 |
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama is expected to announce a 'plan' for Iraq by week's end, a manhunt is underweigh in Iraq, Jack Straw faces intense criticism, the non-withdrawal 'withdrawal,' and more.
Appearing on NBC's Today Show this morning, US Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Matt Lauer and the issue of Iraq was raised at the end of the exchange when Lauer brought up the reports that US President Barack Obama would be announcing a draw down plan for some troops which would be done over a nineteen-month period:
Matt Lauer: Now you guys ran on a pledge to withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months. I'm not going to split hairs on the three months, I don't think anybody will, but I want to get these troop numbers down. That would not be a withdrawal of all combat troops, would it?
Joe Biden: Look, the president's going to make an announcement on Friday -- I believe it's Friday -- or very soon on this very point, Matt. And I'd rather have him speak to that and he'll speak to it in detail. I think the American public will be -- understand exactly what we're doing and they will be pleased.
Matt Lauer: But are we going -- are you keeping a campaign promise or breaking a campaign promise?
Joe Biden: We're keeping a campaign committment.
The question was necessary because, as Ross Colvin (Reuters) notes, "When former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January 2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war. On Tuesday night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence." That was Barack's 52-minute speech last night, where he yet again made clear that the Iraq War isn't a topic he wants to be pinned down on despite the White House running to reporters all yesterday insisting Iraq would be part of the speech. And his inattention to the topic is being registering. Gordon Lubold and Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) report, "One Iraqi official says the US and Iraq have not yet begun negotiations on the size of the residual force, adding that the Obama administration, currently focused on the American economy and ramping up operations in Afghanistan, was far less engaged with Iraq policy than the previous administration." Yesterday on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, David Martin reported on the expected announcements regarding the draw down in Iraq, noting the speculation of insiders that Barack has elected to go with a 19-month timeline to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq. David Martin: But there would still be tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, perhaps as many as 50,000. They would be formed into so-called 'training and assistance' brigades to support the Iraqi army and police but they would still be capable of conducting combat operations and would be able to call in strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft.
And, yes, there would be. ABC News' Martha Raddatz was raising that issue back in January on PBS' Washington Week -- Ava and I noted it here: Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws --
Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq.
Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely.This morning, Elisabeth Bumiller and Peter Baker (New York Times) reported that "defense officials said they did not know how many combat troops would stay behind in new missions as trainers, advisers or counterterrorism forces, at least some of whom would still be effectively in combat roles. Military planners have said that in order to meet withdrawal deadlines, they would reassign some combat troops to training and support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts." Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut (Washington Post) note that the possible Friday announcement could take place in North Carolina (Barack will be visiting bases) and that the 19-months being tossed around is "three months later than promised during his campaign". Depending on the news outlet, the estimates for the number of US troops currently on the ground in Iraq goes from approximately 142,000 (Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut as well as David Martin go with that figure) to 147,000 (especially popular with AFP and Scottish outlets). (Yes, the Pentagon should have a running count to clear the issue up.) Matt Lauer can decide he's not going to make an issue out of it -- as he demonstrated -- but he's a morning talk show host. He's not been elected by anyone to speak on behalf of Americans. He may be fine and dandy with three extra months (that will not even lead to a withdrawal) but let's be clear that three months could mean 44 dead Americans. That is the number of US service members who have died in Iraq in the last three months (February isn't done yet so the number could rise). Matt's fond of taking Jack along on interviews with Barack. If Jack Lauer were over in Iraq, possibly the thought of 44 more deaths might be of interest to Matt. You don't play the lotto with human lives. So, yes, three months do matter.
This is wrong. The occupation is wrong, and those of us in the anti-war movement have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for the last 6 years, even before the first boots were on the ground in Iraq. Even before the campaign of "shock and awe" even lit up the skies above innocent people. What the hell are we thinking?
Because it isn't Bush and Cheney, those loathsome characters we so love to hate that isn't doing this, it's OK? That because it isn't Don Rumsfeld, that warmongering war criminal of a pig, it's OK? Because the face of the occupation is now Barack Obama it's OK?
Well I have a newsflash, it's NOT OK! We have in our infinite wisdom killed over 1 million Iraqis, displaced 2 million, destroyed hospitals, mosques, historical sites, homes, agricultural, stolen natural resources, orphaned children, made widows, killed entire families, sent over 4,200 soldiers to their deaths, severly wounded another 50,000, not including those who have PTSD and are committing suicide in record-breaking amounts, and we think we shouldn't be out in the streets demanding an end to this now? Why is that?
It also matter that Barack left an impression with the American people as to his 'plan' -- left that impression throughout his primary and general campaigns (which is what Matt was trying to get to on Today this morning). Thomas E. Ricks (author of The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged ( click here for just the Ricks' segment) two Fridays ago and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans: Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was 'I will have no American troops dying in 16 months.' But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out." Barack deliberately misled the American people -- a large faction was willing to be misled and wanted to be. Equally true is that, when pressed (he was rarely pressed), he would admit that he would not just stop withdrawing troops but reverse the direction (send more troops back in) depending upon 'the situation on the ground.' That was his policy -- outlined best to the New York Times -- in the transcript of the interview, not the bad write up and it was covered at length in the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- and it can be boiled down as: "My concerns is if you draw down in response too rapidly, draw down in response to American political pressure, instead of as the Iraqis take over area, then there are other ares of Iraq that don't have a government presence that desperately need one, and rather than bring our forces home we should be moving into those areas. When we have all of Iraq with a security presence, that is significant enough to make a difference, then we can start drawing down . . . " And that quote? It's actually from Col Thomas Hammes (retired) and he explained the 'plan' on The NewsHour (PBS -- link has video and text) back in December 23, 2005. No, there's not a bit of difference between Barack and Bush.
And that was noticeable in November 2007. Tom Hayden showed up making like Helen Morgan and singing "The Man I Love" over the write-up Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did. Then, when the transcript was pointed out to him, he was a bit more somber and had one of those You-listen-to-me-Barack moments. (They fade quickly. And Billie Holiday also recorded a strong version of "The Man I Love," I just find it more apt to compare Tom-Tom to Helen Morgan.) It was always there: The bases around -- but not in -- Iraq, the need for a 'residual presence' even after 'withdrawal,' admitting he'd send US troops back into Iraq in the midst of 'withdrawal' dickering over terms to maintain 'combat troops' had been removed -- in fact, let's provide an example of that:
Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions.
NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces?
Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that.
NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?
Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over."
So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.
If any of the above surprises you, you can scream at the media (and should) but it's also time for you to take a little accountability for your own willful ignorance. Moving to some calling out the nonsense today and starting with Chris Floyd (via CounterPunch) who was one of the few calling it out when it mattered:
It would be surperflous in us to point out that a plan to "end" a war which includes the continued garrisoning of up to 50,000 troops in a hostile land is, in reality, a continuation of that war, not its cessation. To produce such a plan and claim that it "ends" a war is the precise equivalent of, say, relieving one's bladder on the back of one's neighbor and telling him that the liquid is actually life-giving rain.
But this is exactly what we are going to get from the Obama Administration in Iraq. Word has now come from on high -- that is, from "senior administration officials" using "respectable newspapers" as a wholly uncritical conduit for government spin -- that President Obama has reached a grand compromise with his generals (or rather, the generals and Pentagon poobahs he has inherited -- and eagerly retained -- from George W. Bush) on a plan to withdraw some American troops from the country that the United States destroyed in an unprovoked war of aggression.
Meanwhile John Walsh (Dissident Voice) notes how cozy and familiar with the right-wing Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher of The Nation magazine) and Leslie Cagan (pension drawer in retirement pretending to lead an 'anti-war' movement):
Vanden Heuvel's most recent piece in The Nation runs under a title in the form of a query, "Obama's War?" Whose war does she think it is anyway? Even the mainstream media calls it Obama's war -- sans question mark. Her piece ran shortly after Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and almost a month after both Afghan and Pakistani civilians were first bombed at Obama's orders. She concludes her piece, after citing the deployment of additional troops, "Up to this point the Afghan war belonged to George W. Bush, but Obama's escalation threatens to make it his own. There's still time to change direction. President Obama don't make this your war"! (Emphasis mine. If escalation of the AfPak war (the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan) only "threatens" to make the war Obama's, what will it take to give him ownership?)
Having supported Obama during the election when he was very clear about his coming Crusade in Afghanistan and having made no demands in exchange for their support, the liberals are now reduced, their leverage gone, to begging for a change in course. Pity, pathos, disgust or a sense of betrayal -- it is hard to know what to feel when one encounters this stuff.
Similarly Cagan's United for Peace and Justice, dominated by the "Progressive" Democrats of America ("P"DA) and the "Communist" Party of the U.S.A ("C"PUSA) -- more or less the same thing, not because "P"DA is radical but because the "C"PUSA is not -- has been all too silent on Obama's AfPak War. As a result there have been discordant rumblings among the rank and file about UFPJ's failure to call a national demonstration against the wars flaring from Iraq to Pakistan and refusal to join the only one called, that by ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) for March 21.
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.
Meanwhile Michael Collins (Dissident Voice) asks why aren't the Iraqi people consulted on this issue: "Who asked the Iraqi people about the withdrawal schedule? As the self-proclaimed proponents for democracy and human rights, shouldn't the United States inquire as to the will of the people before initiating any policy changes? . . . Relying on the ever-shifting positions of a very unpopular Iraqi government is useless in assessing the will of the Iraqi people. The only way to determine their will is through a national election."
No democracy, no real justice system. The latter is being found out by Mohammad al-Daini, a Sunni member of the Iraqi Parliament. As Marc Santora (New York Times) reported this morning, al-Daini was publicly accused Sunday of various crimes including bombing Parliament in 2007 and MP Saleh al-Mulaq is calling for "a full investigation fo the Shiite leaders of government for their links to violence" and states, "Let's begin a real effort to disclose information about those involved in killings and sectarian displacement. Then we will discover that there are leaders inside the political process who took part in these events." Ahmed Rasheed and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) report that al-Daini was due to land in Jordan this morning; however, al-Maliki's government ordered that the plane return to Iraq which it did. The reporters also note that Parliament voted to lift his legal immunity (as an MP, he did have legal immunity). Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that "Daini's whereabouts remain a mystery as the political clamor over his alleged crimes, everything from murder to gold heists, escalates and threatens to rev up sectarian polarization in parliament. The plainclothes security guard who escorted Daini, a Sunni Arab politician, off the plane was part of his personal security contingent, as were the security officers who drove away with him shortly before a nationwide manhunt began."
In other news . . .
Bombings?
Shootings?
Reuters notes that Tuesday night in Kirkuk "a prominent business man" was shot dead.
Kidnappings?
Reuters notes that "three employees of Iraq's state-run Northern Oil Company' and one other person were kidnapped in Rashad today.
The students in Micheal Alleman's class didn't take kindly to the news.
It was the middle of the school year, and the popular fifth-grade teacher was leaving his career as an educator to join the Army. He told the class he wanted to be like the nation's first president, who left his career as a Virginia planter to take up arms against the British monarchy.
"He said that George Washington was his hero," said Samantha Larkin, 11, a student in Alleman's class at Nibley Elementary School in Cache County, last year. "But it was a little bit confusing to us."
On Tuesday, Alleman's former students were among those in several Utah communities coming to terms with a revelation that was even more difficult to accept: The teacher-turned-soldier had been killed in Iraq.
Along with Michael Alleman, Michael L. Mayne and Zachary Norman were killed in Iraq on Monday. WTHR-TV notes Indianapolis reaction to Zachary Norman's death:
"It was sad for his instructors and I know sad for his family. At three o'clock today there is a gonna be a moment of silence for him as students dismiss. We will ask students to do the moment of silence and to think about the sacrifices that Zach and other veterans have made for our freedom," said Cheri O'Day, Ben Davis High School.
Ben Davis will also add Zachary Nordmeyer's name to a wall of honor for its graduates that have died in the line of duty. Nordmeyer becomes the 18th former student who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Saturday, May 12, 2007 an al-Taqa attack on US soldiers took place resulting in 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator being killed immediately and three US soldiers missing. The three missing were Jospeh Anzack, Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. In May of 2007 (23rd), the family of Joseph Anzack was informed his body had been identifed. Still missing were Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. July 11, 2008 the press reported (citing Byron Fouty's step-father for confirmation) that the remains of both soldiers had been identified. That afternoon the US Dept of Defense released a statement: " The Department of Defense today announced the deaths of two soldiers previously listed as "Missing-Captured" while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers who had been previously listed as 'Missing-Captured.' . . . Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. The Department of Defense previously announced the names of soldiers killed in the attack. They were Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif.; Sgt. 1st Class James D. Connell, Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn.; Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich.; Cpl. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va.; and Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nev." Last night, Mike highlighted Brian MacQuarrie (Boston Globe, Feb. 18, 2009) article on Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez' families holding a service at Arlington National Cemetary:
One stone will mark the resting place for Jimenez, 25, and Fouty, 19.
Rest, also, could come for two families who endured nearly 14 months of agony until, after a massive manhunt involving 4,000 troops, the bodies of the soldiers were discovered at last on July 8, 2008. A native of Pembroke, Mass., Private Matthew Bean, died after being shot by a sniper during the search.
The remains that could be identified had already been buried: Jimenez's in Farmingdale, N.Y., near his mother's home; Fouty's in Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
A second funeral, however, proved no easier for parents and loved ones living with recurring, excruciating thoughts of the suffering that their soldiers probably endured.
"It's very difficult, because we know that part of him is in there," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran of Queens, N.Y., as she nodded toward the casket during a wake the previous night.
In England yesterday there was huge news and one of the few US outlets to cover the story today is the Dallas Morning News which notes, "Britain's justice secretary overturned an order Tuesday that would have forced the government to make public the formal minutes of two contentious Cabinet discussions held before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The minutes detail advice the Cabinet was receiving on the legality of the Iraq war." That secretary is Jack Straw and Gary Slapper (Times of London) declares he "has violated a key principle of the British constitution. The principle is nemo judex in sua causa: no-one should be aj udge in his own case. Mr Straw stands personally to gain by continuing secrecy of the cabinet papers. The war in Iraq has been described by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former senior law lord, as "a serious violation of international law". The British public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its government came to have entered it. Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the key time." At the UK's Military Families Against the War, Rose Gentle (whose son Gordon Gentle died in Iraq) asks:
What is the point of a freedom of information act if there is a escape clause in it just for government? Do they have something to hide?
They did say when the troops where out that they would have an Inquiry into the war. Will people ever trust a government again?
All we want to know is why our troops where sent in to Iraq -- this country has the right to know what is in those minutes. I have the right to know why my son was sent there to die. We all know it definitely wasn't for WMD -- lets hope one day their kids or grand kids don't go to a war looking for WMD
|
Posted at 03:07 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Marc Santora (NYT) reports on yesterday's attack
Today the US military announces:
"One U.S. Soldier and one Iraqi interpreter died as a result of an
attack at an Iraqi Police station in Mosul, Iraq, Feb. 24. Three U.S.
Soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were also wounded. Injured personnel
were taken to the Combat Support Hospital in Mosul, where the U.S.
Soldier died of his wounds. The cause and nature of the attack are
under investigation. The names of the deceased and wounded are being
withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the U.S.
Department of Defense." The announcement brought the number of US
troops killed in Iraq to 4251. That's the death noted at the start of yesterday's snapshot. And, good for Marc Santora, it's the one he covers in " G.I.'s Attacked by Iraqis in Uniforms" ( New York Times).
The story makes it into this morning's paper (A10 in the national
edition) and Santora does a strong job of reporting what was known and
not known. He provides context by explaining this was "at least the
third attack in the restive northern city in the past two months by
Iraqis wearing the uniforms of security officers." He makes clear that
the death has not been announced by the military but was being reported
(AP and Reuters); however, the US military had issued a statement on
the attack which noted the death of one Iraqi translator. Santora notes: The
Americans were on patrol, inspecting a police checkpoint, when two men
dressed as police officers opened fire on them, according to an Iraqi
official in Mosul. It was unclear if the attackers were members of the
police force or were simply posing as policemen, and whether the
checkpoint was an official one.So a strong article, good
for Santora, and one that makes it into the paper on the morning the US
military makes an announcement, good for the paper. While the
coverage of the deaths appears to matter to news outlets less and less
(check last night's evening news on commercial, broadcast networks),
the deaths continue in Iraq and are felt in the US. Matthew D.
LaPlante's " Utah soldier, onetime teacher, killed in Iraqi firefight" ( Salt Lake Tribune) notes Michael Alleman's passing: The students in Micheal Alleman's class didn't take kindly to the news.It
was the middle of the school year, and the popular fifth-grade teacher
was leaving his career as an educator to join the Army. He told the
class he wanted to be like the nation's first president, who left his
career as a Virginia planter to take up arms against the British
monarchy."He said that
George Washington was his hero," said Samantha Larkin, 11, a student in
Alleman's class at Nibley Elementary School in Cache County, last year.
"But it was a little bit confusing to us."On
Tuesday, Alleman's former students were among those in several Utah
communities coming to terms with a revelation that was even more
difficult to accept: The teacher-turned-soldier had been killed in
Iraq. And you can contrast that with the disgraceful
coverage in Illinois of their three soldiers who died in Iraq. You can
marvel over the Chicago Tribune's use of a brief (three sentences) AP report,
you can scratch your head over the smaller outlets in Illinois (we'll
be kind and not name them) but that's just disgusting and goes to the
point made yesterday: This is self-censorship. No one's banning them
from reporting on the fallen. They're banning themselves. They should
be ashamed. In the Los Angeles Times, Monte Morin and Caesar Ahmed offer " In Iraq, a homeless family's plight furrows brows:" Even
with more than 2 million Iraqis displaced from their homes by war and
sectarian conflict, it's practically unheard of to see a family living
on the street in Baghdad's bustling downtown.So
residents of the City Center district have been shocked by the
predicament of 48-year-old Allia Abbis Ali Kassem Tibiti and her
parents. For about two months now, they've made their home on the steps
of the shuttered Rashid Theater, on the bank of the Tigris River.Their
encampment, flanked by two police checkpoints, consists of a clump of
battered mattresses, piles of blankets and dozens of cardboard boxes,
plastic bags and dented water bottles.On
a recent afternoon, Allia Tibiti prepared a stew of tomatoes and
vegetables on a small gas stove as her father and mother, both 65,
huddled beneath blankets and stared vacantly at the traffic rolling
past.Elsewhere, Alan Gomez makes a fool out of himself at USA Today.
Biting what the puppet government's feeding (as the idiot Patrick
Cockburn did last week), Gomez trumpets 'recovery' and housing in
Baghdad is now high priced! Now? Now, you idiot? Sunday at Third, we examined Submersion Journalism: Reporting in The Radical First Person From Harper's Magazine in " The sexism at Harper's."
That book of essays features Adam Davidson "Out of Iraq: The Rise and
Fall of One Man's Occupation." Davidson was in Iraq reporting for NPR.
He and Salon's Jen Banbury decided -- this is in the fall of 2003 -- to
leave the hotel scene and set up a house in Baghdad for themselves and
other reporters. The market did not, as Gomez wants to insist, suddenly
rise. When Davidson and Banbury were being asked for $100,000 to lease
a house for a year (and finally found a 'bargain' that was $14,000
every three months), idiots like Gomez and Cockburn beg to be laughed
at. Billie notes this news wrap up by the Dallas Morning News
-- top three items are Iraq. It includes the US soldier killed
yesterday, the news in England and the dropping of charges in Germany.
On the news from England, Gareth notes this from Gary Slapper's " Iraq Cabinet minutes: 'Jack Straw should not be his own judge'" ( Times of London): Jack
Straw, in ruling against the release of cabinet minutes relating to the
UK's going to war in Iraq, has violated a key principle of the British
constitution. That principle is nemo judex in sua causa: no-one should
be a judge in his own case. Mr Straw stands personally to gain by the
continuing secrecy of the cabinet papers.The
war in Iraq has been described by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former
senior law lord, as "a serious violation of international law". The
British public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its government
came to have entered it. Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the key
time.If there was something
unlawful taking place how can one of the possible culprits be the
person who makes a quasi-judicial decision that the evidence must
remain secret? That is the equivalent of a police suspect telling the
police there will be no investigation as there is nothing to worry
about. Kristoffer Walker is the 28-year-old Iraq War
veteran currently in the news for refusing to return to Iraq, stating
that the war is wrong. What the hell is wrong with the press in
Wisconsin? The Journal Times editorial board doesn't make the factual errors that the Green Bay Post-Gazette
did regarding military policies and regulations (or 'regulations');
however, it advances some Big Dumb to argue for Kristoffer to return to
Iraq: Walker, once an
infantryman and now an office worker, doesn't have a moral argument. He
advances a legalistic one, as if to say that every decision the country
makes should be good and every cause it commits to should be right.
Unfortunately that doesn't happen with humans. Fear, ego and who knows
what else combined to drive the Iraq war, yet we at least now recognize
the depth of our mistake and are trying to disengage. The irony is that
Walker may not have served that much longer in Iraq even aside from the
year left on his enlistment.He does have an ethical
argument. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it unethical.
He is opposed to this war and he is being asked to fight in it. The
editorial board's on slippery ground but here's where they fall on
their face -- feel free to stomp on their backs as you walk over them: People
who expect perfection in a marriage partner or a country are bound for
disappointment, and that is how such commitments provide a test of
character. One sees the imperfection but realizes that the entirety of
the commitment is greater than a single moment or fault, or one walks
away and is thought less of. The same idea can be applied to the rest
of us as citizens. We have a civic duty to build our community. Walking
away diminishes us, not the people we leave.A marriage
partner? That's where they want to go? And then they want to argue you
can't walk away from marriage? In the United States of America, they
want to argue that? What idiots. [We used the marriage metaphor back in
December of 2004, " SHOULD THIS MARRIAGE BE SAVED?" The answer to the question is "NO!"] " Do your duty!" cries the Journal-Times which apparently did their's on the editorial pages -- now who's going to be stuck cleaning it up? Meanwhile Ross Colvin (Reuters) notes: When
former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January
2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war. On Tuesday
night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence."We
are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon
announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and
responsibly ends this war," Obama said in his first speech to Congress
since being elected on Jan. 20.Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut (Washington Post) cover Barack's possible draw down. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports
that following Iraqi MP Mohammed al-Daini's departure to Jordan being
blocked this morning (supposedly, the plane was already in Jordian air
space), Parliament has lifted his immunity and he may now be charged
with the crimes the puppet government says he has committed. The Kurdistan Regional Government has two announcements. First up: KRG statement: Deputy Prime Minister Statement by Kurdistan Regional Government
25 February 2009
Based
on a decision by the Politburo of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan at a
meeting on 24 February, Mr Emad Ahmed has been put forward as candidate
for the post of Deputy Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG). Mr Ahmed is the KRG Minister for Housing and
Reconstruction. Next up: Prime Minister hosts roundtable on rule of law capacity-building plan  | Erbil,
Kurdistan – Iraq (KRG.org) – Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani yesterday
met with US officials, the Judicial Council, judges, civil society
organisations, and other stakeholders to discuss a ten-year capacity
building plan designed to strengthen the rule of law.
Modernising the judicial system and creating an independent judicial
branch has been among the Prime Minister's most important domestic
aims, and he spoke passionately about the importance of such steps for
the future of the Region.
“One of the most important duties of the Kurdistan Regional Government
is to strengthen our judiciary and law enforcement mechanisms. We know
that, more than almost any other challenge, failure to address these
matters will hold back progress across a broad range of issues.”
Prime Minister Barzani outlined six concrete steps upon which he wishes
to focus: judicial training, simplification of the judicial process,
developing investigative skills and technology, improvements to the
prison system, public education curricula, and benefiting from
international initiatives conducted in the Middle East.
Ms Lucy Tamlyn, US Regional Reconstruction Team Leader, said, “The
United States is pleased to provide the funding for the Rule of Law
survey and strategy - also called road-map - for the Kurdistan Region.”
She continued, “I am confident that this project will make a very
important contribution to the Region.”
Wilson Myers, US Regional Reconstruction Rule of Law Adviser, briefed
the participants on a variety of efforts underway so far.
In the spirit of the roundtable discussion, the Prime Minister spoke
openly about the necessity for an independent judicial system,
non-interference by political entities, and creating public trust in
the judicial system as the third pillar of government.
The Chief of the Kurdistan Regional Government Judicial Council, the
Deputy Speaker of the Kurdistan Parliament, and the Minister of Justice
all expressed their dedication to this project, and emphasised the
importance of recent legislation to enhance judicial independence. See also Prime Minister Barzani's speech at the round table Meanwhile Iraq's Foreign Ministry announces:
Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zebari received on 25/2/2009 in his office, Mr. Hoges
Minckerly, President of the members of the European Union delegation
for the seventh round of trade and cooperation agreement between Iraq
and the European Union in the headquarters of the Foreign Ministry in
Baghdad.
During the meeting they dealt with the ongoing
discussions of items of the agreement and the importance of completing
it to expand cooperation between Iraq and the European Union in all
areas.
Minister Zebari spoke on the internal developments in
Iraq and Arab and foreign delegations visiting Iraq, and welcomed the
visit of European senior officials and thanked the valuable assistance
of the Union to Iraq. Minister Zebari also stressed the need to
complete the trade cooperation between Iraq and the European Union
because it would widen the prospect of Iraq in front for great
commercial dealings with the European Union. And they announced: The
seventh round of negotiations on trade and cooperation between Iraq and
the European Union started on the morning of Wednesday, 25/2/2009, at
the headquarters of the Foreign Ministry in Baghdad, , which comes
within the directives of the European Union to contribute to providing
support and assistance for Iraq in achieving development and political
stability in addition to contributing to the reconstruction and
integration between the EU and the Iraqi economy.
The Iraqi side
was headed by Dr. Mohammed Hajj Hmoud, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary
for Legal Affairs and Multilateral Relations,membership of
representatives from the ministries of the Foreign Trade, Planning and
Development Cooperation, Migration and Displaced Persons, culture,
tourism and antiquities , the Central Bank of Iraq, and from the
European side, Mr. Hoges Minckrily, Chairman of the Department of
Middle East and south Mediterranean and the European Commission
representative in Baghdad.
The EU delegation arrived on Thursday 24/2/2009 and will meet a number of Iraqi officials during their stay in Baghdad. The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timesmarc santoramichael d. laplantethe los angeles timesmonte morincaesar ahmedthe washington postann scott tysonanne e. kornblutahmed rasheedross colvingary slapperlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:02 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The draw down speculation
Yesterday on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,
David Martin reported on the expected announcements regarding the draw
down in Iraq, noting the speculation of insiders that Barack has
elected to go with a 19-month timeline to withdraw "combat" troops from
Iraq. David Martin: But
there would still be tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, perhaps as
many as 50,000. They would be formed into so-called 'training and
assistance' brigades to support the Iraqi army and police but they
would still be capable of conducting combat operations and would be
able to call in strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft.You can click here to stream the broadcast. Or you can click here
for just that segment -- and maybe you should considering all the
garbage that surrounded it -- pre-game analysis isn't news -- not even
ahead of sports event and possibly networks could do some actual
reporting and not offer a lot of gossip and hot air and toss to the
'loyal opposition' for lengthy statements on expectations that
translate as, "We're going to go in there and fight our best, Katie,
and we're going to have a win. I really believe this is our season." A
half-hour news broadcast doesn't have time to waste but that's all the
broadcast did as it attempted to predict what might happen in a speech
later that night. It wasn't news. It was a time waster. Staying with the expected drawdown, let's drop back to the last January broadcast of PBS' Washington Week which Ava and I noted here: Martha
Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the
sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the
three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the
US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with
each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi
forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in
sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the
tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't
get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no
decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and
probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how
many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about
so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could
be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws --
Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq.
Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely.Friends
in the administration are now pushing the figure 60,000 which means the
figure most likely is 70,000. That's not a withdrawal, it's barely a
draw down. (For context, David Martin stated there were 142,000 US
troops in Iraq currently.) Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) observes: Obama
offered no details of his plans in his speech to Congress on Tuesday
night, though he renewed his promise to outline his Iraq exit strategy
quickly."I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war," he said.He
renewed his promise? That promise was to announce his new strategy as
soon as he was sworn in, over a month ago. That's why all the time
after the election was spent 'strategizing,' so that when he was sworn
in, he could 'hit the ground running.' Let's not change what the
so-called 'promise' was. Also grabbing the baby wipes to clean Barack's
toushy are AP's Anne Geran and Pamela Hess: Obama
built enormous grass-roots support for his White House bid by promising
a quick end to the unpopular Iraq war. His 16-month withdrawal plan,
based on removing roughly one brigade a month, had been predicated on
commanders determining that it would not endanger U.S. troops left
behind or Iraq's fragile security. His applause lines
at the rallies was not "one brigade a month." His applause line -- and
the video exists -- was 'we want to end the war now.' In February, his
applause getting timeline became 10 months, upon being sworn in, he
would withdraw US troops from Iraq in ten months. Thomas E. Ricks (author of The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged ( click here for just the Ricks' segment) two Fridays ago and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans: Thomas
E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the
year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in
sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what
they heard was I will have no American troops dying in 16 months. But
it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama,
there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic
branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there,
there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in
counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers
with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some
Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as
long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and
Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno
says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015.
Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the
end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want
to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they
call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding
general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong
time to take troops out."Having avoided the topic in last night's speech, Elisabeth Bumiller and Peter Baker (New York Times) report that there is speculation he will make an announcement Friday while in North Carolina visiting bases and the reporters explain: It
was not clear on Tuesday exactly how many of the 140,000 troops would
remain in Iraq after August 2010 or whether any of the 14 combat
brigades now there would stay under a new mission.[. . .]Pentagon
officials said Tuesday that they did not know what the size of the
residual force in Iraq might be, although one of Mr. Obama’s national
security advisers said during the campaign that it could number 30,000
to 55,000 troops.Similarly,
defense officials said they did not know how many combat troops would
stay behind in new missions as trainers, advisers or counterterrorism
forces, at least some of whom would still be effectively in combat
roles. Military planners have said that in order to meet withdrawal
deadlines, they would reassign some combat troops to training and
support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and
go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts.As David Martin noted yesterday, "He can always slow it down if conditions on the ground get worse." Lily notes Chris Hedges' " A Choice Between Peace and Peril" (Information Clearing House): Bibi
Netanyahu's assumption of power in Israel sets the stage for a huge
campaign by the Israeli government, and its well-oiled lobby groups in
Washington, to push us into a war with Iran.Iran
does not have a nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. and European
intelligence agencies. But reality rarely impedes on politics.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, along
with Netanyahu, all talk as if Iran is on the brink of dropping the big
one on the Jewish state.Netanyahu
on Friday named Iran as Israel's main threat after he was called to
form a new government following the Feb. 20 elections."Iran
is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest
threat to our existence since the war of independence," Netanyahu said
at a ceremony at President Shimon Peres' official residence. "The
terrorist forces of Iran threaten us from the north," the presumptive
prime minister said in reference to Lebanon and Syria, where Israel
says Tehran supplies arms to Hezbollah and Hamas. "For decades, Israel
has not faced such formidable challenges."Netanyahu,
whose arrogance is as outsized as his bellicosity, knows that for all
his threats and chest thumping, Israel is incapable of attacking
Iranian targets alone. Israel cannot fly its attack aircraft over Iraqi
air space into Iran without U.S. permission, something George W. Bush
refused to grant, fearing massive retaliatory strikes by Iran on
American bases in Iraq. Israel's air force is not big enough to
neutralize the multiple targets, from radar stations to missile
batteries to Revolutionary Guard units to bunkers housing Iran's
Soviet- and Chinese-made fighter jets and bombers, and also hit
suspected nuclear targets. The only route to a war with Tehran for the
Israeli military is through Washington.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqgwen ifillpbs washington weekcbs newswashington unpluggedthe cbs evening news with katie couricthe los angeles timesjulian e. barnesthomas e. rickschris hedges
Posted at 07:00 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, another US service member is reported dead, Barack prepares to speak to the nation and the chatter is Iraq may actually be a topic, Jack Straw says no to an informed citizenry (and yes to covering up the illegal war), measles hit Iraq, and more.
Hamid Ahmed (AP) reported this morning, "Two policemen opened fire on U.S. troops visiting an Iraqi police station in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, killing a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter and wounding three other Americans, officials said." Missy Ryan and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) add, "Lieutenant Colonel David Doherty, a U.S. military spokesman, said four U.S. soldiers and one interpreter were injured, and another interpreter was killed." ( A US military statement can be found here on the death of the interpreter.) This brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4251. Today's death follows yesterday's announcement of three deaths. "Three US soldiers and their interpreter were killed in Iraq. The US military reported they died in combat in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. For the month of February, 13 Americans have died in Iraq," Gwen Ifill informed viewers last night on The NewsHour. In informing her viewers of that news, Gwen became the only US evening anchor on broadcast TV to bother doing so (though they all had time to bore their audiences with Slumlord Milionaire). AP's Kim Gamel covered the news for papers because no newspaper with their own Iraq division or US staff could be bothered writing about yesterday's deaths apparently. There are now 14 US military deaths in Iraq announced for the month thus far -- 6 of those have been announced since Saturday. Six US military deaths in Iraq announced in four days.
And where's the coverage? CBS and the New York Times are hyping a poll of the great uninformed American electorate who can sob "It's not our fault!" but that excuse got old long ago. You get the democracy you deserve and Americans chose what passes for democracy currently. Look around, all the things so offensive under the Bully Boy are suddenly manna squeezed out of Barack's ass. CBS breathlessly gushes, "Americans are more optimistic about the situation in Iraq than they have been since 2003 [!] . . . with 63 percent saying that things are going well for the United States in the country." Don't wake them from their slumber, it might require helping them wipe away their drool or, worse, changing their 'nighttime sticky' sheets. The foolish think "it is important that troops leave the country within President Obama's timeline of 16 months". What timeline? The one he was supposed to have begun upon being sworn in? That was the promise. February will be over shortly. Still no announcement on what he 'intends' to do. A working media would damn well be demanding answers on that issue. But you don't get a working news media with a compliant, overstuffed, lazy ass public drugged out on (and hooked on) hopium. It's February, he was sworn in back in January -- he might be able to make it to November without ever addressing that campaign promise that was supposed to start on day one. That would certainly allow more Americans to make fools of themselves by refusing to grasp (at this point, it's refusing, even for the uneducated) that "combat" troops does not mean all troops. Cristin Flanagan (Bloomberg News) reports on rumors that tonight, while speaking to the nation (most PBS stations will not only carry it live but also offer analysis afterwards), he will announce his 'withdrawal' plan is beginning . . . 19-months for the withdrawal of some -- not all -- troops. Meanwhile Steven Lee Myers (New York Times' Baghdad Bureau Blog) reports that Iraqis have more questions about Barack Obama than might be known (or might be reported?): "Sheik Moyad Fadhel Hussein al-Ameri, one of three brothers who were the hosts, said he was worried. A former mayor of Mahmudiya, he has a politician's acuity. And with it, he has closely tracked President Barack Obama's early statements on Iraq. 'President Obama is always talking about change,' he said, dressed in traditional robes and headdress and seated in one of the plush arm chairs that ringed the long greeting hall. 'We would like to know what change'."
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.
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.
Yesterday's snapshot noted IVAW member Suzanne Swift and there should have been a link to her website. There wasn't, my apologies.
28-year-old Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker was noted in yesterday's snapshot as well. He is the Army Reservist who is in the news for refusing to return to Iraq. WISC reports, "Walker said Monday night his beliefs haven't changed but he's considering all his options." The Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board doesn't want Walker to consider his options, they just want him to go back to Iraq. They want that so badly, that they fail at their job. An editorial has 'weight' because it is informed. When you don't know the basics, no one mistakes you for informed. The editorial board hides behind the words of the publicity hack (what a proud moment, "Mom, Dad, I'm in the army! What's that? I fight the word war!") Nathan Banks who insists that you get 30 days and after 30 days you will be charged with desertion. Lie, lie, lie. Hacks are worse than recruiters. Agustin Aguayo turned himself in after being gone less than 30 days. Agustin was still court-martialed for desertion. By contrast, many who have been court-martialed for going AWOL? Gone over 30 days. It is a 'rule of thumb,' it is not an actual rule. Walker could turn himself in tomorrow and face a court-martial. Something allegedly educated and informed people who sit on an editorial board damn well should have known before they wasted everyone's time in order to flaunt their ignorance.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings that left 8 injured, a Mosul grenade attack on the PUK Party headquarters that left two people injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers wounded.
Shootings?
As spin continues, Tim King (Salem-News) does not agree with the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: ". . . in spite of this rosy article from the UK, people are still dying in Iraq, and the war is anything but successful. In fact, according to recent reports, Iraq is still very dangerous. I was there over the summer just in time to see the beginning of the elimination/reduction of the 'Sons of Iraq' program which is one of the few elements of the 'Surge' that actually brought peace and stability to this country. (see: Could Removal of U.S. Support Shift Iraq's Peaceful Balance? (VIDEO)). Iraqi people told me that as soon as the U.S. pulls out, a civil war will reignite between Shiite and Sunni Muslims." He goes on to explain that, while in Iraq, the only ones he encountered who supported the US remaining there were people on the US payroll.
Seventy percent of Iraq's doctors are reported to have fled the war-torn country in the face of death threats and kidnappings. Those who remain live in fear, often in conditions close to house arrest.
"I was threatened I would be killed because I was working for the Iraqi government at the Medical City," Dr. Thana Hekmaytar told IPS. Baghdad Medical City is the largest medical complex in the country.
Dr. Hekmaytar, a head and neck surgeon, has now been practising at the Saint Raphael Hospital in Baghdad for the last five years.
It is difficult now both as woman and as doctor, she says. Most women are now living in repressive conditions because the government is less secular. And that is besides the chaotic conditions around Iraq.
"It is particularly difficult for female doctors," Dr. Hekmaytar says. "Large groups in Iraq only want us to stay at home, and certainly not be professionals."
"We've had doctors kidnapped, and so many others have fled," said Khaleb, a senior manager at the hospital who requested that his last name not be used. He named several doctors who had been kidnapped. This IPS correspondent, he said, was the first
Posted at 03:16 pm by thecommonills
And they want to whine about declines in circulation?
Today the US military announced:
"TIKRIT, Iraq -- Three U.S. Coalition Soldiers and an interpreter died
as a result of combat operations in Diyala Province, Iraq, Feb. 23."
The announcements bring the number of deaths of US service members in
Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4250. The above appeared in yesterday's snapshot. It was probably 4:45 p.m. EST when someone called about that. Point? Where is it in the papers? I don't care what US paper you're reading, where is the article? You may come across an AP article by Kim Gamel.
US papers with staff in Iraq might want to consider explaining why
they're not covering it? And they might want to grasp that they look
uninformed, stupid, incredibly slow or like liars (or a combination of
all) by dropping the ball. Americans who follow Iraq knew about the
deaths before they woke up this morning. "Three US soldiers
and their interpreter were killed in Iraq. The US military reported
they died in combat in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. For the month
of February, 13 Americans have died in Iraq,"Gwen Ifill informed
viewers last night on The NewsHour. Sadly, you can't find coverage of it on the broadcast news yesterday. CBS News has a new poll. Here's how they describe it: Americans
are more optimistic about the situation in Iraq than they have been
since 2003, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds, with 63 percent
saying that things are going well for the United States in the country.Less than two years ago, just 22 percent said things were going well.The
improved perceptions do not mean Americans want U.S. troops to stay in
Iraq, however: Seventy-eight percent believe it is important that
troops leave the country within President Obama's timeline of 16
months, with 46 percent saying it is very important they do so.Well, golly, I guess when you LIE or are STUPID or JUST MISUSE THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES, Americans might feel that way. The
pledge of 16-months was supposed to take place upon his being sworn in.
What newscast has pointed that out? I guess it's easy to feel
optimistic when you don't grasp that since Saturday alone, the US
military has announced 5 deaths in Iraq. When the deaths are hidden,
it's easy to skip down the sunny side of the street. Let's be
clear, this is the NEWS DEPARTMENTS CENSORING. This is not a new ban
imposed by the White House, the way the previous White House imposed a
ban on photographing the coffins at Dover. This is news departments
REFUSING to do their damn jobs. Yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric ( click here to view)
was the sort of garbage you could find on all three networks. They all
couldn't stop boring you with non-network India footage. Oh, had the
networks all gone to India? Hell no, they were 'reporting' on the
Academy Award winner Slumdog Millionaire. Not reporting, that would
have required weighing the issues of exploitation. But they all WASTED
everyone's time with that Entertainment Tonight garbage. They should be
ashamed of themselves. CBS Evening News gets a link for a few reasons
including that they also offered a report on newspapers. Oh, the poor
papers, oh, they might go under, oh, blah, blah, blah. Today demonstrates how fat and wasteful newspapers have become. Let's
hop into the way-back machine for a once-upon-a-time. Once upon a time,
Broadway openings were covered as news and the critics were required to
file for the next day's paper's. That meant they didn't see the ends of
the plays they were reviewing. They rushed out of the theater before
the performance was done, rushed back to file their reports. Where the hell did the New York Times -- or any other paper -- get the idea that news was a nine-to-five occupation? By 4:30 pm EST yesterday (if not earlier), NYT
knew about the deaths of three US soldiers. Was everyone too damn eager
to get out the door? Did no one grasp that this was actually news and
should damn well be treated as such? (I'm leaving out those NYT
reporters stationed in Iraq due to the time difference though I really
don't think that's an excuse.) Did no editor have time to say, even on
the way out the door, "Whatever we run on Iraq in tomorrow's paper, be
sure to paste on the news of the deaths to the story?" Let me
repeat, once upon a time, Broadway opening night meant the paper's
reporter watched MOST of the play and rushed out before the end, rushed
back to the paper and wrote the review. That was for a play. But
somehow an ongoing, illegal war means the paper can file what they want
and when they want. Why the hell should anyone pay for a paper
(I pay for several) when the news is not timely? There is no excuse for
this sloth. It's not just the money wasted, it's the fact that the
industry refuses to grasp that they better at least cover -- at least
-- what Americans know about the evening before. If you haven't done
that, you haven't done your damn job. The big, long whine CBS
filed yesterday refused to address that. It's not just that the net
moves so much quicker, it's also that papers are not moving as fast as
they are supposed to, as fast as they once did. This is ridiculous and
any paper whining about lost circulation better do a self-check and see
if their staff was all eating dinner at home at five p.m. or actually
working? Journalism is not a nine to five job, it's never been one and it never will be. It's probably past time for the New York Times
to, in fact, change their office hours. They should have staggered
shifts. I'm not talking about the so-called night crew (a night crew
that apparently no longer works). I'm saying, there's no reason for any
domestic reporter to be at a desk at nine a.m. or prior. Nothing's
going to be happening and there's no paper to put out at nine a.m. We
follow Iraq here. You can use any story, whatever interests you, and
follow the US paper of choice and you'll see that they aren't covering
it the way they should. They're working 'regular' hours while whining
that circulation isn't there. Well, if you can't keep on top of the
story, why the hell should anyone read you? Let alone pay to read you? There's
no excuse for it. (Nor is there any excuse for any broadcast network
refusing to note the three deaths yesterday in their evening news.) When
news outlets can't get it together, the public's aware of it. They
sense it and there's always something else to spend money on. As there
should be. Any reader of the New York Times who
follows Iraq went to sleep last night knowing more about what took
place in Iraq yesterday than what made it into the paper this morning.
That's why people don't pay, that's why newspapers are (wrongly) seen
as obsolete. The industry better get its damn act together and quit
blaming the public. Self-examination would also mean, for the New York Times,
grasping that their columnists need to be thinned out. There's no need
for X number of columnists writing the exact same damn thing. Used to,
someone promoted to columnist had something unique to offer (they also
used to do actual reporting). These days, it's all a bunch of gas bags
and there's no real difference in the approach (don't call it "style")
of Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, Bob Herbert or Frank Rich. (Herbert
occasionally does actual reporting.) It has nothing to do with where
they fall on the political spectrum. It has everything to do with the
fact that one of them would have been kept 20 years ago and the others
told, "We already have someone just like you." In the New York Times today, Campbell Robertson covers arrests.
I'm saying nothing on it, I'm not quoting from it. We did the same
thing in the snapshot yesterday on this topic. A former Iraq
correspondent and a current one warned me off this story saying details
are too confusing and uncertain. You can read Robertson (or the Reuters
article we linked to yesterday). I've made no comment and won't because
several aspects of the story are not adding up. (I was hoping it would
be clearer in today's reporting -- no surprise -- see above -- that did
not happen. And this goes beyond the fact that the only 'reporting'
being done is repeating statements from officials who apparently
believe you try a case in the press.) Kristoffer Walker is the
28-year-old Iraq War veteran who is saying "no more" to the illegal
war. We covered him yesterday (including in the snapshot). Today he is
the topic of an editorial in the Green Bay Press-Gazette entitled, " Editorial: Walker should return to duty"
-- an editorial that is exactly the reason that people stop buying
newspapers. The paper wants Walker back in Iraq. That's their opinion
and they could argue it wisely or unwisely. But they need to be bound
by the facts. Anyone paying even cursory attention in the last nearly
six years of this illegal war will grasp all the ways the paper doesn't
know what the hell it's talking about. That's not said because this community believes Walker should continue his stand. That is our opinion; however, the point is Green Bay Press-Gazette
chose to write an editorial and offer 'facts' that are not, in fact,
facts. In the process, they look like idiots. In a movie or TV show,
you might want a character you're a little smarter than to feel better
about yourself, but as a news consumer, it's not really reassuring to
always know more than the outlet. We'll note one section only: Banks
said Walker is putting himself in danger of being a deserter, although
not yet: "He's taking the wrong way to handle it and will probably face
judicial punishment. But it takes 30 days for him to be declared AWOL.
The Army says he's not violating any rules yet." We
hope some kind of resolution can be made in those 30 days -- hopefully
by Walker coming to his senses. He called the Iraq war "an
illegitimate, unnecessary campaign," but his objections seem to be more
political than moral. He claims not to be a conscientious objector in
the sense that he's opposed to all war -- just this one. Nathan
Banks -- the lisping Nathan Banks -- is a military spokesperson.
Trusting him is about the same as trusting a recruiter. But the paper
goes along. 30 days, the paper swallows and spits back, he has 30 days.
If he waits past 30 days, he's a deserter! That's not a rule. And anyone paying attention caught on to that when Agustin Aguayo
turned himself in after being gone less than 30 days. Agustin was still
court-martialed for desertion. The Green Bay Press-Gazette flaunts
their ignorance in many ways this morning but never more so than when
they don't know the facts. Instead of giving readers who might disgaree
with the editorial board something to think about, they have all who
disagree laughing at them and at how stupid and uninformed an editorial
board can be. Semi-related, Suzanne Swift's
webpage should have had a link in yesterday's snapshot. That was an
oversight and it will be noted today. My apologies. And we may also go
into the stupid editorial by the Press-Gazette in the snapshot later today -- go into it more. The Kurdistan Regional Government notes that a German Consulate has been opened in the KRG (northern Iraq under Kurdish control): Prime Minister's speech at opening of German Consulate General  | Ladies and gentlemen, Distinguished guests, Good
afternoon and welcome to you all. On behalf of the people and the
government of the Kurdistan Region, I would like to offer a very warm
welcome to the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, His
Excellency Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and to the Foreign Minister of the
Federal Republic of Iraq, His Excellency Hoshyar Zibari, and their
accompanying delegations. I am pleased and privileged
to be here with you today to participate in the official opening of the
Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Kurdistan
Region. Today is an historic day and marks the start of a new era in
our relations. Germany has a strong global reputation
in the fields of industry, commerce and development, and is an
effective member of the European Union. Germany also has a long history
with the peoples of the region. We in the Kurdistan
Regional Government have worked hard to establish friendships and build
bridges with members of the international community. Germany has been
among our very important partners. The opening of this
Consulate today in the Kurdistan Region is a most encouraging sign to
strengthen our relations. This step comes after the important changes
that have occurred in Iraq – the transition from dictatorship and
one-party rule to a federal and democratic Iraq; an Iraq that is
governed by the Constitution. We in the KRG are
committed to the Constitution for which the people of Iraq have voted.
And we will work closely with the main Iraqi parties to build a country
that achieves the dreams of all. We understand the
desire of the government and private companies of Germany to
participate at a variety of levels within the Kurdistan Region and
Iraq. The Goethe Institute for culture has opened a Dialogue Centre in
Erbil. German contributions in the sector of education have been very
much appreciated as well. German companies have long
had a presence in the Region, and German business delegations have been
active participants in the trade fairs in the Kurdistan Region. I
deem it necessary to briefly highlight the history of the Kurdistan
Region under the rule of the former dictatorial regime. And at the same
time I want to point out the freedom that Federal Iraq enjoys today. I
would also like to discuss the KRG vision for the future. The
history of our people has been one of oppression and systematic
violations of the most basic human rights. We have suffered genocide at
the hands of the brutal Ba’ath regime. In order to foster recognition
of the mass killing that has been committed, later this year we will
sponsor an academic conference in Brussels regarding the genocide
against our people. The history of this crime is not
that distant. Twenty years ago, and in front of the eyes of the entire
world, our people suffered ethnic cleansing, mass killing, and the
deployment of chemical weapons against them. Unfortunately the
international community, at that time, was not ready to come to our aid
in order to put an end to the genocidal campaign against the people of
the Kurdistan Region. Today is an opportunity for all
those who call for the protection of human rights and freedom to come
to the support of oppressed people. We believe that the European Union,
as a humanitarian matter of conscience, cannot turn a blind eye to the
crimes that were committed against our people. And I
hope that the European Parliament will issue a resolution recognising
the crime of genocide against our people, with a view to preventing
such a crime from ever occurring again. We in the KRG appreciate the
fact that the Iraqi Council of Representatives already has passed such
a resolution recognising this crime as genocide. Here I would like to
once again thank members of the Iraqi Parliament for this noble
position in supporting truth and justice and condemning this crime. We
in the government have scaled up our cooperation with the private
sector. Our citizens can see and recognise an improvement in living
conditions and services. And though we still have more to do, our
Region is developing and flourishing. On this occasion
I invite our guests today to become involved in our process of
reconstruction and rebuilding. And I would invite you to cooperate with
us, and to return home and spread the word that the Kurdistan Region
can act as a gateway to Federal Iraq and is open for business. We
in the KRG continue to cooperate with the Federal Republic of Iraq, in
pursuit of a democratic, federal, pluralistic state based on the
Constitution and the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law and
principles guaranteed in the Constitution are prerequisites for any
genuine democracy. We will continue to work in a spirit of cooperation
and fraternity, and we will promote dialogue and peaceful coexistence. Indeed
the principles of peaceful coexistence and the culture of tolerance
have made the Kurdistan Region a safe haven and have inspired the
displaced; particularly our Christian brothers and sisters, to find
refuge here. We have done whatever possible to help and support
minorities. And in the Kurdistan Region the Kurds,
Turkmen, Assyrians, Syriacs, Chaldeans and Arabs -- whether Muslim,
Christian or Yezidi -- from different ethnicities and religions, all
live together in peace. This is a success that we cherish deeply. We
are very pleased by the visit of His Excellency the Foreign Minister of
Germany, along with his accompanying delegation. We commend the German
government for opening their Consulate General in the Kurdistan Region. And
we hope that you return with a positive impression and are able to
discuss the stability and peace in the Region with your colleagues in
the European Union, so that other countries are encouraged to come to
the Kurdistan Region for the same purpose. This step is a
turning point to further develop and strengthen relations between the
Kurdistan Region, as a part of Iraq, and Germany. We
hope that this initiative will help to reduce the obstacles European
citizens face when travelling to the Kurdistan Region, such as travel
advisory restrictions. We thank the German Embassy in Iraq for their continued efforts in promoting relations between both countries, Iraq and Germany. I
would also like to thank the Embassy Office of Germany in the Kurdistan
Region, which has worked very hard to improve relations. I commend you
for your efforts. I would also like to thank France for
recently deciding to upgrade their presence from embassy office to
consulate. I would also like to thank those countries who had earlier
decided to open their consulates, such as Iran and the Russian
Federation. I assure you that the Kurdistan Regional
Government is ready to provide every kind of coordination and
cooperation necessary for the German Consulate General, and we wish you
much success. Thank you very much. See also Press release on the German Foreign Minister's visit. Photos of the German Foreign Minister's visit to Kurdistan Region:  23 February, 2009
Foreign Minister Receives Three British Deputy Ministers
Foreign
Minister, Hoshyar Zebari met on Monday 23/2/2009, at the Foreign
Ministry headquarters with Mr. Peter Raict Permanent Secretary of the
British Commonwealth Foreign Office, and Sir Bill Jeffrey, Permanent
Secretary of the Defense Ministry and Ms. Savic Ominoc Permanent
Secretary of the International Development Ministry with the presence
of British Ambassador Mr. Christopher Prentice in Baghdad. During the
meeting they discussed bilateral relations between the two countries
and ways of strengthening them in all areas and the importance of
exchanging visits between the two countries officials.
The
delegation congratulated the Government on the success of the Iraqi
provincial elections, considering it a positive indication of the
stability of Iraq, and expressed the willingness of British
institutions to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq in all areas,
including extending relations between the two countries and restoring
them, pointing to the importance of strengthening cooperation between
businessmen in both countries.
Mr. Zebari explained the latest
developments in Iraq and its openness to the world, referring to the
high-level official delegations that visited Iraq recently and that
will visit in the near future as well as the development of relations
with Iraq's neighboring countries that serve the stability of the
region. The following community sites updated last night: -
-
-
Stevie Nicks 11 hours ago -
-
-
-
-
-
Janis Joplin 11 hours ago -
-
Theme (for non-humor sites) was music history. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqkim gamelcbs newsthe cbs evening news with katie couricpbsthe newshourgwen ifillthe new york timescampbell robertsonkristoffer walkergreen bay press-gazetteagustin aguayosuzanne swiftlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:21 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The for-show, one-day opening
"As
for when the rest of Iraq will be able to see the museum, that's
unclear. Iraqi guards Monday afternoon told journalists it would be a
couple of months," notes the Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond (credited that way here and in the snapshot yesterday
because no writer is named in the blog post). That's really the heart
of the story. Yesterday, you had a limited, for-show opening. Sudarsan
Raghavan and K.I. Ibrahim's " Six Years After Its Pillage, Iraqi Museum to Reopen" ( Washington Post)
reports puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki insists the 'opening'
indicates an "embrace of democracy" -- embrace by who and of what by
whom? Democracy for invited guests only? The reporters provice this
background: Founded in 1923,
the museum in central Baghdad once contained important pieces from the
Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian periods, as well as from the Stone
Age. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein's government, thieves carried
away thousands of important artifacts; U.S. troops did nothing to stop
the looting, drawing intense criticism from Iraqis as well as the
international community. Since
then, a massive effort has been underway by Iraqi ministries and
foreign governments to restore the stolen pieces, which Iraq estimated
at as many as 15,000. According to the United Nations' cultural arm,
UNESCO, as many as 7,000 pieces are still missing, including 50 items
of historical importance. Steven Lee Myers' " Far From Whole, Iraq Museum That Was Looted Reopens" covers the topic for the New York Times and Myers has previously covered the topic for the paper.
His best moment may be his judgment call that "2,700-year-old stone
reliefs from the palace of the Assyrian king Sargon II at Khorsabad . .
. eerily recalls the blast walls that protect buildings and divide
streets in today’s Baghdad." From his article: When
Iraqis may actually see for themselves a collection of relics and art
that spans millenniums was a question even the museum’s deputy
director, Muhsin Hassan Ali, dared not answer, even when pressed.The
museum's directors have twice before ostentatiously opened the doors.
In July 2003, the American civilian administrator in Iraq at the time,
L. Paul Bremer III, toured some displays a few months after Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dismissed the looting by saying, "Stuff
happens." In December 2007, the museum's director allowed a group of
journalists and politicians inside for a few hours. PBS' Online NewsHour offers
a text report which includes this, "The Culture Ministry has issued an
amnesty for all citizens who return looted archaeological artifacts."
(Tonight President Barack Obama delivers an address. PBS will broadcast
and The NewsHour staff will offer analysis on most PBS stations. The live coverage begins at 9:00 pm EST.) Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) appears to be the only reporter notices that artificats were broken during the for-show proceedings: The
museum includes halls displaying items delivered or returned by Iraqi
citizens or regained from other nations. There is also an Assyrian
room, a hall of Manuscripts showing ancient books of the Quran and an
Islamic Hall. Magnificent wall-size stone carvings and statues, ancient
coins and glazed pottery were among the antiquities on display. ( See a photo gallery.) However,
a room that had displayed ancient gold jewelry only showed pictures of
the treasures. The jewelry had been on display during the early part of
the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the U.S.
invasion in 2003. But the museum feared that the gold jewelry may tempt
thieves so the pieces are now kept in a vault. The dozens of media
representatives that attended the event were so eager to cover the
museum opening that there were a few tussles and shouting matches with
Iraqi security forces, resulting in two broken stone vases for plants
that stood outside the museum entrance. A soldier carrying the broken
pieces of one of the vases noted that fortunately, it was just an
ordinary stone pot and not an ancient treasure. Catherine Philp and Wail Al-obaidi (Times of London) note,
"The museum had some of the oldest exhibitions anywhere in the world,
spanning the Stone Age, Biblical times and the Islamic Golden Age.
Modern-day Iraq encompasses Ancient Mesopotamia, and its southern
marshlands are believed to have been the site of the Garden of Eden."
The Kurdistan Regional Government notes their inter-faith conference:
Kurdistan's religious leaders discuss inter-faith peace and tolerance  | Erbil,
Kurdistan – Iraq (KRG.org) – Religious leaders of many faiths gathered
earlier this week at the Martyr Saad Convention Centre in Erbil,
capital of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, to discuss the importance of
religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence. Prime
Minister Nechirvan Barzani addressed the clerics. “You are a strong
channel for spreading the culture of brotherhood, forgiveness, harmony
and acceptance.” He added, “We can firmly preserve
our historical and cultural heritage while we embrace concepts of
modern society and freedoms. At the same time, we can respect our
religious commitment and respect the religious commitments of those who
worship differently." The three-day conference was
designed to promote cultural, religious and ethnic tolerance in
practice and in sermons offered throughout the Kurdistan Region.
Several religious leaders expressed their appreciation for the
Kurdistan Regional Government’s support for their work and for ensuring
that all religious viewpoints are respected. Hundreds
of clerics and religious scholars from across the Region attended the
three-day event, including representatives of Muslim, Christian,
Yezidi, Sabia Mandaean and Shabak communities. Sheikh
Mohammad Ahmad Saeed Shakaly, the Minister for Endowment and Religious
Affairs, discussed the ministry’s efforts to promote tolerance between
all faiths. He said, “We need to take practical action to implement a
policy of coexistence and promulgate a spirit of tolerance and peace
among religions. With this goal in mind, the ministry, the KRG as a
whole, and clerics are working together closely.” The Kurdistan Region has been able to avoid the religious and sectarian violence that has affected other areas in Iraq. See also Prime Minister Barzani's speech at the conferenceWe noted the speech yesterday. We'll note the German Consulate in the next entry. Meanwhile Iraq's Foreign Ministry announces: 
23 February, 2009
Foreign Minister Meets Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference
Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zebari met on 23/2/2009, at the Ministry's
headquarters Mr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the
Organization of Islamic Conference and the delegation accompanying him.
Talks were held between the two parties with the Iraqi side represented
by Foreign Minister Hoshyar zebari , Minister of Science and Technology
,Chairmen of the Sunni and Shiite Dewan , head of the pilgrimage
committee and Undersecretaries of the Foreign Ministry and from the
Organization of the Islamic Conference Mr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and his
accompanying delegation to discuss the overall situation on the Iraqi
arena and ways of activating the role of the Organization in Iraq and
Iraq's role in the revitalization of the organization.
The
Minister and his guest held a joint press conference and reviewed the
positive developments achieved in the Iraqi arena and the security and
political successes, stressing the importance of the visit to
strengthen ties between Iraq and the organization, adding that Iraq is
looking forward to playing an active role in the Islamic world because
it is part of it, explaining the willingness of the Government of
National Unity to provide all support for the Organization and the
success of its work in Iraq.
On his part, Mr. Ihsanoglu spoke on
the reasons for his visit to Iraq and the opening of the Office of the
Organization, of which the most important, to expand relations with
Iraq and to support and actively participate in the process of
reconstruction and development.
Minister Zebari accompanied his
guest and the accompanying delegation to inaugurate the permanent
mission of the Organization of Islamic Conference.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the los angeles times
the new york times
steven lee myers the washington postk.i. ibrahimsudarsan raghavangina chon
Posted at 07:19 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces 5 deaths in Iraq since Friday (3 today), Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker says "no more" to the Iraq War, Iraq War veteran Suzanne Swift shares the stories of her harassment and command rape while serving in the military, Baghdad's museum re-opens . . . kind of, and more.
Sarah Rasmussen: Good evening, I'm Sarah Rasmussen and after serving after part of a duty in Iraq, the soldier in Wisconsin has decided not to rejoin his unit and faces possible arrest for that decision. We first told you about Specialist Kristoffer Walker [last] night on WEAU13 News at Six. He's serving with the 353rd transportation company that was supposed to ship out yesterday morning to return to Iraq after a two week leave; however, after his request for a transfer went unanswered by his superiors Walker opted not to return to Iraq for moral reasons Walker, who enlisted in the Army Reserve shortly after September 11, says after six years the US is still fighting a war they should have never been involved with.
Kristoffer Walker: Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is -- it's an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed.
Sarah Rasmussen: According to the United States Military, Specialist Walker has 30 days to report. After that he'll be considered a deserter and the military will issue a warrant for his arrest.
Kristoffer explained to Lou Hillman (Fox 11), "My beliefs haven't changed and nothing has changed between Friday and now in Iraq. I am not a pacifist. There is an absolute need for our armed forces" but Kristoffer believes the Iraq War is wrong. As for his opposition and how he should oppose, Kristoffer told Tony Walter (Appleton Post Crescent), "The Army's definition is a little different than mine. The Army's definition is that you have to be opposed to war and all its forms. That's not me. I absolutely support using military force to respond or retaliate to attack. By their standards, you're not allowed to object to one conflict over another." Adam Aaro (WBAY -- link has text video, quote is from video and is correct, text quote is inaccurate) visited with Kristoffer and Sierra Walker and Kristoffer told him, "And I figured if I were to go back to Iraq and do something again that's contrary to my belief structure, I wouldn't be able to really live with myself. . . . Obviously there's a little bit of nervousness there because it's a very real possibility, but what are the other consequences on the flip side if I decide to go back to Iraq and do something that's immoral?" Laura Smith (Fox 11) explains, "Walker says he is receiving suppot from friends and family -- that includes soldiers he served with in Iraq. US Army officials have said Walker still has time to change his mind but would likely face some internal consequences for not reporting." James A. Carlson (AP) reports Kristoffer sees the Iraq War as "an illegitimate, unnecessary campaign." He told WEAU13 that, "Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed."
Kristoffer is standing up right now. He knows the Iraq War didn't end. He's not fooling himself into believing it ends tomorrow -- Oh, Blessed Day. Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes, "Meanwhile, there has been no action on Obama's election-year promises to pull out US combat troops from Iraq. Within weeks of the November 4 vote, Obama signaled his intention to maintain the US occupation by retaining Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the architect of the Bush administration's 'surge' policy in Iraq. No US troops have been withdrawn, and US military officers, including the overall commander in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno have dismissed as unviable Obama's pledge to withdraw all combat troops in 16 months." Those in the reality-based world who would like to stand up should know that next month, many people will be standing 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: 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.
The illegal war is not ending on its own -- no matter how much time you waste "Wishin' & Hopin'". News of US soldiers dying in Iraq continues -- because the illegal war continues and pretending it ended with an election (in the US or Iraq) is something only a Crazy Ass Cockburn would do. Saturday 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." Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Three U.S. Coalition Soldiers and an interpreter died as a result of combat operations in Diyala Province, Iraq, Feb. 23." The announcements bring the number of deaths of US service members in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4250.
While 4250 US service members and approximately 1.6 million Iraqis have died, many more people have been injured. Some wounds are physical, some are mental wounds -- all are serious. One woman who fought back against command rape recently discussed that ordeal and the effects she carries with her today. Back in January, we noted IVAW's Suzanne Swift had finally been discharged. Courage to Resist interviewed her (link is audio only) earlier this month about her experiences and this is an excerpt:
Courage to Resist: Suzanne Swift joined the US Army in 2003 having been assured by her recruiter that she would not be deployed to Iraq. But almost immediately after her military police training, Swift's unit was ordered to deploy. Soon after she arrived in the Middle East, Suzanne began having to deal with the sexual advances of superiors. One of those superiors coerced her into a sexual relationship. After she returned to the states, Swift was due to deploy again but she chose to go AWOL instead. Eventually she was arrested and court-martialed and in early 2009, she was discharged from the military. She is talking with us today on the phone from her home in Oregon. Suzanne, thanks so much for speaking with Courage to Resist today. [. . .] Listen, let's go back to 2003, when you decided to join up. Tell me why you enlisted in the first place?
Suzanne Swift: I . . . I don't know. Honestly, it just had a really good recruiting pitch and I didn't have anything else to do and they'd give me a job where they said I wouldn't have to deploy to Iraq which I thought was a really good thing.
Courage to Resist: And the job was in the military police, right?
Suzanne Swift: Right. Military police, one of the most deployed MOSs [Military Occupation Specialties] in the US Army.
Courage to Resist: So would you say they misled you?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, definitely.
Courage to Resist: So you went to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri for basic training and for MP training, is that right?
Suzanne Swift: Right.
Courage to Resist: And where was your duty station after that?
Suzanne Swift: I was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington.
Courage to Resist: How long were you there before you went to Iraq?
Suzanne Swift: I would say about three, maybe four weeks.
Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness, that was fast.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, it sure was. Kind of a whirlwind.
Courage to Resist: Did you have any troubles during basic or MP training or at Fort Lewis with other soldiers?
Suzanne Swift: No, not really. I had, at Fort Lewis, one squad leader who -- whose intentions were not -- I don't even know how to say that.
Courage to Resist: He - he- he didn't have honorable intentions?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, exactly -- but that we find out later. Not at Fort Lewis, at Fort Leonard Wood.
Courage to Resist: Oh, that was at Fort Leonard Wood? But he never actually physically assaulted you or anything?
Suzanne Swift: No, not until we got to Iraq.
Courage to Resist: So -- so then you got to Iraq. Now tell me, when did the difficulties start?
Suzanne Swift: Almost immediately. We weren't even too Iraq yet. We were still staging in Kuwait and I had a platoon sergeant proposition me basically for sex and I was just completely in shock because, you know, these people are supposed to be like your parents -- especially when you're brand new, or like a brand new, young soldier. It's really appalling that someone would do that.
Courage to Resist: And how did you respond?
Suzanne Swift: Oh I told him no and then I told a couple of other people what had happened and kind of just like put it out there to see if he'd get any advice back. And I ended up talking to the Equal Opportunity Representative about it and he said that he would -- he would talk to the commander and that he would figure out what to do about it and then nothing ever came of that. Ever.
Courage to Resist: Nothing ever came of it? And did the propositions continue?
Suzanne Swift: Not from that particular person but from another person -- yeah, it sure did.
Courage to Resist: So you went from Kuwait to Iraq and where were you stationed in Iraq?
Suzanne Swift: Karbala, Iraq.
Courage to Resist: And that's where your more serious troubles began, is that right?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah.
Courage to Resist: Do you want to talk about some of that?
Suzanne Swift: Um. I -- it's kind of hard to talk about. I guess I've done it before though. I was basically coerced into a -- into a sexual relationship with -- with my superior. And when I tried to end it -- it went on for a few months -- when I tried to end it, he used every -- every resource he had available to make my life miserable -- to punish me for it.
Courage to Resist: And tell me the ways that he punished you.
Suzanne Swift: He would just -- he would tell me the wrong times to be at somewhere and then punish me for being late or not being at the right place and just do little things that would make me look bad. And he'd like spread rumors about -- about me and then like, I don't know. He just made me look bad in every possible way. And then would punish me for making me look bad.
Courage to Resist: Now what was his position in your unit?
Suzanne Swift: Uh, he was a squad leader. He was in a staff sergeant position but he was as a sergeant as an E-5.
Courage to Resist: So he was your squad leader and as your superior he did everything he could to make your life miserable when you refused to continue the relationship he had coerced you into?
Suzanne Swift: Right.
Courage to Resist: And what did you do about that?
Suzanne Swift: Nothing, honestly, you know, I just kept my head down and tried to stay out of trouble.
Courage to Resist: Did he continue his sexual pursuit of you?
Suzanne Swift: Not once the punishment started, no.
Courage to Resist: Did you ever try to report this?
Suzanne Swift: I told a bunch of people. Look, everybody knew what was going on. Just nobody wanted to fix it and plus what was the point? That was my frame of mind then. And he had -- he had also made it like -- with the way he was treating me -- he made it look like I was just a bad soldier. So even if I had reported it, he could have just told them like, "Oh, she's just not -- because I punish her, she's making it all up."
Courage to Resist: So he really had you in a bind.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah. I mean, I could have reported it but it probably wouldn't have come of anything even if it did, I also would have got in trouble, so what was the point?
Courage to Resist: And this continued all the time you were there?
Suzanne Swift: Mmm-hmm. It stopped right before we were heading back to the States and then he just pretended I wasn't there.
Courage to Resist: Were there any other incidents with your other superiors or was that it?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, once we got back to the States I moved to a new unit that was standing up and I had a squad leader who -- he didn't proposition me for sex, he would just say little nasty things to me
Courage to Resist: Did you have the sense that he knew about the other situation?
Suzanne Swift: No, I never really thought about it.
Courage to Resist: And the things he said to you, were they sexual innuendos?
Suzanne Swift: Right, he would -- yeah. He was my team leader and he would -- he would just say, he'd call me at night and be like, "What are you wearing?" And like he'd call me for work-related stuff and be like, "Oh, what color of panties do you have on?" Like, "What are you doing right now? Oh, you just got out of the shower? So you're naked right now?"
Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, he was just a pervy, little guy.
Courage to Resist: Did you report this guy?
Suzanne Swift: I absolutely did. I was in the States and I had been -- I had just been through enough that I was like, "You know what? This guy is not getting away with it."
Courage to Resist: And who'd you report him to?
Suzanne Swift: I reported it to the Equal Opportunity Representative and he did his job for once and took it up higher to the commander.
Courage to Resist: What did the commander do?
Suzanne Swift: They did an investigation during which they accused me of sleeping with him and gave me a class from my commander on how to prevent sexual harassment from happening to me.
Courage to Resist: And they did nothing to the guy that was harassing you?
Suzanne Swift: He got -- he got a very harshly worded letter of reprimand. But that was it.
Courage to Resist: That was it and you were seen as colluding in his sexual aggression. You were treated the way many women are when the victim of sexual aggression is blamed.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah. 'Okay, let me figure out really quick how to prevent sexual harassment -- cause it's my fault when it happens, right?'
The way the military treated Suzanne Swift is appalling and inexcusable; however, it needs to be noted that this is typical and for those who doubt it, zoom in on a class to 'teach' women how not to be sexually harassed which goes to the problems with the military. The person who needs instruction is not the victim. By pushing the burden off on the victim, the military is stating that harassment has two willing parties -- the harasser and the harasseree. As long as they're allowed to push that lie, don't ever expect the culture to improve. And there's no improvement for women in Iraq. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports 23-year-old Nachman Jaleel Kadhim is a widow who also lost her twin sisters to the illegal war, one of her own five-month twins and now barely surived in a trailer park with "her remaining daughter." Williams notes she's "one of the lucky ones" underscoring how horrible things are for Iraqi widows. Williams tells you the Iraqi economy is hurting but leaves out the puppet government's big-money purchases. Multi-National Forces noted Valentine's Day (their idea of candy and flowers?), "To this end, the Government of Iraq has spent more than $5 billion to buy military equipment, supplies and training from the U.S. through the Foreign Military Sales program." And they're putting in a new pier for the Iraqi navy (yes, that is laughable -- Iraqi navy) which will cost $53 million. Equally hilarious is to hear the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs managing director (not minister) Leila Kadhim insist that it's impossible to help everyone. Wait, al-Maliki's puppet government cut the meager budget for the Interior of Women's Affairs from $7,500 a month to $1,000 and another ministry wants to whine? That's hilarious. Williams informs you that Iraqi women (ages fifteen to eighty) are widows in a 1 to 11 ratio. It's a growth industry for Iraqi women. Williams notes some widows end up "coerced" into marriage -- but forgets to note that one of al-Maliki's puppets -- a woman at that, Phyllis Schlafly's spiritual sister? -- has proposed governmental programs to force widows into marriages. This one especially should provide laughter, "The Iraqi military estimates that the number of widows who have become suicide bombers may be in the dozens." Which is it? The female suicide bombers -- less than 40 last year -- are young virgins who were raped or they're widows? Pick a narrative, New York Times, because you've insisted both this month. Amazing and typical, Williams report starts talking about raising the profile of women in Iraq and includes the widows mark during the one-two shoe toss and songs sang during the provincial elections but forgets Nawal al Samurrai who resigned (but is reconsidering) this month as the Minister of Women's Affairs when the meager budget for her ministry was cut from $7,500 a month to 1,500 a month. Tina Susman and Caser Ahmed (Los Angeles Times), Corey Flintoff (NPR), To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe at US News & World Reports, Feminist Wire Daily, wowOwow and Kim Gamel (AP) have covered Nawal. It's only the New York Times -- with all their reporters in Iraq -- who've never managed to file a story on her. wowOwow zooms in on the nonsense Mazin al-Shihan (Baghdad Displacement Committee) gives Timothy Williams (for paying men to marry widows, "If we give the money to the widows, they will spend it unwisely because they are uneducated and they don't know about budgeting. But if we find her a husband, there will be a person in charge of her and her chilrden for the rest of their lives." wowOwow observes, "No wonder the state's not doing enough for women."
No wonder. But a power struggle that took up a great deal of time for the puppet government has been resolved. Wednesday's snapshot noted: "Monday, Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) covered the power struggle between the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities and the Culture Ministry as to whether or not the museum will open next Monday. The Culture Ministry's Jabir al-Jabiri is stating that the museum is not opening and his ministry is over the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquties while MfTaA's Baha al-Mayahi states yes, they are opening next Monday. Aseel Kami (Reuters) explains today that nothing's changed. MfTaA's maintains that the museum will open Monday and Jaber al-Jaberi continues to insist that it won't and that 'is the official and final position.' Kami observes, 'The feud illustrates some of the challenges facing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government as it seeks to capitalise on a drop in violence and unify a country shattered by war'." Today Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports, "Iraq's restored National Museum was formally dedicated on Monday, nearly six years after looters carried away priceless antiquities and treasures in the chaos following the U.S.-led invasion." CNN notes that post-war looting resulted in "15,000 irreplaceable artifacts" being lost with "only about 6,000 . . . recovered." Nouri al-Maliki attended the grand opening -- wearing yet another of those tired blue ties he so favors. BBC offers a photo essay on the reopening of the museum. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) offers this description, "
The museum includes halls displaying items delivered or returned by Iraqi citizens or regained from other nations. There is also an Assyrian room, a hall of Manuscripts showing ancient books of the Quran and an Islamic Hall. Magnificent wall-size stone carvings and statues, ancient coins and glazed pottery were among the antiquities on display. However, a room that had displayed ancient gold jewelry only showed pictures of the treasures. The jewelry had been on display during the early part of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003. But the museum feared that the gold jewelry may tempt thieves so the pieces are now kept in a vault." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains how the power struggle was resolved, ". . . a compromise: The museum will reopen Monday for the first time in six years. But only eight of the museum's 26 galleries will be accessible, and for only a few hours". The Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond blog informs, "As for when the rest of Iraq will be able to see the museum, that's unclear. Iraqi guards Monday afternoon told journalists it would be a couple of months."
On Iraq's prison-industrial-complex, Dona and Jim observed last night: "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 'other 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." Mohammed al Dyni is another spelling. Trenton Daniels (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes the MP responding to the charges today by declaring, "The injustice against us is because of our national positions. We knew that were were going to pay a price for that." He maintains that the confessions the government is trumpeting are false because his bodyguards "were tortured heavily. These confessions need proof." Newsday reports, "As the videos were played, forces surrounded al-Dayni's home in western Baghdad and confiscated weapons, explosives and other items, including the passport of former Sunni lawmaker Abdul Nasser al-Janabi, who was forced out of parliament in 2007 after declaring he would join insurgents. Al-Dayni was at a hotel in the Green Zone, where he was effectively placed under house arrest." Meanwhile Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports on at least 12 Shi'ite police officers being arrested today on violence charges.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing "near the Technology University" which left seven people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left four people injured and a Mosul sticky bombing attack on "a candidate of the National Iraqi list" which left the candidate injured.
Shootings?
The Academy Awards ceremony was held last night and Academy Award nominee (for 1979's Starting Over) Candice Bergen live-blogged them for wowOwow. Staying with film, David Zeiger, the director of the amazing Sir! No Sir!, notes that the long suppressed documentary FTA -- directed by Francine Parker and featuring Jane Fonda (back on Broadway in 33 Variations at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre through May 24th -- with Samantha Mathis, Colin Hanks), Donald Sutherland, Holly Near, Rita Martinson, the late Peter Boyle and Paul Mooney among others -- airs tonight on the Sundance Channel (9:00 pm EST). The film Tricky Dick Nixon never wanted America to see not only airs tonight, it can be ordered on DVD.
In US politics, Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) continues exploring her place in the political landscape, "I still have hopes for the Green Party. But, not patience for them now. As for Cynthia McKinney...I will follow her almost anywhere. And, I intend to help her with her next campaign for any office, with a party I admire, or just dedicated to her and her message."
|
Posted at 03:49 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Domestic Arts Czar"
Posted at 06:44 am by thecommonills
Permalink
NYT looks at Iraqi widows
Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports
23-year-old Nachman Jaleel Kadhim is a widow who also lost her twin
sisters to the illegal war, one of her own five-month twins and now
barely surived in a trailer park with "her remaining daughter."
Williams notes: That makes her
one of the lucky ones. The trailer park, called Al Waffa, or "Park of
the Grateful," is among the few aid programs available for Iraq’s
estimated 740,000 widows. It houses 750 people.As
the number of widows has swelled during six years of war, their
presence on city streets begging for food or as potential recruits by
insurgents has become a vexing symbol of the breakdown of Iraqi
self-sufficiency.Women who lost their husbands had once been looked after by an extended support system of family, neighbors and mosques.But
as the war has ground on, government and social service organizations
say the women's needs have come to exceed available help, posing a
threat to the stability of the country's tenuous social structures.It's hilarious to hear nonsense about how Iraq's economy is hurting -- yes, Williams offers that. You can check out these headlines at the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency: (BAGHDAD, Iraq, February 15, 2009)
Iraqi Army officers attend ethics training in U.S.
(BAGHDAD, Iraq, February 14, 2009)
Bringing the U.S. and Iraq closer; Foreign Military Sales strengthens bond between nations
(BAGHDAD, Iraq, February 13, 2009)
Modern Pier, Seawall Facility to Benefit Iraqi Navy, Oil Security Equally
hilarious is to hear the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs managing
director (not minister) Leila Kadhim insist that it's impossible to
help everyone. Wait, al-Maliki's puppet government cut the meager
budget for the Interior of Women's Affairs from $7,500 a month to
$1,000 and another ministry wants to whine? That's hilarious. Williams
informs you that Iraqi women (ages fifteen to eighty) are widows in a 1
to 11 ratio. It's a growth industry for Iraqi women. Williams notes
some widows end up "coerced" into marriage -- but forgets to note that
one of al-Maliki's puppets -- a woman at that, Phyllis Schlafly's
spiritual sister? -- has proposed governmental programs to force widows
into marriages. This one especially should provide laughter, "The Iraqi
military estimates that the number of widows who have become suicide
bombers may be in the dozens." Which is it? The female suicide bombers
-- less than 40 last year -- are young virgins who were raped or
they're widows? Pick a narrative, New York Times, because you've
insisted both this month. Amazing and typical, Williams report
starts talking about raising the profile of women in Iraq and includes
the widows mark during the one-two shoe toss and songs sang during the
provincial elections but forgets the woman below.  That's Nawal al Samurrai. From the Feb. 12th snapshot: And
some say Nawal al Samurrai (also spelled al Samurraie in some press
accounts) should have expected the lack of support as al-Maliki's
Minister of Women's Affairs. But she didn't and thought she would
receive assistance. Instead her ministry's tiny budget was cut further
(from $7500 to $1500 a month). Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) quote
Parliamentarian Nada Ibrahim explains, "It's not a real ministry. It's
one room with a woman, no budget, no staff. It's a trick." The
reporters note that the issue "also highlights what many women say is
the lip service paid them by the Shiite conservatives loyal to Dawa and
other Shiite parties dominant in parliament. In August, Inaam Jawwadi,
a female member of parliament from the Shiite bloc, called for
Samarai's ministry to be turned into a Cabinet portfolio, but the
proposal went nowhere." Susman and Ahmed explain, "Her eyes glistened
with tears as she described the frustration of confronting widows and
not being able to fofer them anything beyond promises that she would
try to help. She found herself sitting in her small office appealing to
nongovernmental organizations for money to launch the programs she had
envisioned when she took the position in July." She tells them, "It's
shameful for me in Iraq, a rich country, to have to ask NGOs for
money." To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports via CBS News) proposes,
"Here's an idea: As a start, confiscate the Bush and Cheney family
fortunes, which are voluminous, and use that money to feed the widows
and orphans their war created." Corey Flintoff (NPR -- this is a text only report at NPR) explains,
"Samarraie, a 47-year-old gynecologist and member of parliament, says
that part of the problem is that Iraq is a patriarchal society, where
women are considered adjuncts of their husbands or fathers. And part of
it, she says, is political expediency." Parliamentarian Saleh al-Mutlaq
declares the Shi'ite extremists don't support the women's ministry, "I
mean, it was a joke from the beginning, and they will never support it.
And this poor lady, she was a minister for some time, but she didn't
have any kind of financial support to support women's issues." Flintoff
reports women in Parliament are rallying around the issue, that a five
hour meeting took place among them and that they are determined to
address this leaving Samarrai debating whether or not to withdraw her
resignation. Along with those named above, Feminist Wire Daily, wowOwow and Kim Gamel (AP) have covered Nawal. It's only the New York Times -- with all their reporters in Iraq -- who've never managed to file a story on her. How interesting.
Wednesday's snapshot noted: Monday, Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) covered
the power struggle between the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities and
the Culture Ministry as to whether or not the museum will open next
Monday. The Culture Ministry's Jabir al-Jabiri is stating that the
museum is not opening and his ministry is over the Ministry for Tourism
and Antiquties while MfTaA's Baha al-Mayahi states yes, they are
opening next Monday. Aseel Kami (Reuters) explains
today that nothing's changed. MfTaA's maintains that the museum will
open Monday and Jaber al-Jaberi continues to insist that it won't and
that "is the official and final position." Kami observes, "The feud
illustrates some of the challenges facing Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki's government as it seeks to capitalise on a drop in violence
and unify a country shattered by war."Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports,
"Iraq's restored National Museum was formally dedicated on Monday,
nearly six years after looters carried away priceless antiquities and
treasures in the chaos following the U.S.-led invasion." Meanwhile, she wasn't good at reading the NEI or the PDB but someone thinks she's can write. AP reports
that former National Security Advisor and former Secretary of State
Condi Rice has signed "a three-book deal with Crown Publishers." The
first book will be a fond look back at her time with the Bully Boy --
in other words, Crown wants her to start off attempting fiction. Below is Condi when the press loved her, May 2, 2005 -- when her every jacket was 'news'! 
That was the first The World Today Just Nuts comic Isaiah did. He is now arching his comics at The World Today Just Nuts. Doug notes Press TV's " Chomsky: Obama OKed Israel's Gaza war" (via Information Clearing House): Renowned
US intellectual Noam Chomsky says Barack Obama did not comment on
Israel's war on Gaza, as it was part of the "premeditated" plan. We
have been informed by an Israeli source that the recent invasion of the
Gaza Strip was completely premeditated, Chomsky said in an interview
with the French Al-Ahram daily.The
plan was to deliver the maximum blow to Gaza before the new US
president took office, so that he could put these matters behind him
added the famous intellectual, referring to Obama's pledge to resolve
the Israeli Palestinian conflict.And Mike notes Dennis Loo's " Obama: Bagram Prisoners Be Damned" (World Can't Wait): Contrary
to his public pronouncements about taking the "moral high ground,"
"restoring due process," ending torture, and that "no one is above the
law," the Obama administration declared on February 20, 2009 that the
hundreds of prisoners in Bagram, Afghanistan being held by US forces
and subjected to torture and murder since our invasion of Afghanistan,
do not have the right to challenge their indefinite detentions or the
fact that they have been tortured.They
are, according to this new White House, outside the law that the Obama
team has made such a fetish of claiming that they uphold."This
Court’s Order of January 22, 2009 invited the Government to inform the
Court by February 20, 2009, whether it intends to refine its position
on whether the Court has jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by
detainees held at the United States military base in Bagram,
Afghanistan," Acting Assistant Obama Attorney General Michael Hertz
wrote in a brief filed Friday. "Having considered the matter, the
Government adheres to its previously articulated position.""Having considered the matter, the Government adheres to its previously articulated position."Having
considered the matter, the Obama administration adheres to the
previously articulated position of the Bush administration, despite the
fact that the legitimacy of the Obama administration, the reason that
so many people were overjoyed to see him elected and to see the Bush
team out of office, was because they thought that Obama was going to
right these wrongs and make things different. Just how wrong this idea
was is becoming clearer by the day to people who are paying attention.Bonnie reminds that Kat's " Kat's Korner: The art of india.arie" went up Sunday as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction" -- and we have another comic by Isaiah going up after this. Meanwhile Maria Morani is a Canadian MP. From her Parliament webpage:
MOURANI, Maria, B.A., M.A. Iraq's Foreign Ministry announces:
Mrs.
Maria Morani member of the Canadian Parliament expressed her
willingness to help the Iraqi community living in Canada to overcome
problems in addition to encouraging Canadian investments in the
reconstruction of Iraq.
During the meeting with the Consul
General of the Republic of Iraq in Montreal, Mr. Riyadh Hassoun, Mrs.
Morani called for supporting the formation of an Iraqi- Canadian
Friendship Society to bridge the gap between the two countries through
the Iraqi parliament. The Canadian MP listened to the Iraqi consul's
explaining of the situation in Iraq and the political and security
environment which Iraqis live in. : PM Barzani's speech at rule of law roundtable  | Erbil, 19 February 2009 Speech by KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani Roundtable: Ten-year plan to strengthen the rule of law Good afternoon and welcome. I am pleased to participate in this discussion with you about the supremacy of the rule of law. One
of the most important duties of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
is to strengthen our judiciary and law enforcement mechanisms. We know
that, more than almost any other challenge, failure to address these
matters will hold back progress across a broad range of issues. For
this reason, we are grateful to the United States government for paying
attention to this issue, and working together with us in order to help
us achieve these goals. I consider this
roundtable today to be an important start, but I would like to make a
point about action. In the past five years since the liberation, we
have had many delegations –governments, private sector entities, NGOs
and others – who have come here to discuss important issues with us. We
have held many conferences and meetings on a range of problems. These
meetings have been useful in many areas, but it is also true that
meetings and conferences do not solve problems. So we must move forward
practically, and we should prepare a plan for implementation in order
to achieve our goals. And we would like you to help us in our efforts. I
would hope today that we can also discuss ideas and proposals for
concrete actions that we can take immediately, which can help improve
our performance in the judicial system and the rule of law in the
Kurdistan Region. I will be brief because I am
anxious to hear what others have to say and provide everyone with an
opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Below are six principle
themes upon which I believe we should focus – within the framework of a
comprehensive plan. 1) Training of Judges
We have taken steps to create a more independent judiciary and to give
judges greater freedom and resources to do their jobs without obstacles. Overall,
we have made progress here, and I think our judges are more effective
than they were a few years ago. However, they need more training and
more experience in administering the law. And
we need to begin today to train new lawyers and new judges for the
future. Many of our best judges are old, and we do not have adequate
replacements trained. 2) Simplifying the judicial process
Our judicial process is confusing and complicated, with overlapping
authorities and responsibilities. No average citizen can understand the
system and even some of our lawyers do not understand it. It is a
mixture of several different systems and it works too slowly. We are
not able to follow up individual cases due to the lack of suitable
legal mechanisms, and the bureaucracy in our courts and ministries is
overwhelming. 3) Developing effective investigative skills and technologies
It is true that in our system the courts have substantial investigative
powers, but there should be a comprehensive method to handle these
duties. For example, we do a reasonable job at
investigating routine criminal complaints, but our courts are not at
all capable of following up and investigating crimes of violence
against women. We have made some progress in
developing new skills within our police force, but the courts have
important investigative powers that are not well developed at all. That
is why we must do more in this regard. 4) Updated correctional and prison system
Our prison system is old and in need of repair and renewal. We do not
effectively rehabilitate our prisoners, and too many of them return to
society only to repeat their crimes. Therefore we must develop plans
for social rehabilitation and pay attention to the psychological
conditions within the prisons. 5) Education of the public
We need to pay more attention to public education. Our people need to
be taught, from primary school, to respect the law, courts and the
police. In our colleges there is a need to develop curricula so that
pupils are educated in a progressive way. 6) Cooperation with other regional initiatives
We are aware of initiatives being implemented by the American Bar
Association and the US Government in other countries. It would be of
great benefit to us to be able to liaise with some of these programmes
and to learn from their experiences. For
example, we feel the Jordanian judicial system shares similarities with
ours. Developing training and educational links with our counterparts
in the region would be of immense value to us. We
should all work with civil society organisations and the media in order
to increase the legal awareness of our people in regard to these
issues. This is a subject upon which I have placed a great deal of
importance. And it is a priority in the KRG’s agenda. These
are some of the ideas that I would like to openly discuss with you. I
would like both sides to seriously engage in this issue. Thank you all
for coming and participating in this event. Your efforts are most
appreciated. Thank you. See also the press release on the rule of law round table. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe los angeles times tina susmancaeser ahmed steven lee myerstimothy williamsthe new york timessameer n. yacoubiraqiraqiraqiraqiraqiraqiraqkats kornerthe world today just nuts
Posted at 06:43 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Kristoffer Walker says no
28-year-old Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker is refusing to return to Iraq. WEAU13's " Wisconsin Soldier Refuses To Rejoin Unit In Iraq" has text and video, transcript below for those who can't stream or require closed caption: Sarah
Rasmussen: Good evening, I'm Sarah Rasmussen and after serving after
part of a duty in Iraq, the soldier in Wisconsin has decided not to
rejoin his unit and faces possible arrest for that decision. We first
told you about Specialist Kristoffer Walker [last] night on WEAU13 News at Six.
He's serving with the 353rd transportation company that was supposed to
ship out yesterday morning to return to Iraq after a two week leave;
however, after his request for a transfer went unanswered by his
superiors Walker opted not to return to Iraq for moral reasons Walker,
who enlisted in the Army Reserve shortly after September 11, says after
six years the US is still fighting a war they should have never been
involved with. Kristoffer
Walker: Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is -- it's an
immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed.Sarah
Rasmussen: According to the United States Military, Specialist Walker
has 30 days to report. After that he'll be considered a deserter and
the military will issue a warrant for his arrest.Dona and Jim noted Kristoffer Walker and WEAU13 last night. (And thank you to them for filling in.) Lou Hillman's " AWOL soldier staying home"
(Fox 11) is a text report on Kristoffer Walker's stand which also
features video of Hillman's report, the transcript of which follows: Mark Leland: An AWOL soldier from Green Bay says he has been ordered to return to duty or face severe consequences .Laura
Smith: Despite that Specialist Kristoffer Walker, a reservists in the
353rd Transportation Company, says he still will not return. Lou
Hillman has more in this Fox 11 follow up.Lou
Hillman: Since notifying his superiors in Iraq about his decision not
to return to duty, Kristoffer Walker says he has received one short
e-mail from the Army warning him of possible consequences. Walker says
he received the e-mail Saturday morning and it reads quote: "Spc.
Walker, . . . You should return to Iraq. Ramifications of not returning
will impact your personal and professional life much longer than four
more months. Please reconsider the actions you are taking wisely."Kristoffer
Walker: My beliefs haven't changed and nothing has changed between
Friday and now in Iraq. I am not a pacifist. There is an absolute need
for our armed forces.Lou
Hillman: But Walker, who enlisted in the Army following the attacks on
9-11, says he believes the Iraq War is immoral. He's in the middle of
his second tour of duty with the army and has been back home on a two
week leave. On Friday, the 28-year-old Green Bay soldier intentionally
missed a return flight saying he will no longer fight in a war he
doesn't believe in. Instead Walker's asking to be reassigned to a local
reserve unit. He says he even came down here to the United States Army
Reserve Center to ask if there are any jobs here that would allow him
to fulfill the terms of his enlistment contract?Kristoffer
Walker: I've stumbled upon a number of roadblocks along the way and
there is no hope for me to believe that by returning to Iraq I would be
able to petition for my transfer out of Iraq.Lou
Hillman: Late last week, however, an Army spokesperson encouraged
Walker to return if he wants any chance of being reassigned.Lt
Col Nathan Banks: Because after thirty days he is dropped from the
rolls so he needs to get back to his so he needs to get back to his
unit and, in fact, work it through the chain there.Lou
Hillman: If Walker remains Absent Without Leave for one month, the Army
would consider him a deserter and he could be arrested. The soldier
says he's taking a stand for what he believes in and is ready to suffer
whatever consequences may come from his decision. In Green Bay, Lou
Hillman, Fox 11 News.Laura
Smith: Walker says he is receiving support from friends and family that
includes soldiers he served with in Iraq. US Army officials have said
Walker still has time to change his mind but would likely face some
internal consequences for not reporting. His unit, the 353rd
Transportation Company, is scheduled to return home this summer.To
really appreciate Nathan Banks' lisping performance ("lisping" is the
only term for Banks' speaking), you have to stream the above report.
Those who can't can just enjoy the dramatics of this statement by
Banks, "His unit is counting on him. He's actually turning his back on
his battle buddies. By just not reporting, you're letting down your
teammates." That and more shows up in most text reports including in
Tony Walter's " Green Bay soldier Kristoffer Walker refuses to return to Iraq" (Appleton Post Crescent) which also includes the following: "The
Army's definition is a little different than mine," Walker said. "The
Army's definition is that you have to be opposed to war and all its
forms. That's not me. I absolutely support using military force to
respond or retaliate to attack. By their standards, you're not allowed
to object to one conflict over another."Walker
enlisted in the Army in 2002 and spent a year in Iraq as an infantryman
beginning in February 2004. When his initial enlistment ended, he
joined the Army Reserve unit headquartered in Buffalo, Minn. The unit
was activated in July and deployed to Samarra, Iraq, in October.Walker said he has been seeking a transfer for several months, contacting elected officials and military personnel."Everyone
drags their feet," Walker said. "I'm a little beyond frustrated. I
signed up to defend the Constitution and defend the country against
foreign enemies. But I'm not going to do something immoral and contrary
to the contract I signed up for. It's really quite sad."WKBT's text and video report is the same and from it we'll note, "Walker has been in the Army for seven years. This is second tour in Iraq."
Adam Aaro (WBAY -- link has text video, quote is from video and is correct, text quote is inaccurate) visited
with Kristoffer and Sierra Walker and Kristoffer told him, "And I
figured if I were to go back to Iraq and do something again that's
contrary to my belief structure, I wouldn't be able to really live with
myself. . . . Obviously there's a little bit of nervousness there
because it's a very real possibility, but what are the other
consequences on the flip side if I decide to go back to Iraq and do
something that's immoral?" 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. And tonight, on the Sundance Channel, you can see the documentary FTA and/or you can purchase it on DVD (right now, but it is in stores tomorrow). David Zeiger, the director of the amazing Sir! No Sir!, explains: 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. Susan notes John Pilger's " Cambodia's Missing Criminals" ( Information Clearing House): The
problem with the United Nations-backed trial of the remaining Khmer
Rouge leaders, which has just begun in Phom Penh, is that it is dealing
only with the killers of Sin Sisamouth and not with the killers of the
family in Neak Long, and not with their collaborators. There were three
stages of Cambodia’s holocaust. Pol Pot's genocide was but one of them,
yet only it has a place in the official memory. It is highly unlikely
Pot Pot would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his
national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral
Cambodia, In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia’s populated
heartland than were dropped on Japan during all of the Second World
War: the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. Declassified files reveal that
the CIA was in little doubt of the effect. "[The Khmer Rouge] are using
damage caused by B52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda,”
reported the director of operations on May 2, 1973. “This approach has
resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men [and]
has been effective with refugees." Prior to the bombing, the Khmer
Rouge had been a Maoist cult without a popular base. The bombing
delivered a catalyst. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot completed.Kissinger
will not be in the dock in Phom Penh. He is advising President Obama on
geo-politics. Neither will Margaret Thatcher, nor a number of her
comfortably retired senior ministers and officials who, in secretly
supporting the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese had expelled them,
contributed directly to the third stage of Cambodia’s holocaust. In
1979, the US and British governments imposed a devastating embargo on
stricken Cambodia because its liberators, Vietnam, had come from the
wrong side of the cold war. Few Foreign Office campaigns have been as
cynical or as brutal. At the UN, the British demanded that the now
defunct Pol Pot regime retain the "right" to represent its victims at
the UN and voted with Pol Pot in the agencies of the UN, including the
World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from working inside
Cambodia.Bonnie reminds that Kat's " Kat's Korner: The art of india.arie" went up Sunday as did as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction." Isaiah has another comic going up this morning. The Kurdistan Regional Government notes a speech by KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani: PM's speech at inter-faith religious leaders' conference  | Erbil, 17 February 2009 Speech by KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani at the conference to support contemporary religious sermons. Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, religious scholars, Good
morning and welcome. I warmly welcome the religious scholars – Muslim,
Christian, Sabae Mandaean and Yezidi – and the scholars of the Kakayie
and Shabak communities, who are gathering at this conference. I am very
pleased to have the chance to meet with you today. I would like to
thank all of you, especially those who have traveled a long way to
attend this conference. Thank you for your efforts to come here. I
very much wanted to meet with you to discuss the important issues and
subjects that our people face. I would like to talk very openly and
frankly so we understand each other better. We all know that,
politically and in terms of security, we have tremendous challenges
ahead of us. However, in addition to local elections, disputed areas,
relations with Baghdad, and several other issues relevant to security
aspects, there are a number of social issues that confront us as well. We
face a number of social concerns in the area of respect for human
rights in general, and respect for ethnic minorities and religious
freedoms. While we try to free ourselves from the effects of decades of
oppression and isolation, we face several obstacles as we try to join
the advanced world. We as the people of Kurdistan have
to be ready to face these challenges and overcome these obstacles;
including corruption, negligence and illiteracy. I
would like to talk openly about the issues of society, religion and
ethnic diversity here in the Kurdistan Region. The challenges that we
have ahead of us are serious. If we allow ourselves to be divided or
separated, there is no doubt that our capability to face these
challenges will be diminished. And we will not be able to succeed at
this delicate stage. In each of these significant
issues, the role of religion and religious leaders is vital. While we
are a diverse society, the overwhelming majority of our people adhere
to the Islamic faith. And many of our laws and customs find their roots
in the religion of Islam. A large number of our people attend mosques
regularly, and our leading religious officials have great influence
throughout the region. The majority of our people try to live a life of
dignity, and to rely on the high values they find in religion, humanity
and society. We in the Kurdistan Regional Government
(KRG), through the Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs, have
taken significant steps to serve the respected religious scholars and
improve their living conditions, based on their abilities. And we will
continue our efforts so that the religious scholars, as they were
respected in the past, will continue to be so in the future. And they
will be an effective and respected layer of our community. The
provision of services to the Islamic religious clerics and the
construction and rehabilitation of the holy places are clear evidence
that the KRG has fulfilled the government action plan in this regard,
and is still committed to its promises. Rest assured that this process
will continue and will expand further. Our efforts to
uphold Islam and support the progress of Islamic education are unique
in the countries of the Islamic world. It is the duty of the respectful
religious scholars, in their sermons, prayer sessions and advice, to
work for peaceful coexistence, the love of the homeland, and respect
for each other, as called for by Islam. And not what some others, under
the guise of Islam, are trying to implement, by suspect methods that
create confusion in society. Islamic guidance says love
your brother as you love yourself; which means, what you see for
yourself as just and good, you should see as just and good for your
brother as well. Here the meaning of ‘brother’ is a
brother in religion, a fellow citizen, and somebody with whom you live.
So all of us that live in the Region are brothers and cooperate with
each other. In many different eras, religious scholars
in the Kurdistan Region have been the guides for honesty, sincerity and
the expression of the truth. In the past, they underwent the stages of
Muslim scholarship in the small learning centres of the mosques, under
the guidance of Islamic scholars. They trained for their licenses.
These respectful figures, without receiving anything in return, have
been going to mosques and remote villages to spread the pure message of
Islam: the message of peace, coexistence and tolerance. In
the era of Kurdistan’s September Revolution (from 1961 to 1975), Muslim
and Christian religious scholars played a leading role in their
communities. They delivered humane, patriotic, religious messages and
at the same time embodied the spirit of struggle for liberation. They
were always men of principle in the face of oppression and the coercion
that was exercised against our people. The Religious
Scholars Union founded by the late Mustafa Barzani in the 1960s was
another attempt to foster harmony among religious scholars and speak
with one voice vis-à-vis religious and national issues. At
that time, you struggled and were a source of pride for your people.
Now you carry the same message and are able to play your role in
upholding Islam and spreading feelings of patriotism, humanity and
brotherly coexistence to protecting the Kurdistan Region, freedom and
the interests of our people. During the time of the
former regime, when the villages in the Kurdistan Region were being
destroyed and mosques were being detonated, it was the religious
scholars who took a position and courageously faced these unspeakable
crimes committed against the houses of God, villages and innocent
people. After the uprising, Muslim and Christian
religious scholars and others have had the same attitude and tried to
convey the message of almighty God in the right way. You are a strong
channel for spreading the culture of brotherhood, forgiveness, harmony
and acceptance. We hope that the entire community of
religious scholars, including Imams and preachers of the mosques, in
full reliance on Islam, will encourage Muslims and the entire society
in the Kurdistan Region to conduct itself properly, so that each
individual in this community accomplishes his duty within the framework
of law and order. Islam and other divine religions in
general educate human beings and guide them so that they are faithful,
honest and merciful to their own people. There is an important point
that we should remember at all times. When we were suffering and facing
difficulties, we were all together. The previous regime in Baghdad did
not distinguish among family, tribe, religion and ethnicity in the
Kurdistan Region. And we have all made sacrifices together. The
chemical weapons which were used against our people did not
discriminate among Muslims, Christians, Yezidis, or among Kurds,
Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, or Turkmen. Or between men, women and
children. Very brutally, according to a well-formulated plan, the
weapons killed everyone. When the economic conditions
were very harsh, it was the same situation for all. Therefore, during
the difficult, unfortunate and fateful times, we were together and we
lived side by side. We have carried the heavy burden of a difficult past together. We
are all partners in sharing a strong hope for a bright future. Today,
whether we are religious, social, political, or economic leaders, we
are all living in a time of which our ancestors dreamt and for which
they struggled and offered sacrifices to make a reality. Only
ten years ago we were in the midst of a very difficult humanitarian
catastrophe. Who would have believed then that in a short period of
time the regime of Baghdad would change, Iraq would be liberated, the
Kurdistan Region would be free, and we would be taking steps toward an
unprecedented period in our history. After the
liberation of Iraq in 2003 large areas of the country, excluding the
Kurdistan Region, became arenas for conflict and the provocation of
sectarian sentiment. Afterwards, terror, suicide attacks and the
killing of civilians followed. The people of the
Kurdistan Region reacted bravely and dealt with the situation. And we
did not allow terrorists, the bearers of fundamentalist ideology and
those who commit acts of destruction under the name of Islam, to
infiltrate our society. We did not allow them to damage the stability
and security of the Kurdistan Region. Christians, Sabae and Mandeans in
Baghdad suffered from terror and violent crimes. Individuals of the
Kurdistan Region in Kirkuk and Mosul were also terrorized and displaced. Terrorism,
suicide killings and the murdering of innocent civilians have never
been a part of the culture of the people of the Kurdistan Region,
Muslim people, or other believers in the Region. Those who tried their
best to bring such acts into our society – acts which are against the
messages of God, the holy Quran, and all divine religions – failed to
do so. This is because our youth have always been wary and understood
the bad intentions of those people. Terrorists at times
have managed to take advantage of some opportunities to commit bombings
and suicide attacks. But relying on the help of our faithful citizens,
the police, security establishment and the Peshmerga forces of the
Kurdistan Region, we have managed to quickly uncover the masterminds
based outside the Kurdistan Region. From now on, we must always be
aware and vigilant, because Iraq and the broader region remain fertile
ground for violence and there is always the possibility of recurrence. Divine
religions carry the message of peace, coexistence and tolerance. In the
history of our people, there have never been any issues or conflicts
between Muslims and other religions in the Kurdistan Region. On the
contrary, all the believers from all the religions in the Kurdistan
Region have lived together as brothers and respect each others’
beliefs. We are pleased that a large community of Christians live in
the Kurdistan Region and have been here since the beginning of
Christianity – long before the emergence of Islam. The
divine religion of Christianity is one of the major religions of the
world today and remains continuously in dialogue with Islam. Today
Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, and Armenian Christians are all citizens of
the Kurdistan Region, side by side with us. We in the
Kurdistan Regional Government support the wishes of our people and we
will not allow the valuable religious and social fabric of our people
to be weakened or disintegrate. The sermons of our
religious clerics should be far from violence and distortion, and they
should be objective and contemporary and shed light on religious and
social issues under the umbrella of Islam. And in this regard the KRG
Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs supports such an approach. When
I refer to a united stance, I do not mean one particular group or one
political ideology or one specific religion. I refer to a group of
political and religious approaches that have united for the sake of one
aim: developing the Kurdistan Region. We are proud that our Region has
diverse ethnicities and religions. We have been living
together for hundreds of years: Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs,
Turkmen, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Yezidis, and other components of
our society. We have never allowed religious and sectarian differences
to make us weak. In fact, the diversity among us became a source of
strength and power in the Kurdistan Region. When we
were in the mountains during the times of resistance, we were fighting
for our cause - despite the threats of death - and we were hoping for a
bright future. We never asked each other where our neighbour was from
and what religious background he was. What was important at that time
is that we were caring for each other. When someone was in pain and
needed help, we never asked him which mosque or church he attended,
what his ethnic or religious background was, or from which area he
came. Instead, he was offered food, clothing and shelter, and was
treated as a member of the society. He was respected. If
we want to succeed while facing our challenges, we need to work for the
future with the same spirit of tolerance and vision. We must not and
can not allow these issues to separate us or weaken us. It
is our main task in the Region to reconstruct our villages, rebuild our
service infrastructure, improve our educational and health systems, and
revive our agricultural sector. Our job is to reconstruct our society
and rehabilitate our economy. We may wish to help other people outside
the Region, but we do not yet possess the capacity for that; nor do we
find ourselves in the position of power to offer such assistance. History
is full of examples and stories about other countries and regions that
have achieved tremendous progress as a result of the peaceful
coexistence of different groups and religions. Today Malaysia and
Singapore are good examples. Lebanon – for much of its history – and
Nigeria today are also examples because of the tolerant spirit and
coexistence among different groups. The Philippines also has a very
diverse assortment of ethnic and religious groups. Among
other advanced countries, places like Canada, Belgium and Russia have a
history of embracing different ethnicities and religions. Citizens all
live peacefully together and have settled their differences. Even South
Africa, after a century of brutal oppression, now has managed to build
a bridge among the different racial groups and become an economic and
political leader of the African continent. Today, in
the Kurdistan Region we have shown the world an example of religious
and ethnic coexistence and culture, praised by other countries. It
is true that in the history of humanity there are many examples of
differences, and religious and racial oppression. But examples of
peaceful and tolerant coexistence are much more prevalent. If we look
at history we will see that no great society in the world can be
sustained if it is ruled by religious or racial oppressors. Religious
tolerance is the symbol of all civilised and successful societies. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights very clearly emphasises the fact
that all nations and countries must support religious freedom and
respect the rights of all people to select their religion and worship. Therefore
it is important that all of us in a position of responsibility –
whether religious leaders, political or social leaders, or leaders in
the fields of media, civil society or the private sector – all
emphasise the shared vision for a better and a brighter future. And for
all of us to stand firmly against efforts which aim at discrimination
and mistrust within our society. Therefore I turn to
you today as scholars, men of true faith and worshippers of God. In
order to develop and encourage tolerance, coexistence and ethnic and
religious harmony, let us remember that there is no conflict between
being a good Muslim and being a good neighbour. We can achieve prosperity in the future through respect for our past. We
can firmly sustain and preserve our historical and cultural heritage
while we embrace concepts of modern society and freedom. At the same
time we can respect our religious commitment and respect the religious
commitments of those who worship differently. Distinguished guests, The
important idea is that worshipping God unites us all. We believe in
freedom of religious ceremonies for all faiths. And therefore we must
accept each other as we are, because citizenship unites us all in the
homeland. And accepting each other, respecting each other, and
respecting national, human and religious values are key preconditions
for coexistence. We should not allow and we will not
allow any group, in the name of religion, to use violence against
another group. Holding this conference is a wise step and comes at the
right time. The Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs fulfills
its national and religious duty in order to put forth valuable research
and exchanges of views for the sake of modern, religious sermons; and
to further serve the citizens of the Kurdistan Region from the pulpits
of the mosques. Distinguished clerics, As
you know, there was recently a broad international dialogue among the
religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in New York. This was the
initiative of His Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia. These efforts are
appreciated. As there is a dialogue among the major religions, there
should be dialogue and understanding within the religions. Members of
the sects of Islam should accept each other as they are, and should
accept each other’s rituals and ceremonies. And within the religions
and the composition of the Kurdistan Region in general, brotherly
dialogue and understanding should spread even further. We
hope that this strong structure that has been in place for hundreds of
years will continue to exist and strengthen the relations between
different ethnicities and religions. And we hope that our religious
clerics will teach coming generations about each other and about
acceptance, tolerance and respect for one another. We
in the government of the Kurdistan Region will continue to support the
efforts of the Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs for further
service to the religious clerics. We also support the Ministry of
Endowment and Religious Affairs as it publishes and disseminates books
and pamphlets that combine national and religious sentiments. Based
on our capability, we will be cooperative in striving to employ the
graduates of the Islamic colleges and institutes, according to demand,
as preachers, clerics and teachers in religious schools. We will also
continue to support the Christian religious clerics and the other
religious groups. And we will provide a conducive atmosphere for
students. Finally, I would like to wish you success in
this conference. I hope your research will serve as both a foundation
and a further incentive to expand the religious and ethnic harmony in
the Kurdistan Region. Thank you. See also the press release on the conference to support contemporary religious sermons.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqkristoffer walkerweau13sarah rasmusseniraqlou hillmanmark lelandlaura smithtony waltersadam aarojohn pilgerdavid zeigersir! no sir!ftairaq veterans against the wara.n.s.w.e.r.world can't waitkats kornerthe world today just nuts
Posted at 06:41 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
the wall street journal
corey flintoff
