Next month, the Iraq War hits the six year mark. The illegal war has not ended, Barack Obama is not planning to end it, US broadcast networks are pulling their correspondents, but no one's supposed to notice and the reality is no one notices or no one cares.
We called out the nonsense of 'Mother Of All Bombers' in real time. Of course, it ends up being the only thing that interests some sites online. Why not? It can't be verified but it's the kind of topic perfect for Trash TV and that's really all we have online, mental midgets who can't wrap their tiny minds around anything more complex than a Lifetime woman-in-danger tele-flick.
So they post this nonsense that requires you believe the Iraqi police can capture the women on January 21st and hold for all that time without trumpeting their 'victory.' You have to believe that no one is tortured in Iraq and that confessions are 'pure' and 'honest.' To believe that, you have no grasp of reality and have missed all the reporting by Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) to cite only one example. You have to believe that the only reason a woman would become a bomber is because she was raped and that there is this team of rapists -- controlled by the Mother Of All Bombers -- watching and profiling potential victims to select just the perfect one. That Mother Of All is able to control every move and every movement in a country where mobility for all is severly restricted but even more so for women.
You have to ignore all of that and just be titilated by the lurid claims.
And you have to be historically ignorant, unaware that women have always risen up against occupations. You have to see this natural instinct in humans (one that also exists in the animal kingdom) as 'unnatural' when it surfaces in women.
Most of all you have to be a natural patsy for propaganda.
Which is why that garbage traveled around the web (and I'm not speaking of right-wing sites -- I have no idea what they do -- I'm talking about left-wing ones) and became the only Iraq 'news' most sites offered this month. Or this year.
Some of the losers thought they were doing something by 'remembering' the day Collie Powell lied to the United Nations.
Oh, how wonderful. How very brave. It must take a lot of guts to call out testimony that was discredited mere minutes after it was given.
How wonderful that their Iraq War 'work' is in noting a speech that took place . . . before the illegal war even began.
Dahr Jamail is back in Iraq. That may be the only link in this entry, this is a talking entry. But Dahr's back and I don't imagine he'll be there for long. I could be wrong, but I assume he'll be there for a few months tops. So you'd think it would be something that all the allegedly left websites would note.
And when Dahr's back in Iraq --- whether you personally like him or not -- it is news for the left and it is something to highlight. Maybe they don't link to Truthout? We don't link to that site. It is not pro-democracy as it demonstrated. You're more than able to advocate for someone to run but when you tell someone not to run or to drop out, you're not about democracy. So we link to Dahr's reports via his website. The reports are reposted in other places as well (Dissident Voice, to name but one).
For some online, Iraq doesn't matter because they're too vested in (still) pimping the lie that Barack will end the Iraq War. He won't. Not in his first term and if he can't do it in his first term, why does he deserve a second one? The only thing that will change that is huge pressure from the American people. But we're talking about a public that's been repeatedly and deliberately lied to. And has bought it.
Recently the Congressional flunkie posing as a journalist David Sirota pulled a trick and no one caught what went down. It's not that unfamiliar.
When the Iraq War went to pieces early on, Judith Miller provided a handy scapegoat for the bulk of the media spectrum. They were able to keep their heads down and allow her to take the fall for their own actions. Some of them have 'restyled' themselves as 'opponents' to the war (these 'opponents' make their 'opposition' about the way the illegal war was fought and not about the fact that it was started -- and started with lies -- in the first place). They're able to get linkage-love from around the web these days and no one holds them accountable.
David Sirota is only one of many who attempted to lie throughout the primaries. It is obvious that Barack's presidency is a disaster. (It is a disaster. And it will only get worse with more fawning.) Sirota's trying to reposition himself. It's the same trick many in the MSM pulled with Iraq. And some of them were called out for that (not many, again Judith Miller became the scapegoat for everyone) but they didn't bicker or argue, they just ignored it and managed to sail back into 'respectable' gas baggery.
Sirota's doesn't have the brains or tempermant to lay low. This is the man who endorses lying. This is th eman who praised a governor's campaign for tricking voters. Sirota's not about honesty, he's never been about honesty. He's a Congressional flunkie and not a journalist. He doesn't have a journalist's ethics or temperment. He's still the suck up on The Hill that he started out as and that he will end as.
Open government requires honesty. A democracy does not thrive on lies. When Sirota found a candidate lying and tricking people into voting for him to be a good thing, that really was it for him. It made clear he was not 'a friend of the people' or embracing democracy. Anyone who applauds lying to the public can't say, "Oh, but it was for our side!" No, that's not how it works. The ends do not justify the means.
And it appears that's really going to be the lesson of Barack's presidency.
His enablers and cheerleaders can attempt to hide the truth from the people but it's not going to work. And Barack campaigned -- in people's minds -- on ending the illegal war. He did that by using weasel words and by having a bunch of LYING WEASELS (Laura Flanders, Tom Hayden, CODESTINK, etc.) lie for him.
The lies are already hurting Panhandle Media. People are walking away from Pacifica and from various 'opinion journals,' refusing to donate for that crap after the stunt they all pulled. The ends do not justify the means but they do discredit liars and they do run off supporters.
America's going to awaken to the fact that Barack LIED about ending the illegal war. The refusal to call him out now on it and to force him to take the action people believe they voted for just means he has a very strong chance of being a one term president.
Republicans are not stupid. Already they're demonstrating they know how to act as an opposition party.
And here's the campaign they may try to run in 2012.
1) George W. Bush provided the framework to get us out of Iraq but Barack has kept us there despite campaigning on the promise to end the Iraq War.
2) Billions of American dollars have been wasted on the war in the last four year while Americans struggled to make ends meet.
3) For our nation's security -- national and economic -- I am calling for an end to the Iraq War and, if you vote for me, that is what you will get.
Barack used weasel words. He lied repeatedly. And a huge bulk of Americans honestly believe he promised them he would end the Iraq War and that this meant all the US service members would come home. When that hasn't happened by 2012, Barack's a liar. And the public turns on him. There will be no economic recovery in 2009. It's doubtful there will be one in 2010. Serious measures -- ones Barack is thus far unwilling to pursue -- need to be taken and, even if they are, most Americans won't feel any real improvement until 2011 at the earliest.
So with Barack's incredibly weak stimulus package (and the reality that most Americans are not going to look kindly when he comes back to beg again this year), he's really begging for the economic ills to continue through 2012. If so, that ought to make for a wondeful position to run on: "I told you I'd end the Iraq War and didn't and, four years later, the economy's still in the tank. But believe me, if elected to four more years, I will end the Iraq War this time and get to work on improving the economy. I'll pose for less magazine covers and require far less fawning."
But the Iraq War that he ran on will be the Iraq War that harms him more than anything else. Do people really think that in July of 2012, Americans aren't going to notice that US service members are still in Iraq?
"I was right! I was right!" he crowed about his sparsely attended speech before the illegal war started. That was never reality -- it was about as much 'reality' as the lie that he had to recreate an audio version because no record of it existed (video of it can be found online and we've linked to it before -- it was a poorly delivered speech) -- and when you make assertions on your behalf, when you ego-stroke in public repeatedly, don't whine when people expect you to live up to it.
What the liars for Barack never seemed to grasp was that the bill would come due.
The lies could not continue through eternity. That's George W. thinking and a sign of just how much lunacy exists among Barack's cheerleaders.
And the press can pack up and insist that the story is over but every time they attempt to tie a pretty box around it, they get slapped in the face with reality.
Over the weekend, AP reported
that Iraq War veteran Timothy Scott took his own life Thursday. Timothy
killed himself in Nova Scotia ("at his mother's home") after
self-checking out and going to Canada. WITN (link has text and video) adds,
"Reports indicate 59-year-old Bonnie Scott called police Thursday to
say her 22-year-old son was in her driveway and had a gun. Officials
say when they arrived, Marine Lance Corporal Timothy Scott fled, then
shot himself." Michael Macdonald (The Canadian Press) adds:
A base spokeswoman confirmed Scott served in Iraq from January to August 2007, and then from April to October in 2008. Having
joined the Marine Corps in November 2005, he was later awarded two Sea
Service Deployment Ribbons, an Iraqi Campaign Medal, a Global War on
Terrorism Service Medal, and the National Defence Service Medal. He
is thought to have left his unit sometime around Feb. 10, crossing the
Canada-U.S. border at Woodstock, N.B., early the next day.
The
United States military is scrambling to head off what has turned into
an epidemic of suicides. As reported on CNN, 24 service members killed
themselves in January of this year, six times as many as in January of
last year. 2008 was the fourth consecutive year of increases in soldier
suicides. Veterans For Peace
Executive Director Michael McPhearson said this is not a surprise to
him. "It is tragic. It is the culmination of years of continuous
deployments and general stress the Armed Services have been put under
because of an invasion and subsequent occupation that should have never
happened."
Meanwhile AP reports a "big send-off" is planned Tuesday in Madison, Wisconsin for the 3,000 Army National Guard soldiers who are deploying to Iraq.
Meanwhile, back in the homeland, there is a serious effort underway
to get Peter Schiff to run against Chris Dodd for his US Senate seat.
It looks like it would be tough race, but the line up of Schiff's
puritan philosophy of a true free market against Dodd's corrupt version
of corporatism would be juicy enough to make it a race worth supporting
for our movement. For those of you wondering about his positions
outside of the economy, take heart in this quote from the man himself:
"I have no faith in government. There is no evidence that they're going
to do the right thing." I guess that makes him one of us! If you
haven't yet, please pledge to contribute to the Schiff money-bomb
scheduled for February 21st. You can use the widget at the top-right of
this page or click here to go straight to their site.
We
do plan to get a couple days of surfing in (embarrassing photos to
come) before I fly back home, but then it's back to business. I'll be
in California for a week, San Diego, LA, and San Francisco before
visiting my Mom for her birthday on Valentine's Day in Pebble Beach.
Then on to Colorado for a week. Ok, yes, I will take a day or two for
Ron-ski and get some snowboarding in. Then Texas for the Freedom and
Liberty Movement State convention. I went to their regional convention
in Houston a couple weeks ago, and the way they are organizing there
from the bottom up before there is even a name for the new organization
let alone a structure is truly amazing. I will also be helping out with
Winter Soldier Austin on February 28th. Then it's on to DC for a few days for a workshop, then up to Nashua for the New Hampshire Liberty Forum and on to an event at Kent State. Then I'll be in St. Louis supporting Matthis Chiroux resisting deployment at his US Army separation hearing. Then of course, back to DC to mark the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq, and finally, back to Santa Fe. Did I mention that I will be driving the whole way?
That's
at Adam's blog so it should be obvious he's speaking for himself. For
those who did not grasp that, he is. IVAW is a non-partisan
organization and the veterans in it are from a wide range of political
beliefs. No veteran need be, for example, a Democrat to join up, they
only have to be a veteran who wants to end the Iraq War.
We've noted A.N.S.W.E.R.'s
announcement and participation in the upcoming March action; however,
we haven't noted their press release in full. It's too lengthy for a
snapshot (which is why it's only been excerpted in those) but we'll
note it this morning in full:
Why We're Marching on the Pentagon Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine... Occupation is A Crime
We
are organizing a Mass March on the Pentagon on Saturday, March 21, and
it is important that you and your family, friends, co-workers and
fellow students put on your marching shoes that day. People are coming
from all over the country. Simultaneous demonstrations are taking place
in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Why
are we still marching even after the war criminal George W. Bush has
left office? Because the people must speak out for what is right. More
than 1 million Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of U.S. troops
have been wounded or killed.
The
Iraq and Afghanistan war will drag on for years unless we act now. The
cost in lives and resources is criminal regardless of whether the
Democrats or Republicans are in charge of the government.
We
must also act to end U.S. support for Israel's ongoing war against the
Palestinian people. The Bush Administration gave the green light and
provided the weapons and the money for Israel’s recent war against the
Palestinian people in Gaza. More than 5,000 Palestinians were killed or
wounded; the majority of casualties were civilians, including hundreds
of children, in this high-tech massacre. "We the People" pay the bill
as the U.S. provides $2.5 billion a year for Israel's massive military
machine.
Why We Say: Bring All the Troops Home Now Not Later!
If
Bush’s war and occupation of Iraq was an illegal action of
aggression--and it was--how can the new government say that it can only
gradually end the war over a number of years? The Iraqis don't want
foreign military forces running their country. No one would! The
Pentagon has employed 200,000 foreign contractors (mercenaries) and
150,000 U.S. troops to maintain the occupation of Iraq. They have no
right to be there. A few thousand are being brought out of Iraq only to
be redeployed to occupy Afghanistan, and the fools in the media
proclaim "the war is winding down." That is not true.
President
Obama decided to keep the Pentagon just as it was under Bush. He even
selected Bush appointee Robert Gates to keep his position as chief of
the Pentagon. Gates announced that the new administration would double
the number of troops sent to Afghanistan. That is certainly not the
"change" most people thought was coming following the end of Bush’s
tenure.
These are wars for domination in the Middle East and Central Asia.
The
people of the United States want change. We are sick and tired of wars
of aggression waged abroad under false slogans of "national security."
These are wars that reap massive profits for corporate weapons-makers
with the promise of winning control over the vast oil and natural gas
reserves in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Working
people may have another definition for "national security." What really
makes the people "insecure?" Ask the 2.3 million families who are
losing their homes because they are being foreclosed when they can’t
pay their steep debts to the banks. Ironically, when these same
parasitic bankers couldn’t pay their debts, the federal government
rushed in with a $2.5 trillion bailout using our tax dollars.
Or
ask working-class students who are being laid off from their jobs just
as tuition costs soar out of reach. What defines "security" for
millions of young people whose future is at stake? Do they want tax
dollars spent to kill poor people abroad or to finance education?
We
will march on Saturday, March 21, the sixth anniversary of the start of
the Iraq invasion, to demand that taxpayer dollars be used to meet
people’s needs--here and everywhere. This year's real Pentagon war
budget will top $1 trillion.
This
amount could create 10 million jobs, provide healthcare and education
for all, rebuild New Orleans, and repair much of the damage done in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. We need money for jobs, housing,
health care and education, not for wars of aggression.
The
occupation of Iraq alone costs $12 billion each month. This amounts to
$400 million each day, $16.7 million per hour and $278,000 per minute.
The
Pentagon war machine does not act in our interests. Its wars benefit
the biggest corporations and banks that seek to control the markets and
riches of the Middle East. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan and
Palestine are not our enemies. They want to live free from
colonial-type domination. Only a people’s movement demanding an end to
U.S. wars and militarism can win justice for people here and abroad.
Go to PentagonMarch.org
for details about transportation, meetings and to get involved. Buses
will be traveling to Washington, D.C. from across the country.
Sidney notes Ann McFeatter's "Grim news on Iraq" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
and I've added "[one]" because I believe the word's left out of
McFeatter's sentence (Barack had only one question that mentioned Iraq):
On
the day of President Barack Obama's first prime-time press conference,
four more Americans were killed in Iraq. Yet the new president, who was
elected in part because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, got only
[one] question on Iraq, and that was whether he would override the Bush
administrations refusal to permit the news media to cover the return to
U.S. soil of the caskets of soldiers killed there and in Afghanistan.
(Obama said the matter is still under review.)
Obama
noted that the moment the burdens of his new office were driven home to
him came as he signed letters to the families of fallen soldiers.
Americans killed in Iraq since 2003 number 4,244. Officially, another
31,035 have been wounded. There is no official U.S. count of how many
Iraqi civilians have died; the number is believed to be nearly 100,000.
The
invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003; next month, the sixth
anniversary of the war will be observed. Is the United States any
closer to winning the war or withdrawing its troops?
With
the end of the Bush administration came a flood of new memoirs about
the war and candid observations from military officials in charge. All
offer gloomy prospects for Iraq, despite Obama's promise to withdraw
combat troops within 16 months. (Note the emphasis is on combat troops.
Thousands of support troops are expected to stay.) There are 145,000
U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Dahr Jamail is back in Iraq. In his most recent report,
he covers "construction" and Anbar. As you read through the excerpt
below (use link for his full report which also contains photos) note
the last name mentioned who has been in the news a great deal recently:
Today,
leading sheiks like Aifan will tell you that they are in "the
construction business." That’s a polite phrase for what they’re doing,
and the rubric under which a lot of the payouts take place (however
modest actual reconstruction work might be). Think of it this way:
Every dealer needs a front man. The U.S. bought the sheiks off and it
was to their immediate advantage to be bought off. They regained a kind
of power that had been seeping away, while all the money and arms
allowed them to put real muscle into recruiting people in the tribes
they controlled and into building the Awakening Movement.
The
reasons -- and they are indeed plural -- why the tribal leaders were so
willing to collaborate with the occupiers of their country are, at
least in retrospect, relatively clear. Those in al-Anbar who had once
supported, and had been supported by, Saddam Hussein, and then had
initially supported the resistance became far keener to work with
occupation forces as they saw their power eroded by al-Qaeda-in-Iraq.
AQI
proved a threat to the sheiks, many of whom had initially worked
directly with it, when it began to try to embed its own fierce,
extremist Sunni ideology in the region -- and perhaps even more
significantly, when it began to infringe on the cross-border smuggling
trade that had kept many tribal sheiks rich. As AQI grew larger and
threatened their financial and power bases, they had little choice but
to throw in their lot with the Americans.
As
a result, these men obtained backing for their private militias,
renamed Awakening groups, and in addition, signed "construction"
contracts with the Americans who put millions of dollars in their
pockets, even if not always into actual construction sites. As early as
April 2006, the Rand Corporation released a report, "The Anbar
Awakening," identifying America’s potential new allies as a group of
sheiks who used to control smuggling rings and organized crime in the
area.
One striking example was Sheik
Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who founded the first Awakening groups in
al-Anbar and later led the entire movement until he was assassinated in 2007,
shortly after he met with President Bush. It was well known in the
region that Abu Risha was primarily a smuggler defending his business
operations by joining the Americans.
Not
surprisingly, given the lucrative nature of the cooperative
relationship that developed, whenever an Awakening group sheik is
assassinated, another is always there to take his place. Abu Risha was,
in fact, promptly replaced as "president" of the Anbar Awakening by his
brother Sheik Ahmad Abu Risha, also now in the "construction business."
Sheik
Ahmad Abu Risha is the thug who got his way, the thug who got the
elections results changed. The thug that both George W. Bush and Barack
Obama have 'paid their respects to' and been photographed with. He
didn't like the results of the January 31st elections so he threatened
violence. Instead of being shut down right then and there, he was
catered to. The results were changed for him. If you're late to the
party, refer to the following:
Oh, yes, that voice of peace Sheik Risha. And what did LAT quote him saying? "If the percentage is true, then we will transfer our entity from a political ... thecommonills.blogspot.com/2009/02/sheik-risha-stomps-his-feet-and.html - 75k - Cached - Similar pages -
But it's rush down to make nice with Sheik Risha when, if it was anyone else, the US military would be ..... More of Common Ills' photos tagged with image ... thecommonills.blogspot.com/2009/02/iraq-snapshot_05.html - 88k - Cached - Similar pages -
The party issued a statement on Sunday accusing Sheik Ahmed and Mr. Mutlaq of practicing "intimidation and extortion" in order have ... "Ahmed Abu Risha is a bandit and thief," he said. .... More of Common Ills' photos tagged with image ... thecommonills.blogspot.com/2009/02/iraq-snapshot_10.html - 86k - Cached - Similar pages -
Oh, yes, that voice of peace Sheik Risha. And what did LAT quote him saying? "If the percentage is true, ..... More of Common Ills' photos tagged with image ... thecommonills.blogspot.com/2009/02/iraq-snapshot_04.html - 85k - Cached - Similar pages -
We get our way, the sheik appears to say, or out come the bullets and the guns. .... More of Common Ills' photos tagged with image ... thecommonills.blogspot.com/2009/02/and-counting-of-ballots-continues.html - 68k - Cached - Similar pages -
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Sheikh Sattar Abo Risha, the head of Anbar awakening council .... permalink posted by Common Ills @ 2:45 PM ... thecommonills.blogspot.com/2007/09/iraq-snapshot_13.html - 78k - Cached - Similar pages -
On Tuesday, Sheikh Saleh Fezea Shneitar, his son and nephew were killed outside of Falluja -- the sheikh..... More of Common Ills' photos tagged with image ... thecommonills.blogspot.com/2007/10/iraq-snapshot_19.html - 93k -
Iran's Foreign Minister conducts first visit to Kurdistan Region of Iraq
Erbil,
Kurdistan Region – Iraq (KRG.org) – Mr Manouchehr Mottaki, the Foreign
Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, today conducted the first
visit of an Iranian Foreign Minister to the Kurdistan Region in Iraq.
This comes as part of Foreign Minister Mottaki's official visit to the
Republic of Iraq.
Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani and
several senior Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials met the
Foreign Minister, and afterwards held a joint press conference.
President Barzani said, “This visit is an encouraging sign for
strengthening the relationship between our Region and Iran.” He added,
“We in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq want good neighbourly relations
based on mutual understanding, and I am happy to welcome this first
visit of an Iranian Foreign Minister to the Region.”
Prime
Minister Nechirvan Barzani and Deputy Prime Minister Omer Fattah also
received Foreign Minister Mottaki. Investment and business
opportunities, historical and cultural ties, and trade partnerships
were the main topics of discussion.
The KRG leadership welcomes
this visit as part of its policy of expanding relations with members of
the international community. Solidifying friendship with Kurdistan’s
neighbours has been a focus of KRG Prime Minster Nechirvan Barzani's
administration.
Minister Mottaki has come to the Kurdistan
Region in Iraq to discuss the consolidation of economic cooperation
between the KRG and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr Mottaki also acts
as Iran’s Chairman for the Iran-Iraq Joint Economic Council, and
supports continued economic and commercial cooperation between Iran and
the Kurdistan Region.
Foreign Minister Mottaki announced the new
Consul-Generals of Iran’s Consulates in Erbil and Suleimaniah.
Accompanying Mr Mottaki on his trip from Baghdad were Iraq’s Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zibari, Iraq’s Ambassador to Iran, Iran’s Ambassador
to Iraq, and other relevant officials. Minister Mottaki departed Erbil
in the late afternoon for Suleimaniah, where he will meet with other
senior officials.
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.
Look
at the photo on the Iraq side and note no women. Marvel over that and
the nonsense claims of 'progress.' Marvel over who the hell does Iraq
think it's fooling with its claims to be concerned about the rights of
women. One side of that table is Iraq's and there's not one woman
seated. It's not a surprise that the theocratic government of Iran is
hostile to women and women's rights but remember that photo the next
time the puppet government in Iraq wants to pretend they care at all about women's rights.
In the New York Times today, Steven Lee Myers' "Reopening of Museum in Baghdad Is Uncertain"
reports on the power struggle between the Ministry for Tourism and
Antiquities and the Culture Ministry as to whether or not the museum
will open next Monday. The Culture Ministry's Jabir al-Jabiri is
stating that the museum is not opening and his ministry is over the
Ministry for Tourism and Antiquties while MfTaA's Baha al-Mayahi states
yes, they are opening next Monday. Meanwhile Michael Christie, Missy Ryan and Elizabeth Piper (Reuters) report 8 dead and twenty-six wounded in two Baghdad roadside bombings today.
Some
staffers in Congress privately assert that the Democrats are not acting
like a majority party. It is worse than that. They are not
acting-period. From their
majority status in 2007 to 2009 and a Democratic President in the White
House, the Congressional Democrats are not moving swiftly to repeal the
ban on Uncle Sam negotiating drug prices from volume discounts under
the drug benefit law. They are not moving to amend the Patriot Act,
regain control of warrantless surveillance, strengthen the corporate
criminal laws and enforcement budgets. Congress is not even pushing to
require taxing Hedge Fund manager's income as ordinary income not as
capital gains. I cite these
policies because they are policies much favored by many Democratic
lawmakers. But in practice lawmakers duck and duck and duck from
translating their beliefs into contentious action vis-à-vis the
lobbyists and their captive legislators. Senator
Chris Dodd and the vast majority of the American people want to do
something about credit card company abuses and gouges. But he is
surrounded not just by the Republicans on the Senate Banking Committees
but high-ranking Democrats beholden to the financial goliaths who, are
demanding and receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer
bailouts. There is word from
the politicians that consideration of health care insurance-apart from
a quickly enacted expansion of some coverage for more poor
children-will be put off for a year. The trade unions' top priority to
enact labor law reforms, supported by Obama during his presidential
campaign, are being held back by the Democrats. There
is even doubt whether the District of Columbia will get a voting
Representative in the House when push comes to shove in the Senate. The
one-subject-at-a-time attitude is coming from the White House. "Obama
doesn't want it now" is a common phrase used by legislators to excuse
themselves from exercising the separate but equal Congressional powers.
This pretext applies to taking away some of the hugely expensive and
unnecessary weapons systems like the F-22 aircraft decried by many
military and retired military analysts. The vast, bloated military
budget is sacrosanct on Capitol Hill as it is in the White House. At
a time of widely perceived needs for Congressional action, with large
corporations busy applying for corporate welfare and on the defensive,
the Democrats are not generating any momentum for standing for and with
the people. Even in the midst of food contamination, illnesses and
fatalities, they cannot turn around forty years of delay on giving the
Food and Drug Administration adequate authority and inspectors to
protect our food supply.
And today? I didn't realize it was a holiday. I think the only ones in the house who knew were Jim and Dona. Ava, Wally
and I woke up and did our normal routines. Dona popped in a second ago
to ask if anything was planned for the day off? We (Ava, Wally and I)
didn't know it was a holiday or that we had a day off from speaking on
the road. Wally quickly called Kat and said, "Go back to bed." If I'd
known, I would have slept in at least another hour. But e-mails are
asking if there's a snapshot today? I don't know. If I do a snapshot,
other community sites will feel they have to post. So I probably won't
unless there's some big news out of Iraq. I will do another entry today
and that may or may not be about Iraq. It might be about the non-stop
attacks (Monica Davey joins in this morning) on a senator opposed to
the illegal war and, if so, it will ask why alleged 'left' sites are
attacking the man? It will ask why those allegedly so 'hurt' over being
called racists are smearing the only Black senator in the US Senate
with lies. I'm really sick of those right-wingers posing as lefties.
I've had with them, with their racism and with their ignorance. Really,
do not post another word if you do not know your facts. It was
embarrassing enough when that idiotic site was ripping apart Kim Gandy
for her refusal to endorse Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party's
presidential primary. Kim Gandy can be ripped apart in any language,
using any tone anyone wants. (I like Kim. I've called her out numerous
times here.) But there is one rule. It's not "you must be polite." It
is, "You must be accurate." Kim Gandy personally endorsed Hillary
during the primaries, Kim Gandy took to the road to speak out in favor
of Hillary's campaign. Attacking Kim Gandy for not supporting Hillary
just flaunts that site's incredible ignorance and how fact free they
are.
They refuse to be bound by the facts. And then they want to
whine to other sites about how mean people are to them and how they're
called racists and how that's so mean and blah, blah, blah. Quit
attacking the only Black senator with lies if you don't want to be
called racists. Quit using right-wing talking points about immigrants
if you don't want to be called racists.
So that might be the topic of the other entry today. But there will be three today.
Iraqi
election officials said Sunday that some fraud was committed in
virtually every province during local elections Jan. 31 but that it was
not widespread enough in any of them to require a new vote. "We have
received complaints over violations in all 14 provinces, with varying
degrees of seriousness, but most of them were not critical and did not
change the final results," said Kareem al-Tamimi, a member of Iraq's
national electoral commission. "Some of the provinces had more than
others."
The above is from K.I. Ibrahim's "Fraud Committed in Iraqi Election" (Washington Post) and what's a better sign of emerging 'democracy' than widespread election fraud? (That was sarcasm.) Gulf Daily News notes,
"Iraqi officials nullified election results in more than 30 polling
stations due to fraud in last month's provincial balloting, but the
cases were not significant enough to require a new vote in any
province, the election chief said yesterday." Ibrahim says final
results are announced Tuesday and take a moment to grasp all the
spinning that has gone on since January 31st and that only now will the
results be official. Yesterday, Leila Fadel (McClatchy's Baghdad Observer) reported,
"The Independent High Electoral Commission has announced and then
canceled a series of press conferences. Today they nullified 30 ballot
boxes after finding fraud, most in the province of Anbar where tribal
sheikhs accused the incumbent Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, of
vote rigging. "
The
elections the other day? Yeah. Remember the elections a couple of years
ago, purple fingers, people coming out? Followed by a civil war. So I
think there are a lot of reasons that Iraq '09 is going to be very
tough and in fact harder 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.
For those who are unable to stream or who would require closed caption to enjoy the stream, Ava and I include an excerpt in "TV: Blustering Boys" and we'll have a full transcript of the interview in Hilda's Mix Tuesday. Also tomorrow in the newsletter, Hilda's
reviewing the White House website on accessibility for the deaf and
hard of hearing -- this is the new website and she's doing compare and
contrast with the previous version. So be sure to check your inboxes.
Ivan Watson (CNN) reported
Saturday that Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq, has seen five
members of his political party tender their resignations: "Kurdish
members of the Iraqi Parliament say the resignations threaten the
delicate balance of power in Iraqi Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region
in northern Iraq. It has been the most stable part of the country since
the 2003 U.S.-led invasion."
Stockholm,
Sweden (KRG.org) – The Kurdistan Regional Government last month held
its annual Kurd Galas in Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen to honour
Kurdistan's friends abroad and celebrate the achievements of Kurds in
Scandinavia.
At the three galas held in late January, Mr Taha
Barwary, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Minister of Sports and
Youth, welcomed government officials, MPs, diplomats, and Swedish and
Kurdish youth associations.
Mr Barwary said, “We are proud that
Kurdistan has such friends in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Your support
has helped to highlight Kurdish issues and improve the lives of Kurds
both at home and in the Diaspora." He added, "We are also here to
honour Kurds who have shown by example how we can contribute positively
as members of Swedish society.”
The ceremonies recognised
individuals' and organisations' achievements in three categories: the
Friend of the Kurds Honorary award, the Friend of the Kurds, and the
Kurd of the Year. Kurdish and Swedish comedians, singers and performers
entertained the audience.
Among the recipients of awards were:
In
Sweden: Mr Thomas Hammarberg for his many years of support for the
Kurds; Qandil, the Swedish NGO, for its reconstruction and water
projects in Kurdistan since 1992; and Kurdish football team Dalkurd FF
which has broken records in the Swedish leagues.
In Norway: Mrs
Wenche Larsen, co-founder of the NGO Kurdish Solidarity; Mr Erling
Folkvord, a former Red Party MP who has authored books on and supported
Kurdish issues for many years; and Mr Haci Akman for helping to
establish a Kurdish museum in the city of Bergen.
In Denmark: Mr
Holger K. Nielsen, former Leader of the Socialist Party in Denmark
(SF), for his dedication to the Kurdish question; Mr Klaus Slavensky of
the Danish Institute for Human Rights for helping to improve Kurdish
people's lives; and Mr Kameran Brahimi, founder of the TV channel
Kurdantv in Copenhagen.
Iraq Participates in Multi-Cultural Festival Held in Canberra Iraq
participated in a multi-cultural festival held in the Australian
capital, Canberra for the period from 6-17/2/2009, through a series of
art activities that reflect the history of Iraq and all of its sects
and religions and civilizations. The
organizing committee of the festival specified a special day for Arab
countries, and provided each with a pavilion. The Iraqi pavilion
attracted a great deal of Australian citizens who wish to be familiar
with Iraq's history and heritage. The Embassy of the Republic of Iraq
in Canberra provided a brochure for this event.
Come OUT to the first national protest of the wars under President Obama
THURSDAY March 19 leave work & school to PROTEST the 6th anniversary of the Iraq War.
SATURDAY March 21 at the Pentagon.
Barack Obama says he will:
leave 80,000 troops, thousands of private contractors, and 17 permanent bases in Iraq ;
send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan , leading to more killings of civilians;
keep sending robot drones over Pakistan , killing more civilians;
deploy nuclear carriers with enough firepower to annihilate any country in the Mid East;
support the Israeli siege on Gaza ;
keep the “secret rendition” program which Bush used to torture detainees;
keep the government spying on citizens and continue Bush’s “state secrets” justification;
increase the U.S. militaryby 92,000 troops, sending more to die for empire;
refuse to investigate & prosecute the war & torture crimes of the Bush regime.
The
election of the first Black president is effectively re-branding
preemptive and illegal wars of aggression to make us feel good about
them, enlisting us to “serve and sacrifice” for horrors we have no good
reason to support.
The U.S. war on Afghanistan is an unjust war of aggression—the supreme war crime,waged not
to bring democracy and liberation to the Afghan people, but to control
Afghanistan with the goal of permanent domination of the Middle East.
But, we don’t have to go along! It’s immoral to “wait and see” or hope for the best from Obama.
If
you care about humanity, get in the streets to send a message to the
world that there are millions of us who don’t want these crimes carried
out.
It’s time now to take action & make our demands visible everywhere.
The World Can't Wait 866 973 4463 info@worldcantwait.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
For more, you can click here for the text of pamphlet they are distributing to promote the event and you can visit World Can't Wait at any time for reality based commentary as opposed to the nonsense found at so many other left and 'left' sites.
Meanwhile Xinhau reports,
"Iraq discovered two mass graves containing a total of 15 decomposed
bodies in areas north and northeast of Baghdad, security sources said
Sunday. he remains of about 10 bodies, believed to date back about two
years ago, were found on Saturday in the area of Taji, some 30 km north
of Baghdad, army spokesman Major General Mohammed al-Askari said in a
statement released on Sunday." And the Japan Times reports,
"Japan's five-year-long operation to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq
came to a formal conclusion Sunday with a ceremony commemorating the
return of personnel from Kuwait to the Air Self-Defense Force base in
Aichi Prefecture."
Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "The Rose Ceremony." A teary-eyes Barack Obama holds a rose while Nancy Killefer, Judd Gregg, Bill Richardson and Tom Daschle flee. Little Dicky, with his dog by his side, declares, "If he had picked me, I would have been Mrs. Barack Obama, Secretary of the Whatever so fast, his head would have spun."
Trenton Daniel and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report that a public trial has been scheduled for Iraqi journalist Muntathar al Zaidi who threw two shoes at George W. Bush on December 14th. The journalists note, " Zaidi was poulled to ground by another journalist and then pummeled into submission by bodyguards for Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki." Australia Network News states, "A judicial official has announced that Muntazer al-Zaidi will face the charge of assaulting a foreign leader and will appear at the Central Criminal Court." Ahmed Rasheed, Peter Graff and Louise Ireland (Reuters) add that an effort to have the charges reduced was lost on appeal according to Abdul-Sattar al-Birqdar, spokesperson for the Iraqi Judiciary Council and, as a result, if convicted, Muntather could be sentenced to as many as fifteen years. Bush was hit by neither shoe. That's the 'freedom' Iraq is under.
They're just there to try and make the people free, But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me. Just more blood-letting and misery and tears That this poor country's known for the last twenty years, And the war drags on .-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4237 and tonight? 4239. Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died from a non-combat related incident Feb. 8. The Soldier’s name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The incident is currently under investigation." Just Foreign Policy's counter finally moves up and the current number is 1,311,696.
In some of the weekend's reported violence . . .
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives and left eleven people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing that injured two people, a third Baghdad roadside bombing that left five injured and a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded one person. Saturday McClatchy reported a Baghdad roadside bombing left two police officers wounded, two Diayala Province roadside bombings which claimed the lives of 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 Iraqi police officer, a Mosul grenade attack that wounded a police officer and, dropping back to Friday, a roadside bomb targeting Sheik Balasim Mohammed Yihya al Timimi "between Baladroz and Kanan towns" that left the sheik injured.
McClatchy noted Saturday 1 corpse discovered outside of Mosul.
That was far from the only violence and far from the only violence reported. For example, Reuters reported Saturday, "Gunmen kidnapped Talib al-Masoudi, who ran in Jan. 31 provincial elections as a candidate from the Shi'ite Fadhila party, from the Husseiniya neighbourhood in Kerbala, 80 km (50 miles) south of Baghdad, police said." Oh those wonderful, glorious and 'democratic' elections. Whose results are still not official. Apparently counting ballots isn't the difficult thing, it's rigging the results that's creating the hold up.
Meanwhile Moqtada al-Sadr apparently didn't learn the only real lesson of the elections: Threaten violence to get your way the tallies. Which is why AP explains al-Sadr is appealing the results of the elections: "The allegations are among a chorus of questions raised by Shiite religious parties and Sunnis about the outcome of provincial elections, in which allies of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki won a sweeping victory." Tahir al-Kinani is quoted citing two sets of number: one from al-Sadr's observers in the provinces and the other from Iraq's laughable and discredited "electoral commission."
"It's not our fault that some people couldn't vote because they are lazy, because they didn't bother to ask where they should vote." That's the 'electoral commission''s chief speaking. And al-Sadr should have taken a lesson from that. To widely documented problems that is Faraj al-Hadiari's response. To the thugs of Anbar's allegations that couldn't be proven and the thugs threats? al-Hadiari leaps into action and 'massages' the results. Because heaven forbid thugs aren't pleased with the results. Heaven forbid that while giving lip service to democracy, no one actually expects in Iraq.
Democracy? That would require checks and balances. For that to work, you'd have to have a strong, independent judiciary in Iraq (yes, we are all laughing) and a strong legislative branch able to check al-Maliki's never ending power grab. Strong legislative branch? The Parliament has been without a speaker since December 23rd when they ousted Mahmoud al-Mashhadani. 48 days later, who is the Parliament's speaker? Still no one. AFP reports there "are five candidates" but that Parliament remains "deadlocked."
Before get to the other governmental news out of Iraq, we need to remember what's taken place recently. On Jan 22nd, AP reported that Bayan Jabr has told Iraqis that the drop in the price of oil means "hard days to come" and that they should be buying gold or putting money in the bank. Yes, that was hilarious advice. And indicated how out of touch the exile government was with the inhabitants of Iraq who have no option of 'summering' elsewhere. From the Janaury 7th snapshot:
At that time it was expected/estimated by the GAO that Iraq's oil revenues for 2008 would be somewhere between $73 billion and $86 billion (the oil prices dropped significantly after that hearing). Mariam Karouny (Reuters) reported Monday that "Iraq earned about $60 billion from average crude oil sales of 1.85 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2008, a top Iraqi oil official said on Monday." Qatar's Gulf Times gives the figure as $60.9 billion and notes this is a 49% increase from the oil revenues the country brought in for 2007.
The government had to make 'choices' and what got cut? Nawal Al Samarrai announced last week that she was resigning as Iraq's Minister of Women's Affairs noting that it was a for-show position that was drastically underfunded. AFP reports today that she has revealed "her budget was slashed from $7,500 (BD2,8282) to $1,500 (BD566) per month as part of this year's government spending cuts due to plunging oil prices." We'll get back to the reality of what the puppet government spends money on but first let's note that a country with over 25 million people (CIA estimate) and more females than males -- especially among the adult population -- really should be ashamed for spending only $7,500 -- forget for cutting it to $1,500. $7500 was never going to be enough for a monthly budget. The US military had nearly 100,000 "Awakenings" on the payroll (a huge number still remain on the payroll) and paid $300 a month. That was $300,000 a month being paid to thugs so they wouldn't attack the US military -- the infamous fork-over-your-lunch-money-in-the-playground 'strategy.' In other words, 35 Awakening members a month were making the same amount of money as the entire monthly budget for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. 35 men. That number is outrageous and offensive. If you've missed it, the KRG continues to highlight -- sometimes slyly, sometimes outright -- how their region at least makes a show (they may do more than that, but at least makes a show) out of having women involved in the government and in governmental function via their press releases. Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their State Dept, may be the only ministry currently functioning and yet they earn no praise when time and again their appointments to other countries, the people they choose over and over to represent Iraq, are males. And when it's time to note a meeting with a woman from another country, they generally not only bill her as "Mrs." even if she bills herself as "Ms.," they also tend to spell her name wrong. There's a huge level of disrespect being shown towards women and other countries could address that indirectly -- it would be great if they did so directly, but they could do it indirectly -- by ensuring that women from their country are part of the diplomatic missions.
Let's be really clear that al-Maliki and his other religious freakazoids who think women have no rights -- and that's what al-Maliki thinks -- get away with their nonsense because they're not called on it. Bremer, Garner, go down the list. No one thought women were important enough to fight for. Since the start of the illegal war, when women achieved anything in Iraq, it was because Iraqi women took to the streets. They have regularly been undercut by foreign governments and by NGOs. Undercut? Try attacked by.
When every fall you know there will be a cholera outbreak because NO money is being spent to improve the water and sanitation systems, you know what the problem is. So shame on any NGO who attempts to attack women and blame the yearly cholera outbreak on them. That is exactly what happened in a Baghdad press conference last September. People like Dr. Naeema al-Gasseer are not helping anyone and they are a public menace to the women in Iraq. How dare she blame Iraqi women. How dare she scapegoat them.
Which country is going to step up to the plate and stop babying Iraq and stop assuming that women's rights are 'secondary issues' and that other issues can be 'fixed' and 'addressed' and that after all of that takes place, then they'll take up "the women's issue." In which country in the world has that ever happened? In which country have we ever seen a government declare, "We've worked on everything else. So now we can devote time and attention to 'the women's issue'."? It's never happened. Women have to demand their rights.
And the Iraqi women have. When everyone else has frequently been scared to take to the streets and march for their rights (post-invasion), Iraqi women have always marched. And they are undercut and betrayed by the international system that marks down their rights and treats them as if they are a side-oder and the rights of men are the main dish to be served immediately.
It is past time to see Iraqi women supported by the US, by England, by all the countries who just knew the 'right' thing to do was to start an illegal war. Just like they knew the 'right' thing to do was to take a secular nation and put religious thugs in charge. That decision was made because it was 'easiest' for the US. It wasn't 'easy' for Iraq. And that's the point regarding women's rights. They aren't add-ons, they aren't perks. If the society doesn't value the rights of all, the society's not a democracy.
Iraqi women would greatly benefit from other government's utilizing such indirect actions as ensuring that Iraq's (male) officials grasped that they would be dealing with women. British women, French women, Australian women, American women. And making sure women were present in the photo ops. al-Maliki's fundamentalist government is an attack on women. Something as simple as making the diplomatic envoy going to Iraq next week or next month a woman does send a message and, much more importantly, the message isn't to the thugs, it goes over them to the Iraqi people. They see it and they recognize it because Iraq, before the start of the illegal war, actually did have a government that recognized women's rights. Not to the degree that was in their Constitution, no. In practice, it wasn't at that level. But it was recognized. The US has 'succeeded' in turning Iraq into the Taliban's Afghanistan. The idea that they can now pretend that women's rights are a side-order and they can address it or not is ridiculous. The US government is directly responsible for the damage and destruction Iraqi women live with.
Remember the issue of money was not being ignored, we were just setting it aside for a moment. In 'good' times, al-Maliki thought $7,500 was more than enough for a ministry (dealing with women) to have as a monthly budget. Now he's slashed it to $1,500. But not everything gets slashed. And not everything gets underfunded. Dropping back to the December 11th snapshot:
October 31st, AP reported the puppet government in Baghdad's latest boo-hoo: Oil prices had dropped and their budget for 2009 had to be cut by $13 billion. The Guardian of London (via Iraq Directory) was writing that there was talk of raising production due to the drop from the expected $80 billion 2009 budget to the $67 billion budget. In 2008, they couldn't meet their spending targets and sat on a ton of money while infrastructure remained unrepaired and Iraqis suffered without electricity and potable water. This week they're on a spending spree. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency made several announcements yesterday [all links of announcements take you to PDF format]. DSCA announced: "On Dec. 9, the Dfense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 36 AT-6B Texan II Aircraft as well as associated support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $520 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 400 M1126 STRYKER Infantry Carrier Vehicles as well as associated equipment. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $1.11 billion." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 20 T-6A Texan aircraft, 20 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $210 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of (20) 30-35 meter Coastal Patrol Boats and (3) 55-60 meter Offshore Support Vessels as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $1.010 billion." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks modified and upgraded to the M1A1M Abrams configuration, 8 M88A2 Tank Recovery Vehicles, 64 M1151A1B1 Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), 92 M1152 Shelter Carriers, 12 M577A2 Command Post Carriers, 16 M548A1 Tracked Logistics Behicles, 8 M113A2 Armored Ambulances, and 420 AN/VRC-92 Vehicular Receiver Transmitters as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised could be as high as $2.160 billion." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 26 Bell Armed 407 Helicopters, 26 Rolls Royce 250-C-30 Engines, 26 M280 2.75-inch Launchers, 26 XM296 .50 Cal. Machine Guns with 500 Round Ammunition Box, 26 M299 HELLFIRE Guided Missile Launchers as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $366 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of (80,000) M16A4 5.56MM Rifles, (25,000) M4 5.56MM Carbines, (2,550) M203 40MM Grenade Launchers as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $148 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of (64) Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelters (DRASH), (1,500) 50 watt Very High Frequency (VHF) Base Station Radios, (6,000) VHF Tactical Handheld Radios, (100) VHF Fixed Retransmitters, (200) VHF Vehicular Radios, (30) VHF Maritime 50 watt Base Stations, (150) 150 watt High Frequency (HF) Base Station Radio Systems, (150) 20 watt HF Vehicular Radios, (30) 20 watt HF Manpack Radios, (50) 50 watt Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) Ground to Air Radio Systems, (50) 150 watt VHF/UHF Ground to Air Radio Systems, (50) 5 watt Multiband Handheld Radio Systems as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $485 Million." That is over six billion dollars being committed "if all options are exercised" -- which is a little over 10% of their entire budget for 2009. There's always money to spend when it comes to weapons. And human life is always done on the cheap.
Sent back to Iraq in 2006 as second in command of U.S. forces, under orders to begin the withdrawal of American troops and shift fighting responsibilities to the Iraqis, Odierno found a situation that he recalled as "fairly desperate, frankly." So that fall, he became the lone senior officer in the active-duty military to advocate a buildup of American troops in Iraq, a strategy rejected by the full chain of command above him, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top commander in Iraq and Odierno's immediate superior. Communicating almost daily by phone with retired Gen. Jack Keane, an influential former Army vice chief of staff and his most important ally in Washington, Odierno launched a guerrilla campaign for a change in direction in Iraq, conducting his own strategic review and bypassing his superiors to talk through Keane to White House staff members and key figures in the military. It would prove one of the most audacious moves of the Iraq war, and one that eventually reversed almost every tenet of U.S. strategy.
Kat: Somewhere around track five of The Good Stuff, you wonder how many singer-songwriters are slitting their wrists or at least tying a nasty one on? That's because The Good Stuff is the debut album of Schuyler Fisk, it's independently released (available at iTunes and Amazon.com) as a download and I can easily name fifty releases in the last five years with huge recording budgets that didn't come close to achieving what Fisk does.
I wonder who you're loving now? I'm guessin' we won't work things out. You know what they say, You can't have it so you want it bad I'm way past that believe me.
That's track six, "Hello" -- a song you can easily imagine pouring out of car speakers all summer long. A bouncy, number with Fisk's calm vocals that catches the ear with a sing-along melody and has lyrics that you start absorbing a bit after you duh-duh-da-da-duh along with the song. That's when the "I made you hate me" and "you've erased me" lines really start to register. You may be in the midst of a duh-duh-da-da-duh when you grasp this isn't like "Soak Up The Sun" or any other perfect-for-summer-radio song.
Liz Phair put "Soak Up The Sun" over the top with her backup vocals and showed up shortly after with a self-titled album that sounded nothing like her previous work and seemed like a forty-year-old woman trying desperately to sound 17 while including a song about smearing cum on your face to try to pose as the eternal rebel. That heavily labored over (with Avril's production team), impossible to listen to, big label album is just the sort of thing The Good Stuff stands in contrast to. There's no desperation factor here.
Which is so surprising when you start to think about it. Fisk is an emerging actress who probably has a lot to prove (you don't write songs like she does if you don't). It wasn't all that long ago that Minnie Driver was savaged for recording cover songs. Here comes Fisk, and without the Wallflowers to back her up or a label behind her, stepping into one of the most restricted fields for women. Women can sneak in as a cupie doll or a pop tart and, once in the door, strut their stuff and prove they've really got the chops but Fisk's not posing for the cover of Rolling Stone in her underwear, she's not being interviewed while in bed with the (male) reporter Spin sent over. I've yet to read or hear her talking about what line of make up she uses.
Though her voice is nothing like Joni Mitchell, she reminds me of Mitchell. She reminds me of Carly Simon. She's got the same confidence of both women, the same kind of self-assurance about the art. Joni had everyone -- everyone -- doing covers of her tunes and also a huge string of ex-boyfriends who weren't threatened by her and were happy to offer her accolades publicly. (And don't think male artist approval didn't make the critics straighten up their spine and treat Joni like the artist she was as a result.) Carly's path was a bit different with far less help and, therefore, a real need for the audience to discover the songs on their own -- which they did. Both women have many accomplishments to their names and continue to make strong music (Shine and This Kind Of Love being the most recent examples) but think of how many women tried to do it their way and got ground down and ignored.
It's enough to make me half wish Schuyler was shopping for underwear-to-turn-into-outerwear with Britney Spears, getting tips from Madonna about how much skin you can get away with exposing, letting Beyonce tell her about the wonders of having the whole world praising your ass -- anything but doing the actual work required to qualify as a genuine artist.
But then she does a song like "You're Only Lonely," which stands on its own while also paying homage to Roy Orbison's "Only The Lonely," and I toss out concern for where she goes next and am just damn glad she's given us The Good Stuff today. And take comfort in the fact that, should things get especially difficult (as they most likely will), this is the woman who wrote, "It's hard for me to breathe, but you can't keep me, I only showed up because they said you wouldn't be there" ("Cold Heart") and "At least we know we were high but we came down" ("Other Side Of Love"). Maybe she's up for what follows?
Let's hope because the album she and Dave Bassett have produced is one of the great pleasures of 2009. Not "so far" -- period. When you hear something like this, you know it's among the best, you don't need to wait until November to figure out if it'll make the end-of-the-year list.
The only struggle you really have listening to The Good Stuff is figuring out which song is your favorite? Tuesday, Mike wrote about the album and noted he was stuck on the first five tracks because he loved them so much on first listen that he had no idea what the other nine sounded like. I can understand that because track five happens to be my personal favorite, "Fall Apart Today."
Oh my baby please Don't forget you love me Don't forget you love me today Oh my baby please Don't forget you love me Don't forget you love me today
The above lyrics do nothing for you if you haven't heard the track because you really need to hear the guitar and hear the vocal. And that's one of the problems with an independent release, getting the sound out -- and not just the word.
Fortunately, you can visit Schuyler Fisk's MySpace page and hear two of the tracks from the album (plus a third track that's not on the album) for free. If you listen, I'm pretty sure you'll be downloading (from iTunes or Amazon) shortly and then attempting to play The Good Stuff for as many friends as you can round up.
Hello, it's me again, It's three days now You've been in my dreams. And I don't know, I guess you've just been on my mind. I don't know, I guess I think about you all the time.
I have no idea who the "you" in "Hello" is, but my "you" that I think of when listening to that song is the album itself. And I picture this seeping into a generation, like a dream, like Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing did a decade ago.
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 Gambleare 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."
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."
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.
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."
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.
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:
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 Gamblenotes 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.
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 Gambleare 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 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.
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).
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 American The
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 Trouble Three
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 Pakistan Steve 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.
bill moyers journal
washington week
