Thursday, March 29, 2007

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, March 29, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue in Iraq with over 100 reported deaths in one day, Party Hacks continue to lie about the realities of US Congressional measures on Iraq, and, in response to NOW PAC's endorsement yesterday, some NOW members make their own endorsement.
 
Starting with news of war resistance, US war resisters Kyle Snyder was arrested at the end of February in Canada, by the Canadian police on the orders of the US military.  More recently, 3 non-Canadian police officers posed as Canadian police officers while they searched for US war resister Joshua Key.  The search was conducted at the same time the US military admits they were looking for him.  Both Snyder and Key are in Canada attempting to receive refugee status.  CBC News reports that The New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) is asking questions and spoke with Alex Atamaneko who "said Snyder should not have been arrested because being absent without leave from a foreign military is not an extraditable offence and Snyder has no criminal record" and that "Our concern is that there could be other Kyle Snyders in Canada.  We know that there are a couple of hundred other war resisters here.  Are there those that are being apprehended now?"
 
Snyder and Key are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
 
 
In "THINKERS? WHO NEEDS STINKING THINKERS?" news, The Nation continues to embrace Party Hacks (and males -- 1 female byline to every 4 males is the current ratio for the print magazine in 2007) as opposed to real thinkers so it's not that surprising that a Party Hack -- consider him another one of Katrina vanden Heuvel's coffee fetchers -- weighs in to reveal not only how shallow he is but how shallow The Nation has become.  After a few 'cutes' on Dennis Kucinich, Ari Melber (at the ha-ha blog Campaign Matters) offers, "It's hard to imagine how the failure of a more 'pure' bill advancing immediate withdrawal would do more to end the war than the succss of Pelosi's bill."  It's hard to imagine who thought a Party Hack was fit to write for an opinion journal?  But for chuckles, click here for (cached version) of when Party Hacks Attack Each Other. Something truly amazing -- David Sirota (of all people) calling Melber a "Self-Promoting Sellouts."  For the record, both Party Hacks now regularly foul The Nation magazine.  For the record, Ari forgets to disclose MoveOn ties.
 
Hard to imagine, Ari?  Just for the intellectually stunted.  The Institute for Policy Studies is an actual think tank -- not a Democratic party talking points mill.  The IPS' Phyllis Bennis (via Democracy Rising) explains how the bill's not ending anything: "The Congressional resolution passed last week gives Bush another $100 billion to continue the U.S. occupation of Iraq.  That much is now guaranteed.  The timeslines and restrictions included in the bill -- clearly responding to the strong public support for ending the war -- were weakened almost to the disappearing point to allow the razor-thin vote. . . .  Congress is not the peace movement.  So the peace movement must stay unified on our principles and our demands, in the face of congressional waffling and 'realistic' pragmatism, unfortunately promoted by one influential part of our movement.  Whatever they do, we must stay consistent on demanding an end to the U.S. occupation: de-funding (not re-funding) the war, and bringing home (not redeploying) all (not just some) of the troops (including the mercenaries).  The longstanding AFSC slogan has it right: 'Not  one more death, not one more dollar.'  That means STOP funding the war.  STOP allowing Bush to send more U.S. troops to kill more Iraqis and be killed in the process.  Just stop."
 
Some of the Party Hacks are, feeling nostalgic, hoping they can drum this into a Bill Clinton drama: "The right's after him, we all must come to the aid!"  It's not playing that way because the measures do nothing and the Party Hacks spent most of last week proclaiming how stupid the peace movement was and even though, as Mike pointed out, one Party Hack quickly tried to shine on his faux populism, people are not buying it.  Yes, Bully Boy is against the bill.  So?
 
The Democratic Party ignored the people.  This is, as Robert Knight ( Flashpoints) reported Monday, the DLC's bill.  The left's job isn't to prop up the right-wing, not even the right-wing of the Democratic Party.  Norman Solomon (CounterPunch) made it very clear before any measure passed, "Pelosi and Reid have a job to do. The antiwar movement has a job to do. The jobs are not the same. This should be obvious -- but, judging from public and private debates now fiercely underway among progressive activists and organizations, there's a lot of confusion in the air. No amount of savvy Capitol-speak can change the fact that 'benchmarks' are euphemisms for more war. And when activists pretend otherwise, they play into the hands of those who want the war to go on . . . and on . . . and on." 
 
If Ari's still confused (or pretending to be), Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) makes it very clear: "What House Democrats actually did was pass a special budget bill giving George Bush every dollar he requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a few billion extra, and little more for vets health care, with a few tens of hundreds of millions worth of legislative prok on the side to secure the votes of reluctant Democrats on each flank.  The 'withdrawal measures' in the Democrat-approved war budget are unenforceable suggestions, a patchwork of loopholds held togethr by the empty pretense that President Bush and Pentagon will not lie to us."  Dixon notes that the Congressional Black Caucus "shattered" and "once again proved the near uselessness of the CBC as presently constituted."
 
CODEPINK's Gael Murphy spoke with Deepa Fernandes and Mitch Jeserich (WBAI's Wake Up Call Radio) Wednesday, who stated of the continued demonstrations to protest the continuation of the illegal war, "It's about having that opposition to this continuing war as visible as possible and as loud as possible."  Jeserich noted the more visible activity and Murphy agreed they had "stepped up our activity since the supplemental discussions and we will stay there through the Defense authorization debate. Fernandez wondered what the main goals were and Murphy replied, "Cut the funding for the war.  We want the war to end this year.  We want Congress to take its responsiblity and to, you know they've been repudiating the surge, they've been repudiating the conduct of the war so it's time for them to do something about it.  And we want them to cut the funding.  We want them to use whatever funding they have for a full, complete, rapid, safe, orderly withdrawal."   A clip was played by Robert Byrd "a new direction and it points the way out" and Free Speech Radio News' Leigh Ann Caldwell: "Well it's a suggested timeline for withdrawal next year, of March 2008.  That timeline is a goal. But what is binding is that the president is supposed to, or has to according to this, it's a statute that says that he has to start withdrawing troops within 120 days of the passage of this bill.  And so that part is binding and the real question is: Is the president actually going to listen to it?  He doesn't follow many of the other,  laws and regulations that are passed.  The fear that he'll sign a signing statement or that he just will ignore it.  The fear of many progressives is that it will end up in the courts." 
 
Caldwell then made the comment that "I know it doesn't go as far as many Democrats would like in cutting the funding."  Where is the funding cut?  No where.   Murphy stated CODEPINK's goal,  "Our call is absolutely, let's cut the funding now use whatever funding we have for the complete withdrawal.  So our focus is very much on what's going to happen when the supplemental leaves the conference -- cause what's going to happen after the House passes it's version they'll be a conference committee where the two resolutions will be reconciled and then what comes out will likely be a supplemental bill with a timeline and the benchmarks.  We're hoping that Bush does veto it because I think it is in our favor.  And when he does, we are expecting and will put pressure on  members of Congress not to go back to him with a weaker bill but, in fact, a stronger bill and that's where we're going to be putting our pressure to make sure that there is a stronger bill and that it's about getting the troops home by the end of the year."
 
As Robert Knight ( Flashpoints) noted yesterday, "Democrat and Republican senators continued quibbling over a 125 billion dollar appropriations bill that would guarantee a continued military presence in Iraq wll into the year 2008 if not beyond.  The Senate measure, which awaits a final vote and resolution with a similar non-specifically binding House bill is expected to be voted on later this week even though it faces a presidential veto.  Meanwhile Democratic leadership is already announcing that it's willing to negotiate with president Bush to water down the provisions during markup in order to avoid a veto." 
 
 
Progressive Democrats of America grasped the nature of the bills last week and issued their statement ("Disappointed in Democratic Leadership") -- PDA director Tim Carpenter, "It is antiwar sentiment that put Democrats into majority control of Congress.  The recent USA Today - Gallup poll showed 58 percent of Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year, or earlier.  We are profoundly disappointed that the Lee Amendment -- which reflects majority sentiment in the country -- was not allowed to be debated and voted upon by the full House.  In a free vote, we believe roughly 90 members of Congress would have supported the Lee Amendment and the desires of most Americans to get out of Iraq.  Having prevented that vote, the leadership's weak supplemental that prolongs funding of an unwinnable occupation is now more susceptible to wrong-headed attacks from Republicans and certain media circles as somehow risky or extreme."  This week, PDA has noted, "The bad news is that the House bill funds Bush's troop surge and won't bring our troops home until a Sept. 1 2008 'deadline' -- with provisions allowing troops to stay in Iraq beyond that on vaguely-defined 'training' or 'anti-terrorism' missions.  (That's why a group of progressive Congress members -- including Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, John Lewis and Dennis Kucinich -- felt the need to stand firm and vote no.)  More bad news is the disunity stirred up among antiwar progressives in Congress by the House leadership's arm-twisting and the intervention of MoveOn.org in support of the leadership's arm-twising."
 
Meanwhile, RadioNation with Laura Flanders'  Laura Flanders (The Nation via Common Dreams) observes, "Nonbinding this and that, deadline lah-di-dah, Bush/Cheney are going to ignore the mandate of the midterm elections and every pressure from Congress on Iraq, because Bush/Cheney know their opponents' bark has no bite.  And that's because those opponents have yet to renounced the Bush/Cheney vision of US supremacy in the world.  In fact, mostly, they share it."
 
Which gets to the heart of the matter.  Anne Flaherty (AP) reports that the Senate's bill has passed "a mostly party line 51-47 vote". Flaherty also quotes White House Flack Dana Perino stating, "I think the founders of our nation had great foresight in realizing that it would be better to have one commander in chief managing a war" blah, blah, blah.  Perino should realize the people of the nation have said no to the war and the issue of 'managing' is not a valid one -- the issue is ending the war.
 
In Iraq today, the violence and chaos continues as even the supposedly 'secured' capital is rocked with explosions.  CNN reports that two "bombers wearing explosive vests self-detonated in a crowded market in a Shiite district in the northeastern part of the capital."  Ahmeed Rasheed (Reuters) reports that an official for the Health Ministry believes most of the dead are women and children and quotes eye witness Wissam Hashim (injured in the blast) stating, "I saw heads separated from the bodies and legs blown off."  This after, as noted in yesterday's snapshot, The John McCain Showboat Express pulled into DC on Tuesday to proclaim "we are starting to turn things around." Patrick Cockburn (CounterPunch) notes the assertion by US Senator and presidential candidate McCain "that an American could now walk unharmed through several districts of Baghdad was heard with bemusement by Iraqis.  He would certainly be murdered or kidnapped by Sunni insurgents, Shia militiamen or criminal gangs before he had taken more than a few steps."  And today's death toll from the market bombing in Baghdad alone proves there is no straight talk to John McCain.  Rasheed reports that at least 62 people are dead from the bombings while CBS and AP go with 60 and note 40 wounded.
 
Other bombings?
 
AP notes that 25 people died in Khalis from three car bombings. Sinan Salaheddin (AP) notes that the toll climbed to 43 dead and 86 wounded "according to police and officials in the predominately Shiite town."  Other bombings noted by Reuters include a western Baghdad car bombing that killed 3 people (16 injured), a southwestern Baghdad bombing that killed 4 police officers "and one civilian" (9 injured), another southwestern Baghdad bombing that killed 2 police oficers (6 wounded), a western Baghdad bombing that wounded 3 Iraqi soldiers, a southern Baghdad bombing that claimed 3 lives (20 wounded), a car bombing in Mahmudiya that killed 4 (20 wounded), and a Mahmudiya mortar attack that killed 2 (7 wounded).
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters notes a police officer was shot dead in Wiwaniya, two traffic police officers were shot dead in northern Baghdad with two more wounded, an eye doctor was shot dead in Mahmudiya
 
Corpses?
 
Reuters notes 25 corpses discovered in Baghdad today.
 
Finally, returning to US political news. Yesterday the NOW PAC endorsed US Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.  Later yesterday, "NOW members endorse Dennis Kucinich."  NOW members Kat, Rebecca, Dona, Ava, Betty, Gina, Krista, Keesha, Kayla, Elaine, Martha and Shirley as well as former NOW member Trina used their voices to note that NOW PAC, which did not poll membership, does not speak for them and to decry the removal of the white dove and slogan "PEACE IS A FEMINIST ISSUE" from the NOW website in time to endorse War Hawk Hillary Clinton.
Along with  "NOW members endorse Dennis Kucinich" (Kat's Korner). Elaine's "I endorse Dennis Kucinich for the 2008 primary" and Rebecca's "this now member is endorsing kucinich" also address the issue and why they are endorsing Dennis Kucinich for the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. All who signed encourage other NOW members to announce their own endorsement.  NOW PAC is a political arm of NOW but it is NOW and NOW members should, as they have so powerfully throught the years, use their own voices to speak for themselves.
 
This week, Kucinch amplified his call for a national discussion regarding impeachment.
 
 

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
Posted by at

Other Items (Robert Knight's commentary)

In today's Knight report and war summary, a new massacre in Iraq as the Senate deliberates and Democrats contemplate a war ending strategy of ready, aim, compromise. I'm Robert Knight in New York.
The sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shia Arab majority in Iraq assumed even greater dimensions today when as many as 120 Sunnis were dragged from their homes and executed by Shia death squads from the Mahdi army and Badr brigades supported by members of the US trained police in the city of Tal Afar -- 250 miles north of Baghdad where a Sunni driven truck bomb killed 80 Shias yesterday.
Today's revenge massacre in the mixed city lasted through the night with assassins roaming through Sunni neighborhoods and dragging residents into the street where they were summarily shot point blank. Current reports indicate 70 known dead with an additional 50 or more missing and presumed dead. Sunni groups blame Shia infiltrated security forces for the killings along with at least 18 police arrested after they were identified by survivors.
The US installed office of Shia backed prime minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered an investigation but the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars said the murders were " evidence of "the clear plot and coordination between the militias and the government of interior and defense."
Yesterday, a presumed Sunni insurgent detonated a truck purporting to deliver bakery goods to a Shia neighborhood killing 85 and wounding a 100. But Sunni parliamentarian Dhafer al-Ani said that, "If yesterday's attacks were carried out by unidentified terrorists, today's events were conducted by well known criminal police and they must be punished."
Amid the latest breakdown of civil order, despite the current US military escalation, Pentagon publicist and Rear Admiral Mark Fox declared today that "We are seeing preliminary signs of progress but there will be rough days ahead."
Fox went on to compare the US security plan to "backing a rat into an corner and increasing pressure on the extremists."
The crisis generated ripples in the Arab world earlier today when Saudi King Abdullah condemned "the illegitimate foreign occupation of Iraq" during an opening statement to the Arab League Summit in Riyadh.
Abdullah said, "In beloved Iraq blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and ugly sectarianism. threatens civil war."
Meanwhile in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid condemned the US escalation saying, "The idea that the 'surge' is working and that it needs more time is a fantasy. What we see today in Iraq is more the same. The same violence, the same chaos, the same loss of life we've seen in Iraq over the past four years. "
As he spoke, Democrat and Republican senators continued quibbling over a 125 billion dollar appropriations bill that would guarantee a continued military presence in Iraq well into the year 2008 if not beyond. The Senate measure ,which awaits a final vote and resolution with a similar non-specifically binding House bill is expected to be voted on later this week even though it faces a presidential veto. Meanwhile Democratic leadership is already announcing that it's willing to negotiate with president Bush to water down the provisions during markup in order to avoid that veto.
But the White House defiantly announced today, "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the frontlines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."
However polls now consistently indicate the American people also know who to hold responsible for the lie-based invasion and Congressional acquiescence that unleashed the sectarian violence in Iraq.
A new USA Today/Gallup poll has found that nearly two-thirds say the current US occupation and escalation "has not made much difference or has actually made the situation in Iraq worse." And that's some of the news of this Wednesday, March 28, 2007. From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.

The above is from Wednesday's "The Knight Report" commentary by Robert Knight on Flashpoints. The hourly program airs, Monday through Friday, live online via Flashpoints, KPFA and KFCF (also over the airwaves in the Bay Area on the last two), from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Archived broadcasts can be found at Flashpoints and in the KPFA archives. "The Knight Report" airs Monday through Thursday. Sabrina asked if we could note "'The Knight Report' one more day?" We can note it today and we'll note in the future but don't expect it Friday morning (due to the "And the war drags on" on Thursday nights). For those who have been unable to listen to Flashpoints , the first segment (Monday through Thursday) is "The Knigh Report." After that hosts Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman will do various reports and interviews. Barrows-Friedman reports frequently from the occupied territories. The program also frequently features speak outs on various topics. Some regular guests include Robert Parry, Greg Palast, Dr. Mona El-Farra, Dahr Jamail, and Ann Wright. (Some -- that's not "all." Other voices popular with the community, such as Michael Ratner, are also on the program frequently.) Let's note this from "2006: The Year of Living Dumbly (Year in Review):"

Take Ivan Brobeck who returned from Canada and turned himself in on election day. Who noted that? It's called The Full Brobeck. November 6th, on KPFA's Flashpoints, Nora Barrows-Friedman interviewed him and . . . no one else did or bothered to report on him. The web site Common Dreams did run a press release put out by Courage to Resist which was apparently supposed to pass for coverage that Brobeck was returning from his self-check out and returning with an open letter to the Bully Boy.
Rolling Stone and Left Turn managed to run print articles on Watada. Left Turn is a monthly, Rolling Stone is a weekly that focuses more on entertainment. How they managed to cover it when the weekly, political magazine The Nation couldn't is a question people should be asking?
Sign a petition, vote, and call it a "Sweet Victory," apparently.
The Nation, in 2006, was about as political as the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs across the country.
[. . .]
Flashpoints deserves special credit for their outstanding coverage. Iraq is not their focus but they picked up the slack and then some by interviewing more war resisters than anyone else, by regularly airing reports from Dahr Jamail and others and by, honestly, paying attention to what was going on. In doing that, they didn't lose focus on the occupied territories.

Hilda wondered about the last "not their focus" comment (she hasn't heard the show and is one of our members who will not -- short of medical advances)? The program's main focus is the occupied territories. Not its sole focus. But that's what it has really made its name on in the last few years. And it's suffered fall out for that with people who would prefer that the topic not to be explored. It does cover Iraq and many other topics. Palast, Jamail and others have always been welcome on the program. "The Knight Report" covers a number of issues (including in depth looks at events in New York). Though she's been too busy to do so this week, Rebecca generally covers Flashpoints at her site and she is emphasizing the reports on the occupied territories. So, to Hilda's question, it covers many topics but it picks up the slack from the rest of the media in covering the occupied territories and that's what stands out to a large number who listen to the program. In addition, Flashpoints frequently features poetry during the week and, on Friday's usually includes live music. Also on Fridays, the last 15 minutes is "Flashpoints in Espanol." If you are able to enjoy audio programs online, you can listen to the program or any other Pacifica program via the archived broadcasts.

Now, remember the Saudi King covered in Robert Knight's report?

Well you know the New York Times can't wait to get a piece of that. Not to explore it or analyze it, just to assure that it's no big deal and the Saudi King wasn't all that to begin with. From
"U.S. Iraq Role Is Called Illegal by Saudi King:"

The king's speech, at the opening of the Arab League meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater leadership role in the Middle East, partly at American urging.
The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.
They brokered a deal between the two main Palestinian factions last month, but one that Israel and the United States found deeply problematic because it added to the power of the radical group Hamas rather than the more moderate Fatah. On Wednesday King Abdullah called for an end to the international boycott of the new Palestinian government. The United States and Israel want the boycott continued.
In addition, Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month, while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis have been willing to negotiate with Iran and Hezbollah.
Last week the Saudi king canceled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honor, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. The official reason given was a scheduling conflict, the paper said.

Now the article's by Hassan M. Fattah so the chances of an error (or two or three) being contained in the article are extremely likely. Most infamously, Fattah attempted to pen the "I Know Who The Hooded Guy In the Abu Ghraib Photo Is!" article. When it exploded in his face, the paper attempted to 'share' the blame by pointing out Vanity Fair had printed an article that mentioned the guy claimed to be the one in the photo. Now that article ran months and months before the Times' article did. And when they were selling Fattah's 'exclusive,' they saw no reason to mention Van Fair. But when it was time spread the blame, suddenly they were all over Vanity Fair. And forgetting to tell their readers that Vanity Fair did not present the man as the one in the photo, the magazine noted that the man claimed to be the one in the photo and that the claim could not be verified. So, for the record, we've noted that he's rushing to indicate to everyone that the administration wants the king shunned and the orders are now that he was never important to the US to begin with. And, for the record, we're not standing behind anything in the Times' article. If and when they run a correction, we won't note it here because we don't trust his reporting. (Getting something wrong is one thing -- and this wasn't Fattah's first time -- stating that Vanity Fair made the same mistake -- when they didn't -- is another thing altogether.)

US war resisters Kyle Snyder and Joshua Key are both residing in Canada and attempting to be recognized and granted asylum. During the Vietnam era, the Canadian government was welcoming of war resisters. Since the start of the current illegal war, the Canadian government has been much more reluctant. No war resister has been granted refugee status thus far. Jeremy Hinzman, Ryan Johnson, Patrick Hart, Dean Walcott and Corey Glass are some of the others US war resisters who've gone public as they fight for legal recognition in Canada.

Darrell Anderson and Ivan Brobeck are two US war resisters who went to Canada and returned in 2006. Anderson was discharged (as he has noted, the military wasn't looking forward to a court-martial with a decorated combat veteran who would share the realities of what he saw in Iraq). Brobeck was court-martialed and sentenced. Kyle Snyder returned to the US and, in an arrangement with the military, attempted to turn himself in on October 31, 2006; however, the military that had burned him throughout his service, lied to him again. As soon as his attorney left, the agreement fell immediately apart. Snyder checked himself out again (traveled the US speaking out against the war, assisted with reconstruction in New Orleans, etc.). Snyder then returned to Canada.

At the end of February, Kyle Snyder was harassed and arrested when the Canadian police decided to take orders from the US military. More recently, the US military has been "looking for" Joshua Key and three non-Canadian police officers have been going through Canada posing as Canadian police officers. The above brings us to Vic's highlight, from CBC News' "NDP calls for Ottawa to probe U.S. deserter's arrest:"

The NDP are asking the federal government to look into the arrest of an American military deserter in Nelson, B.C.
Alex Atamanenko, who represents the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, told CBC News Wednesday he suspects the Nelson police were responding to a request from the U.S. army in February when they put Kyle Snyder in jail.
Wearing only his boxer shorts, Snyder was held in a cell for several hours before he was released after agreeing to a future meeting with immigration officials.
Snyder was not charged and police won't say what prompted his arrest.
Snyder, 23, who says he is applying for permanent residence in Canada, is wanted by the U.S. army because he deserted in 2005 after fighting in Iraq.
Atamanenko said Snyder should not have been arrested because being absent without leave from a foreign military is not an extraditable offence and Snyder has no criminal record.

In fairness, we should note that the US military loves, loves, loves Joshua Key's book The Deserter's Tale. So, as "The Stateside Army Book Club" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) postulates, maybe they're just huge fans and don't mean to be stalkers?

Lloyd notes Karin Brulliard and Robin Wright's "Strikes on Baghdad's Green Zone on the Rise" (Washington Post):

Iraqi insurgents are increasingly hitting Baghdad's fortresslike Green Zone with rockets and mortar shells, officials said Wednesday.
Insurgents have struck inside the Green Zone, which includes the U.S. Embassy, on six of the past seven days, once with deadly consequences. A U.S. soldier and a U.S. government contractor were killed Tuesday night by a rocket attack that also seriously wounded a civilian, military and embassy officials said. One soldier and at least three other civilians received minor injuries, U.S. Embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said.

And Martha notes this from Ann Scott Tyson's "Increase May Mean Longer Army Tours" (Washington Post):

Sustaining the U.S. troop increase in Iraq beyond this summer will not be possible without keeping some Army combat brigades in the war zone for up to 16 months -- much longer than the standard year-long tour, a top U.S. general in charge of the military's rotation plans said yesterday.
Air Force Gen. Lance Smith, head of U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, also said that if the increase of more than 28,000 combat and support troops continues until February, there is a "high probability" that some Army units would have less than a year at home between combat rotations, further compressing the limited time to train and reconnect with families.


Also, David Cay Johnston's "Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows" (New York Times, C1) reports on the increasing split between many Americans and "the top 1 percent of Americans -- those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 -- receiving their largest share of national income since 1928". Put that in with Edmund L. Andrews' "Ex--Auditor Says He Was Told to Be Lax on Oil Fees" (C3) which is about former Interior Department auditor Bobby Maxwell who has "accused senior officials . . . of prohibiting him and other investigators from recovering hundres of millions of dollars in underpayments from oil and gas companies that drill on federal land and in federal water." Andrews reports that in testimony yesterday to the House Natural Resources Committee, Maxwell stated he was told "Don't bother the oil companies."

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















Posted by at

"Oppsoing the Iraq Supplemental & Iran Threats" (Phyllis Bennis)

The Congressional resolution passed last week gives Bush another $100 billion to continue the U.S. occupation of Iraq. That much is now guaranteed. The timelines and restrictions included in the bill -- clearly responding to the strong public support for ending the war-- were weakened almost to the disappearing point to allow the razor-thin vote. Very few of those toothless restrictions will likely make it into the final bill that must survive a super-majority in the Senate, a House-Senate conference committee, and a likely Bush veto.
But the effort to hold Congress members to their electoral mandate must be continued and ratcheted up, not abandoned, even as we look towards pressing alternative centers of power (city councils, state legislatures, mayors and governors, newspaper editorial boards, influential clergy, etc.) as instruments to pressure Congress from new directions.
Congress is not the peace movement. So the peace movement must stay unified on our principles and our demands, in the face of congressional waffling and "realistic" pragmatism, unfortunately promoted by one influential part of our movement. Whatever they do, we must stay consistent on demanding an end to the U.S. occupation: de-funding (not re-funding) the war, and bringing home (not redeploying) all (not just some) of the troops (including the mercenaries). The longstanding AFSC slogan has it right: "Not one more death, not one more dollar." That means STOP funding the war. STOP allowing Bush to send more U.S. troops to kill more Iraqis and be killed in the process. Just stop.
These talking points are in two parts: first, an assessment of why the real peace movement must continue to stand on principle and oppose the supplemental gift of $100 billion to Bush to continue the occupations. Second an assessment of some of the rising dangers of a U.S. attack on Iran, and its potential consequences.
THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING BILL
The Democratic leadership in the House claims the $125 billion supplemental is the way to end the war. Something passed in the Senate may include some of the same claims. Aside from setting a date for bringing home troops, the House version included a number of items many in the peace movement would ordinarily support - veterans' health benefits, Katrina survivors' assistance, children's health insurance....
So if there's a timeline, what's the problem with the supplemental? Why shouldn't peace activists support it?
Because it gives President Bush another $100 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it doesn't end the occupation or prevent expansion of the war to Iran.

The above is from Phyllis Bennis' "Opposing the Iraq Supplemental & Iran Threats" (Democracy Rising). Liang noted it and Bennis goes on through the bill (what's in it, what's not) after the above excerpt ends.

In the New York Times today, Alissa J. Rubin's "70 Killed in Wave of Revenge in Northern Iraq" tells you:

One of the bloodiest chapters in Iraq's sectarian strife unfolded over the past two days in the northern city of Tal Afar where gunmen, some of them apparently police officers, participated in the revenge killings of scores of Sunnis in the aftermath of a huge double suicide bombing in a Shiite area.

What! That can't be! The John McCain Showboat Express pulled into DC on Tuesday proclaiming that "we are starting to turn things around" so how can that be? You mean Show Boating John McCain can be wrong?

Back to the article:

Two hours after the explosion of truck bombs, which killed 83 people and wounded more than 185, the gunmen -- some of whom witnesses recognized as police officers -- went house to house in a Sunni neighborhood, dragged people into the street and shot them in the head, witnesses and local leaders said. The killing went on for several hours before the Iraqi Army intervened. The police are mostly Shiites, although the city is mixed.

Martha notes this from Joshua Partlow's "Gunmen Go On Rampage In Iraqi City" (Washington Post):

But parts of the city reverted to chaos and carnage Wednesday as gunmen went door to door assassinating as many as 60 people in revenge for the previous day's truck bombings, Iraqi military and government officials said. The attack was startling for several reasons, including the alleged participation of police officers in the killings and the implication that the six-week-old Baghdad security plan might be allowing violence to metastasize outside the capital.
But perhaps most ominous was the resurgence of reprisal killing at a time when U.S. and Iraqi officials have noted optimistically that Shiites have responded with restraint to recent insurgent bombings. The violence in Tall Afar follows Shiite reprisal attacks on three Sunni mosques south of Baghdad on Sunday, and it suggested to some Iraqi officials that Shiites are losing patience with government security forces.

Again, John McCain was wrong? That's so shocking. Next people are going to start saying Show Boat really isn't about the straight talk.

In other news, in the face of NOW PAC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the following NOW members:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
former NOW member Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Gina of the gina & krista round-robin,
Krista of the gina & krista round-robin,
Martha, community member
Shirley, community member
Kayla, community member
Keesha, community member
and Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

have issued their own endorsement -- of Dennis Kucinich. You can read about it in "NOW members endorse Dennis Kucinich" (Kat's Korner). Elaine's "I endorse Dennis Kucinich for the 2008 primary" and Rebecca's "this now member is endorsing kucinich" also address the issue.

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













Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)