 |
Thursday, February 26, 2009
All the young (and not-so) duds are thrilled with Racheel Maddow and with the interview she did with Nancy Pelosi. They shouldn't be. Rachel not only does not watch television, she doesn't read. If you're going to have the Speaker of the House on your program Wednesday night it's incumbent upon you to do some research. I ignored Maddow (as always) but encountered Pelosi Wednesday night in the pages of Rolling Stone. Tim Dickinson does an interview with Pelosi. All those brave statements the Young Duds spent all day slobbering over? Well apparently Rachel Maddow's not the only one who can't be bothered with reading. In one of the most hilarious passages, about what might happen to Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Date Number 3 (Josh Bolton), Nancy says that it's up to the speaker to determine charges. That would be her. [Speaker Pelosi, "The natural course of events from here is that the speaker will determine what charge we're going to pursue, because there are more than one."] So the interview (presented in Q&A form) really requires her to either offer what SHE will or might do. Barring that, it requires Dickinson ask her. It just floats right by instead. Again, Maddow should have done her homework. She should have known that Rolling Stone had an exclusive (and lengthy) interview with Pelosi, that the interview was not out and that in it Pelosi speaks of Senator Patrick Leahy's efforts re: Truth Commission and of US House Rep John Conyers' efforts. More so on the latter because she's Speaker of the House. Rachel did her usual half-assed interview and you'd hope all the Young Duds would grasp that when they were busy calling Time out for tossing imploded sex bomb Ann Coulter on the cover, Rachel was covering for Time. They better grasp that her best friend wrote that article. They better grasp that she not only refused to call that garbage out, she refused to explain why. She cut off guests (on her radio program) who brought it up and she refused to talk about it. At one point, she even defended the article. And never said, "I know the writer, he's my friend." That disclosure was needed and never made. She's not an ethical person, those attempting to turn her into a hero should remember how she stayed at Air America Radio to begin with: Lying to the listeners. Lizz walked. They're replacing her show in two weeks . . . with Jerry Springer? Lizz walked. Chuck D wanted nothing to do with it. But Rachel was there every day. Spreading whatever lie management ordered her to. "Lizz is sick." "Lizz is really, really sick." "People, it is not helping Lizz' illness for you to spread rumors." The whole time Lizz was never coming back, the whole time the show was being cancelled. And Rachel never said a damn word. She lied to listeners, she abused their trust, she destroyed the basic relationship a dee jay is supposed to have with the audience. She's an idiot, she's always been an idiot. She doesn't do her own clippings from the newspapers which is why she never what day's paper she was reading from on air. Facts is hard for Big Brain. And it's too hard for her to pick up the March 5, 2009 issue of Rolling Stone whose cover proclaims, "NANCY PELOSI HITS BACK ---- THE RS INTERVIEW." It's four pages and that's a sign of how bad Rolling Stone has gotten. (And we though it was bad when the RS Interview was reduced to eight pages.) Had Rachel Maddow done the work required, she might have been able to ask about this remark by Nancy: Tim Dickinson: I'm talking more about the level of a Donald Rumsfeld -- people who authorized torture and greenlighted the kidnapping and rendition of innocent people. Nancy Pelosi: I didn't like their policies, which is why we needed to win the elections -- to get them out of power. But I don't know what the evidence against them on any specific charge. When you have a truth-and-reconciliation commission . . . look, I'm still fighting the bombing of Cambodia. I still have my gripes with the administration that bombed Cambodia before you were born, so I think it's important to bring these things out. If you have a case against someone, you bring a case. Tim Dickinson: With all due respect, we've had elections before that tossed people out, but then the same people returned to power later -- just as Dick Cheney did after leaving the Nixon administration. If we turn the page without full examination and prosecution, aren't we in danger of seeing this again. And the interview's really just garbage other than that section. Iraq's never raised. Not one damn question. Even while pursuing a courtship and pursing fleeting, nameless encounters at Golden Gate Park, Jann still found time to care about Vietnam back in the day. Today? He's so in love/lust with Barack, he can't be bothered with encouraging actual journalism. I honestly never planned to mention any of that. Ralph Gleason largely avoided mentioning it in public when he was alive. It is why Jann had to put distance between himself and Ralph, Ralph knew what was going on and Jann was so bound and determined to live up to his idea of what a 'successful' 'normal male' does. Jann couldn't take Ralph knowing the truth, it's the main reason why Jann trashed Ralph like crazy, why he worked overtime to destroy him. (Yet strangely, those tears at Ralph's funeral were sincere.) Didn't plan on ever mentioning that or any other stories. But you do a Rolling Stone Interview with the Speaker of the US House of Representatives while two wars are going on and your published interview has nothing to say on it? Well, too bad, so sad for you that you'd prefer the whole world believe that one day you suddenly woke up and were instantly gay after a long lifetime of straightness. I fully grasp why that lie is important to Jann and to various males he's been involved with. I also grasp that he realizes if he's known as Gay Jann those kiddie porn RS covers of Justin Timberlake, et al. might lead to even more of his desired demographics fleeing. (Female readers were never valued by Jann.) That's not my problem. You want to cover for Barack, Jann? Go for it. But grasp that you can't cover for him and cover for yourself. Jann's far from the only one who needs to grasp that. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4245. Tonight? 4251. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,311,696 as the number. The number they finally moved up to three weeks ago. Like Jann Wenner, JFP has 'other' things to do. Here's US Senator Russ Feingold on Barack's 'withdrawal:' After years of failed Iraq policies, I am pleased by reports that President Obama plans to significantly reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2010. Our presence in Iraq has cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, overburdened our military, fueled anti-Americanism and distracted us from the global threat posed by al Qaeda. I am concerned, however, by reports that tens of thousands of U.S. troops may remain in Iraq beyond August 2010. I question whether such a large force is needed to combat any al Qaeda affiliates in Iraq or whether it will contribute to stability in the region.
And I thought I was done. Eddie just e-mailed to note John Walsh. Walsh wrote a great article at Dissident Voice, " Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again" and today (see this afternoon's snapshot) the publicity hack for Pathetic Democrats of America showed up to spin and lie. Eddie e-mailed to note John Walsh has responded to the hack: John Walsh said on February 26th, 2009 at 12:51pm #"P"DA is complicit in war.In response to Laura Bonham’s claim that "P"DA is principled and consistent on the question of war, I have to ask, Is she kidding? Or whom does she think she is kidding?"P"DA supported John Kerry in 2004 when he ran on a prowar platform."P"DA supported Barack Obama in 2008 - even as he called for a 100,000 increase in men and women in the active duty army and marines and even as he called to step up the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan.So far as I know, "P"DA will not be joining the March 21 national mobilization in DC against what the mainstream media call Obama's war.Obama has been bombing Pakistan, an act of war, without any Congressional declaration of war, an impeachable offense. "P"DA has not called for impeachment.If Bush were doing any of this "P"DA would be yelling at the top of its lungs. But I hear only quiet when Obama does these things -- perhaps a few statements on the web site to cover their ass, but no action at all.As Eugene McCarthy, echoing Daniel Webster, said of the war on Vietnam, it went on because too many placed party over principle. That is exactly what "P"DA is doing.john walshTime permitting, we'll note that tomorrow as well. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletjohn walsh
Posted at 09:17 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, February 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Pentagon admits Iraq is still a war zone (admits under pressure, but admits nonetheless), England admits to taking part in renditions by turning over prisoners in Iraq to the US (the prisoners then whisked off to Afghanistan), Robert Gates announces that there is a change or will be or he's got a committee working on it or something, and a 'leader' disgraces themselves as they attempt to bicker and dicker with John Walsh at Dissident Voice.
The UK Secretary of Defence is in the news today due to revelations he disclosed to the House of Commons today.
Sec of Defense John Hutton: During the final stages of the review of records of detentions, we found information about one case relating to a security operation that was conducted in February 2004, a period which honorable members I'm sure will recall saw an increased level of insurgent activity as the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty drew closer. During this operation, two individuals were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad. They were transferred to US detention in accordance with normal practice and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan. This information was brought to my attention on the first of December, 2008. And I instructed officials to investigate this case thoroughly and quickly so I could bring a full account to Parliament. Following consultations with US authorities we confirmed that they transferred these two individuals from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2004 and they remain in custody there today. I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department. I want to stress however that this was based upon the information available to ministers and those who were briefing them at the time. My predecessors as secretaries of state for defense have confirmed to me that they had no knowledge of these events. I have written to the honorable members concerned, correcting the record, and am placing a copy of these letters also in the library of the house. And again, Madame Deputy Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for these errors. The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Laskar-e-Taiba, a proscribed organization with links to al Qaeda. The US government has explained to us that they were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq. The US has categorized them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis. We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross has had regular access to the detainees. A due diligence search by the US officials of the list of all those individuals captured by UK forces and transferred to US detention facilities in Iraq has confirmed that this was the only case in which individuals were subsequently transferred outside of Iraq. This review has established that officials were aware of this transfer in early 2004. It has also shown that brief references to this case were included in lengthy papers that went to then-Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary in April 2006. It is clear that the context provided did not highlight the significance at that point to my right honorable friends. In retrospect, it is clear to me that the transfer to Afghanistan of these two individuals should have been questioned at the time. We have discussed the issues surrounding this case with the US government and they have reassured us about their treatment but confirmed that, as they continue to represent significant security concerns, it is neither possible or desirable to transfer them to either their country of detention or their country of origin.
The "then-Foreign Secretary" was Jack Straw, the then-Home Secretaries were David Blunkett and Charles Clarke. Were? 2004 is the year at issue, despite Hutton's reference to 2006, and Blunkett was the secretary until resigning in November of 2004 after his affair with Kimberly Fortier (married to Stephen Quinn then and now) was non-stop news for months and months. Clarke takes over mid-way through December 2004. During the 2004 period, Geoff Hoon held the post Hutton does now (Sec of Defence). David Byers (Times of London) appears to go with the 2006 date when naming who was in what position -- possibly due to the papers crossing desks in 2006 -- and Byers notes the Tory reaction to Hutton's admission via Crispin Blunt, "This statement avoids the principal public issue, which is the charge about complicity by United Kingdom forces operating in Iraq outside the multinational division south east. This is a glaring hole and must be addressed." Blunt (rightly) wanted to know what the ministers were doing in 2004 when this took place, "It is at the very least unfortunate that both officials and ministers overlooked the significance of these cases, nor least since the issue of rendition was already highly controversial." James Kirkup (Telegraph of London) notes, "Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, called for a full Government inquiry into all British links to rendition operations" and also Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti declaring, "This was rendition. It was transfer of prisoners of a kind which had previously been denied." And it was most likely torture.
It was not, as Hutton infers, following Geneva. The January 9th snapshot notes Patrick Leahy's Senate Judiciary Committee releasing three documents (all PDF format) and we emphasized the March 18, 2004 document " Re: 'Protected Persons' in Occupied Iraq." This document was written prior to the transfer, in the year of the transfer. Then-Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith wrote the memo. Goldsmith memo clearly excludes the category the two Laskar-e-Taiba members would be in from the Geneva Conventions. The group's name can be translated to Army of the Righteous or Army of the Pure and they were founded in Afghanistan and are thought to be based and operating from Pakistan currently. On the last day of 2008, the New York Times ran an article by Richard A. Oppel Jr. about how US officials believe the ISI (Pakistan's version of the CIA) was providing protection and intelligence to Lashkar-e-Taiba. They are considered a terrorist organization by the UK, the European Union, Australia, the US, India and Russia, among others. In his statement today, Hutton avoided mentioning the nationality of the prisoners transferred. It is unlikely his omission was accidental. Depending on their nationality, they have less and less 'rights' under US interpretation. (For example, an Iraqi would have more rights than a Pakistani as the US elected to misinterpret Geneva in 2004.) Since he has repeated US government claims to the House of Commons and, in fact, vouched for them, Hutton should be asked to provide the nationality of the two prisoners transferred. No prisoner transferred to Afghanistan from Iraq was 'assured' of any of the rights Hutton claimed. And the reason for the transfer ("linguistics") was and is laughable. Hutton either played the fool or tried to play the House of Commons for the fool.
That's always the problem with the Hopey Changey administration, nothing's ever done, it's almost done. In this case Bobby Gates didn't return the country to the policy previously in place, he just decided a new policy has to be created. Ken Fireman (Bloomberg News) explains Gates is saying "if their families agree" then photos of the coffins can be taken. That's insane for a number of reasons. First, coffins plural is often the case. So Mr. X says no and every other family says yes, what happens? Or, as CNN points out, "Advocates of opening the base to coverage point out that the unmarked coffins make it impossible to identify specific remains." Can't ask Gates because despite the claims of many outlets ( Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, etc.) there is no policy in place. As Ann Scott Tyson notes, Gates stated he needs "a group of advisers to come up with a plan on how to implement the new policy". His exact words, not in the Washington Post piece, were, "I have tasked the working group to examine ways in whichw e might futher assist the families of those who made the surpreme sacrifice for our country" and he promised that they would meet the task quickly ("short deadlines").
Myron Pitts (Fayetteville Observer), when not bickering with readers, finds the time to praise Barack for the non-decision (Barack, that is kicking the can) and also to look heavenward and gasp about "a brighter light" that is now to "be shined on the financial costs of war, too. On Tuesday, the president said in his speech that the budgets for Afghanistan and Iraq will no longer be discussed and consider separately from the larger budget. This is also a good move. By keeping off the budget its most expensive items, we as a people do not have a true estimate of the financial hole we are in." "We as a people"? As opposed to "we as a" what? Bad writing isn't Myron's only problem. At the Pentagon today, spokesperson Geoff Morrell (like Gates, he is a Bush era holdover) was asked about this 'brighter light' and whether or not Americans might see it in fiscal year 2010? Morrell replied, "I am going to try to be as respectful of the process as I can be. I believe OMB [Office of Man and Budget] is going to have an announcement tomorrow about top-line figures for agencies throughout the government. I believe they will also announce a supplemental figure for this department for FY '10. So I do believe there will be a war supplemental for FY '10." In other words, Myron, you won't be seeing the "brighter light" anytime soon. Morrell continued, "Beyond that, the desire is, yes, to try to get away from supplementals and take those costs -- those recurring, predicatable war costs, seven, eight years into these conflicts -- and move them increasingly into the base budget." Morrell was couching in that statement -- "desire" being the key word. He continued to do so noting that a budget from the Pentagon for the wars is "our best guess" and "our best estimate" and "an educated guess, but a guess nonethelees and a placeholder" . . . In other words, Morrell doesn't believe the supplemental requests are going away. And, Myron, burying the costs of two wars into the Pentagon's general budget doesn't allow for any more sunlight -- especially when those working on the budget will now have to sign non-disclosure forms and risk, as CNN's Barbara Starr pointed out today, criminal penalties.
But as Morrell put it when asked about how this "level of secrecy and control" being promoted by the new administration fits with a claim of transparency, "I don't think the administration has been advocating a -- transparency in national security matters." Morrell was quite the dancer today as he agreed that these were not top secret issues but the fact that are not "marked 'secret' . . . [is] all the more reason for a nondisclosure agreement so that those matters could not be discussed as well."
After that song and dance, it was time for Morrell to provide another one.
CNN's Barbara Starr: My question on Iraq and residual forces, regardless of what withdrawal schedule is announced, everyone seems to agree -- and I think you guys have said it -- that there will be some residual force in Iraq for some period of time. Can you help people understand what those forces who will stay behind, what they will do, what their job will be and ho much they still may -- on a given day -- be in combat?
Geoff Morrell: Again, I -- I guess there will be an announcement this week from the White House about a way ahead in Iraq, and it could very well deal with residual forces as well. I can just speak to what the president and what the secretary have said about this in the past and they've both been forthright about their belief that a residual force of some size -- and the secretary has spoken in - in terms of tens of thousands of forces -- will be required after combat brigades have been drawn down, or draw down and out of Iraq. And the three basic areas where those forces would concentrate -- and, again, this is something the president and the secretary have spoken to -- are, number one, continuing to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continuting to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continue to help them train and equip, and support them in their operations. Number two, this force of whatever size it turns out to be would also conduct intelligence-driven, warrant-based combat operations against -- against terrorists, and tehy would do so assisting Iraqi security forces, who would be in the lead. And lastly, they would be required to protect American personnel and other U.S. assets in Iraq. So those are the three fundamental areas. But, you know, I've heard all this talk about it's diseingenous to say that combat forces are being drawn down; all forces are combat forces, and those that remain will be combat forces.
Morrell then got lost in that and attempting to sell "enablers" or "support troops" as the terms for the media to use as he insisted that carrying "a sidearm" in a theater of war does not mean you are part of "a combat mission." Starr didn't let him dance so easily.
CNN's Barbara Starr: But then let me ask you, if you're saying these US troops in these type of functions, which you've just said will be equipped with sidearms -- not equipped for combat. Nonetheless, sadly, it's probably likely that some of them will lose their lives at some point in the coming years in Iraq. For purposes of that, will these troops have -- if they are killed by enemy forces, will they be killed in combat? Will these people -- will this be a war zone for them?
Geoff Morrell: I think Iraq will -- is still considered a war zone. Yes.
CNN's Barbara Starr: So these people, if they perish in this, they will be killed in combat?
Geoff Morrell: But, Barbara, we have people who are right now performing support missions -- support functions -- who, sadly, have been killed in theater and they are considered killed in combat. Yes. [. . .] Or killed in action, I should say.
Yes, Iraq will still be a war zone. The Pentagon grasps that, even if some news outlets do not. Peter Baker and Thom Shanker (New York Times) cover the non-withrawal 'withdrawal' this morning and note an announcement is expected Friday. Thomas E. Ricks (author of the just released book The Gamble) says, "Watch this phrase: 'Residual force.' I think it will be President Obama's term for what he hopes to have in Iraq by the end of next year." As Ricks has long noted elections are supposed to take place in December (though, it being Iraq, who knows when they may take place) and Baker and Shanker note that the plan Barack will present allegedly requires no significant departures prior to the elections. Baker and Shanker note that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker fo the House, isn't apparently going to skip happily along with something just because Barack wants it. The reporters quote her stating, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000. I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000." By refusing to end the illegal war immediately, Caren Bohan and Jeff Mason (Reuters) report Barack plans to spend $140 billion this year alone on continuing the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Patrick Worsnip and Eric Walsh (Reuters) report something even more distrubing, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, and noted War Hawk and Liar, Susan Rice declared at the UN today, "Our bilateral security agreement with Iraq will frame the path ahead." Really? That's what Barack wants to send out? "We're going to use George W. Bush as our role model?" Really? What a proud moment for all the members of St. Barack's Cult.
In the real world today . . .
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that cliamed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left ten people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded three police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured three people and another Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured.
Meanwhile Campbell Robertson and James Glanz (New York Times) report on Iraq's budgetary and monetary problems -- and, the reporters say, the need for a dependancy upon something other than oil -- such as agriculture. But if things are so bad economically, how can Iraq be having a new housing boom? Oh, that's right, they aren't. It was just another lie from crazy Patrick Cockburn.
An MP remains on the run. Marc Santora (New York Times) covers the missing Iraqi MP as do Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times). "He" is Mohammad al-Daini who has been publicly accused by al-Maliki's government of various crimes in what can only be an attempt to try him outside a court of law. For the record, law enforcement does not play confessions when announcing suspects. Evidence is introduced in a court of law. Proving how for-show the whole thing is, Santora notes al-Daini was under 'surveillance' and his departure to Jordan could hardly have been unknown. But it wasn't until he was in Jordanian air space that the order came to "turn this crazy bird around, shouldn't have gotten on this flight tonight" ("This Flight Tonight," Joni Mitchell, first appears on Blue). His flight then returned to Iraq and he is now 'missing.' Susman and Salman pick up there noting that there was no arrest of him nor was he taken into custody or detained when deboarding in Iraq. His own security detail greeted him and escorted him from the airport. Now a 'manhunt' is ongoing. (See Rebecca from last night on that and use the link she provides.)
Though he can't be found, someone appeared in court today. Last night Mike noted Quentin Wilber (Washington Post) reporting on Dutch citizen Wesam al-Delaema whow as to stand trial today in the United States on charges of "conspiring to murder U.S. citizens and possessing a destructive device during a crime of violence." That would be in Iraq, where al-Delaema was born. James Vicini and David Storey (Reuters) report that he entered a plea of guilty and will be sentenced April 15th but will serve his time in the Netherlands under a deal made between the two countries.
In rumor news, UPI reports that one time CIA asset Iyad Allawi, now head of the Iraqi National List, denies a conspiracy to oust Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister (a post Allawi once held) and notes that any no-confidence vote Parliament might take is not a conpiracy but "a democratic practice that is approved by the constitution."
Turning to the US and those 'leaders' of the peace movement -- those self-appointed 'leaders.' Insert the line Judith Beasley ( Lily Tomlin) offers in The Incredible Shrinking Woman (written by Jane Wagner who has a birthday today) about seeing "a grown woman cheapen herself by lying to her neighbors." Why? Because Laura Bonham's done just that. Bonahm, the communications coordinator of 'Progressive' Democrats for America takes to the comments of John Walsh's Dissident Voice article to lie and lie again. She's either lying or brain dead. We'll just focus on one: "PDA did not endorse Obama; he did not meet the criteria." Presumably, Laura can remember Steve Cobble, who co-founded PDA and who wrote "Barack the Vote In the Remaining States" which PDA published March 24, 2008. "To me," Steve wrote, "that says it's time to help Senator Obama win the nomination. It's time for those of us who support Obama in PDA to help 'Barack the Vote' in the remaining handful of states." (Typical of Steve -- and of Pathetic Democrats of America -- only in pushing a man could they "make history during this incredible race.") On the same day, the only pro-Hillary article by PDA was published ( US House Rep Jim McGovern's column). They didn't endorse, mind you, they just spat on Hillary every day by republishing the idiotic ravings of John Nichols -- ravings we may revisit at Third on Sunday because they do not and did not pass a basic fact check. Norman Solomon -- Pathetic Democrats of America member and Barack delegate -- and many others were able to serve up crap over and over but there was no endorsement? Or are we pretending Tom Hayden's disgusting endorsement doesn't count? Pathetic Democrats of America endorsed Barack Obama and they did so in word and in action -- they did so by reposting "Clinton's Cringe-Worthy Moment" and all the other garbage they hurled at her. Laura, you're a liar. That's the one thing a 'communications coordinator' cannot be known as. Instead of showing up to whine "Don't blame us for the War Hawk Barack," you should have taken some damn accountability. Your pathetic organization should have taken accountability for its non-stop LYING.
That includes reposting John Nichols bad garbage that is riddled with errors. It includes posting Dave Lindorff's lie October 16th where he claims he was going to vote for Ralph Nader but had just decided to vote for Barack ("Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama on November 4"). Dave Lindorff decided by at least February 2008 to vote for Barack. David is " The Sad Rot of the Left" for those idiots who haven't caught on yet. That's his e-mail bragging about Barack as "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs". That's Dave's garbage and PDA and Dave can lie all they damn well want but I've read Dave's entire e-mail and not just the section Third chose to publish. Dave LIED October 16th and PDA let him LIE. Progressive Democrats of America is nothing but liars and until they get accountable, nothing's going to change.
I was being kind -- mainly because I like Norman -- and ignoring his column at CounterPunch yesterday but, Laura, when you LIE, it has consequences. So let's go to Norman Solomon's column where he writes:
I don't often make predictions, but I'm confident about this one: Within a few years, some members of Congress, and leaders of some progressive groups with huge email lists, will look back with regret as they recall their failure to clearly and openly oppose the pivotal escalation of the Afghan war.
Norman might have helped the country had he not made 'predictions' about Barack throughout the primaries including before he saw fit to inform his readers he was already a delegate for Barack. While I agree to a large degree with what Norman says in the paragraph above the thing is, I said that. I said it throughout 2007 and 2008. Norman didn't say a damn word. He was far from alone. Barack's desire to 'surge' in Afghanistan is not something that just emerged in 2009 or immediately after the election. Barack was always upfront about it and the left ignored it. Phyllis Bennis (whom I like) looked like a real fool frequently in 2008 giving lukewarm support to Barack when she should have been calling him out instead of pretending she was Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice choosing which of her children would live: Iraq or Afghanistan?
Laura's a fraud and fake. John Walsh has written about Barack's craven and gutless positions on Iraq and Afghanistan and documented the sell-outs who allow the positions to go unchallenged -- which includes PDA -- and Laura's off yammering about Israel. Yammering about every damn thing under the sun except, you guessed it, the IRAQ WAR.
Laura wants people to visit PDA's home page. I'm counting 21 articles on the home page and not one about Iraq. Pakistan? You got it. Iraq? No. You can find the closet case whose gay ass needs to be outed dithering in his usual manner, for example, but you can't find Iraq. And, point of fact, when a man's over sixty-years-old and identifies as a 'progressive,' he needs to take his ass out of the closet and if the words "I am gay" are too much for him to manage, maybe he needs to be outed? (The man is not named in this entry. His visits to gay bookstores across the country are legendary because the only thing his hands don't touch are the books -- unless he's autographing one.) But that's typical of PDA, where every gathering turns into a truth game.
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.
|
Posted at 03:34 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Marc Santora covers the missing Iraqi MP in " Lawmaker Leaving Iraq Is Detained, Then Freed" ( New York Times) and Tina Susman and Raheem Salman cover him in " Manhunt targets Iraq lawmaker whose plane was turned back" ( Los Angeles Times).
"He" is Mohammad al-Daini who has been publicly accused by al-Maliki's
government of various crimes in what can only be an attempt to try him
outside a court of law. For the record, law enforcement does not play
confessions when announcing suspects. Evidence is introduced in a court
of law. Proving how for-show the whole thing is, Santora notes al-Daini
was under 'surveillance' and his departure to Jordan could hardly have
been unknown. But it wasn't until he was in Jordanian air space that
the order came to "turn this crazy bird around, shouldn't have gotten
on this flight tonight" ("This Flight Tonight," Joni Mitchell, first appears on Blue).
His flight then returned to Iraq and he is now 'missing.' Susman and
Salman pick up there noting that there was no arrest of him nor was he
taken into custody or detained when deboarding in Iraq. His own
security detail greeted him and escorted him from the airport. Now a
'manhunt' is ongoing. (See Rebecca from last night on that and use the link she provides.) Santora notes: Not
only could the case worsen sectarian tensions, it could stall
cooperation between Shiite and Sunni politicians and lead to charges
and countercharges against other sitting lawmakers. Already, Mr.
Daini's defenders were calling for investigations into leading Shiite
members of the government who they claimed were involved in sectarian
violence.Susman and Salman add: Daini
had been associated with Iraq's major Sunni political parties but
lately had become an independent in the 275-member body. Ahmed Alwani,
a fellow Sunni lawmaker, criticized the way Daini's immunity was lifted
and complained that it was not on the agenda and was rushed through.
Alwani called it a constitutional violation to order the jet turned
around before Daini's immunity was formally lifted."I
am not defending Daini, but we want the constitution to be applied,"
said Alwani, adding that there were politicians of various stripes with
shady pasts. "We want the law to be applied to all."Santora
notes the dispute over whether or not lifting of immunity can be done
with a simple majority or whether it requires a two-thirds majority, as
some members of Parliament maintain (al-Daini's was lifted with a
simple majority). To the tune of Paul McCartney and Wings' "Band on the Run" . . . Well, the plain flipped around with a sudden turn as we headed into the sun,And as we landed the security detail said "I hope you're having fun."MP on the run, MP on the runAnd the Jailer Man and Sailor Sam were searching every oneFor the MP on the run, MP on the run, MP on the run, MP on the runMaking the front page of the New York Times is Campbell Robertson and James Glanz' " Falling Revenues Threaten Rebuilding and Stability in Iraq"
-- which is actually the weakest of the three articles (yes, the paper
has three news articles on Iraq today). Why is it weak? This is Glanz'
beat and no reporter -- at any other outlet -- has covered it better or
longer than he has. But this article just doesn't make it. Tempting to
blame Campbell but most likely the scope is too big. The basics, Iraq
has to come up with a 2009 budget. Oil prices falling means a
'shortfall.' Alarmist noises are being made about how the people will
have to do without. Do without? What do they have? What are they doing without? Yes,
the reporters mention the lack of potable water -- but you really need
to do more than mention that lack. You might try noting that this fall,
again, we will see a cholera outbreak in Iraq. You might try noting
that there is a measles outbreak currently in Iraq. The people of Iraq
have not been served by the puppet government and the article fails by
reducing Congressional hearings (plural) to a brief summary and
ignoring all of the many reports from the Special Inspector General For Iraq Reconstruction's office. Instead
of getting anything fact-based, we've got an article that wanders from
here to there and back again and never really says much of anything. There
is a long history of reports on why the reconstruction failed and never
took place. Crazies like Patrick Cockburn ignore that public record,
but the New York Times -- with their long history of bowing to official-dom -- is the last one you expect to blow it off. Laughable
statements such as "Wages now take up about 35 percent of the budget"
only further go to the problems. Do the reporters expect us to believe
billions are being spent on wages? Billions are not being spent on
wages. However, every weapon purchase from US industries has to be
announced and approved and wages would have to be in the billions to
meet what's spent yearly by the puppet government on weapons. The
only strong point is noting that life in the provinces doesn't
necessarily have to be worse due to the fact that provincial leaders
have tended to sit on yearly budgets over and over. (In that, they
mirror al-Maliki.) Reminder Samid Ali does a round up of regional news at Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life blog each day. Iraq's Foreign Ministry announces:  25 February, 2009
Foreign Minister Receives Japanese Ambassador
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari met in his office on 25/2/2009 Mr. Shoji Ogawa, Japanese ambassador in Baghdad.
During
the meeting they spoke about the latest developments on the political
position of Iraq and discussed ways of cooperation in all areas and how
to encourage Japanese investment in Iraq. The Minister welcomed the
presence of Japanese companies to participate in Iraq's reconstruction
and develop relations between the two countries at all levels including
political and social levels.
Mr. Ogawa stated that official
delegations and Japanese companies will visit Iraq soon to develop
cooperation between the two countries, the two sides also discussed the
opening of the Japanese office of the international aid (JICA) in Erbil
to facilitate the process of support, and discussed the participation
of Japanese companies in the oil and energy sectors and the Japanese
economic delegation visit to Iraq soon. An invitation by the Ambassador
was made to Foreign Minister Zebari to visit Japan; the Minister
accepted and specified a suitable date during the coming period. In other news, Barbara Lee makes an idiot out of herself here
-- and we thought 2008 was the lowest she could go. It's never a good
idea to give away everything before you go into a meeting with someone
from an opposing branch of government. She disgraces herself and calls
into question every principle she ever espoused. The member of the
House who voted against the Afghanistan War once wrote: We
must respond, but the character of that response will determine for us
and for our children the world that they will inherit. I do not dispute
the president's intent to rid the world of terrorism -- but we have
many means to reach that goal, and measures that spawn further acts of
terror or that do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our
security. Now, because she drank Barack's Kool-Aid long
ago, she cries (as George W. once did), "Bring it on!" She should be
ashamed of herself and considering how she allowed her "Barack duties"
to interfere with her Out Of Iraq duties, she might need to step her
ass down from that caucus. I've bit my tongue hoping she'd pull her act
together. I'm done biting my tongue. As Kat pointed out long ago, Barbara Lee makes a great show out of appearing to do something; however, Lee never does a damn thing. She's
assisted in that planned weakness by a lot of faux progressives who
give her credit for doing nothing. Ask anyone who attends the hearings,
she breezes in for her media attention and then rushes right out. It
doesn't even matter to her if her 'questions' (speeches) are answered
(replied to). And the backdoor deals she made with leadership in late
2007 are going to bite her in the ass. Related, Andrew Malcolm (Los Angeles Times' Top of the Ticket) seems surprised by this:
However,
Obama still lags the audience-drawing power of one President Bill
Clinton. Sixteen years ago this week, when there were millions fewer
Americans, Big Bill drew nearly 15 million more viewers -- 66.9 million
for his first congressional speech in 44.2 million homes for a 44.3
rating.Because Bill actually excited people and wasn't a
media creation. Bill also attempted to do things for the people in the
brief time he had a Democratically controlled Congress. A fact
forgotten by the losers who pile on. Barack may not have a
Democratically controlled Congress after 2010 (he may). If he doesn't,
his record will not compare favorably to Clinton's -- not in what he
pushed through and certainly not in what attempted. Bill could also
speak in a non-robatic, strip-the-gears manner. Kristoffer Walker is the 28-year-old Iraq War veteran who announced he would not return to Iraq. Green Bay Post-Gazette reports,
"Army Spc. Kristoffer Walker is trying to hire an attorney with
experience dealing with the military in the wake of his decision not to
return to his unit in Iraq." The Spectator (right-wing student newspaper) has an editorial
arguing he should go back. We disagree with that editorial but, to its
credit, it has a factual basis. It's a real shame that a student
newspaper is more concerned with the facts than the editorial boards of
the Green Bay Post-Gazette or the Journal-Times. Again, we disagree
with the editorial and the conclusions it draws but it doesn't pass
spin off as 'fact.' We'll close with an excerpt from Glen Ford's " A Challenge to ‘Radical' and ‘Pan-Africanist' Obamites" ( Black Agenda Report): An "Open Letter to the People of Zimbabwe,"
widely circulated on the Internet in February, demands "the U.S.,
British and other imperialist governments" end economic sanctions
against that nation and otherwise keep their "hands off Zimbabwe!"
Although honest progressives may differ on the political character of
Robert Mugabe's regime - now joined in a power-sharing relationship
with the opposition, whose leader's allegiances are likewise subject to
dispute - there can be no equivocation about the Zimbabwean people's
"right to self-determination and sovereignty without any imperialist
interference."Washington's
blatant and longstanding campaign for regime-change must be denounced
and resisted in all its manifestations - no ifs, ands or buts. The
economic sanctions are, as the letter describes them, "collective
punishment of the Zimbabwean people." The signers correctly and
"unequivocally denounce these sanctions as war crimes and the officials
who initiated them as war criminals."Well
said - but there's a great disconnect between the words and some of the
names listed as endorsing the letter. A number of the signers are
full-throated, religious-like followers of Barack Obama, one of the
"war criminals" that has supported and, as president, extended U.S.
sanctions against Zimbabwe.These unabashed Obamites, several of whom I debated at a large forum in Harlem, in December,
make a great noise about "imperialists" in general while pledging
undying "solidarity" in the struggle against such "criminals," yet in
their daily practice labor mightily to absolve President Obama of
culpability for his crimes. It requires rivers of obfuscation and
oceans of purposeful omission to separate the Commander-in-Chief and
President of the United States from the crimes planned and carried out
in his office. The perpetrators of this bizarre fantasy - that the
"imperialists" are out to get Mugabe, but Obama isn't one of them -
deepen confusion among the public, especially African Americans, and
make a mockery of true solidarity. In the light of ever-unfolding
events, they make themselves and progressive politics appear
ridiculous, as they tip-toe around the mountainous facts of Barack
Obama's actual presidency - not the wishful one they have invented.Lastly, Melena Ryzik (New York Times) reports
on a memorial service for Odetta Tuesday night at the Riverside Church
with Harry Belafonte, Maya Angelou, Steve Earle, Rattlesnake Annie and
others in attendance: Mr.
Belafonte gave perhaps the most stirring speech. "The paper would not
yield," he said of his effort to write down his remarks. "The ink
blurred, because the space left by Odetta could not be easily
verbalized."The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timesmarc santorajames glanzcampbell robertsonraheem salmanandrew malcolmkristoffer walkerthe wall st. journalsamid aliglen fordjoni mitchellodettamelena ryzikpaul mccartney
Posted at 07:09 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The non-withdrawal 'withdrawal'
President
Obama's planned Iraq troop drawdown would leave the bulk of American
forces in place until early next year while some combat units would
remain in place in new roles even beyond a declared August 2010 target
for withdrawal, administration officials said Wednesday.That's the opening to Peter Baker and Thom Shanker's " Obama's Iraq Plan Has December Elections as Turning Point for Pullout" in this morning's New York Times.
The reporters quote various administration sources on what's expected
to be announced Friday. EXPECTED. In caps because a friend in the
administration says (paraphrase), "You know we do trial balloons."
Yeah, whatever. But it could shift in some ways between now and Friday
when the announcement is expected to be noted. The two reporters
note sources who tell them that August 2010 will pass and "as many as
50,000" US troops will remain in Iraq. Repeating, three friends in the
administration give the number as 60,000. E-mails came in asking about
that and why I say it's 70,000 then? If they're admitting to me 60,000,
it's more than 60,000. Or they think it's more. The reporters
insist Barack was very clear about all of this during the campaign
(primary and general). No, he was not. And we'll go to what Thomas E. Ricks (author of The Gamble) said on CBS' Washington Unplugged ( click here for just the Ricks' segment) two Fridays ago about how Barack's pretty words translated 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."Thomas Ricks, of course, is the
one who has consistently raised the point about elections in December.
That point appears in the Times' article as well. In a brief, but must-read post, Ricks noted last night:
"Watch this phrase: 'Residual force.' I think it will be President
Obama's term for what he hopes to have in Iraq by the end of next
year." There's more to the post, including historical perspective. A little perspective would have helped the New York Times, especially in this section: Word
of Mr. Obama's impending decision generated little of the anger that
has flavored the Iraq debate for years. Justin Ruben, executive
director of MoveOn.org, a group that has strongly opposed the war, said
activists were willing to give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt."People
have confidence that the president is committed to ending the war," Mr.
Ruben said. "This is basically what he promised in the election."WalkOn.org
has no real members. Their "millions" are less than 125,000. They are
the only organization that gets away with calling people "members" that
they haven't heard from since 2004. (And most of their "members" are
members two or three times over -- or more -- since they join with
multiple e-mail accounts.) They are not the voice of the peace movement
or the anti-war movement. They never have been, they never will be. John Stauber and many others could make that very clear. At a time when Danny Schechter
was interested in covering the Iraq War (no, he's not interested now --
that's not stating anything that's not been obvious for some time),
Schechter could have explained that as well. WalkOn.org blew off his
documentary on Iraq. They were never interested in Iraq. Their goal is
to elect Democrats -- and, apparently, then become apologists for those
that they elected. They dropped Iraq after the 2004 elections --
earning the Walk On, WalkOn.org moniker. They did the same after the
2006 elections -- when Congress, turned over to Democrats so that they
would end the illegal war, failed to honor the mandate. They are not a
group of activsts and they never have been. "Move on" comes from their
origins. They are appeasers. They started during the attacks on Bill
Clinton and didn't argue for Democrats to fight back, they argued for
Democrats to "move on" -- hence the name. They have nothing to do with
Iraq other than using it to fund raise and scare up votes. Baker
and Shanker note that -- unlike Barbara Lee (see next entry) -- Nancy
Pelosi, Speaker fo the House, isn't apparently going to skip happily
along with something just because Barack wants it. The reporters quote
her stating, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000. I
would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third,
15,000 or 20,000." By refusing to end the illegal war immediately, Caren Bohan and Jeff Mason (Reuters) report Barack plans to spend $140 billion this year alone on continuing the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Billie wants " UPDATE: DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ" from the Dallas Morning News
noted. It's a compilation of wire reports. As long as she or another
community member e-mails it (and I see it), we'll note it. At a time
when Iraq gets less and less coverage, we will make an attempt to note
anyone who makes an honest effort. But I'm tossing this on DFW
community members (or members who check the Dallas Morning News website
from where ever). You have to e-mail it. I'm not going to remember to
hunt it down. Iraq's Foreign Ministry notes: The
seventh round of the trade and cooperation agreement between Iraq and
the European Union concluded on the Thursday, 26/2/2009 chaired by the
Foreign Ministry and attended by representatives of other ministries.
During
the discussion the terms of the agreement which included the topics of
migration and trade, culture and archeology, tourism, finance,
investment, energy, development and planning, industry, agriculture and
justice.
The parties agreed that the final form of the agreement
would be prepared and submitted to the executive and legislative
authorities before signing it this year by Iraq and the European Union.
Last night, the following community sites updated: -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Janis Joplin 10 hours ago -
Dennis Loo II 10 hours ago -
-
Paps of Peace 10 hours ago -
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timespeter bakerthom shankerjohn staubercaren bohanjeff masonthe dallas morning newscbs newswashington unpluggedthomas e. ricksthe world today just nutslike 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 07:07 am by thecommonills
Permalink
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
tina susman
the wall street journal
