Saturday, March 21, 2009

Protests against the Iraq War

DC protest 2

Today people protested across the US. Muhammad Qasim (Islam Online) notes the March on the Pentagon in DC and quotes Sarah Sloan (A.N.S.W.E.R.) stating, "We are marching on the Pentagon and several Corporate War Profiteers on Saturday, March 21, because the people must speak out for what is right. More than 1 million Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of US troops have been wounded or killed since 2003." Qasim also notes:

The majority of Muslim-American organizations are also taking part in the Pentagon march.
"The main purpose of the march is to continue to apply pressure on our government to embrace a policy that disengages from the flaw in foreign policy that was initiated by the Bush Administration that launched a pre-emptive war against the people of Iraq and facilitated through US tax dollars a foreign policy that maintains an occupation in Afghanistan and Palestine," said Imam Mahdi Bray, Executive Director MAS Freedom Foundation.
"In short, we're marching to remind the new Obama Administration who campaigned on a policy of change in the Muslim world that the people of the US really want that change will bring about peace and stability in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other Muslim countries within the region."

Christina Hoag (AP) reports a large gathering in Los Angeles where Cindy Sheehan, Ron Kovice and Paul Haggis (Academdy Award winner of Best Screenplay for Crash). Sheehan was quoted stating, "We're pressing for a speedy end to the war."

Some of the violence reported today included . . .


Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an Amara roadside bombing on Friday which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three others injured and, also Friday, a Salahuddin Province fountain bombing which left Brig Mohammed Nejeeb injured. Reuters notes 2 roadside bombing on Friday in Baghdad which resulted in three people being injured.


Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 people were shot dead in Mosul clash.


Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.

While others take the day off, today's Washington Post offers Sudarsan Raghavan's "Iraq's Kurds Find Prosperity Breeds Distrust:"

On a hilltop overlooking this small Kurdish town, a sleek $28 million hospital rises like a cutting-edge sculpture. Inside, builder Sabah Melhem admired a European medical scanner gleaming under white fluorescent light. Virtually every room contains state-of-the-art equipment, unlike anywhere else in Iraq. "I hope in every city I can build a hospital like this," Melhem declared. "This is my dream."
Two floors down, it is apparent who helps to turn such dreams into reality: a larger-than-life photo of Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani looms over the entrance, a reminder of how much patronage still prevails in one of Iraq's most stable and developed regions.
Melhem is part of a generation of entrepreneurs driving the economic transformation of Kurdistan, as northern Iraq's Kurdish autonomous region is known. Many Iraqis say that a strong economy that allows sects and ethnic groups to share in the country's wealth is a vital path to stability. But below the surface of Kurdistan's prosperity, tensions are churning over who is benefiting from economic growth. The two ruling Kurdish political parties, America's staunchest allies in Iraq, dominate virtually every aspect of the regional economy, spawning conflicts of interest and corruption, according to Kurdish and U.S. officials.

Warning or heads up, at Third tomorrow morning (hopefully morning), Ava and I will be doing three pieces -- two on TV, one a Katrina. That's because we have to make an appearance at a party tonight and can then ditch it and everyone else wants to blow off some steam. So, to try to make sure we're not behind schedule, Ava and I'll start writing later tonight and knock out three articles. In addition to those three, there will be a roundtable, an editorial and Dona's got two ideas on short pieces (and there will be "Highlights"). By the way, that group includes Isaiah and he may or may not be in the mood or have the time to do a comic tomorrow -- he'll most likely be off tomorrow (and will return next Sunday).

The e-mail address for this site is

Sh, don't tell: US continues paying "Awakenings"

Yet again, no article filed from Iraq in today's New York Times. A lot of money being spent on . . . who knows what. McClatchy posted a video report from Baghdad yesterday. Meanwhile BBC reports that a video has been released showing Peter Moore and four other British contractors, kidnapped in May of 2007. The five have not been released and the only thing that is known at present is, as of eight days ago, Peter Moore is still alive.

Remember in October of last year as the waves of Operation Happy Talk kept insisting that the "Awakening" Councils had been turned over? They still haven't been. But Tim Cocks (Reuters) reports the US military is declaring that 90% of them have been turned over. There was no way for the press to independently verify that claim. Cocks writes, "Only about 10,000, all in the northern province of Salahuddin, remained to be handed over in the coming months." In the coming months? There was a deadline for this handover and it was publicized. Has everyone forgotten?

Cocks reports that approximately 50,000 of the estimated 90,000 "Awakening" members are on the payroll of the central government in Baghdad (that's not also independently verified) which would mean, if true, 40,000 are not and these who are not? al-Maliki will take over payment supposedly "between now and May" according to US Major General Mike Ferriter.

The following community sites have updated since last night (even if the listed post doesn't reflect that):

Cedric's Big Mix
Iraq roundtable
17 hours ago

The Daily Jot
17 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
17 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Talking Iraq
17 hours ago

17 hours ago

Ruth's Report
Roundtable on Iraq
17 hours ago

The World Today Just Nuts
Iraq Roundtable
17 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz
17 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
17 hours ago

The Common Ills
Iraq roundtable
18 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen
Roundtable on Iraq
18 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
cbs and brian have fun playing around
1 day ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
How stupid is Danny Schechter?
1 day ago

The e-mail address for this site is

thomas friedman is a great man

oh boy it never ends

Friday, March 20, 2009

Iraq roundtable

Rebecca: Welcome to the Friday Iraq roundtable.  This should be our fifth.  We've done these for the last six Fridays -- we skipped one Friday -- to help put a spotlight on the Iraq War and to note the March on the Penatagon which takes place tomorrow in DC.  We'll have more on that in a moment.  But we are in DC for tomorrow's March.  Today's if this posts on Saturday.  Participating tonight are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim and Ava;  me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;  C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;  Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot and Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts.  This roundtable will also be posted at the sites of Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,  Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. For Stan and Marcia, it's their first group trip to DC.  Ruth's also brought four grandchildren.  Tracey and Jayson have been here with all of us before but the other two are new to DC.  C.I. had offered to guest post at other sites if anyone wanted to go out and felt like they had to post as well.  Marcia asked if it would be possible just to cross-post the roundtable at her site and then the others agreed that was a great idea.  Jim's participating mainly to make sure C.I. doesn't talk about something Jim wants saved for Third on Sunday.  I am not joking.  Ty, Jess, Dona and Dallas are out with the gang seeing the nightlife in DC, in case anyone wonders.  Ava and C.I. are taking notes and will type this up.  This is a rush transcript.  With that lengthy intro, I can't imagine that I've forgotten anything.  Okay, where do we want to kick this off at?
Trina: I want to start with Kristoffer Walker because of the fact that I think it's an important issue and I also want to be sure it's covered at my site.  We don't have to go into great detail, I know Jim wants a piece at Third, but I do want it noted and noted at the start.
Rebecca: No problem, Trina.  We're going to toss to Ava for the background.
Ava: Okay, Kristoffer Walker is a 28-year-old Iraq War veteran. He had attempted to get discharged through channels.  He was ignored.  He returned on a pass last month and declared that he would not be returning to Iraq.  He stated the Iraq War was illegal and immoral.   Upon returning home, he advised the military of his decision and saw his local Guard to see about duties he might be able to do but was cursed out there.  The Associated Press covered his story and was the only national domestic news source to do so.  That includes small media and I have to leave it at that on that because we will be addressing that at Third.  This week he was back in the news.  With the military threatening and -- my opinion -- little supoort, he decided to return to Iraq.  He is still opposed to the illegal war and stands by his statements.
Mike: This really ticked off my mother, this topic.
Rebecca: Trina is Mike's mother.
Mike: Right, sorry.  And he didn't get any support, Ava's right.  Courage to Resist, for example, an organization that is supposed to get the word out on service members who resist, never mentioned him.  We're talking weeks where he wasn't mentioned.  Media ignored him.  It was disgusting.  And they ignored him after he announced his decision.
Wally: And to be really clear here, AP covered that and covered him.  Other than them, he was covered by Wisconsin media.  He was also covered by right-wing websites which slammed him repeatedly.  Can I toss to you on that, Jim?
Jim: Sure.  C.I. covered Kristoffer repeatedly at The Common Ills --
C.I.: Interrupting to note that Jim and Dona filled in for me the night of the Academy Awards and they covered it the night they filled in.  That was the first time it was covered at The Common Ills.  Credit where it's due.
Jim: Thank you.  But C.I. covered it repeatedly.  And because of that, the nasty e-mails came in.  Dona and I help out with the e-mails at the public account for The Common Ills.  There are others who help out like Jess, Martha, Shirley, Eli, Ava and C.I.  But there were really disgusting e-mails.  On Kristoffer Walker, on C.I. for covering Kristoffer.  And they'd usually note, these nasty e-mails, what this right-wing web site said or that one said.  To be clear, no right-wing blogger, that I know of, e-mailed to attack.  But it was obvious that the right-wing was covering Kristoffer Walker and, as is their inclination, they were slamming him.  So with no left defense, he was pretty much on his own.
Trina: There's a mother that writes me regularly.  Her son self-checked out and has gone elsewhere, outside of the US, not to Canada, and is now engaged to a woman in that country.  He's been 'underground' bascially this whole time and hopefully he'll be able to go above ground after the wedding.  But, she wrote just outraged each week over the refusal by so many media outlets to cover Kristoffer Walker and she was especially outraged by the silence. As am I.  
Rebecca: It really was something and I tossed to Ava because she could do background but nothing else.  Ditto C.I.  The reason is Jim wants a piece on it for Third and if we run out of time or can't get it to work when we're writing it, he wants Ava and C.I. to be prepared to grab it in their TV piece. 
Jim: If I could add one more thing.  A number of e-mails came into The Common Ills on KPFA and I am lobbying Ava and C.I. to do two features -- the second would be on KPFA's hideous performance this week that just played out like a "We do not deserve tax payer funding."
Rebecca: I agree that would be interesting.  Let's turn to stop-loss.  Isaiah hasn't spoken and said he wasn't sure how much help he'd be so let me toss to him to give us some background on stop-loss.
Isaiah: Stop-loss is the backdoor draft.  You enlist and you sign a contract.  Say for eight years.  That would usually mean six years of service and two years inactive at the end of your contract.  In many cases, when your contract was coming to an end for active duty service, you would be informed you had been stop-lossed.  In other cases, your contract might be up.  C.I. had this in the snapshot but pulled it because there wasn't enough room, the snapshot was too many K, but look at Camilo Mejia.  His contract had completely expired.  He was serving in Iraq and he was stop-lossed there. 
Jim: If I could, I'll recommend Kimberly Peirce's Stop-Loss which was insulted by KPFA today, by two people, as C.I.'s pointed out in replies to e-mails complaining about Aimee and her guest's little stunt, who didn't know what they were talking about.  I don't just mean about the film, I mean about stop-loss.  They may get busted by C.I. and Ava and I'm pushing for that.
Elaine: I'll jump in because I know Ava and C.I. can't address this subjet -- in case they're covering it Sunday at Third.  As C.I. pointed out in today's snapshot, Robert Gates has repeatedly said the army would work to eliminate stop-loss.  It hasn't happened yet.  Nor is he making a promise that will cease.  The best, kicking out all qualifiers, is he can guarantee a few months will not utilize stop-loss.  Thomas E. Ricks has also pointed out that when stop-loss is supposedly being phased out, Robert Gates is out of the job as Secretary of Defense so it will actually be the next Secretary of Defense that will be over it.
Trina: To me, it's still the same thing it always is which is Barack gets applauded for doing nothing.  A vague announcement is made and everyone tosses aside the vagueness and cheers madly. 
Wally: Exactly.  You've got liars praising Barack for something that, if it happens, IF, will not happen until January 2010.  This is insane.  It's the lazy child theory that C.I.'s friend was talking about.
Trina: Exactly.  You sit there and praise the lazy child for something they say they will do and then, because they got their praise, they avoid doing a damn thing.  How about we start waiting to see what's happening, to see something implemented, see if it's done?
Mike: I will not say whether it is a sister or brother but I will say my mother knows of what she speaks.  I have a sibling that you do not praise for what will be becuase if you do ___ will not do what ____ said they would. 
Elaine: You can take it to a relationship as well -- a love relationship.  Think of the guy you dated who never did a thing.  Think of how he meant to get you flowers for Valentine's Day or he meant to take you out to eat on your birthday or whatever.  That is one of the most common problems among women that I have seen in all my years of practice.  I always advise the same thing, which is what Trina's advocating right now, don't praise.  Don't say, "Oh, that's so nice that you were going to" whatever.  They get that bit of nice and they don't care.  This isn't all men.  It's not Mike and it's probably 2% of the men I've been involved with.  But I think probably 65% of women can tell you of at least one relationship they've had where this took place.
Ava: I would agree with that and include myself on that list; however, I'm not talking about Jess, I'm talking about before I was involved with Jess.
Rebecca: Okay.  The sixth anniversary of the illegal was Thursday.  Saturday actions take place.  The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains:        

IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st  
As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)        
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.     
For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: or    
Rebecca (Con't): So that's Saturday afternoon.  If you're not in one of the cities listed above that doesn't mean there's not an action in your area.  I'm going to swipe this from C.I.'s snapshot today, "In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas.  Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports  'the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth'." So that's another event and there will be events in most areas.  I want to talk about the People's Mujahideen of Iran, though, right now.  I know very little of them.  I know C.I. was holding to give time for the issue to be addressed and I know they appeared in today's snapshot so I want to discuss them.
C.I.: Okay, they've been in Iraq for approximately 23 years.  They are Iranians.  After the Shah was overthrown, they were welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein who was not fond of Iran, to put it mildly.  They have remained in Iraq all this time.  Some countries see them as a terrorist organization.  They have publicly renounced violence and the European Union decided not to list them as terrorists; however, the US continues to list them as such.  That's more of a Bush era determination.  I'm not saying that Barack's administration will change the listing -- or should -- I'm trying to make it clear as to what's going on.  If there's a question, ask because I don't know how indepth we want to get on this?
Mike: Okay, Let me ask about the State Dept.  I know this but for late comers. 
Elaine: Let's back up a second.  C.I. was asked by friends in the current administration not to write about this topic while they were attempting to deal with it.  Right after the election, this became a huge problem in Iraq.  And they were not in power, the new administration, and it was just a huge mess.  C.I. agreed -- and this was noted at The Common Ills -- not to weigh in until February unless the refugees were attacked.  You had Arianna's motley crue of uninformed bloggers weighing in at some point with alarmist posts that never include facts but make appeals to base emotions via 'creative' writing.  C.I. stayed out of it until March.   Until today.  So let's start with why today?
C.I.: The Iraqi government made clear that they want the People's Mujahideen of Iran out of Iraq.  They're asking for other countries to take them in.  That means that it's an issue that has to be addressed now.  Mike, you were asking about the State Dept?
Mike: Right.  Talk about what was going on then and what's going on now.
C.I.: Well then was Bush.  The State Dept knew the flare up was coming, the military knew it and was advising on it.  They had months and months worth of heads up and they refused, the Bush White House, refused to address the situation.  As Elaine pointed out, it finally flared up after the election and before Barack was sworn in.  Even the flare up didn't prompt the Bush White House into action.  A number of people at the State Department had prepared various options over the summer. The Bush administration wasn't interested then or at anytime else.  I've even been told there was a certain glee over the fact that the flare up was taking place as the handover to Barack was about to take place.
Mike: Glee on the part of the Bush administration.
C.I.: Yes.  Though not yet sworn in, this was one of the many foreign policy issues regarding Iraq that the Barack administration was discussing.  They have various ideas and I have no idea which one they're getting behind but they are going to have to do something now that Iraq's government is saying the refugees have to leave.  And "they are going to have to do something now" is not my attempting that they have dragged their feet.  This is a very complicated issue and the US military has been able to protect the refugee camp.  But that can't go on forever and it's not fair to the US military because the surrounding areas want the refugees out so it's only antagonizing relationships in that area, it's only builidng up ill will for US forces.  So the refugees are in danger, al-Maliki wants them out and the US forces are risking garnering more animosity for protecting the Iranian refugees.  For those three reasons, something has to be done.  Now, one thing that can be done, is to talk to Nouri al-Maliki and make it clear that he needs to back off.  If that happens, there may be more time to address the situation.  But by sending out his spokespeople to make the announcement and with Iran's reaction -- they want the Iranian refugees out of the region -- not just out of Iraq -- unless they're going to be able to try them.  So by sending out his spokespeople and with Iran's public reaction,the stakes got raised and in many ways it's worse than when the violence was more intense a few weeks ago, violence aimed at the refugees. 
Mike: So what do you think will be done or what you guess will be done?
C.I.: I have no idea.  I believe several options are being worked right now with the hopes that traction will start on one of them.  If you want my opinion on what the Barack administration would prefer right now, it would be getting al-Maliki to cool down and back off the they-must-leave talk.  Doing that would allow  more time for the US to go into talks with other countries about accepting the refugees.
Wally: Can the refugees come here?
C.I.: Children and women, possibly.  Not likely.  But possibly.  That was the opinion of State -- career employees -- under the previous administration and they continue to think maybe.  But it's a weaker maybe now because Bush, as a Republican, might have been able to sell it to Congressional Republicans.  Democrats might not like it but, out of humanitarian desires, might have allowed it.  But Barack's a Democrat.  He really can't propose that they come over and not expect major objections from the Republicans.  They are still considered a terrorist group, that's how the US  lists them.  So it's very unlikely that under Barack, any could come to the US.  The Republican reaction would most likely be to take the floor and denounce this admission of 'terrorists.'  I'm not saying they're terrorists, I'm not saying they're not.  They are refugees.  I don't think that can be debated.  It also can't be debated that the US has classified them as terrorists because that is the classification.  So I don't see them coming here.  Not in the current climate.  You would have Republicans going on TV, they would make this Guantanamo issue. With Guantanamo, the talking point -- the Republican talking point is, "These are terrorists!  Barack's making us unsafe!"  Forget the fact that nothing's been closed and no one's been set free.  But that's the talking point.  They would combine that if the People's Mujahideen of Iran were allowed -- even in part -- to come to the US.  They would tie it together and go to town on it.  So, my opinion, it's not likely. 
Wally: You're not taking an opinion on whether they're terrorists or not?
C.I.: No.  I'm not disputing that they are classifed as such by the US government.  But I'm not making a call on whether that's appropriate or not.  That's me.  Anyone in the community that wants to make a call one way or the other is welcome to do so.
Trina: You made a point in the snapshot that needs to be repeated here.  This needs to be dealt with now while US forces are on the ground.  Talk about that.
C.I.: The US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees alive. There is tremendous ill will towards them in the region their camp is.  A small drawdown of approximately 10,000 US forces are supposed to take place between now and December 31st.  If violence flares up before or after or if al-Maliki needs US forces for another assault on Basra, you're putting the refugees at risk.  Ideally, before any drawdown begins, this should be taken care of because its been ignored and ignored.  And Iraq's now made a decision.  That decision is the Iranian refugees leave.  The US nees to faciliate that. 
Trina: And you're not saying that US forces should remain for a longer period or anything like that.
C.I.: No.  I'm saying the issue has been pushed by al-Maliki and has to be dealt with, that the US forces are the only thing that have kept the refugees safe and that the issue of their departure now has to be managed.  The only thing that would change that would be al-Maliki backing off. 
Ava: And if he did, he wouldn't be trust worthy.  He's blown that with the US.  They're very wary of what he might do in the lead up to the planned December elections.
Rebecca: Good point.  I think we're going to wrap up.  I'm going to let Isaiah and Trina give some closing thoughts or a topic we didn't grab that the might want to now.
Isaiah: Trina's nodding to me so I'll just say I can't believe what's going on.  I can't believe how little attention the sixth anniversary of the start of the illegal war has received this week.  I really think that if the left doesn't get over their infatuation with Barack real quick this country's going to be in huge trouble.
Trina: I would agree with Isaiah.  Daniel Ellsberg has been pointing out that the illegal war is not ending and he is being ignored.  Outlets that couldn't miss a word he said when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House now work overtime to ignore him.  It's very telling and very sad.  I would encourage everyone to get active tomorrow.
Rebecca: Well said.  Thank you to everyone for participating.  We're going to wind down now.  I can tell you that three topics discussed will be pulled by Jim because he wants them covered at Third.

Iraq snapshot

Friday, March 20, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, an Abu Ghraib lawsuit can proceed, media coverage of the sixth anniversary is sparse (but out there if you hunt), things heat up in England, and more.
"It is now six years since we went into Iraq," writes Rose Gentle (UK's Military Families Against The War).  "On June 28th it will be five years to the day since I lost my boy.  It's a day I can't get away from.  I can remember watching the news when it said that a British soldier had been killed.  I looked at the TV and saw the body of a boy on the ground.  No, it can't be Gordon, I thought, as I would have been told by now.  But it was.  Four hour later I was told it was Gordon."  Gordon Gentle died June 28, 2004 at the age of 19, in a Basra roadside bombing.  Rose Gentle concludes, "One day we will know why we went there and we can all make up our own minds.  But as a mum I have to know now."  Rose Gentle is not the only one asking for answers.  Nigel Morris (Independent of London) reports Carne Ross ("formerly Britain's top Iraq specialist at the United Nations) joined the cry "for a full public inquiry into the war" yesterday.  The BBC informs that Brian Jones ("former senior defense intelligence expert") "also made the case for a public inquiry and shared that before the illegal war started he had already complained about the false claims the Tony Blair government was pushing such as Iraq's supposed WMDs.  Monday  Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reported 72% of respondents in a new BBC survey support an inquiry into the Iraq War.  BBC explained that the 18-24 years-old group supports an inquiry by 81%.  Last week, government e-mails from the period leading up to the illegal war were released demonstrating that the case Tony Blair was making for war was not valid and that these bogus claims were called out by intelligence experts.
The release of those e-mails followed the February 26th declarations made by John Hutton, UK Sec of Defense, on the floor of the House of Commons:
During the final stages of the review of records of detentions, we found information about one case relating to a security operation that was conducted in February 2004, a period which honorable members I'm sure will recall saw an increased level of insurgent activity as the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty drew closer.  During this operation, two individuals were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad.  They were transferred to US detention in accordance with normal practice and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan.  This information was brought to my attention on the first of December, 2008.  And I instructed officials to investigate this case thoroughly and quickly so I could bring a full account to Parliament.  Following consultations with US authorities we confirmed that they transferred these two individuals from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2004 and they remain in custody there today.  I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department.  I want to stress however that this was based upon the information available to ministers and those who were briefing them at the time.  My predecessors as secretaries of state for defense have confirmed to me that they had no knowledge of these events.  I have written to the honorable members concerned, correcting the record, and am placing a copy of these letters also in the library of the house.  And again, Madame Deputy Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for these errors.  The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Laskar-e-Taiba, a proscribed organization with links to al Qaeda.  The US government has explained to us that they were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq.  The US has categorized them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis.  We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross has had regular access to the detainees.  A due diligence search by the US officials of the list of all those individuals captured by UK forces  and transferred to US detention facilities in Iraq has confirmed that this was the only case in which individuals were subsequently transferred outside of Iraq.  This review has established that officials were aware of this transfer in early 2004.  It has also shown that brief references to this case were included in lengthy papers that went to then-Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary in April 2006.  It is clear that the context provided did not highlight the significance at that point to my right honorable friends.  In retrospect, it is clear to me that the transfer to Afghanistan of these two individuals should have been questioned at the time. We have discussed the issues surrounding this case with the US government and they have reassured us about their treatment but confirmed that, as they continue to represent significant security concerns, it is neither possible or desirable to transfer them to either their country of detention or their country of origin.  
There has been no oversight or accountability with the illegal war.  As this has continued to be the case, public outraged has boiled resulting in the large majority who want a full and public inquiry into the Iraq War.  Gordon Gentle is one of 179 British soldiers who have died in the illegal war.
This morning, USA Today's Susan Page filled in as host on The Diane Rehm Show.  Iraq was brought up in the second hour and the discussion included: 
Susan Page: Yesterday was the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and it's interesting that looking for what stories might be on the front page today they deal more with the politics in Iraq than with the war and violence.  I wonder, Michael Hirsh, at this moment, do we see the war actually coming to an end?
Michael Hirsh (Newsweek): Well I don't know if I would go quite that far but, um, but the Washington Post [click here for Anthony Shadid article Hirsh is referring to] did have did have an excellent piece on the front page this morning, summing up how new coalitions seem to be forming, cutting across sectarian lines with Prime Minister Maliki bringing some important Sunni politicians onto his side.  And uh that -- it's remarkable the amount of progress that has occured.
Karen DeYoung (Washington Post): I think that it's not that it's how much violence can be -- is tolerable.  You had Prime Minister Maliki last week in an interview coming back from Australia saying that he expected to ask the American troops to stay in certain places even after combat troops were supposed to withdraw and I would presume that would be around Mosul where al Qaeda is - has withdrawn too.  Perhaps in Diyala.  Places  where you still see a relatively high level of violence.  But I think the question of "Is the war over or not?" it depends  on what is toleratable level and that obviously is relative to what was clearly an intolerable level before.
Yochi Dreazen (Wall St. Journal): You know statistics obviously lie and are deceptive but there are some that are really striking.  One that sticks out in my mind that pertains to this is the casulty level in January.  The number of troops who died in Iraq was smaller signficantly than who died in Afghanistan but also smaller significantly, unfortunately, than the number who committed suicide.  So six years in, you not only have Afghanistan outstripping it but in some months military suicide outstrips the death toll in Iraq which when you think about where we were a year ago, two years ago, is a staggering change.
What?  The suicide rate did not hold steady, it has climbed and climbed to the point that it is now a crisis as was admitted this week in the Congressional hearing.  Yochi's first sentence sounds like the clue that he's about to use statistics that are deceptive.  They also go to the fact that journalists are not social scientists and are not trained in much more than note taking.  You need months and months to track a pattern.  What Yochi is 'observing' may or may not be pattern.  It may be a blip.  But no social scientist would call it a pattern at this point.  Only a general studies major would.  Yochi can take comfort in the fact that something else happened that was so jaw droppingly appalling, his own sleight-of-hand with the numbers probably faded from memory quickly. 
Susan Page: Talk about the treatment of US soldiers this week we had an important announcement by the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about a committment to phase out this policy of stop-loss that is so controversial.  Michael Hersh tell us exactly what stop-loss is?
Michael Hirsh: Well that was a program the Bush administration put in place to extend the deployments of US soldiers beyond uh there alotted one year, two years and, uh, Gates in announcing the end of this described it basically as you know as a breach of the understanding the Defense Department had with its troops. During the worst years of the Iraqi insurgency from 2004, [200]5, [200]6 and [200]7 say, through that period there were, there were a lot of concerns that you might be gutting the army, that the career officers, particularly NCOs, non-coms, would start to leave because they were being asked to do more than they had in the past which was to do --  string together three overseas deployments in a row.  So Gates is putting a stop to that and he's able to do it  because of this draw down plan and because of the increased stability of the country.
Suddenly everyone else looks like a genius.  Note to Hirsh, it is perfectly acceptable to use the sentence, "I don't know."  In fact, that sentence is preferrable to, "Let me b.s. my way through an answer over the airwaves."  This has nothing to do with three overseas deployments in a row.  In its earliest usage in the Iraq War (and it predates George W. Bush which Hirsh also seems unaware of), it was used not to bring troops back into a theater of war but to keep them there.  Camilo Mejia was in the earliest group of soldiers stop-lossed.  The 'war' on 'terror' 'required' he be stop-lossed for over ten years.  (That wasn't legal in any way with Camilo's case.  Many issues applied and even a court that upheld stop-loss would have to address how it did not cover Camilo.)  Camilo was in Iraq when he was stop-lossed. He was not home and deployed to Iraq.  Where Hirsh is getting his 'information' is something only he can answer.  He appears to either be pulling it out of thin air or his butt.  We could continue to correct him but the program did self-correcting while broadcasting.  Susan would note later in the hour (this is the second hour of today's show and about 14 minutes in) that they had gotten twitters and e-mails and she would ask Yochi Dreazen to explain stop-loss.  He would note it came about after Vietnam, used in "the first Gulf War but not to the degree that it was used in the Iraq War. What it means is when you commit to serve in the US army, you typically committ to do a five or six year committment [of active service, C.I. note] so if you go in 18 you would serve out until you're 24 and then you could do whatever you wanted to do, re-enlist or leave.  What stop loss does is it prevents you from leaving.  So if you want to leave the Army, if you want to leave the Marine Corps, you can't the Army can keep you in some what indefinately though typically it's been six months to a year of extra service And what that means is if you want to get out of the army, you've done two tours in Iraq, your marriage is falling apart, whatever the issue, you can't do it. This is the policy John Kerry described in 2004 as a backdoor draft. because it forces you to serve when you don't want to serve."  Susan Page would then note, "Secretary Gates didn't say that there would be absolutely no one effected by stop-loss but that he would restrict the number that get caught in this."
Thank you, Susan Page.  All week long we've heard these lies of stop-loss is ending!  It's over!  Not really.  Let's go first to the official announcement from the Defense Dept:

The Department of Defense announced today a comprehensive plan to eliminate the current use of Stop Loss, while retaining the authority for future use under extraordinary circumstances.  This is an important step along the path in adapting the Army into an expeditionary force. 

The Army Reserve and Army National Guard will mobilize units without employing  Stop Loss beginning in August and September 2009, respectively.  The Regular (active duty) Army will deploy its first unit without Stop Loss by January 2010. 

For soldiers Stop Lossed during fiscal 2009, the department will provide a monthly payment of $500.   Until the department is able to eliminate Stop Loss altogether, this payment will serve as an interim measure to help mitigate its effects.

"Stop Loss disrupts the plans of those who have served their intended obligation.  As such, it is employed only when necessary to ensure minimal staffing in deploying units, when needed to ensure safe and effective unit performance," said Bill Carr, deputy under secretary of defense for military personnel policy.  "It is more easily rationalized in the early stages of conflict when events are most dynamic; but tempo changes in this war have frustrated our efforts to end it altogether."  

The department intends to provide Stop Loss Special Pay to eligible service members until the point of separation or retirement, to include that time spent on active duty in recovery following redeployment.  Stop Loss Special Pay will begin on the date of implementation, and will take effect for those impacted on or after Oct. 1, 2008.

Stop Loss Special Pay implements the authority granted by Section 8116 of the "Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriation Act, 2009."  The appropriation is available to secretaries of the military departments only to provide Special Pay during fiscal 2009. 

That's Wednesday March 18th.  Now let's go to what Gates said exactly about stop-loss. 
Secretary Gates: Good afternoon.  Today I have three major announcements to make.  First, since assuming this position, I've wanted to dramatically reduce the number of soldiers who are stop-lossed.  As of the end of January, there were 13,200 soldiers in stop-loss.  I am pleased to announce that I have approved a plan to eliminate the use of stop-loss for deploying soldiers.  Effective this August, the US Army Reserve will no longer mobilize units under stop-loss; the Army National Guard will stop doing so in September, and active Army units will cease deplying with stop-loss starting next January.  Our goal is to cut the number of those stop-lossed by 50 percent by June 2010 and to eliminate the regular use of stop-loss across the entire Army by March 2011.  We will retain the authority to use stop-loss under extraordinary circumstances.
And the legal definition of "extraordinary circumstances"?  Thus far the courts have held that the answer to that is "the US military says so."  So don't expect any end to stop-loss.   We noted this nonsense Wednesday and assumed people had followed the story.  Few could even get their facts right.  So let's walk this through slowly.  Jeff Schogol (Stars and Stripes) reported Jan. 27, 2007: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates has instructed all branches of the service to minimize the controversial 'stop-loss' program, under which U.S. troops can be involuntarily kept in the service for deployments."  And how was this minimize wish (the same thing the Defense Dept wants now) received in the press? Roxana Tiron (The Hill) filed "Pentagon cuts stop-loss" January 25, 2007.  What actually happened was that stop-loss was accelerated.  But, hey, the headlines were so pleasing who bothered to count the numbers?  Pauline Jelinek (AP) reported at that time (January 29, 2007): "Gates has asked the chief of each service branch for a plan by the end of February on how they would rely less on stop loss."  I could be wrong on this but my understanding was that it was only the Army that was utilizing stop-loss -- only the army beginning in 2003.  Other branches have used it since Vietnam but I'm referring to its current incarnation. Gates comments Wednesday applied only to the Army.  If other branches are using it (I don't believe they are currently), Gates' speech wouldn't cover those branches.
On WAMU's Metro today, the issue of dignified transfer was addressed. David Furst explained "a new Pentagon policy allows news organizations to photograph the homecomings of fallen service members -- if families agree."  He further noted that Gates declared (Wednesday) that arrangements would be made for families who wanted to be present.  Kavitha Cardoza spoke with four Marines who received the fallen and their feelings were that they were a part of something honorable.   General requirements include that they need to be physically fit and approximately the same height  (within four inches) and training is eight hours a week.  A phone call alerts them when a dignified transfer will be taking place and they report.  They spoke of the process which for them includes reporting not knowing who will be arriving at Dover, walking up and seeing the coffins "on the side of the plane lined up, metal caskets with a flag over it . . . in person it's different," there's a prayer and the coffins are transferred with the Army going first.  Cardoza then spoke with Furst about details she observed about the Marines handling the transfer:  
". . .  they were so young, you know, they just had baby faces.  There was one -one man actually , he was 19. And we were interrupted a few times talking, so I lost my train of thought.  And so I said, 'Where was I?'  And he started laughing and said,  'Ma'am, you were telling me how young I looked'."
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Divsion- Center Soldier died March 19 from non-combat related causes. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4260 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Another death and on the sixth anniversary. This as the Seattle Times reports that next month there will be ceremonies for South Dakota's Army National Guard's 300 members who are deploying to Iraq ("for a year"). No, the Iraq War has not ended.  No, the US service members have not all come home.
Saturday, those wanting to call out the illegal war can join with groups such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains:        

IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st
As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)        
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.     
For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: or    
In addition, IVAW's Dustin Alan Parks has organized a demonstration in Fort Worth, Texas.  Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports  "the Rock Bottom Peace March" will take place "at 10 a.m. in General Worth Square in downtown Fort Worth".  Kristy Kuhn (Deseret News) reports that Iraq War veterans spoke out at Salt Lake Main Library yesterday where the message was that the US is occupying Iraq and doing so for profit -- no liberation involved.  Jeff Key is quoted stating, "People are getting extraordinarily rich off the blood of the soldiers."  Heather Lockwood (Scripps Howard Foundation Wire) reports DC Students for a Democratic Society (DC chapter of SDS) protested last night with "loud funk music" and quotes Lehana Penaramda stating, "Basically the message is war is a waste of our youth."  That was yesterday (and there were many other events) but on Wednesday  the Grannies Peace Brigade stood up against the Iraq War with a demonstration in NYC.  They explain what happened:

Relax, everyone! The New York City police are solidly on the job these days. With rapists, murderers, bank robbers and dope peddlers, not to mention corporate thieves, rampant throughout the City, they made a significant dent in the crime statistics yesterday, March 18, when they arrested seven grandmothers aged 67 to 90 in Times Square.             
The grannies, all members of the Granny Peace Brigade, were sent to jail while protesting at the Times Square recruiting station. Their arrest occurred during what is believed to be the first antiwar protest of the Obama Administration, in an attempt to urge the President to reconsider his decision to retain 50,000 troops in Iraq after the official withdrawal scheduled to be completed in the next 18 months and his order for 17,000 more troops sent to Afghanistan. The women feel strongly that these measures will only result in increased death and destruction for Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis and further solidify anti-American feeling throughout the world. Said 94-year-old Brigadier Marie Runyon, "Peace can only be achieved through diplomacy and humanitarian aid." The Granny Peace Brigade women are mostly strong supporters of Barack Obama but were responding to his request that his constituency pressure him to do the right thing when they feel he is on the wrong path.            
The Brigade is not new to demonstrating at the Times Square recruiting station -- eighteen of the grannies were arrested and jailed on Oct. 17, 2005, when they attempted to enlist in the military to replace America's grandchildren in harm's way in Iraq. After a six-day trial in criminal court, they were acquitted.
The seven grannies were arrested at approximately 1:45 p.m. and taken to the Midtown South police precinct. They were not all released until early the next morning, a total of approximately 12 hours. Some of them became shaky and weak after many hours of not eating, but were given no food for another hour and a half.              
Prior to the arrest, about 50 grannies and their supporters gathered on Military Island at which a press conference was held including speeches by mayoral candidate Rev. Billy, legendary Broadway actress and activist Vinie Burrows (one of the original 18 granny jailbirds), and a young member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Matthis Chiroux. A sister group, the Raging Grannies, performed some of their original anti-war songs.                    
During the press conference, grandmothers wrapped yellow police crime scene tape around the ramp near the recruiting center, after which a group, some in wheelchairs and hanging on to walkers, assembled on the ramp leading to the center.          
The team of Norman Siegel and Earl Ward, who successfully defended the grannies in 2005, will represent them in their current case, for which the grandmothers are profoundly grateful. Siegel, currently a candidate for New York City Public Advocate, is a favorite of the ladies for his continuous support of them.
Matthis also took part in an action in NYC yesterday.  Jennifer Mascia and Jason Grant (NYT online) quote him explaining, "Obama's policies just confirmed to me that the president may hvae changed, but the war is the same.  Just because we have a black president now, doesn't mean that we don't have a racist war."
Meanwhile, in Iraq, the illegal war has created a refugee crisis number over four million internal and external refugees.  That estimate does not include a group of Iranian refugees who have been in Iraq since long before the start of the illegal war.  Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reports that these refugees, the People's Mujahideen of Iran, find themselves unwelcomed by the new Shi'ite controlled government "which has mostly warm times with neighbouring Shi'ite Iran" and that al-Maliki's government is now asking that other countreis take them in, "Human rights groups say forcing the 3,500 PMOI members out of their base at Camp Ashraf in northeastern Iraq would violate international law."  Iran's Press TV notes, "Iran has long called for the expulsion of MKO members from their headquarters and training center, Camp Ashraf, in Iraq.  Tehran says the members of the group who do not have blood on their hands are allowed to return home but others have to stand trial in Iran."  Meanwhile, in England, a protest is taking place.  Aidan Jones (London Informer) reports that the country's Iraqi Embassy is the site of a protest by exiles in England who are calling for the refugee camp in Iraq to remain open. One protestor, Fatemeh, is quoted stating, "The Iraqis say they want to close the camp.  If they close it thousands of people will be sent back to Iran where they will certainly face jail, if not death because the government there sees them as traitors."  Al Arabiya News adds, "In 2001 the group renounced violence paving the way for the European Court of First Instance to rule in Dec. 12, 2006 against the inclusion of PMOI on the European Union's 'terrorist list'."  At present, the US lists the group as a terrorist organization.  The listing may or may not change under the Barack Obama administration.  At present, these refugees have been protected by US forces.  Actions taken in the last year (especially at the end of the year) have made it clear that without US protection, the refugee camp would have turned into a slaughterhouse.  Whether or countries will take them in or not, the issue must be addressed while the US is present.  Most issues should (my opinion) be decided by Iraqis because it is their country.  The decisions of their puppet government and of the ones launching attacks on the camp are the Iranian refugees must go.  The US (and the State Dept knows this) must faciliate the next moves because the US military has been the only thing keeping the refugees alive.  The George W. Bush administration allowed this situation to fester and refused to address it.  It exploded after the 2008 election and Barack Obama's administration has been attempting to figure out viable options to address the safety concerns of these refugees.  This is a problem that was dumped on the current administration.  I am not a rescuer of Barack Obama.  I have no problem holding him or his administration accountable.  However, this is a problem that the State Dept was aware was boiling and about to explode and they were aware of that as early as June of last year.  The then-administration refused to deal with it even when it was raised in talks about the Status Of Forces Agreement and the Security Agreement all last year and two months of 2007.  They knew this was going to explode and it did after the election.  It did not concern them and they did nothing -- not even casual exchanges -- on this issue.
The previous US administration also did a hideous job of assisting external Iraqi refugees.  That includes limiting the target numbers of Iraqi refugees who could be admitted to this country to a tiny, insulting number and still being unable to meet that target most years.  Whether the current administration will do better on admitting Iraqi refugees to the US or not is an unknown at this point.  (And if they stick to fiscal year figures, as the Bush administration did, they will be stuck with October, November and December of 2008 when Barack was not in the White House.)  What is known is that today the US State Dept announced that for 2009 fiscal year, $141 million dollars are being added to the $9 million  already promised.  The State Dept states the money will go to funding:
  • continued provision of emergency relief supplies to the most vulnerable Iraqis; 
  • rehabilitation of water systems for internally displaced persons and local communities in Iraq;                
  • informal education activities for Iraqi students unable to attend public schools in Jordan and Syria;           
  • school reconstruction to support the influx of Iraqi students into Syrian public schools;        
  • mental health services for displaced Iraqis;       
  • repairs to clinics in Iraq, including donation of medical equipment; and           
  • mobile health units for Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria.          
The bulk of the money is to go to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.  In May of last year, UNHCR noted they were $127 million short on money needed to assist the internal and external Iraqi refugees.
Today  Xinhua reports that the US bombed homes in Diyala Province last night and killed at least "13 suspected militants". Turning to other reported violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings which left three people wounded and a suicide bomber in Anbar Province who apparently "tried to attack Sheikh Hasnawi Efan" -- he was shot dead by police but a grenade the bomber tossed claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more wounded.  Reuters notes Thursday events -- "fierces clashes" in which the 10 people were shot dead in Baquba and a Ramadi roadside bombing which left three people injured.
In legal news, Bill Mears (CNN) reports that US District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has allowed a lawsuit against CACI over the torture at Abu Ghraib with 4 Iraqis stating that contractors took part in the torture "subjected them to beatings and mental abuse, then destroyed documents and video evidence and later misled officials about what was happening inside the facility."  The Center for Constitutional Rights notes:
The plaintiffs are Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, Sa'ad Hamza Hantoosh AI-Zuba'e and Salah Hasan Usaif Jasim Al-Ejaili – all of whom are Iraqi citizens who were released from Abu Ghraib between 2004 and 2008 without being charged with any crime.          
The former detainees are represented by attorneys Susan L. Burke, William T. O'Neil and William F. Gould of Burke O'Neil LLC, of Washington, D.C.; Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, PLC, of Troy, Mich.       
The lawsuit alleges that the CACI defendants not only participated in physical and mental abuse of the detainees, but also destroyed documents, videos and photographs; prevented the reporting of the torture and abuse to the International Committee of the Red Cross; hid detainees and other prisoners from the International Committee of the Red Cross; and misled non-conspiring military and government officials about the state of affairs at the Iraq prisons.
The sixth anniversary took place and where was the coverage?  Reduced to a daily headline by Amy Goodman.  (No, I haven't forgotten her, Ava and I address Pravda on the Hudson this weekend.)  Some did file reports yesterday.  "It's so deadly now for U.S. troops," Lara Logan reported on The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric yesterday (link has video and text), "that even rebuilding work has to be done at night. U.S. engineers work in the dark to repair a bridge that was blown up by terrorists." She was reporting from Mosul and, no, that doesn't sound like the Iraq War is ending. But that report didn't make it on ABC or NBC so those watching their evening broadcasts were fed 'comfort food' passed off as news. That was only one of the disturbing bits of reality Logan offered. Another was this, "What you can't see in Mosul are the Iraqi soldiers who captured the suspect and then handed him over to their U.S. counterparts. They asked not to be identified, for fear of being killed." The Iraqi soldiers are scared to be seen on camera. For fear of being killed.

And the spin is supposed to be "Iraq War Over, Rejoice!" It's an important report and Mosul overtook Baghdad for violence last year though few bothered to notice. (That does not mean things turned to milk & honey in Baghdad. It means Mosul grew ever more violent.)  Along with CBS Evening News, the only other broadcast news to offer Iraq coverage was PBS. The NewsHour's Ray Suarez moderated an Iraq roundtable (link has text and audio):

RAY SUAREZ: Let's go to some of our viewer questions. Armeney writes from Okemos, Mich.: "What's the probability that Shiite-Sunni strains will reemerge when the Americans downsize their forces? Will al-Qaeda in Iraq prey upon Sunni discontent to strike back at the Shiite government?" Ambassador, why don't you take that first?         

FEISTAL ISTRABADI: Well, I mean, you know, this of course is the $64,000 question. I don't think any serious observer of the Iraqi security and armed forces believe that they're going to be ready in June of this year or by the end of next year to provide security in Iraq. And what happens when the Americans withdraw?      
If I can comment on what was said a moment ago about Maliki taking on the militias in Basra; what he has done is taken on the Jaish al-Mahdi, the Sadrists - what we often call the Sadrist militia in Basra and in Baghdad. He has not yet taken on the militia of his principal coalition partner, in Baghdad, that is to say the militia of the Supreme Council - the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr brigade. And it's not clear that he can because much of the security forces are in the hands of the Badr brigade militia hierarchy.          
So we don't really have a taking on of militias in Iraq. What we have is a choosing of which militias are going to be in ascendancy in Iraq. And this is a real problem.
When American forces start to withdraw, if you still have several militias intact, which can get back to the business of slaughtering the other side's civilians, which is what we had in 2006 and 2007 - and that's my real fear for the future of Iraq in the immediate post-withdrawal.              

For the record, disarming the militias? Also a benchmark. For those playing on the home editions, that would be benchmark seven (disarming) and benchmark thirteen was ensuring that the militias do not have "control of local security." And these benchmarks? They are not supposed to be 'near' them today. The 'surge' was done to create the political space for the 18 benchmarks to be achieved. All of the 18 were supposed to have been achieved before January 1st. They were not. That is why the 'surge' was a failure.
Others reporting on the Iraq War included Iraq War milestones and Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports an 11.2% rate of unemployment "for veterans who served in Iraq and and Afghanistan and who are 18 and older" which may impact the Army's current re-enlistment goal have reached 152%. Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) spoke with three people about the Iraq War, we'll note this section:
When Ms. Naar-Obed returned from Iraq in 2004, she brought with her news that would shake America and the world --  reports from Iraqis of abuse in the US detention facility in Abu Ghraib.
"My hope was that whatever pressure I could bring to bear, either [in Iraq] or by speaking out about it when I was back home, would help put an end to the abuses we were hearing about," says Naar-Obed, who has spent several months of every year since 2002 in Iraq.            
Once again in Iraq, Naar-Obed is impressed not by any progress she sees, but by the challenges Iraq still faces. Iraq's sectarian tensions eased when ethnic cleansing led to migration and segregation. But the underlying tensions among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds remain.             
"There may be a current marked reduction in violent acts [because of the new segregation of sectarian populations], but there has been little in the way of political or personal reconciliation," she says by phone and e-mail.           
Currently in the Kurdish north, she says she senses "great fear and concern about what will happen when the walls that physically separate people come down, and when the forces that keep those walls erected leave."   
Aamer Madhani (USA Today) speaks with Azher Amin, who is a steel fabricator in Iraq, and is told, "Right now, things in Iraq are 70% good and 30% bad, which is much better than it was just two years ago.  But if the Americans leave too quickly, the siutation will reverse itself.  I don't think anyone -- Iraqi or American -- believes realistically that by 2012 our army will be good enough to protect the people internally or to secure our borders."
 NOW on PBS looks at the economy heading to Nevada where "the only public hospital in Las Vegas had to shut its doors to cancer patients and pregnant women."  Dr. Howard Dean is a guest on the program. Washington Week also focuses on the economy and Gwen sits down with Jackie Calmes (New York Times), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), Alexis Simendinger (National Journal) and Pierre Thomas (ABC News).  Bill Moyers Journal offers Socialist historian Mike Davis (who will hopefully speak of more than the economy), a segment billed as "American Dissidents: Against the Tide, From Thomas Paine to Ralph Nader" (and we may crucify this, Ava and I, on Sunday -- Ralph? Ralph whom Bill couldn't have on throughout 2008 when he was running for president?) and Marta Pelaez of Family Violence Prevention Services. Will Bill's commentary this week note the illegal war or will he be one more voice of silence? Tune in tonight. (Or catch it online -- transcript, audio and video are the options and Moyers' program is the only PBS one that strives to serve all segments online.)

All three begin airing on most PBS stations tonight. Moving over to commercial broadcast TV, Sunday, on CBS' 60 Minutes:

President Obama
The president discusses the most pressing issues of his first two months in office, including the economy, the bailouts, his budget and America's involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Steve Kroft will talk to Barack Obama in the Oval Office for the interview, expected to be longer than any other he has granted.

Mr. Ayers And Mr. Lopez
Discovered living on the streets by Los Angeles Times newspaper columnist Steve Lopez, mentally ill musician Nathaniel Ayers has become the subject of a book by Lopez and now a Hollywood film. Morley Safer reports. | Watch Video

Barack has not apologized and people need to quit making excuses

Barack's latest offense.  This community includes disabled and challenged members.  This community does not tolerate attacks on the disabled and challenged.  We have never done so and we will not do so.  We do not link to Arianna Huffington's Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box due to her allowing attacks on children with disabilities. (Yes, she allowed it with Sarah Palin's youngest child but we stopped linking to that crap-fest a year before that when she allowed a TV non-star to scribble his psychotic insults attacking special-needs children.  When that was posted, we were done with Crazy Ass Arianna.)  What Barack did was offensive.  Already apologists are emerging for him including Kimberly Wilder and Susan of Random Notes.
Susan wants you to know that Barry apologized.  No, he didn't.  Susan links to an AP story about Tim Shriver appearing on Good Morning America.  Yeah, Barry may or may not have apologized to the Kennedy clan.  He did not apologize to the American people and guess damn what: It's not about the Kennedys, the whole damn world doesn't spin on them.  But it is hilarious that Shriver expects to be listened to about insults to the mentally challenged (he rightly condemned Tropic Thunder) but wants to rush to excuse a president of the United States insulting the entire disabled/challenged/handicapped community in America. Shriver looks like a hypocrite when you juxtapose his rush to cover for Barry versus his holding a film accountable. 
The insult was to the disabled and challenged.  That was who was insulted.  Now when Hillary offered examples of races that went past May (Democratic Party primaries) idiots and crazies (including Marjorie Cohn who we will not link to ever again unless she apologizes PUBLICLY) demanded Hillary's head on a stick.  She didn't just apologize to the Kennedy's if her remarks were offensive (her remarks weren't offensive and RFK Jr. made that clear with a public statement), she apologized on TV.  Barack insulted the handicapped, disabled and the challenged.  The insult wasn't to a ceremony for the Special Olympics.
Are the disabled American citizens?  Are they part of this country? You damn well better believe they are and you damn well better stop making your disgusting excuses for a president of the United States going on air and insulting Americans.
It is offensive.  It is disgraceful.
Whether he sucked up to Tim Shriver or not (we don't know, Barack hasn't spoken) doesn't make a damn bit of difference.  Oh, poor little Shrivers, they might be insulted!
That's not the issue.
That was never the issue.
The issue was the insult to the American people.
Are the disabled/challenged/handicapped part of the United States or not?
If you believe they are, then what happened last night was disgusting.
He's not the Frat Boy president.  He's not the South Park president.  He is supposed to be the president of the United States.
He's abused his office several times already.  He's called out a private citizen by name (Rush Limbaugh) which is beneath the office of the president.  (No, I don't care for Rush Limbaugh.  That's not the issue.  We're talking about the office.) Now he's gone on TV and insulted a segment of the American people and there has been no apology.
Who gives a f**k if the Shriver-Kennedys are happy?  That's not the issue.  The issue is who got insulted.
American citizens were insulted.  They were used for a cheap laugh by the president of the United States.  It is not a minor issue.
I didn't see the exchange last night.  I saw it this morning as I was doing the morning entris and juggling the phones.  We covered it quickly with this:
 He is insulting the disabled and challenged and the White House can't walk back that. It is the sort of remark one expects from Bully Boy Bush but there's no difference between George W. and Barack. Want to walk it back? How about an apology to everyone Barry insulted and their families? How about he takes his ass down to Philadelphia and gives one of those meaningless, pretty word speeches? Or does he not realize that as offensive as his little 'joke' was, it's all the more offensive when so many Americans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with disabilities?
And Ava and I were going to revisit it on Sunday. (As we've done before.  Click here for one example when we called out stereotypes of autistic children being offered as facts.)
But I didn't realize that online there would be excuses offered for Barack.  There is NO EXCUSE for what he did.  Shirley called to pass on that this was becoming the number one topic in e-mails this morning from community members.  So I'm dictating this quickly but to be very clear:
(1) What Barack did was unacceptable.
(2) There has been no apology for the insult.  The Special Olympics is not an American citizen.  It has no personhood.  The ones insulted were the challenged/disabled/ handicapped.  That is whom the president of the United States should have apologized to.  Thus far, there has been no apology to them.
(3) Tim Shriver is an able-bodied person.  The idea that not only is Barack going to get away without apologizing, but that able-bodied people are going to waive him through is bulls**t.  Tim Shriver needs to sit his ass down.  If he and the others don't grasp it, it's not about them.  And if they don't grasp that, they don't need to be in charge of the Special Olympics.
The offense was not to the able-bodied and well off Shriver-Kennedys.  Every damn thing that happens in the US is not about that family.
The issue is that a large segment of Americans were insulted, were made fun of by a president of this country.  He used them to get a cheap laugh.  It's not appropriate, it's not funny.  It never should have happened and THEY are the ones owed an apology. 
Is Tim Shriver in a wheel chair?  Is he blind?  Does he suffer hearing loss?  No, no, and no.  It's not about him.  Using 2006 data, Matthew Brault, (PDF format warning) writing for the US Census' Disability office last year, noted there were 41.3 million people in "the civilian noninstitutionalized population".
Those 41.3 million people were insulted.  (As were those who are institutionalized.)  Their families and caregivers were insulted.  They are the ones who are regularly ignored in our society.  The strongest and longest college student protest this decade was by hearing imparied and deaf students.  Most of us never were informed about the students of Galladuet and their amazing strength and courage.  They were silenced, they were rendered invisible.  They were treated like aliens and not real Americans, not people whose stories were worth telling.
Considering how few bothered to ever note those brave students, before anyone gives a pass to Barack they might want to ask what they've done for the disabled/challenged/handicapped community?  I'm not seeing a whole lot.  But they can start by grasping it's not about them.  Just like it's not about Tim Shriver.   Over forty million Americans were used as the butt of a cheap joke by the president of the United States last night.
That is unacceptable.
He has not apologized for that.  It is unacceptable.  This isn't about the Shrivers.  This is about the over forty-million Americans who were laughed at last night -- treated like they weren't in the room and/or were too stupid to know they'd been made fun of. 
It's offensive and this community won't go along with it.
Day after day, the people directly insulted by Barack Obama are ignored by the media and by the blogosphere.  So those making excuses need to remember that and need to remember that it's not their role to make excuses unless they want to stand with Barack in his insults.  They might also try remembering that they supposedly are about the "people."  Bush mocks a death row inmate and they're offended.  Barack mocks an entire community and they're not?  People need to grow the hell up. 
We are not The Love Slaves of the Cult of Saint Barack.  We are not worshipping our 21st century Christ-child.  What Barack did was offensive.  He has not apologized until he apologizes to the ones insulted.  That apology should be public, from him (and a signer), and not relayed by one of his friends or a White House flack.
The e-mail address for this site is