Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction." Rev Al Distraction declares, "Hey, it's me, Al Distraction, self-appointed art critic despite being untrained in and ignorant of the arts. Remember when I was yammering on about 'Socrates and them Greek homos'? Yeah, I really am that stupid. All art in the country will be approved by me from now on. It'll allow Barack to push through his Social Security privatization and keep you from hearing about Bernie Sanders' objection. Yo, Hi and Lois, I'm call your suburban asses out on White flight! And Hi, your wife looks like a chimp! That's racism!" Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.


the world today just nuts
al distraction
hi and lois
comic
the common ills

28-year-old Kristoffer Walker is saying no to the Iraq War. James A. Carlson (AP) reports the Iraq War veteran will not be returning to Iraq.

He said he now views the Iraq war as "an illegitimate, unnecessary campaign," and he feels that by making him take part, the government broke the contract under which he agreed to defend the U.S. "I feel absolutely justified in doing what I'm doing now based on their breach of the initial contract," he said.

WEAU13 reports Walker states, "Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed." KARE11 reports pathetic dirt bag Lt Col Nathan Banks is responding to the stand by whining that Kristoffer is "letting his battle buddies down." Hop your ass on over to Iraq, Nathan, if you're so damn worried. And before you do that, let us know all about the hand-to-hand combat you 'brave' spokespeople see while serving in the military.


They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4245 and tonight? 4247. Two deaths were announced this weekend, C.I. noted them this morning. Just Foreign Policy's counter finally moved up two weeks ago (after no updates since January 4th) to 1,311,696 killed since the start of the illegal war and finally updating their counter was so much work, they needed to take two weeks off.

Jim and Dona here filling in for C.I. We opened with war resistance and we've got a lot more to cover but let's move over to war stupidity. Where there is Iraq War stupidity, there is Patrick Cockburn. It sure is cute to watch Paddy's cock burn with desire for Barack and Nouri. Someone thinks Paddy's a reporter and that's hilarious. The only ones we see praising him at this late date are the ones who aren't even following Iraq -- yeah, Noam Chomsky, we mean you. You offer that reflexive praise to him completely unaware that he hit the breakers in 2007 and has just been cracking up ever since.

Paddy cock burn tosses out "Iraq faces a new war as tensions rise in north" today. Does it, Paddy, does it? The north? Really? You're going to stick with that, are you?

Reality: In 2008, as C.I. noted here, Mosul overtook Baghdad in reported violence. Reality, while Paddy was running over to Palestine and elsewhere and occassionally dashing into Iraq for a day or two, northern Iraq's violence was obvious for anyone who bothered to look. C.I. was noting it all summer long. C.I.'s continued to note it including this year. Paddy didn't have a word to say, not a peep. Until today. Suddenly, Paddy's alarmed that violence is up in Mosul (even though it started last year). Suddenly, Paddy's on the job.


Tell us again, Paddy, about the Iraqi girl who was hanged. You know, the one who was actually stoned. Tell us again, Paddy, how a supposed reporter makes that sort of HUGE mistake and never corrects it. Get the hell off the national stage you big, stupid joke.

In more war stupidity, Iraq is not stable. It is not a democracy and it is not a stable. So only a fool would propose that a nuclear power plant be built in Iraq; however, AFP reports they al-Maliki's government is inviting "France to help build a nuclear power plant". (In related news, the Independent of London is promoting nuclear energy in the UK with the lie that it is 'green' and 'safe.') Meanwhile Arwa Damon (CNN) reports that Iraq's "Ministry of Justice has launched a campaign to show" the alleged changes in Abu Ghraib -- more insanity.

More prisons means Iraq needs more prisoners and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that Sunni member of Parliament, Mohammed Daini, has been fingered publicly by al-Maliki's puppet government as responsible for an April 2007 bombing of Parliament and many "ochter crimes". As usual, no evidence was produced to back up these assertions though they did whine that the alleged criminal would remain free because member of Parliament have immunity. Immunity apparently also extends to al-Maliki's officials who make charges in public which they cannot back up. BBC adds:

Iraq's Shia-led government may now seek to have Mohammed al-Daini's immunity revoked after a warrant was issued.
Alleged confessions obtained from two bodyguards linked Mr al-Daini to the attack, in which seven people died in a parliamentary canteen.
He condemned the bodyguards' arrest and pledged to respond to the accusations.

Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi service members and left two more injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing that left four people injured, another Mosul roadside bombing which wounded five Iraqi service members, a Mosul grenade attack which wounded a woman, a Samarra sticky bombing which left "a neighbourhood guard leader" injured, a Tikrit roadside bombing which wounded IIP official Jamal Shaiban and his driver, and dropping back to Saturday a Baghdad roadside bombing which left four people injured and a Baaj bombing that claimed the lives of 5 Iraqi soldiers. Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy) adds provincial election candidate Mohammed Hadi was killed ("in his house") in Babil this Saturday morning.

At Third this morning, we offered the following:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: It's the people's movement
TV: Dollhouse is baroque, somebody better fix it
Giggles at the smack-down hide the real issue
The sexism at Harper's
I'm ready for my mani-pedi, Mr. DeMille
Animation roundtable
The continued witch hunt of Senator Roland Burris
Small change turns to no change
Our celebrity hero
FTA Tuesday
Highlights

Here, this morning, Kat offered her review of india.arie's great new album, Testimony Vol. 2: Love and Politics. And tonight? We have good news and we have bad news. Isaiah has a new comic. We'll post it after this, you'll love it. The bad news? Isaiah has two comics. You'll have to wait until tomorrow morning to see the next one. It continues the thread of tonight's and you'll really be laughing when you see the one that goes up tomorrow. You just think tonight's comic is funny until you see tomorrow's.

Now this is from David Zeiger, director of the documentary Sir! No Sir!:




FTA available Tuesday!
Broadcast Premiere
Monday, February 23, 9 pm.
On the Sundance Channel
Dear Friends and supporters of Sir! No Sir!
Why did FTA disappear 37 years ago? To put it another way, why did a film featuring Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland at the height of their careers, less than a year after their hugely popular film Klute (for which Jane won the Academy Award for Best Actress), suddenly get yanked from theaters after only one week?
The answer lies in the film itself, and the turmoil it revealed. 1972 was no ordinary year. It was the year of Watergate. It was the year of Nixon's horrific, relentless bombing campaign against the people of North Vietnam. And it was the year that the rebellion of soldiers and marines against the Vietnam War spread to the navy and air force. FTA is the film that reveals and revels in that rebellion in a way that no other film did then or had for 35 years, until I made Sir! No Sir!
Francine Parker, who directed FTA, swore to me a couple of years ago that Sam Arkoff, the enigmatic head of American International Pictures, which was distributing the film, told her he had received a threatening phone call from the White House-and that is why he pulled the film. Is the story true? There's no proof, but I can't think of another reasonable explanation for Sam Arkoff, a man who knew how to wring every penny out of a film, yanking one starring Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland from theaters at a big loss (and, apparently, destroying all of the prints, since none were ever found). And what happened after that certainly gives credence to the story.
With the yanking of FTA, the story of the GI Movement against the Vietnam War was also yanked from public view, and has since been deeply buried under a swath of myths and lies that poured out of a newly "patriotic" Hollywood in the late seventies and early eighties. Rambo was just the tip of the iceberg, as the memory of an illegal, immoral, and hideously deadly war was replaced by Ronald Reagan's declaration that "The antiwar movement betrayed our troops."
I brought back FTA because I want you to see and feel the truth. Sadly, Francine Parker died a year ago, before she could see her film finally get its due. But the film is here. Watch it, and let yourself feel the electricity of that time. More importantly, ask yourself what it is about "then" that feels like "now," that speaks directly to us today. When you listen to Donald Sutherland give his mesmerizing rendition of the soliloquy from Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, look around you and ask yourself if anything has really changed.
And while you're doing that, enjoy the film. It's a lot of fun.
David Zeiger
Sir! No Sir! tells the long suppressed story of the GI movement to end the war in Vietnam. This is the story of one of the most vibrant and widespread upheavals of the 1960’s- one that had a profound impact on American society yet has been virtually obliterated from the collective memory of that time.
Click here to order FTA on DVD.

"Wait!" cry European community members, "DVDs have different fields and we need DVDs compatible with the players in our countries!" Yes and, for European community members, Pru notes "Winter Soldier Sir! No Sir! FTA" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):


This is a long awaited chance to get hold of three classic films about the hidden history of US troops in the Vietnam War.
Sir! No Sir! was made in 2005 and documents the raging discontent in the US army towards the end of the war.
Using archive footage and interviews with ex-soldiers, it records the underground newspapers and subversive coffee houses that sprung up round the US bases.
Winter Soldier, filmed in a hotel in Detroit in 1972, shows the harrowing testimony of US soldiers recently returned from Vietnam. Their raw accounts of the atrocities they committed show the brutality of US imperialism.
FTA (Fuck The Army) follows actors Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland presenting their anti-war show to US troops.
The film was screened for just a week in the US in 1972 before all prints “disappeared”. Thirty seven years later a copy of the film has been found. It is being released on DVD for the first time.
Winter Soldier Sir! No Sir! FTAReleased on DVD by Stoney Road Films
To order the films send an email to info@stoneyroadfilms.com or phone 0035 316 678 841.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version

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


iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
kristoffer walker
james a. carlson
weau13
the los angeles times
tina susman
kats korner
the world today just nuts
the socialist worker
the third estate sunday review

Kat: I never encounter music in the 'normal' sense anymore. Consider it the downfall of Tower Records and others, a shift in the dynamics as the country has moved to downloads or just the company I keep.

Take a new song Drew Ramsey has written entitled "Ghetto." "There are places in Havana that remind me of Savannah, parts of West Virginia that might as well be Kenya, parts of New York City, parts of Mississippi, parts of Tennessee look like another world to me . . ." are the lyrics that go over one this great guitar rhythm (one, TWO, three, FOUR, one, TWO, three, FOUR). And I encountered it when Betty's oldest son was playing it. I didn't know the song, thought it was a great one, thought it was so great, it had to be an old one and C.I. was teaching him a classic I'd never heard of. Then Betty blogs Tuesday night (previous link) about the album it's from and I'm reading that half-asleep before calling her to tell her I'll review the album.





It's india.arie and there's no question of arie's talent so between "Ghetto" and Betty's praise for the album, I download it on Amazon Wednesday with a few reservations -- which I'll get too. None of the reservations are about the album itself, Testimony Vol. 2: Love & Politics -- an album which doesn't just easily stand alongside The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill as one of the strongest contemporary soul albums in recent years, it can stand alongside the best of Marvin Gaye's work including, yes, What's Going On?

But in three reviews of this fantastic album, I'm not seeing that realization. When I announced I'd be reviewing it, well meaning people started e-mailing me reviews. I read two of those and a third that friend at a local paper passed on in person Saturday afternoon. The reviews left me wondering not just what album they thought they were listening to but whether or not they grasped how autobiographical reviews can be -- even when they're not noting, as I have, the first time they saw a man's cock?

Because reviews can be very autobiographical and never more so than when the reviewer attempts to act as if there's some sort of empirical truth he (it's usually a man) has reached that has nothing at all to do with something as variable as opinion. The fellows are never more subjective than when insisting they aren't.

Which is how a thread appeared in two of the three reviews: india.arie writes and performs great love songs but she just can't handle the political. This subjective view rests on the assumption that love and politics are not intertwined in india's work -- a view which even the most casual listen to Testimony Vol. 2: Love & Politics should reject.

How did the fellows miss that? Maybe because the person who can't handle the political is the reviewers? I'm not sure whether it's not being able to handle the political period or just not being able to handle the political from a woman. But the two guys pushing this mistaken belief tally up the songs and omit a few to 'prove' their point. One of the most obvious songs they ignore is "Pearls." This song, which india performs but did not write, draws no lines between love and politics. Maybe the fact that a variety of love -- and not just love that leads to sex -- is on display confuse the fellows? Maybe when india's singing about the love of a mother for her child, they're bored or just not registering?

The mixture of love and politics or the postulate that love can bring about salvation and/or peace is not something india just pulled out of thin air. John Lennon and Marvin Gaye are two whose art has long explored that possibility.

In her foot stomping, hand tossing, shake your ass "Better Way" (india's own composition) she insists, "I know there's got to be a (better way)." It's the sort of belief John would flirt with ("Imagine," for example) and Marvin would outright embrace ("Wholy Holy"). Far from being an oddity, india's exploring the mix that some of the strongest artists of the 20th century attempted. Possibly the boys think all 'political' songs need to come with the finger-pointing sneer of early Bob Dylan? Even Dylan doesn't do those songs anymore. He long ago moved on to his end of times and it was up to artists like John and Marvin, Aretha and Janis to offer that some form of salvation might be possible -- in this world or another.

When "Better Way" (one of the most amazing and hard driving tracks on the album) ends, we're taken to "Grains." "Grains" is actually three interludes -- tracks one, eleven and fifteen -- which, combined, total less than two and a half minutes and possibly some reviewers felt they were disposable and could be skipped?

Here are the lyrics to track eleven:

Every human being
Who is
Who has been
And who ever will be
From the most famous
To the most anonymous, yeah
We're created from the same thing
You know how many hairs are on every head
And the intention of every heart
No matter the words we said
And every time I think I'm separate
I remember we're created by one god
I'm grateful that
You created me from the same grains
With the same thing
I'm grateful that
You never cease to amaze me
The way you love me

The reviewers 'seeing' divisions are seeing things india clearly does not. That's obvious throughout the album but especially so with the "Grains" interludes.

"Long Goodbye" is clearly a love song . . . and a lot more. Both within the song itself and the context on the album. When John and Marvin explored this type of terrain, critical response is generally silence or some philosophy buff cum music critic will start pontificating about the "exploration of 'the eternal feminine'." It's really funny how they always find men who can explore the so-called "eternal feminine" (that thread comes from philosophy grad students with nothing better to do, they've spent decades now applying it to Nietzsche). A man writes "universal" (read "male") and can also do a a wonderful job exploring (tapping into or just tappin'?) the 'eternal feminine.' Goodness, if they could give birth, they really wouldn't need us at all, now would they?

Seriously, when a man walks this terrain, he's applauded for his effort but when a woman does, she's usually not given an iota of artistic credit.

Let me move over to my reservations. I bought the album from Amazon Wednesday. It was at the incredible price of $5.99 for the full album (it's currently $8.99 for the entire album -- still a bargain) and I have no idea why downloading from Amazon requires installing their Downloader approximately every fifth download but that's how it's going. Knowing that this community prefers Amazon to iTunes and knowing other people are having to install Amazon's Downloader repeatedly, I'm bringing that up. It matters when you're in a rush to download and think, "Oh, I can do this in mere minutes," but instead find out that you have to (yet again) install the Downloader. So if you're thinking of downloading, factor that into your time management.

My other reservation was, "I'm reviewing another album by a woman?" I love female artists. I love male artists. I love groups. I do not attempt to create a ratio of X to Y, but I do hope I give women at least equal footing. If I give more, that's fine. But I was thinking about a drive by e-mail whining that I'd reviewed Tracy Chapman, Schuyler Fisk, Phoebe Snow and Janis Ian this year and the only man was Bruce Springsteen. You know what, not only have I reviewed more women this year, I've also praised them. I don't know where the male artists are? But they're not doing much of anything I can see and appear to have all embraced "the happy idiot" they once longed to be as they pocket "the legal tender." Maybe that'll change as the year continues but the last months of 2008 and the start of 2009 have featured some very strong work by women.

And when I look at the three reviews of india.arie's Testimony Vol. 2: Love & Politics, I'm really glad I'm noting these strong artistic contributions by women because they appear to be sailing over the fellows' heads. For india, that's probably okay and the reason is this album doesn't really need critical praise to sell.

You can be as small-minded as the bulk of male critics and still fall in love with, for example, "He Heals Me." You can strip all the politics out of it, all the spirituality, reduce it to a 'mere' love song (or is it a 'silly love song'?), and you still can't help moving with the beat or feeling a rush of a joy when india sings "life" in the phrase "cause he's already changed my life" or the way she bends "accepts" right after only to toss it up to a higher register next

And joy really describes the entire album. It's what had Betty's son wanting to learn to play "Ghetto" on the guitar, it's how "Better Way" lifts me even when I'm about to fall over, it's there in the album closer "A Beautiful Day."

Early in the morning
It's the dawn of a new day
New hopes, new dreams, new ways
I open up eyes and
I open up my mind
And I wonder how life will surprise me today?




india.arie
testimony vol. 2: love & politics
schuyler fisk
tracy chapman
janis ian
phoebe snow
bruce springsteen
thomas friedman is a great man
kats korner
the common ills

Yesterday the US miltary announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division--Baghdad Soldier died Feb. 21 while conducting a combat patrol near Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is currently under investigation." Making that announcement was so tiring for M-NF that they allowed the Dept of Defense to make the other one yesterday, "The Department of Defense announced the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. PFC Cwislyn K. Walter, 19, of Honolulu died Feb. 19 in Kuwait City, Kuwait, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. She was assigned to the 29th Special Troops Battalion, 29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Hawaii National Guard. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." The announcements bring the number of deaths of US service members in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4247.

In this morning's New York Times, Sam Dagher offers "Fresh Paint and Flowers At Iraqi House of Horrors." This is not a repeat. Dagher's "With New Name and Mission, the Infamous Abu Ghraib Prison Is to Reopen" ran in yesterday's paper. Today's article is based on the tour of Abu Ghraib he took Saturday. We'll note the jailer's quote (not authorized to speak to the press officially): "It reminds me of the past. I hate this place. It is depressing." And we'll note this section because it's an important of the story of what's taking place in Iraq:

In northern Iraq on Saturday, a security official in Mosul said Iraqi forces arrested 75 people during raids on several neighborhoods on the east side of the city. The official said that at least 25 of them were being sought in terrorism investigations.
Iraq's antiterrorism law provides wide leeway in arresting and convicting terrorism suspects. Critics say it undermines reconciliation efforts and puts pressure on courts and prisons.


New content is going up at Third. Kat's got a review that goes up this morning. There may be a comic tonight. (I'm not sure. A roundtable with Isaiah goes up at Third this morning. I haven't spoken to him since Saturday night/evening -- Ava and I weren't part of the roundtable. At that time, I told him if he wanted to take Sunday off, Kat had a review going up and everyone would understand. I don't know what he ended up deciding.) Remember Jim and Dona are filling in for me tonight with "And the war drags on . . ."

Oh, one thing I do know. I asked Isaiah how to link in the comics? His comics here will continue to be a link to his previous comic on his name and we'll note at the end, "Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts."

Wednesday's snapshot included:

. . . 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 . . .
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

Was Duguid out of the looop? AP's Chelsea J. Carter reports, "The American military is shipping battlefield equipment through Jordan and Kuwait, testing possible exit routes in advance of a U.S. withdrawal in Iraq, military officials said." If Duguid was out of the loop, one might wonder why the US military knew what the US State Dept didn't?

Next month, people will stand up against the war and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action (which we are trying to note in some way each day between now and March 21st):

IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.

We'll note the following from David Zeiger, director of the amazing Sir! No Sir!:


FTA available Tuesday!

Broadcast Premiere
Monday, February 23, 9 pm.On the Sundance Channel

Dear Friends and supporters of Sir! No Sir!
Why did FTA disappear 37 years ago? To put it another way, why did a film featuring Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland at the height of their careers, less than a year after their hugely popular film Klute (for which Jane won the Academy Award for Best Actress), suddenly get yanked from theaters after only one week?
The answer lies in the film itself, and the turmoil it revealed. 1972 was no ordinary year. It was the year of Watergate. It was the year of Nixon's horrific, relentless bombing campaign against the people of North Vietnam. And it was the year that the rebellion of soldiers and marines against the Vietnam War spread to the navy and air force. FTA is the film that reveals and revels in that rebellion in a way that no other film did then or had for 35 years, until I made Sir! No Sir!
Francine Parker, who directed FTA, swore to me a couple of years ago that Sam Arkoff, the enigmatic head of American International Pictures, which was distributing the film, told her he had received a threatening phone call from the White House-and that is why he pulled the film. Is the story true? There's no proof, but I can't think of another reasonable explanation for Sam Arkoff, a man who knew how to wring every penny out of a film, yanking one starring Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland from theaters at a big loss (and, apparently, destroying all of the prints, since none were ever found). And what happened after that certainly gives credence to the story.
With the yanking of FTA, the story of the GI Movement against the Vietnam War was also yanked from public view, and has since been deeply buried under a swath of myths and lies that poured out of a newly "patriotic" Hollywood in the late seventies and early eighties. Rambo was just the tip of the iceberg, as the memory of an illegal, immoral, and hideously deadly war was replaced by Ronald Reagan's declaration that "The antiwar movement betrayed our troops."
I brought back FTA because I want you to see and feel the truth. Sadly, Francine Parker died a year ago, before she could see her film finally get its due. But the film is here. Watch it, and let yourself feel the electricity of that time. More importantly, ask yourself what it is about "then" that feels like "now," that speaks directly to us today. When you listen to Donald Sutherland give his mesmerizing rendition of the soliloquy from Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, look around you and ask yourself if anything has really changed.
And while you're doing that, enjoy the film. It's a lot of fun.
David Zeiger

Sir! No Sir! tells the long suppressed story of the GI movement to end the war in Vietnam. This is the story of one of the most vibrant and widespread upheavals of the 1960’s- one that had a profound impact on American society yet has been virtually obliterated from the collective memory of that time.

Click here to order FTA on DVD.


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

iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
chelsea j. careter
david zeiger
sir! no sir!
fta
iraq veterans against the war
a.n.s.w.e.r.
world can't wait
kats korner
the world today just nuts
the third estate sunday review

On the front page of today's New York Times, Paul von Zielbauer's "G.I. Offered to Plead Guilty, Then Went Free in Iraq Deaths" which is about Alberto B. Martinez. We've covered Martinez here but we've covered two men named Alberto Martinez so, to be clear, this is not the Alberto Martinez who murdered Richard Davis. Richard Davis joined the US miltary in 1999 and served in Bosnia and Iraq. He was murdered July 14, 2003 by Jacob Burgoyne, Martinez and Douglas Woodcoff. They murdered him because Richard was multi-racial. After beating him and stabbing him over thirty times, they set fire to Richard's corpse. The US military's response was to contact Lanny Davis (Richard's father) and tell him his son must be AWOL. Lanny Davis is the only reason that anyone ever found out that Richard was dead and why and how. The military (as with Maria Lauterbach -- 'disappeared' while pregnant, later found -- by civilian police -- to have been murdered and her corpse was also set on fire) had other things to do. Burgoyne, Matinez and Naverrette were convicted though their punishments are laugghable (Martinez and Naverette are likely to be paroled in two more years).

So that's one Alberto Martinzez. But this Alberto Martinez is the one who walked on charges of murdering Lou Allen and Phillip Esposito while the three served in Iraq (Martinez served under the two). June 7, 2005, at their base in Tirkirt, Martinez killed Phillip Esposito with a Claymore mine which wounded Lou Allen. To cover his tracks (to make it appear that base was under attack), Martinez then tossed three grenades. It was "fragging" -- killing a superior officer or officers.

Another fragging case took place during the first weeks of the illegal war, Hasan Akbar launched a grenade and shooting attack at Camp Pennslyvania in Kuwait. Fourteen US service members were wounded in the attack and Christopher Seifert and and Gregory Stone were killed. (Click here for NYT's Stephen Farrell's report on that at NYT's International Herald Tribune.)

December 4, 2008, Alberto B. Martinez was aquitted in the murders of Lou Allen and Phillip Esposito causing widow Barbara Allen to exclaim as the verdict was announced, "He slaughtered our husbands, and that's it? You murdered my husband!" Today Paul von Zielbauer reports on the April 3, 2006 confession Martinez signed as part of a plea agreement: "This offer to plea orginated with me. No person has made any attempt to force or coerce me into making this offer." The agreement was also signed by the same two attorneys who represented Martinez. Barbara Allen is quoted by von Zielbauer stating, "They had a conviction handed to them and chose not to take it." The plea would have meant life in prison. Georgetown law professor and former Marine judge Gary D. Solis tells von Zielbauer, "The only reason you should turn this down is if you have an absolutely bulletproof case. I can't imagine why they didn't take it. You've got life in prison in hand."


United for Death and Destruction or Leslie Cagan's United for Pathetic and Juvenile (take your pick) gets a mention from Ron Jacobs in his "It Ain't Over 'Til It’s Over: Protest the Occupations and Wars of Washington" (Dissident Voice):

As Barack Obama's troop escalation begins in Afghanistan and talking heads debate how many more troops the US should send, the leadership of what was once the largest antiwar organization (UFPJ) in the United States rejected a call for a unified antiwar protest on March 21st, 2009. Instead, they issued a call to go to Wall Street on April 4th, 2009 and encourage the war profiteers to move "beyond a war economy," while toning down the demand to end the wars and occupations now to a demand to merely end them. Like antiwar organizer Ashley Smith told me in an email: "(That is) something Dick Cheney could support." The implication of this call by UFPJ is that now that Barack Obama and the Democrats are in power, there is no longer any need to protest against war. Not only is this incredibly naive, it is downright dangerous for the future of the world.
As anybody who has paid the least bit of attention to the nature of the US economy over the past century, its very foundations rest on the production of war and materials for war. Also apparent to those of us who have been paying attention is that the Democrats are just as responsible for this reality as the Republicans are. Just because George Bush and his administration were personally reprehensible and their arrogance and disregard for principles most Americans hold dear was as obvious as the nose on Pinocchio's wooden face doesn't mean that the policies of the Democrats are substantially different.
Consequently, the antiwar movement would be foolish to think they have a government of allies in Washington, DC now. There may be a more personable bunch of folks ruling the country now, but the odds of those folks pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq now instead of later without a major push from the American people insisting that they do so are about as poor as they were under the Bush administration. The time for the antiwar movement to demand that the Obama administration end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is now, before its political ego becomes entangled in a military exercise that is ill-advised, poorly done, and just plain wrong.

Jacobs notes that The National Assembly to End the Wars and the ANSWER coalition are among those taking part in the upcoming action. Others include (but are not limited to) World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action (which we are trying to note in some way each day between now and March 21st):


IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st
As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.
For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.

And Ron mentions Ashley Smith in his article, Smith and Eric Ruder wrote about United for Pathetic and Juvenile decision to be inactive for the next four years in the Socialist Worker back in December. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
the new york times
paul von zielbauer
stephen farrell
ron jacobs
ashley smith
eric ruder
iraq veterans against the war
a.n.s.w.e.r.
world can't wait

In a sign of just how quickly the US needs to leave Iraq before it does further damage, consider this sentence: "The government says it sorely needs Abu Ghraib -- now Baghdad Central Prison -- and other detention centers around the country being refurbished with American money because of overcrowding at prisons and continued threats to security, said Safaa el-Deen al-Safi, who was the acting justice minister for almost two years, until Thursday." That's from Sam Dagher's "With New Name and Mission, the Infamous Abu Ghraib Prison Is to Reopen" in today's New York Times. The article's worth reading in full but let's focus on that sentence for a bit.

The puppet government needs to reopen Abu Ghraib -- which the US had been running until the human rights violations and war crimes became known. It needs it and other prisons, there is "overcrowding at prisons" and new ones are being built (not noted in this article, but the Times has noted that before, including when Michael Gordon was attempting to 'reassure' about the Iraqi 'justice' system and he noted the makeshift prisons being created). The article tells you that the US still has 14,500 imprisoned Iraqis.

Now take that figure and note that approximately 2 million Iraqis have fled the country (external refugees) and approximately 1.6 million Iraqis have been killed since the start of the illegal war. Note that the imprisoned tend to be pre-adult and adult males between the ages of 16 and 45. Note that this grouping is also the same age group that has died in the highest number from violence since the start of the illegal war.

Point?

Before the start of the illegal war, Iraq was not an oasis of justice. Saddam Hussein was more than happy to imprison large numbers of people (and to torture). Saddam Hussein was a dictator and had an ugly reputation around the world (he wasn't Hitler -- the US didn't install Hitler in Germany).

Yet with 3.6 million Iraqis having either fled Iraq or been killed since the start of the illegal war, with a population that trends more female and more young and elderly than prior to the start of the illegal war, with the US imprisoning 14,500 Iraqis, the puppet government still needs more money for prisons and more prisons. And, to be really clear, this isn't all of Iraq. The article's not covering the Kurdistan Regional Government (northern Iraq) because the KRG has their own set up.

And also note that the approximately 2 million Iraqi refugees (external) does not take into account the number of Iraqis who left in early waves after the start of the illegal war -- the "brain drain," technocrats, doctors, ect.

Yet somehow, as the population numbers have dropped, the central government has a need to imprison even more Iraqis than ever before?

No, it doesn't make sense. Yes, Nouri and his thugs do arrest for political reasons.

Abu Ghraib existed and was a torture chamber under Saddam Hussein. It's not as though Saddam was some peacenic or softie. Iraqis knew all about injustices and abuses before the start of the illegal war but grasp that things are so out of control in Iraq now that there is more of a need for prisons than under Saddam's rule.

Grasp that and grasp the US role in that. The United States needs to pull all troops out of Iraq and do so immediately.

Sam Dagher notes how some would prefer to see Abu Ghraib closed and either destroyed completely or turned "into a museum to immortalize Iraqis' suffering." Nouri's bag boy Safaa el-Deen al-Safi (former Minster of Justice -- left that Thursday) nsists, "Yes, this prison has a bad reputation, but this is not an excuse in itself to demolish this prison, given that we need it."

That's a curious definition of the term "need." (It's not needed, it's "wanted" by al-Maliki.)

Near the end of the article, Dagher discusses of Assad (first name only) and Hassan al-Azzawi who waere imprisoned at Abu Ghraib (while it was under US control) and "is among more than 300 former inmates suing two American contrators, CACI International and the Titan Corporation, for torture and abuse in American courts." Assad's story includes:

He said he was made to stand for hours under a freezing cold shower until he collapsed. He was then dragged to the celblock's hallway, where he said he had to crawl naked on the hard floor as he was punched by guards and threatened with rape. Assad, 36, said he was once shackled to his bed for more than a day.

And if you're not getting how disgusting the reopening of Abu Ghraib is, check out Kim Gamel's AP report on the re-opening tours being given by "judicial authorities" and puzzle over the insanity of Iraqi Rehabilation Department assisant director Mohammed al-Zeidi's claim, "We turned it to something like a resort not prison."


On the topic of refugees, the International Organization of Migration issued the following press release yesterday:

Iraq - A continued lack of food, adequate shelter, health care, employment and concerns over security among the more than 1.6 million people internally displaced by the violence that followed the bombing of the Al-Askari mosque in Samarra in 2006, has meant that three years on, their future remains as uncertain as ever without greater humanitarian intervention, says IOM.
IOM's annual review of the needs of those displaced by the Samarra bombing on 22 February 2006 finds that although there are by far fewer Iraqis displaced by violence these days, with many governorates having now stopped registration of internally displaced people (IDPs) altogether, their number remains worryingly high.
Representing about 5.5 per cent of the Iraqi population, their plight has changed little in the past three years. IOM assessments of 80 per cent of the 1.6 million post-Samarra IDPs show that priority needs remain adequate shelter, food and access to work.
The majority of these IDPs (59 per cent) live in sub-standard but expensive rented accommodation, and with the passage of time and without work, their financial resources have dwindled significantly. Others have had to resort to living with host families in overcrowded and difficult conditions while 22 per cent of the IDPs are living in collective settlements, public buildings or makeshift shelters. Some of these are under the constant threat of eviction. With only 16 per cent of all post-Samarra IDPs able to access the homes they left behind, a lack of clean water, sanitation and electricity is a daily reality for the IDPs.
The IOM needs assessment also reveals that across the country, 19 per cent of the post-Samarra IDPs still do not have any access to the government's public food distribution system (PDS) upon which much of the Iraqi population is dependent. And with 44 per cent having only occasional access to the PDS, 81 per cent of all the IDPs cited food as a priority need.
The health too of the IDPs is of growing concern, particularly due to their precarious living conditions, lack of potable water and sanitation or protection from the elements. Although the vast majority of the displaced say they can access health care, the IOM assessment argues that a lack of qualified staff, medicine and equipment and often damage to medical facilities doesn't ensure the health care is of good enough quality.
Conditions for the nearly 297,000 people, including refugees, who have returned to their former homes, are also harsh with people having to cope with damaged property, infrastructure and loss of livelihood. IOM assessments of returnees show that as a result, food, fuel and non-food items feature highly in their needs in addition to health care, employment and clean water.
Overall, 61 per cent of all post-Samarra IDPs would like to return to their places of origin but in many cases, they do not have the means to do so to move ahead with their lives, even when the security situation permits.
Despite limited funding and insecurity, IOM continues to assist the displaced, returnees and host communities with emergency food, water and household item distributions and community assistance projects. Since 2006, IOM has successfully completed 315 projects in 952 locations with direct costs of over USD 32 million.
However, overall assistance to these vulnerable communities remains inadequate.
"We and others working on the ground are doing all that we can to help, but the needs are still so great and so diverse. We urgently need a much greater level of humanitarian response and funding to meet the challenges. The future of Iraq depends on the resolution of the displacement crisis," says Rafiq Tschannen, IOM's Chief of Mission in Iraq. "However, the fact that people are returning home, although in smaller than expected numbers, is a positive development which we hope will gather pace."
To access the IOM Emergency Needs Assessment report, please go to: www.iom-iraq.net
For further information on IDPs and returnees in Iraq, please contact:
Martin Ocaga
IOM Iraq Program Manager
E-mail: ocaga@iom.int
or
Liana Paris
IDP Monitoring Program
Tel: +962 6 565 9660 extensions 1061 and 1033
E-mail: lparis@iom.int

The following community sites have updated since early Friday morning:


Cedric's Big Mix
Forty belly aches from the fool
8 minutes ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! SPIKE'S PRIORITIES!
8 minutes ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Get yourself right with your daughter, Alice
14 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Thumbs up and thumbs down
14 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
no 1 ever believed you, ari
14 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ
Get yourself right with your daughter, Alice
14 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen
Easy pasta salad in the Kitchen
14 hours ago

Ruth's Report
The Gamble
14 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
Pretty Poison
14 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz
Natalie Wood, Isaiah
14 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Iraq, Afghanistan
14 hours ago

The Common Ills
Iraq snapshot
19 hours ago

The World Today Just Nuts
Swingin' John Bolton eyes the U.N.
1 day ago


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


iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
kim gamel
the world today just nuts
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

Friday, February 20, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, a US soldier is convicted in a murder case, Britain claims Iran made an offer (they could or couldn't refuse?), KBR has more problems (of their own making) and more.     Starting with one-time Halliburton subsidary Kellogg Brown & Root, US House Rep Carol Shea-Porter's office announced that a letter was sent to US Secretary of Defense "Robert Gates asking why defense contractor KBR, Inc. was recently awarded a new $35.4 million contract involving electrical work in Iraq.  KBR is currently under investigation by the Department of Defense Inspector General for the deaths of 18 Americans, who were electrocuted in buildings that KBR held a contract to mainatin.  Military criminal investigators have reopened five cases, and the Army Criminal Investigate Services has classified one of them as 'ngeligent homicide'."   The letter, signed by 18 other members of the House, notes:   As you are aware, KBR has held a contract for building maintenance for U.S. military facilities in Iraq since 2003.  During this time, there have been numerous investigations into the dangers KBR's faulty electrical work is creating for our military personnel. The Department of Defense Inspector General is currently investigating the electrocution deaths of 18 Americans (16 soldiers and 2 contractors) in KBR-maintained facilities.  KBR is under criminal investigation for the electrocution deaths of several U.S. soldiers in Iraq.   The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform conducted an in-depth investigation into the problem of electrocutions in U.S. facilities in Iraq and the death of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, 24, a decorated Green Beret electrocuted in his shower on January 2, 2008.  The Committee's investigation showed that KBR was alerted to the deficiencies in this and other cases, but failed to take corrective action. In 2008, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) issued a "Level III Corrective Action Request" to KBR, indicating that the contractor was in "serious non-compliance."  This action request, the final warning before a contract is terminated, points to KBR's continuing failure to ensure electrical safety for our troops.  With this history, it is not surprising that Capt. David J. Graff, commander of the DCMA's International Division, was quoted in an Associated Press article, stating that "many within DOD have lost or are losing all remaining confidence in KBR's ability to successfully and repeatedly perform the required electrical support services mission in Iraq."        Despite these serious, ongoing concerns, the Department of Defense has awarded KBR a new contract that includes the type of work that KBR failed to perform adequately for years.  Threats to the safety and lives of soldiers or others because of known hazards and negligent performance of work are not acceptable.       US House Rep Betty McCollum is among the 18 signing the letter and she released this statement earlier this week, "Secretary Gates should immediately rescind any new awards to KBR.  It is irresponsible and negligent for the Department of Defense to grant additional contracts to a company facing such serious allegations.  We recently learned, after five years of scrutiny, that a Minnesota sailor was electrocuted to death by faulty wiring.  Who can trust KBR's work? . . . We have a moral responsibility to esnure the safety for our troops at home and abroad -- not pad the pocket of a negligent military contractor."  CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee (writing in Asia Times) explains that $35.4 million contract is "for the design and construction of a convoy support center at Camp Adder in Iraq.  The center will include a power plant, an electrical distribution center, a water purification and distribution system, a waste-water colleciton system, and associated information systems, along with paved roads, all to be built by KBR."   KBR is being entrusted with a project that has to do with electrocity?  It should not be getting any contracts but you'd think that just the term "electricity" in a KBR contract would be more than enough to make one pause. Those actions are on the House side of Congress.  December 23rd, we last noted what the Senate was working on.  KBR was involved in that as well.  For an update, we'll note that Senator Evan Bayh's office issued the following statement last week:   Washington -- Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) are taking issue with the conclusions of an Army investigation into the exposure of hundreds of U.S. soldiers to a deadly carcinogen, sodium dichromate, at Qarmat Ali in Iraq in 2003. Since September 2008, Bayh has pushed to ensure the Army conducts a thorough investigation to ascertain whether every precaution was taken to protect Indiana National Guardsmen serving in Iraq. "I am still unsatisfied with the information provided by the Army about their response to the exposure of U.S. service members to sodium dichromate at the Qarmat Ali water injection facility in Iraq," Bayh said. "We are asking again for a complete account of how our service members were exposed to these conditions and what went wrong. If there's criminal negligence, people must be held accountable. If there was a lack of oversight by Army Corps of Engineers, people ought to be fired."                   Senators Bayh and Dorgan released a letter Thursday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, saying the conclusions reached by the Army study the senators requested only raise new questions on the exposure of U.S. troops from Indiana, North Dakota, Oregon, West Virginia and South Carolina.     The senators say the Army's evidence and their own investigations indicate that exposure of the troops appears to be far more severe than the Army or KBR have acknowledged. Bayh said he still has many unanswered questions about KBR's role in the original exposure and contamination.       "The company needs to be held to account for its behavior in this incident. We have a moral obligation to the men and women who were put in harm's way. We need to make sure to never find ourselves in this situation again," Bayh said.     They also asked Gates and Geren to explain how the Army could pronounce itself "satisfied" with its own oversight of contractor KBR, and with the response by KBR and the Army to the exposure, given that:    Some soldiers, exposed to the deadly chemical in the spring and summer of 2003, still have not been informed by either the Army or KBR that they were exposed.   For months, KBR failed to identify the presence of the chemical, even though it was required to conduct an "environmental risk assessment" at the site. According to the Army's own timeline, nearly three months passed after the initial detection before KBR began testing at the site. KBR waited two more weeks to start to start remediation of the site, and protective gear was not provided to soldiers until nearly a month after that.   Indiana National Guard personnel were not told of the exposure until they saw KBR employees using PPE (personal protective equipment) at the site.         "It looks like conclusions were made, without regard to the facts," Dorgan said. "We owe our soldiers much more than that. Given the well documented and serious failures at the site, I don't understand how the Army can claim KBR acted appropriately.   "We have to identify those service members who were exposed to sodium dichromate and other lethal chemicals and make sure they get the kind of long-term care and treatment they deserve," Bayh concluded.   That is KBR, a corporation that Pratap Chatterjee points out has raked in "more than $25 billion" from the US government.  KBR announced another contract this week.  They're currently being sued by ten contract employees over the exposure to the carcinogen and AP notes of that lawsuit, "The KBR contractors' complaint in Houston is scheduled to be heard by an arbiter at a March hearing that will be closed at KBR's request. Contractors with complaints about work in Iraq generally have gone to arbitration as part of KBR's contract with the U.S. government in Iraq."    Despite the above, UPI reported that the corporation won a contract "from the Army Contracting Command" worth $`9.2 million to "provide bulk fuel farm support for the Army in Kuwait".  Tom Fowler (Houston Chronicle) reported last week on KBR's guilty plea to bribing "Nigerian officials to win contracts to build a massive natural das project in that country".  Zachary A. Goldfarb (Washington Post) reports the $579 million fines agreed to are "the biggest fines ever paid by U.S. companies in a foreign corruption case".   We're not done with KBR.  The February 10th snapshot included thi   Meanwhile Deborah Haynes and Sonai Verma (Times of London) report that "a British manager for the services company Kellogg Brown and Root" is accused of an inappropriate sexual relationship with an Iraqi women working for the British embassy and that the manager "was also accused of sexual harassment more than 18 months ago by an Iraqi cleaner and two cooks at the embassy."  The reportes quote the cleaner who charged sexual harassment a year and a half ago stating today, "I was in the British Embassy and under the British flag and I was oppressed but nobody did anything about that."   Today Afif Sarhan (Islam Online) reports the woman described above "is locking herself home, refusing to meet anyone and sinking into despair over what she describes as sexual abuse and bullying at the British Embbassy and notes serious questions being raised as to why the British Embassy is allowing KBR to (again) investigate themselves?  British attorney Anna Areen declares, "The UK has long been very serious on the law of conduct inside government and similar places.  If they don't take on their hands the investigation in Baghdad, they will be saying that it is sllowed in Britain on the coming future.  [Those] responsible should pay for what they did and it will be honorable if UK officials take head of the investigation and punishment." .    The January 9th snapshot highlighted Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk (Bloomberg News) report that KBR and Halliburton decided that the an attack on a KBR truck in 2004 was not due to lack of security provided by the mega-rich corporations, the attack -- resulting in deaths and injuries -- was the fault of "the U.S. Army and Iraqi terrorists". Which was a low even for them.  Throughout the illegal war, KRB has put the US military at risk -- not just by electrocuting them or exposing them to dangerous chemicals.  When the KBR trucks would have a flat, get stuck or whatever, KBR employees would be able to leave the scene while US service members would have to stay there and wait for orders on what to do.  Stay there and be sitting ducks.  Kelly Dougherty (IVAW) has explained repeatedly, they would wait and wait and then finally be told to destroy the trucks and any cargo on it. Which would frequently anger the local populations.  In March of last year, Iraq Veterans Against the War held their Winter Soldier Investigation.  KPFA carried the hearings live for the bulk of the four days and Aaron Glantz and Aimee Allison were the on air moderators.  One of the ways to hear the audio of the hearings is to go to Glatnz' War Comes Home site.  [Allison is co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None.]  March 14th was the first day of panels (the previous day was the opening of the hearings) and one of the afternoon panels was on corruption and war profiteering.  Appearing on that panel was Doughtery and we'll note this from the March 14, 2008 snapshot:   KBR was the focus of Kelly Dougherty's testimony.  She discussed how she and others serving in Iraq assigned to protect convoys were repeatedly put at risk when a KBR vehicle broke down, how they were told it was an asset to be protected even if that meant killing someone and then they would be told to forget it, to destroy the vehicle and move out.  Iraqis desperate for fuel or the contents of the truck were not a concern and, if pressed, the US military command would instruct service members that distributing something in the trucks (before destroying them) could cause a riot.  All of which goes to Doughtery's statement of Iraqis, "I'm looking at people I can't even look in the eye."  Moving to Kuwait after serving in Iraq and while waiting to be sent back homes, service members were living in a KBR tent city.  Doughtery explained, "When we were leaving . . . we were put in these tent cities.  Our tents were completely covered with mold on the inside."  The tents had bunk beds and not cots so service members were not allowed to (as some wanted) sleep outside the tents to avoid what appeared to be Black Mold.  Instead, they suffered from respitory infections.  Dougherty noted "this living condition where we couldn't even be in the place were we were supposed to live without getting sick."  KBR made a big profit of the illegal war.  KBR provided the troops with tents that made them sick.  Where's the audit on that?     Marcia also covered Kelly Doughtery's testimony:   They were dealing with KBR trucks -- which were worth about $80,000, chump change to KBR. You may remember the stories of contractors abandoning trucks and cars and the cost for new ones (usually on a cost-plus contract) being passed back on to you and me the tax payers.  Doughtery noted that KBR's trucks "would break down a lot, would get in accidents a lot." They'd stop for flat tries or because they got stuck in the mud,things like that as well. The drivers were treated horribly by KBR and were from countries such as Pakistan, India, etc.  The truck would break down, the driver would hop out of the truck and get a ride with someone else in the convoy and the MPs would be called in to secure the abandoned trucks.  Doughtery explained, "For us as miltary police, we're told when we get into Iraq and when we're getting on these convoy missions" that KBR's trucks are United States assets and "need to be protected, with force, with deadly force if necessary."  The drill was always the same: secure the trucks and wait. Then came the call that they couldn't find anyone to come get the trucks so they should just leave it. That didn't mean, "Hop in your vehicles and leave!"  That meant disable the vehicles (fire grenades into the engine blocks) and destroy whatever cargo it had. That meant setting fuel on fire in front of Iraqis who had no fuel. That meant burning produce in front of Iraqis who were hungry. That meant destroying a brand new ambulance in an area that had none and really needed one. Doughtery explained that even the local sheiks were out on the last one, trying to convince US soldiers that if they would leave the ambulance alone, they (Iraqis) would figure out how to get it off its side and out of the mud. "That was pretty much a daily occurence," said Dougherty. "Where we were abandoning vehicles by KBR contractors on a daily basis."   And we'll use Kelly Dougherty's testimony as the transition to Iraq Veterans Against the War in order to note:   IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)   To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.      For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org. Click here for more IVAW Updates    That is next month and World Can't Wait is another organization participating. Hopefully someone will ask President Barack Obama about the speech he gave in Danville, immediately after the 2004 DNC convention, where he declared, "I'd pick up arms right now to defend this country.  But if I'm going to ask someone else's son and daughter to go to war, I want to make sure it's the right war."  Did Iraq suddenly become "the right war"?  And what makes Afghanistan the right one as well?  (Barack's always said this is where the fight must be -- but aside from a lot of 9-11 spin, he's never said why.  Yes, Barack is the new Bully Boy and, just like the other one, hides behind 9-11 to justify his actions. (Has everyone forgotten that Bush insisted some pages not be released to the public -- regarding the Saudis and 9-11 -- in the official report?  If Barack's going to toss around 9-11, he might need to order those papers released -- as Congress had intended for them to be.)   While some pretend things are great or even good or even okay in Iraq, Dahr Jamail, back in Iraq, offers some realities:   "We only want a normal life," says Um Qasim, sitting in a bombed out building in Baghdad. She and others around have been saying that for years. Um Qasim lives with 13 family members in a brick shanty on the edge of a former military intelligence building in the Mansoor district of Baghdad. Five of her children are girls. Homelessness is not easy for anyone, but it is particularly challenging for women and girls. "Me and my girls have to be extra careful living this way," Um Qasim told IPS. "We are tired of always being afraid, because any day, any time, strange men walk through our area, and there is no protection for us. Each day brings a new threat to us, and all the women here." She rarely leaves her area, she says. Nor do her girls, for fear of being kidnapped or raped.   Meanwhile CBS Radio News' Tammy McCormick explained in this afternoon's newscast, "And anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is hailing the Iraqi election results as a new chapter.  He now says religious leaders and others should work together to put the needs of the country first. al-Sadr has long backed rebellions against the invasion and occupation."   AP quotes al-Sadr stating (through a spokesperson -- like when Michael Jackson was interviewed by Rolling Stone and he whispered all his answers to Janet), "Iraq has turned a new page after the elections, which I hope will be a gate for liberation, a gate to serve the Iraqis and not keep occupiers to divide Iraqis.  Goals are unified between politicians and the resistance to push out the occupiers."  I guess the press could pretend al-Sadr's statements meant something if they hadn't all spent the week leading up to the election and the days immediately after telling their news consumers that al-Sadr was nothing, that he had no pull and that he was a relic or at least, as Tanya Tucker once sang, a faded rose from days gone by.  Of Anbar Province, AP notes, "The so-called Awakening Councils won eight of 29 provincial seats in Anbar - giving them a strong hand to form a governing coalition with smaller Sunni groups across a province that was once a major al Qaeda stronghold."  Alsumaria reports, "While Independent High Electoral Commission of Iraq (IHEC) was announcing the provincial elections final results a constitutional controversy was raised regarding the conditions of electing a new House Speaker. In fact, Accordance Front insists that its candidate Iyad Assamarrai won while some other blocs say that Saturday's session will decide who won the seat of Speaker of House."  That's yesterday but they have video and it's worth nothing again that there is no Speaker all this time later.   In other news, Bridget Kendall (BBC) reports on the claims that Iran has floated a proposal to England: They will "stop attacking British troops in Iraq to try to get the West to drop objections to Tehran's uranium project, a UK official says."  That is England's United Nations Ambassador John Sawers.  Sawers claims, "There were various Iranians who would come to London and suggest we had tea in some hotel or other. They'd do the same in Paris, they'd do the same in Berlin, and then we'd compare notes among the three of us."  Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) adds, "As Iran marks the 30th anniversary of the revolution that turned out the Shah and installed a cleric-led regime, senior figures have openly discussed a series of secret deals with West. Iran had used its involvement in hostage taking during the Lebanese war to break its isolation in the 1980s."   In some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba sticky bombing that resulted in the death of 1 Iraqi soldier and a Kirkuk roadside bombing which left another injured.   Shootings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi soldier wounded in a Baghdad shooting.  Reuters notes the US military announcement on 1 woman and 2 children killed in a bombing outside Baghdad last night.   In Germany a US soldier has been convicted.  Seth Robson (Stars and Stripes) reports the US Army's Rose Barracks Courthouse court-martial saw the vidoe of Sgt Michael Leahy Jr "confessing an hour and 10 minutes into an interview with a Criminal Investigation Command special agent" found Leahy stating, "I shot one of them" -- Iraqi prisoners -- "I shot two shots.  It was my decision.  I always kenw this . . . would come back to me."  In an update, Robson notes that Leahy was found guilty and "could face the death penalty after being found guilty . . . of premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder in the deaths of four Iraqi detainees in March 2007."  BBC notes that the 4 Iraqi prisoners' corpses were "dumped in a Baghdad canal" after they were shot. Leahy confessed to murdering one.  AP notes this was not Leahy's first time being accused of murdering an Iraqi: "Leahy, 28, was acquitted of murder in a separate incident involving the death of another Iraqi in January 2007."   Staying with the Iraq War, libertarian Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) has a piece responding to Joan Walsh (Salon) and her review of  Thomas E. Ricks' new book The Gamble.  I wrote about the book last night, that's not the reason for bringing up Justin.  If Justin quotes Walsh accurately (I have neither the time nor the inclination to read Walsh), then Walsh has reviewed a book she doesn't understand.  Justin has her praising the 'surge' and saying it worked and she was wrong to doubt it.  That can be her opinion.  If so, I disagree.  But that's not the opinion Ricks expresses in the book.  You can't just read a few pages, Walsh, nor can you skim.  The 'surge' was a failure -- Thomas E. Ricks is quite clear -- because it was supposed to allow that 'progress' to happen.  Not on a military field, on the political field.  If Joan Walsh is quoted accurately by Justin, then Walsh needs to re-read the book she reviewed because she missed one of its biggest points.  (I have no reason to doubt Justin's honesty or accuracy.  I am repeating the "if" because I haven't read Walsh and I have no interest in reading her.)  The 'surge' was supposed to allow those now-forgotten benchmarks to be reached.  That never happened.  That is a part of the story Ricks tells in the book.  Justin doesn't claim to have read the book so I'll just note that in quotes he attributes to Joan Walsh, she has some serious comprehension difficulties including an inclination to attribute to Thomas Ricks statements and opinions of others quoted in his book. As they might word it in Annie Hall, "How you ever got to review a book on anything is totally amazing."     Anthony Fenton (Asia Times via ZNet) explores Barack and the counterinsurgency:   Early signals indicate that United States President Barack Obama will continue driving the "counter-insurgency era" that began under his predecessor George W Bush. Less than one month into his administration, the most significant indicators that Obama will continue implementing a foreign policy transformation that began under the Bush administration may be found in and around his National Security appointments. Strikingly, the very rhetoric that is being used to signify change is representative of this continuity. The first key signal came on December 1, when Obama confirmed that he would continue with Robert M Gates as secretary of defense. That day, Obama also announced that (retired) marine general James L Jones would become his national security advisor, and that Hillary Clinton would be secretary of state. Subsequent appointments, including (retired) navy admiral Dennis Blair to director of national intelligence, and Michele Flournoy as under secretary of defense for policy, along with keeping Michael Vickers on at under secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, are all linked to Obama's assurances that "irregular warfare" will remain at the forefront of US policy, strategy and operations for the foreseeable future. To help solidify matters, on December 1, Gates quietly signed Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 3000.07, establishing the policy that "irregular warfare is as strategically important as traditional warfare". [1] According to the directive, irregular warfare (IW) encompasses "Counter-terrorism operations, foreign internal defense, unconventional warfare, counter-insurgency, and stability operations". Under 3000.07, Vickers, a former special forces and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative who is considered one of the key architects behind the CIA's covert war with the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, becomes Gates' "principal advisor" on irregular warfare and the person who will provide "overall policy oversight" to ensure the US military establishment is transformed to be "as effective in IW as it is in traditional warfare".   And finally -- LANGUAGE WARNING if you use the link to follow -- Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) addresses the clowns who live to lie to you:   By now, the governor was a "house of hypocrisy" -- though Olbermann still hadn't made the slightest attempt to explain the unflattering claim. In the world of Big Stupid Cable, it's all about handing the rubes preferred narratives, the ones they turn on your program to hear -- and Olbermann seems to love nothing more than beating up on Palin. He no longer gets to mock the young blondes, something he used to do every night, but Palin seems suitable as a replacement. And he doesn't waste much time explaining what's actually wrong with Palin's views -- or even what they are. It's all about calling the lady stupid -- and it's all about calling her a hypocrite, without quite explaining why. And of course, the tasteless insults fly. This is the way the chat began when he introduced the evening's tough moll, Flanders. Note: In his question, he's still pretending that Sarah Palin has somehow changed her stance on education, now that her own daughter's pregnant: OLBERMANN: Is this not the mirror image of the conservative`s joke about reality, that "a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet?" FLANDERS: I think there is a name for people who only teach their kids about abstinence and that's "grandparents." And Sarah Palin is finding that out. The scariest thing in that conversation with Greta Van Susteren was -- well, I thought the scariest thing was the part where Bristol Palin said that talking with her mother was worse than labor. I mean, I guess Katie Couric found that out. Can any of us imagine what a Palin presidency would be like? Like a Nadya Suleman labor? A Palin presidency would be "like a Nadya Suleman labor." Laura Flanders was keeping it classy -- and respectful feminist that she of course is, she was crawling up Suleman's sn**ch in pursuit of prime insults for Palin.     The two weren't bound by facts and, were Flanders not a lesbian (a self-loathing one) and Keith not already in a significant and longterm relationship with his own ego, she and Olbermann would be perfect for each other.  Flanders can't keep it classy, Bob.  And she's not a feminist.  She claims she is.  But a feminist doesn't repeatedly refer to Hillary's laugh as a "cackle" -- which Flanders did on KPFA at the end of February.  It was that little fact-free stunt (which also included Flanders -- like all other 'expert' 'analysts' booked by KPFA for that two hour broadcst -- not revealing she had already endoresed Barack Obama -- real easy to call a debate for Barack when the only ones 'evaluating' have all endorsed Barack).  That was when Ava and I began using the term Panhandle Media to describe the beggar media.  Good for Bob Somerby for calling Flanders out and today's post has him explaining his use of the term that may be objectionable.  I dispute his reasoning (Flanders reads everything written about her -- she's obsessive -- and she will love the term Somerby used, not be offended by it) but don't feel he was 'wrong' to use the term.  Just as I don't feel there's any term that's off-limits when it comes to Arianna after she allowed (in 2007) her Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box to be used to attack special-needs children.   Public TV notes,  NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations tonight (check local listings) and this week offers a look at sexual harassment: "This week, NOW collaborates with the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University to bring you an unprecedented broadcast investigation of teen sexual harassment in the workplace.  In the program, abused teenagers share their own stories with Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa.  We track their legal journeys to justic, and how the issue impacts hundreds of thousands of teenagers across the country -- many of whom don't know how to report workplace abuse, or to even recognize when their bosses cross the line.  This is the first report in a new NOW on PBS beat on women and men in the twenty-first centurey we call 'Life Now'."   Late Friday night, NOW should be available online for those who'd like to watch online. On Washington Week, Gwen continues to demonstrate how difficult it is for her -- despite PBS' mandate -- to offer up a panel with an equal number of men and women. Four slots open and yet again Gwen's only been able to find one woman. Jeanne Cummings stands by while Gwen and the boys have a measuring contest. NPR's Tom Gjelten, New York Times' David Sanger and the Associated Press' Charles Babington. (Though who knows what Gwen's packing, smart money is on Charlie as the winner.) This will be available online for streaming Monday afternoon and a transcript will be posted then as well. If you podcast, the show will be available either late tonight or Saturday morning -- podcasts for Washington Week are available at iTunes (for free) in audio or video form (audio downloads faster). Moving over to broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, on 60 Minutes: The Drinking Age Lesley Stahl examines the debate over lowering the drinking age to 18, a controversial idea embraced by some people and roundly criticized by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. | Watch Video Kidnapped In Basra When the Iraqi army regained control of the city of Basra from warring religious militias, it meant peace for the city's war-torn residents and rescue for CBS News producer Richard Butler, who had been held captive there for three months. Lara Logan reports. | Watch Video The Mascot A young Jewish boy who fled into the forest after his family was killed by the Nazis was later captured by Nazi soldiers who, not knowing he was Jewish, gave him a little uniform and a gun and made him their mascot. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video 60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 22 at 7 p.m. ET/PT. 60 Minutes Update: The Kanzius Machine On Wednesday, Feb. 18, John Kanzius, a retired radio technician who invented a possible cancer fighting machine in his garage, died after a long battle with leukemia. In April 2008, Lesley Stahl reported on Kanzius and his machine, which had been dreamed up while he was battling the side effects of chemotherapy treatment. Experiments building on John Kanzius' research continue. | Video       iraq the washington post zachary a. goldfarb deborah haynes laurel brubaker calkins margaret cronin fisk bloomberg news iraq veterans against the war kelly dougherty aimeee allison david solnit aaron glantz kpfa damien mcelroy pbs washington week now on pbs

Watch CBS Videos Online

Slate's John Dickerson did the interview and anchored last week's show. Bob Schieffer is the regular anchor. Washington Unplugged is CBS News' online program. They do it every Friday. It is made for online. It is not a clip job of CBS reports from other news programs. Also remember that Washington Unplugged streams every Friday afternoon at CBS News. (You can click on either link. Option for streaming is usually on a banner at the top of the page and Washington Unplugged contains archives of previous episodes.)

Last night, Marcia wrote about United Progressives in "United Progressives and other thoughts" and this is their latest press release:

February 19, 2009

Home

Latest News from United Progressives The New Obama Nation: A Progressive Viewpoint On Minding the Pot Israel and State Terrorism

Survey Results: Are You A Progressive? The following information represents results for a survey we conducted between July 2008 and January 2009, Are You A Progressive? A request for people to take it was emailed to more than 50,000 people without any awareness of their political affiliation or preferences. Slightly over 500 people, or 1%, responded. 489 actually completed the survey, and the results have been published below. We believe that the majority of those who responded felt that they might be progressive, and used this survey as a measure of how they compared with others who support the same positions on issues. It is clearly an indication of where people stand on these issues who believe that they are progressive. This cannot be considered a scientific survey, because there were no perimeters or guidelines established or methods for insuring a fair sample of American political views. However, because we permitted anyone who had an interest to take the survey, without qualifications or specific targeting of audience, we believe that it is a fair indication of how progressives view themselves as a group. We welcome any comments. Survey Issue Positions True False NMI 1 . I oppose war as an instrument of foreign policy and believe in the immediate but responsible withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq. 85.07 8.79 6.13 2 . I believe in holding our leaders accountable to the American people and to Congress through all necessary means, including the impeachment process, when constitutionally justified. 97.96 1.02 1.02 3 . I oppose the further development and/or use of all nuclear weapons. 83.46 11.25 5.11 4 . I believe in treating illegal drug use as a public health issue. 80.78 10.02 9.20 5 . I believe in the rights of the people to access to the commons, such as natural resources, public airwaves, and the technology of the internet, free from interference by corporate agendas. 91.62 3.27 5.11 6 . I believe in single-payer, not-for-profit, universal health care. 82.24 9.00 8.79 7 . I believe in an end to capital punishment. 74.16 17.44 8.40 8 . I believe in the right for all women to make decisions about their reproductive health. 87.39 7.56 5.04 9 . I believe in guaranteed, high quality, public education for all from Pre-K through four years of college. 81.09 10.29 8.61 10 . I believe in limiting political campaigns and elections to public control and financing. 76.47 9.87 13.66 11 . I believe in public control and financing of social security. 82.14 6.72 11.13 12 . I believe in a sustainable future for our planet, our nation and our community, of holding a policy of respect for nature and maintaining an ecological balance between the interests of man and nature. 95.38 2.31 2.31 13 . I believe in a fair and just immigration policy that opens a path to legal status for those working in and contributing to the American society. 86.17 6.12 7.71 14 . I believe in equality under the law for all minorities and same sex couples. 89.76 6.90 3.34 15 . I believe in repealing or improving NAFTA to require the enforcement of human and environmental rights, working conditions and pay scales for workers in all countries. 84.30 5.38 10.31 16 . I support research and investment in renewable energy which effectively uses natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat, and which may be naturally replenished. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity/micro hydro, biomass and biofuels for transportation. 98.00 0.67 1.34 17 . I believe in the Precautionary Principle. I believe that products and services must be shown to be sufficiently safe for the general public before any person or corporation can market them. Sufficient testing and time to ensure product or service safety must be required. Survey Issue Positions True False NMI 1 . I oppose war as an instrument of foreign policy and believe in the immediate but responsible withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq. 85.07 8.79 6.13 2 . I believe in holding our leaders accountable to the American people and to Congress through all necessary means, including the impeachment process, when constitutionally justified. 97.96 1.02 1.02 3 . I oppose the further development and/or use of all nuclear weapons. 83.46 11.25 5.11 4 . I believe in treating illegal drug use as a public health issue. 80.78 10.02 9.20 5 . I believe in the rights of the people to access to the commons, such as natural resources, public airwaves, and the technology of the internet, free from interference by corporate agendas. 91.62 3.27 5.11 6 . I believe in single-payer, not-for-profit, universal health care. 82.24 9.00 8.79 7 . I believe in an end to capital punishment. 74.16 17.44 8.40 8 . I believe in the right for all women to make decisions about their reproductive health. 87.39 7.56 5.04 9 . I believe in guaranteed, high quality, public education for all from Pre-K through four years of college. 81.09 10.29 8.61 10 . I believe in limiting political campaigns and elections to public control and financing. 76.47 9.87 13.66 11 . I believe in public control and financing of social security. 82.14 6.72 11.13 12 . I believe in a sustainable future for our planet, our nation and our community, of holding a policy of respect for nature and maintaining an ecological balance between the interests of man and nature. 95.38 2.31 2.31 13 . I believe in a fair and just immigration policy that opens a path to legal status for those working in and contributing to the American society. 86.17 6.12 7.71 14 . I believe in equality under the law for all minorities and same sex couples. 89.76 6.90 3.34 15 . I believe in repealing or improving NAFTA to require the enforcement of human and environmental rights, working conditions and pay scales for workers in all countries. 84.30 5.38 10.31 16 . I support research and investment in renewable energy which effectively uses natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat, and which may be naturally replenished. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity/micro hydro, biomass and biofuels for transportation. 98.00 0.67 1.34 17 . I believe in the Precautionary Principle. I believe that products and services must be shown to be sufficiently safe for the general public before any person or corporation can market them. Sufficient testing and time to ensure product or service safety must be required. 83.00 4.70 12.30

United Progressives
44 Music Square East
#702
Nashville, TN 37203
http://www.unitedprogressives.us

If there's a problem with the above, use the link to read the results in full.

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

iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
alissa j. rubin
steven lee myers
campbell robertson
60 minutes
pbs
washington week
now on pbs
united progressives
sickofitradlz

"I am charged now with attacking the prime minister's guest," he said stoically, making his first public remarks since the incident. "We Arabs are famous for being generous with guests. But Bush and his soldiers have been here for six years. Guests should knock on the door. Those who come sneaking in are not guests."

The above is from Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah's "Shoe-Throwing Iraqi Defends Attack on Bush" (Washington Post). Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi appeared in court yesterday and told his story:

After being meticulously searched by American guards, Zaidi said, he took a seat in the small briefing room in Maliki's office, where the news conference was to take place. "The occupation forces started annoying and provoking us because we are Iraqis, on Iraqi soil, inside the office of the Iraqi prime minister," he said.
During the news conference, Zaidi said, he became enraged as Bush provided an upbeat assessment of the security situation. "I did not know what achievements he was talking about," Zaidi said. "I was seeing a million martyrs, seas of Iraqi blood, the desecration of mosques, the raping of Iraqi women and the humiliation Iraqis endure every day, every hour. Because I am a journalist, I know all about that."

Londono and Sabah are among the reporters turning out strong reports. Another is Liz Sly. From her "Iraq shoe-thrower goes on trial" (Chicago Tribune):

The chief judge, Abdul Amir al-Hasan, then asked Zaidi about a statement he made to an investigating judge in which he described how he had long harbored ambitions to throw shoes at Bush, and had even filmed himself practicing throwing the shoes.
Zaidi claimed the statement was untrue and had been extracted under torture, including electric shocks.
Rather, he said, he acted spontaneously after listening to Bush praise the "achievements" made in Iraq at the press conference with Maliki.
"While he was talking I was looking at all his achievements in my mind. More than a million killed, the destruction and humiliation of mosques, violations against Iraqi women, attacking Iraqis every day and every hour," he said.

Can you follow the above? I think it's fairly straight forward but, if you read the garbage Campbell Robertson typed up for the New York Times this morning, you'll grasp some people have comprehension issues. Robertson basically calls Muntadher a liar in print -- apparently going by the 'confession' Muntadher dismisses above. Since Robertson has not ever spoken with Muntadher (no member of the press has since Muntadher threw the shoes), since Muntadher denied the 'confession' in court, it takes a real desire to endorse abuse and torture to dismiss a witness' public denial, in court, of a confession. Campbell Robertson comes off like a first-rate idiot this morning and we'll address that in the next entry (including explaining math to Campbell), but for now we'll note that Tina Susman and Raheem Salman's "Iraqi shoe-thrower's case is adjourned" (Los Angeles Times) sketch out one aspect of the legal strategy:

Zaidi's legal team, more than 20 lawyers who jostled for space around the pen, cited two principal reasons why their client should not have been charged.
Bush was a drop-in guest, they said, not an official visitor to Iraq, hence Zaidi should not face charges of assaulting a visiting dignitary. Second, because the incident occurred in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, they said, technically Bush was not visiting Iraq at the time.
Beneath those legal quibbles lies what Zaidi's supporters consider the main issue: freedom to publicly oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq. They argue that throwing one's shoes and calling someone a dog, as Zaidi did -- both supreme insults in the Middle East -- were his way of protesting the war and the presence of about 140,000 U.S. troops.
"My professors tell me this trial is unfair," said one of Zaidi's brothers, Maitham, a law student in Baghdad. He was holding court at a cafe beneath a giant shade tree outside the courthouse before the session began early Thursday.

I'll say the Green Zone aspect (being a US zone or, as some laughable call it, "The International Zone") of the above is the strongest point and leave it at that.

KeShawn notes Peter Phillips' "Obama Administration Continues US Military Global Dominance" (Dissident Voice):

The Barack Obama administration is continuing the neo-conservative agenda of US military domination of the world -- albeit with perhaps a kinder-gentler face. While overt torture is now forbidden for the CIA and Pentagon, and symbolic gestures like the closing of the Guantanamo prison are in evidence, a unilateral military dominance policy, expanding military budget, and wars of occupation and aggression will likely continue unabated.
The military expansionists from within the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, G. W. Bush administrations put into place solid support for increased military spending. Clinton’s model of supporting the US military industrial complex held steady defense spending and increased foreign weapons sales from 16% of global orders to over 63% by the end of his administration.
The neo-conservatives, who dominated the most recent Bush administration, amplified this trend of increased military spending. The neo-cons laid out their agenda for military global dominance in the 2000 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) report Rebuilding America’s Defenses. The report called for the protection of the American Homeland, the ability to wage simultaneous theater wars, to perform global constabulary roles, and to control space and cyberspace. The report claimed that in order to maintain a Pax Americana, potential rivals -- such as China, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- needed to be held in check. This military global dominance agenda required forward deployment of US forces worldwide and increasing defense/war spending well into the 21st century. The result was a doubling of the US military budget to over $700 billion in the last eight years. The US now spends as much on war/defense as the rest of the world combined, making Americans the highest war-tax payers in the world.


The following community sites updated last night:

• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Barack has a senior moment

  9 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! DAZED AND CONFUSED BARRY!

  9 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  This and that

  9 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Interview with Isaiah

  9 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  war is big business

  9 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  United Progressives and other thoughts

  9 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Secretary Clinton's trips to Jakarta and India

  9 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  Truest statement of the week

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

  Isaiah, Carly Simon, Schuyler Fisk

  9 hours ago
• 
  The World Today Just Nuts

  Bully is . . .

  10 hours ago

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

iraq
the washington post
ernesto londono
zaid sabah
the new york times
campbell robertson
peter phillips
the world today just nuts
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

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