 |
Friday, February 06, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack moves back his "immediately" pledge on Iraq, Military Families Speak Up launch their DC action, US war resister Cliff Cornell has returned to the US from Canada, the (partial) election results are sifted through, and more.
Eugene Cherry joined the army at the age of 19 in the hopes of getting money for college. Despite being a good student, he found his options in his impoverished south side neighborhood limited. "I thought the military would be my ticket out, but I found an organization based on racism, sexism and misogyny" he testified before the assembled audience. Later he spoke of "[a] culture of violence and racism" that the military promotes within its ranks. These pressures proved to be too much for Sherry. He deserted for 16 months after being refused mental health support by the army. "I found myself fighting and oppressing a group of people in the name of the war on terror" concluded his remarks to the gathering.
The plight of women in the armed forces proved to be a recurring theme. Patricia McCann, a National Guardsman deployed in 2003, noted during her testimony that instances of sexual assault and sexual harassment within the armed forces have risen but court-martials for these crimes have declined. Another veteran (and current Chicago police officer), Lisa Zepeda, added that victims of assault have no outside authority they can report assaults to; a victim must go through her immediate superior within her unit.
Allen notes that US House Rep "Jan Schakowasky and several Chicago aldermen also took the floor and addressed the audeince. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. and Illinois Senator Roland Burris also sent staff members to reaffirm their support of bringing the troops home."
Military Families Speak Out was among the organizations participating in the Chicago event and today they started a DC action that will run through Monday:
Come to Washington February 6-9 to demand "The Change WE Need"
President Elect Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it started, calling it a "dumb war." But he and his advisors have also said that they plan to spread the return of combat troops from that "dumb war" out over sixteen months and to keep tens of thousands of other troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely.
So from February 6-9, MFSO will be traveling to Washington to bring the new President and new Congress the message that it is long past time to bring all our troops home from Iraq. The four days of events will include:
* A teach-in featuring the voices of military families, veterans, and Iraqis, explaining the need for an immediate and complete end to the war in Iraq -- and the human impacts of continuing the occupation. Friday, February 6 from Noon - 3:00 p.m. at Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue.
* A solemn procession from Arlington National Cemetary to the White House beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 7. Meet at the front gate of the cemetery right outside the exit of the Arlington Metro stop. Please arrive early.
* A "Meet and Greet" and Legislative Briefing from 3:00 - 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, February 8 at the Mariott Metro Center.
* Lobbying members of Congress to end the war in Iraq. Meet in the cafeteria of the Rayburn House Office Building at 9:00 a.m. Monday, February 9.
The teach-in takes place this afternoon. Actions continue through Monday. Meanwhile US war resister Andre Shepherd is seeking asylumn in Germany (we last noted Andre in Wednesday's snapshot). Wednesday, he was making his case for asylum to Germany's Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. Andy Eckardt (NBC News) offers a strong report on Andre who explains, "When I enlisted in 2004 and later was sent to Iraq, I believed I was doing the right thing. But then, like other comrades around me, I started questioning why we were there and what we were fighting for. . . . My job was harmless until I factored in the amount of death and destruction those helicopters caused to civilians every day. The government made us believe we would be welcomed as heroes in Iraq, but we saw nothing but hostility from the Iraqis that came to work for us, they wanted to kill us." Meanwhile James M. Brnaum's GI Rights Lawyer.com explained yesterday:
U.S. war resister Cliff Cornell surrendered himself to U.S. border police on Wednesday after being ordered to leave Canada. He was promptly arrested for being AWOL from the U.S. Army, and is now being held at the Whatcom County Jail in Bellingham, Washington, twenty miles south of the U.S.-Canada border.
Cornell's attorney and supporters expressed outrage at the arrest.
"Clifford Cornell came back to the United States so that he could voluntarily return to his old unit at Fort Stewart," stated attorney James Branum. "He stated this intention to the Border Patrol, both verbally and in writing, by way of a letter I drafted on his behalf. I am disappointed that the Border Patrol chose to arrest my client and place him into a county jail with general population prisoners. This should not have happened."
Cornell, 28, fled to Canada four years ago after his Army artillery unit was ordered to Iraq. But despite a popular outcry to provide sanctuary to soldiers who refuse to fight in illegal wars, Canada's Conservative government is pressing ahead with deportations. Cornell, an Arkansas native, had come to call British Columbia home. But he now faces a possible court martial and imprisonment in the United States.
"Cliff Cornell should not be going to jail," said Gerry Condon, director of Project Safe Haven, a war resister advocacy group. "He had the guts to follow his conscience and obey international law," continued Condon. "President Obama should grant amnesty to Cliff Cornell and all war resisters."
Cornell is the second Iraq War resister to be held in the Whatcom County Jail. He follows Robin Long, who was deported from Canada in July. Long is now serving a 15-month prison sentence at Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig near San Diego.
"We want Bellingham to be a Sanctuary City for war resisters," said Gene Marx of Veterans For Peace, "not a way station for war resisters being sent to prison." Bellingham is known for being a progressive city, having passed two anti-war resolutions through its city council.
A public vigil in support of Cliff Cornell will be held outside of the County jail on Thursday from 10 am -- 1pm, organized by the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center.
A legal defense fund for Cliff Cornell is being established by Courage To Resist, a war resister support group, at www.couragetoresist.org.
CONTACT:
Marie Marchand, Executive Director, Whatcom Peace & Justice Center
(360) 734-0217 (office); (434) 249-5957 (cell), WhatcomPJC(at)fidalgo.net
Gene Marx, Bellingham Veterans For Peace, Chapter 111, 253-653-4423 (cell)
Gerry Condon, Project Safe Haven, 206-499-1220 (cell),
projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com
In an update, AP reports that Cliff is being allowed to travel "by bus to Georgia" and will "turn himself in Tuesday at the Army base near Savannah." And, as Gerry Condon stated, Barack Obama should grant amnesty to all war resisters. But the reality is Barack's not even in a rush to end the illegal war.
Staying with the White House, US vice president Joe Biden is headed to Germany. Before he left the US today, he made some public remarks. Edward Epstein (CQ) reports, " He listed the economic crisis and ongoing fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as the most pressing issues. Biden used a football analogy to describe the situation in Iraq, saying the United States is 'on the 20-yard-line' and 'driving toward the goal'." Jared Allen (The Hill) states the Biden "admitted that any victory is far from certain, and he reiterated that a victory through military means alone is unattainable." AFP quotes him stating, "Our administration is going to have to be very deeply involved not only keeping the commitment that we've made drawing down our troops in an orderly fashion consistent with what we said."
McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef is convinced that Barack's decision to request a variety of options for 'withdrawal' from Iraq is "the first indication that the Obama administration may be willing to abandon a campaign promise of a 16-month withdrawal." Or it may be Barack wanting to see all options, wanting to check if opinions ever see withdrawal possible (would you listen to someone's opinion if they didn't think the US could pull out in 16, 19 or even 23 months?). Who knows. But withdrawal' is not withdrawl. It is "combat" troops only. The White House unofficially says the number left behind would be approximately 70,000. That's not withdrawal. Youssef reports, "Obama is likely to announce his strategy for Iraq by mid-March, a senior administration official told McClatchy." That would be an indication of a broken promise and Youssef misses that point. At Hopey Changey "Three Facts about Barack Obama and Iraq" which includes this 'fact:' "Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq; successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased."
What did Barack promise? "Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased." Mid-March? Mid-March is "immediately upon taking office"? Immediately upon taking office was when Barack was sworn in. That was last month. It's February. And a White House source is telling McClatchy it will be mid-March before anything's announced. Another case where " Barack kicks the can" and here he's promised "immediately upon taking office". (I have no idea who Nancy Youssef spoke to and this morning I'm being told that is not correct and that Barack will be making an announcement "this month" on Iraq. He may or he may not. But Youssef didn't make up that source. Even if an announcement is made this month, as two insisted this morning, the fact that some White House insider would tell Youssef it wouldn't be until mid-March goes to how unimportant Iraq is in the Obama White House. And "this month" would not be "immediately upon taking office".)
"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's strong performance in Iraq's provincial elections was also a victory for American goals." No. al-Maliki wasn't a candidate. That's the lede to Sudarsan Raghavan and Ernesto Londono's Washington Post article and it's incorrect and they are not the only reporters/outlet to get it so wrong. Nouri al-Maliki was not a candidate in provincial elections. These, as Londono himself has explained, are the equivalent of state legislature elections in the US. Did anyone assert that victory for Republicans in (pick one of fifty states) in (pick 2001 through 2007) was a victory for George W. Bush? No. al-Maliki wanted to get some press and wanted to make the elections about him. He estimated a minimum of 70% of registered Iraqis would turn out. (51% did.) He thought this was going to be his big moment on the international scene. For a reporter, it is very tempting to make it about al-Maliki for a number of reasons. For example, making provincial elections about the prime minister frees you of having to . . . cover the actual candidates. And there were 440 winners -- none of whom were named "Nouri al-Maliki." It's so much easier to stamp "al-Maliki Victory" and be done with it. This afternoon Alissa J. Rubin (at the International Herald Tirbune) focuses on Yusef Majid al-Habboubi who "managed to defeat not only the religious parties who controlled the province of Karbala but also Maliki's preferred candidates by a 2-1 margin in one of the bigger surprises in the provincial elections last week." In the preliminatry vote, Rubin explains, it appears al-Habboubi has 17% of the vote over twice what "the next two closest parties" appeared to have received. This morning, Rubin's " Prime Ministers Party Wins in Iraqi Vote but Will Need to Form Coalitions" ( New York Times) did a little better than the Post. The headline writer captures it and Rubin does as well for most of her article; however, sentences like the following trip her up: "In Baghdad, where Mr. Maliki ran a strongly nationalist campaign, he appeared to have had some success in winning votes from Sunnis, but in the Sunni-majority provinces to the north, his party's slate barely made a showing." He ran a strong nationalist campaign? And how many votes did he receive? What did he say in his victory speech? When will he be sworn in? Here's reality, if you're going to wrongly make the provincial elections about Nouri al-Maliki, you're going to have to judge the success or failure of al-Maliki and the reality is "his party's slate barely made a showing" in the north. The reality is that Iraq has 18 provinces -- three of which have scheduled votes for this spring -- and to claim al-Maliki has 'won' a national campaign is not only premature, it doesn't even jibe with the actual (preliminary) results. Raghavan and Londono tell you that the Dawa Party (al-Maliki's party) "won in nine provinces" -- with "an outright plurality" (NOT a majority) in Baghdad and Basra while it was a narrow win for Dawa "in the other seven provinces." Or, as Rubin puts it, "the party fell short of being able to operate without coalition-building." That's a win? 14 provinces held elections last Saturday and Dawa didn't squeak out a majority win in any province, it only got "an outright plurality" in two provinces and, to govern, they need to coalition-build with other parties. That's not a win. Not for al-Maliki -- who was not a candidate -- and certainly not for Dawa. What is troubling - - and what no one's pointed out -- is that we don't expect, for example, Barack Obama to head over to Oregon when they're electing their state legislature. We don't expect him to campaign for them or butt in. That al-Maliki was allowed to hit the road (attempting to buy votes) goes to how problematic the election actually was. Rubin writes, "Some politicians have voiced concerns in recent months that too much power was being concentrated in Mr. Maliki's hands, and the election results suggested that Iraqis were not ready to rally around a single leader." It's a shame the press never bothered to question why a prime minister was attempting to repeatedly inject himself into provincial elections? Rubin writes, "Except in areas where Sunnis were voting for the first time, the large, prominent parties with nationally known leaders won the most seats, showing the power of incumbency and the difficulties facing the newer secular parties." Well if you're going to make that observation, you might also question why the country's prime minister is interfering in provincial elections? These are not the equivalent of US Congressional elections (that would be Iraq's Parliament). That issue was never raised. But, no, it is not normal for the highest office holder in the country to try to inject her or himself into local elections. And it's not normal -- when the press is lauding 'democracy' -- for no one to question that injection. Another question to ask: Did al-Maliki's injection depress voter turnout? In the final paragraphs of Rubin's article she notes Anbar and quotes various complaints from Tamouz ("a nongovernment organization monitoring the elections"). She tells us that the Iraqi Islamic Party is Sunni. She tells us nothing about the make up of Tamouz. Tamouz is making accusations. Readers have a right to know who they are and the use of "nongovernment" will translate to some as 'from outside Iraq.' That's not reality. But we don't get a lot of reality in this morning's election coverage. Back to the Washington Post's article, the following should never happen: The Obama administration appeared as pleased at what did not happen on election day as it was about the results. "Any election where [there is] fairness and generally aboveboard practices, where the people get a chance to vote and they're not rioting in the streets and throwing bombs . . . is a good result," a senior administration official said in Washington. "We should celebrate that. So far, so good." There is no reason to grant anonymity for the above. If the 'celebrator' can't be named, his or her comment doesn't need to be included. When you start granting anonymity for prattle, you're degrading journalism standards. James Kirkup (Telegraph of London) attempts to write up Moqtada al-Sadr's political death stating, "British officials see the political setback as the latest sign of Mr Sadr's diminished importance in southern Iraq." Diminished importantce? Rubin says al-Sadr "did surprisingly well, given that his movement decided to support them only two weeks before the elections." BBC notes, "Finals results are not expected to be known for weeks." What is known is that the violence continues with Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Abdulmajeed al Nuaimi, member of the incumbent provincial in Mosul" called the police about an unidentified object outside his home that turned out to be a roadside bomb. In other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing at a liquor store that left "material damages to the store," a Baghdad grenade tossed at a supermarket leaving "material damages to the store".
Shootings?
Reuters reports, "U.S. and Iraqi security forces killed a civilian and arrested six suspected militants in raids on towns southwest of Kirkuk".
Nawal Al Samarrai is making news in Iraq. Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite Network reports she has resigned as the Minister of Women's Affairs due to the fact that her job is for-show and contains no real power to improve anything. Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Katie Nguyen report Reuters exclusive interview with al-Samarai: Iraq's minister of women's affairs resigned on Thursday in protest at a lack of resources to cope with "an army of widows, unemployed, oppressed and detained women" after years of sectarian warfare.Nawal al-Samarai said her status as a secretary of state and not a full minister reflected the low emphasis given by the government to the plight of women in Iraq, once one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East for women's rights. "This ministry with its current title cannot cope with the needs of Iraqi women," said Samarai, who was appointed in July.The Times of India adds, "Samarrai, who took office in July 2008 and had recently chaired two committees on improving the conditions of women and another on the breast cancer, said she would seek a position where she could actually help women." wowOwow covers the story and notes, "She has not, however, heard back from the Prime Minister's office on whether they accept her resignation or will heed her calls and provide more social services for Iraq's women."
Meanwhile, Barbara Starr and Mike Mount (CNN) report, "The Army said 24 soldiers are believed to have committed suicide in January alone -- six times as many as killed themselves in January 2008, according to statistics released Thursday." Stephanie Gaskell (New York Daily News) observes, "In a rare move, the Army released monthly suicide data Thursday to highlight the growing problem. Last week, Army officials said its suicide rates were at their highest in nearly 30 years. Last year, 128 soldiers committed suicide and another 15 suspected cases are pending. Last month, Army officials believe that 24 soldiers killed themselves - compared with just four in January 2008." Lizette Alvarez (New York Times) quotes Gen Peter Chiarelli stating, "Each of these losses is a personal tragedy that is felt throughout the Army family. The trend and trajectory seen in January further heightens the seriousness and urgency that all of us must have in preventing suicides." If you mean your words, do something. If not, stop boring us. The military's had more than enough time to notice the suicides and to do something about it. It's done nothing other than a few pamphlets and a 1-800 number. The change has to come from the top in the military because it is a top-down command. Chiarelli wants to change the culture? Great. Otherwise, it's just him using a tragedy to look sympathetic. And if that's harsh, it's harsh that so many suicides have repeatedly taken place and the military has ignored the problem. Or lied about it. It wasn't all that long ago CBS News was catching the VA lying about the number of suicides. CBS Evening News' Kimberly Dozier most recently reported on the suicides in December noting that 1st Sgt Jeff McKinney's family (rightly, my opinion) called him "a casualty of war" because he served, ended up wtih PTSD and did not receive the treatment he needed and he took his own life while serving.. His father, Charles, McKinney, told Dozier, "I think he felt like he couldn't send one more broken body home, one more person home."
Throwing out a link for friends, Washington Unplugged is a new CBS News show. It airs each Friday afternoon. Haven't seen it? It airs online only. Face The Nation's Bob Schieffer is the anchor and I use anchor because it is news reports and, at the closing, Schieffer offers a commentary as he does on Face The Nation. This week his comment is on Tom Daschle. Before that, Kent Conrad appears to make a fool out of himself. Tom Daschle didn't report it to the IRS because he thought the driver and car were a "gift"? Kent, learn the tax code. Such a gift would have to be reported to the IRS. Washington Unplugged streams live online Friday afternoons and archives are available seven days a week. This week (tonight on most PBS stations) NOW on PBS offers: Is there a solution to the foreclosure mess that's destroying communities?Across the country, cities are in crisis because of the fallout from the mortgage mess -- property taxes are way down, and abandoned homes are bringing down property values, inviting crime, and draining government coffers. Neighborhoods are being destroyed. Yet the federal bailout money is not going directly to desperate communities and homeowners, but to local and national banks.This week, NOW investigates the innovative way some cities are fighting back. The city of Memphis, Tennessee is suing major national lenders and banks for deceptive and discriminatory lending practices in an effort to recoup the cost of the financial mess. Other cities suing lenders for their role in the mortgage mess include Baltimore, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Birmingham.With desperation climbing alongside debt, can the strategy help these blighted parts of America?Washington Week also begins airing tonight on most PBS stations and joining Gwen this installment is Ceci Connolly ( Washington Post), Charles Babington ( AP), Michael Duffy ( Time magazine) and Jackie Calmes ( New York Times). And on broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, no 60 Minutes: Saving Flight 1549Hero pilot Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and his flight crew together reveal for the first time the sights, sounds and physical sensations they experienced as they pulled off an incredible water landing last month, saving the lives of all 155 people aboard US Airways Flight 1549. Katie Couric reports. (This is an extra-length story. | Watch Video
ColdplayThe British rock group that has taken its place among the most popular bands in the world gives 60 Minutes a rare look inside its world that includes a candid interview with frontman Chris Martin. Steve Kroft reports. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 8 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
60 Minutes Update
Beckham Leaving The L.A. Galaxy?David Beckham wants to leave the Los Angeles Galaxy and stay with AC Milan after his loan to the Italian club is scheduled to end next month. The 33-year-old English midfielder announced his intentions Wednesday after playing in Milan's 2-2 exhibition tie at Glasgow Rangers. Beckham is about two years into a $32.5 million, five-year contract with Major League Soccer. In March 2008, CNN's Anderson Cooper profiled Beckham for 60 Minutes, discussing his widely publicized move to Los Angeles. | Video
|
Posted at 04:22 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
'Iraq Can Wait,' cries Barack
In
case you missed it, I'm not a Barack cheerleader. Nor, if another
Democrat or Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, were in the post, would I
be a cheerleader for a presidency. The president works for you, not the
other way around. JFK's nonsense of "Ask not what your country can do
for you, ask what you can do for your country" was nothing but hogwash
intended to distract the people who should have, in fact, been asking,
"What is our country doing? What are you authorizing? What are you
keeping from us?" I toss all that out there for the drive-bys who may
think I'm some sort of Barack enabler or apologist. Nancy A. Youssef's " Military Iraq withdrawal plans include 19-, 23-month options" ( McClatchy Newspapers)
argues that the military commanders preparing 19 and 23 month
'withdrawal' options is "the first indication that the Obama
administration may be willing to abandon a campaign promise of a
16-month withdrawal." Really? No, I'm not debating the "first
indication" -- although we could. There have been many indications. I'm
stating that they were asked to prepare multiple options and they did.
And that's not even news -- although the press has largely elected to
ignore that request. But that Barack would ask for multiple options
does not in and of itself indicate that he may be willing to break a
'promise.' Youssef never gets around to spelling out what the
'promise' is which is why so many of us who see Barack as the
Corporatist War Hawk that he is can anticipate the reaction when the
uninformed supporters who flocked to him discover 'withdrawal' is not
withdrawl. It is "combat" troops only. The White House unofficially
says the number left behind would be approximately 70,000. That's not
withdrawal. There is something alarming in the story, a detail
that Youssef could have hung the story around and said, "This is an
indication." She lets that reality just slide by. See if you can catch
it: . . .The commanders and Crocker didn't recommend an option, but instead spelled out the pros and cons of each timetable.Obama is likely to announce his strategy for Iraq by mid-March, a senior administration official told McClatchy.Aides to Obama who were involved in the policy review stressed that the president has made no decisions. . . ."Obama
is likely to announce his strategy for Iraq by mid-March, a senior
administration official told McClatchy." That's your indication. That's
the disturbing moment. 
Three Facts about Barack Obama and Iraq -
Barack Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq: Immediately
upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and
military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war.
The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased. -
Encourage political accommodation: Obama
and Biden will press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their
future and to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own
reconstruction. -
Increase stability in Iraq and the region: Obama
and Biden will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a
comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. They
also will address Iraq's refugee crisis.
See
the problem Nancy Youssef misses? Three facts -- Hopey Changey used
"facts". And what did they promise? "Immediately upon taking office,
Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new
mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops
will be responsible and phased." Mid-March? Mid-March is "immediately
upon taking office"? Immediately upon taking office was when Barack was
sworn in. That was last month. It's February. And a White House source
is telling McClatchy it will be mid-March before anything's announced.
Another case where " Barack kicks the can"
and here he's promised "immediately upon taking office". (I have no
idea who Nancy Youssef spoke to and this morning I'm being told that is
not correct and that Barack will be making an announcement "this month"
on Iraq. He may or he may not. But Youssef didn't make up that source.
Even if an announcement is made this month, as two insisted this
morning, the fact that some White House insider would tell Youssef it
wouldn't be until mid-March goes to how unimportant Iraq is in the
Obama White House.)  The photo above is of Nawal Al Samarrai whom Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite Network reports
has resigned as the Minister of Women's Affairs over the fact that her
job is for-show and contains no real power to improve anything. Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Katie Nguyen report Reuters exclusive interview with al-Samarai: Iraq's
minister of women's affairs resigned on Thursday in protest at a lack
of resources to cope with "an army of widows, unemployed, oppressed and
detained women" after years of sectarian warfare.Nawal
al-Samarai said her status as a secretary of state and not a full
minister reflected the low emphasis given by the government to the
plight of women in Iraq, once one of the most progressive countries in
the Middle East for women's rights. "This ministry with its current title cannot cope with the needs of Iraqi women," said Samarai, who was appointed in July.The Times of India adds,
"Samarrai, who took office in July 2008 and had recently chaired two
committees on improving the conditions of women and another on the
breast cancer, said she would seek a position where she could actually
help women. " We last noted war resister Andre Shepherd in Wednesday's snapshot. That was the day he was making his case for asylum to Germany's Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. Andy Eckardt (NBC News) offers a strong report on Andre: The
ring tone on Shepherd‘s mobile phone is James Brown singing "I feel
good. I knew that I would," and he sounds just as enthusiastic and
confident about his asylum case when he answers questions from
journalists.
"When I enlisted in 2004 and later was sent to Iraq, I
believed I was doing the right thing," he said. "But then, like other
comrades around me, I started questioning why we were there and what we
were fighting for."
Shepherd was not directly involved in combat
missions during his deployment to Iraq. As part of the "attack and lift
unit" of the 412th Aviation Support Battalion, Shepherd’s mission was
to repair and maintain AH-64 Apache helicopters.
"My job was
harmless until I factored in the amount of death and destruction those
helicopters caused to civilians every day," Shepherd said.
"The
government made us believe we would be welcomed as heroes in Iraq, but
we saw nothing but hostility from the Iraqis that came to work for us,
they wanted to kill us," Shepherd said.
His base outside of Tikrit was shelled almost every night, which he said also left him unsettled.
"It
is not the military itself that is bad," Shepherd said. "In fact, our
unit did a lot of good things, giving schools books and bringing
clothes to children." Those actions helped ease his conscience a bit,
but he still questioned whether the Iraqis would have needed the aid if
the United States had not invaded Iraq in the first place. An action begins today. It will be noted in the snapshot but the snapshot will go up long after the action starts. Military Families Speak Out explains: Come to Washington February 6-9 to demand "The Change WE Need" President Elect Obama
opposed the war in Iraq before it started, calling it a "dumb war." But
he and his advisors have also said that they plan to spread the return
of combat troops from that "dumb war" out over sixteen months and to
keep tens of thousands of other troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely. So
from February 6-9, MFSO will be traveling to Washington to bring the
new President and new Congress the message that it is long past time to
bring all our troops home from Iraq. The four days of events will
include: * A teach-in
featuring the voices of military families, veterans, and Iraqis,
explaining the need for an immediate and complete end to the war in
Iraq -- and the human impacts of continuing the occupation. Friday,
February 6 from Noon - 3:00 p.m. at Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue. *
A solemn procession from Arlington National Cemetary to the White House
beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 7. Meet at the front gate
of the cemetery right outside the exit of the Arlington Metro stop.
Please arrive early. * A "Meet and Greet" and Legislative Briefing from 3:00 - 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, February 8 at the Mariott Metro Center. *
Lobbying members of Congress to end the war in Iraq. Meet in the
cafeteria of the Rayburn House Office Building at 9:00 a.m. Monday,
February 9. The teach-in takes place this afternoon. Actions continue through Monday. In the New York Times, Lizette Alvarez' " Army Data Show Rise in Number of Suicides"
covers the news that a record number of US soldiers in the Army
committed suicide last month (it may be as high as 24, Alvarez reports,
7 are confirmed and another 17 are still being examined): "If
confirmed, the suicide count for last month would exceed those killed
in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan during the same period. In January
2008, five soldiers committed suicide." Gen Peter Chiarelli is
quoted stating, "Each of these losses is a personal tragedy that is
felt throughout the Army family. The trend and trajectory seen in
January further heightens the seriousness and urgency that all of us
must have in preventing suicides." If you mean your words, do
something. If not, stop boring us. The military's had more than enough
time to notice the suicides and to do something about it. It's done
nothing other than a few pamphlets and a 1-800 number. The change has
to come from the top in the military because it is a top-down command.
Chiarelli wants to change the culture? Great. Otherwise, it's just him
using a tragedy to look sympathetic. And if that's harsh, it's harsh
that so many suicides have repeatedly taken place and the military has
ignored the problem. Or lied about it. It wasn't all that long ago CBS
News was catching the VA lying about the number of suicides. This week (tonight on most PBS stations) NOW on PBS offers: Is there a solution to the foreclosure mess that's destroying communities?Across
the country, cities are in crisis because of the fallout from the
mortgage mess -- property taxes are way down, and abandoned homes are
bringing down property values, inviting crime, and draining government
coffers. Neighborhoods are being destroyed. Yet the federal bailout
money is not going directly to desperate communities and homeowners,
but to local and national banks.This
week, NOW investigates the innovative way some cities are fighting
back. The city of Memphis, Tennessee is suing major national lenders
and banks for deceptive and discriminatory lending practices in an
effort to recoup the cost of the financial mess. Other cities suing
lenders for their role in the mortgage mess include Baltimore,
Cleveland, Buffalo, and Birmingham.With desperation climbing alongside debt, can the strategy help these blighted parts of America?Washington Week also begins airing tonight on most PBS stations and joining Gwen this installment is Ceci Connolly ( Washington Post), Charles Babington ( AP), Michael Duffy ( Time magazine) and Jackie Calmes ( New York Times). And on broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, no 60 Minutes: Saving Flight 1549
Hero pilot Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and his flight crew
together reveal for the first time the sights, sounds and physical
sensations they experienced as they pulled off an incredible water
landing last month, saving the lives of all 155 people aboard US
Airways Flight 1549. Katie Couric reports. (This is an extra-length story. | Watch Video
Coldplay The British rock group that has taken its place among the most popular bands in the world gives 60 Minutes a rare look inside its world that includes a candid interview with frontman Chris Martin. Steve Kroft reports. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 8 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
60 Minutes Update
Beckham Leaving The L.A. Galaxy?
David Beckham wants to leave the Los Angeles Galaxy and stay with AC
Milan after his loan to the Italian club is scheduled to end next
month. The 33-year-old English midfielder announced his intentions
Wednesday after playing in Milan's 2-2 exhibition tie at Glasgow
Rangers. Beckham is about two years into a $32.5 million, five-year
contract with Major League Soccer. In March 2008, CNN's Anderson Cooper profiled Beckham for 60 Minutes, discussing his widely publicized move to Los Angeles. | VideoAnd a friend at NPR asks that I note the following and point out that the live concert series continues: Live Friday: Dr. Dog In ConcertListen Online At Noon ET  courtesy of the artistDr. Dog. WXPN, February 5, 2009 - Filtering classic rock and pop hooks through a willfully lo-fi aesthetic a la Pavement or Guided by Voices, Philadelphia's rapidly rising Dr. Dog sounds both timeless and immediate. Return to this space at noon ET Friday to hear Dr. Dog perform live in concert from WXPN and World Café Live in Philadelphia. Formed
in 1999 as a recording project for two members of the more traditional
indie-rock band Raccoon, Dr. Dog became a full-time gig when Raccoon
folded in the early '00s. Dr. Dog's first two records, 2001's Psychedelic Swamp and 2002's Toothbrush,
were both self-released but failed to make an impact outside of the
Philadelphia area. Still, the group's fortunes changed when My Morning Jacket's Jim James handpicked Dr. Dog to open for his band on its 2004 tour. Subsequently picked up by an indie label for 2005's Easy Beat, the group won raves for its fascinating combination of psychedelic pop hooks and Beach Boys-esque vocal harmonies. As Dr. Dog's national reputation continues to grow -- its fifth album, Fate,
was a critics' darling in 2008 -- the band remains true to its bouncy
rock style, which mixes intricate harmonies with '60s pop beats. Dr.
Dog wasn't afraid to come back with another concept album: This one is
built around the titular theme of fate. Related NPR StoriesNPR Music
has many things worth streaming and a wonderful music archive. If you
stream online and haven't checked it out, please make a point to.
Streaming, it should be noted, includes not only audio but video from
time to time. They have folders at the site for various artists so you
can also search by your favorite artist and, chances are, find an
interview or a concert for many of them. (Many, not all.) The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefalsumariawaleed ibrahimmichael christiekatie nguyenandre shepherdandy eckardt military families speak outthe new york timeslizette alvareziraq60 minutescbs newspbs washington weeknow on pbscharles babingtonjackie calmesnprdr. dogcoldplay
Posted at 06:53 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Even if you spin it, not good news for Nouri
"Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki's strong performance in Iraq's provincial
elections was also a victory for American goals." No. al-Maliki wasn't
a candidate. That's the lede to Sudarsan Raghavan and Ernesto Londono's Washington Post article and it's incorrect and they are not the only reporters/outlet to get it so wrong. Nouri
al-Maliki was not a candidate in provincial elections. These, as
Londono himself has explained, are the equivalent of state legislature
elections in the US. Did anyone assert that victory for Republicans in
(pick one of fifty states) in (pick 2001 through 2007) was a victory
for George W. Bush? No. al-Maliki wanted to get some press and
wanted to make the elections about him. He estimated a minimum of 70%
of registered Iraqis would turn out. (51% did.) He thought this was
going to be his big moment on the international scene. For a
reporter, it is very tempting to make it about al-Maliki for a number
of reasons. For example, making provincial elections about the prime
minister frees you of having to . . . cover the actual candidates. And
there were 440 winners -- none of whom were named "Nouri al-Maliki."
It's so much easy to stamp "al-Maliki Victory" and be done with it. Alissa J. Rubin's " Prime Ministers Party Wins in Iraqi Vote but Will Need to Form Coalitions" ( New York Times)
does a little better than the post. The headline writer captures it and
Rubin does as well for most of her article; however, sentences like the
following trip her up: "In Baghdad, where Mr. Maliki ran a strongly
nationalist campaign, he appeared to have had some success in winning
votes from Sunnis, but in the Sunni-majority provinces to the north,
his party's slate barely made a showing." He ran a strong nationalist
campaign? And how many votes did he receive? What did he say in his
victory speech? When will he be sworn in? Here's reality, if
you're going to wrongly make the provincial elections about Nouri
al-Maliki, you're going to have to judge the success or failure of
al-Maliki and the reality is "his party's slate barely made a showing"
in the north. The reality is that Iraq has 18 provinces -- three of
which have scheduled votes for this spring -- and to claim al-Maliki
has 'won' a national campaign is not only premature, it doesn't even
jibe with the actual (preliminary) results. Raghavan and Londono
tell you that the Dawa Party (al-Maliki's party) "won in nine
provinces" -- with "an outright plurality" (NOT a majority) in Baghdad
and Basra while it was a narrow win for Dawa "in the other seven
provinces." Or, as Rubin puts it, "the party fell short of being able
to operate without coalition-building." That's a win? 14
provinces held elections last Saturday and Dawa didn't squeak out a
majority win in any province, it only got "an outright plurality" in
two provinces and, to govern, they need to coalition-build with other
parties. That's not a win. Not for al-Maliki -- who was not a candidate
-- and certainly not for Dawa. What is troubling - - and what no
one's pointed out -- is that we don't expect, for example, Barack Obama
to head over to Oregon when they're electing their state legislature.
We don't expect him to campaign for them or butt in. That al-Maliki was
allowed to hit the road (attempting to buy votes) goes to how
problematic the election actually was. Rubin writes, "Some politicians
have voiced concerns in recent months that too much power was being
concentrated in Mr. Maliki's hands, and the election results suggested
that Iraqis were not ready to rally around a single leader." It's a
shame the press never bothered to question why a prime minister was
attempting to repeatedly inject himself into provincial elections? Rubin
writes, "Except in areas where Sunnis were voting for the first time,
the large, prominent parties with nationally known leaders won the most
seats, showing the power of incumbency and the difficulties facing the
newer secular parties." Well if you're going to make that observation,
you might also question why the country's prime minister is interfering
in provincial elections? These are not the equivalent of US
Congressional elections (that would be Iraq's Parliament). That issue
was never raised. But, no, it is not normal for the highest office
holder in the country to try to inject her or himself into local
elections. And it's not normal -- when the press is lauding 'democracy'
-- for no one to question that injection. Another question to ask: Did
al-Maliki's injection depress voter turnout? In the final
paragraphs of Rubin's article she notes Anbar and quotes various
complaints from Tamouz ("a nongovernment organization monitoring the
elections"). She tells us that the Iraqi Islamic Party is Sunni. She
tells us nothing about the make up of Tamouz. Tamouz is making
accusations. Readers have a right to know who they are and the use of
"nongovernment" will translate to some as 'from outside Iraq.' That's
not reality. But we don't get a lot of reality in this morning's
election coverage. Back to the Washington Post's article, the following should never happen: The
Obama administration appeared as pleased at what did not happen on
election day as it was about the results. "Any election where [there
is] fairness and generally aboveboard practices, where the people get a
chance to vote and they're not rioting in the streets and throwing
bombs . . . is a good result," a senior administration official said in
Washington. "We should celebrate that. So far, so good." There
is no reason to grant anonymity for the above. If the 'celebrator'
can't be named, his or her comment doesn't need to be included. When
you start granting anonymity for prattle, you're degrading journalism
standards. Yesterday
Diyala Province was rocked by a bomber who took his/her own life as
well as the lives of at least 15 civilians. Monte Morin and Tina Susman
cover it in " 16 killed in suicide attack in northern Iraq" ( Los Angeles Times): "I
was sitting at the back of the restaurant having my lunch when a very
huge explosion took place," said Majid Hussein, 25. "I felt everything
around me smashing and the pressure of the explosion pushed me through
the window."Tensions are
high in Khanaqin between Arabs and Kurds, who control a semiautonomous
area in northeastern Iraq known as Kurdistan.Although
Khanaqin is part of Diyala province, the Kurdistan government wants to
include the oil-rich city in the planned referendum on whether to
incorporate Kirkuk and other disputed areas into its region.Last
summer, Iraqi security forces and Kurdish troops nearly clashed over
Khanaqin after Prime Minister Nouri Maliki sent soldiers there to
remove fighters from Kurdistan who had secured the predominantly
Kurdish city for years.Local
media reported that most of the victims in Thursday's bombing were
Kurds, and added that the bomber was a woman, a statement U.S. and
Iraqi authorities could not immediately confirm.Iran's Press TV reports United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is in Iraq and meeting with Nouri as well as Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president. The Kurdish Regional Government notes the following: Minister Falah Bakir's letter to Wall Street Journal: "Don't forget Kurds' role in Iraq"  | Wall Street Journal,
Letters to the Editor
Your
editorial "Obama and Iraq" (January 27) highlights many factors
regarding the US strategy in Iraq but neglects to mention the role of
the Kurds. Within Iraq, the Kurds have been America's strongest ally in
both Iraq's liberation from Saddam Hussein and in the democratic
transition after the fall of the previous regime. Our peshmerga forces
have fought and died alongside US soldiers combating terrorists in
Iraq. The Kurds deeply appreciate what the US has done by ridding Iraq
of a regime that employed chemical weapons against us and that was
responsible for the death or disappearance of more than 180,000 Kurds.
The
autonomous Kurdistan Region is a model for the rest of the country with
respect to our culture of tolerance and our commitment to good
governance. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is also unwavering
in its support for federalism and the Iraqi constitutional process. We
are also concerned about any possible trends that seek to accentuate
tensions between Arabs and Kurds, whether in Mosul, Kirkuk, Diyala or
elsewhere.
The KRG agrees that the drawdown of US forces must
be responsible, and driven more by conditions inside Iraq rather than
by a timetable. The gains in Iraq over the past year have been
substantial, but the politics remain fragile, especially following the
provincial elections held on January 31. We still must navigate the
referendum on the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement to take place late
this summer, and parliamentary elections to be held by the end of 2009.
Should there be a US redeployment in Iraq, the KRG is fully committed
to working as a partner with the US to ensure security and stability in
Iraq.
Falah Mustafa Bakir
Erbil, Kurdistan Region
Iraq
Minister Bakir is head of the Department of Foreign Relations for the Kurdistan Regional Government. The following community sites update last night: I included this site because Joan references last night's "I Hate The War" and notes David M. Herszenhorn's " Senators Draft List Of Cost Cuts In Stimulus Plan"
-- "A draft. According to the New York Times." Yes and the story makes
the front page (and that is the print edition headline). Joan's right,
it's a draft. Still being written. Most people who endorse legislation
wait until it's written to do so. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe washington postsudarsan raghavanernesto londonothe new york timesalissa j. rubinthe los angeles timesmonte morin tina susmankats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great manthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:51 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Because it's an action that starts tomorrow and because it sets up the point of this entry, from today's snapshot:
Starting with an action that begins tomrrow and runs through Monday in the US. Military Families Speak Out explains:
Come to Washington February 6-9 to demand "The Change WE Need"
President Elect Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it started, calling it a "dumb war." But he and his advisors have also said that they plan to spread the return of combat troops from that "dumb war" out over sixteen months and to keep tens of thousands of other troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely.
So from February 6-9, MFSO will be traveling to Washington to bring the new President and new Congress the message that it is long past time to bring all our troops home from Iraq. The four days of events will include:
* A teach-in featuring the voices of military families, veterans, and Iraqis, explaining the need for an immediate and complete end to the war in Iraq -- and the human impacts of continuing the occupation. Friday, February 6 from Noon - 3:00 p.m. at Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue.
* A solemn procession from Arlington National Cemetary to the White House beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 7. Meet at the front gate of the cemetery right outside the exit of the Arlington Metro stop. Please arrive early.
* A "Meet and Greet" and Legislative Briefing from 3:00 - 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, February 8 at the Mariott Metro Center.
* Lobbying members of Congress to end the war in Iraq. Meet in the cafeteria of the Rayburn House Office Building at 9:00 a.m. Monday, February 9.
Friday from noon to three p.m. will offer the teach-in at the Mott House (122 Maryland Ave, NE Washington, DC). Among those scheduled to participate are Joyce and Kevin Lucey, Elaine Johnson, Tim Kahlor, Stacy Bannerman, American Friends Service Committee Raed Jarrar, IPS' Phyllis Bennis, Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kris Goldsmith and Ryan Deckard and Veterans for Peace's Mike Marceau. (An aspect of the previous sentence will be noted in tonight's entry. If you have a question about it, wait until tonight's entry.)
Questions? Community members held there questions (if they had them) (thank you). Visitors wondered why this or that didn't get a link. Why would it? The decision was made by me to link to organizations and then Raed Jarrar got a link instead of AFSC. Why? The friend I was dictating it too said, "Hold on." And then told me what was on the front page of AFSC a little take-web-action bulls**t of "Help Barack." The stimulus is still be written (and Barack's taking yet another break). It takes some real stupidity to issue a call to support something that is still being written. But exactly why are Quakers doing web-actions for the White House -- in support of, no less -- to begin with. I worked with AFSC from time to time during Vietnam. I have nothing to do with it today and we note it in snapshots on a case-by-case basis. That's due to the fact that so much of what it does is useless in my opinion. It's not on our permalinks and it's never been. In Feb. 2003, I started speaking out against the impending illegal war and thought AFSC would be a great resource. And then I checked it. And though I thought it would become a better once the illegal war started and as it continued, that never happened. One of the few organizations that worked to get US troops out of Vietnam and it's still around and all it demonstrated is that having a history didn't help it much. Sorry, wish I had something wonderful to say about the organization. Don't. Elaine and several other friends from back in the day can do a wicked parody of today's AFSC and why it went right down the drain. But to be really clear, militant Quakers back in the day didn't cheerlead LBJ or Nixon. They didn't cheerlead lesiglation before it was written. They didn't make fools out of themselves. I'm not in the mood for promoting authoritarinism or authoritarian worship or any mindless activity that strips a person of their critical thought abilities or their rights. And if anyone sees the above as rude to a religion, Quakers really aren't a religion in the US anymore. A religion doesn't take non-believers. A religion worships a god or gods. When you start bringing in people, as they have in the last decades, who don't believe, there's really no point in calling yourself a religion. [ Click here, pay attention to figures eight and nine. You can also see Edward James' " Quaker Theology Without God?"] And you really better hope that there's not another draft because there's no way Quakers will get the exemption they once did automatically. Not when they've turned the congregation now includes agnostics and atheists. The exemption was based on religious teachings and practice. When you water that down by bringing in people who do not believe in your god, that means you're not a religion. You're a social club, but you're not a religion. So if someone thinks I'm trashing religion, I couldn't trash the Quaker religion because they've already spent the last decades trashing it themselves. As they've watered down their religion, they've watered down their beliefs. And it's no surprise to find them cheerleading legislation they haven't read (can't read what's not written) and trying to turn their church (social club) over to a politician. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4236. Tonight? 4237. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,311,696 as the number. Finally they move it up from 1, 307,319 -- where it had been stuck since January 4th. Their current number is 1,311,696. Meanwhile, Barbara Starr and Mike Mount (CNN) report, "The Army said 24 soldiers are believed to have committed suicide in January alone -- six times as many as killed themselves in January 2008, according to statistics released Thursday." Stephanie Gaskell (New York Daily News) observes, "In a rare move, the Army released monthly suicide data Thursday to highlight the growing problem. Last week, Army officials said its suicide rates were at their highest in nearly 30 years. Last year, 128 soldiers committed suicide and another 15 suspected cases are pending. Last month, Army officials believe that 24 soldiers killed themselves - compared with just four in January 2008." The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletbarbara starrmike mountstephanie gaskell
Posted at 09:17 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, February 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the election results are not final but the press acts as if they are (and many seem to believe al-Maliki was a candidate), a war critic passes away, actions begin in DC tomorrow and more.
Come to Washington February 6-9 to demand "The Change WE Need"
President Elect Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it started, calling it a "dumb war." But he and his advisors have also said that they plan to spread the return of combat troops from that "dumb war" out over sixteen months and to keep tens of thousands of other troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely.
So from February 6-9, MFSO will be traveling to Washington to bring the new President and new Congress the message that it is long past time to bring all our troops home from Iraq. The four days of events will include:
* A teach-in featuring the voices of military families, veterans, and Iraqis, explaining the need for an immediate and complete end to the war in Iraq -- and the human impacts of continuing the occupation. Friday, February 6 from Noon - 3:00 p.m. at Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue.
* A solemn procession from Arlington National Cemetary to the White House beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 7. Meet at the front gate of the cemetery right outside the exit of the Arlington Metro stop. Please arrive early.
* A "Meet and Greet" and Legislative Briefing from 3:00 - 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, February 8 at the Mariott Metro Center.
* Lobbying members of Congress to end the war in Iraq. Meet in the cafeteria of the Rayburn House Office Building at 9:00 a.m. Monday, February 9.
Friday from noon to three p.m. will offer the teach-in at the Mott House (122 Maryland Ave, NE Washington, DC). Among those scheduled to participate are Joyce and Kevin Lucey, Elaine Johnson, Tim Kahlor, Stacy Bannerman, American Friends Service Committee Raed Jarrar, IPS' Phyllis Bennis, Iraq Veterans Against the War's Kris Goldsmith and Ryan Deckard and Veterans for Peace's Mike Marceau. (An aspect of the previous sentence will be noted in tonight's entry. If you have a question about it, wait until tonight's entry.)
Deborah Haynes and Wail al-Obaidi (Times of London) observe, "Preliminary results, issued today, indicate a drastic shift in the political map nationwide, with Sunni Arabs also securing a better representation after boycotting the last polls four years ago in protest at the US-led occupation. Final results are not due out for several weeks, but should show little change with 90 per cent of the ballots already counted." Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) offers these impressions: "Preliminary results from the Baghdad provincial council election have begun to filter out into the Iraqi press. The lead story will probably be that Maliki's Rule of Law list won more than half the seats. But the more important story may be that all of the Sunni lists combined evidently only won four or five seats between them. That, combined with the fiasco in Anbar, could put Sunni frustration firmly back into the center of Iraqi politics – risking alienation from politics, intensified intra-Sunni competition, and perhaps even a return of the insurgency." UPI notes that 'secular' Nouri al-Maliki spent time in Najaf today . . . briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani on the results. Mark Kukis (Time magazine) quotes Ayad Allawi (head of the Iraqi National Accord, CIA asset and one time prime minister of Iraq) whose party did well in the elections stating he wouldn't want to be prime minister again "in a sectarian regim. I respect religion. But religion needs to be de-politicized." Please note, these are not final results. Lebanon's Daily Star stresses, "The Iraqi regional elections held on Saturday are not expected to deliver a final result for a few weeks". UPI also points out, "Though Maliki won big in Basra and Baghdad, the post-election political landscape suggests several parties may need to form coalitions in the provincial councils." al-Maliki was NOT a candidate. RTT gets the wording right, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party and its allies have dominated in the crucial provincial council elections, finishing first in nine out of the fourteen provinces in which elections were held, although reports suggested the bloc would still need to form coalitions in order to govern." Aamer Madhani (USA Today) also grasps the difference between candidates and someone not even running and notes, "But throughout the country, voting went along sectarian lines, with predominantly Shiite provinces backing Shiite parties and Sunni-majority provinces choosing Sunni parties vying for 440 local government seats in 14 of the country's 18 provinces." Jane Aarraf (Christian Science Monitor) states 90% of the vote was counted (she also hails al-Maliki for his 'win' -- so take that into account as well) and, "In Iraq's north the most dramatic results installed a new Sunni Arab party, al-Hadba, to take charge of the provincial council after winning almost 50 percent. The council had previously been overwhelmingly dominated by Kurds, who have voewed not to work with the leader of al-Hadba, who is seen as anti-Kurdish." Calling this al-Maliki's 'win' is a bit like congratulating George W. Bush on Kirsten Haglund's win last year. The Kurdish Regional Government's President Masoud Barzani issued a statement Tuesday evening, "We respect the will of the people of Iraq. We hope that this was an emphatic message from Kurds, Arabs, Turkomens, Chaldaens, Assyrians, Muslims, Christians and Yezidis of the Kurdish areas to voice what they really want. . . . I hope and I call on the Iraqi parliament, the federal Iraqi government, the United Nations, the United States, and all concerned parties to respect the will of the people of these areas and to stop avoiding the implementation of Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution." Mohammed A. Salih (IPS) explained Article 140 as follows, "Article 140 sketches a three-step plan to remove traces of the Arabisation policy of the regime of former president Saddam Hussein. The constitution now provides for a census followed by a referendum on the facte of the province, after normalising the situation." This is about whether or not oil-rich Kirkuk remains a part of the central government out of Baghdad or becomes part of the KRG. Before the vote -- which would be residents of Kirkuk voting -- takes place, Article 140 outlines a length of measures that would allow Kurds to return. Reality is that the KRG has done forced 'returns' to Kirkuk, expelling Kurds from the KRG and forcing them to live in Kirkuk. Has this achieved de-Arabization? Who knows? And that would also depend upon who judges it.
Turning to Anbar Province. As noted yesterday, Sheik Ahmed Buzaigh abu Risha has been threatening violence over the possibility that the Iraqi Islamic Party might have done better in the polls than his own party. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) observes, "In Anbar province, in western Iraq, tension between rival Sunni parties have been running high after leaders of the Awakening Council groups, or Sahwa militant groups who fought al-Qaida militants in their areas, accused the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), headed by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, of committing fraud to win majority of the 29-seat provincial council. IIP vehemently denied the accusation." Sam Dagher (New York Times) reports "al-Maliki sent a deputy, Rafie al-Issawi, a Sunni who is an Anbar native" to speak with Shik Risha and that the meeting was also attended by the Iraqi military. He threatens violence -- he continues to threaten violence -- and he gets his way. All the people who peacefully demonstrated against not being permitted to vote? They're ignored. But it's rush down to make nice with Sheik Risha when, if it was anyone else, the US military would be rushing down to arrest him. And al-Maliki can't stand Risha. The fact that the sheik is being catered to indicates just how little control al-Maliki still has. Dahger speaks with another tribe leader from the area, Sheik Ali al-Hatem, who has (like many in Anbar) frequently been in conflict with Sheik Risha (al-Hatem has also had issues with the Iraqi Islamic Party)who notes that each tribe put up their own candidates so you had slates competing against each other as well as competing against IIP. He states that Risha is "sowing rifts among the tribes" and that the violence could become "intratribal": "Ahmed is playing with fire. We will confront him if he acts this way and divides the tribes." al-Hatem doesn't call on al-Maliki to reign in Risha, he calls on the US military to do so. (If that happens, it may take place during today's meet-up in Anbar.) Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports the US Marines are back in "Ramadi in observation roles, patrolling areas from which they had largely withdrawn." Again, Risha stamps his feet and threatens violence and gets his way. All the people turned away from the polls and refused the right to vote? All Faraj al-Haidari has to offer them is this 'pithy' little comment, " It's not our fault that some people couldn't vote because they are lazy, because they didn't bother to ask where they should vote." Again, they should have ditched the peaceful protest and run around threatening violence -- that's the only way al-Haidari would have listened. Sheik Risha works the commission the way he wants to. And you need to grasp how ludicrous the claims of Risha, et al are. Now ludicrous doesn't mean that they are false. I believe they are but I don't know that. But reporters do know and did report on the vast number of Iraqis in Baghdad, for example, being refused the right to vote. But that's not being investigated. Risha's drama leads to an investigation. Risha is unhappy that his slate of candidates appear (no vote counts are final yet) to have done poorly. He insists that his candidates should have done better and that voter fraud is responsible for them not doing better. Risha says the ballot boxes were stuffed. Don't worry about whether he's right about that or wrong for a second. Just grasp that is the basis of his assertions. Now note this from Monte Morin and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times): "Tribal sheiks and their followers here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, and in Fallouja charge that their political rivals gained control of local election offices and stuffed ballot boxes the day after the elections. Election officials reported that 40% of eligible Anbar voters cast ballots, but tribal candidates say the turnout was half that and that the additional votes are false." Less than 40% voted -- according to the people asserting voter fraud, only 20% of registered voters in Anbar bothered to vote. Do you not see the conflict in the two positions? "We are popular and we should have won!" vs. "They cheated because really only 20% of the registered voters voted!" If you're argument is that 80% of registered voters stayed home, you can't make the claim that you're popular with voters at the same time. The two positions are in conflict. Today the commission that did nothing for the Iraqis who peacefully called for their rights appears to have fixed the Anbar results. Back to Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy):
The official results in Anbar are sharply different from the reports of the last few days. The IHEC tally gave the victory to Saleh al-Mutlak's bloc, followed by Abu Risha's Awakenings Bloc, followed by the Islamic Party in third place. This is a surprise. The behavior of the Islamic Party and the Awakenings bloc over the last few days strongly suggests that they had the same information about the preliminary results-- that the Islamic Party had won. This "adjustment" -- if that's what happened -- for now appears to have defused the crisis over the alleged electoral fraud by the Islamic Party and the threats of violence by the Awakenings leaders by denying victory to either of the two main rivals (Abu Risha says that he's happy with the result). This resolution is very, shall we say, convenient... and, perhaps, a clever solution to the escalating confrontation. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this soon.. the Islamic Party's website is currently silent on this sudden change in their electoral fortunes. Where's Nate Silver to analyze the exit poll data when you need him?
What do the elections mean? The Financial Times of London speaks with Ahmed Jihad of Salahaddin Province who explains what he's expecting, "Electricity, water and employment, these are the three main things. We need a leader who is strong but fair at the same time. . . . We tried talking to the council about getting electricity but we can't afford the 15m diner [$13,000 US] for a connection because there are no employment opportunities here." Whether that will happen or not no one knows.
Peter Graff, Waleed Ibrahim, Mohammed Abbas, Michael Christie and Charles Dick (Reuters) report "the bloodiest attck in Iraq in weeks," with at least 15 dead in Diyala Province from a suicide bomber. No word on the gender of the bomber, so it's most likely a male. Germany's Deutsche Welle explains, "The suicide bomber blew himself up in a popular restaurant in the Kurdish town of in Khanaqin on the border with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region." BBC says the wounded numbers at least fifteen and quotes eye witness Yahya Ibrahim stating, "I was at the back of the restaurant when suddenly the explosion happened at the entrance. Everything around was destroyed." Xiong Tong (Xinhua) quotes an unidentified police member stating, "A suicide bomber blew up his explosive vest inside Dilshad Restaurant in the town of Khanaqin, klling 15 people and wounding 15 others."
And in the latest attack on the press in Iraq, McClatchy Newspapers' Sahar Issa reports, "Reporter Salam Arab Doski, was killed by a policeman during a fight, on his doorstep in Wadi Sakhr neighbourhood, western Mosul at 4 p.m. Thursday. Police said it was a personal issue."
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing target Nihad al Juburi (Dept Eductation Minister), another Baghdad roadside bombing that targeted the US military (no known injuries or deaths), a Gatoun home bombing on Liqaa Party provincial candidate Salim al Zaidi (no one harmed, house destroyed), and a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two people.
Shootings?
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 corpses (headless) discovered in Baquba while 30 corpses were buried in Baquba today ("Unidentified bodies that are not claimed within two months are buried by the Morgue").
The problem with the new Obama administration is that it is turning out to be not about change at all, as he claimed during the campaign, but rather about more of the same--and these are not times that call for more of the same. Nor is more of the same the reason Obama won the election.
The economic team President Obama has put in place is composed of the same Wall Street hacks and conservative economic theologians who helped produce the current crisis, many of them as part of the Clinton administration, and some, like Timothy Geithner, actually as appointees of the thoroughly discredited Bush administration.
Obama's military team is essentially composed of holdovers from the Bush administration, starting at the top with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and retreads from the Clinton administration.
Little wonder that the president's economic team is still talking about throwing more money at banks, with the only real tweak making this boondoggle different from the Bush administration's fall bailout that there will be some limits established on executive pay. Banks will still be able to use their taxpayer bailout cash to buy other banks. And there will still be no way to force them to lend money. Little wonder too that there is no real effort aimed at propping up the struggling public--no job sweeping job creation programs (except for expanding the military), no major income supplements for the poor, no expansion of welfare benefits, no mandatory mortgage renegotiations or mortgage payment holidays. And so far, no real effort to pass labor law reform to protect workers who try to form labor unions.
Little wonder too that Obama seems to be backing away from his key campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, and that the one area where he is moving rapidly is in expanding the war in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of western Pakistan.
Easily fooled Americans were glued to the television watching the Obama inauguration while simultaneous ignoring their own worsening financial situation. Who can bother to look at the fine print on multi-billion dollar deals when HISTORY is being made? Now the same zombified population ignores presidential inaction on bankruptcy "cramdown" legislation that could save their homes, explicit threats to Social Security, and back-tracking on employee free choice for labor unions.
In their delusion and despair, the only reaction left to non class conscious Americans is to turn on themselves. Murders and suicides are too often the reaction to financial disaster instead of righteous indignation directed towards a failed political and economic system. Americans are losing their minds when they might alleviate their depression by taking to the streets or at the very least giving their elected leaders a piece of their minds.
Americans never had the tools to fully understand the system that is failing them so terribly. Now they are enthralled by a man who explicitly instructs them not to confront the people and institutions that have brought them to the brink. The economic meltdown will continue for a long time and so will the individual meltdowns and disasters for millions of people who will literally not know what hit them or where they ought to turn after the crash.
On 23 January, the Guardian's front page declared, "Obama shuts network of CIA 'ghost prisons'". The "wholesale deconstruction [sic] of George Bush's war on terror", said the report, had been ordered by the new president, who would be "shutting down the CIA's secret prison network, banning torture and rendition . . ."
The bollocks quotient on this was so high that it read like the press release it was, citing "officials briefing reporters at the White House yesterday". Obama's orders, according to a group of 16 retired generals and admirals who attended a presidential signing ceremony, "would restore America's moral standing in the world". What moral standing? It never ceases to astonish that experienced reporters can transmit PR stunts like this, bearing in mind the moving belt of lies from the same source under only nominally different management.
Far from "deconstructing the war on terror", Obama is clearly pursuing it with the same vigour, ideological backing and deception as the previous administration. George W Bush's first war, in Afghanistan, and last war, in Pakistan, are now Obama's wars - with thousands more US troops to be deployed, more bombing and more slaughter of civilians. Last month, on the day he described Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism", 22 Afghan civilians died beneath Obama's bombs in a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds and which, by all accounts, had not laid eyes on the Taliban. Women and children were among the dead, which is normal.
Far from "shutting down the CIA's secret prison network", Obama's executive orders actually give the CIA authority to carry out renditions, abductions and transfers of prisoners in secret without threat of legal obstruction. As the Los Angeles Times disclosed, "current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition programme might be poised to play an expanded role". A semantic sleight of hand is that "long-term prisons" are changed to "short-term prisons"; and while Americans are now banned from directly torturing people, foreigners working for the US are not. This means that America's numerous "covert actions" will operate as they did under previous presidents, with proxy regimes, such as Augusto Pinochet's in Chile, doing the dirtiest work.
Bush's open support for torture, and Donald Rumsfeld's extraordinary personal overseeing of certain torture techniques, upset many in America's "secret army" of subversive military and intelligence operators because it exposed how the system worked. Obama's newly confirmed director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, has said the Army Field Manual may include new forms of "harsh interrogation" which will be kept secret.
Obama has chosen not to stop any of this. Neither do his ballyhooed executive orders put an end to Bush's assault on constitutional and international law. He has retained Bush's "right" to imprison anyone, without trial or charge. No "ghost prisoners" are being released or are due to be tried before a civilian court. His nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, has endorsed an extension of Bush's totalitarian USA Patriot Act, which allows federal agents to demand Americans' library and bookshop records. The man of "change" is changing little. That ought to be front-page news from Washington.
And Chris Hedges is another who never lost his criticial thinking abilities (most recent example here). Hedges spoke today on KPFK's Uprising and here's a portion of his remarks:
I think we have to walk out on the Democratic Party. I didn't vote for Obama, I voted for Nader. A lot of that had to do with the war. I think the left has thorwn its -- has essentially rendered itself impotent by throwing in its lot with the Democratic Party that over and over and over betrays the interests of the working and, increasingly, the middle class in this country. I mean, just look at the bailouts -- constitutent calls were running a hundred-to-one against the bailout and they passed it anyway. Why did they pass it? Because lobbyists and corporate powers wanted it passed. The FISA reform act, which Barack Obama voted for, giant step towards fascism. Why did it pass? Because the telecommunications companies spent 15 to 20 million dollars in lobbying fees to make sure it got passed. The government at its core -- forget the rhetoric, forget the propaganda, forget "Yes, We Can" -- serves the interests of corporations. We are watching it right now with the financial bailout. We are watching it with the absolute failure on the Democratic Party to challenge the rapacious canabalization of the country by the military-industrial-complex.
In other news CNN reports that Jeremy Roebuck has died (car accident outside Fort Bragg) and Roebuck was one of seven members of the military who wrote the August 19, 2007 New York Times column " The War As We Saw It." CNN notes that he is the third soldier (of the seven) to die. From the 2007 column:
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse -- namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
|
Posted at 03:37 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Suicide bomber kills at least 15 in Iraq
Peter Graff, Waleed Ibrahim, Mohammed Abbas, Michael Christie and Charles Dick (Reuters) report
"the bloodiest attck in Iraq in weeks," at least 15 dead in Diyala
Province from a suicide bomber. No word on the gender of the bomber, so
it's most likely a male. Remember that, gender of the bomber is only
'news' when it's a woman. And then it's time to work overtime with
lurid fantasies. If you thought the nonsense was bad Tuesday (see that
day's snapshot for examples) or yesterday (see yesterday morning's second entry),
you just didn't know where it was headed. The 'mastermind' recruiting
those women to be suicide bombers? The women weren't just women, they
were . . . rape victims! Germany's Welt Online offers the eye rolling " Mother of the Female Suicide Bombers' speaks out."
Remember, when a woman's a suicide bomber, there's some sort of
'sickness' involved that must be studied. When it's a man, no one
raises an eyebrow. As usual, when it's lurid, Family Security Matters
is all over it! Rape! Bombs! Women! Death! You get the feeling they
needed a whole pack of cigarettes after they came down. Meanwhile Leo Shane III (Stars and Stripes) reports: Ongoing
combat operations overseas could cost the United States more than $860
billion over the next 10 years, further ballooning the defense budget,
experts told Congress on Wednesday.That
total includes plans to dramatically draw down the number of troops in
Iraq in the next few years, according to officials from the
Congressional Budget Office.Even
with reducing the number of deployed combat troops to 75,000 worldwide,
the CBO estimates that the Defense Department faces recurring personnel
costs of at least $69 billion a year, coupled with other equipment
repair costs.And remember, as Senator Barbara Boxer
noted in an April hearing, all the money spent, all the lives lost, and
the best that can ever be said is 'fragile gains' were made.  QUESTION:
Good afternoon, Madame Secretary. It's an honor to be working under
your leadership, and I look forward to the challenges that you present.
My name is Stephanie Ortoleva. I work in the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor.I
basically wanted to ask you a question about what do you think can be
the role that we can play, which you've illuminated -- you've given us
a little bit of illumination on that -- but also what role can our
colleagues who work in women's rights organizations and disability
rights organizations, what role can those colleagues play in supporting
you in your efforts to advance the rights of women and the rights of
people with disabilities as part of an integral part of United States
foreign policy?SECRETARY
CLINTON: That's a wonderful question. I thank you for it. You know, I
think it was 1997, I came to this auditorium, the Dean Acheson
Auditorium, with Madeleine Albright, who was Secretary of State, and
addressed a large crowd like this about the commitment that the Clinton
Administration had to including women as an integral part of foreign
policy, not as an afterthought, not as an adjunct, but in recognition
of the fact that we know from a myriad of studies and research that the
role of women is directly related to democracy and human rights. And I
feel similarly about people with disabilities.It's
important to recognize that expanding the circle of opportunity and
increasing the democratic potential of our own society, as well as
those across the world, is a continuing process of inclusion. And I
look forward to working on behalf of the rights of women and people
with disabilities, and others as well, as we pursue our foreign policy.
Because I think it sends a clear message about who we are as a people,
the evolution that we have undergone.I
remember as First Lady traveling to many countries that had no
recognition of the rights of people with disabilities. They were
literally warehoused, often in the most horrific conditions. There were
no laws. There were no requirements for education or access. And it
struck me then and -- we've made some progress, but insufficient. It
certainly is part of my feeling now that we have to always be hoping
and working toward greater inclusion as a key part of what our values
are and what we believe democracy represents. So I'm going to look to
working with those of you in the Department and at USAID and with our
allies and friends outside who have carried on this work over the
years. And you can count on my commitment to you on that.That's
the opening exchange during yesterday's State Dept townhall that Sec of
State Hillary Clinton held. That was a great opening issue to raise,
Stephanie Ortoleva topic, so of course the New York Times skips it. Mark Lander's " Clinton Tries to Reassure a State Dept. in Transition" is the usual garbage from the New York Times.
What's especially cute is now they want to talk about problems in the
State Dept -- now? They name Condi. Condi was not perfect to put it
mildly but she was an improvement over Colin Powell whom the paper has
refused to call out -- I'm referring to their role as Sec of State in
terms of being the head of the department and responsible for those
under them. Condi didn't realize how badly Powell destroyed
morale -- no surprise there, he was a military man who whored himself
out to military desires while serving as Sec of State, it was very
obvious to career diplomats that he had little respect for or interest
in diplomacy. When this was repeatedly made clear to her, she did
attempt to improve it but she was in her final year at that point (and
I believe she was three months in when she finally registered the
problem -- I could have the month wrong, I'd have to sit and reference
her trips abroad to pin down that period and I don't have time to
reflect on that this morning). I have many friends at State --
career diplomats -- and we hit hard on that repeatedly for that reason.
When Condi, for example, went to Baghdad and gave a speech to State
Dept employees extolling the sacrifice being made by the US military
and never acknowledging the sacrifices made by the State Dept staff in
Iraq, it outraged to such a volume that even she had to register it. Because
she's a woman and because Colin Powell's always dished to the press (he
is their favorite gossip, he trashes everyone and does so off the
record and they repay him by praising him and, frequently, running
praise of him . . . from him but uncredited) and been a press 'hero,'
Condi will take the fall. I can't control that but I will make it clear
here that Condi, as an administrator, was not the failure Colin Powell
was. And had she grasped sooner the damage he'd done in his four years
in the job, she might have been able to turn it around. As it was,
people did notice a change in her final year. But they were treated
like garbage under Powell. He was not suited for the job and he
performed it poorly. Condi's biggest problem was not grasping the
situation -- wow, imagine that, no-one-could-have-guessed Condi failing
to grasp a situation! -- but once she finally did, she did make some
small improvements. Colin destroyed morale and created one of the
largest flights from the State Dept in decades. But the New York Times
wants to tell you Condi's the problem? They've never called out Colin
but they want to bring up Condi? And let's not pretend we don't grasp that the paper is attempting to set up a cat fight -- similar to Scott Horton's piggish nonsense. Look, it's Fatal Attraction! How long before everyone starts chanting, "Kill the b**ch! Kill the b**ch!"? Marcia's written about the State Dept issues in " Hillary's First Day as Secretary of State." You can read the transcript of the townhall here. And we'll note this section on Iraq: QUESTION:
Madame Secretary, I'm Steve Kashkett, representing the American Foreign
Service Association. As you know, over the past six years, thousands of
our colleagues have volunteered to serve in the two war zones of Iraq
and Afghanistan – Iraq in particular, where we've created the largest
U.S. diplomatic mission in history. But the cost of doing this has been
to take people away from all of our other diplomatic missions around
the world, which have been left understaffed and with staffing gaps.So
my question to you is two parts. How do you assess the prospect of
getting Congress to authorize the positions we need to fill all those
staffing gaps around the world? And secondly, have you had any
discussions yet about reducing the size of our diplomatic mission in
Iraq down to that of a normal diplomatic mission?SECRETARY
CLINTON: Well, Steve, I am fully in favor of increasing our diplomatic
numbers, and we’re going to work very hard to achieve that. We are
facing, unfortunately, some very difficult budgetary restraints. But I
have made the enhancement of State operations, including Foreign
Service and Civil Service positions, the highest priority. We cannot do
the work we are expected to do in the absence of the people and the
support systems that enable us to do the work. And I intend to make
that argument every time I speak to anyone, and I have been making that
argument. And it's too early to tell exactly where we're going to end
up on the numbers and the dollars that we’re going to need. But it is
an incredibly critical priority. I know that during his campaign,
President Obama talked about this and I know how strongly supportive he
is.We are just beginning
the discussions about Iraq. You know we have the Strategic Framework
that was part of the agreements reached along with the Status of Forces
Agreement that will, to some extent, guide us. We have elections in
Iraq. We did the provincial, we'll have national elections. Much of
it's going to depend, in terms of the numbers that we have remaining in
Iraq on the civilian side, what the expectations of the Iraqi
Government and the Iraqi people are. You know, they are a sovereign
nation. We have certainly put forth in the Strategic Framework, and in
the conversations that I've had with Iraqi leaders since arriving, a
willingness to work on a range of issues on the civilian side. But
we're just at the very beginning of that process.And we'll note this which the Times also ignored: QUESTION:
Thank you, Madame Secretary, and thank you for coming to address us
today. My name is Ralan Hill. I'm a Foreign Service officer. I am here
in Washington on TDY, going to Paraguay. I have a same-sex partner,
who's been recognized as a member of household by the Department of
State. Because of that, the Department actively discriminates against
me and my family in a number of areas by limiting our access to
benefits routinely and customarily provided to other families here in
the Department. As one example, if I were assigned overseas to a post
that came under a mandatory evacuation order, I would be required to
leave, although the Department is under no legal obligation to do
anything to help my partner. He could be left literally to fend for
himself in a war zone.While
I hope you find the current situation unacceptable, my question is what
can you do to eliminate this discrimination, and what timeline do you
see for making such changes? Thank you.SECRETARY
CLINTON: Well, thank you for raising that. (Applause.) You know, this
is an issue of real concern to me. And even though, as you pointed out,
all of our personnel share the same service requirements, the partners
in same-sex relationships are not offered the same training, the same
benefits, and the same protections that other family members receive
when you serve abroad. So I view this as an issue of workplace
fairness, employee retention, and the safety and effectiveness of our
embassy communities worldwide.So
I have asked for a staff review of current policies, especially those
that are set forth in State Department regulations, and recommendations
and a strategy for making effective changes. This is on a -- it's on a
fast timeline, but we've begun that process. We are reviewing what
would need to be changed, what we can legally change. A lot of things
we cannot legally change by a decision in the State Department. But
let's see what we can determine is within our realm of responsibility,
and we are moving on that expeditiously.There's a lot more in the transcript
but when you're mission is to trash Hillary and to set up a catfight
between two women (Hillary and Condi), you really don't have time to
report so things that readers would actually be interested in, things
they would be able to relate to get ditched to make more room for slurs
and whispers. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqpeter graffwaleed ibrahimmohammed abbasmichael christiecharles dickleo shane iiithe new york timesmark landlersickofitradlz
Posted at 07:02 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Sheik Risha stomps his feet and threatens
When
you don't like the results of an election, stomp your feet and threaten
violence. As was done in Floria (2000, when the GOP shut down the
recounts), so attempts the "Awakening"s in Anbar. From yesterday's snapshot and we'll italicize Sheik Risha sections: Alissa J. Rubin and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) quote
one-time "Awakening" Council leader Sheik Hammid al-Hayes who is
unhappy with the early (and unofficial) results thus far in Anbar, "If
the results aren't acceptable, then we'll bring back the old days. We
will use rifles again, and we will eliminate the Islamic Party." When
the US military keeps you and your underlings on the US tax payer dime
($300 a month per "Awakening" member), you'd think the monthly stipend
might require a few civics lessons. Now "Awakening" free, al-Hayes
demonstrates yet again exactly the type of person the US was paying off
. They scream, they yell, they threaten violence and . . . they get
their way. Ned Parker, Caesar Ahmed and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) quote
Sheik Ahmed Buzaigh abu Risha vowing, "If the percentage is true, then
we will transfer our entity from a political to a military one, to
fight the Islamic Party and the commission."
If the Iraqi Islamic Party is declared the winner in Anbar, the
"Awakenings" say they will begin a slaughter. And instead of being
called out, they're getting catered to. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports,
"A coalition of parties that competed against the Iraqi Islamic Party
in Anbar submitted complaints that the commission considers grave,
commission chief Faraj al-Haidari said, 'We will deal with it seriously
because it might change the result of the election in this province,'
he said." Al Arabiya News Channel notes Anbar is "under curfew for a night". Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes
how "quickly" the officials go into motion for the ones making threats
in Anbar, "The Independent High Electoral Commission sent a committee
from Baghdad Wednesday to recount ballot boxes from some polling
stations in the province after tribal leaders accused the Iraqi Islamic
Party, IIP, which currently controls the provincial council, of rigging
the vote. The accusations of vote rigging came from an especially
important source, Ahmed Abu Risha, the head of the province's Awakening
Council, which is widely credited with bringing calm to Anbar." Oh, yes, that voice of peace Sheik Risha. And what did LAT quote
him saying? "If the percentage is true, then we will transfer our
entity from a political to a military one, to fight the Islamic Party
and the commission." Andrew England and Ernesto Londono (Financial Times of London) note,
"The IIP is one of the few Sunni Arab groups that took part in 2005
elections, which were boycotted by Sunni Arabs. It has been the
community's main political force and had run the council in Anbar" and
they quote the Iraqi Islamic Party's Omar Abdul Sattar stating that
these threats of violence by people unhappy with the preliminary
results are "unacceptable and totally rejected." UPI explains,
"The Awakening Councils had looked to secure seats on the provincial
councils as reparation for their role in routing al-Qaida militans from
Anbar as part of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency strategy known as the
surge." These are preliminary results -- unofficial ones. That needs to
be remembered. And if al-Maliki wasn't attempting to spin the results
and the press wasn't so eager to help him (we're ignoring the
installment in today's news cycle on that), we'd follow Thomas E.
Ricks' example (which, as noted Tuesday morning,
was the plan). But since we can't, we'll note an obvious fact.
"Awakening" Councils members were collaborators with the US in the
occupation of Iraq. Anbar especially rejected the illegal war and
occupation on and of Iraq. While "Awakenings" turned when a buck or two
was popped in their g-strings, that doesn't mean the people did. If the
results hold, you may see the people -- and we made this point when NYT
did their ridiculous "Everything is beautiful in the province and the
people are so happy" 2007 article -- really didn't want anything to do
with US collaborators. If so, that's not surprising. When France was
occupied, the French loudly rejected the collaborators. And continued
to make known what they thought of them -- to this day. Those who go to
work for the enemy -- and a foreign force occupying any country is that
country's natural enemy -- are collaborators and, no, they are not
popular with the home-grown population. And Monte Morin and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) quote
the menacing Sheik Risha promsing, "There will be very harsh
consequences if this false election stands. We won't let them form a
government." That's some performance from
Sheik Risha. The sort that would land many in jail. Instead Confessions
of an Aging Drama Queen ends up the center of attention with people
rushing to listen to his moans. Sam Dagher (New York Times) reports: Prime
Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki sent a deputy, Rafie al-Issawi, a Sunni
who is an Anbar native, to the provincial capital, Ramadi, to meet with
Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha, the head of one of the main tribal slates that
ran in the elections last weekend. Sheik Risha -- who transformed the
American-backed Awakening movement, which helped quell the insurgency
in Anbar, into a political party -- has threatened to take up arms
against the Iraqi Islamic Party, which he has accused of cheating.Top
Iraqi military officials, including the commander of ground forces, Lt.
Gen. Ali Ghaidan Majid, attended Wednesday's meeting in Ramadi,
according to Sheik Aifan al-Issawi, one of Sheik Risha's allies and a
candidate on his slate. He said it was agreed that a number of ballot
boxes from several polling stations would be recounted or excluded from
the final count because of the allegations of fraud.He
threatens violence -- he continues to threaten violence -- and he gets
his way. All the people who peacefully demonstrated against not being
permitted to vote? They're ignored. But it's rush down to make nice
with Sheik Risha when, if it was anyone else, the US military would be
rushing down to arrest him. And al-Maliki can't stand Risha. The fact
that the sheik is being catered to indicates just how little control
al-Maliki still has. Dahger speaks with another tribe leader
from the area, Sheik Ali al-Hatem, who has (like many in Anbar)
frequently been in conflict with Sheik Risha (al-Hatem has also had
issues with the Iraqi Islamic Party)who notes that each tribe put up
their own candidates so you had slates competing against each other as
well as competing against IIP. He states that Risha is "sowing rifts
among the tribes" and that the violence could become "intratribal":
"Ahmed is playing with fire. We will confront him if he acts this way
and divides the tribes." al-Hatem doesn't call on al-Maliki to reign in
Risha, he calls on the US military to do so. (If that happens, it may
take place during today's meet-up in Anbar.) "We will form the government of Anbar anyway," Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) quotes Risha swearing. Raghavan observes: Here,
in the cradle of the Sunni insurgency, tribal leaders nurtured and
empowered by the United States appear ready to take control the
old-fashioned way -- with guns and money -- if their political
ambitions are frustrated. Abu
Risha and other leaders of the Awakening, the U.S.-backed Sunni sheiks
who rose up to quell the insurgency, charge that Sunni politicians of
the Iraqi Islamic Party have committed electoral fraud, which party
officials deny. The allegations, coupled with threats to use arms, have
prompted provincewide curfews and strict security measures. Although
the United States handed responsibility for the security of Anbar to
the Iraqi government in September, U.S. Marines this week returned to
Ramadi in observation roles, patrolling areas from which they had
largely withdrawn.Iraqi
election monitoring officials have found the allegations serious enough
to investigate, and election commission chief Faraj al-Haidari said
initial assessments could be released as early as Thursday. But he also
suggested that the allegations might have been driven more by the
struggle for power than by evidence, saying there would be no need to
hold new elections in the province. Again, Risha stamps
his feet and threatens violence and gets his way. All the people turned
away from the polls and refused the right to vote? All Faraj al-Haidari
has to offer them is this 'pithy' little comment, " It's
not our fault that some people couldn't vote because they are lazy,
because they didn't bother to ask where they should vote." Again,
they should have ditched the peaceful protest and run around
threatening violence -- that's the only way al-Haidari would have
listened. Sheik Risha works the commission the way he wants to. And
you need to grasp how ludicrous the claims of Risha, et al are. Now
ludicrous doesn't mean that they are false. I believe they are but I
don't know that. But reporters do know and did report on the vast
number of Iraqis in Baghdad, for example, being refused the right to
vote. But that's not being investigated. Risha's drama leads to an
investigation. Risha is unhappy that his slate of candidates appear (no
vote counts are final yet) to have done poorly. He insists that his
candidates should have done better and that voter fraud is responsible
for them not doing better. Risha says the ballot boxes were stuffed.
Don't worry about whether he's right about that or wrong for a second.
Just grasp that is the basis of his assertions. Now note this from Monte Morin and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times):
"Tribal sheiks and their followers here in Ramadi, the provincial
capital, and in Fallouja charge that their political rivals gained
control of local election offices and stuffed ballot boxes the day
after the elections. Election officials reported that 40% of eligible
Anbar voters cast ballots, but tribal candidates say the turnout was
half that and that the additional votes are false." Less than 40% voted
-- according to the people asserting voter fraud, only 20% of
registered voters in Anbar bothered to vote. Do you not see the
conflict in the two positions? "We are popular and we should have won!"
vs. "They cheated because really only 20% of the registered voters
voted!" If you're argument is that 80% of registered voters stayed
home, you can't make the claim that you're popular with voters at the
same time. The two positions are in conflict. For those who need to believe the Risha -- and ignore the conflict in his argument -- you can click here for Leila Fadel's co-written nonsense
-- remember McClatchy has repeatedly defended and supported the
"Awakening" Councils -- some have called what McClatchy's done
"cheerleading" for "Awakening." (And before little McClatchy gets its
itty-bitty feelings hurt again and feels the need to whine, most
outlets have a bias. McClatchy's has always been to the "Awakenings,"
other outlets have noticed that the Los Angeles Times, for example, is overly cozy with the KRG.) The following community sites update last night: -
-
-
off our backs 10 hours ago -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cedric and Wally did their humor posts while the others wrote on the theme of magazines. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq monte morinlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great manthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:00 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
February 4, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a DC peace event looms, results from the provincial elections have still not been sorted out but that hasn't stopped thugs from making threats, what happens to your finger after the purple dye, and more?
Come to Washington February 6-9 to demand "The Change WE Need"
President Elect Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it started, calling it a "dumb war." But he and his advisors have also said that they plan to spread the return of combat troops from that "dumb war" out over sixteen months and to keep tens of thousands of other troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely.
So from February 6-9, MFSO will be traveling to Washington to bring the new President and new Congress the message that it is long past time to bring all our troops home from Iraq. The four days of events will include:
* A teach-in featuring the voices of military families, veterans, and Iraqis, explaining the need for an immediate and complete end to the war in Iraq -- and the human impacts of continuing the occupation. Friday, February 6 from Noon - 3:00 p.m. at Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue.
* A solemn procession from Arlington National Cemetary to the White House beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 7. Meet at the front gate of the cemetery right outside the exit of the Arlington Metro stop. Please arrive early.
* A "Meet and Greet" and Legislative Briefing from 3:00 - 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, February 8 at the Mariott Metro Center.
* Lobbying members of Congress to end the war in Iraq. Meet in the cafeteria of the Rayburn House Office Building at 9:00 a.m. Monday, February 9.
The November 27th snapshot noted Iraq War veteran Andre Shepherd who self-checked out of the US military while in Germany and held a press conference to explain: "When I read and heard about people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was doing. I could not in good conscience continue to serve. . . . Here in Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are giving orders." The December 2nd snapshot quoted the following from James Ewinger's Cleveland Plain Dealer article:
Shepherd said he grew up on East 94th Street in Cleveland, attended Lakewood High School and studied computer science at Kent State University until he ran out of money.
He enlisted in 2004 with the hope of flying the Apaches, but was urged to become a mechanic first.
Scharf said he doubts that Shepherd's expected order to return to Iraq would, by itself, constitute an unlawful order.
"His best argument would be that Apaches are used to kill civilians," Scharf said, but he still viewed it as a weak case.
Andre is seeking aslyum in Germany and has been working with the Military Counseling Network and attorneys on that effort. Today AP's Patrick McGroarty reports that Andre is one of 71 US soldiers who has self-checked out from "European bases in 2008" (actually, he shouldn't be, he self-checked out in 2007) and his case was scheduled to take place before the Germany's Federal Office for Migration and Refugees today where Andre would be stressing "a 2004 European Union directive that established basic guidelines for refugee status within the 27-nation bloc. Soldiers who face punishment for refusing to commit a war crime or serve in an unlawful conflict are to be granted that status, the directive says."
Andre Shepherd: When I speak to the other asylum seekers in the asylum camp and I explain to them my story, they completely understand it however this doesn't make me any better or any worse than anyone else that's there. We're all there because we can't go home.
Samantha Haque: As an asylum seeker he is currently in a camp in Germany with people from places like Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq. All in a similar position to him. The difference is that Andre Shepherd is a US citizen. And an Iraq War deserter. For security reasons, we were not allowed to film in the camp. Shepherd has a friend, a peace activist, who lives within the restricted boundary he's allowed to move in. He took us there.
Andre Shepherd: I was working on the Apache helicopter. Those Apaches won't fly unless we take care of them. The Apache helicopter is a deadly weapon a lot of people call it a flying tank. What started my doubts was when I saw the Iraqi people, when they would come and help us, the looks that they gave us weren't the looks of heroes or people that you know were bringing freedom. We looked like conquerors and oppressors. That really bothered me a lot. So I started to look into the reasons why we were actually there in Iraq. I thought that what we were doing was a great thing and a positive thing. That we were actually bringing freedom to people and making them happy but what I found out instead was that we completely destroyed an entire country on a pack of lies. It started to weigh very heavily to the point where my actions when I was a soldier were starting to deteriorate so as this was going on I came to the conclusion that I wasn't going to back to Iraq.
Samantha Haque: None of the criteria that the US military offered for discharge were availble to Mr. Shepherd. To be a conscientious objector in the US means to be against all wars, something he was not. While in Germany, he was faced with a second mission to Iraq. On April 11, 2007 he went absent without leave. Unable to apply for German residency without official military discharge papers, he decided that applying for asylum was the only way forward.
MCN's Tim Huber: Andre contacted us about a year and a half ago and he asked about asylum He wasn't the first to ask about asylum but our answer was always the same, we don't know what would happen if you tried aslyum. We went over the pros and cons of trying it. We noted that we were quite pessimistic that it would actually work, but we said it's an option.
Samantha Haque: His lawyer on the other hand is confident that he will have his application accepted.
Reinhard Marx: It's a specific European law, the so-called directive on qualification of refugees and in this directive it is ruled that deserters of an army who refer to international reasons, refer that the war is conducted in a way which infringes the national law then he has a right to be accepted as a refugee.
Samantha Haque: His lawyer cites the case of Florian Pfaff, a German officer demoted after refusing to work on a computer program for the US Army in Iraq in 2005. A federal court overturned his demotion because the Iraq War contravened international law. But although Germany opposed the war in Iraq and said no to the US resolution backing it, it still allowed its territory to be used as a base for military operations in Iraq. Here in Heidelberg is the US Army's headquarters in Europe. There are currently around 51,000 US military service men in Germany If Mr. Shepherd's application for aslyum is accepted, there could be implications for US-German military relations.
Gas Bag: It would mean that any US soldier in Germany who disagrees with military operations being conducted can basically step out of the base and seek asylum in Germany and that would probably be a situation that would be unacceptable to the US military.
Samantha Haque: The US is already looking at shrinking its military presence in Germany and possibly moving bases to Europe.
Gas Bag: There is a 60-year tradition, there's many Germans who cherish having the Americans here. There's also an economic factor, the US bases, particularly in the German southwest provide a lot of jobs.
Samantha Haque: Shepherd is something of a darling for the anti-war movement. Here at the Miltary Counseling Network, an American center where conscientios objectors go for help, letters of support come in from all over the world.
Tim Huber: He joined for the American dream. He joined for life, liberty and the pursuit of justice. Suddenly he finds that his pursuit of life, liberty and, most importantly, justice causes him to take a 180 degree turn and walk away from the military.
Samantha Haque: Do you think that there's a danger that Andre's case trivializes the term asylum seeker?
Tim Huber: Not at all. I think, if anything, it's causing people to look at the term asylum and put it in a 21st century defenition
Samantha Haque: The US army said that it was aware of the case but that the matter was completely in German hands. As for Mr. Shepherd it will be some months before he finds out the results of next week's hearing and whether he faces jail in America or exile abroad.
Andre Shepherd: Not being able to go back? At this point, that's just something I have to live with if I can make my consc clear then fine that's just a sacrifice I have to make.
Russia Today notes the Pentagon claims 5,000 US Army soldiers "are missing from duty" presently and quotes Andre explaining, "When the CIA report came and they said that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, that really made me angry. I wondered if there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the CIA obvioulsy the Bush administration knew about this, then why did we just destroy Fallujah, completely wiped out the entire city?"
I myself was lulled into a false sense of security upon my arrival a week ago. Indeed, security is "better," compared to my last trip here, when the number of attacks per month against the occupation forces and Iraqi collaborators used to be around 6,000. Today, we barely have one American soldier being killed every other day and only a score injured weekly. Casualties among Iraqi security forces are just ten times that number.
But yes, one could say security is better if one is clear that it is better in comparison not to downtown Houston but to Fallujah 2004.
Compared to days of multiple car bomb explosions, Baghdad today is better.
Is it safer? Is it more secure?
Difficult to say in a place when the capital city of the country is essentially in lock-down and prevailing conditions are indicative of a police state. We have a state in Iraq where the government is exercising rigid and repressive controls over social life (no unpermitted demonstrations, curfews, concrete walls around the capital city), economic (read - the 100 Bremer Orders that were passed under the Coalition Provisional Authority - all of the key laws over economic control still in place), and political life of the citizenry.
By definition, a police state exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and in today's Iraq, we have plenty examples of both.
Iraq held provincial elections in 14 of the 18 provinces last Saturday. Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) announces he is waiting to weigh in: "The two key questions, he [an American official] said, were whether those who lost power would give it up and those who gained power would be able to execute it well. Why wait? Because, unlike my former colleagues in the newspaper racket, I can." While he waits, the battle of the spin continues with threats of violence mixed in. Alissa J. Rubin and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) quote one-time "Awakening" Council leader Sheik Hammid al-Hayes who is unhappy with the early (and unofficial) results thus far in Anbar, "If the results aren't acceptable, then we'll bring back the old days. We will use rifles again, and we will eliminate the Islamic Party." When the US military keeps you and your underlings on the US tax payer dime ($300 a month per "Awakening" member), you'd think the monthly stipend might require a few civics lessons. Now "Awakening" free, al-Hayes demonstrates yet again exactly the type of person the US was paying off . They scream, they yell, they threaten violence and . . . they get their way. Ned Parker, Caesar Ahmed and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) quote Sheik Ahmed Buzaigh abu Risha vowing, "If the percentage is true, then we will transfer our entity from a political to a military one, to fight the Islamic Party and the commission." If the Iraqi Islamic Party is declared the winner in Anbar, the "Awakenings" say they will begin a slaughter. And instead of being called out, they're getting catered to. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports, "A coalition of parties that competed against the Iraqi Islamic Party in Anbar submitted complaints that the commission considers grave, commission chief Faraj al-Haidari said, 'We will deal with it seriously because it might change the result of the election in this province,' he said." Al Arabiya News Channel notes Anbar is "under curfew for a night". Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes how "quickly" the officials go into motion for the ones making threats in Anbar, "The Independent High Electoral Commission sent a committee from Baghdad Wednesday to recount ballot boxes from some polling stations in the province after tribal leaders accused the Iraqi Islamic Party, IIP, which currently controls the provincial council, of rigging the vote. The accusations of vote rigging came from an especially important source, Ahmed Abu Risha, the head of the province's Awakening Council, which is widely credited with bringing calm to Anbar." Oh, yes, that voice of peace Sheik Risha. And what did LAT quote him saying? "If the percentage is true, then we will transfer our entity from a political to a military one, to fight the Islamic Party and the commission." Andrew England and Ernesto Londono (Financial Times of London) note, "The IIP is one of the few Sunni Arab groups that took part in 2005 elections, which were boycotted by Sunni Arabs. It has been the community's main political force and had run the council in Anbar" and they quote the Iraqi Islamic Party's Omar Abdul Sattar stating that these threats of violence by people unhappy with the preliminary results are "unacceptable and totally rejected." UPI explains, "The Awakening Councils had looked to secure seats on the provincial councils as reparation for their role in routing al-Qaida militans from Anbar as part of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency strategy known as the surge." These are preliminary results -- unofficial ones. That needs to be remembered. And if al-Maliki wasn't attempting to spin the results and the press wasn't so eager to help him (we're ignoring the installment in today's news cycle on that), we'd follow Thomas E. Ricks' example (which, as noted Tuesday morning, was the plan). But since we can't, we'll note an obvious fact. "Awakening" Councils members were collaborators with the US in the occupation of Iraq. Anbar especially rejected the illegal war and occupation on and of Iraq. While "Awakenings" turned when a buck or two was popped in their g-strings, that doesn't mean the people did. If the results hold, you may see the people -- and we made this point when NYT did their ridiculous "Everything is beautiful in the province and the people are so happy" 2007 article -- really didn't want anything to do with US collaborators. If so, that's not surprising. When France was occupied, the French loudly rejected the collaborators. And continued to make known what they thought of them -- to this day. Those who go to work for the enemy -- and a foreign force occupying any country is that country's natural enemy -- are collaborators and, no, they are not popular with the home-grown population. And Monte Morin and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) quote the menacing Sheik Risha promsing, "There will be very harsh consequences if this false election stands. We won't let them form a government."
"There will be very harsh consequences if this false election stands. We won't let them form a government."
The same thugs the US paid off so they'd stop attacking US military personnel and equipment -- as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus told Congress repeatedly last April -- scream and whine and moan about the potential results and everyone rushes to make the big babies feel better. They whine and make threats and that gets a reaction from the elections commission chair? The same pompous ass who declared Sunday, " It's not our fault that some people couldn't vote because they are lazy, because they didn't bother to ask where they should vote"? Well apparently "lazy" is mitigated when you threaten violence so possibly all those who were not allowed to vote, who were repeatedly turned away at polling stations should start threatening to 'set it off' and maybe the elections commission chair would suddenly take an interest in their issues? Of the commission, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) points out, "Iraq's electoral commission insisted that it was pleased with the turnout on Saturday, with about 7.5 million Iraqis, or 51 per cent of those eligible to vote, casting a ballot. Mr al-Maliki had forecast participation of up to 80 per cent after to an improvement in security and a decision by Sunni Arabs to participate, after boycotting past ballots in protest at the occupation." In the meantime Trenton Daniel and Mahdi al Dulaymi (McClatchy Newspapers) observe, "Thousands of Iraqis, however, couldn't vote because their names were missing from registration lists; in Hawsa, just west of Baghdad, thousands demonstrated over their exclusion." No, don't demonstrate, threaten. It works so very well in Anbar. The response to demonstrations and massive voter suppression? "Election officials said that they have no plans to address the grievances, saying that displaced voters missed their opportunity to register."
In New York at the United Nations yesterday, Staffan de Mistura, UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, spun like crazy trying to find the 'good' in an election process that, he admitted, saw five candidates assassinated "and the explosion of two mortar shells on Election Day" -- he side-stepped the other violence taking place Saturday. [ Even US Army Lt Gen Lloyd J. Austin III admits to "11 attacks" on election day.] He offered a figure of 42% for Sunni participation (42% of registered voters) which, if it holds, will only further underscore how many people stayed home (Sunnis boycotted the vote in 2005's provincial elections).
Iraq commentators go misty-eyed when they talk of the symbolic purple finger brandished by Iraqis after casting a ballot. But no one ever mentions the smelly orange nail.
Had such an abominable side-effect been better public knowledge, then I would never have enthusiastically jammed by right index finger into a pot of indelible ink at a polling station in Baghdad on election day.
[. . .]
"What the hell is happening to my nail?" I asked my interpreter.
"Oh it turns orange," he said, casually. "It is because of all the chemicals in the ink."
Four days and hours of scrubbing later, the purple ink on my finger has almost gone but the Orange Nail from Hell is still there, as colourful as the moment it first appeared. The nail has also started to smell rather foul, as if something nasty is rotting on the end of my finger.
"The latest is that nothing much has changed," AP's Kim Gamel explained yesterday on NPR's All Things Considered, "al-Zaidi has been in custody since Iraqi guards wrestled him to the ground." Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw two shoes at George W. Bush December 14th and has been imprisoned since. Gamel said he remains in a jail cell in the Green Zone and his attorney has had only one visit with him (back in December). Asked about the alleged letter Nouri al-Maliki was touting linking the journalist to 'terrorists,' Gamel replied, "Maliki did say he received that letter and the family [of Muntadar] denied that" and she noted it's impossible to determine whether the claim is true or false at this point.
What a novel concept. A journalist noting what can and cannot be verified. That's certainly nothing Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) worries himself over today as he rushes to turn a suspect into a convict. We addressed the topic in yesterday's snapshot. Yes, it was obvious yesterday. But Myers misses out as he rushes to tell you a criminal confessed! Let's go to Tina Susman ( Los Angeles Times):There was no way to independently verify the video's authenticity, but the use of female suicide bombers has soared in the last year. More than 30 women blew themselves up last year, compared with eight in 2007, according to U.S. military figures. U.S. and Iraqi officials say Sunni Arab insurgents have run short of male recruits and turned to women for the missions.Suspected suicide bombers were among those rounded up in the sweep conducted in the 72 hours leading up to Saturday's elections, said Army Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad and the surrounding region. Hammond said attacks in the his area of command had dropped 80% since June 2007, part of a nationwide decrease in violence that was highlighted by the peaceful voting for new governing councils in 14 provinces.And that is what's known as reporting. Suspected. Video could not be independently verified. All points Steven Lee Myers can't be bothered with. What a social hit he would have been in Salem back in 1692. No doubt he would be partying at Gallows Hill. Steven Lee Myers, the Cotton Mather of 2009.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left two people wounded, a Baghdad sticking bombing aimed at an "Awakening" Council head that wounded the head and claimed the life of his son with three other people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing that left four people wounded and a Mosul car bombing left four people wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left two people injured and a Mosul grenade attack with no reports of wounded but the US military fired at the thrower.
Shootings?
Corpses?
|
Posted at 03:32 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Steven Lee Myers pleasures himself (if no one else) in print
Can someone please ask New York Times
reporter Steven Lee Myers to write with both hands out of his pants?
The thought of a woman and bombs creates such a frenzy, he forgets he's
supposed to be a reporter throughout " Iraq Arrests Women Tied to Bombings." Or maybe it's just continuing the paper's practice of trying cases in print. Robert F. Worth and Carolyn Marshall did that,
remember? Told you all the US soldiers were innocent in the incident as
their Article 32 hearing approached. Of course the Article 32 hearing
begged to differ and they were all later convicted in court-martials.
Possibly reporters should stick to journalism and not attempt to
practice a profession they have no training in? Myers threw out
all the basics (well, he had only one thing in his hands and -- small,
medium or big -- it kept him preoccupied) such as "innocent until
proven guilty" for a legal justice system and such as skepticism being
the hallmark of journalism. The Iraqi puppet government says a woman is
guilty? Then she's guilty. No need for a trial. She
went by the code name "the mother of believers," Samira Ahmed Jassim
al-Azzawi confessed. Ms. Jassim recruited women to join extremists in
Diyala Province, escorting them to a farm for training and ultimately
to their targets.Speaking
stiffly in a crude police video, Ms. Jassim recounted the fate of a
woman she called only Um Huda, whom she had led to a neighborhood bank
that served as her rendezvous point. "When I was talking to her, she
was not answering or looking at me," Ms. Jassim said. "She was mumbling
verses of the Koran."Was she now!!!! Myers article offers the below photo of the 'confession'.  What an idiot Steven Lee Myers is. What a disgrace to his profession. I
hope he did get a cheap thrill out of the topic because then at least
he enjoyed it. No one else did. Justice didn't enjoy it. Journalism
didn't. Here's Tina Susman's " Woman accused of recruiting female suicide bombers held in Iraq" ( Los Angeles Times):There
was no way to independently verify the video's authenticity, but the
use of female suicide bombers has soared in the last year. More than 30
women blew themselves up last year, compared with eight in 2007,
according to U.S. military figures. U.S. and Iraqi officials say Sunni
Arab insurgents have run short of male recruits and turned to women for
the missions.Suspected suicide bombers were among
those rounded up in the sweep conducted in the 72 hours leading up to
Saturday's elections, said Army Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of
U.S. forces in Baghdad and the surrounding region. Hammond
said attacks in the his area of command had dropped 80% since June
2007, part of a nationwide decrease in violence that was highlighted by
the peaceful voting for new governing councils in 14 provinces.Suspected.
Video could not be independently verified. All points Steven Lee Myers
can't be bothered with. What a social hit he would have been in Salem
back in 1692. No doubt he would be partying at Gallows Hill. Steven Lee
Myers, the Cotton Mather of 2009. Andre Shepherd is in the news today. Dropping back to the November 27th snapshot to jog memories: Meanwhile in Germany a US soldier is seeking aslyum. Andreas Buerger (Reuters) reports
31-year-old Iraq War veteran Andre Shepherd self-checked out of the
military in 2007 and is now seeking sancturay in Germany where he held
a press conference today and declared: "When I read and heard about
people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits
by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was
doing. I could not in good conscience continue to serve. . . . Here in
Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take
responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are
giving orders."The December 2nd snapshot quoted the following from James Ewinger's Cleveland Plain Dealer article: Shepherd
said he grew up on East 94th Street in Cleveland, attended Lakewood
High School and studied computer science at Kent State University until
he ran out of money. He enlisted in 2004 with the hope of flying the Apaches, but was urged to become a mechanic first. Scharf said he doubts that Shepherd's expected order to return to Iraq would, by itself, constitute an unlawful order. "His best argument would be that Apaches are used to kill civilians," Scharf said, but he still viewed it as a weak case. Today AP's Patrick McGroarty reports
on Shepherd noting that he "was among 71 Army soldiers to desert
European bases in 2008, but he is the first known to have sought asylum
in Germany." McGroarty's case is heard today by Germany's Federal
Office for Migration and Refugees and he will be stressing "a 2004
European Union directive that established basic guidelines for refugee
status within the 27-nation bloc. Soldiers who face punishment for
refusing to commit a war crime or serve in an unlawful conflict are to
be granted that status, the directive says." The Military Counseling Network blog notes this video:
Posted at 07:06 am by thecommonills
Permalink
And the counting of ballots continues
"If
the results aren't acceptable, then we'll bring back the old days. We
will use rifles again, and we will eliminate the Islamic Party." That's
one time "Awakening" Council leader Sheik Hammid al-Hayes. Clearly all
those years where the US tax payers footed the bill for him and his
followers ($300 per person every month) did not have a requirement that
you also take a few civics lesson in exchange for your monthly stipend.
We get our way, the sheik appears to say, or out come the bullets and
the guns. He's quoted in Alissa J. Rubin and Steven Lee Myers' " As Votes Are Tallied, Former Iraqi Leader Re-emerges as Rival to Current One" ( New York Times).
The bulk of the article focuses on the vote counting -- which some say
won't be completed until Saturday or Sunday though the paper says it
will likely be Friday -- and how CIA asset Ayad Allawi has, if results
hold, done very well in Salahuddin Province ("setting himself up as a
potential rival to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki" -- uh, I
believe he's spent the last two years plus public setting up that
rivalry). Allawi opposed Paul Bremer's institution of the White House
okayed de-Baathification process (preventing members of the Baath party
from holding positions in the puppet government)and he's seen as a seer
as a result by many quoted in the article. (The world must be full of
seers -- and Cassandras -- because a whole lot of us said
de-Baathification would only increase the problems.) Over in Al Anbar
Province, things aren't as cozy. That's where the sheik is among many
threatening violence if the Iraqi Islamic Party comes out ahead in the
elections. In fairness to Allawi, whatever his other (many
faults), he is a secularist. That comes through in the article but
there seems to be an effort to paint al-Maliki as such in multiple
articles recently. Secularists do not outlaw a New Year's Eve Party.
Secularists do not then try to soften it by saying that you can gather
at your home, but NO music. That wasn't about safety and his
modifications to the order made that very clear. al-Maliki is not a
secularist. His minions -- especially the Ministry of the Interior --
led the waves of ethnic 'cleansing' in Baghdad. The Los Angeles Times has really been a hot streak of late and continues it this morning. Ned Parker, Caesar Ahmed and Saif Hameed's " Absent election results, Iraq parties stake claims" grasps what is taking place currently in Iraq: People are spinning the unofficial and incomplete results. From the article: In
the absence of results in Iraq, rumors swirl and parties, full of
bluster and occasional bile, make competing claims of triumph as they
grasp for victory in a land where politics can be a blood sport.Faraj
Haidari, head of the High Independent Electoral Commission, said on the
U.S.-funded Al Hurra satellite news channel Tuesday that he did not
expect a preliminary tally before Thursday afternoon at the earliest;
some officials have said it could even be Friday. That hasn't stopped
political leaders from declaring victory.Anbar
province's senior political leaders sounded a bit like action movie
parodies as rumors spread that the Iraqi Islamic Party had won 43% of
the provincial council seats.The
head of one of the most popular Sunni Arab tribal factions, Sheik Ahmed
Buzaigh abu Risha, threatened to turn his guns on the electoral
commission. "If the percentage is true, then we will transfer our
entity from a political to a military one, to fight the Islamic Party
and the commission," he warned.Another sheik threatening
violence. And that's how you get 'action.' Remember Florida? Remember
the 'Florida' voters (shipped in non-residents of the state there to
cause havoc) banging on the glass walls during the recounts? Helped
shut down the recounts (which was the GOP plan). All these sheiks
threatening violence? The thing to do is not reward their thuggish
behavior but instead they're getting the action they want. From Ernesto
Londono's " Iraq Probes Possible Voter Fraud" ( Washington Post): The
head of Iraq's electoral commission said Tuesday that it is
investigating "serious" allegations of electoral fraud in Anbar
province that, if corroborated, could alter the outcome of Saturday's
election, providing the clearest indication yet that voting
irregularities occurred during provincial balloting. A
coalition of parties that competed against the Iraqi Islamic Party in
Anbar submitted complaints that the commission considers grave,
commission chief Faraj al-Haidari said. "We will deal with it seriously
because it might change the result of the election in this province,"
he said. As tensions
sparked by the allegations of electoral fraud spread through Ramadi,
the provincial capital, Iraqi law enforcement officials and U.S.
Marines braced Tuesday for a possible outbreak of violence. So
the same thugs the US paid off so they'd stop attacking US military
personnel and equipment -- as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and
Gen David Petraeus told Congress repeatedly last April -- scream and
whine and moan about the potential results and everyone rushes to make
the big babies feel better. They whine and make threats and that gets a
reaction from the elections commission chair? The same pompous ass who
declared Sunday, " It's
not our fault that some people couldn't vote because they are lazy,
because they didn't bother to ask where they should vote"? Well
apparently "lazy" is mitigated when you threaten violence so possibly
all those who were not allowed to vote, who were repeatedly turned away
at polling stations should start threatening to 'set it off' and maybe
the elections commission chair would suddenly take an interest in their
issues? If you're not getting how disgusting it is, check out Trenton Daniel and Mahdi al Dulaymi's " Iraq voter turnout lower than expected in provincial vote" ( McClatchy Newspapers) and grasp that the commission is making these insulting remarks while they're rushing to appease the thugs: Some
have hailed early reports on Iraq's provincial elections as evidence of
a step forward in the country's halting advance to democratic rule
after six years of bloodshed. Thousands of Iraqis, however, couldn't
vote because their names were missing from registration lists; in
Hawsa, just west of Baghdad, thousands demonstrated over their
exclusion.Too many voters
didn't find their names on voter rolls, and, with a vehicle ban to
prevent suicide bombers, many voters had to walk miles from their homes
to get to their polling places, party officials said. The voting
problems threaten to unleash violence in Anbar.Election
officials said that they have no plans to address the grievances,
saying that displaced voters missed their opportunity to reregister."We
spent 45 days advertising on TV, radio, and newspapers asking to make
any chances, especially for displaced people," said Mohammed Saeed al
Amjed, an IHEC spokesman. "The period was more than enough for the
families to check or register their names, displaced or not."The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsteven lee myersthe los angeles timesned parkercaeser ahmedsaif hameedthe washington posternesto londonomcclatchy newspaperstrenton danielmahdi al dulaymilike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great manthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:04 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
kimberly dozier
john pilger
the los angeles times
