Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Shoe madness continues!

Although the Secret Service put everyone who attended President George W. Bush's Baghdad news conference through several layers of security Sunday, the agency appeared to be caught off guard when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the president.
"We'll be our own harshest critic regarding this incident" Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said Monday, "and we'll make any appropriate changes to security."
Donovan said, however, that agents on the scene knew that everyone in attendance had been screened for weapons and that they appeared to have taken the "appropriate level of action." No shots were fired as Bush's Secret Service detail joined Iraqi police in taking the shoe thrower into custody.
The arrested man, Muntathar al Zaidi, a 29-year-old employee of Cairo, Egypt-based Baghdadiya Television, remained in Iraqi custody Monday. Officials in Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's office refused to comment on his condition or on whether he'd be criminally charged.

The above is from Greg Gordon and Adam Ashton's "Bush shoe incident catches Secret Service flatfooted" (McClatchy Newspapers) and the first thing to point out is that no one died from a drive-by shoeing. Do we need to bring Mrs. Doubtfire in on this? That said, the article offers many hilarious moments. Not an insult to the writers, just noting how absurd things are in the world around us. Alleged man-of-the-people al-Maliki's home is described as "the prime minister's palace." Again, not arguing with the reporters, they are correct, but it's rare to see reality in reporting. Equally amusing is this passage:

Ever since John W. Hinckley's failed attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, the Secret Service began requiring journalists to undergo background checks, credentialing and screening with metal detectors.

Because, of course, John Hinckley was a Pulitzer winning journalist? For the record, Hinckley was not a journalist. Possibly the Secret Service should have begun screening oil company execs and their children? (Hinckley Oil.) Such a decision might have prevented Dick Cheney from ever becoming president of vice.

The same story makes the front page of the New York Times. (The article on it yesterday -- by Steven Lee Myers and Alissa J. Rubin -- did not make the front page; however, at the bottom of the front page was a photo of Bush and the shoe.) Today Timothy Williams and Abeer Mohammed offer "In Iraqi's Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It's Not Bush.)" which starts off explaining that a shoe is an insult -- apparently for those among us who have trouble figuring that out. They move on to explain there is a standing offer -- from Saudi Arabia, no less -- of $10 million for either of the shoes thrown. Then the duo wants to tell you about a courage honor awarded to the reporter who hurled the shoe and here someone needs to be paying attention. The honor was awarded by an organization in Libyia. The official US position on Libyia can be boiled down as "evil." But the New York Times is a paper and while it can take the same position towards Libyia, it can not use that position to practice sexism. Aicha Gaddafi is over the organization that awarded the honor. Saying she's "A daughter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi" is not good enough, does not cut it. She has a name and the paper found the tidbit worthy of the third paragraph. It should have included her name. An Iraqi doctor and school teacher get quoted. The former, Qutaiba Rajaa, states, "Although that action was not expressed in a civilized manner, it showed the Iraqi feelings, which is to object to the American occupation" while the later, Yaareb Yousif Matti, declares, "I swear by God that all Iraqis with their different nationalities are glad about this act."

Babylon & Beyond, the LA Times blog, Raed Rafei and Khaled Hijabcalls the incident "The Shoes That Shook The Arab World:"

In a barbershop near downtown Beirut on Monday, customers buzzed about the reporter's political gesture.
"It was great," one customer said, beaming with satisfaction.
Another responded by saying that Bush certainly deserved it for inflicting "disaster" on the Iraqi people.
The video of the journalist throwing his shoes at Bush was played over and over again on television stations including the pan-Arab Al Jazeera as well as Iranian state television and even radio.
"Please listen again," said a radio announcer in Tehran. "This is the sound of the shoe hitting the wall and missing President Bush."
The left-leaning Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar featured the news in on its front page under the headline, "The farewell kiss for Bush," calling the reporter a "hero" who stood up to the president.
"This was without a doubt the best farewell as seen by millions of Iraqis who were heartened" by the reporter's action, said the daily, adding that Iraqis were "probably sad when they saw their Prime Minister Nouri Maliki throwing himself in front of his guest to protect him."

And we'll also note this at the bottom of their post and at the bottom of many posts at Babylon & Beyond:

P.S. Get news from the Middle East in your mailbox every day. The Los Angeles Times distributes a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East, including the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can subscribe by logging in at the website here, clicking on the box for "L.A. Times updates" and then clicking on the "World: Mideast" box.

AP's Qassim Abdul-Zahra reports that despite street protests today calling for Muntadhar al-Zeidi's release, he has been "handed over to the Iraqi judiciary" and is expected to face trial for the run-by shoeing. In light of all the support (within Iraq and outside of it) that Muntadhar is receiving, US State Dept spokesperson Robert Wood might want to rethink his spin yesterday of , "I mean, look at how President Bush was received overall by Prime Minister Maliki and others in the Iraqi government. I think it says a lot." So Bully Boy's still got the support of those Iraqis on the payroll. Good to know.

Brenda highlights Chris Hedges' "Israel's 'Crime Against Humanity'" (Truth Dig via Information Clearing House):

Israel's siege of Gaza, largely unseen by the outside world because of Jerusalem's refusal to allow humanitarian aid workers, reporters and photographers access to Gaza, rivals the most egregious crimes carried out at the height of apartheid by the South African regime. It comes close to the horrors visited on Sarajevo by the Bosnian Serbs. It has disturbing echoes of the Nazi ghettos of Lodz and Warsaw.
"This is a stain on what is left of Israeli morality," I was told by Richard N. Veits, the former U.S. ambassador to Jordan who led a delegation from the Council on Foreign Relations to Gaza to meet Hamas leaders this past summer. "I am almost breathless discussing this subject. It is so myopic. Washington, of course, is a handmaiden to all this. The Israeli manipulation of a population in this manner is comparable to some of the crimes that took place against civilian populations fifty years ago."
The U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, former Princeton University law professor Richard Falk, calls what Israel is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza "a crime against humanity." Falk, who is Jewish, has condemned the collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza as "a flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." He has asked for "the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law."
Falk, while condemning the rocket attacks by the militant group Hamas, which he points out are also criminal violations of international law, goes on to say that "such Palestinian behavior does not legalize Israel's imposition of a collective punishment of a life- and health-threatening character on the people of Gaza, and should not distract the U.N. or international society from discharging their fundamental moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people."
"It is an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe that each day poses the entire 1.5 million Gazans to an unspeakable ordeal, to a struggle to survive in terms of their health," Falk said when I reached him by phone in California shortly before he left for Israel. "This is an increasingly precarious condition. A recent study reports that 46 percent of all Gazan children suffer from acute anemia. There are reports that the sonic booms associated with Israeli overflights have caused widespread deafness, especially among children. Gazan children need thousands of hearing aids. Malnutrition is extremely high in a number of different dimensions and affects 75 percent of Gazans. There are widespread mental disorders, especially among young people without the will to live. Over 50 percent of Gazan children under the age of 12 have been found to have no will to live."

It's not on Iraq but, when possible, we'll highlight Hedges regardless. He didn't lie to readers in 2008 nor did he cower. While so many shredded what was left of their names, Chris held on to his integrity.

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


mcclatchy newspapers
adam ashton

the new york times



the los angeles times


Posted by at

Monday, December 15, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Monday,  December 15, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement shows its true colors, Bully Boy has his own shoes issues, and more.
 
Today, Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The deadlines sound clear enough in the security agreement: U.S. combat troops must be out of Iraqi urban areas by June, and all Americans should withdraw from the country by Dec. 31, 2011.
However, those deadlines have appeared anything but firm to Iraqis over the past week. "  Thursday David Morgan and Anthony Boadle's (Reuters) reported, "Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years but told reporters that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and U.S. governments." Alsumaria pointed out on Friday, "Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue.  He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer."  Clearer?  That's all the treaty did?  Shocking -- for those not paying attention and/or self-deluding themselves.  The news just kept coming over the weekend.  Xinhua quoted puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki stating,  "What Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh said about Iraqi forces will need ten years to be ready was only his personal view and does not represent the Iraqi government." Stating?  Not really.  His office issued a statement.  al-Maliki said nothing publicly.  al-Maliki has a pattern of 'issuing' statements that he then disowns.  Over the weekend, AP finally decided to report what al-Dabbagh said Thursday -- when they could run the 'denial' with it -- only they focused so on the denial they couldn't even get the day right of al-Dabbagh's statements (they reported the remarks were made Friday when they were made Thursday).  Missy Reid and Michael Christie (Reuters) walked the late comers through:

Dabbagh, on a visit to Washington this week, raised the possibility of some of the 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq remaining for longer than the date defined by the security pact.
"We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years," Dabbagh said at a Pentagon press briefing.
He said that future Iraqi leaders would decide what kind of U.S. presence might be required after 2011.
Iraq's parliament approved the bilateral security agreement setting the end-2011 deadline after fierce and protracted debate. It is scheduled to be put to a referendum next year.
Opponents of the pact, including supporters of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have argued the pact gives legitimacy to a destructive foreign occupation and say they do not believe the United States will honour the withdrawal date.
Maliki, a Shi'ite who heads a coalition government, was seen as benefiting the most from the pact.
 
McClatchy's Ashton added Iraqi reaction to the Thursday statements, "That assertion makes sense to many Iraqi leaders, though they rarely say it in public. Iraq doesn't have a navy or an air force to protect itself. Many view it as America's obligation to improve the country's defense."  But the alledged denial wasn't the only thing in the news cycle and, in fact, the top US commander in Iraq knocked the spin out of the statement issued by the puppet's office.  Yochi J. Dreazen (Wall St. Journal) explained that despite the treaty 'promising' US forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities (and to bases) in June, turns out, maybe not: "Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters here that the U.S. troops assigned to 'joint security stations' inside Iraqi cities like Baghdad would remain in the outposts indefinitely. The bases, which are a key part of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, house thousands of American personnel across the country. There are well over a dozen such outposts in Baghdad alone.Gen. Odierno, who assumed command in September, explained that the withdrawal provision in the security pact applied only to combat personnel. The U.S. forces assigned to the joint security stations mentor and fight alongside Iraqi troops, so American commanders classify them as training personnel and don't consider them to be covered by the withdrawal language, he said."  Odierno was not alone when he he held his press conference, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was with him.  That's the current US Secretary of State and the also the one president-elect Barack Obama wants to continue in the job.  Sunday Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) repored on Odierno's statement and that Lt Col James Hutton "reiterated" Odierno's statements after the press conference. Bumiller noted Odierno also indicated that the US would attempt to renegotiate the treaty and stated, "Three years is a very long time."
 
Today Ashton reports that al-Dabaggah issued a statement saying he was misquoted (no, he was not) and trying to back away from his statements as Odierno's statements only further added fuel to the fire with Iraqi MP and Nouri's B.F.F. declaring, "The agreement is clear and it didn't give a space for misunderstanding.  This statement is stepping over the limits and authorities of this military leader, and over the constitutional establishments."
Ashton also quotes MP Harith al Obeidi declaring, "Treaties and pacts among nations are obligations and commitments, but this statement gives the matter a question mark on it." And a question mark hovers over al-Maliki.  Steven Lee Myers and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) observe:
 
Although a majority in the Iraqi Parliament approved the agreement, on the street, Iraqis have mixed views. Many distrust any pact made with an occupying power, and while Mr. Bush is appreciated for having overthrown Mr. Hussein, he is widely blamed for the violence that raged in the years after the war, which prompted more than a million Iraqis to flee and killed tens of thousands of civilians. 
Still, Mr. Bush's stalwart support for Mr. Maliki -- after an initial period when the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, expressed doubts about him -- has been a bulwark against domestic political forces who sought to topple him.
With the American president's term ending, Iraqi politicians from parties other than Mr. Maliki's have been discussing whether to force the prime minister out with a no-confidence vote. This is not the first time his ouster has been discussed, but with American power in Iraq on the wane and troop numbers beginning to decline in earnest, it seems a more serious threat.
 
 
For those attempting to keep track, the Queen of Panhandle Media, Amy Goodman, continues to ignore the issue but she made herself clear when she adopted the White House spin (such as "historic" for the Parliament vote).   This is from American Freedom Campaign:

The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution. Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion. Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone's eyes.
It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied - and was refusing to fight for - the same opportunity.
Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power.
Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC's call for a "signing statement" resolution. The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement.
Passage of this resolution -- most likely following re-introduction in January -- will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress.
In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms. No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation. The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.
Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement. So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee's signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by clicking on the following link                       
Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.            
Thank you so much for taking action.             
Steve Fox 
Campaign Director         
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund
 
 
Meanwhile a new Washington Post - ABC News poll is out.  Michael A. Fletcher and Jon Cohen (Washington Post) report: "Americans are more upbeat about U.S. prospects in
Iraq than at any time in the past five years, but nearly two thirds continue to believe the war is not worth fighting and 70 percent say President-elect Barack Obama should fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. forces from the country within 16 months, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll." How many would be so upbeat if they knew that Barack did not promise to withdraw all US troops from Iraq?  Not asked, not answered. On this issue of withdrawal,  UPI reports that Japan "began withdrawing force from Kuwait" today as it ended "its 5-year airlift mission in Iraq".
 
The Bully Boy of the United States might wish he hadn't landed in Iraq yesterday.  Adam Ashton and Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) report it was one-shoe, two-shoe thrown at the Bully Boy by Muntathar al Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist, who yelled, "This is a goodbye kiss, you dog." The kisses missed the cheeks and, in fact, the entire target though puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, did attempt to swat one away. Bully Boy would go on to declare, "This is what happens in free societies." And, as if to provide evidence of what a 'free society' Iraq is, the reporters explain:

Another Iraqi journalist yanked Zaidi to the ground before bodyguards collapsed on Zaidi and held him there while he yelled "Killer of Iraqis, killer of children." From the bottom of the pile, he moaned loudly and said "my hand, my hand."
Zaidi was hauled to a separate room, where his cries remained audible for a few moments.
It wasn't clear whether Zaidi was hurt. His employer, Cairo-based Baghdadiyah Television, released a statement late Sunday demanding Zaidi's release from Iraqi custody.

As the White House transcript documents it, Bully Boy was joking and joshing, just having a good old time. "And I'm looking forward to some food" the transcript indicates was a laugh getter -- at least from reporters or "suck ups" -- you decide. He said he was there to sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and to sign "a Security Agreement, sometimes called a Status of Forces Agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq's democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year."  Bully Boy was spinning big time in the lead up to the shoe tossings, "There is still more work to be done.  The war is not yet over -- but with the conclusion of these agreements and the courage of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi troops and American troops and civilian personnel, it is decisively on its way to being won."  When you lie like that, maybe it should be considered a win that the sky didn't fall down on you?
 
 
"This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," the man said, according to a pool translation.
Seconds later, the journalist hurled his other shoe with similar precision as another Iraqi journalist reached over in an attempt to stop him.
"This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," he said, according to the translation.
 
Steven Lee Myers and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) report, "Mr. Maliki's security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room.  They kicked him and beat him until 'he was crying like a woman,' said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party".  Reuters notes: "The journalist was leapt on by Iraqi security officials and U.S. secret service agents and dragged from the room screaming and struggling."   Alistair Lyon (Reuters) observes international reaction: "He has also won instant fame abroad -- a poem on an Islamist website praises him as 'a hero with a lion's heart' -- although the Iraqi government slated his 'barbaric and ignominious act'."
 
 
 
September 16, 2007 Blackwater slaughter at least 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.  Last week, Anwar J. Ali weighed in with observations at the New York Times' blog:
 
 
I did not feel anything going to Nisour Square. I consider it something minor. It was only one site among so many where such things happened in Iraq, whether it was Americans or terrorists who did the shooting.
It is only because of media interest that Americans saw the injustice of this particular incident. Otherwise it would have been easily forgotten just like other violence here.   
If we concentrated on each incident that happened to Iraqis it would take hundreds of years to bring justice to all that Iraqis have suffered since 2003 -- and maybe will suffer in the future and in the next generation.  
I can't deny there is humanitarian justice in the behavior of the Americans in this regard, yet it is also intended to show to the world that the Americans will punish people who committed violations, even if they were Americans. 
In fact, in the year after this incident, there were many other incidents, sometimes explosions and at other times killing and assassinations. Many Iraqis were killed. Women, children and men of all ages and professions. Most of them were poor, mostly their only guilt is that they were in the street shopping, or earning a living.
 
Ali and Katherine Zoepf reported yesterday that the FBI met Saturday with approximately 50 people who either survived the September 16th slaughter or who had family killed or wounded in the attack.   The two reporters also provide Iraqis with a forum to speak:
 
"It's an old case, and I had lost hope," said Jassem Mohammed Hashem, a 29-year-old former policeman who has been on disability since being shot in the head by a Blackwater guard while he stood at his post. "But now it seems the American administration will give us our rights."
Mr. Hashem, who has a divot about half the size of an egg on the right side of his forehead, said that to save his life he had needed to undergo several operations. He still suffers from debilitating headaches, he said, as well as uncontrollable mood swings that have seriously affected his family relationships.
"I am so worried for my children," Mr. Hashem said. "My daughter is 5 and my son is 2 months old. I'm always in a bad mood, and I get very aggressive sometimes. I was never like this before. I lost my health on that day. I lost my job. I'm only 29, but I'm on disability and will probably have to retire."
A woman who identified herself as Umm Ghaith, whose husband, Hammoud Said Attah, a 32-year-old taxi driver, was killed in the shootings, said that until she received a call four days before informing her of the meeting, she had heard nothing about the investigation.
"Till now I don't know what to expect, but I really wish justice will take place," she said at the gathering, accompanied by her six young children and her sister-in-law, whose husband was also killed. "I think we will probably file a suit against Blackwater -- it's the right of my children."
 
 
Turning to some of today's reported violence . .  .
 
Bombings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad ("outskirts") car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left thirteen injured.  AP reports it was 5 and not three (police officers) and that it was a "suicide truck bomber" (not included in the death toll) and not just a car bombing.  AP also notes 1 "female sucide bomber" in Baghdad who took her own life and that of 1 "Awakening" Council member ("Ahmed Khamees, the local commander of the Sons of Iraq volunteer force in Tarmiya") at the door to his home. Reuters places the truck bomber on the "western outskirts of Baghdad" at claiming 9 lives with thirty-one wounded.
 
Shootings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 7 family members shot dead in a village outside Mosul.  Xinhau reports the slaughter took place "around midnight when gunmen believed to be affiliated to al-Qaida militant stormed a house belong to a family from Yazidi sect in the al-Shimal village near the town of Sinjar, some 180 km west of Mosul, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity." BBC explains that Yazidis are believed to amount to 500,000 worldwide and: "The Yazidis are an ancient, religious sect and there have been a number of attacks on them in Iraq in the past. In August 2007, some 400 people were killed in the Sinjar area in multiple bomb blasts targeting Yazidis."  In addition,  Reuters notes 1 woman shot dead in Mosul.
 
Turning to US politics, Paul Street is the author of  Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics. and, at Dissident Voice, he notes:
 
Five weeks away from Obama's inauguration, some progressives are disturbed to learn that his corporate-imperial cabinet picks epitomize what former Clinton administration official and Kissinger Associates Managing Director David J. Rothkopf calls "the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right" (NYT, November 22, 2008, A1). It bothers a growing number of Obama's liberal backers to learn that, as Wall Street Journal editorial board member Matthew Kaminski notes, "the Obama camp says the future president, who won running from the left, intends to govern from the center" (WSJ, December 6/7, 2008, A8).
"This Wasn't Quite the Change We Pictured," whines the title of a recent Washington Post editorial by leading left-liberal writer David Corn.2
It's long past time for Corn and other "concerned" and "disappointed" Obama liberals to trade in their rose-colored campaign glasses for the demystifying shades donned by the ideology-decoding rebels in John Carpenter's classic left science fiction movie "They Live." The balmy feel-good people's rhetoric of the electoral contest has faded as always before the big chill of corporate-imperial governance.
A little more due diligence research on their candidate's longstanding centrist history and how well it matches the narrow parameters imposed by the American political tradition and party system might have prevented some of the current left and liberal "honeymoaning" (Alexander Cockburn's useful term3) about Obama. For all his claims to be a noble and "pragmatic" reformer "above the fray" of America's imperial plutocracy and "ideological" politics, Obama is no special exception to -- and is in many ways an epitome of -- what Christopher Hitchens called (in his 1999 study of the Bill and Hillary Clinton phenomenon) "the essence of American politics. This essence, when distilled," Hitchens explained, "consists of the manipulation of populism by elitism." Christopher Hitchens, No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family (New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 17-18.
It's nothing new. Relying heavily on candidates' repeated promise to restore "hope" to a populace disillusioned by corporate control, corruption, and inequality -- a standard claim of non-incumbent Democratic presidential candidates -- this dark essence of United States political culture goes back further than the corporate-neoliberal era into which Obama came of political age. It is arguably as old the Republic itself, always torn by the rift between democratic promise and authoritarian realities of concentrated wealth and power.

Posted by at

Shinseki the 'dove' and trouble for al-Maliki?

From this impromptu exchange, a legend has grown: Shinseki was a stalwart opponent of the "Rumsfeld" war plan. He voiced those concerns and, after being "snubbed" by Pentagon officials (Los Angeles Times), was forced from office (CBS radio affiliate WTOP-Washington).
Here are some facts: First, Shinseki, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supported the war plan. The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, and his planning staff presented their approach to the Joint Chiefs and their staffs during the development of the plan. There was ample opportunity for the chiefs to express concerns and propose alternatives. There is no record of Shinseki having objected.
Shinseki also met with the commander in chief himself to discuss the plan. On at least one occasion at the White House, President Bush asked each member of the Joint Chiefs, including Shinseki, whether he believed the Iraq war plan was adequate to the objectives. Each said it was.
Further, Shinseki was not forced from office. He retired on time in June 2003, with the full honors due a retiring chief of staff of the U.S. Army. Much has been made of the fact that the secretary of defense did not attend Shinseki's retirement. The retiree determines who is included in the ceremony. The secretary, when included, is there by invitation. For whatever reason, and with an explanation neither required nor sought, Shinseki did not ask the secretary to speak or to attend.

The above is from Lawrence Di Rita's "Gen. Shinseki's Silence" a column in today's Washington Post. Di Rita is a Heritage Foundation member and you can find out more about him at Source Watch. And while it certainly is in the interest of the MSM to present Shinseki as a dove (they're repackaging the illegal war, in case you haven't noticed), you need to ask why the strongest criticism mounted against Shinseki comes from the right? (You know the answer, Panhandle Media handles Barack with baby wipes at all times.) Click here for Source Watch on Shinseki.

The last entry noted Steven Lee Myers and Alissa J. Rubin's "Iraqi Journalist Hurls Shoes at Bush and Denounces Him on TV as a 'Dog'" (New York Times) pertaining to the flying shoes; however, at the end of their article, they also offer the following regarding puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki:


Although a majority in the Iraqi Parliament approved the agreement, on the street, Iraqis have mixed views. Many distrust any pact made with an occupying power, and while Mr. Bush is appreciated for having overthrown Mr. Hussein, he is widely blamed for the violence that raged in the years after the war, which prompted more than a million Iraqis to flee and killed tens of thousands of civilians.
Still, Mr. Bush's stalwart support for Mr. Maliki -- after an initial period when the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, expressed doubts about him -- has been a bulwark against domestic political forces who sought to topple him.
With the American president's term ending, Iraqi politicians from parties other than Mr. Maliki's have been discussing whether to force the prime minister out with a no-confidence vote. This is not the first time his ouster has been discussed, but with American power in Iraq on the wane and troop numbers beginning to decline in earnest, it seems a more serious threat.

Meanwhile the religious persecution continues in northern Iraq. China's Xinhau reports 7 Yazidis (all of the same family) were killed "in a village west of Mosul . . . around midnight when gunmen believed to be affiliated to al-Qaida militant stormed a house belong to a family from Yazidi sect in the al-Shimal village near the town of Sinjar, some 180 km west of Mosul, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity." BBC explains that Yazidis are believed to amount to 500,000 worldwide and: "The Yazidis are an ancient, religious sect and there have been a number of attacks on them in Iraq in the past. In August 2007, some 400 people were killed in the Sinjar area in multiple bomb blasts targeting Yazidis." In addition, AP reports 1 Baghdad "suicide truck" bombing that resulted in the deaths of 5 people (plus the bomber) with a police source stating the five killed were police officers and that thirteen more were wounded; and they report 1 "female sucide bomber" in Baghdad who took her own life and that of 1 "Awakening" Council member ("Ahmed Khamees, the local commander of the Sons of Iraq volunteer force in Tarmiya") at the door to his home. Reuters places the truck bomber on the "western outskirts of Baghdad" and states 9 were killed and thirty-one wounded ("police said") and they note 1 woman shot dead in Mosul.

Brandon notes this from Paul Street's "The 'Wait 'Til He Gets In' Delusion" (Dissident Voice):

Five weeks away from Obama's inauguration, some progressives are disturbed to learn that his corporate-imperial cabinet picks epitomize what former Clinton administration official and Kissinger Associates Managing Director David J. Rothkopf calls "the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right" (NYT, November 22, 2008, A1). It bothers a growing number of Obama's liberal backers to learn that, as Wall Street Journal editorial board member Matthew Kaminski notes, "the Obama camp says the future president, who won running from the left, intends to govern from the center" (WSJ, December 6/7, 2008, A8).
"This Wasn't Quite the Change We Pictured," whines the title of a recent Washington Post editorial by leading left-liberal writer David Corn.2
It's long past time for Corn and other "concerned" and "disappointed" Obama liberals to trade in their rose-colored campaign glasses for the demystifying shades donned by the ideology-decoding rebels in John Carpenter's classic left science fiction movie "They Live." The balmy feel-good people's rhetoric of the electoral contest has faded as always before the big chill of corporate-imperial governance.
A little more due diligence research on their candidate’s longstanding centrist history and how well it matches the narrow parameters imposed by the American political tradition and party system might have prevented some of the current left and liberal "honeymoaning" (Alexander Cockburn's useful term3) about Obama. For all his claims to be a noble and "pragmatic" reformer "above the fray" of America's imperial plutocracy and "ideological" politics, Obama is no special exception to -- and is in many ways an epitome of -- what Christopher Hitchens called (in his 1999 study of the Bill and Hillary Clinton phenomenon) "the essence of American politics. This essence, when distilled," Hitchens explained, "consists of the manipulation of populism by elitism." Christopher Hitchens, No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family (New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 17-18.
It’s nothing new. Relying heavily on candidates’ repeated promise to restore “hope” to a populace disillusioned by corporate control, corruption, and inequality -- a standard claim of non-incumbent Democratic presidential candidates -- this dark essence of United States political culture goes back further than the corporate-neoliberal era into which Obama came of political age. It is arguably as old the Republic itself, always torn by the rift between democratic promise and authoritarian realities of concentrated wealth and power.

Paul Street's most recent book is Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics.
And this isn't Iraq related but it's Arundhati Roy so we will note it (a visitor e-mailed the highlight to the public account). From "The Monster in the Mirror" (Guardian of London via Information Clearing House):

We've forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. As the carnage in Mumbai raged on, day after horrible day, our 24-hour news channels informed us that we were watching "India's 9/11." And like actors in a Bollywood rip-off of an old Hollywood film, we're expected to play our parts and say our lines, even though we know it's all been said and done before.
As tension in the region builds, US Senator John McCain has warned Pakistan that, if it didn't act fast to arrest the "bad guys," he had personal information that India would launch air strikes on "terrorist camps" in Pakistan and that Washington could do nothing because Mumbai was India's 9/11.
But November isn't September, 2008 isn't 2001, Pakistan isn't Afghanistan, and India isn't America. So perhaps we should reclaim our tragedy and pick through the debris with our own brains and our own broken hearts so that we can arrive at our own conclusions.
It's odd how, in the last week of November, thousands of people in Kashmir supervised by thousands of Indian troops lined up to cast their vote, while the richest quarters of India's richest city ended up looking like war-torn Kupwara – one of Kashmir's most ravaged districts.
The Mumbai attacks are only the most recent of a spate of terrorist attacks on Indian towns and cities this year. Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi, Guwahati, Jaipur, and Malegaon have all seen serial bomb blasts in which hundreds of ordinary people have been killed and wounded. If the police are right about the people they have arrested as suspects, both Hindu and Muslim, all are Indian nationals, which obviously indicates that something's going very badly wrong in this country.

And Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Political Relations" went up last night.

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




the new york times
campbell robertson
alissa j. rubin



Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)