Monday, January 18, 2010

Iraq Inquiry

The Iraq inquiry is partly a story about the clash between the political class and the mandarin class. There are five members of the inquiry and two of them are former civil servants (Sir John Chilcot and Sir Roderic Lyne), one is a former first civil service commissioner (Lady Prashar) and Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert have both written "official" histories or biographies (of the Falklands war and Winston Churchill respectively) which suggests they may have both absorbed some civil service DNA.
When they take evidence from fellow members of the Whitehall establishment, they tend to give them a sympathetic hearing. Judging by the way they reacted to Alastair Campbell, they are less impressed by people immersed in party politics.
Today's witness, Jonathan Powell, is interesting because he has had a foot in both camps. He started his career as a Foreign Office diplomat. But he then defected to "politics" when he went to work for Tony Blair as his chief of staff.

The above is from Andrew Sparrow's live blogging of today's hearing of the Iraq Inquiry for the Guardian. BBC News (link has text and video) adds that Powell insisted there was no 'oath in blood' sealed in Crawford between Bully Boy Bush and then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. CNN notes Tony Blair is scheduled to testify January 29th.

Mike's "In Massachusetts, the view's far different than in NYC" has gone up refuting claims made by a New Yorker who is not in Mass but feels the need to tea leaf read. Once upon a time when the Sam Nunns and the Cokie Roberts did that, we on the left would object loudly. But the reality is that the gas bags on the left are no different than the ones in the MSM. In fact, they're actually far worse because while they finger point and demand disclosure, they never provide any. Refer to Panhandle Media and grasp that while KPFA and Larry Bensky had an obligation to reveal to the listeners that every 'expert' brought on that two hour broadcast to offer 'analysis' had endorsed Barack Obama, every 'expert' also had an obligation to disclose that on air. They refused to. They failed. And remember that the next time any of those lying Whores wants to point to the MSM and hector the MSM.


Disclosure, I support (donate money to) the work of the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders. The Red Cross was earlier denied landing in Haiti by the US military. The US military also denied to allow Doctors Without Borders to land. The following press release is from Doctors Without Borders:

Doctors Without Borders Cargo Plane With Full Hospital and Staff Blocked From Landing in Port-au-Prince
Demands Deployment of Lifesaving Medical Equipment Given Priority

UPDATE: January 18, 2010

The Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) plane filled with supplies needed to establish an inflatable tent field hospital landed at approximately 11 am local time, Sunday, January 17, in Port-au-Prince.

However, another MSF cargo plane carrying vital medical supplies to replenish stocks for Choscal hospital, where an MSF team is working on a backlog of patients needing surgery, was not allowed to land in Port-au-Prince on Sunday, January 17, and was forced to re-route to the Dominican Republic, where it landed. Choscal hospital will run out of medical supplies in less than 24 hours and its cold chain system for preserving medicines and vaccines at the proper temperatures could be compromised if this cargo plane is not able to fly into Port-au-Prince immediately.

More than 500 patients in need of surgery have been transferred from Martissant to Choscal hospital in Cite Soleil. MSF teams are focusing on lifesaving surgery (open wounds, fractures, burns, amputations, and emergency obstetrics). They’ve been working around the clock and have done more than 90 surgeries since the operating theater became functional. Priority is given to lifesaving interventions, such as amputations carried out on patients with gangrene triggered by infected wounds.

How many cargo flights has MSF successfully flown into Port-au-Prince? 4

What is their total tonnage? 135

How many cargo flights has MSF successfully flown into the Dominican Republic? 2

What is their total tonnage? 65

How many cargo flights are planned for the rest of this week? 6

What is their total tonnage? 195

Port-au-Prince/Paris /New York, 17 January 2009—Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) urges that its cargo planes carrying essential medical and surgical material be allowed to land in Port-au-Prince in order to treat thousands of wounded waiting for vital surgical operations. Priority must be given immediately to planes carrying lifesaving equipment and medical personnel.

Despite guarantees, given by the United Nations and the US Defense Department, an MSF cargo plane carrying an inflatable surgical hospital was blocked from landing in Port-au-Prince on Saturday, and was re-routed to Samana, in Dominican Republic. All material from the cargo is now being sent by truck from Samana, but this has added a 24-hour delay for the arrival of the hospital.

A second MSF plane is currently on its way and scheduled to land today in Port- au-Prince at around 10 am local time with additional lifesaving medical material and the rest of the equipment for the hospital. If this plane is also rerouted then the installation of the hospital will be further delayed, in a situation where thousands of wounded are still in need of life saving treatment.

The inflatable hospital includes 2 operating theaters, an intensive care unit, 100-bed hospitalization capacity, an emergency room and all the necessary equipment needed for sterilizing material.

MSF teams are currently working around the clock in 5 different hospitals in Port-au-Prince, but only 2 operating theaters are fully functional, while a third operating theater has been improvised for minor surgery due to the massive influx of wounded and lack of functional referral structures.

So one was allowed to land and another denied. The US military does not belong in Haiti and, as we noted in the editorial at Third ("Editorial: The Haiti Distraction"), "Reality: US troops on the ground in Haiti? Not a good thing. Not a great thing. In fact, the less involvement the US government has in Haiti, the better (as anyone who knows the history of Haiti should grasp)."




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






Posted by at

11 reported dead in Iraq today, 10 reported wounded

John Leland (New York Times) reports that the charity organization Mawteny was attacked in Baghdad today -- an assault which left at least four and possibly five charity workers dead and, when police responded, a bomb that went off: "Conflicting accounts described the gunmen as wearing masks or security force uniforms." Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports the bombings is said to have wounded two police officers -- this despite Iraqi claims -- see Leland's article -- that they 'disarmed' the bomb 'successfully.'

We'll come back to the violence in a moment but Yacoub notes that Najaf has given 'Ba'athists' "a one-day deadline to leave the province or face an 'iron fist.'" What Ba'athists? You don't have to prove anything, you just have to accuse. Nouri's allowed that sort of smearing to take place and now Sunnis -- and that is who will be effected -- are being driven out of Najaf. This as Missy Ryan, Muhanad Mohammed, Waleed Ibrahim, Jim Loney, Michael Christie and Louise Ireland (Reuters) report that the proposed banned on various candidates has led Sunnis to talk "about an election boycott that could pour new fuel on a Sunni Islamist insurgency just when it has begun to be beaten back." Dahr Jamail (CounterCurrents) observes:

Last week, the Shiite-sectarian political power brokers in Baghdad, led by US-appointed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, used the so-called Iraq Accountability and Justice Commission (AJC), (a remnant group of the former De-Baathification Commission set up by L. Paul Bremer, the US czar of Iraq during the first year of the occupation and led by Ahmed Chalabi), on January 7 to ban at least 14 largely Sunni political parties and political figures from the upcoming vote due to supposed links to the Baath Party, which has long since been banned in Iraq.
The AJC claims that its decision was based on new "evidence" showing connections between the 14 groups and the Baath Party, but has thus far failed to produce any said evidence.
On January 5, the Saudi-owned London-based daily newspaper Al-Hayat wrote of this: "The independent Iraqi Election Commission has revealed that it has received an interpretation from the Iraqi Supreme Federal Court in regard to the seventh article of the constitution, which prohibits Ba'thist participation in all elections and also the participation of any Ba'th allies or supporters in any political activity. It is important to note that this decision could lead to the exclusion of fourteen political parties and groups from the electoral process."
The commission's president Faraj al-Haydari was quoted in that regard by Al-Hayat as saying: "We have received the Federal Court's interpretation regarding some political entities which were first included in the electoral process but will be excluded from the process altogether in light of this recent court decision. The Federal Court considered that any politician or party involved in terrorist activities, or enjoying Ba'thist ideas, must be excluded. This decision considers that, based on Article 7 of the constitution, these people should be excluded from any political participation and from public life."
The most important figure banned, thus far, was Saley al-Mutlaq, a secular Sunni leader, whose National Dialogue Front is very popular among Iraq's largely disenfranchised Sunni population. Mutlaq was likely targeted by Maliki in this pre-emptive political assassination attempt because in recent months he has effectively created a powerful bloc of opposition that would challenge both Maliki and the broader Shiite political alliance to which he belongs, which is comprised of the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr's group, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Chalabi.



Back to the violence, Xinhua reports a Maqdadiyah motorcycle bombing (Diyala Province) which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more wounded. Reuters adds a Baghdad sticky bombing (to an Iraqi military vehicle) injured an Iraqi soldier and a citizen, a Falluja sticky bombing claimed 2 lives and, dropping back to Sunday for all the rest, a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured two, 3 men shot dead in 3 Mosul shootings, 1 shepherd injured in a Kirkuk mine explosion and 1 woman's corpse discovered in Kirkuk.

This is from Lance Selfa's "The liberals fall in line" (US Socialist Worker):

Aside from a few policy wonks, many (if not most) liberals feel that the health care legislation that will emerge from Senate and House negotiations is insufficient--and, in parts, harmful to ordinary people's health care. The most ardent supporters of reform know that the likely "compromise" modeled on the more conservative Senate version of the bill will be a huge gift to the insurance industry. At the same time, they feel that Democrats have gotten far less than they could or should have, in large part because they didn't even try.
What happened to all the brave announcements of "lines in the sand" and "standing up for real reform?" Over the summer, the House Progressive Caucus threatened to vote as a bloc against any legislation that didn't include a "public option"--a publicly financed insurance system to compete with private insurers. Today, it's almost certain that the final version of the bill will not include a public option.
So will the House progressives follow through on their threat to defeat the bill? Don't count on it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might give a few progressive caucus members a "free vote" to oppose the bill if there's enough of a cushion to pass it, but if progressives stand between passage of the bill and its defeat, don't expect them to vote to defeat it.

Jay noted the above and wondered about Third? I'm assuming someone at a community site last week noted the plan to do some health care issues at Third. That was the plan. I have no idea what happened. Mike will cover Third tomorrow (and he's posting today) so refer to that. I know that we were supposed to be done no later than 5:00 a.m. PST but as of 4:00 a.m. PST, only the editorial and Ava and my piece had been written. When things were finally published, there were four pieces that weren't worth publishing, we couldn't fix them. I don't even, right now, remember what they were. So refer to Mike. But we were supposed to cover health care, that did get sidelined and I have no idea why.

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











Posted by at

Sunday, January 17, 2010

And the war drags on . . .

The Iraq Inquiry is an ongoing exploration of the Iraq War chaired by John Chilcot and taking place in London. On Tuesday, they heard from Alastair Campbell who had been the spokesperson for then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. As Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) notes, Campbell has now provided a "clarification" for his testimony:

He appeared, he said, to be suggesting that the then prime minister could have claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "beyond doubt" even if intelligence chiefs disagreed.
"This is clearly not correct," he said in a written memo to the inquiry which had grilled him about the Government’s controversial 2002 dossier which was used to justify the invasion.

Andrew Gilligan (Telegraph of London) adds:

It's just not how a leading professional communicator should be treated, is it? Alastair Campbell tonight faces a demand from the former Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, that he be recalled to the Chilcot inquiry after I spotted that the former Spin King had written to Chilcot, "clarifying" his evidence.
Campbell decided he needed a second go at saying what he really meant over an issue which is emerging as a key area of interest for the enquiry. It is the claim, written by him in the WMD dossier, and repeated by Tony Blair, that the "assessed intelligence" had established continued Iraqi WMD production "beyond doubt." But the intelligence, of course, established nothing of the sort, as both Blair and Campbell must have known.

While that's sorted out, the Inquiry's public hearings continue today. (It's already Monday in London). Jack Straw is scheduled to testify Thursday and Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) reports on a letter Straw wrote Blair ten days before Blair met with Bush at the latter's Crawford ranch (April 2002): "Jack Straw privately warned Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq was legally dubious, questioned what such action would achieve, and challenged US claims about the threat from Saddam Hussein, it was revealed today ."

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4373. Tonight it remains 4373.

Turning to some of the reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left four more people wounded.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "around thirty men dressed in military uniforms" executed 3 members of the Mjamma's tribe in Diyala Province.

Anyone expected clear-eyed appraisals from the UK, especially the Socialist segment, will be grossly disappointed in Ken Olende's "A year of Obama: compromise, crisis and capitulation" (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) whose only pearl is this: "The most extreme example of this was the US anti-war movement – United for Peace and Justice effectively closed itself down once 'its' president was elected." Among the many problems with the article is that Olende wrongly assumes Barack -- while not coming up through a movement -- came up as a candidate. No. He was sold. He was marketed. Astroturf campaigns were utilized repeatedly. Paid campaign staff took to blogs constantly. (Ava and I noted this back when Barry lost the ABC debate and how the rollout was for the campaign to swarm the news blogs with comments.) What happened was that Barack appeared to be popular -- he never had any popularity that he actually learned -- and appeared to be riding a wave (a mirage) so people did what they usually do when they see a craze: Jump on board.

If there was ever a consolidation of popular support for Barack that was reflected by the never ending hype (including the press), Team Obama wouldn't have had to fight so hard to eek out a win. They did that with a large portion of uninformed voters who's sole knowledge was when to vote and where to vote. The uninformed can't be tricked into believing in Barack again. The economic crisis is not something he can ride into popularity again.

Barack had no popular support. He had Whores -- Laura Flanders, Norman Solomon, et al -- but he didn't have real support. After the election (immediately after), the best thing the Whores could have done for Barry was lower the support, lower the expectations. Instead they wrongly thought they could hook the polyglot 'progressive-ism' onto Barack's hype. So they entwined the two even more so than during the election. And the result is hype peters out. Always. You can only hype the public for so long. But the hype drove Barack to popularity and approval no one had ever seen and now he faces the comedown, the reality. And the reality is that he's not a natural leader, he's not a liberal, he's not concerned with the people and he's not a person of peace.

On the latter, Ken Olende embarrasses himself the most: "His war policy increasingly resembles George Bush's, and his surge in Afghanistan has gained praise from US right wingers." You stupid, stupid ass. It doesn't "increasingly resemble" -- it is. And if Olende hadn't intentionally avoided the issue of Iraq, we could have addressed that. Someone might want to ask why the Socialist Worker is avoiding Iraq? The Iraq Inquiry takes place in London. Why the hell is the periodical ignoring it?

Olende ignores it. Barack was awarded a "Peace" prize that he shares with Bush -- even though that's unacknowledged. His Iraq 'plan' is to follow Bush's SOFA. He is Bush. That's reality. There's no difference.

Reality is also that he hasn't done a damn thing for LGBT rights -- despite Olende trying to toss him scraps.

There are more than enough apologist on the left in the US for the Corporatist War Hawk Barack. The world doesn't need to hear from the British branch. Olende's article would have qualified as 'strong' or 'hardhitting' only during the inauguration. Today, it's just pathetic.

And considering how Barack rode Iraq (with non-stop lies) to steal the nomination, shame on any 'surveyor' who 'forgets' to offer Iraq in any evaluation.


New content at Third:



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
















Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)