Saturday, October 15, 2011

US leaving Iraq?

317374_258736517494727_179025415465838_598636_2033960433_n


The photo above is by the Great Iraqi Revolution's Rami Al-Hyali. That is one of the activists who took part in the Baghdad Friday action. Why did she? Dan Zak didn't think to ask, he was too busy thinking up an insulting Tweet for the protest to actually speak to the woman or attempt to convey any of the reasons that "hundreds" (according to Dar Addustour) turned out to protest.

Dan Zak
Went to Iraq
and found boredom.

Don't pretend that wasn't his own issue.

Lara Jakes and Rebecca Santana (AP) report that they were told the White House has given up attempts to keep US soldiers in Iraq (beyond those which will fall under the State Dept umbrella) after 2011. I was happy and began dialing to confirm. Santana and Jakes were told this. The whispers to them began out of the US Embassy in Iraq and was done with not only James Jeffrey's approval (Jeffrey is the US Ambassador to Iraq) but also with the White House approval.

The point was to plant the story and to ensure that Iraqis got the message that the White House was willing to walk away from the table. Someone thought it would be a manageable scoop. Only after it was in play did others at the White House learn what was taking place and argue that this was a nightmare waiting to happen (domestically, in the US). That's what I've been told in a series of phone calls tonight. That's several White House, several State and one Defense Dept friend. And I'm not slapping Jakes and Santana down because they reported what they were told and confirmed it as well. They did what they were supposed to do.



The Pentagon was the first out with a denial and the White House quickly followed.

Today the new Iraqi movement issued a longer statement. Al Mada reports on it and, at present, they've made a series of generic statements which sound pleasing but really don't promise much. They're a new movement just getting off the ground and they may show more promise in the future.

More attention should be paid to what's taking place regarding Kirkuk. Aswat al-Iraq notes that Speaker of the Kurdistan Parliament, Karmal Karkuki today lodged a public protest in a press conference today over the plan to removed the Kurdish flag from Khaniquin. Tensions are already high over other issues such as Kirkuk which is claimed by both the central government out of Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution (passed in 2005) outlined how the issue of Kirkuk and other disputed territories would be resolved: by the end of 2007, a census and referendum would be held. Despite becoming prime minister in 2006, Nouri al-Maliki refused to follow the Constitution. He has continued to refuse to follow it. This week, he ordered that the Kurdish flag be removed from government buildings in Khaniquin. Of Khanaqin, Global Security notes:

Khanaqin (khän´äkn) [Khaniqin / Khanqin / Khanaqeen City / Alsadia / Saadia-Khanaqueen] is a town in NE Iraq, near the Iranian border on a tributary of the Diyala. It is located in an oil-producing region and has an oil refinery. Khanaquin was severely affected by the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Khanaqin is situated in the south part of Kurdistan.
In 1997, Baghdad intensified its systematic efforts to "Arabize" the predominantly Kurdish cities of Kirkuk, Khanaqin, and Douz at the edge of government-controlled Iraq near the Kurdish-controlled zone. To solidify control of this strategically and economically vital oil-rich region, the government expelled Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans -- at times, entire communities -- from these cities and surrounding areas. At the same time, it offered financial and housing incentives to Sunni Arabs to persuade them to move to Kirkuk and other cities targeted for Arabization.
Forcible relocations continue to take place in the context of a policy aimed at changing the demography of the oil-rich sectors of Kirkuk and Khanaqin by deporting ethnic Kurds and Turkoman families. Although the practice of forced relocation and deportation by the government of Iraq to decrease the presence of the Kurdish and Turkoman population living in that area and to strengthen their hold on the important economic and strategic governate of Kirkuk is not new, the scale of these activities increased in 1997.
The Iraqi government's plan to build a dam near Khanaqin will cause flooding of some Kurdish and Turkmen villages near Kalar, in Kirkuk Governorate, as well as the contact lines between Iraqi government forces and the Kurdistan Regional Government.


In September 2008, Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) discussed the dispute over Khanaqin and noted it was "an oil-rich territory similar to Kirkuk" and noted, "Recently Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the Iraqi army to enter Khanaqin to replacethe pesh merga forces. It was an attempt to check the influence of the Kurdish forces. This was soon followed by orders to force Kurdish political parties out of government owned buildings in the city. In response, Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, threatened to withdraw his support for the al-Maliki government. " The RAND Corporation's recent report, "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops" (see the July 26th snapshot) noted that tensions will increase between Arabs and Kurds without someone to fill the role currently filled by the US military and noted that joint-patrols could not take place without the US military joining the Arab military and the Kurdish military. These joint-patrols, 'confidence building measures,' started due to Khanaqin: "During an August 2008 Iraqi Army operation targeting insurgents in the vicinity of the town of Khanaqin (which is outside the Green Line in Diyala governorate), ISF commanders ordered peshmerga troops to withdraw, a demand they refused. A confrontation was avoided only because KRG President Massoud Barzani and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki personally reached an agreement to withdraw both forces from the city and leave security to local police. Similarly, when Iraqi Army units tried to move through the largely Kurdish town of Makhmur en route to Mosul in June 2009, Kurdish troops -- concerned that the army was trying to take the town -- blocked their progress, and violence was only averted with the help of U.S. intervention."


Al Rafidayn reports
that Karkuki declared this is a deliberate attempt by Nouri to create problems for the Kurds and that they would fight this issue, that the Kurdish political leadership will defend the Kurdish flag "even if it costs us our lives." Dar Addustour reports a protest is being planned for Sunday.

In reported violence, Reuters notes 1 police major was shot dead in Baghdad, 1 Iraqi intelligence officer was shot dead in Baghdad and, dropping back to last night, a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured one person.

The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Cindy Sheehan, NPR, Dissident Voice and the Center for Constitutional Rights -- updated last night and today:






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






























The economy and Iraq

This week, US House Rep Dennis Kucinich declared:

To my brothers and sisters with Occupy Wall Street and around the nation who are fighting for economic justice, let's not forget the wars. Nine years ago, the House of Representatives authorized the war on Iraq based on lies. Those who would rewrite history today would have us believe that we were fooled into thinking that Saddam Hussein was a threat and had something to do with 9-11. That's not true. We were not fooled. We were lied to. Lied to by those who wanted the war for their own personal financial gains. Nine years ago, I analyzed the authorization for military force in Iraq and it was obvious based on information freely available that it was based on lies. I'll put a link to that analysis below. We were not fooled. We were lied to. It's now obvious to even the most fervent war profiteer that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Iraq was not pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction, had nothing to do with 9-11, was not a threat to the United States, so why have we stayed in Iraq so long when we know it's a lie? Why did we see an estimated a million Iraqi civilians die? We know war profits have soared. Wall Street favorites like Haliburton, KBR, Bechtel, DynCorp, Northrup Grumman, General Electric and General Dynamics do very well when we spend money on war. Halliburton's stock price rose 600% between October 7, 2002 and June 30, 2008, the end of the quarter before the financial crisis. The war in Iraq may end up costing as much as $5 trillion dollars, and we have sacrificed the lives of 4,473 brave Americans and tens of thousands of our troops have been injured. The money spent for war could have spent on education, creating green jobs and rebuilding our infrastructure. It's time to end these wars. It's time we got some of our money back. We should implement an excise tax on the profiteers who have gained so much from a war based on lies. Keep Occupying Wall Street and I will keep occupying Congress.

At least one group shared that sentiment.

1 occupy portland


Tim Gordon (KGW) reports Organize Portland's march today saw as many as 4,000 people marching against the wars and quotes participant David Lifton stating, "Certainly I've been opposed to the Iraq war since the get go as a stupid start to a war about weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist and connections to terrorists that weren't there." More information on the Oregon protest can be found at Occupy Portland.


And while so many Americans remain jobless, over 25 million Americans, Peter Van Buren (Huffington Post) notes that jobs are being created by Barack:


The U.S. is prepared to spend up to five billion dollars to create more jobs for police officers, paying $100-$150k a year. The Government can't find enough people to take the jobs, and is looking for recruits, no experience necessary, all training provided, right in your hometown.
One catch: the jobs are for Iraqis, in Iraq. No Americans need apply.
The secret mantra of the Iraq war has always been "training," specifically the always-just-out-of-reach goal of training the Iraq security forces to take over from the U.S. The cry has been heard for years: George W. Bush even made "we'll stand down as they stand up" a campaign slogan in 2008.
Now, as the war in Iraq proceeds through its eighth year, the State Department was on Capitol Hill October 12 in front of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations begging a skeptical Congress for more money. "Training" is again being cited as the cure-all for America's apparently insatiable desire to throw money away in Mesopotamia. The latest tranche of taxpayer cash is for one billion dollars a year, every year for five years, to pay police instructors and cop salaries in Iraq.

$5 billion for training in Iraq. And yet it requires begging, protesting and massive lobbying on the behalf of citizens in America just to get benefits for the jobless extended. Peter Van Buren is a State Dept employee who spent 2009 in Iraq and he is the author of the new book We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. The hearing he's noting was covered here in Wednesday's snapshot and Thursday's snapshot and elsewhere in the community by Wally with "US House Rep Jason Chaffetz (Wally)" (at Rebecca's site), Kat with "House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations" and Ava, at Trina's site, with "DoD says it can't talk about Iraq in an open session." Also connecting the financial issues with the war is Cindy Sheehan who has posted her speech at Occupy Sacremento:


This movement should not allow itself to be co-opted by partisan political hackery. If Obama or Democrats were the answer, then, guess what? We wouldn’t be here today. The wars would be over; the 99% would have single-payer health care, housing, education, a sustainable energy policy, and meaningful jobs with a livable wage as RIGHTS not PRIVILEGES for the 1%. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Republicans in power either—I want US in power. Just like we are today, but I want we the people calling the shots in a meaningful way that changes corrupt and harmful policies, and that will take not only going out of the parks and into the streets like we are today, but staying there and taking breaks to strategize about the society we want to build: One where the resources of our country are used to guarantee basic human rights to EVERYONE, not just the one-percenters.
Speaking of the wars, the Obama (president to the one-percent) regime has continued the Bush crime cabals' wars and has added at least five more military miss-excursions on top of those: in Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and now Uganda—make no mistake about it, the US is waging World War Three in its global war OF terror around the world and the economic and social justice we seek cannot be achieved without complete and unconditional peace.
Just here in our state of California, our “wonderful” Democrat Governor, Jerry Brown, has forced cuts in essential services and exorbitant and unfair increases to university fees, while California has sent 148 billion dollars to the US government for its war OF terror—that’s almost 15 billion a year for the past insane 10 years.


And lastly, The NewsHour (PBS) examined Christianity in the Middle East and we'll note the section on Iraq:

How did the Christians benefit from Saddam Hussein?
"There was a kind of a social contract in Iraq," between minorities and Hussein, says Adeed Dawisha, a professor at the University of Miami in Ohio. "Under Saddam, it was understood that if you don't interfere in politics, then you are provided with a good life."

"If the Christians supported Saddam, not because they loved what he was doing, it was the fear of the alternative," Dawisha says. As a result of turning their focus elsewhere, Christians prospered economically. They were businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and engineers. A select few were part of the political elite, like Tariq Aziz who served as foreign minister and deputy prime minister under Hussein.

According to Katulis, that created a "network of protection that existed through some of the leaders [in] Saddam's inner circle ... trickled on down through community."

What did Hussein get out of it?
Hussein, by being intolerant of all sectarian violence, ensured that his minority-rule regime was safe from uprisings. The regime was equally intolerant of any sectarian-led violence, says Dawisha.

However, Christans were not a "favored community" under Hussein's rule, Dawisha explains, "they were simply left alone." As a result, these minorities did not rebel against him.

What happened after Hussein left?
Nothing good.

Once the regime fell, animosity between all religious communities exploded. The smallest minorities suffered the most. Before 2003, there were about 800,000 Christians in Iraq. Currently, Dawisha says, there is less than half that number.



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
















Friday, October 14, 2011

Iraq snapshot

Friday, October 14, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, a member of the US press decides he's in Iraq to mock Iraqis, Political Stalemate II continues, a new political movement issues a statement, withdrawal and 'withdrawal' of US forces continues to be explored, Camp Ashraf residents remain under assault, and more.
 
Starting with small and tired.  The Washington Post's Dan Zak Tweeted:
 
Dan Zak
MrDanZak Dan Zak
Fave complaint at small, tired Tahrir protest today: Group of high schoolers want Maliki to let them retake their exams bc they failed.
 
You know what's small and tired? 
 
Journalists who think they're better than the beat than they're assigned to cover. 
 
 
A reporter for the Style pages who is fortunate enough to get a break into real reporting needs to lose the snark and snide about the subjects they're covering. 
 
 
The high schoolers may or my not have been amusing -- this wasn't their first appearence at the protests.  They really aren't my concern.  A "small tired" protest?  Well aren't you just above the people protesting because their loved ones have disappeared into what passes for a legal justice system in Iraq?  Aren't you above all those women crying in public for their sons, their husbands and their fathers that they haven't seen in months or years, that they don't even know if they're alive. 
 
 
The Disappeared. 
 
 
That's what they are but apparently journalists whose experience comes via the Style pages, lack not only reporting chops but any real sense of value or perspective or, if nothing else, the instinct to know what plays as a good story.  The snark goes a long, long way towards explaining why Zak's coverage has been at, best, disappointing and, at worst, superficial to the point that actual attempts at news stories read like clip jobs. 
 
 
Videos of the protest -- here, here and here -- show at least 52 adults.  At least.  And I'm not arguing that's all of the protesters.  I'm saying there are at least 52 different adults on video and there's never an establishing wide shot of the crowd to demonstrate that that's all of those present or that there's a lot more present.  Dar Addustour reports "hundreds" were participating.
 
 
Let's assume it was just 52.  Other than WWD and possibly In Style 'magazine,' does Dan Zak read?  Does he read the Washington Post?  The Post was the only print outlet to nail down what was happening with the protests in real time.  (The only broadcast outlet to get it right was NPR.)   Intimidation, arrests, torture.   Is Dan Zak familiar with what has happened to activists taking part in the Friday protests?
 
He doesn't seem to be.  That's a large number in the midst of war zone with a new Saddam watching over and taking retribution against those who speak out.  While Dan Zak was demonstrating just what a little bitch he can be, the Great Iraqi Revolution reported, "A number of brave Iraqi women attended Tahrir square demonstrations today wearing coffins to represent the government repression and to express their challenge to the government. "  And they noted, "The government forces attacked the female activist -Shahrazad- in Tahrir square today, they have beaten her up , dragged her on the street after the demonstrations ended and stole her camera, 2 mobiles and money "
 
But what does violence against activists matter when Dan Zak's more concerned with announcing to the world that his parents raised a little bitch.  What a wonderful moment for them, for the US and for journalism.  And, in fairness to Zak, whomever was foolish enough to judge him ready for actual reporting should have stepped in a long time ago and told him, "You are blowing it and your career with it."  The crap he's turned out is not sufficient for hard news reporting.  He deserved to be told that so he could try to make adjustments.  Instead, he's just been allowed to embarrass himself with no support and guidance.
 
 
Turning to the topic of withdrawal, Al Mada reports that, while in London, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaif told the BBC that the Parliament would not grant immunity to US soldiers in Iraq after the end of this year.  The newspaper also notes that US officials are pressing Nouri to grant the immunity himself but Nouri continues to state immunity would have to be referred to Parliament.  Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram Weekly) reviews some of the options which might allow the US military to remain on the ground in Iraq beyond December 31, 2011: "The US government plans to maintain a sizable presence in Iraq, where it has its largest foreign embassy. This already has US military trainers attached to it, and uniformed military personnel could receive diplomatic protection. NATO, which has a training mission in Iraq that will stay through 2013, is providing expertise in logistics and policing. Iraqi lawmakers are also discussing an extension of the NATO mission, which would allow trainers in many cases to come under their own country's legal jurisdictions for certain crimes." Dar Addustour notes that US Vice President Joe Biden is expected to visit Iraqi shortly   Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraq's first deputy Parliament Speaker, Qusay Al Suhail, expected on Thursday a surge in armed attacks as US forces are close to withdraw from the country.  Suhail urged security forces to double efforts and carry out preventive operations to prevent gunmen from carrying on with their suspicious agendas."   Jordan Michael Smith (Salon) weighs in on why pulling all US troops is the thing to do:
 
Just as withdrawing from Vietnam enabled the United States to concentrate on its only true foe in the Cold War, so leaving Iraq will permit us to focus on the anti-American terrorists that should always have been our only targets after the 9/11 attacks. Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges argues in his new book, "The Rise and Fall of Al Qaeda," that the terrorist organization is effectively decimated, its leadership destroyed and operational abilities devastated. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and senior military officials have made similar claims.
Even if they are too sanguine, withdrawal from Iraq will aid efforts against al-Qaida. Iraq has always been at best a distraction from campaigns to defeat those who attacked America on 9/11, and the war there continues to consume precious American resources, attention and, of course, human lives. Redirecting these against bin Laden's few remaining followers is the wisest course of action.
None of this is to say that leaving Iraq will be completely painless. Leaving Vietnam was not, either. Ultimately, however, keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops only delays the inevitable. Americans and Iraqis will be better off if the United States learns the most important lesson the Vietnam War teaches: Once you get into a losing venture, getting out as soon as possible is the only way to win.
 
Today, Aswat al-Iraq reports that a new political movement in Iraq has announced itself -- the National Rectification Movement -- which, supposedly, will "express the aspirations of the people and get rid of the accumlated mistakes."  In the meantime Political Stalemate II continues in Iraq.  The Kurdish officials (minus Goran) and Nouri have been at loggerheads over (a) the failure to implement the Constitution's Article 140, (b) the failure to implement the Erbil Agreement (agreement which allowed Nouri to have a second term as prime minister) and (c) Nouri's proposed oil and gas bill. Hevidar Ahmed (Rudaw) interviews Kurdish official Arif Tayfur about the recent trip to Baghdad:

Rudaw: Did your visit to Baghdad achieve anything?

Arif Tayfur: The Kurdish delegation was very pleased with the meeting with Shiite National Alliance. There was a great deal of understanding. The Kurdish delegation was representing all of the Kurdish parties and movements in Iraqi Kurdistan. It expressed its concerns to the Shiites about the current situation in Baghdad and the attitudes towards the Iraqi Kurdistan region. The Kurdish delegation will present the results of the meetings to Iraqi Kurdistan's President (Massoud Barzani) and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in order to determine whether a KRG delegation will be sent to Baghdad or not.

Rudaw: Did Baghdad make any promises to the Kurdish delegation?

Arif Tayfur: The Kurds were satisfied with their meeting with the Shiite alliance, as they promised the Kurds that all matters will be dealt with via agreements and mutual understanding. The Kurdish delegation met separately with the Dawa Party and our delegation has conveyed all of their grievances in a straightforward manner. We also expressed our willingness to solve all the issues, but it appeared that the core issues are between KRG and the Iraqi federal government.

Al Mada reports Parliamentary attendance rarely reaches two-thirds. Meanwhile the Iraqi Justice and Reform movement, Alsumaria TV reports, is claiming Iraiqya has a secret deal with the Kurds on Article 140 of the Constitution (which outlines how the dispute over Kirkuk will be resolved). If it's not true (no proof is offered), it may be a response to the revelation that Nouri's attempted to enlist the League of Righteous into the Article 140 issue. (The League of Righteous is a merry band of thugs who have targeted and killed Sunnis, Americans and Brits throughout the Iraq War.) Aswat al-Iraq reported Thursday, "An al-Iraqiya MP announced today that his bloc currently has no intentions of withdrawing trust from the government, because it will create a state of 'chaos' in the country. MP Ahmed al-Jubori told Aswat al-Iraq that his bloc called on the government to solve all pending questions, particularly the security and services, as well achieving national partnership. Earlier, MP Ahmed al-Alwani said that there are alternatives to prevent the government to reach the status of one party and one leader by leaving the government to weaken the role of the prime minister."  Yesterday Al Mada noted that some members of Iraqiya are launching an effort to convince political slate leader Ayad Allawi to rethink his decision to give up the post heading the (not yet created) security council. The Erbil Agreement allowed second placed Nouri al-Maliki (his State of Law came in second in the March 7, 2010 elections) to stay on as prime minister provided (among other things) an independent security council was created that would be headed by Allawi (whose political slate came in first).  
 
 
Still on the political parties, Al Mada quotes State of Law MP Ehasn Yassin al-Awadi declaring that Iraqiya and State of Law are not speaking. He maintains that Iraqiya has been inflexible in their stand and that the two political slates had reached a brick wall. State of Law is Nouri al-Maliki's political slate. Iraqiya is Ayad Allawi's political slate. Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections. Also noting State of Law is the Great Iraqi Revolution: "The Ministry of Higher Education accepts the deputy of State of Law Coalition Abbas Al-Bayati for higher studies, though he failed the competitive evaluation tests , he's above the allowed age and he didn't get the required qualifications after graduation . This is not strange since the Secretary of Higher Education Ali Al-Adeeb belongs to the same party ( State of Law Coalition) !!" In other State of Law employment news, Al Mada reports that Nouri's made some new appointments. As they note, Allawi has long accused Nouri of waiting until Parliament goes on vacation to make replace people he wishes to be rid of (thereby bypassing Parliament). Iraqiya's calling attention to Nouri pulling State of Law members and replacing them with people he can presumably have more faith in. Iraqiya calls it yet another attempt by Nouri to "crack down on democracy."

On the topic of violence, Reuters notes 1 person was shot dead in Mosul, 1 suspect was killed in Mosul by the Iraqi military, a Baquba roadside bombing left six people injured, and, dropping back to Thursday night, a clash in Hilla led to 1 person being killed and two more injured.
 
Over 3,000 Iranian dissidents, welcomed into Iraq prior to the start of the Iraq War, reside in Camp Ashraf. Mehran Bahramian (New Zealand's Scoop) explains, "Camp Ashraf was established 26 years ago in north of Baghdad by the members of the Iranian opposition movement, the People's Mujahidin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK). The PMOI is an Iranian democratic secular political force opposed to the theocracy of the mullahs of Iran. The PMOI renounced the use of force in 2001 and voluntarily gave up their arms to the American forces in 2003. In return the American and the Multi National Forces recognized the residents of the camp as protected persons under the 4th Geneva Convention."    In yesterday's New York Times, former FBI director Louis J. Freeh had a column in which he wrote, "The government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamel al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, has brazenly murdered members of the Mujahedeen Khalq. Mr. Maliki justifies his attacks by noting that the group is on the United States' official list of foreign terrorist organizations. In April, Iraqi forces entered Camp Ashraf and fatally shot or ran over 34 residents and wounded hundreds more.  Mr. Maliki has now given the Mujahedeen Khalq until Dec. 31 to close the camp and disperse its residents throughout Iraq."  Earlier this month, Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that the residents had "applied to the United Nations for refugee status."  While that's decided, we'll note what the International Committee of the Red Cross stated (last spring) were the obligations to the residents:
 
The authorities have the obligation to respect the rights that Ashraf residents enjoy under national and international law. In particular, the authorities must preserve the residents' physical and mental well-being at all times, and must allow families to remain together as far as possible.
Furthermore, the ICRC has regularly reminded the authorities of their obligation to respect the principle of "non-refoulement," which is a principle of international law that prohibits a State from transferring people to another State or authority if there is a risk that they may be subjected to any kind of ill-treatment, or that they may face persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
We have also reminded the authorities of their obligation to ensure that civilians in Camp Ashraf -- as elsewhere in Iraq -- have access to such basic necessities as food, water and medical care.
 
September 13th, the United Nations High Commissionor for Refugees (UNHCR) issued a guide on the status of Camp Ashraf residents applying for asylum to various countries which led with:
 
Camp residents who have submitted requests are accordingly now formally asylum-seekers under international law whose claims require adjudication. International law requires that they must be able to benefit from basic protection of their security and well-being.  This includes protection against any expulsion or return to the frontiers of territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened (the non-refoulement principle).
 
As Swiss News has noted, the immediate impact of the guide was for Switzerland which "is considering whether to take in refugees" from Camp Ashraf. Trend News Agency noted at the end of last month, "Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, announced today that she has appointed Jean De Ruyt to advise on the European Union's response to Camp Ashraf, EU website reported."  AFP added, "A spokesman for Ashton said Monday that Jean De Ruyt, Belgium's former ambassador to the EU, will act in Brussels 'as an advisor on the European Union's response' to Camp Ashraf, located near the border with Iran and home to some 3,4000 Iranian dissidents."
 
Al Mada reports Speaker of Parliament Nujaifi has declared that Sunnis in Iraq believe they are treated as second-class citizens.  Nujaifi is quoted stating that Iraq's house is for all but is in a trainstion currently as the people realize their rights.  Sunnis are targeted in Iraq.  Many groups of Iraqis are targeted.  Al Rafidayn reports on Iraq's dwindling Jewish community which has fallen throughout the war from "tens of thousands" to seven in Baghdad. The article cites an AFP report on Jews who had left and quotes one stating, "We were reluctant to leave Iraq, it was the only home we knew." However, throughout the war, Jews have been targeted with kidnappings, threats, and murder. For example, in 2007, a Jewish man (the husband of a dentist) was kidnapped from his Baghdad home. A Jewish man shares that his Muslim neighbors treated him with "affection and love" but that it became harder to live there and harder to conceal his religion because it is noted on the national ID card that Iraqis must show when traveling through the many checkpoints. His family home was illegally seized and turned into a space for livestock despite the fact that they have the documents that go back to the 1920s proving they own the property.

All of Iraq's religious minorities have been targeted and live under the threat of violence. Compass Direct News reports on a family in Iraq that converted from Muslim to Christian:

"When our relatives come from Baghdad, we need to move everything that is Christian," Nuria's mother said. "In short, we are living two lives. It is very hard on children. We are adults, and it is hard for us to live double lives, but for children it is worse. Even their personality will be affected."
Nuria and her family, whose names must be withheld for their safety, are Iraqi Arabs who converted from Islam to Christianity. Whereas Assyrian Iraqis are accepted as Christians by ethnic identity, Iraqi Muslims believe Arabs have no business becoming Christians; it is not possible, according to society and the constitution.
Nuria's parents, like many converts in Iraq, struggle to raise their children as Christians in a society that will only accept them as Muslims. If the children say they believe in Jesus, they face beatings and scorn from their teachers. Because their identification cards say they are Muslims, they cannot enroll in Christian schools, and they must take Islamic religion classes. Likewise, because of their identity cards they later would only be able to marry another Muslim under Islamic rites.
 
 
Today Iraq War vetern Adam Kokesh's program Adam vs The Man returns.  They're calling it AVTM 3.0 and the first episode, today's episode, is hereIraq Veterans Against the War notes:
 
Service members who experience PTSD, TBI, MST, and combat stress have the right to exit the traumatic situation and receive immediate support, and compensation. Too often, service members are forced to redeploy back into dangerous combat, or train in situations that re-traumatize them.  We say, individuals suffering from trauma have the right to remove themselves from the source of the trauma. Service members who are not physically or mentally healthy shall not be forced to deploy or continue service. Learn more about what Operation Recovery is fighting for here
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The never ending Political Stalemate II

Kicking things off with tea leaf reader Ranj Alaaldin (Guardian):

Keep Baghdad weak and sustain political divisions – that is the Kurdish strategy for Iraq, underpinned by an astute game of manipulation and patience.
Arab Iraq remains divided and the Baghdad coalition government is dysfunctional. Disputes over territory, natural resources and power-sharing, including the implementation of key legislation, and ongoing security problems stand in the way of enduring stability and progress.

That's the strategy? That's a strategy?

A number of Kurds would beg to differ with that claim or that there has been a consistant strategy. Alaaldin has the KRG building up their region while Baghdad is in chaos. That is a pattern, I'm failing to see how it's a strategy unless it's one that the Kurds plotted prior to the start of the Iraq War and long before there was a puppet government in Baghdad. Throughout the Iraq War, the KRG has been presented as the "safer" Iraq. It's not a new development. It predates Nouri as prime minister. Again, a pattern, yes, but a strategy?

If it's a strategy, Alaaldin is going to have to find some proof to back that up because "I say so" really doesn't play out. And I'm having a really hard time to see Nouri's incompetence as strategy to help the Kurds, which would have to be factored in as well to carry Alaadin's hypothesis out fully.

The Kurdish officials (minus Goran) and Nouri have been at loggerheads over (a) the failure to implement the Constitution's Article 140, (b) the failure to implement the Erbil Agreement (agreement which allowed Nouri to have a second term as prime minister) and (c) Nouri's proposed oil and gas bill. Hevidar Ahmed (Rudaw) interviews Kurdish official Arif Tayfur about the recent trip to Baghdad:

Rudaw: Did your visit to Baghdad achieve anything?

Arif Tayfur: The Kurdish delegation was very pleased with the meeting with Shiite National Alliance. There was a great deal of understanding. The Kurdish delegation was representing all of the Kurdish parties and movements in Iraqi Kurdistan. It expressed its concerns to the Shiites about the current situation in Baghdad and the attitudes towards the Iraqi Kurdistan region. The Kurdish delegation will present the results of the meetings to Iraqi Kurdistan’s President (Massoud Barzani) and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in order to determine whether a KRG delegation will be sent to Baghdad or not.

Rudaw: Did Baghdad make any promises to the Kurdish delegation?

Arif Tayfur: The Kurds were satisfied with their meeting with the Shiite alliance, as they promised the Kurds that all matters will be dealt with via agreements and mutual understanding. The Kurdish delegation met separately with the Dawa Party and our delegation has conveyed all of their grievances in a straightforward manner. We also expressed our willingness to solve all the issues, but it appeared that the core issues are between KRG and the Iraqi federal government.




Al Mada reports Parliamentary attendance rarely reaches two-thirds. Meanwhile the Iraqi Justice and Reform movement, Alsumaria TV reports, is claiming Iraiqya has a secret deal with the Kurds on Article 140 of the Constitution (which outlines how the dispute over Kirkuk will be resolved). If it's not true (no proof is offered), it may be a response to the revelation that Nouri's attempted to enlist the League of Righteous into the Article 140 issue. (The League of Righteous is a merry band of thugs who have targeted and killed Sunnis, Americans and Brits throughout the Iraq War.) Aswat al-Iraq reported Thursday, "An al-Iraqiya MP announced today that his bloc currently has no intentions of withdrawing trust from the government, because it will create a state of 'chaos' in the country. MP Ahmed al-Jubori told Aswat al-Iraq that his bloc called on the government to solve all pending questions, particularly the security and services, as well achieving national partnership. Earlier, MP Ahmed al-Alwani said that there are alternatives to prevent the government to reach the status of one party and one leader by leaving the government to weaken the role of the prime minister."

Still on the political parties, Al Mada quotes State of Law MP Ehasn Yassin al-Awadi declaring that Iraqiya and State of Law are not speaking. He maintains that Iraqiya has been inflexible in their stand and that the two political slates had reached a brick wall. State of Law is Nouri al-Maliki's political slate. Iraqiya is Ayad Allawi's political slate. Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections. Also noting State of Law is the Great Iraqi Revolution: "The Ministry of Higher Education accepts the deputy of State of Law Coalition Abbas Al-Bayati for higher studies, though he failed the competitive evaluation tests , he's above the allowed age and he didn't get the required qualifications after graduation . This is not strange since the Secretary of Higher Education Ali Al-Adeeb belongs to the same party ( State of Law Coalition) !!" In other State of Law employment news, Al Mada reports that Nouri's made some new appointments. As they note, Allawi has long accused Nouri of waiting until Parliament goes on vacation to make replace people he wishes to be rid of (thereby bypassing Parliament). Iraqiya's calling attention to Nouri pulling State of Law members and replacing them with people he can presumably have more faith in. Iraqiya calls it yet another attempt by Nouri to "crack down on democracy."

We'll close with this from Gordon Duff's "Mr. President, We Believe Holder Lied On Iran Terror" (Veterans Today):


Let me put this in plain English as I have no faith in you, despite your wonderful press conference performances, cannot understand anything that takes complex reasoning.

The Guardian, yes, we really mean MI 5 and 6, mean, when they say “outside agency,” they are referring to the Mossad.

Read the article, it certainly has to be better than your briefings.

There were 7 other reasons, not just them simply pointing out that you are peddling a cheap Mossad plot as a reason to send America to war simply because you need Israeli money to play politics.

There is always the other option, appointing a real attorney general and having most of the house and senate jailed for accepting laundered drug money to run their campaigns or having them charged with treason for accepting cash from foreign governments but, didn’t you just do exactly that yourself?



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
























Veterans issues

Drew Brooks (Fayetteville Observer) reports, "The Department of Veterans Affairs is asking its employees to rethink their definition of a veteran and has launched a national campaign to do the same in the public sphere. Specifically, the VA wants people to rid themselves of pre-conceived notions about women veterans." This is an issue that has been repeatedly raised before Congress.
For example, April 23, 2009, US House Rep John Hall chaired the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing. John Wilson (Disabled American Veterans) explained the struggle women in the military have as a result of the notion that they aren't 'in combat.' From his opening statement:

The female soldiers who accompany male troops on patrols to conduct house-to-house searches are known as Team Lioness, and have proved to be invaluable. Their presence not only helps calm women and children, but Team Lioness troops are also able to conduct searches of the women, without violating cultural strictures. Against official policy, and at that time without the training given to their male counterparts, and with a firm commitment to serve as needed, these dedicated young women have been drawn onto the frontlines in some of the most violent counterinsurgency battles in Iraq.
Independent Lens, an Emmy award-winning independent film series on PBS, documented their work in a film titled Lioness which profiled five women who saw action in Iraq's Sunni Triangle during 2003 and 2004. As members of the US Army's 1st Engineer Battalion, Shannon Morgan, Rebecca Nava, Kate Pendry Guttormsen, Anastasia Breslow and Ranie Ruthig were sent to Iraq to provide supplies and logistical support to their male colleagues. Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi. These women were part of a unit, made up of approsimately 20 women, who went out on combat missions in Iraq. Female soldiers in the Army and Marines continue to perform Lioness work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would like to highlight the issues faced by Rebecca Nava as she seeks recognition of her combat experience and subsequent benefits for resulting disabilities. Then US Army Specialist Nava was the Supply Clerk for the 1st Engineering Battalion in Iraq. In conversations with her and as seen in the film Lioness, she recounts several incidents. Two of those incidents are noted in my testimony today.
The first is the roll-over accident of a 5-ton truck that was part of a convoy to Baghdad. In this accident, the driver was attempting to catcuh up with the rest of the convoy but in doing so lost control of the vehicle. The five ton truck swerved off the road and rolled over, killing a Sergeant who was sitting next to her, and severely injuring several others. Specialist Nava was caught in the wreckage. She had to pulled through the fractured windshield of the vehicle. While not severly injured in the accident, she did suffer a permanent spinal injury.
Another incident occurred wherein she was temporarily attached to a Marine unit and her job for this mission was to provide Lioness support for any Iraqi women and children the unit contacted. It was a routine mission patrolling the streets of Ramadi. Before she knew it, the situation erupted into chaos as they came under enemy fire. She had no choice but to fight alongside her male counterparts to suppress the enemy. No one cared that she was a female -- nor did they care that she had a Supply MOS -- their lives were all on the line -- she opened fire. The enemy was taken out. During this fire fight she also made use of her combat lifesaver skills and provided medical aid to several injured personnel.
This and other missions resonate with her to this day. When she filed a claim with the VA, she was confronted with disbelief about her combat role in Iraq as part of Team Lioness. Specialist Nava filed a claim for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus but was told that she did not qualify because of her logistics career field. Since she does not have a Combat Action Badge, she cannot easily prove that the combat missions occurred which impacted her hearing.

And the problem is not just how the public sees female veterans. As Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reported a few years back:

Women often face more skepticism about PTSD claims during visits to male-dominated VA medical centers, said retired Army Sgt. Carolyn Schapper.
"If you happen to go once and the first person you speak to questions the authenticity of your story, you're less likely to go back," she said. "That's true for men and women, but women are more likely to be questioned than men."

Yesterday on Fresh Air (NPR), Terry Gross spoke with David Wood about wounded veterans:

Terry Gross: David Wood, welcome to FRESH AIR. Why did you want to do this series on the catastrophically wounded?

DAVID WOOD: Terry, I've been a combat reporter for a long time, many, many years, and I've covered a lot of wars. And most recently, of course, during the last 10 years, being embedded with combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've seen people get wounded, and it's always a terrible situation, very high-stress, ending of course with the helicopter coming in and taking them away in a big cloud of dust, and that's it. And then there's silence. And I never knew what happened to these guys who were wounded. Where do they go? What's it like for them? What do they do? What happens to them? And so when I got the opportunity to really spend a lot of time tracking down the severely wounded and telling their stories, I leaped at it.

David Wood's reporting on the wounded for The Huffington Post and you can click on "Beyond The Battlefield" to begin reading.

A friend at CNN just called to pass on that Nancy Grace has a segment tonight on her HLN show entitled "Remembering Fallen Heroes" (show airs at 8:00 pm EST).

The following community sites -- plus the Center for Constitutional Rights and Antiwar.com -- updated last night and this morning:



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






the washington post
ed okeefe


















Thursday, October 13, 2011

I Hate The War

Robert Scheer, is he whoring or is just stupid?

For those unfamiliar with Scheer, what you need to know is he bellowed and hollered and caterwauled and got shrill and everything imaginable on one of those The Nation cruises. It probably made for a memorable trip and that's not common to those cruises; however, his entire point in 2007 was to berate Ralph Nader. Ralph shouldn't run. If Ralph won, it would hurt the Democratic Party. The only way, sexist Scheer insisted, he might support Ralph running in 2008, was if the nominee was Hillary.

Robert spent 2008 engaged in sexism and verbal attacks on women. It was the behavior above that led to us stop linking to Truth Dig. We don't link there. That link is forever dead.

And we could continue to ignore him here . . . But he's written a column (link goes to a newspaper, not Truth Dig) and the state of America is everyone's fault but his.

He pretends to call out Barack Obama, but he's full of crap.

He agrees that it's sad that the left can't stand up and call out the wrecked economy. And he agrees Barack's not FDR and that Barack's failures aren't the result of Barack trying to do anything leftist. But then he gets to what's either an expression of his senility or yet another attempt to whore. Considering his record, I'd argue he's whoring and that once he gets his Hoveround going, he's really going to be whoring.

Scheer:

Romney's proposed foreign policy is even more irresponsibly wrong. He has revived the discredited Pax Americana rhetoric of the neoconservatives that got us into the Iraq War and returned military spending to highs reached during the Cold War.


Romney's revivied it? Romney? Has Romney advanced American empire in Africa? Did Romney deliver Africom? No.


Scheer:

Leaving aside assertions regarding God's intentions, it is disturbing that the much discredited platform of the Project for a New American Century, which helped bankrupt this country, will once again become U.S. policy if the Republicans gain control of the White House.


PNAC's coming back? When did it leave?

It's amazing Scheer wants to write, "He has revived the discredited Pax Americana rhetoric of the neoconservatives that got us into the Iraq War and returned military spending to highs reached during the Cold War."

Robert Scheer knows damn well that the US has not gotten out of the Iraq War. It's funny how he has a sudden concern about it -- and in the past tense, no less -- when talking about Republicans but can't say a damn word about it with regards to Barack continuing it.

The 2012 election? It can wait. It's not really that important right now. If Robert Scheer gave a damn about the Iraq War, he'd be writing about that right now instead of explaining to you how awful he just knows the Republicans are. Iraqis are dying and denied real representation because the US put a puppet government in place. That's a little more important than fretting over who some party might nominate -- especially when it's a party Scheer has no plans to vote for -- in seven or eight months to then face off with Barack thirteen months from now. Right now, Barack's pushing to extend the US military stay in Iraq. So it takes a lot of whoring (or stupidity -- I'm guessing whoring, but I could be wrong) to mention Iraq in a column that doesn't even note the efforts of the administration to extend the war but wants to slime Mitt Romney who had no more vote in the illegal war than anyone not in the White House or in Congress.

I'm not voting for Romney before someone sends me an angry e-mail. I doubt I will be voting Republican. (The only GOP nominee I would consider voting for is Ron Paul and I doubt thaat the party has the integrity to nominate him. They seem to be as cowardly as my own party has been -- which is how we ended up with Big Money's baby Barack to begin with.) I won't be voting for Barack. Didn't vote for him in 2008, won't vote for him in 2012. I do not vote for War Hawks. And since being elected, I'd argue he's become a War Criminal as well. Who I'll vote for or if I'll vote is not a pressing issue, however. Whether or not the White House is able to secure an agreement in the next months to extend the US military presence in Iraq is a grave concern that will have long lasting effects.




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 4481. Tonight it is [PDF format warning] 4482. Here's the screen snap:

101311


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




Iraq snapshot

Thursday, October 13, 2011.   Chaos and violence continue, negotiations continue to keep US troops in Iraq, how many troops Gen Lloyd Austin wanted is "classified," will Dennis Kucinich be the only Democratic member of Congress to seriously address the Iraq War, the US military announces another death, three US soldiers are wounded, Sadr City is bombed, and more.
 
Houston Chronicle reports, "Cheif Warrant Officer James B. Wilke, 38, of Ione, Calif died Oct. 10" in Operation New Dawn.  David Burge (El Paso Times) speaks to his wife of fifteen years, Moia Wilke, who states, "We don't know for sure what happened. [. . .] There are no words to explain the love we had. It was way too good to be true. He was the love of my life and I was the love of his, soul mates. We always thought we would be together. Now, nothing makes sense."
 
Independent Online News reports, "A rocket attack on a United States military base in Iraq's southern Maysan province wounded three American soldiers on Wednesday, a US military spokesperson and an Iraqi security official said." Press TV adds, "According to the reports, emergency vehicles were sent to the military base and helicopters flew overhead. [. . .] The rocket attack comes as two Iraqi soldiers were gunned down at an army checkpoint in the northern city of Mosul late on Wednesday."
 
 
For the second day in a row, Baghdad was slammed with bombings.  Reuters reports, "Two bomb blasts killed at least 16 people in a mainly Shi'ite Baghdad district on Thursday in the latest in a series of large attacks to hit Iraq's capital in less than a week."  It was the Sadr City section of Baghdad, Moqtada al-Sadr's power base.  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) quotes barber Hassan Rahim stating, "We rushed outside the shop and we saw fire and smoke near the houses. I saw dead people on the ground and several burning cars.  We helped take the wounded to the hospital until the arrival of the ambulances." Salam Faraj (AFP) adds Iraqi officials state, "women and children were among the casualties, while the interior ministry official said six policemen and three soldiers were among the wounded."  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) updates the death toll to 18 (forty injured) and quotes Sadrist MP Hakim al-Zamili stating, "The security officials don't really care about people and their lives because they live in the heavy protected green zone and they never feel the danger."
 
Again, this follow's yesterday's Baghdad bombings.  Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) covers them in "If you think Iraq's secure, read this about Wednesday's violence" in which she notes at least 22 people died and another seventy-four were injured in Baghdad alone.  A security official tells Issa, "Amred groups are choosing their targets very carefully.  They are targeting members of the security forces and government officials. It is not as random as it used to be.  And the way they were able to coordinate so many targets all over the capital indicates one of two things: either they are much more organized than they used to be, with the high possibility of having inside help. Or our security forces are sleeping.  And in either case that Maliki has failed to provide security for the people."
 
In other violence today, Reuters notes a Falluja roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left five people injured, a Shirqat shootout led to 1 suspect being shot dead, a Shirqat roadside bombing claiming the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and, last night, 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad.
 
 
With the deadline for the withdrawal all U.S. troops from Iraq less than 100 days away, nobody seems to know whether troops will be allowed to stay, how many, and under what conditions. Even the basic parameters of a possible Iraqi request for a follow-on U.S. military training presence remain largely unknown and caught in the labyrinth of local politics. This uncertainty is snarling planning efforts and has certainly irked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who famously exhorted Iraq's political leaders to "dammit, make a decision" during his first trip to Baghdad this summer.
Why exactly is a troop decision taking so long? It is certainly a highly sensitive matter, but the deadline was set in 2008 and has hardly sneaked up on anyone.
 
 
 
Why is it taking so long?  That's one question.  Another is why the American people are kept in the dark on it.  Yesterday's snapshot noted a Congressional hearing that was pretty well attended by the press for a Subcommittee hearing.  I really haven't seen any reporting on that outside of this community. It was a pretty important hearing with State and Defense represented and the focus being on Iraq (for the last 20 or so minutes, the focus shifted to Iran -- the hearing lasted about one hour and nine minutes). We covered the hearing in yesterday's snapshot and last night Wally covered it in "US House Rep Jason Chaffetz (Wally)" (at Rebecca's site), Kat with "House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations" and Ava, at Trina's site, with "DoD says it can't talk about Iraq in an open session."  And on the topic of the American people being kept in the dark, we'll note this exchange, US House Rep Jason Chaffetz is the Subcomittee Chair and Alexander Vershbos is with the Defense Dept.
 
 
Chair Jason Chaffetz: Ambassador Vershbos, let's talk about the number of US troops, what the Iraqis are requesting or authorizing. How many is the president authorizing?


Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: Mr. Chairman, no decisions have been made, uh. Discussions are still ongoing, uh. On the nature of the relationship from which would be derived any --


Chair Jason Chaffetz: So the number of 3,000 to 4,000 troops that we here, is that accurate or inaccurate?

Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: As I said, there's a lot of things going on in these discussions which predate the announcement of October 4 when the Iraqi leaders took the position they're taking regarding no immunities so obviously the discussions now have taken on a different dimension so beyond-beyond that I really can't say because nothing's been decided. The shape of the relationship will be determined in part by how this issue of status protection is-is addressed. So it's a work in progress. Even as we speak discussions are taking place between our ambassador [James Jeffrey], uh, the commander General Austin, and Iraqi leaders. So it's really difficult to give you more than that today.


Chair Jason Chaffetz: Now there was a report that General Austin had asked for between fourteen and eighteen thousand troops. Is that true?

Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: Again, I-I can't comment on internal deliberations. A lot of different ideas have been

Chair Jason Chaffetz: Wait a second, wait a second --

Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: --tossed around in the last few

Chair Jason Chaffetz: -- do you know what the actual request was?

Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: Uh -- the military leadership was asked to provide a range of options and they've done that and that was the basis on which we engaged the Iraqis and now the discu --

Chair Jason Chaffetz: Do you know what General Austin requested?

Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: I can't talk about that in an open session, Mr. Chairman. It's classified.

As Ava observed, "The number that Lloyd Austin, the top US commander in Iraq, wanted is classified? Classified is supposed to be something that would endanger national security."  The American people aren't even allowed to know the numbers tossed around.  The White House is completely unresponsive and were the useless gasbags on my side (the left) paying attention at all, they'd be calling out the White House. 
 
Barack got the nomination lying to the American people.  He was never the anti-war candidate or even the anti-Iraq War candidate.  He was a trashy operator in a boy's style suit to give him a child-like innocence that the current gray hair won't let pull off next year.  And because he was such a little boy in grown up clothes, the press couldn't ask him hard questions, like, "Hey, Wet Behind The Ears, why don't you tell us, if you're against the Iraq War, why didn't you ever vote against in the Senate?"  He didn't vote against it because before he got to the Senate, he'd decided that the US had to stay.  He said that to Elaine and I at a fundraiser when he was running for the Democratic Party nomination.  But the press fawned over him -- treating him not unlike Joe Biden's infamous remark that was greeted with such shock and disdain. At what point does the liar get held accountable?  "We want to end the war and we want to end it now!" he hollered at one tent revival after another in 2008 to the wild applause of the Cult of St. Barack.  He misled the public and not only has he not ended the Iraq War as they believed he promised to do, now he's working to expand it.  At what point does he get pressed on that?
 
With the Iraqi press, it's a rare day that you can't find articles in several papers about the possibilty of the US extending its military stay.  But in the US, the press distracts non-stop.
 
Again to Sean Kane:
 
The final area of complexity on the troop extension relates to the main schism in Iraqi domestic politics, that is the competition between Prime Minister Maliki's Shiite National Alliance and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's mainly Sunni Iraqiyya coalition. Virtually every major government and legislative action is now filtered through the prism of which man gains and which loses, including the decision on a U.S. military presence. Such zero-sum politics make compromise difficult, nuanced public discourse based on national interests unlikely, and a major legislative accomplishment such as parliamentary endorsement of a new security cooperation agreement even more challenging (especially since the Parliament just went into recess for six weeks).
This is important because U.S. officials have concluded that parliamentary approval is legally required under the Iraqi constitution for privileges and immunities to be conferred upon any U.S. soldiers acting as trainers.

That's an interesting interpretation (the Nouri and Allawi aspect); however, that second part about parliament?  Uh, no.  US officials have not concluded that.  Defense and State are not in agreement on whether or not a memo of understanding, for instance, signed by Nouri and Barack, would require Parliament's approval.  And that's even before you get into the debate about powers as written or powers by custom.

 
But that's not why we went back to Kane's article.  We went back to it because of the very premise of the article.  Can you summarize it?  "Why won't Iraq agree right away to US troops on their soil?"
 
That's the standard question and the way the US press reports it.  Why isn't the question, "Why is the White House insisting US troops stay on the ground in Iraq?"
 
If Bush were in the White House, the press could argue (as they're so fond of doing) that reporters don't take positions and they could pretend that was somehow opinion journalism.  But Bush isn't in the White House.  Barack is.  Barack who ran pretending to be against the Iraq War.  Barack who pretended he would bring home all US troops from Iraq. 
 
It's not opinion journalism to ask why the candidate is not living up to his promise on the issue that generated so much support for his campaign.
 
The US press has ignored the White House efforts to extend the US military presence in Iraq as much as it could.  When forced to cover it, they will with an article that tosses the question to the Iraqi side when what needs to be asked is:
 
1) Why is the campaign promise being broken?
 
2) If it was a "dumb war," why has President Barack Obama continued it for years now?
 
3) At what point are the American people and their desires going to be factored into any decision on Iraq?
 
4) How is the US secured by US soldiers remaining in Iraq?
 
The US press had a million and one excuses for their coverage that sold the war.  They swore it would be better someday.  We're still waiting for an adult press to emerge in the United States when it comes to Iraq. 
 
 
 
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich:  Hi. I'm Congressman Dennis Kucinich, To my brothers and sisters with Occupy Wall Street and around the nation who are fighting for economic justice, let's not forget the wars.  Nine years ago, the House of Representatives authorized the war on Iraq based on lies.  Those who would rewrite history today would have us believe that we were fooled into thinking that Saddam Hussein was a threat and had something to do with 9-11.  That's not true. We were not fooled.  We were lied to.  Lied to by those who wanted the war for their own personal financial gains.  Nine years ago, I analyzed the authorization for military force in Iraq and it was obvious based on information freely available that it was based on lies.  I'll put a link to that analysis below.  We were not fooled.  We were lied to.  It's now obvious to even the most fervent war profiteer that the war in Iraq was a mistake.  Iraq was not pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction, had nothing to do with 9-11, was not a threat to the United States, so why have we stayed in Iraq so long when we know it's a lie? Why did we see an estimated a million Iraqi civilians die?  We know war profits have soared.  Wall Street favorites like Haliburton, KBR, Bechtel, DynCorp, Northrup Grumman, General Electric and General Dynamics do very well when we spend money on war. Halliburton's stock price rose 600% between October 7, 2002 and June 30, 2008, the end of the quarter before the financial crisis. The war in Iraq may end up costing as much as $5 trillion dollars, and we have sacrificed the lives of 4,473 brave Americans and tens of thousands of our troops have been injured. The money spent for war could have spent on education, creating green jobs and rebuilding our infrastructure. It's time to end these wars.  It's time we got some of our money back. We should implement an excise tax on the profiteers who have gained so much from a war based on lies.  Keep Occupying Wall Street and I will keep occupying Congress.  
 
With all the money wasted, with all the US lives wasted, with all the Iraqis murdered, and with no functioning government and Little Nouri as the new Saddam, exactly why should US tax payers support another day of this illegal war?
 
At what point does that question get asked?  Maybe if Helen Thomas were still in the White House pool but, of course, the whole point of running her out of the pool was to avoid those important questions and instead to banter with the White House like, this week, when Jay Carney apologizes for showing well after the press-conference-in-two-minutes, he declares something came up and the alleged best and brightest in DC quickly shout out 'jokes' about was it his lunch they came up?
 
It's good to know that while they fail to inform the American people and while the US is still engaged in endless war, the DC press corps does find time to get their yucks on.
 
The Palm Beach Post pretends to ask the important questions about the US military remaining in Iraq. Pretends because their 'on the one hand' for staying is that if Iran takes over Iraq, "it would be bad for him [Barack] politically --  not to mention any actual increased risk of global terror."  Yes, those are the stakes, Barack's image. In that case, let's kill another one million Iraqis (is it up to two million yet?) and send another nearly 5,000 US troops to their death because what really matters is not what Barack does, but how he looks.  That really is why the United States was created, right?  To ensure that one day Barack's image would be protected.  The paper's readers are smarter than the journalists who work for the paper as evidenced by the poll  -- 80% say no to US troops staying in Iraq.  Yes, it's a small poll but maybe the paper doesn't have a lot of readers?
 
If you're not getting how dysfunctional the government in Iraq is, the United Nations press office notes:
 
More than 550,000 children in some of the most vulnerable districts of Iraq will benefit from a United Nations-backed school feeding programme that seeks not only to improve their nutrition but also to encourage poor families to send their children to school in the first place.
The joint programme launched by the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the Iraqi education ministry will provide a fortified midday snack to primary schoolchildren at some 1,800 schools in 24 districts over the 2011-2012 academic year.
 
Yes, that is good on the part of the UN.  Good for the UN!  Yea, for them.  But what about Iraq?  The press office notes that nearly 8 million Iraqis live below the poverty line.
 
What's the current government scandal in Iraq?

Jalal Talabani's visit to New York to speak at the UN and how it cost the Iraqi government $2 million dollars.  If they've got two million dollars (and they do) to spend on Jalal's visit, then they should have enough money to feed all the children in Iraq without help from the UN (which would allow the UN to focus their resources on other countries -- countries that aren't awash in oil billions each year).
 
That's how corrupt the government is.  They will spend $2 million dollars for the ceremonial president to travel to NYC and back but when it comes to feeding their own, they want the UN to provide assistance.  Everyone's benefitting from the Iraqi oil billions . . . except the Iraqi people.
 
Moving over to the topic of journalists in Iraq, Aswat al-Iraq notes that their own Adil Fakhir Farhoud and Ali Nakeel Ila'wi "won prizes in the Open Eye Tournament of 2011." The honors come as the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers and others opened the World Press Summit in Vienna today with a call for press freedom in the Middle East. World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers president Jacob Mathew declared, "While the world's media scrambled to cover these epochal events, it was libertaion time for journalists and news media in these countries."  Tara Conlan (Guardian) reports the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers review of the last ten years finds that Pakistan is the most dangerous country for journalists with 36 killed this year so far and Iraq pulls right into second place.
 
 
In the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office issues the following:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 (202) 224-2834

Chairman Murray's Statement on Passage of House Veterans Employment Bill

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, released the following statement on House passage of the VOW Act, a bill to address veterans unemployment sponsored by House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman, Rep. Jeff Miller. Chairman Murray first introduced legislation in this Congress to help put veterans to work with the Hiring Heroes Act, which passed Senator Murray's Committee unanimously on June 29th and is awaiting action on the Senate floor.

"I look forward to working with Chairman Miller to build around both of our efforts to start putting veterans to work. This is an issue that should transcend partisanship and remind us that doing right by our veterans always comes first. We have made tremendous investments in training and supporting those in uniform and simply patting them on the back for their service and sending them into the working world alone isn't good enough. We must improve the opportunities and resources available to our veterans to help them find the dignity and financial security that a job helps provide."

###

Matt McAlvanah

Communications Director

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

202-224-2834 - press office

202--224-0228 - direct

matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov

News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates

 
 
the associated press
sameer n. yacoub
reuters
laith hammoudi