OMG, Now all of the politicians and all the candidates care about me and my family. They love me. They spend the nights working for my comfort. Yet, I insist on neglecting everything and not going to the election. What an ungrateful man I am. What a bad Iraqi man I'm but there is only one small problem that makes me an ungrateful man. Its the problem of TRUST. I cant trust the candidates any more because those who came with the US forces let me down two times. Now they themselves ask for our votes. Why shall I trust them again!
SORRY OUR HONEST CANDIDATES. I CANT GO TO ANY MORE ELECTION. THE BROKEN TRUST CANT BE RECONSTRUCTED.
That's from Laith Hammoudi's "Sorry, I cant Trust You On My Vote" (Inside Iraq, McClatchy Newspapers) and worthy of attention at any time but especially with provincial elections scheduled (currently scheduled) for January 31st. The hoopla of the ink-stained fingers will most likely be repeated and spin and gas baggery will pass for reporting and analysis so you might want to bookmark Hammoudi's piece for next month when you need some reality on the issue.
The US State Dept's Office of Inspector General has one and only one permanent office not based in the US: the Middle East Regional Office. The State Dept notes, "MERO provides oversight of Department activities and of crisis and post-conflict areas, especially in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries such as Pakistan, Lebanon, and Egypt. The staff conducts audits, program evaluation, and investigations of contracts and grants, contractor performance and procurement issues, as well as program management evaluations. Audits and program evaluations of embassies in the region include security and security assistance, provincial reconstruction teams, refugee assistance, anti-corruption, police training, and rule of law programs. OIG assessments also include the effectiveness of foreign assistance programs in Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries in the region. OIG established an investigative capability in the Middle East and participates in the International Contract Corruption Task Force to address financial fraud involving Department employees, projects, and funds in Iraq, Afghanistan, at other U.S. missions, and in other crisis/post-conflict areas in the region. OIG also provides proactive assistance to the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and stabilization through increased oversight of post-conflict and anti-corruption activities." This week MERO released their third report. And this third report wasn't originally intended to be widely released to the public as is noted on the front page of the report:
This report is intended solely for the official use of the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or any agency or organization receiving a copy directly from the Office of Inspector General. No secondary distribution may be made, in whole or in part, outside the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, by them or by other agencies or organizations, without prior authorization by the Inspector General. Public availability of th edoucment will be determined by the Inspector General under the US Code, 5 U.S.C. 552. Improper disclosure of this report may result in criminal, civil or administrative penalties.
And at that point, the report was marked "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED." Now red lines appear through that classification and through the paragraph quote above. The thirty-six page report (the last page is just "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED" on the page twice and the second to last page is a PSA; the report ends with the "Panel Recommendation 15" section on page 36 which is the US Embassy in Iraq's response to the panel's recommendation) is entitled [PDF format warning] "Status of the Secretary of State's Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq Report Recommendations"
Walter Pincus covers the report in "Fatal Shootings by Iraq Contractors Drop in 2008" (Washington Post) which, on the headline, notes that the 2007 saw 72 deaths from contractors in its first ten months but the same period this year saw only one death and Pincus notes:
Improved oversight of the contractors, through a number of changes in procedure, led to the sharp drop in incidents, the department's Middle East Regional Office reported.
The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security has assigned 45 additional special agents to Iraq, and one agent now accompanies most security movements. Cameras and recording equipment have been installed in security vehicles to record all motorcade movements and events, and all trips are tracked and monitored in real time by department personnel in a tactical operations center.
The basis for the drop in deaths comes from US Embassy figures. Page 10 of the report is an illustration entitled "Figure 1: Iraq -- Location of WPPS Private Security Contractors' Operations." WPPS is "Worldwide Personal Protective Services." The illustration notes DynCorp operates in both Erbil and Kirkuk, while Triple Canopy operates in Basra and Tallil and Blackwater operates in Baghdad and Hillah. Depending upon community interest in the report, we can go deeper or not. Pincus has pretty much covered it; however, there's a detail the report ignores and it's a detail that's dropped out since September 17, 2007. I've been (a) waiting to see if the Blackwater 'expert' would include it in one of his commentaries (for any confused, I'm not speaking of Walter Pincus) and he hasn't and (b) I've got other things to do. But an important detail dropped out and if something linked to in yesterday's snapshot had been known (by me) sooner, we would have gone into what falls away (nod to Mia). If a new talking point that emerged late Friday takes hold this weekend, we'll be addressing it in Monday's snapshot so if the report is of interest to you (community members) let me know and we can probe into at length. Otherwise, just rely on Pincus' report which is solid.
In other news, Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) provides an update on Lance Hering, the US Marine who disappeared in Colorado back in 2006 and was initially presumed dead. Hering was arrested last month and Perry reports that he entered a guilty plea yesterday and will lose over a thousand dollars worth of pay but will serve no time (sentenced for time served).
The Iraqi Parliament has shot down the UK agreement (and "others" -- according to Reuters, presumably Australia, Romania, Estonia and El Salvador) stating that there should be a treaty and not merely a law passed.
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ;
and Stan's Oh Boy It Never Ends
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
laith hammoudi
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
walter pincus
the los angeles times
tony perry
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The imploding narrative
The case provided a window into the intense political differences in Iraq even among Shiite Muslims. Although some Shiite lawmakers and security commanders said they thought the accused men might have helped facilitate terrorist attacks, they rejected reports that the group had been hatching a coup attempt -- a grave worry among the ruling Shiite coalition.
The arrests also raised fears among some lawmakers that the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki was using authoritarian tactics reminiscent of Hussein's regime to reinforce its power and thwart rivals.
Shortly after his arrival home, Bolani convened a news conference and denounced the arrests."This story . . . is a fabricated one," Bolani said of the allegations against the men. "It is not based on any facts, security or intelligence."
The above is from Ned Parker and Saif Hameed's "Iraq releases detained security officers" (Los Angeles Times), reporting on what happens after the big arrests, trumpeted by some reporters (not ones at the Los Angeles Times or the Washington Post) as a sign of just how wonderful, groovy and strong Nouri al-Maliki was because he prevented a coup! A coup, they told us, a coup! There was never any proof for that and the whole thing always smacked of the Jessica Lynch 'rescue mission' (that's not an insult to Jessica Lynch -- she never tried to deceive the American public). It took a lot of 'innocence' to buy into the notion that a coup was about to take place -- but thwarted by al-Maliki! -- just because al-Maliki said so.
Repeating from earlier this week, al-Maliki may be taken out at some point. He may be forced out of office or he may be 'retired' to the grave. He is the US puppet and most likely any attempt to oust him will come from the US or be US-backed. An opposing, out-of-power group in Iraq might plan to assassinate al-Maliki and might pull it off, but that wouldn't be a coup. And for a coup to work at this tage in the 'new' Iraq's history, it would require US backing. The problem there is it's so much easier for the US to send al-Maliki packing then to go to the trouble and expense of a coup. Despite all the testimonials the press offered to him earlier this month, he is neither that popular, nor that powerful. He is a puppet and a weak one at that. Tomorrow the Bully Boy could decide it was time for him to go (or in late January, Barack could) and it could be done in a series of phone calls with no violence unless al-Maliki was foolish enough to have forgotten he was a puppet. His public support is shaky and its already taken care of to publicly humiliate him if that need happen. (The US has already stocked up on how to do that.)
So the coup allegeations never made sense. You'd have to have some real loons in some levels of the Iraqi government who didn't grasp the dynamics of what they saw around them and honestly believed they could take over. (Take over without US backing.)
There is only one grouping in Iraq currently that could stage a coup without US backing: the Kurds. They have the money, the forces and the military and security intelligence to do so. Were they to stage a coup, they could potentially paralyze the US for a few minutes because they have built up relationships with US officials. (As opposed to Moqtada al-Sadr who would quickly be ordered killed.) But the Kurds have no motive (and weren't the accused in this little fantasy the New York Times originally tried to pass off as fact). The Kurds are not interested in ruling a nation-state called Iraq. They want a federation (splitting the country into regions with the Kurds controlling the northern region). So the only group that currently has the resources and abilities to stage a coup is the group that doesn't want to and, in fact, looks at the bulk of Iraq as if it were Baltic Avenue and Mediterranean Avenue. Yes, they want a land grab on the areas immediately around the Kurdish region -- but those are the oil-rich areas.
Along with the much hyped 2004 'rescue,' the al-Maliki-stops-coup! nonsense should have reminded people of Basra back in Februrary. Remember how that was supposed to prove al-Maliki was strong, decisive and commanding. That wasn't reality. And a few noted that in real time but by April, when Petreaues and Croker were testifying to Congress, the idea that al-Maliki showed any 'strength' in February (or March) should have flown out the window. (al-Maliki pushed the operation before it was ready to go and did so over US objection. Look up Ryan Crocker and David Peteraues' Congressional testimonies if you've forgotten or missed it during April.) And yet in the immediate news cyle of it's-a-coup! there were outlets that did refer back to the attack on Basra (the one al-Maliki fumbled and that US forces had to lead on as a result).
2008 has really been about the White House trying to convince Iraq, the US and the world that al-Maliki is competent, skilled and a leader. It's not taken. Even among US officials, that lie has not taken hold. So the real question right now is where the story came from? Was the 'coup' something al-Maliki came up with all on his own as a cover-story that would make him look good or was this one last-ditch effort by the White House -- an attempt to shore up al-Maliki's reputation before the next president is sworn in?
In the New York Times this morning, Campbell Robertson and Tareq Maher offer "24 Officers to Be Freed, Iraqi Says" which includes the following:
The minister, Jawad al-Bolani, in a series of interviews and at a news conference on Friday, insisted on the innocence of the officials detained on charges of aiding terrorism and having inappropriate ties with political parties, including Al Awda, an illegal party that is a descendant of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.
"It's because of the competition of the provincial elections," Mr. Bolani, who arrived in the country on Friday after a week away, said of the arrests in an interview. "It's just electoral propaganda, and that’s playing with fire."
In his forceful rejection of the charges, Mr. Bolani was careful not to mention names and was not specific in explaining how these arrests could benefit anyone specifically in the prelude to the crucial provincial elections next month. But it seemed, at least temporarily, to be a serious blow to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, given the crackdown's close association with him.
It also seemed to raise the temperature of Iraqi politics, possibly fueling a rivalry between Mr. Bolani and Mr. Maliki, both prominent Shiite politicians, in a way that could damage either or both of them. Attempts to reach the prime minister’s spokesman were unsuccessful.
Sudarsan Raghavan's "Arrests Based on a 'Lie,' Iraqi Interior Chief Says" (Washington Post) observes:
Critics of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have described them as a move to gain an advantage ahead of next month's crucial provincial elections, which could alter Iraq's political balance of power. Maliki's aides have denied those accusations.
The prime minister and his Dawa party are facing competition from other Shiite parties vying for influence in Iraq's predominantly Shiite oil-rich south. His rivals now include Bolani, an independent Shiite, who recently founded his own political party.
Raghavan also reports on Judge Dhia al-Kinani's decision to explore how Muntadar al-Zaidi ended up injured. Muntadar is the world-famous journalist who threw both of his shoes at the Bully Boy of the United States on Sunday. Arrested and imprisoned for his actions, Muntadar was also beaten. Raghavan notes that Muntadar's family launched a public protest yesterday over the fact that they have still not been allowed to see Muntadar.
Along with the family, many others are protesting throughout Iraq in support of Muntadar. Sahar Issa's "More Iraqis rally to cause of reporter who threw shoes at Bush" reports:
[MP Bahaa al] Araji joined more than 70 protesters outside Baghdad's Green Zone, a secure area that includes the Parliament and Maliki's residence. Araji said Zaidi should appear in court no later than Thursday.
"We know that the judges themselves feel for him and, God willing, he will be with his family soon," Araji said. "Tomorrow we will submit a formal request that Zaidi should be allowed visits by his family."
Iraqis in different cities have protested every day this week for Zaidi, and Friday's rally brought together a handful of politicians, Zaidi's siblings and a mix of protesters from several provinces outside of Baghdad.
"Because of Muntathar, I lift my head high. And to be frank, I haven't been proud to be an Iraqi for five long years of humiliation," said Sheikh Mohammed al Inizi, a leader in the Sons of Iraq movement, which brought Sunni tribes together with American forces to fight terrorist cells.
"We should call him Muntathar al Iraqi -- not Muntathar al Zaidi; all of Iraq is his tribe now," Inizi said.
Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashemi is in Turkey today. Starting December 24th, al-Maliki is supposed to begin a diplomatic mission and one of the scheduled stops is Turkey. Also expected to visit Turkey is Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
campbell robertson
tareq maher
ned parker
saif hameed
the los angeles times
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
The arrests also raised fears among some lawmakers that the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki was using authoritarian tactics reminiscent of Hussein's regime to reinforce its power and thwart rivals.
Shortly after his arrival home, Bolani convened a news conference and denounced the arrests."This story . . . is a fabricated one," Bolani said of the allegations against the men. "It is not based on any facts, security or intelligence."
The above is from Ned Parker and Saif Hameed's "Iraq releases detained security officers" (Los Angeles Times), reporting on what happens after the big arrests, trumpeted by some reporters (not ones at the Los Angeles Times or the Washington Post) as a sign of just how wonderful, groovy and strong Nouri al-Maliki was because he prevented a coup! A coup, they told us, a coup! There was never any proof for that and the whole thing always smacked of the Jessica Lynch 'rescue mission' (that's not an insult to Jessica Lynch -- she never tried to deceive the American public). It took a lot of 'innocence' to buy into the notion that a coup was about to take place -- but thwarted by al-Maliki! -- just because al-Maliki said so.
Repeating from earlier this week, al-Maliki may be taken out at some point. He may be forced out of office or he may be 'retired' to the grave. He is the US puppet and most likely any attempt to oust him will come from the US or be US-backed. An opposing, out-of-power group in Iraq might plan to assassinate al-Maliki and might pull it off, but that wouldn't be a coup. And for a coup to work at this tage in the 'new' Iraq's history, it would require US backing. The problem there is it's so much easier for the US to send al-Maliki packing then to go to the trouble and expense of a coup. Despite all the testimonials the press offered to him earlier this month, he is neither that popular, nor that powerful. He is a puppet and a weak one at that. Tomorrow the Bully Boy could decide it was time for him to go (or in late January, Barack could) and it could be done in a series of phone calls with no violence unless al-Maliki was foolish enough to have forgotten he was a puppet. His public support is shaky and its already taken care of to publicly humiliate him if that need happen. (The US has already stocked up on how to do that.)
So the coup allegeations never made sense. You'd have to have some real loons in some levels of the Iraqi government who didn't grasp the dynamics of what they saw around them and honestly believed they could take over. (Take over without US backing.)
There is only one grouping in Iraq currently that could stage a coup without US backing: the Kurds. They have the money, the forces and the military and security intelligence to do so. Were they to stage a coup, they could potentially paralyze the US for a few minutes because they have built up relationships with US officials. (As opposed to Moqtada al-Sadr who would quickly be ordered killed.) But the Kurds have no motive (and weren't the accused in this little fantasy the New York Times originally tried to pass off as fact). The Kurds are not interested in ruling a nation-state called Iraq. They want a federation (splitting the country into regions with the Kurds controlling the northern region). So the only group that currently has the resources and abilities to stage a coup is the group that doesn't want to and, in fact, looks at the bulk of Iraq as if it were Baltic Avenue and Mediterranean Avenue. Yes, they want a land grab on the areas immediately around the Kurdish region -- but those are the oil-rich areas.
Along with the much hyped 2004 'rescue,' the al-Maliki-stops-coup! nonsense should have reminded people of Basra back in Februrary. Remember how that was supposed to prove al-Maliki was strong, decisive and commanding. That wasn't reality. And a few noted that in real time but by April, when Petreaues and Croker were testifying to Congress, the idea that al-Maliki showed any 'strength' in February (or March) should have flown out the window. (al-Maliki pushed the operation before it was ready to go and did so over US objection. Look up Ryan Crocker and David Peteraues' Congressional testimonies if you've forgotten or missed it during April.) And yet in the immediate news cyle of it's-a-coup! there were outlets that did refer back to the attack on Basra (the one al-Maliki fumbled and that US forces had to lead on as a result).
2008 has really been about the White House trying to convince Iraq, the US and the world that al-Maliki is competent, skilled and a leader. It's not taken. Even among US officials, that lie has not taken hold. So the real question right now is where the story came from? Was the 'coup' something al-Maliki came up with all on his own as a cover-story that would make him look good or was this one last-ditch effort by the White House -- an attempt to shore up al-Maliki's reputation before the next president is sworn in?
In the New York Times this morning, Campbell Robertson and Tareq Maher offer "24 Officers to Be Freed, Iraqi Says" which includes the following:
The minister, Jawad al-Bolani, in a series of interviews and at a news conference on Friday, insisted on the innocence of the officials detained on charges of aiding terrorism and having inappropriate ties with political parties, including Al Awda, an illegal party that is a descendant of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.
"It's because of the competition of the provincial elections," Mr. Bolani, who arrived in the country on Friday after a week away, said of the arrests in an interview. "It's just electoral propaganda, and that’s playing with fire."
In his forceful rejection of the charges, Mr. Bolani was careful not to mention names and was not specific in explaining how these arrests could benefit anyone specifically in the prelude to the crucial provincial elections next month. But it seemed, at least temporarily, to be a serious blow to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, given the crackdown's close association with him.
It also seemed to raise the temperature of Iraqi politics, possibly fueling a rivalry between Mr. Bolani and Mr. Maliki, both prominent Shiite politicians, in a way that could damage either or both of them. Attempts to reach the prime minister’s spokesman were unsuccessful.
Sudarsan Raghavan's "Arrests Based on a 'Lie,' Iraqi Interior Chief Says" (Washington Post) observes:
Critics of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have described them as a move to gain an advantage ahead of next month's crucial provincial elections, which could alter Iraq's political balance of power. Maliki's aides have denied those accusations.
The prime minister and his Dawa party are facing competition from other Shiite parties vying for influence in Iraq's predominantly Shiite oil-rich south. His rivals now include Bolani, an independent Shiite, who recently founded his own political party.
Raghavan also reports on Judge Dhia al-Kinani's decision to explore how Muntadar al-Zaidi ended up injured. Muntadar is the world-famous journalist who threw both of his shoes at the Bully Boy of the United States on Sunday. Arrested and imprisoned for his actions, Muntadar was also beaten. Raghavan notes that Muntadar's family launched a public protest yesterday over the fact that they have still not been allowed to see Muntadar.
Along with the family, many others are protesting throughout Iraq in support of Muntadar. Sahar Issa's "More Iraqis rally to cause of reporter who threw shoes at Bush" reports:
[MP Bahaa al] Araji joined more than 70 protesters outside Baghdad's Green Zone, a secure area that includes the Parliament and Maliki's residence. Araji said Zaidi should appear in court no later than Thursday.
"We know that the judges themselves feel for him and, God willing, he will be with his family soon," Araji said. "Tomorrow we will submit a formal request that Zaidi should be allowed visits by his family."
Iraqis in different cities have protested every day this week for Zaidi, and Friday's rally brought together a handful of politicians, Zaidi's siblings and a mix of protesters from several provinces outside of Baghdad.
"Because of Muntathar, I lift my head high. And to be frank, I haven't been proud to be an Iraqi for five long years of humiliation," said Sheikh Mohammed al Inizi, a leader in the Sons of Iraq movement, which brought Sunni tribes together with American forces to fight terrorist cells.
"We should call him Muntathar al Iraqi -- not Muntathar al Zaidi; all of Iraq is his tribe now," Inizi said.
Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashemi is in Turkey today. Starting December 24th, al-Maliki is supposed to begin a diplomatic mission and one of the scheduled stops is Turkey. Also expected to visit Turkey is Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
campbell robertson
tareq maher
ned parker
saif hameed
the los angeles times
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
Friday, December 19, 2008
Iraq snapshot
Friday, December 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Thursday's arrests for a 'coup' appear even more questionable, a journalist's injuries are finally noted, and more. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released their first report since May 2007 this week. As they note in their Tuesday press release, they are calling for Iraq to "be designated as a 'country of particular concern' (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), in light of the ongoing, severe abuses of religious freedom and the Iraqi government's toleration of these abuses, particularly abuses against Iraq's smallest, most vulnerable religious minorities. . . . The situation is especially dire for Iraq's smallest religious minorities, including ChaldoAssyrian and other Christians, Sabean Mandeans, and Yazidis." Yazidis were the most recently known to be targeted with a late Sunday night, early Monday morning home invasion in a village outside of Mosul that saw 7 members of the same family shot dead. Mosul and the immediate surrounding area have especially been active with acts of violence aimed at religious minorities since this summer. The report is entitled "Iraq Report - 2008" and it is not in PDF format (and it displays as a single page). The report notes, "Like Mandaens, Yazidis as a community are particularly vulnerable to annihilation because one can only be born into the Yazidi religion." The report notes flyers posted around Mosul in 2004 promising "divine awards awaited those who killed Yazidis". On Iraqi Christians, the report notes, "The most recent attacks took place in the northern city of Mosul in late September/early October 2008, when at lest 14 Christians were killed and many more report they were threatened, spurring some 13,000 individuals to flee to villages east and north of the city and an estimated 400 families to flee to Syria. The United Nations has estimated that this number is half of the current Christian population in Mosul. Those who met with displaced Christians were told that Christians had received threatening text messages and had been approached by strangers asking to see their national indentity cards, which show religious affiliation. At the time of this writing, the attackers had not been identified, and Chrisian leaders had called for an international investigation." They also note the half of returnees in November when 2 young Christian girls were killed and their mother wounded. The Mandaeans are estimated to number between 3,500 to 5,000 in Iraq currently after following "almost 90 percent reportedly having either fled the country or been killed". Mandaen women have been kidnapped, raped, forced into marriage with non-Mandeans and "forced to wear the hijab" while Manaean "boys have been kidnapped and forcibly circumcised, a sin in the Mandean religion." The Baha'i population is noted briefly and said to number approximately 2,000 while the Jewish population is said to have fallen to ten -- ten who must "live essentially in hiding." Previous reports and press reports in past years has noted a concentration in Baghdad and, as the numbers fell due to deaths (from violent attacks) and due to fleeing the country, the small number remaining were said to be elderly. The report makes no mention of the age of the ten. The report notes: Nineveh governorate, however, especially in and around Mosul, remains one of the most dangerous and unstable parts of Iraq. Insurgent and extremist activity continues to be a significant problem there, and control of the ethnically and religiously mixed area is disputed between the KRG and the central Iraqi government. While violence overall in Iraq decreased in 2007 and 2008, the Mosul area remains what U.S. and Iraqi officials call the insurgents' and extremists' last urban stronghold, with continuing high levels of violence.D Increased security operations by U.S. and Iraqi forces have led to some decrease in the violence in and around Mosul, but the area remains very dangerous, as evidenced by the October attacks on Christian residents, which killed at least 14 Christians and spurred the flight of 13,000 from Mosul to surrounding areas. According to the September 2008 U.S. Department of Defense report to Congress, "[d]uring the past few years, Mosul has been a strategic stronghold for [al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)], which also needs Mosul for its facilitation of foreign fighters. The current sustained security posture, however, continues to keep AQI off balance and unable to effectively receive support from internal or external sources, though AQI remains lethal and dangerous."D According to the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, from April 1 to July 1, 2008, there were 1,041 reported attacks in Nineveh governorate and from July 1 to September 30, 2008, there were 924 attacks, still a significant number. This situation has been exacerbated by Arab-Kurdish tensions over control of Mosul and other disputed areas in Nineveh governorate. The dispute stems from Kurdish claims and efforts to annex territories-including parts of the governorates of Kirkuk (Tamim), Nineveh, Salah al-Din, Diyala, and Waset-into the KRG, on the basis of the belief that these areas historically belong to Kurdistan. During the Saddam Hussein era, Kurds and other non-Arabs were expelled from these areas under his policy of "Arabization." Since 2003, Kurdish peshmerga and political parties have moved into these territories, effectively establishing de facto control over many of the contested areas. Key to integrating the contested areas into Kurdistan is Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution, which calls for a census and referendum in the territories to determine their control. In this context, military or financial efforts undertaken by either Kurdish officials or Arab officials (whether in Baghdad or local) is seen by the other group as an effort to expand control over the disputed areas, leading to political disputes and deadlock. The commission states there are 2 million external Iraqi refugees and 2.8 million internal refugees. On external refugees, the report explains: Between November 2007 and May 2008, the Commission traveled to Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Sweden to meet with Iraqi asylum-seekers, refugees, and IDPs. These vulnerable and traumatized individuals provided accounts of kidnapping, rape, murder, torture, and threats to themselves, their families, or their community. While the vast majority of interviewees could not identify the perpetrators, they suspected various militias and extremist groups of committing these acts, and often provided specific identifying details. Non-Muslim minority refugees told the Commission that they were targeted because they do not conform to orthodox Muslim religious practices and/or because, as non-Muslims, they are perceived to be working for the U.S.-led coalition forces. Members of these communities recounted how they, as well as other members of their families and communities, had suffered violent attacks, including murder, torture, rape, abductions for ransom or forced conversion, and the destruction or seizure of property, particularly businesses such as liquor stores or hair salons deemed un-Islamic. They also reported being forced to pay a protection tax and having been forced to flee their homes in fear after receiving threats to "convert, leave, or die." In addition, they told of their places of worship being bombed and forced to close and their religious leaders being kidnapped and/or killed. Sunni and Shi'a Muslim refugees told of receiving death threats, of family members being killed, of kidnappings, of their houses being burned down, and of forced displacements. Some refugees reported being targeted because of jobs held by them or their relatives, either connected to the U.S. government or to the Ba'athist regime. Other refugees spoke of being targeted because they were part of a mixed Muslim marriage or because their family was Sunni in a predominately Shi'a neighborhood or vice versa. Many stated that the sectarian identities of their relatives and friends were either not known or not important before 2003, and several spoke of their families including both Sunnis and Shi'as and of the diverse nature of neighborhoods before the sectarian violence. One refugee woman told the Commission that, after her son was kidnapped and returned to her, she received a phone call from a government official who knew the exact details of the kidnapping and who told her that her entire family should leave Iraq. When they got their visas to go to Syria, their passports were stamped "no return." Because of this incident, she alleged to the Commission that the government must have been involved in the violence directed at her family. Adelle M. Banks (Religion News Service) observes, "Commissioners encouraged President-elect Barack Obama's incoming administration to make prevention of abuse a high priority and to seek safety for all Iraqis and fair elections. They also asked the U.S. government to appoint a special envoy for human rights in Iraq and Iraqi officials to establish police units for vulnerable minority communities. They also seek changes in Iraq's constitution, which currently gives Islam a preferred status, to strengthen human rights guarantees." Tom Strode (Baptist Press) quotes the committee's chair, Felice Gaer, stating in Tuesday's press conference, "The lack of effective government action to protect these communities from abuses has established Iraq among the most dangerous places on earth for religious minorities." UPI notes, "The commission also condemned a decision to reduce the representation allocated to members of the minority religious community in the upcoming provincial elections scheduled for January." Meanwhile in Iraq, Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports, "Muslim preachers from both sides of Iraq's once-bloody Sunni-Shi'ite divide appealed to the government on Friday to release the journalist who threw his shoes at U.S. Preisdent George W. Bush." The latest voices calling for Muntadar al-Zeidi's release sound out as his injuries become less of a whispered aside and more of a centeral issue. Nico Hines (Times of London) reported early this morning that Judge Dhia al-Kinani has declared "he would find out who beat" Muntadhar and that al-Kinani "said that Mr al-Zeidi 'was beaten in the news conference and we will watch the tape and write an official letter asking for the names of those who assaulted him'." Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) notes "bruises on his face and around his eyes" and, as for the alleged letter, adds: "A spokesman for al-Maliki said Thursday that the letter contained a specific pardon request. But al-Zeidi's brother Dhargham told The AP that he suspected the letter was a forgery." Timothy Williams and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) report, "The government did not release the letter, and a lawyer for the reporter said that during a conversation with him on Wednesday the reporter did not tell her about it. But the lawyer, Ahlam Allami, also said the reporter, Muntader al-Zaidi, had told her he had never meant to insult the Iraqi government or Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki when he hurled his shoes at the president during a news conference with the two leaders on Sunday." CBS and AP note, "CBS News Baghdad producer Randall Joyce says al-Zeidi has been kept completely out of the reach of his legal representation and his family since the show-throwing incident late on Sunday - a fact which typifies a deeply flawed Iraqi justice system." Wednesday saw the Iraqi Parliament end a session with the Speaker threatening/vowing to quit. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) explains, "Parliament speaker Mahmoud al Mashhdani threatened to resign at one point during Wednesday's debate over Zaidi's status. Anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr's party pressed Zaidi's case. . . . Mashhani's colleagues refused to convene when they saw him return to parliament on Thursday, several of them said [Muhsin al] Saddon said he expects the political parties to accept Mashhdani's resignation Saturday, after which they'd appoint a new parliament leader. Others aren't so sure that Mashhdani will step down." No one appears very sure of what happened with yesterday's arrests ordered at the Ministry of the Interior ordered by puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki. Today Interior Minister Jawad Bolani held a press conference and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) quotes him stating, "It is a big lie. The public must understand this." He was speaking of the whispers that a coup was being plotted by those arrested. Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) explain that several MPs are raising the issue that the arrests were for political reasons, specifically "an attempt by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to demonstrate his power." They also note this basic fact, "On Thursday, senior government officials continued to provide contradictory explanations for the detentions." What is known, the reporters point out, is that: Maliki has steadily consolidated his power this year. In March, he ordered the military to combat Shiite militias and assert government control over the southern city of Basra, a goal that Iraqi forces accomplished with help from the U.S.-led coalition. Since then, Maliki has sought to tighten his grip across the country. His brokering of a U.S-Iraq security pact that requires the American forces to withdraw by the end of 2011 has bolstered his popularity among many Iraqis. Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) speak with MPs such as Mahmoud Othma who states of the arrests, "This reminds me of the old regime. It's confusing. First they were saying coup d'etat . . . It's not clear what is going on. I'm afraid this may have some political ends from the government, maybe from the prime minister." Campbell Robertson and Tareq Maher (New York Times) advise, "The conflicting accounts of the operation prompted an urgent question from Mr. Maliki's critics: Were the arrests politically motivated, carried out as a way for Mr. Maliki to weaken his rivals before the nationwide provincial elections planned for next month? Suspicions were fueled by reports that a counterterrorism force overseen directly by Mr. Maliki was part of the operation, though several officials denied it." Thursday's snapshot incorrectly had Tareq Maher's first name dictated (by me) as "Tariq" -- that was my mistake. My apologies. Oliver August (Times of London) refers to the events as "a sectarian turf war" and observes, "The power struggle exposed the deep sectarian faultlines in the Iraqi Government. . . . A source in the ministry and a member of the Constitution party, told The Times: 'This is a move against our party. They are trying to get all the Sunni officers out of the ministry. It's a political game, not a coup." Meanwhile Waleed Ibrahim, Ahmed Rasheed and Missy Ryan (Reuters) report Nineveh Province voted to delay provincial elections but that vote isn't being headed by the Electoral Commission whose deputy head Osama al-Ani states, "No one has the right to delay the provincial elections scheduled for Jan. 31 except for the prime minister . . . with the approval of parliament." Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) breaks the news that all arrested have been "released without charge" according to Jawad al-Bonai. In England, Andrew Grice (Independent of London) details "a political storm" following Prime Minister Gordon Brown's rejection of an Iraq War inquiry declaring it not "right" at the current time, "Opposition parties believe Mr Brown is keen to ensure the full investigation does not report until after the next general election, which must be held by June 2010. Although the controversial 2003 invasion was seen as 'Tony Blair's war', Mr Brown has backed it and said he would not have acted differently." Meanwhile tensions and bombings continue on Iraq's northern border. Delphine Strauss (Financial Times of London) noted Thursday that Turkey continued air strikes on northern Iraq -- targeting the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) for the second day in a row. UPI added, "The Turkish General Staff said it bombed several positions in the Qandil Mountains belonging to the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK." Despite statements of joint-commissions -- Iraq, Turkey and the US -- being set up to address the issue of the PKK -- designated a terrorist organization by many nations including the US as well as by the European Union -- no such committee has yet to be created. Reuters observes, "Around 40,000 people have been killed in fighting between the PKK and the military since 1984, when the PKK took up arms to establish an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey." Hurriyet reported that Hoshyar Zebari (Foreign Minister) is among the Iraqi officials expected to travel to Turkey shortly and Sunni vice president Tariq al Hashimi is another but that Turkish President Abdullah Gul suffers from "an ear problem that makes flying difficult." Zebari most recently (December 16th) met with Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayied Al-Nhayan, the United Arab Emirate's Foreign Minister, at the UN as part of the Ministry's continued diplomatic outreach. And while the much-touted joint-talks amongst Iraq, Turkey and the US seem stalled or forgotten, Hidir Goktas (Reuters) reports, "Kurdish leaders from Turkey and Iraq will hold a peace conference aimed at ending decades of violence by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla group, the head of Turkey's pro-Kurdish party said." And tensions remain around the mercenary corporation Blackwater which is responsible for the deaths of many Iraqis -- most infamously the September 16, 2007 slaughter in Baghdad. (AP is trumpeting radio logs -- Blackwater radio logs -- 'back up' Blackwater's actions.) Luis Martinez (ABC News) observes, "The controversial security firm Blackwater may have to cease its operations in Iraq come Jan. 1, 2009. Despite four separate federal grand jury investigations of its operations, Blackwater has continued to provide security services for the U.S. State Department. . . . Numerous officials tell ABCNews.com that the State Department has approved a long-term contingency plan to hire as many as 800 security personnel to ultimately replace its private security contractors. These "Security Protection Specialists" would receive limited immunity because they would be State Department employees. They will not be considered Diplomatic Security agents because they will not have arrest powers and will not be investigators." It's a shame that the Marines are good enough to protect US Embassies but apparently not considered good enough to protect the State Dept in war zones. Staying with violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Baghdad roadside bombing that resulted in "three policemen and three civilians" being wounded. Corpses? Reuters notes 7 "decomposing, severed heads and two decomposing bodies" were discovered in Baghdad today. Turning to the US, Yesterday's snaphot noted Elisabeth Bumiller's reporting on Petraeus and Odierno's 'plan' for Iraq and what it means compared to Barack's alleged campaign promise (16 months for a withdrawal!). Today Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports on the issue and since "troops" was always just combat troops for Barack, Barnes documents a novel way to reconcile the generals and Barack: The two plans could be squared by moving to reclassify, or "re-mission," U.S. troops still in Iraq after 16 months to change combat forces to training units or residual forces, according to military officials. Already, military officials have reassigned combat infantry soldiers and Marines to training jobs. Combat forces still in Iraq after May 2010 would probably be needed more for training missions in any case, officials have said. As we've long noted, the classification is meaningless and can be abused. Barnes is documenting a proposal to abuse it. Hey, if Barack declares the 149,000 US troops currently in Iraq "police" or "training" ones on January 21st, he can claim he completed his 'withdrawal' of combat troops in one day! Staying with the president-elect, wowOwow notes "Firestorm Reactions to Obama's Pick of Anti-Gay Rev. Rick Warren Role in Inauguration" and explains that 'it's his outspoken opposition toward abortion and gay marriage that has many human-rights activists, lesbian and gay activists finding [Rick] Warren's presence at Obama's inauguration a slap in the face." At The New Agenda, Violet Socks explains: An almost all-male Cabinet. A speechwriter who thinks sexual assault is funny. A senior advisor who's on record with his belief that innate inferiority, not discrimination, is what's keeping women back. And now, with another twist of the knife, President-elect Obama has invited Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural. Rick Warren. Most of the outrage surrounding this choice focuses on Warren's opposition to gay marriage and reproductive rights. But there's something else about Warren, something the women of America might like to ponder as they watch this worthy pray aloud at our new President's swearing-in: this is a man who believes that wives should be subservient to their husbands. Marriage is not an equal partnership, in Warren's view, but a dominance hierarchy, a union between a superior and an inferior. Kind of like a boss with one employee. As explained on Warren's Ministry Toolbox site by Beth Moore, a suitably submissive wife: "It is a relief to know that as a wife and mother I am not totally responsible for my family. I have a husband to look to for counsel and direction. I can rely on his toughness when I am too soft and his logic when I am too emotional." Those wanting or preferring video can click here for CBS' The Early Show video where Harry Smith discusses the issue with David Corn and Robert Jeffries. "Excuse me, this is a serious civil rights issue in this country," Harry Smith says when Jeffries tries to turn it into a joke and good for Harry Smith. Women's Media Center chooses to go the pathetic and useless route: "Disappointed By Obama's Rick Warren Pick, But Not Discouraged." In other words, please don't break my arm and blacken my eye, just blacken my eye. Pathetic. They offer that in their "Daily News Brief" (it's nothing but a link to content outside WMC). A record number of e-mails came in today regarding the trojan at WMC. Women's Media Center not only does not get a link here, it is pulled from all community sites. If you've visited it this week, scan your computer for virus. NOW -- who has been extremely disappointing to put it mildly -- did offer "We HOPE You Will CHANGE Your Mind:" Today, we are disheartened that one of the voices that may be privileged to be part of this historic moment is that of Rick Warren. His delivering the invocation would be an insult to all of us, women and men, who support women's right to self-determination. His presence is offensive to all of us, gay and straight, who support equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. We understand your desire to engage people from opposing sides of many issues. But dialogue requires treating your opponents with respect. Rick Warren has compared abortion to the Holocaust and stated that he would not vote for a "Holocaust denier." He implies that those of us who support abortion rights are equivalent to Nazis. Rick Warren worked to take away the rights of LGBT people in California by supporting Proposition 8, calling it a "moral issue that God has spoken clearly about" and stating the "homosexual marriage is one of the five issues that are not negotiable." He calls LGBT people "unnatural." Words do matter, President-elect Obama. Words lifted you to the White House and all of us to a place where we felt included in your vision. By choosing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration you have deeply offended progressive people who worked and voted for you in record numbers. This is not the tone we hoped you would set on this historic day - and giving a platform to a messenger of intolerance does not send a message of acceptance and change. There are limitless opportunities for your administration to work with people who do not agree on every issue, but who nonetheless agree that we must end poverty, address climate change, and achieve human rights for all. We are deeply disappointed that you have made a different choice and hope that you will reconsider Rick Warren's inclusion in this important and historic celebration. President-elect Obama, you can still select a minister who will speak to our collective vision for hope, change and the promise that we will all be part of this great country, and we urge you to do just that. Not as weak or pathetic as WMC (silent except for tossing out a link) but not as strong as the National Organization for Women should be. It is the National Organization for Women, not the National Organization for Obama. If you want to see really pathetic, check out the types Ashley Smith and Eric Ruder (Socialist Worker) encounter at the convention of United for Piss & Injustice. UPFJ has done nothing for two years and plans to do nothing for four. They are pathetic. Leslie, I am personally ashamed of you. Of people quoted in the article, only Iraqi-American Zaineb Alani can hold their head high:
Public broadcasting notes. Yesterday Gwen Ifill participated in the online chat at the Washington Post. There's much to amuse and I'll leave it at that and carry it over to Third for Sunday. Gwen's Washington Week airs on PBS and, in most markets, airs tonight. Her guests include Washington Post's Michael Fletcher, Los Angeles Times' Janet Hook and the Bobsey Twins John Dickerson and John Harwood -- even their hairdresser can't tell them apart. NOW on PBS also begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings) and their focus is slavery in Nepal where "many families in western Nepal have been forced to sell their daughters, some as young as six, to work far from home as bonded servants in private homes. With living conditions entirely at the discretion of their employers, these girls seldom attend school and are sometimes forced into prostitution." Journalist Sarah Chayes speaks with Bill Moyers on Bill Moyers Journal which also begins airing tonight on PBS in most markets. Chayes is probably the American journalist most knowledgable of Afghanistan. The Journal's Michael Winship notes: The amount is $904 billion -- that's how much we've spent on American military operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan, since the 9/11 attacks; 50 percent more than what was spent in Vietnam, reports the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. Their study does not include the inestimable toll in human life. Of that money, nearly 200 billion has gone to Afghanistan, where 31,000 American troops are nearly 60 percent of the NATO peacekeeping force. When he becomes President, as promised during his campaign, Barack Obama will oversee the deployment of at least another 20,000 troops there. This has been the deadliest year for American forces in Afghanistan since the war began. Our military faces a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda, better trained, better armed, supported from sanctuaries in Pakistan. But in an op-ed piece in last Sunday's Washington Post, Sarah Chayes -- the former National Public Radio reporter who has lived in Kandahar province since shortly after 9/11 -- argued that America's and Afghanistan's biggest problem comes from within -- our continuing support of a corrupt and abusive Afghan government that's driving its people back into the arms of the fundamentalists. Chayes, who organized a co-op of Afghan men and women making skin care products from herbs and botanicals as an alternative to the opium poppy trade, wrote, "I hear from Westerners that corruption is intrinsic to Afghan culture, that we should not hold Afghans up to our standards. I hear that Afghanistan is a tribal place, that it has never been, and can't be, governed. But that's not what I hear from Afghans." Chayes followed up that article with an interview conducted by my colleague Bill Moyers on the latest edition of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. She told him that the United States and its NATO allies have had to convince themselves and public opinion in each of their countries that "this is a democratically elected representative government [in] Afghanistan in order to justify the sacrifices in money and troops. But the Afghans see it differently." What they see instead, she said, is a restoration to power under President Hamid Karzai of the gunslinging, crooked warlords who were repudiated when the Taliban first started taking over vast parts of the country a few years after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. The "appalling behavior" of officials in the current government, including rampant bribery, extortion and violence, is a serious factor in the Taliban resurgence -- it's estimated that they now have a "permanent presence" in 72 percent of the country, according to one think tank, the International Council on Security and Development. On broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, 60 Minutes: Schwarzenegger The former Hollywood action star-turned California governor may be facing his most formidable foe in a $40 billion state budget gap caused by the economic decline. Scott Pelley reports. Screening The TSA Are the hassles passengers endure at airport security checkpoints really making them safer? The Transportation Security Administration says they are, but a security adviser who has advised them says those measures are "security theater." Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video The Orphanage Ivory is selling for nearly $1,000 a tusk, causing more elephants to be slaughtered and more orphaned babies in need of special care provided by an elephant orphanage in Kenya. Bob Simon reports. 60 Minutes, this Sunday, Dec. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. iraq nico hines qassim abdul-zahra the new york times timothy williams atheer kakan the los angeles times julian e. barnes |
Muntader's 'letter' & Mary Chapin Carpenter's NPR concert
The judge investigating Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the notorious shoe-hurling Iraqi journalist, said today that he would find out who beat him after his interruption of President Bush's Baghdad press conference.
Judge Dhia al-Kinani said he would discover who was responsible for the treatment meted out to the reporter who suffered a broken arm and ribs according to his brother.
The judge said that Mr al-Zeidi "was beaten in the news conference and we will watch the tape and write an official letter asking for the names of those who assaulted him".
The above is from Nico Hines' "Judge says he will discover who beat Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi shoe-thrower" (Times of London) and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) notes "bruises on his face and around his eyes" and, as for the alleged letter, adds: "A spokesman for al-Maliki said Thursday that the letter contained a specific pardon request. But al-Zeidi's brother Dhargham told The AP that he suspected the letter was a forgery." Timothy Williams and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) note, "The government did not release the letter, and a lawyer for the reporter said that during a conversation with him on Wednesday the reporter did not tell her about it. But the lawyer, Ahlam Allami, also said the reporter, Muntader al-Zaidi, had told her he had never meant to insult the Iraqi government or Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki when he hurled his shoes at the president during a news conference with the two leaders on Sunday."
Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports, "Muslim preachers from both sides of Iraq's once-bloody Sunni-Shi'ite divide appealed to the government on Friday to release the journalist who threw his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush."
Yesterday's snaphot included, "Reuters notes Jelawish Hussein's corpse was discovered in Kirkuk. The woman was 'a member of the Communist party in Kirkuk'." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) explain:
In Kirkuk, Kalweez Dilshad Abdullah, a Kurdish member of the Communist Party, was shot and beheaded in her home.
"We think she was killed because she was a women's rights activist," said party spokesman Azad Ghareeb.
Meanwhile Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports on the issue Elisabeth Bumiller was reporting yesterday: Generals Petreaus and Odierno's 'withdrawal' plans don't mesh with Barack's campaign 'promise' of "troops" out in 16 months of being sworn in. Of course "troops" is (and always was but few wanted to pay attention) combat troops only. So Barnes documents a 'novel' way to reconcile the two opposing options:
The two plans could be squared by moving to reclassify, or "re-mission," U.S. troops still in Iraq after 16 months to change combat forces to training units or residual forces, according to military officials.
Already, military officials have reassigned combat infantry soldiers and Marines to training jobs. Combat forces still in Iraq after May 2010 would probably be needed more for training missions in any case, officials have said.
As we've long noted, the classification is meaningless and can be abused. Barnes is documenting a proposal to abuse it. Hey, if Barack declares the 149,000 US troops currently in Iraq "police" or "training" ones on January 21st, he can claim he completed his 'withdrawal' of combat troops in one day!
Public broadcasting notes. Starting with radio. Today (noon EST) NPR offers a Mary Chapin Carpenter concert live:
Yesterday Gwen Ifill participated in the online chat at the Washington Post. There's much to amuse and I'll leave it at that and carry it over to Third for Sunday. Gwen's Washington Week airs on PBS and, in most markets, airs tonight. Her guests include Washington Post's Michael Fletcher, Los Angeles Times' Janet Hook and the Bobsey Twins John Dickerson and John Harwood -- even their hairdresser can't tell them apart. NOW on PBS also begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings) and their focus is slavery in Nepal:
Unable to make ends meet, many families in western Nepal have been forced to sell their daughters, some as young as six, to work far from home as bonded servants in private homes. With living conditions entirely at the discretion of their employers, these girls seldom attend school and are sometimes forced into prostitution.
This week NOW travels to Nepal during the Maghe Sankranti holiday, when labor contractors come to the villages of the area to "buy" the children. There, we meet the Nepalese Youth Opportunity Foundation, which is trying to break the cycle of poverty and pain with an Enterprising Idea. They're providing desperate families with an incentive to keep their daughters: a piglet or a goat that can ultimately be sold for a sum equivalent to that of their child's labor.
The organization says it has brought thousands of girls home to live with their families, but many cultural and political challenges still stand in their way. This is part of NOW's continuing series on innovative and sustainable solutions to world problems, what we call Enterprising Ideas.
Journalist Sarah Chayes speaks with Bill Moyers on Bill Moyers Journal which also begins airing tonight on PBS in most markets. Chayes is probably the American journalist most knowledgable of Afghanistan. On broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, 60 Minutes:
Schwarzenegger
The former Hollywood action star-turned California governor may be facing his most formidable foe in a $40 billion state budget gap caused by the economic decline. Scott Pelley reports.
Screening The TSA
Are the hassles passengers endure at airport security checkpoints really making them safer? The Transportation Security Administration says they are, but a security adviser who has advised them says those measures are "security theater." Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
The Orphanage
Ivory is selling for nearly $1,000 a tusk, causing more elephants to be slaughtered and more orphaned babies in need of special care provided by an elephant orphanage in Kenya. Bob Simon reports.
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Dec. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
nico hines
ned parker
saif hameed
the los angeles times
qassim abdul-zahra
the new york times
timothy williams
atheer kakan
the los angeles times
julian e. barnes
mary chapin carpenter
60 minutes
cbs news
washington week
now on pbs
pbs
sarah chayes
bill moyers journal
aimee mann
Judge Dhia al-Kinani said he would discover who was responsible for the treatment meted out to the reporter who suffered a broken arm and ribs according to his brother.
The judge said that Mr al-Zeidi "was beaten in the news conference and we will watch the tape and write an official letter asking for the names of those who assaulted him".
The above is from Nico Hines' "Judge says he will discover who beat Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi shoe-thrower" (Times of London) and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) notes "bruises on his face and around his eyes" and, as for the alleged letter, adds: "A spokesman for al-Maliki said Thursday that the letter contained a specific pardon request. But al-Zeidi's brother Dhargham told The AP that he suspected the letter was a forgery." Timothy Williams and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) note, "The government did not release the letter, and a lawyer for the reporter said that during a conversation with him on Wednesday the reporter did not tell her about it. But the lawyer, Ahlam Allami, also said the reporter, Muntader al-Zaidi, had told her he had never meant to insult the Iraqi government or Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki when he hurled his shoes at the president during a news conference with the two leaders on Sunday."
Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports, "Muslim preachers from both sides of Iraq's once-bloody Sunni-Shi'ite divide appealed to the government on Friday to release the journalist who threw his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush."
Yesterday's snaphot included, "Reuters notes Jelawish Hussein's corpse was discovered in Kirkuk. The woman was 'a member of the Communist party in Kirkuk'." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) explain:
In Kirkuk, Kalweez Dilshad Abdullah, a Kurdish member of the Communist Party, was shot and beheaded in her home.
"We think she was killed because she was a women's rights activist," said party spokesman Azad Ghareeb.
Meanwhile Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports on the issue Elisabeth Bumiller was reporting yesterday: Generals Petreaus and Odierno's 'withdrawal' plans don't mesh with Barack's campaign 'promise' of "troops" out in 16 months of being sworn in. Of course "troops" is (and always was but few wanted to pay attention) combat troops only. So Barnes documents a 'novel' way to reconcile the two opposing options:
The two plans could be squared by moving to reclassify, or "re-mission," U.S. troops still in Iraq after 16 months to change combat forces to training units or residual forces, according to military officials.
Already, military officials have reassigned combat infantry soldiers and Marines to training jobs. Combat forces still in Iraq after May 2010 would probably be needed more for training missions in any case, officials have said.
As we've long noted, the classification is meaningless and can be abused. Barnes is documenting a proposal to abuse it. Hey, if Barack declares the 149,000 US troops currently in Iraq "police" or "training" ones on January 21st, he can claim he completed his 'withdrawal' of combat troops in one day!
Public broadcasting notes. Starting with radio. Today (noon EST) NPR offers a Mary Chapin Carpenter concert live:
Live Friday: Mary Chapin Carpenter In Concert
Listen Online At Noon ET, With Opener John Flynn
courtesy of the artist
Mary Chapin Carpenter.
Jayne Toohey
John Flynn.
WXPN, December 18, 2008 - A venerable and popular country-folk singer, Mary Chapin Carpenter recently made a foray into holiday music, releasing an album of traditional and original Christmas music titled Come Darkness, Come Light. Return to this space Friday at noon ET to hear Carpenter perform live in concert from WXPN and World Café Live in Philadelphia, with opening act John Flynn.
Though she began as a folksinger in Washington, D.C., Carpenter became a chart-topping country hitmaker in the '80s, winning five Grammy Awards in the process. Carpenter no longer churns out Nashville-friendly smashes, but her fan base remains intensely devoted to her intimate and reflective music. Carpenter will showcase new holiday music at this show.
Kicking things off at noon ET will be another country songwriter turned socially conscious folksinger, John Flynn. Based in Philadelphia, Flynn recently joined Arlo Guthrie and Willie Nelson on tour to benefit victims of Hurricane Katrina. An award-winning children's recording artist, he's heard frequently on WXPN's Kids Corner, and as a singer at Philadelphia Phillies games.
And if you need a push to listen to the live broadcast, Aimee Mann's live concert Saturday is still not archived (actually, it was but there were problems with the stream).Yesterday Gwen Ifill participated in the online chat at the Washington Post. There's much to amuse and I'll leave it at that and carry it over to Third for Sunday. Gwen's Washington Week airs on PBS and, in most markets, airs tonight. Her guests include Washington Post's Michael Fletcher, Los Angeles Times' Janet Hook and the Bobsey Twins John Dickerson and John Harwood -- even their hairdresser can't tell them apart. NOW on PBS also begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings) and their focus is slavery in Nepal:
Unable to make ends meet, many families in western Nepal have been forced to sell their daughters, some as young as six, to work far from home as bonded servants in private homes. With living conditions entirely at the discretion of their employers, these girls seldom attend school and are sometimes forced into prostitution.
This week NOW travels to Nepal during the Maghe Sankranti holiday, when labor contractors come to the villages of the area to "buy" the children. There, we meet the Nepalese Youth Opportunity Foundation, which is trying to break the cycle of poverty and pain with an Enterprising Idea. They're providing desperate families with an incentive to keep their daughters: a piglet or a goat that can ultimately be sold for a sum equivalent to that of their child's labor.
The organization says it has brought thousands of girls home to live with their families, but many cultural and political challenges still stand in their way. This is part of NOW's continuing series on innovative and sustainable solutions to world problems, what we call Enterprising Ideas.
Journalist Sarah Chayes speaks with Bill Moyers on Bill Moyers Journal which also begins airing tonight on PBS in most markets. Chayes is probably the American journalist most knowledgable of Afghanistan. On broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, 60 Minutes:
Schwarzenegger
The former Hollywood action star-turned California governor may be facing his most formidable foe in a $40 billion state budget gap caused by the economic decline. Scott Pelley reports.
Screening The TSA
Are the hassles passengers endure at airport security checkpoints really making them safer? The Transportation Security Administration says they are, but a security adviser who has advised them says those measures are "security theater." Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
The Orphanage
Ivory is selling for nearly $1,000 a tusk, causing more elephants to be slaughtered and more orphaned babies in need of special care provided by an elephant orphanage in Kenya. Bob Simon reports.
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Dec. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
nico hines
ned parkersaif hameed
the los angeles times
qassim abdul-zahra
the new york times
timothy williams
atheer kakan
the los angeles times
julian e. barnes
mary chapin carpenter
60 minutescbs newswashington weeknow on pbspbssarah chayes
bill moyers journal
aimee mann
Arrested because . . .
But General Khalaf sought to discredit the most serious of the allegations made earlier by Iraqi officials, saying there was no evidence that the suspects were in the early stages of planning a coup against Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
The conflicting accounts of the operation prompted an urgent question from Mr. Maliki's critics: Were the arrests politically motivated, carried out as a way for Mr. Maliki to weaken his rivals before the nationwide provincial elections planned for next month?
Suspicions were fueled by reports that a counterterrorism force overseen directly by Mr. Maliki was part of the operation, though several officials denied it.
Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker, said questions had been raised by the shifting accusations he and other Iraqi political leaders had heard in the past several days: that the detainees were planning a coup; that they belonged to Al Awda; and that they planned to burn down the ministry.
The above is from Campbell Robertson and Tareq Maher's "An Inquiry in Baghdad Is Clouded by Politics" (New York Times) and while I don't expect either to don a hair shirt their ability to finger point is amazing considering all the claims either now discredited or under question derive from their original reporting yesterday. In fairness to them, it may yet turn out the group was plotting a coup. But there was nothing to support that. One person (especially in power) whispering slanders doesn't make for sound journalism. They showed little to no skepticism and their report today completely contradicts yesterday's but there's no acknowledgment of that. Again, no hair shirt required, just a simple acknowledgment. For example, Tareq Maher's name was spelled wrongly by me yesterday as "Tariq." My apologies.
So today the New York Times tell us (at length) that the al-Maliki ordered arrests might have been politically motivated. Two other outlets weren't afraid to raise that possibility yesterday and didn't 'report' themselves into the corner the way the paper of record did.
Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher offer "Arrests in Iraq Seen as Politically Motivated" (Washington Post) which notes several MPs are raising the issue that the arrests were for political reasons, specifically "an attempt by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to demonstrate his power." They also note this basic fact, "On Thursday, senior government officials continued to provide contradictory explanations for the detentions." They note the various numbers given for the arrested (34, 23, 24) and they point out:
Maliki has steadily consolidated his power this year. In March, he ordered the military to combat Shiite militias and assert government control over the southern city of Basra, a goal that Iraqi forces accomplished with help from the U.S.-led coalition. Since then, Maliki has sought to tighten his grip across the country. His brokering of a U.S-Iraq security pact that requires the American forces to withdraw by the end of 2011 has bolstered his popularity among many Iraqis.
At the Los Angeles Times, Ned Parker teams up today with Saif Hameed for "Iraqi leaders deny coup attempts after arrests of 24 officers." [The two outlets that showed skepticism yesterday were the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. Yesterday Raghavan and Mizher reported on it as they do today while at LAT yesterday it was Parker with Ralman Salman.] Parker and Hameed note the varying numbers given for those arrested and do their best work covering reaction from lawmakers:
"This reminds me of the old regime. It's confusing. First they were saying coup d'etat. . . . It's not clear what is going on," said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman. "I'm afraid this may have some political ends from the government, maybe from the prime minister."
Some legislators compared the government's behavior to that of Hussein's regime. Hussein's security apparatus had often rounded up political opponents on dubious charges. The lawmakers raised concern that the arrests were linked to the Shiite-led government's efforts to consolidate power.
Some Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish lawmakers have accused Maliki recently of harboring authoritarian ambitions, in a break from the power-sharing model championed by U.S. officials since 2003.
Sunni lawmaker Salim Abdullah Jabouri denounced the arrests.
"It wasn't to intimidate the Sunnis necessarily but rather to frighten the officers in the ministries of Interior and Defense so that they can be controlled and [to] make them anxious," Jabouri said. "It came suddenly and without any justifications or warnings."
Iraq's security apparatus has long been politicized and subject to influence by political parties. A U.S. official in Baghdad warned Wednesday that arrest warrants in Iraq came quite regularly from political pressure.
He goes on to state (the unnamed official) that this is the case with many members of the "Awakening" Councils being arrested. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) covers just about everything in "Iraqi government plays down arrests of 23 police officers" and we'll note this section from it:
Some news reports said the officers were trying to organize a coup to unseat Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, but National Police Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf dismissed that as an "unreal" possibility. He said Maliki has direct role in security, and it would be difficult for an officer to stage a coup.
"The situation on the ground won't allow them to make it," Khalaf told Iraqi television. "The coup is unreal because the officers are from low ranks and traffic police. They have no power . . . No unit can move from place to place without the order of Maliki."
Oliver August (Times of London) refers to the events as "a sectarian turf war" and notes:
The arrested officials include Sunni Muslims and some members of the opposition Constitution party. They were accused of being members of the banned Baath party and of plotting a coup. They denied the charges. The arrests were reportedly carried out by a military unit controlled by Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, a member of the majority Shia community.
The power struggle exposed the deep sectarian faultlines in the Iraqi Government. It also dented the more positive impression of Iraq given by President Bush and Gordon Brown during their visits to the country.
[. . .]
A source in the ministry and a member of the Constitution party, told The Times: "This is a move against our party. They are trying to get all the Sunni officers out of the ministry. It's a political game, not a coup."
Meanwhile, next week finds al-Maliki scheduled to be out of Iraq -- visiting Iran and Turkey.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
qais mizher
oliver august
the new york times
campbell robertson
tareq maher
ned parker
saif hameed
the los angeles times
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
oliver august
The conflicting accounts of the operation prompted an urgent question from Mr. Maliki's critics: Were the arrests politically motivated, carried out as a way for Mr. Maliki to weaken his rivals before the nationwide provincial elections planned for next month?
Suspicions were fueled by reports that a counterterrorism force overseen directly by Mr. Maliki was part of the operation, though several officials denied it.
Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker, said questions had been raised by the shifting accusations he and other Iraqi political leaders had heard in the past several days: that the detainees were planning a coup; that they belonged to Al Awda; and that they planned to burn down the ministry.
The above is from Campbell Robertson and Tareq Maher's "An Inquiry in Baghdad Is Clouded by Politics" (New York Times) and while I don't expect either to don a hair shirt their ability to finger point is amazing considering all the claims either now discredited or under question derive from their original reporting yesterday. In fairness to them, it may yet turn out the group was plotting a coup. But there was nothing to support that. One person (especially in power) whispering slanders doesn't make for sound journalism. They showed little to no skepticism and their report today completely contradicts yesterday's but there's no acknowledgment of that. Again, no hair shirt required, just a simple acknowledgment. For example, Tareq Maher's name was spelled wrongly by me yesterday as "Tariq." My apologies.
So today the New York Times tell us (at length) that the al-Maliki ordered arrests might have been politically motivated. Two other outlets weren't afraid to raise that possibility yesterday and didn't 'report' themselves into the corner the way the paper of record did.
Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher offer "Arrests in Iraq Seen as Politically Motivated" (Washington Post) which notes several MPs are raising the issue that the arrests were for political reasons, specifically "an attempt by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to demonstrate his power." They also note this basic fact, "On Thursday, senior government officials continued to provide contradictory explanations for the detentions." They note the various numbers given for the arrested (34, 23, 24) and they point out:
Maliki has steadily consolidated his power this year. In March, he ordered the military to combat Shiite militias and assert government control over the southern city of Basra, a goal that Iraqi forces accomplished with help from the U.S.-led coalition. Since then, Maliki has sought to tighten his grip across the country. His brokering of a U.S-Iraq security pact that requires the American forces to withdraw by the end of 2011 has bolstered his popularity among many Iraqis.
At the Los Angeles Times, Ned Parker teams up today with Saif Hameed for "Iraqi leaders deny coup attempts after arrests of 24 officers." [The two outlets that showed skepticism yesterday were the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. Yesterday Raghavan and Mizher reported on it as they do today while at LAT yesterday it was Parker with Ralman Salman.] Parker and Hameed note the varying numbers given for those arrested and do their best work covering reaction from lawmakers:
"This reminds me of the old regime. It's confusing. First they were saying coup d'etat. . . . It's not clear what is going on," said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman. "I'm afraid this may have some political ends from the government, maybe from the prime minister."
Some legislators compared the government's behavior to that of Hussein's regime. Hussein's security apparatus had often rounded up political opponents on dubious charges. The lawmakers raised concern that the arrests were linked to the Shiite-led government's efforts to consolidate power.
Some Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish lawmakers have accused Maliki recently of harboring authoritarian ambitions, in a break from the power-sharing model championed by U.S. officials since 2003.
Sunni lawmaker Salim Abdullah Jabouri denounced the arrests.
"It wasn't to intimidate the Sunnis necessarily but rather to frighten the officers in the ministries of Interior and Defense so that they can be controlled and [to] make them anxious," Jabouri said. "It came suddenly and without any justifications or warnings."
Iraq's security apparatus has long been politicized and subject to influence by political parties. A U.S. official in Baghdad warned Wednesday that arrest warrants in Iraq came quite regularly from political pressure.
He goes on to state (the unnamed official) that this is the case with many members of the "Awakening" Councils being arrested. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) covers just about everything in "Iraqi government plays down arrests of 23 police officers" and we'll note this section from it:
Some news reports said the officers were trying to organize a coup to unseat Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, but National Police Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf dismissed that as an "unreal" possibility. He said Maliki has direct role in security, and it would be difficult for an officer to stage a coup.
"The situation on the ground won't allow them to make it," Khalaf told Iraqi television. "The coup is unreal because the officers are from low ranks and traffic police. They have no power . . . No unit can move from place to place without the order of Maliki."
Oliver August (Times of London) refers to the events as "a sectarian turf war" and notes:
The arrested officials include Sunni Muslims and some members of the opposition Constitution party. They were accused of being members of the banned Baath party and of plotting a coup. They denied the charges. The arrests were reportedly carried out by a military unit controlled by Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, a member of the majority Shia community.
The power struggle exposed the deep sectarian faultlines in the Iraqi Government. It also dented the more positive impression of Iraq given by President Bush and Gordon Brown during their visits to the country.
[. . .]
A source in the ministry and a member of the Constitution party, told The Times: "This is a move against our party. They are trying to get all the Sunni officers out of the ministry. It's a political game, not a coup."
Meanwhile, next week finds al-Maliki scheduled to be out of Iraq -- visiting Iran and Turkey.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the washington postsudarsan raghavanqais mizheroliver august
the new york times
campbell robertson
tareq maher
ned parkersaif hameed
the los angeles times
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
oliver august
Thursday, December 18, 2008
I Hate The War
Twenty-three mostly low-ranking police and security officials were detained this week as part of an investigation into attempts to revive Saddam Hussein's banned Baath Party, government officials said Thursday.
Some news reports said the officers were trying to organize a coup to unseat Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, but National Police Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf dismissed that as an "unreal" possibility. He said Maliki has direct role in security, and it would be difficult for an officer to stage a coup.
"The situation on the ground won't allow them to make it," Khalaf told Iraqi television. "The coup is unreal because the officers are from low ranks and traffic police. They have no power . . . No unit can move from place to place without the order of Maliki."
The officers are alleged to have been affiliated with the Awda Party, which shares the principles of Saddam's Baath Party as well as some members. The Baath party, which had been run largely by Iraqi Sunnis, is outlawed, and its highest-ranking officials are barred from holding government jobs.
The above is from Hussein Kadhim's "Iraqi government plays down arrests of 23 police officers" (McClatchy Newspapers) and it will probably be noted tomorrow as well but Kadhim, Sarah Issa, Laith Hammoudi and Mohammed Al Dulaimy really are the heart of McClatchy's Baghdad division and when one of them earns a solo byline on a lengthy article we should make a point to note it.
A friend with the Feminist Majority Foundation was unhappy that Feminist Wire didn't get a mention in today's snapshot. They were, I was informed on the phone, doing their job and if I can call them out, I should be willing to note them.
First, if they did their job, I'd be happy to note them. My problem with Feminist Wire is that they have not done their job. But fine, I said on the phone, e-mail it to me and I'll happily note it. With Feminist Wire, I'm not carrying any grudges and will be thrilled to say, "Good for them."
And I would have been . I had planned to do so.
And then I opened the e-mail.
"Feminist and LGBT Leaders Voice Outrage Over Rick Warren Selection" is the title and I'm even tossing in a link. But praise it?
Oh, hell no.
The first paragraph starts off semi-strong:
Feminist and LGBT activists expressed outrage following Wednesday's announcement that Reverend Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor of California's Saddleback Church, will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony on January 20th.
Announcement? Try dropping the passive voice and calling out the person responsible: Barack Obama. A stronger sentence would be: "Feminist and LGBT activists expressed outrage following Wednesday's announcement that Barack Obama had invited Reverend Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor of California's Saddleback Churck, to deliver the inovacation at the inauguration ceremony on Januray 20th."
But that's fine. It doesn't have to mean they're yet again giving Barack a pass and make it appear things just happen and not as if he is in any way ever responsible for the decisions he makes. It could just be rushed writing.
Paragraphs two and three are embarrassments and insults.
Paragraph two quotes from a letter to Barack from HRC's Joe Solmonese. And to be clear, "Joe" is a man. It's not "Jo" like Little Women. You may be thinking, "Well, sure they could have found a lesbian to quote but . . ." If that's what you're thinking, stop. That's not my problem with the item.
Paragraph three moves on to Ellie Smeal. It involves Warren's statements against abortion and opens claiming Ellie's "expressed feminist concern". Really?
By focusing on abortion?
If you're a drive-by, you may be confused and may be thinking, "That C.I. is anti-choice." I'm not. I'm 100% pro-choice. I'm 100% pro-abortion. I believe every woman has a right to make the decision for herself and I extend those rights to any woman who is pregnant. I don't care if she's 51 or 13. It is her body and it is her choice. I do not support parental notification.
So what's my issue with the brief from Feminist Wire?
I believe it's the point Ava and I have tried to give voice to repeatedly because we have yet to speak to a women's group in 2008 where the issue wasn't raised by at least once woman. And when the one woman raises it, others agree. Some grasp the offense for the first time.
Way back in the fall of 2007, Barack was putting homophobes on stage in South Carolina. And no one really wanted to call it out outside of the HRC and some other LGBT groups. Good for those that called it out and I'm in no way attempting to insult them.
But my concern is with feminism. And my concern then was the silence on Barack's use of homophobia (silence that continued in the general election campaign when Barack put a homophobe on his swing-state 'values' tour).
See, here's the reality. Outside of the thankfully dead Ego Of Us All, second-wave feminists knew lesbians were a part of the feminist movement. Certainly those feminists that were lesbians knew it, but we all knew it. We all knew it and we were all proud of it. We were an inclusive movement. And in standing together, we were strong.
So 2008 wasn't very pretty for feminist leadership and you can go talk with any women's group around the country and, as you explore 2008's events, at some point one woman will bring up the homophobia used by Team Obama. And when she does, the reaction is either others agreeing and saying they noticed it as well or others apologizing and saying they're sorry because until right now they really hadn't confronted it or know about it.
That's a real indictment of 'leadership.' Leadership should have been calling out the homophobia. Leadership should have been demanding that homophobia have no role in a campaign. But they didn't do a damn thing, not one damn thing.
And now Feminist Wire does a brief that sets up the equation as: LGBT/feminists call out Rick Warren. Note the "/" which means "or" (though the New York Times never grasps that when they cover their own polls "New York Times/CBS News poll"). Note that a man is brought in to call out the homophobia and then Ellie Smeal shows up to address a "feminist concern."
Excuse the hell out of me, how many times is Smeal going to present that way. Homophobia is a feminist concern. The entire brief is "/" where on one side you have gay issues and on the other you have feminist issues.
That s**t needs to stop and it needs to stop right now.
It's been insulting to many women. Certainly to lesbians but what Smeal and others don't seem to grasp is that grassroots feminists aren't drawing the divisions that she and Feminist Wire are. In fact, there's a real movement towards the kind of resistance and fire that dominated the start of second-wave feminism.
We don't need this crap from leadership. At a time when the grassroots has come together and is standing together, we don't need Ellie showing up -- or any 'leader' -- attempting to tell us that the feminist concern is abortion and, over there where that guy is talking about homophobia, that's the gay issue.
I was more than happy to note Feminist Wire and planned (until I read the e-mail) to make this entry about how they stood up and did the right thing. I'd have no problem with doing that tomorrow. But I'm not going to tolerate these self-defeating divisions that say, "Gay women, that's you're gay issue. It's not your feminist issue and we don't want to hear it." That's the message the brief sends. Is it intended? I spent months arguing it wasn't at the start of the year. I'm tired of defending that crap. There's no excuse for it. There was never any excuse for it. And it needs to stop and maybe part of the transfer of leadership will involve some out of the closet lesbians (they seem to exist everywhere but in the pages of Ms. magazine) to be invited up to the podium. I find it appalling that in the seventies this movement's leaders were more aware than they are today. But in the seventies, we took pride in honesty and didn't see ourselves as suck-ups to DC power. We made demands, we didn't beg on our knees. For all the talk of how we allegedly grow more radical with age nothing in the movement's tired and aged 'leadership' indicates that to be true.
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 4209. Which is the number it remains this week. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,297,997 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war, the same as the number they gave last week.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
feminist+wire
Some news reports said the officers were trying to organize a coup to unseat Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, but National Police Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf dismissed that as an "unreal" possibility. He said Maliki has direct role in security, and it would be difficult for an officer to stage a coup.
"The situation on the ground won't allow them to make it," Khalaf told Iraqi television. "The coup is unreal because the officers are from low ranks and traffic police. They have no power . . . No unit can move from place to place without the order of Maliki."
The officers are alleged to have been affiliated with the Awda Party, which shares the principles of Saddam's Baath Party as well as some members. The Baath party, which had been run largely by Iraqi Sunnis, is outlawed, and its highest-ranking officials are barred from holding government jobs.
The above is from Hussein Kadhim's "Iraqi government plays down arrests of 23 police officers" (McClatchy Newspapers) and it will probably be noted tomorrow as well but Kadhim, Sarah Issa, Laith Hammoudi and Mohammed Al Dulaimy really are the heart of McClatchy's Baghdad division and when one of them earns a solo byline on a lengthy article we should make a point to note it.
A friend with the Feminist Majority Foundation was unhappy that Feminist Wire didn't get a mention in today's snapshot. They were, I was informed on the phone, doing their job and if I can call them out, I should be willing to note them.
First, if they did their job, I'd be happy to note them. My problem with Feminist Wire is that they have not done their job. But fine, I said on the phone, e-mail it to me and I'll happily note it. With Feminist Wire, I'm not carrying any grudges and will be thrilled to say, "Good for them."
And I would have been . I had planned to do so.
And then I opened the e-mail.
"Feminist and LGBT Leaders Voice Outrage Over Rick Warren Selection" is the title and I'm even tossing in a link. But praise it?
Oh, hell no.
The first paragraph starts off semi-strong:
Feminist and LGBT activists expressed outrage following Wednesday's announcement that Reverend Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor of California's Saddleback Church, will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony on January 20th.
Announcement? Try dropping the passive voice and calling out the person responsible: Barack Obama. A stronger sentence would be: "Feminist and LGBT activists expressed outrage following Wednesday's announcement that Barack Obama had invited Reverend Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor of California's Saddleback Churck, to deliver the inovacation at the inauguration ceremony on Januray 20th."
But that's fine. It doesn't have to mean they're yet again giving Barack a pass and make it appear things just happen and not as if he is in any way ever responsible for the decisions he makes. It could just be rushed writing.
Paragraphs two and three are embarrassments and insults.
Paragraph two quotes from a letter to Barack from HRC's Joe Solmonese. And to be clear, "Joe" is a man. It's not "Jo" like Little Women. You may be thinking, "Well, sure they could have found a lesbian to quote but . . ." If that's what you're thinking, stop. That's not my problem with the item.
Paragraph three moves on to Ellie Smeal. It involves Warren's statements against abortion and opens claiming Ellie's "expressed feminist concern". Really?
By focusing on abortion?
If you're a drive-by, you may be confused and may be thinking, "That C.I. is anti-choice." I'm not. I'm 100% pro-choice. I'm 100% pro-abortion. I believe every woman has a right to make the decision for herself and I extend those rights to any woman who is pregnant. I don't care if she's 51 or 13. It is her body and it is her choice. I do not support parental notification.
So what's my issue with the brief from Feminist Wire?
I believe it's the point Ava and I have tried to give voice to repeatedly because we have yet to speak to a women's group in 2008 where the issue wasn't raised by at least once woman. And when the one woman raises it, others agree. Some grasp the offense for the first time.
Way back in the fall of 2007, Barack was putting homophobes on stage in South Carolina. And no one really wanted to call it out outside of the HRC and some other LGBT groups. Good for those that called it out and I'm in no way attempting to insult them.
But my concern is with feminism. And my concern then was the silence on Barack's use of homophobia (silence that continued in the general election campaign when Barack put a homophobe on his swing-state 'values' tour).
See, here's the reality. Outside of the thankfully dead Ego Of Us All, second-wave feminists knew lesbians were a part of the feminist movement. Certainly those feminists that were lesbians knew it, but we all knew it. We all knew it and we were all proud of it. We were an inclusive movement. And in standing together, we were strong.
So 2008 wasn't very pretty for feminist leadership and you can go talk with any women's group around the country and, as you explore 2008's events, at some point one woman will bring up the homophobia used by Team Obama. And when she does, the reaction is either others agreeing and saying they noticed it as well or others apologizing and saying they're sorry because until right now they really hadn't confronted it or know about it.
That's a real indictment of 'leadership.' Leadership should have been calling out the homophobia. Leadership should have been demanding that homophobia have no role in a campaign. But they didn't do a damn thing, not one damn thing.
And now Feminist Wire does a brief that sets up the equation as: LGBT/feminists call out Rick Warren. Note the "/" which means "or" (though the New York Times never grasps that when they cover their own polls "New York Times/CBS News poll"). Note that a man is brought in to call out the homophobia and then Ellie Smeal shows up to address a "feminist concern."
Excuse the hell out of me, how many times is Smeal going to present that way. Homophobia is a feminist concern. The entire brief is "/" where on one side you have gay issues and on the other you have feminist issues.
That s**t needs to stop and it needs to stop right now.
It's been insulting to many women. Certainly to lesbians but what Smeal and others don't seem to grasp is that grassroots feminists aren't drawing the divisions that she and Feminist Wire are. In fact, there's a real movement towards the kind of resistance and fire that dominated the start of second-wave feminism.
We don't need this crap from leadership. At a time when the grassroots has come together and is standing together, we don't need Ellie showing up -- or any 'leader' -- attempting to tell us that the feminist concern is abortion and, over there where that guy is talking about homophobia, that's the gay issue.
I was more than happy to note Feminist Wire and planned (until I read the e-mail) to make this entry about how they stood up and did the right thing. I'd have no problem with doing that tomorrow. But I'm not going to tolerate these self-defeating divisions that say, "Gay women, that's you're gay issue. It's not your feminist issue and we don't want to hear it." That's the message the brief sends. Is it intended? I spent months arguing it wasn't at the start of the year. I'm tired of defending that crap. There's no excuse for it. There was never any excuse for it. And it needs to stop and maybe part of the transfer of leadership will involve some out of the closet lesbians (they seem to exist everywhere but in the pages of Ms. magazine) to be invited up to the podium. I find it appalling that in the seventies this movement's leaders were more aware than they are today. But in the seventies, we took pride in honesty and didn't see ourselves as suck-ups to DC power. We made demands, we didn't beg on our knees. For all the talk of how we allegedly grow more radical with age nothing in the movement's tired and aged 'leadership' indicates that to be true.
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 4209. Which is the number it remains this week. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,297,997 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war, the same as the number they gave last week.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
feminist+wire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)