C.I. had a wonderful entry this morning that was so needed and so wonderful that I had to excerpt it. This is from "Barack and The Bobby-Soxer:"
We're going to start with Danny Schechter and Barack Obama -- two people who should be smarter but play so foolish or maybe they're just playing you. As usual, Danny -- the "News Dissector" who never saw an example of sexism in all of 2008 worth calling out -- manages to be offensive as he rushes to tongue bathe Barack yet again -- Barack, or as Danny calls him "the man at the top". Well, if nothing else, maybe we know the position Danny's been dreaming and drooling over.
Barack gave another lousy performance and Danny goes into overdrive trying to pimp for him as Danny does all the time now. Last week, Danny was acting like the dumbest of pajama bloggers as he tossed stones at the networks (his former employers -- forever former) for objecting to yet again giving Barack more prime prime time. Barack's previous little Oh-Come-Let-Us-Adore-Me performance didn't pull in the viewers which is among the reasons the networks balked. But the main reason is because, a fact Danny so frequently forgets, the economy has tanked.
The networks employ a large number of people. They raise money not by begging on air for contributions but by selling air time for commercials. In a bad economy, to repeatedly ask for free air time -- as Barack has done -- and to do so right now especially -- is to invite the coming layoffs to be even greater than expected.
When those layoffs come, look for Danny to again lecture the networks while failing to ever consider factors causing the bind.
Danny knows the network news only in terms of what his own hands touched. Translation, he's got huge holes in education and is never aware of them. Which is why the alleged 'newsman' (he wouldn't want to be called 'newsperson') makes his 'media critique' Why's Everybody Always Picking on Barry!
It's old, it's boring. And he's one more knuckle head who missed last week's big story. That's about all I'm saying on the Christ-child's latest attempt to walk on airwaves. Ava and I are covering it Sunday and we'll also pick up a topic that had The Cult of St. Barack whining in e-mails -- a topic that we'll walk through slowly and then you'll wonder why no one else covered it because, in TV, things don't 'just happen.' Be better for Barack if they did, but that's not what took place on your TV screens.
That was wonderful. We were taking part in the March on the Pentagon in DC over the weekend so I did not particpate in the planned theme post for tonight. (It was planned two weeks ago.) I knew I would be tired. But I will note tonight's post. The theme was a book.
Cedric's Big Mix
Spencer Ackerman has problems
7 minutes ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! SPENCER ACKERMAN & HIS KRYPTONITE VAGINA!
9 minutes ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Dorothy West
12 minutes ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
cole swensen: is it poetry?
12 minutes ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
Jenny Schwartz God's Ear
12 minutes ago
Ruth's Report
Glyn Maxwell's Hide Now
12 minutes ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
He thought he could write a book but he was wrong
12 minutes ago
Like Maria Said Paz
Wallas Shawn's Our Last Night
12 minutes ago
Kat's "Latinos In Lotusland" and my son Mike's "Neal LaBute" aren't showing up at Stan's site (where I grabbed the above from) yet so I'm putting them in this sentence.
And yesterday the gang wrote about poetry and I'm including Cedric and Wally in both list of highlights because they always include all of us:
Cedric's Big Mix
Secrets of Arianna and Barack
10 hours ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! ARIANNA'S POO AND BARACK'S TOO!
10 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Wanda Coleman
10 hours ago
Mikey Likes It!
e.e. cummings, Iraq
10 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
julia alvarez, elizabeth schulte
10 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
"Straight Talk" (Judith Moss)
10 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Gwendolyn Brooks
10 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Melvin B. Tolson's "Napoleon Hannibal Speare"
10 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
Ramon Guthrie, force-feeding
10 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
LoVerne Wilson Brown
10 hours ago
So that is all I have to offer. But keep reading if you missed the news about the Senate hearing today. This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Wednesday:
Wednesday, March 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama's nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill had an embarrassing Senate debut today, England will have a public inquiry in August -- well, maybe not in August -- well, maybe not public, well . . .
This morning the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Christopher Hill to be US Ambassador to Iraq. Committee chair John Kerry spoke of what he termed a need to move the nomination through the process quickly and noted that Hill has stated he will immediately depart for Iraq "within a day of his Senate confirmation." In his opening remarks, Kerry explained:
Ambassador Hill, all of your considerable skills will be called upon in Iraq. And among the many challenges you will face there, I would like to focus on several which I believe will be critical to our success:
First, resolving the status of Kirkuk and other disputed territories. Arab - Kurdish tensions run high in Kirkuk, which remains a potential flashpoint for violence, and meaningful efforts to reach agreement on Kirkuk's final status cannot be put off indefinitely. In Mosul, a strong showing in recent provincial elections by an anti-Kurdish coalition illustrated rising tensions there, as did a tense military standoff in Diyala province last summer between the Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga . If progress is not made in defusing Arab-Kurdish tensions while American forces remain in Iraq, the window for a peaceful resolution of Kirkuk and other disputed territories may close.
Second, passing the oil laws. Despite repeated assurances that an agreement was near, negotiations to finalize a series of laws regulating Iraq's oil resources appear to be no closer to completion now than they were two years ago. The fundamental issue is a disagreement between Baghdad and the Kurds on the Kurdish region's ability to enter into oil exploration and production contracts. Though the Iraqis, to their credit, have been sharing oil revenues, the country still lacks an overarching legal and political framework for its oil industry, the lifeblood of the country's economy. Again, time is of the essence because developments on the ground will only make a solution more difficult.
Third, involving Iraq's neighbors in stabilizing the country. I have long encouraged vigorous, sustained diplomacy to encourage Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, to play more constructive roles in Iraq. The Arabs have begun to cautiously engage with Iraq, and they should be encouraged to do more. I believe that as Ambassador to Iraq, you will have an important role to play in this process. Your predecessor, Ambassador Crocker, had three rounds of meetings with his Iranian colleague in 2007. I hope that the Administration will strongly consider restarting these talks.
Fourth, full integration of the Sunnis. Although some progress has been made in incorporating Sunni Arabs into Iraq's new political structure, December's parliamentary elections can play a key role in consolidating this process. Integrating the Sunni militias which played such a key role in turning the tide in Iraq remains a major concern: According to recent press reports, only five percent of the "Sons of Iraq" have been hired into the Iraqi security forces or otherwise given the government jobs they were promised, and the debaathification process remains stalled. If this situation is not addressed, it will significantly increase the possibility that Iraq's Sunni Arab population could again take up arms against the central government.
Fifth, addressing refugees and internally displaced persons. Millions of Iraqis - perhaps as many one in six - have been forced to flee. The unwillingness or inability of the vast majority to return to their homes is an indicator of Iraq's continuing instability and a potential source of future conflict. Iraqi's religious and ethnic minorities are particularly at risk. This is a problem that will only grow worse if it not addressed.
Finally, the importance of training Iraq's security forces cannot be overstated if they are to be fully capable of independent action once we leave. This highlights the importance of achieving a high degree of civil-military cooperation between our diplomats and soldiers in Iraq. I strongly believe that one of the principle reasons that General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were able to accomplish so much is because they worked together so closely.
Sentor Richard Luger, ranking Republican offered a few thoughts (none worth quoting and all straying from agreed upon Iraq press reality to paint an even rosier picture). "We are awfully proud of him in Rhode Island," declared Senator Jack Reed who appeared before the committee (he doesn't sit on the committee) to vouch for Hill, "I first got to know Chris in 1985 when he was the Ambassador to Macedonia. . . . And Mr. Chairman and Mr. Luger, I can think of no one more qualified for this job."
A nice statement that could have been a strong introduction . . . if Hill had been ready to appear before the committee. First up, Kerry asked him to summarize his opening statement (noting the prepared statement would be put into the record). Don't read your prepared statement, summarize it. Hill stated he would; however, he then went on to read -- word for word -- from his statement including making a show of turning the page on "very real accomplishments". Word for word. Dramatic page turn after dramatic page turn. He also had hair sticking up all over the top of his head and even worse in the back.
So you don't comb your hair before your hearing and you say you'll do something and then ignore it. Turns the page and then goes on to 'resposibilities.' John Kerry was visibly bothered by the reading. (With Kerry, the clue is his spine gets very stiff and he gathers his mouth to the left while cutting his eyes. If you ever see that, know he's ticked. All present at today's hearing saw it though some might not have grasped what they were seeing. And we'll focus on that and let Fox and others run with Kerry's yawning as Hill read his prepared remarks.) Turn the page to talk about his privilages. Turn the page "I know that maintaining" Turn the page "for each of these . . ."
It was a bad opening and an early portent. He's very lucky that Democrats on the committee are pulling for him because he made a fool out of himself in his exchange with Senator Chris Dodd. He walked into a scheduled hearing knowing there was a controversy about his nomination and he didn't prep? Dodd asked about the "Awakening" Councils and that wasn't a curve ball question. It's been in the news. It was always going to be asked. Hill repeatedly referred to Anbar and, around the fourth or fifth time, it became obvious that he believes all "Awakenings" are in Anbar Province. That is troubling. Any diplomat, regardless of where they were stationed, should have had a better grasp of the issue just from casually following the press over the last years.
Dodd noted that "at some point we're going to have to stop funding these Awakening Councils . . . how much of a risk does that raise?" The question was how much of a risk was that? Hill never answered that question. He babbled on about how he thought the "Awakenings" were "very key and I think we wisely took on the task and make the payroll of this" -- at least he was correct about the payroll. That one time.
Hill then went on to declare that al-Maliki's government has been progressing and "doing so in terms of taking over the payments that these 'Sons of Iraq' receive. And I think, more importantly in the long run, incorporating them into the Iraqi forces." If your jaw dropped, hold on. He went on to reword himself, "I think the fact that they took over the financing of this and that it's going very well is a testament to them and I think it's been working."
al-Maliki has not, NOT, assumed all payments. The US made the payments at the start of the month to over 40,000 "Awakenings" (approximately 42,000 says M-NF). The US hopes -- HOPES -- al-Maliki will be making that payment at the start of next month. Hopes. It hasn't happened yet. And Usama Redha and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times)
reported yesterday that the ones al-Maliki is supposed to be paying aren't being paid: "The latest hiccup has been the budget woes of the Iraqi government, with bureaucratic snafus resulting in a failure to pay many of the Sunni paramilitaries, called the Sons of Iraq, in Baghdad for just over a month." For over a month. Reported yesterday by the Los Angeles Times. And Hill has no idea. Hill comes to hearing and praises al-Maliki for paying the "Awakenings" and he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Senator Johnny Isakson gave Hill the opportunity to clarify those statments asking if he'd heard Hill correctly that al-Maliki had taken over all the payments of the "Awakenings"? Hill replied that was his understanding.
Hill also claimed al-Maliki was absorbing the "Awakenings" into the government. Yesterday's snapshot noted Rod Nordland and Alissa J. Rubin's New York Times article where the reporters explained, "After months of promises, only 5,000 Awakening members -- just over 5 percent -- have been given permanent jobs in the Iraqi security forces." Five percent. Chris Hill was slobbering over Nouri and praising him for things that have not happened. He was ill prepared throughout and even with the softballs lobbed by the Democratic majority committee, he wasn't able to answer the questions. He was prepped. Senator Edward Kaufman asked a question and Hill was bragging about his prep there. The question was about Kirkuk and Hill wanted the committee to know that, just days ago, he had a special briefing: "I had the briefing. It turns out it is a very complex issue."
"It turns out it is a very complex issue." That statement is frightening. It's all the more frightening that Hill needed the briefing because, as he stated, he couldn't understand what the hold up re: Kirkuk was. It was just a land dispute! (Kirkuk is oil-rich, the Kurdistan Regional Government says it belongs to them and that Saddam diluted Kurdish power and control. The central government wants it as well.) Kirkuk is a great deal more than a land dispute. It goes to history, it goes to long-standing grievances, it goes to resources and it goes to control. That Hill couldn't grasp that as a casual observer is frightening. His remarks on Kirkuk were all over the place throughout the hearing and, had he not informed he'd been briefed on Kirkuk, one would assume he'd never given the matter more than ten seconds thought.
It's not a pressing issue, he insisted. The hydrocarbons law is the pressing issue. Not Kirkuk. Even when he thought it was a mere land dispute, he should have grasped how important Kirkuk is. At times, his answers indicated the US would decide what to do (bad move -- Iraqis need to make that decision because it's their land; the US doesn't need to be involved) and at other times he seemed to think the United Nations. Never once did he seem aware that maybe an regarding Iraqi land should be decided by Iraqis (either just within the province or throughout the country). His grasp of the United Nations work was also troubling because he seems to believe they have this huge team of workers on the ground and that they've always been working on the issue of Kirkuk. Reality, the UN got invovled in the Kirkuk issue last year only because it threatened to derail the provincial elections (and almost did). Hill seems completely ignorant of those realities. He thinks the KRG is the equivalent of Bosnia and Kosovo. He would tell Senator Russ Feingold that the issue of Kirkuk was "just old fashioned land dispute." Told him that today after also claiming that's what he used to think before his briefing days ago. Hill appeared to have no short term memory at all and no record of what he'd said to one senator before answering the other.
We're talking mainly the facts -- the basic facts -- above. But the peace movement should be concerned by the bulk of his testimony. He places huge emphasis on the hydrocarbons law and that's really not his to be involved with. Yes, the US tried to push through several versions under the previous administration, but weren't we supposed to see a change? He is obsessed with the hydrocabrons law ("'This is a law about hydrocarbons the way Moby Dick is a story about a whale .. .. There's a lot more going on with that law.'") and that was evident not just by the fact that every other answer he gave worked itself around to that law but also by the fact that he named it as his most pressing issue he would face as the Ambassador to Iraq (if confirmed). That should worry the hell out of the peace movement. Why is an ambassador nominee stating his most pressing issue is a hydrocabrons law?
The peace movement should be troubled by a number of things. But first, congratulations to Senator Jim Webb. He reads. He actually does his own reading and he's smarter than all the reporters the New York Times has stationed in Iraq. That paper was one of the worst when it came to the Status Of Forces Agreement. (The Washington Post's reporting was the best, then the Los Angeles Times'. McClatchy's was actually worse than NYT's.) Unlike so many fools and idiots, Jim Webb read the Status Of Forces Agreement -- the treaty negotiated by the previous administration.
Wait. We need to clear up something. The snapshot's dictated. I've got one phone I'm dictating into and I'm rotating cells to the other ear. I'm being told little Spency Ackerman -- who wet dreams of Barack Obama nightly -- has distorted this exchange. No surprise. Spencer got his ass fired from The New Republic. How bad of a reporter do you have to be in order to have The New Republic fire you? It took three years for them to catch on to Stephen Glass (even with nonstop complaints and proof for two of those three years). Ackerman cheerleaded this illegal war and then, when public opinion began to change, did his mini mea culpa. (That wasn't genuine. That's become obvious.) This is the 'reporter' who covered the first day of Peteraeus and Crocker hearings -- with three presidential contenders questioning the two -- by ignoring Hillary Clinton. Had time for John McCain, had time for his Dream Lover Barack, but ignored Hillary. (Hillary's questioning was the hardest of anyone's that day and Petraeus has never gotten over that questioning and continues to carry a grudge. A real reporter would have covered it. Ackerman's not a real reporter.) So to be clear, Ackerman's written his usual fantasy garbage. Maybe he was microwaving himself a snack during the bulk of the exchange? Who knows, who cares, he's a hack and search out his garbage only to laugh at the little War Hawk punk.
In the real world, Jim Webb went over the basics. He noted he'd read both the SOFA and the Strategic Framework Agreement, "I read them last fall when I think they were wrongly categorized as restricted information -- when you had to go to a room to read the documents that were not classified because the previous administration was trying to keep them from public debate." Webb noted that he read the SOFA again "ten days ago." He then pointed out that Barack Obama's "administration is talking more of the drawing down of forces rather than the withdrawal and I think that's a pretty important distinction when you're looking at the agreement." He pointed out that Joe Biden [then chair of this committee, now the Vice President of the United States], Kerry and himself "were among the ones saying it should have had the approval of Congress -- it had the approval of the Iraqi Parliament. . . . This agreement was basically done through executive signatures, it wasn't brough before the Congress." So he wanted to discuss what that meant and what the terms meant. On what that meant, since the Congress never passed it, did that mean Barack's administration could just choose to ignore the SOFA? Spensy Ackerman's insisting Hill said this and that and blah blah. Reality, Webb was framing his questions and points and Hill didn't say much of anything. When he did speak, Hill said he thought, he thought, the administration . . . but he'd get back in writing. So for Spensy to insist Hill said US forces out in 2011 is the usual sort of b.s. that gets little Spensy's fired from their outlets. Fortunately, he's no longer at a real outlet so he'll probably remain employed.
This is a paraphrase of Webb on that first issue, "Well the agreement can now be made since the Congress was not part of the document . . . an executive branch could now say we're not going to be out by December 31, 2011' and listening to the discussion of residual forces I'm not really hearing clearly that it is the intent of the administration to have a full withdrawal of US forces by the end of 2011." Hill responds -- pay attention, Spency -- that he "would prefer to get back to" Webb about the administration's position.
Okay, so that's Webb's first concern. Is it binding to the administration -- particularly the part about all US forces out by 2011? And Hill doesn't know. But will get back to him. The second aspect (which Spensy ignores because it doesn't fit the LIE and PROPAGANDA Spensy wants to sale) is what the SOFA actually says. Webb went through this at length. He noted Articles 2, 24, 27 and 30 seemed to be in conflict "with the defintional phrases" and the claims being made about the SOFA and "there really seems to be quite loose language when we're talking about a full withdrawal by the end of 2011." He noted that "any member of the United States forces means any individual who is a member" according to the defintion of terms but this definition is less precise in Article 24. He notes the wording and how "must withdraw" was changed to "shall withdraw." Then he zooms in on Article 27 where "there are two fairly lenthy paragraphs but they basically talk about if there's any external or internal threats to Iraqi sovereignty or political independence that we will take appropriate measures." Hill -- the diplomat who can't grasp Kirkuk -- had no idea. And seemed forever on the verge of saying, "I wasn't aware I'd be tested on this."
Webb is correct about the secrecy the previous administration placed on the treaty masquerading as a SOFA. They refused to publish it until after the Iraqi Parliament passed it (Thanksgiving Day) at which point they rushed to post it online -- and thanks to Barack, lots of luck finding it online at the White House website but here's the copy of it (non-PDF format). For more on some of the issues that Senator Webb was raising, you can see Luke Savage's "Iraq's Prolonged Occupation" (The Varsity):First, Article 27 of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration in 2008 gives the United States leave to "take appropriate measures, in the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." The ambiguity of this rhetoric is worrisome. After all, Iraq's Shiite majority is likely to form closer ties with Iran, a nation hostile to U.S. interests in the region. The government of Nouri Al-Maliki could easily be replaced by a less pro-Western administration that would formalize these ties. What constitutes "aggression" may thus be a point of contention, and the text of the SOF Agreement is distinctly vague about the nature of any American response. It might, for example, take the same form as the "appropriate measures" carried out in 2003 to protect the American people from the "imminent threat" of Iraq's non-existent stockpile of destructive weapons.
Savage notes the issue of contractors and this came up during the hearing when Senator James Risch raised the issue. He was told by Hill that contractors would be used to protect diplomatic staff and the embassy's parameter. He mentioned none by name but alluded to Blackwater (now Xe) and stated there were others which could be uitilized. Risch is a Republican and the bulk of the Republicans on the committee were mainly concerned with whether or not the record indicated Hill was honest (qualified wasn't a Republican concern -- but when has it ever been?). Senator Richard Luger read the following into the record from Kirk Victor's March 23rd "Brownback Promises Battle On Iraq Nominee" (National Journal):
President Obama's nomination of Christopher Hill to be ambassador to Iraq has prompted fierce criticism from a handful of senior Republican senators in what is likely a prelude to a bruising battle on the Senate floor. Critics including Sen. Sam Brownback charge that Hill, a career diplomat, misled Congress in testimony last year when he was handling the six-party talks dealing with North Korean nuclear disarmament.
Brownback charges that Hill failed to follow through on his promise to confront North Korea on its human rights record. The Kansas Republican, joined by four other GOP senators -- Christopher (Kit) Bond of Missouri, John Ensign of Nevada, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona -- recently urged the president to withdraw the nomination not only because of what they see as Hill's misleading testimony but also because of his inexperience in dealing with Iraq. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, last year's Republican presidential nominee, also opposes the nomination.
Obama and Senate Democratic leaders counter that as a seasoned diplomat, Hill is well-suited for this key post. Hill also has won a key endorsement from Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, who said that Hill had "demonstrated extraordinary diplomatic and managerial skills in dealing with an isolated and inscrutable North Korean regime." Lugar's panel is scheduled to hold a hearing on the nomination Wednesday.
Brownback adamantly disagrees with Lugar. Last year, the Kansan even held up President Bush's nominee to South Korea until Hill agreed to take steps to make North Korea's human rights record part of the negotiations. But the senator says that Hill went back on his word. In an interview with National Journal last week, Brownback discussed his determination to do everything he can to kill the nomination. Edited excerpts follow. NJ: What do you intend to do when Christopher Hill's nomination to be ambassador to Iraq reaches the Senate floor?
Brownback: We are going to fight hard against Chris. I met with him [on March 18] in my office and he did not allay any of my concerns. When he was conducting six-party talks, I asked him to involve the special envoy for human rights. He didn't want to do it. So I held up an ambassadorial nominee to South Korea. The State Department really wanted that ambassadorial nominee.
Finally [former Virginia GOP Senator] John Warner brokered a deal in the Armed Services Committee where Chris Hill was testifying and Warner had me ask questions. One of them was, "Will you invite the special envoy for human rights to the six-party talks?" He said yes, he would. That didn't happen. On his word of doing that, in front of open committee, I lifted my hold on the South Korea ambassador. So he misled me.
Hill's reply was basically that he told Senator Brownback (who doesn't sit on the committee) that things would happen but they were conditional, dependent upon other things. Hill noted Senator Brownback's July 31, 2008 press release ("Brownback Lifts Hold On Stephens Nomination") and stated "we never got bi-later talks" so the promises he made to Brownback were never reached. Senator Roger Wicker would raise the issue as well. We'll note this exchange:
Senator Roger Wicker: This assurance [to Brownback] took place in public testimony is that correct?
Chris Hill: Yes, there's a record public record.
Senator Roger Wicker: Have you gone back and reviewed the transcript>
Chris Hill: Yes, I have.
Senator Roger Wicker: You're a career diplomat, professional career servant, words are very important. Did it occur to you that you needed to get back to Senator Brownback and clear it up when [the person was not brought in]?
Chris Hill: I said in the testimony when we get to the next phase [. . .] In retrospect, senator, you're right I probably should have briefed Senator Brownback.
This topic would come up repeatedly from various senators on the Republican side and be expanded to include others. Was it then-Secretary of State Condi Rice's fault? Truly that was a line of questioning and unless the Republicans intend to produce Condi (to say, "Yes, I did yell at him about talking to the North Koreans after the Chinese left the room!"), there was really no point to that entire, long-winded line of questioning. (Though it did get an article from The Weekly Standard introduced into the record and did allow Chris Hill to make a nasty little remark about a CNN reporter.)
There is more from the hearing (and more that should alarm the peace movement). We'll continue on that tomorrow (or the entire snapshot will be nothing but the hearing). ...
In England, e-mails were released by the government this month adding further proof to how the 'intelligence' was fixed to sell the march to illegal war. The e-mails were only the latest in a series of revelations. Recent polling found that the bulk of the British favor a public inquiry into the Iraq War. Today the Guardian runs some letters on the topic including this one:
Our sons were all killed in the Iraq war. Together with many other bereaved families we have campaigned for nearly five years for a full independent inquiry into the reasons why we went into Iraq. We believe our country was taken to war on the basis of lies and that our sons gave their lives to support a corrupt relationship between our prime minister and George Bush. There needs to be a proper accounting for this to cleanse our political system. Today there is a parliamentary debate calling for a real inquiry into the war. We will be in the chamber of the Commons to watch our democracy in action and we will be going to Downing Street to urge Gordon Brown to do the right thing. It is time.Rose Gentle Mother of Fusilier Gordon Gentle Reg Keys Father of Lance Corporal Thomas Keys Peter Brierley Father of Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley Military Families Against the War
Also weighing was MP David Baker who quotes Jack Straw from the July 25, 2002 Downing Street Memo stating, "We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." Today in the House of Commons, Foreign Secretary David Miliband was asked by MP Edward Leigh whether or not "he can give a committment today can he that we will set up this inquiry as soon as practical after the 31st of July? " and replied "Yes." (Video here.) Gordon Brown has long played kick the can (for well over a year) stating that no inquiry could take place while British troops were on the ground in Iraq (because they'd be so outraged they'd walk off the battlefield?) and his whisperers have repeated that to the press in recent days but Miliban's "yes" was the first on the record, in public statement. The Scottish Herald notes that the announcement was made as Labour "fended off a Tory call for an imediate inquiry" and that Miliband's remarks do not seem to indicate the public inquiry but instead a private one. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) states Miliban hinted the inquiry would be in private. Andrew Porter (Telegraph of London) places the confirmation in context of the upcoming elections noting that tht Conservatives have long pushed for an inquiry and that Labour [the party in control since before the start of the illegal war -- under Tony Blair, now under Gordon Brown] is concerned about shoring up the "voters who turned away from the part after the 2003 invasion". Porter also notes the July 'withdrawal' of British forces will leave behind an additional 400. Ian Dunt (Politics) quotes an unnamed Labour MP who insists, "This is all about the Tories playing politics. They're somersaulting all over the place. It's something for nothing because anyone can argue for an Iraq inquiry, but that doesn't show you real position." The Tories are the conservative party and they released a statement today noting that Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said the inquiry should have taken place "long ago":
"It is alarming that by setting a date of 31st July, when Parliament will have adjourned for the summer, the Government is now dragging out the setting up of an inquiry until the autumn. This is unacceptable."
He called on the Government to "ensure that the inquiry is announced before the summer recess, that its remit is set out in a statement to Parliament and that without any further delay the Leader of the Opposition and Privy Councillors in Opposition parties are consulted about establishing the Inquiry."
The Scottish National Party issued their own statement today following "this afternoon's vote on an inquiry into the Iraq War" which cites the party's Angus MacNeil:
The SNP have led demands for an inquiry into the Iraq war, and secured the first substantive debate in October 2006 -- at that time the vote was narrowly lost by just 25 votes -- with 12 Labour rebels. It was backed by all Tories and Liberal Democrats.
Mr MacNeil said:
"David Miliband's announcement of a timetable is farcical. It is a desperate attempt to play for time by a discredited government.
"An inquiry into the Iraq war is long overdue, and the process should begin right now, not be delayed for another day.
"Labour's plans for an inquiry to begin post July mean parliament will be in recess, by automn everyone will be looking at the economy and Pre-Budget Report, and then it will be buried under the General Election.
"This inquiry should have been held years ago, not held on ice by those politicians who dragged us into an illegal war on the basis of false information.
By every measurement this has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this mess.
"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 cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers.
"The SNP have been pressing for years on this issue, and the UK Government to tell us the truth right now."
The Respect Pary issued a statement quoting their MP George Galloway who calls for an immediate inquiry:
No one has worked harder to force this inquiry than Rose Gentle, Reg Keyes, Peter Brierley and the Military Families Against the War network.
They deserve to know why their loved ones were sent to their deaths in Iraq. The British public deserves to know how and why the government fabricated a false case for a war that has now cost well over a million lives.
Everything the anti-war movement said has turned out to be right and everything claimed by the government has turned out to be either wrong, or a downright lie.
The question at issue is not whether it was right to go to war -- that has long been settled in the court of public opinion, so much so that you are hard pressed to find one of the majority of MPs who voted for it who will still defend doing so. The issue is instead precisely how government ministers and officials launched a war that they were told was unnecessary, unjustified and illegal.
This was a war of aggression that broke international law.
This inquiry must consider those questions and not be limited in scope to how the war was conducted and what happened afterwards. The public will simply not accept another establishement whitewash.
Nor, I predict, will people accept an inquiry that has no consequences. The war was based on a mountain of lies. But the only people to have lost their jobs over it are the former editor of the Mirror, the former director general of the BBC and one of its lead reporters.
As all the non-Labour parites speaking out make clear, no one has been held accountable. Tony Blair passed the governmental reigns onto Gordon Brown (who was his lackey in the lead up to the war and beyond). Jack Straw -- so eager to fix the intel in the lead up -- went from being the Foreign Secretary to becoming Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Justice. Yes, that is laughable. And in his present post, Straw abuses his power, as the BBC reported last month, to block Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the Iraq War. Most recently, Straw whimpered about "serious damage" being done "to cabinet government." That would be the cabinet he served in. Refusing the most recent request meant Straw was overruling the Information Tribunal. He's never been punished for his part in the illegal war but the Iraqis are punished daily for the 'error' of attempting to live.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 3 "little girls, injuring seven others," a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five Iraqis injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which left four Iraqis injured (both roadside bombings were attacks on American convoys), a Diyala Province bombing attack on Azbar al Azawi ("civil society official") which wounded his brother and "several others" and Turkey began bombing northern Iraq (Dohuk) as did Iraq (Qindeel Mountain in the northwest).
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul home invasion that resulted in the death of 1 woman.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Bashiqa (a jerwler kidnapped over the weekend) and the corpse of a young man was also discovered.
Monday's snapshot noted Ivan Watson (CNN) reporting on Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's offer that the US could use Turkey during the draw down. Today David Rising (AP) quotes US Army General Carter Ham stating, "I'm not aware that there are any plans from Central Command to move troops through Turkey but the fact that the (Turkish) prime minister said he would consider that is a positive sign." UPI observes that Walid al-Muallem, Syria's Foreign Minister, is in Baghdad today for a two day round of talks. And Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) notes that al-Muallem has declared that, "Syria is ready to offer whatever help is necessary" for a US departure from Iraq. This week Abudllah Gul became the first Turkish president to visit Iraq since 1976 (Fahri Koruturk was the president who visited in 1976) and he has wrapped up his visit. Today's Zaman declares: the visit a "landmark" and notes raised expectations over the PKK being addressed by Turkey and Iraq. The PKK is a Kurdish group that's labled a terrorist organization by Turkey, the US, the UK, the European Union and Nouri al-Maliki. Turkey shells (as they did today) and bombs northern Iraq areas where they think/suspect the PKK is. They are a Kurdish group who seek an autonomous Kurdish region in Turkey. With that in mind, Hurriyet reports:The Turkish president's denial of using the term "Kurdistan" while describing the administration in northern Iraq created confusion with all but one of the journalist traveling with Abdullah Gul insisting he used the term "Kurdistan." Gul paid a two-day landmark visit to Iraq on Monday, the first Turkish head of state to visit Iraq in 33 years, at a time of changing relations between Turkey and northern Iraq amid calls for increased efforts to eradicate the presence of the terror organization PKK. Turkish newspapers reported on Tuesday that Gul had become the first Turkish official to define the northern Iraqi administration as "Kurdistan" when he told reporters during the flight to the neighboring country that the "Kurdistan regional administration" in Iraq was the main actor in efforts to end terror activities against Turkish territory. Turkey does not recognize the semi-autonomous administration in northern Iraq by its official name due to concerns that doing so would eventually lead to the establishment of an independent Kurdish state involving Turkish territory.Seven Turkish journalists of the eight traveling with Gul say he used the term "Kurdistan," while Milliyet daily columnist Hasan Cemal defended a different version.
While the debate rages in Turkey, Paul de Bendern (Reuters) notes, "Turkish President Abdullah Gul's recognition of the Kurdistan government in northern Iraq and his talks with the autonomous region's leader on fighting Kurdish guerrillas mark a breakthrough for regional stability. In just two days Gul has helped reduce tensions and break down barriers between the Turkish state and its ethnic Kurdish minority as well as with neighbouring Iraqi Kurds."
xxxxxxxxxx
iraq
the new york timesrod nordlandalissa j. rubin
luke savage
usama redhathe los angeles timesned parker
hurriyetupidavid rising
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
cnnivan watson
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
The economy and more
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Celebrity President""
I really enjoy Isaiah's comic and have to wonder how appearing on The Tonight Show was working on the economy? Huh, Barack?
On the economy, I wanted to highlight this from the top of C.I.'s "And the war drags on . . ."
The New York Times new USA Today style and look hasn't allowed much time to offer reports from Iraq. It still doesn't but they squeeze an extended brief today. Before we get to that, it does need to be noted that the paper has moved beyond Bill Keller's desire for shorter stories to largely no stories. The layout is embarrassment and the best example is A10 (national edition) which not only includes a huge picture but manages to fit five "articles" on the page. Remember, this takes place after -- after -- they have downsized the physical page -- it's not as long and it's not as wide. The New York Times now rivals USA Today for the paper catering to non-readers. All last week, starting last Sunday with the chat & chews, we heard people bemoaning that the Washington Post was doing away with its financial section. 'How could they!' moaned everyone from George Steph to Danny Schechter -- as usual, all missing the obvious point.
The financial section is worthless. What's the point in it? Did the American people get loud warnings before Enron crashed? Did the financial sections lead the charge for needed changes before the meltdown was so obvious it's probably even a topic on playgrounds these days?
No.
The finanical sections of every paper have proven themselves as useless as CNBC and everyone else. There are few reporters who do some actual reporting at various outlets. They can be kept on. But the financial section of all the domestic outlets has repeatedly been exposed this decade as little more than advetorials -- it's the complimentary copy that brings in advertisements. Or brought in. So there's no reason for it.
After over eight years of not doing their job, all of those reporters and personalities should be out in the cold. It is a waste of money to keep these people on. If you're the paper in Maggieville and Sanders Jones is assigned to cover Glory Hospital and for eight years people die in ambulances which repeatedly break down while enroute to the hospital and Sanders never has that story, you fire Sanders. He has done nothing to justify being on the payroll.
Does anyone moaning actually read financial sections? In the Times, it's nothing but gadgets that companies have given Davy to promote, a Docker Boy or two write bad mid-life columns, a generic report on the markets that's a paint-by-number 'report,' etc. And that's before we get into the 'reports' that are nothing but 'so and so said on ___ (TV program) yesterday . . .'
There's no need to pay for that crap. It's puff pieces and gas bagging. It's failed on its beat repeatedly. They should all shut down their business sections. And you don't need to look any further than "Sunday Business" in the New York Times today. As per usual, Gretchen Morgenson has an actual report. Those things can be carried over to the news section. And what else does the business section offer? Susanna Hamner's puff piece on Harley motor cycles? Andrew Martin on "the gardner in chief"? Randall Stross doing ad copy for PalmPilot and calling that 'reporting'? Ben Stein offering 'tips'? This is garbage, people. Gretchen's the only one working and you've wasted money paying people to fill fourteen pages with bad columns passed off as 'reporting' -- bad columns on topics so bad, someone writing for the local freebie wouldn't grab these topics. And when they stop writing bad columns, it's just to do ad copy for various products. They slap Business at the top of the section and non-readers think the section has something to offer. The New York Times should follow the Post's lead and shut down their embarrassing business section. Gretchen can be folded into the news section because she's actually a reporter, she is actually on the job doing what a reporter does, week after week, year after year. These other people are either glorified copy writers or they assume they're auditioning for the op-ed pages. Only the really stupid think the 'business' section is about business. (And you can trace the end of a real business section to the day outlets began dropping their labor reporters.)
In the paragraphs above, I think C.I.'s said more about how we got into this economic crisis and how we stay in it. I was appalled to see Danny Schechter bemoaning the death of the finance section in the Washington Post and had to wonder what he was smoking?
It was exactly these people, these 'reporters,' who lied to the American people for years, pretended to be experts when they knew nothing. They should all be fired for malpractice.
A friend that I'd loaned Schechter's WMD to two or three years ago called me up today and asked if I wanted to go see Danny since he's in our town today? No. He walked out on Iraq. Had I caught his little talk tonight, I would've stood up and told him off.
I have no respect for those who walk away from covering an ongoing war.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, March 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, multiple suicide bombings take place, Turkey makes an official and historic visit to Iraq, over the weekend protests took place around the US against the illegal war, and more.
Saturday protests took place across the country but today Amy Goodman continues her non-stop support of the peace movement . . . What's that? Oh, that's right, Pravda on the Hudson lost interest in the Iraq War years ago. Which is why Goody's 'coverage' today is: "And protests were held in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities on Saturday to mark the sixth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq." The 'invasion.' Not the ongoing illegal war and nothing else on her show would have informed her dwindling audience that the illegal war drags on. Among the actions which took place Saturday was the March on the Pentagon in DC which was sponsored by organizations such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. David Judd and Kristin Lubbert (US Socialist Worker) cover the protests and include Tacoma, Washington; Rochester, NY; San Diego; as well as DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles. In San Fransico, they note Andrea who declared, "The Iraq War started when I was 14. It's outrageous that our government has gotten away with this. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan need to end, and that's why I am out here today." Donna St. George (Washington Post) reported on DC's protest, "Thousands of demonstrators marked the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq with an impassioned protest of the nation's military policies yesterday, demanding that President Obama bring U.S. troops home. The demonstration was the first in Washington of the Obama presidency, replete with many of the same messages of protests during the Bush era. Placards read 'War Is Not the Answer,' 'Troops Out Now' and 'We Need Jobs and Schools, Not War'." Muhammad Qasim (Islam Online) notes the March on the Pentagon in DC and quotes Sarah Sloan (A.N.S.W.E.R.) stating, "We are marching on the Pentagon and several Corporate War Profiteers on Saturday, March 21, because the people must speak out for what is right. More than 1 million Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of US troops have been wounded or killed since 2003." Christina Hoag (AP) reports peace activist and Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic (author of Born on the Fourth of July) spoke at the Los Angeles rally and explained, "I want to remind the American people of the human cost of war, what it means to be wounded." Kendra Ablaz (Daily 49er) reports on the LA protest and quotes Dave Wrathall stating "People don't realize we're still fighting this war. The most common argument is to support our troops. I do in defense, but not offense. There is literally no good reason why we are in Iraq." Ablaz also quotes Barack Obama voter Kathy Pliska stating he got into office "because he was against the war. Now he doesn't seem to be as much." Hint, Pliska, he was never that against it. That was a fairy tale. Heather Knight and Steve Rubenstein (San Francisco Chronicle link has text and video) report, "Umbrellas mixed with protest signs Saturday in San Francisco, where demonstrators marked the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq with speeches, chanting and a march up Market Street that stretched about three blocks." Susan Shroder (San Diego Union-Tribune) reports on San Diego's rally where Cindy Sheehan and Bree Walker "were keynote speakers" and quotes Cindy stating, "From what I understand, Barack Obama likes to vacation in Hawaii. We'll have a much nicer place to protest now than Crawford, Texas." Matt Otstot (CBS 47 text and video) speaks with Cindy who says, "Unfortunately the new administration is not stopping it, in fact it's escalating in Afghanistan, so I think that now it's more urgent time than ever to be involved and to be active." KFSN (link has video and text) quotes Cindy stating, "It really has changed the mood of the country. The anti war movement was really strong after that, until democrats got elected, and then it kind of fizzled it. So one of my messages too is that it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican we can't give up our responsibilities." Jim de la Vega and Kyra Jenkins (KMPH Fox 26 -- link has text and video) cover Fresno's protest and student Skylar Devoogd is quoted stating, "I'm a college student so education is really important and we're spending $72 million a day on the Iraq War so I believe we should spend more money on education." Donald Duran III (Daily Lobo) reports on Albuquerque's rally and quotes IVAW's Joe Callan declaring, "So many people are oblivious to the conflicts overseas, and we've been involved in them since 2001. Six years ago yesterday, I was crossing the border from Kuwait into Iraq and going into battle. We did that multiple times. We are still doing that, and there are still young men and women out there fighting and dying." Jackie Loohauis-Bennett (Milawukee Journal Sentinel) reports approximately 200 showed up Saturday to protest the war outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse and quotes IVAW's Jason moon stating, "We want the troops to come home now. This war is not over. Tell the guys coming home in boxes that the war is over." Keith McGilvery (NBC29) covered Virginia's protest outside Augusta County Courthouse and quotes demonstrator Elizabeth La Grua explaining, "I hope they say, 'Oh, wow! There's still people opposed to the war. Maybe I better think a little bit more about it. Maybe that $12 billion a month should be spent here'." KITV notes (link has text and video) that protestors in Sioux City gathered on Friday outside the Federal courthouse.
Back to Saturday's actions, Brandon Hudson (Fox 44) notes the protest in Plattsburgh, Vermont and quotes participant Jack Andrus explaining, "We're concerned that people are losing sight of the fact that the war is still going on." Kimberly Thorpe (Dallas Observer) notes approximately 35 turned out in "black shirts and pants and wore white masks over their faces to represent the dead" as they marched through downtown Dallas. At Thorpe's article, a veteran leaves this comment, "As someone who did bother to show up and march in two protest marches Saturday, the one in Dallas and one earlier that day in Fort Worth organized by Iraq Veterans Against War, what was most striking was how few people were there. The war in Iraq is still going, and Afghanistan is ramping up. The anti-war movement is a pathetic shell of what it was only 4 years ago, figuring Obama will save us all. Obama is not anti-war, and has said as much. As a veteran I marched because someone has to remind our fellow citizens that soldiers and Marines are still dying for lies and corporate profits in foreign lands. But I guess no one cares anymore about supporting the troops." Joe Griffith (The Independent Collegian) reports on students who went to DC for the March on the Pentagon and quotes Derek Ide explaining, "Suicide bombers don't just exist because they're crazy, insane extremists; they exist because there are material conditions that have pushed them in that direction, and they feel that's the way out." Protests took place around the world including in Sydney, Austrlia and Manila, Phillipines. On Firady,, protests took place in six Iraqi cities. The Honolulu Advertiser notes Baghdad was among the six and chants included "no, no for occupation". Media whore Amy Goodman ignored Iraq all last week and had the nerve to join self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders (who forgot to brush her hair and looked ridiculous with that curl on top of her otherwise straight bangs) to talk about Iraq. Media Whore and professional liar Amy Goodman had five hours of her own to cover Iraq last week and reduced it to a headline but was out in full force with Laura playing Last Journalist Standing yet again. "It's so important to point out," on the sixth anniversary of the illegal war trashy Amy Goodman wanted to say. After doing nothing all week. GritTV, where old whores go to sell it.
In Iraq violence never ends. Mohammed Abbas, Tim Cocks and Charles Dick (Reuters) report a Baghdad bombing at a bus terminal has claimed at least 9 lives with at least twenty-three people left injured. BBC puts the bombing just outside Baghdad in Abu Ghraib and notes it's the districts "second bombing . . . this month". DPA quotes sources stating "Awakening" Councils were the bulk of the victims and they report, "Two consecutive blasts rocked a market in the Nasr we al-Salam district of Abu Ghraib, 25km from Baghdad, Shakir Faza, an official with the local police, told German Press Agency dpa." On "Awakening" Councils, Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland (New York Times) have an important article that we'll assume will appear in tomorrow's paper. Regardless, we'll pick up the topic tomorrow. (And watch it be watered down when it runs in the paper.)
This became the 'small' bombing on a day when violence took center stage, even overwhelming what was supposed to be a historic official visit. CNN reports 14 dead from a bombing in Jalawla at a Kurdish funeral -- an apparent suicide bomber -- gender not given so they think it's a male. Anthony Shadid and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) explain, "Witnesses, reached by telephone, said the suicide bomber set off his explosives after the evening prayers, sending a fireball through the canvas of the tent and igniting a fire. By nightfall, nothing was left save the tent's metal scaffolding, and chairs littered the ground. Witnesses said survivors carried out the dead and wounded, who screamed in pain." Charlotte Porter (Bloomberg News) notes that the death toll has risen to 24 on the Jalawla bombing (plus the suicide bomber) and left fifty injured. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) observes, "The carnage brought back memories of the country's darker days of sectarian war and frequent explosions before major security imporvements began to take hold over the past year." Haynes also notes that the who behind the attack is unknown but that it will most likely be said to have been carried out by al Qaeda in Iraq. Eager to prove how right Haynes was, BBC's Hugh Sykes immediately began chanting al Qaeda in Iraq. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) notes the "sucide bomber detonated a belt laden with explosives during a funeral". Laith Hammoudi and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "The man being mourned in Jalawla, about 60 miles from Baquba, was Kurdish, and officials suspected that the attacker was an Arab. Kurds consider Jalawla, a town of both Arabs and Kurds, a part of greater Kurdistan. The land is contested, and tensions run high between the two ethnicities."
In other reported violence today . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured seven, a Mosul suicide bombing which claimed 4 lives (plus the bomber) and left two people injured, a Tal Afar suicide bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer (and the bomber) and left five people wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives. Xinhua explains the two killed in the Mosul roadside bombing were a father and a son and that, in Mosul, a grenade was hurled at "a passing U.S. patrol in the Farouk Street damaging a Humvee, the source said, adding it was not clear whether patrol sustained any casualty as the U.S. troops immediately sealed off the area." Reuters adds, "A bomb attached to a car wounded four people, including an official from immigration and Displacement ministry and a Danish national woman who was with him in his vehicle, police said two other policemen were wounded."
The violence increase (following February's increase) comes as people insist it is not happening. Mohammed al-Askari, Nouri al-Maliki's little buddy and an Iraq army figurehead, told Al Jazeera, "The situation is definitely improving, and there are remedies in place. The majority of provinces enjoy general safety." This nonsense is similar to the garbage the Iraqi Ambassador to the US, Hami al-Bayati, offered to Frank Ucciardo for CBS' Up To The Minute:
Frank Ucciardo: Has the mission in Iraq been accomplished? Seriously? Hamid Al Bayati: The general picture for us Iraqis is that Iraq, the region and the war is much safer without Saddam regime. Frank Ucciardo: When you saw Saddam Hussein hanged [December 30, 2006], what went through your mind? What went through your heart when you saw him being hanged? Hamid Al Bayati: Well the Iraqis who suffered -- I suffered -- I'm one of the Iraqis who suffered. I lost eight members of my family during Saddam's regime. I have another brother who was kidnapped and killed in 2005. Frank Ucciardo: You personally when Saddam was hanged, did you have a feeling that you were getting justice? Hamid Al Bayati: I felt at that time that we could have better Iraq after Saddam executed and security would not have been improved dramatically in Iraq without executing Saddam because he was encouraging resistance even in the court he was encouraging people to resist and he was sending letters from his hiding place. So we know that as long as Saddam lived, his followers, his loyalists, they were hoping that he would come back. Frank Ucciardo: Is the US involvement ever going to end in Iraq? Hamid Al Bayati: I think that the Status Of Forces Agreement, the SOFA which was signed, stated clearly that all US forces should be withdrawn by the end of 2011. There will be no extension from that. Frank Ucciardo: But earlier this week, Iraqi *President* Nouri al-Maliki said US troops may remain in some areas that are not completely secure.
Nouri is the Prime Minister, Jalal Talabani is the President. All of Iraq's ambassadors are men and no one's supposed to ever comment on that. Are they all also cowards and weaklings like Hamid? Such a coward that he became a British citizen? He spent the bulk of the last two decades in England and he is a British citizen. Only in 'liberated' Iraq could a citizen of another country be an ambassador. (Yes, he also holds Iraqi citizenship.) He's one of the many cowards who spent years and years agitating for the US to go in and do what he and his cowardly cohorts were too damn scared to do: Overthrow Saddam. In the future, the US government's position should be that no US service members are sent in to fight a battle that cowards of the country won't fight themselves. (No, all these cowards who fled Iraq did not go in fighting when the US invaded. They were and are cowards which is why it will be very interesting on the day the US actually leaves -- probably many, many years from now -- since these cowards have never stood up a day in their lives.) Al Bayati was part of INDICT -- a board member actually (1995-2002). They were so 'brave,' that British group, that they compiled rumors. They didn't take up arms, they didn't do anything but beg and beg other countries to do what the cowards were too chicken to do for themselves. He was also a member of the cowards' other big organization Iraqi National Congress in London (1992-1998). For those new to those cowardly and lying organizations, SourceWatch notes, in their Rendon Group entry: The Rendon Group is a secretive public relations firm that has assisted a number of U.S. military interventions in nations including Argentina, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Panama and Zimbabwe. Rendon's activities include organizing the Iraqi National Congress, a PR front group designed to foment the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
A rule should be in place that refugees do not use a host country to plot against their former country. You want to get on with your lives? By all means, the US should welcome you. You want to spend a decade or two plotting how to drag the US into a war with your former country? You need to be kicked out. And if that means you have to return to your former country and if that means you may be tortured or killed, that's really on you because all refugee status should give you is the chance to start your life over, not the chance to plot and scheme a war. Want to fight your own country? Don't be a coward and run off from it. ("Coward" does not apply to actual refugees and those include members of the military who decide that a war is wrong ethically or legally and that they cannot participate in it. A coward is someone who wants war but doesn't want to fight it themselves. Like all the exiles now in control of the Iraqi government.) That rule should apply to all refugees: Iraqis, Cubans, etc. No one should be granted asylum to the US and then use the US as their launching pad for wars.
The claims of 'safety' in Iraq are all the more interesting when they're so short on police officers and when Massoud A. Derhally (Bloomberg News) reports a hiring freeze Jawad al-Bolani, Interior Ministry, has put in place for Iraq's security forces. Derhally reminds, "Violence has been on the rise recently, with at least 70 people killed in three separate attacks in early March. The death toll in February was 35 percent higher than the previous month." Iraqi media is more focused on a column he wrote for today's Chicago Tribune entitled "The meaning of Iraqi freedom" and their focus is on one sentence in his sixth paragraph. Al Arabiya News Channel is among those noting the firings mentioned in passing: "Iraq's Interior Ministry fired 62,000 employees accused of corruption and launched an intensive campaign to dismantle sectarianism among security forces, Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani wrote in a U.S. newspaper Sunday."
Those needing some reality on Iraq -- as opposed to more waves of Operation Happy Talk -- can refer to an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy who writes (at Inside Iraq):
When the US military started what they called Operation Iraq Freedom, I really felt so happy for one thing. I thought Iraq would be free again and we would have real government with politicians who really care about Iraq future and its people. I had a real big hope that services will be the best again and we would live happily again. I never thought that we would start killing each other for the sake of some strangers or to kidnap each other for money but I was completely wrong. I was sure that the American administration had planned very well for the stage after the war but I was wrong again. Nothing really changed in Iraq after six years. To be honest, we have one big change. Now we have hundreds of political parties that do nothing to Iraq and all they care about is their interests. After six years, the Americans approved that they came without any plan because most Iraqis are still poor and deprived from the simplest human rights. Iraqi governments and the American administration failed completely in putting Iraq once again on the right path. I have to admit that after six years of the invasion, ALL MY DREAMS HAD GONE WITH THE WIND
The violence was not supposed to resurface -- remember the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk says that violence went gone-gone and bye-bye. Today's big news was supposed to be the visit by a foreign official. BBC News reports that Abdullah Gul, President of Turkey, is in Baghdad ("first by a Turkish head of state for more than 30 years") and is meeting with President Jalal Talabani as well as Nouri al-Maliki. Among the topics to be discussed are the PKK. Hurriyet notes that the visit comes as the trade relationship has strengthened, "Turkey's exports to Iraq have risen 75 percent in the first two months of the year, said State Minister Kusad Tuzmen, adding that the export target for this year is $5 billion." Paul de Bendern, Shamal Aqrawi, Mohammed Abbas and Charles Dick (Reuters) explain:Gul's visit comes less than a year after Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan came to Baghdad, marking a milestone in Iraq's efforts to end its regional isolation after U.S.-led troops toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.Turkey regularly shells PKK targets in Iraq. It killed at least four PKK guerrillas this month. The rebels are fighting for an independent ethnic homeland in southeastern Turkey.
Turkey was also in the news over the weekend. CNN's Ivan Watson reported on CNN's interview (link has text and a video option) with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister, who states, "With regard to the exit of the American soldiers, we are positive on that issue." This announcement was whispered about for some time and the Turkish press began reporting it was coming at the beginning of this month. Prime Minister Erdogan added, "If weapons and ammunition are going to come out, it has to be clear where they are going to be heading. If we are informed about where this military equipment would be going precisely, then we can make a proper evaluation."
Turning to legal news, the US has filed criminal charges in Iraq. For the background before we get to the criminal charges, we'll note this from the Feb. 25th snapshot:Saturday, May 12, 2007 an al-Taqa attack on US soldiers took place resulting in 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator being killed immediately and three US soldiers missing. The three missing were Jospeh Anzack, Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. In May of 2007 (23rd), the family of Joseph Anzack was informed his body had been identifed. Still missing were Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. July 11, 2008 the press reported (citing Byron Fouty's step-father for confirmation) that the remains of both soldiers had been identified. That afternoon the US Dept of Defense released a statement: "The Department of Defense today announced the deaths of two soldiers previously listed as "Missing-Captured" while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers who had been previously listed as 'Missing-Captured.' . . . Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. The Department of Defense previously announced the names of soldiers killed in the attack. They were Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif.; Sgt. 1st Class James D. Connell, Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn.; Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich.; Cpl. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va.; and Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nev." Now for the criminal charges. CNN reported last night:The U.S. Army has filed a criminal complaint in Iraq against 12 people suspected in an ambush south of Baghdad nearly two years ago that left seven U.S. soldiers dead, the military said Sunday.The Army says the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella insurgent group led by al Qaeda in Iraq, claimed responsibility for the May 12, 2007, attack. The Army did not release details about charges against the 12 suspects, who are in custody.
Yesterday Ava and I (at Third) covered the TV coverage (and some radio) of the Iraq war or, more to the point, the lack of coverage and we opened with the curious disaster that took place Thursday night:
March 19th was the sixth anniversary of the start of the illegal war. On that day, a day that saw the death of the 4260th US service member in Iraq, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, went on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to yuck it up.
He had time to babble on like the bitterest of starlets. Everyone is Simon Cowell! (Does that make him William Hung?) He had time to waste on college basketball. He had time to tell a very unflattering story about his daughters which made them sound like ungrateful little brats. (He told the story or we wouldn't comment -- we haven't, for example, riffed on how much the youngest daughter looks like Wanda Sykes.) He laughed a lot, tried to yuck it up (insulting over 40 million Americans -- that's an editorial for this edition). But he never mentioned the Iraq War. The sixth anniversary of the illegal war and he couldn't mention Iraq? He could go on TV, on a trashy entertainment program, and try to yuck it up. And he's the president of the United States. This is presidential behavior? We felt we were the only ones offended by that but a caller to The Diane Rehm Show (who disclosed she voted for Cynthia McKinney and not Barack) Friday raised the issue as well. And as we spoke about Iraq to various groups Friday, we would point this out and they would agree it was in poor taste and offensive. Approximately 146,000 US troops are stationed in Iraq, on the battlefield (the Pentagon's the one who determined that all of Iraq is a battlefield and that's why they issued the firing orders they did) and the sixth anniversary rolls around and the president of the United States can be found acting like a celebrity, sitting down on the couch across from Jay Leno, trying to yuck it up but he can't address the Iraq War? It was disgusting and the only thing more disgusting was watching TV and waiting all last week for coverage.
That's some of what we saw, the president of the US telling jokes (or trying) on the 6th anniversary. What we didn't see? Lieven De Cauter's "A Forgotten Humanitarian Disaster" (Information Clearing House, De Cauter is with the Brussells Tribunal) covers some of that:
The sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is a sad occasion for the balance sheet: during six years of occupation 1.2 million citizens were killed, 2,000 doctors killed, and 5,500 academics and intellectuals assassinated or imprisoned. There are 4.7 million refugees: 2.7 million inside the country and two million have fled to neighbouring countries, among which are 20,000 medical doctors. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans: two million widows as a consequence of war, embargo, war again and occupation, and five million orphans, many of whom are homeless (estimated at 500,000). Almost a third of Iraq's children suffer from malnutrition. Some 70 per cent of Iraqi girls no longer go to school. Medical services, not so long ago the best in the region, have totally collapsed: 75 per cent of medical staff have left their jobs, half of them have fled the country, and after six years of "reconstruction" health services in Iraq still do not meet minimum standards. Because of the use of depleted uranium in ammunition by the occupation, the number of cancer cases and miscarriages has drastically increased. According to a recent Oxfam report, the situation of women is most worrisome. The study states that in spite of optimistic bulletins in the press, the situation of women keeps deteriorating. The most elementary supplies are still not available. Access to drinkable water is for large parts of the population a problem and electricity is functioning only three to six hours a day, and this in a state that was once a nation of engineers. More than four in 10 Iraqis live under the poverty threshold and unemployment is immense (28.1 per cent of the active population). Besides 26 official prisons, there a some 600 secret prisons. According to the Iraqi Union of Political Prisoners, over 400,000 Iraqis have suffered detention since 2003, among which 6,500 minors and 10,000 women. Torture is practiced on a large scale, and some 87 per cent of detainees remain uncharged. Corruption is immense: according to Transparency International, Iraq, after Somalia and Myanmar, is the most corrupt country in the world. The American Foreign Affairs journal calls Iraq "a failed state". This is symbolised by the fact that Iraq, a state that has the third largest oil reserves in the world, must import refined oil on a massive scale. Authorities are on the verge of giving oil concessions for 25 years to international (also European) oil companies, though they have no mandate or legal authority to do so. Instead of being paid reparations for the enormous destruction wrought on the infrastructure of the country, entailing billions in oil revenues lost, Iraq is again in line to be robbed. There is large scale ethnic cleansing going on against the Turkmen, the Christians, the Assyrians and the Shebak. Kirkuk is being "Kurdicised" by massive immigration and illegal settlements (of Israeli inspiration) and its history falsified.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
a.n.s.w.e.r.the world can't wait
hurriyetpaul de bendernshamal aqrawimohammed abbas
cbs news up to the minute sourcewatch
frank ucciardo tim cocks
charles dick
cnnivan watson
the chicago tribunemassoud a. derhallybloomberg news
the washington postanthony shadid
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
lieven de cauter
the third estate sunday review
I really enjoy Isaiah's comic and have to wonder how appearing on The Tonight Show was working on the economy? Huh, Barack?
On the economy, I wanted to highlight this from the top of C.I.'s "And the war drags on . . ."
The New York Times new USA Today style and look hasn't allowed much time to offer reports from Iraq. It still doesn't but they squeeze an extended brief today. Before we get to that, it does need to be noted that the paper has moved beyond Bill Keller's desire for shorter stories to largely no stories. The layout is embarrassment and the best example is A10 (national edition) which not only includes a huge picture but manages to fit five "articles" on the page. Remember, this takes place after -- after -- they have downsized the physical page -- it's not as long and it's not as wide. The New York Times now rivals USA Today for the paper catering to non-readers. All last week, starting last Sunday with the chat & chews, we heard people bemoaning that the Washington Post was doing away with its financial section. 'How could they!' moaned everyone from George Steph to Danny Schechter -- as usual, all missing the obvious point.
The financial section is worthless. What's the point in it? Did the American people get loud warnings before Enron crashed? Did the financial sections lead the charge for needed changes before the meltdown was so obvious it's probably even a topic on playgrounds these days?
No.
The finanical sections of every paper have proven themselves as useless as CNBC and everyone else. There are few reporters who do some actual reporting at various outlets. They can be kept on. But the financial section of all the domestic outlets has repeatedly been exposed this decade as little more than advetorials -- it's the complimentary copy that brings in advertisements. Or brought in. So there's no reason for it.
After over eight years of not doing their job, all of those reporters and personalities should be out in the cold. It is a waste of money to keep these people on. If you're the paper in Maggieville and Sanders Jones is assigned to cover Glory Hospital and for eight years people die in ambulances which repeatedly break down while enroute to the hospital and Sanders never has that story, you fire Sanders. He has done nothing to justify being on the payroll.
Does anyone moaning actually read financial sections? In the Times, it's nothing but gadgets that companies have given Davy to promote, a Docker Boy or two write bad mid-life columns, a generic report on the markets that's a paint-by-number 'report,' etc. And that's before we get into the 'reports' that are nothing but 'so and so said on ___ (TV program) yesterday . . .'
There's no need to pay for that crap. It's puff pieces and gas bagging. It's failed on its beat repeatedly. They should all shut down their business sections. And you don't need to look any further than "Sunday Business" in the New York Times today. As per usual, Gretchen Morgenson has an actual report. Those things can be carried over to the news section. And what else does the business section offer? Susanna Hamner's puff piece on Harley motor cycles? Andrew Martin on "the gardner in chief"? Randall Stross doing ad copy for PalmPilot and calling that 'reporting'? Ben Stein offering 'tips'? This is garbage, people. Gretchen's the only one working and you've wasted money paying people to fill fourteen pages with bad columns passed off as 'reporting' -- bad columns on topics so bad, someone writing for the local freebie wouldn't grab these topics. And when they stop writing bad columns, it's just to do ad copy for various products. They slap Business at the top of the section and non-readers think the section has something to offer. The New York Times should follow the Post's lead and shut down their embarrassing business section. Gretchen can be folded into the news section because she's actually a reporter, she is actually on the job doing what a reporter does, week after week, year after year. These other people are either glorified copy writers or they assume they're auditioning for the op-ed pages. Only the really stupid think the 'business' section is about business. (And you can trace the end of a real business section to the day outlets began dropping their labor reporters.)
In the paragraphs above, I think C.I.'s said more about how we got into this economic crisis and how we stay in it. I was appalled to see Danny Schechter bemoaning the death of the finance section in the Washington Post and had to wonder what he was smoking?
It was exactly these people, these 'reporters,' who lied to the American people for years, pretended to be experts when they knew nothing. They should all be fired for malpractice.
A friend that I'd loaned Schechter's WMD to two or three years ago called me up today and asked if I wanted to go see Danny since he's in our town today? No. He walked out on Iraq. Had I caught his little talk tonight, I would've stood up and told him off.
I have no respect for those who walk away from covering an ongoing war.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, March 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, multiple suicide bombings take place, Turkey makes an official and historic visit to Iraq, over the weekend protests took place around the US against the illegal war, and more.
Saturday protests took place across the country but today Amy Goodman continues her non-stop support of the peace movement . . . What's that? Oh, that's right, Pravda on the Hudson lost interest in the Iraq War years ago. Which is why Goody's 'coverage' today is: "And protests were held in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities on Saturday to mark the sixth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq." The 'invasion.' Not the ongoing illegal war and nothing else on her show would have informed her dwindling audience that the illegal war drags on. Among the actions which took place Saturday was the March on the Pentagon in DC which was sponsored by organizations such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. David Judd and Kristin Lubbert (US Socialist Worker) cover the protests and include Tacoma, Washington; Rochester, NY; San Diego; as well as DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles. In San Fransico, they note Andrea who declared, "The Iraq War started when I was 14. It's outrageous that our government has gotten away with this. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan need to end, and that's why I am out here today." Donna St. George (Washington Post) reported on DC's protest, "Thousands of demonstrators marked the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq with an impassioned protest of the nation's military policies yesterday, demanding that President Obama bring U.S. troops home. The demonstration was the first in Washington of the Obama presidency, replete with many of the same messages of protests during the Bush era. Placards read 'War Is Not the Answer,' 'Troops Out Now' and 'We Need Jobs and Schools, Not War'." Muhammad Qasim (Islam Online) notes the March on the Pentagon in DC and quotes Sarah Sloan (A.N.S.W.E.R.) stating, "We are marching on the Pentagon and several Corporate War Profiteers on Saturday, March 21, because the people must speak out for what is right. More than 1 million Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of US troops have been wounded or killed since 2003." Christina Hoag (AP) reports peace activist and Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic (author of Born on the Fourth of July) spoke at the Los Angeles rally and explained, "I want to remind the American people of the human cost of war, what it means to be wounded." Kendra Ablaz (Daily 49er) reports on the LA protest and quotes Dave Wrathall stating "People don't realize we're still fighting this war. The most common argument is to support our troops. I do in defense, but not offense. There is literally no good reason why we are in Iraq." Ablaz also quotes Barack Obama voter Kathy Pliska stating he got into office "because he was against the war. Now he doesn't seem to be as much." Hint, Pliska, he was never that against it. That was a fairy tale. Heather Knight and Steve Rubenstein (San Francisco Chronicle link has text and video) report, "Umbrellas mixed with protest signs Saturday in San Francisco, where demonstrators marked the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq with speeches, chanting and a march up Market Street that stretched about three blocks." Susan Shroder (San Diego Union-Tribune) reports on San Diego's rally where Cindy Sheehan and Bree Walker "were keynote speakers" and quotes Cindy stating, "From what I understand, Barack Obama likes to vacation in Hawaii. We'll have a much nicer place to protest now than Crawford, Texas." Matt Otstot (CBS 47 text and video) speaks with Cindy who says, "Unfortunately the new administration is not stopping it, in fact it's escalating in Afghanistan, so I think that now it's more urgent time than ever to be involved and to be active." KFSN (link has video and text) quotes Cindy stating, "It really has changed the mood of the country. The anti war movement was really strong after that, until democrats got elected, and then it kind of fizzled it. So one of my messages too is that it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican we can't give up our responsibilities." Jim de la Vega and Kyra Jenkins (KMPH Fox 26 -- link has text and video) cover Fresno's protest and student Skylar Devoogd is quoted stating, "I'm a college student so education is really important and we're spending $72 million a day on the Iraq War so I believe we should spend more money on education." Donald Duran III (Daily Lobo) reports on Albuquerque's rally and quotes IVAW's Joe Callan declaring, "So many people are oblivious to the conflicts overseas, and we've been involved in them since 2001. Six years ago yesterday, I was crossing the border from Kuwait into Iraq and going into battle. We did that multiple times. We are still doing that, and there are still young men and women out there fighting and dying." Jackie Loohauis-Bennett (Milawukee Journal Sentinel) reports approximately 200 showed up Saturday to protest the war outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse and quotes IVAW's Jason moon stating, "We want the troops to come home now. This war is not over. Tell the guys coming home in boxes that the war is over." Keith McGilvery (NBC29) covered Virginia's protest outside Augusta County Courthouse and quotes demonstrator Elizabeth La Grua explaining, "I hope they say, 'Oh, wow! There's still people opposed to the war. Maybe I better think a little bit more about it. Maybe that $12 billion a month should be spent here'." KITV notes (link has text and video) that protestors in Sioux City gathered on Friday outside the Federal courthouse.
Back to Saturday's actions, Brandon Hudson (Fox 44) notes the protest in Plattsburgh, Vermont and quotes participant Jack Andrus explaining, "We're concerned that people are losing sight of the fact that the war is still going on." Kimberly Thorpe (Dallas Observer) notes approximately 35 turned out in "black shirts and pants and wore white masks over their faces to represent the dead" as they marched through downtown Dallas. At Thorpe's article, a veteran leaves this comment, "As someone who did bother to show up and march in two protest marches Saturday, the one in Dallas and one earlier that day in Fort Worth organized by Iraq Veterans Against War, what was most striking was how few people were there. The war in Iraq is still going, and Afghanistan is ramping up. The anti-war movement is a pathetic shell of what it was only 4 years ago, figuring Obama will save us all. Obama is not anti-war, and has said as much. As a veteran I marched because someone has to remind our fellow citizens that soldiers and Marines are still dying for lies and corporate profits in foreign lands. But I guess no one cares anymore about supporting the troops." Joe Griffith (The Independent Collegian) reports on students who went to DC for the March on the Pentagon and quotes Derek Ide explaining, "Suicide bombers don't just exist because they're crazy, insane extremists; they exist because there are material conditions that have pushed them in that direction, and they feel that's the way out." Protests took place around the world including in Sydney, Austrlia and Manila, Phillipines. On Firady,, protests took place in six Iraqi cities. The Honolulu Advertiser notes Baghdad was among the six and chants included "no, no for occupation". Media whore Amy Goodman ignored Iraq all last week and had the nerve to join self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders (who forgot to brush her hair and looked ridiculous with that curl on top of her otherwise straight bangs) to talk about Iraq. Media Whore and professional liar Amy Goodman had five hours of her own to cover Iraq last week and reduced it to a headline but was out in full force with Laura playing Last Journalist Standing yet again. "It's so important to point out," on the sixth anniversary of the illegal war trashy Amy Goodman wanted to say. After doing nothing all week. GritTV, where old whores go to sell it.
In Iraq violence never ends. Mohammed Abbas, Tim Cocks and Charles Dick (Reuters) report a Baghdad bombing at a bus terminal has claimed at least 9 lives with at least twenty-three people left injured. BBC puts the bombing just outside Baghdad in Abu Ghraib and notes it's the districts "second bombing . . . this month". DPA quotes sources stating "Awakening" Councils were the bulk of the victims and they report, "Two consecutive blasts rocked a market in the Nasr we al-Salam district of Abu Ghraib, 25km from Baghdad, Shakir Faza, an official with the local police, told German Press Agency dpa." On "Awakening" Councils, Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland (New York Times) have an important article that we'll assume will appear in tomorrow's paper. Regardless, we'll pick up the topic tomorrow. (And watch it be watered down when it runs in the paper.)
This became the 'small' bombing on a day when violence took center stage, even overwhelming what was supposed to be a historic official visit. CNN reports 14 dead from a bombing in Jalawla at a Kurdish funeral -- an apparent suicide bomber -- gender not given so they think it's a male. Anthony Shadid and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) explain, "Witnesses, reached by telephone, said the suicide bomber set off his explosives after the evening prayers, sending a fireball through the canvas of the tent and igniting a fire. By nightfall, nothing was left save the tent's metal scaffolding, and chairs littered the ground. Witnesses said survivors carried out the dead and wounded, who screamed in pain." Charlotte Porter (Bloomberg News) notes that the death toll has risen to 24 on the Jalawla bombing (plus the suicide bomber) and left fifty injured. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) observes, "The carnage brought back memories of the country's darker days of sectarian war and frequent explosions before major security imporvements began to take hold over the past year." Haynes also notes that the who behind the attack is unknown but that it will most likely be said to have been carried out by al Qaeda in Iraq. Eager to prove how right Haynes was, BBC's Hugh Sykes immediately began chanting al Qaeda in Iraq. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) notes the "sucide bomber detonated a belt laden with explosives during a funeral". Laith Hammoudi and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "The man being mourned in Jalawla, about 60 miles from Baquba, was Kurdish, and officials suspected that the attacker was an Arab. Kurds consider Jalawla, a town of both Arabs and Kurds, a part of greater Kurdistan. The land is contested, and tensions run high between the two ethnicities."
In other reported violence today . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured seven, a Mosul suicide bombing which claimed 4 lives (plus the bomber) and left two people injured, a Tal Afar suicide bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer (and the bomber) and left five people wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives. Xinhua explains the two killed in the Mosul roadside bombing were a father and a son and that, in Mosul, a grenade was hurled at "a passing U.S. patrol in the Farouk Street damaging a Humvee, the source said, adding it was not clear whether patrol sustained any casualty as the U.S. troops immediately sealed off the area." Reuters adds, "A bomb attached to a car wounded four people, including an official from immigration and Displacement ministry and a Danish national woman who was with him in his vehicle, police said two other policemen were wounded."
The violence increase (following February's increase) comes as people insist it is not happening. Mohammed al-Askari, Nouri al-Maliki's little buddy and an Iraq army figurehead, told Al Jazeera, "The situation is definitely improving, and there are remedies in place. The majority of provinces enjoy general safety." This nonsense is similar to the garbage the Iraqi Ambassador to the US, Hami al-Bayati, offered to Frank Ucciardo for CBS' Up To The Minute:
Frank Ucciardo: Has the mission in Iraq been accomplished? Seriously? Hamid Al Bayati: The general picture for us Iraqis is that Iraq, the region and the war is much safer without Saddam regime. Frank Ucciardo: When you saw Saddam Hussein hanged [December 30, 2006], what went through your mind? What went through your heart when you saw him being hanged? Hamid Al Bayati: Well the Iraqis who suffered -- I suffered -- I'm one of the Iraqis who suffered. I lost eight members of my family during Saddam's regime. I have another brother who was kidnapped and killed in 2005. Frank Ucciardo: You personally when Saddam was hanged, did you have a feeling that you were getting justice? Hamid Al Bayati: I felt at that time that we could have better Iraq after Saddam executed and security would not have been improved dramatically in Iraq without executing Saddam because he was encouraging resistance even in the court he was encouraging people to resist and he was sending letters from his hiding place. So we know that as long as Saddam lived, his followers, his loyalists, they were hoping that he would come back. Frank Ucciardo: Is the US involvement ever going to end in Iraq? Hamid Al Bayati: I think that the Status Of Forces Agreement, the SOFA which was signed, stated clearly that all US forces should be withdrawn by the end of 2011. There will be no extension from that. Frank Ucciardo: But earlier this week, Iraqi *President* Nouri al-Maliki said US troops may remain in some areas that are not completely secure.
Nouri is the Prime Minister, Jalal Talabani is the President. All of Iraq's ambassadors are men and no one's supposed to ever comment on that. Are they all also cowards and weaklings like Hamid? Such a coward that he became a British citizen? He spent the bulk of the last two decades in England and he is a British citizen. Only in 'liberated' Iraq could a citizen of another country be an ambassador. (Yes, he also holds Iraqi citizenship.) He's one of the many cowards who spent years and years agitating for the US to go in and do what he and his cowardly cohorts were too damn scared to do: Overthrow Saddam. In the future, the US government's position should be that no US service members are sent in to fight a battle that cowards of the country won't fight themselves. (No, all these cowards who fled Iraq did not go in fighting when the US invaded. They were and are cowards which is why it will be very interesting on the day the US actually leaves -- probably many, many years from now -- since these cowards have never stood up a day in their lives.) Al Bayati was part of INDICT -- a board member actually (1995-2002). They were so 'brave,' that British group, that they compiled rumors. They didn't take up arms, they didn't do anything but beg and beg other countries to do what the cowards were too chicken to do for themselves. He was also a member of the cowards' other big organization Iraqi National Congress in London (1992-1998). For those new to those cowardly and lying organizations, SourceWatch notes, in their Rendon Group entry: The Rendon Group is a secretive public relations firm that has assisted a number of U.S. military interventions in nations including Argentina, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Panama and Zimbabwe. Rendon's activities include organizing the Iraqi National Congress, a PR front group designed to foment the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
A rule should be in place that refugees do not use a host country to plot against their former country. You want to get on with your lives? By all means, the US should welcome you. You want to spend a decade or two plotting how to drag the US into a war with your former country? You need to be kicked out. And if that means you have to return to your former country and if that means you may be tortured or killed, that's really on you because all refugee status should give you is the chance to start your life over, not the chance to plot and scheme a war. Want to fight your own country? Don't be a coward and run off from it. ("Coward" does not apply to actual refugees and those include members of the military who decide that a war is wrong ethically or legally and that they cannot participate in it. A coward is someone who wants war but doesn't want to fight it themselves. Like all the exiles now in control of the Iraqi government.) That rule should apply to all refugees: Iraqis, Cubans, etc. No one should be granted asylum to the US and then use the US as their launching pad for wars.
The claims of 'safety' in Iraq are all the more interesting when they're so short on police officers and when Massoud A. Derhally (Bloomberg News) reports a hiring freeze Jawad al-Bolani, Interior Ministry, has put in place for Iraq's security forces. Derhally reminds, "Violence has been on the rise recently, with at least 70 people killed in three separate attacks in early March. The death toll in February was 35 percent higher than the previous month." Iraqi media is more focused on a column he wrote for today's Chicago Tribune entitled "The meaning of Iraqi freedom" and their focus is on one sentence in his sixth paragraph. Al Arabiya News Channel is among those noting the firings mentioned in passing: "Iraq's Interior Ministry fired 62,000 employees accused of corruption and launched an intensive campaign to dismantle sectarianism among security forces, Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani wrote in a U.S. newspaper Sunday."
Those needing some reality on Iraq -- as opposed to more waves of Operation Happy Talk -- can refer to an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy who writes (at Inside Iraq):
When the US military started what they called Operation Iraq Freedom, I really felt so happy for one thing. I thought Iraq would be free again and we would have real government with politicians who really care about Iraq future and its people. I had a real big hope that services will be the best again and we would live happily again. I never thought that we would start killing each other for the sake of some strangers or to kidnap each other for money but I was completely wrong. I was sure that the American administration had planned very well for the stage after the war but I was wrong again. Nothing really changed in Iraq after six years. To be honest, we have one big change. Now we have hundreds of political parties that do nothing to Iraq and all they care about is their interests. After six years, the Americans approved that they came without any plan because most Iraqis are still poor and deprived from the simplest human rights. Iraqi governments and the American administration failed completely in putting Iraq once again on the right path. I have to admit that after six years of the invasion, ALL MY DREAMS HAD GONE WITH THE WIND
The violence was not supposed to resurface -- remember the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk says that violence went gone-gone and bye-bye. Today's big news was supposed to be the visit by a foreign official. BBC News reports that Abdullah Gul, President of Turkey, is in Baghdad ("first by a Turkish head of state for more than 30 years") and is meeting with President Jalal Talabani as well as Nouri al-Maliki. Among the topics to be discussed are the PKK. Hurriyet notes that the visit comes as the trade relationship has strengthened, "Turkey's exports to Iraq have risen 75 percent in the first two months of the year, said State Minister Kusad Tuzmen, adding that the export target for this year is $5 billion." Paul de Bendern, Shamal Aqrawi, Mohammed Abbas and Charles Dick (Reuters) explain:Gul's visit comes less than a year after Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan came to Baghdad, marking a milestone in Iraq's efforts to end its regional isolation after U.S.-led troops toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.Turkey regularly shells PKK targets in Iraq. It killed at least four PKK guerrillas this month. The rebels are fighting for an independent ethnic homeland in southeastern Turkey.
Turkey was also in the news over the weekend. CNN's Ivan Watson reported on CNN's interview (link has text and a video option) with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister, who states, "With regard to the exit of the American soldiers, we are positive on that issue." This announcement was whispered about for some time and the Turkish press began reporting it was coming at the beginning of this month. Prime Minister Erdogan added, "If weapons and ammunition are going to come out, it has to be clear where they are going to be heading. If we are informed about where this military equipment would be going precisely, then we can make a proper evaluation."
Turning to legal news, the US has filed criminal charges in Iraq. For the background before we get to the criminal charges, we'll note this from the Feb. 25th snapshot:Saturday, May 12, 2007 an al-Taqa attack on US soldiers took place resulting in 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator being killed immediately and three US soldiers missing. The three missing were Jospeh Anzack, Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. In May of 2007 (23rd), the family of Joseph Anzack was informed his body had been identifed. Still missing were Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. July 11, 2008 the press reported (citing Byron Fouty's step-father for confirmation) that the remains of both soldiers had been identified. That afternoon the US Dept of Defense released a statement: "The Department of Defense today announced the deaths of two soldiers previously listed as "Missing-Captured" while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers who had been previously listed as 'Missing-Captured.' . . . Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. The Department of Defense previously announced the names of soldiers killed in the attack. They were Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif.; Sgt. 1st Class James D. Connell, Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn.; Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich.; Cpl. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va.; and Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nev." Now for the criminal charges. CNN reported last night:The U.S. Army has filed a criminal complaint in Iraq against 12 people suspected in an ambush south of Baghdad nearly two years ago that left seven U.S. soldiers dead, the military said Sunday.The Army says the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella insurgent group led by al Qaeda in Iraq, claimed responsibility for the May 12, 2007, attack. The Army did not release details about charges against the 12 suspects, who are in custody.
Yesterday Ava and I (at Third) covered the TV coverage (and some radio) of the Iraq war or, more to the point, the lack of coverage and we opened with the curious disaster that took place Thursday night:
March 19th was the sixth anniversary of the start of the illegal war. On that day, a day that saw the death of the 4260th US service member in Iraq, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, went on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to yuck it up.
He had time to babble on like the bitterest of starlets. Everyone is Simon Cowell! (Does that make him William Hung?) He had time to waste on college basketball. He had time to tell a very unflattering story about his daughters which made them sound like ungrateful little brats. (He told the story or we wouldn't comment -- we haven't, for example, riffed on how much the youngest daughter looks like Wanda Sykes.) He laughed a lot, tried to yuck it up (insulting over 40 million Americans -- that's an editorial for this edition). But he never mentioned the Iraq War. The sixth anniversary of the illegal war and he couldn't mention Iraq? He could go on TV, on a trashy entertainment program, and try to yuck it up. And he's the president of the United States. This is presidential behavior? We felt we were the only ones offended by that but a caller to The Diane Rehm Show (who disclosed she voted for Cynthia McKinney and not Barack) Friday raised the issue as well. And as we spoke about Iraq to various groups Friday, we would point this out and they would agree it was in poor taste and offensive. Approximately 146,000 US troops are stationed in Iraq, on the battlefield (the Pentagon's the one who determined that all of Iraq is a battlefield and that's why they issued the firing orders they did) and the sixth anniversary rolls around and the president of the United States can be found acting like a celebrity, sitting down on the couch across from Jay Leno, trying to yuck it up but he can't address the Iraq War? It was disgusting and the only thing more disgusting was watching TV and waiting all last week for coverage.
That's some of what we saw, the president of the US telling jokes (or trying) on the 6th anniversary. What we didn't see? Lieven De Cauter's "A Forgotten Humanitarian Disaster" (Information Clearing House, De Cauter is with the Brussells Tribunal) covers some of that:
The sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is a sad occasion for the balance sheet: during six years of occupation 1.2 million citizens were killed, 2,000 doctors killed, and 5,500 academics and intellectuals assassinated or imprisoned. There are 4.7 million refugees: 2.7 million inside the country and two million have fled to neighbouring countries, among which are 20,000 medical doctors. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans: two million widows as a consequence of war, embargo, war again and occupation, and five million orphans, many of whom are homeless (estimated at 500,000). Almost a third of Iraq's children suffer from malnutrition. Some 70 per cent of Iraqi girls no longer go to school. Medical services, not so long ago the best in the region, have totally collapsed: 75 per cent of medical staff have left their jobs, half of them have fled the country, and after six years of "reconstruction" health services in Iraq still do not meet minimum standards. Because of the use of depleted uranium in ammunition by the occupation, the number of cancer cases and miscarriages has drastically increased. According to a recent Oxfam report, the situation of women is most worrisome. The study states that in spite of optimistic bulletins in the press, the situation of women keeps deteriorating. The most elementary supplies are still not available. Access to drinkable water is for large parts of the population a problem and electricity is functioning only three to six hours a day, and this in a state that was once a nation of engineers. More than four in 10 Iraqis live under the poverty threshold and unemployment is immense (28.1 per cent of the active population). Besides 26 official prisons, there a some 600 secret prisons. According to the Iraqi Union of Political Prisoners, over 400,000 Iraqis have suffered detention since 2003, among which 6,500 minors and 10,000 women. Torture is practiced on a large scale, and some 87 per cent of detainees remain uncharged. Corruption is immense: according to Transparency International, Iraq, after Somalia and Myanmar, is the most corrupt country in the world. The American Foreign Affairs journal calls Iraq "a failed state". This is symbolised by the fact that Iraq, a state that has the third largest oil reserves in the world, must import refined oil on a massive scale. Authorities are on the verge of giving oil concessions for 25 years to international (also European) oil companies, though they have no mandate or legal authority to do so. Instead of being paid reparations for the enormous destruction wrought on the infrastructure of the country, entailing billions in oil revenues lost, Iraq is again in line to be robbed. There is large scale ethnic cleansing going on against the Turkmen, the Christians, the Assyrians and the Shebak. Kirkuk is being "Kurdicised" by massive immigration and illegal settlements (of Israeli inspiration) and its history falsified.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
a.n.s.w.e.r.the world can't wait
hurriyetpaul de bendernshamal aqrawimohammed abbas
cbs news up to the minute sourcewatch
frank ucciardo tim cocks
charles dick
cnnivan watson
the chicago tribunemassoud a. derhallybloomberg news
the washington postanthony shadid
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
lieven de cauter
the third estate sunday review
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Roundtable on Iraq
Rebecca: Welcome to the Friday Iraq roundtable. This should be our fifth. We've done these for the last six Fridays -- we skipped one Friday -- to help put a spotlight on the Iraq War and to note the March on the Penatagon which takes place tomorrow in DC. We'll have more on that in a moment. But we are in DC for tomorrow's March. Today's if this posts on Saturday. Participating tonight are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim and Ava; me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot and Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts. This roundtable will also be posted at the sites of Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. For Stan and Marcia, it's their first group trip to DC. Ruth's also brought four grandchildren. Tracey and Jayson have been here with all of us before but the other two are new to DC. C.I. had offered to guest post at other sites if anyone wanted to go out and felt like they had to post as well. Marcia asked if it would be possible just to cross-post the roundtable at her site and then the others agreed that was a great idea. Jim's participating mainly to make sure C.I. doesn't talk about something Jim wants saved for Third on Sunday. I am not joking. Ty, Jess, Dona and Dallas are out with the gang seeing the nightlife in DC, in case anyone wonders. Ava and C.I. are taking notes and will type this up. This is a rush transcript. With that lengthy intro, I can't imagine that I've forgotten anything. Okay, where do we want to kick this off at?
Trina: I want to start with Kristoffer Walker because of the fact that I think it's an important issue and I also want to be sure it's covered at my site. We don't have to go into great detail, I know Jim wants a piece at Third, but I do want it noted and noted at the start.
Rebecca: No problem, Trina. We're going to toss to Ava for the background.
Ava: Okay, Kristoffer Walker is a 28-year-old Iraq War veteran. He had attempted to get discharged through channels. He was ignored. He returned on a pass last month and declared that he would not be returning to Iraq. He stated the Iraq War was illegal and immoral. Upon returning home, he advised the military of his decision and saw his local Guard to see about duties he might be able to do but was cursed out there. The Associated Press covered his story and was the only national domestic news source to do so. That includes small media and I have to leave it at that on that because we will be addressing that at Third. This week he was back in the news. With the military threatening and -- my opinion -- little supoort, he decided to return to Iraq. He is still opposed to the illegal war and stands by his statements.
Mike: This really ticked off my mother, this topic.
Rebecca: Trina is Mike's mother.
Mike: Right, sorry. And he didn't get any support, Ava's right. Courage to Resist, for example, an organization that is supposed to get the word out on service members who resist, never mentioned him. We're talking weeks where he wasn't mentioned. Media ignored him. It was disgusting. And they ignored him after he announced his decision.
Wally: And to be really clear here, AP covered that and covered him. Other than them, he was covered by Wisconsin media. He was also covered by right-wing websites which slammed him repeatedly. Can I toss to you on that, Jim?
Jim: Sure. C.I. covered Kristoffer repeatedly at The Common Ills --
C.I.: Interrupting to note that Jim and Dona filled in for me the night of the Academy Awards and they covered it the night they filled in. That was the first time it was covered at The Common Ills. Credit where it's due.
Jim: Thank you. But C.I. covered it repeatedly. And because of that, the nasty e-mails came in. Dona and I help out with the e-mails at the public account for The Common Ills. There are others who help out like Jess, Martha, Shirley, Eli, Ava and C.I. But there were really disgusting e-mails. On Kristoffer Walker, on C.I. for covering Kristoffer. And they'd usually note, these nasty e-mails, what this right-wing web site said or that one said. To be clear, no right-wing blogger, that I know of, e-mailed to attack. But it was obvious that the right-wing was covering Kristoffer Walker and, as is their inclination, they were slamming him. So with no left defense, he was pretty much on his own.
Trina: There's a mother that writes me regularly. Her son self-checked out and has gone elsewhere, outside of the US, not to Canada, and is now engaged to a woman in that country. He's been 'underground' bascially this whole time and hopefully he'll be able to go above ground after the wedding. But, she wrote just outraged each week over the refusal by so many media outlets to cover Kristoffer Walker and she was especially outraged by the silence. As am I.
Rebecca: It really was something and I tossed to Ava because she could do background but nothing else. Ditto C.I. The reason is Jim wants a piece on it for Third and if we run out of time or can't get it to work when we're writing it, he wants Ava and C.I. to be prepared to grab it in their TV piece.
Jim: If I could add one more thing. A number of e-mails came into The Common Ills on KPFA and I am lobbying Ava and C.I. to do two features -- the second would be on KPFA's hideous performance this week that just played out like a "We do not deserve tax payer funding."
Rebecca: I agree that would be interesting. Let's turn to stop-loss. Isaiah hasn't spoken and said he wasn't sure how much help he'd be so let me toss to him to give us some background on stop-loss.
Isaiah: Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. You enlist and you sign a contract. Say for eight years. That would usually mean six years of service and two years inactive at the end of your contract. In many cases, when your contract was coming to an end for active duty service, you would be informed you had been stop-lossed. In other cases, your contract might be up. C.I. had this in the snapshot but pulled it because there wasn't enough room, the snapshot was too many K, but look at Camilo Mejia. His contract had completely expired. He was serving in Iraq and he was stop-lossed there.
Jim: If I could, I'll recommend Kimberly Peirce's Stop-Loss which was insulted by KPFA today, by two people, as C.I.'s pointed out in replies to e-mails complaining about Aimee and her guest's little stunt, who didn't know what they were talking about. I don't just mean about the film, I mean about stop-loss. They may get busted by C.I. and Ava and I'm pushing for that.
Elaine: I'll jump in because I know Ava and C.I. can't address this subjet -- in case they're covering it Sunday at Third. As C.I. pointed out in today's snapshot, Robert Gates has repeatedly said the army would work to eliminate stop-loss. It hasn't happened yet. Nor is he making a promise that will cease. The best, kicking out all qualifiers, is he can guarantee a few months will not utilize stop-loss. Thomas E. Ricks has also pointed out that when stop-loss is supposedly being phased out, Robert Gates is out of the job as Secretary of Defense so it will actually be the next Secretary of Defense that will be over it.
Trina: To me, it's still the same thing it always is which is Barack gets applauded for doing nothing. A vague announcement is made and everyone tosses aside the vagueness and cheers madly.
Wally: Exactly. You've got liars praising Barack for something that, if it happens, IF, will not happen until January 2010. This is insane. It's the lazy child theory that C.I.'s friend was talking about.
Trina: Exactly. You sit there and praise the lazy child for something they say they will do and then, because they got their praise, they avoid doing a damn thing. How about we start waiting to see what's happening, to see something implemented, see if it's done?
Mike: I will not say whether it is a sister or brother but I will say my mother knows of what she speaks. I have a sibling that you do not praise for what will be becuase if you do ___ will not do what ____ said they would.
Elaine: You can take it to a relationship as well -- a love relationship. Think of the guy you dated who never did a thing. Think of how he meant to get you flowers for Valentine's Day or he meant to take you out to eat on your birthday or whatever. That is one of the most common problems among women that I have seen in all my years of practice. I always advise the same thing, which is what Trina's advocating right now, don't praise. Don't say, "Oh, that's so nice that you were going to" whatever. They get that bit of nice and they don't care. This isn't all men. It's not Mike and it's probably 2% of the men I've been involved with. But I think probably 65% of women can tell you of at least one relationship they've had where this took place.
Ava: I would agree with that and include myself on that list; however, I'm not talking about Jess, I'm talking about before I was involved with Jess.
Rebecca: Okay. The sixth anniversary of the illegal was Thursday. Saturday actions take place. The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately. For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Rebecca (Con't): So that's Saturday afternoon. If you're not in one of the cities listed above that doesn't mean there's not an action in your area. I'm going to swipe this from C.I.'s snapshot today, "In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas. Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports 'the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth'." So that's another event and there will be events in most areas. I want to talk about the People's Mujahideen of Iran, though, right now. I know very little of them. I know C.I. was holding to give time for the issue to be addressed and I know they appeared in today's snapshot so I want to discuss them.
C.I.: Okay, they've been in Iraq for approximately 23 years. They are Iranians. After the Shah was overthrown, they were welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein who was not fond of Iran, to put it mildly. They have remained in Iraq all this time. Some countries see them as a terrorist organization. They have publicly renounced violence and the European Union decided not to list them as terrorists; however, the US continues to list them as such. That's more of a Bush era determination. I'm not saying that Barack's administration will change the listing -- or should -- I'm trying to make it clear as to what's going on. If there's a question, ask because I don't know how indepth we want to get on this?
Mike: Okay, Let me ask about the State Dept. I know this but for late comers.
Elaine: Let's back up a second. C.I. was asked by friends in the current administration not to write about this topic while they were attempting to deal with it. Right after the election, this became a huge problem in Iraq. And they were not in power, the new administration, and it was just a huge mess. C.I. agreed -- and this was noted at The Common Ills -- not to weigh in until February unless the refugees were attacked. You had Arianna's motley crue of uninformed bloggers weighing in at some point with alarmist posts that never include facts but make appeals to base emotions via 'creative' writing. C.I. stayed out of it until March. Until today. So let's start with why today?
C.I.: The Iraqi government made clear that they want the People's Mujahideen of Iran out of Iraq. They're asking for other countries to take them in. That means that it's an issue that has to be addressed now. Mike, you were asking about the State Dept?
Mike: Right. Talk about what was going on then and what's going on now.
C.I.: Well then was Bush. The State Dept knew the flare up was coming, the military knew it and was advising on it. They had months and months worth of heads up and they refused, the Bush White House, refused to address the situation. As Elaine pointed out, it finally flared up after the election and before Barack was sworn in. Even the flare up didn't prompt the Bush White House into action. A number of people at the State Department had prepared various options over the summer. The Bush administration wasn't interested then or at anytime else. I've even been told there was a certain glee over the fact that the flare up was taking place as the handover to Barack was about to take place.
Mike: Glee on the part of the Bush administration.
C.I.: Yes. Though not yet sworn in, this was one of the many foreign policy issues regarding Iraq that the Barack administration was discussing. They have various ideas and I have no idea which one they're getting behind but they are going to have to do something now that Iraq's government is saying the refugees have to leave. And "they are going to have to do something now" is not my attempting that they have dragged their feet. This is a very complicated issue and the US military has been able to protect the refugee camp. But that can't go on forever and it's not fair to the US military because the surrounding areas want the refugees out so it's only antagonizing relationships in that area, it's only builidng up ill will for US forces. So the refugees are in danger, al-Maliki wants them out and the US forces are risking garnering more animosity for protecting the Iranian refugees. For those three reasons, something has to be done. Now, one thing that can be done, is to talk to Nouri al-Maliki and make it clear that he needs to back off. If that happens, there may be more time to address the situation. But by sending out his spokespeople to make the announcement and with Iran's reaction -- they want the Iranian refugees out of the region -- not just out of Iraq -- unless they're going to be able to try them. So by sending out his spokespeople and with Iran's public reaction,the stakes got raised and in many ways it's worse than when the violence was more intense a few weeks ago, violence aimed at the refugees.
Mike: So what do you think will be done or what you guess will be done?
C.I.: I have no idea. I believe several options are being worked right now with the hopes that traction will start on one of them. If you want my opinion on what the Barack administration would prefer right now, it would be getting al-Maliki to cool down and back off the they-must-leave talk. Doing that would allow more time for the US to go into talks with other countries about accepting the refugees.
Wally: Can the refugees come here?
C.I.: Children and women, possibly. Not likely. But possibly. That was the opinion of State -- career employees -- under the previous administration and they continue to think maybe. But it's a weaker maybe now because Bush, as a Republican, might have been able to sell it to Congressional Republicans. Democrats might not like it but, out of humanitarian desires, might have allowed it. But Barack's a Democrat. He really can't propose that they come over and not expect major objections from the Republicans. They are still considered a terrorist group, that's how the US lists them. So it's very unlikely that under Barack, any could come to the US. The Republican reaction would most likely be to take the floor and denounce this admission of 'terrorists.' I'm not saying they're terrorists, I'm not saying they're not. They are refugees. I don't think that can be debated. It also can't be debated that the US has classified them as terrorists because that is the classification. So I don't see them coming here. Not in the current climate. You would have Republicans going on TV, they would make this Guantanamo issue. With Guantanamo, the talking point -- the Republican talking point is, "These are terrorists! Barack's making us unsafe!" Forget the fact that nothing's been closed and no one's been set free. But that's the talking point. They would combine that if the People's Mujahideen of Iran were allowed -- even in part -- to come to the US. They would tie it together and go to town on it. So, my opinion, it's not likely.
Wally: You're not taking an opinion on whether they're terrorists or not?
C.I.: No. I'm not disputing that they are classifed as such by the US government. But I'm not making a call on whether that's appropriate or not. That's me. Anyone in the community that wants to make a call one way or the other is welcome to do so.
Trina: You made a point in the snapshot that needs to be repeated here. This needs to be dealt with now while US forces are on the ground. Talk about that.
C.I.: The US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees alive. There is tremendous ill will towards them in the region their camp is. A small drawdown of approximately 10,000 US forces are supposed to take place between now and December 31st. If violence flares up before or after or if al-Maliki needs US forces for another assault on Basra, you're putting the refugees at risk. Ideally, before any drawdown begins, this should be taken care of because its been ignored and ignored. And Iraq's now made a decision. That decision is the Iranian refugees leave. The US nees to faciliate that.
Trina: And you're not saying that US forces should remain for a longer period or anything like that.
C.I.: No. I'm saying the issue has been pushed by al-Maliki and has to be dealt with, that the US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees safe and that the issue of their departure now has to be managed. The only thing that would change that would be al-Maliki backing off.
Ava: And if he did, he wouldn't be trust worthy. He's blown that with the US. They're very wary of what he might do in the lead up to the planned December elections.
Rebecca: Good point. I think we're going to wrap up. I'm going to let Isaiah and Trina give some closing thoughts or a topic we didn't grab that the might want to now.
Isaiah: Trina's nodding to me so I'll just say I can't believe what's going on. I can't believe how little attention the sixth anniversary of the start of the illegal war has received this week. I really think that if the left doesn't get over their infatuation with Barack real quick this country's going to be in huge trouble.
Trina: I would agree with Isaiah. Daniel Ellsberg has been pointing out that the illegal war is not ending and he is being ignored. Outlets that couldn't miss a word he said when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House now work overtime to ignore him. It's very telling and very sad. I would encourage everyone to get active tomorrow.
Rebecca: Well said. Thank you to everyone for participating. We're going to wind down now. I can tell you that three topics discussed will be pulled by Jim because he wants them covered at Third.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:
Friday, March 20, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, an Abu Ghraib lawsuit can proceed, media coverage of the sixth anniversary is sparse (but out there if you hunt), things heat up in England, and more.
"It is now six years since we went into Iraq," writes Rose Gentle (UK's Military Families Against The War). "On June 28th it will be five years to the day since I lost my boy. It's a day I can't get away from. I can remember watching the news when it said that a British soldier had been killed. I looked at the TV and saw the body of a boy on the ground. No, it can't be Gordon, I thought, as I would have been told by now. But it was. Four hour later I was told it was Gordon." Gordon Gentle died June 28, 2004 at the age of 19, in a Basra roadside bombing. Rose Gentle concludes, "One day we will know why we went there and we can all make up our own minds. But as a mum I have to know now." Rose Gentle is not the only one asking for answers. Nigel Morris (Independent of London) reports Carne Ross ("formerly Britain's top Iraq specialist at the United Nations) joined the cry "for a full public inquiry into the war" yesterday. The BBC informs that Brian Jones ("former senior defense intelligence expert") "also made the case for a public inquiry and shared that before the illegal war started he had already complained about the false claims the Tony Blair government was pushing such as Iraq's supposed WMDs. Monday Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reported 72% of respondents in a new BBC survey support an inquiry into the Iraq War. BBC explained that the 18-24 years-old group supports an inquiry by 81%. Last week, government e-mails from the period leading up to the illegal war were released demonstrating that the case Tony Blair was making for war was not valid and that these bogus claims were called out by intelligence experts.
The release of those e-mails followed the February 26th declarations made by John Hutton, UK Sec of Defense, on the floor of the House of Commons:
During the final stages of the review of records of detentions, we found information about one case relating to a security operation that was conducted in February 2004, a period which honorable members I'm sure will recall saw an increased level of insurgent activity as the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty drew closer. During this operation, two individuals were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad. They were transferred to US detention in accordance with normal practice and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan. This information was brought to my attention on the first of December, 2008. And I instructed officials to investigate this case thoroughly and quickly so I could bring a full account to Parliament. Following consultations with US authorities we confirmed that they transferred these two individuals from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2004 and they remain in custody there today. I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department. I want to stress however that this was based upon the information available to ministers and those who were briefing them at the time. My predecessors as secretaries of state for defense have confirmed to me that they had no knowledge of these events. I have written to the honorable members concerned, correcting the record, and am placing a copy of these letters also in the library of the house. And again, Madame Deputy Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for these errors. The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Laskar-e-Taiba, a proscribed organization with links to al Qaeda. The US government has explained to us that they were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq. The US has categorized them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis. We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross has had regular access to the detainees. A due diligence search by the US officials of the list of all those individuals captured by UK forces and transferred to US detention facilities in Iraq has confirmed that this was the only case in which individuals were subsequently transferred outside of Iraq. This review has established that officials were aware of this transfer in early 2004. It has also shown that brief references to this case were included in lengthy papers that went to then-Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary in April 2006. It is clear that the context provided did not highlight the significance at that point to my right honorable friends. In retrospect, it is clear to me that the transfer to Afghanistan of these two individuals should have been questioned at the time. We have discussed the issues surrounding this case with the US government and they have reassured us about their treatment but confirmed that, as they continue to represent significant security concerns, it is neither possible or desirable to transfer them to either their country of detention or their country of origin.
There has been no oversight or accountability with the illegal war. As this has continued to be the case, public outraged has boiled resulting in the large majority who want a full and public inquiry into the Iraq War. Gordon Gentle is one of 179 British soldiers who have died in the illegal war.
This morning, USA Today's Susan Page filled in as host on The Diane Rehm Show. Iraq was brought up in the second hour and the discussion included:
Susan Page: Yesterday was the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and it's interesting that looking for what stories might be on the front page today they deal more with the politics in Iraq than with the war and violence. I wonder, Michael Hirsh, at this moment, do we see the war actually coming to an end?
Michael Hirsh (Newsweek): Well I don't know if I would go quite that far but, um, but the Washington Post [click here for Anthony Shadid article Hirsh is referring to] did have did have an excellent piece on the front page this morning, summing up how new coalitions seem to be forming, cutting across sectarian lines with Prime Minister Maliki bringing some important Sunni politicians onto his side. And uh that -- it's remarkable the amount of progress that has occured.
Karen DeYoung (Washington Post): I think that it's not that it's how much violence can be -- is tolerable. You had Prime Minister Maliki last week in an interview coming back from Australia saying that he expected to ask the American troops to stay in certain places even after combat troops were supposed to withdraw and I would presume that would be around Mosul where al Qaeda is - has withdrawn too. Perhaps in Diyala. Places where you still see a relatively high level of violence. But I think the question of "Is the war over or not?" it depends on what is toleratable level and that obviously is relative to what was clearly an intolerable level before.
Yochi Dreazen (Wall St. Journal): You know statistics obviously lie and are deceptive but there are some that are really striking. One that sticks out in my mind that pertains to this is the casulty level in January. The number of troops who died in Iraq was smaller signficantly than who died in Afghanistan but also smaller significantly, unfortunately, than the number who committed suicide. So six years in, you not only have Afghanistan outstripping it but in some months military suicide outstrips the death toll in Iraq which when you think about where we were a year ago, two years ago, is a staggering change.
What? The suicide rate did not hold steady, it has climbed and climbed to the point that it is now a crisis as was admitted this week in the Congressional hearing. Yochi's first sentence sounds like the clue that he's about to use statistics that are deceptive. They also go to the fact that journalists are not social scientists and are not trained in much more than note taking. You need months and months to track a pattern. What Yochi is 'observing' may or may not be pattern. It may be a blip. But no social scientist would call it a pattern at this point. Only a general studies major would. Yochi can take comfort in the fact that something else happened that was so jaw droppingly appalling, his own sleight-of-hand with the numbers probably faded from memory quickly.
Susan Page: Talk about the treatment of US soldiers this week we had an important announcement by the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about a committment to phase out this policy of stop-loss that is so controversial. Michael Hersh tell us exactly what stop-loss is?
Michael Hirsh: Well that was a program the Bush administration put in place to extend the deployments of US soldiers beyond uh there alotted one year, two years and, uh, Gates in announcing the end of this described it basically as you know as a breach of the understanding the Defense Department had with its troops. During the worst years of the Iraqi insurgency from 2004, [200]5, [200]6 and [200]7 say, through that period there were, there were a lot of concerns that you might be gutting the army, that the career officers, particularly NCOs, non-coms, would start to leave because they were being asked to do more than they had in the past which was to do -- string together three overseas deployments in a row. So Gates is putting a stop to that and he's able to do it because of this draw down plan and because of the increased stability of the country.
Suddenly everyone else looks like a genius. Note to Hirsh, it is perfectly acceptable to use the sentence, "I don't know." In fact, that sentence is preferrable to, "Let me b.s. my way through an answer over the airwaves." This has nothing to do with three overseas deployments in a row. In its earliest usage in the Iraq War (and it predates George W. Bush which Hirsh also seems unaware of), it was used not to bring troops back into a theater of war but to keep them there. Camilo Mejia was in the earliest group of soldiers stop-lossed. The 'war' on 'terror' 'required' he be stop-lossed for over ten years. (That wasn't legal in any way with Camilo's case. Many issues applied and even a court that upheld stop-loss would have to address how it did not cover Camilo.) Camilo was in Iraq when he was stop-lossed. He was not home and deployed to Iraq. Where Hirsh is getting his 'information' is something only he can answer. He appears to either be pulling it out of thin air or his butt. We could continue to correct him but the program did self-correcting while broadcasting. Susan would note later in the hour (this is the second hour of today's show and about 14 minutes in) that they had gotten twitters and e-mails and she would ask Yochi Dreazen to explain stop-loss. He would note it came about after Vietnam, used in "the first Gulf War but not to the degree that it was used in the Iraq War. What it means is when you commit to serve in the US army, you typically committ to do a five or six year committment [of active service, C.I. note] so if you go in 18 you would serve out until you're 24 and then you could do whatever you wanted to do, re-enlist or leave. What stop loss does is it prevents you from leaving. So if you want to leave the Army, if you want to leave the Marine Corps, you can't the Army can keep you in some what indefinately though typically it's been six months to a year of extra service And what that means is if you want to get out of the army, you've done two tours in Iraq, your marriage is falling apart, whatever the issue, you can't do it. This is the policy John Kerry described in 2004 as a backdoor draft. because it forces you to serve when you don't want to serve." Susan Page would then note, "Secretary Gates didn't say that there would be absolutely no one effected by stop-loss but that he would restrict the number that get caught in this."
Thank you, Susan Page. All week long we've heard these lies of stop-loss is ending! It's over! Not really. Let's go first to the official announcement from the Defense Dept:
The Department of Defense announced today a comprehensive plan to eliminate the current use of Stop Loss, while retaining the authority for future use under extraordinary circumstances. This is an important step along the path in adapting the Army into an expeditionary force.
The Army Reserve and Army National Guard will mobilize units without employing Stop Loss beginning in August and September 2009, respectively. The Regular (active duty) Army will deploy its first unit without Stop Loss by January 2010.
For soldiers Stop Lossed during fiscal 2009, the department will provide a monthly payment of $500. Until the department is able to eliminate Stop Loss altogether, this payment will serve as an interim measure to help mitigate its effects.
"Stop Loss disrupts the plans of those who have served their intended obligation. As such, it is employed only when necessary to ensure minimal staffing in deploying units, when needed to ensure safe and effective unit performance," said Bill Carr, deputy under secretary of defense for military personnel policy. "It is more easily rationalized in the early stages of conflict when events are most dynamic; but tempo changes in this war have frustrated our efforts to end it altogether."
The department intends to provide Stop Loss Special Pay to eligible service members until the point of separation or retirement, to include that time spent on active duty in recovery following redeployment. Stop Loss Special Pay will begin on the date of implementation, and will take effect for those impacted on or after Oct. 1, 2008.
Stop Loss Special Pay implements the authority granted by Section 8116 of the "Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriation Act, 2009." The appropriation is available to secretaries of the military departments only to provide Special Pay during fiscal 2009.
That's Wednesday March 18th. Now let's go to what Gates said exactly about stop-loss.
Secretary Gates: Good afternoon. Today I have three major announcements to make. First, since assuming this position, I've wanted to dramatically reduce the number of soldiers who are stop-lossed. As of the end of January, there were 13,200 soldiers in stop-loss. I am pleased to announce that I have approved a plan to eliminate the use of stop-loss for deploying soldiers. Effective this August, the US Army Reserve will no longer mobilize units under stop-loss; the Army National Guard will stop doing so in September, and active Army units will cease deplying with stop-loss starting next January. Our goal is to cut the number of those stop-lossed by 50 percent by June 2010 and to eliminate the regular use of stop-loss across the entire Army by March 2011. We will retain the authority to use stop-loss under extraordinary circumstances.
And the legal definition of "extraordinary circumstances"? Thus far the courts have held that the answer to that is "the US military says so." So don't expect any end to stop-loss. We noted this nonsense Wednesday and assumed people had followed the story. Few could even get their facts right. So let's walk this through slowly. Jeff Schogol (Stars and Stripes) reported Jan. 27, 2007: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates has instructed all branches of the service to minimize the controversial 'stop-loss' program, under which U.S. troops can be involuntarily kept in the service for deployments." And how was this minimize wish (the same thing the Defense Dept wants now) received in the press? Roxana Tiron (The Hill) filed "Pentagon cuts stop-loss" January 25, 2007. What actually happened was that stop-loss was accelerated. But, hey, the headlines were so pleasing who bothered to count the numbers? Pauline Jelinek (AP) reported at that time (January 29, 2007): "Gates has asked the chief of each service branch for a plan by the end of February on how they would rely less on stop loss." I could be wrong on this but my understanding was that it was only the Army that was utilizing stop-loss -- only the army beginning in 2003. Other branches have used it since Vietnam but I'm referring to its current incarnation. Gates comments Wednesday applied only to the Army. If other branches are using it (I don't believe they are currently), Gates' speech wouldn't cover those branches.
On WAMU's Metro today, the issue of dignified transfer was addressed. David Furst explained "a new Pentagon policy allows news organizations to photograph the homecomings of fallen service members -- if families agree." He further noted that Gates declared (Wednesday) that arrangements would be made for families who wanted to be present. Kavitha Cardoza spoke with four Marines who received the fallen and their feelings were that they were a part of something honorable. General requirements include that they need to be physically fit and approximately the same height (within four inches) and training is eight hours a week. A phone call alerts them when a dignified transfer will be taking place and they report. They spoke of the process which for them includes reporting not knowing who will be arriving at Dover, walking up and seeing the coffins "on the side of the plane lined up, metal caskets with a flag over it . . . in person it's different," there's a prayer and the coffins are transferred with the Army going first. Cardoza then spoke with Furst about details she observed about the Marines handling the transfer:
". . . they were so young, you know, they just had baby faces. There was one -one man actually , he was 19. And we were interrupted a few times talking, so I lost my train of thought. And so I said, 'Where was I?' And he started laughing and said, 'Ma'am, you were telling me how young I looked'."
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Divsion- Center Soldier died March 19 from non-combat related causes. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4260 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Another death and on the sixth anniversary. This as the Seattle Times reports that next month there will be ceremonies for South Dakota's Army National Guard's 300 members who are deploying to Iraq ("for a year"). No, the Iraq War has not ended. No, the US service members have not all come home.
Saturday, those wanting to call out the illegal war can join with groups such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately. For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas. Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports "the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth". Kristy Kuhn (Deseret News) reports that Iraq War veterans spoke out at Salt Lake Main Library yesterday where the message was that the US is occupying Iraq and doing so for profit -- no liberation involved. Jeff Key is quoted stating, "People are getting extraordinarily rich off the blood of the soldiers." Heather Lockwood (Scripps Howard Foundation Wire) reports DC Students for a Democratic Society (DC chapter of SDS) protested last night with "loud funk music" and quotes Lehana Penaramda stating, "Basically the message is war is a waste of our youth." That was yesterday (and there were many other events) but on Wednesday the Grannies Peace Brigade stood up against the Iraq War with a demonstration in NYC. They explain what happened:
PEACE GRANNIES ARRESTED IN TIMES SQUARE WEDNESDAY, OCT. 18 Relax, everyone! The New York City police are solidly on the job these days. With rapists, murderers, bank robbers and dope peddlers, not to mention corporate thieves, rampant throughout the City, they made a significant dent in the crime statistics yesterday, March 18, when they arrested seven grandmothers aged 67 to 90 in Times Square. The grannies, all members of the Granny Peace Brigade, were sent to jail while protesting at the Times Square recruiting station. Their arrest occurred during what is believed to be the first antiwar protest of the Obama Administration, in an attempt to urge the President to reconsider his decision to retain 50,000 troops in Iraq after the official withdrawal scheduled to be completed in the next 18 months and his order for 17,000 more troops sent to Afghanistan. The women feel strongly that these measures will only result in increased death and destruction for Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis and further solidify anti-American feeling throughout the world. Said 94-year-old Brigadier Marie Runyon, "Peace can only be achieved through diplomacy and humanitarian aid." The Granny Peace Brigade women are mostly strong supporters of Barack Obama but were responding to his request that his constituency pressure him to do the right thing when they feel he is on the wrong path. The Brigade is not new to demonstrating at the Times Square recruiting station -- eighteen of the grannies were arrested and jailed on Oct. 17, 2005, when they attempted to enlist in the military to replace America's grandchildren in harm's way in Iraq. After a six-day trial in criminal court, they were acquitted.The seven grannies were arrested at approximately 1:45 p.m. and taken to the Midtown South police precinct. They were not all released until early the next morning, a total of approximately 12 hours. Some of them became shaky and weak after many hours of not eating, but were given no food for another hour and a half. Prior to the arrest, about 50 grannies and their supporters gathered on Military Island at which a press conference was held including speeches by mayoral candidate Rev. Billy, legendary Broadway actress and activist Vinie Burrows (one of the original 18 granny jailbirds), and a young member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Matthis Chiroux. A sister group, the Raging Grannies, performed some of their original anti-war songs. During the press conference, grandmothers wrapped yellow police crime scene tape around the ramp near the recruiting center, after which a group, some in wheelchairs and hanging on to walkers, assembled on the ramp leading to the center. The team of Norman Siegel and Earl Ward, who successfully defended the grannies in 2005, will represent them in their current case, for which the grandmothers are profoundly grateful. Siegel, currently a candidate for New York City Public Advocate, is a favorite of the ladies for his continuous support of them.
Matthis also took part in an action in NYC yesterday. Jennifer Mascia and Jason Grant (NYT online) quote him explaining, "Obama's policies just confirmed to me that the president may hvae changed, but the war is the same. Just because we have a black president now, doesn't mean that we don't have a racist war."
Meanwhile, in Iraq, the illegal war has created a refugee crisis number over four million internal and external refugees. That estimate does not include a group of Iranian refugees who have been in Iraq since long before the start of the illegal war. Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reports that these refugees, the People's Mujahideen of Iran, find themselves unwelcomed by the new Shi'ite controlled government "which has mostly warm times with neighbouring Shi'ite Iran" and that al-Maliki's government is now asking that other countreis take them in, "Human rights groups say forcing the 3,500 PMOI members out of their base at Camp Ashraf in northeastern Iraq would violate international law." Iran's Press TV notes, "Iran has long called for the expulsion of MKO members from their headquarters and training center, Camp Ashraf, in Iraq. Tehran says the members of the group who do not have blood on their hands are allowed to return home but others have to stand trial in Iran." Meanwhile, in England, a protest is taking place. Aidan Jones (London Informer) reports that the country's Iraqi Embassy is the site of a protest by exiles in England who are calling for the refugee camp in Iraq to remain open. One protestor, Fatemeh, is quoted stating, "The Iraqis say they want to close the camp. If they close it thousands of people will be sent back to Iran where they will certainly face jail, if not death because the government there sees them as traitors." Al Arabiya News adds, "In 2001 the group renounced violence paving the way for the European Court of First Instance to rule in Dec. 12, 2006 against the inclusion of PMOI on the European Union's 'terrorist list'." At present, the US lists the group as a terrorist organization. The listing may or may not change under the Barack Obama administration. At present, these refugees have been protected by US forces. Actions taken in the last year (especially at the end of the year) have made it clear that without US protection, the refugee camp would have turned into a slaughterhouse. Whether or countries will take them in or not, the issue must be addressed while the US is present. Most issues should (my opinion) be decided by Iraqis because it is their country. The decisions of their puppet government and of the ones launching attacks on the camp are the Iranian refugees must go. The US (and the State Dept knows this) must faciliate the next moves because the US military has been the only thing keeping the refugees alive. The George W. Bush administration allowed this situation to fester and refused to address it. It exploded after the 2008 election and Barack Obama's administration has been attempting to figure out viable options to address the safety concerns of these refugees. This is a problem that was dumped on the current administration. I am not a rescuer of Barack Obama. I have no problem holding him or his administration accountable. However, this is a problem that the State Dept was aware was boiling and about to explode and they were aware of that as early as June of last year. The then-administration refused to deal with it even when it was raised in talks about the Status Of Forces Agreement and the Security Agreement all last year and two months of 2007. They knew this was going to explode and it did after the election. It did not concern them and they did nothing -- not even casual exchanges -- on this issue.
The previous US administration also did a hideous job of assisting external Iraqi refugees. That includes limiting the target numbers of Iraqi refugees who could be admitted to this country to a tiny, insulting number and still being unable to meet that target most years. Whether the current administration will do better on admitting Iraqi refugees to the US or not is an unknown at this point. (And if they stick to fiscal year figures, as the Bush administration did, they will be stuck with October, November and December of 2008 when Barack was not in the White House.) What is known is that today the US State Dept announced that for 2009 fiscal year, $141 million dollars are being added to the $9 million already promised. The State Dept states the money will go to funding:
continued provision of emergency relief supplies to the most vulnerable Iraqis;
rehabilitation of water systems for internally displaced persons and local communities in Iraq;
informal education activities for Iraqi students unable to attend public schools in Jordan and Syria;
school reconstruction to support the influx of Iraqi students into Syrian public schools;
mental health services for displaced Iraqis;
repairs to clinics in Iraq, including donation of medical equipment; and
mobile health units for Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria.
The bulk of the money is to go to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In May of last year, UNHCR noted they were $127 million short on money needed to assist the internal and external Iraqi refugees.
Today Xinhua reports that the US bombed homes in Diyala Province last night and killed at least "13 suspected militants". Turning to other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings which left three people wounded and a suicide bomber in Anbar Province who apparently "tried to attack Sheikh Hasnawi Efan" -- he was shot dead by police but a grenade the bomber tossed claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more wounded. Reuters notes Thursday events -- "fierces clashes" in which the 10 people were shot dead in Baquba and a Ramadi roadside bombing which left three people injured.
In legal news, Bill Mears (CNN) reports that US District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has allowed a lawsuit against CACI over the torture at Abu Ghraib with 4 Iraqis stating that contractors took part in the torture "subjected them to beatings and mental abuse, then destroyed documents and video evidence and later misled officials about what was happening inside the facility." The Center for Constitutional Rights notes:
The plaintiffs are Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, Sa'ad Hamza Hantoosh AI-Zuba'e and Salah Hasan Usaif Jasim Al-Ejaili – all of whom are Iraqi citizens who were released from Abu Ghraib between 2004 and 2008 without being charged with any crime.
The former detainees are represented by attorneys Susan L. Burke, William T. O'Neil and William F. Gould of Burke O'Neil LLC, of Washington, D.C.; Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC, of Troy, Mich.
The lawsuit alleges that the CACI defendants not only participated in physical and mental abuse of the detainees, but also destroyed documents, videos and photographs; prevented the reporting of the torture and abuse to the International Committee of the Red Cross; hid detainees and other prisoners from the International Committee of the Red Cross; and misled non-conspiring military and government officials about the state of affairs at the Iraq prisons.
The sixth anniversary took place and where was the coverage? Reduced to a daily headline by Amy Goodman. (No, I haven't forgotten her, Ava and I address Pravda on the Hudson this weekend.) Some did file reports yesterday. "It's so deadly now for U.S. troops," Lara Logan reported on The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric yesterday (link has video and text), "that even rebuilding work has to be done at night. U.S. engineers work in the dark to repair a bridge that was blown up by terrorists." She was reporting from Mosul and, no, that doesn't sound like the Iraq War is ending. But that report didn't make it on ABC or NBC so those watching their evening broadcasts were fed 'comfort food' passed off as news. That was only one of the disturbing bits of reality Logan offered. Another was this, "What you can't see in Mosul are the Iraqi soldiers who captured the suspect and then handed him over to their U.S. counterparts. They asked not to be identified, for fear of being killed." The Iraqi soldiers are scared to be seen on camera. For fear of being killed.And the spin is supposed to be "Iraq War Over, Rejoice!" It's an important report and Mosul overtook Baghdad for violence last year though few bothered to notice. (That does not mean things turned to milk & honey in Baghdad. It means Mosul grew ever more violent.) Along with CBS Evening News, the only other broadcast news to offer Iraq coverage was PBS. The NewsHour's Ray Suarez moderated an Iraq roundtable (link has text and audio):
RAY SUAREZ: Let's go to some of our viewer questions. Armeney writes from Okemos, Mich.: "What's the probability that Shiite-Sunni strains will reemerge when the Americans downsize their forces? Will al-Qaeda in Iraq prey upon Sunni discontent to strike back at the Shiite government?" Ambassador, why don't you take that first? FEISTAL ISTRABADI: Well, I mean, you know, this of course is the $64,000 question. I don't think any serious observer of the Iraqi security and armed forces believe that they're going to be ready in June of this year or by the end of next year to provide security in Iraq. And what happens when the Americans withdraw? If I can comment on what was said a moment ago about Maliki taking on the militias in Basra; what he has done is taken on the Jaish al-Mahdi, the Sadrists - what we often call the Sadrist militia in Basra and in Baghdad. He has not yet taken on the militia of his principal coalition partner, in Baghdad, that is to say the militia of the Supreme Council - the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr brigade. And it's not clear that he can because much of the security forces are in the hands of the Badr brigade militia hierarchy. So we don't really have a taking on of militias in Iraq. What we have is a choosing of which militias are going to be in ascendancy in Iraq. And this is a real problem.When American forces start to withdraw, if you still have several militias intact, which can get back to the business of slaughtering the other side's civilians, which is what we had in 2006 and 2007 - and that's my real fear for the future of Iraq in the immediate post-withdrawal. For the record, disarming the militias? Also a benchmark. For those playing on the home editions, that would be benchmark seven (disarming) and benchmark thirteen was ensuring that the militias do not have "control of local security." And these benchmarks? They are not supposed to be 'near' them today. The 'surge' was done to create the political space for the 18 benchmarks to be achieved. All of the 18 were supposed to have been achieved before January 1st. They were not. That is why the 'surge' was a failure.
Others reporting on the Iraq War included Denise Davidson (San Diego Union-Tribune) who offered "Iraq War milestones" and Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports an 11.2% rate of unemployment "for veterans who served in Iraq and and Afghanistan and who are 18 and older" which may impact the Army's current re-enlistment goal have reached 152%. Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) spoke with three people about the Iraq War, we'll note this section:
When Ms. Naar-Obed returned from Iraq in 2004, she brought with her news that would shake America and the world -- reports from Iraqis of abuse in the US detention facility in Abu Ghraib. "My hope was that whatever pressure I could bring to bear, either [in Iraq] or by speaking out about it when I was back home, would help put an end to the abuses we were hearing about," says Naar-Obed, who has spent several months of every year since 2002 in Iraq. Once again in Iraq, Naar-Obed is impressed not by any progress she sees, but by the challenges Iraq still faces. Iraq's sectarian tensions eased when ethnic cleansing led to migration and segregation. But the underlying tensions among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds remain. "There may be a current marked reduction in violent acts [because of the new segregation of sectarian populations], but there has been little in the way of political or personal reconciliation," she says by phone and e-mail. Currently in the Kurdish north, she says she senses "great fear and concern about what will happen when the walls that physically separate people come down, and when the forces that keep those walls erected leave."
Aamer Madhani (USA Today) speaks with Azher Amin, who is a steel fabricator in Iraq, and is told, "Right now, things in Iraq are 70% good and 30% bad, which is much better than it was just two years ago. But if the Americans leave too quickly, the siutation will reverse itself. I don't think anyone -- Iraqi or American -- believes realistically that by 2012 our army will be good enough to protect the people internally or to secure our borders."
NOW on PBS looks at the economy heading to Nevada where "the only public hospital in Las Vegas had to shut its doors to cancer patients and pregnant women." Dr. Howard Dean is a guest on the program. Washington Week also focuses on the economy and Gwen sits down with Jackie Calmes (New York Times), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), Alexis Simendinger (National Journal) and Pierre Thomas (ABC News). Bill Moyers Journal offers Socialist historian Mike Davis (who will hopefully speak of more than the economy), a segment billed as "American Dissidents: Against the Tide, From Thomas Paine to Ralph Nader" (and we may crucify this, Ava and I, on Sunday -- Ralph? Ralph whom Bill couldn't have on throughout 2008 when he was running for president?) and Marta Pelaez of Family Violence Prevention Services. Will Bill's commentary this week note the illegal war or will he be one more voice of silence? Tune in tonight. (Or catch it online -- transcript, audio and video are the options and Moyers' program is the only PBS one that strives to serve all segments online.)All three begin airing on most PBS stations tonight. Moving over to commercial broadcast TV, Sunday, on CBS' 60 Minutes:President ObamaThe president discusses the most pressing issues of his first two months in office, including the economy, the bailouts, his budget and America's involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Steve Kroft will talk to Barack Obama in the Oval Office for the interview, expected to be longer than any other he has granted.
Mr. Ayers And Mr. LopezDiscovered living on the streets by Los Angeles Times newspaper columnist Steve Lopez, mentally ill musician Nathaniel Ayers has become the subject of a book by Lopez and now a Hollywood film. Morley Safer reports. Watch Video
iraq
nigel morris
npr
the diane rehm show
karen deyoungthe washington post
heather lockwoodkristy kuhn
the seattle timeslara loganthe cbs evening news with katie couricthe newshourray suarez
iraq veterans against the warmilitary families speak outveterans for peacehayder al-khoeithe new york timesjennifer masciaanthony shadidthe washington postdenise davidsongregg zoroyahoward lafranchi
the center for constitutional rights
60 minutespbswashington weeknow on pbs
Trina: I want to start with Kristoffer Walker because of the fact that I think it's an important issue and I also want to be sure it's covered at my site. We don't have to go into great detail, I know Jim wants a piece at Third, but I do want it noted and noted at the start.
Rebecca: No problem, Trina. We're going to toss to Ava for the background.
Ava: Okay, Kristoffer Walker is a 28-year-old Iraq War veteran. He had attempted to get discharged through channels. He was ignored. He returned on a pass last month and declared that he would not be returning to Iraq. He stated the Iraq War was illegal and immoral. Upon returning home, he advised the military of his decision and saw his local Guard to see about duties he might be able to do but was cursed out there. The Associated Press covered his story and was the only national domestic news source to do so. That includes small media and I have to leave it at that on that because we will be addressing that at Third. This week he was back in the news. With the military threatening and -- my opinion -- little supoort, he decided to return to Iraq. He is still opposed to the illegal war and stands by his statements.
Mike: This really ticked off my mother, this topic.
Rebecca: Trina is Mike's mother.
Mike: Right, sorry. And he didn't get any support, Ava's right. Courage to Resist, for example, an organization that is supposed to get the word out on service members who resist, never mentioned him. We're talking weeks where he wasn't mentioned. Media ignored him. It was disgusting. And they ignored him after he announced his decision.
Wally: And to be really clear here, AP covered that and covered him. Other than them, he was covered by Wisconsin media. He was also covered by right-wing websites which slammed him repeatedly. Can I toss to you on that, Jim?
Jim: Sure. C.I. covered Kristoffer repeatedly at The Common Ills --
C.I.: Interrupting to note that Jim and Dona filled in for me the night of the Academy Awards and they covered it the night they filled in. That was the first time it was covered at The Common Ills. Credit where it's due.
Jim: Thank you. But C.I. covered it repeatedly. And because of that, the nasty e-mails came in. Dona and I help out with the e-mails at the public account for The Common Ills. There are others who help out like Jess, Martha, Shirley, Eli, Ava and C.I. But there were really disgusting e-mails. On Kristoffer Walker, on C.I. for covering Kristoffer. And they'd usually note, these nasty e-mails, what this right-wing web site said or that one said. To be clear, no right-wing blogger, that I know of, e-mailed to attack. But it was obvious that the right-wing was covering Kristoffer Walker and, as is their inclination, they were slamming him. So with no left defense, he was pretty much on his own.
Trina: There's a mother that writes me regularly. Her son self-checked out and has gone elsewhere, outside of the US, not to Canada, and is now engaged to a woman in that country. He's been 'underground' bascially this whole time and hopefully he'll be able to go above ground after the wedding. But, she wrote just outraged each week over the refusal by so many media outlets to cover Kristoffer Walker and she was especially outraged by the silence. As am I.
Rebecca: It really was something and I tossed to Ava because she could do background but nothing else. Ditto C.I. The reason is Jim wants a piece on it for Third and if we run out of time or can't get it to work when we're writing it, he wants Ava and C.I. to be prepared to grab it in their TV piece.
Jim: If I could add one more thing. A number of e-mails came into The Common Ills on KPFA and I am lobbying Ava and C.I. to do two features -- the second would be on KPFA's hideous performance this week that just played out like a "We do not deserve tax payer funding."
Rebecca: I agree that would be interesting. Let's turn to stop-loss. Isaiah hasn't spoken and said he wasn't sure how much help he'd be so let me toss to him to give us some background on stop-loss.
Isaiah: Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. You enlist and you sign a contract. Say for eight years. That would usually mean six years of service and two years inactive at the end of your contract. In many cases, when your contract was coming to an end for active duty service, you would be informed you had been stop-lossed. In other cases, your contract might be up. C.I. had this in the snapshot but pulled it because there wasn't enough room, the snapshot was too many K, but look at Camilo Mejia. His contract had completely expired. He was serving in Iraq and he was stop-lossed there.
Jim: If I could, I'll recommend Kimberly Peirce's Stop-Loss which was insulted by KPFA today, by two people, as C.I.'s pointed out in replies to e-mails complaining about Aimee and her guest's little stunt, who didn't know what they were talking about. I don't just mean about the film, I mean about stop-loss. They may get busted by C.I. and Ava and I'm pushing for that.
Elaine: I'll jump in because I know Ava and C.I. can't address this subjet -- in case they're covering it Sunday at Third. As C.I. pointed out in today's snapshot, Robert Gates has repeatedly said the army would work to eliminate stop-loss. It hasn't happened yet. Nor is he making a promise that will cease. The best, kicking out all qualifiers, is he can guarantee a few months will not utilize stop-loss. Thomas E. Ricks has also pointed out that when stop-loss is supposedly being phased out, Robert Gates is out of the job as Secretary of Defense so it will actually be the next Secretary of Defense that will be over it.
Trina: To me, it's still the same thing it always is which is Barack gets applauded for doing nothing. A vague announcement is made and everyone tosses aside the vagueness and cheers madly.
Wally: Exactly. You've got liars praising Barack for something that, if it happens, IF, will not happen until January 2010. This is insane. It's the lazy child theory that C.I.'s friend was talking about.
Trina: Exactly. You sit there and praise the lazy child for something they say they will do and then, because they got their praise, they avoid doing a damn thing. How about we start waiting to see what's happening, to see something implemented, see if it's done?
Mike: I will not say whether it is a sister or brother but I will say my mother knows of what she speaks. I have a sibling that you do not praise for what will be becuase if you do ___ will not do what ____ said they would.
Elaine: You can take it to a relationship as well -- a love relationship. Think of the guy you dated who never did a thing. Think of how he meant to get you flowers for Valentine's Day or he meant to take you out to eat on your birthday or whatever. That is one of the most common problems among women that I have seen in all my years of practice. I always advise the same thing, which is what Trina's advocating right now, don't praise. Don't say, "Oh, that's so nice that you were going to" whatever. They get that bit of nice and they don't care. This isn't all men. It's not Mike and it's probably 2% of the men I've been involved with. But I think probably 65% of women can tell you of at least one relationship they've had where this took place.
Ava: I would agree with that and include myself on that list; however, I'm not talking about Jess, I'm talking about before I was involved with Jess.
Rebecca: Okay. The sixth anniversary of the illegal was Thursday. Saturday actions take place. The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately. For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Rebecca (Con't): So that's Saturday afternoon. If you're not in one of the cities listed above that doesn't mean there's not an action in your area. I'm going to swipe this from C.I.'s snapshot today, "In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas. Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports 'the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth'." So that's another event and there will be events in most areas. I want to talk about the People's Mujahideen of Iran, though, right now. I know very little of them. I know C.I. was holding to give time for the issue to be addressed and I know they appeared in today's snapshot so I want to discuss them.
C.I.: Okay, they've been in Iraq for approximately 23 years. They are Iranians. After the Shah was overthrown, they were welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein who was not fond of Iran, to put it mildly. They have remained in Iraq all this time. Some countries see them as a terrorist organization. They have publicly renounced violence and the European Union decided not to list them as terrorists; however, the US continues to list them as such. That's more of a Bush era determination. I'm not saying that Barack's administration will change the listing -- or should -- I'm trying to make it clear as to what's going on. If there's a question, ask because I don't know how indepth we want to get on this?
Mike: Okay, Let me ask about the State Dept. I know this but for late comers.
Elaine: Let's back up a second. C.I. was asked by friends in the current administration not to write about this topic while they were attempting to deal with it. Right after the election, this became a huge problem in Iraq. And they were not in power, the new administration, and it was just a huge mess. C.I. agreed -- and this was noted at The Common Ills -- not to weigh in until February unless the refugees were attacked. You had Arianna's motley crue of uninformed bloggers weighing in at some point with alarmist posts that never include facts but make appeals to base emotions via 'creative' writing. C.I. stayed out of it until March. Until today. So let's start with why today?
C.I.: The Iraqi government made clear that they want the People's Mujahideen of Iran out of Iraq. They're asking for other countries to take them in. That means that it's an issue that has to be addressed now. Mike, you were asking about the State Dept?
Mike: Right. Talk about what was going on then and what's going on now.
C.I.: Well then was Bush. The State Dept knew the flare up was coming, the military knew it and was advising on it. They had months and months worth of heads up and they refused, the Bush White House, refused to address the situation. As Elaine pointed out, it finally flared up after the election and before Barack was sworn in. Even the flare up didn't prompt the Bush White House into action. A number of people at the State Department had prepared various options over the summer. The Bush administration wasn't interested then or at anytime else. I've even been told there was a certain glee over the fact that the flare up was taking place as the handover to Barack was about to take place.
Mike: Glee on the part of the Bush administration.
C.I.: Yes. Though not yet sworn in, this was one of the many foreign policy issues regarding Iraq that the Barack administration was discussing. They have various ideas and I have no idea which one they're getting behind but they are going to have to do something now that Iraq's government is saying the refugees have to leave. And "they are going to have to do something now" is not my attempting that they have dragged their feet. This is a very complicated issue and the US military has been able to protect the refugee camp. But that can't go on forever and it's not fair to the US military because the surrounding areas want the refugees out so it's only antagonizing relationships in that area, it's only builidng up ill will for US forces. So the refugees are in danger, al-Maliki wants them out and the US forces are risking garnering more animosity for protecting the Iranian refugees. For those three reasons, something has to be done. Now, one thing that can be done, is to talk to Nouri al-Maliki and make it clear that he needs to back off. If that happens, there may be more time to address the situation. But by sending out his spokespeople to make the announcement and with Iran's reaction -- they want the Iranian refugees out of the region -- not just out of Iraq -- unless they're going to be able to try them. So by sending out his spokespeople and with Iran's public reaction,the stakes got raised and in many ways it's worse than when the violence was more intense a few weeks ago, violence aimed at the refugees.
Mike: So what do you think will be done or what you guess will be done?
C.I.: I have no idea. I believe several options are being worked right now with the hopes that traction will start on one of them. If you want my opinion on what the Barack administration would prefer right now, it would be getting al-Maliki to cool down and back off the they-must-leave talk. Doing that would allow more time for the US to go into talks with other countries about accepting the refugees.
Wally: Can the refugees come here?
C.I.: Children and women, possibly. Not likely. But possibly. That was the opinion of State -- career employees -- under the previous administration and they continue to think maybe. But it's a weaker maybe now because Bush, as a Republican, might have been able to sell it to Congressional Republicans. Democrats might not like it but, out of humanitarian desires, might have allowed it. But Barack's a Democrat. He really can't propose that they come over and not expect major objections from the Republicans. They are still considered a terrorist group, that's how the US lists them. So it's very unlikely that under Barack, any could come to the US. The Republican reaction would most likely be to take the floor and denounce this admission of 'terrorists.' I'm not saying they're terrorists, I'm not saying they're not. They are refugees. I don't think that can be debated. It also can't be debated that the US has classified them as terrorists because that is the classification. So I don't see them coming here. Not in the current climate. You would have Republicans going on TV, they would make this Guantanamo issue. With Guantanamo, the talking point -- the Republican talking point is, "These are terrorists! Barack's making us unsafe!" Forget the fact that nothing's been closed and no one's been set free. But that's the talking point. They would combine that if the People's Mujahideen of Iran were allowed -- even in part -- to come to the US. They would tie it together and go to town on it. So, my opinion, it's not likely.
Wally: You're not taking an opinion on whether they're terrorists or not?
C.I.: No. I'm not disputing that they are classifed as such by the US government. But I'm not making a call on whether that's appropriate or not. That's me. Anyone in the community that wants to make a call one way or the other is welcome to do so.
Trina: You made a point in the snapshot that needs to be repeated here. This needs to be dealt with now while US forces are on the ground. Talk about that.
C.I.: The US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees alive. There is tremendous ill will towards them in the region their camp is. A small drawdown of approximately 10,000 US forces are supposed to take place between now and December 31st. If violence flares up before or after or if al-Maliki needs US forces for another assault on Basra, you're putting the refugees at risk. Ideally, before any drawdown begins, this should be taken care of because its been ignored and ignored. And Iraq's now made a decision. That decision is the Iranian refugees leave. The US nees to faciliate that.
Trina: And you're not saying that US forces should remain for a longer period or anything like that.
C.I.: No. I'm saying the issue has been pushed by al-Maliki and has to be dealt with, that the US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees safe and that the issue of their departure now has to be managed. The only thing that would change that would be al-Maliki backing off.
Ava: And if he did, he wouldn't be trust worthy. He's blown that with the US. They're very wary of what he might do in the lead up to the planned December elections.
Rebecca: Good point. I think we're going to wrap up. I'm going to let Isaiah and Trina give some closing thoughts or a topic we didn't grab that the might want to now.
Isaiah: Trina's nodding to me so I'll just say I can't believe what's going on. I can't believe how little attention the sixth anniversary of the start of the illegal war has received this week. I really think that if the left doesn't get over their infatuation with Barack real quick this country's going to be in huge trouble.
Trina: I would agree with Isaiah. Daniel Ellsberg has been pointing out that the illegal war is not ending and he is being ignored. Outlets that couldn't miss a word he said when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House now work overtime to ignore him. It's very telling and very sad. I would encourage everyone to get active tomorrow.
Rebecca: Well said. Thank you to everyone for participating. We're going to wind down now. I can tell you that three topics discussed will be pulled by Jim because he wants them covered at Third.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:
Friday, March 20, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, an Abu Ghraib lawsuit can proceed, media coverage of the sixth anniversary is sparse (but out there if you hunt), things heat up in England, and more.
"It is now six years since we went into Iraq," writes Rose Gentle (UK's Military Families Against The War). "On June 28th it will be five years to the day since I lost my boy. It's a day I can't get away from. I can remember watching the news when it said that a British soldier had been killed. I looked at the TV and saw the body of a boy on the ground. No, it can't be Gordon, I thought, as I would have been told by now. But it was. Four hour later I was told it was Gordon." Gordon Gentle died June 28, 2004 at the age of 19, in a Basra roadside bombing. Rose Gentle concludes, "One day we will know why we went there and we can all make up our own minds. But as a mum I have to know now." Rose Gentle is not the only one asking for answers. Nigel Morris (Independent of London) reports Carne Ross ("formerly Britain's top Iraq specialist at the United Nations) joined the cry "for a full public inquiry into the war" yesterday. The BBC informs that Brian Jones ("former senior defense intelligence expert") "also made the case for a public inquiry and shared that before the illegal war started he had already complained about the false claims the Tony Blair government was pushing such as Iraq's supposed WMDs. Monday Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reported 72% of respondents in a new BBC survey support an inquiry into the Iraq War. BBC explained that the 18-24 years-old group supports an inquiry by 81%. Last week, government e-mails from the period leading up to the illegal war were released demonstrating that the case Tony Blair was making for war was not valid and that these bogus claims were called out by intelligence experts.
The release of those e-mails followed the February 26th declarations made by John Hutton, UK Sec of Defense, on the floor of the House of Commons:
During the final stages of the review of records of detentions, we found information about one case relating to a security operation that was conducted in February 2004, a period which honorable members I'm sure will recall saw an increased level of insurgent activity as the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty drew closer. During this operation, two individuals were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad. They were transferred to US detention in accordance with normal practice and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan. This information was brought to my attention on the first of December, 2008. And I instructed officials to investigate this case thoroughly and quickly so I could bring a full account to Parliament. Following consultations with US authorities we confirmed that they transferred these two individuals from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2004 and they remain in custody there today. I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department. I want to stress however that this was based upon the information available to ministers and those who were briefing them at the time. My predecessors as secretaries of state for defense have confirmed to me that they had no knowledge of these events. I have written to the honorable members concerned, correcting the record, and am placing a copy of these letters also in the library of the house. And again, Madame Deputy Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for these errors. The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Laskar-e-Taiba, a proscribed organization with links to al Qaeda. The US government has explained to us that they were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq. The US has categorized them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis. We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross has had regular access to the detainees. A due diligence search by the US officials of the list of all those individuals captured by UK forces and transferred to US detention facilities in Iraq has confirmed that this was the only case in which individuals were subsequently transferred outside of Iraq. This review has established that officials were aware of this transfer in early 2004. It has also shown that brief references to this case were included in lengthy papers that went to then-Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary in April 2006. It is clear that the context provided did not highlight the significance at that point to my right honorable friends. In retrospect, it is clear to me that the transfer to Afghanistan of these two individuals should have been questioned at the time. We have discussed the issues surrounding this case with the US government and they have reassured us about their treatment but confirmed that, as they continue to represent significant security concerns, it is neither possible or desirable to transfer them to either their country of detention or their country of origin.
There has been no oversight or accountability with the illegal war. As this has continued to be the case, public outraged has boiled resulting in the large majority who want a full and public inquiry into the Iraq War. Gordon Gentle is one of 179 British soldiers who have died in the illegal war.
This morning, USA Today's Susan Page filled in as host on The Diane Rehm Show. Iraq was brought up in the second hour and the discussion included:
Susan Page: Yesterday was the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and it's interesting that looking for what stories might be on the front page today they deal more with the politics in Iraq than with the war and violence. I wonder, Michael Hirsh, at this moment, do we see the war actually coming to an end?
Michael Hirsh (Newsweek): Well I don't know if I would go quite that far but, um, but the Washington Post [click here for Anthony Shadid article Hirsh is referring to] did have did have an excellent piece on the front page this morning, summing up how new coalitions seem to be forming, cutting across sectarian lines with Prime Minister Maliki bringing some important Sunni politicians onto his side. And uh that -- it's remarkable the amount of progress that has occured.
Karen DeYoung (Washington Post): I think that it's not that it's how much violence can be -- is tolerable. You had Prime Minister Maliki last week in an interview coming back from Australia saying that he expected to ask the American troops to stay in certain places even after combat troops were supposed to withdraw and I would presume that would be around Mosul where al Qaeda is - has withdrawn too. Perhaps in Diyala. Places where you still see a relatively high level of violence. But I think the question of "Is the war over or not?" it depends on what is toleratable level and that obviously is relative to what was clearly an intolerable level before.
Yochi Dreazen (Wall St. Journal): You know statistics obviously lie and are deceptive but there are some that are really striking. One that sticks out in my mind that pertains to this is the casulty level in January. The number of troops who died in Iraq was smaller signficantly than who died in Afghanistan but also smaller significantly, unfortunately, than the number who committed suicide. So six years in, you not only have Afghanistan outstripping it but in some months military suicide outstrips the death toll in Iraq which when you think about where we were a year ago, two years ago, is a staggering change.
What? The suicide rate did not hold steady, it has climbed and climbed to the point that it is now a crisis as was admitted this week in the Congressional hearing. Yochi's first sentence sounds like the clue that he's about to use statistics that are deceptive. They also go to the fact that journalists are not social scientists and are not trained in much more than note taking. You need months and months to track a pattern. What Yochi is 'observing' may or may not be pattern. It may be a blip. But no social scientist would call it a pattern at this point. Only a general studies major would. Yochi can take comfort in the fact that something else happened that was so jaw droppingly appalling, his own sleight-of-hand with the numbers probably faded from memory quickly.
Susan Page: Talk about the treatment of US soldiers this week we had an important announcement by the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about a committment to phase out this policy of stop-loss that is so controversial. Michael Hersh tell us exactly what stop-loss is?
Michael Hirsh: Well that was a program the Bush administration put in place to extend the deployments of US soldiers beyond uh there alotted one year, two years and, uh, Gates in announcing the end of this described it basically as you know as a breach of the understanding the Defense Department had with its troops. During the worst years of the Iraqi insurgency from 2004, [200]5, [200]6 and [200]7 say, through that period there were, there were a lot of concerns that you might be gutting the army, that the career officers, particularly NCOs, non-coms, would start to leave because they were being asked to do more than they had in the past which was to do -- string together three overseas deployments in a row. So Gates is putting a stop to that and he's able to do it because of this draw down plan and because of the increased stability of the country.
Suddenly everyone else looks like a genius. Note to Hirsh, it is perfectly acceptable to use the sentence, "I don't know." In fact, that sentence is preferrable to, "Let me b.s. my way through an answer over the airwaves." This has nothing to do with three overseas deployments in a row. In its earliest usage in the Iraq War (and it predates George W. Bush which Hirsh also seems unaware of), it was used not to bring troops back into a theater of war but to keep them there. Camilo Mejia was in the earliest group of soldiers stop-lossed. The 'war' on 'terror' 'required' he be stop-lossed for over ten years. (That wasn't legal in any way with Camilo's case. Many issues applied and even a court that upheld stop-loss would have to address how it did not cover Camilo.) Camilo was in Iraq when he was stop-lossed. He was not home and deployed to Iraq. Where Hirsh is getting his 'information' is something only he can answer. He appears to either be pulling it out of thin air or his butt. We could continue to correct him but the program did self-correcting while broadcasting. Susan would note later in the hour (this is the second hour of today's show and about 14 minutes in) that they had gotten twitters and e-mails and she would ask Yochi Dreazen to explain stop-loss. He would note it came about after Vietnam, used in "the first Gulf War but not to the degree that it was used in the Iraq War. What it means is when you commit to serve in the US army, you typically committ to do a five or six year committment [of active service, C.I. note] so if you go in 18 you would serve out until you're 24 and then you could do whatever you wanted to do, re-enlist or leave. What stop loss does is it prevents you from leaving. So if you want to leave the Army, if you want to leave the Marine Corps, you can't the Army can keep you in some what indefinately though typically it's been six months to a year of extra service And what that means is if you want to get out of the army, you've done two tours in Iraq, your marriage is falling apart, whatever the issue, you can't do it. This is the policy John Kerry described in 2004 as a backdoor draft. because it forces you to serve when you don't want to serve." Susan Page would then note, "Secretary Gates didn't say that there would be absolutely no one effected by stop-loss but that he would restrict the number that get caught in this."
Thank you, Susan Page. All week long we've heard these lies of stop-loss is ending! It's over! Not really. Let's go first to the official announcement from the Defense Dept:
The Department of Defense announced today a comprehensive plan to eliminate the current use of Stop Loss, while retaining the authority for future use under extraordinary circumstances. This is an important step along the path in adapting the Army into an expeditionary force.
The Army Reserve and Army National Guard will mobilize units without employing Stop Loss beginning in August and September 2009, respectively. The Regular (active duty) Army will deploy its first unit without Stop Loss by January 2010.
For soldiers Stop Lossed during fiscal 2009, the department will provide a monthly payment of $500. Until the department is able to eliminate Stop Loss altogether, this payment will serve as an interim measure to help mitigate its effects.
"Stop Loss disrupts the plans of those who have served their intended obligation. As such, it is employed only when necessary to ensure minimal staffing in deploying units, when needed to ensure safe and effective unit performance," said Bill Carr, deputy under secretary of defense for military personnel policy. "It is more easily rationalized in the early stages of conflict when events are most dynamic; but tempo changes in this war have frustrated our efforts to end it altogether."
The department intends to provide Stop Loss Special Pay to eligible service members until the point of separation or retirement, to include that time spent on active duty in recovery following redeployment. Stop Loss Special Pay will begin on the date of implementation, and will take effect for those impacted on or after Oct. 1, 2008.
Stop Loss Special Pay implements the authority granted by Section 8116 of the "Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriation Act, 2009." The appropriation is available to secretaries of the military departments only to provide Special Pay during fiscal 2009.
That's Wednesday March 18th. Now let's go to what Gates said exactly about stop-loss.
Secretary Gates: Good afternoon. Today I have three major announcements to make. First, since assuming this position, I've wanted to dramatically reduce the number of soldiers who are stop-lossed. As of the end of January, there were 13,200 soldiers in stop-loss. I am pleased to announce that I have approved a plan to eliminate the use of stop-loss for deploying soldiers. Effective this August, the US Army Reserve will no longer mobilize units under stop-loss; the Army National Guard will stop doing so in September, and active Army units will cease deplying with stop-loss starting next January. Our goal is to cut the number of those stop-lossed by 50 percent by June 2010 and to eliminate the regular use of stop-loss across the entire Army by March 2011. We will retain the authority to use stop-loss under extraordinary circumstances.
And the legal definition of "extraordinary circumstances"? Thus far the courts have held that the answer to that is "the US military says so." So don't expect any end to stop-loss. We noted this nonsense Wednesday and assumed people had followed the story. Few could even get their facts right. So let's walk this through slowly. Jeff Schogol (Stars and Stripes) reported Jan. 27, 2007: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates has instructed all branches of the service to minimize the controversial 'stop-loss' program, under which U.S. troops can be involuntarily kept in the service for deployments." And how was this minimize wish (the same thing the Defense Dept wants now) received in the press? Roxana Tiron (The Hill) filed "Pentagon cuts stop-loss" January 25, 2007. What actually happened was that stop-loss was accelerated. But, hey, the headlines were so pleasing who bothered to count the numbers? Pauline Jelinek (AP) reported at that time (January 29, 2007): "Gates has asked the chief of each service branch for a plan by the end of February on how they would rely less on stop loss." I could be wrong on this but my understanding was that it was only the Army that was utilizing stop-loss -- only the army beginning in 2003. Other branches have used it since Vietnam but I'm referring to its current incarnation. Gates comments Wednesday applied only to the Army. If other branches are using it (I don't believe they are currently), Gates' speech wouldn't cover those branches.
On WAMU's Metro today, the issue of dignified transfer was addressed. David Furst explained "a new Pentagon policy allows news organizations to photograph the homecomings of fallen service members -- if families agree." He further noted that Gates declared (Wednesday) that arrangements would be made for families who wanted to be present. Kavitha Cardoza spoke with four Marines who received the fallen and their feelings were that they were a part of something honorable. General requirements include that they need to be physically fit and approximately the same height (within four inches) and training is eight hours a week. A phone call alerts them when a dignified transfer will be taking place and they report. They spoke of the process which for them includes reporting not knowing who will be arriving at Dover, walking up and seeing the coffins "on the side of the plane lined up, metal caskets with a flag over it . . . in person it's different," there's a prayer and the coffins are transferred with the Army going first. Cardoza then spoke with Furst about details she observed about the Marines handling the transfer:
". . . they were so young, you know, they just had baby faces. There was one -one man actually , he was 19. And we were interrupted a few times talking, so I lost my train of thought. And so I said, 'Where was I?' And he started laughing and said, 'Ma'am, you were telling me how young I looked'."
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Divsion- Center Soldier died March 19 from non-combat related causes. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4260 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Another death and on the sixth anniversary. This as the Seattle Times reports that next month there will be ceremonies for South Dakota's Army National Guard's 300 members who are deploying to Iraq ("for a year"). No, the Iraq War has not ended. No, the US service members have not all come home.
Saturday, those wanting to call out the illegal war can join with groups such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately. For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas. Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports "the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth". Kristy Kuhn (Deseret News) reports that Iraq War veterans spoke out at Salt Lake Main Library yesterday where the message was that the US is occupying Iraq and doing so for profit -- no liberation involved. Jeff Key is quoted stating, "People are getting extraordinarily rich off the blood of the soldiers." Heather Lockwood (Scripps Howard Foundation Wire) reports DC Students for a Democratic Society (DC chapter of SDS) protested last night with "loud funk music" and quotes Lehana Penaramda stating, "Basically the message is war is a waste of our youth." That was yesterday (and there were many other events) but on Wednesday the Grannies Peace Brigade stood up against the Iraq War with a demonstration in NYC. They explain what happened:
PEACE GRANNIES ARRESTED IN TIMES SQUARE WEDNESDAY, OCT. 18 Relax, everyone! The New York City police are solidly on the job these days. With rapists, murderers, bank robbers and dope peddlers, not to mention corporate thieves, rampant throughout the City, they made a significant dent in the crime statistics yesterday, March 18, when they arrested seven grandmothers aged 67 to 90 in Times Square. The grannies, all members of the Granny Peace Brigade, were sent to jail while protesting at the Times Square recruiting station. Their arrest occurred during what is believed to be the first antiwar protest of the Obama Administration, in an attempt to urge the President to reconsider his decision to retain 50,000 troops in Iraq after the official withdrawal scheduled to be completed in the next 18 months and his order for 17,000 more troops sent to Afghanistan. The women feel strongly that these measures will only result in increased death and destruction for Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis and further solidify anti-American feeling throughout the world. Said 94-year-old Brigadier Marie Runyon, "Peace can only be achieved through diplomacy and humanitarian aid." The Granny Peace Brigade women are mostly strong supporters of Barack Obama but were responding to his request that his constituency pressure him to do the right thing when they feel he is on the wrong path. The Brigade is not new to demonstrating at the Times Square recruiting station -- eighteen of the grannies were arrested and jailed on Oct. 17, 2005, when they attempted to enlist in the military to replace America's grandchildren in harm's way in Iraq. After a six-day trial in criminal court, they were acquitted.The seven grannies were arrested at approximately 1:45 p.m. and taken to the Midtown South police precinct. They were not all released until early the next morning, a total of approximately 12 hours. Some of them became shaky and weak after many hours of not eating, but were given no food for another hour and a half. Prior to the arrest, about 50 grannies and their supporters gathered on Military Island at which a press conference was held including speeches by mayoral candidate Rev. Billy, legendary Broadway actress and activist Vinie Burrows (one of the original 18 granny jailbirds), and a young member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Matthis Chiroux. A sister group, the Raging Grannies, performed some of their original anti-war songs. During the press conference, grandmothers wrapped yellow police crime scene tape around the ramp near the recruiting center, after which a group, some in wheelchairs and hanging on to walkers, assembled on the ramp leading to the center. The team of Norman Siegel and Earl Ward, who successfully defended the grannies in 2005, will represent them in their current case, for which the grandmothers are profoundly grateful. Siegel, currently a candidate for New York City Public Advocate, is a favorite of the ladies for his continuous support of them.
Matthis also took part in an action in NYC yesterday. Jennifer Mascia and Jason Grant (NYT online) quote him explaining, "Obama's policies just confirmed to me that the president may hvae changed, but the war is the same. Just because we have a black president now, doesn't mean that we don't have a racist war."
Meanwhile, in Iraq, the illegal war has created a refugee crisis number over four million internal and external refugees. That estimate does not include a group of Iranian refugees who have been in Iraq since long before the start of the illegal war. Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reports that these refugees, the People's Mujahideen of Iran, find themselves unwelcomed by the new Shi'ite controlled government "which has mostly warm times with neighbouring Shi'ite Iran" and that al-Maliki's government is now asking that other countreis take them in, "Human rights groups say forcing the 3,500 PMOI members out of their base at Camp Ashraf in northeastern Iraq would violate international law." Iran's Press TV notes, "Iran has long called for the expulsion of MKO members from their headquarters and training center, Camp Ashraf, in Iraq. Tehran says the members of the group who do not have blood on their hands are allowed to return home but others have to stand trial in Iran." Meanwhile, in England, a protest is taking place. Aidan Jones (London Informer) reports that the country's Iraqi Embassy is the site of a protest by exiles in England who are calling for the refugee camp in Iraq to remain open. One protestor, Fatemeh, is quoted stating, "The Iraqis say they want to close the camp. If they close it thousands of people will be sent back to Iran where they will certainly face jail, if not death because the government there sees them as traitors." Al Arabiya News adds, "In 2001 the group renounced violence paving the way for the European Court of First Instance to rule in Dec. 12, 2006 against the inclusion of PMOI on the European Union's 'terrorist list'." At present, the US lists the group as a terrorist organization. The listing may or may not change under the Barack Obama administration. At present, these refugees have been protected by US forces. Actions taken in the last year (especially at the end of the year) have made it clear that without US protection, the refugee camp would have turned into a slaughterhouse. Whether or countries will take them in or not, the issue must be addressed while the US is present. Most issues should (my opinion) be decided by Iraqis because it is their country. The decisions of their puppet government and of the ones launching attacks on the camp are the Iranian refugees must go. The US (and the State Dept knows this) must faciliate the next moves because the US military has been the only thing keeping the refugees alive. The George W. Bush administration allowed this situation to fester and refused to address it. It exploded after the 2008 election and Barack Obama's administration has been attempting to figure out viable options to address the safety concerns of these refugees. This is a problem that was dumped on the current administration. I am not a rescuer of Barack Obama. I have no problem holding him or his administration accountable. However, this is a problem that the State Dept was aware was boiling and about to explode and they were aware of that as early as June of last year. The then-administration refused to deal with it even when it was raised in talks about the Status Of Forces Agreement and the Security Agreement all last year and two months of 2007. They knew this was going to explode and it did after the election. It did not concern them and they did nothing -- not even casual exchanges -- on this issue.
The previous US administration also did a hideous job of assisting external Iraqi refugees. That includes limiting the target numbers of Iraqi refugees who could be admitted to this country to a tiny, insulting number and still being unable to meet that target most years. Whether the current administration will do better on admitting Iraqi refugees to the US or not is an unknown at this point. (And if they stick to fiscal year figures, as the Bush administration did, they will be stuck with October, November and December of 2008 when Barack was not in the White House.) What is known is that today the US State Dept announced that for 2009 fiscal year, $141 million dollars are being added to the $9 million already promised. The State Dept states the money will go to funding:
continued provision of emergency relief supplies to the most vulnerable Iraqis;
rehabilitation of water systems for internally displaced persons and local communities in Iraq;
informal education activities for Iraqi students unable to attend public schools in Jordan and Syria;
school reconstruction to support the influx of Iraqi students into Syrian public schools;
mental health services for displaced Iraqis;
repairs to clinics in Iraq, including donation of medical equipment; and
mobile health units for Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria.
The bulk of the money is to go to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In May of last year, UNHCR noted they were $127 million short on money needed to assist the internal and external Iraqi refugees.
Today Xinhua reports that the US bombed homes in Diyala Province last night and killed at least "13 suspected militants". Turning to other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings which left three people wounded and a suicide bomber in Anbar Province who apparently "tried to attack Sheikh Hasnawi Efan" -- he was shot dead by police but a grenade the bomber tossed claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more wounded. Reuters notes Thursday events -- "fierces clashes" in which the 10 people were shot dead in Baquba and a Ramadi roadside bombing which left three people injured.
In legal news, Bill Mears (CNN) reports that US District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has allowed a lawsuit against CACI over the torture at Abu Ghraib with 4 Iraqis stating that contractors took part in the torture "subjected them to beatings and mental abuse, then destroyed documents and video evidence and later misled officials about what was happening inside the facility." The Center for Constitutional Rights notes:
The plaintiffs are Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, Sa'ad Hamza Hantoosh AI-Zuba'e and Salah Hasan Usaif Jasim Al-Ejaili – all of whom are Iraqi citizens who were released from Abu Ghraib between 2004 and 2008 without being charged with any crime.
The former detainees are represented by attorneys Susan L. Burke, William T. O'Neil and William F. Gould of Burke O'Neil LLC, of Washington, D.C.; Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC, of Troy, Mich.
The lawsuit alleges that the CACI defendants not only participated in physical and mental abuse of the detainees, but also destroyed documents, videos and photographs; prevented the reporting of the torture and abuse to the International Committee of the Red Cross; hid detainees and other prisoners from the International Committee of the Red Cross; and misled non-conspiring military and government officials about the state of affairs at the Iraq prisons.
The sixth anniversary took place and where was the coverage? Reduced to a daily headline by Amy Goodman. (No, I haven't forgotten her, Ava and I address Pravda on the Hudson this weekend.) Some did file reports yesterday. "It's so deadly now for U.S. troops," Lara Logan reported on The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric yesterday (link has video and text), "that even rebuilding work has to be done at night. U.S. engineers work in the dark to repair a bridge that was blown up by terrorists." She was reporting from Mosul and, no, that doesn't sound like the Iraq War is ending. But that report didn't make it on ABC or NBC so those watching their evening broadcasts were fed 'comfort food' passed off as news. That was only one of the disturbing bits of reality Logan offered. Another was this, "What you can't see in Mosul are the Iraqi soldiers who captured the suspect and then handed him over to their U.S. counterparts. They asked not to be identified, for fear of being killed." The Iraqi soldiers are scared to be seen on camera. For fear of being killed.And the spin is supposed to be "Iraq War Over, Rejoice!" It's an important report and Mosul overtook Baghdad for violence last year though few bothered to notice. (That does not mean things turned to milk & honey in Baghdad. It means Mosul grew ever more violent.) Along with CBS Evening News, the only other broadcast news to offer Iraq coverage was PBS. The NewsHour's Ray Suarez moderated an Iraq roundtable (link has text and audio):
RAY SUAREZ: Let's go to some of our viewer questions. Armeney writes from Okemos, Mich.: "What's the probability that Shiite-Sunni strains will reemerge when the Americans downsize their forces? Will al-Qaeda in Iraq prey upon Sunni discontent to strike back at the Shiite government?" Ambassador, why don't you take that first? FEISTAL ISTRABADI: Well, I mean, you know, this of course is the $64,000 question. I don't think any serious observer of the Iraqi security and armed forces believe that they're going to be ready in June of this year or by the end of next year to provide security in Iraq. And what happens when the Americans withdraw? If I can comment on what was said a moment ago about Maliki taking on the militias in Basra; what he has done is taken on the Jaish al-Mahdi, the Sadrists - what we often call the Sadrist militia in Basra and in Baghdad. He has not yet taken on the militia of his principal coalition partner, in Baghdad, that is to say the militia of the Supreme Council - the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr brigade. And it's not clear that he can because much of the security forces are in the hands of the Badr brigade militia hierarchy. So we don't really have a taking on of militias in Iraq. What we have is a choosing of which militias are going to be in ascendancy in Iraq. And this is a real problem.When American forces start to withdraw, if you still have several militias intact, which can get back to the business of slaughtering the other side's civilians, which is what we had in 2006 and 2007 - and that's my real fear for the future of Iraq in the immediate post-withdrawal. For the record, disarming the militias? Also a benchmark. For those playing on the home editions, that would be benchmark seven (disarming) and benchmark thirteen was ensuring that the militias do not have "control of local security." And these benchmarks? They are not supposed to be 'near' them today. The 'surge' was done to create the political space for the 18 benchmarks to be achieved. All of the 18 were supposed to have been achieved before January 1st. They were not. That is why the 'surge' was a failure.
Others reporting on the Iraq War included Denise Davidson (San Diego Union-Tribune) who offered "Iraq War milestones" and Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports an 11.2% rate of unemployment "for veterans who served in Iraq and and Afghanistan and who are 18 and older" which may impact the Army's current re-enlistment goal have reached 152%. Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) spoke with three people about the Iraq War, we'll note this section:
When Ms. Naar-Obed returned from Iraq in 2004, she brought with her news that would shake America and the world -- reports from Iraqis of abuse in the US detention facility in Abu Ghraib. "My hope was that whatever pressure I could bring to bear, either [in Iraq] or by speaking out about it when I was back home, would help put an end to the abuses we were hearing about," says Naar-Obed, who has spent several months of every year since 2002 in Iraq. Once again in Iraq, Naar-Obed is impressed not by any progress she sees, but by the challenges Iraq still faces. Iraq's sectarian tensions eased when ethnic cleansing led to migration and segregation. But the underlying tensions among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds remain. "There may be a current marked reduction in violent acts [because of the new segregation of sectarian populations], but there has been little in the way of political or personal reconciliation," she says by phone and e-mail. Currently in the Kurdish north, she says she senses "great fear and concern about what will happen when the walls that physically separate people come down, and when the forces that keep those walls erected leave."
Aamer Madhani (USA Today) speaks with Azher Amin, who is a steel fabricator in Iraq, and is told, "Right now, things in Iraq are 70% good and 30% bad, which is much better than it was just two years ago. But if the Americans leave too quickly, the siutation will reverse itself. I don't think anyone -- Iraqi or American -- believes realistically that by 2012 our army will be good enough to protect the people internally or to secure our borders."
NOW on PBS looks at the economy heading to Nevada where "the only public hospital in Las Vegas had to shut its doors to cancer patients and pregnant women." Dr. Howard Dean is a guest on the program. Washington Week also focuses on the economy and Gwen sits down with Jackie Calmes (New York Times), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), Alexis Simendinger (National Journal) and Pierre Thomas (ABC News). Bill Moyers Journal offers Socialist historian Mike Davis (who will hopefully speak of more than the economy), a segment billed as "American Dissidents: Against the Tide, From Thomas Paine to Ralph Nader" (and we may crucify this, Ava and I, on Sunday -- Ralph? Ralph whom Bill couldn't have on throughout 2008 when he was running for president?) and Marta Pelaez of Family Violence Prevention Services. Will Bill's commentary this week note the illegal war or will he be one more voice of silence? Tune in tonight. (Or catch it online -- transcript, audio and video are the options and Moyers' program is the only PBS one that strives to serve all segments online.)All three begin airing on most PBS stations tonight. Moving over to commercial broadcast TV, Sunday, on CBS' 60 Minutes:President ObamaThe president discusses the most pressing issues of his first two months in office, including the economy, the bailouts, his budget and America's involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Steve Kroft will talk to Barack Obama in the Oval Office for the interview, expected to be longer than any other he has granted.
Mr. Ayers And Mr. LopezDiscovered living on the streets by Los Angeles Times newspaper columnist Steve Lopez, mentally ill musician Nathaniel Ayers has become the subject of a book by Lopez and now a Hollywood film. Morley Safer reports. Watch Video
iraq
nigel morris
npr
the diane rehm show
karen deyoungthe washington post
heather lockwoodkristy kuhn
the seattle timeslara loganthe cbs evening news with katie couricthe newshourray suarez
iraq veterans against the warmilitary families speak outveterans for peacehayder al-khoeithe new york timesjennifer masciaanthony shadidthe washington postdenise davidsongregg zoroyahoward lafranchi
the center for constitutional rights
60 minutespbswashington weeknow on pbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)