- I won't make any apologies for that.

Today Peter Baker (New York Times) attempts to cover the story and misses the major point. He tries to cover his based. He gets the Arianna Huffington to self-importantly blather -- between cobbling together George Clooney quotes to pass off as his 'writing' and between posting 'jokes' about special-needs children -- on with remarks like: "This was an exciting moment for new media and citizen engagement. It's a pity so many in traditional media didn't get it." No, it's a pity that an Aging Socialite whose husband decided to come out of the closet dumped her on the rest of the (unsuspecting) world.

Let's break it down for the dithering, money grubbing, wanna-be Gabor whose face appears assembled out of bits of chicken fat. The US is engaged in three wars currently -- Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the undeclared war on Pakistan. Iraq is non-stop violence these days. It was SHAMEFUL and it was EMBARRASSING that the president of the United States was setting up questions but even more distressing than that was WHAT the question was about: Iran. How nice of Huff & Puff to allow Barry O to gas bag on a topic that's not about his own performance, not about his own obligations and allows him to offer more 'inspirational' words. How nice of Huff & Puff to give Barry a foot rub as opposed to hold his tootsie to the fire.

Citizen engagement, which Arianna knows nothing about -- serving off brands to guests, that she knows about -- would have been little Nico breaking from the script and asking a question that put Barack on the spot. Arianna knows damn well if this was a George W. Bush moment, she'd be screaming her head off. Instead, today's she's her own Jeff Gannon. And how nice of Huff & Puff to prove that they don't give a damn about Iraq. The website could have brought that issue into the press conference. It chose not to do so. Remember that the next time Arianna tries to pretend she cares about anything other than the cold hard cash. Drop a twenty on the dresser and thank her for her time, she's done.

Currently at Newt Gingrich's former girlfriend's website it's tabloid city. New media? That smut's been available in the supermarkets for years, usually under the banner of Weekly World News.

In the real world, Iraq was rocked by violence again today. CNN observes, "Violence is unnerving Iraqis, with attacks increasing as the United States works toward withdrawing combat troops." Susan Webb (People's Weekly World) notes, "The killing spree began June 20 with a series of car bombings and other attacks in several cities, including a massive suicide truck bombing that killed 82 people in a mainly Shiite town near the northern city of Kirkuk, a scene of ongoing ethnic strife." Al Jazeera notes, "At least seven people have died in a new wave of attacks in Iraq amid funerals for some of the victims of a bomb explosion in a busy Baghdad market the previous day." The number's risen to at least nine dead with twenty-eight Iraqis injured. Today's reported violence?

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured, a Baghdad mortar attack left two people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in two police officers being wounded, a Baghdad car bombing left five people injured and a Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in 2 deaths with four injured, a Mosul car bombing which left thirteen people injured and a Falluja roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 5 police officers. Reuters notes two Baghdad roadside bombings resulted in nine US soldiers being injured and a Baghdad bus bombing which left three Iraqi civilians injured..

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Mosul which left three police officers injured and 1 16-year-old boy male was shot in Mosul.

Dropping back to yesterday's Baghdad bombing whose death toll continued to rise after yesterday's snapshot. Saif Hameed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) inform the bombing "killed at least 78 people Wednesday and wounded 145, highlighting the danger of Iraq slipping back into violence after the deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave its cities -- now less than a week away." Jim Lehrer (PBS' NewsHour -- link has text, audio and video) explained yesterday, "The blast tore through a market in Sadr City, the capital's main Shiite district." Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) add this context, "The blast, the second in Iraq in less than a week to kill more than 70 people, happened six days before the June 30 deadline for U.S. troops to retreat from urban outposts, the first of three withdrawal deadlines mandated under a security agreement." Alice Fordham (Times of London) adds, "The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) provides these numbers: "About 300 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives so far in June; more than 330 were killed in May. Eight U.S. soldiers have lost their lives so far in June, while 25 died in May, according to Defense Department figures." Shortly before yesterday's Baghdad bombing took place, Dept of Defense spokesperson Geoff Morrell was holding a press briefing and declaring, "I think -- well . . . First of all, we saw a horrific bombing take place south of Kirkuk over the weeken which was rather unusual given where it took place. It was also unusual just in terms of the trend that we've been seeing lately. Security incidents -- despite that awful attack -- remain at all-time lows since March 2003." BOOM!!! would be the sound of the bombing in Baghdad before Morrell finished his press conference. Alissa J. Rubin and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) offer, "A number of political observers here say they now believe that the attacks are intended to discredit Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He has taken credit for improving security, but the stance carries considerable political risk when violence breaks out." And taking credit apparently translates as "bullying the press," Mike Tharp and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) note that the harassment of the press continued yesterday in the wake of the bombings, "An Iraqi journalist, who asked not to be named because he feared reprisal, said that Iraqi officials refused to let him and other reporters into local hospitals to try to interview witnesses, family members and victims." Puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki is the self-styled new Saddam. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) offers a must-read report which looks at the thug the US chose to install: "Although Iraq's parliamenatry elections are not until January, the campaign has begun, and Maliki has shown a determination to fight with a tenacity and ruthlessness borrowed from the handbook of Iraq's last strongman, Saddam Hussein. From Diyala, where men under Maliki's command have arrested and threatened to detain a host of his rivals, to Basra, where security forces have swept up scores of his opponents since January, the message is: cooperate or risk his wratch. Although Iraq's sectarian war has largely ended, and the Sunnis feel they lost, another struggle for power, perhaps no less perilous, has begun in earnest. Maliki has resorted to a more traditional notion of politics in which violence is simply another form of leverage. His goal is simple -- to ensure he emerges as prime minister again after the vote."

Thug Nouri isn't the only one attempting to censor the press in Iraq. Tuesday's snapshot noted the efforts of the US military to prevent Stars and Stripes reporter Heath Druzin from reporting (those efforts are censorship). This is from Joe Strupp's "UPDATED: Reporter Barred from Iraq Embed -- MRE Blasts Move -- Sends Protest Letter to Gates, Petraeus" (Editor & Publisher):The president of the Military Reporters and Editors group has blasted the move in an email to E&P. "Asserting that Stars and Stripes 'refused to highlight' good news in Iraq that the U.S. military wanted to emphasize, Army officials have barred a Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division that is attempting to secure the violent city of Mosul," the report says. It adds that Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour. It also adds that military officials cited a March 8 story Druzin wrote that stated many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and return security tasks to Iraqi forces.New West Boise's Jill Kuraitis has worked with Druzin and she offers, "In my opinion, it's a serious matter when the delivery of accurate and timely news is denied to the American people who always deserve the truth in accordance with our founding principles. We are funding the war with our tax dollars, which makes us even more deserving of the information. Druzin is a professional trained to do exactly what he is doing, and his efforts to be accurate should not be impeded, nor his priorities manipulated." Mark Prendergast is a professional journalist whose outlets have included the Washington Post and the New York Timesand he also teaches journalism (St. John's University). In December 2008 it was announced he would be the new ombudsperson at Stars and Stripes. He weighs in on the censorship efforts:


The unit's commander, Col. Gary Volesky, simply does not want Druzin back. The various reasons offered by Volesky and his public affairs officer, Maj. Ramona Bellard, involve Druzin's personality, professionalism, reluctance to discuss story ideas and that he "refused to highlight" aspects of the Mosul campaign that they wanted him to promote (See Editorial Director Terry Leonard's point-by-point rebuttal, "Army denies Stripes reporter access to combat team in Mosul," article, June 24).
In a raft of e-mail correspondence between Stars and Stripes and the military that began May 11, the colonel and the major emphasized that their problem was not with the newspaper but with Druzin -- another Stripes reporter would be welcome in Mosul, they said. (Army officials in Baghdad offered to let Druzin embed somewhere else.)
In other words, they made it personal. And that is wrong, in just about every way.
Before I go any further, let me say that while I do not know Col. Volesky personally, his public record of service to his country bespeaks a soldier's soldier, one who presently bears huge responsibility in carrying out an extraordinarily tough, dangerous and complex mission in Mosul.
Now serving his third tour in Iraq, Volesky has received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star three times, the Purple Heart, and the Combat Infantryman Badge (twice). He has an advanced degree in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton, studied Arabic at the Defense Language Institute, attended the Command and General Staff College and the Air War College, and once held the post of Chief of Infantry Doctrine at the United States Infantry School. And did I mention he's a Ranger?
Even reporters in Baghdad hold him in high regard, according to Thomas E. Ricks, the veteran military affairs reporter for The Washington Post.
But for all that, Col. Volesky is way wrong on this one.
According to both standard journalism practice and Defense Department policy, military commanders do not get to say which reporters get assigned where, whether they work for Stars and Stripes, The New York Times, MSNBC, the Huffington Post or the Podunk Gazette.
Editors do.
And whether Volesky, Bellard, the soldiers of the 1st Cavalry, the people of Mosul or the readers of Stars and Stripes think Druzin is a good reporter or a bad reporter is a matter of opinion outside the legal and policy framework that governs military-media relations and the assignment of reporters.
In that regard, the only opinion that counts, by practice and by law, is that of Druzin's editors. And they are standing by him and his performance in Iraq. And they want him back in Mosul.

As he notes, it's really not the military brass' decision which reporter an outlet sends. Not noted, but equally true, it's appalling in this alleged 'change' government going on in the US that this matter has been allowed to fester. The White House could have taken care of this with one phone call. That it chose not to says a great deal about it and goes to why they feel the need to staff press conferences with ringers.

Many years ago (the 90s) a friend who was nervous about a taping was on the phone as she waited and watched a segment preceding her own. As someone in the audience ran off at the mouth to Orpah (standing there with the microphone), my friend said over the phone to me, "Someone needs to tell Little Miss Voice of a Generation, sit down." It's hard not to feel that way when reading Erik Leaver and Daniel Atzmon's latest at Foreign Policy In Focus. Specifically: "On November 17, 2008, when Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed an agreement for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, citizens from both countries applauded." Little Miss Voice of a Generation, sit down. Not only did Iraqis not applaud but many Americans didn't either. The treaty masquerading as a SOFA was hugely unpopular in Iraq which is why so many MPs skipped the vote. Skipped the vote on Thanksgiving Day. November 16th was when Nouri's cabinet voted . . . and ten cabinet members skipped that vote. As for it being about withdrawal? Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reported in real time that "the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years." That's all the SOFA did. The UN mandate (covering the occupation) would expire on December 31st. A new agreement was needed (or the UN mandate renewed) or else US forces (as Joe Biden had noted repeatedly) would be forced to leave Iraq. Even then-White House spokesperson Dana Perino didn't try to inflate it the way it would eventually be inflated. November 17th she declared, "One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates." Aspirational. As opposed to "actual." Learn the terminology.

November 27th, Parliament passed it -- leading the White House to finally release the document to the American public (another reason there wasn't mass celebration on November 17th -- does any editor at Foreign Policy In Focus actually have any duties that fall under the role of "editor"?). Parliament passed it. 149 members voted. And how many MPs are there? 275. And Leaver and Atzmon want to act as if the SOFA led to celebrations?

Maybe they have to because Phyllis Bennis embarrassed herself at every forum (including FPIF) acting the fool. She was thrilled, she was excited and she knew nothing, absolutely nothing. When Barack adopted Bush's SOFA, Phyllis was thrilled and even made the blood curling statement that it didn't matter to her if 'withdrawal' took a few months more. Doesn't matter to her? Well she's not serving in Iraq and she has no family serving in Iraq and, apparently, she also lacks both empathy and sympathy. So possibly the distasteful opening of Leaver and Atzmon's article is required because FPIF readers have been hyped on the b.s. treaty and lied to about the treaty?

If you can hold your nose through that opening paragraph, you've got the strongest analysis FPIF has provided on the SOFA or on what Barack's actually doing in Iraq:

The failure to fully comply with the withdrawal agreement indicates the United States is looking to withdraw from Iraq in name only, as it appears that up to 50,000 military personnel will remain after the deadline.
The United States claims it's adhering to the agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), even with so many troops being left in the cities. But the United States is changing semantics instead of policy. For example, there are no plans to transfer the 3,000 American troops stationed within Baghdad at Forward Operating Base Falcon, because commanders have determined that despite its location, it's not within the city.
The original intent of moving troops out of the cities was to reduce the U.S. military role and send the message to Iraqis that the United States would be leaving the country soon. But troops that are no longer sleeping in the cities will still take part in operations within Iraqi cities; they will serve in "support" and "advisory" roles, rather than combat functions. Such "reclassification" of troops as military trainers is another example of how the United States is circumventing the terms of the SOFA agreement.

To get the SOFA through the Parliament, a last minute agreement (and plenty of US strong arming) was made that the Iraqi people would be allowed to vote on the treaty in a national referendum which was supposed to take place next month. It will not take place next month and has now been pushed back to January. In 2008, the White House strong armed to get their way, in 2009 the White House strong arms to get its way. No change you can believe in.

Turning to the topic of the VA, Steve Vogel (Washington Post) reports:

The number of unprocessed disability claims has grown by nearly 100,000 since the beginning of the year and totaled 916,625 as of Saturday, a rise driven in part by increasing numbers of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.), who last week chaired a House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee meeting titled "Can VA Manage One Million Claims?," said the department needs "a cultural and management sea change." Veterans "are waiting to have their claims and appeals processed," Hall said at the hearing last Thursday. "They are waiting for compensation. They are waiting for medical assistance and rehabilitation." That hearing took place Thursday evening and was noted in the June 19th snapshot.

"Any change, any legislative change increases the risk to August 1st," declared the VA's Director from the Office of Education Service Keith Wilson. "There's no question about it. We wouldn't know the full impact until we could sit down and evaluate what the volume of individuals would be."

He was appearing this afternoon before the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and replying to US House Rep John Boozman's question about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which "has those killed on active duty into Chapter Thirty Two, I'm sorry, Chapter Thirty Three would something like that would that cause delay in payment?" Wilson stated anything would. The meeting was about the Post-9-11 GI Bill which requires new payments starting August 1st. US House Rep Harry Teague chaired the subcommittee (filling in for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin) and noted in his opening remarks:

Today we will continue with our series of oversight hearings on the VA's implementation plans for the Post 9-11 GI Bill. It is important that we continue to provide the VA the opportunities to update the subcommittee on their implementation effort for the short-term and long-term solutions. This hearing will also give the VA the opportunity to ask for Congressional assistance if it is required. Since the passage of the Post-9-11 GI Bill, many items of concern have been raised about this very complicated program. I'm sure our Chair and Ranking Member will agree that this Subcommittee will continue to seek answers to the implementation but also veteran outreach, university partnerships and other items of concern. While there was tremendous Congressional support for the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, responsiblity does not end after a bill is signed into law. As our panelists know, this Subcommittee will continue to work with the adminsitration to ensure that our veterans receive their educational benefits in a timely manner.

Ranking Member Boozman noted this was the fifth hearing providing oversight on the implementation of the bill and encouraged the VA to come forward with problems as they arise so they can be addressed.

August 1st is the start date in order to begin making payments for the fall 2009 semesters. These payments, like other government payments, will be issued via computer programs so today's hearing focused on the IT aspects of it.

Keith Wilson was the only witness appearing before the Subcommittee today. He was accompanied by the VA's Stephen W. Warren and Mark Krause. (Warren handled the slide presentation -- he provided the narration of the steps on the flow chart, etc.) Wilson stated that there were two strategies, short-term and long-term. The programs will handle processing and delivering (addressing) the payments and allowing payments to be calculated. This system, however, vanishes December 2010 when a new system replaces it. (That system hasn't been developed yet and will be created with SPAWAR Systems Center.)

Keith Wilson: On May 1, 2009, VA began accepting applications to determine eligibility for the Post- 9-11 GI Bill. We've received more than 75,000 applications, and the RPOs have fully processed approximately 35,000 of these claims. On July 6, 2009, we will start accepting enrollment certifications from school certifying officials and begin processing claims for payment. The first payments will be released by US Treasury Department on August 3, 2009. Approximately 530 claims examiners have been hired under term appointments to support the implementation of the short-term strategy. All employees completed training of Phase 1 of the short-term solutions on June 15th. Phase 2 training started on June 8th and is expected to be complete no later than July 3rd. VA authorized the RPOs to hire 230 additional claims examiners. All of the employees are expected to be on board by August 31, 2009.

Those are hard numbers and in the above and when asked questions, Wilson actually had answers. A rare thing for a witness from the VA. Wilson referenced the VA's GI Bill website as a resource. For those with limited internet access or who would prefer the human interaction, the toll free number is 1-888-GI-BILL-1 or 1-888-442-4551. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has a webpage that gives you a historical overview and also allows you to locate a VFW service officer who can assist veterans with the application process. Those are resource provided by the VFW and they're a resource many veterans may need to consider utilizing because, at present, Wilson stated they were surprised that the applications coming in are not as high as expected (at present, the VA is able to process more applications each day than it is receiving, according to Wilson). Teague noted his surprise at the low number of applicants and suggested stronger outreach efforts may be needed.

US House Rep Harry Teague: You may recall that with the leadership of Ranking Member Boozman, Congress authorized the VA to conduct mass media outreach services. Today I have not been made aware of the VA using mass media as an outreach option. Will you be using mass media such as television or radio to advertise the new GI Bill benefit?

Keith Wilson: We will. We have, underway right now, a acquistion process to bring a, uh, professional media firm on board specifically for that purpose.

One reason for the delay may be that next week the VA will be providing a list of an estimated 700 colleges who will be part of the Yellow Ribbon Program. Wilson explained those colleges would have "a matching contribution program between VA and IHLs to assist eligible veterans in covering tuition expenses that exceed the highest public in-state undergraduate tuition rate." How much is covered is an issue even in good economic times and some may be waiting on the VA to release that date before beginning the application process.

Also on veterans, Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune) reports that US Rep Baron Hill's bill Health Care for Members of the Armed Forces Exposed to Chemical Hazards Act was introduced because of the long, long wait veterans suffering from the effects of Agent Oragne had to go through and he "doesn't want to wait 30 years to address similar problems encountered by veterans of the Iraq War." On the issue of Congress, Kat covered a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing (on Iran) last night.

Farrah Fawcett has passed away and that is a huge loss. 20/20 tonight will feature Barbara Walters reporting on Fawcett's life.

Independent journalist David Bacon, whose latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). , is one of the last labor reporters left in the US. This is the opening to his latest report, "CRIMINALS BECAUSE WE WORKED" (Political Affairs):VERNON, CA (6/18/09) -- The production lines at Overhill Farms move very quickly. Every day for eighteen years Bohemia Agustiano stood in front of the "banda" for eight or nine hours, putting pieces of frozen chicken, rice and vegetables onto plates as they passed in a blur before her. Making the same motions over and over for such a long time, her feet in one place on the concrete floor, had its price. Pains began shooting through her hands and wrists, up her arms to her shoulders.Complaining also had a price, however. "I was reluctant to say anything because of my need," she says. "I have four children. So I preferred to stay hurt, and take pills for it, than to go out on disability." Finally, though, it got too much. She couldn't sleep without pain constantly waking her, and she was moving through a haze of exhaustion. So she went to the company doctor. "He said my nerves were inflamed, and sent me to therapy," she recalls. "I know I have repetitive stress syndrome, but I asked him not to put me on restricted duty, because there is no easy work in production and I knew the company would just send me home. He put me on restrictions anyway, and that's what happened. It didn't change anything, and eventually I had to go back to my job. It still hurts to work." It might seem hard to understand that a job like this is worth trying to keep. But being out of work is worse. On May 31 254 people, including Agustiano, were fired. Their crime? According to Overhill Farms, they had bad Social Security numbers. Behind this accusation is the unspoken assumption that the workers' numbers are no good because they have no legal immigration status. Every day Agustiano and the fired workers are out in front of the company's two plants on East Vernon Avenue, in an industrial enclave in southeast Los Angeles, trying to fight their way back onto those speeding production lines.

iraqthe los angeles timesned parkersaif hameed
the new york times
alissa j. rubinduraid adnanthe washington postanthony shadid
dana milbank
the times of londonalice fordhammcclatchy newspapersmike tharpsahar issa
gina chonthe wall street journal
ernesto londono
joe struppjill kuraitisstars and stripes
david bacon

gordo brown. thomas penny and robert hutton (bloomberg news) report:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown backed down on a plan to increase taxpayer funding for the pensions of British lawmakers on the eve of a vote in the House of Commons, an indication that his authority is slipping away.
A spokesman for Brown said last night that his Labour government would not stand in the way of opposition calls to freeze the pension at last year’s level. Hours earlier, his office defended the proposal to increase the Treasury’s contribution to the pension funds by 7 percent.

when gordo had to beg and grovel to stay on as prime minister, it was over right then and there. he maintained his post - at least until the elections - but he's got no power. he's powerless.

at least until the elections?

i'm not saying new labour will lose. i have no idea how the elections - months from now - will go. i'm saying that even if new labour stays in power, gordon's gone.

he's the blood in the water that the sharks circle.

tom whitehead (telegraph of london - link has text and video) reports on the push to have gordon testify before the iraq inquiry:

The Tories believe Mr Brown should be questioned because, as Chancellor in 2003, he was a senior member of the Cabinet and "in control of the purse strings".
Mr Brown faced suggestions at the time that he had reservations over the war but he publicly backed it and has done so ever since.
However, being questioned now over his stance and involvement with a general election looming could prove uncomfortable timing for the premier.

so will he be forced to testify? how about forced to testify in public?

he's the prime minister, why would he have anything to hide?

shouldn't he be leading by example?

andrew grice (guardian) adds this:

Today's Spectator magazine claims Lord Mandelson extracted a promise of a private inquiry to shield Mr Blair as the price for helping Mr Brown see off the attempt by Labour MPs to oust him. The magazine says : "Brown was instructed to ensure that the members of the inquiry would, in the words of one official, 'not stir the horses'."
William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, described Downing Street's handling of the inquiry as a "monumental mess." The Government's series of U-turns were as "painful as watching a learner driver do a six-point turn having started the wrong way down the motorway." Mr Hague said: "The Government's handling of this issue means that as things currently stand the inquiry starts its work with far less credibility in the eyes of the public or Parliament than it should really have had."
The senior Tory MP Michael Mates, a member of the 2004 Butler inquiry into the intelligence failings before the war, said regime change in Iraq "loomed very large" during legal arguments at the top of the Government in the run up to the invasion and that he had seen papers circulating between ministers that would make people's "eyes water".
Several Labour MPs criticised the disarray over the investigation and urged ministers to end the confusion over how much of the inquiry would be heard in public. Labour's Andrew Mackinlay said: "The problem is the Prime Minister. The fact is that he doesn't understand that he doesn't understand."

okay, last night's posts:


Cedric's Big Mix
Barack caught in another lie
9 hours ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! LIAR, LIAR CIGS ON FIRE!
9 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
DMZ: The Hidden War
9 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Warren Ellis' No Hero, ACLU
9 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
gordon brown, wonder woman
9 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ
G.B. Trudeau Talk to the Hand!
9 hours ago

Ruth's Report
Naoki Urasawa's Monster
9 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
Heroes Volume Two
9 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz
Mark Evanier's Mad Art
9 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Re-Gifters
9 hours ago


i had fun in participating in the theme post and i had fun reading the posts every 1 else wrote. be sure to check them out if you haven't already. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, June 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordon Brown's made another U-turn, Baghdad rocked by violence, at a US Congressional hearing the VA yet again embarrasses itself, and that June 30th 'deadline'? Not so much.

Starting in England with the planned inquiry into the Iraq War. "As the prime minister said last week," Foreign Minister David Miliband declared in the House of the Commons today, tapping the table twelve times for emphasis, "it is not an inquiry that has been set up to establish civil or criminal liability. It is not a judicial inquiry. Everything beyond that is within it's remit. It can uh praise or blame whoever it likes. It is free to write its own report at every stage." [BBC has a clip here currently.] The House of Commons debated many topics including the Iraq inquiry. BBC News live blogged it here. The Daily Mail dubs it the latest "U-turn" from Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet: "It is the latest climbdown on the inquiry, which was only unveiled by the Prime Minister last week as he attempted to restore his authority." Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) also calls it a U-turn and observes, "After watching David Miliband open today's debate on the subject in the Commons this afternoon, I've counted at least five U-turns." Sparrow then reviews the five U-turns. U-turn was also the phrase shadow foreign secretary William Hague used (BBC has clip here): "A U-Turn executed in stages as painful to watch as a learner driver doing a six-point turn, having started off the wrong way down the motorway. And they have performed this U-turn by getting the chairman of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, to announce changes we have all been demanding but to announce them himself so that no minister has had to come back to the House and admit that the government were in the wrong. Indeed Sir John is now -- I will give way in a moment -- indeed sir John is now busily engaged in the very process of consultation with opposition parties and other -- others -- that a prime minister doing his job properly would have carried out before hand."

In addition to the issue of apportioning blame, Philippe Naugton (Times of London) highlights another issue about the inquiry that was raised during the debate, "Mr Miliband was also pressed by MPs from all sides on how the inquiry could take evidence on oath -- as Mr Brown had said he hoped it would -- if it was not established on a statutory footings. The Foreign Secretary eventually told them: 'I am reliably informed that you don't need a statutory power to administer an oath'." Ian Dunt and Alex Stevenson (Politics.co.uk) report that the debate followed a motion put forward by the Conservative Party that the inquiry be a public one. BBC reports the vote was 260 for a public inquiry and 299 against. Joe Murphy (Evening Standard) notes that Milband also "confirmed that Tony Blair will be questioned in public about his role" and that Hague promised if his party wins the upcoming elections (his party is the Conservative party) they will "beef up" the inquiry Brown's proposing if it has not finished its work (the report from the commission will not be released until after the election -- whether or not it will be finished with the investigation before the election has not been addressed).

A lengthy exchange can be found here (YouTube) in an ITN video. Here are two excerpts:

William Hague: We said that the membership of the inquiry, while encompassing people we have no call to criticize seem to us to be too narrow and that in particular some experience of ministerial office was desirable. And the following Monday my right honorable friend, the leader of the opposition, also made the point that military experience was desirable. And we further pointed out that the inquiry as proposed by the government consisted of four nominees -- none of whom was a woman. The government went a small way to meeting a part of these objections by adding Baroness Prasha to the inquiry membership. And I hope the Foreign Secretary will also acknowledge that his statement on the Today program -- that these five people were approached and then the cabinet secretary went to talk to the opposition parties -- was also inaccurate. Because the fifth, Baroness Prasha, was only added when it was pointed out to ministers that they proposed an inquiry to narrow in its membership.

David Miliband: At various points there have been allegations, for example, that the inquiry would not be able to look at the run-up to the war or the decisions in Basra in 2006 to 2008. These concerns, Mr. Speaker, are not well founded. The Chilcot inquiry has the widest possible remit. The committee will be free not just to examine all the evidence as I will document below but also do what it considers to be the most important issues the scope is deliberately not limited. As the prime minister said last week no inquiry has looked at such a long period and no inquiry has the powers to look in so much breadth. Second, Mr. Speaker, independence. The prime minister wrote Sir John Chilcot on the 17th of June assuring him of the government's commitment to a thorough and independent inquiry Sir John confirms in his repo - reply of the 21st of June, "I welcome the fact that I and my colleagues are free to decide independently how to -- how best to fulfill our remit.

The Socialist Party issued the following statement by Sean Figg:

There are many unanswered questions surrounding the invasion: the Blair government's rush to war, twisting and turning to justify an attack on Iraq, using the most spurious of arguments to get the invasion they had already decided upon. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed as a result, along with over 4,600 US, British and other coalition soldiers. Massive destruction and devastation has also been wrought on Iraq.
Brown has tried to pose the inquiry as part of a new 'openness' in politics following the MPs' expenses scandal. But given his initial stance that the inquiry should be behind closed doors, clearly Brown is still unsure exactly what 'openness' means!
There has since been an 'establishment rebellion' amongst MPs, civil servants, and top military brass over a secret inquiry. In response, Brown announced a partial retreat last week asking the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, to consider opening a few sessions to the public - far from a complete climbdown.
The truth is that on Iraq, Brown is in up to his neck. He still has everything to lose from an 'open' inquiry. He voted for the invasion, was part of Blair's war cabinet and has been a consistent supporter of the occupation. Brown could point to the reduction of British troops in Iraq since he took over as prime minister to try and improve his image, if he wasn't for escalating the war in Afghanistan instead!
The news that Tony Blair had intervened in an attempt to keep any inquiry secret will anger people further.
But even if there is a fully open inquiry, its chairman Sir John Chilcot - chairman of the Police Federation and a member of the unelected, unaccountable Privy Council - is clearly part of the establishment. And when establishment figures are left to investigate other establishment figures, even if not directly involved in the events they are investigating, there are still many vested interests in ensuring not too much damage is done.
And while an inquiry may bury itself in details of government shenanigans, the real motives for the war - securing oil resources and geopolitical control of the region by western imperialism - will be conveniently ignored.

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has declared, "We need an independent process to decide exactly what evidence is heard in private. This decision should not be down to the whims of Prime Ministers past and present. The burden of proof must be on the Government to demonstrate a clear impact on national security of specific evidence before any session can be held in private." Anne McElvoy (This is London) observed this morning, "The PM has havered and obscured his own position on Iraq because he did not want to pick a fight with Mr Blair at the time or, more cynically, concluded as the UN resolution unravelled, that the fallout was more likely to precipitate his predecessor's time in office than extend it and so kept shtoom. It is, when you consider the breadth of Mr Brown's other international interests and emphasis on the the 'big picture', an odd thing not to have a position on -- even now. What do you remember the Prime Minister saying at all about Iraq since the war? Nope, me neither." The Stop the War Coalition has issued a call for a full inquiry:

Nothing less than a full public inquiry into Iraq war
Contact your MP: We need a full public inquiry. Write, phone, fax your MP. Download letter . . . The revelation that Tony Blair -- who led Britain into the illegal war in Iraq -- is behind Gordon Brown's decision to hold an inquiry in secret won't surprise the anti-war movement and will further fuel the anger of MPs, peers, military leaders, former civil servants and bereaved families appallbed by the plan to hear evidence in private. Read more. . . . No surprise either that a leaked memo proves that Tony Blair met with George Bush in January 2003 to hatch a plot to go to war, whatever the United Nations decided. Read more . . . . A full public inquiry would reveal the secrets and lies in Blair's rush to war. What chance of that with Brown's inquiry panel of four knights and a baroness, some of whom were pro war?



ITN News reports that a Baghdad bombing in Sadr City has claimed at least 52 lives and left one-hundred-and-four more people injured. The Telegraph of London adds, "The blast shook the predominantly Shia district of Sadr City, a slum that is home to supporters of the firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr." They also state that the bomb was on "a motorcyle rickshaw which had been loaded with explosives hidden underneath its load of vegetables." BBC quotes their correspondent Jim Muir stating the neighborhood "has been struck often and provocatively in the past." CNN updates the death toll to 55 and the number injured to one-hundred-and-sixteen. Al Jazeera cites an unnamed official with the Interior Ministry stating the bomber fled his motorcycle before the bomb went off. When the death toll rose to 56, AP was calling it the third worst bombing of the year in Iraq (based on the death toll). AP counts the dead in Saturday's Kirkuk bombing at 72 (the highest of the year) and then falls back to April 24th's suicide bombings in Baghdad with 71 dead. Sattar Rahim (Reuters) is reporting the death toll has reached 72 which would put it at the second deadliest. The death toll may continue to rise. Alice Fordham (Times of London) reports, "Today's blast came after a spokesman for the US military in Iraq told reporters that after June 30, some US soldiers will remain at posts called Joint Security Stations to train and advise local security forces." The military spokesperson making that declaration was Brig Gen Steve Lanza.

The June 30th 'deadline' calls for US troops to be out of all Iraqi cities. And that's not happening. Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported that months ago -- explaining how, in Baghdad, the sprawling military bases would be overlooked and the 'deadline' fudged. Nordland reports this morning on attempts to explore Anbar Province, supposedly newly safe, and notes that before the police commander Tarqi al-Youssef would allow a reporter to visit "only after the general ordered dozens of Provincial Security Force troops to clear the streets and rooftops first." That's Falluja. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on Kirkuk:

The Iraqi army major, a Kurd, didn't know what hit him. Col. David Paschal, the 6'6" commander of the 10th Mountain Division based in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk last year, had taken off the diplomatic gloves. As tea and soft drinks were served by fawning subordinates, the major almost preened in his easy chair. The top-ranked American soldier in the area had come to visit HIM. After a few minutes of pleasantries--the Arabic translated by Paschal's female Lebanese interpreter--the officer from Chicago leaned forward in his seat. Rawboned hands as big as those of former Bulls defensive ace Jerry Sloan clasped themselves together, as if trying to avoid making fists. His usual command voice grew even louder. He demanded to know why 200 Sunni Arab inductees had been turned away the previous week by the major. The major started to explain about not enough trucks and lack of bunks and..."Bull! I know why," the colonel thundered. "Because they were Sunni! We can't have that here. We need every soldier we can get."

Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports on the problems in Mosul where the US military insists that attacks "have been cut by more than half with far fewer of the devastating suicide bombs and car bombs that hav been the hallmark of Sunni insurgents. But smaller attacks -- three to four a day -- have become the backdrop of daily life here." And to bring that back to today's news from Brig Gen Steve Lanza that US forces will not all be leaving Mosul, Sunday Jane Arraf reported US forces might not leave Mosul and quoted Col Gary Volesky stating, "We're waiting for a final decision, and we're prepared to execute whater they tell us to execute."


In some of today's other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left two people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left ten people injured, a Mosul bombing which wounded eight people, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left five people injured, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left four people wounded and "Insurgent Yaseen Salam died Wednesday when an IED he was planting in Rashad neighborhood exploded while he was handling it."

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 guard for the ministry of Labour and Social Affairs was injured by sniper fire. Reuters notes 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse (female, shot in "the head and chest) was discovered in Mosul.

This afternoon in DC, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee's DAMA Subcommittee held a hearing. Subcommittee Chair John Hall opened the hearing by allowing US House Rep Joe Donnelly to offer his statements -- as part of the first panel -- because he had another commitment.

US House Rep Deborah Halvorson spoke, as part of the first panel, on behalf of the legislation she is sponsoring (HR 2774, the Families of Veterans Financial Security Act" whic would allow veterans to receive Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) for two years. This takes place at present; however, it is set to expire shortly. Halvorson's legislation makes the two years permanent and in need of no additional legislation to renew it.

Subcommittee Chair John Hall: I would like to ask -- well it seems to make a lot of sense of course to permanently extend the coverage for SGLI for two years since service members who are disabled are going through a very difficult and trying time. Have you had any feedback from service members or their families who have benefitted from this coverage and what did they think?

US House Rep Deborah Halvorson: Well what I've heard -- and we're talking here about service related, totally disabled veterans and these are the veterans that often can't find any other commercially offered insurance -- and I have a veterans' advisory committee and this is one of the things that came to my attention as something that they find very, very important as they're making these informed decisions with their family.

The second panel was composed of Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors' Bonnie Carroll and Disabled American Veteran's Joe Wilson. Wilson noted DAV supported Donnley's bill and had no objections to Halvorson. Joe Donnelly's proposed legislation addresses out of date tables being used today, specifically a 1941 mortality chart used to set premiums -- a table that has continued to be used despite being out of date.

US House Rep Ann Kirkpatrik arrived as Wilson and Carroll were breifly speaking and, following the second panel being dismissed, Kirkpatrik proposed legislation is HR 20968 and she explained:

I introduced this bill with Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina to do just one thing: To make the group life insurance offered to veterans and service members both fairer and more consistent with commercial life insurance Under both veterans groups' life insurance and service members' group life insurance, when a veteran or a service member is terminally ill, they can elect to receive up to half of their coverage while they are still alive. They can use this accelerated benefits option to pay medical bills, improve their quality of life or in any way they see it. However, current regulations require VGLI and SGLI to decrease the pay-out these veterans and service members collect by a percentage based on the prevailing interest rates. In recent years, this has amounted to a decrease in as much as $6,000. By contrast, most commercial life insurance policies that allow ABO withdrawals do not decrease this pay-out to claimants. We can and must do better for our veterans. This simple, common sense, bipartisan bill removes this deduction so that we might better serve terminally ill veterans and service members at the most financially vulnerable time for them and their families. Removing this deduction can be accomplished using the life insurance premium veterans and service members currently pay. This means that we can accomplish this important change without any additional cost to veterans service members or tax payers and without pay-go implications.

The third panel's only witness was the VA's Thomas Lostowka. He insisted that VGLI is competative with private practice and that everyone raises their premiums every five years -- every one. VA's raising has to do with the mortality table, remember that? Subcommittee Chair Hall wanted to know why a 1941 mortality table was being used and Lostowka agreed that it was out of date but insisted there would be a "higher cost to government if you were to change the table at this time." So when could the table be changed? According to Lostowka, never.

The father of a veteran who had traveled to DC for the hearing stopped us (Wally, Ava, Kat and myself) to ask why Lostowka knew so little? He shared that if someone was coming to offer opinions on proposed legislation -- as Lostowka was -- it seemed to him they should be able to answer basic questions. That is not a minor point and it's one that can be made whenever VA sends witnesses (I think we've made it here). His House Rep sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee but not the Subcommittee and he intended to raise that issue with his rep's staff. It's a question the White House and Congress should be raising with the VA. The embarrassingly poor performance of Lostowka's was all the worse when you grasp that he felt the need to "brag" (his word) on the VA and to pat himself on the back stating "so we're doing quite a good job." No, Lostowka, you're not and you might need to meet with the families of veterans if you don't grasp that.

In the US yesterday, Barry O gave another press conference. One that avoided covering the Iraq War or even mentioning it. Helene Cooper and Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times) live blogged it. We'll note this:
A Brief Wrap 1:33 p.m. Helene Cooper: Well, Sheryl, he really ramped it up on Iran. We heard the president use the word "condemn" for the first time since the Iranian elections to describe the government's actions. It will be interesting to see what comes next from Tehran in response.Sheryl Stolberg: Yes, I was struck especially by his last answer to Suzanne Malveaux about the "heartbreaking" video. He showed more passion than earlier in the press conference. And speaking of passion, I was also struck by the way Mr. Obama seemed irritated with reporters at various times during this news conference. The cigarette question seemed to really get under his skin. He rarely loses his cool, but there were more flashes of anger here than in the past."Heartbreaking." Some in the US might think the people dying in Iraq are "heartbreaking" but apparently, without video, it's no big deal to Barack. While Barry O had time to market the next war, he had no time for Iraq:It's Over 1:31 p.m. Sheryl Stolberg: Mr. Obama leaves the room. "No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?" a reporter cries out. The question hangs in the air. It does seem amazing, not a single question for the American president about the nation's two wars.He didn't have time for Iraq. But he had time for a planted question as Dana Milbank (Washington Post) explains. Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box (Huff & Puff) was contacted by the White House. They invited Nico Pitney to the show:They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian." Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room. Barry O wants to decry Iran . . . from his staged press conference?A sign of how pathetic Panhandle Media is, you won't find that as the lead item on any Pacifica programming, you won't find it decried at The Nation, et al this morning. Bill Clinton, whom Panhandle Media chose to demonize, got a similar approach during the 90s. He could have handled a push back and probably would have had stronger terms in office if there had been one. Instead it was kid's gloves. So realize, kiddies, this story you're being read aloud? It has the same ending. Eight years from now the same people who've been silent will be screaming their heads off about how Barack did this or did that but, in real time, when it mattered, they didn't say or do a damn thing. Excuse me. That's not true. They begged for money. Endlessly, they begged for money. Always they begged for you to send money. Anything to stop from having to work a real job. The same programs and magazines and websites that rightly called out staged events by Bully Boy Bush now fall strangely silent providing a text book example of "situational ethics."

Many of those same outlets have wasted our time with the nonsense from the PR group "Save Darfur" -- Amy Goodman would be the prime example there and she's refused to book Keith Harmon Snow for over three years now but she's not interested in guests who call out the nonsense but she has repeatedly booked propagandists for the advertising 'activists'. Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) continues the strong work he's done on his own (and with Glen Ford and Ford's done some on his own as well) exposing Save Darfur:

A hundred years ago, in the Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. DuBois observed that "...the country's appetite for facts on the Negro question has been spoiled by sweets." If he was around today, DuBois could say the same for America's appetite for facts on Darfur, Sudan, the rest of Africa, Iraq, and most of the world. Facts are messy things. Facts come with historical contexts and uncertain consequences. Eternal truths, like good vs. evil are sweet like candy, simple and comforting.
Since its founding in 2004, the Save Darfur Coalition has spent tens of millions on a state of the art advertising campaign to paint us a picture that is exactly that. Sweet and simple, easy to understand, and most of all, we get to be the good guys. Darfur is, to use Samantha Power's phrase, "a problem from hell," a piece of pure, unambiguous evil in which the global power of the US can be put to use constructively, because stopping a genocide calls for action, not for politics. Stopping genocide, we are told, is above politics. The lesson of genocide is that great powers must act, people of conscience and good will must intervene.
There are several problems with this, both as a general proposition, and specifically as it applies to Darfur. In the first place genocide is defined as the attempt to wipe out a nation or a people. There is so little evidence that mass killings on the scale necessary to be called genocide have occurred in Darfur that back in 2007, Save Darfur's UK operation was prohibited from using the figure of 400,000 dead that routinely appears in its advertisements in the US. Britain has a government truth-in-advertising agency called the Advertisement Standards Authority. They looked at Save Darfur's massive death toll. They took into account a 2006 US General Accounting Office report in which GAO assembled a number of death and casualty estimates, high and low for Darfur, and summoned a panel of experts to determine which were accurate.
The GAO study [1] found the low estimates of 50 to 70 thousand dead from a variety of causes including disease and starvation due to desertification on all sides of the conflict to be more accurate than the high estimates of 200 to 400 thousand by direct armed violence on one side alone claimed by Save Darfur. The GAO report maintained that the peak death toll occurred in 2004 and early 2005 and had been trending downward since. This was compelling enough evidence for Britain to ban the inflammatory claims that Save Darfur still makes with impunity in the US, which has no truth in advertising laws.
African scholar Mahmood Mamdani [2] has traveled extensively for many weeks in Sudan and Darfur as part of the African Union's Dialog for Darfur project, interviewing officials, activists and ordinary people on all sides of the conflict. In a talk at Howard University on March 20, 2009 [3] he reported that only days before, the general in charge of the African Union's peacekeeping forces in Darfur pegged the death toll for the entire year in and around the refugee camps at a mere 1,500. While the deaths of 50 to 70 thousand people several years ago on multiple sides of an armed conflict are a grievous matter, not to be minimized or brushed aside, they don't count as the ongoing genocide of helpless civilians.

iraqbbc newsanne mcelvoythe new york timeshelene coopersheryl gay stolbergthe washington postdana milbank
the times of londonalice fordham
rod nordlandmcclatchy newspapersmike tharpjane arraf
bruce dixon

so gordon brown made a fool of himself yet again today. this time he appears to think the way to get his way on the inquiry is to either strongly hint or let slip secrets. listen or read the exchange (c.i.'s got it in the snapshot which i'll post at the end) and see if it doesn't sound like gordon's saying 'i can't tell you that ___ helped with the war effort but if i'm forced to do a public hearing we'll all know.' that's really what it sounds like and you have to wonder which mideast countries he could be referring to?

my guesses would be turkey (which did take coalition forces money to allow fly overs but then said 'no fly obers'), jordan (because jordan has so many ties to the west) and saudi arabia because the royal family is way too close to the west (and treats their own subjects like dirt).

now i have no idea who gordo's referring to; however, those were my 1st thoughts.

now think about some thing else. i was talking with c.i. about this tonight. gordo's a liar.

if i've just shocked you, you haven't been paying attention, now have you?

but he's a liar.

so, in order to save his own ass, could you picture him lying?

i so could. soooooo could.

so my point here is if that he may be attempting to lie his way out and imagine if there was some sort of retaliation against a country because they thought gordo was naming it and it turned out that gordo lied and it had not helped england & coalition forces. wouldn't that be something.

see what i mean.

and i could see gordo lying. that would be typical gordon brown.

okay we have theme posts tonight and it's comics.

i claimed wonder woman and, had i realized any 1 else was grabbing her, i would have taken a pass. especially since kat was planning to do her. kat's on the road and has limited amount of time. i have much more time than she does.

so if i had known she was planning to grab wonder woman, i would have grabbed something else. when i found out, i called her only to learn that she had already bought a graphic novel earlier today and that she was going to write about that.

wonder woman is the amazon princess.

princess diana.

when she leaves paradise island and goes to the united states, she goes by the name diana prince.

she has super human strength. she has a lasso that can force some 1 to tell the truth. she has a tiara that's like a bommer rang. she can deflect bullets with her braclets of steel. she has an invisible plane. she can run at an amazing speed. she can't fly but she can hop currents which is similar.

i think i've covered all her powers, i hope so any way.

wonder woman's been around since world war 2. and she is probably the most famous and most liked female comic super hero. she is certainly the most enduring.

she was 1 of the 1st to have her own comic book and she's still in print today. most comic characters cannot say that - male or female. so that's a real accomplishment.

i read wonde woman when i was growing up, read her religiously.

and i always check in on her.

i'm often surprised.

in the 70s and 80s, in addition to having her own comic book, she was also featured in d.c.'s world finest. that's where i was shocked to come across poison ivy for the 1st time.

wonder woman is usually a member of the justice league of america and appears in those comics. and did back then. but in world's finest, she would have her own story. just to clear that up.

in the 90s, i pick up a comic and, bam, she's become storm from x-men.

in the 70s, i picked up a comic and she had no super powers. i think she was an astronaut or something. no wonder woman costume, no powers and not much to read. (she did know martial arts.)

so it's always a surprise to pick up a copy of her comics. it's like turning on the tv to your favorite soap that you haven't seen in months and saying, 'how the heck did that happen?'

so what's happened now is that, in the current wonder woman comic, there's a new villain named genocide.

genocide is actually princess diana or all of her negative energy.

and the magic lasso is wound through genocide's body which allows genocide to read people's minds.

genocide is also part of an underworld plot to take on the gods and destroy the earth. the god of war is trying to unleash full blown chaos.

etta candy (yes, diana's friend is back) has been badly injured by genocide and may die.

every 1 diana knows is being threatened and harmed.

she has to go up against genocide which is going up against herself.

and although genocide is the dark side of diana, the negative energy, she has to explore the dark side herself as she battles genocide and wonders what she stands for now. it's really getting deep at points.

the look of the comic is strong and i like her hair best as done today.

however ...

the costume. i have never cared for the 2 w's over her breasts. i never minded the eagle.

i grasp that some might see it as rah-rah u.s.a. if she had an eagle but, at this late date in her history, i think anything she does says that.

her hair today actually reminds me of donna troy's hair in the late 70s. donna troy is wonder girl of the teen titans. at 1 point (origins always get changed), diana had saved donna and taken her to paradise island.

i know that not because of my amazing memory (ha! i have a lousy memory) but because i still have the 7-11 cup. d.c. comics did these series of plastic cups at 7-11 and i got 1 and ended up having to do the entire series. same thing with the pizza in glasses (glass, not plastic) of the d.c. comic superheroes.

and donna troy's backstory is on the back of the wonder girl cup.

okay the current wonder woman series is written by gail simone and drawn by aaron lopresti with matt ryan inking. here's the cover of the most recent issue.




if you've enjoyed the wonder woman comics at any point, now might be a good time to check in.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, June 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordo Brown gets chatty, a woman from Duluth attempts to steer attention to the plight of Iraqi refugees, Stars and Stripes fights attempts by the US army to censor it, Germany's investigation into its involvement in the Iraq War is a whitewash, and more.

Starting in England where Prime Minister Gordon Brown remains desperate and eager to spin. Today he gave a highly confusing interview to BBC Radio 4's World at One in which he meant to say that there would be a scope for people to provide testimony but he actually stated there was no scope for it and in which he appeared to hint that Mid-East countries surrounding Iraq would be harmed from a public inquiry because they had been working with England on the Iraq War.

Gordon Brown: The Iraq inquiry was always going to be difficult because we're looking at, uhm, eight years of -- of events. We're looking at the causes of the conflict, what happened during the conflict, we're looking at the reconstruction that's taking place after the conflict. And there are many, many views on this and it has been a very controversial issue for Britain over a period of -- a period of time. I want that review to able to take all the evidence that is -- that is necessary, including having before it the security information, the confidential information. We've got to be careful, of course, about our relationships with other countries and what is made public about our relationships for examples with countries in the region which have got to be strong after the inquiry as well. But I think we've got to position with Sir John Chilcot where he has written to me yesterday saying he sees some hearings that we could do in public consistent with national security. He has responded to my invitation that he take into account the needs of the family. He has also responded to my invitation that as chairman of the inquiry he looks at whether there's an oath or some kind of undertaking on giving evidence. And I think -- I think we're making progress on an inquiry that I hope for the public is not just to get to the truth of what's happened -- that's important. It's also to learn lessons and lessons I think the whole public wants to learn what happened during that period.

Shaun Ley: But it looks as though you have been forced into a change of position by the reaction. A week ago you told the House of Commons you wanted the evidence to be heard in private for the reasons you've just outlined. Then you get people like Lord Butler saying this will add to mistrust, John Major says people will perceive it as a whitewash, John Chilcot writes to you and you respond and say 'actually I accept your advice as much as possible should be held in public.'

Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.

Shaun Ley: And they get --

Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.

Shaun Ley: -- a sense then that --

Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.

Shaun Ley: -- perhaps the public's mood on this kind of issue.

Gordon Brown: Hold on. You --you've got to put what happened in its proper, uh, context.

Shaun Ley: I'm trying to do that.

Gordon Brown: I, uh, I actually wrote to Sir John Chilcot my-myself. I asked him, as chairman of the inquiry, to consider a number of issues related to the conduct of the inquiry -- some of the issues that you've just raised.

Shaun Ley: But after you made your statement to the MPs.

Gordon Brown: Yes, but I said at the time that I was inviting Sir John Chilcot to talk to all the leaders of the parties and all the chairman of the select committees, and that we were going to have a process of consultation with them about the conduct of the inquiry. So Sir John Til--Chilcot looks at the thoughts I put to him -- including thoughts about how we deal with the vex question of how the families are properly consulted and do they want to -- to give evidence in private or public. and rightly Sir John Chilcot then replies to me. I'm trying to find a way to get an inquiry that can satisfy people that we're doing everything in our power to get to the truth while at the same time I think everybody understands because people were asking for a Franks-style inquiry and Franks meant

Shaun Ley: On the Falklands War.

Gordon Brown: Yes you've got to take into account national security considerations and that you've got serving military --

Shaun Ley: Indeed.

Gordon Brown: -- who want to give evidence want to give evidence sometimes in private.

Shaun Ley: At what point did you refer to this question of the giving evidence on oath? Will that in your view now happen? Does that have to happen? Does that need to happen?

Gordon Brown: Well Sir John Chilcot has written back to me -- I requested this -- he's written back to me. He is suggesting that he does think there's a way that people can give at least an undertaking that what they're saying is truthful and complete and full and I think that's --

Shaun Ley: So not a kind of hand on the Bible or hand on the Crown kind of thing?

Gordon Brown: You see, the -- the point of this inquiry --

Shaun Ley: An honorable statement saying I am giving truthful evidence.

Gordon Brown: Of course, yes. The point of this inquiry, this was an eight-year-long uh episode in -- in British history, our troops are just leaving Iraq, it is ripe to learn the lessons. Now I think the way we're doing it allows those people that have got something to say sometimes that is confidential or effects our relationships with other countries to be able to say it directly to Chilcot he then has the chance to look at all the papers the security papers as well as confidential and private papers but at the same time there is no scope for people to give evidence in public if that is -- if that is what he chooses.

Note that the program is only available for the next seven days. Tom Whitehead (Telegraph of London) notes that Brown's backtracking (prior to the interview -- the interview was only more backtracking) was "further humilitation" and that Conservative Party members are saying the New Labour prime minister is doing a "U-turn in slow motion". At the US Socialist Worker, Mark Steel offers his thoughts on the inquiry:It's unlikely anything so interesting will come out of the inquiry into the Iraq war announced by Gordon Brown. Because it will be held entirely in secret, and is not allowed to "apportion blame," as this will prevent the inquiry being "clogged up by expensive lawyers."
Apparently, this will encourage those called to be "more candid" about their behavior. So why not change the whole legal system for similar reasons? Murderers would be so much more candid in a trial if they weren't weighed down by the thought of their comments being made public. "Between you and me I strangled the lot of them," they'd laugh, whereas once they're in that big room with lawyers and blame getting in the way they're bound to clam up. How much quicker the law could be resolved without all that paraphernalia of cross-examining and working out who was telling the truth and other money-wasting nonsense. Just ask someone whether they did it, and if they say "Not really," or "I had to kill them because I'd heard they had some destructive weapons," the judge could say, "Well, that's pretty much cleared it up--who's next?"

This Wednesday, the Stop the War Coalition is rallying Wednesday. "Protest at parliament against holding Iraq enquiry in private" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports the demonstration will be "outside parliament at 2pm this Wednesday, demanding 'No Whitewash, No Cover Up', in the Iraq enquiry." Independent Catholic News notes that Justice and Peace groups have created a petition "to urge MPs to vote in favour of a public enquiry." Click here for the petition.

Meanwhile in Germany, a whitewash has concluded. Deutsche Welle reports the nation's investigation into "whether former chancellor [Gerhard] Schroeder helped oust Saddam Hussein" -- an investigation that's taken three years, heard from 140 witnesses, produced a final report that numbers 2,500 pages -- was unable to "clear up key questions" and had only "meagre results." If that judgment seems harsh, it's not my judgment. It's Seigfried Kauder's judgment and Kauder was the committee chair of the investigation. Friday The Local reported that "the parliamentary investigation split along party lines over whether [Frank-Walter] Steinmeier had been truthful when he said that Germany's help to US forces consisted only of intelligence on how to avoid bombing civilian targets." The amount of pressure put on the British inquiry ahead of it commencing will determine how much of a whitewash it is or isn't.

Gordon Brown has additional troubles and they could end up being big problems for the US government. As Rebecca explained last night, May 2007 saw five British citizens kidnapped and held hostage. Over two years ago. Two turned up over the weekend and they were dead. The families are outraged. As Rebecca points out:

had the british government tried anything (diplomacy or force) and it gone bad, you could say, 'well they tried.' you could be miserable over the results but you knew they were acting.instead, gordon brown took the attitude that he could just ignore the hostages. that's what he did and that's why he wanted the families to be silent. not to protect the hostages but to keep them nameless so england wouldn't be able to put a name to each 1 and demand their safe return.

He did nothing. Two are dead. The other three? No one knows at this point. What is known is that the US negotiated with terrorists. That does happen and it's not uncommon. But they did so for the five British citizens. In fact, they released two men, two brothers, thought to be the ringleaders in an assault on a US base in Iraq in which five US service members were killed. They released these two suspected ringleaders and the deal was supposed to be that the organization the brothers belonged to released the five British hostages. Thus far only two have been released and they were dead. Should all five prove to be dead, look for extreme outrage over an action the US government has been able to semi-quiet up to this point.

Staying with the topic of US clampdowns, Heath Druzin is an American journalist employed by Stars & Stripes. You might think he'd easily be able to embed with US troops in Iraq but that was not the case. David Axe (Wired) reports the US army said no and did so "in part, because he 'refused to highlight' good news on previous stints with the military." Terry Leonard, the editorial director of Stars & Stripes, declares this is "censorship." (I agree with him.) Stars & Stripes is reporting on the refusal to allow Druzin to report:

Officials said Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour because, among other things, he wrote in a March 8 story that many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and hand over security tasks to Iraqi forces.
"Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news," Major Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin's embed request.
Bellard also alleged that Druzin used quotes out of context, "behaved unprofessionally" and persisted in asking Army officials for permission to use a computer to file a story during a communications-blackout period.
Additionally, Col. Gary Volesky, the 3rd Brigade's commander, asserted that Druzin "would not answer questions about stories he was writing."
Terry Leonard, editorial director of Stars and Stripes, said Druzin's reporting in Mosul had been consistently accurate and fair and he denied all of the Army's allegations. Leonard noted, for example, that reporters are not required to answer a commander's questions about their plans for future stories.
He said the newspaper had spent more than three weeks appealing Druzin's banishment to senior commanders in Iraq as well as public affairs officials at the Pentagon, but had been repeatedly rebuffed.


In other news, Thameen Kheetan (Jordan Times via California Chronicle) reports on Iraqi refugees noting that Amman was where the the World Refugee Day 2009 Film Festival kicked off at the start of this week and two films on Iraqi refugees are part of the festival. Nada Doumani interviews four Iraqi refugees for Errant Home. Iraq has external (outside of the country) refugees and internal (displaced within Iraq) ones. Michelle Naar-Obed is an American citizen attempting to raise awareness for Iraq's internal renfugees. David Cowardin (Duluth News Tribune) reports Naar-Obed is in Iraq, in a refugee camp during the day and wants to be "granted permission from local authorities and the Foreign Affairs office". Naar-Obed is part of Christian Peacemaking Teams. Moving to Iraq's external refugees, Richard Hall (The Daily Star) reports that, in Lebanon, they are forced to either return to Iraq or be at risk of deportation for working without the necessary paperwork. UNHCR's Laure Chedrawi states, "The majority of refugees here cannot work legally, and there are many channels in Lebanon to work illegally. This causes many problems. SOme are not paid their salaries, some employers and landlords threaten to report them to the police and others are forced to work long hours without payment." Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have the bulk of Iraq's external refugees. Taylor Luck (Jordan Times) reports Jordan hots "half a million Iraqis" and that the "number of Iraqis returning home is not as high as analysts had predicted, something the representative attributed to a flux of refugees going back and forth between the Kingdom and its neighbor to the east." Sunday IRIN quoted Commission of Society Enterprises' Basil Abdul-Wahab al-Azawi stating, "On behalf of all Iraqi NGOs, we call upon the UN and all international organizations to offer protection and facilitate resettlement of all Iraqi refugees who are affected by violence and to help increase the number of those who are accepted in secure [third] countries. [. . .] As their country is still occupied and witnesses different disputes, protection should be offered to them [Iraqi refugees] . . . Any return against their will is not acceptable." The tiny number of Iraqi refugees who have been received in the United States struggle with a failing economy and stingy benefits that run out far too soon. Alex Dalenberg (Arizona Republic) examines life for Iraqi refugees in Arizona and finds stories like that of Nuha Hussian who "says that despite speaking English and having had successful careers in Iraq, she and her husband have struggled to pay rent and buy groceries for their two children since arriving in Glendale four months ago." Meanwhile Ria Misra (Politics Daily) reports Nouri al-Maliki has issued a plea to "the 350,000 Iraqis with university degrees currently living abrod: Please come back." They left because they were targeted or (those who left early on) feared they would be. The US backed Shi'ite zealots who were thugs and determined to turn Iraq from a secular nation-state into a fundamentalist one. Doctors, scientists and all educated women of any field were targeted because you can't return to the dark ages and still embrace modernity. And, no, it is not safe to return to Iraq.

Yesterday saw extreme violence. Alice Fordham (Times of London) notes the "worrying escalation of violence" and it was worse than she or Marc Santora (New York Times) knew when filing their reports because Monday night would see further violence (we'll get to it in a moment). Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) counts 33 dead from violence yesterday. Santora does note a sucide bombing in Abu Ghraib and how 4 died and ten were wounded "including the three American soldiers, who had just arrrived to participate in the meeting." Richard Boudreaux (Chicago Tribune) observes that the death toll of the last three days finds "over 100" Iraqis killed. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes Mustafa Abdul Jaleel Reyadh who states, "We can't feel safe at all. I feel afraid when I walk in the streets because I expect an explosion any moment. The situation will not change even after the departure of the American forces, because one hand cannot clap. We must unite to defeat terror." Ernesto Londono and Nada Bakri (Washington Post) report, "Wael Abdel Latif, an independent Shiite Muslim lawmaker, said three factors are driving the recent violence: the imminent withdrawal of American soldiers from urban areas; growing tension between the parliament and Maliki's cabinet as the legislative body demands more oversight; and the regrouping of Sunni Muslim extremist groups who want to undermine the government." Meanwhile British General Dannatt has made remarks some Americans may seize on and echo (applied to the US) in a few years. Phillippe Naughton (Times of London) reports "General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said the failure of coalition forces" to secure Iraq and rushing quickly off to Afghanistan led them to blow the "window of consent" which supposedly existed following the initial invasion of Iraq. Already the Brookings Boys are sounding alarms and those alarms do not say that Iraq was dropped for Afghanistan -- at present they don't say that -- but that's where they will head (and falsely claim they issued warnings in real time) if conditions in Iraq continue down the current path or worsen.

Turning to today's reports of violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a a Muqdadiyah roadside bombing which claimed the life of Iraqi Lt Col Mohammed al Timimi and left four more Iraqi soldiers injured and a Tikrit cluster bombing which left "four young boys between eight and ten . . . seriously injured" and, dropping back to Monday night, a Baghdad roadside bombing (eight p.m.) which claimed 4 lives and left twenty people wounded, another Baghdad roadside bombing (ten p.m.) which left two people injured and a Falluja bicycle bombing (nine p.m.) which left six people (including Dr. Ammar Mohammed Chyad) wounded.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Mosul yesterday.


Sunday we noted Father Tim Vakoc who passed away Saturday night from wounds received in a May 29, 2004 Iraq bombing. AP notes that Father Tim is "believed to be the first military chaplain wounded in Iraq". Zenit (via Indian Catholic) explains, "The priest traveled a long journey over the five years from explosion to his death. He was initially categorized by doctors as being in a 'vegetative state,' but was later upgraded to a 'minimally responsive state'." He is quoted telling his sister, "The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that's where I'll be." Earlier Chao Xiong (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) reported, "The blast cost him an eye and severely damaged his brain." The Columbian notes the "funeral is scheduled for Friday at the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul."

From a US death to a British one, Lee Ellis died February 28, 2006, at the age of 23, from an Al Amarah bombing while serving in Iraq. Amanda Cook (Manchester Evening News) reports that the family is seeking governmental compansation for Courtney Ellis, his eight-year-old daughter and quotes Anthony Ellis, Lee's father, stating, "Lee was a great dad. He was devoted to Courtney and she doesn't really remember him -- it is so sad. She has missed out the most losing her dad so young, so if she can get some compensation that would be great." The family is also lobbying the Ministry of Defence "to use more heavily-armoured vehicles" which might prevent deaths like Lee Ellis'.

And back to the US. Sunday the Department of Defense issued the following: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Spc. Chancellor A. Keesling, 25, of Indianapolis, Ind., died June 19 in Baghdad, Iraq of a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 961st Engineer Company, Sharonville, Ohio. The circumstances surrounding this incident are under investigation. For more information media may contact the U.S. Army Reserve Command public affairs office at 404-464-8500 / 9471 / 9251." Richard Essex (Eyewitness News) reports on 25-year-old Chancy Keesling and interviews his parents Janett and Gregg Keesling who explain that their son enlisted at 19 and had already been stationed in Iraq once before. Gregg Keesling states, "There were e-mails and we knew he was troubled." Renee Jameson (The Indy Channel's 6News -- link is text and video) reports that the Keeslings expect the cause of death to be suicide. Janett Keesling states, "If parents here hear stress, move mountains, whatever you have to do" and Gregg Keesling notes he thinks about and wishes there had been "some way we could have reached out to the chaplain there and said 'go see my son'."

Plugging a friend, Kathryn Bigelow's amazing film The Hurt Locker opens in Los Angeles and New York Friday and opens July 10th in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. Christy Lemire (AP) reviews the film today and observes, "'The Hurt Locker' is by far the most effective film yet on this subject - and what's ironic about that is, it doesn't even feel all that specific to the Iraq war. Its insights and reach extend far beyond what's happened there over the past several years." Mali Elfman (Screen Crave) interviews Bigelow about directing the movie:

[Elfman:] When I watched the film I definitely got pangs of the adrenaline junkie Point Breakish- kind of thing. How important was it to have that side of the character while at the same time focusing on the reality behind someone like him?
Bigelow: Well in a way it's kind of a coincidence, I do look at film, as being very the opportunity to be very experiential. If you really want to stretch the medium you can give a viewer an experience that they can't otherwise easily get -- let's say you want to sign up for a tour of duty. And so when he came back and he was talking about some of these individuals in kind of an idea for a character that he had that combined a few of them, where they had a tremendous amount of swagger and bravado, and almost verging on being reckless, but at the same time combining that with a really profound skill set. I thought, really, that was an interesting course of direction.
Then we looked at Chris Hedges' book "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning" and one of the elements that he drools down on is "wars dirty little secret, some men love it." So he really looks at it because he is a war voluntary that there is -- not to everybody and it is not a generalization, but there is a sort of allure and attractiveness that combat possesses. So like the war reporter, like the war photographer, you know some, who knows, bull rider, whatever, there are certain vocations that speak to that kind of psychological component -- is hungry for those peak experiences.
[Elfman:] We were talking to Jeremy [Renner] and he said that his first question to you was "how do you want the audience to feel at the end of the movie?" How did you want the audience to feel at the end of the movie?
Bigelow: Well I think it's a little bit of both, you know, to a certain extent his life -- the sergeant James character is truly a hero, I believe, but at the same time that heroism comes with a price, and I think that is what I said to Jeremy way back way, is that their is a price to his heroism and can he reintegrate -- is his home life really ruined is too strong of a word, but it definitely doesn't provide the purpose and meaning that being out in the field disarming a bomb does. And unfortunately nothing can replicate that for particular character and so it is a bit of both.
Jennie Yabroff profiles Kathryn for Newsweek:

In the desert all that reserve fell away. "I'm young and in shape, and I was exhausted," says Renner of the Hurt Locker shoot. "She's out there feeding camels apples and skipping like a schoolgirl." A schoolgirl who can beat a bunch of macho guys up a hill, that is. Not that she'd want to draw attention to that fact. At this point in her career, Bigelow is weary of the notion that being a woman affects how she works. Critics can't seem to get over the idea that a female director could devote herself to making adrenaline-charged films that owe more to Ridley Scott than Nora Ephron. They rhapsodize, in high academic prose, about the role of guns as phallic symbols in Blue Steel, a thriller about a female cop; or the homoeroticism of Point Break; or the androgynous female figures in Near Dark, a hybrid Western/vampire movie. At the same time, it's hard to believe that Bigelow would dedicate her oeuvre to genres that are typically made by, for and about men, and not have a few thoughts on the subject.
Listen to Bigelow for a while, though, and you suspect that the critics and film scholars are missing the point. She is far more interested in talking about the look of her movies: how many cameras she used on The Hurt Locker (four); the way she storyboarded each scene, translating the space from three dimensions to two in her mind; the effort she took to make sure the bomb explosions appeared authentic, and not like what she calls HMEs (industry-speak, she explains, for Hollywood movie explosions). "I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about what my aptitude is, and I really think it's to explore and push the medium," Bigelow says. "It's not about breaking gender roles or genre traditions." In The Hurt Locker, Renner's character, Sergeant James, evokes iconic images of American masculinity: in his heavily padded, helmeted bomb suit, he looks like an astronaut striding onto the moon. There's also more than a little of the cowboy about him. He's not just a soldier; he's a renegade, ignoring protocol to do things his way. Not only does he defuse bombs like he's unwrapping lollipops, he outdrinks, outfights and outshoots his squadmates. But Bigelow sees the character less as a commentary on popular images of masculinity and more as an exploration of the modern hero. While exemplary at his job, James can barely function in noncombat zones. "He's evocative of a kind of John Wayne type, but updated to accommodate the complexities of this character, who is almost attracted to the world's most dangerous job," she says. The fact that the Iraq War is being fought by a volunteer Army is one of the keys of that attraction, she believes, and one of the elements that makes The Hurt Locker different from other war films. "War's dirty little secret is that some men love it," she says. "I'm trying to unpack why, to look at what it means to be a hero in the context of 21st-century combat."


iraq
bbc news
tom whiteheadmark steelrichard essexthe socialist worker
the times of londonalice fordhamthe new york timesmarc santoraalissa j. rubinrichard boudreaux
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the washington posternesto londono
nada bakristars and stripeschristy lemirekathyrn bigelow
chao xiong

that's Isaiah's illustration of Sandra Bullock who has the number 1 film in the country, the delightful comedy The Proposal. check it out.

we're going to cover gordon brown. but we're going a different way tonight. fortunately, gordo has enough scandals that there's always something to grab. this is from rhodri phillips' 'PM: The kidnaps top our agenda' (the sun):


GORDON Brown yesterday defended the Government’s attempts to free the five hostages saying they left “no stone unturned”.
The Prime Minister told a press conference the issue was “at the top of the agenda” every time he spoke with his Iraqi counterpart Nouri al-Maliki.


what are we talking about? in may of 2007, an i.t. guy and 4 bodyguards were kidnapped. all 5 were british citizens.

and?

gordo's forbidden the families to go public. they should have gone public immediately. but gordo said no.

he whined and whined and, earlier this month, he and al-maliki got 2 iraqis released from u.s. custody. why were they in u.s. custody? because they were the ringleaders of an attack on a u.s. military base that resulted in the deaths of 5 soldiers.

they shouldn't have been released.

over the weekend, 2 of the 5 british hostages were 'released.' they were dead.

andrew parker (the sun) adds:

The anguished dad — whose son Peter was seized with four fellow Brits TWO YEARS ago — said after two of the men’s bodies were found: “Politicians could soon have five deaths on their hands.”
He let rip at the PM and Foreign Secretary David Miliband as he described feeling “sick to the stomach” at the grisly murders.
Delivery driver Graeme, 59, of Wigston, Leics, blasted efforts to free the others, saying: “Gordon Brown came out of the woodwork to say no stone would be left unturned but that’s a joke. The politicians are doing naff all to bring this nightmare to an end.”


andrew parker also reports:

MURDERED hostage Jason Creswell’s ex-lover has promised to tell their daughter how “truly special” he was.
Janey Allen — mum of his seven-year-old girl Maddi — last night posted a touching tribute on a Facebook memorial site.
She said: “I will do everything to ensure Maddi grows up knowing how truly special her father was, how much he was loved and how much she meant to him.
“I will always keep his memory alive. Rest in Peace, Jay.”

when hostages are taken, it's important to deal with immediately. the british government refused to. 2 of the 5 are dead. hopefully the other 3 are alive and will be returning home. but the 2 dead (and any others) are dead because of gordon brown.

the families are right to be outraged.

had the british government tried anything (diplomacy or force) and it gone bad, you could say, 'well they tried.' you could be miserable over the results but you knew they were acting.

instead, gordon brown took the attitude that he could just ignore the hostages. that's what he did and that's why he wanted the families to be silent. not to protect the hostages but to keep them nameless so england wouldn't be able to put a name to each 1 and demand their safe return.

he kept them nameless on purpose.

and his inaction is responsible for those 2 deaths.

c.i.'s got more on gordon (re inquiry) in the snapshot so let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, June 22, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordon Brown can't cover for himself let alone Tony Blair, Jane Arraff reports US forces may not be pulling out of Mosul, Cindy Sheehan speaks out against both parts of the War Machine, the tag sale on Iraqi oil gets a push from the New York Times, and more.

Starting with England where Prime Minister Gordon Brown's been the topic of the week all last week. Fresh from nearly losing his prime minister post and on the heels of the spending scandals in Parliament, Brown promised a new age of transparency only to turn around last Monday and offer the long promised inquiry into the Iraq War . . . as a back-door, hidden-from-public view song and dance. The Irish Independent observes, "Brown's reputation has been hit by his disastrous handling of the planned inquiry into the invasion of Iraq." Today John Chilcot -- appointed by Brown to lead the Iraq inquiry -- makes a statement. BBC reports that Chilcot has sent Brown a letter which includes this statement: "More broadly, I believe it will be essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the inquiry as possible in public, consistent with the need to protect national security and to ensure and enable complete candour in the oral and written evidence from witnesses." Haroon Siddique (Guardian) adds, "One reason why Brown is thought to have agreed to a private inquiry may have been pressure from the former prime minister, Tony Blair. The Observer reported that Blair pressed Brown to hold an inquiry behind closed doors because he feared he would be subjected to a 'show trial' if it were open to the public." This morning on BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show, Marr spoke with Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg:

Nick Clegg: If his [Gordon Brown's] inquiry is to have any legitimacy it must first be held in public with only some exceptions made for evidence heard in secret. Andrew Marr: Do you think Tony Blair should be giving evidence in public? Nick Clegg: And second I'll be saying if the inquiry is to have any legitimacy, the prime architect of the decision to go to war in Iraq, along side George Bush, should give his evidence in public under oath. I think anything less will make people feel this is just a grand cover up for, after all, what was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made since has made since Suez. Andrew Marr: And what about Cabinet documents and documents that have been private before like, for instance, the one you mentioned from The Observer which suggest that there was a discussion [between Bush and Blair] about sending a plane over Iraq to see if they'd shoot it down as an excuse for starting the war? Nick Clegg: I think all of that should be made possible with, of course, some exceptions where you, for instance, endanger the lives of intelligence officers -- if you reveal through a public session where they're working how they're getting their intelligence. Just like the 9-11 inquiry in the United States. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, some of these key players, they gave evidence in public and we should do exactly the same thing with only very small exceptions for evidence held in secret. I think, look, diplomats think it should be held in public, military figures do, the public clearly do, the families of the soldiers -- the brave service men and service women who've lost their lives, most political opinion thinks we should hold this in public. The only two people who don't are Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair because they want to cover up their tracks. We shouldn't have this inquiry determined by precisely the people who risk being most embarrassed by it.
Nick Clegg was asked of Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend (The Observer) report on a January 31, 2003 memo ("almost two months before the invasion") which is a "record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution". Let's drop back to June of 2005 when Michael Smith (Times of London) reported:


A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war "to put pressure on the regime" was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice. The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began "spikes of activity" designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war. The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was "not consistent with" UN law, despite American claims that it was. The decision to provoke the Iraqis emerged in leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and his most senior advisers -- the so-called Downing Street memo published by The Sunday Times shortly before the general election.


The two War Hawks were admitting that WMD might not be found and that they needed other ways to force the war with Iraq. Blair doesn't want to testify in private and has argued against it. Jason Beattie (Daily Mirror) adds, "Tony Blair sparked fury yesterday over claims that he tried to 'muzzle' the Iraq War inquiry. The former PM is reported to have told Gordon Brown the probe would have become a 'show trial' unless it was kept behind closed doors." Jane Merrick and James Hanning (Independent of London) surmise, "A public appearance by Mr Blair before the Chilcot inquiry would also damage his ambitions of becoming EU president, a role that needs the support of European countries that opposed the war." The New Statesman explains, "Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, is said to have communicated Blair's anxieties to Brown. Yesterday the Northern Ireland Secretary, Shaun Woodward, confirmed that Blair had discussed the inquiry with O'Donnell." The reaction to former Prime Minister and always Bush Poodle Tony Blair attempting to circumvent the process resulted in a backlash even among Labour (Blair and Brown's party). William Hague (Daily Mail) argues, "He is the last person who should be setting the rules for an inquiry that will largely be concerned with decisions and events during his time in office." Nigel Morris (Independent of London) reports, "The Labour rebels' anger was intensified by the disclosure yesterday that Tony Blair, likely to be the key witness, had consulted with the Cabinet Secretary on the form of the inquiry. They want him to give evidence under oath."

This anger may be apparent in the increasingly public role of Education Secretary Ed Balls. Balls backed a public inquiry last week when he was caught by surprise with the question during a live interview. James Chapman (Daily Mail) notes, "Ed Balls today signalled that the Government would perform a U-turn and hold the Iraq War inquiry in public. The Education Secretary said it would be a 'good thing' to hold some of the hearing in public after Gordon Brown faced fury from Labour backbenchers over his initial decision to keep them private." Blair's not helped by news of an upcoming interview to run in Esquire. Rachel Cooke (Daily Mail) quotes Blair saying, "I've no regrets about that decision" to start an illegal war with lies "because it was difficult to get rid of Saddam, but leaving him would also have been difficult, and when I look at the region now, I think it would be a lot more complicated [were he still there]". And would over a million Iraqis have died? Would 173 British service members have died? Would 4315 US service members have died? Tony Blair sent what members of his own family into Iraq?

In the BBC interview, Nick Clegg mentioned Alastair Campbell. James Chapman (Daily Mail) observes, "Like ghosts at the feast, the sulphurous spirits of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell loom large over Gordon Brown's latest political disaster. . . . Mr Campbell, who helped draw up the infamous Iraq War dossiers as Mr Blair's chief spin doctor, remains a major player behind the scenes and a conduit between the two men. He too speaks regularly to Mr Brown by phone and makes frequent visits to Downing Street." Bruce Anderson (Independent) advocates even further opening of the inquiry, "Crucial decisions were taken in the closest partnership with the Americans. Condi Rice, then the National Security Adviser, was in daily contact with David Manning, her nearest equivalent in No.10. It would be impossible to understand the UK role without the US dimension. That requires long interviews with President Bush, Secretaries Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld, plus a score of lesser names. The Chilcot report will not be complete unless it contains a chapter entitled: 'Mr Blair becomes a neo-conservative'." Lucien Rajakarunanayake (Sri Lanka's Daily News) also argues for expanding the scope:

The facts of the UK's involvement in the invasion of Iraq, it would show there is every reason to call for a fully independent and international probe into why the UK went to Iraq, what it did there and what it has left the Iraqi people with.The reasons are compelling. They went to a foreign land. They went there uninvited by its people. They went under false pretexts, having lied to their own legislature, the House of Commons, that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of acquiring WMD. They spun and twisted intelligence reports to mislead their own legislature, and even worse, together with those in Washington who misled both Houses of Congress about Iraq and WMD, also misled the UN Security Council on the same matter. They fooled the UN into endorsing the invasion of Iraq, which was in fact an illegal and criminal act. The entire invasion was a war crime of the highest order. All the bloodshed there was a humanitarian catastrophe - bloodbaths aplenty that no one in the UN warned about. But what do we have instead. Gordon Brown, David Miliband and the other pathetic caricatures of true Labour politicians, eating off the hands of a so-called Tamil Diaspora that promises them vote banks and plenty of undeclared stuffed brown paper envelopes, have announced a probe into the UK's participation in the war against Iraq, to be held in private. An international atrocity of such magnitude is to be probed in private, without even the media present to report what happens, at least to the British people, if not the world. Such is the level of transparency practised by those who demand the very extremes of public disclosure from us.

This Wednesday, the Stop the War Coalition is rallying Wednesday. "Protest at parliament against holding Iraq enquiry in private" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports the demonstration will be "outside parliament at 2pm this Wednesday, demanding 'No Whitewash, No Cover Up', in the Iraq enquiry."
In Iraq Saturday a bombing in Kirkuk resulted in mass deaths. Khalid al-Ansary, Mustafa Mahmoud, Waleed Ibrahim, Muhanad Mohammed, Michael Christie, Daniel Wallis and Matthew Jones (Retuers) reported on the truck bombing dubbed "the deadliest in more than a year" and Hussain Nashaat declares, "I was sitting in my house when suddenly a powerful blast shook the ground under me. I found myself covered in blood and ran outside in a daze. My lovely neighbourhood was just rubble." Ali Al Winadawi and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) added, "Witnesses said the explosion leveled more than 80 clay brick homes and partially destroyed the mosque. Rescuers dug through mounds of rubble looking for the wounded and pulling out the dead. Medical officials said at least 70 people had been killed and another 182 wounded in the bombing." The Telegraph of London noted that shortly before the Kirkuk bombing, Nouri al-Maliki was raving about the "great victory" (US troops leaving some Iraqi cities). Nada Bakri (Washington Post) quoted eye witness Qanbar Abdullah Sajjad stating, "All I could see was a fireball flying into the air followed by a thick cloud of dust and smoke. Bodies, covered with mud, were laying on the ground. People were bleeding and shouting for help." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) added, "Hours after the blast, authorities were still digging through rubble searching for possible survivors and more bodies." Sunday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported the death toll has now risen to 80 with two-hundred-and-eleven people injured. (Reuters goes with 73.) Yaseen Taha and Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) explain, "Most of the casualties were Shia Turkoman, a large minority in Kirkuk Province where most people are Kurds. The prospect of control from Baghdad following the withdrawal of U.S. forces is deeply dismaying to many in Kirkuk who regard it as part of Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region in the north of the country. Moreover, Kirkuk, a city of 848,000, sits atop some of Iraq's richest oil fields." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) adds, "The force of the blast gouged a crater in the ground and badly damaged dozens of homes, burying victims in the rubble, people and officials at the scene said, expressing fear that the death toll would rise even more." It is the worst attack in Iraq this year (based on the death toll) and outlets are having to drop back to 2008 (specifically February 2008) to find an attack with a larger death toll.

Meanwhile, in Iraq today, violence continues. Alice Fordham (Times of London) reports, "A spate of deadly attacks killed more than 25 people in Iraq today and left more than 60 wounded, in a worrying escalation of violence as the exit of American troops from the country's cities draws nearer."

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded three people, a second Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 3 lives and left twelve wounded, a third Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 3 lives and left thirty wounded, a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 5 lives and left twenty wounded, a Baghdad 'suicide car' bombing in which 7 people (plus the driver) died and thirteen were injured and a Baquba bombing which claimed 3 lives ("security members working for the ministry of oil"). Reuters notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Sahwa member (two more were wounded as they attempted to chase down two suspects who were shooting) and a Khanaqin roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Mosul home invasion in which 1 woman was shot dead and an assault on a Mosul checkpoint in which 2 police officers were shot dead.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.


Saturday the US military announced: "CAMP STRYKER, BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related incident June 19. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4315 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

Meanwhile "Do journalist learn English grammar?" is the question that Timothy Williams and Suadad al-Salhy's "Laws Lag in Iraq, as Patience Wears Thin" begs. The article runs in this morning New York Times and we'll let al-Salhy off the hook (although Arabic also includes basic grammar rules). We won't let Williams, the editors or the US State Dept (which wanted this piece of garbage 'report') off the hook. It's not a report. It's propaganda meant to force passage of the theft of Iraqi oil laws. The first sentence of the article tells readers that "popular support" is under strain in Iraq -- for the Parliament -- due to corruption. That's based on what? On the observations of the reporters? If so, they're not equipped to make that judgment nor does it belong in a report (it can go into a column or editorial on the op-ed pages). They insist "widespread confusion" reigns. Based on what?"Based on what?" should be the cry of readers as they work through the article.Who's making these claims? Chris Hill and the State Dept are doing a huge push thinking they have a limited window to get the theft of Iraqi oil passed. This is pressure from outside of Iraq.You're clued in that the complaints are not Iraqi based when paragraph six finally includes a "who" to hang some of the charges on: Haider Ala Hamoudi? Who is he? A professor . . . at the University of Pittsburgh.The trade offered from the US State Dept to Nouri al-Maliki is, "Push hard on the oil law and we'll push on changing the power structure." This article is a byproduct of the arrangement.Why does Nouri need the power structure changed? Because despite the press portraying him as popular (and a 'winner' in the January 2009 elections in which he wasn't a contest and in which NO political party could truly claim a majority of votes), he's not. He does appear to be more popular overall in Iraq than he is in the area that he represents.Nouri's always protected Nouri and that's why he's entered into yet another bargain with the US and why he's hoping they can help him ram through a presidential system to replace a parliamentary system. (Jalal Talabani is the president of Iraq currently. Nouri wants the sort of government the US has with himself in the position equivalent to the US presidency. What he really wants is to be the New Saddam and he's well on his way to achieving that 'honor'.)The typists type, "The country's economy is dependent almost entirely upon oil revenue, but because there is no single law regulating the industry, there is widespread confusion about investment, production and lines of authority. . . . Without rules governing the extraction of its huge oil reserves, it has been difficult for Iraq to attract foreign investment to its petroleum industry, which accounts for 95 percent of foreign exchange earnings." They really hope the readers haven't been paying attention. There's been no problem at all with business lining up for Iraqi oil. You're not supposed to know that or know that they had an auction on oil field leases last week. (Winners will be announced June 29th and 30th.) This morning Esther Nakkazi (The East African) reports that that Genel Energy International and Heritage Oil plan to merge into Heritage Oil Plc and form "an Anglo-Turkish company that would operate in Uganda and Iraq's autonomous oil-rich region of Kurdistan". Yesterday Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) observed:It is only now, six years after the American invasion, that the battle for the control of Iraqi oil production is moving to the centre of politics in Baghdad. On 29 and 30 June, the Iraqi government will award contracts under which international oil companies will take a central role in producing crude oil from Iraq's six super-giant oilfields over the next 20 to 25 years. By coincidence, 30 June is also the date on which the last American troops will be leaving Iraqi cities. On the very day that Iraq regains greater physical authority over its territory, it is ceding a measure of control over the oilfields on which the future of the country entirely depends.The contracts have been heavily criticised inside Iraq as a sell-out to the big oil companies, which are desperate to get back into Iraq – oil was nationalised here in 1972, and Iraq and Iran are the only two places in the world where immense quantities of oil might still be discovered. Several of those criticising the contracts work in the Iraqi oil industry. "The service contracts will put the Iraqi economy in chains and shackle its independence for the next 20 years," said Fayad al-Nema, head of the state-owned South Oil Company, which produces 80 per cent of Iraq's crude. "They squander Iraq's reserves." Rule of thumb for foreign countries (and Boston newspapers), when the New York Times is 'concerned' about your economy, be alarmed. And for those who were still doubting reality (and the Times' efforts to distort it) this morning, Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports in tomorrow's paper on the reality about the Iraqi oil contracts and bids:

Hussain al-Shahristani, who is due to announce winners for the first round of deals next week, will defend his decision to allow international oil companies, including BP and Shell, to compete openly for the contracts, which could be worth billions of dollars in the long term.
His appearance at a parliamentary committee hearing in Baghdad this morning comes after concern from some politicians that the contracts are not in Iraq's best interests and will expose the country to exploitation by Western oil companies. "The Oil Minister must convince us why the Government should have spent $8 billion [£4.9 billion] to develop oilfields, but then offers them to foreign firms like pieces of cake," Jabir Khalifa Jabir, secretary of the parliament's oil and gas committee, said. "Today" in the excerpt is Tuesday (when the story runs). Poor little Times of New York -- not only smacked down by the Times of London but also NYT used to do state propaganda so much better. Must be the economy.


Turning to the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement which doesn't mean what many appeared to think it meant. Khalid al-Ansary, Mustafa Mahmoud, Waleed Ibrahim, Muhanad Mohammed, Michael Christie, Daniel Wallis and Matthew Jones (Retuers) noted on Saturday "Almost all U.S. soldiers will leave urban centres by June 30 under a bilateral security pact signed last year and the entire force that invaded the country in 2003 must be gone by 2012." Got to love that "almost." The Status Of Forces Agreement did not allow for "almost" -- outside of horse shoes, it's difficult to think of anything where "almost" counts. Aamer Madhani (USA Today) reports today that Lt Col Shawn "Reed and his soldiers won't be going too far away -- the security agreement reached last winter with the Iraqi government stipulates only that U.S. combat troops leave cities, towns and villages by the June 30 deadline." Meanwhile Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports US forces in Mosul may not be withdrawing from Mosul and cites Col Gary Volesky explaining, "We're waiting for a final decision, and we're prepared to execute whatever they tell us to execute." The link also contains audio from Arraf: "As the deadline for US troops to be out of Iraqi cities approaches the main thing it's fostered is confusion. The security agreement signed by Iraq and the United States last year is quite clear: All US combat troops will withdraw from cities and other populated areas no later than June 30th. But since the agreement also seeks the temporary help of the US in combatting terrorism there's quite a bit of leeway."

In the US, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan observes how strangely silent so many are as the war machine grinds on and notes how she was kicked to the curb and lied about when she refused to support the more 'populist' war party by cheering it on blindly:

I think that I have unfortunately been vindicated by almost every single action that the Democratic Party has taken since 2006 when impeachment was taken "off the table," but "blank-check" war funding was served up to the Military Industrial Complex on a bloody platter dripping with the flesh and blood of real human beings. Our politicians have no integrity partly because the organizations in the movements that have the largest emailing lists have no integrity. Wars that were wrong under Bush become acceptable under Obama and the stain of torture fades into the woodwork or is hidden from sight like a demented relation because a Senator has an affair. As I understand it, MoveOn.org was founded to oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton for the same thing Ensign did. . . now the gatekeepers of the War Party are going to crucify Ensign to distract their subscribers from real issues? MoveOn.org sent this out in April 2008 in a fundraising email to its 5 million person list: No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush Administration and John McCain always have the same answer: 6 more months. They're at it again this week, asking for six more months. But six months won't change anything -- except the body count and the price tag. They were not talking about the Democratic war funding this week. Apparently it's fine to fund wars if we have a Democratic Despotism, but dangerous for our troops if we have a Republican Regime.
And Jeremy Scahill (Rebel Reports) explored the Despotism noting Barack Obama's expanding (and undeclared) war in Pakistan which began with drone attacks January 23, 2009 and has continued and escalated since. Jeremy notes an interview Barack gave with Dawn where he claimed US troops would not be sent into Pakistan . . . despite the fact that they already are in Pakistan and he observes:

First, the only difference between using these attack drones and using actual US soldiers on the ground is that the soldiers are living beings. These drones sanitize war and reduce the US death toll while still unleashing military hell disproportionately on civilians. The bottom line is that the use of drones inside the borders of Pakistan amounts to the same violation of sovereignty that would result from sending US soldiers inside the country.

And finally from Third's "Summer reads," we'll note: "Tuesday MASTER OF WAR: Blackwater USA's Erik Prince and the Business of War by Suzanne Simons is published. You can read an excerpt from the hardcover book here. The book is based upon Simons' interviews with Prince and various Blackwater employees, research Simons did in Afghanistan and the Middle East, government contacts, employees' families and much more."

iraqbbc newsthe andrew marr showandrew marrlucien rajakarunanayakerachel cookejason beattiethe socialist workerjamie dowardgaby hinsliffmark townsend
nigel morris
khalid al-ansarythe los angeles timesali al winadawined parkerthe washington postnada bakrimohammed tawfeeqcnn
jane arraf
the new york timestimothy williamssuadad al-salhypatrick cockburnesther nakkazi
cindy sheehan
jeremy scahill
suzanne simons

Gordon Brown has admitted he could 'walk away tomorrow' from Downing Street - and become a teacher.
The Prime Minister also acknowledged that the past month had been one of the worst experiences of his political life and claimed he had been 'hurt' by a string of personal attacks.

that's from ian drury's 'Gordon Brown admits he could 'walk away' from Downing Street - and become a teacher' (daily mail). it might be better for england if he did think about chucking it all and becoming a teacher. it might be a lot better. andrew grice (independent of london) adds:


The long-planned Iraq inquiry was meant to reassure jittery Labour MPs, many of whom regard an Iraq reckoning as unfinished business, and to send an "I'm not Blair" signal to those among the electorate who, six years on, still feel sore about the war.

see, in england, tony blair was their bush. he's the 1 who lied them into an illegal party. he's labour, new labour actually. he was replaced with gordon brown. in the u.s., the white house went from republican to democrat. in england, the prime minister stayed with the labour party, gordon brown.

so at some point, anger is going to reel at the labour party as a result of their part in the illegal war and in lying about it.

here's peter wilson (the australian) providing some context:

GORDON Brown's promise to boost honesty and transparency in British politics is sounding hollow after attempts to cover up the details of MPs' expenses and prevent public hearings of an inquiry into the Iraq war.
When the British Prime Minister fought off a revolt last week by Labour MPs worried about his public standing, he vowed to be more open and direct with parliament and the public.
But it appeared to be business as usual yesterday when the House of Commons released a heavily censored set of documents about MPs' expenses, which simply highlighted the 12-year-old government's failure to reform the cosy and secretive way MPs have feathered their nests.

now deborah orr (independent of london) is a lot more optimistic than i am:

Surely it must be clear now to the Brown Government that it really is "in office, but not in power" and will remain so till its collapse. Why can't that stubborn and uneasy cabal yet see that the game is up, and that there is only one way to end the terrible and debilitating paralysis that has settled over the political life of the nation?
It is time for Labour to realise that the promotion of active and vigorous democracy is far more important than protecting the desperate hopes of one fearful political party. That would in itself restore faith in politics and politicians, far more than anything else possibly could.
The able are rewarded. The disabled suffer.

will things settle down for gordon next week or will he remain a newsmaker? 1 can only guess but if i were betting money, i'd bet he'd remain in the news through at least tuesday.

2 e-mailed asking about c.i.'s kind words and why i didn't note them? i was honestly embarrassed. i don't think i've done a great job on this. i think some days i've done a good job. and i know c.i. and know if she gives out that big of a compliment (she really praised me), she means it. so i just felt a little unworthy and then some. but it was very sweet and i did appreciate it.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, June 19, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the VA backlog continues and will continue for some time judging by a Congressional hearing, Gordon Brown continues to be a newsmaker of the week (not a good thing for Brown), Iraqi refugees continue to struggle, and more.

Late yesterday, well after 6:00 p.m., the House Committee on Veterans Affairs' Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs called their 2:00 p.m. hearing to order. US House Rep John J. Hall chaired the subcommittee hearing, "Addressing the Backlog: Can the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Manage One Manage One Million Claims?" Hall observed, "This is a problem that's plagued the VA and the veterans it's supposed to serve for years."

The first panel was composed of the American Legion's Ian de Planque, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Disabled American Veterans' Kerry Baker, Service Women's Action Network's Rachel Ntelson and Gulf War veteran David Bohan of Oregon.
Bohan shared his personal story which is not unique to him and which members of the House Veterans Committee and its various subcommittees have heard repeatedly but there's still been no action on it -- even with John Hall having proposed legislation to assist with this (HR 952).

David Bohan: A counselor at the VA in Roseburg suggested I pursue a claim for my PTSD and for injuries to my left foot during the time I was stationed at Fort Riley Kansas and recommended I contact the American Legion for help. The VA system is confusing, overwhelming and it is not all friendly to veterans. [. . .] So many of the people at VA are not veterans and don't understand what we are going through. You end up feeling like some of them care more about their rules and regulations and paperwork than they care about the veterans. We veterans don't have any idea where the piece of paper or that record is after all of the time. Regarding military records, veterans don't have any idea where our records are kept. And apparently the military doesn't know either. I was up late last night digging through boxes, looking for records to prove I was in the army, that I was in the Gulf War and that I had been in a combat -- in combat and that I had all the necessary stressors to qualify for VA assistance. The memories -- the memories that going through all these materials from my army days were very painful. With the help of American Legion service officer Gregg Demaris, I received a PTSD rating from the BA. But the issues with my foot have not yet been -- been addressed. My medical records from Fort Riley are missing. I've spent hour on the telephone, I've sent faxes, I've even sent e-mails. But after months of trying, no one can find my records. The hospital at Fort Riley says they do not have the records of the surgeries on my foot. I have contacted the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis many, many times. But I still do not have the records of the multiple surgeries on my foot. Until I can obtain those records and present them to the VA, I cannot pursue the rest of my case.

HR 952 would make it much easier for veterans suffering from PTSD to receive treatment for it without jumping through hoops of paperwork. The measure would not help David Bohan with his foot injury. The issue of the foot injury, however, is something that a call to one of his senator's office should have resolved already. (Via the office lighting a fire under the VA. I'm not stating Bohan hasn't pursued that. I would guess he has. I'm stating someone's dropping the ball: Gordon Smith or Ron Wyden -- or both.) We'll note this section of Rachel Ntelson's opening remarks.

Rachel Ntelson: To begin, studies indicate an institutional bias in favor of claimants with combat experience, an advantage which disproportionately favors men. Not only do claim processors fail to understand the degree to which women are effectively -- if not nominally -- serving in combat positions but they also fail to appreciate the extent to which service members in non-combat occupations and support roles are exposed to traumatic events. Among the most pervasive stressors experienced by military women are incidents of sexual assault and harassment. The prevalence of sexual assault in the military is hardly news and has been the subject of a number of recent Congressional hearings and Pentagon reports. By some accounts, nearly a third of female veterans report episodes of sexual assault during military service while seventy-one to ninety percent report experiences of sexual harassment. These experiences are closely associated with PTSD in a variety of studies; in fact, military sexual assault is a stronger predictor of PTSD among women veterans than combat history. Likewise, studies indicate that sexual harassment causes the same rates of PTSD in women as combat does in men. In spite of this correlation, the VA grants benefits to a significantly smaller percentage of female than male PTSD claimants. This disparity stems largely from the difficulties of substantiating experiences of military sexual assault -- especially in a combat arena. Under military regulations, for example, sexual harassment investigations are only retained on file for two years from the close of each case. While criminal investigations of sexual assault are better documented, eighty percent of assault victims fail to report the offense and over twenty percent of those who do file reports opt for a 'restricted' mode that precludes official investigation. Although training and reference materials for raters provide a great deal of guidance on how combat medals and commendations may be used to support PTSD claims, they make little mention of how to address the challenges of documenting military sexual assault as an in-service stressor.

The first panel was the only one not staffed by government employees. We'll note a series of exchanges from it and these are my notes and I may have missed a word or two. (I was tired. During the long wait for the hearing to start, I believe it was Kerry Baker who was on his laptop throughout the wait using the time wisely. Most waiting were thinking, "This has to start soon. This has to." Or as one reporter put it during the long wait, "It won't look very good for the House Veterans Committee if they can't handle a hearing on whether or not the VA can handle claims." No, it wouldn't. That's all stated because the Ranking Member may have had good questions but my pen skids right across the paper during his questions. It was a long wait for the hearing to start.)

Chair John Hall: Mr. de Planque, there have been some concerns and misperceptions about the role of service connection in being able to access VA health care. If a veteran is not service connected than how likely is it that he or she will get turned down for VA health care treatment? Should veterans with claims pending adjudication be held eligible for VA health care and should mental health counseling be offered to all veterans during the stress of the VA claims processing system?

Ian de Planque: In the sense of that, Mr. Chairman, it's -- it's actually -- it's a slightly complicated issue and there have been a number of things that have changed although they are attempting to bring them back forward. In 2003, when the category eight veterans were shut out of VA from treatment, it made it very difficult for them to receive treatment for -- for medical conditions. And that is being phased back in. However veterans who are serving now in the present conflict are entitled to five years of VA health care after they demobilize, after they are discharged from the military and it will run out after that point and they will not be able to get health care for the conditions that are not service connected. With regards to mental health care, in many of the VA outreach clinics they're not in a position to be turning people away from trying to get the care they need but it's not always capable of getting the full level of care that particularly severe cases of mental disorders which can arise. It is possible to get some degree of health care within certain circumstances when you fall into certain categories as a veteran but in terms of an all inclusive group of veterans being able to receive health care if they are not service connected for a condition than that is not the case.

Chair John Hall: I would ask you one more question if I may which is that some of the solutions highlighted in your testimony were already considered and enacted by Congress in PL110-389. Do you think these provisions are sufficient or are there other legislative changes the Legion would like to see Congress enact?

Ian de Planque: In some sense with the changes which have been enacted, they've all been enacted very recently and we're seeing promising signs for example with what VA is beginning to do with improving electronic communication and making 4As into the IT solutions. They're showing promising signs but it's still very early to determine how overall effective those will be. As I've stated before, it would be beneficial to work with the -- the changes that are creating improvements but we don't want to just change the set of tools that continues to operate within the same system. If we -- if you're continuing to make the same problems but doing it electronically that doesn't make it any better than if you're making the same mistakes and doing it on paper. In terms of legislative solutions which could be brought forward, already up for consideration are the -- as we mentioned in our testimony -- the changes to the Section 1154 which covers veterans -- currently covers veterans who have engaged in combat in proving the occurrence of incidents that are consistent with combat and the expansion of it to combat zones as we recognize the non-linear battlefield of modern warfare and that the documentation of all such incidents for all soldiers -- not just soldiers who have infantry cross rifles and can get a combat infantry badge. Not just soldiers who are wounded and receive a Purple Heart which makes things obvious, but all the soldiers who are deployed to combat zones and experience these incidents which are sometimes difficult to document. So continuing to work towards the legislation and pass solutions on that front would be a great help in reducing because it would reduce a lot of their burden for overdeveloping. They would be able to grant that one point and they wouldn't spend a lot of time needlessly developing.

Chair John Hall: Thank you sir, and Mr. Bohan once again thank you for your testimony and your service. It sounds like nobody from VA mentioned to you that you could file a claim even though you were in treatment for over 15 years before you did file. Would your experience with this process have been easier if you had filed a claim right away?

David Bohan: Mr. Chairman, not knowing what the technology back then at that point, I'm assuming there would be roadblocks also as well. But that's hard to say because I did not file back at that time.

Chair John Hall: Fair enough. Thank you. And, Mr. Jackson, I'm interested in the provisional claims processing proposal you mentioned in your testimony. Could you elaborate on how it would work practically by walking us through the first steps of finality for a veteran who might file a claim under this system?

Robert Jackson: My pleasure, Mr. Chairman. What this does, it essentially is not a -- it's not a permanent fix. What it does is buys time. What you're doing is you're -- you're allowing existing information to be used for a provisional rating. The veteran then -- if he or she decides that that rating is not what they think is sufficient then they can continue the process that they normally would. The goal of the provisional proposal that Jerry [Manar] has created is to -- is to get claims -- new claims through the system quickly allowing the VA workforce to work on the backlog. It's -- it's something that's not going to be a permanent fix but it's something that could certainly alleviate some of the workload.

This is where the Ranking Member Doug Lamborn came in. I believe I nodded off for his entire questioning of the first panel. Here's where Hall resumed speaking.

Chair John Hall: In listening to your testimony I'm reminded of a hearing we held over a year ago on artificial intelligence, Dr. Randy Miller, Chair of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University made similar observations about reducing the days to process claims by using clinical informatics which is what your imaging scanning center would seem to do. Have you also considered that the scanned image should be converted into a standardized electronically processed format? What is the feasibility of implementing the proposed centralized information system that you mentioned in your testimony?

Kerry Baker: Well Mr. Chairman, if you're talking about -- are you suggesting if we use something like an image scanning center would you do more than just copy the document? Would you have a workable format that could provide some sort of database and search-able tool? That would absolutely be preferable. It would allow people to search the claims file much, much easier than sitting there having to read 1000 pages on the computer. The feasibility of that? I'm afraid I don't have the expertise. I don't know where VA is in their IT development, if they could do something like that. As I understand it, there's a lot of companies out there and processes out there that can capture that sort of data. I just don't know where VA is with that technology.
Chair John Hall: Thank you. And your plan also calls for a reduction time from one year to 180 days of the time that a veteran can make an appeal but then allows them the opportunity to ask for an extension. Other insurance programs have restrictions that do not allow an appeal after the due date. Are their circumstances in which you could see a case being closed and an appeal being disallowed? And should there be a limitation on the number of times that a veteran can appeal the same condition without new evidence?

Kerry Baker: I could see where one could get closed and disallowed if they allowed the six months to run out and they did not request an extension and they couldn't show any cause as to why their appeal should be equitably told. That would be no different than the appeal running out at the in excess of one year point right now. Only right now they cannot request an extension and they cannot be equitably told the court have stopped short of addressing that issue with the appellate period. So we realize that the six months issue may not be met with a lot of favoritism upfront but when you're providing a couple of extra benefits that a lot of people are going without right now -- which is the extension and the equitable tolling -- we think that's more than fair. And it's still six months we're talking about. The average time it takes VA to get an NOD is forty-one days. 90% of all the POs are received in the first six months. So we think in the long run the system will be much better with that. You had a second part of that question?

Chair John Hall: Should there be a limitation on the number of times the veteran can appeal the same condition without new evidence?

Kerry Baker: Well VA -- VA has a process now, a lot of people get it confused. If you -- if you reapply for the same thing and you've been denied for and you don't have any new evidence, what you normally get is -- you will get a decision saying 'you haven't presented new evidence, your claim is not reopened.' However, that issue -- in and of itself -- can be appealed all the way up to the courts. So it is, in effect, a claim within the system -- the claim is an appeal to reopen the claim. During the appelate process, that could be decided in favor of the veteran and goes all the way back down to the beginning just to be reopened and the actual issue decided so I mean there is some convulsion there -- how do you go about, you know -- Iiii -- rectifying that. I wouldn't suggest that you simply not allow the veteran to reopen anything without new evidence, I mean there's a fine line where you start taking away rights as some point. But if they had no evidence whatsoever, that's kind of what they do now. You can just appeal that decision just like you can appeal anything else.

Chair John Hall: Thank you very much. And Ms. Ntelson, thank you first of all for your support of HR 952. The information that you've presented on women's veterans -- women veterans corroborates what we have heard before at our hearings. When the Department of Defense appeared at one of these hearings, they described their PTSD approach as relying on the opinion of the medical examiner which is what it seems you are suggesting. So if VA like DoD instituted a disability evaluation system that relied more on medical opinions than psychometric testing results, do you think this change would be reliable enough for the establishment of compensation?

Rachel Ntelson: Well I think that there's a value in allowing -- a VA professional has a treating relationship with the claimant. To have their word, you know, taken at face value. Presumably since these are VA medical professionals, there's been some sort of vetting, some sort of determination, that their credentials are approriate. So it doesn't make very much sense to me that if somebody has been in a treating relationship with a medical professional or counselor employed by the VA on the VHS side of the equation that -- that somebody on the benefit section to decide that, you know, that person's word isn't good enough.

Chair John Hall: Thank you. And lastly would you please elaborate on your recommendation to incorporate upon request investigative files of harassment and sexual assault into the joint virtual lifetime electronic record. How would thi help women veterans

Rachel Ntelson: Well an enormous problem for women with military sexual trauma in establishing their in-service stressor is that it's so hard to obtain those documents. Like I say there are actual military policies -- especially with harassment as opposed to an actual criminal case of assault that prevent records from even being kept on file for more than a couple of years. So if somehow those -- the documents that do exist could be memorialized and kept within the system, you know, for as long as possible, so that if the claimant elected to they could use that in support of their claim. I think that would be very helpful in establishing that there was an in-service stressor.

The second panel was composed of the VA's Lt Gen James Scott and the VA's Michael Ratajczak. Michael Ratajczak made many sound points in his opening remarks but the point we'll emphasize was his points that managers without experience or with only a little experience when it comes to processing claims are not able to provide training, to supervise or to assist with the work. That's basic but it is a repeated point you will hear from VA as you step away from the appointees and administrators at the top. US House Rep Deborah Halvorson was probably the strongest voice from the committee or the panel on the second panel. She pointed out how confusing the form alone was and how someone's claim being turned down can be confusing and leading to more work as a result of appeals over a denail that may or may not have been judged correctly. Who answers the question when a veteran calls in about a denied claim is a basic question.

Her efforts to keep it basic and simple weren't helped by Ratajczak meandering answer that did not address the issues but offered bromides (no heading in the manual with "do the right thing"). Good for Halvoroson for interrupting and asking, "And why aren't we doing that?" Why aren't veterans brought in immediately when there's something confusing about their case that might lead to a denial. Ratajczak replied that it's "because we're not giving credit for doing it." Halvorson explained how she runs her office, "Because I have a lot of caseworkers in my office and I don't let them share cases, I want them starting it and finishing it because when there's questions, one person can answer the question because if you've got a team or five people working on something, you're going to get five different answers depending on who answers the call." Ratajczak wanted to offer a ton of examples that backed up Halvorson's question but none that answered her question. He ate the time, ran out the clock and avoided providing an answer.

"I don't have an answer for that," Michael Waldcoff said in a flat voice on the third panel. Though VA sends many people to Congress who make that comment, the Deupty Under Secretary for Benefits was replying to John Hall's question about how many veterans committed suicide while waiting for their claims to be settled? That's a basic question and as distrubing as Wadlcoff's claim that he didn't know was his obvious disinterest in the question. Hall rightly noted that this was "a question that VA should be able to answer" -- yes, they should.

Today Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports that there has been an increase ("nearly doubled") in the number of enlisted seeking treatment for dependency on or abuse of alcoholism. and he notes there were 142 recorded army suicides in 2008 and that there are already 82 confirmed so far this year. This as VA's backlog continues.

Turning to England. Gordon Brown's been the topic of the week. Fresh from nearly losing his prime minister post and on the heels of the spending scandals in Parliament, Brown promised a new age of transparency only to turn around Monday and offer the long promised inquiry into the Iraq War . . . as a back-door, hidden-from-public view song and dance. Today Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) offers "Iraq war inquiry: Five reasons why a full Gordon Brown U-turn looks inevitable" which includes:

1. The Commons wants a public inquiry This hasn't had much publicity, but yesterday the (Labour-dominated) Commons public administration committee published a strong report criticising the format proposed by Brown. This was its key finding: While we welcome the government's announcement that an inquiry into Iraq will be held, that it will have a broad scope, and that it will aim to learn lessons from the decision to go to war, the conflict and its aftermath, there is a strong risk that the inquiry as currently constituted will not be able to pursue what should be its fundamental purpose: to identify the truth and ensure that the executive can be held properly accountable for its decisions and conduct in relation to Iraq. Tony Wright, the committee's chairman (and the man Brown has just asked to recommend ways of making the Commons operate more effectively), said this: It is also crucial that the inquiry be conducted openly and in public, and that Parliament has a role in establishing it. Only an open, legitimate and credible process of this kind will satisfy a sceptical public that this inquiry is not a whitewash.

Aljazeera's Inside Iraq this week explores Gordon Brown's never ending problems. "The announcement," Aljazeera notes of Brown's closed-door inquiry, "was supposed to boost his populartiy among the British public. However the calls for an inquiry has met with indifference at best, hostile criticism at worst." John F. Burns (New York Times) offers that the "outcry" has been from the families who lost service members in Iraq, "the House of commons, from newspaper editorials and from powerful establishment voices, including a retired military commander, Gen. Sir Michael Jackson, who oversaw Britain's operations in Iraq as army chief in 2003." Duncan Gardham (Telegraph of London) covers Brown's spokesperson who swears that "the precise format of the inquiry" will be determined by Sir John Chilcot.

While everyone else appears eager to pull correspondents out of Iraq, a British paper has actually sent another correspondent into the country. Alice Fordham (Times of London's Inside Iraq) notes that Barham Salih, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, is now Twittering. Yesterday Salih noted he was following news on Iran's elections while "Busy with our own elections". Click here for Ray Odierno's Facebook page. Alice Fordham is blogging at the paper's Iraq blog and blogging regularly on a variety of topics. Visiting an American base, she noted all the food associated with the US, "It's not a new observation, and my colleague Martin Fletcher wrote brilliantly about the supply chain required to keep the thousands of troops stationed here in popcorn and Froot Loops. But sometimes in Iraq an unexpected offer of marmalade or somesuch reminds me of the British colonial legacy here, and I wonder if, as the Americans withdraw, they will leave behind a taste for infintely variable ice cream and baseball."

From baseball to karate, BBC reports 45-year-old Izzat Abdullah was shot dead in Mosul today. He had been the coach of Iraq's karate team. On the topic of Mousl, Thursday Chelsea J. Carter (AP) reported it was allegedly Mosul police that shot dead US Lt William Emmert February 24th, as well as his interpreter (five more people were wounded in the attack). Carter reported that Col Gay Volesky was told by the Mosul police chief that the reason the two alleged killers hadn't gone before a judge was because there were 'doubts' but "Volesky wasn't buying it, saying the men's relatives had identified them." Nikki Weingartner (Digital Journal) observes, "The first step in the process of prosecution is appearing before a judge."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bombing targeting an alcohol store which left two people injured, a Baquba roadside bombing which wounded Ahmed Zarkush ("District Commissioner of al Saidyah") and three members of his security team, a Falluja house bombing and an Anbar Province sticky bombing targeting Zeki Obaid's son who was wounded (Obaid fled to Jordan in 2008).

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports aremd clashes in Falluja in which two civilians were wounded, 1 person shot dead in Mosul from "a speeding car" and, dropping back to last night, 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 iraqi civilian shot dead in Mosul.

Patrik Jonsson and Kristen Chick (Christian Science Monitor) report on the small number of Iraqi refugees admitted into the US and note that the number who have been able to find work has fallen from 80% in 2007 to 11% this year. International Rescue Committee's Alaa Naji states that the Iraqi refugees "never imagined that they would be struggling to survive here in America. They expected more from a country that was involved in the violence that destroyed our land, homes, and loved ones." IRC has a new report [PDF format warning] entitled "Iraq Refugees In The United States: In Dire Straits." "We conclude," the report notes, "that the U.S> resettlement program, likely the only safe alternative for thousands of Iraqi refugees, faces major structural challenges in its organization and funding. These challenges are exacerbated by a simultaneous global economic downturn and resettlement of a highly educated refugee population with many special needs. Issues like rising unemployment and homelessness are threatening the well-being not only of Iraqi refugees but also of all recently resettled refugees in America." The report notes conditions that can add to economic issues:

Many of the women widowed by the war in Iraq have young children. Without male relatives, these women are especially at risk in Iraq and in its neighboring countries and are considered among the most vulnerable of refugees. In Phoenix, the IRC delegation met with six refugee women from Iraq whose husbands were killed. The situation for those who are here alone with young children is especially precarious. Like other refugees, they must secure a job soon after arrival in the United States. Manyhave been separated from sons, brothers or other family members because of the delays from the additional security checks that Iraqi men are subjected to before the United States will grant them admission.
In Atlanta Commission members met Shayma Sadeq, a single mother with three children who recently obtained a job working the night shift cooking for inmates at a detention facility in Atlanta. It is a job she is not likely to continue to hold for long. The support she receives from the state pays only for certified day care providers, and such providers do not operate at night. Unable to afford nightmare childcare for her three minor children, she has arranged for a neighbor to watch the children at night, but the arrangment is not sustainable. At the same time, the financial support the IRC is able to provide to her has run out. Without a job she and her children will soon face eviction.
Inaya Al Basha, a widow from Iraq living alone in Phoenix, has received multiple eviction notices. She jokes that if she is evicted she will come to sleep at the IRC office. Like other refugees with eviction notices, she has nowhere else to go. The homeless shelters in Phoenix are at capacity and the waiting list for subsidized housing is up to two years long.


Assyrian International News Agency also covers the refugees with a report (including many photos) entitled "Assyrian Refguees in Sweden Caught in Political Struggle." The article notes that despite puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki meeting with Pope Benedict XVI there's no increase in trust. A refugee is quoted stating, "How will he [al-Maliki] protect anyone? He doesn't even dare to leave the Green zone."Meanwhile Asia News reports that the Pope met with the Patriarch of Antioch of the Syrians Ignace Youssiff III Younan today and the Pope declared, "I constantly pray for peace in the Middle East, in particular for the Christians who lived in the beloved nation of Iraq, every day, during the Eucharistic Sacrifice, I present their suffering to the Lord." On Iraqi Christians, Iran's Press TV observes the declining number of Christians in Iraq stating "nearly half have fled" as a result of threats and attacks "unleashed by the Salafi militants as well as the Al-Qaeda. These Salafi groups did not appear over night in the Arab countries. Some regional governments have been funding these groups primarily to target Shia Muslims and those Sunnis who rose up against extremism." A large percentage of Iraq's external refugees are Christians. Some Christians remain in Iraq. In Kirkuk, Archbishop Louis Sako has called for an end to executions in Iraq as Amnesty International also has. Adnkronos Security quotes Archbishop Sako stating, "The Death penalty is horrible deed. It is humanly and spiritually unjustifiable. It is an offence to life and to the maker." This as Iraq Oil Report notes a Sunni satellite TV station which is said to broadcast hate speech aimed at Shi'ites and Christians inflaming tensions in Najaf with such comments as, "If I have ten nuclear bombs, I would use one against Christians and Jews, and the remaining nie agains Shi'ites."


TV notes. Starting with PBS. This week on Bill Moyers Journal (begins airing tonight on most PBS stations, check local listings, and it streams online -- video and audio -- and offers transcripts):


Instructed by a dream and organized in prayer, Leymah Gbowee andthousands of everyday women in Liberia - both Christians and Muslimsalike - confronted warlords and a corrupt president to successfullyfight for peace and dignity in their war-torn nation. "I realized thatevery problem we encounter on this journey, I'm going to rise above itand lead these women because they trusted me with their lives and theirfuture," says Gbowee. Journal guest host Lynn Sherr interviews LeymahGbowee and Abigail Disney, who documented their inspiring tale in theaward-winning film PRAY THE DEVIL BACK TO HELL. Lynn Sherr is along-time broadcast journalist who most recently covered events inLiberia for PBS' news program, WORLDFOCUS.NOW on PBS offers:According to the Department of Education, the average amount of undergraduate student debt in this country is now more than $22,000. And sudden changes in lenders' terms and rates can quickly turn a personal debt into a financial sinkhole, grounding the dreams of many college graduates even before they've started.This week, NOW follows the story of a single mother in Baltimore trying to dig herself out of more than $70,000 student loan debt. While issues of personal responsibility are debated, there's no question the high price of higher education is creating an ocean of student loan debt for people who can least afford it.How are the 70 million Americans with student debt frustrating America's economic recovery?Washington Week finds Gwen sitting around the table with Barbara Slavin (Washington Times), Karen Tumulty (TIME magazine), David Wessel (Wall St. Journal) and Jeff Zeleny (New York Times). All begin airing tonight (check local listings) on most PBS stations and tonight also finds Bonnie Erbe sitting down with Karen Czarnecki, Irene Natividad and Leslie Sanchez to discuss the week's news on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
A Clean Version Of Hell Exclusive footage from within and a rare interview with its former warden takes viewers inside the secretive "Supermax" federal prison, where the nation's most dangerous and infamous criminals - including terrorists - are held under the strictest rules. Scott Pelley reports.
The War Next Door Drug-cartel fueled violence has turned into a war in Mexico, with thousands of deaths and the government battling well-armed gangs whose military-quality weapons come mostly from U.S. dealers. Anderson Cooper reports.
LeBron Steve Kroft profiles the Cleveland Cavalier's superstar, LeBron James, who at only 24, is already among an elite handful of athletes who command tens of millions a year in playing and marketing fees.
60 Minutes, Sunday, June 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

iraq
gregg zoroyausa todaythe new york timesjohn f. burnsandrew sparrow
patrik jonssonkristen chickthe christian science monitor
mcclatchy newspapers
bill moyers journal60 minutescbs newsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbsnprthe diane rehm showpbs