The Common Ills: 2007

Monday, December 31, 2007

Iraq snapshot

Monday, December 31, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, 2007 winds down, and the illegal war? Hit it, Donovan, and the war drags on.

"I went in for financial reasons, I wanted to attend college but couldn't," Ghanim Khalil explains to Courage to Resist in an audio interview. Khalil joined up in the 90s and was in IRR before switching over to the reserves.

Ghanim Khalil: In February 2003, I had contacted Citizen Soldier. The director is Todd Ensign. He's someone who's been working with military people and vets for a long time and between me and him we thought the best option was for me to have a press conference because I tried to solve it in the military You know -- I went to my chaplain, I went to my staff N.C.O.s. and the best thing, the most safest thing for me, and I really, really care about the principles here, the safest thing for me was to have a press conference to let the military know how I feel, to let people -- the American people -- know how a soldier feels -- how a former Marine feels, and then see what happens from there. And that's why I held a press conference because I thought I can't keep silent and I knew the war was going to happen. I wasn't one of those people who thought, you know, maybe this thing is going to go away, that diplomacy was going to win out, I knew the war was going to happen because the war had started six months prior before with the bombardment had already started -- and people knew that -- and so that's what led up to the press conference and the press conference is where I said, you know, 'These are my reasons 1-2-3, A-B-C why I think this war is illegal and immoral and I don't want to be a part of it. I think it's unconstitutional.' That's why I had the press conference.

The press conference was held before a rally at the United Nations February 15th with Khalil declaring, "I have objections to this war. I believe that this war is for material gain. I believe that this war will lead to security problems for the American people and that our children will be endangered in the future." At the rally itself, he declared, "Today, I am in a position to make a difference or remain silent. Will I participate in a war which could lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian dead, endanger the safety of the American people and create chaos in the Middle East, all to benefit a few powerful and wealthy people? This war will spread hatred between America and the Muslim world. It is the duty of educated groups on both sides to put down our masks and weapons, so that there can be a dialogue -- not a clash -- of civilizations. Today, I'm making my choice and it's to make a difference."

Khalil discussed his book Contemplating Dissent: Why Saying No To The War In Iraq Was The Right thing To Do From a Muslim Perspective. The book is currently not available at Courage to Resist; however, added to the books, DVDs, postcards and clothing they do offer is Michelle Mason's must-see documentary Breaking Ranks featuring war resisters in Canada. And on that topic . . .

On November 15th, the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey? Does he even care? Judging by his column, the answer is no. An over hyped voice of the 'left' gives the greatest gift of all in 2007: The reality of how little the alleged 'left' cares about ending the illegal war. (Give to the DNC! Give to two presidential candidates who refuse to promise, that if elected in 2008, they would pull out the troops by 2013!) That just about sums it all up. In the real world, the Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.

Iraq War resister Ehren Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the illegal war (June 2006). Phil Tajitsu Nash (Asian Week) mentions Watada and others (such as US House Rep Mike Honda) as he selects his choice for APA Person of the Year (attorney Michael Yaki who currently sits on the US Commission on Civil Rights). Meanwhile videographer Joseph La Sac cites Watada to Stacey Mulick (Tacoma's The News Tribune) who notes that "while filming at a rally related to Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, two military police officers told La Sac that he had to erase footage of military police and the gate at Fort Lewis. Not knowing any better, La Sac said he compiled. 'It's just heightened my awareness and other people's awareness regarding issues of freedom of the press,' La Sac, now a senior at the University of Puget Sound, said last week." La Sac now carries a card listing "the rights of photographers".

Watada went public in June of 2006. In August 2006, an Article 32 hearing was held. Following that it was stated that the military intended to court-martial Watada. The court-martial took place in February 2007. At that point, Watada's service was up (December 2006) but the military was keeping him to court-martial him. The Feb. court-martial was presided over by Judge Toilet (John Head) who refused to allow Watada to present a defense (not being allowed to explain motive is being refused a defense) and who, in the end, refused to obey the Constitution. On Monday, February 5th, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense.Over defense objection, Judge Toilet ruled a mistrial thus ending the court-martial. In doing so, the legal reading should be Watada walks. Double-jeopardy should take care of that.

Judge Toilet stated Watada would be court-martialed again in March of 2007. Didn't happen. Judge Toilet said it was coming, just you wait. November 8th Judge Benjamin Settle, a US District Court judge, put Head's planned court-martial on hold where it currently remains. Repeating, Watada's service contract ended in December 2006. He continues to report for assignments on base. The military should have released him long ago. He has now been extended a year just to court-martial him. Watada needs to be discharged immediately. Watada's story was one of the important ones in 2007 and had many victories. But, outside of Asian-geared media, see who mentions him. (Don't worry, we'll get there in this snapshot.)

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.

Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.

Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.

In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.

Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

On Saturday, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported that the central (puppet) government in Baghdad had reminded South Korea that those contracts they drew up with the Kurdistan region of Iraq were no good. Reminded. The central government has made the point before. It was difficult news for the government of South Korea having just voted last week (146 in favor, 104 against) to continue their minor involvement in the illegal war thereby giving the illusion that Bully Boy's war of choice had international backing. The vote means that 600 South Korean troops will be kept in Iraq in 2008. Apparently not enough to share the spoils of illegal war. On Sunday Farrell collaborated with the paper's Solomon Moore and the US government to report on hand outs and charts the US military prepared and to repeat numbers that cannot be verified. The three-some also informed that rumors abounded puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was in England for medical treatment of an unspecified ailment.

Over the weekend, Missy Comley Beattie (CounterPunch) observed, "Perhaps Bush's greatest coup has been as a 'uniter, not a divider,' one of his campaign promises. Certainly, he has united Congress so tightly that we no longer have a two-party system. George W. Bush has neutered the Democrats with surgical accuracy. No matter how loudly they bellow that they will challenge him, that he will receive no more blank checks for war, they capitulate." And it does them no good and only makes them weak. The point was made clear on the front page of Saturday's New York Times where Steven Lee Myers and David M. Herszenhorn reported that despite pressuring the Democrats (who collapse under the gentlest breeze due to their defect of being born without spines) to do his bidding on again funding the illegal war -- which the Dems did and then some only to learn that Bully Boy intends to veto the bill. For chuckles, Bully Boy declared on his radio address Saturday:

You expect your elected leaders in Washington to address these pressures on our economy and give you more options to help you deal with them. And I have put forth several proposals to do so.
In the last month, Congress has responded to some of my initiatives. They passed a good energy bill, they passed a temporary patch to protect middle-class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and they passed a law that will help protect families from higher taxes when their lenders reduce their mortgage debt.
But this is only a start. Congress needs to do more to decrease America's dependence on oil. Congress needs to pass legislation that will help make health care coverage more affordable for small businesses and workers who buy their own policies. And Congress needs to act quickly on the rest of my proposals to help families struggling with rising mortgage payments keep their homes.
Most of all, we need to set a good example in Washington by being careful with your money.

Bully Boy was wasted billions and billions, no question. But this is where Bully Boy steps into the 2008 elections and begins using his Bully Boy Pulpit to make the case to the American people that the reason they live in economic uncertainty and worse is because of the Democratic-controlled Congress. Having done exactly as he told -- without getting the money upfront like a good hooker -- the Dems are now left to puzzle over how they combat this 'surprise' development. (It was totally expected. He does this over and over and with his party suffering due to him, he'll be making many more 'speeches' throughout 2008 attempting to influence the elections.) To his (small) base, what he says make sense. To others, the Dems have aided Bully Boy by funding the illegal war and -- with the veto -- he's sending a message to the country: "It takes a Republican to whipe Congress into shape." Congress will most likely give him all the visuals for that talking point because instead of saying, "Veto? Well forget it," they will rush to appease him, cower and tremble and look like fools and weaklings to the entire nation. It's not too late to stand up to him but they've done nothing to indicate that there's even a body memory of that they could call up.

Over the weekend, violence continued in Iraq thanks to the Democrats fully funding Bully Boy's illegal war. Among the violence reported, Saturday Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "The media officer of Mosul police Ahmed al Jobori survived from an assassination attempt when gunmen attacked his convoy in Al Qadisiyah neighborhood northeast Mosul city today afternoon. One of al Jobori guards was killed and another was injured while two gunmen were killed in the clashes." Part of the continued trend in targeting officials and collaborators with the US. On Sunday, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Basra police chief Abdul Jalil Khalaf survived two assassinations attempts in two hours today. The first was when two roadside bombs targeted his convoy as he was heading to a tribal conference in northern Basra. On the way back another two roadside bombs exploded causing damages to one of the convoy's cars and injuring one bodyguard." Reuters noted that this was the seventh known attempt on Abdul-Jalil Khalaf's life and that it was the "first since the Dec. 18 handover of security in the city to Iraqi forces." Left unstated is the current issue in the UK Parliament, about a British based mercenary group who allegedly knew the Basra police force was being inflitrated but refused to turn that information over to the British military. The Guardian of London covered that in multiple reports on the British based company AmorGroup. In the continued targeting of educators, Reuters reported three teachers were shot dead on Sunday in the Maysan Province.

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left 3 police officers wounded, a truck bombing "north of Baghdad" that claimed 9 lives, a woman who apparently exploded herself in Baquba and wounded seven other people, an Iraq-Iran border bombing targeting "Iraq borders guards" that claimed the life of 1 as well as the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left six more wounded. Reuters notes an Iskandariya car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and 1 security force while leaving three people wounded. CBS and AP report the truck bombing took place in Mishada and claimed the lives of "at least 12 people" and they also note a Baghdad mortar attack the injured three.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in Rashad, a police officer shot dead and a nurse shot dead in Mosul, while an armed clash in Baquba resulted in 4 Iraqi soldiers dead and 16 unidentified people killed (they were not identified independently). CBS and AP note a Khalis clash that resulted in 1 police officer dead as well as 1 member of an 'Awakening' Council.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

2007 winds to a close. AP notes that 2007 "was the deadliest for the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion, with 899 troops killed." Democracy Now! began the first of a two part look back at 2007 today "2007 in Review: Power, Politics and Resistance Pt. 1" Click here for the first part (watch, listen or read) and the second part airs tomorrow. DN!'s part one is among many lookbacks at 2007 and two others worth noting domestically (but text only) are CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin's "Let's Toast to Ten Good Things About 2007" and Alexander Cockburn's "Goodbye 2007 and Good Riddance!" (CounterPunch). All three are US pieces. We have to leave the US to get any war resisters? Apparently so. Canada's The Rabble's "2007: the Good, the Bad and the Mulroney" notes this on their look back at the year: "The Supreme Court turned down an appeal by U.S. war resisters seeking to stay in Canada." Part two of Democracy Now! airs tomorrow and maybe it'll note Watada but don't count on it. War resisters lost ground in terms of media attention in 2006 and they really lost ground in 2007. We'll note this more tomorrow in our year-in-review. Elsewhere, the best feature article of 2007 can be found here. It's not about Iraq but, novel concept, it's not about someone sitting down to push a new CD or film release. That allows it to actually be about something and, once upon a time before the advent of People magazine, feature writing offered more than hype. Outside the US, an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers offers "One Year Ago Today" (Inside Iraq):

And today an Iraqi correspondent offers "2007 --- 2008" (Inside Iraq):

Its already more than three years and a half had passed since the MNF invaded Iraq. I don't how long they intend to stay but they already lost three years and 9 months. 45 months passed without real progress. 45 months passed without achieving the main goal of the invasion, creating a democratic Iraq.

45 months passed without fulfilling the minimum level of the Iraqis needs. We have electricity for less than two hours a day. We never stop using the water pump because we would never have water without it. The administrational corruption reached the top to the extent that it became the rule, no one can finish any work in the governmental establishment without paying a bribe to that or this employee. The most important thing that both the American and Iraqi governments failed to achieve is security. They failed because they couldn't persuade Iraqis that they came to help them. Now, we live in the middle of unannounced civil war.

iraq

ehren watada

michelle mason
breaking ranks

iraq veterans against the war

missy comley beattie

mcclatchy newspapers

stephen farrell
the new york times
solomon moore

alexander cockburn

codepink
medea benjamin

amy goodman
democracy now

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

Other Items

The Supreme Court turned down an appeal by U.S. war resisters seeking to stay in Canada.

That's from The Rabble's "2007: the Good, the Bad and the Mulroney" and they (rightly) file it under the bad. It's doubtful, outside of Canada, many will even note that November 15th event.

AP reports a Mishada car bombing today that claimed the lives of "at least 12 people, police and a member of the volunteer group said." The report also notes that the US collaborators "are increasingly becoming targets in Iraq." Reuters notes a person in Baghdad wearing "an explosive vest" exploded a bomb killing him/herself as well as four other Iraqis, a woman wearing a similar vest in Baquba did the same and killed herself and left two police officers and five civilians wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing on Sunday left two police officers injured, that 3 teachers were shot dead in the Maysan Province yesterday.

On Wednesday, Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reported the following:

This year's U.S. military offensive and dramatic shifts in tactics by both Sunni and Shiite groups are redrawing the balance of power across Iraq. With less violence between Sunnis and Shiites, festering struggles within each community may come to define the nature of the conflict. In the Shiite-dominated south, Sadr's main Shiite rivals are taking advantage of the surge in U.S. troops, as well as Sadr's imposition of a freeze on operations by his Mahdi Army militia, to make political gains.
"They are all gathering against us," said Ayad Abu Ali, a wiry, broad-shouldered militia guard who had sent his family into hiding and now hardly leaves the office.

The fear being expressed by Ayad Abu Ali is intended. The plan is to scare, to raise fear, to throw off balance and make everyone clutch to the US. Yesterday, Ava and I reviewed The Charlie Rose Show in "TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad:"

In a too little noted article over the summer ("Harvard's Collaboration with Counter-Insurgency in Iraq"), Tom Hayden asked, "Should a human rights center at the nation's most prestigious university be collaborating with the top U.S. general in Iraq in designing the counter-insurgency doctrine behind the current military surge?" It's a question that Rose knew not to ask.
Hayden goes on to explore "former Pentagon official" Sewer (again, she's worked with the military all her adult life) and notes how, in the intro to the manual, she scrubs away any reality about the US role in the death squads in El Salvador and he goes on to explain how the counter-insurgency is deception and intended to force Iraqis to turn to the US for 'protection.' Again, Rose knew not to raise any of those points.
[. . .]

Fortunately for her, she was sitting across from an old whore (we will use the word for Rose) who left "boyish" long ago and never developed into the talent that led so many networks to pin hopes on him. As such, he needs corporate sponsorship and his career wouldn't survive without it. So he knows not to raise the difficult issues. Which is how you got a thirty-one minute plus segment allegedly on counterinsurgency that never asked the basic questions, the basic ethical questions, about the misuse of anthropology or noted the reality that a science is being partnered with a the military in an effort to frighten (or shock -- see Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism) a people in order to create a reaction of learned, infantile dependency upon the occupiers.

We're commenting on the December 24th broadcast which featured Monty McFate and Sarah Sewer, two who abuse every academic standard in the world but that Rose was happy to play footsie with.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

the washington post

sudarsan raghavan

tom hayden

pbs

the charlie rose show
naomi klein

the third estate sunday review

2007 deadliest year? Someone tell Little Media

AP calls 2007 "the deadliest for the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion, with 899 troops killed." It's doubtful Little Media will have a thing to say on that. They've got the Cult of Saint Bhutto to chew on for at least another week, or maybe their daughter's having a party and they want to write about that or some reality show, but in 2007, week after week, they've demonstrated that Iraq is not "their" "issue."

In the New York Times this morning, Stephen Farrell offers "For Iraqi Street Cleaners, Scraps Include Human Flesh:"

It falls to Baghdad's street sweepers to pick up the fingertips and scraps of flesh left behind after the emergency workers haul away the torsos and heads of bombing victims. They do the job without gloves, in all but the coldest weeks of winter.
If the attack comes while they are off duty, they get roughly $8 extra for cleaning up. Despite the grisly work, and the sadness at the deaths, that is a welcome sum when they are each paid about $6 a day. There were many such bomb bonuses paid in 2007, though markedly fewer than in past years.
But on Sunday, at year's end, two municipal street cleaners, Imad al-Hashemi and Laith Mahdi Latif, said the bonuses would be something they could happily live without in 2008.

Lloyd notes Walter Pincus' "Iraqis Authorize Big Jump in Forces" (Washington Post) which digs into the Defense Department's latest report to discover "that the Baghdad government is now responsible for setting the size of its security forces, and that it has authorized a level of 550,000 military and police forces -- an increase of more than 40 percent over the level that the U.S.-led coalition reported just three months ago." Citing the report, Pincus notes that the report notes "a jump of more than 150,000 from three months ago". What's going on?

Gee, why would the central (puppet) government in Baghdad want to rush into "rapid hiring"? The so-called Awakening Councils. You can also explain the desire for this new power through that as well.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

stephen farrell
the new york times

the washington post

walter pincus

Sunday, December 30, 2007

And the war drags on . . .

Picking up the news paper I saw the strangest headline of all.
"The Ministry of Electricity announces that the hours of lack of electricity will be increased as a result of scarcity of fuel and some technical issues."
This is something I cannot undestand. How less electricity?? How fuel scarcity??
We have one hour of electricity in every twelve - How can it be less? And how in any scenario could there be a scarcity of fuel in Iraq ? !
We have despaired of warm homes.
We have despaired of hot water.
We have forgotten how to sit relaxed in our homes. I walk into the living room looking for my son and couldn't find him. I looked for him in the other rooms, but he was nowhere to be seen.

The above is from an Iraqi reporter working for McClatchy Newspapers and is entitled "One Year Ago Today" (Inside Iraq). Somehow that fact didn't make it in to big write up the New York Times gave Davey Petraeus today, now did it? The illegal war hits the five year mark in March. And even the basics haven't been 'achieved.'

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3897. Tonight? 3902 announced. Last week this time, we noted "three away from the 3,900 mark." That mark was passed on Wednesday -- confusing since DoD was reporting the name of a service member killed -- a death never announced by M-NF. But the week passed by and Amy Goodman included it in headlines Friday. Did anyone else bother to note it?

What did Lenny sing? "Does anybody know how many lives we've lost, Can anybody ever pay the cost, What will it take for us to join in peace my friends, Does anybody out there even care?"
Magic 8 Ball says, "Damn little apparently."

The count tonight includes M-NF's announcement, "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died of non-combat related injuries Dec. 30. The incident is under investigation, and the name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense."

1,139,602 was the number of Iraqis killed in the illegal war last Sunday. Tonight? Just Foreign Policy lists the same number. They're on vacation.

But violence isn't and some of today's reported violence includes:

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Basra police chief Abdul Jalil Khalaf survived two assassinations attempts in two hours today. The first was when two roadside bombs targeted his convoy as he was heading to a tribal conference in northern Basra. On the way back another two roadside bombs exploded causing damages to one of the convoy's cars and injuring one bodyguard." In addition, Al Dulaimy reports a Baghdad bombing of a fire fighter's car that left two Iraqis wounded. On the Basra bombing, Reuters notes that this was the seventh known attempt on Abdul-Jalil Khalaf's life and that it was the "first since the Dec. 18 handover of security in the city to Iraqi forces." Left unstated is the current issue in the UK Parliament, about a British based mercenary group who allegedly knew the Basra police force was being inflitrated but refused to turn that information over to the British military.

Shootings?

Reuters notes that "six gumen" were killed by the US military in Baghdad (Saturday & Sunday) and that 3 police officers were shot dead in Mosul Saturday.

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 13 people kidnapped at gun point in Kirkuk.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

And that's going to be it because there's no highlight of some amazing op-ed (or even okay) on the Iraq War. There is an article in the Washington Post that no one noted (I only note the Post in non-snapshots if a member e-mails to highlight it) and it's describing a situation but failing to explain that what's being described is the objective of the Monty McFate-Sarah Sewer team. (And, no, that objective isn't peace, it's dependence upon US forces.)

But if you missed the memo, no one appears to give a damn about Iraq these days. No doubt when the fifth anniversary approaches, many will try to steal IVAW's thunder and grab the spotlight.

IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

Pru notes this on Howard Zinn, from Great Britain's Socialist Worker, "Voices of A People’s History Of The United States CD:"

The radical historian Howard Zinn is best known for his book A People's History Of The United States.
This audio CD features Zinn and others reading 21 selections from his companion book, Voices Of A People's History Of The United States, which brings together source material used in the original volume.
It includes Danny Glover reading Frederick Douglass's 1852 essay "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro", Viggo Mortensen reading a 1542 account of "The Devastation of the Indies", Paul Robeson Jr reading Langston Hughes’s 1934 poem "Ballad of Roosevelt" and Marisa Tomei reading a 2005 piece by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.
You can order the CD from Bookmarks bookshop, phone 020 7637 1848 » www.bookmarks.uk.com
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.

iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
mcclatchy newspapers
howard zinn
iraq veterans against the war

NYT refuses to give their stringer byline credit

The only Iraq article in the news section of the New York Times today runs on A6 and is written by Stephen Farrell, Solomon Moore and the US government.

Sadly, the competition among journalists for bylines is so nasty that the paper fails to provide byline credit to the US government for their work on the article. Sure, in the article (which we're not naming), Glory Hogs Farrell and Moore do acknowledge that Davie Petraeus "reported to the news media" from Baghdad but that's not a byline and that's fourteen paragraphs in.

Petraeus showed up in Baghdad to pass out US military statistics and the press grabbed them because they're far too lazy to compile their own statistics. They're also far too lazy to demand a methodology used for classification. And they're lazy enough to report it as fact because it was handed to them.

No other 'source' could provide so little and so little to back it up and still be considered worth citing. We're not interested in that portion of the article. The reporters (with or without the US government) note that Nouri al-Maliki is in England apparently for medical treatment for an ailment that's not specified. Apparently Petraues offered neither charts or handouts on that.

New content at The Third Estate Sunday Review:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: Screw You
TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad
2007 in Film
2007 in DVDs
They killed Santa Clause and put in an illegal occupation
2007 Tour
Highlights

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

stephen farrell
the new york times
solomon moore
the third estate sunday review

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Message from Michael"

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Message From Michael." Michael Jackson says, "Barack, I too have an audacity of hope. It's carried me through multiple surgeries and ever lighter skin. But I believe only you can teach me to be White." Isaiah thanks Betty who mentioned Dionne Warwick's "Message to Michael" (Bacharach/David) when he was tossing ideas around.

the world today just nuts
bully boy
michael jackson
comic
message from michael
barack obama
thomas friedman is a great man
the common ills

Saturday, December 29, 2007

NYT: Burying the war and adding neocons

Inside this morning's New York Times (A7), Stephen Farrell's "Car Bomber Kills 8 at a Street Market in Baghdad" covers yesterday violence which apparently doesn't rate the front page (costs are up at Harvard! Beijing wants the Olympics!). It's a shame because Farrell provides the statements of a number Iraqis (something for everyone in the quotes). In addition, he addresses the latest on South Korea whom the central (puppet) government has informed the contracts do not count? The contracts? The ones they signed with the Kurdish regional government. Those contracts continue to present conflicts between the Kurdistan region and the central region.

Oh, poor South Korea. Haven't they already given in their half-assed way? Didn't they just vote (146 for 104 against) to keep some of the tiny number of their troops (600) in Iraq for 2008? And what is their thanks for it? Didn't their 'support' allow the White House to repeatedly claim "nations" were on board with the illegal war? Didn't they stay in when others pulled out? When do they get to share the spoils of illegal war? When!!

Farrell covers another angle (noting AP) as well. Use the link if you're interested. There are various accounts on that and it can wait to be noted when a little more is known.

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, two police officers shot dead in Baghdad inside their squad car, a Jalwla bombing that claimed the life of 1 Kurdish security force member, a Mosul car bombing Friday night that left seven people wounded and, "The media officer of Mosul police Ahmed al Jobori survived from an assassination attempt when gunmen attacked his convoy in Al Qadisiyah neighborhood northeast Mosul city today afternoon. One of al Jobori guards was killed and another was injured while two gunmen were killed in the clashes."

Also the ICCC total is now 3901 -- the Defense Department named a service member whose death was not announced by M-NF, once again allowing the military to keep the death toll out of the news. They shouldn't work so hard -- if they missed it, no one cares in Little Media and Big Media's been either burying Iraq news or selling the illegal war all over again for months now. If it still hasn't sunk in, the Times just added William Kristol to their columnists. Junior got into the media because of Daddy. He gets into the Times to sell the illegal war and to demonstrate that there is no accountability for gas bags. Wrong on everything? Who cares!

It also underscores again how a Queen Bee is not a plus for women. Gail Collins was in charge for how many years? She could have picked a woman to replace Bill Keller or William Safire. Instead she replaced centrist Keller and right-winger Safire with two White right-wingers. She infamously had a snit fit in an e-mail when a reader dared to suggest that with Maureen Dowd (the paper's only female columnist at the time) on a lengthy vacation, she might not need to have a man filling in for Dowd. Queen Bee stung back that she wasn't interested in quotas and she doesn't judge people by gender. Laughable since her really bad historical yellow pages passed off as books focus on gender. But Queen Bee did nothing for women. And when she got fired as editor and reduced down to columnist, she was able to do even more damage covering everything in a breezy, I'm in the checkout lane and I haven't had time to read but I can see some tabloid headlines and I'll call it a column!

Gail Collins had two slots to fill. She went with White men both times. She also replaced the centrist Keller with a right-winger. Queen Bee ensured that Coretta Scott King's passing would not be an editorial and rejected submitted columns from non-regular columnists on the topic. She played the game and even that wasn't enough which is why her ass got canned and she's a lowly columnist dithering on (once a week?) and hoping the feminist press will help her sell her next bad book. Having stabbed women in the back when she was editor (she turned down some big names -- some big female names who submitted op-eds), Collins next bad book should publish with no attention from the feminist press.

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
and Ruth's Ruth's Report

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

mcclatchy newspapers
stephen farrell
the new york times
margaret kimberley
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report

Democrats defeat themselves again

The Democrats in Congressional leadership are idiots.

Today, Bully Boy gave his radio address and they're probably still scrambling to figure out what's what.

The New York Times offers Steven Lee Myers and David M. Herszenhorn's "In Surprise Step, Bush Vows Veto of Military Bill" on the front page:

For months, President Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support the troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.
And then Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Bush announced he will veto a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose Iraq's new government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule.
The decision left the Bush administration scrambling to promise that it will work quickly with Congress to restore dozens of new military and veterans programs once Congress returns to work in January.
Those included an added pay raise for service members, which would have taken effect Tuesday, and improvements in veterans' health benefits, which few elected officials on either side want to be seen as opposing.
Bush's veto surprised and infuriated Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans, who complained that the White House failed to raise its concerns earlier. And it gave Democrats a chance to wield Bush's [. . .] oratory against him, which they did with relish.

Reading on you will find John Kerry has decided to 'frame' (hasn't that ridiculous hula-hoop left the stage yet) by turning his own words against Bully Boy. It scores no points. No support for Bully Boy is peeled away by Kerry repeating that howler that was a public relations nightmare when he uttered it. It's the equivalent of a drunk pointing out that another drunk got pulled over. No one says, "First drunk, you go!" They think, "Eh, drunks."

In terms of Republicans, Kerry's repeating the I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it (or whatever that nonsense was) only reminds them of the Republican attacks. They don't then turn it against their Bully Boy. They have a cheap laugh at Kerry all over again and think, "What a loser. Remember when he said that? Moron."

No points are scored.

The Democrats caved, crawled and gave Bully Boy everything he wanted on the war and more. They refused to stand up for the people. They proved how craven and disgusting they could be.
Now they're shocked that Bully Boy's planning to veto.

They're shocked because they are idiots.

Throughout the nightmare that has been Bully Boy's occupation of the Oval Office, Dems have thought they could outflank him from the right. It's only destroyed the country and it's never worked to their own political benefit. See Kerry's 2004 campaign or the huge losses in 2002. Only ending the war on Iraq -- a phony claim -- got them back into power in the 2006 elections. That wasn't running to Bully Boy's right. That was providing a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans. (The fact that they didn't live up to the promise explains the disapproval numbers in polling today.)

Having campaigned on "We'll stand up," they then went back to the gamebook of Yawn Emanuel and all the other losers. Instead of grasping that offering the appearence of a true difference between the two parties spoke to the public, they started running to the right again because there's an election in 2008!

There's always another election.

They gave Bully Boy everything he wanted and more thinking that would bullet-proof them and carry them into control of the White House and greater majorities in each house of Congress: "They won't be able to criticize us now!"

Of course they would. Republicans always make better Republicans than Democrats posing (although, granted, some don't have to pose).

So you're Bully Boy and you've destroyed the country, are tanking in the polls and don't want to be your father. What do you do?

Find another way to paint the Dems as obstructionists. It's not a surprise. It's happened repeatedly throughout his occupation.

Today, he gave his radio address and lied through his teeth as usual. No surprise. And Dems caught off guard are just plain stupid.

The economy is tanking -- Christmas sales were awful and it went to the economic concerns (and lack of a real rise in wages). Who will the GOP pin that off on? The Democrats of course.
So the trick is to tell the citizens that it's Democrats' fault. So he lies:

I know that even in this growing economy some of you have real concerns. Some of you worry about your ability to afford health care coverage for your families. Some of you are concerned about meeting your monthly mortgage payments. Some of you worry about the impact of rising energy costs on fueling your cars and heating your homes.
You expect your elected leaders in Washington to address these pressures on our economy and give you more options to help you deal with them. And I have put forth several proposals to do so.
In the last month, Congress has responded to some of my initiatives. They passed a good energy bill, they passed a temporary patch to protect middle-class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and they passed a law that will help protect families from higher taxes when their lenders reduce their mortgage debt.
But this is only a start. Congress needs to do more to decrease America's dependence on oil. Congress needs to pass legislation that will help make health care coverage more affordable for small businesses and workers who buy their own policies. And Congress needs to act quickly on the rest of my proposals to help families struggling with rising mortgage payments keep their homes.
Most of all, we need to set a good example in Washington by being careful with your money. I'm disappointed that leaders in Congress sent me a massive spending bill that includes about 9,800 earmarks. Earmarks are special-interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one -- often at the last hour, without discussion or debate.

The economy is awful. But the lie he's transmitting is that it's good but Dems have stood in the way. They are your scapegoat, they are the reason you had a suck-ass Christmas. They are the reason you are concerned about cost of living, etc.

What's the problem with the economy? The ear marks! The Dems are wasting money! Now $15 billion a month is being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and that's the waste. But the White House has played the Dems like the saps they are.

Congress didn't even send legislation with their toothless, non-binding squeak for withdrawal.

They've done nothing.

They could refuse to fund the illegal war but they're too cowardly (and too many are vested in the theft of Iraqi oil).

So if they do nothing in Janurary other than make ridiculous statements (see John Kerry's statements right now), it sends a message.

The message is: Bully Boy's whipped them into control and that's why we need a Republican president because he won't be pushed around by Congress.

He's put out the lies that (a) the economy's just chugging along but (b) Democrats and their "earmarks" ("special interests" will most likely become the phrase of choice as it's repeated throughout the year) are just wasting money and that's why the average citizen is feeling the pinch.

The average person is going to look at the already meek Congress and see Bully Boy 'whipping them into shape.' And, outside of Queen for a Day contests, meekness doesn't get you votes.

If they had stood up, if they had fought, people might wonder who is the better fighter? Then the Dems could make the argument that they were the better fighters and they would fight for you in Washington.

But Dems refuse to fight. They rush to give the White House everything it wants.

They're laughable SCHIPS battle did not send the message that "America, we need to all pull together." They lost on SCHIPS (and rarely mention it now, but no one's supposed to notice because the Yawns just knew it would be a winning strategy). But they lost before Bully Boy stood up to them (twice). They lost when they tried to push the burden of caring for the needy only off on some. Instead of saying, "The children are the future of this country and we all need to pull together and sacrifice," they said what? "We can fund SCHIPS and do so without it hurting most of you because we're targeting one group." (Smokers.)

The hypocrisy in funding public health off the backs of a group that is seen as non-healthy and a plan that requires that they 'payers' remain seen as non-healthy was never a winning strategy. It was the sort of 'bean counting,' easy road traveling the Dems have become so good at. The kind that further splits the people into peoples and not citizens pulling together for the common good.

They've done the easy thing on Iraq too. Make a lot of statements about being opposed to it. Tell a lot of lies about how they can't end it. Those are lies -- Congress can filibuster, leadership can bury a bill so that it never gets a vote, they can twist arms in their own party so that even the Blue Dogs have to go along. But as Bully Boy attempts to portray them as the cause of the economic frustration people around the country feel, the Democratic leadership has also sent out a message to the people: Even when you give us control of both houses of Congress, we can't do anything.

Again, the weak only win in Queen for a Day contests and that fifties program has been off the airwaves for years.

Two messages are being sent and the first one is the one the Democrats put out there, the second one is the one the GOP is now picking up and amplifying.

"Framing" is crap and it always was but the politically naive hop onto a hula hoop every other decade. Within five years, only the wanna-pass-for-wonks are still repeating the jargon because everyone realizes it was a failure. (The big hula hoop for the 90s was 're-inventing government.')

You can pretty up catch phrases all you want but the reality is larger messages are sent, narratives, and they have greater cachet in our culture than slogans.

The Dems spent 2007 telling the American people, "We want the illegal war ended but our hands are tied." A message of weakness. Nancy Pelosi (and others) have reinforced that weakness.

Now Bully Boy, as the 2008 race really is about to begin, grabs that message in the minds of many Americans (because Dems put it there) and 'wallops' them.

"We're strong, they are weak."

It's not new. (The GOP hasn't had a new idea since the 1920s.) And it's not surprising. It's only surprising that Democrats in Congress would spend all year laying the groundwork for the probably successful campaign the GOP will use against them.

They could get tough. That won't come from hiding behind the military. That won't come from fawning over whomever delivers Petraeus' next report. They can make 2008 about getting tough. That would mean putting things back "on the table." That would mean calling out the illegal war with more than votes.

As it is they're doing the Tom Daschle dance and that didn't win them any prizes before.

They need Americans to want to vote for them. For that to happen, the Democrats are going to have to stand up against the illegal war. They'll always be outflanked when they run to the right. They'll always come up short when they try to outdue on that.

These are not 'revelations.' These are lessons that supposedly the Democratic Party learned post-2004. But look at 2006 and all the candidates -- Yawn's sure things -- who went down in flames. The ones they hid behind such as veterans who weren't against the illegal war.

What a bunch of losers. All their lives.

If Congress isn't going to stand up to Bully Boy in 2008 on the illegal war, they might as well give up on the White House (or pray John Edwards gets the nomination since he's the furthest from Congress of any of the 'front runners' and the most critical of them). In 2007, they did so much damage that they're practically giving the White House to the GOP and that stems from their repeated message to the American people all year of "We are weak. We can't do anything. We'd like to do something. But we can't."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Note: I am not endorsing John Edwards. I am not endorsing anyone. Some might say, "Mike Gravel!" Let's all wake up to reality. Gravel is a decent candidate if this were the seventies or eighties. It's not. He has a strong message but he's unable to communicate it because (a) lack of funds and (b) lack of awareness. On the latter, his campaign has a website and it has been among the sorriest of websites. When you're shut out of debates, when you're cancelling appearences, you need a strong website, updated repeatedly throughout the day (it's not even updated weekly) to get your message out. Gravel's campaign is hopelessly behind the times. What he stands for is strong but no one's hearing it. That's not just because he's been shut out, it is also because his campaign seems to think they are running a race from another decade. Bill Richardson is not a member of Congress currently. However, he has not called out Congress. Edwards has. The statements above "The e-mail address for this . . ." note the climate Congress has created. If they are unable to change that in 2008, Edwards is their loudest critic and he benefits the most. Bambi can't argue, "I'm against them too!" Unless he's trying to argue, "That's why I skipped all those votes!" If the Congress does not start exhibiting strength and sending a message to the people, they're begging for defeat and, the only hope they'd have there is a candidate who was not seen as part of the weakness problem. By repeatedly criticizing Congress, Edwards has drawn a line between them and himself. Things could change (I hope they will) and Congress could actually stand up. I'm not endorsing Edwards, I'm merely pointing out the obvious as it stands now. In terms of Gravel, we'll note him if he's got anything on Iraq but the reality is he's killed his own campaign. Gravel could have been Ron Paul if his campaign knew how to use the internet. Instead, they appear befuddled by it. That's not, "Drop out of the race, Mike!" He needs to run for as long as he feels like running. He may run as a third party candidate. If he does, hopefully someone in the campaign will work the internet because Gravel's beliefs are not out of step with most people, they just haven't heard them. (More people know him through the SNL skit where he's plotting to kidnap Hillary than know anything he stands for.) I'm tired of all the whining from the non-media designated 'front runners' because it's just whining. The only one that's had a rise in interest has been Bill Richardson and that's because his staff is using the web. (And the campaign's also stopped shy-ing away from noting the Latino factor.) When people start dropping out of the race, some may have legitimate gripes but many of them better look at their dumb ass websites that people would visit regularly and see the same stuff on the front page week after week. I'm not campaigning. If I didn't have something new up daily, I'd hear about it in non-stop e-mails. The reality is people visit a site and they see something new that interests them and think, "I'll go back again." If they do and they see nothing new up week after week, they stop visiting. There are millions and billions of places to visit online and no one's looking for repeats. So, for instance, Chris Dodd, why should anyone visit your website? Your website is a campaign and many candidates seem to think, "There's this thing called the web and we'll post something up there and leave it up there and everyone will love it." No, everyone will get tired of it and wonder how someone supposedly running a daily campaign to become president has so little to say. In one of the rare compliments to Obama's campaign in 2007, his website is updated. A friend with the campaign is always on me to visit it. (And I do visit it. I'm not impressed with the candidate but the website is running a real campaign.) (The other compliment Obama got here in 2007 was for standing up to John Howard.) The media made Obama, Hillary and John front runners. That's true and it's not fair to the other candidates that they've been left out. But reality also includes that a campaign controls their own website. Other than Bill Richardson's campaign, none of the non-front runners have known how to run it. Barack, Hillary, John and Bill have been running real campaigns online. Others haven't. Dennis Kucinch's videos of the week has alienated hard of hearing and deaf voters in this community who were behind him. They now follow other campaigns because they can read things at those websites. Kucinich took himself out of the running with a portion of disabled voters by running a crappy website. That's reality. That the media would create fronr runners was not a surprise or a new development. That so many not included to the party would whine so often about that but fail to use their own power (their websites) goes to the reality that they share the blame. If there are any surprises in Iowa or New Hampshire that benefit non-front runners, their campaigns better get off their lazy, inept asses and start posting new content at their websites repeatedly throughout the day. And campaign 'bloggers' at campaign websites are not meandering threads of "I like ___" followed by "me too." Campaign blogs need a blogger posting, putting out the points of the day. But go to some websites and find the blogger. You can't. You can find a bulletin board. If you can't afford a campaign blogger, everyone had enough support that they could have reached out to someone on their bulletin board that impressed them and said, "Would you donate your time to be the campaign's blogger?" If you can't run a website correctly, how is anyone supposed to believe you can run the country? Repeating, I am not endorsing Edwards, I'm not endorsing anyone in the presidential race and have no idea how I will vote. If Cindy Sheehan weren't running, I might skip the primaries. (She's running for Congress from the eighth district in California.) Cindy Sheehan's the only one I've endorsed and outside of someone declaring a Congressional run from IVAW, Tina Richards declaring or someone else who has put it on the line to end the illegal war -- there are many Gold Star Families and Military Families Speak Out members that I would endorse, I do not plan to endorse anyone else.

iraq
steven lee myers
david m. herzenhorn
the new york times

Friday, December 28, 2007

Iraq snapshot

Friday, December 28, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the lies of Bambi Peace King continue, the 3900 mark still remains largely unnoted and a peace organization decides to start a petition and do a tribute . . . to a media circus, all those disappointments and more.

Starting with war resistance, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress is a collection of Howard Zinn's essays and "Soldiers In Revolt" (pp. 173 -177) deals with war resistance within the military ranks:

It is undoubtedly the nature of this war, so steeped in deceptions perpetrated on the American public -- the false claims that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and was connected to 9/11 -- that has provoked opposition to the war among the military. Further the revelations of the country from bombardment, foreign occupation, and sectarian violence, to which many of the dissenting soldiers have been witness, contribute to their alienation.

Zinn notes Jeremy Hinzman's remarks to CBS News (60 Minutes) "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it, and I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do." Zinn also notes Jimmy Massey testifyng "that he and his fellow marines shot and killed more than thirty unarmed men, women and children, and even shot a young Iraqi who got out of his car with his arms in the air."

In early 2005, Naval Petty Officer Third Class Pablo Paredes refused to obey orders to board an assault ship in San Diego that was bound for the Persian Gulf. He told a U.S. Navy judge: "I believe as a member of the armed forces, byond having a duty to my chain of command and my President, I have a higher duty to my conscince and to the supreme law of the land. Both of these higher duties dictate that I must not participate in any way, hands-on or indirect in the current aggression that has been unleashed on Iraq."

For this, Paredes faced a year in the brig, but the navy judge, citing testimony about the illegality of the Iraq War, declined to give him jail time, instead gave him three months of hard labor, and reduced him in rank.

As Zinn draws his essay to a conclusion, he quotes IVAW's Kelly Dougherty speaking to "an audience at Harvard" where she explains that her experience in Iraq led her to see, "I'm not defending freedom, I'm protecting a corporate interest." Again, that's Zinn's A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.

Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

Yesterday's snapshot noted: "The US military announces 11 people were killed in Al Kut and states they were 'terrorists' which required 'fire, and . . . supporting aircraft'. The US military also announces 12 'kills' from December 22 to 25th in Diyala Province and, again, tosses around the term 'terrorists'. AFP notes, 'Iraq officials said the dead included two civilians'." Today Solomon Moore (New York Times) quotes eye witness Jameel Muhammad explaining, "The American helicopters shelled our neighborhood for three hours. Dead bodies were scattered here and there. Houses and cars were set on fire, and people were scared and running all over the place." Moore also quotes Hassan Jassim who saw "three bodies lying in the street near his house" and he declares, "American helicopters fired on our houses." A press that could explore the assault? Thankfully Moore did but there's a media circus going on, in case you didn't notice.

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 dead from a Baghdad car bombing, a Baghdad mortar attack left 1 dead and another wounded and a Zighaniya roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 "child and injuring another." Reuters notes the number dead from the Baghdad car bombing is now 10.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police officer shot dead in Baquba and a home invasion (the assailants were dressed as Iraqi soldiers) in Sadaa village that claimed the lives of 2 men and ejected a woman from the home which they then planted with bombs (which were defused) -- both men killed were members of the so-called 'Awakening Council'.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad

Free Bilal. Bilal Hussein is the Pulitzer Prize winning AP photo journalist who has been imprisoned by the US military since April 2006. On Sunday, attorney Scott Horton (Harper's magazine) walked readers through the latest on Bilal and we'll note this section:

The Pentagon was particularly concerned about the prospect of Bilal Hussein getting effective defense from his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe. The judge was told to refuse to allow Bilal Hussein's U.S. lawyer to participate in the case. The judge accepted this advice. Consequently, the U.S. military has a five-man team to press its case, but Bilal Hussein's lawyer is silenced and not permitted to participate - and all of this has occurred as a result of U.S. Government intervention with the court. The irony of course is that under Iraqi law, the U.S. military has no authority or right to appear and prosecute, but Bilal Hussein's chosen counsel has an absolute right.
The U.S. military continues to keep Hussein in their custody and will not allow his lawyer, Gardephe, access to him to conduct interviews or trial preparation without having both a U.S. military representative and an interpreter in the room at all times. Under international norms, this means that Bilal Hussein is not permitted access to counsel: a serious violation of his trial rights. And note that the violator is not the Iraqi authorities, who have no control over Bilal, but the United States Government.

The US military & government have repeatedly changed their stories since taking Bilal a prisoner on April 12, 2006. Now they're refusing to let him meet with his attorney and they occupy the country he will supposedly receive a 'fair' trial in. Never forget his 'crime' was reporting. Free Bilal.

Turning to presidential candidates because the LIES are getting to be too much. Monica Davey (New York Times) reported July 26, 2004 in "A Surprise Senate Contender Reaches His Biggest Stage Yet:"

He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconvental weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

"But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

Do you get that, do you grasp it? Barack Obama told the New York Times in 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted on the resolution HAD HE BEEN IN THE SENATE.

Now let's go to the June 3rd 'debate' in New Hampshire. The topic is the illegal war, we're picking up with John Edwards

But I have made very clear from the outset that the way to end the war is for the Congress to use its constitutional authority to fund. They should send a bill to the president with a timetable for withdrawal, which they did. The president vetoed. And then it came back. And then it was the moment of truth. And I said throughout the lead-up to this vote that I was against a funding bill that did not have a timetable for withdrawal, that it was critical for the Congress to stand firm. They were given a mandate by the American people. And others on this stage -- Chris Dodd spoke out very loudly and clearly. But I want to finish this -- others did not. Others were quiet. They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote. But there is a difference between leadership and legislating.

BLITZER: You want to name names?

EDWARDS: No, I think it's obvious who I'm talking about.

BLITZER: It is to me, but it might not be to some of the viewers out there.

EDWARDS: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted. They were among the last people to vote. And I think that the importance of this is -- they cast the right vote, and I applaud them for that. But the importance of this is, they're asking to be president of the United States. And there is a difference between making clear, speaking to your followers, speaking to the American people about what you believe needs to be done. And I think all of us have a responsibility to lead on these issues, not just on Iraq, but on health care, on energy, on all the other issues.

BLITZER: I'm going to give both of them a chance to respond to you.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: Well, look, the -- I think it is important to lead. And I think John -- the fact is is that I opposed this war from the start. So you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue. And, you know, I think it's important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this.

"I opposed this war from the start"? The public record shows Obama gave a speech calling it a "dumb" war before it started. Then it started. He went on to then tell the New York Times that he wasn't sure how he would have voted had he been in the Senate.

He DID NOT oppose all along. He made some weak-ass statements before the illegal war started and then he got on board with the illegal war. "Dumb" war is not a position a lawyer should take. "Dumb" war might play well as a faux folksy talking point for Fred Thompson, but, as Patti Williams can't stop gushing, Barack Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review. "Dumb" war is a "dumb" thing and a weak thing for a legal mind to state. And he admitted, in 2004, he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate in 2002. But that didn't stop him from calling out John Edwards and saying Edwards was "four and a half years late on leadership" in the New Hampshire debate this year.

And here's the thing, Bambi didn't just make the "I don't know how I would've voted in 2002 if I'd been in the Senate" statement once. And he was still making it in late 2006. Speaking to David Remnick (The New Yorker, November 2006), he was asked about differences between himself and Hillary Clinton. He responded:

I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

The conversation with Remnick is also available as an audio download. Casting a vote can be 'difficult.' Chicago's WBEZ reported (link has text and audio) last week that Obama "missed more than 160 votes on the Senate floor" as a result of "campaigning" and that "Obama's missed more than a third of the Senate's votes this year, about the same tally as two other senators running for the president: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Hillary Clinton has missed significantly fewer votes than Obama, while Republican John McCain has missed far more." Bernie Tafoya (WBBM) narrowed it down, "During September and October, Senator Obama missed 71 -- or nearly 80 percent -- of the 89 votes that have taken place in the Senate." That included the Iran resolution, the one Bambi wants to hiss, "Bad Hillary! You voted for it!" But he was a member of the Senate and he knew about the vote and chose not to show up. He says Iran says something about Hillary Clinton. It says a great deal about him: He didn't vote one way or the other. Is that what he would have done in 2002? Ducked the vote?

Or as US House Rep and Democratic Party contender for the presidential nomination Dennis Kucinich declared today in New Hampshire, "Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd voted to give the President the authorization to go to war in Iraq. Their judgment was wrong. They and Senator Obama have voted to continue funding that war. Their judgement was wrong."

We've gone remedial because Democracy Now! twice (here and here) offered Barack Obama's campaign spokesmodel David Axelrod's statement on today's show: "Barack Obama had the judgement to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effacts of that . . . Sen. Clinton made a different judgement. Let's have that discussion." Obama's position on the Iraq War has been all over the map. (Tariq Ali demolishes the other points from Bambi's spokesmodel.) Last night we noted the large number of Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls rushing in to offer their thoughts on the thug and crook Benazir Bhutto. They should all be ashamed of themselves. We took media to task last night and yesterday as well. Add another group that's got some explaining: CODEPINK. Bhutto died yesterday. For Bhutto they can rush to offer a "tribute" and offer a "Petition." What was our complaint about media and the candidates? What were they not noting?

Today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes it, "In Iraq, the U.S. death toll has topped 3,900. Two soldiers were killed on Wednesday in Mosul." And that's it from Democracy Now! For those wondering, the 3900 mark prompts nothing from our peace groups. We didn't call them out yesterday, they're volunteers and they're not news outlets or running for votes. But when CODEPINK has time to create a tribute (for someone who doesn't deserve it) and to start a petition, they DAMN WELL have time to note that 3,900 US service members have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. As we noted last night, "'Independent' media (broadcast and some print) largely offered us state propaganda. Meanwhile the candidates for both major parties telegraphed just how little American deaths mean to them." And, again, US presidential wanna-bes are running to become the President of the United States, not the Prime Minister of Pakistan. A peace organization that has time to weigh in on breaking news has time to note the 3900 dead and, if they don't make that time while they rush to note some 'hot' topic, they send a message -- intentionally or not, they send a message.

Since we've noted Democrats running for president, the Green Party has an upcoming debate. Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) notes that January 13th, 2:00 p.m., Herbst Theater (410 Van Ness) in San Francisco, there will be a Green Party Presidential debate featuring Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Elaine Brown, Jared Ball and Kent Mesplay. For a list of candidates -- from all parties -- that may be running, see Kimberly and Ian Wilder's candidates page.

Today Naomi Klein will be on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show. Klein's new book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism. Also today on PBS, NOW with David Brancaccio, the program "investigates the partnership of a Republican congressman and the Idaho Conservation League to protect a vast swath of the state's natural environment. Does their compromise legislation come at too high a price? The legislation, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), transfers some public land -- land Americans across the country pay for -- to private local ownership in exchange for protection of nearby wilderness. It also leaves land bordering the wilderness open to further recreational use, especially involving off-road vehicles." Among those speaking out on the program against the sell-out of public lands is Carole King -- King of Goffin & King in the 60s (chronological sixties), writing the music to more charting hits than may be humanly possible, easing into a group at the tail end of that decade (The City), going solo in the seventies, releasing the landmark album Tapestry, etc., still writing, still performing and working on the issue of the ecology for many, many years. Check local listings for the times both programs will be aired. Sunday on NYC's WBAI (streams online) from 11 a.m. to noon EST, The Next Hour will offer: "Author/actor/racounteur Malachy McCourt hosts his brothers Frank, Alf and Mike in what has come to be an annual McCourt family radio reunion." While Monday on WBAI's Cat Radio Cafe, 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm EST, "In an epilogue to WBAI's recent 'Celebration of Norman Mailer' (The Next Hour, December 16, 2007, 11 am-1 pm, archived at www.catradiocafe.com), legendary actor Rip Torn weighs in on his old friend and fellow improvisor, along with an encorse airing of Joyce Carol Oates' observations on Mailer; and political satirist Will Durst with the Top Ten Comedic Stories of 2007. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer."

iraq

howard zinn

iraq veterans against the war

mcclatchy newspapers