The government's decision to hold the Iraq War inquiry in private generated intense anger in Westminster, prompting yesterday's partial retreat by the prime minister. Chairman Sir John Chilcot now has discretion to hold some public hearings. More relevant is whether Sir John and the inquiry team are likely to discover anything to justify their trouble and our cash.
gordon brown can't string it out and he can't be seen as weak while the shark circles. to show strength, the smart thing to do would be to rush out a speech a.s.a.p. declaring that he had heard the people and this inquiry was for the british people so he had to decided to open it up.
he won't do that.
but if he did, he'd be able to silence every 1.
his critics in parliament?
absolutely because he's, with a speech like that, listening to the people. that's what changed his mind. not the 'carping' from his fellow mps.
he would credit the british people with their strong concerns and that would empower the people. if conservative or liberal democratic politicians wanted to present themselves as victors, they couldn't because that would be stealing the victory from the people.
Gordon Brown climbed down yesterday in the face of a growing revolt over his announcement that the inquiry into the Iraq war would be held in private. Only three days after saying the investigation would be held behind closed doors, the Prime Minister disclosed that some hearings could take place in public after all. His retreat was revealed exclusively in The Independent yesterday. In a letter to the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, Mr Brown asked him to consider holding some sessions in public. He urged Sir John to hold an open session to "explain in greater depth the significant scope and breadth of the inquiry" and to meet relatives of the servicemen killed in Iraq – either in public or in private – to explain how it would operate. He also asked him to take evidence on oath.
so let's all get ready to see how gordon brown digs his hole deeper tomorrow.
Thursday, June 18, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a fire blazes in Baghdad, Iraq's LGBT community gets some attention, Gordon Brown paints himself into a corner, the Senate votes for more war, Norman Solomon makes a fool of himself yet again and more.
Today Phil Sands and Nizar Latif (The National) report, "American troops may have to remain in violent cities such as Mosul and Baquba after the end of this month, despite plans for a complete US pull-out from urban areas, according to an official in one of Iraq's most powerful political parties. Mohammed al Gharawi, of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), the largest single party in Iraq's parliament and the group in control of the ministery of the interior, said he would support an extension for the US military presence to prevent a worsening security situtation." Meanwhile AFP reports on "U.S. army commanders" who stress that there is confusion ("mired in confusion") over the so-called departure from Mosul by June 30th ("when U.S. soldiers must leave cities and major towns nationwide") and that "[t]hey also believe the political message emanating from Baghdad about the U.S. withdrawal has created a false impression among Iraqi citizens that U.S. troops will no longer be seen on Mosul's streets when, in fact, they will."
The Iraq War hasn't ended. Ann is filling in for Ruth and Tuesday she noted a Jackson Sun article her aunt passed on of "how 140 Tennessee National Guard members were being deployed to Iraq." The Mercury reports Maj Gen Vincent Brooks is headed to Iraq (and "900 members of the headquarters of the Big Red One are deploying"). Vinnie Brooks became famous at the start of the Iraq War as The Daily Liar though his official title was "Deputy Directo fo Operations". Karen Middleton (The News Courier) reports "80 members of the Athens-based 203rd Military Police Battallion" will be leaving for Iraq (departure certemony tomorrow at Beasley Field, 4:00 p.m.). And Chris Roberts (El Paso Times) notes approximately "125 soldiers with the post's 47th Transportation Company will head for western Iraq for a 12-month tour of duty." ("The post" is Fort Bliss.) Monday on KPFAFlashpoints, Iraq Veterans Against the War's Camilo Mejia appeared (noted and quoted in Tuesday's snapshot) and we'll again note one section:
Camilo Mejia: For an organization like Iraq Veterans Against the War for instance, who depend greatly upon contributions from the public and support from ally organizations, we're having a very difficult time right now getting through to people and fund raising and doing things like that because the sense right now within the larger public is that the Iraq War is ending, that the Iraq occupation is coming to an end -- which is not true, and that the Afghanistan War is now the good war and that the -- Basically the Iraq War became indefensible. People turned against it. And they needed a new centerpiece for the global war on terror which is just another excuse for invading and occupying another country to go after their natural resources and Afghanistan is that war now. So a lot of people are on the fence or skeptical or giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt. If you add to that the financial crisis and a lot of people out there who are holding on to their savings and taking pay cuts and unemployed and not contributing the same and don't really feel like anti-war issues are any more that relevant, not as relevant as before. So that's the civilian side of things. I think right now we are on a stand-by when it comes to the civilian side. When it comes to the GI side? Regardless of what the official rhetoric is soldiers are still being deployed -- soldiers, marines, air service men and women -- we're still being deployed. And people are still coming back form Iraq and Afghanistan with untreated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, returning to poverty in a broken economy being recycled from Iraq to Afghanistan. The VA crisis is really bad. We're short staffed. We have people who are suicidal who are waiting months to see a psychiatrist or psychologist or even a case worker. So regardless of the state of the civilian side of things we're going to continue to resist because our experience hasn't changed.
The Iraq War is not over and it will not be over this year (or next or . . .). Jeremy Scahill (RebelReports) examines Tuesday's House vote for the War Supplemental and reports, "New York Democrat Anthony Weiner, who voted against the war funding in May -- when it didn't matter -- only to vote Tuesday with the pro-war Dems, sounded like an imbecile when he made this statement after the vote: 'We are in the process of wrapping up the wars. The president needed our support.' What planet is Weiner living on? 'Wrapping up the wars?' Last time I checked, there are 21,000 more US troops heading to Afghanistan alongside a surge in contractors there, including a 29% increase in armed contractors. Does Weiner think the $106 billion in war funding he voted for is going to pay for one way tickets home for the troops? What he voted for was certainly not the 'Demolition of the 80 Football-field-size US Embassy in Baghdad Act of 2009.' To cap off this idiocy, Weiner basically admitted he is a fraud when he said the bill he voted in favor of 'still sucks'." Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) observes, "No longer can the blame for the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan rest at the feet of George W. Bush alone. This is now Obama's War on Terror, fully funded and operated by the Democratic Party. [. . .] Had Bush pushed for more military funds at this stage, the antiwar movement (if you can call it that) would have been organizing opposition weeks in advance, calling out the neocons for wasting our scarce tax dollars during a recession on a never-ending, directionless war. But since Obama's a Democrat, a beloved one at that, mums the word." As Trina observed earlier this week, "never forget that Iraq was always seen by other countries as a chance for Big Business to take control. A tag sale enforced at gun point. There are no uncharted countries on the earth so the 'missions' these days aren't to discover new markets in a new world. The missions are to take a country under and create a new market on top of the corpses."
At a press conference today, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared of her party and the House she leads, "As you know, the veterans issue has been a high priority for us. We planted that flag when we took the majority in the Congress. We did more in that first two years than had been done in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration. It's now 78, 79 years old. We have a Democratic President in the White House. Secretary Shinseki, working with him, we are able to do even more." Some argue that those who care about veterans go out of their way to ensure that more wounded ones aren't created by continuing illegal wars. Today the Senate followed the House lead. Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post) reports Barack got his War Supplemental with 91 votes supporting more death, destruction and financial waste and only five voted no. They are Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Jim DeMint, Mike Enzi and Tom Coburn.
This morning the House Veterans Affairs' Health Subcommittee held a legislative hearing and US House Rep Deborah Halvorson stepped in to chair the subcommittee. She did a strong job as chair. Not "as a first-term member of the House, she did a strong job," she did a strong job period. US House Rep Jerry McNerney was among those speaking on legislation. He introduced HR 1546 and we'll note some of his remarks explaining the need for it. HR 1546: "To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish the Committee on Care of Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury.
US House Rep Jerry McNerney: More than 1.6 million troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and about half of those brave men and women are now veterans. Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI has become the signature wound of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Rand Corporation Study estimates that up to 320,000 troops who served in these conflicts suffer from brain trauma. Milder forms of TBI can result -- these are milder forms -- can result in cognitive problems such as headaches, difficulty in thinking, memory problems, abnormal speech or language and limited functioning of arms and legs. TBI's effects on veterans and their families can be devastating. I've met personally with several veterans from my district who suffer from severe brain injury in Iraq. One is doing well in my hometown with a four year scholarship from the Sentinels of Freedom. I just had lunch with him a couple of weeks ago and I'm very pleased to see how well he's adjusted. Unfortunately, many wounded veterans face an even more arduous path to recovery. The brain is probably the most adaptable organ of the body but any time there is a traumatic injury or section of the brain is damaged, it takes time to adjust and compensate. When a soldier's wounded, he or she is first transported to a trauma center to treat brain swelling. Brain swelling is the biggest and most immediate risk from a brain injury. After being stabilized, soldiers may face invasive surgical procedures and painful cooling treatments to combat inflammation followed by extensive physical and psychological therapy. I've seen first hand how difficult this treatment is and we owe our veterans the very best. Blasts from improvised, explosive devices have become one of the most common causes of injury for troops currently serving in combat zones and recent studies show that 59% of blast exposed patinets at Walter Reed have been found to have some form of TBI. In April of 2007, the Veterans Administration began screening veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning of October 2001 for symptoms that may be associated with TBI. Of the 61,285 veterans that the VA screened for TBI 11,804 -- or 19% -- of those veterans screened positive for TBI symptoms. Department of Defense and Veterans Administration experts note that TBI can occur even if a victim does not suffer from an obvious physical injury -- which sometimes takes place when the person is in the vicinity of a powerful detonation. In these instances, signs and symptoms of TBI -- such as the ones I mentioned earlier -- are not often readily recognized. According to the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration's mental health experts, mild TBI can also produce behavioral symptoms similar to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or other mental health conditions. And TBI almost always causes Post Traumatic Stress. The relationship between TBI and Post Traumatic Stress can further complicate diagnosis and treatment. As a result, further research must be conducted to examine the longterm effects of these injuries which are not yet fully understood and the best treatment models to address TBI and improve coordination care for injured veterans. Traumatic injuries -- Traumatic Brain Injuries have often effected a large number of female service members and as the number of women enlisted in the armed forces continues to grow, we must ensure that our focus on health care continues to encompass all veterans. I hope we can continue to collect data to ensure that the women veterans receive the same quality of care as their male counterparts and I am committed to working on this committee to assist in that endeavor. When a solider is transitioning to civilian life, it is imperative that we have a system in place that is able to properly evaluate and assess the risks and challenges if any these veterans and their families might face. Given that evidence suggests that combat related TBI is an increasingly frequent occurance and that the effects of TBI are still poorly understood, prioritizing research and oversight will help plan for addressing treatment and long term care. Research in TBI is also particularly important for understanding Post Traumatic Stress because the amnesia that often occurs as a result of TBI increases the challenges of Post Traumatic Stress treatment. Studies have shown that, in the absence of factual recall, individuals may have delusional or reconstruct memories of trauma. These individuals may retain false memories rather than factual results.
Turning to England where the good times keep coming for Gordon Brown. His efforts at a behind-closed-doors 'inquiry' appear to be falling apart. Philip Webster (Times of London) reported this morning, "Parts of the Iraq war inquiry may now be held in public after Gordon Brown was forced into a partial climbdown." James Kirkup and Alastair Jamieson (Telegraph of London) add that Lord Bulter was "critical of the decision to hold hearings behind closed doors". At the Guardian, Toby Helm stated that "Buter will accuse the government of 'putting its political interests ahead of the national interest'" today. Andrew Grice, Kim Sengupta and Nigel Morris (Independent of London) report it's not one noted person who'll be speaking out against Brown, it's two: Lord Hutton and Lord Butler. Great Britain's Socialist Worker notes the crony-infested panel for Gordo's inquiry: "John Chilcot, its chair, was part of the last Iraq whitewash, the Bulter inquiry. Another committee member, Sir Lawrence Freedman, wrote Tony Blair's 1999 Chicago speech setting out the idea of 'humanitarian' war." The Belfast Telegraph reports that Gordon's closde-door policy has been criticized by former Prime Minister John Major who states: "The Government's decision to hold the inquiry into the Iraq war in private is inexplicable -- not least in its own interests. [. . .] The arrangements currently proposed run the risk of being viewed sceptically by some, and denounced as a whitewash by others. I am astonished the Government cannot understand this." ITN quotes Bulter stating, "The form of the inquiry proposed by the Government has been dictated more by the Government's political interest than the national interest and it cannot achieve the purpose of purging mistrust." Rebecca will be blogging about this topic tonight and should remember to include these words "I told you so." (Because she did.)
The executive editor of the Merced Sun-Star, Mike Tharp, is back in Iraq for McClatchy Newspapers. Today at McClatchy's Baghdad Observer, Tharp explains a trip in the Green Zone, "Haider, our driver, and I were threading our way through 108 degrees and a narrow concrete path hemmed in by blast walls in the International Zone (IZ). . . . At a dozen points along the 20-minute route, we were checked for IDs, and sometimes body-searched, by Iraqi soldiers, police and hard-eyed Peruvians. The modern-day Incas were armed with AK-47s and looked as if they wanted to revenge Pizarro by humiliating any gringo in range. The name of their private security company is Triple Canopy. In what passes for military logic, some of the checks and searches were only 30 or 40 meters from the last one, in plain sight of the next group of gunsels, who had just watched their comrades force us to dump everything from our pockets into a plastic bowl."
In Baghdad today, Xinhua reports, fire fighters attempted to battle a blaze at the Ministry of Health's 11-story building: "Dozens of the ministry's employees have been stranded in the upper stories, but Iraqi civil defense managed to evacuate them, the source said."
Iraq's LGBT community remains under assault. Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports on those who have sought refuge in Turkey including 28-year-old Ameer who fled after repeated death threats. Ameer now hopes he will be granted refugee status in the US -- but the 'fierce advocate' for gays and lesbians in the White House is doing nothing. While the federal government has done nothing, the city councils in Los Angeles and San Francisco have spoken out as have many California legislatures. Cynthia Laird (Bay Area Reporter) notes this announcement:
Gays Without Borders/San Francisco will hold a fundraiser for Rainbow World Fund/Iraq Friday, June 19 from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. at Cafe Flore, 2298 Market Street in San Francisco. The event takes place after last month's successful local action to bring attention to the fact that LGBT people are being persecuted in Iraq, including reports of torture, beating, and killing of gay Iraqis in an effort by police to "clean up" the country by getting both beggars and gays and lesbians off the streets. Gary Virginia and Michael Petrelis are two San Francisco activists who have taken the lead on local organizing efforts; the Rainbow World Fund is serving as a fiscal sponsor to collect and distribute the funds raised. The plight of gay Iraqis has garnered attention from politicians. Last week State Department spokesman Ian Kelly condemned acts of violence and human rights violations committed against individuals in Iraq because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Earlier this month, 45 California lawmakers, led by state Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and the LGBT Legislative Caucus, called on the Obama administration to prevent the persecution of LGBT people in Iraq. For more information about this week's fundraiser, contact Virginia at (415) 867-5004. Donations can be made online at www.rainbowfund.org.
While California activists again pick up the slack, Barack ignores the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community just as Bully Boy Bush did. Duncan Osborne (Gay City News) reports:
Writing in Gay City News, Doug Ireland first broke the story in March of 2006 that Iraqi gays were being killed by death squads. Ireland and other gay press outlets continued covering the story in 2006 and into 2007, with the mainstream press offering occasional stories. The killings and the gay press reports on them have continued into 2009. In September 2007 -- nearly two years ago -- Gay City News sent a Freedom of Information request to the State Department that sought all records "that relate to or identify homicides, assaults, or other violent acts committed against homosexual persons in Iraq." On May 26 of this year, the department responded, releasing two documents, totaling nine pages, that represent all the records that agency compiled from March 1, 2003, roughly the start of the Iraq War, through the date of the records request. No documents were withheld and only a small portion of the released documents was blacked out. Two pages consist of a letter, dated March of 2007, from Senator Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican, to the department that forwarded an email from a constituent who was concerned about the killings. The other seven pages are mostly internal emails -- three pages are a 2006 Washington Blade story on the killings -- with one from September 2006 and the rest from 2007.
ORAM, Organization For Refuge, Asylum & Migration, [PDF format warning] issued a press release noting: "ORAM, a groundbreaking international refugee advocacy organization, announced its launch today. The Organization for Refuge, Asylum & Migration is the first non-governmental organization (NGO) to focus exclusively on refugees and asylum seekers fleeing sexual and gender based violence. ORAM provides free legal counsel for LGBT refugees in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), who have escaped violence, executions and 'honor killings' in their home countries."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a mortar attack on the Green Zone, a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded an Iraqi soldier and a Diyala Province sticky bombing which injured one man and his son.
Shootings?
Reuters reports 1 person shot dead (from "a speeding car") in Mosul and an Iraqi soldier accidentally shot another Iraqi soldier to death in Mosul. DPA notes 2 Iraqi police officers were shot dead in Mosul.
At CounterPunch today, professional media hooker Norman Solomon demonstrates that, even with a plush bankroll, you can't teach an old whore new tricks. Normy gave it up for Barack. He could have remained neutral but he whored it. And he LIED because he didn't think he needed to tell people he was supporting Barack, that he was a pledged delegate for Barack. He noted it in his columns but his radio appearances? 'Surely no one would pay attention.' He thought wrong. His reputation in tatters, he keeps trying to slink back in as an 'independent' voice. You can only lose your cherry once, Norman. In "Obama and the Antiwar Democrats" (no link to trash), Norman wants to YET AGAIN tell you what to do. Forgetting that's what got him into trouble in the first place. He wants you to support . . . Marcy Winograd. Why the hell should anyone support her? Because Norman loves her? Last year, he was spreading for Barry O -- his judgment is a joke. Norman wants you to know Marcy's different. Really? Back in May, Ruth wondered, "Why should anyone vote for Marcy Winograd?" Noting Marcy's sexual ravings over Barack (she pants as easily as does Norman), Ruth wrote, "She is perfectly fine with all of Mr. Obama's cavings last week (military tribunals, torture photos, etc.). She said so. What is progressive about that stance?" Not a damn thing. Not one damn thing. And after you hijacked the peace movement and whored it out for Barack in 2007 and 2008, shame you on you, Norman Solomon, for showing up in 2009 and telling people the answer is a 2010 election. Norman Solomon really needs to consider retirement. He's destroyed his reputation and he apparently has nothing left to offer except, "VOTE!" Norman's confused a high school civics lesson with activism.
Pity Norman didn't want to teach history instead. That's needed. May 28, 2009, Alyssa Rosenberg (Government Executive) was reporting on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement that "domestic partners of gay and lesbian diplomats" would be granted "many of the same rights and protections as the spouses of heterosexual Foreign Service officers." That would be the same Hillary who issued a statement June 1st noting this month is Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Poor Barry O, he spent the primaries going around declaring, "What she said!" All this time later, he still can't lead. Yesterday Barry O finally had a remark to offer on . . . Well, no, he didn't and no one called him out, now did they? Click here for the White House video of Barry's remarks. Search in vain for "gay" or "lesbian." He says "the people that they love are of the same-sex" and gets in one ref to "LGBT employees". And Homophobic Barry Obama never notes that it's Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. How embarrassing. He's still a half-assed copy of Hillary. Marcia, Cedric and Wally covered the do-nothing Barack last night.
You need to grasp how much you would ridicule a White president who refused to mention Black History Month while signing legislation effecting African-Americans during Black History Month. There's a lot of bigotry going on and not all of it can fall under "soft bigotry." Witness raging homophobe Harry Jackson who was a guest on today's Diane Rehm Show (NPR) and lied and flamed and made a real ass out of himself. First off, Harry, no photographer has a license. A photographer who doesn't want to take a photo doesn't get a "license revoked." No surprise that a bigot like Harry Jackson would also be an idiot. Maybe if he wants to weigh in on life today, he needs to do a little more research. Most jaw dropping moment when he likened same-sex relationships to suicide. He also used "you people" to refer to gays and lesbians, insulted them as a "sudden population" (that will apparently die out? or be executed?), whined repeatedly about "reverse discrimination" and how "my kids are going to be taught . . . my kids will be taught in school" that people like Harry Jackson are bigots. And people like Harry Jackson are bigots so apparently Harry Jackson also wants to declare a war on education. Harry whined about how he's been intimidated. As dumb as he is, one has to wonder how he'd even know if someone was trying to intimidate him. Harry basically told every caller and e-mailer they were idiots and was especially patronizing to those in Diane's audience who self-identified as Christians.
State of journalism. The Washington Post's Walter Pincus has written an essay for Columbia Journalism Review and it's worth reading but I've been asking, "When is anyone going to ask the real questions?" Janet Coleman interviewed him for Monday's Cat Radio Cafe on WBAI and she didn't raise what I feel are the big issues. It's a fine interview, Janet always does strong interviews and knows her craft. You have eighty or so days to catch it at the WBAI archives and I believe it stays up at Cat Radio Cafe as long as that site is up. But before Walter's interviewed next, notes. Politico is not a site I care for (obviously) and it's nothing but Rona Barrett's DC! But Walter needs to be asked about it because this is an online version of what he attempted in the early seventies -- only not as gossip, as news. There were eight or nine places around the country where the paper he and others were planning would be printed and service those communities. Especially with various laid off, forced retired et al journalists willing to explore doing an online combine today, Pincus should share the insight on why that project did not work. In passing, and on his own, he alluded to that with Janet.
Walter Pincus: I'm one of these people who, years ago, tried to start a paper and had to learn the hard way that it's the business side that takes the hardest work. We all know how to write stories, to some degree know how to find out information. But making it pay and producing a package that appeals to a wide enough number of people to support advertising is the trick. And I think this younger generation once they put down their Twitters and all these superficial electronic gadgets that are headline services and do something really worthwhile are going to come up with some ideas and we'll have a new generation of press entrepreneurs.
Walter Pincus, and others, were planning their paper at the start of the seventies. There would be national coverage in all the papers and some regional coverage would migrate into the other papers. That was the plan. It was ambitious. And he speaks above, briefly, about a paper that failed. If you're talking about the state of journalism today, that passage above is as important as anything in his essay. Maybe more. By the way, Liza Featherstone also has an article in the new CJR, she's covering the identity crisis at the Wall Street Journal.
PBS note, this week on Bill Moyers Journal (begins airing tomorrow night 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.
i can get that he didn't see all this because he's as dumb as he is dishonest. but even gordon brown should have grasped by yesterday that he was creating another huge problem for himself. you would have thought he would have tried to walk it back.
'i have thought about it,' he could have said, 'and of course the inquiry needs to be public.' he could have seized control of the narrative.
but not now.
the conservative party announced today that next wednesday it is waterloo in parliament as they step it up to gordo.
you get a feeling brown's also not expecting that.
i think he's driven away every 1 in new labour who could have advised him. he's burned those bridges. and now he's got a bunch of weaklings and sell-outs (that is who supported him in the end) and they don't give a damn. they want him in power for a bit more but plan to burn him right after the elections and are just stringing him along.
so he's got no 1 who can give him any good advice and he's not smart enough to think up good advice on his own.
The credibility of the Iraq War inquiry was in tatters last night as the head of the Army revealed that he was not even consulted about it. General Sir Richard Dannatt also threw his weight behind growing demands for some hearings to be open to the public. The Chief of the General Staff said he was 'not privy' to the discussions which led Gordon Brown to announce on Monday that the inquiry would be held behind closed doors.
get how out of it brown is? get how alone he is? that was a basic. but no 1 said, 'pick up the phone and call dannatt.' no 1 cared enough. because they're all biding their time and waiting to replace gordon.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Nouri offers trash talk to Le Monde, house raids and arrests in Iraq, and Gordon Brown remains stuck in the trap of his own making.
Last night the Democratically controlled US House of Representatives passed the War Supplemental. 226 members (221 Democrats, 5 Republicans) voted for it, 202 members (32 Democrats, 170 Republicans) voted against it. (Six members did not vote, three Dems, three Republicans.) Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post) notes that Anthony Weiner caved and broke down like a do-nothing piece of trash despite claiming he wouldn't vote for it. He is quoting saying it "sucks." Yes, and this week so does Tony. Bacon reports the strong arming efforts by "Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner" as well as US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Janet Hook (Los Angeles Times) also notes the pressure, "Administration officials and Democratic leaders intensely lobbied holdouts among the Democratic ranks in advance of the House vote. The result was close because only five Republicans supported the bill and 32 antiwar Democrats opposed it." Hook quotes cowardly George Miller who voted for it after it opposing it last month. The coward insists, "I'm against the war." David Lightman (McClatchy's Miami Herald) quotes US House Reps Dennis Kucinich and Lynn Woolsey. Kucinich wonders, "How do we support the troops? We support them by bringing them home. That's what we should be appropriating money for, not to keep them there." Woolsey declares, "I don't vote to fund the troops in these situations, ever." Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox) states, "I am not even remotely surprised that the new supplemental bill for war funding passed the House today." She notes the War Hawks Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Obama and Rahm Emmanuel would not have allowed a vote to be taken if they were sure it would be rammed through and that Nancy, Steny, Barack and Rahm -- as members of Congress -- "gave George Bush every damn penny for war he demanded so why wouldn't they also fill their own WAR chests?" Cindy explains how she left the Democratic Party in 2007 because of disgust over exactly these sort of actions and encourages Woolsey and Kucinich to follow her lead. It was not just Democrats who voted against the measure, obviously by the count. Paul West (Baltimore Sun) reports that his state's conservative, Roscoe Bartlett, and liberal, Donna Edwards, voted against it ("the only Marylanders to"). Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) stated this morning, "The Republicans opposed a part of the bill to increase funding for the International Monetary Fund." That's painting with a broad stroke. Ron Paul would have voted against the measure regardless of the IMF provision. And it doesn't really matter why they voted "no," what matters is they voted "no." If I'm on trial for murder and you vote me not guilty but because you like my shoes, I don't give a damn. I'm just happy you voted me not guilty. There's a purity play going on that's not helpful. And, most importantly, the House Republicans demolished the talking point that they and a lot of Democrats fell back on repeatedly: Not to vote for the war funding was to spit on the troops! No. Not voting for the war funding was not voting for the war funding and, thanks to the House vote, maybe we can avoid that loco talking point for a few years. Goodman played Kucinich stating:
We are destroying our nation's moral and fiscal integrity with the war supplemental. Instead of ending wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan now by appropriating only enough money to bring our troops home, Congress abdicates its constitutional authority, defers to the President, and asks for a report. That's right. All we're asking for is a report on when the President will end the war. [. . . .] There's money, too, for the IMF, presumably to bail out European banks, billions for the IMF, so they can force low- and middle-income nations to cut jobs, wages, healthcare and retirement security, just like corporate America does to our constitutents. And there's money to incentivize the purchase of more cars, but not necessarily from the US because a Buy America mandate was not allowed. Another $106 billion and all we get is a lousy war. Pretty soon that's going to be the only thing made in America: war.
At Kokesh for Congress, Adam Kokesh speaks with Ron Paul (video). We're getting ready to vote for the supplemental bill which is a total disaster and going exactly the opposite direction. So in time, we're going to see a change because we can't continue this, we just can't spending money, borrowing money, and then printing what you don't have. That just leads to a disaster." At Antiwar.com, Scott Horton's posted Ron Paul's remarks on the House floor regrding the War Supplemental and we'll note this section:
I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.
Jeremy Scahill (Rebel Reports) concludes, "This vote has revealed a sobering statistic for the anti-war movement in this country and brought to the surface a broader issue that should give die-hard partisan Democrats who purport to be anti-war reason for serious pause about the actual state of their party. Only 30 Democrats voted against the war funding when it mattered. And these 30 did so in the face of significant threats to their political future from the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That means that only 30 out of 256 Democrats are willing to stand up to the war and the current president presiding over it."
From sell out Dems to sell out New Labour Gordon Brown. BBC reports this afternoon that "Conservatives are to step up the pressure on the government to hold the Iraq war inquiry in public by staging a Commons debate on the issue. MPs will debate a Tory motion next week calling for the Iraq proceedings to be held in public 'whenever possible'." For those late to the party, Rebecca's been following Brown's problems for weeks now and she offered last night:and, as i pointed out when he managed to skate by, his 'saved' job is not 'good news' for him. he now has to deliver.right out of the gate, gordon's already demonstrated he can't deliver and that there's been no change. which means the next time they try to oust him, he won't have a card left to play.he can't say, 'i'll be transparent this time!' he promised that before. he promised every thing to hold on to his job.and he got to hold on to his job.and he went back to doing exactly what he'd always done.gordon doesn't grasp it but that 'saving' was actually the beginning of the end.
Gordon Brown came very close to losing his prime minister post. His first action after pinky swearing he was a changed politician was to announce (Monday) a closed door inquiry into the Iraq War staffed by his friends. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports General Lord Guthire of Craigiebank feels the inquiry Brown's proposing is insufficient and says a full inquiry would also "examine Mr Brown's role in the failure to supply the Armed Forces properly." David Pamment writes the Guardian to ask, "What has happened to his promises, made little more than a week ago, to being to listen to the people and would make parliament more transparent, open and accountable? Gordon is unable to change the way he does politics. We should stop colluding with a prime minister who is deep in denial, and clearly unable to deal with his addiction to secrecy and government by cabal." Jim McCluskey writes the Independent of London:
In setting up an investigation into an alleged crime it would seem unwise to create an investigating panel composed of employees, ex-employees and friends of the alleged criminal. If the investigating panel is then told to work in secret and not find anyone guilty there is a chance that suspicions might be aroused with respect to the authenticity of the exercise. Groans of disbelief and despair echo round the country as Mr Brown's inquiry into the Iraq war is compared with his promise of more open government. As your columnist Adrian Hamilton says (16 June) this is an insult to the citizens and to Parliament. The response must be for the citizens, against whom the alleged crime of entering into an illegal and unjust war was committed, to set up their own parallel inquiry.
Adrian Hamilton's column (mentioned in the letter above) concluded with this: "The invasion of Iraq did not have full public support, it has not ended in victory and it is impossible to deal with the questions it poses without apportioning blame. This inquiry is a classic establishment exercise in driving a thorny subject into the long grass -- par for the course, yes; predictable, no doubt; but nonetheless an insult to the public and to Parliament for all that." Chris Irvine (Telegraph of London) reports General Sir Mike Jackson is also calling out the behind-closed-doors nature Brown is proposing with Jackson saying it fees "the climate of suspicion and skepticism about government". Kim Sengupta and Michael Savage (Independent of London) note, "Senior military and intelligence officers have condemned Gordon Brown's decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry in secret, warning that it looks like a cover-up. Military leaders, who have lost 179 personnel in Iraq, want their actions judged by the public, and intelligence officials say the politicans' manipulation of intelligence should be thoroughly examined." Dubbing it "scandalous," Jonathan Steele (Guardian) wonders, "Does he [Brown] seriously imagine he can dictate its mandate and procedure on his own? At the very least, he should have discussed these issues with the leaders of other parties first. Better still, he should allow a day's debate in parliament on it." Binoy Kampmark (CounterPunch) observes, "The difficulty with this inquiry is that it already has an appearance of being toothless even before it begins in earnest. The procedure of this paper tiger will take place in camera. It has no powers of any consequence, lacking such important means as that of subpoena, relying on the goodwill of those it asks to attend. (Tony Blair will, in all probability attend to spite his long time rival, though he need not.) Evidence need not be given on oath. When ultimately published, sensitive material will be abriged for the public readership."
Joey Jones (SKY TV -- link has text and video) noted this morning that Brown's Children's Secretary Ed Balls ended up being put on the spot when he showed up for an interview on a different topic and he did say "he hoped the inquiry team would hold some hearings in public". Paul Waughn (This is London) reports Balls "threw No.10 into a panic when he suggested in a TV interview that his 'personal view' was that the Iraq inquiry should be accessible to the public." MP George Galloway of the Respect Party issued the following statement: "This was a war that has killed a million people, conceived in secrecy and justified with lies. Now we are to have an inquiry in secret presided over by figures who are thoroughly compromised. This is an insult and belies the commitment to 'transparency' that Gordon Brown made just days before. Not even the generals who carried out the orders to attack Iraq have any confidence with the terms under which the inquiry has been set up. It will not have the right to apportion blame and it will only report after the next election. This is an utterly cynical manoeuvre that will convince no-one. In the meantime, the war in Afghanistan is growing and getting worse."
From the British Parliament to the Iraq one, MP Harith al-Obeidi (also spelled Obaidi) was assassinated Friday outside his mosque. The day before he was assassinated, he had called for an independent investigation into reports of abuse and torture in Iraqi prisons. Amnesty International issues the following:
Iraq: Amnesty International calls for an independent investigation into the assassination of Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi In a letter sent to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamil al-Maliki, Amnesty International has expressed grave concern at the killing of Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi, Vice-President of the Human Right Committee of the Iraqi parliament, and requested urgent clarification as to what steps the government has undertaken to investigate the murder. The organization has also called for an independent investigation into reports of torture of detainees in a prison in the city of al-Diwaniyah. Dr al-'Ubaidi, who also headed the Sunni Accord Bloc in parliament, was shot dead at the end of Friday prayers on 12 June 2009 at al-Shawwaf Mosque in the Baghdad district of al-Yarmuk. After firing at Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi with a pistol the killer is reported to have thrown a hand grenade at other prayer attendees, killing five people and injuring 12 others, before he was shot and killed by police. A number of Iraqi parliamentarians have since denounced the killing and attributed Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi's murder to his human rights work, especially his recent exposure of cases of torture, including rape, of detainees following a visit he undertook a few weeks ago to a women's prison in al-Kadhmiya in Baghdad. Dr al-'Ubaidi told the media that several women detained at the prison told him that they had been raped during interrogation. Further evidence of torture of detainees is reported to have been brought to light by a human rights body affiliated to al-Diwaniyah Governorate, which has accused the security authorities of torturing detainees during interrogation in order to extract "confessions". Investigators from the Interior Ministry are reported to have identified bruising on 10 of the 170 prisoners in al-Diwaniyah Prison that may have been caused by torture or other ill-treatment. In its letter, Amnesty International has requested prompt clarification of the steps being taken by the Iraqi authorities to investigate the attack on Dr al-'Ubaidi and other worshippers at al-Shawwaf Mosque, which it strongly condemns, and to establish whether it was perpetrated by a gunman acting alone or with the active assistance of others. Further, the organization has requested prompt clarification of the steps being taken by the Iraqi authorities to investigate the allegations of torture cited above and to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses. In accordance with Iraq's obligations under international human rights law, including the UN Torture Convention (CAT), such investigations should be independent, impartial and conducted and completed without delay. The outcome should be made public and anyone found responsible should be brought to justice through fair trial procedures and without recourse to the death penalty. The organization has called on the Iraqi authorities to ensure that all detainees have access to regular medical care, families, lawyers of their own choosing and the right to challenge the legality of their detention. In addition, all persons in custody should either promptly charged with recognizable criminal offences and trial in accordance with international standards of fair trial, or released. Public Document For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org
al-Obeidi was assassinated Friday. Monday reports emerged of a Baghdad prison where prisoners were on a hunger strike to protest the conditions. Naturally the Ministry of the Interior runs it. And naturally no one notes that over two years ago the Ministry of the Interior was supposed to have STOPPED running prisons -- in fact, they were supposed to have only run detention centers (not prisons) and that was supposed to have een stopped with CPA Order No. 10. June 5, 2003, PDF format warning, the order in question read: "Full authority and control over all detention and prison facilities, currently exercised by the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Interior, is hereby vested in the Ministry of Justice. The Directorate of Adult Prisons and Directorate of Juvenile Prisons in the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, all facilities under their authority, and all employees thereof, are hereby transferred to the Ministry of Justice." AP reports Jawad al-Bolani, Interior Minister, assured the press that at least 40 'bad apples' employed at the prison would be fire. In other distractions, Middle East Online reports a raid today in Baghdad in which Ahmed Abed Oweiyed was arrested. Who? Exactly. Aljazeera magazine reports the claim is he's a member of al Qaeda in Iraq and he's responsible for the assassination of al-Obaidi. "Wait," you say, "a fifteen year-old . . . who turned out to be 25 or 27 depending upon reports, is supposed to have been responsible." The 'logic' goes that Ahmed Abed Oweiyed was the "mastermind" of the assassination. Al Qaeda in Iraq targeted al-Obaidi specifically because . . . Well no one's supposed to ask that. It's supposed to fall under the generic "Sunni MP too close to Shi'ite" 'logic.' Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports that while the convicted-let's-sentence-him claims were being made, "[o]ther officials were more cautious in their assessments. . . . Al Qaeda and Sunni hardliners accuse members of Ubaidi's Accordance Front of being traitors for taking part in the political process with a Shi'ite-led government. But Ubaidi was also a leading rights defender, in particular of Iraqi prisoners, and some fellow politicians have tried to point the finger at other potential culprits, such as Interior Ministry officials."
Kim Gamel (AP) covers the raid and also notes that Nouri al-Maliki was interviewed by Le Monde and that he states of the American troops, "We will not ask them to intervene in combat operations or in operations related to maintaing public order." Yeah, that's the feel good quote which is why we skipped it this morning -- any outlet that covers will note that and ignore all the rest. Le Monde offers a Q & A with Nouri al-Maliki entitled "Les Arabes doivent prendre Obama au sérieux." al-Maliki maintains US and Iraqi relations are "good" and must continue to have mutual respect and non-interference. (No, the US and Iraq relationship has never had either.) He claims Iraqi sovereignty is restored and, with it, civil order which allows his (puppet) government to now rule. On the Iranian group of rebels or terrorists (considered terrorists by Iran), the ones Saddam welcomed in Iraq and the ones the US military has protected since 2003, Nouri declares that they killed Iranians (at least 12,000) in Iran and that they killed Kurds and Shi'ites once Saddam let them into Iraq. He states that no country will take them but they must leave Iraq. They have no place in Iraq, he insists, but Iraq will not turn them over to Iran.Claims Iraq will have a national identity and not a Shi'ite one or Kurdish one or Sunni one. On the Sahwa ("Awakening" Councils, "Sons Of Iraq"), Nouri states he was lied to.Nouri states the United States lied to him.Nouri states that he asked the US how many Sahwa there were and he was told only 53,000. At which point, he says, he agreed to integrate them into Iraqi forces and asked only for lists. When the lists finally arrived (he says six weeks after being requested), there weren't 53,000 names there were 107,000. He gets a snide remark about the US military officers not being very selective. He compares it to the Iraqi police of 2003-2004 which he claims were actually members of al Qaeda in Iraq or militias and argues he had to fire 30,000 such people as a result (fire from the police).He states only 20% of Sahwa will be integrated into Iraqi forces. He states many broke the laws and those who did are going to the courts. Everyone, he maintains, cannot be integrated. Nouri lies throughout and, on the point of Sahwa, he knew it was more than 50,000. The US Congress, in April of 2008, was making a very big deal about the huge number -- approximately 100,000 -- and Nouri was following those hearings (Petraeus and Crocker) and he was also given a briefing on them by then US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
The US military announced: "Multi-National Division – North CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, TIKRIT, Iraq – A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related incident in the Ninewa province of northern Iraq June 16. 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 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. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4314.
Jeremy: Let's step back and look at what we've seen happen over five months of the Obama administration when it comes to foreign policy. We've seen a radical escalation of the war in Afghanistan. We've seen Obama continue to use a quarter-million U.S. contractors--50 percent of the force that's fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's increasing the number of mercenaries in Afghanistan by 29 percent and approximately 23 percent in Iraq. He's continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and maintaining the monstrous U.S. embassy that was built, in part, on the basis of slave labor. He's continuing to dole out contracts to KBR, the single greatest corporate beneficiary of the war, despite the fact that its work has electrocuted U.S. soldiers. He's pumping up the National Endowment for Democracy, the leading organ to promote U.S. neoliberal economic policy and interfere in the elections and democratic processes of countries where the outcome might not be favorable to U.S. interests. He's continuing to use the rhetoric of the war on drugs in Latin America. Overall, he's implementing a U.S. foreign policy that in some ways--or, I think, in many ways--advances the interest of the American empire in a way the Republicans could only have dreamed of doing. What people, I think, misunderstand about Barack Obama is that this is a man who is a brilliant supporter of empire--who has figured out a way to essentially trick a lot of people into believing they're supporting radical change, when in effect what they're doing is supporting a radical expansion of the U.S. empire. I think that it's a bit disingenuous for people to act as if though they were somehow hoodwinked by Barack Obama about this. If people were playing close attention during the election--not just to the rhetoric of his canned speech that he gave repeatedly, and the commercials, and the perception of his supporters was that he somehow was this transformative figure in U.S. politics, but also to the documents being produced by the Obama campaign and the specific policies he outlined--you realized that Barack Obama was very much a part of the bipartisan war machine that has governed this country for many, many decades. What we see with Obama's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader Arab and Muslim world, as well as his global economic policies, are a continuation of the most devastating and violent policies of the Bush administration--while placing a face on it that makes it easier to expand the iron fist of U.S. militarism and the hidden hand of the free market in a way that Republicans, I think, would have been unable to do at this point in history.
Anthony: I think the key word is perception. Whether or not people were paying enough attention, it's clear that Barack Obama was able to get elected by signaling, even if only rhetorically, a shift in U.S. foreign policy. But as Jeremy points out, the continuity is really disturbing on a number of fronts. There are striking similarities to the policies of the Bush administration. Take, for example, habeas corpus rights. The Obama administration made a lot of noise about closing down Guantánamo. Yet in a series of briefs, the Justice Department has said that prisoners held in any base other than Guantánamo don't have habeas corpus rights--for example, prisoners being held in Bagram, Afghanistan. The administration has also filed briefs saying people in Guantánamo shouldn't have the ability to challenge their detention in civilian courts, so it's preserved the military commissions policy of the Bush administration. In Iraq, although Barack Obama promised he would have all troops out by 2012, the ground is being laid for troops to stay in Iraq for years and years to come. The army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said that the Pentagon was making preparations to keep troops in Iraq until the year 2019.
Anthony thinks the key word is "perception." Fine, Anthony, let's talk perception. Let's talk about the very clear "perception" the Socialist Worker presented all through 2008 that Saint Barack, the Christ-child, was the answer to all of society's ills. And, staying with "perception," when you and Howard Zinn agree to host a Barack inaugural ball, it creates a "perception." And don't e-mail me with that excuse about how you and Howard wanted your names taken off. Had you asked, your names would have been taken off. That ball wasn't staged by strangers, it was staged by your friends. There was never, NEVER, any excuse for you or Howard to lend your names to that event.
"Perceptions"? Yeah, there are a ton of them and it's really time to own the ones that you are responsible for. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it needs to be said and we need to quit playing like we had bravery. We had nonsense. And it was especially disappointing to be calling out a Corporatist War Hawk in 2008 and grasp that the bulk of the Socialist Worker -- SOCIALIST! -- wouldn't even join in because they were too vested in Barry O's victory. You need to own your part in creating "perceptions." I'm not in the mood for revisionary history. You need to get honest, do a self-inventroy and take some accountability. It's not that easy, Anthony. Those of us who stood up when it mattered, who screamed loudly about the War Hawk aren't going to let those of you who promoted him suddenly pretend that they were also calling him out. Uh-uh. We put it on the line, you coasted. That's reality. You were an enabler for Barry, but you were not a liar for him. (Many others were and they get ripped apart by me here with glee. With glee!) You could have been much worse and many were and those people wouldn't get a link in any snapshot. But we're not playing that game. Too many of us stood up for the issues that mattered when they mattered and too many others coasted. There's not going to be any revisionary history. And, one other thing, Socialist Worker will never have any growth in readers in the US until it's political gas bags (I mean that gas bags, I don't mean writers-thinkers like Lance) grasp that insulting the working class doesn't make them want to read you. 2008 was a shameful period for the Socialist Worker and they either need to clean house or they need to implement a sensitivity training because the bulk of the writers demonstrated no ability to relate to the working class -- they did, however, demonstrate how much 'fun' it was for them to insult the working class. Repeatedly.
This morning I shared my thoughts re the media frenzy on Iran. Shirley and Martha say that's the big topic in the e-mails. Repeating, Kat has been covering this. Click here and here. And Jeremy Scahill weighed in this morning. And he highlights Sibel Edmonds take. It's not an Iraq subject and that was my excuse for not weighing in until this morning (also true, I've still got that stupid cold and this morning was the first morning this week I read the Times in full) but the opinion I expressed was neither novel nor unique. Kat was already on the terrain before me and you can read Jeremy and Sibel's opinions as well. All are common sense opinions and the fact that you're not getting them goes to the fact that media is trying to emote you into a war with Iran.
Iraq War veteran and conscientious objector Josh Stieber is on a cross-country trip in the US. Meghan Tierney (Maryland's Gazette) reports he's taking eight months to travel to California on foot and on bicycle. He states, "I hope to encourage people to live closer to the things they say they believe and demonstrate that violence isn't the only way to solve problems." Josh Steiber is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. More information on his journey can be found at Contagious Love Experiment.
Meanwhile, as Cedric and Wally noted last night, after the offensive DOMA brief (comparing same-sex relationships to incest and pedophilia) the "very least" Barack could do was to extend benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, the very least. Kilian Melloy (Boston's The Edge) reports that "critics charge that the memorandum, which has limited scope and staying power, is an anemic gesture that will do little to redress the inequalities in federal benefits faced by gay families. Partly because of DOMA itself, full equality of family benefits for federal employees would be difficult to come by without comprehensive legislative action." USA Today adds, "Response from gay rights groups to President Obama's offer of some federal benefits to same-sex partners of government employees: The sound of one hand clapping." Holly Bailey (Newsweek) notes the offensive DOMA brief and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell cave while pointing out, "All the bad publicity prompted the White House to schedule Obama's announcement today, though an administration official insisted to Newsweek that the 'memo' had been in the works all along. Indeed, privately, White House aides have been giving the wink and nudge treatment to the gay community for weeks, saying that Obama still believes everything he said in the campaing but he's had to deal with other pressing issues. (Btw, that sounds a lot like what Obama has said about abortion.)" The Baltimore Sun observes, "Mr. Obama has been disappointingly tepid in his commitment to affirming civil rights for gays at a time when he should be not only using his powers as chief executive to extend those rights but also his powers of moral persuasion to get the country behind them."
Lastly, David Zurewik (Baltimore Sun) continually demonstrates that TV criticism need not be reduced to the Water Cooler nonsense served up by the Idiot Bellafante (who just makes up moments on TV shows she 'reviews,' click here for Ava and I noting that) and so many others but something that actually resembles thought because it is actual thought and an actual critique:
It really is a cozy game that the White House is playing with the TV news industry, and it will be too late for us as citizens when some enterprising journalist (are there any left?) chronicles it in a book that is published two years from now. But wait, she or he will have to have access to the White House to get a decent advance, which demands its own kind of getting into bed with the administration. Perhaps, the best measure of how compliant the mainstream TV press has become is Obama's complaint Tuesday about having "one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking" his administration. Obama declined to name the "station" when asked by CNBC interviewer John Harwood -- what a childish, silly bit of gamemanship by a president. How could anyone not think it is Fox? When Harwood said he assumed Obama was speaking of Fox, the president replied, ""That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front." Given all the reckless and irresponsible words uttered by the likes Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, I hesitate to write these words, but good for Fox. It must be doing something right, if it has the president complaining about the tiny bit of scrutiny he gets on TV. On the other hand, if Fox News is our last, best TV watchdog on the White House, then the TV press, as well as media critics like me, should be profoundly embarassed, and vow to start doing a better job -- immediately.
thank you to c.i. for filling in last night.
we've got our daughter enrolled in gymastics and fly boy and i had to
go to a little presentation. she was cute, all of her class was but
they looked pretty wide eyed at the big kids. my daughter's only now
toilet trained, she's not an accomplished gymnist. nor do we assume she
will be. but we know the woman teaching the class and she mentioned she
had a toddler class and we figured this was a good outlet for energy
and a way to let her play and interact with others.
on monday,
u.k. prime minister gordon brown made another move in an attempt to
repair his image and hold on to his prime minister post. as he was
nearly ousted, gordo was telling every 1 he'd learned his lesson and
promised the country would see a more transparent era.
on monday he announced that there would be an inquiry into the iraq war.
and that it would be private.
no, that doesn't fit with his claims of greater transperancy.
no, that makes no sense at all.
why would it?
gordon brown is a proven liar.
and, as i pointed out when he managed to skate by, his 'saved' job is not 'good news' for him. he now has to deliver.
right
out of the gate, gordon's already demonstrated he can't deliver and
that there's been no change. which means the next time they try to oust
him, he won't have a card left to play.
he can't say, 'i'll be transparent this time!' he promised that before. he promised every thing to hold on to his job.
and he got to hold on to his job.
and he went back to doing exactly what he'd always done.
gordon doesn't grasp it but that 'saving' was actually the beginning of the end.
Tuesday,
June 16, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
another death, a lot people play 'proud parents' of Iraq, a call to
halt executions in Iraq, and more.
Camilo
Mejia: I actually was pretty much against the occupation from even
before my deployment. I had not bought into the whole rationale of
weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda and 9-11. But it was
all very political and all very -- I guess not very heart felt. I
wasn't really willing to put my livelihood or my good military record
on the line and I figured, you know, I'd just go to the theater, to
Iraq, and get it over with and put it behind me once I returned home.
But when I went to Iraq, my opposition to the war became more moral,
more spiritual, more personal. It wasn't just an abstract thing. It
wasn't just political because the first mission that we had was
basically to run a POW camp -- a prisoner of war camp -- and to keep
prisoners sleep deprived and for that we used a number of psychological
tactics fear tactics that amounted to torture. And being an infantry
man and being an infantry squad leader, following that mission we
engaged not just the enemy but basically the population of Iraq
particularly in a place called Ramada. And it just became a really
horrible situation you know it became something that you're not ready
to do as a human being. But at the same time my experience was very
intense we didn't really have a whole lot of time to think
philosophically or morally. Basically we wanted to get out of the place
alive and in one piece so the will to survive kicked in and pushed
aside moral concerns and it wasn't until I returned home on leave and I
had a little bit of piece of mind and safety that I went back to my
questioning of the war -- not just political but now moral as well and
coming from a personal experience. I realized that I had to choose
between being an obedient soldier and following my conscience you know
I couldn't do the two at once. So I chose to follow my conscience and
to not go back to the war and to eventually speak out against the war
like Victor is doing. And there are different angles from which you can
look at what Victor's doing and some people will say what awaits him is
jail time and court martial and a lot of stress, the rejection of some
of his peers and a harsh future in life. But in reality I think that
his decision not to go back to an occupation that he finds immoral and
illegal that goes against his conscience -- it's quite liberating and
in the end going to work better for him than obeying something that is
against his principals. And that's something you find from people who
have gone through similar things like we have gone through like Stephen
Funk and Augustin Aguayo and Kevin Benderman and other resisters. Yes,
there's jail time and you may be put behind bars and some people may
call you a coward or a traitor, but in the end you did what you knew
was right in your heart and there's no greater sense of satisfaction
and spiritual freedom than following your conscience. So I support him
and I think that he's doing the right thing and I think that he's to be
much better off resisting even if it means jail time than going back to
Afghanistan and doing things that he later on will not be able to live
with.
Nora Barrows Friedman asked Camilo about the state of things currently.
Camilo Mejia: For an organization like Iraq Veterans Against the War
for instance, who depend greatly upon contributions from the public and
support from ally organizations, we're having a very difficult time
right now getting through to people and fund raising and doing things
like that because the sense right now within the larger public is that
the Iraq War is ending, that the Iraq occupation is coming to an end --
which is not true, and that the Afghanistan War is now the good war and
that the -- Basically the Iraq War became indefensible. People turned
against it. And they needed a new centerpiece for the global war on
terror which is just another excuse for invading and occupying another
country to go after their natural resources and Afghanistan is that war
now. So a lot of people are on the fence or skeptical or giving
President Obama the benefit of the doubt. If you add to that the
financial crisis and a lot of people out there who are holding on to
their savings and taking pay cuts and unemployed and not contributing
the same and don't really feel like anti-war issues are any more that
relevant, not as relevant as before. So that's the civilian side of
things. I think right now we are on a stand-by when it comes to the
civilian side. When it comes to the GI side? Regardless of what the
official rhetoric is soldiers are still being deployed -- soldiers,
marines, air service men and women -- we're still being deployed. And
people are still coming back form Iraq and Afghanistan with untreated
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, returning to poverty in a broken
economy being recycled from Iraq to Afghanistan. The VA crisis is
really bad. We're short staffed. We have people who are suicidal who
are waiting months to see a psychiatrist or psychologist or even a case
worker. So regardless of the state of the civilian side of things we're
going to continue to resist because our experience hasn't changed.
Iraq Veterans Against the War has been requesting
people call their Congress members and demand a No vote on the War
Supplemental:In mid May, we asked you to take action by contacting your
legislators about the supplemental funding bill that would continue the
U.S. occupation in Iraq and escalate our presence in Afghanistan. Well,
since then, there have been some interesting developments, and we may
have a real opportunity to defeat this funding. Republicans who
previously voted for the earlier version of the bill do not want to
give the IMF funds to bail out international banks or the economies of
developing countries that have been affected by the global economic
crisis. And progressive Democrats do not want to support money for the
IMF due to its lack of transparency and its track-record of offering
small nations economic bailouts with high interest rates and other
nasty strings attached. Both sides have pledged to vote "NO" on the
current version of the bill that now includes the IMF funding.This vote
is expected to go to the House of Representatives TODAY. Please contact your member of the House today and tell them to vote "NO" on the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 2346).
This morning Carolyn Lochhead (San Francisco Chronicle) reported
on US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's strong-arming attempt to get
218 out of 256 Democratic House members to support funding the illegal
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the undeclared war in Pakistan. US
House Rep Lynn Woolsey is quoted stating, "I see no reason to be
keeping our troops in Iraq that much longer and to start into
Afhgnaistan when there's no end in sight. If we were voting on funds to
bring our troops home from Iraq, I'd vote for it in a minute. . . . I
just hope we're not repeating the mistake we made in Iraq." Lynn
Woolsey went public last week on Pelosi and the White House's strong
arming techniques earning the wrath of Barack's sock puppets and
professional whores across the internet. Woolsey is a member of the Out
of Iraq Caucus and one of the most telling votes will come from another
member of that caucus, one who spent 2007 cutting details for her
support of Barack and setting her own end up. Should she vote as she's
led the White House and Pelosi to believe, one so-called dove will be
sprouting her War Hawk feathers. Should it happen, it will be a big
shock to her constituents and aid the challenge being planned against
her in 2010. Rebecca notes her former pen pal has an article at CounterPunch wherein David Swanson
notes MoveOn attempts a bait-and-switch by endorsing a non-binding
amendment proposed by US House Rep Jim McGovern: "And MoveOn's timing,
together with other organizations in the Win Without War coalition, was
telling. Because many members of these groups oppose the war and have
complained about their organizations' silence on the supplemental vote,
the organizations' leaders chose the moment of the war vote to propose
something else that might at least look like a halfway step. In
reality, however, it may turn out to be counterproductive -- a
development that would please Pelosi and [White House Chief of Staff
Rahm] Emanuel." There is a chance the War Supplemental could go down in
flames. If enough Dems and Republicans say "no," it won't pass. Walter Alarkon (The Hill) reports that the Republican plan in the House is "to vot en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill".
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you make of --what
you're asking for is the Democrats to join with the Republicans in
voting against the appropriations bill. Why are the Republicans against
it?
BOB FERTIK: Because of the $5 billion for the IMF, which is a bailout for European banks. AMY GOODMAN: And so, you're asking Democrats to join with the Republicans.
BOB
FERTIK: Well, we're asking them to vote no on the bulk of the bill,
which is the war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan.
He
defines, he himself defines, the IMF issue as "a bailout for European
banks" but when Amy follows up that he's asking for Dems and
Republicans to join together? "Well, we're asking them to vote no on
the bulk of the bill . . ." Because heaven forbid the man from
Democrats.com work together with anyone to end the funding. I'm so sick
of that nonsense. Yes, Dems and Republicans opposed to the bill -- for
whatever reasons -- need to work together if they can. And that's in
Congress and it's out of Congress. And Bob earlier wanted "everybody"
to "call their representative at (202) 225-3121" -- everybody. And,
guess what, Bob, some of those US House Reps that "everybody" will be
calling? Republicans. For those who missed it, partisanship has ended
the Iraq War, stopped the Afghanistan or prevented the undeclared war
on Pakistan. Corey Boles (Wall St. Journal) reports
Steny Hoyer is bragging publicly that he believes the Dems have the
votes to pass the War Supplemental. Hoyer notes Barry O's efforts to
push the bill through and praises him for possibly toying with an
executive order barring the release of the torture photos because,
after all, America is an executive order. What's that? It's a
democracy? Don't tell Steny, he might pee all over himself in shock. Jeremy Scahill (Rebel Reports) points
out, "In funding the wars, the White House has been able to rely on
strong GOP support to marginalize the anti-war Democrats who have
pledged to vote against continued funding (as 51 Democrats did in May
when the supplemental was first voted on). But the White House is
running into trouble now because of Republican opposition to some of
the provisions added to the bill (and one removed), meaning the pro-war
Democrats actually need a fair number of anti-war Democrats to switch
sides. In short, the current battle will clearly reveal exactly how
many Democrats actually oppose these wars."
So Bob Fertik
wants you to stop the funding of the illegal war -- apparently without
working with any of those cootie-laced Republicans. And what of the
other brave hearts? American Freedom Campaign forgot about the Iraq War
-- woopsie! -- but did find time today to send out an e-mail entitled
"Book Recommendation: Daybreak" (no, not the Joan Baez book from
decades ago, a new book by David Swanson). Those brave men and women at
TomPaine, surely, they're all over this, right? Wrong. They sent out an
e-mail today too . . . . On public health care. Well The Nation, surely
The Nation magazine . . . . Oh, they e-mailed on "Iran's Twitter
Revolution." Well put a twit in charge of The Nation, expect
Twittering. Besides Katrina vanden Heuvel sold the 'good war' of
Afghanistan. She'll moan a little ("Oh, the humanity!") but otherwise
march along as she's told. Curse of the unpopular still desperate to
fit in. True Majority e-mailed . . . to tell you it was your "last
chance" to help Barry O with his his health plan. Good. Now they can
find something else to mail about. (They won't.) CODESTINK is, of
course, silent. They whored it out to Barack throughout 2007 and 2008.
They whored it out and they've no credibility remaining. So it's
probably good they just stand in their corners for the rest of 2009 and
think what about they did. MoveOn tries to distract from the War
Supplemental vote by suddenly pretending they care about the
environment via a pollution e-mailing. Anyone else remember the "The
earth can't wait one more minute!" screaming of 2007 and 2008? Anyone
else noticing that Barack doesn't give a damn about the environment
(first hint: Pro-mountain top removal and pro-nuclear energy)? Anyone
else noticing the silence from the Crazies who were screaming "End of
Times" last year and the year before? Sheryl Crow and her gal pal plan
to corner David Axelrod and scream at him about what's happening to the
administration? Just wondering.
Meanwhile the New York Times'
John F. Burns is just a whore who will never recover from whoring.
That's apparent today in the crap he scribbles under the headline "Britain to Investigate Role in Iraq." Couldn't keep it in his pants Burnsie played Go-Go Boy Gone Wild in the Green Zone
and if there's one person who filed in Iraq that brought more shame to
the paper than Dexy Filkins, it was his teacher, mentor and wet nurse
Burnise who was way too old not to know better. He's still way too old
not to know better and his article is an embarrassment. We gave him the
benefit of the doubt yesterday and just avoided it for the snapshot. He
might be rushing. He apparently was rushing. He rounded it out by
taking the Conservative leader's speech and basically presenting points
from it as a critique. Possibly that's a good thing since his own
critical abilities fail him. There's not any informed and honest
follower of the David Kelley inquiry at this late date who would refer
to it without serious questioning. But Burnsie thinks it's an example
of a great inquiry. And public, too! For those who've forgotten, the
BBC accused Blair's cabinet of sexing up the intel and that was based
on information provided by the late David Kelley. The inquiry was a
whitewash. Only later revelations, after the inquiry closed, proved how
right the BBC was. But this was after heads rolled. It takes a real
idiot to invoke the Kelley inquiry as anything worthy of praise but Fat
Ass Burnsie's been a real idiot for years now. Link provided for
laughter only. Laugh at him and grasp he can't just sit at a desk in
this economy. In the past the paper would keep useless garbage like
Burnsie on the payroll for decades as long as they reported for work
each day. They never had to actually compose a story worth publishing.
It was sort of the payroll version of the "Gentleman's C." Those days
are largely over. Catherine Mayer (TIME magazine) manages
to actually report, pay attention, Burnsie. She quotes Rose Gentle
protesting the non-public 'inquiry,' "What is the point of an inquiry
behind closed doors? No family would be happy with that. We already
feel that we have been lied to by the government. We don't want any
more lies." And Mayer notes that "the new inquiry has no powers of
subpoena and will hold no public hearings. Its report will be
published, but with some information considered potentially harmful to
national security redacted."
Released today in the US was [PDF format warning] "Joint Audit of Blackwater Contract and Task Orders for Worldwide Personal Protective Services in Iraq."
It is the latest report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction. As explained in the Executive Summary, "this report
focuses on Blackwater contract in Iraq". The report questions oversight
of the contract (including on labor costs billed to the government by
Iraq). It's a minor report (44 pages of text -- largely outlining what
Blackwater told them -- Blackwater, though not identified as such, is
the primary source for the report. That's apparent due as they go
through the step-by-step hiring process of Blackwater, etc. There was
little independence in this report which really should have given
Blackwater co-authorship of this report since they took all claims by
Blackwater on employment hiring practices at face value.) Viola Gienger (Bloomberg News) notes
that the report finds US diplomats were at "unnecessary risk" because
Blackwater did not staff properly. Yes, a scary thought, all the damage
Blackwater did in Iraq and they were understaffed. Imagine how many
civilian slaughters they could have carried out if they'd been full
staffed? CNN goes with the understaffed aspect as well but emphasizes the finanical portion:
"The State Department failed to seek $55 million in penalties from the
American security firm once known as Blackwater for not properly
complying with its security contract for protecting diplomatic
personnel in Iraq, an audit shows." Yochi J. Dreazen (Wall St. Journal) doesn't see a failure to seek penalties so much as "the State Department overpaid the contract-security firm".
While the press debates that, few bother to note that the European Union issued "Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the continuation of mass executions in Iraq:"The
European Union is deeply disturbed at reports that in recent days
further death sentences were carried out in Iraq, probably totalling
number 20.Moreover, the European Union is severely alarmed about
indications that further mass executions might be imminent. The
European Union opposes the death penalty in all cases and in all
circumstances. Our view is that the abolition of the death penalty
contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive
development of human rights. The European Union considers the death
penalty as a cruel and inhuman punishment and a violation to the right
to life. We consider that it provides no added value in terms of
deterrence. At a time where a positive image of Iraq and of its
achievements is emerging, the resumption of the execution of capital
punishment affects that image and does not help the effort aiming at
promoting the awareness of the positive developments in Iraq within the
international community and public opinion. The European Union is
particularly disturbed about the way in which the death penalty is
applied in Iraq, a country where the judiciary is still being
developed. The EU recalls that any miscarriage or failure of justice in
the application of capital punishment represents an irreparable and
irreversible loss of human life.The European Union considers it
indispensable that where States insist on applying the death penalty,
it is carried out with due respect to international obligations for the
protection of human rights, including the obligation that the death
penalty may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment after
legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair
trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the
right of anyone suspected of or charged with a crime for which capital
punishment may be imposed to adequate legal assistance at all stages of
the proceedings. The EU therefore urges the Government of Iraq to
resume the de facto suspension of the execution of death penalty, which
had been observed in Iraq since August 2007, pending legal abolition.
This suspension should include all cases still on death row in Iraq.
Such a step would be in line with the global trend towards abolition,
as demonstrated, inter alia, by the recent UN General Assembly
Resolutions calling for a moratorium with a view to considering the
abolition of the death penalty for all crimes. The Candidate Countries
Turkey, Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the
Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential
candidates Albania and Montenegro, and the EFTA countries Iceland,
Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as
well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Armenia align themselves
with this declaration. * Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association
Process.CTK adds, "A halt to the executions in Iraq was also recently demanded by Amnesty International human rights watchdog." From yesterday's snapshot, we'll note:
Nell Abram (Free Speech Radio News) reports
a hunger strike in Iraqi, "Dozens protested outside an Iraqi prison
today where hundreds of detainees have launched a hunger strike --
they're protesting what they describe as abuse. Most of the 300 men at
Iraq's Rusafa prison have been held without charge for at least a year.
Last week, a Sunni lawyer who was a prominent voice for prisoners'
rights was killed. Harith al-Obeidi, the head of Sunni Iraqi Accordance
Front, had publicly called for Iraqi officials to respond to claims of
torture in Iraqi jails."
Hey, kids, who runs that prison? The Ministry of the Inerior. Last November, they were offering Andrew North (BBC News) a tour of the Baghdad prison to disprove allegations of abuse. Is a potential pattern emerging?
Yes, it is the Ministry of the Interior and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports today, "Iraq's interior minister promised on Tuesday to punish any prison workers found guilty of abusing inmates." Iran's Press TV also notes it is "an interior ministry prison". Today in Iraq, Reuters reports
a bus accident in southern Iraq has resulted in the death of at least
14 people ("many of them children") with at least thirty more injured.
The dominant thread coming out of Iraq today is a lot of press members
playing proud parents. You know how those are. A B-report gets inflated
to an A, etc. So they hope no one attended Nouri's recital and saw the
hole on the seat of his tights when he was doing an Arabesque. Instead,
everyone's supposed to pretend that the acres and acres of the US
Embassy that anchor the Green Zone don't exist and that Nouri really,
honest!, has control over the Green Zone!!!! And forget those sprawling
US bases bordering and running through Baghdad and Mosul, Nouri's got
control!!! Control!!! It's such a proud moment and we're all so very --
Nouri, don't pick your nose. Stop that. But it's such a proud, proud
moment and we're all so very . . . . It's not news. It's not even good
propaganda. It's reporters shaming themselves in public. Way to drop
that whole pesky disinterested, objective pose. In other reported
violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report
a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded two Iraqi civilians and one US
service member, a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded four people and,
dropping back to Monday night, a Mosul roadside bombing which left two
people wounded. Reuters notes
a Monday Mosul bombing which left "a judge and two of his aides"
injured and a Monday Kirkuk car bombing which claimed the life of 1
person and left five more injured.
Today the US military announced:
"CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE ADDER, Iraq -- A Multi-National
Division-South Soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device
near the city of Samawah June 16. The Soldier's name is being withheld
pending notification of next-of-kin. The name of the Soldier will be
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
announcement brought to 4313 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.
In the US, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan
continues speaking out against the war machine. Her latest book is Myth
America: 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for
Revolution. She's on the road
and June 17th will be in St. Petersburg, Florida (6:00 pm at NOVA 535
and 8:00 to 9:00 pm at Cafe Bohmia). June 18th to 23rd, she blankets
Philadelphia and surrounding areas with eight different venues. June
20th she will hold a noon event at Penn Wynne Presbyterian Church in
Wynnewood, PA, then at three p.m. an event at Center City Phildelphia,
then that night, at beginning at seven thirty, she'll be at the
Moonstone Art Center in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. June 21st finds her at
the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Princeton, New Jersey
starting at two p.m. and later that night, 6:30, at St Luke's United
Church of Christ. June 22nd she'll be at Phila Community Center
starting at two p.m. and at Central Bucks & Montgomery County that
night at seven. June 23rds events include the Unitarian Universalist
Church in Bethlehem, New York at seven p.m. June 24 and 25th are NYC.
For a full listing click here. Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox is Cindy's weekly radio program and Dallas radio station 1360 AM, Rational Radio, is now carrying it on Sundays. World Can't Wait has video of Cindy's protest last week at Bush's home in Dallas.
In
other news, "This Is Why" is a mailing sent out by the Democratic Party
today (Democratic National Committee), it's filled with lies so big
surprise it's signed by Barack Obama. (Wall Street bought and paid for
you Barack, only you're most demented still believe your myth of small
donors.) It's another "Send money!" Another, "You got a dollar?" The
begging is appalling. It's not 2010. It's not begging for a political
race. It's just begging. It's just greed. Some people need to start
worrying about how tacky and cheap they're coming off. It's bad enough
to have Celebrity In Chief. It's far worse to have one who can't stop
whoring it out for a few dimes. Try to maintain the dignity of the
office. Please stop trying to prostitute the office of the presidency
due to your never ending greed.
"Why didn't you plug Rebecca in today's snapshot?" Because she's off tonight. Rebecca's got a thing with her daughter and you've got me, C.I., for tonight. (It's a mobile thing, an active thing, she's not going to turn her toddler into a beauty queen, this isn't a pageant.) I would guess Rebecca will address what's going on in England tomorrow night. She has been following Gordon Brown and that controversy for about two weeks now. (And doing a great job.)
That's Leon Panetta who seems to believe that "C" in CIA stands for "Catty." (I know Panetta. I found his remarks to have been beneath his office. As a member of Congress or a former member of Congress, he could have made the call he did on Cheney. The post he occupies currently, however, necessitates that his remarks fall into a narrower range.)
At The Daily Howler today, Bob Somerby notes Joan Walsh's appearance on Fox "News." Somerby thinks she was less than prepared and notes he enjoys Joan. I don't. I've had it with her attempting to speak for Latinas and mispeaking. I've had it with all her nonsense and everytime she speaks, she does more harm than good.
Joan Walsh decided to weigh in on abortion. Somerby offers, "In all fairness, she didn’t seem to have a developed view on the subject, aside from being pro-choice." And he's entitled to his opinion. He doesn't speak for me and Joan certainly doesn't. If you're a man, I want you to read the transcript excerpt below and try to pretend you're a woman for a moment:
O’REILLY (6/12/09): Now for the top story tonight. Joining us from San Francisco is Joan Walsh. Do you feel that late-term fetuses deserve any protections at all, Ms. Walsh? WALSH: You know, Bill, that really is the hardest, hardest issue in the abortion debate. They make up one percent of all abortions. And certainly there are abuses. But the vast majority of that one percent happen to be women who were either diagnosed with breast cancer very late-stage, have to choose between their baby and chemotherapy. That young girl's story was really tragic, but I have also read the story of a 9-year-old who was raped by her stepfather, who didn't know she was pregnant until very late. And women who found out late in their pregnancies, tragically, that their babies really would die in a matter of days, they would be subject to surgery, et cetera, etcetera. So— O'REILLY: Well, all of that, if they find that out, all of that is, can be taken care of in many hospitals. The Supreme Court as you know has ruled, even in states that outlaw late-term abortion, if the mother's health is in catastrophic danger, abortion can take place.
Did you catch it? Maybe women didn't, let alone men trying to put themselves into a woman's shoes for a minute.
If you didn't catch it, it's this section right here: "And certainly there are abuses."
Excuse me?
Joan Walsh needs to sit her ass down and stop trying to 'help.'
There are abuses?
In what way are their abuses, Joan Idiot Walsh?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about the Have Six Abortions In A 12 Month Period And Get A Free Pair Of Nylons! promo. That's it, right? Women, we're always telling ourselves, "Get that sixth abortion and get those free pantyhose." (That was sarcasm and Rebecca's readers can grasp that but for any drive-bys, there is no offer of free pantyhose with abortions.)
Abortion is legal.
Any woman who wants to have one can have one (provided she has the money because the government won't cover that healthcare for women and provided she can find someone who can perform it).
"There are abuses"?
In what way are there abuses?
Who does Joan Walsh think she's helping with that sort of crap?
Really, Joan, just sit your tired ass down, no one needs that help.
Abortion is a medical procedure and it's a legal one.
There's no "abuse" of it.
If a woman wants one and has the good fortune to have access to income and a provider, she can have one.
She was an idiot throughout the interview and that's because she's an idiot.
And she can be one, that's her right.
But we don't need Joan 'fighting' for our rights if that's how she fights and that's how she always fights.
She's never informed and she uses the debator ploy of "Pretend you agree to find common ground and when you establish that . . ."
I have no common ground with Bill O'Reilly on abortion. And the abortion rights movement has no common ground with him. Joan Walsh doesn't need to present herself as one of us and sell us out.
Unlike Joan, I don't believe Bill O'Reilly is responsible for Dr. George Tiller's death. I don't believe he did or said anything he needs to apologize for because he doesn't believe he did. It would be an insincere apology. He used his free speech. He believed what he said. He still believes it, he doesn't need to apologize and we need to grasp that Bill O'Reilly offering his opinion -- in loud and strong terms -- is not the abortion rights movement's threat. Our threat is idiots like Joan Walsh who immediately cave and agree that there are abortion "abuses."
I'm sorry George Tiller was assassinated. I think he was a very brave person who helped so many women including women that were helped just by knowing he was doing the work. But George Tiller's not God. (And he'd never claim he was.)
I have to say that because Joan Walsh appears to think he is. Bill O'Reilly shows Walsh a clip and what does our 'helper' say? "I don't necessarily know what makes those men any better judges of these women's conditions than Dr. Tiller. Bill, we live in different worlds. You believe your experts. I believe mine."
Uh, Idiot Joan, the only experts on abortion? The women who need them. Not Dr. Tiller. He's an expert on how to perform the procedure but he never had one. It's amazing that Joan sees Tiller and not the women seeking abortions as the experts.
It's a woman's body, it's a woman's choice and she doesn't owe an explanation to Joan Walsh or any other Nimrod on why she chooses to have or not have an abortion.
Sarah Palin chose not to have one and has talked about her decision and choice there. She obviously made the right choice for her and I applaud her for it. But a woman who chose to have an abortion, in the exact same conditions Palin was in, made the right decision for her.
Because, pay attention Joan Idiot Walsh, it's not just pregnancy. Whether or not you can raise a child is an issue each woman needs to deal with. It may be, "No, not any." It may be, "Yes, but I already have all I can feed, clothe and care for." Whatever it is, a woman looks at her experiences and her qualifications and what she can manage.
And it's her decision because it's her body and because, should she carry to term, it's her responsibility. Even if she gives the child up for adoption immediately after birth, that's a decision she has to make, that's a responsibility.
There are no "abuses." There are women making the best decisions they can at the time. And they don't need Joan Walsh cluck-clucking over them and the abortion rights movement doesn't need a 'defender' who presents as an apologist or as if abortion is a bad thing.
It's a medical procedure. It's a legal medical procedure. Your only decision and judgment over it is if you're the one pregnant. Otherwise, it's none of your damn business. Someone should explain that to Joan Walsh.
Monday, June 15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordon Brown attempts a whitewash, Sunnis under attack, Iraq stages its first state funeral over the weekend, and more.
Starting with England. Military Families Against the War's Rose Gentle told the BBC earlier today of the speculation of an inquiry into the Iraq War, "It ought to be held in public. It can't be held behind closed doors. It's the families and people that have to know the truth. It was our sons that were sent and our sons that were killed." The Daily Mirror quotes Rose stating, "What's the point of an inquiry behind closed doors? No family would be happy with that. We don't want any more lies." Gordon Brown, aka Tony Blair Junior, presented his non-plan today and it managed to be just as big a disappointment as Gordon himself. Before we get to his nonsense, let's go to Rose Gentle's pronouncement on Gordo's nonsense from UTV News, "I think we all know what it will say. I think it is going to be a whitewash. They tell you what they want you to know and that's it. Families are not going to find out the truth. The families and the country have a right to know why they did go. If there were any mistakes, lessons should be learned. I think those that have lost someone have a right to know."
Now on to Gordo. The Prime Minister yammered away like a Loony Bird for 2190 words, many of them lies. You'd think with 2190 words, he might have found time for a hey-hey to Amara but there was no mention there of how the British were run off their own basein Amara (August 24, 2006) how the British fled and the thing was dismantled by looters almost immediately.
Gordon Brown: Mr Speaker, I am today announcing the establishment of an independent, privy-counsellor Committee of Inquiry. It will consider the period from summer 2001 before military operations began in March 2003, and our subsequent involvement in Iraq until the end of July this year. The inquiry is essential so that, by learning lessons, we will strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military. The inquiry will, I stress, be fully independent of government. The scope of the inquiry is unprecedented -- covering an eight year period, including the run-up to the conflict and the full period of conflict and reconstruction. The Committee of Inquiry will have access to the fullest range of information, including secret information. In other words their investigation can range across all papers all documents and all material. So the inquiry can ask for any British document to come before it and any British citizen to appear. No British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry. And I have asked the members of the inquiry that the final report of the inquiry will be able to disclose all but the most sensitive information, that is, all information except that which is essential to our national security.
He announced that Sir John Chilcot would chair the committee composed of Baroness Usha Prashar, Sir Roderick Lyne, Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert. The immediate response came in Parliament. The Liberal Democrats' Nick Clegg offered a response which included:
Everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made in generations; the single most controversial decision taken by government since Suez. So Mr Speaker, I am staggered that the prime minister is today seeking to compound that error, fatal for so many of Britain's sons and daughters, by covering up the path that led to it. Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry into the build-up and conduct of the Iraq war for many years, and we can be grateful that finally, the prime minister has acceded to that demand. But, as so often, he has taken a step in the right direction but missed the fundamental point. A secret inquiry will not deliver what Britain needs. Does the prime minister not understand that the purpose of an inquiry is not just to produce a set of dry conclusions, but to allow the people of Britain to come to terms with a mistake made in our name? To allow veterans, and the families and friends of those who gave their lives in this disastrous war, to come to understand how it happened? I have met the families of these soldiers. And just an hour ago I was asked to speak in their name and tell you that nothing short of a fully public inquiry - held in the open - will satisfy them. Will the prime minister not listen to what they need? He says it the inquiry has to be in private to protect national security. But it looks suspiciously like he wants to protect his reputation and that of his predecessor, not Britain. Why else would he want it to report after the general election?
Now we welcome an Inquiry, indeed we've been calling for it for many, many months. But I have to say I'm far from convinced that the Prime Minister has got it right. The whole point of having an Inquiry is that it has got to be able to make clear recommendations, go wherever the evidence leads, establish the full truth, and to make sure the right lessons are learned. And it's got to do so in a way that builds public confidence. Isn't there a danger that what the Prime Minister has announced today won't achieve those objectives? The membership looks quite limited. The Terms of Reference seem restricted. And the Inquiry isn't specifically tasked to make recommendations. And none of it will be held in public. So will the Prime Minister answer questions about the following four areas: the timing, the membership, the coverage and content, and the openness? First, timing. This Inquiry should have started earlier. How can anyone argue that an Inquiry starting say six months ago would somehow have undermined British troops? Indeed the argument that you can't have an Inquiry while troops are still in Iraq has been blown away today by the Prime Minister saying that some troops will indeed be staying there even as the Inquiry gets underway. In terms of how long the Inquiry takes, the Franks Inquiry reported in just six months. And yet this Inquiry is due to take, surprise surprise, until July or August 2010. By delaying the start of the Inquiry, and prolonging the publication until after the next election, won't everyone conclude that this Inquiry has been fixed to make sure that the Government avoids having to face up to any inconvenient conclusions? At the very least, will the Prime Minister look at the possibility of an interim report early next year? Second, the people conducting the Inquiry. What is required for an Inquiry like this is a mixture of diplomatic, military and political experience. Now we welcome the diplomatic experience . There has to be a question mark over the military expertise - no former chiefs of staff or people with that sort of expertise. But also isn't it necessary - as the Franks Inquiry did - to include senior politicians from all sides of the political divide, to look at the political judgements? The Inquiry needs to be, and needs to be seen to be, truly independent - and not an establishment stitch-up.So will he look at widening the membership in the way that we have suggested? Third, the coverage and content of the Inquiry. Yes, it is welcome that it will cover the whole period in the run-up to the War, as well as the conduct of the War. But isn't it wrong to try to confine the Inquiry to an arbitrary period of time? Shouldn't it be free to pursue any points which it judges to be relevant? Looking specifically at the issue of Terms of Reference: isn't it extraordinary that the Prime Minister said it should try to avoid apportioning blame. Shouldn't the Inquiry have the ability to apportion blame? If mistakes were made, we need to know who made them and why they were made.
As he reinvented himself last week, Gordon Brown told us he was comitted to transparency in government. Today, the doors he was so keen to open have been slammed shut in the faces of our service personnel, the families who lost loved ones in Iraq, those people who protested against the war, and all of us who are paying for it. The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a blatant lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers. The timing and scope of this inquiry all point to a desperate Government and a Prime Minister making a cynical attempt to boost his faltering leadership. We must learn the lessons from the worst UK Foreign Policy decisions in living memory and this can only be done through a full and open investigation -- that this can only be done through a full and open investigation -- that this inquiry will take place in private is totally outrageous and entirely inadequate. The SNP have been pressing for years on this issue and will continue to push until the full story about the events which led to the war in Iraq and the conflicts itself are known.
Al Jazeera quotes Stop the War Coalition's Lindsey German stating, "There is no reason this shouldn't be a public inquiry. It's carried out by the privy council which is part of the establishment and therefore won't be geniunely independent of the government. We have to have an inquiry which asks what Tony Blair and George Bush discussed a year before they took us to war when they met at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas." Philip Webster (Times of London -- link has a one minute and a few second snippet of Gordo's lenthy speech) quotes Rose Gentle stating, "We have fought and fought for this but it will be no use and it could all be for nothing behind closed doors. We will be lobbying Parliament to make sure this is all transparent." Deborah Summers and Nicholas Watt (Guardian -- link also has a video snippet of Brown's speech) report on the protest at Parliament Square following Brown's announcement and quotes 19-year-old architercture student Ben Beach stating, "We're here today because they have announced the inquiries will be in secret, which I think is an affront to democracy in this country, and it's an affront to British democracy that this war went ahead despite the overwhelming majority of people being against it." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) observes:
There really is no legitimate reason now for any of the inquiry into the invasion of Iraq to be held in private. Extremely sensitive information, intelligence material in particular, has already been disclosed, either here or in the US, by official inquiries or leaks. The reason why the government wants it to be held behind closed doors -- a weapon allowing Whitehall to control proceedings -- is to enable it to protect itself, and individuals, from embarrassment. To drive home the point, the members of the inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot, the epitome of a Whitehall mandarin, will be made privy counsellors, told to swear an ancient oath of secrecy. We already know a great deal about how the Iraqi banned weapons dossier was manipulated by Whitehall officials and intelligence chiefs, at the behest of their political masters -- most notably, Tony Blair. We know from a leaked Dowing Street memo, marked " secret and strictly personal -- UK eyes only", that, at a meeting Blair chaired on 23 July 2002, nearly a year before the invasion, Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, warned that in Washington "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"; and Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, said "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action ... But the case was thin." Lord Butler told the Guardian that his committee set up to investigate the use and abuse of intelligence in the build-up to the invasion had seen the document. He said his report did not refer to its contents on the grounds that they related to US use of intelligence, which was outside his terms of reference. The explanation is one reason why a fresh inquiry needs to be held in public. That Chilcot himself sat on the Butler committee hardly inspires confidence that this new inquiry will be any more penetrating.
It's amazing that Gordon Brown wanted to talk of the bravery of the British forces while showing nothing but cowardice when it came to an inquiry. If he indeed feels British forces fought bravely and since the Iraq War was conducted in public, the inquiry should be as well.
Moving to Iraq, Fatih Abdulsalam (Azzaman) observes, "There are strong indicators for political assassinations to become the major trademark of the run-up to the parliament elections early next year. . . . Assassination as a political weapon was not there before the 2003-U.S. invaion. This weapon is the means which politically and morally weak leaders and groups resort to because without it they will heave no existence." MP Harith al-Obeidi (also spelled Obaidi) was assassinated Friday outside his mosque. The day before he was assassinated, he had called for an independent investigation into reports of abuse and torture in Iraqi prisons. Saturday Rod Nordland and Abeer Mohammed (New York Times) reported that he had given a sermon moments before and that a section of it covered prison abuse. They also report the killer was 27-years-old. al-Obaida's funeral was Saturday and Al Jazeera observed it was the country's "first state funeral since the US-led invasion in 2003" while Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) added, "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and lawmakers from across Iraq's political spectrum watched as a white-clad honour guard carried Ubaidi's coffin and the other containing his sister's husband, a close aide, who was among five other people killed." But on that day in history, AP reminds, "Five years ago: In Iraq, gunmen assassinated senior Education Ministry official Kamal al-Jarah." Marc Santora (New York Times) reported Sunday, "The gunman who killed the men Friday managed to get past three layers of security at the mosque where Mr. Obaidi, who was also a cleric, was leading Friday Prayer. The investigation is focusing on the security guards assigned to protect Mr. Obaidi and the mosque, who were from Mr. Obaidi's own Islamic Party of Iraq, or I.I.P., according to an Iraqi security official with direct knowledge of the case." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quoted an unnamed Iraqi MP explaining one of the dominant Shi'ite blocs in Parliament (Tuwafaq) "had asked members of parliament not to publicly comment on the process until the investigation was completed within the next two days. He says there is skepticism, though, on the credibility of the investigation and any prospect that it would link Iraqi security forces in any way to the killing. 'For the past four years they have been making investigations and we haven't seen any results,' he says."
Who could be responsible? No one knows at this point. Less than 24 hours before he was killed, al-Obeidi was addressing the torture and abuse going on in Iraqi prisons and demanding an independent inquiry. The press that was eager to run with "Killer is 15!" when that was fed to them was also happy to run with the feeding of "INSURGENT!" Who runs the prisons in Iraq? Not 'insurgents.' The Ministry of Justice . . . and the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Defense. (The Kurdish Regional Government runs their own prisons.) What names stands out on that list? The Ministry of the Interior. A thug-heavy ministry that's stolen land and homes in Baghdad, that's terrorized and ethnically cleansed sections of Baghdad, a group of Shi'ite thugs who are thought to have been implicated in the deaths of many US service members. July of last year, Matthew D. LaPlante's "'Worse than the adult prisons' U.S.: Torture, murder at Iraqi juvenile prison" (Salt Lake Tribune): U.S. forces staged several high-profile raids on adult detention centers run by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior in 2005 and 2006, uncovering several "torture dungeons" where, in some cases, prisoners -- most often Sunni men accused of insurgent activity -- had been mutilated with chains, knives and power drills. There have been fewer public disclosures of such "liberations" of abused detainees in the wake of the Sunni-Shiite civil war, which reached a violent apex in 2007. But Kevin Lanigan, a former Army officer who served as an adviser to the Ministry of the Interior in 2006 and 2007 and now directs the U.S. Law and Security Program at the New York City nonprofit Human Rights First, said he cannot say whether that is the result of improvements in the way those working for the ministry - which by law isn't allowed to detain anyone for more than 72 hours - treat their prisoners. "Nobody has good oversight or supervision," Lanigan said, noting that in many cases local militias have taken control of government operations. "There's just not a lot that's transparent about it."Lanigan said Iraq's criminal detainees are supposed to be held in facilities run by Iraq's Ministry of Justice, though in practice the responsibility for prisoners is spread out over several other ministries, including the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry, which does not get funding, training or oversight for that task. This is Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) providing a rundown of the ministry in July 2007:The very language that Americans use to describe government -- ministries, departments, agencies -- belies the reality here of militias that kill under cover of police uniform and remain above the law. Until recently, one or two Interior Ministry police officers were assassinated each week while arriving or leaving the building, probably by fellow officers, senior police officials say. That killing has been reduced, but Western diplomats still describe the Interior Ministry building as a "federation of oligarchs." Those who work in the building, like the colonel, liken departments to hostile countries. Survival depends on keeping abreast of shifting factional alliances and turf. On the second floor is Gen. Mahdi Gharrawi, a former national police commander. Last year, U.S. and Iraqi troops found 1,400 prisoners, mostly Sunnis, at a base he controlled in east Baghdad. Many showed signs of torture. The interior minister blocked an arrest warrant against the general this year, senior Iraqi officials confirmed. The third- and fifth-floor administrative departments are the domain of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party, a Shiite group. The sixth, home to border enforcement and the major crimes unit, belongs to the Badr Organization militia. Its leader, Deputy Minister Ahmed Khafaji, is lauded by some Western officials as an efficient administrator and suspected by others of running secret prisons. The seventh floor is intelligence, where the Badr Organization and armed Kurdish groups struggle for control. The ninth floor is shared by the department's inspector general and general counsel, religious Shiites. Their offices have been at the center of efforts to purge the department's remaining Sunni employees. The counsel's predecessor, a Sunni, was killed a year ago.No one was treated fairly in those Iraqi prisons but who was most often targeted? In June of 2006, Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported, "But while a U.N. human rights report issued last month stressed that the Defense and Interior ministries have legal authority to hold inmates only a brief time, Sunni Arabs charge that Sunnis are regularly imprisoned in the centers for months or even more than a year."Sunnis felt they were treated more harshly. A Sunni lawmaker calls for an independent investigation. Hmm. In November of 2005, Catherine Philp (Times of London) reported:Up to 200 malnourished Iraqi detainees bearing signs of torture have been found in a secret prison in the basement of a Government building in Baghdad.The discovery of the prisoners came after American troops surrounded and took control of an Interior Ministry building in the Jadriya neighbourhood of the capital on Sunday night. When American forces arrived at the facility, officials there told them there were 40 detainees being held. As they moved through the building they discovered at least 200 prisoners, mostly Sunni Arabs and many in very poor health. The Americans had apparently been tipped off to the prison's existence by relatives of those being detained. A secret prison run by whom? The Interior Ministry. And the prisoners were mostly what? Sunnis. And a Sunni MP called for an independent investigation into torture and abuse in Iraq prisons on a Thursday and the following morning he was assassinated?Aswat al-Iraq reported at the start of the month that an investigation into the torture and abuse in Iraqi prisons was being started. Guess who was carrying it out? "The Iraqi Interior Ministry formed a committee to investigate petitions filed against some security services in Diwaniya alleging that they committed human rights violations in the province's prisons, the director of the Ministry's operations room said on Saturday." So there was already ongoing investigations. What was al-Obeidi problem? Oh, yeah, they were independent investigations, they were more of the same whitewash that had gone on over and over where no one's ever really responsible or guilty of anything. Today Nell Abram (Free Speech Radio News) reports a hunger strike in Iraqi, "Dozens protested outside an Iraqi prison today where hundreds of detainees have launched a hunger strike -- they're protesting what they describe as abuse. Most of the 300 men at Iraq's Rusafa prison have been held without charge for at least a year. Last week, a Sunni lawyer who was a prominent voice for prisoners' rights was killed. Harith al-Obeidi, the head of Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, had publicly called for Iraqi officials to respond to claims of torture in Iraqi jails."
Hey, kids, who runs that prison? The Ministry of the Inerior. Last November, they were offering Andrew North (BBC News) a tour of the Baghdad prison to disprove allegations of abuse. Is a potential pattern emerging? He calls for an independent investigation on Thursday and he's dead on Friday. That doesn't mean that's why he was assassinated. It does mean it's an angle that reporters should have been pursuing instead of repeating the now apparent lie of "15-year-old teenager" over and over just because that was fed to them. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) quoted Sunni preacher Mustafa al-Bayati stating yesterday, "They did not kill him because he is a lawmaker. They killed him because he is Sunni."
al-Bayati may be correct. On Sunday, several Sunnis was killed. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported yesterday that a Baghdad sticking bombing targeting Sahwa which left a Sahwa member wounded as well as two passer-bys (Sahwa is the Sunni group sponosred by the US which is also known as "Awakening" and "Sons of Iraq") and a Falluja sticky bombing targeting Sahwa leader Sheikh Jashaam Delef that was discovered before it exploded while Mazin Yahya (AP) reported 6 Sahwa members were killed enroute to Balad Ruz when their vehicle was "ambushed" and 1 Sahwa member was shot dead with three more wounded at a Tarmiyah checkpoint.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad sticky bombings which claimed 2 lives and left six people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left two people injured, a Baquba bombing which injured two people and Kirkuk sticky bombing claimed 1 life and five more injured.
Reuters notes 2 police officers are dead and another is "seriously ill after poisoned food was given to them by a driver at a" Garma checkpoint.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Ramadi (police officer kidnapped two days before).
Saturday the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi National Corps - Iraq Soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device during combat related operations June 12.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 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 announcement brings to 4312 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.
In the US, David Lightman (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Barak's war supplemental is expected to come to the House floor yesterday and to follow in the Senate. Tom Eley (WSWS) reviews the White House's strong arming efforts to force the bill through and offers, "The episode demonstrates the Democrats' leading role in carrying forward the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their complicity in covering up the criminality of these operations." Iraq Veterans Against the War has been requesting people call their Congress members and demand a No vote on the War Supplemental:
In mid May, we asked you to take action by contacting your legislators about the supplemental funding bill that would continue the U.S. occupation in Iraq and escalate our presence in Afghanistan. Well, since then, there have been some interesting developments, and we may have a real opportunity to defeat this funding. Republicans who previously voted for the earlier version of the bill do not want to give the IMF funds to bail out international banks or the economies of developing countries that have been affected by the global economic crisis. And progressive Democrats do not want to support money for the IMF due to its lack of transparency and its track-record of offering small nations economic bailouts with high interest rates and other nasty strings attached. Both sides have pledged to vote "NO" on the current version of the bill that now includes the IMF funding. This vote is expected to go to the House of Representatives TODAY. Please contact your member of the House today and tell them to vote "NO" on the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 2346).
Also on Congress, Kat's "House Veterans Affairs Strategic Forces Subcommittee" went up Thursday and I wasn't able to note it on Friday. I believe Kat was the only to report on what happened in that mark up. Not even the chair's hometown paper's appear of aware of it. Throughout the US, including in my state (California), employees are being put on furloughs. That means they're taking a day of work from you because they're trying to svae money by not paying you. The New York Times ran a disgusting article today about people who weren't able (or in some cases unwilling -- little kiss asses trying to impress the boss) to take the time off. It is the law that if you work, you get paid. If you are on a furlough and your employer is making you work, you need to see a labor lawyer. If you are a supervisor, you are responsible for ensuring that everyone takes their time. If someone's playing kiss ass and refusing to take their time and you let it happen, you can get in trouble from your superiors beacuse you're putting the company/organization/body at risk of a lawsuit. It's basic: You work, you get paid. That's the law. We covered that here this morning and we're noting it again to lead into something else and also because it is the law and obviously needs to be noted. Though they need them, the daily papers have no labor reporters. One of the few labor reporters in the US is David Bacon who was interviewed by Tiffany Ten Eyck (Labor Notes) about the joint-position of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win on immigration. Excerpt:
LN: What happened in years to come that led to opposing positions on immigration reform by the major unions and federations? DB: The big question after the convention was how to get immigration reform through Congress. Some unions that went off to form the CTW federation, generally speaking, adopted a position that the only way we are going to be able to get legalization is by building an alliance with employers, and employers want guest workers. If we give them guest workers, and we agree that enforcement of employer sanctions will continue, maybe we'll be able to get amnesty in trade for that. And that was the architecture for the "comprehensive immigration reform" bills we saw in Congress over the last few years: big guest worker programs, increases in enforcement of employer sanctions, and some degree of legalization. But the legalization proposals were actually more pro-corporate: they proposed things like 18-year waiting periods, but they would immunize employers from punishment under employer sanctions. In other words, they would grandfather in the existing workforce while guest worker programs were getting up and running. So we've had the labor movement divided in the last few years on immigration reform, with the AFL-CIO continuing to support the position that we won in 1999 and SEIU, UNITE HERE, and some other unions in CTW basically changing positions and supporting those comprehensive immigration reform bills instead. The irony is that these are the unions that fought the hardest in 1999 for a repeal of sanctions! So the new joint position between the AFL-CIO and CTW is an effort to overcome that division. I think it's actually an effort to bring the CTW and AFL-CIO back together, period. If you can do it on immigration reform, then you can do it pretty much on everything else, because this is one of the places where there was the sharpest conflict between CTW and AFL-CIO. A joint position on immigration reform is a good idea if it's a good position. It's not a good idea if it's not. We have to look at what it actually says. There's one good piece to this position that is worth trying to get the labor movement to live up to. It says: "a long-term solution to uncontrolled immigration is to encourage just economic integration, which will eliminate enormous economic inequalities... Much of the emigration from Mexico in recent years resulted from the disruption caused by NAFTA, which displaced millions of Mexicans from subsistence agriculture and enterprises that could not compete in a global market. Thus, an essential component of the long-term solution is a fair trade and globalization model that uplifts all workers, promotes the creation of free trade unions around the world, ensures the enforcement of labor rights and guarantees core labor protections for all workers." There was an even better statement in a letter that Sweeney and Ken Georgetti of the Canadian Labour Congress wrote to Obama about NAFTA. They talked about the displacement of people, that NAFTA caused migration by increasing poverty. So here we look at the connection of immigration policy to trade policy. We can't support a free trade agreement with Colombia if it is going to lead to the displacement of millions of Colombians, which it will. Same thing with Panama, with Peru. All these agreements, and the economic model they are part of, are displacing millions of people. So we have to not only oppose the trade agreements but also call for a new economic relationship with other countries. That is a very profound thing to say, and it's going to take a lot of work to get our labor movement to live up to those words. Because what we are really saying is that we demand a fundamental change in the foreign policy of this country, economic, political, military. That's going to bring us into confrontation with the Obama administration.
JACK POLAK: I’m Jack Polak. I am the chairman emeritus of the Anne Frank Center of the United States, and I’ve been working for the Anne Frank in many capacities for the last twenty-five years. There must be reason that The Diary of Anne Frank is the second most-read book in the world. I find, wherever I speak, that people, young and old, tell me that the diary has been a guideline in their lives. OLIVIA: “I can shake everything off if I write, my sorrows disappear, my courage is reborn.” This quote relates to me, because, in the same aspect, I run, instead of writing. When I run, I feel so free. Everything in life disappears. DAVID: I picked this entry, because I think it really shows how her position doesn’t affect her, and she takes it all with grace and maturity. And I take inspiration from that. SOPHIE: “I’m boiling with rage, and yet I mustn’t show it. I’d like to stamp my feet, scream, give Mummy a good shaking, cry, and I don’t know what else.” ALISON: I like this journal entry, because I can relate to it a little, because sometimes I get frustrated with people at my house, and I want to get, like, violent, but I can’t, because I’ll get in trouble. GARY: “Our freedom was severely restricted by a series of anti-Jewish decrees: Jews were required to wear a yellow star; Jews were required to turn in their bicycles; Jews were forbidden to use streetcars; Jews were forbidden to ride in cars, even their own; Jews were required to do their shopping between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m.; Jews were required to frequent only Jewish-owned barbershops and beauty parlors; Jews were forbidden to be out on the streets between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; Jews were forbidden to go to theaters, movies or any other forms of entertainment; Jews were forbidden to use swimming pools, tennis courts, hockey fields or any other athletic fields; Jews were forbidden to visit Christians in their homes; Jews were required to attend Jewish schools, etc. You couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that. But life went on. Jacque always said to me, ‘I don’t dare do anything anymore, ’cause I’m afraid it’s not allowed.’” JODIE: “I go to the attic almost every morning to get the stale air out of my lungs. This morning when I went there, Peter was busy cleaning up. He finished quickly and came over to where I was sitting on my favorite spot on the floor.” MICHELLE: The reason why I chose this is because I see that her feelings are changing towards Peter, and I’m a hopeless romantic. And I just think it’s nice how she’s changing, and she’s talking like a typical adolescent. And I found it very interesting. IGNACIO: “Don’t think I’m in love, because I’m not, but I do have the feeling that something beautiful is going to develop between Peter and me.” SOPHIA: “I think now of my life in 1942. It all seems so unreal. It was quite a different Anne who enjoyed that heavenly existence from the Anne who has grown wise within these walls.” THEONI: “It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.” TIMERE: I was that little girl with a journal. And when I go back over and read over it today, with so many passionate entries about my friends and how I felt, you know, and just feeling alone and feeling like my journal was kind of my best friend.
would have been because she died in a nazi concentration camp at the age of 15. in her diary, anne wrote on may 11, 1944, 'just imagine how forgetfull i'll be when i'm eighty!' she didn't live to see that day.
Born on June 12, 1929, Anne Frank was a German-Jewish teenager who was forced to go into hiding during the Holocaust. She and her family, along with four others, spent 25 months during World War II in an annex of rooms above her father’s office in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.After being betrayed to the Nazis, Anne, her family, and the others living with them were arrested and deported to Nazi concentration camps. In March of 1945, nine months after she was arrested, Anne Frank died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen. She was fifteen years old.Her diary, saved during the war by one of the family’s helpers, Miep Gies, was first published in 1947. Today, her diary has been translated into 67 languages and is one of the most widely read books in the world.
i include and note the above because today is anne frank's birthday and because there are still many people who don't know her story.
she is well known enough for the tv show family guy to do a 'joke' about her but i think that kind of 'fame' actually removes her from her historical place and importance.
so we end up knowing the joke and the hiding in attic but may not know why or what was going on at that time. it divorces anne from reality.
today is her birthday. she would have been 80 years old.
Friday, June 12, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Newsweek explores Iraq, Congress puts out like a gumball machine for the White House, a Sunni MP is assassinated, Nouri stages a praise-a-thon, and more.
Starting with Newsweek. Comedian Stephen Colbert took his Comedy Central show to Iraq and, as a tie-in, was the guest editor of Newsweek for the issue on sale now (with his photo on the cover). For four pages you get more lies from Fareed Zakaria, these are titled "Victory In Iraq." Liar Fareed wants you to know "the democratic ideal is still within reach." Oh really? How do you define "democratic ideal," you damn liar? Two centuries ago, if you lied in the public square the way Fareed has repeatedly, you would have found yourself whipped in the public square and maybe for pundits who put the lives of others at risk we should bring that policy back. Here's reality that liars like Fareed can never tell you about:
We are writing to urge you to call upon the government of Iraq to prevent the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and to protect the right of all Iraqi citizens to be free from all forms of cruel,inhumane or degrading punishment. Deeply disturbing reports are enamating from Iraq with regard to the torture, beating and killing of LGBT people in that country. The increasing violence is being led by religious zealots who are targeting these individuals simply because of their sexual orientation. This year alone, 63 people have been tortured or killed as a result of religious decrees against gay citizens. A prominent Iraqi human rights activists has reported that Iraqi militia have deployed painful and degrading forms of torture and punishment against homesexuals that must be stopped. The United States is spending trillions of dollars to fight a war that is based on bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. These unspeakable actions of violence on Iraqi citizens are in direct violation of our purpose for being in that country and of the stated policy of non-discrimination of the new administration. Local police in Iraq have issued a statement that "the extra-judicial killing of any citizen is a crime punishable by law. No one has the right to become a substitute for judicial authorities or executive authorities, and if there are complaints against individuals, there is law and there are police and there are government agencies. No group or class has the authority to punish people instead of the state." The violence occuring against LGBT Iraqis is in direct contradiction to this statement. As one of the signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Iraqi government has an obligation to protect the right to life (Article 6) and the right of all its citizens "to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Article 7). Current actions belie this obligation. To protect the lives of LGBT Iraqis, we urge you to please take immediate action to stop the violence. We believe that a strong public condemnation of these actions must come from you and our other national leaders, along with the necessary pressure on the Iraqi government to protect the life and liberty of all its citizens.
The [PDF format warning] letter is signed by California state legislatures Mark Leno, Tom Ammiano, Christine Keho, John A. Perez, Jim Beall Jr., Julia Brownley, Sandre R. Swanson, Tom Torlakson, Marty Block, Mariko Yamada, Pedro Nava, ANthony Portantino, Jerry Hill, Hector de la Torre, Mike Feuer, Felipe Fuentes, Cathleen Galgiani, Curren D. Price Jr., Norma J. Torres, Jospeh S. Simitian, Elaine Alquist, Alan Lowenthal, Leland Yee, Gilbert Cedillo, Jenny Oropeza, Gloria Romero, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Lou Correa, Loni Hancock, Lois Wolk, Patricia Wiggins, Ellen Corbett, Carol Liu, Fran Pavley, Bonnie Lowenthal, William W. Monning, Isadore Hall III, Mary Salas, Mike Davis, Paul Fong, Warren T. Furutani, Jared Huffman, Bob Blumenfield, Alex Padilla and Paul Krekorian. The letter was sent this month to US President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and US Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.
The issue has been reported on by the Denver Post, the New York Times, the BBC, ABC and many other outlets. Newsweek has NEVER reported on it. Newsweek has never acknowledged the attacks and assaults on Iraq's LGBT community. And that falls on Fareed who decides what makes it into non-guest editorial issues and what doesn't. Fareed doesn't want to touch the subject due to his own apparent homosexual panic. As SourceWatch notes, in October of 2006, War Hawk and Cheerleader Fareed was finally walking away from the illegal war declaring that the puppet government in Iraq "has failed" and calling the US venture/war crime a failure as well. He's back to selling the illegal war all over again. The Henry Kissinger wannabe infamously said as the illegal war on Iraq began, "The place is so dysfunctional any stirring of the pot is good. America's involvement in the region is for the good." Again, a few centuries back, he would have been flogged in the town square. These days he just feeds his own vanity which is how he ends up with an attention getting, four page spread which leads off the news section of the magazine. Vanity, thy name is Fareed.
On a better (and actual news) note, Gretel C. Kovach contributes "Canada's New Leaf" which zooms in on Kimberly Rivera, the Dallas - Fort Worth native and Iraq War veteran who self-checked out and took her family to Canada becoming, in February 2007, the first female Iraq War veteran to publicly seek asylum in Canada. Kovach notes Kimberly next appears before a Canadian court in July:
Now 26, Rivera has more problems than ever. Her mother hasn't spoken to her since she fled to Canada, although Rivera misses her terribly. And the Canadian government keeps trying to send her home to face desertion charges. She might end up in a military prison -- but says she has no regrets about her broken commitment to the service of her country. "At least I can say I never killed anyone, ever," she says. "I think that's a little more honorable."
Kovach demonstrates that Fareed doesn't know how to edit worth s**t. Jimmy Carter, as president, did not pardon deserters. He pardoned draft dodgers and only draft dodgers. He did that in the first month of his administration and there was hope among some (such as US House Rep Elizabeth Holtzman) that he would revist the subject but he never did. Before Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford offered a conditional amnesty for deserters and draft dodgers which required that they jump through hoops for a considerable amount of time and may or may not end up with amenesty. Very few attempted Ford's program. Near the end of Ford's presidency -- in November and December -- he considered proposing a pardon for draft dodgers and/or deserters, however, he was convinced (as were columnists at the New York Times) that Jimmy Carter would do this once sworn in. They were mistaken and only had to hear Carter's speech to veterans while campaigning for the presidency where he made clear that, if elected, he would pardon draft dodgers but not deserters. (Carter was booed during this speech.) We've covered this before and it's all public record. The inability of Newsweek and their fact checkers to get the story straight goes a long way towards explaining why all the whining about the death of Big Media is so much blah blah blah b.s. If you can't get damn facts right, you have no business charging anyone even a penny. I'm blaming the editors because I know where Gretel C. Kovach was fed the lies, the same place the lies are always fed up north. And, yeah, there little attacks on this site stemmed from the fact that we wouldn't let them lie in public without correcting the record. A July 10, 2008 entry quoted Robert Trumbull, "Pardon Brings Cautious Response From Some War Exiles in Canada," New York Times, January 23, 1977:
Jeff Enger, a deserter from the Army and therefore excluded from the Presidential pardon, will be sworn in as a Canadian citizen next Friday, one of the many self-exiled American war resisters who "want to make our lives here." However, like other deserters, Mr. Egner would like to be able to travel freely in the country of his birth. The Presidential pardon covered nearly all draft evaders of the Vietnam War period. Mr. Carter postponed a decision on the men who entered but then deserted the armed forces. Jack Colhoun, a leader in the Toronto exile community, is one of those deseters who insist that they would fight in a "just war," or "if the United States were attacked," as Mr. Colhoun put it. The men interviewed, who rerpesent a cross section of the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 American war resisters living in Canada, have in common a yearning for recognition by Americans at home that their actions were an acceptable exercise of principle "in the American tradition," as one said. "We don't expect to be congratulated or anything," said Mr. Egner, a law student at the University of Toronto, "but we believe we acted correctly." They also share a deep conviction that the deserters, as well as the draft evaders, should be pardoned.
In my first week as President, I asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to report to me, after consultation with other Governmental officials and private citizens concerned, on the status of those young Americans who have been convicted, charged, investigated, or are still being sought as draft evaders or military deserters. On August 19, at the national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in the city of Chicago, I announced my intention to give these young people a chance to earn their return to the mainstream of American society so that they can, if they choose, contribute, even though belatedly, to the building and the betterment of our country and the world.
Just a day after Jimmy Carter's inaguration, he followed through on a contentious campaign promise, granting a presidential pardon to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam war by either not registering or traveling abroad. The pardon meant the government was giving up forever the right to prosecute what the administration said were hundreds of thousands of draft-dodgers. . . . Meanwhile, many in amnest groups say that Carter's pardon did too little. They pointed out that the president did not include deserters -- those who served in the war and left before their tour was completed -- or soliders who received a less-than-honorable discharge. Civilian protesters, selective service employees and those who initiated any act of violence also were not covered in the pardon.
Use the link and you can read, listen or watch the roundtable which includes then US House Rep Elizabeth Holtzman who states, "I'm pleased that the pardon was issued, I'm pleased that it was done on the first day and I'm pleased that President Carter kept a commitment that he made very clear to the American people. I would have liked to have seen it broader, I would like to have seen it extended to some of the people who are clearly not covered and whose families will continue to be separatedf rom them . . . but I don't think President Carter has closed the door on this category of people." I like Liz and I've known her for years but it was this b.s. attitude of praising Jimmy instead of pressuring him that allowed him to never revist the issue again. He never did another thing and its appalling that a magazine called "Newsweek" which wants $5.95 an issue for their 'factual' reporting can't get their damn facts straight. (Hint to other reporters, stop believing the lies you hear up north. It is your job to fact check statements if you present them in your articles.) Jimmy Carter did not offer an "unconditional pardon" to deserters. He offered nothing to deserters and just because an old man in Canada (a deserter) told you that Carter offered something doesn't make it true. It's also appalling because Newsweek covered some of this in real time so the magazine (wrongly) fabled for its fact checking should have caught these lies before they made it into print. Kovach is of the opinion (it's a popular one these days -- that doesn't mean it's accurate) that the resisters will all be deported (the decision by Canada's House to pass ANOTHER non-binding resolution on the issue demonstrates that they really won't stand with war resisters) and notes:
All of which means that the United States must now figure out what to do with the deserters who have already begun trickling back. No one expects Obama to issue them a pardon. They'll have to plead their cases before the military command. Prosecution rates of deserters have increased during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from 2 percent at the start to about 10 percent now (the remainder receive administrative punishments, like the loss of a stripe).
It's a real shame that 'helpers' up north wanted to refight Vietnam because of their own issues instead of helping today's resisters. (They lost their planned statue right before the resisters began pouring in and that apparently hurt a lot of feelings.) For the record, there are groups in Canada (and I give money to them) that have been successful in getting citizenship for resisters. They don't make a spectacle of themselves because the issue isn't them or what they did or didn't do during Vietnam. The issue is and has always been how to ensure that a resister doesn't have to return to the US. (Elaine wrote about that group, which she also contributes to, in August of last year.) And resisters in Canada can forget about Barack, he will not help any returning deserters. He has taken the Carter position that if some had avoided the draft that was one thing but those who have left service will not be let off. No, we didn't have a draft but that is his position. It was the same position as Carter's which is boiled down as "It's not honorable to desert." [Carter referred to his actions as a pardon and not amnesty, he stated calling it amnesty would push the notion that their avoiding the draft was a 'correct' action and he did not believe it was.] Neither the assaults on Vietnam or Iraq were "honorable" and self-checking out was one of the bravest things anyone could do. Today's resisters deserve praise but they won't get from the White House and many believe they won't get it from the Canadian government.
Jessica Ramirez examines the effects of deployments on families in "Children Of Conflict" and finds that "roughly 890,000" parents have been deployed since September 11, 2001 and that "[t]he personal sacrifices of military kids can go unnoticed amid the grown-ups' struggles, in part because the scars they may sustain aren't necessarily the visible kind. But they are real and long-lasting, and they are not diminished by the fact that levels of violence in Iraq have dropped or that U.S. troops are no longer taking the lead on combat operations there." Christopher Anderson contributes a photo essay on Iraq and US forces in Iraq. Dan Ephron explores the War Porn Six Days in Fallujah. And an article by Daniel Stone, Eve Conant and John Barry on the effects at home for the returning:
Part of the trouble with long tours is the stress of holding together a normal life back home. "When you're gone o long, you put your whole life on hold," says Ohle. "You can't plan anything." That can be OK if you're single, but Ohle has been dating another Army intelligence officer who is in a different brigade. They met during a training exercise many years ago, and then in 2006 spent a few months together "downrange," as Ohle calls the combat zone. After that, the dating was long distance. They've been "together-together" only since February, and Ohle expects her boyfriend to deploy again sometimes this summer. Whenever she comes back to the United States, Ohle faces culture shock similar to anyone who returns from a foreign land. She's overwhelmed by the food selection in the markets, and the number of people in the aisles. But unlike ordinary travelers, she also needs to keep her anger in check. "When someone with a shopping cart gets in your way, you can't just yell at them to get out of the way," she says. "Interacting with people requires a reset."
Most of the features are not available online. Fareed is but we don't link to trash. A West Point story is available online and we'll link to that. What does Colbert do in the issue besides 'guest editing'? He speaks to the readers on page five and contributes letters (the earliest from 1933) in his TV character complaining about Newsweek coverage over the ages (starting with 1933). He also does the Conventional Wisdom on page 15 and an essay on page 68.
Colbert's trip to Iraq resulted in Newsweek focusing on Iraq. It's not a great issue but it is attention to an ongoing illegal war and that is an accomplishment. I don't care for Colbert but I applaud him for that. It also got attention from the daily papers -- many of whom have also forgotten that the Iraq War continues to drag on. (James Rainey (Los Angeles Times) covers Colbert's trip to Iraq.) AP reports members of Mississippi's National Guard's 155th Brigade Combat Team is preparing for its second deployment to Iraq and notes the previous deployment resulted in 14 deaths. WKYC reports 161 Ohians are deploying to Iraq ("part of the Ohio Army National Guard's 1192nd Engineer Company"). But because it's so very difficult for people to pay attention to Iraq, let's all pretend the war is over. That's how it works, right?
In Iraq today, a Sunni leader was assassinated. Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report Harith Obeidid "was gunned down by a teenager" in Baghdad. Obeid had been the leader of the Accordance Front. after shooting Obeidid twice in the head, the teenager than threw a grenade. BBC reports their correspondent "Jim Muir in Baghdad says the assumption will be that this attack was carried out by insurgents from Mr Obeidi's own Sunni community, who have often targeted Sunnis involved with the government." Michael Christie (Reuters) asks, "Could the killers be Shi'ites? Possibly, although suicidal attacks, as Friday's assassination appears to have been, are more often associated with Sunni extremists." Al Arabiya reports that Obeidid was one of 5 people killed in the attack and that twelve were left injured while the assassin was killed as he attempted to escape. KUNA notes that al-Maliki's government has declared 25-year-old Ahmed Jassim Ibrahim the assassin "in contrast to claims by Iraqi police who earlier mentioned he was only 15." In terms of possible motives, Al Arabiya explains, "Obaidi, born in 1966, was deputy chairman of parliament's human rights committee and on Thursday had called for an independent inquiry into torture and abuse of detainees in Iraq's prisons." Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) observe that Iraq's President Jalal Talabani went on TV to urge calm following the assassination and speak with MP Shatha al Obusi who serves on the Human Rights Committee and states Obaidi leaves behind a wife and eight children, that "he was a fun-loving man with an easy smile" and "I believe that he was targeted for these qualities by people who would not have him succeed. He was, and will continue to be, a role model to us regarding the issue of human rights and defending those who have fallen under injustice."
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing destroyed a US military vehicle, another Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left ten people injured and, dropping back to Thursday, a Karbala roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left four people injured. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded six people.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba home invasion in which 2 people (mother and daughter) were killed. Reuters notes 2 Sahwa members were shot dead in Mussayab by a police officer who claims "they were planting a bomb".
Meanwhile Rod Nordland and Marc Santora (New York Times) report on the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki hosting a praise-a-thon for himself. Nouri fancies himself the new strong man of Iraq, the new Saddam. And Nordland and Santora capture that as they note he's now positioned himself as commander in chief despite the fact that the Iraqi Constitution does not give him that power and that he received toadies yesterday who called him their "master" and "commander in chief" (the Ministry of the Defense being among the toadies). An unnamed US military officer attempted to attend but was sent packing by the one of 'master' Nouri's thugs.Drunk on the smell of Nouri's cheap cologne (truly, he wears the cheapest cologne and over wears it, a detail that's yet to make it into domestic reports) the puppet's puppets engaged in a circle jerk where they self-praised and pretended they were running the country. And, insert laughter, runnig it well.If you automatically thought "air force," the reporters go there. There is no Iraqi air force to speak of and the reporters have Gen Anwar Hama Ameen later admitting that it will take more than the optimistic US prediction of "tow and a half years" for the air force to be built. The reporters note that this and other realities were left out of the circle jerk. The paragraph that should haunt reads: "The tenor of the meeting reminded many of similar ones between Saddam Hussein and his commanders, which featured fawning speeches praising him, the use of the word 'master' when addressing him, and a recitation by a nationalist poet. In Thursday's case, the poem was a recent one denoucning terrorism."
So Nouri's the new Saddam and the air force is nowhere ready. Jack Dolan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports more problems. Despite all the praise going down in the meeting with Nouri, turns out things are not so great. Iraqi forces are apparently not ready to take over the security functions in Mosul and reveals that issues include lack of ammunition and weapons and the 'hope' that the people of Mosul will work with Iraqi security forces. Last night at the Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. reported that the Democrats in Congress had found some mutual understanding that would allow Barack's war funding supplemental to move forward, "The agreement was reached only after a letter from President Obama to a congressional committee saying that his administration would appeal to the Supreme Court to keep the photos from becoming public, rather than try for a Congressional ban as part of the war funding bill. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Thursday stayed an earlier order that the photos be released immediately, so the government will now have time to appeal." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) offers, "The measure does not include language allowing indefinite detention as President Obama has initially proposed. The White House also dropped a request for a provision imposing a congressional ban on the release of photos showing the abuse of prisoners at US jails in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama said he will continue to seek the photos' censorship through an appeal to the Supreme Court." With more on the reassurance on suppressing the torture photos, Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn (New York Times) explain, "The deal was concluded after Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, went to the Capitol to assure Senate Democrats that President Obama would use all admnistrative and legal means to prevent the photos' release. At the same time, a federal court issued a ruling effectively ensuring that the photos would not be released for months, if ever." Naftali Bendavid (Wall St. Journal) quotes Rahm stating, "I talked to the Senate Democrats -- everything's fine." Amy Goodman breaks down 'fine': "The war funding bill includes more than $90 billion for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and is expected be voted on next week. In a letter to other House members who have previously opposed war funding, Congress members Lynn Woolsey of California and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio urged them to retain 'steadfast opposition' to the new bill. Speaking on the House floor, Kucinich said the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on 'aggression and lies'." Goodman goes on to quote some of US House Rep Dennis Kucinich's statement so those who need or prefer audio use the previous link but here's Kucinich's statement in full:
Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, had no intention or capability of attacking United Statess, had nothing to do with Al-Qaida's role in 9/11, and each and every statement made by the previous administration in support of going to war turned out to be false. Yest here we are. A new administration and the same old war, with an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. We cannot afford these wars. We cannot aford these wars spiritually. They are wars of aggression and they are based on lies. We cannot afford these wars financially. They add trillions to our national debt and destroy our domestic agenda. We cannot afford the human costs of these wars, the loss of lives of our beloved troops and the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. So, why do we do this? Why do we keep funding wars when they are so obviously against truth and justice and when they undermine our military? These are matters of heart and conscience which must be explored. Our ability to bring an end to thse wars will be the real test of our power.
We'll note Kucinich and Lynn Woolsey's letters to their colleagues in part [PDF format warning, click here for letter in full]:
Continued funding of war operations in Iraq ensures a continued occupation thereby undermining the stated U.S. goal for withdrawal by the end of 2010. Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all our troops and contractors home immediately. We must meet our moral obligation to rebuild Iraq and support viable solutions to the crises faced by the refugee and internally displaced populations. As such, the U.S. must maintain a continued commitment to the country of Iraq that does not include war or occupation. Funding expanded combat operations in Afghanistan will not meet the security objectives of the U.S. Sending additional brave American service members to Afghanistan does nto increase security and it is not an act of diplomacy. This approach only encourages the Taliban and other insurgent groups to do likewise, while fueling their recruiting efforts. The bill ensured that the months and perhaps years ahead will be bloody. And the bill fails to present an exist strategy. Voting down the funds for war honors the mandate to end the war in Iraq that was given to this body by the American people in November 2006. Futhermore, defeat of the War Supplemental sends a clear message about U.S. priorities at home and abroad. Congress must use the power of the purse to end combat operations. When the War Supplemental conference comes to the Floor for a vote I urge you to continue to vote no. Today the bufoons at CounterSpin yet again tried to pimp Barry O's Cairo speech. Reality on that speech via independent journalist John Pilgervia ZNet:
Naturally, unlike George W Bush, Obama did not say that "you're either with us or against us". He smiled the smile and uttered "many eloquent mood-music paragraphs and a smattering of quotations from the Holy Quran", noted the American international lawyer John Whitbeck. Beyond this, Obama offered no change, no plan, only a "tired, morally bankrupt American mantra [which] essentially argues that only the rich, the strong, the oppressors and the enforcers of injustice (notably the Americans and Israelis) have the right to use violence, while the poor, the weak, the oppressed and the victims of oppression must . . . submit to their fate and accept whatever crumbs their betters may magnanimously deign suitable to let fall from their table". And he offered not the slightest recognition that the world's most numerous victims of terrorism are people of Muslim faith - a terrorism of western origin that dares not speak its name. In his "reaching out" in Cairo, as in his "anti-nuclear" speech in Berlin, as in the "hope" he spun at his inauguration, this clever young politician is playing the part for which he was drafted and promoted. This is to present a benign, seductive, even celebrity face to American power, which can then proceed towards its strategic goal of dominance, regardless of the wishes of the rest of humanity and the rights and lives of our children.
I have integrity. I oppose war, torture, economic oppression and environmental degradation no matter who is in the White House or what political party he belongs to. I have been one of President Obama's earliest and most ardent critics, but where's the media coverage when I protest the carnage now that Obama is president? Where's Air America calling me to comment on the war crimes that Obama has already committed? Why won't most "progressive" online sites print my articles anymore (except AfterDowningStreet.org, Oped News and MichaelMichael.com)?
Cindy's on the road and heads to Nashville June 13th through 16th. Click here for her full schedule for this month and we'll run the remaining dates next week. She was in Texas this week. Kimberly Kreitner (Daily Texan) reports on her stop in Austin where Cindy explained, "We have a Democratic party [in office], but nothing good is happening. It pays for war and coddles war cirminals. What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans? . . . People ask, 'How can peace be relevant during time of a peace president? Well, I don't like to go around and tell people there is no Santa Claus, but May was the deadliest month in Iraq [for U.S. Soldiers]." And apparently Lily Tomlin's Suzy Sorority attended Cindy's speech because an unnamed woman told Kreitner, "We already have enough negativity going on, and saying bad things about the Obama administration won't help anything." For those who don't remember Suzy Sorority of the Silent Majority, let's revisit one of Tomlin's Laugh-In skits:
Suzy Sorotiy: I'm a charter member of the YACF -- that's Young Americans for Connie Francis. Now there's a person with a lot of problems -- like what to wear to entertain the troops, things like that. But you don't see Connie shooting glue or smoking acid or getting low or smelling those LSMFT tablets. No sir! When something upsets Connie, she just sings her little heart out and the troubles of the world disappear.
In US military news, Gina Cavallaro (Army Times) reports that the National Guard and Reserve fell short of their goals last month (623 short) but remain "comfortably ahead in their fiscal 2009 goals." Staffan De Mistura has always fallen short in Iraq and been an embarrassment for the United Nations. Alsumaria reports: "UN special envoy to Iraq Staffan de Mistura announced that he will leave his post shortly after a two years mission in Iraq. After meeting with Iraq's supreme religious authority Ali Husseini Al Sistani, De Mistura affirmed that the United Nations will pursue its work in Iraq as long as Iraq needs it noting that a good successor will take over." The United Nations work, under de Mistura, has been a joke for two years in Iraq. That goes beyond the cover for the occupation the UN has granted to include the blaming of the Iraqi women for the cholera outbreaks each fall, it goes to the refusal to address the Kirkuk issue, an issue that was supposed to be addressed long ago but which the UN has repeatedly given cover for and allowed to be sidestepped and postponed.
TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing tonight on many PBS stations (check local listings):The murder of Dr. George Tiller has reignited the abortion debate, and raised the question: should violence against medical doctors who perform abortions be viewed and prosecuted as domestic terrorism? This week NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa sits down with two of the remaining handful of doctors who publicly acknowledge performing late abortions, including Leroy Carhart, a fellow doctor in Tiller's Wichita, Kansas clinic.Carhart discusses his vow to carry on Tiller's mission and what it's like for him and his family to live as "targets". The show also investigates claims that law enforcement dropped the ball when it came to stopping Tiller's alleged murderer, Scott Roeder.Hinojosa travels to Colorado as well to talk with Dr. Warren Hern, another late abortion provider who says he's been living "under siege" for decades. Dr. Hern works behind four layers of bulletproof windows and is now under round-the-clock federal protection.NOW goes into the eye of the abortion rights storm to see how Tiller's killing and its ramifications are impacting doctors, free speech, and a civilized society. Bill Moyers Journal begins airing tonight on mnay PBS stations and he and Michael Winship have an essay on gun control:
You know by now that in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, an elderly white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed a security guard before being brought down himself. He's 88 years old, with a long record of hatred and paranoid fantasies about the Illuminati and a Global Zionist state. How bitter the bile that has curdled for so many decades.You will know, too, of the recent killing, while ushering at his local church, of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country still performing late term abortions. Sadly, this case was proof that fatal violence works. His family has announced that his Wichita, Kansas, clinic will not be reopened.You may be less familiar with the June 1st shootings in an army recruiting office in Little Rock that killed one soldier and wounded another. The suspect in question is an African-American Muslim convert who says he acted in retaliation for US military activity in the Middle East. Soon, however, these terrible deeds will be forgotten, as are already the three policemen killed by an assault weapon in Pittsburgh; the four policemen killed in Oakland, California; the 13 people gunned down in Binghamton, New York; the 10 in an Alabama shooting spree; five in Santa Clara, California; the eight dead in a North Carolina, nursing home. All during this year alone.There is much talk about hate talk; hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don't we talk about guns?We're arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House. Washington Week finds Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), Bara Vaida (National Journal), Tom Gjelten (NPR) and John Harris (Hedda Hopper Lives!) joining Gwen around the table. Also tonight on most PBS stations, Bonnie Erbe sits down with Melinda Henneberger, Susan Au Allen, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Tara Setmayer to discuss the week's news on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings. And turning to broadcast commerical TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:The Man Who KnewHarry Markopolos repeatedly told the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernie Madoff's investment fund was a fraud. He was ignored, however, and investors lost billions of dollars. Steve Kroft reports. Watch VideoFor Better Or WorseForeigners who marry Americans are entitled to become permanent residents of the U.S., but in a stricter post-9/11 world, hundreds of widows are being asked to leave the country because their husbands died – even some whose children were born in the U.S. Bob Simon reports. Watch VideoAlice WatersShe has been cooking and preaching the virtues of fresh food grown in an environmentally friendly way for decades. A world-class restaurant and eight cookbooks to her credit, Alice Waters has become famous for her "slow food" approach – an antidote to fast food. Lesley Stahl reports. Watch Video60 Minutes, Sunday, June 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
The parties are not simply interchangeable, however. It is the Democrats' job to police and define the leftmost parameters of acceptable political debate. For the last century it has been the Democrats' special assignment to play "the role of shock absorber, trying to head off and co-opt restive [and potentially Left, P.S.] segments of the electorate" by posing as "the party of the people." The Democrats performed this critical system-preserving, change-maintaining function in relation to the agrarian populist insurgency of the 1890s, the working-class rebellion of the 1930s and 1940s, and the antiwar, civil rights, anti-poverty, ecology, and feminist movements during and since the 1960s and early 1970s (including the gay rights movement today). Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done - and continue to do - this in four key ways: (i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; (iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. Selfa rightly rejects the "left-Democratic" argument (made by Tom Hayden's "Progressive Democrats of America" today and by Michael Harrington's "Democratic Socialists of America" in the past) that the left can "take over the Democratic Party." Once leftists accept a strategy that requires Democratic electoral success first and foremost, Selfa shows, their movements and ideals become hopelessly weakened, their issues relegated to the perpetual "back burner" while their energies are invested in "getting out the vote" (actually a very exhausting and large-scale endeavor) instead of, say, organizing Wall-Mart workers or resisting the (bipartisan) invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
that's from paul street's 'hope-killers' (znet) which is a review of lance selfa's new book the democrats: a critical history. c.i. gave me the book and i just started reading it. i really love the book and i looked around online to find some reviews. i may be missing them but the only 1 i could find was paul street's.
google did take me to selfa's 'Change Lite from the Obama White House' at dissident voice (it's also at u.s. socialist worker, but you can leave comments at dissident voice):
Every presidential election in which the “out” party knocks out the incumbent party brings promises of “change” from the incoming administration. This was never more evident than last November, when Barack Obama, running as the candidate of change against a widely unpopular Republican-led administration, scored a sound and groundbreaking win. The victory wasn’t Obama’s alone. For the first time in 15 years — and for only the second time since the 1970s — the majority of the electorate gave the Democrats full control over Washington, from the White House to the Congress. But fewer than six months into the new administration, we’re finding out just what kind of “change” that Obama and the Democrats have in mind. As usually happens in the U.S.’s corporate-controlled political system, the atmospherics of “change” belie a reality in which there is a lot more continuity between administrations than the election rhetoric — and what people thought they were voting for — predicted. Take the related issues of Obama’s announced intention to close the Guantánamo Bay prison camp and his repudiation of Bush-era policies of torture. On these issues, the media whipped themselves into a frenzy when former vice president and torture defender Dick Cheney and Obama staged dueling May 22 speeches intended to justify their respective views on these issues. One could ask why someone as thoroughly discredited and unpopular as Cheney receives a hearing at all. And yet after all the hot air dissipated, we were left with the result that Obama had accepted many Bush policies — military tribunals to try detainees and indefinite detention based on presidential fiat, among them — as his own.
and that's all i can manage tonight. must be out of sympathy for c.i., wally and ava but i've caught their cold. my nose is glue factory and i'm surrounded with tissue. i told flyboy, 'you take care of her.' our daughter. because i didn't want her catching the cold from me.
last night we all blogged about the tv show american dad. i'll also include wally & cedric's joint-post:
and that's going to be it for me. i'm wiped out. i don't know how c.i.'s managed to write and report for the last 2 days with a cold. i just want to crawl under the blankets.
Thursday, June 11, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US decides the best way to treat those who killed 5 US soldiers is to 'release them into the wild,' the DoD releases suicide data for the Army for last month, Iraqi refugees release a music album, and more.
"Our country has been in conflict for nearly eight years, service members and their families are bearing the brunt of multiple deployments, with no foreseeable end in sight. It is important that we uphold our responsibility to care for those who volunteer to serve our nationa in uniform and their families, given the sacrifices they are making in defense of our nation," declared US House Rep Susan Davis this morning as she brought the US House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee to order. This was a mark up meeting -- mark up of HR 2647 -- and the legislation would create a 3.4% pay raise for the military (Barack has asked for a 2.9% increase) and it also includes monies for families such as spouse internships. Davis chairs the Subcommittee. Wilson is the Ranking Member and his big point was displeasure that the proposal was unable to address disabilities. Davis had noted that "we do not have the mandatory offsets to pay for this $5.1 billion proposal within the subcommittee. The Democratic leadership, however, is working with the committee and a resolution to the issue is expected." The mark was adopted by a unanmious vote. Mark ups are not hearings and we don't generally cover them but we're noting it for a few reasons including that Chair Davis has the nasty DC summer cold. (Ava, Wally and I have it as well as Kat noted last night.) Second, some of her statements need to be noted and juxtaposed with what's going on in Iraq.
* Our country has been in conflict for nearly eight years, service members and their families are bearing the brunt of multiple deployments, with no foreseeable end in sight. It is important that we uphold our responsibility to care for those who volunteer to serve our nationa in uniform and their families, given the sacrifices they are making in defense of our nation.
* This is the Year of the Military Family, as such, we have included a number of initiatives that are focused on military families. These include a pilot program for spouse overseas area and a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to study the appropriateness of the current housing standards. These are just a few of the provisions that we have included to support our military families.
Those are Davis' statements and you can also toss in US House Rep Ellen Tauscher's remarks in the House Armed Services' Strategic Forces Subcommittee mark up this afternoon when Chair Tauscher thanked the Ranking Member for his work on HR 2647, "We don't agree on everything of course but we agree on more than we disagree and you are a great partner, Mike [Turner]."
To attend the mark up hearings was to see members of Congress working together to address the concerns of the military and, with Davis' Subcommittee especially, to address the concerns of the military members and their families. For a brief moment, you could almost believe that the families might be treated with respect and compassion. For a moment.
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) makes clear that whatever Congress does or does not do, military families will be spat upon by the US government. So that we're all on the same page and also to take care of correction, let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot:
"They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it." That's Danny Chism quoted by Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) yesterday. We noted it in yesterday's snapshot and Danny Chism's son, the late Jonathan Bryan Chism, is in the news today. McClatchy Newspapers buries a major story by Richard Mauer entitled "Who was behind Karbala assualt, in which 5 Americans died." January 23, 2007 the Department of Defense announced that four US soldiers "died in Jan 20 in Karbala, Iraq, from wounds sustained when their patrol was ambushed while conducting dismounted operations." The four were identified as Jacob N. Fritz, Jonathan B. Chism, Shawn P. Falter and Johnathon M. Millican. Also killed in the attack was Brian S. Freeman. Bryan Chism was from Louisiana and WAFB reported January 31, 2007 that the military was "trying to cover up the details of an incident in Iraq," that the four "were actually abducted from a tightly-secured American compound by an insurgent commando team. The insurgents were driving American vehicles, wearing American uniforms and carrying American weapons. In fact, on eof the kidnappers is reported to have even had blonde hair." Over two years later, Richard Mauer has uncovered additional details. "The men inside were dressed in U.S. army camouflage and carried American weapons," he reports. "They knew enough English to bark simple commands and offer polite greetings. They knew exactly how the U.S. soldiers would defend the compound. They knew that the compound's most important room was the command and control center -- with its radio base stations -- and they knew that at 6 p.m., the soldiers in the room would be off guard and relaxing. They even knew that the two most senior American officers in Karbala would be in the room next door." Via a Freedom of Information request, McClatchy just obtained an investigative report by the military which was completed February 27th and which "put the onus for intelligence-gathering and ground support [in the attack] on Iraqi police, America's supposed ally. Not only were police negligent in surrendering their guard positions to the intruders without firing a shot or warning the Americans, the report says, but investigators found strong circumstantial evidence that police officials gave the attackers key intelligence and may have been complicit in allowing an advance force of attackers into the compound."
Now drop back to yesterday's news. The US military traded the Iraqi prisoner said to be responsible for the murders -- traded him for five British hostages. Laith al-Khazali was traded. Was freed. Which is why Danny Chism was asking, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
First the correction. Mauer's excellent report was published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Tuesday; however, it originally ran in 2007. Thank you to a friend at McClatchy who caught that and pointed it out to me. My apologies. With the basics above, we have five US soldiers who were killed in Iraq. The military's own study finds that the Iraqi police assisted in the attacks on the US military. If you haven't read Mauer's report, just to summarize quickly, various civilian Iraqis who worked on the base, often until ten thirty at night, failed to show up the day of the attack. All the Iraqi police, except for two, skipped out as well. The two who showed up? They made a point to unlock the gate that the attackers would come through. This was planned and it wa splanned with the help of al-Maliki's forces. It was planned and it was carefully carried out.
The US military believes that Laith al-Kahali and his brother orchestrated the assault. Over the weekend -- with no notice to the families of the five US soldiers killed in the attack -- the US military released al-Kahali. Today Jane Arraf reports that Qais al-Khazali, the brother, is now expected to be released as well. An unnamed US official states, "This isn't about freeing the hostages" referring to the five British citizens held by the brothers' group for over two years now, "it's about getting Asa'ib al-Haq to stop its attacks."
I have no idea how that's going to play. In April of 2008, when The Davy Petraeus and Ryan Crocker Variety Hour played before various Congressional bodies, I would have thought there would be outrage over the 'strategy' Crocker and Petraeus spoke of and endorsed: Paying off Sahwa because that meant Sahwa wouldn't attack US troops or the equipment of US troops. Generally speaking, the appearance of strength doesn't come from forking over your lunch money to ensure you're not beat up on the playground. So maybe the above will again bother no one? But US soldiers were killed in an attack and the two thought responsible are being let out of prison, released to go free, and the US 'reasoning' is that "it's about getting Asa'ib al-Haq to stop its attacks"?
Okay, let's carry that 'logic' on out. I want Leonard Peltier to be free (I really do want him to be free). So the message the US is sending is that I should drop advocacy within the system and instead begin launching attacks on US sites? (I don't believe in violence, before anyone fears I'm ab out to storm the Anna Sui Store in Manhattan.) That is the message that's being sent. And it's probably not the message an occupying power wants to send. Anyone who wants a prisoner freed in Iraq now knows how: Start launching attacks on the US military.
This little stunt was always questionable. It went against every basic in international relations theory but, as a one-off move, it could have been defended. The White House chose not to defend it (and reporters chose not to press on the issue). But now, as they release the second prisoner, and as they insist that the release is to get the brothers' group to stop attacking the US military in Iraq, this is an embarrassment that puts every US service member in Iraq in jeopardy.
It also says that US service members in Iraq are nothing but canon fodder. The illegal war was based on lies and there's no doubt about that at this late date. But the message being sent now, by the current administration, is that US service members are canon fodder and will be used and their deaths will be forgotten. The message sent is that they don't matter. While the military ranks are trained not to leave one of their injured or fallen behind, up in the brass the decision's been made that their lives don't matter and if they die and their killers can blackmail the US with continued attacks, their deaths will be dishonored in a rush to make their killers happy.
It's disgusting. And, again, it puts every US service member in Iraq at risk. (It also sends a larger geo-political message which is why it's so appalling that the press has refused to go after this story. Long after Barack is out of the White House, these moves will follow the United States.) The message is clear: "We will send you to Iraq. We will expect you to fight till your death. If you die we will honor your sacrifice up until the point that we can sell you out for our own benefit." That is the message sent to US troops when 2 killers -- who carried out one of the most well planned assaults on US forces in Iraq -- are freed because, a US official states publicly, "it's about getting Asa'ib al-Haq to stop its attacks." And don't argue, as some may try, that getting Asa'ib al-Haq to stop attacking the US military means the US military will be safer. (A) They're not because they're now targets for anyone who wants the US to come to the negotiating table. And (B) anyone who wanted to the US military to be safe would have begun a full and total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
Arraf quotes an unnamed US State Dept official declaring of the moves, "This is what will have to happen. We did the same thing with Moqtada Sadr and the same thing with the SOIs [Sons of Iraq]." No, it is not the same thing at all. "Sons Of Iraq" and "Awakening" are the same thing as Sahwa. We addressed this earlier this week and we'll note it again. "The United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists!" Of course they do. And they do it on a case-by-case basis and have always done so. The hard-line public stance is not, however, merely a face-saving device for whomever is president (it may or may not be that), it's also based on the belief that if it is known that the US negotiates with terrorists that puts every US citizen abroad at risk of being kidnapped in order to force the government of the United States to do as a group or organization wants it to.Sahwa are Sunnis who turned from resistance fighters (fighting all foreign forces in Iraq including the US) into allies because they were paid. And when that began happening, a number of people were outraged. Arianna Huffington was among the ones outraged and apparently didn't understand that for any war to end, all sides need to come to the table and begin negotiations.(That was a point Tom Hayden could make back before he became scared of his own shadow. In part because Laura Flanders attacked him, after he'd hung up the phone, on air for comments he'd made about who comes to the table and how. She viciously attacked him and then, realizing she'd gone way too far, she tried to blame it on her radio show's blog but none of the comments she made appeared on her show's blog.)Sahwa was willing to put down their arms (at least against the US) if paid. And they didn't propose that arrangement. The US military initiated that and it took approximately eight months of offers before there was any move from Sahwa in that direction.That's Sahwa. Asa'ib al-Haq is not a Sunni organization. It's a Shi'ite organization. Thought to be supported by some segment (government or otherwise) in Iran. Yes, there is humor to this considering that for years Michael Gordon preached war on Iran with the 'facts' that Iran was supporting Sunnis.That's only one difference.The other is that Sahwa wasn't holding anyone. By holding five hostages, Asa'ib al-Haq is different than Sahwa and whether or not the US should have released a prisoner or even had talks with Asa'ib al-Haq is a major issue and it's one that's going to remain long after Barack Obama leaves the White House.The US never addressed Nouri al-Maliki's disdain for the press nor his assaults on them. (US actions against journalists in Iraq, in fact, encouraged al-Maliki's own actions.) An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy shares what it's like to attempt to report from Iraq, where al-Maliki's thugs think they can make their own rules:
After one hour of suffering, I reached the place and the cars which picked the journalists moved to the place. We waited for about 15 minutes near the gate of the ministry. This short time was more than enough for a problem to happen. The guards of the ministry of displaced and immigrants which is near the defense ministry told us that we have to gatherr in one place and we are not allowed to spread in the street. That was enough to get everyone crazy. I told the guard that he doesn't have the right to say so because we are waiting for the permission to enter the defense ministry. he said "this is the gate of a ministry" I was really surprised but I quickly answered him "yes an Iraqi ministry for all Iraqis and we are Iraqis and you must realize that the ministry doesn't own the street." He ordered me to move but I refused and told him simply "Its an Iraqi street and I can stand wherever I like." The discussion got hotter but after some reporters involved, some of them asked me in a very nice way to ignore the guard and I did.
The US had just installed Nouri al-Maliki a little over a month before he began his first noted assault on the press (part of his 'crackdown' ideas -- the bulk of which, such as neighborhood watch militias, had already been set up but al-Maliki contributed the attack on journalism all by himself). Life was already deadly for journalists in Iraqi (both Iraqi journalists and foreign ones) before al-Maliki but the strong man has shaped the country more than most realize. (They also don't grasp that he's attempting to set himself up for life, to become the new Saddam.) The attacks include the daily abuses. For example, a gun pulled on a New York Times journalist and the trigger pulled . . . as a 'joke.' And no one gets disciplined for that. Nouri fosters and encourages the hostility towards the journalists. Nouri repeatedly threatens them. Time and again, like the Insane Rosa Brooks, he floats the idea that he will acredit them and determine who is and isn't a journalist or that he will bring punishment down on them. He's currently brought at least two lawsuits against journalists. He's been at war with journalism since the US installed him as prime minister. The Committee to Protect Journalists' "CPJ, JFO cite press freedom abuses in Iraq" contains a letter they sent al-Maliki:Dear Prime Minister al-Maliki, The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO) would like to bring to your attention several issues that harm press freedom in Iraq. In recent months, our organizations have documented a number of assaults and instances of harassment committed by government officials against journalists in various parts of the country under the control of Iraq's central government. Since 2003, the press in Iraq has made significant strides as hundreds of independent, party- or state-run newspapers, radio and television stations have emerged. Unfortunately, along with that progress Iraqi journalists have paid a steep price. For the past six years Iraq has topped CPJ's list as the most dangerous place in the world for journalists. As of June 9, CPJ has documented the deaths of 139 journalists and 51 media workers in Iraq since March 2003. Three were killed this year. JFO's records shows an even higher number of killed journalists and media workers. In May, at the Iraqi Journalism Summit in Baghdad, you said, "We are proud that we don't have a single imprisoned journalist because of freedom of expression." CPJ and the Observatory commend your government for this, but call on you to press the U.S. military to release Reuters photographer Ibrahim Jassam, who has been held in a U.S. military prison since September 2008 without charge. In recent months many journalists have faced harassment and in some cases assault by Iraqi security forces. In other cases, high-ranking government officials have used lawsuits as a political tool to obstruct and silence the news media. In order to improve the working environment for journalists in Iraq, CPJ and JFO call on your government to take the following steps: Press the U.S. military to respect the decision of the Iraqi courts and immediately release Ibrahim Jassam. Publicly condemn violent attacks and acts of intimidation against journalists. Investigate and bring to justice those who are responsible for killing, attacking, or harassing journalists. Direct government agencies to halt the filing of filing politically motivated lawsuits against journalists and publications. Direct all relevant security and military forces to end the use of force to harass or prevent journalists from doing their work. Suspend or amend articles 81, 82, 83, 84, 201, 202, 210, 211, 215, 225, 226, 227, 403, 433 and 434 of Law 111/1969, more commonly known as the 1969 penal code. These provisions criminalize and set harsh penalties for press related offenses.Ensure all other laws, present and future, are in compliance with international standards for free expression. Attached to this letter is a short report in which CPJ and JFO document with more specificity violations against journalists since the beginning of this year. Thank you in advance for your attention to these important matters. We look forward for your response. Sincerely, Joel Simon Executive Director, CPJ Ziad al-Ajily Director, JFO While the press remains under attack, three US contractors have been released following the arrest of five over the weekend. Late yesterday, Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported, "The men had been freed on bail, but were forbidden to leave Iraq during the ongoing investigation into the death of Jim Kitterman, a 60-year-old construction contractor from Texas, said Rafae Munahe, a senior advisor to Interiot Minister Jawad Bolani." BBC observes, "The US embassy in Iraq has confirmed the release of only one man so far." Al Arabiya quotes Judge Abdel Sattar Birakdar stating, "The other two arrested are still in jail because it was discovered they committed another crime and investigations are ongoing with them." In other legal news, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained this morning, "The private military firm formerly known as Blackwater is facing a new lawsuit over the August 2007 killing of an Iraqi civilian in Hilla. The case was filed on behalf of the surviving relatives of seventy-five-year-old Husain Salih Rabea. At the time, Rabea's relatives said he had pulled over to the side of the road to let a Blackwater convoy pass. The last vehicle in the convoy allegedly opened fire when Rabea pulled back onto the road. The suit also alleges Blackwater employees are guarding employees of the International Republican Institute in Iraq despite an Iraqi government ban." Back to al-Maliki. When not attacking the press, Nouri likes to terrorize and scare the Iraqi people. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports that Nouri's making more threatening noises, insisting that violence will likely increase between now and the elections (currently scheduled for January but they may end up pushed back). Between now and the elections? Yes, that would be over six months. Yes, that would be over half a year. He apparently figured (rightly) that the United Nations would be issuing the same warning shortly (as they did ahead of the provincial elections held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces last January 31st) and he wanted to get a jump on them. Chon notes national elections have now been merged with the referendum on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Noting that again in case any Spency Ackerman's still haven't caught on that the vote on the referendum which was supposed to take place next month has been kicked back to January. Waleed Ibrahim, Daniel Wallis, Michael Christie and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) quote Jawad al-Bolani, Minister of the Interior, stating, "The referendum is a part of law and discussions are ongoing among the ministers and the council of representatives." al-Bolani, of course, does what Nouri wants and, more to the point, the statement was made after al-Bolani met with US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill. The US government wants the vote delayed as well.
Laith Hammoudi (McClathcy Newspapers) reports a Tikrit rocket explosion which killed two children (a boy and a girl), a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left one police officer and four people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four people, a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded three and a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left four more injured. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing which left one US soldier and one Iraqi civilian injured and a Mosul car bombing which injured three Iraqi soldiers and one Iraqi civillian. DPA reports a Kirkuk car bombing which claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers and left nine more wounded.
Yesterday's "Iraq snapshot" covered the US House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee and Kat's "The do nothing Wartime Contracting Commission" last night continued the coverage. Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot" covered the US House Veterans Affairs Health Subcommittee hearing and Kat's "Assessing CARES and the Future of VA's Health Infrastructure" continued the coverage. Tonight she's covering Congress again and it's an interesting thing which I don't think you'll find anywhere else because I didn't see any reporters present. So she'll capture something and I think it's fair to call it a rare emotional moment in Congress. And I don't mean that ("emotional moment") in a derogatory way. Moving on, in the markup of Susan Davis' Subcommittee today the issue of dwell time was noted for the US Army. Jeff Schogol (Stars and Stripes) reports that US Marine Corps Commandant Gen James Conway declared today that "almost all Marines [were] expected to leave Iraq next spring" and this will allow for more dwell time. Whether that ends up being the case or not is debatable. Marine leadership has repeatedly voiced their desire to leave Iraq and 'focus on' Afghanistan over the last years.
Today the Defense Dept released Army suicide data for the month of May: "one confirmed suicide and 16 potential suicides among active duty soldiers." In the press release, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen Peter W. Chiarelli is quoted stating, "We have got to do better. It's clear we have not found full solutions to this yet. But we are trying ever remedy and seeking help from outside agencies that are experts in suicide prevention. There isn't a reasonable suicide prevention tool that the Army won't potentially employ."
kitty donaldson and gonzalo vina (bloomberg news) report that the conservative party and the liberal democrats, scottish nationalist party, et al want 'an early election to unseat the u.k. prime minister'. while they want that, gordo has his own wish list. philip webster (times of london) reports that gordo wants to quickly push legislation through to reform the system by which members of parliament bill their expenses. for those late to the party, that is what finally got the ball rolling against gordo. the abuse of the system which was supposed to basically provide a per diem so parliament could be in session. say you were elected from brighton. well you need to be in london for parliament. so to cover lodging and basics like that, there was an expense system and it was being abused with mountains and mountains of bills for expenses that no thinking person would approve. the telegraph of london broke that story and it outraged the british public.
James Purnell, who last week resigned as work and pensions secretary and called on Gordon Brown to stand aside, told the BBC he did not regret his "very personal" decision. "I just knew I couldn't wake up on Friday and say something which I didn't think was the case," he said. "I said what I said, I stand by it, of course I can be happy if I turn out to be proven wrong and Gordon Brown leads the Labour Party to victory at the next election." David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, earlier described Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, as the "leading candidate" to succeed Mr Brown. The admission came in a radio interview in which he attempted to shore up support for the Prime Minister but conceded that the odds are “stacked against” Labour winning the next general election. He was speaking ahead of the first Cabinet meeting since the wave of ministerial resignations which threatened to topple Mr Brown and the disastrous local and European election results for Labour which saw the party pushed into third place and two BNP candidates elected.
i really wasn't planning to again write about gordo but he appears to be a news fixture of late, doesn't he?
it would be great if he was ousted and new labour would be smart to grasp that when an investigation finally does take place they will need distance from tony blair and gordon brown. gordon was tony's right-hand and there is no distance. new labour shouldn't be standing with tony, they should be moving him on out the door so that they could say, 'well, that's not us. that was tony blair and that was gordon brown and both have left parliament.'
martin jacques makes a similar point re: the british economy. this is from his 'We need an earthquake' (the new statesman):
For those brought up on the modus operandi of the past 30 years, it is difficult to adjust to the monumental shift in US politics. The idea that General Motors – for so long the jewel in the crown of American manufacturing – will now be reshaped by the federal government is remarkable. From finance to industry, the US government is now more involved in the economy than at any time since the 1930s. Furthermore, while the Republicans stand on the sidelines, warning of creeping socialism – itself an amazing charge – most of society seems to believe that there is little alternative other than a huge dose of state intervention to rescue the economy. For the first time in my memory, the federal government is now well to the left of the great majority of European governments. The picture in Britain is far less encouraging. Labour faces a huge defeat at the next general election, to be succeeded by a government of Conservatives who, ever since the recession struck, have sought refuge in an increasingly Thatcherite stance – attacking Keynesian solutions, enthusiastically embracing cuts in public spending, and reverting to a strongly Eurosceptic position. Despite all the talk of progressive Conservatism, the main thrust of the Conservative Party’s efforts under David Cameron during the past two years has been in the opposite direction. The disparity with the United States, so long the inspiration for the British neoliberal right, could hardly be greater. But why are US and British politics moving in such contrasting ways? At the heart of the British problem, one suspects, is that New Labour is the incumbent government. As the financial crisis struck, Barack Obama was able to present himself as an alternative to the Bush years; New Labour had no such advantage. On the contrary, it had been the architect of a system that had culminated in the mother of all postwar crises. The party has paid a savage price for its enthusiastic endorsement of neoliberalism. There is nothing Gordon Brown can do to escape that responsibility – he is deeply culpable, just like Tony Blair before him.
so that's the latest. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, June 9, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi children get some attention, the House hears about VA plans, the US trades an Iraqi prisoner for the hope (cross your fingers!) that five British hostages will be released, KBR faces a new lawsuit, Barack supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and more.
At the United Nations Human Rights Council's General Debate yesterday, the General Federation of Iraqi Women's Entesar Araibai stated "that since the American occupation of 2003, the Iraqi people had been deprived of their basic civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Civil infra-structure was completely destroyed and the Iraqi people faced losing their basic right to remain alive as disease spread due to the breakdown of the medical and basic clean drinking water system. Furthermore, there was the premeditated obliviousness by the Government which had nothing to do better than pilfering the immense wealth of Iraq into private accounts in countries that lectured about human rights. Recent United Nations statistics told of more that five million Iraqi refugees, dispersed either inside Iraq or somewhere else in the world, deprived of medical assistance and suffering extremely dangerous perils." During the General Debate, Iraqi government flack Faris al-Alani declared that lies, lies, were harming Iraq. He then went on to insist that Iraqi women had freedoms across Iraq, the education was solid in Iraq, that the press was free and that the number of orphans was inflated. It was all, you understand, a conspiracy against Iraq, a conspiracy against the truth. No word on whether or not, al-Alani next attempted to flap his arms and fly back to Iraq but, in the real world, Hoda Abdel-Hamid files a report (video only) for Aljazeera:
Hoda Abdel-Hamid: It's a miracle he's alive today. Four years ago Seif was traveling with his parents from Diyala to Baghdad. Their car was destroyed by a roadside bomb. His mother and father killed on the spot.
Seif Saleh: After the death of my parents, I was taken to an orphanage and then brought here. I have relatives but I don't want to stay with them. Everything is good here, I have many friends, they are like me, they lost their parents.
Hoda Abdel-Hamid: House of Safety is an orphanage in north Baghdad, home to 32 children, victims of the carnage that swept Iraq in the last six years. It's a safe where Seif can try to forget those horrific moments in which he lost his parents. Children here are given a second chance in life. Iraq has become a land populated by orphans. According to the Iraqi Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, there are nearly five million orphans -- that's about 15% of the population who's lost at least either one or both parents. More than half-a-million children live on the streets. Seif and his friends are relatively lucky. They are among just 500 children to find a home in one of Iraq's 15 orphanages. Ahmad is not so lucky. At only 11, he has four sisters and a grandmother to take care of and feed. Faced with the burdens of an adult, he dropped out of school and is now making a living out of garbage collection. It earns him five dollars per day.
Ahmad Riyadh: It's not enough but I don't have any other alternatives. The work is not guaranteed and it's always risky. I don't have expectations for the future. I just live day by day.
Hoda Abdel-Hamid: Child experts say the situation has far more reaching consequences, ones that will effect Iraq's society for decades to come.
Dr. Haidar al Maliki: Those children have many problems like sleep disorder, educational problems, social problems with their peers. 70% of our children have what we call Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 20% of them have psychological problems like depression and excited disorder, social phobia. Some of our children have neurosis, especially nocturnal neurosis, about 3 to 4%, and we have an increasing percentage of abuse.
Hoda Abdel-Hamid: Back at the House of Safety, Seif and his friends are facing an uncertain future. The government allocates $12 per child per month and the volunteers here have a hard time making ends meet. Now the owner of the house wants to evict them. With no where else to go, these children could end up on the streets.
Hisham Thahabi (Director of House of Safety): We need to take care of them. Otherwise they fall into terrorism, militias or organized gangs. They are vulnerable and could easily fall into the trap. They are the easy prey.
Hoda Abdel-Hamid: The US military has several times accused al Qaeda in Iraq of recruiting and training children. Many of these youngsters feel abandoned and belonging to a group -- any group -- is very attractive to them. In many ways, Iraq's orphans are the forgotten collateral damage of six years of war. Hoda Abdel-Hamid, Al Jazeera.
As last month drew to an end, Ghassan Awad and Gao Shan (Xinhua) reported on Iraqi children such as six-year-old Jasim who becomes upset when he sees Iraqi or US troops having seen a US and Iraqi patrol kill someone outside of Baghdad and seven-year-old Kholood who saw her father shot dead in front of her, six-year-old Khalil Muhiee who saw his father saw a militia storm the family home and then discovered "his father beheaded".
These are among the realities missing from the speech at the center of Barry O Goes To Cairo. Ali Abunimah (Guardian) observes, "He dwelled on the 'enormous trauma' done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq -- those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the 'necessary' war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan." Iraqi journalist Ahmed Habib (bigHead) offers:
We were mostly disappointed that we couldn't show the new president around. In the Kadhimiya Hospital, in the northern end of Baghdad, cancer patients withering away from depleted uranium crowning the tip of American munitions, couldn't wait to kiss Obama's feet before they left this god forsaken world. Students at decrepit schools throughout Iraq, part of an education system sold out to the World Bank, were planning to anxiously await the arrival of the new emperor and beg and plea for chalk, pencils, desks, and dignity. Widows and internally displaced refugees had a really cute event planned for Obama, and Ms. Clinton. They had organized a mass burn-in for the new eloquent Commander in Chief. Overpriced and scarce gasoline was going to be used to set millions of bodies alight in homage to the new emperor. The theme of the soiree was, "With nothing left, why bother to live?" Thousands of different sectors from our destroyed society were waiting in anticipation for the Barack Show. From persons disabled by war to millions of youth scouring the streets for crumbs, we had some pretty nifty ideas that we couldn't wait to put into action. One of my personal favorites was the planned "Thank you for Democracy" festival. Millions of Iraqis were planning to line the streets of Baghdad, with empty bags in hand, and ask Barack to bless them with the vomit of himself, and his entourage.
Did they play Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world in the prison corridors of Abu Ghraib, Bagram air base, Guantanamo or the dozens of secret sites where we hold thousands of Muslims around the world? Did it echo off the walls of the crowded morgues filled with the mutilated bodies of the Muslim dead in Baghdad or Kabul? Was it broadcast from the tops of minarets in the villages and towns decimated by U.S. iron fragmentation bombs? Was it heard in the squalid refugee camps of Gaza, where 1.5 million Palestinians live in the world's largest ghetto?What do words of peace and cooperation mean from us when we torture-yes, we still torture-only Muslims? What do these words mean when we sanction Israel's brutal air assaults on Lebanon and Gaza, assaults that demolished thousands of homes and left hundreds dead and injured? How does it look for Obama to call for democracy and human rights from Egypt, where we lavishly fund and support the despotic regime of Hosni Mubarak, one of the longest-reigning dictators in the Middle East? We may thrill to Obama's rhetoric, but very few of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are as deluded. They grasp that nothing so far has changed for Muslims in the Middle East under the Obama administration. The wars of occupation go on or have been expanded. Israel continues to flout international law, gobbling up more Palestinian land and carrying out egregious war crimes in Gaza. Calcified, repressive regimes in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are feted in Washington as allies. The speech at Cairo University, which usually has trucks filled with riot police outside the university gates and a heavy security presence on campus to control the student body, is an example of the facade. Student political groups, as everyone who joined in the standing ovation for the president knew, are prohibited. Faculty deans are chosen by the administration, rather than elected by professors, "as a way to combat Islamist influence on campus," according to the U.S. State Department's latest human rights report. And, as The Washington Post pointed out, students who use the Internet "as an outlet for their political or social views are on notice: One Cairo University student blogger was jailed for two months last summer for 'public agitation,' and another was kicked out of university housing for criticizing the government." The expanding imperial projects and tightening screws of repression lurch forward under Obama. We are not trying to end terror or promote democracy. We are ensuring that our corporate state has a steady supply of the cheap oil to which it is addicted. And the scarcer oil becomes, the more aggressive we become. This is the game playing out in the Muslim world.
With Laila Al-Arian, Chris Hedges co-authored Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians. The collateral damage is the dead and wounded Iraqis. The US' collateral damage also includes the dead and wounded US forces. This morning the US House Veterans Affairs Health Subcommitee held a hearing entitled "Assessing CARES and the Future of VA's Health Infrastructure." "CARES" is Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services. Subcommittee Chair Michael H. Michaud opened the hearing explaining, "The purpose of this hearing is to assess the VA's implementation of CARES and to investigate the effectiveness of CARES as a capital planning tool. In addition, today's hearing will explore whether CARES should continue in the future or if the VA should adopt an alternate capital planning mechanism."
Michaud added a little to his prepared statement but otherwise stuck to reading it. His and other prepared statements from the hearing can be found here. Ranking Member Henry Brown added that CARES was established following a 1999 Government Accountability Office study which "found that VA was wasting a million dollars a day on the maintenance of outdated and underutilized health care facilities." This hearing was scheduled as part of Congress' ongoing oversight of the VA. As 2008 drew to a close, the GAO found that the Veterans Affairs had not conducted the needed and "meaningful" dicussions when seeking a contractor to construct an ambulatory care center. Today the GAO issued a [PDF format warning] review of the VA's CARES process which "drives VHA's capital planning efforts" and they found that Veterans Affairs is not "centrally tracking" the 34 CARES decisions that they implemented: "Our past work found that, while VA had over 100 performance measures to monitor other agency programs and activities, these measures either did not directly link to the CARES goals or VA did not use them to centrally monitor the implementation and impact of CARES decisions. Without this information, VA could not readily assess the implementation status of CARES decisions, determine the impact of such decisions, or be held accountable for achieving the intended results of CARES." The GAO's Mark L. Goldstein offered it as testimony today as a witness on the second panel. CARES has little oversight and few checks which is why it's important that Congress regularly provide oversight.
For nearly a decade, the IBVSOs have argued that the VA must be protected from deterioration of its health infrastructure and the consequent decline in VA's capital asset value. Year after year, we have urged Congress and the administration to ensure that appropriated funding is adequate in VA's capital budget so that VA can properly invest in its physical assets, proect their value and ensure health care in safe and functional facilities long into the future. Likewise, we have stressed that VA's facilities have an average age of more than 55 years, therefore, it is essential that funding be routinely dedicated to renovate, repair and replace VA's aging structures, capital and plant equipment system as needed. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the past decade of deferred and underfunded construction budgets has meant that VA has not adequately recapitalized its facilities -- now leaving the health care system with a large backlog of major contruction projects totaling between $6.5 billion to $10 billion with an accomanying urgency to deal with this growing dilemma.
When asked by Michaud, Richard Weidman stated he felt the process itself was the problem, "Unfortunately, good ideas are often given to the VA and they're like an 18-year-old who gets a hold of a bottle of whiskey and they run amuk. And the example would be so-called Project Hero where the Congress instructed VA to rationalize the contracting out and instead VA tried to turn it into a firesale of contracting out as opposed to increasing and strengthening the organizational capacity within the hospitals themselves."
"We believe it has to be more transparent," Joseph L. Wilson explained to the committee noting that a question recieves a supposed complete answer from the VA but it's really a general response and then the American Legion has to go through the process of tracking down the details that they were seeking from the beginning. "The bottom line," Wilson stated, "is the veteran's going to suffer if they're [the VA] trying to make the system look perfect." Richard Weidman agreed and stated that they have consistently "been able to find out a great deal more of what is going on by talking to union members around the country than we can find out by meeting with the Under Secrectary for Health. And this is not the kind of partnership that certainly the veterans' services organizations envisioned, nor the Hill, nor people that want to make this system work." Dennis Cullinan voiced the opinion that the process is not clear, referred to VFW being snowed under with CARES paperwork which seemed intentionally confusing and obsevered of proposed facilities that "something's going to be one thing, then it's going to be another and then it changes back again."
US House Rep Deborah Halvorson: Mrs. Ilem you mentioned in your testimony that some of the facilities are out dated. One of them you mentioned is near my district -- [Edward] Hines [Jr. VA Hospital] -- in Chicago. With the need and probably too much need basically to get it up to the 21st century needs, do you think that it might be better to put the money and the needs to expand more the CBOCs because as Mr. [US House Rep John] Boozman said we need to adapt to change and now people aren't spending as much time in hospitals and maybe we need to do more to the out patient clinics?
Ms. Ilem responded that what she gets told is that "it costs more to renovate a place than to build a new facility and because of the new types of equipment that are available today, the rewiring, the ceiling heights, I just mean there's a number of issues like that that come into play." Carl Blake noted that there's a spinal cord injury center at Hines and if it's work is distributed to various clinics it dilutes the work that can be done. And he and Weidman
US House Rep Deborah Halvorson: Well I have a tendancy to agree with that however and that's why I'm asking all of you is the future and where is it that we need to go? I have people calling me all day that are tired of going there and sitting there all day just to be turned away and what are we going to do about that? So we need to do something. Our veterans deserve the best care possible. So if we need to build them a new hospital then we need to do that. There's all kinds of things we can be doingfor them.
We're mainly noting the exchange because it was Halvorson's strongest performance on a VA committee or subcommittee since being sworn in at the start of the year. I'll make Little Debbie jokes as needed but none were needed today. Halvorson did a good job on the subcommittee today. Kat's grabbing 49% tonight. 49%? Read her later tonight.
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
Today Campbell Robertson (New York Times) provided an update on the arrests of US contractors in Baghdad for the death of Jim Kitterman and the only names known at this point are still the father and son Donald Feeney Jr. and Donald Feeney III. Robertson speaks with John Feeney: "He said that his father was in the Philippines, where the company has an office, when the murder took place. He flew to Iraq shortly after the murder because one of his employees was killed in a mortar attack in the Green Zone on the day Mr. Kitternman's body was found. Donald Feeney Jr. and Mr. Kitterman had known each other well, John Feeney said." CBS and AP note, "Although Americans and others have been killed in rocket or mortar attacks in the Green Zone, Kitterman was believed to be the first American ever slain in a criminal act since the protected area was established after the city fell to U.S. forces in April 2003. "
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad mortar attack which left three people wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing which left two people wounded and another Mosul roadside bombing which left a mother and daughter injured, a Fulluja motor cycle bombing which left nine people injured (four were police officers) and a Falluja roadside bombing targeting the city's police chief which left three of his guards injured.
Turning to the US, Friday's snapshot noted, "Guillermo Contreras (San Antonio Express-News) reports that "Robert Cain of San Marcos; Craig Henry of San Antonio; Francis Jaeger of Haltom City; David McMenomy of Lampasas; Mark Posz of San Antonio; and El Kevin Sar of Houston" have filed charges against Halliburton stating that 'they were poisoned by toxins and emissions from burn pits at U.S. camps in Iraq and Afghanistan'." In related news, last night Julie Sullivan (The Oregonian) reports Larry Roberta, Scott Ashby, Rocky Bixby, Matthew Hadley and Charles Ellis have filed suit against KBR stating the company "knew before the Oregon Guard arrived at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in May 2003 that the site was contaminated by hexavalent chromium, a highly toxic and long-identified carcinogen."
The US Supreme Court announced today that it will not consider a challenge to Don't Ask Don't Tell -- the military policy that bars openly gay individuals from military service. The High Court let stand a decision that holds the current policy is rational. In so doing, the Court has allowed the Justice Department to avoid arguing in support of Don't Ask Don't Tell -- a policy that President Obama said in the past he would move to repeal.
Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) observed of the case this morning, "The Obama administration had urged the court to throw the case out. In a brief, the Obama administration had said the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is 'rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.' While running for president, Senator Obama campaigned to end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January." Mark Thompson (TIME magazine) notes the case was that of James Pietrangelo II and quotes him stating of Barack, "He's a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people." To claims that Barry O is just too busy due to the economy and wars, Pietrangelo replies, "It's a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate -- this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask. We have an old saying in the military -- the masimum effective range of an excuse is zero meters." James Pietrangelo II served in the Gulf War and in the current Iraq War. Barry O has served as culture ambassador and worldwide celebrity since taking office. Two wars and the economy hasn't prevented two trips to France, Cairo, et al. What lie did Barry O tell while campaigning? Plenty. But specifically this one, "I'm a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans. It's something I've been consistent on." He's been consistently silent including while al-Maliki moves to 'cleanse' Baghdad of Iraq's LGBT community.
Here at THE HOWLER, we've had it with Maddow -- with her mugging, her clowning, her self-adoration, her reliance on a professional dope like "our friend Ana Marie Cox." (For the record, Cox strikes us as very bright -- except when she's doing her own clowning and career-building. As she did yesterday, making the idiotic remarks which Media Matters flagged. Just click here.) We've had it with Maddow playing the fool, treating her progressive audience as if they're nine years old. We've had it with her brilliant jokes (about "newt-tracting," for example) -- even as she hands us rubes the dumbest analyses possible.
[. . .]
Dumb it down! Please the rubes! Be sure to feed their tribal desires! These are the rules of the "corporate news" crowd as they ceaselessly stalk the wild demo. In the next few days, we will return to the silly bills who surround this scholar on her GE-owned gong-show. We'll look at such cable stars as Wolff, Wolffe and Harris-Lacewell -- and of course, at Maddow herself.
The coming attractions appear to suggest The Daily Howler will be a must-see. For those unaware, Melissa Harris-Lacewell is the woman who began campaigning for Barack in 2007 -- by spring 2007, she was traveling to campaign for him in California. (She even bragged about that publicly on PBS airwaves in 2007.) Yet somehow, she'd make her first Democracy Now! appearance in January of 2008 where she'd be allowed to 'analyze' the candidates and neither she nor Amy Goodman would mention that she was part of the Obama campaign. ("She did so! She said so when she was on with Gloria Steinem!" That was one week later. That was her second appearance and Melissa was shreiking and not sure what she was letting slip out and she played nutso.) Melissa would repeat that little act on PBS' Charlie Rose Show in March where, for some strange reason, Charlie invited non-journalist Melissa to a journalistic roundtable on the presidential election. No other Democratic Party candidate had anyone at the table who was part of their campaign. And, of course, Melissa forgot to reveal that she was part of the Barack campaign. She found time to note these attacks on Tavis Smiley . . . but forgot to mention she not only took part in them, she kicked them off online. She lied so well that the writer of bad books and many an astroturf campaign ended up adding her weak and poor writing to The Nation. Threaten violence and blood in the streets (as Melissa did in 2008 on PBS) and you'll be rewarded apparently. Lie Face Melissa remains the story few have explored.
Gordon
Brown appeared to have staved off the rebels clamouring for him to
stand down by giving a speech in which he recognised he was not
infallible to the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday night.
A chastened Gordon Brown yesterday promised his backbench critics that he would learn from his mistakes, as he survived Labour's worst national election results since 1918 and some of the most personal attacks ever mounted on his governing style. At
a private inquest staged only hours after the party came third in the
European parliamentary elections, with less than 16% of the vote, a
rebel attempt to call for a secret ballot on his leadership was seen
off by party loyalists. Speaking to a packed meeting of Labour MPs
and peers, Brown adopted a humble tone, saying: "Like everyone else, I
have my strengths and weaknesses. I am going to play to my strengths
and address my weaknesses. "No doubt I have much to learn about a
collective way of leading the party and the government. I have to learn
how to be a full-time prime minister and a full-time leader of the
Labour party." He said he wanted to stay leader, not for its own sake,
but because he had a mission.
so gordon may have
saved his hide ... for now. i actually think he's worse off now than
before because now he really has to deliver or he can be ousted and his
groveling won't help next time. i want to note this from the aclu's blog, 'Honoring Dr. Tiller: Reflections from Kentucky:'
As
a former Planned Parenthood employee, you can count me among the
multitude of people who have friends who provide abortions. If I am to
be honest, I must admit, since the murder of Dr. Tiller,
many of us who advocate for reproductive freedom have been scared for
our friends, family, and colleagues. Indeed, in the first days after
Dr. Tiller’s death, we had decided to forgo hosting a public vigil.
Then on later reflection, we decided the only way to truly honor Dr.
Tiller was to come together and proclaim to the world, “We will not
cower.” We must stand together in the face of violence. One of
several individuals who spoke to honor and remember Dr. Tiller, Carla
Wallace spoke of her times marching for LGBT rights in the midst of
death threats. Years later, she and others peacefully protested the
presence of the Klu Klux Klan. Through her stories, she reminded us all
that violence and terrorism will only triumph if we allow it to silence
us. Dr. Tiller refused to be silenced or stopped by violence. The
day after he was shot in 1993, he walked into his clinic and continued
his work. We must do the same. We must honor Dr. Tiller, his family,
and the women he helped through his decades of service by speaking out
and saying, “I will not be afraid.”
we can't forget the
assassination - it goes to the never ending assault on women's rights.
and we can't forget dr. tiller who stood up when he could have slouched
and played it safe.
Monday,
June 8, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Nora Barrows Friedman proves
Pacifica can address the Iraq War, the US tax dollars are wasted on
propaganda aimed at Iraqis which the Iraqis do not read, contractors
increase in the war that is allegedly ending, and more.
Nora
Barrows Friedman: . . . Ahmed, you know just about 20 minutes ago we
got a call from someone who was pointing out the fact that there has
been all this redirecting of Iraq's natural resources of gas and oil
out into the western markets. Talk about this ongoing theft of natural
resources in your country, in Iraq, and across the region -- how that
kind of fits into this neocolonialism and of course neoliberalism
standpoint of what's going on right now to your country in particular.
Ahmed
Habib: In our country of course we are all one people that are bound
together by our struggle. and I mean wasn't that the idea in the first
place the systematic theft of Iraq, the creation of a new colony there
where cheap labor and cheap products can compliment the global economic
system. Of course since the occupation in 2003 there has yet to be a
safe and steady monitoring system that's put into place and also out of
the southern most point of Iraq that is of course where most of the oil
exports come out of through the gulf. Only recently we saw that the
Kurdish government has been allowed to sell oil through the pipeline
leading through Turkey in a perverse sort of selling out of their
national struggle as the Turkish army continues to try to oppress
Kurdish liberation fighters [PKK] in the mountains through waging a
sort of war on terror again. There the Kurdish government, rife with
corruption, in conjunction with the Iraqi central government in the
Green Zone has found a way to funnel off Iraqi oil. The sad part about
all of this, Norah, is that the despite the fact that Iraq has the
potential to be producing 7 million barrels a day which is an
astounding number, none of the resource profits are being seen on the
streets of Baghdad. We still see deplorable conditions in health care
very much similar to how they were during the sanctions. Electricity
and water are still a scarce resource. But it's interesting to see how
the economic restructuring and engineering of post-occupation Iraq has
really been indicative of how America envisions the rest of the world
and Obama really hasn't made any effort to change that. We see that in
Iraq. There's been a major selling off of the major industries in the
country or rather the most major sectors turned into industries -- such
as energy, such as health care, such as anything related with the most
fundamental elements of the infrastructure of the country. We also see
some sort of perverse manipulation of economic activity in Iraq. I know
that I've shared this before but it's a really excellent metaphor that
really encapsulates what's happening in Iraq is that Iraqi farmers who
in fact were some of the first in history to implement systems of
modern irrigation and were some of the first to make scientific
advancements in farming are now being told that they should farm wheat
only using grains, self-terminating grains, that are being sold by
American corporations. And those grains are in fact best used for the
[. . . 95?] string of pasta and for anybody who's had the opportunity
to dive into the beauty of Arabic food they'll now that pasta isn't a
main staple in our diet. So it's clear that Iraq is being set up as a
place for exports. We see countries that have had happen to them
throughout history. We see the Philippines -- another country that has
been destroyed economically. There's tremendous poverty, there's a lack
of infrastructure, there's a corrupt government. We see this in Mexico.
I know that coming up next you have a guest who's going to be talking
about the murder of indigenous activists in Peru and of course in that
country things are very similar as well with many of the natural
resources being -- minerals and what not -- being extracted at the cost
of the indigenous people there. So what's happening in Iraq
unfortunately despite the magnanimous scale of the calamity that's
facing people we know that there's more than 700,000 people that have
been confirmed dead as a result of the violence of the occupation, as
many as five million people have been forced to flee their country.
What's happening in Iraq isn't really unique to the country and within
the microcosm of the Arab world it's very much tied to the continuing
apartheid regime in Israel and throughout the rest of the world. It's
very much tied to the neoliberal extraction and exploitation that
indigenous people are facing everywhere.
The Iraq War continues, it has not ended. Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert grasps it, even if others don't. Campbell Robertson (New York Times) writes
about Colbert taping his show in Iraq and how "soldiers there" feel
"that Americans have largely tuned the war out, that the economy had
vacuumed up all the attention even though there are around 135,000
troops still here and still doing dangerous work. . . . Soldiers here
are all too aware of America's attention span about this war, several
of them at the taping said." Jon Kreig (Des Moines Register) knows
the war hasn't ended: "The United States is digging in for more
warfare, rather than planning to get out. Indeed, the deadline for U.S.
troops to leave Iraqi cities has passed. Gen. George W. Casey Jr., Army
chief of staff, said the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat
and stability operations in two wars -- up to 10 more years in Iraq.
Meanwhile, a new report from the Pentagon indicated that there were now
250,000 private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is
fair to call these people mercenaries since they do the jobs that
service members did in Vietnam and other wars." Lez Get Real notes a report by Russia Today (text and vido):
Alice
Hibbert: It's been revealed that the number of private security
contractors working for the US war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan has
greatly increased. While troops are being pulled out a Pentagon report
says that the number of contractors working for the US Defense
Department has increased by up to 30% since President Obama came to
office. This figure has now swelled to some 250,000 working for
companies such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy.
In related news, today the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute announced:Worldwide
military expenditure in 2008 totalled an estimatedUS$1464 billion,
according to new figures released today by Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This represents an increase of 4 per
cent in real terms compared to 2007, and an increase of 45 per cent
since 1999. SIPRI today launched the 2009 edition of its Yearbook on
Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.The Yearbook shows
that the USA accounted for the majority (58%) of the global increase
between 1999 and 2008, with its military spending growing by $219
billion in constant 2005 prices over the period. Even so, it was far
from the only country to pursue such a course. China and Russia, with
absolute increases of $42 billion and $24 billion respectively, both
nearly tripled their military expenditure over the decade. Other
regional powers -- particularly India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel,
Brazil, South Korea, Algeria and the UK -- also made substantial
contributions to the total increase.'The idea of the "war on terror"
has encouraged many countries to see their problems through a highly
militarized lens, using this to justify high military spending,'
comments Dr Sam Perlo-Freeman, Head of the Military Expenditure Project
at SIPRI. 'Meanwhile, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $903
billion in additional military spending by the USA alone.'
The illegal war's not ending. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reported
yesterday on a sinkhole for millions of US tax payer dollars to fund
and operate Baghdad Now -- a piece of propaganda put together: "That
the paper has no publicly known editor, no bylines and no ads is no
mistake. It is part of America's huge psychological warfare campaign to
influence Iraqis' behavior and attitudes." Iraqis do not take Baghdad
Now seriously but it's a US military 'news' outlet "produced by an Army
psychological operation unit and distributed for free by soldiers.
Piles of it are left at entrances to the Green Zone for passerbys to
pick up." Since these operations don't appall or get coverage from US
media, let's grasp that the military is always testing. They've used
every battlefield to test new weapons and to test new techniques. Don't
be surprised if at some point Baghdad Now becomes DC Now or if we find
out that the military is embedded again at CNN. The military does not
go to other fields to fight for freedom. Troops are sent to
battlefields to test new forms of war fare. That's the reality.
On the diplomated front the Tehran Times reported
Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president, met with Hassan Kazemi Quomi, Iranian
Ambassador to Iraq, about increasing the ties between the two
countries. In addition, Nouri al-Maliki made his pilgrimage to meet up
with Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim -- Dick Cheney's friend, Iraqi exile
who returned after the invasion and presumed to be deathly ill -- in
Iran. UPI reports Jalal Talabani went to Iran Sunday to visit al-Hakim. Meanwhile Alsumaria is reporting
whispers of what would be a significant change in governing in the
Kurdistan Regional Government and have implications throughout Iraq:
Barham Saleh, the current deputy prime minister, will reportedly resign
his post to take over as Prime Minister of the KRG while Hurriyet reports that Turkey sent four to six airplanes to bomb northern Iraq Saturday in assaults on the PKK.
Over the weekend, arrests were announced. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported
that five US contractors were arrested by Iraqi forces in the death of
a US citizen Jim Kitterman murdered in the Green Zone last month and
has the name of two of them -- Donald Feeney Jr., Donald Feeney II --
from the son of Feeney Jr., John Feeney, who states his father and
brother are innocent and were friends with Kitterman. John Feeney tells CNN, "We're pretty sure they will be questioned there in the next couple of days and released with no charges." BBC adds that "the US embassy in Iraq has not confirmed who they are and says no charges have yet been laid." Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) speaks
with an unnamed US embassy spokesperson who states, "Embassy consular
officials have visited the five and ensured they are being afforded
their rights under Iraqi law. The men appeared well." Alissa J. Rubin and Marc Santora (New York Times) cover
the arrest and note, "Under Iraqi law, charges are not made until a
court appearance. For a person to be detained there must be sufficient
evidence for a judge to issue an arrest warrant." Alsumaria adds,
"Cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh told the AFP that five US security
contractors were arrested on Friday in a joint Iraqi-US crackdown in
the green zone as part of investigations in the murder of an American.
Al Dabbagh noted that Americans are investigating detainees who if
convicted will be transferred to Iraq judiciary for trial." But Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports the same spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, is now insisting 4 Americans, not 5, were arrested. In other contracting news, AP reports they have an unreleased report from the Wartime Contracting Commission that has found more corruption including problems "with a $30 million dining facility at a U.S. base in Iraq".
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports a Baghdad minibus bombing has claimed 7 lives and left 24 injured. BBC pins down the location in Baghdad, "Abu Dshir, a Shia Muslim enclave in the mainly Sunni neighbourhood of Dora." Ahmed Habib notes that it took place "in the ethnically cleansed district of Dora. Iraq is dying." Reuters adds
a Mosul suicide bomber took his/her own life and injured two people
and, dropping back to Sunday, a Falljua roadside bombing which claimed
the lives of three police officers and a Mosul "ambush" which resulted
in the deaths of two police officers. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Mosul roadside bombing which injured four people.
Turning to England where, over the weekend, Patrick Hennessy (Telegraph of London) reported
that with Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister, under attack and his cabinet
revolting, he's finally decided to make a move on the inquiry into the
Iraq War but any investigation determination "-- which coulld be
potentially politically damaging for Tony Blair, Mr Brown and other
senior Labour figures -- would still almost certainlly not be known
until after the next general election, which must be held by early June
2010." Rebecca's been covering Brown's problem, see her "gordon brown's troubles, debra sweet," "stinky gordon brown part ii" and "stinky gordon brown stands alone." The UK Daily Mail reported
yesterday that Brown "last night campaigners warned him not to hold it
in secret by appointing a group of Privy Councillors to sift through
sensitive papers behind closed doors - as ministers suggested. They
said it must examine the legality of the war, the timing of Tony
Blair's decision to back an American invasion, the use of flawed
intelligence to justify war, and the coalition's poor planning for the
aftermath of the invasion."
"We'll stop doing this when the war ends," Melida Arredondo tells Jennifer Lebovich (Miami Herald).
"It's very profound. You want to be strong. You don't want this to
control your life. It hurts that it's still going on. Out of mercy,
we'd like our pain to stop." Melida and Carlos Arredondo are the parents of Lance Cpl Alexander Scott Arredondo who was killed by sniper fire in Najaf August 25, 2005.
August 25th is Carlos birthday and he went from celebrating that event
to learning the news of his son's death. Since then, the couple has
worked to end the illegal war. Carlos travels with the coffin around
the country. In February 2007, Trymaine Lee (New York Times) noted
he was in New York and reported, "In a whisper,he vowed never to let
his son's death be forgotten. He closed his eyes and slid his right
hand across the American flag stretched over the coffin, his fingertips
tumbling over each of its faded red stripes." In March of 2007, Carlos told Amy Goodman (Democracy Now! -- watch, read, listen),
"Well this is my pain. This is my loss, my son honored to protect us.
I'm protecting my son's honor. As you know what happened in Walter Reed
recently in Building 18, myself and many people are not too happy about
the way they're treating their soldiers who come back from the
battlefield right now. But the way I start doing that is for my own
personal healing process, making this very public, since the government
don't want we to see caskets during the funerals. And it's a way for me
to share this grieving with the public, because many people live in
their own bubbles, and they don't care really about what's going on
outside their own bubbles, and I want them to feel what they see, what
really happens every day, not only in this country, but this happens
all over the country." Lebovich explains today that Carlos has visted
26 states with the truck and coffin and he tells Lebovich, "I think
it's important for people to see how families grieve. I share my
grieving very publicly." Carlos and Melida Arredondo are members of
Military Families Speak Out and MFSO will have a members assembly at the University of Maryland, Colle Park Campus on August 8th as part of Veterans for Peace's August fifth through ninth conference.
Ty: At Third on Sunday we published "Who's duping who?"
which has received positive feedback from friends with IVAW and from
others. It's received a repeated rant from one person and I feel sorry
for her -- having been filled on her by people who work with her -- so
I'll just ignore her despite plans to let it rip here. I will note Rick
Duncan because he came up in the exchange with the ill person and we
debated at Third whether or not to include Rick Duncan in the article
but decided not to. He's the subject of a lengthy article by Dan Frosch and James Dao in today's New York Times. This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here is a right wing website and, if you click here,
you will be taken to their post on Rick Duncan and see him at the top
of the post wearing his Winter Soldier IVAW t-shirt. Scroll down and
you will see his bio at the Iraq Veterans Against the War website.
Scroll down just a bit further and you will see how they disappeared it
after it turned out Rick Duncan was Rick Strandlof and not a veteran or
ever a member of the military. Only members would have the ability to
post to IVAW's website. There's your answer. He posted there and he
posted that he was a member. So he's a member. Kevin Simpson (Denver Post via Colarado Springs Gazette) has the man not joining offiicially.
Note the way he words it. Officially. Rick Duncan was a member of IVAW.
When his name was raised while we were writing the piece C.I. advocated
for leaving it out (paraphrase), "It's not central to the story. We
could mention it but it's an old story and I think we can leave it
out." And we took a vote and agreed. It is an issue now because (a)
it's a lengthy article in today's New York Times and (b) and someone
wants to call us liars and bad reporters. I'm done with that person but
we will note the Duncan story as we close the chapter.
Thanks to Ty
for the above. The feedback I've had (from IVAW friends) was favorable
because they were already pointed out that the right wing has been
promoting an attack on IVAW repeatedly for weeks now and they point to Jim Branum's post
as the only non-right wing one on the issue but which they feel
advances the idea that there are two equal sides and they do not feel
that there are two equal sides. They feel they are under attack from
some former members. And that's what the point of view of the article
at Third was about. Regarding Rick Duncan, that's the first time his
name appears here. We avoided him. We were introduced to him by a
member of IVAW (who introduced him to Ava
and I stating Rick was a member of IVAW) some time ago. We never
mentioned him here because he was an obvious liar to us. When he was
exposed as a liar last month, we were focused on other things (probably
the War Crimes trial). His being a fake doesn't translate as"IVAW is a
fake!" There's nothing fake about IVAW. But denying that someone was a
member makes the organization look bad. He had the ability to post at
the website, he was introduced by other IVAW members as a member and he
presented himself publicly -- for months and months and months -- as a
member of IVAW. It was IVAW's responsibility to correct the record back
then if he wasn't a member. They didn't. They can't now erase the
record. That looks worse than admitting you accepted someone into your
midst that was a fake. The alternative to the risk of allowing a fake
in is the risk of closing out potential members who need help. They
should be open and if a mistake comes along, "Oh well, we were
attempting to help." And that is why he was able to meet so many IVAW
members. They were trying to help him. They rightly sensed someone
struggling. What they didn't sense was that he was a fraud. There's no
crime in being trusting and trying to assist others. And there's no
shame in it either. People who never get fooled by frauds tend to be
people who stopped feeling and sealed themselves off. Ava and I knew he
was a liar because we weren't focusing on Iraq or combat. In a less
than five minute exchange with him, we exchanged multiple looks as his
story obviously changed on details we were paying attention to. On the
topic of people I consider friends, Richard Brown. Brown was Cindy
Sheehan's guest yesterday on Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox.
The topic is torture and I doubt we'll be able to excerpt anything from
the broadcast (no Iraq) but you can also read Cindy Sheehan's "Drop charges in 38-year-old murder case" (San Francisco Chronicle).
Gordon Brown resisted calls for him to resign, reorganizing his Cabinet to shake off the worst local election defeat in three decades and the biggest challenge to his authority since he became U.K. prime minister two years ago. "I'm not going to waver, and I'm not going to walk away," Brown said at a press conference in London last night. "We suffered a very big defeat. The task before this country is so big that we’ve got to get on with the job." Alan Johnson, the favorite to replace the prime minister, was promoted to manage the Home Office and pledged his loyalty to Brown. Alistair Darling remains chancellor of the exchequer, dashing a plan to install Brown's ally Ed Balls in the job.
Caroline Flint launched a stinging attack on Gordon Brown for using women as "window dressing" as she resigned tonight as Europe minister. In one of the sharpest resignation letters in recent British political history, Flint accused Brown of running a "two-tier" government that excludes women from his inner circle. Echoing the concerns of many ministers, who believe that Brown's inner circle is dominated by football-loving men, Flint told Brown that she was "extremely disappointed" by his failure to lead an inclusive government. "You have a two-tier government. Your inner circle and then the remainder of cabinet," Flint wrote. "I have the greatest respect for the women who have served as full members of cabinet and for those who attend as and when required. However, few are allowed into your inner circle. "Several of the women attending cabinet – myself included – have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing. I am not willing to attend cabinet in a peripheral capacity any longer."
But her departure was just one of a series of ministerial walk-outs which undermined Mr Brown's hurried attempt to reshape his Government and relaunch his premiership. Geoff Hoon, John Hutton, Paul Murphy, Margaret Beckett and Tony McNulty have all quit the Government. They followed Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears, Mr Purnell and Beverley Hughes out of the exit door. Mr Brown was forced to retreat from his plan to sack Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, instead keeping him and Foreign Secretary David Miliband in their posts, promoting leadership rival Alan Johnson to the Home Office and effectively making Peter Mandelson deputy Prime Minister.
But Lord Mandelson appeared to acknowledge the fragility of Mr Brown’s position when he warned Labour MPs against continuing their attempt to unseat him. In an interview with The Times, he told the plotters that, if Mr Brown went, there would have to be a Labour leadership election, swiftly followed by a general election, which most of them fear. He said: “Another leader couldn’t simply mean another coronation; you would have to have a leadership contest. A picture would be presented to the country that is entirely selfindulgent. A general election shortly afterwards would be unavoidable too.”
i keep thinking about the e-mails i had earlier in the week where all i did was note the problem gordon brown had and it was 'you are making this up! you are lying' and blah blah blah. talk about people stuck on a raft of denial.
Why is World Can't Wait concerned with the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who provided abortion care of last resort for 36 years, apparently by a long-time anti-abortion protester? World Can't Wait began in 2005 with a Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime. It said, "Your government is moving to deny women, here and around the world, access to birth control and abortion." Under George Bush, federal and state restrictions on both, combined with the attacks on gay marriage, and the promotion of a narrow Christian fundamentalism from the White House, defined the Bush domestic program. These restrictions didn't go away because Bush was replaced by Barack Obama; in fact the violence directed at abortion providers and clinics began to escalate in 2008, culminating in this outrageous act Sunday. The 36 year long campaign by fundamentalists Christian protesters and right-wing talk show hosts that "abortion is murder" has worked on a lot of people.
abortion is not murder. that right-wing lie needs to be stopped, like debra sweet points out. but there's a lefty pushing that lie. ted rall.
ted rall is not any 1 this community will ever link to again. it wasn't just being a kool aid drinker (he's recently awoken from his barack-abetic coma), it was some of the crap he pulled while he was a kool aid drinker and also the fact that he doesn't understand humor (a.e.b. his description of how a comic works). well teddy rall is claiming he is pro-choice but insisting that if people are honest than abortion is murder. we don't need that kind of help.
but those of us on the left who didn't go crazy in 2008 made it through the year without his assistance and we can continue to do so.
Friday, July 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, Iraqis are not impressed with Barry O's big speech, members of the US Congress call for the US Embassy in Baghdad to investigate the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, and more.
The speech delivered by US President Barack Obama in Cairo yesterday was riddled with contradictions. He declared his opposition to the "killing of innocent men, women, and children," but defended the ongoing US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US proxy war in Pakistan, while remaining silent on the most recent Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. These wars have killed at least one million Iraqis and tens of thousands in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories. Obama declared his support for democracy, human rights and women's rights, after two days of meetings with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, two of the most notorious tyrants in the Middle East. He said nothing in his speech about the complete absence of democratic rights in Saudi Arabia, or about the ongoing repression under Mubarak's military dictatorship. In the days before the US president's arrival at Al-Azhar University, the campus was raided by Egyptian secret police who detained more than 200 foreign students. Before leaving on his Mideast trip, Obama praised Mubarak as a "steadfast ally." While posturing as the advocate of universal peace and understanding, Obama diplomatically omitted any reference to his order to escalate the war in Afghanistan with the dispatch of an additional 17,000 US troops. And he tacitly embraced the policy of his predecessor in Iraq, declaring, "I believe the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein." He even seemed to hedge on the withdrawal deadline of December 2011 negotiated by the Bush administration, which he described as a pledge "to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012."
Hillary Is 44 points out, "Murdered Iraqis who are gay were never mentioned. Gays and their oppression was not mentioned at all. Instead Obama quoted the 'Holy Koran' with the verse 'Be Conscious of God and speak always the truth.' Then Obama proceeded to avoid telling the truth." Stanley Heller (CounterPunch) also breaks down the Iraq section of the speech:
His speech in Cairo was the usual glittering generalities, the dropping of an Arabic word here and there, a sophisticated tone, and the pledge to tell "the truth." But look what he said about Iraq: "Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible." Though the war was controversial the Iraqis are "better off". Over a million dead from sanctions, invasions, and civil war, and Obama had the utter gal to declare the Iraqis "better off". Our only problem was not recruiting enough flunkies to join the effort. Some on the Left immediately declared that Obama remarks were a "denunciation" of the Iraq war. Keep on dreaming.
Stan offered his take on the speech last night. Marcia noted that the Wall St. Journal offered "Barack Hussein Bush" because they heard in Barry's words a continuation of Bush policy. The speech came up repeatedly today on both hours of NPR's Diane Rehm Show and we'll focus on Iraqis and note this section between Diane Rehm and McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef.
Diane Rehm: Alright let's talk about the latest violence in Iraq in light of the president's promise that all troops will be out of Iraq by --
Nancy A. Youssef: The end of 2011.
Diane Rehm: 2011. And isn't there a June 30 deadline this year as well?
Nancy A. Youssef: Yeah.
Diane Rehm: How was that received by Iraqis? This morning we heard that many don't believe that is going to happen, that all US troops are going to be out. And in the meantime you've got bombings still going on in Baghdad.
Nancy A. Youssef: Yeah. And let's -- the June 30th requires -- and this -- I want to make a distinction. Obama mentioned it in the speech but the truth is this was outlined under the Bush administration, under the Status Of Forces Agreement that they signed with the Iraqi government, I think in part, with the anticipation of Obama coming to the White House and wanting to, I think the Bush administration wanted to set the withdrawal on its terms and not on the Obama administration's terms and so the June 30th deadline is part of that. The Iraqi government demanded that all US troops be out of major cities. Now we're already starting to hear a little bit of a dance: Maybe on the outskirts of Sadr City they'll stay? Maybe in parts of Samarra they'll stay? Maybe in parts of Mosul where we're seeing violence this week -- a US soldier was killed in Mosul. We're seeing a little dance about how strict that's going to be. Remember that for the Iraqis this is also their domestic politics. They have an election coming up -- if not at the end of the year, in January. Maliki, the prime minister, cannot afford to have US troops in the face of his people anymore. They are tired. That all said, you are absolutely right. You ask Iraqis, they don't believe that the United States is ever leaving -- that they'll be a presence there for the rest of their lives. And in some capacity you have to think there would be in the sense that, you know when the US -- with each soldier that leaves is less US influence over the course of events in Iraq. You know to me the most dangerous thing going forward is not a quick collapse of the security situation in Iraq but a small one, a gradual one that happens as the United States is increasing its force presence in Afghanistan. That United States finds itself with say 100,000 troops in Iraq and 70,000 troops in Afghanistan and truly stuck in both conflicts. But you're right, you ask Iraqis, the United States is going to be there in some capacity. And this year is this game of security and domestic and even US politics.
With regards to the points Youssef was making on the dance that's going on, yesterday AP reported that the US military is hoping to keep "about 14 joint facilities [open] . . . after the deadline." Back to Iraqi reaction, Michael Slackman (New York Times) explains Barry O's speech was greeted in iraq by "a heavy dose of skepticism" and quotes diners in Mosul yelling "What a stupid speech!" Campbell Robertson and the Times Iraqi correspondents (New York Times' Baghdad Bureau) offer more reactions. In Najaf, Fadhil Mohammed states, "Obama's speech is nothing more than a way to paint a phony improved image about America for Islamic countries." In Falluja, Abu Adil states, "We've heard such nonsense from your former White House guys. We're overstuffed with such words." Yes, the speech the press can't stop creaming their panties and briefs over has been given many, many times before. Now when George W. Bush did that and the MSM treated it as new, CounterSpin would ridicule them for that. Today? CounterSpin's working for the man. But Aluf Been (Haaratz) points out some of the realities regarding Barry's 'words' on Palestinians and Israelies:
The United States has objected to the settlements since 1967, but its position has changed. The Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations stated that the settlements were illegal. Since the Reagan administration (1981), the U.S. has called the settlements "an obstacle to peace" without referring to their lawfulness. Former president George W. Bush agreed to Israeli construction in the large settlement blocs in exchange for Israel evacuating the settlers from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank, and accepting the "two-state solution."
Rob Reynolds (Al Jazeera) noted The Changeling's shape shifting abilities, "Another thing struck me as distinctly political: Obama's constant references to his Muslim background, boyhood days in Indoensia, and frequent citations from the Quran sounded a bit odd coming from a man who made strenuous efforts to ignore those aspects of his autobiography in the 2008 campaign for the White House. In fact, Obama's campaign attacked critics who insisted on using his middle name; now, here was Barack Hussein Obama on stage in Cairo dropping a "shukran" (Arabic for "thank you" here) and an "assalaamu alaikum" (peace be unto you) there." Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller (ABC News) caught that shift on Tuesday: "Back then, the campaign's "Fight the Smears" website addressed the candidate's faith without mentioning his father's religion: 'Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and daughters for years. But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying about Barack's religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone's faith to denigrate them politically, that's an attack on people of all faiths. Make sure everyone you know is aware of this deception'."
Though that's just appearing on the radar it's long been known that Iraq's LGBT community was being targeted. Jessica Green (UK's Pink News) reports that Iraqi LGBT is stating the Ministry of the Interior is part of the assault and quotes Ali Hili stating, "A police office from the Ministry of Interior Intelligence told us secretly that there is a campaign of murder and violence against gays. We had to pay him $5,000 US to help release one of our members from jail. With all the evidence we have been presenting, including some from one of our members who was recently released from pison, we have evidence of mass arrests [of LGBT Iraqis]. Still, the US is denying Iraqi government involvement, doing nothing to stop it and not assisting with our efforts to help gays in Iraq." Green also notes that US House Reps Jared Polis, Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank have requested in writing that US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill investigate the charges. Polis has posted [PDF formart warning] the letter on his website and we'll jump in after the congratulations to Chris Hill on being confirmed as Ambassador:
As you know, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Iraqi citizens have become more susceptible to discrimination and violence. However, over the last month, we became aware of alarming human rights violations that fundamentally threaten the safety of LGBT citizens of Iraq. Both in the United States and Abroad, reports of the harrassment, detention and execution of LGBT Iraqi by Iraqi law enforcement have reached a fever pitch. The information we received was derived from two separate testimonials of gay and transgender Iraqi men that were detained, tortured and sentenced to death for being members of an allegedly forbidden organization in Iraq called Iraqi LGBT. One of these individuals was able to escape, while the other was reportedly executed by Iraqi Ministry of Interior Security Forces. Through conversations with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Heartland Alliance, it has become clear to us that these are not isolated reports, but instead, reports that accurately portray an aggressive campaign to locate, arrest and execute LGBT Iraqis in and around Baghdad. As LGBT Americans and co-chairs of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, we are disturbed and shocked at allegations that Ministry of the Interior Security Forces may be involved in the mass persecution and execution of LGBT Iraqis. As has been stated by the State Department, we are aware that LGBT Iraqis are not being officially executed or being held on death row in Iraq for being LGBT. However, the persecution of Iraqis based on sexual orientation or gender identity is escalating and is unacceptable regardless of whether these policies are extrajudicial or state-sanctioned. We hope that by reaching out to you and members of your staff, that the U.S. Embassy in Iraq will prioritize the investigation of these allegations, work with the Iraqi government to end the executions of LGBT Iraqis, and make protecting this vulnerable community a priority. It is crucial that the United States government take action to address this urgent humanitarian crisis and examine the evidence provided by international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Heartland Alliance in Iraq. Given cultural sensitivity around these issues, it is also important that the U.S. Embassy work with human rights organizations to carefully ensure the safety of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Iraqis that may be afraid of reporting incidences to state authorities, particularly when those instances involve state authorities. Please know that we will continue to monitor this situation and hope to be of assistance in your investigation. We wish you well in all of your endeavors as the newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
The targeting of journalists in Iraq also continues. Earlier this week, another journalist lost his life, Alla' Abdul Al Wahab and others were wounded (one in the same attack, two in another attack). Reporters Without Borders declared, "It is time the slaughter of journalists in Iraq was stopped. The Iraqi authorities created a special police unit last year to investigate murders of journalists. We urge them to investigate these two bombings very thoroughly. Only conclusive results are likely to discourage these killers and improve the safety of journalists." Independent journalist Jeremy Scahill (writing at the US Socialist Worker) provides the walk through:
The U.S. bombed Al Jazeera in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, attacked it multiple times in the 2003 Iraq invasion, and killed Al Jazeera correspondent Tarek Ayoub. On April 8, 2003, a U.S. Abrams tank fired at the Palestine Hotel, home and office to more than 100 unembedded international journalists operating in Baghdad at the time. The shell smashed into the fifteenth-floor Reuters office, killing two cameramen, Reuters's Taras Protsyuk and José Couso of Spain's Telecinco. In a chilling statement at the end of that day in Iraq, then-Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke spelled out the Pentagon's policy on journalists not embedded with U.S. troops. She warned them that Baghdad "is not a safe place. You should not be there." Last week, a Spanish judge reinstated charges against three U.S. soldiers in Couso's killing, citing new evidence, including eyewitness testimony contradicting official U.S. claims that soldiers were responding to enemy fire from the hotel. One year ago, former Army Sergeant Adrienne Kinne told Democracy Now! she saw the Palestine Hotel on a military target list and said she frequently intercepted calls from journalists staying there. As I have reported previously, Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana was shot by U.S. forces near Abu Ghraib prison when his camera was allegedly mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. The U.S. listed as "justified" the killing of Al Arabiya TV's Mazen al-Tumeizi, blown apart by a U.S. missile as he reported on a burning U.S. armored vehicle on Baghdad's Haifa Street. There have also been several questionable killings of journalists at U.S. military checkpoints in Iraq, such as the March 2004 shooting deaths of Ali Abdel-Aziz and Ali al-Khatib of Al Arabiya. The Pentagon said the soldiers who shot the journalists acted within the "rules of engagement." And Reuters freelancer Dhia Najim was killed by U.S. fire while filming resistance fighters in November 2004. "We did kill him," an unnamed military official told the New York Times. "He was out with the bad guys. He was there with them, they attacked, and we fired back and hit him."
Jeremy Scahill will be a guest on Bill Moyers Journal tonight (check local listings -- online it provides video, audio and transcript -- accessible to all). Meanwhile Halliburton is in the news cycle. Guillermo Contreras (San Antonio Express-News) reports that "Robert Cain of San Marcos; Craig Henry of San Antonio; Francis Jaeger of Haltom City; David McMenomy of Lampasas; Mark Posz of San Antonio; and El Kevin Sar of Houston" have filed charges against Halliburton stating that "they were poisoned by toxins and emissions from burn pits at U.S. camps in Iraq and Afghanistan". Pratap Chatterjee (CorpWatch) reports on the War Profiteers of Halliburton:
The Houstonian Hotel is an elegant, secluded resort set on an 18-acre wooded oasis in the heart of downtown Houston. Two weeks ago, David Lesar, CEO of the once notorious energy services corporation Halliburton, spoke to some 100 shareholders and members of senior management gathered there at the company's annual meeting. All was remarkably staid as they celebrated Halliburton's $4 billion in operating profits in 2008, a striking 22% return at a time when many companies are announcing record losses. Analysts remain bullish on Halliburton's stock, reflecting a more general view that any company in the oil business is likely to have a profitable future in store.There were no protesters outside the meeting this year, nor the kind of national media stakeouts commonplace when Lesar addressed the same crew at the posh Four Seasons Hotel in downtown Houston in May 2004. Then, dozens of mounted police faced off against 300 protestors in the streets outside, while a San Francisco group that dubbed itself the Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane fielded activists in Bush and Cheney masks, offering fake $100 bills to passers-by in a mock protest against war profiteering. And don't forget the 25-foot inflatable pig there to mock shareholders. Local TV crews swarmed, a national crew from NBC flew in from New York, and reporters from the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal eagerly scribbled notes.Now the 25-foot pigs are gone and all is quiet on the western front. How did Halliburton, once branded the ugly stepchild of Dick Cheney -- the company's former CEO -- and a poster child of war profiteering, receive such absolution from anti-war activists and the media? Of course, the defeat of the Republicans in the 2008 U.S. election, the departure of the Bush administration, and a general apathy towards the ongoing, but lower-level war in Iraq are part of the answer. But don't ignore a potentially brilliant financial sleight of hand by Halliburton either. That move played a crucial role in the cleansing of the company.
KBR, Halliburton and the private security firm Blackwater have come tosymbolize the excesses of outsourcing warfare. So you'd think that witha new sheriff like Barack Obama in town, such practices would be on the"Things Not to Do" list. Not so. According to new Pentagon statistics, in the second quarter of thisyear, there has been a 23% increase in the number of private securitycontractors working for the Pentagon in Iraq and a 29% hike inAfghanistan. In fact, outside contractors now make up approximately halfof our forces fighting in the two countries. "This means," according toJeremy Scahill, author of the book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World'sMost Powerful Mercenary Army, "there are a whopping 242,647 contractorsworking on these two U.S. wars."Scahill, who runs an excellent new website called "Rebel Reports," spokewith my colleague Bill Moyers on the current edition of Bill MoyersJournal on PBS. "What we have seen happen, as a result of thisincredible reliance on private military contractors, is that the UnitedStates has created a new system for waging war," he said. By hiringforeign nationals as mercenaries, "You turn the entire world into yourrecruiting ground. You intricately link corporate profits to anescalation of warfare and make it profitable for companies toparticipate in your wars. "In the process of doing that you undermine US democratic policies. Andyou also violate the sovereignty of other nations, because you're makingtheir citizens combatants in a war to which their country is not aparty.
Today the US military announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat rleated incident June 5. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." And they announced: "CAMP VICTORY, BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died late last night of injuries received during a grenade attack on a patrol in the Diyala province of northern Iraq, June 4." These 2 announcements bring to 4311 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War since it began in March 2003. In other violence today, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two people.
Turning to the US Kimberley Hefling (AP) reports on Chris Scheuerman whose son Jason died in Iraq. August 1, 2005, the DoD announced: "Pfc. Jason D. Scheuerman, 20, of Lynchburg, Va., died July 30 in Muqdadiyah, Iraq, of non-combat related injuries. Scheuerman was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning, Ga." In December of 2007, AP reported that it took "well over a year" for his family to be informed Jason had left a note which read, "Maybe finaly I can get some peace." Hefling reports today that Chris Scheuerman is upset because the "Army Medical Command's inspector general's investigation, completed in November" states no policies were violated by the military use of "unlicensed psychologists in Iraq". Scheuerman should be upset and the country should be outraged. Unlicensed psychologists are not psychologists. You're five-year-old son or daughter is an unlicensed psychologist and about as qualified as any other unlicensed psychologist. The license serves a purpose, without the license, there's really no point in calling yourself a psychologist. The military yet again played it on the cheap and did so in the combat zone where no one could afford to 'play doctor'. They didn't take it seriously, they never did. Just like they still don't take PTSD seriously today -- though they know to give it lip service due to public outrage.
Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan doesn't just offer lip service, she offers action and she's preparing to face off against Bully Boy Bush in a matter of days. Cindy's currently on a speaking tour and these are some of the upcoming dates: Phoenix: June 5th Dallas: June 7th and 8th Waco: June 9th Austin: June 10th and 11th Nashville: June 14-16 St. Petersburg, FL: June 17-18 Philadelphia: June 20-23 NYC: June 24-26 Cape Cod: June 27-29 New Hampshire: June 30 - July 1 San Francisco: July 3 - 5 (Socialist Conference) Cleveland: July 8-9 (National Assembly to end the Iraq War) Pittsburgh: July 11-12 Norfolk, VA: July 15-18 Vashon Island, Washington: July 25-26 The Dallas Peace Center notes the action Cindy will lead while in Dallas: Start: Jun 8 2009 - 4:30pm Body: Cindy Sheehan will come to Dallas to protest crimes against humanity that occured during the Bush administration. According to Sheehan, "The actions of his administration are criminal and we need to keep up the pressure for accountability." To support Sheehan's effort, meet on the SW corner of Preston & Royal to join a march on the sidewalk west on Royal, south on Netherland, east on Meaders to the front of John J. Pershing Elementary School, across from Daria Dr. which leads to Bush's gated compound. No major streets will be crossed. Participants are asked to stay on message – the American people will not tolerate torture in our name, and those who have betrayed our trust must be held legally accountable. Location SW corner of Preston & Royal Dallas, TX United StatesSee map: Yahoo! Maps Cindy Sheehan hosts the radio program Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox which airs each Sunday (and archives at link). June 16th she'll team up with singer-songwriter David Rovics for a luncheon at Ellendale's Restrauant (2739 Old Elm Hill Pike, Donelson, TN from one to three p.m.) sponsored by Nashville Peace and Justice Center (4732 Peace and Justice Center, 4732 West Longdale Drive, Nashville, TN 37211). This is a fundraiser, I believe, and for more on it contact Jerry Hader at jhharder@bellsouth.net who is with Nashville Peace and Justice Center. This Saturday in Michigan, the Green Party of Michigan will be rallying in Benton Harbort to Save Jean Klock Park and to Free Rev Edward Pinkney:The Green Party of Michigan (GPMI) will be leading a peaceful march to Jean Klock Park in Benton Harbon on Saturday, June 6. The march will leave from the Berrien County Courthouse (at 811 Port Street) at 3:30 pm. Members of Save Jeane Klock Park will be joining the march to protest the destruction of this section of Lake Michigan beachfront dunes and the theft of this pristine piece of nature from the people of Benton Harbor, to whom it was willed "in perpetuity"! The march will also emphasize the need to free Reverend Edward Pinkney. An appeal hearing for the community activist will be held on Tuesday, June 9 by the Third District of the Michigan Court of Appeals (State Office Building; 350 Ottawa NW; Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2349; 616/456-1167). Rev Pickney and representatives of Save Jean Klock Park will be speaking at a public meeting before the march. This session, which is open to the media, will be held at Hopewall Baptist Church (756 Highland) starting at 2 pm. Turning to PBS, and, as noted earlier, Bill Moyers Journal features Jeremy Scahill. Bill Moyers latest installment begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings) as does NOW on PBS:Americans have a longstanding love affair with food—the modern supermarket has, on average, 47,000 products. But do we really know what goes into making the products we so eagerly consume?This week, David Brancaccio talks with filmmaker Robert Kenner, the director of "Food, Inc.," which takes a hard look at the secretive and surprising journey food takes on the way from processing plants to our dinner tables. The two discuss why contemporary food processing secrets are so closely guarded, their impact on our health, and another surprising fact: how consumers are actually empowered to make a difference.Find out why you'll never look at dinner the same way.I really have to wonder about the above summary. It is not one that will make most say, "Honey, let's watch NOW!" The same topic with a 'find out what foods you should be serving' would be seen as instructive. The promo appears to have been written by someone whose responsibility for a meal never went beyond ordering at the drive through.Gwen sits around the table for Washington Week (which begins airing on most PBS stations tonight) with New York Times' Helene Cooper, The Economist's Greg Ip and Gebe Martinez of the publication that should not speak its name. Yes, you read that right. Two female guests to one male guest. It's usually the other way around or three male guests to one woman. Also tonight on most PBS stations, Bonnie Erbe sits down with Heather Boushey, Amanda Carpenter, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Star Parker to discuss the week's news on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: The ChairmanIn a rare interview with a sitting Federal Reserve chairman – the first in 20 years – Ben Bernanke tells Scott Pelley what went wrong with America's financial system, how it caused the current economic crisis, what the Fed's doing to help fix it and when he expects the crippling recession to end. (This is a double length segment.) Watch Video DollyDolly Parton, the oh-so-country music superstar with the city-slicker sense of show business talks to Morley Safer about her childhood, her career and the Broadway production of her film, "9 to 5." Watch Video 60 Minutes, Sunday, June 7, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Iraq Veterans Against the War is a group this community supports. I have friends who are members of IVAW. I mention that because two former members of IVAW have taken to e-mailing the public account for this site with smears about the organization. I dictated a response for today's snapshot but the snapshot is too long so the topic will be carried over to Third on Sunday. In the meantime, if someone's accusing IVAW of being controlled by some political party -- take a second to look at the ones accussing. What you will most likely see is Barack Obama supporters who attempted to whore out IVAW as a Barack Obama front group. That they were not allowed to do that upset them and they left. Now they're offering smears. IVAW has a diverse membership and anyone telling you otherwise should be suspect right there. Again, we'll carry it over to Third there's just no room today. But we will close with this from IVAW's Phil Aliff's "The red badge of courage" (US Socialist Worker):
When you cannot inflict casualties on the enemy, you learn that there are no limits to the level of human rage. It is the kind of rage that eats away at you. It is like a disease that tears you apart from the inside. MILITARY VETERANS continue to carry this rage when we return home. When you are in Iraq, it is easy to justify shooting into a house or calling in mortars on a palm grove. But when you return home, you can't fire a machine gun at someone who cuts you off on the highway. This feeling of vulnerability drives a veteran mad. We pack up our civility to prepare for combat. Everyone at home carries their socially accepted morals, while we throw them out the window to justify killing someone for nothing. We were taught how to pack our morals away, but we were never given directions for unpacking them.
Friday,
July 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
more deaths, Iraqis are not impressed with Barry O's big speech,
members of the US Congress call for the US Embassy in Baghdad to
investigate the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, and more.
The
speech delivered by US President Barack Obama in Cairo yesterday was
riddled with contradictions. He declared his opposition to the "killing
of innocent men, women, and children," but defended the ongoing US wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US proxy war in Pakistan, while
remaining silent on the most recent Israeli slaughter of Palestinians
in Gaza. These wars have killed at least one million Iraqis and tens of
thousands in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian
territories.
Obama declared his
support for democracy, human rights and women's rights, after two days
of meetings with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak, two of the most notorious tyrants in the Middle East. He
said nothing in his speech about the complete absence of democratic
rights in Saudi Arabia, or about the ongoing repression under Mubarak's
military dictatorship. In the days before the US president's arrival at
Al-Azhar University, the campus was raided by Egyptian secret police
who detained more than 200 foreign students. Before leaving on his
Mideast trip, Obama praised Mubarak as a "steadfast ally."
While
posturing as the advocate of universal peace and understanding, Obama
diplomatically omitted any reference to his order to escalate the war
in Afghanistan with the dispatch of an additional 17,000 US troops. And
he tacitly embraced the policy of his predecessor in Iraq, declaring,
"I believe the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the
tyranny of Saddam Hussein." He even seemed to hedge on the withdrawal
deadline of December 2011 negotiated by the Bush administration, which
he described as a pledge "to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012."
Hillary Is 44 points out,
"Murdered Iraqis who are gay were never mentioned. Gays and their
oppression was not mentioned at all. Instead Obama quoted the 'Holy
Koran' with the verse 'Be Conscious of God and speak always the
truth.' Then Obama proceeded to avoid telling the truth." Stanley Heller (CounterPunch) also breaks down the Iraq section of the speech:
His
speech in Cairo was the usual glittering generalities, the dropping of
an Arabic word here and there, a sophisticated tone, and the pledge to
tell "the truth." But look what he said about Iraq: "Iraq was a war of
choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the
world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better
off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events
in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build
international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible."
Though the war was controversial the Iraqis are "better off". Over a
million dead from sanctions, invasions, and civil war, and Obama had
the utter gal to declare the Iraqis "better off". Our only problem was
not recruiting enough flunkies to join the effort. Some on the Left
immediately declared that Obama remarks were a "denunciation" of the
Iraq war. Keep on dreaming.
Stan offered his take on the speech last night. Marcia noted that the Wall St. Journal offered "Barack Hussein Bush"
because they heard in Barry's words a continuation of Bush policy. The
speech came up repeatedly today on both hours of NPR's Diane Rehm Show and we'll focus on Iraqis and note this section between Diane Rehm and McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef.
Diane
Rehm: Alright let's talk about the latest violence in Iraq in light of
the president's promise that all troops will be out of Iraq by --
Nancy A. Youssef: The end of 2011.
Diane Rehm: 2011. And isn't there a June 30 deadline this year as well?
Nancy A. Youssef: Yeah.
Diane
Rehm: How was that received by Iraqis? This morning we heard that many
don't believe that is going to happen, that all US troops are going to
be out. And in the meantime you've got bombings still going on in
Baghdad.
Nancy
A. Youssef: Yeah. And let's -- the June 30th requires -- and this -- I
want to make a distinction. Obama mentioned it in the speech but the
truth is this was outlined under the Bush administration, under the
Status Of Forces Agreement that they signed with the Iraqi government,
I think in part, with the anticipation of Obama coming to the White
House and wanting to, I think the Bush administration wanted to set the
withdrawal on its terms and not on the Obama administration's terms
and so the June 30th deadline is part of that. The Iraqi government
demanded that all US troops be out of major cities. Now we're already
starting to hear a little bit of a dance: Maybe on the outskirts of
Sadr City they'll stay? Maybe in parts of Samarra they'll stay? Maybe
in parts of Mosul where we're seeing violence this week -- a US soldier
was killed in Mosul. We're seeing a little dance about how strict
that's going to be. Remember that for the Iraqis this is also their
domestic politics. They have an election coming up -- if not at the
end of the year, in January. Maliki, the prime minister, cannot afford
to have US troops in the face of his people anymore. They are tired.
That all said, you are absolutely right. You ask Iraqis, they don't
believe that the United States is ever leaving -- that they'll be a
presence there for the rest of their lives. And in some capacity you
have to think there would be in the sense that, you know when the US --
with each soldier that leaves is less US influence over the course of
events in Iraq. You know to me the most dangerous thing going forward
is not a quick collapse of the security situation in Iraq but a small
one, a gradual one that happens as the United States is increasing its
force presence in Afghanistan. That United States finds itself with say
100,000 troops in Iraq and 70,000 troops in Afghanistan and truly stuck
in both conflicts. But you're right, you ask Iraqis, the United States
is going to be there in some capacity. And this year is this game of
security and domestic and even US politics.
With regards to the points Youssef was making on the dance that's going on, yesterday AP reported that the US military is hoping to keep "about 14 joint facilities [open] . . . after the deadline." Back to Iraqi reaction, Michael Slackman (New York Times) explains
Barry O's speech was greeted in iraq by "a heavy dose of skepticism"
and quotes diners in Mosul yelling "What a stupid speech!" Campbell Robertson and the Times Iraqi correspondents (New York Times' Baghdad Bureau) offer
more reactions. In Najaf, Fadhil Mohammed states, "Obama's speech is
nothing more than a way to paint a phony improved image about America
for Islamic countries." In Falluja, Abu Adil states, "We've heard
such nonsense from your former White House guys. We're overstuffed
with such words." Yes, the speech the press can't stop creaming their
panties and briefs over has been given many, many times before. Now
when George W. Bush did that and the MSM treated it as new, CounterSpin would ridicule them for that. Today? CounterSpin's working for the man. But Aluf Been (Haaratz) points out some of the realities regarding Barry's 'words' on Palestinians and Israelies:
The
United States has objected to the settlements since 1967, but its
position has changed. The Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter
administrations stated that the settlements were illegal. Since the
Reagan administration (1981), the U.S. has called the settlements "an
obstacle to peace" without referring to their lawfulness. Former
president George W. Bush agreed to Israeli construction in the large
settlement blocs in exchange for Israel evacuating the settlers from
the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank, and accepting the "two-state
solution."
Rob Reynolds (Al Jazeera) noted
The Changeling's shape shifting abilities, "Another thing struck me as
distinctly political: Obama's constant references to his Muslim
background, boyhood days in Indoensia, and frequent citations from the
Quran sounded a bit odd coming from a man who made strenuous efforts to
ignore those aspects of his autobiography in the 2008 campaign for the
White House. In fact, Obama's campaign attacked critics who insisted
on using his middle name; now, here was Barack Hussein Obama on stage
in Cairo dropping a "shukran" (Arabic for "thank you" here) and an
"assalaamu alaikum" (peace be unto you) there." Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller (ABC News) caught that shift on Tuesday: "Back then, the campaign's "Fight the Smears" website addressed the candidate's faith without mentioning his father's religion:
'Barack
Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his
family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and
daughters for years. But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying
about Barack's religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed
Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone's faith to
denigrate them politically, that's an attack on people of all faiths.
Make sure everyone you know is aware of this deception'."
Though that's just appearing on the radar it's long been known that Iraq's LGBT community was being targeted. Jessica Green (UK's Pink News) reports
that Iraqi LGBT is stating the Ministry of the Interior is part of the
assault and quotes Ali Hili stating, "A police office from the Ministry
of Interior Intelligence told us secretly that there is a campaign of
murder and violence against gays. We had to pay him $5,000 US to help
release one of our members from jail. With all the evidence we have
been presenting, including some from one of our members who was
recently released from pison, we have evidence of mass arrests [of LGBT
Iraqis]. Still, the US is denying Iraqi government involvement, doing
nothing to stop it and not assisting with our efforts to help gays in
Iraq." Green also notes that US House Reps Jared Polis, Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank
have requested in writing that US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill
investigate the charges. Polis has posted [PDF formart warning] the letter on his website and we'll jump in after the congratulations to Chris Hill on being confirmed as Ambassador:
As
you know, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) Iraqi citizens have become more susceptible to
discrimination and violence. However, over the last month, we became
aware of alarming human rights violations that fundamentally threaten
the safety of LGBT citizens of Iraq. Both in the United States and
Abroad, reports of the harrassment, detention and execution of LGBT
Iraqi by Iraqi law enforcement have reached a fever pitch.
The
information we received was derived from two separate testimonials of
gay and transgender Iraqi men that were detained, tortured and
sentenced to death for being members of an allegedly forbidden
organization in Iraq called Iraqi LGBT. One of these individuals was
able to escape, while the other was reportedly executed by Iraqi
Ministry of Interior Security Forces. Through conversations with Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Heartland Alliance, it has
become clear to us that these are not isolated reports, but instead,
reports that accurately portray an aggressive campaign to locate,
arrest and execute LGBT Iraqis in and around Baghdad.
As
LGBT Americans and co-chairs of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus,
we are disturbed and shocked at allegations that Ministry of the
Interior Security Forces may be involved in the mass persecution and
execution of LGBT Iraqis. As has been stated by the State Department,
we are aware that LGBT Iraqis are not being officially executed or
being held on death row in Iraq for being LGBT. However, the
persecution of Iraqis based on sexual orientation or gender identity is
escalating and is unacceptable regardless of whether these policies are
extrajudicial or state-sanctioned.
We
hope that by reaching out to you and members of your staff, that the
U.S. Embassy in Iraq will prioritize the investigation of these
allegations, work with the Iraqi government to end the executions of
LGBT Iraqis, and make protecting this vulnerable community a priority.
It is crucial that the United States government take action to address
this urgent humanitarian crisis and examine the evidence provided by
international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International and Heartland Alliance in Iraq. Given cultural
sensitivity around these issues, it is also important that the U.S.
Embassy work with human rights organizations to carefully ensure the
safety of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Iraqis that may be
afraid of reporting incidences to state authorities, particularly when
those instances involve state authorities.
Please
know that we will continue to monitor this situation and hope to be of
assistance in your investigation. We wish you well in all of your
endeavors as the newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
The targeting of journalists in Iraq also continues. Earlier this week,
another journalist lost his life, Alla' Abdul Al Wahab and others were
wounded (one in the same attack, two in another attack). Reporters Without Borders declared,
"It is time the slaughter of journalists in Iraq was stopped. The
Iraqi authorities created a special police unit last year to
investigate murders of journalists. We urge them to investigate these
two bombings very thoroughly. Only conclusive results are likely to
discourage these killers and improve the safety of journalists."
Independent journalist Jeremy Scahill (writing at the US Socialist Worker) provides the walk through:
The U.S. bombed Al Jazeera
in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, attacked it multiple times in the
2003 Iraq invasion, and killed Al Jazeera correspondent Tarek Ayoub. On
April 8, 2003, a U.S. Abrams tank fired at the Palestine Hotel, home
and office to more than 100 unembedded international journalists
operating in Baghdad at the time. The shell smashed into the
fifteenth-floor Reuters office, killing two cameramen, Reuters's Taras
Protsyuk and José Couso of Spain's Telecinco. In a chilling statement
at the end of that day in Iraq, then-Pentagon spokesperson Victoria
Clarke spelled out the Pentagon's policy on journalists not embedded
with U.S. troops. She warned them that Baghdad "is not a safe place.
You should not be there."
As I have reported previously,
Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana was shot by U.S. forces near Abu Ghraib
prison when his camera was allegedly mistaken for a rocket-propelled
grenade launcher. The U.S. listed as "justified" the killing of Al
Arabiya TV's Mazen al-Tumeizi, blown apart by a U.S. missile as he
reported on a burning U.S. armored vehicle on Baghdad's Haifa
Street.
There have also been
several questionable killings of journalists at U.S. military
checkpoints in Iraq, such as the March 2004 shooting deaths of Ali
Abdel-Aziz and Ali al-Khatib of Al Arabiya. The Pentagon said the
soldiers who shot the journalists acted within the "rules of
engagement." And Reuters freelancer Dhia Najim was killed by U.S. fire
while filming resistance fighters in November 2004. "We did kill him,"
an unnamed military official told the New York Times. "He was out with the bad guys. He was there with them, they attacked, and we fired back and hit him."
Jeremy Scahill will be a guest on Bill Moyers Journal
tonight (check local listings -- online it provides video, audio and
transcript -- accessible to all). Meanwhile Halliburton is in the news
cycle. Guillermo Contreras (San Antonio Express-News) reports
that "Robert Cain of San Marcos; Craig Henry of San Antonio; Francis
Jaeger of Haltom City; David McMenomy of Lampasas; Mark Posz of San
Antonio; and El Kevin Sar of Houston" have filed charges against
Halliburton stating that "they were poisoned by toxins and emissions
from burn pits at U.S. camps in Iraq and Afghanistan". Pratap Chatterjee (CorpWatch) reports on the War Profiteers of Halliburton:
The
Houstonian Hotel is an elegant, secluded resort set on an 18-acre
wooded oasis in the heart of downtown Houston. Two weeks ago, David
Lesar, CEO of the once notorious energy services corporation
Halliburton, spoke to some 100 shareholders and members of senior
management gathered there at the company's annual meeting. All was
remarkably staid as they celebrated Halliburton's $4 billion in
operating profits in 2008, a striking 22% return at a time when many
companies are announcing record losses. Analysts remain bullish on
Halliburton's stock, reflecting a more general view that any company in
the oil business is likely to have a profitable future in store. There were no protesters outside the meeting this year, nor the kind of national media stakeouts commonplace when Lesar addressed
the same crew at the posh Four Seasons Hotel in downtown Houston in May
2004. Then, dozens of mounted police faced off against 300 protestors
in the streets outside, while a San Francisco group that dubbed itself
the Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane fielded activists in
Bush and Cheney masks, offering fake $100 bills to passers-by in a mock
protest against war profiteering. And don't forget the 25-foot
inflatable pig there to mock shareholders. Local TV crews swarmed, a
national crew from NBC flew in from New York, and reporters from the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal eagerly scribbled notes. Now
the 25-foot pigs are gone and all is quiet on the western front. How
did Halliburton, once branded the ugly stepchild of Dick Cheney -- the
company's former CEO -- and a poster child of war profiteering, receive
such absolution from anti-war activists and the media? Of course, the
defeat of the Republicans in the 2008 U.S. election, the departure of
the Bush administration, and a general apathy towards the ongoing, but
lower-level war in Iraq are part of the answer. But don't ignore a
potentially brilliant financial sleight of hand by Halliburton either.
That move played a crucial role in the cleansing of the company.
KBR, Halliburton and the private security firm Blackwater have come to symbolize the excesses of outsourcing warfare. So you'd think that with a new sheriff like Barack Obama in town, such practices would be on the "Things Not to Do" list. Not so. According to new Pentagon statistics, in the second quarter of this year, there has been a 23% increase in the number of private security contractors working for the Pentagon in Iraq and a 29% hike in Afghanistan. In fact, outside contractors now make up approximately half of our forces fighting in the two countries. "This means," according to Jeremy Scahill, author of the book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, "there are a whopping 242,647 contractors working on these two U.S. wars." Scahill, who runs an excellent new website called "Rebel Reports," spoke with my colleague Bill Moyers on the current edition of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. "What we have seen happen, as a result of this incredible reliance on private military contractors, is that the United States has created a new system for waging war," he said. By hiring foreign nationals as mercenaries, "You turn the entire world into your recruiting ground. You intricately link corporate profits to an escalation of warfare and make it profitable for companies to participate in your wars. "In the process of doing that you undermine US democratic policies. And you also violate the sovereignty of other nations, because you're making their citizens combatants in a war to which their country is not a party.
Today the US military announced:
"AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died
as the result of a non-combat rleated incident June 5. The name of the
deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and
release by the Department of Defense." And they announced:
"CAMP VICTORY, BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died
late last night of injuries received during a grenade attack on a
patrol in the Diyala province of northern Iraq, June 4." These 2
announcements bring to 4311 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War since it began in March 2003. In other violence today, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two people.
Turning to the US Kimberley Hefling (AP) reports on Chris Scheuerman whose son Jason died in Iraq. August 1, 2005, the DoD announced: "Pfc.
Jason D. Scheuerman, 20, of Lynchburg, Va., died July 30 in Muqdadiyah,
Iraq, of non-combat related injuries. Scheuerman was assigned to the
1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry
Division, Fort Benning, Ga." In December of 2007, AP reported
that it took "well over a year" for his family to be informed Jason had
left a note which read, "Maybe finaly I can get some peace." Hefling
reports today that Chris Scheuerman is upset because the "Army Medical
Command's inspector general's investigation, completed in November"
states no policies were violated by the military use of "unlicensed
psychologists in Iraq". Scheuerman should be upset and the country
should be outraged. Unlicensed psychologists are not psychologists.
You're five-year-old son or daughter is an unlicensed psychologist and
about as qualified as any other unlicensed psychologist. The license
serves a purpose, without the license, there's really no point in
calling yourself a psychologist. The military yet again played it on
the cheap and did so in the combat zone where no one could afford to
'play doctor'. They didn't take it seriously, they never did. Just like
they still don't take PTSD seriously today -- though they know to give
it lip service due to public outrage.
Peace
Mom Cindy Sheehan doesn't just offer lip service, she offers action and
she's preparing to face off against Bully Boy Bush in a matter of
days. Cindy's currently on a speaking tour and these are some of the upcoming dates:
Phoenix: June 5th
Dallas: June 7th and 8th
Waco: June 9th
Austin: June 10th and 11th
Nashville: June 14-16
St. Petersburg, FL: June 17-18
Philadelphia: June 20-23
NYC: June 24-26
Cape Cod: June 27-29
New Hampshire: June 30 - July 1
San Francisco: July 3 - 5 (Socialist Conference)
Cleveland: July 8-9 (National Assembly to end the Iraq War)
Cindy
Sheehan will come to Dallas to protest crimes against humanity that
occured during the Bush administration. According to Sheehan, "The
actions of his administration are criminal and we need to keep up the
pressure for accountability." To support Sheehan's effort, meet on the
SW corner of Preston & Royal to join a march on the sidewalk west
on Royal, south on Netherland, east on Meaders to the front of John J.
Pershing Elementary School, across from Daria Dr. which leads to Bush's
gated compound. No major streets will be crossed. Participants are
asked to stay on message – the American people will not tolerate
torture in our name, and those who have betrayed our trust must be held
legally accountable.
Cindy Sheehan hosts the radio program Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox
which airs each Sunday (and archives at link). June 16th she'll team
up with singer-songwriter David Rovics for a luncheon at Ellendale's
Restrauant (2739 Old Elm Hill Pike, Donelson, TN from one to three
p.m.) sponsored by Nashville Peace and Justice Center (4732 Peace and
Justice Center, 4732 West Longdale Drive, Nashville, TN 37211). This is
a fundraiser, I believe, and for more on it contact Jerry Hader at jhharder@bellsouth.net who is with Nashville Peace and Justice Center. This Saturday in Michigan, the Green Party of Michigan will be rallying in Benton Harbort to Save Jean Klock Park and to Free Rev Edward Pinkney:
The Green Party of Michigan
(GPMI) will be leading a peaceful march to Jean Klock Park in Benton
Harbon on Saturday, June 6. The march will leave from the Berrien
County Courthouse (at 811 Port Street) at 3:30 pm. Members of Save
Jeane Klock Park will be joining the march to protest the destruction
of this section of Lake Michigan beachfront dunes and the theft of this
pristine piece of nature from the people of Benton Harbor, to whom it
was willed "in perpetuity"!
The march will
also emphasize the need to free Reverend Edward Pinkney. An appeal
hearing for the community activist will be held on Tuesday, June 9 by
the Third District of the Michigan Court of Appeals (State Office
Building; 350 Ottawa NW; Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2349; 616/456-1167).
Rev Pickney and representatives of Save Jean Klock Park will be
speaking at a public meeting before the march. This session, which is
open to the media, will be held at Hopewall Baptist Church (756
Highland) starting at 2 pm.
Turning to PBS, and, as noted earlier, Bill Moyers Journal features Jeremy Scahill. Bill Moyers latest installment begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings) as does NOW on PBS:
Americans
have a longstanding love affair with food—the modern supermarket has,
on average, 47,000 products. But do we really know what goes into
making the products we so eagerly consume? This
week, David Brancaccio talks with filmmaker Robert Kenner, the director
of "Food, Inc.," which takes a hard look at the secretive and
surprising journey food takes on the way from processing plants to our
dinner tables. The two discuss why contemporary food processing secrets
are so closely guarded, their impact on our health, and another
surprising fact: how consumers are actually empowered to make a
difference. Find out why you'll never look at dinner the same way.
I
really have to wonder about the above summary. It is not one that will
make most say, "Honey, let's watch NOW!" The same topic with a 'find
out what foods you should be serving' would be seen as instructive. The
promo appears to have been written by someone whose responsibility for
a meal never went beyond ordering at the drive through.
Gwen sits around the table for Washington Week (which begins airing on most PBS stations tonight) with New York Times' Helene Cooper, The Economist's
Greg Ip and Gebe Martinez of the publication that should not speak its
name. Yes, you read that right. Two female guests to one male guest.
It's usually the other way around or three male guests to one woman.
Also tonight on most PBS stations, Bonnie Erbe sits down with Heather Boushey, Amanda Carpenter, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Star Parker to discuss the week's news on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
The Chairman In a rare interview with a sitting Federal Reserve chairman – the first in 20 years – Ben Bernanke tells Scott Pelley
what went wrong with America's financial system, how it caused the
current economic crisis, what the Fed's doing to help fix it and when
he expects the crippling recession to end. (This is a double length
segment.) | Watch Video
Dolly Dolly Parton, the oh-so-country music superstar with the city-slicker sense of show business talks to Morley Safer about her childhood, her career and the Broadway production of her film, "9 to 5." | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, June 7, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Iraq Veterans Against the War is
a group this community supports. I have friends who are members of
IVAW. I mention that because two former members of IVAW have taken to
e-mailing the public account for this site with smears about the
organization. I dictated a response for today's snapshot but the
snapshot is too long so the topic will be carried over to Third on
Sunday. In the meantime, if someone's accusing IVAW of being
controlled by some political party -- take a second to look at the ones
accussing. What you will most likely see is Barack Obama supporters
who attempted to whore out IVAW as a Barack Obama front group. That
they were not allowed to do that upset them and they left. Now they're
offering smears. IVAW has a diverse membership and anyone telling you
otherwise should be suspect right there. Again, we'll carry it over to
Third there's just no room today. But we will close with this from
IVAW's Phil Aliff's "The red badge of courage" (US Socialist Worker):
When
you cannot inflict casualties on the enemy, you learn that there are no
limits to the level of human rage. It is the kind of rage that eats
away at you. It is like a disease that tears you apart from the
inside.
MILITARY VETERANS continue
to carry this rage when we return home. When you are in Iraq, it is
easy to justify shooting into a house or calling in mortars on a palm
grove. But when you return home, you can't fire a machine gun at
someone who cuts you off on the highway.
This
feeling of vulnerability drives a veteran mad. We pack up our civility
to prepare for combat. Everyone at home carries their socially accepted
morals, while we throw them out the window to justify killing someone
for nothing. We were taught how to pack our morals away, but we were
never given directions for unpacking them.
