Thursday, July 27, 2006

Iraq snapshot

Chaos and violence continue.


And yes, it's "continue "even if a mass kidnapping of 17 yesterday didn't make it into the New York Times this morning.

Bombings?

Al Jazeera notes "a car bombing and mortar attack" in Baghdad today that's left "[a]t least 101 people" wounded. That's wounded. The death toll has climbed repeatedly and the AP now reports it at least "31" and raises the wounded to "153." How many bombs? AFP notes that "some witnesses spoke of more" than one car bomb. Of the area in Baghdad where the attacks took place, the BBC notes their correspondent Jane Peel's description of the area as "well protected with a heavy presence of Iraqi troops and several checkpoints". Of course, the entire city of Baghdad is under the supposed 'security crackdown' and has been for over six weeks.

The AFP describes the area as one where the "bustling shops still attract customers from both the city's rival religious groups" and they also note a witness who feels there was "more than one car bomb." Jenny Booth "and agencies" (Times of London) state the area is "religiously mixed neighborhood which is home to several leading politicians from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country's biggest Shia party."

On the issue of witnesses feeling they heard more than one bomb, Borzou Daraghi (Los Angeles Times) notes: "Police said four of the five blasts were caused by rockets or mortars. But officials have often attributed such explosions to indirect fire, hoping to stave off blame for allowing drivers to maneuver explosives-packed vehicles past checkpoints that dot the city." (The fatality toll is raised to "at least 32" beginning with Daraghi's report.)

Michael Georgy (Reuters) reports one man who died, Hassan Kufi, "was hours away from getting married on Thursday. There were no festivities, just his funerals." He also notes "[a] boy of about 10 with a bloodied head" laying "on the floor." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angels Times) notes hardware store owner Zuhair Ali Hussein Zaidi, "who left his shop to investigate one blast only to return and find his shop was completely destroyed" saying: "I saw children completely burnt and many injured. People were evacuating the dead and injured by carrying them out." Daragahi reports that many people are still missing ("including one 11-year-old girl on a shopping errand") and that the dead are still be found in the rubble and debris.

Might Iraq grab some serious press attention? Don't count on it. In other bombings, Reuters reports two police officers are dead and two more wounded "near Tikrit" from a roadside bomb while one person died and four were wounded in Ishaqee from a roadside bomb. AFP notes a bomb in Baquba which killed "at least five people." That bombing (guessing from the fatality toll) is described by Reuters as one that exploded near "an ambulance headed to Baquba hospital, killing five" and wounding four; in addition, Reuters notes a car bomb (also in Baquba) that left three wounded.

Shootings?

Reuters reports that in Baghdad, an armed clash led to six Georgian troops being wounded (the US military claims five but six is the figure "the office of the Georgian president" is using); in Kirkuk a police patrol and an Iraqi military patrol exchanged gun fire resulting in the death of one soldier and one police officer.

Also in Baghdad, AFP reports that "three people were shot dead by unidentified gunmen" and Al Jazeera notes that "four security guards outside a Sunni mosque" were killed "in a drive-by shooting."


Corpses?

Micheal Georgy (Reuters) reports that, in Baghdad today, nineteen corpses were discovered ("bullet holes . . . signs of torture").

In England, William Patey ("outgoing British ambassador in Iraq") spoke on the BBC Radio program Today and shared this impression: ""There is some evidence that some members of the police are actively engaged with death squads and with militias, and taking orders. And clearly they need to be identified, weeded out, prosecuted. Undoubtedly, the Iraqi people have lost confidence in the police."

Quite a bit different than the sort of thing Michael Gordon churns out at the New York Times. Also in the reality news department, Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports: "Many of the reconstruction projects that were built in the first years of the Iraq war failed to make a difference in regular Iraqis' lives. Much of the building has focused on large waterpurification plants, sewage-treatment plants or electrical generators. But the U.S. has failed to do enough to make sure its reconstruction projects provided jobs for unskilled Iraqis, and the lack of a steady supply of electricity three years after the U.S.-led invasion rankles here." Kate Zernike should take notes.

In Australia, the inquiry into the April 21st death of Jake Kovco continues. Ben Doherty (The Age) reports that Professor Philip Mitchell has testified to the inquiry with a similar opinion as that expressed by Professor Alexander McFarlane: it is "highly unlikely Private Kovco would have deliberately shot himself while his room-mates were present, especially as he knew they were about to leave." However, Mitchell also offered the opinion that Jake Kovco might have been attempting to "re-enact" a nightmare of death he'd had a month prior. The continued assumption in the inquiry appears to be that Jake Kovco fired the gun. In April, Judy Kovco (Jake Kovco's mother) stated to Jane Holroyd (The Age): ""He didn't shoot himself. The gun went off. It was near him. It was nearby. (So) what did Jake do? Put his head down near the table so it could shoot him in the head, did he?"

Belinda Tasker (Townsville Bulletin) notes that Mitchell dubbed his theory "highly speculative."

In peace news, Bill Metcalfe (The Tyee) reports on the recent Our Way Home Reunion in Canada which brought together war resisters from Vietnam and today and featured a showing of David Zeiger's documentary Sir, No Sir, which chronicles G.I. resistance during the Vietnam era.

As noted yesterday, CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin took truth to Congress. Refusing to stay silent in the face of one lie after another as occupation puppet Nouri al-Maliki talked the war talk, Benjamin protested, chanting, "Bring them home now!" On yesterday's The KPFA Evening News, Darby Hicky reported on this and more can be found at CODEPINK. Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) reported: "Veteran San Francisco activist Medea Benjamin, wearing a 'Troops Home Now' T-shirt, chimed in, standing in the House gallery to interrupt Maliki's address with repeated shouts of: 'Iraqis want the troops to leave. Bring them home now.' She was promptly removed and arrested."

It is day 24 of the Troops Home Fast and over 4,350 people are participating around the world. Along with Medea Benjamin, Diane Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Ann Wright, Mike De Souza (CanWest News Service) reports that: "Libby Davies, the NDP House leader and MP for Vancouver East, made the trip to Washington D.C." to show her support. De Souza quotes Medea Benjamin stating, of those participating in the fast, "We're in an emergency crisis, and they're putting their bodies on the line."

The fast is ongoing. Those wanting to participate, for one day or more than one day, can join the fast at any point. It began on July 4th and some have fasted every day. Others have fasted one day and some have chosen one day to fast each week. More information can be found at Troops Home Fast. The fast will continue in August as Cindy Sheehan and others return to Crawford, TX -- home of last year's Camp Casey demonstrations. Though there has been concern of where the camp would be set up, Jack Douglas Jr. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports that land has been purchased by Cindy Sheehan to put an end to the issue and quotes Sheehan stating, "I can't think of a better way to use Casey's insurance money than for peace, and I am sure that Casey approves." Douglas reports the gatherings in Crawford will take place from August 16th to September 2nd.



















Posted by at

NYT: How low do you have to be to carry water for a puppet?

How stupid is Kate Zernike? Pretty damn stupid.

In this morning's New York Times the hack who took her taxi out for repeated drive-bys (John Kerry was her target most recently) is back to demonstrating that writing and thought do not necessarily go hand in hand via "Iraqi Leader Embraces Terror Fight in Speech to Congress." It's a bad piece for so many reasons.

At one point, like music critics embarrassing themselves in the eighties over Madonna's decision to sit in the middle of performing "A Live To Tell," she finds symbolism in Harry Reid tying his shoe. If she spoke to Reid about the apparent 'incident' she forgot to clue her readers in. But with Zernike, we all get taken for a ride.

Here's a section that reads like Zernike dictated it while having a manicure (it doesn't read like reporting):

He was interrupted about 10 minutes into his speech by a woman wearing the trademark shade of the antiwar group CODEPINK, who chanted, "Iraqis want the troops to leave! Bring them home now!" Speaker J. Dennis Hastert halted the speech and ordered the Capitol Police to remove her.

A woman "interrupted" for ten minutes. She's removed by the Capitol Police. What was her name? A reporter might include that detail. And there's not a community member that doesn't know her name already -- it's Medea Benjamin -- but facts is hard for Zernike. The name is part of the story. Rendering Benjamin invisble may help Zernike 'fit in' (I'm told her drive bys haven't) but they don't make her a reporter.

If someone protests it's news. If Zernike was so ignorant as to not know who the woman was, she should have stopped picking nail shades and picked up the phone to make a call.

She carries water for al-Maliki as well (how low do you have to be to carry water for a puppet?):

Mr. Maliki warned against a repeat of what he characterized as the abandonment of his country by American troops during the first Persian Gulf war. "Let 1991 never be repeated," he said, "for history will be most unforgiving."

That's certainly a creative way of telling readers that foreign leader addressed Congress and took shots at the government, the armed forces and the then president George H. W. Bush. That is what happened.

al-Maliki's a funny kind of critic -- offering critiques at what the US should have done when his safe little ass wasn't in Iraq. If he doesn't think 1991 should be repeated, he might need to slice off a piece for himself of blame pie he's baked because he didn't do a thing in 1991.

Dick Durbin comes closest to making the point: "But the message has to be delivered to the Iraqis: this is their nation, and they should be willing to fight, and if necessary, die for it." In a read between the lines sort of way, you can say the exiled al-Maliki got served.

Zernike demonstrates her lack of interest in journalism throughout -- most vividly in this passage:

In his half-hour speech, the prime minister made little mention of the casualties in Iraq. Instead, he highlighted the doubling of the gross domestic product over the last three years and improvements in the lives of Iraqis. And he appealed for more financial aid for fledgling Iraqi companies, saying that much of the enormous American and foreign investment in his country had gone to pay for security companies.

Okay, he's committed to sending $35 million to Hizbollah (which might be off now judging by yesterday's remarks by Iraq's foreign minister). Where does Iraq find $35 million to donate to anyone? Forget the fact that US citiziens are footing a $300 billion bill currently on Iraq alone, he doesn't have $35 million in aid to share -- a point Zernike could have made if her only interest wasn't corpses.

For those who've missed it, the UN has highlighted the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, they've noted the vast increase in malnutrition. Charity may start at home and stays there when your kids are starving. When you're kids are starving, you don't cough up the big bucks to hand over to someone else.

So here's what happened, al-Maliki came to the Congress and gave a speech where he slammed the so-called 'cut and run' option -- despite the fact that cut-and-run is what saved his own butt. If he hadn't 'cut and run,' he'd be dead by now. So it's okay for him, it's just not okay for American women and men. He went on to criticize the US for not doing enough in his mind during 1991's invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that he wasn't in Iraq. If it mattered so damn much to him, maybe he shouldn't have been living in Iran and Syria? If fighting was so important to him, maybe he should have stayed in Iraq? Since he didn't, maybe the last thing he's entitled to is to lecture about the 1991 invasion not doing 'enough'?

And maybe it's not a good idea to hit up another country for money while you're prepared to give $35 million in aid?

Though good at posturing (and he'll posture more loudly when he's back in Iraq), he's shown no interest in addressing the problems of Iraqis (malnutrition, unemployment, electricity & potable water issues) or their issues (they want the US out). He's awful good at begging for money.

There's been so little accountability of where the money has gone from day one. A cancelled contract here and there doesn't demonstrate that there's accountability. The vast unemployment doesn't demonstrate that there's accountability. He's a puppet, he's going to speak for the people because he's not interested in them. Like so many multi-national corporations, he's interested in lining his own pockets at the expense of the US tax payer.

Arianna Huffington wrote about the impending visit a few days ago. I disagree with regards to the amensty program, but otherwise the section below is one I'm in strong agreement on (from "Maliki's Testy Visit: Is This What Our Troops Are Dying For?," The Huffington Post):

What more, Maliki wants to "maintain strong ties to Iran," has sided with Hezbollah in the current hostilities with Israel, and has pledged $35 million in aid to Lebanon (where is that money coming from?). And then we have the speaker of the Iraqi Parliament saying "I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country would, have a statue built for him in that country. The parties that we cannot conciliate with are those who deliberately killed an Iraqi citizen."
So this is what over 2,500 American have died for, what over 18,500 Americans have been wounded for, what the American people have spent over $320 billion helping create: a government that makes nice with Iran, backs Hezbollah, and some of whose members think the killers of American soldiers deserve a statue? We can't bring back those lives, heal those wounds, or recoup that money, but we can say enough is enough.
In Fiasco, his damning new book about the Bush administration's tragic bungling of Iraq, Thomas Ricks quotes a colonel assigned to the Coalition Provisional Authority unforgettably describing his team's mission as "pasting feathers together, hoping for a duck." Just how many more Americans have to die in the vain attempt to turn feathers into a duck? Especially a duck that wants to waddle side by side with Hezbollah and Iran.

Where is that $35 million coming from? It's a valid questions as he shows up to ask for more money. (He's a bit like a man at a large get together boasting "I've got it!" as he grabs for the check and then whispers to the woman next to him that he's going to need her to "help" him out on it.) Another valid question is why was it okay for him to leave Iraq for his own safety (when he went into exile) but it's not okay for US troops? Another valid question is exactly when will he represent the people of Iraq? The ones who are dying, the ones who are starving, the ones who want the US gone? He's not a voice for anyone but the greedy -- proving that despite Tony Snow's denials, he is Bully Boy's puppet.

Martha notes Jonathan Weisman's "Iraqi Prime Minister Presses for More Aid: Protests Cast Shadow on Capitol Hill Speech" (Washington Post):

A day after securing a pledge from President Bush to bolster U.S. troop presence in Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked Congress yesterday for more reconstruction aid, acknowledging that most of the billions already allocated were swallowed by security costs. And he warned the United States not to abandon Iraq, as it did after the Persian Gulf War when the United States stood aside as a Shiite rebellion was crushed by Saddam Hussein.

"Most of the billions already allocated were swallowed by security costs"? Then where is the $35 million coming from that he's eager to offer as aid? That's a bit like skipping your rent and car payment so you can look the big spender. It's not his money. And it's not his blood.

I was against the illegal war before it started but I'm amazed that the War Hawks and cheerleaders have yet to howl over what took place yesterday. A heavily protected puppet (while the rest of the country has no such protection) came begging for more money, came begging for more lives and apparently that's going to play with that crowd. It's okay that while demanding more lives, he took a swipe at one of their heroes (George H.W. Bush), it's okay that he likened the failure to march on Baghdad to 'cut and run' (while he himself had 'cut and run').
The Puppet paraded into Congress and showed no concern over the US lives, demonstrated no concern for the lives of Iraqis but took time to lecture and beg for more money.

Congress needs to stop funding the illegal war and al-Maliki needs to learn a little bit of the lives of the average Iraqi -- possibly, over two decades out of the country left him out of touch with reality? Hiding in the Green Zone doesn't bring him any close.

(For the record, Weisman -- a reporter as opposed to a hack like Zernike -- does manage to name Medea Benjamin in his article today.)

For reality about Iraq, Mia notes this from Patrick Cockburn's "Beware Iraqi Leaders Bearing Good News" (CounterPunch):


Iraqi leaders are not what they seem. They live in the Green Zone, the heavily fortified enclave guarded by US troops, in the heart of Baghdad. Many never leave it except for extensive foreign travel. Eighteen months ago an Iraqi magazine claimed to have discovered that at one point the entire cabinet was out of the country at the same time.
The government remains reliant on the US. One former minister told me: "There is a culture of dependency. Part of the time the Americans treat us as a colony, part of the time as an independent country."
Mr al-Maliki only became Prime Minister because the US and Britain were determined to get rid of his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Mr al-Maliki is inexperienced, personally isolated without his own kitchen cabinet, guarded by American guards and heavily reliant on shadowy US advisers.
The quasi-colonial nature of the Iraqi government may not be obvious to outsiders who see that it has been democratically elected. But its independence has always been a mirage.
For instance, its own intelligence organization should be essential to a government fighting for its life against a violent insurgency. At first sight, Iraq might appear to have one under Major-General Mohammed al-Shahwani, but it has no budget because it is funded directly by the CIA, to the tune of $200-300m (£110-160m) a year and, not surprisingly, it is to the CIA that it first reports. Not surprisingly, Iraqis will need a lot of convincing that Mr al-Maliki is not one more American pawn.
In theory he should be in charge of a substantial army force. The number of trained Iraqi soldiers and police has grown from 169,000 in June 2005 to 264,000 this June. But the extra 105,000 armed men have not only made no difference to security in Iraq but that security has markedly deteriorated over the past year. The reason is that the armed forces put their allegiance to their own communities - Kurd, Sunni or Shia - well before their loyalty to the state. Shia do not believe they will be defended from a pogrom by a Sunni units and the Sunni feel the same way about Shia units.
This is why the militias are growing in strength. Everybody wants an armed militia from their own community to defend their neighborhoods. In any case the largest political parties making up the present Iraqi government - the Kurds and the two biggest Shia religious parties - all have their private armies which they are not going to see dissolved.

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







Posted by at

Feminist Majority Foundation brings back the 1972 truth campaign

Rachel passed on an e-mail from the Feminist Majority Foundation that we'll post in full:

We have had abortions.
That was the headline of a petition in the 1972 debut issue of Ms. magazine in which 53 well-known U.S. women, including myself, declared that they had undergone abortions -- despite state laws rendering the procedure illegal.
It's time for a new petition for honesty and freedom.
Even then, to many it seemed absurd that the government could deny a woman sovereignty over her own body. It is even more absurd in 2006 that an abortion ban has passed into law in South Dakota, though it has been stayed because an initiative to remove the ban has been placed on the state's November ballot.
At the time of the original Ms. petition, illegal abortions were causing untold suffering and countless deaths of young women in the United States. Today, in the developing nations each year, approximately 70,000 women and girls die from botched and unsafe abortions and another 500,000 maternal deaths occur -- most of this suffering and loss could be prevented. U.S. international family planning policies contribute to this death toll.
Today Ms. has started a new petition and I invite you to join me in a campaign for honesty and freedom. You can read the full petition here.
We recognize that, still, not every woman will be able to sign today - 33 years after Roe - even though abortion is a very common, necessary and important procedure for millions of women in the U.S. But if a multitude of women step forward publicly - and more and more continue to join them - we would transform the public debate.
Just as in 1972, Ms. will send the signed petitions to the White House, members of Congress and state legislators. We will also post the petition online.
And we ask you to make a contribution so Ms. can promote the petition and provide needed funds to fight abortion bans and support targeted abortion providers, such as the sole remaining women's clinic in Mississippi.
It is time to speak out again - in even larger numbers - and to make politicians face their neighbors, influential movers and shakers, and yes, their own family members. We cannot, we must not - for U.S. women and the women of the world - lose the right to safe and accessible abortion or access to birth control.
Your name and your voice will make a difference.
In Sisterhood,
Gloria Steinem

Anais Nin and many other women took part in that campaign. It put a face on the issue, took it out of the area of 'hang your head in shame' and 'wanton woman' (or 'libertine') and it's sad that we're back at that point today. (Helped along by so-called friends of choice who reposition themselves to appeal to the mythical crowd that 'decided' an election -- though they didn't but did it stop AP from trotting out the disproven myth as fact last week? No.) So that's where we are now -- reproductive rights under attack in every way (read "Senate Passes Teen Endangerment Act") and a lot of 'brave' leaders repositioning (or triangulating?) themselves to once again sell out our rights.

Kat's back today (as Betty noted in "Travel and other talk") and with the above topic and her return, it's probably a good time to highlight her July 2, 2005 post, "I had an abortion:"

If you read the gina & krista round-robin this morning, you have a pretty good idea of what you can do. I know that they already stressed this but I want to say it here as well, it's not about money. If you're someone with all the dough in the world, donate to every organization they listed. If you're someone that has enough to spare to donate a little, please pick an organization to donate to. But if you don't have any money, that doesn't mean you sit on your ass.
There are petitions to sign, there are talking points to get out, there is the simple fact that you can share with people around you.
I talked about my abortion in the round-robin. Here I'll just say that I've had one and I support the right of any woman to have one. Why I had one is no one's damn business. I appreciate that other members were willing to share if they'd had one. The Common Ills is a great community and Krista and Gina do a great job with their round-robin.
Some of the women they quoted said they'd never really talked about their abortion before. I have. With friends, I will go into details. Though friends and friendly people come here, a lot of assholes do too.
I don't want to work up a sob story or justify what I did. No woman should have to. So I will say loudly that I have had an abortion but it's no one else damn's business.
I support women who share their experiences and C.I. will post anyone's comments if she wants to share her story. More power to any woman who wants to. For me, it's my business. I'm not ashamed of it. But I'm not going to go begging for the pro-life crowd's understanding. Or to prove to moderates that there are "reasons" to support choice.
If, after all this time, someone needs a "reason" then chances are they either live in a very limited world or they already made up their mind against choice.
My story is nothing compared to X (readers of the gina & krista round-robin know who I mean) and that was so brave of her to put it out there like that. If that were my story, I would share it in the privacy of the round-robin and still not note it here. Because where I'm coming from is it's none of your damn business.
I'm not ashamed of it, I'm not embarrassed by it. But I'm not going to put myself in a position of saying, "Like me, understand me, love me."
I made the decision I made and I stand by it. And thank you to the women and men who've read the round-table and have e-mailed to thank me for sharing. No one wrote, "Kat, you need to put this up at your site."
But I will put up at my site that not only do I support the right of pro-choice but I've used that right, I've excercised it.
X is thinking of sharing her story and it's a powerful story. I support her right to consider sharing and, if she does, I applaud her for sharing.
But no woman needs to share anything she doesn't want to.
I do not support parental consent laws because I do not believe that any woman makes the decision to have an abortion without giving it thought. Now maybe if she's strong armed into it by some guy, but if that happens, she hasn't made the choice, she's gone along with someone else's choices.
I have friends who've had an abortion and I'll certainly open up to them in great detail.
But for me it is a private experience and it's not one I'm going to put out there.
I will put out that I had an abortion, I do not regret it and abortion must remain legal.
If you're on the fence about where you stand on this issue, you need to figure out pretty quick because a battle is looming and it's going to be nasty.
We're going to need all the support we can get to keep abortion legal and safe.
Making it illegal will not end abortion.
Abortions are part of our nation's history. In earlier times they were legal and called "quickening." Then they became illegal. But they didn't go away.
They will not go away and the smart thing to do is to make them safe and legal.
A lot of the sharing of the experience has given ground to some middle of the roaders to start the talk of "They're painful and should be used sparingly" or some other bullshit that lets them position themselves as a moderate.
They are a medical right. It is not my business what medical rights you choose to excercise and it's honestly not your business which ones I choose to excercise.
I've never heard anyone dispute a man's right to get his penis augmentated. (For those who are unaware of it and thinking "I can get my dick bigger" -- wider not longer is the result of the procedure.) But when it comes to women's bodies and their medical decisions, everyone thinks they can weigh in.
You can't. A woman has to make the decision herself and she should be able to make the decision and have a safe and legal abortion.
Besides the round-robin, I'd recommend you read the entry C.I. did with people sharing their reactions to Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. And if you're think, "Kat, short for Kaitlin, she's Irish! How can she support abortion?" I'd suggest you read Mike's post. He comes from a pro-choice, Irish-Catholic family. I do as well. Mike's mother is right, the media stereotype isn't reality.
And while I reserve the right not to discuss my medical procedure with anyone but friends that I'd share other medical matters with, I am more than fine with going on the record and saying I had an abortion and I don't regret it.
If you've never known a woman who's had an abortion, you do now. It is not something that happens to "other people." Whether you know it or not, there's probably a woman in your circle who's had an abortion.
Any woman who is comfortable declaring "I've had an abortion" to her friends, should do so. If you want to go in details, that's your right. But I think we need to get beyond the idea that the only women who've had abortions are people you've never met. This effects many of us.
Maggie called me up when she read the round-robin this morning and said if I wrote about it here she wanted her feelings known. She's never had an abortion, but she's damn glad that if she ever finds herself in the position where she needs to consider all her options, it's a choice she has, a legal choice.
Because making it illegal won't make it go away. It will only lead to the return of back alley abortions, people making money on the side and women's lives being put at risk.
Safe and legal, the line is drawn and you need to figure out where you stand.

Also check out The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Abortion: Why it matters still" which is especially pertinent considering what passed in the Senate. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.







Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)