Since this morning, the US military has announced: "While conducting a combat security patrol in the southern section of the Iraqi capital, one Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and two others were wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated May 26.
An Iraqi interpreter was also injured in the attack." One soldier announced dead.
And they announced: "An Multinational Corps Iraq Soldier was killed and three wounded in a complex attack against their military vehicle near Taji at approximately 10 p.m. May 25." One soldier announced dead to make 2 for the day.
And they announced: "Two Soldiers were killed and three were wounded east of Baghdad May 23, when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol." Two soldiers announced dead to make 4 for the day.
And they announced: "One Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West was killed May 26 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." One Marine announced dead to make 5 US service members for the day.
And they announced: "Three Task Force Lightning Soldiers died of wounds sustained in an explosion near their unit’s patrol in Salah Ad Din Province, Saturday." Three soldiers announced to make 8 US service members announced dead today.
And Bully Boy's official statement for this weekend? "It's a weekend which gives us a chance to honor those who have served this country, whether it be in this war or in previous wars."
ICCC's latest count is 3452 US service members dead in Iraq since the start of the illegal war and 101 for the month of May. The deadliest month in the year thus far was April with 104. May's not yet over.
By contrast, as this month reaches 101, May 2006? 69. May 2005? 80. May 2004? 80. May 2003? 37.
Bully Boy looks at the rising toll and sees a 'way forward' which apparently translates as everyone in Iraq must die for the US to be safe. As noted this morning, the fact that the White House was told what would happen in Iraq if the illegal war began didn't lead them to tell the truth to the American people. So when Bully Boy & Co. today state that American service members must be be in Iraq or there will be attacks on the United States, remember that's the same lie they used to start the illegal war (and it wasn't true then either).
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
Saturday, May 26, 2007
NYT: What if you sold a war after people quit buying?
"US troops in Iraq forever." That should be the headline to the nonsense by the Davids (who sadly bear none of the beauty of the statue). Ann Coulter's buddy couldn't write straight if his life depended upon it. But as they schill for the administration, from the front page, with "White House Said To Debate '08 Cut In Troops By 50%," even they have to offer a sprinkle of reality, well inside the paper (A5) -- paragraph 15, I believe (check my math) -- where they declare that Bully Boy wants to shift the argument (in time for the 2008 election) away from whether troops should leave to "what kind of long-term presence the United States should have in Iraq"? The answer is very clear, none. The supposedly 'liberated' and 'democratic' nation doesn't need to be occupied, doesn't want to be occupied and the US actually doesn't have the right to be there. But Bully Boy obvious fancies himself the latter day William McKinley and Iraq the modern day Puerto Rico.
Will they be able to switch the debate? Doubtful but neither the New York Journal nor the New York World aren't around anymore to sell it so the New York Times has gladly enlisted. Short of an outbreak of yellow fever, look for the Times to push the illegal war they helped sell well beyond the 2008 elections. (And if they do, it will be the death of them. So everybody wins!)
Going solo, David S. Cloud proves he may yet have a humor book in his future with "U.S. Military Leader in Iraq Talks of 'Thinning Lines'" which includes this laugh getter (or jaw dropped, you decide): ". . . Gen. Raymond T. Odierno has urged patience to those seeking quick progress." Only in the Times. The four year mark was passed in March. The US has been in Iraq longer than it was in WWII but by all means, urge 'patience.' That's apparently the inverse of Village Idiot Newt Gingrich who asserted last Sunday on Meet the Press that, "We're now five and a half years into this war." My calander reads 2007, apparently Newt's reads 2008. (Can you run for president if you don't know when the illegal war started?)
You get John F. Burns being wordy and trying to mop up for Gordo in "Shiite Cleric Ends Absence From Iraq With Fiery Speech." He's no Scott Shane (translation, don't hand him the mop, he only makes it worse). He tries to do the Times' dance as best he can but two sentences about what American officials (unnamed still!) allege using verbs like "according to" and "have suggested" do not equate with "insisted" in the denial that al-Sadr ever left Iraq. (Well, maybe they are equated in a Times' mentality.) While mopping up, he just makes a mess and we'll be kind and only point out the most obvious and relevant to this community: "According to a tally on icasualities.org, a Web site that lists Pentagon death announcements, the latest deaths came on top of 90 other American service members killed during May, up to Wednesday." That's ICCC (we add the "C" because look at the full name) and it doesn't "list" Pentagon death annoucements. The Pentagon moves more slowly that Multi-Forces whatever it is is. It goes with the DoD site (The Pentagon) only when M-F is screwed up (such as when their individual web pages load to the main home page) or when M-F isn't posting death announcements. (Instead of repeatedly attempting to intice bloggers with this offer or that offer, M-F would do better just to concentrate on posting to their website.)
Flip the page and there's Scott Shane. I didn't realize that. He's on A6 and writing about pre-war intelligence. Click here to read his article. Lloyd suggest Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
"Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed" (Washington Post):
Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.
The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.
The thing to remember there, most important thing, is that the official line from the White House was that Iraq had to be invaded for the US' protection. That wasn't true. Just as it's not true when the White House says currently that leaving Iraq would mean attacks in the US. Both times the White House lies.
Jill was the first one to note Margaret Kimberley's "Freedom Rider: 'Gangster Government'" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report):
John Ashcroft was one of the worst Attorney Generals in the history of the United States. He will be remembered for the Patriot Act, phony terror arrests, phony terror alerts, and the elimination of legal rights for so-called enemy combatants. Ashcroft is one of the people most responsible for the sorry state of civil liberties in the United States and yet he manages to look like a hero in comparison to the White House that appointed him.
On March 10, 2004, Ashcroft was suffering from pancreatitis and lying in an intensive care unit. He was so ill that he was in fact no longer Attorney General. He had ceded the authority of his office to his deputy, James Comey, who immediately became chief law enforcement officer in the United States. Last week Comey told the world why current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spent the past year preventing him from testifying under oath.
Comey had convinced his boss Ashcroft that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program was illegal, and that it should no longer be certified by the Justice Department. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey told a story that should have the nation, the press, and the Democratic party up in arms and demanding the impeachments of Bush and Gonzales.
On the evening of March 10, 2004 Comey received word that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card were on the way to Ashcroft's bedside. President Bush had personally called Mrs. Ashcroft, who requested that no one call or visit her husband. In effect, Bush informed her that he didn't care what she wanted. Ashcroft was getting visitors whether she liked it or not. Their goal was to convince Ashcroft to continue certifying the warrantless surveillance program.
Comey was so worried that he headed to the hospital with sirens wailing, advising FBI Director Robert Mueller of the impending showdown. Comey literally ran up the hospital stairs, afraid that Gonzales and Card would arrive before he did. Director Mueller ordered the agents who accompanied Comey to prevent his removal from the hospital room.
A visitor e-mailed a long e-mail (10K) and repeatedly stressed that he wasn't trying to be offensive. He wasn't offensive. He wanted to know why other sites don't link to Black Agenda Report. The voices the community responded to at The Black Commenator were Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley and Bruce Dixon. They're not going to play. They are taking the world very seriously and so is the community. If you go around the White web, to left and 'left' sites, you will see The Black Commentator linked by many on blogrolls. You will barely see Black Agenda Report. I can only guess that most people don't even know about it. They have no idea that Ford, Dixon and Kimberley -- who did the bulk of the original content at The Black Commentator -- left. Or possibly they feel one link with "Black" in the title qualifies for diversity? Whatever the reason, Black Agenda Report is not playing. They are very serious.
Outside of CounterPunch and the radio program CounterSpin, I'm unaware of anyone promoting Black Agenda Report.
You might write BuzzFlash which has a host of links but for doesn't have Black Agenda Report. I don't see that as a wasted e-mail. My guess is, in BuzzFlash's case (which is celebrating it's 7th anniversary), that they honestly aren't aware of Black Agenda Report. (Although it could also be a template issue -- and as someone who hates to go into this template, I could certainly understand that.) I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Other sites? I wouldn't give most the benefit of the doubt. So if the visitor does e-mail other sites, the one tip I'd offer is don't apologize for raising the issue of race. It needs to be raised. If it has nothing to do with race, someone can respond noting that. But no one should be offended at this late date when it's pointed out how White the web still is.
So, to the visitor, you really didn't offend me. And you don't have to couch your statements when asking about an issue like race. Write The Nation and ask them about that (ask them about their sorry record this year of publishing women of any race, while you're at it). If they don't think they have the room, you might suggest that since AlterPunk writes for the magazine, it's really not necessary for the magazine to list his other online column (AlterPunk-u-a-tion) under "Sites We Like" -- they certainly don't bother to do the same with David Corn who actually does report (in the magazine and at his own website) as opposed to offering a Jeffy Jarvis type Cheers & Jeers. When people called out the link to The New Republic(an), it got dropped. (No one should have had to call that out to begin with. It never should have made "Sites We Like" to begin with. Nor should they publish writers who work for the magazine but even getting singed in Little Lee-Lee's meltdown, they don't appear to have learned that lesson.) Of course, they still link to The Gawker -- apparently, The National Enquirer's web address was too lengthy?
But don't expect an immediate reply, someone's having a 16th birthday and that requires a 3-day break. "In what world?" Apparently Cornelia Guest's been reincarnated without passing first. That is kind of pathetic when you consider that the nation's at war (better not suggest sacrifice in any upcoming writings), that a cruise isn't that far off in the future, and that when you want to run a weekly magazine, you really need to run a weekly magazine. But it's time 'to take it easy' and who knew three bad paragraphs on American Idol could work up such a sweat?
(By the way, Trina notes what she reads. She's a reader not a surfer. When I read her post this morning, I knew someone would end up challenging it. For the visitor who e-mailed saying "There's no way American Idol lost 6 million viewers this year!" the finale was done approximately 6 million and you can click here for an actual article about that -- as opposed to a Gawker type write up.)
Trina? The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; (there are actually two posts up, one by Rebecca, one by Betty)
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
And remember, starting this Saturday evening, you can listen to music, to Pacifica, go out, whatever you want. Anything but listen to Air America Radio because RadioNation with Laura Flanders no longer airs six hours a weekend. (It will air tomorrow at one p.m.) Apparently, six hours of a show hosted by a woman was five to many -- check the laughable line up. Note what the 'rebirth' has given you. (Note also that all this time later, despite promises in 2004, Latino and Latina hosts aren't AND HAVE NEVER BEEN a priority.) White Male, nearly twenty-four-seven. Air America Radio, giving you round the clock White Males because that's the way they see the country! (We'll note RadioNation with Laura Flanders again tomorrow.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
john f. burns
scott shane
the washington post
walter pincus
karen deyoung
radio
laura flanders
radionation with laura flanders
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
Will they be able to switch the debate? Doubtful but neither the New York Journal nor the New York World aren't around anymore to sell it so the New York Times has gladly enlisted. Short of an outbreak of yellow fever, look for the Times to push the illegal war they helped sell well beyond the 2008 elections. (And if they do, it will be the death of them. So everybody wins!)
Going solo, David S. Cloud proves he may yet have a humor book in his future with "U.S. Military Leader in Iraq Talks of 'Thinning Lines'" which includes this laugh getter (or jaw dropped, you decide): ". . . Gen. Raymond T. Odierno has urged patience to those seeking quick progress." Only in the Times. The four year mark was passed in March. The US has been in Iraq longer than it was in WWII but by all means, urge 'patience.' That's apparently the inverse of Village Idiot Newt Gingrich who asserted last Sunday on Meet the Press that, "We're now five and a half years into this war." My calander reads 2007, apparently Newt's reads 2008. (Can you run for president if you don't know when the illegal war started?)
You get John F. Burns being wordy and trying to mop up for Gordo in "Shiite Cleric Ends Absence From Iraq With Fiery Speech." He's no Scott Shane (translation, don't hand him the mop, he only makes it worse). He tries to do the Times' dance as best he can but two sentences about what American officials (unnamed still!) allege using verbs like "according to" and "have suggested" do not equate with "insisted" in the denial that al-Sadr ever left Iraq. (Well, maybe they are equated in a Times' mentality.) While mopping up, he just makes a mess and we'll be kind and only point out the most obvious and relevant to this community: "According to a tally on icasualities.org, a Web site that lists Pentagon death announcements, the latest deaths came on top of 90 other American service members killed during May, up to Wednesday." That's ICCC (we add the "C" because look at the full name) and it doesn't "list" Pentagon death annoucements. The Pentagon moves more slowly that Multi-Forces whatever it is is. It goes with the DoD site (The Pentagon) only when M-F is screwed up (such as when their individual web pages load to the main home page) or when M-F isn't posting death announcements. (Instead of repeatedly attempting to intice bloggers with this offer or that offer, M-F would do better just to concentrate on posting to their website.)
Flip the page and there's Scott Shane. I didn't realize that. He's on A6 and writing about pre-war intelligence. Click here to read his article. Lloyd suggest Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
"Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed" (Washington Post):
Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.
The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.
The thing to remember there, most important thing, is that the official line from the White House was that Iraq had to be invaded for the US' protection. That wasn't true. Just as it's not true when the White House says currently that leaving Iraq would mean attacks in the US. Both times the White House lies.
Jill was the first one to note Margaret Kimberley's "Freedom Rider: 'Gangster Government'" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report):
John Ashcroft was one of the worst Attorney Generals in the history of the United States. He will be remembered for the Patriot Act, phony terror arrests, phony terror alerts, and the elimination of legal rights for so-called enemy combatants. Ashcroft is one of the people most responsible for the sorry state of civil liberties in the United States and yet he manages to look like a hero in comparison to the White House that appointed him.
On March 10, 2004, Ashcroft was suffering from pancreatitis and lying in an intensive care unit. He was so ill that he was in fact no longer Attorney General. He had ceded the authority of his office to his deputy, James Comey, who immediately became chief law enforcement officer in the United States. Last week Comey told the world why current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spent the past year preventing him from testifying under oath.
Comey had convinced his boss Ashcroft that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program was illegal, and that it should no longer be certified by the Justice Department. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey told a story that should have the nation, the press, and the Democratic party up in arms and demanding the impeachments of Bush and Gonzales.
On the evening of March 10, 2004 Comey received word that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card were on the way to Ashcroft's bedside. President Bush had personally called Mrs. Ashcroft, who requested that no one call or visit her husband. In effect, Bush informed her that he didn't care what she wanted. Ashcroft was getting visitors whether she liked it or not. Their goal was to convince Ashcroft to continue certifying the warrantless surveillance program.
Comey was so worried that he headed to the hospital with sirens wailing, advising FBI Director Robert Mueller of the impending showdown. Comey literally ran up the hospital stairs, afraid that Gonzales and Card would arrive before he did. Director Mueller ordered the agents who accompanied Comey to prevent his removal from the hospital room.
A visitor e-mailed a long e-mail (10K) and repeatedly stressed that he wasn't trying to be offensive. He wasn't offensive. He wanted to know why other sites don't link to Black Agenda Report. The voices the community responded to at The Black Commenator were Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley and Bruce Dixon. They're not going to play. They are taking the world very seriously and so is the community. If you go around the White web, to left and 'left' sites, you will see The Black Commentator linked by many on blogrolls. You will barely see Black Agenda Report. I can only guess that most people don't even know about it. They have no idea that Ford, Dixon and Kimberley -- who did the bulk of the original content at The Black Commentator -- left. Or possibly they feel one link with "Black" in the title qualifies for diversity? Whatever the reason, Black Agenda Report is not playing. They are very serious.
Outside of CounterPunch and the radio program CounterSpin, I'm unaware of anyone promoting Black Agenda Report.
You might write BuzzFlash which has a host of links but for doesn't have Black Agenda Report. I don't see that as a wasted e-mail. My guess is, in BuzzFlash's case (which is celebrating it's 7th anniversary), that they honestly aren't aware of Black Agenda Report. (Although it could also be a template issue -- and as someone who hates to go into this template, I could certainly understand that.) I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Other sites? I wouldn't give most the benefit of the doubt. So if the visitor does e-mail other sites, the one tip I'd offer is don't apologize for raising the issue of race. It needs to be raised. If it has nothing to do with race, someone can respond noting that. But no one should be offended at this late date when it's pointed out how White the web still is.
So, to the visitor, you really didn't offend me. And you don't have to couch your statements when asking about an issue like race. Write The Nation and ask them about that (ask them about their sorry record this year of publishing women of any race, while you're at it). If they don't think they have the room, you might suggest that since AlterPunk writes for the magazine, it's really not necessary for the magazine to list his other online column (AlterPunk-u-a-tion) under "Sites We Like" -- they certainly don't bother to do the same with David Corn who actually does report (in the magazine and at his own website) as opposed to offering a Jeffy Jarvis type Cheers & Jeers. When people called out the link to The New Republic(an), it got dropped. (No one should have had to call that out to begin with. It never should have made "Sites We Like" to begin with. Nor should they publish writers who work for the magazine but even getting singed in Little Lee-Lee's meltdown, they don't appear to have learned that lesson.) Of course, they still link to The Gawker -- apparently, The National Enquirer's web address was too lengthy?
But don't expect an immediate reply, someone's having a 16th birthday and that requires a 3-day break. "In what world?" Apparently Cornelia Guest's been reincarnated without passing first. That is kind of pathetic when you consider that the nation's at war (better not suggest sacrifice in any upcoming writings), that a cruise isn't that far off in the future, and that when you want to run a weekly magazine, you really need to run a weekly magazine. But it's time 'to take it easy' and who knew three bad paragraphs on American Idol could work up such a sweat?
(By the way, Trina notes what she reads. She's a reader not a surfer. When I read her post this morning, I knew someone would end up challenging it. For the visitor who e-mailed saying "There's no way American Idol lost 6 million viewers this year!" the finale was done approximately 6 million and you can click here for an actual article about that -- as opposed to a Gawker type write up.)
Trina? The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; (there are actually two posts up, one by Rebecca, one by Betty)
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
And remember, starting this Saturday evening, you can listen to music, to Pacifica, go out, whatever you want. Anything but listen to Air America Radio because RadioNation with Laura Flanders no longer airs six hours a weekend. (It will air tomorrow at one p.m.) Apparently, six hours of a show hosted by a woman was five to many -- check the laughable line up. Note what the 'rebirth' has given you. (Note also that all this time later, despite promises in 2004, Latino and Latina hosts aren't AND HAVE NEVER BEEN a priority.) White Male, nearly twenty-four-seven. Air America Radio, giving you round the clock White Males because that's the way they see the country! (We'll note RadioNation with Laura Flanders again tomorrow.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york timesjohn f. burnsscott shanethe washington postwalter pincuskaren deyoungradio
laura flanders
radionation with laura flanders
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
Friday, May 25, 2007
Iraq snapshot
Friday, May 25, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, 63% of Americans favor withdrawal from Iraq in the latest poll (even if the New York Times buries that fact), in Shreveport a self-check out is arrested (the fourth for the year), the US military announces more deaths of US service members with May already being the second highest month for American troops deaths, and more.
Yesterday, both houses of the US Congress demonstrated how quickly they can act . . . when anything stands in the way of their own vacation. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "Congress has approved nearly $100 billion dollars in war spending through September without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq." Goodman notes the final House vote was 280 for and 142 against and the final Senate vote was 80 in favor and 14 against. In addition, Democracy Now! provided clips of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- who demonstrated that sneering at science and academics isn't solely a GOP thing as she used the ridiculously low figure of "over 100,000 Iraqis" dead when the study conducted by the British medical journal The Lancet placed the figure, last year, at over 655,000 -- and House Minority Leader John Boehner -- who demonstrated he could stay "on message" ("terrorists!") even while sobbing like a guest on the daytime TV circuit speaking of their 'personal' battle with an addiction -- Boehner apparently being addicted to illegal war, mass killing, and fantasy. Evelyn Pringle (CounterPunch) observes, "Congress has demonstrated its unconditional love for the Bush administration by handing the war profiteers another $100 billion worth of good reasons to keep the war in Iraq rolling along at full-throttle. [. . . ] And the statements in speeches made by members of Congress while debating the bills don't mean anything because 95% of Americans never hear those speeches. Honest politicians should be out screaming to any reporter who will listen to educate Americans about where the hundreds of billions of tax dollars have ended up. This war is 100 times worse than Viet Nam. At least with Viet Nam, the war profits were not being funneled over the backs of our dead soldiers in plain sight directly into the bank accounts of current and former members of the administrations in power at the time. Nor were they being funneled to the family bank accounts of the Presidents who were in office during the Viet Nam war." The BBC notes that, following the grandstanding of Congress and the Bully Boy, "Hours later, the US military reported the deaths of five soldiers in Iraq." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid laughably announced of the bill that fully funds the illegal war and makes the Democrats equal partners in Bully Boy's illegal war, "The days of blank cheques and green lights for his failed policy are over." By which Reid appears to mean that the US Congress has instead handed Bully Boy a debit card and asked kindly that he please not visit the ATMs too often.
The Democrats full bodied, naked embrace of the illegal war comes at a time when the American people turn ever more against the illegal war. The public began turning against the war in 2005 and, since then, the opinion has only hardened. A CBS poll this week found that 76% of Americans polled felt "the war is going badly" -- an increase of ten percent -- and 61% maintain that the US "should have stayed out" of Iraq. A CBS poll? Well the New York Times has finally agreed to allow their names back on the joint polling and somehow managed to avoid all the media critics who must have been sleeping while CBS issued one poll after another on Iraq the last few months while the paper of little record appeared to suddenly be poll shy. Though they weren't called out on that, they should have been. The poll is, indeed, a joint-poll by CBS and the New York Times -- as were the recent polls billed just as CBS polls because the paper really didn't want to cover the American public's ever growing opposition to the illegal war. But they've put their names back on the poll. And gladly run it . . . under the headline "Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start" . . . on page A16 of today's paper. To no one's surprise at the paper, Janet Elder avoids it like a plague so it's left for Dalia Sussman to write it up. The paper hasn't been in the news business for over a century, it's in the management business and Sussman's happy to do her part. Which is how her ridiculous write up can avoid the issue of withdrawal which the poll found [PDF format warning for the link] 63% of Americans favor (32% wanted no timetable for withdrawal -- Bully Boy's approval rating was 30%). 63% of Americans favorite withdrawal from Iraq? Sounds like a front page headline. (Sussman doesn't even note it in her laughable write up until paragraph nine where it's noted for two sentences and then never built upon or mentioned again.)
Not only isn't it a headline, the Times (again) buries the poll deep inside the paper. When they refused to run with the joint-polling over the previous months, questions should have been asked but possibly people don't actually read the Times anymore, they just visit links? Though this poll doesn't make the front page, another does, on immigration. (The Times is working overtime to sell the Congressional efforts to strip immigrants of their rights -- including immigrants that are American citizens because they were born in the United States.) 63% of Americans say a timetable needs to be set for Iraq withdrawal and the Times publishes that on the same day that the Congress votes to continue funding the illegal war and drops any mention of withdrawal. The poll's not news? 76% saying the illegal war is "going badly" and 61% say the US never should have invaded Iraq and Congress elects to do nothing but it's not news?
Well why not? 3 American soldiers went missing two Saturdays ago -- in an attack that killed 4 others and 1 Iraqi translator, and the paper didn't front page that until seven days after it happened. One of the 3 has now been declared dead and the paper's not interested in front paging that either. (The search continues for the 2 still missing.) However, Michael Gordon's unsourced speculation that Moqtada al-Sadr was in Iran is front page news -- despite the fact that it has no named "American official" source to it, despite the fact that it doesn't include the news that al-Sadr spoke in Kufa today (calling for US troops to leave Iraq). Our Rona Barrett of the Grey Lady leaps to the front page with a story proclaiming al-Sadr has been in Iran despite the fact that, as the BBC noted today, "This was never confirmed."
Exactly whom is Gordo working for because, for a reporter, he appears to miss a great deal? Last week, one of the world's oldest think tanks, Chatham House, issued another report. As expected, the same mainstream media that ignored the previous report (taking Tony Blair to task for getting in bed with the United States and becoming nothing but a lackey to the Bully Boy) foamed over the mouth on this one (including Gordo's own paper -- maybe he can't read?)
The PDF format report "Accepting Realities in Iraq" included a heading entitled "Muqtada al-Sadr cannot be ignored" -- a position Gordo appears to share. However, Chatham House argued that due to his base, popularity and influence, al-Sadr cannot be ignored and strong efforts should be made to bring him into the political process. (Yesterday's news that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki was replacing the six ministers from al-Sadr's camp who had resigned would indicate that al-Maliki also hasn't read the report.) This at a time when Gareth Porter (IPS) reports that al-Sadr (a Shi'ite cleric) appears to have strong support from the Sunni resistance with the binding factor being their joint demand for US forces out of Iraq. Porter is offering an analysis and building on (and crediting) work done by Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) at the start of this week. Also at the start of the week, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) broke the news that in 2004, the US military attempted to assassinate al-Sadr in Najaf which, surprisingly?, never made it into the New York Times.
But then, so much of the violence doesn't -- the real 'hidden violence' despite the Times' laughable claims last Saturday.
Bombings?
While the US military attempts to divide Baghdad by 'walls' (over the objections of the puppet of the occupation), some Iraqis attempt to divide the capital by bombing bridges. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes the latest bombing -- "the bridge linking Al Adil and Al Khadraa neighborhoods in west Baghad" -- as well Baghdad mortar attacks that killed 4 people (15 wounded), and a Baghdad explosion that killed 1 person, a car bombing in Muqdadiyah that killed 4 police officers (6 civilians wounded).
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 20 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes two corpses were discovered in Latifiya.
Yanar Mohammed mentioned university students. On Tuesday, the Ibn Al Haitham college faced a mortar attack in Baghdad that left at least 4 students dead and at least 25 wounded while, same day, an attack, in Baghdad, on a mini-bus claimed the lives of 9 students (including two female students). On Wednesday, Baghdad's National Theater was attacked with mortarts leaving at least one person wounded. The theater is where college students and recent college graduates have mounted a new play, The Intensive Care Unit, which castmember Rita Casber described to Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) as "Our play is a miniature of our reality. It conveys the reality the people in Iraq are subjected to." Londono noted that Casber is the sole woman in the cast and late to the cast -- she joined only after death threats (over the 'crime' of wearing a tank top on stage) forced the original actress to leave the production.
On the subject of schools, Alive in Baghdad intervews students at the girls' school in Baghdad, Safina Middle School. The link is not currently working, we'll quote the students next week. Last month, Alive in Baghdad interviewed Hameeda al-Bassam who works a private library in Baghdad and spoke of the difficulties she encounters traveling, in her wheelchair, through checkpoints and scenes of violence to arrive at work. She spoke of inside the library as one of the few places where the chaos and violence has yet to emerge and noted, with regret, that due to the violence she has had to curtail her work week. Please note that the videos have audio and an English translation at the bottom which can serve as closed captioning.
Also on the subject of women in Iraq, the AP reported yesterday that Clenard M. Simmons was given a 30 year sentence after pleading guilty (April 5th) "to four counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for five attacks from February 2004 to May 2005" which took place at Fort Hood as well as while he was stationed in Iraq and the victims were five female US service members. The AP noted that "Simmons attacked the soldiers in their barracks, groping and threatening them."
Though frequently ignored and swept under the rug, women serving in Iraq are under very real attack from those serving with them. For more on this, see Jane Hoppen's "Women in the Military: Who's Got Your Back?," Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff's "The Rape of the 'Hadji Girl'," and
Allison Tobey's "Serving in the Rape Zone" (Off Our Backs); Traci Hukill's "A Peculiar Version of Friendly Fire: Female Troops Face Double Danger" (The Progressive); and "Women and the military" (The Third Estate Sunday Review). And always look to what happened to Suzanne Swift. Swift went to Iraq wanting to serve her country (US) and quickly discovered that those above her expected her to serve them. Repeated attempts to stop the abuse and harassment resulted in no action (unless a course in how Swift could learn not to 'invite' harassment is considered 'action' -- anyone thinking it is should have their head examined). Swift self-checked out. As Sara Rich, Swift's mother, has noted, Swift wasn't against the illegal war. Swift wasn't saying, "I will not go back because I'm against the war." She checked out because when the military refuses to discipline their own, you have to take the situation into your own hands. To not do so would be 'inviting' harassment. There's not a (rational) woman alive who should be able to question Swift's decision to self-check out. She was abused, she was harassed, she was the victim of command rape, and the military did nothing. She went through channels and rather than disciplining the ones breaking the code of conduct (and exhibiting criminal behaviors) the military's 'answer' was to 'teach' Swift how not to 'invite' criminal acts upon her person. (Which is similar to the US military's refusal to punish those enlisted males who regularly attack women serving when the women go to take a shower. Instead of coming down hard and sending a strong message that the crime of rape is not tolerated in the US military, the military elects to caution women to 'buddy up' and never visit the latrines alone.) So Swift self-checked out, the smartest thing she could have done and no (rational) woman would say otherwise.
Swift is now against the war and the treatment she experienced (laughably known as military 'justice') went a long way towards opening her eyes. In a climate that regularly rails against the military banning YouTube and blog postings, you might think the gag order imposed upon Swift would raise some righteous indignation but websites have largely been silent. Swift's mother, Sara Rich, is not gagged and Melissa Sanders (Socialst Alternative) interviews her -- Rich explains that her daughter's been extended in the military through January 2009 and, in response to a question about the "sexualized violence against female soldiers," rightly notes,
"We're teaching guys about 18 to kill, and that killing's ok, before they are even allowed to legally drink. If you do that, I mean, who's going to tell them that raping isn't ok?"
Along with Sanders' article, more information can be found at Suzanne Swift's website. (Which her mother runs and the military has no control over Sara Rich.)
Turning to the issue of war resisters, The Shreveport Times reports that Jackie Leroy Moore was arrested in Shreveport today for self-checking out and that he is the fourth self-check out to be arrested in Shreveport this year. Though the military continues to undercount the number of enlisted choosing to self-check out (undercounts for the press, they know the privately held number), this is part of the growing resistance within the military to the illegal war. "It now appears that if this war in Iraq is to end, it will be our soldiers who will have to bring it about," observes Albert Petraca (JuneauEmpire). "Nowadays, our soldiers also know this war is lost. Thankfully, soldiers have begun to take matters into their own hands. From U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's refusing deployment to Iraq, to the appeal for redress now circulating among active-duty personnel, to Iraq Veterans Against the War's recent decision to support resisters, we are seeing the initial stirrings of what will likely grow into a movement of soldiers in revolt. The Defense Department recently admitted that at least 3,196 troops deserted in 2006, with an 8 percent increase already in the first quarter of 2007. Plummeting enlistment standards are unlikely to fill this void. The life-altering decisions made by these brave men and women are, in many ways, even more difficult than those made by former resisters. Today's volunteer soldier, unlike Vietnam-era draftees, is too often callously scolded by the mostly comfortable for having freely signed a recruitment contract and, therefore, must suffer the consequences. This judgmental attitude reveals a profound disrespect for service men and women who answered their country's call based on a belief that their government spoke truthfully about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to 9/11. We now know that the pretense used to play on their genuine feelings of duty was little more than a pack of lies."
democracy now
amy goodman
joshua key
sudarsan raghavan
the washington post
ernesto londono
suzanne swift
melissa sanders
kasia anderson
traci hukill
cheryl lindsey seelhoff
allison tobey
jane hoppen
maxine hong-kingston
bill moyers journal
albert petraca
evelyn pringle
Yesterday, both houses of the US Congress demonstrated how quickly they can act . . . when anything stands in the way of their own vacation. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "Congress has approved nearly $100 billion dollars in war spending through September without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq." Goodman notes the final House vote was 280 for and 142 against and the final Senate vote was 80 in favor and 14 against. In addition, Democracy Now! provided clips of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- who demonstrated that sneering at science and academics isn't solely a GOP thing as she used the ridiculously low figure of "over 100,000 Iraqis" dead when the study conducted by the British medical journal The Lancet placed the figure, last year, at over 655,000 -- and House Minority Leader John Boehner -- who demonstrated he could stay "on message" ("terrorists!") even while sobbing like a guest on the daytime TV circuit speaking of their 'personal' battle with an addiction -- Boehner apparently being addicted to illegal war, mass killing, and fantasy. Evelyn Pringle (CounterPunch) observes, "Congress has demonstrated its unconditional love for the Bush administration by handing the war profiteers another $100 billion worth of good reasons to keep the war in Iraq rolling along at full-throttle. [. . . ] And the statements in speeches made by members of Congress while debating the bills don't mean anything because 95% of Americans never hear those speeches. Honest politicians should be out screaming to any reporter who will listen to educate Americans about where the hundreds of billions of tax dollars have ended up. This war is 100 times worse than Viet Nam. At least with Viet Nam, the war profits were not being funneled over the backs of our dead soldiers in plain sight directly into the bank accounts of current and former members of the administrations in power at the time. Nor were they being funneled to the family bank accounts of the Presidents who were in office during the Viet Nam war." The BBC notes that, following the grandstanding of Congress and the Bully Boy, "Hours later, the US military reported the deaths of five soldiers in Iraq." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid laughably announced of the bill that fully funds the illegal war and makes the Democrats equal partners in Bully Boy's illegal war, "The days of blank cheques and green lights for his failed policy are over." By which Reid appears to mean that the US Congress has instead handed Bully Boy a debit card and asked kindly that he please not visit the ATMs too often.
The Democrats full bodied, naked embrace of the illegal war comes at a time when the American people turn ever more against the illegal war. The public began turning against the war in 2005 and, since then, the opinion has only hardened. A CBS poll this week found that 76% of Americans polled felt "the war is going badly" -- an increase of ten percent -- and 61% maintain that the US "should have stayed out" of Iraq. A CBS poll? Well the New York Times has finally agreed to allow their names back on the joint polling and somehow managed to avoid all the media critics who must have been sleeping while CBS issued one poll after another on Iraq the last few months while the paper of little record appeared to suddenly be poll shy. Though they weren't called out on that, they should have been. The poll is, indeed, a joint-poll by CBS and the New York Times -- as were the recent polls billed just as CBS polls because the paper really didn't want to cover the American public's ever growing opposition to the illegal war. But they've put their names back on the poll. And gladly run it . . . under the headline "Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start" . . . on page A16 of today's paper. To no one's surprise at the paper, Janet Elder avoids it like a plague so it's left for Dalia Sussman to write it up. The paper hasn't been in the news business for over a century, it's in the management business and Sussman's happy to do her part. Which is how her ridiculous write up can avoid the issue of withdrawal which the poll found [PDF format warning for the link] 63% of Americans favor (32% wanted no timetable for withdrawal -- Bully Boy's approval rating was 30%). 63% of Americans favorite withdrawal from Iraq? Sounds like a front page headline. (Sussman doesn't even note it in her laughable write up until paragraph nine where it's noted for two sentences and then never built upon or mentioned again.)
Not only isn't it a headline, the Times (again) buries the poll deep inside the paper. When they refused to run with the joint-polling over the previous months, questions should have been asked but possibly people don't actually read the Times anymore, they just visit links? Though this poll doesn't make the front page, another does, on immigration. (The Times is working overtime to sell the Congressional efforts to strip immigrants of their rights -- including immigrants that are American citizens because they were born in the United States.) 63% of Americans say a timetable needs to be set for Iraq withdrawal and the Times publishes that on the same day that the Congress votes to continue funding the illegal war and drops any mention of withdrawal. The poll's not news? 76% saying the illegal war is "going badly" and 61% say the US never should have invaded Iraq and Congress elects to do nothing but it's not news?
Well why not? 3 American soldiers went missing two Saturdays ago -- in an attack that killed 4 others and 1 Iraqi translator, and the paper didn't front page that until seven days after it happened. One of the 3 has now been declared dead and the paper's not interested in front paging that either. (The search continues for the 2 still missing.) However, Michael Gordon's unsourced speculation that Moqtada al-Sadr was in Iran is front page news -- despite the fact that it has no named "American official" source to it, despite the fact that it doesn't include the news that al-Sadr spoke in Kufa today (calling for US troops to leave Iraq). Our Rona Barrett of the Grey Lady leaps to the front page with a story proclaiming al-Sadr has been in Iran despite the fact that, as the BBC noted today, "This was never confirmed."
Exactly whom is Gordo working for because, for a reporter, he appears to miss a great deal? Last week, one of the world's oldest think tanks, Chatham House, issued another report. As expected, the same mainstream media that ignored the previous report (taking Tony Blair to task for getting in bed with the United States and becoming nothing but a lackey to the Bully Boy) foamed over the mouth on this one (including Gordo's own paper -- maybe he can't read?)
The PDF format report "Accepting Realities in Iraq" included a heading entitled "Muqtada al-Sadr cannot be ignored" -- a position Gordo appears to share. However, Chatham House argued that due to his base, popularity and influence, al-Sadr cannot be ignored and strong efforts should be made to bring him into the political process. (Yesterday's news that puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki was replacing the six ministers from al-Sadr's camp who had resigned would indicate that al-Maliki also hasn't read the report.) This at a time when Gareth Porter (IPS) reports that al-Sadr (a Shi'ite cleric) appears to have strong support from the Sunni resistance with the binding factor being their joint demand for US forces out of Iraq. Porter is offering an analysis and building on (and crediting) work done by Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) at the start of this week. Also at the start of the week, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) broke the news that in 2004, the US military attempted to assassinate al-Sadr in Najaf which, surprisingly?, never made it into the New York Times.
But then, so much of the violence doesn't -- the real 'hidden violence' despite the Times' laughable claims last Saturday.
Bombings?
While the US military attempts to divide Baghdad by 'walls' (over the objections of the puppet of the occupation), some Iraqis attempt to divide the capital by bombing bridges. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes the latest bombing -- "the bridge linking Al Adil and Al Khadraa neighborhoods in west Baghad" -- as well Baghdad mortar attacks that killed 4 people (15 wounded), and a Baghdad explosion that killed 1 person, a car bombing in Muqdadiyah that killed 4 police officers (6 civilians wounded).
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that three farmers were shot dead in "the orchards of Um Al Romman village". Reuters notes that a tribal sheik was shot dead in Falluja.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 20 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes two corpses were discovered in Latifiya.
Reuters also notes the following announced deaths of US service members in Iraq (all announced today): 2 US soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad (Thursday), 1 US soldier killed in Nineveh Province by a roadside bomb (Thursday), 1 US soldier killed by a Baghdad roadside bomb (Tuesday), 1 US soldier killed by in Salahaddin Province by a roadside bomb (Thursday), and 1 US Soldier killed by gunfire (Thursday) in Diyala Province. The six deaths add to a mounting count for the month which ICCC calculates to currently be 93 for the month thus far. Only April has had more US military fatalities with 104 and, of course, May still has six days left in it. ICCC's count for the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war stands at 3444.
Among the victims of violence are women though they remain the true hidden victims. Kasia Anderson (TruthDig) interviews Yanar Mohammed (Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq) and asks early on the obvious (though usually unasked) question, "How did the onset of the Iraq war change things for Iraqi women, specifically?" Mohammed replies, "Well, although people on this part of the world think that Iraqi women are liberated, actually, we have lost all of the achievements or all the status that we used to have. It is no longer safe to leave your house and get groceries. We're not speaking here about a young woman trying to reach the university, because that is beginning to get too difficult. We're not speaking here about women who are trying to go back and forth to work and even those of my friends who do that already because they have to--many of the police at work are being killed for sectarian reasons. So, you have to witness all sorts of atrocities just going back and forth to work, and if there is this new [policy] of Sunni and Shiite, checking all the IDs of people, you leave the house and you do not guarantee that you come back safe. [. . .] Well, the myth of democracy has killed already half a million Iraqis, and if it were giving us real democracy, where people are represented according to their political affiliations or their economic understanding or their social justice affiliations, that would have been understood. But the way Iraqis are represented is according to their religion and their ethnicities. It is as if the U.S. administration is trying to tell the whole world that Iraqis are not entitled to political understanding or political activity. The political formula that was forwarded to us is a total insult for a part of the world where the politics are very much thriving and all kinds of politics--with the dawn of the war, thousands of political parties have registered. And they all wanted to be competing, or let's say running into democracy, but who was empowered, who was supported? It's mostly the religious and mostly the ethnic groups, and the women's groups? The U.S. administration wasn't really interested to speak to, let's say, free women's groups. They preferred to bring decorative factors to the parliament, where they look like women, but they all voted for a constitution that is against women. And the constitution at this moment has imposed Shariah law upon us, when in the times before the war we had more of a secular constitution that respected women’s rights. So, it's one more thing lost for this war."
Yanar Mohammed mentioned university students. On Tuesday, the Ibn Al Haitham college faced a mortar attack in Baghdad that left at least 4 students dead and at least 25 wounded while, same day, an attack, in Baghdad, on a mini-bus claimed the lives of 9 students (including two female students). On Wednesday, Baghdad's National Theater was attacked with mortarts leaving at least one person wounded. The theater is where college students and recent college graduates have mounted a new play, The Intensive Care Unit, which castmember Rita Casber described to Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) as "Our play is a miniature of our reality. It conveys the reality the people in Iraq are subjected to." Londono noted that Casber is the sole woman in the cast and late to the cast -- she joined only after death threats (over the 'crime' of wearing a tank top on stage) forced the original actress to leave the production.
On the subject of schools, Alive in Baghdad intervews students at the girls' school in Baghdad, Safina Middle School. The link is not currently working, we'll quote the students next week. Last month, Alive in Baghdad interviewed Hameeda al-Bassam who works a private library in Baghdad and spoke of the difficulties she encounters traveling, in her wheelchair, through checkpoints and scenes of violence to arrive at work. She spoke of inside the library as one of the few places where the chaos and violence has yet to emerge and noted, with regret, that due to the violence she has had to curtail her work week. Please note that the videos have audio and an English translation at the bottom which can serve as closed captioning.
Also on the subject of women in Iraq, the AP reported yesterday that Clenard M. Simmons was given a 30 year sentence after pleading guilty (April 5th) "to four counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for five attacks from February 2004 to May 2005" which took place at Fort Hood as well as while he was stationed in Iraq and the victims were five female US service members. The AP noted that "Simmons attacked the soldiers in their barracks, groping and threatening them."
Though frequently ignored and swept under the rug, women serving in Iraq are under very real attack from those serving with them. For more on this, see Jane Hoppen's "Women in the Military: Who's Got Your Back?," Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff's "The Rape of the 'Hadji Girl'," and
Allison Tobey's "Serving in the Rape Zone" (Off Our Backs); Traci Hukill's "A Peculiar Version of Friendly Fire: Female Troops Face Double Danger" (The Progressive); and "Women and the military" (The Third Estate Sunday Review). And always look to what happened to Suzanne Swift. Swift went to Iraq wanting to serve her country (US) and quickly discovered that those above her expected her to serve them. Repeated attempts to stop the abuse and harassment resulted in no action (unless a course in how Swift could learn not to 'invite' harassment is considered 'action' -- anyone thinking it is should have their head examined). Swift self-checked out. As Sara Rich, Swift's mother, has noted, Swift wasn't against the illegal war. Swift wasn't saying, "I will not go back because I'm against the war." She checked out because when the military refuses to discipline their own, you have to take the situation into your own hands. To not do so would be 'inviting' harassment. There's not a (rational) woman alive who should be able to question Swift's decision to self-check out. She was abused, she was harassed, she was the victim of command rape, and the military did nothing. She went through channels and rather than disciplining the ones breaking the code of conduct (and exhibiting criminal behaviors) the military's 'answer' was to 'teach' Swift how not to 'invite' criminal acts upon her person. (Which is similar to the US military's refusal to punish those enlisted males who regularly attack women serving when the women go to take a shower. Instead of coming down hard and sending a strong message that the crime of rape is not tolerated in the US military, the military elects to caution women to 'buddy up' and never visit the latrines alone.) So Swift self-checked out, the smartest thing she could have done and no (rational) woman would say otherwise.
Swift is now against the war and the treatment she experienced (laughably known as military 'justice') went a long way towards opening her eyes. In a climate that regularly rails against the military banning YouTube and blog postings, you might think the gag order imposed upon Swift would raise some righteous indignation but websites have largely been silent. Swift's mother, Sara Rich, is not gagged and Melissa Sanders (Socialst Alternative) interviews her -- Rich explains that her daughter's been extended in the military through January 2009 and, in response to a question about the "sexualized violence against female soldiers," rightly notes,
"We're teaching guys about 18 to kill, and that killing's ok, before they are even allowed to legally drink. If you do that, I mean, who's going to tell them that raping isn't ok?"
Along with Sanders' article, more information can be found at Suzanne Swift's website. (Which her mother runs and the military has no control over Sara Rich.)
Turning to the issue of war resisters, The Shreveport Times reports that Jackie Leroy Moore was arrested in Shreveport today for self-checking out and that he is the fourth self-check out to be arrested in Shreveport this year. Though the military continues to undercount the number of enlisted choosing to self-check out (undercounts for the press, they know the privately held number), this is part of the growing resistance within the military to the illegal war. "It now appears that if this war in Iraq is to end, it will be our soldiers who will have to bring it about," observes Albert Petraca (JuneauEmpire). "Nowadays, our soldiers also know this war is lost. Thankfully, soldiers have begun to take matters into their own hands. From U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's refusing deployment to Iraq, to the appeal for redress now circulating among active-duty personnel, to Iraq Veterans Against the War's recent decision to support resisters, we are seeing the initial stirrings of what will likely grow into a movement of soldiers in revolt. The Defense Department recently admitted that at least 3,196 troops deserted in 2006, with an 8 percent increase already in the first quarter of 2007. Plummeting enlistment standards are unlikely to fill this void. The life-altering decisions made by these brave men and women are, in many ways, even more difficult than those made by former resisters. Today's volunteer soldier, unlike Vietnam-era draftees, is too often callously scolded by the mostly comfortable for having freely signed a recruitment contract and, therefore, must suffer the consequences. This judgmental attitude reveals a profound disrespect for service men and women who answered their country's call based on a belief that their government spoke truthfully about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to 9/11. We now know that the pretense used to play on their genuine feelings of duty was little more than a pack of lies."
Watada is part of growing movement of resistance within the US military that also includes Joshua Key, Terri Johnson, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, 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.
Heads up, the latest Bill Moyers Journal begins airing in some markets tonight (PBS -- each station can determine when they air an episode) and features Maxine Hong-Kingston. (Transcripts and video will go up at Bill Moyers Journal.)
Finally, independent journalist John Pilger is on a speaking tour with his new book Freedom Next Time and his documentary Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror (which looks at DC, Afghanistan and Iraq). June 7th, he will discuss his book with Amy Goodman at The New School, Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street, beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:15). Admission is $5 per person and students (with ID) can attend for free. Pilger will sign copies of his book afterwards and Amy Goodman will sign copies of her latest book (written with her brother David Goodman) Static. "For ticket information, contact (212) 229-5488 or boxoffice@newschool.edu. For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, click here or e-mail pilgerny@gmail.com."
June 11th, Pilger will be in Los Angeles at the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center (244 S. San Pedro St.) and will discuss his book and show his documentary beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:00 pm). The price of admission to the even is five dollars. "Directions, maps, and parking info at: http://www.jaccc.org/directions.htmPresented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, and The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call or visit the JACCC. Box office: 213-680-3700 (Box Office Hours: Monday - Saturday: Noon - 5 pm)For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilger.la@gmail.com."
June 13th finds him in San Francisco showing his film and discussing his book at Yerba Beuna Center for Arts (beginning at 7:00 pm, doors open at 6:00 pm) and the price of admission is $15 general and $5 for students. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, and KPFA, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call 415-978-2787 or order online at http://www.ybca.org/. In person tickets at YBCA Box office located inside the Galleries and Forum Building, 701 Mission Street at Third. (Hours: Tue, Wed, Fri, Sat & Sun: noon - 5 pm; Thu: noon - 8 pm.) For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilgersf@gmail.com."
From San Francisco, he moves on to Chicago for the 2007 Socialism conference. At 11:30 am Saturday June 16th, he and Anthony Arnove will participate in a conversation, audience dialogue and book signing (Arnove is the author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) and that evening (still June 16th) at 7:30 Pilger will be at Chicago Crowne Plaza O'Hare (5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018) as part of a panel of international activists. To attend the conference, the fee is $85. For Saturday and Sunday only, the price is $70. To attend only one session, the cost is ten dollars. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. Co-sponsors: Obrera Socialista, Socialist Worker, International Socialist Review, and Haymarket Books. For ticket information, call 773-583-8665 or e-mail info@socialismconference.org For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org. For more information, email info@socialismconference.org."
The Socialism 2007 conference will take place in Chicago from June 14-17. Along with Pilger and Arnove, others participating will include Dahr Jamail, Laura Flanders, Kelly Dougherty, Joshua Frank, Amy Goodman, Sharon Smith, Dave Zirin, Camilo Mejia, Jeremy Scahill, Jeffrey St. Clair and many others.
patrick cockburn
democracy now
amy goodman
joshua key
sudarsan raghavan
the washington post
ernesto londono
suzanne swift
melissa sanders
kasia andersontraci hukillcheryl lindsey seelhoffallison tobeyjane hoppenmaxine hong-kingston
bill moyers journal
albert petracaevelyn pringle
Other Items
Moqtada Sadr, the radical Iraqi Shia cleric, has appeared in public for the first time in months.
US officials said he had gone into hiding in Iran in January, ahead of the US troop surge in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. This was never confirmed.
The above is from the BBC's "Iraqi cleric back in public eye" and note: "This was never confirmed." Yet the New York Times, see previous entry, builds an entire front page article around nothing else.
From Garrett Therolf's "Attack kills 30 Iraqi mourners" (Los Angeles Times), we'll note this:
The U.S. military also announced that eight U.S. soldiers had been killed in the last three days. On Thursday, a soldier died when his vehicle struck a bomb in north-central Iraq, and another was killed by small arms fire in Diyala province. Later, the military said a roadside bomb killed two more soldiers here in the capital.
And, as to the headline, the death toll has climbed again, from 27 (see yesterday's snapshot) to 30.
Keesha notes Melissa Sanders' "A Military Mother Speaks Out Against the War -- An Interview with Sara Rich" (Socialist Alternative):
Suzanne Swift joined the military during her junior year of high school as a way to pay for college. Despite what she was told by her recruiters, she was sent to Iraq. While stationed there, Swift endured command rape and harassment at the hands of her fellow soldiers. Swift continued to experience sexual harassment once she returned to the U.S., and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Swift's case is not unique -- over 70% of women in the military report sexual harassment at some point in their careers.
When Swift was told she was going back to Iraq, she went AWOL. She was court-martialed in December 2006, found guilty of all charges, stripped of her rank, and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Her attackers went free. Justice’s Melissa Sanders interviewed Swift's mother, Sara Rich, a leading antiwar activist, to find out more about her case and her ongoing struggle with the military.
Now that the trial is over, has Suzanne been allowed to come home?
Oh no! They just won't let her go. She’s in the military until January 2009. They're sending her to Fort Irwin, which is in California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and it has the highest rate of suicide of all the bases in the United States.
[. . .]
What do you think it is about being in the military that's resulting in so much sexualized violence against female soldiers?
We're teaching guys about 18 to kill, and that killing's ok, before they are even allowed to legally drink. If you do that, I mean, who's going to tell them that raping isn't ok?
Keesha wanted this from "National Briefing" (New York Times yesterday) noted again:
30-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE IN SOLDIER SEX-ABUSE CASE
A former soldier was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for sexually abusing five female soldiers in their barracks at Fort Hood and in Iraq. The defendant, Clenard M. Simmons, 26, pleaded guilty on April 5 to four counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for five attacks from February 2004 to May 2005. Prosecutors said Mr. Simmons attacked the soldiers in their barracks, groping and threatening them. He was discharged from the Army in May 2005. (AP)
And Keesha also suggests "Women and the military." Suzanne Swift's case is not going away. The US military can kid that they've 'handled' it and they can pretend that people have lost interest. But the reality is completely different. As with most cases like this (or with Anita Hill's testimony before Congress), this is something that continues to build. At the height of her case, Swift was someone I would have to talk some students through. Now they bring up her case on their own. This isn't over. And Congress' decision to abdicate their responsibility in oversight (for Swift and so many other women serving in the military) doesn't mean the public's going to let it go.
Suzanne Swift needs to have her rank returned, be given an honorable discharge (with full benefits) and receive an apology from the institutions that betrayed her. As attention continues to build around her, I don't think the first two of the three are as unlikely as they seemed months ago. Swift had a huge outpouring of support while she was going through the process to see whether or not she would receive justice.
The mistake the military's made is in assuming that because they've handed out 'justice' the issue is over. To the contrary. People who were unaware or waiting to see if the military could handle this matter are now outraged by what was done to Swift in the name of 'justice.' She has more supporters and interest now than she ever did and the military can thank themselves for that because their inaction, their punishing of Swift, created an even greater sense of outrage.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
suzanne swift
garrett therolf
melissa sanders
US officials said he had gone into hiding in Iran in January, ahead of the US troop surge in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. This was never confirmed.
The above is from the BBC's "Iraqi cleric back in public eye" and note: "This was never confirmed." Yet the New York Times, see previous entry, builds an entire front page article around nothing else.
From Garrett Therolf's "Attack kills 30 Iraqi mourners" (Los Angeles Times), we'll note this:
The U.S. military also announced that eight U.S. soldiers had been killed in the last three days. On Thursday, a soldier died when his vehicle struck a bomb in north-central Iraq, and another was killed by small arms fire in Diyala province. Later, the military said a roadside bomb killed two more soldiers here in the capital.
And, as to the headline, the death toll has climbed again, from 27 (see yesterday's snapshot) to 30.
Keesha notes Melissa Sanders' "A Military Mother Speaks Out Against the War -- An Interview with Sara Rich" (Socialist Alternative):
Suzanne Swift joined the military during her junior year of high school as a way to pay for college. Despite what she was told by her recruiters, she was sent to Iraq. While stationed there, Swift endured command rape and harassment at the hands of her fellow soldiers. Swift continued to experience sexual harassment once she returned to the U.S., and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Swift's case is not unique -- over 70% of women in the military report sexual harassment at some point in their careers.
When Swift was told she was going back to Iraq, she went AWOL. She was court-martialed in December 2006, found guilty of all charges, stripped of her rank, and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Her attackers went free. Justice’s Melissa Sanders interviewed Swift's mother, Sara Rich, a leading antiwar activist, to find out more about her case and her ongoing struggle with the military.
Now that the trial is over, has Suzanne been allowed to come home?
Oh no! They just won't let her go. She’s in the military until January 2009. They're sending her to Fort Irwin, which is in California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and it has the highest rate of suicide of all the bases in the United States.
[. . .]
What do you think it is about being in the military that's resulting in so much sexualized violence against female soldiers?
We're teaching guys about 18 to kill, and that killing's ok, before they are even allowed to legally drink. If you do that, I mean, who's going to tell them that raping isn't ok?
Keesha wanted this from "National Briefing" (New York Times yesterday) noted again:
30-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE IN SOLDIER SEX-ABUSE CASE
A former soldier was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for sexually abusing five female soldiers in their barracks at Fort Hood and in Iraq. The defendant, Clenard M. Simmons, 26, pleaded guilty on April 5 to four counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for five attacks from February 2004 to May 2005. Prosecutors said Mr. Simmons attacked the soldiers in their barracks, groping and threatening them. He was discharged from the Army in May 2005. (AP)
And Keesha also suggests "Women and the military." Suzanne Swift's case is not going away. The US military can kid that they've 'handled' it and they can pretend that people have lost interest. But the reality is completely different. As with most cases like this (or with Anita Hill's testimony before Congress), this is something that continues to build. At the height of her case, Swift was someone I would have to talk some students through. Now they bring up her case on their own. This isn't over. And Congress' decision to abdicate their responsibility in oversight (for Swift and so many other women serving in the military) doesn't mean the public's going to let it go.
Suzanne Swift needs to have her rank returned, be given an honorable discharge (with full benefits) and receive an apology from the institutions that betrayed her. As attention continues to build around her, I don't think the first two of the three are as unlikely as they seemed months ago. Swift had a huge outpouring of support while she was going through the process to see whether or not she would receive justice.
The mistake the military's made is in assuming that because they've handed out 'justice' the issue is over. To the contrary. People who were unaware or waiting to see if the military could handle this matter are now outraged by what was done to Swift in the name of 'justice.' She has more supporters and interest now than she ever did and the military can thank themselves for that because their inaction, their punishing of Swift, created an even greater sense of outrage.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
suzanne swiftgarrett therolf melissa sanders
NYT: Gordo means never having to go on record
On the front page of the New York Times, bottom left hand corner, the ultimate War Pornographer Michael Gordon offers up "Iraqi Shiite Cleric Reportedly Ends A Sojourn in Iran" which reads both smutty and child-like.
Gordo tells us that Moqtada al-Sadr "has quietly returned" to Iraq . . . unless of course he hasn't. Unless of course he was never gone. Unless of course he was out of Iraq but somewhere other than Iran. See, the War Pornographer builts his house upon official whispers, the War Pornographer built his house upon official whispers, the War Pornographer built his house upon official whispers. And, as his former co-writer Judith Miller could easily tell him, at some point
those who do that discover that the rains come tumbling down.
Gordo tells you that the rumor that al-Sadr has returned to Iraq (requiring you to accept as fact the rumor that he left -- when not all that long ago, US officials were publicly admitting that they did not know where al-Sadr was) is "[t]he prevailing view among American officials familiar with the intelligence reports" . . . or at least the prevailing view of the ones willing to talk to him -- a very, very small pool to be sure. Read in vain for a named source.
Now in paragraph six, you will come across one Toby Dodge. Dodge really doesn't count. He's "a Middle East expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London" which really doesn't qualify for "American officials."
Paragraph 12 does quote Robert Gates and, to be sure, he is an American official (Sec. of Defense for those still waking up this morning); however, Gordo's quoting him from the public record and going all the way back to March to do so. In the entire 17 paragraph doodle, Gordo has no named American official speaking on al-Sadr's alleged return to Iraq (following an alleged departure).
In paragraph 15, he does quote an unnamed official ("one Defense Department official") whose hot breat tickles the back of Gordo's ear with, "There is a range of speculation on what it might mean. Some say he will reassert himself. Some are not so surt of that. I don't believe the intelligence community has come to a firm assment on the meaning of his return to Iraq." On such weak, and unnamed grounds, is a front page story built.
Now al-Sadr did give a speech in Kufa today and clicking here will show that others putting forward arguments can actually name officials (Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., who is not in London and who is American, is actually named in paragraph five, for instance).
While noting that the Times loves to front page unattributed whispers, take a moment to grasp that today is day 14 that 2 US soldiers remain missing. The attack, the 3 that went missing never made the front page never made the front page until day 7 and that remains the only time they have -- despite the fact that one of the three turned up dead on Wednesday (which the military confirmed on Thursday). But transcriptions of Gordo's phone sex? There's always room on the front page of the Times for that nonsense.
Heads up, the latest Bill Moyers Journal begins airing in some markets tonight (PBS -- each station can determine when they air an episode) and features Maxine Hong-Kingston.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
michael gordon
maxine hong-kingston
bill moyers journal
Gordo tells us that Moqtada al-Sadr "has quietly returned" to Iraq . . . unless of course he hasn't. Unless of course he was never gone. Unless of course he was out of Iraq but somewhere other than Iran. See, the War Pornographer builts his house upon official whispers, the War Pornographer built his house upon official whispers, the War Pornographer built his house upon official whispers. And, as his former co-writer Judith Miller could easily tell him, at some point
those who do that discover that the rains come tumbling down.
Gordo tells you that the rumor that al-Sadr has returned to Iraq (requiring you to accept as fact the rumor that he left -- when not all that long ago, US officials were publicly admitting that they did not know where al-Sadr was) is "[t]he prevailing view among American officials familiar with the intelligence reports" . . . or at least the prevailing view of the ones willing to talk to him -- a very, very small pool to be sure. Read in vain for a named source.
Now in paragraph six, you will come across one Toby Dodge. Dodge really doesn't count. He's "a Middle East expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London" which really doesn't qualify for "American officials."
Paragraph 12 does quote Robert Gates and, to be sure, he is an American official (Sec. of Defense for those still waking up this morning); however, Gordo's quoting him from the public record and going all the way back to March to do so. In the entire 17 paragraph doodle, Gordo has no named American official speaking on al-Sadr's alleged return to Iraq (following an alleged departure).
In paragraph 15, he does quote an unnamed official ("one Defense Department official") whose hot breat tickles the back of Gordo's ear with, "There is a range of speculation on what it might mean. Some say he will reassert himself. Some are not so surt of that. I don't believe the intelligence community has come to a firm assment on the meaning of his return to Iraq." On such weak, and unnamed grounds, is a front page story built.
Now al-Sadr did give a speech in Kufa today and clicking here will show that others putting forward arguments can actually name officials (Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., who is not in London and who is American, is actually named in paragraph five, for instance).
While noting that the Times loves to front page unattributed whispers, take a moment to grasp that today is day 14 that 2 US soldiers remain missing. The attack, the 3 that went missing never made the front page never made the front page until day 7 and that remains the only time they have -- despite the fact that one of the three turned up dead on Wednesday (which the military confirmed on Thursday). But transcriptions of Gordo's phone sex? There's always room on the front page of the Times for that nonsense.
Heads up, the latest Bill Moyers Journal begins airing in some markets tonight (PBS -- each station can determine when they air an episode) and features Maxine Hong-Kingston.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
michael gordon
maxine hong-kingstonbill moyers journal
Thursday, May 24, 2007
And the war drags on . . .
5:56 David Obey once again accuses Bush of abandoning the troops by vetoing the last bill.
I'll say this again: I object to the idea that the Dems should accuse Bush of "abandoning the troops." If we don't FOR CHRISSAKE STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL PRETENDING THAT WARS ARE FUNDED FOR THE TROOPS, WE WILL NEVER EVER END ANY WARS. Sorry for the caps, but I don't know how many times this has to be said or how to make it any clearer.
Pelosi promised the media repeatedly in recent days and over the past year that "Our troops will be funded." This is UNADULTERATED FATALLY SELF DEFEATING BULLSH*T. Nobody is ever going to abandon the troops. They are either going to be left to kill and die and be wounded and traumatized in Iraq OR they are going to be brought safely home. There is no third possibility called "abandoning" or "not supporting" or "not funding" them.
If the peace movement keeps talking about "funding the troops" there will never be peace. Believe it or not - and I know this seems insane - there are some things we should NOT accuse Bush of.
6:02 John Boehner just claimed Hussein had been a threat to Iraq's neighbors, and that he had WDMs but shipped them somewhere when the US invaded. Unbelievable! Then Boehner said that once you send troops somewhere you cannot question whether or not you should have. So presumably he's continuing to believe the lies as a matter of principle.
The above is from David Swanson's "Congress Licks Bush's Shoes" (AfterDowningStreet). Lucy noted it and wondered if there was a reason Swanson wasn't quoted in the snapshot from his appearance on Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room?
There are actually a number of reasons and none of them have to do with him. First, I'm not at home, I'm on the east coast (right now, I'm at Rebecca's, earlier today I was speaking on campuses) so I didn't hear the entire show. I was dictating the snapshot to a friend when I heard Medea's voice in the background and said "Turn it up!" Tina Richards was also on the show. I didn't hear the entire thing. I heard enough to get what's in the snapshot.
Medea Benjamin is a community favorite (and has been for some time, go back to the second month of this site when she was awarded some community honor in the year in review for 2004). As such, she gets noted very often. If I had heard the entire show, Tina Richards may have been noted. David Swanson would not have been. Not because of anything he said 'wrong' (he's very well spoken) but, look at the snapshot. Male, male, male, male, male, male, male, male, male . . . Other than Medea Benjamin the only women represented (in quotes) are Lynn Woolsey and Laura Flanders. Barbara Lee (another community favorite) had nothing up at her site when the snapshot was being dictated. The Iraq war matters to women. Polls have repeatedly shown, throughout the illegal war, that women have been opposed to it in greater numbers than have been men.
Of course you wouldn't know that to surf online. We noted Matthew Rothschild and we didn't note Ruth Conniff. Go read Conniff's weak commentary on the caving (Pollyanna, your life is calling) and you'll see why that is. Katrina vanden Heuvel? As Mike's noted, she decided today was the perfect day to write about American Idol. With brave voices like that is it any surprise the left has so little impact in Congress? (Stealing from Jim, personal note to Mike: No, I'm not mad. You wrote about your frustrations and feelings. You have nothing to worry about or apologize for. Possibly a grown adult, on a day with a Congressional vote as important as today's was, boring us with her thoughts about American Idol while allegedly leading a left weekly has apologies to make, but you have none to make.) I did six talks on Iraq today on four different campuses and I farmed out research on indymedia to friends because I wanted the snapshot to note the criticism of the surrender in Congress. When I was getting reports on that (traveling between campuses), I kept asking the same question: "Are no women writing about this?"
Now I'm sure that some women were. But in terms of the voices this community listens to (or tolerates in the cases of those who have made it a point to prove how useless they can be), there wasn't anything except Laura Flanders. So when I heard Medea's voice in the background as I was dictating the snapshot, I asked my friend to turn the radio up so I could grab from that. That was nothing against David Swanson but we had plenty of men already. (Nothing against Tina Richards either. I grabbed from Medea's earliest remarks -- earliest after the radio was turned up -- and rushed to dictate the rest of the snapshot.) KPFA's Living Room is the link to the archives if you missed it and are able to listen online. If you're not able to, Living Room is the radio program Ava and I will be writing about for Hilda's Mix next week and we'll note something from each of today's guests. (We're also going to be dropping back to the roundtable Antonia Juhasz was a part of some time ago.)
A feminist friend, disgusted with the raunch culture passing itself off as feminism, gave me the report on our Ladies of the Mudflaps who had not one damn word to say about Iraq today. Possibly, they're still recovering from their "Michelle Obama for president!" lunacy? (Get the feeling that if this was 1980, they might be writing, "Nancy Reagan for president!") Or maybe it hasn't registered with them yet? What was it, three days after Yolanda King died that they suddenly announced "Yolanda King Dies"? Again? They're a little slow on the uptake.
But the reality, as my friend pointed out repeatedly (and I agreed with every word she said), is that sort of nonsense prolongs the illegal war. To repeat, along gender lines, women have been opposed to the illegal war in greater number than men have from the start of the illegal war on through today (and Ms. magazine's polling has consistently demonstrated that -- as has other polling). Now let's be really clear, women were a driving force in bringing an end to the slaughter in Vietnam. Women were such a 'threat' that the FBI spied on feminism organizations repeatedly, much more so than they did other groups (as Ruth Rosen documents in her brilliant The World Split Wide Open). So this nonsense today where alleged feminists never feel the need to weigh in the illegal war is nonsense. They can promote their raunch culture all they want but let's not kid that it's feminism anymore. Off Our Backs isn't afraid to call out the illegal war, Ms. has devoted several issues to it. But go to the alleged feminists websites and find anything on the illegal war. You can find titters over the word "C*nt" in a book title, you can find fretting over a Van Fair cover. You just can't find out about the illegal war. It's as though they've all locked themselves (gladly) away in their own little Yellow Wallpapered Room. (Which may be why one of the most idiotic posts of last year has to be the "Newsweek owes Susan Faludi an Apology" nonsense -- Ava and I addressed it here.)
So yes, it's even more insulting when Katrina vanden Heuvel felt the most important thing to write about today was American Idol. Now Ava and I do TV commentaries every Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review. Neither of us pushed for that. Jim's the one who wanted that. (And originally they were group efforts.) They ended up being something that pulls in readers each week. They are a drawing card and they are used as such so that those dropping by just for that will find other things as well. But we're not gushing over American Idol. (A show I've never watched but did find it interesting to read Katrina's shout outs which, for the record, didn't include Diana Ross.) So I'm not saying, "Pop culture must never be discussed!" But I am saying nothing's done with it. It's not used to draw in readers and expose them to anything else nor is there any attempt (serious or half-hearted) to grapple with what's on screen. (Katrina writes about her own fantasies of American Idol's 'meaning.') We've tackled the lack of people of color, the lack of women (in cartoons as well as live action programming). We've questioned the soap opera Grey's Anatomy for failing to grasp who uses the emergency room (something that would be drilled into any real life resident). We've questioned the authoritarian screeds (often embracing brutality and torture) that spew from the minds of Bruckheimer and Wolf. We'd both prefer never to have to write another thing on TV again. But we do try to go beyond the most simplistic nonsense. There's no attempt to do that when you're gushing over American Idol (or for that matter Michelle Obama).
But what it really comes down to for me, still, is that Molly Ivins went out trying to bring the war home, trying to cover it. And all the so-called tributes to her after she died were meaningless because the same ones doing tributes never bothered to follow up on what she would be doing if she were still here. So when sites supposedly catering to feminists can't be bothered with addressing the illegal war, they really shouldn't be considered feminist sites. The destruction of women's rights in Iraq is a feminist issue. Honor killings are a feminist issue. War is a feminist issue. And when so many use their platforms to promote fluff, the 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 3403 (ICCC). Tonight? 3438. (87 for the month thus far -- making it the second highest month thus far -- April had 104.) Does that not matter? Does the nearly a million of Iraqis who've died in the illegal war not matter?
You know, John Updike's a joke, a badly written joke, but during Vietnam at least he had the guts to admit he was pro-war. (Updike didn't feel citizens had a right to question their leaders. This inability to question explains the mechanical prose he's repeatedly churned out.) Those who are silent today? Are they for it or are they against it? You'll just have to guess from their silence.
But one thing they are is prolonging the war and silencing their own voices. Now that's not how it is offline where women are quite happy, at any campus I visit, to take the lead in discussions on the illegal war, to pull their weight. 35 more deaths of US service members since last Thursday. As Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) rightly noted, polls don't end wars. Neither does silence.
RadioNation with Laura Flanders' Laura Flanders has rightly noted that women aren't being invited into big media's conversation on the illegal war. [Remember Flanders' show airs at one p.m. EST Sunday beginging this Sunday -- Air America Radio, XM satellite and online.] It's also true that women who have no trouble at all, women in the US, voicing their opinions on rapes in London and NY stripping laws grow strangely silent on the issue of the illegal war. You almost start to wish that some male blogger would say, "Women can't blog about war, they're not physically suited to it." Why? Because that might be the only thing that would force some women to weigh in on the illegal war -- that some guy said they couldn't. We'll be addressing The Nation's whiner Christopher Phelps at The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend; however, it needs to be noted that during Vietnam, women weren't handed roles in the peace movement, they had to carve them out. Which makes it all the more surprising that when women have done so much to end this illegal war, alleged feminist bloggers can't even cover them. The list of women who've been out there trying to end the illegal war includes: Ann Wright, Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin, Sara Rich, Kelly Dougherty, Arundhati Roy, Maxine Hong-Kingston, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Jessica Lange, Diane Wilson, Leslie Cagan, Sharon Smith, Phyllis Bennis, Amy Goodman, Alice Walker, Holly Near, Robin Morgan, Ani DiFranco, Laura Flanders, Barbara Lee, Riverbend, Tina Richards, Missy Comley-Beattie, Janeane Garofalo, Amy Branham, DeDe Miller, Kimberly Wilder, Aimee Smith, Judith LeBlanc, Margaret Kimberley, Joan Baez, the Raging Grannies . . . That's by no means a full list. If the names surprise you it may be due to the fact that when assorted males write their "They Were Right" columns women usually don't even get a token mention in the assorted top tens. Phelps is lost but it's not all his fault, women's involvement in the peace movement during Vietnam is minimized or forgotten today by many.
Today, when women are far more visible, it's really sad that so-called feminists can't even note that or the actions these woman take part in. That's making it all the more easy for women's very real accomplishments and efforts to end this illegal war to be erased. That's also making it very likely that a Phelps of tomorrow will stumble across archives of supposed feminist blogs and decide that the Iraq war really wasn't an issue to women. That's not reality.
This entry went a completely different way than I thought it would earlier today. But I'm thinking of the (sadly brief) conversation with a friend today, the vast number of young women not afraid to speak out on campuses today and, honestly, just wanting to spend time with Rebecca and her new baby. (And Flyboy, not to short change Rebecca's husband.) So, in the words of Kat, it is what it is.
That's the motto for the snapshots as well. (And thank you to everyone who takes dictation on days when I don't have the time to type it up myself.) There are plenty of things that never make a snapshot. One thing in today's New York Times (Thursday's paper) that's planned for tomorrow I'll toss out here just to underscore that war is a feminist issue in oh so many ways. This is from A16, "National Briefing:"
30-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE IN SOLDIER SEX-ABUSE CASE
A former soldier was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for sexually abusing five female soldiers in their barracks at Fort Hood and in Iraq. The defendant, Clenard M. Simmons, 26, pleaded guilty on April 5 to four counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for five attacks from February 2004 to May 2005. Prosecutors said Mr. Simmons attacked the soldiers in their barracks, groping and threatening them. He was discharged from the Army in May 2005. (AP)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
laura flanders
radionation with laura flanders
david swanson
norman solomon
kpfa
kris welch
living room
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the third estate sunday review
I'll say this again: I object to the idea that the Dems should accuse Bush of "abandoning the troops." If we don't FOR CHRISSAKE STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL PRETENDING THAT WARS ARE FUNDED FOR THE TROOPS, WE WILL NEVER EVER END ANY WARS. Sorry for the caps, but I don't know how many times this has to be said or how to make it any clearer.
Pelosi promised the media repeatedly in recent days and over the past year that "Our troops will be funded." This is UNADULTERATED FATALLY SELF DEFEATING BULLSH*T. Nobody is ever going to abandon the troops. They are either going to be left to kill and die and be wounded and traumatized in Iraq OR they are going to be brought safely home. There is no third possibility called "abandoning" or "not supporting" or "not funding" them.
If the peace movement keeps talking about "funding the troops" there will never be peace. Believe it or not - and I know this seems insane - there are some things we should NOT accuse Bush of.
6:02 John Boehner just claimed Hussein had been a threat to Iraq's neighbors, and that he had WDMs but shipped them somewhere when the US invaded. Unbelievable! Then Boehner said that once you send troops somewhere you cannot question whether or not you should have. So presumably he's continuing to believe the lies as a matter of principle.
The above is from David Swanson's "Congress Licks Bush's Shoes" (AfterDowningStreet). Lucy noted it and wondered if there was a reason Swanson wasn't quoted in the snapshot from his appearance on Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room?
There are actually a number of reasons and none of them have to do with him. First, I'm not at home, I'm on the east coast (right now, I'm at Rebecca's, earlier today I was speaking on campuses) so I didn't hear the entire show. I was dictating the snapshot to a friend when I heard Medea's voice in the background and said "Turn it up!" Tina Richards was also on the show. I didn't hear the entire thing. I heard enough to get what's in the snapshot.
Medea Benjamin is a community favorite (and has been for some time, go back to the second month of this site when she was awarded some community honor in the year in review for 2004). As such, she gets noted very often. If I had heard the entire show, Tina Richards may have been noted. David Swanson would not have been. Not because of anything he said 'wrong' (he's very well spoken) but, look at the snapshot. Male, male, male, male, male, male, male, male, male . . . Other than Medea Benjamin the only women represented (in quotes) are Lynn Woolsey and Laura Flanders. Barbara Lee (another community favorite) had nothing up at her site when the snapshot was being dictated. The Iraq war matters to women. Polls have repeatedly shown, throughout the illegal war, that women have been opposed to it in greater numbers than have been men.
Of course you wouldn't know that to surf online. We noted Matthew Rothschild and we didn't note Ruth Conniff. Go read Conniff's weak commentary on the caving (Pollyanna, your life is calling) and you'll see why that is. Katrina vanden Heuvel? As Mike's noted, she decided today was the perfect day to write about American Idol. With brave voices like that is it any surprise the left has so little impact in Congress? (Stealing from Jim, personal note to Mike: No, I'm not mad. You wrote about your frustrations and feelings. You have nothing to worry about or apologize for. Possibly a grown adult, on a day with a Congressional vote as important as today's was, boring us with her thoughts about American Idol while allegedly leading a left weekly has apologies to make, but you have none to make.) I did six talks on Iraq today on four different campuses and I farmed out research on indymedia to friends because I wanted the snapshot to note the criticism of the surrender in Congress. When I was getting reports on that (traveling between campuses), I kept asking the same question: "Are no women writing about this?"
Now I'm sure that some women were. But in terms of the voices this community listens to (or tolerates in the cases of those who have made it a point to prove how useless they can be), there wasn't anything except Laura Flanders. So when I heard Medea's voice in the background as I was dictating the snapshot, I asked my friend to turn the radio up so I could grab from that. That was nothing against David Swanson but we had plenty of men already. (Nothing against Tina Richards either. I grabbed from Medea's earliest remarks -- earliest after the radio was turned up -- and rushed to dictate the rest of the snapshot.) KPFA's Living Room is the link to the archives if you missed it and are able to listen online. If you're not able to, Living Room is the radio program Ava and I will be writing about for Hilda's Mix next week and we'll note something from each of today's guests. (We're also going to be dropping back to the roundtable Antonia Juhasz was a part of some time ago.)
A feminist friend, disgusted with the raunch culture passing itself off as feminism, gave me the report on our Ladies of the Mudflaps who had not one damn word to say about Iraq today. Possibly, they're still recovering from their "Michelle Obama for president!" lunacy? (Get the feeling that if this was 1980, they might be writing, "Nancy Reagan for president!") Or maybe it hasn't registered with them yet? What was it, three days after Yolanda King died that they suddenly announced "Yolanda King Dies"? Again? They're a little slow on the uptake.
But the reality, as my friend pointed out repeatedly (and I agreed with every word she said), is that sort of nonsense prolongs the illegal war. To repeat, along gender lines, women have been opposed to the illegal war in greater number than men have from the start of the illegal war on through today (and Ms. magazine's polling has consistently demonstrated that -- as has other polling). Now let's be really clear, women were a driving force in bringing an end to the slaughter in Vietnam. Women were such a 'threat' that the FBI spied on feminism organizations repeatedly, much more so than they did other groups (as Ruth Rosen documents in her brilliant The World Split Wide Open). So this nonsense today where alleged feminists never feel the need to weigh in the illegal war is nonsense. They can promote their raunch culture all they want but let's not kid that it's feminism anymore. Off Our Backs isn't afraid to call out the illegal war, Ms. has devoted several issues to it. But go to the alleged feminists websites and find anything on the illegal war. You can find titters over the word "C*nt" in a book title, you can find fretting over a Van Fair cover. You just can't find out about the illegal war. It's as though they've all locked themselves (gladly) away in their own little Yellow Wallpapered Room. (Which may be why one of the most idiotic posts of last year has to be the "Newsweek owes Susan Faludi an Apology" nonsense -- Ava and I addressed it here.)
So yes, it's even more insulting when Katrina vanden Heuvel felt the most important thing to write about today was American Idol. Now Ava and I do TV commentaries every Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review. Neither of us pushed for that. Jim's the one who wanted that. (And originally they were group efforts.) They ended up being something that pulls in readers each week. They are a drawing card and they are used as such so that those dropping by just for that will find other things as well. But we're not gushing over American Idol. (A show I've never watched but did find it interesting to read Katrina's shout outs which, for the record, didn't include Diana Ross.) So I'm not saying, "Pop culture must never be discussed!" But I am saying nothing's done with it. It's not used to draw in readers and expose them to anything else nor is there any attempt (serious or half-hearted) to grapple with what's on screen. (Katrina writes about her own fantasies of American Idol's 'meaning.') We've tackled the lack of people of color, the lack of women (in cartoons as well as live action programming). We've questioned the soap opera Grey's Anatomy for failing to grasp who uses the emergency room (something that would be drilled into any real life resident). We've questioned the authoritarian screeds (often embracing brutality and torture) that spew from the minds of Bruckheimer and Wolf. We'd both prefer never to have to write another thing on TV again. But we do try to go beyond the most simplistic nonsense. There's no attempt to do that when you're gushing over American Idol (or for that matter Michelle Obama).
But what it really comes down to for me, still, is that Molly Ivins went out trying to bring the war home, trying to cover it. And all the so-called tributes to her after she died were meaningless because the same ones doing tributes never bothered to follow up on what she would be doing if she were still here. So when sites supposedly catering to feminists can't be bothered with addressing the illegal war, they really shouldn't be considered feminist sites. The destruction of women's rights in Iraq is a feminist issue. Honor killings are a feminist issue. War is a feminist issue. And when so many use their platforms to promote fluff, the 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 3403 (ICCC). Tonight? 3438. (87 for the month thus far -- making it the second highest month thus far -- April had 104.) Does that not matter? Does the nearly a million of Iraqis who've died in the illegal war not matter?
You know, John Updike's a joke, a badly written joke, but during Vietnam at least he had the guts to admit he was pro-war. (Updike didn't feel citizens had a right to question their leaders. This inability to question explains the mechanical prose he's repeatedly churned out.) Those who are silent today? Are they for it or are they against it? You'll just have to guess from their silence.
But one thing they are is prolonging the war and silencing their own voices. Now that's not how it is offline where women are quite happy, at any campus I visit, to take the lead in discussions on the illegal war, to pull their weight. 35 more deaths of US service members since last Thursday. As Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) rightly noted, polls don't end wars. Neither does silence.
RadioNation with Laura Flanders' Laura Flanders has rightly noted that women aren't being invited into big media's conversation on the illegal war. [Remember Flanders' show airs at one p.m. EST Sunday beginging this Sunday -- Air America Radio, XM satellite and online.] It's also true that women who have no trouble at all, women in the US, voicing their opinions on rapes in London and NY stripping laws grow strangely silent on the issue of the illegal war. You almost start to wish that some male blogger would say, "Women can't blog about war, they're not physically suited to it." Why? Because that might be the only thing that would force some women to weigh in on the illegal war -- that some guy said they couldn't. We'll be addressing The Nation's whiner Christopher Phelps at The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend; however, it needs to be noted that during Vietnam, women weren't handed roles in the peace movement, they had to carve them out. Which makes it all the more surprising that when women have done so much to end this illegal war, alleged feminist bloggers can't even cover them. The list of women who've been out there trying to end the illegal war includes: Ann Wright, Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin, Sara Rich, Kelly Dougherty, Arundhati Roy, Maxine Hong-Kingston, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Jessica Lange, Diane Wilson, Leslie Cagan, Sharon Smith, Phyllis Bennis, Amy Goodman, Alice Walker, Holly Near, Robin Morgan, Ani DiFranco, Laura Flanders, Barbara Lee, Riverbend, Tina Richards, Missy Comley-Beattie, Janeane Garofalo, Amy Branham, DeDe Miller, Kimberly Wilder, Aimee Smith, Judith LeBlanc, Margaret Kimberley, Joan Baez, the Raging Grannies . . . That's by no means a full list. If the names surprise you it may be due to the fact that when assorted males write their "They Were Right" columns women usually don't even get a token mention in the assorted top tens. Phelps is lost but it's not all his fault, women's involvement in the peace movement during Vietnam is minimized or forgotten today by many.
Today, when women are far more visible, it's really sad that so-called feminists can't even note that or the actions these woman take part in. That's making it all the more easy for women's very real accomplishments and efforts to end this illegal war to be erased. That's also making it very likely that a Phelps of tomorrow will stumble across archives of supposed feminist blogs and decide that the Iraq war really wasn't an issue to women. That's not reality.
This entry went a completely different way than I thought it would earlier today. But I'm thinking of the (sadly brief) conversation with a friend today, the vast number of young women not afraid to speak out on campuses today and, honestly, just wanting to spend time with Rebecca and her new baby. (And Flyboy, not to short change Rebecca's husband.) So, in the words of Kat, it is what it is.
That's the motto for the snapshots as well. (And thank you to everyone who takes dictation on days when I don't have the time to type it up myself.) There are plenty of things that never make a snapshot. One thing in today's New York Times (Thursday's paper) that's planned for tomorrow I'll toss out here just to underscore that war is a feminist issue in oh so many ways. This is from A16, "National Briefing:"
30-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE IN SOLDIER SEX-ABUSE CASE
A former soldier was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for sexually abusing five female soldiers in their barracks at Fort Hood and in Iraq. The defendant, Clenard M. Simmons, 26, pleaded guilty on April 5 to four counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for five attacks from February 2004 to May 2005. Prosecutors said Mr. Simmons attacked the soldiers in their barracks, groping and threatening them. He was discharged from the Army in May 2005. (AP)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
laura flandersradionation with laura flandersdavid swansonnorman solomon
kpfa
kris welch
living room
mikey likes itsex and politics and screeds and attitudekats kornerthe third estate sunday review
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, May 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the 3 US soldiers missing for nearly 2 weeks drops down to 2 missing, the US military announces the deaths of more service members, the military attempts to punish soldiers who speak out, and the craven and cowardly Democrats get another round of headlines.
One day shy of two weeks since 3 US soldiers went missing in Iraq, Garrett Therolf and Louis Sahagun (Los Angeles Times) report that the U.S. military confirmed the corpse discovered in the Euphrates yesterday was one of the 3 missing soliders, Joseph J. Anzack Jr. Jeremiah Marquez (AP) notes that Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez remain missing and, "According to a U.S. military official, a second body was found in the area near where Anzack's body was discovered. The official, who requested anonymity because the information has not yet been released, said there was no indication yet whether the body was another of the missing soldiers." Therolf and Sahagun reported "that there were two other bodies in the river, also clad in U.S. military uniforms" according to an unnamed Iraqi officer.
Fall out continues for the Democratic leadership in the US Congress' decision to cave and give Bully Boy everything he asked for in the war supplemental. Laura Flanders (Common Dreams) tells of spending time yesterday with the mother whose son is in the National Guard and told her, "I was counting on the Democrats to stop this war". [Reminder, RadioNation with Laura Flanders moves to a Sunday broadcast this Sunday, 1:00 pm EST.] Corporate Crime Reporter (CounterPunch) announces, "Behold the spineless Democratic Party. On Iraq, no deadlines. On trade, no enforceable worker protections. In the face of withering pressure from the oil industry, the Democrats in the House, led by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), have reportedly castrated their own legislation." BuzzFlash editorializes, "Since the 2006 elections, the Dem honchos have been speaking loudly and carrying a little stick. They claim that they don't have the votes to override a veto. But they do have the votes to keep passing a bill that Bush will veto, effectively bringing the war in Iraq to a close because funding will run out. They can end the war in Iraq, but are scared of being labeled with 'losing the war.' And this is a scarlet letter that they fear cannot be worn in a superpower nation that sees itself as the entitled righteous victor in any war that it starts, no matter how faulty the premise or counterproductive to our real national security that war may be. So the death continues, of young men and women -- many who are patroitic enough to believe that the lies told to them by the Bush Administration are true." United for Peace & Justice notes that "instead of standing up for what's right, the Democratic leadership has caved in to Bush. They are giving him a check for $100 billion to continue and futher EXPAND the war. That surge they all claimed they don't like? The money for it is in this bill." John Nichols (via Common Dreams) argues that "the willingness of Pelosi and Reid to advance a measure that does not include a withdrawal timeline allows Bush to conduct the war as he chooses for much if not all of the remainder of his presidency. This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war will haunt Pelosi, Reid and their party -- not to mention the United States and the battered shell that is Iraq." Recalling the Democratic leadership remarks leading up to Bully Boy's veto, Robert Parry (Consortium News) reminds, "The Democrats didn't help themselves when they started their 'negotiations' with the White House by announcing that they would eventually give Bush a bill that was acceptable to him. That's a bit like going into a car dealership, declaring that you intend to pay the full sticker price and then trying to bargain. Knowing that the Democrats planned to fold . . . Bush could confidently veto the first war spending bill". Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) addresses the nonsense noting, "There is not even a timetable for withdrawal, just 18 benchmarks that the President himself can waive. What an abdication! What a capitulation! Even as U.S. soldiers are increasingly bogged down in Baghdad, even as the death tool of our troops zoomed past the 3,400 mark, the Democratic compromisers in Congress could not find enough spinal fluid to stand tall against Bush and the inevitable you-don't-support-the-troops ads that they fear so much." Dave Lindorff (CounterPunch) declares, "The Iraq War is now fully a Democratic War. The hand-off is complete, just as the handoff of the Democratic Vietnam War was handed off to Richard Nixon and the Republicans in 1968. . . . Voters remember: It's not what candidates say; it's what they actually do, or don't do." Jeff Cohen (Common Dreams) observed, "The shared pretense of the White House and Democratic leaders is that funding the Iraq occupation is somehow a program on behalf of the troops. Like a subsidy for family farmers. . . . As Military Families Speak Out says: 'Funding the war is not supporting our troops. The way to support our troops is to bring them home now and take care of them when they get here'."
US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich explained to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) this morning, "We shouldn't be offering any legislation at all. We should just simply tell the president we're not going to fund the war. And this idea about funding the war to 'help the troops' is absurd. Want to help the troops? Bring them home." US House Rep Lynn Woolsey states, "The American public voted Democrats into power for one simple reason -- the trusted us to act boldly to hold this President accountable and to bring our troops home. So far we are failing the very trust that they have placed in us. But more importantly, every day that we allow this occupation to continue we are failing our brave young men and women who are serving honorably and professionally in Iraq. And we are failing their families here at home, who, while struggling to keep their lives and families together, are forced to worry whether their loved ones will come home alive, and if so in what condition." Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) make it clear, "There are only a couple [of] ways Congress can end this bloody, unwinnable occupation in Iraq. These do NOT include the approach of the Democratic leaders. That's been a failure -- as they now stand ready to give Bush $95 billion more war funding through an Iraq Supplemental bill that no longer has any timelines for troop withdrawal."
The deadlines and 'benchmarks' were never enforceable. They were never binding. The Bully Boy could waive them, he could reclassify ever US service member in Iraq "military police" and thereby keep them in Iraq without missing the 'deadlines' of the Pelosi-Reid measure that was sent up to the White House and vetoed. If you think real hard, you'll remember a Party Hack that told Dems in Congress (in the House) opposed to the weak Pelosi-Reid measure that they had to "accept the congressional world as it is right now".
But those trying to call reality out on the nonsense bill were told (a) they were wrong and (b) the Dems would stick by this measure no matter what (one Party Hack swore the answer to a veto lay in the "conference report" that "we" would take care of). A few did call the nonsense out, Laura Flanders, Howard Zinn, Black Agenda Report, Alexander Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild, Robert Knight (of Flashpoints Radio -- and include Dennis Bernstein, host of the same show, as well) . . . But it's a really small list. The rest either went along with the lie, stuck their head in the sand or, in the case of The Nation, attempted to write an editorial -- a p.o.v. piece -- from various perspectives to avoid calling the nonsense out.
But everyone was supposed to hold their tongues because this was the best, this was the only way that everyone could be on board and something could be done, hold your nose and accept it. Too many did. And now too many learn that when you act like a cheerleader instead of demanding real action, the Democratic compromise (and it's always a Democratic compromise) will be even weaker. Instead of cooing, "You can do it, Democrats, you can do it," the people would have been better served rejecting the weak measures. That might have forced the Dems to do more with their first proposal and, when it was compromise time, we might have seen them put forward the bill they went with last time. The Democrats will always compromise -- partly because they like to see themselves as "adults" (or, in the age of Oprah, "healers") and partly because they still can't quite believe that triangulation isn't a winning strategy.
Bill Van Auken (WSWS) reports, "Behind the media reports of a showdown between Democrats and Republicans over the Iraq war, what in reality appears to be emerging in Washington is a bipartisan consensus on a strategy that would continue the US occupation of the oil-rich country for many years to come." But not everyone's displeased. AP reports Bully Boy's practically panting over the gift the Democrats have handed him, saying that it "reflects a consensus" -- to which the reporters should have shot back, "Spell it."
Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) notes that there is a very long struggle ahead to end the illegal war and cautions: "When considering what to demand now, it's helpful to put the current moment in historical perspective. The same basic arguments for keeping U.S. forces in Iraq have long been presented by reigning politicians and key media outlets as self-evident wisdom. A cover story in Time magazine laid down the prevailing line: 'Foreing policy luminaries from both parties say a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would cripple American credibility, doom reform in the Arab world and turn Iraq into a playground for terrorists and the armies of neighboring states like Iran and Syria.' That was in April -- 2004."
Speaking with Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room today, Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK) stated, "We haven't bought the Democrats line from day one that they were trying to stop the war and we've been trying to hold them accountable" and reminded of US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, "The first policy that she put out on the first 100 hours didn't even include the word 'Iraq' in it." (Also appearing to discuss Congress' capitulation on Iraq were Tina Richards and David Swanson.)
War resisters continue trying to end the illegal war. On Monday, Carol Brouillet interviewed Camilo Mejia for Questioning War-Organizing Resistance on WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com. They addressed his newly published book, Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia (The New Press), the abuse he saw in Iraq and his own court-martial. Camilo Mejia: "The judge basically agreed with the prosection that it is not there job to second guess the commander in chief. And they did not want to hear about the war crimes or the violations of Geneva on the ground in Iraq. So they basically brought down the entire case to the question of whether I got back on the plane or not but they didn't look at the reasoning behind it. They did not examine the claims of war crimes or anything. And this is something that's happening more and more, Carol. Like for instance in the case of Lt. Watada that's precisely what happened. You know the prosecution wanted to prosecute Lt. Watada for saying that he did not want to participate in an illegal war but they did not want to put the war on trial so that's why they declared a mistrail because they could not go to court and look at all these issues without looking at the legality of the war. They could not examine his statements without actually verifying the veracity or without somehow one way or another putting the war on trial."
Ehren Watada was the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the Iraq war. An attempted court-martial in February ended -- over defense objection -- in a mistrial. Last Friday, the defense learned that an appeals court, Army Court of Appeals, granted a stay.
Watada and Mejia are part of growing movement of resistance within the US military that also includes Joshua Key, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, 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. And of course, there's
I am writing to let you know about an urgent issue that is affecting several of our IVAW members. Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are both very active members and former Marines. Because of their outspoken opposition to the war, the Marine Corps is threatening to revoke their honorable discharges and change them to other than honorable. We cannot allow this suppression of free speech to occur! Adam and Liam need our help to pay for legal defense and travel to their hearings. Adam just found out his hearing is in Kansas City on June 4th, less than two weeks away! Attached below is a letter from Adam, describing his situation and asking for your help. Besides financial contributions, we also need people who are in the Kansas City area to gather support for Adam before his June 4th hearing. Please contact me at Kelly@ivaw.org if you are in the area and would like to find out how you can help. I will keep you updated on both Adam and Liam's cases as they unfold.
Thank you so much for your time and support, it really means everything to our veterans who dare to speak the truth.
In Peace,
Kelly Dougherty
Former Sergeant Army National Guard
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War
The US Congress wasn't the only political body in the news today. BBC reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has announced six new nominations for "cabinet ministers to replace supporters of the radical Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, who resigned last month." Those paying attention this time last year may remember that al-Malilki missed the Constitutionally mandated deadline to put together a cabinet -- which should have kicked the puppt out of 'leadership' right then. Whether his latest six will be approved or not will be determined in a parliamentary vote Sunday. Meanwhile, the violence continued.
Bombings?
Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack killed 1 person and left three more wounded, 6 Iraqis were wounded by an IED while driving in their car in Ad Dawr, while a bombing in Al-Sharkhat killed a "man and woman" and left an additional woman wounded. AFP reports a bombing at a Falluja funeral that killed at least 25: "Fallujah residents told AFP by telephone that the bomb there targeted mourners paying their respects to Ali Ahmed Zuwail, the nephew of tribal leader Abdel Razeq al-Issawi, who was shot dead on Wednesday." Garrett Theolf (Los Angeles Times) spells the nephew's name Alawi Ahmed Zuwaid and notes he was shot "in front of his house" and was "suspected of cooperating with American forces in reconstruction projects, family and friends said." Reuters reports the Falluja death toll climbed to 27 and that there are at least 30 wounded, a Baghdad car bombing killed 1 Iraqi solilder and left two more njured, a Baghdad bomber ("wearing an explosive vest") killed himslef and one passenger on a mini-bus (5 wounded). a Baghdad bombing that killed 2 people and left 15 more wounded and a roadside bombing in Sulaiman Bek that claimed the lives of 6 police officers and wounded six more.
Shootings?
Reuters reports an attack on a mini-bus in Baghdad in which 11 passengers were shot dead and an attack in Khan Bani Saad where 6 people were shot dead. Jenan Hussein (McClatachy Newspapers) reports an attack in Kirkuk left 6 Iraqis shot dead, and, in Baghdad, one Iraqi civilian was shot dead by US forces and another was wounded.
Corpses?
Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 22 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters reports 3 corpses discovered in Baquba.
Today the US military announced: "Two Soldiers assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed May 23 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." AFP's count for the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war is 3,436. ICCC's count is currently 3434.
Finally, independent journalist John Pilger is on a speaking tour with his new book Freedom Next Time and his documentary Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror (which looks at DC, Afghanistan and Iraq). June 7th, he will discuss his book with Amy Goodman at The New School, Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street, beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:15). Admission is $5 per person and students (with ID) can attend for free. Pilger will sign copies of his book afterwards and Amy Goodman will sign copies of her latest book (written with her brother David Goodman) Static. "For ticket information, contact (212) 229-5488 or boxoffice@newschool.edu. For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, click here or e-mail pilgerny@gmail.com."
June 11th, Pilger will be in Los Angeles at the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center (244 S. San Pedro St.) and will discuss his book and show his documentary beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:00 pm). The price of admission to the even is five dollars. "Directions, maps, and parking info at: http://www.jaccc.org/directions.htm
Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, and The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call or visit the JACCC. Box office: 213-680-3700 (Box Office Hours: Monday - Saturday: Noon - 5 pm)
For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilger.la@gmail.com."
June 13th finds him in San Francisco showing his film and discussing his book at Yerba Beuna Center for Arts (beginning at 7:00 pm, doors open at 6:00 pm) and the price of admission is $15 general and $5 for students. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, and KPFA, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call 415-978-2787 or order online at http://www.ybca.org/. In person tickets at YBCA Box office located inside the Galleries and Forum Building, 701 Mission Street at Third. (Hours: Tue, Wed, Fri, Sat & Sun: noon - 5 pm; Thu: noon - 8 pm.) For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilgersf@gmail.com."
From San Francisco, he moves on to Chicago for the 2007 Socialism conference. At 11:30 am Saturday June 16th, he and Anthony Arnove will participate in a conversation, audience dialogue and book signing (Arnove is the author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) and that evening (still June 16th) at 7:30 Pilger will be at Chicago Crowne Plaza O'Hare (5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018) as part of a panel of international activists. To attend the conference, the fee is $85. For Saturday and Sunday only, the price is $70. To attend only one session, the cost is ten dollars. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. Co-sponsors: Obrera Socialista, Socialist Worker, International Socialist Review, and Haymarket Books. For ticket information, call 773-583-8665 or e-mail info@socialismconference.org For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org. For more information, email info@socialismconference.org."
The Socialism 2007 conference will take place in Chicago from June 14-17. Along with Pilger and Arnove, others participating will include Dahr Jamail, Laura Flanders, Kelly Dougherty, Joshua Frank, Amy Goodman, Sharon Smith, Dave Zirin, Camilo Mejia, Jeremy Scahill, Jeffrey St. Clair and many others.
camilo mejia
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
matthew rothschild
john nichols
robert parry
codepink
medea benjamin
garrett therolf
louis sahagun
One day shy of two weeks since 3 US soldiers went missing in Iraq, Garrett Therolf and Louis Sahagun (Los Angeles Times) report that the U.S. military confirmed the corpse discovered in the Euphrates yesterday was one of the 3 missing soliders, Joseph J. Anzack Jr. Jeremiah Marquez (AP) notes that Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez remain missing and, "According to a U.S. military official, a second body was found in the area near where Anzack's body was discovered. The official, who requested anonymity because the information has not yet been released, said there was no indication yet whether the body was another of the missing soldiers." Therolf and Sahagun reported "that there were two other bodies in the river, also clad in U.S. military uniforms" according to an unnamed Iraqi officer.
Fall out continues for the Democratic leadership in the US Congress' decision to cave and give Bully Boy everything he asked for in the war supplemental. Laura Flanders (Common Dreams) tells of spending time yesterday with the mother whose son is in the National Guard and told her, "I was counting on the Democrats to stop this war". [Reminder, RadioNation with Laura Flanders moves to a Sunday broadcast this Sunday, 1:00 pm EST.] Corporate Crime Reporter (CounterPunch) announces, "Behold the spineless Democratic Party. On Iraq, no deadlines. On trade, no enforceable worker protections. In the face of withering pressure from the oil industry, the Democrats in the House, led by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), have reportedly castrated their own legislation." BuzzFlash editorializes, "Since the 2006 elections, the Dem honchos have been speaking loudly and carrying a little stick. They claim that they don't have the votes to override a veto. But they do have the votes to keep passing a bill that Bush will veto, effectively bringing the war in Iraq to a close because funding will run out. They can end the war in Iraq, but are scared of being labeled with 'losing the war.' And this is a scarlet letter that they fear cannot be worn in a superpower nation that sees itself as the entitled righteous victor in any war that it starts, no matter how faulty the premise or counterproductive to our real national security that war may be. So the death continues, of young men and women -- many who are patroitic enough to believe that the lies told to them by the Bush Administration are true." United for Peace & Justice notes that "instead of standing up for what's right, the Democratic leadership has caved in to Bush. They are giving him a check for $100 billion to continue and futher EXPAND the war. That surge they all claimed they don't like? The money for it is in this bill." John Nichols (via Common Dreams) argues that "the willingness of Pelosi and Reid to advance a measure that does not include a withdrawal timeline allows Bush to conduct the war as he chooses for much if not all of the remainder of his presidency. This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war will haunt Pelosi, Reid and their party -- not to mention the United States and the battered shell that is Iraq." Recalling the Democratic leadership remarks leading up to Bully Boy's veto, Robert Parry (Consortium News) reminds, "The Democrats didn't help themselves when they started their 'negotiations' with the White House by announcing that they would eventually give Bush a bill that was acceptable to him. That's a bit like going into a car dealership, declaring that you intend to pay the full sticker price and then trying to bargain. Knowing that the Democrats planned to fold . . . Bush could confidently veto the first war spending bill". Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) addresses the nonsense noting, "There is not even a timetable for withdrawal, just 18 benchmarks that the President himself can waive. What an abdication! What a capitulation! Even as U.S. soldiers are increasingly bogged down in Baghdad, even as the death tool of our troops zoomed past the 3,400 mark, the Democratic compromisers in Congress could not find enough spinal fluid to stand tall against Bush and the inevitable you-don't-support-the-troops ads that they fear so much." Dave Lindorff (CounterPunch) declares, "The Iraq War is now fully a Democratic War. The hand-off is complete, just as the handoff of the Democratic Vietnam War was handed off to Richard Nixon and the Republicans in 1968. . . . Voters remember: It's not what candidates say; it's what they actually do, or don't do." Jeff Cohen (Common Dreams) observed, "The shared pretense of the White House and Democratic leaders is that funding the Iraq occupation is somehow a program on behalf of the troops. Like a subsidy for family farmers. . . . As Military Families Speak Out says: 'Funding the war is not supporting our troops. The way to support our troops is to bring them home now and take care of them when they get here'."
US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich explained to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) this morning, "We shouldn't be offering any legislation at all. We should just simply tell the president we're not going to fund the war. And this idea about funding the war to 'help the troops' is absurd. Want to help the troops? Bring them home." US House Rep Lynn Woolsey states, "The American public voted Democrats into power for one simple reason -- the trusted us to act boldly to hold this President accountable and to bring our troops home. So far we are failing the very trust that they have placed in us. But more importantly, every day that we allow this occupation to continue we are failing our brave young men and women who are serving honorably and professionally in Iraq. And we are failing their families here at home, who, while struggling to keep their lives and families together, are forced to worry whether their loved ones will come home alive, and if so in what condition." Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) make it clear, "There are only a couple [of] ways Congress can end this bloody, unwinnable occupation in Iraq. These do NOT include the approach of the Democratic leaders. That's been a failure -- as they now stand ready to give Bush $95 billion more war funding through an Iraq Supplemental bill that no longer has any timelines for troop withdrawal."
The deadlines and 'benchmarks' were never enforceable. They were never binding. The Bully Boy could waive them, he could reclassify ever US service member in Iraq "military police" and thereby keep them in Iraq without missing the 'deadlines' of the Pelosi-Reid measure that was sent up to the White House and vetoed. If you think real hard, you'll remember a Party Hack that told Dems in Congress (in the House) opposed to the weak Pelosi-Reid measure that they had to "accept the congressional world as it is right now".
But those trying to call reality out on the nonsense bill were told (a) they were wrong and (b) the Dems would stick by this measure no matter what (one Party Hack swore the answer to a veto lay in the "conference report" that "we" would take care of). A few did call the nonsense out, Laura Flanders, Howard Zinn, Black Agenda Report, Alexander Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild, Robert Knight (of Flashpoints Radio -- and include Dennis Bernstein, host of the same show, as well) . . . But it's a really small list. The rest either went along with the lie, stuck their head in the sand or, in the case of The Nation, attempted to write an editorial -- a p.o.v. piece -- from various perspectives to avoid calling the nonsense out.
But everyone was supposed to hold their tongues because this was the best, this was the only way that everyone could be on board and something could be done, hold your nose and accept it. Too many did. And now too many learn that when you act like a cheerleader instead of demanding real action, the Democratic compromise (and it's always a Democratic compromise) will be even weaker. Instead of cooing, "You can do it, Democrats, you can do it," the people would have been better served rejecting the weak measures. That might have forced the Dems to do more with their first proposal and, when it was compromise time, we might have seen them put forward the bill they went with last time. The Democrats will always compromise -- partly because they like to see themselves as "adults" (or, in the age of Oprah, "healers") and partly because they still can't quite believe that triangulation isn't a winning strategy.
Bill Van Auken (WSWS) reports, "Behind the media reports of a showdown between Democrats and Republicans over the Iraq war, what in reality appears to be emerging in Washington is a bipartisan consensus on a strategy that would continue the US occupation of the oil-rich country for many years to come." But not everyone's displeased. AP reports Bully Boy's practically panting over the gift the Democrats have handed him, saying that it "reflects a consensus" -- to which the reporters should have shot back, "Spell it."
Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) notes that there is a very long struggle ahead to end the illegal war and cautions: "When considering what to demand now, it's helpful to put the current moment in historical perspective. The same basic arguments for keeping U.S. forces in Iraq have long been presented by reigning politicians and key media outlets as self-evident wisdom. A cover story in Time magazine laid down the prevailing line: 'Foreing policy luminaries from both parties say a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would cripple American credibility, doom reform in the Arab world and turn Iraq into a playground for terrorists and the armies of neighboring states like Iran and Syria.' That was in April -- 2004."
Speaking with Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room today, Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK) stated, "We haven't bought the Democrats line from day one that they were trying to stop the war and we've been trying to hold them accountable" and reminded of US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, "The first policy that she put out on the first 100 hours didn't even include the word 'Iraq' in it." (Also appearing to discuss Congress' capitulation on Iraq were Tina Richards and David Swanson.)
War resisters continue trying to end the illegal war. On Monday, Carol Brouillet interviewed Camilo Mejia for Questioning War-Organizing Resistance on WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com. They addressed his newly published book, Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia (The New Press), the abuse he saw in Iraq and his own court-martial. Camilo Mejia: "The judge basically agreed with the prosection that it is not there job to second guess the commander in chief. And they did not want to hear about the war crimes or the violations of Geneva on the ground in Iraq. So they basically brought down the entire case to the question of whether I got back on the plane or not but they didn't look at the reasoning behind it. They did not examine the claims of war crimes or anything. And this is something that's happening more and more, Carol. Like for instance in the case of Lt. Watada that's precisely what happened. You know the prosecution wanted to prosecute Lt. Watada for saying that he did not want to participate in an illegal war but they did not want to put the war on trial so that's why they declared a mistrail because they could not go to court and look at all these issues without looking at the legality of the war. They could not examine his statements without actually verifying the veracity or without somehow one way or another putting the war on trial."
Ehren Watada was the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the Iraq war. An attempted court-martial in February ended -- over defense objection -- in a mistrial. Last Friday, the defense learned that an appeals court, Army Court of Appeals, granted a stay.
Watada and Mejia are part of growing movement of resistance within the US military that also includes Joshua Key, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, 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. And of course, there's
Yesterday, we noted the case of Adam Kokesh who was honorably discharged in 2006 but whose actions to end the illegal war now has the military threatening him with a change in discharge status. (More information can be found at kokesh.blogspot.com.) Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kelly Dougherty has a letter posted at Veterans for Peace:
I am writing to let you know about an urgent issue that is affecting several of our IVAW members. Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are both very active members and former Marines. Because of their outspoken opposition to the war, the Marine Corps is threatening to revoke their honorable discharges and change them to other than honorable. We cannot allow this suppression of free speech to occur! Adam and Liam need our help to pay for legal defense and travel to their hearings. Adam just found out his hearing is in Kansas City on June 4th, less than two weeks away! Attached below is a letter from Adam, describing his situation and asking for your help. Besides financial contributions, we also need people who are in the Kansas City area to gather support for Adam before his June 4th hearing. Please contact me at Kelly@ivaw.org if you are in the area and would like to find out how you can help. I will keep you updated on both Adam and Liam's cases as they unfold.
Thank you so much for your time and support, it really means everything to our veterans who dare to speak the truth.
In Peace,
Kelly Dougherty
Former Sergeant Army National Guard
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War
The US Congress wasn't the only political body in the news today. BBC reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has announced six new nominations for "cabinet ministers to replace supporters of the radical Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, who resigned last month." Those paying attention this time last year may remember that al-Malilki missed the Constitutionally mandated deadline to put together a cabinet -- which should have kicked the puppt out of 'leadership' right then. Whether his latest six will be approved or not will be determined in a parliamentary vote Sunday. Meanwhile, the violence continued.
Bombings?
Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack killed 1 person and left three more wounded, 6 Iraqis were wounded by an IED while driving in their car in Ad Dawr, while a bombing in Al-Sharkhat killed a "man and woman" and left an additional woman wounded. AFP reports a bombing at a Falluja funeral that killed at least 25: "Fallujah residents told AFP by telephone that the bomb there targeted mourners paying their respects to Ali Ahmed Zuwail, the nephew of tribal leader Abdel Razeq al-Issawi, who was shot dead on Wednesday." Garrett Theolf (Los Angeles Times) spells the nephew's name Alawi Ahmed Zuwaid and notes he was shot "in front of his house" and was "suspected of cooperating with American forces in reconstruction projects, family and friends said." Reuters reports the Falluja death toll climbed to 27 and that there are at least 30 wounded, a Baghdad car bombing killed 1 Iraqi solilder and left two more njured, a Baghdad bomber ("wearing an explosive vest") killed himslef and one passenger on a mini-bus (5 wounded). a Baghdad bombing that killed 2 people and left 15 more wounded and a roadside bombing in Sulaiman Bek that claimed the lives of 6 police officers and wounded six more.
Shootings?
Reuters reports an attack on a mini-bus in Baghdad in which 11 passengers were shot dead and an attack in Khan Bani Saad where 6 people were shot dead. Jenan Hussein (McClatachy Newspapers) reports an attack in Kirkuk left 6 Iraqis shot dead, and, in Baghdad, one Iraqi civilian was shot dead by US forces and another was wounded.
Corpses?
Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 22 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters reports 3 corpses discovered in Baquba.
Today the US military announced: "Two Soldiers assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed May 23 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." AFP's count for the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war is 3,436. ICCC's count is currently 3434.
Finally, independent journalist John Pilger is on a speaking tour with his new book Freedom Next Time and his documentary Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror (which looks at DC, Afghanistan and Iraq). June 7th, he will discuss his book with Amy Goodman at The New School, Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street, beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:15). Admission is $5 per person and students (with ID) can attend for free. Pilger will sign copies of his book afterwards and Amy Goodman will sign copies of her latest book (written with her brother David Goodman) Static. "For ticket information, contact (212) 229-5488 or boxoffice@newschool.edu. For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, click here or e-mail pilgerny@gmail.com."
June 11th, Pilger will be in Los Angeles at the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center (244 S. San Pedro St.) and will discuss his book and show his documentary beginning at 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:00 pm). The price of admission to the even is five dollars. "Directions, maps, and parking info at: http://www.jaccc.org/directions.htm
Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, and The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call or visit the JACCC. Box office: 213-680-3700 (Box Office Hours: Monday - Saturday: Noon - 5 pm)
For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilger.la@gmail.com."
June 13th finds him in San Francisco showing his film and discussing his book at Yerba Beuna Center for Arts (beginning at 7:00 pm, doors open at 6:00 pm) and the price of admission is $15 general and $5 for students. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, and KPFA, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. For ticket information, call 415-978-2787 or order online at http://www.ybca.org/. In person tickets at YBCA Box office located inside the Galleries and Forum Building, 701 Mission Street at Third. (Hours: Tue, Wed, Fri, Sat & Sun: noon - 5 pm; Thu: noon - 8 pm.) For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org For more information, email pilgersf@gmail.com."
From San Francisco, he moves on to Chicago for the 2007 Socialism conference. At 11:30 am Saturday June 16th, he and Anthony Arnove will participate in a conversation, audience dialogue and book signing (Arnove is the author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) and that evening (still June 16th) at 7:30 Pilger will be at Chicago Crowne Plaza O'Hare (5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018) as part of a panel of international activists. To attend the conference, the fee is $85. For Saturday and Sunday only, the price is $70. To attend only one session, the cost is ten dollars. "Presented by The Center for Economic Research and Social Change, The Nation Institute, with support from the Wallace Global Fund. Co-sponsors: Obrera Socialista, Socialist Worker, International Socialist Review, and Haymarket Books. For ticket information, call 773-583-8665 or e-mail info@socialismconference.org For media inquiries, contact (212) 209-5407 or ruth@nationbooks.org. For more information, email info@socialismconference.org."
The Socialism 2007 conference will take place in Chicago from June 14-17. Along with Pilger and Arnove, others participating will include Dahr Jamail, Laura Flanders, Kelly Dougherty, Joshua Frank, Amy Goodman, Sharon Smith, Dave Zirin, Camilo Mejia, Jeremy Scahill, Jeffrey St. Clair and many others.
camilo mejia
the washington postsudarsan raghavanmatthew rothschildjohn nicholsrobert parrycodepinkmedea benjamin
flashpoints
howard zinngarrett therolf louis sahagun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)