 |
Saturday, February 14, 2009
'I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of suspect'
Yesterday's snapshot includes: Today Thomas E. Ricks reminded everyone, "Remember the elections a couple of years ago, puple fingers, people coming out? Followed by a civil war. So I think there's a lot of reasons that Iraq '09 is going to be very tough and harder, in fact, than the last year of Bush's war. And I think there's a good chance that Obama's war in Iraq will last longer than Bush's war." We'll come back to Ricks and that CBS interview in a minute. [. . .]"I think there are a lot of reasons Iraq '09 is going to be very tough and, in fact, harder than the last year of Bush's war. And I think there is a good chance that Obama's war in Iraq will last longer than Bush's war." That's Thomas Ricks speaking today on CBS' Washington Unplugged (link is video). Thomas E. Ricks has released a new book: Two excerpts from my new book The Gamble are running in the Washington Post Sunday and Monday. There also are some cool on-line only things -- not just another excerpt, but also a great video about how one officer, Capt. Samuel Cook of the 3rd Armored Cavalry, conducted counterinsurgency operations in one part of Iraq last year. (To read more about how Cook talked an insurgent leader into cooperation, read this excerpt from the book, a section called "The Insurgent Who Loved Titanic.")
Yesterday's snapshot included two paragraphs of Ricks' book on where the top US commander, Gen Ray Odierno, he sees the Iraq War in 2014. Today on CBS News' exclusive webcast, Ricks spoke with Slate's John Dickerson about the reclassification game -- Barack's promised on the campaign trail that he would withdraw "combat" troops within 16 months of being sworn into office -- and noted "there is no pacifisitic branch of the US Army." He detailed the realities everyone tries to avoid, "Newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops."For those who can't stream online, Michelle Levi's " Thomas Ricks: Obama’s Iraq War Will Be Long" (CBS News) is a write up of the interview. Excerpt: Dickerson then turned to Afghanistan, asking what effect ground conditions in Iraq have on its neighboring battleground. "The odd thing about Barack Obama’s promise to get troops out of Iraq so that he can use them in Afghanistan is that it is not a departure from Bush, it is a continuation of Bush," Ricks said. "It's the same unwarranted optimism."Also NPR's Fresh Air featured Thomas E. Ricks as their guest Monday. Sunday's Washington Post will have Ricks' " The war in Iraq isn't over. The main events may not even have happened yet:" In October 2008, as I was finishing my latest book on the Iraq war, I visited the Roman Forum during a stop in Italy. I sat on a stone wall on the south side of the Capitoline Hill and studied the two triumphal arches at either end of the Forum, both commemorating Roman wars in the Middle East.
To the south, the Arch of Titus, completed in 81 A.D., honors victories in Egypt and Jerusalem. To the north, the Arch of Septimius Severus, built 122 years later, celebrates triumphant campaigns in Mesopotamia. The structures brought home a sad realization: It's simply unrealistic to believe that the U.S. military will be able to pull out of the Middle East.
It was a week when U.S. forces had engaged in combat in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan -- a string of countries stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean -- following in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, the Romans and the British. For thousands of years, it has been the fate of the West's great powers to become involved in the region's politics. Since the Suez Crisis of 1956, when British and French influence suffered a major reduction, it has been the United States' turn to take the lead there. And sitting on that wall, it struck me that the more we talk about getting out of the Middle East, the more deeply we seem to become engaged in it. President Obama campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq, but even he has talked about a post-occupation force. The widespread expectation inside the U.S. military is that we will have tens of thousands of troops there for years to come. Indeed, in his last interview with me last November, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told me that he would like to see about 30,000 troops still there in 2014 or 2015.
Yet many Americans seem to think that the war, or at least our part in it, is close to being wrapped up. When I hear that, I worry. I think of a phrase that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz often used in the winter of 2003, before the invasion: "Hard to imagine." It was hard to imagine, he would tell members of Congress, the media and other skeptics, that the war would last as long as they feared, or that it could cost as much as all that, or that it might require so many troops. I worry now that we are once again failing to imagine what we have gotten ourselves into and how much more we will have to pay in blood, treasure, prestige and credibility.
I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of us suspect. On the front page of the New York Times today, Steven Lee Myers offers " A New Role for Iraqi Militants: Patrons of the Arts" which is a feature article and does not belong on the front page or in the news section. Excerpt: This week in Baghdad, the city once terrorized by those killings, Sheik Mazin mingled in a white-walled art gallery as the patron of an exhibition of paintings and sculptures that would not, exactly, be out of place in Chelsea or SoHo: abstract art, expressionist paintings and conceptual works larded with symbols of Iraq's ancient history and today's reality.
The goal was "to show the entire world that we are not as the media portrays us, a movement that believes only in bearing arms and knows no culture other than that of violence," Sheik Mazin said of Mr. Sadr's movement, which is widely blamed for its part in the violence that followed the American invasion in 2003.
"The Sadr movement," he said, "is also one that believes in ideas and encourages and patronizes the arts."
The natural response to the last statement is to point to Leni Riefenstahl and, most infamously, Triumph of the Will. But grasp that while this nonsense makes the front page, Marc Santora's bad (and lurid) article on yesterday's bombing -- the worst single act of violence in Iraq so far this year -- is buried inside the paper. What's the take away? Front page, prominent with color photo, ARTS COME TO IRAQ! Pimping the illegal war. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthomas e. rickscbs newsmichelle levithe washington postfresh airnprthe new york timessteven lee myers
Posted at 09:51 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Little boys need their jollies, papers indulge them
Inside today's New York Times (A5 in the national edition), Marc Santora offers " Suicide Bomber Kills 35 in an Attack on Shiite Pilgrims in Iraq" and it's far worse than an earlier version he filed yesterday afternoon. Gape in open mouth wonder at the lede: "A suicide bomber hiding explosives under her garments . . ." You really don't need to go further than that as you picture Marc in front of his TV every Friday night, in hog heaven, while Fox airs Terminator and Dollhouse and he attempts to figure out what it is about violent women that makes his little Marky pop around so wildly. Here's Timothy Williams and Riyadh Mohammed on January 2nd: "At least 24 tribal leaders who were meeting at the house of an influential Sunni sheik to discuss national reconciliation efforts were killed and as many as 42 others were wounded Friday after a member of the tribe detonated an explosive vest among the guests, government officials said." Sam Dagher and Mudhafer al-Husaini on January 4th are far into their article (paragraph eight) when they drop this detail, "The man in the coat 'was stuffed with explosives,' the agent said." Edward Wong June 15, 2005: "A suicide bomber blew himself up on Tuesday in a crowd of retirees lining up to receive their pensions in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing at least 22 people and wounding 80 others, including women and children, police and hospital officials said." Richard A. Oppel Jr., June 23, 2008, on a female suicide bomber: "The bomber who struck in Baquba, the provincial capital, wore a vest padded with powerful explosives and laced with small projectiles, which appeared to be iron ball bearings, the officials said. The magnitude of the blast raised questions about the sophistication of the bomb, which witnesses described as unusually strong. " We can do this all day. The point is, Marc Santora really appears to want to peer "under her garments." Male or female, no Iraqi bomber is walking up to their intended target with their explosives in plain sight. If you read the above articles and more from the Times you also hear various Iraqi figure-heads quoted and they'll usually make remarks about female bombers and concealment that offer two things. 1) Refuse to take responsibility for the fact that Iraqi women are covered from head to toe because of the thugs the US installed. Iraqi women did not have to dress like that -- and many did not -- prior to the start of the illegal war. For all the jaw-boning of torture techniques being brought from Afghanistan to Iraq, you'd think some of those 'concerned' types would notice what else got exported. How many Iraqis have been tortured? Even one is too many, that's not the point. The point is the near Burka wardrobe across Iraq effects the daily lives of many more people than does torture. It limits women's movements and it limits their freedoms. And the next time a reporter -- male or female -- feels the need to jot down the remarks about 'concealment' from a 'witness' (some aren't eye witnesses, some are officials), they should ask the gas bag they're speaking to, "Would you support mini-skirts for Iraqi women then? You are aware that this outfit worn currently is part of the curtailment of women's rights, aren't you?" 2) Fear of the vagina. You really have to read about ten reports -- read them in a row -- on female suicide bombers in the Times to get these officials (most quoted are not eye witnesses) going on and on and grasp that their alarmist fear is of vaginas. You can't see! You can't tell what's there! It might have teeth! My poor penis! I don't generally go Freudian here but, read ten articles from the New York Times reporting on a female suicide bomber and see if you don't pick it up if you just zero in on the Iraqi official speaking. So Marc wants to look at the female bomber and peer "under her garments." How very. His earlier attempt, where he wasn't attempting to get his jollies, was something I intended to praise this morning. I have no desire to praise a reporter lusting (in print) after his own cheap thrills. Keep it in your pants while reporting, Santora. Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times) should be advised to do the same. No one has time for their psychosexual dramas. That's what therapy's for, boys. And if you're really not seeing it, check these two reports from McClatchy. The first, written by sicko Trent Daniels isn't obsessed with beneath the clothes -- that's when the bomber's gender is unknown. The second, when it's known it's a women finds Trent and his co-writer eager to lift the skirt. What a bunch of sick f**ks -- literally. Since yesterday morning, the following community sites have updated: Cedric's Big MixRoundtable on Iraq9 hours ago The Daily JotIRAQ ROUNDTABLE9 hours ago Mikey Likes It!Roundtable on Iraq9 hours ago Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attituderoundtable on iraq9 hours ago Thomas Friedman is a Great ManIraq Roundtable9 hours ago Trina's KitchenIraq roundtable in the Kitchen9 hours ago Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)Iraq roundtable9 hours ago The Common IllsIraq roundtable9 hours ago SICKOFITRADLZSherrod Brown flying on the people's dime13 hours ago Ruth's ReportIraq13 hours ago Oh Boy It Never EndsCopacabana13 hours ago Like Maria Said PazAn explanation for Siorta13 hours ago The first eight listed above are the Iraq roundtable we did last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. the new york timesmarc santorasam daghermudhafer al-husainirichard a. oppel jr.edward wongtimothy williamsriyadh mohammedthe los angeles timesmonte morinmcclatchy newspaperstrenton daniel
Posted at 09:50 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Friday, February 13, 2009
Rebecca: We're doing an unplanned roundtable and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava, me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Trina of Trina's Kitchen and Wally of The Daily Jot, Kat, you want to explain how we ended up with a roundtable.
Kat: Except for Betty and Cedric, everyone's at Trina's. And Rebecca and I were on the couch with out laptops and I was scanning and scanning the net for topics to write about and just couldn't find anything. Rebecca groaned, I said, "I know!" And we're doing a roundtable with anyone else who hadn't already done a post tonight plus dragging Ava and C.I. into it.
Trina: Ava and C.I. are taking notes and will type up the rush transcript. If they speak one after the other, I'll help out with note taking.
Rebecca: So let's start with Iraq. The Iraq War is over, right? That's what the press has told us, so it's over and all is peachy keen in Iraq.
Mike: It really seems like they -- the press -- lost interest in Iraq and, now that so many are leaving Iraq and rushing off to Afghanistan, they want to find a way to justify their decreased coverage of Iraq. So they try to write it off as a 'success.'
Ava: I think that's a really solid point and that, yes, when you are, for example, ABC pulling your news staff out of Iraq and partnering with the BBC to provide you with Iraq content when needed, you're going to really gas bag a river in order to justify the fact that you've killed your coverage. You're going to justify your actions in any way you can.
Betty: But they didn't really get to get away with that this week. They tried to. C.I.'s documented, for example, the New York Times' effort to downplay Iraq all week while 'reporting' on it. Wednesday's violence ended up being buried at the end of the Thursday article despite the fact that more people were reported dead in Iraq than in Afghanistan and they tossed Afghanistan on the front page. Then Thursday's violence, reported today, is curious for what it leaves out.
Cedric: I agree with Betty and one of the things C.I.'s really great at is noting the patterns before anyone does. I'm sure a lot of people reading today's New York Times article on Thursday's violence didn't even register that there were three assassination attempts --
Mike: Two successful.
Cedric: Two successful, flowing from the provincial elections. The paper reports one and mentions another in passing without even noting the name of the guy. This is a pattern and C.I. was the first to note, we're going back years, the targeting of government officials, the first to notice that Mosul was becoming the most violent city in Iraq, just go down the list. I have no idea why the New York Times would ignore what appears to be a pattern. It's hard for me to believe it's accidental.
Trina: I don't believe it's accidental at all and considering that paper's history, even just the most recent history, they've lost the right to the benefit of the doubt after selling the illegal war. They promised, in their sort-of-culpa, a greater look at their actions in selling the illegal war and they never provided it. Howard Kurtz, in the Washington Post, did a lengthy report on how the Post got it wrong. The New York Times never did anything like that. But the week started with the nonsense that things were going great in Iraq and the reality is completely different.
Wally: I could be wrong but I'm finding -- when Ava, Kat, C.I. and I are speaking to college groups about the illegal war -- a lot more interest. And there's always been an interest but it seems like it's increased. Kat, Ava, C.I., anyone else noticing that?
Kat: Yeah. And I think it goes hand in hand with the fact that our news outlets are not reporting as they need to be. So when we're discussing Iraq, this is often the first some are hearing about whatever examples or details we're addressing. I'll give an example, at the start of this week, when C.I. was talking about the reports that [Nouri] al-Maliki was making overtures to Baathist officials who had left the country and how al-Maliki and his supporters were denying that, no one knew about that, no one we spoke to. They had a lot of questions about that. Then, Thursday, Trenton Daniels does his really bad article on it. Which leaves out Dawa's strong, public denial. It really was a white wash article but I don't really have any respect left for McClatchy.
Rebecca: I'm going to jump in with an Iraq and media question that Lilly e-mailed to ask me. Last week, C.I. noted the reputation McClatchy had for bias re: Iraq coverage and she wondered if I could write about that. I can't. C.I. could but, C.I., I'll put you on the spot here now.
C.I.: McClatchy's Iraq coverage has always been seen as tilting towards "Awakening" Councils. That's due to Nancy A. Youssef's reporting, yes. It's do to Leila's and others. But it's also due to blog posts by Leila and Iraqi correspondents where they have revealed opinions and, time and again, it has been pro-"Awakening." The Los Angeles Times, by contast, is thought to be biased towards the KRG and the reason for that has to do with their Kurdish ties. The New York Times is only interested in officials and the State Dept will always trump the military at the paper. The Washington Post has had too much of a change over and too many strong voices to get one reputation pinned on them. Certain things you might have noted in, for example, Ellen Knickmeyer's reporting would be countered with Sudarsan Raghavan's who would be countered with Ernesto Londono who would be countered by Anthony Shadid. And to be really clear, the bulk of the outlets have reporters capable of strong reporting. McClatchy harmed itself partnering up with an 'NGO' and whether they can recover or not, I don't know. But the New York Times, for example, I can't think of anyone that's not capable of strong writing. Time limitations, rewriting and editing from outside Iraq can destroy a strong report. There are other things as well. But the days where the Times just had a propagandist in Iraq are gone.
Rebecca: You've praised Tina Susman recently, at the Los Angeles Times, and I'm wondering who else has strengths?
C.I.: Everyone. Leila Fadel has let her division slip out of control but even Leila has talent -- even at this late date. I'll praise anyone reporting from Iraq for any of those four papers tomorrow. Tina Susman, for example, usually has the context. You can expect that in her writing. But is there anyone that hasn't had praise? Other than Trenton? I don't care for him and if I don't care for you, there's a reason. And if I really don't care for you, I've checked you out and spoken to editors who've worked with you. I really don't care for Trenton. But if he wrote an amazing article, I'd praise it tomorrow. If he even wrote a good one, I'd praise it.
Cedric: You called out Helen Pidd today and I loved it. It was funny and it was important and I don't think that's really grasped. The funny part, yes. But the important part, no. You're calling Helen Pidd because she's repeating a falsehood. And if it doesn't get called out, and called out loudly, it seeps into the coverage. We all saw that when Barack put out the lie that Bill Clinton pardoned two women with the Weather Underground. The next morning, after that debate, you and Ava wrote a piece and you walked people through it. And the lie stayed in. That night, you let it rip and tore into people by name for repeating the lie and only then did the public record start getting it right.
Ava: I'm grabbing because C.I. nodded to me. First, Barack floated two things in that debate and the press -- gee, which side were they on? -- went with the worst. David Corn couldn't let it go and was screaming about it in a press conference and writing his high drama posts at Mother Jones. When he was finally forced to issue a limited correction, he did so minimizing his actions. But, yeah, we did think it would straighten out in the course of the news cycle. That morning, when we wrote that Bill Clinton didn't issue two pardons to the Weather Underground -- or any pardons, we were writing an entry and thinking it would all come out during the day. It didn't. And C.I. had to hit hard. And when people lie, C.I. has to hit hard. When people refuse to correct mistakes, C.I. has to hit hard. Kat and I were talking about that this week, about how difficult, for example, the morning entries are and how C.I. has to include this and that and cover this and that and is going from one cell phone to the other over and over and there are plenty of times where C.I.'s speaking to someone, in the press, who is saying, "Call it out or it's in the cycle and it stays in." It is not easy for the press cycle to self-correct. And to drop back to the Weather issue, credit to ABC News who quickly self-corrected, to Jake Tapper and ABC News who quickly self-corrected. But that's very rare. Much more likely is the David Corn who refuses for days and days to correct and then, when he finally does, does so in a snarky manner where he refuses to take responsibility for repeating falsehoods and then has to make a Marc Rich 'joke' to try to excuse the seriousness of the matter. It is a serious matter. For days and days, the press ran with, "Barack's friends with Bill Ayers but Bill Clinton pardoned two people in Weather Underground!" That created a dynamic to the story that was never true.
Trina: I have no idea why Helen Pidd couldn't get her facts straight. That's really embarrassing to be reporting something, a month after it took place, that is not true and that many, many MSM news reports have established wasn't true. As for McClatchy, I think they're useless at this point. I repost the snapshot once a week, sometimes more but usually I just post once a week. And the drive-by e-mails, oh. "Never anything nice." Along with Tina Susman, Ned Parker's been praised recently, Alissa J. Rubin's been praised several times recently, Sam Dagher and I can think of many others. And guess what, it's really not required that C.I. praise. But I do love the drive-bys -- most of whom seem to never grasp that "Here's C.I.'s 'Iraq snapshot'" means "Here's something I didn't write." But if Rebecca's reader's question got answered, I'd like to move to the issue of the elections because I'm really getting sick of the nonsense where they supposedly mean something. Am I alone on that? I know C.I.'s sick of it, anyone else?
Cedric: I have watched in amazement as the press has spun these elections and turned it into some deep meaning for Nouri al-Maliki who was not a candidate. Each and every belief they espouse -- which they present as fact -- has at least one counter-belief but they ignore that to promote al-Maliki. Over and over.
Wally: And today, one of the reports was how al-Maliki's 'success' in the elections -- in elections where he was not a candidate but somehow found 'success' -- proved that Iraq wants a "strong man." Iraq wants it? Or the reporters want it? And, yeah, Trina, I'm sick of it. And I really do think the press wants a strong man or that they know the military does and they spin it that way for the military.
Betty: I'd agree with Wally on that -- I agree with Cedric's comments as well but specifically about what the military wants and what our government wants. We put thugs in charge in Iraq because thugs could frighten and scare the populace and if that happened quickly the efforts to privatize everything in Iraq could move quickly -- not to mention violence could diminish. So we put thugs in charge and I think we are trying to sell this belief that -- after we've put thugs in charge -- what Iraq really wants is what we did. It's a justification. An after the fact justification. Which brings us back to Ava's point about the justifications. Now Cedric's point about how they keep going with what shores up their view is good point as well.
Rebecca: Today's snapshot -- and link to that please -- includes a commentary that appeared last night, a commentary by C.I., and that was included at Trina's request. Trina, why don't you talk about that?
Trina: Sure and since Ava and C.I. are typing, we all agreed when we want a link, we will request it. That way they don't have to figure out what needs to be hunted down and what doesn't and we're also trying to avoid multiple links because we don't want to be up all night waiting to post it anymore than they want to be up all night hunting down links. But the commentary went up last night and I asked C.I. to please include as much of it as possible in the snapshot. I'm going to summarize it. Iraq held provincial elections January 31st. Iraq has 18 provinces. Only 14 held elections. al-Maliki's Dawa party did well in 9 provinces -- well, nothing that would resemble a mandate for Dawa -- and didn't do so well in 3 provinces. 4 provinces still haven't held elections. At least three will shortly. C.I.?
C.I.: The three Kurdish provinces have scheduled elections for May.
Trina: Thanks. And then there's Kirkuk that no one knows if or when it will be allowed to hold a vote. We can come back to that. But 3 provinces didn't go to Dawa -- southern provinces. 3 Kurdish provinces will not go to Dawa. It's doubtful that Kirkuk would -- due to the ethnic violence and ethnic splits in the region. So that's 6 Dawa will not have support in and you can toss in Kirkuk and make it seven. This is not a huge win for Dawa. This reflects a country that's a lot more split than is being noticed. And, as C.I. pointed out, if you want to use these still non-official results to make some sort of a statement, the statement has to be that the south and north are not on the same page as centeral Iraq, where Baghdad and al-Maliki are and that al-Maliki's got a little bigger space than Hamid Karzai to move around in. But that space could shrink at any time.
Cedric: Agreed and it also does, as C.I. noted, indicate support for a federation and not a nation with the south breaking off in the same way the north's KRG has.
Mike: Has anyone -- Wally, Kat, Ava and C.I. -- have any of you spoke of that in front of students or other groups? If so what was the reaction?
Wally: C.I.'s addressed it about seven or eight times this week. The way C.I. sets it up may mitigate some of the reactions because -- like with the commentary we're talking about -- C.I. notes that a decision for Iraqis and only them. So you don't get some of the response you might get. But there seems to be a collective gulp each time at the prospect of a federation.
Mike: That would be my reaction as well. Do we want to talk about why it's not a US decision? I know we grasp it but someone coming in late may not.
Kat: Well it's not for the US, an occupying power, to determine the fate of Iraq. Iraqis should make that determination. If they want a nation-state, that's their choice, if they want a federation, that's their choice. It's not up to the US to impose anything on it and, honestly, were the US to impose something it would be based on what they think would provide a quick fix. Not unlike the decision to allow Nouri to install his thugs in the ministries -- especially the Ministry of Interior -- decisions based on quick fixes that result in real damage.
Betty: And, I mean, it's like a marriage. Someone outside of it can't decide to end it or to continue it. That has to come from those in the marriage. If Iraq's going to move forward as a nation-state or become a federation that's up to them.
Mike: And the US shouldn't interfere if only out of selfish reasons. If the decision comes from the US or is imposed by the US or encouraged by it, then all the problems with the decision for years and years are the fault of the US. If only to avoid being the ones holding the bag, the US should stay out of it and allow Iraq to make the decision.
Wally: Exactly. It goes to s**t, the US really doesn't need to be any more responsible than it already is.
Kat: Which it already is. Responsible.
Rebecca: Thomas E. Ricks' new book is The Gamble. C.I. offered an opinion on it this week, clearly labeled "my opinion," in a snapshot and I'm wondering if anyone got any e-mail on that -- not C.I. but anyone who reposted?
Cedric: I got some loon screaming the book is pro-war and how dare we endorse pro-war. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?
Rebecca: Exactly. It was clear that it was an opinon and C.I. had noted that the community would disagree with the idea that the US needed to remain in Iraq for some time but I still had a loon -- probably the same one you did -- e-mailing on a war path.
C.I.: I did label that "my opinion" and did so because I didn't want to cause anyone any trouble or for their to be any mistake that I was speaking for the community -- most of whom have not read the book or started reading it. It is a great book. It's wonderfully written. Think of some of the Iraq books by reporters and how badly written they have been. This isn't a book you have to grimace in order to get through. It's a pleasure to read. But, yeah, we can disagree with some of his conclusions. He's very clear as to why he comes to the conclusions and he could be right about them but I disagree, for example, that the US needs to remain in Iraq. I also disagree, to cite another example, that MoveOn's General Betray Us ads were off limits. I think when Colin Powell countermands Bill Clinton, 1993 on gays serving openly in the military, and does so publicly, undermines the campaign promise Clinton has made, I don't think we can say that the military isn't political or isn't fair game. The Gamble notes some examples, including Powell, but that really went beyond just politics, it went to an attack on civilian command of the military. It went to an attack on the entire system. After that, my opinion, this idea that the military command is off limits -- no, they aren't and no one is off-limits in a democracy. My opinion. But this is an amazing book and I think he's very clear when he's expressing his opinion and very clear when he isn't. I think it's the best book on Iraq that's been published this decade. It's a pleasure to read because he does have a style, he is a writer and he hasn't just clipped his old articles and done a copy and paste. He's also very generous to other reporters. He cites and names them and not just in the end notes but in the actual text. I think it's a weighty and ambitious work that succeeds in all of its goals, it's perfectly executed. My opinion.
Rebecca: I know Elaine's read it and loves it but other than that, Mike's the only one I know who's reading it. Mike?
Mike: I'm enjoying the book. I'm finally up to the half-way mark. It's like 170-something, where ever the section of pictures ends, that's the page I stopped on. It's jam-packed with information. And that's new information and new analysis. It's not a clip-job. I found the section on General Ray Odierno especially interesting.
Wally: Ava and I have read it. It's a big book, over 320 pages of text. And what stood out was the ending. A lot of the time, you end up with an author who starts winding down and the last chapter may or may not be worth reading. Ricks' final chapter contains information and observations that go to the conclusions he makes. And that includes Odierno's belief that at least 30,000 US troops will be needed in Iraq through 2014 or 2015.
Ava: That's really the big shock. We do talk about the book when we're speaking about Iraq because it is about Iraq, it's new and most college libraries have at least one copy or are getting one. So when we get to that point, you can hear and see puzzlement. And someone will bring up the treaty and we'll have to do the walk through. It's really amazing how badly the MSM bungled it and the Beggar so-called Alternative Media didn't give a damn. They were too busy with their orgasms over Barack. So we have to go into what the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement actually does and says.
Kat: And people are always shocked. And they have been since since last year when C.I. was sketching it out. So one thing I'm really hoping the book does -- and I've got fifty or so more pages before I'm done with it but I am enjoying it -- is get the word out on the realities. Getting back to C.I.'s point, I never had a problem telling when Ricks was expressing his opinion. He doesn't try to present it as fact. He explains his take and why he has it. I wish he was saying, "The US needs to get out! And now!" He's not but this wasn't a piece of propaganda. And he's synthesizing and it's just an amazing book. Trina, are you reading it?
Trina: Yes, but remember I'm taking care of my grandbaby --
Ava: Emphasis on baby and noting that because a child under two requires a lot more direct care than a child of eight or older who can have play time on their own and who would be in school for some of the day.
Trina: True, thank you for that. And we're teething.this week so it's a little more hectic. So I'm only on page 201. So I've really just finished the period where Robert Gates is house cleaning Donald Rumsfeld's people -- including Peter Pace. It's a serious book and that alone is reason enough to read it. If you're interested in the Iraq War, whether you support it ending or continuing, now or in the immediate future, you will find the book absorbing. And to back up what C.I. was pointing out about the genoristy, Michael Ware, for example, of CNN gets cited by name. A lot of these books -- and they have been cut and paste books -- just say CNN. If you're saying something was reported right, if something deserves noting, it deserves naming. And Ricks doesn't balk at giving credit.
Rebecca: Okay a question just for two people. I have a young child. That's my question. No, I'm joking. I have a young child who is just a few months older than Trina's grandbaby and Betty has three young children. I know that, for me, a lot of my feelings regarding the illegal war and the need to end it come from that. I was against the war before I gave birth and before I was pregnant. But what I'm getting at is that, yes, for me, having a child has intesified my opposition to the Iraq War and I'm wondering if Trina or Betty has anything similar going on? And Betty, Trina's indicating for you to go first.
Betty: Okay. Thank you. For me, all my decisions go through that filter. I'm a single parent and that may be why but I do think about my kids. I hear the peanut crisis and immediately think of my kids. I'm listening to the weather report/prediction for the next day and I'm thinking, "What do my kids need to wear for that?" So I've got that going on all the time and, yes, when I hear about a young man or woman dying -- Iraqi, US -- Thursday the British soldier, I am thinking of it in terms of, "What if it was one of my three children?" I would say that is very true for me. And let's talk about this aspect of the Iraq War continuing past 2015 -- because 35,000 US service members in Iraq up to 2015 means still there past it. I do think, "Well are they going to draft?" I do think, "What if one of my kids wants to rebel and do it by enlisting?" These are serious concerns and not fleeting thoughts for me.
Trina: I would agree with that. Mike was our big concern, he's our youngest son, when the Iraq War started. His father had a long talk with him about that -- about the war that was coming -- for that reason. Mike has a younger sister but she's a girly-girl and who begged for excuses to get out of gym class so we didn't really see her as possibly enlisting in the military. And once my husband talked with Mike and that was straightened out, I did feel an easing of tension. So I do think there is a personal aspect. I'm not saying it made me object less to the illegal war but, as it was gearing up to start, it did take one worry off my mind. One aspect -- and I think Betty and Rebecca will agree with that -- of parenting during a time of war is grasping, especially when the kids are very small, how much they depend on you and how instrumental you are in shaping and mis-shaping them. And that does lead you to wonder about the childhood experiences of some who make the news -- someone who died while serving or someone who was killed by a mortar like the two children today. I'm sure a young father would have a similar story to share and I just want to note that we're not saying, "This is a mothering issue." I also think that, for those who support the Iraq War, the same news is greeted differently and they see it from a different perspective. But their being a parent would also impact their reaction.
Rebecca: I think that's a good point. In 2006, C.I. regularly started asking the question of whether those who support the illegal war are more committed to continuing it than those opposed to the illegal war are committed to ending it. Just going around, and starting with Cedric and then Betty, true or false today?
Cedric: Absolutely true. I thought it was true when C.I. first started asking that question. And it's only more so today. C.I.?
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st
As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.
For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Cedric: Thanks. We do need to note that when talking about this topic. But most of the movement broke off a long time ago. They give lip service at election time because it's an issue that energizes voters but they really aren't concerned with ending the illegal war. I think the small number still committed to continuing the illegal war are much more dedicated than the bulk of the left. Betty?
Betty: United For Peace and Justice does nothing. They hold their 'strategy' session and cast themselves as the cheering squad for Barack Obama and suddenly some politician -- a politician! -- is more important to an alleged peace group than is ending the Iraq War. United For Peace and Justice is disgusting. That's true of the bulk of them. They've disgraced themselves. I agreed we need to include the news of that action and I'll also note that Military Families Speak Out just finished up a four-day action. I'm not really impressed with these other people and their "How we can help Barack" articles. It's not the peace movement's job to "help" Barack. It's the peace movement's job to make demands, to make noise and to force politicians to end the illegal war.
Rebecca: Okay, now for those of us physically in the same room. How about we start with Mike, who's seated next to me, and just work our way around which means we end with C.I.?
Mike: I agree so much with what Betty and Cedric just said and it's not just CODESTINK or United For Peace and Justice that's become an embarrasment. The Center For Constitutional Rights is a joke. They refuse to call out Barack. They couch every criticism and cower. The ACLU has shown some real strength -- could I get a link for them for that reason -- but the Center, which is supposed to be radical, is just this huge, huge disappointment. The bulk of the left and 'left' has disgraced themselves. And it's why, even though those wanting the Iraq War ended are in the majority, nothing's forcing the end. Nothing will until people learn to demand it. We are the government. As long as we act like our employees are movie stars we worship, we're powerless and chicken ass cowards who can't accomplish a damn thing.
Kat: I don't think anyone's going to disagree with which side is more committed at this point. And it's pathetic because, as we've noted before, if Hillary had been elected, the same left that plays the quiet game currently would be demanding action. A lot of it is people being scared to criticize Barack, a lot of it is them believing the hype, a lot of it is the desire to worship a man. But it's pathetic and it's pathetic that they believed his lies about Iraq and it's pathetic that they played Sophie's Choice with Iraq and Afghanistan -- that knowing that while he was saying he'd pull 'combat' troops from Iraq, he was saying he'd send more to Afghanistan, these same so-called lefties endorsed him and lied for him and covered for him.
Trina: You know, I look back on Vietnam and I remember LBJ being called out and Nixon. Today, I look around and feel like we have nothing but immaturity at the top of the peace chain. And I feel we have people cutting private deals at the expense of the peace movement. I do not consider Kim Gandy a voice of peace. I know some people do. I know some idiots, like Pundit Mom, think Kim did something wonderful to end the Iraq War. Buy a clue, you idiot. But Kim's not criticized Barack and what do we have now? Kim angling for a job with the administration. Please, our so-called leaders have been bought and paid for and seem, in retrospect, to have existed completely to tap down on actions and outrage. They've repeatedly -- and The Nation has been the worst here -- attempted to turn a vote for the Democratic Party into a peace action. And then they've done nothing but offer excuses for Dems in office -- despite that laughable editorial they ran starting on the cover about how they wouldn't support any candidate who blah, blah, blah.
Wally: Yeah, that's true. And you have to wonder, since Katrina vanden Heuvel used the Roosevelt board position to hook up early members of Barack's team -- like his Facebook connect, you have to wonder how genuine that editorial was and how much it was about setting up Barack because The Nation was pimping him long before 2007. I want to turn it to a point that C.I.'s made for five years now. The Iraq War hits the six year mark in March. Where is the Pacifica Radio program devoted to Iraq. There's not one. There's not even a half-hour program once a week that's sole focus is Iraq. So let's quit pretending that any of our leaders give a damn about Iraq. They don't. An illegal war is ongoing and they've refused to cover it as such. What show started covering the first Gulf War?
C.I.: KPFA's Flashpoints.
Wally: Thank you. There has never been a focus on Iraq. You can actually see these Beggar outlets spike their coverage -- increase it -- of Iraq -- which is really just discussions because they don't report from Iraq -- as elections approach. Otherwise, they ignore it. So, no, they don't care.
Ava: I -- I'm going to need another question. This gets into something C.I. and I have agreed to write about for Third this weekend. I can't comment. I doubt C.I. can.
Rebecca: Okay. How about this for your question: If the left doesn't find a way to get active, when does the Iraq War end?
Ava: I have no idea. If they don't get active, the illegal war does not end before 2013. I don't know that it ends in 2013. Rebecca, you remember how, summer 2005, we were all working on Third -- Betty, Rebecca, Mike, C.I and I. The others weren't doing their own sites and weren't working on it with us then. But Rebecca, you remember how it was an awful, awful writing edition and we were all stressed and C.I. brings up the fact that ideally The Common Ills should go dark in 2008 and we're all shocked by that and then really shocked when C.I. says that the Iraq War will still be going on past 2008. That was 2005. And the idea that the Iraq War would continue three more years was just unbelievable to us. A few of us even thought C.I. was joking. But it's 2009 and the Iraq War is ongoing. So I return to the points C.I. made then about who wants it more -- those who want to end it or those who want to continue it -- and who treats it as a serious issue. We have a left that defocuses and hops all over the place. I mean, Rebecca, you were writing about this recently, how the Beggar outlets are all over Gaza this week and completely ignoring Iraq. And pair that up with Wally's point about, all this time later, still not having one program -- even a half-hour, once a week -- on any of the Pacifica Radio stations that focuses solely on Iraq. There is no concern for ending the Iraq War. There was once a desire to make a few fast bucks off the illegal war on the part of many writing bad books and making bad 'documentaries.' The Amy Goodmans will continue to trot out Iraq when it's pledge drive funding time but that's just lip service. They only care about what they can make a buck off. Typical Panhandle Media.
C.I.: Everybody's said what needs saying. If you want a specific example, I think we can offer up Free Speech Radio News. Betty started the roundtable noting the huge amount of violence all week in Iraq and she specifically stated Wednesday's violence and Thursday's violence as well as today's -- Fridays. I think it takes a lot of nerve to do what Free Speech Radio News did this week. Today -- Friday -- the violence was the worst of the year thus far. And every outlet had to weigh in. So what does Free Speech Radio News do? They show up declaring, "A female suicide bomber in Iraq killed nearly 40 women and children today as they made the annual Shiite pilgrimage to Karbala to mark the death of the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. This is the most deadly bombing in Iraq so far this year. And the third day in a row of attacks against the Shiite Pilgrims." Oh, it's the third day in a row, is it? Well, where was your Wednesday coverage, where was your Thursday coverage? They didn't offer any. And that quote, that's the extent of their Friday coverage. So if you're looking for the perfect example, take that program. Ignoring Iraq all week. Ignoring the House and Senate hearings on Iraq and Afghanistan that took place Thursday, ignoring this and ignoring that. And when forced to comment, they serve up a news item that makes it sound like they have been covering the attacks when they haven't. It's all a bunch of frauds and fakers and I'm sick of it. I think we all are.
Rebecca: And the oven buzzer just went off so this is going to be it. I don't know about Betty and Cedric, but here we've been drinking -- alcohol -- throughout this. And, except for Ava and C.I., eating. Ava and C.I. have been taking notes so we're going to end now that Trina's loaf of French bread is coming out of the oven. This roundtable focused exclusively on Iraq. Sites other than The Common Ills will offer C.I.'s Friday snapshot below this.
|
Posted at 11:12 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Friday,
February 13, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Thomas E. Ricks tries
to drag Americans to the grown ups table (no word on how successful the
attempt was), Blackwater changes its name, at least 40 dead from a
single bombing, and more. Today Alan Gomez (USA Today) reports
Maj Gen Michael Oates declaring he has no idea why US troops are in
southern Iraq and "that he believes recent security gains there are
permanent -- and that some of his troops are openly wondering why
they're still there, even though he believes their presence remains
crucial." Oatest acknowledges problems in Mosul but appears to think
that's it. This as Iraq's rocked with the worst bombing of the year
this morning. Iskandariya is south of Baghdad but it is considered to
be "central Iraq" and not "southern Iraq." Wisam Mohammed, Sami al-Jumaili, Waleed Ibrahim, Khalid al-Ansary, Mohammed Abbas and Michael Christie (Reuters) report,
"The attacks occurred despite heavy security on the pilgrimage route.
The ranks of troops and police patrolling Kerbala were boosted by 5,000
to 30,000, a city official said. The Arbain rite, which culminates
early on Monday, is difficult to secure. Many pilgrims walk all the way
to Kerbala, and are easy targets as they cover hundreds of miles
clutching religious banners." Michael Evans (Times of London) states,
"A female suicide bomber disguised as a Shia pilgrim on the annual trek
to the holy city of Karbala today killed over 30 people, mostly women
and children. The woman set of a device hidden beneath the traditional
abaya Muslim garment. At least 60 were wounded with head and chest
injuries." The death toll and the number wounded have continued to
rise throughout the day. Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times states,
"The bomber had reportedly tried to pass through a checkpoint at Abu Al
Jassim village, but failed. It was then that she entered the crowd of
women and children who were eating lunch and detonated explosives
strapped to her body." Saad Sarhan and Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) provide
this context, "The bombing, which occurred shortly before noon, was the
deadliest in Iraq this year. . . . Millions of Shiite pilgrims make a
yearly pilgrimage to Karbala for the end of a 40-day period of mourning
commemorating the death of Hussain bin Ali, one of the most revered
figures in Shiite Islam." Wisam Mohammed and Sami al-Jumaili (Reuters) report 40 dead and sixty-nine injured. At the United Nations, the following statement was released on behalf of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: The
Secretary-General is appalled by the suicide bomb attack against Shi'a
pilgrims near Baghdad today, and similar attacks targeting innocent
civilians in the past days which have left dozens of people dead and
wounded, including many women and children. These acts cannot be
justified by any political or religious cause and must be condemned in
the strongest possible terms. The Secretary-General joins with the
people of Iraq in rejecting these cruel and reprehensible attempts to
reignite sectarian violence in the country. He also calls on Iraqi
leaders to work together in a spirit of national dialogue and mutual
respect as demonstrated during the peaceful provincial elections held
last month. Helen Pidd (Guardian) notes
the death toll has now risen to 35 and then she pimps the following,
"Today's bombing is at least the second attack by a female suicide
bomber this year in Iraq: on 4 January a woman blew herself up among a
crowd of pilgrims worshipping at the Imam Musa al-Kazim shrine in
northern Baghdad, killing 38 people and wounding 72. Though the overall
number of suicide attacks has dropped off in recent months, attacks by
women are becoming more common." Actually, Helen, the January 4th
bomber was a MAN. See the January 6th snapshot, see the January 14th snapshot
(at this point al-Maliki's government is admitting the Jan. 4th bomber
was a man). Second of all, 30 female bombers in all of 2008 is not
"more common" but how nice of you to play the alarmist. How about you
tell your readers how many bombers there have been and then explain to
them what a tiny percentage of that female bombers actually are? Oh,
that wouldn't allow you to play the alarmist. The UNINFORMED alarmist.
The scariest thing may be that Pidd is paid to write. The Feb. 2nd Khanaqin bombing is said to be a male suicide bomber or a female suicide bomber.
And the gender there was actually worth following up on since
al-Maliki's government was pimping the alleged confession of the woman
they claimed was the 'Mother of all Bombers' (no, that's not the
translation, that's what they were saying -- remember, she recruited,
she had them raped, remember all those completely unverifiable
claims?). If Mommy of all was indeed captured, who was overseeing these
female bombers!!!! Daddy of all Bombers? Aunt of all? Who? Who?????
Helen Pidd, please, please, wrap your limited capabilities around that
story. McClatchy's Idiot in Iraq, Trenton Daniels also repeats
the false claim that January 4th was a woman -- it was a man disgusied
as a woman and you'd think as much water as McClatchy carries for Nouri
al-Maliki, they'd gladly get it right just because he said so. We'll use Trenton as our jumping off point to address the elections by noting the very bad article he wrote yesterday
where he rushed to inform that al-Maliki was talking to Baathist
officials in exile outside of Iraq. He left out a whole lot including
the denials that such talks were taking place. Trent offered
white-wash, not news. We'll again note Ma'ad Fayad's " Iraqi Dawa Party Official: No dialogue with Armed Groups" (Asharq Alawsat -- and Haydar al-Ibadi who is spokesperson for Dawa , Nouri's party): Al-Ibadi categorically denied that any official in the state spoke to Baathist leaders whether inside Iraq or abroad. He
explained: "The Iraqi constitution does not allow this. Besides, the
public' general mood does not support the Baath Party because it
committed a lot of crimes during and after the rule of the [former]
regime."He added: "The Baathists have committed a
lot of crimes and killed a large number of Iraqis since 2003 to date.
It is they who allowed the Al-Qaeda Organization to enter the country
and who were involved in the killing of hundreds of Iraqis." He asked: "So, how can such a party rejoin the political process?"However,
Al-Ibadi noted: "There are Baathists who returned to their jobs and who
live a normal life without any problems. But they did so as Iraqis, not
as members of the Baath Party, which is known for being a
conspiratorial military party that does not believe in democracy and
does not allow the establishment of a democratic rule."He
added: "Permission for the return of the Baath Party to political
action needs a constitutional amendment, and I very much rule out the
possibility of such a move."Trenton quotes al-Ibadi in
his article, though he downgrades his position in the party. And he
leaves out the whole denial that invitations were taking place. Here's
reality, al-Maliki's being built up by the press and they never
intended to report on the Baathist issue. The fact that some Americans
were noticing the situation meant it was time for a white wash and look
who shows up. So what he gives you is, 'Guess what, invitations
to Baathists are going out!' He leaves out the entire denial that they
were taking place -- a HUGE story in Iraqi media at the start of the
week. He leaves out the claims of Constitutional issues at play. He
reveals himself as something other than a journalist. Toss a Hershey
bar on the ground in front of him and he will drop drawers and drop to
all fours. There's Trenty, in too much make up and heels that
will kill his back and feet, cooing about "Iraqis' desire for a strong
ruler. In the poll's preliminary results, Maliki's State of Law
coalition won a plurality of the votes in nine of 14 provinces -- more
than any other party. Maliki has reinvented himself as a pragmatic,
non-sectarian leader. He was the bold figure who crushed both Sunni and
Shiite militias, although his opponents charge that he's becoming a
dictator." His opponents say that? I can think of many NGOs that say
similar things off the record. al-Maliki has not "reinvented himself,"
the press has and it takes idiots like Trent -- the equivalent of a
general studies major -- to continue to pimp the equivalent of state
legistlature elections (only in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces*) as 'heavy
on the symbolism.' The portent was there when al-Maliki began
campaigning around the country, offering empty promises and bribes, and
he wasn't a candidate. If the President of the United States started
trying to pull that stunt in Vermont, people would be outraged. They
would rightly point out that the President has no business sticking
into his nose into the election of a state legislature. But al-Maliki
sits on billions and he controls how it is spent. He completely
thrwarted the democratic process and he should have been called out for
it. The elections do not indicate a damn thing. The country remains
split. Iraq has 18 provinces, nine -- if you misread the results -- are
for al-Maliki! Well nine aren't. Kirkuk might go for him. It's
doubtful but it could happen. The three Kurdish provinces will not be
hopping on board the Dawa Party wagon. And if people want to get
really honest, what the results indicate is a federation just became
more likely. Look at the provinces. The north won't go with al-Maliki's
party, nor will the south. The support cuts straight along the lines of
proposal for breaking up Iraq. What the results -- if people want to
read them as support or non-support for al-Maliki (and that's how the
press has played this) -- indicate is that the southern section of Iraq
stands a good chance of becoming its own regional government the way
the northern section is now the KRG. That's good news for al-Maliki? No,
it's not. All the oil rich areas and the ports are denied him with
'control' over central Iraq only. Not only is not good news, it
indicates that should al-Maliki do something that the KRG and the
southern region do not support, he's about as powerful as Hamid Karzai.
If the press insists upon wrongly maintaining that the results (still
not official results) say something about al-Maliki, then what it
actually says is he has very tiny base of power, it is centrally
located in Iraq and he's hemmed in there with only slightly more room
than Karzai. Meanwhile Marc Santora (New York Times) points out
regarding today's deadly bombing, "For the government of Prime Minister
Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, which has been widely credited with improving
security significantly in the past year, the pilgrimage had represented
an opportunity to showcase the efficiency of its security forces. But
after the recent spate of attacks, including four in Baghdad alone this
week targeting pilgrims, his government is now facing criticism."
Today Thomas E. Ricks reminded everyone, "Remember the elections a
couple of years ago, puple fingers, people coming out? Followed by a
civil war. So I think there's a lot of reasons that Iraq '09 is going
to be very tough and harder, in fact, than the last year of Bush's
war. And I think there's a good chance that Obama's war in Iraq will
last longer than Bush's war." We'll come back to Ricks and that CBS
interview in a minute. But tensions continue to rise between Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government. At yesterday's State Dept briefing, AP's Matthew Lee raised that issue ( here for text, here for video). Matthew
Lee: Robert, speaking of the people who feel ignored by the United
States, the Kurds, there seems to be growing concern and some
resentment in northern Iraq that the United States is not paying enough
attention to the situation there and to the concerns that they have.
Can you offer any reassurance to the Kurdish leaders who think that? I
mean we've got one here, the regional prime minister saying, "We love
the U.S., and they don't care." Robert
Wood: Well I haven't seen those remarks. I don't actually know what
they mean. But look, we have been working with the Iraqi Government to
do what we can to support a democratic process going forward in Iraq
that encompasses the views, the aspirations of all peoples who live in
Iraq. Iraq has made a lot of strides, as you know, Matt. It's been a
very challenging several years for the people of Iraq. Yes, there are
concerns from various groups. There is a democratic government in
place. There is a system in Iraq that allows for complaints from
various groups, parties to seek, you know, restitution. The democratic
experiment in Iraq continues. The recent elections were very
positive. That's the best I can tell you, with regard to -- I haven't
-- while I've seen these types of comments -- Matthew
Lee: Your response? You went on for awahile, but you didn't mention,
you know, you didn't mention who I was asking about. What can you do
to reassure the Kurds specifically that -- that you are -- Robert
Wood: Well it's not so much what the United States has to do. It's
really what the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people decide is going
to be the future of their country. And I think the Iraqi Government has
chosen a path of democracy. It's experiencing, as I said, a number of
challenges. But there are ways for peoples in Iraq to bring the
concerns that they have to the levers of power. And it's a democracy,
and it's not really up to the United States to reassure anyone. It's
the Iraqi people and -- through -- and with the Iraqi people, their
government, to deal with questions like those. Matthew
Lee: Okay. But you still haven't used the word that begins with K. Is
there some reason why you're reluctant to do that? Robert
Wood: No, there's no specific reason at all. I've just given you, I
think, is what our views are with regard to Iraq and its future, and
where there may be some issues that some of the ethnic groups have. Matthew
Lee: Right. But -- well, your response, I don't think, is going to
reassure anyone. In fact, it's going to reinforce their concerns -- Robert
Wood: Well, I would disagree with you. What I've said, and I've been
very clear about this, is that there is an Iraqi Government, a
democratically elected government that's responsible for dealing with
the issues that confront its people. And the United States is -- has
been a helpful partner. We will continue to be a partner and friend to
the Iraqis. But with regard to complaints that various groups may have
about their future in Iraq, in the end, that's going to be a decision
determined by the Iraqi people and its government -- and their
government. No, press spokesperson
Robert Wood never did answer the question. And tensions continue on
the border between northern Iraq and Turkey. Xinhua reports
that Turkey's latest air strike resulted in 13 deaths, supposedly all
PKK which the US, Turkey and the European Union have labeled a
terrorist organization. "I think there are a
lot of reasons Iraq '09 is going to be very tough and, in fact, harder
than the last year of Bush's war. And I think there is a good chance
that Obama's war in Iraq will last longer than Bush's war." That's
Thomas Ricks speaking today on CBS' Washington Unplugged (link is video ). Thomas E. Ricks has released a new book: Two excerpts from my new book The Gamble are running in the Washington Post Sunday and Monday. There also are some cool on-line only things -- not just another excerpt, but also a great video
about how one officer, Capt. Samuel Cook of the 3rd Armored Cavalry,
conducted counterinsurgency operations in one part of Iraq last year.
(To read more about how Cook talked an insurgent leader into
cooperation, read this excerpt from the book, a section called "The Insurgent Who Loved Titanic.") Yesterday's snapshot
included two paragraphs of Ricks' book on where the top US commander,
Gen Ray Odierno, he sees the Iraq War in 2014. Today on CBS News'
exclusive webcast, Ricks spoke with Slate's John Dickerson about the
reclassification game -- Barack's promised on the campaign trail that
he would withdraw "combat" troops within 16 months of being sworn into
office -- and noted "there is no pacifisitic branch of the US Army."
He detailed the realities everyone tries to avoid, "Newsflash for
Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops." Everyone also attempts to avoid the realities of the resistance. This week NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (Morning Edition -- text and audio) reported
on resistance fighter Abu Abdul Aziz (not his real name) who informs,
"I have killed many Americans, not just one or two. When I kill them,
I feel happy, like victory is coming. . . . If you look into my heart,
you won't find any sympathy for the Americans at all. That's not
because I have no human feelings, but because I feel that they are here
to harm us, to steal from us, to kill our women and our children. . .
. The honorable resistance does not do suicide bombings. That's
al-Qaida. We do not harm innocent people, Muslims or not Muslims. Our
target is only the Americans." Garcia-Navarro also reported on the Iraqi police: Inside
Samarra's local police station, officer Adnan Shakir, who works in the
investigation unit, says things are better, but "it's a fragile safety,
it's a cautious quiet." The problem, he
says, is mistrust between the different branches of the security forces
here, especially between local Sunni policemen like himself and the
mostly Shiite national police. "The
national police, they don't know how to deal with the people here. They
are outsiders. There are always problems; when there is any problem,
they use their weapons," he says. Shakir
says many of the complaints they investigate come from local residents
regarding abuses by national police. Some are serious. Several women
have come forward saying they were raped or assaulted by members of the
national police. Capt. Waleed Abdul Rahman is the head of the major crimes division at the local police station. "One
girl claimed that the police commandos violated her. In another case, a
girl was kidnapped, and her family claimed that she had been forcibly
abducted by a national policeman as well and taken to Baghdad," he
says. Abdul Rahman says the first case
was never investigated. The second girl was slain by her family in a
so-called honor killing when she returned home. The captain says they generally don't take the complaints of assault and rape seriously. But without an investigation, it's hard to determine the truth of the allegations or how widespread the problem may be. They
don't take the complaints seriously? Well why should they? With the
delightful prospect of an 'honor' killing, what girl or woman wouldn't
rush to their police station to declare a rape falsely! That attitude
of assuming the woman is lying is part of the problem in Iraq. That
attitude gets backed and stroked when the US installs thugs because
they are cheaper to work with and may bring quicker 'stability'
(widespread fear). In some of today's other reported violence . . . Bombings? Shootings? In other news, do you know Xe? Mercenaries hope you don't. Maddy Sauer and Megan Churchmach (ABC News) report,
"The scandal-ridden security firm Blackwater USA is officially changing
its name effective immediately as the company moves to rebrand itself
after being fired last month by the State Department from its job
protecting diplomats in Iraq." Why Xe? Maybe because XYZ would have
left them feeling exposed? For those keeping track, this is the third
name change in recent years for the company. Blackwater USA was the
name until the infamous Baghdad slaughter September 16, 2007. Then it
became Blackwater Worldwide. And it has many new names. For example,
Blackwater USA is now know as US Training Center which is " An Xe company."
This includes not only their physical facilities in Moyock, NC, Mt.
Carroll, Il and San Diego, CA but also their home study courses, where
they let you tailor your killing needs specifically for your company in
the designing of "custom courses." The name change is rather
surprising when you consider that if an individual appeared before a
judge and asked to change their name, he or she would be asked if there
were any outstanding debts or liability actions? Xe is pronounced
"Z," Jennifer Wells (Globe and Mail) explains
and notes the September 16, 2007 slaughter and how "a company spokesman
told The Associated Press that the rebrand was 'not a direct result of
a loss of contract, but certainly that is an aspect of our work that we
feel were defined by'." Howzit Howard (Hawaii's KGM9) wryly observes,
"Blackwater Worldwide, an employer of mercenaries that arguably made
life more dangerous for the real U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has decided to
take decisive action about its bad name. It is changing it." Yesterday the UK Ministry of Defence announced the death of a soldier in Basra. He's been identified as 21-year-old Ryan Wrathall.
They note Ryan Wrathall "deployed to southern Iraq in November 2008 and
was about halfway through a six-month tour of the country as a member
of the 5 RIFLES (Strike) Battle Group" and that " The
incident, which occurred at approximately 0630 hours local time, will
be subject to a full investigation. No enemy forces were involved and
there is no evidence to suggest that anyone else was involved. " The
first question to ask about any Recovery Program is, "Recovery for
whom?" The answer given on Tuesday is, "For the people who design the
Program and their constituency" – in this case, the bank lobby. The
second question is, "Just what is it they want to 'recover'?" The
answer is, the Bubble Economy. For the financial sector it was a golden
age. Having enjoyed the Greenspan Bubble that made them so rich, its
managers would love to create yet more wealth for themselves by
indebting the "real" economy yet further while inflating prices all
over again to make new capital gains.
The
problem for today's financial elites is that it is not possible to
inflate another bubble from today's debt levels, widespread negative
equity, and still-high level of real estate, stock and bond prices. No
amount of new capital will induce banks to provide credit to real
estate already over-mortgaged or to individuals and corporations
already over-indebted. Moody's and other leading professional observers
have forecast property prices to keep on plunging for at least the next
year, which is as far as the eye can see in today's unstable
conditions. So the smartest money is still waiting like vultures in the
wings – waiting for government guarantees that toxic loans will pay
off. Another no-risk private profit to be subsidized by public-sector
losses.
While the Obama
administration's financial planners wring their hands in public and say
"We feel your pain" to debtors at large, they know that the past ten
years have been a golden age for the banking system and the rest of
Wall Street. Like feudal lords claiming the economic surplus for
themselves while administering austerity for the population at large,
the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population has raised their
appropriation of the nationwide returns to wealth – dividends,
interest, rent and capital gains – from 37 per cent of the total ten
years ago to 57 per cent five years ago and it seems nearly 70 per cent
today. This is the highest proportion since records have been kept. We
are approaching Russian kleptocratic levels. At
this point, the only thing that makes any sense is to nationalize the
weakest banks, kick out management, wipe out the shareholders, clear
the decks, and start over with a tightly regulated system. This isn't
even all that radical a position anymore - and it may be inevitable, if
these sick and devious "public-private partnership" schemes don't work
out, which seems likely. There is a radical nationalization position -
take the banks over and convert them to public institutions - but I
know that's completely out of the question with this gang. But they're
doing absolutely everything they can to avoid even an orthodox
nationalization. This is looking more and more like Japan's disastrous
indulgence of their "zombie banks" in the 1990s than Sweden's
successful bailout, the model for the "nationalize them and clear the
decks" approach. Instead of a few rough years, we're likely to get a
miserable decade. They've
botched the stimulus, and they're botching the financial rescue.
They're worse than I expected, and I wasn't expecting much in the first
place (see: Obamamania, a febrile disease). You know what they say - half a million dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to. News from the White House that $500,000 was the cap the government wants to put on executive salaries at the banks receiving bailout cash had some on Wall Street and along the plush corridors of Manhattan's swank Upper East Side hollering "Unfair!" (But without those unsightly street demonstrations and picket lines, of course.)
"You
Try to Live on 500K in This Town" was the tongue-in-cheek headline in
last Sunday's New York Times. Just add up private school tuition,
mortgage payments, maintenance fees and wages for the nanny and you're
already up to more than $250,000 a year - and that's pre-taxes,
assuming you're paying any. Then tote up payments and upkeep on
vacation and weekend homes, charity balls, car and driver - pretty soon
you're maxing out your American Express Black Card.
But they work
hard for their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, perks and
solid gold benefits, complained some of the financiers. Besides,
executive headhunters say, the money giants just can't get good help
for anything less. Good help? Spare us the kind of moguls who helped us
straight into the current deep, dirty hole we're trying to climb out of.
"Like
spoiled, petulant children," is how Washington Post columnist Steven
Pearlstein described them. "These guys won't be happy until the
government agrees to relieve them of every last one of their lousy
loans and investments at inflated prices, recapitalize every major bank
and brokerage and insurance company on sweetheart terms and restore
them to the glory days, so they can once again earn inflated profits
and obscene pay packages by screwing over their customers and their
shareholders."
More of the essay can be found online at the show's blog. Tonight on most PBS stations, Moyers speaks with Simon Johnson (about the stimulus) and with poet Nikki Giovanni. Which brings us to public TV notes, NOW on PBS
offers a look at the stimulus package and zooms in mas transit and
North Carolina as "part of a PBS-wide series on the country's
infrastructure called 'Blueprint America'." And online, last week NOW dealt with the Housing Crisis and Manish Thakor ("financial guru") replies to questions viewers asked. NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations tonight, check your local listings. Washington Week also begins airing on many PBS stations tonight and Gwen's roundtable gasbags this week include Gloria Borger (CNN, US News & World Reports), John Maggs ( National Journal), John Dickerson ( Slate) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News). And on broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, no 60 Minutes: Coming Up On 60 Minutes:
Buy AmericanThe
economic stimulus package includes a "buy American" clause that the
steel and other U.S. industries lobbied hard for. However, American
businesses that export overseas now worry foreign governments will
retaliate and keep U.S. products out of their market, hurting their
business. Lesley Stahl reports.
World Of TroubleThree
years before the housing market crash, Paul Bishop says he warned his
superiors at World Savings - the nation's second largest savings and
loan company - that many of the mortgages they were granting were
misleading and predatory. Scott Pelley reports.
War In PakistanSteve Kroft
reports from Pakistan, where Islamic insurgents are trying to take over
the country and he interviews its new president, Asif Ali Zardari.
60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 15 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Posted at 03:31 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Jan. 4th wasn't a female bomber, Helen Pidd
With
the election of President Obama, some officials, including Sen. Frank
Lautenberg (D., N.J.), have called for lifting the ban. Obama said he
is waiting for a Pentagon review of the ban, and Defense Secretary
Robert Gates suggested that he is open to changing the policy.
Gates
should lift the ban, while trying to be as sensitive as possible to the
wishes of families. It's not an easy call, and not all military
families feel the same way about the issue.
Some relatives believe
it's an invasion of privacy, or an exploitation of their loss to foment
antiwar sentiment. Other families feel that allowing photographs is a
way to honor the military dead, and that banning photographs amounts to
the government hiding their loss.
Still others believe that the
soldiers' sacrifices, and the war itself, tend to be forgotten by the
public unless photographs are permitted.
That's why Rep. Walter
Jones (R., N.C.), who voted in favor of using military force in Iraq,
also favors allowing the media to photograph the returning caskets.The above, noted by Jonathan, is from " Editorial: Photos and Coffins" ( Philadelphia Inquirer)
which we'll note. Others? We're not noting. One gets 'honored' at Third
this weekend because it's so fact-free. Writing an editorial does not
allow you to change what happened at a public event. Writing an
editorial does not give you permission to lie about the facts. The Philadelphia Inquirer got their facts right. Others struggle. Meanwhile, Alan Gomez (USA Today) reports
Maj Gen Michael Oates declaring he has no idea why US troops are in
southern Iraq and "that he believes recent security gains there are
permanent -- and that some of his troops are openly wondering why
they're still there, even though he believes their presence remains
crucial." Oatest acknowledges problems in Mosul but appears to think
that's it. This as Iraq's rocked with the worst bombing of the year
this morning. Iskandariya is south of Baghdad but it is considered to
be "central Iraq" and not "southern Iraq." Wisam Mohammed, Sami al-Jumaili, Waleed Ibrahim, Khalid al-Ansary, Mohammed Abbas and Michael Christie (Reuters) report
32 dead and eighty-four wounded and note, "The attacks occurred despite
heavy security on the pilgrimage route. The ranks of troops and police
patrolling Kerbala were boosted by 5,000 to 30,000, a city official
said. The Arbain rite, which culminates early on Monday, is difficult
to secure. Many pilgrims walk all the way to Kerbala, and are easy
targets as they cover hundreds of miles clutching religious banners." Helen Pidd (Guardian) notes
the death toll has now risen to 35 and then she pimps the following,
"Today's bombing is at least the second attack by a female suicide
bomber this year in Iraq: on 4 January a woman blew herself up among a
crowd of pilgrims worshipping at the Imam Musa al-Kazim shrine in
northern Baghdad, killing 38 people and wounding 72. Though the overall
number of suicide attacks has dropped off in recent months, attacks by
women are becoming more common." Actually, Helen, the January 4th
bomber was a MAN. See the January 6th snapshot, see the January 14th snapshot
(at this point al-Maliki's government is admitting the Jan. 4th bomber
was a man). Second of all, 30 female bombers in all of 2008 is not
"more common" but how nice of you to play the alarmist. How about you
tell your readers how many bombers there have been and then explain to
them what a tiny percentage of that female bombers actually are? Oh,
that wouldn't allow you to play the alarmist. The UNINFORMED alarmist.
The scariest thing may be that Pidd is paid to write. The Feb. 2nd Khanaqin bombing is said to be a male suicide bomber or a female suicide bomber.
And the gender there was actually worth following up on since
al-Maliki's government was pimping the alleged confession of the woman
they claimed was the 'Mother of all Bombers' (no, that's not the
translation, that's what they were saying -- remember, she recruited,
she had them raped, remember all those completely unverifiable
claims?). If Mommy of all was indeed captured, who was overseeing these
female bombers!!!! Daddy of all Bombers? Aunt of all? Who? Who?????
Helen Pidd, please, please, wrap your limited capabilities around that
story. Collaborators with occupiers pay a high price -- that's a common thread throughout history and today isn't any different. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports,
"Iraqi interpreters working with the U.S. military in Baghdad are again
allowed to hide their identity during certain missions, after a
Pentagon decision to grant battalion commanders the discretion to
disregard an earlier policy banning interpreters from wearing masks. .
. . More than 300 interpreters working with U.S. troops have been
killed since 2003, and some have been tortured by extremists who see
them as traitors." And tensions continue on the border between Iraq and
Turkey. Xinhua reports
that Turkey's latest air strike resulted in 13 deaths, supposedly all
PKK which the US, Turkey and the European Union have labeled a
terrorist organization. Turning to the US economy, Zach notes Michael Hudson's " Obama's Awful Financial Recovery Plan" ( CounterPunch): The
first question to ask about any Recovery Program is, “Recovery for
whom?” The answer given on Tuesday is, “For the people who design the
Program and their constituency” – in this case, the bank lobby. The
second question is, “Just what is it they want to ‘recover’?” The
answer is, the Bubble Economy. For the financial sector it was a golden
age. Having enjoyed the Greenspan Bubble that made them so rich, its
managers would love to create yet more wealth for themselves by
indebting the “real” economy yet further while inflating prices all
over again to make new capital gains.The
problem for today’s financial elites is that it is not possible to
inflate another bubble from today’s debt levels, widespread negative
equity, and still-high level of real estate, stock and bond prices. No
amount of new capital will induce banks to provide credit to real
estate already over-mortgaged or to individuals and corporations
already over-indebted. Moody’s and other leading professional observers
have forecast property prices to keep on plunging for at least the next
year, which is as far as the eye can see in today’s unstable
conditions. So the smartest money is still waiting like vultures in the
wings – waiting for government guarantees that toxic loans will pay
off. Another no-risk private profit to be subsidized by public-sector
losses.While the Obama
administration’s financial planners wring their hands in public and say
“We feel your pain” to debtors at large, they know that the past ten
years have been a golden age for the banking system and the rest of
Wall Street. Like feudal lords claiming the economic surplus for
themselves while administering austerity for the population at large,
the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population has raised their
appropriation of the nationwide returns to wealth – dividends,
interest, rent and capital gains – from 37 per cent of the total ten
years ago to 57 per cent five years ago and it seems nearly 70 per cent
today. This is the highest proportion since records have been kept. We
are approaching Russian kleptocratic levels.The
officials drawn from Wall Street who now control of the Treasury and
Federal Reserve repeat the right-wing Big Lie: Poor “subprime families”
have brought the system down, exploiting the rich by trying to ape
their betters and live beyond their means. Taking out subprime loans
and not revealing their actual ability to pay, the NINJA poor (no
income, no job, no audit) signed up to obtain “liars’ loans” as
no-documentation Alt-A loans are called in the financial junk-paper
trade.And you can pair that with Left Business Observer's Doug Henwood's " Obama to coddle bankers" ( LBO News from Doug Henwood): And
it looks like the Treasury and the Fed will pump up some $250-500
billion to help hedge funds buy bad assets - with the FDIC guaranteeing
the buyers against losses. At this
point, the only thing that makes any sense is to nationalize the
weakest banks, kick out management, wipe out the shareholders, clear
the decks, and start over with a tightly regulated system. This isn't
even all that radical a position anymore - and it may be inevitable, if
these sick and devious "public-private partnership" schemes don’t work
out, which seems likely. There is a radical nationalization position -
take the banks over and convert them to public institutions - but I
know that’s completely out of the question with this gang. But they’re
doing absolutely everything they can to avoid even an orthodox
nationalization. This is looking more and more like Japan’s disastrous
indulgence of their "zombie banks" in the 1990s than Sweden’s
successful bailout, the model for the “nationalize them and clear the
decks” approach. Instead of a few rough years, we’re likely to get a
miserable decade. They've botched the
stimulus, and they're botching the financial rescue. They're worse than
I expected, and I wasn't expecting much in the first place (see: Obamamania, a febrile disease). Public TV notes, NOW on PBS offers: President
Obama's stimulus money is nearly out the door and on its way to the
states, but will it be spent in the way it is intended?One
alarming example: Mass transit. Cities and states, strapped for money,
are cutting back on mass transit even as it becomes more popular with
Americans. Meanwhile, President Obama is calling for increased mass
transit as a necessary step toward energy independence. Will the
government's investment dramatically revitalize our national travel
infrastructure, or will states spend the money according to 'business
as usual'?This week NOW
travels to North Carolina to see what the future holds for mass transit
in these troubling financial times. Our investigation is part of a
PBS-wide series on the country's infrastructure called "Blueprint America."And online, last week NOW dealt with the Housing Crisis and Manish Thakor ("financial guru") replies to questions viewers asked. NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations tonight, check your local listings. Washington Week also begins airing on many PBS stations tonight and Gwen's roundtable gasbags this week include Gloria Borger (CNN, US News & World Reports), John Maggs ( National Journal), John Dickerson ( Slate) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News). And on broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, no 60 Minutes: Coming Up On 60 Minutes:
Buy AmericanThe
economic stimulus package includes a "buy American" clause that the
steel and other U.S. industries lobbied hard for. However, American
businesses that export overseas now worry foreign governments will
retaliate and keep U.S. products out of their market, hurting their
business. Lesley Stahl reports.
World Of TroubleThree
years before the housing market crash, Paul Bishop says he warned his
superiors at World Savings - the nation's second largest savings and
loan company - that many of the mortgages they were granting were
misleading and predatory. Scott Pelley reports.
War In PakistanSteve Kroft
reports from Pakistan, where Islamic insurgents are trying to take over
the country and he interviews its new president, Asif Ali Zardari.
60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 15 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe philadelphia inquireralan gomezhelen piddthe washington posternesto londonowisam mohammedsami al-jumailiwaleed ibrahimkhalid al-ansarymohammed abbasmichael christiemichael hudsondoug henwood60 minutescbs newspbs washington weeknow on pbs
Posted at 06:49 am by thecommonills
Permalink
32 dead and 65 wounded in Iskandiriya bombing
In today's New York Times (deep within), Sam Dagher offers " Violence Across Iraq Kills 13, Including a Sunni Politician"
which covers some of yesterday's violence including the assassination
of Abdul-Karim al-Sharabi of the Sunni political party the National
Dialogue Front. And? That was not the only assassination yesterday --
there was another one attempted yesterday and one late Wednesday. From yesterday's snapshot: This as Xinhua reports,
"Two Iraqi politicans were shot dead and a third was injured by gunmen
in the volatile city of Mosul." Abdul Kareem al-Sharabi (National
Dialogue Front -- Sunni) was shot dead today, Ahmed Fathi (Iraqi
Islamic Party -- Sunni) was shot dead "late on Wednesday" and Akram
Khalaf of the National Movement for Reform and Development was left
injured in a shooting today. As the violence mounts, some continue to
wrongly cite those 'wonderful' elections and all the 'peace' they
demonstrate.Have some problem with Xinhua as a source? Here's Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers): -
Gunmen killed the deputy manager of the national dialogue council,
Abdul Karim al-Sharabi in the 17th of July neighborhood in Mosul around
1:15 p.m.[. . .]-Gunmen
opened fire on Akram Khalaf, a candidate of the national movement for
reform and development in Sarij Khana in Mosul in the afternoon. He was
injured and transformed to hospital for treatment."Oh. Well, no one else reported Wednesday's assassination except for Xinhua!" Reuters yesterday: MOSUL
- Gunmen killed Abdul-Kareem al-Sherabi, a senior member of the Sunni
Arab secularist party National Dialogue Front, in a drive-by shooting
in Mosul, police said.MOSUL
- Gunmen killed Ahmed al-Jubouri, a senior member in the Sunni Arab
Iraqi Islamic Party, as he left a mosque in Mosul on Wednesday, police
said.Oh, look, paragraph 11 of Dagher's article: "This
week, an official in Mosul with the Iraqi Islamic Party, which also
took part in the elections, was killed as he left a mosque." So
yesterday's two attempted assassinations are reduced to only one in the
article and the day before's assassination is played off in a single
sentence paragraph as "this week" and the victim so unimportant,
apparently, the it isn't necessary to provide his name or for that
matter note him a headline. Three attempts in 48 hours, two successful,
all in Mosul. And the paper's not interested in what clearly is a
pattern or in conveying that to readers? Dagher's on more solid
ground when attempting to provide recent regional context, "Despite
multiple security operations by American and Iraqi forces, Mosul
remains one of the most violent spots in the country. Four American
soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were killed in the city on Monday
when a suicide car bomber attacked their convoy." Here's another
example of context: "It is the third day of attacks on Shia pilgrims,
with dozens killed in Baghdad and Mosul." That's the BBC from this morning as an Iskandiriya bombing (supposedly a "female sucide bomber") has resulted in 30 deaths and twenty-five wounded. Al Jazeera (and AFP) says the death toll is 32 and the wounded number sixty-five so far. Saad Sarhan and Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) provide
this context, "The bombing, which occurred shortly before noon, was the
deadliest in Iraq this year. . . . Millions of Shiite pilgrims make a
yearly pilgrimage to Karbala for the end of a 40-day period of mourning
commemorating the death of Hussain bin Ali, one of the most revered
figures in Shiite Islam." Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times) describes
the sights along the pilgrimage, "For days, roads leading to the city
have been jammed with people making the pilgrimage. Highways leading to
Karbala are lined with colorful tents that offer free food and drink to
passing pilgrims and blast religious music from speakers. The gathering
spots, which often separate males and females, make easy targets for
attackers." And AP offers this perspective: On
Thursday, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt packed with
nails among Shiite worshippers in Karbala near the revered Imam Hussein
shrine, killing eight pilgrims and wounding more than 50.
A day
earlier, at least 12 people were killed and more than 40 wounded in
bombings in Baghdad that targeted Shiite pilgrims traveling to Karbala,
50 miles to the south. Those who read Dagher's article will see his number of wounded on Thursday is much lower than AP's -- AP's number is the number of reported wounded. Maybe Dagher filed early? Martha notes Reza Fiyouzat's " Iranian Revolution's Thirtieth Anniversary" ( Dissident Voice): The
Islamic Republic's crimes against the people continued when it started
its campaign of terror against all opposition in all spheres,
imprisoning thousands based purely on political affiliations; torturing
people with impunity, executing hundreds after phony ‘trials’, in which
no right of attorney was ever considered. Those imprisoned and executed
included people who did not even directly oppose the new religious
state. The Tudeh Pary, for example, the most rightwing of the leftist
parties, stayed loyal to the new state and even collaborated with its
security forces, identifying other leftists. But, even they, after
their services were no longer needed, came under the blade.The
persecuted thoughts were not limited to the realm of politics. Members
of the Bahai faith, a minority sect of Islam created in the 19th
century in Iran, were likewise pursued.Other
crimes of the regime includes the constant and systematic attack on
women's rights and freedoms, including the suspension of their right to
initiate divorce or have child custody, the suspension of their right
to travel (regardless of their father, husband or some other male
relative having given them permission), halving of the worth of women's
court testimony, halving of damages permitted in a law suit, halving of
a woman's inheritance, and the barbaric introduction of stoning to
death in cases of adultery.The
Islamic Republic’s crimes against our people includes also a most
ghastly case of an en-masse execution of hundreds of political
prisoners in the summer of 1988, and the mass burial of the bodies in
Khavaran grave site, in south Tehran. Ever since the summer of 1988,
the families of political prisoners who were summarily killed
extra-judicially have been demanding to be given exact details of the
executions and places of burial of their loved ones. To no avail. The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timessam dagherthe washington posternesto londonosaad sarhanthe los angeles timesmonte morinreza fiyouzatkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:47 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The return of secular Baathists comes after years of rule by Shiite leaders and nearly six years after the Bush administration purged party members from the government and military in 2003. Many Sunnis responded to de-Baathification, to the U.S.-led occupation and to attacks by Shiite militias by allying themselves with al Qaida in Iraq and other militant Sunni groups, but many have since rejected Islamic fundamentalism.
The Baathists' return "is indicative of a larger rethinking of de-Baathification," said Michael Wahid Hanna, a program officer at The Century Foundation, a New York-based nonprofit public policy research group.
Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government recently invited exiled former Iraqi Army officers -- almost all of them Baathists -- to return to Iraq and apply for jobs, an olive branch aimed at building national unity.The above garbage is from Trenton Daniel's " Saddam's party makes comeback, but they're not the same Baathists" ( McClatchy Newspapers). Why is it garbage? Well how about the fact that we noted the story being reported by Iraqi media? Yesterday morning as a number rushed to ga-ga-goo-goo over al-Maliki, it was necessary to point out that no US outlet was reporting the developing story about the Baathists that had been all over the Iraqi media. And now Trenton wants to show up late for the party, after all the guests have left and stand pounding on the front door, drunk and with all the basic facts soooooooooooo wrong. Here's a lie from the mouth of Trenton: "Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government recently invited exiled former Iraqi Army officers -- almost all of them Baathists -- to return to Iraq and apply for jobs, an olive branch aimed at building national unity." We'll again note Ma'ad Fayad's " Iraqi Dawa Party Official: No dialogue with Armed Groups" (Asharq Alawsat -- and Haydar al-Ibadi who is spokesperson for Dawa , Nouri's party): Al-Ibadi categorically denied that any official in the state spoke to Baathist leaders whether inside Iraq or abroad. He explained: "The Iraqi constitution does not allow this. Besides, the public' general mood does not support the Baath Party because it committed a lot of crimes during and after the rule of the [former] regime."He added: "The Baathists have committed a lot of crimes and killed a large number of Iraqis since 2003 to date. It is they who allowed the Al-Qaeda Organization to enter the country and who were involved in the killing of hundreds of Iraqis." He asked: "So, how can such a party rejoin the political process?"However, Al-Ibadi noted: "There are Baathists who returned to their jobs and who live a normal life without any problems. But they did so as Iraqis, not as members of the Baath Party, which is known for being a conspiratorial military party that does not believe in democracy and does not allow the establishment of a democratic rule."He added: "Permission for the return of the Baath Party to political action needs a constitutional amendment, and I very much rule out the possibility of such a move."Trenton quotes al-Ibadi in his article, though he downgrades his position in the party. And he leaves out the whole denial that invitations were taking place. Here's reality, al-Maliki's being built up by the press and they never intended to report on the Baathist issue. The fact that some Americans were noticing the situation meant it was time for a white wash and look who shows up. So what he gives you is, 'Guess what, invitations to Baathists are going out!' He leaves out the entire denial that they were taking place -- a HUGE story in Iraqi media at the start of the week. He leaves out the claims of Constitutional issues at play. He reveals himself as something other than a journalist. Toss a Hershey bar on the ground in front of him and he will drop drawers and drop to all fours. There's Trenty, in too much make up and heels that will kill his back and feet, cooing about "Iraqis' desire for a strong ruler. In the poll's preliminary results, Maliki's State of Law coalition won a plurality of the votes in nine of 14 provinces -- more than any other party. Maliki has reinvented himself as a pragmatic, non-sectarian leader. He was the bold figure who crushed both Sunni and Shiite militias, although his opponents charge that he's becoming a dictator." His opponents say that? I can think of many NGOs that say similar things off the record. al-Maliki has not "reinvented himself," the press has and it takes idiots like Trent -- the equivalent of a general studies major -- to continue to pimp the equivalent of state legistlature elections (only in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces*) as 'heavy on the symbolism.' The portent was there when al-Maliki began campaigning around the country, offering empty promises and bribes, and he wasn't a candidate. If the President of the United States started trying to pull that stunt in Vermont, people would be outraged. They would rightly point out that the President has no business sticking into his nose into the election of a state legislature. But al-Maliki sits on billions and he controls how it is spent. He completely thrwarted the democratic process and he should have been called out for it. The elections do not indicate a damn thing. The country remains split. Iraq has 18 provinces, nine -- if you misread the results -- are for al-Maliki! Well nine aren't. Kirkuk might go for him. It's doubtful but it could happen. The three Kurdish provinces will not be hopping on board the Dawa Party wagon. And if people want to get really honest, what the results indicate is a federation just became more likely. Look at the provinces. The north won't go with al-Maliki's party, nor will the south. The support cuts straight along the lines of proposal for breaking up Iraq. (We do not support a federation being imposed upon Iraq in this community. If Iraqis decide they want that, the issue is their business and only their business. Basra recently tried to break away, for those who missed it.) What the results -- if people want to read them as support or non-support for al-Maliki (and that's how the press has played this) -- indicate is that the southern section of Iraq stands a good chance of becoming its own regional government the way the northern section is now the KRG. That's good news for al-Maliki? No, it's not. All the oil rich areas and the ports are denied him with 'control' over central Iraq only. Not only is not good news, it indicates that should al-Maliki do something that the KRG and the southern region do not support, he's about as powerful as Hamid Karzai. If the press insists upon wrongly maintaining that the results (still not official results) say something about al-Maliki, then what it actually says is he has very tiny base of power, it is centrally located in Iraq and he's hemmed in there with only slightly more room than Karzai. 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 4237. Tonight? 4243. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,311,696 as the number. The number they finally moved up to last week. In a week's time, according to Just Foreign Policy, no Iraqis died. JFP, dabbling towards an end of the illegal war. The only thing more ridiculous than the continued and intentional misreading of the (unofficial) results is the insisting that the results say something about Muqtada al-Sadr -- al-Sadr only endorsed candidates two weeks prior to the election. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletma'ad fayadmcclatchy newspaperstrenton daniel
Posted at 08:46 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, February 12, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the UK announces a death, the US Congress let's Iraq War Hawks advise on Afghanistan, candidates continue to be targeted in Iraq (yes, after provincial elections), the Minister of Women's Affairs may withdraw her resignation, and more.
"Over 800 billion dollars" have been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, declared Janet St. Laurent before matter-of-factly adding, "and billions more will be needed." St Laurent, the Government Accountability Office's Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, was offering testimony to the US House Armed Service Committee this morning. "Addressing U.S. Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and Resources" was the title of the hearing and Laurent was the only person on the panel that anyone in their right mind would call to testify.
Jack Keane, called "General" throughout? Well golly, does General Dynamics really deserve a seat at the table? No, they don't and Jack Keane shouldn't be sitting on the board of a War Industry Corporation and offering 'unbiased' testimony to Congress. It's APPALLING and SHAMEFUL. As Keane babbled on about what was 'needed' in Afghanistan and evaluated the 2007 escalation in Iraq (the "surge"), no one felt the need to explain that he pushed for that and is considered the brains behind it. This was hardly unbiased testimony and it certainly wasn't testimony that disclosed to the public details they needed to know. Keane, of course, belongs to the Council on/for/of Foreign Relations because you can never have enough of those War Hawk misfits and freaks at a hearing. Enter Stephen Biddle who at least did some grooming before appearing this Congressional go-round. Rounding out the unqualified losers trio was Anthony Cordsman and with Cordsman and Keane both offering their 'expertise' to ABC on a regular basis, one wonders why a hearing was even needed? Or maybe the point is that next month, Congress will explore the wars by taking testimony from Al Roker and Regis Phiblin?
Roker and Philbin couldn't come off any worse than the rejects did and they'd probably both do a great deal better. Early in the hearing, Committee Chair Ike Skelton wondered aloud about the Afghanistan War, how long it's drawn on and the American people's attitude toward it. Keane's response should have alarmed the nation: "I would hope that we would craft a campaign in support of that [increasing troops in Afghanistan] . . . . With a new president here, it is an opportunity . . . . to connect with the American people on this issue" -- it gets worse, but let's stop it right there for one moment. Barack Obama is not the face of change. He is the new face of the empire and Keane grasps that and grasps how Barack's false image provides opportunities for empire building. Back to Keane who felt that the American people -- those supposedly in charge in a democracy -- should be given "a general sense without getting into specifics on our plans . . . if you sort of report out to the American people three or four times a year . . . our credibility stays intact."
It was a series of appalling statements (". . ." indicates editing on my part, he was very long winded) and equally appalling was that no one on the committee appeared bothered by it. The closest to reality in the 'full committee hearing' (many members bailed during the hearing, many never showed) came from Ranking Member John McHugh with the first of what he dubbed two "editorial comment"s, "There is going to be a damn tough war and there is going to be casualties and there is going to be losses." He was referring to Afghanistan Version 4.9 Rebooted and Expanded. And he wasn't calling it out (he's a Republican, they generally don't call out meaningless wars), but at least he was noting some of the costs.
McHugh wanted to know what we'd measure success in Afghanistan with and the fact that this farce continued without any member of Congress screaming out loud shows you that Barack is the tool of empire intended to provide the clean slate. There is no measure of success, not even from those advocating for more troops in Afghanistan. As the 'surge' there approaches, there is no definition of success, no clear goals. And we're all supposed to just forget that's how the US muddled through for the last eight years. It was disgusting. Cordsman tossed out a lot of words but had no answer -- though he clearly thought he'd provided them. "What you do have to do," he intoned at one point fancies himself a grand thinker, "is move towards a level of stability." Well, yes, Anthony, one would assume sending thousands of troops into a country should stabilize it but that's not really a way to "measure" success, now is it?
Biddle wanted to ignore the question completely. He felt it was beneath him. "The question is not what the current trend is, the question is the projection forward," he would declare in part of his run-on answer and explain that it was much more difficult to project forward; however, he thought that was one of his gifts. No one else on the face of the planet thinks Biddle has even one gift. But, again, it was nice that he showered for a change. (He truly is -- as anyone who's attended his past performances can attest -- one of those men who believes it's shower OR cologne -- and generally he sticks with the latter.) Biddle was so focused on "projection forward" that he couldn't see today's reality clearly. He noted "many" diplomats are no longer needed in Iraq ("many of which we have less need for in Iraq") and "I would like to see a political surge" in Afghanistan.
A political surge? And he thinks that's worked in Iraq? In fact, he thinks that the US diplomatic corps in Iraq needs to be thinned out? He's the only one who feels that way and one longed for Senator Barbara Boxer to pop in and set the weasel straight. No one touched on his comment. No one followed up. No one asked, "Biddle, what political progress are you seeing in Iraq?" He can't even say provincial elections because Iraq has 18 provinces and only 14 have held the elections (plus the violence around the elections and the candidates has been intense). But he's convinced that Iraq's chug-chug-chugging along so nicely we can pull the limited number of diplomats there and install them in Afghanistan.
And how would we measure progress? Have we all forgotten George W. Bush's refusal to define success in Iraq? Keane has: "We clearly have to -- to win -- defeat the insurgency. When the insurgency's defeated" and leaves "the battlefield or, as in Iraq, it comes to the political process," it will be . . . what? Attempting to clarify that clear-as-mud statement, Keane created two groups: Reconcilables and Irreconcilables. Reconcilables, he says, will come into the process and Irreconcilables will not. He forgot to inform where the Irreconcilables go? Forced relocation? Victims of death squads? Who knows? But Keane is saying that there are two groups of people in Afghanistan -- who knew their society -- or any -- was that simplistic? -- and when some of them are part of a political process and some of them aren't it will mean . . . something. Clearly.
Struggling still to define success, Keane declared, "This will take resources" uh-huh "and it will take time" uh-huh "and it will take the blood of our troops." Left unsaid was that it will enrich General Dynamics. Left unsaid is that the sentence provides no measurables for success. Since Keane had just basically (in that sentence) repeated what McHugh had said before asking his question, McHugh rushed to say (ignoring Janet St. Laurent's comments), "I couldn't agree with General Keane more." Yes, active listening is a skill that is highly effective with young children and, apparently, members of Congress. Keane's use of it was so effective, he had McHugh cheering him on -- despite the fact that he never answered McHugh's question.
(St. Laurent -- in case anyone's interested in her comments, McHugh wasn't -- called for a civilian and Defense Department "integrated approach" and measures for "whether or not these resources are being applied effectively?" While a stronger answer on measures would have been appreciated as a member of the GAO, that might have been the most she could offer.)
US House Rep Gene Taylor was among the few Democrats to bother asking questions during the period where each representative could have had five minutes for questioning (this is where the hearing really began to thin out of of members and those who remained yawned, stretched, scratched themselves and looked bored -- as I'm sure did those of us in the visitor seats). He noted that in Iraq the military had "to pay the tribes to stop shooting at Americans . . . It looks like a power sharing agreement has been made with the sheiks and they are shooting a lot less Americans." This led to a curious claim on the part of Keane that "they're paying for it" -- the costs of the war, in Iraq. He actually told the committee -- and no one questioned him on this -- that Iraq was bearing the financial costs of the war to the US and paying for it with their oil money. And no one laughed out loud.
A fact US House Rep Duncan Hunter apparently missed or he wouldn't have tried out his own one-liner: "We do have victory [in Iraq] and I hope you'll let people know that." He hopes who will let people know that? Keane? Maybe when he's next on ABC? Who knows, the entire statement was exactly the nonsense the country's come to expect from Duncan Hunter. US House Rep Susan Davis noted of NATO allies and the Afghanistan War, "Their public opinion is worse than ours." This appeared to irk Biddle who straightened his spine as he spat out, "Many Europeans do not believe that this is a war." Silly Europeans! Maybe Keane's plot/plan to give limited updates three or four times a year can trick them and get them on board the way he seems to think it can fool Americans? US House Rep Tom Rooney (Republican and one of Congress' newest members) spoke last. He cited a book by Marcus Luttrell (presumably Lone Survivor -- written by Luttrell and Patrick Robinson). And that was pretty much it. A highly disappointing hearing but, considering the panel, that should have been expected.
And some say Nawal al Samurrai (also spelled al Samurraie in some press accounts) should have expected the lack of support as al-Maliki's Minister of Women's Affairs. But she didn't and thought she would receive assistance. Instead her ministry's tiny budget was cut further (from $7500 to $1500 a month). Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) quote Parliamentarian Nada Ibrahim explains, "It's not a real ministry. It's one room with a woman, no budget, no staff. It's a trick." The reporters note that the issue "also highlights what many women say is the lip service paid them by the Shiite conservatives loyal to Dawa and other Shiite parties dominant in parliament. In August, Inaam Jawwadi, a female member of parliament from the Shiite bloc, called for Samarai's ministry to be turned into a Cabinet portfolio, but the proposal went nowhere." Susman and Ahmed explain, "Her eyes glistened with tears as she described the frustration of confronting widows and not being able to fofer them anything beyond promises that she would try to help. She found herself sitting in her small office appealing to nongovernmental organizations for money to launch the programs she had envisioned when she took the position in July." She tells them, "It's shameful for me in Iraq, a rich country, to have to ask NGOs for money." To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports via CBS News) proposes, "Here's an idea: As a start, confiscate the Bush and Cheney family fortunes, which are voluminous, and use that money to feed the widows and orphans their war created." Corey Flintoff (NPR -- this is a text only report at NPR) explains, "Samarraie, a 47-year-old gynecologist and member of parliament, says that part of the problem is that Iraq is a patriarchal society, where women are considered adjuncts of their husbands or fathers. And part of it, she says, is political expediency." Parliamentarian Saleh al-Mutlaq declares the Shi'ite extremists don't support the women's ministry, "I mean, it was a joke from the beginning, and they will never support it. And this poor lady, she was a minister for some time, but she didn't have any kind of financial support to support women's issues." Flintoff reports women in Parliament are rallying around the issue, that a five hour meeting took place among them and that they are determined to address this leaving Samarrai debating whether or not to withdraw her resignation. Susman and Ahmed note that al-Maliki's underlings deny any "allegations that women's rights have eroded since the rise of the Shiite power structure. They point out that 25% of seats for the newly elected provincial councils are reserved for women" -- and we'll stop it right there. January 14th, Alissa J. Rubin and Sam Dagher (New York Times) broke the news that although the 25% was supposed to be set aside, it had not been. Instead, a new 'system' was put in place and it is not known how women will do under it but it is expected they will do far worse. When al-Maliki's people point to the 25% figure, they are LYING and pointing to something legally overturned. And while al-Maliki's thugs cut the 25% that was supposed to be law, the Kurdistan Regional Government ups their numbers. Alla Majeed (UPI) reports: "Kurdish lawmakers Wednesday made amendments to their provincial elections law to set aside 30 percent of the seats for females, al-Bayyna of the Iraqi Hezbollah reported Wednesday." And last night, the KRG posted an interview with Human Rights Minister Dr. Yousif Mohammad Aziz who noted, among other things, "One of our biggest challenges is preventing violence against women. Other challenges are street children and underage labour; terrorism and dealing with terror suspects according to the law. Another challenge is to raise the public's awareness of international human rights laws. I believe that since 1991, we have made some progress in these areas." Asked about statistis, Aziz responds, "The government statistics show a large increase in the number of women coming forward for protection because of the new specially dedicated directorates and the success of our campaign to raise awareness of the issue. The positive sign is that the number of honour killings is decreasing. Of course, the presence of such crimes is still appalling and our aim is to eliminate honour killings altogether, but we are seeing a definite improvement thanks to the multiple strategies we are employing." That's a section of the interview, click here to read it in full.
In his opening statements at this morning's hearing, Ike Skelton declared of Iraq, ". . . Iraq, which has been our major focus for the last five years, seems to be trending in a positive direction. Violence is down significantly and provincial elections have been conducted." This as Xinhua reports, "Two Iraqi politicans were shot dead and a third was injured by gunmen in the volatile city of Mosul." Abdul Kareem al-Sharabi (National Dialogue Front -- Sunni) was shot dead today, Ahmed Fathi (Iraqi Islamic Party -- Sunni) was shot dead "late on Wednesday" and Akram Khalaf of the National Movement for Reform and Development was left injured in a shooting today. As the violence mounts, some continue to wrongly cite those 'wonderful' elections and all the 'peace' they demonstrate.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a gas cylinder bombing in Karbala which claimed 7 lives and left thirty-five people injured, a Mosul car bombing which claimed the lives of 4 police officer and left three people injured and a Baquba roadside bombing that left three people injured.
Meanwhile Philippine's GMA reports, "Vice President Noli de Castro on Thursday identified the unfortunate worker as Vergine Elias Jamil, a caretaker of the Philippine chancery since November 1985. Jamil and two other companions were killed by unknown assailants on the night of Feb. 5, said De Castro, who is also the presidential adviser on overseas Filipino workers (OFWs)." Xinhau explains that Iraqi Vergine Elias Jamil "was killed by unknown assailants inside her home last woman"
Today the UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with regret that the Ministry of Defence must annouce the death of a soldier from 1st Batallion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment in Basra, Iraq, today, Thursday 12 February 2009. The soldier died during a shooting incident in the early hours of the morning at the Contingency Operation Base." The death brings the number of UK soldiers killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 179 (and, yes, their supposed 'withdraw' was supposed to mean the end of British military deaths) while the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4244,
Two excerpts from my new book The Gamble are running in the Washington Post Sunday and Monday. There also are some cool on-line only things -- not just another excerpt, but also a great video about how one officer, Capt. Samuel Cook of the 3rd Armored Cavalry, conducted counterinsurgency operations in one part of Iraq last year. (To read more about how Cook talked an insurgent leader into cooperation, read this excerpt from the book, a section called "The Insurgent Who Loved Titanic.")
Military planners have been mulling the shape and size of the "post-occupation" force ever since it became clear in mid-2007 that the surge was working tactically. Such a long-term presence would have four major components. The centerpiece would be a reinforced mechanized infantry division of 15,000 to 20,000 soldiers assigned to guarantee the security of the Iraqi government and to assist Iraqi forces or their U.S. advisers if they can get into fights they can't handle. Second, a training and advisory force of close to 10,000 troops would work with Iraqi military and police units. In addition, there would be a small but significant Special Operations unit focused on fighting the Sunni insurgent group al Qaeda in Iraq. "I think you'll retain a very robust counterterror capability in this country for a long, long time," an American official in Iraq said in 2007. Finally, the headquarters and logistical elements to command and supply such a force would total more than 10,000 troops, plus some civilian contractors. Again, this would amount to a long-term committment in the area of 35,000 troops.
Interestingly, that is about the figure that Gen. [Ray] Odierno [top US commander in Iraq] cited in my last interview with him for this book in November 2008. Asked what the U.S. military presence would look like around 2014 or 2015 -- that is, well after President Obama's first term -- Odierno said, "I would like to see a . . . force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000," with many training Iraqi forces and others conducting combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and its allies. To justify such a force, Odierno or [Gen David] Petraeus could read back to Obama the statement the candidate made in July 2008, not long before that trip to Iraq: "My 16-month time line, if you examine everything I've said, was always presmised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama had told reporters in North Dakota. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." Indeed, they could argue that the last word is overambitious, because it will be a long time before anyone can confidently call Iraq stable.
In other news, US war resister Cliff Cornell turned himself at Fort Stewart Tuesday. Frenchi Jones (Coastal Courier) reports he's been processed back to active-duty and quotes military spokesperson Kevin Larson stating, "He has been assigned to the 1st Brigade Combat Team. He is getting a barracks space, drawing uniforms, getting a new ID and having his pay re-started because for all intents and purposes he is once again a part of the 3rd Infantry Division."
Later that day, in a similar spirit of telling old lies and avoiding old truths, President Obama used his very first press conference to label Iran and its alleged quest for nuclear weapons as the pre-eminent threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. Helen Thomas, the most senior reporter in the White House press corps, and the only one to stand up to Obama's predecessor, asked point-blank whether any other countries in the Middle East possessed nuclear weapons. It isof course common knowledge that Israel has hundreds of nukes aimed at every capital in the region from Tripoli to Teheran. No less a member of Obama's cabinet than Robert Gates at his confirmation affirmed that Israel has nukes, but it suited the new president to refuse to answer the question, to ignore Thomas's follow-ups, and to filibuster for four or five minutes in some other direction.
Tens of millions who voted for this president imagined they'd get real change. But the reality is dawning on many that what we're getting is a lot more of the same. We have a president who repeats discredited lies about "rogue regimes" with nuclear weapons, while he ignores Israel, a genuine 21st century apartheid state, which has menaced its neighbors with nuclear weapons for more than thirty years.
Obama volunteered at some point during the press conference, that the moment the true import of his new job sank into him was when he hadto sign letters notifying the families of American dead, "ourheroes," as he called them. The president made no mention of hisdecision, on this third day of office, to launch drones and cruisemissiles into Pakistan. Those missiles killed 17 people, includingseveral children. The drones were probably launched fromAfghanistan, and remotely piloted by stateside military personnel. Those dead, including the children, got no letters of regret from thepresident, and seemed not to register in the president's public calculus. After all, they were not American heroes.
The election is over. Those unconditional Obama defenders who answer the president's critics with "well what did you want, McCain?" are doing what their president says he won't do. They are living in the past, looking backward instead of forward. It's time to hold the current president and his actions up to the cold light of day, to evaluate his performance in light of his promises and our legitimate expectations for peace and justice. It's time those of us who stand for peace and justice stop protecting the president. We may soon need to be protected from him.
Lastly, Feminist Wire Daily reports: The Health Care for Women Resolution was reintroduced in both chambers of Congress yesterday by co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). If passed, the resolution would help to ensure the needs of women would be met in national healthcare reform.In a press release, Representative Schakowsky said "our resolution calls on Congress to pass a national healthcare reform bill within 18 months that directly addresses the healthcare needs of women." Senator Stabenow added "women must have affordable health care that they can rely on through their life transitions, including starting a family, working part-time or full-time, divorce, or caring for a sick or elderly parent."
Also yesterday, a Columbia University report (see PDF), entitled "Women's Health and Healthcare Reform," was released. This report calls for the linkage of family planning and prenatal care to women's medical care, ensuring that women receive accurate and complete healthcare information, that their healthcare is confidential, and that integrated reproductive healthcare is available across women's lifespans. |
Posted at 03:25 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Kurds to increase number of women on provincial councils
The US government announced:
"The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who
was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sgt. James M. Dorsey, 23, of
Beardstown, Ill., died Feb. 8 in Kamaliyah, Iraq, in a non-combat
related incident. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor
Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood,
Texas. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under
investigation." They made that announcement Monday. Citing that
announcement this morning, AP notes,
"The death raises to at least 4,244 members of the U.S. military who
have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003." ICCC also has 4,244 as their count. If it seems like we're doing a slow walk through, we are. ICCC lists this month's deaths: | 09-Feb-2009 | 4 | | US: 4 | UK: 0 | Other: 0 |
|
|
| US | NAME NOT RELEASED YET | Mosul - Ninawa | Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack |
| US | NAME NOT RELEASED YET | Mosul - Ninawa | Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack |
| US | NAME NOT RELEASED YET | Mosul - Ninawa | Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack |
| US | Sergeant Joshua Ward | Mosul - Ninawa | Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack | | 08-Feb-2009 | 2 | | US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0 |
|
|
| US | Specialist James M. Dorsey | Baghdad | Non-hostile |
| US | Specialist James M. Dorsey | Baghdad (Kamaliyah) | Non-hostile | | 06-Feb-2009 | 1 | | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0 |
|
|
| US | Specialist Christopher P. Sweet | Balad Ruz - Diyala | Non-hostile | | Total | 7 | | US: 7 | UK: 0 | Other: 0 |
|
And as you can say, currently Dorsey is mistakenly listed twice. With AP
having the same count (they do their own count), the 4,244 is most
likely correct but due to the above, we're walking it through slowly.  That's Nawal al Samurrai who announced her resignation from Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet Friday. Today Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) report
on why al Samari (also spelled Samaraie by some press accounts) quit
her "$10,00 a month" post: It was a for-show post. Parliamentarian Nada
Ibrahim explains, "It's not a real ministry. It's one room with a
woman, no budget, no staff. It's a trick." The reporters note that the
issue "also highlights what many women say is the lip service paid them
by the Shiite conservatives loyal to Dawa and other Shiite parties
dominant in parliament. In August, Inaam Jawwadi, a female member of
parliament from the Shiite bloc, called for Samarai's ministry to be
turned into a Cabinet portfolio, but the proposal went nowhere." The
reporters note the "hundreds of thousands of women widowed since the
U.S.-led invasion of 2003" and report: Her
eyes glistened with tears as she described the frustration of
confronting widows and not being able to offer them anything beyond
promises that she would try to help. She found herself sitting in her
small office appealing to nongovernmental organizations for money to
launch the programs she had envisioned when she took the position in
July."It's shameful for me in Iraq, a rich country, to have to ask NGOs for money," Samarai said.al-Maliki's
band of crooks insist they are not dismissing women or refusing to take
their problems seriously. The reporters write, "Officials have denied
allegations that women's rights have eroded since the rise of the
Shiite power structure. They point out that 25% of seats for the newly
elected provincial councils are reserved for women, and that 33% of
seats in the parliament were set aside for women after the last
national election in 2005." January 14th snapshot: Today Alissa J. Rubin and Sam Dagher (New York Times) report
the latest attack on women's rights in Iraq: Somehow, no one can figure
out how, the rights of women to be represented with 25% of the seats in
the January 31st elections just fell by the wayside. No one can figure
out. It just, in all the talks and discussions, somehow, no one can
figure it out, it just dropped right out. Oops. The reporters explain,
"Early versions of the law, which governs the election of Iraq's 18
provincial councils, included a firm guarantee that women would have at
least 25 percent of the seats -- the same percentage mandated by the
Constitution for the numbers of women in Parliament. In the
male-dominated Arab culture, the framers of the Constitution and the
Americans who were involved in drafting it thought that the quota was
necessary to ensure that women would be represented.But
the provincial election law was changed several times, and the quota
language was gone by the time it went to the Presidency Council, whose
approval is needed for it to become official. It went back to the
Parliament with several unrelated changes and was published in early
October. The lack of a strong guarantee for women's council seats has
begun to gain widespread attention only in the last few days." And good
for Rubin and Dagher but find that topic at any other outlet. Find one
example in the US of the press using their power to amplify. You can't.
And if you're wondering why there's no number listed
above it's because there was no known number. The 25% was cut. A
measure was applied in which a third seat won by a political party with
multiple candidates would go to a woman and what the percentage on that
would be, no one knew and they won't know until the provincial election
results are final. (No, they're still not final.) So, no, al-Malki
thugs, you can't point to the 25% on provincial elections because that
was done away with and no one wanted to fess up and take ownership for
that action. And while al-Maliki's thugs cut the 25% that was supposed to be law, the KRG ups their numbers. Alla Majeed (UPI) reports:
"Kurdish lawmakers Wednesday made amendments to their provincial
elections law to set aside 30 percent of the seats for females,
al-Bayyna of the Iraqi Hezbollah reported Wednesday." Meanwhile the Kurdistan Regional Government offers a discussion on human rights: Interview with Dr Yousif Mohammad Aziz, Minister for Human Rights  | Human
rights are a focus of the Kurdistan Regional Government's work and one
of Prime Minister Barzani's guiding principles. Human Rights Minister
Dr Yousif Mohammad Aziz explains to KRG.org the challenges and steps
that the KRG is taking to protect and promote human rights.
What are role and responsibilities of the KRG Human Rights Ministry?
Our
main responsibilities are the promotion and protection of human rights
in the Kurdistan Region, and the observation and follow-up of human
rights cases.
In
many Western countries, governments do not have human rights
ministries. Why did the KRG decide to establish the ministry in 2003?
In fact the UK, for example, does have a minister of state whose remit includes human rights.
Civil
society and local human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in
the Kurdistan Region are not as strong as those in the West and are
still evolving. The ministry has the authority and manpower to tackle
human rights problems, and can work directly with the Council of
Ministers and the Prime Minister to resolve them. Once our civil
society and our emerging democracy are as developed as in the West,
NGOs should be solely responsible for campaigning for human rights.
What role do local NGOs play in human rights?
Besides
the international NGOs, there are a large number of local human rights
NGOs in the Kurdistan Region but not all of them are active. We know
that effective and active NGOs will help to develop our democracy, so
we have made the active local NGOs members of our ministry's advisory
board, along with UNAMI and UNICEF.
When we first
established it two years ago, the advisory board met monthly and now
meets every three months to discuss all human rights issues and
concerns. The NGOs have also provided some useful ideas on how to
tackle issues related to human rights. Earlier this month on the 60th
Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, we awarded five local
NGOs to recognise their achievements and encourage them in their work.
What are the greatest challenges that the Kurdistan Region face in terms of human rights?
One
of our biggest challenges is preventing violence against women. Other
challenges are street children and underage labour; terrorism and
dealing with terror suspects according to the law. Another challenge is
to raise the public's awareness of international human rights laws. I
believe that since 1991, we have made some progress in these areas.
What are you doing to prevent and punish violence against women?
We
are making great efforts to prevent it and have established at least
six mechanisms to deal with it. Every three months the Prime Minister
and Council of Ministers meets to devise preventative and judicial
policies and monitor progress.
Second, I supervise a
committee that includes representatives of the ministries for women,
justice, civil society, interior, religion, education and social
affairs. We meet every month to define the steps that each of these
ministries must take. For example, the Religious Affairs Ministry is
responsible for ensuring that clerics and religious figures in their
sermons explain that honour crimes and violence against women are
anti-Muslim practices.
Third, the Interior Ministry has
established a special directorate in Dohuk, Erbil and Suleimaniah, and
hopes to open more in other towns in the Kurdistan Region. These
special directorates offer threatened women protection and advice, and
work with the ministries of justice, health and human rights to prevent
and investigate violence against women.
Fourth, Dohuk,
Erbil and Suleimaniah now each have a Violations Board made up of a
general prosecutor, forensic scientist and representatives of the human
rights and interior ministries. They ensure that the judicial process
is followed properly and rapidly in cases of honour killings and
domestic violence.
Fifth, we provide centres and shelters
for threatened women who are protected until the threat has been
removed, and are helped to find work and return to their communities.
Lastly,
we have amended several laws relating to women. Honour killings are now
punished as harshly as other killings and are not viewed as
'honourable' under the law. We have also removed old Iraqi laws that
allowed men to 'punish' and beat their wives, and changed the law in a
way makes it difficult for men to have more than one wife – limiting
the practice to only exceptional circumstances.
Are there any statistics on violence against women?
The
government statistics show a large increase in the number of women
coming forward for protection because of the new specially dedicated
directorates and the success of our campaign to raise awareness of the
issue. The positive sign is that the number of honour killings is
decreasing. Of course the presence of such crimes is still appalling
and our aim is to eliminate honour killings altogether, but we are
seeing a definite improvement thanks to the multiple strategies we are
employing.
What is the KRG doing to protect press freedom?
The
media law that was passed in September 2008 is a change in the right
direction, as it has completely removed imprisonment as a punishment
for libel or slander. The law also refers specifically to journalism
standards set out in a paper presented to the UN by the International
Federation of Journalists.
What is your view of the courts and judicial system?
One
of the biggest problems we face is the judicial system. The courts,
judges and general prosecutors need to be reformed and some violations
of human rights are even caused by the judicial system. At the
celebration the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Prime Minister Barzani said that in 2009 more steps should be
taken to improve the rule of law.
What provisions has the KRG made to protect minorities in the Kurdistan Region?
Every
minority has seats in the Kurdistan National Assembly, our regional
parliament, and have ministerial posts in the cabinet. Minorities have
their own schools where they teach in their own language and have full
freedom of religion. I believe that minorities enjoy full rights in
Kurdistan because we ourselves are a minority in Iraq and are very
aware and sympathetic of their needs and rights.
What about the accusations that Kurds are expropriating land from Christians?
If
this has happened, it has certainly never ever been a KRG policy. On
the contrary, many Christians have moved to Kurdistan from other parts
of Iraq for security and protection. If individuals have illegally
expropriated land, the courts would look at the deeds and return the
property to the rightful owner.
The
Kurdistan Region has been threatened by terrorist groups, but it has
remained relatively secure and stable thanks to the work of the
security forces and police and the cooperation of the public. However,
from 2003 many terrorism suspects were detained without charge or
trial. What is the KRG doing to tackle this?
Many
people - more than 700 - were detained without charge, as at the time
[2003] there was no terrorism law under which they could be charged,
and there were two administrations in Kurdistan. Since the unification
of the two administrations into a unified cabinet in May 2006 and the
passage of the anti-terrorism law in July 2006, we have worked hard to
solve this problem and from the outset I have personally visited the
prisons where they were held and we listened to the opinions of
international NGOs. We worked with the Ministry of Justice, Interior
Ministry and security forces to solve most of the cases so that from
more than 700, now there are just nine held without charge. We are
working hard on those nine cases and talking to experts so that none of
them are held without charge.
Kurds
suffered genocide and we hope this will never happen again to any of
the peoples of Iraq. What can the KRG do to ensure that no group is
ever targeted again for genocide?
The high court in
Baghdad, the Iraqi parliament and the Kurdistan National Assembly
(parliament) decided that the campaign against the Kurds was genocide.
In the 20th Century genocide was perpetrated many times and in
different continents, even though each time we said 'never again'. I
twice attended the regular session of the UN Commission on Human Rights
in Geneva. The Armenian representative at the session prepared a draft
UN resolution to take practical action to prevent genocide in the
future, and I supported this global initiative. It is also vital to
educate people in Iraq and around the world on human rights and the
prevention of genocide. Meanwhile violence continues today with Reuters reporting
a Mosul car bombing which has claimed the lives of 4 police officers
with an additional five injured, "Abdul-Kareem al-Sherabi, a senior
member of the Sunni Arab secularist party National Dialogue Front" has
been shot dead in Mosul and 8 pilgrims have been killed in a Kerbala roadside bombing (eighteen wounded). Iraq's Foreign Ministry notes:  11 February, 2009
Foreign Minister Meets Iranian Counterpart in Baghdad
His
Excellency Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari met on Wednesday 11/2/2009,
at the Foreign Ministry headquarters with Mr. Minoshehar Mottaki,
Iranian Foreign Minister and his accompanying delegation visiting Iraq
for discussions that concern the two countries .
Minister Zebari
and his Iranian counterpart discussed in a closed meeting the political
aspects and issues that concern the relations between the two
countries. Minister Zebari congratulated the Iranian Foreign Minister
on the thirtieth anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and
praised his efforts in resolving outstanding issues between the two
countries, such as borders, water and oil.
His Excellency
Minister Zebari stated that the path was paved and open for the
development of relations between the two countries in all fields and
the need for continued support for Iraq's Government, adding that Iran
was one of the first countries that supported the new Iraq and its
national government since the formation of the interim Governing
Council after the fall of the former regime.
On his part, Mr.
Mottaki expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad, adding that one of
the major reasons for his visit is to convey an invitation from Iranian
President Ahmadi Nejad to His Excellency President Jalal Talabani to
visit Iran in the near future, and praised the efforts of His
Excellency Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in the development of
relations between the two countries, especially during the past three
years in reaching high levels, commending the efforts of the
Ambassadors of both countries in developing them. Mr. Mottaki
congratulated the Government and people of Iraq for the success of the
provincial elections and its high participation rate in addition to
security and stability in the country, describing it as a translation
of the will of the Iraqi people for self determination.
The two
foreign ministers held a press conference attended by many local, Arab
and foreign media where they touched on the nature of Iraq and Iran's
relations and their growing stages in addition to future projects
between the two countries.
The meeting was attended Foreign
Ministry Undersecretaries and Ambassadors and the Iraqi ambassador in
Tehran and Iran's ambassador in Baghdad.
Foreign Minister
Mottaki arrived this morning to Baghdad International Airport heading a
large delegation which was received by Mr. Labeed Abbawi, Foreign
Ministry Undersecretary, and senior officials from the Ministry. In
the US, Serving Our Troops organized a meal for 8,000 soldiers and
their families -- the soldiers will deploy to Iraq in two months -- no, the illegal war is not ending. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe los angeles times tina susmancaeser ahmed alaa majeed
Posted at 06:59 am by thecommonills
Permalink
NYT undercounts Iraq to beef up Afghanistan
If it bleeds it leads? Not so much. Not when you're the New York Times
-- a paper that it is now obvious will never recover from selling the
illegal war. Today, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and others -- no link TO
GARBAGE -- team up to tell you "AT LEAST 20" dead in Afghanistan!!!!!
And to grab that headline the pimps have to include not just a bombing
that killed 8 -- wow, 8!!!!! -- but two who were shot in one incident
for a whopping ten people!!!!! And fifty-seven were wounded!!!!!
Throughout Afghanistan!!!!!! Front page news or 'news'. A16 (national edition), Steven Lee Myers offers " Security Talks About Iraq Not Needed, Iran Signals." Golly. Nothing must have happened in terms of violence in Iraq yesterday. Oh wait, yesterday's snapshot
notes 27 deaths. 27 deaths -- 16 from one double bombing. Yeah, that
would trump "AT LEAST 20" dead. As for the number wounded in Iraq
yesterday? 47 just from the double-bombing in Baghdad. That's before
you count up all the others (including "Awakening" Council members
wounded in shootings). Translation, Afghanistan is NOT front page news
if the point is violence. But the paper that LIED to the American
people to start the illegal war CONTINUES TO LIE and wants your morning
take-away to be, "Afghanistan violent! Iraq, calm." It's bulls**t. And
shame on Myers for taking part in that nonsense. Shame on him for
contributing to the deception and the lies. One of the few things the
current NYT division in Iraq has going for it is that none of them sold
the illegal war. All those losers are elsewhere now. (And the selling
includes the garbage Dexy and John
produced -- the half-truths and evasions that led people to believe
things were going great for the first two years of the illegal war.) " Bombs targeting Shiite pilgrims kill 20, injure 60 in Iraq" -- that's the headline in the Los Angeles Times. Monte Morin and Saif Hameed open with:
Attacks
targeting Shiite pilgrims bound for the holy city of Karbala rocked
Baghdad on Wednesday, leaving 20 dead and more than 60 injured,
government officials said.
The attacks ended a monthlong lull in
violence that accompanied Iraq's parliamentary elections, when security
was at an all-time high in the capital. The bloodshed also appeared to
be timed to the climax of an annual 40-day period of mourning for
Shiite Muslim faithful, a period in which Sunni Arab insurgent attacks
had become commonplace in the years after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq." Attacks Kill 16 In Iraqi Capital" is the headline in the Washington Post for Qais Mizher and Ernesto Londono's article which opens: Two
car bombs targeting a bus station in a Shiite neighborhood in southwest
Baghdad killed at least 16 people Wednesday, Iraqi authorities said.One
of the bombs detonated inside the main bus stop in the Bayaa district
about 3:30 p.m., and the second exploded just outside in a busy
commercial area, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said. The official
said the blast inside the station killed two people and the one outside
left at least 14 dead. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because
he is not allowed to talk to reporters. He said more than 40 people
were wounded in the bombings, which happened in close succession.Mahdi
Ali Hadi, 29, a taxi driver who was outside the gate of the bus station
when the blasts occurred, said passengers started running for cover as
security guards fired their weapons in the air. " String of bombings threatens relative calm in Iraq" is McClatchy's headline to Trenton Daniel and Laith Hammoudi which informs: More
than a dozen Iraqis were killed and 43 were wounded Wednesday in
back-to-back car bombings at a bus station in a Shiite Muslim
neighborhood in south Baghdad, police said.[. . .]The
attacks came a little more than a week after Iraq held provincial
elections in 14 of its 18 provinces. Election officials are expected to
release final results in the coming weeks.Around
3 p.m. Wednesday, bombs in a parked car and a van detonated in the
crowded bus depot in the Bayaa neighborhood, killing 16 civilians and
wounding 43 others, police said. The area is a popular shopping
destination.The U.S.-led Multi-National Corps in Iraq put the death toll in a second depot attack at eight dead and 33 injured.(The byline says "Leith," we're assuming it's a typo.) To read any other outlet is to be aware just how violent yesterday was in Iraq. To read the New York Times
-- home to the bad writing of Michael Gordon, Judith Miller, John F.
Burns, Dexter Filkins and other 'creative' types -- is to be under the
impression that Afghanistan was far more violent yesterday than Iraq.
(And for anyone who says, "It's not a competition," yes, it is. It is a
competition for media resources and media attention. And Iraq, with
147,000 US troops still on the ground, is being treated as the war
ended when no such thing happened and no such thing is happening
anytime soon.) The following community sites updated last night: -
-
-
-
Looking back 10 hours ago -
-
Tugboat Annie 10 hours ago -
-
-
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timessteven lee myersthe washington post monte morinsaif hameedmcclatchy newspaperstrenton daniel laith hammoudilike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:53 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
bill moyers journal
corey flintoff
