"Is the car registered in your name?"
"Yes."
"Papers." I give him my papers. He isn't looking at them. Why, then, did he ask for them??
Another walks up. "You're a doctor, aren't you? I remember you. You work at the Nursing Home. I know you because I used to work there." His eyes dark were looking straight into mine, but they were mocking ,not serious.
Until he brought up the "doctor" matter, I was OK. Just another checkpoint. I took out my papers sixteen times on my way home the other day. But doctors were different. Targeted by kidnappers for ransom money, and sometimes killed. But more dangerous, they were targeted by people with an agenda that says "Harass Iraqi doctors until they flee; if they don't run ,kill them."
"No, you must be mistaking me for someone else." Sweet smile. Heart pounding. "I'm a teacher, not a doctor." Keeping my hands steady and relaxed on the steering wheel was a feat.
"Why are you lying? I know you. Don't lie to us!!" his piercing eyes still mocking me , daring me to say what I wanted to say, that they were toying with their pray ,that there was something very wrong here. The "us" worried me. Who were they?? Uniforms don't mean anything nowadays.
"Pull up to the side of the road" Trying to move my foot to comply with the "order", I realized the extent of my fear, my foot wouldn't budge. It was numb, dead.
The above is from Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers) "Go!" and you can read that as a typical day in Iraq. More so now that approximately 100 journalists have died in Iraq. Thursday, the US military killed two working for Reuters. On Friday, one working for the New York Times was killed. With more on Friday's death, this is from John F. Burns' "In a Baghdad Killing, Questions That Haunt Iraq:"
At 8:45 a.m. on Friday, Khalid W. Hassan was navigating his car out of one of Baghdad’s most dangerous neighborhoods on his way to work as a reporter and interpreter at The New York Times bureau here. "My area is blocked," he wrote in a cellphone text message to the paper’s newsroom manager. "I am trying to find a way out."
Within 45 minutes, about two miles from his home, Mr. Hassan, whose Palestinian family migrated to Iraq in 1948, was forced to the side of the road by gunmen in a black Mercedes. The gunmen opened fire with automatic rifles, pitting Mr. Hassan’s rundown Kia car with bullets. At least one struck him in the upper body, but failed to kill him.
Mr. Hassan, a heavyset, pranksterish 23-year-old, loved the new world of cellphones, online computers and downloadable videos ushered in by the American occupation of Iraq, so much so that he spent a quarter of his monthly salary recently on another new phone. Slumped in his seat, he called his mother, then his father, at work as a school caretaker, telling them he had been shot. "I'm O.K., Mom," he said.
An off-duty policeman in a gasoline station line told Mr. Hassan's father what came next. A second car with gunmen, an Opel Vectra, seeing Mr. Hassan on his cellphone, pulled forward and fired two fatal shots into Mr. Hassan’s head and neck.
And Reuters is reporting that one of their translators (unnamed at the request of the family) was shot dead (along with two brothers) in Baghdad Wednesday. That's four journlists killed from Wednesday through Friday. All died in Baghdad.
Today the US military announced: "One Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed and another wounded when an explosively-formed penetrator detonated near their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 14." And they announced: "A Task Force Marne Soldier was killed when a landmine detonated during a dismounted patrol today." ICCC's total currently is 3612 US service members have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war and 33 for the month of July thus far. I believe that's one short (today's had two announcements thus far and I'm only seeing one noted by ICCC).
Meanwhile, Bushra Juhi's "Al-Maliki: Iraqis Can Handle Security" (Associated Press) tells you that the puppet's making noises that he's in control and can handle things when the US leaves but instead of focusing on his attempts to shore up crumbling support in DC, we'll note this section:
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.
Tomorrow (Sunday) at 1:00 pm EST on RadioNation with Laura Flanders, Camilo Mejia, Dave Zirin and Laila Al Arian will be among the guests. The program airs on Air America Radio, on XM satellite radio and streams online. In addition, it's carried by other commercial free radio stations across the country and an archived broadcast goes up mid-week. Flanders is also on Air America Radio during the week, on the "The Air Americans", with Mark Riley. Wait, we're not done. Event on Monday, NYC, in which Flanders will be participating:
The Culture Project and Women Center Stage Present: People Power vs. the Right's Advance: The Case of South Dakota.
Monday, July 16th, 7pm at the Culture Project, 55 Mercer St. in downtown Manhattan.
Laura Flanders will lead a discussion of one of the most noteworthy victories of 2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY!
Against overwhelming odds, South Dakotans reversed a no-exceptions abortion ban. How did they do it? How did regional and national allies help? With more threats to reproductive justice looming at the local and federal level, this is a unique opportunity to talk directly with women who were there:
* Charon Asetoyer, Founder and Executive Director of the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center in South Dakota.
* Sondra Goldschein, State Strategies Attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project.
* Nancy Goldstein, Director of Communications & Development for National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
* Laura Ross, founder of Women Run! South Dakota, a state-based PAC that helped 23 pro-choice Democratic women (including Asetoyer) run for office in '06.
* Cari Sietstra, founder and former executive director of Law Students for Choice.
Laura Flanders is the host of RadioNation on Air America Radio and the author of BLUE GRIT: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians. Books will be available for signing at the event.Panelists will take questions from the audience and the media. Please forward this message to your lists. And come early -- seating is limited.
GET YOUR TICKET TODAY.
For more information, or to buy tickets ($15) go to
http://lauraflanders-com.c.topica.com/maag4hZabzSaAbQccDub/
Tickets can also be obtained at the Culture Project Box Office at 55 Mercer Street (@Broome). Queries: please call 212 232 0255 or write to boxoffice@cultureproject.org
Martha noted the above and hoped they could make the snapshot on Friday. It had already gone up. On the plus side, it will run in the print edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review, distributed on their old campus, which actually will be the better target audience for the event. I'm sorry we weren't able to include it in the snapshot.
On other things that should have been noted, Tom Joad maintains a list of war resisters. Ideally, it will be on the permalinks no later than Sunday evening (Sunday evening ends when I go to sleep which may be early Monday morning). In a landscape where so many make a point to ignore them or slam them, it's good to know a site exists just to note their courage and list them.
On things we will not note . . . I don't dislike Chris Hedges. I do, however, know that when you talk about one source lying to you, if there was a second source, you not only talk about them, you out them. According to the New York Times co-authored by Hedges, front paged and linking Saddam Hussein to 9-11, two sources gave him and the other reporter the information. One source (thanks to Mother Jones' work) was exposed as a complete liar and fraud. Hedges needs to name the second source. That's basic journalism and he knows that. Two visitors are so offended that this was brought up ("brought up again!!!!" wrote one this morning). Tough. There is the BIG LIE that Judith Miller and only Judith Miller got it wrong/ took stenography. As I have pointed out repeatedly, that lie allows a lot of people to go scott free. If we're noting Hedges and the topic is Iraq, it is incumbent to note that in October 2001 he co-authored a now infamously discredited article promoting a non-existant link between 9-11 and Iraq: terrorists were training to hijack planes at a camp in Iraq! Now you probably remember that dopey story (it also aired, in cooperation with the paper, on PBS). Hedges has been noted here and at other community sites on other topics and we don't note the Iraq story. The now widely discredited story. But when he's noted on something to do with Iraq it is incumbent to note that he co-authored the piece that put out the lie about the plane hijacking camps in Iraq. "That's just not nice to write," offered one e-mailer.
I'm not interested in "nice." (Or, as Holly Near sings, "I'm tired of being nice . . .") I'm interested in reality and reality is that one of the worst lies that the administration put out there (and the administration was behind that lie) was popularized (as true) by Hedges. That may not be "nice" or "pretty" but it is reality. When Mother Jones was being interviewed for that article, people bent over backwards to not name co-author Hedges. They either cited the other author or just went with "New York Times" (during discussions with the author of the Mother Jones piece). I'm real sorry Hedges got it so wrong (trust me, I'm real sorry) but that is reality. Does it make him a "bad" person? No. But it is required when he writes about Iraq that it is noted. (And it should be required that he name the second source.) The second e-mailer said, "The left always need to support the left." Really? Always? Judith Miller started out print wise at The Progressive.
The infamously false article was one of the earliest to sound the drum beats for war with Iraq. It is completely discredited as journalism and it should have been obviously false in real time. Two 'insiders' (only one of which has been named -- was the State Dept. the second source for the article?) claim that there are terrorist camps training hijackers in Iraq and that appears on the front page of the New York Times a month after 9-11. That false claim still lives on. I'm sorry that some get the heebie jeebies when it's noted that Hedges co-authored it, but that is reality. A while back, when Alissa J. Rubin was wrong about something (I don't even remember what now), I noted that the next day's article spent far too long correcting/explaining how that was wrong to begin with (next day's article by Rubin). It will happen. Things will be wrong. Rubin's error wasn't so grave as to require that she don a hairshirt. Though Hedges doesn't need to don a hairshirt, his error was grave. And at a time when passions were already running so high in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, that laughably sourced article should have not only not been run, it shouldn't have been written.
The way the popular narrative is re-written, Bully Boy, in the fall of 2002, began linking 9-11 to Iraq. We all know that's a lie. Richard Clarke has noted how he was repeatedly instructed, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, to connect 9-11 with Iraq. That October 2001 article was part of the roll out. (I am not saying Hedges was, I'm saying the article was.) All of the nonsense about "mushroom cloud"s didn't work to scare some of the American public as a stand-alone. The bedrock for the fear was the earlier (repeated and repeated) false claim that Iraq had a terrorist training camp for hijackers. That lie did not start in 2002. It was front-paged on the New York Times in October of 2001. That is reality and if it's too much for your delicate frame, shirk it but don't get upset that others won't join you in a Stupidity Parade.
Hedges has a Los Angeles Times piece. It's not being linked to here. It's a column that mines The Nation article and manages to repeatedly mention Camilo Mejia but cannot once note that he is a war resister. That's really shameful. Honesty, not war, is the force that gives our life meaning, Chris Hedges. Honesty. Furthermore, read Camilo's book, the way Hedges elects to tell the badge story isn't really reality either. It's more shaped to fit the column he's penned. Mejia wrote his own book. You can read about the badge in it, about the cross-examination in front of the squad over it. Hedges really softens that story in his column. (To get more decorations, officers were willing to risk the lives of those serving beneath them by sending them on 'missions' -- usually useless raids repeatedly -- and along with Mejia, Joshua Key also writes about that in his book. And neither pulls punches about what's going on and why. It's a real shame that two non-journalists do a better job of telling the story than a professional reporter.) It's a limp little factoid shaped for a column. Reality is, that if told truthfully, it would enrage many. I'll assume, like on visitor e-mailing, Hedges wants to tell it 'nice.' Which begs the question, why not stay with the New York Times in that case?
Two Thursdays ago, I noted that Cheney avoided Vietnam and offered the opinion that if he had to go, he would have shot himself in the foot in order not to go. That led to "Cpt. Mark" writing me a lengthy e-mail that he said I could share about these "myths" that anyone ever shot themselves to avoid deployment. If "Cpt. Mark" was indeed ever in the military during war time, he led a highly sheltered life. But, for the record, here's a case of that happening in this illegal war. From the AP:
A soldier who recently returned from Iraq has admitted he paid someone $500 to shoot him in the leg so he could avoid returning for another tour. Jonathan Aponte, 20, claimed he had been robbed and shot but changed his story when police questioned him, authorities said. Aponte, who was facing another eight-month tour, had been scheduled to leave last Monday.
"As far as being shot at every day, I think it's better," Aponte told WCBS-TV in an interview that aired Friday. "Mentally I can't do it anymore. I can't handle it anymore."
No doubt Cpt. Mark will be at work shortly on an e-mail to me explaining how the above is also a myth.
A whiner, there's no other word for it, notes Gordo's nonsense from yesterday (co-authored) which "should have been linked to." No, it shouldn't have. Weak minds rush to applaud Gordo stating the obvious and fail to grasp that he's selling the lie that al Qaeda of River City is responsible for all the violence in Iraq. ("We've got trouble . . . right here . . .") Alissa J. Rubin noted the non-link the day before (and was noted here that Thursday) without spinning some grand, White House endorsed, propaganda. Only the weak minds would link to that dumb ass article. We had other things to focus on and didn't need to pat Gordo on the back for only half-lying for a change. We grasped what was going on -- he was making the case for troops to remain in Iraq (remember, he's on record telling Charlie Rose how jazzed he is by the escalation). How so? If Congress does their weak measure and pulls out "combat troops," they will still allow "police" and "terrorist fighting" troops to remain. Gordo's planning for that possibility by pushing that Iraq is nothing but Al Qaeda Land. Susan notes Bill Scheurer's "Iraq Vote: Operation Deception'" (Peace Majority Report, AfterDowningStreet):
The Democratic Congress served up another bowl of political slush this week with its latest vote on Iraq, designed to isolate Republicans in November 2008.
Fortunately, no one seems to be paying much attention this time -- partly
because the Bush press conference on the Iraq interim progress report overshadowed it in the news, but mostly because more people in the peace movement are getting wise to their game.
Like their last upside-down Iraq vote, PeaceMajority Report will not be including this
"Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act" in our scorecard when updates resume.
Even though there was enough window-dressing in this bill to marshal all but one of the Progressive and Out-of-Iraq Caucus members -- Dennis Kucinich stood alone in resisting this charade -- we cannot play along with their political game.
We cannot endorse a bill that still empowers this President to develop a "comprehensive United States strategy for Iraq" that would assert "United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region." This is what he says he has been doing all along!
The so-called "redeployment" would still allow remaining forces to fully pursue "al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq," and to train and equip "members of the Iraqi Security Forces."
Get it yet? Gordo's always planning for the future. (Which is why he's on board for War With Iran and cheerleading that.) So you go cheerlead his dumb ass Friday article for noting that 9-11 and Iraq weren't connected and ignore that he's also arguing that Iraq is 100% al Qaeda Land.
And to the whiner Ava's dubbed Baby Hughey -- Ava was far too kind to you in her reply. She must have been laughing too hard at your e-mail. When she told the rest of us about it, we laughed as well. You're a real Tough Boy calling people 'cowards' except when you get called out. Then it's "ooh, my wittle feelings are hurt." I have no idea why you felt the need to share your homophobia in your screechfest of an e-mail. But, considering everything else you've done publicly, the homophobia comes as no real surprise. Let's all shed a tear for the little Tough Boy: wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'll be sharing the e-mail and explaining further how disgusting Baby Hughey is in my column for Polly's Brew (check your inboxes Sunday morning).
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
and Trina's Trina's Kitchen
Sam was the first to note Margaret Kimberley this week and Kendrick was the last (twenty minutes ago in an e-mail). From her "British Terror" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report):
Why is anyone angry at Britain? Perhaps it is because the British are some of the people doing the killing. Maybe they are angry because Tony Blair left office proclaiming the rightness of occupying Iraq and killing 600,000 people. Those crazy Arabs and Muslims, they get mad at the strangest things.
It is an understatement to say that Tony Blair left office as Prime Minister of Great Britain under a cloud. He followed George W. Bush like a poodle, or perhaps more like a toad. Former president Jimmy Carter assigned blamed to Blair along with Bush for causing America's increasing unpopularity throughout the world. "It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."
"Blair followed George W. Bush like a poodle, or perhaps more like a toad."
Blair is shameless in his belief that killing human beings is acceptable as long as it is done by a government run by white people. Not content to have spent the last six years following Bush like a little shadow, Blair didn't even have the decency to disappear into the sunset and shut up. After giving Britons a collective sigh of relief upon leaving number 10 Downing Street, Blair again began running for new offices.
After rumors of a Carlyle Group corner office and a European union presidency, Blair assumed the role of Middle East peace envoy. He will represent Europe, the United States, Russia and the United Nations while simultaneously keeping the rest of the world from laughing or loosing their lunch at the prospect of a true believer in occupation and empire being an honest broker for peace.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
mcclatchy newspapers
the new york times
john f. burns
radio nations with laura flanders
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
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Iraq snapshot
Friday, July 13, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, another journalist is annouced dead in Iraq -- the 3rd in the last 48 hours, Matthew Rothschild addresses the theft of Iraqi oil law, and more.
Starting with war resistance. The Progressive's Hidden History Of The United States (available in calander form) notes that on this day in 1863, "Draft riots began in New York City, leaving 1,000 dead over four days." Ehren Watada is the first commissioned officer to public refuse deployment to Iraq. Currently, he is waiting while the appeals process determines whether he will have to face a second court-martial and, if so, whether Judge Toilet (aka John Head) will be allowed to preside over it again. While this goes on, people continue to demonstrate their support for Watada. Last Friday, we noted a rally held in San Francisco in support of Watada. Ryan Baladad (Asian Week) informs, "Members from the various groups, including Aisan Pacific Islanders Resist and the Watada Support Committee, took turns speaking in support of the Japanese lieutenant. Supporters held signs that read, 'Refuse Illegal War,' 'Bush lied, People Died' and showed photos of Watada in uniform. Malcolm Yeung of the Asian Law Caucus called the Army's actions 'frankly reprehensible' and said the case 'chills free speech'." Baladad closes with this statement from Rev. Norman Fong (Chinatown Presbyterian Church), "There shouldn't be another trial; they messed up the first time. We're proud of Lt. Watada."
Meanwhile, who is Steve Yoczik? The War Resisters Support Campaign explains, "Steve arrived in Toronto on November 25th, 2006. He trained in communications at Fort Gordon, Georgia. After a few months there, he began to realize that the decision he'd made to join the Army was a serious mistake and that trading 4 years of his life for the opportunity to have college paid for was not an agreeable enough trade. Also after seeing pictures of wounded or killed Iraqi civilians (and combatants) as well as stories from soldiers that had been to Iraq and Afghanistan, he knew without a doubt that he did not want to be involved in the war. Halfway through training, the 'job' he'd been signed on for was cancelled, and 'joblees' people in this particular war zone go on patrols and kick in doors, so Stephen prepared a last-ditch effort to come to Canada, as all other attempts to leave the Army 'legitimately' were exhausted. Since arriving in Toronto, Steve has adjusted fairly weel, and is being careful in the decisions he makes in life now, as his Army expereience has taught him that signatures hold a lot of power . . ."
Yoczik is part of a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, 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, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one 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, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Yesterday, Bully Boy went on and on, desperately attempting to stretch the definition of progress in yet another attempt to fool the American people. How bad did the spin and lies get? Kenneth R. Bazinet (New York Daily News) informs, "Even the White House was concerned Bush overstepped with his upbeat war talk, sending spokesman Tony Snow out to talk to the cable news outlets to clarify the President's remarks. 'The President isn't saying we're winning. He says we're in a fight. He says we cannot afford not to win,' Snow told Fox News." Tony Snow need not worry, reality will always Fact Check the Bully Boy upside his face. How are things with the Iraqi Parliament? Joshua Partlow and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports, "Iraqi politicians on Thursday struck a more pessimistic tone about Iraq than did the White House assessment, and said the deadlock between warring Sunni and Shiite factions makes major political progress unlikely in coming months." Well, as least those Iraqi troops are coming along nicely, right? Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) informs, "Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has decreased since President Bush's new strategy was launched in January, according to the White House progress report released yesterday." And try to find out the hard figures on this from the Pentagon, as DeYoung did, and be informed that's "classified information." Classified, apparently, on the grounds that Bully Boy is an incompetent.
And on the January 20th attack in Karbala that killed 1 US soldier immediately, wounded three and saw four kidnapped (all of whom would later turn up dead), Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reveals the army's internal investigation has found:
•Iraqi police suddenly vanished from the government compound before the shooting started.
•Attackers, evidently briefed on how U.S. forces would defend themselves, bottled up more than three dozen soldiers in a barracks and headquarters complex using a combination of smoke and fragment grenades and satchel charges to blow up Humvees.
•Gunmen knew exactly where to find and abduct U.S. officers.
•Iraqi vendors operating a PX and barbershop went home early.
•A back gate was left unlocked and unguarded.
Investigators recommended several changes to toughen defensive positions, including the installation of closed-circuit cameras to provide better early warnings, "duress devices" that can allow overrun outposts to signal headquarters, and requirements that any arriving convoy provide identification.
•Attackers, evidently briefed on how U.S. forces would defend themselves, bottled up more than three dozen soldiers in a barracks and headquarters complex using a combination of smoke and fragment grenades and satchel charges to blow up Humvees.
•Gunmen knew exactly where to find and abduct U.S. officers.
•Iraqi vendors operating a PX and barbershop went home early.
•A back gate was left unlocked and unguarded.
Investigators recommended several changes to toughen defensive positions, including the installation of closed-circuit cameras to provide better early warnings, "duress devices" that can allow overrun outposts to signal headquarters, and requirements that any arriving convoy provide identification.
Now how do you suppose that got left out of Bully Boy's attempt to sell the continuation of the illegal war? In more reality the Bully Boy Never Told You, Robert Burns (AP via Los Angeles Times) reports that yesterday's White House progress report "strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals." And really driving home the lack of progress in Iraq, Mike Drummond and Hussein Khalifa (McClatchy Newspapers) tell the story of Nawal Na'eem Karim whose 18-month-child has learned to cry "Talaq inanan! Talaq inana!" ("Bullets here! Bullets here!"). Needless to say, the mother tells the reporters she just wants the US to leave. Of course, Bully Boy would probably get that dopey grin on his face (as when a woman explained she had to work two jobs) and say, "That's wonderful."
Meanwhile, Congressional Dems try to put one over on the public -- again, and it's the same shell game. From Democracy Now! today:
House Iraq Pullout Bill Leaves Thousands of Troops Behind
The House has approved a measure that would begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within the next three months. The final vote was two hundred twenty-three to two-hundred and one, mostly along party lines. Before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged lawmakers to vote "yes."
The House has approved a measure that would begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within the next three months. The final vote was two hundred twenty-three to two-hundred and one, mostly along party lines. Before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged lawmakers to vote "yes."
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Let us pass this bill and those that will follow in the coming weeks and provide the new direction on Iraq that the American people demand and that is so urgently needed. I urge a 'yes' vote on the Skelton bill."
As Amy Goodman noted above "leaves tens of thousands soldiers behind." And that's provided Bully Boy doesn't reclassify the ones that would be set to leave. Pushing the non-existant link between 9-11 and Iraq is a thread he picked up again yesterday. He could follow the Pelosi measure (if it passed) and reclassify "combat troops" as troops who will be fighting terrorists ("al Qaeda!") and none have to leave. He could also declare that the illegal war is over and that 160,000 US troops need to remain to maintain "police operations" which would mean no troops leave. It's the con game they pulled in March, credit Goodman with telling it straight and not sugar coating it.
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice remakes Mariah Carey's "Love Takes Time" with new words resulting in "War Takes Time." (CBS & AP, text and video).
In a crimes and violence update, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) updates her bank robbery story from yesterday with the information that the bank is revising the figures for the stolen money to "282 million Iraqi diners, equal to about $225,000 and $366,00 American dollars." In some of today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a mortar attacks in Baquba claimed 2 lives and left fifteen wounded and a Baquba bombing that claimed 1 life. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes that the Green Zone was "slammed" with mortars today, killing 2 Iraqi soldiers and that "U.S. civilian government employees have been required in the last few dyas to wear body armor and helmets because of the rising threat of rocket and mortar attacks. Reuters notes that 2 children died in Samawa from a roadside bombing, 1 Iraqi soldier died from a Baghdad roadside bombing and 1 police officer died from a Mosul roadside bombing.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports five police officers were shot dead in Baghdad, 3 Iraqi civilians were shot dead by the US military (in what appears to be -- me speaking not Hammoudi -- indiscriminate firing) and "Gunmen killed an Iraqi journalist working for New York Times newspaper near Al Saidiyah fuel station south of Baghdad around 9:00 am." John Holusha (New York Times) observes that Hassan joined the paper in 2003 (fall) and that he was the second Times' reporter for the paper to die in Iraq and notes: "Mr. Hassan was shot in the Saidiya district of south central Baghdad while driving to work under circumstances that remain unclear, Mr. [John F.] Burns said. He had called the bureau earlier and said his normal route to the office had been block by a security checkpoint." Executive editor Bill Keller states, "Khalid was part of a large, sometimes unsung, community of Iraqi news gatherers, translators and support staff, who take enormous risks every day to help us comprehend their country's struggle and torment. Without them, America's understanding of what is happening on the ground in Iraq would be much, much poorer. To The Times, Khalid was family, and his death is heartbreaking." Khalid Hassan's death brings to three the number of reporters killed in Baghdad in the last 48 hours. Yesterday, we noted the deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two journalists with Reuters. Today, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that in addition to eyewitnesses quoted in the early reports yesterday, Ahmad Sahib, with AFP, arrived on the scene shortly afterwards and he states, "They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered. It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover."
Corpses?
Reuters reports 3 corpses discovered today in Sawayra. And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) noted that 28 corpses were discovered in Baghdad Thursday.
Turning to the theft of Iraqi oil, Nancy Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "Earlier this month, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki announced unanimous Cabinet approval of a draft hydrocarbon law. But on Wednesday, Kurdish politicians said they opposed the latest version of the law. The draft law hasn't been published." Steve Kretzmann (Oil for Change) observes, "We have heard conflicting reports, although it seems clear that the annexes are gone. There was an arabic version published two days ago in a Baghdad daily, however we've heard that there has been at least one change since then." AVAAZ.ORG has an online petition entitled "Support Iraqi Oil Sovereignty."
At Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers), a journalist shares a surreal experience, "The Electricity Minister and the Oil Minister, both being questioned in the Parliament as to the electricity and fuel situation in the country. They were fighting the 'good' fight, back to back, with their sabers flashing. Fact after distorted face spilled forth from their tongues. The Oil Minister, high browed, blue blooded, married to a bluer blood still -- all leaning east, said he hadn't enough power and fuel to work the refineries -- butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. The Electricity Minister, a man of the masses; an excellent technician, worked his way up through the ranks, said he hadn't enough fuel to work the electricity power stations. Wasn't there something strange here -- was it a distortion in my dream?? A Catch 22 situation if ever there was one!!" Hussain al-Shahristani is the Oil Minister (since May of last year) and prior to that post he was the deputy speaker in the National Assembly. Last week, on KPFT's Progressive Forum (Thursdays, 7:00 pm Central), host Wally James discussed the theft of the Iraqi oil with Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive).
Matthew Rothschild: It's amazing that with all that's been going on Iraq with maybes 600,000 Iraqis killed, 3600 US soldiers killed and 2600 US soldiers wounded, that the one thing the Bush administration really cares about is privatizing Iraq's oil. You know, they told us, over and over again, before this war started those of us that were talking about this war being for oil, that we were conspiracy people, but look, low and behold, the first thing that the army did when it got to Iraq was protect the oil fields, the second thing it did was protect the Oil Ministry and now the last thing it's doing is making sure that before all hell breaks further loose that they're going to get something on the books in Iraq that allows Exxon-Mobile and other US corporations to go in there and get their share of the oil there and expatriate the profits from that oil at a much greater degree than oil companies can do in that part of the world. I mean this is a huge sell out of Iraq's sovereign resource and there are, there have been strikes already by Iraqi oil workers and al-Sadr right now is aligning with the Sunnis to oppose this so there's all sorts of domestic opposition over there but this is the one thing that the Bush administration wanted al-Maliki to rail through if he could, railroad it through, he'd be back in the good graces of the Bush administration, back in the good graces of Exxon-Mobile.
Wally James: Well from the beginning you had Bush saying, you know, this is not about oil, we're not trying to get control of the oil. And, you know, but under the surface you have this going on and at the same time the US media just isn't reporting on it. They talk about how this is going to be a good thing if this goes through, how it's going to make for sure that the oil is divided up evenly in Iraq.
Matthew Rothschild: It is almost impossible, you're absolutely right here, Wally, and I think it's a really good point absolutely impossible to read the mainstream media and figure out what's going on with this Iraq oil behind the scenes. It's not about, or simply not just about, the equal sharing of the oil revenues. It's largely about the privatization of the oil industry in Iraq and allowing US and other foreign oil companies in to grab the oil. That's what's going on but you might get that in about paragraph eleven or paragraph fifteen and it won't explain really the benefits that are going to acrue to Exxon-Mobile and the other giants. And it certainly won't tell you that the Iraq oil workers were striking for a week in Basra over this. I mean, this has been one of the worst bits of coverage by the mainstream media in Iraq since what? The cover up or the funneling of propaganda about Weapons of Mass Destruction Prior to the war courtesy of Judith Miller and the New York Times.
Wally James asked Rothschild about the idea that Congressional Democrats might be refusing to impeach because they want Bully Boy around for the 2008 elections (as an issue to run against) and wondered if that was at least part of the reason Congress does nothing to end the illegal war, "they need him around in '08 to beat up" and the Iraq war? Rothschild responded: "Well this is kind of pragmatic politics at its worst, it seems to me. Because I think the same thing happened with the Iraq war vote. They want the Iraq war to go on so they can go against Bush and the Iraq war in 2008. But look at how callous that is. They want a hundred more US soldiers to die every month and 500, 600 to be wounded and what, you know, a couple of thousand Iraqis to die every month just because it's politically expedient and it might help them win the White House? I mean, come on, talk about immorality if that's what they're doing that's disgraceful on the war issue." Next addressed was the issue of impeachment which Rothschild's supported, publicly in his writing, since at least early 2006 and we'll use that as an opportunity to note that Bill Moyers Journal (begins airing on PBS in most markets today -- check local listings and you can also read, listen or watch online) will explore the topic of impeachment and, among the guests is John Nichols.
Back to Rothschild, he has a new book out entitled You Have No Rights: Stories of America In An Age of Repression (The New Press, list price $16.99) and he's doing stops across the country to promote the book:
Matthew Rothschild reading and signing YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS
Seattle, WA: 7/16 at 7:00PM San Francisco, CA: 7/17 at 7:30PM
Berkeley, CA: 7/18 at 7:00PM
Portland, OR: 7/19 at 7:30PM
Madison, WI: 7/26 at 7:00PM
San Luis Obispo, CA: 8/14 at 7:00PM
Santa Barbara, CA:8/15 at 7:00PM
Los Angeles, CA: 8/16 at 7:00PM
Baraboo, WI: 9/8 all day
ehren watada
bill moyers journal
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
Iraq snapshot
Friday, July 13, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, another journalist is annouced dead in Iraq -- the 3rd in the last 48 hours, Matthew Rothschild addresses the theft of Iraqi oil law, and more.
Starting with war resistance. The Progressive's Hidden History Of The United States (available in calander form) notes that on this day in 1863, "Draft riots began in New York City, leaving 1,000 dead over four days." Ehren Watada is the first commissioned officer to public refuse deployment to Iraq. Currently, he is waiting while the appeals process determines whether he will have to face a second court-martial and, if so, whether Judge Toilet (aka John Head) will be allowed to preside over it again. While this goes on, people continue to demonstrate their support for Watada. Last Friday, we noted a rally held in San Francisco in support of Watada. Ryan Baladad (Asian Week) informs, "Members from the various groups, including Aisan Pacific Islanders Resist and the Watada Support Committee, took turns speaking in support of the Japanese lieutenant. Supporters held signs that read, 'Refuse Illegal War,' 'Bush lied, People Died' and showed photos of Watada in uniform. Malcolm Yeung of the Asian Law Caucus called the Army's actions 'frankly reprehensible' and said the case 'chills free speech'." Baladad closes with this statement from Rev. Norman Fong (Chinatown Presbyterian Church), "There shouldn't be another trial; they messed up the first time. We're proud of Lt. Watada."
Meanwhile, who is Steve Yoczik? The War Resisters Support Campaign explains, "Steve arrived in Toronto on November 25th, 2006. He trained in communications at Fort Gordon, Georgia. After a few months there, he began to realize that the decision he'd made to join the Army was a serious mistake and that trading 4 years of his life for the opportunity to have college paid for was not an agreeable enough trade. Also after seeing pictures of wounded or killed Iraqi civilians (and combatants) as well as stories from soldiers that had been to Iraq and Afghanistan, he knew without a doubt that he did not want to be involved in the war. Halfway through training, the 'job' he'd been signed on for was cancelled, and 'joblees' people in this particular war zone go on patrols and kick in doors, so Stephen prepared a last-ditch effort to come to Canada, as all other attempts to leave the Army 'legitimately' were exhausted. Since arriving in Toronto, Steve has adjusted fairly weel, and is being careful in the decisions he makes in life now, as his Army expereience has taught him that signatures hold a lot of power . . ."
Yoczik is part of a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, 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, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one 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, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Yesterday, Bully Boy went on and on, desperately attempting to stretch the definition of progress in yet another attempt to fool the American people. How bad did the spin and lies get? Kenneth R. Bazinet (New York Daily News) informs, "Even the White House was concerned Bush overstepped with his upbeat war talk, sending spokesman Tony Snow out to talk to the cable news outlets to clarify the President's remarks. 'The President isn't saying we're winning. He says we're in a fight. He says we cannot afford not to win,' Snow told Fox News." Tony Snow need not worry, reality will always Fact Check the Bully Boy upside his face. How are things with the Iraqi Parliament? Joshua Partlow and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports, "Iraqi politicians on Thursday struck a more pessimistic tone about Iraq than did the White House assessment, and said the deadlock between warring Sunni and Shiite factions makes major political progress unlikely in coming months." Well, as least those Iraqi troops are coming along nicely, right? Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) informs, "Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has decreased since President Bush's new strategy was launched in January, according to the White House progress report released yesterday." And try to find out the hard figures on this from the Pentagon, as DeYoung did, and be informed that's "classified information." Classified, apparently, on the grounds that Bully Boy is an incompetent.
And on the January 20th attack in Karbala that killed 1 US soldier immediately, wounded three and saw four kidnapped (all of whom would later turn up dead), Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reveals the army's internal investigation has found:
•Iraqi police suddenly vanished from the government compound before the shooting started.
•Attackers, evidently briefed on how U.S. forces would defend themselves, bottled up more than three dozen soldiers in a barracks and headquarters complex using a combination of smoke and fragment grenades and satchel charges to blow up Humvees.
•Gunmen knew exactly where to find and abduct U.S. officers.
•Iraqi vendors operating a PX and barbershop went home early.
•A back gate was left unlocked and unguarded.
Investigators recommended several changes to toughen defensive positions, including the installation of closed-circuit cameras to provide better early warnings, "duress devices" that can allow overrun outposts to signal headquarters, and requirements that any arriving convoy provide identification.
•Attackers, evidently briefed on how U.S. forces would defend themselves, bottled up more than three dozen soldiers in a barracks and headquarters complex using a combination of smoke and fragment grenades and satchel charges to blow up Humvees.
•Gunmen knew exactly where to find and abduct U.S. officers.
•Iraqi vendors operating a PX and barbershop went home early.
•A back gate was left unlocked and unguarded.
Investigators recommended several changes to toughen defensive positions, including the installation of closed-circuit cameras to provide better early warnings, "duress devices" that can allow overrun outposts to signal headquarters, and requirements that any arriving convoy provide identification.
Now how do you suppose that got left out of Bully Boy's attempt to sell the continuation of the illegal war? In more reality the Bully Boy Never Told You, Robert Burns (AP via Los Angeles Times) reports that yesterday's White House progress report "strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals." And really driving home the lack of progress in Iraq, Mike Drummond and Hussein Khalifa (McClatchy Newspapers) tell the story of Nawal Na'eem Karim whose 18-month-child has learned to cry "Talaq inanan! Talaq inana!" ("Bullets here! Bullets here!"). Needless to say, the mother tells the reporters she just wants the US to leave. Of course, Bully Boy would probably get that dopey grin on his face (as when a woman explained she had to work two jobs) and say, "That's wonderful."
In a crimes and violence update, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) updates her bank robbery story from yesterday with the information that the bank is revising the figures for the stolen money to "282 million Iraqi diners, equal to about $225,000 and $366,00 American dollars." In some of today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a mortar attacks in Baquba claimed 2 lives and left fifteen wounded and a Baquba bombing that claimed 1 life. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes that the Green Zone was "slammed" with mortars today, killing 2 Iraqi soldiers and that "U.S. civilian government employees have been required in the last few dyas to wear body armor and helmets because of the rising threat of rocket and mortar attacks. Reuters notes that 2 children died in Samawa from a roadside bombing, 1 Iraqi soldier died from a Baghdad roadside bombing and 1 police officer died from a Mosul roadside bombing.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports five police officers were shot dead in Baghdad, 3 Iraqi civilians were shot dead by the US military (in what appears to be -- me speaking not Hammoudi -- indiscriminate firing) and "Gunmen killed an Iraqi journalist working for New York Times newspaper near Al Saidiyah fuel station south of Baghdad around 9:00 am." John Holusha (New York Times) observes that Hassan joined the paper in 2003 (fall) and that he was the second Times' reporter for the paper to die in Iraq and notes: "Mr. Hassan was shot in the Saidiya district of south central Baghdad while driving to work under circumstances that remain unclear, Mr. [John F.] Burns said. He had called the bureau earlier and said his normal route to the office had been block by a security checkpoint." Executive editor Bill Keller states, "Khalid was part of a large, sometimes unsung, community of Iraqi news gatherers, translators and support staff, who take enormous risks every day to help us comprehend their country's struggle and torment. Without them, America's understanding of what is happening on the ground in Iraq would be much, much poorer. To The Times, Khalid was family, and his death is heartbreaking." Khalid Hassan's death brings to three the number of reporters killed in Baghdad in the last 48 hours. Yesterday, we noted the deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two journalists with Reuters. Today, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that in addition to eyewitnesses quoted in the early reports yesterday, Ahmad Sahib, with AFP, arrived on the scene shortly afterwards and he states, "They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered. It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover."
Corpses?
And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) noted that 28 corpses were discovered in Baghdad Thursday.
Turning to the theft of Iraqi oil, Nancy Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "Earlier this month, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki announced unanimous Cabinet approval of a draft hydrocarbon law. But on Wednesday, Kurdish politicians said they opposed the latest version of the law. The draft law hasn't been published." Steve Kretzmann (Oil for Change) observes, "We have heard conflicting reports, although it seems clear that the annexes are gone. There was an arabic version published two days ago in a Baghdad daily, however we've heard that there has been at least one change since then." AVAAZ.ORG has an online petition entitled "Support Iraqi Oil Sovereignty."
At Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers), a journalist shares a surreal experience, "The Electricity Minister and the Oil Minister, both being questioned in the Parliament as to the electricity and fuel situation in the country. They were fighting the 'good' fight, back to back, with their sabers flashing. Fact after distorted face spilled forth from their tongues. The Oil Minister, high browed, blue blooded, married to a bluer blood still -- all leaning east, said he hadn't enough power and fuel to work the refineries -- butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. The Electricity Minister, a man of the masses; an excellent technician, worked his way up through the ranks, said he hadn't enough fuel to work the electricity power stations. Wasn't there something strange here -- was it a distortion in my dream?? A Catch 22 situation if ever there was one!!" Hussain al-Shahristani is the Oil Minister (since May of last year) and prior to that post he was the deputy speaker in the National Assembly. Last week, on KPFT's Progressive Forum (Thursdays, 7:00 pm Central), host Wally James discussed the theft of the Iraqi oil with Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive).
Matthew Rothschild: It's amazing that with all that's been going on Iraq with maybes 600,000 Iraqis killed, 3600 US soldiers killed and 2600 US soldiers wounded, that the one thing the Bush administration really cares about is privatizing Iraq's oil. You know, they told us, over and over again, before this war started those of us that were talking about this war being for oil, that we were conspiracy people, but look, low and behold, the first thing that the army did when it got to Iraq was protect the oil fields, the second thing it did was protect the Oil Ministry and now the last thing it's doing is making sure that before all hell breaks further loose that they're going to get something on the books in Iraq that allows Exxon-Mobile and other US corporations to go in there and get their share of the oil there and expatriate the profits from that oil at a much greater degree than oil companies can do in that part of the world. I mean this is a huge sell out of Iraq's sovereign resource and there are, there have been strikes already by Iraqi oil workers and al-Sadr right now is aligning with the Sunnis to oppose this so there's all sorts of domestic opposition over there but this is the one thing that the Bush administration wanted al-Maliki to rail through if he could, railroad it through, he'd be back in the good graces of the Bush administration, back in the good graces of Exxon-Mobile.
Wally James: Well from the beginning you had Bush saying, you know, this is not about oil, we're not trying to get control of the oil. And, you know, but under the surface you have this going on and at the same time the US media just isn't reporting on it. They talk about how this is going to be a good thing if this goes through, how it's going to make for sure that the oil is divided up evenly in Iraq.
Matthew Rothschild: It is almost impossible, you're absolutely right here, Wally, and I think it's a really good point absolutely impossible to read the mainstream media and figure out what's going on with this Iraq oil behind the scenes. It's not about, or simply not just about, the equal sharing of the oil revenues. It's largely about the privatization of the oil industry in Iraq and allowing US and other foreign oil companies in to grab the oil. That's what's going on but you might get that in about paragraph eleven or paragraph fifteen and it won't explain really the benefits that are going to acrue to Exxon-Mobile and the other giants. And it certainly won't tell you that the Iraq oil workers were striking for a week in Basra over this. I mean, this has been one of the worst bits of coverage by the mainstream media in Iraq since what? The cover up or the funneling of propaganda about Weapons of Mass Destruction Prior to the war courtesy of Judith Miller and the New York Times.
Wally James asked Rothschild about the idea that Congressional Democrats might be refusing to impeach because they want Bully Boy around for the 2008 elections (as an issue to run against) and wondered if that was at least part of the reason Congress does nothing to end the illegal war, "they need him around in '08 to beat up" and the Iraq war? Rothschild responded: "Well this is kind of pragmatic politics at its worst, it seems to me. Because I think the same thing happened with the Iraq war vote. They want the Iraq war to go on so they can go against Bush and the Iraq war in 2008. But look at how callous that is. They want a hundred more US soldiers to die every month and 500, 600 to be wounded and what, you know, a couple of thousand Iraqis to die every month just because it's politically expedient and it might help them win the White House? I mean, come on, talk about immorality if that's what they're doing that's disgraceful on the war issue." Next addressed was the issue of impeachment which Rothschild's supported, publicly in his writing, since at least early 2006 and we'll use that as an opportunity to note that Bill Moyers Journal (begins airing on PBS in most markets today -- check local listings and you can also read, listen or watch online) will explore the topic of impeachment and, among the guests is John Nichols.
Back to Rothschild, he has a new book out entitled You Have No Rights: Stories of America In An Age of Repression (The New Press, list price $16.99) and he's doing stops across the country to promote the book:
Matthew Rothschild reading and signing YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS
Seattle, WA: 7/16 at 7:00PM San Francisco, CA: 7/17 at 7:30PM
Berkeley, CA: 7/18 at 7:00PM
Portland, OR: 7/19 at 7:30PM
Madison, WI: 7/26 at 7:00PM
San Luis Obispo, CA: 8/14 at 7:00PM
Santa Barbara, CA:8/15 at 7:00PM
Los Angeles, CA: 8/16 at 7:00PM
Baraboo, WI: 9/8 all day
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
Iraq realities
The investigation reveals several new details about the assault, including:
•Iraqi police suddenly vanished from the government compound before the shooting started.
•Attackers, evidently briefed on how U.S. forces would defend themselves, bottled up more than three dozen soldiers in a barracks and headquarters complex using a combination of smoke and fragment grenades and satchel charges to blow up Humvees.
•Gunmen knew exactly where to find and abduct U.S. officers.
•Iraqi vendors operating a PX and barbershop went home early.
•A back gate was left unlocked and unguarded.
Investigators recommended several changes to toughen defensive positions, including the installation of closed-circuit cameras to provide better early warnings, "duress devices" that can allow overrun outposts to signal headquarters, and requirements that any arriving convoy provide identification.
The above is from Gregg Zoroya's "U.S. Army report analyzes Karbala attack" (USA Today) about an internal US army investigation into the January 20th attack in Karbala which resulted in one US soldier being killed immediately, three injured and four kidnapped only to turn up dead. Five killed from the one incident. The attackers traveled in the SUV's that are normally utilized by the Iraqi police and were waived through all the checkpoints. In Bully Boy's jaw boning attempts yesterday to sell the lie (another lie?) that the war is 'winnable' and 'progress' (if the meaning of progress is stretched to the point of breaking) is being made, he didn't mention this internal report, did he? Well, he left out a lot but when you float so far from reality, that tends to happen.
Martha highlights Karen DeYoung's "Iraqi Military's Readiness Slips" (Washington Post):
Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has decreased since President Bush's new strategy was launched in January, according to the White House progress report released yesterday.
Combat losses, a dearth of officers and senior enlisted personnel, and an Iraqi army that has expanded faster than the equipment available for it have resulted in a "slight reduction" in the number of units designated at Level 1 status, or "capable of independent operations," the report said.
The report's assessment of progress on 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks is likely to fuel ongoing disputes over what is really happening in Iraq. But the fine print in the 25-page document contains some remarkably candid descriptions of problems, as well as qualifiers for claimed achievements and briefly referenced, unexplained new facts.
The Pentagon refused yesterday to elaborate on the "slight reduction" in independent Iraqi units. Any information about the number, size or designation of such units is "in the classified realm," said a spokesman, Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros.
Has decreased. Has decreased. Not increased. That's actually regression, not progression. Note that when the news is bad, the Pentagon stamps "classified" on it. And for another example of how there is no 'way foward' only further lost ground, Lloyd notes Joshua Partlow and Sudarsan Raghavan's "Deadlocked Sunni, Shiite Factions Block Political Progress, Iraqis Say" (Washington Post):
Iraqi politicians on Thursday struck a more pessimistic tone about Iraq than did the White House assessment, and said the deadlock between warring Sunni and Shiite factions makes major political progress unlikely in coming months.
Some Iraqi leaders, including members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ruling Shiite alliance, added that U.S. officials have set unrealistic goals that the Iraqi government cannot achieve at a time of such instability and violence.
Despite that reality, turn on the TV and you can see clips of Bully Boy from yesterday, lying to the American public. One of the more laughable lines he gets off is this: "I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decions based on principle." What principle was that? How to take control of both houses of Congress in the 2002 elections by holding your 'roll out' for an illegal war until the fall? Bully Boy wants to stand on principle . . . with regards to an illegal war he lied the nation into. And, if he does look in the mirror, couldn't he have noticed that someone really laid on his hairspray yesterday? That's why he had that big bump on the left side of his head. The hair looked not just overly sprayed but in need of a good washing. Like a heroin addict, his bathing habits raise eyebrows.
Robert Burns (AP via Los Angeles Times) reports that lies are still the bedrock of the illegal war for the Bully Boy:
While many in Congress are pushing President Bush to alter course in Iraq by September if not sooner, his new status report on the war strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals.
The report cited no specific timeframe, but its language suggests what some U.S. commanders have hinted at recently: The troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in January may need to remain until spring 2008. That's a military calculation at odds with an emerging political consensus in Washington on bringing the troops home soon.
The disconnect between the military and political views on the best way forward is a symptom of four-plus years of setbacks in Iraq -- not only missteps by the U.S. government but also by Iraqi political leaders, who have fallen far short of their stated aim of creating a government of national unity.
He's lying and saying, "Wait until September." As usual there's a huge gulf between reality and what the American people are told. While Bully Boy boasts and struts, a mother in Baghdad explains that snipers are a bigger problem than anything else in Baghdad and wishes the US would leave. Mike Drummond and Hussein Khalifa's "In Baghdad, even babies quickly learn to duck snipers" (McClatchy Newspapers) tells the story:
Nawal Na'eem Karim was surprised this week to hear her toddler tell her, "Talaq inana! Talaq inana!" -- "Bullets here! Bullets here!"
He was warning her to step cautiously past the windows. Their house is in a kill zone. At 18 months, her baby already had learned counterinsurgency survival. He still wears a diaper.
Karim's family is among hundreds in Baghdad's Shiite Muslim-dominated Amil neighborhood who are under siege in their homes; in this case from two local snipers, one apparently stationed in a minaret of a nearby Sunni Muslim mosque.
Her experience shows that the U.S. troop buildup has yet to penetrate everywhere in Baghdad, as President Bush pressed Thursday for more time for the increase to show results.
More time! cries the Bully Boy. For an illegal war that's already lasted longer than the US involvement in WWII. How badly was he lying and spinning yesterday. For that information,
Micah notes Kenneth R. Bazinet's "Defiant Prez sez funding troops Congress' role" (New York Daily News):
Even the White House was concerned Bush overstepped with his upbeat war talk, sending spokesman Tony Snow out to talk to the cable news outlets to clarify the President's remarks.
"The President isn't saying we're winning. He says we're in a fight. He says we cannot afford not to win," Snow told Fox News.
Lastly, PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio offers (begins airing in most markets tonight):
inspired her colleagues to act and other states to follow suit. Supported by favorable federal court decisions, encouraged by an iconic Governor, and armed with new laws, her state is now on the cutting edge of efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of everything from American power plants to automobiles. On Friday July 13 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW investigates not only California's aggressive stance against global warming, but also strong political opposition standing in the way of its expansion. Are California and the EPA headed for a showdown? Also on the show, "The Algebra Project," an inspiring program to uplift low-income schoolchildren with the power of math.
[. . .]
Launching Friday, a NOW on the News web-exclusive audio interview with Matthew Shepard's mother Judy about hate crime legislation and her son's legacy.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
gregg zoroya
the washington post
joshua partlow
sudarsan raghavan
•Iraqi police suddenly vanished from the government compound before the shooting started.
•Attackers, evidently briefed on how U.S. forces would defend themselves, bottled up more than three dozen soldiers in a barracks and headquarters complex using a combination of smoke and fragment grenades and satchel charges to blow up Humvees.
•Gunmen knew exactly where to find and abduct U.S. officers.
•Iraqi vendors operating a PX and barbershop went home early.
•A back gate was left unlocked and unguarded.
Investigators recommended several changes to toughen defensive positions, including the installation of closed-circuit cameras to provide better early warnings, "duress devices" that can allow overrun outposts to signal headquarters, and requirements that any arriving convoy provide identification.
The above is from Gregg Zoroya's "U.S. Army report analyzes Karbala attack" (USA Today) about an internal US army investigation into the January 20th attack in Karbala which resulted in one US soldier being killed immediately, three injured and four kidnapped only to turn up dead. Five killed from the one incident. The attackers traveled in the SUV's that are normally utilized by the Iraqi police and were waived through all the checkpoints. In Bully Boy's jaw boning attempts yesterday to sell the lie (another lie?) that the war is 'winnable' and 'progress' (if the meaning of progress is stretched to the point of breaking) is being made, he didn't mention this internal report, did he? Well, he left out a lot but when you float so far from reality, that tends to happen.
Martha highlights Karen DeYoung's "Iraqi Military's Readiness Slips" (Washington Post):
Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has decreased since President Bush's new strategy was launched in January, according to the White House progress report released yesterday.
Combat losses, a dearth of officers and senior enlisted personnel, and an Iraqi army that has expanded faster than the equipment available for it have resulted in a "slight reduction" in the number of units designated at Level 1 status, or "capable of independent operations," the report said.
The report's assessment of progress on 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks is likely to fuel ongoing disputes over what is really happening in Iraq. But the fine print in the 25-page document contains some remarkably candid descriptions of problems, as well as qualifiers for claimed achievements and briefly referenced, unexplained new facts.
The Pentagon refused yesterday to elaborate on the "slight reduction" in independent Iraqi units. Any information about the number, size or designation of such units is "in the classified realm," said a spokesman, Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros.
Has decreased. Has decreased. Not increased. That's actually regression, not progression. Note that when the news is bad, the Pentagon stamps "classified" on it. And for another example of how there is no 'way foward' only further lost ground, Lloyd notes Joshua Partlow and Sudarsan Raghavan's "Deadlocked Sunni, Shiite Factions Block Political Progress, Iraqis Say" (Washington Post):
Iraqi politicians on Thursday struck a more pessimistic tone about Iraq than did the White House assessment, and said the deadlock between warring Sunni and Shiite factions makes major political progress unlikely in coming months.
Some Iraqi leaders, including members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ruling Shiite alliance, added that U.S. officials have set unrealistic goals that the Iraqi government cannot achieve at a time of such instability and violence.
Despite that reality, turn on the TV and you can see clips of Bully Boy from yesterday, lying to the American public. One of the more laughable lines he gets off is this: "I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decions based on principle." What principle was that? How to take control of both houses of Congress in the 2002 elections by holding your 'roll out' for an illegal war until the fall? Bully Boy wants to stand on principle . . . with regards to an illegal war he lied the nation into. And, if he does look in the mirror, couldn't he have noticed that someone really laid on his hairspray yesterday? That's why he had that big bump on the left side of his head. The hair looked not just overly sprayed but in need of a good washing. Like a heroin addict, his bathing habits raise eyebrows.
Robert Burns (AP via Los Angeles Times) reports that lies are still the bedrock of the illegal war for the Bully Boy:
While many in Congress are pushing President Bush to alter course in Iraq by September if not sooner, his new status report on the war strongly implies that the administration believes its military strategy will take many more months to meet its goals.
The report cited no specific timeframe, but its language suggests what some U.S. commanders have hinted at recently: The troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in January may need to remain until spring 2008. That's a military calculation at odds with an emerging political consensus in Washington on bringing the troops home soon.
The disconnect between the military and political views on the best way forward is a symptom of four-plus years of setbacks in Iraq -- not only missteps by the U.S. government but also by Iraqi political leaders, who have fallen far short of their stated aim of creating a government of national unity.
He's lying and saying, "Wait until September." As usual there's a huge gulf between reality and what the American people are told. While Bully Boy boasts and struts, a mother in Baghdad explains that snipers are a bigger problem than anything else in Baghdad and wishes the US would leave. Mike Drummond and Hussein Khalifa's "In Baghdad, even babies quickly learn to duck snipers" (McClatchy Newspapers) tells the story:
Nawal Na'eem Karim was surprised this week to hear her toddler tell her, "Talaq inana! Talaq inana!" -- "Bullets here! Bullets here!"
He was warning her to step cautiously past the windows. Their house is in a kill zone. At 18 months, her baby already had learned counterinsurgency survival. He still wears a diaper.
Karim's family is among hundreds in Baghdad's Shiite Muslim-dominated Amil neighborhood who are under siege in their homes; in this case from two local snipers, one apparently stationed in a minaret of a nearby Sunni Muslim mosque.
Her experience shows that the U.S. troop buildup has yet to penetrate everywhere in Baghdad, as President Bush pressed Thursday for more time for the increase to show results.
More time! cries the Bully Boy. For an illegal war that's already lasted longer than the US involvement in WWII. How badly was he lying and spinning yesterday. For that information,
Micah notes Kenneth R. Bazinet's "Defiant Prez sez funding troops Congress' role" (New York Daily News):
Even the White House was concerned Bush overstepped with his upbeat war talk, sending spokesman Tony Snow out to talk to the cable news outlets to clarify the President's remarks.
"The President isn't saying we're winning. He says we're in a fight. He says we cannot afford not to win," Snow told Fox News.
Lastly, PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio offers (begins airing in most markets tonight):
inspired her colleagues to act and other states to follow suit. Supported by favorable federal court decisions, encouraged by an iconic Governor, and armed with new laws, her state is now on the cutting edge of efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of everything from American power plants to automobiles. On Friday July 13 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW investigates not only California's aggressive stance against global warming, but also strong political opposition standing in the way of its expansion. Are California and the EPA headed for a showdown? Also on the show, "The Algebra Project," an inspiring program to uplift low-income schoolchildren with the power of math.
[. . .]
Launching Friday, a NOW on the News web-exclusive audio interview with Matthew Shepard's mother Judy about hate crime legislation and her son's legacy.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
gregg zoroyathe washington post
joshua partlowsudarsan raghavan
3 Journalists Killed in Baghdad
The two Reuters staff members, both of them Iraqis, were killed when troops on an American helicopter shot into the area where the two had just gotten out of their car, said witnesses who spoke to an Agence France-Presse photographer who arrived at the scene shortly after their bodies were taken away.
The Reuters employees were Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, a photographer, and Saeed Chmagh, 40, a driver.
"When we reached the spot where Namir was killed, the people told us that two journalists had been killed in an air attack an hour earlier," said Ahmad Sahib, the Agence France-Presse photographer, who had been traveling in a car several blocks behind Mr. Noor-Eldeen but was delayed by the chaos in the area. He said he was in touch with Mr. Noor-Eldeen by cellphone until his colleague was killed.
"They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered," Mr. Sahib said. "It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover."
The above is from Alissa J. Rubin's "2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias" in this morning's New York Times. Rubin also reports that 28 corpses were discovered in Baghdad on Thursday and that the bank robbery figures from Wednesday night's robbery have been revised to "282 million Iraqi diners, equal to about $225,ooo and $366,000 American dollars."
The two Reuters journalists were killed yesterday in Baghdad. Already today, news of another reporter's death. From Reuters:
An Iraqi reporter working for The New York Times was shot dead on his way to work in Baghdad on Friday, the newspaper said.
The killing of Khalid Hassan, 23, came a day after a photographer and driver working for Reuters were killed in the city in what witnesses said was a U.S. helicopter attack but which the military described as a firefight with insurgents.
Reuters also notes, "Two children were killed and six wounded by a roadside bomb near a bus station in the southern city of Samawa, police said." And that the two children killed are among the 22 killed today plus 3 corpses discovered in Sawayra for a total of 25 reported deaths thus far today. The figure rises to 26 when the New York Times reporter is included. Good thing Bully Boy says that things are progressing, right?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
The Reuters employees were Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, a photographer, and Saeed Chmagh, 40, a driver.
"When we reached the spot where Namir was killed, the people told us that two journalists had been killed in an air attack an hour earlier," said Ahmad Sahib, the Agence France-Presse photographer, who had been traveling in a car several blocks behind Mr. Noor-Eldeen but was delayed by the chaos in the area. He said he was in touch with Mr. Noor-Eldeen by cellphone until his colleague was killed.
"They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered," Mr. Sahib said. "It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover."
The above is from Alissa J. Rubin's "2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias" in this morning's New York Times. Rubin also reports that 28 corpses were discovered in Baghdad on Thursday and that the bank robbery figures from Wednesday night's robbery have been revised to "282 million Iraqi diners, equal to about $225,ooo and $366,000 American dollars."
The two Reuters journalists were killed yesterday in Baghdad. Already today, news of another reporter's death. From Reuters:
An Iraqi reporter working for The New York Times was shot dead on his way to work in Baghdad on Friday, the newspaper said.
The killing of Khalid Hassan, 23, came a day after a photographer and driver working for Reuters were killed in the city in what witnesses said was a U.S. helicopter attack but which the military described as a firefight with insurgents.
Reuters also notes, "Two children were killed and six wounded by a roadside bomb near a bus station in the southern city of Samawa, police said." And that the two children killed are among the 22 killed today plus 3 corpses discovered in Sawayra for a total of 25 reported deaths thus far today. The figure rises to 26 when the New York Times reporter is included. Good thing Bully Boy says that things are progressing, right?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
Thursday, July 12, 2007
And the war drags on . . .
When a lawmaker’s office is stormed, a hearing is disrupted or a protester is handcuffed on Capitol Hill these days, it’s a safe bet the activist being hauled away will be female and wearing pink.
CodePink, a group spawned by Bay Area peace activists, has become the vibrantly hued public face of the anti-war movement in Washington. Launched in 2002 to oppose the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, the female activists are gaining new attention as a thorn in the side of Democrats, urging the new leaders of Congress to move faster to end the war.
"People try to marginalize them as being 'left,' " said Sen. Russ Feingold, an anti-war Democrat from Wisconsin. "But they serve as a reminder to (lawmakers) of the broader concern in the country over the war."
Publicly, top Democrats say they share the group’s anti-war goals. But privately they grumble about its in-your-face tactics -- including disrupting Democratic press conferences and setting up a protest camp outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Pacific Heights home in San Francisco.
When activists from CodePink interrupted her speech to a Democratic group last month, Pelosi shot them a steely look and urged them to focus on getting Republicans to oppose the war.
The above, noted by Cindy, is from Zachary Coile's "Code Pink: Those Pesky Peaceniks" (San Francisco Chronicle via Common Dreams). Cindy notes, "Top Democrats grumble . . . and Katha Pollitt." Please, Cindy, we can only address one Nation issue at a time. (I'm joking.) Cindy's right. Katha Pollitt couldn't write about Abeer in June or July or August or September or October or November or December or January or February or March or April. But in the May 28, 2007 issue of The Nation, she finally weighed in and let's note her entire commentary on Abeer:
Think of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, the 14-year-old girl raped and then murdered with her family by US soldiers in Mahmoudiya in March of last year.
That is it. The 14-year-old who was gang-raped by US soldiers, US soldiers who leered at her for days before with one (Stephen D. Green) stroking her face, making her uncomfortable, having her share with her parents how afraid she was (people are aware that Abeer still has relatives, including a brother, right? Apparently not, since no one seems interested in interviewing him outside of USA Today), they arranged for her to go elsewhere and she just had to get through one night. That would be the night that US soldiers got drunk and decided to plot their War Crime and carry it out. James P. Barker and Paul Cortez have confessed. (They've also fingered Green as the ring leader -- Green maintains he is innocent.) So they switched to their civies and and headed off, off through a hole in the fence they'd made, into the home where they took Abeer's parents and her five-year-old sister into a bedroom. Paul Cortez and James P. Barker began gang-raping Abeer while Green (according to Barker and Cortez' testimony) shot each parent and her sister. With Abeer in the next room. Then Green came in and joined the gang-rape. After which (according to Barker and Cortez) he shot her. Being dead wasn't enough. They had to attempt to burn her body. That didn't really work but they had to get back to base, drink some more booze and grill some chicken breasts. Just another day for those involved apparently.
Let's be really clear here, feminism is about calling those crimes out. Feminism is about calling the silences around those crimes out. Feminism is objecting everytime Abeer is rendered invisible in the press by reducing her to a nameless person ("14-year-old girl"). Real sorry to say it, but Pollitt didn't sport a lot of feminism going after CODEPINK for bird-dogging Hillary Clinton while avoiding the topic of Abeer. Ellen Knickmeyer and other reporters were telling Abeer's story in June of 2006. 12 months later, Katha Pollitt could finally write about Abeer . . . for one sentence. Twelve months later and one month after Alexander Cockburn ("Here Comes Another 'Crime Wave'," April 2nd, The Nation) wrote the first article to mention Abeer (and he wrote more than Pollitt did a month later). That's appalling and it's depressing.
Covering up or ignoring war crimes is like ignoring the air war, it prolongs the illegal war.
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, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3591. Tonight? 3611. Yes, the 3600 mark was passed. Yes, 20 more US service members have been announced dead since last Thursday. July's toll thus far is 32.
And avoidance and denial doesn't end the illegal war. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't end the illegal war. Shouting "BE HONEST" at people when they've been honest (and not avoiding the topic of the illegal war) doesn't end the illegal war. Women of a certain age doing laundry lists that they pass off as columns or cutesy columns doesn't end the illegal war. Waiting a full year to even name Abeer (and 'discuss' her for one whole whopping sentence) doesn't end the illegal war. It also doesn't serve feminism.
So The Nation is getting way too much praise for a so-so article. Most of the e-mails today noted the cutting we'd done for The Third Estate Sunday Review but finally put in the gina & krista round-robin. For visitors, that was the much promised lengthy feature and all it did was use Democracy Now! interviews with war resisters to tell the story of Iraq -- the violence there and the importance of war resistance.
The Nation didn't e-mail but Joan noted this (had The Nation e-mailed one of their fund raising e-mails, it would have been noted):
Dear Nation reader,
Half a million dollars. In postage. In just a few short days, The Nation will pay one of the biggest bills we've ever faced -- half a million dollars -- because of a postal rate increase scheme designed in part by lobbyists for the TimeWarner media conglomerate. Mailing costs for mega-magazines like TimeWarner's own Time, People and Sports Illustrated will go up much less or in some cases decrease, while smaller publications like The Nation will be hit by an enormous rate increase. We need your contribution during this critical time in order to prevent cutbacks to our investigative reporting, coverage of important issues ignored by the corporate-supported mainstream media, and our student outreach programs. To enable The Nation to continue to be a voice of truth, free speech and democracy, click here.
Thank you,
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
To state my position, and only my position, on The Nation, again, speaking only for myself, it's had good times and it's had bad times. It is now in a bad time, a very bad time, but it has pulled out of them before. Odds are good it will do so again. It's equally true that this effects all of the independent print press that mail out copies. Thursdays used to be a look at the alternative press ("Indymedia Roundup"). That seems like forever ago. I think that was the first change here, in increasing the Iraq discussions (at members' requests). And The Nation's lack of interest in Iraq (they disagree with that opinion) was not limited to them. We noted repeatedly that there were Thursdays when there was nothing to be found on the topic anywhere. That wasn't helped by New Times (they will always be New Times here) snatching up more publications (including The Village Voice). But some weeks you could read every bit of independent press print and never find anything on Iraq. A good week, we might find three things. Which is why it was no loss to drop the alternative media Thursday entry and instead focus on Iraq. In fact, it was kind of required if we were going to focus on Iraq. But, across the board, there have been very few that have bothered to treat Iraq as a serious issue. Speak to anyone back from Iraq and they will tell you it's the bizarro world coming back to the US and seeing . . . nothing.
So if you see their appeal and want to pass it on, it will be noted on Thursdays.
The Nation's very proud of their new article entitled "The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness."
And, for them, in some ways, it probably is huge. It's certainly huge in terms of length. The long discussion on the 'methodology' (I'm speaking of more than "A Note on Methodology," I'm speaking of what would probably be better termed the "justification" for writing and running the article) must be impressing someone.
So let's dive in. Judith Miller. A name of shame. Should all reporters who promoted the (non-existant) link between 9-11 and Iraq be shamed? Chris Hedges co-wrote this article in The Nation. In October of 2001 (we've covered this here, Google "Chris Hedges" "Mother Jones" "Democracy Now!" and you should get some of the results), on the front page of the New York Times, Hedges and another writer promoted the (false) link citing two sources. Their 'report' was also promoted by PBS. Now Mother Jones dug around and found out one of the sources wasn't at all how he was presented in print. Hedges said he was burned and talked about it. Thing is, the article on the front page of the New York Times said there were two sources. Why hasn't the second source been outed and should someone who promoted the (false) link between 9-11 and Iraq really be assigned to report on Iraq today? I imagine Judith Miller would get boos and hisses if she tried. It's a funny sort of accountability that's (semi) practiced. A number of e-mails on the magazine's article brought that up in the last few days.
The thing is, I wasn't going to comment on the article. We were pretty much wiping our hands of "The Nation Stats" and I'd heard too many bad things about this article in the writing stage (including from people who were ignored and people who were interviewed) and really didn't want to address any of it.
Laila al-Arian is the other author of the piece. She may or may not be a talented journalist. But here's the thing, and it's a shame someone has to point out the obvious, a Middle Eastern woman who wears Middle Eastern dress isn't the one to speak to American veterans about the illegal war. Speak to any therapist (I spoke with seven) and you'll be told what a no-no that was with PTSD rates so high and with things so likely to trigger episodes. You didn't have to talk to therapists, however, you only had to catch Aaron Glantz' reporting on a special Memorial Day look at the some of the costs of the war in US of Free Speech Radio News. You had to catch it and listen to the wife of a veteran explain that even seeing a woman dressed in the manner al-Arian was dressed on Democracy Now! today was enough to set off her husband into a severe spiral.
Reporters have to create a rapport with the people they interview and al-Arian may be immensely gifted there (I actually heard praise for her from three people) but you don't do that. You don't, as a magazine, assign a red flag for a PTSD episode to speak to veterans about violence they saw in Iraq. It was hailed as "insensitive" and "such an obvious trigger" that therapists can't believe it happened. Enough time has not passed and, with this subject matter, you are really asking to set off triggers with such an assignment.
So what you've got is a survey article that tries to seem weightier by including the long opening justification (a healthy chunk of the article) which, for the record, doesn't generally accompany survey pieces. However, having so ignored the violence in Iraq so consistently it may have been felt that an explanation was owed to the readers so they wouldn't be shocked.
They should be shocked by one sentence:
Court cases, such as the ones surrounding the massacre in Haditha and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old in Mahmudiya, and news stories in the Washington Post, Time, the London Independent . . .
Did you catch it? Abeer was rendered invisible in this overly praised article. Abeer was reduced to "a 14-year-old" -- she didn't even get "girl." In this supposed expose on violence, they make like the New York Times and refuse to mention Abeer's name. They leave her a faceless 14-year-old. They don't even make her a 14-year-old girl so they're worse than the Times. She's just a non-gender specified "14-year-old". That's disgusting.
One news outlet they don't mention is Democracy Now! and there's nothing in here that Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales haven't done in the last four years. Then there's the issue that this was produced from "several months" of interviews. This was the best they could do? No. No, it wasn't and some of the more revealing stories never made it into the article which is why so many vets call this article "bullsh*t."
Kelly Dougherty shows up briefly. Near the end, Megan O'Connor shows up (right at the end). Where are the other women? And if these are the only women in the piece, don't you think they should be a given a little bit more space because they certainly had more to say. It's amazing that Matthew Rothschild has been able to give female veterans the time to speak on The Progressive Radio Show but The Nation, with it's sorry track record of publishing women writers, can only find two women to speak for the article and then use her 'sparingly.' Dougherty is quoted three times in the article -- every time she is quoted briefly. O'Connor is quoted once, briefly, and gets the same amount of space as Patrick Leahy's quote. For the record, Senator Leahy didn't serve in Iraq and, after all, isn't that the supposed point of this article -- to allow veterans to share what they saw?
Latinos are grossly underrepresented in this article. Possibly, you don't talk to an Agustin Aguayo because you're not interested in war resisters?
That's another outrage vets are pointing out, the term "war resister" never appears in the article. Neither Camilo Mejia nor Aidan Delgado are described as "war resisters." ("Desertion" is applied to Camilo.)
In "A Note on Methodology," it's noted that they sent out requests for interviews to: "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the antiwar groups Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War and the prowar group Vets for Freedom." They then do a shout out to Mommy's Pantyhose who once laughably declared "We know, we were there" while promoting "smarter" war and taking up massive Air America Radio time to say US troops needed to remain in Iraq. Mommy's Pantyhose also had a snit fit on air during Sunday Salon and repeatedly referred to another guest for the hour as "your caller" ("your" being host Larry Bensky). Mommy's Pantyhose cut off Amy Goodman on CNN repeatedly to share how much he loathed Ehren Watada. Mommy's Pantyhose had to start a new organization because members were leaving and the organization was a joke.
But that's who the biggies at The Nation are comfortable with. And Iraq Veterans Against the War got screwed and there's no way in hell I'm going to be silent about that.
In a laughable editorial that The Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel is very proud of, this line appears: "Veterans of conscience deserve encouragement for speaking up."
Veterans of conscience do deserve encouragement for speaking up. That includes veterans of the military, such as Ehren Watada or Stephen Funk (to name but two) who refused to deploy to the illegal war. But they get no encouragment from the magazine, no support. Ehren Watada, whose story Ken Kagan was just telling Margaret Prescod Tuesday on KPFK's Sojourner Truth has received so much press attention, has never received an article in the print edition of The Nation (let alone a cover, MTV could cover him seriously, just not The Nation). Now he got a sidebar to an article that called him a coward.
Veterans of conscience deserve encouragement for speaking up? Well, golly, gee, Katrina when are you going to give it to them. There's been no profile or story on Watada, Mark Wilkerson, Kyle Snyder, Terri Johnson, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Brandon Hughey, Ryan Johnson, Patrick Hart, Joshua Key, Darrell Anderson, Carl Webb (whose name has made it into print -- he just wasn't identified as a war resister though he could be quoted on Hurricane Katrina), there's a whole list of people that have had NO support from the 'unconventional wisdom' of The Nation. Their stories weren't told. Their stories still aren't told.
When you looked at the list of who they sent out request to, you may have noticed that the War Resisters Support Campaign wasn't on the list. No one in Canada was interviewed. Ironic considering Joshua Key's eye witnessed events were so important to the military (according to them) that it necessitated sending two military persons into Canada (where they posed as Canadian police while attempting to pump Winnie Ng for information).
Like the centrist early days of Air America Radio, they've been there to prop up Mommy's Pantyhose but they've refused to provide "encouragement" for those who spoke up. What a load of crap that editorial is. What an embarrassment it is. The Nation is supposed to be the leading magazine of the left but it's moving so close to the center these days that The National Review may soon outflank it -- from the left.
In fact, this alleged issue devoted to Iraq isn't. It's got the overly praised article, it's got the laughable editorial (usually they make these grand statements -- We will support no candidate -- and it takes a few months for them to deliver the punchline, with this one, everyone's laughing right off the bat), Alexander Cockburn (as usual, he's been the most dependable voice, but then he writes for his CounterPunch which really tries to inform readers) pens a column on Iraq, Ari Melber warps so tightly around WalkOn.org (their presidential primary!) that it's as though they are a body pillow, Supreme Court, pardons, blah, blah, blah usual de-focus, usual crap that has you wondering "Who the hell is in charge of this magazine?"
The magazine, since November of 2004, has avoided Iraq. It has refused to cover it. Now, at this late date, it finally offers up a bad article and it's getting praised. Maybe it's relief that the increasinly useless magazine could actually almost write an article on Iraq without running to elected Dems? Or maybe it's a sign of just how bad the Iraq coverage has been -- in all outlets -- for the last four years? Whatever it is, this article is a piece of crap and veterans aren't impressed with it. Many are outraged by it. Fortunately for The Nation, Iraq's not covered too well by the media big or small so they'll get away with leaving many insulted and most will never know about it.
A visitor wrote in to say that John Bruhns "says what you say" meaning the following from Democracy Now! today:
SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: I would like Congress to draft binding bipartisan legislation that requires President Bush to bring our troops out of Iraq. This is a man that does not understand the meaning of the word "bipartisanship." We have to fight fire with fire when it comes to President Bush. He's stubborn. He refuses to acknowledge his mistakes. And he's in his own little world when it comes to Iraq.
So now, Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, has to do -- they have to do their job. They have to carry out the will of the American people. Over 70% of the American people want an end to this war. So my message to Congress is: you can stand with Bush or you can stand with the American people. Bring our troops home.
Yes, I do call out non-binding, toothless resultions. Like Nancy Pelosi's new attempt to yet again trick voters by re-proposing legislation that allows Bully Boy to keep as many on the ground as long as he's in office just by reclassifying the troops.
No, we do not speak alike. For instance, I never slammed war resisters to David Goodman. I never said, "I feel that if you are against the war, you should be man enough to stay put and fight for what you believe in."
And, for the record, I would never say "man enough." And I certainly wouldn't do so in a preface to a story of having seen a 19-year-old woman (I wouldn't call her, as he did, "a girl") die while serving.
Also for the record, I don't sneer "far-left liberal groups" (as he did about the Out of Iraq Congressional Hearing).
And I certainly would never make the following statements (as he did), in fact, I should probably comment after each non-point he makes:
Right now you have so many different groups. You have Iraq Veterans Against the War. My main problem with that organization is that they allow vets in their organization who've never been to Iraq to call themselves Iraq vets. I get disgusted by that. Why are you out on the street calling yourself an "Iraq vet against the war" when you haven't been there and had not had to endure the hardships we (Iraq Vets) had to endure?
Someone who stood up and refused to go because they knew the war was illegal has as much right as anyone else to speak. What they did was truly brave. If Bully Boy drove you out of the military because of his illegal war, if you gave up something you believed in for principles you believe in, you've done an amazing thing. You've shown true courage.
I don’t want to get in a quarrel with IVAW. I don’t believe in pitting vets against vets, especially because both of our organizations share the common goal of bringing the war to an end…we just operate differently.
But he does want a quarrel. "No comment" is how you avoid answering. And he's already pitted vet against vet by saying those who chose not to serve in an illegal war don't know hardships and are not as valued as he is.
The difference between VoteVets and an organization like Iraq Vets Against the War is that they're an anti-war, pacifist organization and they strongly resemble the anti-war movement of the late 60s and early 70s. At VoteVets we're a solid group of veterans who conduct ourselves professionally, we're not anti-war, we're pro-military, and we believe in fighting for this country.
He doesn't want a "quarrel" but he wants to run down the organization and claim that his Weak Ass "Vote Vets" (truly stupid because military service is neither a requirement nor an endorsement for public office) is "solid" and IVAW isn't. (And Adam Kokesh and others are not pacifists. Some in IVAW are -- and that's great -- and some aren't -- and that's great too.) Conduct yourselves professionally? You don't even seem to understand the Constitution or why we have civilian control of the military in the above quote. "We believe in fighting for this country". Explain when, in the last forty or fifty years, the United States has required the military to fight for it. Would that be attacking the Sandinistas? Would that be Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? Which ones of those were about 'fighting for this country'? (Answer: Not one damn one.)
He thinks he conducts himself professionally so, a tip, lose some weight. When you look like you ate Kevin James, no one's taking you seriously. They're just thinking, "How did he ever get in?"
And if that seems harsh, forget everything else he said, all he had to do was trash war resisters (which he has done repeatedly) and he was on my sh*t list. [Added: Ava's advised me of an e-mail. Please note, when you trash war resisters, you get what's coming to you at this site. And for the record, I didn't force feed the man. He should try practicing some Courage to Resist fatty foods. And he left 'reasoned' and all the other centrist b.s. talking points -- that they go running for when they're held accountable -- when he started slamming IVAW, the left and war resisters. Late in the game to be whining 'I believe in a civil discourse.' Do you? Well practice what you preach but don't bore the hell out of me with your lame ass e-mail.]
So to the visitor, like a great many, you're late to the party. He said a few pleasing words on Democracy Now! that happened to coincide with the overwhelming sentiments of most Americans. He does not speak to this community and we didn't just learn of him today.
He's the perfect mouthpiece for The Nation. He thinks he's 'respectable' and 'professional.' He does vidoes for WalkOn.org and works with a "VOTE!" org ("vote" is where a participatory democracy begins and ends to the current leadership of The Nation). And best of all, he trashes war resisters. At a centrist publication, he would be a golden boy. The fact that he is to The Nation only shows how far it has sunk. How low can it continue to go? (Pretty low. The article says five photos were turned over confirming the violence so the question is, "Where the hell are the photos? Why didn't you run the photos?") Four years after the illegal war and this is the best they can do? (They avoided printing some of the most graphic stories they were told.) So how much lower can the magazine go?
Who knows but their overly praised piece of crap article requires a lot more thought and examination than it's received. It doesn't deserve shout outs and as long as the left or faux left is willing to applaud this crap, expect The Nation to continue its slide to the right.
For those disappointed with that piece of crap article, remember Labor Day isn't that far away and a feature will go up at every community site.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
and the war drags on
donovan
iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
adam kokesh
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
the nation
katrina vanden heuvel
matthew rothschild
free speech radio news
aaron glantz
CodePink, a group spawned by Bay Area peace activists, has become the vibrantly hued public face of the anti-war movement in Washington. Launched in 2002 to oppose the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, the female activists are gaining new attention as a thorn in the side of Democrats, urging the new leaders of Congress to move faster to end the war.
"People try to marginalize them as being 'left,' " said Sen. Russ Feingold, an anti-war Democrat from Wisconsin. "But they serve as a reminder to (lawmakers) of the broader concern in the country over the war."
Publicly, top Democrats say they share the group’s anti-war goals. But privately they grumble about its in-your-face tactics -- including disrupting Democratic press conferences and setting up a protest camp outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Pacific Heights home in San Francisco.
When activists from CodePink interrupted her speech to a Democratic group last month, Pelosi shot them a steely look and urged them to focus on getting Republicans to oppose the war.
The above, noted by Cindy, is from Zachary Coile's "Code Pink: Those Pesky Peaceniks" (San Francisco Chronicle via Common Dreams). Cindy notes, "Top Democrats grumble . . . and Katha Pollitt." Please, Cindy, we can only address one Nation issue at a time. (I'm joking.) Cindy's right. Katha Pollitt couldn't write about Abeer in June or July or August or September or October or November or December or January or February or March or April. But in the May 28, 2007 issue of The Nation, she finally weighed in and let's note her entire commentary on Abeer:
Think of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, the 14-year-old girl raped and then murdered with her family by US soldiers in Mahmoudiya in March of last year.
That is it. The 14-year-old who was gang-raped by US soldiers, US soldiers who leered at her for days before with one (Stephen D. Green) stroking her face, making her uncomfortable, having her share with her parents how afraid she was (people are aware that Abeer still has relatives, including a brother, right? Apparently not, since no one seems interested in interviewing him outside of USA Today), they arranged for her to go elsewhere and she just had to get through one night. That would be the night that US soldiers got drunk and decided to plot their War Crime and carry it out. James P. Barker and Paul Cortez have confessed. (They've also fingered Green as the ring leader -- Green maintains he is innocent.) So they switched to their civies and and headed off, off through a hole in the fence they'd made, into the home where they took Abeer's parents and her five-year-old sister into a bedroom. Paul Cortez and James P. Barker began gang-raping Abeer while Green (according to Barker and Cortez' testimony) shot each parent and her sister. With Abeer in the next room. Then Green came in and joined the gang-rape. After which (according to Barker and Cortez) he shot her. Being dead wasn't enough. They had to attempt to burn her body. That didn't really work but they had to get back to base, drink some more booze and grill some chicken breasts. Just another day for those involved apparently.
Let's be really clear here, feminism is about calling those crimes out. Feminism is about calling the silences around those crimes out. Feminism is objecting everytime Abeer is rendered invisible in the press by reducing her to a nameless person ("14-year-old girl"). Real sorry to say it, but Pollitt didn't sport a lot of feminism going after CODEPINK for bird-dogging Hillary Clinton while avoiding the topic of Abeer. Ellen Knickmeyer and other reporters were telling Abeer's story in June of 2006. 12 months later, Katha Pollitt could finally write about Abeer . . . for one sentence. Twelve months later and one month after Alexander Cockburn ("Here Comes Another 'Crime Wave'," April 2nd, The Nation) wrote the first article to mention Abeer (and he wrote more than Pollitt did a month later). That's appalling and it's depressing.
Covering up or ignoring war crimes is like ignoring the air war, it prolongs the illegal war.
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, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3591. Tonight? 3611. Yes, the 3600 mark was passed. Yes, 20 more US service members have been announced dead since last Thursday. July's toll thus far is 32.
And avoidance and denial doesn't end the illegal war. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't end the illegal war. Shouting "BE HONEST" at people when they've been honest (and not avoiding the topic of the illegal war) doesn't end the illegal war. Women of a certain age doing laundry lists that they pass off as columns or cutesy columns doesn't end the illegal war. Waiting a full year to even name Abeer (and 'discuss' her for one whole whopping sentence) doesn't end the illegal war. It also doesn't serve feminism.
So The Nation is getting way too much praise for a so-so article. Most of the e-mails today noted the cutting we'd done for The Third Estate Sunday Review but finally put in the gina & krista round-robin. For visitors, that was the much promised lengthy feature and all it did was use Democracy Now! interviews with war resisters to tell the story of Iraq -- the violence there and the importance of war resistance.
The Nation didn't e-mail but Joan noted this (had The Nation e-mailed one of their fund raising e-mails, it would have been noted):
Dear Nation reader,
Half a million dollars. In postage. In just a few short days, The Nation will pay one of the biggest bills we've ever faced -- half a million dollars -- because of a postal rate increase scheme designed in part by lobbyists for the TimeWarner media conglomerate. Mailing costs for mega-magazines like TimeWarner's own Time, People and Sports Illustrated will go up much less or in some cases decrease, while smaller publications like The Nation will be hit by an enormous rate increase. We need your contribution during this critical time in order to prevent cutbacks to our investigative reporting, coverage of important issues ignored by the corporate-supported mainstream media, and our student outreach programs. To enable The Nation to continue to be a voice of truth, free speech and democracy, click here.
Thank you,
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
To state my position, and only my position, on The Nation, again, speaking only for myself, it's had good times and it's had bad times. It is now in a bad time, a very bad time, but it has pulled out of them before. Odds are good it will do so again. It's equally true that this effects all of the independent print press that mail out copies. Thursdays used to be a look at the alternative press ("Indymedia Roundup"). That seems like forever ago. I think that was the first change here, in increasing the Iraq discussions (at members' requests). And The Nation's lack of interest in Iraq (they disagree with that opinion) was not limited to them. We noted repeatedly that there were Thursdays when there was nothing to be found on the topic anywhere. That wasn't helped by New Times (they will always be New Times here) snatching up more publications (including The Village Voice). But some weeks you could read every bit of independent press print and never find anything on Iraq. A good week, we might find three things. Which is why it was no loss to drop the alternative media Thursday entry and instead focus on Iraq. In fact, it was kind of required if we were going to focus on Iraq. But, across the board, there have been very few that have bothered to treat Iraq as a serious issue. Speak to anyone back from Iraq and they will tell you it's the bizarro world coming back to the US and seeing . . . nothing.
So if you see their appeal and want to pass it on, it will be noted on Thursdays.
The Nation's very proud of their new article entitled "The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness."
And, for them, in some ways, it probably is huge. It's certainly huge in terms of length. The long discussion on the 'methodology' (I'm speaking of more than "A Note on Methodology," I'm speaking of what would probably be better termed the "justification" for writing and running the article) must be impressing someone.
So let's dive in. Judith Miller. A name of shame. Should all reporters who promoted the (non-existant) link between 9-11 and Iraq be shamed? Chris Hedges co-wrote this article in The Nation. In October of 2001 (we've covered this here, Google "Chris Hedges" "Mother Jones" "Democracy Now!" and you should get some of the results), on the front page of the New York Times, Hedges and another writer promoted the (false) link citing two sources. Their 'report' was also promoted by PBS. Now Mother Jones dug around and found out one of the sources wasn't at all how he was presented in print. Hedges said he was burned and talked about it. Thing is, the article on the front page of the New York Times said there were two sources. Why hasn't the second source been outed and should someone who promoted the (false) link between 9-11 and Iraq really be assigned to report on Iraq today? I imagine Judith Miller would get boos and hisses if she tried. It's a funny sort of accountability that's (semi) practiced. A number of e-mails on the magazine's article brought that up in the last few days.
The thing is, I wasn't going to comment on the article. We were pretty much wiping our hands of "The Nation Stats" and I'd heard too many bad things about this article in the writing stage (including from people who were ignored and people who were interviewed) and really didn't want to address any of it.
Laila al-Arian is the other author of the piece. She may or may not be a talented journalist. But here's the thing, and it's a shame someone has to point out the obvious, a Middle Eastern woman who wears Middle Eastern dress isn't the one to speak to American veterans about the illegal war. Speak to any therapist (I spoke with seven) and you'll be told what a no-no that was with PTSD rates so high and with things so likely to trigger episodes. You didn't have to talk to therapists, however, you only had to catch Aaron Glantz' reporting on a special Memorial Day look at the some of the costs of the war in US of Free Speech Radio News. You had to catch it and listen to the wife of a veteran explain that even seeing a woman dressed in the manner al-Arian was dressed on Democracy Now! today was enough to set off her husband into a severe spiral.
Reporters have to create a rapport with the people they interview and al-Arian may be immensely gifted there (I actually heard praise for her from three people) but you don't do that. You don't, as a magazine, assign a red flag for a PTSD episode to speak to veterans about violence they saw in Iraq. It was hailed as "insensitive" and "such an obvious trigger" that therapists can't believe it happened. Enough time has not passed and, with this subject matter, you are really asking to set off triggers with such an assignment.
So what you've got is a survey article that tries to seem weightier by including the long opening justification (a healthy chunk of the article) which, for the record, doesn't generally accompany survey pieces. However, having so ignored the violence in Iraq so consistently it may have been felt that an explanation was owed to the readers so they wouldn't be shocked.
They should be shocked by one sentence:
Court cases, such as the ones surrounding the massacre in Haditha and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old in Mahmudiya, and news stories in the Washington Post, Time, the London Independent . . .
Did you catch it? Abeer was rendered invisible in this overly praised article. Abeer was reduced to "a 14-year-old" -- she didn't even get "girl." In this supposed expose on violence, they make like the New York Times and refuse to mention Abeer's name. They leave her a faceless 14-year-old. They don't even make her a 14-year-old girl so they're worse than the Times. She's just a non-gender specified "14-year-old". That's disgusting.
One news outlet they don't mention is Democracy Now! and there's nothing in here that Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales haven't done in the last four years. Then there's the issue that this was produced from "several months" of interviews. This was the best they could do? No. No, it wasn't and some of the more revealing stories never made it into the article which is why so many vets call this article "bullsh*t."
Kelly Dougherty shows up briefly. Near the end, Megan O'Connor shows up (right at the end). Where are the other women? And if these are the only women in the piece, don't you think they should be a given a little bit more space because they certainly had more to say. It's amazing that Matthew Rothschild has been able to give female veterans the time to speak on The Progressive Radio Show but The Nation, with it's sorry track record of publishing women writers, can only find two women to speak for the article and then use her 'sparingly.' Dougherty is quoted three times in the article -- every time she is quoted briefly. O'Connor is quoted once, briefly, and gets the same amount of space as Patrick Leahy's quote. For the record, Senator Leahy didn't serve in Iraq and, after all, isn't that the supposed point of this article -- to allow veterans to share what they saw?
Latinos are grossly underrepresented in this article. Possibly, you don't talk to an Agustin Aguayo because you're not interested in war resisters?
That's another outrage vets are pointing out, the term "war resister" never appears in the article. Neither Camilo Mejia nor Aidan Delgado are described as "war resisters." ("Desertion" is applied to Camilo.)
In "A Note on Methodology," it's noted that they sent out requests for interviews to: "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the antiwar groups Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War and the prowar group Vets for Freedom." They then do a shout out to Mommy's Pantyhose who once laughably declared "We know, we were there" while promoting "smarter" war and taking up massive Air America Radio time to say US troops needed to remain in Iraq. Mommy's Pantyhose also had a snit fit on air during Sunday Salon and repeatedly referred to another guest for the hour as "your caller" ("your" being host Larry Bensky). Mommy's Pantyhose cut off Amy Goodman on CNN repeatedly to share how much he loathed Ehren Watada. Mommy's Pantyhose had to start a new organization because members were leaving and the organization was a joke.
But that's who the biggies at The Nation are comfortable with. And Iraq Veterans Against the War got screwed and there's no way in hell I'm going to be silent about that.
In a laughable editorial that The Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel is very proud of, this line appears: "Veterans of conscience deserve encouragement for speaking up."
Veterans of conscience do deserve encouragement for speaking up. That includes veterans of the military, such as Ehren Watada or Stephen Funk (to name but two) who refused to deploy to the illegal war. But they get no encouragment from the magazine, no support. Ehren Watada, whose story Ken Kagan was just telling Margaret Prescod Tuesday on KPFK's Sojourner Truth has received so much press attention, has never received an article in the print edition of The Nation (let alone a cover, MTV could cover him seriously, just not The Nation). Now he got a sidebar to an article that called him a coward.
Veterans of conscience deserve encouragement for speaking up? Well, golly, gee, Katrina when are you going to give it to them. There's been no profile or story on Watada, Mark Wilkerson, Kyle Snyder, Terri Johnson, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Brandon Hughey, Ryan Johnson, Patrick Hart, Joshua Key, Darrell Anderson, Carl Webb (whose name has made it into print -- he just wasn't identified as a war resister though he could be quoted on Hurricane Katrina), there's a whole list of people that have had NO support from the 'unconventional wisdom' of The Nation. Their stories weren't told. Their stories still aren't told.
When you looked at the list of who they sent out request to, you may have noticed that the War Resisters Support Campaign wasn't on the list. No one in Canada was interviewed. Ironic considering Joshua Key's eye witnessed events were so important to the military (according to them) that it necessitated sending two military persons into Canada (where they posed as Canadian police while attempting to pump Winnie Ng for information).
Like the centrist early days of Air America Radio, they've been there to prop up Mommy's Pantyhose but they've refused to provide "encouragement" for those who spoke up. What a load of crap that editorial is. What an embarrassment it is. The Nation is supposed to be the leading magazine of the left but it's moving so close to the center these days that The National Review may soon outflank it -- from the left.
In fact, this alleged issue devoted to Iraq isn't. It's got the overly praised article, it's got the laughable editorial (usually they make these grand statements -- We will support no candidate -- and it takes a few months for them to deliver the punchline, with this one, everyone's laughing right off the bat), Alexander Cockburn (as usual, he's been the most dependable voice, but then he writes for his CounterPunch which really tries to inform readers) pens a column on Iraq, Ari Melber warps so tightly around WalkOn.org (their presidential primary!) that it's as though they are a body pillow, Supreme Court, pardons, blah, blah, blah usual de-focus, usual crap that has you wondering "Who the hell is in charge of this magazine?"
The magazine, since November of 2004, has avoided Iraq. It has refused to cover it. Now, at this late date, it finally offers up a bad article and it's getting praised. Maybe it's relief that the increasinly useless magazine could actually almost write an article on Iraq without running to elected Dems? Or maybe it's a sign of just how bad the Iraq coverage has been -- in all outlets -- for the last four years? Whatever it is, this article is a piece of crap and veterans aren't impressed with it. Many are outraged by it. Fortunately for The Nation, Iraq's not covered too well by the media big or small so they'll get away with leaving many insulted and most will never know about it.
A visitor wrote in to say that John Bruhns "says what you say" meaning the following from Democracy Now! today:
SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: I would like Congress to draft binding bipartisan legislation that requires President Bush to bring our troops out of Iraq. This is a man that does not understand the meaning of the word "bipartisanship." We have to fight fire with fire when it comes to President Bush. He's stubborn. He refuses to acknowledge his mistakes. And he's in his own little world when it comes to Iraq.
So now, Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, has to do -- they have to do their job. They have to carry out the will of the American people. Over 70% of the American people want an end to this war. So my message to Congress is: you can stand with Bush or you can stand with the American people. Bring our troops home.
Yes, I do call out non-binding, toothless resultions. Like Nancy Pelosi's new attempt to yet again trick voters by re-proposing legislation that allows Bully Boy to keep as many on the ground as long as he's in office just by reclassifying the troops.
No, we do not speak alike. For instance, I never slammed war resisters to David Goodman. I never said, "I feel that if you are against the war, you should be man enough to stay put and fight for what you believe in."
And, for the record, I would never say "man enough." And I certainly wouldn't do so in a preface to a story of having seen a 19-year-old woman (I wouldn't call her, as he did, "a girl") die while serving.
Also for the record, I don't sneer "far-left liberal groups" (as he did about the Out of Iraq Congressional Hearing).
And I certainly would never make the following statements (as he did), in fact, I should probably comment after each non-point he makes:
Right now you have so many different groups. You have Iraq Veterans Against the War. My main problem with that organization is that they allow vets in their organization who've never been to Iraq to call themselves Iraq vets. I get disgusted by that. Why are you out on the street calling yourself an "Iraq vet against the war" when you haven't been there and had not had to endure the hardships we (Iraq Vets) had to endure?
Someone who stood up and refused to go because they knew the war was illegal has as much right as anyone else to speak. What they did was truly brave. If Bully Boy drove you out of the military because of his illegal war, if you gave up something you believed in for principles you believe in, you've done an amazing thing. You've shown true courage.
I don’t want to get in a quarrel with IVAW. I don’t believe in pitting vets against vets, especially because both of our organizations share the common goal of bringing the war to an end…we just operate differently.
But he does want a quarrel. "No comment" is how you avoid answering. And he's already pitted vet against vet by saying those who chose not to serve in an illegal war don't know hardships and are not as valued as he is.
The difference between VoteVets and an organization like Iraq Vets Against the War is that they're an anti-war, pacifist organization and they strongly resemble the anti-war movement of the late 60s and early 70s. At VoteVets we're a solid group of veterans who conduct ourselves professionally, we're not anti-war, we're pro-military, and we believe in fighting for this country.
He doesn't want a "quarrel" but he wants to run down the organization and claim that his Weak Ass "Vote Vets" (truly stupid because military service is neither a requirement nor an endorsement for public office) is "solid" and IVAW isn't. (And Adam Kokesh and others are not pacifists. Some in IVAW are -- and that's great -- and some aren't -- and that's great too.) Conduct yourselves professionally? You don't even seem to understand the Constitution or why we have civilian control of the military in the above quote. "We believe in fighting for this country". Explain when, in the last forty or fifty years, the United States has required the military to fight for it. Would that be attacking the Sandinistas? Would that be Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? Which ones of those were about 'fighting for this country'? (Answer: Not one damn one.)
He thinks he conducts himself professionally so, a tip, lose some weight. When you look like you ate Kevin James, no one's taking you seriously. They're just thinking, "How did he ever get in?"
And if that seems harsh, forget everything else he said, all he had to do was trash war resisters (which he has done repeatedly) and he was on my sh*t list. [Added: Ava's advised me of an e-mail. Please note, when you trash war resisters, you get what's coming to you at this site. And for the record, I didn't force feed the man. He should try practicing some Courage to Resist fatty foods. And he left 'reasoned' and all the other centrist b.s. talking points -- that they go running for when they're held accountable -- when he started slamming IVAW, the left and war resisters. Late in the game to be whining 'I believe in a civil discourse.' Do you? Well practice what you preach but don't bore the hell out of me with your lame ass e-mail.]
So to the visitor, like a great many, you're late to the party. He said a few pleasing words on Democracy Now! that happened to coincide with the overwhelming sentiments of most Americans. He does not speak to this community and we didn't just learn of him today.
He's the perfect mouthpiece for The Nation. He thinks he's 'respectable' and 'professional.' He does vidoes for WalkOn.org and works with a "VOTE!" org ("vote" is where a participatory democracy begins and ends to the current leadership of The Nation). And best of all, he trashes war resisters. At a centrist publication, he would be a golden boy. The fact that he is to The Nation only shows how far it has sunk. How low can it continue to go? (Pretty low. The article says five photos were turned over confirming the violence so the question is, "Where the hell are the photos? Why didn't you run the photos?") Four years after the illegal war and this is the best they can do? (They avoided printing some of the most graphic stories they were told.) So how much lower can the magazine go?
Who knows but their overly praised piece of crap article requires a lot more thought and examination than it's received. It doesn't deserve shout outs and as long as the left or faux left is willing to applaud this crap, expect The Nation to continue its slide to the right.
For those disappointed with that piece of crap article, remember Labor Day isn't that far away and a feature will go up at every community site.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
and the war drags on
donovan
iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
adam kokesh
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
the nationkatrina vanden heuvelmatthew rothschildfree speech radio news
aaron glantz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)