Saturday, September 15, 2007

Ian Williams reports on war resistance (and look where he does it from)

By 1969, all an American GI had to do was cross the border and register as an immigrant, since Trudeau's government guaranteed no one would be sent back. Since then, Canada has raised its immigration barriers. Would-be immigrants have to apply from their own countries and are required to show education, training and financial assets before emigrating to Canada--a process that can take two years.
Today arriving GIs must apply for political asylum on the grounds of persecution for refusing to take part in an illegal war. Three years ago, former Private First Class Jeremy Hinzman was the first American to apply for this status. His case is being laboriously fought by the Canadian government, which is now conservative and has so far persuaded the courts to ignore the question of whether or not the Iraq War is illegal. The lower level Immigration and Refugee Boards and courts have ruled against Hinzman, who, if successful, would reportedly be Canada’s first ever certified political refugee from the U.S.
Hinzman headed north with his wife and toddler at the beginning of 2004. Now working as a bike courier in Toronto, he has already survived several of Ontario’s ferocious winters. "The government didn't roll out a red carpet for us," Hinzman says, "but we like it up here, and there's a lot of support for what we have done."


The ex-soldier adds, "We've adapted pretty well. The fact that there is free healthcare is a big plus, but in general it’s not that different from home. Everyone has equal opportunities. We're not rich, but we're not poor--comfortable."
Hinzman has no regrets. He joined the Army for the college funding, but was so horrified by the bloodthirsty values of basic training that he applied for conscientious objector status. Pending his appeal, he served in a noncombatant post with the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan. After returning home, Hinzman heard that his application had been denied and that he was being deployed to Iraq. So he flew the coop to the Great White North.
"It was an illegal war," Hinzman insists. "We did the right thing by deciding to fight it. Canada refused to fight in the war. To me that said they thought the war was illegal and immoral. When we came here, we knew that the chances were we may not be able to go back to America."




The above is from Ian Williams' "Hell No, They Won't Go!" (Op-Ed News) and Brady notes it while wondering if I'd seen it. No, but I had heard of it. And if you can't make the connection on why this is newsworthy besides the excerpt you need to study the byline. You should ask yourself -- in this age of 'new content! new content!' -- why the piece by Williams appears at Op-Ed News and not at the magazine he writes for. When Rebecca's mother-in-law saw the laughable "I am for peace!" whine by The Peace Resister this week she called me (Rebecca's mother-in-law and my mother were very good friends, I've known Rebecca's mother-in-law since I was a child, just FYI). She was under the impression that the only pressure to The Peace Resister was external. No, the pressure is internal as well. I'll hold further comments for The Third Estate Sunday Review because Rebecca (and her mother-in-law) had already stated we need to address the whine there. Williams' article -- which would be a credit to any magazine or magazine's website -- also includes Kyle Snyder and a look at the current history as well. Hinzman and Brandon Hughey both will find out shortly whether the Supreme Court in Canada will hear their appeal so we went with Hinzman. You should be asking yourself why you have to go to Op-Ed News and other places (no, I'm not naming where it originally appeared) to read Williams' article as opposed to being able to find it at the magazine he writes for?



Late to the party and confused? See "The Nation ignores war resisters even as it publishes the child of one," "the nation magazine ignores war resisters while publishing the child of one," "The Nation refuses to cover war resisters while publishing the child of one," "The Nation ignores war resisters even while publishing the child of one," "The Nation ignores war resisters while publishing the child of one,""The Nation refuses to cover war resisters while publishing the child of one," "The Nation refuses to cover war resisters while publishing the child of one," "The Nation ignores war resisters while publishing the child of one," and "The Nation ignores war resisters even while publishing the child of one."



A number of e-mails have come into the public account asking why we aren't noting ___ or noting ____ meaning dailies. Why? We don't need the text equivalent of Cokie, Sam and George passed off as reporting. If you missed Robert Parry's excellent article yesterday, you should read it today. It's subheadline should be "Your information is being managed by the mainstream again."



We have noted McClatchy Newspapers (and others) throughout the week. This is from Leila Fadel's "Ordinary life hardly the norm in Baghdad:"



"Ordinary" isn't a word that residents of Baghdad use to describe their lives.
Gunmen are driving people from neighborhoods in the city's southwest. Electricity, depending on which block you live on, is available as little as two hours a day. Running water, if it's available, is unsafe to drink.
Car bombings are down, but most residents won't leave their neighborhoods, frightened that they'll encounter Shiite Muslim militiamen or Sunni Muslim extremists who'll kill them.
Some markets are reopening in the southern neighborhood of Dora under the watch of U.S. soldiers, but no one from outside the neighborhood visits.
As for schools, it's hard to say: The school year hasn't started yet.
Yousef al Mousawi, a 28-year-old Shiite resident of Sadr City, told this story Friday: Two days ago, his friend Mustafa was kidnapped from his computer shop. He was later found dead, shot in the head. It wasn't unusual. In his neighborhood -- controlled by the Mahdi Army militia, loyal to cleric Muqtada al Sadr -- he sees bodies every day.
Traffic jams terrify him, he said. He was wounded by a car bomb last year and has traveled the region since for medical treatment.
"The Mahdi Army isn't just killing Sunnis now, they are killing Shiites as well," he said. "I go to university, I'm afraid of suicide bombers and car bombs. I come home and I'm afraid of the Mahdi Army. We're living in fear, endless fear."




I would love to go with the excerpt but fair use requires it be stopped there. If you use links, please use it to continue reading Fadel's article. (I know others repost in full. That's their call. Here we try to do just do excerpts unless it's a press release.)



This is dictated. We're so far out of DC and trying to get back there for the rally. People are supposed to be gathering outside the White House in about a minute. Fingers crossed, we'll be there for when the event gets underweigh. But, quickly, Alissa J. Rubin's "Sheik's Allies Vow Revenge for His Killing" is the only thing in the New York Times this morning that qualified for possibly being noted. It runs on A6.



Do you see a link? No, because I'm not asking that one be inserted. The US military announced four deaths yesterday. Iraqis were killed in bombings and drive-by shootings yesterday. Do you see an article on that? No, you see Rubin writing about the funeral of a 'friend of the White House'. It's really interesting whose lives get noted and whose lives don't. Just like the 'vehicle accident' that claimed 7 lives initially (7 US service members and, we're now told, at least 2 Iraqis) on Monday wasn't news to the paper . . . until they found out two of the service members had been part of the collective that wrote the column for the paper. Then you had them running to the press with statements and David Stout showing up with an article.



When 7 US service members were announced dead, it wasn't worthy of an article in the New York Times. It only became worthy for what can politely be termed self-serving reasons. ("We are the story!")



So today we finally get some sort of coverage from Iraq and it's all about the funeral of a sheik who was friends with the White House and it contains no information that wasn't reported elsewhere on Thursday and Friday.



Glad that Rubin filed from Iraq and wish more from that heavily financed 'desk' had filed this week. But is it worth linking to? Nope.



Now maybe if the Times finds out that one of the four US service members who died yesterday were part of the collective writing the op-ed, you'll get the editorial page editor making comments to the press and a story on the death (just that one -- the same way the 'vehicle accident' was turned into a story on just the two who took part in writing the column) but today they just aren't interested. And so we're not interested in them.



Lastly, there were e-mails about the Patrick Cockburn link -- to the story about Petraeus' presidential ambitions -- that appears to be a technical problem with CounterPunch. They've got the link going to another story currently. (And Mia pointed out that if you try to use the link to the story you're taken to you still don't get Cockburn.) If they've fixed it by Sunday, we'll note it then. If they haven't, I'll see if it's available somewhere else.



Violence continues each day in Iraq, whether the dailies choose to report or not. Reuters notes a Baghdad car bombing today that has claimed at least 8 lives and left at least 15 wounded "near a police checkpoint" and "near a market".



And Reuters notes Khalid Rasheed and two people with him were shot dead in a home invasion carried about by assailants wearing "police uniforms and driving an ambulance", that a roadside bombing outside of Kirkuk left two people wounded, a Balad Ruz roadside bombing has left seven injured and an attack on police col. Adil Abdul-Kareem in Baquba has left 2 of his guards killed and three more injured.



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


















Free Sami Al-Haj

Free Sami Al-Haj. The link goes to an online petition by the American Committe to Free Sami Al-Haj. Elaine was going through her e-mails this morning and the petition was mentioned in one. She asked that it be noted and we'll put it at the top.


"Calls Grow for Release of Imprisoned Journalist" (Democracy Now!):
A leading media protection group is renewing calls for the U.S. to release an al-Jazeera cameraman from Guantanamo Bay. Sami Al-Haj is now more than eight months into a hunger strike protesting his imprisonment without charge or trial. Doctors who’ve examined him say it appears he's given up his fight to live. Yesterday Democracy Now spoke to Joel Campagna, Middle East program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, about al-Haj's case.
Joel Campagna: "He is a journalist who worked for al Jazeera who was detained in the line of work for over five years now. He has yet to be charged with a crime. The implication of his arrest is that the U.S. military can effectively remove a journalist from the battlefield, hold them for years without end, without charge and not be compelled to charge them with a crime. And we've been calling on the U.S. military to either charge Sami Al-Haj with a crime and give him a fair trial or release him."

Democracy Now! has explored the case of Sami Al-Haj many times and most recently (I think it was the most recent) in a segment broadcast in July.

Elaine asked for this to be noted and it was but for any wondering about how it's Iraq related, it's very much related. Bully Boy has had a war against Al Jazeera that has included bombing intimidation and discussions with Tony Blair about taking the network 'out.' It goes to the pattern of intimidating journalists and the historical use of imprisonment and torture (and Sami Al-Haj has been imprisoned and tortured) to both silence critics and to send a message. As with many imprisoned for something other than what they are accused of, the US offered to free Sami Al-Haj if he would be there spy at and on Al Jazeera.

The illegal war continues due to fear. The White House worked very hard on instilling fear early on and made sure target a number of people in order to 'send a message'. Messages can be sent back and the message needs to be: Free Sami Al-Haj immediately.

The man is a reporter. He is not a threat to anyone (other than those who fear the truth). It's been five years. If the administration had any proof, the show trial would have already taken place and been used not only to demonstrate the 'goodness' and 'rightness' of the illegal imprisonments but also to target journalists publicly. The adminstration's public war on the press and their love of false linkage would have led to the biggest show trial of the century. It didn't because Sami Al-Haj is not guilty.

He is, however, a prisoner. He's been denied basic rights since day one and a victim of the torture lab going on at the prison in Guantanamo.

During the Cold War a lot of awful things happened outside the eyes of the American people. Today, this happens in full sight and, as bad as things were then, it couldn't have happened then. Back then the USSR existed and one of the lines of divisions the Cold Warriors always pointed to was that the US doesn't have secret prisons and doesn't torture prisoners.

Not entirely true (to put it mildly) but the fact remains what's being done to the prisoners at Guantanamo couldn't have been done publicly then because you can't paint another government as all that is evil without *pointing to* yourself. That 'hindrance' may very well explain the move away, by the White House, from 'war' between governments and a war on the world. When your tossing all the cited values into a garbage dump, you really can't talk to much about the differences between governments, can you?

While it is very much true that our government has frequently forgot or ignored what this country is supposed to stand for, we are still taught the ideal and it's past time to start demanding that the government live up to the expectations of the people.

Again, the petition can be found here.

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






[C.I. note: "Applauding"? I have no idea. Corrected to "pointing to".

Friday, September 14, 2007

Iraq snapshot

September 14, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a Blair crony sobs in public, the reviews are in for Ugly Bully and -- no surprise -- it isn't pretty, the "die-in" is tomorrow, and more.
 
Starting with war resistance.  Gerry Condon (Courage to Resist) reports on the status of the many women and men who have elected to self-check out of the US military and go to Canada noting, "These abesentee GI's are upholding the Nuremberg Principles, which were adopted as U.S. law after World War II.  By refusing to fight in illegal wars or to commit war crimes, they are exercising their rights and responsibilites as soldiers.  So far, the war resisters' refugee claims have been rejected by the political appointees on Canada's refugee boards, who say that war resisters had legal avenues in the U.S. they could have pursued.  They say that prosecution for being AWOL does not amount to 'persecution.'  They are reluctant to call the U.S. war 'illegal'."  Condon proposes that you let Stephen Harper and Diane Finley hear from you.   Harper is prime minister (clicking on his name provides his e-mail, his fax is 613-941-6900) and Finley is the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (work phone number between eight in the morning until seven in the evening is 613-954-1064). Also at Courage to Resist, Spc. Justin Cliburn announces he will not be fighting in the illegal war, "I am done with the military.  I don't know how exactly I will leave the service just yet, but I know that I will.  I entered the army in an honorable fashion and I will leave it that way, but leave it I will.  I leave Friday for Washington DC to take part in the September 15th protests in DC with tens of thousands of other concerned Americans, including representatives of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families, and the ANSWER Coalition.  I am taking more and more responsibility within IVAW to end this war, take care of our veterans, and provide reparations for the Iraqi people and it feels right."  Courage to Resist also offers the story of Derek Hess who entered the Army via a delayed entry program in 2005 and discovered in basic training that "we weren't training for any set mission in Iraq, just for survival."  As he began to see the Iraq War as illegal and as a way to benefit Big Business, he applied for CO status in January of this year.  No surprise, the US military do what they generally do: denied his application.  With Hess informing the higher ups "that I would kill myself if I was sent to Iraq -- so there would be no way I could [be] used as a weapon of mass destruction for the US government," the military elected to give him a medical discharge ("honorable in character").
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Derek Hess, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko,Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, 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 The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
 
As Ugly Bully prepared to air last night in prime time, Iraq Veterans Against the War were ready to respond.  Both Geoff Millard and Adam Kokesh spoke out, Millard on CNN's Situation Room and Kokesh on Larry King Live (videos here at IVAW, CNN transcript for Millard's appearence here, CNN transcript for Kokesh's appearnce here). Millard spoke of what he would like to hear in Bully Boy's speech, "Well, I, of course, would like to hear him say that all U.S. forces, not just merely the ones that are being forced to leave because they don't have replacements at the end of the so-called surge, to be coming home.  But that's not going to happen.  As his political appointee, General Petraeus said when in front of the Congress, that he couldn't even say that this war was making us safer.  It's not making us safer.  It's hurting the military.  It's hurting us here at home.  It's not protecting America. . . . let's face it, he [Petraeus] was put into the position taht he's in as a political appointee of the Bush administration.  He was put there as a political appointee to continue the occupation of Iraq.  And that's really what we're talking about here too, is an occupation.  Not a war like we saw in World War II . . . It's an occupation.  Saddam has been out of power now for quite some time, and we're occupying a foreign country."  Adam Kokesh spoke after the speech and noted, "Well he said a lot of things, but first let me just commend Bush for his service in the Air Guard and choosing to go AWOL instead of being part of the war crimes and setting an example for the growing number of soldiers who have the courage to resist the way that he did out of cowardice."  In response to a question from Larry King, Kokesh replied, "Success would be giving the Iraqi people the right to self-determination and the resources that they need to create the rule of law and stability in their country.  And the best thing we can do to do that is pay repatriations and remove the American troop presence that is impeding that progress. . . I feel I have a moral obligation with my voice as a veteran.  We have a certain power in speaking out and a relevancy in this most pressing debate before America.  And with that power comes a responsibility.  And I don't think I could live with myself if I wasn't doing everything I could to bring our brothers and sisters home alive, safe as soon as possible."
 
So those were the realities spoken last night, now let's head to Crazy Town where a dazed and lethargic Bully Boy attempted to sell "Return On Success" as this decade's "Peace With Honor" (Tricky Dick's January 23, 1973 speech).  Watching, Americans grasped Why The Caged Bird Wears An Ear Piece.  But sadly, he didn't wear it last night electing instead to prove he was the best little reader in first grade.  Bit . . . by . . . bit . . Peterah . . . Petraues!  He knew that word and resumed reading bit . . . by . . . bit.    No, he isn't the "Great Communicator."  No, his reading level does not appear to be higher than elementary school.  Maybe all those books the White House forever insists he is "reading" are Books on Tape?  If you could follow along without falling asleep, this morning you might have grasped what Robert Parry (Consortium News) did: "Let it be noted that the morning after George W. Bush announced an open-ended -- possibly permanent -- military occupation of Iraq the premier U.S. newspapers ran headlines about the President ordering 'troop cuts,' itself a troubling reminder of how the American people got into this mess.  The New York Times' lead headline read: 'Bush Says Success Allows Gradual Troops Cuts.'  The Washington Post went with: 'Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin to Roll Back "Surge".' . . . So, Americans bustling past newstands on their way to work would get the superficial impression that Bush was finally moving toward the Iraq exit door when he really was doing all he could to paint the country, and his presidential successor, into a corner."  (Parry's brand new book Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush explores the media and Bully Boy and, though it should be filed under "incest" due to the nature of the relationship between the press and the Bully Boy, you can find it in the non-fiction section at bookstores and libraries and you can also order it online.)  Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) added it up and found 12 references to al Qaeda and 13 to "success" but zero on "victory" and provided historical context as well, "He introduced a weak sister to 'peace with honor' that Nixon and Kissinger invoked in Vietnam.  "The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success",' he said.  And like Nixon and Kissinger, Bush started talking about enemy body counts.  U.S. and Iraq forces, he said, 'have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January.'  Somehow the resort to body counts is not reassuring.  Bush let on that the American military presence in Iraq will be long term.  Permanent military bases, anyone?"  Rothschild also observes that, though the administration maintained an illegal war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil, Bully Boy was talking about Iraqi oil last night as well.  (Rothschild's just published book is  You Have No Rights: Stories of America In An Age of Repression.)  Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) analyzes the performance and notes a number of things but we'll zoom in here on this, "And in January, he asked Americans for 'more patience, sacrifice and resolve.'  In Thursday's speech, he did the same."
 
 
Far from the lies of the Bully Buy is the distant isle of reality.  Gold Star Families Speak Out Dante Zappala wasn't on TV last night.  At Military Families Speak Out, he shares what he would have discussed had he been on MSNBC's Hardball earlier this week to share his opinion of the 'progress' report: "I wanted to talk about the humanity of this war.  My brother died in Iraq.  He died looking for WMD.  He died because this country capitulated to fear, because the people in power were hell bent on an ideology, because the principles of reason were tossed for negligent policy.  The General says give us time.  Where others see 12 months, or 18 months, I see bodies.  I see 900, 1300 dead troops.  I see tens of thousands injured, wives who will see their husbands again -- someday -- but never know them again.  A million firsts will pass without wtiness.  A baby's first steps, a first word, a first day of school.  The consequences extend beyond this generation.  The consequences are right there, in my nephew's eyes, who has the unmistakable gaze of his father."
 
Nancy Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observed that talk of the 18 'benchmarks' were
"[l]argely gone" from last night's speech.  Why was that?  Because in the one report the White House fully controlled, even they could only disguise reality so far.  Jennifer Loven (AP) reports the White House report on 'benchmarks' was delivered to Congress today and found "that Iraqi leaders gained little new ground on key military and political goals, a discouraging assessment a day after President Bush said progress justifies keeping a large U.S. military presence there.  The report underscored the difficulty of Bush's argument that continued American sacrifice was creating space for Iraqi leaders to make gains on tamping down the sectarian fighting that leaves Iraq persistently fractured and violent."  BBC reveals that the report "says Iraq has performed satisfactory on nine out of 18 benchmarks -- one more than in a previous assessment in July.  Among the failures, it cites militia control over security forces and not enacting laws on sharing oil revenues."
 
In other news out of England, John Kampfner (New Stateman) profiles Tony Blair's ambassador to the United States, David Manning, who wants everyone to know, "You have to understand Blair the person before you get into this.  A lot of what he was doing with Bush, he was doing with Clinton.  Blair was very clear about the doctrine of liberal interventionism.  This was not something . . . invented to justify close relations with George Bush."  No, it wasn't, Blair was endorsing Bully Policies long before the Bully Boy was installed into the US White House. Manning whines that the US State Department was supposed to be in charge of reconstruction but it ended up being the Defense Department and by the time the looting in Baghdad began, "That was the moment I remember having real feelings of disquiet.  Then we got very concerned when we heard the army was being disbanded and when we heard that de-Ba'athification was going ahead on the scale it was."  Manning, like so many War Hawks, wants everyone to believe the illegal war was 'right' and that what resulted after the invasion began were just screw ups.  A defense he might try at a War Crimes Tribunal but it probably won't go over very well there either.  The destruction and tag sale on Iraq was part and parcel of the illegal war.e thought.  As Naomi Klein notes in her forthcoming book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism:
 
If "nation creating" was going to happen in Iraq, what exactly was supposed to become of the nation that was already there?  The unspoken assumption from the beginning was that much of it would have to disappear, to clear the ground for the grand experiment -- and idea that contained, at its core, the certainty of extraordinary colonialist violence.  
[. . .]  
The bombing badly injured Iraq, but it was the looting, unchecked by occupying troops, that did the most to erase the heart of the country that was.    
[. . .]
Thanks mostly to the efforts of clerics who organized salvage missions in the midst of the looting, a portion of the artifacts has been recovered.  But many Iraqis were, and still are, convinced that the memory lobotomy was intentional -- part of Washington's plans to excise the strong, rooted nation that was and replace it with their own model.  "Baghdad is the mother of Arab culture," seventy-year-old Ahmed Abdullah told the Washington Post, "and they want to wipe out our culture."  
As the war planners were quick to point out, the looting was done by Iraqis, not foreign troops.  And it's true that Rumsfeld did not plan for Iraq to be sacked -- but he did not take measure to prevent it from happening either, or to stop it once it had begun.  These were the failures that cannot be dismissed as mere oversights.
[. . .] 
Some insight into why there was so little official interest in stopping the looting has since been provided by two men who played pivotal roles in the occupation -- Peter McPherson, the senior economic adviser to Paul Bremer, and John Agresto, director of higher education reconstruction for the occupation.  McPherson said that when he saw Iraqis taking state property -- cars, buses, ministry equipment -- it didn't bother him.  His job, as Iraq's top economic shock therapist, was to radically downsize the state and privatize its assets, which meant that the looters were really just giving him a jump-start.  "I thought the privatization that occurs sort of naturally when somebody took over their state vehicle, or began to drive a truck that the state used to own, was just fine," he said.  A veteran bureaucrat of the Reagan administration and a firm believer in Chicago School ecnomics, McPherson termed the pillage a form of public sector "shrinkage." 
His colleague John Agresto also saw a silver lining as he watched the looting of Baghdad on TV.  He envisioned his job -- "a never to be repeated adventure" -- as the remaking of Iraq's system of higher education from scratch.  In that context, the stripping of the universities and the education ministry was, he explained, "the opportunity for a clean start," a chance to give Iraq's schools "the best modern equipment."  If the mission was "nation creating," as so many clearly believed it to be, then everything that remained of the old country was only going to get in the way.  Agresto was the former president of St. John's College in New Mexico, which specializes in a Great Books curriculum.  He explained that although he knew nothing of Iraq, he had refrained from reading books about the country before making the trip so that he would arrive "with as open a mind as I could have."  Like Iraq's colleges, Agresto would be a blank slate.
 
The Shock Doctrine is released in the United States this coming Tuesday (September 18th).  The book will be launched this Monday (September 17th) in NYC at an event with Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) acting as moderator at the New York Soceity for Ethical Culture, 2 West 64th Street.  Event is free and open to the public and Klein and (I assume) Goodman will be signing their books (Goodman's latest bestseller is Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back written with her brother David Goodman and now out in softcover).
 
Turning to Iraq, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) judges yesterday's assassination of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha as "a serious blow to President Bush and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who have both portrayed the US success in Anbar, once the heart of the Sunni rebellion against US forces, as a sign that victory was attainable across Iraq."  Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reports that Al Anbar Province is "under a state of emergency" -- that would be the 'model province' according to the White House -- and that "messages were being posted on international jihadist websites exulting at the end of 'the traitor and aposate'."  But don't worry, hate is thriving from all sides.  CBS and AP report that the sheik was buried today and those gathered "vowed revenge".  Bully Boy hears that, grins and sighs, "Progress."
 
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Beiji car bombing that claimed 10 lives ("including 4 policemen") and left fifteen wounded.  CBS and AP report that a US helicopter staged an assault on a mosque yesterday in Karmah and the press release brags of three 'fresh kills' that they're pretty sure were 'insurgents'.
 
Shootings?
 
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Col. Hussein Alwan ("officer of the protection force in Salaheddin province health dept") was shot dead in Kirkuk today and that Hadla Ali Hassan is the name of the mother who was shot dead yesterday in Kirkuk (her daughter was injured).  Reuters notes that 3 people were shot dead today in Suwayra and that, in Hilla, an attack on the home "of a senior army officer" resulted in 1 guard being shot dead and another injured. 
 
Corpses?
 
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports six corpses were discovered in Baghdad.  Reuters notes that the corpses of a judge and police officer were discovered in Balad.
 
Today the US military announced: "Four Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed in Diyala Province Friday, when an explosion occured near their vehicle."
 
Dave Lindorff (This Can't Be Happening!) notes the "accident" on Monday that claimed seven lives including two who were among seven active duty service members who wrote the New York Times op-ed noting the illegal war was lost and he notes, "The mother of one of the dead soldiers is demanding a full and open investigation into their bizarre deaths.  Congress must join in that demand."  As if to head off such a demand, the US military releases their statement today (my, what a quick investigation that was!) which is that the vehicle had an accident with no other car or person, just on it's way back to base and drove off a highway overpass, most natural thing in the world, apparently.  They also state that along with the seven US service members who died, two Iraqi prisoners died as well.  No word as to their alleged crimes. 
 
Meanwhile, United for Peace & Justice picked a bad time to endorse an undercount.  In their 'report' written by Phyllis Bennis and Eric Leaver, the numbers of Iraqis who have lost their lives in the illegal war range as low as (insert Iraqi Body Count figure) and as high as (insert the lower of two figures in the Lancet study last year -- a study that noted it was tracking deaths through July 2006 -- over a year ago) "over 600,000 plus."  Well fate, like attempting to disappear dead Iraqis, can be ugly and today it slaps the authors and United for Peace & Justice (if not for correct body counts) in the face as Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that Britain's ORB "has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.  The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers. According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million. [. . .] Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explains that, "The British agency Opinion Research Business surveyed more than fourteen hundred Iraqi adults."  Alan Maass (US Socialist Worker) isn't one to play dumb or useless and his review of the realities in Iraq gets straight to the point noting in large, bold type, "More than 1 million Iraqis killed."   He refutes the claims of progress with specific data throughout his report but that's all we have time to note. 
 
Tomorrow, Saturday, September 15th (see ANSWER for more information) mass protests will be taking place in DC and IVAW will lead a "die-in".  Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explains, "The peace coalition ANSWER says more than one-thousand people will lie down to represent the Iraqis and Americans killed since the US invasion. ANSWER is predicting a turnout of more than ten thousand for a march through Washington."  This will be part of a several days of action lasting from the 15th through the 18th. September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting. CODEPINK will be conducting a Peoples March Inside Congress (along with other groups and individuals) on September 17th. United for Peace & Justice (along with others) will begin Iraq Moratorium on September 21st and follow it every third Friday of the month as people across the country are encouraged to wear and distribute black ribbons and armbands, purchase no gas on those Fridays, conduct vigils, pickets, teach-ins and rallies, etc
 
Mark Rudd and Doug Viehmeyer (Common Dreams) explain the basics of a moratorium (and it's history):
 
 
The original Vietnam Moratorium, October 15, 1969, was a decentralized anti-war demonstration in which literally millions showed their opposition to the war around the world in a vast variety of ways. There were many school walkouts and closures; local demonstrations involving thousands around the country (a quarter of a million in D.C.; 100,000 in Boston); workplace sickouts; vigils, sit-ins at draft boards and induction centers. President Nixon pretended not to notice, but there's good evidence that the outpouring of opposition to the war prevented the war planners from using nukes against the Vietnamese (see Tom Wells, The War Within). A month later, the second moratorium day brought hundreds of thousands to Washington, complete with an angry siege of the Justice Dept. that reminded Attorney General John Mitchell, watching from inside, of the storming of the Czar's Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, back in 1917. Nixon himself, prior to the action, commented during a press conference:  Google "Vietnam Moratorium" to check out what went on. 
Why now? The anti-war movement, for a variety of reasons, has hit a plateau since the war began in 2003, despite the majority sentiment in the country against the war. No strategies have emerged to grow the movement. The thinking behind the Iraq Moratorium is that the moment is right for nationally coordinated local anti-war actions which will allow people to express their anti-war sentiments wherever they are and in a variety of ways. At the same time the Moratorium gives local groups a focus. For example, a campus anti-war organization can decide to do whatever's appropriate for their school--a teach-in, a walk-out, a vigil, a film showing, a sit-in at a recruitment center. It's all good!   
The growth of the anti-war movement has to be seen as our current goal, not just a means. Every action, every demonstration should be judged by one single criterion: does it bring more people? We think that the biggest stumbling block up to now has been the too widespread belief that neither individual nor collective actions have no effect. The moratorium, allowing for a variety of tactics with one single focus, coordinated nationally and possibly internationally, has a chance of bringing antiwar expression into mainstream society. Sept. 21 will be the first moratorium day, followed by succeeding moratoriums (moratoria?) each third Friday of every month. If enough people and groups catch on, the movement grows.       
 
That article is written by two generations of SDS, Rudd from the original and Viehmeyer from today.  SDS is growing on campuses across the country and an organization to watch.  (In the good way, but you can be sure the FBI is watching it as well.)
 
 
Finally, on PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio: this week (Friday's on most PBS stations), the program expands to an hour for a special look at the Third Infantry's First Brigade which is on it's third deployment to Iraq. A preview is posted at YouTube. The earlier broadcast of interviewing the Third Infantry's First Brigade can be found here. And NOW is offering an online exclusive of interviews with members of the Third Infantry and their spouses.
 


Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

Other Items

Ten days after President George Bush clasped his hand as a symbol of America's hopes in Iraq, the man who led the US-supported revolt of Sunni sheikhs against al-Qa'ida in Iraq was assassinated.
Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha and two of his bodyguards were killed either by a roadside bomb or by explosives placed in his car by a guard, near to his home in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, the Iraqi province held up by the American political and military leadership as a model for the rest of Iraq.
His killing is a serious blow to President Bush and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who have both portrayed the US success in Anbar, once the heart of the Sunni rebellion against US forces, as a sign that victory was attainable across Iraq.
On Monday General Petraeus told the US Congress that Anbar province was "a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose al-Qa'ida and reject its Taliban-like ideology".
But yesterday's assassination underlines that Iraqis in Anbar and elsewhere who closely ally themselves with the US are in danger of being killed. "It shows al-Qa'ida in Iraq remains a very dangerous and barbaric enemy," General Petraeus said in reaction to the killing. But Abu Risha might equally have been killed by the many non al-Qa'ida insurgent groups in Anbar who saw him as betraying them.


The above is from Patrick Cockburn's "An assassination that blows apart Bush's hopes of pacifying Iraq" (Independent of London). If you missed it, earlier this week Cockburn reported on the bragging David Petraeus had done about wanting to become president. (Of the United States, not Iraq.) And Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reports on some reactions in Anbar:

But messages were being posted on international jihadist websites exulting at the end of "the traitor and apostate". One called him "one of the biggest pigs of the Crusaders".
The killing took place on the first day of the holy month of Ramadan, and on the eve of the first anniversary of the founding of the Anbar Salvation Council, a tribal alliance led by the sheikh, which had been battling al-Qa'ida fighters in the western province with some success. Last night Anbar was under a state of emergency with the routes to Jordan and Syria closed down and US reinforcement on standby to be airlifted to the area.
The attack on the sheikh was followed by a car bombing in Baghdad, the first in the Iraqi capital for more than a week, killing four people and injuring 12 others, leading to fears of an escalation of violence during Ramadan, which has become the norm in Iraq.


Reuters notes a house guard "of a senior army officer in central Hilla" was shot dead (another injured), a woman was shot dead in Hawija with her daughter in injured in the attack and, in Balad, the corpses "of a police officer and a local judge" were discovered. In addition, Reuters reports a truck bombing in Baijia where "at least seven" police officers are dead though one official says the death toll is ten police officers.


And remember, on PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio: this week (Friday's on most PBS stations), the program expands to an hour for a special look at the Third Infantry's First Brigade which is on it's third deployment to Iraq. A preview is posted at YouTube. The earlier broadcast of interviewing the Third Infantry's First Brigade can be found here. And NOW is offering an online exclusive of interviews with members of the Third Infantry and their spouses.

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

now with david branccacio
pbs
patrick cockburn

"The president was conciliatory Thursday in the face of Iraqi failure" (Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers)

Our "success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home," the president said.
Largely gone from the president's speech Thursday was his January insistence that the Iraqi government meet 18 benchmarks and sort out its differences on the most divisive issues in Iraq.
In January, the talk was tough: "America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced," Bush said then. "I've made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act."
The president was conciliatory Thursday in the face of Iraqi failure.

[. . .]
And in January, he asked Americans for "more patience, sacrifice and resolve."
In Thursday's speech, he did the same.


The above is from Nancy A. Youssef's "New Iraq plan recalls strategies past" (McClatchy Newspapers). Translation, more of the same from the addict who can't break the chain. Writing before the speech (and apparently before news of the assassination), Tony Karon notes the following of the mytical 'model' province in "Treading Water in Iraq" (Time magazine):


But the groups with which the U.S. is cooperating in Anbar are not only outside of the Iraqi government; they are actively opposed to it, seeing it as a Shi'ite entity beholden to Iran. Such cooperation helps deal with the problem of al-Qaeda in Iraq -- a brutal presence, to be sure, but still a minority element in the overall Sunni insurgency -- but it doesn't necessarily reinforce national reconciliation.
If the U.S. is forced to make such local-level arrangements to deal with local-level problems, that's because the central government is an ineffective vehicle for the U.S. agenda, or, indeed, for any sort of governance right now. Having conceded to the principle of Iraqi sovereignty, however, Washington is in no position to change Iraq's government.



Meanwhile, remember the cholera outbreak in northern Iraq? Maybe not. It's been so long since so munch of the press has filed from Iraq as dailies instead elected to follow the pre-dog & pony show and then the dog & pony show (and probably will continue with the dog show last night). The World Health Organization says it is spreading and Reuters quotes Fadela Chaib (WHO) explaining, "The cholera outbreak has now infected 16,000 people including 10 deaths in the provinces of Sulaimaniya, Kirkuk and Erbil in northern Iraq." No matter how anyone tries to play it, the reality is the US government could have (and should have) prevented it by addressing the issues of potable water and sanitation right away. That did not happen. Those were not priorities.

Meanwhile Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports on a new poll that estimates Iraqi deaths have topped one million:

The figure from ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.
The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers.
According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.
ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"
Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.

"The military has said" requires mentioning that the military found a new way to determine civilians deaths from sectarian violence -- shot in the front of the head or the back, as Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported last week and Petraeus did not issue a denial, he just played dumb. That's really required because the administration has repeatedly found new ways of 'counting' when they didn't like the numbers. That is a pattern with them.

The ORB's findings also underscore the embarrassment that is United for Peace & Justice's report which puts foward the claim of "over 600,000 plus" deaths as the highest estimate for the number of Iraqis killed in the illegal war. (It wasn't even the highest estimate in July of 2006, wasn't even the highest estimate in the Lancet study the report is allegedly utilizing.)


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





Thursday, September 13, 2007

And the war drags on . . .

There is far too much porn on the web and the White House insisted tonight on adding more.

Bully Online

If you caught the webcast or the television broadcast of Ugly Bully, you may have wondered why the handlers didn't either provide a larger teleprompter or instruct Bully Boy to wear his glasses? He was perched far too foward. You may have also noted that he read off his lies word . . . for . . . word . . . very . . . slowly . . . Once upon a time, politicians were required to know what they were saying. These days too many use a teleprompter. (That's true of Jack Reed's address as well. It looks stiff -- on both -- and the Dems could have scored a success had they used someone who could've spoken in a normal manner.) "Return on success" -- though not repeated enough (they had to rewrite the speech due to today's events) -- is his "Peace With Honor."

They're both lies, both empty slogans. The dying will continue just as it did after Tricky Dick's January 23, 1973 allowed the killing to continue.


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 3753. Tonight? 3776. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stood at 1,032,938. Tonight? 1,042,599. Aren't you glad the killing stopped? It didn't? Yeah but that really wasn't one of the scripted talking points for the Bully Boy tonight, was it?

Oh, wait! The total number of Iraqis killed in the illegal war is only "600,000 plus" -- right? That's what that nonsense up at United for Peace and Justice says, right? That is really disgusting. We've spoken to two (three?) more groups tonight and this isn't something minor. "Disappearing" the dead is somethng we expect from juntas and from the Bully Boy. We don't expect it from a peace organization. Students are outraged about that and they should be. The question is why wasn't the organization outraged.

This topic is mentioned in today's snapshot (and Rebecca's blogged about it tonight as well). The snapshot goes up at all community sites and I was already pushing it by including someone that Betty and Cedric would rather not be included (they both gave the permission). For some strange reason, variations on "Here's C.I.'s 'Iraq snapshot'" tends to confuse some people visiting other members' sites. So I edited down what was included considerably. There were actually three topics that could have been critiqued. (Kat's grabbed one at her site tonight.) Ava actually gave a quote about another. And that was in one dictated version of the snapshot today. That was pulled (it will go up at The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend) because it was obvious that the issue of Phyllis Benniss and Eric Lever's 'statistics' wasn't going away.

As Rebecca notes, I gave my usual comments which is that I personally like Phyllis Bennis and don't believe she's attempting to lie. I think she's far too concerned about how using a larger (and realistic) number will effect the way she's seen. (There may be another reason and she and UFPJ are certainly encouraged to explain whatever the reason is.) I then stated that though I believed that, it was the last time I intended to offer a defense. People are dying and to pretend that they aren't -- for whatever reasons -- is cowardly. We don't need any more cowardice.

In the original draft, I went on far too long about some things I will note here. No one pays my travel or my lodging. I'm not endebted to anyone. And my goal is not to glorify anyone. (I don't care for Eric Lever and never had. But we've noted him before when members have highlighted him. I do care for Phyllis Bennis and we've noted her when members have highlighted her. We'll continue to note both if members want them noted.) The point of speaking with students (as well as other groups these days) for all these years about the illegal war hasn't been to say, "Phyllis is just great, isn't she?" Or, for that matter, anyone else.

Students think it is either dishonest or cowardly for Lever and Bennis (they know Bennis' name -- she's the one who will suffer fallout if she continues to use an undercount while attempting to present two figures as the lowest estimate and highest estimate) to publish a report this month and use (as the highest) a lower number from July 2006.

You know what? I agree.

We either get serious or we don't, we either get honest or we don't.

Students aren't in the mood for it and I'm not in the mood for it. I have no idea why so many continue to fail the peace movement (disappearing reported deaths is failing the peace movement, FYI). I think a lot of people carved out a space early on that was 'acceptable' and they still remain in that space. The country has moved on.

That's especially true of high school and college students. This illegal war -- and it's illegal -- I held my tongue today on UFPJ's spokesperson who insisted, on Wednesday to Deepa Ferandes, that the war was "immoral" and "unnecessary" but couldn't state the obvious: It's illegal. This illegal war isn't fleeting to young people working on ending it. For people my age or even younger, it may not register but you've got young students who have only really known life as an adult (or teenager) with this illegal war in it.

And they're not needing a Baby Cries A Lot whining that the war is wrong but -- sob-sob -- it has to go on -- sob-sob -- because he has kids (who are not in the military) and -- blubber-blubber -- go to commercial.

They're not interested in that crap.

They're not interested in the right or the left or the squishy center hiding behind the military. All who did that can take credit (whether they want it or not) for Davey Petraeus' success with spin this week because they have done their part to elevate the US military to the level of god in a democracy.

They're more than happy to support Military Families Speak Out, for instance. They don't find it offensive that their focus is the military because (a) they are made up of family members in the military and (b) they demonstrated their independence from the Democratic Party leadership in March when they were calling out the nonsense that finally came down the pike officially this summer when the Dems took away Bully Boy's blank check because they wanted him to use an ATM card instead.

MFSO, like Iraq Veterans Against the War, speak out and speak out strongly. But there are these other organizations which are not speaking out strongly and are so obsessed with spit-polishing the military that they are treating a group that exists solely to get (Democratic) veterans elected as if it was a peace group.

"How stupid do they think I am?" has been the most repeated phrase on campus when students talk about the peace movement. Yeah, the Democrats campaigned on ending the war, won big in the 2006 elections and then did nothing. But the peace movement needs to stop kidding itself that some of their alliances and their endorsements have nothing to do with the peace movement.

A good example is that hideous film by the non-documentary, non-filmmaking centrist who supported the illegal war before it began and still thinks that US troops need to stay in Iraq. That's not a secret. Any student who is active against the illegal war knows No End In Sight exists to sell illegal war. But some supposed peace organizations have felt the need to praise that nonsense. To encourage people to use their "hard earned money" (another key phrase on campuses in the last year) to buy that crappy film and most students have heard an interview with the man or heard of an interview with the man where he's talking about how US forces need to remain in Iraq.

We speak at private universities, at state universities and at community colleges. That's in the north, in the south, in the east, in the west and in the center of the country. Now maybe people don't do that or maybe they just deliver a speech and have a brief Q&A after. But the answer to the question that's repeated by students over and over ("How stupid do they think I am?") is that students aren't stupid at all. And they're not bound by this let's-make-nice attitude.

Nor should they be. They're either being taught or have recently learned about what a democracy is supposed to mean in the United States and they're appalled by what they see the administration carrying out and by what passes for 'criticism' of it.

A popular question is why Matthew Rothschild comes off so much more aware than ____ (many names to that comparison) does? My answer is always, "I don't know. I would guess it's because he's not a desk jockey hiding in an office and he's not rushing off to this think tank or that talking point session. He's talking with people and interacting." Too much of independent media (and, yes, the most oft cited on this by students is The Nation) appears not to trust or even like the people. It probably passes for bravery on the dinner chat set but it has no connection with the lives of people outside of a limited circle. Students are sick of it and they can relate to Matthew Rothschild or Alexander Cockburn (two different types of voices) because neither is trying to hype them or convince them things aren't that bad and, besides, just trust in Democrats and believe and click your heels three times . . .

I am far, far, far beyond my student years. I am not a spokesperson for today's students. But I do and have listened to them and they aren't apathetic or any of the nonsense slurs that All Things Media Big and Small have tossed at them. In fact, they're more on the ball than many independent media voices.

In February 2003 (when I started visiting campuses to speak with students about the illegal war), they were all convinced that the big, global rally was going to stop the illegal war. But it didn't. They had been hyped to believe that. There was a tremendous letdown in the months after. That's why here -- even if could, and members wouldn't let me -- we're not going to promote a "magic bullet" theory of "This is the single answer to end the illegal war!" I've seen what that nonsense does and I won't take part in it.

For years, they have heard of the alleged 'disconnect' between their lives and a country at war. They've gone from politely pointing out that the disonnect with the illegal war is from the media, not from them. And they are exactly right. One of Pacifica's failures -- and there's no other word for it except "failure" -- is that they have failed to provide a program whose scope is the illegal war. As a young woman said tonight, "Oh sure, now that 'the story' is Iraq, alternative media is covering it but we all know that in three weeks they'll be off on something else again." And we do all know that. We have all seen that if we pay attention.

It's going to be really cute when FAIR writes their year end story (or delivers it on CounterSpin) about how big media jumped the primaries by covering the horse race (not the issues) like it was the most important issue in 2007. As a young man pointed out yesterday, "How are they going to do that without calling out the little magazines?" He listed off several.
And we've pointed out here that before the 2006 elections took place, John Nichols had already filed his first 2008 Democratic primary piece. In place of Iraq, we've gotten the primaries. And not in a way that told us anything about the candidates. Today (as Kat points out) the big question was, if Juan Gonzalez hadn't pointed out (on Democracy Now!) that Obama wasn't calling for Troops Home Now was Nichols going to get around to making that point? From what he was saying before Gonzalez jumped in, it didn't sound like it. And that's been the reality all along for the bulk of the coverage. If there's any candidate that meets independent media's stated goals (any declared candidate running for their party's presidential nomination) it is Dennis Kucinich and yet, strangely, that hasn't resulted in massive coverage of Kucinich's stance on the issues or in even massive gas bag coverage of Kucinich. When an independent media writer takes to the airwaves to argue Barack Obama is qualified for president because he was president of Harvard's Law Review, the disconnect is with the speaker and reality. And it's there for everyone to notice.

Newer groups like Tina Richards' Grassroots of America, Military Families Speak Out and Iraq Veterans Against the War (there are others, SDS is picking up speed to name one that is student driven) or World Can't Wait speak to students because their stands are firm. They don't suddenly back off the issue of the illegal war because it might make Democrats in Congress uncomfortable. They have no respect for people who provide cover to politicians who are not doing what they should be doing (representing the people) and they have even less respect for 'leaders' who make strong statements and then quickly back off.

Is that really any surprise? Have voters of all ages not expressed their own distaste for the politicians who come on strong making the correct points and, then, when slapped down by Republicans and/or the press, immediately cave?

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












Iraq snapshot

Thursday, September 13, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, the 'model' province suffers a setback, Bully Boy is in wardrobe and makeup preparing for his live comedy bit on American television tonight, energies move towards DC for the actions including the "die in" on Saturday led by IVAW, UFPJ releases a report that doesn't please all student activists, and more.
 
Starting with war resisters and returning to the roundtable where Brian Lenzo and Kyle Brown (US Socialist Worker) speak with war resister Eli Israel, war resister Camilo Mejia and Phil Aliff.  Lenzo and Brown asked Mejia and Israel why they made a decision to resist?
Mejia replies, "I got tired of being afraid.  I realized that with everything that happened in Iraq -- and a lot of messed-up sh*t happened, from the torture of prisoners to the killing of civilians to the unnecessary exposure of our own troops -- and the inability to stand for what I believed was the right thing to do, and being there with the political conviction that the war was wrong, freedom really has nothing to do with not being in shackles or chains but with your own ability to do what you believe in your heart to be the right thing to do.  I had to overcome my fear.  I knew all along what the right thing was but I hadn't had the freedom to act upon that belief.  It got to the point where I could no longer conciliate my conscience with my military duty, and I decided that whenever being a good soldier and being a good human being came into conflict, the right thing to do was be a good human being."
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko,Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, 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 The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
 
 
 
Resistance is ongoing in the US and gearing up for Saturday, September 15th (see ANSWER for more information) mass protests will be taking place in DC and IVAW will lead a "die-in". This will be part of a several days of action lasting from the 15th through the 18th. September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting. CODEPINK will be conducting a Peoples March Inside Congress (along with other groups and individuals) on September 17th. United for Peace & Justice (along with others) will begin Iraq Moratorium on September 21st and follow it every third Friday of the month as people across the country are encouraged to wear and distribute black ribbons and armbands, purchase no gas on those Fridays, conduct vigils, pickets, teach-ins and rallies, etc
 
The September 15th March to Stop the War will take place in DC (meet up at noon in front of the White House) and a mood of police brutality appears to be settling over the US capital.  Last week Tina Richards and Adam Kokesh took part in a peacefull press conference in Lafayette Square that police felt the need to break up.  Richards and Kokesh both attempted to put up flyers for the March on fhe 15th and, for that 'crime,' were subjected to extreme force.  Richards has declared, "I have been asked if knowing all that would happen, the intimidation, the injuries and pending legal costs, would I do it again. 'Yes,' I have answered. 'Any day is a good day for the first amendment'."  On Monday, attempting to hear Davey Petraeus give testimony to the House, Rev. Lennox Yearwood (IVAW and Hip Hop Congress) was attacked.  He spoke with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales (Democracy Now!) about what he experienced:
 
 
REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.:  Well, on September 10, I went to hear the hearing,
[. . .] So I was going in, in essence, to make government more transparent. It was also critical for me as a person of color to be in the room to report back to my community. But instead, when I got there, I was waiting in line. I was standing there. I had to do a radio interview. I asked the officer, I said, "Can I step out of line for a second to do an interview?" He said, "No problem." I did my interview. I came back to the line. I got back in the line. I was waiting. And then, all of a sudden -- it was somewhat suspicious -- another officer came down, was passing out blue post-it notes. And as he was coming in the line, he actually came to me and actually Colonel Ann Wright, who was standing with me. It was amazing. The two officers who were going in to hear General Petraeus, he actually told us both, "You can't get in," and then walked past us. And so, me and Colonel Ann Wright looked at each other and said, "Why can't we get in?" He said, "You can't get in." And so, we went up forward, and we kept walking to the front of the line and said, "Why are we being denied?" "You just can't get in." And so, somebody came and passed one of the blue post-it notes to Colonel Wright and put it in her hand. And she showed it to him. "I didn't give you that." She said, "I know. Why can't we get in?" He said, "Well, OK, you can get in." And she said, "What about Reverend Yearwood?" He said, "No, he can't get in." And that's when it started. I said, "Why are you singling me out? What is going on?" It's important to know. We have this huge rally at the White House, and a march to the Capitol is coming Saturday. And I know my picture is on the flier. But regardless, I asked, "Why are you singling me out?"  At that point in time, they became to be aggressive, and they got around me. And I said that -- "You're going to be arrested." I said, "What am I going to be arrested for? What have I done? I just want to go inside and hear the hearing for myself." At that point in time, one came behind me, said, "You're going to be arrested." And then somebody grabbed me on my shoulder. And I kind of turned. Amy, by the time I turned, I was on the ground. And I actually just felt myself going headfirst into the concrete.  [. . .]  And so, when they pulled out of -- they actually didn't pull me out. They just stopped me from getting in, and they wouldn't tell me why. They just stopped me. What was worse, when they leaped on me, started to beat me in the halls of Congress. And I say, here I am, a former officer lying in the halls of Congress, while there's another officer in the hearing lying to the Congress. And here I am just lying and being beaten. I couldn't understand.
 
The YouTube video of the assault of Yearwood is played on Democracy Now! and will in the DN! archive even if vanishes from YouTube at some point.  Yearwood being thrown to the ground and assaulted in the Capitol by the Capitol police is and should be shocking.  It is also part of a rising pattern.  As The Third Estate Sunday Review editorialized Sunday, "What happened to Richards, Kokesh, Thompson and the rest -- including the press -- should be seen as the seminal moment it is. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. And if you don't call this out, be prepared for the next Ohio because it will come bit by bit.  Get angry. And don't use stuff the anger, let it fuel you to make demands of your elected representatives, to practice civil disobedience and to insist that the illegal war be ended and Bully Boy be impeached. If you don't know where to start, many trying to make a difference will be gathering in DC on September 15th." 
 
Tonight Ugly Bully follows Ugly Betty in primetime as Bully Boy -- currently at a 36% approval rating in the latest CNN poll "unchanged from an August poll and barely above where it was in January" -- attempts to resell his illegal war all over again.  But there's a problem with the sales pitch.  The "model province" was Al-Anbar Province (if you believed the soft and easy press -- that was never reality).  And now . . . a plot twist.
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Sheikh Sattar Abo Risha, the head of Anbar awakening council was killed in an IED explosion targeted his armed car near his house in Ramadi city today afternoon.  Abo Risha's nephew, his aid and two of his guards were killed in the explosion."  Jay Price and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explain that the late Sheikh "lunched with President Bush during the president's brief visit to Anbar just 10 days ago" and that this "was the second assassination of Anbar tribal leaders key to the anti-al Qaida rebellion that has become the Bush administration's No. 1 example of progress in Iraq.  In June, four sheiks of the Anbar Salvation Council were killed along with eight other people when a suicide bomber slipped past security at a Baghdad hotel and detonated a bomb he was wearing."  The BBC summarizes their correspondent in Baghdad, Hugh Sykes, evaluation of the "severe blow" of the assassination as: "It may undermine the new movement against al-Qaeda in Iraq, he says, or it could strengthen resolve to resist the insurgents, who are regarded by an increasing number of people in Anbar as unwelcome invaders."  Steve Negus (Financial Times of London) offers that "Abu Risha assumed a high profile, appearing on television as a symbol and spokesman of the movement while making public appearances in and around Ramadi, as if daring al-Qaeda to kill him.  His death might deter others from taking a similarly public role.  Without a charismatic spokesman willing to be the Anbar Salvation Council's public face, the movement's morale could falter."  Martin Fletcher (Times of London) writes, "The Times has interviewed Sheikh Sittar twice in the past year.  Urbane, chain-smoking and impeccably dressed in long white robes and headdress, he was a sheikh from central casting. . . .  During the second interview, two weeks ago, as his three children played on the grass, he joked about how his grandfather had fought the British in the colonial era.  When I asked how many times he had escaped assassination he laughed.  'Many times.  I can't count,' he replied, as his children played on the lawn in front of him."  Al Jazeera's correspondent James Bays declares, "This is a man who had a controversial past, but in recent months he has become a very prominent figure even meeting George Bush."  CBS and AP note that no one has come forward to claim credit or "responsibility for the assassination" and that "[p]rivately, two U.S. officials said earlier that his assassination would be a huge setback for U.S. efforts in Iraq, because it sends a message to others who are cooperating with coalition forces or thinking about cooperating against al Qaeda."  CNN notes, "It is unclear if the bomb was remotely detonated or triggered by the convoy."
 
In other violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 4 lives and left ten more wounded, and a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left three injured. Reuters notes a Falluja roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer (two more injured)
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters reports a police officer was shot dead in Mosul with four others wounded,
 
Corpses?
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 11 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
 
Yesterday in another softball interview conducted by Anderson Cooper (CNN) in Iraq (where are the charges that he's just in Iraq for the ratings?), Cooper counted it a success that he was able to get the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki to concede that "there is a problem in parliament, in ministries, in how ministries are selected . . . ." Coops was so thrilled about it that he forgot to point out the heads of all cabinets (ministries) were appointed by whom?  al-Maliki.  And as Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) observed today, "The apparent collapse comes amidst a new White House effort to convince lawmakers US goals in Iraq are being achieved. Pushing through a new oil law has been high on the list."  What?  As James Glanz (New York Times) noted, the theft of Iraqi oil appears on hold and al-Maliki is convinced that "there is a simpler reason the Sunnis abandoned or at least held off on the deal: signing it would have given Mr. Maliki a political success that they did not want him to have."  Glanz white washes the reality of the law that would provide for the theft of Iraqi oil, but that's the Times for you, right?  Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) notes that "Iraq's oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani" declared the proposed deal between Hunt Oil Company and the Kurdish north "illegal." 
 
Turning to other news, Wednesday on WBAI's Wakeupcall Radio, Sue Udry (United For Peace and Justice) spoke with Deepa Fernades about [PDF format warning] "Iraq: The People's Report" which details a number of issues including the Iraqi refugee crisis, the lack of power and potable water.  Udry noted, "We're up close to half a trillion dollars -- five hundred billion dollars spent in Iraq. And the Bush administration is asking -- we're still not sure how much more he wants.  But between 140 and 200 billion more.  But that-that five-hundred billion could have been spent on for example, in the US could have built, over 4 million affordable housing units we could have paid 7 million public school teachers, we could have insured 272 million unisured childred."
 
The report  has many strong points.  But it's already led to complaints on campuses we've spoken at this week.  The question students want to know (wording it nicely here): Is there a reason Phyllis Bennis and Eric Lever low ball the number of Iraqis who have lost their lives?  "Estimates range from 71,017-600,000+" is shameful.  If they're going to go with the lower estimate (Iraq Body Count) it is incumbent upon Bennis and Lever to use the correct number from the Lancet Study which WAS NOT six-hundred-thousand-plus.  It was 655,000-plus. [PDF format warning] "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey" was written by Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy and Les Roberts.  From the third paragraph of the summary: "We estimate that as of July 2006, there have been 654 965 (392979-942636) which corresponds to 2-5% of the population in the study area."  The number is 654,965 and that was the number through July 2006 -- last year.  In October of 2006, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) began the interview she and Juan Gonzalez conducted with Les Brown noting, "More than 650,000 people have died in Iraq since the U.S. led invasion of the country began in March of 2003.  This is according to a new study published in the scientific journal, The Lancet.  The studdy was conducted by researches at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad."  On March 27th of this year, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "BBC News is reporting the British government ignored the conclusions of its own experts when it dismissed a medical studdy estimating more than 650,000 Iraqis have died due to the Iraq war.  The study appeared in the British medical journal the Lancet last year.  Researches based their findings on interviews with a random sampling of households taken in clusters across Iraq.  In newly-released memos, the chief scientific adviser at Britain's Ministry of Defence called the researcher's methods 'close to best practice' and 'robust.'  Both the US and Britain publicly rejected the study and criticized its methods."
 
That may be understandable from government liars.  It is not understandable from peace groups. What could have been a strong resource for UFPJ has instead become a source of mockery or a source of anger on several college campuses.  And you know what?  The students are right to be angry.  Saying 600,000 is dishonest. And the number was over 600,000 in July of 2006 -- over a year ago.  Things like getting the numbers wrong (intentionally) go a long way towards explaining why so many students against the illegal war are writing off the established peace movement.  This is the warning and groups can heed it or they can ignore it.  But stunts like that are exactly why students are washing their hands of a number of groups and see them as inherently useless.  (The authors of the report should also be paying attention to the reaction.  Especially Bennis because she's better known and that's not a good thing in this instance.) 
 
1,040,369 is the current estimate of Iraqis killed during the illegal war.  That number is via Just Foreign Policy which uses the Lancet study as well as the deaths reported since then -- and notes that all deaths are not reported so the number is higher than their estimate.   In September of 2007, you need to do better than offer up a number from July of 2006 (which you still get wrong) and when you don't, you better accept the questions you're inviting about exactly how much value you place on Iraqi lives because the student movement has moved beyond the nonsense that's being pushed off on them.  They're not the timid crowd and they're not going to take direction from anyone but especially not from those they don't trust.  Something as basic as the numbers leads to questions, not trust.
 
 
Finally, on PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio: this week (Friday's on most PBS stations), the program expands to an hour for a special look at the Third Infantry's First Brigade which is on it's third deployment to Iraq. A preview is posted at YouTube. The earlier broadcast of interviewing the Third Infantry's First Brigade can be found here. And NOW is offering an online exclusive of interviews with members of the Third Infantry and their spouses.
 
 


Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.