The activities of al-Qaeda in two of Iraq’s most troubled cities could keep US combat troops engaged beyond the June 30 deadline for their withdrawal, the top US commander in the country has warned.
US troop numbers in Mosul and Baqubah, in the north of the country, could rise rather than fall over the next year if necessary, General Ray Odierno told The Times in his first interview with a British newspaper since taking over from General David Petraeus in September.
He said that a joint assessment would be conducted with the Iraqi authorities in the coming weeks before a decision is made.

The above is from Deborah Haynes' "General Ray Odierno: we may have to ignore Iraq deadline to halt al-Qaeda terror" (Times of London) and before we go into the revelations, let's note a few things re: the source. Haynes has an important exclusive and good for her. Equally true is that she has produced more content for her outlet than whole divisions have for other outlets. Haynes usually files at least one report or blog post a week that has to do with a news topic and at least one that is a human interest story. In the last months, she's been filing repeatedly. She isn't the only Times correspondent filing on Iraq; but she's filing an incredible amount and finding stories that others are usually not covering. Her work won her a deserved award (and we noted her award back when she received it even though we're not interested in that aspect of the refugee topic) and when England draws down to approximately 400 troops at the end of July (if it sticks with that announcement), she'll most likely be move on to another region and will be missed but probably most people won't grasp what she offered and what she provided until she's gone.

Deborah Haynes is not with faults and we called her out loudly once here. The same blog post written the same way would result in the same calling out again. But if you look at her overall work, the key theme is curiousity. She finds out something and pursues it. For example, she was obviously not the only reporter to notice, back during provincial elections, that the ink smelled (the ink on your finger to show you had voted) but she didn't just file that away in her memory, she pursued it and found out other things about the ink and wrote it up. She's written up the special 'cabins' reporters can sleep in at the US base (now that the US has taken over Basra from the British). She's constantly found things of interest, dug around and found enough information worth filing something on.

She's leaving so I've been wanting to find a way to work in a nod to her work because, whether we've agreed with it or not, it's always demonstrated a curiosity and desire to know that should be the hallmark of reporting but often isn't. And before someone says, "Oh, well there's a story on cars and she didn't write about that." That's not something she would have discovered. That 'story' which won't go away (AP was pimping it today) was put out by M-NF. It's one of the many spoon feeds they do as they. Haynes wasn't picking up on M-NF and she wasn't picking up on what the British command wanted her to write about. Look at the topics she's covered for human interest stories including Iraqis woeful lack of knowledge when it comes to pregnancy. Those were topics she encountered. A passing remark, something she saw, and she pursued it and found the story.

The Times of London was very lucky to have her in Iraq and people who follow news from Iraq were very lucky to have her in Iraq. Her interest and curiosity will be hugely missed and she has a nice body of work that she and her paper can be very proud of.

Now for what she's reporting. That's really big and Ray Odierno went on the record which is how it's different than the whispers that this might happen or, earlier, Nouri al-Maliki stating that maybe US forces would just leave some cities.

It also underscores that the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement was never etched in stone, despite claims otherwise.

As noted in the snapshot, Baghdad saw a huge rally today calling for the withdrawal of US forces. Toss that back to the Status Of Forces Agreement. al-Maliki had to promise Parliament that the thing could be put to a vote (al-Maliki and the US State Dept had to promise Iraq's Parliament that). That vote was supposed to take place in July.

Where are the preparations for that? The Kurdistan Regional Government will be holding provincial elections shortly (May 19th) and they are making their preparations. Where are the preparations for the Iraqi people to vote on the Status Of Forces Agreement?

For those who don't remember the January 31st provincial elections in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces required extensive work and planning. If you've forgotten the legislation finally passed Parliament in September of 2008. They moved to hold elections as quickly as possible and all the work required meant as quickly as possible was January 31st.

Where are the preparations? And did the rally in Baghdad today worry or trouble Nouri? All those people making it clear how they wanted the US out?

For those thinking, "Well the ballot will be simplified . . ." The ballot wasn't the issue. Who was on it and campaigning were issues for candidates. The govermnent and the election commission required all those months to set up for the elections.

In other news, Ruth Gledhill (Times of London) reports, "Tony Blair has said that he cannot 'pass a single day' without reflecting on the aftermath of the war in Iraq." We may go into that more tomorrow but let's note right now how interesting it is that Blair surfaces with a 'lament' about Iraq after Gordon Brown's government promises the British people an inquiry into the Iraq War. Now Tony Blair wants the world to believe he's haunted by the illegal war.

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

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4263. Tonight? 4266.

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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
deborah haynes

On the streets of Medina Wasl, merchants chant in Arabic, and a call to prayer blares over a loudspeaker. You can't understand the store signs, which are written in a foreign language. And you don't know who's your friend and who wants to kill you. The Iraq war has come to the United States.
"The only thing they haven't got down is the smell," said Capt. Jeff Vones of Clayton. "There is something very distinct about the smell in Iraq."
On 1,200 square miles in the Mojave Desert, members of the Army National Guard have just finished their final training before deploying to the real Iraq.

The above is from Ethan Hyman's "N.C. Guard troops prepare for Iraq" (News & Observer) and, yes, US troops continue to be sent to Iraq. No, the Iraq War is not over just because the media lost interest. The media lost interest in the illegal war they had to have. They worked overtime to sell it to the American people ("Case closed!" after Collie Powell lies to the United Nations) and they got it and then they didn't want it. Spoiled children ripping the wrapping off one Christmas present after another and then upset when there are no more to open. North Carolina's Army National Guard's 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team sends approximately 4,000 Guard members to Iraq next week. As Patrick Martin's "Pentagon budget envisions a series of Iraq-style wars" (WSWS) observes:

At a formal press announcement Monday and in media appearances over the next day, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates unveiled the biggest military budget in world history, in anticipation of an endless series of Iraq and Afghanistan-style wars by American imperialism.
Both the military budget itself and the official who drafted it--Gates held the same position in the last two years of the Bush administration and is the first Pentagon chief to be retained by a new president--underscore the fundamental continuity between Obama and Bush.
For all its pretensions of "change" and all the popular illusions attached to Obama's supposed "anti-war" stance, the new administration is as committed to the ruthless pursuit of the interests of American imperialism as its discredited predecessor.


BBC News reports "tens of thousands" have taken to the streets in Baghdad to protest, carrying flags and chanting "No, no America. Yes, yes Iraq" to mark the sixth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The protestors are said to be followers of Muqtada al-Sadr and "the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says the cleric is still showing that he has some political clout. His political followers did quite well in January's provincial elections and he is again showing that he has the ability to call tens of thousands of people out into the streets, our correspondent says."



No news article on Iraq makes the pages of the New York Times today. The New York Times is under a lot more pressure than many seem to know as it tries to dance for it's new master and even the family which has long owned the paper is nervous. But while the cuts coming haven't yet hit the NYT staff (and they are coming), they have hit the Boston Globe (which NYT owns). Richard Perez-Pena's "Boston Globe Surprised by Size of Demand for Cuts" lists some of the outrageous demands NYT is making (and also notes that NYT refuses to show their books -- for good reason, NYT stock is actually worthless because of the two-tiered system but showing the books would result in it being even more worthless). So on the day that the Times reports on the cuts and sacrifices they are demanding of the Boston Globe, we're treated to an example of which staff really works and which doesn't? (A huge portion of NYT staff occupy desks and never work, haven't in years.)

How does it telegraph this. A18 of the nation edition appears to demonstrate the paper is so damn lazy it thought it could pose as Life magazine (original run of Life) and just offer a photo. No story. The photo requires a story and, in fact, the same photo runs in the Boston Globe and comes with a story, "Praising gains in Iraq, Biden welcomes home soldiers at Fort Bragg." Now it's an AP story the Times would argue. Uh-huh. And the Times runs AP stories all the time. What's the point? Where was the editor and why wasn't it asked, "We're running a photo of Joe Biden with the military and we're not offering more than a caption? Are we still a newspaper?" That's the question, after the heads start rolling at the Times, many will be asking, "Are we still a newspaper?" (They'll need a Magic 8-ball to answer that question.)


Yesterday at the Washington Post online, White House reporter Scott Wilson participated in an online chat, below are the sections on Iraq:

surprise: Scott,
Can't the media start eliminating the word "surprise" when a president visits Iraq? It will always be a surprise visit so it should just be a given when the visit occurs, the visit is naturally a surprise.
Thanks.

Scott Wilson: Totally agree...Unannounced is the better description.

Houston: What security procedures are in place for a President to visit a war zone like Iraq? I assume the rank and file troops are kept in the dark until the Prez shows up but obviously some people have to know to make security arrangements. Also, do you get the impression that the military really likes Obama as opposed to Bush or is it simply because they know they are going home with Obama's plan?

Scott Wilson: The Secret Service keeps the security details very private obviously, but I imagine that the morning of his arrival the word gets out among the soldiers (I've been to Camp Victory a few times, and it's huge. But I'll bet word travels fast in the enormous cafeterias.) There's probably clues ahead of time as the Secret Service makes preparations. And I wouldn't make a guess on your last point. I'd only say that many soldiers I met when I worked in Iraq were less interested in going home than in getting the job done correctly as they saw it.

[. . .]

in getting the job done correctly as they saw it. : What exactly is the "job" in Iraq? How do we tell when it is done? Does it involve getting the 5,000,000 refugees home? Taking the walls in Baghdad down? Stopping Kurdish exapnsionism? Gett the country drinking water, electricity? jobs?

Scott Wilson: Seems to me - yes.



In other news, Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) covers the closing arguments in the court-martial of the marine who twice confessed to murder on tape. I'm not in the mood for it or for Paul Hackett having the nerve to talk about "moral character" -- the same Hackett who has argued that the dead have no names so they matter less. The same Hackett who is hoping to get his client off via the refusal of another marine to provide testimony. There's nothing about any of that which spells out "character."

Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, author most recently of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, is interviewed by Michael Collins in "Murder Trumps Torture Says Bugliosi" (Dissident Voice) and we'll note this section:


Vincent Bugliosi: There was a cover story in, I think it was Harper's Magazine about two months ago, about prosecuting Bush. Obviously, I bought the magazine, and I opened it up to the prosecution. What was it all about? Torture. The New York Times had a pro and con in the op-ed section about two months ago, pro prosecution to Bush, anti prosecution to Bush. So I looked at what the prosecution was about -- torture. I’m offended by this.
Who's fighting to bring about justice for the perhaps one million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children and babies in their graves? Actually, I shouldn't say I'm going to bring about justice for them, or try to, because I was unable to establish jurisdiction to go after Bush for the deaths of the Iraqi citizens. I did establish jurisdiction to go after him for the deaths of the 4,200 American soldiers. In any event, it would be a symbolic effort to bring about justice for the million people in their graves. Let's say that number's high. In my book I say over 100,000. Certainly there's over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies who died as a result of Bush's war. Some numbers put it in excess of one million, and we know there's 4,200 American soldiers.
Who's fighting to bring about justice for those in their graves, decomposing in their cold graves right now as I'm talking to you, Michael? Who's doing that out there?

MC: Right.

VB: No one seems to be interested in that. It's all torture, torture, torture, torture, so apparently torturing 24 or 200 Iraqi citizens or Iraqi insurgents or what have you is more important than bringing about justice, let's say, for 4,200 American soldiers who died in Bush’s war. So you can see where I am offended about that.
I'm not saying that Bush should not be prosecuted for torture.
Let's talk about why it's even more offensive to me than I've already told you. I've given you the main reason why I'm offended by it, that that's all they talk about, as opposed to saying let's go after him for taking this nation to war under false pretenses, and then let's also add a count to the indictment for torture. Do you follow?

Bugliosi is correct and the reason for the disconnect is that a lot of the torture 'prosecutors' have never prosecuted a thing, live in a sheltered world where they give lip service to "international law" but really can't visualize an American being forced to face the same sort of justice anyone else would have to. Torture becomes the "easy" path, the "low hanging fruit" they think they can grab or at least point to. It's part of the cowardice of the left and part of the reason a lot of 'leaders' need to step aside and let some young blood in. And not just in the US. Look at the left 'leaders' in England who have refused to ride the avalanche of news and revelations about the lies of Tony Blair's government. The Socialist Worker wants to 'cover' it with a few paragraphs a week and a half after the Gordon Brown government says there will be an investigation?

The Kurdistan Regional Government notes:





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

iraq
ethan hyman
patrick martin
wsws
the washington post
scott wilson
bbc news
jim muir
michael collins
vincent bugliosi

Wednesday, April 8, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, Falluja goes under crackdown, Barack returns to the US, the attacks on Iraq's LGBT community gets some serious attention, and more.   The devil went down to Georgia, or you might have thought something similar must have happened as all three commercial broadcast networks suddenly rediscovered Iraq last night.  Not much of value despite the Big Three basically over approximately sixteen minutes when you combine all their reports.   CBS Evening News with Katie Couric (here for video of the episode) offered a report by Bill Plante which folded in Chip Reid's audio report (noted in yesterday's snapshot) which was the breaking news on the trip.  Reid's biggest contribution (post flooded zone with everyone covering the topic) is probably his noting the number of US troops Barack spoke to (five hundred to seven hundred) -- a basic fact and one that the White House didn't try to keep secret but, amazingly?, some print outlets attempted to triple the number.  NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams (here for video page) offered a report from Richard Engel which folded in NBC's Chuck Todd and also offered an exchange between Engel and anchor Brian Williams.  Value in the report?  Only this from Engel: "Tonight Air Force One took off with its lights turned off apparently out of security concerns as President Obama began the twelve hour trips back to Washington."  ABC World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson offered a report from Jake Tapper.  There were a few bits of value in Tapper's report.  Sadly this is one: "The visit was kept secret for security reasons."  Sadly?  Despite the fact that the visit was kept secret some outlets (New York Times) had to pretend that wasn't the case.  Pretend?  Let's call it what it was: LYING.  Helene Cooper can take the fall for that.  Tapper, Sulen Miller and Karen Travers wrote up the vists and link includes video. No network posted a transcript of their report and their online streaming does not offer closed captioning.  Those needing transcripts can click here (consider those rush transcripts).   PBS' The NewsHour covered the stop-over and, as usual, they have the option of transcript, audio or video. Accessible to all, as PBS programs should be -- should all be. But apparently commercial networks feel no such obligation?    They felt no obliation for real much -- including no obligation for reality.  Barack landed at the airport surrounded by Camp Victory, quickly hightailed it in an armed motorcade to a palace on Camp Victory and received people there. He could not venture out.  The excuse the White House tried to float was "dust". Golly, dust didn't prevent Nouri or Iraqi President Jalal Talabani from meeting with him on the safety of the US military base. And who knew "dust" grounded flights in Iraq?  For those who can remember, March 2003 did see a dust storm that grounded some helicopter flights.  The dust storm knocked over a fuel tanker.  So it was, in fact, more than dust.  It was a sandstorm.  There was no sandstorm in Iraq yesterday.  As every reporter on that trip (and I've spoken to three) damn well knows, there was no "dust" excuse, let alone a sandstorm.  You can read Andrew C. Revkin (New York Times) reporting in 2003 on that impending sandstorm because that was actual news.  Did you see any reports Monday predicting a sandstorm?  No.  Did you read any reports of a sandstorm yesterday or today?  No.  You were played for a fool if you bought into the lie.  Barack couldn't travel to Baghdad. He could only land in and stay on the US military base. And they want to pretend that things are safe in Iraq? And they want to pretend that Barack represents change? The US media continues to LIE and play like this is normal. It's not normal. It was never normal. Foreign leaders go to Iraq all the time. They actually visit Iraq. Those who pay attention will remember this issue coming up in April of last year. April 8, 2008, Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, and General David Petraeus were doing their days of testimony and that afternoon popped in on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Barbara Boxer had some questions and observations: She then focused on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noting, "The Bush administration told the American people more than five years ago that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and supporters of the war said that they would be dancing in the street with American flags." That didn't happen and not only did that not happen but when Ahmadinejad goes to Iraq, he's greeted warmly while Bully Boy has to sneak "in, in the dead of the night." She wondered, "Do you agree that after all we have done, after all the sacrifices, and God bless all of our troops . . ., that Iran is stronger and more influential than ever before?" Crocker wanted to debate that reality. He stated it was just militias. Boxer pulled out reports that demonstrated it wasn't, where Ahmadinejad was greeted warmly even by children who gave him flowers, kissed him on both cheeks. "I'm saying that after all we have done," Boxer declared, "the Iraqi government kissing the Iranian leader and our president has to sneak into the country -- I don't understand it." Crocker still wanted to argue leading Boxer to respond, "I give up. It is what it is. They kissed him on the cheek. . . . He had a red carpet treatment and we are losing our sons and daughters every day for the Iraqi people to be free. . . . It is disturbing." Last year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could walk (with his guards) throughout Baghdad and be greeted warmly. Barack can't even be Humvee-ed into Baghdad. And Ahmadinejad didn't keep his visit a secret. It was known well ahead of time. Like a coward, the US president had to slink into Iraq and had to remain hidden away on the US military base. That's disgusting. All the more so when you grasp how other leaders move freely. And Tony Blair did. Bush's poodle moved freely.  Yesterday, Adam Kokesh spoke with Dennis Bernstein on KPFA's Flashpoints.     Dennis Bernstein: Well President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to Iraq today talking about withdrawals but his policy appears to be widening the war, privatizing it and expanding in Afghanistan. We want to continue to get the views of those who strongly oppose this war, those who opposed it first inside and now outside.  Adam Kokesh is joining us.  He is an Iraq veteran and a member of the board of Iraq Veterans Against the War.  Kokesh said, "Today Obama's plan is to continue the indefinite presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq, have an increased reliance on private contractors." Adam Kokesh, welcome back to Flashpoints.  It's good to have you back.  You did serve in Iraq.  Your initial response to Obama's visit and what he's saying?   Adam Kokesh: Well I appreciate what you said about -- by way of people that truly oppose the war as opposed to Kool-Aid drinkers who drank the Obama Kool-Aid and are still on their various stages of hangover at this point, realizing that he really didn't mean to change anything.  But there are still those of us out here who truly believe in non-interventionism, who truly believe in respecting the people of the rest of the world and that our foreign policy should only represent the truly benevolent will of the American people and not the interest of the American empire or the military-industrial-complex. The thing about this trip though that Obama just made to Iraq is what's so interesting is how much it stands in stark contrast to his trip of last July when he was still at least broadly seen as an anti-war candidate.  Now, I mean, I read the fine print from the beginning.  And really didn't believe him when he said "I would like to end the war" because I read the fine print.  And the fine print said twelve months, forty to sixty-thousand troops and, you know, an increased reliance on private contractors.  So I knew he wasn't about ending the war from the beginning but at least when he was able to fool enough people into believing that that's what he wanted to do, when he went to Iraq as a senator, and as an anti-war candidate, he didn't need anymore security than the troops on the ground or the generals at least, generals on the ground, as they're called, who really run our foreign policy.  But now, as president, when people know what he really stands for and what he's actually planning on doing there, he's got to go in in secret and with super intense security.  Now I understand there's some increased security necessary when you're the president as opposed to a candidate but by stark contrast, Ahmadinejad walks around the streets of Iraq like it's cool because they respect him there.  They're not going to respect the next imperialist American president no matter what his skin color is.   Dennis Bernstein: Well let's talk just a little bit more about what he's saying here.  He's really talking about private contractors.  He's talking about the continuing expanding privatization of US foreign policy.  How does that play into this for you?   Adam: Well it's really scary.  I mean the idea of what is government and what is it that we give the government the power to do and that is, you know government is an idea, it is a group of people that have a socially granted monopoly on the use of force.  What we are doing now is allowing the government to use force to tax and exploit the American people and then give that money specifically to other people to do violence on other people. And that's a whole other separate move from the what is socially acceptable to what is the appropriate role of government. And this is, of course, nothing new.  But a lot of this centers around Blackwater and of course Blackwater 'ah they changed their name so they're not a threat anymore!' right?  Well the contract that Blackwater had in Iraq went to other companies.  Blackwater, by the way, was never the biggest one.  One of the bigger ones was Triple Canopy and Triple Canopy just got some of the contracts that Blackwater had. So what Blackwater had to do because they damaged their brand so much, they lost a lot of contracts, they had to lay a lot of people off -- but when those contracts go to another corporation that's doing the exact same thing, they're hiring the exact same people that Blackwater laid off with the exact same mentality of "We're the American Big Guns, no laws apply to us here, we can run roughshod over this country and do whatever we want."  And the fundamental responsibility for that is still with us the American people and we are falling down on the job.  We fell down on the job when we elected Barack Obama president and we continue to do so by failing to hold him accountable and bring about the appropriate pressure to really change our foreign policy.   Dennis Bernstein: We're speaking with Adam Kokesh.  He is an Iraq War veteran.  He is on the board of Iraq Veterans Against the War.  He has been among the most outspoken veterans standing against this war.  Now, and I don't want to play around with hyperbole, but let me ask you the question this way, Adam: When does this illegal war -- obviously we all remember we were lied into a war, nothing was ever founded in terms of the claims, so in terms of this illegal war and occupation, when does it become a crime also of the Obama administration?   Adam Kokesh: Oh, I would say it became a crime the day that he took office and didn't demand that it stop.  If you want to say -- and that's not hyperbole.  You know, I said that Obama is as much a War Criminal as Bush ever was.  Now if you want to debate the scale of those war crimes for initiating a war versus perpetuating it, okay, I can give you a little slack there.  Bush was a bigger War Criminal than Obama perhaps but they are still squarely in the same category.  They're both War Criminals.  And what Obama is doing in terms of allowing the occupation to continue, you know, you might say is not criminal if it doesn't involve a deliberate act but I think being president you take on a greater responsibility in that role.  More specifically though, as putting Obama squarely in that category his plan, or his current escalation, in Afghanistan and the attacks he's order by unmanned drones into Pakistan. You know the specific violation of the sovereignty of  Pakistan.  That in and of itself constitutes a War Crime.  By all the international law standards, that's a War Crime.  Every attack into Pakistan is a  violation of their sovereignty.  Those are War Crimes. You know, let's not pull punches here just because he's an African-American or because he's a Democrat.  People are dying.  And in Pakistan, when they were protesting a few months ago, before Obama even was elected, when he was just vocally supporting the attacks that Bush had going into Pakistan, they were burning effigies of Obama right next to the American flag and the people that are suffering at the hands of our imperialist foreign policy, they don't care about the skin color of our president.  And in terms of Iraq, the criminality there is that it's not about how many troops are there or what you call them because we know the idea of re-designating troops "non combat" isn't going to change anything about how the Iraqis resent our presence or the fundamental fact that this an occupation. And there were a number of presidential candidates that pointed out, that pointed this out. And I'm going to single out John Edwards here who I've met and talked about this and thanked him for taking a stand because one thing that he said very specifically was that he would immediately end all combat operations.  That is really the crux of what is this occupation. It is the forceful interference with the sovereignty of the Iraqi people.  And that is something that Obama could change at the snap of his fingers, with an executive order.  And that he has not done that, maybe it's less technically, is he being less of War Criminal by not ending it immediately? I don't know.  The way that he is deliberately  perpetuating it, the way that he is escalating Afghanistan and the violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan?  Those are War Crimes.  Those are very distinctly, technically War Crimes.  And that is not hyperbole.   Dennis Bernstein: Alright, Adam.  I want to ask you two more questions and they really focus in on your active resistance to the war and the different stands that you've taken.  First of all, let me take you back to Iraq.  When you talk about War Crimes, do they include that which you witnessed yourself?    Adam Kokesh: Yeah.  Our presence there, when we are not welcome, is in and of itself a War Crime.  So let's make that clear, first of all, our presence there by force, against the will of the Iraqi people although it might have been less harder when I was there in 2004 in Falluja to quantify what was the will of the Iraqi people but at this point it is -- there is no doubt to the fact that they would rather have us not in their country.  During the siege of Falluja there were definitely the indiscriminate use of artillery and air fire power into the city of Falluja that was by its nature bound to lead to civilian casualties.  And I believe that that constituted a War Crime as well.    Dennis Bernstein: Alright and finally, sort of looking back at your last day in Iraq and your life now that includes a whole bunch of resistance, arrests, being tracked by various levels of the National Security State, has anything changed at the core of you since then, since you left?  And what is it that's driving you now?   Adam Kokesh: Well I've always been a libertarian and the core of that philosophy -- and at first, at least, before I went to Iraq -- and for the record I was against the war before the war as someone who believes in the foreign policy of non-interventionism. But before I went to Iraq, being a libertarian was more of an intellectual thing than an emotional thing or a spiritual thing.  And having come back from Iraq and joined Iraq Veterans Against the War and gone through the ensuing process of personal exploration and discovery and all the ways that I've grown and been challenged by taking on these huge issues and doing my best to be an effective organizer, I've come to realize in a very visceral way that the issues that we debate are not just a matter of academics or debate or interpretation or anything like that -- they really are a matter of life and death. It really is a matter of what is morally right and wrong. And at the corp of my political philosophy is the principle of self-ownership.  That you, as a human being, own yourself, and any violation of that by force is fundamentally immoral.  And for me, it is based on a choice you know the difference between state-ism or liberty is a matter of choosing to really love humanity or not.  And I fully make that choice to express as much as I can in my life a full, complete, courageous love for humanity.  And out of that love is a natural faith that the better nature of humanity  will triumph in the long run, that humanity progresses, that things will get better, that we are able as a species to live lives based on a greater love.  And from that faith inherently leads me to a lifestyle of respecting the people I come into contact with, an innate respect for fellow human beings.  And that respect that we all seek, that we all want and desire as basic human beings, to not have our lives forcefully interfered with by anybody, I think the way that we talk about liberty and freedom in society are mere measurements of that respect because obviously our government does not respect us.  Our gov -- the people that make up our government think that they have some divine right to claim ownership over our bodies, you know, with the drug war, with our system of taxation, with our system of foreign policy, they demonstrate that they feel they have some claim to the lives of people in the rest of the world, that they have some divine right as the American government to do that.  And so, that's what I want to do with my life and that's how I've changed, deciding that I want to apply my life to taking on the greatest injustices to those core values of faith and respect.  And I see them all sourced out of Washington, DC.  The United States Federal Government is the greatest source of injustice in the world today.  And so, you know, that's how I've changed, that's how I've brought in and how I've really got in touch with the truly philosophical spiritual basis of my politics, if you will.  And that's what motivates me, my love for humanity.          Dennis Bernstein: Alright well, Adam Kokesh, I hope that we can continue this dialog and maybe talk more maybe about a transformation that we see happen somewhere but I'm going to keep just some hope alive there but we thank you for laying it down and giving us a perspective that we really need to be thinking about as we face so much war, expanded military budgets, so on and so forth, we're going to leave it --   Adam Kokesh: Well I  take it you're smart enough to not be hoping for any more 'change' from Obama or have any more hope in him but  my hope, and I believe yours too, comes from the people first.   Dennis Bernstein: Adam Kokesh is an Iraq War veteran and a member of the board of Iraq Veterans Against the War and I think you can tell he's against these wars.  Thanks for being with us.   Adam Kokesh: Hey, man, thank you.   The hour long, Monday through Friday program is archived at KPFA and at Flashpoints.  Yesterday's NewsHour found Judy Woodruff interviewing US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and she asked him about Barack's trip, specifically, "What is his message to the Iraqis?"  Despite being asked that, Gates instead went to the troops and then came to Iraqis.  Apparently, they are bad children and certainly Barack's scolding of them yesterday, from one of their palaces which the US occupies, about their need to be responsible and take control, lecturing from one of Iraq's palaces which the US occupies, was all about saying Iraqis are the second-class citizens of the world.  That was Barack's patronizing message.  Gates told Woodruff, "I think his message to the Iraqis is, almost certainly, keep on doing what you're doing; keep on resolving problems politically; keep on working at reconciliation; get ready for your elections.  We are going to keep our side of the bargain in terms of the agreement, in terms of draw-downs of troops and you have to step up to your responsibilities now, too." A question Gates should be asked, in light of the footage, is whether the for-show troops at Barack's political rally yesterday should have behaved the way they did.  Their behavior was shameful, however, I will offer a semi-apology on calling that out.  They were ordered, as various e-mails have explained (and I confirmed it with a friend at M-NF and two friends at the White House) to, quote, "whoop it up" for the cameras.  The US military was ORDERED to behave in that embarrassing fashion.  You've never seen anything like that before and you never should again.  Gates might need to be questioned about that and certainly Barack should be questioned as to why his meeting with the troops required that they be instructed to "whoop it up" for the cameras?  The troops came off embarrassing and, since they were ordered to behave that way, someone up the chain needs to take accountability.   Woodruff did note that violence was on the rise in Iraq and asked what this meant regarding Barack's "pledge to get most of the troops out -- 19 months, most of them will be out by next year.  But if this violence were to step up considerably, is there a contingency plan?" Gates replied, "I think the president always has the authority to, as commander-in-chief, to change his plans."  As always with the US officials, he went on to blame al Qaeda in Mesopotamia for any violence.  He did not however use that term.  He just tossed out al Qaeda.  He did not notice this was a homegrown group and that it did not exist until after the start of the Iraq War.   While Gates blamed al Qaeda, Rod Nordland (New York Times) reports in this morning's paper on an audio message released by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, former deupty chair of Saddam Hussein's Revolutionary Command Council: "Mr. Douri called Mr. Maliki's government and Iraqi elections illegitimate because they were a result of the American military occupation.  Americans were withdrawing, he said, because they failed in Iraq but hoped to leave a puppet government in place."  Nordland reports that the statemetn (released on Tuesday) made no mention of Monday's Baghdad bombings or yesterday's.  Meaning if any "Baathist elements" led by al-Douri was responsible for the bombings, they most likely would have claimed creidt.  Nordland reports, "Mr. Douri's statement rejected any possibility of negotiations unless the Iraqi government met a series of conditions, which included allowing armed Baathists to take over the government and disbanding all institutions created after the American invasion."  No, it has nothing to do with religious factions.  Yes, Barack did present the sects as the only thing blocking progress in Iraq in his speech yesterday.   The United Nations Secretary-General issued the following on Monday:   The Secretary-General strongly condemns the string of bombings that struck a marketplace and other locations in Baghdad today, killing a large number of civilians and injuring many others. The Secretary-General extends his condolences to the families of the deceased.   The Secretary-General is confident that the people of Iraq will reject these reprehensible attempts to provoke sectarian violence in the country. He urges them to continue undeterred in their efforts to achieve lasting peace and national reconciliation. The United Nations remains committed to supporting the Iraqi people toward these ends.   While those statements are very common, the Secretary-General has been silent on the non-stop attacks on the LGBT community in Iraq. Also silent is the White House and the US State Dept and, apparently, the topic is so 'icky' to those reporters who attend press breifings, that no one ever bothers to ask about it under the current administration.  Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher give serious attention to the issue as does their paper, the New York Times, which front paged the issue this morning.  The reporters explore the ongoing attacks on Iraq's LGBT community and point out that the last two months have seen at least 25 allegedly gay males turn up dead in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad: "Most have been shot, some multiple times. Several have been found with the word 'pervert' in Arabic on notes attached to their bodies, the police said." They speak with 23-year-old Basima who explains he's lost three friends who were killed en route to a cafe. Iraqi police say the ones doing the killings are family members -- the same police who go on the record, by name, stating that gay males are "disgusting." Not much protection they're going to get from that police department.  The police department is now in the midst of another crackdown on the LGBT community, which is also bragged about by them in the article. Prior to the start of the illegal war, Iraq had a thriving LGBT community. The reporters note Naomi Klein's BFF Ali al-Sistani issuing his fatawa on gay people ("The people should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.") Naturally, Naomi never said a peep. Even though this fatawa was issued long after she'd begun praising al-Sistani in public. Some people believe 'democracy' starts and ends with them and screw everyone else.  It's a major story and one that deserves serious attention.  UPI offers a summary of Williams and Maher's report. David Warner (Creative Loafing) observes, "Openly gay Iraqis are being murdered with the tacit and sometimes overt approval of police and families."   Violence continues today.  Laith Hammoudi and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) report the Kadhemiyah neighborhood of Baghdad was bombed again today (bombed yesterday as well) with 7 people dead and twenty-three injured and speculation flying as to who is responsible.  Mohammed Madhi states it's Baathists while Mohammed Salman blames the government.  Jomana Karadheh (CNN) adds today's bombing, like yesterday's, took place "near a Shiite holy shrine".  Fadhel al-Badrani (Reuters) reports Falluja is under 'crackdown' as automobile and foot traffic is banned, schools and shops are ordered closed and the city is placed under curfew.  By?  Nouri and his goons.  35 people have been arrested: "Most of those arrested had recently been freed by the U.S. military from its detention centres or were suspected in the past of being al Qaeda sympathisers, said Lieutenant-Colonel Aziz Faisal of Falluja police."  Hussien Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash "took place between gunmen and an Armeican military unit in the New Mosul neighborhood" and that there have been no reports (thus far) of casualties.   Claudia Parsons (Reuters) has a review of the Iraq War and how it's currently seen.  We'll note this section:   But Alissa Rubin, New York Times bureau chief in Baghdad, said Iraq was in a dynamic and critical phase leading up to the drawdown of U.S. troops. "It's only as they pull out you see just how bad the violence might be," she said. "If you're sitting in New York or Washington or small-town Kansas, you look at Iraq and think 'OK, well, that war is kind of over...,' and you move on," Rubin said. "That's clearly the way most Americans see it, it's not on the front burner. But the reality is different," she said. The New York Times keeps at least three international reporters and a photographer in Baghdad in addition to locally hired personnel. But most U.S. media outlets, facing pressure to cut costs, have trimmed overseas staff, relying on agencies such as Reuters and the Associated Press.      iraq the cbs evening news with katie couric katie couric bill plante chip reid world news tonight with charlie gibson charlie gibson jake tapper nbc nightly news with brian williams brian williams richard engel chuck todd cbs news abc news nbc news sunlen miller karen travers judy woodruff pbs the newshour adam kokesh flashpoints dennis bernstein kpfa  claudia parsons iraq veterans against the war the new york times timothy williams tareq maher rod nordland mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi

So Barry met with Nouri yesterday and Nouri had to come to him. And not one damn outlet remarked upon that. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, allegedly Mr. Change, went to Iraq, landed at the airport surrounded by Camp Victory, quickly hightailed in an armed motorcade to a palace on Camp Victory and received people there. He could not venture out.

The excuse the White House tried to float was "dust". Golly, dust didn't prevent Nouri or Iraqi President Jalal Talabani from meeting with him on the safety of the US military base.

Barack couldn't travel to Baghdad. He could only land in and stay on the US military base. And they want to pretend that things are safe in Iraq? And they want to pretend that Barack represents change?

The US media continues to LIE and play like this is normal. It's not normal. It was never normal. Foreign leaders go to Iraq all the time. They actually visit Iraq.

Those who pay attention will remember this issue coming up in April of last year. April 8, 2008, Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, and General David Petraeus were doing their days of testimony and that afternoon popped in on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Barbara Boxer had some questions and observations:

She then focused on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noting, "The Bush administration told the American people more than five years ago that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and supporters of the war said that they would be dancing in the street with American flags." That didn't happen and not only did that not happen but when Ahmadinejad goes to Iraq, he's greeted warmly while Bully Boy has to sneak "in, in the dead of the night." She wondered, "Do you agree that after all we have done, after all the sacrifices, and God bless all of our troops . . ., that Iran is stronger and more influential than ever before?"

Crocker wanted to debate that reality. He stated it was just militias. Boxer pulled out reports that demonstrated it wasn't, where Ahmadinejad was greeted warmly even by children who gave him flowers, kissed him on both cheeks. "I'm saying that after all we have done," Boxer declared, "the Iraqi government kissing the Iranian leader and our president has to sneak into the country -- I don't understand it." Crocker still wanted to argue leading Boxer to respond, "I give up. It is what it is. They kissed him on the cheek. . . . He had a red carpet treatment and we are losing our sons and daughters every day for the Iraqi people to be free. . . . It is disturbing."

Last year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could walk (with his guards) throughout Baghdad and be greeted warmly. Barack can't even be Humvee-ed into Baghdad. And Ahmadinejad didn't keep his visit a secret. It was known well ahead of time.

Nothing changed with the election in November. Barack's continuing Bully Boy Bush's illegal war and, most importantly, he's no more welcome in Iraq than is Bully Boy. No, he didn't get a shoe tossed at him . . . yet. Neither did Bully Boy until his polls numbers had fallen and he was on the way out.

Like a coward, the US president had to slink into Iraq and had to remain hidden away on the US military base. That's disgusting. All the more so when you grasp how other leaders move freely. And Tony Blair did. Bush's poodle moved freely.

Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Iraq’s Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder" makes the front page of this morning's New York Times. The article notes the ongoing attacks on Iraq's LGBT community and points out that the last two months have seen at least 25 allegedly gay males turn up dead in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad: "Most have been shot, some multiple times. Several have been found with the word 'pervert' in Arabic on notes attached to their bodies, the police said." They speak with 23-year-old Basima who explains he's lost three friends who were killed en route to a cafe. (If he prefers to be called "Basima," that's what the New York Times should call him throughout the story. He should be referred to as "Basima" throughout and the sentence "'Basim,' who preferred to be called 'Basima' . . ." should instead read, "'Basima,' whose legal name is 'Basim' . . .") Iraqi police say the ones doing the killings are family members. And where do they learn to kill their own? If they are indeed the killers, they can 'thank' clerical instruction. They can also think disgusting trash like Lt. Muthana Shaad who will be featured at Third this weekend. We'll begin doing what the US government-military was too dumb ass to do though they kept wanting to and failing. (Didn't help that they hired the idiots of the entertainment industry. But that's all that was willingly work with them and their illegal war. As noted before, I was surprised with a walked-through meeting via a friend at the State Dept -- an unplanned meeting -- and I offered a two-minute summary of how they could speak to the Iraqi people. Perception sailed over their heads and I refused to go further. I wouldn't have gone to such a meeting had it been explained to me ahead of time. I'm not Monty McFatty. A real idiot who also doesn't grasp that not only is she destroying her field of study but she's highly ineffective at whoring -- well, no surprise there, look at her. They have no idea how you transmit values or how society does. They're idiots.) So piece of trash Muthana Shaad will be dealt with at Third. Probably repeatedly from now on.

The US looks the other way while the Iraqi police do their 'crackdowns' on gays and lesbians. This after the US installed the Shi'ite thugs in the first place. Prior to the start of the illegal war, Iraq had a thriving LGBT community. The reporters note Naomi Klein's BFF Ali al-Sistani issuing his fatawa on gay people ("The people should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.") Naturally, Naomi never said a peep. Even though this fatawa was issued long after she'd begun praising al-Sistani in public. Some people believe 'democracy' starts and ends with them and screw everyone else.


The reporters state, "Publicly, the Iraqi police have acknowledged only the deaths of six gay men in the neighborhood. But privately, police officials say the figure is far higher." That's incorrect. I didn't have time in yesterday's snapshot to note that. But Monday's snapshot included this:

In other violence noted over the weekend, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reported Saturday that gays are being targeted in Baghdad, with four corpses discovered March 25th and 2 gay men murdered Thursday 'after clerics urged a crackdown'." Sunday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported the two were first "disowned" (by their homophobic and hateful families) and "The shootings came after a tribal meeting was held and the members decided to go after the victims." Tawfeeq reports the other were also disowned (and gives the date of their deaths as March 26th) and states a cafe in Sadr City was torched when it was said to be an LGBT hangout in Baghdad. The Dallas Morning News wrote a brief on the topic and UPI summarized Tawfeeq's report. AFP reported Sunday that the two corpses discovered Thursday "had pieces of paper attached on which was written the word 'Pervert" and that the two men were aged sixteen and eighteen and had also had "their arms and legs broken". In addition, AFP reports another man presumed to be gay was found on Friday -- which would bring the toll to seven -- and this follows Sheikh Jassem al-Muatairi's 'inspiring' sermon denouncing "new private practices by some men who dress like women, who are effeminate. I call on families to prevent their children from following such a lifestyle."

Seven. AFP's Sunday report made it seven. Four on March 25th, two last Thursday and one last Friday. AFP's article was entitled "Three homosexuals shot dead in Iraq: ministry" -- two on Thursday, one on Friday. AFP cites "a defence ministry official" as their source.

I would also argue the reporters are too quick to accept the police explanation (they blame the families for the murders and not militias). Why would you trust the police on this issue of responsibility? The same police station from which at Lt goes on the record, by name, stating that gays are "disgusting"? You're going to pretend that such a police station really gives a damn about who is killing gays?

"He said families typically refused to cooperate with the investigation or even to claim the bodies," no surprise there considering who staffs the police department and their attitudes. "No arrests have been made in the killings." No surprise there either considering who staffs the police department and their attitudes. Sadrist Abu Mahuaned al-Diraji denies that clerics' attacks on LGBTs is responsible and insists, "All we are doing is giving advice to people to take care of their sons." The reporters add:

He acknowledged, however, that some of the killing had been committed by members of "special groups," or death squads.
"In general, it is the families that are killing the gay son, but I know that there are gunmen involved in this, too," he said. "But we disavow anybody committing this kind of crime and we encourage the people to follow the law."

It's an important article on an important topic and it comes at a time of silence. For example, the United Nations Secretary-General issued the following on Monday regarding the bombings in Baghdad:

The Secretary-General strongly condemns the string of bombings that struck a marketplace and other locations in Baghdad today, killing a large number of civilians and injuring many others. The Secretary-General extends his condolences to the families of the deceased.
The Secretary-General is confident that the people of Iraq will reject these reprehensible attempts to provoke sectarian violence in the country. He urges them to continue undeterred in their efforts to achieve lasting peace and national reconciliation. The United Nations remains committed to supporting the Iraqi people toward these ends.

Yet he has never issued a statement on the slaughter of the LGBT community in Iraq. The United Nations which allegedly is interested in protecting everyone. Allegedly.

That is why San Francisco's measure (to be deliberated on Thursday morning) is important even if it's only symbolic. No one is speaking up. No international body is calling out the crimes -- hate crimes -- and murders. Everyone's looking the other way. We noted the Board of Supervisor meeting in yesterday's snapshot and Marisa Lagos (San Francisco Chronicle) did a post on the meeting:

The Board of Supervisors rushed through its weekly meeting today to get to the SF Giant's opening day on time -- but the group did manage to take care of some city business including approving a development plan for the Balboa Park area and introducing legislation on budget reform, the Armenian genocide, gay immigrants' rights, violence against gays in Iraq and a labor organizing campaign at two local hotels. (Hey, we didn't say it all made sense, just that it occurred quickly.)

Rod Nordland's "Former Hussein Aide Surfaces; Iraqi Premier Blames Baathists for Bombings " appears in today's New York Times and we'll try to get to it in today's snapshot. Sam Dagher's
"A Moment of Heroism After a Blast in Baghdad" and on another day it would get attention. It may not today. Laith Hammoudi covers the same story in "Infant survives Baghdad car bombing that killed 8" (McClatchy Newspapers). For those wondering whether to click or not, a bombing caught another car on fire. The driver (hired by a young woman -- apparently a mother) died as did the woman. A young infant was still alive in the burning car and was rescued. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.



iraq
the new york times
timothy williams
tareq maher
rod nordland
sam dagher
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
marisa lagos