Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Iraq Inquiry

In the meantime, Greenstock is setting himself up as judge and jury in his own case. Ironically, the key issue is who decides who decides, ie whose opinion was valid as to whether UN security council resolution 1441 required further approval from the council to authorise war. Greenstock says his diplomacy was clever (too clever for its own good, he admits) in negotiating a resolution that did not make this explicit. Any other security council member that agreed the resolution but took a different line – well, they would say that wouldn't they? It surely must have occurred to him that, well, he would take his own particular line, wouldn't he? To say otherwise is would be to undermine himself. Didn't every Foreign Office legal adviser say the war would be illegal without a further resolution?
In a written statement to the inquiry, Greenstock openly admitted that one of the reasons why Britain could not agree that a further resolution was necessary was that to do otherwise would undermine the basis on which Britain bombed Iraq in 1998.
To have conceded that the use of force against Iraq was not legal under international law unless the security council took a specific, fresh decision would have been to reject the basis under which military action was taken in December 1998.
So we would say that, wouldn't we?
It was a very careful, self-justifying performance from a former ambassador with an admitted propensity to cover his and his country's diplomatic tracks. Prove me wrong, seemed to be his challenge to the inquiry. Despite a mountain of evidence, the committee seemed reluctant to do this. Maybe they feel sympathy for a man who put his heart and soul into seeking Iraqi disarmament, apparently unaware that regime change was the real agenda. I'm not so sure.

The above is from Chris Ames' "Who decides if a war is legal?" (Guardian) and the Iraq Inquiry, regardless of the outcome,, is news and there's much to be learned if, like Ames, you do some work. Others, like William Bowles, prefer to play self-important (with no real reason to puff out their chests) and offer crap like "Stop the Presses: Corporate Media Discovers Iraq War Set Up." For the record, William Bowles, neither BBC nor the Guardian qualify as "corporate media." That Bowles would be ignorant of that is only surprising if you've never read him. Strangely for a London-based person, Bowles citations tend to run to North American (the US or Canada). Does England not have an independent media? Oh wait, Bowles wouldn't know if they did, this is the fool that thinks BBC and the Guardian qualify as corporate media.


The Times of London is corporate media. Rod Liddle explores the hearings thus far and notes 8 things learned last week, of which, we'll include the first six:


First, the government knew all along that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest Saddam Hussein had any links with Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden or international Islamic terrorism in general, contrary to what was said in America — particularly by Dick Cheney, the vice-president — at the time.
Second, as a perceived threat to the West, Iraq came a long way behind Libya, Iran and North Korea, according to intelligence reports. The government knew in 2002 from these reports that Saddam’s nuclear programme had been destroyed a decade previously and that Iraq had been “effectively disarmed” by sanctions and the threat of military pressure.
Third, while the US and Britain insisted that Iraq posed a “clear and present” threat to its neighbours, none of those neighbours was audibly desirous of an invasion of the country, and most were audibly opposed.
Fourth, the government included details in its infamous “dodgy dossier” of September 2002 that implied Iraq might be pursuing a nuclear programme when it had not the slightest evidence for this, simply an absence of evidence to the contrary. Which is not quite the same thing, is it?
Fifth, the foreword to the dodgy dossier, written by the prime minister at the time, Tony Blair, was an exercise in hyperbole and scaremongering from which the mandarins arraigned in the QE2 centre could not distance themselves more quickly if they tried. In particular, Blair’s assertion that Saddam had “beyond doubt” continued to manufacture chemical and biological weapons was a statement that was “impossible to make”, according to not only Chilcot but two of his interviewees. In other words — to use an appropriate iconic phrase — the document had been sexed up.
Sixth, an intelligence report in March 2003, shortly before the invasion, suggested Saddam had no chemical weapons whatsoever; they were all long since disassembled and useless. This report was taken by the government to imply confirmation that Iraq actually had chemical weapons, even if they were unusable, and the invasion proceeded.

Instead of a bit player with little credit to his name attempting to claim that he said it all years ago, he might try (a) grasping that he's missing a great many revelations as well as lies out of the hearing, (b) the world needs the remedial (for example, the inquiry has again established no link between al Qaeda and Iraq -- needed because on Oct. 27th, Thomas E. Ricks was promoting a false link between them on NPR -- and that's just the most recent liar), and (c) while he's dismissing things he doesn't even comprehend, he gives the world press the cover they need to hide behind for not covering it: "Well it's nothing new!"

Hey, remember November 8th and all the days that followed -- actually drop back to October -- when the press would 'report' that Iraq would hold elections in January. Doesn't look like that's going to happen. Those 'intended' elections. No one knows when they'll be held currently. SICI head, after the death of his father this fall, Ammar al-Hakim is sounding alarms about 'foreign interference' in the Iraqi process. Iran's Press TV quotes him saying of those attempting to interfere, "They are doomed to fail. (There is) a danger of foreign intervention in the electoral process. The election is an internal Iraqi affair. We must strive for consensus among all Iraqis." Meanwhile Micheal O'Brien (The Hill) notes that US Vice President Joe Biden had conversations by phone today with unnamed "Iraqi leaders" on the proposal to resolve the election stalemate. Presumably this would include the KRG leaders. The Kurdistan Regional Government has not registered their opinion of the proposal being bandied about yet but they did issue the following statment (on another topic) this week:


PM Barham Salih’s statement on International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women
Statement by Prime Minister Barham Salih Kurdistan Regional Government November 25, 2009
On the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) reaffirms its commitment to protecting the rights of women and its dedication to increasing the role of women in the political and social spheres. Empowering women and securing their rights and wishes are the major principles of the KRG’s initiatives for women.
We have taken certain measures to ensure that this becomes a reality, and this is reflected in the number of women who are participating in Parliament and the equal opportunities made available them in all sectors of government. Nevertheless, we believe that these steps are only the beginning of finding and benefiting from the potential of this important part of society, which has previously been denied such rights through irrational pretexts.
The KRG therefore feels that it is our duty to eliminate any kind of violence against women in Kurdistan’s society, and to establish an environment where a woman is judged fairly on her skills and abilities. The KRG wants to mark the International Day of the Elimination of Violence against Women by enforcing its message with action.
One of the KRG’s priorities is to give support in particular to women’s efforts to eliminate violence and end so-called ‘honour’ killings. To fulfill this important task, the KRG needs the help and cooperation of all the NGOs and organisations that are working for women’s rights and freedoms. We all must have a hand in establishing and promoting legal and institutional measures to protect and secure those rights.
The KRG intends to form a committee, working directly under the Council of Ministers, charged with finding a mechanism for highlighting women’s issues and coordinating the government’s efforts to prevent discrimination and violations carried out under various pretexts. Furthermore, the KRG will work towards creating social awareness and a legal framework through which women’s rights will be secured.

Community sites posted the following in recent days:

"If you're surprised, who was lying to you?"
"Thanksgiving."
"To shop or not and the Iraq Inquiry"
"Influence of the Bully Boy"
"Cause for Alarm!"
"Yes"
"Post-Thanksgiving tips from the Kitchen"
"Shopping kit and more"
"Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang"
"No to shopping (except for kids)"
"newsweek prepares to close shop?"
"the sport of the shop"
"Equality"
"Pre-shopping questions"
"The death of the CD?"
"No on the shopping proposition"
"With Six You Get Egg Roll"
"To shop or not?"
"Easter Parade"
"No to Black Friday"
"Fiona"
"Comfort zone"
"Little girls love to play dress-up"
"THIS JUST IN! HE REALLY IS BUSH'S TWIN!"
"Who will she give diet tips too?"
"THIS JUST IN! TRASH TV TAKES THE WHITE HOUSE!"



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















thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends
at

Media crackdown, militias returning, it's Iraq

Like millions of Muslims around the world, Iraqis are celebrating the religious festival of Eid al-Adha, but it is rather common for Iraqis after the U.S.-led invasion to reflect mixed feelings of hope for better life and bitter disappointment from the troubled political process.
The four-day annual festival falls on the 10th day of the month of Dhul Hijja of the lunar Islamic calendar. The Eid al-Adha, also known as the Feast of the Sacrifice, marks the end of the spiritual peak of the annual pilgrimage or Hajj in Arabic, when pilgrims descend from the hill of Arafat to the nearby holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
Muslims marked the end of the Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia on Friday by sacrificing a sheep for the feast in symbolic recall of Prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.

The above is from Jamal Hashim's "Iraqis celebrate Eid al-Adha amid growing bitterness of wrangling political process" (Xinhua) and, yes, there is reporting out of Iraq . . . if you ignore so many of the lazy ass Western outlets. On Thursday, Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Myra MacDonald (Reuters) reported on the media crackdown in Iraq noting the multitude of suits "filed or threatened against both foreign and local media outlets critical of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite Muslim-led government, which will seek re-election in national polls due in early 2010," the recent 'judicial' finding against the Guardian and that "the department for communications and media has issued rules under which it can close down any media company that encourages 'terrorism, violence and tensions'." In related news, Oliver August (Times of London) reports on the return of the militia to Basra and notes:


The Basra police and army units, who can now be seen at checkpoints throughout the city, deny that they have a problem with returning militants. At the Basra mortuary, however, officials told The Times that they were seeing the bodies of victims from political killings every week. Naeem Hassan, a hearse driver, said: "I just drove the bodies of two Iraqis back to their home in Baghdad. They were working here for a foreign company with a foreign engineer. He was kidnapped and the two Iraqis were killed."
Few such killings are reported in the local media, which has complained about official intimidation in the past. "Don’t believe it when you hear from the police that Basra is safe," Mr Rady said. "Parts of the police are, and always were, part of the militia. They are infiltrated through and through."

When will Iraq learn? You crackdown on the media by cozying up to them. That's how you get the press you want. Ask any White House administration.

A current example: where's the US outlet covering the Iraq Inquiry?

NPR can only post an AP story? Really? They have no London correspondents? Really? That's the lie they want to stick to? Or you can look at the attack on the Guardian by the Iraqi 'judicial' 'system' and note the refusal of the Western press to call it out. (McClatchy Newspapers was the only western outlet covering it.)

The Iraq inquiry continues next week with public testimony but, in the US, we appear to have already seen that the bulk of the press has decided that anything revealed will not make it to US newsconsumers via their US outlets.

We'll close this entry out with Norman Kember's "Iraqis' stories must be heard" (Guardian):

Four years ago this week I was kidnapped in Baghdad. My trip to Iraq had been motivated by frustration at the government's deafness to all voices of reasoned opposition to the war in Iraq. I went to meet Iraqis to reassure them that most people in Britain did not regard them as enemies. Today, the lead-up to that war is back in the spotlight with the Chilcot inquiry. This is more than just an academic exercise to many. Anyone – in Britain, Iraq or elsewhere – who had a relative killed in the conflict will feel an intense personal need to discover the truth. They will be listening to testimony that appears to gravely undermine the official justification for going to war. They will want to learn the reaction by the then government to the advice of Middle East diplomats who knew about the conflicts within Iraqi society, conflicts that Saddam had suppressed but were always likely to explode on his removal. If you are going to war, ignorance of the probable effects on the country in the aftermath is inexcusable. Why else do you have a large diplomatic and intelligence force in the area?
I witnessed how much resentment was created by the revenge attacks of coalition forces on Iraqi towns and their apparent disregard for civilian lives. All our captors had suffered the loss of relatives, homes or jobs in the onslaught on Falluja. And, as they asked Jim Loney, the Canadian peaceworker who was also held hostage, "If the Americans had invaded and occupied your country, would you not have resisted them by all means at your disposal?" I am almost surprised that we were treated so moderately by our captors – apart, that is, from the tragic, largely unexplained, decision to kill Tom Fox, the American Quaker. Their opinion was that the coalition forces had deliberately stirred up the antipathies between Shia, Sunni and Kurd peoples.

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









at

Friday, November 27, 2009

Iraq snapshot

Friday, November 27, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, the Iraq inquiry continues in England and covers  many topics including Bush's teleprompter mishap, no solution yet for the Iraq's national elections (but possibilities), and more.
 
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died, Nov. 27, of non-combat related injuries. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in the Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4366.
 
Meanwhile, I wasn't aware Thanksgiving was an Iraqi holiday but apparently it is.  That would explain all the outlets off today and unable to report especially on any violence.  The US military hypes, "Two cultures come together at a table. The hosts, strangers in an exotic land, welcome native guests with a rich history stretching back thousands of years.
This scene, reminiscent of the historic celebration at Plymouth, took place here on Forward Operating Base Falcon, Nov. 26, as dozens of Iraqi tribal, civil and military leaders and their families were guests of the 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team for Thanksgiving dinner." Reminscent of the historic celebration at Plymouth?  Did they really just say that?  And then they want to act shocked when accused of attempting to colonize Iraq.  Also suprisingly unhelpful is US Maj Marty Reigher who declares, "Iraqi culture is built on trust and a man's word."  It's disgusting how the US military continues to do their part and then some to make life more difficult for Iraqi women.  Not only was an American officer stupid enough to say it, someone was stupid enough to include it in a write up.
 
But at least the one writing up the hype worked today.  More than you can say for those who should be reporting on violence.  (No, there's no chance in hell that there was no violence in Iraq today.)  Yesterday AFP reported that a Mosul "church and a convent were struck by bombings" -- the Church of St. Ephrem and St. Theresa Convent of Dominican Nuns -- and quoted Father Yousif Thomas Mirkis stating, "These attacks are aimed at forcing Christians to leave the contry."
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left ten people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left another person injured, a second Baghdad sticky bombing left one person injured, a third Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left three people injured, 2 Babil market bombings which claimed 2 lives and left twenty-eight people injured.
Turning to the issue of Iraq's 'intended' January elections and Iraq as Groundhog Day.  It's apparently November 8th or a few days prior all over again.  Anthony Shadid and Nada Bakri (Washington Post) reported Thursday that a proposal has emerged which may or may not have backing in the Parliament and which may or may not pit Sunni against Kurd and, "Even with the agreement, which must now be approved by the Iraqi electoral commission, election officials said it would be almost impossible to hold the election in January as originally planned. Mid- to late February was more likely, since a major Shiite Muslim holiday will not end until Feb. 10."  Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) explains, "A compromise, however, did not appear likely to be reached before next week, as Iraqis began to celebrate the Islamic holiday Id al-Adha, or the Festival of Sacrifice, which lasts until Tuesday.  One of Iraq's two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, released several statements suggesting that he was open to a compromise. At the same time, he threatened to veto a new election law, as he did last week, raising the specter of a political and constitutional crisis."  Shadid and Barki reported this afternoon that while Tariq al-Hashimi has called the proposal "good news" he has also stated, "It's still early to talk about ratifying the law, because we are awaiting the electoral commission's interpretation of the agreement."  In addition, the reporters explain the Kurds have yet to indicate where they stand on the proposal.  Liz Sly and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that even though the country's "constitution stipulates that the poll must be held by January," it does not appear to be likely that January elections will be held "so a delay will require some constitutional tinkering, which could set a dangerous precedent." AFP quotes Speaker Iyad al-Samarrai stating, "The (election) commission announced it would be held on January 16th, this is not possible anymore because there is no law. I believe that the election will be held in March."
 
In England, the Iraq Inquiry continues.  Those needing audio can't turn to Pacifica Radio because, despite all those "Thanksgiving is abomination!" 'reports' they inflict on listeners, the holiday rolls around and everyone needs off for Thursday and Friday so programs such as Free Speech Radio News and Democracy Now! offer canned 'news' programming.  Not unlike KPFA's infamous New Year's Eve Special on December 31, 2006 that was, in fact, not live despite being presented on air as live.  For audio on the hearing, the Guardian's podcast this week features Anne Perkins and Polly Toynbee discussing the inquiry. Thursday the inquiry heard from Christopher Meyer on the topic of Transatlantic Relationship and Jeremy Greenstock offered testimony today on the topic of Developments in the United Nations [links go to video and transcript options for the testimony of each witness].  Chris Ames (Guardian) observes of Meyer's testimony:
 
At the Iraq inquiry this morning, Sir Christopher Meyer has let so many cats out of the bag that it is hard to keep up with them all. He has confirmed that by the time Tony Blair met George Bush at Crawford, Texas in April 2002, Blair had already agreed to regime change. Meyer and others had told the US administration about this change of heart in March 2002. The "UN route" was a way to justify the war but the inspectors were never given the chance to do their job.        
Or did we know all that already? Ever since the war, there has been a massive gulf between what various leaked documents have shown and the official version. Previous inquiries have failed to close that gap. Now Meyer, who was the UK ambassador to Washington at the time, has done exactly that.     
The government's version of events was always that it was taking action to deal with the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Leaked documents, most notably the Downing Street documents, show that the policy was to go along with the US desire for regime change and use weapons of mass destruction as a pretext. This version of events was confirmed by what Meyer said this morning. I don't think it could be more explosive.
 
We'll pick up where Meyer is discussing the 2002 meet-up between Bush and Blair.
 
Committee Member Martin Gilbert: That brings me to my last question before I hand over to Sir Roderic Lyne, and it brings me to Crawford in April 2002. What I would like to ask you is this: to what extent did American and British policy towards Iraq merge in April 2002 along the lines that you suggested during that weekend at the Crawford ranch, in particular Bush's commitment at that time, as he put it, to put Saddam on the spot by following the UN inspectors' route and also by constructing and international coalition, which was the Prime Minister's strong input?  How do you feel about the convergance of policy at that time?
 
Christopher Meyer: It took a while for policy to converge -- sorry, if we are talking about Americans, the President accepting, for realpolitik reasons, it would be better to go through the United Nations than not, which was a repudiation of where his Vice-President stood.  It took a while to get there, probably until August of that year.  I said in my briefing telegram to Tony Blair, before Crawford, a copy of which, again, I couldn't get hold of in the archive -- and by that time there had been a couple of months, maybe more, maybe three months, in which contingency discussion of, "If it came to war in Iraq, how would you do it?" It was all very -- it was all vey embryonic.  Of course, while regime change was the formal policy of the United States of America, it didn't necessarily mean an armed invasion, at that time, of Iraq and it may sound like a difference without a distinction or a distinction without a difference, but it wasn't, not at that time, and so I said -- I think as I remember I said to Tony Blair, "There are three things you really need to focus on when you get to Crawford.  One is how to garner international support for a policy of regime change, if that is what it turns out to be.  If it involves removing Saddam Hussein, how do you do it and when do you do it?" And the last thing I said, which became a kind of theme of virtually all the reporting I sent back to London in that year was, "Above all" -- I think I used the phrase "above all" -- "get them to focus on the aftermath, because, if it comes to war and Saddam Hussein is removed, and then . . .?"  The other thing at that time, Sir Martin, which people tend to forget is actually what was blazing hot at the time and a far more immediate problem -- and it wasn't Iraq, it was the Middle East, because the Intifada had blown up, hideous things were going on in the West Bank, the Israeli army were in the West Bank and we had prevailed on the Americans, as one example of British influence working that year, to put out a really tough statement before Tony Blair arrived in Crawford telling the Israelis in summary that they needed to withdraw from the West Bank towns and withdraw soon. Now, let me be quite frank about this. Crawford was a meeting at the President's ranch. I took no part in any of the discussions, and there was a large chunk of that time when no adviser was there, I think -- I don't know whether David Manning has been before you yet, but when he coomes before you, he will tell you, I think, that he went there with Jonathan Powell for a discussion of Arab/Israel and the Intifada. I think it was at that meeting that there was a kind of joint decision between Bush and Blair that Colin Powell should go to the region and get it sorted.  I believe that, after that, the two men were alone in the ranch until dinner on Saturday night were all the advisers, including myself, turned up.  So I'm not entirely clear to this day -- I know what the Cabinet Office says were the results of the meeting, but, to this day, I'm not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood, at the Crawford ranch.  There are clues in the speech which Tony Blair gave the next day at College Station, which is one of his best foreign policy speeches, a very fine piece of work. 
 
Committee Member Martin Gilbert: How do you assess the balance in that speech between, as it were, potential pre-emption and the UN rule in Iraq?
 
Christopher Meyer: There were lots of interesting things in those speeches. It sort of repays a kind of criminological analysis. To the best of my knowledge, but I may be wrong, this was the first time that Tony Blair has said in public "regime change". I mean, he didn't only deal with Iraq, he mentioned other issues as well. But he -- I think what he was trying to do was draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq, which led, I think, not inadvertently, but deliberately, to a conflation of the threat by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It also drew in spirit on the 1999 Chicago speech on humanitarian intervention.
 
In one of the more interesting bits of the testimony, he recounted when the Bully of England met the Bully of the US with George W. Bush saying, "Hello, Tony. May I cally ou Tony? Welcome to Camp David," and Tony Blair responding, "Hello, George. May I call you George? Great to be here. What are we going to talk about?"  Oh, there's nothing more heart warming than two dithering idiots bonding.  He went on to declare that "I remember Condoleeza Rice saying to me, 'The President has just got back and he said the only human being he felt he could talk to was Tony, the rest of them were like creatures from outer space'. or some such phrase."
 
 
Moving on to today, John Chilcot is the Chair of the inquiry and he explained this morning, "The objective of this session is to help us build a picture of developments at the United Natins on policy towards Iraq in 2001 to the beginning of the military action in March 2003."   Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) reports of Greenstock's testimony:

Sir Jeremy told the inquiry panel: "I regarded our invasion of Iraq as legal but of questionable legitimacy, in that it didn't have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states or even, perhaps, of a majority of people inside the UK.
"So there was a failure to establish legitimacy, although I think we successfully established legality in the Security Council for our actions in March 2003 in that we were never challenged in the Secuity Council or in the International Court of Justice for these actions."
Sir Jeremy regarded it as essential for the UN to pass a resolution in 2002 establishing the case for war, and threatened to resign if no resolution was passed.


Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) adds, "Addressing the issue of whether weapons inspectors should have been given more time, Sir Jeremy told the inquiry: 'It seemed to me that the option of invading Iraq in, say, October 2003 deserved much greater consideration. But the momentum for earlier action in the United States was much too strong for us to counter'." Though some may cheer that statement, they shouldn't. In the construct of the response, he argues for war, just wanting it to wait until "say, October 2003." No where does he allow that the inspectors being allowed to complete their jobs could argue that there was no case for war. James Meikle (Guardian) reports, "Earlier, Greenstock told the inquiry that he had threatened to resign if the UN security council failed to pass a resolution on Iraq in the lead-up to the invasion." In other words, empty threats are part of the weakingly's make up. And to be clear, Greenstock claims that he was satisfied by the November 2002 resolution (1441) which really just allowed the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. It did not authorize a war. Greenstock failed to make clear why something as serious as starting a war didn't require a resolution or why he himself didn't feel that was grounds for resigning -- and, no, he can't (as he tries to do) push that off on Bush. Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal, no question. He had no authority over Greenstock and none over Tony Blair. Greenstock needs to take some accountability for his own actions and stop trying to hide behind Bush.
We'll drop in on the issue of 1441 for an interesting factoid.
 
Committee Member Usha Prashar: But was it your view throughout the negotiations of 1441 on whether or not a second resolution would be needed?
 
Jeremy Greenstock: There are two different sorts of second resolution and this my explain why President Bush used the plural when he was ad libbing, when his teleprompter gave him the penultimate American text and not the text he had agreed to, by a mistake of his staff.  He ad libbed the words, "And we shall come to the UN for the necessary resolutions" from his memory. It wasn't that the telepromprter broke down, he saw that it was the wrong text on the teleprompter, as I understood the story.  There was, as part of the lead-up to the negotiation of 1441, the idea that there should be a pair of resolutions, not a single one in 1441 that should have the inspectors' conditions in one part and in the second resolution the consequences for Iraq on what would happen if they didn't comply with the the first one.  There was the possibility of passing those resolutions either together and simultaneously or sequentially in time. As it happened, in 1441 we built those two elements into a single text and it was successfully negotiated and passed unanimously on 8 November as a single text. 
 
Andrew Grice (Independent of London) adds, "He said the 'whole saga', in terms of UK policy, was driven by the belief that Iraq had WMD and any talk from the United States of other motivations for war, such as regime change, were 'unhelpful'. UK policy was solely focused on disarming Iraq, he insisted. The failure to secure another UN resolution had been damaging in terms of public perceptions of the reasons for going to war." Really? That's what Greenstock's going to go with?  That England "was driven by the belief that Iraq had WMD"?  In the US, Bush used many lies to push for war on Iraq and the most infamous one might be that 'Saddam Hussein attempted to aquire yellow cake uranium from Africa'. In England, Blair was fond of the fanciful boast that Iraq had the capability to attack England with WMD within 45 minutes. David Brown and Francis Elliott (Times of London) highlighted this important aspect of Wednesday's testimony, "Intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction was received by the Government ten days before Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, the inquiry into the war was told yesterday."  Meanwhile Channel 4 continues to offer their live blog by Iraq Inquiry Blogger whose observations today included:

A final thought: while Meyer's book (you just may have picked up yesterday that he'd written a book) became a best-seller, Greenstock's The Costs of War never even made it to the bookshops. It was blocked by the FCO and Number 10, apparently because he'd quoted confidential diplomatic exchanges.
 
Thursday the Liberal Democrat Party issued a press release noting their leaders questioning of the current prime minister of England, Gordon Brown, on the issue of the Iraq Inquiry:
 
 

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats yesterday challenged the Prime Minister on the government's ' culture of secrecy' with regards to the Iraq Inquiry.

The full text of nick's questions:

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I would obviously like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Sergeant Robert Loughran-Dickson of the Royal Military Police, who tragically died serving in Afghanistan last week. I also add my tribute to PC Bill Barker, who lost his life in the line of duty dealing with the terrible floods in Cumbria. Our hearts go out to his wife and four children. At such times we all remember that it is the brave men and women of our emergency services who keep us safe when it really counts. We thank them for it.

It is vital that the Iraq inquiry, which started its work this week, is able to reveal the full truth about the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that when Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues come to publish their final report, they will able to publish all information available to them, with the sole exception of information essential to national security?

The Prime Minister: I have set out a remit and brought it to the House of Commons. Sir John Chilcot has been given the freedom to conduct his inquiry as he wants. He has chosen to invite people to give evidence, and he will choose how to bring his final report to the public. That is a matter for the inquiry.

Mr. Clegg: As I think the Prime Minister must know, the matter is not just for the inquiry, because his Government have just issued a protocol-I have it here-to members of the inquiry, governing the publication of material in the final report. If he reads it, he will see that it includes nine separate reasons why information can be suppressed, most of which have nothing to do with national security. Outrageously, it gives Whitehall Departments individual rights of veto over the information in the final report. Why did the Prime Minister not tell us about that before? How on earth will we, and the whole country, hear the full truth of the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq if the inquiry is suffocated on day one by his Government's shameful culture of secrecy?

The Prime Minister: That is not what Sir John Chilcot has said. The issues affecting the inquiry that would cause people to be careful are national security and international relations. As I understand it, those are the issues referred to in the protocol. I believe that Sir John Chilcot and his team are happy with how they are being asked to conduct the inquiry.


Wednesday Cedric's "Little girls love to play dress-up" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HE REALLY IS BUSH'S TWIN!" emphasized that Barack plans to use West Point as a studio set to show boat on with his Afghanistan War announcement while other community sites explored the topic of Black Friday: Betty's "Yes," Mike's "To shop or not and the Iraq Inquiry," Rebecca's "the sport of the shop," Stan's "No to Black Friday," Elaine's "Comfort zone," Ruth's "Pre-shopping questions," Marcia's "To shop or not?," Trina's "Shopping kit and more ," Ann's "No to shopping (except for kids)" and Kat's "No on the shopping proposition."  And yesterday Mike offered "Thanksgiving."
 
 

at

Inquiry told the Iraq War is illegitimate

It will cover Britain's role in Iraq from July 2001 to July 2009 and report some time next year, after the General Election.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN at the time, has already told the inquiry that the war was not legitimate.
Earlier Sir Christopher Meyer, then Britain's ambassador to Washington, suggested that a deal to invade Iraq may have been "signed in blood" by George Bush and Tony Blair in 2002.
There will doubtless be many more revelations, but what will be done as a consequence?

The above is from the Telegraph of London's "Iraq inquiry: what exactly will Sir John Chilcot's inquiry achieve?" which is not an opinion piece, at least not in the traditional sense. It's an opinion piece in the just-add-water sense. They're asking readers to leave comments on what they believe the inquiry will accomplish. The Telegraph's Gordon Rayner reports of today's testiomony by Greenstock:

Sir Jeremy told the inquiry panel: "I regarded our invasion of Iraq as legal but of questionable legitimacy, in that it didn’t have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states or even, perhaps, of a majority of people inside the UK.
"So there was a failure to establish legitimacy, although I think we successfully established legality in the Security Council for our actions in March 2003 in that we were never challenged in the Secuity Council or in the International Court of Justice for these actions."
Sir Jeremy regarded it as essential for the UN to pass a resolution in 2002 establishing the case for war, and threatened to resign if no resolution was passed.

Today is day four of the public testimony and Channel 4 continues to offer their live blog by Iraq Inquiry Blogger:

A final thought: while Meyer's book (you just may have picked up yesterday that he'd written a book) became a best-seller, Greenstock's The Costs of War never even made it to the bookshops. It was blocked by the FCO and Number 10, apparently because he'd quoted confidential diplomatic exchanges.

Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) adds, "Addressing the issue of whether weapons inspectors should have been given more time, Sir Jeremy told the inquiry: 'It seemed to me that the option of invading Iraq in, say, October 2003 deserved much greater consideration. But the momentum for earlier action in the United States was much too strong for us to counter'." Though some may cheer that statement, they shouldn't. In the construct of the response, he argues for war, just wanting it to wait until "say, October 2003." No where does he allow that the inspectors being allowed to complete their jobs could argue that there was no case for war. James Meikle (Guardian) reports, "Earlier, Greenstock told the inquiry that he had threatened to resign if the UN security council failed to pass a resolution on Iraq in the lead-up to the invasion." In other words, empty threats are part of the weakingly's make up. And to be clear, Greenstock claims that he was satisfied by the November 2002 resolution (1441) which really just allowed the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. It did not authorize a war. Greenstock failed to make clear why something as serious as starting a war didn't require a resolution or why he himself didn't feel that was grounds for resigning -- and, no, he can't (as he tries to do) push that off on Bush. Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal, no question. He had no authority over Greenstock and none over Tony Blair. Greenstock needs to take some accountability for his own actions and stop trying to hide behind Bush.



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


the telegraph of london
gordon rayner
channel four


the guardian
at

The US military announces another death

Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died, Nov. 27, of non-combat related injuries. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member’s primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in the Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4366.

That's ten announced deaths for the month thus far. Will the press trumpet an increase the way they've Happy Talked their way through alleged decreases in recent months? It's an increase of two over last month. Actually, an increase of one but the press outlets ran with 8 as the death toll for October when it turned out it was 9. So already the death toll for November is 2 more than what they reported it was for October.

It's interesting, too, the way the bulk of the western outlets aren't overly concerned with reporting on the roadside bomb attacks on US forces. Those are increasing. Those are noticeably increasing. But if we all look the other way, we can pretend Bambi ended the Iraq War. Click your heels three times and say "There's no place like home" or clap you hands and insist you believe in fairies.

If you're running
From your secrets
I will make you
Take them with you
-- "Until Morning," written by Chris Carrabba from Dashboard Confessional's Alter The Ending.


And make you choke on them if your name is John Hughes. Little Fat Ass Hughes is back to soil the Christian Science Monitor one more time:

Does it ever seem to you that the news from the Middle East is always bleak?
Well, take heart. From Iraq, where the United States sought to plant seeds of democracy, there is evidence of some budding.
[. . .]
But even more significant news – a major step for women – went largely unnoticed outside Iraq. Fifty women graduated alongside male classmates as senior officers in the national police force. In next year's class there will be 100 of them. The jobs are among the highest-paying in Iraq. The majority of the women in this year's class finished law school. There have been some women in lower police ranks, but they have not until now been eligible for the elite officers' corps.

Hey, Fat Ass Hughes, we're not as dumb as you are. We're not all that stupid. A) If you're going to claim female police are a sign of progress, you might want to get honest about the fact that female police officers were much more abundant in Iraq before the US invaded.

Yeah, dumb f**king ass, Iraqi women have been police officers for years. They only lost that after the invasion.

B) If you're going to write about these women, you mgiht try writing reality. Not only have they lost their rights, but they're a joke to their male peers. They're having to start over at square one. And if Dumb Ass actually read -- in his long career, there have been few indications that he even knew how to read -- he'd be damn well aware of that fact. What a moron. It wasn't two months ago that Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) was quoting Iraqi women in the forces on how they were treated and seen by their male peers.

What moron. Truly, some people need to have an enforced retirement.

There's more reality in a letter writer to Steve and Mia for their latest advice column (Philadelphia Daily News):

Q: I hope you don't think this is silly, but does the three-date rule before you have sex apply to a soldier shipping off to Iraq? Is it my patriotic duty to bend the rules?

Steve: It's been a few years, but my experience is that the three-date rule is not widely enforced. Or perhaps the rules varied, from the one-date rule to the "only in your dreams, buster," a rule that women applied only when going out with me.
Whatever your rules, I would not make an exception for a man or woman in uniform. There are plenty of better ways to honor their service. Otherwise, you could end up in bed with a marching band.

Mia: I always tell folks to get to know someone before getting intimate. You say three dates, I say you should wait at least three months. So pass on doing the horizontal boogie with soldier boy until you know him better.

Here's reality from someone not desperate to prevent the act of sex: If you want to do it, do it. And as someone who lived through a previous war, I can tell you that if you don't, you'll always wonder what-if (especially should he or she not return from the battlefield) and you won't have to wonder if you do. Steve and Mia, no doubt, make reactionaries hearts warm. But in the real world, try telling a woman what she may or may not feel ten or twenty years on down the line and table the preaching for a church. If she wanted a sermon, she would have sought out advice from clergy.

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







at

Talking entry

Due to a number of e-mails to the public account, we're going to do a talking entry.

First, thanks for thinking of me for your wedding, but if I don't know you and you don't me, I really would be out of place at your wedding and, as for where you should have it, if you're not familiar with the US, maybe it would be better to get married in England before you leave.

Second, to those visitors who feel neglected. (1) Most holidays do not include a snapshot. (2) It was noted in advance that there might or might not be an Iraq snapshot on Thursday and it would depend on the news coming out of Iraq that day. (3) With three entries on Thursday, I'm failing to see any validity in your charges of neglect but thanks for writing.

Third, Kat's review will go up at some point this weekend. It might be today. I have no idea. She's written it, she's typed it. The cover needs to be uploaded to Flickr but that will take a few seconds. This may or may not be her last music piece here until she does her year-in-review. That's for her to decide. If she finds something she feels is worthy of a review, she'll write another review.

Fourth, Kat covers music. And does a wonderful job of it so there's no need for me to as well. In answer to questions of what I'm listening to right now are Carly Simon's Never Been Gone, Dashboard Confessional's Alter The Ending, Rickie Lee Jones' Balm In Gilead and some mixes of a friend's album in progress (which I predict will be the R&B album of next year). And "right now" is this morning.

Five, to the fool insisting that the Iraq War is over, tell it to the Iraqis still dying, tell it to the US forces still stationed there, tell it to the American families with relatives stationed in Iraq. Consider yourself incredibly fortunate (or insensitive) to be "bored" with an ongoing war.

Six, are we going dark? I said, "Let me get through Thanksgiving and then I'll decide." Most want to continue so I've agreed to six more months. If you're late to the party, the plan (announced in the summer of 2005) was for this site to go dark November 2008. Ava and I accidently extended that last year when we told friends with Fringe that we'd wait until midseason to review the show. At which point it was extended for a brief time. Then community member Stan wanted to start a site (which he did, ) but he didn't want to be starting it if we were all about to shut down. So I've agreed to six month extensions. I can't promise, as I did in 2005, three years. That's too much and there are days when I don't even want to be online or near a computer. But I can manage six months. Ava, Elaine and I are all fine with going dark right now but the others want to continue. So, for at least six more months, we will.

Seven, how could I miss Google and YouTube!!!! Because we're focused on more important things right now. Nouri al-Maliki, feeling that state TV doesn't bow and scrape enough before him, has started his own YouTube channel -- 'just like Queen Elizabeth!' breathless accounts insist from various outlets. I'm really not sure that's the comparison he should be seeking. Second, Iraq's museum remains closed to the people. That it may be 'open' to the world (while still closed to Iraqis) is not really top of my must-cover bits.

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


at

Thursday, November 26, 2009

I Hate The War

Aamer Madhani (USA Today) has a piece entitled "Troops celebrate what could be last Thanksgiving in Iraq" which is almost as stupid as the headline. US troops might not be in Iraq next Thanksgiving!!!! Oops, Madhani says the "goal" is for them to leave "by the end of 2011."

Oh, is that the goal?

Dumb ass, is that the damn goal?

What month are we in?

Anybody know?

November, the 11th month of the year.

What was Barack's promise during the 2007 and 2008 wings of his never ending campaign? That's right.

A brigade a month for the first ten months after he was sworn in.

Did that happen?

No, it didn't.

And not only do the press refuse to hold the liar accountable, there's no pressure to force him to keep that promise. He was lying at the time -- we pointed it out repeatedly in real time. But others didn't. The Nation sure as hell didn't. Where's there fiery editorial calling for him to keep his promise? Where's the cover story documenting his LIE?

When you consider how that 'independent' magazine whored itself out to get him the nomination, when you consider all the whores who endorsed him (Bitsy Tiny Bits Reed, Laura the self-loathing lesbian Flanders, William I-Am-Disgracing-Myself Greider, John I'll-Do-Anything-For-A-Quarter Nichols, and all the other bit players from the non-Democratic Party wing of the left), it's really amazing how silent they have been while the ten months of his promise have passed.

That's the beggar press, for the real press, the lesson here is what you should have learned a long time ago: Until something happens, it has happened. Promises, pledges, predictions? Those aren't facts and shouldn't be presented as such. Reporters are supposed to know the difference.

And political parties, real ones, are supposed to call out their 'competition.' Translation, those looking for a new party to emerge in 2012 shouldn't waste their time on the Green Party which has spent far too long covering for Barack Obama and far too little time presenting a contrasting agenda that would build their party and shake up an electorate.

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 4362. Tonight? 4363.

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



at

"Like Creatures from outer space" except for the Poodle

In England, the Iraq Inquiry continues. The Guardian's podcast this week features Anne Perkins and Polly Toynbee discussing the inquiry. Testimony today comes from Christopher Meyer and the topic is Transatlantic Relationship while tomorrow Jeremy Greenstock is scheduled to offer testimony on the Developments in the United Nations. Chris Ames (Guardian) observes of Meyer's testimony today:

At the Iraq inquiry this morning, Sir Christopher Meyer has let so many cats out of the bag that it is hard to keep up with them all. He has confirmed that by the time Tony Blair met George Bush at Crawford, Texas in April 2002, Blair had already agreed to regime change. Meyer and others had told the US administration about this change of heart in March 2002. The "UN route" was a way to justify the war but the inspectors were never given the chance to do their job.
Or did we know all that already? Ever since the war, there has been a massive gulf between what various leaked documents have shown and the official version. Previous inquiries have failed to close that gap. Now Meyer, who was the UK ambassador to Washington at the time, has done exactly that.
The government's version of events was always that it was taking action to deal with the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Leaked documents, most notably the Downing Street documents, show that the policy was to go along with the US desire for regime change and use weapons of mass destruction as a pretext. This version of events was confirmed by what Meyer said this morning. I don't think it could be more explosive.
The inquiry committee gradually brought Meyer to early 2002, when it became apparent that the hawks in the Bush administration who wanted regime change had won the argument in the aftermath of September 11. He said that the UK had been against regime change, mainly on legal grounds. But by the time Tony Blair visited George Bush at Crawford, he was supporting the policy, but had to be discreet about it.

Meyer's testimony reveals that the visit Ames noted above found Bush and Blair speaking privately with no staff around and repeats Bush declaring that world leaders were "like creatures from outer space" excepting only Tony Blair (somewhere, John Howard sobs into his dirty pillow). James Meikle and Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) also emphasize the April 2002 ranch meet-up:

Asked about Tony Blair's meeting with Bush at Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, where, some observers believe, the decision to go to war was made, Meyer said: "To this day I'm not entirely clear what degree of convergence was signed in blood at the Texas range."
But a speech by Blair the following day was, he believed, the first time the prime minister had publicly said "regime change". "What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq, which led – I think not inadvertently but deliberately – to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Nico Hines (Times of London) adds:

He said that after the September 11 attacks, the atmosphere changed in Washington. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s national security adviser at the time, was the first person he heard mention Iraq on September 11. He said that “by the following weekend that turned into a major debate at Camp David” – it developed into a bit of a “ding-dong”.
Over the next two months, Sir Christopher said the Bush Administration had decided on a new course over Iraq. “What was inevitable, [after 9/11] I think, was that the Americans were going to bust a gut on the mandate of regime change.”
He said that up until that moment there was a lack of real impetus over Iraq, which he said was more of “a grumbling appendix”.
"When I heard that speech, I thought that this represents a tightening of the UK/US alliance and a degree of convergence on the danger Saddam Hussein presented."

In the US, Bush used many lies to push for war on Iraq and the most infamous one might be that 'Saddam Hussein attempted to aquire yellow cake uranium from Africa'. In England, Blair was fond of the fanciful boast that Iraq had the capability to attack England with WMD within 45 minutes. David Brown and Francis Elliott (Times of London) emphasize this important aspect of yesterday's testimony, "Intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction was received by the Government ten days before Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, the inquiry into the war was told yesterday."
For Great Britain's Socialist Worker, Sian Ruddick reports on the first day of the hearing (Tuesday) in "New revelations as Iraq war inquiry opens:"

The official inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war began its public hearings on Tuesday of this week amid a storm over leaked documents that show the backroom deals George Bush and Tony Blair made in the run-up to the slaughter.
Many hoped that the inquiry would condemn Blair’s actions and declare the war illegal.
But its chairman, Sir John Chilcot, said the conclusions of the inquiry would be “definitive in one sense, yes, but not definitive in the sense of a court verdict of legal or illegal.
“It is much closer to high policy decisions: was this a wise decision, was it well-taken, was it founded on good advice and good information and analysis?”
The Sunday Telegraph newspaper published leaked documents this week that show that Blair tried to hide his true intentions over Iraq by informing only “very small numbers” of officials.
He tried to claim the goal was “disarmament, not regime change”.
But the documents reveal that “from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation”.
This limited inquiry will not stop future wars from happening or call leaders to account.
The inquiry must look at the deals made with the US in the months before the war.
It must expose the fabricated “intelligence”, including the 45-minute threat.
Only by declaring Tony Blair guilty of war crimes will it help to bring justice for those millions of Iraqis who have paid with their lives for a bloody, pointless war.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Did British soldiers kill Iraqi civilians?
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version

Violence continues today in Iraq. AFP reports that a Mosul "church and a convent were struck by bombings" -- the Church of St. Ephrem and St. Theresa Convent of Dominican Nuns -- and quotes Father Yousif Thomas Mirkis stating, "These attacks are aimed at forcing Christians to leave the contry." In addition, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 1 life and left ten people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left one other person injured, a second Baghdad sticky bombing which injured one person, a third Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left three other people wounded and 2 Babil market bombings which claimed 2 lives and left twenty-eight people injured.

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




chris ames
mcclatchy newspapers
the guardian
andrew sparrow
the times of london
david brown
nico hines

the socialist worker
at

Thankful?

Since at least the time of Abraham Lincoln, presidents have sent letters of condolence to the families of service members killed in action, whether the deaths came by hostile fire or in an accident.
So after his son killed himself in Iraq in June, Gregg Keesling expected that his family would receive a letter from President Obama. What it got instead was a call from an Army official telling family members that they were not eligible because their son had committed suicide.
"We were shocked," said Mr. Keesling, 52, of Indianapolis.

That's the opening to James Dao's "Families of Military Suicides Seek White House Condolences" in today's New York Times and the subject's been noted before as have Janet and Gregg Keesling (parents of Chancellor Keesling) but Dao's got some additional information including quotes that further weaken the White House silence. Meanwhile Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports that "He who seeks sweet things must also endure bitterness" was performed at the Iraqi National Theater in Baghdad in what the theater company hopes will be a return of theater night life in Baghdad.

Whether that happens or not, it's difficult to call Baghdad 'safe' or even 'safer' today. If it were, wouldn't the president of the United States be spending part of his first Thanksgiving in office in Iraq? If Bush can go there, shouldn't Barack?

Speaking of war mongers (Barack and Bush), a third is suddenly concerned about press freedom. That's so damn laughable when you consider that David Kelley would be alive if Tony Blair truly believed in press freedom. Julian Borger (Guardian) reports:

The former prime minister, whose role in the Iraq war is the subject of an official public inquiry, spoke out over press freedom after a Baghdad court fined a Guardian journalist, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, for defamation after he reported criticism of the Iraqi leader, Nouri al-Maliki.
"I have been following the Ghaith Abdul-Ahad court case against the Guardian in Iraq," Blair said in an emailed statement. "We fought for freedom in Iraq including freedom of the press. Often what the press says is harsh or unfair. But that freedom is essential and must be upheld. So while I may not always agree with what the Guardian write I do hope that when the case goes to appeal the courts will follow due process in accordance with the Iraqi constitution."
The Guardian has said it will appeal against the court verdict, which awarded 100m dinars (£52,000) to Maliki for an article in April which quoted unnamed Iraqi intelligence officials as saying that the prime minister was centralising state power in his hands.

Meanwhile, despite the title of Anthony Shadid and Nada Bakri's article, there is no agreement re: the elections currently. There is a proposal which may or may not have backing in the Parliament and which may or may not pit Sunni against Kurd. Shadid and Bakri are correct when they note:

Even with the agreement, which must now be approved by the Iraqi electoral commission, election officials said it would be almost impossible to hold the election in January as originally planned. Mid- to late February was more likely, since a major Shiite Muslim holiday will not end until Feb. 10.

And, to be clear, the two reporters did not write the headline. It can be argued their first paragraph writes the headline; however, their wording is much more cautious than what the headline blares.


The following community websites updated last night:


Cedric's Big Mix
Little girls love to play dress-up
11 hours ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! HE REALLY IS BUSH'S TWIN!
11 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Yes
12 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
To shop or not and the Iraq Inquiry
12 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
the sport of the shop
12 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
No to Black Friday
12 hours ago

And Elaine's "Comfort zone," Ruth's "Pre-shopping questions," Marcia's "To shop or not?," Trina's "Shopping kit and more ," Ann's "No to shopping (except for kids)" and Kat's "No on the shopping proposition."

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







the washington post
nada bakri




thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends
at

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Iraq snaphsot

Wednesday, November 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq Inquiry continues in England, the Liberal Democrats call out Gordon Brown's attempts to short-circuit the inquiry, another inquiry waits in the wings -- one into British forces possible abuse and murder of Iraqis, and more.
 
Today in London, the Iraq Inquiry continued its public hearings.  Janet Stobart (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The six-member panel is looking into the decision of former Prime Minister Tony Blair's government to join the U.S.-led war that brought down the Iraqi dictator in 2003. It will interview policymakers, secret service chiefs, military commanders and relatives of soldiers who died in the war. Blair is scheduled to appear in January. " The day's focus was WMDs.  John Chilcot heads the Inquiry.
 
Chair John Chilcot: Good morning. Our objective today is to look at the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This will take us from the time of the first Gulf War and the inspections that followed it right up to the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, the organisation with responsibility for providing an account of Saddam's weapons' programmes after the Iraq conflict.  Several reports have already been published on issues relating to weapons of mass destruction. We do not propose in this session to go in detail into areas which have already been examined closely before by other investigations, but what we do hope to do is to elict communities' concern about Saddam's weapons, the development of the government's policy on this issue, the threat that the government believed that Iraq's weapons posed, and what was found after the conflict. I would like to recall that the Inquiry has access to literally thousands of government papers, including the most highly classified for the period we are considering and we are developing a picture of the policy debates and the decision-making process.
 
Unless attributed to a news outlet, all quotes from today's hearings are from the [PDF format warning] rush transcript provided by the Inquiry (which they note may change) or from the videos of the hearing provided by the Inquiry. Emma Alberici (Australia's ABC and link has text and audio) summarizes, "The Chilcot inquiry has now heard two days of evidence from the most senior Foreign Office officials who received and analysed intelligence on Iraq for two years before the war and in the year after the invasion. It has emerged that Britain's Foreign Office also told former prime minister Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been dismantled, 10 days before Britain invaded Iraq."   Tim Dowse and William Ehrman were today's witnesses. Channel 4's Iraqi Inquiry Blogger observes, "One thing I'll remember about today's hearing was watching two career diplomats relive the moments that must surely be the absolute nadir of their professional lives.  I'm talking about the weeks and months following the Iraq War when the weapons their department had so confidently assessed would be found failed to turn up." And it is apparently difficult for some liars to ever get honest.  From today's hearing:
 
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: So in terms of your concerns over this period, you mentioned Iran, you mentioned North Korea, you mentioned Libya, you mentioned Pakistan, at least through AQ Khan, and you mentioned Iraq, but in terms of rank ordering again, where would Iraq come on that list, in terms of the most threatening in proliferation terms?
 
Tim Dowse: It wasn't top of the list. I think in terms of -- my concerns on coming into the job in 2001, I would say, we would have put Libya and Iran ahead of Iraq. 
 
William Ehrman: I would like to add to that. In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq. In terms of chemical and biological, particularly through the spring and summer of 2002, we were getting intelligence, much of which was subsequently withdrawan as invalid, but at the time it was seen as valid, that gave us cause for concern, but I think there is one other thing that you need to recall about Iraq, which was different in a sense from some of the other countries. First of all, they were in breach of a great many Security Council Resolutions. Secondly, as Tim Dowse has mentioned, Iraq had used chemical weapons bother internally against its own people and externally against Iran. Thirdly, it had started a war against Iran and it had invaded Kuwait and it had also fired missiles to Iran, Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia. So in that sense in terms of use and in terms of -- ignoring a great many Security Council Resolutions, Iraq was unique.
 
Was Iraq the big threat in 2001 or 2002?  No.  Dowse says other countries ranked ahead of it.  Ehrman can't have that and it's time for him to lie and confuse the issue.  He does that by bringing a number of areas which, pay attention, were offered as reasons . . . for . . . the . . . FIRST GULF WAR.  It is equivalent to the US and England declaring World War II based on the 1914 assassination of Franz Ferdinand. 
 
Ehrman also appears to have been snoozing (or hoping everyone else was) only minutes prior when Dowse had addressed the issue of missiles and noted that they "are not weapons of mass destruction in themselves".  Now let's go to do Dowse addressing what they saw as real concerns prior to the start of the Iraq War (March, 2003).
 
Tim Dowse: Could I maybe illustrate that with regard to some of the countries concerned? Take Libya as one example. Between 1998 and 2003, the assessments that were being carried out painted a picture of steady progress on Libya's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. It had been identified by 2003 as a prime customer of AQ Khan network. We were also concerned about activity in the chemical weapons field and about work at research sites on dual-use potential to support biological weapons-related work. With Iran, Iran had used ballistic missiles in the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s. It had aquired Scud B missiles from Syira and from North Korea and after -- it also produced Scud C sllightly longer-range missiles. After the war, North Korea sold to Iran production technology for Scud B and Scud C and in the mid-1990s, it brought a few examples of North Korean No-Dong 1 missiles. These were long-range and, from that, it devloped its own missile, the Shahab 3, of 1300 kilometres. Iran's nuclear fuel activities had developed steadily over more than two decades by 2001 to 2003. It had announced, or the IAEA had reported, a large Iranian conversion facility at Isfahan; a large facility for gas centrifuge fuel enrichment; it had indigenous facilities to manufacture centrifuge components; it had obtained P2 centrifuges; it had got technical drawings, whose origin the IAEA had concluded was AQ Khan. So we were considerably worried about the development in Iran.  As for North Korea --
 
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: I think you have made your point that there are a vareity of different stages and the example you have given us from Iran is quite interesting perhaps as a comparative with what was thought to be the case with Iraq. Can we move on to Iraq itself? You have mentioned all the things before that Iraq was known to have done, but these were all prior to 1991 in terms of attacking its neighbours and actually using these weapons.  So, since 1991, do you believe that it had been effectively contained?
 
Tim Dowse: I would say we regarded the effect of the -- certainly with WMD, the weapons inspectors, UNSCOM's activities, the IAEA's activities through the 1990s, until 1998, as effectively disarming Iraq. There were quite a large number of unaswered questions, things that we were unsure about.
 
While Dowse appeared to be making some effort towards answering questions, William Ehrman could not stop spinning.  There was no evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda but Ehrman could not let go of that lie and repeated it throughout his testimony.  One example, "But there was also the fact that he was supporting terrorist groups, Palestinian terrorist groups, and although we never found any evidence linking him closely to AQ Khan and we did not -- sorry, to Al-Qaeda, and we did not belive that he was behing, in any way, the 9/11 bombings, he had given support to Palestinian terrorist groups and also to a group called the MEK, which was a terrorist group directed against Iran." There is no linke, NON, to al Qaeda but Ehrman repeatedly worked it in and then would walk it back as though it was an accident.  He seemed to feel he was Mr. Subliminal and the Inquiry should have told him to stop making the linkage. As for the MEK, the Inquiry should have asked Ehrman which country he thought he was working for in the lead up to the Iraq War? Did England classify the MEK as a terrorist organization in 2002?  Then why is Ehrman blathering on about them?
 
While Ehrman repeatedly (and falsely) attempted to link Iraq to al Qaeda (and then rush back a qualifier), there was no link.  CBC's report makes that clear and notes that Dowse testified there was no link and that, "After 9/11 we concluded that Iraq actually stepped further back. They did not want to be associated with al-Qaeda. They weren't natural allies."
 
For perspective, in the US, George W. Bush started the illegal war and he's a Republican (Democratic Barack Obama continues it).  In Australia, then-Prime Minister John Howard started the Iraq War and he is a member of his country's Liberal Party. He was replaced by Kevin Rudd of the Labor Party who has ended Australia's miltiary presence in Iraq with "the last 12 Australian soldiers" still in Iraq departing at the end of July.  Of the three major countries pushing for the illegal war, only England has seen the original pimp replaced with a member of the same party.  Tony Blair was replaced as prime minister by Gordon Brown and both men are members of the Labour Party. Not only are Blair and Brown members of the same party and also of the New Labour segment of the party, they have a relationship which goes back decades and Blair's ascendancy to the top of his party took place with the promise that Brown would be his successor.  Brown supported Blair on every major policy decision including the Iraq War.  Bully Boy Bush lied about 'programs' and 'yellow cake' and pretty much everything including, most likely, his own choking (allegedly on a pretzel).  In England, the lie was that Iraq had the capabilities to launch a WMD attack on England in less than one hour. Rob Welham (Xinhua) observes, "The intelligence about Iraq's military capability, set out in the so-called "dodgy dossier", proved to be wrong, and the decision to go to war became one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions in living memory."  Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) addresses that false claim in his report:
 
Asked about suggestions that the Blair government's 45-minute deployment claim had referred to weapons of mass destruction usable by Iraq to strike another nation, Dowse said: "I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way." The inquiry panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: "But you didn't say it wasn't."
 
Liberal Democrat Party MP and chief of staff Edward Davey issued the following statement today: "It is becoming ever more clear that the case for war was nothing more than sophistry and deception. The threat that Saddam could deploy WMD within 45 minutes was fundamental to the Government's arugment that Iraq presented an imminent danger.  Yet this new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.  A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case. This evidence proves what has long been suspected, that intelligence was cherry-picked or dismissed to support the case the Government wanted to make. It is becoming ever more clear that the case for war was nothing more than sophistry and deception flying in the face of the latest and best intelligence." David Brown (Times of London) emphasizes, "Intelligence information that Saddam Hussein had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction programme was received by the Foreign Office days before Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, an inquiry into the war heard today." Ben Macintyre (Times of London) revisits MP Robin Cook's decision to leave Blair's cabinet in 2003 and his calling out the rush to illegal war:
 
With delicate ferocity, he presented the case against war: "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction ... Neither the international community nor the British people is persuaded there is an urgent and compelling reason for this action in Iraq."    
He warned that a dangerous sense of Muslim injustice was building, that Britain was being dragged into conflict by a far more powerful ally, and that the deep misgivings of voters were being ignored: "The prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain."  
Above all, Cook insisted that Britain must not be taken to war without a vote in Parliament. "From the start of this present crisis, I have insisted on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war," he said in his resignation statement. Two days later, the government motion supporting the use of British forces in Iraq passed by 412 to 149.                   
To listen to politicians speak today, one might imagine that the consensus in 2003 was opposed to war, and Blair and his inner circle the sole drum-beaters. Parliament backed the war. The majority of MPs voted for it. The Cabinet supported it and remained in their jobs with the exception of Cook and, eventually, Clare Short. The media were broadly supportive of military action.
 
Tony Blair continued to make the claim that Iraq could launch an attack on England in less than an hour.  A false claim. Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) reports on that aspect and notes Ehrman testifying, ""On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents."  Mark Stone (Sky News) offers this observation of today's hearing:
 
 
One thing bugged me though. The Inquiry committee appeared not to follow up some points with obvious questions. An example. One of the panel, Sir Roderic Lyle, referring to a statement Blair made in 2003, asked the following pertinent question:                 
"Would you regard the Prime Minister's statement in December 2003 that 'the Iraq Study Group [tasked with finding WMD after the invasion] has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories' as corresponding to advice you were giving to ministers?"               
The response from Tim Dowse was, somewhat sheepishly: "I did not advise him to use those words."                        
But then... nothing from the panel! They did not ask whether the advisors told the PM to back off from words which appeared clearly to be out of kilter with the advice they were giving him.                  
None of what was said today will make Mr Blair feel very comfortable as he prepares for his appearance. We have to wait until January for that though.
 
 
Simon Carr in the Independent wasted no time; "The Chilcot Inquiry looks set to be boring, miasmic and faintly dishonest.                  
"This is a panel that the toadiest of Blair toadies would have chosen. Why Brown agreed to it is a mystery."             
The Daily Mail was scarcely more optimistic for the Inquiry's prospects, John Kampfner writing that as the Inquiry began "one conclusion could be drawn before a single person had said a single word: Tony Blair will get away with it. Again."
 
On only the second day of the public hearing, Nico Hines and David Brown (Times of London) reported the accusations that England's current prime minister, Gordon Brown, was attempting to derail the inquiry, "When the Prime Minister announced the inquiry, he claimed that national security would be the only legitimate barrier to full disclosure in Sir John Chilcot's report into the Iraq war. A set of protocols published on the Cabinet Office website, however, indicates that a tranche of additional restrictions have been imposed. The guidelines issued to Sir John and his team set out nine extra restrictions, including commercial and economic interests, that would allow a government agency or department to remove a section from the report."  BBC News (link has text and video) reports the Liberal Democrat Party leader Nick Clegg has stated, "This protocol includes nine seperate reasons why information can be suppressed" and acts as "rights of veto" to keep, at best, embarrassing moments from the public: "How on earth are we, and is the whole country, going to hear about the full truth of the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq if the inquiry is being suffocated on day one by his government's shameful culture of secrecy?"  Sian Ruddick (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) declares, "Only by declaring Tony Blair guilty of war crimes will it help to bring justice for those millions of Iraqis who have paid with their lives for a bloody, pointless war."
 
In other Iraq news out of England, BBC reports that former-Justice Thayne Forbes has been appointed to head the investigation into the inquiry into whether British forces killed 20 Iraqis and abused nine others in 2004 and the BBC's Caroline Hawley explains, "
An internal army document says a Red Cross doctor believed that facial injuries to the Iraqis suggested 'that when the injuries were received the person had either been held down or defenceless.' It is because the MoD failed to produce these documents when required by the High Court that the government has had to agree to this inquiry."  CNN adds, "The release of a photo published in British media and obtained by CNN about the incident shows an armed soldier standing near four people face down on the ground with their hands bound behind their backs and their faces covered.  Attorneys for the men say they were beaten and evidence shows a breach of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners. But, the defence ministry disputes that." Simon Basketter (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) reports, "Evidence of torture includes close-range bullet wounds, the removal of eyes and stab wounds. The death certificates described how the Iraqis died: 'Several gunshot wounds to body -- severance of sexual organs.' 'Gunshot to head.' 'Gunshot in face, pulling out of the eye, breaking the jaw, gunshot to the chest'."
 
Today in Iraq, Michael Christie and Mark Trevelyan (Reuters) report an assault in Tarmiya in which 6 family members were murdered by males "wearing [Iraqi] army uniforms . . . The women had their throats cut while the men were shot in the head". Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) adds that three females had thie throats slit -- two adults and one "13-year-old girl" and that "It is not known in either case whether the attackers were soldiers or were masquerading as Iraqi service members." Lin Zhi (Xinhua) adds, "The attacker left alive a woman and her child, who were relatives of the victims visiting the family when the attack occurred, the source said." Marc Santora (New York Times) observes this is the second such attack in recent days and notes, "One theory about the motivation for the attacks is that militants are posing as members of the Army in order to foment distrust among Sunnis, turning them against government troops and thereby making it easier to establish safe havens. However, the government has provided no evidence to this effect and the theory is based on little more than speculation voiced by local security officials, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity." 
 
 
In other reported violence . . .
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded one person, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four people, a Nineveh Province roadside bombing which injured two Iraqi soldiers and one person, a Baquba roadside bombing which left three police officers injured, a Kirkuk sticky bombing which injured one police officer and a Karbala roadsdie bombing and motorcylce bombing -- one after the other -- which claimed the lives of 13 people and left twenty-six more injured.
 
Turning to the US, like Bush, Barack loves land mines. Cedric's "Princess Di died for his sins" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HE'S A MORON!" covered that last night.  In addition, other community sites did theme posts on TV shows you can't stand last night, Betty's "Somerby and the awful 7th Heaven," Mike's "Mammograms, V," Rebecca's "hawaii oh-no," Stan's "The awful Democracy Now!," "TV show you loathe" (Law & Order franchise),  Ruth's "Perfect Strangers," Marcia's "The Office," Trina's "Worst TV show" (Andy Griffith Show), Ann's "Download Carly's new album for just $5.00" (The Jamie Foxx Show) and Kat's "24 -- ugh."

 

at