In Iraq and surrounding areas, the US military continues reposturing. This takes place as Jack Healy (New York Times) reports the US Embassy has announced that travel is "severely restricted" for US workers even within "the walled-off International Zone." That's the Green Zone. The US government has attempted to sell it as the "International Zone" for years in a share-the-blame effort that would, they hoped, make the US-led assault on Iraq look more like a world-wide effort.
Meanwhile, reading is fundamental but also apparently hard. Nouri al-Maliki writes a column in today's Washington Post. AFP misrepresents it. It's more Nouri being Nouri. He wishes he came off as well as AFP sees him (confident, assured). Instead, he's petty and vindictive:
There are still some who seek the destruction of our country. The Baath Party, which is prohibited by the constitution, believes in coups and conspiracies; indeed, these have been its modus operandi since the party’s inception. The Baathists seek to destroy Iraq’s democratic process. Hundreds of suspected Baathists recently were arrested; some of those detained have been released while others are awaiting trial. Those still in custody will receive due process and equitable treatment under Iraqi law. These detainees come from all over Iraq, and I refute characterizations that the detentions were a sectarian action based on political motives. These steps were taken to protect Iraq's democracy.
No, those steps were not taken to promote or protect democracy. They were taken as part of Nouri's continued attacks on political opponents. Those arrested included elderly college professors. Nouri seems to have a bunker mentality. Not a surprise when you grasp that he was never chosen by Iraq but an exile that fled the country for decades and only returned after the Iraq War started and was then forced off on the puppet system of government by the US.
By contrast, Babak Dehghanpisheh (Daily Beast/Newsweek) notes that a showdown between Sunnis and Shi'ites seems likely:
Rather than decreasing sectarian tensions, Iraqi leaders appear to be pouring fuel on the fire. In recent weeks the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has arrested more than 600 alleged former Baathists who are suspected of plotting against the central government.
To many Iraqi Sunnis, who are already wary of the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, the crackdown looks like an all-out witch hunt. “I’m afraid a clash will happen in a very violent way,” says Salih Mutlaq, a deputy prime minister who is Sunni.
Nouri also writes:
This year, the Arab Spring has brought a great deal of change to this region. Iraq rejects dictatorships and one-party governments. We hope that these movements succeed in bringing freedom and democracy to the millions who seek it and that the region achieves a newfound stability as a result. This is in the interests of not only our region but the entire world.
That's laughable coming from Nouri who, of course, refused to step down as prime minister. When his slate came in second in the March 2010 elections, he refused to step down, he refused to follow the Constitution. He refused to follow the will of the people. In February of this year, he did announce he wouldn't seek a third term -- as outrage at the government and Nouri began simmering but, of course, those were just words. Last week, his legal advisor made a point to tell the press that there was nothing in the Constitution barring Nouri from seeking a third term as prime minister. "Iraq rejects dictatorships," Nouri maintains. People do realize that Saddam Hussein held elections as well, right?
And how appalling of Nouri to mention the Arab Spring when, within Iraq, it signified for some a very troubling development: Increased attacks on Iraqi Christians. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes, "With the Arab Spring now bringing political turbulence to many other countries in the region, Christians throughout the Middle East are worried that what happened in Iraq may be a harbinger of misfortune to come in their own communities. While many remain supporters of the uprisings, others fear that the toppling of their autocratic rulers could uncork sectarian violence against Christians and other minority groups in their own nations."
Following fiery sermons Friday morning verbally attacking Christians, some residents of Zakho, Dohuk and Sumel (cities in the Kurdistan Regional Government -- Dohuk is also a Province but we're referring to the city of Dohuk in Dohuk Province) began attacking Christians and Christian-owned businesses such as over ten liquor stores. They went on to set fire to the Kurdistan Islamic Union offices in Dohuk and Sumel. Al Mada reports that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani called an emergency meeting of political parties yesterday to address the violence with the formation of a special investigative committee to examine the crimes and take any legal action that is warranted. The KRG website (in an Arabic posting not posted in English yet) quotes Barzani condemning the attacks ("We do not allow anyone to urge citizens to commit acts of violence.") and the Kurdish Parliament also condemned the attacks which, the website states, resulted in thirty people being injured. Barzani's full statement can be found here (in Arabic) and decries the attacks on the Christians and Yazidis.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
jack healy
the washington post
the daily beast
newsweek
babak dehghanpisheh
the wall street journal
sam dagher
al mada
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Monday, December 05, 2011
Elected Democrats were culpable for the Iraq War also
I'm not in the mood for stupid this morning. I can't imagine anything worse than parading your stupidity before the nation unless it's intentionally trying to mislead. David C. Kent is guilty of one of the two. In a very bad letter to the editor he says he wants you to know what the Bush administration did (Bully Boy Bush). "The Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a president," huffs Kent. Uh, no, that happened during the Clinton administration. Your administration doesn't start until you are sworn in. When you're that ignorant maybe you should stop writing letters and instead sign up for that online degree you've been dreaming of? Or maybe you already have.
But what concerns us the most is this little lie, "The administration illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to the United States at all."
The US government is responsible for the Iraq War. That's the Supreme Court which refused to hear a challenge to the war and that's certainly the Democrats who didn't do a damn thing.
In October 2002, when the Iraq War authorization was voted on in Congress, there were 221 Republicans in the House and 212 Democrats. That's more than enough to bury the vote in the House and obstruct the rush to war. At the same time, the Democrats controlled the Senate -- 50 seats to the Republicans 49 (1 "Independent").
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 won 297 votes -- 82 of those were Democrats. In the Senate, 29 Democratic senators voted for it (21 against). The Democratic Party spokespeople would claim -- publicly, they didn't try to hide this -- that they had to show support for the war or they'd lose seats in Congress.
Maybe that strikes you as 'good' strategy. I say it makes you guilty as hell.
After that vote, Americans would vote (November 2002) and, in the House, the Democrats would retain 204 seats and the Republicans would hold 229. (2 "Independents" would drop to 1 following the 2002 elections.) The Senate would see Republicans take control of the Senate with 51 seats while the Dems had 48 (1 independent).
Doesn't look like Dems rushing to agree with Republicans -- especially those Dems considered 'serious' and invited on the Sunday network chat & chews -- resulted in much besides the deaths of probably 2 million Iraqis.
Elizabeth Edwards always maintained that John Edwards, then in the Senate, voted as he did because he thought it was 'stalling' the rush to war by forcing the US to get a resolution from the UN (if so, that was stupid, the US never got that second resolution).
In 2004, the Democratic Party's presidential ticket was John Kerry and John Edwards -- two US senators who both voted for the authorization of war on Iraq.
The Democratic Party talking point was that the Iraq War had taken the US 'eye' off the fight in Afghanistan, it was a distraction. Really, a distraction? That's the problem with the Iraq War, it's a distraction? I don't think the country of orphans and widows feels that their lives these 8 years have been a 'distraction.'
Not only did the country go to war but when a serious impeach challenge was being mounted, who showed up to piss on it and insist it would hurt Democrats chances in the 2004 elections? 'Liberal' John Podesta, of the Center for American Progress, was there griping, cursing and screaming March 13, 2003. You can ask John Conyers -- who was leading the effort -- or Francis Boyle or Ramsey Clark or any number of participants. It took place March 13, 2003 in DC and was seriously explored in an attempt to prevent the Iraq War. Whore John Podesta came in arguing that (he wasn't the only whore) and the issue was forever buried. As Francis Boyle has stated publicly about after the war started, "All they had to do was just do nothing and Bush would have run out of money." (He explained that on KPFA's Guns & Butter to Bonnie Faulkner on March 28, 2007, see that day's snapshot.) What's he talking about? The war required money. They didn't have to vote for it. At any point, had they refused to support the continued financing of the war (Barack, Hillary and Joe repeatedly voted for the continued funding of the war), that would have ended it. Mike Gravel would make this point repeatedly in 2007 while seeking the Democratic Party nomination. When this point began to get traction, Gravel began disappearing from the media radar.
In 2006, Nancy Pelosi and other Dems told the American people, "Give us just one house of Congress and we'll end the Iraq War." In the November 2006 elections, they were given control of both houses of Congress. The war did not end. To the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, in 2008, Nancy put the blame for that on Harry Reid, stating that she had her house in order; however, the Senate Majority Leader didn't have his people in line.
That argument really doesn't play. That's because Nancy Pelosi herself publicly made the "give us one house" proposal. So when she made it, she was saying, "If you give us the House [or the Senate], we can end the war." Meaning she expected that if she became House Speaker (which she did), that she would be at war with a Republican controlled Senate. But she publicly said she'd still be able to end the Iraq War, regardless of what the Senate tried to do.
In the November 2008 elections, Dems continued their control of the House and Senate but also won the White House. Not only did the Iraq War not end in January 2009 when people were sworn in but since Barack declared combat 'over' (August 31, 2010), 68 US service members have died from that war. (At least. That number doesn't count the veterans who may have taken their own lives -- or active service members -- after serving in Iraq but were unable to get the treatment they needed.)
We could go on and on. But at this late date, the Iraq War cannot be pinned solely on the Republicans. The Democrats could have stopped it in 2002, in 2003 (via impeachment), at any point after by refusing to continue to fund the illegal war, in January 2007 when, after being sworn in, they controlled both house of Congres . . . And on and on and on.
I'm still sick. I'm going to try to do another entry this morning. No promises though. (There will be a snapshot -- probably around 9:00 pm EST, 8:00 pm Central, 6:00 pm Pacific.)
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- they continue to explore Occupy Wall Street. "Take it up with, Les, he's the one who's frigid." (Name the movie.) And this is from Michael Ratner's "Blame Obama First -- Then Congress for Not Ending Guantanamo and Its Underlying Practices" (Just Left):
Both Bush and Obama have claimed the right to kill and capture alleged terrorists anywhere in the world or hold them in military detention indefinitely—ie Guantanamo.
In their view the world is a battlefield—not just Afghanistan and Iraq.
Their claim is that alleged terrorists –at least those related to al Qaeda, Taliban and associated forces (whatever that means) are at war with the United States and that the US can make war on them which includes capturing them and holding them forever without trial—no matter where they are: Yemen, Somalia, United Kingdom, South America or anywhere.
The determination of whom to capture and/or kill is made by the President without any court.
Bush and Obama have always claimed that US citizens can be so treated as well—so that is why under Obama we saw the killing of an American citizen by a drone in Yemen—al-alwaki.
Both Presidents have also acted as if they can kill and capture alleged terrorists that have no relationship to 9/11—the new law confirms this practice.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
francis a. boyle
kpfa
guns and butter
bonnie faulkner
wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
But what concerns us the most is this little lie, "The administration illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to the United States at all."
The US government is responsible for the Iraq War. That's the Supreme Court which refused to hear a challenge to the war and that's certainly the Democrats who didn't do a damn thing.
In October 2002, when the Iraq War authorization was voted on in Congress, there were 221 Republicans in the House and 212 Democrats. That's more than enough to bury the vote in the House and obstruct the rush to war. At the same time, the Democrats controlled the Senate -- 50 seats to the Republicans 49 (1 "Independent").
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 won 297 votes -- 82 of those were Democrats. In the Senate, 29 Democratic senators voted for it (21 against). The Democratic Party spokespeople would claim -- publicly, they didn't try to hide this -- that they had to show support for the war or they'd lose seats in Congress.
Maybe that strikes you as 'good' strategy. I say it makes you guilty as hell.
After that vote, Americans would vote (November 2002) and, in the House, the Democrats would retain 204 seats and the Republicans would hold 229. (2 "Independents" would drop to 1 following the 2002 elections.) The Senate would see Republicans take control of the Senate with 51 seats while the Dems had 48 (1 independent).
Doesn't look like Dems rushing to agree with Republicans -- especially those Dems considered 'serious' and invited on the Sunday network chat & chews -- resulted in much besides the deaths of probably 2 million Iraqis.
Elizabeth Edwards always maintained that John Edwards, then in the Senate, voted as he did because he thought it was 'stalling' the rush to war by forcing the US to get a resolution from the UN (if so, that was stupid, the US never got that second resolution).
In 2004, the Democratic Party's presidential ticket was John Kerry and John Edwards -- two US senators who both voted for the authorization of war on Iraq.
The Democratic Party talking point was that the Iraq War had taken the US 'eye' off the fight in Afghanistan, it was a distraction. Really, a distraction? That's the problem with the Iraq War, it's a distraction? I don't think the country of orphans and widows feels that their lives these 8 years have been a 'distraction.'
Not only did the country go to war but when a serious impeach challenge was being mounted, who showed up to piss on it and insist it would hurt Democrats chances in the 2004 elections? 'Liberal' John Podesta, of the Center for American Progress, was there griping, cursing and screaming March 13, 2003. You can ask John Conyers -- who was leading the effort -- or Francis Boyle or Ramsey Clark or any number of participants. It took place March 13, 2003 in DC and was seriously explored in an attempt to prevent the Iraq War. Whore John Podesta came in arguing that (he wasn't the only whore) and the issue was forever buried. As Francis Boyle has stated publicly about after the war started, "All they had to do was just do nothing and Bush would have run out of money." (He explained that on KPFA's Guns & Butter to Bonnie Faulkner on March 28, 2007, see that day's snapshot.) What's he talking about? The war required money. They didn't have to vote for it. At any point, had they refused to support the continued financing of the war (Barack, Hillary and Joe repeatedly voted for the continued funding of the war), that would have ended it. Mike Gravel would make this point repeatedly in 2007 while seeking the Democratic Party nomination. When this point began to get traction, Gravel began disappearing from the media radar.
In 2006, Nancy Pelosi and other Dems told the American people, "Give us just one house of Congress and we'll end the Iraq War." In the November 2006 elections, they were given control of both houses of Congress. The war did not end. To the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, in 2008, Nancy put the blame for that on Harry Reid, stating that she had her house in order; however, the Senate Majority Leader didn't have his people in line.
That argument really doesn't play. That's because Nancy Pelosi herself publicly made the "give us one house" proposal. So when she made it, she was saying, "If you give us the House [or the Senate], we can end the war." Meaning she expected that if she became House Speaker (which she did), that she would be at war with a Republican controlled Senate. But she publicly said she'd still be able to end the Iraq War, regardless of what the Senate tried to do.
In the November 2008 elections, Dems continued their control of the House and Senate but also won the White House. Not only did the Iraq War not end in January 2009 when people were sworn in but since Barack declared combat 'over' (August 31, 2010), 68 US service members have died from that war. (At least. That number doesn't count the veterans who may have taken their own lives -- or active service members -- after serving in Iraq but were unable to get the treatment they needed.)
We could go on and on. But at this late date, the Iraq War cannot be pinned solely on the Republicans. The Democrats could have stopped it in 2002, in 2003 (via impeachment), at any point after by refusing to continue to fund the illegal war, in January 2007 when, after being sworn in, they controlled both house of Congres . . . And on and on and on.
I'm still sick. I'm going to try to do another entry this morning. No promises though. (There will be a snapshot -- probably around 9:00 pm EST, 8:00 pm Central, 6:00 pm Pacific.)
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- they continue to explore Occupy Wall Street. "Take it up with, Les, he's the one who's frigid." (Name the movie.) And this is from Michael Ratner's "Blame Obama First -- Then Congress for Not Ending Guantanamo and Its Underlying Practices" (Just Left):
Both Bush and Obama have claimed the right to kill and capture alleged terrorists anywhere in the world or hold them in military detention indefinitely—ie Guantanamo.
In their view the world is a battlefield—not just Afghanistan and Iraq.
Their claim is that alleged terrorists –at least those related to al Qaeda, Taliban and associated forces (whatever that means) are at war with the United States and that the US can make war on them which includes capturing them and holding them forever without trial—no matter where they are: Yemen, Somalia, United Kingdom, South America or anywhere.
The determination of whom to capture and/or kill is made by the President without any court.
Bush and Obama have always claimed that US citizens can be so treated as well—so that is why under Obama we saw the killing of an American citizen by a drone in Yemen—al-alwaki.
Both Presidents have also acted as if they can kill and capture alleged terrorists that have no relationship to 9/11—the new law confirms this practice.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
francis a. boyle
kpfa
guns and butter
bonnie faulkner
wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Sunday, December 04, 2011
And the war drags on . . .
As the US military's reposition continues, Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) is reporting that convoys headed through the south towards Kuwait have paid protection. US Col Douglas Crissman explains the US is paying over 20 tribal sheikhs for protection.
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, the number of US military people killed in the Iraq War since the start of the illegal war was 4486. Tonight? PDF format warning, DoD lists the the number of Americans killed serving in Iraq at 4486.
In today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left three more injured (but the Ministry of the Interior says 4 soldiers died and two injured), another Baghad roadside bombing left five people injured, a Kirkuk home bombing claimed the lives of 2 men and left one woman injured, a police officer was shot dead in Mosul and, dropping back to Saturday night for the rest, a Mosul funeral home was attacked resulting in the death of 1 man and one woman and child was injured while one of the assailants killed 1 police officer as they assailants escaped, and lastly a Baghdad attack on Iraqi General Ali Fadhil left him injured and his wife dead.
US Vice President Joe Biden visited Iraq last week. Patrick Martin (WSWS) offers this analysis:
The discussions conducted between Biden and Iraqi officials focused in large measure on ways and means of maintaining a prominent role for the US military in Iraq, under the guise of “training” Iraqi forces. Whether this takes the form of US military “trainers” rotating in and out of the country or Iraqi forces receiving training from US forces stationed in neighboring countries, where the American military presence is to be increased, appears not to have been resolved.
Biden himself personifies the right-wing, pro-war stance taken by the congressional Democrats. He voted for the war resolution in October 2002 and, in his capacity as the leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, backed the war and offered his own strategic advice—including a notorious proposal for the de facto partition of Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, which foreshadowed the policy actually employed by the US military in fomenting civil war.
The congressional Democrats shifted to a supposed “anti-war” stance only in order to co-opt and derail the mass popular opposition to the war, which propelled them to a congressional majority in 2006 and gave Obama victory in the 2008 presidential campaign. Once in office, however, Obama continued the Bush policy in Iraq, kept Bush’s defense secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon, and escalated Bush’s other war in Afghanistan.
Biden's visit in Iraq found him meeting with the US 'friends' the Kurds. 'Friends' worded that way because Dar Addustour reports that when Biden went on to Turkey, the American delegation told the Turkish government they would not support Kirkuk becoming part of the Kurdistan Regional Government. True? Why not. When has a White House never told everyone what they wanted to hear? But who did they tell the truth to: the Turks or the Kurds? This is one more reason the KRG needs to stop doing the bidding of the US government (which includes lobbying for 12,000 troops as trainers in January). The KRG has done the bidding of the Bush White House and now the Barack White House and they've really gotten nothing for it. They've been repeatedly undercut in every negotiation.
Meanwhile as Nouri continues to make the laughable assertion that he was the target of the bombing of Parliament on Monday, Al Mada reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc steps forward to issue a statement asking that the attack be seen as an attack on Iraq's political process and to not exploit the attack by using it to create further divisions between the political blocs.
New content at Third:
No new comic from Isaiah who has a cold like so many of the rest of us. I will be doing entries tomorrow but if I wake up feeling just like this, I'm liable to roll back over and go right back to sleep. Sorry. That's your heads up. (And, no, this isn't much. Go read Third. We worked hard on that and I'm wiped out.) Pru notes "Disgrace as Ed Miliband crosses pickets" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
mohamad ali harissi
afp
wsws
patrick martin
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, the number of US military people killed in the Iraq War since the start of the illegal war was 4486. Tonight? PDF format warning, DoD lists the the number of Americans killed serving in Iraq at 4486.
In today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left three more injured (but the Ministry of the Interior says 4 soldiers died and two injured), another Baghad roadside bombing left five people injured, a Kirkuk home bombing claimed the lives of 2 men and left one woman injured, a police officer was shot dead in Mosul and, dropping back to Saturday night for the rest, a Mosul funeral home was attacked resulting in the death of 1 man and one woman and child was injured while one of the assailants killed 1 police officer as they assailants escaped, and lastly a Baghdad attack on Iraqi General Ali Fadhil left him injured and his wife dead.
US Vice President Joe Biden visited Iraq last week. Patrick Martin (WSWS) offers this analysis:
The discussions conducted between Biden and Iraqi officials focused in large measure on ways and means of maintaining a prominent role for the US military in Iraq, under the guise of “training” Iraqi forces. Whether this takes the form of US military “trainers” rotating in and out of the country or Iraqi forces receiving training from US forces stationed in neighboring countries, where the American military presence is to be increased, appears not to have been resolved.
Biden himself personifies the right-wing, pro-war stance taken by the congressional Democrats. He voted for the war resolution in October 2002 and, in his capacity as the leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, backed the war and offered his own strategic advice—including a notorious proposal for the de facto partition of Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, which foreshadowed the policy actually employed by the US military in fomenting civil war.
The congressional Democrats shifted to a supposed “anti-war” stance only in order to co-opt and derail the mass popular opposition to the war, which propelled them to a congressional majority in 2006 and gave Obama victory in the 2008 presidential campaign. Once in office, however, Obama continued the Bush policy in Iraq, kept Bush’s defense secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon, and escalated Bush’s other war in Afghanistan.
Biden's visit in Iraq found him meeting with the US 'friends' the Kurds. 'Friends' worded that way because Dar Addustour reports that when Biden went on to Turkey, the American delegation told the Turkish government they would not support Kirkuk becoming part of the Kurdistan Regional Government. True? Why not. When has a White House never told everyone what they wanted to hear? But who did they tell the truth to: the Turks or the Kurds? This is one more reason the KRG needs to stop doing the bidding of the US government (which includes lobbying for 12,000 troops as trainers in January). The KRG has done the bidding of the Bush White House and now the Barack White House and they've really gotten nothing for it. They've been repeatedly undercut in every negotiation.
Meanwhile as Nouri continues to make the laughable assertion that he was the target of the bombing of Parliament on Monday, Al Mada reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc steps forward to issue a statement asking that the attack be seen as an attack on Iraq's political process and to not exploit the attack by using it to create further divisions between the political blocs.
New content at Third:
No new comic from Isaiah who has a cold like so many of the rest of us. I will be doing entries tomorrow but if I wake up feeling just like this, I'm liable to roll back over and go right back to sleep. Sorry. That's your heads up. (And, no, this isn't much. Go read Third. We worked hard on that and I'm wiped out.) Pru notes "Disgrace as Ed Miliband crosses pickets" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):
Ed Miliband should have been on the picket lines on Wednesday with striking public sector workers. But instead he was crossing them.
The Labour leader entered parliament past striking workers.Miliband has long proclaimed his opposition to strikes and his opinion that they are always a “sign of failure”.
But such talk is an insult to millions of workers who have supported and voted Labour and expect it to be on their side.
Miliband was forced to shift on strike day itself.
He would not condemn “the dinner ladies, nurses, teachers who have made the decision to go on strike”, he said.
“I am afraid the government has got to accept responsibility that it is their failure that has led to the strikes today.”
Workers taking action against the Tories’ attacks expressed outrage at Labour’s attitude. Adam Jenkins is a park ranger for Bromley council and Unite branch secretary.
He told Socialist Worker, “These Tories want to go back to the Thatcher years, but Labour is useless as well. We give Labour our money, it’s their life blood. Labour should be here supporting us today.”
A minority of left wing Labour MPs and councillors did make a principled stand and declare their support for the strikers. But the leadership has made its position clear.
If striking workers are looking for solidarity then they won’t find it from the likes of Miliband.
The following should be read alongside this article:
Millions go to war on the Tories
George Osborne: more misery to come
Desperate David Cameron tries to whitewash huge action
International trade unionists show their support
Daily Mail solidarity with strikers
Teachers: ‘We’re proud to picket for pensions for all’
PCS build solid, determined pickets
Health workers: this is a fight to save the NHS
United strike sees big pickets shut down council services
The numbers on the main demos on 30 November
Tories fear us getting a taste for our strength
‘The unions are a movement again... we can bring the tories down’
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
mohamad ali harissi
afp
wsws
patrick martin
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)