Friday, November 14, 2008

The treaty and two countries prepare to leave Iraq

Mr Bulani was a member of Iraq's interim Governing Council in 2004. He became a member of the Iraqi parliament in 2005.
During the rule of Saddam Hussein he was an air force engineer, but left the armed forces in 1999.
"I promise [the Iraqi people] that the interior ministry will be neutral, independent and will not be under the influence of anyone," he said after he won parliament's endorsement.
"The interior ministry will preserve Iraqi blood."

The above is from the BBC's "Key Iraq ministers get approval" reporting on Jawad al-Bolani being installed as the head of Thug City (aka Interior Ministry) in June of 2006. al-Bolani is back in the news today via Ernesto Londono's "Iraqi Urges Passage of U.S. Deal" (Washington Post) and, yes, the Iraqi in the headline is al-Bolani who told the paper, "The security agreement is important for Iraq to ban and stop foreign influence and interference. The Iraqi people need this security agreement." al-Bolani (not in the article) is one of the Iraqi officials targeted by the US State Dept and it appears to have paid off. (Rumors are he sees himself as the next al-Maliki.) Supposedly, there is one more Iraqi official among those currently pressured that the State Dept thinks they can publicly flip before the Sunday meeting (that's not in the article). al-Bolani by himself has very little impact (Kurds have never taken to him and Sunnis don't believe he's done much of anything to tackle the Ministry's assaults on Sunnis while most Shi'ites in the government see him as too sectarian) so the hope is that one or more flipping publicly ahead of Sunday's meeting could create a wave leading into the meeting that would put pressure on others to support the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.

Yesterday the Post's Dana Priest was online for the paper's live discussion and we'll note this exchange:

Seattle, Wash.: What is the update on the Status of Forces Agreement? I read that the Iraqi government reacted positively to the election of Obama, but couldn't tell if they were dropping objections to the whole SoFA or just the withdrawal time line.

Dana Priest: Nope, not so far. Still a stand-off with the clock ticking.

At the State Dept yesterday, AP's Matthew Lee raised the issue to Deputy Spokesperson Robert Wood:


QUESTION: So you haven't gotten a formal announcement from the White House about the transition team, you haven't gotten a formal response from the Russians about the missile defense. Have you gotten a formal response from the Iraqis on the SOFA, or is this building just sitting around waiting for formal responses to things before it actually does or says anything?

MR. WOOD: You're so cynical, Matt. (Laughter.) We are waiting for the Iraqis to get back to us on this. As I mentioned yesterday, I don't have any update on that. And again, just want to reiterate, we think we've got a good agreement that addresses all of the concerns of both sides, and we look forward to the Iraqi response.

You can click here for the transcript and the State Dept also offers video. This morning they'll be added to the links on the left. When the snapshot's dictated they usually are not up but the time the snapshot hits this site (or shortly after -- never more than the next morning) they are up.

While the White House attempts to extend the US engagement in the illegal war, AP reports that Bulgaria is leaving (155 soldiers) and quotes their prime minister, Sergei Stanishev, declaring yesterday the departure was necessary because "the presence of the Bulgarian military contingent on a humanitarian mission in Iraq ends on Dec. 31." And they aren't the only ones leaving. Russia's Novosti reports Azerbaijan's parliament voted today to pull their "150 peacekeepers" out of Iraq:

The resolution was passed with 86-1 vote following a request from President Ilkham Aliyev.
"The request from the president came with the expiration of a five-year mandate on the presence of the Azerbaijani peacekeeping contingent in Iraq," said Aydyn Mirzazade, deputy head of the parliamentary commission on defense and security.
[. . .]
The troops are currently protecting a hydroelectric power station in the town of Al-Hadida, which supplies Baghdad with half of its electricity.


From departing soldiers to mercenaries in trouble, there wasn't time to notice Warren P. Strobel's "Blackwater likely to be fined millions in Iraq weapons case" (McClatchy Newspapers) yesterday, so we'll note it here:

The State Department is preparing to slap a multi-million dollar fine on private military contractor Blackwater USA for shipping hundreds of automatic weapons to Iraq without the necessary permits.
Some of the weapons are believed to have ended up on the country's black market, department officials told McClatchy, but no criminal charges have been filed in the case.
The expected fine is the result of a long-running federal investigation into whether employees of the firm shipped weapons hidden in shrink-wrapped pallets from its Moyock, N.C. headquarters to Iraq, where Blackwater is the State Department's largest personal security contractor.

KeShawn notes Media Lens' "Obama: Wiping the Slate Clean -- Appearance And Reality In The Relaunch Of Brand America" (Dissident Voice):

It was a dawn of the dead - Blair left behind him the almost unimaginable horror of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A rare poll conducted by Ipsos last January of 754 Iraqi refugees in Syria found that "every single person interviewed by Ipsos reported experiencing at least one traumatic event in Iraq prior to their arrival in Syria."

UNHCR estimated that one in five of those registered with the agency in Syria over the previous year were classified as "victims of torture and/or violence." The survey showed that fully 89 per cent of those interviewed suffered depression and 82 per cent anxiety. This was linked to terrors endured before they fled Iraq – 77 per cent of those interviewed reported being affected by air bombardments, shelling or rocket attacks. Eighty per cent had witnessed a shooting... and so on.

John Pilger was a lonely voice in 1997 warning that Blair was a dangerous fraud, a neocon in sheep's clothing. As Pilger later pointed out, the media could hardly plead ignorance:

Blair’s Vichy-like devotion to Washington was known: read his speeches about a new order led by America. His devotion to Rupert Murdoch, who flew him and Cherie Booth around the world first class, was known. His devotion to an extreme neoliberal Thatcherite economics was known…3

Over the past two weeks -- one decade and three wars later -- the same media have been insisting, as one, that US president-elect Barrack Obama is another "new dawn". A Guardian leader observed:

They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world…

Today is for celebration, for happiness and for reflected human glory. Savour those words: President Barack Obama, America’s hope and, in no small way, ours too.

In the Guardian's news section, Oliver Burkeman described the victory as "historic, epochal, path breaking". But there was more:

"Just being alive at a time when it’s so evident that history is being made was elating and exhausting."

In 2003, the Guardian's foreign editor, Ed Pilkington, told us:

"We are not in the business of editorialising our news reports."4

Someone forgot to tell Burkeman, indeed the entire Guardian news team. At times like these, the media's claims to balanced coverage seem to belong to a different universe. Over the last two weeks, the public has been subjected to a one-way delusional deluge by the media. The propaganda is such that comments made by independent US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, appear simply shocking:

What we're seeing is the highest level of resignation and apathy and powerlessness I've ever seen. We're not talking about hoopla. We're not talking about 'hope'. We’re not talking about rhetoric. We're not talking about 'rock star Obama'. We’re talking about the question that is asked everywhere I go: 'What is left for the American people to decide other than their own personal lives under more restrictive circumstances year after year?' And the answer is: almost nothing.5

Nader says of Obama: "This is show business what you’re seeing." The crucial point: "Obama doesn't like to take on power."5


And you can find John Pilger's most recent essay "Beware the Obama Hype" in multiple places including Dissident Voice (which is where the link takes you).

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


the washington post
ernesto londono

mcclatchy newspapers


john pilger
Posted by at

Thursday, November 13, 2008

I Hate The War

Today on NPR's All Things Considered, George McGovern proved an old fool is just an old fool.
The former senator, failed presidential candidate (several times over but most infamously in 1972) and co-author of Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now is praising Barack's Iraq 'plan.'

How feeble-minded is George McGovern? In his book, he calls for all US troops out of Iraq in six months. That is more than do-able. He knows that. Bill Richardson knows that and, when running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, made it very clear that he would remove all US troops from Iraq in six months. For those who pay attention to Iraq (a small number, granted), we now know that if Barack wanted all US troops out he could do so in his first 100 days. That is do-able.

But what Barack's offering instead is approximately a third of the US troops in Iraq -- those classified as "combat forces" -- will be removed from that country over a sixteen month period.
That is not withdrawal. That is not ending the illegal war.

That is doing what Bully Boy and Donald the Rumsfled did -- fighting the illegal war on the cheap. They purposely kept numbers down because the lower the number the lower the public outrage. If they'd tried to send the number of troops that the military was calling necessary, they risked a huge public opinion shift. So what Barack's really doing is dropping down from approximately 140,000 troops currently in Iraq to approximately 80,000.

He is not ending the illegal war. He is continuing it if he sticks to that 'plan.' And it's past time he was called out for that.

He is not offering an end to the Iraq War. You can soothe him and stroke him and fondle him and maybe make yourself as good as you do him in the process. But that's not ending the illegal war. Nor is it being honest.

Let's quote McGovern's most idiotic statement, ""Another 2,500 young Americans have been killed since we wrote our book, thousands of Iraqis have been killed -- and this is too bad. It's always easier to get into a bad situation than it is to get out. And we're finding that out in Iraq as we did in Vietnam, where we were tied down for a full decade."

Wow. Tied down in Vietnam "for a full decade." That's so hard to picture, thank goodness the Iraq War is only two years old. What's that? Yeah, it does hit the six year anniversary in March. By Barack's plan, the illegal war will still be going on in March 2010, March 2011 and March 2012. That will be nine years. And it's really damn doubtful that 2012 -- an election year -- will suddenly see an end to the illegal war.

Barack's not offering an end. He's not offering a full withdrawal.

He never has. A lot of people have lied for him. A lot of 'independent' media types have whored whatever was left of their names to make Barack look good.

But the reality for anyone who studies Barack's 'plan' includes:

1) It is not all troops out of Iraq.
2) It allows for troop numbers to increase if Barack makes that determination.

It's that second point that Tom Hayden and the Cult especially work overtime to ignore. See the 16 months 'plan' is only if things go really great. As Barack's admitted repeatedly (though Panhandle Media refused to tell you about it), if he starts his partial withdrawal and things go badly, he doesn't just freeze this tiny withdrawal,, he intends to send US troops back in.

How many? Well before he could answer that question, he would have to be asked and if there's one thing the liars of Panhandle Media know it is how to avoid embarrasing Barack Obama. Embarrassing themselves? They wallow in that.

So Barack's not ending the illegal war by his 'plan' of 16-months. That 'plan' never promised the Iraq War ended. But damned if the liars didn't lie and swing their ass real hard and work overtime under their street lamps in order to lie to you and swear Barack was all about ending the illegal war.

This is not a new development, it's nothing that so-called 'independent' media shouldn't have been able to tell you months and months ago. From the November 2, 2007 snapshot:


On the subject of Iran, Barack Obama appears on the front page of this morning's New York Times. War pornographer Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny who lied in print (click here, here and here -- the paper finally retracted Zeleny's falsehood that should have never appeared) present a view of Barack Obama that's hardly pleasing. Among the many problems with the article is Obama as portrayed in the article -- and his campaign has issued no statement clarifying. The Times has the transcript online and from it, Barack Obama does mildly push the unproven claim that the Iranian government is supporting resistance in Iraq. Gordo's pushed that unproven claim repeatedly for over a year now. But Obama's remarks appear more of a reply and partial points in lengthy sentences -- not the sort of thing a functioning hard news reporter would lead with in an opening paragraph, touch on again in the third paragraph, in the fourth paragraph, in . . . But though this isn't the main emphasis of Obama's statements (at any time -- to be clear, when it pops up, it is a fleeting statement in an overly long, multi-sentenced paragraphs), it does go to the fact that Obama is once again reinforcing unproven claims of the right wing. In the transcript, he comes off as obsessed with Hillary Clinton. After her, he attempts to get a few jabs in at John Edwards and one in at Bill Richardson. Here is what real reporters should have made the lede of the front page: "Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean."

That is what the transcript reveals. Gordo really needs to let go of his blood lust for war with Iran. Writing up a report, Gordo and Zeleny are useless but, surprisingly, they do a strong job with some of their questions. The paper should have printed up the transcript. If they had, people might be wondering about the 'anti-war' candidate. He maintains Bill Richardson is incorrect on how quickly US troops could be withdrawan from Iraq. Obama states that it would take at least 16 months which makes one wonder how long, if elected, it would take him to move into the White House? If you can grab a strainer or wade through Obama's Chicken Sop For The Soul, you grasp quickly why he refused to pledge (in September's MSNBC 'debate') that, if elected president, he would have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013: He's not talking all troops home. He tries to fudge it, he tries to hide it but it's there in the transcript.

He doesn't want permanent military bases in Iraq -- he appears to want them outside of Iraq -- such as Kuwait. But he doesn't see the US embassy in Iraq -- the largest US embassy in the world as a base. However, he does feel that even after the illegal war was ended, US troops would need to remain behind in order guard the embassy and the staff. In addition, it becomes clear that he will keep US troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi police. Because? The reporters don't think to ask. Here's a slice of reality, the US military is not trained to train police officers. Here's another to drop on the plate, Jordan was training them. Jordan got pushed aside around the half-way mark of 2006. If Obama wanted to pull US troops out of Iraq, the most obvious solution is to turn over the duty of training police officers to a non-military force. Along with needing those for trainers, he needs some to protect the trainers. Gordo gets to the point asking, "So how will you protect the trainers without forces in Iraq?" His answer is an embarrassment, he could keep the trainers out of potentially difficult situations. And in Iraq, that would be where? In addition, he would keep troops in Iraq for counter-terrorism (but not, he insists, counter-insurgency). If this doesn't all sound familiar, you slept through this spring and summer when Congressional Dems tried repeatedly to convince the American people that "all troops out of Iraq" could also mean that US troops stay to train, as military police, to fight terrorism, etc. While he's off talking al Qaeda in Iraq (a small number and one most observers state will be forced out by Iraqis when US troops leave) and working in more attacks on Senator Clinton, it's noted that he has "a more expansive approach to Iraq than she does in that you identify in your plan the possiblity of going back into Iraq to protect the populartion if there's an all-out civil war. . . . And providing monitors to help the population relocate and go after war criminals. Those are three elements -- those are new missions for Americans after Iraq that she doesn't postulate." What follows is a comical exchange:

Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions.

NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces?

Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that.

NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?

Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over.

So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train the police and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.

The 'plan' McGovern and others praise today is the same plan it was then. It is not about ending the Iraq War. It was never about ending the Iraq War. And those refusing to pressure Barack to end the Iraq War right now are allowing the killing to continue.

Yes, that includes McGovern. And how ridiculous that he wants to talk about a decade of Vietnam when the US will have been in Iraq for over a decade if people don't stop deluding themselves and stop deluding themselves really quick.

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 4191. Tonight? 4197. The toll includes the Friday announcements (it's already Friday in Iraq). The US military announces, "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 3:50 a.m. Nov. 13 in Baghdad." And the US miliary announces: "A Coalition force Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 11:52 a.m Nov. 13 in western Iraq." The first is listed as Thursday, it was not released by seven p.m. EST Thursday (which would have been around 3:00 a.m. Friday in Baghdad.) Just Foreign Policy lists 1,284,105 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war -- the same number they listed last Thursday.

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






Posted by at

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, November 13, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, a plane crashes in Iraq, Military Families Speak Out calls out VA  Secretary James Peake, and more.
 
 
Nationwide -- Members of Military Families Speak Out are condemning comments by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs suggesting that the dramatic increase in the suicide rate among young veterans is not connected to the war in Iraq.  The suicide rate among male veterans under the age of 29 is now twice that of the general population.  
In an interview aired Monday November 10th on PBS's NewsHour, Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake said that Veterans' suicides are the result of: 
"the same kinds of issues that have to do with suicide in the general population.  It is issues of failed relationships, senses of hopelessness, transitions in life, that are at the root cause . . . we're not making a direct correlationw ith combat."  
Specialist Scott Eiswert committed suicide in May after being told by a friend that his unit of the Tennessee National Guard would be returning to Iraq.  His widow, Tracy Eiswert, a member of Military Families Speak Out, expressed outrage at Secretary Peake's comments:
"I am not a statistic.  We are a military family.  We are real people with real experiences as a result of my husband's PTSD and his suicide.  He wasn't that way before he went to Iraq, he came back changed." 
After returning from a tour of duty in Iraq, Spc. Eiswert had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by civilian doctors, but the Veterans Administration denied that his condition was the result of his experiences in Iraq.  The Veterans Administration reversed that ruling in August.  Tracy Eiswert said:
"It took him having to put a gun in his mouth for the military to admit that the changes in my husband were a result of the war.  If they had admit that the changes in my husband were a result of the war.  If they had admitted that earlier he might still be alive."  
Kevin and Joyce Lucey are members of Military Families Speak Out and the parents of Corporal Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Corps Reservist who suffered severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of his service in Iraq in 2003.  Shortly after being turned away from a Veterans Administration hospital, Corporal Lucey killed himself on June 22, 2004.  Kevin Lucey said: 
"Secretary Peake's words are the kind of self serving comments that this nation does not need to hear from the Veterans Administration and its leadership.  This is why many regard this VA administration to be steeped in disgrace and dishonor when it comes to our loved ones.  They feel that they need to explain away, rationalize, justify or minimize -- instead of committing their resources, time and efforts to create the best healthcare system on God's earth."
Joyce Lucey also had strong words for Secretary Peake:
"This is dishonorable, disgraceful and shameful behaivor from someone who is charged with giving the best of care to our warriors.  With this type of message and thinking, is it any wonder that many of our troops and veterans don't seek help from those who are so callous and uncaring?"  
Specialist Joe Hafley, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Military Families Speak Out who has had to fight to get treatment for his own Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, agreed.  Hafley served in Iraq with the U.S. Army Reserves from 2004 - 2005, and his brother, a Major with the U.S. Army Reserves is scheduled to deploy to Iraq early next year. 
When Hafley returned from Iraq, the Veterans Administration diagnosed him with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, and severe depression -- but ruled that none of those conditions were the result of his service in Iraq.  He said: 
"My treatment at the VA was belittling and frustrating.  To have them diagnose me with PTSD and not attribute it to my service in Iraq is a slap in the face.  To have them tell me the problems could be the result of a failed relationship rather than the result of my experiences in combat makes me feel that as a veteran I have no place at the VA.   
"The thing that is most baffling to me is that this 800 pound gorilla in the room, not being addressed.  Why are we feeling hopeless?  Why do we have failed relationships?  The common denominator is we all served in Iraq.  Maybe my feeling of hopelessness is that I served my country with honor and I am still trying to figure out for what reason?  For what just cause?  
"Secretary Peake, it doesn't matter how many additional mental health workers you hire if you as the person at the top still feel we are just losers that failed to adjust or that we entered our military service unit.  No amount of false support will help us."
 
For The NewsHour report (link has text and video), Tracy Eiswert explained of her husband to Betty Ann Bowser, "He said he felt belittled because they didn't take what he was saying seriously.  'This is what it happened to me over there.'  You know, and they wanted to talk about, 'Well, how's your marriage? Or how was your childhood? How was your dad with you?' And he's like, 'Well, what's this got to do with why I'm here today?'"  Meanwhile Aaron Glantz (OneWorld) reports that Vietnam Veterans of America and Veterans of Modern Warfare "filed a class action lawsuit this week to help ensure bureaucratic delays no longer keep disabled U.S. veterans from getting the financial help they need, when they need it most" and they are asking "a federal court to order interim benefits to be paid to a veteran if an initial claim for disability compensation takes longer than 90 days to be processed or an appeal of a denied claim takes longer than six months." 
 
Reuters reports a civilian plane, Falcon Aviation Group Ltd, with FedEx cargo has crashed in Iraq "killing all seven people on board".
 
Moving to yesterday's Mosul shooting.  Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that eight US soldiers were shot yesterday with two of them being shot to death and alleged shooter Barzan Mohammed reportedly used an AK-47 submachine gun in "the shooting spree".  Sam Dagher (New York Times) explains what Iraqi officials and eye witnesses are saying: Mosul police's Brig Gen Abdul-Karim al-Jubouri, "a senior official in the Ministry of Defense and an officer of the Nineveh Operations Command" all say there was "a quarrel between an American and Iraqi soldier" at the onset; 2 Iraqi soldiers and one Iraqi Army officer (all witnesses) described the US patrol arriving at the Iraqi post and "[a] heated arugment" taking place "between one of the American soldiers and an Iraqi soldier identified as Barzan Mohammed Abdullah, prompting the American to curse at the Iraqi, spit in his face and slap him, the Iraqis said.  The Iraqi soldier then opened fire on the American, they said, and other American soldiers responded with a barrage of gunfire at the Iraqi."  Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note that US Maj. Gen. Mark P. "Hertling dismissed reports by Iraqi officials who suggested that an altercation between Iraqi and American soldiers preceded the gunfire in Mosul, but he said he had no information on the shooter's motive. He said U.S. and Iraqi officials are jointly investigating the incident."
 
 
The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG) Staffan de Mistura expressed his shock and outrage at the continued targeting and killing of religious minorities, following the murder of two Christian sisters in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, which has recently seen thousands of its inhabitants flee their homes after a campaign of threats and attacks.  
The SRSG noted that this cowardly attack came hours after the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported that some recently displaced Christian families are beginning to return to Mosul as the security situation in the city shows signs of improvement.     
He said Mosul has historically been and must remain the cradle of religious and ethnic diversity, reiterating the United Nations' position that respecting and guaranteeing the rights of minorities in Iraq is "absolutely fundamental to a stable and democratic future for our country."  
Mr. de Mistura called on the Iraqi Government authorities to do everything in their power to safeguard the human rights and protection of Christian, Yezidis, Shabak and other minorities -- all of whome have been the victims of terrible attacks -- and to ensure that those responsible for these attacks are swiftly brought to justice.  The SRSG also urged local authorities, as well as the Kurdistan Regional Government, to assist in protecting the rights of minorities and their religious identity, as well as in ending impunity for these criminal attacks.
 
That's in reference to the Mosul attack that left 2 women dead and a third wounded.  Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "On Wednesday, two Christian sisters were gunned down in Mosul and their mother was wounded. When police responded, unknown assailants detonated a roadside bomb, wounding three officers. The shooting underscores Christian fears in the city. Ten thousand or more Christians fled the city last month after a spate of about 15 killings of Christians in just two weeks." Sam Dagher (New York Times) explains that the older sister was Lamia Subaih Daoud, who worked for the municpal government and was the mother of three small children, was murdered first while waiting outside the family home on a bus and the assailants then stormed the house and shot dead the woman's twenty-three-year-old sister and wounded the women's mother. Dagher notes that Lamia's three children were asleep in the home "and survived the attack." The Melbourne Herald Sun supplies the name of the younger sister, "The intruders killed Lamia and Walaa Sabih and wounded their mother before booby-trapping the house. When police arrived a bomb went off, wounding two of them, an officer said on condition of anonymity." Asia News explains while both sisters were shot, the mother was attacked with a knife, that both sisters worked for the Office of the Treasurer of the Municipality of Wala, that their names were Lamia Sobhy Salloha and Walaa Sobhy Salloha and, "According to eyewitnesses the attack was carried out by a gang of 16-to-18 year olds who after attacking the residents of the house placed a bomb at the entrance and detonated it when a group of police agents came to the scene, killing two and wounding others." Aid to the Church in Need's John Pontifex (at Australia's Christian Today) observes, "Christians and other minorities are saying that the incident casts doubt on the Iraqi government's bid to improve security with a massively increased police presence in the city. . . . Speaking from northern Iraq in an interview with ACN, Fr Bashar Warda, who has overseen the charity's emergency relief programmes for people fleeing Mosul, said today's incident was having a 'dramatic' effect on the faithful, who now fear another wave of attacks against them.  Fr Warda said: 'It is clear that many would think of leaving Mosul again.  The government is trying to say the city is now safe and then suddenly you have incidents like this'." UPI notes: "Iraqi Christians began issuing accounts of targeted attacks against their community in July when parishioners claimed an Islamic group called "The Battalion of Just Punishment, Jihad Base in Mesopotamia" sent threatening letters to several churches."  ZENIT quotes an Iraqi "Catholic leader" stating, "The government is trying to deceive the outside world, making them believe that they are acting correctly and that Christians are safe.  In reality the situation is still very challenging."
 
 
 
Since Monday, according to police statistics, roadside bombs, car bombs and suicide bombers wearing explosive belts have killed 58 people in the capital. Deaths elsewhere included two Christian women who police said were killed by unidentified gunmen in the northern city of Mosul, where Christians say they have been caught in the middle of a war for power between Kurds and Arabs.
Several Iraqis who witnessed the violence noted the heavy presence of Iraqi security checkpoints near Saadoun Street, in the eastern part of the capital, and elsewhere and said it showed that nobody could be trusted to keep them safe. Some also said it was a sign that Iraqi forces were not ready to protect the city if U.S. troops withdrew. 
U.S. military officials said that this week's violence, coming after a steady downward trend in attacks, does not mean insurgents are staging a comeback, and they disputed the casualty figures provided by Iraqi sources. 
Baghdad and its environs continue to experience an average of four attacks a day on security forces and civilians, compared with more than 20 a day about a year ago, Army Brig. Gen. William Grimsley, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said Monday after bombers killed 31 people in northeast Baghdad's Kasra district. 
 
In some of today's reported violence . . .
 
Bombings? 
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 1 life and left seven injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing that left six injured, a Mosul car bombing that claimed 1 life and left sixteen injured and a Mosul roadside bombing that left 2 people dead.
 
Shootings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Diyala Province.
 
 
In diplomatic news, Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes the department's minister Hoshyar Zebari and his Syrian counterpart Walid Moallem held a press conference yesterday in Damascus where they "discussed ways to develop and activate bilateral relations between the two countries," Zebari alluded to Iraq sending an ambassador to Damascus and he "explained the positive results of his visit and his meetings with President Bashar al-Assad, and delivered the letter of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to president Asaad regarding the Iraqi government's stance on the US-Iraqi security agreement and stages of negotiation. Foreign Minister Zebari also stressed the Iraqi government's refusal to use Iraqi territory as a platform to launch military operations against Syria or any of the neighboring countries and expressed sympathy and solidartiy with the Syrian people."
 
 
Tuesday's snapshot noted on IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh's court appearance for being the victim of police state actions carried out Oct. 15th in Hempstead, NY on himself and thirteen other IVAW members who were trying to deliver debate questions for Senators John McCain and Barack Obama..  Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) provides an update, "I attended court today in the stands for Adam Kokesh. Adam was there with his attorney, and some other supporters. More to follow, and possibly a few photos of Adam and his attorney. The main outcome: Adam Kokesh will have his trial on Thursday, December 11th. Sounds like the trial would happen sometime after 10am. In addition, Wednesday, December 10th and Thurs. Dec. 11th are appearance dates for some of the other Hempstead 15. So, we will standby for which dates the IVAW folks would prefer the community come out in full force for."  Adam (Adam Kokesh - Revolutionary Patriot) explains, "In requesting that I be released on my own recognizance (or ROR as everyone else had been) so I could get my bail money returned, my attorney was told by the prosecutor that he would like to have my bail raised!  The judge declined, but that would have put me in jail again until I could get bail posted at the raised amount.  The judge also declined Mr. Moore's motion to dismiss, or take an ACD, adjourn in contemplation of dismissal.  The prosecutor conferred with the police officer who would be testifying, and came up with a date to schedule the trial.  So trial is now scheduled for 9:30 AM on December 11th.  For reasons I can't discuss, we are very excited about this going to trial."  IVAW has just published Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupation in book form.
 
Turning to the 2008 presidential election, On The Wilder Side notes that Green Party of Connecticut officials have registered an objection that "'REGISTERED' WRITE IN votes were not counted in all towns across the state, as required by state law".  Rebecca addressed the topics of write-ins Friday and noted that Cynthia McKinney (Green Party presidential candidate) received only 53 votes in Connecticut and Rebecca focused on Texas where the Ralph Nader - Matt Gonzalez ticket allegedly received 3,053.  It appears many states have areas that were 'selective' in their counting. [That is not questioning the outcome or saying "The election was stolen!"  That is noting write-in votes appear not to have been counted.] Joel S. Hirschhorn (Dissident Voice) reviews the election numbers:
 
 
This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent). He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent.
Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot. In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates. In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were ( Oklahoma ).
Nader's best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney's with 28,624 votes. Baldwin was not on the ballot there. Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California . Barr's best state was Texas with 56,398 votes. None of the other three were on the ballot there. In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot). Baldwin's best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes. Nader was not on the ballot there.
In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote. Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.
 
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sounds warnings (at CounterPunch) today:
 
To its everlasting credit, the conservative American Bar Association sent to President Bush three reports in 2005-2006 concluding that he has been engaged in continuing serious violations of the Constitution. This is no one-time Watergate obstruction of justice episode ala Nixon that led to his resignation just before his impeachment in the House of Representatives.
Nearly two years ago Senator Obama, contrary to what he knows and believes, vigorously came out against the House commencing impeachment proceedings. It would be too divisive, he said. As one of one hundred Senators who might have had to try the President and Vice President in the Senate were the House to impeach. He should have kept impartial and remained silent on the subject.
As President, he cannot remain silent and do nothing, otherwise he will inherit the war crimes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and become soon thereafter a war criminal himself. Inaction cannot be an option.
Violating the Constitution and federal laws is now routine. What is routine after awhile becomes institutionalized lawlessness by official outlaws.
Domestic Policy abuses are also rampant. Just what are the limits of the statutory authority of the U.S. Treasury Department or the government within a government funded by bank assessments known as the Federal Reserve?
Don't read the $750 billion bailout law for any answers! The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid just sent a letter to Bush asking whether the White House believes the bailout law could be interpreted to save not just the reckless banks, but also the grossly mismanaged Big Three auto companies in Michigan.
Didn't Congress know what they were or were not authorizing? Or did the stampede started by the demanding Bush result in blanket, or panicked ambiguity by a cowardly Congress?
 
 
1- I didn't find this in the English media, but Arab media (including Al-Jazeera) reported today:

Iraqi Presidency Council said in its first reaction to Barak Obama winning the U.S. presidential election: there is only one U.S. policy in Iraq, and the changes that may occur during Obama's time "would be only technical."

2- As you've heard already, Obama picked congressman Rahm Emanuel to become the White House's chief of staff. Mr. Emanuel, an Israeli citizen who has served in the Israeli Army (he denies both), was the only one out of Illinois' nine congressmen who voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002.
I know that the confetti has not settled down yet, but I think it's time already to ask the Obama-Biden campaign some questions about their foreign policy plans, especially regarding the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and regarding ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
 
And winding this up, the GOP ticket was John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin.  The Republican governor's conference took place today and Texas Governor Rick Perry explained it was focused on "what's  the Republican Party going to look like going forward."  He then stated, "It gives me great deal of pleasure to introduce one of our collegues, one of America's great republican governors, Governor Sarah Palin."
 
 
Gov Sarah Palin: Thank you [to Rick Perry], thank you so much [to those assembled].  Thank you, Governor Perry.  Thank you governors. Thank you very much.  Thanks. Honored to be here and to speak with and to my fellow governors.  It hasn't been that long since we all gathered.  I don't know about you, but I managed to fill up the time. [Laughter] Let's see I had a baby, I did some traveling, I very briefly expanded my wardrobe [Laughter], I made a few speeches, I met a few VIPs including those who really impact society like Tina Fey [Laughter] and aside from that it was pretty much the same-old, same-old since we last gathered.  But in the great campaign that has come and gone . . .  And it was great.  One of the nicer experiences that we had along the campaign trail was seeing so many of my RGA colleagues and I think you guys so much for your assistance with John McCain's good run.  Each of you gave your all to the cause and were helpmates and positive additions to Senator McCain's good run. You were there to help when things were looking good and you were there to help when -- once in a while -- things weren't looking so good.  And where I'm from in Alaska, life would be pretty lonely if all we had were fair weather friends.  And you have been friends in all seasons and for that I will forever be grateful and I know Senator McCain also would be so appreciative.  
 
Palin noted the campaign in her remarks.

Gov Sarah Palin: Along the trail, it was my husband, Todd, who was my right hand.  And among his many willing -- winning qualities is the gift that he has of optimism and just thankfulness in all situations that he finds.  And going forward, I'm going to count on those qualities a little more even.  Because of course there was a disappointment after a loss in a national election like that.  You run to win.  You run the race to win.  It's kind of relying on Todd with that optimism and the thanfkulness in all situations that I'm certainly going to be there with him along those lines.  But far from returning to the great state of Alaska with any sense of sorrow or regret, we carried with us the best of memories and joyful experiences that really do not depend at all on political victory.  For years to come, I'm going to remember all the young girls who came up to me at rallies to see the first woman having the privilege of carrying our party's VP nomination.  And they inspired me.  With an extra hurdel or two in front of us and in front of these young girls, I fell that we've got this mutually beneficial relationship now -- me and these young girls -- where we're going to work hareder.  We're going to be stronger.  We're going to do better.  And one day, one of them will be the president because in America there will be no ceilings on achievement -- glass or otherwise.  [Applause begins and grows ] And if I can help point the way --   [Pauses for applause to die down.]  If I can help point the way for these young women or inspire them to tap into their own gifts and talents and strengths -- to find their own opportunities -- Well, it is a privilege.
 
xx

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)