The deserters House represents said they are facing the consequences.
"I'm here for me. I'm here for the guys in Iraq that are getting blown up every day. I'm here to make a difference," Walcott said.
Glass said they're not cowards.
"I don't see it as cowardice at all. Being a coward would have been staying there and putting up with it and going against my moral obligations," Glass said.
The above is more from WSIN. That's attorney Jeffry House and Iraq war resisters Dean Walcott and Corey Glass. For this report, WSIN offers up some veterans who want to attack the decisions of Walcott and Glass. It reads like a piece from The Nation, as Mary noted when she mailed in the above excerpt. (She's referring to the fact that when Ehren Watada finally appears in print -- months after going public -- it's to be called a coward by someone with the courage or 'courage' to sign a petition. That's how The Nation likes to cover war resisters.) I would argue WSIN showed far more courage than The Nation because they actually told Walcott and Glass' stories earlier this week. These days, it's not too hard for the mainstream to beat The Nation on every topic. They've done their Spring Books issue which finds ten books worthy of discussion including the very pressing issues of Edith Wharton, Philip K. Dick and John Cage. Search in vain for either Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale or Camilo Mejia's Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia. On the latter, the magazine doesn't appear eager to support The New Press so don't look for Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam to be covered anytime soon. I'm actually surprised they're not pimping their own (Nations Books) current non-seller. The current reign of the magazine will be remembered for the refusal to address Iraq and for the magazine's reputation being sullied by the constant association with a man the mainstream media maintains is a sexual predator. Yeah, they've got the pig in print. None of his previous books sold so you can't claim the decision was made for money. But at some point you do have to wonder exactly why someone the mainstream media reports was twice busted in a sting to catch adult males planning sexual meet ups with young girls (they're not women, they're underage) is the sort of 'name' the current regime at The Nation is thrilled to be associated with. Maybe on this year's cruise, someone can put that question out there during cocktails?
And I'm stopping there and pulling a one liner because Jim's reading over my shoulder and said, "We have to turn that into a feature!" It's made for illustrations so I'm pulling it. Look for a humorous spoof tomorrow.
In the New York Times today, Kirk Semple pulls damage control. When CBS and the AP covered the Iraqi parliament's call for withdrawal, it forced other news organizations to do so. The Times shows up very late but with the best spin (such as ignoring the fact that parliament and not the al-Maliki will decide whether a re-authorization -- for reconstruction, not occupation, though the US government has ignored that fact -- will be requested from the United Nations). It's pure damage control (including the laughable assertion as to what most Iraqis want -- this from the paper that has repeatedly ignored polling on the Iraqi people). Read it for laughter and to remind yourself that the American public will never be as stupid as the paper thinks it is. That includes when you read this sentence: "The American military command said two soldiers were killed and 11 wounded in two attacks on Thursday, one in Baghdad and the other in Diyala." No, on Friday they announced four deaths, not two. We noted that here Friday morning, there's no excuse for the paper not getting it right on Saturday morning. File it under the continued undercount.
For today's realities, we'll note this from Thomas Wagner (AP):
Seven U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter came under attack Saturday morning during a patrol in a Sunni insurgent stronghold south of Baghdad, leaving five dead and three missing, the military said.
Troops were searching for the three missing, using drone planes, jets and checkpoints throughout the area, according to the statement. Soldiers were also asking local leaders for information.
After the pre-dawn attack near Mahmoudiya, which is about 20 miles south of Baghdad in a Sunni insurgent stronghold dubbed the Triangle of Death, nearby units heard explosions and a drone plane later observed two burning vehicles, the statement said.
Troops who arrived later found five of the soldiers dead. The other three members of the patrol were gone, according to the statement, from Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.
The military refused to specify whether the Iraqi interpreter was among those killed or among the missing, citing security.
Back to the Times, James Glanz offers "Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says." This article has already created a mini-craze online. It shouldn't. It's a book report (doesn't qualify for even "book review") of a government report. It can't tell you what happened to the oil but is quick to offer that it might have been smugglers or 'insurgents' responsible. Heaven forbid that real corruption on the part of anyone in the US be offered as a possibility. Just like we're all looking the other way over Condi's days at Chevron which involved breaking laws. That oil story they aren't interested in. Warren Hoge, you and Judith Miller were all over the oil-for-food scam when you thought it implicated the United Nations. Where have you gone, Hoge, now that it's unearthered that it was Chevron breaking the law, not the UN?
Eddie notes that he is "waiting" for the morning entry and went to Black Agenda Report (we highlight Margaret Kimberley each Saturday) as he waited and found this from Paul Street's "'He's a Mouse': Russell Simmons Speaks Some Truth on Obama" (Black Agenda Report):
Leave it to a leading cultural capitalist to call Barack Obama out on his reactionary disregard for the material circumstances that create inner-city misery and for hypocritical reliance on big capitalist political cash. Look at the following recent exchange between New York Times writer Deborah Solomon and Russell Simmons, the co-founder of Def Jam Recordings and the so-called "CEO of Hip-Hop:
Solomon: "What do you make of Barack Obama, who recently said that rap musicians should reform their lyrics?"
Simmons: "What we need to reform is the conditions that create these lyrics. Obama needs to reform the conditions of poverty. I wish he really did raise his money on the Internet, like he said. I wish he really did raise his money independently."
Solomon: "What are you saying?"
Simmons: "I think about one-fourth of his campaign contributions came from small donations made over the Internet, even though he collected more than any other Democratic candidate from Wall Street people. So at the end of the day, he's controlled, too. That's my point. He's a mouse, too, like everybody else."
Solomon: "Are there any presidential candidates who inspire you?"
Simmons: "I talk to John Edwards more than I talk to anyone. He has said more things about the conditions we need to think about."
It's too bad he doesn't talk to Dennis Kucinich more than anyone, but Simmons here gives a well-deserved shot to the ever-deepening myth of the progressive Barockstar, who recently garnered yet more free national media love by successfully applying for Secret Service protection on the grounds that his racism-accommodating (see below) candidacy is threatened by white racists.
I've been saying similar things about Obama from the officially invisible Left where nothing you say - e.g. "Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq is completely fraudulent" (widely observed on the U.S. Left in 2002 and early 2003) - matters in the political present.
It is a strong article and people should read down to the reference to page 256 of Obama's non-book. That should be addressed. (I'm too angry to address it right now. I've called out White racists face to fact for making similar racist claims. We'll address it at The Third Estate Sunday Review, I'm truly too angry to address it here. Enraged may be a better word.)
Speaking of Margaret Kimberley, here's a section of "Reagan wins in 2008" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report) and Kendrick was the first to note it this week:
The Ronald Reagan library was the perfect location for the recent Republican presidential debates. The gruesome words of the Republican presidential candidates seemed to come from a séance communing with Reagan's departed spirit.
All the candidates believe in the manifest destiny of white men to do whatever the hell they want, namely keep brown people and women under control. Their ideology can be summed up in 50 words or less:
Americans have the right to kill.
Americans love God, married couples and pregnant women.
War is good.
Ronald Reagan was a saint.
Muslims, especially Iranians, must die.
Taxes are bad.
Fetuses are sacred.
Immigrants are bad.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are evil.
There you have it, Republican ideology in a nutshell. If the Democrats are frightening because they are compromised and craven, the Republicans are frightening because they are true believers, the real McCoys. They openly indulge in their love of racism, violence and control.
The media allow them to make up nonsense without so much as a decent follow-up question, and that is the most frightening prospect of all. The media will take their cues from the Republicans and do their bidding. It is not inconceivable, despite the nearly universal scorn for George W. Bush, that one of these horrible men will be the next president of the United States.
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;
and Trina's Trina's Kitchen
* Wally and Cedric are either up right now or about to be. Betty's finishing typing up her rough draft (the utlimate gas bag pops up her latest chapter) and it will either be up as this posts or it will be right after. Rebecca's site contains a post by Rebecca. (She'll still be using guests to fill in from time to time. She plans to fully return the week after next.)
Laura Flanders? Matthew Rothschild interviewed her for Progressive Radio this week. They discuss her book True Grit, grass roots and more. Her own show? I've waited and waited this mornng for it and Cat Radio Cafe. As Eddie noted in his e-mail, he's "waiting" so this is going up.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
kirk semple
james glanz
corey glass
dean walcott
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
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Iraq snapshot
Friday, May 11, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Cheney lies again while the press plays silent, more US service members are announced dead in Iraq, and a campus activism takes place as the Bully Boy prepares to mumble through another canned speech.
Yesterday in Iraq, Cheney spun like crazy. As Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) pointed out, Dick Cheney quoted David H. Petraeus, top US commander in Iraq, repeatedly, "General Petraeus has underscored the fact that the enemy tactics are barbaric. . . . We can expect more violence as they try to destroy the hopes of the Iraqi people." As pep talks go, not a lot of reality. Last week, Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) reported on a military study that found only 40% of US marines would be willing to "report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian" and the number of those in the army was 55 pecent. As Gregg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) observered: "At the Associated Press' annual meeting in New York on Tuesday, I sat in the audience observing Gen. Petraeus on a huge screen, via satellite from Baghdad, as he answered questions from two AP journalists. Asked about a U.S. Army Surgeon General study of over 1,300 troops in Iraq, released last week, which showed increasing mental stress -- and an alarming spillover into poor treatment of noncombatants -- Petraeus replied, 'When I received that survey I was very concerned by the results. It showed a willingness of a fair number to not report the wrongdoing of their buddies.' That's true enough, but then he asserted that the survey showed that only a 'small number' admitted they may have mistreated "detainees" -- a profoundly misleading statement. Actually, the study found that at least 10% of U.S. forces reported that they had personally, and without cause, mistreated civilians (not detainees) through physical violence or damage to personal property. So much for the claims by President Bush, military leaders and conservative pundits that 99.9% of U.S. troops always behave honorably. Of course, that kind of record has never been achieved by any country in any war." Along with that reality, we have the first hand stories being told.
It was about two a.m., but I could see very well because there were streetlights on our road and because the American illumination rounds that kept the sky lit up all night.
Suddenly, I looked over to my left and saw the bodies of four decapitated Iraqis in their bloodied white robes, lying a few feet from a bullet-ridden pickup truck to the side of the road. Because I sat on top left of the vehicle, and because the bodies were on the left-hand side of the road, I had them in clear view. I assumed that someone had used a massive amount of gunfire to behead them.
"Sh*t," I said.
A few second later, our slow-moving APC came to a stop. Among the three APCs in our convoy, I was the only soldier immediately ordered down to the ground. As I slid down into the APC and then out the hatch, Sergeant Jones told me to look for brass casings, which would be signs that Iraqi fighers with AK-47s had been shooting at American soldiers in the area.
I saw no sign of brass casings, but I did see an American soldier shouting at the top of his lungs while two other soldiers stood quietly next to him.
"We f**king lost it, we just f**king lost it," the soldier was shouting. He was in a state of complete distress, but the soldiers next to him were not reacting. The distressed soldier stood about twenty yeards from me, and another forty or so yards from the four decapitated bodies.
Two other soldiers were laughing and kicking the heads of the decapitated Iraqis. It was clearly a moment of amusement for them. This was their twisted game of soccer.
I froze at the sight of it, and for a moment could not believe my eyes. But I saw what I saw, and was so revolted and horrified that I defied Sergeant Jones's orders and climbed right back into the APC.
[. . .]
I found Private First Class Hayes with a woman under an empty carport. He pointed his M-16 at her head but she would not stop screaming.
"What are you doing this for?" she said.
Hayes told her to shut up.
"We have done nothing to you," she went on.
Hayes was starting to lose it, and we weren't even supposed to be talking to this woman. I told her that we were there on orders and that we couldn't speak to her, but on and on and on she bawled at Hayes and me.
"You Americans are disgusting! Who do you think you are, to do this to us?"
Hayes slammed her in the face with the stock of his M-16. She fell facedown into the dirt, bleeding and silent. The woman lay still on the ground. I pushed Hayes away.
"What are you doing, man?" I said to him. "You have a wife and two kids! Don't be hitting her like that."
He looked at me with eyes full of hatred, as if he was ready to kill me for saying those words, but he did not touch the woman again. I found this incident with Hayes particularly disturbing because during other times I had seen him in action in Iraq, Hayes had showed himself to be one of the most levelheaded and calm soldiers in my company. I had the sense that if he could lose it and hit a woman the way he had, any of us could lose it.
The above is from US war resister Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale -- the 'little' book that some expected to get a tiny flurry of attention the week of release and then quickly fade. Instead, it continues to get attention from across the political spectrum (and around the world), is stocked in bookstores across the country. ZNet runs the most recent review of it, by Derrick O'Keefe who found, "The Deserter's Tale is told in simple, compelling prose. Joshua Key's story may just be one perspective on the Iraq war, but in many ways the young war resister is also speaking on behalf of the voiceless thousands senselessly killed in this war. Relentlessly honest, and graphic, this book stands out as unique and significant amidst the shelves of books critiquing the Bush administration’s foreign policy. It will surely stand up long after this war is over as a condemnation both of the pretensions of empire, and of the grotesque inequality that scars life in the United States itself."
Key is not the only war resister to tell his story in book form. The just released Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia is Camilo Mejia's account, an account he is also sharing currently on a speaking tour with other war resisters. That includes, as Courage to Resist noted yesterday, Agustin Aguayo:
Army Spc. Agustin Aguayo stepped off of a plane today at Sacramento International Airport after being imprisoned by the U.S. Army and held in Germany for nine months. Agustin was convicted of missing movement and desertion for refusing to redeploy to Iraq last year and publicly speaking out against the war.
Agustin's wife Helga and Courage to Resist supporters met him at the airport, give him a couple hours to relax from his 18-hour journey from Germany, and whisked him to his first speaking event in California’s capitol. From here, Agustin is beginning a multi-city tour covering much of Northern California. In the upcoming days, Agustin will be joined by fellow Iraq War resisters Army Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía, Navy Petty Officer Pablo Paredes, and Marine L/Cpl Robert Zabala.
The upcoming dates for the speaking out tour include:
Friday May 11 - Stockton
6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey
7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco
7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville
7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto
7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka
7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Friday May 18 - Berkeley
7pm at St. Joseph the Worker featuring Camilo Mejia.
US war resisters are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Cheney made other laughable claims in Baghdad yesterday. Many in the press, including Joshua Partlow (Washington Post), Alissa J. Rubin and basically anyone filing from Iraq, noted that Cheney declared, "We are here, above all, because the terrorists who have declared war on America and other free nations have made Iraq the central front in that war. . . . The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again." If it sounds familiar, it's part of the scare lie that the US administration used to launch an illegal war. It's been disproven and discredited. Strangely, though major outlets found time to include the lie, there wasn't room to call it out. Now in the leadup to the illegal war this lie would be repeated over and over. It was a lie then but many in the mainstream ran with it (click here for one notable exception, McClatchy Newspapers -- then Knight-Ridder). After that and other lies were exposed -- after the US was involved in an illegal war -- some in the press would express shock that the discredited lie was believed by so many in the public. Why was that? Because despite mini-culpas there was no strong calling out of the lies and, even today, the lie can be jotted down and appear in print without a reporter feeling it is their duty (and it is their duty) to note that what Cheney uttered was a lie. One example, Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev's "Senate reports say Saddam rejected cooperating with terrorists" (McClatchy Newspapers) calling out the lie in September of last year:
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday found, casting further doubt on the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq.
President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly cited Saddam's alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion as one reason to take military action against Iraq.
Yes and Cheney continues to do so without being called out on it, so don't blame the public when the press fails at its own job.
A failure of the British press currently is the slobbering going over about Mr Tony. As Tariq Ali noted at CounterPunch, "Tony Blair's success was limited to winning three general elections in a row. A second-rate actor, he turned out to be a crafty and avaricious politician, but without much substance; bereft of ideas he eagerly grasped and tried to improve upon the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. But though in many ways Blair's programme has been a euphemistic, if bloodier, version of Thatcher's, the style of their departures is very different. Thatcher's overthrow by her fellow-Conservatives was a matter of high drama: an announcement outside the Louvre's glass pyramid during the Paris Congress brokering the end of the Cold War; tears; a crowded House of Commons. Blair makes his unwilling exit against a backdrop of car-bombs and mass carnage in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands left dead or maimed from his policies, and London a prime target for terrorist attack. Thatcher's supporters described themselves afterwards as horror-struck by what they had done. Even Blair's greatest sycophants in the British media: Martin Kettle and Michael White (The Guardian), Andrew Rawnsley (Observer), Philip Stephens (FT) confess to a sense of relief as he finally quits." Speaking with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) today, Tariq Ali noted, "We had no real accounting of why he's leaving as prime minister. And the fact is he's leaving is, because he's hated. And the reason he's hated is because he joined the neocons in Washington and went to war against Iraq, which now 78% of the population in this country [England] oppose. And when people are being asked what will Blair’s legacy be, a large majority is saying Iraq. And I think that's what he will be remembered for, as a prime minister who took a reluctant and skeptical country into a war designed by Washington and its neoconservative strategists, all of whom are in crisis. And you listen to Blair now and his successor, Brown, and they sound much worse than any Democrat in the Senate or the House, because they realize the war's unpopular. These guys carry on living in a tiny bubble, media bubble, which they construct. And I think the BBC's sycophancy, the way in which they portrayed him yesterday as if he was a sort of dead Princess Diana, doesn't do them proud. It was a low point in BBC journalism, with one of their political correspondents saying, 'Gosh, look at him. Isn't he a winner?' Well, he isn't a winner, which is why he's leaving. And a reluctant party is saying farewell to him, because they think they’ll lose the next election if he’s in charge. That's what's going on."
And what's going on Iraq today?
Bombings?
Ibon Villelabeitia and Dean Yates (Reuters) report that Baghdad has seen truck bombing attacks on bridges today that have left at least 26 dead, at least 60 wounded and damanged bridges. Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Basra explosion that left one civilian wounded. Reuters reports a bridge outside Taiji was bombed "main highway connecting the capital [Baghdad] with cities in the north" and that four Iraqi soldiers were killed in the explosion, a Zaafaraniya bombing that left two dead and four wounded,
Shootings?
Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Samara shooting death of "brigadier Amar Kareem Khlaf". Reuters reports a Kirkuk drive-by that left one person dead and the shooting death of Falluja's deputy mayor.
Corpses?
Reuters reports one corpses was discovered in Hawija.
Earlier today Reuters reported the Baghdad death of a US soldier (two more wounded) from a Thursday roadside bombing, the Tikrit death of a US soldier (9 wounded) from a Thursday bombing, the Thursday death of a US soldier in Diwaniya from "small-arms fire" and the Thursday death of a US soldier in Baghdad also from "small-arms fire".
This as AP reports that Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani , in a speech delivered at Cambridge, declared, "I think that in one or two years we will be able to recruit our forces, to prepare our forces and say goodbye to our friends." The total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is now 3386 -- that's 3386 'goodbyes' Talabani can say. Long after the four year mark has passed on the illegal war, everyone is supposed to buy that now (now!) it will only take one or two more years. And of course in one or two more years, no doubt, the message will still be "It'll just take a year or two more." How many deaths is it going to take? The next time someone -- in the US Congress, in the Iraqi Parliament, wherever -- wants to tell the world how much more X it will take for the illegal war to be 'won,' let's all ask them to drop the months or years and tell us how many more lives. How many more lives will this illegal war take? CBS and AP report: "The U.S. commander in northern Iraq, Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, said he doesn't have enough troops for the mission in Diyala, a province northeast of Baghdad that has seen a rise in violence blamed largely on militants who fled the Baghdad security operation. Mixon also said Iraqi government officials are not moving fast enough to provide the 'most powerful weapon' against insurgents -- a government that works and supplies services for the people." For such a government to exist, it would have to be one put foward by the Iraqi people and not yet another puppet government installed by the US. Meanwhile, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reports this on CBS: "In media news, CBS has dismissed an Iraq war veteran over his involvement in an ad campaign criticizing the war. General John Batiste appears in an ad from the group VoteVets dot org. Batiste has been working as a CBS News consultant." Amy Goodman and Greg Palast will be on Sunday's Book TV (C-Span) (7:00 pm EST).
The US House of Representatives passed a measure today. It funds the Iraq war but by piecemeal. The Senate now takes up the vote. It's called going through the motions. Instead, we'll turn to campus activism where Bully Boy's speech today at St. Vincent college (in Penn.) has led to a huge outcry. James Gerstenzang (LA Times) reports that "Students vigorously debated the invitation at a town-hall meeting last month. A former St. Vincent College president wrote a scathing newspaper essay saying Bush had no place on the campus. About a quarter of the tenure-rank faculty wrote an open letter to Bush challenging the Iraq war as contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine. Several dozen people held a candlelight vigil Thursday night protesting the visit. And for several Sundays, nuns protested on the edge of the campus. The discord, polite and reasoned as it may be, is emblematic of passions across the country as the war moves further into its fifth year, with increasing military deployments and mounting death tolls among Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops." Jennifer Loven (AP) reports a crowd of at least 150 protesting and quotes philosophy major Ronny Menzie "I didn't finish my thesis because I didn't want my graduation with him. I think it's a blight, an embarrassment on a Catholic college." and Iraq war vet Jonas Merrill who made a 90 minute drive to protest the Bully Boy's appearance, "We're fighting for the guys still over there." This campus response isn't a brand new development for the administration. David Nitkin (Baltimore Sun) observes, "Graduation visits by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials are galvanizing opponents at campuses across the country, sparking intense debates and frustrating White House hopes. A similar outcry greeted Bush last month at a South Florida community college. Protesters flocked to the campus even though it was considered to be an accommodating environment, with a large Cuban-American population." And Ron Hutcheson (McClatchy Newspapers) reminds, "Other even more conservative campuses also have been touched by unrest over the war. Last month, a small group of students and faculty at Brigham Young University, the nation's premier Mormon school, objected to a commencement address by Vice President Dick Cheney."
iraq
tariq ali
agustin aguayo
democracy now
amy goodman
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
the washington post
joshua partlow
Yesterday in Iraq, Cheney spun like crazy. As Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) pointed out, Dick Cheney quoted David H. Petraeus, top US commander in Iraq, repeatedly, "General Petraeus has underscored the fact that the enemy tactics are barbaric. . . . We can expect more violence as they try to destroy the hopes of the Iraqi people." As pep talks go, not a lot of reality. Last week, Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) reported on a military study that found only 40% of US marines would be willing to "report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian" and the number of those in the army was 55 pecent. As Gregg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) observered: "At the Associated Press' annual meeting in New York on Tuesday, I sat in the audience observing Gen. Petraeus on a huge screen, via satellite from Baghdad, as he answered questions from two AP journalists. Asked about a U.S. Army Surgeon General study of over 1,300 troops in Iraq, released last week, which showed increasing mental stress -- and an alarming spillover into poor treatment of noncombatants -- Petraeus replied, 'When I received that survey I was very concerned by the results. It showed a willingness of a fair number to not report the wrongdoing of their buddies.' That's true enough, but then he asserted that the survey showed that only a 'small number' admitted they may have mistreated "detainees" -- a profoundly misleading statement. Actually, the study found that at least 10% of U.S. forces reported that they had personally, and without cause, mistreated civilians (not detainees) through physical violence or damage to personal property. So much for the claims by President Bush, military leaders and conservative pundits that 99.9% of U.S. troops always behave honorably. Of course, that kind of record has never been achieved by any country in any war." Along with that reality, we have the first hand stories being told.
It was about two a.m., but I could see very well because there were streetlights on our road and because the American illumination rounds that kept the sky lit up all night.
Suddenly, I looked over to my left and saw the bodies of four decapitated Iraqis in their bloodied white robes, lying a few feet from a bullet-ridden pickup truck to the side of the road. Because I sat on top left of the vehicle, and because the bodies were on the left-hand side of the road, I had them in clear view. I assumed that someone had used a massive amount of gunfire to behead them.
"Sh*t," I said.
A few second later, our slow-moving APC came to a stop. Among the three APCs in our convoy, I was the only soldier immediately ordered down to the ground. As I slid down into the APC and then out the hatch, Sergeant Jones told me to look for brass casings, which would be signs that Iraqi fighers with AK-47s had been shooting at American soldiers in the area.
I saw no sign of brass casings, but I did see an American soldier shouting at the top of his lungs while two other soldiers stood quietly next to him.
"We f**king lost it, we just f**king lost it," the soldier was shouting. He was in a state of complete distress, but the soldiers next to him were not reacting. The distressed soldier stood about twenty yeards from me, and another forty or so yards from the four decapitated bodies.
Two other soldiers were laughing and kicking the heads of the decapitated Iraqis. It was clearly a moment of amusement for them. This was their twisted game of soccer.
I froze at the sight of it, and for a moment could not believe my eyes. But I saw what I saw, and was so revolted and horrified that I defied Sergeant Jones's orders and climbed right back into the APC.
[. . .]
I found Private First Class Hayes with a woman under an empty carport. He pointed his M-16 at her head but she would not stop screaming.
"What are you doing this for?" she said.
Hayes told her to shut up.
"We have done nothing to you," she went on.
Hayes was starting to lose it, and we weren't even supposed to be talking to this woman. I told her that we were there on orders and that we couldn't speak to her, but on and on and on she bawled at Hayes and me.
"You Americans are disgusting! Who do you think you are, to do this to us?"
Hayes slammed her in the face with the stock of his M-16. She fell facedown into the dirt, bleeding and silent. The woman lay still on the ground. I pushed Hayes away.
"What are you doing, man?" I said to him. "You have a wife and two kids! Don't be hitting her like that."
He looked at me with eyes full of hatred, as if he was ready to kill me for saying those words, but he did not touch the woman again. I found this incident with Hayes particularly disturbing because during other times I had seen him in action in Iraq, Hayes had showed himself to be one of the most levelheaded and calm soldiers in my company. I had the sense that if he could lose it and hit a woman the way he had, any of us could lose it.
The above is from US war resister Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale -- the 'little' book that some expected to get a tiny flurry of attention the week of release and then quickly fade. Instead, it continues to get attention from across the political spectrum (and around the world), is stocked in bookstores across the country. ZNet runs the most recent review of it, by Derrick O'Keefe who found, "The Deserter's Tale is told in simple, compelling prose. Joshua Key's story may just be one perspective on the Iraq war, but in many ways the young war resister is also speaking on behalf of the voiceless thousands senselessly killed in this war. Relentlessly honest, and graphic, this book stands out as unique and significant amidst the shelves of books critiquing the Bush administration’s foreign policy. It will surely stand up long after this war is over as a condemnation both of the pretensions of empire, and of the grotesque inequality that scars life in the United States itself."
Key is not the only war resister to tell his story in book form. The just released Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia is Camilo Mejia's account, an account he is also sharing currently on a speaking tour with other war resisters. That includes, as Courage to Resist noted yesterday, Agustin Aguayo:
Army Spc. Agustin Aguayo stepped off of a plane today at Sacramento International Airport after being imprisoned by the U.S. Army and held in Germany for nine months. Agustin was convicted of missing movement and desertion for refusing to redeploy to Iraq last year and publicly speaking out against the war.
Agustin's wife Helga and Courage to Resist supporters met him at the airport, give him a couple hours to relax from his 18-hour journey from Germany, and whisked him to his first speaking event in California’s capitol. From here, Agustin is beginning a multi-city tour covering much of Northern California. In the upcoming days, Agustin will be joined by fellow Iraq War resisters Army Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía, Navy Petty Officer Pablo Paredes, and Marine L/Cpl Robert Zabala.
The upcoming dates for the speaking out tour include:
Friday May 11 - Stockton
6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey
7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco
7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville
7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto
7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka
7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Friday May 18 - Berkeley
7pm at St. Joseph the Worker featuring Camilo Mejia.
US war resisters are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Cheney made other laughable claims in Baghdad yesterday. Many in the press, including Joshua Partlow (Washington Post), Alissa J. Rubin and basically anyone filing from Iraq, noted that Cheney declared, "We are here, above all, because the terrorists who have declared war on America and other free nations have made Iraq the central front in that war. . . . The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again." If it sounds familiar, it's part of the scare lie that the US administration used to launch an illegal war. It's been disproven and discredited. Strangely, though major outlets found time to include the lie, there wasn't room to call it out. Now in the leadup to the illegal war this lie would be repeated over and over. It was a lie then but many in the mainstream ran with it (click here for one notable exception, McClatchy Newspapers -- then Knight-Ridder). After that and other lies were exposed -- after the US was involved in an illegal war -- some in the press would express shock that the discredited lie was believed by so many in the public. Why was that? Because despite mini-culpas there was no strong calling out of the lies and, even today, the lie can be jotted down and appear in print without a reporter feeling it is their duty (and it is their duty) to note that what Cheney uttered was a lie. One example, Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev's "Senate reports say Saddam rejected cooperating with terrorists" (McClatchy Newspapers) calling out the lie in September of last year:
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday found, casting further doubt on the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq.
President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly cited Saddam's alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion as one reason to take military action against Iraq.
Yes and Cheney continues to do so without being called out on it, so don't blame the public when the press fails at its own job.
A failure of the British press currently is the slobbering going over about Mr Tony. As Tariq Ali noted at CounterPunch, "Tony Blair's success was limited to winning three general elections in a row. A second-rate actor, he turned out to be a crafty and avaricious politician, but without much substance; bereft of ideas he eagerly grasped and tried to improve upon the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. But though in many ways Blair's programme has been a euphemistic, if bloodier, version of Thatcher's, the style of their departures is very different. Thatcher's overthrow by her fellow-Conservatives was a matter of high drama: an announcement outside the Louvre's glass pyramid during the Paris Congress brokering the end of the Cold War; tears; a crowded House of Commons. Blair makes his unwilling exit against a backdrop of car-bombs and mass carnage in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands left dead or maimed from his policies, and London a prime target for terrorist attack. Thatcher's supporters described themselves afterwards as horror-struck by what they had done. Even Blair's greatest sycophants in the British media: Martin Kettle and Michael White (The Guardian), Andrew Rawnsley (Observer), Philip Stephens (FT) confess to a sense of relief as he finally quits." Speaking with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) today, Tariq Ali noted, "We had no real accounting of why he's leaving as prime minister. And the fact is he's leaving is, because he's hated. And the reason he's hated is because he joined the neocons in Washington and went to war against Iraq, which now 78% of the population in this country [England] oppose. And when people are being asked what will Blair’s legacy be, a large majority is saying Iraq. And I think that's what he will be remembered for, as a prime minister who took a reluctant and skeptical country into a war designed by Washington and its neoconservative strategists, all of whom are in crisis. And you listen to Blair now and his successor, Brown, and they sound much worse than any Democrat in the Senate or the House, because they realize the war's unpopular. These guys carry on living in a tiny bubble, media bubble, which they construct. And I think the BBC's sycophancy, the way in which they portrayed him yesterday as if he was a sort of dead Princess Diana, doesn't do them proud. It was a low point in BBC journalism, with one of their political correspondents saying, 'Gosh, look at him. Isn't he a winner?' Well, he isn't a winner, which is why he's leaving. And a reluctant party is saying farewell to him, because they think they’ll lose the next election if he’s in charge. That's what's going on."
And what's going on Iraq today?
Bombings?
Ibon Villelabeitia and Dean Yates (Reuters) report that Baghdad has seen truck bombing attacks on bridges today that have left at least 26 dead, at least 60 wounded and damanged bridges. Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Basra explosion that left one civilian wounded. Reuters reports a bridge outside Taiji was bombed "main highway connecting the capital [Baghdad] with cities in the north" and that four Iraqi soldiers were killed in the explosion, a Zaafaraniya bombing that left two dead and four wounded,
Shootings?
Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Samara shooting death of "brigadier Amar Kareem Khlaf". Reuters reports a Kirkuk drive-by that left one person dead and the shooting death of Falluja's deputy mayor.
Corpses?
Reuters reports one corpses was discovered in Hawija.
Earlier today Reuters reported the Baghdad death of a US soldier (two more wounded) from a Thursday roadside bombing, the Tikrit death of a US soldier (9 wounded) from a Thursday bombing, the Thursday death of a US soldier in Diwaniya from "small-arms fire" and the Thursday death of a US soldier in Baghdad also from "small-arms fire".
This as AP reports that Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani , in a speech delivered at Cambridge, declared, "I think that in one or two years we will be able to recruit our forces, to prepare our forces and say goodbye to our friends." The total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is now 3386 -- that's 3386 'goodbyes' Talabani can say. Long after the four year mark has passed on the illegal war, everyone is supposed to buy that now (now!) it will only take one or two more years. And of course in one or two more years, no doubt, the message will still be "It'll just take a year or two more." How many deaths is it going to take? The next time someone -- in the US Congress, in the Iraqi Parliament, wherever -- wants to tell the world how much more X it will take for the illegal war to be 'won,' let's all ask them to drop the months or years and tell us how many more lives. How many more lives will this illegal war take? CBS and AP report: "The U.S. commander in northern Iraq, Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, said he doesn't have enough troops for the mission in Diyala, a province northeast of Baghdad that has seen a rise in violence blamed largely on militants who fled the Baghdad security operation. Mixon also said Iraqi government officials are not moving fast enough to provide the 'most powerful weapon' against insurgents -- a government that works and supplies services for the people." For such a government to exist, it would have to be one put foward by the Iraqi people and not yet another puppet government installed by the US. Meanwhile, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reports this on CBS: "In media news, CBS has dismissed an Iraq war veteran over his involvement in an ad campaign criticizing the war. General John Batiste appears in an ad from the group VoteVets dot org. Batiste has been working as a CBS News consultant." Amy Goodman and Greg Palast will be on Sunday's Book TV (C-Span) (7:00 pm EST).
The US House of Representatives passed a measure today. It funds the Iraq war but by piecemeal. The Senate now takes up the vote. It's called going through the motions. Instead, we'll turn to campus activism where Bully Boy's speech today at St. Vincent college (in Penn.) has led to a huge outcry. James Gerstenzang (LA Times) reports that "Students vigorously debated the invitation at a town-hall meeting last month. A former St. Vincent College president wrote a scathing newspaper essay saying Bush had no place on the campus. About a quarter of the tenure-rank faculty wrote an open letter to Bush challenging the Iraq war as contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine. Several dozen people held a candlelight vigil Thursday night protesting the visit. And for several Sundays, nuns protested on the edge of the campus. The discord, polite and reasoned as it may be, is emblematic of passions across the country as the war moves further into its fifth year, with increasing military deployments and mounting death tolls among Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops." Jennifer Loven (AP) reports a crowd of at least 150 protesting and quotes philosophy major Ronny Menzie "I didn't finish my thesis because I didn't want my graduation with him. I think it's a blight, an embarrassment on a Catholic college." and Iraq war vet Jonas Merrill who made a 90 minute drive to protest the Bully Boy's appearance, "We're fighting for the guys still over there." This campus response isn't a brand new development for the administration. David Nitkin (Baltimore Sun) observes, "Graduation visits by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials are galvanizing opponents at campuses across the country, sparking intense debates and frustrating White House hopes. A similar outcry greeted Bush last month at a South Florida community college. Protesters flocked to the campus even though it was considered to be an accommodating environment, with a large Cuban-American population." And Ron Hutcheson (McClatchy Newspapers) reminds, "Other even more conservative campuses also have been touched by unrest over the war. Last month, a small group of students and faculty at Brigham Young University, the nation's premier Mormon school, objected to a commencement address by Vice President Dick Cheney."
iraq
tariq ali
agustin aguayo
democracy now
amy goodman
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
the washington post
joshua partlow
Other Items
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday found, casting further doubt on the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq.
President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly cited Saddam's alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion as one reason to take military action against Iraq.
The 150-page report said the administration's claims were untrue. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support," the report said.
The report was released along with a second one that said false information from the exile group Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, was widely distributed in prewar intelligence reports and used to support intelligence assessments about Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism. Intelligence officials repeatedly warned that the INC was unreliable, but White House and Pentagon officials ignored the warnings.
The reports are part of a five-report study that the Senate Intelligence Committee has undertaken into the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq.
The above is from Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev's "Senate reports say Saddam rejected cooperating with terrorists" (McClatchy Newspapers) and it's sad but necessary to note this since the press won't as they rush to eagerly repeat Dick Cheney's lie of a link between Iraq and 9-11. Here's (some of) what Reuters is reporting today:
BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier was killed and two others were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle in eastern Baghdad on Thursday, the U.S. military said. One of the wounded soldiers later returned to duty, the military said.
TIKRIT - One U.S. soldier was killed and nine were wounded by an explosion on Thursday during combat operations in Diyala province, north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
DIWANIYA - A U.S. soldier was killed on Thursday when his patrol came under small-arms fire in Diwaniya, 180 km (112 miles) south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier was killed by small-arms fire on Thursday in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
Four deaths announced on the morning the mainstream press decides it's more important to prove how well they can take dictation than it is to call out Dick Cheney for (yet again) lying about a 'link' between 9-11 and Iraq. The lies been called out. Possibly even Murdoch print outlets have called it out, but mainstream outlets have called it out . . . when it's not being made. When it's being made, they just repeat it. Now it a day or two there may be 'strong' editorials or columns but today they allow a known lie to be presented in their reporting and not be called out. And you better believe they'll dummy up when a poll shows X number of Americans still believe the false link. You better believe some press types will say, "That's been disproven!" Yeah and it's been repeated since and not called out. Just like what happened today.
Let's drop back to Alissa J. Rubin (with help from Burnsie) to note this nonsense:
He cited the comments of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, who was traveling with him. "General Petraeus has underscored the fact that the enemy tactics are barbaric," Mr. Cheney said, according to a report by The Associated Press, which had a reporter at the base. "We can expect more violence as they try to destroy the hopes of the Iraqi people," he said, still quoting General Petraeus.
6 Iraqi school children killed by fire from an attack helicopter (US) on Tuesday. When's the Times going to address that? No, covering the statement sent out by the miltiary ("It's only two!") isn't covering it.
Let's go to the Betty Grable of the Times to note this:
For instance, he said he had learned within hours of the episode that women and children had been killed, and acknowledged that his own rules required investigation when a "significant" number of civilians died in actions involving marines. But later he said he saw no reason to look into how a "big" number of civilians had died in Haditha.
[. . .]
"In my way of thinking as the commander, at that point in our time in Iraq, 15 people killed as a result of an attack, in a built-up area that involved I.E.D.'s and a coordinated attack, I still think that probably my reaction was, 'That's too bad, but they got caught somehow,' " General Johnson told investigators in a sworn statement obtained by The New York Times from someone familiar with the case.
"Our thought process would have been that, 'Hey, if the enemy hadn't done it, those people wouldn’t have got killed.' "
Of course, 'the enemy' didn't slaughter 24 Iraqis. But note the attitude expressed "too bad." (It's Paul von Zielbauer's "Marine Says His Staff Misled Him on Killings," for anyone who needs a title.)
"Iraqis are rather hostile and feel humiliated. And that's the key thing that maybe some of our policymakers don't understand. The presence of the U.S. soldiers is very humiliating to the Iraqis. Even those who, in their minds know that it's necessary to have the soldiers there, at least some kind of force there preventing an all-out civil war from getting even worse...I don't think they appreciate American culture."
Markus notes the above. It's from Joe Strupp's "Former 'LA Times' Baghdad Chief Says Iraqis Are 'Humiliated'" (Editor & Publisher) -- Borzou Daragahi speaking to Brian Lamb in an interview C-Span will air Sunday night.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. That's it for this morning, I'm not in the mood for all the lies being printed this morning.
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
paul von zielbauer
borzou daragahi
President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly cited Saddam's alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion as one reason to take military action against Iraq.
The 150-page report said the administration's claims were untrue. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support," the report said.
The report was released along with a second one that said false information from the exile group Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, was widely distributed in prewar intelligence reports and used to support intelligence assessments about Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism. Intelligence officials repeatedly warned that the INC was unreliable, but White House and Pentagon officials ignored the warnings.
The reports are part of a five-report study that the Senate Intelligence Committee has undertaken into the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq.
The above is from Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev's "Senate reports say Saddam rejected cooperating with terrorists" (McClatchy Newspapers) and it's sad but necessary to note this since the press won't as they rush to eagerly repeat Dick Cheney's lie of a link between Iraq and 9-11. Here's (some of) what Reuters is reporting today:
BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier was killed and two others were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle in eastern Baghdad on Thursday, the U.S. military said. One of the wounded soldiers later returned to duty, the military said.
TIKRIT - One U.S. soldier was killed and nine were wounded by an explosion on Thursday during combat operations in Diyala province, north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
DIWANIYA - A U.S. soldier was killed on Thursday when his patrol came under small-arms fire in Diwaniya, 180 km (112 miles) south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier was killed by small-arms fire on Thursday in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
Four deaths announced on the morning the mainstream press decides it's more important to prove how well they can take dictation than it is to call out Dick Cheney for (yet again) lying about a 'link' between 9-11 and Iraq. The lies been called out. Possibly even Murdoch print outlets have called it out, but mainstream outlets have called it out . . . when it's not being made. When it's being made, they just repeat it. Now it a day or two there may be 'strong' editorials or columns but today they allow a known lie to be presented in their reporting and not be called out. And you better believe they'll dummy up when a poll shows X number of Americans still believe the false link. You better believe some press types will say, "That's been disproven!" Yeah and it's been repeated since and not called out. Just like what happened today.
Let's drop back to Alissa J. Rubin (with help from Burnsie) to note this nonsense:
He cited the comments of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, who was traveling with him. "General Petraeus has underscored the fact that the enemy tactics are barbaric," Mr. Cheney said, according to a report by The Associated Press, which had a reporter at the base. "We can expect more violence as they try to destroy the hopes of the Iraqi people," he said, still quoting General Petraeus.
6 Iraqi school children killed by fire from an attack helicopter (US) on Tuesday. When's the Times going to address that? No, covering the statement sent out by the miltiary ("It's only two!") isn't covering it.
Let's go to the Betty Grable of the Times to note this:
For instance, he said he had learned within hours of the episode that women and children had been killed, and acknowledged that his own rules required investigation when a "significant" number of civilians died in actions involving marines. But later he said he saw no reason to look into how a "big" number of civilians had died in Haditha.
[. . .]
"In my way of thinking as the commander, at that point in our time in Iraq, 15 people killed as a result of an attack, in a built-up area that involved I.E.D.'s and a coordinated attack, I still think that probably my reaction was, 'That's too bad, but they got caught somehow,' " General Johnson told investigators in a sworn statement obtained by The New York Times from someone familiar with the case.
"Our thought process would have been that, 'Hey, if the enemy hadn't done it, those people wouldn’t have got killed.' "
Of course, 'the enemy' didn't slaughter 24 Iraqis. But note the attitude expressed "too bad." (It's Paul von Zielbauer's "Marine Says His Staff Misled Him on Killings," for anyone who needs a title.)
"Iraqis are rather hostile and feel humiliated. And that's the key thing that maybe some of our policymakers don't understand. The presence of the U.S. soldiers is very humiliating to the Iraqis. Even those who, in their minds know that it's necessary to have the soldiers there, at least some kind of force there preventing an all-out civil war from getting even worse...I don't think they appreciate American culture."
Markus notes the above. It's from Joe Strupp's "Former 'LA Times' Baghdad Chief Says Iraqis Are 'Humiliated'" (Editor & Publisher) -- Borzou Daragahi speaking to Brian Lamb in an interview C-Span will air Sunday night.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. That's it for this morning, I'm not in the mood for all the lies being printed this morning.
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
paul von zielbauer
borzou daragahi
Cheney lies, no one calls it
Baghdad was relatively quiet on Thursday until nightfall, when a car bomb exploded in the Karada neighborhood as an American convoy passed, an Interior Ministry official said. A second bomb exploded in that neighborhood just after midnight.
The American military also announced Thursday that a marine had died in combat on Wednesday in western Iraq.
The ministry also reported that 20 bodies had been found around the city, and that two people had been killed by mortar fire.
Elsewhere in Iraq, at least 20 people were killed or found dead. Among them were five Iraqi Army soldiers and four police officers.
That's from Alissa J. Rubin's "A Tough Fight Still Looms, Cheney Warns G.I.’s in Iraq" in this morning's New York Times and about all that's worth noting. There's an 'interesting' fact-toid in the article that bears a Rita Katz like signature even though it's not credited as such. Rubin also (as does every outlet I've seen this morning) repeats Cheney's false claim that the illegal war in Iraq results from 9-11.
Lloyd noted Joshua Partlow's "Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal" (Washington Post):
On his second day in Iraq, Cheney spoke to U.S. soldiers at a base near Tikrit about the difficulties they face each day. "We are here, above all, because the terrorists who have declared war on America and other free nations have made Iraq the central front in that war," he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. He added: "The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
The US is not in Iraq because of "terrrorists". Dick Cheney's a fat liar. Emphasis on fat. When you have a heart condition -- and he's got several -- you're not supposed to pig out but he's pigged out so much that even the Bully Boy -- who was once in awe of him -- is making fat jokes about Cheney. (Bully Boy loathes overweight people -- one of the reasons we have always noted -- and laughed at -- his own flucuating weight here.)
Tub of girth can tell those lies in Iraq because they're told in training. But this and his extended deployment remarks did not go over well. Yesterday, we covered the chewing out some got for not cheering like good Nazis as Cheney lied repeatedly. But we'll note: No link between Iraq and 9-11. All this time later, it's shocking that the lie still has to be called out. It's not shocking Cheney continues to return to the lie but it is shocking that when he does media outlets do not make it the headline and call it out. Considering that almost all mainstream media participated in spreading that lie in the lead up to the illegal war, it really is incumbent on all to call it out. No need for a lot of self-important journalists to say in a few months time, "I don't know why some in the American public still believe that lie." The reason is right there in print in paper after paper this morning. Tubby lied and everyone took it down, it showed up in print and wasn't called out.
That's why no one should speak of the press having learned a damn thing except to keep their heads down. There is still no effort to call out the LIE. Even something as simple as a sentence hiding behind official-dom is too much for the press: "The 9-11 Commission found no link between Iraq and 9-11. Despite that, Cheney continued to push a link."
There is no link. Allowing him to lie, repeating the lie, without calling it out demonstrates that nothing has changed in the press. Mini-culpas were meaningless. There was no examination process and the press remains unwilling to call out Cheney when he continues to repeat a lie discredited many times over.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
the washington post
joshua partlow
The American military also announced Thursday that a marine had died in combat on Wednesday in western Iraq.
The ministry also reported that 20 bodies had been found around the city, and that two people had been killed by mortar fire.
Elsewhere in Iraq, at least 20 people were killed or found dead. Among them were five Iraqi Army soldiers and four police officers.
That's from Alissa J. Rubin's "A Tough Fight Still Looms, Cheney Warns G.I.’s in Iraq" in this morning's New York Times and about all that's worth noting. There's an 'interesting' fact-toid in the article that bears a Rita Katz like signature even though it's not credited as such. Rubin also (as does every outlet I've seen this morning) repeats Cheney's false claim that the illegal war in Iraq results from 9-11.
Lloyd noted Joshua Partlow's "Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal" (Washington Post):
On his second day in Iraq, Cheney spoke to U.S. soldiers at a base near Tikrit about the difficulties they face each day. "We are here, above all, because the terrorists who have declared war on America and other free nations have made Iraq the central front in that war," he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. He added: "The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
The US is not in Iraq because of "terrrorists". Dick Cheney's a fat liar. Emphasis on fat. When you have a heart condition -- and he's got several -- you're not supposed to pig out but he's pigged out so much that even the Bully Boy -- who was once in awe of him -- is making fat jokes about Cheney. (Bully Boy loathes overweight people -- one of the reasons we have always noted -- and laughed at -- his own flucuating weight here.)
Tub of girth can tell those lies in Iraq because they're told in training. But this and his extended deployment remarks did not go over well. Yesterday, we covered the chewing out some got for not cheering like good Nazis as Cheney lied repeatedly. But we'll note: No link between Iraq and 9-11. All this time later, it's shocking that the lie still has to be called out. It's not shocking Cheney continues to return to the lie but it is shocking that when he does media outlets do not make it the headline and call it out. Considering that almost all mainstream media participated in spreading that lie in the lead up to the illegal war, it really is incumbent on all to call it out. No need for a lot of self-important journalists to say in a few months time, "I don't know why some in the American public still believe that lie." The reason is right there in print in paper after paper this morning. Tubby lied and everyone took it down, it showed up in print and wasn't called out.
That's why no one should speak of the press having learned a damn thing except to keep their heads down. There is still no effort to call out the LIE. Even something as simple as a sentence hiding behind official-dom is too much for the press: "The 9-11 Commission found no link between Iraq and 9-11. Despite that, Cheney continued to push a link."
There is no link. Allowing him to lie, repeating the lie, without calling it out demonstrates that nothing has changed in the press. Mini-culpas were meaningless. There was no examination process and the press remains unwilling to call out Cheney when he continues to repeat a lie discredited many times over.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
the washington post
joshua partlow
Thursday, May 10, 2007
And the war drags on . . .
In today's "Knight Report" --
VP Cheney gets another thunderous respomse to his secret visit to Iraq; and
Democrats decide to continue the War in Iraq by giving President Bush a bimonthly "allowance," rather than an annual "trust fund."
I'm Robert Knight in New York.
The man who mapped Iraq's oilfields as the payoff for the Bush administration's 2003 invasion today visited his prize territory under cover of darkness, where security required Halliburton alumnus and VP Richard Cheney to wear a massive flack-jacket under his blue blazer during yet another secret visit to Baghdad. Nevertheless, Cheney was serenaded with the percussive sound of nearby explosions, just as he was duriung his secret visit to Bagram airnbase in Afghanistan several weeks ago.
Today, mortars fired by the Iraqi patriotic resistance struck near the heavily guarded home of the Iraqi puppet parliament and prime minister inside Baghdad's US controlled Green Zone, with such force and proximity that Cheney's traveling team of reporters and mainstream media stenographers were quickly hustled from the rattling windows that framed a scheduled press conference, to the basement bunker of the US embassy compound, for their own safety.
Following the upstaging of his meeting with US "proconsul" Ryan Crocker and Iraq's de facto military governor, General David Petraeus, the surly VP terminated reporters' questions by growling that "This is just a photo spray." and grumbling that "There still are some security problems, security threats, no question about it." Later, as reporters filed into an embassy conference room for another photo-op of Cheney they overheard him tell his staff "...then we kick the press out."
Cheney's primary purpose was to pump the unratified Iraqi oil law, which was actually written by an American consultancy based near Langley, Virginia -- and which would abolish Iraqi national sovereignty over national petroleum reserves, in favor of lucrative extraction agreements with multinational oil conglomerates, whose proceeds the Bush administration had fondly hoped would help fund the 2-trillion-dollar cost of the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The legislation would also lead to a defacto partition of Iraq by disempowering the central Baghdad government, as well as Iraq's 18 provinces, in favor of so^called "regional governments" -- of which there is currently only one: namely, the Kurdistan regional regime in northern Iraq, which has long enjoyed the favors and clandestine presence of the CIA and Mossad.
But the legitimacy of the Kurdish construct was also challenged during Cheney's visit by the Iraqi resistance, which launched a suicide truck attack in the fortified Kurdish capitol of Irbil, killing nearly 2 dozen and wounding more than 100, in the most significant attack in three years. The "Islamic State of Iraq" claimed responsibility, saying it was in retaliation for the Kurdish government's dispatch of Peshmerga troops and militias to Baghdad for the American security surge.
Cheney's secondary purpose in Iraq was to demand speedy compliance from Iraq's "plantation parliament," which has yet to rubber-stamp the Bush administration's desperate desire for the oil law giveaway. The absentee assembly seldom reaches quorum because nearly half of its members now reside in London and in neighboring countries for their own safety. Cheney (along with most of the American mainstream media) feels competent to judge the parliament's plans for a 2-month recess during the 100-degree summer days of Iraq -- just like the US Congress enjoys during its annual recesses, as do most of America's schoolteachers and students.
More than 4 years into the disastrous occupation that Cheney and the the White House said would be "welcomed with open arms," Cheney today blamed the US-constructed occupation regime for the lack of post-invasion progress, saying of the scheduled Iraqi recess that "Any undue delay would be difficult to explain," and adding that "I do believe that there is a greater sense of urgency now than I'd seen previously."
But, unfortunately for Cheney, much of that urgency is in direct opposition to his presence in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army movement led by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today announced large demonstrations in the three holy cities of Kufa, Karbala and Kadhemiyah to protest Cheney's visit. al-Sadr has also withdrawn a half-dozen Sadrist party members from the occupation cabinet of puppet PM Nouri al Maliki, over his refusal to demansd a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yesterday the Sunni VP of the occupation, Tarek Al Hashimi, gave Maliki a one-week deadline for accomodatoing Sunni interests and ending the occupation -- or face the withdrarwal of Sunni contingents from Maliki's shaky coalition government.
There was also some back-tracking in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are adopting a new strategy to maintain the war in Iraq, while appearing to oppose it.
The latest Democratic party gambit in prolonging the bipartisan war is to not end funding for the war, but to transfer President Bush from an annual war-making "triust fund," to a bi-monthly "allowance."
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of renewing more money if conditions meet up with arbitrarily-defined "benchmarks" -- not the least of them being... passage of the oil law. The Democrats would also agree to eliminate withdrawal requirements and give Bush a blank check for a potential invasion of neighboring Iran. The bill would fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months, but "sequester" $48 billion until Bush made an automatic and unchallenged claim of "progress" in Iraq.
Even so, the White House said today it would still veto the new conditional House legislation -- which Democrats consider a "win-win" tactic, because it would give the impression (with renewals every few weeks) that they are "opposed" to the war and occupation that more than 2/3 of the American public wish to come to a rapid comnclusion.
Nevertheless, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq, revealed today there are NO plans to end the US escalation in Iraq anytime soon. Odierno said "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," .
And that's some of the news of this Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.
That's "The Knight Report" that aired on Wednesday's broadcast of KPFA's Flashpoints Radio which airs Monday through Friday, 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm, on KPFA, KPFB and KFCF Fresno. It can be streamed online live or you can use the archives at KPFA or Flashpoints Radio at any time provided you can listen online. Each Tuesday, Monday's "The Night Report" appears in Hilda's Mix which is a community newsletter for all members but is geared to address the concerns of disabled community members. This was sent into the public account and a) thank you and b) I'm sorry that I didn't see it (or that Ava, Jess, Martha, Shirley or Eli didn't see it) before the snapshot went up today. It would have been included.
In far less space than John F. Burns occupied in today's New York Times, Robert Knight conveys Wednesday's events and does so in a way that is both informative and alive. As stated this morning: "You would know that if you heard Robert Knight's 'The Knight Report' on KPFA's Flashpoints Radio yesterday. You just won't find out about it in the Times." And as you reflect on the fact that the illegal war passed the four year mark in March, let's not pretend that the bulk of the media has gotten any better. They've learned to keep their heads down (the smarter ones) but they haven't changed a great deal. That's really not a surprise. There was no huge change in the days of Woodward & Bernstein. You saw emerging reporters eager to tackle things, yes. But you didn't see the established ones embrace investigative reporting. Not in the mainstream. It was the "young crew" (which could be older people but new to the beat) that (briefly) demonstrated the power of the press. An ahistorical narrative's been written and that's partly because some are too young to have lived through it but it's also because the "decay" resulting from the Clinton-era is a pleasing, self-stroking narrative. Under Reagan, the US government regularly attacked and funded attacks (sometimes covertly) on Latin America. The New York Times' response when the Reagan State Department objected to reality was to pull Raymond Bonner from his beat. Let's not all, as Susan Sontag once rightly said, be stupid together. If you're able to but have not yet sampled the work of Robert Knight, Nora Barrows-Friedman, Dennis Bernstein, Emily Howard, Miguel Molina and others on Flashpoints, please make a point to. (If you like it and can spare it, KPFA is in pledge drive mode currently. All Pacifica stations are so, if there's a voice that speaks to you and you have the money to donate, please consider doing so.) The media could be doing so much more (sadly that also includes some small media). By not even trying, they ensure that the illegal war drags on.
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 Thursday, the American military fatality count in Iraq, since the start of the illegal war, stood at 3357 (ICCC). Tonight? 3384. Since the snapshot earlier today, the US military has announced: "An MNC-I Soldier was severely wounded by small arms fire at approximately 5 p.m. Thursday in Diwaniyah. The Soldier was evacuated for treatment at the Coalition hospital in Baghdad but later died of his wounds." And they announced: "While conducting combat security operations in a southern section of the capital, a Multi-National Division -- Baghdad patrol was attacked with small arms fire, killing one Soldier May 10."
Marcia e-mailed to note Foreign Policy in Focus' "What's Next for the Peace Movement?" (which was also noted by two visitors in the public account). This is a response to
Lawrence Wittner "How the Peace Movement Can Win." Marcia writes some things sound good, some not so. She offered to write her own thoughts down for Hilda's Mix Tuesday if I'd address it tonight. I'm so tired I'm about to fall over so there was no need for a trade, I'll grab it gladly, but that means members should check their inboxes for Marcia's take. We may agree or disagree (Marcia didn't share which ones she enjoyed and which ones she didn't) and that's the nature of a conversation so, first, let's note that Foreign Policy in Focus is addressing the topic (and that you can't say the same for a lot of other publications). It's various people sharing their thoughts. Secondly, Geoffrey Millard shares his thoughts. I'm not going to address those. If I disagreed, I wouldn't say so. (I strongly support Iraq Veterans Against the War.) So it's really not fair to do a highs and/or lows and include him if he's not going to get a low when the others are. (I haven't read his thoughts. I'll do so after this posts. And I'm tired, as this goes on, expect more lows to be noted and less highs.)
So let's dive in. We highlihgted Wittner's essay previously. He is not the voice of god. He is someone initiating a serious conversation about the peace movement, where it stands, where it could go, etc. Wittner is a historian and that brings the very real wisdom and experience that's often missing in an insta-world. It's also true that sometimes we can be so seeped in experience that we're missing new changes.
Frida Berrigan gets the ball rolling rightly by noting that a single message, as proposed by Wittner in his essay, will not allow some issues to be addressed. Expanding on that is the issue of who decides. NOW (which I support) has a NOW PAC that endorsed Hillary Clinton. Not all NOW members are pleased with that. Some are so outraged they've written off the organization. So is it just "majority rule"? Is that how the peace movement would arrive at their single message? Isn't one of the greatest strengths of the peace movement, historically, that it has been able to take up issues that went beyond "mob rule"? So that's the high. The low? I am all in favor of demonstrations and actions to protest the imprisonments at Guantanamo but I am aware of criticism (from non-peace movement types) that the issue is a "justice" issue and not a peace one. (I'm not agreeing with that, I am noting the criticism.) I don't believe Wittner would state that. But some would and they'd say that the action isn't a peace action and therefore doesn't belong in the peace movement which demonstrates the need for a single message.
For the record, I don't agree with the single message nonsense. I've heard that about every protest. "If they didn't allow ___ on the stage/at the mike, I would've gone . . ." But the thing is the illegal war is over 4 years old and the people saying that to me haven't done a damn thing. There have been actions they could take part in that didn't have whatever issue featured or whatever group or whatever person and . . . they still didn't participate. I think a lot of that is nonsense, it's a cop-out that's used and, if whatever was removed, the result would be that the do-nothings found another excuse to do nothing.
Brian Corr identifies what he thinks will work. I'm going to jump to the low on Corr. Myself, I didn't need to hear what Wittner got 'right' in Corr's opinion. I think that's besides the point. It's polite. It also, my opinion, wastes time. Corr's got some very strong points. More room could have been devoted to them if we didn't need to hear about Wittner's "strong points." I'm self-criticizing in that choice for low because I do the same thing. But Corr's points are too strong for readers to have to wait for them. Corr's addressing the issue of representation and diversity and pointing out that for those principles to really mean something you don't just talk them or provide a speaker or two or three . . . , the structure of the organization needs to be diverse. These are real issues that come up in every movement. I'm picking the "low" as the low (and remembering, my own fingers point back at me) because Corr is the only one raising this issue and it doesn't need to share time with Wittner's strong points. One of his key points is a question he cites: "What are you willing to give up so that our organization will look more like the society we are trying to change and will therefore be able to achieve what we all believe in."
Joanne Landy feels there are two chief issues that the movement needs to win -- stopping aggression and providing an alternative. She's thinking long term (that's not an insult). She's calling for plans that detail how we stop what we are against and how we implement what we are in favor of. She then hits her low by bringing up history as examples and the history is old debates between various factions of the left movement going back decades and decades. For younger readers that might be useful, for those who lived through any of it, you may find yourself gnashing your teeth and wondering, "Are we learning or are we back to settling old scores?" If you feel the latter, you may wonder why someone feels the need to bring that into today's peace movement which will carry on long after those of us who lived through those times are gone and is it worth it to saddle today's movement with all that baggage? I'm not saying Landy is attempting to saddle anyone with baggage. I don't recognize her name and she may not have even lived through that. I am saying that will be the reaction of many. I'm not sure how much of a concern that is to today's peace movement because I'm not aware, with few exceptions who have to write about "Mother Russia," of those who take their cues today from the actions of another country. (I've just insulted many older people with that comment. That's not my intent. I can't put it another way. I'm too tired and I lived through some of that nonsense during Vietnam as older people wanted to debate Stalin, Trotsky, et al which really didn't involve those of us who were younger at all because we hadn't bent to the will of something outside of ourselves.) There's also a desire expressed that in fact calls for just the sort of structure that would recreate those divides. (Which were a nightmare to sit through during Vietnam. You just wished the old geezers would take it outside already.)
We must, these are her feelings, be able to oppose Iran for its repression while decrying war against Iran. Okay, the Egyptian government practices blantant homophobia. My point? What she ideally wants is a scorecard we all operate from and I believe that's how a great many schisms and divisions started to begin with in some quarters that toed a party line as opposed to a peace line. Who's creating the scorecard? Who's keeping people on message? Who's doing the teaching/indoctrination? And let's be really clear that the latter would come along. I'm not interested in that, I've never been interested in it. And this idea that there's going to be a scorecard on every country and every issue strikes me as nonsense. Is it appropriate to launch a pre-emptive war of agression? That's the issue for me. No, it's not appropriate, it's illegal. When we get into the "I see your point that Iran is just frightening and abusive to so many but . . ." You've lost the undecicded before you got to the "but".
As I read the suggestion, I see it as creating divisions and I'm quite aware anytime I plan to invite people over (to this day) that with certain older people I have to tick off in my mind where they stood when to know whether or not they can be seated at the same table or even invited to the same function. (I'm not talking about preventing debate and discussion here. I'm talking about people standing up and yelling curses at one another over long held grudges.) These are decade old grudges they've carried that will soon be century old grudges and life is too short.
There are aspects I agree with in her commentary; however, any question of whether or not I was misreading the argument were put to rest for me when she felt the need to bait another organization working to end the Iraq war. That's exactly the crap I'm talking about. "You were for Stalin!" "You ignored ___!" It's ugly and it needs to stop. Calling an organization "deeply compromised" in a supposed essay on peace is just the sort of ugly nonsense that goes back and forth and I don't see that it serves any purpose. When I was a college student, we (my peers and I) would get so sick of these grudge f**ks from the past being brought into the work we were attempting to do (in the then present).
Don Kraus is presenting the reality that groupings can be more effective. They can come together, they can splinter. As needed. He rejects a top-down structure. He is attempting to expand, not divide. A weak point is in likening the structure to entrepreneurial nature and assuming everyone will get the comparison. That would be more effective if it were developed.
He may be assuming that this is the journal of a think tank and readers will know what he's referring to. The mistake is that the journal is available online and will get readers from all over, some of whom scratch their heads in confusion at his aside. This is actually going to a short coming. Someone, if this were a roundtable where people had a free exchange, might ask him to elaborate. Since people aren't exchaning ideas, just offering their own statements, there's no opportunity for that. (The previous opinions might have been strengthened for the same reason.) The biggest weak point for me personally is when he feels we can all get on message. We don't need one voice, we need many voices (my opinion) and that's made clear (for me) by his example which is the opposition to John Bolton for UN ambassador. He thinks the decision to use "one basic message" was a good one and then provides it: "wrong man for the job."
I wouldn't sign onto that slogan. "Wrong man for the job." Meaning there's a "right man"? Which could send the message that the "right" will be a "man."
He then starts confusing the peace movement with lobbyists, PACs and just about everything else you can think of. And we'll all be on the same page! Which raises Corr's points (again, they are strong ones and he's the only one making them) of who gets to determine the message, who gets invited into the structure and the decision making and who doesn't?
George Friday I know so I won't address. (That's neither a slam or an endorsement. I didn't catch that name when I was reading through Marcia's e-mail.)
Saif Rahman offers some interesting examples as he wishes the peace movement had something like NOW, NAACP, etc. You don't want that (my opinion). NARAL became useless the minute it was a DC group. It traded independence for access and lost any real power. Look at what's going on with The Nation as issue after issue is all about those 'lovely' Dems. That's why I do believe in the power of groupings that Kraus was speaking of. Smaller units can ensure that issues are addressed. I also reject the idea that the peace movement is not succeeding (asserted by Wittner). The peace movement has succeeded. Want it to succeed more? Demand that The Nation cover it. Demand that mainstream media cover it. A magazine recently told us what was wrong with the coverage of the January DC action. By someone who was present. For someone who is full of ideas of what the press should have done (ideas I agree with and ideas we've done at The Third Estate Sunday Review for every demonstration we've written about) wastes everyone's time when they refuse to do so in the space they have. This was an activist and she wrote the piece (some points of which I disagreed with strongly) to show you what big media did wrong. If she truly wanted to show what was wrong, she could have done so by providing examples or even making her entire piece about how the mainstream could have covered the demonstration. I'd also add that in limited space, a multi-line quote from MLK isn't advancing anything. You can summarize it. But to use limited space to share a quote? MLK has had his say and should be remembered. But as the only youth voice invited into the discussion, it was more important to hear from that then to hear a lengthy quote (eight lines) from MLK.
Scott Bennett? I'm too tired for. It's too academic.
David Cobb. Cobb's addressing issues. This isn't finger one organization. He's not afraid to call out the members of Congress who are hailed as heroes but practice double speak. His is probably one of the most enjoyable reads. It reads like one of his speeches or like something said in conversation. Example: "If you are for peace, you don't vote for war. It's really pretty simple. Likewise, no peace activist should vote for any candidate unable or unwilling to show the political courage necessary to vote to end the war." Whether you agree with him or not, he is straight foward. (I agree with him for any wondering.) He is also the only one I saw who made the point that Democratic officials don't just abandon the peace movement, they abandona labor.
(They abandon reproductive rights, they abandon African-Americans and women, they . . . go down the list.) If, as Wittner does, you argue that Congressional Dems abandon something, you should be aware that they abandon somethings -- plural.
Bal Pinguel quickly uses Wittner as a leaping off point for a very effective argument against centralization of power. Pinguel is also the only one who is addressing the United States as something other than a place where war will be launched. Pinguel writes of the real costs at home: "As we will come to realize, the poor, people of color, women, and children are the main casualties of the Iraq war at home." I am sorry to pick on the same person from before but she wanted to have a scorecard of agreement that this foreign country does this (plus) and this (bad) and blah, blah, blah. Unlike Pinguel, she didn't have anything to say about the US. The war is harmful to the US and that goes beyond the monies borrowed. Pinguel also notes MLK but doesn't turn over time to a lengthy quote.
Andrew Lichterman notes the reality of setting up a seat in a 'center of power' and gets at the importance of decentralization. Lichterman gets shortchanged by me because my eyes are watering and I have to be up in about two hours (after I go to sleep). He has a strong argument and points of it can be found above.
Now, let me be clear. Those are all my opinions. Read the article and form your own. Tuesday, Marcia will share her opinions. I'm sure she'll approach each argument from a different persepective -- as she should. A dialogue about the peace movement needs to be ongoing. For the most part, it can't even get started. No links, I'm too tired, but CounterPunch has addressed it. Ron Jacobs did in one piece and another person did as well. Foreign Policy in Focus is addressing it now. They're trying to start the dialogue.
Whether you agree with a point of view in the feature or not, every one was engaged in attempting to address the issue. Even Joanne Landy whom I was the most hard on. But I do not believe we pass on the baggage to future generations. I didn't like it when it was passed on to my generation and I have no interest in passing it on to the next. Some people may read Landy and feel she is the most on the money. If that's what you feel then that is correct. The voices you respond to are your own business. In a different article, I would have read Landy's statements differently but, again, I've lived through that nonsense. I'm not interested in it. There are groups that are popular with members and we note them here. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Or agree with them 100%. The issue for this community is more voices, not less and when Landy wants to revive old issues, I'm just not interested. (It should also be noted that the organization she finger points at has no voice presented in the article which makes the finger pointing even worse. And it should be noted that on her end no finger pointing may be a motivating factor. She may just be attempting to tell her own truth as she sees it.) If an organization's working for peace, they're working on the same larger issues that everyone in the community is. There's no need to have 100% agreement. And that goes to the point the most successful contributions in the article made, the need for a variety of voices.
I think I'm repeating myself.
Big news today is Tony Blair's announced impending departure. Many European members have e-mailed about that. It's the topic of my column in the gina & krista round-robin and it's also the topic of Three Cool Old Guys' column in the round-robin. In addition, Pru, Gareth and Polly took to the streets of London to get reactions. They will be doing that on Saturday as well for Polly's Brew Sunday. What we will note tonight is this section of Tariq Ali's "Adieu, Blair, Adieu" (CounterPunch) that Brady highlighted:
Tony Blair's success was limited to winning three general elections in a row. A second-rate actor, he turned out to be a crafty and avaricious politician, but without much substance; bereft of ideas he eagerly grasped and tried to improve upon the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. But though in many ways Blair's programme has been a euphemistic, if bloodier, version of Thatcher's, the style of their departures is very different. Thatcher's overthrow by her fellow-Conservatives was a matter of high drama: an announcement outside the Louvre's glass pyramid during the Paris Congress brokering the end of the Cold War; tears; a crowded House of Commons. Blair makes his unwilling exit against a backdrop of car-bombs and mass carnage in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands left dead or maimed from his policies, and London a prime target for terrorist attack. Thatcher's supporters described themselves afterwards as horror-struck by what they had done. Even Blair's greatest sycophants in the British media: Martin Kettle and Michael White (The Guardian), Andrew Rawnsley (Observer), Philip Stephens (FT) confess to a sense of relief as he finally quits.
Last highlight is from the Green Party of Suffolk:
Press Contacts:
Kimberly Wilder, Green Party of Suffolk, Press Secretary
(631) 422-4702 votewilder@yahoo.com.
Roger Snyder, Green Party of Suffolk, Chair
(631) 351-5763 info@gpsuffolk.org
The Green Party of Suffolk will be holding a "Summer in Setuaket--Green Fundraising Party" on Friday, June 22 from 7pm to 10pm at the Setauket Neighborhood House, 95 Main Street, Setauket. (Main Street is north of 25A and 6/10th of a mile west of Nichols Road) http://www.setauketneighborhoodhouse.com/ The evening will include a potluck dinner, music, an art auction, and a display of the Green Party of Suffolk’s "Bring Home The Troops" poster contest entries. The winning poster from the youth category is on display now at http://www.gpsuffolk.org/.
Vegetarian and vegan dishes will be served. Admission is $15 (with a dish) and $20 (without a dish). Children are welcome. There will be a silent auction of work by local artists. Please note that political donations are not tax-deductible
Blacklisted & The Banned will perform their unique style of original, political music. Blacklisted features Sonny Meadows, Bob Westcott, Jon Foreman, Bob Campbell and Robert Langley. Blacklisted’s repertoire is sure to include some words against war and you can also expect them to play at least one song from their recently released first album, "I Never Thought I'd Miss Richard Nixon." More information about Blacklisted & The Banned can be found at http://www.sonnymeadows.com/.
The Green Party is an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. The Green Party’s values can be described by the four pillars of: Nonviolence; Grassroots Democracy; Ecological Wisdom; and Social and Economic Justice.
Donations and/or requests for advance tickets can be sent to: Green Party of Suffolk, 14 Robin Drive, Huntington, NY 11743. For more information call Roger at (631) 351-5763 or go to http://www.gpsuffolk.org/
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. Entries may start late tomorrow morning.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
robert knight
flashpoints
foreign policy in focus
tariq ali
green party of suffolk
VP Cheney gets another thunderous respomse to his secret visit to Iraq; and
Democrats decide to continue the War in Iraq by giving President Bush a bimonthly "allowance," rather than an annual "trust fund."
I'm Robert Knight in New York.
The man who mapped Iraq's oilfields as the payoff for the Bush administration's 2003 invasion today visited his prize territory under cover of darkness, where security required Halliburton alumnus and VP Richard Cheney to wear a massive flack-jacket under his blue blazer during yet another secret visit to Baghdad. Nevertheless, Cheney was serenaded with the percussive sound of nearby explosions, just as he was duriung his secret visit to Bagram airnbase in Afghanistan several weeks ago.
Today, mortars fired by the Iraqi patriotic resistance struck near the heavily guarded home of the Iraqi puppet parliament and prime minister inside Baghdad's US controlled Green Zone, with such force and proximity that Cheney's traveling team of reporters and mainstream media stenographers were quickly hustled from the rattling windows that framed a scheduled press conference, to the basement bunker of the US embassy compound, for their own safety.
Following the upstaging of his meeting with US "proconsul" Ryan Crocker and Iraq's de facto military governor, General David Petraeus, the surly VP terminated reporters' questions by growling that "This is just a photo spray." and grumbling that "There still are some security problems, security threats, no question about it." Later, as reporters filed into an embassy conference room for another photo-op of Cheney they overheard him tell his staff "...then we kick the press out."
Cheney's primary purpose was to pump the unratified Iraqi oil law, which was actually written by an American consultancy based near Langley, Virginia -- and which would abolish Iraqi national sovereignty over national petroleum reserves, in favor of lucrative extraction agreements with multinational oil conglomerates, whose proceeds the Bush administration had fondly hoped would help fund the 2-trillion-dollar cost of the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The legislation would also lead to a defacto partition of Iraq by disempowering the central Baghdad government, as well as Iraq's 18 provinces, in favor of so^called "regional governments" -- of which there is currently only one: namely, the Kurdistan regional regime in northern Iraq, which has long enjoyed the favors and clandestine presence of the CIA and Mossad.
But the legitimacy of the Kurdish construct was also challenged during Cheney's visit by the Iraqi resistance, which launched a suicide truck attack in the fortified Kurdish capitol of Irbil, killing nearly 2 dozen and wounding more than 100, in the most significant attack in three years. The "Islamic State of Iraq" claimed responsibility, saying it was in retaliation for the Kurdish government's dispatch of Peshmerga troops and militias to Baghdad for the American security surge.
Cheney's secondary purpose in Iraq was to demand speedy compliance from Iraq's "plantation parliament," which has yet to rubber-stamp the Bush administration's desperate desire for the oil law giveaway. The absentee assembly seldom reaches quorum because nearly half of its members now reside in London and in neighboring countries for their own safety. Cheney (along with most of the American mainstream media) feels competent to judge the parliament's plans for a 2-month recess during the 100-degree summer days of Iraq -- just like the US Congress enjoys during its annual recesses, as do most of America's schoolteachers and students.
More than 4 years into the disastrous occupation that Cheney and the the White House said would be "welcomed with open arms," Cheney today blamed the US-constructed occupation regime for the lack of post-invasion progress, saying of the scheduled Iraqi recess that "Any undue delay would be difficult to explain," and adding that "I do believe that there is a greater sense of urgency now than I'd seen previously."
But, unfortunately for Cheney, much of that urgency is in direct opposition to his presence in Iraq.
The Mahdi Army movement led by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today announced large demonstrations in the three holy cities of Kufa, Karbala and Kadhemiyah to protest Cheney's visit. al-Sadr has also withdrawn a half-dozen Sadrist party members from the occupation cabinet of puppet PM Nouri al Maliki, over his refusal to demansd a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yesterday the Sunni VP of the occupation, Tarek Al Hashimi, gave Maliki a one-week deadline for accomodatoing Sunni interests and ending the occupation -- or face the withdrarwal of Sunni contingents from Maliki's shaky coalition government.
There was also some back-tracking in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are adopting a new strategy to maintain the war in Iraq, while appearing to oppose it.
The latest Democratic party gambit in prolonging the bipartisan war is to not end funding for the war, but to transfer President Bush from an annual war-making "triust fund," to a bi-monthly "allowance."
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of renewing more money if conditions meet up with arbitrarily-defined "benchmarks" -- not the least of them being... passage of the oil law. The Democrats would also agree to eliminate withdrawal requirements and give Bush a blank check for a potential invasion of neighboring Iran. The bill would fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months, but "sequester" $48 billion until Bush made an automatic and unchallenged claim of "progress" in Iraq.
Even so, the White House said today it would still veto the new conditional House legislation -- which Democrats consider a "win-win" tactic, because it would give the impression (with renewals every few weeks) that they are "opposed" to the war and occupation that more than 2/3 of the American public wish to come to a rapid comnclusion.
Nevertheless, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq, revealed today there are NO plans to end the US escalation in Iraq anytime soon. Odierno said "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," .
And that's some of the news of this Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.
That's "The Knight Report" that aired on Wednesday's broadcast of KPFA's Flashpoints Radio which airs Monday through Friday, 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm, on KPFA, KPFB and KFCF Fresno. It can be streamed online live or you can use the archives at KPFA or Flashpoints Radio at any time provided you can listen online. Each Tuesday, Monday's "The Night Report" appears in Hilda's Mix which is a community newsletter for all members but is geared to address the concerns of disabled community members. This was sent into the public account and a) thank you and b) I'm sorry that I didn't see it (or that Ava, Jess, Martha, Shirley or Eli didn't see it) before the snapshot went up today. It would have been included.
In far less space than John F. Burns occupied in today's New York Times, Robert Knight conveys Wednesday's events and does so in a way that is both informative and alive. As stated this morning: "You would know that if you heard Robert Knight's 'The Knight Report' on KPFA's Flashpoints Radio yesterday. You just won't find out about it in the Times." And as you reflect on the fact that the illegal war passed the four year mark in March, let's not pretend that the bulk of the media has gotten any better. They've learned to keep their heads down (the smarter ones) but they haven't changed a great deal. That's really not a surprise. There was no huge change in the days of Woodward & Bernstein. You saw emerging reporters eager to tackle things, yes. But you didn't see the established ones embrace investigative reporting. Not in the mainstream. It was the "young crew" (which could be older people but new to the beat) that (briefly) demonstrated the power of the press. An ahistorical narrative's been written and that's partly because some are too young to have lived through it but it's also because the "decay" resulting from the Clinton-era is a pleasing, self-stroking narrative. Under Reagan, the US government regularly attacked and funded attacks (sometimes covertly) on Latin America. The New York Times' response when the Reagan State Department objected to reality was to pull Raymond Bonner from his beat. Let's not all, as Susan Sontag once rightly said, be stupid together. If you're able to but have not yet sampled the work of Robert Knight, Nora Barrows-Friedman, Dennis Bernstein, Emily Howard, Miguel Molina and others on Flashpoints, please make a point to. (If you like it and can spare it, KPFA is in pledge drive mode currently. All Pacifica stations are so, if there's a voice that speaks to you and you have the money to donate, please consider doing so.) The media could be doing so much more (sadly that also includes some small media). By not even trying, they ensure that the illegal war drags on.
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 Thursday, the American military fatality count in Iraq, since the start of the illegal war, stood at 3357 (ICCC). Tonight? 3384. Since the snapshot earlier today, the US military has announced: "An MNC-I Soldier was severely wounded by small arms fire at approximately 5 p.m. Thursday in Diwaniyah. The Soldier was evacuated for treatment at the Coalition hospital in Baghdad but later died of his wounds." And they announced: "While conducting combat security operations in a southern section of the capital, a Multi-National Division -- Baghdad patrol was attacked with small arms fire, killing one Soldier May 10."
Marcia e-mailed to note Foreign Policy in Focus' "What's Next for the Peace Movement?" (which was also noted by two visitors in the public account). This is a response to
Lawrence Wittner "How the Peace Movement Can Win." Marcia writes some things sound good, some not so. She offered to write her own thoughts down for Hilda's Mix Tuesday if I'd address it tonight. I'm so tired I'm about to fall over so there was no need for a trade, I'll grab it gladly, but that means members should check their inboxes for Marcia's take. We may agree or disagree (Marcia didn't share which ones she enjoyed and which ones she didn't) and that's the nature of a conversation so, first, let's note that Foreign Policy in Focus is addressing the topic (and that you can't say the same for a lot of other publications). It's various people sharing their thoughts. Secondly, Geoffrey Millard shares his thoughts. I'm not going to address those. If I disagreed, I wouldn't say so. (I strongly support Iraq Veterans Against the War.) So it's really not fair to do a highs and/or lows and include him if he's not going to get a low when the others are. (I haven't read his thoughts. I'll do so after this posts. And I'm tired, as this goes on, expect more lows to be noted and less highs.)
So let's dive in. We highlihgted Wittner's essay previously. He is not the voice of god. He is someone initiating a serious conversation about the peace movement, where it stands, where it could go, etc. Wittner is a historian and that brings the very real wisdom and experience that's often missing in an insta-world. It's also true that sometimes we can be so seeped in experience that we're missing new changes.
Frida Berrigan gets the ball rolling rightly by noting that a single message, as proposed by Wittner in his essay, will not allow some issues to be addressed. Expanding on that is the issue of who decides. NOW (which I support) has a NOW PAC that endorsed Hillary Clinton. Not all NOW members are pleased with that. Some are so outraged they've written off the organization. So is it just "majority rule"? Is that how the peace movement would arrive at their single message? Isn't one of the greatest strengths of the peace movement, historically, that it has been able to take up issues that went beyond "mob rule"? So that's the high. The low? I am all in favor of demonstrations and actions to protest the imprisonments at Guantanamo but I am aware of criticism (from non-peace movement types) that the issue is a "justice" issue and not a peace one. (I'm not agreeing with that, I am noting the criticism.) I don't believe Wittner would state that. But some would and they'd say that the action isn't a peace action and therefore doesn't belong in the peace movement which demonstrates the need for a single message.
For the record, I don't agree with the single message nonsense. I've heard that about every protest. "If they didn't allow ___ on the stage/at the mike, I would've gone . . ." But the thing is the illegal war is over 4 years old and the people saying that to me haven't done a damn thing. There have been actions they could take part in that didn't have whatever issue featured or whatever group or whatever person and . . . they still didn't participate. I think a lot of that is nonsense, it's a cop-out that's used and, if whatever was removed, the result would be that the do-nothings found another excuse to do nothing.
Brian Corr identifies what he thinks will work. I'm going to jump to the low on Corr. Myself, I didn't need to hear what Wittner got 'right' in Corr's opinion. I think that's besides the point. It's polite. It also, my opinion, wastes time. Corr's got some very strong points. More room could have been devoted to them if we didn't need to hear about Wittner's "strong points." I'm self-criticizing in that choice for low because I do the same thing. But Corr's points are too strong for readers to have to wait for them. Corr's addressing the issue of representation and diversity and pointing out that for those principles to really mean something you don't just talk them or provide a speaker or two or three . . . , the structure of the organization needs to be diverse. These are real issues that come up in every movement. I'm picking the "low" as the low (and remembering, my own fingers point back at me) because Corr is the only one raising this issue and it doesn't need to share time with Wittner's strong points. One of his key points is a question he cites: "What are you willing to give up so that our organization will look more like the society we are trying to change and will therefore be able to achieve what we all believe in."
Joanne Landy feels there are two chief issues that the movement needs to win -- stopping aggression and providing an alternative. She's thinking long term (that's not an insult). She's calling for plans that detail how we stop what we are against and how we implement what we are in favor of. She then hits her low by bringing up history as examples and the history is old debates between various factions of the left movement going back decades and decades. For younger readers that might be useful, for those who lived through any of it, you may find yourself gnashing your teeth and wondering, "Are we learning or are we back to settling old scores?" If you feel the latter, you may wonder why someone feels the need to bring that into today's peace movement which will carry on long after those of us who lived through those times are gone and is it worth it to saddle today's movement with all that baggage? I'm not saying Landy is attempting to saddle anyone with baggage. I don't recognize her name and she may not have even lived through that. I am saying that will be the reaction of many. I'm not sure how much of a concern that is to today's peace movement because I'm not aware, with few exceptions who have to write about "Mother Russia," of those who take their cues today from the actions of another country. (I've just insulted many older people with that comment. That's not my intent. I can't put it another way. I'm too tired and I lived through some of that nonsense during Vietnam as older people wanted to debate Stalin, Trotsky, et al which really didn't involve those of us who were younger at all because we hadn't bent to the will of something outside of ourselves.) There's also a desire expressed that in fact calls for just the sort of structure that would recreate those divides. (Which were a nightmare to sit through during Vietnam. You just wished the old geezers would take it outside already.)
We must, these are her feelings, be able to oppose Iran for its repression while decrying war against Iran. Okay, the Egyptian government practices blantant homophobia. My point? What she ideally wants is a scorecard we all operate from and I believe that's how a great many schisms and divisions started to begin with in some quarters that toed a party line as opposed to a peace line. Who's creating the scorecard? Who's keeping people on message? Who's doing the teaching/indoctrination? And let's be really clear that the latter would come along. I'm not interested in that, I've never been interested in it. And this idea that there's going to be a scorecard on every country and every issue strikes me as nonsense. Is it appropriate to launch a pre-emptive war of agression? That's the issue for me. No, it's not appropriate, it's illegal. When we get into the "I see your point that Iran is just frightening and abusive to so many but . . ." You've lost the undecicded before you got to the "but".
As I read the suggestion, I see it as creating divisions and I'm quite aware anytime I plan to invite people over (to this day) that with certain older people I have to tick off in my mind where they stood when to know whether or not they can be seated at the same table or even invited to the same function. (I'm not talking about preventing debate and discussion here. I'm talking about people standing up and yelling curses at one another over long held grudges.) These are decade old grudges they've carried that will soon be century old grudges and life is too short.
There are aspects I agree with in her commentary; however, any question of whether or not I was misreading the argument were put to rest for me when she felt the need to bait another organization working to end the Iraq war. That's exactly the crap I'm talking about. "You were for Stalin!" "You ignored ___!" It's ugly and it needs to stop. Calling an organization "deeply compromised" in a supposed essay on peace is just the sort of ugly nonsense that goes back and forth and I don't see that it serves any purpose. When I was a college student, we (my peers and I) would get so sick of these grudge f**ks from the past being brought into the work we were attempting to do (in the then present).
Don Kraus is presenting the reality that groupings can be more effective. They can come together, they can splinter. As needed. He rejects a top-down structure. He is attempting to expand, not divide. A weak point is in likening the structure to entrepreneurial nature and assuming everyone will get the comparison. That would be more effective if it were developed.
He may be assuming that this is the journal of a think tank and readers will know what he's referring to. The mistake is that the journal is available online and will get readers from all over, some of whom scratch their heads in confusion at his aside. This is actually going to a short coming. Someone, if this were a roundtable where people had a free exchange, might ask him to elaborate. Since people aren't exchaning ideas, just offering their own statements, there's no opportunity for that. (The previous opinions might have been strengthened for the same reason.) The biggest weak point for me personally is when he feels we can all get on message. We don't need one voice, we need many voices (my opinion) and that's made clear (for me) by his example which is the opposition to John Bolton for UN ambassador. He thinks the decision to use "one basic message" was a good one and then provides it: "wrong man for the job."
I wouldn't sign onto that slogan. "Wrong man for the job." Meaning there's a "right man"? Which could send the message that the "right" will be a "man."
He then starts confusing the peace movement with lobbyists, PACs and just about everything else you can think of. And we'll all be on the same page! Which raises Corr's points (again, they are strong ones and he's the only one making them) of who gets to determine the message, who gets invited into the structure and the decision making and who doesn't?
George Friday I know so I won't address. (That's neither a slam or an endorsement. I didn't catch that name when I was reading through Marcia's e-mail.)
Saif Rahman offers some interesting examples as he wishes the peace movement had something like NOW, NAACP, etc. You don't want that (my opinion). NARAL became useless the minute it was a DC group. It traded independence for access and lost any real power. Look at what's going on with The Nation as issue after issue is all about those 'lovely' Dems. That's why I do believe in the power of groupings that Kraus was speaking of. Smaller units can ensure that issues are addressed. I also reject the idea that the peace movement is not succeeding (asserted by Wittner). The peace movement has succeeded. Want it to succeed more? Demand that The Nation cover it. Demand that mainstream media cover it. A magazine recently told us what was wrong with the coverage of the January DC action. By someone who was present. For someone who is full of ideas of what the press should have done (ideas I agree with and ideas we've done at The Third Estate Sunday Review for every demonstration we've written about) wastes everyone's time when they refuse to do so in the space they have. This was an activist and she wrote the piece (some points of which I disagreed with strongly) to show you what big media did wrong. If she truly wanted to show what was wrong, she could have done so by providing examples or even making her entire piece about how the mainstream could have covered the demonstration. I'd also add that in limited space, a multi-line quote from MLK isn't advancing anything. You can summarize it. But to use limited space to share a quote? MLK has had his say and should be remembered. But as the only youth voice invited into the discussion, it was more important to hear from that then to hear a lengthy quote (eight lines) from MLK.
Scott Bennett? I'm too tired for. It's too academic.
David Cobb. Cobb's addressing issues. This isn't finger one organization. He's not afraid to call out the members of Congress who are hailed as heroes but practice double speak. His is probably one of the most enjoyable reads. It reads like one of his speeches or like something said in conversation. Example: "If you are for peace, you don't vote for war. It's really pretty simple. Likewise, no peace activist should vote for any candidate unable or unwilling to show the political courage necessary to vote to end the war." Whether you agree with him or not, he is straight foward. (I agree with him for any wondering.) He is also the only one I saw who made the point that Democratic officials don't just abandon the peace movement, they abandona labor.
(They abandon reproductive rights, they abandon African-Americans and women, they . . . go down the list.) If, as Wittner does, you argue that Congressional Dems abandon something, you should be aware that they abandon somethings -- plural.
Bal Pinguel quickly uses Wittner as a leaping off point for a very effective argument against centralization of power. Pinguel is also the only one who is addressing the United States as something other than a place where war will be launched. Pinguel writes of the real costs at home: "As we will come to realize, the poor, people of color, women, and children are the main casualties of the Iraq war at home." I am sorry to pick on the same person from before but she wanted to have a scorecard of agreement that this foreign country does this (plus) and this (bad) and blah, blah, blah. Unlike Pinguel, she didn't have anything to say about the US. The war is harmful to the US and that goes beyond the monies borrowed. Pinguel also notes MLK but doesn't turn over time to a lengthy quote.
Andrew Lichterman notes the reality of setting up a seat in a 'center of power' and gets at the importance of decentralization. Lichterman gets shortchanged by me because my eyes are watering and I have to be up in about two hours (after I go to sleep). He has a strong argument and points of it can be found above.
Now, let me be clear. Those are all my opinions. Read the article and form your own. Tuesday, Marcia will share her opinions. I'm sure she'll approach each argument from a different persepective -- as she should. A dialogue about the peace movement needs to be ongoing. For the most part, it can't even get started. No links, I'm too tired, but CounterPunch has addressed it. Ron Jacobs did in one piece and another person did as well. Foreign Policy in Focus is addressing it now. They're trying to start the dialogue.
Whether you agree with a point of view in the feature or not, every one was engaged in attempting to address the issue. Even Joanne Landy whom I was the most hard on. But I do not believe we pass on the baggage to future generations. I didn't like it when it was passed on to my generation and I have no interest in passing it on to the next. Some people may read Landy and feel she is the most on the money. If that's what you feel then that is correct. The voices you respond to are your own business. In a different article, I would have read Landy's statements differently but, again, I've lived through that nonsense. I'm not interested in it. There are groups that are popular with members and we note them here. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Or agree with them 100%. The issue for this community is more voices, not less and when Landy wants to revive old issues, I'm just not interested. (It should also be noted that the organization she finger points at has no voice presented in the article which makes the finger pointing even worse. And it should be noted that on her end no finger pointing may be a motivating factor. She may just be attempting to tell her own truth as she sees it.) If an organization's working for peace, they're working on the same larger issues that everyone in the community is. There's no need to have 100% agreement. And that goes to the point the most successful contributions in the article made, the need for a variety of voices.
I think I'm repeating myself.
Big news today is Tony Blair's announced impending departure. Many European members have e-mailed about that. It's the topic of my column in the gina & krista round-robin and it's also the topic of Three Cool Old Guys' column in the round-robin. In addition, Pru, Gareth and Polly took to the streets of London to get reactions. They will be doing that on Saturday as well for Polly's Brew Sunday. What we will note tonight is this section of Tariq Ali's "Adieu, Blair, Adieu" (CounterPunch) that Brady highlighted:
Tony Blair's success was limited to winning three general elections in a row. A second-rate actor, he turned out to be a crafty and avaricious politician, but without much substance; bereft of ideas he eagerly grasped and tried to improve upon the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. But though in many ways Blair's programme has been a euphemistic, if bloodier, version of Thatcher's, the style of their departures is very different. Thatcher's overthrow by her fellow-Conservatives was a matter of high drama: an announcement outside the Louvre's glass pyramid during the Paris Congress brokering the end of the Cold War; tears; a crowded House of Commons. Blair makes his unwilling exit against a backdrop of car-bombs and mass carnage in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands left dead or maimed from his policies, and London a prime target for terrorist attack. Thatcher's supporters described themselves afterwards as horror-struck by what they had done. Even Blair's greatest sycophants in the British media: Martin Kettle and Michael White (The Guardian), Andrew Rawnsley (Observer), Philip Stephens (FT) confess to a sense of relief as he finally quits.
Last highlight is from the Green Party of Suffolk:
Press Contacts:
Kimberly Wilder, Green Party of Suffolk, Press Secretary
(631) 422-4702 votewilder@yahoo.com.
Roger Snyder, Green Party of Suffolk, Chair
(631) 351-5763 info@gpsuffolk.org
The Green Party of Suffolk will be holding a "Summer in Setuaket--Green Fundraising Party" on Friday, June 22 from 7pm to 10pm at the Setauket Neighborhood House, 95 Main Street, Setauket. (Main Street is north of 25A and 6/10th of a mile west of Nichols Road) http://www.setauketneighborhoodhouse.com/ The evening will include a potluck dinner, music, an art auction, and a display of the Green Party of Suffolk’s "Bring Home The Troops" poster contest entries. The winning poster from the youth category is on display now at http://www.gpsuffolk.org/.
Vegetarian and vegan dishes will be served. Admission is $15 (with a dish) and $20 (without a dish). Children are welcome. There will be a silent auction of work by local artists. Please note that political donations are not tax-deductible
Blacklisted & The Banned will perform their unique style of original, political music. Blacklisted features Sonny Meadows, Bob Westcott, Jon Foreman, Bob Campbell and Robert Langley. Blacklisted’s repertoire is sure to include some words against war and you can also expect them to play at least one song from their recently released first album, "I Never Thought I'd Miss Richard Nixon." More information about Blacklisted & The Banned can be found at http://www.sonnymeadows.com/.
The Green Party is an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. The Green Party’s values can be described by the four pillars of: Nonviolence; Grassroots Democracy; Ecological Wisdom; and Social and Economic Justice.
Donations and/or requests for advance tickets can be sent to: Green Party of Suffolk, 14 Robin Drive, Huntington, NY 11743. For more information call Roger at (631) 351-5763 or go to http://www.gpsuffolk.org/
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. Entries may start late tomorrow morning.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
robert knight
flashpoints
foreign policy in focus
tariq ali
green party of suffolk
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, May 10, 2007. Chaos and violence, Mr Tony gets ready for life off stage, Iraqi oil workers postpone their planned strike to Monday, war resistance continues to grow, and more.
Starting with news of war resistance. Colleen Henry (WISN, Milwaukee) speaks with two war resisters who have gone to Canada -- Corey Glass and Dean Walcott. Walcott self-checked out and went to Canada at the end of last year. He served two tours in Iraq and was stationed in Germany at a hospital in between where he saw the wounded with missin glimbs, skin melted off, and more. Corey Glass joined the National Guard expecting to help out in the United States during national disasters. Instead he was shipped off to Iraq. Glass self-checked out, went underground and then went to Canada. As October started last year, Corey Glass, Justin Colby, Ryan Johnson and other war resisters in Canada were considering returning to US as a result of the way Darrell Anderson's discharge was resolved. However, once the military attempted to screw over Kyle Snyder, that changed. Glass told Brett Barrouqere (AP) at the start of November, "After what they did to him, I don't see anybody going back." In September of last year, Glass stated, "I knew the war was wrong before I went, but I was going to fulfil my end of the bargain, right or wrong and eventually my conscience just caught up with me. . . I felt horrible for being a part of it. If I could apologise to those people [Iraqis], every single on, I would." Though Dean Walcott has not yet appeared before Canada's Immigration and Refugee "Board," Corey Glass appeared before it March 30th of this year.
Dean Walcott tells Colleen Henry that Germany was the turning point for him: "Basically our job there was to make sure the injured and dying Marines were made as comfortable as possible. . . . People were coming in missing legs, missing arms. They had to be put on feeding tubes, they weren't able to breathe without help of a machine. At this time, I was dealing with a lot of emotional problems. I was pretty messed up from dealing with work at the hospital. It was a rewarding job, but it was very, very difficult. So I'd asked to be put somewhere that was non-deployable, so I could get mental help, which the command graciously decided not to let me do. There was a lot of times that families would come to visit them in the hospital and see their dead or dying son or daughter, and (they) would yell at us and would hit us. It was misdirected anger, but to my way of thinking, it was understandable."
Jeffry House, their attorney and also Joshua Key's attorney, among others, observes, "Obviously there's a kind of courage in going to Iraq, even when you think it's wrong, and killing people, even when you think it's wrong. I think there's also courage in standing up and saying, 'No, I can't do that, and I'm willing to make some serious decisions." And Corey Glass tells Henry, "Staying there is, you're fleeing what you believe in, right? You're fleeing your belief in murder and all these other things, you're just doing it because you're scared of what they're going to do to you. But coming here, you're losing everything. You're fighting them because you're losing your family. You're losing it all."
And still they stand up. And still their numbers grow (sh, not too loudly, you might wake The Nation which has largely slept through the illegal war). Kimberly Rivera arrived in Canada in February with her two children and husband Mario after self-checking out and becoming the first female US war resister to apply for refugee status. Arriving in the United States today is US war resister Agustin Aguayo. Mark St. Clair (Stars and Stripes) reports that Aguayo would be returning to Los Angeles today following his April 18th discharge from military prison but not release from the military. He may not be at the Sacremento event tonight (though he and Helga Aguayo, his wife, may surprise) at 7:00pm, Newman Center, 5900 Newman Court, Sacramento. But he will now be able to take part in the speaking out tour with Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes, Robert Zabala and others.
Friday May 11 - Stockton
6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey
7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco
7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink.
Monday May 14 - Watsonville
7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto
7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka
7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
All are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq, Garrett Therolf (Los Angeles Times) reports that US and Iraqi troops (under US command) have cut off basics to the citizens of Samarra and notes "residents . . . complain that basic necessities such as drinking water have not reached the city for seven days." Therolf seems either unaware or unable to call out this for what it is, a violation of Geneva.
(Therolf also pushes the propaganda that "Ambulances have become favorite vehicles for car bombs and insurgents in the country" and seems to think offering a 2003 and 2007 example proves a pattern. The shooting of ambulances in Falluja probably provide a clearer pattern but they were shot up by US forces. Therolf also seems unable to speak with enlisted. If he had, he might be writing that the enthusiastic cheers that greeted Cheney's speech were ordered and that the more muted response to Cheney's talk of extending deployments resulted in several divisions being chewed out after the speech.) Meanwhile, as Danny Schechter (News Dissector) notes, Iraq's oil workers' trade union were set to strike today over the Iraqi oil law that will strip the country of profits but line the pockets of Big Oil. The strike has been moved to Monday, Steve Kretzmann (Oil Change) observes. UPI quotes US Labor Against the War's Michael Eisenscher explaining the postponement was "because they had a conversation with somebody at the Oil Ministry who said they wanted to respond to workers demands and needed time to prepare a response." US Labor Against the War, American Friends Service Committee and United for Peace & Justice are sponsoring a Voices of Iraqi Workers Solidarity Tour from June 4th to 29th that will include stops in Atlanta, Berkeley, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Washington DC. More details available at US Labor Against the War.
CBS and AP report: "A majority of Iraqi lawmakers have endorsed a bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country, lawmakers said Thursday. The Iraqi bill, drafted by a parliament bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was signed by 144 members of the 275 member house, according to Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc." This as Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) report that: "House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months." At last, a casualty of war he may care about.
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghad mortar attacks that claimed one life and left wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded three people, and "Around 3 am, American planes had raided Sadr City, killing 3 civilians and injuring 12 with huge damage to three houses and three cars."
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghad mortar attacks that claimed one life and left wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded three people, and "Around 3 am, American planes had raided Sadr City, killing 3 civilians and injuring 12 with huge damage to three houses and three cars."
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "gunmen exploded Al-Falahi Building in Abu Ghraib," and a Basra gun battle between British forces and unidentified others that resulted in one bystander being killed and two more wounded.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 20 corpses discovered in Baghdad and a decapitated head found in Hawija. Reuters notes five corpses discovered in Mosul and two in Mahaweel.
In addition, the US military announced today: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West was killed May 9, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
In legal news, much to note. Starting in the United States where, earlier this week, the Manitowaoc Herald Times Reporter noted the sentencing of Donny Rage to one year in jail and three years probation. Rage was a US military recruiter and, by agreeing to a plea bargain, four of the second-degree sexual assault counts were dropped allowing him not to face the threat of six years in prison for using his official position to attempt to rape two women ("attempted to have sex with . . . carried into his bedroom and assualted" -- that's attempted rape). You can pair that up with Cheryl Seelhoff (Off Our Backs, vol 35, no 2, p. 22) report on the conviction of Michael Syndey (July 2006) for "pandering, mistreating, subordinates, and obstruction of justice, among other things, for what amounts to his having pimped women under his command. Syndey threatened to extend the tour of duty of female reservists called to active duty if they did not have sex with his superior officers."
Also in the United States, an Article 32 hearing is ongoing at Camp Pendleton into the killing of Iraqis in Haditha. Sanick Dela Cruz has testified in exchange for immunity. Our modern day Betty Grable, Paul von Zielbauer, is (mis)covering the hearing for the New York Times (dropping a charge here, leaving something out there, scrub, scrub, scrub). Dela Cruz testified yesterday that "he was asked four times to lie about what happened in Haditha" (Marty Graham, Sydney Morning Herald). Thomas Watkins (AP) notes Dela Cruz testified to seeing Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich fire "six to eight rounds at" five Iraqis "with their hands interlocked behind their heads." At the heart of the Article 32 hearing is Randy Stone's actions. Stone "is charged with violating an order and two counts of dereliction of duty in connection with the killings." Was Stone covering up for the massacre in which US troops killed civilians? The prosecution, Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan, cross-examined a witness on Monday asking, "Did he tell you that he had left two wounded children in that house? Did he tell you that he had killed a child? Did he tell you that there was a woman at the bottom of the stairs that they had killed? . . . Did he say anything about the five children in the back bedroom being killed on the bed?" CNN offers a photo of one of the 24 Iraqis killed, Rasheed Abudl Hamid Hassan Ali at his wedding.
In Iraq, Arwa Damon (CNN) reports on 25-year-old Samar Saed Abdullah who awaits execution for the killing of three relatives but maintains that her husband did the killings and that she only confessed "after being tortued in polic custody." She states: "I am innocent. The judge did not hear me out. He refused to hear anything I have to say. He just sentenced me." Hana'a Abdul Hakim, her mother, says, "She didn't confess. It was from the beating they gave her. She was bleeding. She finally said write what you want, just stop."
Turning to England, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes that "two men have been found guilty for leaking a memo detailing a conversation in which President Bush reportedly tells British Prime Minister Tony Blair he wants to bomb the Doha headquarters of the Arabic television network Al Jazeera. David Keogh, a former civil servant, and Leo O'Connor, a former parliamentary researcher, were charged with violating the Official Secrets Act. Most of the trial was held in secret with reporters banned from the proceedings. Bush and Blair's meeting was recorded by Blair's adviser on foreign affairs. The memo came with a note reading 'This must not be copied further and must only be seen by those with real need to know'." Robert Verkaik (Belfast Telegraph) reports, "Tony Blair's ill-fated war with Iraq claimed two more victims yesterday when a civil servant and an MP's researcher were convicted of disclosing details of a secret conversation between the Prime Minister and President George Bush. Last night, MPs, lawyers and civil rights groups described the prosecution as a 'farce' and accused the Government of misusing the Official Secrets Act to cover up political embarrassment over the war." ITV notes that Keogh felt the memo -- with Bully Boy's talking of bombing Al Jazeera -- would reveal Bully Boy to the world as the "madman" he is and that Keogh had originally hoped to pass the memo to the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry. Most avoid noting what was going on in April 2004 when the Bully Boy and Tony Blair spoke, when Bully Boy talked of bombing Al Jazeera. James Sturcke (Guardian of London) manages to avoid most realities but does use the word: Falluja. As Jeremy Scahill has noted before (see Tuesday's KPFA's Flashpoints Radio for those late to the party) the city of 350,000 was attacked because of the murders of four US mercanaries from Blackwater, the US military bombed the power plant (a civilian target, a violation of Geneva), the US maintained civilians weren't being targeted and they weren't air bombing but they were -- 37,000 air strikes -- and Al Jazeera was there broadcasting the reality which is why the US offered a cease fire only if Al Jazeera left. That is the backdrop that's not being addressed. Bully Boy wanted to bomb Al Jazeera. Why in April? Falluja.
Tony Blair, the empty suit triangulator who never met a promise he couldn't break, has announced he'll be stepping down as Britain's prime minister -- presumably to open a beauty shop francise entitled Mr. Tony. Mark Rice-Oxley (Christian Science Monitor) takes an (overly) balanced look at Mr Tony's legacy with regards to Iraq but does offer: "The problem with generalizing about the Blair era is that it invites immediate contradiction. He banned fox hunting -- but it still goes on. He introduced a Human Rights Act -- but made life harder for asylum seekers. He increased police numbers -- and tied them down with bureaucratic form-filling. He initiated reform of the House of Lords -- but became embroiled in a scandal amid allegations that people who had loaned money to the party had been promised seats. He presided over low inflation and unemployment and strong frowth -- but passed on only a modest slice of that increased prosperity to the bottom third of society. After 10 years of 'Blairism,' surveys show that child deprivation is as bad in Britain as anywhere in Europe."
Like the triangulator in the US, Bill Clinton, Blair destroyed his party. The New York Times' repeated confusion over why Rupert Murdoch endorsed Blair was laughable but the only thing funnier may be the continued efforts of the Guardian of London to carry water for Blair and his new Labour -- most recently AEB Martin Kettle's love note. Great Britain's Socialist Worker leaves the hand jobs to others and calls it straight out: "We are in the final days of Tony Blair. And good riddance to bad rubbish." In a lengthier article, they note that Mr Tony "was swept into office by the tidal wave that destroyed the Tory government of John Major. Now he is slinking out of Donwing Street amid the electoral setback that New Labour suffered last week. He is even more unpopular than Margaret Thatcher when she left office." Quite an accomplishment for Mr Tony and, for those who've forgotten, Mr Tony was the p.r. created name that was going to sweep him through one soft publicity shot after another as he intended to use his final months to shore up his shakey image. Didn't turn out that way. Lindsey German (Socialist Worker) notes that "69 precent thought that Tony Blair would be remembered for the war in Iraq. . . Why has Iraq remained the defining issue in British politics? Partly there is the unfinished business about how we were taken to war. None of the whitewash inquiries into the war have been able to achieve closure. It is commonly accepted that Blair lied over the threat of weapons of mass destruction and how much a danger Saddam Hussein was. He continues to lie about Iraq today, claiming recently against all evidence that the main people responsible for violence there were Al Qaida. . . . However, none of this would probably have been decisive without the disastrous consequences of the war itself. The death toll of Iraqis almost certainly stands between half a million and one million." Jon Smith (Independent of London) reports June 27 is the day Mr Tony plans to step down. The Independent of London's cartoonist Dave Brown explains: "I won't be sad to see the back of Blair. I detest the man and what he's done."; while author John Morrison (Anthony Blair: Captain of School) declares, "I think the war in Iraq can be his only legacy. This man has thousands of deaths on his conscience, in my view, and he can't get round that."; photographer and filmmaker Alison Jackson shares, "He has directed and destroyed politics. We've always wondered if politicians were telling the truth and now there's no doubt that often they aren't. There is no glory in Tony Blair's decade. There he is trying to go down in the history books and hoping people will forget how disappointing he was. But even in leaving he's managed to make a mess. He was always there for famous moments: Diana moments, Queen Mother moments, war. But there's this trail of horror behind him. The film I'm making, Tony Blair, Rock Star, was based on research we did into his gap year. When he did play his first rock concert, the drums fell apart and everything went wrong and everyone booed and walked out. Then when he managed a band he hired the Albert Hall but no one had ever heard of them so nobody came. He had all these fabulous ideas that came to nothing."
With fabulous ideas that came to something, Ron Jacobs (Z-Net) speaks with Josh Brielmaier, Todd Dennis, Zach Heise, Bernadette Watts and Chris Dols (students who took part in last month's occupation of US Senator Herbert Kohl's office in Madison), students . . . who aren't apathetic. Zach Heise and Josh Brielmaier were noted on Tuesday and Bernadette Wattas and Chris Dols on Monday. That leaves Todd Dennis and we'll note the following from him, "I have a couple reasons why I participated. One, as a veteran who was on active duty in the US Navy when the disinformation war to start the occupation of Iraq began, I have been opposed to the occupation from the start. While in the military, partly out of fear of retributions and partly because I was unaware of my GI rights to protest off-base and out of uniform, I didn't participate in the anti-war rallies and demonstrations prior to the start of the occupation. I did however contact all of my representatives stating my displeasure with the proposed Iraq war vote. Kohl like normal didn't respond to my emails. This was very disrespectful to me and my brothers and sisters whose lives he is personally responsible [for]. Since I have become a peace and justice advocate with first, Veterans for Peace and now along with Iraq Veterans Against the War, I have been disappointed in the representatives of this country's response to the war and public sentiment to it. While I can do nothing about my earlier inaction, I can when any opportunity arises, take action showing my displeasure with the continued occupation of Iraq where our military has virtually no mission but to stay alive. Some in our group until we did this action felt that Kohl was an honest and sincere politician. I had lost faith in the Democrats long ago and felt that Kohl who claims to be against the war and yet keeps funding it was a good target to show everyone how he really doesn't stand with us in our demand that Iraqis get self-determination. To show them and the rest of the country how our purported representatives respond to our simple requests I participated in the occupation of Herb Kohl's office." All the students taking part in the roundtable participated in the occupation of Kohl's office (the snapshot on Monday has "two" -- it was all) and they aren't apathetic. They deserve praise as does Ron Jacobs for taking the trouble to actually speak to students.
And finally, Jim Lobe (IPS) delves into yet another use of the media in the illegal war:
In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon planned to create a 'Rapid Reaction Media Team' (RRMT) designed to ensure control over major Iraqi media while providing an Iraqi 'face' for its efforts, according to a 'White Paper' obtained by the independent National Security Archive (NSA) which released it Tuesday.
The partially redacted, three-page document was accompanied by a longer power point presentation that included a proposed six-month, 51 million-dollar budget for the RRMT operation, apparently the first phase in a one-to-two-year ''strategic information campaign''.
Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. ''media consultants'' who were to be paid 140,000 dollars each for six months' work. A further 800,000 dollars were to be paid for six Iraqi ''media consultants over the same period.
The partially redacted, three-page document was accompanied by a longer power point presentation that included a proposed six-month, 51 million-dollar budget for the RRMT operation, apparently the first phase in a one-to-two-year ''strategic information campaign''.
Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. ''media consultants'' who were to be paid 140,000 dollars each for six months' work. A further 800,000 dollars were to be paid for six Iraqi ''media consultants over the same period.
agustin aguayo
jeremy scahill
mark st. clair
jonathan weisman
the washington post
ron jacobs
jim lobe
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)