Thursday, December 31, 2009

I Hate The War

Here's the way this entry is working, we're focusing on Iraq issues in the e-mails. I didn't realize I had to do an entry because I wasn't thinking, "It's Thursday." I was thinking, "It's New Year's Eve." Elaine called this evening and mentioned "I Hate The War" and that was the first I had even thought of it. Today I've already done my columns for two newsletters, the snapshot and two entries this morning and I still have to figure out the year-in-review (which I haven't had time to think about). So this is just going to be going through the e-mails. There's an Iraqi politician that died (the Anbar Province governor) [1-1-10 Correction: The politician who died was a provincial council member, Saadoun Dhiab, not the governor.] and we'll cover it tomorrow morning. We're just focusing on the Iraq e-mails.

First up, angry e-mail to the public account of a how-could-you nature. How could I say those 'awful' things in the snapshot and claim to be a Democrat? Those 'awful' things? I've said them all along. I've been very vocal since June on the fact that the US should not be taking part in the negotiation. I only got more vocal when military families started bringing it up in July when we'd speak to them. If Bush had done it, I would've hit just as hard. I don't play that game of, "It's only wrong when the other side does it."

In an apparent attempt to shame me, the e-mailer lists (and copies into the e-mail) three right-wing pieces decrying the action. To which I respond? I can't believe it's only three. There must be more. But I'm not shamed by the fact that some on the right are calling this out. Allah Pundit at Hot Air calls it out. He or she writes:

The left’s defense of this, I assume, will be that we’ve let Sadr run free for six years so what’s the big deal about Khazali? The answer: By that logic, why not repatriate those Yemeni Gitmo detainees pronto given that there’s already plenty of AQ in the field over there? If you’ve already neutralized someone, especially a fully funded Mughniyeh-esque proxy of Iran, for god’s sake, keep him neutralized.

The 'left's defense'? I'm not play left, I'm not faux left. I'm part of the actual left and I'm not defending Barack's decision. Hot Air would do better not to paint with such broad strokes. I'm sure some people will defend Barry O's nonsense. But they're going to make fools of themselves. I'm guessing, for example, Arianna (of the center) is going to stay silent on the issue. I don't see her calling Barack out. If she tries to defend him, she's going to get slammed with her own words. So she'll probably stay silent but this is an issue that's wrong on so many levels including the role Barack has as commander in chief over two ongoing wars which require him to deploy US troops there. He's telling these troops he takes them very seriously and is highly concerned about their safety. Then he says 1 British life is worth more than the lives of five American soldiers. It doesn't play well.

The e-mailer linked to Bill Roggio at The Weekly Standard and that's a straight reporting post. So I guess the 'big offense' to the e-mailer there was that it was The Weekly Standard. This is still a reporting post by Bill Roggio but it has more of an issue that might inflame some:

Did the Obama administration, by releasing Qais and Laith Qazali and more than 100 members of the Iranian-backed Asaib al Haq, violate an executive order put in place by President Ronald Reagan to prevent negotiations with hostage takers? Senators Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl asked that very question to the Obama administration in a letter sent to the president in July. The full text of the letter is below, or you can read the signed letter here in PDF form.

According to a congressional staffer, the Obama administration has yet to answer the letter.


We're a site for the left and we don't link to the right wing. But I've never been one who could be bullied into silence or shamed into changing their mind so to get that point across to the e-mailer, we provided all three links. And, might I add, unlike the e-mailer, I don't read these sites. The e-mailer accuses me of being a 'bad' leftist but he's the one haunting right-wing sites.

And just to repeat, this shouldn't be a right or left issue. Barack is not president of the world. American citizens elected him. Gordon Brown was within his rights and duties to try to drum up help from any nation he could. But Barack's first duty was to Americans. He was elected to represent the country and its people. It's a real stab in the back that he's releasing thugs and killers of Americans. There might be a justification for it. For example, if Jill Carroll's kidnapping had taken place right now and there was a demand for the release, Americans could say, "Well she's an American citizen." They might agree with the decision, they might not (I doubt all of those enlisted would agree -- or their families). But American President Barack Obama would be addressing an issue of an American's safety. His addressing the issue of a British citizen's safety? When doing so means letting go the ringleader responsible for 5 American deaths? That's going cause problems and raise questions.

Another visitor e-mails to gripe that I have stated Iran was involved in the kidnappings. I said that? When did I say that? I didn't say that in the snapshot and we presented the BBC News assertions that Iran wasn't. I stated that war with Iran was wanted. I stated that if people were mad about the trade (and many will be), they should remember who was behind it: Barack. I said that nothing in this should be used to argue for war on Iran. Iran may have been behind it, it may not have been. I'm steered by the visitor towards "another article by Deborah Haynes." By Haynes, Francis Elliott and Fiona Hamilton and it states that Peter Moore says he wasn't in Iran.

A) Deborah Haynes is a strong reporter and proved that while reporting from Iraq.

B) Peter Moore doesn't know the fate or status of Alan McMenemy. Who's convinced you that Peter Moore has all the answers?

C) Peter Moore's fat.

I'm not trying to insult him. He's overweight.

My point is, few hostages end up overweight. Most hostages end up skin and bones by the time they're released. Moore was treated differently than the four men he was kidnapped with. His statement that he wasn't taken to Iran may be correct (I have no reason to disbelieve him) but that doesn't mean the other four weren't. (Nor does it mean they were.) Peter Moore was not treated like the others. He had a laptop in the last months of his imprisonment. And satellite TV. He wasn't treated like a hostage at that point. (I'm not trying to imply he wasn't in danger or that he shouldn't have been scared. He had every reason to believe he was in danger. I'm stating that hostages don't usually have so many benefits.)

The Guardian is standing by their story. They note it in a new editorial:

The revelation in this newspaper that the kidnap of five British men in Iraq in 2007 was masterminded by Iran's Revolutionary Guard caps an unhappy week, the last of a parlous decade. The kidnap had two motivations – to bargain for the release of the Shia cleric Qais al-Khazali, and to prevent Peter Moore, the only British hostage to have survived, from installing a computer system that would have prevented millions of dollars of international aid from falling into the hands of Shia militia groups in Iraq. This story should serve as the epitaph for the invasion. Far from stabilising, or spreading democracy, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan and Iraq proved combustible. But the follies of the old decade are set to last into the new one.

There's no reason to believe The Guardian would intentionally lie. Equally true is the fact that they knew before they published the story that Gordon Brown and those serving with him would insist that the paper was wrong. They stood by their article and continue to do so. The Guardian goes out of their way, being a New Labour organ, to avoid picking fights with Brown (or Tony Blair before him). The story may turn out to be wrong but it's very difficult to believe the paper set out to lie. That just doesn't make sense because there's no win in it for them.

And the last e-mail we'll note from a visitor (last for this post), James Cooper asks to be noted by name and says he's figured out the 1400 suite clue in Tuesday's snapshot. Yes, James, you did figure it out. That is the US-based oil company. James writes that if his guess is correct (it was) a better clue might have involved noting "Watergate or even JFK's enemies." That's true. And if we're going to talk JFK enemies, let's note that the "Fair Play For Cuba" offices had two addresses because they had entrances on two streets. (See Oliver Stone's JFK if you don't catch that.) The same is true of the oil company (though it's headquarters are not in the state of Louisiana).


It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4371. Tonight? Still 4371.

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




Kat's Korner: The decade in music

Kat: Tomorrow it's 2010, a decade is over. Where did it go? Like the Bill of Rights, apparently out the window. Like the Iraq War, we just burned through the decade. There were some good musical moments, even during the Bully Boy Bush years. As with any review, these are opinions and your own may differ. As I see the decade musically, it started off with small promises which quickly vanished and then rallied in the middle.

Art


2000 -- Who Is Jill Scott? Words And Music Vol. 1


The leader of the pack as the decade kick started was Jill Scott's debut album, announcing a new and major talent. Not only was Jill one of the most dynamic new lead voices to emerge in years, on songs like "He Loves Me (Lyzel In E Flat)," she demonstrated she was also a dynamic backup singer. Jill Scott was one of those one-of-a-kind talents who emerge and suddenly everyone wonders where she's been until now. And Jill was pretty much alone.


Carly Simon's Bedroom Tapes and Sade's Lovers Rock were minor classics of the year and, had there been a slew of those in 2000, it might have been a year worth praising. Instead, Carly and Sade were as much an exception as Jill. 2000 was nothing but the 1990s and 1980s carried over. The sounds, the beats, it was all tired and never more tired than when U2 decided to drop their exploration and make an album that sounded like 1987 to get the musically timid back on board. Elsewhere you had No Doubt's Gwen Stefani decide to become a solo so that she could sound . . . like every other female making the charts. Usually when someone goes solo, they're a strong writer (Stevie Nicks) in a group that can't use all their songs or they're an artist who wants to show another side. Gwen proved that you can go solo just to do the same thing. In the process, she hurt her own career and the band's.




2001 -- NONE


No, there wasn't one album that rated worthy of "best." Alicia Keys Songs In A Minor contained some nice songs with some s**tty production. I still can't stand to listen to that album and consider it to be among the worst mixed of the decade. With a decent mix, Alicia might have claimed top honors. Radiohead's an interesting band and sometimes a talented one but if they want to self-stroke, close the door. I'd pay to see Billie Joe Armstrong do it but not interested in Radiohead. In other words, didn't need Amnesiac. 2001 needed a strong album. It didn't get one. Ben Folds forgot the Five and went off Rockin' The Suburbs -- or something. Whatever he was doing, it wasn't rock. Poses showed how quickly an original Rufus Wainwright could veer to self-parody. Rufus, I love chocolate milk and cigarettes as well but if I decided they needed a song, I think I'd work on writing a real song about them and not your half-formed ditty. As I survey the year, I feel there was more honest emotion and raw passion in Jimmy Eat World than in the dead-on-arrival Love & Theft by Bob Dylan or the overhyped Is This It? by the Strokes -- the latter of which sounded like the music to a Target ad. I could go on and on but I didn't hear a great album in 2001 and I'm not going to single out a 'best' by comparison. Even Stevie Nicks' often brilliant Trouble In Shangri-La too often was marred by Sheryl Crow's efforts which made it more Crow-like and less of a Nicks Fix. Someone should have told Sheryl, "Unlike you, Stevie's rock. Not poppy, not jazzy. Not a blend of weakness."



2002 -- Scarlet's Walk.


This may have been the decade's masterpiece. Tori Amos set a benchmark for herself and others with this set of songs exploring the post 9-11 landscape. It captured what was going down and all that was to come with lines like: "These guys think they must try and just get over on us." It was ambitious and so successful that it far overshadowed Tori's other excellent work in the decade. The sprawling album covered everything imaginable and then some.



2003 -- Elephant.


The thing about the past is it once held so much promise but, looking back, you can see where it unraveled. Take the best album of 2003 put out by the best rock band of that year: Elephant by the White Stripes. In 2003, Jack and Meg White were still claiming to be brother and sister even though their divorce was pretty much a known. Jack would finally begin telling the press that when two ex-partners are in a group, that becomes the focus, but a brother and sister allows people to focus on the music. That may have beginning of Jack's delusions -- delusions that wrongly led him to believe he needed a group without Meg. "Seven Army Nation" is probably the best known song and deserves to be if only for Meg's powerhouse drumming. Jack White never appreciated Meg's contributions and went on to form two other groups that no one gave a damn about (especially laughable was Jack's attempts at playing drums in the latest group) and by 2008 was such a parody of himself that you had to look closely and make sure that was him singing the bad song (which he wrote) as a Bond theme with Alicia Keys. If you even bothered to look, the song bombed and got no higher than number 81 in the US. By that point, Jack White was such a joke, he seemed to be a comic creation of Jack Black.


He can take comfort in the fact that, at least in 2003, people gawked with awe. The big joke of the year was Liz Phair who thought it was 2000 and the answer was to sound like everyone else or at least like Avril. Liz got nasty mean when critics panned Liz Phair and insisted this was art and that she would be proven right. It was sell-out and an embarrassment. So much so that she still can't land another recording contract and now earns her money 'selecting' tunes for bad Aaron Spelling retools on the CW. So, as the decade closes, we learn that, yes, Liz Phair could sink lower than her 2003 self-titled album. Who knew?



2004 -- American Idiot


Green Day's epic album was also their strong comeback. Almost forgotten was 1994's Dookie. The group had faltered repeatedly and 1999 was when Blink 182 grabbed the Green Day formula, made it poppier, got nude in videos (Green Day leader Billie Joe Armstrong only got naked in concert) and showed how to be Green Day-like and successful. That must have really hurt because Billie Joe had a juicer ass than Mark Hoppus, Tom DeLonge or Travis Barker. But there was Blink 182 acting all shiny and new and Green Day looking like yesterday's big deal that could only squeak out a minor hit every now and then. Then came this loud, angry album blasting away the fog that lingered over America for three years. In many ways, American Idiot signaled the start of the decade. Is it a "rock opera" as has always been said?


If you know the answer to that question, maybe you looked at the lyric sheet too many times. Put the damn thing on, blast and enjoy. Rock in all its forgotten power.


2005 -- A Bigger Bang.


I noted at the top that these are opinions. Opinions are not fixed (or shouldn't be). For example, I always liked this album and considered it one of the best back in 2005. I didn't think it was the best. But what's happened in the last four years is I repeatedly play this album, I repeatedly find myself singing the songs to myself. This is a classic album. It's the sort of album that justifies all the wood shedding ones the Rolling Stones put out each decade because at some point they release a Some Girls, a Tattoo You or A Bigger Bang and remind you of just how potent they can be. With U2 doing all those sappy, crappy songs over the last three decades, the Stones never needed to fret for a moment that their crown might be taken. There's an urgency to this album and I like to think it's a response to Green Day's 2004 masterpiece, an attempt to say, "Well done, boys, but we ain't retiring just yet."


2006 -- Both Sides of the Gun and Living With War

Musically, 2006 was the best year of the decade. Two supreme masterpieces were released: Ben Harper's Both Sides of the Gun and Neil Young's Living With War. I picked them both as the best of 2006 for the year-in-review and even now it's impossible to choose one over the other. In each, you find an artist working at the top of their craft and a wealth of musical riches. And if you doubt that, consider that these two albums top a year that also saw Michael Franti & Spearhead's Yell Fire!, Tori Amos' The Beekeeper, Amy Winehouse Back To Black, Mary J. Blige's The Breakthrough, the Dixie Chick's Taking The Long Way, Cat Power's The Greatest, the Artic Monkeys' Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, the Twilight Singers' Power Burns and even Thom Yorke with The Eraser. I could list even more. But 2006 was the high water mark of the decade and, of all the albums released, Neil Young and Ben Harper's were the finest. Ben went with a double album, a disc of hard rockers and a disc of ballads, Neil went with a single disc, and both studied the world around them for meanings -- coming to related but different conclusions set to some of their strongest melodies.

2007 -- Shine.


For the first time since 1998's Taming The Tiger, Joni Mitchell recorded a collection of her new songs and what an amazing album. Shine opens with an instrumental (which won a Grammy) that sets the stage for the journey Shine's going to take you on. The album's a masterpiece that easily stands with Joni's other A-list works as she examines the human condition in this new century which should offer so much promise but somehow fails to. "Don't say I didn't warn you," Joni explains in "This Place" adding "money, money makes the trees come down." "If I Had A Heart" ("I'd cry") addresses over population and destruction and so much more. The album contains some of Joni's funkiest melodies, inspired playing and vocals that were expressive and a big middle finger to some of the critics slagging her in the 90s.


This was the clear winner of the year but it wasn't bad year for music and other notables included Cowboy Junkies at the end of paths taken, Mavis Staples' We'll Never Turn Back, Ben Harper's Lifeline, Tori Amos' American Doll Posse, Holly Near's Show Up and Ann Wilson's first solo album, Hope & Glory. Just enough to make you think there was still life in the machine.



2008 -- Sleep Through The Static.


I'm not a Jack Johnson fan. I can listen to a few of his songs (more if other people are singing and performing them) but I've never been a huge fan. Or all that impressed. Sleep Through The Static made the praise by his legion of fans (which includes our own Elaine) seem valid. For a change, you didn't listen thinking, "He had more fun in the studio than I'm having listening." He also formed a cohesive statement. And found keys and notes that sparkled. A delight to listen to and that's really saying something in a year that was almost as bad as 2001.


Other high notes included Aimee Mann's @#%&*! Smilers, Lenny Kravitz' It Is Time For A Love Revolution, Carly Simon's This Kind Of Love and Augustana's Can't Love, Can't Hurt. But it was obvious that the innovation and excitement was -- yet again -- leaving the music scene as the bulk of the albums hyped as 'great' or even 'good' were poor and insipid.



2009 -- Never Been Gone.



Carly Simon. Maybe the artist of the decade. She started off the decade with her classic Bedroom Tapes demonstrating that a strong woman can write about topics men in the midst of middle-aged panics will never touch. The decade saw her do a Moonlight Serenade, score two Disney Winnie The Pooh films, a Christmas album (re-released the following year with two additional tracks), explore the dreamy Into White and issue a strong collection of original songs This Kind Of Love. Some are going to argue with my terming The Bedroom Tapes "a minor classic." If you disagree, take comfort in the fact that C.I. thinks it's the finest album of Carly's career. You can also consider the fact that Never Been Gone puts everything before it in perspective.


That's what the album intends to do. To revisit some of Carly's best loved songs (such as "You're So Vain," "Anticipation," "It Happens Every Day," "Let The River Run," "You Belong To Me" and "The Right Thing To Do") and find new meanings and contexts in them. It also forces you to re-evaluate the work Carly's issued this decade because she's really accomplished something with Never Been Gone.
Never Been Gone

This isn't Carly wood shedding or breezing through the way these re-recording albums usually are. She's exploring and that's never more obvious than with "Coming Around Again." If there's been a mistake in promoting this album, it's been her performing "You Belong To Me" in all her TV appearances. Yes, as a single, it would be charting (if a major label released it). But it's probably the least representative of the album. It's not got the acoustic quality so much of the album does and it's got a big production aspect to it which makes it harder for those who are hearing it only on TV as Carly performs it to get what she's doing with the album. "Anticipation" or "Coming Around Again" would have worked better as performance pieces to demonstrate the news shadings she's bringing and the new meanings she's exploring.


In the US where the popular song really is the only musical art most of us will ever know, we have this desire to see our beloved artists improve with the years. If they can, it means we weren't just bopping our heads along with something mindless and trivial, we were really attracted to art. So their success means, for many of us, a validation of our own tastes and judgments. With Never Been Gone, Carly should have made millions and millions of Americans very happy. The lanky American Hit Maker is the still lanky American Artist.


And others in 2009 worthy of note? I'll address the 2009 releases in tomorrow's year-in-review.

----------------
Click here for my 2004 music piece, here for 2005, 2006 in music, 2007 in music and here for 2008. Illustrations are the cover of Carly's album and a drawing by Betty's kids.

Beth's thoughts on the year went up Sunday
and Martha and Shirley's look at 2009 in books went up this morning.















Iraq snapshot

Thursday, December 31, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, questions are being raised in Iran and England about the release of a British hostage, questions in the US seemingly don't exist, can you be commander in chief while sending the message that you don't take seriously the loss of US troops, a new poll finds the bulk of Americans see no improvement in Iraq in the coming year, and more.
 
Peter Moore is alive.  Alan McMenemy's status is unknown. The same as it was during yesterday's snapshot.  May 29, 2007, the two men were kidnapped at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad along with three other British citizens: Jason Crewswell, Jason Swindlehurst and Alec Maclachlan.  The League of Righteous staged the kidnapping using official vehicles of the Baghdad security forces and using official uniforms of the Baghdad security forces.  Moore was released yesterday, Alan McMenemy's status remains unknown and the other three men are dead. 
 
July 29th, the families and loved ones of the five held a press conference.  The bodies of the two Jasons had been turned over and there were rumors that Alan and Alec were dead as well. 
 
Haley Williams:  These reports are the worst possible news for us but we continue to hope that they cannot be true.  But whatever Alec's condition, he no longer should remain in Iraq.  We appeal to those holding him to please send him home to us.  I speak to you as the mother of Alec's son.  We are not the people holding your men but I do understand your feelings cause you're going through the same pain we are going through. If we had any influence over the release of your men, we would release them to you  but we don't. Please send him home because as a family we can't cope with this anymore.
 
That is what Haley Williams stated.  But, as noted in the July 29th snapshot, American audiences didn't get to hear all of Haley's statement.  Most outlets ignored it and CNN cesnored it, stripping out this section: "We are not the people holding your men but I do understand your feelings cause you're going through the same pain we are going through.  If we had any influence over the release of your men, we would release them to you but we don't."  American audiences couldn't be told that the five British citizens were being used as barganining chips by the League of Righteousness.  [See Deborah Haynes (Times of London link has text and also has video of the press conference) report for the families statements.]
 
Now that's really important.  And it's important to what's happening right now and it's important to understanding how the whole thing played out.  The British government never wanted publicity.  They told the families -- they LIED to the families -- that going public would risk the lives of the five.  They weren't trying to save the five.  They never managed to, in fact.  If Alan's alive and they save him, he'll be the first one they saved.
 
The British government was inept and it may have been criminally negligent.  The kidnapping was high profile and the British government -- already being run out of parts of southern Iraq with their base destroyed and used as lumber by the Iraqi resistance -- had enough embarrassments on its hands.  The government's request for a media blackout was never about the five men, never about saving them.  It was always about saving Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from any further embarrassments.  That's why Gordon Brown, current prime minister of England, could grand stand yesterday and speak of "Peter" yet only weeks before he refused to meet with Peter Moore's father.
 
They never wanted to talk about it to the media or to the families but when they think they have a photo op Brown and his administration are all over the press bragging and self-congratulating.  For what?  They didn't accomplish a damn thing and shouldn't be allowed to use Peter Moore as a shield to hide behind.  Three British citizens are dead and on one knows Alan's state.
 
When the families held their press conference at the end of July, they did so over the objections of the British government.  Why CNN elected to censor what was said is a question that everyone needs to be asking and part of the answer goes to the fact that few want to talk about how Peter Moore and three corpses were released. From the June 9th snapshot:
 
 
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

The League of Righteous conveyed to the British government (which should be asked about those 'channels' of communication) that as long as their leader, his brother and other members of the League of Righteous were held in US-run prisons in Iraq, the five British hostages would remain hostages.  That was their demand, that was the kidnapper's ransom.  It's awfully silly for CNN to leave that out when the families of the kidnapped are making an appeal to the kidnappers.  It explains to CNN viewers what the kidnappers want.  But it got censored right out of the story at the request of the White House.  CNN needs to explain that.  They need to explain, first of all, why they're allowing the White House or any government body to determine what they broadcast when the First Amendment exists to make sure that doesn't happen. Then they need to explain specifically why they were told they couldn't air any reference to release of prisoners?
 
In ten years, you'll probably read the whys to both in a New York Times column because that's how CNN works.  The British government never wanted press coverage of the kidnappings (until the poll challenged Gordon Brown could hide behind Peter Moore like he did yesterday) and the US government didn't want coverage after Barack Obama became president.  The Bush White House never gave 'notes' to CNN on this story.  Not when the kidnapping took place, not any time after.  But CNN took notes from the Obama White House including from Barack himself.  Anyone going to get honest about that?
 
For the British, it was an embarrassment.  Under Bush, the following was conveyed to the British government (through various channels including the State Dept and the White House itself): US forces will patrol and look, special forces can be deployed for search missions, but NO Iraqi prisoners will be traded for the British hostages.  That was the policy under Bush.  And the weak and inept British government couldn't do a thing to save their own citizens.  With Barack, who fancies himself President of the World and not President of the United States, an appeal was made.
 
The appeals started before Barack was sworn in and there's confusion as to the dead.  It's thought, in retrospect, that when the talks began that only one was known/assumed dead (although two on Barack transition team state it may have been known/assumed that two were dead) but before the June release of prisoners, it was known that three were dead and a fourth was assumed.  Before the US released the prisoners in June, it was known that only Peter Moore might be alive.
 
Peter Moore is a British citizen.  It was the responsibility of the British government to work to secure his release.  That can include asking other governments for help.  In Barack's case?  The prisoners were responsible for a raid on a US base and the deaths of 5 US service members.  The Iraq War had not ended nor had the Afghansitan War.  Meaning, you still have boots on the ground, you're still sending people over there.  As President of the United States, his first duty was to the American people.  That includes the five US service members who died and it includes their families and their friends.  It also includes all of the men and women he is deploying to war zones. 
 
Barack Obama's actions spit on the military.  There's no way to pretty that up.  The scheme/scam never should have been entered into.  George W. Bush was, by no means, the brightest bulb in the lamp, but even he grasped the issues on this.
 
Barack Obama is commander of chief of the US military.  The military's commander made 2009 about saying that the lives of US troops do not matter.  The actions he took state that 1 British citizen is more important than 5 dead Americans.  He was elected to be president of the United States, it was a job he wanted and it was a job he said he was up for.  He's clearly failed throughout 2009 at his job.  But how do you, as commander in chief, now ask any other service member to deploy?
 
How do you do it?  You've just 1 British life trumps five American soldiers. How do you do it?  How you earn their trust now?  How do you tell him the crap about fight with honor when everyone knows that the US military held the ringleader of the attack on the US base in prison and you ordered his release?
 
In the US, the media's largely avoided the story.  Despite this, when we speak to the military or military families about the Iraq War, since July, this topic has regularly been raised by them.  This under-reported issue of the US release is known and discussed.
 
Barack Obama has falsely accused the left of spitting on soldiers after Vietnam.  Barack has a habit of accusing others of what he does.  It's called projection and this habit became obvious during the 2008 primary campaign.  While he was making that statement this year, he had already engaged in spitting on the troops. 
 
Last night, Alice Fordham's "Peter Moore freed after US hands over Iraqi insurgent" (Times of London) reported:


The British hostage Peter Moore was dramatically set free yesterday after the United States handed over an Iraqi insurgent suspected of planning the deaths of five American servicemen.                           
Mr Moore, an IT consultant, was freed by League of the Righteous, or Asaib al-Haq (AAH) -- an extremist Shia group allied to Iran -- after 31 months and spent his first night of freedom at the British Embassy in Baghdad. He is expected to fly home today.                                       
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that officials had worked tirelessly to secure his release but strongly denied that the British Government had given ground to his captors. He said: "There were no concessions in this case. There was no -- quote, unquote -- deal."                   
Foreign and Commonwealth Office sources confirmed, however, that the transfer from US custody a few days ago of Qais al-Khazali, a cleric and commander of AAH, helped to pave the way for Mr Moore's release. They also admitted that British diplomats had been pressing the US to hand over al-Khazali to the Iraqi administration.                   

Today Suadad al-Salhy, Mohammed Abbas, Khalid al-Ansary, Missy Ryan, Mohammed Abbas and David Stamp (Reuters) report, "Iraq said on Thursday its judges could soon free the leader of a Shi'ite group believed to be behind the 2007 kidnapping of Briton Peter Moore if they found no criminal evidence, only a day after the hostage was released."   Mona Mahmood, Maggie O'Kane and Guy Grandjean (Guardian) report:

The men -- including Peter Moore, who was released yesterday after more than two years in captivity -- were taken to Iran within a day of their kidnapping from a government ministry building in Baghdad in 2007, several senior sources in Iraq and Iran have told the Guardian. They were held in prisons run by al-Quds Force, a Revolutionary Guard unit that specialises in foreign operations on behalf of the Iranian government.                          
[.  . .]   
One of the kidnappers told the Guardian that three of the Britons – Jason Creswell, Jason Swindlehurst and Alec Maclachlan – were killed after the British government refused to take ransom demands seriously.
Part of the deal leading to the release of Moore involved
the handing over of the young Shia cleric Qais al-Khazali, a leading figure in the Righteous League.

Let's zoom in on the Iranian issue.  First, some question the Guardian story.  BBC News' Fred Gardner (link has text and video) offers, "The findings in the Guardian's year-long investigation into alleged Iranian involvement in kidnapping Britons in Iraq are being disputed by both British and Iraqi government officials. A senior Foreign Office official said that while it was 'not impossible' that the British hostages had, at some stage, been taken across the border into Iran, that did not mean the Iranian authorities themselves were behind the kidnapping. The British government view remains that there is no firm evidence to suggest Iranian government involvement."  Second, whether or not the Iranian government was involved, it shouldn't be used to push for war on Iran from the US.  Though war on Iran is wanted by the White House, the reality is that the Obama administration was not forced into the deal.  This deal has nothing to do with the United States until Barack made the call to release the prisoners.  That decision was idiotic and stupid.  But he wasn't forced into it and it's not a reflection on Iran or  a reason for war with them.  That's why we're stressing the White House deal right  now and stressing it firmly.  What was a few remarks in passing to many has now become a steady drip and as more and more talk about the deal, some in the press will report it and some factions will seize upon it saying, "We must go to war with Iran!"  No, that's not what it says.  Iran had nothing to blackmail the US with, had nothing to force the US.  Barack made the decision to release the prisoners.  Don't mistake his weak actions for an attack on the US by Iran.  While the government of England and Iran are in denial about what took place, notice that in the US no one's even forcing the White House to go on record.
 
Meanwhile the world gets ready for a new year and that's true in Iraq as well.  Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) notes wishes of some Iraqs such as school teacher Ali Abbas, "I wish the new year will bring peace and security improvement to my people, and I wish that all Iraqis will take part in the vital parliamentary election which we hope it will draw better future. I wish my people will elect the right people for the coming parliament because we have suffered enough by the existing politicians.  The ball is in my people's field, hopefully we will have for better future."  That wish could be heard in any country.  Ali Abbas isn't an enemy of anyone.  The US government declared war on Iraq and it's the Iraqis who suffer.  And the American citizens.  The US government doesn't really suffer, now does it?  Yesterday on  KPFA's Flashpoints Radio Nora Barrows-Friedman spoke with the program's Iraq correspondent Ahmed Habib and we'll note a section of that (this broadcast is archived at  KPFA and Flashpoints Radio).
 
 
Ahmed Habib: The bombings, the violence, that we witnessed today, of course, is another chapter in the destruction of Iraq for the last seven years.  We've seen over one million people die. Five million people have become refugees in a record time. We see that the infrastructure of the country has not only not been rebuilt but in fact been destroyed. The systematic theft of Iraq by American military contractors, by a corrupt government, has really left the Iraqi people in a situation where survival is their upmost priority.  And of course, in contrast to that, we see an Iraqi government that seems adament at trying to project itself as a democratic institution. We just now, of course  in the last few months of the year the Iraqi Parliament was able to get itself together  and pass an election law and really these elections, what they're going to translate in terms of reality and people's lives in Iraq is that there's going to be an increase in violence.  The way that politics under -- sort of unfolds itself in Iraq -- as perhaps not what our listeners in the United States are used to, you know, in terms of expensive television commercials or boring debates.  But in Iraq, unfortunately, these sort of differences are dealt with through violence, bombings, car bombings.  And, you know, in the last few months of the year, we saw bombings that ripped through the heart of Baghdad and I think that's a real sign that  the election campaign in Iraq is under way. And the Iraqi Parliament? Last week there was a session held in the Iraqi Parliament that was going to discuss the budget for Iraq in 2010 and a whopping number of 12 members of Parliament showed up so I think it's really indicative of how serious the Iraqi government is about governing Iraq. Again the most important indicators of success in Iraq unfortunately are ones perhaps that aren't found only in the number of people killed but acts of violence are also buried in the chronic failure of the Iraqi govenrment to provide for its people. In the city of Baghdad, the capitol city of Iraq, the city of five million people, there is still a shortage of electricity, some areas of the city get only up to five or six hours a day of power, there is a complete lack of health care in a country that has already been destroyed by over a decade of genocidal sanctions that killed over one million people. And the lack of basic services and education and of course we've seen that Iraqi youths wander the streets of Baghdad searching for bread crumbs, searching for dignity and employment. And those are the real indicators that we should be looking at -- not election dates, not how many members of Parliament are running for which party.  That is the kind of language and discourse that the Iraqi government, in conjunction with their American occupiers, are very busy trying to push but the people of Iraq are very cognitive  of what the reality on the ground is. It's corruption, it's killing, it's chaos. And although people that have been reporting from outside of Baghdad are sort of trying to portray, have been trying to portray, an image of relative calm and improvement in the situation with security -- and that might be the case compared to the horrifying conditions that Iraqis lived in at the peak of the so-called sectarin violence in 2007 but that is not a reason or  an accurate descrition that should lead us into a state of complacency thinking things in Iraq are heading in the right direction.  The Constitution, which is sectarian in its most fundamental ethos, is still at the heart of the decisions in the way that political power is being divided.  We seethe sell off of Iraq resources in the absence of legal mechanism to measure the transparnacye of such decision is now really being highlighted with the dozens of oil contracts that have either been signed or about to be signed . And I think that it important for people in the west, particularly to our  listeners in the United States to hold their government accountable for their war profiteering and the destruction of Iraqi society that we're seeing. And, of course,the way to look at Iraq is not to look at it in a vaccum but to look at it within the context of Israeli apartheid, within the context of the occupation of Afghanistan, within the contest of the war mongering -- the beating of the war drums with countries we're seeing like Iran, with countries like Yemen.  And I think it's important to look at it as another tragic episode in this so-called war on terror which is really a war of terror itself.
 
Nora Barrows-Friedman: That's the voice of our special correspondent Ahmed Habib speaking to us from Doha. Ahmed, let's talk more about the Obama administration's agendas over the past year. Obama inherited this occupation and has only sought to expand the war budget, continue the occupation, continue the policies of his predecessor, hire more private contractors.  What are your biggest concerns and also what are your wildest dreams for your country, for Iraq, as 2009 draws to a close? Talk about the concept of revolution in a time of great suffering and deep despair in your country.  Talk about that.
 
Ahmed Habib: There is no doubt that the Iraqi people have a great tradition and history of revolution. And the people of Iraq hold an immense ability to be resisting in the face of this violence and brutality that has gone hand-in-hand with the American occupation -- an extension, of course, of the kind of genocide Iraqis experienced under the sanctions and of course an extension of the genocide that they experienced under the American-sponsored dictorship of Saddam Huseein as well. So there is no doubt that the Iraqi people will be able to overcome these conditions and will talk later about some of the tremendous things that are happening in Iraqi communities and the diaspora. But I think it's important for our listeners to sort of dispell many of the myths that had been promoted by the Obama adminstration with regards to their attempts to "end the war in Iraq."  The Obama administration has not only inherented many of the same policies that were adopted by the Bush administration and we saw early on in the year the Obama administration's refusal to publish images of people that had been tortured and de-humanized and bases that had become prisons throughout Iraq and of course in Afghanistan as well.  But we also saw the emergence and sort of the truth unveiled about the Status Of Force Agreement -- known as SOFA in the American media. And this agreement was, of course, was supposed to be the agreement that would embody the withdraw of American troops from Iraq and subsequently lead to the end the occupation. What many people didn't know is that within this agreement there are clauses that will not only keep permanent military bases in Iraq but will give the America the ability to conduct military operations without the permission of the Iraqi government, that America will control air space above a certain altitude in Iraq, and, of course, America's political strangle-hold on the Iraqi government through, as you were mentioning, the ascent of thousands of military contractors in Iraq, through the privatization of the most fundamental sectors of Iraqi economy are the real elements of the American occupation here. We see, for example in Iraq, fundamental sectors such as agriculture and education -- ironically in a country that invented both agriculture and education -- now being sold off to American corporations under the guise of of American occupation.  We also heard early on in 2003, Colin Powell speak about how NGOs are part of the American occupation and, in fact, on the front line.  And this has become very true in Iraq as well. And the American occupation of Iraq is perhaps no longer constituted by American soldiers on the ground raping, killing and maiming Iraqi civilians but now has really taken on a much scarier and more longterm identity in terms of the strangle-hold it has on many of Iraq in terms of all the things I have mentioned but also in terms of how Iraqi politics and the day to day running of the government also unfolds.
 
Meanwhile a new Associated Press-GfK poll [PDF format warning, click here] found that 65% of respondents rate the Iraq War as "extremely/ver important" -- the same number who stated they oppose the Iraq War.  (5% said the illegal war was "not at all important"), only 49% approve of Barack's handling of the Iraq War (40% disapprove).  Asked if they thought conditions in Iraq would improve in 2010, get worse or stay the same, 53% stated things would stay the same.
 
In other news, 5 Blackwater mercenaries received news today that there would be no prosecutions for the September 16, 2007 massacre in Baghdad.  BBC News reports that Judge Ricardo Urbina reviewed the evidence submitted by the prosecution and found it was built around statements the five made to US State Dept staffers -- despite the five being told that any statements to the State Dept would not be used against them.  There will be a lot of disgust over Urbina's decision; however, Urbina's not the problem.  If that was the agreement with the State Dept and that's what the prosecution relied upon, the charges had to be tossed aside (and, like it or not, it was fair).  The problem has to do with the decision to grant immunity to begin with -- a decision that was called out in real time. So Donald Ball, Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nick Slatten and Paul Slough walk.  And the judge's decision was a fair and accurate one.  After blaming Condi and others at the top of State in 2007, the blame should then go to the current Justice Dept which damn well should have known not to use those statements.  Ball, Heard, Liberty, Slatten and Slough start the new year with this legally behind them.
 
 

2009 in books (Martha & Shirley)

Martha & Shirley: In 2008, the biggest problem was not enough books worth reading. Seriously. It was a new development. So we moved beyond politics.

This year, it was open to anything. The good news is there was a lot of book reading going on community wide. The bad news is? So many choices.

There are fifty books with ten votes or less, for example. There are 100 books with five votes or less. There is a list. We have four books the community loved and could come together on but to try to do a top ten (or even top five) was just ridiculous.


Books 2009

1) The number one choice usually came with a lengthy explanation from those voting for it. And over half of those voting selected this as the book of the year, Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking. This amazing book came out in 2008. How can it make best books of 2009??????????

The softcover edition was released September 2009 (list price $13.99).

Carrie Fisher's writing about her life. Supposedly. We say "supposedly" not because we think she's tightened up reality more than any other clever writer would. We say "supposedly" because there's a lot of the country's history in this very personal book.


That may be because she's lived through -- and taken part in -- so many defining moments and trends of recent decades. Regardless, the book is much deeper than you'd expect from a writer's autobiography. We say "writer" because, yes, she is an actress, but when it comes to print, she earned "writer" with her first book (Postcards From The Edge).

The book is similar to the book/script for the club act she did and it's funny and it's daring and it's brave. You laugh at the oddest moments. For example, she shares a story about her mother being punished by being locked in a closet and requesting that her mother give her a glass of water. We won't spoil the laugh for you but you don't see it coming.

While you don't see it coming, while you never see it coming, after you're done laughing, you can't imagine it turning out any other way. This is a brave book and it should come with a warning: Reading in public will lead to strange looks as you burst into fits of laughter repeatedly. It truly is a joy to read this book.

2) From autobiography to biography. The second most popular choice in the community was Michelle Mercer's Will You Take Me As I Am: Joni Mitchell's Blue Period (list price $24.99). The book is a critical analysis of singer-songwriter Joni Mitchell's works and life during the period in which she released Blue (1971), For The Roses (1972), Court and Spark (1974), The Hissing of Summer Lawns (1975) and Hejira (1976).

Most of you mentioned hearing of the book in "The Joni Roundtable" at Third which usually led you to note the follow up "The music and book roundtable" where Elaine, Trina, Ruth, Rebecca, Kat and C.I. explained Mercer's strange tic. One moment, you're reading along and enjoying the book and all the sudden you're confronted with this huge wave of hatred from Mercer. And it's aimed at Carly Simon.

For those who didn't live through the 70s, it was as though Mercer's meds had suddenly worn off. It is the weakest part of the book and it's a shame she left it in. It's a shame because it's such a hateful moment and it's a shame because we've moved beyond the 70s even if Mercer hasn't. It's not necessary to rip apart Carly Simon or any other female in order to establish Joni's greatness. It's not necessary to rip apart Joni to establish Carly's greatness. Mercer needs a cat fight and that's so sad.

She's mentioning men throughout and then finally it's time to mention a woman and it's time for Mercer to make an ass out of herself. Joni's writing stands on its own as does Carly's. The two are similar in that both write songs and both can play guitar and piano. That also makes them similar to Jackson Browne or Paul McCartney or any number of writers. Joni has her own voice as a songwriter and Carly has her own voice as a songwriter. There's no need for a grudge match.

Actually, if you think about it, it's good that Mercer left that in because for those who didn't live through the 70s, the hatred she suddenly spews makes you recoil as a reader and that's a sign of how far things have come since the 70s. We now realize that more than woman can be a great artist and we're not going to pit woman against woman to fight for the token spot.

3) Did we just mention Paul McCartney? Well got to get him into our lives because Peter Ames Carlin's Paul McCartney: A Life comes in at number three. The hardcover book (list price $26) came out in November. Those who've read it (which includes us, we've read all four on the list) rave over the depth of the Beatles period but usually express a desire for more discussions of the post-Beatles period.

Page 204 is Paul in the news with the assertion that "PAUL IS QUITTING THE BEATLES" in newspaper headlines and 205 is the release of the first solo album (McCartney). The remaining 133 pages have to cover the rest of 1970, the seventies, the eighties, the nineties and this decade. (And less than 100 pages has to cover the 80s, the 90s and all the way up to 2009.) Linda McCartney passes away from cancer, Paul gets remarried, that ends in divorce. It all moves so quickly after the Beatles break up that it's like an Elizabeth Taylor biography where there's just too much detail to fit into one book. Is that what happened?

We don't know. But those who voted for this book but expressed dissatisfaction made comments like "I really expected more than three pages on his collaborations with Elvis Costello" (Brad) and "Did Wings just suck? I though I'd learn about post-Beatles and I really don't think I did unless Wings raced up the charts a few times but McCartney never wrote a strong song after 1970" (Goldie) and "Honestly, I expected more about [second wife] Heather Mills. If you're not going to delve into that, why write a book about the man?" (Denise).

The Beatles part explores and grips you but there's just too much to cover in the remaining pages and it's as though we leave this great exploration and Peter Ames Carlin is suddenly showing us flash cards instead.

We didn't vote in the poll but we did read all the books. We had a problem with one section of this book, the trip to America to really start the solo career when someone shows up and just rips apart Linda. It's a musician and we'll give you his initials (D.S.) but read the book. That puzzled us. We asked C.I. (who hasn't read the book) and she responded, "That ___ said what? That little ___ is the biggest sexist in the world. If you think his attack on Linda is bad -- and it is bad, you should hear what the ____ 's said about Yoko [Ono] over the years. He's just a pig."

That's kind of what we got when we went through the book reading just that man's quotes. And that pointed to the other weakness of that section. We read one quote to C.I. and were just starting the last name of the man ("Who said that?"), at the third letter, when C.I. said his name. So C.I. knew right away who the little ____ was. And knew the pig was a sexist and knew the pig had a long history of trashing women. Why didn't Peter Ames Carlin know this?

Or did he know this and not include it?

We have no idea but to let a man who loathes women -- especially those in any position of power -- go off on Linda McCartney and not provide any kind of context so that the readers know this man's problem isn't just with Linda, struck us as more than a little unfair. And then we started thinking that if a woman did appear in the book, she'd slept with McCartney. The book is very short on female sources and a more well rounded portrait of Paul (and Linda) would have been possible if the sources weren't primarily drunken session players who left under unhappy circumstances.

4) The Battle of the Story of The Battle Of Seattle (list price $12) comes in at number four and the cover credits it to David Solnit and Rebecca Solnit. 34 pages of the 124-page book are also written by Chris Dixon. Third did a critical examination of the book with all participants strongly recommending it.

You'll note there are no links under any title. Why no hyperlinks! We could order right away! Book choice number four is why. All problems are now supposed to be fixed if your order from the publisher but we don't want e-mails of "Martha, Shirley, I trusted you and . . ." So you find the book yourself if one of the four interests you.

For us, the section that worked best was David Solnit's section. We know that the chronology there was sometimes confusing, but it was so deeply felt. In the Third piece, C.I. notes, "Instead, he's clearly hurting over this still and he's clearly blaming himself as much as he's blaming the film makers." That really does come through in the reading.

Due to initial problems with orders being filled, this became a pass-around. Meaning after the Third piece, the participants (except Elaine who hadn't read it) began circulating the book throughout the community. We think this book should have had more votes and been higher on the list but the late release (Thanksgiving week was when the publisher had the books and it was after Thanksgiving that they were mailed out if you were ordering from the publisher) resulted in a lower showing. We also know that an article Rebecca Solnit wrote in December pretty much drove away interest in this book because suddenly many on the pass around lists were stating "don't bother." Rebecca Solnit wrote about the climate conference in Copenhagen. Or that's what she presented as writing about. Instead she wrote about Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin's not even a governor now and she wasn't in Copenhagen. She doesn't set White House policy either.

Somewhere (even C.I. doesn't remember or says she doesn't), C.I. made a comment about that ridiculous speech Naomi Klein gave at the anniversary celebration of The Progressive. We thought the comment was made at Third but we couldn't find it. It might be in one of C.I.'s columns for the newsletters. But the gist of it was, "If you think Sarah Palin is so pathetic and so stupid, what does it say about you that in 2009 you're devoting your speech to her when you could talk about any topic in the world? When you could bring attention to any important issue? But you decided bitchy was the way to go? At a convention for the left?"

And that's how people felt about Rebecca Solnit's column. There's no real reason to write about Sarah Palin. She's not even a governor any more. But it's become the gutter laugh, the equivalent of the comic at the night club who does other people's catch phrases because he or she can't come up with any material of their own. There were many reasons to be outraged about Copenhagen. There was (a) all the attention it consumed from Panhandle Media (while the Senate was starting the push on that awful non-health care bill), (b) the faux and rehearsed nature of the 'activism,' (c) the White House wanting to do the usual Barack breezes in, gives a speech and world swoons, (d) the inability of the economically well off nations (include the US despite the debt) to even acknowledge the suffering developing countries will face . . . We could go on forever. So a column supposedly about Copenhagen that exists for one more attack of bitchy on Sarah Palin?

You're wasting our time and we don't have time to waste.

Had that column not appeared, the book most likely would have placed higher. But, as Keesha put it, "The column goes up and suddenly I'm stuck with the book, like we're playing hot potato, no one on the list wants me to forward it to them anymore."

We already linked to 2008 at the top of the piece. If you're curious about past choices, click on
2007, 2006 or 2005. Will there be a 2010 year-in-review on books? If the site hasn't gone dark, we'll do one here. If it does go dark, we'll do it at the gina & krista round-robin.


















Bedding down with terrorists

But first the project faces more prosaic nemeses. Before it has even been made public, it has set off three investigations into charges of corruption, a widespread problem that has severely hindered improvement in Iraq after the war.
"Everything in the project is suspicious," said Abbas al-Dihlegi, who runs the provincial council's integrity committee. With billions of dollars expected from private investors, both foreign and Iraqi, officials and shopkeepers on Rasheed Street suspect that much of the money will end up in the pockets of politicians or connected contractors. The watchdog group Transparency International recently named Iraq the fifth most corrupt country in the world, out of 180 nations studied.
Mr. Dihlegi said the initial $7 million contract to draw up the plan and provide a short list of contractors was awarded to Al Miemari without competitive bidding from other firms. "That is against the rules," he said. He noted that one of the firm's partners, Thaeir al-Faili, was a former deputy minister of reconstruction and a current member of the board of Baghdad's investment commission, which will grant all contracts for work on the project.
"This is a conflict of interest," Mr. Dihlegi said.


The above is from Riyadh Mohammed and John Leland's "In Heart of Iraq, a Plan to Revive the Pulse of a Central Artery" in yesterday's New York Times and reading it the first response is: "It takes more than pretty." So millions are going to be wasted on a beautification project while potable water and reliable electricity continue to wait? So there'll be a major shopping center for the rich among all the poverty? Sounds like the Chile Augusto Pinochet built. Well, no surprise, that was a US project at 'liberation' as well. Nouri as the new Pinochet? It plays.

Some things don't play. This from Warren P. Strobel and Mohammed al Dulaimy's "Can a city awash in guns, grenades and explosives ever be safe?" (McClatchy Newspapers) for example:
"Rather than trying to ignite a Sunni-Shiite sectarian war, U.S. and Iraqi analysts said, they're aiming to discredit Maliki's government with mass-casualty bombings that also limit the government's ability to function."

Why doesn't it play? It's not helped by unnamed 'analysts'. But the real problem? Don't scream 'Fire!' over and over, stand to the side and calmly wonder why people are running. Strobel and McClatchy repeatedly pushed the notion that it was 'good Shia' not responding to attempts to start a 'sectarian war.' 'Sectarian war' is what they like to call the ethnic cleansing which took place in Iraq as the Shia thugs the US installed into power went about purging the country. A minority population was targeted by the occupiers and their puppets. They were murdered in large numbers and they make up the bulk of Iraq's refugee population. But 'sectarian war' sounds so much prettier and implies some equality between the two sides. There was no equality. One side was backed by the US, the UK, Australia and various other super powers and then there were the Sunnis. One side not only had the backing, it also had control of US forces. All it had to do was insist that a group of 'insurgents' did this or were planning that and the US forces coudl storm whatever street, neighborhood or enclave.

The same press that ignored what was happening decided, this year, to portray attacks as an attempt by Sunnis to re-start a 'sectarian war.' It's amazing how, with no proof, it's a minority population responsible and how, with no proof, they 'know' the motives.

Well they spent months telling us that various attacks were attempts to restart a sectarian war -- ignoring that the losing side in an ethnic cleansing had little to gain in restarting the ethnic cleansing -- and now Strobel and McClatchy (who pushed that spin for months) want to show up and insist that it's an attempt to discredit Nouri?

It's really amazing if you just stop for a moment and be rational. That's not taught in J-school so we'll excuse the dullards of the press for a bathroom break. But for the rest of us, violence took place in Iraq. That much is known.

And the press did what? They offered two narratives this year. In the first narrative, Sunnis were the 'bad guys' trying to force the (empowered and in power) Shias into a war. In the second narrative, Sunnis are the 'bad guys' trying to discredit the poster for the Shia thugs: Nouri al-Maliki.

Does no one ever notice that? Does no one ever notice that the press is identifying with the installed and not telling the story of Iraq?

Once upon a time, there was alarm and dismay over the fact that the US press identified with the US and told the story from the US point of view. That continues today with the press refusing to report what happens and instead forever siding with the puppets the US installed.

The thugs installed who protect other thugs. Last night, Alice Fordham's "Peter Moore freed after US hands over Iraqi insurgent" (Times of London) reported:


The British hostage Peter Moore was dramatically set free yesterday after the United States handed over an Iraqi insurgent suspected of planning the deaths of five American servicemen.
Mr Moore, an IT consultant, was freed by League of the Righteous, or Asaib al-Haq (AAH) -- an extremist Shia group allied to Iran -- after 31 months and spent his first night of freedom at the British Embassy in Baghdad. He is expected to fly home today.
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that officials had worked tirelessly to secure his release but strongly denied that the British Government had given ground to his captors. He said: "There were no concessions in this case. There was no -- quote, unquote -- deal."
Foreign and Commonwealth Office sources confirmed, however, that the transfer from US custody a few days ago of Qais al-Khazali, a cleric and commander of AAH, helped to pave the way for Mr Moore’s release. They also admitted that British diplomats had been pressing the US to hand over al-Khazali to the Iraqi administration.

Today Suadad al-Salhy, Mohammed Abbas, Khalid al-Ansary, Missy Ryan, Mohammed Abbas and David Stamp (Reuters) report, "Iraq said on Thursday its judges could soon free the leader of a Shi'ite group believed to be behind the 2007 kidnapping of Briton Peter Moore if they found no criminal evidence, only a day after the hostage was released."

Thug-love, Nouri's thug-love. They're going to free al-Khazali. The US already did. From the June 9th snapshot:


This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

The US government decided the lives of 5 US service members didn't matter, the US government decided that justice didn't matter. The US government decided they'd get in bed with terrorists and even sleep in the wet spot without a single complaint. It's not a pretty picture. Right now some on the right are accusing Barack Obama of not 'getting' terrorism or of being soft on it. It's surprising that they haven't run with the story of the League of Righteous which really does more to establish that charge than Barack golfing (although Barack golfing does provide a visual). Mona Mahmood, Maggie O'Kane and Guy Grandjean (Guardian) report:

The men – including Peter Moore, who was released yesterday after more than two years in captivity – were taken to Iran within a day of their kidnapping from a government ministry building in Baghdad in 2007, several senior sources in Iraq and Iran have told the Guardian. They were held in prisons run by al-Quds Force, a Revolutionary Guard unit that specialises in foreign operations on behalf of the Iranian government.
The former US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, told the BBC he was "90% certain" Moore was held in Iran for some of his two and a half years in captivity.
One of the kidnappers told the Guardian that three of the Britons – Jason Creswell, Jason Swindlehurst and Alec Maclachlan – were killed after the British government refused to take ransom demands seriously.
Part of the deal leading to the release of Moore involved
the handing over of the young Shia cleric Qais al-Khazali, a leading figure in the Righteous League.


Today is New Year's Eve. The plan is to do a snapshot this afternoon/evening. Unless there's some serious news out of Iraq on Friday, no snapshot. It is the end of the year and the end of the decade. I've done two morning entries here. In addition to the snapshot, today will also see Martha & Shirley's year-in-books and Kat's look back at the decade in music -- the decade. Friday, I'll do at least one morning entry on Iraq, Kat will offer a look back at the year in music and I'll do a year-in-review. (I haven't written it, I haven't had time to think about it, I don't know what it's going to be.) Either tonight or tomorrow Ruth will look at the 2009 for radio and Isaiah will post two new comics on Friday (although one may go up late tonight). Beth's "Reflecting on 2009 (Beth)" went up Sunday.


In the New Year, March 20th, there's a DC action being called by A.N.S.W.E.R. and others.


A.N.S.W.E.R.

Closing with this from John Pilger's "Welcome to Orwell’s World 2010" (Information Clearing House):

Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize winner affirmed that peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that “extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan” to “disorderly regions and diffuse enemies”. He called this “global security” and invited our gratitude. To the people of Afghanistan, which America has invaded and occupied, he said wittily: “We have no interest in occupying your country.”
In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations Security Council. There was no UN authority. He said the “the world” supported the invasion in the wake of 9/11 when, in truth, all but three of 37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said that America invaded Afghanistan “only after the Taliban refused to turn over [Osama] bin Laden”. In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistan’s military regime, and were ignored. Even Obama’s mystification of 9/11 as justification for his war is false. More than two months before the Twin Towers were attacked, the Pakistani foreign minister, Niaz Naik, was told by the Bush administration that an American military assault would take place by mid-October. The Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly supported, was no longer regarded as “stable” enough to ensure America’s control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go.
Obama’s most audacious lie is that Afghanistan today is a “safe haven” for al-Qaeda’s attacks on the West. His own national security adviser, General James Jones, said in October that there were “
fewer than 100” al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. According to US intelligence, 90 per cent of the Taliban are hardly Taliban at all, but “a tribal localised insurgency [who] see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power”. The war is a fraud. Only the terminally gormless remain true to the Obama brand of “world peace”.


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