The Common Ills


Thursday, November 26, 2009
"Like Creatures from outer space" except for the Poodle

"Like Creatures from outer space" except for the Poodle

In England, the Iraq Inquiry continues. The Guardian's podcast this week features Anne Perkins and Polly Toynbee discussing the inquiry. Testimony today comes from Christopher Meyer and the topic is Transatlantic Relationship while tomorrow Jeremy Greenstock is scheduled to offer testimony on the Developments in the United Nations. Chris Ames (Guardian) observes of Meyer's testimony today:

At the Iraq inquiry this morning, Sir Christopher Meyer has let so many cats out of the bag that it is hard to keep up with them all. He has confirmed that by the time Tony Blair met George Bush at Crawford, Texas in April 2002, Blair had already agreed to regime change. Meyer and others had told the US administration about this change of heart in March 2002. The "UN route" was a way to justify the war but the inspectors were never given the chance to do their job.
Or did we know all that already? Ever since the war, there has been a massive gulf between what various leaked documents have shown and the official version. Previous inquiries have failed to close that gap. Now Meyer, who was the UK ambassador to Washington at the time, has done exactly that.
The government's version of events was always that it was taking action to deal with the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Leaked documents, most notably the Downing Street documents, show that the policy was to go along with the US desire for regime change and use weapons of mass destruction as a pretext. This version of events was confirmed by what Meyer said this morning. I don't think it could be more explosive.
The inquiry committee gradually brought Meyer to early 2002, when it became apparent that the hawks in the Bush administration who wanted regime change had won the argument in the aftermath of September 11. He said that the UK had been against regime change, mainly on legal grounds. But by the time Tony Blair visited George Bush at Crawford, he was supporting the policy, but had to be discreet about it.

Meyer's testimony reveals that the visit Ames noted above found Bush and Blair speaking privately with no staff around and repeats Bush declaring that world leaders were "like creatures from outer space" excepting only Tony Blair (somewhere, John Howard sobs into his dirty pillow). James Meikle and Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) also emphasize the April 2002 ranch meet-up:

Asked about Tony Blair's meeting with Bush at Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, where, some observers believe, the decision to go to war was made, Meyer said: "To this day I'm not entirely clear what degree of convergence was signed in blood at the Texas range."
But a speech by Blair the following day was, he believed, the first time the prime minister had publicly said "regime change". "What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq, which led – I think not inadvertently but deliberately – to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Nico Hines (Times of London) adds:

He said that after the September 11 attacks, the atmosphere changed in Washington. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s national security adviser at the time, was the first person he heard mention Iraq on September 11. He said that “by the following weekend that turned into a major debate at Camp David” – it developed into a bit of a “ding-dong”.
Over the next two months, Sir Christopher said the Bush Administration had decided on a new course over Iraq. “What was inevitable, [after 9/11] I think, was that the Americans were going to bust a gut on the mandate of regime change.”
He said that up until that moment there was a lack of real impetus over Iraq, which he said was more of “a grumbling appendix”.
"When I heard that speech, I thought that this represents a tightening of the UK/US alliance and a degree of convergence on the danger Saddam Hussein presented."

In the US, Bush used many lies to push for war on Iraq and the most infamous one might be that 'Saddam Hussein attempted to aquire yellow cake uranium from Africa'. In England, Blair was fond of the fanciful boast that Iraq had the capability to attack England with WMD within 45 minutes. David Brown and Francis Elliott (Times of London) emphasize this important aspect of yesterday's testimony, "Intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction was received by the Government ten days before Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, the inquiry into the war was told yesterday."
For Great Britain's Socialist Worker, Sian Ruddick reports on the first day of the hearing (Tuesday) in "New revelations as Iraq war inquiry opens:"

The official inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war began its public hearings on Tuesday of this week amid a storm over leaked documents that show the backroom deals George Bush and Tony Blair made in the run-up to the slaughter.
Many hoped that the inquiry would condemn Blair’s actions and declare the war illegal.
But its chairman, Sir John Chilcot, said the conclusions of the inquiry would be “definitive in one sense, yes, but not definitive in the sense of a court verdict of legal or illegal.
“It is much closer to high policy decisions: was this a wise decision, was it well-taken, was it founded on good advice and good information and analysis?”
The Sunday Telegraph newspaper published leaked documents this week that show that Blair tried to hide his true intentions over Iraq by informing only “very small numbers” of officials.
He tried to claim the goal was “disarmament, not regime change”.
But the documents reveal that “from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation”.
This limited inquiry will not stop future wars from happening or call leaders to account.
The inquiry must look at the deals made with the US in the months before the war.
It must expose the fabricated “intelligence”, including the 45-minute threat.
Only by declaring Tony Blair guilty of war crimes will it help to bring justice for those millions of Iraqis who have paid with their lives for a bloody, pointless war.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Did British soldiers kill Iraqi civilians?
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version

Violence continues today in Iraq. AFP reports that a Mosul "church and a convent were struck by bombings" -- the Church of St. Ephrem and St. Theresa Convent of Dominican Nuns -- and quotes Father Yousif Thomas Mirkis stating, "These attacks are aimed at forcing Christians to leave the contry." In addition, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 1 life and left ten people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left one other person injured, a second Baghdad sticky bombing which injured one person, a third Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left three other people wounded and 2 Babil market bombings which claimed 2 lives and left twenty-eight people injured.

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




chris ames
mcclatchy newspapers
the guardian
andrew sparrow
the times of london
david brown
nico hines

the socialist worker

Posted at 08:55 am by thecommonills
 

Thankful?

Thankful?

Since at least the time of Abraham Lincoln, presidents have sent letters of condolence to the families of service members killed in action, whether the deaths came by hostile fire or in an accident.
So after his son killed himself in Iraq in June, Gregg Keesling expected that his family would receive a letter from President Obama. What it got instead was a call from an Army official telling family members that they were not eligible because their son had committed suicide.
"We were shocked," said Mr. Keesling, 52, of Indianapolis.

That's the opening to James Dao's "Families of Military Suicides Seek White House Condolences" in today's New York Times and the subject's been noted before as have Janet and Gregg Keesling (parents of Chancellor Keesling) but Dao's got some additional information including quotes that further weaken the White House silence. Meanwhile Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports that "He who seeks sweet things must also endure bitterness" was performed at the Iraqi National Theater in Baghdad in what the theater company hopes will be a return of theater night life in Baghdad.

Whether that happens or not, it's difficult to call Baghdad 'safe' or even 'safer' today. If it were, wouldn't the president of the United States be spending part of his first Thanksgiving in office in Iraq? If Bush can go there, shouldn't Barack?

Speaking of war mongers (Barack and Bush), a third is suddenly concerned about press freedom. That's so damn laughable when you consider that David Kelley would be alive if Tony Blair truly believed in press freedom. Julian Borger (Guardian) reports:

The former prime minister, whose role in the Iraq war is the subject of an official public inquiry, spoke out over press freedom after a Baghdad court fined a Guardian journalist, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, for defamation after he reported criticism of the Iraqi leader, Nouri al-Maliki.
"I have been following the Ghaith Abdul-Ahad court case against the Guardian in Iraq," Blair said in an emailed statement. "We fought for freedom in Iraq including freedom of the press. Often what the press says is harsh or unfair. But that freedom is essential and must be upheld. So while I may not always agree with what the Guardian write I do hope that when the case goes to appeal the courts will follow due process in accordance with the Iraqi constitution."
The Guardian has said it will appeal against the court verdict, which awarded 100m dinars (£52,000) to Maliki for an article in April which quoted unnamed Iraqi intelligence officials as saying that the prime minister was centralising state power in his hands.

Meanwhile, despite the title of Anthony Shadid and Nada Bakri's article, there is no agreement re: the elections currently. There is a proposal which may or may not have backing in the Parliament and which may or may not pit Sunni against Kurd. Shadid and Bakri are correct when they note:

Even with the agreement, which must now be approved by the Iraqi electoral commission, election officials said it would be almost impossible to hold the election in January as originally planned. Mid- to late February was more likely, since a major Shiite Muslim holiday will not end until Feb. 10.

And, to be clear, the two reporters did not write the headline. It can be argued their first paragraph writes the headline; however, their wording is much more cautious than what the headline blares.


The following community websites updated last night:


Cedric's Big Mix
Little girls love to play dress-up
11 hours ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! HE REALLY IS BUSH'S TWIN!
11 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Yes
12 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
To shop or not and the Iraq Inquiry
12 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
the sport of the shop
12 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
No to Black Friday
12 hours ago

And Elaine's "Comfort zone," Ruth's "Pre-shopping questions," Marcia's "To shop or not?," Trina's "Shopping kit and more ," Ann's "No to shopping (except for kids)" and Kat's "No on the shopping proposition."

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







the washington post
nada bakri




thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Posted at 08:52 am by thecommonills
 

Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Wednesday, November 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq Inquiry continues in England, the Liberal Democrats call out Gordon Brown's attempts to short-circuit the inquiry, another inquiry waits in the wings -- one into British forces possible abuse and murder of Iraqis, and more.
 
Today in London, the Iraq Inquiry continued its public hearings.  Janet Stobart (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The six-member panel is looking into the decision of former Prime Minister Tony Blair's government to join the U.S.-led war that brought down the Iraqi dictator in 2003. It will interview policymakers, secret service chiefs, military commanders and relatives of soldiers who died in the war. Blair is scheduled to appear in January. " The day's focus was WMDs.  John Chilcot heads the Inquiry.
 
Chair John Chilcot: Good morning. Our objective today is to look at the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This will take us from the time of the first Gulf War and the inspections that followed it right up to the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, the organisation with responsibility for providing an account of Saddam's weapons' programmes after the Iraq conflict.  Several reports have already been published on issues relating to weapons of mass destruction. We do not propose in this session to go in detail into areas which have already been examined closely before by other investigations, but what we do hope to do is to elict communities' concern about Saddam's weapons, the development of the government's policy on this issue, the threat that the government believed that Iraq's weapons posed, and what was found after the conflict. I would like to recall that the Inquiry has access to literally thousands of government papers, including the most highly classified for the period we are considering and we are developing a picture of the policy debates and the decision-making process.
 
Unless attributed to a news outlet, all quotes from today's hearings are from the [PDF format warning] rush transcript provided by the Inquiry (which they note may change) or from the videos of the hearing provided by the Inquiry. Emma Alberici (Australia's ABC and link has text and audio) summarizes, "The Chilcot inquiry has now heard two days of evidence from the most senior Foreign Office officials who received and analysed intelligence on Iraq for two years before the war and in the year after the invasion. It has emerged that Britain's Foreign Office also told former prime minister Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been dismantled, 10 days before Britain invaded Iraq."   Tim Dowse and William Ehrman were today's witnesses. Channel 4's Iraqi Inquiry Blogger observes, "One thing I'll remember about today's hearing was watching two career diplomats relive the moments that must surely be the absolute nadir of their professional lives.  I'm talking about the weeks and months following the Iraq War when the weapons their department had so confidently assessed would be found failed to turn up." And it is apparently difficult for some liars to ever get honest.  From today's hearing:
 
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: So in terms of your concerns over this period, you mentioned Iran, you mentioned North Korea, you mentioned Libya, you mentioned Pakistan, at least through AQ Khan, and you mentioned Iraq, but in terms of rank ordering again, where would Iraq come on that list, in terms of the most threatening in proliferation terms?
 
Tim Dowse: It wasn't top of the list. I think in terms of -- my concerns on coming into the job in 2001, I would say, we would have put Libya and Iran ahead of Iraq. 
 
William Ehrman: I would like to add to that. In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq. In terms of chemical and biological, particularly through the spring and summer of 2002, we were getting intelligence, much of which was subsequently withdrawan as invalid, but at the time it was seen as valid, that gave us cause for concern, but I think there is one other thing that you need to recall about Iraq, which was different in a sense from some of the other countries. First of all, they were in breach of a great many Security Council Resolutions. Secondly, as Tim Dowse has mentioned, Iraq had used chemical weapons bother internally against its own people and externally against Iran. Thirdly, it had started a war against Iran and it had invaded Kuwait and it had also fired missiles to Iran, Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia. So in that sense in terms of use and in terms of -- ignoring a great many Security Council Resolutions, Iraq was unique.
 
Was Iraq the big threat in 2001 or 2002?  No.  Dowse says other countries ranked ahead of it.  Ehrman can't have that and it's time for him to lie and confuse the issue.  He does that by bringing a number of areas which, pay attention, were offered as reasons . . . for . . . the . . . FIRST GULF WAR.  It is equivalent to the US and England declaring World War II based on the 1914 assassination of Franz Ferdinand. 
 
Ehrman also appears to have been snoozing (or hoping everyone else was) only minutes prior when Dowse had addressed the issue of missiles and noted that they "are not weapons of mass destruction in themselves".  Now let's go to do Dowse addressing what they saw as real concerns prior to the start of the Iraq War (March, 2003).
 
Tim Dowse: Could I maybe illustrate that with regard to some of the countries concerned? Take Libya as one example. Between 1998 and 2003, the assessments that were being carried out painted a picture of steady progress on Libya's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. It had been identified by 2003 as a prime customer of AQ Khan network. We were also concerned about activity in the chemical weapons field and about work at research sites on dual-use potential to support biological weapons-related work. With Iran, Iran had used ballistic missiles in the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s. It had aquired Scud B missiles from Syira and from North Korea and after -- it also produced Scud C sllightly longer-range missiles. After the war, North Korea sold to Iran production technology for Scud B and Scud C and in the mid-1990s, it brought a few examples of North Korean No-Dong 1 missiles. These were long-range and, from that, it devloped its own missile, the Shahab 3, of 1300 kilometres. Iran's nuclear fuel activities had developed steadily over more than two decades by 2001 to 2003. It had announced, or the IAEA had reported, a large Iranian conversion facility at Isfahan; a large facility for gas centrifuge fuel enrichment; it had indigenous facilities to manufacture centrifuge components; it had obtained P2 centrifuges; it had got technical drawings, whose origin the IAEA had concluded was AQ Khan. So we were considerably worried about the development in Iran.  As for North Korea --
 
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: I think you have made your point that there are a vareity of different stages and the example you have given us from Iran is quite interesting perhaps as a comparative with what was thought to be the case with Iraq. Can we move on to Iraq itself? You have mentioned all the things before that Iraq was known to have done, but these were all prior to 1991 in terms of attacking its neighbours and actually using these weapons.  So, since 1991, do you believe that it had been effectively contained?
 
Tim Dowse: I would say we regarded the effect of the -- certainly with WMD, the weapons inspectors, UNSCOM's activities, the IAEA's activities through the 1990s, until 1998, as effectively disarming Iraq. There were quite a large number of unaswered questions, things that we were unsure about.
 
While Dowse appeared to be making some effort towards answering questions, William Ehrman could not stop spinning.  There was no evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda but Ehrman could not let go of that lie and repeated it throughout his testimony.  One example, "But there was also the fact that he was supporting terrorist groups, Palestinian terrorist groups, and although we never found any evidence linking him closely to AQ Khan and we did not -- sorry, to Al-Qaeda, and we did not belive that he was behing, in any way, the 9/11 bombings, he had given support to Palestinian terrorist groups and also to a group called the MEK, which was a terrorist group directed against Iran." There is no linke, NON, to al Qaeda but Ehrman repeatedly worked it in and then would walk it back as though it was an accident.  He seemed to feel he was Mr. Subliminal and the Inquiry should have told him to stop making the linkage. As for the MEK, the Inquiry should have asked Ehrman which country he thought he was working for in the lead up to the Iraq War? Did England classify the MEK as a terrorist organization in 2002?  Then why is Ehrman blathering on about them?
 
While Ehrman repeatedly (and falsely) attempted to link Iraq to al Qaeda (and then rush back a qualifier), there was no link.  CBC's report makes that clear and notes that Dowse testified there was no link and that, "After 9/11 we concluded that Iraq actually stepped further back. They did not want to be associated with al-Qaeda. They weren't natural allies."
 
For perspective, in the US, George W. Bush started the illegal war and he's a Republican (Democratic Barack Obama continues it).  In Australia, then-Prime Minister John Howard started the Iraq War and he is a member of his country's Liberal Party. He was replaced by Kevin Rudd of the Labor Party who has ended Australia's miltiary presence in Iraq with "the last 12 Australian soldiers" still in Iraq departing at the end of July.  Of the three major countries pushing for the illegal war, only England has seen the original pimp replaced with a member of the same party.  Tony Blair was replaced as prime minister by Gordon Brown and both men are members of the Labour Party. Not only are Blair and Brown members of the same party and also of the New Labour segment of the party, they have a relationship which goes back decades and Blair's ascendancy to the top of his party took place with the promise that Brown would be his successor.  Brown supported Blair on every major policy decision including the Iraq War.  Bully Boy Bush lied about 'programs' and 'yellow cake' and pretty much everything including, most likely, his own choking (allegedly on a pretzel).  In England, the lie was that Iraq had the capabilities to launch a WMD attack on England in less than one hour. Rob Welham (Xinhua) observes, "The intelligence about Iraq's military capability, set out in the so-called "dodgy dossier", proved to be wrong, and the decision to go to war became one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions in living memory."  Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) addresses that false claim in his report:
 
Asked about suggestions that the Blair government's 45-minute deployment claim had referred to weapons of mass destruction usable by Iraq to strike another nation, Dowse said: "I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way." The inquiry panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: "But you didn't say it wasn't."
 
Liberal Democrat Party MP and chief of staff Edward Davey issued the following statement today: "It is becoming ever more clear that the case for war was nothing more than sophistry and deception. The threat that Saddam could deploy WMD within 45 minutes was fundamental to the Government's arugment that Iraq presented an imminent danger.  Yet this new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.  A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case. This evidence proves what has long been suspected, that intelligence was cherry-picked or dismissed to support the case the Government wanted to make. It is becoming ever more clear that the case for war was nothing more than sophistry and deception flying in the face of the latest and best intelligence." David Brown (Times of London) emphasizes, "Intelligence information that Saddam Hussein had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction programme was received by the Foreign Office days before Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, an inquiry into the war heard today." Ben Macintyre (Times of London) revisits MP Robin Cook's decision to leave Blair's cabinet in 2003 and his calling out the rush to illegal war:
 
With delicate ferocity, he presented the case against war: "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction ... Neither the international community nor the British people is persuaded there is an urgent and compelling reason for this action in Iraq."    
He warned that a dangerous sense of Muslim injustice was building, that Britain was being dragged into conflict by a far more powerful ally, and that the deep misgivings of voters were being ignored: "The prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain."  
Above all, Cook insisted that Britain must not be taken to war without a vote in Parliament. "From the start of this present crisis, I have insisted on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war," he said in his resignation statement. Two days later, the government motion supporting the use of British forces in Iraq passed by 412 to 149.                   
To listen to politicians speak today, one might imagine that the consensus in 2003 was opposed to war, and Blair and his inner circle the sole drum-beaters. Parliament backed the war. The majority of MPs voted for it. The Cabinet supported it and remained in their jobs with the exception of Cook and, eventually, Clare Short. The media were broadly supportive of military action.
 
Tony Blair continued to make the claim that Iraq could launch an attack on England in less than an hour.  A false claim. Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) reports on that aspect and notes Ehrman testifying, ""On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents."  Mark Stone (Sky News) offers this observation of today's hearing:
 
 
One thing bugged me though. The Inquiry committee appeared not to follow up some points with obvious questions. An example. One of the panel, Sir Roderic Lyle, referring to a statement Blair made in 2003, asked the following pertinent question:                 
"Would you regard the Prime Minister's statement in December 2003 that 'the Iraq Study Group [tasked with finding WMD after the invasion] has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories' as corresponding to advice you were giving to ministers?"               
The response from Tim Dowse was, somewhat sheepishly: "I did not advise him to use those words."                        
But then... nothing from the panel! They did not ask whether the advisors told the PM to back off from words which appeared clearly to be out of kilter with the advice they were giving him.                  
None of what was said today will make Mr Blair feel very comfortable as he prepares for his appearance. We have to wait until January for that though.
 
 
Simon Carr in the Independent wasted no time; "The Chilcot Inquiry looks set to be boring, miasmic and faintly dishonest.                  
"This is a panel that the toadiest of Blair toadies would have chosen. Why Brown agreed to it is a mystery."             
The Daily Mail was scarcely more optimistic for the Inquiry's prospects, John Kampfner writing that as the Inquiry began "one conclusion could be drawn before a single person had said a single word: Tony Blair will get away with it. Again."
 
On only the second day of the public hearing, Nico Hines and David Brown (Times of London) reported the accusations that England's current prime minister, Gordon Brown, was attempting to derail the inquiry, "When the Prime Minister announced the inquiry, he claimed that national security would be the only legitimate barrier to full disclosure in Sir John Chilcot's report into the Iraq war. A set of protocols published on the Cabinet Office website, however, indicates that a tranche of additional restrictions have been imposed. The guidelines issued to Sir John and his team set out nine extra restrictions, including commercial and economic interests, that would allow a government agency or department to remove a section from the report."  BBC News (link has text and video) reports the Liberal Democrat Party leader Nick Clegg has stated, "This protocol includes nine seperate reasons why information can be suppressed" and acts as "rights of veto" to keep, at best, embarrassing moments from the public: "How on earth are we, and is the whole country, going to hear about the full truth of the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq if the inquiry is being suffocated on day one by his government's shameful culture of secrecy?"  Sian Ruddick (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) declares, "Only by declaring Tony Blair guilty of war crimes will it help to bring justice for those millions of Iraqis who have paid with their lives for a bloody, pointless war."
 
In other Iraq news out of England, BBC reports that former-Justice Thayne Forbes has been appointed to head the investigation into the inquiry into whether British forces killed 20 Iraqis and abused nine others in 2004 and the BBC's Caroline Hawley explains, "
An internal army document says a Red Cross doctor believed that facial injuries to the Iraqis suggested 'that when the injuries were received the person had either been held down or defenceless.' It is because the MoD failed to produce these documents when required by the High Court that the government has had to agree to this inquiry."  CNN adds, "The release of a photo published in British media and obtained by CNN about the incident shows an armed soldier standing near four people face down on the ground with their hands bound behind their backs and their faces covered.  Attorneys for the men say they were beaten and evidence shows a breach of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners. But, the defence ministry disputes that." Simon Basketter (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) reports, "Evidence of torture includes close-range bullet wounds, the removal of eyes and stab wounds. The death certificates described how the Iraqis died: 'Several gunshot wounds to body -- severance of sexual organs.' 'Gunshot to head.' 'Gunshot in face, pulling out of the eye, breaking the jaw, gunshot to the chest'."
 
Today in Iraq, Michael Christie and Mark Trevelyan (Reuters) report an assault in Tarmiya in which 6 family members were murdered by males "wearing [Iraqi] army uniforms . . . The women had their throats cut while the men were shot in the head". Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) adds that three females had thie throats slit -- two adults and one "13-year-old girl" and that "It is not known in either case whether the attackers were soldiers or were masquerading as Iraqi service members." Lin Zhi (Xinhua) adds, "The attacker left alive a woman and her child, who were relatives of the victims visiting the family when the attack occurred, the source said." Marc Santora (New York Times) observes this is the second such attack in recent days and notes, "One theory about the motivation for the attacks is that militants are posing as members of the Army in order to foment distrust among Sunnis, turning them against government troops and thereby making it easier to establish safe havens. However, the government has provided no evidence to this effect and the theory is based on little more than speculation voiced by local security officials, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity." 
 
 
In other reported violence . . .
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded one person, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four people, a Nineveh Province roadside bombing which injured two Iraqi soldiers and one person, a Baquba roadside bombing which left three police officers injured, a Kirkuk sticky bombing which injured one police officer and a Karbala roadsdie bombing and motorcylce bombing -- one after the other -- which claimed the lives of 13 people and left twenty-six more injured.
 
Turning to the US, like Bush, Barack loves land mines. Cedric's "Princess Di died for his sins" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HE'S A MORON!" covered that last night.  In addition, other community sites did theme posts on TV shows you can't stand last night, Betty's "Somerby and the awful 7th Heaven," Mike's "Mammograms, V," Rebecca's "hawaii oh-no," Stan's "The awful Democracy Now!," "TV show you loathe" (Law & Order franchise),  Ruth's "Perfect Strangers," Marcia's "The Office," Trina's "Worst TV show" (Andy Griffith Show), Ann's "Download Carly's new album for just $5.00" (The Jamie Foxx Show) and Kat's "24 -- ugh."

 

Posted at 05:38 pm by thecommonills
 

WMDs addressed in London

WMDs addressed in London

Disputed fears over Saddam's arsenal led to a UN inspection in 2002
They were more alarmed by developments in Libya, Iran and North Korea, the Iraq inquiry has been told by the Foreign Office's then head of counter-proliferation.
Tim Dowse, who was in the job from 2001 to 2003, said: "It wasn't top of the list.
"In terms of my concerns on coming into the job in 2001, I would say we put Libya and Iran ahead of Iraq."
Mr Dowse also said that, while Saddam Hussein had supported Palestinian terrorist groups, the assessment was that the Iraqi regime's contacts with groups linked to al Qaida were "quite sporadic".

The above is from Miranda Richardson's "Iraq's WMDs Did Not Concern Officials In 2001" (Sky News) and she's reporting on today's hearing. The Iraq Inquiry continues in London with the second day of public testimony. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, today they hear about WMD, tommorow's witnesses offer testimony about the Transatlantic Relationship and Friday the hear testimony on Developments in the United Nations. Today's witnesses are Tim Dowse and William Ehrman. England's Channel 4 is offering a live blog of the hearing by Iraq Blogger:

Chilcot: did nothing being found after war cause concern? Dowse: Yes we were certainly concerned. Ehrman: Surprpised AND concerned. 4 minutes ago from web

Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) is not live blogging the hearing currently. (He's live blogging Gordon Brown.) Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) reports:

Strict sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein made it virtually impossible for him to re-start his nuclear programme, the inquiry heard, and even if sanctions were lifted it was likely to take five years before Iraq could build a nuclear weapon.
[. . .]
Mr Blair told parliament that Iraq was a major threat to security in the Middle East, but Sir William Ehrman, director of international security at the Foreign Office from 2000 to 2002, said: "In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq."
Tim Dowse, head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office from 2001 to 2003, said: "It wasn't top of the list. In 2001 and early 2002 I was probably devoting more of my time to Iran, Libya and (the rogue nuclear scientist) A Q Khan than I was to Iraq.


Some visitors are e-mailing to get some nonsense highlighted from a blog. We're not interested in that ___ or the ___ that runs it. And the post he's written? No, the inquiry has not, has NOT, heard that George W. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq before he was installed into the White House. NOT heard that. The transcripts of the hearing are being posted online and so is video.

They have heard that Condi Rice appeared to want it based on an article she'd written. But the people testifying don't even really know Condi Rice well enough to say what she thought or wanted and have to rely on articles she wrote. They don't know Bush at all.

For example, here's how the New York Times' John F. Burns (at Australia's The Age) reports on the thing that so confuses the blogger:

Sir Peter Ricketts, a former chairman of Britain's powerful Joint Intelligence Committee, said officials in London knew even before Mr Bush came to office in 2001 that there were ''voices'' in Washington calling for Saddam to be removed from power. But, he said, it was Britain's policy, then and later, to contain the Iraqi leader, not topple him.

And, for the record, I thought it was pretty well established that prior to being gifted with the White House by the Supreme Court, Bully Boy Bush lived in Texas. I thought everyone grasped that. So "voices" in DC before 2001 wouldn't refer to him. Clear enough for most of us but not for the crazies.

Why would some dumb ass write a blog post stating Bush wanted war with Iraq one year before he entered the White House?

Because the dumb ass isn't a Democrat. He's a Republican, a Lincoln Log, a self-loathing gay man who spread for the Republicans for decades so he also apparently has master-slave, dom-sub issues to work on. Suddenly, he no longer felt welcome in his party this decade (maybe a nasty break up with a closeted member of Congress?) and decided, "I'll show them! They can't push me around!" So he now calls himself a Democrat. And like most recent converts, works overtime to prove his 'cred' but only demonstrates he has no respect for the facts. And that he'll lie at the drop of a hat.

He's not helping anyone.

He's among the whiners holding money back from the Democratic Party because he's just discovered Barack is not gay friendly. Of course, in real time when Barack demonstrated homophobia in 2007 and 2008 repeatedly, the Republican was covering for him and lashing out against Hillary Clinton in one false attack after another, the kind of bulls**t attack on the Clintons that only Republicans can do. (Which is why so many pieces of s**t on the left like crazy Barbra Erhenreich -- whose daughter wants to license reporters -- what a trashy family -- had to resort to Republican talking points to do her attacks on Hillary.)

I don't know what was going on when the idiot wrote his blog post. Maybe he was using what we'll politely call a "marital aid" and was preoccupied. But we don't highlight his garbage and we don't steer traffic to him. He is not a Democrat and he makes that clear every day, in every way. If half of his hatred towards women was aimed at men of any race other than White, the Bloggers Boize who carry his water would be outraged. But he's allowed to attack women because, online, women don't matter to our 'Democratic' bloggers.

CNN notes a Karbala bombing which claimed 4 lives and left at least twenty-five wounded. Meanwhile Michael Christie and Mark Trevelyan (Reuters) report an assault in Tarmiya in which 6 family members were murdered by males "wearing [Iraqi] army uniforms . . . The women had their throats cut while the men were shot in the head". Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) has an important breaking article re: the Iraqi vote. I'll link to it but I'm hearing conflicting reports on the phone this morning from friends in the State Dept so we'll just provide the link for now.

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












Posted at 07:27 am by thecommonills
 

Burials, memorials and questions

Burials, memorials and questions

Ryan Zorn died last week serving in Iraq (November 16th). Yesterday funeral services were held. The Gillette News-Record notes that over 300 mourners attended the service including Wyoming's Governor Dave Freudenthal and US Senator Mike Enzi. Joshua Wolfson (Casper Star-Tribune) reports that JoAnn Zorn was presented with her son's Bronze Star and quotes his father Myorn Zorn stating, "He was proud of what he did, and he died doing what he believed in." Last week Tony Raap (Gillette News-Record) spoke with JoAnn and Myron Zorn about their son:

Myron talked to Ryan four days before he died. It was a short conversation, lasting only five minutes. Ryan was in a good mood. He told his father everything was going well.
At the end, Ryan said: "Dad, I have to go eat breakfast."
Those were the last words he heard him say.
JoAnn recalled talking to Ryan this past summer, when he was on leave. An avid explorer, Ryan traveled to Paris and called his parents from the Eiffel Tower. He also visited Luxembourg to see where the Battle of the Bulge, a pivotal World War II offensive, was waged.
Ryan also started an adopt-a-soldier program after noticing several of his fellow servicemen never received any mail from home. It started small, but soon grew to the point where Zorn could hardly squeeze into his bunk because his barrack space was filled with presents.

Kevin Woster (Rapid City Journal) reports of yesterday's funeral, "JoAnn Zorn stood surrounded by family and friends, pressing a folded U.S. flag to her chest as she watched an Army honor guard carry her son’s casket slowly toward the seemingly endless rows of white crosses." Meanwhile in Iraq today there will be a memorial service for another service members. Lily Gordon (Columbus Ledger-Enquirer) reports that Briand T. Williams, who died Sunday when his unit came under fire in Iraq, will be remembered in a ceremony. Lindsey Connell (WALB) reports the 25-year-old resident of Sparks Georgia was on his fourth overseas deployment and that he joined the military in 2002. Also coming under fire in Iraq this month was Staff Sgt Amy Tirador. Scott Fontaine (News Tribune) reports that Colleen Murphy, her mother, explains "that her 29-year-old daughter was shot execution-style in the back of the head" while on base and:


Murphy also has enlisted the support of the offices of Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both New York Democrats.
"They're behind us 100 percent," Murphy said.
"We'll find the person or persons that did this, and we'll find out the complete truth."
Tirador's father, Gerard Seyboth, could not be reached by The News Tribune. But he told WRGB-TV in Albany, N.Y., that his daughter’s work as an interrogator made her a "high-profile target."

The above three service members are among the 4365 US troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the Iraq War.

The following community sites updated last night:


Cedric's Big Mix
Princess Di died for his sins
9 hours ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! HE'S A MORON!
9 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Somerby and the awful 7th Heaven
10 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Mammograms, V
10 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
hawaii oh-no
10 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
The awful Democracy Now!
10 hours ago

And Elaine's "TV show you loathe," Ruth's "Perfect Strangers," Marcia's "The Office," Trina's "Worst TV show ," Ann's "Download Carly's new album for just $5.00" and Kat's "24 -- ugh." And they were doing (except for Wally and Cedric who did their joint humor post) the theme of TV show you can't stand. They're planning to blog tonight. On Thursday?

Mike generally blogs on Thanksgiving. That's it unless I do an Iraq snapshot. I will do one if there's some serious, can't-wait news out of Iraq. We did one last year because the SOFA passed the Parliament on Thanksgiving. The year before we didn't. I will judge by how important the news is and whether I think it's important enough to justify everyone interrupting their holiday (because if I do one, everyone's already said they'll do some sort of a post). I will do at least two entries tomorrow, maybe three. At some point during the next few days, Kat will do her latest album review. On Friday, we'll have a snapshot and be on normal schedule. Friday morning the gina & krista round-robin will go out as usual. The only difference this week community wide is that Hilda's Mix went out early due to the holiday and that there may not be a snaphot tomorrow (and if there isn't one, Mike and I are the only ones planning to put anything new online in the community).

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

















thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Posted at 07:22 am by thecommonills
 

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, November 24, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq Inquiry in London begins hearing public testimony, a former British ambassador calls the inquiry out as a sham, the January elections in Iraq may take place in February, and more.
 
This morning Al Jazeera reported that, "The storm clouds are already gathering over this Inquiry being held among high security in London." That is the Iraq Inquiry chaired by John Chilcot.  Ruth Barnett (Sky News -- link has text and video) reports that Chilcot used his opening remarks this morning to insist that the inquiry would be "fair and frank."  Since the announcement that it would start this year (and continue next year with former prime minister Tony Blair expected to testify after England holds elections), there has been much speculation that the inquiry would be a farce.  We'll note the following from Chilcot's opening statement:
 
Welcome to the Iraq Inquiry's first day of public hearings. For those of you who do not know me, I am Sir John Chilcot chairman of the Iraq Inquiry. I am joined by my colleagues Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.  Together we form the Iraq Inquiry Committee. Next to me is Margaret Aldred who is the Secretary to the Inquiry.
The Iraq Inquiry was set up to identify the lessons that should be learned from the UK's involvement in Iraq to help future governments who may face similar situations.  
To do this, we need to establish what happened. We are piecing this together from the evidence we are collecting from documents or from those who have first hand experience. We will then need to evaluate what went well and what didn't -- and, crucially, why.  
My colleagues and I come to this task with open minds. We are apolitical and independent of any political party. We want to examine the evidence.   We will approach our task in a way that is thorough, rigorous, fair and frank. 
The Committee and I are also committed to openness and are determined to conduct as much of our proceedings in public as possible.  I welcome those members of the public who join us here today -- thank you for taking the time and effort to travel here this morning. I also welcome the media present here at the QEII. For those not physically present, I am pleased that the Inquiry proceedings are available for broadcast and are being streamed on the internet.
These public hearings are the activity which will attract the most publicity but they form only one part of our work.          
 
 
 
Ben Quinn (Christian Science Monitor -- text and audio) offers that no one may be pleased with the outcome, "Critics of the war probably won't get what they most want from the government-appointed panel – a public drubbing of unpopular former Prime Minister Tony Blair for leading the nation to war in the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And supporters of the war are unlikely to get a clear declaration that Britain's participation in the invasion was the right thing to do."  Quinn goes on to note that many critics of the inquiry point out that the "six member panel [. . .] includes not a single lawyer or judge" leading people to doubt the inquiry's ability to determine the legality of the war. From the audio.
 
Pat Murphy: Ben, first off, can you tell us a little bit about these people that are making up this British board of inquiry?
 
Ben Quinn: Yes, Pat.  Well there are six members on the panel.  They were appointed by the prime minister, by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The chair is Sir John Chilcot, a British civil servant.  He's a Whitehall mandarin -- Whitehall being the headquarters of the British civil service.  He has the unenviable task of chairing this panel.  He has come into criticism in the past from, uh, various commentators who feel that he has taken a soft-touch to questioning in previous probes. So he'll be eagerly watched in terms of his handling of this inquiry.  There are five others on the panel.  Perhaps one of the more interesting figures is Sir Lawrence Friedman who is a distinguished academic. Now he's, he's been a professor of war at King's College in London since 1982 but notably he's credited with writing a large part of Tony Blair's famous -- infamous, perhaps -- some would say -- 1992 Chicago speech where he basically made the case for liberal military intervention.
 
Gideon Rachman (Financial Times of London) refrains from making any predictions while reminding that there were expectations on past British inquiries into Iraq: the Hutton inquiry which people thought "would destroy Tony Blair" instead whitewashed everything and falsely attacked the press (that's my call on the Hutton inquiry, not Rachman's) and the Bulter inquiry which Rachman feels wasn't a whitewash.   John F. Burns and Alan Cowell (New York Times) feel reflective and observe, "The unpopularity of the war — and its impact on Mr. Blair's once glittery image among British voters -- contributed to his ouster by Prime Minister Gordon Brown two years ago."  Of course, Gordon Brown was Tony's lap dog, his hand picked successor and the one who has carried out every one of Tony's policies (including refusing to release the files on John Lennon and citing 'national security' as a reason).  As Gordon's stock continued to plummet, he finally yieled to public pressure this summer and announced he'd do what he had promised several years ago: Launch an inquiry into the Iraq War.  Rose Gentle's song Gordon Gentle died serving in Iraq June 28, 2004.  He is one of the 179 British forces who were killed in the Iraq War (ongoing Iraq War -- and ongoing for the British which expects to keep 200 service members in Iraq for the foreseeable future.)  ITV News speaks with her (link is video) and she tells them, "I just hope the committee stuck to their word because they promised us that they'd look inside and outside and if there were mistakes made, the fingers would get pointed at the person making mistakes." Rose Gentle is a member of Military Families Against the War. Yesterday Julia Reid (Sky News -- link has text and video) spoke with Geoff Dunsmore, father of Chris Dunsmore who died serving in Iraq (July 19, 2007). He speaks of the Iraq Inquiry due to start this week in London, "The nation needs to know why we went to Iraq, clearly and concisely. We need to know why it cost money, but the biggest thing is why it cost a lot of lives -- my son's as one of them. I hope the inquiry will help the families that are struggling and trying to get some sense out of all this."  Back in June Independent Labour MP Clare Short explained why she felt a real inquiry was necessary:
 
We need an inquiry that forces all parties and the public to face up to the fact that we got involved in Iraq because George Bush and the neo-conservatives wanted to overthrow the unpopular regime of Saddam Hussein -- regime change -- and establish a friendly power in Iraq, so that they could relocate American bases in the middle east, dominate the Gulf and have close relations with a country that contained a large proportion of the world's remaining oil. As has been said, all of that is laid out for all to read in the documents published by the Project for the New American Century, which many of those who became senior figures in the Bush Administration had signed up to.          
Of course, the US expected the invasion of Iraq to be popular with Iraqis and therefore thought that it would help to stabilise the middle east. The only problem was that international law, laid down after the second world war under the leadership of President Roosevelt and with the support of Prime Minister Churchill, did not permit that, and thus the lying became necessary in order to do what the neo-conservatives thought to be right.
I did not know that Tony Blair had the published documents of the Project for the New American Century drawn to his attention -- they were certainly not drawn to the attention of the Cabinet -- but I think that he was desperate to be close to George Bush and worried that he would not be because of the closeness of his relationship with President Clinton, and that he therefore gave his word early on that Britain would be with him in the planned invasion of Iraq. From that, it all flows: the exaggeration of the threat from weapons of mass destruction to give an excuse for war, because regime change is not legal.
The Butler report and the various leaks from our intelligence agencies have shown that the intelligence was being fixed around the policy. Hans Blix started out believing that there were WMD in Iraq, but when he found and reported that there were not -- he reported to the Security Council what he had found, and also achieved the dismantling of large numbers of ballistic missiles -- he was briefed against and smeared because his truthful findings were obstructing the excuse for war.
 
Clare Short resigned from Tony Blair's cabinet May 12, 2003 declaring, "I am afraid that the assurances you [Tony Blair] gave me about the need for a UN mandate to establish a legitimate Iraqi government have been breached. The security council resolution that you and Jack have so secretly negotiated contradicts the assurances I have given in the House of Commons and elsewhere about the legal authority of the occupying powers, and the need for a UN-led process to establish a legitimate Iraqi government. This makes my position impossible."
 
Andrew Gilligan live blogged the first day of the inquiry for the Guardian.  He calls attention to several moments in the hearing including, on the issue of the panel itself, this on the day's three witnesses (Peter Ricketts, Simon Webb and William Patey):
 
This is interesting.  Webb also says that, during the time in question, he received a promotion in the MoD after going through a selection process that involved two members of the inquiry assessing candidates - Lady Prashar, who, as First Civil Service Commissioner, was involved in senior appointments of this kind and Sir Lawrence Freedman, who I presume was on the panel as a member of the "great and the good". This disclosure does rather reinforce the impression that the inquiry represents the establishment interrogating itself.
 
Nicholas Witchell (BBC News) offers a video report of today's hearing. Nico Hines (Times of London) offers up "best of the evidence.  The Telegraph of London reports a witness has stated that Bush and Blair were planning the Iraq War two years before it began:

Sir Peter Ricketts, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001, said there was concern in both London and Washington that the strategy of ''containment'' of Saddam Hussain was ''failing''.
Giving evidence at the first public hearings of the inquiry, he said a review of the Iraq policy was already under way in Whitehall in anticipation of the arrival of the new Bush administration.
He said that, in discussions with Secretary of State Colin Powell, it appeared the Americans were ''thinking very much on the same lines''.
He added, however, that others in Washington were already thinking further ahead.

A second report from the Telegraph offers a second witness testifying that the US was planning the Iraq War back in 2001:

Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at Foreign Office said that in February 2001, the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam
He said: "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington."
However, he said that Britain was not then willing to engage in regime change in Baghdad. "Our policy was to stay away from that."

David Brown and Nico Hines (Times of London) add of Ricketts, "He said a review of the Iraq policy was already under way in Whitehall in anticipation of the arrival of the new Bush Administration."  On Monday, Chris Ames (Guardian) explained that Andrew Gilligan was unearthing a great deal and his scoops "are perhaps as significant for what they tell us about Sir John Chilcot's Iraq inquiry. They are a humiliation for the inquiry, which -- as I write -- has not put a single piece of new evidence into the public domain. [. . .] The Telegraph, on the other hand, is putting a lot of new information into the public domain. It has published extracts from two of the papers on which it has based its stories. It does have to be said that the first of these, 'Stability Operations in Iraq', was published last year on Wikileaks, but the whole effect of what Gilligan has done is to add to the sum of public knowledge."   Sunday Gilligan summarized "hundreds of pages of secret Government reports" regarding the Iraq War:

Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain's objective was "disarmament, not regime change" and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.
The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but "very small numbers" of officials "constrained" the planning process. The result was a "rushed"operation "lacking in coherence and resources" which caused "significant risk" to troops and "critical failure" in the post-war period.                    
Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.                          
Commanders reported that the Army's main radio system "tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat". One described the supply chain as "absolutely appalling", saying: "I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert."                              
The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.
The plans "contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen", causing a "notable loss of momentum" which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall's "appalling" and "horrifying" lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government "missed a golden opportunity" to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: "It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves."

In another report, Gilligan explains, "In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as 'a group of Martians' for whom 'dialogue is alien,' saying: 'Despite our so-called "special relationship," I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese'." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) adds:

Fresh evidence has emerged about how Blair misled MPs by claiming in 2002 that the goal was "disarmament, not regime change". Documents show the government wanted to hide its true intentions by informing only "very small numbers" of officials.
The documents, leaked to the Sunday Telegraph, are "post-operational reports" and "lessons learned" papers compiled by the army and its field commanders. They refer to a "rushed" operation that caused "significant risk" to troops and "critical failure" in the postwar period.

Norton-Taylor has come up with a list of five questions that the inquiry must answer to be seen as genuine.  We'll note his first one:
 
 1 What assurances did Tony Blair give George Bush about Britain's involvement in the war with Iraq?                                            
The overriding factor that took Britain into war is a crucial secret the Chilcot inquiry could unlock. Key could be what assurances Tony Blair gave George Bush in a series of bilateral meetings, notably at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. One leaked classified document reveals that two months later, Whitehall officials noted: "When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April, he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." But asked in July 2002 about whether the government was preparing for military action, Blair told MPs: "No. There are no decisions which have been taken about military action."
 
 
 
Lyne: in terms of a military threat was Saddam and his regime in a cage? Patey: Yes. about 6 hours ago from web                             

 

Lyne: And we could continue like that until such time as he departed? Patey: Possibly. #Iraq about 6 hours ago from web      

 

" Among the issues explored today were [PDF format warning] the No Fly Zone. Evidence submitted to the committee on this was largely historical (beginning with Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait -- for any wondering, nothing in the evidence acknowledges that the administration of George H.W. Bush gave the go ahead for that assault).  The No Fly Zone began April 1991 and it ended "formally on 1 May 2003."
 
The hearing continues to hear testimony this week: tomorrow with Tim Dowse and William Ehrman scheduled to speak on Weapons of Mass Destruction, on Thursday with Christopher Meyer scheduled to testify on the Transatlantic Relationship and on Friday with Jeremy Greenstock to offer testimony on the Developments in the United Nations.
 
 
Sir John Chilcot was just ten minutes in to the first public session of the Iraq Inquiry when he told the first big lie -- and a lie which, when examined, exposes the entire charade.
"My colleagues and I come to this inquiry with an open mind."     
That is demonstrably untrue. Three of the five members -- Rod Lyne, Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman -- are prominent proponents of the Iraq war. By contrast, nobody on the committee was in public against the invasion of Iraq. How can it be fine to pack the committee with supporters of the invasion, when anyone against the invasion was excluded?
 
Mehdi Hasan (New Statesman) is also unimpressed with the inquiry and offers "Five reasons to be cynical."  Thomas Penny and Kitty Donaldson (Bloomberg News) note that this is the fifth inquiry into the Iraq War.  Yesterday, Stan weighed in on the inquiry and pointed out that "you'll notice that in the US we still don't have an Iraq inquiry. In England, Gordon Brown is Labour and he replaced Tony Blair as Prime Minister. They are both Labour and Brown was Blair's chosen successor. And yet they get an inquiry."  The BBC tries to call US Senate papers and a daft committee (Iraq Study Group -- Baker and Hamilton, not Mike's group that he started) inquiries.  As the world's eyes turn to London, Sami Ramadani (Guardian) looks to Iraq:


The attitude of those in Baghdad who are invited to comment on the inquiry swiftly changes from expressions of pain and sadness to that of anger and strong denunciation of the war and its architects, George Bush and Tony Blair. It is striking that the one common thought that comes to the fore is that Bush and Blair have escaped justice and "got away with murder".
They certainly don't have any confidence that the outcome of the inquiry will lead to Blair appearing before a legal tribunal to account for his role in engineering and launching the illegal war.
The terms of the debate in Iraq are very different from those here in Britain. For while here people are seeking to establish beyond much doubt who did what, when and why, people in Iraq regard it as an open and shut case: US policymakers, followed meekly by most of the British political and establishment notables, planned the invasion and "destruction" of Iraq many years before 2003. They cite the 13 years of murderous sanctions from 1991 to 2003 as a prelude for the occupation of the country. They stress that Saddam Hussein's 35-year dictatorship and non-existent WMD were "used as a pretext" for the war.
 
Yesterday in Iraq, the Parliament passed election law amendments.  Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) explain "The amendments did not offer any extra seats to Iraqi refugees, who include many Sunnis, and therefore did not adress the complaint that prompted Vice President Tariq Hashimi to veto the original law last week."
Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) explains, "The three-member Presidency Council, which includes Mr. Hashimi, President Jalal Talabani, and a second vice president, Adel Abdul Mahdi, now has 10 days to approve or veto the law." CNN walks through on the Constitutional powers, "According to Iraq's constitution, the presidency council -- made up of Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, Shiite Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi and al-Hashimi -- must unanimously approve a bill for it to become law." That was so confusing to so many last week -- or they pretended it was. The Constitution is very clear that the council has the power to veto and everything passed by the Parliament has gone to the council -- though most outlets only paid attention to this aspect when the SOFA went to the council last year. CNN adds that if the council offers a veto, it would require a 2/3 vote from the majority of the MPs to push the legislation forward. Aamer Madhaniand Ahmed Fadaam (USA Today) quotes Iraqi Accordance Front spokesperson Salim Abdullah stating, "What has happened today represents a setback" and states Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission believes the election will be pushed back to February. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) also notes the latter point, "Faraj al-Haidari, the head of the electoral commission, suggested that the elections would be held in February, although he said he was waiting for Hashimi's decision." Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports the commission head Faraj al-Haidari declared today, "In all cases the possibility of holding the vote in January is over."  Warren P. Strobel and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) explore the election climate, "Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, a Shiite, has launched a campaign warning that forces loyal to Saddam are trying to regain power. On Sunday, his government put on television three suspects it said were behind Oct. 25 bombings, which killed more than 150 people in Baghdad; they said remnants of Saddam's Baath party were behind the attacks."
 
Also in Iraq, Ahmed Rasheed, Alex Lawler, Michael Christie and William Hardy (Reuters) report that Iraq's pipeling to Turkey is not functioning following it being bombed over the weekend and that it is expected to take at least "four more days to fix".  Staying with violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded three people, a second one which wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left three people injured, and, dropping back to Monday, a Nasriyah roadside bombing which left four Iraqi police officers injured, a Falluja sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 Imam and left three of his relatives wounded and a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 Imam, 1 person traveling with him and injured a third person.
 
Yesterday's snapshot included this: " Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an assassination attempt on Ayad Allawi that injured two of his body guards (Allawi is the former Iraqi Prime Minister and also a rival of Nouri al-Maliki's) and an assassination attempt on journalist Emad al-Abadi in which he was shot 'in the head, neck and shoulder' and is now in critical condition."  Raheem Salman and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) report, "Baghdad is buzzing about the shooting Monday night of a prominent TV commentator who regularly criticized the government on his show 'Without Fences' on the privately owned Al-Diyar TV station." They offer an alternative spelling of Imad Abadi and quote the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory's Ziad Ajili stating, "For sure it is the politicians who are responsible. He was very brave in exposing corruption and he is one of the most prominent journalists who are criticizing the political parties."
 
Turning to the US, the Senate Democratic Policy Committee is chaired by Senator Byron Dorgan and has done some strong work gathering testimony on the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This month, Chair Dorgan has  released a video where he discusses progress regarding the US government's approach to al Qaeda.  In addition, they've released the following report.
 
PROGRESS AGAINST AL QAEDA           
By                
U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)                          
Chairman, Senate Democratic Policy Committee        

A new policy paper released by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee outlines progress the Obama Administration's new strategy is making in the fight against al Qaeda.                   
The Obama administration has opted for a different strategy -- an aggressive, comprehensive, and integrated approach to combating the terrorist network. The result is a significantly disrupted and weakened al Qaeda.           
In its first ten months, this new strategy has:             

• Disrupted the most serious terrorist threat against the United States since 9/11, and others; 

• Killed the top leader of Pakistan's Taliban insurgents, Baitullah Mehsud; and 

• Killed other key terrorist leaders around the world, including the most important terrorist leaders in East Africa and Indonesia       


At the heart of this progress lies the following:        

• A proactive and aggressive counterterrorism approach at home based on effective and efficient coordination between the federal government and state and local law enforcement.           

• Intelligence collection and skillful analysis, combined with efficient coordination between the federal government and state and local partners.            

• An increase in cooperation from foreign governments and intelligence services due to the new image and outreach the Obama Administration has put forth to the global community, particularly its renewed commitment to diplomacy and international law.            

• Refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in order to combat the threat of al Qaeda, Taliban, and affiliated terrorists. .                 

The results are encouraging. Today, many of al Qaeda's top leaders are no longer in place, replaced instead with less experienced and less capable individuals. The organization finds it more difficult to finance its terrorism. Its operations are more often detected and disrupted.                                
While we continue to face significant threats from al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists, the Obama Administration's tough and smart strategy and the courageous work of law enforcement, military, and diplomatic officials across the country and throughout the world are making real progress in our efforts to defeat terrorist threats at home and around the globe.
 
In the US, Thursday is Thanksgiving and, as a result, many outlets will be in repeats and many programs will either air repeats or not air.  NOW on PBS  will offer a new program this weekend (begins airing Friday on most PBS stations, check your local listings):
 
The Maldives, a nation of roughly 1200 low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, could be underwater by the end of this century if climate change causes ocean levels to rise. On the eve of the big climate summit in Copenhagen, the country's president, Mohamed Nasheed, is warning of a massive exodus from the Maldives if drastic global action is not taken. On Friday, November 27 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW on PBS talks with President Nasheed about the climate crisis and why he compares it to genocide.
 
And because music is so frequently all that we can count on, let's note  Carly Simon's latest album is Never Been Gone (Kat sang its praises here) and this week only you can download the entire album at Amazon for $5.00.  That's all 12 tracks.  Never Been Gone finds Carly revisiting her songwriting canon to re-imagine some of her best loved hits including "You're So Vain," "Anticipation," "Let The River Run," "Coming Around Again," "The Right Thing To Do," "That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be" and "You Belong To Me."  Today Carly Will be at J&R Music World in New York (23 Park Row) signing copies of Never Been Gone beginning at 6:00 pm.  Carly will be on Greater Boston (WGBH) Wednesday and Thursday (Thanksgiving day) she'll be performing in the Macy's Parade on the Care Bear's Float as well as be on Extra for part-two of her interview. And if you're on the fence about downloading the album, Kat pointed out that if the issue is needing to know the credits for each track, that's covered in  "For those about to download . . ."   -- and I'd be surprised if the credits weren't either up or soon to be up at Carly's website.  One more thing, Rebecca's been covering the assault on women's health and women's rights in both the US House and Senate, she's been covering that topic for over two weeks now.  Last night, she utilized Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi" to explain what's happened:
 
 
late last night, i heard the screen door slam,              
and a democratically controlled congress took away all i am.                        
don't it always seem to go                
that you don't know who you can trust                 
until after you voted           
they paved paradise              
and took away all my rights.                 
they paved paradise             
and took away all my rights.      
 
 
Trina, Betty, Stan, Ann and Ruth have also covered this issue -- to be sure and give credit where it's due -- but I think Rebecca's the only one that's covered in every one of her posts.
 

Posted at 02:35 pm by thecommonills
 

January elections . . . may take place in February

January elections . . . may take place in February

Iraq's pivotal national elections, originally scheduled for January, faced a likely delay of weeks or even longer after wrangling over a law setting terms for the polls broke down Monday.
Barring a last-minute reversal, a postponement will be at least a temporary setback for the Obama administration's hopes for Iraq, and perhaps even its plans for a swift drawdown of the 115,000 U.S. troops still in the country.

The above is from Sahar Issa and Warren P. Strobel's "Dispute over law means delay likely for Iraq elections" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) reveal that the Parliament has "adjourned for a holiday until Dec. 8" and report the scene in yesterday's Parliament:

In a rerun of scenes that were common during the height of the bloodshed in 2005 and 2006, fuming Sunnis stormed out of the parliamentary session, leaving the main Shiite and Kurdish alliances that dominate the legislature to vote overwhelmingly for amendments that will take away seats from Sunni provinces and add them to Kurdish ones.
The amendments did not offer any extra seats to Iraqi refugees, who include many Sunnis, and therefore did not address the complaint that prompted Vice President Tariq Hashimi to veto the original law last week.

Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) explains, "The three-member Presidency Council, which includes Mr. Hashimi, President Jalal Talabani, and a second vice president, Adel Abdul Mahdi, now has 10 days to approve or veto the law." CNN walks through on the Constitutional powers, "According to Iraq's constitution, the presidency council -- made up of Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, Shiite Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi and al-Hashimi -- must unanimously approve a bill for it to become law." That was so confusing to so many last week -- or they pretended it was. The Constitution is very clear that the council has the power to veto and everything passed by the Parliament has gone to the council -- though most outlets only paid attention to this aspect when the SOFA went to the council last year. CNN adds that if the council offers a veto, it would require a 2/3 vote from the majority of the MPs to push the legislation forward. Aamer Madhaniand Ahmed Fadaam (USA Today) quotes Iraqi Accordance Front spokesperson Salim Abdullah stating, "What has happened today represents a setback" and states Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission believes the election will be pushed back to February. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) also notes the latter point, "Faraj al-Haidari, the head of the electoral commission, suggested that the elections would be held in February, although he said he was waiting for Hashimi's decision." Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports the commission head Faraj al-Haidari declared today, "In all cases the possibility of holding the vote in January is over."

Meanwhile Jessica Holloway (KFDM) reports on Southeast Texas soldiers training at Fort Hood (where the soldiers are "learning to spot and identify improvised explosive devices or IEDs") who will deploy to Iraq in the new year. Anna Mulrine (US News & World Report) examines the issue of suicides in the army:

In many cases, the Army has tried to respond intuitively. It stands to reason that troops who drink too much might be at greater risk of harming themselves, and so the Pentagon recently launched a controversial pilot program that allows soldiers to seek out substance abuse treatment without the knowledge of their superior officers. "Leaders didn't particularly care for it," Chiarelli says. But the Army forged ahead with the program at three bases, keeping counseling services open late and on weekends so soldiers could stop by discreetly. But they have run into another problem: There simply are not enough substance abuse counselors. "I'm having one heck of a time getting the numbers I need," said Chiarelli, citing appointment waiting lists of three months for some soldiers.
There is, in fact, a shortage of mental-health counselors throughout the military. The Army has hired almost 900 therapists in the past two years, but that still leaves a severe shortage; it needs "somewhere in the vicinity of, I would argue, 800" more, Chiarelli said.
With the goal of quickly bringing on new counseling hires, the Pentagon has grappled with whether quality might suffer. It is a concern that seemed even more relevant this week, on the heels of news that the alleged shooter in this month's Fort Hood rampage, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, received poor performance reviews and proved to be, on multiple occasions, an incompetent therapist. Did these warning signs go unnoticed -- or ignored -- because of a desperate shortage of mental-health professionals in the military? And if the Pentagon had paid more attention, would it have discovered that one of its own might have been homicidal as well? "Well," said Chiarelli, "I think we always have to be concerned about that."

The following community sites updated last night:

And Elaine's "Iraq, Isaiah, Ava and C.I. Melrose," Ruth's "Do we need a part two?," Marcia's "Adam Lambert and the AMA moment(s)," Trina's "House and Senate agree: Women don't matter," Ann's "Whoopi Goldberg's an ass" and Kat's "Carly's new album onsale for download at $5.00." And on what Kat's blogging about, copying from yesterday's snapshot: " Carly Simon's latest album is Never Been Gone (Kat sang its praises here) and this week only you can download the entire album at Amazon for $5.00. That's all 12 tracks." That's a limited time special so don't miss out on the amazing album at the unbelievable price of $5.00. [Disclosure, I know Carly and love her. She's one of the country's finest songwriters and one of the finest people as well. And the album's amazing.] She's re-imagining some of her best loved songs including "Coming Around Again" which has this addition to it:

The heartbeat went out of our house
The rhythm went out of our romance
But in life that happens and you just
Have to remember to breathe
And it then will return, if you just remember to breathe
After all I've been through, I'll wait it on through
If I can just remember to breathe

Aimee Allison is co-host of KPFA's The Morning Show. She and David Solnit paired up to write the amazing Army Of None. With his sister Rebecca Solnit, of Courage to Resist, David has
written the just-released book The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle. If you're having trouble finding a copy of it, you're not alone and let's assume that's a good sign and meaning there's a large audience out there for this important book. But in the meantime, there are several actions David Solnit is noting (we noted the ones this week in yesterday's snapshot):


*** PLEASE POST, CIRCULATE & SHARE WITH OTHERS ***
Join the Mobilization for Climate Justice West for upcoming days of protest and civil disobedience on Nov 30th (11:30AM on 11/30 at Justin Herman Plaza, SF) and Dec 7th, as well as lead-up events this week!

1. Monday, November 23rd: “Ten Years: Seattle to Copenhagen ” teach-in (sponsored by International Forum for Globalization)

2. Tuesday, November 24th: Climate Justice teach-in (sponsored by Movement Generation and the Center for Political Education)

3. Tuesday, November 24th: Arts Activism / Theatre-Based Climate Justice Training (sponsored by Mobilization for Climate Justice)

4. Monday, November 30th (N30) March, civil disobedience, rally, children’s parade for climate justice. Start at Justin Herman Plaza at 11:30, then march to Bank of America at Pine and Kearny . Early evening target TBA.

5. December 7th Chevron action

1. “Ten Years: Seattle to Copenhagen ” teach-in

Monday, November 23rd, 7-9pm

First Unitarian Universalist Church, 1187 Franklin St (Geary @Franklin), SF

More info: 415-561-7650, ahalbert@ifg.org, www.ifg.org

Sliding scale of $10-$25. No one turned away for lack of funds.

Fifty thousand peaceful protesters on the streets of Seattle stunned the world on November 30, 1999 when they shut down the World Trade Organization’s attempt to launch a new round of world trade talks aimed at expanding global corporate power over peoples. Ten years later, the WTO remains on the ropes due to a sophisticated network of activists who have kept the WTO from concluding its negotiations. Though maybe less visible today, global justice networks are morphing into new movements to turn crises like global climate change into opportunities for political transformation. We will discuss one current process toward global economic transition: the United Nations’ summit to seal a climate deal next month in Copenhagen , where the “spirit of Seattle ” is being invoked to inspire actions. Please join us in recalling Seattle ’s popular victory through reflections with those who made history happen, and all who see more change to come.

Jerry Mander, Victor Menottii, and Claire Greensfelder, IFG

Anuradha Mittal, Oakland Institute

David Solnit and Rebecca Solnit, local author-activists

Jia Ching Chen, youth-of-color organizer

Kevin Danaher, Global Exchange

2. Climate Justice Teach-In

Tuesday, November 24th, 6:30 PM
390 27th St. (Humanist Hall), Oakland
wheelchair accessible (from 28th St . )
$5-$10 donation requested, no one turned away for lack of funds


On December 7, 2009, world leaders and international NGOs will meet in Copenhagen to chart out a course for a new global climate deal, and in doing so, try to set up a new post-WTO framework for economic globalization. Outside the conference halls, a convergences of climate justice activists from the Global South will be waiting to say "Another World is Possible." Join environmental and climate justice activists for a lead up discussion to the November 30th day of action and on the road to Copenhagen .

Speakers will kick us off with some thoughts on these questions:

  • From an environmental justice perspective, what’s the best thing that could come out of Copenhagen ? What’s the worst?
  • How will differences between the Global South and powers in the north be resolved? Who will shoulder the impact of these changes?
  • How are social movements in the Global South organizing around Copenhagen and how are these movements different than in the United States ?
  • Are there any openings that progressive activists in the US can build on to advance environmental and climate justice?

3. Arts Activism / Theatre-Based Climate justice Training

Tuesday, November 24th, 5:30pm

East Bay location TBA (check http://actforclimatejustice.org/west for more details)

Join us in preparing for a national day of action for Climate Justice on Nov. 30th. We will begin by doing an interactive climate justice workshop, then participants will choose to either develop an arts-based action (potentially with theatre, puppets, poetry, music...) or learn some Non-violent direct action skills. At the end of the workshop we will come back together and rehearse an arts-based direct action to do in the streets on N30.

*Open to activists of all ages!*

4. On Monday, November 30th (N30), the 10th anniversary of the global justice movement’s successful non-violent shut-down of the WTO, join us for a national day of action for climate justice. There will be safe and fun spaces for children, parents and everyone else who cannot be too near civil disobedience.

When: 11:30am, November 30tt (Remember 11/30 at 11:30)

Where: Meet at Justin Herman Plaza and go from there to a mass action with non-violent civil disobedience at the Bank of America on the corner of Pine and Kearny

On N30, we will expose some of San Francisco ’s worst climate criminals, demanding that they stop financing climate change and standing in the way of climate solutions. The following targets have been chosen for the national day of action: Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Chevron, British Petroleum, American Electric Power. The San Francisco action will target Bank of America, which is the 3rd biggest financier of the oil & gas industry in the world and the second biggest financier of coal in the U.S. We support affinity groups organizing autonomous actions against the other targets. For more details on the targets, seehttp://www.actforclimatejustice.org/tools-resources/dirty-money-and-dirtier-fuels-6-corporate-climate-criminals/.

Upcoming organizing meeting & non-violent direct action trainings:

Saturday, November 28th, Station 40, 3030b 16th Street, San Francisco

1-3pm: Non-violent direct action training

3-4pm: Climate Justice Teach-in with Payal Parekh, a climate scientist, now with International Rivers, who co-authored the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change, by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)-- the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization.

4-6pm: N30 action planning / spokescouncil meeting

5. On Monday, December 7th at 7am, on the first day of climate change negotiations in Copenhagen , join us at the world headquarters of Chevron in San Ramon to tell one of the world’s worst climate polluters “our climate is not your business!”

When: Monday, December 7th, 7am

Where: Chevron Corporate Headquarters ( 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road , San Ramon)

For detailed directions (including carpool and shuttle information), see http://west.actforclimatejustice.org/upcoming-events/december-7th-chevron-protest/directions-to-chevron-headquarters/

DEMANDS: We are going to Chevron’s headquarters demanding that they take the following steps to stop obstructing the urgent action that must be taken to confront climate change:

  1. Support equitable, science-based targets and climate solutions in international climate change negotiations and domestically.
  2. Pledge not to support any fake “grassroots” campaigns against national climate change legislation
  3. Cap the crude and stop expanding into heavier sources of crude oil.

For more details on these demands, see

http://west.actforclimatejustice.org/upcoming-events/december-7th-chevron-protest/.

We need volunteers who are willing to risk arrest to make a difference and send a clear message to Chevron. To sign up for non-violent civil disobedience on December 7th, send an email to mcjbay@gmail.com, attend the following meeting on December 6th, and attend a non-violent direct action training if you are new to civil disobedience.

Organizing Meeting / Teach-in / Civil Disobedience training:

Sunday, December 6th: Berkeley Unitarian Fellowship 1924 Cedar St. (at Bonita), Berkeley (http://www.bfuu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=27)

12-3pm: Non-violent direct action training

3-4pm: TEACH IN: Premier screening of the new animated film, “The Story of

Cap & Trade: Why you can't solve a problem with the thinking that created it” By Annie Leonard Free Range Studios, makers of the Story of Stuff. WIth special guest from The Story of Stuff.

Antonia Juhasz, author of the Tyrany of Oil, will explain Chevrons leading role in creating climate pollution and blocking climate change solutions.

4-7pm: Dec 7th orientation / planning meeting

Mobilization for Climate Justice West
actforclimatejustice.org/west


--
NEW BOOK: The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle
"The book is a fascinating account of what really happened in Seattle." -Naomi Klein
http://www.akpress.org/2008/items/battleofseattleakpress


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


reuters
waleed ibrahim





Posted at 07:06 am by thecommonills
 

The Iraq Inquiry begins in London

The Iraq Inquiry begins in London

At the Guardian, Andrew Sparrow is live blogging the Iraq Inquiry in London. Rose Gentle's song Gordon died serving in Iraq. ITV News speaks with her (link is video) and she tells them, "I just hope the committee stuck to their word because they promised us that they'd look inside and outside and if there were mistakes made, the fingers would get pointed at the person making mistakes." Rose Gentle is a member of Military Families Against the War. Al Jazeera reports that, "The storm clouds are already gathering over this Inquiry being held among high security in London." As the world's eyes turn to London, Sami Ramadani (Guardian) looks to Iraq:


The daily lives of ordinary Iraqis are such that an inquiry set up by the British government to look into the war on Iraq is almost totally brushed over in the country. Iraqis are avid followers of the news and most are very aware of the inquiry, but their situation today has become desperate; the lives of millions have been transformed into a bitter struggle for survival.
The attitude of those in Baghdad who are invited to comment on the inquiry swiftly changes from expressions of pain and sadness to that of anger and strong denunciation of the war and its architects, George Bush and Tony Blair. It is striking that the one common thought that comes to the fore is that Bush and Blair have escaped justice and "got away with murder".
They certainly don't have any confidence that the outcome of the inquiry will lead to Blair appearing before a legal tribunal to account for his role in engineering and launching the illegal war.
The terms of the debate in Iraq are very different from those here in Britain. For while here people are seeking to establish beyond much doubt who did what, when and why, people in Iraq regard it as an open and shut case: US policymakers, followed meekly by most of the British political and establishment notables, planned the invasion and "destruction" of Iraq many years before 2003. They cite the 13 years of murderous sanctions from 1991 to 2003 as a prelude for the occupation of the country. They stress that Saddam Hussein's 35-year dictatorship and non-existent WMD were "used as a pretext" for the war.

CNN provides background and also offers that the inquiry "could determine whether former Prime Minister Tony Blair misled his country over the 2003 invasion." Gideon Rachman (Financial Times of London) refrains from making any predictions and reminds that there were expectations on past British inquiries into Iraq:

Take the 2003-04 Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly. There was a near universal assumption in the British media when the inquiry began in the autumn of 2003 that it would destroy Tony Blair. In fact, Hutton did the exact opposite. His inquiry almost completely exonerated Blair over the handling of the Kelly affair but instead found heavily against the BBC over aspects of its reporting - leading to the dismissal of the two leading figures in the BBC.
Exactly the opposite then happened with Lord Butler's inquiry into the way the Blair government had used intelligence on Iraq ahead of the invasion. The widespread media assumption when Butler began his work in February 2004 was his report would be a "whitewash" because he was a civil service mandarin. Actually, of all the Iraq inquiries, it was the one that Blair feared the most. Lord Butler, a former civil service chief, made tough criticisms of the way the Blair government presented the argument ahead of the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, saying he ignored warnings that UK intelligence was imprecise and uncertain. Butler also made tough criticisms of Blair's penchant for "sofa government", criticising the way he failed to use the civil service system properly.

Thomas Penny and Kitty Donaldson (Bloomberg News) note that this is the fifth inquiry into the Iraq War. John F. Burns and Alan Cowell (New York Times) observe, "The unpopularity of the war — and its impact on Mr. Blair’s once glittery image among British voters -- contributed to his ouster by Prime Minister Gordon Brown two years ago." Ruth Barnett (Sky News -- link has text and video) reports that Chilcott used his opening remarks this morning to insist that the inquiry would be "fair and frank." The Telegraph of London reports a witness has stated that Bush and Blair were planning the Iraq War two years before it began:

Sir Peter Ricketts, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001, said there was concern in both London and Washington that the strategy of ''containment'' of Saddam Hussain was ''failing''.
Giving evidence at the first public hearings of the inquiry, he said a review of the Iraq policy was already under way in Whitehall in anticipation of the arrival of the new Bush administration.
He said that, in discussions with Secretary of State Colin Powell, it appeared the Americans were ''thinking very much on the same lines''.
He added, however, that others in Washington were already thinking further ahead.

A second report from the Telegraph offers a second witness testifying that the US was planning the Iraq War back in 2001:

Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at Foreign Office said that in February 2001, the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam
He said: "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington.”
However, he said that Britain was not then willing to engage in regime change in Baghdad. "Our policy was to stay away from that."

David Brown and Nico Hines (Times of London) add of Ricketts, "He said a review of the Iraq policy was already under way in Whitehall in anticipation of the arrival of the new Bush Administration."

In the US, Senator Byron Dorgan is the chair of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. He has released a video where he discusses "Making Real Progress in Our Mission to Disrupt, Dismantle and Defeat al Qaeda."

Senator Dorgan on DPC Report Regarding Progress Against al Qaeda

SENATOR DORGAN (D-ND) -- DPC Report on

There's supposed to be a way to get the embed code but I can't find it so I'm cheating it. You should see the video above this. If you do not, click here to be taken to the DPC video page. Those who aren't able to stream or for whom streaming will be of no use due to hearing issues can refer to the paper:

PROGRESS AGAINST AL QAEDA
By
U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Chairman, Senate Democratic Policy Committee

A new policy paper released by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee outlines progress the Obama Administration’s new strategy is making in the fight against al Qaeda.
The Obama administration has opted for a different strategy -- an aggressive, comprehensive, and integrated approach to combating the terrorist network. The result is a significantly disrupted and weakened al Qaeda.
In its first ten months, this new strategy has:

• Disrupted the most serious terrorist threat against the United States since 9/11, and others;

• Killed the top leader of Pakistan’s Taliban insurgents, Baitullah Mehsud; and

• Killed other key terrorist leaders around the world, including the most important terrorist leaders in East Africa and Indonesia


At the heart of this progress lies the following:

• A proactive and aggressive counterterrorism approach at home based on effective and efficient coordination between the federal government and state and local law enforcement.

• Intelligence collection and skillful analysis, combined with efficient coordination between the federal government and state and local partners.

• An increase in cooperation from foreign governments and intelligence services due to the new image and outreach the Obama Administration has put forth to the global community, particularly its renewed commitment to diplomacy and international law.

• Refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in order to combat the threat of al Qaeda, Taliban, and affiliated terrorists. .

The results are encouraging. Today, many of al Qaeda’s top leaders are no longer in place, replaced instead with less experienced and less capable individuals. The organization finds it more difficult to finance its terrorism. Its operations are more often detected and disrupted.
While we continue to face significant threats from al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists, the Obama Administration’s tough and smart strategy and the courageous work of law enforcement, military, and diplomatic officials across the country and throughout the world are making real progress in our efforts to defeat terrorist threats at home and around the globe.

I can't find a link for that this morning. We'll include it in today's snapshot and I'll try to have a link for it then.

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



















Posted at 07:03 am by thecommonills
 

Monday, November 23, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Monday, November 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the 'intended' elections remain in disarray, the US military announces a death, Nouri parades forward more show confessions, and more.
 
On Sunday, the US military announced: "FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division South Soldier was killed in action, Nov. 22.
The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin.The incident is under investigation."  The announcement brought the number of service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4365.
 
 
Turning to the issue of the 'intended' January elections.  As Carole King sings ("Chalis Borealis," Speeding Time), "Didn't work out quite the way you wanted, how were you to know?"  Last week, Tareq al-Hashemi vetoed the election law citing the law's refusal to recognize the large number of Iraqi refugees.  Saturday the Parliament met to resolve the issue and . . . nothing.  AFP reported, "The vote is postponed until tomorrow, parliament speaker Iyad al-Samarrai told reporters on Saturday, after a further day of meetings failed to resolve a dispute on a key provision in the law which will govern the national poll." Waleed Ibrahim, Ahmed Rasheed, Khalid al-Ansary, Michael Christie and Sonya Hepinstall (Reuters) explained, "Parliament must now either address Hashemi's complaints and amend the law, which may invite other interest groups to demand other changes, or send it back to him unchanged only for him to possibly veto it again." DPA added "According to [MP Ezzeddin] al-Dawla, MPs were divided during Saturday's discussions, with 'a majority calling for a rejection of al-Hashemi's demand.' A few, al-Dawla said, 'sought a compromise of reserving 10 per cent of the seats for expatriates'."  Sunday saw a repeat of the stagnation with Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Janet Lawrence (Reuters) reporting the Parliament is still at "an impasse" and plans to take up the matter (again) tomorrow. Some motion took place today with Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Jon Hemming (Reuters) reporting this morning that the Parliament has finally passed an election law but that it doesn't appear to address the issues that led to the presidency council's veto and may (yet again) be vetoed.
 
Sahar Issa and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) observe that the elections could be "delayed by weeks, if not longer" following today's vote which "cut Sunni Muslim voting power even more in several major provinces. More than 50 parliament members walked out in protest, most of them Sunnis, but including a smattering of secular lawmakers and Shiites as well."  Nada Bakri (Washington Post) quotes Sunni MP Oussan al-Nujaifi stating, "We're going to veto the law because it's unconstitutional. And that means a delay in the election."  Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) insists that the "effort to hold parliamentary elections on schedule in January collapsed on Monday"  and explains, "The failure to agree on even the terms of the national election has inflamed ethnic and sectarian tensions that had waned somewhat in the last year or so." BBC News adds, "Our correspondent [Jim Muir] says most MPs seem to be determined to reject the veto this time, meaning the law should eventually go through."
 
Today at the US State Dept, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Rumiana Zheleva and after the two delivered remarks to the press, the issue of Iraq arose.
 
AFP's Lachlan Carmichael: Madame Secretary, since we have an opportunity to talk to you, perhaps on another subject, Iraq? There's a prospect of the electoral law being vetoed again. What kinds of concerns do you have about that? And do you have any -- can you use your influence to help get it passed, iron out the differences among the factions?
 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Well, Lachlan, we support the Iraqi government's efforts to pass an election law so that they can proceed with planned elections. We know that there are some continuing concerns as expressed by the vice president that have to be addressed. We will continue working with all of the parties. Our ambassador, Chris Hill, on the ground has been deeply involved in doing so already.  This morning, I met and heard a report about the way forward. There are a number of ideas that we will be presenting. There's an interim period because the Council of Representatives will not be meeting for a number of days that we think provide the opportunity for all the parties to come together, and with the help of not just the United States, but UNAMI and others to work out these continuing differences. We believe on balance that there will be elections. They might slip by some period of time until this is worked out, because at some point the law has to be in place for the planning to begin, and so there necessarily needs to be a period of time in which the planning can occur. But we have every reason to believe that elections will be held, which will be another milestone on the journey that Iraqis are taking toward full and comprehensive democracy.
 
 
And since Hillary raised the timeline, let's note it because it changed and no one seems to have noticed that (more likely, they've chosen not to raise the issue). Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Janet Lawrence (Reuters) reported Sunday,  "There are only a couple of days left for parliament to address Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi's veto of an election law, as the law must be passed 60 days before a vote and Jan. 23 is viewed by Iraq's majority Shi'ite Muslims as the last possible date in January for the ballot to take place."
 
How does it happen           
I don't know                
It's so hard to understand                 
Now you see it               
Now you don't                  
Is this a case of sleight of hand                   
Sleight of hand              
-- "Sleight of Hand," written by Carly Simon and Don Sebesky
 
B-b-but . . . What happened to 90 days?  Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) reported a month ago, "The commission, responsible for organizing polls in Iraq, has said that it needs 90 days to print and distribute ballots. Iraqi and UN officials fear that the election could be delayed if lawmakers fail to pass a revised election law this week."  October 29th, Renee Montagne talked about the timeline with Quil Lawrence (NPR's Morning Edition):
 
Renee Montagne: What, Quil, is at stake with the delay of this election law?

Quil Lawrence: Well, as you say, the Iraqi prime minister and his government's term run out on January 31st so the election commission here has said they need 90 days to organize a legitimate poll and Parliament is deadlocked on over a dozen or so complicated issues regarding the election. They may vote on it today. If the elections are delayed or if they are rushed, there's a risk that Iraq's government could be deemed illegitimate and then a whole Pandora's Box of problems can open up -- issues of legitimacy of the government, maybe even a crisis like we've seen in Afghanistan.
 
How does 90 days become 60?  And why did the press never notice the missing thirty?  "Sleight of Hand" indeed.  Carly Simon's latest album is Never Been Gone (Kat sang its praises here) and this week only you can download the entire album at Amazon for $5.00.  That's all 12 tracks.  Never Been Gone finds Carly revisiting her songwriting canon to re-imagine some of her best loved hits including "You're So Vain," "Anticipation," "Let The River Run," "Coming Around Again," "The Right Thing To Do," "That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be" and "You Belong To Me."  Tomorrow Carly Will be at J&R Music World in New York (23 Park Row) signing copies of Never Been Gone beginning at 6:00 pm.  Carly will be on Greater Boston (WGBH) Wednesday and Thursday (Thanksgiving day) she'll be performing in the Macy's Parade on the Care Bear's Float as well as be on Extra for part-two of her interview.
 
You should notice that the reporter who raised the issue of Iraq with Hillary Clinton was from a foreign news agency (AFP).  Domestic reporters just don't give a damn.  Doubt it?  At the White House today, a bunch of trained yammers (with few exceptions) stroked and fondled Robert Gibbs with questions of such easy nature as could he explain "diplomatic entertaining" and State dinners.  They had plenty of time to make like In Style magazine but damn little time to make like actual reporters.  It was the usual embarrassment everyone's come to expect and that can be blamed only partly on Robert Gibbs.  Blame?  Hillary mentioned Chris Hill, US Ambassador to Iraq, in her comments and this may have been the first time his name has come up in the last few days.  For example, the New York Times' awful editorial last week didn't mention him when it called out Iraq for the delay.  Shouldn't Hill have been on this issue from day one?  Yes, he should have.  And who picked Hill?  Who picked Hill over qualified people -- many, many other qualified people?  Barack Obama.  So the candy ass White House press corps should have pressed on the issue of Iraq.  Instead they wasted everyone's time and, with few exceptions, better hope their editors and producers don't study that transcript.  And on Chris Hill, let's remember one more time that the Republicans in the Senate structured their objections to Hill very carefully and very precisely.  They knew he could be the anchor that could hang around Barack's neck.  But no one wanted to pay attention back then and now it appears it may be too late.  If Iraq falls to pieces, Republicans running for office will not blame military generals.  They will, however, go to town on a US civilian like Hill.  And they laid the groundwork for that back in his confirmation hearing.
 
Meanwhile, thug of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki hasn't come out with a color-coded terror chart, but like the Bully Boy who installed him, he schedules 'media events' to increase his electoral prospects. Most recently? Sunday saw the broadcast of excerpts of more forced confessions. The for-show confessions act as a kind of political advertisement for Nouri and, to no surprise, the forced confessions said exactly what Nouri had said about the Baghdad bombings on 'Bloody Sunday'. AP rightly notes that this is Nouri's "latest anti-Ba'athist attack" and that "Al-Maliki's intensified rhetoric worsens one of Iraq's most dangerous sectarian fault lines -- one which the United States has long struggled to calm." Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) notes, "In recent months the Iraqi government has played a number of such videos for reporters. Many Iraqis have voiced skepticism about their authenticity. [. . .] In recent weeks, the government and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have stepped up the anti-Baath rhetoric ahead of the country's upcoming national elections, an escalation that some fear is a political ploy to keep some Sunni Arab candidates from running in the elections."

Turning to some of the violence Nouri seems to breed like bunnies . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left two people wounded, another one that left two people wounded, a third one which left two people wounded, a Baghad sticky bombing which wounded four people, a fourth Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded person, a second Baghdad sticky bombing which injured two people, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi service member and left one person wounded, a Kikuk assassination attempt on Aras Mohammed ("deputy chief of criminal investigation) which he survived and a Kirkuk assassination attempt on Rajim Awa (police chief) which he survived but which "damaged a number of civilians cars and caused material damages to the nearby houses."  Reuters drops back to Sunday to note a Baghdad car bombing which left 1 police officer injured.
 
Shootings?
 
 Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an assassination attempt on Ayad Allawi that injured two of his body guards (Allawi is the former Iraqi Prime Minister and also a rival of Nouri al-Maliki's) and an assassination attempt on journalist Emad al-Abadi in which he was shot "in the head, neck and shoulder" and is now in critical condition. Reuters notes US forces and Iraqi forces killed 1 suspect in Mosul while arresting five others
 
Kidnappings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 55-year-old Iraqi Christian was kidnapped in Kirkuk today.
 
Returning to the topic of elections, the most recent Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) began airing Friday night.  Host Jasim al-Azzawi addressed the issue  with guests MP Mustafa al-Hiti with the Iraqi National Movement and analyst Fereydun Hilmi.
 
Jasim al-Azzawi: Mustafa al-Hiti, let us get the Constitutional and the legal aspect out of it. al-Hashimi is within his Constitutional right to veto the bill -- either in its entirety or part of it. So I don't understand why al-Maliki is questioning his privileges as Vice President in power to do so.
 
Mustafa al-Hiti: Well really Tariq al-Hashimi is doing his job according to the Constitution and certainly he is one of the Iraqis who should feel, like others, the rights of the Iraqi refugees whether they are outside Iraq or anywhere. So you know all the refugees live under really hostile conditions abroad because they are not even, in the Arab countries, they are legal -- what you call it -- refugees. So he was doing the right thing and he is with the Constitution -- he is very really complying with the Constitution and he is not out of that.
 
Jasim al-Azzawi: The hue and cry caused by Hashimi's action, Fereydun Hilmi, there must be sort of a political calculus on some political machination behind it. It is not in the interest of most of the current blocs in Iraq for this four and a half million or maybe five million Iraqis to be included in the political process.
 
Fereydun Hilmi: Well that's right.  Hashimi was presiding over the displacement of these millions of people that he's now worried about and crying over. He was in power when they were driven out of their homes. He didn't do anything to stop that. And now he's in a political jam because the group that he came with to power is no longer supporting him.  He is -- I believe he is no longer with the Islamic Party that actually put him in his place and he needs support. And that's why he's now trying to drum up the support from the people who are outside Iraq -- the refugees -- and those people that he's trying to get the vote for but he's one of the people responsible for driving these people out of the country in the first place.
 
Jasim al-Azzawi: Mustafa al-Hiti,  Fereydun Hilmi is alluding to something very important and very critical and that is, Tariq al-Hashimi, when he was with the Islamic Party, which he is no longer with, he has a new party called the Renewal, his vote at the time to approve the Constitution was absolutely critical. Had he said "no," that entire Constitution would have gone no where. Is it, in retrospect, he's trying to reclaim something?
 
Mustafa al-Hiti: Well really we are talking about two things. Upon his responsibility for accepting this Constitution and all the material -- and you know that four years ago, yes, we can say he's responsible about the Constitution. What we are talking now is whether he is complying with the Constitution according to this veto or not?  This is a different story.  Yes, he was responsible for that bad Constitution and should be reformed. I agree with Mr. Fereydun about that.  But regarding this objection or veto, he is indeed right and it is not just his idea, by the way.  We were talking about this Constitution -- about the election law a long time ago. I mean, for the last three months, we were talking. And he had heard, certainly, the opinion of most blocs -- political blocs -- in the Iraqi Parliament who were objecting to two main things regarding the Iraqi Kirkuk and the percentage for the refugees. Although Kirkuk was the main issue but, I mean, this issue regarding ten or five or fifteen percent of those seats for the refugees and the quota for other religious parties in Iraq.  So, in fact, Constitutionally he's going right and today, as I have heard, that the Constitutional Court, they were really with al-Hashimi regarding his veto or objection because it is very clear in the Constitution saying that each seat for a parliamentary member should be represented by 100,000 Iraqis people. So --
 
Jasim al-Azzawi: If that is the case, Mustafa al-Hiti, let me ask Fereydun, we do understand why Hashimi is objecting to the law, explain to me why the Kurds are objecting to the law.  One leading member of the Kurdistan Regional Government says that we are not going to participate in this election.  
 
Fereydun Hilmi:  The Kurds are taking advantage of this situation, obviously, because they have never been happy about the election law. They are not happy about the way the government is run. They are trying to get maximum -- maximum advantage out of this whole situation of chaos. It is actually chaos. I mean it doesn't matter that there's been a government or something called a government for the past seven years but to this day there is a lot of services that are missing.  There are many, many important things that are not being catered for. There are many, many hundreds of very rich contracts being signed away by the so-called politicians today.  The wealth of the country is now in the hands of the foreigners and the people who occupy the country --
 
Jasim al-Azzawi: But Fereydun --
 
Fereydun Hilmi:  -- so there are some --
 
Jasim al-Azzawi: -- the Kurds, specifically what they are saying is that the annual growth for Suleimaniah, Erbil and Dohuk does not tally with the rest of the country.  The rest of the country -- some of it is going to be three percent, five percent, ten percent. For instance, Suleimaniah is stagnant.  Can you comment on that one, Fereydun?
 
Fereydun Hilmi: Yes. I mean, if -- I actually wrote a book about the elections and also, in that book, there are population growth figures that show that, after the fall of Saddam, Suleimaniah, Erbil and Dohuk had a very big rise in population. Far above the average rise in the other cities. And of course you understand that because a lot of Kurds were outside Kurdistan or they were in different, displaced places. But now, of course, the situation has reversed.  They -- those areas are stagnant because they already had the population surge into the cities and the areas. Whereas the other parts had a migration of a lot of people, Sunnis and other people who were being driven out of their own homes and they had to go to the safer areas of Kurdistan and Mosul and that sort of areas. So that explains why you have this sort of different surges at different times.
 
Jasim al-Azzawi: Mustafa?
 
Mustafa al-Hiti:  Mr. Jasim, if Mr. Fereydun excuse me for this point really, I want to emphasize two things regarding the Kurdish objection upon the law.  First of all, they are, the Kurdish -- the immigrant Kurdish people outside of Iraq -- they are like the other Iraqis. They live really under very hostile conditions.  So we have to treat all of the people of Iraq as the same. They have the same conditions, they escape the country because one reason or another, really.  And this migration started a long time ago so you cannot say that the Iraqis, they were immigrant after 2003. They were really leaving the country in excessive waves starting from 1958 until now -- under different conditions. This is in one hand. So they are objecting upon that because they need their people as well to have the rightful voting.  Second, as Mr. Fereydun said, the 2.6% rate of growth in Iraq which is -- this is the common WHO [World Health Organization] figures -- there -- I mean, we should have all the Iraqis to have an annual increment which is about 2.6 or sometimes they call it 3%. So, in any case, this should be applied on all Iraqis, to be in the right way.  You shouldn't depend only upon this food ration coupon which is under the law we should follow that. If you want to be more precise or accurate we have to go for the census for Iraq which is really will tell you the truth, what's going on.
 
 
Winding down, we'll note this from David Bacon's "St. Francis Hotel Workers Strike" (Under The Name of Reason):

About 650 workers at the St. Francis Hotel, one of the city's oldest and most luxurious, walked out on strike on November 18. This was the third of what may be many strikes hit San Francisco's Class A hotels. The contract with the workers' union, UNITE HERE Local 2, expired on August 14. Since then, Local 2 has been trying to bargain a new agreement in the middle of an economic depression.
San Francisco's largest hotels are demanding cuts in health and retirement benefits, and increased workloads, saying that the economic crisis has reduced tourism in the city. The luxury hotel chains want workers begin paying for their healthcare premiums -- $35/month this year, $115/month next year, and $200/month the year after. A typical San Francisco hotel worker earns $30,000 per year, and many can't work a full 40-hour week.
Over the first nine months of 2009, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, which manages the Westin St. Francis, earned $180 million in profits. Starwood also manages three other San Francisco Class A hotels. The owner of the St. Francis, Strategic Hotels and Resorts, saw $11 million in earnings during the same period. The company bought the hotel for $439 million in 2006.

David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which just won the CLR James Award. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST). Oops, I lied.  Aimee Allison is co-host of The Morning Show.  She and David Solnit paired up to write the amazing  Army Of None.  With his sister Rebecca Solnit,  of Courage to Resist, David has
written the just-released book The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle. If you're having trouble finding a copy of it, you're not alone and let's assume that's a good sign and meaning there's a large audience out there for this important book. But in the meantime, there are several actions David Solnit is noting.
 
Today from seven to nine pm at the First Unitarian Universalist Church in San Francisco (1187 Franklin St) -- admission $10 to $25 but "no one turned away for lack of funds" organizing efforts for today and the "spirit of Seattle" will be addresed by David, Rebecca, Jia Ching Chen, Kevin Danaher, Anuradha Mittal (Oakland Institute) and Claire Greensfelder, Jerry Mander and Victor Menotti (IFG). Tomorrow in Oakland (Humanist Hall, 390 27th St) at 6:30 pm, there will be a teach-in and they're asking for $5 to $10 dollars but "no one turned away for lack of funds":
 
On December 7, 2009, world leaders and international NGOs will meet in Copenhagen to chart out a course for a new global climate deal, and in doing so, try to set up a new post-WTO framework for economic globalization. Outside the conference halls, a convergences of climate justice activists from the Global South will be waiting to say "Another World is Possible." Join environmental and climate justice activists for a lead up discussion to the November 30th day of action and on the road to Copenhagen .  
 
Both of those events are wheelchair accessible.  A third tomorrow at 5:30 is at a location yet to be determined but will be preparation for a national day of action for Climate Justice and you can click here for more information.
 
 

Posted at 03:45 pm by thecommonills
 

Times slips Nouri some tongue, Parliament passes something

Times slips Nouri some tongue, Parliament passes something

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has been campaigning on having largely restored security and normality to the country. It has in many ways been a successful campaign; it helped him sweep to an unexpected victory in provincial elections, and emboldened him to separate from the sectarian alliance of Shiites that dominated the last national elections, and run his own slate in January's national elections.
Mr. Maliki has many opponents in the political establishment, but his most potent opponents are the extremists who have proven able to carry out spectacular attacks that undermine his core argument -- that things are better.
When they struck on Aug. 19 with two suicide truck bombs that destroyed the foreign and finance ministries, killing 155 people, the attacks could be dismissed as an anomaly, and they were. When they struck again on Oct. 25, however, with two suicide bombers who destroyed three government buildings and killed 122 people, it was clearly the enemy's version of a campaign debate -- albeit one-sided, and viciously to the point.

That's the New York Times' Rod Nordland (at the paper's blog) and when you read garbage like this -- often written to curry favor with the local despot (what the Times sees as one of the requirements of carrying international coverage, believe it or not) -- you grasp why the whole bloated newspaper system may go under and why few would ever miss it. For just a moment, let's try to remove Nordland's lips from Nouri's ass, okay?

"It has in many ways been a successful campaign; it helped him sweep to an unexpected victory in provincial elections, and emboldened him to separate from the sectarian alliance of Shiites that dominated the last national elections, and run his own slate in January's national elections." Hate to break it to Rod (and others at the paper who have pimped this lie for some time), Nouri did not have a 'victory' in the provincial elections. He had no victory in July when they were held in 3 provinces -- a fact the New York Times likes to pretend never happened. And he had no 'victory' in January 2009 when 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces held elections. Nouri (a) was not running and (b) his party saw nothing resembling a victory. A victory would mean no need to cobble together a patchwork coalition. For example, for most of this decade, in England, the Labour Party has had a huge victory. By contrast, in Canada for most of this decade, various factions (in the opposition today) have had to cobble together coalitions because no one party really had a "victory." [Despite all the whining over War Criminal Bully Boy Bush from Canada, they've repeatedly failed to 'take back' their own government from the Conservative Party which has ruled for most of the decade since Paul Martin killed Labour's hold on the Prime Ministry in February 2006. Though the same coalitions still cobble together, they lack the numbers they one had and cannot unseat the Conservative Party at present.]


"Coalitions" -- uh, yeah, the other thing the really lousy reporters so frequently forget. Just like they refer to Nouri's election whenever Iraq holds elections next (supposedly January 2010). The prime minister is not elected by the people. It's dubious to claim that the prime minister is elected by the Iraqi MPs since their first choice was rejected by the US and Nouri was the compromise choice. Oh, yeah, ugly reality that intrudes in real life if never in the damn pages of the New York Times.

I have no idea why Rod Nordland has his tongue up Nouri's ass. In part, it's most likely because the paper works overtime to cozy up to Nouri and play footsie with him. They are a craven and increasingly disgusting outlet. They refused to defend the Guardian in print. Yes, Bill Keller gave a statement . . . to another paper. The so called 'mighty' New York Times cowered like the biggest chicken s**t of the decade. It was disgusting and the idea that they now have even a modicum of respect from news consumers is almost as big a joke as the paper has turned itself into.

It's a real shame the paper has no guts and no sense of purpose when it comes to journalism but that just makes its potential death all the easier to stomach.

While the Times fawns over Nouri, the Kurdish Globe runs AP's article about Nouri's non-stop attacks on former Ba'athists. While the Times gets in bed with a despot, AP observes, "Al-Maliki's intensified rhetoric worsens one of Iraq's most dangerous sectarian fault lines one which the United States has long struggle to calm."

So crazy the book review could be published in the Times, Rayyan al-Shawaf (Christian Science Monitor) reviews the latest droppings from George's Impacted Colon. Packer George has been published in the Times many times but he mainly stinks up The New Yorker and, of course, American foreign policy. From the review:

Packer can be rather shrill when chastising conservatives for their myriad political failures, but he is no narrow-minded partisan. One of this book's most trenchant criticisms is leveled at liberals whose opposition to the Iraq war resulted in a smug and self-satisfied cynicism. "The administration's deceptions, exaggerations, and always-evolving rationales provoked a counternarrative," Packer points out, "that mirrored the White House version of the war in its simplemindedness: the war was about nothing (except greed, empire, and blind folly.)"

Packer's always shrill and he's a War Hawk. If you miss that point, if you miss what is, in fact, his religion, you can never hope to understand what he's raving on about. George Packer belongs to the Church Of Destruction -- and from the pulpit he'll mislead and molest all in his congregation.

Packer's 'taste' is so low that he actually fond Monty McFate attractive. Truly, no one else in the world ever has. The counter-insurgency princess has kept a lower profile since it turned out that her sister (also trashy) was a snitch for the government who went around spying on peace groups. That whole family's trash (and we warned you of that long, long ago when Packer met Monty). Jeff Huber (Antiwar) observes:


War has become America's top export. Military recruiting is through the roof because of the poor economy. How pathetic it is that the most powerful nation on earth has nothing to offer its youth but war. Even more pathetic is the kind of war the nation has to offer them.
COIN, the acronym for counterinsurgency, has replaced air power and nuclear weapons as the latest "truth" in American warfare. COIN's basic premise calls for "effective governance by a legitimate government." We don't have effective or legitimate governance in Iraq or Afghanistan, and we're not going to have it. Nouri al-Maliki's Shi'ite government will never "unify" with the Sunni and Kurd factions in Iraq, and Hamid Karzai's Afghan government is a mob of drug dealers and warlords. We're fighting wars that by our own definition are doomed to fail.
We're fighting junk wars to prop up junk governments with junk strategies and we're giving our kids junk body armor to fight them with.
And we're recruiting children to keep these wars alive for as long as we can.

Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Jon Hemming (Reuters) are reporting that the Parliament has finally passed an election law but that it doesn't appear to address the issues that led to the presidency council's veto and may (yet again) be vetoed. Meanwhile Xinhua reports eleven people injured in five Baghdad roadside bombings today.

While George Impacted Colon pretends war is not about money or resources or greed -- ignoring the entirety of world history -- Nouri continues his spending spree on weaponry. Thursday the Defense Security Cooperation Agency [PDF format warning] announced:

WASHINGTON, November 19, 2009 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Nov. 18 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 15 helicopters with associated parts, equipment, training and logistical support for a complete package worth approximately $1.2 billion.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of up to 15 AgustaWestland AW109 Light Utility Observation helicopters, or alternatively, 15 Bell Model 429 Medical Evacuation and Aerial Observation helicopters, or 15 EADS North America UH-72A Lakota Light Utility helicopters; and, up to 12 AgustaWestland AW139 Medium Utility helicopters, or alternatively, 12 Bell Model 412 Medium Utility helicopters, or 12 Sikorsky UH-60M BLACK HAWK helicopters equipped with 24 T700-GE-701D engines. Also included: spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, ground support, communications equipment, U.S. Government and contractor provided technical and logistics support services, tools and test equipment, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.2 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country. This proposed sale directly supports the Iraq government and serves the interests of the Iraqi people and the U.S.
This proposed sale will advance Iraqi efforts to develop a strong national military and police authority. A well-equipped and trained military and police/border force patrol authority and counter-terrorism force will help ensure that Iraq can continue to sustain its democratically-elected government, assist in stabilizing the various provinces, and prevent an overflow of unrest into the provinces, cities, and towns within Iraq.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be:
AgustaWestland Helicopter Company Philadelphia, PA
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Ft Worth, TX
EADS North America Arlington, VA
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Stratford, CT
General Electric Lynn, MA
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Iraq for an extended period to assist in the delivery and deployment of the helicopters.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.


At Under The Name of Reason, David Bacon's "St. Francis Hotel Workers Strike,"

About 650 workers at the St. Francis Hotel, one of the city's oldest and most luxurious, walked out on strike on November 18. This was the third of what may be many strikes hit San Francisco's Class A hotels. The contract with the workers' union, UNITE HERE Local 2, expired on August 14. Since then, Local 2 has been trying to bargain a new agreement in the middle of an economic depression.
San Francisco's largest hotels are demanding cuts in health and retirement benefits, and increased workloads, saying that the economic crisis has reduced tourism in the city. The luxury hotel chains want workers begin paying for their healthcare premiums -- $35/month this year, $115/month next year, and $200/month the year after. A typical San Francisco hotel worker earns $30,000 per year, and many can't work a full 40-hour week.
Over the first nine months of 2009, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, which manages the Westin St. Francis, earned $180 million in profits. Starwood also manages three other San Francisco Class A hotels. The owner of the St. Francis, Strategic Hotels and Resorts, saw $11 million in earnings during the same period. The company bought the hotel for $439 million in 2006.

David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which just won the CLR James Award. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST).

Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack 'Listens'" went up last night.
We'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "U.S. NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS" (Veterans Today):

American law "does nothing to genuinely protect animals, nor does it recognize their true value and special place in our homes and within our families," two animal rights authorities say.
"Our legal system just does not recognize the bond between people and their companion animals, and when that bond is severed, it completely fails to compensate for that loss," write law professors Diane Sullivan and Holly Vietzke of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
Furthermore, they write, torture of laboratory animals is as widespread as it is unnecessary, and they question "the propriety of treating millions of animals like property for research at the hand and whim of the researcher." Proponents of testing argue that animal research is "necessary" and/or "justified." "To advance this position requires a rationale that a dog, cat, or chimp is the equivalent of an innate piece of property."
With the advancement of science and technology, Sullivan and Vietzke continue, "it is now possible to conduct testing without having to use live animals. Human tissue, donated from human cells, can be grown in test tubes."
Moreover, they assert, computers can use simulation software to virtually conduct tests, even incorporating "hundreds of variables" to simulate various human conditions and the effects the drug or product would have on them.
In an article in the "Journal of Animal Law," published by Michigan State University College of Law, Sullivan and Vietzke write: "As wrong as it is, animals are considered property in the eyes of the law despite the fact we all know animals feel pain, display emotion, exhibit loyalty and sadness, and (in some cases) share most of our genetic make-up."

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












Posted at 06:53 am by thecommonills
 


Next Page




<< November 2009 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed