The Common Ills: 2007-12-30

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Ruth's Report

Ruth (of Ruth's Report): This week, CounterSpin offered a look back at the year 2007. The first thing I noticed was that Janine Jackson's voice sounded as hoarse as it did last week, so I hope the broadcast was pre-recorded immediately after the week prior's broadcast and that she does not have a cold so nasty that it has lasted for two weeks now. In her introduction to the best-of special, Ms. Jackson attempted to put both the year itself and what CounterSpin offered into perspective.

Janine Jackson: As usual CounterSpin tried to bring you guests -- activists, researchers, and journalists -- that had an angle on events that we thought worth hearing and, more often than not, one you weren't hearing many other places.

The reality is that no activists were brought on. They have never done a show on war resisters, they have never interviewed Cindy Sheehan, Tina Richards, or any other similar activists. Some journalists may also be involved in "media reform" or other actions which might allow them to be billed as "journalist and activist" and, of course, they had "actor and activist" Mike Farrell on to plug his new book. But no activists were brought on the show.

Considering the huge failure in 2007 to tell the stories of war resisters, it especially bears noting that an actor I really have not seen since the seventies sitcom M*A*S*H went off the air could be brought on but a war resister, someone who actually needed coverage due to the issue, could not and would not be umbrella-ed under the categories of "guests, activists, researchers, and journalists." It is not a minor point.

The format for the best-of show was that Ms. Jackson or Peter Hart would appear before selected clips from past segments providing new introductions.

Peter Hart: After the mid-term elections of 2006, the conventional wisdom told us that the public had voted to say something about the Iraq War. Namely, they wanted it to end. But at the start of 2007 the press was pushing a very different message -- an escalation of the war.

That is to introduce the first clip, an interview with Alexander Cockburn. But there is a more serious issue raised by Hart's comments. If, as he believes, Big Media was attempting to re-sell the illegal war "at the start of 2007," then CounterSpin, and other outlets, should have spent a large portion of 2007 calling it out. But that did not happen. So maybe Ms. Jackson should allow some of the blame she passes around, "thanks in no small part to the efforts by some in the media," to fall out at CounterSpin's doorstep?

Ms. Jackson sets up the second segment and it was a laugh riot. She tells us that "independent reporters covering the war have done a remarkable job filling in the gaps." Were we about to hear from Patrick Cockburn or the correspondents of Alive In Baghdad? No, it was
the reporter who was supposed to return to Iraq in the summer of 2006 but, like the rest of independent media, got diverted by Lebanon which is where what-should-have-been-called Lebanon Dispatches were filed from that summer. Introducing the guest for an October 2007 interview, Ms. Jackson said "He talked to us about one such story he pursued." The story? A January 2004 story. In October of 2007. The guest was on to plug a book. He was not on to discuss, in October 2007, what he had seen in Iraq in 2007 because he had not been in Iraq. So I did not see "a remarkable job filling in the gaps," I heard a left-over story about January 2004 when the mainstream would not address the issue the reporter wanted covered. A left-over? I heard about that in 2004. I heard about that in 2005. I heard about it in 2006. Apparently CounterSpin thought they were offering something of value because the by-now-dated reports, several years old, had been gathered in book form.

The illegal war, as Mr. Hart and Ms. Jackson seemed aware, was being resold in 2007. Was the way for independent media to combat that by dropping back to 2004?

I have no idea what The Washington Post's Dana Priest or Ann Scott Tyson ever did to Ms. Jackson. But Ms. Jackson has such a beef with them that I often picture that one night, in a grocery store, there was only one loaf of bread left and Ms. Priest and Ms. Scott Tyson grabbed it before Ms. Jackson who has since decided she will never forgive them for that.

Janine Jackson: In February and March, a series of reports in The Washington Post about treatment of wounded Iraq War vets caused a serious political controversy. Suddenly, the issue was front and center in the political debate over the war. There was no shortage of praise for The Post's work with some suggesting that lead reporter Dana Priest was all but assured a Pulitzer Prize. But the story was, in many respects, an old one reported for years at U.P.I. and Salon.com by journalist Mark Benjamin. He joined CounterSpin in March to talk about why this story was kept out of the press for so long. The military put pressure on media outlets that were trying to report on healthcare for the vets and many reporters simply fell for the p.r. tours of military hospitals.

Were Ms. Priest to win a deserved Pulitzer Prize for the series, Ms. Scott Tyson would likely win as well since they were a team on the series. The two women deserve much praise as does the paper for running the series -- one that they have continued to provide updates on. Ms. Jackson is aware that U.P.I. fell in respect with the purchase of the wire service by the Moonies, correct? As late as 2005, Mr. Benjamin was still with U.P.I. As questionable as the outlet is, it bears noting that it is a wire service and still among the biggest. If Mr. Benjamin could not raise enough attention on the issue while at a mainstream wire service there are a number of factors involved including that, as late as 2005, Mr. Benjamin's stories "on the wounded" revolved around their being flown in the dark of night to be kept out of the press which is a far cry from the points raised in The Post series about what was happening at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital. Mr. Benjamin, when he amplified his reporting in other outlets, focused primarily on the fact that the wounded were hidden and that PTSD was being under noted. The Post series dealt with the run-down facilities and the long waits for bad care. Is the difference clear to Ms. Jackson or will she continue 2008 in what appears to be a repeated attempt to settle some long held grudge against Ms. Priest and Ms. Scott Tyson?

At less than seven minutes into the best-of, they were done with Iraq which pretty much reflects CounterSpin's 'coverage' of the illegal war for 2007.

So, picking their bests, what CounterSpin summed up 2007 with was Mr. Cockburn's comments that the illegal war was being resold, a journalist who left Iraq long ago, and Mr. Benjamin was-there-first! It should probably be noted that "first" does not include when CounterSpin provided him as a guest "for years," specifically in June 17, 2005. He was on that broadcast to discuss the inflation of fatalities by the U.S. military of Iraqi 'insurgents' the U.S. military claimed they had killed. Equally true is that CounterSpin's 'parent,' FAIR, elected to highlight Mr. Benjamin's Salon reports at their website prior to 2007. One was on the waivers granted to allow people to enlist that did not qualify otherwise (February 2006), while the other was about the Abu Ghraib photos (March 2006). Possibly, if Mr. Benjamin did not receive his credit for his work on covering the wounded, part of that reason goes to CounterSpin and FAIR's inability to amplify it?

The inability to amplify would include the Iraq War which could always be passed over. In a June 21st "Iraq snapshot," C.I. wrote about:

"Independent Report on Iraq" co-authored by James Paul and Celine Nahory with Paul noting of the report: "While most people focus on the sectarian bloodshed, our report highlights the enormous violence of the occupation forces. There is an increasing air war that results in heavy casualties as well as the daily killing of civilians at checkpoints, during house searches, by snipers, and by ground bombardment. Nearly a million Iraqis have died due to the effects of the occupation and 4 million have fled their homes. . . . Under the control or influence of U.S. authorities, public funds in Iraq have been drained by massive corruption and stolen oil, leaving the country unable to provide basic services and incapable of rebuilding. The U.S. government has repeatedly violated many international laws, but top officials reject any accountability."The [PDF format warning] 117 paged "Independent Report on Iraq" can be accessed in full or by section:
Executive Summary [Read] [French]
Map of Major Coalition Attacks, Bases and Prisons [See map]
Political Map of Iraq [See map]
1. Introduction [Read]
2. Destruction of Cultural Heritage [Read]
3. Indiscriminate and Especially Injurious Weapons [Read]
4. Unlawful Detention [Read]
5. Abuse and Torture of Prisoners [Read]
6. Attacks on Cities [Read]
7. Killing Civilians, Murder and Atrocities [Read]
8. Displacement and Mortality [Read]
9. Corruption, Fraud and Gross Malfeasance [Read]
10. Long-Term Bases and the New Embassy Compound [Read]
11. Other Issues [Read]
- Iraqi Public Opinion and the Occupation- Cost of the War and Occupation
12. Conclusion and Recommendations [Read]
Focusing on Chapter 6 ("Attack on Cities") because Norman Solomon has been sounding the alarm about the air war for some time now (Solomon is a member of IPA), we learn of the collective punishments on cities which are judged or just guessed to be 'insurgent strongholds.' (Being against the occupation is often enough to get you judged 'insurgent.') Once that judgement/guess has been made the process usually begins with razor wire, sanbags, and various barricades being utilized to 'wall off' the city in question while US troops gather around it and "seize control of all movement into and out . . . including goods and supplies, water, food, medicines and emergency assistance of all kinds. This 'sealing off' strategy seeks to isolate insurgents and show ordinary civilians the heavy cost of not cooperating." Citizens are then encouraged to leave (and we've seen that with the reporting of the current actions in the Diyala province). Those who can (and that generally does not include all males of the city) do and as they become refugees, their city becomes a free-fire zone. As the US military cuts off water, power and anything else, they also cut off access to journalists not in bed (to steal Amy Goodman's term) with the military. And then comes the bombings:
Coalition forces have inflicted prolonged and intense air and ground bombardment on these cities, destroying thousands of homes, shops, mosques, clinics and schools, and inevitably -- killing and injuring many civilians. The strategy of indiscriminate and massive bombardment, in advance of ground offensives, has reduced the number of Coalition casualties, at a heavy cost in life and injury to the remaining Iraqi city residents. The Washington Post reported that in Falluja, an "official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described 12 hours of overnight strikes by American helicopters, fighter-bombers, field artillery and tanks as 'shaping operations.' Military commanders use the term as shorthand for battlefield preparation, combat operations specifically intended to remove enemy strong points in advance of an assault. In the second assault on Falluja, the air strikes began on October 15, the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and continued for three weeks prior to the assault of November 7. In Najaf, US Marines bombarded the cemetary near the famous Imam Ali Shrine as well as much of the city center, in a massive attack backed by aircraft and tanks. In Ramadi, US forces carried out intensive bombardment, targeting the city's power stations, water treatment facilities, and water pipes, leaving many destroyed houses and no civilian services functioning.US military bombardment has destroyed large areas of the cities. Reports have confirmed that whole neighborhoods have been leveled and elsewhere just hulks of buildings stand. "Those who have witnessed US aircraft firing missiles into packed tenements in Sadr City, and have seen the resulting carnage, treat claims of 'precision strikes' . . . with deep skepticism" commented the London-based Independent newspaper.
Air strikes and artillery bombardment are typically indiscriminate. According to an Iraq Body Count study on different types of weapons, aircraft attacks have been responsible for the largest proportion of children killed. In addition to massive bombardment with high explosives, there is clear evidence of the use of indiscriminate and especially injurious weapons, particularly incendiaries, in these ferociously violent campaigns.

That is a lengthy excerpt from a snapshot. But it is necessary because that important report was noted on CounterSpin's June 22nd broadcast in an interview with co-author Celine Nahory for a little less than eight minutes, it was the final segment.

That did not rate a best-of moment?

It was important to include Mr. Benjamin, obviously, because there are grudges still unresolved, and for some reason it was important to include a White male talking about what happened three years prior, in 2004. But a report that broke ground in 2007, about realities in 2007, and a guest who was both a woman and had an accent did not make the cut of best-of.

Listening to the half-hour special, it was obvious that the program needed to highlight as many female guests and non-White ones as possible but that thought did not occur to those compiling the broadcast. They did not find Ms. Nahory or her report a "best of" moment, but I do and, via the June 22nd "Iraq snapshot," I will offer an excerpt they left on the cutting room floor this week:

Janine Jackson: Well, I want to draw you out on another issue in the report -- there are many of them, of course -- but you talked about attacks on cities and I think many people, of course, as we've mentioned may believe that the 'coalition' is in the position of mainly defending or protecting but I think they still could tell you that the US-led 'coalition' did fiercely attack the city of Falluja. I think most people remember that but that would be a very incomplete picture, wouldn't it?

Celine Nahory: Well, at the very moment the US is actually imposing another siege on Falluja. There were two in 2004 and there is one going on right now -- for about a month now. But Falluja is absolutely not the only city on which there have been assaults. Part of the "anti-insurgency operation" that the US is pursuing in Iraq. A dozen other cities have suffered: Najaf, Tal Afar, Samarra, al Qaim, Haditha, Ramadi, Baquba, many others. And this is not something that happened here and there. It's really ongoing operations. And usually those operations follow the same pattern where the city is sealed off, a very harsh curfew is imposed, residents are encouraged to leave resulting in massive displacement of people. After awhile they assume that those who stay inside are only 'insurgents' and they cut water, food, electricity, medical supplies and carry massive bombardments on urban households and this destructs a very large part of the city. Reports say that more than 75% of the city of Falluja lies in ruins today. And many of those occasions, the US military has taken over medical facitilies such as hospitals. In those cities, very often hospitals are the tallest building in those cities. So the US takes them over and puts snipers on top and you have once again control over the city or neighborhoods.

After the excerpt, C.I. will note that Ms. Jackson maintained she saw no coverage of the report outside of A.F.P. which, I would argue, is all the more reason it should have been included in the best-of.

iraq
counterspin

tina richards
ruths report
the common ills

Why one lie begats another

I this morning's New York Times, you should probably first turn to the portrait of life in Baghdad which includes a woman describing how the Bremer walls have not made her feel any safer but have made her worry about mobility and possible escape from death squads and/or bombings, or maybe you should go with the article where the paper took local water and sent it off to be tested in a lab to dtermine the safety value? Then there's the piece on the pollution in the Tigris that they covered before about four years ago but it's still worth a read. The violence round-up for Friday . . .

Oh wait, none of that appears. Not even steno notes from a military press conference.

Not one damn word appears in the paper on Iraq.

This is the second Saturday the Times has pulled this crap. Years and years from now, when someone too young to live through says, "I can't believe how long that war lasted. What was it like? Was the country up in arms?" Just reply back that the people were but the press didn't give a damn. But word it well so you don't look as foolish as ___ (see Ruth's upcoming report on that, she plans to post it here late tonight).

CNN reports:

Two U.S. soldiers who died last month in Iraq were apparently shot to death by an Iraqi soldier during a combined U.S. and Iraqi Army operation, the U.S. military said.
"For reasons that are as yet unknown, at least one Iraqi Army soldier allegedly opened fire killing Capt. Rowdy Inman and Sgt. Benjamin Portell, both of whom were assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment," the military said in a statement released Saturday.
Three other U.S. soldiers and a civilian interpreter were wounded in the attack, the military said.

You got to read it to believe it. Not for the incident. That's only uncommon if you haven't been paying attention. What you have to read-to-believe is the military's use of "alleged." It's in the excerpt and pops up again.

This is the same group that regularly labels everyone a "terrorist" or an "insurgent." A three-year-old child just killed by a bomb? Must have been a "terrorist" or a one in the making to read the military press releases and the statements to the press.

So what's going on? Did someone finally explain the law to the military's publicity hacks?

No. It's about the fact that this is someone the US military trained.

It's not a concern about fairness or the law. It's about the fact that the term they regularly employ ("terrorst") must not be applied to anyone they train.

Why is that?

"The US military is training terrorists!"

They don't want that cry or reaction getting out.

The reality is that they train deaths squads in Iraq, they arm death squads. They can (and did) brag about "the Salvador option" and no raises an eye brow because (a) most don't know their history and (b) who cares about "those" people? But use "terrorist" and the whole house of cards collapses.

Bully Boy's put forward several lies but the key ones here are probably (1) Us v. them and (2) If 'we' don't fight them over there, the 'terrorists' will follow 'us' back to the US. Because the Baghdad to Miami is one of the most frequently flown routes, you understand.

Both lies depend on (and further) the lie that "we" know best and that "we" can determine readily and easily who's who in Iraq (and, of course, the entire administration rests on those lies -- it's the same justification for illegal torture and imprisonment without the right to trial).

So when someone the US military has trained and the US tax dollars have paid could potentially be labeled a 'terrorist,' it's time to run from the label because the myths that continue to sell the illegal war (and all the programs of the White House) really need to convince people that guilt and innocence do not need to be determined by a legal body -- instead, like Bully Boy peering into Putin's eyes -- it's a snap judgement that can and should be made easily.

That may be one of the lesser explored aspects to his 'power' and 'support.' A scared people (and a willing press) inflated Bully Boy to heroic proportions, granting him abilities that -- even were he a mentally functioning adult -- no adult has. And while events have long tarnished the glow of the Bully Boy, there's a refusal on the part of some (not all) to extend that where it belongs. For instance, exposures of neglect and worse during Hurricane Katrina ended up transferred onto the person of the Bully Boy by some and weren't seen as an indictment upon his entire programs.

But all of his programs depend upon "Trust me." They were never logical, never rooted in science (hard sciences or social sciences). Every policy was a personal one and Bully Boy sold it as such. Now that he's left a filthy ring around the bathtub, some people want to see it as a momentary flaw or just a personal one but exempt the very personal policies he put into place from examination.

That's probably partly due to the fact that it's a huge indictment of the American people. Take any policy, but let's grab the targeting and rounding up of Muslims. Yes, some spoke up in real time. But "some" Americans aren't supposed to speak up when the nation is in crisis -- as we're taught the civic duty and myths of the nation, we're taught that should anything not in our country's character spring up, the nation will of course rise up and stop it.

But Muslims were rounded up. They were taken from their homes and their work (many families had no idea where their husbands, sons or fathers disappeared to) and not because they'd done anything. There was no rule of law, there was no reliance on our legal justice system that we're taught is the 'best in the world!' There was just a policy put in place by a tyrant who thought he knew best and that we-know-best attitude is all the policy ever was. Torture them for information (they were tortured, they didn't have to be sent overseas for that, they were tortured in this country as well). It's okay, "We know best." Move them repeatedly so if the families do find out where a loved one is, a trip to the prison isn't going to result in any kind of a visit because what rights should "terrorists" have. Keep them thrown off balance repeatedly (a torture in and of itself when it's planned) because they have no rights, the Bully Boy has said so, has stripped them of rights. And that's on his say so. There's no legal backing to the crap that was pulled.

Yeah, a bunch of rejects -- a number of whom were implementing the practices they grew up under in nations other than the US -- cobbled together something that might sound like a legal rationale but it had no legal standing and it wasn't based on anything other than Bully Boy's say so.

So it's really important -- and goes beyond the illegal war -- that when a 'terrorist' kills in Iraq, he or she not be someone the US has paid and trained.

When personal judgement falls into question, it raises a whole host of issues that should have been raised a long, long time ago. It questions not just the incident but the entire policies.

That's why it's so very important for the government to repeatedly put out the "few bad apples" lie on Abu Ghraib and other scandals. This isn't a reflection of a policy, you understand, it's a reflection of some deviant flaw in some underling's character.

It's all the same big lie. And it's still told today because it has to be to keep the house of cards from caving in.

Bully Boy and his flunkies are fond of saying "we know" and it can be on any number of topics from Iran to standardized testing. But the reality is they don't "know" because knowledge was never a basis. It was always about personal calls made for personal interests and they cloaked it psuedo-science and pseudo-legalities (like the declaration of the war itself). So when something comes along that questions the entire operation -- that calls into question the personal whims of all these policies -- it's time to double back and use terms like 'alleged.' We saw something similar with Abu Ghraib which the White House knew long before Sy Hersh and 60 Minutes II popularized the story (the story was out there for months before it was popularized -- out there in the public). If the incident doesn't get buried, they'll begin attempting to argue that it's an indictment of a flaw in the 'terrorist''s make up and not an indictment of the policy itself.

It's an indictment of the policy itself. Even with the US training them, they can't determine "good" or "bad." But the entire Iraq policy (including the "Awakening" Council all the way up to who gets installed into puppet leadership) is based on the belief that they can make that judgement call. Not even a "judgement call" because that implies more weight to it. On a whim -- a nation held by prisoner on a whim.

The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:

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

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

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

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

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

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

iraq
the new york times
iraq veterans against the war
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report

Friday, January 04, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Friday, Janurary 4, 2007. Chaos and violence continue and the little state of Iowa leads to a lot of gas baggery.

World Report notes that January 26th is a day for national demonstrations in Canada in support of war resisters, "The date commemorates the day four years ago when Jeremy Hinzman first applied for refugee status in Canada. The Nelson event, which is planned for the United Church, will be held inside because of the harsh January weather. Ryan Johnson suggests 'some light refreshments and a time to write hand written letters with someone delivering them to the post office afterwards. . . It would be a huge statement to have a box full of letters going to parliament. In Tonronto they are mraching to the Canada Post to drop them in the box'."

What's it about? In Canada where some war resisters went to seek asylum, the Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.

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

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

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

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

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

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

Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.

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

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

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

Yesterday, three US service members were announced dead by the US military. How did that play out in the media? To note two outlets, Democracy Now! and the New York Times, not very well. DN! covered the four people who died in Turkey in headlines and didn't note the three US service members killed in Iraq. The New York Times noted both on A9 of this morning's paper. Sabrina Tavernise covered "Bomb Explosion Kills 5 in Kurdish Area in Turkey" -- yes, it got it's own story -- and in a 14 paragraph story by Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Khalid al-Ansary, it was noted in paragraph four: "In another development on Thursday, two American soldiers were shot dead and a third soldier was wounded in Diyala Province, the American military said. On Wednesday a soldier was killed by an improvised bomb south of Baghdad, the first death of an American soldier this year." It's not important to US outlets. It doesn't matter. They know nothing about the five killed in Turkey but that's more important to them. It says a great deal.

Meanwhile Donna St. George (Washington Post) reports on Hannah Gunterman McKinney, a woman serving in Iraq who was killed when the man she had sex (apparently consensual but it's sketchy) with ran her over and how her parents, Barbie and Matt Hearvin, were offered a variety of explanations for the September 4, 2006 death, "Her case would become one in a litany of noncombat deaths in Iraq, which number more than 700, from crashes, suicides, illnesses and accidents that sometimes reveal messy truths about life in the war zone. The cases can be especially brutal for parents who lose a child and struggle to understand why. In McKinney's case, many of the details are in a 1,460-page file and court-martial transcript obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act."

Another woman is the subject of Sanhita SinhaRoy's Q & A (In These Times) where she interviews Iraqi Haifa Zangana who favors the US withdrawing from Iraq immediately ("gradual withdrawal is actually a gradual building of bases in Iraq") and notes of the illegal war:

But here we are with troops, with military occupation, with economic occupation and the cultural occupation. They try to erase our memory, our history, our archaeological sites and kill our civilians.

In four and a half years, we have lost 1 million Iraqis. And that's terminated, physically. We're not talking about the consequences of conventional weapons, the depleted uranium, the phosphorous, the cluster bombs.

As for detentions, the International Red Cross has recorded up to 60,000. And those are security detainees.

Zangana is the author of City of Widows: An Iraqi Woman's Account of War and Resistance, (Seven Stories Press). Today KUNA reports that the UK base in southern Iraq (Basra Airport) was attacked with a missile yesterday.

In other news of violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings (no known casualties) and a tanker bombing in Maysan that claimed the lives of 2 police officers with "others" wounded. Reuters notes an attack by a US helicopter which fired a rocket outside Baghdad and killed 1 person with two more wounded.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a US attack/raid "with air cover" in Najaf that wounded four (on Thursday). Reuters notes an Iraqi was shot dead in Jurf al-Sakhar.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Let's do US presidential politics. Shortly before noon yesterday, the Chris Dodd campaign e-mailed supporters asserting, "We've led in Washignton, D.C. on ending the war in Iraq and restoring the Constitution, but tonight all eyes are focused on Iowa . . . You'll hear from me later tonight. And when we earn that ticket to New Hampshire, I hope you are ready to provide the fuel we need to hit the ground running." Iowa was the first shot (as always) for the country to weigh in (at over 90% Anglo-White, Iowa is veeery representative -- that was sarcasm) and the country weighed in yesterday, Iowans, people posing as Iowans, they made their voices heard the in the corrupt scam that gets trotted out every four years as an example of "democracy." Like Dodd, Joe Biden's campaign declared, "Simply put, the Biden for President campaign will shock the world on Januray 3rd." As The Detroit Free Press reported today, both Biden and Dodd have dropped out of the race. Pay attention to Dodd's departure (it matters in a moment). Before we go further, let's quote Iowa's Secretary of State, "Although not an election, the Iowa Caucuses are the method by which citizens select presidential delegates to the county conventions. The political parties run the caucuses according to party rules. The Iowa Caucuses are not governed by the Secretary of State's Office." Translation, don't blame this on them. In December former editor of The Des Moines Register Gilbert Cranberg, former executive secretary of the state's Freedome of Information Council Herb Strentz and former director of research for The Des Moines Register Glenn Roberts contributed a column to the New York Times entitled "Iowa's Undemocratic Caucuses" noted that, unlike the GOP, the Democratic Party operated in secrecy, "The one-person, one-vote results from each caucus are snail-mailed to party headquarters and placed in a database, never disclosed to the press or made available for inspection." Wayne Ford could (and did) lie on Democracy Now! today that the Iowa represented "the purest form of democracy" but there's no reason everyone else had to go along with it. "We've been doing it since the 60s," he insisted. Exactly why Iowa goes first -- because it is non-reflective and undemocratic and the '60s' is when the system changed. By holding onto Iowa as the "kick off," the party machine tries to control. Make no mistek that's what happens every four years and -- as Wally and Cedric have repeatedly noted, even with the Olympics, they rotate it every four years. With those realities in mind, add, as Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted January 28, 2004, John Kerry, in 2004, was "only the third Democrat in three decades to win both Iowa and New Hampshire in contested races." That's a reality not noted in the press today -- the same press that (big or small) announces it's over for either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton but applaud John McCain who tied for third with a TV actor.

Here are the totals the Iowa Democratic Party says are final:

Senator Barack Obama: 37.58%

Senator John Edwards: 29.75%

Senator Hillary Clinton: 29.47%

Governor Bill Richardson: 2.11%

Senator Joe Bide: .93%

Uncommitted: 0.14%

Senator Chris Dodd: 0.02%

Precincts Reporting: 1781 of 1781

Along with multiple rounds of selection, Iowa's caucus allows those present in the location to know how others are voting. It's not a fair ballot, it's not a secret ballot and if the Democratic Party couldn't control it, Iowa would have long ago been ditched (as it should be) as the "kick off" each presidential election.

Robert Parry (Consortium News) offers: "Sen. Barack Obama thrashing Sen. Clinton". Ruth Conniff (The Progressive) is gleeful as well (it's nice to see Conniff offer something, anything, indicating life), "Since she lost in Iowa, it's hard to see what is left." As Conniff offers up razor blades and sleeping pills and our online latter day Dylan throws in the towel (no link, we don't link to trash), one wonders how Hillary is a "loser" and Barack a "sure thing" off one race?

It takes an informed woman and, in this case, it's Deliah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) who explains delegates and super delegates and points out the obvious: Michigan has 156 delegates. Matters because? Hillary's on Michigan's ballot. Who's else is? Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Chris Dodd was but he's ended his campaign. Biden, Edwards, Obama and Richardson all sucked up to the DNC and refused to get on the ballot. So the reality is Hillary is close to Bambi and, apparently, has the lock on the 156 delegates in Michigan. (The DNC says they'll refuse to allow Michigan delegates. They may or may not be able to pull off that threat.)

Over at The Nation -- where few ever grasp anything -- Ari Melber demonstrates (by omission) why it matters that readers be informed and not trust The Nation. The mag that called Hillary out on a vote she missed . . . due to Bill having heart surgery, offers Ari's wet dreams of "Why Obama's Win Is Bigger Than You Think" which takes Hillary to task for spending $7 million of her campaign money. How much did Obama spend? Melber's not interested in saying. $9 million. Doesn't fit with the spin Ari wants to blow out his butt so it doesn't make his blog post. He's not really a reporter (real ones don't work for that rag), so let's turn to a real reporter.

Amy Goodman: I think one big difference, Ellen Chesler [cross talk] I think one big difference and I think this has certainly been brought out is that Barack Obama said he was opposed to the illegal war from the beginning and of course Senator Clinton voted for it.

See the problem? Obama tells Monica Davey (New York Times, July 26, 2004) he doesn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate. Two years later, he's telling David Remnick (The New Yorker) he doesn't know how he would have voted. Why is Amy Goodman not noting that or the fact that, until the summer of 2007, he voted for every authorization? Why is she noting in the segment that Hillary Clinton's campaign offices have been occupied by peace activists but not noting that Barack's have as well? Shouldn't Wayne Ford have been asked about that?

Hillary's a War Hawk. That's who she is and needs to be pointed out. So is Barack Obama. And these attempts to shield the public from reality may be part of what a political party does (or tries to) but it's not reality and has no place in journalism. Ari thinks it's cute to call Hillary out for her millions spent in Iowa while ignoring how much money Obama spent (like he thought it was cute to call her out for missing a vote when Bill was having surgery). Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) have repeatedly pointed out that Hillary and Barack are siamese twins. So it's not impossible to report the truth. And it's not impossible to give readers, viewers, listeners the information and trust them to make their own decisions.

Ellen Chesler, speaking for Clinton's campaign, needs to get her act together. Stating that Obama wasn't in the Senate isn't telling the full story. Obviously, Goodman isn't going to bring up the illegal war with Barack's supporter Wayne Ford. Rebecca, back when Obama was lying on stage and hitting Edwards with Edwards' 2002 vote, made the point that Obama needed to be challenged on that nonsense. Obviously the press isn't going to do that (maybe Big Media, but not Little), so any supporter needs to drive the reality home. [Note, the transcript at DN! is currently wrong. Amy Goodman, not Ellen Chesler, says, "Well, let me put the question to Danny Glover. Do you think John Edwards has the same position as Obama, as Clinton, on the war?"]

This isn't minor. The war was a question for Chesler and for Danny Glover (speaking for John Edwards' campaign). For Obama? Wayne Ford wasn't asked one word. If you're not seeing the problem, you're lying to yourself. A bit like the lie being spread that "Obama's a closet socialist, hop on board, he's big time left, he just can't say so." He's not and he's not left. Do we want a War Hawk in the White House, as the US moves to the wars to Africa, who can lie to the camera and say, "Oh, my father was from Kenya, this is a just war, don't even ask me that!"

I haven't decided who I will vote for in 2008. We'll note one excerpt from a guest in that roundtable, Danny Glover speaking of John Edwards:

Well, I certainly, when we look at what has happened over the last few years -- and certainly the present administration is indicative of what has happened over the last few years in terms of just corporate greed -- certainly I don't believe that. I think that when people begin to address the issues of globalization, they look at corporate greed. When they begin to identify what is happening in the community, they look at greed, whether it's corporate greed, whether it's the greed that gentrifies the community or the greed that gentrifies a whole nation of people.
I think that it's important that we look at the real issue, the real issues around poverty in this country. And [inaudible] poverty, those numbers are thirty-seven million, are indicative of the level of poverty and what people face. We look at the issue around the middle class. We look at the issue around the disparity in wages and the increasing gap between wealth in this country. And those are real issues here, you know? I mean, at some point in time, we're going to have to address that. And I don't think--I think that John Edwards says he spent less than anyone else. He's been--and I believe if it's a two-person race, then that "two-person" is between Obama and Edwards.

If the illegal war matters (I obviously think that it does) then it matters that all the candidates be held to the same standard. Amy Goodman asks Hillary's supporter and John Edwards' supporter about the illegal war. Wayne Ford's not asked a word about. Meanwhile, Reuters lies about Obama's Iraq 'plan' claiming that "all troops out within 16 months" is the 'plan.' It's not. He would leave 'trainers' and other classifications and the "one or two brigades a month" is not firm and he's stated he might increase the number or halt the deployment based on what was happening.

If there's a winner on the Dem side in Iowa, it's Edwards. But we all do grasp that only 16% of the people in Iowa caucused, right? The 'process' is nothing like the rest of the country, it's a tiny state with only 7 electoral college votes. Now tiny New Hampshire (4 electoral college votes) with a 95.8% White population will weigh in. February 5th will better determine who the candidate for the two major parties will be. So why the narratives from the press and why is Little Media unable to hold Obama to the same standards they use to crucify Hillary?

16% of 'Iowans' turned out for their non-secret ballot caucus and it's being used to shape narratives. Left out of the narratives are the backdoor deals Obama made with other candidates. Like the idiot Wayne Ford, they pretend they're talking about something but they're just blowing gas. Ford declared today, "I want to talk about the reasons why Obam womn" but he had nothing to talk about. He didn't have anything to talk about in 2004 when he appeared on the program as a John Edwards supporter: "But I have always said that until we have a president who is going to say that one of the top problems in this country is race, and I'm willing to risk and deal with this problem to bring all Americans together." Blah-blah-blah. And that 'reason' was why he backed Edwards in 2004. He's a gas bag. Iowa means nothing and meant nothing. It's not representative. If there was a need for all the post-coverage it would be to examine where the candidates stood on the issue. In outlet after outlet, Iraq was not addressed because Obama was given yet another pass. Meanwhile, Allan Nairn (at CounterPunch) argues that the 2008 general election was decided long ago.

Two other candidates appear tonight on PBS' Bill Moyers Journal:

Thousands of media outlets descended on Iowa, erecting a powerful wall of TV cameras and reporters between the voters and candidates. This week on Bill Moyers Journal in two interviews, Bill Moyers talks with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, candidates with an inside view of the process who know well the power of the press to set expectations and transform the agenda. Also on the program, leading expert on media and elections Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, examines the campaigns and coverage in Iowa and looks at the media's power to benefit some candidates and disadvantage others.

Added artist and journalist David Bacon has a photo exhibit at the Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110): "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." The exhibit is from January 11th through February 23rd (Enero 11 - Febrero 23, 2008). "An exhibition documenting communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California through photographs and the narrative experiences of community residents and leaders" y

"Una exposicion que documenta a traves de fotografias y testmonios de lideres y residentes las comundades indigenas de campesinos mexicanos." Inauguracion de exposicion (Opening Reception) Enero 11 7:30 p.m. (January 11th). Y mesa redonda de fotografos (photographers' panel) Sabado, Enero 26, 2:00 p.m. (photographers' panel, Saturday, January 26).

iraq

iraq veterans against the war

mcclatchy newspapers

sanhita sinharoy

amy goodman
democracy now

david bacon

bill moyers
bill moyers journal
pbs

the new york times
richard a. oppel jr.
the washington post
donna st. george

robert parry

ruth conniff

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.