Let's start where with today's snapshot:

Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) hat tips Juan and Leila -- Thomas, you're usually so much smarter. From his blog post:

Salon just carried an insightful review of my book that triggered a mudslide of nasty letters from the magazine's readers.
"If you enjoyed 'Fiasco,' thrilled to have your prejudices about the clueless Bush administration confirmed, it's your responsibility to read 'The Gamble' to have some prejudices challenged," wrote the reviewer, Joan Walsh, Salon's editor-in-chief. I think she really captured the ambivalence at the heart of the book, the sense that staying in Iraq is far from appealing, but may be the least worst choice available. Her review concludes that, "I still want troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. But reading this well-reported book may have changed even my notion of what that means."


The book is The Gamble and it seems to be a sore spot for many. A similar thing happened comment wise when the Washington Post ran an excerpt on Sunday.

The book is not pro-war. The book is not anti-war. I wish it were the latter. But it is what it is, to steal from Kat. And it's the story of the recent years in Iraq.

Will you love everything in the book? If you're part of the (tiny) peace movement, I don't see how you would. There's dying, there's abuses, you name it.

But it is a wonderful book, filled with many telling details.

What seems to be throwing people is that the author concludes the US must remain in Iraq. First off, the US isn't leaving. I'll assume the ones leaving nasty comments about Thomas E. Ricks are the same ones who believe that Barack is ending the illegal war when he's doing no such thing. But the book is not pro-war. The book is telling what has happened and it is offering Ricks' opinions. You can disagree with him. It's not going to be the end of the world for him or you if you disagree

But what I'm not understanding is why his opinions are troubling some. I think Thomas E. Ricks is a highly intelligent person. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with him. [I noted two disagreements when Rebecca held her Iraq roundtable last Friday -- "Roundtable on Iraq," "IRAQ ROUNDTABLE," "Roundtable on Iraq," "roundtable on iraq," "Iraq Roundtable," "Iraq roundtable in the Kitchen," "Iraq roundtable," "Iraq roundtable" and "Iraq roundtable."] It's not going to be the end of the world for me and it's certainly not going to be the end of the world for him.

My guess is that part of the reaction to the book is staged. (We saw a great deal of that from the Cult.) Another part is genuine. And they're thinking this is a propaganda book. They haven't read it (reading their comments you can tell they either didn't read it or have comprehension issues). They're thinking, "This is propaganda. This is another attempt by Big Media to sell us on Iraq. That is natural fear and a non-surprising one. Big Media sold the illegal war.

But this book isn't about selling the illegal war. And he could have just written it with no opinions expressed clearly. He could have shaded the book to make the argument that the US needs to remain in Iraq and done it in such a way that he could play the "I was just reporting, it's not my opinion, I have no opinions, I am totally unbaised on this issue." Instead, he chose to be upfront and anyone reading the book knows what his opinions are and why he holds them.

That doesn't mean he's right, it doesn't mean he's wrong (yes, my opinion is that he's wrong about the illegal war needing to continue). It means he hasn't hidden anything from the reader and people can make their own judgments.

Michael Gordon? I'd be very wary of any book he put out right now on Iraq. We have good reason to doubt Gordo. And he, of course, love sto claim he's not offering any opinions, he's just telling it like it is. Gordo struggles with the truth.

The peace movement has been led by a lot of fakes and frauds. And that was fine if they were going to a damn thing. But they're not. It's obvious that these 'leaders' are not going to do a damn thing.

So some people -- who don't remember Vietnam or didn't study it after the fact -- may be shocked by where we're headed: When the US pulls out of Iraq (and that day will come), there will most likely be some violence. People will die.

Pulling out of Vietnam meant the same thing. Those who wanted that illegal war to end and were realistic knew what could happen. The thing that had to be weighed is how is there more violence? Is there more violence if the US stays or is there more violence if the US leaves?

The same point applies now to Iraq. And every year that the US stays, it makes an exit most likely mean more violence. Joe Biden pointed it out, the US installed Nouri and the US armed one side in a civil war. When the US leaves, Nouri (if he's still the puppet then) may or may be able to hang on. He may end up with his head on a pike.

But there most likely will be violence when the US leaves. Will the violence be more or less than if the US stays?

Thomas E. Ricks says that the US needs to stay for humanitarian reasons. This isn't an argument he's made all along. Some have. Some argued for the illegal war on that ridiculous premise. He didn't argue for it or against it.

But being in Iraq and seeing things on the ground, he is now arguing for humanitarian reasons. I don't doubt his sincerity. I don't doubt that he is very fearful of what happens to various groups when the US leaves.

But I do believe he's wrong.

And here's why.

It takes one attack on US forces where their corpses are displayed (by the attackers) to inflame tensions on the US military side. If that happens, the natural human response is outrage and the military is made up of trained men and women but they are human. Meaning? One bad attack and watch everything go to hell as vengence becomes the code word.

The US military's presence has fueled the resistance. The lie that the US will leave -- it's not leaving anytime soon -- has allowed some in the restistance to believe they can back off and prepare for other things, focus on other things.

The US military is not leaving. General Ray Odierno, top commander in Iraq, tells Ricks that he would like/could see 35,000 troops in Iraq as late as 2015. (That section of the book is quoted in the Feb. 12th snapshot.) The treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement is a one-year agreement with two options for renewal. It has many escape clauses and too many reporters wrongly reported it as meaning the Iraq War ends in 2012. That's not what it means, that's not what it says. If that's what it meant, would Odierno be confused? Would he really be saying, "35,000 in 2015" if the treaty meant all US forces out of Iraq?

The illegal war is not ending anytime soon. Sadly.

But 'leaders' in the 'anti-war' movement are tired and they love Barack -- they love him more than they love the innocent civilians killed in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan -- so they're ready to move on, to WalkOn.org. They're liars, they're cheap liars.

Instead of screaming and hissing at Thomas E. Ricks who has been aboveboard, you might want to consider going after the frauds who swore they'd hold Barack's feet to the fire, who swore that the 2006 elections meant the end of the illegal war. Who pimp the same lies over and over every election cycle to try to control you. And to get themselves some nice little perks. Maybe they'll get jobs in the administration, maybe they'll sell their bad books and movies about Barack, maybe George Soros will put him on the blood roll he made off the misfortunes of others?

I'm so sick of them. I'm getting tired of Raed as well. He says one thing to Congress and another a few days after the Parliament passes the treaty. He's saying crap to a Lyndon LaRouche alumni writing for The Nation. I'm not interested in all the garbage. I think it's past time that Global Exhange, for example, put online a record of where their money comes from. I think if people followed the money, they'd be far less confused as to how every Panhandle Media outlet -- whether The Nation, The Progressive, Mother Jones, KPFA, WBAI, go down the list, lefties who can't agree on whether or not the sunset was a nice one, suddenly all agreed on who to vote for. They did in the Democratic Party primary and they did in the general election. And supposedly, they're not Democratic outlets. Supposedly, they're independent outlets. Supposedly they try to serve the left and that includes the Green Party. But somehow they weren't interested in that. Somehow they didn't care about Cynthia McKinney -- though they will when it's time to fundraise -- and they didn't care about Ralph Nader (the independent candidate). If people followed the money this idea that everyone just happened to get on board with War Hawk Barack would be revealed for the lie it is.

You had people who would not even advocate for John Kerry in 2004 -- when Kerry was running against George W. Bush. They wouldn't advocate for him. And even those who did refused to pull punches. But 2008 rolls around (it actually began in 2007) and suddenly everyone's hyping Barack. It didn't just happen. They lied. They're liars. I have no respect for those liars. I have no respect for FAIR which calls itself a media watchdog and which issued no action alert against the sexism aimed at Hillary in the primaries. Which only noted it once in a single sentence on CounterSpin. FAIR can't call out sexism? No, FAIR didn't want to. They didn't give a damn about being fair.

Those are the people to be mad at, the ones who betrayed every lecture they've ever given their audiences. The ones who didn't fall off their high horses, they jumped off 'em.

Why don't you take your anger out at those LIARS who played you for a fool? Those same liars who don't give a damn about Iraq. Caring translates as coverage. If you don't cover it, don't pretend you give a damn. And, no, Amy Goodman, hyping 2002 coverage in a pledge drive this year does not count as covering it. Self-stroking to beg for more money does not count as coverage. The Iraq War reaches the six-year mark next month. Every day for nearly six years, the illegal war has dragged on. Where's the coverage?

If you give a damn, you're covering it.

Now The Nation pulled out their Lyndon LaRouche alumni to gas bag over the elections and, no surprise, they're telling readers things are fine and the war is over. Things are not fine, the illegal war is not over, over 140,000 US service members remain stationed in Iraq. But The Nation's purpose is to pimp for Barack. So they lie to you. Now in 2012, they may get a little mean and nasty but they'll spend the next 3 years excusing him. Should he be rel-elected, they'll get nasty with him in 2014.

Thomas E. Ricks is not pulling any punches, he is not trying to trick anyone. He's very clear that he has serious humanitarain concerns regarding when the US pulls out of Iraq. He's sincere in those concerns.

Read the book and you'll see why. Read the book and maybe we can grow up as a nation and all agree that violence will be highly likely when the US withdraws, whenever that is. Then we can debate whether the violence will be greater if the US stays longer or not? I believe it will be greater. I also believe calling Iraq a 'democracy' -- even a fledging one -- while it's occupied is nonsense. Iraq has the right, as all nation-states do, to self-determination. They could become a democracy when the US leaves. If that's what they want, they could. But that decision is up to them.

There are things we can do that might or might not make a withdrawal easier for Iraqis (and for US service members). (Might or might not because there are no guarantees. Planning takes place in a hypothetical world, not the real one.) And we can have that discussion as well.

But to get to the adult discussions, we'll have to be realistic. There's not a great deal of realism out there. There's a lot of spin. There's a lot of people trying to beg a buck (beg, not make).

Every few months of this illegal war, we got another wave of Operation Happy Talk. It told us that a corner had been turned and those of us on the left knew better. Suddenly because the Christ-child is in the White House, everything got better in Iraq. Wow. Sworn in on January 21st and he was able to beam lightness and goodness to Iraq.

Thomas E. Ricks' genuine concern isn't the problem with the illegal war. The problem is people who refuse to face reality, the problem is a peace movement that got co-opted by the Democratic Party. Remember how that wasn't ever going to happen again. Remember high horse riding Naomi Klein telling us all that it should never happen again? She said that in January 2005. We must never allow that to happen again.

Then Canadian/American Naomi takes her ass on a softcover book tour where she repeatedly advocates voting for Barack -- most notoriously in Chicago.

Excuse the hell out of me? Who America votes for is this dual citizens business because? She's promoting voting for what reason? Because her father fled the country to avoid serving in Vietnam? Nothing wrong with that (in my opinion) but how about you get honest about it and how about you write about it and how about you a damn thing publicly to help the men and women in the same situation today that your father was then? That requires more than offeirng a link to a petition at your website -- especialy when you FAIL to inform visitors to your website that you yourself are the child of a war resister.

So after lecturing everyone in 2005 about the need for there to be a wall between the peace movement and the Democratic Party and how the peace movement never again needs to become a cheerleader for an election, you go on to do just that? You go on to pimp an election with those bad, bad jokes. People didn't laugh. They didn't realize they were 'jokes' until you laughed at them. It was very embarrassing. And most Americans, they didn't grasp that you're a dual citizen. In Chicago, for example, there was a great deal of hostility expressed over the fact that a Canadian was coming to America and telling Americans how to vote in a US election.

Thomas E. Ricks has not embarrassed himself, he hasn't sold his soul. He can hold his head high. He's written a wonderful book. It's not a cut and paste nor is it a clip job of other people's work. You can disagree with his opinions and I disagree with many. That doesn't change the fact that it's a great book. That doesn't change the value of the book.


It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4243. Tonight? 4245. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,311,696 as the number. The number they finally moved up to two weeks ago. Possibly, despite claims to the otherwise, it's a monthly counter? People want to be outraged with Thomas E. Ricks' over his opinion but Just Foreign Policy promised a counter with daily updates and then blew off updates after Barack won the election? And no one wants to call them out?

Quickly. A few members e-mailed to note that NOW had multiple links. Had they done something amazing? No. I was adding links to the permalinks on the left. A friend explained to me that a mutual friend was linking to TCI and wanted to know why I wasn't linking back? I had no idea. So I added that. And another one for the same reason. I also added one that no one has noticed. This was at lunch today. I added it while on one phone with Isaiah. Mike interviews Isaiah tonight. About? About The World Today Just Nuts -- Isaiah's archive website.

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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
thomas e. ricks
the world today just nuts
mikey likes it

Thursday, February 19, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue,election results are released (yes, the results to January 31st elections), Iraq still has no Speaker of Parliament, the Kurds ask for the Constitution to be followed and the "Awakening" Council's cheif cheerleader rushes to tell the world violence is a'coming, Muntadhar al-Zeidi gets a day in court (one) and much more.     Starting with today's Most Needy (the intelligent deficient), little Eric Stoner, come on down.  Eric was one of Katrina's coffee fetchers nearly three years ago and that task provides no on the job training.  Now he 'works' at Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box -- in fact, word is he has cleaning duties.  Taking his recycled blog post and limited intelligence to the Labour Party's party organ (Guardian -- you can catch it at ZNet which we will link to), Stoner (was a last name ever more apt) babbles about Blackwater between the muchies.  Like the gut over the belly young 'dude' he fancies himself, Stoner knows, just knows, where there are problems, there is a woman causing it all.  So the Barack Cult Member whines that mercenaries are still in Iraq:   Hillary Clinton offerred a glimmer of hope when she endorsed this bill during her campaign for the presidency.  But as Obama's secretary of state, she has quickly abandoned her commitment to "show these contractors the door."    Oh, that awful Hillary!  Cursing her must give Stoner something to focus on while digging the sand and tar out from underneath Arianna's toe nails (or is that hooves?).  Reality, Stoner, Hillary's 'glimmer of hope' was a bill she supported as a Senator.  And she was slimed by Jeremy Scahill and others while your poster boy Barry got yet another pass.  Did you forget that?  Or just ignore it?  Samantha Power pulled a charm offensive (yes, that is scary) and purred in Jeremy's ears and he felt so 'included' and couldn't shut up about his 'secret source,' his 'high level source.'  It didn't matter that Our Modern Day Carrie Nation Sammy Power was telling him that Barack wouldn't support the bill, what mattered to Jeremy was attacking Hillary.  So he hissed at her bill and he invented motives (some fed to him by Sammy) for Hillary.  Anything to make Barry look better.   That was a Senate proposal.  Barack didn't get on board.  It died.  Barack is the president.  Hillary is the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State does not make policy -- she or he implements it.  Is that too complex for you, Stoner?  Translation, Barack didn't support Hillary's bill during the Democratic Party primaries and he doesn't support it now that he's president.  If you're unhappy with that fact, the blame goes to Barry.  Not to Hillary.  The blame goes to Barry and all the Cult Members who lied and covered for him and continue to do so -- like you, Eric Stoner.       Feb. 13th, Blackwater made the news for changing its name to Xe -- in an attempt to run from their blood crimes.  For those late to the party, Steve Grant (Comic Book Resources) provides this recap: "Remember Blackwater, the third-party army serving as mercena -- whoops, I mean 'civilian contractors' -- in Iraq for the occupation, as well as building private prisons and other interesting activities here in the States (no word on the future of those now that their government contracts are theoretically all dried up)?  Blackwater is no more!  It has 'rebranded itself' Xe, pronounced Z, apparently to shake off their war-built image as civilian-murdering thugs.  As long as they're updating their image, they might want to rethink the busines cards printed with human blood, too..."  The Fayetteville Observer makes a prediction, "The company does, after all, have an image problem -- thanks, among other things, to accusations that its employees were rampaging Dirty Harrys in Iraq, gunning down innocent civilians. We doubt that the public will quickly adopt Xe, any more than it has embraced Altria as the new name for Philip Morris."  Al Arabiya quotes Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrell whining, "We were defined as a security company, we never were a security company.  We offer a lot of other services.  But Blackwater became synonymous with our security work."  Nathan Hodge (Wired) reports the mercenary corporation has just completed another "round of layoffs".  Name changes and layoffs don't wipe away the September 16, 2007 slaughter in Baghdad.  Del Quentin Wilber (Washington Post) reported US District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina refused the motion to dismiss the charges against five Blackwater employees and notes, "The charges were brought under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which allows U.S. prosecutors to charge American service members, their family members and those employed by the military for illegal acts committed overseas." The Virginian-Pilot notes that the judge also dismissed the motion by the defense to move the trial to Utah.   From the criminal Blackwater to he-should-be-set-free Muntadhar.   Muntadhar al-Zeidi garnered international attention for the events of December 14th. Then Bully Boy of the United States George W. Bush had traveled to Iraq for photo-ops with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki as the two singed the Strategic Framework Agreement and the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  Bully Boy was just declaring, "The war is not yet over -- but with the conclusion of these agreements and the courage of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi troops and American troops and civilian personnel, it is decisively on its way to being won" -- just declaring that when . . .  it was as though someone cranked up Carly Simon's "De Bat (Fly In Me Face)" as one-shoe, two-shoe was hurled by the journalist who explained, "This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss you dog" and (with the second shoe) "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Neither shoe hit Bully Boy and, apart from Nouri soiling his pants, neither man suffered physically.  Bully Boy, in fact, was laughing, "Okay, everybody calm down for a minute.  First of all thank you for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people.  It doesn't bother me.  And if you want some -- if you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw."  Bully Boy and everyone else had a good laugh -- everyone except Muntadhar who was being attacked by Nouri's thugs -- thugs who grabbed the moment to show the world what thugs they were and how the US installed strong man of Baghdad resorts to violence as they beat the journalist down. He was whisked away and only allowed one visit with his family and his attorney before this month -- and that visit only came about after the press covered the fact that he was being denied visits.   Today Muntadhar was in court.  AP's Sinan Salaheddin quotes him declaring, "What made me do it was the humiliation Iraq has been subjected to due to the U.S. occupation and the murder of innocent people. I wanted to restore the pride of the Iraqis in any way possible, apart from using weapons."  Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) explain the hearing lasted 90 minutes, that there were three witnesses and that the trial is adjourned "until March 12".  Jomana Karadsheh (CNN -- link has text and video) reported on the trial noting that Muntadhar declared, "I don't know what acomplishments he [Bush] was talking about.  The accomplishments I could see were the more than 1 million martyrs and a sea of blood.  There are more than 5 million Iraqi orphans because of the occupation. . . . More than a million widows and more than 3 million displaced because of the occupation."   Jomana Karadsheh: He was very calm and he spoke mainly about what motivated him to throw his shoes at former president Bush. What he said was,he was sitting throughout the press conference -- if you remember the incident happened at a press conference -- right after former president Bush finished speaking. And he said former president Bush was speaking about his accomplishments and victories in Iraq an al Zaidi said the 'accomplishments' for him, in his view, were the one-million widows in Iraq, the orphans, the martyrs and what he called violations committed against the Iraqi people. He referred to president Bush as the commander of the occupying forces here and this is what really, he says, like pushed him. He said "I could see the blood that was spilled in Iraq while he was speaking. He was justifying. He showed no remorse or regret for what was done. On the other hand he was trying to also explain that president Bush to him was not a guest of Iraq. He was saying "they are here, the US forces are in Iraq. They are an occupying force. So he does not see him as a visitor who should be -- who should be diginifed by Iraqis. As he was -- After the session ended -- for technical reasons basically -- the judge decided that they want to get more information from the prime minister's office on whether president Bush was here on an official or non-official visit.   Many of the reports are noting claims of torture taking place while Muntadher was in custody.  Liz Sly (Chicago Tribune) gets specific explaining that silly statements (silly on the face) were introduced by the prosecution and Muntadher explained they were "untrue and had been extracted under torture including electric shocks."  Register that and grasp that Iraq has a long history of torturing prisoners -- both before and after the start of the war.  So when Samira Ahmed Jassim al-Azzawi is arrested by police on January 21st and February 3rd -- 13 days later -- the police suddenly wants to tell the world they arrested her and also offer a 'confession' she's made -- grasp that there's a good chance she made no 'confession' freely.  (Late to the party?  Feb. 3rd snapshot, Feb. 4th morning entry, Feb. 4th snapshot.)  Originally, al-Azzawi allegedly recruited and trained the women.  As the lurid details piled on, she was organizing the rapes of the female bombers.  It was lurid, it was sleazy, it was unverifiable and it required more suspension of disbelief than any film that provides Clint Eastwood with a love interest under 60.  Now why was that?  And why was it necessary to paint the female bombers -- who had previously been portrayed as widows by Iraqi MPs -- as rape victims (which is 'shameful' for women in Iraq -- not for the rapists, just for the women)?   Thom Shanker (New York Times) explains the way it works.  A young woman came forward -- this is the woman Leila Fadel covered non-stop (in what should have been the left's final clue as to how entwined with US military propaganda McClatchy was becoming) -- who had a story and the US military commanders "convened sessions with Iraqi politicians, activists and journalists" and, much to their surprise, they didn't have to pay for coverage or write it themselves (as they had in the past) because it was "the content" itself that was of interest.  Col Darryl Williams explains, "We supplied suggestions, informations.  But we had no control over editorial content."  No, you were the source and a lot more than that because you had the counter-insurgency 'gurus' advising you -- a fact Shanker either was unaware of or preferred to avoid.  Shanker does note that Williams "ran the division's unit that analyzed the effects of combt and noncombat operations" and maybe Shanker believes that passes for using the term "counter-insurgency"?  Shanker tells you, "The Iraqi news media leapt on the story" -- well they did and so did Leila.  Most outlets filed one story.  Leila was writing stories, doing blog posts.  She was a one woman Voice of America.  Shanker informs that the US military wanted to use the fifteen-year-old girl "to spread the word that Rania and others appeared not to have been willing bombers and that the killing of innocent Iraqis could not be defended as an approved religious act.  But they wanted to do so without American fingerprints that might undermine the message."  Without American military fingerprints.    Which brings us back to al-Azzawi who was a societal nightmare with all of the allegations hurled at her.  When a story seems too good to be true, it probably is.  The Iraqis kept piling on lurid details -- a lot like they did when they pimped The Myth of the Great Return in late 2007.  That started out with a very small group of Iraqis returning and, much to their surprise, it got press, positive press.  From Saturday to Sunday evening, the same group had grown from 2,000 to 20,000 and was still growing the next day.  That's your first tip that a story is false.  When the 'facts' change that quickly in a matter of days, that's your first clue.  Fortunately Damien Cave and Cara Buckley (New York Times) had the guts to report the truth and bury The Myth of the Great Return.  And let's note that again: Damien Cave and Cara Buckley.  They did so as November ended.  For weeks, the myth was pimped and it was pimped by Big Media and Panhandle Media.  We saw no bravery in our so-called 'independent' and 'alternative' media.  Remember, The Nation didn't fight that myth, Amy Goodman didn't question it -- two reporters for the New York Times did.   Back to Muntadher and Liz Sly who describes the court scene: "Baghdad's Central Criminal Court, located inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, erupted in chants and cheers from Zaidi's relatives when he entered the room. His aunts and sisters ululated, and one of them thrust into Zaidi's hands an Iraqi flag, which he kissed and then draped around his shoulders."  Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) explains three judges presided over the case and al-Zaidi's lawyers are attempting to argue (one of many points) that Bush was not on an official visit to Iraq. NPR's Corey Flintoff (All Things Considered -- link has text and will have audio) adds of the attorneys, "Police added extra chairs behind the defense table to accomodate some 20 volunteer lawyers who wanted to be part of the defense team, which is led by the president of the Iraqi Bar Association."  Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) describe Muntadhar's court room appearance: "leather shoes, a pressed beige suit and a scarf emblazoned with the Iraq flag".  And those who need to pretend there is a justice system in place in Iraq should skip the next part: Muntadar testified "from a wooden cage before a packed courtroom."  From a wooden cage.   No justice, no democracy.  Xinhua reports that the 'official' 'results' to the 14 provincial elections on January 31st were released today (Iraq has 18 provinces) by the Independent High Electoral Commission of Iraq (the group that responds to threats of violence by awarding votes to those who make the threats).  Dalwat al-Qanun (State of Law -- proving Nouri al-Maliki does have a sense of humor -- who knew?) didn't do wonderful.  In Baghdad, they won half the seats (28 of 57).  Baghdad's the seat of al-Maliki's power.  In Basra, Dalwat won 20 of the 36 seats. Missy Ryan, Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Jon Boyle (Reuters) report,"In the western desert province of Anbar, Sunni tribal chiefs who helped U.S. forces drive out Islamist militants like al Qaeda, and who had threatened to take up arms again if they did not win political power, got the most seats.  It was a surprise after the tribal chiefs placed second in preliminary results. The tribal chiefs, with 8 out of 29 council seats, plan to form an alliance with a secular Sunni group."  Yes, that was surprising.  And completely unbelievable.  Nouri al-Maliki was not a candidate in the race (though he did use his office in an unethical manner and did offer bribes for votes) but his party didn't do very well.  They will have to form consensus governments with other parties in order to rule.  That's not a majority.  That's nothing.  So Iraq remains lukewarm on al-Maliki.  And you can remember that when you read Lyndon LaRouche proteges offering their garbage on the elections and the 'meaning' for Iraq -- 4 provinces haven't voted (and Dalwat is not expected to do well in any of the four) and, even in Baghdad, Dalwat limped along.   Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports signs of a war between Kurds and Arabs in Iraq -- information, no doubt, supplied to her by the "Awakeing" leaders she chums around with.  UPI reports today on Nerchirvan Barzani's statements from days ago that the US should address the regional disputes (primarily oil-rich Kirkuk) before withdrawing (the US isn't going anywhere).  (See Feb. 17th snapshot, when Prime Minister Barazani made the remarks, for more.)  The issue of Kirkuk -- per Iraq's Constitution -- was supposed to have been addressed no later than December 31, 2007.  Juan Cole of course cheerleaded the illegal war at various points -- and got snippy with CounterSpin when that cheerleading was pointed out.  Always one to jump on a bandwagon (he has no clue what's going on in Iraq -- he's been focused on Palestine and he's not all that bright to begin with), Juan rushes to back up Leila with . . . well nothing.  Juan, the news broke Tuesday.  Trying to run with it today only yet again reveals how out of it you are.  So do statements like, "If the Kurdish-Arab hostility rises further, the US could be drawn right back into Iraq."  Uh, Juan, when did the US leave?  Huh?  We know when you lost interest, but when did US troops -- approximately 145,000 of them -- leave Iraq? (No link to garbage.)  And PLEASE GET THIS, the Kurds ask for what is written in the Constitution and notice all the Nervous Nellies reaching for the vapors.  Neither Leila nor Juan were at all alarmed when Anbar's Thug Sheik was threatening violence.  But the Kurdish Regional Government pointing out that the Constitution needs to be followed is suddenly cause for an alarm.  You'd think the KRG's Prime Minister had threatened violence the way Leila and Juan clutch the pearls. They really ought to be ashamed of themselves but neither is capable of shame (which is why they're such wonderful propagandists).  Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) hat tips Juan and Leila -- Thomas, you're usually so much smarter.  From his blog post:   Salon just carried an insightful review of my book that triggered a mudslide of nasty letters from the magazine's readers.       "If you enjoyed 'Fiasco,' thrilled to have your prejudices about the clueless Bush administration confirmed, it's your responsibility to read 'The Gamble' to have some prejudices challenged," wrote the reviewer, Joan Walsh, Salon's editor-in-chief. I think she really captured the ambivalence at the heart of the book, the sense that staying in Iraq is far from appealing, but may be the least worst choice available. Her review concludes that, "I still want troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. But reading this well-reported book may have changed even my notion of what that means."      The Gamble is a book worth reading -- the best on Iraq.  A reader can learn a tremendous amount from the book and still disagree with some or all of Ricks' personal opinions.  It's an important book.  I may write about it tonight or in tomorrow's snapshot.    Waleed Ibrahim, Aseel Kami, Missy Ryan, Michael Christie and Victoria Main (Reuters) report that despite the lack of Speaker, they plan to tackle the 2009 budget next week. Yep, the 2009 budget. Yes, most countries have that place before the fiscal year starts let alone the calendar year. But, hey, Nouri's itty-bitty feelings get hurt when anyone points out the reality of how little 'progress' is being made so maybe we're all supposed to look the other way? The reporters inform, "Work on the budget, an important task as Iraq confronts sharply lower oil revenues at a time when it desperately needs funds to rebuild after six years of war, has been held up by parliament's inability to agree on a new speaker."   Bombings?   Reuters notes a Balad Ruz roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers, a Garma roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer, a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded one person, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left eight people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which left three people injured and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer with seven people left injured.  Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul suicide bomber who took his/her own life as well as the life of 1 police officer with seven more people wounded and a Falluja sticky bombing that claimed 2 lives (a "policeman's father and wife") and left 1 person (police officer) injured.   Shootings?   Reuters notes 1 shop owner shot dead in Mosul, 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul and 1 man shot dead in Mosul (and his car stolen).   Turning to the United States, Sean Hannley (People's Weekly World Newspaper) reports on a February 15th  teach-in at Howard University organized and sponsored by Latim American Solidarity Coalition, the North American Congress on Latin America, SOA Watch, CISPES, the Alliance for Globa Justice and others where Father Roy Bourgeois and others spoke.   We'll note this section:   Professor Lesley Gill, the chair of the Department of Anthropology at Vanderbilt University, questioned whether or not we are likely to see much promised "change" from president Obama in Latin American policy. She pointed out that he has already begun hostile rhetoric towards Venezuela and promised to continue the Cuba embargo. She pointed out that the United States has been a destabilizing force in Latin America for decades; however, the Left is on the rise all over Latin America. Latin America has become more economically independent from the US, with the Bank of the South, UNASUR and access to new markets in Europe and China. Argentina has begun to prosecute offenders from the "dirty war" and democratic governments throughout the region have started to deal with issues of inequity. She told the audience that Bush's response to this was aggressive. He responded with more intervention in the region: supporting coups in Haiti and Venezuela, viewing people in Latin America as a security threat, and continuing "Plan Colombia", a program which has the stated purpose to combat drugs, but ends up funneling money to paramilitaries. These paramilitaries make alliances with drug lords, murder civilians and burn through the country side. She told the group how private security forces (such as Blackwater, one of the groups under investigation for crimes in Iraq) have been used in Colombia. These groups have no accountability for murder and human rights violations and have become the "[US] empire's paramilitaries" in the region. She told the crowd how Obama needs to be "pushed from below" in order to address problems such as our "divide and conquer" strategy in the region and to accept the center-left governments which have come to power in the region. She told the audience that US policies, namely agricultural "dumping" (where subsidized US crops destroy a country's agricultural base) create huge unemployment, which forces people to become migrant workers or drug traffickers. She made note that Obama is one of the historical revisionists who claim that US torture began after 9/11 when, in fact, the US has always employed torture. She said his anti-torture policies, while a step in the right direction, do not address the other countries we have trained in torture including Colombia and Israel. The 'post-racial' 'peace' movement sold its soul and also the lives of people in Afghanistan, Africa, Iraq and Latin America.  That's the reality.  Leslie Cagan, you're United For Death and Destruction and don't think you can waltz your way out of this one. iraq del quentin wilber the washington post the los angeles times tina susman raheem salman muntadhar al-zeidi sinan salaheddin jomana karadsheh liz sly  gina chon the wall street journal npr all things considered corey flintoff ernesto londono zaid sabah waleed ibrahim aseel kami missy ryan michael christie the new york times thom shanker

The administration sought yesterday to couch the orders as what the senior official called "the beginning of the drawdown of troops in Iraq," where both units had been scheduled to deploy. While that is technically true, White House decisions on Afghanistan and Iraq are proceeding on parallel but not necessarily overlapping tracks.
During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to drawn down the U.S. presence in Iraq -- currently at 146,000 troops -- at a rate of one brigade a month for what he said would be a complete combat withdrawal within 16 months, with an unspecified "residual force" remaining.
During his first week in office, he instructed military planners to present options for withdrawal under various conditions on the ground and at various speeds. Those options have not yet been presented to the White House, although the senior official said yesterday that Obama expects to receive them and make a decision on a timeline "in the near future."

That's from Karen DeYoung's "More Troops Headed to Afghanistan" (Washington Post) and Lloyd notes it. It was published in yesterday's paper. We dealt with the topic yesterday:

Ross Colvin's "US to decide in weeks, 'not months' on Iraq troop cuts" (Reuters) tells us an unnamed administration source has declared the decision of what Barack plans to do about "cutting troop levels in Iraq" will come "in weeks, not 'days or months'." Rebecca noted that last night. As pointed out most recently in the Feb. 6th snapshot, what to do was supposedly already settled, that campaign 'promise' which included him initiating upon being sworn in. But his Cult never holds him accountable. A bunch of mental midgets, shameful mental midgets.

Day one, Barack 'promised,' upon being sworn in on day one, he would task the military with his plan for 'withdrawal' (of 'combat' troops) and he's still not done that. It wasn't, "On day one, I will say, 'Hey, chiefs, what do you want to do? Let's talk options?"

Karen DeYoung has a strong report, I just wasn't in the mood to go through all the ways in which Barack is lying and getting away with it (go through it again). The New York Times wanted the Iraq War and wants a big Afghanistan War. Today Thom Shanker's "New Lessons For the Army On Iraq Duty" is the sort of Cosmo cover for the War Hawk set: "You can have it all!" No, you can't. We'll come back to that. From the article:


Because General Hertling had fewer troops than might be needed, he and his team had to find other ways to build their fighting strength. Their decisions -- analyzed in an after-action review by commanders here this month -- offer lessons to the Obama administration as it prepares for further reductions of American troops. The analysis suggests that there may indeed be ways for the American military to do more with less, as will be required in the months ahead.
Commanders found that it was possible to leave some zones of northern Iraq more or less uncovered, to focus their forces elsewhere in a series of combat and reconstruction missions. So frequently did fighting forces and civil affairs personnel move that commanders dubbed their battlefield locator map "the Dancing Icons."
With conventional troops spread thinly across the north, commanders also relied heavily on Special Operations forces to carry out missions against top insurgent and terrorist leaders.

The reality is that Barack's only justifiable decision is to withdraw all US troops from Iraq. That's what's needed, that's what Americans believe he promised (included a senile idiot in today's Los Angeles Times who can't ask me not to be mean to her here and also give stupid interviews). The Iraq War is an illegal war and needs to end. That is my opinion, that is the opinion of this community.

But you can't do half-way. You can't end it half-way and you can't continue it half-way. And when people are dying in Iraq, Barack can't claim no one ever warned him that his draw down (not a withdrawal) wasn't going to put Iraqis and Americans at risk. He was warned. He chose to ignore it. And Shanker's reporting on an idiotic study that contradicts itself.

"Oh, we provided safety!!!! See, it can be done!!!!" That's what the study attempts to say. Uh, Shanker, where's your section on the reconstruction?

Where is it?

That was supposed to be 70% of the tasks for those under Maj Gen Mark P. Hertling's command.

So where are the results on that?

We hear all about how they were able to provide security when they focused on that.

And doing that, how did the reconstruction fare?

We'll surmise it did not fare well or that would have been trumpeted.

In other words, no, you can't do it all.

And for those who want to know why the Times was so vested in the propaganda of the 'Mother Of All Bombers' earlier this month, read the last section of Shanker's article which confesses more than he grasps.

But, repeating one more time, leaving 70,000 US troops in Iraq is not withdrawal. Using that number to continue the illegal war puts the 70,000 at risk. You cannot have it all, no matter what Thom Shanker wants to tell you at his Cosmo Girl best today. Barack's only option is a real withdrawal. If he choose anything else, he's owning that illegal war and all the deaths.


In other inept government news, Iraq still does not have a Speaker of Parliament. They tossed out their Speaker in December. Let's drop back to the Jan. 12th snapshot:

Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years. He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.) The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House. The following day. December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament. The week prior he had stated he was resigning. He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him.

Today's the 19th. They may make it two months (or more!) with no Speaker. Nouri want to claim Baghdad's got a functioning government again?

Waleed Ibrahim, Aseel Kami, Missy Ryan, Michael Christie and Victoria Main (Reuters) report that despite the lack of Speaker, they plan to tackle the 2009 budget next week. Yep, the 2009 budget. Yes, most countries have that place before the fiscal year starts let alone the calendar year. But, hey, Nouri's itty-bitty feelings get hurt when anyone points out the reality of how little 'progress' is being made so maybe we're all supposed to look the other way? The reporters inform, "Work on the budget, an important task as Iraq confronts sharply lower oil revenues at a time when it desperately needs funds to rebuild after six years of war, has been held up by parliament's inability to agree on a new speaker."


AP reports Army Staff Sgt Hal Warner has entered a plea of guilty to the charge of assaulting an Iraqi prisoner (who later died) saying "he stood on the back of the detainee's legs and later stripped the detainee naked in the desert."



The Kurdish Regional Government notes:




Reuters notes at least 10 dead in today's violence: a Balad Ruz roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers, a Garma roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer, a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer, 1 shop owner shot dead in Mosul, 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul, 1 man shot dead in Mosul (and his car stolen), a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded one person, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left eight people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which left three people injured and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer with seven people left injured.

The following community sites updated last night:

• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Barack the continual disappointment

  10 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  iraq

  10 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  A book and, Al, sit down already

  10 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  Stan

  10 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  New Adventures of Old Christine (and Old Ruth)

  10 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  So he probably wanted something more

  10 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  His wars

  10 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  Music tip

  10 hours ago
• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Dress casual? Presidential casual.

  10 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! VOGUE, BARACK, VOGUE!

  10 hours ago

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

iraq
the washington post
karen deyoung
ross colvin
waleed ibrahim
aseel kami
missy ryan
michael christie
victoria main
the new york times
thom shanker
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

"What made me do it was the humiliation Iraq has been subjected to due to the U.S. occupation and the murder of innocent people. I wanted to restore the pride of the Iraqis in any way possible, apart from using weapons." AP's Sinan Salaheddin quotes Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi entering that statement in court today. Muntadhar garnered international attention for the events of December 14th. Then Bully Boy of the United States George W. Bush had traveled to Iraq for photo-ops with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki as the two singed the Strategic Framework Agreement and the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. All was supposed to be wonderful and the two tyrants were positively glowing . . .



And then it was as though someone cranked up Carly Simon's "De Bat (Fly In Me Face)" as one-shoe, two-shoe was hurled by the journalist who explained, "This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss you dog" and (with the second shoe) "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Neither shoe hit Bully Boy and apart from Nouri soiling his pants, neither man suffered physically.

But Nouri's attack dogs -- the thugs he employs -- grabbed the moment to show the world what thugs they were and how the US installed strong man of Baghdad resorts to violence as they beat the journalist down. He was whisked away and only allowed one visit with his family and his attorney before this month -- and that visit only came about after the press covered the fact that he was being denied visits.

Trenton Daniels (McClatchy Newspapers) fancies himself jaded (he's just stupid and right-wing) and offers the following as his idea of how a journalist covers the story:

Since that throw, Zaidi has received job offers, a residency invitation from U.S. foe Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and even a wedding proposal on behalf of an Egyptian woman. A local artist built a monument in his honor, Iraqis have rallied in his defense and gadflies have carried out copycat protests worldwide.
On Thursday, the 30-year-old is scheduled to go to trial in the Central Criminal Court on charges of assaulting a foreign head of state. Conviction could lead to as many as 15 years in prison.


Real journalists Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) explain of the 90 minute hearing that took place today:

After hearing from three witnesses -- one of whom did not appear but presented a written statement -- the judge adjourned the trial until March 12 while technicalities are sorted out, but it was evident that Zaidi has plenty of backers, even among learned legal scholars.
More than 20 lawyers jostled for space around the wooden cage-like enclosure where Zaidi stood, all claiming to defend him in some fashion. Relatives and friends filled the front two rows of the stone-floored courtroom. At least 200 more seats were jammed with foreign observers, journalists, and regular spectators. Upon Zaidi's entry into the room, many supporters burst into applause and stood up, but the room quickly was silenced as the first witness was called to answer routine questions about the scandalous event.

CNN reports (link has text and video -- hit video tab at link for video):


As Bush listed the gains made in Iraq during the mid-December news conference, al-Zaidi said he was thinking about the millions of civilians who had been killed, widowed or displaced. He talked about the sanctity of mosques being violated, the rape of women and daily humiliations.
"I don't know what accomplishments he was talking about. The accomplishments I could see were the more than 1 million martyrs and a sea of blood," al-Zaidi said. "There are more than 5 million Iraqi orphans because of the occupation. ... More than a million widows and more than 3 million displaced because of the occupation."
Al-Zaidi also said he was beaten up in front of the prime minister and the world when he was taken from the room where the press conference was held.

If you click on the video tab, you get Jomana Karadsheh's report.

Jomana Karadsheh: He was very calm and he spoke mainly about what motivated him to throw his shoes at former president Bush. What he said was,he was sitting throughout the press conference -- if you remember the incident happened at a press conference -- right after former president Bush finished speaking. And he said former president Bush was speaking about his accomplishments and victories in Iraq an al Zaidi said the 'accomplishments' for him, in his view, were the one-million widows in Iraq, the orphans, the martyrs and what he called violations committed against the Iraqi people. He referred to president Bush as the commander of the occupying forces here and this is what really, he says, like pushed him. He said "I could see the blood that was spilled in Iraq while he was speaking. He was justifying. He showed no remorse or regret for what was done. On the other hand he was trying to also explain that president Bush to him was not a guest of Iraq. He was saying "they are here, the US forces are in Iraq. They are an occupying force. So he does not see him as a visitor who should be -- who should be diginifed by Iraqis. As he was -- After the session ended -- for technical reasons basically -- the judge decided that they want to get more information from the prime minister's office on whether president Bush was here on an official or non-official visit.

That's an excerpt, not the full thing. Was Bush there on an official visit? Yes. He and al-Maliki were having a ceremonial signing.

This is what he was saying right before the shoes were tossed . . .

PRESIDENT BUSH: With these agreements, Mr. Prime Minister, we're honoring the sacrifices that I just described in the best possible way -- by building a freer, safer, and more hopeful world. By signing these agreements we're showing the people of Iraq the United States of America keeps its word. And we are showing the people of the Middle East that America stands firmly for liberty and justice and peace. And we are leaving the next President with a stable foundation for the future, and an approach that can enjoy broad bipartisan support at home.

There is still more work to be done. The war is not yet over -- but with the conclusion of these agreements and the courage of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi troops and American troops and civilian personnel, it is decisively on its way to being won.

Shukran Jazeelan.

(Audience interruption.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay, everybody calm down for a minute. First of all thank you for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me. And if you want some -- if you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw. (Laughter.) Thank you for your concern, do not worry about it.

That was from the once official transcript, once found at the White House website. It's a real shame Barack came in and let his crew trash the White House website -- which, for the record, they have. There was historical information there. It's still there, somewhere. (I'm told.) That was official information, official communication to the public and they should have found a way to easily preserve every bit of it (just as whomever follows Barack has no right to trash the Obama White House's work).

But it was an official visit. (They think Bush takes pleasure cruises? The man who had to have his pillow to campaign in 2000 and still whined about being out on the road?) And it's rather frightening that the presiding judge felt the need to halt the trial so that the nature of the visit could be determined.

The photo above had the caption (at the White House page -- when that page existed) "President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki shake hands following the signing of the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement at a joint news conference Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008, at the Prime Minister's Palace in Baghdad. President Bush said, 'The agreements represent a shared vision on the way forward in Iraq.' White House photo by Eric Draper"

Cue up india.arie's "Pearls" from Testimony Vol. 2: Love & Politics:

And it hurts like brand new shoes
Yes, it hurts like brand new shoes
And it hurts like brand new shoes


Yesterday Iraq's Foreign Ministry noted:

And the Kurdistan Regional Government noted this:





We'll include Barazni's speech in the next entry.


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

iraq
the los angeles times
tina susman
raheem salman
muntadhar al-zeidi
sinan salaheddin
jomana karadsheh
iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
trenton daniels
carly simon
india.arie

Wednesday, February 18, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the refugee crisis continues, Iraq confirms they have received Guantanamo prisoners, the UN examines the unemployment rate, the State Dept denies speaking with Jordan or Turkey about air space or land in the case of a draw down in the near future, and more.   Heaven save the world from the idiot Patrick Cockburn. You'd think with that family, the members would have long ago reached the beyond-disgrace stage but Paddy keeps upping the ante.  Most recently in his latest I'm-Crazy-Ass-Cockburn-Column (no link to trash or insanity) where he praises an increase in prices for real estate in a section of Baghdad.  A traditionally ritzy section of Baghdad -- not far from the country clubs.  But Paddy can't tell you that and it's a real come-down from his deranged high when, near the end, he has to start mentioning hos it might not be good news.  But, what the heck, the Iraq War is over.   It's not?  Don't tell Crazy Ass Cockburn who informs readers the illegal war is over ("Boom time Baghdad"): "Mr Hadithi says that this is explained primarily by the end of the war."  The Iraq War is not over.  There hasn't even been the limited drawdown yet.  But Patrick Cockburn is an idiot and a crazed one at this point.  That entire family has become a menace to society.  You've got Laura-The-Self-Loathing-Lesbian intoning, "Embrace the homophobia," Nutty Alex rubbing his crotch while moaning "Mena! Mena!" and offering crazed theories on Vince Foster. . .  We could go on and on because pretty much the whole family is nuts and if Andrew's managed to keep it together thus far (which he has) it's got to be just a matter of time before he goes bug-eyed nuts like the rest of them.   As Patrick declares the illegal war over and minimizes the economic plight of Iraqis, he also invents a mass return of refugees.  We've already had The Myth of the Great Return and it being disproven but Paddy's damn sure that his name means something (it doesn't) that he thinks he can say it's so and no one will argue.  Reality argues with crazy men, reality always argues with them.  Refugees International has started a new campaign to ask that Barack Obama, US president, not forget about the Iraqi refugees.  They note:   Five years into the US military intervention in Iraq, the country is dealing with one of the largest humanitarian and displacement crises in the world.  Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes -- either for safer locations within Iraq, or to other countries in the region -- and are living in increasingly desperate circumstances.  Failure to address the needs of Iraqis will have dramatic impacts on security inside Iraq.    Refugees International has observed extreme vulnerabilities among the approximately 1.5 million Iraqi refugees living in Syria, Jordan and other neighbors of Iraq, as well as the 2.7 million internally displaced persons within Iraq.  Most are unable to access their food rations and are often unemployed; they live in squalid conditions, have run out of resources and find it extremely difficult to access essential services.   The Governmnet of Iraq has access to large sums of money, but it lacks both the capacity and the political will to use its resources to address humanitarian needs.  Due to this failure, militias of all denominations are filling the vacuum and playing a major role in providing social services in the neighborhoods and towns they control in Iraq.  Not only do these Shiite and Sunni militias now have a qausi-monopoly in the large-scale delivery of food, oil, electricity and money, but an increasing number of civilians are joining their ranks -- including displaced Iraqis.   Some Iraqis who have tried to return home have found their homes occupied or destroyed, the likelihood of violence still high, a collapse of social services, and neighborhoods divided into homogenous, sectarian areas.  While Refugees International hopes that Iraqis will be able to return to their homes in the future, the necessary conditions for returns to take place in safety and dignity do not exist.  Returns must not be encouraged until the violence subsides and people can receive adequate assistance and protection.  Actions Needed         The U.S. must craft a new policy to:           1. Assist Iraqi refugees.    2. Ensure a safe, voluntary return home when possible.    3. Pressure Iraq to meet its responsibilities to its own people.    4. Increase resettlement for those who can't go home.    Read more about our comprhensive plan here.   Saturday Justin Martin (News & Observer) reported from Amman, Jordan and noted, "My country's claim of liberating Iraq means nothing without the liberation of those the campaign violently expelled from their country.  The basic math is that around 2.2 million Iraqi refugees have been forced from their country since 2003, according to the United Nations, and the United States has admitted just over 16,000 according to a Baltimore Sun report in December.  This is about seven admited refugees per 1,000.  The majority of the remaining 2 million-plus refugees are scraping by in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, where the savings of many have been exhausted and unreplinished, since many can't find legal employment in these countries."  And as IRIN noted at the end of last month, in Syria some refugees are forced to sell food rations in order to make rent. George Baghdadi (CBS News) notes US Senator Ben Cardin is leading a US delegation in Damascus and that they intend "to visit the United Nations High Commission for Refugees facility in Damascus to assess the situation of Iraqi refugees in Syria."  The most well known Iraqi refugee to go to Syria is Riverbend (Baghdad Burning) who moved their with her family in 2007.   In January, William Dalrymple (New York Review of Books) noted "the wreckage of Iraq" included the "over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population".  And proving just how the al-Maliki government refuses to help the people of Iraq,  Press TV reports that Iraq's Deputy Minister of Refugees and Displaced Persons, Asghar al-Moussawi is scapegoating those attempting to assist Iraqi Christians by insisting, "To encourage a group of any particular faith to leave the country is against international law, and causes more harm than benefit to those people."  Really?  Want to talk about Baghdad's decimated Jewish community?  Didn't think so.  Just because al-Moussawi has the gift of speech doesn't mean he needs to utilize it but when he does it only reminds everyone of how ineffective al-Maliki was during the attacks on Christians in Mosul last fall and how the puppet government has repeatedly ignored the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations in insisting it was 'safe' for refugees to return to Iraq.  Paul Isaac (International Herald Tribune) writes a plea on behalf of Assyrians in Iraq:   Since 2003, over 40 churches have been bombed by Islamic militants. Numerous priests have been murdered, including the Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, killed last year shortly after he reminded extremists that the Christians of Iraq predate Islam. Knowing that Assyrians lack militias or regional backers, terrorist groups understand that for every bomb and slain priest many Christians will flee their homes. And to this end, the militants have been dreadfully successful: While representing only 3 percent of the population, Assyrian Christians comprise over 20 percent of its refugees. Perhaps half of the pre-war Christian community has fled, in what one Iraqi bishop has dubbed a "campaign of liquidation." While some have touted the success of the "surge" in reducing violence, the targeting of Assyrians has not diminished.   He calls on the US to do more* and notes that whether Barack started the Iraq War or not doesn't matter, it's Barack's war now.  (*"More" is being generous.  And the Feb. 11th snapshot noted the Assyrian community's open letter to Barack and vice president Joe Biden.)  Cockburn's lunacy on the 'gold rush' was offensive in terms of the refugees and it's offensive in terms of realities for Iraqis -- a topic he chooses to bury.  Sunday, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported on the United Nations' latest findings regarding economic realities for Iraqs which include "28% of males age 15 to 20 are unemployed; 17% of women have jobs; and most of the 450,000 Iraqis entering the job market this year won't find work 'without a concerted effort to boost the private sector'."   IRIN notes the report's findings that the rate of unemployment "could undermine long-term security and social stability". And Iraqis struggle while  AFP reports Nouri al-Maliki is purchasing $5.5 billion dollars worth of weapons from the US.  And while he destroys the already meager budget for the Ministry of Women's Affairs (from $7,500 a month to $1,500).  Yesterday wowOwow offered a news brief on the situation for women in Iraq and quoted Parliament's head of women's affairs Sameera al-Moussawi stating, "Women don't need a ministry to represent us.  We need effective women in every ministry of the country."   Regardless of where you stand on the issue (and it doesn't have to be one or the other -- women could and should be represented in the ministries and they could also have the Women's Ministry of Affairs) don't look for any of that mythical 'progress' in Iraq any time soon.  Not even when culture results in bitter power struggles.  Monday, Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) covered 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. Aseel Kami (Reuters) explains today that nothing's changed.  MfTaA's maintains that the museum will open Monday and Jaber al-Jaberi continues to insist that it won't and that "is the official and final position."  Kami observes, "The feud illustrates some of the challenges facing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government as it seeks to capitalise on a drop in violence and unify a country shattered by war."  And if they can't get their museum opening straight, lots of luck with prisoners.  Marc Santora (New York Times) reports that Wijdan Mikhail Salim (Human Rights Minister) confirms Iraq has received the four, Santora uses Human Rights Watch to provide the names: Hassan Abudl Said, Arkan Mohammad Ghafil al-Karim, Abbas Habid Rumi al-Naely and Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan al-Tayeea. The paper speaks with the sister of the first man (Hassan Abudl Said) and she (Nada Abdul Hadi Said) tells them she hasn't seen her brother since "1999 when he was drafted into the Iraqi Army" but began hearing from him after the Red Cross told the family in 2004 that "he was a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay."  What happens next to the four men is as big a question as when will the US ever leave Iraq?   Ross Colvin (Reuters) reported last night that an unnamed administration source has declared the decision of what Barack plans to do about "cutting troop levels in Iraq" will come "in weeks, not 'days or months'." Rebecca noted that last night. As pointed out most recently in the Feb. 6th snapshot, what to do was supposedly already settled, that campaign 'promise' which included him initiating upon being sworn in. But his Cult never holds him accountable.  At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Gordon Duguid was asked if the airspace or land of Turkey and Jordan could be used for US equipment "when the time  comes" and Duguid responded, "I am not aware of any discussions on that.  I know that the President has asked for a review from the Pentagon on just how you could draw down U.S. forces in Iraq.  I am not aware that the review has been finalized, so I would have to refer you to the Pentagon for where that stands at the moment."  From J.K.'s "Obama--War Criminal" (The Guillotine): As we noted earlier, if Obama chose to continue the war(s), then he would be the war criminal.         Well, it's one month into his regime, and the Los Angeles Times reminds us that Obama has said (among a number of things) that he wanted combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2010--so almost two years from now!--but that: "There are about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Obama has not detailed plans for reducing the force in Iraq".            Did anybody who voted for Obama, thinking he was the "anti-war" candidate, really think he wouldn't even have announced any details of a plan to reduce troops in Iraq by the end of his first month in office? Of course, all along Obama, the lawyer, allowed himself a loophole. He would only reduce troops in Iraq if his generals told him it was OK to do so. In other words, he would do what the military told him to. Funny, because in addition to that being the same excuse Bush always used for escalating (and also losing) the wars, the command structure in the US military actually doesn't work that way. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military and it is he who orders the generals around, not the other way.               And, has anybody ever asked--what the hell does "OK" mean anyway? Because it wasn't "OK" for US troops to have been in Iraq one damned second. And it still isn't "OK", and it won't ever be "OK"--till they get the hell out of Iraq.       While Barack delays a decision on what to do about Iraq -- after 'promising' 'withdrawal' on the campaign trail, the violence continues.    Ahmed Rasheed and Missy Ryan (Reuters) report the Iraqi Islamic Party's Samir Safwat was shot dead "in his car in Baghdad's Zaafariniya neighborhood" and that his wife was a provincial candidate.  Oh those peaceful elections!  Results are supposedly due tomorrow. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul raodside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer, roadside bombing outside of Kirkuk claimed 1 life and left two people injured.   Also last night in Karbala, the Telegraph of London reports, 7 people died and twenty-seven were wounded when a bus and a British "armoured vehicle" collided/crashed.    In England a mystery surrounds what was lost?  Patrick Foster (Times of London) reports a Treasury Solictor's Dept attorney left "highly sensitive documents relating to the Iraqi War . . . unguarded on a train" Monday and they are now missing.  Foster explains, "It is not yet known exactly what aspect of the Iraq War the documents relate to. Eversheds has carried out public-private partnership work for the Ministry of Defence in the past, including advising on the Combined Aerial Target Service project, which awarded a £300 million contract to provide targeting services for the military."     ETAN is calling for the US "to chart a new course:"    February 17 - In a letter sent today on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Indonesia, the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and three dozen other organizations urged her not to offer U.S. assistance to the Indonesian military (TNI) or intelligence agencies. "The Secretary of State's visit offers the new Obama administration a great opportunity to chart a new course in U.S. relations with Indonesia," said John M. Miller, National Coordinator of ETAN. "We urge Secretary Clinton to promote a forward-looking agenda when she visits Indonesia. Any military assistance should be contingent on human rights accountability and real reform," added Miller. "Secretary Clinton should break with the failed Bush administration policy of engagement with the TNI. The U.S. should once again use military assistance as leverage to promote reform and human rights." "The TNI looks at U.S. government actions. Statements promoting rights and reforms will be dismissed by the TNI unless U.S. assistance is suspended until genuine progress has been made," according to the letter. The letter also urges "no resumption of assistance to or cooperation with the notorious Kopassus special forces. They remain the most egregious element of the TNI. There should also be no initiation of assistance to the military and civilian intelligence agencies (BAIS and BIN) which have long records of repressing human rights groups and other critics." BIN is linked to the murder" of Munir Said Thalib, Indonesia's leading human-rights advocate. "An all-carrot, no-stick approach will undermine efforts to strengthen civilian control of the TNI and achieve judicial accountability for victims of human rights violations," the letter concludes. ETAN advocates for democracy, justice and human rights for East Timor and Indonesia. ETAN calls for an international tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity committed in East Timor from 1975 to 1999 and for continued restrictions on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia until there is genuine reform of its security forces. For additional background, see www.etan.org   Secretary of State Hillary Clinton           Department of State          Washington, DC           February 17, 2009         Dear Secretary Clinton:          As organizations deeply concerned with human rights and justice in Indonesia and East Timor (Timor-Leste), we urge you to make human rights and reform central to your upcoming visit to Indonesia. Like you, we value a strong U.S. relationship with a democratic Indonesia. We recognize that there are a wide-range of issues of mutual concern between the two countries, among them climate change and the global economic crisis.          If you genuinely seek to open a new chapter in U.S. relations with the world's largest Muslim majority nation, we urge you to make clear to Indonesia's leaders that respect for human rights is crucial and that security assistance must be contingent on accountability and real reform. While Indonesia's leaders may balk, its citizens will be grateful.           For far too long the United States government has been an accomplice to human rights violations committed by the Indonesian military. In recent years, U.S. leaders often have paid lip service to human rights accountability and reform. Assistance to the Indonesian military (TNI) expanded rapidly -- despite the lack of any significant TNI reform and despite the ongoing failure to hold the TNI accountable for its past and current human rights violations. Any pretense of conditioning engagement on accountability and human rights evaporated.             Past U.S. administrations have argued that close cooperation with the Indonesian military would spur reform by exposing TNI personnel to democratic perspectives and build respect for human rights and civilian control. However, decades of U.S. collaboration with the Indonesian military has shown no improvement coming from such association. Many U.S.-trained officers were involved in the worst violence in East Timor (Timor-Leste) and elsewhere.                      The greatest changes occurred only when the U.S. withheld military assistance, such as foreign military financing and training such as IMET and JCET. For example, during the brief period of serious reform in the years immediately following the resignation of the dictator Suharto, when the separation of the police and military was completed, unelected military officials were removed from Parliament, and East Timor was set on its path to independence.               Now that the U.S. is again engaged with the Indonesian military, international and domestic organizations have documented the Indonesian military's continued resistance to civilian control and oversight.    The TNI continues to evade budget transparency and maintains its widespread impunity for crimes against humanity. The government has yet to release a long-completed inventory of TNI businesses, a crucial step towards the divestment of all military businesses by 2009 as required by law, despite the Defense Minister's repeated pledges to do so. Reportedly, assets have been stripped from many TNI-owned firms. The US State Department's annual human rights report describes TNI prostitution rings in Papua, while illegal logging and extortion of foreign and domestic firms continues there and elsewhere.   UN, State Department and other reports describe Indonesia's human rights courts as incapable of bringing Indonesian military and police perpetrators of serious human rights violations to justice, including those involved in the Tanjung Priok massacre and  Abepura (Papua) violence. All those tried by Jakarta's ad hoc Human Rights Court on East Timor were acquitted. No senior officials have been convicted for the widespread crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in East Timor from 1975-1999. Officers credibly accused of serious crimes have continued uninterrupted careers. Several are leading candidates for Indonesia's highest political office this year.      Many in Papua view special autonomy as a failure. The military and police are brutally cracking down on Papuans peacefully-expressing their wish for greater control of their land and protesting environmental degradation and deforestation. In the Maluku and Papua, protesters have received lengthy prison terms for their peaceful dissent.     Retired senior military officials working in Indonesia's State Intelligence Agency (BIN) are suspected of planning and ordering the 2004 assassination of Munir Said Thalib, Indonesia's leading human-rights advocate. They have yet to be successfully prosecuted. The failure to resolve the high profile murder of such a prominent human rights defender puts others on the front lines in defense of fundamental human rights at even graver risk. Human rights defenders in the provinces of Papua and West Papua remain particularly exposed to threats and violence.       The "territorial command system" positions the TNI at the village level and enables their continued involvement in business and politics. This pervasive system poses a threat to upcoming national elections. The TNI-backed fundamentalist Islamic Defenders Front has been intimidating small parties and individuals critical of the military.      The previous administration's pursuit of the TNI as a "partner" in the fight against terrorism raises other fundamental issues. American assistance to and cooperation with the TNI ignores the reality that it is the Indonesian police and not the military that are responsible for tracking down alleged terrorists. (Your department's latest "Country Reports on Terrorism" praises civilian efforts and does not mention the TNI.)     The previous administration pledged to carefully calibrate any security assistance to Indonesia to promote reform and human rights. There is no evidence they ever did so. We urge you to evaluate the impact of U.S. security assistance on accountability, military reform and human rights.      The TNI looks at U.S. government actions. Statements promoting rights and reforms will be dismissed by the TNI unless U.S. assistance is suspended until genuine progress has been made. We urge you to use this leverage and restrict assistance until their substantial progress actually occurs.      We especially urge no resumption of assistance to or cooperation with the notorious Kopassus special forces. They remain the most egregious element of the TNI. There should also be no initiation of assistance to the military and civilian intelligence agencies (BAIS and BIN) which have long records of repressing human rights groups and other critics. As noted above, BIN is linked to the murder of human rights advocate Munir.     An all-carrot, no-stick approach will undermine efforts to strengthen civilian control of the TNI and achieve judicial accountability for victims of human rights violations.     Sincerely, The full list of signers can be found at  http://etan.org/news/2009/02clinton.htm.   And we're closing with   John Pilger's "Hollywood's New Censors" (Information Clearing House): With honourable exceptions, film critics rarely question this and identify the true power behind the screen. Obsessed with celebrity actors and vacuous narratives, they are the cinema's lobby correspondents, its dutiful press corps. Emitting safe snipes and sneers, they promote a deeply political system that dominates most of what we pay to see, knowing not what we are denied. Brian de Palma's 2007 film Redacted shows an Iraq the media does not report. He depicts the homicides and gang-rapes that are never prosecuted and are the essence of any colonial conquest. In the New York Village Voice, the critic Anthony Kaufman, in abusing the "divisive" De Palma for his "perverse tales of voyeurism and violence", did his best to taint the film as a kind of heresy and to bury it.        In this way, the "war on terror" -- the conquest and subversion of resource rich regions of the world, whose ramifications and oppressions touch all our lives – is almost excluded from the popular cinema. Michael Moore's outstanding Fahrenheit 911 was a freak; the notoriety of its distribution ban by the Walt Disney Company helped to force its way into cinemas. My own 2007 film The War on Democracy, which inverted the "war on terror" in Latin America, was distributed in Britain, Australia and other countries but not in the United States. "You will need to make structural and political changes," said a major New York distributor. "Maybe get a star like Sean Penn to host it -- he likes liberal causes -- and tame those anti-Bush sequences."      During the cold war, Hollywood's state propaganda was unabashed. The classic 1957 dance movie, Silk Stockings, was an anti-Soviet diatribe interrupted by the fabulous footwork of Cyd Charisse and Fred Astaire. These days, there are two types of censorship. The first is censorship by introspective dross. Betraying its long tradition of producing gems, escapist Hollywood is consumed by the corporate formula: just make 'em long and asinine and hope the hype will pay off. Ricky Gervais is his clever comic self in Ghost Town, while around him stale, formulaic characters sentimentalise the humour to death.           These are extraordinary times. Vicious colonial wars and political, economic and environmental corruption cry out for a place on the big screen. Yet, try to name one recent film that has dealt with these, honestly and powerfully, let alone satirically.. Censorship by omission is virulent. We need another Wall Street, another Last Hurrah, another Dr. Strangelove. The partisans who tunnel out of their prison in Gaza, bringing in food, clothes, medicines and weapons with which to defend themselves, are no less heroic than the celluloid-honoured POWs and partisans of the 1940s. They and the rest of us deserve the respect of the greatest popular medium.   iraq the los angeles times tina susman  aseel kami the new york times steven lee myers ross colvin marc santora mcclatchy newspapers john pilger redacted brian de palma

This AP article, which you can also find here (Washington Post) and here (Los Angeles Times) is ticking people off this morning because it's repeating FALSE claims long ago called out by the New York Times (Alissa J. Rubin and Sam Dagher). Why, wonder twenty-one in e-mails, is an article that's written today repeating things disproven in January? (Specifically the 25% quota which was tossed aside by the Parliament.) Why?

Because Hadeel al-Shalchi hasn't written a real article. He's grabbed *Kim Gamel's AP article from October 6th* (before it was discovered that Parliament had ditched the quotas for women) and written around it. Which is how you get al-Shalchi offering today:



Iraq's constitution provides that men and women have basic legal rights such as voting, owning property and suing in court. But deep differences exist on the role of women in society.

And Gamel offering in October:


The constitution provides that men and women have basic legal rights such as voting and owning property and suing in court. But deep differences exist within Iraqi society over the role of women and of Islam.

Use the links, you'll see that the only difference between the two articles is some new quotes. Today's article leaves out this important point by Gamel:

Under heavy U.S. pressure to promote gender equality, the Iraqis agreed to a 25 percent quota for women in the last elections for parliament and provincial councils, both held in 2005. A law paving the way for the new vote to be held by Jan. 31 maintains that requirement, opening the door for women to make up at least a quarter of the provincial councils.

The Feb. 12th snapshot included: "January 14th, Alissa J. Rubin and Sam Dagher (New York Times) broke the news that although the 25% was supposed to be set aside, it had not been." Is it all too confusing for AP? Rubin and Dagher's article was entitled "Changes in Iraq Election Law Weaken Quota for Women" and here's an excerpt:

A little more than two weeks before Iraq's provincial elections, there is widening anger that the published version of the election law has only a weak provision to set aside seats for women.
Early versions of the law, which governs the election of Iraq's 18 provincial councils, included a firm guarantee that women would have at least 25 percent of the seats -- the same percentage mandated by the Constitution for the numbers of women in Parliament.
In the male-dominated Arab culture, the framers of the Constitution and the Americans who were involved in drafting it thought that the quota was necessary to ensure that women would be represented.
But the provincial election law was changed several times, and the quota language was gone by the time it went to the Presidency Council, whose approval is needed for it to become official. It went back to the Parliament with several unrelated changes and was published in early October. The lack of a strong guarantee for women's council seats has begun to gain widespread attention only in the last few days.

I'm real sorry that grabbing an article AP sent across the wires in October and missing a MAJOR update in January didn't allow for easy cribbing. Maybe next time people can attempt to know the subject that they're allegedly reporting on or is that standard just too high for some to reach?

At the New York Times' Iraq blog, Jehad Nga's photos are featured and Sunday Sam Dagher shared the stories of some Iraqis making the pilgrimage last week.

Yesterday, the US military announced:

BAGHDAD -- Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) and the Government of Iraq (GOI) reached another milestone Feb. 14 when the total population of detainees in Coalition custody dropped to about 14,500.
This month, Task Force 134 Detainee Operations began releasing an average 50 detainees a day in accordance with the Security Agreement. The signed agreement between the U.S. and the GOI requires all detainees to be released in a safe and orderly manner or transferred to Iraqi custody pursuant to a judicial order.
Those being released this month represent the first group of case files that were reviewed by Iraqi authorities under the Security Agreement.

For those not paying attention, the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Force Agreement stated the US would turn over all prisoners to Iraqi control on January 1, 2009. That didn't happen, now did it? (Last week, Alissa J. Rubin did a post about the prisoners at the New York Times' blog.) But don't worry, obviously the US intends to meet other 'promises,' right? Keep kidding yourself.

Or be a Patrick Cockburn. He's one of the flaming idiots that pimped the SOFA as ending the Iraq War. While one of many on that, he appears to be the only flaming idiot to develop a hard for Nouri al-Maliki and his out of control lust has led to commentaries that could pass for stand up. He's also the topic of an e-mail this morning where it's noted that Sunday's New York Times story "is a subject he's reporting on!" Cockburn's fans are almost as funny as he is. No, he's not reporting a damn thing. He has no information other than what he read in the New York Times. He pimps it but he's done no reporting and we'll stand by what went up here Sunday:

On the front page of today's New York Times, James Glanz, C.J. Chivers and William K. Rashbaum offer "Inquiry On Graft In Iraq Focuses On U.S. Officers." The article might have been better with only one writer and Glanz has covered the beat the longest, so it should have been. Is it possible that military officers, overseeing reconstruction, took bribes? It is very possible. Two names are listed that are under investigation of some form. I'm not interested in naming those two people because I don't see in the article that justifies them being named. That's a very serious charge to make, to assert that while someone was serving in the military, they were also profitting from it, lining their own pockets. It does happen. And the paper's covered one example of it very well -- from investigation on forward -- though they really weren't that when the conviction came in. But I'm looking at this article, reading it over three times and attempting to find a reason why two people -- not charged with anything -- are named? I'm not comfortable including those names here. If they are charged with something, we'll note it and that's different. But it really reads -- rightly or wrongly -- as if prosecutors who can't do their own job are hoping the press will do it for them, are hoping that a conviction can take place via the media and spur their case forward.

I could be wrong on that (and I'm wrong all the time) but that's how it reads to me and I'm not interested in floating the two names here. If you're interested, you can use the link and read the paper's article.

Cockburn runs with the names with no confirmation of his own. What a proud moment for the Independent of London! We're not opposed to covering corruption and certainly not opposed to covering US corruption in Iraq. Unlike the New York Times, when a woman in the military they'd reported on non-stop was finally convicted, we noted it here with links to all the Justice Department's announcements, statements and evidence. The two named in the New York Times article are presented as crooks by Cockburn. The two have been charged with nothing and should they not be charged, they may consider a libel suit against the Independent. They already have grounds to sue because the threshold for libel is not as great in the UK as it is in the US. Cockburn makes a fool out of himself because he's so in love with Nouri. He's convinced US graft will mean Nouri's innocent! Nouri's guilty. Has there been US graft and corruption? Yeah and it's been well documented. There is no doubt more (that doesn't mean the two who are charged with nothing currently are guilty of anything). That doesn't change the fact that Nouri's lining his pockets (the same way the US thefts didn't change the fact that the members of the earlier provisional government stashed millions in UK banks). If the Independent of London had any standards left, they'd have long ago pulled Cockburn who is supposed to be a reporter -- though the 'reports' he churns out resembles columns -- and a reporter so enamored with the foreign ruler of the country he's allegedly covering violates every rule of journalism.

If the two are charged -- or anyone's charged -- we'll be happy to include it. But people like Cockburn never learn anything. They like to lecture about journalism 'ethics' but they're always the first to run with a story that they didn't investigate themselves. They have no concern that innocent people's lives might be destroyed. US prosecutors have repeatedly used the press in the last two decades to 'prosecute' weak cases. "Person of interest" is the relatively new way to use the press to prosecute your case for you. Person of interest is not anyone charged with a damn thing. And you might hope the press would rise up against being used as a tool of the prosecution but then you get people like Patrick Cockburn who don't care about the truth or about guilt or innocence, they just care about anything that advances their propaganda. Patrick's been loose with the facts for some time and his Iraq reporting has been shoddy for some time. He's not a trusted source or even a reliable one -- as he proved when he tried to glom on to the sensationalistic story of the Iraqi women stoned but he had to 'improve' on it by having her lynched. That was your first clue that Cockburn was putting facts low on his totem pole. As Elaine noted then (August 2007):

Cockburn doesn't reassure me of the facts when he writes, "The public lynching of a Yazidi girl who converted to Islam in order to marry her Muslim Kurdish boyfriend led sectarian strife earlier this year." She was stoned. She wasn't lynched. Lynching is with a rope. The woman was stoned. Dua Khalil Aswad was the woman's name.

Dahr Jamail's latest report is "Boys With Toys" (MidEast Dispatches):

It is not the threat of violence that weighs on the people of Iraq. It is the omnipresent occurrence of violence that has resulted in the desperate nation wide chant, "We are tired. All we want is for normal life to return."
Recently, an eight-year-old Iraqi girl was shot by US soldiers when their convoy ran into a crowd of Shiite pilgrims traveling to the holy city of Karbala in southern Iraq.
Sunday, a week ago, three explosions echoed across Baghdad, leaving one person dead and wounding another 20.
The very next day, a suicide car bomber struck a US patrol in the northern city of Mosul, killing four American soldiers and their Iraqi interpreter. It was the single deadliest attack on US forces in nine months. Two days later, an off-duty security guard of Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi was wounded along with a pedestrian when a bomb attached to his car detonated. On the same day, back in Mosul, a car bomb targeting a police patrol wounded three Iraqi policemen.


Feb. 9th's snapshot included the following:

David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).

Brandon e-mails to note Bacon's article is up online (click here). (Link in snapshot went to the magazine itself because the article wasn't then available online.) And Mia highlights Chris Hedges' "Bad News From America's Top Spy" (Information Clearing House):


The specter of social unrest was raised at the U.S. Army War College in November in a monograph [click on Policypointers' pdf link to see the report] titled "Known Unknowns: Unconventional 'Strategic Shocks' in Defense Strategy Development." The military must be prepared, the document warned, for a "violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States," which could be provoked by "unforeseen economic collapse," "purposeful domestic resistance," "pervasive public health emergencies" or "loss of functioning political and legal order." The "widespread civil violence," the document said, "would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security."
"An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home," it went on.
"Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD [the Department of Defense] would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance," the document read.
In plain English, something bureaucrats and the military seem incapable of employing, this translates into the imposition of martial law and a de facto government being run out of the Department of Defense. They are considering it. So should you.
Adm. Blair warned the Senate that "roughly a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instability such as government changes because of the current slowdown." He noted that the "bulk of anti-state demonstrations" internationally have been seen in Europe and the former Soviet Union, but this did not mean they could not spread to the United States. He told the senators that the collapse of the global financial system is "likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging market nations over the next year." He added that "much of Latin America, former Soviet Union states and sub-Saharan Africa lack sufficient cash reserves, access to international aid or credit, or other coping mechanism."
"When those growth rates go down, my gut tells me that there are going to be problems coming out of that, and we're looking for that," he said. He referred to "statistical modeling" showing that "economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they persist over a one to two year period."
Blair articulated the newest narrative of fear. As the economic unraveling accelerates we will be told it is not the bearded Islamic extremists, although those in power will drag them out of the Halloween closet when they need to give us an exotic shock, but instead the domestic riffraff, environmentalists, anarchists, unions and enraged members of our dispossessed working class who threaten us. Crime, as it always does in times of turmoil, will grow. Those who oppose the iron fist of the state security apparatus will be lumped together in slick, corporate news reports with the growing criminal underclass.


Reuters reports that today's violence includes 2 Baquba roadside bombings that resulted in 2 deaths and ten more people injured while a Baghdad roadside bombing injured one person.

Today Germany's Minister of Foreign Affairs is in Iraq. Yesterday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted:





16 February, 2009

Foreign Minister Receives British Ambassador

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, received on Monday, 16/2/2009, the British ambassador in Baghdad, Mr. Christopher Prentice upon his request. The meeting dealt with bilateral relations between the two countries and ways of developing them in addition to the results of provincial elections that took place late last month, and the British Ambassador congratulated the Government on Iraq's success..

The two sides also touched on the subject of exchange visits between officials of both countries to promote the development of relations, stating that a broad investment conference on Iraq will be held in Britain next April, in addition to the meetings of Iraq's neighboring countries and the situation in the region.

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

iraq